It’s all a myth.  So says Serene Jones of Union Theological Seminary, writing at Salon.  She discusses politics extensively, and then finally gets to her main point.

But as a theologian with deep biblical expertise, I must say, I’m struggling to find the part in the Bible about unlimited access to guns. I hate to break it to these “devoted” religious followers: The Bible says absolutely nothing about allowing people to run amuck with guns. It’s a completely ludicrous reading of the text.

Generally, conservative politicians justify this vague connection by claiming the Bible gives people the right to self-defense. But that’s a preposterous jump from the text. The Bible barely touches on a right to self-defense. There are a few sentences that could allude to one – but in no way is there a concrete message on the subject. Plus, the deadliest weapon the Bible ever mentions is a sword – hardly an AR-15 that can kill dozens of people in seconds.

All in all, it seems to me that the Bible would perhaps support a hefty supply of pepper spray. But weapons of war? That’s absurd.

One might cite Exodus 21:12-15, Numbers 35:6-34, and Deuteronomy 19:1-13, Exodus 22, Nehemiah 4:8-23 and especially Esther 8:11-12.  But it’s apparent she doesn’t want to hear it.

Something simpler must be done.  Here we will get detailed and a bit deep for a usual post, so the reader must pay closer attention than the usual 2 or 3-minute read.

Recall that we’ve approached this many times from the perspective of the Decalogue, the most didactic and straight forward statement on the issue of man being man in God’s image.  We’ll do that shortly, but in order to couch this in the usual boundary conditions thrown around by statists, it’s necessary to mention that the American government doesn’t function like Paul intended in Romans 13.  Evil doing goes unpunished, and even more to the point, there is no legal requirement for the police to provide protection of its citizens.

That’s a myth usually told to those with childlike thinking in order to pacify them.  The American court system has ensured that the police can watch a woman being raped on the streets, eat doughnuts while it happens, and then arrest the perpetrator after the fact and be within the law (even if not their department policies depending on the specific PD).  The police are there to effect arrests for law-breaking, not make peace or supply protection.  For those who doubt this, see again the following cases.

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez

Warren v. District of Columbia

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

In fact, the surest and quickest way to get shot is to invite the police into any situation.  So if the police cannot and will not provide protection, who will?  Who will protect the women and children?  Who will provide the same function as the men did in Esther 8:11-12?  It isn’t enough to conflate protection of national borders with the self protection discussed in Esther.  The armed forces of the nation are no located on the street corners protecting women and children.

Ms. Jones teaches a course on John Calvin.  It’s to Calvin we turn right now.  The best case for the necessity of self defense comes straight from the Decalogue.  John Calvin, commenting on commandment and prohibition, observes:

We do not need to prove that when a good thing is commanded, the evil thing that conflicts with it is forbidden.  There is no one who doesn’t concede this.  That the opposite duties are enjoined when evil things are forbidden will also be willingly admitted in common judgment.  Indeed, it is commonplace that when virtues are commended, their opposing vices are condemned.  But we demand something more than what these phrases commonly signify.  For by the virtue of contrary to the vice, men usually mean abstinence from that vice.  We say that the virtue goes beyond this to contrary duties and deeds.  Therefore in this commandment, “You shall not kill,” men’s common sense will see only that we must abstain from wronging anyone or desiring to do so.  Besides this, it contains, I say, the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can … the purpose of the commandment always discloses to us whatever it there enjoins or forbids us to do” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter viii, Part 9).

I then make these remarks.  “Matthew Henry observes the same concerning Proverbs 24:11-12 (“If we see the lives or livelihoods of any in danger of being taken away unjustly, we ought to bestir ourselves all we can do to save them …”).  Far from a weak or forced case for self defense, this is one of the strongest in the Scriptures.  Thou shalt not kill means that thou shalt not allow yourself or those around you to be killed, thus says the Lord.  It isn’t an option – it is His commandment.”

“Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.  Finally, self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:14).”

As the reader might suspect, it’s necessary to invoke Luke 22:36, if for no other reason than to dismiss the persistent false views of what Jesus is saying there.

Paul Carter writing at Gospel Coalition states the following.

