Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:51
And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out [his] hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
51. one of them ] This was St Peter, named by St John, but not by the earlier Evangelists, probably from motives of prudence.
his sword ] Probably a short sword or dirk, worn in the belt.
a servant ] Rather, the servant, or rather slave; St John gives his name, Malchus. St Luke alone records the cure of Malchus.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 51. One of them which were with Jesus] This was Peter-struck a servant of the high priest’s, the servant’s name was Malchus, Joh 18:10, and smote off his ear. In Lu 22:51, it is said, Jesus touched and healed it. Here was another miracle, and striking proof of the Divinity of Christ. Peter did not cut the ear, merely, he cut it OFF, . Now to heal it, Jesus must either take up the ear and put it on again, or else create a new one – either of these was a miracle, which nothing less than unlimited power could produce. See Clarke on Joh 18:10.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Matthew relates this history shortly, but Mark much more, Mar 14:47; he saith no more than this, And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Luke also relates something of it, 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. John relates the same passage with some more particulars, Joh 18:10. Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priests servant, and cut off his right ear. The servants name was Malchus. 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? If any ask, how Christ and his disciples came to have a sword, he may be satisfied that they had two, from Luk 22:35-38, which verses being in none of the other evangelists, I have left to be spoken to in their order. The disciples seeing the officers laying hands on Christ, as was said Mat 26:50, knowing what would follow, as Luke saith, one of them (St. John tells us it was Peter) drew a sword, and smote off the right ear of one of the high priests servants. John tells us his name was Malchus. Our Saviour reproveth Peter, commanding him to put up the sword again into its sheath, and telling him,
1. That he who taketh the sword should perish with the sword. It is to be understood of private persons taking up the sword to destroy their lawful magistrates; and this lesson it teacheth all Christians. Men must have the sword given orderly into their hands, before they may use it, and that no private person can have against the supreme magistrate.
2. Secondly, (saith our Saviour), I needed not thy help to defend me. If I were to make any defence, I could
pray to my Father, and he should
give me more than twelve legions of angels; there is therefore no need of thy drawing a sword in my defence.
3. The Scripture (saith he) must be fulfilled; it was prophesied of me that I should be thus used, and those prophecies must be fulfilled. Having reproved Peter, and silenced his passion, Luke tells us, he begged leave so far as to touch his ear, and he healed it; thus doing good to those that hated him, and working a miracle in the sight of them, which (had not their hearts been hardened) might have convinced them both of his innocency and his Divine power; but they take no notice of his kindness. Now he applies himself to the multitude of his enemies.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And behold one of them which were with Jesus,…. Either one of the three that Jesus took with him whilst he was in his agony, leaving the other eight at some distance; or of the eleven, who might now be all with him: however, it is certain, Peter is the person meant; for though he is not named here, nor by Mark, nor Luke, he is by John, Joh 18:10; whose Gospel being wrote last, and many years after the rest, there was no danger like to accrue, by telling who it was that did the following action: he being now thoroughly awaked with the rest, by what Christ had said to him; and more so by the surprise of the multitude of armed men about him; and remembering his solemn protestations of abiding by his master; and seeing him just now ready to be seized, and carried away; without knowing his master’s mind, or waiting his answer to the question the other disciples put,
stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. It seems he had a sword by his side, upon what account is not certain; this he drew, and struck at a servant of the high priest’s, who might show great malignity against Christ, and was foremost, and most busy in apprehending him. The blow was levelled at his head, and with an intention, no doubt, to have, cleaved him down, but sloping on one side took off his ear. The servant’s name was Malchus, as John says; and it was his right ear that was cut off, as both he and Luke relate, Joh 18:10.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
One of them that were with Jesus ( ). Like the other Synoptics Matthew conceals the name of Peter, probably for prudential reasons as he was still living before A.D. 68. John writing at the end of the century mentions Peter’s name (Joh 18:10). The sword or knife was one of the two that the disciples had (Lu 22:38). Bruce suggests that it was a large knife used in connexion with the paschal feast. Evidently Peter aimed to cut off the man’s head, not his ear ( is diminutive in form, but not in sense, as often in the Koine). He may have been the leader of the band. His name, Malchus, is also given by John (Joh 18:10) because Peter was then dead and in no danger.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The servant [ ] . The article marks the special servant; the body – servant.
