Difference between revisions of "Malchus"

<p> <b> [[Malchus]] </b> <b> ( </b> Μάλχος).—The name of the man whom Peter wounded in the right ear at the arrest of Jesus (&nbsp;John 18:10). </p> <p> Malchus was a common Semitic name, though not certainly met with among the [[Jews]] proper. By both Delitzsch and Salkinson it is vocalized מָלְכו̇ם, which is no more than a transliteration. [[Josephus]] (see Niese’s index) mentions five persons who bore it under the form of Μάλχος or Μάλιχος, whence an original מָלִיךְ has been inferred (Dalman, <i> Gram. Aram. </i> [[Aramaic]] 104). But the true Greek form seems to have been Μαλίχας ( <i> Periplus maris Erythrœi </i> , cf. Müll. <i> Geogr. Gr. Min. </i> i. 272); and מלבו, pronounced מָלִבוּ, appears in three inscriptions ( <i> CIS </i> [Note: IS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.] ii. 158, 174, 218) that may be dated with some confidence between b.c. 40 and a.d. 40. In these inscriptions the name is Nabataean; but the root מלך is common to all the Semitic languages, and appears to belong to the unhistorical period prior to the separation of the various peoples. In [[Assyrian]] it is a designation of a subordinate ruler (Schrader, <i> COT </i> [Note: OT [[Cuneiform]] [[Inscriptions]] and the OT.] i. 23), a prince rather than a king. While there are instances of its use in relation to a god (cf. [[Boehmer]] in <i> Expos. Times </i> , xvi. [1905] 473 ff.), there is no need to see in it anything more than an allusion, serious or playful, to superiority in rank or in pretence. </p> <p> The bearer of the name in the [[Gospel]] narrative held a position of trust in the household of the high priest, probably [[Caiaphas]] (&nbsp;John 18:13). It has been assumed that the other [[Evangelists]] suppressed the name (&nbsp;Matthew 26:51, &nbsp;Mark 14:47, &nbsp;Luke 22:50) with a view to protect Peter from revenge or an action at law on the part of the Jews. It is at least as likely that they were ignorant of the name, or of opinion that no purpose was to be served by its mention. There is no evidence that Malchus was exceptionally active in the arrest, or anything more than an onlooker. Peter’s forward rush, when his indignation could be restrained no longer, towards the group of which Jesus was becoming the centre (&nbsp;John 18:4), suggests rather that Malchus was on the skirt of the group, and not immediately engaged in binding Jesus. He happened to be in Peter’s way in his attempt to rescue his Master, and may well have been personally unknown to the majority of the disciples. If John was the unnamed disciple who was ‘known unto the high priest’ (&nbsp;John 18:15), possibly because he supplied the family of [[Annas]] with fish (according to an old tradition; cf. David Smith, <i> Days of His Flesh </i> , 465), he would be acquainted with both Malchus and his kinsman (&nbsp;John 18:26); and the mention of the name in the Fourth Gospel may be taken as one of the undesigned indications of Johannine authorship. The healing of the ear of Malchus is recorded by Lk. alone, but is an essential part of the story (cf. <i> Expos. Times </i> , x. [1898–99] 139, 188), and exactly such an incident as would be likely to attract the notice of a physician, and so to calm the soldiers as to make the subsequent remonstrance preserved by each of the Synoptics possible. The natural order of events was first the healing of the wound, followed, while Malchus’ friends were crowding around him, by the rebuke of Peter, and then, as soon as the people were ready to listen, by the taunting protest in regard to the manner of the arrest. [[Thereupon]] Jesus consented to be seized, and in perfect self-possession passed on to His trial and death. </p> <p> R. W. Moss. </p>

<p> (Μάλχος, from the Heb. מֶלֶךְ, ''King,'' or מִלּוּךְ, [[Counsellor]] )'','' a slave of the high-priest Caiaphas, and the individual among the party sent to arrest Jesus whose right ear was cut off by Peter in the garden of Gethsemane (&nbsp;John 18:10), but which was cured by a touch from Christ (&nbsp;Luke 22:51). He had a kinsman another slave of the same master (&nbsp;John 18:26). A.D. 29. The name of Malchus was not unfrequent among the [[Greeks]] (see Wetstein, ad loc.; Gesenius, Monzum. Phoen. p. 409), but it was usually applied to persons of Oriental countries, as to an [[Arab]] chieftain (Josephus, Ast. 13:5 1; 14:14,1; 15:6, 2). This Malchus "was the personal servant (δοῦλος ) of the high-priest, and not one of the bailiffs or apparitors (ὑπηοέτης ) of the Sanhedrim. The high-priest intended is Caiaphas, no doubt (though Annas is called ἀρχιερεύς, in the same connection), for John, who was personally known to the former (&nbsp;John 18:15), is the only one of the evangelists who gives the name of Malchus. </p> <p> This servant was probably stepping forward at the moment, with others, to handcuff or pinion Jesus, when the zealous Peter struck at him with his sword. The blow was undoubtedly meant to be more effective, but reached only the ear. It may be, as Stier remarks (Reden Jesu, 6:268), that the man, seeing the danger, threw his head or body to the left, so as to expose the right ear more than the other. The allegation that the writers are inconsistent with each other, because Matthew, Mark, and John say either ὠτίον or ὠτάριον (as if that meant the lappet or tip of the ear), while Luke says ο à ς '','' is groundless. The Greek of the New Testament age, like the modern Romaic, often made no distinction between the primitive and diminutive. In fact, Luke himself exchanges the one term for the other in this very narrative. The Savior, as his pursuers were about to seize him, asked to be left free for a moment longer (ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου )'','' and that moment he used in restoring the wounded man to soundness. The ἁψάμενος τοῦ ὠτίου may indicate (which is not forbidden by ἀφεῖλεν, ἀπεκοψεν ) that the ear still adhered slightly to its place. It is noticeable that Luke, the physician, is the only one of the writers who mentions the act of healing" (Smith). "Some think Peter's name was omitted by the synoptists, lest the publication of it in his lifetime should expose him to the revenge of the unbelieving Jews, but, as the gospels were ''Not Published,'' this seems improbable." </p>