Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And the name of the servant was Malchus.

“(Hom. lxxxiii) Peter trusting to these last words of our Lord’s, and to what He had just done, assaults those who came to take Him: Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant. But how, commanded as he had been to have neither scrip, nor two garments, had he a sword? Perhaps he had foreseen this occasion, and provided one.”

“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."”

“Then Simon Peter having a sword,.... Girt about him, which he either wore in common, or particularly at the feast, as the Galilaeans are said to do, to preserve them from thieves and wild beasts by the way; or was one of the two the disciples had with them in the garden; or what Peter purposely furnished himself with to defend his master, taking a hint from what was said by him, Luk 22:36; drew it; before Christ could give an answer to the question put by his disciples, whether they should smite or not, Luk 22:49; being encouraged thereunto by what Christ said, Luk 22:38; or by what he had just done in, striking the man to the ground; and being provoked by that servant's going to lay hold on Christ, and who it is probable was more forward and busy than any of the rest; for it appears from the other evangelists, that Peter did this, though he is not mentioned by name by any of the rest, just as they were seizing and apprehending Christ: and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear; he doubtless struck at his head, and intended to have cleaved him down, but missed his aim, and took off his ear: the person is particularly described, that he was a servant, and the servant of the high priest, and he is mentioned also by name; and the servant's name was Malchus; that if the truth of this relation was called in question, it might easily be looked into and examined, when it would appear that it was perfectly right. All the evangelists give an account of this action of Peter's, but none of them mention his name but this evangelist; perhaps the reason might be, that Peter was alive when the other evangelists wrote, and therefore it was not safe to say who it was that did it, lest he who was the minister of the circumcision, and dwelt among the Jews, should be persecuted for it, or their minds should be prejudiced against him on that account; but John writing his Gospel many years after his death, the reason for the concealment of his name no longer subsisted: nor indeed is the name of the high priest's servant mentioned by any other of the evangelists: John had, or however he writes, a more exact and particular account of this matter. This was a name frequent with the Syrians, Phoenicians, and Hebrews. Jerom (c) wrote the life of one Malchus, a monk or Eremite, who was by nation a Syrian; and Porphyry, that great enemy of Christianity, who was by birth a Tyrian, his original name was Malchus, as was his father's; and "which", in the Syrian, and his country dialect, as he himself (d) and others (e) say, signifies a "king". Josephus (f) speaks of one Cleodemus, whose name was Malchus, that wrote a history of the Hebrews. And some Jewish Rabbins were of this name; hence we read of , "R. Maluc" (g), and of , "R. Malcio" (h); the name is the same with Malluch, Neh 10:4. (c) Tom. I. fol. 87. (d) Porphyr. vita in Plotin. c. 17. (e) Eunapius in vita Porphyr. p. 16. (f) Antiqu. l. 1. c. 15. (g) T. Hieros. Succa, fol. 53. 3. & Bab. Bathra, fol. 16. 1. (h) T. Bab. Nidda, fol. 52. 1.”

“Having a sword - See the note on Luk 22:36. Cut off his right ear - He probably designed to have cloven his scull in two, but God turned it aside, and only permitted the ear to be taken off; and this he would not have suffered, but only that he might have the opportunity of giving them a most striking proof of his Divinity in working an astonishing miracle on the occasion: see the notes on Mat 26:51-56 (note). The other three evangelists mention this transaction; but neither give the name of Peter nor of Malchus, probably because both persons were alive when they wrote; but it is likely both had been long dead before St. John published his history.”

“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--None of the other Evangelists mention the name either of the ardent disciple or of his victim. John being "known to the high priest" (Joh 18:15), the mention of the servant's name by him is quite natural, and an interesting mark of truth in a small matter. As to the right ear, specified both here and in Luke (Luk 22:50), the man was "likely foremost of those who advanced to seize Jesus, and presented himself in the attitude of a combatant; hence his right side would be exposed to attack. The blow of Peter was evidently aimed vertically at his head" [WEBSTER and WILKINSON].”