Lesson 3--A Theology of Racial Reconciliation

“A Theology of Racial Reconciliation” Gospel and Race, Lesson 3 July 15, 2020 at Richmond Noel Schoonmaker

So far in our “Gospel and Race” course, we have had two enlightening live conversations, one with Reverend Amos Disasa and the other with Rev. James M. McCarroll, Jr. We have also had two pre-recorded video lessons: an introduction to gospel and race, and a study of white evangelical Christians and race. In today’s lesson, we will consult the Bible for a theology of racial reconciliation. Specifically, I will discuss the intersection of biblical interpretation, race, and theology through a detailed interpretation of Ephesians 2:11-22. This text is powerful because it associates racial reconciliation with Christ’s atoning death on the cross. When we talk about Christ’s atonement, it’s important to understand that the word atonement means “at-one-ment,” or the reconciliation of formerly estranged parties. In Ephesians 2:11-22, atonement is vertical, which is to say God-to-human, and horizontal, which is to say human-to-human. Specifically, this text summons us to embrace the interracial dimensions of Christ’s atonement. Ephesians 2:11-22 addresses differences between Jews and Gentiles. Using the modern concept of race to analyze these first century social groups has been questioned by some who say that the concept of ethnicity should be used instead. According to religion scholar Denise Buell, “The arguments against using race rely on a definition of race as clear, immutable, grounded in biology, and especially indicated by skin color.”1 Buell contends, on the other hand, that the concept of race is inexact, malleable, socially constructed, and indicated not only by skin color but also by cultural factors. She asserts that neither race nor ethnicity has an exact analogue in antiquity, so the concepts are equally anachronistic. She also observes that definitions of “race” and “ethnicity” change in different contexts, revealing these concepts to be social creations rather than timeless realities.2 Buell therefore asserts that “early Christian texts used culturally available understandings of human difference” which we can examine in terms of modern concepts including race.3 Considering race “off-limits” when discussing the New Testament is especially questionable in light of Bible scholar Gay Byron’s research. She has shown that early Christians used “blackness” and “Ethiopia/Ethiopians” as symbols for sin and evil.4 She notes that the value of employing any modern category, such as race, ethnicity, or religion, “lies in the modern context for and consequences of historical interpretation.”5 Concern for our own modern context motivates us to utilize the concept of race in interpreting ancient scriptures.

1 Denise Kimber Buell, Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 13.

2 Ibid., 6.

3 Ibid., 2.

4 Gay L. Byron, Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature (New York: Routledge, 2002), 5. According to Byron, “Numerous negative references in ancient Christian writings associate Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Blacks with sin, demons, sexual vices, and heresies.”

5 Ibid., 18.

Theologically speaking, racism is a manifestation of sin at the personal and social- structural levels. Although Ephesians addresses social tension between Jews and Gentiles in the first century, theologically it addresses all forms of malignant relations between social groups, including racial groups. Since race is a critical aspect of the social sphere in the United States, and since the tension in Ephesians between Jews and Gentiles is similar to modern-day racism, I will use the terminology of race in discussing human differences in Ephesians 2:11-22. We now turn our attention to the text. My primary objective is to explore this scripture passage as a Christian paradigm for race relations. Ephesians 2:11-22 is no obscure passage. Bible scholar Markus Barth calls it “the key and high point” of Ephesians, and many other commentators view it as “the theological center of the letter.”6 Let’s begin with verses 11-12: “Therefore, remember that once you Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “the uncircumcision” by the ones called “the circumcision”—a circumcision made in the flesh by hand—that you were at that time without Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers of the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” The term “therefore” links Eph 2:11-22 to the previous material in Ephesians 2:1-10, which explains that God has saved us by the grace of Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:1-10 is an important text because it encapsulates the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, a hallmark of Protestantism. The word “therefore” indicates that Ephesians 2:11-22 explains the social effects of Christ’s saving grace, namely, that Christians of different races are reconciled to one another. In view of the word “therefore” in verse 11, the saving grace of Christ is connected to racial reconciliation. The author of Ephesians, who purportedly is Paul, is writing to Gentile Christians. He commands them to “remember” how they were once far from God, accentuating their great distance from God with the terms “having been alienated,” “strangers,” “having no hope,” and the Greek word atheoi which means “without God”. As Bible scholar Bonnie Thurston notes, “there are four ‘strikes’ against the uncircumcised Gentile.”7 The comment about “the circumcision” calling Gentiles “the uncircumcision” indicates tension between Jews and Gentiles. Strained relations between first century Jews and Gentiles are well documented. According to classics scholar Louis Feldman, Gentile masses resented Jews for their wealth as well as their privileged status and influence. Gentiles also regarded Jews as unpatriotic because they refused to worship the gods of the Roman Empire.8 At the same time, some Gentiles were attracted to Judaism and converted, which exacerbated the friction between Jews and Gentiles. Popular prejudice against Jews served to reinforce cohesion in Jewish communities, and, as Feldman says, “the loyalty of Jews to one another…provoked the charge

