biblical self defense

It is my contention that Christ once told his disciples to buy a sword (which may have been for protection against wild animals) and that he drove the money changers out of the temple. Those are the only passages in the Gospels where violence could possibly be linked to Christ's teachings.

Why are you attempting to argue by extreme case, rather than by rule. It is obvious to anyone who reads the whole of Christ's words that we are to do our best to be a peaceful people. How can one read "the Sermon on the Mount," and believe Christ espoused violence?

 

Gina,

You are correct about the original post in this thread. And, I agree about not killing somebody to protect personal property (non-human life). However, this conversation did turn from self defense of personal property to simple self defense in any case here:

We have debated many different aspects of self defense.

Joseph Botwinick

 

This is a simple yes or no question. Is it your contention that Jesus never killed anyone or encouraged his followers to do so in either the Old or New Testament? Another yes or no question: Is it your contention that Jesus, as God, changed in the New Testament into a pacifists and never killed anyone in the New Testament?

I look forward to your answers to these questions. I don't need a long essay. A simple yes or no will do. I am just establishing very clearly where you stand before I present my evidence for my point of view from the Bible.

Thanks,

Joseph Botwinick

 

My friend, don't use an old lawyer's trick (the simple yes or no)to try to build your case. You may not need a long essay, but there are questions that simply cannot be answered without justification

In the Old Testament, yes, God did direct the people of Israel to kill people. BUT

It was only due to the Fall that violence entered creation, poisoning the universe and the human psyche with alienation from God and others. The existance of violence, from the perspective of the Judeo-Christian worldview, is a problem to be resolved, not a fact of life to abide by. Any subsequent example of violence in the Hebrew Scriptures which seems to be ordained by God may more properly be understood as God expressing His "consequent will". Now that alienation and the symptom of violence exist and are being fully indulged by humanity, God directs the results of this violence to accomplish His ends.

The Christian faith makes the central affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah prophecied by Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Zechariah and the rest of the Prophets. It is in Him that our hope and peace and salvation rests, and it is to His teachings of peace that the majority of the Christian arguement for non-violence is based. Jesus establishes a world order that is based on very unmilitary qualities of meekness, gentleness, mercifulness, and peacemaking (Matthew 5:3-12). He COMMANDS us to love our enemies and to do good for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43-46). Jesus lays down a groundwork for non-violent resistance both in the Temple (Matthew 21:12-16, Mark 11:15-18, Luke 19:45-46, John 2:14-22) and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:38-42). When Jesus predicted the denial of Peter, it was then that He suggested buying swords, for those who reject Him must use the ways of the world (Luke 22:31-39). Yet after that He refuses to allow the swords to be used for Him, as He teaches that violence only breeds violence and that to use violence is to ensure one's own destruction thereby (Matthew 26:50-52). And He states that His kingdom is not of this earth, THEREFORE His followers do not take up arms (John 18:36-37).

Many respond to this by agreeing that Jesus taught these things, but that in this unreconciled world, to actually follow these teachings would be folly. The world is unprepared for the path of peace that Jesus teaches, and therefore Christians must be "realistic" in how they address the reality of violence. To that end, Christians are to engage the Myth of Redemptive Violence as though the Myth of Redemptive Violence were true; that is, Christians are supposed to protect to use violence. In effect, the Christian ends up becoming funcationally and practically no different from the "lawless" and "violent" which they claim to theologically oppose. Only a weak sentimental notion of Jesus as Saviour but not Lord, His reign of peace defered to a later date, identifies any difference.

 

Ok. That is a fair answer to the first question. What is your answer to the second question:

Is it your contention that Jesus, as God, changed in the New Testament into a pacifists and never killed anyone in the New Testament?

Thanks,

Joseph Botwinick

 

Ah, I see where you are turning - the story of Annanias and Sapphira....

