Does Jesus Forbid Self-Defense?

In daily Mass for Monday of the 11th Week of the Year, we read a passage from the Sermon on the Mount. It is a challenging text that raises many questions if read in a literal or absolute manner.

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. … You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you … (Matt 5:38-44).

What a text. It seems to preclude self-defense! What does it mean to “offer no resistance to one who is evil”? Jesus does not say that one should not defend oneself if attacked; He says that one should turn the other cheek. Is this a call to radical pacifism? Does this mean that a nation should have no police force, no judicial system, no army? So radical does this text seem to most that they are overwhelmed and simply turn the page.

Instead of turning the page, though, we might do well to reflect on its message:

The text seems to be more about offenses against personal dignity than physical attack. It is true that a strike on the cheek is physical, but in the ancient world such acts were understood as an attack on personal dignity rather than a grave physical threat. This is the case even today. Being slapped in the face is not a devastating threat to physical well-being; it is an insult. In the ancient world one who wished to humiliate a person struck the person’s left cheek with his open right hand. For the one struck, this was an indignity to endure, but not the worst one that could be inflicted. The worst insult that could be given was striking the right cheek of a person with the back of one’s right hand.

So, what Jesus is describing in this passage is more a question of dignity. His basic teaching is that if someone tries to rob you of your dignity (by a slap on the cheek), realize that your dignity does not come from what others think of you; it is given by God and no one can take it from you. Demonstrate your understanding of this by offering your other cheek. Don’t retaliate to “regain” your dignity. The one who struck didn’t give you your dignity and cannot take it away from you. To retaliate is to enter the world of the one who insulted you. Stand your ground; do not flee, but do not become like the one who insulted you.

This text is not about defending oneself from life-threatening physical attack; it is a text about personal dignity. Wanting to get back at others because they offended you, or did not praise you enough, or poked fun at you, or did not give you your due; all of that ends because it no longer matters to you—at least not when Jesus starts to live His life in you.

So, this text has a cultural context that does not necessarily require us to interpret Jesus’ words as an absolute exclusion of legitimate self-defense in moments of serious physical threat.

Any distinctions I have made above by way of explanation should not remove the core of Jesus’ message, which is meant to limit retaliation and remove from it anything “personal” other than the protection of one’s life from imminent threat or significant injustice.

This reflection serves as background to the Church’s careful and thoughtful approach to the subject of necessary self-defense. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets forth this teaching as part of its exposition on the 5th Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Kill). Here are some excerpts:

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor … The one is intended, the other is not” (CCC #2263).

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore, it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful … Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take care of one’s own life than of another’s (CCC #2264).

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility (CCC #2265).

The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party (CCC #2266).

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” (CCC #2267).

All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed (CCC #2308).

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine (CCC #2309).

Thus, self-defense and the ending of unjust aggression should never be something we do lightly or without reflection. The Lord and the Church require of us serious reasons for bringing lethal blows even to enemies; we should never undertake such measures without considering carefully other less-extreme responses. Respect for life means that I can demand my enemy respect my life, but also means that I must respect his. Recourse to war or other lethal measures may sometimes be necessary, but we must examine our motives and carefully consider alternative methods.

Finally, recall that the Sermon on the Mount is not a list of moral rules that we are expected to follow with the power of our own flesh. Rather, they are a description of the transformed human person. They describe what a person is like when the Lord lives in him and transforms him by His grace. The transformed person is not excessively concerned with personal dignity. The world did not bestow dignity and thus cannot take it away. The transformed person is not concerned with getting back at those who have inflicted blows against their dignity; He is content to be in God’s favor and increasingly free of vainglory, the excessive desire for human praise and standing.

"The presence of swords in the Garden of Gethsemane was to deter the Temple Guards from arresting all disciples and to agree to arrest only Jesus."

There is no evidence in the NT that the temple guards arrested only Jesus because of armed resistance by the rest of the Apostles with those two swords. That is speculation, and it tends to be disproved by two things:

(1) The *one* time that *one* of two words was actually used, was when Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the High Priest. It was then that Jesus reached out and miraculously healed the man's ear. This illustrates that Jesus not only forbade, but counteracted this defense.

(2) Neither the NT nor any of the history of the Church for the first 300 years of Christianity shows Christians protecting themselves with armed force. Despite the fact that they and their families were in peril of their lives, there is no record of armed resistance.

If you have any historical sources which contradict this, I would be sincerely interested in hearing about it. I favor evidence-based discussion, and I am fully open to be persuaded by evidence.

> “(1) The *one* time that *one* of two words was actually used, was when Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the High Priest. It was then that Jesus reached out and miraculously healed the man’s ear. This illustrates that Jesus not only forbade, but counteracted this defense.”

