Is it Right to Kill Someone?

I was meaning that he is PRIMARILY your sibling's enemy, and not yours.

Q: Is it right to kill someone?
A: NEVER! Not anybody, I say that we should at least witness first!

Here is another verse that makes me believe that it can be necessary to kill attackers if nothing else avails.

Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

If they were never to use their swords, then why were they more important than garments?

^By the way, I have been very grateful that you have been using Bible verses. It makes a discussion much better. :)^

Q: Is it right to kill someone? A: NEVER! Not anybody, I say that we should at least witness first!

Rachelle, I don't know if you saw my first reply to this, and if you did, I'm sorry. That was mean. Its wrong to attack someone because you disagree with them. And I especially should know that. Please forgive us.

Q: Is it right to kill someone? A: NEVER! Not anybody, I say that we should at least witness first!

So, were the Isrealites sinning when they obeyed God telling them to kill the heathen nations?

So, was it sin for the Allies to fight against the Axis in WW2?

So, is it sin, for me to be willing to kill someone who is trying to murder me or a family member?

I believe it is wrong to think that by killing him, you are loving him because it keeps him from sinning. Please tell me if I am wrong, but if we followed through with that reasoning wouldn't it be better to kill everyone so we keep them from sinning?
If the situation were, "Kill the president of the US or we will kill your family." I don't think anyone of us would kill the president our loyalties are too strong. Shouldn't our loyalties to Jesus Christ be even stronger?

Please read the rest of the chapter, when Peter uses the sword as a method of defense, Jesus rebukes him. It seems that the reasons Jesus wanted the swords was so the prophecy concerning him would be fulfilled. Vs 37 "For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end" If Jesus had the swords with him, he could be numbered with the transgressors. We must search the scriptures and follow what Jesus's has said, We need to have our foundation of the rock and not on sand.

Please read the rest of the chapter, when Peter uses the sword as a method of defense, Jesus rebukes him. It seems that the reasons Jesus wanted the swords was so the prophecy concerning him would be fulfilled. Vs 37 "For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end" If Jesus had the swords with him, he could be numbered with the transgressors. We must search the scriptures and follow what Jesus's has said, We need to have our foundation of the rock and not on sand.

Okay, I have read the whole chapter, and Jesus rebuked Peter because he needed to go to the cross. Peter was not to stop them from taking Jesus. I certainly understand that. It seems to me to apply to the time coming as well, though.

I have been searching the scriptures, and that is why I have come to this conclusion. Jesus speaks through the whole Bible, not only the New Testament. He has only modified, not repealed things. His teachings go to the heart of the law, but they still coincide with the old law.

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Those verses (and others) lead me to think that the laws in the OT are still applicable to the NT era.
Otherwise God would have been making people sin in the Old Testament by telling them to defend their families if now we may not.

*Matthew 5:17* Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. *Hebrews 13:8* Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Those verses (and others) lead me to think that the laws in the OT are still applicable to the NT era. Otherwise God would have been making people sin in the Old Testament by telling them to defend their families if now we may not.

This is a very good point. Although I think that we are not required to sacrifice lambs and hold to certain elements of the Old Testament law (Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice, and we no longer need to sacrifice animals in expectation), the principles espoused in the OT still hold true. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Self-defense and the use of weapons is not necessarily condemned in the Bible. Psalm 144 praises God for training the psalmists hands for war. Luke 11 states in a positive manner that when a strong man with a weapon protects what is his, it is safe. Ezekiel 33:4 states, "Whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head." if we simply sit by while evil is done, the blood then falls upon us. We are to turn the other cheek to our persecutors, but we are under no obligation to allow evil to stand while it occurs. Of course, one must do their best not to kill, but the Bible leaves dozens of precedents where evil is fought against (not necessarily with the sword). This means that we cannot sit by, we must take action to prevent wrongdoing. If this takes the form of inflicting pain upon the wrongdoer to stop Him, then I believe that is acceptable. We must make sure, though, that we do it with the right intentions, not out of hatred but out of love for God and respect for His laws. Doing absolutely nothing (and not even presenting yourself as a witness) puts the blood upon your own head.

I couldn't agree more with you!

About not doing animal sacrifices now, I also agree because Christ became the ultimate sacrifice, so no more sacrifices are needed. All sin has been paid for, so there is no need to do it over again.

I would agree the the "Character" of God does not change, but certainly His commands do. For example, Cain married his sister (probably) and then later God commanded the we shouldn't marry our close relatives, was Cain sinning when he married his sister? In Leviticus God tells the children of Israel that the pig is unclean, in the New Testament God tells Peter to "Arise, Kill, and Eat." Was Peter sinning? In the old testament God told Israel, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But in the New Testament, God says, "turn the other cheek". Israel was a nation of this world. We are the church, of another world. (John 18:36) Was God contradicting himself? Absolutely Not! God was issuing different commands for his church of another world. Will we really follow Jesus in everything He said? Can someone kill another person in love?

