Is there any legitimate reason given by scholars as to why Luke uniquely adds the account of Jesus healing the ear of Malchus after it being severed off?
In Luke 22:50-51, it is written,
50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. Berean Study Bible
Did Luke fabricate this story, or is it only added because Luke was a physician and it appealed to his field of work?
To assume that it is a fabrication, is an option, however, it is not the only or best option, given the contemporary witnesses to substantiate these claims, given the acceptance of Luke's gospel by those apostles who were there at that time, given the values and ethics of the followers of Jesus.
Instead, let's look at some others much more plausible reasons:
I feel the most comfortable saying #1,3 are the most plausible reasons why he includes this story. Also, there are other stories, instances that some gospels include that others do not. Because another excludes it doesn't mean that it is false.
For example, Often times, when I do marriage counseling, one person will tell a story one way, and another will add more details. Sometimes they will also give a different bent to the same story. Does that mean that one is lying, or could it mean they are less detailed? Then, if the stories don't align, I will pursue asking a third-party, an eyewitness who can substantiate the claims (much like the contemporaries of Luke who were eyewitnesses to all Jesus said and did).
Was not Luke a physician? If so, I would think that this detail would be more significant to him. The healing of Malchus' ear also displayed the gentle & kind clam in Jesus in a time when others would be experiencing panic.
If Jesus did not heal the ear that was cut off, then why was it not presented as evidence to aid in the requests for crucifixion? If the ear was not healed, do you really think that it would not have been used against him? Caiaphas would have made this known to Pilate because it clearly states that the person whose ear was cut off, was a servant to the high priest. Yet, they did not mentioned it. Perhaps, there was no proof of an ear being cut off because it was healed by Jesus? Pilate asked what crime Jesus had committed. The only crime they claimed was that Jesus was claiming to be king and that meant that he opposed Caesar. True, it was not Jesus who cut off the man's ear but, do you really believe that they would have not held Jesus responsible for the event? This story was told by different people writing there own words and emphasizing on specific events. Luke may have felt this detail was important to include.
I don't know if you would consider John Chrysostom a scholar (he was a Church Father), but this is what he said about disagreements and inconsistencies in the Gospels in general:
What then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to tell all? One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth.
But the contrary, it may be said, has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance. Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.
Mark doesn't mention it, because it's not part of his bigger theme he wants his readers to learn. Jesus heals a blind man in Ch8 right before Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah denoting the halfway climax and part 1 of Mark's account.
In Ch10 of Mark, Jesus again heals a blind man on the way to Jerusalem right before the climax (passion week) of part 2 of his gospel.
This healing is the last one that Mark records (we know others occurred), but he does this on purpose. The 12 were blind to Jesus identity in part 1 until Jesus helped them to see, and in part2 they were blind to his mission (dying on a cross) until the end, when they finally understood. Mark is using the 2 blind/seeing miracles to bookend a portray the 12's spiritual blindness.
Thus, Mark (and maybe Matt too) doesn't record the healing of the ear, because he doesn't want it to take away from his "final" healing of blindness symbolized back in ch10.
In other words, Mark a had story, theme and purpose and wanted to tell it.
Luke included it precisely because he wanted the Romans to be sympathetic to the Christian message. It’s the same reason why Luke didn’t include the visit of the Magi. The Parthians were enemies of Rome. Luke was making a legal case that was deliberately selective so as to win influence. He was sufficient in reporting important details so as to make a strong case to get Roman sympathy. However, he was not trying to be exhaustive in telling all that happened.
Thank you for this blessed website. I am new to this page and this is my first input although they are questions. As the are directly related to the original question, I thought it sensible to include here as a follow on. I am enriched by the answers provided and am thankful for the site administrators and mediators who adhere to the site’s intention and mission.
Questions: If Peter, James, and John (Matthew 26:36–56) were the only apostles present with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane when Peter cut off Malchus’s ear and Jesus healed it, 1) why didn’t one of them write about it in their accounts and 2) how did Luke find out about that specific event to include it in his writing as he wasn’t present and was led to Christ by Paul who Jesus revealed Himself to after His cruxifixction?
To be clear, I am not questioning the accuracy of what was written, as I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that other testimonies, information, and accounts outside of it only support or add detail to enhance the reading and understanding of the Word.
God bless you and keep you that you may continually be His light to the world and salt of the earth.
Brother in Christ.
Jesus healed the ear. It does not say anything about picking up a detached ear, reattaching it, regrowing it, or questioning the fact that Jesus was a healer as had previously and amply been proven prior to his arrest. Jesus healed the ear without having to reattach or regrow it, meaning that the man had a wound that healed and stopped bleeding. Jesus restored him to the ability to hear completely and well, regardless of whatever flesh was left upon his head forming any ear. Beyond this, Jesus healed the man spiritually as well as physically. He amplified the man’s ability to hear through and around all of the distractions of fleshly earth. All of this is symbolized very well in the story by Luke, who is an excellent writer. Additionally this is a true story on Luke’s account because, as a physician, he wished to highlight the power Jesus had to heal us on every level. Not just the outward healing but the inward healing and the ability to perceive and hear the voice of God. Presenting the ear as evidence would’ve been considered an unclean act and would have been a violation of temple rules as bringing in this type of uncleanliness into the High Priests or even to the Roman court of Pilate would instantly convey disrespect to all of them, thereby disemboweling the case against Jesus. In addition to being an act of peace and forgiveness, and an example for us to follow, this case also symbolizes Jesus’ treatment of people who have disabilities, people who are injured in the line of duty, and healing for those who commit violence and/or are traumatized by their acts in law enforcement or the military. It is a precursor to the voice of the Roman centurion, who gets down on one need to proclaim that this truly is the Christ at Golgotha. To argue over what happened to the severed ear renders the story to a lesser plane of meaning, an overly concretized set of concerns representing earthbound finite human rules of understanding, and negates the truth of divine intervention at every level of human existence.
Yes it's a fabrication. This is easy to see when reading Mark's version of the story (Mk 14:47-50). Jesus doesn't reprimand his disciple for wounding the soldier, nor does he heal him.
So Luke obviously made it all up, but why? To show that Jesus was a lover of his enemies, and not just another bandit who planned to overthrow Rome and failed.
If Jesus really healed the servant of the High Priest, Mark would've mentioned it.
