THE LAW OF NECESSITY
By Chuck Baldwin
February 28, 2013
NewsWithViews.com
Most of us are taught from childhood to respect and obey the law. On the whole, Americans are law-abiding people. This is only fitting for a nation that was built on the principles of law. Remember, at our core, this is supposed to be a “nation of laws, not men.” This is one reason that our Founding Fathers bequeathed us a republic and not a democracy.
Unfortunately, it has been over one hundred years since America’s teachers (both secular and sacred) have taught the principles of Natural Law. This has created a vast ignorance that has blinded people (especially Christian people it seems) from being able to properly understand, evaluate, and judge the law.
Our Lord plainly said, “The Sabbath (law) was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (law).” (Mark 2:27 KJV) This was stated in response to the criticism and judgmentalism of the Pharisees against Jesus and His disciples, who had picked and eaten corn on the Sabbath Day.
During that same discussion, Jesus reminded the Pharisees that David and his men ate bread from the Table of Shewbread in the Temple, which was a violation of the Mosaic Law. (Others had been slain by Jehovah for a careless, cavalier attitude toward the Sabbath and the Temple.) He reminded them of the priests who sacrificed animals on the Sabbath Day, which was considered by many to be a violation of Sabbath law. Jesus healed on the Sabbath Day, which the Pharisees and legalists of the time judged to be unlawful.
After a blistering condemnation of the Pharisees, Jesus asked them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life or destroy it?” (Luke 6:9 KJV) In other words, which was more important: doing good and saving life on the Sabbath, or strictly obeying the Law of the Sabbath and letting a man be harmed or even die?
Jesus made it clear that there are greater laws and lesser laws, that the Natural Law of saving life was a superior law to even the Law of the Sabbath. This law of nature can be called “The Law of Necessity.”
In the pursuit of liberty, and in the defense of life, David and his men sustained themselves with the bread from the Table of Shewbread. And not only did Jehovah not slay David and his men for doing this, the Lord Jesus praised them as an example of the greater law principle.
Here’s a question for you: as you walk along a lake, you notice a sign announcing a public statute that says, “No Swimming.” About that same time, you hear the screams of a little boy who had wandered in the lake and is now drowning. Do you obey the State statute that said, “No Swimming,” or do you violate the public law and swim out into the lake to save the little boy?
The Pharisees would say that you must obey the public law even if it means the little boy will drown. Jesus said the natural greater law principle prevails and you ignore the lesser law and go save the drowning lad. The greater law always defers to the provision and protection of human life. The lesser law ignores the divine principle of protecting life and demands unconditional compliance to human law–even if that law results in the death of innocent life.
Now, here is another question: would any of us condemn a man who ignored the law that said “No Swimming,” and swam into the lake to save the little boy? Think very carefully before you answer, because all over America, many people (including pastors and Christians) have developed a legalistic, Pharisaical philosophy regarding law that would indeed condemn the man who ignored the law that said “No Swimming,” and swam into the lake to save the little boy.
For example, all over America, certain states and local communities have enacted strict gun-control laws that would condemn a man for using a firearm in the defense of his home and family. There is more than one person sitting in jail today who was deemed a lawbreaker for doing just that. And now, there are legislators, senators, and a President and Vice President in Washington, D.C, who want to further deny everyone in America the right to self-defense by banning semi-automatic rifles.
Make no mistake about it: the semi-automatic rifle is the premier self-defense tool in the modern world. It is effective against the would-be felon, and even more effective against the would-be tyrant. To enact laws against the ownership and possession of semi-automatic rifles (yes, with large capacity magazines) is tantamount to condemning a man for ignoring the “No Swimming” ordinance in order to save the drowning boy. Plainly put: SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES SAVE LIVES–INCLUDING SAVING THE LIFE OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
It is at this point that we must point out the jaded philosophy and understanding that so many Americans (especially Christians) have regarding law. So many people seem to be completely ignorant of the natural principle of the greater law, or The Law of Necessity.
When governments pass laws that infringe upon people’s natural right to self-defense, they have become tyrannical; and no one who understands the divine principle of The Law of Necessity is morally obligated to submit to such laws–no more than a man would submit to the “No Swimming” law that would let the little boy drown.
Beyond that, pastors who teach that Christians must submit to these lesser laws in order to please God are no better than the Pharisees of old. Jesus detested the Pharisees’ asinine interpretation of Biblical law and plainly told them so. Likewise, no Christian should tolerate for one minute any pastor or religious teacher who would demand that they submit to any lesser law that infringed upon the greater law of the protection and preservation of life. Not for one minute!
