Self Defense is the opposite of violence.
Close up of calligraphy.
Luke 22:46-50 King James Version (KJV)
46 And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.
47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
All Star Activist 
Don’t you thin the rest of the passage contradicts your point a bit? I mean, Jesus heals the guy. Then in the synoptic gospel of Matthew, Christ goes on to say those who live by the sword will die by it.
You are correct, Jesus did heal the slave Malchus’s ear, demonstrating mercy. What is important to note here is not only what Jesus said, but also what he did not say. Jesus did not admonish Simon Peter for defending him against unjust violence, if that were the issue, Jesus would have specifically addressed that. Jesus instead explained that the Apostles must endure or “suffer” the unjust arrest because it was God The Father’s will for him to be a living sacrifice for the sins of the world. That required death. Jesus did not say Simon Peter was wrong for cutting off Malchus’s ear. If you believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God then, what is said has to be just as important as what is not said.
To “live by the sword…” is not a reference pertaining to self defense rather, it is a commentary on judgement. Those who initiate unjust violence will perish by judgement from the word of God. The Bible is a sword. Jesus goes on to reason with his Apostles that he would be perfectly justified in having Angles come down to defend him however, in this particular instance that would not have fulfilled God’s will. As further proof of this, most of the world will attack Jesus here on Earth in New Jerusalem at the end of the Millennium. God the father will defend him and the Saints by destroying the evil doers with a hail of fire.
Tyrants and oppressors have been adulterating God’s history and word since the beginning. You can’t get around it, God defends and so can you.
If, as you say, the Word should be taken at it’s… well word. Then why do you find the need to change the meaning of the passage to not refer to self-defense when clearly that is what is going on in the situation? I don’t think Jesus could have made it clearer. Peter defends Jesus from death and Jesus turns to him and says that if maintain life by the sword, you’ll die by it. The Words makes it simple and clear and I feel no need to complicate it with outside assumptions.
Yes, the God of the OT defends and sends to war. Father God is quite a warrior, however, that ends with Christ. As you said, sometimes the things that Christ doesn’t do are as important as the things He does. Christ does not defend. Christ doesn’t call the angels. Christ never fights back. And aren’t we as Christians called to be Christ-like above all?
I guess it comes down to who you follow. I choose to follow Christ’s example. Now, mind you, I believe this is the expectation of God, not that it will always be lived up to. I do believe, however, that not living up to it is failure.
Jesus often spoke in parable, especially when teaching. He did this because the concepts to be imparted were most efficiently delivered this way. The lesson was not only meant for those in his immediate presence, but for future generations therefore, a lesson taught literally would quickly lose relevance. Do we use swords today as they did then? No. An event as significant as his arrest was a teachable moment and he was speaking to all humanity, that those who employ unjust violence will encounter a superior sword. Why would he admonish Peter for using a sword when just a few verses ago he conducted weapons inventory? Jesus was telling Peter that physical defense at that time was not God’s will, he had to be delivered up according to prophecy. You are losing context in being too literal, Jesus did not teach that way for the reason I initially stated.
As to your second paragraph about God being an OT warrior, Jesus said he did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. Let’s make this clear, God does not change and neither does his Word. Everything in the OT remains valid, atonement for sin however, is now paid by the Lamb. Wherein he has imparted his righteousness to us, we should reflect that. Mercy, forgiveness etc. We are also not to be fools, wise as serpents but as innocent as lambs. This means that he doesn’t want us to be human doormats. Jesus did not call the Angels because it would have negated prophecy and that would have been against the will of God The Father. As for Christ never defending, didn’t he defend God’s house by whipping the Money Changers? Actually, the Bible doesn’t say that he actually whipped them, but he used that whip for something. 🙂
If you truly want to follow Christ’s example, don’t go looking for trouble, run from it if you can and be armed if it becomes unavoidable. It’s all right there in Luke. God bless.