John Piper in hot water? That’s nothing new
By Easton Martin | February 26, 2026
John Piper has recently stirred up a bit of a commotion on X, where he quoted Leviticus 19:34, seemingly insinuating that it has some bearing on the current illegal immigration debate in our country.
While I won’t dive into that specific disagreement here, I did want to take an opportunity to address another of Piper’s positions that, on the outset, seem quite backwards to many Christians. Piper is no stranger to controversy, and his writings from 2014 and 2015 regarding the right for a Christian to arm themselves in self-defense have been a target.
John Piper’s argument against Christians arming themselves for self defense centers on the idea that the heart of the Christian witness is a willingness to suffer rather than a reliance on the sword.
He suggests that for a believer to reach for a weapon in a moment of crisis potentially undermines the message of the cross, which he views as a call to non-resistance and a radical trust in God’s providence even unto death. Piper essentially posits that the New Testament ethos is one of cross bearing passivity in the face of violence, where the primary goal is to show the world that Christ is more valuable than life itself.
However, this perspective faces some significant interpretive and practical issues. It conflates personal sacrifice for the gospel with a passive acceptance of criminal evil. A primary critique of this position is the failure to distinguish between religious persecution and common criminality. When a Christian is targeted specifically for their faith, the call to suffer may indeed be the path of witness. Yet, when a criminal threatens the life of a family or an innocent neighbor, the biblical mandate changes.
The duty to protect the weak and provide for one’s household is a form of neighborly love that cannot be ignored. To stand by while a violent act is committed against the innocent is not an act of spiritual maturity but a failure of moral responsibility.
The idea that Jesus was a pacifist in the absolute sense struggles under the weight of the biblical text. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus explicitly tells His disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword. While some attempt to spiritualize this command or claim it was merely to fulfill a specific prophecy, the practical context is difficult to ignore. Jesus mentions the sword alongside moneybags and knapsacks, which were literal items for travel and survival. He was preparing His followers for a new era where they would face the very real and physical dangers of a fallen world. In this light, the sword was not an instrument of government execution or religious crusade, but a tool for personal protection against bandits and predators on dangerous roads.
The argument for Christian self defense is ultimately rooted in the preservation of the image of God. If every human life is created in the image of God, then protecting that life from unjust destruction is a righteous act.
Scripture does not command a husband to let a criminal do whatever he wants to his wife or children. In fact, the New Testament explicitly states that those who fail to provide for their own households have denied the faith. In a violent world, provision necessarily includes the physical safety of those under one’s care.
By examining the full scope of Scripture in its proper context, it becomes clear that owning a firearm is not an act of distrust in God, but a responsible stewardship of the means available to prevent evil. While the gospel calls for a heart that does not seek personal revenge, it does not demand the abandonment of justice or the protection of the vulnerable. Armed self defense, when viewed through the lens of protecting the innocent, is an extension of the commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself.