...but counteracted this ***defense***

Be careful. Peter did not strike in ‘defense’ which is why Jesus intervened and rebuked.

But the incident served its purpose which was to put the Temple Guards on warning. After the incident they were more agreeable to take Jesus only and leave the others.

"For it is written: ‘he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me."

It's right there in the text. The purpose of the sword --- or one of the purposes --- was to fulfill the prophecy that he would be numbered with the transgressors. That would have served as corroborating evidence that he was a rebel and a king opposed to Caesar, as well.

So, both --- the fact that his followers were (ridiculously lightly) armed, and the false charge that Jesus was a revolutionary --- added up to Jesus being "numbered with the transgressors."

BTW, there is some controversy as to whether it was unlawful for non-Roman citizens to even possess swords. It's plausible that Jesus knew they would be arrested because of having swords.

In other words, the swords were not there for self-defense: they were there to provoke arrest.

I've read opinions for and against, but I don't know if it can be answered definitively.

Amen.
I think it is so sad how many will not be covered by the Blood of Jesus on Judgement Day.
So many just live in the secular world, unaware of how temporary it is and how carnal and evil it is.
Death comes at a moment’s notice, and then it is too late for those who are unsaved.
I am still trying after 30 years,,,long years, to guide my husband to Salvation. Like many, the scales on his eyes and in his ears and on his heart, are thick and tough.

BUT,,,God is Great and all things are possible with God.

Amen.

You are right, especially about the proud not wanting to bow to Jesus as Lord and Savior. I think this is why men are so hard to reach, in my experience. Men in my family anyway.

John 18:1-11
So Judas took a detachment of soldiers and some officers from the high priests and the Pharisees and went there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.
Then Jesus, knowing everything that was going to happen, went forward and asked them, “Who are you looking for?”
They answered him, “Jesus from Nazareth.”
Jesus told them, “I AM.” Judas, the man who betrayed him, was standing with them.
When Jesus told them, “I AM,” they backed away and fell to the ground.
So he asked them again, “Who are you looking for?”
They said, “Jesus from Nazareth.”
Jesus replied, “I told you that I am the one, so if you are looking for me, let these men go.”
This was to fulfill what he had said, “I did not lose a single one of those you gave me.”

This makes it pretty clear that Jesus could make a gang of armed men back off and fall to the ground with a word. He did not need the Apostles' swords for this purpose.

The purpose of the swords was to fulfill the prophecy that He would be "numbered with the transgressors." I don't think a gang of armed men, "soldiers and officers," would be seriously deterred by fishermen with two measly swords. Especially after Jesus healed the first one who was slashed, and then ordered Peter to put back the sword.

Actually, the passage structure and Greek structure tells a different story.

Christ is contrasting what will come from what existed before.

(Specifically, it is a “counter-point/point” structural marker. Verse 35 “when I sent you out you didn’t lack *anything*../..” verse 36 “but now”)

How will it differ?

First, Christ answers Peter’s boast by showing the intensity of the persecution to come, “Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.” It will be that bad.

Then, Christ names the items, including the sword, As necessary now, in contrast to the situation that existed when the disciples had been sent out before.

“Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.”

The Greek structural focus of the supporting marker in sentence, is that Christ will be numbered with transgressors and this fulfillment of prophecy must happen and would change everything.

That change is positioned in Greek sentence structure as the supporting justification as to why the disciples needed these items including a sword.

This situation is a 180 degree turn from before, when He was welcomed and his disciples commanded respect.

(I mentioned earlier that it was not the presence of swords that Christ was charged with, but opposing Ceasar. )

Best

I think you're making a good point there. The circumstances had definitely changed, and that contrast is being pointed out in Jesus' explanation. The grammar --- as you rightly say --- shows this.

Nevertheless, Jesus demonstrates that he did not need guys with swords to keep the soldiers at bay: He could do it with a word. (John 18:6)

Second, He actually says the purpose of the swords is to fulfill prophecy (Luke 22:36):

"... if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. For it is written: ‘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."

We have a difference in interpretation.

> “He did not need the Apostles’ swords for this purpose.”

I agree, but the disciples needed them.

> “The purpose of the swords was to fulfill the prophecy that He would be “numbered with the transgressors.”

That’s your opinion. My opinion is the same as that handed down to countless millions, that Jesus was numbered with the transgressors because they hung crucified and died on either side of him on at Calvary.

Jesus was not sentenced to death for causing his disciples to carry swords, he was convicted for speaking of a kingdom (possible treason), and even then, Pilate deferred to a Jewish mob to choose between Jesus or Barrabas. Pilate ruled Jesus had done no wrong and left it to a Jewish mob organized by enemies (a Jewish deep state) in the Sanhedrin. Pilate acceded to the Sanhedrin that they had no King but Caesar. Pilate washed his hands of it.

