Is self-defense a sin?

[kairo]

I was discussing the morality of self-defense with another Christian. They believed that violence of any kind, even self defense, is a sin. They used the teachings of Jesus to support their claims. Indeed, Jesus taught us to be non-violent and to turn the other cheek, he never once mentioned self-defense, at least not that I’m aware of. I told him there are many examples of God leading his people into war and verses stating the right to self-defense, but they said they were all verses from the Old Testament and therefore invalid.

I have always been a pragmatic pacifist, believing that conflicts should be attempted to be solved peacefully, with violence in the form of self-defense being the very last resort if peace absolutely can’t be achieved. I thought self-defense was condoned by God, but now I’m not sure.

So is it true? Is violence a sin no matter the cause or circumstance? Does God want us to be martyrs? Does he want us to let our families be killed instead of protect them if such a situation was ever to occur? I can’t imagine why God would want this from us. But if not, then why is it never mentioned in the New Testament? Please, any insight is appreciated, thank you.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello @kairo, first off (since I see that you are a new member), WELCOME TO CF

You ask some important questions that many of us wonder about, so thank you for broaching the topic. To start off, here's a short article dealing with most of this that should be useful.

In Matthew 5:38–39, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” The concept of “turning the other cheek” is a difficult one for us to grasp. Allowing a second slap after being slapped once does not come naturally.​

​

In the section of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in which He commands us to turn the other cheek, He addresses the need for true transformation, versus mere rule-keeping. It’s not enough to obey the letter of the law; we must conform to the spirit of the law as well.​

​

Much of the material surrounding Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek complements the nature of His coming, which was characterized by mercy, sacrificial love, and longsuffering toward sinners. At the same time, Jesus affirms the “last is first” principle upon which the kingdom of God is based. For instance, He tells us to go the extra mile for someone who abuses us (Matthew 5:41) and to love and pray for our enemies instead of holding enmity against them (verse 44). In summary, Jesus is saying we need to be pure inside and out and as accommodating as possible for the sake of a lost world.​

​

A word about the “slap” that Jesus says we should endure. Jesus here speaks of personal slights of any kind. The slap (or the “smiting,” as the KJV has it) does not have to involve literal, physical violence. Even in our day, a “slap in the face” is a metaphor for an unexpected insult or offense. Did someone insult you? Let him, Jesus says. Are you shocked and offended? Don’t be. And don’t return insult for insult. Turn the other cheek.​

​

Matthew Henry’s comment on this verse is helpful: “Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord’s keeping. And the sum of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who act upon right principles will have most peace and comfort” (Concise Commentary, entry for Matthew 5:38).​

​

Turning the other cheek does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in danger. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek is simply a command to forgo retaliation for personal offenses. He was not setting government foreign policy, and He was not throwing out the judicial system. Crimes can still be prosecuted, and wars can still be waged, but the follower of Christ need not defend his personal “rights” or avenge his honor.​

​

There was a time in history when a man would feel compelled to protect his honor against one who slandered him or otherwise besmirched his character. The offended party would challenge the offender to a duel. Swords, firearms, or other weapons were chosen, and the two enemies would face off. In most cases, senseless bloodshed ensued. Samuel Johnson wrote in favor of the practice of dueling: “A man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house.” The problem is that “invasions of character” are exactly what Jesus told us to tolerate in Matthew 5:38. Turning the other cheek would have been a better option than dueling, and it would have saved lives.​

​

Retaliation is what most people expect and how worldly people act. Turning the other cheek requires help from on high. Responding to hatred with love and ignoring personal slights display the supernatural power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and may afford us the chance to share the gospel.​

​

Jesus was, of course, the perfect example of turning the other cheek because He was silent before His accusers and did not call down revenge from heaven on those who crucified Him. Instead, He prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).​

​

~What did Jesus mean when He instructed us to turn the other cheek? | GotQuestions.org​

​

Similar/additional articles can be found at the bottom of the linked article if anyone is interested.

