May a Christian Use Lethal Self-Defense?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
There seems to be a lot of people who believe that a Christian doesn’t have a right to self-defense against violent attacks. What does the Bible say about that?
In principle, God is not opposed to self-defense or using the physical handling of others to prevent or correct wrongs. Perhaps one of the most common examples is the discipline of children. “He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly” (Proverbs 13:24). Under the Law of Moses (Numbers 35) each family had an avenger that would be used in the case of someone committing violence against one of the family. These avengers were permitted to retaliate after a certain amount of violence was committed. This did a lot to deter crime, I’m sure. In Exodus 22:2 there is a passage that discusses self-defense at night. “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.”
Under the New Covenant, parents are to discipline children (Ephesians 6:4) but taking vengeance on others is explicitly prohibited. “Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). The punishment of criminals is left to government authorities (Romans 13:1-6). This notion of taking revenge also extends to personal disputes as well. The kind of revenge that Paul is discussing here is revenge that is motivated by anger. It is the attitude of getting “payback” that is being addressed. This doesn’t necessarily comment on what is to happen if a thief breaks into your house.
Some point to what Jesus said in Matthew 5:39, “But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Luke 6:29 states “To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either.” Jesus gave this teaching in the context of explaining what “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” meant. That expression had come to be interpreted as taking personal vengeance against others instead of what it was originally designed to mean, which was that the punishment should fit the crime and that one shouldn’t be overly punished for a crime. In other words, Jesus was teaching against taking personal vengeance against others. The passage doesn’t comment on how one should act were his life to be threatened.
Some point to Jesus’ statement to Peter in Matthew 26:52, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Peter was certainly seeking to defend Jesus, but the problem here is that Jesus’ life was not being immediately threatened. Jesus next said that he could call twelve legions of angels if he wanted to be defended, which meant that Jesus wanted his arrest to happen; He did not want the apostles starting an insurrection against the government for Him. I don’t believe that what Jesus said here has to do with personal self-defense.
Why did Peter have a sword with him to begin with? Jesus had told the apostles earlier that evening to buy swords. Luke 22:36, “Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” The apostles mistakenly thought that Jesus was talking about using them immediately and in verse 38, “So they said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them, ‘It is enough.’” What did this mean? I take it to mean that Jesus didn’t want them using swords right now, but after his death and resurrection when they were to take the gospel into the whole world, they would need swords to defend themselves as they were traveling. The Bible doesn’t explicitly discuss the concept of self-defense at length, but from what we know, a person is allowed to defend himself if his life were in jeopardy but for no other reason.