The Bible and Self Defense: Defending the Righteous Use of Violence for the Protection of God's People and House
Christians are called to suffer and even, at times, to be martyrs for the Lord Jesus Christ. This calling to suffer for Christ and to even die for him is a high calling and when we talk about self defense, we must not do so from an unwillingness to bear our cross with Christ and to suffer for His sake. However, does that mean that the Bible teaches Christians not to defend themselves from attackers? I am arguing in this article that there are times when Christians can and, indeed, must defend themselves with a clean conscience before God. The goal is not to defend an itchy trigger finger, but to argue for protection of that which is worth defending. I want to move beyond personal self defense and onto congregational defense.
Let's start from the beginning. Before Adam and Eve sinned, there was no bloodshed. Adam was commanded to "serve and guard" the garden, which included defending it from intruders--say, a serpent, for example--and these are the same words used to command the priest of their duties in the temple. Before sin entered the world, Adam was called to defend that which is worth defending: innocence and goodness. Adam's failure to exercise godly violence against the serpent is what led to Eve being deceived and eating the fruit. Adam chose pacifism rather than godly violence. The very beginning of all sin is found in Adam standing beside His wife, watching the serpent abuse Eve and bring death upon her, and doing nothing.
Once sin entered into the world through Adam's failure to exercise this duty and the resulting rebellion, it did not take long for murder to take place as Cain, their firstborn, killed the innocent Abel. God ultimately flooded the whole world because it had reached such violent heights (Gn. 6:11-13). God preserved humanity through Noah, his wife, and their three sons and daughters-in-law. After the flood, God gave the sword to Noah to execute vengeance upon the one who sheds the blood of men (Gn. 9:6). He said that if a man sheds blood, by man his blood shall be shed. This begins the role of the magistrate in seeking vengeance on behalf of the people. In general, this should be the ideal. If someone murders a person, he ought to appear before the magistrate and, when proven guilty, he ought to be put to death. This is true in the Old Testament, but it is also true in the New. Paul, for example, said that if he was guilty of a crime that earned the death penalty, he did not object to dying (Acts 25:11). More explicitly, Paul argued that we should not seek our own vengeance and we should leave it to God. When elaborating, he argued that the magistrate is God's servant for carrying out vengeance on the evildoer (Rm. 12:17-13:5). This should suffice in defending righteous violence from the civil magistrate in order to punish the wicked and bless the righteous.
Personal defense is also a common theme in the scriptures. In Exodus 22:2-3 we are taught that if someone breaks into a home in the dark and they are killed, their blood shall go unpunished. This indicates that the defender of his home does not need to know for certain that the person is there to kill, but he can assume that someone sneaking into his home in the middle of the night has bad intentions. Another example is found in Esther when the Israelites are legally allowed to defend themselves against their attackers, so long as they do not take their possessions. God wants His people to be able to defend themselves, but this is not an opportunity for looting, but is rather an opportunity simply to defend themselves. This could have occurred at night or during the day. This validates the interpretation of Exodus 22, because in that passage it says that they were not allowed to kill someone on their property during the day. To reconcile this we can say that in Esther's day, it was known that the invaders were there to carry out Haman's wishes of killing the Israelites. In other words, the question is one of intention. If the attacker is there to kill, he can be killed.
Additionally, and regarding churches specifically, the priests were commanded--yes, commanded--to carry a sword when on duty at the temple (II Chron. 23:7-21). When they were rebuilding the wall in Jerusalem, Nehemiah commanded the workers to have a sword and a trowel as they worked (Nh. 4:15-17). Often those who argue otherwise begin by dismissing the relevance of the Old Testament by saying, "this is the new covenant, so our enemy is spiritual and we are no longer to use guns or swords in this way." John Piper, for example, argued that Christians should willingly die because they are ready to meet God, but the gunman is not, so killing him would be sending him to hell. He is willing to take that all the way to the extreme, saying that he would hope that he would have the strength to not defend his wife from a an attacker who wished to rape and kill his wife because she is prepared to meet God, but the violent criminal is not. This is not how Jesus treats His bride.
