Scripture Reading: Matthew 25:31-40
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
As we watch Israeli and Palestinian hostages being released this weekend, it occurs to me on this last Sunday of the liturgical year—a bonus weekend before the beginning of Advent—it’s probably time to address the elephant in the room, the situation in Gaza, and what better text for this occasion than the parable of the sheep and the goats. In Matthew 24 and 25, Jesus is telling stories about his second coming: if you want to be impressed by how learned I am, scholars call these texts apocalyptic and/or eschatological parables . . . I know, who cares?
The point is, whether we are talking about blooming fig trees, the taken and the “left behind,” faithful vs. unfaithful servants, investors of talents, or sheep and goats, the message is clear: Jesus is coming back. You cannot know when this will occur, or who will be saved, or why. But. be ready. What is so powerful about our parable today is that neither the sheep nor the goats knew why they were chosen or not. They were just not thinking about it.
In my opinion, when it comes to the war in Israel, we are all running around like a crazed herd these days, trying to ascertain which party in the conflict is more righteous than the other. You see, sheep and goats were shepherded together in the ancient near east, just as Israelis and Palestinians have tried to graze together on the same land for centuries. Whose case for virtue is better? The arguments are passionate and persuasive and endless. But the basis for each individual case is different. And while we are furiously bickering, we are ignoring the fact that the criteria we are basing our opinions on are not the same. It’s like screaming at one another other in separate languages. Let me give you seven examples, seven schools of thought if you will:
1. The Quantitative or Mathematical Argument
This group bases its case on metrics: number of innocent civilians killed, kilometers breached, structures destroyed, rockets fired, etc. According to Al Jazeera, maybe not the best source, as of last week, at least 14,854 Palestinians have been killed, including 6,150 children and 4,000 women. The Israeli death toll stands at approximately 1400 Israelis. There you have it. The bigger number wins. End of debate.
2. The Qualitative Argument
This group centers its argument on the nature of the suffering inflicted. It cites the absolute savagery of the Hamas attack, the barbarousness of the crimes committed, the murder and capture of women, children, and the elderly. All true. The other side censures the humanitarian impacts of relentless Israeli bombings: lack of water, shelter, and medical care. Equally true. Together, both sides are bleating from the rooftops, “Your crimes are worse than our crimes,” and we, all of us who think the whole situation is awful, just wish the atrocities would end.
3. The Historical Argument
Having spent time in the Middle East, this is one of my favorites. The short form version is: “You started it.” Proponents of this case cite decades of Netanyahu’s right-wing settlements on the West Bank, obliterating any hope for a two-state solution for the Palestinians. I have seen the condition of Palestinian life in this system firsthand, and I am telling you, it is apartheid no matter how you slice it.
Yet Israelis reference previous Palestinian attacks and incursions—who could forget the Yom Kippur war—and they too are right. Shall we go back to 1948, what Palestinians call the nakba, and the displacement of thousands of Arab citizens into refugee camps, or what about the Holocaust, the pogroms, and centuries of antisemitism. I secretly think historians enjoy arguing who is ultimately to blame since there is an endless supply of historical injustices to debate.
4. The Legal Argument
There are always those who like to cite legal arguments, be it what constitutes aggression, terrorism, crimes against humanity, or proportionality and Just War Theory. In this case, the two competing legal arguments are: self-defense, whereby Israel is invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter, that a state has a right to defend itself against an armed attack. Article 51 is a foundational principle of international law.
On the other side are those who cite international laws that distinguish the right to go to war from a state’s conduct during the war. In short, starting a war off on the “right” side of the law does not give a state more rights in the conduct of hostilities than its enemies. Attacks on civilians and civilian objects are always banned under international law. Thus, it is possible for a state that resorted to force lawfully, to commit unlawful acts in the course of an armed conflict – and vice versa. This is where I think many of the sheep and goats find themselves staking out their turf today.
5. The Political Argument
Shall I tiptoe around this one? Here we have everything from, “Israel right or wrong,” to why is this any of our business, to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, to don’t escalate the conflict whatever you do, to the imperative of a two-state solution, to Palestinians deserve reparations, to what is my favorite media outlet telling me to say.
6. The Ethical Argument
Students of ethics understand that ethical dilemmas are not questions of right vs. wrong, but questions of right vs. right. I wish with all my heart we were capable of a more nuanced understanding of the current situation in the Middle East, that there is such a pile of wrongs fueling this ancient conflict that nothing is morally or ethically clear. What we are left with is a desperate scramble for higher ground where one party or the other can plant the flag of righteousness and earn the world’s sympathy—until the next horrible event occurs. It’s a public relations nightmare.
7. The Spiritual Argument
Finally, my friends, there is the spiritual argument, which brings us back to our parable for today—sheep and goats, clop, clop, clopping around the hillsides of public opinion just being themselves, paying no real attention to the fact Jesus is about to sneak back with strong opinions about who gets saved and who doesn’t. The animals really have no clue which one of the above six arguments is being deployed. Is Jesus praising their math skills, their ability to analyze violence, or their historical, legal, political, or ethical acumen?
No, they learn that a spiritual argument involves love, caring not about your favorite playoff team, but about all humankind, with empathy, doing unto the least of these all over the place.
We are united today in joy about the release of the hostages; this is a good and blessed thing. But don’t you wonder why we cannot stay united, making the spiritual case that two wrongs don’t make a right. I imagine God peering over the edge of heaven shaking his head and whispering to Peter, “No Second Coming yet—just not enough sheep.”
I love the words of Frederick Buechner:
“We are all of us judged every day. We are judged by the face that looks back at us from the bathroom mirror. We are judged by the faces of the people we love, and by the faces and lives of our children, and by our dreams. We are judged by the faces of the people we do not love. Each day finds us at the junction of many roads, and we are judged as much by the roads we have not taken as by the roads we have.
The New Testament proclaims that at some unforeseeable time in the future, God will ring down the final curtain on history, and there will come a day on which all our days and all the judgments upon us, and all our judgments upon each other will themselves be judged. The judge will be Christ. In other words, the one who judges us most finally will be the one who loves us most fully.”
Friends, I’m tired of taking sides. I don’t know about you, but my plan is to pray for peace, and work for peace, to fill someone’s hungry stomach or spirit, to quench someone’s thirst or fear, to welcome strangers, sheep and goats alike, to clothe people who are nakedly vulnerable, to care for the sick and suffering, to visit those in prisons, often of their own making. And, when it comes to the War in Gaza, let’s plant the flag of love on humanity’s mountaintop and hope above hope the world will be utterly impressed by it. Amen.