Turning the Other Cheek and Guns

[AlexDTX]

I made the mistake of starting this discussion in the Announcement of Christian Prepper thread but I still feel unresolved on the matter. I believe it is appropriate for Christians to prepare but I question the use of guns. Most patriots in America are pro guns, whether Christian or not. The 2nd amendment seems as sacred as the beatitudes.

The answers I got from the first thread were all the same. Jesus said carry money and a sword. This is one statement in contrast to a multitude of other statements regarding turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, walking the extra mile, not suing the brethren, a soft answer turning away wrath, and the righteous doing what is right to their own hurt.

Honestly, clinging to that one statement as justification for self defense goes against the spirit and tenor of all his other teachings. How do you love your enemies by shooting him? The way Christians cling to this one statement is same as building an entire system around the authority of the pastor based upon one single verse in Ephesians (a different topic, I know, but I could not resist the comparison).

We are told more often to flee than to fight.

As I said before, I am for preparation. I own a generator and have food stored. A tornado landed merely a half a mile from my home Dec 26 here in Dallas. I know disasters happen, and I regard it wisdom to prepare. However, at that time I had peace not to be concerned, and the tornado did not land on my home.

Also I know riots and civil disorder occur. But I think more is gained by discretion and stealth than violent resistance. Furthermore, I have never used guns in my life, and I feel like David facing Goliath who refused to wear the armour and weapons of Saul since he was unfamiliar with them. Instead David relied on what he already knew how to do: use a slingshot with rocks.

If anyone can find the middle line of being ready for civil disorder and trusting God to defend us, please comment. I have been wrestling with this thought for several years now, and would love to find the milestones of guidance.

 

[JackRT]

Some of the short pithy messages of Jesus have traditionally be interpreted in only one way. That interpretation is usually that we should avoid confrontation and be humble. However there are other interpretations which I believe may actually be closer to the message of Jesus given the cultural realities of the time. I offer three of these:

Matthew 5:39 --- “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” --- In an honour/shame, domination/submission culture such as existed in the first century in the middle East, this saying has a far different meaning than a straightforward reading of it might indicate. If a man were to strike a social equal, he would strike him with the palm of his right hand on the left cheek. However if a man were to slap a social inferior he would do so with the back of his hand to the inferior’s right cheek. If the inferior were then to turn his other cheek it would force his assailant to treat him as a social equal by striking with the palm of his right hand. Since slapping is no longer a widespread cultural practice, it can be helpful if you could actually act this out with another person. Jesus’ audience likely would have had a good laugh at his comment. Jesus is not counseling humility here, he is counseling a covert defiance.

Matthew 5:40 ---“If someone sues you for your coat, give up your shirt as well.” --- In Jewish law if you fail to repay a debt you may be taken to court and if you are still unable to repay, the lender is entitled to take your coat. The lender holds the coat during the day but he is obliged to return it at night because the coat or cloak doubled as a blanket at night. In a two-garment society this would be highly embarrassing to the debtor. However it would be even more embarrassing to the court and the lender if the debtor were to turn over both garments and stand there naked. Remember this was a society with a strong taboo against public nakedness. Using this somewhat risque humour Jesus is once again counseling covert defiance and taking the part of the poor against the rich. I'll bet his audience laughed out loud. Humour is a great aid to the memory.

Matthew 5:41 --- “If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” --- In Roman law a soldier had every right to have a civilian carry his pack for one [Roman] mile but no further. For the civilian to carry the pack a further distance would be to embarrass the soldier and possibly to get him in trouble with a superior officer. Once again Jesus takes the part of the small against the powerful by suggesting covert defiance. I suspect that Jesus’ listeners ‘got the message’ especially since it was couched in such sarcastic humour.