Yes, God's commands have changed, but only his ceremonial law. His moral law stays the same. Peter would not have been sinning if he had eaten an unclean animal, since that ceremonial law had been fulfilled in Christ. God wanted his church to be separate from the world, and now he wanted them to purify the whole world. About an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, that command is to be carried out by the civil government, not the individual. (Deuteronomy 19) Yes, we are most certainly to turn the other cheek, but how do we discern what exactly that entails? I believe that we discern that from using the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments. I believe that the applications of God's law can change, but that the actual laws themselves cannot.

I agree that command is to be carried out by the civil government. But we as Christians are not supposed to be apart of that, we are ambassadors, from another kingdom. God's church isn't supposed to be a civil government but a community of Christians loving each other. We are to love our enemies.

You make a good point here.

@witness1615: I think I understand the point you are trying to make, and it is one that I agree with wholeheartedly in principle (though not application). We should be witnesses for God's kingdom and love those around us. We must treat all with love. Now, in Aidan's and my opinion, this can still be accomplished through self-defense or seeking to preserve the lives of others. Again, many verses is the Bible (OT and NT) seem to speak positively of self-defense.

(I am delving into situational ethics for a moment, so pardon me) Say you have a gun and walk away from the bench on which your unsaved friend is sitting. You turn around, and see another guy making for him (behind him) with a sharp knife. His obvious intention, judging by his appearance, is not to rob but to kill. You cannot run back in time, and no one else is about.

I think you would agree that three or four options are now available to the Christian (whatever choice is chosen, I would add that prayer would be part of each one):

1. You sit by and watch the murder, then calmly report it to the police: Now, this action appears to be rather cold. In no way can this be construed or twisted so that this is loving to either party. The unsaved friend who dies will now go to Hell (at least as far as you know), and the other man succeeds in committing murder, and a gross violation of God's law. In no way is this the good or loving thing. At the very least, God says in John 15 that "greater love has no man than this: that he give up his life for his friends." Now, that is an interesting verse (and if you want, we can talk more about it). From this place and others, it can be seen that doing nothing is the wrong thing and not showing love.

2. Fire a couple rounds into the air and hope for the best. I don't know, but this just seems silly to me. Maybe try it, but their will probably not be enough time to do this before the unknown man commits his crime.

3. Call to your friend: Perhaps this would work, but the guy with the knife would have the definite advantage and would still probably kill your friend. After all, he is only a few feet away at this point.

4. Try to witness to the man: as an ambassador, you could call out to the man and tell him the gospel. This would not stop the man from committing his murder (at least, it has never worked from some of the true stories I have read). Perhaps it never hurts to try, but I consider this not at all loving to your friend, whose life you are putting on the line for this plan.

5. Shoot to incapacitate: This, I feel confident, is the best option in this circumstance. What is the most loving thing for this murderer and for your friend (based on what you know at the time, for only God knows the end result. We are responsible our our present actions)? The most loving thing is to stop the sin (Paul attempted to do this all the time in his letters) and save your friend ("Greater love has no man than this." After all, you take a great risk to your own person in firing this gun, say if the guy with the knife turns on you.) How can this be achieved? Both can happen only if something persuades the bad guy to stop. One about to murder does not listen to reason (at least, that is virtually always the case). The only thing to be done, then, is to get at the murderer through pain. Pain instantly paralyzes people, and it halts them in their tracks. In firing at a non-vital part of the body, you can both stop the attack long enough to help your friend and prevent sin from occurring.

6. Shoot to kill: In this area, I agree with you. I would not shoot to kill. We should not purposely seek to destroy a life given to us by God.

Of course, the person might die as a result of shooting in self-defense. That is true. But then, we are doing the right thing, and leaving the result up to God. Self-defense, or the preservation of others' lives, might result in accidental death, but again, Exodus makes it clear that God does not consider this guilt-worthy. Yes, God raised the standards in the NT, but only by way of perspective. Christ was getting at the heart of the law as it should have been known. The people of the NT should already have known many of the things Jesus was speaking, only they chose to hide behind legalism, instead of investigating the Septuagint. In no way can one see a higher principle of "never fight" within the OT law. If that is so, than saying that "we ought never, ever to fight" would indeed be a contradiction by our never-changing God (again, the Exodus passage is not ceremonial law, and thus still holds). Thus, Jesus must not be referring to self-defense in his address. One important thing, though Peter was told to sheath his sword, Jesus did not contradict Himself by telling him to throw it away (I am a little confused by your point here, as you seem to be saying that God did contradict Himself here, which I know you do not mean!). Peter kept his sword. Why? I believe for self-defense and the preservation and safety of others.

I am sorry if that got a little long. Please let me know if I was too obscure in some areas, and I will try to clear them up.

