Does the Bible Allow Self-Defense? Why I Rejected One Pastor's Teaching
Updated: 4 days ago
I was told self-defense is never allowed and is considered murder by a pastor.
I was involved in a Bible study where the topic of self-defense came up. Looking back, I am still in disbelief over the conversation and the way those who disagreed were treated. I'll do my best to quickly paraphrase what happened.
We were told that self-defense of any kind, for any reason, was absolutely against the Bible.
According to this pastor, defending yourself would always be considered murder. A few of us raised a question: if someone broke into your house and your wife or child were being attacked or raped, would you really do nothing?
The answer was a hard no. According to him, Christians do not defend themselves under any circumstances. If the worst happened and you protected yourself or someone else, it would be murder, never self-defense.
That was the end of the discussion because he ended it. There was no willingness to examine other passages and no opportunity for those of us who understood the biblical languages better to contribute to the conversation.
His opinion was presented as the only correct interpretation.
In this two-part article, I want to examine his arguments, explain why they are unbiblical, and discuss why the way the discussion was handled concerned me almost as much as the conclusion itself.
His First Justification
When Jesus was betrayed, Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. Jesus immediately rebuked him. This event is recorded in all four Gospels: Matthew 26:47-55, Mark 14:47-50, Luke 22:49-51, and John 18:10-11.
On the surface, this may appear to be a solid argument against self-defense because Jesus clearly corrected Peter. However, that conclusion only works if we ignore the broader context.
There are two important details to consider.
1. The servant of the high priest was the one injured.
The word used in all four Gospels to describe this man is doulon, derived from doulos.
It is commonly translated as servant, slave, or bondservant. The word emphasizes someone who belongs to another and does not possess complete freedom to make independent choices. This individual would have accompanied the high priest because it was expected of him, not necessarily because he personally desired to be there.
This matters because Peter struck the servant rather than exercising wisdom in the situation.
2. Peter responded emotionally rather than wisely.
This was undoubtedly a tense and volatile moment, but Jesus had repeatedly warned His disciples that He would be betrayed and crucified. Peter was not acting from understanding; he reacted emotionally and impulsively.
That is why his actions were wrong. Peter's mistake, however, does not prove that every act of self-defense is sinful. It simply demonstrates that not every use of force is justified.
Several other passages complicate the pastor's position and help answer the question of what the Bible says about self-defense.
Why Tell the Disciples to Buy Swords?
In Luke 22:36-38, Jesus told His disciples:
"Whoever has no sword is to sell his cloak and buy one."
Why tell them to obtain swords if self-defense was inherently sinful?
This instruction came directly from Jesus. Peter may have misused his sword later, but that does not change the fact that Christ instructed the disciples to obtain them. At the very least, the passage shows that the issue is far more nuanced than "all self-defense is murder."
Self-Defense Is Not Foreign to Scripture
Defense and self-defense are not new concepts in the Bible. In fact, debates surrounding self-defense and Christianity have existed for centuries because Scripture addresses warfare, protection, justice, and the defense of innocent life.
The Israelites went to war. They defended themselves.
The Book of Esther provides one example.
Esther requested that her people be allowed to defend themselves against those who sought their destruction. God provided a legal means for their defense. It is also worth noting that after defending themselves, they did not take plunder. Their actions were motivated by survival, not greed.
Exodus 22:2-3 is another passage frequently discussed in conversations about self-defense.
Scholars have debated aspects of the text for centuries, particularly the distinction between nighttime and daytime encounters. Regardless of those debates, the passage clearly addresses situations involving homeowners confronting intruders.
The existence of these passages alone should make us cautious about absolute claims.
What Jesus Actually Taught
Jesus taught His followers to endure insults, avoid vengeance, show mercy, forgive others, and seek peace. He taught us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.
Christians should take those teachings seriously.
However, there is a difference between refusing revenge and refusing protection. There is a difference between loving your enemies and allowing innocent people to be harmed while doing nothing.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explained that He came to fulfill the Law. He clarified God's standards, exposed sinful attitudes, and revealed the deeper meaning behind many commands.
He did not abolish them.
That brings us to a particularly important passage.
In Matthew 5:21-23, Jesus directly addresses Exodus 20:13:
"You shall not murder."
In both instances, the word translated as murder comes from the Greek word phoneuó, meaning to murder or kill unlawfully. Jesus goes on to discuss the dangers of anger and hatred, but He never removes the distinction between murder and other circumstances involving the taking of life.
If Jesus intended to teach that all self-defense was murder, this would have been the perfect opportunity to say so.
He didn't.
Instead, He clarified the commandment and expanded its application without changing it.
The Cities of Refuge
There is another biblical reality that challenges the claim that all killing is murder.
God instructed Moses and Joshua to establish Cities of Refuge. These cities were created for people who caused a death unintentionally and needed protection until their case could be heard.
Numbers 35:13-15 and Joshua 20:5-9 describe these cities and their purpose. They existed because God recognized that not every death was the same.
Exodus 21:12-14 makes this distinction even clearer:
"He who strikes someone so that he dies shall certainly be put to death. Yet if he did not lie in wait for him, but God caused him to fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee."
God's law was strict regarding murder, but it also acknowledged circumstances where a death occurred without murderous intent.
The Cities of Refuge existed because God made distinctions. Intent mattered.
Circumstances mattered. Justice required more than simply declaring every loss of life to be murder. Self-defense was acknowledged by God as something that would inevitably occur.
Protective measures were established within the Law, and nowhere did Jesus abolish those distinctions or protections.
The more I studied these passages, the more convinced I became that the discussion from that Bible study depended on treating every loss of life as though it were identical. To understand what the Bible says about self-defense, we must examine the whole of Scripture rather than a single event or isolated verse.
And that raises an important question.
If the Bible repeatedly distinguishes between murder and other causes of death, why do so many Christians treat the words kill and murder as interchangeable?
In Part 2, I'll examine the difference between those words, why the distinction matters, and why so much of this debate hinges on understanding them correctly.
Comments