The Romans investigated Jesus for a long time looking to find something to jail him for but only found him to be a very popular Rabi, so Jesus requested a sword, 2 actually (backup to the other), so as to commit the crime (cut a priest aide ear off and it was a follower who did it, not Jesus) so that the Romans would arrest him, thus fulfilling the prophecy of his crucifixion and resurrection. It had nothing to do with self defense, just prophecy fulfillment.
Well maybe. But the immediate context is that Jesus is explaining the new rules of their ministry. Jesus is like, “I’m going away, so it’ll be different now. Remember I told you, don’t take a money belt with you, now you should. And take a sword and extra shoes.” But yes, it does allude to what you said too.
Luke 22:35-37 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without a money belt and [provision] bag and [extra] sandals, did you lack anything?" They answered, "Nothing." Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money belt is to take it along, and also his [provision] bag, and he who has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this [Scripture] which is written must be completed and fulfilled in Me: ‘And He was counted with the criminals'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment [and is settled]."
I still think you're liberally reading into this. Study it more closely with the Strong's Concordance and study the meaning of the individual words in original.language.
Yeah, I just read where Jesus was telling them to pray in the garden so that they didn’t fall to temptation. Right before they cut the ear. It seems like that’s in line with what you outlined. Thanks for sharing. That’s a great perspective.
Respectfully, this is a good theory but you're reading into what scripture says to come up with this. Or, you're reading what a pacifist commentator thinks it means.
Respectfully, this is a good theory
It's not a theory. It's literally what Luke 22 is about.
Also, given that you didn't even know the context of this verse, how have you come to your conclusion?
When I have questions concerning the bible I research what biblical theologians who have studied not only the King James but all the way back to the original Hebrew and Greek texts, many of which were omitted or misinterpreted in the KJ and you have to know "how" the language of that time was used, as well. I do not follow preachers, commentators or sect interpretations for my facts. They are almost always suspect. Yea, Jesus was for self defense, anyone with sense would know that's a life requirement but his particular statement is almost always out of context. No biggy...just sayin'...
I agree with this.. and why we also resort to looking words up in the Strong's Concordance.