Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 8472 Plough Quarterly • Spring 2016 Esau is the father of the Edomites, future enemies of Israel, and God’s rejection of Esau serves as justification for fighting the Edomites. Sacks takes a dif- ferent tack. Instead of vilifying Ishmael and Esau, he argues, the text makes us feel a deep sympathy for them – and we are told that God responds in the same way. Isaac may receive the covenant, but Ishmael remains Abraham’s son and will be blessed accordingly. Much of the story of Abraham’s descendants focuses on the unlikely election of the least and weakest. Instead of choosing the strong older son – Esau, for example – the obvious choice in the eyes of the world, God chooses the younger mama’s boy. The message is two-fold. First, “Israel is the people whose achievements are transpar- ently God-given. What for others is natural, for Israel is the result of divine intervention. Israel must be weak if it is to be strong, for its strength must come from heaven.” Second, Isaac’s election does not mean Ishmael’s rejec- tion. God has particular blessings for Ishmael and Esau. In the stories of election, “God rejects rejection.” Sacks goes on to treat the story of the Exodus, in which Israel learns to care for the stranger and the vulnerable by itself becoming vulnerable. He briefly examines the so-called hard texts of the Old Testament, arguing that war becomes an option for Israel only when the opportunities for peace have been exhausted. Moreover, unlike the cultures of classical antiq- uity, Israel never seeks honor and glory on the battlefield. Consistent monotheism responds to evil not with blame, but with penitence: “The first focuses on external cause, the second on internal response. Blame looks to the past, ­ penitence to the future. Blame is passive, peni- tence active. A penitential culture is constructed on the logic of responsibility. If bad things happen to us, it is up to us to put them right.” Christians reading Sacks will be greatly edified, particularly when they discover unfamiliar modes of rabbinic exegesis. Moreover, they will find an advocate. Sacks is one of the few public figures to call the destruction of Christian communi- ties in the Middle East “the religious equivalent of ethnic cleansing,” and “one of the crimes against humanity of our time.” He writes of the history of anti-Semitism with care and nuance. He barely mentions Jesus – or Girard’s argument that the ­ crucifixion unmasks the scapegoat ­ mechanism – but finds Saint Paul very troubling. In a sense, Sacks’s book is a sustained response to Paul’s argument that faith in Jesus, not Jewish birth, is what makes one part of the chosen people. Sacks wants to show that Paul’s anxiety is misplaced, suggest- ing that even if God does not choose Gentiles in the same way as Israel, neither does he reject them. Implicitly, Sacks wants Christianity and Islam to become more Jewish: more aware of their own cultural particularity and less aimed at evangelistic claims of universal religious truth. This is perhaps the deepest point of incomprehension between Jews and Christians. Christians can join Sacks in saying no to reli- gious hatred, but they cannot back away from the implications of the cross and resurrection. That said, Christians should be grateful to Sacks for what he says and how he says it. Sacks connects the great traditions of scriptural inter- pretation to contemporary social theory. He offers theological solutions to theological prob- lems. He makes a significant contribution to the conversation that needs to take place between traditional Jews, Christians, and Muslims. This is vital, for it is from these communities that the solution to religious violence will come.