6 Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1-3 (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1974), 275. William Rader, The Church and Racial Hostility: A History of Interpretation of Ephesians 2:11-22 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1978), 246. Consult also Tet-Lim N. Yee, Jews, Gentiles, and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul’s Jewish Identity and Ephesians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 7.

7 Bonnie Thurston, Reading Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: Crossroad, 1995), 108.

8 Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 109-114.

that they hated every other people.”9 In 38 C. E. and again in 66 C. E., animosity against Jews smoldered into violent attacks on Jews in the city of Alexandria.10 Although we do not know the exact nature of the relationships between Jews and Gentiles in Ephesus, Ephesians 2:14 confirms that the text addresses some sort of hostility between the two groups. Verse 13 says, “But now in Christ Jesus, you, the ones being far away, have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” Just when the Gentiles could scarcely be farther from God, v. 13 declares that they have been brought near to God. In this verse, says Bible scholar Andrew Lincoln, “the blood of Christ signifies his violently taken life and stands for his atoning death.”11 Presumably, Christ’s blood offers Gentiles proximity to God by bringing redemption and forgiveness, for this is what the blood of Christ signals in Ephesians 1:7. The term “redemption” suggests being released from bondage. The term “forgiveness” suggests being rescued from God’s judgment on trespasses, that is, violations of the Old Testament Law.12 So, the death of Christ releases us from bondage and forgives our trespasses. Ephesians 2:13 envisions Christ’s death as a sacrifice for sins comparable to the sin- offerings found in Leviticus 4-5.13 These chapters stipulate animal sacrifices that bring about forgiveness of sins (Lv 4:20, 26, 31, 35) by paying the penalty for sins (Lv 5:6-7). According to Bible scholar James Dunn, “the sacrificial animal in some way represented the guilty or sinful person…and…the animal’s death served in place of the destructive effects of the offerer’s being out of relation with God, or indeed destroyed the corrupting sin itself.”14 Similarly, Christ died as a representative of sinful human beings to put us at peace with God. Christ’s death was substitutionary in that he absorbed the consequences of our sin for us and brought about our forgiveness. Other references to the atonement occur in Ephesians 2:14, “in his flesh,” and Ephesians 2:16, “through the cross.”15 Moreover, Ephesians 2:18 speaks about Christ granting “access” to God. The imagery of “access” further evokes the Old Testament sacrificial system where persons entering God’s presence brought gifts and sought atonement (cf., Lv 1:3-4).16 Therefore,

9 Ibid., 425.

10 Ibid., 113-120.

11 Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 28.

12 Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 105-106; Margaret Y. MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2000), 200; Barth, 83.

13 James D. G. Dunn, New Testament Theology: An Introduction (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 79-80. According to Markus Barth, “By speaking of Christ’s ‘blood’ rather than of his death, the author qualifies Christ’s death in an important way in that references to the ‘blood’ of the messiah, i.e. of Jesus (Christ) reveal a sacrificial understanding of Christ’s death…Blood is the means of making atonement and of receiving forgiveness.” Barth, 299.

14 Dunn, 80.

15 James T. Cleland, “Someone There Is Who Doesn’t Love a Wall: From Text to Sermon on Ephesians 2:11-22,” Interpretation 21, no. 2 (April 1967): 150.

