Some preachers are advocating the “thou shall not kill” command as not retaliating even when one is confronted with a situation of being raped or murdered. The premise is that God does not permit man to kill one another as espoused in one of the ten commandments. At first glance, the command appears to be a sacrosanct mandate. Then later on in history, the chosen people of Israel were commanded to annihilate other tribes. It is all so confusing. A relatively simple issue such as this has never failed to evoke controversies and has been vigorously attacked. The dictates of the God of creation, who is supposed to be the God of love and mercy, doesn’t add up at all. Could it have been that God is schizophrenic?
Recent gun laws in the US stirred the nation that has been built on a foundation of freedom into a mammoth tussle between the gun-pros and the those against. The rationale for gun control is simple – people are getting killed by guns. Guns are the culprit, therefore ban the guns. Does it necessarily mean that if guns kill innocent lives, then banning guns will solve the problem? It is a classic paradox of logic that is not logical. It is the same simplistic “logic” that caused the Singapore government to ban chewing gums. Chewing gums had been a public nuisance because errant gum chewers stuck the used gums in public places and caused great annoyance. It is logical action yet that ban became a joke of the world. If banning chewing gums because gums are a nuisance is a joke, then by inference, banning guns because guns were used by some criminals to kill must also be a joke.
Did God contradict Himself by allowing a cardinal command that He instituted to be broken? This is not a theological question that requires a PhD in theology to answer. It may sound profound. But anyone with a clear conscience and mind should have no problem understanding the paradox. The answer is a simple matter of understanding “the letter of the law” as opposed to the “spirit of the law”. Many laws are transient, enacted at a time and place that is appropriate in order to uphold some principles. It is about the “means” versas the “ends”. When a child is less than eighteen years old, many jurisdictions have a law prohibiting consumption of liquor. Upon reaching eighteen, the law ceases to apply. The intent of the law is to protect the young at a time when the child needs the protection. The law does not contradict itself. The law is “perfect” for its intended purposes.
Some may still argue that the “grotesque” God sought to wipe out a whole world of “innocent” people in the days of Noah. It was an act that appears totally merciless. To this, dissenters must understand the raison d’etre of the laws and why God has to act “mercilessly”. The erroneous presumption is that man was innocent. But that was not the case. Evil was rampant then. Man were no longer “man” as they became hybridised with fallen angelic seeds. They engaged in all forms of sexual perversion. So much so that God “lamented” creating man, less the man Noah and his family who God deems “perfect” (not corrupted by angelic DNA – Genesis 6). The slaughter of all man was necessary to preserve the purity of God’s creation. If the arm and legs need to be amputated to save a man, that amputation is not necessarily merciless. Insofar as preserving life is concerned, it is an act of mercy.
The state of the world we live in now is not unlike the days of Noah. Corruption and evil is rife. Sexual perversion and violence is ubiquitous. Many societies are virtually lawless. God may be merciful and long-suffering. But that will not last forever. The same judgment rendered at the time of Noah will once again be imminent. Until man repents, merciful wrath is on its way.
Guns in the hands of righteous people can do no evil. It is not the guns that are evil. It is man. Guns did not murder, man did. The military is so heavily armed for the sake of “peace”. So should guns be banned? The answer is clear.
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.