Verse 50. Cut off his right ear.] See Clarke on Mt 26:51.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

And one of them smote the servant of the high priest,…. The person that drew his sword, and performed this daring action, not waiting for an answer from Christ, was Peter, and the high priest’s servant, that he smote, was Malchus; both which we learn from Joh 18:10

and cut off his right ear; he aimed, no doubt, at his head, but missing his blow, took off his right ear. It is very likely, that this servant was very busy and forward to lay hold on Christ, and showed much virulence, and great malignity; and therefore Peter singled him out, and levelled his blow at him.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

His right ear ( ). Mark 14:47; Matt 26:51 do not mention “right,” but Luke the Physician does. Joh 18:10 follows Luke in this item and also adds the names of Peter and of Malchus since probably both were dead by that time and Peter would not be involved in trouble.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The servant. See on Mt 26:51.

His right ear. Lit., his ear, the right one. See on Mt 26:51; and compare Mr 14:47. Both Matthew and Mark use diminutives.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And one of them smote,” (kai epataksen eis tis eks auton) “And a certain one of them (out of the disciples) struck,” an account given by all four of the Gospel writers, but only John told who did it, Joh 18:10. So bold now, so timid a few hours later.

2) “The servant of the high priest,” (tou archiereos ton doulon) “The servant of the High Priest,” of the administrative High Priest at that time, Mat 26:51; Mar 14:47.

3) “And cut off his right ear.” (kai apheilen to ous autou to deksion) “And he cut off (severed) his right ear,” Joh 18:10 discloses that it was Peter who drew the sword and did this.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

(50-53) And one of them.See Notes on Mat. 27:52-56; Mar. 14:47-49. It will be remembered that all the four Gospels relate the incident, but that St. John alone gives the name of the disciple. It is possibly characteristic of St. Lukes technical accuracy that he uses the diminutive form of ear, as if part only were cut off. In Deu. 15:17 it seems to be applied specially to the fleshy lobe of the ear.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

‘And a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear.’

So one more impulsive than the rest did show the way, and immediately drawing his sword, and lashing out in the amateurish fashion of a man not used to swords, cut the right ear off the servant of the High Priest (the man clearly dodged to the left in order to avoid a swinging amateurish blow by the right handed Peter). It is a suggestion that gives such an absurd picture that it must be true. An inventor would have suggested something much more effective, especially as a healing was to follow. We learn later from John that it was impetuous Peter who did it, and no one would have wanted to make a fool of Peter like that.

But no one who knew the disciples would ever have doubted that such an action was that of Peter. With Peter present who else could it have been? It was typical of the man. The anonymity preserved in the first three Gospels was probably in order to safeguard Peter while he was alive. It would not have done him any good for it to be known to the authorities what he had done in the face of an arrest party supported by Rome.

To lose an ear like that would have been a huge blow to a servant of the High Priest. The man would now be classed as mutilated and would no longer be able to take part officially in Temple worship. And furthermore, to disable the official representative of the High Priest was equivalent to treason. So matters had suddenly become very tricky. The truth is that the whole group could well have been arrested as a result. For a moment all was tension.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

DISCOURSE: 1579
THE HEALING OF MALCHUS EAR

Luk 22:50-51. And one of them smote the servant of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

IT is but too common for even good persons, who are of a sanguine temper, to ask instruction or advice, while by their conduct they evince that they have very little disposition to receive and follow it. We do not wonder that Pilate should ask, What is truth? and go away before an answer could be given him: but it is grievous to see one of Peters eminence, who had been favoured with so many opportunities of divine instruction, affecting to seek direction from his Lord, and instantly prosecuting his own unhallowed will. In considering the instance recorded, it will be proper to notice,

I.

The indiscretion of Peter

Peter, in striking Malchus with the sword, was evidently actuated by a love to his Master, and a zeal for his service; yet his mode of discovering his affection was certainly deserving of blame. It argued,

1.

A want of Christian temper

[Christianity does not preclude men from taking the sword in defence of their country, when called to it by imperious necessity, and authorized by the civil magistrates: but it enjoins individuals rather to suffer patiently the persecutions with which they are assaulted, and gladly to endure the loss of all things, even of life itself, for the Gospels sake. As for taking up arms against the civil power, it is an extremity which perhaps not any thing can justify. Yet this is the very thing that Peter did; and as he did it without any express command, he was rebuked by our Lord, and told that all, who should take the sword in that manner, however they might think they were fighting the Lords battles, should perish with the sword [Note: Our Lord in his answer to Peter pointed out the various sources of his misconduct. See Mat 26:52-54.].]

2.

An ignorance of the prophetic writings

[It had been foretold that one, who had eaten bread with our Lord, should lift up his heel against him; and that, in consequence of his treachery, he should be led like a lamb to the slaughter, and be numbered with transgressors. Had Peter fully understood those prophecies he would not so rudely have contradicted our Lord on a former occasion [Note: Mat 16:22-23.], or so impetuously defended him on this; but would have submitted to the will of God, saying, The cup which his Father hath given him shall he not drink it?]