The “higher powers” of Romans 13 do not constitute the “highest” power. All the laws of men are subject to the greater laws of God: the natural laws that were innately given to man at creation. Think about it: if the Law of the Sabbath, a law that was instituted by God, Himself, was inferior to the greater Law of Necessity–the natural law protecting and preserving life–how much more inferior is any law made by man?! To suggest that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 13, was demanding that Christians submit to every man-made law, no matter how contrary it ran to the divine Law of Necessity borders on blasphemy. And the pastors who teach such an absurdity are nothing more than modern-day Pharisees.
As the Pharisees would rather see a man crippled, or even die, than be healed on the Sabbath, so these modern-day Pharisees demand that people submit to laws that infringe on their natural right of self-defense, even if that means that people die as a result.
And remember, according to experts, firearms (including semi-automatic rifles) protect life and avert a crime (including murder) more than 2.5 million times a year. That’s over 6,800 times A DAY. Take away the right to keep and bear arms (including semi-automatic rifles) and those are lives that will be seriously injured or killed.
See this report, Guns Save Lives
It’s time pastors and Christians understand that breaking a lesser law in order to keep a greater law is no crime–and no sin! Benjamin Franklin may not have been a Biblical scholar, but he demonstrated a greater knowledge and appreciation for The Law of Necessity than most pastors in America today. He said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” And he was exactly right.
Abram obeyed the greater law when he pursued and “slaughtered” (Hebrews 7:1) the kings who had attacked his family and took his nephew Lot prisoner. That is found in Genesis 14. It is no coincidence that he received the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 15. Moses obeyed the greater law when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew. The New Testament says, “For he [Moses] supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.” (Acts 7:24, 25)
Moses’ fellow Hebrews were so steeped in bondage, they “understood not” Moses’ actions and actually joined with the Egyptians in condemning him as a lawbreaker. As a result, they spent an additional forty years in slavery. And ladies and gentlemen, if America’s pastors and Christians do not snap out of their spirit of legalism and bondage, this country is also headed for slavery.
Unfortunately, many pastors and churches would condemn those of us who refuse to submit to these unjust, tyrannical laws that would require us to surrender our semi-automatic rifles. They would call us lawbreakers. So what? As Jesus accepted not the condemnation of the Pharisees, you and I should not accept the condemnation of these modern-day legalists.
It is never wrong to obey the greater law; and it is never right to obey the lesser law that contradicts the greater law! And it doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam what the legalists and Pharisees think about it! Simon Peter and the apostles employed the same understanding when they said, “We must obey God rather than men.”
When it comes to disobeying a State law that says “No Swimming” in order to preserve the life of a drowning boy, or when it comes to disobeying a federal law that says “surrender your semi-automatic rifles” in order to preserve the lives of our loved ones, not to mention our communities and our freedoms, we, too, must obey God rather than men.
Of course, we Americans respect the laws of men, but only when these lesser laws do not contradict or infringe upon the greater law. This was commonly understood from Abraham and Moses to Christ and the apostles. It was certainly understood by America’s Founding Fathers. And it had better be understood by each of us now!
The book is due to be published very soon. It is possible that the first printing could be sold out before it is even printed. Orders are coming in fast! To pre-order this blockbuster new book, click here: Keep Your ArmsP.S. This column is based on a section of the new book that my attorney son and I are in the process of publishing: “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” Of course, the book contains a much more thorough exegesis of the subject than this column.
Chuck Baldwin is a pastor who was the Constitution Party’s 2008 presidential candidate. Currently, there is a draft movement urging Baldwin to run for the U.S. Senate in Montana in 2014 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Draft-Chuck-Baldwin-for-US-Senate-2014/152426481568819?ref=ts&fref=ts).

12 responses so far ↓
1 Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 2, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Hmmm Paulie, this tilts towards religion doesn’t it? I will make sure not to make the same mistake next time, as you said he does a lot of political (non-religious) commentary as well.
2 paulie // Mar 2, 2013 at 2:15 pm
It gets more into political stuff, since he gets into resisting gun laws (the “payoff” of the article), but I would have excerpted that stuff with a link back to the rest, rather than posting the whole thing with its extensive theological commentary.
I realize it can be a bit of a judgment call at times.
3 Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 2, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Ok.
4 paulie // Mar 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Just a suggestion for the future, I’m not too worried about it right away.
5 Deran // Mar 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm
What a bunch of illogical hogwash.