Ear [] . A diminutive in form but not in sense; according to a Greek popular usage which expressed parts of the body by diminutives; as rJinia, the nostrils; ojmmation, the eye; sarkion, the body. Peter aimed his blow at the servant ‘s head, but missed.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
Mat 26:51
. And, lo, one of those who were with Jesus. Luke says, that all the disciples made an agreement together to fight for their Master. Hence it is again evident, that we are much more courageous and ready for fighting than for bearing the cross; and, therefore, we ought always to deliberate wisely what the Lord commands, and what he requires from every one of us, lest the fervor of our zeal exceed the bounds of reason and moderation. When the disciples asked Christ, Shall we strike with the sword? they did so, not with the intention of obeying his injunction; but by these words they declared that they were prepared and ready to repel the violence of enemies. And, indeed, Peter did not wait till he was commanded or permitted to strike, but inconsiderately proceeded to unlawful violence. It appears, at first view, to be praiseworthy valor in the disciples, that, forgetting their own weakness, though they are unable to make resistance, they do not hesitate to present their bodies before their Master, and to encounter certain death; for they choose rather to perish with the Lord than to survive and look on while he is oppressed. But as they improperly attempt more than the calling of God commands or permits, their rashness is justly condemned; and therefore let us learn, that in order that our obedience may be acceptable to the Lord, we must depend on his will, so that no man shall move a finger, except so far as God commands. One reason ought, above all, to lead us to be zealous in cultivating this modesty; which is, that instead of a proper and well-regulated zeal, confused irregularity for the most part reigns in us.
Peter’s name is not mentioned here by the Evangelists; but John (Joh 18:10) assures us—and from what occurs shortly afterwards in the narrative it is evident — that it was Peter who is here described, though the name is suppressed. Yet Luke enables us easily to infer that there were others also who took part in the same outrage; for Christ does not speak to one person only, but says to all alike, Permit (217) it to be thus far.
(217) Our Author’s argument is obviously founded on the circumstance, that the verb ἐα̑τε, permit, is in the plural number. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(51) One of them which were with Jesus.It is remarkable that, though all four Gospels record the fact, St. John alone (Joh. 18:10-11) records the names both of the disciple who struck the blow (Peter) and of the servant whom he attacked. The reticence of the first three Gospels in this instance, as in that of the woman with the box of ointment, must have been obviously intentional; but it is not easy to conjecture its motive.
Drew his sword.We learn from Luk. 22:33 that there were but two swords in the whole company of the twelve. One of these naturally was in Peters possession, as being the foremost of the whole band.
A servant of the high priests.St. John (Joh. 18:11) with the precision characteristic of his narrative, especially in this part of the Gospel history, gives the servants name as Malchus, and states that it was the right ear that was cut off. He came, it would seem, not as one of the officers of the Temple, but as the personal slave of Caiaphas. Three of the four Gospels use the diminutive form of the Greek for ear, St. Luke only (Luk. 22:50) giving the primitive word. It is doubtful, however, whether the former was used with any special significance. St. Luke also (Luk. 22:51) alone records the fact that our Lord touched and healed the wound thus made.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
51. One drew his sword Two swords, as appears by Luk 22:38, were in possession of the disciples, and perhaps two disciples proposed to resist, as appears probable by Luk 22:49. Our Lord is being bound and gives no reply. But one of them, Peter, draws his unbidden sword. The Greek word for sword here used is , machaira, and signifies a knife, which was used either as a weapon, as a slaughter-knife, or a sacrificial knife for slaying and dividing the victim. The two knives used by the two disciples in preparing the passover lamb were, probably, the swords in possession on the present occasion. A servant of the high priest John tells us his name was Malchus. Jesus requests the officers to pause until he could remedy the matter, and he heals the ear of Malchus and utters the following rebuke.
Not one step can the multitude stir while our Lord is engaged in this work and uttering these words. They obey their Lord, unconscious of his supremacy or the secret of their own obedience. And why did not they cease to bind him when they saw his miracles? We answer, the very fact that they found themselves able to bind him induced them to proceed.
They doubtless paused in surprise at his deed. Yet, since he was so weak as to submit and to be bound, it was plain, (so they inferred,) that he was a mortal and a malefactor. If he is supernatural, why does he not break our bands and drive us from his presence and become King Messiah? Our Lord answers in the following verses. How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled?
Smote off his ear He meant doubtless to smite off his head; but perhaps the same power that healed, prevented the true aim of the blow.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.’