Thank you for your response. I can tell you believe what you said. Before I answer the hypothetical situation let me ask you a hypothetical situation question.

Suppose you are Jim Eliot and you happen to have a high powered machine gun, as you and your companions stand next to the river. Suddenly a band of Auccua Indians (sp.) spring out with long spears, their intentions are obvious, what are you going to do?

Now to answer your hypothetical situation, I do not agree that there are only three or four possible responses.
I could,
Scream a blood-curdling scream
Throw my shoe at the attackers head
try to shoot the knife out of his hand.
I can could come up with more but I think you get the Idea.

That being said, this is what I would want to do. Seeing the attacker I would rebuke him in the name of Jesus Christ and try to get myself between him and my unsaved friend, or try to get my unsaved friend to get up and run. There is tremendous power in the name of Jesus Christ. I heard an account from a man who when two robbers came up to him he said, "In the name of Jesus Christ you have no power over me." After He said that a couple times the robbers ran off.

I am not saying we don't fight but I am saying we don't fight like the kingdoms of this world fight. (We wrestle not against flesh and blood.) "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36 Christ's Servants don't fight.

As far as Peter goes, the reason I believe the sword Jesus told the to get wasn't supposed to be used as a weapon of self-defense is because when Peter did use it as a weapon of self-defense, Jesus rebuked him.

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:19-21

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us." Rom 8:35-38

Jesus is our example, he didn't fight back.

"Again, many verses is the Bible (OT and NT) seem to speak positively of self-defense." ~ Jimmy

Could you show me some verses from the NT that speak positively of self-defense?

Thanks

I will not be able to post anything more until next sat.

Thanks for your response! Actually, I too won't be able to respond for awhile (till Monday). Hope to discuss this more with you then. This has so far been a very good discussion. :)

Hi! I just arrived back from a vacation (which is why I was unable to join the discussion). It looks like you two have been doing a great job. I look forward to discussing this more when we get a chance! :)

I Back! Would like your thoughts.

Suppose you are Jim Eliot and you happen to have a high powered machine gun, as you and your companions stand next to the river. Suddenly a band of Auccua Indians (sp.) spring out with long spears, their intentions are obvious, what are you going to do?

I know this was originally directed to Jimmy, but I had a few thoughts on it as well. Hope you don't mind me sharing them. :)

Since my friends and I decided to lay our lives down rather than killing the ones we were trying to evangelize, I would not consider killing any of the Indians. What I would do is use the machine gun for intimidation, and perhaps shoot a couple rounds into the air if there was no possibility of killing someone by doing so. If they still came on to kill us, I would not shoot them. I would attempt to convince them not to kill us, but I would not kill them since there would be nothing gained by it, and no one under our care who would be harmed by us not fighting back.

Are you saying that if your children were with you on the bank, things would change?

I just got back too! Response pending. :)

Are you saying that if your children were with you on the bank, things would change?

Yes, things would change since I would have a duty to protect them. I have already listed some verses from the OT about this, but here I have one that applies from the NT.

Matthew 10:21: And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

I certainly understand that this is talking about those who willfully turn in their relatives that believe in Christ, but I believe that this is somewhat similar if we allow attackers to harm our families, or someone in our care. If we are allowing sin to continue unstopped when we have a lawful way to stop it, then I believe we are partaking in it. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that I would just blast into the natives, since there may be a different way to stop them (such as in my previous post). If I could just send my family away to safety, then I would do that. I even would just wound if that would stop them. But, sometimes when worst comes to worst, the only option is to kill the attacker, or let your child be killed.

Proverbs 24:11-12: If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

This verse is from the OT, but I believe that the principle still applies. Every other principle in Proverbs still applies to today: avoiding drunkenness, gluttony, adultery, laziness, anger, mockery, etc. and that we are to honor and obey parents, serve others, fear God, etc. So while killing is to be the very last resort, I believe that it is still permissible even in the New Testament era.

I would disagree that Matt. 10:21 applies, it would seem you are definitely taking it out of context.
The verse in proverbs does not condone violence when delivering them that are drawn unto death.
You already know my thoughts as far as the OT.

Romans 12:17
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

1Th 5:15
See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

1Pe 3:9
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

You are right, that is not Matt 10:21's original intent. Perhaps that was a poor verse to choose. I have already put in verses where men are commanded to fight for their families, so I thought I would include a different verse with a slightly different take on things. But you are correct, I probably should have used something else. I was only attempting to point out another possible application based on other verses, I wasn't trying to explain what the verse meant. I apologize, that was not what I meant to do. :(

As far as in Proverbs, I also agree that it does not explicitly say to use violence if necessary, but then again, it does not explain anything about how we are to go about delivering them. So, from other verses I would believe that killing can be okay, under a very few circumstances.

I completely agree with not rendering evil for evil. If someone killed one of my family members, I would report them to the authorities, but I certainly would not kill them, since the deed was already done, and I would just be another murderer.

