In my ministry with Mission ONE, I am working on a multi-year project called the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project.
Here’s the big idea: There is a social, horizontal dimension to the gospel of Christ because there is a social, horizontal dimension to the atonement of Christ (Eph 2:13–17).
Hindustan Bible Institute & College(HBI) has invited me and researcher Kristin Caynor to introduce the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project through HBI’s monthly webinar series. You are invited to join us!
Date: Friday, October 8, 2021
Time: 8:30 a.m. USA Eastern Time / 6:00 p.m. Indian Standard Time (Time Zone Converter)
Platform: Zoom video conference
Title:“Ephesians 2 Gospel Project: Does the Atonement Speak to Collective Identity Conflict?”
Format: a) 20-minute presentation by Werner Mischke, b) 20-minute presentation by researcher Kristin Caynor, c) 10-minute response by HBI scholar, d) Questions and discussion
My presentation will introduce the project. I’ll discuss the social/horizontal aspect of the reconciling work of the cross in Eph. 2:11–22. Kristin Caynor’s presentation focuses on how Early Church fathers interpreted Eph. 2:11–22.
We have two goals for the HBI webinar: 1) Describe in brief the research we have done so far in the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project, and 2) invite the HBI scholar community into the learning journey with us. We want the resources that are developed to be by and for the global church.
Doing Theology, Thinking Mission is available on most podcast platforms. Here’s a link to one: Apple podcasts.
I am enthused about our new podcast “Doing Theology, Thinking Mission.” Here’s why…
1) It meets a need. You will hear compelling (and surprising!) explorations of how Christian theology and the church’s mission relate to each other; that’s pretty special in the world of podcasts. We cover contextualization, honor and shame, biblical interpretation, and the church’s mission in the world.
2) It’s engaging. Dr. Jackson Wu, Carrie Vaughn, and I genuinely enjoy conversing together about the issues we cover and the stories we tell. I’m pretty sure our joy and passion leak through.
3) It’s relevant. It is no small challenge to make the Bible’s story and truths, centered in the life of Jesus Christ, relevant to our broken world. It is an endless quest with lots of discoveries along the way. I hope that this podcast will be a help for many on that same quest.
Check out Episode 1: “How the Bible Frames the Gospel”
In episode 1, we explore the way the Bible consistently frames the gospel. While gospel formulas are comfortable, our pursuit of simple, efficient, and portable gospel explanations have led to an anemic church. Is the gospel the message about how to get saved? Maybe not completely. What if the gospel is not so much the message about how we get saved but the message we must believe in order to be saved?
We also explore the following:
“We compromise the gospel when we settle for the truth.” What does this mean?
Creation, Covenant, and Kingdom—the three gospel frameworks found in the Bible.
Is the truth that “Jesus is King” central to the gospel?
Doing Theology, Thinking Mission is available on most podcast platforms. Here’s a link to one: Apple podcasts.
I have found these books super-helpful in understanding sin and human nature.
I’ve got questions about sin. I’ve been reading about sin. I’m in two books currently:
Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology,by Mark E. Biddle (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005). I bought this book in 2016. I have underlines, markings, and notes on nearly every page. I’m reading it again. (Unfortunately, the book is now out of print.)
The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, by Philip Zimbardo (New York: Random House, 2007). This book is a recent purchase. I am engaging for the first time with one of America’s most famous and widely published psychologists.
Here’s why I am reading about sin: I believe that a limited understanding of the scope of sin has a profoundly undesirable result: It limits our understanding of the scope of the gospel. This, in turn, limits what sins and evils we address by the gospel of Christ—in our own lives, families, communities, nations.
Reductionism about sin leads to reductionism about the gospel.
Our view of sin is crucial
Our understanding of sin and how the Bible describes sin is part of many important beliefs. For example, our understanding of sin helps shape how Christians think about:
Human nature: The theological concepts of original glory, depravity, and original sin fit into this category. The Bible offers us a narrative that can be interpreted in various ways; how does theology shape a view of humanity and humanity’s sin?
The origin of sin: What does the Bible say about the supernatural origin of sin? What about “the demonic”? How does “the demonic” influence humans to perform evil in our world? What is “the Lucifer effect”? What do we make of human responsibility in light of this?
The essence of sin: Is sin atomistic—located first of all in the individual? Or is sin systemic—located first of all in the family-and-social system into which the individual is born? This debate is sometimes referred to as nature versus nurture.
The result of sin: According to the Bible, is humanity’s guilt before God the primary, objective result of sin—or is sin-and-shame equally primary and objective?
The scope of sin: Does sin consist first of all in human pride and willful rebellion against God? What about the witness of Scripture showing that sin can be involuntary or unintentional? What about not living up to our glorious potential as humans—is this sinful? What of sin as silence or inactivity—the passivity of sin?
God’s judgment of sin: Does the witness of Scripture show that God judges or critiques the sin of individuals (and no more)—or does God also judge or critique human social systems— families, cities, tribes, nations, empires? What about churches? Relatedly, does God’s view of sin change from the Old to the New Testament?
The atonement for sin: How does our understanding of sin influence our view of the atonement of Christ—and vice versa? Through his saving death and resurrection, Jesus Christ offers to cleanse persons from their sin, thus reconciling individuals to God. In what ways does Scripture show that the cross and resurrection of Christ offers reconciliation in other dimensions—in ways that transcend the redemption of individuals?
Does the gospel address more than individual sin? Does the gospel offer hope for systemic sin?
If sin is first and finally about individuals, then the gospel is first and finally about individuals. But if the witness of Scripture shows that the gospel addresses more than individual sin, if the witness of Scripture shows that the gospel also addresses the social, systemic nature of sin, what then?
My next series of posts will explore these issues, exploring some of the questions above. I will be referencing plenty of Scripture, the two authors above (Mark Biddle, PhD and Philip Zimbardo, PhD), as well as several other experts and their writings.
I will be making the case for a more systemic, more nuanced, more biblically-comprehensive understanding of sin than what some Christians are accustomed to. And along with that—an expanded hope in the gospel.
Please join me in the coming weeks—in thinking more broadly about sin—and the gospel.
