Looking at our world from a theological perspective, this is the Theology Central Podcast, making theology central. What comes to your mind whenever you see a news report about another mass school shooting? What comes to your mind? What feelings do you have whenever you see that there has been another mass school shooting? Do you get angry? Do you get upset? Do you get frustrated? Do you find yourself engaging in some kind of argument about school shootings or guns or whatever your particular perspective is? How do you typically deal with it? Do you just kind of shake your head? Do you just, I don't know. What's your mindset? For me, I get very emotional whenever I see that there was another mass school shooting. I get very emotional because kids woke up that morning and went to school. They just went to school. Whether they were excited about it, dreading it, whether they had a test, whether they had homework that did not turn in, whatever the case may be, They were just going to school and they had, in a sense, their life before them, right? Looking for their first date, their first kiss, looking for this, going to the school dance, or the football game, or graduating, or are they going to get their report card? All the things you think about and care about in school, they had all of that in front of them and they go to school and they never go back home. home. They are shot and killed in their classroom. That is emotionally disturbing to me. It bothers me so much. And then if that doesn't already, I mean, it makes me depressed. It I mean, there's so many emotions I go through. You just name the emotion, I probably feel it in some way, shape, or form, all negative emotions, when a mass school shooting occurs. When another mass school shooting occurs, I get so, so upset about the situation. I really, really, really do. The news reports start coming out about the mass shooting, right? And then if you start reading the comments underneath the articles, or if you look on social media, you immediately see the fighting, the arguing, right? The pro-gun people say, we need more guns. We need more guns. We need more guns. The anti-gun people, no, we need less guns. And everyone fights and argues. Others people say, well, we need the 10 commandments in the classroom. That'll stop it. We need this. And everyone throws out like they're an expert on what to do about it. Everyone has their perspective. And what's kind of sad is you have everyone arguing about their ideology, but the end result is the children are dead. The kids are dead. The teenagers are dead because it was another mass school shooting. Everyone's arguing. And in many cases, it's like the shooting just happened 30 minutes ago, 45 minutes ago, an hour ago. And you've got everyone online arguing. And it doesn't stop anything because then there's another mass school shooting and then we wait till the next mass school shooting and then we wait till the next one. But yet the same arguments are said over and over and over and over. You can almost, if you look at the comments, you know the arguments. So that already, that just adds to my depression, the emotions I already have. It just makes me even more angry because they're yelling and screaming and nobody even remembers the kids who were killed because they care more about their ideology than I think in some cases, the children who died, or at least it feels that way. But then, the Christians get involved. And once the Christians start talking, I become even more bothered and frustrated. And I have reached, sometimes I feel like I've reached a breaking point until the next mass school shooting. And then I reach another breaking point, especially once the Christians start talking. If the Christians would stop talking, it's still horrible. It's still horrifying. And I almost reach a breaking point. But if I, but if Christians would just stop talking, maybe just, maybe I could handle it. Maybe I could just make it a little bit longer. I know you're gonna say that sounds very unfair, but I just wish Christians would stop talking. I wish Christians would get off social media. I wish Christians would just not speak, because most of what they say is absolutely insane when it comes to mass school shootings. So we're gonna talk about Christians, and we're gonna talk about their use of a specific Bible verse. After every mass school shooting, they quote the exact same verse. I don't know what they expected. I don't know. They don't really detail their plan, but they quote the verse because this is the verse they go to, which just demonstrates that, well, you can make the Bible say anything. And I will tell you about that verse, and I'll tell you about what Christians say, and we're going to talk about the Bible. philological problems, the logical problems, and then after we get done with all of that, if we have a little bit of time, I'm just going to show you how just insane some Christians sound when they really start talking about this. They don't understand the philological and philosophical complexities they walk into, and it's just so maddening. But we're going to talk about all of that right after I do this. Good afternoon, everyone. It is Thursday, December the 19th, 2024. It is currently 5.06 p.m. Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. On Monday, December the 16th, 2024, The Christian Post posted The following article, here is the headline. Teacher, student among three dead in shooting at private Christian school in Wisconsin. Teacher, student among three dead in shooting at private Christian school in Wisconsin. Shooting suspect believed to be a 15-year-old female student. Authorities did not initially disclose shooter's age. They updated it on December the 16th. The shooting suspect was a 15-year-old female student. A law enforcement official reportedly told the Associated Press after the second press conference of the day. Two of the injured students are in critical life-threatening condition and four others wounded have sustained injuries that are non-life-threatening. That was updated on December the 16th at 5 p.m. so that they may have updated it more. But once I saw that, I was like, here we go, another school shooting, people have died. Oh, here we go. And so then I braced myself for all of those things. I braced myself for all the arguments and everything, but then it was the Christian Post. So I knew, well, now I'm going to hear the Christians in the comments section start putting forth their comments. And I already knew exactly where it was going to go. It did not take long. When the article was originally published, it did not take long before, well, they started citing a specific Bible verse. I knew it was going to happen, but I was waiting. Now, once I saw this all play out, I was like, okay, at some point I have to talk about it. I don't know if I decided, it may have been Monday night, early Tuesday morning, I don't know. I made the decision at some point I'm going to discuss this, but situation just has not worked out where I could. So here we are today. In some ways, I like that I've waited a little bit longer because hopefully, Hopefully, most of you, if you've been arguing about school shootings, mass shootings, guns, pro-gun, anti-gun, hopefully you've gotten a lot of that out of your system, so maybe you'll be a little calmer, and maybe you'll at least listen to a perspective that's probably going to tick you off. but maybe you will at least listen a little bit to what I have to say. All right, so we had another mass school shooting in this case, Wisconsin, at a private Christian school. Now the Christian Post took an interesting perspective because after they published this article, they published a second article basically saying, hey, I think the way we can prevent this, and now I'm paraphrasing this, I'm paraphrasing this. It wasn't this explicit, but it was pretty close to saying, hey, I think the way we can possibly prevent school shootings and a Christian school is to do a better job at looking at who we allow into the Christian schools. We got to do a better job at basically, you know, going through the application process. We got to screen these children better and only let kids into the school who would never do a school