Self-Defense and the Christian: A Biblical and Theological Examination
Self-Defense and the Christian: A Biblical and Theological Examination
Introduction
Few topics ignite more debate within Christian circles than the question of self-defense. Bring it up at a Bible study or a church fellowship meal, and the responses will range from impassioned pacifism to emphatic defenses of the Second Amendment. For some, the words of Christ—“turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies”—seem to settle the matter in favor of nonresistance. For others, the biblical commands to protect the weak, defend the oppressed, and uphold justice imply a moral responsibility to resist violence, even with force if necessary.
The issue is not simply practical but deeply theological. How are believers to follow the Prince of Peace while living in a fallen world filled with violence and injustice? Does Christian discipleship forbid protective violence, or does it sometimes require it? This essay will explore the biblical, theological, and historical dimensions of self-defense, seeking to provide clarity on a matter that resists simplistic answers.
I. Turning the Other Cheek: Retaliation and the Ethics of Pride
The most commonly cited text in favor of Christian pacifism is Matthew 5:38–39:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
At face value, the command appears absolute: Christians must never resist evil. Yet a closer examination of the text suggests otherwise. The verb used for “slap” (rhapizō) refers not to an act of lethal violence but to an insulting backhand. In a right-handed culture, to be struck on the right cheek implies a deliberate act of humiliation rather than an assault intended to cause serious bodily harm.
Jesus’ concern in this context is the renunciation of vengeance. He warns against escalating cycles of insult and retaliation. The ethic here addresses personal pride, not the defense of life and family. To turn the other cheek is to refuse to answer humiliation with counter-humiliation, thereby breaking the spiral of violence.
The distinction between retaliation and defense is crucial. If Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 were interpreted as prohibiting all resistance to evil, they would stand in contradiction to other biblical passages where God’s servants actively flee, resist, or defend against harm.
II. Biblical Examples of Escape and Evasion
The Old and New Testaments are filled with examples of God’s people avoiding violence rather than submitting passively to it.
David and Saul
In 1 Samuel 19:10, Saul hurled a spear at David in a fit of rage. David did not remain seated to “turn the other cheek.” Instead, he dodged the spear and fled for his life. The next several chapters recount David’s constant eluding of Saul’s murderous intentions. At no point is David rebuked by God for cowardice or for failing to embrace suffering. His actions are depicted as prudent, not unspiritual.
Paul in Damascus
Likewise, Paul recounts in 2 Corinthians 11:32–33 how he escaped from a plot against his life in Damascus by being lowered in a basket through a city wall. He did not court martyrdom prematurely but employed wise means to preserve his life for continued ministry.
Jesus Himself
Even Christ, who ultimately laid down His life willingly, did not embrace death at every opportunity. In Luke 4:29–30, when a mob attempted to hurl Him from a cliff, He passed through their midst and departed. In John 8:59, when His opponents picked up stones to kill Him, He “hid himself and went out of the temple.” Jesus chose the timing of His death according to the Father’s plan. Until that hour arrived, He avoided violence rather than embracing it.
These examples collectively demonstrate that fleeing danger is neither faithless nor forbidden. Avoiding harm, when possible, is consistent with godly wisdom.
III. Defending Against Beasts and Men
But what of situations where flight is not possible? Scripture also presents cases where resistance against danger is justified, even commendable.
David and the Wild Beasts
Before fighting Goliath, David recounted his experience as a shepherd:
“Your servant used to keep sheep for his father. And when there came a lion, or a bear, and took a lamb from the flock, I went after him and struck him and delivered it out of his mouth” (1 Sam. 17:34–35).
Far from being rebuked, David regarded this act of protective violence as evidence of God’s empowering grace. The Lord who delivered him from the paw of the lion and the bear, he declared, would deliver him from the Philistine. Protecting the flock was not merely permitted but seen as godly stewardship.
Humans as Predatory Beasts
If it is righteous to defend sheep from a lion, how much more to defend one’s family from a violent attacker? Scripture often describes the wicked in animalistic terms (2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10). When a drugged or enraged individual poses lethal danger, to intervene is not vengeance but love—love for one’s household, for innocent bystanders, and even for the attacker, who is thereby restrained from adding to his guilt.
IV. Protecting the Vulnerable: A Biblical Mandate
The biblical witness goes further, calling not merely for personal protection but for the defense of others.
Deuteronomy 22
One sobering passage in Deuteronomy 22 envisions a betrothed woman assaulted in the countryside. The law presumes she cried out, but no one was present to rescue her. The implication is stark: someone should have been there to intervene. The absence of rescue highlights the tragedy.
Psalm 82
Psalm 82:4 commands: “Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” This imperative lays a moral obligation upon the strong to protect the vulnerable. Refusal to act in the face of violence is not neutrality but complicity. Proverbs 25:26 compares the righteous who fail in such moments to a polluted spring—useless and corrupted.
Thus, Christian ethics not only permits but at times demands intervention against violence.
V. The Sword and the Teaching of Jesus
The most debated New Testament text concerning self-defense is Luke 22:36, where Jesus instructs His disciples:
“Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
In the same discourse, He also tells them to take moneybags and knapsacks. Nothing in the immediate context suggests that the sword is metaphorical. In the ancient world, where law enforcement was sparse and travel dangerous, carrying a sword was common prudence.
When Peter later wielded his sword in Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him—not for possessing the weapon, but for using it at the wrong time. The arrest was a fulfillment of divine prophecy; resistance in that moment would have opposed God’s redemptive plan. The lesson is not that swords are forbidden, but that they must not be used to resist the gospel’s advance or to retaliate against persecution.
VI. From Swords to Firearms: Modern Applications
In contemporary society, swords have been replaced by other means of protection, most notably firearms. The moral principles, however, remain parallel. If it was not sinful for disciples to carry swords for self-defense, then it is not inherently sinful for Christians today to own and responsibly use firearms.
Firearms, when handled properly, can serve as equalizers, enabling the weak to resist the strong. A frail widow can defend her home from an intruder; a young woman can resist a violent assailant. In many cases, the mere presence of a weapon halts an attack without bloodshed.
Of course, firearms carry risks of misuse, negligence, and tragedy. But so did swords. Scripture nowhere condemns weapons as intrinsically immoral; the sin lies in the heart that wields them unjustly. Responsible ownership, proper training, and grave sobriety are therefore essential.
VII. Persecution and the Call to Endure
Yet one vital distinction must be drawn: the difference between criminal violence and persecution for the faith.
The apostles consistently taught that suffering for Christ must be embraced, not resisted by force. Peter writes:
“If you suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear their threats” (1 Pet. 3:14).
“If you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name” (1 Pet. 4:16).
Jesus Himself warned that His followers would be hated for His sake (Matt. 10:22). When such persecution comes, the Christian witness is not to retaliate but to endure with joy, bearing testimony to Christ’s worth. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
Thus, while believers may resist ordinary crime, they are called to embrace suffering when it comes specifically because of allegiance to Christ.
VIII. Conscience, Calling, and Community
In light of this biblical survey, how should Christians approach the ethics of self-defense? Three guiding categories may help: conscience, calling, and community.
Conscience. Romans 14 teaches that in matters not explicitly commanded or forbidden, each believer must be fully convinced in his own mind. Some Christians, out of conviction, embrace pacifism; others accept the legitimacy of protective force. Neither should condemn the other, so long as both act in faith.
Calling. God’s providence places different responsibilities upon His people. Police officers and soldiers are entrusted with the lawful use of force to restrain evil (Rom. 13:1–4). Missionaries in hostile contexts may be called to nonresistance for the sake of gospel witness. Parents are called to protect their children. Each must discern God’s calling in their sphere.
Community. Self-defense is never purely individual. One must ask: who else bears the consequences of my action or inaction? To intervene against violence may preserve many lives; to refuse may abandon others to destruction. Love for neighbor must guide the decision.
IX. Historical Perspectives on Christian Self-Defense
The biblical material does not stand in isolation. Throughout the centuries, Christians have wrestled with the question of violence, self-defense, and the use of weapons. Their responses, though diverse, help illuminate the ongoing tension between pacifism and protection.
The Early Church and Pacifist Tendencies
In the first three centuries, many Christians leaned toward pacifism, largely due to their minority status within the Roman Empire and the association of military service with idolatry. Church Fathers such as Tertullian (c. 160–220) and Origen (c. 185–254) urged Christians to avoid military participation, emphasizing instead the spiritual warfare of prayer.
Tertullian wrote in De Corona that Christ “in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.” Origen argued in Against Celsus that Christians fight through prayer rather than the sword. These voices shaped an ethos of nonresistance, particularly with respect to persecution.
Yet even in this era, absolute pacifism was not universal. Clement of Alexandria suggested that violence in defense of the weak could be justified, and some Christians served in the Roman military prior to Constantine, though often with controversy.
Augustine and the Just War Tradition
With Constantine’s conversion in the early fourth century and the Christianization of the Roman Empire, the situation changed dramatically. Christians now faced the responsibility of governance and protection of society. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) articulated what became the foundation of the “just war” tradition.
For Augustine, war or violence could never be pursued out of hatred or revenge, but under the principle of caritas, love for neighbor. The restraint of evil, the protection of the innocent, and the restoration of peace could necessitate the use of force. His famous dictum was that the use of the sword by authorities, when directed toward justice, could be an expression of love, not sin.
This did not give license to private vengeance. Augustine carefully distinguished between the individual Christian ethic of patience under persecution and the societal responsibility of rulers to restrain evil. Self-defense, therefore, was not primarily conceived in terms of individual rights but of communal responsibility.
