Taf, as usual, you're right on track.
Just previously to this, Jesus told the disciples to go and sell what they had so they could buy swords for themselves. The time for his capture was drawing near. The disciples just happened to have two swords amongst them and his response was . . .out of TWELVE DISCIPLES they came back with TWO SWORDS and his response was . . .that'll do.
36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (hmmm, could it be that the "sword" was to take the place of the garment that covers?)
37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
Then, just a breath later, the disciples are trying to connect the dots in the midst of terror and fear.
49When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
51And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
I like that "somebody" is asking while Peter is already swinging.
But we're looking for patterns here . . .so what are the players? The sword of course is the Word. The disciples, the followers of the New and Living Way were just instructed to make the obtainment of a sword their top priority. The ear that was severed. Not an arm, not someone's head, but specifically and ONLY an ear. Does not the Spirit constantly cry out through Scripture "he that hath AN EAR let him hear"? Is not one's faith originate with HEARING? As opposed to "seeing"? The sheep are known by recognizing the SOUND of his voice as opposed to SEEING the manifestations of his power.
What exactly is Peter trying to accomplish? Is he not DEFENDING Jesus? Does Jesus "need" our aid? This accomplished two major things, and both are not good. One, Jesus rebuked him for it. And two, the result of his attempt to defend Jesus was only to deafen the one he thought he needed to defend Jesus "from". Who was "that" guy? Another player.
He wasn't a soldier, he wasn't even armed. He was the SERVANT (slave of) of the High Priest . . .Again, the disciples represent the followers of the New Covenant, this guy that got his ear cut off was a guy that represented the opposite . . .he represented the supporters of the Old Covenant. So . . .you have the Old Covenant taking captive the seed of Life and those who have already been resurrected by that seed take it upon themselves to try to defend the seed. The result? Keep in mind the Sword is a key player in all of this. It was Peter's MISUSE of the Sword that brought deafness to the servant of the high priest . . .see where this is all going?
The guys ear is cut off, Jesus rebukes Peter and tells him to PUT AWAY THE SWORD that he had just told them to sell all they owned in order to obtain. So . . .Jesus, who is, as John states, "the Word", he picks up the ear and HEALS THE SERVANT . . .notice Peter didn't heal anyone here, but Jesus was the one doing the healing.
This brings it all around full circle to THIS particular thread . . .man can not live by BREAD ALONE. It didn't do Peter any good to rely on the sword alone because he didn't comprehend it's purpose. It takes a PROCEEDING WORD to illuminate the power of the sword that RIGHTLY DIVIDES flesh from spirit. What if God told "you" to lay down your Bibles for a while until you matured into a place where it's placement and usage grew "in" you FIRST???
Rather than arguing against the very thought, can you imagine the kind of power that could manifest through you because you were actually willing to do the unthinkable??? Does this not provoke one to think? What is really most important here . . .that we use the Sword in the effectiveness of which the Father originally intended? Or that we just swing away at whoever appears to be against us?