8/12/2019 2001 Issue 1 - Self Defense - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/3
Salf Dafansa Self-by
ob orton
defense isassumed by
most to be a self-evident right. One need
only think of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that
de
scribes the right to avoid self incrimina-tion, or arguments
that would allow for abortion
to save the mother's life (her own self preservat ion) .I t is
simply taken for granted that theindividual has the righ t to
defend his own life. Forthose desiring to base their thoughts upon
theBible, there are three areas to explore. Is selfdefense;
consistent with the teaohing of the Bible?If so, is it personal
only, or does it have broaderimplications? And finally, what are
the limits orqualifications that restrain it?
Is Self-Defense Biblical?
The first and most basic question a believermust ask concerning
any question is does the Biblespeak to the question, and if so,
what does it haveto say. In light of Jesus ' statements in the
Sermonon the Mount, the b iblical warrant for self-defenseis
suspect. You have heard that it was said, 'Aneye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth.' But I tellyou not to resist an evil person. But
whoeverslaps you on the your right cheek, turn the other tohim
also. I f anyone wants to sue you and takeaway your tunic, let him
haveyour cloak also(Mt. 5:38-40).
Surely this is the definitive answer to thequestion of
self-defense. Jesus forbids it. Or doesHe?
Some o f Jesus ' teaching is hyperbolic; considerfor example,
His command to hate relatives in oneplace (Lk. 14:26) and to love
them in others (cp.Mk7:9-13, Mt. 10:37). We.understand that
Hiscommand to hate 1n this passage is relative to
the love we are to have toward God. The passageon turning the
other cheek is likewise hyperbolic.The preface to the statement
with a citation fromEx. 21:24, An eye for an eye, puts His
statementinto contrast, not with His own truth given throughMoses,
but with the Jewish tradition that hadovershadowed His truth.
Within the Jewish tradition, defending yourreputation,
preserving face, ensuring the securityof ytiur position became more
important than
trusting in God. Jesus directed people back toGod, back to a
spiritual, heavenly orientation ofthought. There was too much
concern for statusand social standing and too little concern for
theirposi tion before God. Jesus set a higher, a heavenly priority
before the people.
During His earthly ministry, we see His attitude
toward self-defense. On several occasions Jesuseluded those who
would have harmed Him (Lk.4:28-30; In. 8:59, 10:39). Jesus prepares
Hisdisciples for future persecution and instructs themWhen they
persecute you in this city, flee to
another (Mt. 10:23). Later, Jesus tells Hisdisciples to take
swords with them to the Gardenof Gethsemane. Peter 's use of the
sword, however clumsily, may have served its purpose inprotecting
the disciples from persecution at thatmoment. Only Jesus was taken.
Comparing theseactions to the passage in the Sermon on the
Mount,makes clear that Jesus is indicating here somethingother than
self-defense in its normal understanding. (See implications,
below.)
The first family on earth experienced violenceas Cain killed his
brother Abel. There is nomention of an attempt at self-defense,
presumablythere was no opportunity and no expectation of aneed to
do so. God confronted Cain with his crimeand his sin, spared his
life, and marked him asunder His protection so that his family
memberswould not seek revenge upon him. God assured
Cain's self-preservation, i.e., Godundertook
hisself-defense.
Just a few generations later, Lamech takesself-defense to an
extreme and boasts that hekilled a person who hurt him. Lamech's
experience is not that of a man who loved God. Hecomposes a song to
celebrate his cruelty, a songthat displays his depravity. He is a
man with twowives, which demonstrates a failure to follow
theoriginal marriage ordinance given by God in theGarden of Eden.
He boasts that an affront to him
deserves far greater punishment than God hadprovided to Cain
(Gen 4:15, 24). tamech providesthe first example of self-defense,
but it is withinthe line ofthe ungodly, in the line o Cain, and
notwithin biblical limits, as we shaH see below.
Exodus 22: 2-3 speaks directly to the questionof self-defense:
If the thief is found breaking in,and he is struck so that he dies,
there shall be no
'guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him,there
shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should
18 - THE COUNSEL of ChaIcedon - December 2 1 January 2 1
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 1 - Self Defense - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/3
refusal to pay the owner his due. Everyoneexpects the owner to
assert his right to his property.