shooting. Now, right there just seems bizarre to me because wait, if you believe all people are totally depraved. The screening process is going to be sinner, sinner, sinner, oh, sinner, sinner, sinner, sinner, sinner, sinner, a sinner, a sinner, whether saved or not saved, they have a sinful nature. They are depraved. But I guess if we do a better screening process, I guess we can avoid this. I mean, if we do a better screening process in churches, I guess we'll have no backbiting, no gossip, no church splits. We just need to do a better screening process. Philologically, that... I didn't even know what to say about that one. I just left it alone. But I wanted to see how Christians were going to handle this. And I knew it was coming. I knew. I didn't know how long it would take, but I knew. I knew. And you know what verse started to be cited relatively quick? Because immediately there was some back and forth about, we need better gun laws. Well, no gun laws would have worked. We need guns. We don't need guns. And then someone would immediately say, They would read this, or they would quote this. You ready? Let's see if you can recognize where I'm reading from. Are you ready? Here we go. Then said he unto them, this is Jesus speaking unto some specific people. Then Jesus said unto them, but now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his script, and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. After a mass school shooting, this is what Christians quote. They quote Luke 22, 36. And I'm always just sitting there completely baffled by it. So children are shot and killed in a school, and you want to quote Luke 22, 36. So are you saying they should have sold their clothes and went and bought a sword? No, no, no, no, no. No, they're not going to take it that way. No, what this verse says is that people should own guns. So the kids are dead, but now Christians want to argue guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, not God, but guns. See, God didn't do anything, right? I mean, God didn't show up and stop the school shooting. He didn't stop it. He didn't intervene. He didn't protect. He didn't resurrect. He didn't heal. They died. So, okay. So now forget God, we need guns. Now we're going to quote Luke 22, 36 in order to somehow prove that we need guns. And I'm always baffled by that. Well, first the kids are dead. So who should have had the guns? The kids? Oh no, the teachers. So now we need the teachers. I guess I'll pass. I mean, they got to have the gun really readily available in case the first classroom the child walks into who's going to do the school shooting. I mean, the teacher's gotta be armed and ready. They gotta have it on the hip with a bullet in the chamber, and then they can, boom, eliminate the threat. I guess that's what we want. We want all schools with all the teachers are walking around the classroom carrying a gun on their hip. I mean, and that seems reasonable to some Christians. So I was just like, okay, Luke 22, 36. So what I wanna do here at the beginning is just look at this. Somewhat, I think, well, I'm just going to offer some thoughts. Let's say it that way. And then you can process how you think about it, all right? I think that there are some textual, hermeneutical, and logical challenges in using Luke 22, 36 as a defense for gun ownership and modern Second Amendment rights. I think there are, let me state that again, textual, hermeneutical, and logical challenges to this. All right, and first just note, they just quote one verse, Luke 22, 36, that's what they quote. And I think they, and you talk about, they don't care about context, they don't even care about any, and they sure don't care how the early church approached this in any way, shape or form. Let's look at the textual context, all right? Luke 22, 36, quoting now from a different translation, but now let the one who has a money bag take it, and likewise a knapsack, and the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. Now, please now, but now there's somehow a transition. Now you need to take a money bag. You now need to take a knapsack. See, before Jesus told him not to take anything. Now he tells them to take something. This seems to indicate there's something, that this verse is about a transition. Something has changed. What has changed here? I think that's the real question. Hey, before, don't take anything. Now, make sure you have all of your provisions. Well, what changed? I think that's the theological question, right? But, all right. The verse, this verse, Luke 22, 36, occurs within Jesus' instructions to his disciples as they prepare for his arrest and crucifixion. The immediate context emphasizes coming challenges and the shift from earlier reliance on hospitality and peace to a time of opposition and hardship. See, it seems to be like Jesus is showing that there's a transition. Before, you're going to rely on other people. You're going to rely on hospitality and being at a time of peace. Now, things are going to change and you're not going to be able to rely on hospitality. You're going to have to make sure you take what you need. And it also sounds like, hey, it's not going to be a time of peace. It's going to be a time of persecution. So it seems to be this is more about a transition, but what people want to turn it into, he said buy a sword, he said buy a sword, that's the same thing as buying a gun, because a sword and a gun is equal, that's how, they don't care about what the, what's the theological implications here, what is going on, no, no, no, they just see sword and that, well, that sounds like gun. Now, the key challenge here is the sword, which references a small, short-bladed weapon used, what some would say, for self-defense. Others would say it was more used for daily tasks. It was not a modern firearm, and it was not even equivalent in the sense of it could not carry out some kind of large-scale violence. I mean, it was a short blade, a knife, basically. Maybe a little longer than a knife. So right there, you already have a problem. You're trying to say, gun equals this instrument that they were told to buy based off the Greek word. And we want to somehow draw a correlation. There's all kinds of just problems with doing that. When you project a modern concept onto an ancient text, you stretch its meaning. You may even be stretching the purpose of this passage. This passage is not prescribing everyone go out and buy a knife, or go out there and buy a gun. To say that this is prescribing something is just bad textual interpretation. It's describing a change, a transition. That's what we should be discussing, but we can't have that conversation because all Christians can say, I can get a gun because Jesus said, buy a sword. I can have 10 guns because Jesus said, buy a sword. I can have a hundred rounds of ammunition because Jesus said, buy a sword. And you're like, what is happening here? But trying to sometimes have a rational conversation in many of these cases is, well, it's a fool's errand because you really can't. So the textual context doesn't really support this idea of making this a gun. And again, not only that, the textual context is describing, it's not prescribing anything for you or me. Or you would become a Christian and the first thing they would say is, you need to go buy a sword. Next, there's a hermeneutical problem. literal versus figurative language. You see, many scholars, I know that that's, you know, this is going to be a shock to many of you, but many scholars argue that Jesus' reference to the sword here is more symbolic than it is literal. He often spoke in metaphor or hyperbole, Matthew 5, 29 through 30, cut off your hand. The sword here is more of a symbol, more symbolizes preparedness for spiritual or figurative battles, not literal armed conflict. The point here of this passage is things are going to change. You need to be prepared. Now, before I told you not to take anything, now I'm telling you to take things. Because you need to be prepared for a major change in how things are going to work and operate. And to support this idea, that this may have been more figurative than literal, Jesus rebukes Peter for using a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane, in Luke 22, 50-51, in