Jesus Supports Concealed Carry, Settles Gun Debate

Did Jesus really support concealed carry?  Absolutely he did.

Look no further than the Bible.  All four gospels report the violent episode that takes place when Judas and the soldiers come to seize Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.  Jesus of course is prepared to go along peacefully.  Peter, meaning well but unclear on the concept, draws his sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave.

Okay, uncalled for – nobody’s disputing that.  And of course, after putting the ear back where it goes, Jesus reprimands Peter, telling him, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?”

I’m not what you would call a Bible scholar in the strict sense (or really, any sense), but I think a few things jump out right away.  First, Jesus expresses no surprise of disapproval that Peter has a sword.  Second, he does not tell Peter to get rid of the sword or to hand it over to the soldiers.  Third, he tells Peter to keep his sword, albeit with the admonishment to be less hasty in its use – “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.”  Sound advice, no doubt.  If you go around cutting off ears or holding up gas stations, your chances of arriving in the hereafter with a couple extra holes in your own hide increase dramatically.  And this is what Jesus seems to say to Peter: Keep your weapon, carry it around even, but be judicious in how you use it.

In fact, we can learn as much from what Jesus didn’t say as we can from what he did say.  Let’s look at this for a minute from the perspective of all the different things Jesus could have said to Peter, but chose not to.  To list but a few:

1. “Peter, you have a sword?!  What are you doing with that?  How can you call yourself my disciple?”

2. “Oh no, a sword!  Quick, call the authorities! Oh yeah, heh heh.  Hi, authorities.”

3. “Peter, it’s okay that you have a sword, but you should have kept it locked up at your house…what do you mean homeless?  Well then, at least you should have kept it tied to the donkey.”

4. “Peter, that sword is too long.  Who needs a sword that long?  You don’t need a sword that long to go hunting.”

5. “Peter, I’m disappointed in you.  You should have traded that sword in last month when they had that exchange program at Herod’s palace.  A gift certificate to Galilee-Mart could have gone a long way.”

6. “Dude, Andrew! Did you catch that on your iPhone?  No, keep it on.  Check this out what I do with the ear.”

So you see, if Jesus was opposed to Peter having a sword, or keeping it on his person, there a several things he could have said.  But he didn’t.  Scriptures opened, case closed.

And if it’s okay with Jesus, shouldn’t it be okay for America?



  • islanchief

    Few know that the Apostle Paul became a lobbyist in Rome for the nail industry. Thomas, huge in Damascus with the stone lobby. And the Roman soldier who put a spear into the side of Jesus, talk show circuit in defense of his cause, Spears don,t kill saviors…..

  • Ben Molenda

    Don’t know if anyone has pointed this out yet, as I don’t have the time to read all the comments, but Jesus actually told the Apostles to buy swords, to be prepared in facing the coming difficulties. Luke 22:36.

  • Angelmama

    Another thought- If God opposed self defense, would we have St. Joan of Arc, or many other saints who protected others through force? It’s not a welcome choice, but some times, it’s regrettably necessary.

  • Rich_Olszewski

    Case closed? An assinine remark from a supposed Catholic.

    • abadilla

      Why don’t you tell us why the person is asinine rather than engaging in personal attacks? Why is that person a “supposed” Catholic simply because you disagree with the poster? How about confronting his or her issues?

  • Hal Cooper

    Concealed carry means carrying a concealed weapon, which, of course, his sword was not. secondly, Jesus argues against self defense as well, saying that whatever is happening to him is God’s will, and he should not contest it. So, you’re hurting your cause rather than helping it 😉

  • Angelmama

    I have a few points to make after reading all of these responses. First of all, the Catechism does mention a moral imperative to protecting the lives of the innocent, so in the case of family, you are allowed to use a means to protect your family.
    Second, with regard to magazines, etc. There was recently a mom who defended her two small children after a break-in. She sent them to hide in a nook, got her gun (a .22) and joined them. The man found them, and she had to shoot him 5 times before she was able to put him down while waiting for the cops. He still lived. So extend this. If it took 5 shots to render him unable to harm her family, and suppose more than one person breaks in. Suppose three people break in and they all remain and persist in their aggression. That means 5 bullets per person, or 15 bullets. Tell me, will the magazine of greater than 10 be worthwhile? (Now I realize that a .22 doesn’t take magazines, but my point still remains.) Should all mothers, who would seriously be at a disadvantage due to biology, just remain unable to not only defend their own life, but those of their children? Are they only allowed to defend from one attacker or as many as exist in a situation? Should we just say, sorry, onés the limit. You may not possess the ability to help yourself beyond that. Because, restricting ammunition could end up meaning that.
    I do not have a desire to kill, but given the number of times my husband travels in the year, and that home invasions do occur in the middle of the afternoon, should my children and I be sitting ducks for the sake of non-violence that is supposedly called for by our faith? Again, I stand by the Catechism. I wish I had mine available to give you the exact numbers, but I don’t. It’s easy as a man to say, well, I’ll take my chances, but as a petite woman, don’t condemn me for wanting a fighting chance. As for the safety of my children? They sell biometric safes for a reason!



Receive our updates via email.