The use of weapons in self-defense is one of the most divisive topics of today. Many people hold that there is no situation where the use of deadly force is justified, even if that means the loss of your own life. These same people have the mistaken concept that if we stop using guns to defend ourselves, the criminals will stop using guns too and there won’t be any need to defend ourselves. Yet the mayor of London, England felt that he had to outlaw pointed knives, even pointed kitchen knives, because criminals were using them to kill people.
People try to come up with their own morality all the time; mostly because they don’t want to accept the Bible’s definition of morality. But it is only God who can define morality, as He is the only one who is holy. His definition of morality is just and perfect, just as He is. As such, it remains unchanged, regardless of what happens here on earth. Any other definition is based on human whim, which can change in a moment’s notice.
We can see how man messes up their own definition of morality through a number of historic examples. Probably the most impactful of these was the Holocaust, when NAZI Germany killed six million Jews, as well as three million other “undesirables.” The NAZI government had decided that “morality” necessitated the removal of these people from their “pure Aryan society.” Killing them in gas chambers was merely the most efficient means they could develop to do so.
Some say that morality is “not doing anything that would hurt others.” That’s a noble sounding sentiment, at least on the surface, but how can it hold up when keeping from hurting one person, might require hurting another. The same sort of people approve of abortion, because having that baby might cause embarrassment, emotional issues or financial problems for the mother. So, it’s okay to kill the baby to protect the mother’s emotions; but it’s not okay for the mother to suffer embarrassment to keep the baby from being killed? Is that today’s morality? Murder (of the baby) seems like a whole lot more serious harm than embarrassment.
As this shows, we can’t have everyone coming up with their own definition of morality. The only true definition that exists, is that which God has provided for us in the Bible. Even so, some may argue that the Bible either allows is to defend ourselves or tells us that we can’t, based on the verses that they choose to use.
Thou Shalt Not Kill
The best starting point is probably the Ten Commandments, as that’s the verse that most people are familiar with. The fifth commandment is often quoted as saying “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13 KJV), as is translated in the King James version of the Bible. But as good as that translation is, the word “kill” there may be misunderstood. It is the Hebrew word “ratsach” which really means to kill intentionally, with premeditation. In modern legal parlance, that would be considered homicide, or premeditated murder.
There are actually several different words used for “kill” in the Bible, as not all killing is the same. Killing by accident is not the same as killing intentionally; nor is killing in war, although that is intentional. The killing of animals is allowed, even though that is intentional. So, to translate the word “ratsach” here is kill, is not an ideal translation. Some other translations of the Bible also use the word “kill” here, but not all do. The New King James version of the Bible (NKJV), the Amplified Bible (AMP) and the English Standard Version (ESV) all say “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13), clarifying the meaning of the word “ratsach” in this verse.
As further support of this translation, there are many places in the history books of the Old Testament, where God commanded the nation of Israel to kill people, most especially the various nations that occupied the Promised Land in Canaan. One such example reads:
But the cities of these peoples (the Canaanite people) which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, 17 but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God. – Deuteronomy 20:16-18
God doesn’t use the word “ratsach” here, but rather tells them to “utterly destroy them.” Earlier, he makes it clear that they are to destroy them with the edge of the sword. So, it’s clear that God directed the Israelites to kill them.
What’s interesting is God’s reason for this, as shown in verse 18. God commanded this as a protection for His Chosen People, so that the inhabitants of the land would not drag them into idolatry. God had apparently judged these people for their sin (the sin of idolatry) and already judged them guilty. Moreover, He apparently decided that there was no redemption possible for them, or He would probably have acted differently. Since they were guilty unto death, He commanded Israel to carry out that sentence.
Turn the Other Cheek
Another verse that people use to say that it is wrong to defend oneself, is Jesus’ famous statement about turning the other cheek. Taken in context, this statement reads:
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” (Leviticus 24:19-21)1 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 and whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. – Matthew 5:39-41
When we look at the entire passage like this, it is clear that the focus is not about self-defense. Rather, the statement about turning the other cheek is speaking metaphorically about how we respond to slights. Rather than replying slight for slight, we are to turn away, even if that means that the person who slighted us will do so again.
