Army. What do you think of when someone says army?
Duh, camo of course.
Camo
is a universal symbol of the Army. All over the world, almost every nations' military uniform is some knockoff of some type of camouflage.
Unless you are a hunter or an outdoorsy person, camo has a sole link to the armed forces of our particular nation.
The Army. We sorta take it for granted, don't we? It's there, it's camo, and it keeps us safe and other nations in line.
What I am about to say, is going to be rather shocking, for several reasons.
One, probably because you may have never even heard of this debate before. I only heard about it through studying the revolution and the papers and debates that were flying around at the time.
Two, my dad is is the army.
So are you ready for the shock? Brace yourselves......
Is having an army Biblical?
You just got a really confused look on your face.
It went like this.
"Huh? Of course it is, I mean, Israel had an army, King David had an army, God told them to have an army. Of course its Biblical!"
Well, were gonna take three steps back and look at this thing from a different angle. To start properly, we have to go all the way back. That's right, Old Testament.
Back before Man sinned, there was no army. *Rolling eyes* Obviously, since there was nobody needing protection for any bad-guys, since bad-guys didn't exist, there was no need of an army to protect anybody.
Ok, now we have run into a undefined term that we had better straighten up. What's an army?
Here's the 1828 dictionary on that.
1. A collection or body of men armed for war, and organized in companies, battalions, regiments, brigades and divisions, under proper officers. In general, an army in modern times consists of infantry and cavalry, with artillery; although the union of all is not essential to the constitution of an army. Among savages, armies are differently formed.
2. A great number; a vast multitude; as an army of locusts or caterpillars. Joel 2:25.
Ok, now the 1913 version.
| Army (army) |
|---|
| n. | ((?)) |
|---|
| Ar"my |
| [F. armée, fr. L. armata, fem. of armatus, p. p. of armare to arm. Cf. Armada.] |
- A collection or body of men armed for war, esp. one organized in companies, battalions, regiments, brigades, and divisions, under proper officers.
- A body of persons organized for the advancement of a cause; as, the Blue Ribbon Army.
- A great number; a vast multitude; a host.
Ok, well, that helps a little bit.
A collection of men, all got together to fight - put in layman terms.
Ah, but notice that last line of the 1913.
Standing army, a permanent army of professional soldiers, as distinguished from militia or volunteers.
Ok, keep that in the back of your mind as we go back to the Old Testament.
The first time you hear of God's people having or being in an army, as far as I can tell, is when the Israelites were leaving the Egypt for the Promise land.
Since they had an army, and God told them to have it, we are going to assume that having an "Army" is Biblical.
Great! So then what's the debate? We just determined that an army is Biblical, didn't we?
The great debate is over the nature of said Army.
Huh?
Ok, I know I am really starting to confuse you, but hear me out. Let's keep going in our study of the OT.
So, Israel had an army. What did that army look like?
Well, if you read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and the like, their "army" was not what we think of today (and I am not talking about weaponry).
Today's army is owned, operated, and ran by the government. The "Department of Defense" is our branch of the government that has the duty of maintaining our army, training our army, and making sure our troops are up to date on what they need to be to be a soldier.
The Israeli army was a tad different.
It was what would be called nowadays a "citizen militia". It was a group of people, who lived their everyday lives doing their everyday things, being whatever they were (butcher, baker, candlemaker, etc.) and when God called the signal, the butcher, the baker and the candlemaker all dropped what they were doing, grabbed up their swords, organized themselves, went wherever God told them to go, and whopped the pants off whoever God had pitted them against.
That's about all there was to it. They got categorized by tribe and family, but besides that, there wasn't much else to it as far as I can see.
No formal training. No drills. No..... anything. Nowadays you sign up and you are a "soldier", owned by the government, and you are federal property.
Which one is right? Does it really matter anyway?
Well, it actually has more significance than one would first think. The founding fathers of this country realized the seriousness of this issue, and a great many debates that spanned close to ten years were had on the issue of federalization or antifederalization. Basically, it was a debate over whether we were gonna have a government that was ruled by officials, picked by the people, to make decisions, or were we gonna have a government of basically no officials, minimal regulations, keeping the people free, but having punishments for when people stepped outside of God's law.
One of the main debates was on whether or not America should have a standing army.
That right there is the whole key.
Standing army.
Up until then, America had had a " citizen militia", where everybody grabbed their guns and came out to fight to protect their neck of the woods, but every other nation they were up against had a standing army of trained, tried and true soldiers, looking down their gun-barrels at a "rag tag militia" as the Brits dubbed them.
Side note.
Take a gander at this (this is really cool). Israel was a militia, and all the nations they went against were standing armies of bigger, badder, more heavily armed, trained troops.
America at the time had militia, and all the nations against them had bigger badder more heavily armed and trained troops. All the conflicts with colonial regulars (i.e. standing troops who lined up in field and tried to shoot the Brits before they shot them) failed, with few exceptions, rather miserably. Militia had the best record (as far as local militia defending their homes) of whipping the pants off the Brits.
Eventually, both countries (Israel and America) won.
*hmm* Makes ya wonder.......
Anyway, moving on.
The federalists said that a standing army, maintained and armed by the federal government was critical to the security of a nation. If they were to take on any decent sized opposition, a strong and trained standing army was the only way to success.
