|
About Jesus - Steve (Stephen) Sweetman Gun
Ownership
Shortly before His arrest, Jesus told His
apostles that "if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy
one" (Luke 22:36). This
verse is often cited as Biblical support for modern-day gun ownership, but
can it legitimately be used that way? I'm not opposed to Christians exercising a
constitutional right to own guns. The
apostle Paul, after all, exercised his legal rights as a Roman citizen by
appealing to Caesar (Acts 25:11). I
do not, however, believe Luke 22:36 can be used to justify gun ownership. Jesus immediately explained why the
apostles were to acquire swords. He
said that "it
is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and what is
written about me is reaching its fulfillment"
(Luke 22:37). Jesus quoted
Isaiah 53:12, a prophecy concerning His death. According
to Isaiah, Jesus would be counted among transgressors, that is, law
breakers or rebels. The
instruction to buy swords, then, was specifically meant to fulfill this
specific prophecy. Here's the question.
Who were the rebels? The
two criminals crucified alongside Jesus were not the rebels. They
posed no threat to Jesus that needed to be defended with swords. Rather,
the apostles were perceived by the Jewish authorities as potential rebels,
zealots intent on overthrowing the political norm of the day. Peter
clearly fit this image when he used a sword to cut off the ear of the high
priest's servant (Luke 22:50). Jesus
alluded to this perception when He asked the arresting party, "have
you come out with swords and clubs as if I were a criminal" (Luke 22:52)? Clearly, the swords Jesus instructed the
apostles to obtain were never intended to be used. Their
purpose was symbolic, to make Jesus appear to be associated with rebels
and thereby fulfill Isaiah's prophecy. Jesus'
immediate healing of the servant's ear confirms that He did not want
Peter's sword to be used. It is also worth noting that the pronoun
"you" in "if you don't have a sword ... buy one"
is singular in the Greek text. Grammatically,
Jesus was addressing each apostle individually to have a sword. The
apostles responded by saying, "Lord, here are two swords". Jesus
replied by saying "that
is enough" (Luke 22:38).
If Jesus intended that the swords be used,
two swords among eleven apostles and Himself would have been woefully
inadequate against an armed mob of soldiers. Jesus'
response shows that the swords were sufficient for their symbolic purpose,
not for combat. This is
further confirmed when Jesus rebuked Peter by saying "no more of this" as He healed the injured man's ear
(Luke 22:51). If Jesus intended violent resistance, He
would not have allowed Judas to identify Him with a kiss, nor would He
have surrendered willingly. He
explicitly told Pilate that His "kingdom is not of this world. If
it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest"
(John 18:36). The conclusion is clear.
The swords were never meant to be used. Their
sole purpose was to fulfill Isaiah 53:12 by ensuring that Jesus was
counted among the rebels. This
passage, then, cannot be used to support modern-day gun ownership. It
was a specific instruction given to the apostles for a specific moment.
It was not a general command for believers today. Postscript
This article is a condensed version of a
chapter from my book, "Misunderstanding
Scripture". For
the record, I have never owned a gun, and given that I am legally blind, I
suspect you would agree that I probably shouldn’t. Imagine
a legally-blind guy trying to aim a loaded gun to shoot.
|