“Should a Christian defend themselves against verbal harassment or violent attacks?”

 

“Should a Christian defend themselves against verbal harassment or violent attacks?”

There have been church bombings, burnings, violent attacks on the people of the church. And as of this date, January 22, 2026, we only need to look to New York City or Saint Paul Minnesota to see the aggressive, often illegal and oppressive tactics being used by Leftists (Marxists). We can also see an example of how one church is responding to this harassment.

If we depend solely on our own strength and wit to engage these harassments and attacks, we will fail. You see, scriptures instruct us that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Therefore, we are to take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist on the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.

Stand firm therefore, having belted your waist with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having strapped on your feet the preparation of the gospel of peace; ^]in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

With every prayer and request, pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be alert with all perseverance and every request for all the saints.

I asked Chaptgpt, “Should a Christian defend themselves against verbal harassment or violent attacks?” and it began by saying, Christians have wrestled with this question from the earliest days of the faith. The Bible gives principles, not a single one-line rule, and those principles need to be held together.

But first, MY RESPONSE (in red and black text):

I am all but certain that my response will evoke a myriad of responses, but I both agree and disagree with the Chatgpt answer to this question (see below).

I believe all that is said (by Chatgpt, below) is correct with one exception, and that one exception is the bedrock of the argument or discussion.

The one exception is that Jesus came to earth and was on the specific Mission give Him by the Father, and He could not and would not waste His time physically engaging His enemies and detractors. His Mission was to save sinners by revealing God, offering Himself as a sacrifice for sin, and accomplishing redemption—according to God’s predetermined plan.

Jesus and His disciples and those disciples that followed, faced the most severe persecutions, harassments, murders, and beatings. They were, at times, hunted down, viciously attacked, cut to pieces, stoned, burned to death and crucified on crosses. Sometimes they fled and hid but they stay true to Jesus’ Mission, even in the face of these perils. We are to do no less.

(CHATGPT response is in this color text –  my comments are in black or red text):

Here are the core components of His mission, stated in Jesus’ own words and in apostolic teaching.

1. To Do the Father’s Will (Perfect Obedience

Jesus repeatedly defined His mission as obedience to the Father:

“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”
— John 6:38

This obedience included His life, suffering, death, and resurrection (Philippians 2:8).

2. To Reveal the Father

Jesus’ mission included making God known:

“He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”
— John 14:9

“No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son… He has made Him known.”
— John 1:18

Jesus reveals God’s character, truth, holiness, love, and redemptive purpose.

3. To Proclaim the Kingdom of God

Jesus announced the arrival of God’s kingdom:

“I must preach the kingdom of God… for this purpose I have been sent.”
— Luke 4:43

This proclamation included repentance, forgiveness, and the future fulfillment of the kingdom (especially relevant in a premillennial framework).

4. To Seek and Save the Lost

Jesus explicitly stated His redemptive mission:

“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
— Luke 19:10

This frames His ministry as a rescue mission for sinners.

5. To Give His Life as a Ransom

Central to His mission was His sacrificial death:

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
— Mark 10:45

“This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.”
— Matthew 26:28

This fulfills Isaiah 53 and the entire sacrificial system.

6. To Fulfill the Law and the Prophets

Jesus’ mission was not to abolish Scripture but to complete it:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”
— Matthew 5:17

Every aspect of His life aligns with God’s redemptive promises.

7. To Secure Eternal Life for Those Given Him by the Father

Jesus links His mission to a specific people given by the Father:

“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.”
— John 6:39–40

This includes resurrection and eternal life.

8. To Destroy the Works of the Devil

His mission had cosmic implications:

“The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.”
— 1 John 3:8

This includes victory over sin, death, and Satan—fully realized at His Second Coming.

(One-Sentence Biblical Summary):

Jesus was sent by the Father to do His will by revealing God, proclaiming the kingdom, offering Himself as a ransom for sinners, fulfilling Scripture, securing eternal life for His people, and ultimately defeating sin, death, and Satan.

(CHATGPT response is in this color text –  my comments are in black or red text):

(1). Although this is still the method and the practices we, as Christians, are to employ in the Great Commission, today, we are not under the time constraints that Jesus was under (His coming and timely crucifixion, resurrection and ascension).

(2). This matter is far from settled. Even the early reformers changed their view over time:

When Christianity became legalized and later dominant, the question changed:

What should Christians do when they are responsible for protecting others?

