Piper's Guns and Martyrdom

[InevitablyReformed]

Attention Everyone: Eddie is a bonafide Anabaptist (by his own admission in his profile). This helps explain much. He won't be here to answer your Point-Well-Taken questions any time soon.

Really? Seriously, is he gone? Wow. Swift justice here at the PB.

For those out there with pacifist tendencies (not making an accusation here boys), have you REALLY thought about what it would be like to be in a sudden, intense, violent situation involving an intruder and your wife or daughter? I know this has been commented on but is it even remotely appropriate to appeal to the Sermon on the Mount to justify the allowance of harm to our families, or ourselves? How does letting a drug addict kidanp or kill your child glorify God? Could you live with yourself?

I know I'm not saying anything new here and I'm really not replying to any particular post. Just my

 

[InevitablyReformed]

And when you get a chance thank God for the Supreme Court's ruling, upholding the second ammendment.

 

[jogri17]

The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.

And how would you evaluate that threat? Is it not situationally dependent? One would probably have fractions of seconds to make those evaluations. In my humble opinion, I would err on the side that most protects my family.

 

[Confessor]

If you were in a hospital and you saw someone approach a patient with a gun, presumably to shoot them, do you have the authority to stop them with lethal force? I understand that we have that authority within the confines of the U.S. law, but we are speaking about the confines of Scripture here.

If so, why wouldn't you have that same authority if you saw a doctor approach an unborn baby with an instrument of murder?

This is very interesting. Would it be correct to submit to the law at this point?

 

[Dwimble]

The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.

While I agree that the taking of a life is always a terrible thing, how do you reconcile your view with the following scripture, which has been quoted a few times in this thread already?

"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him," - Exodus 22:2 (esv)

That scripture makes no mention or implication of your life being obviously or overtly threatened, only of there being a "thief found breaking in."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Do I have to quote chapter and verse to demonstrate the point that men are permitted self-defense and defense of others and not vengeance? The OT is so full of principles governing it that I presumed I could mention a principle that would be understood by another man familiar with the Scriptures as well.

But the statement that i contended with from you was that you were only permitted to defend those in your "house." Now you seem to be saying that you can also defend others outside of your house, and that was my whole point. In my post i said that you drew an arbitrary line in saying that we could only defend those in our household.

I understand where we had crossed lines then because I was thinking more along the lines of protecting the home as the Law permits deadly force at night but forbids it in they daylight. There's an implicit distinction between protection and vengeance there.

Yes, I would protect anyone in my vicinity that could not protect themselves. I think we are required to protect our neighbors as well but the use of deadly force is governed strictly by the Scriptures and we need to understand when we are assuming the role of the State. Not every case of defense requires the use of a deadly weapon and I don't think we need to be walking around town with 6-shoters in our belts ready to protect, with deadly force, whoever crosses our path.

I also can't walk up to an Abortionist and shoot him on the street. That's assuming the role of the State.

I'm still trying to see where you are drawing the line...so please be patient with my slowness.

If you were in a hospital and you saw someone approach a patient with a gun, presumably to shoot them, do you have the authority to stop them with lethal force? I understand that we have that authority within the confines of the U.S. law, but we are speaking about the confines of Scripture here.

If so, why wouldn't you have that same authority if you saw a doctor approach an unborn baby with an instrument of murder?

What instrument would I have in my hands in such cases? Is it necessary to use lethal force to protect another life. If I had a weapon to stop a violent criminal in the act then I would use it. If I did not then I would use the means I have. Again, I think protection is key here and not that I'm meting out vengeance at that point.

I understand what you are driving at in the last point with the unborn baby. I'm not certain I can articulate a completely adequate response. There's sort of a different dynamic in the fact that it is the guardian that is complicit in the act of murder as well as the State. The parallel in the early Church were the people that left their babies to die of exposure or even infant sacrifice in the OT.

The hypothetical assumes I'm in the room with the physician. Am I supposed to kill the guard first to get past him in and break any other number of laws in order to get to a room where I know a crime is being committed? I think we've crossed the line where it becomes more apparent why the State must protect life and why it is so wicked that they do not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.

While I agree that the taking of a life is always a terrible thing, how do you reconcile your view with the following scripture, which has been quoted a few times in this thread already?

"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him," - Exodus 22:2 (esv)

That scripture makes no mention or implication of your life being obviously or overtly threatened, only of there being a "thief found breaking in."

Let's not forget that people didn't have shotguns back then. In order to kill somebody by hand it takes quite a bit of effort even with a club. I think that's why the Law holds a man guiltless for a thief in the night.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Semper Fidelis and Larry,

I appreciated the exchange between both of you. You both have helped me - including how both of you conducted yourselves. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[k.seymore]

why would Christ command His disciples to buy swords in Luke 22:36-38?

No one buys a sword to serve a "utility" purpose outside of violence to defend oneself or attack another. Knives have additional uses outside of violence, but swords are utterly impractical for anything besides killing and hanging on a wall.

Although I have no problem with those who want to defend their homes by guns or whatnot, In my opinion Jesus words can not be used to defend this practice. I don't think that's what he is talking about.

In Luke 9 we see Jesus sending out the disciples to spread the kingdom of God, and he tells them not to take anything with them. The kingdom of God does not need food, or money or anything else to grow. But later Jesus needs to ensure that he is crucified as if he is a sinner. This symbolic action (similar to the actions of the prophets) will point toward the true meaning of his death. He is going to take the place of sinners. So at the last supper, what does he do to ensure that this will happen?

"And he said to them, 'When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?' They said, 'Nothing.' He said to them, 'But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: "And he was numbered with the transgressors." For what is written about me has its fulfillment.' And they said, 'Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.'" (Luke 22:35-38).

Jesus reminds them that God's kingdom didn't need swords or any other earthly thing to spread, but now he must be numbered among the transgressors so that he might fulfill Isaiah 53. In this case, he plans to be numbered among those who try to bring in their kingdom by violence. Rome brought in their kingdom in this way. The Jews did it in the days of the Maccabees. Shortly after this the Jews would rebel against Rome and try to bring in the kingdom by the sword. And previous to this meal Jesus had prophesied this very thing would happen and it would end in utter failure for the nation.

So Jesus and the disciples take their swords and go off down to the garden. Jesus knows Judas is going to show up with soldiers. The soldiers show up to take the king of the kingdom off to be judged, and Peter, misunderstanding why Jesus asked them to bring swords thinks the Jesus wanted them to bring the swords for defense (as many seem to also mistakenly, in my opinion, believe) picks up his sword and swings. Christ yells at him "NO MORE OF THIS!" This is not why Christ wanted his group of disciples to be caught holding swords. No more of this. No more of Jews trying to win their kingdom by the very violence that Babylon and Greece and Rome won their kingdoms by. This kingdom would win by suffering and death. Jesus again explains why they have the swords. It is so he would be counted as a transgressor and put to death. He says to the soldiers:

“Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?" (Luke 22:52-53).

The gospels define what this term which is translated "robber" means. Compare John 18:40 with Luke 23:19 and Mk 15:7 and we see that the word Jesus uses can mean insurrectionists. If I am remembering correctly, Josephus also uses this word to refer to Jewish insurrectionists against Rome: Those who try to bring in God's kingdom by the sword.

So then Jesus is dragged off to trial, eventually standing before Pilate, who asks him if he's a king. Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world... if it were, my servants would have been fighting to keep me from being handed over to you." (John 18:33-36). Remember, Peter and started to do this very thing and fight to defend his king as is the way of the kingdoms of this world, but Jesus stopped him. Jesus kingdom does not come or sustain or try to protect itself by the sword like Rome or the earthly Jewish nation.

Pilate offers the Jews the option of either having Barabbas or Jesus set free. Barabbas was, notice the sin again, "a robber" (Jn 18:40) meaning he was guilty of "insurrection and murder" (Lk 23:25, Mk 15:7). The people plead to have the insurrectionist freed and then Jesus dies as if he himself is an insurrectionist. "If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar... We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:12-15). So Jesus ends up dying as if he had taken up the sword and fought against Rome to bring in the kingdom... he dies as a transgressor, the very reason he told the disciples to get swords. And as he walks to his death he tells the woman, "Don't weep for me, weep for you and your children!" A generation later this very nation would become the insurrectionists and be destroyed as they try to defend and bring in God's kingdom by the sword.

So we have Jesus saying the kingdom doesn't need earthly things, then telling the disciples to get swords because he must fulfill the prophesy that he will be counted as a transgressor, then he yells at Peter not to defend him–the king–by the sword, then he asks the soldiers if they have come out against him with swords and clubs as if he is an insurrectionist, then he tells Pilate his kingdom is not of this world or his disciples would have been fighting, then an insurrectionist is freed and Jesus dies instead.

To me, if my interpretation is correct, this means the passage about Jesus telling the disciples to get swords should not be used to defend taking up the sword. That is borrowing from Rome and the Jew's worldview, which is the very reason it seems that Jesus said it: so that they would appear as if they were insurrectionists.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

However Jesus was not crucified because he was seen as an "insurrectionist" but because he was a ""blasphemer".

 

[toddpedlar]

However Jesus was not crucified because he was seen as an "insurrectionist" but because he was a ""blasphemer".

The state and the church had different motives for putting him to death there.

I don't understand why the previous poster made some reference to Christ telling the disciples to buy swords in order to "appear to be insurrectionists".
Christ would never tell them to give off a false impression - that would be a violation of the 9th commandment - so he must have had other reasons. Perhaps I mistook the poster's meaning, but I vehemently deny that Christ would have had them buy swords only in order to present the Roman guards with false appearances. He's no liar.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The State put him to death to shut up and appease the Sanhedrin. The State found no fault with Christ.

 

[toddpedlar]

The State put him to death to shut up and appease the Sanhedrin. The State found no fault with Christ.

Indeed, that is the ultimate reason - I'm only speaking about possible motivations for the state do so (not that they actually acted on them) Sorry, I was terribly unclear and really should have just left that alone. My main point was to ask why the previous poster seemed to be implying that Christ intended that the disciples, by taking up arms, would "appear to be insurrectionists", and to firmly state that such a supposition is a claim that Christ lied.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I find this discussion a bit distracting. I agree that the idea that Christ told His disciples to buy swords in order to appear to be an insurrectionist is a fantastic notion.

I don't think you have to go to great lengths to argue that Luke 22:36-38 is speaking figuratively. I personally agree that it is a poor prooftext for people to rely upon to become armed given the context. The "Enough!" is more of a curt reply to an enthusiastic Peter who still doesn't "get it". Th context totally doesn't support some notion that Christ is now teaching on the importance of arming yourself for self-protection right before His Crucifixion.

Of course, I think one of the reasons there is a "felt need" to appeal to this passage is that folks are often not comfortable with the whole Biblical data. We've just got to find that New Testament passage that re-iterates an Old Testament idea because God has mutated between Testaments.

The bottom line for me is that the Scriptural data is absolutely rock solid that we are not only permitted self-defense but are commanded to defend the weak in the moral Law. I do not think it is a responsible use of the Scriptures to bolster the case by appealing to Luke 22:36-38 as a prooftext for buying guns.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The State put him to death to shut up and appease the Sanhedrin. The State found no fault with Christ.

Indeed, that is the ultimate reason - I'm only speaking about possible motivations for the state do so (not that they actually acted on them) Sorry, I was terribly unclear and really should have just left that alone. My main point was to ask why the previous poster seemed to be implying that Christ intended that the disciples, by taking up arms, would "appear to be insurrectionists", and to firmly state that such a supposition is a claim that Christ lied.

I agree with your main point Todd. I also do not understand the posters point.

As n aside and definitely I have for a while been bothered by the "suffered under Pontius Pilate" line in the Apostles Creed.

 

[Kim G]

As n aside and definitely I have for a while been bothered by the "suffered under Pontius Pilate" line in the Apostles Creed.

What about it bothers you? Acts 4:26-28--"The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

 

[Zenas]

A theif who enters my home does so at the cost of his safety.

 

[Pergamum]

If a missionary is attacked "in the pulpit" (in the field or in any official capacity) for preaching Christ, perhaps he might choose to give up his right to defend himself to show the glory of Christ better.

But his actions as an ordained representative of Christ in public (an official act) is different than personal defense of his family.




I see a HUGE gulf of difference between dying a martyr's death and letting a criminal kill you without retaliation for 20 dollars on your nightstand.



We all are not trying to make first contact with a aggressive tribe, nor are we called to endanger our lives like that. If a thief breaks into my house in the USA I would assume that this thief has had sufficient exposure to the Gospel and that it might be more honoring to prolong my life in order to tell others about Jesus than to give an unrepentant sinner a free pass.

