Yuhanna 18:10 Yorum

Hitherto this evangelist has recorded little of the history of Christ, only so far as was requisite to introduce his discourses; but now that the time drew nigh that Jesus must die he is very particular in relating the circumstances of his sufferings, and some which the others had omitted, especially his sayings. So far were his followers from being ashamed of his cross, or endeavouring to conceal it, that this was what, both by word and writing, they were most industrious to proclaim, and gloried in it. This chapter relates, I. How Christ was arrested in the garden and surrendered himself a prisoner (Joh 18:1-12). II. How he was abused in the high priest's court, and how Peter, in the meantime, denied him (Joh 18:13-27). III. How he was prosecuted before Pilate, and examined by him, and put in election with Barabbas for the favour of the people, and lost it (Joh 18:28-40).

When Jesus had spoken these words,.... Referring either to his discourses in Joh 14:1, in which he acquaints his disciples with his approaching death; comforts them under the sorrowful apprehension of his departure from them; gives them many excellent promises for their relief, and very wholesome advice how to conduct themselves; lets them know what should befall them, and that things, however distressing for the present, would have a joyful issue: or else to his prayer in the preceding chapter, in which he had been very importunate with his Father, both for himself and his disciples; or to both of these, which is highly probable: he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron; the same with "Kidron" in Sa2 15:23; and elsewhere: it had its name, not from cedars, for not cedars but olives chiefly grew upon the mount, which was near it; and besides the name is not Greek, but Hebrew, though the Arabic version renders it, "the brook" , "of Cedar": it had its name either from the darkness of the valley in which it ran, being between high mountains, and having gardens in it, and set with trees; or from the blackness of the water through the soil that ran into it, being a kind of a common sewer, into which the Jews cast everything that was unclean and defiling; see Ch2 29:16. Particularly there was a canal which led from the altar in the temple to it, by which the blood and soil of the sacrifices were carried into it (m). This brook was but about three feet over from bank to bank, and in the summer time was quite dry, and might be walked over dry shod; and is therefore by Josephus sometimes called the brook of Kidron (n), and sometimes the valley of Kidron (o): in this valley were corn fields; for hither the sanhedrim sent their messengers to reap the sheaf of the firstfruits, which always was to be brought from a place near to Jerusalem (p); and it is very likely that willows grew by the brook, from whence they might fetch their willow branches at the feast of tabernacles; for the Jews say (q), there is a place below Jerusalem called Motza, (in the Gemara it is said to be Klamia or Colonia,) whither they went down and gathered willow branches; it seems to be the valley of Kidron, which lay on the east of Jerusalem, between that and the Mount of Olives (r); it had fields and gardens adjoining to it; see Kg2 23:4. So we read of a garden here, into which Christ immediately went, when he passed over this brook. The blood, the filth and soil of it, which so discoloured the water, as to give it the name of the Black Brook, used to be sold to the gardeners to dung their gardens with (s). It was an emblem of this world, and the darkness and filthiness of it, and of the exercises and troubles of the people of God in it, which lie in the way to the heavenly paradise and Mount of Zion, through which Christ himself went, drinking "of the brook in the way", Psa 110:7; and through which also all his disciples and followers enter into the kingdom of heaven: it may also be a figure of the dark valley of the shadow of death, through which Christ and all his members pass to the heavenly glory. And I see not why this black and unclean brook may not be a representation of the pollutions and defilements of sin; which being laid on Christ when he passed over it, made him so heavy and sore amazed in the human nature, as to desire the cup might pass from him. Once more let it be observed, that it was the brook David passed over when he fled from his son Absalom; in this David was a type of Christ, as in other things: Absalom represented the people of the Jews, who rejected the Messiah, and rebelled against him; Ahithophel, Judas, who betrayed him; and the people that went with David over it, the disciples of our Lord; only there was this difference; there was a father fleeing from a son, here a son going to meet his father's wrath; David and his people wept when they went over this brook, but so did not Christ and his disciples; the sorrowful scene to them both began afterwards in the garden. This black brook and dark valley, and it being very late at night when it was passed over, all add to that dark dispensation, that hour of darkness, which now came upon our Lord; yet he went forth over it of his own accord, willingly and cheerfully; not being forced or compelled by any; and his disciples with him, not to be partners of his sufferings, but to be witnesses of them, and to receive some knowledge and instruction from what they should see and hear: where was a garden into which he entered; and his disciples: there were no orchards nor gardens within the city of Jerusalem, but rose gardens, which were from the times of the prophets (t); all others were without; and this was a very proper place for gardens, where so much dung was near at hand. Whether this garden belonged to one of Christ's friends, is not certain; but since he often resorted hither, no doubt it was with the leave, and by the consent of the proprietor of it. However, so it was, that as the first Adam's disobedience was committed in a garden, the second. Adam's obedience to death for sin, began here; and as the sentence of death, on account of sin, was passed in a garden, it began to be executed in one. (m) Misn. Middot, c. 3. sect. 2. Meila, c. 3. sect. 3. & Bartenora in ib. Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Zebachim, c. 8. 7. & Temura, c. 7. sect. 6. (n) Antiqu. l. 8. c. 1. sect. 5. (o) Ib. l. 9. c. 7. sect. 3. & de Bello Jud. l. 5. c. 4. sect. 2. & c. 6. sect. 1. (p) Misna Menachot, c. 10. sect. 2, 3. (q) Misna Succa, c. 4. sect. 5. (r) Jerom de locis Hebraicis, fol. 92. C. (s) Misn. Yoma, c. 5. sect 6. Maimon. Meila, c. 2. sect. 11. (t) T. Bab. Bava Kama, fol. 82. 2. Abot. R. Nathan, c. 35. Maimon. Beth Habbechira, c. 7. sect. 14. Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Torn praecept. Aff. 164.

