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

[expos4ever]

Hello

Im not american

The right to defend one self is important.

It certainly seems natural to believe this. However, I see no evidence that Jesus taught this principle. And at least some evidence that suggests He would reject the use of force even in defense of the innocent.

 

[expos4ever]

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

I have explained this many times. It's not rocket science. If Jesus's followers walk around as an armed group, He, as their clear leader will most certainly be seen as a transgressor.

Please answer post 98.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It certainly seems natural to believe this. However, I see no evidence that Jesus taught this principle. And at least some evidence that suggests He would reject the use of force even in defense of the innocent.

So, if I see my son being beat up, and I'm right there where it is happening, I'm just supposed to remain a 'by-stander' and hope he's still alive when it's over? Is that what we are saying, that Christianity is a 'by-stander' to violence, even to our own families? (I'm just asking....not trying to ruffle feathers. )

Caveat: I do think we should differentiate between a situation in which some social force comes against us specifically as Christians VERSUS situations where the the social force is random and indeterminate, and not picking on us because we are Christians.

 

[GingerBeer]

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.

Does that make you a murderer then? Have you done any of the things you say make a person complicit in murder?

 

[381465]

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.

Well I'm done. All I need to do is build bombs and I've got all the bases covered. I guess I'm the Charlie Manson of this forum.

 

[expos4ever]

So, if I see my son being beat up, and I'm right there where it is happening, I'm just supposed to remain a 'by-stander' and hope he's still alive when it's over? Is that what we are saying, that Christianity is a 'by-stander' to violence? (I'm just asking....not trying to ruffle feathers. )

Let me start by saying that I would almost certainly act just as you would act if someone I love is threatened.

However, surely we can agree that this may not be what Jesus would have us do. Remember - there are many aspects of Jesus' gospel message that fly in the face of common sense. For example, Jesus tells us to love our enemies. That teaching is so "close" to us - we have heard it so many times - that we fail to appreciate how radical a prescription that is. Loving your enemies precludes, among other things, firing cruise missiles at them.

About the centurion: I think the argument that Jesus must have implicitly approved of him being armed because Jesus did not offer a rebuke is quite weak. Jesus no doubt saw much in the world that He disapproved of and simply did not have the time to comment on. Not to mention the fact that we access Jesus' words through 4 very short gospels - surely we cannot expect the gospel writers to have captured every thing Jesus said.

 

[Oloche Moses Okwori]

I think as Christians we have rights to self defense. This question is similar to that of Christians participating in wars as soldiers and killing to defend themselves in the process

 

[expos4ever]

...I guess I'm the Charlie Manson of this forum.

There seems to be a theme bubbling along under the surface in this thread that finds expression with posts like the above. The implied point seems to be: you "peaceniks" are taking a position that is extremely marginal, unrealistic, and opposed to common sense.

In a sense, I agree on all counts. However, I am a little surprised that people seem so set against the notion that Jesus calls us to "deny ourselves and take up our crosses". It's almost as if people are trying to get everyone to agree to give ourselves a collective pass on the difficult stuff, the stuff that calls for self-sacrifice.

I am probably as likely as the rest of you to resort to violence in certain circumstances. But surely we can agree that what seems right and reasonable to us may, repeat may, not line up with the gospel imperative.

 

[381465]

There seems to be a theme bubbling along under the surface in this thread that finds expression with posts like the above. The implied point seems to be: you "peaceniks" are taking a position that is extremely marginal, unrealistic, and opposed to common sense.

In a sense, I agree on all counts. However, I am a little surprised that people seem so set against the notion that Jesus calls us to "deny ourselves and take up our crosses". It's almost as if people are trying to get everyone to agree to give ourselves a collective pass on the difficult stuff, the stuff that calls for self-sacrifice.

I am probably as likely as the rest of you to resort to violence in certain circumstances. But surely we can agree that what seems right and reasonable to us may, repeat may, not line up with the gospel imperative.

