Luke 11:21 - Theologically sound RKBA justification?

[carebear]

Again, check this essay, it addresses every point (and verse) that's been raised thus far.

http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog/religion.htm

It ain't Gospel, but it is a well-reasoned argument.

 

[Lennyjoe]

The passage from Luke 11:21-22, "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe. But when one stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his plunder" tells us that we must be ever vigilant against those who would do us evil and be prepared with our weapons to defeat them

From the link above.

 

[Jim K]

Christ certainly knew that His followers were armed, yet He did not tell them to leave their swords at home, or to turn them over to the authorities. He told Peter to "put up your sword", not to turn it into a buyback program or surrender it to the soldiers. The Brady Campaign can take little comfort from that part of the Bible.

In truth, Jesus was operating at a higher level than either His followers or the soldiers. He was not a simple revolutionary to be arrested by the authorities or, conversely, protected by His followers; He was the Savior, and He knew that His death was necessary for the redemption of mankind. So bloodshed and killing, either of His apostles or of the soldiers, was not necessary and would have been pointless. His mission would have to be fulfilled, regardless.

Jim

 

[Mr. James]

Well said, Jim - and cordex!

 

[lee n. field]

Or, do you stand on the position that, regardless of the target of the "strong man" in this case, the factual manner in which Jesus makes the statement establishes it as a truth which could be equally applicable to any good or evil "strong man"?

Jesus' statement strikes me as a simple statement of fact, from which he make a point.

 

[Tory]

The basis is BIOLOGY; not theology.

Self-preservation is the Prime Directive for all sentient life forms. The First Corollary is protection of your offspring.

Bibles, Torahs, Korans and the teachings of Confucius or the Buddha just put a philosophical patina on a biological imperative. I don't need the surplusage.

 

[Texian Pistolero]

I don't think that ANY of Jesus's statements DIRECTLY and DEFINITIVELY address RKBA.

On the plus side, he never takes the context to denounce weapons ownership.

His prediction that there will alwayy be war and rumors of war keep him very much out of the camp of a humanist secular world vision.

Matthew 24:6
"You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come."

 

[marshall3]

A pastor weighs in....

The verse about the strong man armed....Jesus is just mentioning an easily understood truth to illustrate His point. Everyone knows that a strong armed man can defend his home. It's just taken for granted.

Excellent verses for being armed are also found in Nehemiah and Esther.

Neh 4:16 And it came to pass from that time forth, that the half of my servants wrought in the work, and the other half of them held both the spears, the shields, and the bows, and the habergeons; and the rulers were behind all the house of Judah.
Neh 4:17 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.
Neh 4:18 For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me.

Est 9:2 The Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt: and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them fell upon all people.
Est 9:3 And all the rulers of the provinces, and the lieutenants, and the deputies, and officers of the king, helped the Jews; because the fear of Mordecai fell upon them.
Est 9:4 For Mordecai was great in the king's house, and his fame went out throughout all the provinces: for this man Mordecai waxed greater and greater.
Est 9:5 Thus the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them.

Obviously, taking up arms in self-defense is quite a Biblical thing to do. Amen. End of Pastor's sermon.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

While many quote the Gospel of Luke for the seemingly pro-gun (pro sword?) stance, all the Gospels agree that when Jesus was arrested, Peter had a sword and cut off the ear of a soldier (or struck him, in any case, the sword was there). Had the New Testament been meant to give credence to being disarmed, Peter would not have had the sword, since I'm pretty sure Jesus would have told him he doesn't need it at some point.

Yes, but ...

Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the "Synoptic Gospels" because they run basically parallel and relate the story of the ministry, trial (?) and crucifixion of Jesus in much the same way, whereas John, the fourth Gospel, doesn't run parallel to the other three at all. But it is interesting and perhaps significant that there are differences between/among the three Synoptic Gospels. This is a good example.

All three agree that one of the disciples used his sword to cut off the ear of a slave of the high priest. But they differ as to what took place immediately after.

In Luke, Jesus said, "No more of this" and healed the wounded ear. Then Jesus said his piece about "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? ..."

