Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:10
Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
10. Then Simon Peter ] Simon Peter therefore ( Joh 18:3), because he ‘saw what would follow’ (Luk 22:49). All four Evangelists mention this act of violence; S. John alone gives the names. While S. Peter was alive it was only prudent not to mention his name; and probably S. John was the only one who knew ( Joh 18:15) the servant’s name. S. Peter’s impetuous boldness now illustrates his impetuous words Joh 13:37 and Mar 8:32.
having a sword ] Probably one of the two produced in misunderstanding of Christ’s words at the end of the supper (Luk 22:38). To carry arms on a feast-day was forbidden; 30 that we have here some indication that the Last Supper was not the Passover.
the high priest’s servant ] No doubt he had been prominent in the attack on Jesus, and S. Peter had aimed at his head. S. Luke also mentions that it was the right ear that was cut, and he alone mentions the healing, under cover of Which S. Peter probably escaped.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See the notes at Mat 26:51-52.
The servants name was Malchus – His name is mentioned by neither of the other evangelists, nor is it said by the other evangelists who was the disciple that gave the blow. It is probable that both Peter and the servant were alive when the other gospels were written.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 10. Having a sword] See Clarke on Lu 22:36.
Cut off his right ear.] He probably designed to have cloven his scull in two, but God turned it aside, and only permitted the ear to be taken off; and this he would not have suffered, but only that he might have the opportunity of giving them a most striking proof of his Divinity in working an astonishing miracle on the occasion: see the notes on Mt 26:51-56.
The other three evangelists mention this transaction; but neither give the name of Peter nor of Malchus, probably because both persons were alive when they wrote; but it is likely both had been long dead before St. John published his history.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It is thought that this action of Peters was before the apprehension of our Saviour, though after the discovery of it, as our evangelist reports it; because upon the apprehension of our Saviour, both Mat 26:56, and Mar 14:50, agree, that the disciples fled; and it can hardly be thought that if Peter had seen his Master apprehended he would have adventured upon so daring and provocative an action; nor could Christ, had he been first bound, have stretched out his hand, to have touched his ear, and healed it. Lest any should wonder how Peter came by a sword, we may read, Luk 22:38, that the disciples had two swords amongst them, probably brought out of Galilee for the defence of themselves and their Master against assaults from robbers in that long journey.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
10, 11. Then Simon Peter, having asword, drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off hisright ear. The servant’s name was MalchusNone of the otherEvangelists mention the name either of the ardent disciple or of hisvictim. John being “known to the high priest” (Joh18:15), the mention of the servant’s name by him is quitenatural, and an interesting mark of truth in a small matter. As tothe right ear, specified both here and in Luke (Lu22:50), the man was “likely foremost of those who advancedto seize Jesus, and presented himself in the attitude of a combatant;hence his right side would be exposed to attack. The blow of Peterwas evidently aimed vertically at his head” [WEBSTERand WILKINSON].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then Simon Peter having a sword,…. Girt about him, which he either wore in common, or particularly at the feast, as the Galilaeans are said to do, to preserve them from thieves and wild beasts by the way; or was one of the two the disciples had with them in the garden; or what Peter purposely furnished himself with to defend his master, taking a hint from what was said by him, Lu 22:36;
drew it; before Christ could give an answer to the question put by his disciples, whether they should smite or not, Lu 22:49; being encouraged thereunto by what Christ said, Lu 22:38; or by what he had just done in, striking the man to the ground; and being provoked by that servant’s going to lay hold on Christ, and who it is probable was more forward and busy than any of the rest; for it appears from the other evangelists, that Peter did this, though he is not mentioned by name by any of the rest, just as they were seizing and apprehending Christ:
