What Does The Bible Say About Gun Control?
By Larry Pratt



Home   |   2nd Amend Secures an Individual Right    |   Scholarship on Right to Arms

History of 2nd Amend   |   Embarrassing 2nd Amend    |   Death by Gun Control
   Rep Otis Pike Battles NSA   |     Military Wisdom    |   Bible on Guns     |   Short Story    |   Sad SNAFU
Poo-Poo Privacy   |   Spying on Congress    |   Stop Mass Surveillance    |   Notez

The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view? 

Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning—in Genesis 4. In this chapter, we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.

Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain’s heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.

God’s response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Gen. 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons.


Did Christ Teach Pacifism?

Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite  (Matt 5:38-39) for their proof. In this verse Christ said: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”

The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the civil government—that is, taking vengeance—was also proper for an individual.

Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace.  Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount,  Christ used this same  “you have heard it said”  figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the time.

Contrast this to Christ’s use of the phrase “it is written” when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil’s lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: “it is written”).

To further underscore the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders on their teaching that “an eye for an eye” applies to private revenge, consider that in the same sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. . .” (Mt. 5:19). Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self-defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible. Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself, for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments.

The reference to “an eye for an eye” was taken from Exodus 21:24-25, which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime. Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. The religious leaders of Christ’s day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge.

The Bible distinguishes clearly between the duties of the civil magistrate (the civil government) and the duties of an individual. Namely, God has delegated to the civil magistrate the administration of justice. Individuals have the responsibility of protecting their lives from attackers. Christ was referring to this distinction in the Matthew 5 passage. Let us now examine in some detail what the Scriptures say about the roles of civil government and of individuals.

Both the Old and New Testaments teach individual self-defense, even if it means taking the assailant’s life in certain circumstances.


Self-Defense in the Old Testament

Exodus 22:2-3 tells us: “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”

One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that a threat to our life is to be met with lethal force. After “the sun has risen” seems to refer to a different judgment than the one permitted at night. At night it is more difficult to discern whether the intruder is a thief or a murderer. Furthermore, the nighttime makes it more difficult to defend oneself and to avoid killing the thief at the same time. During the daytime, it had better be clear that one’s life was in danger, otherwise, defense becomes vengeance, and that belongs in the hand of the magistrate.

In Proverbs 25:26, we read: “A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.” Certainly, we would be faltering before the wicked if we chose to be unarmed and unable to resist an assailant who might be threatening our life. In other words, we have no right to hand over our life, which is a gift from God, to the unrighteous. It is a serious mistake to equate a civilized society with one in which the decent people are doormats for the evil to trample on.


Trusting God

Another question asked by Christians is, “Doesn’t having a gun imply a lack of trust that God will take care of us?”

Indeed, God will take care of us. He has also told us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments (Jn. 14:15).

Those who trust God work for a living, knowing that 1 Timothy 5:8 tells us: “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.” For a man not to work, yet expect to eat because he is “trusting God” would actually be to defy God.

King David wrote in Psalm 46:1 that “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” This did not conflict with praising the God, “Who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle” (Ps. 144:1).

The doctrine of Scripture is that we prepare and work, but we trust the outcome to God.

Those who trust God should also make adequate provision for their own defense even as we are instructed in the passages cited above. For a man to refuse to provide adequately for his and his family’s defense would be to defy God.

There is an additional concern to taking the position that “I don’t need to arm myself; God will protect me.”

At one point, when Satan was tempting Jesus in the wilderness, he challenged Jesus to throw Himself off the top of the temple. Satan reasoned that God’s angels would protect Him. Jesus responded: “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (Mt. 4:7).

It may seem pious to say that one is trusting in God for protection—and we all must—but it is tempting God if we do not take the measures He has laid out for us in the Bible.


Role of Civil Government

The Bible records the first murder in Genesis 4 when Cain killed his brother Abel. God’s response was not to register rocks or impose a background check on those getting a plough, or whatever it was that Cain used to kill his brother. Instead, God dealt with the criminal. Ever since Noah, the penalty for murder has been death.

We see the refusal to accept this principle that God has given us from the very beginning. Today we see a growing acceptance of the idea that checking the criminal backgrounds of gun buyers will lessen crime, but we should seldom execute those who are guilty of murder.