In my last post, I emphasized the Christ-centered foundation of the honor-shame conversation by highlighting the presentation and corresponding article by Steve Hawthorne: “The Honor and Glory of Jesus Christ: Heart of the Gospel and the Mission of God.” Hawthorne’s article is the first article in Section 1 of Honor, Shame, and the Gospel: Reframing Our Message and Ministry, published in late 2020 by William Carey Publishing.
Below is an overview of the fifteen articles—in the order that they appear—in the two sections of the book.
Section One: Honor-shame in general contexts
Steven Hawthorne: “The Honor and Glory of Jesus Christ: Heart of the Gospel and the Mission of God.” The glorious Person of Jesus Christ is the crux and destiny of mission. The beauty of Christ includes this astounding reality: he who suffered great shame and rose in exalted honor shares his glory with all who call him Lord. Accordingly, believers endure hardship and suffer gladly for his name’s sake among the nations.
Jayson Georges: “Honor and Shame in Historical Theology: Listening to Eight Voices.” Significant theologians, from Ignatius to Anselm to Edwards to C.S. Lewis, have explained biblical truth in honor-shame terms. Honor-shame theology is in continuity with Christian orthodoxy.
Tom Steffen: “A Clothesline Theology for the World: How A Value-Driven Grand Narrative of Scripture Can Frame the Gospel.” A unifying story of Scripture is an antidote to fragmentist and specialist tendencies in theology—and vital for ministry among all of story-oriented humanity. The value system of honor-shame functions as a major theme in the Bible’s grand narrative.
Jackson Wu: “Saving Us from Me: Cultivating Honor and Shame in a Collectivist Church.” Scripture depicts the church as a collectivist body, which yields a particular Christian way of living based on honor-shame dynamics. This counters the self-centered, lonely individualism of much Western Christianity.
E. Randolph Richards: “The Shaming of Jesus in John.” Understanding honor-shame dynamics in the social world of the New Testament clarifies the meaning and integrates various stories in John’s Gospel—for example, Jesus cleansing the temple.
Mako A. Nagasawa: “Empowering Personal Healing and Social Justice with Medical Substitutionary Atonement.” Christians throughout history have articulated different views of the atonement of Christ. An early Christian approach to the atonement and resurrection (viz., recapitulation) connects to modern concerns of identity, sacrifice, and justice—along with sin and shame.
Steve Tracy: “Abuse and Shame: How the Cross Transforms Shame.” Sexual abuse and wartime rape horribly defile millions in our world. Early Church Fathers addressed the problem of rape and sexual-abuse shame. Jesus Christ—in his scandalous crucifixion and honorific resurrection—absorbs and conquers the subjective and objective dimensions of sexual abuse victimhood and shame.
Section Two: Honor-shame in various mission contexts
Lynn Thigpen: “The Dark Side of Orality.” Christian workers can unwittingly marginalize “adults with limited formal education” (ALFE). Billions of people in the world are oral-preference learners. Many ALFE suffer from toxic shame. Cross-cultural workers must acquire new skills and develop learner-centered, dignity-enhancing ministry among non-readers.
Arley Loewen: “Must Honor Clash with Humility? Transformed Honor Within the Emerging Church in Muslim Societies.” Honor competition was common in the Early Church; it is common today for Christian leaders around the world—including those in Muslim societies. Leaders can move toward a servant-based honor willing to relinquish position—by experiencing Christ as their unlimited source of honor.
Steve Hong: “Sharing God’s Love in an Urban, Pluralist Context.” The practices of vulnerability, listening, creativity, inclusion—and intentionally dignifying others—lead to deep relationships with secular moderns. They awaken to the gospel of the kingdom whose King is Jesus.
Cristian Dumitrescu: “Discipleship in Asian Honor Cultures.” Making disciples is not a culturally neutral endeavor. In the Asian context, attention to honor-shame issues is critical for effective discipling.
Rich James: “An Honor-Shame Gospel for Syrians Displaced by War: Jesus Christ as Good Shepherd & Honorable Patron.” A culturally relevant and biblically faithful gospel for Syrian refugees involves not just a morally good Shepherd but the honorable Shepherd and Patron who gifts his life for the good of the flock.
Katie Rawson: “A Gospel that Reconciles: Teaching About Honor-Shame to Advance Racial and Ethnic Reconciliation.” Attention to honor-shame issues and terminology can have a profound impact upon efforts to mend relational rupture and bring about reconciliation in contexts of conflict.
Nolan Sharp: “The Book of Samuel: A Reconciling Narrative.” Cycles of blood violence, nationalism, even ethnic cleansing—as was the case in the wars of Yugoslav succession (1991–1995)—are often driven by honor and shame. The stories of Saul and David in 1 and 2 Samuel are a fountain of insights to help reconcile peoples, tribes, or nations in honor-bound conflicts.
Audrey Frank: “The Muslim Woman’s Journey from Shame to Honor.” For women from Muslim backgrounds, barrenness or abuse can be sources of shame, exclusion, defilement. The gospel of Christ covers the shamed and cleanses the defiled—thereby restoring honor.
“Honor, Shame, and the Gospel”, Christopher Flanders and Werner Mischke, Editors
In late 2020, William Carey Publishing released Honor, Shame, and the Gospel: Reframing Our Message and Ministry. The book is a compendium of articles based on presentations given at the 2017 Honor-Shame Conference held at Wheaton College. My colleague Chris Flanders and I worked for more than two years with fifteen contributors in editing this volume. We are so grateful to Denise Wynn and her team at William Carey Publishing for their enthusiastic support for this project.
Book overview
Christians engaged in communicating the gospel navigate a challenging tension: faithfulness to God’s ancient, revealed Word—and relevance to the local, current social context. What if there was a lens or paradigm offering both? Understanding the Bible—particularly the gospel—through the ancient cultural “language” of honor-shame offers believers this double blessing. An honorific gospel offers new points of resonance with communities where shame and honor are critical values, including most unreached peoples.
In Honor, Shame, and the Gospel, over a dozen practitioners and scholars from diverse contexts and fields add to the ongoing conversation around the theological and missiological implications of an honorific gospel. Eight illuminating case studies explore ways to make disciples in a diversity of social contexts—for example, East Asian rural, Middle Eastern refugee, African tribal, and Western secular urban.
