And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear.

“(Hom. Ixxxiv.) So Luke relates, the Lord had said to His disciples at supper, He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one; (Luke 22:36.) and the disciples answered, Lo, here are two swords. It was natural that there should be swords there for the paschal lamb which they had been eating. Hearing then that the pursuers were coming to apprehend Christ, when they went out from supper they took these swords, as though to fight in defence of their Master against His pursuers.”

“In another Gospel, (John 18:10.) Peter is represented as having done this, and with his usual hastiness; and that the servant’s name was Malchus, and that the ear was the right ear. In passing we may say, that Malchus, i. e. one who should have been king of the Jews, was made the slave of the ungodliness and the greediness of the Priests, and lost his right ear so that he might hear only the worthlessness of the letter in his left.”

“Above were set down the preparations for the Passion, namely the institution of the sacrament and the prayer of Christ; but here he sets down the Passion as regards those things which were inflicted by the Jews. And first he shows how he is captured; second, how he is examined; third, how he is condemned. The second at "the chief priests," etc.; the third at "then the chief priests," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First he treats of the betrayal; second, of the capture; third, how he was led away after the capture. The second at "then they came up"; the third at "but they, laying hold of him," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First he describes the person of the betrayer; second, the sign of the betrayal; third, the completion. The second at "now he who betrayed him," etc.; the third at "and immediately," and so on. He describes the betrayer from three things: first from his name; second from his dignity; third from his company. From his name: "while he was yet speaking, behold, Judas," and so on. That is, while he was speaking these words, by which he was inspiring confidence in them, "behold, Judas" — who is interpreted "confessing." There were two Judases, of whom one is evil, the other good, to signify that some who would confess in the Church would be good — Romans 10:10: "but confession is made with the mouth unto salvation" — and some would be evil; Titus 1:16: "they confess that they know God, but by their deeds they deny him." Next he is described from his dignity: "one of the twelve" — because although he had been established in so great a dignity, he nevertheless fell into so great a crime. In which an example is given that no one ought to trust in his own state. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10:12: "let him who stands take heed lest he fall"; John 6:71: "did I not choose you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" And why did he choose him, since he knew that he would be evil? One reason is that he might give an example to prelates, that they should not be despondent. Again he is described from his company: "and with him came a great crowd," and so on. Just as he had a cruel mind, so too a cruel company, because every animal seeks out its like. And this is described because it says "many." In this it is noted that they were fools, for fools exist in a multitude; Ecclesiastes 1:15: "the number of fools is infinite." And they were indeed fools, because they were contradicting wisdom. Again they were armed, for it says "with swords and clubs." And what is the reason? Origen says that many believed in him, and therefore they feared lest the crowd should snatch him away from them. Again, because they had said above, in chapter 12, that he cast out demons by Beelzebub, therefore, so that no power should protect him, they came armed. Again he is described by authority, because they had been sent "from the chief priests and the elders of the people"; hence they were furnished with their authority, so that no one would contradict them, so that what is said in Psalm 2:2 might be fulfilled: "the kings of the earth stood up, and the princes gathered together in one against the Lord and against his Christ." Next the sign of the betrayal is treated: "now he who betrayed him gave them a sign, saying," and so on. But here there is a question. Since he was known in Judea, why did they seek a sign? There can be a twofold reason. One, because Judas had heard that Christ had been transfigured on the mountain, and he believed that this had been done by magic art; therefore he wished to forestall him by the sign of a kiss, before he could transfigure himself. Jerome gives this explanation. But Origen speaks thus: that just as the manna in the desert tasted to each person according to what he supposed it to be, so Christ appeared to each person according to the opinion he held of him; therefore it was necessary that a sign be given. He gave a remarkable sign, for: "whomsoever I shall kiss, he it is, hold him." He made the sign of friendship the sign of betrayal; Proverbs 27:6: "better are the wounds of one who loves than the deceitful kisses of an enemy." "And immediately coming to Jesus, he said: hail, Rabbi, and he kissed him." Here the completion of the betrayal is set down. And first he showed the signs; second he began to act. And he shows this first by word, when it says "hail, Rabbi"; second by deed, "and he kissed him." A similar case is found in 2 Kings 10:1, where Joab held Amasa's chin, and killed him. But why did he not come to him at once, but first greeted him? One reason is on account of reverence for the master. Again he first greeted him, because he feared lest, before he had made him manifest, he might transfigure himself first. "And Jesus said to him: friend, why have you come?" And this can be read either interrogatively, or gently. If interrogatively, then it can be read as spoken by way of reproach, as if he were saying: you show friendship by a kiss, and have you come to destroy me? According to Psalm 27:3: "they speak peace with their mouth, but evil is in their hearts." And he said "friend." As often as he calls someone "friend," he speaks by way of reproach. Hence it was said above in chapter 22:12: "friend, how did you come in here, not having a wedding garment?" And elsewhere, chapter 20:13: "friend, I do you no wrong," and so on. 1 John 4:19: "for we did not love him first, but he first loved us." Or it can be read gently, and it is not a word of rebuke, but of permission: "friend, why have you come" — according to John 13:27: "what you do, do quickly." And he calls him friend as far as it depends on himself, because "with those who hated peace, I was peaceable," Psalm 119:7. And although he knew that he was going to kiss him, nevertheless he went to meet him. "But they, laying hold, laid hands on Jesus." Now the capture is treated. And first the severity of the capture is set down; second, the testimony; third, the rebuke of the disciple. Concerning the first he does three things: for first he tells how the ministers seize him; second, how a certain disciple wished to hinder them; third, that Christ rebuked him. He says therefore: "but they, laying hold, laid hands on Jesus." Isaiah 1:15: "your hands are full of blood." For he himself handed himself over; Jeremiah 12:7: "I have given my beloved soul into the hands of her enemies." Then it is set down how one disciple assailed the assailants: "and behold, one of those who were with Jesus, stretching out his hand, drew his sword." Who was this? It must be said that it was Peter. Hence just as above, in 16:22, he wished to hinder the Passion of Christ, so also here. From where did he have the occasion? From what is found in Luke 22:36, where the Lord commanded that they buy swords, and understanding this they believed that swords were necessary; hence they had a knife for cutting the lamb. Therefore