and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear; he doubtless struck at his head, and intended to have cleaved him down, but missed his aim, and took off his ear: the person is particularly described, that he was a servant, and the servant of the high priest, and he is mentioned also by name;
and the servant’s name was Malchus; that if the truth of this relation was called in question, it might easily be looked into and examined, when it would appear that it was perfectly right. All the evangelists give an account of this action of Peter’s, but none of them mention his name but this evangelist; perhaps the reason might be, that Peter was alive when the other evangelists wrote, and therefore it was not safe to say who it was that did it, lest he who was the minister of the circumcision, and dwelt among the Jews, should be persecuted for it, or their minds should be prejudiced against him on that account; but John writing his Gospel many years after his death, the reason for the concealment of his name no longer subsisted: nor indeed is the name of the high priest’s servant mentioned by any other of the evangelists: John had, or however he writes, a more exact and particular account of this matter. This was a name frequent with the Syrians, Phoenicians, and Hebrews. Jerom c wrote the life of one Malchus, a monk or Eremite, who was by nation a Syrian; and Porphyry, that great enemy of Christianity, who was by birth a Tyrian, his original name was Malchus, as was his father’s; and “which”, in the Syrian, and his country dialect, as he himself d and others e say, signifies a “king”. Josephus f speaks of one Cleodemus, whose name was Malchus, that wrote a history of the Hebrews. And some Jewish Rabbins were of this name; hence we read of , “R. Maluc” g, and of , “R. Malcio” h; the name is the same with Malluch,
Ne 10:4.
c Tom. I. fol. 87. d Porphyr. vita in Plotin. c. 17. e Eunapius in vita Porphyr. p. 16. f Antiqu. l. 1. c. 15. g T. Hieros. Succa, fol. 53. 3. & Bab. Bathra, fol. 16. 1. h T. Bab. Nidda, fol. 52. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Having a sword ( ). It was unlawful to carry a weapon on a feast-day, but Peter had become alarmed at Christ’s words about his peril. They had two swords or knives in the possession of the eleven according to Luke (22:38). After the treacherous kiss of Judas (on the hand or the cheek?) the disciples asked: “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” (Lu 22:49). Apparently before Jesus could answer Peter with his usual impulsiveness jerked out (, first aorist active indicative of for which see 6:44) his sword and cut off the right ear of Malchus (Joh 18:10), a servant of the high priest. Peter missed the man’s head as he swerved to his left. Luke also (Lu 22:50) mentions the detail of the right ear, but John alone mentions the man’s name and Peter’s. There was peril to Peter in his rash act as comes out later (Joh 18:26), but he was dead long before John wrote his Gospel as was Lazarus of whom John could also safely write (12:9-11). For , diminutive of , see Mr 14:47 (only other N.T. example), another diminutive in Mt 26:51 (Mark 14:47; Luke 22:51).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Simon Peter. The names of Simon Peter and Malchus are mentioned only by John in connection with this incident. The incident itself is related by all the Evangelists.
A sword. Contrary to the rule which forbade the carrying of weapons on a feast – day.
The high priest ‘s servant. See on Mt 26:51.
Right ear. Luke and John. The others do not specify which ear. For ear John and Mark have wjtarion, a diminutive; Luke, oujv, and Matthew, wjtion, a diminutive in form, but not in force. See on Mt 26:51.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it,” (Simon oun Petros echon machairan eilkusen auten) “Then Simon Peter who had a sword drew it,” with intent to defend himself and his Lord, as he had earnestly pledged he would do, earlier that evening, Mat 26:35; Mar 14:31. He did not want to be separated from the fate of his Lord, Joh 13:38, and thought a rescue possible, as only the Sanhedrin officials would enter the garden estate, leaving the Roman band of soldiers outside.
2) “And smote the high priest’s servant,” (kai epaisen tou archiereos soulon) “And he struck the slave of the high priest,” as also recounted, Mat 26:51.
3) “And cut off his right ear.” (kai apekopsen autou to otarion to deksion) “And he cut off his right ear,” Mar 14:47; Luk 22:50.