So if killing can never be okay, then how could God command killing in the OT? How would something be okay in the Old Testament and not in the New? I know that various things have changed, but the entire moral law has stayed the same? How would one command differ?

Please note: I do know that God only commanded killing in specific instances. I'm only asking what made the difference there, and why you believe that killing is never okay, when it could be commanded by God on occasion. What made the change between the New and Old Testaments?

It is not a matter of "what" made the difference but "who" made the difference, God.
Read Matthew 5, look at all the "Ye have heard…" and the "But I say unto you," I believe God is bringing in his new kingdom.

In John chapter 6 many of Jesus disciples left Him because they thought Jesus sayings were hard. Jesus then turns to His twelve disciples and ask, "Will you go away also?" Peter answers, "Where shall we go, You have the words of life."
Jesus sayings are hard, but where else can we go?

It is not a matter of "what" made the difference but "who" made the difference, God. Read Matthew 5, look at all the "Ye have heard..." and the "But I say unto you," I believe God is bringing in his new kingdom.

I completely agree with that! The only thing is that I see all those as expanding the old laws, not creating new ones. Such as "Thou shalt not commit adultery" to "Do no lust". But with some of them they do somewhat change, such as "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" to "Turn the other cheek". The reason for that, I believe is from people's misapplication of the OT laws. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was the command to the civil government, not the people. I guess it comes down to how we view the Bible. I see it that the laws of the OT still apply, an only have been slightly modified in the NT because of Christ saying he has not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. So I would have to believe that it can be right to kill in defense of others, since it is commanded in the OT, and was not explicitly forbidden in the NT.

In John chapter 6 many of Jesus disciples left Him because they thought Jesus sayings were hard. Jesus then turns to His twelve disciples and ask, "Will you go away also?" Peter answers, "Where shall we go, You have the words of life." Jesus sayings are hard, but where else can we go?

I most certainly agree. I would not be in the OT era for the world since we are in the best era because Christ has come. I believe we have different views on the meaning of some of Jesus's teachings based upon our starting points.

Hi, Witness1615 (By the way, is there a first name (made up or otherwise) that you would prefer to be called by? It seems rather awkward refering to you by a number. Just an idea.)! By the way, I apologize for the length of my response. I hope it does not take on the appearance of rambling. :)

For clarification: I have been meaning to ask you, if a boulder falls from a cliff and tries to crush me, am I morally allowed to dodge it? How about if someone pushes it off the cliff?

Now before I delve again into situational ethics, I would like to address the bulk of your argument: the Bible and its verses. Personally, I think much hinges upon the Peter argument. God specifically told the disciples to carry a sword. I really hope you can grant me that. Specifically, in Scripture (Luke 22:36), God tells the disciples to buy swords. Now, why would Christ ask them to do that? It had to have been for a reason. And what is the reason? Why, in case they might have to use them.

Barring the reason why they were required to use it for a moment, it can be concluded that they did have reason to need the weapons.

When were they allowed to use them, and what restrictions were placed upon them? Well, John 18:11 implies why. In the NKJV, “So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?” Jesus is saying that Peter’s using his sword to defend Jesus (not himself!) was preventing Him from dying on the Cross and drinking the cup that He had to drink from. Clearly, this is unacceptable. Using force to inhibit God Himself from redeeming men was wrong. “Never stand in the way of God” is a lesson found everywhere in Scripture. As can be seen, then, the sword was not intended to save Jesus, because He had a special purpose called by God. But this does not mean that the swords did not have a purpose. Did Jesus tell Peter to throw away his sword? No. If Jesus told Peter to throw it away, that would have meant that he was not to use the sword. But in allowing him to keep it (merely to sheath it, virtually always used in the temporary sense), Jesus implies that its intended purpose, whatever that is, is still valid. The sword can still be used.

The position that self-defense or the defense of innocents is morally wrong runs on the idea that the individual can never bear the sword. But clearly, this is not the case. If the sword were meant to be thrown away, God would have said so (and contradicted Himself in the process, by the way, thus ceasing to be God). God allows for the sword, and if not for murder (a direct, indisputable violation of God’s law), then for something else. What is a sword’s purpose, then? It is still a weapon (not a table-knife). The only option available then is self-defense or the defense of others. This must be was Jesus was preparing the disciples for.

Now to the other verses you mention:

John 18:36 states, “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” Now this has only one connection to self-defense: that it is wrong to stop Jesus from being delivered to the Jews. This is not an ultimatum regarding self-defense in general. Jesus is merely saying what his mission truly is and why stopping his arrest would not fulfill it.

