1. What is the author's main point in this passage? (MAIN POINT)
It seems as if there are several points to be made with this passage by the author. First, it is to explain the circumstances of Jesus' arrest. Second, is to suggest that another prophecy (This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken, "I did not lose a single one of those whom you gave me."). The third is to demonstrate the compassion of Jesus: even when one of his enemies is injured by one of his followers, Jesus stops the attack and heals the enemy.
2. What new light do I find in this particular reading of this passage of the text? (NEW LIGHT)
This passage is another one of my favorites. In fact, when reading about the life of Bayard Rustin I was reminded of this incident between Simon Peter, Jesus, and the priest's slave Malchus.
During WWII Bayard Rustin was imprisoned for refusing to serve in the military because of his Quaker beliefs. At the time, the prisons were racially segregated. Nonetheless, Bayard broke this rule and fellowshipped with several white conscientious objectors who were also imprisoned at the same time.
One day a white inmate, who was deeply racist, became enraged by Bayard socializing with his white friends. The racist inmate verbally threatened Bayard, and then he attacked Bayard by repeatedly hitting him with a nearby broom. Several of Bayard's white friends moved to attack the white prisoner, but Bayard stopped them from intervening. The attacker continued to hit Bayard until the broom stick snapped in two.
Afterwards, Bayard needed treatment for his injuries. He was more circumspect amongst his fellow prisoners; I wonder if he suffered from some emotional trauma. Nonetheless, he continued to break the segregation rules. Eventually, the prison changed its rules of segregation just before Bayard was released.
After reading about this incident I pondered whether the example of Jesus noted in this passage served as some sort of inspiration and guide for Bayard when he was attacked like this.
In addition, I never realized that the name of the slave was identified. The man that Jesus healed was Malchus. Imagine knowing the name of the person who came to arrest you and then managing to reach out in healing love despite their intent of imprisoning you so that you might be tortured.
3. Is this passage true to my experience? (TRUTH)
Honestly, I've never had this sort of courage nor the compassion demonstrated by Jesus (or Bayard for that matter). On the other hand, I've never had the "opportunity" either. Of course, I hope that I would or could respond with such love for my attacker(s). I suspect that I would be less than a stellar example in such a situation.
Even so, the way Jesus responded is the "benchmark", the example for dealing with one's enemies even when they threaten one's wellbeing and life.
4. What are the implications of this passage for my life? (IMPLICATIONS)
I've had a relatively violent-free life, thank God!
Is it possible that when I compare the sometimes trivial conflicts I have had with others, and my attempts to be "non-violent" in such situations, that I'm trivialing the starker and more traumatizing experiences that others have had to face, such as in the examples of Jesus' arrest or Bayard Rustin's being attacked while in prison? I suspect that I am doing so.
5. What problems do I have with this passage? (PROBLEMS)
I have no idea which verse is being referred to and what is meant by the passage that is mentioned (in regards to the fulfillment of the prophecy - see #1 above).
2 comments:
This discussion reminds me of the situation of the Brazilian Indian Agency workers. (I read about this many years ago, so I can't really say whether the policy is still in force.)
In the wilds of Brazil there were many savage tribes who habitually killed on sight anyone not in their tribe. The Indian Agency had the task of pacifying these folks. They chose non-violence.
To become an agent you had to commit yourself to non-violence. A fair number of them did allow themselves to be slaughtered.
The lesson in this is that a person may commit himself to this kind of non-violence , if he feels led.
Quakers like to espouse non-violence, but like you suggest, few of them have been tested to that degree.
Interesting, Joe. This kind of passive non-violence and unwillingness to even defend oneself is radical and it seems to say that violence can't end violence and that the ideal of love is more important than even survival. I so admire that but I know I'd probably be like the disciples ... I'd fight or run away.
Post a Comment