Just a response to the post quoted above it. I responded to the long list of actions/attributes that make one an accomplice to murder.
No deeper meaning. I think I'm relatively passive. I wish there was no need (perceived or actual) to defend one's self.

This topic is obsessed over and the circular debate is futile...in my opinion. It is interesting to see the different comments and points of view.

 

[expos4ever]

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

Here is an extract from one of the commentaries:

It was in accordance with that kind metaphorical method of expression which our blessed Lord adopted that His words might never be forgotten. It was to warn them of days of hatred and opposition in which self-defence might become a daily necessity, though not aggression.

So, yes, this person agrees with your take on the passage. But there is a problem that I am quite confident you will dance around: There is no evidence offered for the conclusion that self-defence is the reason for the "get a sword" instruction. This author simply claims this.

And, like you and all the others, this author dances around the connection to the "seen as a transgressor" prophecy. In fact, here are the author's exact thoughts on verse 37:

For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.


37. he was reckoned among the transgressors] A quotation from Isaiah 53:12. Hence clearly the sword could not be for His defence, as they carelessly assumed.

for] Rather, for indeed.

have an end] The end (telos) was drawing near; it would come on the following day (Tetelestai, John 19:30).

Note how this author's only comment in connection to the prophecy is that since Isaiah 53 has the Messianic figure going to the cross, the sword cannot be for defence of Jesus.

A ten-year old can see the problem: nowhere has this author explained how the acquisition of the sword casts Jesus in the role of a "transgressor".

But he is in good company: You and other posters refuse to tackle this issue - you refuse to deal with Jesus explaining the sword instruction as fulfilling the transgressor prophecy.

Why is that?

 

[SteveIndy]

Does that make you a murderer then? Have you done any of the things you say make a person complicit in murder?

Yes, I have. I served two years in Vietnam before discovering the truth, and like David, I have killed, cheated, lied, and deserve to go to Hell. For all of these reasons I have thrown myself on the mercy of the Cross and have been accepted.

 

[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.

Isn't this what Christ did?

 

[SteveIndy]

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

Maximillian comes to mind immediately, but there are others. As far as Cornelius, the argument is as good for him leaving the army as it is for his staying in.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

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

I have spoken to multiple people about this question. As the end continues to draw closer things will get worse and worse. There will be warfare, earthquakes, famine, and disease. Men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, disobedient to parents, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God.

I do not fear these times, I accept it will happen. My question is how should one who loves God act during these times in a way that is holy and not part of the world or falling short of God's standard.. If someone threatens my life and wishes to commit murder, can I defend my body if it means the attacker dies in the process?

All of Jesus' disciples besides Judas Iscariot (who committed suicide) where killed/murdered and I don't believe any defended themselves.
Scripure says something along the lines of "Those who lose their lives will find it, those who keep their lives will lose it" does this mean by defending yourself you will be punished?
Scripure also says something along the lines of "there is no greater love than laying down your life for another" does this mean you could risk your life defending another Person?

I understand the concept of ending someone's life short when there is a possibility of them having asked for repentance/salvation later on, IF they hadn't been killed.. But still, I wonder how I would act in that situation.

How would you act? Would you let someone kill you or a loved one?

Hi God is given us certain responsibility as parents and spouses to provide and protect our loved ones. When a threat comes we are to take a stand for our loved ones.

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

I have spoken to multiple people about this question. As the end continues to draw closer things will get worse and worse. There will be warfare, earthquakes, famine, and disease. Men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, disobedient to parents, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God.

I do not fear these times, I accept it will happen. My question is how should one who loves God act during these times in a way that is holy and not part of the world or falling short of God's standard.. If someone threatens my life and wishes to commit murder, can I defend my body if it means the attacker dies in the process?

All of Jesus' disciples besides Judas Iscariot (who committed suicide) where killed/murdered and I don't believe any defended themselves.
Scripure says something along the lines of "Those who lose their lives will find it, those who keep their lives will lose it" does this mean by defending yourself you will be punished?
Scripure also says something along the lines of "there is no greater love than laying down your life for another" does this mean you could risk your life defending another Person?