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.

While Jesus was betrayed, he nonetheless did not approve of the avenging sword of even one disciple. And this is someone who, if he wanted to, had legions of angels who would at one word have presented themselves from the heavens. The patience of the Lord was wounded in [the wound of] Malchus. And so, too, he cursed for the time to come the works of the sword. And, by the restoration of health, made satisfaction to him whom himself had not hurt, through patience, the mother of mercy.

We think it is an important matter to obtain penalties from those who have wronged us: an important matter, I say.… But it is far greater and more godlike to put up with injuries. For the former course of action curbs wickedness, but the latter makes people good, which is much better and more perfect than merely not being wicked. Let us consider that the great pursuit of mercifulness is set before us, and let us forgive the wrongs done to us that we also may obtain forgiveness, and let us by kindness lay up a store of kindness.

Is Jesus suddenly arrested? He reproaches indeed, but follows. And if through zeal you cut off the ear of Malchus with the sword, he will be angry and will restore it.… And if you ask for the fire of Sodom on his captors, he will not pour it forth. And if he takes a thief hanging on the cross for his crime, he will bring him into paradise through his goodness.

And one might wonder why they did not seize them with Him, and cut them to pieces, especially when Peter had exasperated them by what he did to the servant. Who then restrained them? No other than that Power which cast them backward. And so the Evangelist, to show that it did not come to pass through their intention, but by the power and decree of Him whom they had seized, has added, "That the saying might be fulfilled which He spake," that "not one," etc. Peter, therefore, taking courage from His voice, and from what had already happened, arms himself against the assailants, "And how," saith some one, "doth he who was bidden not to have a scrip, not to have two coats, possess a sword?" Methinks he had prepared it long before, as fearing this very thing which came to pass. But if thou sayest, "How doth he, who was forbidden even to strike a blow with the hand, become a manslayer?" He certainly had been commanded not to defend himself, but here he did not defend himself, but his Master. And besides, they were not as yet perfect or complete. But if thou desirest to see Peter endued with heavenly wisdom, thou shalt after this behold him wounded, and bearing it meekly, suffering ten thousand dreadful things, and not moved to anger.

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"; and as He did in the case of the basin, when He relaxed his vehemence by a threat, so also here. The Evangelist adds the name of the servant, because the thing done was very great, not only because He healed him, but because He healed one who had come against Him, and who shortly after would buffet Him, and because He stayed the war which was like to have been kindled from this circumstance against the disciples. For this cause the Evangelist hath put the name, so that the men of that time might search and enquire diligently whether these things had really come to pass. And not without a cause doth he mention the "right ear," but as I think desiring to show the impetuosity of the Apostle, that he almost aimed at the head itself. Yet Jesus not only restraineth him by a threat, but also calmeth him by other words, saying, "The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" Showing, that what was done proceeded not from their power, but from His consent, and declaring that He was not one opposed to God but obedient to the Father even unto death.

(Tr. cxii) The servant's name was Malchus; John is the only Evangelist who mentions the servant's name; as Luke is the only one who mentions that our Lord touched the ear and healed him. (Tr. cxii. 5) 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 a new, hearing in the newness of the Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter? To whomsoever this is given, who can doubt that he will reign with Christ? But he was a servant too, hath reference to that oldness, which generated to bondage: the cure figures liberty. (Tr. cxii) Our Lord condemned Peter's act, and forbad him proceeding further: Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath. He was to be admonished to have patience: and this was written for our learning. (Tr. cxii) The cup being given Him by the Father, is the same with what the Apostle saith, Who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all. (Rom. 8:32) But the Giver of this cup and the Drinker of it are the same; as the same Apostle saith, Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us. (Eph. 5:2)

"Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. And the servant's name was Malchus." This is the only evangelist who has given us the very name of this servant, as Luke is the only one who tells us that the Lord touched his ear and healed him. The interpretation of Malchus is, one who is destined to reign. What, then, is signified by the ear that was cut off in the Lord's behalf, and healed by the Lord, but the renewed hearing that has been pruned of its oldness, that it may henceforth be in the newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter? Who can doubt that he, who had such a thing done for him by Christ, was yet destined to reign with Christ? And his being found as a servant, pertains also to that oldness that gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. But when healing came, liberty also was shadowed forth. Peter's deed, however, was disapproved of by the Lord, and He prevented Him from proceeding further by the words: "Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" For in such a deed that disciple only sought to defend his Master, without any thought of what it was intended to signify. And he had therefore to be exhorted to the exercise of patience, and the event itself to be recorded as an exercise of understanding. But when He says that the cup of suffering was given Him by the Father, we have precisely the same truth as that which was uttered by the apostle: "If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all." But the originator of this cup is also one with Him who drank it; and hence the same apostle likewise says, "Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savor."

