Self-Defense & Just War

Introduction
The most basic principle that lies at the foundation of just war and righteous self-defense is the image of God and the prohibition against the illicit destruction of that image. While there is a sense in which we may speak of the “sanctity of human life,” it is more properly the sanctity of God and His Word and His image that is to be held in high esteem. Therefore, with God’s permission, human life may be taken for the protection of human life and the righteous retribution for life that has already been unjustly taken. Failure to defend human life may therefore itself be a failure to honor the holiness of God, His Word, and His image. Our duty to God includes pursuing this justice. 

The Death Penalty
While God intimates the first death penalty in the Garden, threatened for Adam’s disobedience, the initial theological lesson is one of grace (Gen. 2:17, 3:21). Likewise, God spares Cain for his fratricide, but the blood of Abel cries out from the ground for justice (Gen. 4:10). When God destroyed the world with the flood, it was for the great wickedness and violence that had filled the earth, and it is therefore presented as a just death penalty (Gen. 6:11-13). Therefore, it does not seem like an accident at all that it is after the flood that we have the first explicit statement of the human duty of protecting human life and punishing those who take it unjustly: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9:6). The institution of capital punishment is therefore a societal-cultural commitment to self-defense and the protection of human life, and the wholesale abandonment of capital punishment is likewise a cultural abandonment of self-defense and the value of human life. Arguably, the same principle is the ethical foundation of the right and duty to personally defend our lives and families as well as for communities and nations to defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary. 

Castle Law & Proportionality
“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double” (Ex. 22:2-4). 

Here, God establishes several additional principles related to self-defense in particular and just war in general. In the case of a break-in, there is an ordinary presumption of guilt on the part of the trespasser and innocence on the part of the home owner. There is no blood guilt if the home owner defends himself and the trespasser is killed. However, the law adds that if the sun is risen, the home defender may be held liable for the blood shed of a thief, since justice demands restitution for theft not a death penalty. The principle is one of knowledge of intention; this is what is meant by the “sun be risen.” If the guy is loading a box of your power tools into the back of his truck, you may not shoot him dead. However, if it is unclear what his intentions are (“the sun is not risen”), and a home owner may reasonably fear for his safety and/or the safety of his family, there is no blood guilt, if the trespasser is killed or harmed. This principle is applied in Western law codes under the name “Castle Doctrine” and can apply to wherever people have a right to privacy and security and may reasonably fear for their safety.  The Fourth Amendment is our constitutional witness to this principle.

The other principle at work in this text is that of proportionality and restitution based on the lex talionis: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Ex. 21:24-25). Lex talionis means law of reciprocity: what was intended to be done to you is done to the perpetrator: since he intended to deprive you of your table saw, he must return your table saw and be deprived of the same item or its equal value (double restitution). This principle is therefore one of proportionality: if some guy steals your table saw, you may not justly hunt him down and shoot him. If he knocks out your tooth, you may not take off his head. Therefore the lex talionis limits vengeance and blood feuds and restores an approximation of societal “balance” after a crime has been committed. This is symbolized in images of Lady Justice with scales in her hand. 

The Duty of Home-Defense
The duty of protecting human life is enshrined in the Sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” The death penalty is mandatory for murder, and a possible maximum penalty for other crimes, including adultery, manstealing, sodomy, rape, and high-handed abuse of the elderly (Mal. 2:16, Mk 7:10, Dt. 24:7, Rom. 1:32). Therefore, while not always required, we should understand those crimes as often approaching the same harm as murder and therefore may sometimes be justly defended against or punished with lethal force. However, even during the days of Moses, God was phasing out familial criminal punishment (e.g. Avenger of Blood) and establishing civil magistrates and judges to bear the sword, for example in the law that allows the death penalty for a rebellious son, a father may not take a criminal penalty into his own hands, but must together with his wife take the matter before the judges of the city (Dt. 21:19). 

Related, is the duty of a man to love his wife as himself and his own body (Eph. 5:28-29). Likewise, raising up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord includes providing for them and keeping them safe (Eph. 6:4). A man who does not provide for and therefore protect his own household is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim. 5:8). By extension, under certain circumstances, our duty to love our neighbors, may include our common defense of our neighbors and nation. 

Just War Theory
The criteria are often divided into two categories: jus ad bellum (“right to go to war”) and jus in bello (“right conduct in war”). While Aristotle considered this topic, Augustine is widely recognized as the first to give it serious thought, focusing primarily on the necessity of just cause and authorized magistrates. While individuals are the magistrates of their own home and familial safety, God has authorized civil magistrates to bear the sword of His wrath (Rom. 13:4, 1 Pet. 2:13-14). Thomas Aquinas came later adding a third principle of personal intention to promote good and avoid evil. Other criteria often included: war should be a last resort, the force/violence/cost ought to be commensurate to the threat/evil committed (principle of proportionality), the violence should avoid non-combatants, and some have added the necessity of some measure of hope for success. Finally, during the Reformation, the doctrine of the lesser magistrate was also developed, arguing that lower magistrates had not only a right but also a duty to defend the populace from tyrannical and abusive higher powers. 

Conclusion: A Couple of Common Objections

What about Jesus’ teaching about turning the other cheek?
Christ’s teaching must be held together with all of Scripture. Jesus also teaches that we must hate our families to be His disciple (Lk. 14:26). When the soldiers asked John what they must do, they were not prohibited from continuing their military duties (Lk. 3:14). Putting these passages together, it has widely been concluded that Jesus is talking about our personal dispositions (no hatred, bitterness against even enemies and honestly wanting their good) and wise/prudent action when we are in positions of weakness willing to suffer but not prohibiting self-defense, just punishment by authorized magistrates, or just war. Parents may not take personal offense at their children, but this doesn’t prohibit judicious corporal punishment. Romans 12 prohibits Christians from taking vengeance into their own hands and requires personal charity, and then Romans 13 immediately explains that magistrates are God’s ministers of wrath. Likewise, Hebrews 11 describes those who “by faith… subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness… waxed valiant in fight… and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance… had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings… were stoned… slain with the sword.”

What about the whole sale destruction of cities in Canaan?
The Bible teaches that God commanded the entire destruction of cities in Canaan for their hard-hearted wickedness and evil (Gen. 15:16). However, the Old Testament teaches that God does not destroy the righteous with the wicked (Gen. 18:23-32). And even in Canaan, Rahab and her family escaped the destruction of Jericho, and Achan was utterly destroyed for acting like a Canaanite (Josh. 6-7). This indicates that the utter destruction of certain cities was on entirely moral and ethical grounds, and therefore it was not ethnic genocide but supernatural just punishment. Joshua says that none of the nations that were utterly destroyed were interested in peace but their hearts were hardened like Pharaoh’s so that their destruction was thoroughly just (Josh. 11:20). And even in the conquest God made a distinction between the cities of utter destruction and ordinary just war (Dt. 20:10-18).

Photo by Joel Moysuh on Unsplash