| The Bible is a book of laughter and of tears, of comedy and of tragedy.
The author of today’s Second Lesson doubtless intended for his story of two nations in one womb to be a comedy, a source of laughter and good humor for his Israelite audience. For their own ancestor-that smooth, cunning young rogue, Jacob-is shown making a fool out of his quite unidentical twin, Esau-that hairy dimwit of an ancestor claimed by the Edomites, one of Israel’s pesky neighbors to the southeast. You see, the Edomites had proven quite persistent as enemies of Israel, always wanting to claim Israel’s territory as their own. Yes, the author doubtless intended for this story to be comic, yet whenever I read it, I experience it as tragic, as an occasion for tears rather than laughter. For Jesus clearly teaches us in our First Lesson, that “brothers and sisters,” whether they are literally siblings or just figuratively so-that “brothers and sisters” must not nurse anger and hatred toward one another but must strive to be reconciled. So I find the story of Jacob and Esau, of twin brothers in perpetual conflict, to be one in which there is no hero, one in which both of the twins, and the storyteller as well, behave quite badly. The storyteller doubtless intended for his narrative to offer a whimsical explanation for how it had come about that Israel, the nation descended from the younger of Isaac and Rebekah’s twins, possessed the better territory, the more fertile land, “the land of promise.” In this way the narrative functions similarly to the story found earlier in Genesis about Israel’s being descended from Abraham’s younger son Isaac rather than from Abraham’s older son Ishmael. You see, according to the inheritance laws of the ancient world, “the promised land” should have passed in the first story to the descendants of Isaac’s older brother Ishmael, and in this morning’s story to those of Jacob’s older twin, Esau. In today’s story, our author sought to explain Israel and Edom’s ongoing rivalry for control of the more desirable land west of the Jordan River by recounting a metaphoric tale of a long-simmering conflict that had existed even between the nations’ founding ancestors. The author sought to legitimate Israel’s historical primacy over Edom through a saga in which Jacob bests Esau. The conflict between these twins had begun in the womb, that is, in time primordial. Why, back then, hadn’t each of the two fetuses sought to eliminate its rival by crushing it? And when that had failed, hadn’t each continued the struggle through its time of birth, wrestling to gain the greater portion of the inheritance that would fall to the firstborn? Now, it was Esau who succeeded in emerging first from Rebekah’s womb, but Jacob was clinging tenaciously to Esau’s heel and came forth almost immediately after him. Still, even birth order had not resolved the twins’ rivalry. That continued right up through childhood to young manhood, first as they competed for the affection of their parents-Esau becoming the favorite of their father, and Jacob, the favorite of their mother-and second as they competed to extract their livelihood from the land, Esau becoming a hunter, and Jacob, a shepherd. In manhood, Esau showed himself rash, impetuous, impulsive, while Jacob proved wily, cunning, opportunistic. So neither of them was a model of virtue. Then, one fateful day, Esau returned from his hunting exhausted and hungry, his belly in control of his destiny, and Jacob, whom Rebekah had taught to cook, took advantage of the situation and cajoled Esau into impulsively trading his birthright, the better portion of the land, for a hearty, but quite overpriced, bowl of lentil stew. In this way, our narrator assures us, Israel came to control the better land, “the promised land” west of the Jordan, while Edom had to settle for the worse land, east of the Jordan. Now, from my own perspective, this nationalistic story of one people’s besting of another through cunning would be tragic enough had its only use been to serve an ancient chauvinism long since dead. But, tragically, some people even today continue to read this story not as expressing a human author’s parochial perspective but as offering a non-debatable teaching of God-that modern Israel is entitled to control all the land west of the Jordan, despite a rival historical claim to this same land by a neighboring Semitic people, the Palestinians. This summer is a particularly poignant time for our lectionary to be leading us to reflect on this story from Genesis, chapter 25-this account of intense, ongoing conflict between the ancestor of Israel and the ancestor of Israel’s neighbor. For, as articles in each and every day’s newspaper make all too clear, at no time since 1948, the year when Israel was re-born as a nation, has the possibility for peace and reconciliation between these two sibling peoples-Israelis and Palestinians-seemed more remote. One has to ask whether it is at all possible for these 7,000,000 persons-Israelis and Palestinians-to share this relatively small land in peace rather than to each claim it in whole? Well, if peace with justice is ever to come to this land, if anger and outbursts of violence and calls for vengeance are ever to be displaced by the kind of quest for reconciliation of which Jesus speaks in our First Lesson, then it will be necessary for both siblings to undertake major changes in their attitudes and behaviors-attitudes and behaviors that are as much political as they are religious. And these are some of the initial changes each party must undertake, as is recognized not only by many experts but also by many Israelis and Palestinians themselves. First, Palestinians must put a stop to all acts of terrorism and must transform their movement for political independence into one that is non-violent. They must stop teaching their children to make war. And they can start that process by heeding the call of Drs. Hanan Ashrawi and Sari Nusseibeh and of 54 other Palestinian politicians and intellectuals. These, in a June 19 article appearing in the Arabic-language newspaper Al Quds, appealed to their people to reassess the campaign of terrorism against Israel and to stop pushing their youth into committing violent acts against Israeli civilians. Now if such a transformation in Palestinian political behavior is ever to come about, then the claim by Muslim extremists that God has proclaimed a Holy War against Israel must be rejected, and leaders from Christianity and Islam as well must declare straightforwardly that justice is to be sought only through non-violent means. Second and simultaneously, Israel must put a stop to its expropriation of Palestinian land, land that is these Palestinians’ birthright. As called for by Thomas L. Friedman, a distinguished columnist carried in The New York Times, Israel must first of all announce that it is ending its development of new Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Then Israel must find any way it can to withdraw from its latest military invasion and occupation of these territories and