Were they so driven that they dismissed something so incredible? Or was magic so common that reattaching a man's ear wasn't enough to prevent them from arresting, torturing, and murdering a literal miracle worker?
A literalist Christian reader is guilty of equal tone deafness. The pericope is again an exercise in typological reading of the OT. Thrice the expression "fulfilled" is used.
8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”
49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”
54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
This is not a retelling of history, but a theological interpretation of passages (including 2Esdras see below) reimagined as prophecy.
The betrayal, the kiss, the setting in Gethsemane, the surrounding by enemies, the preservation of his followers, etc. are all from the OT.
What then was meant by Jesus stopping the sword action? The clear theological/political message is repeated twice in Mark.
14:48 “Am I leading a rebellion?” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”
36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
The writer of Mark is making very clear to Roman audiences that Christianity was not a threat. A timely message when it was written.
Beyond that the story is ripe with symbolism. The one hit with the sword was identified as the servant of the High Priest, (who represented the Law), fitness for high Priesthood included no bodily defect. In Josephus a High Priest was made unfit for service by having his ears removed. War, 1.13.9)
Then the possibility that slavehood is in discussion. A slave who had his right (per detail added by John) ear pierced was committed to perpetual servitude. Was this symbolism again?
How about the guy's name being included? Malchus (meaning King) was this another reference to the Law and sin no longer being King? Who knows?
But what's clear is the author's own explanation that this scene was written to both identify Jesus as the OT typological fulfillment and reassure Roman authorities they posed no threat.
Regarding the John 19:
8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”
This is another example of NT writers utilizing books regarded as apocryphal by many today.
2 Esdras 2:26 -
As for the servants whom I have given thee, there shall not one of them perish; for I will require them from among thy number.
It is also of significance that Mark, Matt nor John suggest the ear was healed. Only the writer of Luke writing well after Matt and Mark mentions a miracle. Perhaps he missed the symbolism and simply saw it as an opportunity to add another one.
