text: Now, DonInKansas, I can tell by your frequent smileys that you love Jesus so much that you could hardly open your mind to this, but it's true:  Peter's use of the sword against civil authority was not clearly an act of self-defense.  The soldier was under orders to make a lawful arrest, and had a duty to carry out that order.  Peter, by opposing lawful civil authority, was "living by the sword," i/e/. using the sword without just cause.  Further, Peter was unwittingly trying to obstruct God's will for Jesus.  The fact that Jesus' trial later turned out to be a kangaroo court does not alter the nature of the soldier's act or his duty.
  
  Furthermore, if Jesus had intended that Peter never again use the sword under any circumstance, would he have told Peter to put it back in its place (as he said), or instead, to throw it away?