Signs telling people “No Swimming” will lead people to not save drowning children? Preposterous. I’d love to see a single legitimate citation of a situation where such a sign, or any sort of regulation or statute kept a person from saving another’s life because the saver did not want to violate a statute.
And the focus of Mr. Baldwin’s essay seems focused on the centrality of semi-automatic assault rifles:
SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES SAVE LIVES–INCLUDING SAVING THE LIFE OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
When the study he thens provides refers to all firearms, and not specifically assault rifles. Assault rifles are very expensive, in most households that own firearms people own pistols and hunting related single shot rifles, not AR 15s and such.
On the other hand, I hope the far right sticks to these sorts of antics because it will help keep their numbers down among the general public.
6 George Phillies // Mar 2, 2013 at 3:08 pm
There are actual numbers on how many plastic and wooden stock weapons semiautomatic and single-shot weapons are sold. They are with consulting.
7 Kleptocracy And You // Mar 3, 2013 at 1:11 am
USA has 5% of the world’s population and they consume SIXTY (60%) PERCENT of the world’s psychiatric drugs! A gun doesn’t kill anyone, it is an instrument used by very sick minded people sometimes to kill others.
Police the “proven” nuts and BIG PHARMA first before you even think about taking the modern day musket from the american citizen. RESIST the tyrants that want to take your freedoms away. Private gun ownership ensures the opportunity to RESIST!
The Truth !
MEGAMURDERERS: DEATH BY GOVERNMENT = http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
The Truth, weather you believe it or not, these people believe it and are in the process of implimenting THEIR policy !
“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.” – Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama’s chief foreign policy advisor
…it is now easier to kill a million people than it is to control them…. – Zbigniew Brzezinski
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds’ central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.” – Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton said Quigley was his mentor during 1993 Inaugural Address)
“The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England … [and] … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” – Carroll Quigley
“There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” – Carroll Quigley.
(Bill Clinton said Quigley was his mentor during 1993 Inaugural Address)
“…This regionalization (sic) is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of “one world government’….National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept…” – Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama’s chief foreign policy advisor
8 Riley Nelson // Mar 3, 2013 at 10:08 am
@7 Does every single one of your comments have to have several printed pages of unoriginal Bircher boilerplate and other such copy and paste junk attached to it?
9 Deran // Mar 3, 2013 at 2:12 pm
@7, May I suggest you talk to big pharma abt adjusting your meds. Or maybe just less coffee?
An AR 15 is a modern musket? Assault rifles cost what? $1500? How did muskets cost? And weren’t muskets avb for the American militias because they were used for hunting and safety? I know an AR 15 can be said to owned for safety, but not for hunting. I realize muskets were what all armies used in those days, so wouldn’t an equivalent be more like a machine gun? Are you suggesting everyone should own machine guns?
10 paulie // Mar 6, 2013 at 10:12 am
Assault rifles cost what? $1500?
Depends on make, model, condition, etc. You can get something pretty cheap which still works.
And weren’t muskets avb for the American militias because they were used for hunting and safety?
Muskets were used by the militias because they were used by the military. Hunting had little to do with it.
Are you suggesting everyone should own machine guns?
Only if they want to.
11 Deran // Mar 6, 2013 at 4:24 pm
@10 I’m not sure how you are defining muskets? I’m talking about a range of muzzle loading rifles common through out the world. And if military grade muskets were not common (although I know colnists in the proto-USA were allowed to purchase any manner of rifle they could afford. Because muskets were in broad and common use for hunting and protection on the white frontier.
In the begging of the colonist’s insurrection against the British they used what weapons they had on hand or could seize from the Brotosh. A steady supply of military grade muskets did not start filling the colonist’s aries until the French started helping us.
And as far as your comment about machine guns for all. I think you’re being contrarian? Years ago, before I was so blind, friends and I would go to Las vegas and among other entertainments we’d go to gun ranges where you could rent, and udner supervision, fire an authomatic weapon. It is an actual skill to be able to fire one without it going amok, let alone having control over your firing rate and direction. I can imagine intoxicated people wreaking carnage, by accident even, if they had a machine gun in their home.
I suspect the reason assault weapons will be abnned again is because too many people who are “2nd Amendmenters” will demand all or nothing. And they’ll end up with nothing. And I don’t want a total gun ban, but the all or nothing crowd alienate the general public, and then the public gets on the ban all guns bandwagon and were screwed.
12 Deran // Mar 6, 2013 at 4:25 pm
“And if military grade muskets were not common (although I know colnists ”
Should read:
And if military grade muskets were not common, I know colonists
Leave a Comment