Sorry brother, but methinks you are forcing your presuppositional pacifism upon the text in question. It would be difficult to accept that the disciple who cut off the servant's ear used a small "daggar" which would normally be used to prepare the ceremonial meat by the O.T. priests. In the N.T., the "sword" was primarily that used by the military.

The more salient issue is a hermeneutical one. Either one must spiritualize all 3 items mentioned; script, purse and sword, which is indefensible given that the text is narrative and historical or one must understand them literally. And lastly, nowhere in the N.T. are Christians instructed to allow miscreants to freely assault, rape ,maim or kill them. By way of analogy, Jesus taught us to pray for our "daily bread", relying upon the providential mercy and grace of God to supply us with necessary food. However, Paul makes it unmistakably clear that one is not to take God's provision for granted, but rather to act responsibility using the means God has providentially provided to acquire that food. (cf. 2Thess 3:10) One must not make the error of ignoring or denying either God's sovereignty or man's responsibility at the expense of the other. It's not either/or but both/and! grin

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]