I understand the concept of ending someone's life short when there is a possibility of them having asked for repentance/salvation later on, IF they hadn't been killed.. But still, I wonder how I would act in that situation.

How would you act? Would you let someone kill you or a loved one?

Hi good question to ponder and I suppose I would break it down into two sets of situations. We are given the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones from criminal attacks. The use of deadly force protecting the innocent is and has been an understood right throughout history. The apostles being killed was specifically for the offense of the gospel. As it pertains to governments persecuting the cross we see it now in China, and Islamic countries that this is going on and the Christians do not rise up. This seems too to be a pattern throughout history. As far as going to war I think we have stretched the idea of what is a threat and the right to kill way beyond the self defense mandate as bombs are dropped on camel herders thousands of miles away who pose no threat to us. The history of the Augustine's just war ideas has been largely adopted and manipulated to create public sentiment for outrageous aggression. As we approach the end times which you correctly see in focus we must resolve to not kill if we are targeted for our faith and to be ready to defend from dangerous criminals especially if there is a financial collapse. There is an idea of the rapture that some say will come before the tribulation. Jesus did say he was going to prepare a place for us and would come and receive us to himself and that where he is his followers would be there too. He said of the tribulation to pray always that you are counted worthy to escape these things and to be standing before the son of man. These says we will not all die but those who are alive and remain will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord. I see the rapture as Jesus coming as the husband for the bride and the the 2nd coming as a separate event where Jesus comes with his saints and he treads the winepress of his wrath and saves Israel and the world and sets up a 1000 year kingdom on earth. The literal reading of scripture leaves this as the obvious conclusion. unfortunately tradition over time has the church replacing Israel and denies that there will be a literal kingdom of Jesus on earth for 1000 years while Satan is bound. Which lens you see scripture through will determine what you believe about this. I was raised with the allegorical view and after putting on the literal glasses to scripture and looking at the specific prophecy about end times I see all the literal events taking the stage such as the return of Israel and Jerusalem being a troublesome stone to the whole world. I see the Jews have prepared for the return of the daily sacrifice which is the central event of the great tribulation called the abomination of desolation which puts an end to the renewed sacrifice in the exact middle of the 7 year tribulation. These are just a few evidences that the literal view is lining up. Either way live bold for Christ today and do not be afraid.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let me start by saying that I would almost certainly act just as you would act if someone I love is threatened.

However, surely we can agree that this may not be what Jesus would have us do. Remember - there are many aspects of Jesus' gospel message that fly in the face of common sense. For example, Jesus tells us to love our enemies. That teaching is so "close" to us - we have heard it so many times - that we fail to appreciate how radical a prescription that is. Loving your enemies precludes, among other things, firing cruise missiles at them.

About the centurion: I think the argument that Jesus must have implicitly approved of him being armed because Jesus did not offer a rebuke is quite weak. Jesus no doubt saw much in the world that He disapproved of and simply did not have the time to comment on. Not to mention the fact that we access Jesus' words through 4 very short gospels - surely we cannot expect the gospel writers to have captured every thing Jesus said.

Those are some good points, E4E. And I quite agree that Jesus does challenge us in ways that are not typically reflected by our intuitions toward self-preservation and/or the protection of our families. It's just that, in my interpretive approach toward the Bible, I'm more under the impression that when Jesus says something like "lay down your life for me," the context has to do with allowing someone to take advantage of us or even kill us if and when they do this specifically BECAUSE they know we are a Christian, such as can and does happen in Communist countries, for instance. It also refers, of course, to our willingness to die to our personal sinful proclivities.

However, I'm not so clear that if an intruder enters my house, threatens another family member, not because they are targeting us for our Christian faith but because the person is a basic hoodlum, and it is in my power to intervene so as to "protect" my family, then I'm not sure that Jesus' meaning about laying down our lives is so clear here as to how I should respond in such a situation.