Honor, Shame, and the Gospel provides valuable resources to impact the ministry efforts of the church, locally and globally. Linked with its ancient honor-shame cultural roots, the gospel, paradoxically, is ever new—offering fresh wisdom to Christian leaders and optimism to the church for our quest to expand Christ’s kingdom and serve the worldwide mission of God.
Article #1 explores the honor and glory of Christ as foundational to the gospel and the mission of God
Steven Hawthorne, PhD: “The Honor and Glory of Jesus Christ: Heart of the Gospel and the Mission of God.” When Steve Hawthorne ended his presentation at the 2017 conference, there was an unforgettable silence. I remember an extended moment of Christ-focused worship and wonder. You can watch Dr. Hawthorne’s presentation here.
Click here to watch the presentation by Dr. Hawthorne.
Hawthorne’s article is the first in Section One of the book. (The article follows a foreword by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen and an introduction/overview of the book.) Hawthorne opens with these two paragraphs:
“To understand honor-shame dynamics amid the intercultural complexities of mission, one must consider the honor and glory of Jesus Christ. And here’s why: Behind, beneath, and above all human shames and honors is the singular glory of Jesus. In this chapter, we will affirm the glory that Jesus is worthy to receive. But we will also consider the ‘praise and glory and honor’ (1 Pet 1:7), that the living God bestows upon people in Christ.
“Following some introductory remarks, we will explore what I call ‘true glory,’ the glory that God gives to people in and with Christ. Then we will identify a few highlights of the great biblical narrative of God’s glory. Finally, we’ll look at three occasions when God spoke from heaven in the Gospels, each of them increasing our understanding of how we are called to share in the suffering and joy of Christ’s glory.”1
Why is Hawthorne’s article first?Four reasons:
The Christology factor. The conversation about “Honor, Shame, and the Gospel” is grounded in the Person of Jesus Christ. Yes, the honor-shame conversation has tendrils in social science and anthropology. But for Christians, the honor-shame conversation rests upon a biblically-faithful Christology. An honorific gospel speaks to a world drenched in sin and shame (Hawthorne refers to “broken honor systems”). An honorific gospel is rooted historically and eschatologically in the glory of Christ. This is presented convincingly in Dr. Hawthorne’s article.
The statesman factor. Dr. Hawthorne is a “missionary statesman.” We wanted him to bring his passion for the glory of God and his credibility in the Christian missions community to the conference and this compendium. He is the author of “The Story of His Glory”, and editor of Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. For decades, Hawthorne has been promulgating a wise, infectious passion for the glory of Christ as central to the grand narrative of Scripture and the mission of God.
The glory-sharing factor. The multifaceted truth about the glory of Christ is well-known in the Christian community; less well known is the corresponding truth that God shares his honor and glory with those who follow Christ (e.g., John 5:44; 17:22; 1 Pet 2:7; Heb 2:10; 2 Thess 2:13–14). Dr. Hawthorne convincingly communicates this ‘both-and’ truth in his article.
The suffering factor. Hawthorne shows how our faithfulness to the Lord in the face of hardship is rooted in the glory of Jesus Christ. The longing for honor and glory, when rooted in Christ, fuels our obedience to God. Referring to Romans 8:17, the article concludes: “If we suffer with him, we shall also be glorified with him.”
Summary: Could it be, that Dr. Hawthorne’s presentation and article will become known as one of the foundational building blocks in the global conversation about honor, shame, and the gospel? I hope so. Our Christology should be central to the conversation. The honor and glory of Jesus are ever at the heart of the gospel and the mission of God.
Steven C. Hawthorne: “The Honor and Glory of Jesus Christ: Heart of the Gospel and the Mission of God” in Honor, Shame, and the Gospel: Reframing Our Message and Ministry (Littleton, CO: William Carey Publishing, 2020), 3.
This is my fifth post in this series. I am addressing how the gospel of Christ offers a cure to the pathologies of racism and tribalism.My first four posts in this series were:
Below are several verses from the New Testament about the love of God. I include verses about the healing compassion of Jesus Christ. These verses do not specifically address racism or tribalism. But these verses in composite remind us that self-sacrificial love is the primary behavior for which followers of Jesus Christ should be known. And this love is profoundly contrary to the sin of racism and its dehumanizing effects.
“Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:8).
“There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. … We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:18–19).
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Mat 5:9).
“But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. …” (Mat 5:44–45).
“And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.’ And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, ‘I will; be clean.’ And immediately his leprosy was cleansed” (Mat 8:2–3).
“When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Mat 9:36).
“When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick” (Mat 14:14).
“Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, ‘I have compassion on the crowd because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way’” (Mat 15:32).
“Then he said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ And the man stretched it out, and it was restored healthy like the other” (Mat 12:13).
“and Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly” (Mat 17:18).
“The crowd rebuked [the two blind men], telling them to be silent, but they cried out all the more, ‘Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!’ And stopping, Jesus called them and said, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ They said to him, ‘Lord, let our eyes be opened.’ And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they recovered their sight and followed him.” (Mat 20:31–34).
“And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ And they spit on him and took the reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him and led him away to crucify him” (Mat 27:28–31).
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
“So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:13).
“For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility” (Eph 2:14–16).
“and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph 3:19).
The mere mention of Jesus should undermine racism
For those acquainted with the story of Jesus, the mere mention of the life and love of Christ should challenge racist attitudes and behaviors.
Throughout the Gospels, Jesus seeks to save, cleanse, and set free those who are considered defiled, oppressed outsiders—those who are “other.” We see this in:
Jesus healing the leper (Mat 8:1–4)
Jesus setting free the demon-possessed man with an unclean spirit (Mark 5:1–20)
Jesus cleansing the woman with the blood disease (Luke 8:40–48)
Jesus revealing himself to the Samaritan woman (John 4:1–32).
Rather than dehumanizing them or ignoring them, Jesus saves them, cleanses them, restores their dignity, makes them part of his family.
One lesson to consider: From God’s perspective, we are all outsiders due to our sin. We are all “strangers and aliens” to God (Eph 2:12; 19). We all need the cleansing, restorative ministry of Jesus. Therefore, we dare not demean or dehumanize other persons, groups, peoples, races. “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:10–11).
