Self Defense

Self-defense has become an issue of lasting controversy in our culture, particularly among the Christian ranks. It is not because the scriptures are in any way unclear on the issue, but because religious leaders, their followers, and some civil legislators have chosen to exalt personal preferences for the rules of crime, punishment, and the right to self-defense, above the written laws of God. Unfortunately, this is done all too often in a spirit that is disparaging, even hostile, toward those who believe that one is able to both honor Christ and defend themselves and their family from criminals.

Few dare to argue that self defense was “against the will of God” in the Old Testament. Those who contend such an argument willfully ignore a veritable landslide of scriptural proofs that say otherwise.  The biblical precedent of righteous self-defense case-law began before the institution of Mosaic law through the patriarch Abram (later Abraham) as recorded in Genesis 14:14-20. Abram’s violent defense of his nephew Lot appears to have been the catalyst for a providential rendezvous with the High Priest Melchizedek, who, according to Hebrews 6:20, was a type of Christ. What did Melchizedek think of Abram’s violent defense of Lot? The priest praised God saying, “Blessed be the Lord thy God who hath delivered your enemies into your hand!” (Emphasis added.)

That said, the position against self-defense, which is unfortunately common among the ranks of modern-day Christians, is a position that suggests, in some way or another, that Mosaic law, which for many centuries commanded a man to provide protection for his family, was annulled through the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary. In the light of what we have just proved, the first, most obvious flaw in this pacifist stance is that it ignores the precedent of Abram set BEFORE the institution of Mosaic laws. In much simpler terms, they are basically touting, “Jesus died on the cross, so society would be softer on crime.” Or even worse, they indirectly suggest that God the Father was, in some implausible way, Jesus’ first convert to the fresh ideas of post-modern Christianity.

Wow! What a dangerous theological position! Somehow, we are led to believe that God the Father, who blessed Abram above all his contemporaries, who directed and inspired the laws of Moses, was too harsh, and apparently needed Jesus to teach Him how to be more merciful. After all, it was God who inspired Moses to record Exodus 22:2 which states, “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.” Moreover, those who brandish the sign “Thou Shalt not Kill” in protests against the defenders of America’s second amendment, obviously believe that God was confused on the meaning of “kill” when He inspired the aforementioned law.

The logical end to this type of squishy thinking forces us to conclude that Christ died to change, not ours, but God’sattitude toward sin. The root of this mentality should not surprise those who live in the 21^st Century, for it carries the easily recognizable stench of post-modernism.

At the onset of this treatise on the second amendment to the constitution, allow me to state this unbendable edict: Jesus died on Calvary to change man – not God! God has not changed His attitude toward either sinners or their sin. God loved men in the Old Testament as much as He does today. The cross of Calvary has simply provided mankind with an opportunity, among many other wonderful things, to REPENT of their sins. Why? Because if you don’t repent, Jesus has promised to execute the ultimate “punishment” upon you (the unrepentant) – eternal death, in the lake of fire! Many scoff at this statement of biblical fact. Be warned! To scoff at this is to call Jesus a liar. This is what He stated on many recorded occasions, too numerous to list.

Regarding the case law provided through a study of Exodus 22, William Einwechter writes: ‘If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him…. (Ex. 22:2-3)

At the heart of the debate over gun control is the issue of self-defense. Citizens may desire gun ownership for hunting and recreation, but the primary reason for owning a gun is self-defense against criminals and a tyrannical government.

Therefore, any biblical text that deals with the right of self-defense is central to determining the right of gun ownership under God’s law. Perhaps the most crucial text to address the right of self-defense is Exodus 22:2-3.

This Scripture appears in that portion of the Pentateuch known as “The Book of the Covenant” (Ex. 21-23). The Book of the Covenant follows the declaration of the Ten Commandments, and provides a concrete application of the principles of truth and justice contained in the Ten Commandments by means of “statutes and judgments.”