Peter had one. "Striking the servant of the high priest, he cut off his ear." Do not believe that he had time for deliberation to cut off the ear; rather he threw the blow, and when he wanted to strike him to death, it happened that he cut off the ear. The name of this man was Malchus, which is interpreted "king." And this signifies the cutting off of the kingdom from the Jewish people, and yet it was made the servant of the chief priests, that is, of the Romans; from this man Peter cut off the ear. By the ear, hearing is signified; and this is twofold, namely the right, by which eternal life is signified, and the left, by which temporal life. He cut off his ear, because he cut off from the Jewish people the doctrine of spiritual things; and this happened as an occasion for the Gentiles to receive the right ear, because Peter first preached to the Gentiles; and thus he cut off the right, drawing the Gentiles to the faith. "Then Jesus said to him: put your sword back into its place." Here the rebuke is set down. And first he rebukes Peter; second, the ministers: "in that hour Jesus said to the crowds," and so on. And first he sets down the admonition, second he assigns the reason for the admonition: "for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword." It says: "then Jesus said to him: put your sword back into its place." He had come to suffer voluntarily, therefore he did not wish to be defended. And in this he gave an example that martyrs suffering for Christ should not defend themselves. Then he assigns the reason: first from the penalty; second from the will of Christ; third from authority. The second at "do you think that I cannot ask my Father," etc.; the third at "how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?" First he mitigates by the terror of the penalty, saying: "all who take the sword shall perish by the sword." But Augustine raises a question, because not all who strike with the sword perish by the sword, but sometimes by fever; therefore it can be explained in three ways, according as the sword is threefold: material, concerning which in Psalm 36:14: "the sinners have drawn out the sword." Again, the sword of divine judgment, concerning which Jeremiah 19:7: "I will overthrow them by the sword." Again, of the divine word; Ephesians 6:17: "and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." It can therefore be understood of all these. Of the material sword, because he who kills with the sword will perish by the sword, that is, by his own, not another's. Hence Psalm 36:15: "let their sword enter into their own hearts." Again it can be explained of the sword of condemnation, concerning which it is found in Genesis 3:24, that the Lord placed a turning sword before Paradise. Hence those who condemn others will be condemned by divine judgment. Or some take up by their own authority what they do not have from another, and such perish by the sword. "Do you think that I cannot ask my Father," and so on. Here he assigns the reason to mitigate the spirit of Peter, giving him to understand that he was suffering voluntarily, and that he could escape. And because he saw him presuming, therefore he says: "can I not ask my Father?" And he does not say "I cannot call," or "bring," but "ask": for he speaks the words of a man, because to ask is proper to a man. "And he will presently furnish me with more than twelve legions of angels?" And this was said according to the weakness of Peter's mind. Peter conducted himself in this way, that he ought to defend him, and that he needed the help of men; therefore he wishes to say that if he could be defended by the help of men, much more by that of angels. But it was not necessary, because rather the angels are sustained by him. But what is the meaning of his saying "twelve legions of angels"? It must be said that a company is called among the Greeks a "phalanx," among the Romans a "legion," and it had six thousand men; hence twelve legions are seventy-two thousand, and there are that many languages of men, as is found from Genesis 11. Hence he wishes to say: if all men should rise up against me, the Lord could send a thousand angels against each language; and if one angel destroyed so many thousands, as is evident from Isaiah 37, much more will a thousand be able to kill the men of one language. Job 25:3: "is there any numbering of his soldiers?" And Daniel 7:10: "thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him." Remigius speaks thus: whoever do the will of God can be called angels, that is, messengers; Isaiah 18:2: "go, swift messengers, to a nation rent and torn apart." For whoever obey God are called angels; Psalm 103:4: "who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a burning fire." Therefore by "legion" the legion of the Romans can be understood. Hence the Lord could bring in and provoke the legions of the Romans to destroy the Jews, just as afterward was done under Titus and Vespasian. And at this passage certain men have destroyed the opinion of those who said that the Lord could not do other than what he does; for if he could summon legions, which he did not summon, it is established that he can do many things which he does not do. "How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?" Here the third reason is set down, why he ought not to be hindered: because the Scriptures have said so; and therefore it must happen thus. And he does not say which Scriptures, because all the prophets spoke either hiddenly or openly. Hence Luke, last chapter, 26: "was it not necessary that Christ should suffer, and so enter into his glory?" "In that hour Jesus said to the crowds." In this part he rebukes the ministers, and he does two things. First he recalls the deed; second, the unreasonableness of the deed, when he says: "as against a thief have you come out with swords and clubs to seize me." Job 16:10: "he has gnashed his teeth against me" — because they went out as if he were a thief, but they themselves rather came as thieves. A thief hides so as not to be caught; but Christ offers himself openly. And thieves, if they wish to do harm, do not do harm in public; but Christ offered himself. Hence he says: "daily I was with you teaching in the temple, and you did not seize me"; therefore you have come as thieves. For in order to give them the opportunity, he went out of the city. "Daily I was with you teaching in the temple." A similar thing is found in John 18:20: "I have spoken nothing in secret." And he says "teaching in the temple." This was always his custom, to teach in the temple. "And you did not seize me." Hence it is clear that you have come like thieves. Next the testimony is set down: "but all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." And he does not say of whom, because it is found as it were in all of them; Psalm 21:17: "they have dug my hands and my feet, and they have numbered all my bones." And Isaiah 53:3: "we esteemed him the last of men, a man of sorrows." And he says "that they might be fulfilled." The word "that" can be taken causatively, and thus it is not taken here; or consecutively, and thus it is taken here. For it did not happen because the prophets said it; but rather they foretold it because it was bound to happen. Hence the sense is "that it might be fulfilled," that is, by this deed there was fulfilled what had been foretold through the prophets. "Then all the disciples, leaving him, fled" — so that what is said in Psalm 37:12 might be fulfilled: "my friends and my neighbors have forsaken me." But why did they not forsake him from the beginning? Jerome answers: because it is written in John 7:30, that they sought him, and no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come. Hence from the beginning they believed that he could free himself, and would defend himself; but when they saw that he was captured, and that he did not wish to defend himself, they fled and forsook him.”

