Let Him Who Has No Gun Sell His Robe and Buy One
BY Herschel Smith
13 years, 11 months ago
From AJC:
A gun rights group filed a notice Wednesday that it will appeal a federal judge’s dismissal of a suit challenging a state law banning weapons in churches, mosques and synagogues.
John Monroe, the attorney for GeorgiaCarry.org, filed a notice that he plans to ask the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review U.S. District Judge Ashley Royal’s decision. Royal ruled Monday that a 2010 law that lists places of worship among locations where guns are not allowed did not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion or the Second Amendment guarantee of a right to bear arms.
The lawsuit — brought by GeorgiaCarry.org, the organization’s past president and the minister at the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston — challenged the inclusion of places of worship on a list of places where guns are not allowed — government buildings, courthouses, jails and prisons, state mental hospitals, nuclear power plants, bars without the owner’s permission and polling places.
The suit called the handgun “the quintessential self-defense weapon in the United States.” Former GeorgiaCarry.org president Ed Stone and other worshipers argued that they should be able to arm themselves “for the protection of their families and themselves” without fear of arrest and prosecution on a misdemeanor charge. The Rev. Jonathan Wilkins of the Baptist Tabernacle said he wanted to have a gun for his protection while working in his church office.
The church claimed members’ efforts to practice their faith had been “impermissibly burdened” because they felt they needed to be armed but feared being arrested if they brought their guns to services.
And Stone wrote in a filing that his “motivation to carry a firearm as a matter of habit derives from one of my Lord’s last recorded statements at the ‘last supper,’ that ‘whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one … I believe that this injunction requires me to obtain, keep and carry a firearm wherever I happen to be.”
Jesus told us that “The things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man” (Matt 15:18). Man is no tabula rasa, but guns are what theologians call adiaphorous, or morally neutral. Christ knew that his people would need protection, and thus he commanded that self preservation come even before clothing.
That’s the key, isn’t it? It’s something the pro-gun control lobby doesn’t get. Ownership of firearms has nothing to do with wishing others harm or even in inflicting harm. It’s always best if a weapon works as a deterrent. But a man’s life is worth so much that God expects us to do our utmost to preserve and protect it.
Unfortunately, Judge Royal’s decision isn’t based on the idea self preservation. This church (along with others like it) is now the most vulnerable place around for a perpetrator of a crime to cause carnage and take innocent lives. The Judge doesn’t intend it, but she has made those parishioner’s time at worship much more dangerous.
Christ said “let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one” (Luke 22:36). Judge Royal has now come in between these men and their God-given duty to protect their families.
Prior:
Obama Administration to Press for Gun Control
UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit for the link.
On January 27, 2011 at 10:24 pm, Warbucks said:
I rather like your analysis and in the big scheme of things it reveals a greater truth of life. Good sermon.
On January 27, 2011 at 10:25 pm, Pierre Legrand said:
From the Nation of Cowards by Jeffrey Snyder
The Gift of Life
Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God’s gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one’s duty to one’s community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide:
He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.
On January 27, 2011 at 10:26 pm, Pierre Legrand said:
http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
It is a great piece of writing…sorry I forgot to add the link in my first comment.
On January 27, 2011 at 10:28 pm, Warbucks said:
There was a guy back east that formed a town and as I recall every member of the town had to sign a pledge to own a firearm before they would sell him a piece of private land. Then there was the preacher a while back that told everyone to bring a gun to serves on Sunday. I wonder how that Sunday service turned out.
On January 27, 2011 at 11:03 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Probably as safe and polite as any place on earth, Rich. You know – an armed people are a polite people.
On January 27, 2011 at 11:04 pm, Donald Sensing said:
Luke 22:36: ” He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
V. 38: The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.
So two of the 12 disciples had a sword, and Jesus told them it was enough. Hmm … not exactly a ringing endorsement of bearing arms there, I’d say.
Later, when Jesus was being arrested in the Garden, Peter drew his sword to fight the Temple police. Matthew 26:52: “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
Curious that Stone doesn’t mention these passages. Sorry, no, you can’t use Jesus to buttress Second Amendment rights.
I own several firearms. I am a Methodist minister and I would have no problem with a CC permit holder carrying in my church. I think the law they are challenging is flawed and should be challenged. But really, there’s no Gospel backing for the challenge.
But there are certainly challenges that can, and should, be made on the basis of Heller. The main reason is that the law makes places of worship defenseless and target rich. But murderous shootings certainly occur in churches.
On January 27, 2011 at 11:10 pm, Steve Skubinna said:
Warbucks, I believe you are thinking of Kennesaw, GA, where every household is required by law to keep a firearm and ammunition.
On January 27, 2011 at 11:13 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Donald,
You do overreach and go to far. You try to prove too much with the additional citations.