Jesus uses the analogy of a shepherd defending his flock against wolves and asserts that a good shepherd is willing to kill and to risk his own life for his sheep (Jn. 10:11-15). Of course, Jesus is talking about Himself laying down His own life for the salvation of His people, but we cannot let that obscure the fact that His analogy follows exactly in line with the ethical demand of the shepherd to defend those in his care. Jesus also told His disciples to sell their cloak to buy a sword (Lk. 22:36) in a day when the Roman law did not allow non-Romans to own swords. A sword, at that time, was roughly equivalent to what an enemy would have. In other words, in today's terms, it would be like owning a handgun, shotgun, and/or rifle. Remember that Adam, the first priest in the first temple, was commanded to defend the temple. This is why it is no surprise that these other priests and priestly characters continue to have swords. The Levitical army was separate from the nation of Israel's army. It was, in essence, God's army. God's spiritual leaders in Israel defend His spiritual house with physical swords. They also use the sword of God's word to defend its theological borders, of course, but the physical weapon is always included. The principle is that God's priests were told to be prepared to defend themselves back when the priests were Levites and when, in the New Testament, Jesus began building the new temple.
Some would interject and say, "Did not Jesus say to turn the other cheek?" Whenever a scripture is quoted, it must be understood within its context rather than pulling out parts of ideas and applying them across the board. In this case, Jesus' command to turn the other cheek came in a passage talking about being dishonored, not attacked for the purpose of killing. The passage is a discourse on how to deal with those who seek to shame you, not kill you. His point is that you should gladly accept the shame they would heap on you and rather than returning dishonor for dishonor, we should take their retribution on ourselves like He did on the cross. Again, the point has nothing to do with self-defense, but about honor and shame. There is a difference between taking up arms to defend your pride and taking up arms to defend what is worth defending.
Some point to Peter cutting off the servant's ear and being told to put away his sword by Jesus; they quote Jesus saying, "those who live by the sword, die by the sword." However, the main issue with Peter's actions here is that they contradict the plan of God. In fact, Jesus had just responded to Peter telling Him not to go to Jerusalem and die by saying, "Get behind me, Satan." Peter's problem is that he does not want to let Jesus fulfill the mission for which He came. As for Jesus' words quoted above, consider what He told Pilate at His trial. He said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight." In other words, Jesus argues that the source and power of His kingdom does not come from flesh and blood fighting and striving. Rather, the power of His kingdom is from the Father, so His kingdom and kingdom does not need to be defended in this way. The context is Jesus explaining why swords should not be used to stop His crucifixion because the way to victory is the cross. Remember, Jesus is not contradicting the law. He specifically said that He was not coming to overturn or abolish it (Mt. 5:17-19). Remember, Jesus told His disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword, so pacifism cannot be in view.
Jesus also commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. One way we can love our enemies is by enforcing God’s standards for justice. When your child looks to be on the verge of making a foolish decision, a warning is necessary. There will be people who have violence in their hearts and the worst thing you can do is provide no warnings and no repercussions should they wish to carry out the violence in their hearts. By commanding the righteous to defend the innocent, God is putting repercussions in place that would deter sinners from acting on sinful temptations. This is loving the wicked, by placing obstacles between them and their sin, and it is loving the innocent by protecting them. Of course, some of the wicked will be content to take those repercussions upon themselves, but, if justice is meted out, this will be a one time offense. We cannot improve upon God's law. Therefore, any attempt to change the principles God has already laid out is wrongheaded. According to God’s law, it is just to defend the innocent with violent force, when necessary. Ultimately, this would dramatically reduce the amount of murders when the violent know that their prey are armed and their deeds will result in capital punishment, but, in a sense, that is secondary to my basic duty of preserving life. Yes, the attacker has a life and he is made in God’s image, but murdering, or attempting to do so, removes one’s “right” to life. This is not the topic of my article, but this is a good opportunity to say that we should be careful not to be “holistically pro-life” simply because our accusers say that we are not. Life at all costs and in any case is simply not a biblical principle. No, we are holistically in favor of God’s standard of justice. A murderer is justly put to death for his crime and being against the murders of innocent babies should not cause us to hesitate in this point. We can pray for our enemies and trust God for the best, but this by no means removes our ability to defend ourselves or our loved ones and churches.
It is the duty of a man to protect what has been entrusted to him by God. This duty was first given to Adam in the garden. He failed when he did not kill the serpent, but allowed it to attack his bride. Our response, then, is not to lay our weapons down, but to take them up and defend the bride of Christ when necessary. Now, ultimately, it is Jesus who protects His bride, but that does not take away from the fact that Jesus uses means. Jesus judged Jerusalem for her covenantal adultery, but His instrument was Rome. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, but he gave shepherds to His church to protect her. God is our Father, but we still need fathers. Jesus is our teacher, but we still need teachers. That Jesus has the ultimate role in defending His bride is not in question, and the fact that the body of Christ is used to carry out this task is fitting.
