Luke 22:49–51

Was not the Lord's meaning plain when He said, "It is enough"? If our warfare were with flesh and blood, would two swords be enough? No — the weapons of our warfare are not weapons of the flesh. He did not mean a material sword to resist the world. He was hinting that the world would draw its sword against them, a warning from the Lord that they would have to meet the world's fiercest hatred. Peter failed to see it, and in the garden he used the sword he had boasted about against the high priest's servant.

But the disciples were panic stricken. What could they do? They asked the Lord whether they should use their material weapons for defence. But one of them (Peter) didn't wait for an answer. We too may sometimes pray, then excitedly act without an answer from the Lord.

But he has belittled and misrepresented the One he wanted to serve. He must have fallen very low indeed if He needed His disciple's sword to get Him out of such hands as these. If He yields, it is to God, not to man; He yields — to take the cup from the Father's hand. And what should the sword do here? Were not heaven's legions waiting on His will?

Peter was self-satisfied and self-confident. He also had a powerful energy of personal love for his Master, and it worked from mixed motives and an unhumbled heart. That is what led him to use the sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant. Weighed in God's presence, it was flesh and worldliness. Many of the best among us today have the same thing to confess: zeal without knowledge. The zeal aimed at the right object. But much in us as its defenders was wrong, and so were many of the means and courses we took.

But the courage of Peter and the rest was courage of the flesh, and it soon failed them. They all abandoned Him and fled. The Son of God stands in complete contrast to everyone else, even the most distinguished. He, perfectly submissive under the Father's hand; they, hasty and violent.

They said to Him, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" Without waiting for His reply, one of them struck the servant of the high priest. It was Peter who did it. That very action exposed him… When he got into the high priest's hall, the wounded man's relative recognised the man who had used the sword. Possibly Peter thought he was being very devoted, that he was doing a fine thing. What we need is to get the word from the Lord.

With a word of gentle rebuke to Peter, He stretched out His hand, touched the severed ear and healed it. Before His hardened captors bound those tender hands, their last act was to heal the leader of the men arresting Him… That business was blessing, not judgment. It was healing, not a sword.

How ready we are to draw the sword and slash away when we think someone has wronged us. And we draw it not in imagined defence of the Lord, as Peter did, but in our own defence. A bitter spirit of resentment and retaliation so often rises up in us. How many people we have wounded and harmed by it — people only the Lord's touch can heal.

But the disciples were panic-stricken. What could they do? They asked the Lord whether they should use their weapons for defence. But one of them (Peter) didn't wait for an answer. We too may sometimes pray, then rush into action without an answer from the Lord. No doubt he aimed for the man's head, but only cut off his right ear. If the Lord had not been present, this act would likely have started a violent riot.

Such is man — yes, the very best of men! He is self-confident when he ought to be self-distrusting. He sleeps when he ought to be watching. And, we may add, he fights when he ought to be submitting. How out of place a sword was in the company of the meek and lowly Sufferer! Peter was completely out of step with his Master's spirit.

If Peter had watched and prayed instead of sleeping, it might have been different. When we fail to pray, we enter into temptation.

How slow we are to learn grace, or to grasp the unworldly, heavenly nature of Christianity! How slow to learn the differences God has made in the way He deals with people! The law and the sword agreed well together; but grace and the sword do not fit at all. Nature understands the first and is quick to act on it. But the Christian should seek to know the second, and act on that. The disciple acted in law and used the sword; the blessed Master acted in grace and healed the ear of Malchus. How bright the contrast!

Who was Malchus? He was the servant of the high priest. Is this not remarkable? Was the sound of his master's feet not behind him? It was, though at some distance. It would not have suited the high priest's dignified office to go out at night with that bloodthirsty crowd. They made their way with torches and weapons to dark Gethsemane. No, he stayed behind in his palace. But he sent Malchus to take his place, and Malchus suffered under the stroke of Peter's sword. If the high priest had gone himself, that blow would have fallen on him.

He could still work miraculously by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, we know from John 18 that He could and did cast them all to the ground by the power of His name. But here we see the witness of His grace to man, even at such a moment, rather than of His own personal majesty. He was about to be rejected and to suffer on the cross.

Elsewhere we read that the Lord touched the ear of the wounded servant and healed him. It was the last miracle of healing the Lord performed before He went to the cross, and the man He healed was an enemy. In the confusion of the hour, Peter's act passed unnoticed.

One case of surgery is left to speak of. It is striking: this one undoes Peter's rash act in cutting off a servant's ear. The act speaks of undue severity — cutting off people's ears instead of opening them. How often our Lord has to undo our poor, blundering use of the sword! A touch is enough here.

On His way to the cross, though we know He could have snapped the cords, He asked permission to use His hand. "Permit even this far," He said, and then reached out to heal the servant's ear. How can we divide the human from the divine? May we bow and adore!

Luke alone, true to his testimony to God's grace, tells us of the Lord's answer, "Permit even this far," and of His touching the ear to heal the wounded man. Matthew alone gives the reproof that warned His servant what it means for saints to fight back in a fleshly way. That fits Matthew's picture of the rejected Messiah who is still the true King of Israel. Mark mentions the fact, but no more. John presents the Lord in unfaltering obedience to His Father, as before in divine power and grace. That fits God's purpose in John's part of the record. Nothing was calmer than His correction of Peter's energy. Nothing was more marked than His submission to the Father's will, whatever it cost.

How slow we are to learn grace, or to grasp the unworldly, the heavenly nature of Christianity! How slow to learn the differences that God has made in the way He deals with people! The law and the sword agreed well; but grace and the sword are absolutely incompatible. Nature understands the first and acts on it easily. But the Christian should seek to know the second, and act on that. The disciple acted in law, and used the sword; the blessed Master acted in grace, and healed the ear of Malchus. How bright the contrast!

With a word of gentle rebuke to Peter, He stretched out His hand and touched the severed ear and healed it. The last act of those tender hands before they were bound by His hardened captors was to heal the leader of them. The boldness of Malchus and the rashness of Peter only gave one more opening for the absolute goodness in Him to show itself — the goodness that would triumph over all evil. "Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" Those are the first words recorded from His lips in Luke's Gospel, and Luke alone records the healing of Malchus. That business was blessing and not judgment; it was healing and not a sword.

The writer has often said this. Let so-called divine healers, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Pentecostalists, Roman Catholics at Lourdes, and others prove their claims of divine healing. Let them restore a severed limb in a moment of time, leaving no trace of the operation — even a part as small as an ear. Then he will at once recognise their claims. Malchus' ear is a test case, not yet matched by any of our present-day so-called divine healers.

Thank God that it is written on the page of inspiration, "He touched his ear and healed him" (Luke 22:51). And so for years Malchus may have stood before his master, bearing the visible mark of the healing touch of Jesus. That mark was a witness that could not perish to His love and pity — the love of One who, "when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously." Such displays of His grace win the heart, and make Him dear to it.