Christ Told the Disciples to Arm Themselves and That's Good Enough For Me

Today I want to discuss a topic that is near and dear to my heart.  The morality of self defense.  For many of us the morality of self defense  is so obvious that we are incredulous that there is even a debate on the issue.  We shouldn't be however because this is an issue that goes back to the great philosophers of Greece and Rome.  Back then the debate was whether an individual had the right to the sidearm of the day, the sword, but the base issue was the same as today.  Does a free man have a moral right to defend him/herself from harm and do they have the right to the tools to defend themselves with?

Now Plato and Aristotle were on the yes side of the moral right to self defense while Cicero believed in the supremacy of the state over the individual and that the individual should look to the state for all of his/her protection.  Now let's take a look and see what the Bible says.  As I've mentioned in the past, the Bible is a book of balance and that is the case here also.

One of the first arguments against the moral right to self defense from the Bible that I hear is that Jesus said "turn the other cheek."  Based on that scripture a lot of people come to the conclusion that Christ was a pacifist.  But let's look at what else he said.

Luke 22:35-36(NKJV)

35And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.”

36Then 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. 

This conversation took place at the last supper.  In the first part you have Jesus reminding the disciples that the first time He sent them out he told them not to take anything else with them.  In essence it seems, depend on God.  But then look what He says.  “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. 

Here we have Jesus telling them that this time they are going to have to take care of and protect themselves.  Jesus even goes so far as to tell them that if they don't have a sword they should sell their garment (coat in other translations) and get a sword.  To me that is like Jesus saying  "look if you have to make a choice between staying warm and staying alive, chose staying alive by getting the means to protect yourself."

Now there is only one purpose as far as I can see for Jesus telling his disciples to arm themselves.  He wanted them to be prepared and able to defend themselves from harm if they should need to do so.  That doesn't sound like turn the other cheek to me.

So where is the balance?  I think that the "turn the other cheek" part is an admonition to be slow to anger, slow to take offense, slow to fight.  But did Jesus mean for us to turn the other cheek back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, until someone beat us to death?  I don't believe my God would require me to be a human sacrifice to evil.  After reading the Luke passage I think the only logical conclusion is that even Jesus felt that at a certain point you need to defend yourselves and to do that you need the proper tools.

So in conclusion not only do I believe that we have a moral right to defend ourselves and our families from harm but I think it is a sign of an immoral government that tries to deny our right to do so!