In Matthew 15 (and in Mark 7), Christ accused the religious leaders of the day of also opposing the execution of those deserving of death—rebellious teenagers. They had replaced the commandments of God with their own traditions. God has never been interested in controlling the means of violence. He has always made it a point to punish and, where possible, restore (as with restitution and excommunication) the wrongdoer. Control of individuals is to be left to self-government. Punishment of individuals by the civil government is to be carried out when self-government breaks down.

Man’s wisdom today has been to declare gun-free school zones which are invaded by gun-toting teenage terrorists whom we refuse to execute. We seem to have learned little from Christ’s rebuke of the Pharisees.

Nowhere in the Bible does God make any provision for dealing with the instruments of crime. He always focuses on the consequences for an individual of his actions. Heaven and hell apply only to people, not to things. Responsibility only pertains to people, not to things. If this principle, which was deeply embedded in the common law, still pertained today, lawsuits against gun manufacturers would be thrown out unless the product malfunctioned.

Responsibility rightly includes being liable for monetary damages if a firearm is left in a grossly negligent fashion so that an ignorant child gets the gun and misuses it. The solution is not to require that trigger locks be used on a gun to avoid being subject to such a lawsuit. Some might argue that this is nothing more than an application of the Biblical requirement that a railing be placed around the flat rooftop of a house where people might congregate. But trigger locks are to be used with unloaded guns which would be the same as requiring a railing around a pitched roof where people do not congregate.

Surely in protecting against accidents we cannot end up making ourselves more vulnerable to criminal attack, which is what a trigger lock does if it is in use on the firearm intended for self-protection.

The firearm that is kept for self-defense should be available in an emergency. Rooftop railings have no correspondence to the need for instant access to a gun. On the other hand, guns that are not intended for immediate use should be kept secured as a reasonable precaution. But to make the owner criminally or monetarily liable for another’s misuse violates a basic commandment of Scripture: “the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ez. 18:20b).


Self-Defense Versus Vengeance

Resisting an attack is not to be confused with taking vengeance which is the exclusive domain of God (Rom. 12:19). This has been delegated to the civil magistrate, who, as we read in Romans 13:4, “. . . is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”

Private vengeance means one would stalk down a criminal after one’s life is no longer in danger as opposed to defending oneself during an attack. It is this very point that has been confused by Christian pacifists who would take the passage in the Sermon on the Mount about turning the other cheek (which prohibits private vengeance) into a command to falter before the wicked.

Let us consider also that the Sixth Commandment tells us: “Thou shall not murder.” In the chapters following, God gave to Moses many of the situations which require a death penalty. God clearly has not told us never to kill. He has told us not to murder, which means we are not to take an innocent life. Consider also that the civil magistrate is to be a terror to those who practice evil. This passage does not in any way imply that the role of law enforcement is to prevent crimes or to protect individuals from criminals. The magistrate is a minister to serve as “an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Rom. 13:4).

This point is reflected in the legal doctrine of the United States. Repeatedly, courts have held that the civil government has no responsibility to provide individual security. One case (Bowers v. DeVito) put it this way: “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered.”


Self-Defense in the New Testament

Christian pacifists may try to argue that God has changed His mind from the time that He gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. Perhaps they would want us to think that Christ canceled out the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 or the provision for justifiably killing a thief in Exodus 22. But the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that this cannot be, because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb. 13:8). In the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi records God’s words this way: “For I am the Lord, I do not change” (Mal. 3:6).

Paul was referring to the unchangeability of God’s Word when he wrote to Timothy: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Clearly, Paul viewed all Scripture, including the Old Testament, as useful for training Christians in every area of life.

We must also consider what Christ told His disciples in His last hours with them: “. . . But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Lk. 22:36). Keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier—the equivalent then of a military rifle today.

The Christian pacifist will likely object at this point that only a few hours later, Christ rebuked Peter who used a sword to cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest in the company of a detachment of troops. Let us read what Christ said to Peter in Matthew 26:52-54:

Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?

In the companion passage in John 18, Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away and told him that He had to drink the cup that His Father had given Him. It was not the first time that Christ had to explain to the disciples why He had come to earth. To fulfill the Scriptures, the Son of God had to die for the sin of man since man was incapable of paying for his own sin apart from going to hell. Christ could have saved His life, but then believers would have lost their lives forever in hell. These things became clear to the disciples only after Christ had died and been raised from the dead and the Spirit had come into the world at Pentecost (see Jn. 14:26).

While Christ told Peter to “put your sword in its place,” He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what He had told the disciples only hours before. Peter’s sword was to protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not needed to protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings.