16 O’Brien, 209.

Ephesians 2:11-18 is concerned with atonement throughout. This passage deals with an important aspect of the Pauline gospel: Jesus’ death on the cross for us, which reconciles us to God. Let’s look at verse 14: “For he himself is our peace, having made the two into one in his flesh, and having destroyed the middle wall of the hedge, that is, the enmity between us.” The conjunction “for” ties this section to the preceding claims in verses 11-13, thereby demonstrating the interdependence of verses 11-13 and verses 14-18. The phrase, “for he himself is our peace,” stands like a title to the material in verses 14-18 and introduces the crucial theme of peace.17 The Old Testament anticipated that the Messiah would be the “Prince of Peace” (Is 9:6). But in verse 14, Christ does not make peace but rather is peace. The term “peace” carried theological and political meaning. Theologically, it refers to shalom, the Old Testament concept connoting the absence of strife and also overall wellbeing in God’s covenantal care. Politically, it challenges the Pax Romana, the “peace” provided by Caesar. Thus, if Christ is peace, as Bible scholar John Muddiman says, he is “the fulfillment of shalom for Israel and the true alternative to the so-called Pax Romana.”18 The “peace” referred to in verse 14 is not a mystical, individual serenity of the soul; it is a spiritual and social and political event.19 Specifically, here, Christ is peace between two groups: “the circumcision” and “the uncircumcision” (v. 11). “The circumcision” and “the uncircumcision” are Jews and Gentiles within the church. They are Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. The peace declared in verse 14 is interracial peace in the body of Christ. The “middle wall” which Christ has “destroyed” is a metaphor for racial hostility. The wall, as Muddiman says, is “constituted by all the expressions of social enmity, familiar to any Jew or Gentile in the Hellenistic world, the differences in place of residence, manner of worship, food and dress, politics and ethics, and above all the blank wall of mutual incomprehension, fear and contempt between the two groups.”20 Greco-Roman literature commonly employed the image of a “wall” to communicate ideas ranging from sacrilege to exclusion.21 The wall in verse 14 represents racism. Christ died so that it might crumble. When the cross of Christ is lifted, the wall of racism falls. Let’s look now at verses 15-16: “He annulled the law of the commandments expressed in decrees in order that he might create in himself one new human from the two, making peace, and that he might reconcile the two in one body to God through the cross, having killed the enmity by it.” Verse 15 speaks about Christ creating “in himself one new human from the two.” He brings the two racial groups together into one new humanity. This seems to say with Galatians 3:28 that “there is no longer Jew or Greek…for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” This begs the

17 O’Brien, 192-193.

18 John Muddiman, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Continuum, 2001), 125.

19 James E. Howard, “The Wall Broken: An Interpretation of Ephesians 2:11-22,” in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Practices; Studies in Honor of Jack Pearl Lewis, eds. F. Furman Kearley, Edward P. Myers, and Timothy D. Hadley (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 305.

20 Muddiman, 128.

21 Yee, 150.

question of how racial identity relates to Christian unity. How do distinct racial groups come together as one in Christ? Bible scholar Brad Braxton offers a helpful perspective. He asserts that Paul upheld racial distinctions in the body of Christ but not racial divisions. He emphasizes 1 Corinthians 7:17-20, where Paul instructs Gentiles to remain Gentiles in Christ (in other words, to avoid circumcision) and Jews to remain Jews in Christ (in other words, to retain circumcision).22 Braxton contends that Paul intentionally aimed to create multiracial communities that followed Christ. He writes, “When Paul says, ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female,’ he is not asserting the obliteration of difference, but rather the obliteration of dominance.”23 The result is that Christian unity and racial diversity are complementary. Multiculturalism and egalitarianism coincide in Christ. As Bible scholar Tet-lim Yee suggests, racial differences are no “grounds for estrangement and discrimination.”24 So, in Ephesians 2:15, the “one new human” indicates the removal of racial enmity, not racial distinctiveness. Recall that verse 11 instructs Gentile Christians to recall their Gentile background. The text encourages racial groups not to forget their distinct histories. Since the identity of both Jews and Gentiles depends on remembering their history, this confirms that they do not simply lose their identities in the body of Christ.25 Rather, their racial identities are relativized in Christ to the extent that racial enmity and racial hierarchy are forfeited. While unity is paramount in the body of Christ, racial-cultural heritage is an important identity marker that should not be ignored. Christians are to uphold their various racial identities while also upholding their common identity in Christ. The goal is solidarity without sameness. In verse 16, Jews and Gentiles are reconciled to God through the cross. Here, we encounter the vertical atonement that is often stressed: humans are reconciled to God through the cross of Christ. While verse 14 declares peace between Jews and Gentiles, verse 16 proclaims peace between both groups and God. We have both horizontal atonement, which is human to human reconciliation, and vertical atonement, which is human to God reconciliation. While one appears before the other in the text, horizontal atonement and vertical atonement do not occur sequentially but simultaneously. The reconciling of Jews and Gentiles, and the reconciling of both groups to God, are interdependent, synchronized reconciliations. Bible scholar Ernest Best has it right: “Not only do Jew and Gentile move towards one another,” he says, “both move towards God. Neither movement may be said to be prior to the other or regarded as its basis…Here the reconciliations are as inseparable as the two great commandments of love.”26 The implications are significant. If becoming one with people of different races is part of becoming one with God, then race is a crucial consideration for Christians. Seeking racial reconciliation is not only a social responsibility, it is also a theological necessity—if salvation is to be complete. We cannot focus simply and exclusively on a “personal relationship with God” because Ephesians 2:14-18 reminds us that our personal relationship with God is interpersonal.

