Christians and Self-Defense
Propositions Bearing on the Issue
Murder, mayhem, assault, and threat have never been more prevalent in America—at least not in a time of “peace.” The Civil War was bloody. Conflict between settlers and Indians was brutal. That was long ago. Today, we’re supposed to have a country governed by justly enforced laws respected by decent citizens who want the country to prosper. We’re supposed to be civilized. While that describes many, there are enough of the godless to make the rest of us realize violence could erupt anywhere. Perpetual danger is the new norm, with carjackings, home invasions, kidnappings, protester mobs, riots, gang shootings, drive-by shootings, road-rage shootings, school shootings, church shootings, theater shootings, mall shootings, political rally shootings. And things can’t get better while worldviews get worse. An unholy trinity of Muhammad, Charles Darwin and Karl Marx have foisted on us violent false religion, a godless view of mankind, and anti-human political theory that, between them, have captured most of the planet and make it a hazardous place to live. So, now, in the land of the free, Christians are forced to think about force.
Is self-defense an option? What can a Christian do within the bounds of what Scripture allows? Does God expect his people to be pacifists? What follows is an attempt at a systematic approach to the subject of self-defense (i.e. justified violence). This is not the last word; think of it as a conversation starter. The final authoritative word on the subject was penned two millennia ago when the Bible was completed. If we’re honest, thorough, and logical in Bible study, we should, ideally, all arrive on the same page regarding what it teaches. If we don’t, more study is called for, on one side if not both. Consider what follows a “thinking out loud” piece, a work in progress inviting you, if you can, to advance the study with your own biblically informed insight. The church needs good thinkers, and this topic grows relevant with each new horrific headline. We don’t want to allow anything the Bible forbids. Nor do we want to forbid anything Scripture allows. We want to be careful with the controversial, and especially a controversial topic that could involve loss of life. That said, I’ll state up front that I hold the pacifist view to be exceedingly weak, and a wonder that it ever garnered sizable influence.
Initial Definitions
Everett Ferguson defined “theology” as “rational reflection on the data of Christian faith” (Church History, Volume One, p. 123).
“Violence” (per merriam-webster.com) is “the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy”.
“Justified” (in our context) means a belief or practice that is authorized by God in the Bible for Christians today.
“Justified violence” would be the biblically authorized use of physical force that could result in another’s intentional injury or death.
The question is, does a Christian ever have God’s authorization in Scripture to use violence against another person(s) that could cause that person’s intentional injury or death? If this right exists, it should be able to be articulated coherently and underwritten by rightly applied Bible verses. Such would constitute a theology of justified violence. Or, put another way, it would be the biblical case for deadly force in self-defense.
On the Nature of God
“The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name” (Exod. 15:3 [all Scriptures taken from the ESV]).
If God is a God of war (cf. Deut. 4:34; Rev. 19:11-21), then war is not inherently evil.
God uses martial language throughout Scripture in description of himself, his people, and the conflict between good and evil.
God’s right to take human life does not itself imply man’s right to do so, but, if God has the right, God also has the right to delegate the taking of human life to men.
On the Nature of Deadly Force
“Violence” involves the use of force against another.
“Deadly force” involves violence against another that could result in loss of life.
“War” is violence between opposing forces on a large scale, usually prosecuted by governments, which violence may be justified or not (depending on circumstance). By definition, war entails deadly force.
“Capital punishment” is deadly force against an individual administered by civil government pursuant to judicial process (which may be just or unjust).
“Self-defense” is force against another (i.e. violence) in the interest of preserving the imperiled life of the one using force (which force may be justified or not, depending on circumstance).
Self-defense could be the needed response of an imperiled government, or an army, or a group of people, or a family, or an individual.
“Aggression” is: “1 a forceful action or procedure (such as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master… 2 the practice of making attacks or encroachments” (merriam-webster.com).
“Aggression” is not “self-defense” (our interest is the latter).
If a man could use justified deadly force in defense of his family, then a group of men could use justified deadly force in defense of their families (i.e. their community).
What is not inherently evil is potentially justifiable.
If war is potentially justifiable, and war involves deadly force, then deadly force is potentially justifiable (Note: To deny war is ever justified is to imply no country has the right to repel invasion).
If deadly force is potentially justifiable on the scale of war, then deadly force is potentially justifiable on a smaller scale, such as between opposing groups, or even opposing individuals (Note: If not, what principle would limit deadly force to broad application, while forbidding it for narrow application?).
If deadly force is never justified, that means the gospel of Christ requires that wicked, violent men should get to have free reign without any life-threatening opposition (e.g. suicide bomber, school shooter, carjacker, home invader, etc.). While having their own lives threatened, Christians would be obligated never to threaten the lives of the violent wicked. Who can believe that’s the way God set things up?
If men are obligated to submit to extreme violence because they have no God-given right to self-defense, then a Christian father who uses violence against a man violently attacking his family (while the attack is underway) needs to repent or potentially lose his soul for protecting his family.
If one grants that deadly force in self-defense could be justified, but only if used by government agents (e.g. police), on what basis is deadly force forbidden to non-government agents (e.g. law abiding civilians)?