Years after Pentecost, Paul wrote in a letter to Timothy: “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” (1 Tim. 5:8). This passage applies to our subject because it would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one’s family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property. Likewise, it would be absurd not to take, if necessary, the life of a nighttime thief to protect the members of the family (Ex. 22:2-3).

A related and even broader concept is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Christ had referred to the Old Testament summary of all the laws of the Bible into two great commandments: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself’” (Lk. 10:27). When asked who was a neighbor, Christ related the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:30-37). It was the Good Samaritan who took care of the mugging victim who was a neighbor to the victim. The others who walked by and ignored the victim’s plight were not acting as neighbors to him.

In the light of all we have seen the Scriptures teach to this point, can we argue that if we were able to save another’s life from an attacker by shooting the attacker with our gun that we should “turn the other cheek instead”? The Bible speaks of no such right. It only speaks of our responsibilities in the face of an attack—as individual creatures made by God, as householders or as neighbors.


National Blessings and Cursings

The Old Testament also tells us a great deal about the positive relationship between righteousness, which exalts a nation, and self-defense. It makes clear that in times of national rebellion against the Lord God, the rulers of the nation will reflect the spiritual degradation of the people and the result is a denial of God’s commandments, an arrogance of officialdom, disarmament, and oppression.

For example, the people of Israel were oppressed during the time of the rule of the Judges. This occurred every time the people apostatized. Judges 5:8 tells us that, “They chose new gods; then there was war in the gates; not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel.”

Consider Israel under Saul: The first book of Samuel tells of the turning away of Israel from God. The people did not want to be governed by God; they wanted to be ruled by a king like the pagan, God-hating nations around them. Samuel warned the people what they were getting into—the curses that would be upon them—if they persisted in raising up a king over themselves and their families. Included in those curses was the raising up of a standing, professional army which would take their sons and their daughters for aggressive wars (1 Sam. 8:11).

This curse is not unknown in the United States. Saul carried out all the judgments that Samuel had warned the people about. His build-up of a standing army has been repeated in the U. S., and not just in terms of the military, but also the 650,000 full-time police officers from all levels of civil government.

Saul was the king the Israelites wanted and got. He was beautiful in the eyes of the world, but a disaster in the eyes of the Lord. Saul did not trust God. He rebelled against His form of sacrifice unto the Lord. Saul put himself above God. He was impatient. He refused to wait for Samuel because God’s way was taking too long. Saul went ahead and performed the sacrifice himself, thus violating God’s commandment (and, incidentally, also violating the God-ordained separation of duties of church and state!).

Thus was the kingdom lost to Saul. And, it was under him that the Philistines were able to defeat the Jews and put them into bondage. So great was the bondage exerted by the Philistines: “Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, ‘Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears.’ But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen each man’s plowshare, his mattock, his ax, and his sickle. . . . So it came about, on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan. . .” (1 Sam. 13:19-20, 22-23).

Today, the same goals of the Philistines would be carried out by an oppressor who would ban gunsmiths from the land. The sword of today is the handgun, rifle, or shotgun. The sword control of the Philistines is today’s gun control of those civil governments that do not trust their people with guns.

It is important to understand that what happened to the Jews at the time of Saul was not unexpected according to the sanctions spelled out by God in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. In the first verses of those chapters, blessings are promised to a nation that keeps God’s laws. In the latter parts of those chapters, the curses are spelled out for a nation that comes under judgment for its rebellion against God.  Deuteronomy 28:47-48 helps us understand the reason for Israel’s oppression by the Philistines during Saul’s reign:

Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of all things; and He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you.

The Bible provides examples of God’s blessing upon Israel for its faithfulness. These blessings included a strong national defense coupled with peace. A clear example occurred during the reign of Jehoshaphat. 2 Chronicles 17 tells of how Jehoshaphat led Israel back to faithfulness to God which included a strong national defense. The result: “And the fear of the Lord fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were around Judah, so that they did not make war against Jehoshaphat” (2 Chr. 17:10).

The Israelite army was a militia army (Num. 1:3ff.) which came to battle with each man bearing his own weapons—from the time of Moses, through the Judges, and beyond. When threatened by the Midianites, for example, “Moses spoke to the people saying, ‘Arm some of yourselves for the war, and let them go against the Midianites to take vengeance for the Lord on Midian’” (Num. 31:3). Again, to demonstrate the Biblical heritage of individuals bearing and keeping arms, during David’s time in the wilderness avoiding capture by Saul, “David said to his men, ‘Every man gird on his sword.’ So every man girded on his sword, and David also girded on his sword” (1 Sam. 25:13).