God bless you!! (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24)

--David
p.s. - here's another (similar and very important) article for any Christian to consider (from the same folks at GotQuestions.org), this time on the principle of the Lex Talionis. It tells us what that 'judicial' restriction is really all about, and most importantly for this discussion, it tells us why the principle of "an eye for an eye" does not conflict/is not nullified by the personal principle of "turn the other cheek".

~What does the Bible mean by "an eye for an eye"? | GotQuestions.org​

 

[HTacianas]

I was discussing the morality of self-defense with another Christian. They believed that violence of any kind, even self defense, is a sin. They used the teachings of Jesus to support their claims. Indeed, Jesus taught us to be non-violent and to turn the other cheek, he never once mentioned self-defense, at least not that I’m aware of. I told him there are many examples of God leading his people into war and verses stating the right to self-defense, but they said they were all verses from the Old Testament and therefore invalid.

I have always been a pragmatic pacifist, believing that conflicts should be attempted to be solved peacefully, with violence in the form of self-defense being the very last resort if peace absolutely can’t be achieved. I thought self-defense was condoned by God, but now I’m not sure.

So is it true? Is violence a sin no matter the cause or circumstance? Does God want us to be martyrs? Does he want us to let our families be killed instead of protect them if such a situation was ever to occur? I can’t imagine why God would want this from us. But if not, then why is it never mentioned in the New Testament? Please, any insight is appreciated, thank you.

If it helps. Reading Luke 22:

Luk 22:35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.”

Luk 22:36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

Luk 22:37 “For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”

Luk 22:38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

We can go over the entire meaning of all that, but looking at verse 36 it says that the disciples should buy swords. Flavius Josephus wrote of the ancient Essenes:

For which reason they carry nothing at all with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves.

That's the reason for the swords.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I was discussing the morality of self-defense with another Christian. They believed that violence of any kind, even self defense, is a sin. They used the teachings of Jesus to support their claims. Indeed, Jesus taught us to be non-violent and to turn the other cheek, he never once mentioned self-defense, at least not that I’m aware of. I told him there are many examples of God leading his people into war and verses stating the right to self-defense, but they said they were all verses from the Old Testament and therefore invalid.

I have always been a pragmatic pacifist, believing that conflicts should be attempted to be solved peacefully, with violence in the form of self-defense being the very last resort if peace absolutely can’t be achieved. I thought self-defense was condoned by God, but now I’m not sure.

So is it true? Is violence a sin no matter the cause or circumstance? Does God want us to be martyrs? Does he want us to let our families be killed instead of protect them if such a situation was ever to occur? I can’t imagine why God would want this from us. But if not, then why is it never mentioned in the New Testament? Please, any insight is appreciated, thank you.

Violence is a sin .
Self defense is not.
These are not to be put in the same category.

Blessings

 

[Robban]

All the aforegoing posts have their worth and worth contentplacion.

I would add Exodus 22:2 and Psalms 141:5, (let the righteous rebuke me)

Also, Jacob prepared himself (for his confrontation with Esau)

in three ways,
he sent Esau a gift to appease him,

he prayed,
and he prepared for war.

Or simple answer from Talmud;
"If someone comes to kill you, you must rise up and kill them first."

 

[Lost Witness]

"But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"

The LORD was struck by a guard unjustly and he never resorted to "self defense"

 

[Divide]

It's fine if you turn the other cheek when someone slaps you. That is, yourself. That in no way means that you do not defend the family or your charge. That is a given.

To take a punch in the face without reprisal because of your faith...is honoring God.
Not defending the family is not any honor to God.

The biblical passage about sell your cloak and buy a sword means only a small amount of them are necessary. You don't need 100 assault rifles or 250 pistols and 10B rounds of ammo. Because God protects us, but sometimes things happen so fast that there is no time to pray. That's what defensive arms are for.

God sent them into war more times than I can count in the OT. One time, he even told them to strap on swords while they worked on building the wall.

Remember though, a pistol's primary use is to fight your way back to your rifle that you shouldn't have laid down in the first place.

And also remember that when buying pistols & rifles...one means none and two means one.

Sell your cloak and buy one? The cloak was their most important piece of clothing back then. It kept them safe from the elements and warm and they double as a sleeping bag. So that's an important priotity distinction that the Lord made there!

