Contradiction with Matthew 5:39
Instructs to not resist evil and to turn the other cheek, while Luke 22:49 involves a readiness to defend and fight.
Matthew 5:39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Contradiction with Matthew 26:52
Advocates that those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword, contrasting with the potential for violence implied in Luke 22:49.
Matthew 26:52: Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Contradiction with Romans 12:17
Advises against repaying evil for evil, contrasting with the defensive posture in Luke 22:49.
Romans 12:17: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Contradiction with James 1:19-20
Encourages being slow to anger, which contrasts with the immediate readiness to strike in Luke 22:49.
James 1:19-20: Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
Paradox #1
Luke 22:49 describes an event where Jesus' followers consider using force to defend him. A potential contradiction could be seen in the context of Jesus' teachings on nonviolence and love for enemies, such as turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies. The scene in Luke could seem inconsistent with those teachings if interpreted as endorsing violence. However, it can also be viewed as a misunderstanding by the disciples of Jesus' message, emphasizing his commitment to peace.
Paradox #2
This verse may present a contradiction or inconsistency in terms of the concept of self-defense versus pacifism. On one hand, some interpret it as endorsing the use of violence when necessary to protect oneself or others, while other teachings in the Bible advocate for peace and non-violence. This creates a potential conflict between the ideas of responding with force versus turning the other cheek.