4) “The servant’s name was Malchus.” (hen de onoma to doulo Malchos) “And the servant’s name was known as Malchus;” Of the four Gospel writers, only John gives the name of the servant, perhaps because knowing the high priest, he also knew the servant by name, Joh 18:15-16. This servant was also a kinsman of the high priest, Joh 18:26; Joh 21:24. Since John is the only one who gave the name of Malchus it is also believed that he was that disciple who knew Caiaphas the high priest and went in with Jesus to the trial or hearing before him.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
10. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it. The Evangelist now describes the foolish zeal of Peter, who attempted to defend his Master in an unlawful manner. Boldly and courageously, indeed, he incurs great risk on Christ’s account; but as he does not consider what his calling demands, and what God permits, his action is so far from deserving praise, that he is severely blamed by Christ. But let us learn that, in the person of Peter, Christ condemns every thing that men dare to attempt out of their own fancy. This doctrine is eminently worthy of attention; for nothing is more common than to defend, under the cloak of zeal, every thing that we do, as if it were of no importance whether God approved, or not, what men suppose to be right, whose prudence is nothing else than mere vanity.
If we saw nothing faulty in the zeal of Peter, still we ought to be satisfied on this single ground, that Christ declares that he is displeased with it. But we see that it was not owing to him that Christ did not turn aside from death, and that his name was not exposed to perpetual disgrace; for, in offering violence to the captain and the soldiers, he acts the part of a highwayman, because he resists the power which God has appointed. Christ having already been more than enough hated by the world, this single deed might give plausibility to all the calumnies which his enemies falsely brought against him. Besides, it was exceedingly thoughtless in Peter to attempt to prove his faith by his sword, while he could not do so by his tongue. When he is called to make confession, he denies his Master; and now, without his Master’s authority, he raises a tumult.
Warned by so striking an example, let us learn to keep our zeal within proper bounds; and as the wantonness of our flesh is always eager to attempt more than God commands, let us learn that our zeal will succeed ill, whenever we venture to undertake any thing contrary to the word of God. It will sometimes happen that the commencement gives us flattering promises, but we shall at length be punished for our rashness. Let obedience, therefore, be the foundation of all that we undertake. We are also reminded, that those who have resolved to plead the cause of Christ do not always conduct themselves so skilfully as not to commit some fault; and, therefore, we ought the more earnestly to entreat the Lord to guide us in every action by the spirit of prudence.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(10) Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it. . . .Comp. Note on Mat. 26:51. The fact is recorded by all the Evangelists. St. John only tells us that it was done by Peter, and that the servants name was Malchus. He is also careful to note, as St. Luke does too, that it was the right ear.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
10. Malchus The Greek and Latin form of Malek, signifying King. John alone mentions his name. See note on Mat 26:51.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Simon Peter therefore, having a sword, drew it, and struck the High Priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. Now the servant’s name was Malchus. Jesus therefore said to Peter, “Put the sword into the scabbard. The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?”
John alone gives us the names of the swordsman and of the servant. Luke tells us that Jesus then healed the man, but this is surely what we would have expected. (In those slightly less sophisticated days the loss of an ear would not have been looked on as too serious. Only Luke, as a doctor, thought the healing important). It is typical of Peter that he should be one of the two who had a sword (Luk 22:38), and it was a sign of their bravery that with so few weapons they were ready to fight (Luk 22:49). It may be that having seen what He had done before, they felt that this might be the moment when He would reveal Himself as the fighting Messiah. Or perhaps it was simply the spontaneous action of a gallant man.
The reaction of Peter was typical of the man. Surprised at the approach of this crowd of Jesus’ enemies, aware that this time they meant trouble, and finally drawing his sword without a thought of the consequences and immediately striking at the nearest opponent.
Later, when he knew better, Peter was clearly not proud of what he had done for his participation is not mentioned in the earlier Gospels. The thing that the world would have applauded was elsewhere told anonymously, indeed it could have been dangerous evidence against Peter. We can contrast how his later denial of Jesus was made clear in all the Gospels for on that he did not want to hide the truth. But by the time John was writing Peter was beyond the danger of either the plaudits of men or the executioner’s sword.
“Put the sword into the scabbard. The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?” Peter had drawn a sword in order to resist, but in contrast Jesus showed no form of resistance and commanded the sheathing of the sword, and accepted His cup in order to drink it. It was complete submission. There was to be no resistance to the Father’s will. In his haste to act Peter was acting against God. Let him recognise once and for all that swords have no place in the service of God’s kingly rule. It is a reminder that God’s purposes are fulfilled through suffering.
It is noteworthy that John reveals examples of inside knowledge throughout the narrative and the knowledge of the servant’s name is but one of them. It would appear that he had connections with a priestly family of some importance (see Joh 18:16).
‘The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?’ These words show a knowledge of Mat 26:42, see also Mat 26:39; Mar 14:36; Luk 22:42. It is from them that we learn how hard a cup it was for Him to bear. Drinking the cup clearly had the endurance of suffering in mind. It was a regular Old Testament picture (Psa 75:8; Isa 51:17; Isa 51:22; Jer 25:15; Eze 23:31-33). But it was a cup given to Him by His Father, so He was satisfied. It was only through His drinking that cup that His work could be accomplished and we could partake of Him. Note how death is here thought of in terms of drinking wine. Compare Joh 6:52-56.
It should be noted that throughout this whole passage the emphasis is continually on Jesus’ control of events. He goes deliberately to the garden across the Kidron, He knows all that is coming on Him. He advances boldly on the arresting party. He questions them. He declares Who He is to their discomfort. He takes charge of who will be arrested. He rejects the idea of any resistance. He declares that this cup comes from His Father and that He will drink it by choice. This is the impression John wishes his readers to have which helps to explain some of his omissions.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The arrest:
v. 10. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
v. 11. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath; the cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?
v. 12. Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound Him,
v. 13. and led Him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
v. 14. Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. At this point the impetuosity of Peter, together with His just anger at the audacity of the band in daring to threaten his Master, overwhelmed Him. He drew the sword with which he had provided himself, Luk 22:38, and struck out at the foremost of the band, the one standing nearest to him, the servant of the high priest, whose name was Malchus. The blow was delivered with sufficient force to sever the man’s right ear from his head. But Jesus sternly reproved Peter for this interference with the counsel of God. He bade him put back the sword into its sheath. The Lord’s method of defending Himself was not by means of weapons of this world. Any unauthorized use of power, especially in the interest of Christ and His Word, is sternly frowned down by Jesus. “Against such doctrine and apparent show of right this example of Peter should be alleged, to say that there is a great difference between him to whom a matter is committed, and him to whom it is not committed. What God wants He has sufficiently commanded and ordered. God does not sleep, neither is He a fool; He knows very well how the government shall be carried on. Therefore, in things that are not committed to thee let the sword alone. ” Jesus wanted to drink the cup of suffering which His Father was now offering Him to drink. This attitude, that of willing obedience, was essential for the entire work of redemption. After this incident there was no more delay. The Roman soldiers, under the orders of their tribune, together with the leaders of the Sanhedrin that had come along, made the arrest, with all the show of authority as though they had a dangerous criminal to deal with. The band then took Jesus away to Hannas first, who, although no longer high priest, having held that office by annual appointment from A. D. 7-14, was still a man of commanding influence, and the father-in-law of the high priest of that year, Caiaphas. The palace of the high priests probably formed a complex of buildings about a square, or court, in an architecture which was half Jewish, half Roman, Hannas occupying the one side of the buildings and Caiaphas the other. To the rooms of Hannas Jesus was led first, partly out of deference to his station, partly in order to keep Him there for a preliminary examination, until the members of the Sanhedrin might all be called together. The evangelist identifies Caiaphas as the man who had made the prophecy, all unknown to himself, concerning the fact that Jesus should die for the people. As Luther says, Caiaphas was, in this case, much like the beast of Balaam, through whose mouth the Lord also spoke. Jesus truly was to die, not only for this people, who were His murderers, but for the sins of the whole world.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Joh 18:10. Then Simon Peter, &c. See the introductory note to this gospel.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 18:10-11 . Comp. Mat 26:51 ff., and parall.
