What does the Bible say about self-defense?

(5) The Lord now takes up the necessary principle of law, to contrast it with that non-resistance of evil which He enjoins upon His disciples. The righteousness of the law of course remains righteousness, but it does not require of any that they should exact for personal wrongs. There is no supposition of the abrogation of law or of its penalties. The government of the world is not in question, but the path of disciples in it. Where they are bound by the law, they are bound, and have no privileges. They are bound, too, to sustain it in its general working, as ordained of God for good. Within these limits there is still abundant room for such practice as is here enjoined. We may still turn the left cheek to him that smites the right, or let the man that sues us have the cloak as well as the coat which he has fraudulently gained: for that is clearly within our rights. If the cause were that of another, we should have no right of this kind, nor to aid men generally in escape from justice or in slighting it. The Lord could never lay down a general rule that His people should allow lawlessness, or identify themselves with indifference to the rights of others. He speaks only of what is personal to oneself, ― "smite thee," "sue thee," "compel thee:" and here the law itself would recognize one's liberty.

His disciples are not only to yield, but to show readiness, at least, to do more. They are not to be overcome of evil, but to overcome it with good. They are under a higher than any earthly government, which will take abundant care of them, and are freed from the need of advocating their own cause, or taking arms in their own defense. And they are partakers of such royal bounty that they are to be themselves bountiful. "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."

If a thief was caught breaking in and was killed, this would not be considered murder if it took place in the darkness of night. If in daylight, the one who killed him was guilty of bloodshed (vv. 2-3) If one had stolen an animal and had it in his possession, he must restore double, — a much lesser penalty than verse 1. Verse 5 shows that an owner's animal was to be kept on his own property or the owner suffered the consequences. If one kindled a fire and it spread to the property of others, then the one who had kindled the fire was responsible to make full restoration.

Our Lord comes next to the case of any practical injury that may be done us. It is not that it is wrong for a man to punish according to the injury that has been inflicted upon another. "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is perfectly righteous; but our Lord intimates that we ought to be much more than righteous, we ought to be gracious; and He presses this as the climax of this part of the discourse. First, He had strengthened the righteousness of the law, extended its depths, and put aside its license; now He goes further. He shows that there is a principle in His own ways and life which teaches the Christian that he is not to seek retaliation. "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." It is clear the Lord has no reference here to what governments have to do. The New Testament is written for the Christian, for that which has a separate existence and a peculiar calling in the midst of earthly systems and peoples. It belongs to those who are heavenly while they are walking upon earth. We become such by the reception of Christ, and to such the Lord says, "Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Personal injury is meant here. The evil done may be ever so undeserved, but it has to be overcome with good. Show that you are willing to take even more for Christ's sake. "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." There the law is evoked: that is, a man lays a claim, perhaps falsely, to one part of your clothing, and if he will "sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Here it seems not exactly a man appealing to the law, but the public officers themselves. "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." The great principle our Lord marks in this — whether it is human violence, or the law ever so hardly or wrongly applied, — that while, according to the law, you might go one step, according to the gospel you would go two. Grace does twice as much as the law, whatever may be the point in hand. It was never intended in anywise to supplant obligations or to lower responsibilities, but, on the contrary, to give power and force to everything that is righteous in the sight of God. The law might say, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;" here there is not only the endurance of that which is positively wrong, but grace that gives more than is asked. "The law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." And this is one way of practically showing how far we value grace. It is not a question of the mere letter of our Lord's words. If you were to limit it merely to a blow on the face it would be a very poor thing; but the word of Christ is that which conveys to me the spirit that pleases God, and gives me the reality of grace. And grace is not the vindication of self nor the punishment of a wrong, but the endurance of evil and the triumph of good over it. Christ is speaking of what a Christian has to put up with from the world through which he passes. He is to receive tribulation as the discipline which God sees to be good for his soul; the great spectacle before men and angels — that there are men on this earth who are allowed and rejoice to suffer for Christ, because they have learned to give up their own will, to sacrifice their own rights, and to suffer wrongfully, looking onward to the day when the Lord will own whatever has been their sorrow for His sake, and when all evil shall be judged most solemnly at His appearing and kingdom.