You haven’t included other considerations, such as the disciples stayed together after His death (and indeed His resurrection), and could make use of commonly held property, versus those who do not live with others, i.e., families, and need protection from intruders who would threaten lives that are created in God’s image.
I went to seminary too, RTS.
On January 27, 2011 at 11:16 pm, jetty said:
“let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one”
Luke 22:36 is not a call to arms. Please do not misrepresent Jesus.
On January 27, 2011 at 11:18 pm, Herschel Smith said:
A sword is an arm, essentially the only one available at that time (prior to the advent of the longbow).
On January 27, 2011 at 11:29 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Oh. Oh. Okay. We have some “Jesus was a pacifist” readers. Very well then. Jesus didn’t come as a civil ruler, but to rule His kingdom. That’s why the attempt to catch Him in a contradiction (viz. woman caught in adultery, while Jesus stayed very cool and wrote in the sand) failed.
To be sure, His kingdom does extend to the affairs of state insofar as His moral stipulations extend that far, but personally, He came to die, be resurrected and ascend for His people.
Jesus turned the other cheek in a personal context, not the framework of civil law. And yes, personal protection because we are made in God’s image is still important, just as self defense was a legitimate defense for killing in the O.T.
There is a scarlet thread running through the Scriptures (O.T. and N.T.), and it is Christ. His statement concerning personal defense is determinative.
Also see R. J. Rushdoony, “The Flight From Humanity,” on Neoplatonism. Folks, Jesus was no mystic.
On January 27, 2011 at 11:49 pm, Marcus said:
Rev. Sensing,
When reading that passage, I was under the impression that the Romans detailed to seize Jesus quite outnumbered the Apostles, and that to draw a sword in that situation would be tantamount to suicide.
If that was indeed the case, would it be fair to think that him telling his followers not to resist is not a blanket condemnation of carrying arms and using them for self-defense?
On January 28, 2011 at 12:00 am, ChrisPer said:
Its pretty obvious from the context that Jesus was speaking descriptively about the troubled times to come. ‘That is enough’ is perhaps an impatient response to people busily missing the point.
And there were plenty of arms other than swords at the time; bows were already widespread (eg Jonathon) , spears (eg Saul), clubs, slings, knives and so forth.
On January 28, 2011 at 2:19 am, rs said:
“Jeanne Assam”
One armed person in the right place at the right time can make a difference.
On January 28, 2011 at 7:37 am, Hankmeister said:
The author of this commentary is absolutely right. Self-defense is not only an unalienable right bestowed upon us by our Creator, it’s a moral position which reaffirms the gift of life. Self-preservation is no vanity and liberal “Christians” had better reread their Bible, particularly Luke 22:36. JESUS WAS NOT SPEAKING IN METAPHOR. Even when Peter later recklessly drew his sword to keep Jesus from His own destiny (how could Peter know, right?), Jesus did NOT command Peter to throw or cast away his sword away but rather “to put it away” in its scabbard. The language of Luke 22:36 is rather clear, despite anti-gunners attempts to obfuscate.
The Christian founders (no, they weren’t European Deists, they were the product of the Christian enlightenment compliments of the 1840 Great Awakening movement) consistently reaffirmed a free man’s right to arms. The Second Amendment is the reaffirmation of our God-given right to self-defense as a part of the militia. If the Second Amendment was designed to protect the “right” of a national guard which did not then exist, it would have used the terms “state militia”, “national militia”, or “select militia” instead. A “well-regulate” militia is one in which each man regulated himself with respect to having a functioning firearm and enough shot and powder to put up a reasonable defense against tyrants foreign and domestic. Welcome to history class.
On January 28, 2011 at 8:22 am, M. Simon said:
(no, they weren’t European Deists, they were the product of the Christian enlightenment compliments of the 1840 Great Awakening movement)
A century too late.
The most dangerous man is the sleeper who thinks he is awake. Be careful out there.
On January 28, 2011 at 10:16 am, Rock said:
So he missed the 7 on the keyboard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening
On January 28, 2011 at 2:43 pm, AStev said:
No, Luke 22:36 is not a “call to arms” as some have said, but it is a call for prudent precaution and self-defense as they prepare for their missionary activity in the coming years. This is the clearest sense of this verse.
(The only way ‘sword’ in this verse is a metaphor is if the other commonplace items – knapsack, moneybag, sandals – are also metaphors. But this would be a peculiar reading of the verse that one would only resort to if they were trying to read a pacifist meaning into the verse, rather than extract the true meaning out of it.)
Scripture makes it clear that vengeance (and vigilantism) are out of bounds. i.e. if you’ve been wronged or insulted, turn the other cheek. The correct response to past insult or injury is forgiveness.
