(Matt. 26:51, 52; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49-51; John 18:10,11.)

At the time of the arrest of Jesus, one of His disciples draws a sword and smites a servant of the high priest, cutting off an ear.

John alone mentions that it was Simon Peter who did this, and he also tells the name of the servant, Malchus. But all four of the Evangelists mention the incident. Luke and John specify that it was the right ear; and Luke records that Jesus touched his ear and healed him. While Matthew and John relate that Jesus commanded the offender to put up his sword, Mark says nothing as to what Jesus did in the matter.

The spiritual application commonly made, is no doubt a correct one, namely, that the cutting off of the ear corresponds to hasty, rash or ill-advised methods of attacking error. The effect being to repel, the ear is lost; there is no inclination to listen further.

The gospel, too, may be presented in such manner as to repel rather than attract. Severe condemnation, which might be appropriate under given circumstances to hopelessly hardened rebels, if applied to honest inquirers, or to sinners in general, would be quite out of accord with true wisdom. We learn this from the Lord's own gracious yet searching words.

The fact that this rash act of Peter's is recorded in all four Gospels perhaps should impress upon us a warning against rashness and hastiness of speech. "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God" (James 1:19, 20).

And the fact that the healing of the man's ear is mentioned in only one of the Gospels may teach us probably, that the ill effect of intemperate words is hard to repair.

Malchus means "kingly." We may think, perhaps, of this servant of the high priest as being a worthy man who was misled, and who might be recovered by right persuasion. And this would be the case with some op-posers of the truth, who are stumbled or repelled by the violent attack of rash zeal.

Simon Peter, who did this rash act, did not really correspond to his name till after Pentecost. While going about with the Lord, apart from his one grand confession, twice stated (Matt. 16:16; John 6:68,69), he frequently said the wrong thing. Instead of being a listener (Simon), quietly hearing and understanding his Master, he gave expression to his own thoughts; and instead of being a stone (Peter), solid and dependable for God's building, he was impetuous and unreliable. And he reached the climax of both shortcomings in his sad denial of his Master. But in a blessed way he answered to his name afterward.

Then too, in differences between brethren, how we need to beware lest the spirit of Galatians or of James 3:5, 6 overtake us:"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this:Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." "Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity; so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell." Wounds made in such a way are very hard to heal, The "brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city" (Prov. 18:19); whereas we are told, to speak that "if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother" (Matt. 18:IS). Let us remember that:"The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves" (2 Tim. 2:24-26). Read also 2 Cor. 5:11,20; 10:1; Eph.4:1-3,31,32; 5:1,2.

Incidentally, we may notice something else from this subject of Malchus' ear. The verity of the Bible record of miracles is attested even by the manner of their narration. The record of such a miracle as the above, if written by a wonder-monger, would certainly not have lacked detail, as the Bible narrative does. A comparison of traditional stories of miracles will show the contrast. For instance, here the questions might be asked by some curious person, Did Jesus pick up the cut-off ear and attach it, causing it to be as before, or did He supply a new ear? How came it that Peter cut off just an ear, when if it were a matter of defense, more desperate measures seemed to be required? Did Peter really aim at the man's head, but did the man dodge the blow, and thus suffer only the loss of an ear?

Such details would not be lacking in a made-up story intended merely to excite wonder; but, as has been observed, the very temperance of Scripture narrative is a wonder, and should bring conviction that the Divine Spirit is behind the Book. Moral and spiritual lessons are to the front everywhere in the Bible, rather than what might satisfy merely temporal or historical interest.

E. B. Craig