The point here is all about how we respond. Going beyond the eye for an eye part, verses 40 and 41 are especially telling. In verse 40, Jesus said to respond to slights by giving the person more than what they’ve asked for, even if they slight you in court. Putting this in a context that might make more sense in our modern world, if your spouse sues for divorce and wants to take the house, let them have it, for it is better to lose the value of that house, than to become a stumbling block before them. Even more than that, offer them your car, to go along with the house. Let your actions show that you want to glorify God in everything, even to your own loss.
Verse 41 shoed a very particular application of this idea in the time of Jesus. Under Roman law, a Roman soldier could compel any citizen to carry their pack for a mile, but no more. He was saying that as a believer, don’t complain when a soldier asks that of you; instead, go a mile further than they have a right to ask you, showing them Christ through your willingness to be a blessing to them. In the first mile, you would be merely fulfilling your legal obligation; but in the second one, you would be blessing him, perhaps making a friend and better yet, having an opportunity to witness to them about Christ.
This is especially important in the light of the persecution that the church has suffered through the centuries. When we respond out of our fleshly nature to slights against the Gospel or against ourselves, we give up allowing our lives to be a witness of God’s divine power within us and show ourselves to be no better off than those who persecute us. We might win the battle, but in the process, we lose the war. Which is more important, defending ourselves from insult or winning that person’s soul for the Lord?
But Vengeance Belongs to the Lord
Finally, there are those who will claim that “vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord,” slightly misquoting Romans 12:19, which in turn is quoting from Deuteronomy 32:35. While it is true that God said this, once again, the context is important.
Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 Therefore, “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing, you will heap coals of fire on his head” (Proverbs 25:21-22)1 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. – Romans 21:17-21
Once again, the context makes it clear that the Apostle Pual, the author of Romans, was talking about dealing with offense, not a threat to one’s personal safety. While one might try and argue that taking a beating or being raped is an “offense” it is also much more than one. That’s a lame argument, in that it isn’t in the same category as physical danger.
So, Can We Use Deadly Force?
Having dealt with all the Biblical arguments against the use of deadly force, let us answer the question that we started out with – Does the Bible allow for the use of deadly force in self-defense. Surprisingly, the Bible does answer this question, and in a way that will probably surprise a lot of people.
God has always known, from the beginning, that men had the capacity for evil in their hearts. That’s why the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed in the Garden of Eden. It wasn’t that God wanted man to eat of that fruit and fall into sin; but rather, God knew that man (Adam) would have to fall, before His plan for redemption could be fulfilled. Of course, that potential for evil goes far beyond eating some forbidden fruit. It can and does include all sorts of sins and crimes, up to and including killing one’s fellow man.
Knowing this, God had to make some sort of provision for the evil which men would commit on their fellow man. A large chunk of the ‘sins’ listed in the Old Testament Law make reference to such evil acts. But is that enough? Is it enough for God to punish someone who has committed evil, even violence on others, without allowing those others the right to defend themselves? That’s what some would like. But God had different ideas.
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. – Exodus 22:2
Some would say this is a bit harsh, that nothing the thief steals can be worth taking their life for. But to look at this fairly, we have to look at both sides of the equation. What is that thief going to do, if they are caught in the act? I can pretty much guarantee that they’re not going to apologize. Rather, they’re going to strike out, quite possibly hurting the person who caught them. If God had not given them the right to defend themselves, it would give the thief an unfair advantage.
This is not blanket permission to kill anyone who we suspect of being a criminal or who is snooping around outside our home. God is specific in this commandment, saying that they have to be caught breaking in. In that case the homeowner or resident is permitted to defend themselves, even if that leads to death.
One could ask, “Couldn’t they hit the thief without killing him?” Ideally, that would be the case. But in reality, when one strikes out in anger or fear, even in self-defense, there is no telling what the results will be. One such blow might merely annoy the person being hit, while another could kill. This is why this commandment is necessary. It gives us permission to defend ourselves, regardless of what the end result of our actions are.
But God doesn’t just leave it there. The next verse modifies this basic command, putting some restrictions on it.