Matthew 26, 52. He says, quoting, or kind of a paraphrase, "...put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." This would undermine completely the entire materialist— military, well, we won't call it a military kind of interpretation, a more, when someone says, oh, an actual sword used in actual self-defense to actually attack people in a kind of a, somewhat of a violent way. Well, this, Jesus' words to Peter, this is the first, Hey, buy a sword, Peter has a sword, uses a sword, immediately Jesus is like, what are you doing? Put it away! Don't! Those who live by the sword will perish by the sword, will die by the sword. This seems to go against this entire interpretation that we're supposed to have a sword and use it. The first time Peter uses it, he is rebuked for doing so. But nobody wants to quote that. See, everybody just wants to quote Luke 22. Everybody just wants to quote the passage here in Luke chapter 22 and verse 36. That's how everybody wants to. They don't want to say, well, wait a minute. So do we have an example of someone having a sword and using the sword? And what did Jesus say? Yeah, he said, put it away. You know what? People will say, well, in that context there, yeah, you're not to use the sword. So when is the context right to use the sword when we have one example of someone doing so and being rebuked for it and being literally said, if you live by it, you're going to die by it? Not only that, the use of the sword would see in a violent way, I was going to say in a kind of a militaristic way, kind of a, you know, but I don't want to use it in a militaristic way. I don't want to use that word because some people say, well, I'm not trying to be like I'm in the military. So in a violent way, and some people may not even that word, in a self-defensive way, whatever the case may be, violence ensues. Whether you're using it as a defensive weapon or as an offensive weapon, it's still violence. And Jesus said, if you live by it, you're going to die by it. And he tells Peter to put away the sword. And then if you look at the rest of Jesus' teaching, Jesus' larger teaching emphasizes non-violence love for your enemy. Look at Matthew 5, 38 through 44. Turn the other cheek, resist not evil, love your enemies. Jesus seems to emphasize trusting God rather than weapons or violence for security. Using Luke 22-36 to justify owning a firearm conflicts with the overarching principles that Jesus even taught. Jesus didn't say, hey, oh, no, no, fight your enemy, kill your enemy, defend yourself against your enemy. No, he said, resist not, love your enemy. That's what Jesus said, trust God. So to run to Luke 22, 36 seems to completely ignore everything. It ignores everything. So it's a hermeneutical problem. It's a textual problem. How about a logical problem? Well, when you apply a first century instruction to disciples about swords to defend 21st century firearm ownership, you're ignoring the historical context completely. The Second Amendment and gun rights are modern constructs unrelated to Jesus' message 1,000%. It has nothing to do with it. But we want to take Luke 22, 36 and say, the Second Amendment, constitutional rights, I have the right to own a gun. Don't use Luke 22, 36. If Luke 22, 36 justifies gun ownership, why is the rest of Jesus' instruction in the same passage, sell your cloak, not treat it as binding? Picking one phrase to justify an agenda risks eisegesis, reading personal views into the text. Say, we'll go to, we'll go what Jesus said and just take that part. We'll take that part and say, buy the sword. Not, not, not anything else. You can't do that. You can't just pick and choose. And if disciples needed swords for defense, why did Jesus later declare, it is enough, Luke 22, 38, when presented with just two swords among 12 disciples? This shows Jesus wasn't advocating for an armed group, but making a symbolic point about readiness. Because when they come back and say, we only have two, he's like, that's enough. Wait, what do you mean that's enough? If there's disciples, you need more swords to be able to defend everyone, while only two of you are going to have this short kind of knife-sword thing to defend the rest of you? That's just ridiculous. The minute Jesus says, wait, that's enough, you don't need any more, that seems to indicate completely... that this is about being prepared. It's not about, how do you even make that work in that particular case? Jesus is, everything Jesus says after the by the sword thing, everything he taught beforehand and everything that happens after indicates that this whole pro-gun argument of Luke 22, 36 is just ridiculous. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, and His mission was not to establish earthly power or physical safety. A theology that prioritizes self-protection or violence risks diminishing the Gospel's focus on reliance upon God, sacrificial love, and the hope of eternal life. The New Testament epistles reinforce nonviolence and emphasizes enduring persecution without retaliation. You have this in Romans 12, 17-21, and 1 Peter 2, 21-23. There's never fight back. There's never have your sword and stab them in the face. There's none of it. And buy 18 guns and shoot them. There's none of that in the Bible, biblical text. Now, if you want to make an argument some other way, fine. Leave Luke 22, 36 out of it. Because the minute you do that, now it's not. And this is where I know it's now 25 minutes in and people are going to email me, but that's great because I'll know that they didn't listen to the whole thing. This discussion is not about guns. This is about the use of a biblical text in an incorrect way. If you want to make an argument about guns, make all your arguments, but don't try to grab words of Jesus, rip them out of their context, ignore everything else, and make some ridiculous claim, because now this is not an argument about guns. This is not an argument about conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats. This is an argument about you can't interpret the Bible any way you want. Using Luke 22-36 to defend gun ownership, or a pro-second amendment, basically involves a textual distortion, misapplying the meaning of sword, a possible hermeneutical inconsistency with Jesus' teaching on non-violence, a logical flaw due to cultural anachorism and selective interpretation, And then you have a theological conflict with the nature of Jesus' mission and kingdom. This passage in context is far better understood as preparing disciples for spiritual, emotional, and practical challenges rather than endorsing armed self-defense. And I wanna go back, we mentioned it briefly, but I'm gonna now expand a little bit on it. Because after Jesus says in 36, sell your garment and buy one, speaking of a sword, in verse 38, and they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, it is enough. All right, so just I want to make sure that that's a very important concept. All right. Hey, go buy one. Well, okay, that's enough right there. That's enough. There's a lot of discussion about verse 38. All right. This raises several points that further challenge the idea of using a passage to justify widespread weapon ownership of the Second Amendment. And here's a couple of things. Number one, lack of sufficient swords. The disciples only produced two swords for the entire group of at least 11 people Judas appears to have already had left the group by this point. If Jesus intended for all disciples to arm themselves for self-defense or combat, two swords among the group would be insufficient, and he would likely have corrected them or emphasized the need for more weapons. Hey, wait a minute, look, what are you? No, guys, I said go buy a, all of you need one because you're going to have to fight. You're going to have to kill some people. You're going to, or you're going to have to at least be prepared to do so. No, no, no, no, no, no. He doesn't. That's, that's enough. That's enough. Now, there's another way to interpret it as enough, all right? And we could get into that, but I think we can at least agree on this. When Jesus says it is enough, it suggests that the swords were not meant for practical self-defense in the first place. It was never the intention. And if you're going