Jesus actually ordered the apostles to acquire swords.
A co-religionist friend of mine asked some years ago What is the Catholic Churchs teaching on firearms…?
Does it recommend an assault rifle or a shotgun?"
He was kidding of course but not so funny are some recent attempts by liberal Christians" to turn Jesus into Sarah Brady. Motivated by their unique brand of religiosity in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting they say that the Lord would never condone gun ownership. Why didnt He state All that take the sword shall perish with the sword"?
Were I to steal a leaf out of the liberals book Id now become conveniently literalistic and say that if anyone wants to consider sword control Im game. But lets address the matter seriously.
When the temple guards of the Sanhedrin came to the Garden of Gethsemane to arrest Jesus the apostle Simon Peter leapt to the Lords defense drew his sword and sliced off the ear of a slave accompanying the guards. This is where the quoted Bible passage comes into play. The gospel of Matthew (26:52) tells us that Jesus rebuked Peter saying Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Quite a pacifist message huh?
Yet theres something generally overlooked here. Peter only had a sword to draw because he had one on his person and Jesus obviously took no issue with this. In fact even during Jesus rebuke He never told Peter to throw his sword away. The command was simply to resheath it.
Why? Perhaps because Jesus had actually ordered the apostles to acquire swords. As Luke 23:36-38 tells us:
But now he that hath a purse let him take it and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not let him sell his coat and buy a sword. For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me: And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end." But they said: Lord behold here are two swords." And he said to them It is enough."
So what is the actual meaning of Jesus words in Matthew? I wont say anything definitively but I will note that the relevant line has often been interpreted to mean He who lives by the sword shall die by it also." And of course theres as big a difference between legitimate self-defense and living by the gun as there is between respecting the states legitimate role and living by government.
So what would Jesus shoot? Nothing Im sure. He wouldnt get married either; His role wasnt exactly the same as ours. But Im also sure that a clear understanding of Christianity shoots the liberal arguments right out of the sky.
(Hat tip: the readers who emailed me the Luke reference.)