Thomas Aquinas

After the Evangelist showed Christ's readiness to undergo betrayal, by offering himself voluntarily to the betrayer, here he shows him to be ready for the same thing, by forbidding the disciple's resistance; and first the manifestation of the resisting disciple is set forth, second his restraint, at the place, "Jesus said to Peter," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the zeal of the disciple in the striking of the servant; second the Evangelist inserts the naming of the servant, at the place, "now the servant's name was Malchus."

He speaks thus: the attendants seized Jesus, but Simon Peter, more ardent than the other disciples, having a sword, drew it, and struck the high priest's servant, who was among the attendants, and cut off his right ear: not from his principal intention, since he intended to kill him, but the blow which he directed at the head glanced off onto the ear. For he directed the blow at the head, so that it might more easily be noted that he was doing this out of zeal for his Lord; 3 Kings 19:10: "With zeal have I been zealous for the Lord God of hosts."

But here a twofold question arises; for since the Lord commanded the disciples, Matthew 10:10, that they should not even have two tunics, how did Peter even have a sword? I respond. It must be said that Christ gave them that precept when he sent them to preach, and it was to last until the time of the passion: hence Christ revoked it at the passion; Luke 22:35: "When I sent you without purse and scrip, did you lack anything?" And further on: "But now he who has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he who has not, let him sell his tunic and buy a sword." From this concession Peter had understood that it was lawful for him to carry a sword. But how could he have had a sword so quickly, since the Lord had spoken the aforesaid words only a little before? It must be said, according to Chrysostom, that Peter, a long time before, hearing that the Jews were going to hand Christ over to the chief priests to be crucified, out of fear had prepared a sword for himself. Or it must be said, according to the Interlinear Gloss, that "sword" is taken here for the knife which he perhaps had had at the table for eating the lamb, and which, rising from the supper, he had taken with him.

Second it is asked: since the Lord had told them not to resist evil, Matthew 5:39, why is it that Peter struck the servant of the prince? To which it must be said that the Lord forbade them to resist anyone in order to defend themselves, but not in order to defend their Lord. Or it must be said that they were not yet confirmed by the power coming from on high; Luke, last chapter, 49: "Sit in the city, until you be clothed with power from on high." Therefore they were not yet perfect enough to not resist evil at all.

Here the name of the servant is set down: and this is described specially by John for this reason, that, as is said further on, he himself was known to the high priest, and therefore he also had knowledge of his attendants. Hence, knowing his name, he did not keep it silent, for the certainty of the fact. But Luke adds that the Lord healed his ear; Luke 22:51. And this is fitting mystically. For by this servant is signified the people of the Jews, who were oppressed by the chief priests; Ezekiel 34:3: "That which was fat you did eat." Peter, therefore, the prince of the apostles, cut off the hearing of this servant: because he heard the words of the law badly, that is, carnally; but the Lord restored a new hearing; Psalm 17:45: "At the hearing of the ear he obeyed me." And according to this he is fittingly called Malchus, that is, king, because through Christ, in newness of life, we are made kings; Revelation 5:10: "You have made us a kingdom and priests to our God, and we shall reign upon the earth."

Here the restraint of Peter's zeal is set forth, and first the restraint of Peter is set down; second the reason for the restraint, at the place: "The cup which my Father has given me, will you not have me drink it?" He says, then, that Peter had thus drawn the sword, but the Lord said to him, "Put your sword into its sheath," as though there were no need of defense, but of patience, nor was the use of the material sword lawful for him: Jeremiah 47:6: "How long will you be cutting? O sword of the Lord, how long will you not be quiet?" Mystically, however, it is signified by this that the sword of the word of God was to be put into the sheath, that is, into the faith of the Gentiles.

And the reason for the restraint is set down when he says, "The cup which my Father has given me, will you not have me drink it?" For one ought not to resist those things which are disposed by divine providence; Job 9:4: "Who has resisted him, and had peace?" Now the passion is called a cup, because from the charity of the one suffering it has sweetness, but from its own nature bitterness; just as a healing medicine, on account of the hope of health, is sweet, but bitter on account of its taste; Psalm 114:13: "I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord." This cup, then, the Father gave him, because he willingly took up the passion by his own will and the Father's will; below, John 19:11: "You would have no power over me, unless it were given you from above."