Of course, perhaps shooting in a leg if able is advised. But when in doubt, shoot to kill. It is evident that Piper did not condemn the act of merely threatening to kill people or else he would have condemend the missionaries for even carrying guns.



An alternate view of Piper's words: Perhaps Piper just got off a 4th of July where he saw patriotism and Christianity mistaken and he got sick of all the usual mistaken sentiment that patriotism is inherently Christian and so this is perhaps his reaction (or over-reation).

 

[Pergamum]

If you were in a hospital and you saw someone approach a patient with a gun, presumably to shoot them, do you have the authority to stop them with lethal force? I understand that we have that authority within the confines of the U.S. law, but we are speaking about the confines of Scripture here.

If so, why wouldn't you have that same authority if you saw a doctor approach an unborn baby with an instrument of murder?

This is very interesting. Would it be correct to submit to the law at this point?

He is referring to Paul Hill, who killed and abortionist and went to the death penalty unrepentant and stating that he was just for preventing murder by killing an abortionist. Several prominant Christians wrote letters to him to repent before his death.

Can anyone link some facts to confirm this instead of my memory?

 

[Timothy William]

A letter which Gary North sent to Hill, in response to letters from Hill, is available here.

 

[VictorBravo]

If you were in a hospital and you saw someone approach a patient with a gun, presumably to shoot them, do you have the authority to stop them with lethal force? I understand that we have that authority within the confines of the U.S. law, but we are speaking about the confines of Scripture here.

If so, why wouldn't you have that same authority if you saw a doctor approach an unborn baby with an instrument of murder?

This is very interesting. Would it be correct to submit to the law at this point?

He is referring to Paul Hill, who killed and abortionist and went to the death penalty unrepentant and stating that he was just for preventing murder by killing an abortionist. Several prominant Christians wrote letters to him to repent before his death.

Can anyone link some facts to confirm this instead of my memory?

Gary North, for one, wrote such a letter (start on page 3):

GNLG.html

 

[timmopussycat]

As much as I love John Piper - I agree with JW. Don't threaten my family or my home or you will become dead, indeed.

I agree. I'm a very peaceful man. Nary a violent bone in me, but you threaten my family...well...I change.

Likewise, on both parts. Anybody threatening the Orchid Lady will find the pussycat's claws very sharp indeed.

 

[Christusregnat]

Very powerful!

A letter which Gary North sent to Hill, in response to letters from Hill, is available here.

 

[etexas]

I am a little puzzled by John Piper's post; it is not like him to post something that short without qualifying it at least a little.

I agree with Dan. In defense of Piper, I would like to give some "benefit of the doubt" it is indeed short and since he did not qualify or expand, I think (and hope) that he was being general and not dealing wit any and all specifics. Even a very good Pastor can phrase things poorly, and perhaps this is such a case. Grace and Peace In Our Lord's Name.

Regardless, it's wrong of Dr. Piper to pass judgment (albeit implicitly) on those who would use their stimulus check to go out and buy a firearm, after having set himself up as a beacon of light for not owning any himself.

Josh, my Friend I am not defending Dr. Piper for passing judgment, after reading Dan's post it made me think, when I said give Pipe the "benefit of the doubt" I was only stating that that Piper did not not qualify as well as he should have and was in hopes that he had simply expressed himself poorly. As I respect Piper I hope this was the case. Grace and Peace.

 

[timmopussycat]

Well, that's ridiculous. Part of upholding the 6th Commandment is stopping others from violating it when it's in your power to do so.

Not exactly. Stopping others from violating the sixth commandment wherever possible is not part of the commadment but rather a GNC consequence from it.

(I'm pedantic, I know but exact thinking is good and not so exact thinking is not so good.)

 

[jogri17]

The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.

And how would you evaluate that threat? Is it not situationally dependent? One would probably have fractions of seconds to make those evaluations. In my humble opinion, I would err on the side that most protects my family.