 

[AlexDTX]

Some of the short pithy messages of Jesus have traditionally be interpreted in only one way. That interpretation is usually that we should avoid confrontation and be humble. However there are other interpretations which I believe may actually be closer to the message of Jesus given the cultural realities of the time. I offer three of these:
Matthew 5:39 --- “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” --- In an honour/shame, domination/submission culture such as existed in the first century in the middle East, this saying has a far different meaning than a straightforward reading of it might indicate. If a man were to strike a social equal, he would strike him with the palm of his right hand on the left cheek. However if a man were to slap a social inferior he would do so with the back of his hand to the inferior’s right cheek. If the inferior were then to turn his other cheek it would force his assailant to treat him as a social equal by striking with the palm of his right hand. Since slapping is no longer a widespread cultural practice, it can be helpful if you could actually act this out with another person. Jesus’ audience likely would have had a good laugh at his comment. Jesus is not counseling humility here, he is counseling a covert defiance.
Matthew 5:40 ---“If someone sues you for your coat, give up your shirt as well.” --- In Jewish law if you fail to repay a debt you may be taken to court and if you are still unable to repay, the lender is entitled to take your coat. The lender holds the coat during the day but he is obliged to return it at night because the coat or cloak doubled as a blanket at night. In a two-garment society this would be highly embarrassing to the debtor. However it would be even more embarrassing to the court and the lender if the debtor were to turn over both garments and stand there naked. Remember this was a society with a strong taboo against public nakedness. Using this somewhat risque humour Jesus is once again counseling covert defiance and taking the part of the poor against the rich. I'll bet his audience laughed out loud. Humour is a great aid to the memory.
Matthew 5:41 --- “If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” --- In Roman law a soldier had every right to have a civilian carry his pack for one [Roman] mile but no further. For the civilian to carry the pack a further distance would be to embarrass the soldier and possibly to get him in trouble with a superior officer. Once again Jesus takes the part of the small against the powerful by suggesting covert defiance. I suspect that Jesus’ listeners ‘got the message’ especially since it was couched in such sarcastic humour.

Thank you Jack for your input. I can not say if you are right or wrong, but I tend to be sceptical of cultural interpretations. The Bible is the Word of God thus comes from God for all believers in all cultures and all ages. God speaks from eternity, not time and space.

I am not dismissing what you say, however, because I know the Bible has a confluence of God and the writers of the Bible, so their language, culture and perspective blends into the text. I just think God does not requires the reader to have the knowledge of culture and history to understand. What God requires is His Spirit in our hearts and a heart that wants to know his ways by His Spirit.

I don't see the "covert defiance" and "humor" in what you say. But I do think you have provided me with food for thought and I thank you for that.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The best response is real life.
I have a wife, daughter, mother, sisters, etc.
A bad man breaks in to rob us, sees the women, and sees an opportunity.
What will you do? Will you stand there and do nothing, or will you act to protect your loved ones?
In my mind it is an easy choice.
You do not have to hate someone to take action in favor of your loved ones.

I recall the images of Jews being lined up next to pits to be shot. I would like to think we would not just blindly line up and be killed. Life is a precious gift from God that we should appreciate and strive to keep. I do not think we should nonchalantly just allow it to be destroyed. Again... you do not have to hate someone to take action to protect your life and the lives of your family and friends. You just take the appropriate action required to save your family.
If a flood was coming you would do what needed to be done to save your self and your family. You do not hate the flood. You do what you have to do.
Personally.... I have no spiritual or logical problem with doing what has to be done to protect me and mine. Yet again it is just common sense.

 

[AlexDTX]

The best response is real life.
I have a wife, daughter, mother, sisters, etc.
A bad man breaks in to rob us, sees the women, and sees an opportunity.
What will you do? Will you stand there and do nothing, or will you act to protect your loved ones?
In my mind it is an easy choice.
You do not have to hate someone to take action in favor of your loved ones.

I recall the images of Jews being lined up next to pits to be shot. I would like to think we would not just blindly line up and be killed. Life is a precious gift from God that we should appreciate and strive to keep. I do not think we should nonchalantly just allow it to be destroyed. Again... you do not have to hate someone to take action to protect your life and the lives of your family and friends. You just take the appropriate action required to save your family.
If a flood was coming you would do what needed to be done to save your self and your family. You do not hate the flood. You do what you have to do.
Personally.... I have no spiritual or logical problem with doing what has to be done to protect me and mine. Yet again it is just common sense.

In the natural I agree with you. And I am convinced that the grace of God is such that He would also understand. However, trusting in God goes beyond the natural. For example, on December 26th about 6 tornadoes touched down in the Dallas-Fortworth Metroplex. One of those tornadoes touched down less than half a mile from my home. I remember hearing the tornado sirens and police sirens. But my peace was not disturbed. I knew that God was protecting me. The thought crossed my mind that the power would go out. So I prayed commanding the power to stay on. The lights flickered once which also turned off all our digital clocks, then the power remained on.