to make this Just think about how this even works. How does this even work, right? Because if you have at least a minimum of 11, and they only have two, and you're going to make this prescriptive, then how do you make this work for Christians? What, only two Christians per every 11 is supposed to have a sword? Two per church? How do you work this? See, once you make it prescriptive, see, this is what you do. We take a descriptive passage, make it prescriptive, and then we can just do whatever we want with it because now we don't have any actual rules to govern it. So then it can just be a free-for-all. Now, it is also discussed sometimes in some commentaries that it is enough, it has been interpreted, to be more understood as being dismissive or ironic. Some don't say, hey, that right there, that's good, that's good. Others see it as more being like, ugh. It is enough. It is being more dismissive or almost ironic. Let me try to explain it this way. I'm going to be reading from something that describes this. Jesus could be signaling that the disciples have misunderstood his instructions in the first place, as they often did throughout the gospel. For example, in Luke 22, 49 through 51, Peter or another disciple uses one of these swords to strike the servant of the high priest during Jesus' arrest. But Jesus rebukes him and heals the servant saying, no more of this. No more, basically, hey, no more of this. This rebuke underscores that Jesus' kingdom has not advanced through violence. My kingdom is not of this world. So what he could have been doing is like, okay, it's enough. Just stop, just stop. You don't get it. You're not understanding. Just, all right, just, that's good. That's good. Just, just stay with the two swords, right? Because sometimes you can do that with your kids. You tell them to do something. I'm like, okay, that's good. That's enough. Just, just stop right there. That's good. Fine. And you don't really mean it's fine. You're really frustrated. You're really irritated. So, considering that not long after this, Jesus is like, that's it! That's enough! Put away the sword! Then, it seems to indicate that when he says that it is enough, it may have been like, no, that's a sufficient amount to protect yourself. It may have been like, you guys are just missing the point. Just stay with that. If Jesus were preparing his disciples for literal self-defense or armed resistance, two swords against a Roman cohort or temple guards would be laughably insufficient. This reinforces that the instruction was not about physical warfare. And of course, as we've already discussed, Jesus' immediate rejection of violence in the garden, Luke 22, 51, and the exact same chapter, seems to confirm that he did not intend the swords to be used for combat. Then if you look at his broader teachings, such as turn the other cheek, love your enemy, seems to align poorly with an interpretation that promotes violence or self-defense as a primary concern. And just think, in the very same chapter, Christians wanna go to Luke 22, 36, they seem to skip verse 38, and then in 51, Jesus answered and said, suffer ye thus far. Stop, see, suffer ye, that's Luke 22, 51. This is just after the ear has been cut off, right? And Jesus like, hey, stop it, stop it. Wait, why would Jesus say stop it if just a few verses earlier he's like, hey everyone, go get a sword. Like, go get a sword, but you're not going to use it. That seems to be completely contradictory, unless the sword had nothing to do in any way, shape, or form with self-defense. It was something completely different. For example, Jesus could have been saying, enough of this discussion, recognizing that his disciples misunderstood him. Hey, you know, just, it is enough. Just stop this. You don't get it. The two swords might symbolize the spiritual and practical challenges ahead, not literal fighting. And Jesus may have been speaking sarcastically, knowing that the two swords would be inadequate for self-defense, further illustrating that his instruction was not literal. could have just been oh yeah that's plenty yeah that that's really gonna work just because he knew they did not get it and they did not understand. So it's possible it's plausible that Luke 22 36 through 38 that these swords were intended as tools rather than weapons for self-defense. There's a possibility that if we say that these were literal swords, not figurative as some in church history has said, if we go with a more literal, well then ladies and gentlemen, then these were probably used as a tool. And this interpretation that these were more for a tool than for some kind of self-defense aligns with not only the cultural context of the time, but it also aligns with Jesus' larger teaching. So let's just go through some of this. In the first century, The small swords, which this Greek word is referring to, was used as a multi-purpose tools for tasks like cutting ropes, preparing food, or protecting against wild animals during travel, not for combat against people. So it could have been maybe for a wild animal. It was for cutting, preparing. It was a tool. That's what it was. It wasn't necessarily a weapon for self-defense. Jesus' instruction to buy a sword possibly reflects a practical need for a tool in the face of the disciples' impending journey, which would involve greater dangers and fewer supportive resources, which seems to be the overall context of Luke 22. This seems to contrast their earlier reliance on hospitality and divine provision, as in Luke 9, 3, where they were told to take no staff, no bag, and no money. See, before they were told to take, don't take anything. Now they're like, take everything. Something has changed. In the past, it was almost like God's going to provide for you in maybe a supernatural way. But now, hey, you're going to have to, you're going to have to take things. So the sword might simply symbolize the shift in mindset, being ready for challenges, be ready for hostile conditions, but not necessarily be ready for physical combat. The fact that the disciples only produced two swords for the entire group seems to indicate that if the primary purpose were defense or combat, that this would be completely inadequate. This suggests that the swords were not for self-defense against armed enemies, but for a practical purpose. Hey, we only need two. Someone can cut this. Someone can use it to pray. We don't need everyone to have one. We just need a couple of tools amongst the group. That makes far more sense. And then, when Peter uses one of the swords to strike the servant of the high priest during Jesus' arrest, Jesus immediately rebukes him. Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. If the swords were primarily for defense, Jesus' response undermines his own instructions. Instead, the reaction reinforces the idea that their purpose was not violent resistance. He would seem to undermine what he just said. Go buy a sword. I just used a sword. Now I get in trouble. I don't know what Jesus is talking about, which may indicate that when he said, guy, okay, it is enough. It was more of him almost saying, you guys just still don't get it. And then we have all the other teaching where Jesus says, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, resist not evil. We have all of that other teaching, which would contradict Jesus saying, okay guys, buy a sword, be ready, fight back. That's not, it makes no sense in the overall teaching of the entire New Testament. And so then I did a little research here. I did a little research and here was the question I wanted to try to answer. Do we have any examples from the time of Luke 22, 36 to the end of the New Testament of any of the disciples using a sword for a means of self-defense or engaging in any type of self-defense? So I had to do a little research and here's what we find. From what I can tell, there are no examples in the New Testament from the time of Luke 22-36 to the end of the text that shows any of the disciples using a sword or engaging a self-defense. On the contrary, their actions and teachings reflect a consistent commitment to non-violence and reliance on God. Now, we can go through some of these. We have Luke 22, 49 through 51, and John 18, 10 through 11. This is in the Garden