Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Unlike the synoptics, John notes the name of the man whose ear was cut off during Jesus' arrest.

John 18:10 - Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

Is this just one of those details that gets added to a story over time as it grows? Or is there some significance/irony that John intends his readers to see?

share|improve this question
2  
Perhaps he knew him, which may say something about who the author is. :) – Simply a Christian Jun 1 '13 at 17:08
4  
Later in the same chapter we read that the relative of Malchus had been an eyewitness of Peter's act of violence (John 18:24-26), and therefore was credible to accuse him as a bona-fide disciple of Jesus. – Joseph Jun 1 '13 at 17:51

I have read a few sermons that I believe may be a sound reason as to why Malchus name was mentioned in the book of John. I believe that the 4 Gospels of the New Testament correlate to the depth of our relationship with Christ. Our spiritual walk, with John being the level in which we walk in the love and revelation that God desires we walk in. With the story of Malchus, he was healed by our Lord and Savior Jesus. He is considered the last miraculous healing act that Jesus performed before He was crucified. However, where else in the bible do you read of this man? Those healed by Jesus shared their testimony (outside of the nine leapers who took off and only one worshiped and praised the Lord for His healing). I think that Malchus was no different from the 9 lepers. He received the healing yet he felt no obligation, no desire to be openly grateful for what the Lord did for him. Perhaps these persons are representative of the world we live in today: the return of Christ is drawing near, yet there is an insensitivity to the things of God. Being blessed yet being ungrateful in action to the Lord for what He has done. This is prevalent in the world today. Sure there have always been those who live to experience amazing miracles yet do not honor the Lord with a heart of praise and worship. As one of the articles described, there is no mention of Malchus anywhere else in the bible, which makes it reasonable to conclude that he lived the remainder of his life in silence-knowing what Jesus did for him, yet choosing his way over God's eternal plan for mankind.

What a sad way to live. Living a life that is so consumed with self to deny the miracle working power of Jesus. His could have been one of the greatest testimonies resounding in the days of the formation of Christians. Just like the 9 lepers who also left without recognizing Who blessed them with healing. Self consumed and preoccupied. Like the world we live in now. And the last days.

share|improve this answer
    
Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange! ☺ Thank you for taking the time to share your insights. Please keep in mind that this is not a religious site. Be sure to check out what makes us different from other sites that study the Bible. – Paul Vargas Apr 11 at 4:51

Notice that John mentions that it is the right ear, and that the slave's name was Malchus. Very specific. But why would he be so specific and yet not mention the healing of Malchus' ear ? I believe John did this entirely on purpose. Consider: if John mentions the identity and exact ear of Malchus,but goes on to report this miracle, would it carry the same weight as if people who knew Malchus, or even the high priest, saw Malchus and asked about his ear ? Malchus would be in a position to tell any inquiring that his ear indeed had been cut but was healed. John's method puts the burden of testimony on more politically credible people,as John knew that his own words would be doubted in the light of Jesus' arrest.

share|improve this answer
    
Welcome to Stack Exchange, we are glad you are here. Please consider registering an account to fully take advantage of what this site has to offer. Also, be sure to check out the site tour and read up on how this site is a little different than other sites around the web. This is not a comment on the quality of your answer, but rather a standard welcome message. – ThaddeusB Oct 18 '15 at 22:15

Jesus says in John 18:36,

My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.

But there's a problem with that statement. Peter has been fighting. And he attacked Malchus, a man who's name means king or kingdom.

Only John of the four gospel writers makes the connection between the one who drew the sword and Peter. In Mark, as well Matthew and Luke, cutting off the ear is symbolic of a lack of hearing and understanding (Mark 7:35, 8:18). In John it certainly has this connotation as John proceeds to interweave Jesus' bold confession with Peter's three denials.

Peter's attack is a symbolic depiction of Peter's fundamental misunderstanding of Jesus' kingship and kingdom.

This interpretation does not rule out Malchus from being a real historic human being that John knew. It only explains why he would have added this detail for his audience.

share|improve this answer
2  
Also note John 18:24-26, as Joseph pointed out above. – Dan Jun 2 '13 at 6:13
    
@GoneQuiet It's a Hebrew/Aramaic name, not Greek. And very common in first century Israel. I think the meaning and its context is evidence that John knew at least a little Hebrew/Aramaic and that at least some in his audience did as well. – Matthew Miller Jun 2 '13 at 6:35
    
@DanO'Day I'm not sure what I'm missing. I think supplying the name of the servant and telling us that the man's relative witnessed Peter hack off the man's ear are very different issues. The later gives context to the relative identifying Peter while the former is apparently historical trivia apart from the meaning of Machus' name. – Matthew Miller Jun 2 '13 at 6:43
    
@GoneQuiet This might help. studylight.org/dic/hdn/view.cgi?n=1611 – Matthew Miller Jun 3 '13 at 6:01

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.