Romans 12:19-21 states “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Now, I want to raise a very important point. Vengeance is not the same thing as self-defense. Let’s look at what the respected commentator Matthew Henry says about vengeance in this verse. “Avenge not yourselves; that is, when any body has done you any ill turn, do not desire nor endeavour to bring the like mischief or inconvenience upon him. it is not forbidden to the magistrate to do justice to those that are wronged, by punishing the wrong-doer; nor to make and execute just and wholesome laws against malefactors; but it forbids private revenge, which flows from anger and ill-will; and this is fitly forbidden, for it is presumed that we are incompetent judges in our own case.”

What is vengeance? It is looking at an evil and attempting to inflict punishment on another for that evil. It is a form of revenge. Whether with malicious intent or no, it is the attempt to take the law into one’s own hands. I agree with you, this is wrong. The Bible is very clear about this.

But…this is not the same thing as self-defense. If someone is trying to stab my wife, I am not saying to myself, “this man deserves to die!” and therefore shoot him (though some might do that, and they are wrong). Rather, I am saying, “worng is occurring that God will not approve of. It must be stopped.” And I stop it. I do not seek to judge, but to halt through any means necessary. If I have a gun or a knife, I will try not to kill, but I will seek to prevent wrong (knock the weapon out of his hands by any necessary means). This is not vengeance. It gives no punishment. Thus, it is not invalidated in this biblical passage.

Romans 8:35-38 states “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us." Now, I would appreciate it if you go a bit deeper into why you think that God is saying here that we cannot defend ourselves or dodge a bullet or a punch. This verse is not prescriptive, in that it is telling us how we are to live. It is not saying, “we all must be slaughtered as sheep for Christ’s sake”; rather, the verse is descriptive. Paul is saying, “we are killed as sheep for our Lord; we are persecuted and killed by our enemies, but even then we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us.” This, again, is not an ultimatum on self-defense.

Romans 12:17 states, “Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.” As before, this refers to vengeance. And stopping someone from killing your wife (whether through a scream or a rebuke) is not an evil, nor is it vengeance.

Luke 6:29 states, "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either." This is a verse to be taken into context. Jesus is addressing those who say, "eye for eye and tooth for tooth." Jesus is saying that we must treat with love those who do us wrong. We must not repay evil for evil, but use love. It is not an evil to prevent with force a sin. It is not evil to lovingly stop them from stealing your coat or dodging the blow in the first place. We can show love through this. Letting sinners have their own way in the murder of children, for instance, is not love, nor is it a true witness. Again, though, this verse is addressing many of the arguments I spoke about earlier.

1 Thessalonians 5:15 states, “See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.” Yet again, this is not violated by self-defense.

1 Peter 3:9 states, “Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.” Again, this does not mean we can’t remove the knife from the hand of a murderer. We must bless others when they wrong us, but that does not mean sit back and stare at them. This can also be accomplished by first stopping the crime and witnessing to the person. It is not advocating doing nothing at all by way of preventing sin.

Now for the Old Testament/Covenant concept. This is a very important concept in Scriptures, and I don’t think we need to delve too deeply into the theology of it for this discussion, but there are some points of the issue that touch on self-defense. You told Aidan that it is not a matter of “what” made the difference but “who.” I would agree with this. God is the one who is the driving force behind the New Covenant. But God Himself never changes, and by that I mean His character never change. I think you would agree with me on this. God’s response to violations of moral principles remains the same: He is full of wrath. God never says “stealing is wrong” one day, then changes it the next. It is a moral principle upon which He never differs with Himself. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). God might say that a certain law is not necessary anymore, as it has been fulfilled in Christ, but that is because the principle still applies through Christ. Christ, however, never reverses the principle through his fulfillment of the law. It still stands.

Now, let’s look at Exodus 22:2. It states, “If in the breaking through, the thief is found, and he hath been smitten, and hath died, there is no blood for him.”

This is not a question of how much money or how many talents of gold must be paid; this is an acknowledgement of right and wrong. Blood on one’s head is a biblical term meaning “morally responsible for a wrong regarding someone’s life.” God Himself is telling the Israelites that this form of self-defense is not morally wrong in principle. The guilt is not on his head.

Other OT passages, such as in the Psalms, talk about God fighting for David in battle. Now David would be under a mass delusion were pacifism correct. An unchangable, pacifistic God would not fight via weapons for a people who wrongly took up weapons to defend themselves. God could not train David for war, for war would be wrong. Either David is wrong about God, or he is correct. I would venture to say that he is correct.

Pacifists who claim that self-defense is absolutely forbidden in the Old Testament are saying that God has utterly reversed Himself on this issue of moral principle. One moment, it is not wrong in principle to use self-defense. The next moment, it is not. This is not a question of Jesus “raising the bar”; it is a question of “destroying and removing the bar completely.” This goes against who God is in character. He does not reverse Himself in matters of moral principle. Thus, the principle of self-defense (if not its Old Testament application) still stands as valid.

