Can a Christian defend himself OR others? (Defensive killing)

[SteveIndy]

...but then, let's say, someone strikes your son on the cheek, and then the other, and then kicks him, and then throws him to the ground and begins to beat his face to a bloody pulp. Should you, the father, look the other way and simply say, "my son is doing a fine job of turning his other cheek, so I'll just stand here while it happens and be proud."

Somehow, I don't think that Jesus' overall point is about being a complete pacifist, but rather not harboring revenge and a desire for overt retribution upon one's antagonist.

Yes, we can always find those circumstances that appeal to the flesh but that doesn't justify disobeying our Lord. And then there is always the circumstance of someone breaking into your house and raping your wife: that is actually the more common argument. Look at it this way. If a terrorist took your family hostage and told you to detonate a dirty bomb in a highly populated area would you do it at the cost of let's say, 1000 people? Under what circumstances would you justify disobeying Jesus' command to "not resist an evil person," Matthew 5:39?

 

[-57]

Nice footwork. The fact that Isaiah says Jesus would not put up a fight does not address the specific prophecy that Jesus would be seen as a transgressor. And Jesus explains His instruction to get the sword by appealing to that particular prophecy.

You almost certainly know this, so your honesty remains in doubt. And you are bearing false witnesdwhen you insist He told them to get the sword for self-defence. He said nothing of the sort. You inferred it with no textual justification.

About the commentaries. If you have read them, you can explain how they deal with the challenge I have posed on your own words.

I have..and if you read them you would understand what I'm saying.

Once again...Here's 11 commentaries...which one agree's with your commentary?

 

[-57]

Please don't quote Jesus' words out of context.

36 Then He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one. 37 For I tell you, what is written must be fulfilled in Me: And He was counted among the outlaws. Yes, what is written about Me is coming to its fulfillment.”

Jesus plainly states the purpose of the swords and it wasn't for self-protection. Anyway, what good would only two swords do except to fulfill the prophecy? Immediately we find Jesus with His disciples in the Garden and Peter attacking the High Priest servant; prophecy fulfilled.

Perhaps you can show me the prophecy in the Ot.

 

[-57]

I am presenting Jesus' own words. It is you who has to deflect by sending me off to read 11 commentaries. I simply post Jesus' own words.

I know you presente d Jesus own words...heck, anyone can cut and paste.
It's what you do with the words.

Once again...Here's 11 commentaries...which one agree's with your commentary?

 

[-57]

Not sure where I was asked this. I have agreed that the "numbered with transgressors" bit is also fulfilled at the cross. But that doesn't change the fact that Jesus said the "buy a sword" instruction fulfills the same prophecy.

How does buying a sword equate to being numbered with the transgressors?
Connect the dots.

Once again...Here's 11 commentaries...which one agree's with your commentary?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, we can always find those circumstances that appeal to the flesh but that doesn't justify disobeying our Lord. And then there is always the circumstance of someone breaking into your house and raping your wife: that is actually the more common argument. Look at it this way. If a terrorist took your family hostage and told you to detonate a dirty bomb in a highly populated area would you do it at the cost of let's say, 1000 people? Under what circumstances would you justify disobeying Jesus' command to "not resist an evil person," Matthew 5:39?

What? So, are you implying with your dilemma that I should resist?

Your hypothetical dilemma is not parallel to a situation where one is being attacked within one's own home. In fact, the implications are inverted.

 

[GingerBeer]

Is it right for a Christian to defend himself OR others if it will result in the attacker/threats death?

Very few Christians face this issue in their life time. Those who do may think that killing was the worst thing they ever did. Jesus taught his followers to "turn the other cheek" so does that teaching play a part in your thinking about how to answer your question?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Assuming you are serious, this post captures the essence of how American cultural values have distorted Biblical values.

Hello

Im not american

The right to defend one self is important.

Have you considered.
Would you not defend a person if he was experiencing an injustice or in harms way and you could do something

 

[EdyChristian28]

If one lives by the sword they will die by the sword but then again.
we are living in times when people are making every effort to eradicate justice so the sword is needed

I saw a meme today claiming the ethics of war. go as follows.
don't kill babies, ... so on. ...
priest who are not fighting against you.

since when is it alright to kill a priest. but the message was that if a priest is fighting or protesting for justice or establishing the law by reading the bible. he should be killed due to not be being liberal enough to accept others who are conniving and treacherous in nature. Only intention is TO go against the bible so. that is for a lack of a better word. criminal. and so justifies the validity of the the word of god being against man who hates it.
due it being mans judgement.

 

[joinfree]

Is it right for a Christian to defend himself OR others if it will result in the attacker/threats death? .......

 

[SteveIndy]

What? So, are you implying with your dilemma that I should resist?

Your hypothetical dilemma is not parallel to a situation where one is being attacked within one's own home. In fact, the implications are inverted.

I don't hear anyone implying that the Christian should not impose himself between the evil person and the one being attacked. There is no New Testament scripture that permits killing your enemy.

 

[SteveIndy]

Very few Christians face this issue in their life time. Those who do may think that killing was the worst thing they ever did. Jesus taught his followers to "turn the other cheek" so does that teaching play a part in your thinking about how to answer your question?