> “I don’t think a gang of armed men, “soldiers and officers,” would be seriously deterred by fishermen with two measly swords.”

The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto held off the German Army for two weeks with 15 pistols.

> “Especially after Jesus healed the first one who was slashed, and then ordered Peter to put back the sword.”

Which doesn’t mesh with your prior statement that Temple Guards would not be deterred. Peter’s action, in fact, did deter them for otherwise the Temple Guards would have attacked and arrested all the disciples.

Throughout the Bible, God has caused the enemies of Israel, who were tasked to remain obedient to God as they were chosen to bring forth the Messiah, to be defeated in myriad ways. It is clear that God does not restrict Himself from waging wars to protect the coming of the Messiah through the nation of Israel, and similarly that He would protect the Apostles who were tasked with spreading the Gospel. That protection included the sword where God deemed it was appropriate.

Satan’s minions can be stopped with the gun and sword, and all manner of armaments. My belief is that GOD protects this nation with the most awful weapons of war such that no enemy nation would even think to attack the United States. Although some missives of Jihadists and other enemies will plot to attack, they cannot defeat the US through armies and equipment, only a formidable enemy nation could imagine defeating the United States militarily and to this day none would think of it.

I think you're supposing that I'm arguing for pacifism. I am not.

Really I'm not!

I'm just pointing out that the swords mentioned in the Gospel are never USED for anything (except for cutting off Malchus' ear, which Jesus immediately counteracts and countermands.) Their only other "use" is that they help establish that Jesus is "numbered among transgressors," as prophesied.

That fact that His men carry (a few measly) arms, helps set up the pretext for Jesus to be accused of being a rebel and a rival to the Emperor.

This results in treating Him as a transgressor in the subsequent chapters: binding Him, bringing him to trial before the religious and secular authorities, having Him scourged and beaten, and finally, of course, having Him killed. In all these ways He was treated as a transgressor, and the swords were part of the (flimsy) pretext for doing that.

I see what you're saying. But the prophecy doesn't say they will need money and other baggage, it just says they're going to be numbered with the transgressors.

It doesn't create suspicion that you're a transgressor if you carry money, sandals, backpacks, whatever. It does create suspicion if your men have arms.

I do think we've well and truly split this hair at this point.

You'll notice that nowhere in the NT do the Apostles ever use a sword, or any other weapon, for defense, although the Christian Community is frequently at risk for arrest and imprisonment and/or stoning.

I prescind from any argument for pacifism. (I do not believe in pacifism.) I'm just pointing to the record.

But the prophecy doesn't say they will need money and other baggage, it just says they're going to be numbered with the transgressors.

A sword is not necessary to be numbered among the transgressors - in fact is *wasn't* even brought up at Christ's trial.

You are making the argument that "since it is the evidence, it must be required." The Scripture doesn't say that.

I want to draw your attention to this in particular:

A sword is not found in the prophecy quoted by Christ, nor supported by the immediate context, nor found in the accusations against Christ.

It doesn't create suspicion that you're a transgressor if you carry money, sandals, backpacks, whatever. It does create suspicion if your men have arms.

No suspicion is necessary. Christ wasn't being arrested for suspicion of arms. Nor were soldiers walking buy who spotted some men with swords. They were already coming to arrest Christ.

This idea of suspicion is one your argument brings to the text. It isn't there found there in Greek, nor the Hebrew translation of the prophecy, nor otherwise. Suspicion of bearing arms is irrelevant to the event and to the history of the trial and to the prophecy.

This is an interesting idea that doesn't bear on this passage, since Christ instructs them to buy swords.

(I'm laughing to myself that you are requiring something to have happened during the NT and example of the Apostles. 😃)

... and ultimately, you are making an argument from silence. We simply do not know. The Holy Spirit chose not to record it if it happened.

(and here, if I was a Roman, I'd say, "But God could have! Not everything is recorded in Scripture!)

Rome certainly found the sword later in history...

Best.

Prior to the time that began Jesus’s time of passion, He and the disciples had attracted an enormous following. There was no real perception of transgressions. There were tests but no condemnation from society.

Once Jesus revealed he would be given over to the unbelievers, his disciples were made aware that he would be made out to be a criminal. This was a sea change as to what was experienced before.

The swords were bought to present a deterrent because it was God’s will the disciples be protected after Jesus was taken.

The Temple Guards were ordered to arrest Jesus, not his followers. If they had engaged in an armed battle with the disciples, not only would the Sanhedrin be displeased but also the Roman governor. The swords, how ever many they thought there were, acted as a deterrent, especially as Jesus was willing to be taken so long as the disciples were left untouched.

The Temple Guards knew that once Jesus was delivered, they could later come back for the disciples. And after the Sabbath, that is exactly what they did. They came back for all followers of Jesus.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.