God did not have to tell us to defend ourselves, because that is the nature of man in large part. All Gods law is kept in one one..love. now love defends the weak, love defends your child and wife from attack, but love is ready to lay its own life down also. God did not have all the answers written down, He wants us to know the law He has written on our hearts. If I walk with Christ in truth, no one is going to take my life apart from my desire to give it up. I will defend every weak person, every child against any attack and let God work out the details.I was getting read to say should Jesus have defending himself on the cross, and the Peter reference but you said it first.
I'm looking in my bible for verses that say it's not a sin to defend yourself, but I can only find verses like this:
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
What Is Evil?
- Thread starter goggles
- Start date
The teaching about submitting to insult pertains to the occasion that we ourselves may be in the wrong, and need to submit to the consequences of that. Turning the other cheek surely teaches us to exercise self-control, but when it comes to defending oneself against the kind of violence that could maim or kill, we have every right to stand our ground and defend our lives to the point of death to the other. We do not have to stand and allow evil to overtake us. We have the power and authority of Christ within us to repel it with words and with force.
If someone was trying to take my life or the life of someone else, family member or not, I in all righteousness can step in and take that life to preserve the lives of the innocent. Such is the case for killing in war time. God does not hold a soldier or the average citizen guilty for murder for self-defense or the defense of innocents---or in war in defense of a nation.
Thanks for the elaboration, it helped me clearly see the other side of the topic, which is what I was having trouble with. I think I remember reading some verses in the Bible saying what you just said, I just can't remember what they were. I wish I was able to find them.
Here are a couple excerpts from an article I have read:
"True self-defense is our response to those who INITIATE violence against us and wish to do us harm or even kill us. It is carried out with the full intention of protecting ourselves (or others). Jesus said if a home owner knew a thief was coming to his house he would not allow his home to be broken into (Matthew 24:42 - 44). This example shows that God gives us the right to protect our possessions and to do what is needed for defend ourselves (even though it says nothing about killing someone). Ecclesiastes 3 says there is a time to kill (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3)."
"The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Bible Commentary on this verse states WHEN this killing is permitted " . . . judicially, criminals; or in wars of self-defense; not in malice. Out of this time and order, killing is murder."
"In Numbers 35 God gave instructions regarding six cities where a person might take refuge if he or she has killed another person. These cities of refuge were created by God to prevent someone who killed by accident from being killed themselves before they could stand a fair trial (Numbers 35:9 - 13,15). Verse 22 of Numbers 35 gives some examples of death by accident and how God wants the situation handled (Numbers 35:22 - 24).
The JFB Bible commentary confirms the purpose of Israel's cities of refuge as it relates to defending yourself. It states that when a person killed someone due to a sudden provocation or out of passion (unknowingly killing someone), the cities of refuge (Bezer, Golan, Hebron, Kedesh, Ramoth-Gilead and Shechem) offered full protection.
It is interesting to note that, even though the cities of refuge no longer existed, churches were considered places of refuge in the Middle Ages. Our modern version of a place of refuge is putting someone who kills in jail so that they can live to stand trial."
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-bible-say-about-self-defense.html
Is it possible that "The Non-Aggression Principle" is less restrictive than "scriptural hermeneutics unto salvation"; shall the principles of non-aggression provide support for self defence, and the other require total submission to Christ?
Is it possible that one can provide an ethical application for society from genesis and the other is a strict contract of personal ownership in the confines of salvation where strict obedience is voluntarily accepted in all things?
As a bond-servant we are owned to do all things commanded by contract (NT scriptural covenant of Christ), which is never despotic. For the mosaic covenant was a temporary guardian to define lines of obedience, paving the way for the new covenant we have now.
Also is it possible that the personal alturism in Christ's demonstration can be differentiated from his intercession for the innocent and the sinner?
I agree with you completely
I was getting read to say should Jesus have defending himself on the cross, and the Peter reference but you said it first.
I'm looking in my bible for verses that say it's not a sin to defend yourself, but I can only find verses like this:
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
Is it possible that self-defence is the societal default and that altruism to God is objective obedience?
i'm sorry but i didn't get a single thing you said. I've had a long and hard day, please explain what you're trying to say to me in an easier way.
I am happy to elaborate
The Non-Aggression Principle is a “secular and Christian” scripturally supported deontological principle (duty), which has been constructed and improved upon for over two thousand and three hundred years, and is primarily based on the ethical premise of “non-violence” or “no harm”. The NAP principle was formulated and improved upon by Christians, other faiths, and also by secular philosophical contributers alike.
Here are a couple famous quotes – there are more unrefined versions in history and many more refined ones in recent history.
"Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." - (John Locke)
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." and "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." (Thomas Jefferson)
The “Declaration of Independence”, the “United States Constitution” and the “Bill of Rights” were heavily influenced by the NAP principle, as many of the U.S founders were “Lockean” students, such as Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Franklin. Though it should be realized that compromises were made by many in order to agree.
Scriptural fundamentals however will at times require more personal sacrifice, “more restrictively” than the NAP principle itself; meaning that obedience from God may ask one person “specifically” to obey altruistically (self-sacrificially), yet another to intercede with boldness. The NAP principle provides ethical grounds for self defense which can in variance manifest in the confines of civil law “just-law”, yet scripture moves us to the principles of “no harm” in harmony with the NAP, but also with furthering obedience requires each person to know how the Spirit shall lead.
If an American Christian is assaulted, then the NAP would give him/her the "ethical" right to “justly” defend their bodies, family and property, and it would be “probable” for them to defend it in the United States in most all cases because the law of the land is predicated on the notions of individual liberty. However, scriptural fundamentals also require that Christians must obey God in the highest priority unto severe altruism, simple contentment, or bold civil disobedience against despotic manifestations in the law. Thus it can mean by Christ's exemplar demonstration that we may be required to surrender the body to despotic forces even to the death, or be required to stand up with unwavering peaceful courage against towering despots for the purpose of liberty. It “may” or “may-not” be required “to-not” defend the body from evil men as a Christian as the Spirit leads.
Can we agree that turning the other cheek reaches the brute with a demonstration of love, and shall love in exchange for plunder demonstrate temperance to the plundering despot, yet when the innocent are in jeopardy receiving violence, it may be a father or mother's resolve to nullify the attacker with any appropriate means available for just defence. Shall a persons bodily defence also be rationalized in the same manor but with greater emphasis in scripture to challenge for opportunity to demonstrate the love of Christ.