Finally, consider Nehemiah and those who rebuilt the gates and walls of Jerusalem. They were both builders and defenders, each man—each servant—armed with his own weapon:

Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built (Neh. 4:17-18).



The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution is consistent with the lessons of the Bible. Instruments of defense should be dispersed throughout the nation, not concentrated in the hands of the central government. In a godly country, righteousness governs each man through the Holy Spirit working within. The civil government has no cause to want a monopoly of force; the civil government that desires such a monopoly is a threat to the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens.

The assumption that only danger can result from people’s carrying guns is used to justify the government’s having a monopoly of force. The notion that the people cannot be trusted to keep and bear their own arms informs us that ours, like the time of Solomon, may be one of great riches, but is also a time of peril to free people. If Christ is not our King, we shall have a dictator to rule over us, just as Samuel warned.

For those who think that God treated Israel differently from the way He will treat us today, please consider what God told the prophet Malachi: “For I am the Lord, I do not change. . .” (Mal. 3:6).

Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America (315,000 membership, June 2000), has held elective office in the state legislature of Virginia and is an elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Gun Owners of America can be found on the web at  

             Keep and Bear Arms


  Top of Page




    Ancient Hebrew Militia Law

    David B. Kopel

The American Founders were assiduous students of history. While the well-educated among them read Roman and Greek history in the original languages, some history was well-known by almost everyone, namely the Bible. New Englanders intensely self-identified with ancient Israel—from the first days of settlement in early 17th century (Israel in the wilderness) to the days of the American Revolution, when New England’s “black regiment” of clergymen incited the Revolution as a religious duty, and described the thirteen American colonies as the modern version of the twelve confederate tribes of Israel.[1] Thus, ancient Hebrew militia law is part of the intellectual background of the American militia system, and of the Second Amendment.

The twelve tribes of Israel were first “numbered” and organized into military units as they left slavery in Egypt. Because the census was for military purposes, it counted every male “from the age of twenty years up, all those in Israel who are able to bear arms.”[2] All able-bodied men aged twenty and over were obliged to fight,[3] to go forth “armed to battle.”[4] Men who failed this duty “sinned against the Lord.”[5]

The Book of Deuteronomy (the second law) is the last book of the Torah (also known as the Pentateuch). Deuteronomy provided generous exemptions from militia service: anyone who had built a new house but not yet dedicated it, or who had planted a vineyard but not eaten of it, or who was betrothed but who had not consummated his marriage, or who had been married for less than one year.[6]

A modern Conservative Jewish version of the Pentateuch with commentary, the Etz Hayim, observes that the exemptions protected anyone whose death in battle would be especially unfortunate. But why do they not rely on God to prevent tragic death? Although God may work miracles, protecting the righteous from harm, we may never force God’s hand by demanding a miracle—putting good people in danger and expecting God to protecting them. We cannot ignore our obligations to make the world a safer and more just place by depending on God to set things right.[7]

The “fearful and fainthearted” were also excused, lest they depress the morale of the willing.[8] This last exemption was militarily sound: a few faint-hearted people who fled might set off a panic causing the whole army to flee. A broken army, fleeing away in fear, would likely be slaughtered by its pursuing foes.

The exemption pre-figures James Madison’s proposal that the Second Amendment include a clause allowing conscientious objectors to pay a fee in lieu of service. The Senate removed the clause, under the theory that excuse from militia service ought to be a matter of legislative grace, rather than constitutional right.[9] Even so, American militia laws, like draft laws for the standing army, have often included provisions for conscientious objectors.[10]

Israel’s military system was “based on the duty of every able-bodied male to bear arms and serve.”[11] Israel relied on a militia, in which citizen soldiers would spend most of their time cultivating their farms, or engaged in other economic production, and would fight only for limited periods (ideally, after the harvest), and only when necessary.[12]

Similarly, during the American Revolution, most men served in their state militias, rather than the Continental Army. Thus, they were most able to keep their farms in production, and other economic activity in progress. This was an important reason why the United States was able to economically sustain a war that lasted eight years.[13]

Another purpose of the Hebrew militia system was the decentralization of power, for the preservation of liberty. The Etz Hayim explains:

