The recent case in New York about the defense of others on the subway will undoubtedly be politicized, and the laws will be abused for those purposes with no respect of persons but to discriminate wrongfully, trashing God’s ordained laws of justice. It would be quite remarkable if any just application of the law were found in this case.

The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution comes from the ancient biblical legal foundation of not treating persons differently in matters of law as a magistrate or juror. It’s respect of persons, which is not respect for persons. Respect for persons requires discernment and, yes, discrimination in the classical sense of the word.

Though not about firearms, the case concerns the defense of others, something every CCW should consider carefully and pray about. You must know the laws in your state about using deadly force to defend others. It’s biblical to protect those less able from unlawful harm of all forms by the use of arms or other means. If we are commanded to rescue our neighbor’s Ox from the ditch, how much more important, made in the image of God, is the defense of our less capable neighbor?

Here are two articles concerning the matter.

Defending Law And Order Is Social Justice

Rewriting the Parable of the Good Samaritan

The parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 is considered.

But first, as background, respect of persons in the Holy Bible applies only to law. It stems from Leviticus 19:15 and has nothing to do with outcomes of equality or equity among men and surely not forced results. See also Proverbs 24:23.

Proverbs 28:21 perfectly makes the application as to why any person representing the law of the land must show non-bias. “To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress.” What would a judge do for a bit of bread? Some areas of the world operate on “greasing the wheels.” Christendom was supposed to be different (Acts 24:26), but look no further than Congress receiving bread to bias the law, and here we are. There’s a reason money is sometimes referred to as bread and now you know why. Anyone in a position of authority is bound to this Bible truth and will be judged by the Almighty, including parents with their children, teachers, pastors, supervisors, civil leadership, business owners, etc. It’s the Law of God. And James 2:9 says failing to adhere is a sin.

Next, respect of persons in the law of salvation is considered. God is no respecter of persons; all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God by breaking His law and all will be judged rightly on that terrible day. But neither does salvation in Christ grant license to sin. Salvation in Christ is a judicial matter before the courts of heaven as to how you will make restitution to God for your transgressions against Him.

Romans 2:11 mentions respect of persons, and verses 12-16 explain why in God’s law, all men need Christ Jesus, both the Jew and Gentile: if you sin in the law (of Moses / 10 Commandments), you’re judged by that law and die in hell without Christ. If you sin outside the law of Moses (a Gentile), your conscience bears witness, through God’s law written on your heart, about your sin against Him; without Christ, you also burn in hell. That’s God’s law concerning soul salvation without respect of persons; you must have Christ Jesus, as your mediator before the Judge, by faith to enter into eternal life.

That’s how Jesus completed the law by making the final necessary offering, and that of Himself, to God so you might be found not guilty if you place your faith in His payment to God by believing His sacrificial death on the cross is sufficient to cover your sin debt. Christ rose again the third, proving He has the power to go to God for you as your intermediary, or great High Preist proclaiming you to be His by right of payment; by faith in Him, you make this covenant to become His purchased possession, a bondservant of the King, no more bound to death and hell, but an everlasting heir with Christ in the household of God. I say to you, my friends, it’s a far better gig than being trapped by sin under the law of either Moses or conscience; He says: “For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Much lighter than a life mired in the horrors of sin and its ever-worsening consequences and so much more, for liberty in Christ eradicates the law where men were bound to a set of rules they could never attain. Praise be to God.

Now, the precursive conversation that leads to Jesus’ parable and some application. Context is king. Understanding the parable correctly requires understanding its purpose. Here’s the beginning of the exchange between a lawyer and Jesus that sets the parable’s intent and meaning.

“25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” – Luke 10:25-28

So far, so good, but then comes the tempting in verse 29.

“But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?”

If your church skips discussing justification and goes straight to an explanation about who your neighbor is, I’ll caution that you may be in a liberal church. No man will justify Himself before God.

Remember, the question before us is one of law: be it the law of Moses or that which God wrote on your heart. The lawyer is confronted with a matter of Bible law from which comes our now-ending system of jurisprudence that began to mold and then guided Western Civilization since the Gospel went into Europe.

Next, this bit of commentary from the second link above (Rewriting the Parable of the Good Samaritan), though essentially right in its assertions, has glaring results of the dumbed downed churches in America.

“This was the story of a man who was robbed, beaten and left for dead. A priest and a Levite both saw the beaten man and walked past him, crossing to the other side of the street. But the Samaritan stopped to help the injured man, attending to his wounds, bringing him to an inn, paying the innkeeper to care for the injured man until he was well.”

I realize that article is about current events, but some necessary background would be helpful. Why did the Preist and Levite walk by, even crossing to the other side of the street? They were trying to follow the letter of the law and not become unclean by touching a sinner, getting blood on themselves, or helping a man that might die in their arms. Remember the context, Jesus is talking to a lawyer about Bible law. The Preist and Levite should have violated the immediate letter of the law concerning purification to save the man, then gone through the ceremonial tasks of making themselves “clean” again under the law. It would have burdened them more to take the time to separate themselves from family, fellowship, and work to be purified again than it would to have helped the man. They used the law as an excuse for not doing the right thing; beware the leaven of the Pharisees.

