biblical self defense

Well, Helen,

When I was in Jr. High, I was the nerdy kid who was picked on by the bullies at my school, until a kid who was bigger than the bullies stepped in and issued out some vigilante justice. Perhaps, he did sin. I don't know. But, I do know this. Teachers can't be everywhere and they can't catch all of the bullies. Sometimes they need some help. This kid helped me and the bullying ended.

Please, tell me this. If you were in the country, isolated from police and other authorities and you saw a person beating another person to a bloody pulp, what would you do? Wait for the police, or try to save the guy's life?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph, you are missing the point again. Of course I would try to step in to save the guy's life. But that is NOT what this thread is about. It is about SELF defense. The other person strikes you first. Do you turn the other cheek or hit back?

I'm glad the other fellow stood up for you. But first of all, you should have told your parents and/or school authorities what was going on.

I believe also, in another thread, you were badgering someone else to answer your question about something. So let me badger you -- where are your biblical directives for your point of view?

 

Helen,

I did. Many times school's have their hands tied because they can't really do much unless they actually see something going on. You know the rest.

Let me ask you this:

By what authority do you have a right to stand up to the guy beating the other guy to a bloody pulp? You are not a government authority, are you? What gives you that right? Or, is it a moral obligation?

Now, as to self defense, I would contend that defending yourself from bullies is imperative to stop them from bullying. Bullies are usually really nothing more than cowards who are trying to see how much they can get away with. They beat you up and you let them. They advance to the next person. It is only when someone draws a line on their nose and breaks it that they think twice about doing it again. My contention is that not only are you defending yourself when you are standing up to a bully, but you are defending others as well. You are telling that bully that there is a line you can't cross and you better think twice before you do so because you never know when someone is gonna clean your clock. They never even had that fear before. They made others fear them. That is the way they were able to make terror work.

Let's consider another case for self defense:

You are a female in your house alone and a rapist breaks in and tries to rape you. He is no threat to anyone but you (everyone else is gone---work with me. this is hypothetical, but very likely). You have a gun hidden under your covers or your pillow. Should you:

a. Allow him to rape you and possibly kill you

or

b. Blow his head away.

I vote option b. And you know what else? At least in my state, we have the legal authority to do so as well under the law.

I pity the fool who tries to break in my house.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph, I'm not asking you for anything you are offering. I am asking you for Bible. What is God's Word on this subject? Not what is your word or mine -- what is His?

In the meantime, in 1998 my daughter was raped. We did not kill the guy.

However, you did ask what authority one had for interfering to defend someone else. The command to love -- to care for another more than we care for ourselves. That is enough.

 

Helen,

Were you there when it happened? If you had been, would you have killed the guy? I would have. There would not have been a rape trial. They would have been calling the morgue, not a defense lawyer.

I asked what legal authority you would have had. Is it a moral obligation? Is that moral obligation to intervene based on the Bible (aka: the command to love). My contention is that by facing the bully and giving it to him square between the eyes, you are instilling a sense of fear in him and he will think twice about doing it again to someone else.

BTW,

I actually have legal authority under Arkansas law to defend myself if an intruder comes into my home. If the law recognizes my right and authority to defend myself, then how do you figure it becomes vigilante justice. The government has established guidelines for self-defense, and therefore, Biblically, the God ordained government has established my right to defend myself. Furthermore, the person who defends himself, also defends those around him, fulfilling the command of love, by making the bully think twice before trying that again.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The God Ordained Government in Hitler's Germany said it was Ok to exterminate the Jewish race.

Didn't make it Godly.

The God ordained Government of this country allows abortion.

You get my point. Just because the government says it is ok - doesn't make it ok

 

Joseph, I sympathise. At school I was the nerdy kid with glasses who got pushed around by the tough kids and jocks. And, make no mistake, although we don't as a rule carry firearms over here, I would do everything in my power to defend my wife and child, using lethal force if I could, unless it was my life threatened and for the sake of the Gospel (even then, though, do I not also have an obligation to my household to try and stay alive...?). But, like Helen, I'm concerned at the lack of NT back-up for this view. I guess we're arguing situational ethics here, which can largely be based only on extrapolation of Scriptural principles rather than Scripture itself. I certainly would not advocate lethal force to protect property however, as that is to raise the value of property to that of a human life, which is clearly wrong.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Thanks for the input sdcoyote.

