The right of self-defense is ingrained in the American cultural consciousness. To be responsible for one’s own safety is a lesson we learned almost at the beginning, even before the Constitution and its oft-quoted Second Amendment was ratified. Of course, just because self-defense is an American position does not mean it is a biblical position. To help answer the question of biblical justification, Strength for Life recently produced a short video outlining the Christian case for using deadly force against a surprise attacker or invader. We were not surprised to find that Christians hold differing perspectives on the issue, more or less staunchly held. It is not necessary to answer every alternative view, since even the most sound biblical position has detractors. However, the concept of self-defense is a good exercise of our ability to think in biblical categories, and to distinguish those categories from each other. We must think not only biblically, but also carefully. To this end, let us examine a few objections to the idea that Scripture teaches the responsibility and right of self-defense.
One objection acknowledges that Scripture supports defending others. Proverbs 24:11-12 is a good example of this. “If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, ‘Behold, we knew it not’; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?” God promises to judge a person who had the opportunity to rescue a needy person from danger, yet chose not to do it. However (the argument goes) Christians should not be concerned with their own safety or protection, only that of others.
The flaw in this objection is believing we can separate our personal safety from the safety of others. Granted, it is possible to be attacked alone; however, how we fare in such an encounter directly affects those we are closest to. The classic self-defense passage is helpful here. God presents the scenario in Exodus 22:2-3 of a thief breaking into a house. If the intruder “be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him,” that is, no consequence against the homeowner defending his house. This scenario only directly affects the thief and the home’s protector. But is there not a family as well? In almost every case, there would be. The same is true for Jesus’ illustration in Matthew 24:43, where the household steward stands ready to prevent a thief from stealing from him: a house has people in it. Almost without exception, there is a third party to consider in self-defense scenarios. Even in those rare cases where there is not, the potential victim has a wife, husband, children, parents, and siblings whose lives are impacted by how they fare in a deadly encounter. Remember that the second greatest commandment is that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39). Not only is it loving to defend ourselves for the sake of those who depend on us, the truism that we love ourselves—that is, we are invested in our own good—is the measuring stick for how to love others. Similarly, the command for husbands to love their wives is supported by the obvious fact that “no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it” (Ephesians 5:29). It is contrary to Biblical categories to separate self-defense from defense of others. After all, who would tell a woman that it is her responsibility to protect her children from harm, but not her responsibility to protect herself from sexual assault? That is plainly nonsense, and advice no one would ever give. Instead, the Bible affirms a woman’s responsibility to protect herself (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). This is consistent with the biblical assumptions regarding self-defense not just for the sake of others, but for our own sakes as well.
Another objection begins by rightly asserting our responsibility to be Christlike. Jesus did not defend Himself at His arrest, trial, and crucifixion since His laying His life down was necessary for our salvation. Therefore, believers should be like Jesus and sacrifice our safety and lives for the good of others. This objection is easily answered. Yes, it is true that it was for our sake Jesus died. However, the analogy to self-defense stops at this point. Jesus did not die so innocent victims of evil-intentioned men might live. Rather, we were criminals and God was our righteous Judge. A better analogy is that we were to face a firing squad as justly condemned villains, and He took our place. That substitution for the guilty is very different from using force to protect the innocent or neutralize criminal evil to protect our own safety. Also, while a man should be willing to die to protect his family, that is not always his only option. In the matter of salvation, it was truly either we died, or Jesus died. Instances of self-defense have a wide variety of possible outcomes.
A third objection is that successfully responding with deadly force is unbiblical because to take the life of an intruder is probably to send that person to hell. However, deadly force is an established, biblically sanctioned tool that God has delegated to establish justice. Governments are given the power of the sword to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil (Romans 13:4).” For individuals, Exodus 22:2-3 limits that power to situations of surprise and immediate threat. The thief in that passage could only be lawfully killed in the act of stealing. However, once “the sun be risen upon him…he should make full restitution” and the homeowner cannot hunt him down in revenge. Self-government is a legitimate and God-ordained category; its use of the sword is limited but permitted. For every form of government, God does not prohibit using the sword on unbelievers. To charge governments with the responsibility to evangelize before carrying out punishment and war is to confuse categories. A man in a crisis moment of defending himself, his family, and his home is acting in the role of self-government, not in the role of evangelist, just like a police officer can only arrest for crimes, not for any biblically sinful behavior. Acting in self-defense does not make us responsible for the offender’s soul.
A fourth objection is that Jesus answered the question of self-defense when he spoke of turning the other cheek. What should a Christian do when he is attacked? Love his enemies. The problem here is that Jesus was giving instruction for how to handle personal humiliation, not the threat of bodily harm. A slap on the face is not intended to immobilize or incapacitate someone. Rather, the slap is intended to publicly shame and insult. The other examples Jesus used in Matthew 5:39-42—being forced to carry Roman armor or being sued for your outer garment—are actions that are intended or received as humiliating and shaming. In those situations, Jesus says, do not retaliate to protect your pride. Do good to those people, like God who “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). Scripture seems to define an enemy as someone who wants to ruin your reputation, make your life miserable, and disgrace you for your personal attributes or, especially, your faith in Christ. That is different from a criminal who ambushes you, breaks into your house, or assaults your family. A carjacker or street thief is probably not motivated by hatred for Christians. By contrast, to “suffer as a Christian” (2 Peter 4:16) is to be reviled and threatened, like Jesus was, because of His name. Of course, it is possible for a Christian to be ambushed or suddenly attacked because of his faith. If there is violence against Christians, it is probably a government, religious, or criminal organization that uses different tactics than the kind that require or allow for situational self-defense.
A fifth, final objection is that Jesus has removed violence from Christian conduct, because He was replacing the Old Testament’s focus on justice and vengeance with a gospel focus on grace. In response, a good rule of thumb is to beware of interpretations of Scripture that make the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament seem very different. “I am the LORD; I change not” (Malachi 3:6). A second response is to return to Matthew 5. When Jesus said to His audience at the Sermon on the Mount “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’. But I say unto you…” (Matthew 5:38-39) He was indeed correcting vendetta thinking, but only because the people had taken an instruction for magistrates (Leviticus 24:19-20) and wrongly used it as a principle for interpersonal relationships. In almost every encounter with people, Christians are to be longsuffering, generous, and forgiving. Should a thief break in, God has already given instruction for such unique circumstances.
The above article was written by Jonathan Kyser. He is a pastoral assistant at NorthStone Baptist Church in Pensacola, FL. To offer him your feedback, comment below or email us at strengthforlife461@gmail.com.
Every Tuesday, SFL publishes relevant Bible-based content. Check back next Tuesday to read the next SFL article.
More SFL...
As the standards for acceptable speech shift in the United States, Christians must be biblically informed about the responsibility to speak truth no matter what.
Comments