At the time I did not know how close the tornado had landed near me. I found out the next day by talking to my neighbor. He went outside and heard the winds blowing. I took a drive down the street and saw two church buildings that had been hit, an elementary school and several telephone poles down along with debris and wooden fences.

A soft answer turns away wrath. Throughout my life I have been in dangerous situations, being robbed at gunpoint, for example, in which I spoke softly and saw the situation turn me from danger. In the Old Testament we have many examples of how God protects those who trusted in Him. In the Exodus story, the land of Goshen was not touched by any of the 10 plagues. Gideon routed the enemy with lamps and pitchers that were broken. The lepers went to the camp of the Syrians who had been startled and fled leaving their food and wealth. There was the instance of the 3 kings when the enemy mistook the red light of dawn reflecting on the water for blood and thought a battle had been fought then fled at their presence because of assuming the kings had won the battle.

Jesus said that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Likewise those who trust in the arm of the flesh will fail. I think it is a mistake in direction for Christians to be obsessed with guns as their means of defense. He may be the Lord of Sabaoth (war), but He is first the Lord of Shalom (peace). If you have confidence in your guns, then it lessens your confidence in God, in my opinion.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

We are told more often to flee than to fight.

Not really. Jesus doesn't say "Resist evil non-violently". He says "do not resist evil".

 

[AlexDTX]

Not really. Jesus doesn't say "Resist evil non-violently". He says "do not resist evil".

So, do you think that Mary and Joseph disobeyed God when they fled to Egypt to avoid the killings of Herod? Do you think we are to let evil do whatever it wants to us?

This is what my thoughts are wrestling with. I don't think so. There is a middle ground of avoiding evil and suffering persecution.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

So, do you think that Mary and Joseph disobeyed God when they fled to Egypt to avoid the killings of Herod? Do you think we are to let evil do whatever it wants to us?

This is what my thoughts are wrestling with. I don't think so. There is a middle ground of avoiding evil and suffering persecution.

Jesus was commenting on the Mosaic Law's injunction of "an eye for an eye". I understand it to be an admonition against taking revenge.

 

[AlexDTX]

Jesus was commenting on the Mosaic Law's injunction of "an eye for an eye". I understand it to be an admonition against taking revenge.

Good point.

 

[Soyeong]

Slapping someone in the face was considered degrading and would lower the status of the person being slapped as they were publicly shamed. There were different penalties and compensation based upon whether someone was slapped with the back of the hand or with the palm.

Matthew 5:39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Most people were right-handed, so a slap on the right cheek would be with the back of the right hand, which carried half the penalty for slapping someone on the left cheek with the palm of their right hand. By someone turning the other cheek and not going to the judge for compensation, they are taking the initiative of solving the dispute. Jesus was fulfilling the law or getting at the spirit behind it by teaching that we should show restraint in pursuing our rights and that we should be ready to suffer further injustice in order to show the true nature of the offender and provide the chance for them to refrain from further repeating the offence and thereby the chance for transformation and reconciliation. In refusing to be humiliated by turning the other cheek, they were restoring their dignity and provocatively offering to do more than what was originally demanded (in line with the surrounding verses), which in turn gives the opportunity for the offender to reconsider their action. If they continue, then their unjustness will be exposed, but if they stop, then they also restore their dignity and distance themselves from their previous action.

This is not directed at how everyone should respond in all circumstances, but rather at how people who are experiencing injustices should act when they have no other means of addressing them. This is encouraging them to actively challenge injustices, not saying that we should passively endure them. If we have more power to challenge injustices, then we have more responsibility to do so.

 

[Soyeong]

Thank you Jack for your input. I can not say if you are right or wrong, but I tend to be sceptical of cultural interpretations. The Bible is the Word of God thus comes from God for all believers in all cultures and all ages. God speaks from eternity, not time and space.

I am not dismissing what you say, however, because I know the Bible has a confluence of God and the writers of the Bible, so their language, culture and perspective blends into the text. I just think God does not requires the reader to have the knowledge of culture and history to understand. What God requires is His Spirit in our hearts and a heart that wants to know his ways by His Spirit.

I don't see the "covert defiance" and "humor" in what you say. But I do think you have provided me with food for thought and I thank you for that.