22 Brad Ronnell Braxton, The Tyranny of Resolution: 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000).

23 Braxton, No Longer Slaves, 94.

24 Yee, 166.

25 Rader, 248.

26 Best, 107. Consult Mt 22:37-40.

Indeed, it is interracial. Interracial enmity is a significant part of the hostility between God and humanity. But verse 16 says this hostility was overcome on the cross. Christ died to rid the world of racism. It’s significant that the language of “redemption” and the language of “forgiveness” are both in play in Ephesians. Redemption indicates that Christ’s death liberates us from captivity to racism, which appears to be one of the “cosmic powers” or “spiritual forces of evil” that assails Christians in Ephesians 6:12. These powers are both invisible and visible, both heavenly and earthly (Col 1:16). As Bible scholar Walter Wink pointed out, they include “human agents, social structures and systems, and divine powers.”27 Yee claims that the powers in Ephesians “could become a means of dividing human groups, establishing the differences between them, suggesting wherein their ‘otherness’ lies.”28 This is certainly the case for Christians in the United States, where the power of racism has exerted tremendous influence for centuries. According to Ephesians, however, Christ’s death has released believers from the powers that fuse racial identity with racial hostility. We are liberated to practice solidarity without sameness. We are free to have racial distinctions without racial divisions. We have been released from the power of racism at the spiritual, social, structural, and personal levels. This release requires constant resistance against the power of racism. This is part of what it means to “stand firm” against the principalities and powers of this present age, as Ephesians 6:12-13 says. On the other hand, forgiveness indicates that Christ’s death has brought about God’s forgiveness for the personal sin of racism. Christians are forgiven for exhibiting prejudice toward people of other races. While forgiveness is reassuring, it is also challenging. As forgiveness releases us from sin, it gives us responsibility moving forward. Forgiveness implies that Christians have a personal responsibility to withstand the power of racism and to disavow racist attitudes, actions, and arrangements. Disallowing racism to dictate our lives is part of what it means to “be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his power,” as Ephesians 6:10 puts it. On to verses 17-18: “And having come, he preached peace to you the far away and peace to the near, that through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.” As stated previously, the “access” to God in verse 18 is atonement language that echoes sacrificial traditions of the Old Testament. “Access” suggests free and full entry into God’s presence, and this is provided through the Holy Spirit. In God’s Spirit, Jews and Gentiles have equal standing before God. As Bible scholar Pheme Perkins summarizes, “Access for one group does not mean exclusion for others.”29 The ethical implication is that Christians of different races seek equality with one another, and exhibit a harmonious spirit toward one another. As Ephesians 4:3 states, they are to display “unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” Since God has given us spiritual equality, this implies social equality. Note also the proto-trinitarian language in verse 18: Christ grants access to the Father through the Holy Spirit. From the standpoint of post-biblical Trinitarian theology, this verse shows that all three persons of the Holy Trinity are involved in racial reconciliation: Father, Son, and Spirit. It also suggests that cooperation among the three persons of the Trinity is a model for cooperation among members of the multiracial Christian community. The three persons of the

