← All entriesmiracle

Healing the ear of Malchus

Luke 22:49–51; John 18:10–11 · Passion week in Jerusalem

Scripture

Luke 22:49–51

hen they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? 50And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. 51And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

King James Version · public domain

Lluka 22:49–51

dhe ata që ishinë rreth ati kur panë, se ç’dotë bënej, i thanë, Zot, t’u bjemë me thikë? 50Edhe një nga ata i ra shërbëtorit të kryepriftit, edhe i preu veshn’ e djathtë. 51Po Jisuj upërgjeq e tha, Ler-e-ni gjer këtu; edhe zuri veshn’ e ati, edhe e shëroj.

Kristoforidhi, Dhiata e Re Toskërisht 1879 · zotërim publik

Summary

At the very moment of His arrest, Christ heals the ear of the servant whom Peter has struck. His last recorded miracle before the Cross is an act of mercy toward an enemy, worked on a man who has come out to seize Him. John alone gives the names: it is Peter who draws the sword, and Malchus, a servant of the high priest, whose right ear is cut off. The Fathers note that the same hand which had healed the sick now restores even the flesh wounded in His own defense, so that no charge of harm could be laid against His disciples.

The Fathers also draw the lesson against Peter's untimely zeal. His love was real, but it was zeal without knowledge, and Christ corrects it: "all who take the sword will perish by the sword." The Gospel is not to be advanced by violence, and the Lord will not be defended by a blow. Chrysostom presses the gentleness with which Christ goes to His Passion, healing the very man who came to arrest Him and forbidding His own to strike, that He might teach His disciples to bless those who curse and to bear wrong rather than return it.

The tradition reads the miracle also as a sign that the Passion is wholly voluntary. He who could restore a severed ear in an instant surrenders Himself by His own choice; the chains hold Him only because He consents. As Cyril of Alexandria stresses, the divine power is present and unbroken, yet it restrains itself, so that the Cross may be undergone freely for our sake. In John this is sealed by the word to Peter, "shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?"

In their own words

But Jesus here also worketh a miracle, both showing that we ought to do good to those who do evil to us, and revealing His own power. He therefore restored the servant's ear, and said to Peter, that "All they that take the sword shall perish by the sword"

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, Homily LXXXIII, section 2 (NPNF1 Vol. 14)

The Healing of Malchus's Ear (Luke 22:50–51; John 18:10–11)

Public-Domain Patristic Commentary

At the arrest in the garden, when the band came out against Jesus, one of those with him drew a sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. All four Gospels record the blow, but each adds something the others omit. Luke alone records the healing: "And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him." John alone names the two men: "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." And John alone gives the word about the cup: "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?" Matthew records the wider rebuke, "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

This is the last miracle before the Passion, and the only healing the Lord works upon an enemy who has come to seize him. The Fathers read Peter's act as fervent but misguided zeal, rebuked and restrained; the sword put up as the renunciation of violence; the cup as the Passion freely accepted from the Father's hand; and the healing as the sign at once of Christ's power, for he who could mend a severed ear could surely have escaped, and of his mercy, for he heals the very man who came against him. Augustine adds a further reading, that the ear cut off and restored figures the old hearing of the letter set aside and a new hearing in the Spirit. Gathered below are four Fathers, two from the East and two from the West, each quoted verbatim from a public-domain translation, drawn from their comments on the several Gospel accounts.

St. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407)

From his Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew (Homily 84, on Matthew 26:51–54), NPNF translation. Public domain.

On the swords, Peter's rebuke, and the miracle of the healing:

But whence were the swords there? They had come forth from the supper, and from the table. It was likely also there should be swords because of the lamb ... Wherefore also Peter is rebuked for using it, and with a severe threat. For he was resisting the servant who came, warmly indeed, yet not defending himself, but doing this in behalf of his Master. Christ however suffered not any harm to ensue. For He healed him, and showed forth a great miracle, enough to indicate at once both His forbearance and His power, and the affection and meekness of His disciple.

On the two comforts Christ gave by his words:

And by these two things, He comforted them, both by the punishment of them that are plotting against Him, For all they, He says, that take the sword shall perish with the sword; and by His not undergoing these things against His will, For I can pray, He says, to my Father.