A second lesson: In love, Jesus reaches across social boundaries to know others, to serve, to heal, to set free, to save. This kind of love for others can make us feel awkward. It was risky for Jesus. It can be socially risky for us today. But this is the very boundary-crossing-to-know-others kind of love that should mark the Christian community. Because it is often awkward, courage is required. Will we allow God’s love in us to give rise to that courage?
The life of Jesus—including his death and resurrection—comprises the embodiment of the love of God for all persons and peoples. The New Testament magnifies the egalitarian nature of the all-peoples, all-races, all-nations gospel (e.g., Acts 1:8; Rom 1:5; Gal 3:7–8). Racism is dehumanizing and destructive. But the gospel of the loving Christ is an affirming, honoring, elevating gospel for all peoples.
The embodiment of the love of God in Jesus Christ offers followers of Christ a glorious way of life—“the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge” (Eph 3:19). This is not a personalized, individual experience that Paul is praying for in Ephesians 3. But if it’s not an individual thing, what is it?
Paul is praying for the love of Christ in community, in the church, in human relationships—and yes, across cultures and races (Eph 2:13–16). Observe that Paul prays, “so that Christ may dwell in your hearts [plural] through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints [plural] what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge…” (Eph 3:17–19). Do you see the emphasis on the plural experience, the community comprehending and living this together?
Will we allow the “love of Christ that surpasses knowledge” to be the way of our human relations—as a living witness against racism and tribalism in our divided world?
“To whom do we belong?” Is this THE question, THE issue of our time?
To whom do we belong? We often answer this question automatically: I belong to a family.
The bloodline, the DNA, the family story into which one is born is a relentless identity-shaping force in our lives. This is true for good and for ill, blessing and cursing, and everything in between.
Beyond family, I and my family also belong to a land. Wehave a place called “home” in a particular neighborhood with a particular landscape and certain kinds of people with our own culture. It is where I am familiar to others and where I feel at home. I belong to a region where I work—a city or town. I also belong to a larger land called a nation. Finally, I belong to the human family. Of course, there are exceptions to this. People can be at home while at the same time, feel lost or isolated. People can also move from their homeland by choice, or be forced out by war, famine or other disaster.
But let’s return to family. The question, To whom do we belong? is a question about our core identity, our source of honor. Another term for honor is “social capital.” I like to ask: Where does our honor, our social capital, begin? From a social perspective, it begins with family.
In light of the vital importance of the bloodline family in our lives, let’s consider what Jesus has to say about family in Matthew 12:46–50.
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 12:46–50 ESV
I have written about this Scripture passage before. In The Global Gospel, I describe an honor-shame dynamic called Name/Kinship/Blood. I refer to this very story about Jesus. I observe that Jesus is teaching that there are two dynamics relative to the family of God—a narrowing dynamic and an expanding dynamic.
Rather shockingly, Jesus is redefining family for the Jews, the people of God. Jerome Neyrey calls it a “new index of honor.”1 In other words, Jesus is teaching a new way of measuring honor. No longer is it satisfactory to think that being ethnically Jewish automatically means that one has the honor status of being part of God’s family. Jesus narrows the criteria for membership in God’s family considerably. Pointing to his disciples, Jesus says, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Doing the will of God—obedience to the teachings of Jesus, e.g., the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7)—became the deciding criteria; this is the narrowing dynamic.
But Jesus expands the concept of God’s family as well. Being a member of God’s family and possessing the corresponding honor of being related to Jesus is now available to anyone and everyone; indeed, it is available to “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven.” This “new index of honor”—this new way of defining who was an “insider”—deeply challenged the status quo view of family.
Jesus’ teachings turned upside-down the traditional understanding of people of God, family, and father.2
Are the words of Jesus concerning family really that challenging to the status quo? Here’s what N.T. Wright says:
“In the peasant society, where family relations provide one’s basic identity, it was shocking in the extreme in the first century Jewish culture, for which the sense of familial and racial loyalty was a basic symbol of the prevailing worldview. This saying cannot but have been devastating. Jesus was proposing to treat his followers as surrogate family. This had a substantial positive result: Jesus intended his followers to inherit all the closeness and mutual obligations that belonged with family membership and a close knit family-based society. But this was not just extraordinarily challenging at a personal level. It was deeply subversive at a social, cultural, religious, and political level.”3
Yes, Jesus is teaching something here that is profoundly challenging: It is “deeply subversive at a social, cultural, religious, and political level.”
What does the family have to do with racism?
RACISM is “the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called ‘races’; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.”4
When doing the will of God becomes the criteria for membership in God’s family, it subverts traditional ideas of superiority and inferiority, inclusion and exclusion. Therefore, being part of God’s family—doing the will of God—subverts racism. No longer is the Christian permitted an attitude of inferiority or superiority toward another follower of Christ (nor any other human being) because of skin color, nationality, race or ethnicity, education or wealth, or other measure of social status.
In Galatians 3:28–29, Paul contributes to Jesus’ teaching about family. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
Paul creates theology from the life and teachings of Jesus. Paul is describing a new kind of humanity—a new kind of family that transcends the boundaries of the bloodline family.
Paul has relativized the family—the most basic unit of social organization. In so doing, Paul also relativizes other social units and other markers of social status. This includes: skin color and race. Family name, wealth or poverty. Citizenship and nationality. Level of education. And any other source of ascribed honor or achieved honor. (See my previous post on how and why knowing Christ relativizes other forms of social status.)
It is noteworthy that in Gal 3:28–29, Paul uses the honorific ‘family language’ of Abraham. When Paul writes, “you are Abraham’s offspring”, he uses the Greek word, σπέρμα, or sperma. The ESV translates sperma as offspring; the NIV and KJV translates sperma as “seed.” Doesn’t this refer to the male “seed”—vital for creating a new life?
Paul is conveying a powerful truth about family. Being in God’s family, being in relationship to others doing the will of God (sisters and brothers)—regardless their race or other social marker—this is more vital (not less), more important (not less) than bloodline-family-relations. This family is more durable (not less). This family is eternal, in Christ the risen Lord and King.