And finally, here’s the parable:

“30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.”

And Christ’s necessary final exchange with the lawyer whose question was, who is my neighbor?

“36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.”

It’s a merciful duty to defend yourself and others.

Concluding statements. Some states have had statutes on the books where a citizen must help somebody whose life is under threat, making it criminal to do what the Preist and the Levite did. That’s taking Jesus at His word and applying it seriously as a people, as it should be again. In post-Christian America, the law of Christ is fading fast. In much of Europe, it’s now illegal to defend yourself from murder, let alone somebody else under threat. That’s not at all Christian.

Atheists, Agnostics, and mushy Christians declare there is no need for God or His law in government or society; keep your religion private they demand. Look around at the darkening landscape: behold, injustice and violence in all quarters in the absence of the Law of God.

That’s some background to help you understand what’s at stake as a result of the recent event in New York on the subway and the case in Austin, Texas with Daniel Perry. The overall trend in Western law as America comes under judgment is an outright abuse of hundreds of years of Western jurisprudence by removing the biblical foundation of the law including that of having no respect of persons and considering rightly the duty of defense as a good neighbor in light of understanding proper application of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Baptist Standard:

ABILENE—Christians who advocate gun rights on grounds of self-defense have lost sight of the radical nature of Jesus’ message, a Hardin-Simmons University professor told a student-initiated forum on gun violence.

“Americans have a deep love of salvific violence, the idea that with the use of force—the use of deadly force—against the right kind of people, we can make things turn out OK,” said Rodney Taylor, assistant professor of theology at HSU. “I think the cross, however, says something very different. What we see in the cross is the overcoming of violence, not through resistance, but rather through trust in God.”

Speaking on “God and Guns: The Way of Jesus in a Violent World,” Taylor critiqued the argument of self-defense as a natural right by comparing and contrasting it to Christian beliefs about premarital sex. To non-Christians, a prohibition against sex outside marriage seems like a “strange command,” he noted.

“But there are a lot of other strange commands there that Jesus gives us that seem counterintuitive,” he said. “I think the problem with the natural right of self-defense is that it loses sight of the kind of radical message that we see in the gospel—this radical approach that Jesus gives us that is counterintuitive, that doesn’t really seem to fit.”

The reason it doesn’t fit is because it is nonsense fabricated entirely out of their minds rather than being found in the Bible.

We’ve covered this before in Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense.  There are at least a couple of problems with this forum and its pronouncements on guns.  First, professors in anything, those who have spent vast quantities of money and time in so-called “higher education,” want to believe that they’ve discovered something new, something exciting, something breathtaking, something no one has ever seen.

To get a little pointy headed here and diverge into a sidebar comment that few of my readers will know about (but these professors will), this is one of the features of the so-called new perspectives in Paul and N. T. Wright.  No one before him, he must necessarily believe, not Augustine, not Anselm, not Calvin, not Beza, not W.G.T. Shedd, not Hodge, not Dabney, and on the list could go, has gotten it right.  God left it to him to really explain what the apostle Paul was saying.  Everyone else in history was wrong.

Likewise for this forum, every other theologian was wrong about the justification (and even necessity and duty) of self defense.  This is quite an arrogant way to live and think, but academia is shot through with it.  The second problem is that this forum is comprised of progressive, contemporary theologians who believe in nothing much except the social gospel.  Thus, they want to correct or ameliorate broad, sweeping social ills not by preaching salvation by grace through faith to individuals, but by statist control over the collective.

This is easy, folks.  The sixth commandment controls us in this matter.  God forbids the opposite of what he enjoins, and He enjoins the opposite of what He forbids.  Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt save life.  These forum members would sooner allow their wives to be raped and murdered by home invaders than lift a hand to save the one God gave them to protect.  Or, they would fight to save their wives, making them to be liars, and worse, profoundly stupid liars because they chose to use one of the least effective weapons to defend the loved ones under their charge.

Take your pick.  Silently stand by and watch their wives be raped, or they become liars; not even they believe a word of what they have to say, and so you shouldn’t either.  And for the record, God has made no promise to save their wives in home invasions while they silently stand and watch.  Let’s make this even more visceral by quoting what I said earlier.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.

God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

And even more to the point, “If you believe that it is your Christian duty to allow your children to be harmed by evil-doers (and you actually allow it to happen) because you think Christ was a pacifist, you are no better than a child abuser or pedophile.”  So here is a challenge for the forum members.  Prove to me and my readers that your views don’t really mean that you wouldn’t save a child being harmed or your spouses being raped.  Prove to me that you’re better than a child abuser or pedophile?  And if you would act to save a life in this way, why would you choose a means that ensured your failure?