But, that's my current view, and I'm open to modification of that view or...change if I find that I need spiritual growth (and I always do....).

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Historical Christianity]

It's impossible to build a biblical case against self-defense. Turn the other cheek says don't escalate an insult. Love your neighbor is common morality. Love your enemy increases the scope of cooperation and trade and discourages starting wars.

 

[SteveIndy]

Hi God is given us certain responsibility as parents and spouses to provide and protect our loved ones. When a threat comes we are to take a stand for our loved ones.

Hi good question to ponder and I suppose I would break it down into two sets of situations. We are given the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones from criminal attacks. The use of deadly force protecting the innocent is and has been an understood right throughout history. The apostles being killed was specifically for the offense of the gospel. As it pertains to governments persecuting the cross we see it now in China, and Islamic countries that this is going on and the Christians do not rise up. This seems too to be a pattern throughout history. As far as going to war I think we have stretched the idea of what is a threat and the right to kill way beyond the self defense mandate as bombs are dropped on camel herders thousands of miles away who pose no threat to use. The history of the Augustine's just war ideas has been largely adopted and manipulated to create public sentiment for outrageous aggression. As we approach the end times which you correctly see in focus we must resolve to not kill if we are targeted for our faith and to be ready to defend from dangerous criminals especially if there is a financial collapse. There is an idea of the rapture that some say will come before the tribulation. jesus did say he was going to prepare a place for us and would come and receive us to himself and that where he is his followers would be there too. He said of the tribulation to pray always that you are counted worthy to escape these things and to be standing before the son of man. These says we will not all die but those who are alive and remain will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord. I see the rapture as Jesus coming as the husband for the bride and the the 2nd coming as a separate event where Jesus comes with his saints and he treads the winepress of his wrath and saves Israel and the world and sets up a 1000 year kingdom on earth. The literal reading of scripture leaves this as the obvious conclusion. unfortunately tradition over time has the church replacing Israel and denies that there will be a literal kingdom of Jesus on earth for 1000 years while satan is bound. Which lens you see scripture through will determine what you believe about this. I was raised with the allegorical view and after putting on the literal glasses to scripture and looking at the specific prophecy about end times I see all the literal events taking the stage such as the return of Israel and Jerusalem being a troublesome stone to the whole world. I see the Jews have prepared for the return of the daily sacrifice which is the central event of the great tribulation called the abomination of desolation which puts an end to the renewed sacrifice in the exact middle of the 7 year tribulation. These are just a few evidences that the literal view is lining up. Either way live bold for Christ today and do not be afraid.

Is it more important to obey Christ or your gut feelings of protection? Christ says if you love family more than Him you are not worthy of Him. The greatest thing you can do for your families protection is to make sure they are covered by the blood of Jesus, everything else is just an excuse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is it more important to obey Christ or your gut feelings of protection? Christ says if you love family more than Him you are not worthy of Him. The greatest thing you can do for your families protection is to make sure they are covered by the blood of Jesus, everything else is just an excuse.

Sure, Jesus says to love Him more than family, but Jesus does expect us to apply our God-given intelligence and consider context(s) in the actual statements (or parables) He gives to us. Not everything Jesus said is to be taken in a woodenly literal fashion. To do so can distort the meaning of some things He said, such as when Jesus said to 'hate' your mother and father, etc., etc.

 

[SteveIndy]

It's impossible to build a biblical case against self-defense. Turn the other cheek says don't escalate an insult. Love your neighbor is common morality. Love your enemy increases the scope of cooperation and trade and discourages starting wars.

Well, all of that is nice but you have twisted the words way out of their intent. That may be good diplomacy but not Scriptural. Good twenty-first-century theology but not the Gospel.

 

[Historical Christianity]

Well, all of that is nice but you have twisted the words way out of their intent. That may be good diplomacy but not Scriptural. Good twenty-first-century theology but not the Gospel.

Huh? That's what those words and phrases meant to their authors and their audiences.