I think it is important to discuss that case. It is often suggested that they died because they were cheating the Church. This is not really true. They were not cheating the Church since they were not under any obligation to give anything to the Apostles. Even Peter agreed that the property belonged to the couple. Even after it was sold, the money belonged to them as well (5:4). There was no expectation for Ananias and Sapphira to give any of the proceeds to the Apostles. In fact, since Barnabas had recently made a sizable donation, we have to wonder if the Church even needed the money. Participation in Christian Communism was strictly voluntary. In summary, the couple did not cheat the Church because nothing was owed to the Church.

So, what was their sin? Their sin was that of hypocrisy. They were pretending to do one thing but were doing something quite different. The were pretending to be like Barnabas, giving everything to the Church of Jesus Christ when, in fact, they were holding back a portion for themselves. That is why Peter told them that they weren't lying to people but to God (5:4) and that they were testing the Lord's Spirit (5:9). Their hypocrisy was disclosed by their actions.

I often wonder at the extent of their punishment. Does hypocrisy really deserve death? If so, we are all doomed. It seems a rather severe punishment for the nature of the sin. But, Joseph, I want you to ask yourself another question: were they even being punished by God? There is no indication in Acts that God caused the death of Ananias and Sapphira. Luke does not say that God struck them down or that the Spirit slew them. He simply wrote that they fell over dead. Again, we tend to jump to the conclusion that God caused this to happen but there are other explanations. Perhaps they died of natural causes, a heart attack brought on by the stress and pressure of being caught in their sin. Maybe an overwhelming sense of guilt killed them. The fact that everyone else was terrified by these events leads us to believe that others thought that the couple died by the hand of God but that still does not mean that that was the case. God can use all things to teach believers, even the untimely death of a couple in the Church.

Indeed, one of the finest fellows I know, died one morning while singing in the choir. Did God "kill" him? I don't think so. I hope I am so lucky to go while singing praises unto him.

 

Thank you for your answer. I have to feed the baby now. When he goes down for his afternoon nap, I will come back and respond to your points.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Boy has Joseph been able to get this off track!

Joseph, I repeat, again and again, and you refuse to answer: where is your biblical justification for SELF defense? Christ did not defend Himself. Paul did not defend himself. Stephen did not defend himself. We have no record of any Apostle defending themselves against personal attack.

[snipped]

[ June 29, 2004, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

Acts 5:9-11

Now Coyote,

Is your contention that these two just died by coincidence? If so, then how is it that Peter knew she was about to die? I think the context of this passage clearly shows that God killed these two because of their deception. Clearly, the message of this passage shows the wrath of God is still alive. God himself even speaks of vengeance being his later in the Bible. He also speaks about establishing his goverment to be his agent of wrath against the wicked and says they will not spare the sword for the lawbreakers. Not really a good argument for pacifism.

Pacifism seeks to find peace without conflict. Jesus' own words refute that:

Matthew 10:34

Jesus did not come to bring us together in peace and harmony with evil people. As a matter of fact, he continually divided them.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Helen,

I have said it before and will say it again:

I use the same Biblical justification for defending yourself and you do for defending others: The commandment of love. My argument has been from the beginning that when you protect yourself from bullies and their violence, you are also protecting others.

As I have demonstrated above with Coyote, I don't see two different god's in the Old Testament (being the god of wrath) and in the New Testament (being the god of peace and mercy). They are one and the same, IMO. God does not change.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph -

I appreciate your argument - however - you must admit that some things have changed since the old testament. We no long give animal sacrifices, etc. Christ fulfilled the law, and with that took much judgement out of our hands. He alone judges, not us.

Wrath when it comes will be HIS - not ours to give out. Indeed, It is no longer possible to make atonement by shedding the blood of Philistines, communists, or Arabs. The only blood with any efficacy is that shed by Christ on Calvary.

There are many ways to deliver the oppressed from the oppressor (Job 29:17; Ps 82:4; Pr 24:11,12; 31:8,9; Isa 1:17; Lu 18:3-5). Use of lethal force is rarely/never necessary. I honestly feel that it is better to give one's own life than take the life of another.