Joseph, you continue to rely on your own ideas instead of relying on God. That is your choice. I pray a future maturity might teach you differently. You have given no biblical support for your position at all, but continue to depend upon your own 'wisdom'. Someday I pray earnestly you will depend upon God more than you do upon yourself.

God knows what He is talking about.

In the meantime, behave like a bully to the bullies and all you have done is joined their ranks.

And taught your children to do the same.

God is trustworthy, you know....

Matt, I sympathize with Joseph, too, regarding his position. I was my full height (5'8") at eleven years old, incredibly skinny and the total outcast. I did not 'come to my own' until I was out of high school. I know the pain of being on the outside. I know the pain of having someone knock the wind out of you for fun in the playyard. Nevertheless, we are really not talking about children here, nor are we talking about defending others. We are talking about self-defense.

And I still find no mandate in the Bible for personal self-defense! I'm not talking about protecting others or property or anything else. I am talking about a personal response to a personal insult or physical injury.

The closest I can come to anything biblical is the OT instruction that a woman cannot really claim rape if she has not screamed or struggled against it. So with that exception, I am still curious about the idea of SELF defense.

[ June 28, 2004, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Seems Paul stuck up for his "rights" in Philippi when he told the Roman jailor "I am a Roman and uncondemned". He had been placed in a Roman jail without a trial. Rome could do that to non-citizens, but not to citizens. Paul used his citizenship in a legal way - not by physically fighting the lawful authority (Roman soldiers), but by legally and politically fighting them those who illegally detained him and had him beaten. He also was not so meek and timid when he demanded that the city leaders come to the jail to escort him out and then wait while he addressed the elders of the church.

Did Paul suffer physically for the Gospel? Sure he did. He was beaten and thrown in jail. Did he stand up for his legal and political rights? Yes he did. Did he act this way on every occassion? No he did not. Only when the situation warranted this action (such as dealing with Romans instead of Jews). Even then he managed to appeal to Ceasar before a legal matter involving the Jews. Paul asserted his legal rights to self-defence, but not on every occassion.

I beleive there are principles here for us regarding both spiritual self-defence and physical self-defence.

We may suffer physically for the Gospel, but we have a responsibility to use whatever legal means possible to defend ourselves so the Gospel can be furthered. It may not be expedient to do so at all time however. We must be discerning.

Should we suffer physically, but not regarding the Gospel? If we can defend ourselves within the law we would be fools to allow someone to harm us or others. To allow the harm does not further the Gospel nor help the cause of Christ. There may be times, however, when the harm will further the cause of Christ. We must be discerning.

 

OK, Keith, then where do you see the command to 'turn the other cheek' coming in?

 

So we ARE talking situational ethics, then?

Helen, not everything is covered by the Bible. Scripture does not tell us whether car ownership is right, whether we should have TVs or go to McDonalds. Many situations we have to try and apply the general principles in Scripture to situations which were simply not contemplated by the humans who wrote it under divine inspiration; we have to apply the moral codes gleaned therein. For instance, the NT in particular tells me many times that I am head of my household. I take that to mean that I am responsible for their welfare and protection and, although Scripture is silent on the specific issue of whether I should defend my family I think I am justified in doing so

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Are you seriously making a connection between the innocent Jews and unborn and an intruder to my home? That does nothing but harm your argument because it is not based in logic.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The same place Paul did in Philippi. He did not press his legal "case" against the authorities. He could have easily had some heads literally rolling for what they did to a Roman citizen. Instead he allowed his rights to be infringed upon so that the church in Philippi would have an unprecedented amount of freedom.

I am saying that we do not take revenge even though the law may allow it. The principal of turning the other cheek harkens back to the law - an eye for an eye. Check out the context of Matthew 5. Turning the other cheek and going the extra mile must be taken in the same context as being sued under the law and someone asking to borrow from you.

If you are being picked on for your faith or, if not for your faith but because someone is aware of your faith and wants to see your response, the heap hot coals on their head by praying for them, giving a soft answer and turning the other cheek (do not take revenge). But if you have been randomly singled out for some act of theft, murder or other harm - defend yourself.

 

Helen,

My contention is that by defending yourself, you are also defending others around you. Why don'y you answer my questions instead of making personal attacks on my maturity and agreeing with idiotic remarks comparing the murder of innocent Jews to defending yourself to an intruder into your home? Tell me, if you would have been around the house when this rape took place, would you have stood by and allowed it to happen? If so, then shame on you. If it were my daughter and I were in the house, I would have blown his head off. Why don't you try arguing agianst my points instead of making personal attacks about my maturity?