The context of Exodus 22:2-3 is dealing with theft and restitution. Within this discussion of theft, the case of a thief breaking in is presented. In this case law two scenarios are given.

In the first a thief is “found breaking up,” that is, breaking in by breaking up the roof, the window, or the door during the night hours. Thus we have a forced entry into the house (or property) that is discovered by the owner. The owner responds to this threatening situation (for in the dark he knows not the intent, identity, or arms of the intruder) by killing the robber, presumably with some sort of weapon. The declaration of God’s law is that in these circumstances the owner is innocent of any wrongdoing, and is fully justified in using lethal force to defend himself and his family.

The second instance involves a thief “breaking up” under different circumstances. In this case, it is during the daylight hours, and presumably, the owner can identify the intentions of the intruder and see that he is unarmed and poses no threat to life or limb, but is a mere thief. Yet, in spite of this the owner kills the thief. In these circumstances the owner who uses lethal force is guilty of a crime. This was not an act of self-defense (for he was not attacked or threatened) but an act of brutality against an unarmed man whose only intention was the theft of property. The penalty for theft was restitution, not death. Thus, this is a case of the unauthorized taking of human life, and is, therefore, murder, punishable by death. God’s law authorizes the protection of life by deadly force if necessary, but His law does not permit the defense of property in the same manner.

It is important to note that the case presented here of a thief breaking in involves the shedding of blood. Therefore, this case law is an application of the righteousness of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Consequently, the biblical law of self-defense empowers us to defend our lives against wicked men who hate God, His law, and the life of their neighbor. We may assume that those who threaten us with bodily harm or weapons hold the life God has given us in contempt, and, therefore, we may defend ourselves against such evil even to the point of killing our assailant.

In conclusion, let us consider the implications of Exodus 22:2-3 for the right of self-defense.

1. This case law establishes the righteousness of self-defense. God’s law permits a man to defend himself and his family. This defense may require the use of deadly force, and this certainly implies the use of weapons.

2. A man is justified in defending himself whenever he is attacked or his life endangered. If a man is not guilty of any crime for slaying an intruder on the mere supposition that he may be armed or pose a threat to him or his family, how much more does the law of God authorize self-defense against an armed assailant who definitely threatens bodily harm.

3. The primary responsibility for defense against violent attacks is a personal responsibility. The defense of one’s life and one’s family is chiefly an individual responsibility, not a community or governmental responsibility. (There is no indication that Israel had a standing police force or army. The armed men of Israel, under the direction of their magistrates, were the army and police force.) There is certainly a need to love our neighbor and come to his defense if we can. But the first line of defense against violence and aggression is the man who is prepared to use whatever force necessary in the protection of his own life and those for whom he is responsible (e.g., his family). This, of course, means that he must be armed to meet all possible threats to his life. Today, this requires a citizen to be armed with guns.

4. Any weapon is permissible for use in self-defense. This case law does not say the owner is guilty if he uses a sword, but not guilty if he uses a club. The issue is not one of weapons, but the right of self-defense. God’s law does not make an arbitrary distinction between acceptable and unacceptable weapons for self-defense. And there are no biblical laws restricting the access of citizens to weapons necessary for self-defense. To limit a citizen’s access to lethal weapons (e.g., guns) is to limit his ability for self-defense. Gun control is self-defense control. Who would want to control and limit the individual’s ability to defend himself except thugs and tyrants?

5. This case law would be a great deterrence to criminals. After all, citizens are armed and authorized to kill, if necessary, intruders and attackers!

6. This case law also restrains the individual in the use of weapons in self-defense. He must be very careful, lest he use deadly force when it is not called for. If he does he is guilty of a crime, and must pay with his own life.