But things did not go quite so smoothly as they had hoped, for one of Jesus’ disciples drew a sword, probably with the intention of getting Jesus momentarily released. (He hardly expected to defeat the whole crowd). He probably had the wild hope that they could then smuggle Jesus away in the dark, while he and one or two others (at least one other had a sword – Luk 22:38) held the crowd back. It was typical of the impetuosity of Peter, so that we are not surprised elsewhere to be told that it was him (Joh 18:10). It is a reminder that he was actually ready to die for Jesus on the impulse. Where he failed was when the circumstances had altered. Not all warriors have the nerve of good spies.
‘And drew his sword.’ We are reminded of the man whom Joshua met who had a drawn sword in his hand (Jos 5:13). That too had been in anticipation of the establishment of God’s Kingly Rule. Thus when Jesus tells His disciple to put up his sword He is stressing that this time the Kingly Rule of Heaven is not to come in by physical means. It is a Kingly Rule of a different kind. On the other hand we must nor forget that one day He Himself will come with a sword, the sword of His powerful word of judgment (Rev 19:15; Rev 19:21).
‘And smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.’ How skilled a swordsman Peter was we cannot be certain, although it is doubtful if he would carry a sword unless he felt that he could use it. But the night was dark, and the target may well not have stood still. Thus the actual, cutting off of the ear was probably accidental (fortunately for the High Priest’s slave). We note that Matthew is only interested in the fact, for he does not mention the healing. He probably therefore has in mind that the Chief Priests were deaf to the words of Jesus, so that this was poetic justice, or he may even have had the thought that thereby the High Priest was defiled by proxy (mutilation would have rendered him incapable of continuing to act. Perhaps there is also a hint of the fact that in the not too distant future the High Priesthood will cease.
Some have questioned this on the grounds that if he had done this the disciple would also have been arrested, and in fact perhaps he would have been if Jesus had not instantly acted, although even that is doubtful. They wanted the bigger fish. On the other hand men in those days were used to violence, and a slave’ ear meant little, while it was the arrest of Jesus that was important. Thus once Jesus had obliterated the evidence, those who had seen it probably shrugged it off, or even began to doubt whether they had actually seem it happen, for it was all over in a flash. And there was by then no evidence of a case to answer. (It would have done Jesus’ case no harm at all if they had said, ‘this disciple cut this man’s ear off, and Jesus healed it’. The problem was that they would have been laughed out of court).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Resistance offered by Peter:
v. 51. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
v. 52. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
v. 53. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels?
v. 54. But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Due to a misunderstanding of Christ’s words concerning the necessity of being effectively prepared against all enemies, Luk 22:36-38, the disciples had provided two swords. In the excitement of the moment, a carnal anger which can very well be explained, took hold of one of the disciples, Simon Peter. Drawing the sword which he had taken with him, he put the full force of his indignation into his blow, succeeding so well that he cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. That was carnal zeal, without a proper weighing of the circumstances, without considering the possible evil results for the Lord. Such fleshly haste is altogether out of place in the service of the Master. The reproof of Jesus is thus well deserved. Put away the sword into its proper place. The reason for the order: Draw the sword, perish with the sword. Unless one has the duty of using the sword, as a member of the government or by the command of the government in a matter which is not sinful, he has no business to make use of arms. The followers of Christ shall not carry on their work with force of arms, but by the Word, in the power of the Holy Ghost. Note also: By implication, there is the inference that the government shall make use of her rights and duties in carrying the sword for the punishment of evildoers. “Where worldly government lets the sword play against sin and offense, that means to serve God. For God has commanded it, since He does not want to let sin and offense go unpunished. That is a special division which God makes among men that He gives the sword into the hands of a few, to hinder the evil and to protect the subjects.”
Jesus adduces another reason for objecting to the use of the sword at this time. If He had chosen not to take the way of suffering which was now opening before Him, He might have adopted a far easier and more effective way of disposing of His enemies. He might have asked His heavenly Father for the assistance of more than twelve legions of angels, or more than twelve thousand strong spirits of light, for whom it would have been an easy matter to vanquish the band here assembled. But what Christ is principally concerned about is the fulfillment of the Scriptures, of which He had said that they could not be broken, upon which thousands of the believers of the Old Testament had placed their trust, the hope of the Messiah that would earn a full and complete redemption for the whole world. “That is what Christ says: It must be thus that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. As though He would say: I might easily have begun this matter differently. However, do not ask any further, but believe the Scriptures. If thou wilt not believe or follow the Scriptures, then leave it. Thus we say also to our wise people: We invent no new doctrine, preach no different faith than that of which Scriptures speak. And if we have taught and preached according to Scripture, we have done our share, and let the others remain wise; but we remain with the small crew which believes and follows Scriptures.”
