“For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.” (Isa. 9:5).
America
has an amazing system of government. The U.S. Constitution is a document like
no other for balance of power, disconnection from religion, for rights of the
people, for power of government residing in the governed.
The
second amendment of the Bill of Rights gives the people the right to bear arms,
or to carry a fire-arm. The purpose of this freedom wasn’t for the right to
hunt—that was already a right. Much more than today, hunting was a staple in
the 1700s. The second amendment was for protecting the people from a run amuck
dictatorship government. Everyone had guns in those days, and the right to
carry a weapon would create a real discouragement for a dictator to send armies
throughout the land. Even today, a dictatorship doesn’t come about in any
country until the dictator removes all weapons from the masses. The
dictatorship would be entrenched in a stalemate against the people if the
people had fire arms and ammunition. But, the second amendment is under fire now,
and I suspect one day it will be rescinded. Not too long ago some government
department ordered a million rounds of ammunition.
“The
Department of Homeland Security has placed yet another solicitation for
millions of rounds of ammunition. Late last year we outlined a number of large ammo
purchases from DHS, including one for 750 million rounds of high-power
ammunition and another large-scale procurement of 450 million rounds of .40
caliber hollow point ammo from Alliant Techsystems.
The
newest bid for ammo requests 10 million .40 caliber 165 Grain, jacketed Hollow
point bullets; 10 million 9mm 115 grain, jacketed hollow points; and 1.6
million 9mm ball bullets. That means in the last 10 months, the department of
Homeland security has requested over 1.625 billion rounds of ammunition.”
Such
a situation shows how a constitutional right can remain in place, yet due to a
political maneuver, that right can be essentially nullified.
Should
the issue of Constitutional gun rights vs. government undercutting gun rights
be of concern to a Christian? Should a person fight for that right who is
looking for and hastening the coming of the day of Jesus Christ in power and
great glory? Pardon the pun, but this is probably a loaded issue full of
incendiary filibusters.
Nevertheless,
the Bible has much counsel for this subject.
“But
ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar
people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of
darkness into His marvellous light:
Which
in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not
obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Dearly
beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts,
which war against the soul.” (1Pet. 2:9-11).
Before
we look more closely at this text, just as an aside, might the phrase, “shew
forth the praises of Him” hark back to 2Chron. 20:15,17? “Be not afraid nor
dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but
God’s…. Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set yourselves, stand
ye still, and see the salvation of the LORD with you, O Judah and Jerusalem:
fear not, nor be dismayed; to morrow go out against them: for the LORD will be
with you.”
So
what did Jehoshaphat do? With great comfort and confidence from the words of
Jehovah’s prophet, he did an astonishing thing. He put singers, instead of
archers, in front of the armies of Israel.
“And
Jehoshaphat bowed his head with his face to the ground: and all Judah and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem fell before the LORD, worshipping the LORD.
And
the Levites, of the children of the Kohathites, and of the children of the
Korhites, stood up to praise the LORD God of Israel with a loud voice on
high.
And
they rose early in the morning, and went forth into the wilderness of Tekoa:
and as they went forth, Jehoshaphat stood and said, Hear me, O Judah, and ye
inhabitants of Jerusalem; Believe in the LORD your God, so shall ye be
established; believe His prophets, so shall ye prosper.
And
when he had consulted with the people, he appointed singers unto the LORD, and
that should praise the beauty of holiness, as they went out before the army,
and to say, Praise the LORD; for His mercy endureth for ever.” (2Chron.
20:18-21).
What
else does Peter say that might steer the Christian away from gun use? Wouldn’t
“a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” give the strong
impression that we have been called out of darkness to function as priests,
holy and different from the rest of the common world?
I’ve
had this discussion with a friend and he objected with Luke 22, verses 36 and
38.
“Then
said He [Jesus] unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and
buy one(G3162).
For
I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in Me, And
He was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning Me have an
end.
And
they said, Lord, behold, here are two swordsG3162. And He said unto
them, It is enough.” (Luke 22:36-38).
I
am surprised to find that the swords Jesus apparently approved of were the same
size weapon that the Roman soldiers carried as they policed the whole empire.
“For
he [the ruler/magistrate] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the swordG3162 in
vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that
doeth evil.” (Rom. 13:4).
But,
my question about Luke 22:36 is, Why then did Jesus say in Luke 22:35 that when
He sent the disciples out during His ministry, they were not to take a sword?
Did a sword misrepresent His mission as the Holy One/ Messiah? Would carrying
swords have given the wrong impression to a nation that had long been chomping
at the bit to rise up against the Roman soldiers and to overthrow the empire?
“At
the time of the birth of Christ the nation was chafing under the rule of her
foreign masters, and racked with internal strife. The Jews had been permitted
to maintain the form of a separate government; but nothing could disguise the
fact that they were under the Roman yoke, or reconcile them to the restriction
of their power.” Desire of Ages,
p. 30.