to stop punishing the Palestinian people collectively by closing roads, imposing curfews, and denying general access to health, educational, and social services and to principal religious sites. And finally, after Israel has done this, it must proceed to find “any orderly way it can,” to get out of these territories entirely. Israel must do so both to safeguard its character as a Jewish state and its moral integrity and to minimize “its friction with the Arab world as the Arabs go through [their] wrenching internal adjustment to modernization.” (the quotations are from Friedman’s column published on 6/30/02) Now if such a transformation in Israeli behavior is ever to come about, the claim by Jewish extremists that God has given the descendants of Jacob sovereignty over all the land west of the Jordan in perpetuity-that claim must be rejected by Israelis themselves. Third, the Arab states, together with the Palestinians, must publicly acknowledge in unmistakable, clear, straightforward language that the state of Israel has a right both to exist and also to live within secure, peaceful borders. And fourth, Israel must simultaneously state its willingness both to recognize a Palestinian state and also to negotiate Jerusalem’s status so that that city may become the capital of both Israel and Palestine. Now, these four changes and transformations in the behavior of Israelis and Palestinians may be what are needed if there is to be peace, but, really now, is there any likelihood that these will ever happen? Well, candidly, no! UNLESS-unless both Palestinians and Israelis are somehow cajoled or coerced into doing them through the moral and economic influence of the only nation that might have enough muscle to bring it off-our own country, the United States. So this is where you and I come into this sermon. This is where we get called to moral action. President Bush is a self-professed Christian who reads his Bible, and a majority of all us Americans claim to be followers of Jesus. Well, in this morning’s First Lesson, from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, chapter 5, Jesus’s values and God’s will are stated about as clearly as any Christian could possibly ask for. Neighbors, or “brothers and sisters” as they are called here-neighbors are not to nurse anger, but are to be quickly reconciled. And earlier in this very same chapter, Jesus proclaims, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” (Matt. 5:9a) We who are followers of Jesus are called to be peacemakers, are called to work actively with parties caught up in conflict and violence in order to help move these parties toward reconciliation. I believe God is calling us in the United States to use the moral and economic influence we have in order to get both Israelis and Palestinians to make the major changes in their behaviors that are necessary if they are to find their way to the peace table. In this present crisis, the United States has done far too little, and, when we have acted, we have used our influence in an unbalanced way, leaning far too little on Israel and Prime Minister Sharon. After President Bush’s June 24 speech outlining U.S. policy on the Middle East, one senior Israeli official said, “I thought all the way through the speech: this is the carrot, now comes the stick.… [But] there was no stick.” All of President Bush’s demands were addressed to the Palestinians; none, to the Israelis. The goals President Bush stated for changes in Palestinians’ behavior: an end to violence and the creation of more democratic institutions-these were in and of themselves alright. And in their hearts a number of Palestinians agree with them. But no one-sided approach will alter the violent and hopeless status quo in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza. For, as stated in the most recent editorial in the Christian Century (July 3-10, 2002, p. 5), any approach that refuses to press Israel to curb its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories and to withdraw immediatelyfrom those territories will only strengthen the most militant groups among both Palestinians and Israelis, the groups that “are all too willing to maintain the cycles of violence.” The editorial continues: “Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently that it is unreasonable to expect the U.S. to offer a ‘road map’ for getting to a peace agreement and land settlement. But until the U.S. presents a plan with more details, a timetable and some ultimatums for Israel [as well as the Palestinians], [any] hope for the region will seem even more unreasonable.” I agree with the Christian Century editorial. If ever in our lifetime we are to have hope that these brothers and sisters will be reconciled, then we today must become involved as peacemakers-actively and evenhandedly, whatever the risks, whatever the price. I ask you to respond to Christ’s call to be peacemakers this very week. Telephone or e-mail the President, Senators Schumer and Clinton, and Congressman Nadler or whoever your Representative in Congress may be. Urge them to lead our nation into exerting an active, balanced, and reconciling influence in the Middle East by placing constructive demands on Israel as well as on the Palestinians. I e-mailed the President and my representative and senators yesterday. Won’t you please do that today or else send them a fax tomorrow? And if you are uncertain about how to do that, I will have sheets with the contact information at the door or at the coffee hour so that we may all become peacemakers. Let us pray: O God, grant that in the not-too-distant future, two nations may co-exist in that one land, and that Israelis and Palestinians alike may come to live together in peace in the land of their ancestors. Through Christ, we pray this. Amen. President George W. Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500 1-202-456-1111 Fax 1-202-456-2461 E-mail: president@whitehouse.gov The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton 476 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-3203 1-202-224-4451 Fax 1-202-228-0282 To send message by internet, go to http://clinton.senate.gov The Honorable Charles Schumer United States Senate Hart Senate Office Building Washinton, D.C. 20510-3201 1-202-224-6542 Fax 1-202-228-3027 To send message by internet, go to http://schumer.senate.gov The Honorable Jerrold Nadler Unites States House of Representatives 2334 Rayburn Office Building Washington DC 20515-3208 1-202-225-5635 Fax 1-202-225-6923 E-mail: jerrold.nadler@mail.house.gov To get the name of any other Representative, go to www.google.com and then type in “Representative [Name] Information”. High on the list of what pops up should be the listing for the contact information for that representative. You can do the same for any Senator: “Senator [Name] Information.” The Honorable Nita M. Lowey United States House of Representatives 2329 Rayburn Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-3218 1-202-225-6506 Fax 1-202-225-0546 E-Mail: nita.lowey@mail.house.gov |
Return to Sermon Archive