If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guild for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. – Exodus 22:3
This verse can be a bit confusing, because it actually talks about two separate things. First, it limits verse 2, saying that there will only be no guilt if the thief is killed at night. If someone strikes a thief in self-defense during the daylight hours, killing them, then they are guilty of the thief’s blood.
This almost seems contradictory, saying that we can only defend ourselves during certain hours. But in reality, it is recognizing the difficulty of fighting in the dark. During daylight hours, it is much easier to control our hits, so that we don’t accidentally kill someone. God’s preference is that a thief caught in the daytime be made to make restitution, according to other commandments in the Law. God goes on to explain this further, saying that if the thief doesn’t have enough to pay back seven times what they stole, they can be sold into slavery to pay for their crime.
But This is the Old Testament
There are those who question everything in the Old Testament, especially in the Old Testament Law, saying that it doesn’t apply to us today, so let’s go there. While neither Jesus or Paul specifically deal with Exodus 22:2 in anything recorded in Scripture, Jesus does tell his disciples that they need to have a sword. He is adamant about this, to the point of selling one’s clothes, if necessary, in order to buy that sword.
Then He (Jesus)1 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.” – Luke 22:36
It almost seems out of character that Jesus would tell His disciples to buy a sword, as there is no evidence that He ever owned or used one. Some might think that He was telling His disciples to buy swords to protect Him from being captured. Yet, the fact that he rebuked Peter for using the sword to cut off the ear of the High Priest’s servant (Matthew 26:51-53; also mentioned in the other three gospels), shows that His intent was not His own protection; but rather theirs.
Taking in context, we see Jesus’ statement there in Luke makes reference to His sending out the 70 (Luke 10:1). At that time, He was sending them out for a brief period of time, to announce His coming. They would not need provisions, as they would not be gone for a long time. But this time was during the Last Supper and He was sending His disciples out into the world, to take over His work. They would be gone for a prolonged period of time and would therefore need provision.
At that time, just like just about any other time in history, the world was filled with criminals. Travel was mostly on foot and was dangerous. Brigands of various types would attack unwary travelers, mostly to steal whatever they had. Remember the man who was attacked in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37)?
The only protection against those brigands was to travel armed. Jesus wasn’t sending those disciples out to die, although almost all were martyred, He was sending them out to spread the Gospel. To accomplish that mission, there was a chance that they would need to defend themselves. Taking a sword along, when traveling, was only prudent and He was counseling that prudence.
It should be noted that the sword was the most powerful individual weapon of the day. Jesus could have told them to take a staff (quarterstaff), spear, bow or sling; but He chose the sword. While we don’t know why He made that choice, it is significant that Jesus chose the sword. Perhaps He did that, because the sword would be a better deterrent against brigands, than any other weapon. A thief armed with nothing but a knife would be less likely to attack a traveler who is armed with a sword, as that would put them at a disadvantage.
But What About Guns?
Even given everything above, there are those who would be quick to point out that a sword is not a gun. Regardless of their political reason for making that observation, it is really immaterial. God did not specify which weapons could and could not be used in self-defense. Jesus’ use of the word “sword” makes no sense in a literal manner, as it is illegal to carry a sword in most states and you can’t get a license to carry a concealed sword.
Looking at it figuratively, the sword, specifically the Roman Gladius, was the ultimate personal weapon of the day. While it is doubtful that citizens could own a Gladius, as that was the sword of the Roman army, there were other swords around. These were generally shorter than the Gladius, what we would consider a short sword, and could have either a straight or curved blade.
Regardless, the sword was the ultimate self-defense weapon of the day, just as the gun is the ultimate self-defense weapon today. The idea that guns are more dangerous than other weapons is ludicrous, what makes any weapon dangerous is the person wielding it. With criminals using guns, we need them too. The Bible just doesn’t mention them because they didn’t exist for another 1,000 years or so.
Seeing that Jesus’ intent was to counsel His disciples in the need to be ready to defend themselves, it only makes sense that they would arm themselves with pistols, if the Gospels had taken place today. However, owning or carrying a pistol wouldn’t give them any more of a right to shoot someone, without cause, than it gave Peter the right to cut off the ear of the High Priest’s servant. Gons, like any other weapon, convey the responsibility of using them with care, along with the right to use them.