Martin Luther King Jr. "I Have A Dream" Speech - 50 years later

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Praus

Banned
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
"I Have A Dream" Speech
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Baptist Minister, Nobel Peace Laureate, Christian Martyr
August 28, 1963
Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

[video=youtube;smEqnnklfYs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs[/video]

Scripture references:

Psa 30:5 ... weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

Amos 5:24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: 5 And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Other references:

Allusion to “Four score and seven years ago ...”
--Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ...”
--US Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
 
I don't know the whole story about ML Jr, but what was for sure is Martin Luther Jr ( I do not say king, he was not one of the Lord's Kingdom ) was secretly involved in great heresies ! Just as this false doctor of medieval time called Martin Luther. This is not by chance his father chose that name, because he knew the satanic beliefs the medieval Martin Luther wrote, and he was a supporter of these great heresies.
Martin Luther Jr didn't believe Jesus was resurrected, he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus either ! And he didn't believe in the miraculous conception of Jesus which happened in the virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit. And now he's praised worldwide as if he was a great man of faith, whereas he may have been a secret spawn of satan !
Someone who knows what kind of inconceivable horrors the medieval Martin Luther wrote cannot in their right mind choose to be called " Martin Luther " unless they themselves fully endorse the inconceivable horrors medieval Martin Luther wrote !

We should not revere a simple man like Martin Luther Jr and plus who may have been a spawn of satan!

We should give glory to the Lord only ! Only Jesus is Lord ! Give glory to Him only !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know the whole story about ML Jr, but what was for sure is Martin Luther Jr ( I do not say king, he was not one of the Lord's Kingdom ) was secretly involved in great heresies ! Just as this false doctor of medieval time called Martin Luther. This is not by chance his father chose that name, because he knew the satanic beliefs the medieval Martin Luther wrote, and he was a supporter of these great heresies.
Martin Luther Jr didn't believe Jesus was resurrected, he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus either ! And he didn't believe in the miraculous conception of Jesus which happened in the virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit. And now he's praised worldwide as if he was a great man of faith, whereas he may have been a secret spawn of satan !
Someone who knows what kind of inconceivable horrors the medieval Martin Luther wrote cannot in their right mind choose to be called " Martin Luther " unless they themselves fully endorse the inconceivable horrors medieval Martin Luther wrote !

We should not revere a simple man like Martin Luther Jr and plus who may have been a spawn of satan!

We should give glory to the Lord only ! Only Jesus is Lord ! Give glory to Him only !

The two greatest Americans were named after Abraham and Martin Luther. It's the American way! I hope you got to watch the whole video--it's the second greatest American speech after Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Now I will answer no more to your messages. I need to keep my head clear from any confusing and irritating heresies from this false doctor Martin Luther and his indoctrinated victims.
 
I know this is against the canon of received wisdom, but it seems to me that MLK was one of our more overrated historical figures.
 
I know this is against the canon of received wisdom, but it seems to me that MLK was one of our more overrated historical figures.

We Americans, we love our martyrs, so, yeah it's definitely against the canon. This speech is his finest work and one of the greatest speeches in history. In spite of that, MLK liked his vices.

I was hoping that we could reflect on what's changed and what hasn't in 50 years, I'm not trying to lead anyone to any particular conclusions.
 
His protege is Jesse Jackson.

Too bad the principles in MLK's speech are not the principles of this administration, Jesse Jackson, or the democrat party.

By the way MLK was a republican.
 
His protege is Jesse Jackson.

When the shots rang out in November 1968, the world got to see the nature of Jesse Jackson: dishonest and exploitive.

This article is from 1987, I think for the 1988 Presidental election:

JESSE JACKSON AIMS FOR THE MAINSTREAM - New York Times

On April 4, 1968, Dr. King was assassinated as he stood on the balcony outside his room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. The gunshot set off a sequence of events that would drive a wedge between Jesse Jackson and many of Dr. King's followers.

Mr. Jackson was a floor below when the shots rang out; he and several colleagues ran up to the balcony. After the fatally wounded Dr. King was taken to the hospital, reporters converged on the motel.

''And Jesse was saying, 'I was the last person in the world he spoke to,' '' recalls the Rev. Hosea Williams, an Atlanta city council member and former King associate who was also at the motel. ''I saw the blood on Jesse's shirt and I know Jesse had not been near Dr. King.''

That night, Mr. Jackson flew to Chicago. The next day, he had Don Rose book him on two local television talk shows; he also appeared that morning on NBC's ''Today Show,'' wearing the same blood-stained turtleneck that he had worn the day before. He told reporters he was the last to talk to Dr. King, who died, he said, cradled in his arms.

But none of that is so, according to several King aides, who remain bitter about the incident and still ask why Mr. Jackson did not change his shirt.

Too bad the principles in MLK's speech are not the principles of this administration, Jesse Jackson, or the democrat party.

Things have changed in the last 50 years, many for the worse. The 1968 "Chicago police riots" were at the Democratic National Convention--nothing to do with Republicans.

I really miss Reagan.

By the way MLK was a republican.

The evidence is mixed but it's entirely realistic--in the 1960s the Republicans were still the party Abraham Lincoln, not the party of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican | Human Events

"It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s."
 
Martin Luther's satanic now? Darn that Luther man and his desire to return the church back to God's Word. So annoying! DragonSlayer, you slay me!
 
His protege is Jesse Jackson.

Too bad the principles in MLK's speech are not the principles of this administration, Jesse Jackson, or the democrat party.

By the way MLK was a republican.

The fact his protégé was Rev. Jackson. In fact, many of his inner circle are still alive and they happen to be the same pack of charlatans that say voter ID laws are somehow racist.

This makes me wonder who he was before the assassin's bullet met its mark. Assassination can turn the most sketchy among us into a Saint. See what two assassinations did for the Kennedy family...

MLK was indeed a Republican, but he had a certain distaste for the conservative movement leaders like WFB, Russell Kirk, William Rusher, etc, etc, etc. The men who were the true yet often forgotten heroes of the sixties.
 
When the shots rang out in November 1968, the world got to see the nature of Jesse Jackson: dishonest and exploitive.

This article is from 1987, I think for the 1988 Presidental election:

JESSE JACKSON AIMS FOR THE MAINSTREAM - New York Times

On April 4, 1968, Dr. King was assassinated as he stood on the balcony outside his room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. The gunshot set off a sequence of events that would drive a wedge between Jesse Jackson and many of Dr. King's followers.

Mr. Jackson was a floor below when the shots rang out; he and several colleagues ran up to the balcony. After the fatally wounded Dr. King was taken to the hospital, reporters converged on the motel.

''And Jesse was saying, 'I was the last person in the world he spoke to,' '' recalls the Rev. Hosea Williams, an Atlanta city council member and former King associate who was also at the motel. ''I saw the blood on Jesse's shirt and I know Jesse had not been near Dr. King.''

That night, Mr. Jackson flew to Chicago. The next day, he had Don Rose book him on two local television talk shows; he also appeared that morning on NBC's ''Today Show,'' wearing the same blood-stained turtleneck that he had worn the day before. He told reporters he was the last to talk to Dr. King, who died, he said, cradled in his arms.

But none of that is so, according to several King aides, who remain bitter about the incident and still ask why Mr. Jackson did not change his shirt.



Things have changed in the last 50 years, many for the worse. The 1968 "Chicago police riots" were at the Democratic National Convention--nothing to do with Republicans.

I really miss Reagan.



The evidence is mixed but it's entirely realistic--in the 1960s the Republicans were still the party Abraham Lincoln, not the party of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican | Human Events

"It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s."

and demorat party has not changed. They just changed their rhetoric.
 
Martin Luther's satanic now? Darn that Luther man and his desire to return the church back to God's Word. So annoying! DragonSlayer, you slay me!

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" --Monty Python

Martin Luther did a brilliant contrast of the words of Jesus Christ versus a apocryphal screed known as the Book of Tobit and started the Protestant Reformation. Moneychangers in Rome were up in arms. They still are.

Matt 4:17
exinde coepit Iesus praedicare et dicere paenitentiam agite adpropinquavit enim regnum caelorum (VULGATE)

From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (NASB)

Von der Zeit an fing Jesus an, zu predigen und zu sagen: Tut Buße, das Himmelreich ist nahe herbeigekommen! (LUTH1545)

Tobit 12:8 Prayer is good with fasting and alms more than to lay up treasures of gold: 9 For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting. (DRA)

It's not the Bible, but it reads well:

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)
translated by Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al.

OCTOBER 31, 1517

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.
23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.
24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.
25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.
26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.
27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.
45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.
46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.
47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.
53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.
57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;
61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.
67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.
70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!
73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.
74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.
75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.
76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.
77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.
78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.
79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."
83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"
84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"
85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"
86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"
87. Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"
88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"
89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"
90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.
 
MLK was no saint. He talked a good talk but his followers would rob and assault people.
My mother lived in Atlanta where he grew up and went to his community with friends about a month after he was killed. They called her several racial names and threw rocks at her. Had she not been with two other girls who were from MLK's neighbohood to get on each side of her and protect her there is no telling what would have happened to her.
 
Just as with any leader, you have the idiots and the people with integrity. MLK was no saint but he wasn't a demon either.
 
MLK was no saint but we dwell on his strengths.

Others have done well also but we dwell on their weaknesses.

Depends on which side of the fence they are I guess.
 
MLK was no saint. He talked a good talk but his followers would rob and assault people.
My mother lived in Atlanta where he grew up and went to his community with friends about a month after he was killed. They called her several racial names and threw rocks at her. Had she not been with two other girls who were from MLK's neighbohood to get on each side of her and protect her there is no telling what would have happened to her.

That contradicts what he taught. He taught non-violence, whether your mother was really assaulted by his followers, or some of his followers who weren't really Christian, or just random blacks. Either way he taught non-violence, which he took from Ghandi's philosophy. Plus how does what your mother experienced have to do with whether he was Christian? I still don't understand lol
 
Ghandi? Jesus came up with it first!

True that, I was meaning his philosophy on boycott/ignoring public investment with non violence movement. Jesus is the perfect example, even Ghandi accepted Jesus' teachings as true love. :)
 
Just as with any leader, you have the idiots and the people with integrity. MLK was no saint but he wasn't a demon either.

Bother. I'm going to quote myself. I meant to include the followers of leaders in this too. Thanks.
 
Ghandi? Jesus came up with it first!

He did, they didn't always listen.

Matt 26:51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (ESV)

Luke 22:49 And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. (ESV)

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) 11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (ESV)