Self Defence in Der Lutheraner

Concerning Self Defense.^[1]

Der Lutheraner Volume 21, January 1, 1865, No. 9.

In 1540, Luther wrote 91 sentences on the often misinterpreted saying of Christ: “Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.” Luke 18:22. The papists understood this saying as if, according to it, true perfection consisted in putting away all earthly goods and becoming a monk. The Anabaptists, however, sought to prove from this that it was sinful to possess earthly goods. In the propositions which Luther wrote against this perversion of the word of Christ, he also speaks of self defense. We would therefore like to share the propositions relating to this here. They are as follows:

In teaching that one should sell and leave everything, the Lord has permitted, or rather commanded, that everything should be lawfully sought and possessed; for you cannot sell or leave anything that you have not lawfully acquired and possessed; otherwise it would have had to be said that everything must be given back and restored to God, its rightful Lord, as plundered, stolen, and unrighteously posessed things. It is also evident from the second table of the holy commandments that therein it is commanded to seek everything in lawful ways when it is commanded: Thou shalt not steal; that is, what thou hast shall be thine, and not another man’s; or, as Paul exhorts, “Let every man labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.” Eph. 4:28.

Now it is certain that Christ did not come to abolish the binding force of the commandments of the second table of the law, but rather to confirm them, Matthew 5:17. Yes, he also confirms the authorities and police laws, since he says before Pilate: “It is given thee from above,” John 19:11. Christ speaks of the sale and forsaking of all things with regard to the first table of the holy ten commandments, that is, with regard to the public profession of faith. For when it comes to the duties of the first table of the holy commandments and the purchase of the precious pearl of the kingdom of heaven, the field must be sold for its sake and everything must be abandoned. Then that which is rightly possessed according to the second table must be joyfully forsaken for the sake of the first table, that is, for the sake of eternal life. Except in this case, however, and if it does not depend on a public confession, one can acquire, preserve, administer and protect something in the world. For we are also obliged to follow the second table of the law, that is, we must provide, nourish and protect our lives according to divine and human law.

Apart from the fact that one must confess one’s faith by denying earthly things, every true Christian is a citizen of this world and must both do and share with others what the duties of the second table require. Therefore, if a murderer would do violence to you or a thief would take what is yours because you are a Christian,^[2] you must resist such evil if you otherwise wish to be a righteous citizen in the world; for just as the secular authorities, of which you are a member and subject, themselves resist in such a case, so they also command you to resist by virtue of the second table when violence is done to you, and you are bound to obey. So if a murderer attacks you in the street and wants to kill you because you are a Christian, you must resist him, even if it costs him his life. For you know that the authorities have commanded that a murderer should be resisted and that the citizens should be protected. In such a case, you will fulfill the requirements of the first and second table. –

On the same subject the old godly and conscientious theologian Martin Chemnitz writes the following, translated into the vernacular:

The question of self-defense is a difficult one; namely, when someone in an unavoidable emergency, because he cannot otherwise escape, nor otherwise expel the violence, nor otherwise defend his life, kills the attacker. The civil rights in regard to this case are known; but the question is, whether this applies according to heavenly law and before the judgment seat of conscience, since Christ says: “I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:39. Some reject the proof from the law of nature that it is lawful to drive out violence with violence, as ungodly and contrary to the gospel. Some, however, extend this saying so far that they maintain that private revenge is perfectly lawful, thus setting aside the precepts of Christ (Matthew 5:39).

The true grounds of this contention must therefore be carefully considered. For not all natural principles, especially in the teaching of the law, are to be rejected and condemned. For this is also a principle of the law of nature: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” Matthew 7:12. But neither are all without exception to be accepted and approved, because “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him.” 1 Cor. 2:14. Therefore two useful rules are taught: 1. The gospel does not abolish the law of nature, because it is the truth of God, which was written on the hearts by God himself at creation, (Rom. 1:18, 2:14). 2. But because what is known of the law in this darkness of corrupt nature is obscure, and the stubbornness of the passions in the heart also corrupts right knowledge in the mind, the Word of God adds the interpretation to the law of nature and punishes and abolishes the falsifications of it that have been added from the corrupt inheritance.

But in order to see what the right principle is and how this natural knowledge is put in order, it must be noted that opposition to violence takes place in three cases: 1. In lawful dominions and in the office of authority. For the latter rightly expels violence with violence when it averts highway robberies with an armed hand and by war. There is no dispute about this case. 2. In the defense of those who are entrusted to our care, e.g. when a father of a family expels violence by force when his house is attacked and defends his own. 3. in defending his own body against an unjust, sudden and openly violent attack. With regard to these last two cases there is a dispute.

The question is to be presented in such a way that defense with the removal of all unjust desires is lawful and necessary. But the following factors also belong to such defense: 1. That the violent attack which one suffers is a sudden one that one cannot escape in any way by giving way, fleeing, or suffering a (lesser) injustice. 2. That the violent attack is an obvious one, that one cannot save life and limb by any other means of defense than by striking back and killing. 3. That the authorities are so absent that they cannot come to the rescue, and that delay and waiting are clearly dangerous to life. 4. That restrictions be kept on innocent self-protection; to which, as the jurists teach, the following belong: (1) That self-defense be done immediately on the act. For if it occurs some time after the wrong has been done, it is evident that it is not done to repel the attack, but out of a desire for revenge. (2) That it is not done with the intention of revenge, not out of pain at the injustice experienced, but only to abort the violence and to protect life. If one could escape in any other way, one would rather not defend oneself or at least not kill, but is forced to defend oneself if one does not want to neglect one’s own life and that of one’s own.^[3] (3) They also say that a uniformity of offensive and defensive weapons is required, so that if someone attacks you unarmed or with a stick, you will not immediately shoot him with a firearm if he hits you with it.

The question is therefore this: since in such a case the law and the authorities permit self-defense, whether this is in conflict with the teaching of the Gospel and with the commandment to love one’s enemies. Although this question is the subject of many disputations, the following simple and true reasons should be noted. 1. Christ did not come into the world to abolish, by his teaching and preaching, the law of nature and the laws which accord with common sense, and to establish a new political order; but he mainly delivers the spiritual doctrine of the kingdom of heaven, and he declares that the doctrine of the law is to be used for this, because the knowledge of it has been darkened and corrupted by the darkness of original sin. We have already said what evil desires and sinful passions corrupt natural knowledge in this case. These excluded, the work of the law is written in our hearts, that, as we ought to harm no one, likewise we ought to protect our own bodies against unjust violence, either by the ordinary powers of the authorities, or by self-defense, if the authorities cannot come to our aid. For thus says (the pagan philosopher) Cicero, when he describes the first principles of natural law: “In the beginning the whole race of living beings was ordained by nature to protect itself, its body and its life, and to ward off from itself that which seems to want to harm it.” This judgment, because it in truth contains that of the right of nature, is not annulled by the teaching of the Gospel, but only the explanation is added that no sinful desires may be mixed into it and that it may not be done without or against the authority of the laws and the authorities in personal outrage. This is the first reason.

2. The laws themselves, which are consistent with common sense, permit and approve such a case of self-defense. It has been established by the authority of the magistracy that in the case of sudden and openly violent attacks, when the judge is absent and cannot come to the rescue, everyone may justly protect himself and his own by self-defense. But it has been shown above that public punishment includes everything that is done according to the law or by order or authorization of a lawful authority, even by private persons.

3. More clear and certain are the proofs which are taken from the testimonies of Holy Scripture. For there is a case of self-defense of a private person explained in the Law of Moses Ex 22, 2, 3: “If a thief be found breaking up (with an instrument for breaking in), 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.” Consider how carefully God has indicated the circumstances of self-defense and restricted it by the definite limits of blameless protection. If someone is seized at night with a weapon during a burglary, it is assumed that he came with the intention of committing murder, and therefore defense is permitted. After the sun has risen, however, the owner of the house can protect himself and his property in other ways; therefore, if he then kills the thief under the pretext of defense, he is guilty because he did not observe the limits of innocent protection. It is true that the judicial laws of Moses do not bind us, but it is right to judge from them which political laws agree with the law of nature and with the eternal law that is in God’s heart. For God has not established anything that conflicts with his word and will.

Even before the Mosaic Law, there is an example of self-defense by a private person in the story of Abraham (Gen. 14:14), for he was a stranger in the land of Canaan, held no office of authority, and especially had no lawful power in Salem, and yet he armed his family to defend his nephew, pursued and killed the enemy, and freed not only Lot but also the other captives. And far from disapproving of this defense, Melchizedech, the priest of God Most High, blesses the victor: “Blessed be Abram of the most high God, and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” But note the circumstances of blameless protection in this story. Firstly, his help is requested, for one who had escaped reports to Abraham. Secondly, the authorities at Salem were so overwhelmed that they could not come to his aid. Third, he is in league with Mamre, Escol and Aner, who were the rightful rulers in their place, but had no power in the land of Sodom; and yet they take up arms with Abraham to defend their neighbors.

John 18:36 also belongs here: “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” Thus in civil life, if the lawful authorities command and permit it, private individuals may justly resort to self-defense. And Proverbs 24:11 says: “Save those who would be killed, and do not withdraw from those who would be strangled.” However, he (Solomon) speaks here mainly of the office of authority; but he adds the general conclusion: “He rewards a man according to his work.” Hence Ambrose (the Church Father) writes: “He who does not remove injustice from his companion, if he can, is as much in the wrong as he who inflicts it.” Likewise: “If one can help and does not do so, this is nothing other than being favorable to wickedness.”

4. But, says one, these examples prove only the defense of one’s neighbor, not of one’s own body and life. Answer: The law says: Love thy neighbor as thyself. If, therefore, I act rightly when I defend my neighbor in an openly violent attack, it follows that the defense of one’s own body also belongs to the commandment of love. And the case of Ex 22:2-3 also includes the defense of one’s own body. Furthermore, Exodus 21:13 reads: “But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand,” i.e. as in Genesis 14:15. Some would counter this with Matthew 5:39: “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you,” etc.,^[4] and also by Matthew 26:52: “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.” But these sayings are also explained above. They distinguish between the offices of the authorities and the ministry of the gospel and instruct the pious, when the authorities either persecute them or deprive them of their protection and reputation, that they should not resist the evil in personal passion and iniquity. – Resistance also seems to conflict with the commandment to love one’s enemies. But then Abraham would also have sinned against this commandment (Gen 14:15), as would the law (Ex 22:2), as would the authorities when they punish evildoers.

1. We are sharing some testimonies on this subject at the request of several who are in such circumstances that they are in great need of clarity from God’s Word for conscientious conduct. Hopefully these testimonies will also be read with pleasure and not without benefit by those who are not exactly in such circumstances. –Editors of Der Lutheraner. ↑
2. Luther places here the case where a citizen is attacked because he is a Christian, since the occurrence of this case was to be particularly expected in his time and actually occurred a few years later, in the Schmalkaldic War. It goes without saying, however, that self-defense is all the more justified when the attack of a robber or murderer happens for other worldly reasons. ↑
3. This restriction, that self-defense is not done out of vindictiveness and hatred, is especially important, since many Christians are now so inflamed by abolitionist fanaticism that they seem to have stripped off not only the Christian, but even the human being. Not only every spark of love against their enemies, but even every spark of the meanest sense of justice against their opponents seems to have been extinguished. A truly diabolical hatred and a hellish joy at the misfortune and misery of the enemy has driven all Christian, even human feeling out of them. And this bestiality is glossed over with the name of patriotism and obedience to the authorities. ↑
4. Concerning this saying, see Luther’s Folk Library (Volksbibliothek), combined volume 9 and 10, pages 167-182 (i.e. Luther’s 1530 homilies on the Sermon on the Mount). ↑