Joseph Botwinick

 

To protect property no ......

I'm sorry but that is why we carry insurance. So that no matter what happens to our possessions they are taken care of.

BUT, if I did have a gun and someone was threating my family with another I would do my best to stop them by any means necessary. And this new Gun law hide and carry? Bothers me. I worry about my kids playing with a Gun in someone elses house.

I do not allow any form of weapons in my house like guns shot guns ect. They are stored at my mother in laws. I got jumpy about my husband's bow. I make him keep the tips in the glove comparment of the car.

My kids first

The most dangerous place in the world to be, is between a mother, and her children.

I wouldn't need a Gun to stop someone from hurting my children. They would have to pull me off their rotting corpse

 

I had always heard that the "turn the other cheek" was about a slap, as in an insult, and that Christ was telling us to bear insults. That he was not telling us in that passage to refuse to defend ourselves.

I found this article that has some comments on the "turn the other cheek" meaning

 

I thought it was particularly in terms of banning revenge.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I understand Helen’s point. Turning the other cheek is the Scriptural option.

We are also told to cut off our hand if it offends us and/or to gouge out the eye if it is a source of sin. I haven’t seen many Christians with one or both eyes gouged out (especially young men who are prone to "eye" the young ladies).

My advice to my sons when they asked me about defending themselves at school was "Jesus didn’t tell us what to do when we run out of cheeks. Always try to negotiate. Never throw the first punch, try again to negotiate, if violence is still there, then the rest is between you and the Lord. I don’t want to have to take you to the hospital or worst, the morgue".

My third son John (14 yrs old at the time) was being bullied in the boy’s room by an older and bigger student who was armed (knife). When John saw him pull the knife he punched the perpetrator in the mouth knocking out his two front teeth and the bully fell to the ground in a stupor. John was exonerated because it was self-defense.

Personally, I am glad my son defended himself.

HankD

 

Joseph-

You missed the point entirely. I AM making the argument that just because the government says its legal - that does not mean its Biblical.

Nothing at all illogical with that.

 

That's a really interesting article, and thank you. A couple of points. First of all, he is mistaken about the reason (originally) of the 'eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth' mandate of the OT. The cultures at the time were man over law, not law over man. This means that the heads of state could declare any punishment they desired for any 'crime' no matter how trivial. The order of 'eye for an eye' specifically limited punishments to no more than what was done to the victim. It is important to understand this. In today's society we have gone head over heels the other direction to the point where a murderer, even a mass or serial murderer, only gets 'life in prison,' meaning we support him for the rest of his life and give him free medical care, free education if he desires, etc. So with this kind of culture now, 'eye for an eye' seems terribly harsh. That is not its foundation.

That aside, all the examples brought up by the author were regarding defense of others, property, country, etc. I don't know about any others here, but I certainly would never argue against any of that.

Joseph could not give any examples of biblical support for his point of view and yelled that I was attacking him personally by making the observation that I hoped the years would modify his trust in himself and his own logic and transfer all that to God, who is far wiser. That is not an insult, Joseph. You are young enough to be my son and your 'enthusiasm' for what you feel is right is pretty normal. I hope though that the years do modify your stance in favor of more absolute dependance on the Lord Himself.

So far the only argument I have seen regarding actual 'self' defense is when Jesus told the disciples to take a sword for their initial journey. I would assume this would be for self-defense, too, -- probably against road robbers which were rampant at the time. After all, Christ was only sending them out by two's, and not en masse.

Jesus' words to these particular people at this particular time, however, must be weighed with not only 'turn the other cheek', but with His command to Peter to put away the sword when Jesus was arrested, for 'those who live by the sword will die by the sword.' As was mentioned before in this thread as well, Paul stated that he had citizen privileges, but he never sought to defend himself against the abuse of those privileges -- he simply requested they be recognized.

Please consider also the times when Jesus was mobbed and they wanted to throw Him over the cliff. He never physically defended Himself. He trusted the Father to look after Him, and then simply walked through the crowd and away from the scene of the mob.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with allowing another person to be hurt. After all, though, even when the prostitute was brought before Jesus prior to an intended stoning, all Jesus said was "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Perhaps that is something else we should remember. For the law at the time commanded that a prostitute be put to death by stoning. Jesus did not counter the law, but He simply mentioned something else.

Perhaps no matter what any of us get, we deserve it?