] In consequence of this danger, which he now saw for Jesus. On its position between . and ., comp. Joh 21:7 .
Only John here names Peter, and also Malchus . [208] Personal considerations, which may have kept the names so far away from the earliest tradition, that they are not adduced even by Luke, could now no longer have influence.
] slave , therefore none of the officials of the court of justice, Joh 18:3 , but also not the guide of the temple-watch (Ewald). The slave had accompanied the rest, and had pressed forward.
] not purposely (Hengstenberg), but the blow which was aimed at the head missed .
Cast the sword into the sheath! certainly more original than the calmer and more circumstantial words in Matt. On , sheath , see Poll. x. 144. In the classics, . Comp. Hom. Od . x. 333: .
.] Comp. Mat 20:22 ; Mat 26:39 . The suffering of death which He must now, after He has become clearly conscious of God’s will and object (Joh 3:14-15 , Joh 6:51 ), approach, is the cup to be drunk, which the Father has already given to Him (into His hand), .
, as in Joh 15:2 .
[208] A name of frequent occurrence; see Wetstein. In Phot. Bibl . cod. 78, a Sophist is so called. Hengstenberg gives artificial interpretations.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
Ver. 10. The servant’s name was Malchus ] A busy fellow belike in surprising our Saviour. But it was a sad omen (saith a noble and renowned writer, Lord Brook) that Peter’s sword should cut off the ear of Malchus, which signifies a king or kingly authority. How the pope hath lifted up himself, , above all that is called Augustus, or emperor, is better known than that it need be here related. And if bishops forbear (saith he) to touch the sceptre (which they strive to sway), it is but as once Mercury spared Jupiter’s thunderbolts, which he dared not steal, lest they should roar too loud, or at least burn his fingers.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
10. ] At this time took place the kiss of Judas, in accordance with the agreement entered into, and to assure the captors that the person thus offering Himself was indeed Jesus of Nazareth, and no substitute for him: see note on Mat 26:49 . The other view, that the kiss took place first, before the incidents of our Joh 18:4-9 (Friedlieb, Archologie der Leidensgeschichte, p. 68), is to me quite inconceivable.
On Peter’s act, see Mat 26:51 . The names of Peter and Malchus are only found here: only here and in Luke.
The (external) ear, though severed, was apparently still hanging on the cheek; for our Lord is said in Luk 22:51 , to have touched in performing the healing.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 18:10 . Peter did not wish to be thus dissociated from the fate of his Master, Joh 13:38 , and thinks a rescue possible, as only the Sanhedrim officials would enter the garden, leaving the soldiers outside. , “having a sword,” “pro more peregrinantium in iis locis,” Grotius, and cf. Thucyd., i. 6; Luk 22:36 . He struck , “the high priest’s servant”. The are distinguished from the , Joh 18:18 . John, being acquainted with the high priest’s household, both identified the man and knew his name, which was a common one, see Wetstein, and cf. Neh 10:4 ; also, Porphyry, Life of Plotinus , 17. “In my native dialect I (Porphyry) was called Malchus, which is interpreted, king.” . In Mar 14:47 . indicates eye-witness or subsequent intimate knowledge. Peter meant, no doubt, to cleave the head.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Then Simon, &c. = Simon Peter, therefore. Compare Luk 22:49.
sword. One of the two of Luk 22:38.
drew. Greek. helkuo. See Joh 12:32.
smote. Greek. paio. Only here, Mat 26:68. Mar 14:47. Luk 22:64. Rev 9:5.
servant = bond-servant. Greek. doulos. See Joh 13:16. In all the four Gospels the definite article is used, the servant. Malchus had advanced so as to seize the Lord, and thus became the object of Peter’s attack.
ear. Greek. otion. Only used in connexion with this incident, and in all four Gospels, the usual word being ous.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
10.] At this time took place the kiss of Judas, in accordance with the agreement entered into, and to assure the captors that the person thus offering Himself was indeed Jesus of Nazareth, and no substitute for him: see note on Mat 26:49. The other view, that the kiss took place first, before the incidents of our Joh 18:4-9 (Friedlieb, Archologie der Leidensgeschichte, p. 68), is to me quite inconceivable.
On Peters act, see Mat 26:51. The names of Peter and Malchus are only found here:- only here and in Luke.
The (external) ear, though severed, was apparently still hanging on the cheek;-for our Lord is said in Luk 22:51, to have touched in performing the healing.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 18:10. , Simon) John alone records that it was Simon who did this: the other evangelists keep back the name of Peter. [No doubt because these latter wrote at a time when Peter might readily have run risk with the world (had his name been mentioned): John, writing last of all, filled up the omission of the name when all risk was over.-Harm., p. 531. Comp. ch. Joh 21:19, note marg.]
[378]- having) Even to have a sword was attended with danger.-, cut off) with a dangerous stroke.-, Malchus) It is probable that, for a long time after, this man continued to be well known among Jews and Christians. The name of the servant is given in the sacred narrative, as that of the maid (Rhoda), Act 12:13.
[378] John wished also, now that danger from the disclosure was past, to honour the zeal and courage of Peter in behalf of His Lord, as a set-off against his subsequent thrice repeated denial.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 18:10
Joh 18:10
Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priests servant, and cut off his right ear.-The presence of the sword and Peters use of it has been singular in the life of Jesus. The whole teaching and practice of Christ is against violence, offensive or defensive. Luk 22:36 says that Jesus told his disciples to sell their garments and buy a sword. Two were bought and he said they were enough. Peter on this occasion used one of them in cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest. This was done in the defense of Jesus, but was an act of rashness. [During the evening Peter had boasted that he would die for his Master, but now remembering his boast and the reply of Jesus he proceeds to show that his words were not mere boasts. Probably he intended to cleave his head from his body.]
Now the servants name was Malchus.-[From verse 15 we learn that John (who doubtless speaks of himself) knew the high priest, and would therefore probably know the name of the servant.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Joh 18:26, Mat 26:51-54, Mar 14:30, Mar 14:47, Luk 22:33, Luk 22:49-51
Reciprocal: Luk 22:50 – General Act 7:24 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0
Peter was always impulsive and rash, and seemed ready to defend his Lord as long as he could do so with material force. But he was a coward later when called upon to show moral courage in behalf of Christ.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
[Malchus.] A name very much in use amongst the Jews; Malluch, Neh 10:4; Neh 10:27; Malchus the Arabian. This was also the name of that implacable enemy to Christianity Porphyrius, and of his father before him. So Luke Holsteine in the Life of Porphyrius, where he reckons up more of that name.
Christ had struck those to the ground that came to apprehend him, by the power of his word, that he might thereby provide for the flight of his disciples, and shew his own divine power. They, getting up again, accost him; Judas kisseth him; they lay hands upon him; and then Peter draws his sword, etc.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 18:10. Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and smote the high priests servant, and cut off his right ear. And the servants name was Malchus. It is possible that the position of therefore in the original, between Simon and Peter, may be designed to call attention to the import of the apostles name. It is not Simon only who does the act about to be mentioned, but Simon who is Peter, the rock, the bold and determined one. The servant is not one of the officers formerly mentioned, but the high priests own attendant, who may have borne his masters message to the officers. His name was Malchus, and the mention of this fact, as well as of the minute circumstance that the ear cut off was the right ear, illustrates the personal knowledge possessed by John of what he describes. The earlier Evangelists, who all mention the incident, do not give the servants name (Mat 26:51; Mar 14:47; Luk 22:50). As the great object of John in this passage is to illustrate the perfect submission of Jesus to the will of His heavenly Father in the hour now come, nothing is said of the healing of the ear. Luke alone tells us of it (chap. Luk 22:51).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, St. Peter’s love unto, and zeal for, his Lord and Master, in defence of whom he now draws his sword: but why did he not rather draw upon Judas than upon Malchus?