The word "pacifism" is derived from the Latin word for "peace." Jesus is the "Prince of Peace." If God is so crazy about war, and we are to be holy as He is holy, then why didn't Jesus say "Blessed are the warmakers"? Other than one mysterious verse in Luke, spoken to a band of disciples who had shown themselves virtually incapable of understanding the Savior's teachings, spoken to a band of followers who were going to desert the Captain of their Salvation in mere moments, is there one other verse in the New Testament which encourages Christians to take up arms?

In Matthew 10:34, Jesus was referring to the fact that his coming forces people to choose sides: either they will choose to do what's right and follow Christ, or they will choose to avoid persecution and reject him. The result is that even families will be divided, as those who reject Christ turn on those who accept him. Since Jesus would rather have everyone repent and turn to him, he was not advocating this conflict, nor was he happy about it; rather it came about as a result of people choosing to reject him.

Joseph, it is NOT our job to wield this sword.

 

1. You are correct that we no longer make animal sacrifices to atone for our sins because he made that sacrifice once for all.

2. No, he did not take judgement out of human hands. As a matter of fact, he has ordained human governments to be agents of his wrath and to carry out punishment against evildoers. That is somewhere in Romans.

3. He does say vengeance is his. But, to say that protecting yourself and self-defense is the same thing as vengeance is quite a stretch.

4. "The word "pacifism" is derived from the Latin word for "peace." Jesus is the "Prince of Peace." If God is so crazy about war, and we are to be holy as He is holy, then why didn't Jesus say "Blessed are the warmakers"?"

My response: When was the last time you saw an anti-war diplomat suceed at bringing peace to any society. Pacifism sure didn't work for the Jews in WW2. It was the war-makers who brought about peace through violence. They are the peacemakers. It hasn't worked for them in Israel either in the current conflict. If you were to see how hard Israel has tried with diplomacy and tried to give the PLO everything they want in exchange for peace, perhaps you wouldn't be so quick to judge them for their "war-mongering". Let me tell you, their war on terror is the only thing that is keeping things even somewhat under control and will one day bring peace to their people. I think history has shown that Pacifists are not peacemakers. They are bully and terror enablers. The war-makers historically been the peace makers.

Note: I am not against diplomacy. Sometimes it will work. Take the present actions of Lybia. Of course, I would argue that they would not have been willing to come to the table and negotiate the turnover of their WMD's had it not been for the show of force against Saddam and Iraq. Use diplomacy as much as you can. But, when diplomacy fails, in order to obtain peace, you must be willing to go to war.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph-

I am not judging Israel. What they do is what they do. I can only judge my own life. Still, most are not Christian so why would you or I expect them to follow Christ's teachings?

You speak of Romans 13 in your post. Let me explain God has led me to believe about that scripture...

Let me endeavor to make the point, that while God "orders" the State, that is, sets it in place to execute His wrath upon disobedience, the State is nevertheless a lawless institution, and while God is in complete and sovereign control over the State, He nowhere commands any man to leave the Family or Patriarchal Community of believers to establish such an an organization of coercion and force.

Further, the Bible has much more to say about the State than is found in Romans 13. One must also consult Revelation 13, Isaiah 13, and the books of the Kings, as well as the scathing denunciations of the State by the Old Testament prophets. Read through every verse in the Bible and ask yourself, "Is this where God commanded human beings to form 'the State?'" Your answer will always be "No."

Remember what Romans 13 says about the State is hardly flattering, when understood correctly. What exactly does Paul mean by "the powers?" (See Ephesians 6:12) I believe Romans 13 has a negative, rather than positive assessment of the State. "Ordained" simply means "predestined." A tyrannical, murderous dictator is "the minister of God." because he "serves" God's purposes.

The thrust of Romans 12-13 is pacifism. It is non-violent submission to evil. Jesus says those who take up the sword will die by the sword (Matthew 26:52). One must not attempt to justify the existence of the killing for the State by appealing to the pre-Cross rituals of liturgical blood-shedding.

 

I am really seeing both sides here. Before I was a Christian, I was somewhat of a pacifist. I still have some leanings that way although I do believe that war can be waged for self-defense (if a country is attacked, for example) and I believe it is okay to defend one's self against physical harm when necessary.