I do not believe attacks on anything to be our path, but to be superior, and for the truth, in grace. Peter never attacked the chief priests, but went on his own way. It is a descent from the high ground of the truth we have, from the Christian position. That, and a full gospel used in grace, should distinguish us: the testimony against evil should be in our own walk and ways. Be assured, when real, it is fully felt. Occasions may arise where truth is in question; self-defence is every way to be avoided. The Lord will answer for us if we do His will.

Little did the disciples understand their Master. Indeed, flesh and blood can never relish suffering, more especially suffering such as His, where man proves his vileness and opposition to God to the uttermost. Even saints are slow to enter in. They necessarily feel the value of atonement; for otherwise they have no standing-place, not even a well-grounded hope of escape as sinners before God. "And they said, Lord, behold here [are] two swords. And he said to them, It is enough"553 — a correction of their thought, however mild. For had it been a question of the literal use of the sword in self-defence, two must have proved a wholly inadequate means of protection. The Lord had employed the sword, purse, and wallet as symbolic of ordinary means on which the disciples would henceforward be thrown, but certainly not to abandon personally the ground of grace in presence of evil, even to the last degree of insult and injury, on which He had insisted at the beginning of their call and charge as apostles. No more, however, is said; the true sense is left for that day when the Holy Spirit being given would lead them into all the truth. Alas! Christendom has lost the faith of the Spirit's presence as well as the certainty of the truth, into which grace alone has been leading back a feeble remnant as they wait for the return of the Lord Jesus. Truths such as this cannot be appreciated unless we go forth unto Him without the camp bearing His reproach.

It was he whose ear Peter, in a spirit of wild and reckless enthusiasm that ill became the moment, had cut off. Peter, always energetic, had recourse to the sword in order to defend his Master from His foes. But the sword—the weapon of vengeance—was out of place in such a defence, The Lord was about to surrender Himself into the hands of sinful men for the fulfilment of His mission below; and self-defence was therefore no part of His gracious plan. He abandoned it in order to accomplish the Scriptures. He had already, whilst the disciples slept, passed in spirit through the dread ordeal, and was now prepared for all that was to happen; He had taken the cup from His Father’s hand, and willingly drank thereof.

To use strength for ourselves has no worth; but to deliver those who are in peril of death unjustly, from whatever source, public or private, becomes a righteous soul. It is a duty independent of either friendship or neighbourly claim. The Samaritan was the Lord's answer to the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? Without the least thought of justifying himself, he becomes neighbour to the sufferer who needed his help.

There may be even physical violence, and not only is this to find us unresisting, but willing to bear further injustice, turning the other cheek. If a school bully were to beat up my child, this is not a question of my own rights merely. Rather, I am responsible for the child, and this should be reported to the school principal or to the parents of the bully. If one steals even our necessary garment (our cloak), we are not to strive to hold on to a garment more necessary still (our tunic) (v.29). Generally one would not steal another's garment unless he needed it, and we are to consider this. If it were a matter of a person stealing to increase his wealth, or, for instance one stealing a car for the fun of it, the police would actually require us to make a report, for the robber would be a threat to others besides ourselves.

Secondly, the law cannot be the rule of life to the believer, because the obligations under which he is placed go beyond the requirements of law. The apostle John says: "Hereby perceive we the love" (not the love of God, as in our translation, but love in its true nature or character), "because He laid down His life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." (1 John 3:16.) Now the utmost the law requires of us is to love our neighbour as ourselves; and hence Paley justifies killing a man in self-defence; for, as he argues, if we allow him to kill us rather than kill him, we shall be loving him better than ourselves, and this is to go beyond, as he says, the divine command. Since therefore we have here the plain direction to lay down our lives for the brethren, if the need arises, and the law nowhere even by implication requires this from us, it is evident that the law is not a perfect rule for us, and hence cannot be the rule of life.

These letters authorized the Jews in all these places to gather together to protect their own lives, thus having permission to destroy, kill and annihilate any people who assaulted them on the 13th day of the 12th month, the day that the first decree had authorized the killing of the Jews (vv. 11-12). Thus, though the laws of the Medes and Persians could not be changed, the first edict was really rendered ineffective by the second, and done so legally.