Predictably, those who object to the use of Biblical case-law do so under the cover of a mirage that the Old Testament has no bearing whatsoever on modern life, but that only the New Testament does. This is dangerous error trailing closely behind the first century heretic, Marcion. A rhetorical question may be in order for the antagonists of Biblical case law. Did Jesus really die so that we could finally recognize great virtue in yielding to criminals who wish to rape, rob, molest, and perhaps murder us? Let us further explore this paradoxical, perhaps heretical, do-nothing doctrine, but not before we carefully and honestly examine the direct statements of Christ on the subject of self-defense. After all, if it is true that Jesus intended for Christians to absolve the practice of self-defense on behalf of His doctrine and unjust murder, we MUST explore Jesus’ comments which deal directly with the subject of crime and punishment. Transversely, as we explore these teachings, let us refrain from the temptation to pull His words from their context, misusing His statements.

For example, when we have several instances where Jesus spoke directly to the subjects of self-defense, crime and punishment, we need go nowhere else than those particular statements in order to understand His views on those subjects. You should not have to say this, but you do, because so many Christian “authorities” have put forth so much effort to “read between the lines” of Jesus’ words, while simultaneously ignoring what He plainly stated. By avoiding the obvious, do we not prove that we are in possession of a shameless desire to twist the scriptures in order to better accommodate the god of our own human opinions? Look at our Lord’s own command to the twelve before entering the testing of Gethsemane:

“Then said he [Jesus] unto them, But now, he that hath a purse [money bag], let him take it, and likewise his scrip [food pouch]: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” – Luke 22:36 (KJV) (Emphasis added.)

Concerning this command of Christ, Adam Clark writes:

“Judea was at this time, as we have already noticed, much infested by robbers: while our Lord was with His disciples, they were perfectly safe, being shielded by His miraculous power. Shortly they must go into every part of the land, and will need weapons to defend themselves against wild beasts, and to intimidate wicked men, who, if they found them totally defenseless, would not hesitate to make them their prey, or take away their life.”

Theologian Finis Dake writes of this same passage:

“This can be taken literally as it meant protection from wild beasts and robbers that filled Judea, which, if they found them unprotected, would not hesitate to take their lives.”

Is it possible that the same Lord who uttered those famous words, “turn the other cheek” would command that His followers make the appropriate preparations necessary for self-defense when traveling through dangerous lands? Well, as David B. Kopel said so well:

“Most gun prohibitionists who look to the Bible for support do not cite specific interdictions of weapons (there are none) but instead point to the general passages about peace and love, such as “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5: 38-39); “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5: 43); and “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” (Romans 12: 17). None of these exhortations take place in the context of an imminent threat to life. A slap on the cheek is a blow to pride, but not a threat to life.”

Consider Jesus’ parable of the angry king, as it is delivered in the 18^th chapter of Matthew’s gospel. Within this teaching, Jesus endorses the RIGHT of civil government to severely punish all criminal activity.

 “Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” – Matthew 18:23-35: (KJV)

Jesus endorsed the RIGHT for civil government to severely punish all criminal activity in this previous passage when He compared the angry king to the righteousness judgment of Father God!

Consider Jesus’ teaching on the parable of the vineyard, as it is delivered in the 12^th chapter of Mark’s gospel. Once again, Jesus’ doctrine clearly recognizes and endorses the Hebrew precedents of crime and punishment:

“And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled. And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.  And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.” – Mark 12:1-9: (KJV)

Here, Jesus endorses the RIGHT for all families victimized by the brutal murder of a loved-one to receive proper justice on behalf of their dead. Clearly, the teachings of Jesus indicated that both individuals as well as civil authorities had both the right and mandate to severely punish all criminal activity. In this previous passage, Jesus compares the vengeful “lord of the vineyard” to the righteous judgment that will be carried out by Father God!