If one grants that non-Christians might use deadly force in self-defense without sinning, but that Christians would sin in using deadly force in self-defense, that means God has two different laws of behavior for people (despite the fact that Jesus claimed his words would judge the people who rejected him [John 12:48]). One law for the world, and another law for the church, would imply the gospel is not Christ’s law for everyone.
On the Nature of Man
If anything is worthy of protection by the use of deadly force, it would, at minimum, have to include innocent human life made in the image of God (cf. Matt. 16:26).
Every natural instinct/need of man has a means of authorized fulfillment (e.g. hunger, companionship, shelter, clothing, sex, self-preservation, defense of others, etc.).
God did not create man with an instinct that is inherently sinful to exercise. If God had done so, then man would be perpetually obligated to live contrary to his own human nature. Said another way, it would be sinful for a human to act like a human.
For example, it seems inconceivable that God would give a parent the instinct to save his child from harm by others at all cost, but it be inherently sinful for the parent to exercise that instinct.
Or, for example, it seems inconceivable that God would expect a husband to love his wife to the extent of laying down his life in her defense (Eph. 5:25), but disallow the husband to use physical force in her defense (what would that even look like?).
If someone says that Jesus gave his life for his “bride” without any resistance, we reply that Jesus’ “bride” is metaphorical, and a spiritual institution (i.e. the church), whereas my bride is neither metaphor nor a spiritual institution (and, moreover, Jesus’ death was actually required for his “bride” to live, and Jesus is coming back to take his “bride” unto himself; thus, Jesus’ relationship to his church and my relationship to my wife have enough similarity for analogy, and enough disparity not to be identical).
People instinctively want justice (even vengeance) when a loved one is killed by another person. Knowing human nature, God specified “cities of refuge” (Num. 35) to regulate behavior in the aftermath of accidental homicide, which—though accidental—still carried stiff penalty (whereas intentional homicide demanded death in every case).
If God gives a man life, man has a God-given right to live, and a God-given right to life implies a right to self-preservation (at least, to reasonable measures to preserve one’s life or, by extension, to preserve the lives of others).
It is possible for a man to forfeit his right to life (murder being one means of doing so).
If murder is a deed for which a man forfeits his right to live, then his forfeiture would apply, not only after the deed is committed, but also while the deed is in progress (e.g. if John Wilkes Booth could have been justly executed after assassinating President Lincoln, then Booth could have been justly killed as he drew the derringer toward Lincoln’s head).
On Specific Scriptures
Gen. 9:5-6 — “And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. 6 ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.’” This God-given principle was codified prior to Moses’ law, incorporated into Moses’ law, and never rescinded after Moses’ law.
If Gen. 9:6 still applies, and if a man can forfeit his right to live by committing murder, then someone is authorized to execute the murderer and, if all mankind today are under one divine law, then a Christian could be that person authorized to execute the murderer.
Exod. 22:2-3 — “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” A home invader, in the act, could be justifiably killed on the spot by the homeowner (and, if this is true for a thief, how much more for an intruder bent on harming residents?).
Deut. 20 — If God authorized physical warfare in the Old Testament, and even regulated its conduct, then deadly force is not inherently evil.
Deut. 21:1-9 — “If in the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess someone is found slain, lying in the open country, and it is not known who killed him, 2 then your elders and your judges shall come out, and they shall measure the distance to the surrounding cities. 3 And the elders of the city that is nearest to the slain man shall take a heifer that has never been worked and that has not pulled in a yoke. 4 And the elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a valley with running water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley. 5 Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come forward, for the Lord your God has chosen them to minister to him and to bless in the name of the Lord, and by their word every dispute and every assault shall be settled. 6 And all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, 7 and they shall testify, ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it shed. 8 Accept atonement, O Lord, for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and do not set the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of your people Israel, so that their blood guilt be atoned for.’ 9 So you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from your midst, when you do what is right in the sight of the Lord.” God attaches great weight to innocent blood’s being shed, and expects that each case be handled. Unsolved homicide is no light matter, and can bring “guilt” to a land.
Deut. 22:25-27 — “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.” Notice that “rescue” is an implied obligation if someone is in position to provide it.
Jer. 2:34a — “Also on your skirts is found the lifeblood of the guiltless poor; you did not find them breaking in.” Implied is that the homeowner would be justified to shed the blood of an intruder.
Matt. 5:39 — “But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” In context, “Do not resist” involves mean people who might insult others, abuse others by the legal system, or take advantage of their position of authority. The requirement to turn the other cheek involves absorbing insult or non-lethal mistreatment (which is not analogous to saying, “If anyone spits on you, let him also shoot you,” or “If anyone wants to sex-traffic your oldest child, give to him your youngest also”).
Matt. 7:12 — “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” If it is right for me to want others (e.g. police, soldiers, etc.) to save me from harm (even by the use of violence), then it could be right for me to save others from harm (even by the use of violence). Conversely, if it is wrong for me to save anyone from harm by use of violence, then it is wrong for me to call upon others (e.g. police) to do what it is sinful for me to do. Jesus is stating a general principle to live by, not suggesting how savage criminal behavior should be handled.