Primary note: I would like to refer to my hypothetical example. I am not quite sure I understand what you are trying to say in your response. Are you just saying I didn’t think of enough responses, or that saying that shoting the knife out or shouting would be moral? If so, why cannot I simply shoot the guy in the arm? It is a bigger target area, more likely to take effect, and just as likely to accidentally kill the man as the strategy you bring up. Again, I say that the purpose of self-defense is not to cause death, but to protect against a greater harm. No one purposefully kills in self-defense (that is, no one says, he punched me. Ha! I am going to shoot him.) The responses you advocate are exactly similar to mine, except that they cause less bodily harm to the person and my response is statistically more likely to work.

Also, at least in my hypothetical example, no time to given for a long sentence rebuking a man for what he has done or get between myself and my friend (which, by the way, would just get you killed). At least in my example, you have about two seconds to respond. I will grant you, though, that in most circumstances, you would have more time to do those proposals. As for getting the man to run, I would ask why you would want to do that? According to you, there is no point and it is wrong to defend yourself. If God’s law applies to all (as it does), then why wouldn’t you advocate pacifism here? In fact, why would you do anything at all. Doing anything to stop the evil is exactly what I advocate, so why would my methods be wrong and yours correct. God can work through words and move through weapons with just as much ease.

Secondary note: As for your hypothetical example, I honestly do not know what I would do. I guess I would have to have been there to know what the right response ought to have been. I think that is is one of the most difficult decisions for a Christian to determine when the time is called for him to present himself as a martyr. And there is a difference between a martyr and a Christian fool. Allowing yourself to get shot by a home intruder when you could have stopped it is foolish, while allowing yourself to be killed for your faith is courageous. If I though that I would be dying for my faith or for the expansion of God’s kingdom, then I would probably do nothing (even though my impulse would be to run).

Tertiary note: You asked earlier for verses that imply pro self-defense in a positive light. I believe I have shown that this is not necessary, and that the moral principles found in Exodus, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Proverbs and the Psalms show that self-defense is morally permissible, but I will provide some NT ones. These include such as Luke 22:35-39, John 15:13, John 18:11 (sheathing the sword, not throwing it away), Luke 10:30-37 (the principle of helping others in their need and not standing aside). These second and fourth ones are not as strong as the others, admittedly, but the point is further confirmed in the OT, which has not been reversed and still holds valid in the area of this moral principle.

Thanks Jimmy. You can explain it much better than I can. :)

Just to clarify, so we don't get confused. (I feel like we keep going in circles) but I believe We are to love everyone, and We can't kill someone we love. Matt 5:44 (please tell me how killing someone can be loving?) Our citizenship is in heaven. Phil. 3:20 (look up Greek word for conversation.) We are not of this world, and since we are not of this world we shouldn't participate in this world's government. John 18:36 We are able to flee persecution Matt. 10:23 (so yes we can dodge the falling bolder) :)

I believe that one thing that significantly changed between the OT to the NT was that we are no longer a kingdom of this world, (like Israel) but we are a kingdom not of this world (The Church). This is why we don't fight the way the kingdoms of this world fight. 

As for Peter's sword, Our foundation must start with the Bible, and if we are not willing to apply the same rules of interpretation to all scripture, then we might as well go join the homosexual agenda. One rule of interpretation as pointed out by a black preacher is, the clear always interprets the unclear. When Paul says that  women are not to be Pastors, and then we see there is a church meeting in Priscilla and Aquila's home, that doesn't mean she was a Co-pastor, the clear always interprets the unclear. I believe the clear always interprets the unclear, I think this principle applies here. Since Jesus already commanded us to love our enemies, it wouldn't make sense for Him to then say, “Go chop of your enemy's ear.”  Rather let's look at the passage again. 

“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.”  Luke 22:36-38 (italics and underline added) I believe that they needed the swords so that Jesus enemies could legally say he was a transgressor because they had to swords with them, and then Isaiah's prophecy would be fulfilled.

The reason I stated those other responses (not that I agreed with them) was to show that when it comes to hypothetical situations there a lot more then 3-4 possible options. But yes, in your example if you only had two seconds to respond, and you already have the gun out, and the attacker is dead set (pardon the pun) on killing your friend, the only options for you then would be either to kill or let your friend be killed.  Even if you shoot the attacker in the leg he, being only two seconds away, will still probably be able to kill your friend. So in either example someone will die. I am suppose to love both,  who am I to decide which one is to die. I would let it up to God. If God wants the attacker to die, the attacker will die. I don't believe the attacker should die at my hand though.

I have a question for you, how would your response change if,
A serial killer walked into your house and wanted to exert his occupation on your family?
A Muslim walked into your house and illegally wanted to kill you and your family because you were Christians?
The government walked into you house and legally wanted to kill you and your family because you were Christians?

For me, my response would be the same to all three situations.
If your response is different, please tell me why the motivation of the attacker changes things.

I apologize for not giving my name, It's Caleb. Sorry for the length.