On his care for his enemies to the very last hour:

See how even up to the last hour, and in the very act of being betrayed, He did all things for their amendment, healing, prophesying, threatening.

St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444)

Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, Sermon CXLVIII (on Luke 22:47–53) Source: trans. R. Payne Smith, 1859. Public domain. Full text: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_14_sermons_146_156.htm

On the lesson the disciples' drawn swords were meant to teach about Christian zeal:

And herein He has given us also a pattern of the manner in which we must hold fast by our love to Him, and of the extent to which the burning zeal of our piety may proceed. For He would not have us use swords wherewith to resist our enemies, but rather employing love and prudence, we so must mightily prevail over those who oppose us.

On the healing of the ear as a sign of Christ's own dignity, granted even to those come to seize Him:

And so then the Saviour moderates the unmeasured heat of the holy apostles: and by preventing the example of such an act, declares that those who are the chief in His religion have no need in any way whatsoever of swords. And He healed with divine dignity him who had received the blow, so giving to those who came to seize Him this godlike sign also for their condemnation.

On the Passion as wholly voluntary — that no force prevailed over Him:

It was that they might learn that His passion did not happen to Him without His own will, nor could they have seized Him, had He not consented to be taken.

Theophylact of Ohrid (c. 1055–1107)

From his Explanation of the Gospel of Luke, as compiled in the Catena Aurea on Luke. Public domain.

On the disciples' zeal, and Peter striking without waiting:

The disciples are inflamed with zeal, and unsheath their swords. But whence have they swords? Because they had slain the lamb, and had departed from the feast ... but Peter, always fervent in defence of his Master, waits not for permission, but straightway strikes the servant of the High Priest.

St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–397)

From his Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, as compiled in the Catena Aurea on Luke. Public domain.

On the source of Peter's act in his zeal for the law:

For Peter being well versed in the law, and full of ardent affection, knowing that it was counted righteousness in Phineas that he had killed the sacrilegious persons, struck the High Priest's servant.

Blessed Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

From his Tractates on the Gospel of John, as compiled in the Catena Aurea on John. Public domain.

On the ear cut off and healed, and what it signifies:

The name Malchus signifies, about to reign. What then does the ear cut off for our Lord, and healed by our Lord denote, but the abolition of the old, and the creating of anew, hearing in the newness of the Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter? ... the cure figures liberty.

On Christ's condemning the deed and calling for patience:

Our Lord condemned Peter's act, and forbade him proceeding further: Then said Jesus to Peter, Put up your sword into the sheath. He was to be admonished to have patience: and this was written for our learning.

On the cup given by the Father, whose Giver and Drinker are one:

The cup being given Him by the Father, is the same with what the Apostle says, Who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all. But the Giver of this cup and the Drinker of it are the same, as the same Apostle says, Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us.

Note on sources and other Fathers

Because the scene is told four times, the Fathers comment on it through different Gospels, and the four above are gathered accordingly. Chrysostom, on Matthew's account, explains why the disciples had swords at all (they had come from the paschal table), why Peter was rebuked, and how Christ "healed him, and showed forth a great miracle... both His forbearance and His power"; the wider word "all they that take the sword shall perish" he reads as one of two comforts, the other being that Christ did not suffer against his will. Theophylact and Ambrose, on Luke's account, dwell on Peter's zeal: Theophylact that he "waits not for permission, but straightway strikes," and Ambrose that he acted from his knowledge of the law and the zeal of Phineas. Augustine, on John's account, alone among the four reads the healed ear as a figure, "the abolition of the old, and the creating of anew, hearing in the newness of the Spirit," and he weighs the word about the cup, "the Giver of this cup and the Drinker of it are the same."

The healing itself stands only in Luke, and the naming of Peter and Malchus only in John, as both Augustine and the tradition observe. Cyril's Commentary on Luke is fragmentary through parts of the Passion and is noted here rather than quoted; the four cited are Chrysostom verbatim from his Homily 84, and Theophylact, Ambrose, and Augustine through the Catena Aurea on Luke and on John, as marked in each attribution.

Patristic sources

Read the sources: Chrysostom on John (CCEL)