A traditional proverb says, “Blood is thicker than water.” But according to Mat 12:46–50, Jesus is saying, Doing the will of God is thicker than blood. Here is the principle:
The ‘thickest’ unifying family dynamic available to the human race is doing the will of God together in relation to Christ.
This is another way that the Bible undermines racism.
To whom do we belong? If we do the will of God (Mat 12:46–50) in Christ (Gal 3:28–29), we belong to the family of God.
LEARN MORE: Much more could be said about this family-of-God-priority. There are difficult questions. For example, what about Christian leaders who mistreat their family because they are overcommitted to their ministry—isn’t this problematic? For additional perspectives on this, I highly recommend The Bible Project podcast, “Family of God E6 / Jesus and the Gentiles.” The entire podcast is excellent, but the discussion about Mat 12:46–50 begins at around 42 minutes.
1. Jerome Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 57.
2. These three paragraphs are largely taken from: Werner Mischke, The Global Gospel: Achieving Missional Impact in Our Multicultural World (Mission ONE, Scottsdale, AZ, 2015), 152.
3. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume 2), (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 278. The author of this blog post first heard this quote from N.T. Wright in the podcast “Family of God E6 / Jesus and the Gentiles” from The Bible Project. https://bibleproject.com/podcast/series/family-of-god, accessed 18 January 2021.
4. Definition by Audrey Smedley in Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism, accessed 18 January 2021.
The focus of this post is on the example of Apostle Paul. He is born and raised a Jew. He has an unquenchable passion for knowing and serving Jesus Christ. As an apostle of Jesus Christ, Paul says things that seem contradictory about himself concerning Israel and his Jewish identity.
On the one hand, Paul loves Israel intensely (Rom 9:3–5). He is proud of being Jewish: “For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (Rom 11:1).
On the other hand, for Paul, knowing Jesus the Christ gives him a glorious “surpassing worth” or honor. This honor surplus embedded in Christ is so glorious, that by comparison it apparently degrades other aspects of his identity, namely his Jewishness (Phil 3:8). I use the word degrade intentionally—he compares aspects of his Jewish identity to “rubbish.”
We observe that Paul’s honor, reputation, or social capital has become saturated by the glory of Christ. This makes other sources of honor, other facets of his identity—race, tribe, citizenship, education or other achievements—seem much smaller in comparison.
Paul’s life is an example of how Jesus Christ undermines the significance of one’s race or tribe.
Paul loves being a part of God’s people Israel
Being of the Hebrew race and culture, Paul loves God’s people Israel. Paul loves his “kinsmen according to the flesh” so much that he writes, “I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers” (Rom 9:3).
Paul also recognizes that God has specially chosen the “Israelites” (Rom 9:4). Paul is boasting when he offers this impressive list of honorifics attributable to his people: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” (Rom 9:4–5).
Paul is proud of his race the Hebrews. He cares about God’s people Israel—the prophets and families and tribes and land. Paul cares about the ancient promises of God to Israel. Paul knows Jesus as the promised Messiah, the fulfillment of Israel’s story (Rom 1:1–5) by which God saves the world.
Who is Paul before knowing Jesus?
In Philippians 3, Paul describes what he is proud of in his life. He describes his ascribed and achieved honor as a Jewish man. (Learn about “Two sources of honor—ascribed and achieved”: short video / long video / chapter excerpt).
Who is Paul prior to knowing Christ? Here is the answer in Philippians 3:5–6. Paul makes a list of the features of his life about which he was most proud. He is comparing his ascribed and achieved honor status to others—Jews who claim to be Christ-followers but are demanding that gentile Christian converts be circumcised (Phil 3:2–3). Paul is playing a game of one-upmanship. You say you’re a good Jew? … Oh, yeah? … Well, “If anyone else thinks they have reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more” (Phil 3:4).
So Paul lays it out for his readers: Paul has a bounty of social capital as a Jewish man: “circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Phil 3:5–6). Below is a chart that categorizes Paul’s honor status or social capital based on these two verses:
Having made his boast about his multifaceted Jewish honor, Paul then makes an absolutely stunning statement:
But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.
Philippians 3:7–8
Paul intends to shock his readers. He succeeds:
Paul says that his status based on race and bloodline is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his honor based on his parental upbringing is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his social status based on his nationality is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his honor based on his tribal identity is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his social capital based on his educational achievements is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his status based on his religious achievement is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his honor based on any ethical achievement is “as rubbish.”
Paul is exaggerating to make a point
We saw in Romans 9–11 that Paul identifies himself as Jewish, and that he loves God’s people Israel. So in Philippians 3, why is Paul seemingly abusing his own racial, tribal, national, and religious identity?
What is Paul saying here? Is Paul saying: These honor status features in my life won’t get me to heaven? Or, No one can trust in theirgood works for salvation?
I believe Paul’s emphasis is elsewhere.1 Paul’s emphasis is on the glory of Jesus Christ. He is so enamored with knowing Christ that a gigantic shift has occurred in his sense of self, his sense of … Who am I? To whom do I belong? The surpassing worth of Christ makes everything else valuable in life pale in comparison.
Paul is enthralled with Christ. Paul is overwhelmed by the honor and joy of knowing and serving the Messiah-King. In Paul’s letter, the word Christ occurs no less that 35 times. Here is a sampling:
“…whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, in that I rejoice (Phil 1:18) … “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21) … “and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11) … “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ” (Phil 3:7) … “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord … in order that I may gain Christ” (Phil 3:8) … “I press on … because Christ Jesus has made me his own” (Phil 3:12) … “Our citizenship is in heaven and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil 3:20) … “I can do all things through [Christ] who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13) … “God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:19) … “Greet every saint in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:21).
Knowing and serving the Christ is so magnificent that—by comparison—race, tribe, nationality, education, and other measures of social worth are irrelevant
Paul describes his life goal: “that I may know him” (Phil 3:10). His passion and treasure is “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” This has a social impact. Cross-cultural, inter-ethnic unity in the church is a real possibility. This is no small issue for Paul. The religious leaders who have unbiblical obstacles to faith and unity in Christ are “dogs” and “evildoers” (Phil 3:2). This is a gospel issue: The body of Christ is to be a community of diversity (see my prior post: “The atonement kills hostility between peoples”).
