Ted Cruz takes Alyssa Milano to Bible study — with an NRA edition of the Bible

https://www.redletterchristians.org/ted-...the-bible/

EXCERPT (Shane Claiborne): It takes some serious theological gymnastics to twist the Bible to defend guns. Ted Cruz was the largest recipient of National Rifle Association funds in the Senate race of 2016. And it appears to have affected the way he interprets the Bible. Here’s the backdrop for those who missed it.

It all started with a tweet thread from Texas state Rep. Matt Schaefer in which he declared gun ownership to be one of our “God-given rights.” Not Constitution-given, but God-given. Enter Alyssa Milano. The actress-turned-activist (and perhaps now a budding theologian?) asked a fair question: “Can someone cite which passage of the Bible God states it is a god-given right to own a gun?”

Cruz took the bait and responded with a lengthy thread of his own. [...] Cruz quoted an obscure text from the Book of Exodus: “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2). Cruz himself even conceded the next verse says if the same thing happens during daylight, it’s no longer self-defense and the law forbids it. So by Cruz’s own argument, the right to self-defense by gun ends at dawn. After that, it is murder.

[...] It’s noteworthy that the same chapter of Exodus used by Cruz speaks pointedly about caring for foreigners, widows and orphans and making sure the poor receive justice and compassion. The same chapter, Exodus 22, says this: “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were once foreigners in Egypt. Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless. If you do, and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry.” Whoa. I wished he took that part literally. Or the part in the next chapter, Exodus 23, that says, “Do not accept a bribe.” While Exodus does not defend guns, it does prohibit taking a bribe … like, say $360,727.

Like a target at the shooting range, there are many holes in Cruz’s theology. But the biggest hole in his theology is this: There is no Jesus in it. In his argument in support of guns, he doesn’t mention Jesus or the gospel a single time. When it comes to interpreting the Old Testament, Jesus is the lens through which we understand everything. When you interpret Jesus in light of Exodus, rather than Exodus in light of Jesus, you get some whacked-out theology.

[...] Were I to sit down with Cruz and a Bible, I would turn to a story that appears in Luke 22 — when the disciple Peter uses a weapon to defend Jesus — a story so important to the disciples that it appears in all four Gospels. When the Roman soldiers attempt to arrest Jesus, Peter picks up his sword and cuts a man’s ear off. Jesus responds in a stunning and bemusing way. He scolds Peter and tells him to put his sword away, insisting “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” Then Jesus heals the wounded man, picking up the man’s ear and putting it back on. Peter learned, as any of us who dare follow Jesus must learn, we cannot carry a cross in one hand and a weapon in the other. Jesus models for us how to interact with violence without mirroring the violence... (MORE - details)

Wow, so this article starts by poisoning the well, with a guilt by association/conflict of interest fallacy. But then the author's credits do list "
social justice", and he does make this common and very dumbed-down pro-life argument...

Christians like to talk about being pro-life, but too often it would be more accurate to say we are pro-birth or anti-abortion. Christians need a pro-life vision that is consistent and that champions life from the womb to the tomb.

Gun violence is a pro-life issue.

...ignoring the fact that there's a clear distinction between innocent and guilty life, and only morons speak in absolutes, such as being absolutely pro-life in any and all cases. The Bible often spoke of putting people to death, so this guy is just ignorant or disingenuous.

No, the Bible doesn't say the right to self-defense "ends at dawn". Exodus is clearly talking about theft alone...and of ox or sheep, which aren't kept in the house.
And no, campaign contributions are not bribes, no matter how much you dislike the specific donor. Otherwise Planned Parenthood would be guilty of a lot of bribing.
Self-defense is not "living by the sword", nor did Jesus rebuke Peter for simply picking up a sword, as the events were a fulfillment of prophecy. And since he cites Luke 22:

He said to them, “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. - Luke 22:36

And this "Christain's" quote is actually from Matthew 26, not Luke. Where Jesus then goes on to say he could call on his Father for protection, but this was a fulfillment of scripture.

And guns have been used to save and protect the weak for ages.

So just someone else's meme in lieu of any actual argument, huh?

There's meek, and then there's so meek you're dead.

(Sep 7, 2019 10:44 PM)Syne Wrote: So just someone else's meme in lieu of any actual argument, huh?

There's meek, and then there's so meek you're dead.

There's also turning the other cheek, and blowing someone's face off. Jesus was a pacifist. Everyone knows this.

(Sep 7, 2019 10:58 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Sep 7, 2019 10:44 PM)Syne Wrote: So just someone else's meme in lieu of any actual argument, huh?

There's meek, and then there's so meek you're dead.

There's also turning the other cheek, and blowing someone's face off. Jesus was a pacifist. Everyone knows this.

Turning the other cheek, is in response to a slap (which was only an insult) not serious physical harm.
No, Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords and he attacked the money changers in the temple. Not an absolute pacifist.

"Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul and Christian pacifist John Howard Yoder do not believe Luke 22:36 overturns the many times Jesus urged his followers to turn the other cheek and not resist evil when confronted by violence during his Sermon on the Mount and years of ministry. They show when the passage is taken in context (Luke 22:36-38), Jesus is also aware of fulfilling prophecy and makes a surprising statement that two swords are "enough."[1]

He said to them, “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. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

— Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV
Ellul, Yoder and Archie Penner claim that two swords could not possibly have been "enough" to defend Jesus from his pending arrest, trial and execution, so their sole purpose must have been Jesus' wish to fulfill a prophecy (Isaiah 53:9-12).[1] As Ellul explains:

The further comment of Jesus explains in part the surprising statement, for he says: "It is necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled according to which I would be put in the ranks of criminals" (Luke 22:36-37). The idea of fighting with just two swords is ridiculous. The swords are enough, however, to justify the accusation that Jesus is the head of a band of brigands. We have to note here that Jesus is consciously fulfilling prophecy. If he were not the saying would make no sense.[2]

This theory is further substantiated by Peter when Peter draws one of the swords a few hours later at Jesus' arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, slashing the ear of Malchus, one of the priests' servants, and Jesus rebukes him saying: "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(Matthew 26:52)[1]

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, in their 1871 biblical commentary, indicate "...And He said to them, It is enough - not 'Two swords will suffice,' but 'Enough of this for the present'. The warning had been given, and preparation for coming dangers hinted at; but as His meaning had not been apprehended in the comprehensive sense in which it was meant, He wished to leave the subject".[3]

Motyer, Stibbs and Wiseman in New Bible Commentary: Revised Third Edition (1977) states:

35-38- Finally, Jesus spoke of the new situation. Formerly, when the Disciples had gone out, on mission, they had not lacked anything. Now they would need a purse, a bag and even a sword. The saying is heavily ironical, for Jesus knew that now He would have to face universal opposition and be put to death. But the disciples misunderstood Him and produced weapons. 'That is enough', said Jesus to end a conversation which they had failed to understand. The way of Jesus, as they should have known, was not the way of the sword, but of love."----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell_your_...uy_a_sword

(Sep 8, 2019 12:00 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: "Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul and Christian pacifist John Howard Yoder...

If you have to qualify your Christianity, you're not much of a Christian. You're basically admitting that your agenda is of equal importance to your Christianity.

Quote:...do not believe Luke 22:36 overturns the many times Jesus urged his followers to turn the other cheek and not resist evil when confronted by violence during his Sermon on the Mount and years of ministry. They show when the passage is taken in context (Luke 22:36-38), Jesus is also aware of fulfilling prophecy and makes a surprising statement that two swords are "enough."[1]

He said to them, “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. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

The exclamation mark only exists in newer versions, like NIV.

Quote:— Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV
Ellul, Yoder and Archie Penner claim that two swords could not possibly have been "enough" to defend Jesus from his pending arrest, trial and execution, so their sole purpose must have been Jesus' wish to fulfill a prophecy (Isaiah 53:9-12).[1] As Ellul explains:

Since Jesus said it was to fulfill prophesy (as reinforced in Matthew 26, where he says his Father would protect him, if asked), there obviously didn't need to be "enough" to defend him from the arresting soldiers.

Quote:The further comment of Jesus explains in part the surprising statement, for he says: "It is necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled according to which I would be put in the ranks of criminals" (Luke 22:36-37). The idea of fighting with just two swords is ridiculous. The swords are enough, however, to justify the accusation that Jesus is the head of a band of brigands. We have to note here that Jesus is consciously fulfilling prophecy. If he were not the saying would make no sense.[2]

So he set up his own disciples to look like brigands so he could fabricate fulfilling prophesy? What kind of Christian claims Jesus faked his fulfillment of prophesy? Wouldn't that make him a charlatan? No real Christian would ever believe that.

Quote:This theory is further substantiated by Peter when Peter draws one of the swords a few hours later at Jesus' arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, slashing the ear of Malchus, one of the priests' servants, and Jesus rebukes him saying: "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(Matthew 26:52)[1]

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, in their 1871 biblical commentary, indicate "...And He said to them, It is enough - not 'Two swords will suffice,' but 'Enough of this for the present'. The warning had been given, and preparation for coming dangers hinted at; but as His meaning had not been apprehended in the comprehensive sense in which it was meant, He wished to leave the subject".[3]

No, again, in Matthew 26, Jesus tells Peter that if he needed protection he would ask his Father. It would serve no purpose for the disciples to resist and Jesus die by the sword, failing to accomplish his Father's purpose. "Enough of this for the present" is just running out of time to prepare further for the coming danger, although I read it as enough to defend themselves without being enough to stop the arrest.

Quote:Motyer, Stibbs and Wiseman in New Bible Commentary: Revised Third Edition (1977) states:

35-38- Finally, Jesus spoke of the new situation. Formerly, when the Disciples had gone out, on mission, they had not lacked anything. Now they would need a purse, a bag and even a sword. The saying is heavily ironical, for Jesus knew that now He would have to face universal opposition and be put to death. But the disciples misunderstood Him and produced weapons. 'That is enough', said Jesus to end a conversation which they had failed to understand. The way of Jesus, as they should have known, was not the way of the sword, but of love."----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell_your_...uy_a_sword

Jesus wasn't known for irony, sarcasm, being flippant, or saying things without attempting a further explanation.

