"include personal protective equipment"
Christ also promoted having "personal protective equipment". And what was that equipment he ordered his followers to have? A sword. The best form of personal protection available at the time.
(Luke 22:36) let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one.
Why did Jesus give that command?
(John 17:12) When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me; and
I have protected them, and not one of them is destroyed except the son of destruction, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.
“
But now" he was no longer going to be there to protect them, so they needed to be able to protect themselves. (Lu 22:36)
(Mark 14:48) But in response Jesus said to them: “Did you come out to arrest me with swords and clubs as
against a robber?
Jesus did not condemn the mob for
having swords and clubs, but for intending to use them inappropriately against an innocent person. And how are swords and clubs
appropriately used? Jesus tells us
: "against a robber."
Was Jesus serious about us having the means to protect ourselves? Yes. Look at what he said
:
(Luke 22:36) let the one who has no sword
sell his outer garment and buy one.
With Jesus' departure it was so crucial for everyone to have a sword that those who did not have one were even to sell their outer garment if they had to and buy one. The outer garment of a man on the road was so important that it could mean his death without it on a cold night. It was also used as his bedding, and provided padding and insulation against the cold ground when he slept outside. The Mosaic law even acknowledged its importance
:
(Exodus 22:26, 27) “If you seize the garment of your fellow man as security for a loan, you are to return it to him by sunset.
27 For it is his only covering, his clothing to cover his body; in what will he lie down to sleep? When he cries out to me, I will certainly hear, for I am compassionate. (De 24:17)
Does that mean that our king has commanded
us to buy protection for ourselves, even if we have to sell our proverbial
"outer garment" to do so? The answer seems clear to me
: Yes.
Do you ask
: But doesn't using a gun to protect ourselves go against Bible principles?
Nowhere does the Bible condemn protecting oneself and ones loved ones. In fact, it requires it.
(Deuteronomy 22:8) “If you build a new house you must also make a parapet for your roof so that you may not bring
bloodguilt on your house because of someone falling from it."
That verse refers to bloodguilt resulting from a failure to provide protection.
(1 Timothy 5:8) Certainly if anyone
does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is
worse than a person without faith.
Safety, security, and protection are part of what the head of the house provides "
for those who are his own." Otherwise he would be
"worse than a person without faith."
If you choose NOT to provide protection for your household, and something happens to any of them, that is when
you become bloodguilty, because you intentionally chose not to provide protection even though you are
required to do so. (De 22:8; Lu 22:36) If we shirk this God-given duty we have "
disowned the faith and [are] worse than a person without faith." (1 Tim 5:8) We will have earned that bloodguilt and may lose our place in paradise.
The GB often quote this scripture to back up their opinion on this topic
:
(Ecclesiastes 9:18) Wisdom is better than weapons of war
But that is only a partial quote. The whole verse says this
:
(Ecclesiastes 9:18) Wisdom is better than weapons of war,
but just one sinner can destroy much good.
Note the use of the word "better". The original Hebrew word "towbah" is translated in most other locations as "good". Here the scripture could literally be translated
: "Wisdom is (more good) than weapons of war", showing that both options are considered to be good since both can be used for the cause of good. One is just better, or more good.
The first half of that scripture is similar to this modern saying
: "The pen is mightier than the sword." In both instances smarter is better, but regardless of how smart or wise you are, if you are being attacked by someone with a weapon, written words will not save you, and trying to talk your way out of the situation is useless if the attacker is intent on harming you. As the counter argument in the second half of that verse points out
: "just one sinner can destroy much good.
" If we added a counter argument to the modern saying like that verse has it could go something like this
:
The pen is mightier than the sword, but a well written letter won't protect you if you are being attacked.
So Ecclesiastes 9:18 is in reality a recommendation
not to solely rely on wisdom, but to also keep yourself armed just in case. You should always be prepared for a non-peaceable encounter. (Ro 12:18)
Do you say
: But what about Mt 26:52?
(Matthew 26:52) all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword.
Jesus does not lie to his followers. However, viewed in the manner of self-protection, as the GB applies this scripture,
"All those who take up the sword will perish by the sword" is a false statement. All people who have a firearm (sword) for self-protection are
not killed with firearms. (Even soldiers who use weapons in an offensive manner in war are not
"all" killed.) On the contrary, statistics show that a huge number of crimes such as rapes and murders are prevented with firearms. The vast majority of those who have protected themselves and their families with firearms have lived long lives
not ended with being shot, that is to say, they did
not perish by the sword. And many who did
not have a firearm for protection wound up dead as a result. So since Jesus was not lying he must
not have meant that having a sword (firearm) for protection would get you killed because
"all those who take up the sword [for self protection do NOT]
perish by the sword."
Here is another scripture often quoted by the GB to promote their view.
(Micah 4:3) They will beat
their swords into plowshares And
their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore.
That is talking about after Armageddon, when the nations will finally be at peace. And what will those who live through Armageddon do? They will take
"their swords" that they have and make plowshares out of them. It doesn't say that they will pick up the swords of those who died at Armageddon. No, but they will make
their own swords into plowshares and
their own spears into pruning shears.
Here is a quote from Jesus on the topic
:
(Luke 11:21) When a strong,
well-armed man guards his palace, his belongings remain secure.
No negativity is referred to in being
"well-armed". On the contrary, he will be rewarded with his belongings remaining secure. A positive outcome.
(Luke 11:22) But when someone stronger than he is
comes against him and
conquers him, that man takes away all his weapons in which he was trusting, and he divides up the things he took from him.
That describes a thief who attacks, so the victim would be justified in using violence to protect himself. Weapons in those days required strength to wield them. In this case the thief was stronger than his victim so he prevailed. Fortunately the weapons of today put everyone on equal footing, enabling even those who are
not strong to defend themselves, which is why a firearm is referred to as "the great equalizer."
(Exodus 22:2, 3a) “If a thief is found in the act of breaking in and he gets struck and dies,
there is no bloodguilt for him.
3 But if it happens after sunrise, there is bloodguilt for him.
This says a
"thief", not a murderer or an attacker. Why? Because you are
never bloodguilty if while protecting yourself or your loved ones you strike and kill an attacker. But that does not apply to just a thief. At night they could not tell the purpose of the intruder. During the day, however, they could see that a thief, who is just there to take something and run, is not a danger to them or their household. Killing him would have been murder. This, however, does not rule out killing an attacker during the day who's intent is to harm or kill you or your loved ones.
(Exodus 23:7) “Have nothing to do with a false accusation, and
do not kill the innocent and the righteous, for I will not declare the wicked one righteous.
This shows that there is a difference between killing the innocent, and killing the wicked ones who are out to do you harm.
This is just a small sample of the scriptural proof that arming oneself for protection does
not go against Bible principles. Much more can be found here
: Firearms
:^)
Dane