The Bible undermines racism in Philippians 3: It happens in our lives through the glory of knowing Christ. I offer two summary points:
Because of “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord,” all forms of social capital are relativized, including racial and tribal identity.
To gain greater diversity in the local church, we need more than a common faith in Christ. Paul’s testimony in Philippians 3 suggests that the risks of crossing social boundaries are overcome through a passionate allegiance to Christ and desire for the experience of Christ.
NOTES
Issues of salvation and the afterlife are secondary issues in Philippians 3 (Phil 3:11; 20–21). Paul is not making a distinction between Jews getting to heaven by works versus Christians getting to heaven by grace. The overwhelming emphasis in Philippians 3, as well as on the rest of the letter, is simply … Christ!—the magnificent, glorious, transformational reality of knowing and serving Jesus the Christ (Phil 1:21; 2:1; 5; 2:10–11; 3:3; 7–8; 12; 14; 4:13; 19). Paul wants his friends in Philippi (Phil 1:3) to imitate his passionate allegiance to the Christ.
This is my second post in a series on how the gospel of Christ offers a cure to the pathologies of racism and tribalism. My first post in the series, “All Gentiles are born ‘strangers and aliens’”, is here. A small part of this second post is adapted from my forthcoming article in Missio Dei Journal: “An Honor-Bearing Gospel for Shame-Fueled Crises.”
In Ephesians 2:16 we read that the cross is “killing the hostility.” What does this mean?
13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. –Ephesians 2:13–16 ESV
Four verses on what Christ’s atonement accomplishes
In Ephesians 2:13–16 Paul proclaims a stunning truth: The cross kills hostility (Eph 2:16). The default hostility between Jew and Gentile is plain in these verses. Somehow the atonement of Christ makes it possible to resolve this conflict.
Once far off, now brought near
Verse 13. The phrase “But now in Christ Jesus, you who were once far off …” (Eph 2:13) is like saying, You Gentiles were distant from God’s people.You and your people were so very different from my people. This distance between us made us natural enemies. But now, in King Jesus, “you have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13).
The crucifixion of Jesus did something world-altering in the social realm. Being “in Christ” is not merely an individual, vertical, largely internal and invisible, spiritual reality. Being “in Christ” is also about who we are (plural) right now, right here. It is likewise a spiritual reality that is social, horizontal, external, public, and visible. This happens “by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13).”
Timothy Tennent writes: “The New Testament celebrates a salvific transformation that has both vertical and horizontal dimensions. Personal salvation in the New Testament is inextricably linked to becoming a part of the new humanity of Ephesians 2:15.”1
The gospel has a social dimension because the atonement has a social dimension.
The gospel truth: The atonement transforms both the individual-vertical and social-horizontal arenas of human life.
The crucified-and-risen Christ is our peace
Verse 14. When Paul writes, “For he himself is our peace,” it is understood that without Christ, conflict prevails. Hostility between peoples is humanity’s default. The phrase “who has made us both one” is not referring to two persons in conflict. It refers to two groups, Jews and Gentiles, in conflict. Paul is saying I belong to the Jews (collectively); and you (collectively) are the Gentiles. (See the post on HonorShame.com, “In Christ as a Communal Ethic,” which offers a fuller explanation.)
This making “us both one” is only possible because Christ has “broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility.” Paul is saying that when Christ’s body was crucified, something was broken “in his flesh.” That something is “the wall of hostility.” Somehow the atonement of Jesus the Christ breaks down walls of conflict between Jew and Gentile peoples “in Christ.”
But God is doing more than offering reconciliation to Jews and Gentiles. God’s purpose is “to unite all things in him” (Eph 1:10), and “to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20). Any conflict between peoples, any racial hostility, can be resolved in the Christ who is “our peace”—people together giving their allegiance to King Jesus.
The gospel truth: The atonement breaks down walls of hostility between peoples.
Abolishing values that fuel tribalism and segregation
Verse 15. “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (Eph 2:15). What does this have to do with atonement? We find clarification in Colossians 2:14: “by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” Christ “abolishing the law of commandments” (Eph 2:15) overlaps with Christ “canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” by “nailing it to the cross” (Col 2:14).
The law in the Old Testament was not only the moral law of God. The law also consisted of regulations that were more cultural in nature (such as food guidelines), and contributed to the “wall of hostility” between the Jews and the non-Jews (Gentiles). Mark Roberts writes, “The death of Christ has supplanted the law, and therefore all people can belong to God through faith because of his grace in Christ.”2 Cultural differences that are the basis for division, conflict, and hostility are subsumed in the crucifixion and resurrection of the man Jesus the Christ.
The gospel truth: The atonement nails to the cross cultural regulations or values that are the basis for tribal or racial separation.
The “one new man”—who is this?
More on verse 15. “that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace.” Who is this “one new man”? What is this new way of being human?
This is the kingdom-of-God program of identity formation. In Ephesians 2:19, God is democratizing honor for believers—insider status is available to all who give their allegiance to the Christ. This “one new man” (Eph 2:15), this new way of being human, relativizes every other form of social capital. Even racial identity is somehow absorbed into Christ. Roberts writes:
Recall that the recipients of the letter were… Gentiles “by birth” (literally “in flesh,” en sarki). These Gentiles did not become Jewish when they received God’s grace through Christ. Rather, Christ made them into something different from ordinary Gentiles and Jews. The early Christian writing known as the Epistle to Diognetus expresses this same point when it calls Christians a new race, “neither Jewish nor Gentile.”3
The Epistle to Diognetus calls Christians a new race, neither Jewish nor Gentile. This is an arresting thought. It informs how we think about the phrase “one new man” (Eph 2:15), hena kainon anthropon in the Greek. The phrase is also translated “one new humanity” (NIV), and “one new people” (NLT). Believers from Jewish backgrounds as well as Gentile backgrounds, believers from every social class together, gain not merely the ultimate insider status—“members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19); Christ-followers also gain a new core identity.
Could it be—the influence of Jesus Christ on who we are is so fundamental, it’s almost like gaining a new racial identity?