of Gethsemane, right? Peter, or another disciple, there's some argument. I sometimes say Peter, some commentaries say we don't know if it's Peter, but okay. They use one of the two swords, most likely using one of the two swords, to strike the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Jesus immediately rebukes this act. Luke 22, 51, depending on your translation, No more of this! Matthew 26, put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. John 18.11, put your sword into its sheath, shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me? This is the only recorded instance of a disciple using a sword, and Jesus explicitly condemns the action. Now, after Jesus is arrested, the disciples face various threats and persecutions, but there is no indication that they ever resort to violence or self-defense. We have this in Stephen's martyrdom in Acts 7, 54-60. Stephen preaches boldly, is dragged out, and stoned to death. He responds by praying for his persecutors, saying, Lord, do not hold this sin against them. A clear example of nonviolence. The apostles' imprisonment in Acts 4 and Acts 5. When arrested and threatened, the apostles boldly proclaim the gospel, but make no effort to resist or defend themselves physically. Paul's persecution. Paul frequently faces beatings, stonings, imprisonments, and threats of death. He never defends himself with violence, but instead preaches and entrusts himself to God. So you don't have—nowhere do you have it! They never seem to do this! Now, what Christians will say, well, okay, I've got the formula. If they're persecuting you, then don't fight back. Okay, is that really the way it works? Because most churches now, or a lot of them, have armed guards inside the church. So if someone comes with a gun, shooting everyone because they're gonna persecute Christians, your security team is gonna stand down and not do anything? You know you're not, you're gonna shoot the person. So then you're not even following that rule. Well, if I'm being persecuted, I won't fight back. Give me a, that's, you know you're not gonna wait to find out why they're trying to kill you. When Paul is in danger, he never resorts to violence, but instead uses legal rights as a Roman citizen or appeals to authorities. We see this in Acts 16 and Acts 22. Also, we have the writings of the New Testament continue to emphasize nonviolence and submission. You have Romans 12, 17 through 21. Paul writes, Repay no one for evil. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. 1 Peter 2, 21 through 23. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return. When he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. Hebrews 10.34, the early Christians joyfully accepted the plundering of their property, trusting in their eternal reward, rather than retaliating. So we have scriptural examples and basically teaching to handle evil, not by fighting back, but by submitting, trusting, loving, completely opposite to how the modern church wants to handle this. And the church tradition holds that most of the apostles were martyred for their faith, yet there is no record or tradition of them attempting to physically defend themselves. Peter is said to have been crucified, Paul beheaded, both faced their deaths without resistance, trusting in God. So then I was like, okay, that seems to, I mean, I don't know how else you can get, look, I don't know what Christians do with Luke 22, 36, but this, I mean, I think I've already dismantled their argument in every way you can possibly handle it. But let's go through the church fathers. Listen, how did the church fathers handle Luke 22, 36? The church fathers offered a variety of interpretations of Luke 22, 36. I know, shocking, right? But guess what one thing they were consistent on? They refrained from seeing it as a justification for violence, self-defense, or physical combat. Oh, isn't that interesting? Instead, their interpretations often emphasize spiritual, symbolic, or practical applications. Origen, 3rd century, he understood, he viewed the sword in Luke 22-36 as a symbolic of the word of God or spiritual preparation. He emphasized that Christians should be armed with spiritual weapons rather than physical ones. In his writings, Origen consistently stressed nonviolence, arguing that Christians are called to a higher standard of peace even in the face of persecution. Tertullian, 2nd and 3rd century, Tertullian rejected the use of violence by Christians, including in military service. He interpreted Jesus' words about swords as either symbolic or practical for self-restraint, not aggression. On idolatry and the crown, Tertullian argued that Christians are forbidden to shed blood and must emulate Christ's example of suffering and non-violence. Cyril of Alexandria, 5th century. Cyril suggested that Jesus' instructions to buy a sword reflected a transition from reliance on divine providence, as in Luke 9, 3, when the disciples were told to take nothing for their journey, to a time of preparation for hardship. However, he did not interpret this as a call to violence, but rather as a recognition of the trials the disciples would face. Basically, Cyril of Alexandria was like, hey, guys, This is just demonstrating something is changing. Before, you don't need anything. Trust God. Now, you're going to take everything with you. Cyril argued that the two swords mentioned in Luke were not meant for actual combat given Jesus' rebuke of Peter in the garden in Luke 22, 49-51. John Chrysostom, 4th and 5th century. John Chrysostom emphasized the symbolic nature of Jesus' command. He argued that the sword represented the need for the disciples to be spiritually prepared for the struggles they would face after Jesus' departure. Chrysostom also highlighted the futility of physical weapons, given that Jesus immediately rebuked Peter for using a sword during his arrest. Then we come to Augustine. 4th to 5th century. He interpreted Luke 22-36. He interpreted the command to buy a sword as metaphorical, reflecting the need for spiritual defense against the coming trials. He saw the sword as a tool for understanding the disciples' need to be armed with faith and the Word of God. Augustine emphasized that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world and rejected the notion that Christians should engage in physical violence to advance the gospel. Eusebius in the 4th century. Eusebius understood Luke 22-36 as a prophetic statement about the challenges and oppositions the disciples would face after Jesus' death. The sword symbolized preparation for these difficulties, but Eusebius did not interpret it as a call for literal violence. Now we come to the fourth century, Ambrose. Ambrose recognized a dual purpose for the sword. On one level, it might have served as a practical purpose as a tool. On the other, it symbolized preparedness and resolve needed for the spiritual trials the disciples would endure. So the general themes among the Church Fathers? Symbolism, nonviolence, Christ's rebuke of Peter, and spiritual struggles. That is how all—that's how the entire That's how the entire early church handled it. Almost everyone is in agreement for probably at least five centuries, six centuries into church history. Now you may find someone out there who disagreed, obviously you probably can, but it was very common. I mean, come on, the church never agrees on anything. But hey, that's okay. Let's just go to Luke 22, 36. And when Christians do this, you just, what, literally what I want to do when I see Christians start this nonsense is I just want to say, I give up. I just give up. There's no point in doing hermeneutics. There's no point in doing Bible interpretation because Christians just don't care about interpreting the Bible. They just want to use it for their own purpose and their own agenda. And again, this is not an argument about guns. If you want a gun, fine. Just don't use Luke 22, 36 as some lame justification for it. Just say, I'm going to have a gun and I'm going to kill a person if they do this or this or this. And then you live with that. You can either try to justify it or just say, that's what you're going to do. Now that's all Luke 22, 36. That's all Luke 22, 36. But I have another problem when it comes to Christians