 

[Divide]

"But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"

The LORD was struck by a guard unjustly and he never resorted to "self defense"

The Lord was on a mission of mercy His first trip here!

But don't think that His 2nd coming will be peaceful for He will bring a sword!

 

[FireDragon76]

Peace testimony is part of some churches, such as Anabaptists or Quakers. It is also reflected in the early Church. It wasn't until later that some Christians accepted the notion that violence could be justified under some circumstances. A notion I would argue that has been widely abused, whatever the original intentions of theologians such as Augustine.

 

[FireDragon76]

"But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"

The LORD was struck by a guard unjustly and he never resorted to "self defense"

One thing to keep in mind is the injury from such a slap was mostly to ones ego. It is an insult, and affront to a person's honor in a patriarchal culture. I would argue the Christian ethics of self-defense are alot more complicated than simply a "yes/no" answer. However, the rub comes in: many people aren't able to distinguish between bruised egoes and bodily harm.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Lord was on a mission of mercy His first trip here!

But don't think that His 2nd coming will be peaceful for He will bring a sword!

I don't believe that imagery in Revelation can be taken literally. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

[public hermit]

I was discussing the morality of self-defense with another Christian. They believed that violence of any kind, even self defense, is a sin. They used the teachings of Jesus to support their claims. Indeed, Jesus taught us to be non-violent and to turn the other cheek, he never once mentioned self-defense, at least not that I’m aware of. I told him there are many examples of God leading his people into war and verses stating the right to self-defense, but they said they were all verses from the Old Testament and therefore invalid.

I have always been a pragmatic pacifist, believing that conflicts should be attempted to be solved peacefully, with violence in the form of self-defense being the very last resort if peace absolutely can’t be achieved. I thought self-defense was condoned by God, but now I’m not sure.

So is it true? Is violence a sin no matter the cause or circumstance? Does God want us to be martyrs? Does he want us to let our families be killed instead of protect them if such a situation was ever to occur? I can’t imagine why God would want this from us. But if not, then why is it never mentioned in the New Testament? Please, any insight is appreciated, thank you.

I think the more Christ-like we are, the less likely we will be to return violence with violence. Violence is the extreme of human power, but it's rooted in our irascible tendencies, which uncontrolled verge on the demonic. Rage is demonic.

Self defense in the face of evil is a very human reaction and, on that account, understandable. But there is something divine in absorbing violence, trusting that the love of God who brings things into existence and raises the dead is more powerful than the destructive force of violence. If we are able and can see that the cross and resurrection reveal the impotence of evil and its destruction nature, we might be able to accept the consequences of violence without fear of being destroyed. This was clearly modeled by our Lord. What appeared as weakness was actually a showing of unsurpassable strength. We have that same ability if we believe God loves us and is able. But those who can do that are no doubt spiritually mature in a way few of us, including myself, understand.

Is it sin to engage in violence as an act of self-defense? It's human, and we're already mired in sin. I think the better question might be: How do I become more like Christ? That is our destiny, and where we fall short of that needs work.

All that being said, I do think it's a personal decision to absorb violence in faith. I can't tell anyone else to do that. The martyrs acted out of their intimate relationship with Christ. No one forced them. The other thing is we seem to have an obligation to defend the defenseless. I can choose to absorb violence, but I can't watch the helpless be abused based on what I would do. It's a very personal thing, imo, that takes place in the heart of the individual who looks violence in the face with faith and love.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think the more Christ-like we are, the less likely we will be to return violence with violence. Violence is the extreme of human power, but it's rooted in our irascible tendencies, which uncontrolled verge on the demonic. Rage is demonic.

Discussions of violence always remind me of the movie Unforgiven, a very violent film whose real themes are often missed because they are so subtle. Particularly Clint Eastwood character's line, in a brief monologue to try to disuade a young adventurous kid from imitating him, "It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have." That's a huge amount of power a person assumes (one might even say "god-like") Even though Bill Muney (Eastwood) feels justified taking a revenge bounty (due to the heinousness of the crime he's avenging), he's under no pretense that what he is doing is good.