I believe the clear always interprets the unclear, I think this principle applies here.

Great response Caleb! While I still would have to differ, I admire the way you got to your conclusion. I am glad to see that we agree on how to come to a conclusion. :)

I completely agree with the clear interpreting the unclear. If we did not do that then we could come up with the most ridiculous ideas. But here is where I would say that I do not see the command to defend our families in the OT as being explicitly repealed by Matt. 5:44, so I would conclude that it still applies.

We are not of this world, and since we are not of this world we shouldn't participate in this world's government. John 18:36

I understand that God's kingdom is not made of this world, but why should no Christian be a part of any civil government?

Romans 13:3-4: For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

If he is God's minister, why can't he be a Christian?

Thanks Aidan, I am glad that we agree also. Although some of my response wasn't altogether original. :)

As far as Romans 13 the oath of allegiance required by the US when someone becomes a citizen is,
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

I wouldn't take this oath for several reasons one of them being I would be lying since I don't think it would be right to kill someone. As far as Romans 13 calling them God's ministers, God also called Nebuchadnezzar "my servant" and Pilate was wrong when he killed Jesus but he was apart of God's plan. So that is how I view Romans 13, just some interesting observations is, it says, He is a revenger to execute wrath and in Romans 12 we are told not to take revenge. Also it is interesting the bible always refers to someone in a political office as them or he, rather than we or us.

Good points. Thank you for being kind and gentle in your response, while still stating your points clearly. I have been in discussions where people just resort to anger and accusations. I am very glad that you are not acting at all like that. :)

I also would be hesitant about taking an oath like that, since I would have to break the oath if I was to not join a war or military action that I deemed unjust (as one example). I quite agree that God plans out everything, and even people who go against the Bible are still carrying out his will. But if Christians are not to be civil governors, then the governors would potentially not follow the Bible (since they don't believe in it), so why should the government exist? As far as us not taking revenge, I believe that is referring to taking the law into our own hands and taking revenge for wrongs done unto us. I believe that the government is supposed to "avenge" wrongdoing since the next two verses state:

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. (Romans 13:5-6)

Since we are to obey for conscience sake, I would think that would mean that the government is good, so a Christian could be a part of it if he felt called to that.

I agree with you, Aidan. I believe there is a big difference between debate and discussion, debate is trying to make yourself look good and the other person look bad, whereas discussion is trying to find the truth. It is especially important when trying to give an answer for a belief that it is done in meekness and fear. It is hard to do sometimes, and I know I fail at that.

Regarding rulers, government leaders, and others in charge of civil affairs, I must say you brought up a valid point, the government is good, it's purpose is to lift up what is good and to punish what is evil. Yet, because I am an ambassador, from another kingdom, I can't participate in this kingdom. (A ambassador from Russia wouldn't run for US president.) Russia government might be good but because I am from the US I can't participate in it. Also I couldn't kill someone because I love them. If I were of the kingdom of this world I would be right to condem someone to death, But I am of a different world. Does this make any sense? I do not believe in Augustine's two kingdom theory.

Hi, Caleb! Thanks for your quick response. I appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into your posts. :)

“We are to love everyone, and We can't kill someone we love. Matt 5:44 (please tell me how killing someone can be loving?)”
 —- First, let me again state that I do not believe in self-defense to kill. Always try not to kill someone if you can. I am definitely not saying if someone enters your home, you should kill him just like that. I am saying that you can stop him from entering in the first place (why not lock the door, for instance, or take his gun away?) What I am saying is that, in the unfortunate event that someone does die (it should be unintentional!), then the blood is not on the defender’s head. Exodus is clear about that moral principle, but more on that in a bit.

Second, how can letting someone kill your wife be loving? It is not loving, just as killing someone is not loving. Neither should ever happen intentionally, though God can bring good out of each of those situations. The difference is that an accidental death in self-defense does not go on the defender’s head, while a murder does go on the head of its perpetrator. The more loving thing to do, therefore, is to prevent that blood from having to go on anyone’s head (a.k.a.—stop the murder in the first place.), while at the same time pointing out the error of that person’s way and trying to bring him to Christ.

“Our citizenship is in heaven. Phil. 3:20 (look up Greek word for conversation.) 
We are not of this world, and since we are not of this world we shouldn't participate in this world's government. John 18:36
.” —– I actually disagree with this syllogism, but that is a question for another day (you really should start a thread on it, though. It is a very interesting topic). :)

“I believe that one thing that significantly changed between the OT to the NT was that we are no longer a kingdom of this world, (like Israel) but we are a kingdom not of this world (The Church). This is why we don't fight the way the kingdoms of this world fight.” —I suppose we have a bit of misunderstanding between us as to what the different kingdom/covenant idea means. Your concept of different kingdoms still attempts to replace the moral principles found in the Old Testament. As I already showed, however, Jesus’ coming and beginning of the New Covenant/Kingdom does not reverse questions of moral right and wrong as they relate to principle. Regardless of whose kingdom we belong in, God’s Word clearly states that blood does not go on the head of a self-defender, and it is therefore not outright forbidden. This is absolutely clear, and following your reasoning with the clear interpreting the unclear, the verses you brought up trying to counter this should be interpreted in light of the clear, and I have already shown how they actually can’t be viewed against it, and are actually talking about something else entirely. So far, no verse stands as a plausible ultimatum against self-defense, whereas at least one serves to support it.