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 26:51-53. And behold, one of themdrew his sword None of the evangelists but John (Joh 18:10.) mentions the name of the high-priest’s servant on this occasion, which perhaps the others omitted, lest it should expose them to any prosecution. But John, writing long after our Saviour’s death, needed no such precaution. Jansenius justly observes, that it was a remarkable instance of the power of Christ over the spirits of men, that they so far obeyed his word, as not to seize Peter when he had cut off the ear of Malchus, or John while he stood by the cross, though they must know them to have been of the number of his most intimate associates. One would have thought, as Bishop Hall remarks, that Peter should rather have struck Judas; but the traitor perhaps on giving the signal had mingled with the crowd; or Peter might not understand the treacherous design of his kiss; or seeing Malchus more eager than the rest in his attack on Christ, he might postpone all other resentments, to indulgethe present sally of his indignation. Though this might seem a courageous action, it was really very imprudent; and had not Christ, by some secret influence, overawed their spirits, it is very probable that not only Peter, but the rest of the apostles, might have been cut to pieces. Accordinglyour Saviour ordered him to sheath his sword, telling him that his unseasonable and imprudent offence might prove the occasion of his destruction; or rather as Grotius interprets it, that there was no need of fighting in his defence, because God would punish the Jews for putting him to death; see Rev 13:10 where this very expression is used, in predicting the destruction of the persecutors of true Christians. Our Lord told him further, that it implied both a distrust of the divine providence, and also a gross ignorance of the Scriptures, Mat 26:53-54. The legion was a Roman military term, and as the band which now surrounded them was a Roman cohort, our Lord might make use of this term by way of contrast, to shew what an inconsiderable thing the cohort was, in comparison of the force that he could summon to his assistance;more than twelve legions, not of soldiers) but of angels,instead of twelve deserting timorous disciples. How dreadfully irresistible would such an army of angels have been, when one of the celestial spirits was able to destroy an hundred and eighty-five thousand Assyrians in one night. See 2Ki 19:35 and the note on Mat 26:56.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 26:51 . It is strange that the Synoptists have not mentioned the name of Peter here (Joh 18:10 , where the name of the high priest’s servant is also given). It may be that, with a view to prevent the apostle from getting into trouble with the authorities, his name was suppressed from the very first, and that, accordingly, the incident came to be incorporated in the primitive gospel traditions without any names being mentioned, it having been reserved for John ultimately to supply this omission.
] his ear (see on Mat 8:3 ). On , see Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 211. He missed the head at which the stroke was aimed .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
Ver. 51. One of them which were with Jesus ] This was Peter, who asked leave to strike, but stayed not till he had it, out of a preposterous zeal to his Master, and because he would be a man of his word. A wonderful work of God it was surely, that hereupon he was not hewn in a hundred pieces by the barbarous soldiers. Well might the Psalmist say, “He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto God the Lord belong the issues from death,” Psa 68:20 ; “My times are in thine hand,” Psa 31:15 . But this stout swordsman could not be found, when his Master was, after this, apprehended and arraigned. Plato hath observed, Peritissimi lanistae in ludo, sunt inertissimi in belle, the most skilful fencers are the most cowardly soldiers.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
51. ] The (or of Luke) was Peter ; Joh 18:10 . Why he was not mentioned, is idle to enquire: one supposition only must be avoided that there is any purpose in the omission. It is absurd to suppose that the mention of his name in a book current only among Christians, many years after the fact, could lead to his apprehension, which did not take place at the time , although he was recognized as the striker in the palace of the High-priest, Joh 18:26 . The real reason of the non-apprehension was, that the servant was healed by the Lord.
This is the first opposition to ‘Thy will be done.’ Luke expresses it, that they saw what would happen and asked, ‘Lord, shall we smite with the sword?’ Then, while the other (for there were but two swords in the company) was waiting for the reply, the rash Peter, in the very spirit of ch. Mat 16:22 , smote with the sword the weapon of the flesh: an outbreak of the natural man no less noticeable than that more-noticed one which followed before morning. All four Evangelists agree in this account. Luke and John are most exact the latter giving the name of the slave, Malchus.
The aim was a deadly one, and Peter narrowly escaped being one . From Luk 22:51 , we learn that our Lord said (on the meaning of which see note there), touched the ear and healed it.
