Self-defense

[MarieP]

Trying to form a Christian theology of self-defense. I'm not talking about police or soldiers but everyday folks. And I'm also looking at it from the perspective of a single- I know there is the particular duty of husbands to protect their wife and kids. I also know there is the OT passage about a raped woman not bearing blame if she screams. And certainly there are preventative measures (not walking alone after dark) and ways of escape (if only I can find a big enough basket...) But what about when the only way of escape is hurting the attacker (and it is a matter of your own safety and not fighting for another's safety?) How much is allowable to hurt him? Is it permissible to kill him? How does turning the other cheek fit in here?

 

[Edward]

Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Luke 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.

This verse appears to suggest that one should be prepared for self defense.

 

[Honor]

I feel, as a woman, if a person tries to attack me, you beat the living snot out of them. I'm 5ft tall and have had some instances of it happening. plus if you see a man attacking a woman you go over and help her beat the living snot out of him. I have done this more than once.
learn how to punch, knee in the groin and jam a persons nose in thier skull and crush a windpipe. then use it if you have to. because if a man will assult you he'll assult someone else. it needs to stop with you if you can help it. you incompasitate the man until the police come and then you press as many charges as the law allows.

 

[Hamalas]

Concealed Carry is always a good idea.

 

[dyarashus]

I think you will find the site linked below, written by a friend of mine who is an elder at a PCA congregation in VA useful:

Biblical Self-Defense: What do the Scriptures say about using lethal force for self-protection?

I don't have time for a detailed reply tonight, but I'll mention that the WLC touches on this in questions 135 & 136.

Question 135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge;all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

 

[charliejunfan]

Hmmmmmmmmm

 

[Brian Withnell]

While I think the thought here is uniformly in favor of self-defense, I would like to add to that with one additional thought: which is better, to have evil triumph, or good? If a person violently attacks an innocent person, would it not be better to have the evil defeated than to win? If the answer to that is yes, then it matters not who the innocent (within the context ... of course nobody is truly innocent) person is even if it be yourself. You are duty bound to defend the innocent.

I especially appreciated dyarashus reply in quoting the WLC and the section on what is required by the sixth commandment.

 

[kalawine]

Two good sermons on self defense...

SermonAudio.com - Sermons by John Weaver

 

[TimV]

Ex 22

2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Does this relate at all?

(Mat 5:38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

(Mat 5:39) 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.

 

[SemperEruditio]

Does this relate at all?

(Mat 5:38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

(Mat 5:39) 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.

I don't think we are talking about someone smiting a cheek but seeking to do actual harm. Defending your life versus defending your honor.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

I feel, as a woman, if a person tries to attack me, you beat the living snot out of them. I'm 5ft tall and have had some instances of it happening. plus if you see a man attacking a woman you go over and help her beat the living snot out of him. I have done this more than once.
learn how to punch, knee in the groin and jam a persons nose in thier skull and crush a windpipe. then use it if you have to. because if a man will assult you he'll assult someone else. it needs to stop with you if you can help it. you incompasitate the man until the police come and then you press as many charges as the law allows.

What a woman!

 

[toddpedlar]

Does this relate at all?

(Mat 5:38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

(Mat 5:39) 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.

These are verses usually quoted by pacifists who argue against any self defense at all... however, I'm not sure they apply (I'd have to study the context more carefully and broadly, but I tend to think that this does not preclude self-preservation or protection of others).

I do know that if I ever arrived home after work and someone was assaulting or otherwise attacking my wife or children, he would not leave my home alive. That attitude of mine, however, is probably more indicative of my lack of sanctification than anything else.

 

[TimV]

Ex 22

2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.

(Mat 5:38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

(Mat 5:39) 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.

A contradiction? Or do we assume both are valid for today? Is the allowing of shooting someone who kicks the door in in the middle of the night but forbidding vigilantism ceremonial? Or is a basic moral truth?

Luke 11:21 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."

Isn't the assumption that the the armed man will do what is allowed under Biblical law? Is this ever criticised in the NT?

 

[Andres]

I do know that if I ever arrived home after work and someone was assaulting or otherwise attacking my wife or children, he would not leave my home alive. That attitude of mine, however, is probably more indicative of my lack of sanctification than anything else.

Then brother i suppose I am lacking the same sanctification as yourself because my sentiments in your scenario mirror your own.

 

[SemperEruditio]

I do know that if I ever arrived home after work and someone was assaulting or otherwise attacking my wife or children, he would not leave my home alive. That attitude of mine, however, is probably more indicative of my lack of sanctification than anything else.

Then brother i suppose I am lacking the same sanctification as yourself because my sentiments in your scenario mirror your own.

I would actually feel sorry for whomever tries to attack my wife if I'm not there to restrain her or protect them. She's a vicious little one and her fight side of the fight/flight response is very strong. I'm just sayin.

 

[JM]

My wife does jujitsu...tap or snap.

 

[Edward]

Does this relate at all?

(Mat 5:38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

(Mat 5:39) 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.

Skip Ryan gave a very good sermon dealing with that passage some years ago. It doesn't exactly mean what some liberal pastors have taught it to mean. I can't do justice to his explanation, particularly at this late date, but it had to do with a willingness to reconcile with one who has harmed us and now seeks reconciliation. It does not mean to allow a person to harm you repeatedly.

 

[Scottish Lass]

The blog of a personal friend of mine: WARSKYL: A Page For Christian Martialists / Christian Martial Arts / Christian Self Defense / Bible Self Defense / Christian Sheepdog

He discusses everything from formal martial arts to using everyday objects as weapons (wasp spray, for example).