The anit-federalists said just the opposite. They said that a citizen militia, operated and ran by the people, was working just grand, and would do just dandy as the official defense of the nation.
"No free government under Heaven, with a well disciplined militia was ever yet subdued by mercenary troops."
Antifederalist Papers[3] John DeWitt IV[4] (1787)
The biggest problem the anti's had with the whole idea of a standing army, was that they knew what happens when a nation goes south. When political leaders in power want to make changes without the consent of the people, what do they do?
Look it up in the history of any nation out there. They send in government armed troops to make them do whatever the Government pleases.
This is what the anti's feared. If any state has ultimate power of the only source of protection of a nation, you are setting yourself up for tyranny and asked to be taken advantage of.
The Federalists said no, the government here would never do that, and if we don't have a standing army, we are gonna be slotched by the first big army that comes knocking on our door to try to take us over.
The two parties hammered at each-other for ages, but eventually the federalists won, and now, to this day, we have a standing army.
And, to this day, we know what will happen if we ever step out of line too far.
We will get our door kicked in and a whole squad of men armed with more guns and weapons that you knew existed will be taking you to someplace where you will be a little more manageable.
That is exactly why the anti's didn't want a standing army. They knew if the feds started to take over, they could get nowhere if the feds had no serious armed force to make the people who really weren't too thrilled with what they were doing, obey their tyrannical rule.
If the people had all the big bad guns, all the planes and tanks they pleased, with all the weapons and guns on them they pleased, do you really think a tyrannical government would want to pick a fight?
No, they are gonna shape up and fall back into their proper place. They don't want to pick a fight with somebody even remotely their size and strength.
But if the government controlled force, with more weapons and tactical gear than the common people are allowed to have, ever decides that it is going to do some dirty deeds, a people armed with measly handguns and a few tactical rifles and a shotgun or two, aren't gonna be much of a threat (or so they think).
If you think about it, that's exactly what Israel was up against. They were a citizen militia, every man over 20 a soldier when the need arose and not before, taking on bigger, badder, better trained armies, and winning.
Why?
Because God was with them. When God was fighting for them they won against all odds. When God wasn't with them, they flopped terribly.
God is the only reason anybody ever won any fight period, and yet we think if we merely entrench ourselves in enough guns and men who know how to use them that somehow we will be ok. I believe that no army of any size is a match for a group of men fighting for God and their families.
I believe that, based upon the Biblical example, and a few of the reasons above, that we should not have a standing army, there should be no restrictions on what weapons a normal man can and cannot own, and the only use of the militia would be to defend our homes and surrounding area from invaders who would end our life and way of living.
Radical? Yeah, unfortunately it is. Our country is so far off where it was, that even the "right wing" isn't very "right" anymore (pun intended). : D
The government hates the sound of a militia. To them, it means the end of their reign, and a threat to their power. They have basically the whole country under their control. They make jobs (or they say they do), they keep us safe, and they feed us (or all those who are on welfare programs). So when we rise up and say we are gonna be self-sufficient, and rule and take care of ourselves, we just threw down the glove to them.
However, it really doesn't matter if they get cranky at us does it? It doesn't matter if they are bigger, badder, and heavier armed. I mean, the Israelites were in the same boat weren't they? So were the early Americans. It all comes down to whether God is fighting on your side or not.
Now of course, there are objections to this idea. Most go along these lines.
"You'll be toast! You'll be killed! The trained army would whoop your pants off in the first fight! Besides, just saying that God is with you doesn't mean you can do anything you please and get away with it!"
Well, that's what little ole Israel thought as well, against all them big bad armies. But they won.
If God is on our side, what else matters? If God is for me, no brigade of tanks is a match for me and my .40. If God ain't for me, no army of tanks owned by me could win over someone else's .40. David took down (heavily armed) Goliath with a
slingshot.
It all comes down to if God is fighting for you or not. That was the only key to their victory in the Old Testament. Period. No tactics or weapons or soldiers made a scrap of difference to God's army, just so long as they were obeying God and following Him in their hearts.
That is the only way any fight anywhere can go well. The only way is to have God fighting for you.
Granted, I don't think that means we don't practice and train to the best of our ability to defend our family and home, but it isn't the focus and sole hope of victory. We have a responsibility to do our best, but the results are up to God.
I do want to make it clear though, that I mean
absolutely no disrespect to anybody who is in today's armed forces, or who fought to keep our nation free in our previous wars. Believe me, my dad is in the army, and I know what type of sacrifice it takes to do that. I take my hat off to them.
On the other hand, I also believe the only Biblical method of defending a country is a citizen based militia, organised and operated by the people. That means I believe that God fearing citizens be ready and trained to defend their home and family - not a force ran by the federal government.
If I were to start a militia, it would be only for the defense of my home and my immediate vicinity. Just like in the book of Nehemiah, each person worked on and defended the section of wall in front of his house. Some people want to start a militia and take out the capitol, or blockade Wall street, or some other offensive maneuver to try to turn this country around by force.
I believe only the Gospel can turn this country around, and assassinating political leaders that disagree with us isn't the way to go about it.
Anyway, I digress. I think America, or any nation period should have a citizen militia, NO firearm and weapon restrictions, and should defend their life and way of life from those who would end either or both.
Any thoughts? Drop a comment below and let me know what you think! I would love to hear it! Seriously!
.JPG)