McNall captures the essence of this new identity. “This transformation [by the reconciling cross of Christ] is seen … in the tearing down of ethnic and cultural boundaries (‘the dividing wall of hostility’ [2:14]). This demolition results in a new community comprised of a new people who do not look like they belong together. Only Jesus and his spirit can account for this strange lot.”4
The gospel truth: The atonement creates a new way of being human—a new identity in Christ that’s like “a third race.”
That strange phrase—“killing the hostility”
Verse 16. “and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility” (Eph 2:16). Somehow, the brutal violence of the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ kills the hostility between “us both.” Paul is getting personal again when he says “us both” (Eph 2:14, 16). He himself is part of a collective identity (Jewish) needing reconciliation in Christ “to God in one body”—with another collective identity (Gentile).
These two groups are separated and segregated. Although they live in the same city, they are not in the same neighborhood. They generally do not live together, play together, or worship together. They do not intermarry. They have different physical features, There are hundreds of years of hostility between them. Their politics and cultures compete, sometimes violently. They are suspicious of each other.
But Paul says when persons and peoples give allegiance to Jesus the Christ—the One who was brutally crucified, the One who then rose from the dead and was exalted as king of kings—something glorious happens. The atonement of Christ is “killing the hostility.” This verse is in the active, present-tense voice as though the Christ-event, which happened two thousand years ago, is impacting humanity into our present days and forward into the future.
Reconciliation between peoples in conflict is not merely a dream. Reconciliation is embodied in the man Jesus Christ and his body crucified and risen again. Peace is possible. Paul boldly imagines a new humanity, “one new man” (Eph 2:15), a “third race,” embodied in Christ. The core identity of this body is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither red or yellow, black or brown or white. It is not that cultural distinctions are obliterated. It is that Jesus the Christ is so glorious and so magnified in our social relations that the walls of separation and hostility dissolve. Paul envisions this as the new normal.
The gospel truth: The atonement kills hostility between peoples.
Toward a social imagination based on Ephesians 2
What are we being called to believe? That the cross kills all hostility in the here-and-now? No, we are not called to magical thinking. I recommend three “steps of belief.”
The cross kills hostility—step 1: The social hostility between Jewish and Gentile peoples (although in some cases commanded by the Old Testament) was in some measure conquered by the violence of the cross. Peace is possible—now—through the “new humanity” (Eph 2:15). Traditionally at odds with one another, Jews and Gentiles really can worship in unity through their common faith in Jesus the Christ, despite cultural and racial differences.
The cross kills hostility—step 2: This biblical truth extends to any and all peoples in conflict, since the plan of God “for the fullness of time” is to “unite all things in him” (Eph 1:10), to “reconcile to himself all things . . . making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20). We see that this applies globally for all families, peoples, and nations. It is a sure hope for the future—an eschatological hope.
The cross kills hostility—step 3: In the third step, we dream. This dream stage is a call for Christians to develop a social imagination that is informed by Ephesians 2. It is a vision that, as Timothy Gombis says, “includes and celebrates racial, ethnic and gender differences . . . [whereby] no singular gender, ethnicity or race is any closer to God than any other. We are all one in Christ and are now free to explore the gifts that each group brings to the kingdom party.”5 This step combines the “now” of step 1 with the “whole-world hope” of step 2. Could it be that the pathologies of racism and tribalism may in some measure be cured by the atonement of Christ “killing the hostility”?
ACTION POINTS
Evaluate your view of the atonement. Have you ever considered Ephesians 2:13–16 as part of a comprehensive view of the doctrine of the atonement? Might Ephesians 2:13–16 be just as important as, for example, Romans 3:23–25? Why do you think this Ephesians passage is under-represented in the literature about the atonement? For example, in this best-selling Systematic Theology, an extensive chapter (Ch. 27) is devoted to the doctrine of the atonement. Not one mention is given to Ephesians 2:13–16. In fact, not one time is Eph 2:13–16 cited in the entire volume. This is the case, despite the density of truths concerning “the blood” (Eph 2:13) of Christ, “the cross” of Christ, the emphasis on “his flesh” (Eph 2:14), as well reconciliation and the act of “killing” (Eph 2:16). Is this evidence of a theological blind spot that ignores group identity issues? Does this hint at why the evangelical church struggles with how to address racism and tribalism?
Teach and preach the gospel based on the atonement truths in Ephesians 2:13–16. Develop a gospel message that calls people to give their allegiance to Christ based primarily on these verses.
This is post 4b in a series on allegiance in the Christian faith. We continue our exploration of the meaning of allegiance to Christ in the church’s sacrament of baptism.
Post #1 introduces the topic of allegiance to “THE CHRIST”—Jesus as King.
Post #2 was on allegiance and GRACE, referencing primarily Paul and the Gift by Prof. John M. G. Barclay.
Post #3 focused on allegiance and FAITH, in which we referenced Matthew W. Bates’s Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ.
Post #4 focused on allegiance and BAPTISM. We began looking at R. Alan Streett’s Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance.
The question we are continuing to explore is this: What does allegiance have to do with BAPTISM?
In this relatively short book (190 pages), Dr. Streett has eleven chapters. The chapter titles (below) comprise an overview of the significance of baptism in the New Testament.
Defining our Terms
Baptism in its Historical Context
Baptism and Roman Domination
John the Baptizer
The Baptism of Jesus
Baptism, Resurrection, and Restoration of the Kingdom
Baptism and Pentecost
Baptisms Beyond Jerusalem
Paul the Baptizer
Baptism in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles
Baptism in the Other Epistles and the Apocalypse
In my previous post, we considered the significance of the New Testament being written in the social and political situation of the Roman Empire. Allegiance to Caesar was required. Through the Roman army, Caesar Augustus had created political stability across a huge Empire by military force. He gave this program the name Pax Romana (Peace of Rome).
To accomplish the goal of universal peace, Augustus sent envoys, accompanied by armed troops, to those nations outside Roman territory with the good news (εὐαγγέλιον) of peace and invited them to join the satellite of Roman nations. In exchange for their pledge of loyalty, Caesar guaranteed their “peace and safety,” promising that the Roman military would protect their borders from invaders and maintain concord within their provincial boundaries. If Caesar’s offer was rejected, he sent his troops to invade and conquer the nation, and bring it under Roman rule.
Streett, R. Alan. Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (p. 27). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Jesus, his disciples, and all the New Testament writers lived in the social environment of the Roman Empire. Loyalty and allegiance to Caesar was simply understood; and it was enforced by the well-paid Roman army. Those who defied “the glory that is Rome” were not tolerated. They were crushed militarily. Or they were crucified—brutal and total humiliation in public. Dr. Streett repeatedly points out (pp. 21, 28, 80, 103) that from a political perspective, Jesus was crucified for sedition—being a rival king to Tiberias Caesar (John 19:12–16) and causing social unrest. It was Jewish chief priests who cried out, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). (NOTE: Obviously, the accusation of sedition was not the only reason Christ was crucified. See, for example, Mark 10:45; John 3:16; Acts 2:23; Rom 3:23–25; Eph 1:7; 2:13–16; Heb 1:3; 2:14.)
Baptism as a sacrament of allegiance
In the Roman Empire, why did the sacrament1 (sacramentum) signify allegiance? And why did baptism express allegiance?
Dr. Streett cites numerous sources from the time of the Roman Empire to demonstrate that the sacramentum signifies allegiance. One source is Tacitus, born about 25 years after the death of Christ:
Tacitus (56–117 CE), the Roman senator and historian, referred to sacramentum during the Empire as the verbal pledge of allegiance a soldier gives to his emperor. Tacitus was the first to speak of “receiving the sacrament” (sacramentumacciperent) because the oath was being administered to the soldier on behalf of the emperor. The wording of the oath remained constant; only the object of the oath changed from one Caesar to the next. Through the reign of Caesar Tiberius (14–37 CE), soldiers were required to take the sacrament only once during their career, but during a time of great turmoil in the Empire, Galba (68 CE) required them to take the sacrament on a yearly basis. (p. 3)
What about early Christian leaders? Did they see baptism as allegiance? Streett references Tertullian—an early church leader and author whom many consider a founder of Western Christianity.
Tertullian (160–225 CE), the famed apologist, was more specific and identified the act of baptism as the Christian sacramentum and contrasted it to a Roman soldier’s pledge of loyalty to the emperor and Empire. By analogy, he makes the case that just as a soldier, upon his oath of allegiance, was inducted into Caesar’s army, so a believer was initiated by the sacrament (oath) of baptism into God’s kingdom. Each vowed faithful service to his god and kingdom. (p. 4)
Streett ties together material on baptism spanning the New Testament. He makes the case that baptism was not only an expression of identificationwith the Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom 6:3–5). Baptism was also an oath of allegiance to the Christ and his kingdom. This oath of allegiance to the Christ was an implicit denial of allegiance to other social structures which may be inconsistent with the values of the kingdom of God.
The example of Jesus’ baptism
I found one insight from Streett particularly helpful. It concerns Luke’s record of the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:22). When Jesus was baptized, “the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove.” The dove, Streett argues, has political, anti-imperial overtones. Streett references William Karlson; his PhD dissertation traces the significance of birds in coronation practices—the public crowning and enthronement of a king.
[Karlson] traced the ritual coronation of English kings to the coronation practices in ancient Rome. In his dissertation he documents how Romans used divination, particularly augury, i.e., observing the flight of birds, to select their kings. Those who studied avian signs were called augurs or auspices. The term augur has Latin roots and etymologically means “to consecrate by augury.” We find it imbedded in the English word inauguration, meaning the coronation of a king.
Luke’s readers, familiar with the way emperors were chosen, would surely know that the Spirit alighting on Jesus as a dove “in bodily form” functioned in the same manner. It served as an avian sign or omen from heaven that pointed to Jesus as Yahweh’s choice as king. (pp. 56–57)
Streett’s citation is as follows: Karlson, William, Jr. “Syncretism: The Presence of Roman Augury in the Consecration of English Monarchs.” PhD diss., Baylor University, 2007.
Street highlights the fact that the eagle was the bird of choice for Roman emperors. He quotes Pliny the Elder, the Roman author and philosopher who lived in the first century: “Of the birds known to us the eagle is the most honorable and also the strongest.” . . . “the eagle became the bird of emperors” (p. 58). A gentle dove alighting on Jesus is an unmistakeable contrast to the flight of a powerful eagle authenticating a newly enthroned Ceasar.
For Luke, the coming of the Spirit “in bodily form” means it is an avian sign. Jesus is God’s choice as king. Unlike the Roman emperors, however, his reign will not be based on violence and domination. Throughout his gospel, Luke consistently portrays God’s kingdom as the antithesis of the Roman Empire (Luke 6:20; 13:29–30; 18:16; 22:25–27). Jesus is a king who brings peace, not at the expense and suffering of others, but through his own service and suffering. Jesus’ kingly power must be understood in contrast to the Roman understanding of power. (p. 60)
Jesus’ baptism is a statement about a new kind of King and a new kind of kingdom. It follows that believers’ baptism is an oath of allegiance to that King and his kingdom.
The baptism of Jesus is a spiritual event by which his kingdom is inaugurated. While Jesus’ kingdom is about heaven, it is also about “Thy kingdom come, the will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
If Jesus’ baptism was the inauguration of his kingdom, then what does it mean for believers to follow Christ’s example? The idea of baptism as mere outward symbol of an inward spiritual reality does not quite jive with the witness of Scripture in the social context of the Roman Empire. Believers’ baptism is also an oath of allegiance and loyalty to the King of kings and Lord of lords, who “came not to be served but to serve” (Mark 10:45).
Streett says, “The Lukan account [of Jesus’ baptism], with its use of avian imagery, portrayed Jesus as an anti-imperial king who would challenge Rome’s right to rule. His kingdom, based on social justice, covenant mercy, and the establishment of peace apart from the use of violence, was antithetical to the Roman domination system” (p. 64).
In the next post I will pull together the main ideas, ask some questions, and suggest some applications. View that post here.
The sacraments are a part of the life of the church. There are seven sacraments for Catholics and Orthodox Christians. For most Protestants, there are two sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s Supper (or Communion). Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are considered sacraments by all true Christians.