Possibly, because though Judas was most faulty, yet Malchus might be most forward to carry off our Saviour. O, how doth a pious breast swell with indignation, at the sight of an affront offered unto its Saviour!
Observe farther, the rebuke which Christ gave St. Peter for what he did: though his heart was sincere, yet his hand was rash; good intentions are no warrant for irregular actions: Christ will thank no man for drawing a sword in defence of him, without a warrant and commission from him. To resist a lawful magistrate, even in Christ’s own defence, is rash zeal, and discountenanced by the gospel.
Here observe, 1. A metaphorical description of Christ’s sufferings: they are a cup put into his hand top drink off, and that by his own Father. They are a cup, and but a cup: God will not over-charge his people; and this cup is from the hand of a Father, yea, from the hand of our Father: The cup which our Father hath given me.
Observe, 2. Our Lord’s resolution to drink off this cup, how bitter soever, being put to his mouth by his Father’s hand: Shall I not drink it? that is, I will drink it.
Learn hence, 1. That oft-times the wisdom of God is pleased to put a cup, a very bitter cup, of affliction into the hand of those to drink whom he doth most sincerely love.
2. That when God doth so, it is their duty to drink it with silence and submission: Shall I not drink it? That is, I will certainly drink it with cheerfulness and resignation.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 10, 11. Peter’s attempt at defence. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high-priest’s servant and cut off his right ear.The servant was named Malchus. 11. Jesus therefore said to Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath; shall I not drink the cup which my Father has given me to drink?
Does not John allude to Peter’s natural character by designating him by his name Simon? Comp. Joh 21:15-17.
Luk 22:38 proves that the apostles had, in fact, brought arms with them.
This fact had been already related by the Synoptics; why does John mention it? He wishes, no doubt, to restore to it the precision which it had lost in the oral narration: the name of Peter had been omitted, and, very probably, intentionally; that of Malchus had been forgotten.
The intention of depreciating Peter is again imputed to the author; but wherein? His action is certainly wanting neither in courage nor in faith nor in love.
And Malchus? How can there be discovered in this name the least trace of a speculative, ideal or religious intention? Nevertheless, Keim asks: If these names were known, how should Mark and Luke omit them? As if what Luke and Mark were ignorant of might not have been known by another who was better informed! How can any one persuade himself that a serious Christian of the second century, writing at a distance from Palestine, at Alexandria, in Asia Minor, or at Rome, would have set up the claim of knowing the name of a servant of the high-priest’s house, and, besides, the part played by a relative of this servant (Joh 18:26)! Is such pitiable charlatanism compatible with the character of the author of the Fourth Gospel? The trifling detail: the rightear, is also found in Luke (Luk 22:50): this is, according to Strauss, a legendary amplification. To what a degree of puerility is not the evangelical narrative thus brought down!
The act of Peter, while testifying of a powerful faith and of the sincerity of his declaration in Joh 13:37, was nevertheless compromising to his Master’s cause. Peter, by this act, had almost taken away from Jesus the right of saying to Pilate (Joh 18:36): If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have fought for me. The reply of Jesus has traced for the Church its line of conduct in times of persecution. It is that of passive resistance, which the Apocalypse calls (Joh 13:10) the patience of the saints.
The image of the cup to designate the lot to be submitted to recalls the similar expression in Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, in the Synoptics. Luke alone mentions the miraculous healing of Malchus. This fact explains why Peter was not indicted for the crime of rebellion.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 10
Malchus. John is the only evangelist who gives this servant’s name. There are two other allusions to his acquaintance with the high priest’s family, in John 18:16,26.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
18:10 {5} Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
(5) We ought to contain our zeal for God within the bounds of our calling.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
All the Gospels record this incident, but John is the only one that names Peter and Malchus. The mention of their names makes the story more concrete. John was an eyewitness of Jesus’ sufferings, so it is not unusual that He would mention these names. The small sword (Gr. machaira) that Peter used was probably little more than a dagger. His action was foolish, but it illustrates his courage and commitment to Jesus (cf. Joh 13:37).