Biblical Basis for Self Defense

I was recently asked if there was really a Biblical basis for self-defense. After all, wasn't Jesus pretty consistent with His teachings in the Gospels (particularly in Matt 5 Sermon on the Mount) in presenting a doctrine of pacifism, or at least non-violent resistance?

Matt 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'^[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Matt 5:43-45 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor^[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies^[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."

After a first look at this it seems as though Jesus and His New Covenant teachings are contradicting Mosaic Law, but even Jesus Himself denied this earlier in the same passage saying,

Matt 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

So, does this mean I can use Exodus 22:2 as a "license to kill" and keep a clean conscience in self-defense?

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed"

Some would disagree with this, proposing that the New Covenant takes precedent over the old, and that Jesus' teachings clearly teach non-violence

Matt 26:52 "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword."

But what about when Jesus said in

Luke 22:35-36, "Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything? "Nothing," they answered. 36He 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." (italics mine)

What are we to make of this? Is anyone thoroughly confused now? I will not presume to make sense of this dilemma, I will leave that to some respected theologians, whom I quote below:

"What our Lord here enjoins upon His disciples is simply the duty of self-preservation as the need may arise under the new conditions. They must now give thought to two things: first, the physical requirements of life, as indicated by a 'purse' for money, and the 'wallet' for provisions; and, second, some measure of defense against physical dangers, as indicated by the 'sword'" (Italics his, Pg. 372). Since the time period that Christ was talking about is obviously that of the early church, could this not be applicable to us today? If Christ told the disciples to not needlessly risk their lives, why shouldn’t we also think about our own protection and that of our families? In a day when having a gun in our house for protection is under attack, it is interesting that Jesus himself seems to okay the use of force to protect one's life if necessary."

Alva J. McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom

The Theory of Self-Defense

If life is thus sacred, as God’s boon, and is man’s one possession of transcendent value, then to take it away without right is an enormous outrage. Suppose this outrage is obviously about to be perpetrated by an aggressor upon an innocent person. Suppose, also, that the protection of the law is absent, and cannot be successfully invoked? What shall the defendant do? Is it his duty to be passive and yield up his life; or to take the defensive, and protect it by force, even to the extent of taking the assailant’s life if necessary? Human laws and conscience concur in the latter answer. Remember that the aggressor unrighteously creates the dilemma, making it necessary that at least one life must go. Whose had best go? Obviously the life of the criminal, rather than that of the innocent man. Again: If law subsequently has its just course, the murderer, after his guilty success, will have to die for it. The case is then still stronger: that the passive theory sacrifices two lives, one innocent; whereas the theory of self-defense saves the righteous life, and only sacrifices the guilty one. Our conclusion is also confirmed by the existence in us of the emotion of lawful resentment, the righteousness of which, within its proper bounds, the Savior allows (Matt. 5:22; Eph. 4:26). For if there is no forcible self-defense against wrong, there is no reasonable scope for this emotion.

The Scriptures expressly confirm us. The right of slaying the housebreaker clearly implies a right of self-defense, Ex. 22:2. The law of the cities of refuge contains the same right, Num. 35:22. The effect of this permission is evaded, indeed, by the pretense that Moses’ legislation was imperfect and barbarous, and is corrected by the milder instructions of our Savior. Matt. 5:39. But I have taught you the falsehood of this notion, and showed you that the Old Testament teaches precisely the same morality with the New.

- R. L. Dabney, Topical Lectures on Scripture

Self Defense is not forbidden by God

That homicide in self-defense is not forbidden by the sixth commandment, is plain,

(1.) Because such homicide is not malicious, and, therefore, does not come within the scope of the prohibition.

(2.) Because self-preservation is an instinct of our nature, and therefore, a revelation of the will of God.

(3.) Because it is a dictate of reason and of natural justice that if of two persons one must die, it should be the aggressor and not the aggrieved.

(4.) Because the universal judgment of men, and the Word of God, pronounce the man innocent who kills another in defense of his own life or that of his neighbor.

- Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology