May I Use Deadly Force in Self-Defense?

I received the following question: "Does the practice of self-defense, even to the point of using deadly force, contradict the message of the Bible to love one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:39; Galatians 5:14), turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39), and seek no vengeance against others (Romans 12:17-21)?" Great question.

It is my conviction that the Bible authorizes self-defense, even to the point of using deadly force, and that defending oneself does not contradict the admonitions in the passages you reference in your question. Allow me to offer my reasons for having reached this conclusion. We’ll start with some general principles before moving to the specific issue of deadly force as self-defense.

It is right to protect oneself from physical harm by doing whatever you can to avoid those who are trying to harm you. Mr. Miyagi was right when he said to Daniel in The Karate Kid, “Best defense is no be there.” In 1 Samuel 19:10, David responded to Saul’s hurled spear by running away. He didn’t, nor was he required to, hand the spear back to Saul and encourage him to try again. David repeatedly sought safety from harm. Paul did likewise (Acts 9:23-25; 2 Cor. 11:32-33). Jesus did the same (Luke 4:29-30; John 8:59; 10:39). Self-defense, as a concept, is clearly authorized.

It is right to use the force of the legal system for self-defense. Paul was being accused by Jews who wanted him brought to Jerusalem so they could ambush and kill him on the way there (Acts 23:12-15; 25:1-3), a plot that Paul knew about (23:16). Sometime later, the Roman official Festus asked Paul if he wanted to be sent to Jerusalem for trial (Acts 25:9), to which Paul utilized the Roman court system and requested to be tried before Caesar (25:11; 28:19). This employment of his legal rights protected him from those plotting his demise.

It is right to use deadly force for self-defense. Killing is the taking of life. Murder is the unauthorized taking of life. While all murder is killing, not all killing is murder. Some taking of human life is authorized by the One who can and has delegated that authority. For example, while the Law of Moses prohibited murder (Exo. 20:13), it did not prohibit all killing. The Law authorized killing a thief who broke into your house in the middle of the night (Exo. 22:2). But if he got out of your house that night, you could not hunt the guy down the next day and kill him (22:3). If deadly force in defense of self or others were inherently evil – if it violated the moral and ethical nature of God – he would never have approved it under any circumstance.

During the rebuilding of the wall around Jerusalem after the people returned from captivity, Nehemiah made sure that everyone on the wall was armed for self-defense (Neh. 4:17-18).

Jesus instructed his disciples to arm themselves with swords (Luke 22:36-38). Remember, swords were not for cutting sandwiches, opening mail, or back-scratching. They were instruments of death. Attempts to make these swords metaphorical instead of literal, as some have tried to do, are unconvincing. The disciples understood Jesus to mean literal swords because they showed him two swords as evidence that they had secured what he commanded. Jesus didn’t correct them.

Some point to Jesus telling Peter in Gethsemane to put up his sword as evidence that self-defense is out of place (Matt. 26:51-54; Luke 22:49-51; John 18:10-11). First, I would remind us all that Jesus was the reason Peter had the sword in the first place (Luke 22:36-38). What Jesus was stopping was Peter’s attempt to halt the crucifixion by violence. The kingdom of God was not to be inaugurated or spread by physical force (cf. Eph. 6:12; 2 Cor. 10:4-6). If the disciples attempted to use the sword to bring about Christ’s reign as king, they would die by the sword at the hands of the Romans. Note also that Jesus didn’t tell Peter to get rid of his sword, only to put it back in its place.

But what about love for neighbor (Matt. 22:39) and family (Eph. 5:25-29; 1 Tim. 5:8)? It is my conviction that love for neighbor and family would require using physical force in defense of the weak and innocent against those seeking their harm (e.g., a rapist, child molester, or murderer). Think about this carefully: 1 Timothy 5:8 charges a man to provide for his family, and if he doesn’t, he is worse than an unbeliever. Provide what? Food, clothing, and shelter? Certainly. But only those things? Is he to protect his family from starvation but not from rapists? Is he only authorized to keep his family from dying by lack of food, but is prohibited from keeping them from dying at the hands of a gun-wielding psychopath?

Notice that loving one’s neighbor (Lev. 19:17-18) does not mean that one is forbidden from taking that same neighbor’s life under certain circumstances (Lev. 20:2). The same God that commanded his people to love their neighbors also commanded them a few verses later to stone that same neighbor to death if he engaged in human sacrifice.

Yes, we are to be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9), but only as far as we are able to be (Rom. 12:18). A weapon-wielding attacker with evil intentions removes my obligation to act peacefully toward him. He places his own life in jeopardy and his blood rests on his own head (cf. Josh. 2:19). What Jesus prohibits in Matthew 5:38-39 is not self-defense; rather he forbids taking personal vengeance to “get even” with someone who has insulted us. The “slap” in that passage is not the violent physical attack. This is not the vicious aggressor coming at you with a club, knife, or gun. This is the open-handed smack of disrespect. It is a disregard for the context of this passage to apply it to cases of self-defense.

There is a difference between seeking vengeance against another, which is outside the parameters of God’s will, and in using physical force, even deadly force, to defend the safety of oneself or neighbor, which is within the parameters of God’s will.