In Mark, it is related that one of the disciples struck off the ear of the high priest's slave, but there is no mention of Jesus saying anything about that, or of healing the ear. Mark jumps directly to "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? ..."

In Matthew, after relating that one of the disciples cut off the slave's ear it says that Jesus reacted by saying, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. ..." But Matthew says nothing about healing the wounded ear. Matthew then moves on to the "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? ..." passage.

A very long time ago I took a college class in which this was discussed. I have no idea what current scholarly thinking is, but back then the theory was that one of these three (don't recall which, sorry) was written down first, and that the other two were basically copied from the first, with additions and deletions to suit the particular bias of whoever wrote them. None were first-hand accounts, because they were not written until a couple or three hundred years after the birth and death of Jesus.

Which, I guess, is a long-winded way of suggesting that it is difficult to use the New Testament to support the RKBA, because you not only have to look at each passage in context, you also have ensure that one of the other Gospels doesn't flat out contradict the passage you want to use, either in fact or in context.

 

[ksnecktieman]

If I understand it properly, the verse Luke 22.36 about the purse, the cloak and the sword is advice from Jesus to the desciples, to arm themselves for defense in their travels?

 

[Taurus 66]

Duplicate

 

[Taurus 66]

RKBA!

 

[BigG]

It could just as well be a metaphor for guarding your mind or body (house) and thus avoiding sin (robbery). YMMV JMTC

 

[stevelyn]

What's wrong with this picture?

1) He has His booger hook wrapped around the bang switch.

2) He is making a tactical error by standing in front of the door while knocking, rather than taking advantage of the cover offered by the stone wall, and standing off to the side.

3) His left hand is occupied by having to hold the AR rather having it slung across body with a proper tactical sling.

4) Knocking on the door using the pistol.

5) Instead of attempting entry by Himself, an archangel should be deployed with a ram to breach the door.

6) Cloak should be tactical black.

 

[carebear]

with additions and deletions to suit the particular bias of whoever wrote them.

well, as a Christian, current Biblical scholarship agrees the reason they emphasize different things and state things using certain terms, in certain ways, is not "bias" per se but rather that they are aimed at telling the same story to different audiences. The Jews and the Gentiles in particular.

The Jews (the Gospel of Matthew IIRC)needed to be shown those aspects of the Christ's life that would show the promised fulfillment of Torah/OT prophecy (especially considering their misapprehension of the Messiah as a physical King and Conqueror) <misapprehension from a Christian worldview mind you, no offense to the people of Israel intended> while the Gentiles (pagans) could give a fig about some provincial Jewish prophecys and would need the story based on factors that would resonate to their experience.

Different audiences = different versions of the same story.

Each, in the couple centuries (that's AD 70 to AD 100 for the earliest attributable writings in a minority society that was reduced to oral transmission for the first few decades due to active repression) does a pretty good job of maintaining a consistency of message given the context of the times the were finally recorded in and the intent of their authors (actual or attributed).

Oh yeah, swords are cool, cause you can swash about with your hand on your hilt. Try that with a pistola at 3:00 and you just look a little "nancy".

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

There is absolutely NO reason to search for religious justifications for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. None, zero...nothing.


It would be advisable to stray away from faith based arguments or justifications in our ever growing secular society. It just doesn't gain any respect, and would actually hurt our cause outside of the Bible Belt. The bias against Christian faiths are so bad in mainstream America, it is an instant negative to associate any argument with the faith.


As for our founders, there is zero historical evidence that supports there was any consideration of religious ideas, faith based systems, or Judeo-Christian ideas when framing the 2nd Amendment. If they felt it wasn't necessary to go that route, then it isn't.

Finally and most importantly, it hurts our cause because when you search for yet another justification, it makes others assume you need them, or that the previous ones are insufficient.


Bottom line, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in place for American people to preserve their liberty against tyrannical government. Whether it be by deterrance, or by actually shooting them. I know people don't like to hear it, but that's how it is.


