- Jun 29, 2019
- 652
- 170
- 60
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Is God flexible? Among commentators there is a belief that, at least except for when God changes His Mind about destroying people such as the Hebrews in the wilderness, and the Ninevans, God Himself does not change His Mind, rather, the responsibility falls on someone else.
For instance, God commanded in Genesis 2:24, “...a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” That effectively rules out divorce, and it wasn’t until Moses was leading the Hebrews to the Promised Land that the idea of divorce emerges. In light of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which presumes a certificate of divorce can be granted, Moses allowed the granting of such certificates during the journey to the Promised Land. When the Pharisees ask Jesus point-blank in Matthew 19:3-9 if it was lawful to divorce one’s wife, Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24. He then explains Moses granted certificates because of the hardness of the heart of the Hebrews. Word among commentators is that such hardness of heart was manifested in Moses seeing a worse evil than divorce that could be committed if the men were forced to keep wives they didn’t want, than if men granted their wives a divorce. Such evil would include violence against the wives, all the way up to murder. And perhaps one could see the disruption it would cause in Moses’ mission of getting the Hebrews to the Promised Land, in that such disruption could break the unity of such a mission, causing many Hebrews to go out on their own and leave Moses group. That would have been disastrous, since the Hebrews would no doubt meet hostility in the Land they were given, and the reduction of manpower could jeopardize their obtaining the Land.
So, God decreed that divorce is a non-starter, but He in effect allows Moses to grant the mitigating circumstance of domestic strife disrupting God’s plans for the Hebrews as the basis for allowing divorce, at least while en route to the Promised Land. This sorta comes to mind in light of a Supreme court decision which held a New York City Law banning concealed weapons to be unconstitutional. Not that there is any literal connection between divorce and guns, though some may argue that there could be, but there may be a divine similarity as we might see...
Does the Bible give man the right to bear arms? Well, Jesus in Luke 22:36 says to his disciples whom he commissioned to spread the Word, “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.” Why would they be armed, if other than to protect themselves against those who may be physically hostile to their belief? The message seems to be that anyone who takes God’s Word into their hearts should be able to defend themselves with a weapon.
Fast forward to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. First, Romans 13:1 says “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” In many respects, the U.S. Constitution sets up the government of the U.S. as that which is authorized by God to carry out His Authority. The government of the U.S., then, is an extension of God’s Authority. In the Constitution is the Second Amendment, which gives Americans the right to bear arms. In a world under God, the only reason people would need arms would be to defend themselves against those who do not love God, similar to the tribes of people in the Promised Land who were hostile to the Hebrews taking their land over, and similar to the people that Jesus’ disciples would run into in spreading the Word. Anyone who at least is a Christian has a divine right to defend themselves.
By the way, it seems that the potency of weapons in the hands of God-loving people is limited by the Scriptures to what is absolutely necessary. In today’s terms, given the potency of weapons we have, it is a question of whether, for example, it is necessary to arm oneself with an AK-47 instead of just a revolver. That question is answered in Luke 22:38, after Jesus tells his disciples in Verse 36 to get themselves a sword. In Verse 38 his disciples said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” In a sense, Jesus backtracks, as Moses in the wilderness backtracked any Law of God which forbids divorce. One could interpret that as meaning the disciples didn’t need any more swords than the two they had. In the same sense, a government under God could decree that it isn’t necessary for people to walk around city streets in most cases carrying an AK-47 to defend themselves; a Glock would be the maximum weapon needed.
Where does a mitigating circumstance of the Recent Supremes’ ruling come in concerning concealed guns? It takes the form of a suggestion in that ruling that there can still be a law against concealed guns in so-called “sensitive places.” Such sensitive places could be hospitals and medical facilities, parks and parks department facilities, government buildings and facilities, public and private education buildings and facilities, child care facilities, places of worship, cemeteries, financial institutions, theaters, establishments where alcohol is served, libraries, homeless shelters, mass transit systems and the courts. You could probably add Times Square to that list! So, just as Moses effectively said, ‘Yeah, God forbids divorce, but the granting of a certificate makes it OK,’ the Supremes, as part of a government under God said, in effect, ‘Yeah, God through Jesus commanded us to be armed, but in certain circumstances it’s OK to have laws forbidding people to have concealed weapons in certain places.’
For instance, God commanded in Genesis 2:24, “...a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” That effectively rules out divorce, and it wasn’t until Moses was leading the Hebrews to the Promised Land that the idea of divorce emerges. In light of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which presumes a certificate of divorce can be granted, Moses allowed the granting of such certificates during the journey to the Promised Land. When the Pharisees ask Jesus point-blank in Matthew 19:3-9 if it was lawful to divorce one’s wife, Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24. He then explains Moses granted certificates because of the hardness of the heart of the Hebrews. Word among commentators is that such hardness of heart was manifested in Moses seeing a worse evil than divorce that could be committed if the men were forced to keep wives they didn’t want, than if men granted their wives a divorce. Such evil would include violence against the wives, all the way up to murder. And perhaps one could see the disruption it would cause in Moses’ mission of getting the Hebrews to the Promised Land, in that such disruption could break the unity of such a mission, causing many Hebrews to go out on their own and leave Moses group. That would have been disastrous, since the Hebrews would no doubt meet hostility in the Land they were given, and the reduction of manpower could jeopardize their obtaining the Land.
So, God decreed that divorce is a non-starter, but He in effect allows Moses to grant the mitigating circumstance of domestic strife disrupting God’s plans for the Hebrews as the basis for allowing divorce, at least while en route to the Promised Land. This sorta comes to mind in light of a Supreme court decision which held a New York City Law banning concealed weapons to be unconstitutional. Not that there is any literal connection between divorce and guns, though some may argue that there could be, but there may be a divine similarity as we might see...
Does the Bible give man the right to bear arms? Well, Jesus in Luke 22:36 says to his disciples whom he commissioned to spread the Word, “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.” Why would they be armed, if other than to protect themselves against those who may be physically hostile to their belief? The message seems to be that anyone who takes God’s Word into their hearts should be able to defend themselves with a weapon.
Fast forward to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. First, Romans 13:1 says “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” In many respects, the U.S. Constitution sets up the government of the U.S. as that which is authorized by God to carry out His Authority. The government of the U.S., then, is an extension of God’s Authority. In the Constitution is the Second Amendment, which gives Americans the right to bear arms. In a world under God, the only reason people would need arms would be to defend themselves against those who do not love God, similar to the tribes of people in the Promised Land who were hostile to the Hebrews taking their land over, and similar to the people that Jesus’ disciples would run into in spreading the Word. Anyone who at least is a Christian has a divine right to defend themselves.
By the way, it seems that the potency of weapons in the hands of God-loving people is limited by the Scriptures to what is absolutely necessary. In today’s terms, given the potency of weapons we have, it is a question of whether, for example, it is necessary to arm oneself with an AK-47 instead of just a revolver. That question is answered in Luke 22:38, after Jesus tells his disciples in Verse 36 to get themselves a sword. In Verse 38 his disciples said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” In a sense, Jesus backtracks, as Moses in the wilderness backtracked any Law of God which forbids divorce. One could interpret that as meaning the disciples didn’t need any more swords than the two they had. In the same sense, a government under God could decree that it isn’t necessary for people to walk around city streets in most cases carrying an AK-47 to defend themselves; a Glock would be the maximum weapon needed.
Where does a mitigating circumstance of the Recent Supremes’ ruling come in concerning concealed guns? It takes the form of a suggestion in that ruling that there can still be a law against concealed guns in so-called “sensitive places.” Such sensitive places could be hospitals and medical facilities, parks and parks department facilities, government buildings and facilities, public and private education buildings and facilities, child care facilities, places of worship, cemeteries, financial institutions, theaters, establishments where alcohol is served, libraries, homeless shelters, mass transit systems and the courts. You could probably add Times Square to that list! So, just as Moses effectively said, ‘Yeah, God forbids divorce, but the granting of a certificate makes it OK,’ the Supremes, as part of a government under God said, in effect, ‘Yeah, God through Jesus commanded us to be armed, but in certain circumstances it’s OK to have laws forbidding people to have concealed weapons in certain places.’
Last edited:
