Jesus Recommends Gun Ownership?

Jesus gives us some shocking advice on weapons: “Let the one who has no sword sell their coat and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) What a word from God to throw into the renewed gun debate!

One might rightly ask: Are these authentic words of Jesus? Or were they made up by some ancestors of the NRA and shamelessly stuck into Luke’s Gospel?

The famous “criteria of authenticity” used by Jesus scholars give us mixed results. We find this saying in only one source. This saying does not “cohere” or appear to fit with other sayings of Jesus. But manuscript evidence leaves no doubt that this sentence belongs in the original text of Luke. And the very way that this sound bite contradicts everything else we know about Jesus speaks in its favor: who would have made this up?

Putting this in perspective, earlier Jesus had sent his followers out on tour with no wallet, no luggage, and not even a stick to ward off bandits (Luke 9:3). But here in Luke 22:36, in his advice to his followers at the Last Supper, Jesus tells them, “That was then. This is now.” Jesus does not expect them to continue such a radical test of faith (living with no wallet?) forever. With the coming violence against believers, self-defense becomes a very real need, if we trust this saying of Jesus to be authentic.

Yet to put even this saying into further perspective, later that night, when Peter pulls out and uses one of the two swords they have on hand (Luke 22:38), Jesus tells him, “Put your sword back in its place; for all who take up the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) Significantly, despite Jesus’ reported advice in Luke 22:36, we never see the disciples carrying a sword again.

I am no lover of guns. I refuse to own a gun. And part of me would be glad to put numerous additional restrictions on gun ownership. If you truly believe in the Reformed doctrine of total depravity (which I do), then unrestricted freedom on gun ownership is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

But I have also noticed that “gun-free zones” are where the largest numbers of mass shootings take place. I have also noticed that most of these shootings are brought to a halt by someone with a gun. In a violent society, sometimes the use of force becomes a necessary evil, and not just in the hands of the civil authority.

Ban guns? That would make as much sense as banning atheists in response to the recent Texas church tragedy. And ISIS has proved recently that if you ban guns and bombs, vehicles make a creative substitute for carrying out mass killing.

And in all seriousness, I propose that when gun opponents in positions of power and influence sound off on the evils of guns, we should insist on disarming their own security forces first. Disarm the Secret Service. Disarm the personal bodyguards of politicians and celebrities. Give them baseball bats instead.

There is no simple way to restrain the murder that dwells in the human heart. Let’s not be simplistic in the solutions we propose in the face of gun tragedies.

Update: My adult class on the Historical Jesus made the following observations on this passage: 1. When Jesus says that two swords are “enough,” he is ruling out the creation of an army or militia. 2. When the authorities come to arrest him, Jesus rules out the use of their weapons to resist, setting the example for all believers who endure government persecution. 3. The chief purpose of allowing two swords for this group seems to be protection from armed bandits/revolutionaries such as the later Sicarii, who went around assassinating anyone they thought was not anti-Roman enough. Since Jesus directly compares his updated advice on carrying a weapon with the times that he sent them out without such protection, protection against criminal violence seems to be why Jesus allows his followers a concession that does not otherwise seem to fit the rest of his teaching.