Other, lesser justifications are a Right to Self Defense, hunting/sporting (which are Right in my opinion since hunting and sporting can fall under ones Right to freely move or engage in activities that harm no one else) That is more of a derived Right. The same way you can't ban football is the same reason you can't ban hunting or sporting with firearms. There is no reason to.


The Right to Self Defense is tied into the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment in that you are defending your life when you defend your liberty, but I was refering to it as the justification for defense against the common criminal, aggresors etc...That is below the purpose of defending against tyranny, since one can always claim that void in the presence of police power. IE, government will protect you.


There is ZERO argument against the defense of liberty from tyrannical government simply because - who watches the watchman?


If it is just for personal interest to search for ways to connect the right of self defense or the right to defend against tyranny found in our political philosophy to religious texts or ideas, that is fine - but I wouldn't try to chalk it up as another justification.

 

[Khornet]

Whether or not

you can find a Biblical justification for what you do, the wonderful (or, as appropriate, frightening) thing about Jesus is that He sees straight into your heart, and knows your real motive, even though you conceal it from the world and yourself.

He therefore might say nothing about Peter's sword bearing, but much about another's.

 

[tuna]

What's wrong with this picture?

Finger on trigger and hammer down.

 

[richyoung]

There is absolutely NO reason to search for religious justifications for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. None, zero...nothing.

I must respectfully disagree. So long as some denominations insist that it is immoral or "unChristian" to be armed, such justification is indeed very necessary. Further, to deny that our nation and its system of laws was strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian principals is to fly in the face of the statements and writings of the Founding Fahers.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Very well stated, Don't Tread ...

And Rich, he didn't say that Judeo-Christian principles weren't at work in the founding of the country (although one might argue the theological bias of various of the Founding Fathers), he said it wasn't a factor in drafting the 2nd Amendment. In that I agree completely.

 

[jes1994]

Halvey,

Check out the 1611 translation of the bible with the "thee's" and "thou's". It is harder to make sense of.

Thee, thou: second person singular

Ye, you: second person plural

As opposed to modern day grammatically correct English that uses 'you' for both singular and plural. The KJ translaters were using a certain grammatical construct in order to be more precise.

Personally, I think that this relates to why in everyday spoken language we use phrases like "y'all" and "youse guys"... as humans we need a way to distinguish between 'you' singular and 'you' plural. But that last part is purely personal speculation on my part.

 

[jes1994]

Campergeek,

if this verse were to be used in a discussion with other Christians, could they come back to say that obviously Christ isn't arguing for the adversary, but rather against the "strong man" as being overtaken by someone stronger - in this case, Christ.

I don't think it's advocating either, but rather advocating that if someone is trusting anything other than God then they will eventually find themselves faced with a stonger opponent. Cross reference the verse with Eph 6:11-13 to see why.

I've debated this stuff online quite a bit on purely Biblical grounds with some of the most Biblically literate folks you'd ever hope to meet in this world. If I had tried to make a case for self defense on the basis of this verse, they would have shot me down without even having to take aim. As it ended up, we've agreed to disagree, but I do think that they grant that I've made a reasonably Biblical case for self defense.

Let me know if you're interested, and I can summarize some of the previous stuff I've done in regard to this.

(subject to moderator approval in light of the aforementioned forum rules, but what I'm thinking of shouldn't cause problems).

 

[jes1994]

Don't Tread On Me,

There is absolutely NO reason to search for religious justifications for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

If by this statement, you're saying to not bring up religion in an otherwise secular RKBA debate, then yes, I agree. However, if you're dealing with folks in an already established religious scenario such as a church or a theological debate forum, then having religious arguments available can be a Good Thing (tm).

it hurts our cause because when you search for yet another justification, it makes others assume you need them, or that the previous ones are insufficient.

If the cause is right then it should be able to withstand attacks from any angle. Having the discussion here gives everyone the necessary tools to protect that other angle. When going into physical combat, you don't ignore the flank just because you have the front side adequately guarded. Why not then do the same in verbal combat?

Bottom line, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in place for American people

<snip>

And what of the non-American people?