What was it, someone may say, that induced the inspired Evangelist to make mention of this, and point out to us the disciple using a sword, contrary to his wont, against those who came to take Christ, and stirred to a |573 hotter and more precipitate fit of wrath than was meet, and Christ thereupon rebuking him? This narrative may, perhaps, seem superfluous; but it is not so. For he has here given us a pattern expressly for our learning; for we shall know, from what took place here, to what lengths our zeal in piety towards Christ may proceed without reproach, and what we may choose to do in conflicts such as this, without stumbling on something displeasing to God. For this typical instance forbids us to draw a sword, or lift up stones, against any man, or to strike our adversaries with a stick, when, through our piety towards Christ, we are in conflict with them: for our weapons are not of the flesh, as Paul saith; but we ought rather to treat even our murderers with kindness when occasion precludes our escape. For it is far better for other men to be corrected for their sins against us by Him That judgeth righteously, than that we ourselves should make excuses for our blood-guiltiness, making piety our plea. Besides, we may call it most irrational to honour by the death of our persecutors Him Who, to set men free from death, Himself cheerfully suffered death. And herein we must surely follow Christ Himself; for if He had been called to die perforce and of necessity, as unable by His own power to repel the assault of His foes, who were invincible through the number of the servants of the Jews, there might perhaps have been nothing unreasonable in those who chose to love Him succouring Him with all their might, and showing the utmost courage in order to rescue Him from the peril, into which He had been brought by the impiety of His foes, against His Will. But since, being truly God, He was able to destroy His adversaries, root and branch, and at the very outset of the conflict, so to say, had given them such a token of His might, as by a single word, and that spoken in courtesy, to lay them low on the earth, for they all fell backward; how could it be right for us, in unbridled and inordinate wrath, to wilfully and recklessly proceed to lengths that He did not, though He might have done so with the utmost ease? We find also traces of the same spirit elsewhere recorded by the holy Evangelists. For our Saviour once came to a village bordering on Judaea, to lodge there. It belonged to the Samaritans; and when He was drawing nigh unto it they roughly drove Him away. The disciples were enraged thereat, and came to Him, and said: Lord, wilt Thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? And the Saviour answered them: Let them alone; know ye not that I can beseech My Father, and He shall even now send Me twelve legions of angels? For He came not as God to use His own innate power against those who vented their fury upon Him; but rather to school us to patient forbearance under every affliction, and to be Himself a type of the most perfect and passionless tranquillity. Therefore also He said: Learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart. The purpose of Peter in drawing his sword against the adversaries does not trespass outside the commandment of the Law; for the Law bade us requite unreproved evildoers----foot for foot, hand for hand, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. For with what other object did they come armed with swords and staves, equipped with armour, and banded together in numbers, than to wage such a conflict as they thought the disciples would wage in their extremity? For that they brought swords and staves, the Saviour tells us plainly, when He says elsewhere to them: Are ye come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize Me? I sat daily in the temple teaching, and ye took Me not. The passion of Peter, therefore, was lawful, and accorded with the old enactments; but our Lord Jesus Christ, when He came to give us teaching superior to the Law, and to reform us to His meekness of heart, rebukes those passions which are in accordance with the Law, as incompatible with the perfect accomplishment of true virtue. For perfect virtue consists not in requital of like for like, but is rather seen in perfect forbearance. Someone may now, perhaps, raise the question, and ask himself. Why did Peter carry a sword? We reply, that the duty of repelling the assaults of evil-doers, according to the Law, brought the need of a sword. For if one of the disciples had chosen to strike the innocent with a sword, how could the same issue have been tried? It is likely, too, that the holy disciples, as they were hurrying at midnight from their place of rest, and expected to find woods and gardens in their way, were suspicious of the attacks of wild beasts; for of these Judaea was very fertile. Perhaps you may rejoin: "But what need had the disciples of a sword? Was not Christ sufficient for them in time of peril; and could not He scare away wild beasts, and release them from all fear on that account?" If you say this, you say well; for Christ can do all things. But we shall find that, though Christ might have effected it otherwise, the disciples continued to live after the manner usual to men. For must we not suppose that Christ was able to turn stones into bread, and out of nothing to create money sufficient to defray their expenses? Still they fetched loaves and carried a purse, taking alms of those who brought them. And when Christ wished to cross the sea in their company, they entered into a ship, though He might have walked over the billows, if He had been so minded. It is fruitless, then, to cavil at the disciples, for following the ordinary usages of mankind. Peter strikes off the right ear of the servant, and his action points, as in a figure, to the inability of the Jews to hear aright. For they would not hearken to Christ's words. They rather, so to say, honoured the left ear, obeying simply the dictates of their own misguided prejudice, deceiving and being deceived, according to the Scripture; for even when walking in the Law ordained them of old, they turned to doctrines the precepts of men.

Peter’s violence was lawful according to the Old Testament, but our Lord Jesus Christ, when he came to give us teaching superior to the Law and to reform us to his meekness of heart, rebukes those passions that are in accordance with the Law as being incompatible with the perfect accomplishment of true virtue. For perfect virtue consists not in retaliation of like for like but is rather seen in perfect forbearance.

Or, he had got one for sacrificing the lamb, and carried it away with him from the Supper. Or, the cutting off of the high priest's servant's right ear is a type of the people's deafness, of which the chief priests partook most strongly: the restoration of the ear, of ultimate reenlightenment of the understanding of the Jews, at the coming of Elias.

Peter saw that the Lord had cast them to the ground; the Lord's words "let them go" filled him with boldness, and he thought that the time had come to take revenge, so he draws his sword and strikes the servant. If you ask why he had a sword, he who was commanded to have "neither bag nor two coats" (Matt. 10:10), know that he needed it for slaughtering the lamb, carried it with him even after the supper; or else, fearing an attack, he had prepared the sword beforehand for such an occasion. If you wonder how he who was told not to strike on the cheek (Matt. 5:39) was ready to commit murder, then hear that Peter was especially avenging not himself but his Teacher. Moreover, they were not yet fully perfect. For afterwards, I ask you to look at Peter: he suffers greatly and rejoices. But now, indignant at the injustice done to his Teacher, he aims at the very head and, failing to cut it off, at least cuts off the ear. Jesus reattaches and heals the ear, and by this miracle again restrains the mad Jews from their zeal for murder. And since the miracle with the ear was great, the evangelist notes the name of the servant, so that readers, in case of doubt, could seek out and investigate whether this really happened as described. I ask you to notice that the cutting off of the right ear of the high priest's servant was a sign of their disobedience. For blindness came upon Israel, so that those who hear would not hear, because of their impiety against the Savior, which was especially strong among the high priests, which is why the sign—the removal of the ear—was on the servant of the high priest. The restoration of the ear points to the future restoration of the understanding of the Israelites, which they have now lost. For Elijah will come and lead them to Christ, and will unite them, the fathers, with us, the sons, as Malachi also prophesied (Mal. 4:6).