Wouldn’t
swords have forced the Roman military to suspect a rising sedition and to
promptly end Christ’s ministry? Howbeit, Christ never needed a sword for His
work, and never resorted to earthly weapons. His weapons of war were not
“carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong
holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth
itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought
to the obedience of Christ.” (2Cor. 10:4,5).
Neither
did Jesus “wrestle … against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against
spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Eph. 6:12).
Given
all of the above, swords need to be out of the question during Christ’s
ministry to reconcile the hallowed Father and the unholy human race. When one
looks at the grand theme of redemption from Genesis to Revelation and takes in
the scope of a heavenly sanctuary for the dispensation of the Spirit of God for
our rebirth, where does an earthly toy have a place in the continuing work of
the Messiah, the God of His grand universe, and the great controversy between
Christ and Satan?
From
heaven’s perspective, what changed between Christ’s two ministries, His
3 ½ year earthly ministry and His 2,000 year heavenly ministry since
He ascended to the heavenly sanctuary? Should earth’s perspective of warfare
enter into the equation? If Jesus taught His disciples that he who saves his
life shall lose his life, then, after Jesus left the earth, should
His disciples have renounced that lesson, and donned swords?
“Then
said Jesus unto His disciples, If any man will come after Me, let him deny
himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whosoever will save his
life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find
it.” (Matt. 16:24,25).
Should
the above principles cease to be central to the gospel?
“Likewise
also the chief priests mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said, He
saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He be the King of Israel, let Him now
come down from the cross, and we will believe Him.” (Matt. 27:41,42). What if
Jesus had saved Himself? Would there be any hope for the human race? No. He
could not save Himself because His single greatest desire was to save us from
our sins.
Jesus
could have called on 12 legions of angels, none bearing their swords in vain.
But that would have ended the plan of salvation and given Satan the victory
over the human race.
Then,
why did Jesus, the God of the Old Testament, authorize Israel to bear a sword.
“They
which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded,
every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand
held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his
side, and so builded. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me.” (Neh.
4:17,18).
“Blessed
be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to
fight: my goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my
shield, and He in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.” (Ps.
144:1,2).
“It
is God that girdeth me with strength, and maketh my way perfect.
He
maketh my feet like hinds’ feet, and setteth me upon my high places.
He
teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.” (Ps.
18:32-24).
But,
the next verses shows that David wasn’t a warmonger.
“Thou
hast also given me the shield of Thy salvation: and Thy right hand hath holden
me up, and Thy gentleness hath made me great.” (Ps. 18:35).
“Woe
is me, that I sojourn in Mesech, that I dwell in the tents of Kedar!
My
soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace.
I
am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.” (Ps. 120:5-7).
Joab
couldn’t conceive of such an army of war and peace, of deterrence being the
motive for war. He was a warmonger and thrived on killing, finally ending his
long career as destroyer by an early death. See 1Kings 2:30-34.
Solomon
knew his father, and the mixture of truth and grace in his father’s heart that
enabled David to make correct international policy and right decisions in state
and religion matters.
“To
every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:...
A
time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a
time to build up;…
A
time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;…
A
time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of
peace.” (Ecc. 3:1,2,3,5,8).
Yet,
even with Solomon’s balance of justice and mercy, there was an extra leaning to
the side of mercy. Being that we have all been “children of wrath” (Eph.
2:3) and all naturally tending to vengeance, we would all do well to adhere to
this bit of wisdom:
“He
that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit
than he that taketh a city.” (Prov. 16:32).
Sword
bearing was seen in godly men such as the judges of Israel, even by Samuel when
Saul lost the ability to render due justice upon the malicious Amalekites.
“Then
said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag
came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is
past. And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall
thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the
LORD in Gilgal.” (1Sam. 15:32,33).
But,
is Samuel’s use of justice and vengeance different from the cry we hear
today of a potential, future run a muck dictator that would require a need for
the second amendment? Is today’s defense of the second amendment along the same
lines of the work that Oliver Cromwell did in England to free his Protestant
nation from popish rule? Samuel’s dispensing of justice was an act of the
state, not of an individual. Do you have the qualifications for the act of
executing an enemy that Samuel had. How many of the present generation of
baby-boomers and gen-Xers have his qualifications? Our Protestant nation
is fearfully corrupted and weakened, and swaying, soon to fall over drunken.
True, the U.S. Constitution is already in the throes of being overthrown. We have already lost half of the Bill of Rights, haven’t we? Should we take up arms, take over the government, and clean up our society and government actions in Cromwell style, who said, “Keep your faith in God, but keep your powder dry”?
Should
we turn our farm implements into weapons and bring on Armageddon?
Would that really fix our problems as happened for the early judges and King David, or would we end up worse off than the later Israel did under the supposed “holy” Maccabean Revolt—with a Roman crackdown such as we have never seen?
No comments:
Post a Comment