Is it ok to kill in self defence?

While we all hope, and some of us are even naïve enough to believe it will never happen to us, most people recognise that there may come a time when we will face violence at the hands of another human being. As Christians, we also understand the principle that human beings are made in the image of God. We are therefore commanded to refrain from killing each other. But the very real threat of violence naturally leads us to ask if self defence could be an exception? Can we kill in self defence?

When we critically examine this question, we eventually realise it is the wrong question. When we ask it, the fundamental question is still "can we kill...?" Whatever the rest of that question is, it will always imply that we are seeking an occasion to end a human life. Meanwhile, the goal of self defence is not to kill the attacker, but to end the attack.

A much more logical question, therefore, is "is it ok to risk killing in self defence?" If the threat is over, it should not matter if your attacker is still alive. Thus, we can rule out a scenario in which you have rendered your attacker unconscious, but proceed to bash his head in with a rock anyway. This is murder, because the action of killing him is no longer motivated by self defence. But what if, while the attack is still in progress, you strike that same attacker with that same rock, and as a result, the attacker dies?

On a regular basis, we ask questions similar to my proposal. For example, "is it ok to risk killing in order to collect groceries?" On its own, the question seems absurd. Surely human life is more valuable than a sack of potatoes? Certainly. But when we factor in the 4,000lb roll machine you use to get there, the question becomes instantly less absurd. A car can be considered a deadly weapon. Every time you drive one, you are risking killing. Obviously, it would be murder to deliberately drive into someone at 40mph. The crime "decreases" to manslaughter if you drive "without due care and attention", and happen to kill someone as a result. But the only way to guarantee you will never kill someone while driving is to never drive. Yet, still, we consider it morally acceptable to risk killing someone just for sake of driving to the local store to pick up groceries.

Every action we take has consequences, some of them fatal. These range from possible to almost inevitable. Thus, when considering any question, be it self defence, or grocery shopping, we need to weigh up our intentions, the probability of success, and the probability of unintended consequences.

Self defence can almost never be considered immoral. There are exceptions. It seems obvious, for example, that if you are the attacker, your reciprocal combative actions cannot be morally classed as self defence, even if you are literally defending yourself against your intended victim. However, the moral virtue of self defence flows naturally from the flip side of its own coin. It is evil to attack without cause, it is evil to murder, it is evil to rape, and it is even evil to steal.

The latter leads us to what is perhaps the most commonly discussed Bible verse in the question of self defence: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." (Exodus 22:2-3). Verse 2 makes it clear that there is a context in which one cannot be found guilty for striking a thief so he dies. So, while not directly and explicitly linked to the idea of self defence (more on that in a moment), we can ask "is it ok to risk killing a thief in the process of a break in?" At least as far as the Old Testament law goes, the answer is a clear "yes". This would be the Old Testament equivalent of what we call "castle doctrine" - you have no duty to retreat from an aggressor in your own home.

It's important to note that the Bible is a book of principles. Even the laws God gave Israel were not exhaustive. For example, when we go to Deuteronomy 19, we see laws concerning cities of refuge. Verse 5 says "as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he shall flee to one of these cities and live;". But what if, instead of an axe head flying off while cutting down a tree, it is a hammer head that flies off while building a wooden frame? The example is different, but the principle still applies. In the same way, we can extend the principle of striking a thief to striking a rapist.

A further question comes from the meaning of "if the sun has risen on him". Is this the intended line? Is it even literal? Let's shed a little light on the issue. As you can see, I actually just used a similar metaphor. "If the sun has risen on him" might not be literal because it could reasonably be a figurative reference to the thief being caught. Notice, this seems to be the premise of the whole verse: "If the sun has risen on him, (...) He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." You can neither compel a thief to make full restitution, nor sell him for his theft, if you have not caught him. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to interpret "if the sun has risen on him" as "if his theft has been discovered". In this scenario, you can't say "you stole my chicken, so I'm going to bash your head in with a crowbar". That's murder.

But if we insist that this is literal, there is still a Biblical principle we can use to interpret it. In 1 Corinthians 9:9-10, we read "For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope." This verse portrays a principle similar to the Purposive Approach of statutory interpretation. That is, rather than obeying the letter of the law, we look beyond it, to its intentions.

So, in the case of the thief breaking in, we must ask if it is the sun that makes the difference? Put another way, does the morality of murder change depending on the clock? Does God expect lawful behavior during the day, but sanction a nightly purge? If we want to insist that the morality of an action depends on its timing, then we cannot apply Exodus 22:2-3 to self defence. But as this seems absurd, we can suggest alternatives based on what else we know about God. We know that He values human life, and He takes no pleasure even in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11). But we also know that He suppresses sin by fear (Deuteronomy 13:10-11), counts the consequences of sin as being on the head of the sinner (Psalm 7:14-16), and sees it as problematic if the righteous give way to the wicked (Proverbs 25:26).

We even see Christ using the analogy of plundering a strong man's house in the New Testament (Matthew 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21). What is the implication of "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace"? That if anyone attempts to rob such a man, it is almost certain the robber will suffer harm.

Lest we assume Jesus is only speaking metaphorically, consider that He was no Pacifist, nor did His disciples assume He was. Shortly before His arrest, we read "And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”" (Luke 22:35-38).

If Jesus' disciples were carrying at least two swords, it seems unlikely they assumed Jesus was opposed to their use. Similarly, Jesus said "he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one". This suggests "It is enough" was more of an "it is enough for now". Jesus isn't in the habit of giving a command, only to permanently invalidate it moments later.

Now, swords are not gardening tools. They are not fishing equipment. They are not effective hunting weapons. If you are using a sword, you are almost certainly expected to engage another human, and unfortunately, when you start swinging swords around, you are risking killing.

Now, there are some weapons which would seem to break with this theme. Even in warfare, it is considered a war crime to use them because they are specifically designed to guarantee death. They do this by creating wounds which are very difficult, if not impossible, to stabilise, even with immediate professional medical care. Such weapons should be considered abominations, because they have no purpose beyond killing. To use such a weapon is to say "I fully intend the death of whoever I use it on". Thus, their use goes far beyond the question of self defence, and our question "is it ok to risk killing in self defence?" doesn't seem to cover such weapons.

But what about literally everything else we might do in self defence? Obviously, there are non-lethal defences. For example, if you're faster than your attacker, you may well be able to simply flee the situation. Because of the value of human life, a non-lethal outcome is always preferable. But weapons such as the sword, while they can kill, can also incapacitate without killing. In the modern day, we also have guns. Unlike swords, guns require very little skill to use, which is why they are called "the great equaliser". Much like swords, guns can kill, but don't have to. In fact, every year in the U.S., around 1.6 - 2.1 million people use guns in self defence. In most of these cases, the gun is never fired.

When we combine all of the relevant information, it seems the answer to the question "can we kill in self defence?" is no, because that's not self defence. But "is it ok to risk killing in self defence?" seems to be a resounding "yes". It is an unfortunate fact that human beings are depraved, and that this sometimes manifests as unprovoked violence against the innocent. When we face this violence ourselves, we don't typically stop to ask these questions, because instinct takes over. There are three instant responses: Fight, flight, or freeze.

But when it comes to thinking through these questions before and after the fact, Scripture clearly grants us the right to be prepared, even presenting this as a wise option. It is the only logical reason the disciples of the Prince of Peace would carry a weapon, the primary purpose of which is man to man combat. The evidence is clear: As self defence is a good thing, and we are permitted to carry that which significantly increases the likelihood of death, then risking killing in self defence is morally permissible.

AI usage

No AI was used in the creation of this article.