2286 The Evangelist has shown how ready Christ was to suffer his betrayal since he willingly offered himself. He now shows this same readiness because Christ forbade a disciple to resist. First, he mentions the resistance of the disciple; secondly, his being restrained (v 11). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the zeal of the disciple in striking the servant; secondly, we see the name of the servant. 2287 He says that the officers arrested Jesus, but that then Simon Peter, more volatile than that the other disciples, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, who was among the officers, and cut off his right ear. This was not his intention; rather, he wanted to kill him, but the strike to the servant's head missed and struck the ear. Peter aimed for the head so that he could more easily show that he was doing it out of zeal for his Lord: "I have been very jealous for the Lord" (1 Kgs 19:10). 2288 Two questions can be asked about this. Since the Lord had commanded his disciples not to have even two tunics (Mt 10:10), why was it that Peter had a sword? I answer that Christ gave them this command when he sent them out to preach, and it was to be in effect until his passion. But when his passion drew near, Christ revoked it: "When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" (Lk 22:35). And then (in v 36): "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." Because of this permission Peter understood that he was allowed to carry a sword. How could he get a sword so quickly, since our Lord had spoken these words such a short time before? According to Chrysostom, Peter obtained the sword earlier, when he heard that the Jews were planning to deliver Christ over to the chief priests to be crucified. Or, we could say, with the Interlinear, that "sword" is used here for a knife, which he probably had at the paschal meal, and which he took along when they left. 2289 The second question is why Peter struck the servant of the high priest, since our Lord had told them not to resist evil (Mt 5:39). One could answer that they were forbidden to resist someone in order to defend themselves, but this did not apply to defending the Lord. Or, one could say that they had not yet been strengthened by a power coming from above: "Stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high" (Lk 24:49). And for this reason they were not yet so perfect that they could not resist evil entirely. 2290 Now the name of the servant is given. Only John mentions this name because, as stated below (v 15), John himself was known by the high priest, and so he also knew some of the priest's servants. Since John was certain of this servant's name, he gives it. It is Luke (22:51) who adds that our Lord healed the ear. This is appropriate for a mystery: for the servant stands for the Jewish people, who were oppressed by the chief priests: "You eat the fat" (Ez 34:3). Peter, the head of the apostles, takes away this servant's sense of hearing, because he heard the words of the law in a defective way, in a carnal way. But our Lord gave him back a new sense of hearing: "As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me" (Ps 18:44). With this in mind the servant is fittingly named Malchus, which means "king," because through Christ we have become kings by having a new life: "You... have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth" (Rev 5:10).

Jesus passes the brook Cedron, and goes to the garden of Gethsemane, Joh 18:1. Judas, having betrayed him, comes to the place with a troop of men to take him, Joh 18:2, Joh 18:3. Jesus addresses them, and they fall to the ground, Joh 18:4-6. He addresses them again, and Peter smites Malchus, Joh 18:7-11. They seize him and lead him away to Caiaphas, Joh 18:12-14. Peter follows to the palace of the high priest, Joh 18:15-18. The high priest questions Christ concerning his doctrine, and Jesus answers, and is smitten, Joh 18:19-23. Peter denies his Lord twice, Joh 18:24-27. Jesus is led to the judgment hall, and Pilate and the Jews converse about him, Joh 18:28-32. Pilate converses with Jesus, who informs him of the spiritual nature of his kingdom, Joh 18:33-37. Pilate returns to the Jews, and declares Christ to be innocent, Joh 18:38. He seeks to discharge him, and the Jews clamor for his condemnation, Joh 18:39, Joh 18:40.

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.

BETRAYAL AND APPREHENSION OF JESUS. (Joh 18:1-13) over the brook Kedron--a deep, dark ravine, to the northeast of Jerusalem, through which flowed this small storm brook or winter torrent, and which in summer is dried up. where was a garden--at the foot of the Mount of Olives, "called Gethsemane; that is, olive press (Mat 26:30, Mat 26:36).

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].