I've gained a much deeper understanding of the Bible since I started studying its Jewish cultural context, so I highly recommend it, especially when it comes to Jesus' parables. For instance learning about Jewish inheritance laws gives a better understanding of the the Parable of the Prodigal Son. While I would agree that the lessons that the Bible teaches are for all cultures and all ages, it is important to understand the cultural context in order to properly understand what those lessons are.

I recommend this lesson series on the Jewish parables of our Jewish rabbi:

 

[Cernunnos]

If you have confidence in your guns, then it lessens your confidence in God, in my opinion.

I understand your opinion. It seems based on an idea that a gun is somehow a magical talisman rather than a tool. When I read this opinion (and it is often spoken by anti-gun Christians) I am led to wonder: Do you consider confidence in hammers for driving nails to lessen your confidence in God. . . . do you drive nails with prayer? Is it wrong to simply use the hammer and place the nail in the needed place? Do you consider your confidence in computers for communicating to lessen your confidence in God . . . do you pray that God will reveal to others the thoughts that you might wish to communicate so that you don't have to rely on technology? I am not mocking here, I am making a point. The gun is a tool, in the context of self defense (vs hunting, sport shooting, other legit uses) it is a very effective tool, like the hammer is effective at driving nails, like the computer/internet is an effective means of communicating ideas. I understand that the Amish avoid the use of electricity because they feel it affects their faith & I respect them, but I am not in agreement with their reasoning for not using electricity. If you choose not to use guns because you feel it adversely affects your walk, that's cool (please just don't impose that on others)

In a recent conversation on this same topic discussion of an article , I answered:
Like every anti-gun author I have ever seen, claiming to be Christian (I am not saying he isn't, but I don't know him & read him claiming to be) . . . this guy has fallen into a gazing contest with his navel. He must not have any family or anyone he loves, his love must be hypothetical . . . part of the costume good Christian politicians & salesmen put on. I say this because, I have read John 15:13 just as surely as Matthew 26:52. I cannot wish someone would intervene on behalf of those I love without intervening on behalf of those loved by others. A woman should not be encouraged to "just take it" from a rapist because she is faith-shamed into letting that rapist win and then go on to other victims. How is she loving the future victims? Armed resistance against villains is not the self-absorbed way of this author. . . I get that. I believe I am my brother's keeper & my duty of loving my neighbor is to intervene on their behalf should the situation warrant it. Moreover I have a family that needs to eat, children that need a father in their lives, it is my duty to make it home to them & to love them enough to risk "living by the sword" to make sure I can always provide for them. It is just love, real love I live in contrast to a hypothetical love extended to no one & smelling of cowardice.

What I didn't address was love of the villain. It amounts to this: I am not called to judge, but I am also not called to stand idle while the innocent suffer. If I shoot a felon in the act of threatening myself or an innocent with death or great bodily harm, it is God's call if my bullet flies true or merely wounds, Gods call if that felon survives & for some, being stopped may be the only way to turn them from the path of destruction, for others God may stop them as He stopped King Eglon or when He determined that the "iniquity of the Amorites" (Gen 15:16) was complete (later in the Bible). My responsibility is to stop the felon, God's responsibility is to judge them & as for love. . . that their passing may be quick and with a minimum of pain if the Lord wills their life not spared.

 

[AlexDTX]

I understand your opinion. It seems based on an idea that a gun is somehow a magical talisman rather than a tool. When I read this opinion (and it is often spoken by anti-gun Christians) I am led to wonder: Do you consider confidence in hammers for driving nails to lessen your confidence in God. . . . do you drive nails with prayer? Is it wrong to simply use the hammer and place the nail in the needed place? Do you consider your confidence in computers for communicating to lessen your confidence in God . . . do you pray that God will reveal to others the thoughts that you might wish to communicate so that you don't have to rely on technology? I am not mocking here, I am making a point. The gun is a tool, in the context of self defense (vs hunting, sport shooting, other legit uses) it is a very effective tool, like the hammer is effective at driving nails, like the computer/internet is an effective means of communicating ideas. I understand that the Amish avoid the use of electricity because they feel it affects their faith & I respect them, but I am not in agreement with their reasoning for not using electricity. If you choose not to use guns because you feel it adversely affects your walk, that's cool (please just don't impose that on others)

In a recent conversation on this same topic discussion of an article , I answered:
Like every anti-gun author I have ever seen, claiming to be Christian (I am not saying he isn't, but I don't know him & read him claiming to be) . . . this guy has fallen into a gazing contest with his navel. He must not have any family or anyone he loves, his love must be hypothetical . . . part of the costume good Christian politicians & salesmen put on. I say this because, I have read John 15:13 just as surely as Matthew 26:52. I cannot wish someone would intervene on behalf of those I love without intervening on behalf of those loved by others. A woman should not be encouraged to "just take it" from a rapist because she is faith-shamed into letting that rapist win and then go on to other victims. How is she loving the future victims? Armed resistance against villains is not the self-absorbed way of this author. . . I get that. I believe I am my brother's keeper & my duty of loving my neighbor is to intervene on their behalf should the situation warrant it. Moreover I have a family that needs to eat, children that need a father in their lives, it is my duty to make it home to them & to love them enough to risk "living by the sword" to make sure I can always provide for them. It is just love, real love I live in contrast to a hypothetical love extended to no one & smelling of cowardice.

What I didn't address was love of the villain. It amounts to this: I am not called to judge, but I am also not called to stand idle while the innocent suffer. If I shoot a felon in the act of threatening myself or an innocent with death or great bodily harm, it is God's call if my bullet flies true or merely wounds, Gods call if that felon survives & for some, being stopped may be the only way to turn them from the path of destruction, for others God may stop them as He stopped King Eglon or when He determined that the "iniquity of the Amorites" (Gen 15:16) was complete (later in the Bible). My responsibility is to stop the felon, God's responsibility is to judge them & as for love. . . that their passing may be quick and with a minimum of pain if the Lord wills their life not spared.

I understand your point about a gun being a tool. Nor do I agree that one should let theft, rape, or violence simply be inflicted upon someone. The question is how does God want us to respond to such things? This is what I meant by my statement, "If you have confidence in your guns, then it lessens your confidence in God, in my opinion.". God hates bloodshed. If there is any other way, then He would choose that. He has many other tools to change a situation other than violence. One does not need a pneumatic hammer to put in a thumbtack.

I have read many prepper's websites. I get much out of them and think there is much wisdom in what the community has to say. However, there seems to be a gun loving stream that runs through most of their conversation. Sometimes it seems idolatrous in tone. I am not making a blanket statement, only commenting on something I have seen.

The other consideration is one's background. I have never used a gun in my life. If a life threatening situation occurs where a gun would be a viable defense, I would fail in my use if I had one. Like David who knew how to use his slingshot, he refused Saul's armour and weapons, I refuse to own a gun. I understand so many have grown up with guns and hunting, so it is second nature to them, but is not for me.

I raise the question, because I don't see this as a course of action encouraged by the Lord. I think it deserves discussion amongst believers. If one lives in obedience to the laws so you owe no man anything, and you use common sense in living, all that is left is for persecution for the Gospel's sake. I see no where in the New Testament of believers fighting back. They suffer the persecution and rejoice that they are worthy to suffer for the Lord's sake.

I also think many Christians who are gun proponents are thinking of end time scenarios of Armageddon who are going to use their guns for self defense. Violence begets violence. You overcome evil with good, not more evil.

 

[Cernunnos]

Luke 3:14. At no point did Jesus contradict John the Baptist & John's ministry was to prepare the way for Christ's . . . so I am disinclined to believe John's "order" is somehow inferior. John didn't tell the soldiers to put down their arms. . . Jesus, if He wanted to, could have made it a point when dealing with the centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 / Luke 7:1-10 . . . but Jesus didn't. It seems that people whose responsibilities include use of/ skill with arms are not obliged to hang them up, but rather to not use them for dishonest gain/ crime.

"end time scenarios of Armageddon" has nothing to do with me & arms. I have been content with my wages and have not extorted since I took up the cross. I think of the innocents who have not suffered because of my interventions, and I look at the scars in my flesh & know. . . . I have been dying by the "sword" for a very long time, a very long time laying down my life for my neighbors. . . is this wrong? John the Baptist didn't say so. Jesus didn't say so. . ..

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Theory and hypothetical is ok, but.

Gotta get real here... because real is what it is all about.

A man breaks into your house and begins to rape and torture your child.
You have the ability to stop it.
You stand there, watch, and do nothing?