I do think God killed Aninias and Sapphira in Acts 5 but, in my view, that is not a passage to justify a view one way or another in this debate because it was God who directly took their lives. That is different from a person doing the killing. Same for the OT -- God ordered Israel to kill certain nations and peoples -- that was God executing judgment on them.

Although the first part of Romans 12 has to do with dealing with those in the church, this part seems to be dealing with those in the world.

I think we are to avoid fighting and war as much as possible since we cannot, in my view, usually solve problems with fighting. However, I still think it's okay to fight for self-defense (not defense of property, however) and I do think God uses the state to punish; in the passage below Paul calls the state "God's servant." Whether the sword referred to here is for war or capital punishment is another debate (I guess).

I am not totally settled on this issue, however, so I am finding this back and froth stuff between Joseph, Helen, and sdcoyote very interesting (as long as there are no personal attacks, which were taking away from the enjoyment there for awhile).

 

Marcia,

I totally agree with you with the clarification that fighting without just cause or if fighting can be avoided does not solve problems, but creates more. Always try to avoid conflict first. If that doesn't work, try diplomacy. If diplomacy breaks down and you begin to fear for your life and have good reason to and cannot get away, then fight for your life and the lives of others around you.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Want to give our own closing note here. We have a good friend who has been up on Ararat fifteen or sixteen times on Ark searches. He has been shot at, kidnapped, lost, and feared for his life several times. At no time did he carry a gun or try to defend himself. He trusted God and God took care of him. Some circumstances were so difficult a person who didn't trust the Lord would have given up hope.

But his faith and refusal to worry about himself stands as a testimony to the power of Christ for anyone to see who has been in contact with him, friend or enemy.

I know it's hard to trust God with EVERYTHING, but that is what we are to do if our lives are to give testimony to HIS love and power and care instead of showing our own worldly wisdom, regardless of how we try to justify it.

Christ's Kingdom is NOT of this world. Our lives should reflect that and not the thoughts and wisdom of the world. In fact, when Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world, He added this: "If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kindgom is from another place." In other words, He not only refused to defend Himself, He refused any defense from His disciples and even from the angels themselves.

So we leave you all to defend whatever you choose to defend personally. We will do our best to follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and to depend on Him fully for our safety and guidance. I think we are following in some giant footsteps: those of Corrie ten Boom, thousands of martyrs in Russia and China who have carried the Lord's name up high with no thought to themselves, and so many others. We would rather be thought of in that company than applauded by anyone for using 'common sense' or our own wisdom.

God bless you all and we pray you learn to follow Him more and more each day.

In Christ,
Helen and Barry Setterfield

Ezra 8:21-23 Then I proclaimed a fast there at the river of Ahava, that we might humble ourselves before our God to seek from him the right way for us and our little ones and all our possessions. For I was ashamed to request of the king an escort of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the enemy on the road, because we had spoken to the king, saying, 'The hand of our God is upon all those for good who seek him, but his power and his wrath are against all those who forsake him.' So we fasted and entreated our God for this, and he answered our prayer.

 

Let me know the next time the President of the United States commands you to kill someone, OK? That would be a parallel situation. Oh, wait, first you have to be enslaved and have the Vice President plan your murder. THEN if the President tells you to kill those who plan to kill you, that would fit the situation in Esther.

In the meantime...."When a man's ways please the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him." Proverbs 16:7

 

From a Philadelphia sermon given in 1747:

"He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself."

Dear Helen:

If someone breaks into my house, I will presume deadly intent. I will not preach the gospel to them, but I will be preaching the gospel of Moses, I mean Charlton Heston (former NRA head), which means .357 hollowpoints and 12-gauge buckshot to the rescue!

Dear Joseph:

I fully agree with you. I can't believe I'm reading Christians here who won't lift a finger to defend themselves!

BTW there is a major national gun show coming this July in Manila. Ahhhh...a great legacy from a former colonizer: English and gun shows!