Friday, June 25, 2021

Was Pres. Biden Threatening American Gun Owners?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

President Biden certainly caught my attention yesterday when he said, " think you need weapons to take on the government, you need F-15's and maybe some nuclear weapons."

His following incoherent words were of even greater concern.

One thing is certain. He doesn't want you to have a gun.

The people I know about who are wanting to "take over the government" are the far-left radicals who are looting and burning our cities, who are also aligned with his far-left policies.

Most of us know that most people have a gun for self-defense. I suspect Joe knows that as well.

Does Jesus support self-defense? 

Let's take a closer look at Scripture.

Be informed, not misled. 

President Biden: "If you think you need weapons to take on the government..."

The president's ramblings on a number of subjects are concerning more than just "Republicans." People from all political leanings are expressing concern---quietly, if not publicly.

The president continued, "The Second Amendment from the day it was passed limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own...You couldn't buy a cannon."

He continued. This is an exact quote:

Those who say the blood of liberty, the, uh, blood of patriots, you know, and all that stuff about how we're going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What's happened is there has never been ---if you wanna---think you need weapons to take on the government, you need F-15's and maybe some nuclear weapons. The point is there's always been the ability to limit---rationally limit the type of weapon that can be owned and who can own it."

Even leftist PolitiFact had to admit there has never been "cannon control."

Americans are not "moving against America"---the move against America is coming from left-wing terrorist groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter. These groups are far more aligned with the Biden administration than with people who practice Second Amendment gun ownership.

A normal thinking president from either political party would have assured the American people the government is not coming for your guns--and not threatened those who believe the Second Amendment simply means what it says.

The Second Amendment is about self-defense. And yes, our Founding Fathers understood how important it is for the government to understand that the citizenry could defend itself against tyranny.

Does Jesus support self-defense?

Some of the following is taken from an article first published by talk show host and friend Lars Larson. I don't know if Lars wrote the article or someone else. The rest of the following is from my own studies.

Luke 22:36 finds Jesus advising the disciples to buy a sword if they didn't have one.: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

In Luke 12:39 Jesus says "But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into."

Jesus is outlining the fact that it is expected that a person would protect his home from violence. It isn't only reasonable, but a responsibility, although this is merely protecting one's property, not one's personal safety

In Mark 3:27 Jesus is teaching how Satan comes to rob, steal, etc. The illustration He uses involves the assumption that a bad guy is to be bound or restrained. Keep in mind this has to do with property and belongings, not necessarily personal safety.

Confirming Mark's writing, Luke 11:21 says, "When the strong man, fully armed, guards his courtyard his property is undisturbed."

The point is that people in Jesus' illustration are defending their property---a positive view of self-defense of one's property to make a greater spiritual truth.

This was taught shortly before Jesus was to be taken prisoner, leading to His crucifixion. 

What about Jesus' rebuke of  Peter cutting off the ear of the Roman soldier? Jesus does not contradict Himself or the Word. He is the Word made flesh.

To put it simply, Peter misused his sword. He did not fully understand what was happening.

We have to remember that Jesus' personal nonresistance at the cross was intertwined with His unique calling which was before the beginning. He did not try to evade his arrest, because He was fully aware of the crucifixion and His prophetic role as the redemptive Lamb of God (Matthew 26: 52-56). During His ministry, however, He refused to be arrested because God's timing for His death had not yet come (John 8:59). So His unique nonresistance during the Passion does not mandate against self-protection as the religious Left would lead you to believe.

What about Matthew 5:38-42 where Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek?

It's true Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but many scholars do not believe pacifism, or non-resistance is the essential point of His teaching in this passage. These scholars do not believe Jesus was teaching to turn the other cheek in virtually every circumstance. Even the Lord Himself did not turn the other cheek when He was smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (John 18:22-23).

The background of this teaching is that Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face.

Biblical scholar RC Sproul says, "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face (Matthew 5:39)." Sproul notes that if I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I hit it with the back of my right hand.

He says, "To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."

The teaching in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would then seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (Romans 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian's personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending one's self or a family member from being mugged or raped. 

There is a strong biblical case for self-defense. And just war.


The Bible records many accounts of fighting and warfare. The providence of God in war is exemplified by His name in Exodus 12:41: "The Lord of Hosts."

God is portrayed as the omnipotent Warrior-Leader of the Israelites. God, the Lord of Hosts, raised up warriors among the Israelites called "shophetim" (savior-deliverer ). Sampson, Deborah, Gideon, David, Joshua, and others were anointed by the Spirit of God to conduct war.

The New Testament commends Old Testament warriors for their military acts of faith (Hebrews 11:30-40).

It's important to remember that although given the opportunity to do so, none of the New Testament saints---not even Jesus Himself---are ever seen informing a military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 3:14).


Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus told His disciples they would be faced with great hostilities and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38)--- in II Corinthians 11:26-27, Paul described what these attacks looked like---  In these passages, a "sword" (Greek-maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals.

Based on Scripture it is very clear that Jesus supported self-defense

John 15:14 says, "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." When protecting one's family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.


Theologians JP Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit a murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting an evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."

Our Founders understood that Truth when they framed our founding documents. And we must understand it if we are to protect and sustain those same God-given rights.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful.