Christian Ethics pt.3	Self-Defense 

Revenge 

The right to self-defense is mostly not questioned by the world.  Most people naturally assume you have that right.
    The challenges come from Christians who suggest that self-defense is in conflict with Jesus’ high ethic in the Sermon on the Mount.  
    Jesus said “Turn the other cheek.”  How can I be said to be genuinely following that command while beating up or shooting someone who is threatening me?
    I want to begin by applauding those Christians, for having the courage and commitment to hold to a hard teaching that runs counter to human wisdom just because they believe Jesus said it.
    That is a wonderful attitude.  May we all develop greater faith so that we would be like that.
    On the other hand, however, as we learned last week, we need to be careful to think through the context and intent of what Jesus said so we don’t try to apply the principles in an inappropriate context.
    Mt.5:38 You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.  If someone strikes you on the right cheek,             turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.  41  If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
    Before deciding whether this addresses the issue of self-defense, let’s look carefully at Jesus’ intent.
    This is the section of the Sermon where Jesus is correcting their misinterpretations of the OT Law.
    The issue at hand here has to do with revenge.  And the correct interpretation of the OT teaching on revenge is really pretty simple – don’t take revenge.  Leave that to God. 
    Dt.32:35  It is Mine to avenge, and I will repay
Pr.20:22  Do not say, "I'll pay you back for this wrong!" Wait for the LORD, and he will deliver you.
Pr.24:29  Do not say, "I'll do to him as he has done to me; I'll pay that man back for what he did."
    Now, look at their misinterpretation of the OT that Jesus states in v.38: You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 
    Their false interpretation.  
    “But that’s a direct quote from the Bible!”  True, but they had miss-applied it.
    That was a law for civil government, and they were applying it to personal relationships in order to justify their vindictive retaliation. 
    The real meaning of the eye for eye command is to make the punishment fit the crime.  The tendency was probably to be too severe, so the purpose of the command was to limit vindictiveness.  
    People always want to give a punishment that exceeds the crime.  “You mess around with my pickup, I’ll shoot you.”
    That tendency to escalate is obvious when you stop and think of the fact that there are so many murders.
    No one ever murdered someone in retaliation for that person having murdered him.  
    Revenge always steps up the level of punishment.  In fact, some even take pride in that.
Like Lamech Gn.4:23 I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me.  If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times."
    You’ve been around people like that (“I didn’t take any guff from that guy, he said one word and I let him have it…”)
    There is a retaliatory spirit in man that is rooted deep in his fallen, sinful heart.  
    It was there in us way back when we were little kids.  “It all started when he hit me back!”  
    Same with adults.  Feuds go on for generations.  It happens in marriages.  It happens between nations.  4000 years ago there was some tension between two women over an issue of jealousy (Sarah and Hagar), and the conflict still rages today.  (Who knows how many killed)
    A small offence occurs, the person wants to get even.  But does even more.  Now he thinks they are even, the other one thinks he owes one – and on it goes from there until you have wars that go on for millennia.  
    It will go on forever until someone is big enough to rise above the conflict, take a blow or two without retaliation, and put the issue to rest.  That’s what Jesus is calling us to do.  To break the chain of aggression.     
    Lex Taliones (an eye for an eye) was for the law courts, not personal relationships.  
    We don’t want the courts to behave like human personal relationships or vice-versa.  
    A Judge in CA felt sorry for rapist, let him go, and he raped and murdered a 9 year old girl – is that a good judge or bad?
    You don’t want a court to tell a criminal: “We forgive you – don’t feel bad.  And we want you to know that if you go out and do it again, we will forgive again – 70 X 7…”
    That would be chaos.  The courts are responsible for justice.  
    But here Jesus is speaking on the level of personal relationships.  
    When a person commits a crime, he has sinned in 3 directions: against the victim, against society, and against God.  He owes a debt to all three.  
    You can only forgive sins against you.
    Our society has it backwards.  God calls for justice in the law courts and mercy in personal relationships.  
    But they want mercy in the courts and justice in relationships.  They want to forgive the criminals, and yet carry out their vendettas and retaliate when they are wronged. 
    We are in a mode of demanding rights, and when they are violated, we retaliate.  When you have a whole society demanding rights, the result is lawlessness.
    There is nothing wrong with rights.  The Biblical perspective is to think of a right as something you extend to someone.  The problem comes when society moves from extending rights, to demanding rights.
    So when Jesus states their wrong view, all He does is quote Scripture.  
    If you hold to a Bible verse, that doesn’t make your view correct, if you are applying that verse inappropriately.  
    The OT command was intended to forbid revenge, and they were using the Bible to justify revenge.
    And that is what Jesus is seeking to correct in v.39.
    39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. 
What does that mean?  Jesus explains with 3 illustrations:
    # 1  An assault on your dignity