The Apostle Paul echoed Christ’s clear and unmistakable doctrine when he recognized the RIGHT for civil authorities to thrust the sword in Romans the 13^th chapter, as follows:

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” – Romans 13:4: (KJV)

As Leonard and Thelma Spinard once wisely said,

“One of the key elements of justice is the promptness with which it is dispensed. There are two kinds of justice—that which prevents wrongs and that which remedies them.” Along these same lines, the Complete Book of Everyday Christianity states, “Luther maintained that even the hangman is God’s servant bringing God’s justice into this world.”

Once again, in accordance with what should be common sense, the Chief Apostle of Christ writes to the Roman church:

“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” – Romans 12:18 (KJV)

Paul’s point? Clearly, the exception for living peaceably with all men is that it IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE to do so!

In summary of what has been explained thus far, the popular catchphrases “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies,” “do good to your enemies,” “resist not evil,” and “he that lives by the sword dies by the sword,” were NOT Jesus’ and Paul’s advice to the fallen world for fighting crime. Doctrines that suggest otherwise remain irreconcilable with a sane and reasonable interpretation of Jesus’ own teachings. Additionally, they linger incoherent with the Apostle Paul’s proclamations in the 13^th chapter of Romans. What DID Jesus and Paul mean by these dreadfully abused statements so often used to cast aspersions against the intelligent concepts of governance, truth, and justice?

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” – Matthew 5:39: (KJV)

First, I should point out that this statement has nothing to do with the subject of what is or is not criminal. It was very much accepted in the culture of Christ, that if a Jew showed, what the Romans viewed as insubordination, he might well be slapped across the face. Humiliating? Yes. Unkind? Yes. Insulting? Yes. Criminal? No. And what might happen to the Jew that retaliated against an agent of his conquering nation? Needless death anyone?

In a very practical sense, Jesus was offering some wise advice to the Jewish people who very much hated their Roman conquerors and had often made the poor choice, to their own hurt, to rebel. The phrase “resist not evil,” as it is phrased in the Shakespearean tongue, should not be confused with “through your ‘godly’ passivity, enable and encourage the workings of Satan.” No! This phrase is best transliterated, “do not repel one outrage with another outrage.”

And what of the Bible’s other statement that has been turned on its ear as yet another trite, abused, and pandering slogan of the perpetually mushy? If you recall, the Apostle Paul penned another phrase into infamy in the 12^th chapter of his letter to the Romans.  He wrote, “Do good unto your enemies.” Paul, the author of the 13^th chapter of Romans, where capital punishment is clearly endorsed as a New Testament precedent of civil governance, is, ironically, the same who wrote the following:

“Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.” – Romans 12:20: (KJV)

Unless we believe that the Chief Apostle was suffering from schizophrenia, we cannot believe this to be either Jesus’ or Paul’s advice to the fallen world for fighting crime! No, Paul simply builds upon the principle demonstrated in the life of Jesus. When we are attacked in any way, whether economically, socially, or physically, as the direct result of our Christian testimony, we are to follow Christ’s example and make no defense of ourselves. In other words, when sharing Christ with someone on the street, and he responds to our witness by spitting in our eye, we are not to punch him back in his nose according to 1 Peter 2:23.

Romans 12:20 is a direct quote of Proverbs 25:21 – a verse written in the Old Covenant several hundred years before the introduction of New Testament doctrines. It was written to a nation that actively obeyed the common sense necessity of self-defense, as it was exemplified by the patriarch Abram in Genesis 14:14-16 and later made compulsory law in Exodus 22:2. We conclude, then, that it is quite possible to obey both Romans 12:20 and Proverbs 25:21 without eliminating the mandate, in both the New and Old Testaments, for an appropriate armed defense, in the case of criminal assault, against one’s self or one’s family.

Paul’s command to feed and offer drink to one’s religious enemies in no remote way eliminates the mandate for the head of a home to provide a strong sense of security and safety for his family – and in the unfortunate event where a member is physically threatened – an armed, physical defense.

Consider the stern warning offered by the Apostle Paul in another reference:

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” – 1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV)

One could make a strong argument that if a man who does not provide financially for his wife and children is an utter shame to the Christian religion, then what might be said of him who offers no physical defense of the family in his care during a criminal assault? To teach that a man should do anything less for his wife and children is wholly foolish and incompatible with properly interpreted teachings of Jesus Christ.

What then of the words of Jesus uttered in the records of Matthew, the publican?

“Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” – Matthew 26:52-54 (KJV)

Jesus asks Peter a rhetorical question:

“Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”

Out of this question, three points should be inferred:

1) Jesus did not need Peter for His self-defense, because Jesus was capable of defending Himself forcefully and righteously – beyond imagination.

2) If Jesus had chosen the road of self-defense, it would have been justified.

3) Because Jesus clearly had NOT chosen the option of self defense, but instead, wrongful imprisonment and suffering on behalf of humanity, Peter’s use of his sword was an immediate hindrance to Christ’s plan for Calvary.

That said, this passage could not possibly wax as the so-called “proof-text” of the reckless pacifists. Additionally, Christ’s words, “…for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” is a clear warning that a life fixed upon violence will result in a violent death. Moreover, this statement was most obviously a warning to Peter, that both his life and ministry would be quickly ended, should he proceed in his present “super-hero” fashion, to single-handedly attack an entire garrison of armed soldiers!

Clearly, there are two sides to the person of Jesus Christ. He is not entirely a person of gracious and merciful acceptance without the willingness, when necessary, to show justifiable rejection. On the other hand, He is not entirely a person who reveals justifiable rejection without the willingness, when appropriate, to extend gracious and merciful acceptance. Jesus was not a purveyor of universal pacifism who trained His followers to be the proverbial doormats of the world. Those who make these suggestions do a great injustice to His historical record and reduce His sensible teachings to mystical nonsense with no application in a real world.

In 2000, in defiance to a biblical worldview on this issue, riding on a recent wave of school violence, democratic calls for tougher legislation reached their crescendo in the Million Mom March on Washington. Many states, enabled by liberal democrats, began suing gun manufacturers. At their national convention, the Democratic Party called for mandatory safety locks and the licensing of handgun owners. Democrat Hillary Clinton, in an earlier interview with ABC’s Good Morning America on June 4, 1999, said the following:

“If you own a gun…make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.”

In agreement with a biblical worldview on this issue, then Governor George Bush, the Republican Party’s presidential contender for the 2000 elections, said the following:

“Law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect their families. We ought to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. I also believe that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe is to hold people accountable for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. The federal government can help.”  (Source: St. Louis debate, October 17, 2000.)

Robert Winthrop (1809 – 1894), Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, stated:

“Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”

The pacifist heretics of our day fail to understand the age-old failure of restricting arms from the law-abiding citizens. Israel faced the oppression of arms control, much in the same way those of the Democratic Party would wish to subjugate our nation with the European-styled panaceas of “gun control” that take the form of heavy ammunition taxation, gun bans, and everything in between.

“Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened. The price was two thirds of a shekel for sharpening plowshares and mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening forks and axes and for repointing goads. So on the day of the battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in his hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.” – 1 Samuel 13:19-22 (NIV)

As a Christian, husband, father, pastor, American, and a Decided First Degree Black Belt in the International TaeKwonDo Alliance, (and in that order), I thank God that He has given all of us His invaluable Word. The Bible speaks intelligently to every facet of human existence, guiding us through every storm and over every obstacle this life on fallen earth may conjure against us.

I bless God that He favored me and my family to live in a great nation whose founders understood the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – rights that could not have been obtained on my behalf had those who fought to their deaths been unwilling to draw their swords. Immutable, God-given rights to pursue and achieve a peace-filled existence today cannot be maintained without the protection of my right to draw a sword in the defense of my family, if need be, tomorrow.

Those with an accurate biblical worldview understand the Divine authority of scripture and the genius of the founding fathers. They are determined to protect, defend, and uphold the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.