Jesus says to disciples in this verse:
“And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.”
Might seem like a rather forgotten verse, to which Fugelsang says:
But go ahead and search Luke 22:36 on Twitter — tons of Christians are throwing this around like the last part of the Second Amendment, conveniently forgetting about the well-regulated militia part. It suits their taste just fine, as long as you don’t read the rest to put it all into context.
And they’re saying that this means Jesus is pro-gun — the modern-day sword. But what Jesus is really doing is talking about prophesy and being a criminal. Because as soon as Jesus throws down his line about buying a sword, he adds that they only need swords because the prophesy says they’re meant to be criminals: “For I say unto you that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, and he was reckoned among the transgressors.”
So he’s not talking about defending yourself, he’s talking about having a sword as a prop so he can get arrested [to] fulfill the prophecy.
In the very next line, the apostles say, “Hey, Jesus, we’ve already got two swords here with us.” And Jesus says, “That’s enough.”
Jesus never sends them out to buy swords. No one ever buys a sword.
In fact, when the jack-sandaled government thugs swoop in to arrest him…it’s Peter who pulls a sword and cuts off some guy’s ear. Does Jesus join in the fight? No. He heals the wounded guy and tells his friends that “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.”
In other words, my Judeo-Christian friends, Jesus never comes out against owning swords, but he’s pretty seriously against using them.