Deuteronomy does not intend that the Israelites maintain a standing army, at least not one of any significant size. Instead, they are to have a civilian army, or militia, mobilized at times of need and commanded by officers appointed for the occasion. Reliance on a militia rather than a standing army for military needs is another example of Deuteronomy’s dispersal of power among different officials.[14]

In Battles of the Bible, Chaim Herzog (a former President of Israel) and Mordechai Gichon (a professor of military history at Tel Aviv University) summarized how the militia system preserved popular participation in the government:

[T]he people in arms formed the national assembly of initially sovereign peoples . . . . [A]ncient Jewish society, even in the heyday of monarchy, never gave way to absolutism. The “people” always remained, directly and indirectly, a body with influence on the affairs of state. This fact was instrumental not only in the preservation of the people in arms as the mainstay of the Israelite armed forces until the destruction of the First Temple [586 B.C.] . . . but also in the apparent readiness of the Israelites to bear the constant burden of military preparedness.[15]

Similar concerns are pervasive in the ideology of the American right to arms, including the Second Amendment, and its many state constitution analogues: No government should have a monopoly of force; a well-regulated militia can deter or fight either foreign or domestic tyrants.[16]

The Old Testament (which is the entire Jewish Bible, or Tanakh) specified the proper and lawful conduct of war in great detail. Before battle, the priest must exhort the militia, “Hear, O Israel, you are approaching the battle against your enemies today. Do not be fainthearted. Do not be afraid, or panic, or tremble before them, for the Lord your God is the one who goes with you, to fight against your enemies, to save you.”[17]

The Book of Deuteronomy detailed how sieges were to be conducted. During the period covered by the Old Testament, war anywhere in the Middle East was fought to the death. The Old Testament required that a besieged city be offered a chance to surrender. If the city refused, and if the attackers took the city, then all the city’s men would be slain, in some cases, all the women and children too.[18] Likewise specified was how to divide the spoils of war.[19] There were even instructions for military hygiene.[20]

Centuries later, Greek influences made the conduct of war more humane. For example, the original text of Deuteronomy did not specify the causes for which the Israelites might war against a city, but the Jewish legal scholar Philo of Alexandria added an interpretive gloss, requiring that that the city must first be offered an opportunity to ally with the Israelites. Deuteronomy had forbidden the Israelis to cut down fruit trees near the besieged city in order to build siege engines; Philo added a rule against ravaging cropland.[21]

If Western Civilization can be said to be founded on two pillars of “Athens and Jerusalem,”[22] the Jewish pillar matches the Greek pillar in recognizing the importance of an armed people in preserving liberty through service in a militia of all free and able-bodied men.[23]


       [1].     See David B. Kopel, The Religious Roots of the American Revolution and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 17 J. on Firearms & Pub. Pol’y 167 (2005).

       [2].     Numbers 1:2–4. The translation is from Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary 82 (David L. Lieber sr. ed., 2001). The King James Version, the most popular Protestant translation, less elegantly refers to men “able to go forth to war.”

       [3].     Numbers 26:2–4.

       [4].     Id. at 32:29.

       [5].     Id. at 32:23. Hebrew law was pervasively concerned about limiting contact with dead bodies, and about temporarily isolating persons who have had such contact. This included enemies slain in battle. See Numbers 31:19–24 (persons killed in battle); 9:6–10 (touching a dead body), 19:11–16 (dead person); Leviticus 5:2 (carcass of an unclean animal), 11:24–40 (carcass of any animal); Deuteronomy 14:8 (dead carcass); Haggai 2:13 (clothing and food of a person who has touched a dead body are unclean).

       [6].     Deuteronomy 20:5–9, 24:5.

       [7].     Etz Hayim, supra note 2, at 1102–03 (commentary on Deuteronomy 20:5–9). Conservative Judaism is one of the three major Jewish sects. It stands in-between Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism in its adherence to tradition.

       [8].     Deuteronomy 20:8; Judges 7:2–3; 1 Maccabees 3:56. See also Philo of Alexandria, On the Virtues, in The Works of Philo, 642 (C.D. Yonge trans., Hendrickson Pub. 1993) (“And, above all, he exempts all those who are alarmed or cowardly, as they would be likely to be taken prisoners by reasons of their innate effeminacy, and to cause fear to rest who were fighting alongside of them . . . .”).

       [9].     Stephen P. Halbrook, The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms 275 (2008).

     [10].     See, e.g., Michael S. Satow, Conscientious Objectors: Their Status, the Law and its Development, 3 Geo. Mason U. C.R. L.J. 113 (1992).