Augustine’s contribution

The Bible had not changed but …

Augustine introduced the Just War framework, arguing:

• Violence can be morally permissible to restrain evil
• Motivation matters: love of neighbor, not hatred of enemies
• Governments bear the sword legitimately (Romans 13)

For Augustine:

• Personal revenge is forbidden
• Protective force may be necessary to preserve life

This marked a shift:

• From martyr church → shepherd society

3. Again the Bible had not changed, but The Reformers (16th century): Two Kingdoms & vocation

Martin Luther

Luther taught the Two Kingdoms doctrine:

• The spiritual kingdom (church): governed by the gospel
• The civil kingdom (state): governed by law and sword

Implications:

• As private individuals, Christians should endure wrongs
• As magistrates, soldiers, or heads of households, Christians may use force to protect others

Luther saw Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as:

• Governing personal ethics
• Not abolishing civil responsibility

John Calvin

Calvin emphasized:

• God ordains civil authority to restrain evil
• Self-defense is lawful when life is threatened
• Vigilante justice is forbidden

Calvin rejected pacifism as:

• Unrealistic in a fallen world
• Potentially enabling injustice

4. The Bible had not changed but Modern Evangelicals: Qualified self-defense

Most modern evangelicals hold:

• Verbal persecution → endure patiently
• Physical violence → self-defense permitted, sometimes required

Typical reasoning:

• Human life bears God’s image (Genesis 9:6)
• Jesus forbade retaliation, not protection
• Loving your neighbor includes stopping harm

Many evangelicals distinguish:

• Persecution for Christ (may involve suffering)
• Criminal violence (may be resisted)

And finally, although the Bible had not changed but some subgroups:

• Anabaptists / Mennonites – continue early church pacifism
• Reformed / Baptist / Pentecostal – defensive force allowed
• Christian self-defense advocates – emphasize stewardship of life

And although the Bible has not changed in the Twenty-first century, there has been an unforeseen and unimaginable advance of technologies and the prophesied spread of global evil and hatreds. There are assaults by Global Marxist atheist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian ideologies which are becoming more violent and deadly, and are being justified by its perpetrators. They are able to utilize new technologies to assault their perceived enemies physically, electronically (media and social media), financially (passing laws and using electronic means to track, monitor and oppress).

So perhaps it is time for another “adjustment” to the view of the early Church leaders and reformers when asked,

“Should a Christian defend themselves against verbal harassment or violent attacks” or as when Christianity became legalized and later dominant, the question changed to, “What should Christians do when they are responsible for protecting others?”

(1). We are still to follow the teachings and example of Jesus: Preach and live the Gospel.

(2). We are still responsible to complete the work the He began and commanded (The Great Commission).

(3). Consider adding the framework of the earliest “church model”, the Wilderness Tabernacle.

(4). We may protect ourselves, using only the defensive means necessary to preserve life.

(5). Arrange and keep ourselves in a defensive mode. (obstruct, resist and flee when necessary).

(6). Call on civil authorities for defensive and offensive measures.

(7). Expect some will be martyred.

1. Verbal harassment: generally endure, respond wisely, or disengage

Scripture consistently encourages restraint in the face of insults:

• Jesus: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39).
• Peter: “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return” (1 Peter 2:23).
• Paul: “Bless those who persecute you” (Romans 12:14).

This doesn’t mean Christians must be silent doormats. The Bible allows:

• Calm defense or correction (Acts 23:1–5; Jesus answering accusations)
• Setting boundaries (Proverbs 22:3)
• Walking away when words become destructive (Titus 3:10)

Key idea:
Verbal harassment is best met with patience, wisdom, and self-control—not retaliation.

 

2. Violent attacks: self-defense can be morally permissible

The Bible does not command passivity in the face of physical harm.

Biblical support for self-defense

• Exodus 22:2–3 allows defending against a violent intruder.
• Nehemiah 4:16–18 shows God’s people armed to protect themselves while doing His work.
• Luke 22:36 — Jesus acknowledges the reality of personal danger (though He forbids using violence to advance God’s kingdom).

The consistent biblical pattern:

• Preserving life is good
• Stopping violence is not the same as seeking revenge

 

3. What Christians must not do

Even when self-defense is justified, Scripture sets limits:

• No revenge (Romans 12:19)
• No hatred or cruelty (Matthew 5:44)
• No violence to advance the gospel (John 18:36)

Self-defense should be:

• Proportionate (only what is necessary)
• Protective, not retaliatory
• Last-resort, not first instinct

4. Jesus as the model

Jesus:

• Endured insults willingly
• Avoided unnecessary danger at times (Luke 4:30)
• Forbade violence to fulfill God’s redemptive plan
• Yet affirmed the value of life and responsibility

Christians are called to imitate Christ’s heart, not necessarily repeat every circumstance of His suffering (He died uniquely as the atoning sacrifice).