Implications:
y arming themselves and preparing to fight,the people in
Nehemiah's time prevented anattack. The householder who kills an
intruder atnight was able to exert deadly force to stop
theIntrusion. We must conclude that the Bible encourages the
ability to defend oneself, one'sproperty, one's neighbor (for
example, an assaultedvirgin), and one's society (city and country).
InNehemiah's time and for the disciples, it meanthaving swords. The
Philistine extended theiroppression during the time of the kingship
of Saulby eliminating blacksmiths from Israel, ensuringthat the
Israelites had no weapons of war. Nowthere was no blacksmith to be
found throughout all
the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, 'Lest theHebrews
make sword or spears' (ISam13:19).n other words, oppressive
govermnents seek to
disarm those they oppress. Defense today mayrequire the
possession of guns. t is instructivethat many politicians are
seeking to restrict orprevent gun ownership. Like the Philistines,
theyseek to prevent access to weapons, even (orespecially) for
purposes of self-defense.
On the other hand, the Bible also sets limits onthe use of
force. n owner may use deadly force
at night, but not during the day. The Lex Talionis(Ex. 21:
23-25, Lev. 24:19-21) not only prescribesappropriate punishment for
personal injuries, justas importantly, it limits the retaliation,
On thepersonal level, it condemns the arrogant abUSe ofLamech who
would insist on a sevenfold retribution on the one who attacked
him: killing theperson who only wounded him. On a politicallevel,
it condemns actions by some nations, modemIsrael being a prime
example, of inflicting damageson other nations many times the
damages done toit. God clearly set limits upon the response towrong
to prevent just such escalation of evil.Defense is appropriate and
proper; attackingothers is to perpetuate the evil.
Persecution:
There are, however, times where God's peopleseem to surrender
voluntarily their right to selfdefense. When threatened with
violence for thefaith there are numerous biblical examples ofbel
i;vers accepting the harm. Jeremiah delivered
an unacceptable message to the people of his dayand accepted the
imprisonment and possible deaththat came with proclaiming that
message. TheApostles continued to preach in the name of Jesusafter
being ordered by the Jewish leaders to desist(Acts 4:18). Later,
they were beaten for disobedience to men; yet they rejoiced that
they were
counted worthy to suffer shame for His name(5:40-41). Paul
expressed his longing to knowChrist and the fellowship of His
suffering (Phil3: I 0). The author of the book of Hebrews commends
the recipients for their joyfully acceptingthe plundering of heir
goods (10:34).
Persecution for the faith, therefore, provides an. opportunity
for believers to forego self-defense to
identify with Christ and His sufferings. Revelation6: 9-11
records interaction between some martyrsand the Lord. They ask how
long before Hejudges those who persecuted them. The Lordreplies,
that they should rest a little while longer,until both the number
of their fellow servants andtheir brethren, who would be killed as
they were,was completed. God had ordained a certainnumber to suffer
persecution and martyrdom.
However, even persecution has its limits.While Paul could give
quite a catalog of his sufferings 2 Cor. 11: 23-33), he did not
accept all harmextended to him. He informed Claudius Lysias ofhis
Roman citizenship in order to avoid beingbeaten. He appealed to
Caesar to prevent beingassassinated hy Jewish thugs. Our
primaryexample, of course, is Christ Himself. Jesus lifeand death
demonstrate both aspects of this truth.He was despised and rejected
of men, and Heaccepted the Cross though He had all the power
ofheaven at His disposal. But He did not allow thepeople of
Nazareth to throw Him off a clif f (Lk4:28-30). He hid Himself from
a mob that wantedto stone Him in Jerusalem (In. 8:59), and
onanother occasion, He eluded those who wouldhave seized Him (In.
10:39).
Biblically, therefore, suffering harm for thesake of the faith
is normative (2 Tim 3:12). Thereis no support, however, for
accepting gratuitoussuffering. Some suffering glorifies God and
is,therefore, in the ultimate good of the individual.Believers
through the ages have accepted suchabuse; when there are means of
avoiding sufferingwithout compromising the tmth of God,
believersare wise and biblically justified to pursue
thatconrse.
2 - THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon- December 2000/ January 2 1