3.

A forgetfulness of our Lords character

[Often, yea, but a few minutes before, had Peter seen his Lord performing the most stupendous miracles [Note: Joh 18:5-11.]. If these had been wrought by the Fathers power, could not Christ call upon him now, and have more than seventy thousand angels sent for his defence? If Christ wrought them by his own power, could he not deliver himself out of their hands without Peters interposition? But if Christ were abandoned by his Father, and reduced to a state of impotence himself, could Peter protect him against a band of armed men? Was not his furious assault rather calculated to increase their rage, and to make them destroy Jesus and all his Disciples upon the spot? In every view his conduct was wrong; for if aid was needed, his was insufficient; and if it was not needed, it was officiously and imprudently obtruded.]

The contrast between Christs conduct and Peters will appear by considering,

II.

The remedy which our Lord applied

Jesus would give no just occasion of offence to the civil magistrate, and therefore set himself instantly to remedy the evil that had been committed
[Peter had cut off the ear of the high-priests servant, probably because he was most active and forward in apprehending our Lord. But Jesus would not suffer even that small injury to be sustained on his account: he therefore touched the wound, and restored the ear to its perfect state. What a marvellous return was this for all the indignities which this miscreant had offered him! If Jesus had chosen to work a miracle on this occasion, one would rather have expected that it should be such an one, as should make the ears of all that heard of it to tingle. But mercy was his delight; and the more unworthy the objects of his mercy were, the more did he glory in displaying the unsearchable riches of his grace Would one not at least hope that this miracle should disarm his enemies, and make them desist from their purpose? But, alas! nothing can prevail with those who are given up to judicial blindness [Note: e. g. Pharaoh was alike uninfluenced by judgments or mercies.] The manner of working the miracle was scarcely less remarkable than the miracle itself: for he not only performed it unsolicited, but even asked permission to perform it; saying to those who were binding him, Suffer ye thus far, loosen my hands for one moment, that I may exercise them in one more act of benevolence before your eyes. What astonishing meekness and condescension! Thus, while he more than recompensed the injury that Peters indiscretion had occasioned, he shewed to his enemies, that his surrender of himself was voluntary; and left to his people a most perfect pattern for their conduct when persecuted by an ungodly world.]

From this history we may learn,
1.

To guard against an indiscreet unhallowed zeal

[Zeal properly directed, is amiable and praiseworthy [Note: Gal 4:18.]: but a zeal without knowledge is most injurious to the Christian cause. Pauls conduct in his unconverted state, and the request of two of our Lords Disciples, may serve to put us on our guard against the fatal mistakes into which even good men may fall [Note: Gal 1:13 Luk 9:54.]. Let our zeal be ever tempered with love, and regulated by the Holy Scriptures; else, while it carries us too far on some occasions, it will prove, like Peters, miserably defective upon others [Note: Mar 14:71. Such persons are compared to a cake not turned, which, instead of being equally penetrated with heat, is burnt up on one side, and scarcely warmed on the other. See Hos 7:8.].]

2.

To exercise love towards our most inveterate enemies

[The Christians weapons are not to be carnal, nor must he war after the flesh. He is to turn the right cheek to him that smites him on the left, and, by rendering good for evil, to heap coals of fire on the head of his enemies. Instead of being overcome of evil, he is to overcome evil with good [Note: Rom 12:19-21.]. Christians, see if this be your conduct And remember that Christ set you an example that you should follow his steps [Note: 1Pe 2:20-23.].]

3.

To trust in Christ for the healing of the wounds which sin has made

[No sword can inflict so deep a wound as sin has made. It were a light matter if it had merely killed the body: it has inflicted a mortal wound on our souls. But Jesus can heal us; nor should any sense of unworthiness prevent our application to him. Let us go to him, and he will add us to the number of those whom he has made monuments of his almighty power and his unbounded mercy ]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

Ver. 50. See Mat 26:51 ; Mar 14:47 ; Joh 18:10 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Luk 22:50 . , etc., a certain one of them, thus vaguely referred to in all the synoptists. John names Peter. , the right ear; so in Fourth Gospel. Cf. the right hand in Luk 6:6 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

the servant. The well-known servant Malchus (Joh 18:10).

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Luk 22:50. , and) without waiting for the Lords reply to the question, put in Luk 22:49. See Luk 22:51.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 26:51-54, Mar 14:47, Joh 18:10, Joh 18:11, Rom 12:19, 2Co 10:4

Reciprocal: Job 31:31 – the men Mat 14:28 – bid

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

0

Joh 18:10 tells us it was Peter who did this.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Luk 22:50. A certain one of them. Luke too omits Peters name.

Right ear. Luke and John alone mention which ear it was.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 50

One of them; Peter.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament