21centpilgrim,
I think that the inference of an obligation to protect one's family from this verse, in a prima facie sense, is reasonable. The difficulty is that equally reasonable inferences could be made from other scriptures that lead to the opposite conclusion. I have been unable to find any conclusion, about when the use of forcible resistance may be justified, that is satisfactory when all scripture data relevant to this topic is considered. As such, I am unable to follow through with inferencing from 1 Tim 5:8 that it would be worse than a denial of the faith if one chooses not to protect their family from an assailant.
Steve's
article on the use of forcible resistance is an excellent summary of the scriptural data. There are two points that strike me as impossible to reconcile. Steve writes:
Steve wrote: Though, in the law, a close relative of the victim -- or even the whole community -- conducted the execution, the enforcement of this penalty is assigned in the New Testament to agents of the state, rather than private citizens (Rom.13:1-7/1 Pet.2:13-14).
Steve wrote: In addition to the law enforcement authorities, God's law (Ex.22:2-3) permits the homeowner's use of lethal force against a burglar, if the burglar is killed in the act of committing the crime ("while breaking in"), though, if he gets away with the loot ("if the sun has risen on him") and is later apprehended, he is not to be killed for his theft, but is required to make restitution. This legislation seems to teach one or both of the following: either 1) it gives the homeowner a special jurisdiction as the protector of his home and family, to act in the place of law enforcement officers, and/or 2) it gives the private citizen (the homeowner in this case) the right to act in the place of the law enforcement officer in situations where he sees a crime in progress and no duly appointed magistrate is nearby (as in the case of a "citizen's arrest").
This depends on the idea of being able to categorize oneself as being, or not being, an agent of the State. There are several difficulties in making this distinction. First, it is unclear which category one should consider themselves as belonging to in the circumstances when a State affirms that its citizens may use lethal force in self defense. Second, it muddies the waters that representative governments place citizens in the role, at least in a theoretical sense, of directing when and how the State ought to punish crime (e.g. voting upon ballot propositions, voting for rulers with more or less resolve to punish crime, service in jury duty, etc,.). Third, it is sometimes not possible to resolve if the coercive force imposed by one or more men over others suffices to deserve being labeled or categorized as a "State". In biblical times this was often made clear by a prophet who anointed a ruler to show the divine appointment to that position. I am not aware of a modern ruler who can make such a claim as the basis for his authority. If that is not it, then what is? These problems would be particularly acute if an anarchocapitalist structure to society should ever be realized. This will probably never occur, and I do not expect that it will occur during my lifetime. The application of forcible resistance to that scenario remains only a theoretical consideration, but nonetheless it is one that provides assistance in gaining a recognition of the severity of these difficulties.
Steve wrote: 10. Every passage in Scripture about doing good to enemies and not resisting the evil man (e.g. Matt.5:38-42) envisages a case where the Christian is alone threatened. There is no specific teaching which forbids the forcible defense of other helpless victims.
Steve wrote: We might also feel that it is more virtuous to simply "trust the Lord," rather than to fight for our own defense (I can appreciate this), though the moral issues are different where the obligation to defend another is a factor.
The idea that one can defend others, but not themselves, becomes awkward in a case where two individuals encounter an assailant. Suppose the situation where one of the two friends has a weapon, and further that the use of force with that weapon has a reasonable chance of success against the assailant. If the armed person is assailed, it would be unethical for him to allow the weapon to enter the hands of his unarmed friend - for that would defending himself. Yet, the unarmed man has an ethical obligation to obtain and use the weapon in defense of his friend - for that would be defending another person. I am thinking, perhaps incorrectly, that this implies a physical struggle ought to then ensue between the two friends over the possession and use of the weapon against the assailant. If this is so, this strikes me as an unsatisfactory position. However, all other options I am aware of have problems as well.
Pete