Matt. 26:52 — “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’” It is true that those who use deadly weapons have a risk of perishing by them, but (1) it is not inherently sinful to perish by the sword; (2) innocent people have perished by the sword (Heb. 11:37); (3) righteous people who wielded swords have perished by the sword (e.g. Uriah the Hittite [2 Sam. 11]). If Jesus is stating a general principle that armed resisters may themselves be resisted with arms, the principle would certainly be true for Peter in the context of Jesus’ being arrested.
Luke 3:14 — “Soldiers also asked him, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ And he said to them, ‘Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.’” When, in response to John’s message to “bear fruits in keeping with repentance,” soldiers asked what they should do, John’s reply involved their relationship with money and abuse of authority—not their potential use of violence under orders (and he did not tell them to quit being soldiers [cf. it is inconceivable John would have told a prostitute to “be content with your wages”]).
Luke 7:9 — “When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, ‘I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.’” If a military commander’s job were inherently evil because it entails the prospect of using deadly force, then how could Jesus commend the faith of this Roman centurion?
Luke 22:36 — “He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.’” Given a sword’s purpose, Jesus’ instruction implies, at minimum, the justified use of deadly force in self-defense. In contrast to the “limited commission” among Jews, the disciples were about to be sent all over a dangerous pagan world, and Jesus tells them to arm themselves. Why hasn’t this verse gotten more attention? The apostles would be needing some money, supplies, a way to carry those, and a means of protection. In fact, Jesus indicates the apostles may even want to sell something so weapons can be purchased. If swords were not for potential deadly force, what were they for?
John 18:10 — “Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)” If Jesus were a pacifist, it is inexplicable that Peter is still wearing a sword after three years of traveling with and being taught by Jesus. Wouldn’t the forbidding of weapons be one of the earliest and easiest-to-understand things Jesus could have taught? Yet, the night before the crucifixion, at least one apostle is still carrying a deadly weapon in Jesus’ company, which implies the Lord had not forbidden it. And, when Peter does use it, Jesus does not tell him to get rid of it, but to put it back in its place. This was not a self-defense scenario; if it were, Christ could have commanded “more than twelve legions of angels” to save him (Matt. 26:53).
John 18:36 — “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.’” If Jesus’ kingdom had been earthly, Jesus would have authorized his servants to use physical violence on its behalf, which proves Jesus did not hold physical violence to be inherently evil. Rather, a kingdom’s defense must be in harmony with its nature, and Jesus’ kingdom would be spiritual.
John 19:10-11 — “So Pilate said to him, ‘You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?’ 11 Jesus answered him, ‘You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.’” If Jesus admitted Pilate, a civil ruler, had authority to invoke capital punishment, then capital punishment is not inherently evil. Moreover, if Jesus admitted Pilate, outside the scope of Moses’ law, had authority to invoke capital punishment, then capital punishment is not limited to Moses’ law (cf. Rom. 13:1-4).
Acts 25:11 — “If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar.” Paul admitted to a Roman governor that a person could do something for which he would deserve to die and, had Paul been guilty of such, he had no objection to submitting to capital punishment.
Rom. 13:4 — “for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” If government has the right to instill in the wicked the fear of being killed, then, since all today are under one divine law, Christians have the right to be in the government that instills in the wicked the fear of being killed (and, a Christian could be the one in government who administers the sword to the wrongdoer).
Eph. 5:25 — “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”. If husbands are to love wives enough to die for them, that implies the possibility of justified violence in defense of wives to save them. If someone replies that Jesus didn’t resist his own death, the cases are not parallel: the husband’s mission is not to die for his wife, but to love her to the extent he would die in her defense. Jesus’ temporary passivity was a function of his mission (see Matt. 26:53-54).
2 Cor. 10:4 — “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.” This is a statement of the church’s engagement in spiritual conflict, and has no bearing on self-defense from a home invader, etc. (likewise, the church’s diet is spiritual food [John 6:54-55], though individual members must still partake of physical nourishment).
1 Tim. 5:8 — “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” How could “provide for” include food and clothing, but not include protection from an attacker if the man has ability to offer it?
2 Tim. 2:3 — “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” If being a “good soldier” in a nation’s army were inherently evil, then Paul would not have used a sinful occupation as a metaphor for Christian living.
Some Conclusions
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Gen. 9:6) is still applicable divine law. If not, what passage rescinds it?
If it is right to kill in response to murder, then it is right to kill to prevent murder-in-progress, and this would constitute one proof of the Bible’s authorization of self-defense.
Authorized killing to prevent murder-in-progress is the very concept of justified self-defense.
If, on the basis of Gen. 9:6, it is right to kill to prevent murder-in-progress, then that right is God-given.
God-given rights do not depend on civil law for their justification or perpetuation.
If deadly force in self-defense is a God-given right, then civil government is right to recognize and legislatively sanction a citizen’s right to self-defense.
Excellent, excellent article!