Self Defense – Two Arguments Considered

I recently heard a sermon by Don Blackwell trying to justify a Christian using lethal force to physically defend himself. This article is to examine the main two arguments Don used to say the action is authorized.

Luke 3:14 was cited with the assertion John the Baptist didn’t tell the soldiers there to quit being soldiers. But consider what John did tell those soldiers in the middle of that verse as it relates to this topic – “Do violence to no man.” Does that sound like John was wanting these soldiers to use lethal force?

Also keep in mind that when John is talking to these soldiers, the Old Testament was still in force. And Jesus’ very point in Matt 5:38-39 is that the Old Testament law allowed “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (self-defense), but He was not going to allow that anymore under His new law, instead, we are to “resist not evil” (verse 39), “recompense to no man evil for evil” (Rom 12:17a), that “love worketh no ill to his neighbour” (Rom 13:10a). Sounds pretty clear, doesn’t it?

Another argument Don made was that Jesus told his disciples in Luke 22:36 to take a sword on their preaching journeys. But isn’t it just an assumption to say Jesus intended them to use those swords to defend against humans and not perhaps dangerous animals they might encounter? Consider the fact that when Peter used one of those swords to defend against humans (he cut off Malchus’ ear) in Matt 26:51, Jesus rebuked him for it in verse 52. Also consider from the fact that the “younger” prophet in I Kings 13:24 was killed by a lion, that there were dangerous animals roaming the land in those days. Might the disciples have needed to take a sword to ward off those wild animals on their journeys? Doesn’t that really make more sense with the verse Don cited, as Jesus told the disciples two swords would be enough? If defending against humans, each disciple would need his own sword (since each member of a gang of thieves would have a sword). But if defending against animals, two swords would be enough because a lion doesn’t carry a sword.

Have you ever considered James 5:6 on this issue? The context (verses 1-4) shows the rich were oppressing the poor, and verse 6 says to the rich “Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.” These working-class Christians were upheld for not resisting the physical violence of the rich against them. That is an approved example if I’ve ever seen one. Acts 20:7 is not the only approved example we must follow you know.

hear Bible Crossfire Sundays at 8:00 pm central on SiriusXM national radio Family Talk 131 & 62 local stations across America or at www.BibleDebates.info