Questions

This semester I've been TAing a class on Genesis where one of the major emphases has been on learning to ask good questions.  Accordingly, one of the most recent quizzes I graded required the students to ask three good questions about Genesis 26.  As I read through the questions I found that a good number of students had similar questions about verses 16-25:

And Abimelech said to Isaac, “Go away from us, for you are much mightier than we.”  Then Isaac departed from there and pitched his tent in the Valley of Gerar, and dwelt there.  And Isaac dug again the wells of water which they had dug in the days of Abraham his father, for the Philistines had stopped them up after the death of Abraham. He called them by the names which his father had called them.  Also Isaac’s servants dug in the valley, and found a well of running water there.  But the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac’s herdsmen, saying, “The water is ours.” So he called the name of the well Esek, because they quarreled with him.  Then they dug another well, and they quarreled over that one also. So he called its name Sitnah.  And he moved from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it. So he called its name Rehoboth, because he said, “For now the LORD has made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.”  Then he went up from there to Beersheba.  And the LORD appeared to him the same night and said, “I am the God of your father Abraham; do not fear, for I am with you. I will bless you and multiply your descendants for My servant Abraham’s sake.”  So he built an altar there and called on the name of the LORD, and he pitched his tent there; and there Isaac’s servants dug a well. 


The students noticed that
1. Isaac was mightier than Abimelek and
2. The disputed wells were all on land that God had promised to give Abraham and his descendants.
Therefore, they wondered, why didn't Isaac exercise his might and right and simply fight for control of the land?

It's a valid question, though I find its implications rather disturbing.  (Before I enumerate why, allow me to say that I in no way mean to criticize the students for asking it.)

There are two implications to this question which really stand out to me:
1. Might makes right.  If we have the ability to take what we want, there is no reason we shouldn't do so.
2. Having God on your side gives you more rights than others.
Both of these have interesting religious and cultural significance which I'd like to examine further.

1. Might makes right.
a. While this (hopefully) does not reflect Christianity as much, it does seem to reflect many of the cultural values alive and well in America today.  Look out for number one.  We're often encouraged to take what we can, without regard for how our actions may affect those around us.
b. I think this, especially in the context of Genesis 26, also indicates how far our lives are removed from war here in America.  It's easy for us to say, "Why didn't Isaac fight?" when we can't picture the suffering that would have resulted from such a feud, on both sides.  Isaac may have won in the end, but at a huge cost.  Some may argue that God might have helped Isaac win without loss of life on his side, which leads well into the second point.

2. God on our side.
This is a touchier subject, especially since the context of the passage leads pretty easily to a comparison to modern Israel.  Therefore, before I start, I offer the disclaimer that I don't intend this as criticism of Israel or the Jewish people.
a. As Christians, I think it is easy for us to look at the Bible and say something like, "Oh, God says this is wrong.  Let's go stop it!  After all, God is on our side."  Generally this results in disaster.  Some examples might include prohibition, or the modern political fight against homosexuality or abortion.  While I would agree that drunkenness, homosexuality, and abortion are all wrong, I am not sure that legislation is the best way to impose our values.  And, in spite of our conviction that "God is on our side," such legislation seems to fail pretty regularly.  Sometimes this conviction comes out in other ways, like with angry people leaving rude theological comments on blog posts, so convinced that they are right and "God is on my side."  As if we have a God-given right to be rude and offend people.
b. I think this also reflects on many Christians' attitudes towards Israel and Palestine.  "The land was promised to Abraham and his descendants.  Therefore, the Palestinians have no right to be there."  Such oversimplifications are common and bother me considerably.  At the very least they forget that Abraham and his descendants were to be a blessing to those around them and that they were to take care of strangers.  More than that, though, such an attitude totally fails to take into account reality.  Do the Jews have a right to the land?  Maybe so, but that does not negate the fact that much of that land is currently occupied by a different ethnic group who have their own rights as humans.  I think that sometimes we forget that the God who gave such promises to Abraham is the same God who said, "Love your neighbor."  Living here in America, far removed from everything over there it's as easy for us to say "Isaac should have just fought Abimelek" as to say "The Jews should have all the land and push out the Palestinians" and ignore all the possible negative consequences of such actions.  Abimelek and the Palestinians may not be part of the promised people, but they are not impervious to salvation either and therefore still deserve our consideration.

To sum up, I think it is far too easy for us to simplify both Biblical and modern situations and make judgments without stopping to consider all the facts.  If I may suggest, let's try to take time and listen to both sides and consider the consequences before we jump into foolish action.