Malchus – Part 2

Of the six unlikely conversions surrounding the passion of Christ, Malchus’ is undoubtedly the most speculative. What follows are the circumstances leading up to and including Malchus’ injury and healing.

The Jewish mob — led by Judas and including soldiers, chief priests, and Pharisees carrying torches, lanterns and weapons — came upon Jesus and his disciples in the garden of Gethsemane. Judas came to Jesus, greeted him and kissed him — all obviously a sign to the leaders as to which one was Jesus, the one they needed to arrest.

When Jesus asked the men whom they were seeking, they responded with “Jesus of Nazareth”. Then he identified himself and told them, “If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” Peter on an earlier occasion had tried to talk Jesus out of going to Jerusalem and willingly allowing himself to be crucified; he was rebuked for his effort (Matt. 16:21-23). Now he leaped to Jesus’ defense and, with one swing of his sword, left Malchus’ right ear lying on the ground, blood flow­ing from his head. In all likelihood Peter’s aim was slightly off or Malchus’ skull would have been split down the middle.

Jesus immediately came to the aid of this servant of the high priest. And according to Luke the beloved physician (Col. 4:14), Jesus touched the man’s ear and healed him (Luke 22:51). One more time Peter heard Jesus’ rebuke, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (John 18:11).

This miracle, the last of Jesus’ mortal life, was proof of several things in regard to Jesus and the authorities — Jesus’ divine authority, his deep compassion for all mankind (including his enemies), and the terribly evil wrongheadedness of the Jewish mob. And shortly after, when the trial commenced, the high priest would surely have his own eyewitness experience as to the character of this man they were seeking to be rid of — namely the renewed wholeness of Malchus, his own servant.

But the big question: Is there any evidence that this participant in Jesus’ arrest, this servant of the high priest, eventually became a disciple of Jesus? One point in favor of this is John’s recording of his name (John 18:10). Why would John do this unless his readers would know who this man was? The same reasoning could be used as was mentioned in last month’s article in regard to Simon of Cyrene and the record of his sons Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21). Was there any good reason for stating their names unless the early believers who received his gospel would know who they were? And in like manner one could argue that John was doing the same thing by naming Malchus. Many other men were there for the purpose of arresting Jesus but only Malchus’ name is recorded in any of the four gospel accounts.

So if we can take it as a good possibility that Malchus soon thereafter became a lifelong follower of Jesus, then consider this. Would he have been able (or would he want) to continue in his position as the high priest’s servant? A belief in Jesus (his healer) as Messiah would probably entail his changing jobs. How could he continue to be employed in the service of men who wanted to do away forever with his “prince of life”? The same point will be made in later studies when considering the likely conversions of the centurion, Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus.

One final point, an ongoing exhortation from Jesus, particularly in his seven letters to the churches in Revelation: “He who has an ear, let him hear.” How appropriate would such an exhortation be for Malchus, the man who ventured into a dark garden on that momentous night, lost an ear, but nevertheless left the scene with both ears fully intact!