 If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
    A right handed person striking on you the right cheek would require a backhanded blow – especially insulting to a Jew.
    This was against the law (both Roman and Jewish Law) allowed you to press charges for this, because it was such an insult.
    You probably don’t get hit in the face very often, but this applies to any kind of insult.  
    The picture is not of just letting yourself get beaten to a pulp.  The picture is you are in a dispute with someone, and it escalates to the point where he does something especially insulting.  
    Suddenly you realize this is wrong, stop trying to win, humble yourself and don’t retaliate.
    So he sends another volley.  Same response. – That’s the idea.
    What if it’s more than an insult?  What if it’s an outright attack?  What if it’s not a slap, but a punch?
    Jesus isn’t talking about that.  He’s talking about an insult.
    What Jesus is pointing out is the importance of avoiding the sin of a vengeful, retaliatory spirit that wants to take revenge.  
    That involves sin, and it would be better to take another blow than to get into that sin. 
    Anger and retaliation lead us into sin.
Example: Paul. 
Acts 23:1-5
1 Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, "My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day." 2 At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!" 4 Those who were standing near Paul said, "You dare to insult God's high priest?" 5 Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'"
    Paul’s initial response was vengeance, and it led him right into sin.
    Contrast Jesus: They punched Him too.   1 Pe.2:23  When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
In fact,  Isa 50:6  I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.
    It’s the beautiful spirit of our Lord.  It’s the spirit of Joseph, David (who refused to take vengeance on Saul and wept at his death), Steven (Don’t hold this sin against them)
    If someone insults, humiliates, puts you down – turn the other cheek.  Don’t retaliate, if fact, if need be, be willing to accept another blow.  (If need be, that is.  If nothing is to be gained by it then it’s not necessary). 
    If you respond in anger it will lead into other sins and it’s not worth it to do that to your own spiritual life.  Vengeance is an indicate of complete defeat in the Christian life.
    1 Cor.6:7-8  The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
    Even in the church people are offended and hold it against the person.  They don’t do anything obvious, but they withhold their love.
    It happens in marriage.  The husband does something that embarrasses the wife, and she brings it up in public to give him a taste of his own medicine.
    So Jesus says, “Don’t resist evil,” and illustrates it by telling us not to retaliate when there is an assault on your pride.
    # 2 An assault on your possessions.  
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 
    This takes it a step further.  Here you have wronged someone, and are being sued.
    When that happenes, not only are you to avoid retaliating, but generously GIVE to the person.  
    If he sues you for your tunic, give him both your tunic and cloak.  
    This would sound outrageous to them.  The tunic was the long under shirt, the cloak the outer garment/blanket.  They wore 2 things – a tunic and a cloak.  So if you didn’t have your tunic on, and you didn’t have your cloak on, you didn’t have anything on.
    For that reason a Jew couldn’t be sued for his cloak.
    Jesus is saying, “If someone sues you for the shirt off your back, take off all your clothes and give them to him.”
    Obviously we are missing the point if we interpret this legalistically.  Jesus isn’t promoting nudism.  
    It is hyperbole.  Do whatever you possibly can and go way out of your way to make things right.
    When you do that, it keeps your heart from angry passion and vengeful retaliation.  
    Not only that, but you may gain your brother.  So the double loss = pure gain.  If you have gained your brother you have gained much more than a garment and cloak.
    # 3 An assault on your freedom.
41 If someone forces you to go one mile (1000 paces), go with him two miles. 
    Soldiers did this.  They hated the Romans anyway, you can imagine how this went over.  They couldn’t do much about it, but you know they were grudging every step.  
    Think of this.  Suppose you are in the middle of something important, police lights pull you over: “I don’t know what you had planned today, but I have a package for you to drive up to Fort Collins.”
    Be willing to give up your rights for someone’s benefit.  Go the extra mile.  T.W. Manson : “the first mile renders to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; the second mile…renders to God the things that are God’s”
    SUMMARY:
42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
    We are to be generous.  This is nothing new either. 
Dt.15:7-8  If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs.
    The solution to conflict is grace (giving from a heart of love).  Have an overflowing, generous, loving attitude toward everyone – even opponents.  
    There are some times when it is not the way of love to give (panhandlers, spoiled children, thieves).
    We don’t want to invite crime or to be reckless and endanger ourselves or to fail to care for our loved ones.  To truly love there must be wisdom to know how to apply love.
    But whether or not to give must be decided by LOVE rather than our regard for personal possessions.
    We have been given grace and mercy, haven’t we?  We have “experienced the surprise of unexpected grace” (WBC) – shouldn’t we extend the same?  
    This is one reason why it is so important that we understand how underserved grace really is.  The more you think you deserved to be saved, the less room there is for grace, and the less grace you think you received, they less grace you will give.