There's a reason he reverts to being a drunk and a shell of a man, and the bounty takes him away from the simple, peaceful life he has been living, following his late wife's example (who presumably was a religious person, something he mentions a few times). What he is doing fundamentally inhuman, and can only be justified in the sense that he's doing something ugly and heinous so that other people can have a sense of order and sanity in their lives.

Even if you think violence is justified, it has a cost: it takes away a bit of your humanity.

 

[Runningman]

I was discussing the morality of self-defense with another Christian. They believed that violence of any kind, even self defense, is a sin. They used the teachings of Jesus to support their claims. Indeed, Jesus taught us to be non-violent and to turn the other cheek, he never once mentioned self-defense, at least not that I’m aware of. I told him there are many examples of God leading his people into war and verses stating the right to self-defense, but they said they were all verses from the Old Testament and therefore invalid.

I have always been a pragmatic pacifist, believing that conflicts should be attempted to be solved peacefully, with violence in the form of self-defense being the very last resort if peace absolutely can’t be achieved. I thought self-defense was condoned by God, but now I’m not sure.

So is it true? Is violence a sin no matter the cause or circumstance? Does God want us to be martyrs? Does he want us to let our families be killed instead of protect them if such a situation was ever to occur? I can’t imagine why God would want this from us. But if not, then why is it never mentioned in the New Testament? Please, any insight is appreciated, thank you.

Sometimes not defending yourself, even when you can and should, is a mercy. The kind of pacifism that I believe Jesus was referring to with turning a cheek was more along the lines of mercy. Jesus floated the idea of being able to call on his God and Father Who would, in turn, put at his disposal many legions of angels according to Matthew 26:53. This would not only be overkill, but an extreme show of power. It follows that if God would supply the angels to Jesus then Jesus would sanction the use of violence within certain situations.

God supplying what's necessary to fight a war is something God did in the Old Testament as well. God hasn't changed, but Jesus desired mercy and ultimately went to the cross. So while one could defend themselves, it's not always the best choice if in defending yourself your enemy dies in their sins as a result. On the other hand, it seems is God didn't judge Jesus for his willingness to have angels fight for him then He probably wouldn't judge anyone else in similar circumstances.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sometimes not defending yourself, even when you can and should, is a mercy. The kind of pacifism that I believe Jesus was referring to with turning a cheek was more along the lines of mercy. Jesus floated the idea of being able to call on his God and Father Who would, in turn, put at his disposal many legions of angels according to Matthew 26:53. This would not only be overkill, but an extreme show of power. It follows that if God would supply the angels to Jesus then Jesus would sanction the use of violence within certain situations.

God supplying what's necessary to fight a war is something God did in the Old Testament as well. God hasn't changed, but Jesus desired mercy and ultimately went to the cross. So while one could defend themselves, it's not always the best choice if in defending yourself your enemy dies in their sins as a result. On the other hand, it seems is God didn't judge Jesus for his willingness to have angels fight for him then He probably wouldn't judge anyone else in similar circumstances.

But Jesus wasn't willing for angels to rescue him. He had authority, but no will to do so. So it's not justification at all for self-defense. We would have to look elsewhere for justification for self-defense. And I don't think you are going to find easy answers in the Bible.

 

[public hermit]

Discussions of violence always remind me of the movie Unforgiven, a very violent film whose real themes are often missed because they are so subtle. Particularly Clint Eastwood character's line, in a brief monologue to try to disuade a young adventurous kid from imitating him, "It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have." That's a huge amount of power a person assumes (one might even say "god-like") Even though Bill Muney (Eastwood) feels justified taking a revenge bounty (due to the heinousness of the crime he's avenging), he's under no pretense that what he is doing is good. There's a reason he's a drunk and a shell of a man. What he is doing fundamentally inhuman, and can only be justified in the sense that he's doing something ugly and heinous so that other people can have a sense of order and sanity in their lives.

Even if you think violence is justified, it has a cost: it takes away a bit of your humanity.

Great movie, and I agree that it's a commentary on the destructive nature of violence. Even those who engage in violence for just ends are adversely affected. You cannot participate in that kind of destruction and not be.