 

[Bern]

Is there a difference between just being attacked for your money or whatever, and being attacked because you are a Christian. I can't think of any examples where people put up a fight when they were persecuted for their faith...

 

[Andres]

Is there a difference between just being attacked for your money or whatever, and being attacked because you are a Christian. I can't think of any examples where people put up a fight when they were persecuted for their faith...

What kind of attack are you referencing? I believe we are warranted to defend ourselves from any physical attack, regardless of what spurns it.

 

[Bern]

Well for example... Polycarp (I know there's lots of others). They came to execute him for his faith, and he gave his persecutors a meal before he left for the stake!

No offence, but you guys across the pond seem quite keen on your guns...

Do we really have the right to take another mans life? Under any circumstances?

 

[toddpedlar]

Well for example... Polycarp (I know there's lots of others). They came to execute him for his faith, and he gave his persecutors a meal before he left for the stake!

No offence, but you guys across the pond seem quite keen on your guns...

Do we really have the right to take another mans life? Under any circumstances?

The Bible seems to think so - and even sets limits. Blood guilt does not come on the one who, when surprised by an attacker in the night, kills him. After daybreak, though, the situation changes. See Exodus 22.

I need only point to a Scot, James Durham, who argued strongly (as did the Westminster divines) that protection of life was not only allowed, but a duty.

 

[Andres]

Well for example... Polycarp (I know there's lots of others). They came to execute him for his faith, and he gave his persecutors a meal before he left for the stake!

No offence, but you guys across the pond seem quite keen on your guns...

Do we really have the right to take another mans life? Under any circumstances?

I think these examples from scripture are the exception and not the norm. These were specific incidents that were included in scripture because they were special. I do not believe we are to read the bible through the lense of "well this person acted this way, so we are to act the exact same way".

 

[SemperEruditio]

Well for example... Polycarp (I know there's lots of others). They came to execute him for his faith, and he gave his persecutors a meal before he left for the stake!

No offence, but you guys across the pond seem quite keen on your guns...

Do we really have the right to take another mans life? Under any circumstances?

Huh?

No offense but why is it American's aren't gun crazed loonies when we're needed to defend a country but we are when we use them to defend ourselves?

Do we really have the right to allow another to take our life? Under any circumstances?

 

[Bern]

Talking of persecution for our faith, I don't know of anywhere in the bible where we are commanded to use lethal force to stop it happening. I'm not so sure the examples in scripture and in church history are exceptions to the rule. Surely you could say that about anything in the bible if you go down that road?

Don't get me wrong.. I'm by no means saying that if someone breaks into your home you shouldn't take action to prevent harm to you or your family, and do what you can to subdue the attacker... but killing them?

 

[LawrenceU]

If one breaks into your house, assaults you on the street, or otherwise intervenes in a negative manner with a weapon of lethal potential, the only way to effectively subdue him is often ( usually if he has any ability) to kill him. Please do not assume that a discussion about the willingness to use lethal force in self/family defense presumes a desire to do so.

 

[MarieP]

Thanks for all the input...

OK, I see that in Matthew 5, Jesus is correcting misunderstandings about what "eye for eye" meant and the slapping on the right cheek was an insult and not someone attacking you. The "go one mile" is a quote from Roman law. The point is against zealotry and vigilantism. In the other paragraphs of Matthew 5, Jesus is expanding upon moral law and says that not one jot or tittle will pass way from it. So why would this section be any different.

So the OT laws about self-defense are not civil law but moral law (right now, I'm honestly shaking my head at my own confusion). That being said, we do what is sufficient and don't do more than is necessary. Like LawrenceU said, it is something we don't desire to do (the preservation of our families (or ourselves) and not the hatred of the attacker is the motive- well, after glorifying God in obedience to His Scripture, of course).

 

[Edward]

Do we really have the right to take another mans life?

Yes.

Under any circumstances?

You need to clarify what you mean by 'any'. Do you mean it to be fully inclusive, or do you mean it to be limited? In other words, are you asking 'No matter what the circumstances?' the answer would be 'no'. Are you asking 'Is it ever permissible?' the answer would be 'yes'.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Does this relate at all?

(Mat 5:38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

(Mat 5:39) 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.

This may be a little wild, but how does a "normal" person hit you on the right cheek? If a right handed person hits you in the face to attack you, what cheek does he hit? Your left cheek. So how could someone hit your left cheek? If he give you the back of his hand ... a backhand strike is not an attack, it is an insult.

-----Added 11/21/2009 at 12:04:50 EST-----

Does this relate at all?

(Mat 5:38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

(Mat 5:39) 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.

These are verses usually quoted by pacifists who argue against any self defense at all... however, I'm not sure they apply (I'd have to study the context more carefully and broadly, but I tend to think that this does not preclude self-preservation or protection of others).

I do know that if I ever arrived home after work and someone was assaulting or otherwise attacking my wife or children, he would not leave my home alive. That attitude of mine, however, is probably more indicative of my lack of sanctification than anything else.

While I would undoubtedly not waste time attempting to make sure the attacker was not going to die, my objective would not be to kill. My objective would be to stop the attacker. If that meant that I hit the person in the back of the head with a steel pipe, shot them with a 12 gauge, took careful aim with a .30-06, or if the weapon at hand was so non-lethal as a can Fox 5.3, that would be the first thing I would use. If it stopped the attack, and they were so incapacitated that they were not able to continue the attack, I would remove the victims from the scene and call the police.

My intent would be to save lives of innocent. If a guilty man dies in the process of my saving my family, so be it; my goal is always to save lives, and I let God be the one to avenge.