Self Defense

Defense against crime

    So, that’s the principle.  Don’t retaliate or take vengeance.  
    Is it appropriate to apply that to a situation in which you are under attack?
    Yes.  If someone attacks you, you should not be vindictive or desire to retaliate out of anger or hatred or to get even with the person.
    However, it wouldn’t be appropriate to use Jesus’ words here to forbid self-defense.
    The highest law is the law of love.  We are to love our neighbor as ourselves.
    It’s not loving to take revenge, and so we ought never to take revenge.
    But does that mean it’s loving to allow someone to commit a crime against you or your family?  No.
    Ex 22:2,3  "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.
    The point of v.3 is that if it’s a situation in which the person can be safely apprehended, it’s wrong for you to kill him.
    However if it’s uncertain whether he can be safely apprehended, and he is presenting a threat, you bear no guilt if you kill him.  
    God was providing for self-defense and defense of one’s family by means of killing.
    That doesn’t violate the law of love at all.  In fact, in upholds it.
    If I walk in on an intruder who has a gun and is making his way down the hall toward the bedroom where my wife or children are sleeping, if I had a gun, wouldn’t it be more loving for me to prevent him from committing this crime and inviting greater judgment upon himself, than to allow harm to come to my family and to the intruder?
    It is loving to prevent someone from carrying out evil – especially something like murder.
    If you can preserve his life, and give him another chance at repentance, that’s good.  But if all that would do is put you at more risk, it may not be wise.
    There is another passage that speaks to the issue of self-defense in Lk.22.
    Luke 22:35-38  Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered.   
36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."  38 The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. 
    This passage has been variously interpreted.  I looked at 10 commentaries, and all 10 come to the conclusion that Jesus was not instructing His disciples to get actually acquire and use swords.
    Many of the older commentators suggested Jesus was talking about spiritual swords (evidently those are expensive enough to where you have to sell your cloak to buy one).
    I don’t think that’s a possibility, because in v.35 Jesus establishes that He is discussing literal purses, bags, sandals and swords.
    The most common pacifist interpretation is that Jesus wanted them to buy swords in order that they might appear to be outlaws.
    Those people point to v.37 and say Jesus was trying to get a group of disciples that appeared to be presenting an armed resistance to Rome, so Jesus can die as a companion of transgressors.
    They say Jesus couldn’t have been talking about self-defense, because two swords is hardly enough to defend themselves.
    I see that argument as working the other way.  It seems to me that two swords is plenty for self-defense.  If you were a mugger along the road and here came 12 men, at least two of whom are armed, would you mess with them?
    On the other hand, do we really think that the Roman Empire would regard 2 swords as a serious uprising against the government?  
    I don’t think the prophecy about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors refers to the disciples.  It seems a lot more likely that it’s talking about the fact that Jesus was crucified as a common criminal alongside two common criminals. 
    Even though it’s a minority view, I really think the best way to interpret this passage is as a straightforward statement.
    35 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered.   36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 