To give a biblical example, David might have been a man after God's own heart, but he was a man with blood on his hands and for that reason was not fit to build the temple. (Of course, David did a lot of sketchy, unChrist-like things) The OT is riddled with examples of the destructive nature of violence and getting an eye for an eye. Someone killed somebody. Three generations later someone is murdered in revenge. It's no wonder Jesus abrogated the eye for an eye ethic.

 

[Robban]

It's fine if you turn the other cheek when someone slaps you. That is, yourself. That in no way means that you do not defend the family or your charge. That is a given.

To take a punch in the face without reprisal because of your faith...is honoring God.
Not defending the family is not any honor to God.

The biblical passage about sell your cloak and buy a sword means only a small amount of them are necessary. You don't need 100 assault rifles or 250 pistols and 10B rounds of ammo. Because God protects us, but sometimes things happen so fast that there is no time to pray. That's what defensive arms are for.

God sent them into war more times than I can count in the OT. One time, he even told them to strap on swords while they worked on building the wall.

Remember though, a pistol's primary use is to fight your way back to your rifle that you shouldn't have laid down in the first place.

And also remember that when buying pistols & rifles...one means none and two means one.

Sell your cloak and buy one? The cloak was their most important piece of clothing back then. It kept them safe from the elements and warm and they double as a sleeping bag. So that's an important priotity distinction that the Lord made there!

The "Sword and trowel" was the name of newspaper given out by C.H.Spurgoen.

Am sure it can be translated into;
Sword=Word,
trowel=building.


The ideal is to build on a strong foundation with a cornerstone determaning

the rest of the building.


Spoken by Davids mother on the day the prophet Samuel came to anoint him as King.
"The stone the builders rejected has now become the cornerstone."

The King of the universe sits on the throne, what does the throne look like,

well, it is stated " the foundation of Your throne is justice and mercy."

Re. your reference to Nehemiah,

 

[Robban]

Great movie, and I agree that it's a commentary on the destructive nature of violence. Even those who engage in violence for just ends are adversely affected. You cannot participate in that kind of destruction and not be.

To give a biblical example, David might have been a man after God's own heart, but he was a man with blood on his hands and for that reason was not fit to build the temple. (Of course, David did a lot of sketchy, unChrist-like things) The OT is riddled with examples of the destructive nature of violence and getting an eye for an eye. Someone killed somebody. Three generations later someone is murdered in revenge. It's no wonder Jesus abrogated the eye for an eye ethic.

David was not slow in recognizing his downsides.

When the prophet Natan came to him and told him a story.

And when are women going to be put into the picture,

Abigail for example was a blessing from above;



1 Samuel 25:32-35

 

[Robban]

Hollywood is for dreamers.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I was discussing the morality of self-defense with another Christian. They believed that violence of any kind, even self defense, is a sin. They used the teachings of Jesus to support their claims. Indeed, Jesus taught us to be non-violent and to turn the other cheek, he never once mentioned self-defense, at least not that I’m aware of. I told him there are many examples of God leading his people into war and verses stating the right to self-defense, but they said they were all verses from the Old Testament and therefore invalid.

I have always been a pragmatic pacifist, believing that conflicts should be attempted to be solved peacefully, with violence in the form of self-defense being the very last resort if peace absolutely can’t be achieved. I thought self-defense was condoned by God, but now I’m not sure.

So is it true? Is violence a sin no matter the cause or circumstance? Does God want us to be martyrs? Does he want us to let our families be killed instead of protect them if such a situation was ever to occur? I can’t imagine why God would want this from us. But if not, then why is it never mentioned in the New Testament? Please, any insight is appreciated, thank you.

Turning the other cheek is looking the other way when insulted.

When persecution was brought on the church, no one applied "turn the other cheek" and allowed themselves to be slaughtered.

Stephen knew he would probably get stoned anyway so he provoked his audience while preaching the gospel. If it was all about pacifism, shouldn't Stephen have tried to, you know - calm them down?

There is a recorded instance where an apostle cursed an occult user, and he was struck with blindness. This is not in any way a form of pacifism.