and mass shootings. Oh, do I have another problem? I struggle deeply with how many Christians respond to mass shootings. Not only the Luke 22, 36 issue, but other things they do. You see, they will talk about praying for the wounded and the families who lost a loved one. And by doing this, this seems to imply that they truly believe that God can and may intervene in some way to heal the wounded or to somehow comfort those who lost a loved one. They are praying. I want you to think about this. They are literally praying to the very God who at the very least allowed the shooting to happen, or at the very most, decreed it to happen. So you're going to come to the very God, you're going to pray, hey, there's a mass shooting, let's pray. So you're going to pray to the God who at the very least allowed it, or at the very most, decreed it. So now you want God to do something who didn't do anything in the first place to stop it? Like, the whole thing is confusing. And this praying that they engage in seems to indicate they believe God can either intervene in a real way, but they tend to be the most vocal. So by praying they seem to indicate they believe God can really intervene in a very literal way, but then those same Christians tend to be the most vocal and supportive for people having guns and gun rights. If God can intervene, why would Christians be so pro-gun? Now, I believe those things that I just pointed out raises some very serious theological and ethical questions. And I think it really comes down to challenging Christians on their level of consistency when it comes to their responses to mass shootings. See, when you pray to a God who allowed or decreed the shooting, there's a theological tension. You see, many Christians pray for healing, comfort, and justice after tragedies, believing God is sovereign and can intervene. However, this creates a tension. If God is sovereign, then He either allowed or decreed the event in question. So why are you going to pray to Him? He either allowed it or decreed it. So now you want Him to do something after the fact? Now this tension, to me, You should feel it. It should bother you. Because it implies asking God to comfort victims of something He did not prevent seems somewhat, I don't know, confusing? Now some Christians try to reconcile this and say, well, okay, okay, okay. First of all, Christians usually just get ticked off and defensive when I bring this up, but it's something you have to struggle with. Wait, so mass shooting just occurred. Now you want me to pray. What am I praying? Because I'm going to pray to the God who allowed this to occur or at the very most decreed it. This seems a little bizarre here. So what Christians usually, when they do try to push back, they'll say, free will. I don't know how this argument fixes anything, but they'll try to basically say, God permits human choices even when they lead to evil to preserve free will. So what they're saying, hey, God cares more about free will than stopping anything from happening, so he's not going to interfere, because if he interferes, he's going to be messing up free will. Well, then in that case, why are you praying? You can't pray on anything that would interfere with free will. There'd be no point—your prayers would have to always be prayed in such a way that you show respect to free will. If you're going to believe in free will, then you've got to pray in a way that—because God's only—it's got to respect free will. So God could never intervene in a way that would go against someone's free will. How are you going to pray then? And did God, I mean, didn't God over and over and over intervene in the Bible and didn't bother to care about, I don't know, the will of the Egyptians, the will of Pharaoh, and go on and on and on, the will of the Babylonians, I mean, go on and on and on and on. Now others will say, it's sovereignty and mystery, because see, that sounds really spiritual. So they will say that the belief that God's purpose in allowing evil are beyond human understanding, but ultimately serves a greater good. Hey, we don't understand it, it's a mystery, but understand it, it serves a greater good. Do you understand how twisted that sounds? Oh, so kids have to die in school because, well, it serves God's greater good? I mean, come on, you really want to be the one who says that? Now, some theological traditions will distinguish between God's active will, what he directly causes, and his permissive will, what he allows through human agency. But see, once again, you still have God allowing it. God allows it. Well, if God allowed it, then why are you praying for him to intervene after the fact? He's the one who allowed it to happen. Now, if you look at everything I just brought up, which I think every Christian should struggle with, come on. When Christians try to answer this problem with some kind of supposed theological answer, it always comes across as very hollow, as very vague. empty. Because if God has the power to prevent a mass shooting, but doesn't, then praying after the fact feels like trying to fix something that could have been avoided. Hey, hey, God's not intervening to stop any of this. What, the war in Ukraine? Gaza? We can go on. Death, suffering, destruction, death, mass shootings, murder, rape, children being molested. But after the fact, if to pray—wait, so God can't prevent it? So if God couldn't prevent it, then why are we praying to Him after the fact? It just seems so confusing. Which then leads, and you'll see this in the comment section, Many critics will say, well, then why not pray for God to prevent such tragedies rather than only respond after they occur? Why are you praying now that God would intervene after the shooting? Why wouldn't you have been praying that God would stop all shootings? Well, we can pray that God stops, but he's never going to stop all shootings because that's not the way it's going to work, is it? It's not gonna stop people from dying from cancer, children from being molested, women from being raped, war. No, so, and now there will come a time, but we immediately know that this whole thing becomes a problem. So this raises the broader problem of evil and suffering, which Christianity has wrestled with throughout, well, 2,000 years of church history. Christians don't have any answers. They always like to act like they have an answer, but in reality, they do not. Well, then this becomes even more problematic. If you believe that God can intervene, and you believe that God intervenes, and He can protect, and He can save, and He can do all of these things, well then why are Christians so pro-gun? If Christians believe God is capable of intervening supernaturally, why advocate for widespread gun ownership as a solution? This seems to suggest a lack of trust in God's providence to protect and provide for safety. Jesus consistently emphasized trusting God rather than earthly means for security. You see that in Matthew 6, 25-34. Advocating for gun rights while claiming God is sovereign seems inconsistent with this teaching. Many pro-gun Christians justify their stance as a form of self-defense or protection for their families. This mindset often reflects a cultural value of self-reliance and individual rights than strictly a biblical worldview. Biblically, reliance on weapons contrasts sharply with passages like, Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. Oh, and of course, my gun and this. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. The early church faced persecution and violence. They did not arm themselves for defense, but relied on faith and nonviolence. Support for gun rights among Christians in certain regions, especially in the United States, is often more cultural than theological. The Second Amendment and American notions of freedom have deeply influenced evangelical thinking, often blending nationalism with faith. This cultural fusion sometimes leads to prioritizing gun ownership over a consistent Christian ethic of nonviolence, despite Jesus' teaching. It becomes a cultural thing. It becomes a political, cultural thing, and you don't really care if it's consistent with your theology, but you'll go rip a verse out of context, like Luke 22, 36, to try to find some kind of justification, even without taking it into its full context, in any way, shape, or form. Christians who pray for victims after a shooting might need to wrestle more deeply with how their theology of God's sovereignty interacts with human suffering and violence. Does their belief align with the God revealed in Scripture, or is it shaped by cultural assumptions? A Christ-centered ethic would emphasize nonviolence, self-sacrifice, and trusting God over self-reliance through weaponry. This approach challenges the pro-gun stance and calls Christians to live in a way that reflects the peace of Christ. Rather than focusing solely on thoughts and prayers, Christians could prioritize action that aligns with biblical call to protect the vulnerable, Proverbs 31, and seek peace. This might include advocating for responsible gun laws or addressing the root cause of violence. Now, that's 57 minutes of a lot of thoughts that I know are gonna bother everyone dramatically. So let me try to just state this again. The use of Luke 22, 36. is textually problematic. Let me state it this way. Using Luke 22, 36 as somehow a proof text that proves that you should have a gun and should be ready to use it at any time is problematic from a textual standpoint, from a hermeneutical standpoint, from a cultural standpoint, from a logical standpoint. There's so many issues with it. So if you want to argue for owning a gun, look, if you need help, I can try to help you come up with better verses than Luke 22, 36. You're taking a descriptive passage, making it prescriptive. You're ignoring the actual context of what's even going on in the verse. The verse is signifying that this is a massive change from Luke 9. There's all kinds of things going on here. It has nothing to do with you owning a gun. It's not prescribing you to do anything. It's prescribing what they were to do in their historical context versus what they had been instructed to do prior, back in Luke 9. It contradicts everything else taught in the Bible. There's no example of what Christians try to argue for. There's none. Here's what we should say, and I know Christians don't like this, but this is what we should say. Here's the deal. The Bible seems to teach an ideal and an idea that I just can't support. I can't support loving my enemy, turning the other cheek, resisting not evil. I can't understand—I can't accept a passive, nonviolent approach. I'm going to own a gun. Someone breaks into my house, I'm going to shoot them, and if they die, they die. If someone comes into my church and tries to harm someone, we're going to kill them because that's what we're going to do. We're not going to try to justify it. It's what we're going to do, because here's the reality. I don't want to die. I don't want to see any of my loved ones want to die. And I do not trust God is going to intervene to stop it. I don't believe God's going to stop someone from breaking into my house. If they do, I don't believe God's going to supernaturally intervene to stop it. So I'm going to have a gun, and I'm going to stop it in a practical, physical way. And if that means they die, they die. I don't want them to die, but I'm going to do everything I can to protect myself, my family, and my church. And if that means people have to get shot, they have to get shot. The end. Just be honest with it. I've said it a million times. If I owned a gun, And someone broke into my house and was going to harm family, me, whatever, I'm going to take that gun and I'm probably going to unload the entire clip into the person. And I may reload and shoot some more. You say, that's horrible. I'm just being honest with you. That's probably what I would do. If I had a gun and someone broke into my church to try to kill people, I would unload the clip and probably keep shooting or reload and keep shooting. The thing I will not do is then turn around and justify that action by trying to rip some verse out of context, or second, do that, and then say, some trust in chariots, some trust in horses, but I trust in God. God is my shield. He is my defender. He is my rock. I'm going to say, obviously, I don't believe he's my shield, my defender, and my rock. Obviously, I do trust, maybe not in a chariot and a horse, but I trust in my AR-15, whatever gun I have. That's what I'm going to trust in. And I'm just going to be blunt and honest about it. I'm not going to sit there and play this little game where I talk all these big spirits. Oh, God's my protector. He's my defender. He's going to do this. He's going to... Okay, good. Oh, oh, back to trusting God. I'm just going to be honest. Push comes to shove. I trust in me. I trust in what I can do. I trust in my gun. That's what I would have to say. See, it's one thing to go, man, what does the Bible teach? Man, I don't know if I can live according to that. I don't know if I would do that. I don't know if I'm going to turn the other cheek. Resist not evil? I'm going to resist. Love my enemy? You out of your mind. I'm not going to love them. Depending on what they're trying to do to me, I'm going to fight back. I'm going to punch them in the face, kick them, choke them, whatever. I'm just going to be honest. See, it's one thing to just acknowledge that sometimes when God commands and the laws that He gives—again, this comes back to a basic understanding of law and gospel—God gives us laws where we're never going to keep, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to fall short in thought, word, and deed. He tells us to be holy as He is holy. We're never going to do that. We're always in a perpetual state of sin. We're just going to have to acknowledge that. He gives us laws that are so above our even ability that the law is to reveal our inability to keep it, so then we have to trust in the one who kept it. And what did Jesus do? He resisted not evil, he turned the other cheek, he loved his enemy, and he suffered and died. He fulfilled all of those commands perfectly. Well, by faith in him, his perfect righteousness is imputed to my account. So what we want to do is water down these commands and find a way to make them fit our ability, fit what we can do and will do and may do and should do. That's not the way we approach it. We approach the scripture as, it gives me a morality that I will never keep. It doesn't excuse my immorality, but just to point out, it gives a standard which we will never keep, but we want to water it down. We always want to water it down because we don't like it. Anytime if I preach in Matthew about Jesus' standard, about loving your enemy, turning the other cheek, immediately people will be like, well, it can't mean that. I mean, come on. I mean, logically, I mean, we need to use common, I always tell, we need to use common sense. Well, if we're going to go with that, then let's just do that with everything in the Sermon on the Mount. Let's not just do it with, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, resist, not even. No, no, no, no. Hey, if you look at a woman with lust, I mean, come on, let's be reasonable. Everyone's going to do that. That's not what Jesus, I mean, come on, let's just, we could do it with divorce. We could do it with, we could just, by the time we're done, we could just make the entire Sermon on the Mount. Well, we're just going to use common sense and it's not what Jesus really meant. Well, then you're going to so water down the law that you don't even need the gospel because you can obey it. The whole point when you see the law is it shows your inability to do so. Don't water it down. Acknowledge it. All I'm saying is if you're pro-gun, fine. Go buy a couple more guns tonight. Get 10, 15, 20, 40, 50, have 75,000 rounds of ammunition if you want. I'm not here to argue with you. What I'm going to argue with is stop using the Bible to justify your position because you don't have anything in the Bible to justify that. And Luke 22, 36 has nothing to do with what you're trying to make it say. It's hermeneutically, if you can twist the scriptures that way, then I can twist the scriptures anyway. Well, before we're done, let's just all twist scriptures and we can do whatever we want. The reality is we love this life. The reality is nobody wants to die. Nobody wants to go to heaven. Now we want to go to heaven when we're at the end of our life and we're like 80, 85 and now we're suffering the old age or some disease. Now we're ready to go to heaven, but the rest of the time we don't want to go and we're going to protect ourselves and we're going to defend ourselves. Now, some may say, well, how does this fit the just war doctrine? Well, that's a whole different issue, and I don't have time to get into the just war doctrine. And Augustine, even though Augustine did not interpret Luke 22, 36 as for me to own a weapon to fight back, he did believe in a just war doctrine. Now, if you want a scriptural, Argument for guns. Don't go to Luke 22. That's just ridiculous. To me, the one I would go to... I would go to Romans 13. Romans 13, let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. This is us submitting to governmental leadership and to governmental laws. Who therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Will thou then not not be afraid of the power, do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise for the name. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain." We are to submit to the governmental law, we are to follow it, because they do not bear the sword in vain, and they're there to punish evil and to stop evil. Okay, well, According to the American system, our laws then states and allows then you as a citizen according to the law to have basically use a sword to punish or stop evil who's trying to inflict bodily harm upon you or someone in your family or and enters into your home, whatever the state laws are in your particular state when it comes to self-defense, whether it's stand your ground or whatever the laws have. So then you could argue, well, according to Romans 13, I'm following the law, and in a sense, by their authority of the state, they have granted me that authority to then be able to use a firearm. If you want to use an argument, you could use it that the state has allowed me, has granted me the authority to protect myself and have a weapon, so I am obeying this law. Now you could argue, well, does Jesus' law contradict this? Or he says, love your enemy, turn the other cheek. Now, you can try to reconcile those two, but at least you would be like, well, Jesus said, I can follow the laws of the government because God is the one who put that government in place. Our government has given us the authority, in a sense, giving you the right, maybe not the authority, but giving, in a sense, the authority. You have the authority, you have the right, in order to defend yourself, even by taking another person's life in certain situations. So then you can say, well, then I'm following the authority over me, and that authority gives me the authority to do this. If you want to make—that is at least a more logically consistent argument than taking—because this is prescriptive. Or you're taking Luke 22, 36, which is descriptive, and what it's describing has nothing to do with you buying a gun. So if you want an argument, use Romans 13, and you could probably flesh that out a little bit better and make it a little bit better, but that would make a little bit more sense. Now you've got to, then in your own mind, you've got to reconcile that with everything else. You have to reconcile that with everything else, which is basically love your enemy, turn the other cheek, resist not evil, put away the sword, the man who lives by the sword dies by the sword, stop it, don't do this. Even in Romans, the specific instructions to individuals is don't overcome evil with evil, overcome evil with good. Love your enemy, do good unto them. That's the message. And the entire early church was very, the early church was pacifistic. and nonviolent is what they taught. You may not like it, but see, that doesn't make one a liberal or make one woke or make one a Democrat, that maybe make one trying to be more consistent with the overall scriptural teaching. Now, whew, that was 70 minutes. That was a lot. I went through a lot of stuff, and I know I did a lot of heavy amount of reading and some of that, and I apologize for that. But yeah, no excuses. I'm the one who turned on the microphone. But yeah, today from a neurological perspective, my head, my seizure disorder, yeah, this is not, I probably shouldn't even be broadcasting today, but I felt like I had to get this out of the way. So I was gonna do something short, And it turned into 70 minutes. But it's very important. So I want to make sure everyone understands. I'm not arguing with you about guns. What I'm arguing is your misuse of scripture to support said guns. And if you're going to go to the Bible about what can I do, stop reading it through the lens of the American Constitution. Stop reading it through the lens of your Republican Party or the National Rifle Association. Stop reading it through the lens of being an American, because the Bible is not that context. Read it in the context in which it was written, and it carries a whole different mindset than Americans have. I know you don't like that, but I'm sorry, the Bible doesn't really care if it offends your American sensibilities. or your Texan sensibilities. I live here in Texas. And I've always been challenging this perspective. And trust me, it's never made me popular, ever. But people misunderstand. They're like, you're not going to take my guns. And isn't it weird? You have dead kids in a classroom and all Christians care about is, you're not going to take my guns. You're not going to take them. How about you worry about the kid that died instead of worrying about your gun? It's so weird when you have a story about someone who's dead, it turns into, you're not going to take my guns. Okay. Thank you so much for your worry and concern for the kid who's dead. You're more worried about your gun. And I've always loved that. If you could, if we gave up our guns, if it helped saved any kid's life, would you be willing to do so? They just immediately say, well, it's never going to work. It's never going to work. It's never, well, all the guns aren't working. We've got more guns than we have people in the United States of America. I'm not saying getting rid of the guns is going to work either because ultimately the issue is sin and the sin, well, that we all have a sin nature. So Cain killed Abel and it's been going on ever since. All right. I hope that was somewhat beneficial. I'm going to go back and listen to some. Yeah, no matter what was going to happen today, I wasn't going to be super happy with it, but I did the best I could. And yeah, and again, please, I know I'm going to get emails and comments and please keep your, I'm not telling you what to do. What I'm telling you is just, look, you do guns and you do the NRA and Republicans and you do everything you want over their political, your American, Texan political ideology. You go run wild. Where I get mad is when you come over here and take the Bible and try to do things with it. That's when I'm going to get mad. That's when I step in. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Keep your guns, but keep your hands off the Bible and manipulating the text and twisting it and ripping it out of any kind of context. And that's when I get ticked off. You do whatever you want. I don't care. leave the Bible alone. Just admit you're going to do what you want to do and you don't care. That's fine. We all do that to some level. We all know what the Bible says, and we all tend to live our lives the way we want to, to some degree. We all do. The Bible says, be holy as he is holy. You've never achieved that. You never come close to that. Neither do I. So we always are living in our perpetual state of sin. I'm not excusing anyone's sin. Just, you can't run to the Bible, twist it, and do everything you can to excuse what you want to do. Sometimes you just got to be willing to admit, like, I don't even know if this is consistent with the Bible, but I know this, I'm not going to change. And I'm locking, I've got my gun and I'm loaded and ready to go. Okay, well, carry it wherever you want. Go to Walmart carrying it. Carry it all around. Do whatever you want to do. I'm not here to tell you what to do. Just leave the Bible out of it. All right. Thanks for listening. Everyone have a good evening. God bless.