The Medieval Church
In the medieval era, Augustine’s principles were elaborated by thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). In his Summa Theologiae (II–II, Q.64, a.7), Aquinas affirmed the legitimacy of killing in self-defense, provided that the defender did not intend the aggressor’s death but only the preservation of life. The death of the attacker, in such cases, was seen as a secondary and unintended consequence.
This became known as the doctrine of “double effect.” Aquinas’s teaching profoundly influenced Western moral theology, embedding the legitimacy of self-defense within Catholic tradition while still restraining it within careful moral limits.
The Reformation
The Reformers also grappled with the question. Martin Luther distinguished between the private Christian, called to endure suffering, and the magistrate, charged with wielding the sword to restrain evil (drawing heavily from Romans 13). Yet Luther did not prohibit individual self-defense, particularly when protecting family and neighbor. In his Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved (1526), he argued that Christians could serve lawfully in defense roles without sin.
The Anabaptists, by contrast, returned to a more radical pacifism. Groups such as the Swiss Brethren and later the Mennonites held that Christ’s commands in the Sermon on the Mount prohibited all violence, including self-defense. They rejected military service and emphasized nonresistance, even at the cost of martyrdom.
Thus, within the Reformation itself, two divergent trajectories emerged: magisterial Protestants affirming protective force under certain conditions, and Anabaptists rejecting it entirely.
Modern Evangelical Perspectives
In the modern era, Protestant evangelicals have generally affirmed the legitimacy of self-defense, while maintaining distinctions between persecution and crime. Writers such as John Calvin emphasized the duty of rulers and citizens alike to protect life and preserve order.
Contemporary evangelical ethicists, including Wayne Grudem and John Frame, argue that the command to love one’s neighbor can require intervention against violence, including armed defense. At the same time, many evangelicals influenced by Anabaptist traditions—such as John Howard Yoder in The Politics of Jesus—continue to advocate pacifism as the truest expression of Christ’s teaching.
The diversity of views underscores the enduring tension: Christians are called to peace and non-retaliation, yet also to justice and the protection of the innocent.
Conclusion: A Tension Held in Love
The ethics of self-defense are complex. Scripture affirms the renunciation of vengeance and pride while also affirming the duty to protect life and restrain evil. It presents examples of escape, of defense against beasts and men, of commands to protect the vulnerable, and of sober warnings not to resist persecution with violence.
The Christian, therefore, is not absolutely forbidden from self-defense. Indeed, protecting others may at times be a moral duty. Yet the believer is also called to embrace suffering for Christ’s sake, never retaliating against persecution.
The question is not merely what one may do, but what love requires in each situation. Self-defense is not a right to be asserted but a responsibility to be weighed carefully before God.
We follow a Savior who laid down His life willingly, not because He lacked the power to resist, but because obedience to the Father required it. His example teaches us that strength is not found in vengeance but in love—the love that protects, the love that suffers, and the love that entrusts all things to God.
For Further Study
Primary Ethics Texts
Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Christian Life: A Theology of Lordship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008) 690–93.
Geisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010) 230–35.
Grudem, Wayne. Christian Ethics: Living a Life That Is Pleasing to God, Updated ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024) 545–59.
McQuilkin, Robertson, and Paul Copan. An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014) 326–33.
Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009) 304, 308, 314.
Stassen, Glen H., and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003) 189–91. This material, which opposes allowing private gun ownership, is not in the 2016 2nd ed. of this book.
Other Works
DeRouchie, Jason. “Lethal Self-Defense.” April 26, 2016. Jason DeRouchie. Accessed August 22, 2025. https://jasonderouchie.com/derouchie-lethal-self-defense/.
Piper, John. Love Your Enemies: Jesus’s Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.
———. “Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?” Desiring God, December 22, 2015. Accessed August 22, 2025. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves.
Sprinkle, Preston, with Andrew Rillera. Fight: A Christian Case for Nonviolence. Colorado Springs: Cook, 2013.
Van Wyk, Charl. Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense. Cape Town: Chris-tian Liberty Books, 2001.
Wax, Trevin. “Can Christians Ever Use Violence? A Discussion with Preston Sprinkle (Part 1).” The Gospel Coalition, September 10, 2013. Accessed August 22, 2025. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/how-non-violent-should-christians-be-a-discussion-with-preston-sprinkle-part-1/.
Wax, Trevin. “Can Christians Ever Fight for Peace? A Discussion with Preston Sprinkle (Part 2).” The Gospel Coalition, September 11, 2013. Accessed August 22, 2025. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/can-christians-ever-fight-for-peace-a-discussion-with-preston-sprinkle-part-2/?queryID=9f913f6dc829da6cc4145581aaa8ca31.
Comments
Post a Comment