2

In Matthew 26:51-54, Mark 14:47-49, Luke 22:50-51, John 18:10 the bible tells how Simon Peter did cutoff the servant Malchus right ear with his sword, and in Luke 22:51 Jesus healed the servant's ear.

he [Jesus] touched his ear, and healed him

Question:

Did Jesus reattach the ear, i.e. picked up the ear from the ground (speculating) and rejoined the ear to his head?

Or, did Jesus touch the man's "residual" ear on his head and it grew back?

Or something else?

  • 1
    If the text doesn't give any more information than that, how do you expect someone to answer? – curiousdannii Nov 6 '15 at 14:28
  • Perhaps the better question is why the healing is not in all four accounts. – Revelation Lad Nov 6 '15 at 23:21
1

It is impossible to answer this question beyond giving a baseless opinion. We have exactly what is in the text and nothing more.

Even if we had a tradition to refer to in this matter, it would be nothing more than that - a tradition - and really have no more weight than the opinion of anyone here, because of a lack of information from the text.

One thing that must be clear is this: the exact method of the healing didn't seem important to the writer. Speculating might be interesting but it can never be authoritative or conclusive.

  • 1
    This is a fair answer to a "curios" question. I've seen both views presented by some, but had a hard time figuring out which one is more correct. Thus, in short it does not matter, although I wished there was more... – Barnstokkr Nov 9 '15 at 12:50
-1

Mark is the earliest account of Jesus' arrest and therefore the most reliable. Interestingly, he doesn't mention anything about Jesus healing Malchus' ear. Even more interesting, is the fact that Jesus doesn't rebuke Peter in the Markan account. So the most logical explanation is that Jesus didn't heal Malachus' ear, and since he didn't heal it, it didn't regrow.

This part of the story was edited to transform Jesus from a Zealot, who is utterly shocked he's being arrested, to a nice guy who heals his enemies.

  1. See "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth"
  • 1
    Mark is the earliest account of Jesus' arrest and therefore the most reliable Uh.. why? – curiousdannii Nov 6 '15 at 14:28
  • Because Mark paints the picture of Jesus as an itinerant preacher who people thought was merely a prophet. Things get more ridiculous after Mark. In Matthew he his miraculously born of a virgin, which is missing in Mark. By the time we get to the gospel of John, Jesus is God himself. After Mark, details were added to Jesus' story to make him more divine. – brewpixels Nov 7 '15 at 0:51
  • Wow. A lot of assumptions here and opinion expressed as fact. Not really any kind of actual answer. – Daniel Stowers Nov 13 '15 at 1:00

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