     [11].     Chaim Herzog & Mordechai Gichon, Battles of the Bible 37 (London, Greenhill Books 2002) (1978).

     [12].     E.g., T.R. Hobbs, A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament 71-72 (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989). See also Etz Hayim, supra note 2, at 1101 (commentary on Deuteronomy 20:1–9); Nicholas J. Johnson, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary & Michael P. O’Shea, Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy 164–65 (2012).

     [13].     Johnson et al., supra note 12.

     [14].     Etz Hayim, supra note 2, at 1101 (commentary on Deuteronomy 20:1–9).

     [15].     Herzog & Gichon, supra note 11 at 37.

     [16].     E.g., The Federalist No. 46 (James Madison).

     [17].     Deuteronomy 20:3–4 (New American Standard Bible) (internal quotations omitted).

     [18].     Deuteronomy 20:10–14; Numbers 31:6–18; Joshua 6:17–25; 8:25–26; 11:14.

     [19].     Numbers 31:53; Joshua 6:17–19, 7:21–25; 1 Samuel 30:20–25 (first formal law on the subject; allowing soldiers who guard the base camp to share equally in the spoils).

     [20].     Deuteronomy 23:9–14. See also Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 53–54 (Eliyahu Touger trans., 1989) (Positive Commandments 186–93) (oral law).

     [21].     Philo of Alexandria, supra note 8, paras. 219–29, at 638. See also The Special Laws, IV (De Specialibus Legibus, IV), in The Works of Philo, 638.

     [22].     See Leo Strauss, Jerusalem and Athens: Some Preliminary Reflections, in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 377–405 (Kenneth Hart Green ed., Albany State Univ. of N.Y. Press, 1997).

     [23].     Johnson et al., supra note 13, at 48–52.

References (6)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response: Results
  • Response: ACCA Subjects
  • The online supplement to the Denver University Law Review - DULR Online Articles - Ancient Hebrew Militia Law
  • The online supplement to the Denver University Law Review - DULR Online Articles - Ancient Hebrew Militia Law
  • The online supplement to the Denver University Law Review - DULR Online Articles - Ancient Hebrew Militia Law
  • The online supplement to the Denver University Law Review - DULR Online Articles - Ancient Hebrew Militia Law
  • Reader Comments (2)

    "Ancient Jewish society, even in the heyday of monarchy, never gave way to absolutism."

    The heyday of monarchy, under David's son Solomon, saw Solomon amass a tremendous treasure so vast that silver was not considered valuable. When Solomon -- the wisest man who ever lived (eclipsed only by our own President Obama and his satraps) -- died and his son Rehoboam assumed the throne, the reason for the vast wealth was revealed: onerous taxation.


    Rehoboam asked for advise. Instead of heeding the recomendations of the older guys who had worked actual jobs and knew how economics worked, Rehoboam listened to his young Harvard-, Yale-, and Columbia-educated theoretician-advisors who had never earned an honest shekel in their lives and instead of lowering taxes, raised them. "People, if you thought the previous administration was hard on you, just wait. My little finger shall be stronger than my father's arm!"

    This led to civil war. The glorious "heyday of the monarchy" lasted exactly two terms -- the last part of David's bloody and difficult rise to power (including rebellion by and the death of his son Absolom) through David's son Solomon.

    The people asked for tax relief from an out of control self-enriching out of touch national government headquartered in Washington DC, er, Jerusalem. The nation then split into two kingdoms -- Judah and Israel -- and the heyday was over as quickly as is started, leading to the worship of false gods including child sacrifice and eventual exile into slavery after every last stone of the former glory was torn down.

    Heckuva job, there, Obama, er, Solomon. You were handed the greatest of nations and ran it into the ground. As a later thinker noted, "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools."



    July 21, 2013 | Koblog
    This is an excellent analysis. Those interested in the humane conduct of war should also look at Deuteronomy's section, called Ki Tetze in the Jewish weekly system, starting at 21:10. That portion recites the rules for the treatment of women captured in war. The woman is brought into the captor's house, given thirty days to mourn her losses, required to remove all glamor related grooming and clothing, and is not allowed to be visited by her male captors. Only after thirty days may the captor see her. If he wants her he must marry her. If he does not want her he must release her as a free woman. The captor is not permitted to enslave her or sell her.

    This three and a half thousand year law is more humane and more sensitive than the way war is conducted today in most of the world.




       Top of Page