And this is what God wants you to do?

 

[AlexDTX]

Luke 3:14. At no point did Jesus contradict John the Baptist & John's ministry was to prepare the way for Christ's . . . so I am disinclined to believe John's "order" is somehow inferior. John didn't tell the soldiers to put down their arms. . . Jesus, if He wanted to, could have made it a point when dealing with the centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 / Luke 7:1-10 . . . but Jesus didn't. It seems that people whose responsibilities include use of/ skill with arms are not obliged to hang them up, but rather to not use them for dishonest gain/ crime.

17 But as God has distributed to every man, as the Lord has called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. 18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 21 Are you called being a servant? care not for it: but if you may be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 23 You are bought with a price; be not you the servants of men. 24 Brothers, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. (1 Cor. 7:17-24)​

The fact that John the Baptist did not tell the soldier to quit being a soldier is not an endorsement of the military. Neither the fact that Paul did not tell Onesimus to stop being a slave, nor did he tell Philemon to free him an endorsement of slavery. The point Paul made in 1 Corinthians 7 is that we are not to seek change in our lives unless the Lord directs that change. Most of the chapter is devoted to believers who are married to unbelievers and Paul makes the point the saved spouse is not the one who saves the unsaved spouse (v. 16). This is why I made the point earlier that it depends on your background. I did not grow up with guns. It is not my place to tell what people may or may not do (that belongs to God), but it is may place to to discuss this topic to provide food for thought, of which the Holy Spirit may use.

"end time scenarios of Armageddon" has nothing to do with me & arms. I have been content with my wages and have not extorted since I took up the cross. I think of the innocents who have not suffered because of my interventions, and I look at the scars in my flesh & know. . . . I have been dying by the "sword" for a very long time, a very long time laying down my life for my neighbors. . . is this wrong? John the Baptist didn't say so. Jesus didn't say so. . ..

While we seem to be in a private conversation, I am not speaking of you specifically, but others that I have read in Survival websites elsewhere.

 

[AlexDTX]

Theory and hypothetical is ok, but.

Gotta get real here... because real is what it is all about.

A man breaks into your house and begins to rape and torture your child.
You have the ability to stop it.
You stand there, watch, and do nothing?

And this is what God wants you to do?

If you had read my other replies you would know that I don't believe that. It amazes me how people make things either/or scenarios which is a logical fallacy. There are always other ways to deal with things. My point is to be sensitive to the Lord in seeing those other ways.

 

[MrJim]

I spent a few years as a Mennonite..so I do understand well the arguments from both sides.

If I am in a missionary or evangelistic endeavor or going about my life and am assaulted because I am a Christian then I will not fight back per passages listed in Scriptures.

To allow myself or innocent folks around me to be victims of random violence...that I cannot allow. If one takes a nonresistant/pacifist position completely then not even the police would be notified in the event of a crime. And there are some Anabaptist folks like that...and they have my full respect.

For those that won't accept the responsibility of defending themselves or their family but will call in police~~ a.k.a "hired guns"...to do it....then there seems to be some inconsistency...and when there is no police to call, and an armed neighbor steps in to help, perhaps saves lives of your family, do you accept it as Providential or Evil?

Issues to wrestle with...I view violence as a last resort not a first..and I expect others here would be the same...yet I won't rule it out.

The following passage is in context of providing for widows in the family but I believe it has to do with all kinds of provisions....and security being one of them.

1 Tim 5:7 And these things command, that they may be blameless. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

[AlexDTX]

Issues to wrestle with...I view violence as a last resort not a first..and I expect others here would be the same...yet I won't rule it out.

Neither do I. My main point throughout my replies to my question has been the same. Finding the response of God before reacting in the natural. Using a gun is not the last resort, but only a resort if the Spirit prompts that response. Frankly, I think it is unlikely or rare for that to be His response.

 

[MrJim]

Neither do I. My main point throughout my replies to my question has been the same. Finding the response of God before reacting in the natural. Using a gun is not the last resort, but only a resort if the Spirit prompts that response. Frankly, I think it is unlikely or rare for that to be His response.

I expect you're right~~I'm 51 years old and have been legally carrying a gun for 20 years (and defensive knives for even longer) without incident..but then I'm 6'2" 230 lbs so predators tend to look for easier prey...