A balanced Christian conclusion

• Verbal harassment → endure, respond wisely, disengage when necessary
• Violent attack → defending oneself or others can be morally legitimate
• Always → act without hatred, vengeance, or pride

As Paul says:

“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Romans 12:18)

How different Christian traditions (early church, Reformers, modern evangelicals) have answered this—or how this fits within Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount:

Below is a historical-theological overview showing how major Christian traditions have handled self-defense, persecution, and Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, followed by a synthesis.

 

1. The Early Church (1st–3rd centuries): Radical non-retaliation

Historical context

Early Christians:

• Had no political power
• Were a persecuted minority
• Often faced imprisonment, beatings, and martyrdom

This context deeply shaped their ethics.

Core position

Most early church fathers emphasized:

• Enduring persecution
• Refusing violence
• Imitating Christ’s suffering

Key voices:

• Tertullian: Christians should not retaliate or bear arms
• Origen: Jesus’ commands were literal and binding
• Justin Martyr: Christians had “exchanged swords for plowshares”

Why?

They interpreted Jesus’ words very literally, especially:

• “Do not resist the evil person” (Matt 5:39)
• “Love your enemies” (Matt 5:44)

Martyrdom was seen as:

• A witness to the gospel
• Participation in Christ’s suffering
• A victory, not a defeat

⚠️ Important nuance:

• This was not cowardice
• It was voluntary faithfulness, not inability to resist

 

2. Augustine & Just War (4th–5th centuries): Love-motivated restraint

When Christianity became legalized and later dominant, the question changed:

What should Christians do when they are responsible for protecting others?

Augustine’s contribution

Augustine introduced the Just War framework, arguing:

• Violence can be morally permissible to restrain evil
• Motivation matters: love of neighbor, not hatred of enemies
• Governments bear the sword legitimately (Romans 13)

For Augustine:

• Personal revenge is forbidden
• Protective force may be necessary to preserve life

This marked a shift:

• From martyr church → shepherd society

 

3. The Reformers (16th century): Two Kingdoms & vocation

Martin Luther

Luther taught the Two Kingdoms doctrine:

• The spiritual kingdom (church): governed by the gospel
• The civil kingdom (state): governed by law and sword

Implications:

• As private individuals, Christians should endure wrongs
• As magistrates, soldiers, or heads of households, Christians may use force to protect others

Luther saw Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as:

• Governing personal ethics
• Not abolishing civil responsibility

John Calvin

Calvin emphasized:

• God ordains civil authority to restrain evil
• Self-defense is lawful when life is threatened
• Vigilante justice is forbidden

Calvin rejected pacifism as:

• Unrealistic in a fallen world
• Potentially enabling injustice

4. Modern Evangelicals: Qualified self-defense

Most modern evangelicals hold:

• Verbal persecution → endure patiently
• Physical violence → self-defense permitted, sometimes required

Typical reasoning:

• Human life bears God’s image (Genesis 9:6)
• Jesus forbade retaliation, not protection
• Loving your neighbor includes stopping harm

Many evangelicals distinguish:

• Persecution for Christ (may involve suffering)
• Criminal violence (may be resisted)

Some subgroups:

• Anabaptists / Mennonites → continue early church pacifism
• Reformed / Baptist / Pentecostal → defensive force allowed
• Christian self-defense advocates → emphasize stewardship of life

 

5. The Sermon on the Mount: how it fits

“Turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39)

• Refers primarily to personal insult, not lethal threat
• A slap was a shame act, not attempted murder
• Jesus is addressing retaliation, not protection

“Do not resist an evil person”

The Greek implies:

• Do not resist with revenge or vengeance
• Not a blanket prohibition of all resistance

Jesus’ own behavior

• He did not seek violence
• He avoided danger when His time had not come (Luke 4:30)
• He rebuked Peter’s sword because it interfered with redemption—not because all defense is sinful

Jesus’ kingdom advances by:

• Sacrifice, not coercion
• Witness, not force

But this does not nullify:

• Civil justice
• Protection of the innocent
• Responsibility to preserve life

A synthesized Christian framework

Situation: Insults and verbal harassment. Christian Response – Endure, forgive. Harassment – disengage. Personal vengeance – forbidden. Violent attack – defense may be justified. Protection of others – often morally required. Gospel advancement – never by force.

The tension remains intentional:

• Christians are called to be cross-shaped
• Yet live responsibly in a fallen world

Final thought

The Sermon on the Mount shapes the heart posture of Christians:

• Mercy
• Humility
• Love one’s enemy.

Christian tradition then asks:

How do we live this out without abandoning justice, life, and responsibility?