] “Plerisque corporis partibus vulgaris dialectus formam deminutivam tribuit, , Aristot. Physiogn. iii. 57, iii. 46, , , (corpus).” Lobeck on Phryn. p. 211, note.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:51-54 . Blood drawn . , introducing a second scene connected with the apprehension ( cf. Mat 26:47 ); the use of a weapon by one of Christ’s disciples. A quite likely occurrence if any of them happened to have weapons in their hands, though we may wonder at that. It might be a large knife used in connection with the Paschal feast. Who used the weapon is not said by the Synop. Did they know? The article before might suggest that the whole party were armed, each disciple having his sword. The fear that they might be explains the largeness of the band following Judas.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 26:51-54
51And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”
Mat 26:51 From the parallel in Joh 18:10 and Luk 22:50-51, we know that this was Peter and the servant was Malchus. The disciples had previously been admonished to buy swords (cf. Luk 22:36-38), but obviously, they had misunderstood Jesus’ true meaning concerning this issue. It must be said on Peter’s behalf that he was fully willing to die for his Lord at this point. In the face of great odds, he drew one of two swords. But, again, the inappropriateness and impulsiveness of his actions characterized his personality.
Mat 26:52 “all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” This was a cultural proverb (cf. Rev 13:10). It was not meant to be taken as a literal truth in every individual example, but a characteristic truth that is obvious in itself. This is also like the biblical book of Proverbs. It may relate to the fact that Jesus was being arrested as a common criminal. His disciples then are also seen as bandits and robbers, those who carry swords! See Special Topic: Apollumi at Mat 2:13.
Mat 26:53 Jesus knew who He was (cf. Joh 13:1). He knew the resources of His Father, but now He was resolved to die (cf. Joh 10:17-18)!
“more than twelve legions of angels” A Roman legion had 6,000 men, but the term was also an idiom for several thousand.
see SPECIAL TOPIC: THE NUMBER TWELVE at Mat 14:20.
Mat 26:54; Mat 26:56 “How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled” If this phrase in Mat 26:54 relates to the same phrase in Mat 26:56, then this is a general statement that everything has happened according to a predetermined divine plan (cf. Luk 22:22; Act 2:23; Act 3:18; Act 4:28). We know that John accompanied Jesus through the trials and the crucifixion and that Peter followed at a distance (cf. Mat 26:58). Therefore, this is a general reference going back to Isa 53:6. Jesus knew that events were proceeding just as they should to fulfill the Father’s purpose.
It is possible that this refers to the sufferings Jesus had foretold the disciples several times (first in Mat 16:21-28), involving a suffering, rejected Messiah (i.e., Gen 3:15; Psalms 22; Isaiah 53; Zechariah 9; Zechariah 12).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
sword. See Luk 22:36.
a servant = the bondservant; marking a special body-servant of the high priest, by name “Malchus” (Joh 18:10).
his ear = the lobe of his ear.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
51.] The (or of Luke) was Peter;-Joh 18:10. Why he was not mentioned, is idle to enquire: one supposition only must be avoided-that there is any purpose in the omission. It is absurd to suppose that the mention of his name in a book current only among Christians, many years after the fact, could lead to his apprehension, which did not take place at the time, although he was recognized as the striker in the palace of the High-priest, Joh 18:26. The real reason of the non-apprehension was, that the servant was healed by the Lord.
This is the first opposition to Thy will be done. Luke expresses it, that they saw what would happen-and asked, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? Then, while the other (for there were but two swords in the company) was waiting for the reply, the rash Peter, in the very spirit of ch. Mat 16:22, smote with the sword-the weapon of the flesh:-an outbreak of the natural man no less noticeable than that more-noticed one which followed before morning. All four Evangelists agree in this account. Luke and John are most exact-the latter giving the name of the slave,-Malchus.
The aim was a deadly one, and Peter narrowly escaped being one . From Luk 22:51, we learn that our Lord said (on the meaning of which see note there), touched the ear and healed it.
] Plerisque corporis partibus vulgaris dialectus formam deminutivam tribuit, , Aristot. Physiogn. iii. 57, iii. 46, , , (corpus). Lobeck on Phryn. p. 211, note.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:51. , one) St Matthew does not mention Peter by name. He might have had more reasons than one for his silence. Danger might possibly threaten Peter from the unbelieving Jews.- , the slave) He perhaps acted more violently than the rest by his masters desire.- , his ear) with a most dangerous stroke, He had aimed at the shoulder of the principal aggressor.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Mat 26:35, Mar 14:47, Luk 9:55, Luk 22:36-38, Luk 22:49-51, Joh 18:10, Joh 18:11, Joh 18:36, 2Co 10:4
Reciprocal: Mat 16:22 – began Mat 26:70 – General Luk 22:50 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:51
Joh 18:10 tells us it was Peter who made this attack on the servant.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 26:51. One of them. Peter, as was well known (Joh 18:26), but only John gives the name.
