The Bible, this article argues, does not equate faith with leaving people defenseless. From Israel’s organization after the Exodus to Jesus’ final instructions to his disciples, it says, Scripture treats the ability to protect oneself as a normal part of responsible life.
In Numbers 1, God tells Moses to count Israel’s men aged 20 and older who are fit for battle. The census records 603,550 men of fighting age. The article describes this not as a permanent professional army, but as a community of men organized by tribe and family who could take up arms when danger arose and return to their work when it passed.
It also draws a comparison with the Second Amendment’s reference to a “well-regulated militia.” In a 1788 sermon, Samuel Langdon, a former Harvard president and a delegate to New Hampshire’s constitutional convention, pointed to ancient Israel’s political and military structure as a model for the new American states. He referred to Israel’s armed forces as a militia.
“Fight for your brethren”
The sword, mentioned hundreds of times in the Old Testament, was a practical means of defending the community, the article says. Its use was generally aimed at protecting the people and what they had been given, rather than pursuing violence for its own sake.
The same idea appears in Nehemiah 4, when workers rebuilding Jerusalem’s wall face threats. Nehemiah urges them not to be afraid and to fight for their families and homes. Some stand guard with weapons while others continue building, and the workers keep their swords close as they labor. The passage presents defense as part of rebuilding and protecting the community.
The article also points to the law in Exodus 22, which distinguishes between killing a burglar who breaks in at night and killing one encountered in daylight. It interprets the difference as a matter of immediate danger: darkness may make it harder to identify the intruder or use a lesser form of force, while daylight can allow for other responses. On this reading, force should depend on the seriousness and immediacy of the threat, not on revenge or property alone.
Two swords
The New Testament, the article contends, does not overturn this pattern. In Luke 22, Jesus tells his disciples that anyone without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. When they show him two swords, he says they are enough. Some medieval Christians, including members of the Templars and Hospitallers, interpreted the passage as supporting the use of weapons against physical threats as well as spiritual ones.
The article rejects interpretations that treat Jesus’ words as purely metaphorical. It argues that meekness means strength held in check, not simple passivity, and says that religious leaders should not leave those in their care without protection.
At Jesus’ arrest, Peter uses one of the swords and cuts off a servant’s ear. Jesus heals the man and tells Peter to put the sword away, explaining that he must accept the cup given to him by his Father. The article reads this as an instruction for that particular moment, when Jesus was going to the cross, rather than a general ban on weapons.
It also connects self-defense with Jesus’ teaching that the greatest love is to give one’s life for friends. In the article’s view, that sacrifice means taking risks to save others, not allowing a threat to continue unchecked. A defender who dies without stopping the danger, it argues, may leave the people he meant to protect exposed.
A God-given right
The article argues that Christians should take real threats seriously and prepare to protect their families and communities. It describes biblical self-defense as deliberate and restrained: protective rather than aggressive, proportionate to the danger, and sometimes necessary before an attack if a threat is clearly imminent. It also criticizes forms of Christianity that, in its view, overlook dangers or excuse conduct it considers sinful.
It presents the Second Amendment as a recognition of what it calls an ancient, God-given right to defend life, family, and liberty. Government may serve that purpose, the article says, citing Romans 13:4, but only when it works for what is objectively good. If government fails in that role or becomes a threat itself, the article argues, people retain both the responsibility and the means to protect themselves.
The article sees a common message in the census in Numbers, the armed builders in Nehemiah, the law in Exodus, and Jesus’ words about swords: the right to bear arms does not originate with the state. In a 1788 pamphlet, Massachusetts patriot Mercy Otis Warren similarly called self-defense a basic law of nature and argued that no later social law could erase it. Arms, the article concludes, have long been understood as an ordinary means by which people can resist destruction.