27 Walter Wink, Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 11.

28 Yee, 227. 29 Perkins, 74.

Trinity are distinct yet unified, as are Christians of various races. The three persons of the Trinity relate communally but non-hierarchically, as should Christians of different races. Theologian Miroslav Volf states, “Like the divine persons, so also [Christians] cannot live in isolation from one another.”30 In light of Ephesians 2:18, we might specify that Christians cannot live in isolation from the racial other. Church, therefore, is intended to subvert racial segregation and racial inequality. Verses 19-20 say, “Therefore then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The phrase “therefore then” begins an explanation of the consequences of racial atonement. Verse 19 echoes verse 12, showing that Gentiles who were once outsiders have become insiders. Those who were “strangers to the covenants” in verse 12 are no longer “strangers” in verse 19. Additionally, as Bible scholar Margaret McDonald notes, “the term ‘fellow-citizen’ [in verse 19] is a cognate of the term ‘commonwealth’” in verse 12.31 As Yee observes, the juxtaposition of aliens and citizens constitutes “one of the most significant features in the ancient world serving as signals and emblems of difference.”32 Both Jewish and Gentile readers would have understood this political language of inclusion that breaks down conventional “us-them” dichotomies. If the church is a city, then Gentiles are full citizens alongside Jews. If the church is a household, then Gentiles are members of the family with equal access to the Father.33 If the church is a house, Christ is the cornerstone upon which Christians of different races are being built together. The incompleteness of the building signals that the project of racial reconciliation is ongoing, and we are to continue constructive work on it today. Let’s look at verses 21-22: “In him all the building is fitted together and grows into a holy sanctuary in the Lord, in whom you also are built together into a temple of God in the Spirit.” Jews and Gentiles grow into a “temple” in Christ. The phrase “all the building” connotes the universal church, a construction site juxtaposed with the demolition site where the wall of racial enmity lies in ruins. As for the construction, the Greek terminology literally means “built together with the others.”34 Without Christians of multiple races, the church cannot be built into the structure Christ intends. The doctrine of the church in Ephesians is deeply concerned with the amelioration of malignant interhuman conflict at a social level, and thus it is emphatically multiracial. The metaphor of the building, says Barth, signifies “the mutual coordination and support of the reconciled Jews and Gentiles.”35 Therefore, Christians of different races are to cultivate relationships with one another characterized by mutual edification.

30 Volf, After Our Likeness, 206.

31 MacDonald, 248.

32 Yee, 192 (emphasis in the original).

33 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 302-303.

34 Thurston, 111.

35 Barth, 273.

Now that we have interpreted this text closely, let’s take a step back and look at the big picture. Embracing Ephesians 2:11-22 as a theological paradigm for racial reconciliation offers several insights. First, race relations are a central element of the gospel rather than simply a social issue to which we can apply the gospel. Racism is not to be reduced to a mere social problem that is marginally related to scripture, for Jesus died specifically for the sake of racial reconciliation. In Ephesians 2:11-22, to speak about the peace of Christ is to speak about interracial peace; to speak about Christ’s atonement is to speak about interracial atonement; and to “lift high the cross” is to bring down the wall of racism. Racial reconciliation is tied to the heart of the gospel: Christ, the cross, and atonement. Second, we can see racial reconciliation as a direct outgrowth of Christ’s saving grace. The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Ephesians 2:8-9 is related to the racial atonement in Ephesians 2:11-22. To believe in salvation by grace through faith is to believe in racial reconciliation. No social or racial group has a monopoly on divine grace. Grace draws all equally together in Christ. Third, we can see racial reconciliation in light of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Ephesians 2:18 illuminates how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cooperate to establish racial equality and racial reconciliation. This verse disproves the longstanding criticism that Trinitarian doctrine has no practical value, for it provides a basis for interracial unity in the church. Fourth, we can see that racism is a power from which Christ’s death redeems us and as a personal sin for which Christ’s death provides forgiveness. If racism is presented as anything less than both an evil power and a personal sin, we have not adequately addressed racism. If atonement is presented as anything less than redemption from the power of sin and forgiveness of personal sins, we have not adequately addressed atonement. Fifth, we can proclaim an interracial view of the church. We do not need to insist that every local church become multiracial, but that every church and every Christian seek interracial relationships characterized by justice and peace. Some churches may have the gift of multiracial and multicultural worship, while others may not. Even racially homogeneous churches can make strides toward racial reconciliation, such as reaching out to neighbors of different races, employing multicultural hymnody in worship, and celebrating saints of various racial identities, such as Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, Jr., Oscar Romero, Billy Graham, Mother Teresa, and Takashi Nagai.36 Sixth, we can view the cross in a fresh, new way. We can see the vertical beam as representing atonement between God and humanity, and we can see the horizontal beam as representing atonement between Christians of different racial groups. The cross itself can be seen as a symbol of racial reconciliation in Christ. Eph 2:11-22 is a dynamic paradigm for racial reconciliation. In this passage, Christ destroys the barrier of racism. The cross unites Christians of different races. Atonement redeems us from the power of racism and forgives us for the sin of racism, liberating us to resist it faithfully. The Holy Trinity provides equal access to God for people of different races. And the church is a community of racial solidarity without racial sameness, a community where racial distinctions remain but racial divisions dissolve, a community where racial hierarchy is out and racial holiness is in.

36 Consult Kathy Black, Culturally-Conscious Worship (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000).

In order to concretize this ideal, I think white Christians must be challenged to forfeit our racial advantages and take concrete action steps toward racial justice. I plan to address this matter in a future session. For now, the Lord bless you and keep you and empower you to walk in the atonement of Christ.