---

John 18:10-11 10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"

In these three passages, you get a sense that Jesus is saying, "Though we have a right to employ our swords in defense of this unrighteous arrest, we are intentionally putting aside our lawful right, and I am allowing myself to be taken without resistance."
- https://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/

In my opinion, the Bible doesn't forbid gun ownership (it doesn't forbid for example, owning weapons to protect one's self) but it doesn't suggest that one must own a gun, either. Christianity, whether people choose to believe this or not, is about personal freedom and choices. Now, Christians are to follow the ''laws of the land,'' and if gun laws change, then Christians shouldn't fight against those laws changing, they should abide by them. Of course, Christians have the right to vote for whatever legislation they'd like to see take place, in terms of gun control. I've read different interpretations, but owning a gun doesn't mean someone is a fear monger, or anti-peace.

I don't personally own a gun, but I don't look at someone's desire to own a gun as an immoral choice. He/she is using it for protection; but there are many people who wish to harm others, and obtaining a gun is a way that they can accomplish that. But, that doesn't mean that guns are inherently bad, they're rather amoral since they're an inanimate object. Like a sword, like a knife, like poison, etc...if someone wishes to harm others, a gun isn't the only tool to carry it out.

It's kind of tiring to see the Bible trotted out as a prop both by politicians and by those who want to corner Christians into ''gotcha'' moments. Truth is, if you really study the Bible, and also read Biblical scholars' views of it (not someone like Pat Robertson, but an actual scholar of Scripture) you'll realize that Christianity allows one to have personal freedoms, and how our choices align with God, is what matters. (to God) In other words, there's nothing ''nonspiritual'' about gun ownership, in and of itself.

Calling gun ownership a ''God-given right,'' isn't an accurate portrayal of Scripture relating to self protection. Gun ownership, or owning any weaponry at all, has nothing to really do with God, in terms of God approving or disproving. Again, it's about personal choice, and God allows for that as far as Christianity teaches. If a person sins through the use of owning a gun or any weapon, that is where one's relationship with God would be in jeopardy, unless he/she asks for forgiveness and repents. But, that statement (''God-given right'') sounds like God ''ordained'' weapon ownership according to the Bible, and that would be misinterpreting Scripture, I think. The Bible simply states that we have a ''right'' to self-defense, whether it is through war, individual protection, etc...but, only if we so choose to. God doesn't enforce the use of weaponry for self-protection, but he also doesn't forbid it.

(Sep 8, 2019 04:54 AM)Leigha Wrote: In my opinion, the Bible doesn't forbid gun ownership (it doesn't forbid for example, owning weapons to protect one's self) but it doesn't suggest that one must own a gun, either. Christianity, whether people choose to believe this or not, is about personal freedom and choices. Now, Christians are to follow the ''laws of the land,'' and if gun laws change, then Christians shouldn't fight against those laws changing, they should abide by them. Of course, Christians have the right to vote for whatever legislation they'd like to see take place, in terms of gun control. I've read different interpretations, but owning a gun doesn't mean someone is a fear monger, or anti-peace.

I would be surprised if anyone claimed the Bible mandated gun ownership. But like many things in the Bible, goodness is only a virtue if a person has the freedom whether or not to be good. If all morality were forced, like by government threat, there would be no virtue in being moral. Christians do have a responsibility to fight unjust laws, just like they have a moral responsibility to go to war, when that means rescuing the weak from evil. There is no "only following orders/rules" excuse for allowing evil, and things like allowing yourself to be disarmed have historically led to evil.

Quote:I don't personally own a gun, but I don't look at someone's desire to own a gun as an immoral choice. He/she is using it for protection; but there are many people who wish to harm others, and obtaining a gun is a way that they can accomplish that. But, that doesn't mean that guns are inherently bad, they're rather amoral since they're an inanimate object. Like a sword, like a knife, like poison, etc...if someone wishes to harm others, a gun isn't the only tool to carry it out.

Personally, I'd rather be shot than attacked with acid.

Quote:Calling gun ownership a ''God-given right,'' isn't an accurate portrayal of Scripture relating to self protection. Gun ownership, or owning any weaponry at all, has nothing to really do with God, in terms of God approving or disproving. Again, it's about personal choice, and God allows for that as far as Christianity teaches. If a person sins through the use of owning a gun or any weapon, that is where one's relationship with God would be in jeopardy, unless he/she asks for forgiveness and repents. But, that statement (''God-given right'') sounds like God ''ordained'' weapon ownership according to the Bible, and that would be misinterpreting Scripture, I think. The Bible simply states that we have a ''right'' to self-defense, whether it is through war, individual protection, etc...but, only if we so choose to. God doesn't enforce the use of weaponry for self-protection, but he also doesn't forbid it.

The Bible tells us that we are created in the image of god and that our bodies are the temple of god. That implies a value and responsibility to protect life. You have a god-given right to life and a responsibility for said life. But yes, how you chose to protect it is your own to determine. You have the god-given right to protect life with a gun, whether or not you exercise that right. Just like you have a right to move around or own property, whether or not your choose to.

"Can" doesn't imply "must".