We are told in John’s narrative that Judas knew of the place where Jesus and his disciples normally spent their nights, when they were in Jerusalem (cp. Luke 21:37). After receiving a band of men (John 18:2-3) who were the deputies of the chief priests and Pharisees, vis-à-vis the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem, Judas then led them to the place where Jesus was. Some scholars try to put Roman soldiers into this “band of men” but that is pure conjecture. There is absolutely nothing within any of the Gospel narratives that would indicate Pilate knew of Jesus before he was turned over to him by the Jewish authorities. Therefore, the men Judas led must have been the Temple guard who also acted as police for the city.
The translators of Matthew and Mark would have us believe Judas was given a “great multitude” or a “large crowd” of armed men, but the Greek words simply mean a number of people (who were armed) were led out by Judas. It is inconceivable that 600 men were given to Judas, as some commentaries indicate. If the Jewish authorities wanted to arrest Jesus without the multitudes of pilgrims knowing what was going on, they wouldn’t send out a great army to arrest Jesus. After all, Jesus’ disciples had only two swords among them—one was Peter’s and the other was probably owned by Judas, a zealot, who was also member of the Sacarii. Six hundred men would have been overkill to put it mildly. It was probably simply a squad of about 6 to 12 men, with two officers and a captain—more than enough, if all were armed, and keep in mind that Judas would have known the rest of the disciples were unarmed, except for Peter (cp. Luke 22:38).
When Judas and the squad of armed men arrived at the place where Jesus and his disciples were, Jesus addressed them, asking whom they sought, but he already knew why they were there (John 18:3-4). When they said they sought Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus admitted it was he, they went backward and fell to the ground. Some scholars try to make this into a miracle of some importance, but it seems to me that the men in front were startled with Jesus straightforward reply and went backward entangling their feet with those behind them and they all fell. Was this done miraculously or understandably considering the fact these same men or others from their companions were unable to arrest Jesus on other occasions (John 7:32, 44-46). When they regained their composure, Jesus asked once more, whom they sought, and when they replied as before, Jesus told them he would go with them peacefully, but let his disciples go free (John 18:4-8). Thus, fulfilling what he had mentioned earlier in prayer to his Father that he had lost none. (John 18:9; cp. 17:12).
Nevertheless, and true to his word that he was willing to die with Jesus (John 13:37), Peter pulled his sword and struck Malchus, the high priest’s deputy, in the head, cutting off his ear. However, Jesus told Peter to cease his aggression, telling him his Father held the moment in his power, and Jesus would do whatever the Father willed (John 18:10-11).
John’s narrative doesn’t mention that Jesus healed the ear of the one Peter struck, but this is alluded to in light of the fact that Peter wasn’t arrested with Jesus, for he had committed a crime in striking one of Jerusalem’s legitimate authorities. Moreover, in light of the fact that the man’s name was known, probably indicates he was the captain of the band! If Peter wasn’t arrested, something must have been done to correct the harm he did. Thus, by healing Malchus’ ear, any evidence of a crime committed would have been erased. So, if Malchus wished to prefer charges, what could he say later to accuse Peter, or why he apprehended Jesus, who healed his wound instead of resisting arrest?
Smoodock's Blog 