However, self defense from imminent *present* injury is permissible, which is why Jesus told them to have swords. Why were two swords “enough”? Because that would be more than sufficient to defend the group from any bandits they might encounter on the road. Indeed, the very fact that he says the two swords are “enough” indicates that Jesus has not prohibited the disciples from being armed.
What’s more, the defense of others (particularly those who are themselves defenseless) is not optional, but rather, a duty. The person who is capable of defending an innocent from injury, but chooses not to, is effectually conspiring with the oppressor/attacker.
Why did Jesus tell Peter to sheathe his sword? Partly because Jesus was not being attacked, but being arrested by legitimate divinely-established authorities, but more significantly, because Jesus HAD to be arrested and crucified in order to fulfill God’s long-ordained plan of redemption.
On January 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm, Alec Rawls said:
Minister Sensing’s interpretations of Jesus are both terribly out of historical context and ignorant as to Jesus’ purpose. On the history, Sensing ignores the fact that it was ILLEGAL for Jews to carry swords in Roman controlled Judea. Jesus advocated swords even in the face of laws against it, but Sensing denies that this is much endorsement of bearing arms because Jesus considered two swords enough. Ridiculous.
Ditto for Jesus’ warning that it would be suicide for his compatriots to try to do battle against the Roman soldiers who would take him into custody. It is absurd to read this highly situational warning to his compatriots (“put your sword back in its place”) as a general moral judgment against forcible resistance to evil.
Then there is the religious purpose of Jesus’ instruction to acquire swords. He was fulfilling the prophesy of Isaiah that the savior would be “numbered amongst the transgressors.” Isaiah 53:12:
“Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
Jesus had to commit a crime and this is the act of civil disobedience that he chose: to take up his natural right to be armed for self defense. He couldn’t do anything immoral, and here was a law he could break while staying fully on the side of right. This is the reason two swords were enough. One sword would have numbered Jesus amongst the transgressors.
This choice by Jesus of what law to break is a very strong statement about the natural right of armed defense. Sorry Minister Sensing, but the words of Jesus do indeed buttress Second Amendment rights.
On January 28, 2011 at 4:28 pm, Alec Rawls said:
If anyone doubts that Jesus’ purpose with the swords was to fulfill the prophesy of Isaiah, it is right there in Luke 22:35-38.
(35)Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
(36)He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (37) It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
(38)The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.
On January 28, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Just to circle back around on this issue, folks, I know all about the hyper-pious Bible commentaries that refuse to acknowledge that Jesus said what he said. Metaphor, they claim. It must be, because he later commanded Peter to sheath his sword.
To be frank, I have seldom seen such straining and dishonesty among commentators as on this passage. It reaches a peak in absurdity with the Puritan commentators (see Matthew Henry and John Gill). They take the same approach with Rahab’s lie, condemning it while joyful that God worked it out anyway.
Ridiculous.
The disciples were already packing weapons. They produced two swords, no doubt owned for self defense. Alec Rawls is right also; Christ’s point was to be named among the transgressors, while also doing something not sinful (like owning a weapon).
Folks, when a Bible interpretation is so strained that commentators have to close their eyes and make up things in order to try to convince you (and them) that it doesn’t really mean what it says, then you know that something is very wrong.
Remember: The perspicuity of the Scriptures. It’s an important doctrine.
Finally, even if there is an aspect of Christ’s warning to His disciples that there will be much spiritual warfare in the future, it doesn’t undo what we have concluded about this passage. The swords were real, not make-believe. He was referring to actual metal, not a phantom.
On January 28, 2011 at 5:24 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Oh, and one more thing. Pacifism doesn’t really have a strong following among the Church fathers, e.g., Athanasius:
“Letter to Amun” (before 356 AD): “For in other things that occur in this life, we find distinctions: such as, it is not permitted to murder, but to kill the enemy in war is both lawful and worthy of praise. So then those who perform in the best way in war are given great rewards, and monuments are erected to proclaim their deeds.”
On February 16, 2011 at 6:58 pm, Dave said:
“Unfortunately, Judge Royal’s decision isn’t based on the idea self preservation. This church (along with others like it) is now the most vulnerable place around for a perpetrator of a crime to cause carnage and take innocent lives. The Judge doesn’t intend it, but she has made those parishioner’s time at worship much more dangerous.”
For example the murder of Dr. Tiller in his Kansas church.
On February 16, 2011 at 11:13 pm, Herschel Smith said:
So Dave. Let’s try to narrow in on your issue with just a couple of questions. Are you under the impression that whomever perpetrated this crime against whomever this is, would have been dissuaded from doing so had there just been a law against having weapons in this particular location? Where did you learn something like that?
On March 2, 2014 at 11:51 am, Wraith said:
Another thought on the subject, quite handily crushing the pacifist arguments.