Does the Bible allow Christians to defend themselves with lethal force?

firstly, God is God, and accountable to NONE. He can and does as He pleases, to whoever He pleases, and whenever He pleases. He Acts in certain ways in where He might get "involved", in His Way, or, choose to do nothing. He might save some of His children, while others are allowed to die. In ALL things, God is 100% JUST and PERFECT and RIGHTEOUS!

secondly, try reading verse 22 in Luke 11

thirdly, read verse 38 in Luke 22, and Matthew 26:52

 

What do you think Matthew 26:52 is saying in comparison to those other verses about the sword?

 

God does not need any human weapons to defend His children. Period!

 

I think "evil for evil" pertains to 2 things:
1. The idea that Vengeance belongs to the Lord, not to us (Romans 12:19)

If you are in the midst of a fight for your life, or your family's life I don't think that would fit the definition of vengeance. If the life-threatening situation has ended, and you choose to shoot the perp afterwards then you have returned "evil for evil" and have done vengeance. In the above rapist example, if the perp raped a child and then stopped and gave up, Christians are called to not shoot him and to pray for him. I think this is how "praying for your enemies" balances with the Christian duty to act and protect.

2. The underlying moral basis for your action
If your family is currently under violent/lethal attack by a man you don't like and your initial reason for shooting him is "I hate this guy, and this is a good time to use lethal force as an excuse" rather than "I need to protect my family" then you'd likely be legally cleared if you kept mum, yet morally culpable even though the result would be the same.

It's the same principle in nonviolent interactions. If I choose to help people on medical calls because I like the adrenaline rush rather than doing so as an outpouring of love on my neighbors through Christ then I am in the wrong, even if I save the patient in both cases.

I think this depends on the particular person and a weighing of duties in that situation.

A husband has the duty to his family which he must weigh against the duty to turn the other cheek, and rejoice in persecution. I.E if he dies, will his wife and children starve? Will they not starve? If a husband allows himself to be killed as a martyr, and his family starves to death as a result, is God happy? Christians will have different answers to that question.

This same weighing of duties also applies to the James principle of helping others that I mentioned earlier and I think we do it everyday with the Holy Spirit. If I'm driving on a road and see a broke down car and someone struggling to put a tire on I often need to weigh my duties.
Is my family with me?
Does the situation look dangerous?
Will inserting myself into the situation put my family in danger?
Is this in an area where it's known that people fake flat fires and rob and kill passerby?
How much danger is the victim in?

Sometimes when we get paged out we are told to stage for LEO. This means do not enter the scene as it is dangerous and wait for Law Enforcement. Somebody could be dying on-scene, yet we are not entering it because of our weighing of duties. On one hand, we want to help people, and on the other hand we're volunteers, doing this without pay, and dying in the field in doesn't do our families any favors and has aspects of a dereliction of duty to our families.

 

Do you accept what is said in John 1? Hebrews 13:8 and Malachi 3:6?

 

Period? Never?

 

NT Times

 

Only in NT times God doesn't need weapons to defend his children?

 

In the OT, God used His People to do His Word, which included war with the other nations. there is ZERO evidence in the NT, that God asks His children to do the same

 

You said God does not need weapons to defend his children. Ever!

 

In the NT times. Can you show ONE verse in the Church Age, which is from Acts chapter 2 onwards, where any weapons are used? or where God says to use weapons to defend each other and our families?

 

God does not change .
Luke 22.

 

produce ONE verse!

The early Church Fathers are clear on what was handed down to them, concering weapons:

“Under no circumstances should a true Christian draw the sword.”
— Tertullian 155-230 AD


“God wished iron to be used for the cultivation of the earth, and therefore it should not be used to take human life.”

— Cyprian ~250 AD


“It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.”
— Marcellus ~298 AD


“The servants of God do not rely for their protection on material defenses but on the pine Providence.”

— Ambrose 338-397 AD

Show any leaders in the early Church who taught that Christians should use any weapons to defend themselves?

 

Now you're moving the goal posts again.

Luke 22 cannot be dismissed.

Context is key.
Jesus told his disciples to put up their swords when the temple guards came to arrest him in Gethsemane.
Edit to add: Because the cup he was destined to drink, dying to take the sins of the world, was beginning there with his arrest.

What you ignore in Luke 22 is , for Jesus to tell them that they'd have to first be carrying swords. The most formidable self defense (or offensive) weapon an individual could possess in that time.

Prior to Gethsemane in that same chapter we read Jesus instructing his Disciples to buy swords.

Because while they were with him they wanted for nothing, but there was to come a day when they'd be without him. And because of that coming time they'd need the swords.
All this is in Luke 22.

You cannot say Jesus did not approve of a self defense weapon for the coming church age in light of Luke 22 commanding the disciples to arm themselves for when it arrived.

 

When Jesus says IT IS ENOUGH in 22:38, He does not mean that TWO swords are all they need to defend themselves against a group of thugs, which is absurd. But, ENOUGH OF THIS TALK! This is clear from Matthews account:

"Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (26:52)

 

And he was correct.
The formal Roman empire ceased to exist by all accounts in 476 A.D.

After conquering most of the known world by the sword.

However, Jesus still told all of his Disciples to buy a sword.

In Gethsemane he could not have told any one of them to put up their sword if they were not already armed with swords.

If Peter and the rest of the Disciples had fought the temple guard to prevent Jesus' arrest he would not have been crucified later and fulfilled his mission.
Which is why he told his armed Disciples to stand down.

 

For those who keep on misquoting Luke 22:36, to try to "prove" that Jesus Christ sanctions the use of weapons, the passage later in this same chapter is conclusive that this is WRONG

While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said to him, “Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” (verses 47-53)

Jesus says NO MORE OF THIS, which is the same as Matthew 26:52, IT IS ENOUGH.

What does Jesus do or say after Peter cuts of the ear of the high priest? Jesus HEALS the ear! Jesus did not say, well done Peter, this is the way to go! NO, Jesus shows MERCY and COMPASSION!

This passage is beyond any doubt the clincher against Christians using weapons to defend themselves!