That tension is not a flaw—it is the cost of following Christ in a broken world.

This question fits very naturally with your futurist, pre-millennial, pre-tribulation framework, because Scripture explicitly connects persecution, restraint, and testimony in the end times. I’ll walk through this carefully and biblically.

1. The end-times setting: persecution is expected, not accidental

Jesus repeatedly warned that the closer history moves toward its climax, the more intense persecution becomes:

• Matthew 24:9–10 – believers hated by all nations
• John 15:18–20 – the world treats disciples as it treated Christ
• 2 Timothy 3:12 – “all who desire to live godly… will be persecuted”

This reaches its peak during the Tribulation, when:

• Global political power turns openly hostile to Christ
• Religious coercion is enforced (Revelation 13)
• Faithfulness may cost livelihood—or life

This context shapes Christian response.

2. Pre-Tribulation Rapture: why restraint matters before and after

In a pre-trib view, the Church is removed before God’s wrath (1 Thess. 4:16–17; Rev. 3:10). However:

• Persecution exists before the rapture
• Tribulation saints (those saved after the rapture) still face intense pressure

Key principle:

Persecution is not something the Church is called to defeat—it is something we are called to endure faithfully.

3. Jesus’ end-times instructions: witness, not resistance

When Jesus spoke directly about end-times persecution, His guidance is striking:

“Do not resist” in testimony contexts

“When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak… for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit”
(Matthew 10:19–20)

“This will be your opportunity to bear witness”
(Luke 21:13)

Jesus frames persecution as:

• A platform for testimony
• Not a call to armed resistance

4. The Book of Revelation: two very different kinds of conflict
5. What believers do not do

Believers are never shown:

• Forming militias
• Overthrowing the Beast
• Taking up arms against Antichrist

Instead:

• They overcome “by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony” (Rev. 12:11)
• They are described as martyrs, not soldiers

1. Who fights in the end

• God fights (Rev. 19)
• Christ returns as Warrior-King
• Judgment belongs exclusively to Him

This is crucial:

Any attempt by believers to violently overthrow Antichrist would be a theological error, not faithfulness.

5. The Mark of the Beast: resistance vs faithfulness

Revelation 13 presents a stark choice:

• Compliance → temporary safety
• Refusal → persecution or death

How do saints respond?

• They refuse idolatry
• They accept consequences
• They do not fight back

“Here is the endurance and faith of the saints.”
(Revelation 13:10)

This is not weakness—it is eschatological obedience.

6. Self-defense vs martyrdom: the key distinction

Biblical distinction

Criminal violence –	Defense permitted
Religious persecution –	Endurance commended
Gospel coercion –	Refusal, not revolt
State-enforced idolatry –	Obedience to God, even unto death

End-times persecution is:

• Systemic
• Ideological
• Religious

Therefore:

• Violent resistance misunderstands the nature of the battle
• The battle is spiritual, not political (Eph. 6:12)

7. Why martyrdom has unique end-times significance

Revelation gives martyrs a special place:

• Rev. 6:9–11 – souls under the altar
• Rev. 20:4 – martyrs reign with Christ
• Rev. 14:12–13 – blessing for those who die in the Lord

Martyrdom is not:

• Sought recklessly
• Avoided at all costs

It is:

• Accepted when faithfulness demands it

8. What this means practically for believers today

Before the end intensifies

Christians should:

• Defend life lawfully
• Protect families responsibly
• Use wisdom and discretion

When persecution becomes explicit and religious

Christians should:

• Refuse compromise
• Speak truth calmly
• Accept suffering without vengeance
• Trust Christ to vindicate

The closer history moves toward Revelation 13–19, the less room there is for violent resistance, and the greater the call to faithful endurance.

9. The paradox of end-times victory

The Church appears defeated—

• imprisoned
• silenced
• killed

Yet Scripture says:

“They conquered him…” (Rev. 12:11)

How?

• Not by swords
• Not by revolutions
• But by faithfulness unto death

Final synthesis

In end-times persecution:

• Self-defense is not the primary calling
• Witness is
• Endurance is victory
• Christ alone brings judgment

Or simply:

The Church does not overthrow the Beast—Christ does.

I think the point is made. However it is often easier to analyze and speculate than to apply principles in a difficult situation. So I will close with these two remarks:

*“It is not easy to be a Christian, that is, too actually follow Jesus, His model, His teachings and commandments – it is simply impossible. That is, it is impossible unless you are truly His disciple, then it is He who is doing these things through you.”

*“Being a disciple of  Jesus means that you are just dying to follow Him.”

Your Brother and Friend,

Mike Young