XXX. WHOSE EAR DID PETER CUT?

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.”

15.—“And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high-priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high-priest.

16.—“But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high-priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.”

In my present argument, it will be needful to show, in the first instance, that “the disciple who was known unto the high-priest,” mentioned in ver. 15, was probably the Evangelist himself. This I conclude from three considerations:—

1. From the testimony of the fathers, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Jerome [See Lardner’s History of the Apostles and Evangelists, ch. ix.] .

2. From the circumstance that St. John often unquestionably speaks of himself in the third person in a similar manner. Thus, chap. 20:2, “Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to rite other disciple whom Jesus loved;” and yet. 3. “Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple.” The like phrase is repeated several times in the same chapter and elsewhere.

3. Moreover, it may be thought, as Bishop Middleton has argued, that St. John has a distinctive claim to the title of “the other disciple” (o alloV maqhthV, not “another,” as our version has it), where St. Peter is the colleague: for that a closer relation subsisted between Peter and John than between any other of the disciples. They constantly act together. Peter and John are sent to prepare the last Passover (Luke 22:8). Peter and John run together to the sepulchre. John apprizes Peter that the stranger at the sea of Tiberias is Jesus (John 21:7). Peter is anxious to learn of Jesus what is to become of John (ver. 21). After the ascension they are associated together in all the early history of the Acts of the Apostles.

4. The narrative of the motions of “that disciple who was known unto the high-priest,” his coming out and going in, is so express and circumstantial, that it bears every appearance of having been written by the party himself. Nor in fact do any other of the Evangelists mention a syllable about “that other disciple;” they tell us, indeed, that Peter did enter the high-priest’s house, but they take no notice of the particulars of his admission, nor how it was effected, nor of any obstacles thrown in the way.

For these reasons, I understand the disciple known unto the high-priest to have been St. John. My argument now stands thus:—The assault committed by Peter is mentioned by all the Evangelists, but the name of the servant is given by St. John only. How does this happen? Most naturally: for it seems that by some chance or other St. John as known not only unto the high-priest, but also to his household—that the servants were acquainted with him, and he with them, since he was permitted to enter into the high-priest’s house, whilst Peter was shut out, and no sooner did he “speak unto her that kept the door,” than Peter was admitted. So again, in further proof of the same thing, when another of the servants charges Peter with being one of Christ’s disciples, St. John adds a circumstance peculiar to himself, and marking his knowledge of the family, that “it was his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off.”

These facts, I conceive, show that St. John (on the supposition that St. John and “the other disciple” are one and the same) was personally acquainted with the servants of the high-priest. How natural, therefore, was it, that in mentioning such an incident as Peter’s attack upon one of those servants, he should mention the man by name, and the “servant’s name was Malchus;” whilst the other Evangelists, to whom the sufferer was an individual in whom they took no extraordinary interest, were satisfied with a general designation of him, as “one of the servants of the high-priest.”

This incident also, in some degree, though not in the same degree perhaps as certain others which have been mentioned, supports the miracle which ensues. For if the argument shows that the Evangelists are uttering the truth when they say that such an event occurred as the blow with the sword—if it shows that there actually was such a blow struck—then is there not additional ground for believing that they continue to tell the truth, when they say in the same passage that the effects of the blow were miraculously removed, and that the ear was healed?

I am aware that there are those who argue for the superior rank and station of St. John, from his being known unto the high-priest; and who may, therefore, think him degraded by this implied familiarity with his servants. Suffice it however to say,—that as, on the one hand, to be known to the high-priest does not determine that he was his equal, so, on the other, to be known to his servants does not determine that he was not their superior; furthermore, that the relation in which servants stood towards their betters was, in ancient times, one of much less distance than at present; and, lastly, that the Scriptures themselves lay no claim to dignity of birth for this Apostle, when they represent of him and of St. Peter (Acts 4:13), that Annas and the elders, after hearing their defence, “perceived them to be unlearned and ignorant men.”