You are wrong, very many Christians will face this question. Sitting on a jury, serving in the military, building bombs, munitions, swearing allegiance to a constitution or flag, and even hating makes you an accomplice and complicit to murder. If you kill by proxy you still commit murder.

 

[SteveIndy]

I know you presente d Jesus own words...heck, anyone can cut and paste.
It's what you do with the words.

Once again...Here's 11 commentaries...which one agree's with your commentary?

So, what you are saying is, "How can eleven men be wrong." Don't you know that, "the whole WORLD lies in darkness"? It would appear that common sense is on your side, but don't you see that the common sense and reasoning of men are the problem? It was through the wisdom of men that Christ was hung on the cross.

 

[SteveIndy]

Perhaps you can show me the prophecy in the Ot.

Google it!

 

[SteveIndy]

I have wrestled with this question my whole adult life. On the one hand, if I am truly following the teachings of Jesus, I would not use violence in self defense (unless there's a convoluted way to rationalize the violence as being consistent with loving my enemy as myself). On the other hand, there are situations in which the only way I can see to stop a violent act is with violent force against the attacker. I have come to agree, with reluctance, that there are rare cases in which violent self defense is the best option. I believe that I am stepping away from Jesus' ideal teachings in taking this option, but I do not currently see a better path.

As you probably already know, Christians are divided on this question. Quakers and some other Anabaptists traditionally reject all violent self-defense; Just War theorists do allow violence, in limited circumstances.

If I were in a situation of opting for violence in defense of self or others, I would strive to use the least violence possible to resolve the situation.

The answer is in the life of Christ. Jesus was like a lamb before His shearers; He did not resist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't hear anyone implying that the Christian should not impose himself between the evil person and the one being attacked. There is no New Testament scripture that permits killing your enemy.

This is true in a certain way. But, the New Testament does not prohibit Christians from becoming soldiers or law enforcers, roles in which lethal force is at times permitted upon "enemies" to society so as to protect society.

Likewise, if love "protects," then if you see a perpetrator taking upon himself to harm a loved, you SHOULD do your best to intercede and protect. A failure to protect is a failure to love.

 

[EdyChristian28]

@Code Phox God is not man holding a cell phone taking a selfie and His purposes are just. while ours are most definitely corrupt. "even those who stand god like do not acknowledge the power there of"

 

[SteveIndy]

This is true in a certain way. But, the New Testament does not prohibit Christians from becoming soldiers or law enforcers, roles in which lethal force is at times permitted upon "enemies" to society so as to protect society.

Likewise, if love "protects," then if you see a perpetrator taking upon himself to harm a loved, you SHOULD do your best to intercede and protect. A failure to protect is a failure to love.

The NT does not specifically prohibit many things so we must understand what is the spirit of Christ in the matter, and His spirit is, "The Son of man came not to destroy the lives of men but to save them." Christ would not take the life of another man and neither should we, He did not judge or condemn men and neither should we, He did not join the ranks of government or the military and neither should we. But, Christ did intervene on our behalf to save us so we should also intervene in the behalf of others to save them, but without doing harm. We should put ourselves in harm's way to protect the defenseless and become a martyr if necessary. We have the historical records of those who were in the military who left that occupation when converted, and some were executed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The NT does not specifically prohibit many things so we must understand what is the spirit of Christ in the matter, and His spirit is, "The Son of man came not to destroy the lives of men but to save them." Christ would not take the life of another man and neither should we, He did not judge or condemn men and neither should we, He did not join the ranks of government or the military and neither should we. But, Christ did intervene on our behalf to save us so we should also intervene in the behalf of others to save them, but without doing harm. We should put ourselves in harm's way to protect the defenseless and become a martyr if necessary. We have the historical records of those who were in the military who left that occupation when converted, and some were executed.

Where are these historical records pertaining to Cornelius and other 1st century soldiers?

 

[SPF]

We need to be very careful when we take the "WWJD" stand. Simply put, we aren't Christ. Many of the things Christ did we should not do. And many of the things Christ did not do, He didn't do for the simple reason that it wasn't His mission to do them, not because we shouldn't do them.

Consider the scenario where I am watching the Braves lose in my living room tonight. My wife is upstairs changing and my 3 boys have just gone to sleep. Someone breaks in through the front door with violent intentions towards my family. Basically, I'm the only that can physically stand up to this man and intercede on behalf of my family. For someone to suggest that the right and moral thing for me to do is to raise up my hand and say, "Hold on there a second buddy, my family is upstairs, go on up and do what you want because it's wrong for me to protect them because obviously it would require violence on my part, and that could potentially cause a life ending event for you. So I'll just sit here and watch baseball while you do your thing. I'll probably call the police, but they aren't nearby, so you have a good 15 minutes at least."

That's the right thing to do? How is that loving my family?

As life saving as the Gospel is, and as much Truth is held within Scripture, it's amazing how easily some people can misunderstand it and use it to promote utterly ridiculous ideas.

If someone breaks into my home, I am going to love my family and defend them with my life.