Indeed it does. It is to some a rather surprising admonition of our Lord, as He sent out His disciples, that they be certain to bring along a sword with them, that a sword was even more needful than a cloak (Luke 22: 36). One of the most frequent “arguments” we hear in favor of pacifism is this emotive nugget, “I just don’t see Jesus wielding an AK-47 and blowing someone away.” Here Jesus calls on His disciples to arm themselves, and that with the most deadly weapon available at the time, even as they are sent out. I don’t “see Jesus wielding an AK-47” either, anymore than I see Him using a smartphone. I can see Him using a sword, and writing in the dirt.
Moving from the lesser to the greater, it would seem on the surface that we ought also to have the liberty to defend ourselves in our own homes. That is, if Jesus suggests we may defend ourselves when out in public, how much more ought we to be free to defend our families while in the security of our own homes? At the very least this warning from Jesus in Luke’s gospel dispels the common myth that pacifism is, prima facie the right choice for the believer.
We are not left, however, with only an inference, no matter how sound such might be. The Bible, in fact, speaks to the issue of home defense. In Exodus 22, just two chapters after we are told “Thou shalt not kill,” thus demonstrating that we cannot either use the sixth commandment to defend pacifism, we read, “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed” (verse 2). Notice a few things about this text. First, the conclusion isn’t merely that the guilt of the homeowner is mitigated by the intent of the intruder, but that there is no guilt at all. Second, note that the thief is struck. This isn’t an argument against tort liability, suggesting that we cannot be sued if an intruder slips in our home. Third, note that it is a thief who has broken in.
I have been in conversations with conservative, Bible believing Christians who have argued with my conviction here, suggesting incredulously, “You would kill a man just to protect your stereo, or your wife’s jewelry?” The truth of the matter is that when a man breaks into your house he does not do so carrying a neon sign saying, “I’m just here for your stuff. Your wife and children are of no interest to me.” We don’t know what the man breaking in is after. But even if we did know what he was after, even if we knew he was only a thief, as we do in this hypothetical given to us in the very law of God, we are free from guilt if we should defend our home.
The Bible is abundantly clear. Men are called to protect their wives and children. The police exist to apprehend and bring criminals to justice, not to catch them in the act. That is what responsible husbands and fathers are for. We ought not take a sadistic joy in this calling, but neither should we have a weak-kneed fear of it. We serve a King who goes forth with a sword, and who sent forth His disciples with a sword. We serve a King who loves and protects us- His bride, and His children. Surely we can see that we who are the heads of our own homes, are called to do the same.