    The point is simple: “Last time when I sent you out I promised I would take care of you and I did.  Everything went smoothly…”
    “But this time it won’t be like that.  This time you are going to need to bring some money, some supplies, and most importantly, a sword.”
    It’s going to get rough.  
    37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
    He doesn’t say “Do this in order to fulfill this prophecy.”  He says, “Do this because this prophecy is reaching its fulfillment.”
    “I’m going to be regarded as an outlaw, and as My followers, so will you.  Life is going to get extremely difficult for you.”
    Almost all the commentaries say that the reason they are seeking alternate interpretations is because Jesus rebuked Peter for using his sword at Jesus’ arrest.  Therefore Jesus was against swords.
    But Jesus always rebuked Peter when Peter tried to prevent Jesus from going to the cross.  
    Jesus isn’t talking here about fighting Rome and preventing Jesus’ arrest.  Two swords really would be inadequate for that. 
    And it’s obvious that Jesus isn’t talking here about war with Rome.  He tells them to get 4 things: a sword, a purse, a bag and some sandals.  He’s not talking about war with Rome.  He’s talking about basic provisions for life in a rough world.
    The sword isn’t for attacking Rome; it’s for self-defense along the dangerous roads where there were so many thieves and bandits.
    38 The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. 
    Here the commentators say Jesus is saying this in exasperation, because they ignored the point about the bag and sandals and just focused on the sword.  “That’s enough of that kind of talk!  I’ve had it with you guys!” and then He walks out. 
    I have a hard time seeing that here.  Jesus gets exasperated and rebukes them for picking up on the sword comment?  Jesus is the one who emphasized that part.
    36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 
    Regarding the purse and bag, if you already happen to have one, then take it along.  But regarding the sword, if you don’t have one, sell your cloak to get one!  
    The cloak was important.  It’s how they kept warm at night.  Jesus says, “It’s better to be cold and miserable and not be able to sleep than to get caught out there without a sword.” 
    (It’s better to be cold than dead).
    “But why don’t we ever see the disciples using their swords in Acts when they encounter such opposition?”
    That brings up the question about how to respond to persecution.
Persecution

    What should we do about persecution?  Should we resist?  Hide?  Flee?  
    I think this is an area where we can follow Jesus’ example.  
    Throughout much of His ministry Jesus fled persecution.  When they tried to kill Him, He would flee.
    When the time came where He couldn’t flee without violating God’s will, He willingly gave Himself over to them.
    I think that’s an example for us.  If persecution can be avoided without harming the ministry, avoid it.  If not, accept it.
    But I don’t think persecution is a time when we are to exercise self-defense. 
    Martin Luther: [if I was attacked by robbers] I should . . . wield the sword, because no one else would be near to protect me. I should strike as many dead as I could…and should consider myself to have done a good work. But if I were attacked as a preacher for the sake of the Gospel, I should fold my hands and say, Well, my Christ, here I am. I have preached thee.  If my time has come, I commit myself into your hands.. And thus I should die" (Plass, p. 243, WT-4, 4342, WT-2,1815).

    
Review Questions:
1.	    Is self-defense permissible?  If so, when?
    
2.	Is deadly force permissible in self-defense?  If so, under what circumstances?
    
3.	Does self-defense conflict with the “turn the other cheek” command?  If not, why?
    
4.	How should we respond to persecution?