This passage is often submitted as evidence that Jesus permitted violent self defence if the situation so warranted. However, the vast majority of commentators think Jesus was speaking metaphorically here and that the disciples misunderstood the point he was trying to make. John Calvin for example said:

It was truly shameful and stupid ignorance, that the disciples, after having been so often informed about bearing the cross, imagine that they must fight with swords of iron. [1]

Indeed, had the disciples’ understanding been accurate, it would be hard to understand why just a few hours later Jesus would rebuke Peter for drawing a sword in self defence.  “Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52 ESV).

Either Jesus had a very short memory, or the disciples were guilty of gross misinterpretation of his teaching.

I’m not aware of a single commentator who thinks Jesus was telling the disciples to stock up on actual swords.

He utterly misses the point, misapplies Calvin here, and falsely states that Jesus spoke in riddles.  Calvin nowhere denies the biblical right of self defense, but rather states clearly that the sword will not win the souls of men.

Also quite clearly, Jesus did tell His disciples to purchase swords (actually, what was common then was a more concealable cross between a knife and sword).  More to the point, however, is that this command directly ordered His disciples to violate Roman law in order to obtain weapons of self defense.

… for some evidence, see Digest 48.6.1: collecting weapons ‘beyond those customary for hunting or for a journey by land or sea’ is forbidden; 48.6.3.1 forbids a man ‘of full age’ appearing in public with a weapon (telum) (references and translation are from Mommsen 1985). See also Mommsen 1899: 564 n. 2; 657-58 n. 1; and Linderski 2007: 102-103 (though he cites only Mommsen). Other laws from the same context of the Digest sometimes cited in this regard are not as worthwhile for my purposes because they seem to be forbidding the possession of weapons with criminal intent. But for the outright forbidding of being armed while in public in Rome, see Cicero’s letter to his brother relating an incident in Rome in which a man, who is apparently falsely accused of plotting an assassination, is nonetheless arrested merely for having confessed to having been armed with a dagger while in the city: To Atticus, Letter 44 (II.24). See also Cicero, Philippics 5.6 (§17). Finally we may cite a letter that Synesius of Cyrene wrote to his brother, probably sometime around the year 400 ce. The brother had apparently questioned the legality of Synesius having his household produce weapons to defend themselves against marauding bands. Synesius points out that there are no Roman legions anywhere near for protection, but he seems reluctantly to admit that he is engaged in an illegal act (Letter 107; for English trans., see Fitzgerald 1926).

There is a wide gulf between negating OT law regarding self defense, and merely emphasizing that the kingdom of God will not be won without the winning of souls.  It’s all too easy for modern “scholars” to conflate these ideas.

It would have been useful if Ms. Jones had provided more of her allegedly biblical objections to self defense, but she does not.  Her focus here is mainly on politics.  But it’s easy enough to demonstrate that a rock is useful in self defense, a stick maybe more so, a sword even more so, and a firearms the premier self defense weapon in the world today.

I usually ask most who object to the notion of self defense if they would take a life to prevent a home invader from taking the life of their wife.  When the moralistic legalistic among us tell us no, it’s interesting to watch the reactions of their wives.  They are quite literally willing to sacrifice their wives to rape and even death for the sake of their false sense of morality.  The next follow-on question usually ends the discussion: What about your children – are you willing to sacrifice their lives too?  Is your duty to protect the little ones?  What would Jesus do?

In the end, Ms. Jones is advised to moderate her claims to having “deep biblical expertise.”  I’ve done a bit of reading and study myself, my professor having forced me to read Francis Turretin, “Institutes of Elenctic Theology.”  It would also be wise to rehearse her knowledge of Calvin before teaching on him again.

And she might want to question her husband or other protector on his intentions in a home invasion.  She might find the results bracing.

It doesn’t help to assert as some do that God will take care of us.  That’s ineffective even for a Calvinist like me.  God expects us to follow His laws, meet our responsibilities, and fulfil our duties.

If this comes down to what weapon we think best to effect the self defense that God commands, Ms. Jones is stepping in between God and man if she presumes to decide that for us, and is taking the seat of Christ.  That’s a dangerous perch.

She would be best to ask the question, “Why has society changed so that misuse of weapons is the problem we think it is today?”  Or better yet, “Where does sin come from, and how long has man been committing it?”

As for the later, read Genesis Chapter 3.  As for the former, she might ponder the effects of the Auburn Affirmation with its rejection of the deity of Christ, the infallibility of the Scriptures, and the general defenestration of Biblical theology, along with the awful effects on American culture of that decision to make friends with the source, form and redaction criticism of the Germans.  In other words, look in the mirror, Ms. Jones.