Drew his sword. According to Luke (Luk 22:49) the question was first asked: Shall we smite with the sword? Peter did not wait for the answer. They had two swords (Luk 22:38), whoever had the other one was not so rash.
The servant of the high-priest. Named Malchus; Joh 18:10.
His ear. The right ear(Luke and John). Peter was no swordsman, for he missed his blow. In any case carnal weapons used in Christs cause deprive His opponents of ears, i.e., of willingness to listen to the truth. Christs grace may restore this willingness, as it healed this ear. The healing is mentioned by Luke (the physician) only. The double effect of Peters rashness, damage to Malchus and danger to himself, were thus removed.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The rude multitude laying hands upon Christ, the disciples, who had remitted their watch, do resume their courage, and are willing to rescue their Master if they can; particularly Peter draws his sword, and cuts off the ear of Malchus, one of the forwardest to lay hold on Jesus.
Observe here St. Peter’s zeal and sincere love for his Lord and Master: it was in great sincerity spoken, Though I die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. But why did not Peter draw his sword upon Judas, rather than Malchus? Perhaps because though Judas was more faulty, yet Malchus was more forward to arrest and carry off our Saviour. How doth a pious breast swell with indignation at the sight of any open affront offered unto Christ!
Observe here, That though St. Peter’s heart was sincere, yet his hand was rash: good intentions are no warrant for irregular actions; and accordingly Christ, who accepted his affection, reproves him for the action: put up thy sword; for they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword.
Learn hence, That Christ will thank no man to fight for him wihtout 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. To a lawful power lawfully executed, there must be yielded due obedience.
Observe lastly, Our Lord’s absolute refusal to be rescued out of his enemies’ hands, with the reason of it: “Did I incline to be rescued by force, (as if our Lord had said,) I could demand all the troops of angels in heaven to show themselves upon that occasion, but how can this stand with the decree of my Father, with the declaration of the scripture, with the demonstration of my mercy, and with the salvation of miserable mankind?”
Learn thence, That Christ was infinitely more concerned for the salvation of lost sinners, than for his own death and sufferings; more concerned for our eternal salvation, than for his own temporal preservation. Had he been rescued by the power of angels, we had fallen a prey into the paw of devils.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Verse 51
One of them; Peter. (John 18:10.) It is remarkable that any of the disciples of Jesus should go armed, though it was not an uncommon practice among the Jews in their day. Robbers infested the passes in the neighborhood of Jerusalem.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
John identified the aggressor as Peter and the wounded man as Malchus (Joh 18:10). Some have taken the description of this man as "the slave of the high priest" as indicating that he may have been the leader of the soldiers. [Note: E.g., France, The Gospel . . ., p. 1013.] Perhaps the other evangelists did not record Peter and Malchus’ names to focus attention on Jesus. His control of this situation, even though He was the one being arrested, is an obvious emphasis of Matthew’s. Peter’s response was predictable in view of his earlier protestations (Mat 26:33-35). Peter’s courage was admirable if misdirected. He rushed in to defend Jesus. However, Jesus’ prohibition of violence and His submission to arrest made Peter look foolish. Evidently the disciples had brought two swords with them in view of Jesus’ predictions (Luk 22:38). Probably Judas’ guards did not restrain Peter because Jesus did.
"Peter had argued with the Word, denied the Word, and disobeyed the Word (when he went to sleep). Now he ran ahead of the Word." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:98.]
Jesus’ words to Peter in Mat 26:52 showed that violence in defense of Himself was not proper. Jesus did not mean that violence in any situation is wrong. [Note: See Hagner, Matthew 14-28, p. 791.] Jesus had at His disposal more than six thousand angels to assist Him and each of His 11 faithful disciples (Mat 26:53). He did not need Peter’s help.
"It is characteristic of this gospel that the authority and kingly majesty of Jesus should be suggested at a moment when every hope seemed to have perished." [Note: Carr, p. 295.]
It was necessary for Jesus to experience arrest to fulfill many Scriptures, all that pertained to His death and resurrection. Jesus again voiced His commitment to the Father’s will (Mat 26:54; cf. Mat 26:39; Mat 26:42).