“Since Jesus already commanded us to love our enemies, it wouldn't make sense for Him to then say, “Go chop of your enemy's ear.”” —- I agree, it wouldn’t make much sense. In this example, Jesus would be arguing to attack one’s enemy as a form of vengeance, not defend. Thus, as the verses you brought up earlier show, it would be wrong (For example, Romans 12:19). However, it would make sense for Jesus to say, “sheath your sword now (though its purpose stands still valid), for I must take this cup which the Father has given.” This is, in effect, what he does say.

“I believe that they needed the swords so that Jesus enemies could legally say he was a transgressor because they had to swords with them, and then Isaiah's prophecy would be fulfilled.” —- I found this idea very interesting. It may be as you have said. However, as I have researched this, I have found no evidence that the presence of swords was needed to make such an arrest in the Roman world, particularly in the rowdy province in which Jerusalem was located. Also, it does not explain Jesus’ command to sheath the sword, rather than throw it away. I admit that it is plausible, but that would only cause us to cast this passage out of our discussion. If you are right, than this can be interpreted as a passage neither for nor against self-defense.

“But yes, in your example if you only had two seconds to respond, and you already have the gun out, and the attacker is dead set (pardon the pun) on killing your friend, the only options for you then would be either to kill or let your friend be killed.” —-Actually, that is not quite what I was saying. :) Again, I would not advocate shooting to kill. Two seconds is enough time to aim away from vital areas, but still be able to incapacitate the attacker. Shooting them in the leg can easily stop an attack, especially by knife. I did not intend to set up a “who dies” question. Like you, I wouldn’t really want to decide that. :)

“I have a question for you, how would your response change if,
A serial killer walked into your house and wanted to exert his occupation on your family?
A Muslim walked into your house and illegally wanted to kill you and your family because you were Christians?
The government walked into you house and legally wanted to kill you and your family because you were Christians?”

That is a tough question, and I don’t want to cop out, but I think I would have to be there to know what I would do. I would want to be able to sense what God was calling me to do in that moment. However, I would probably end up fighting back or trying to escape in all three situations. Again, I would try to keep the intruders alive, but why should I help them put blood on their hands? Again, it is not loving.

I am reminded of a true story of hundreds of Spanish Christians in the Old Islamic Spain. They continually presented themselves before their rulers and said, “we are Christians and we want to be martyred,” and they promptly were. Something strikes me as wrong about that. I don’t think we should so willingly give up the lives God has given us. If, instead of trying to die, we instead try to witness (which is best done without dying, though not always), I think God is better pleased. All that is to say, unless I know for sure that God is calling me to give my life in a certain moment, I am going to try to preserve it for His glory while not violating his law in the process.

Yep, it makes perfect sense. The only part where I differ with you is that I think they are not "either or" options. I believe that you can do both without violating any aspects of either. We are supposed to be in this world, but not of this world. I believe that means that we ought to work in this world, but not be conformed by it. So, I see your point, but I believe that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. ^And I probably should save the rest for another time so we don't get too off topic :)^

I think we have now come to a point of mutual understanding, although disagreeing. It is easy for both of us to take the other persons extreme, and disprove it. For example I say that if the situation would come down to either kill to protect it would be wrong, You say that it would be right at the very least to hurt the person a little so they don't hurt another person a lot. Do you see what I mean? We both take the other persons extremes. :)

I would still hold to the belief, that not rendering evil for evil, or overcoming evil with evil, that we should rather overcome evil with good. So instead of hurting the attacker, I would try to bless, pray for, and love him. As far as protecting my family, they are not my family but rather God's family. God can protect what is His. Here is just a little story for you to read. Many of these stories of God's protection are common among our Anabaptist circles. http://biblicalbrethrenfellowship.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/the-unbarred-door/

I don't know if I would do what this man did, but it is interesting how God protected him.

P.S for some reason I don't know how to start a thread, but if you want to start one, I would really be interested in a thread on "Voting in Government Elections" :)

I think we have come to an understanding as well. Thank you very much for discussing this topic. I have very much enjoyed it, and have grown by it. Thank you again for how well you behaved in discussing civilly and not arguing. :)

I look forward to talking with you again sometime, perhaps on the "Voting in Government Elections" topic, which you suggested. Until then, may God bless you and cause you to prosper in all that you do.