Fair point mon frère in Christ. I do not think that is true your point. Very few people break into houses for the purposes of killing/raping. Its usually stealing. Of course I realize I said usually and with the safety of your family at stake it is better not to take chances. I would apply it quite simply. Check to make sure your family is ok if they are get them all into one room. You stay with them and have a loaded gun in case they come in. If all your family is upstaires and the noice is down staires there is no need to go down. Call the police and stay safe. Now if there is a child downstairs you go down carefully and you aim at his head and yell stop or i shoot. if he goes away from where your child is (most likely the bedroom) you let him leave if he tries anything funny you shoot. But you must give a warning. You cannot justify biblically that stealing deserves the death penalty in the new testament (yes I was thinking of Aechan when i wrote that)

 

[Christusregnat]

Tim,

I'm even more pedantic, and consider the 6th Commandment to include anything which by GNC may be deduced therefrom. Out-pedant that!

Cheers,

Adam

Well, that's ridiculous. Part of upholding the 6th Commandment is stopping others from violating it when it's in your power to do so.

Not exactly. Stopping others from violating the sixth commandment wherever possible is not part of the commadment but rather a GNC consequence from it.

(I'm pedantic, I know but exact thinking is good and not so exact thinking is not so good.)

 

[VictorBravo]

The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.

And how would you evaluate that threat? Is it not situationally dependent? One would probably have fractions of seconds to make those evaluations. In my humble opinion, I would err on the side that most protects my family.

Fair point mon frère in Christ. I do not think that is true your point. Very few people break into houses for the purposes of killing/raping. Its usually stealing. Of course I realize I said usually and with the safety of your family at stake it is better not to take chances. I would apply it quite simply. Check to make sure your family is ok if they are get them all into one room. You stay with them and have a loaded gun in case they come in. If all your family is upstaires and the noice is down staires there is no need to go down. Call the police and stay safe. Now if there is a child downstairs you go down carefully and you aim at his head and yell stop or i shoot. if he goes away from where your child is (most likely the bedroom) you let him leave if he tries anything funny you shoot. But you must give a warning. You cannot justify biblically that stealing deserves the death penalty in the new testament (yes I was thinking of Aechan when i wrote that)

Residential burglary is an act of extreme violence. Trying to discern such a perpetrator's intent, especially in the middle of the night, can be deadly to you. Self defense ending in death of the intruder is not the "death penalty" because it is not judicial. Instead, it is justifiable use of force.

Sure, if he runs away, don't chase after him shooting (notwithstanding certain state laws). And definitely, if there is time, have everyone gather in a safe room to avoid confrontation. Yell, shout, warn--all fine, sensible, and done with a view to protect life. Of course you don't kill someone for stealing because that is an act of vigilante justice. There is a difference.

But keep in mind that the most dangerous of all situations is when you are face to face with an intruder, even if you are armed. Meth addicts and crack heads, for example, are impulsive, fearless, and dangerous. That's why self-defense training classes emphasize the 21 foot rule. Even if you are armed, you are in severe danger if your assailant is closer than that. He can charge you and do you serious harm even if you get a shot off.

My only point is that if someone breaks into your home at night, there is little liklihood that you will be able to come up with a neat and tidy plan. For that reason, the ancient law says that killing under those circumstances is justified.

 

[Hippo]

I am left uneasy when large numbers of passages in the new testament are pretty much ignored because we do not like the teaching. We are told to give thieves what they want to take and to turn the other cheek.

In my mind the message is clear that we should not violently resist wrongdoers who threaten us.

This is not the same as letting someone rape your wife as you are watching and to reduce the argument to this one point is at best unhelpful. The issue has to be addressed as part of the argument but it is an extreme.

We are told that in establishing the message of the Bible obscure passages should be interpreted through clearer passages and the problem is that the passages advocating personal pasifism are very clear and are repeated.

This is quite personal to me as one of my earliest "deep" thoughts on the bankruptcy of the liberal (and not so liberal) Church was when in answer to a similiar question Billy Graham said that he would shoot someone who was attacking his wife as if he did not do so he would not be acting like a man. My thought was that should he be advocating a standard of behaviour because it was macho or because it was a command of God?

There is the issue that we are under the protection of God and our chief trust should be in him, not in small arms or baseball bats. I am not saying that these are easy questions or conclusions but the Gospel is foolishness to the world and perhaps this is an area where we should not be relying on presuppositions (as some, although by no means all of the arguements for reacting violently are based) of what we should be doing rather than the instructions of the Gospel.