Peter was an expert fisherman, as is well-known. He knew little about handling a sword.

From the few details we have, it appears that Peter may have been attempting to decapitate Malchus. A combination of Peter's lack of experience with a sword and Malchus' quick dodging resulted in only the loss of his right ear.

Or, it is possible that Peter tried to thrust toward Malchus to skewer him, but missed and only succeeded in severing the ear.

Either way, Peter, while aiming for the Malchus' head, demonstrated his poor judgement, lack of swordsmanship, rashness, misunderstanding of Jesus' purpose and ministry and general foolishness.

Gill observes correctly that:

and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear; hedoubtless struck at his head, and intended to have cleaved him down,but missed his aim, and took off his ear

• Dottard, please see 'The Arrest of Jesus' by Fra Angelico . I just came across the picture on Wikipedia.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Jesus

  Kadalikatt Joseph Sibichan

  – Kadalikatt Joseph Sibichan

  2025-10-29 11:15:44 +00:00

  Commentedyesterday
• +1 but a passing thought: perhaps it was only part of the ear that was cut off, in which case a horizontal strike might have been involved. This actually seem more likely to me, although since a miracle was involved, I may be thinking too humanistically.

  Dan Fefferman

  – Dan Fefferman

  2025-10-29 15:47:53 +00:00

  Commentedyesterday
• @DanFefferman - that is also possible, but the record does not go into that much detail

  Dottard

  – Dottard

  2025-10-29 20:29:22 +00:00

  Commented21 hours ago

This passage suggests that Peter expected a fight with people dying.

Peter said to him, “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.” 38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow till you have denied me three times.(John 13:37–38, ESV2016)

Jesus' words here probably were confusing to Peter:

He [Jesus] said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”(Luke 22:36–38, ESV2016)

Luke records that Jesus healed the severed ear. Only John mentions that Peter cut off the ear. A characteristic of John's Gospel is he often fills in names, and he left out details one could get from the other Gospels. Every indication is Malchus, an experienced soldier, dodged Peter's sword so that it only cut off his ear. Peter had a short sword (μάχαιραν) that would be concealed under his cloak. He would have drawn it when the soldiers came.

μάχαιρα, ης, ἡ ...① a relatively short sword or other sharp instrument, sword, dagger

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). InA Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 622). University of Chicago Press.

• 1
  +1 but where do you get the idea that Malchus was a soldier? It's certainly possible that he led the Temple guard, but it's not mentioned in the text. Is you source (perhaps unconsciously) Mel Gibson's movie? ;-)

  Dan Fefferman

  – Dan Fefferman

  2025-10-29 15:55:20 +00:00

  Commentedyesterday
• @ Dan, I need investigate. Why would he be on the front line?

  Perry Webb

  – Perry Webb

  2025-10-29 16:56:15 +00:00

  Commentedyesterday

The issue is complicated by the fact that in John's account, Jesus gives himself up voluntarily after speaking to the band of soldiers. Judas does not kiss or otherwise identify Jesus and the whole scene is presented as part of God's predestined plan. But in the synoptics, Jesus does not surrender until after the incident with ear, immediately after Judas kisses him. (Luke 22:48-51) In John's version, Peter has no reason to act against Malchus, except to provide a backstory for Jesus' miracle of healing the ear. So it is hard to know what Peter was attempting to do.

But in terms of the OP's question, it was too late to scare Malchus off. He came with "a band of soldiers and guards... with lanterns, torches, and weapons," (vs. 3) while the disciples had only two swords and were untrained in their use, as far as we know. The time for scaring them off was earlier, when Peter and his fellows were supposed to be keeping watch. We get a sense of this from Mark's account:

Mark 14

41 He returned a third time and said to them, “Are you still sleepingand taking your rest? It is enough. The hour has come. Behold, the Sonof Man is to be handed over to sinners. 42 Get up, let us go. See, mybetrayer is at hand.” 43 Then, while he was still speaking, Judas, oneof the Twelve, arrived, accompanied by a crowd with swords and clubswho had come from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders.

Conclusion: If they had stayed awake, Peter and the other disciples might have sacred off the band that Malchus led. But after three failures to keep watch (in the synoptic account), it was now too late. The text is not clear if Peter was merely trying to wound Malchus or kill him, but in the synoptic accounts, his motivation must have been to give Jesus a chance to escape. In John's account, this is all part of God's plan and there is no reason for Peter to act since Jesus had already surrendered. The point is not what Judas was trying to do but what Jesus did do - a miracle.

• 1
  Thanks, Dan Fefferman, for the well reasoned inputs. Would you please edit the final line so as to show Judas his place and Peter, his ?

  Kadalikatt Joseph Sibichan

  – Kadalikatt Joseph Sibichan

  2025-10-29 16:43:57 +00:00

  Commentedyesterday

Since the answer can only be speculative, I would like to approach it from this perspective: Peter could not have killed Malchus, even though he acted in zeal.

Although this conflict is recorded in all four gospels, there are subtle distinctions among them:

• Only John identifies Peter as the assailant and Malchus as the victim.
• Only Luke records that Jesus healed the servant of the high priest, though he does not name him.

These distinctions lead to several considerations:

• The Synoptic Gospel avoided naming Peter as the assailant because he was still alive at the time of writing, whereas John wrote his Gospel after Peter's martyrdom.
• John may have personally known Malchus, as he was acquainted with the high priest's household - evident from the fact that he was able to bring Peter into the high priest's courtyard when Jesus was taken there (John 18:15).
• It is possible that Malchus became a believer after the incident, and later served as a witness to its authenticity.

Since the Lord always watches over His people, He would not have allowed Peter to violate the seventh commandment,"You shall not murder," nor would He have permitted Malchus to be deprived of his opportunity for salvation.

Psalm 121:7-8 NIV

The Lord will keep you from all harm—he will watch over your life;8 the Lord will watch over your coming and goingboth now and forevermore.

• john
• jesus
• peter