“Then said Jesus unto him,.... That is, unto Peter, put up again thy sword into its place, or sheath. This Christ said not only to rebuke Peter for his rashness, but to soften the minds of the multitude, who must be enraged at such an action; and which was still more effectually done by his healing the man's ear: and indeed, had it not been for these words, and this action of Christ's; and more especially had it not been owing to the powerful influence Christ had over the spirits of these men, in all probability Peter, and the rest of the apostles, had been all destroyed at once, For all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. This is not to be understood of magistrates who bear not the sword in vain, are ministers of God for good, and revengers of evil works; but of private persons that use the sword, and that not in self-defence, but for private revenge; or engage in a quarrel, to which they are not called; and such generally perish, as Peter must have done, had it not been for the interposition of almighty power. Though this seems to be spoken not so much of Peter, and of the danger he exposed himself to, by taking and using the sword, and so to deter him from it, but rather of these his enemies: and as an argument to make and keep Peter easy and quiet, and exercise patience, since, in a little time, God would avenge himself of them; and that the Jews, who now made use of the sword of the Roman soldiers, would perish by the sword of the Romans, as in a few years after the whole nation did.”

“Drew out his sword. Peter did not comprehend the meaning of what Christ had said, Luke xxii. 36. He that hath not a sword, let him buy one, which was no more than an intimation of the approaching danger. Now Peter, or some of them, asked, and said: Lord, shall we strike? But he struck without staying for an answer. (Witham)”