Content uploaded by Honor Sewapo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Honor Sewapo on Apr 05, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Religions: Journal of the Nigerian Association for the Study of Religions, Volume 25, No.1,
January 2015, pp. 168-185, ISSN: 0794-3989.
PAUL’S PROCLAMATION OF RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE BUILDING IN
NIGERIA
By
Honore Sewakpo, PhD
Department of Religious Studies
Faculty of Arts, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
honorsewapo@gmail.com
+2348034233298
Abstract
Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation is central in his understanding of peace building. Existing
studies on this concept often focus primarily on reconciliation terminology which is unique to
Paul in the New Testament; Paul’s use of “reconciliation” which is quite different from that in
Greek literature or the Hellinistic Jewish writings; and Paul’s doctrine of reconciliation which is
in connection with his Damascene experience. Yet, contemporary scholarship has seldom
brought these three matters together and so has not often discussed Paul’s understanding of
reconciliation in contextual relation to peace building in contemporary society. Nevertheless, the
question must be asked: is it not plausible that reconciliation should be consequent to peace
building? This paper, therefore, investigates Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation in relation to
the utmost yearning of peace building by Nigerians with a view to establishing lasting and
enduring peace in Nigeria. Using Fuchs’ new hermeneutic approach to the New Testament
interpretation, the paper reveals that holistic peace could not be attained through military,
political, economic, legal, culture and civilization, and religious’ approaches but by vertical and
horizontal reconciliation as enshrined in Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation. To attain a golden
age in Nigeria where peace shall flow like a river, Paul’s concept of reconciliation is hereby
recommended.
Keywords: Holistic peace, Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation, Peace building, Vertical and
horizontal reconciliation
2
Introduction
All over Nigeria, the utmost yearning for peace-building has become the order of the day.
In spite of the concerted efforts that have been made by the judiciary, the politicians, the royal
fathers and religious leaders, peace has not yielded the desired result. Attempt towards attaining
this level of peace building requires far more than reforming institutions and practices; rather, it
requires clear thinking about the more basic questions: What is reconciliation and how is it
related to the building of peace? The concept of reconciliation involves the holistic restoration of
right relationship, contains not only a compelling logic of justice but also provides great promise
for resolving peace-building’s tensions, and fosters divine intention (in the book of Ephesians) to
embrace peaceful coexistence of God’s people (Christians and Muslims, civilians and uniformed
personnel, partisan politics and non-partisan politics, the bourgeois and the poor, the royal
fathers and their subjects, the employers and the employees, mentors and mentees,
lecturers/teachers and students) in Nigeria.
Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is breathtaking in its theological grasp of the scope of God’s
purpose for his people. It is a pastorally warm letter and spiritually sensitive in its teaching of
horizontal and vertical reconciliation which has begun in Christ and will be consummated in
him. While the early church uniformly supported the Pauline authorship of Ephesians; many
modern scholars
1
, owing to alleged subtle shifts
2
away from a Pauline perspective to Ephesians,
have disputed it. In spite of these alleged differences from the Paul of the other letters, Paul is
indeed the author.
The question arising from the above submission is: In what ways could Paul’s
proclamation of reconciliation in Ephesians be a catalyst for attaining lasting and enduring peace
in Nigeria? In order to proffer answer to this question, the paper employs Fuchs’ approach to the
New Testament Interpretation which posits that the proclamation loses its character when it
anticipates or presupposes confession. Fuchs finally submits that the text is therefore not just the
servant that transmits kerygmatic formulations, but rather a master that directs us into the
language-context of our existence.
3
Background Considerations
The concept of reconciliation is broader than anyone could imagine. Louw and Nida aver
that “meanings involving reconciliation have a presuppositional component of opposition and
3
hostility, and it is the process of reconciliation which reverses this presuppositional factor.”
4
Breytenbach
5
opines that the term καταλλάσσω “reconciliation” in the literature of the Greeks is
never used in a religious context for the relationship between God and human beings, but that its
most prominent use with respect to interpersonal relations is in connection with a peace-treaty
process that takes place in a political or military context. While Josephus uses the word
καταλλάσσω to describe David’s reconciliation to Absalom,
6
Howard Marshall has pointed to
several passages in 2 Maccabees where καταλλάσσω is, in fact, used in a religious context for
God being reconciled to his people.
7
It is noteworthy that 2 Maccabees 8:29 states how Israel’s
apostasy aroused the wrath of God and the people prayed to God “to be reconciled with his
servants” (2 Maccabees 1:5); as well as how God has vented his wrath on his people or on their
representatives and as a result of it he will be reconciled with them (2 Maccabees 5:20; 7:32-33).
Of importance here is to note the way in which reconciliation takes place in this Hellenistic
Jewish writing. For instance, God is reconciled to humanity, rather than the reverse. How, then,
did Paul come to develop the concept of reconciliation as a metaphor for God’s saving work in
Christ? Marshall avows that the Jewish martyr tradition represented in 2 Maccabees may have
been the catalyst for Paul’s development of his concept of reconciliation.
8
That is, while
interpreting Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice in the light of the martyr tradition of 2 and 4
Maccabees, Paul may have formulated his reconciliation doctrine in deliberate contrast to the
Jewish view of a martyr’s death, which was interpreted as moving an angry God “to be
reconciled” to his people. It is plausible that the Hellenistic Jewish tradition represented in 2
Maccabees exerted some influence on Paul’s concept of reconciliation. On this, Hofius says:
The Pauline idea of “reconciliation” is ... shaped decisively by the
message of [Deutero-Isaiah]. Its foundation, however, lies
elsewhere: in [Paul’s] encounter with the Risen One, in which God
disclosed to the persecutor the cross as his act of reconciliation and
called him to be the envoy of the word of reconciliation. What had
been revealed to Paul in this event, he then found confirmed and
interpreted through the prophetic witness of Scripture. Thus he
obtained from the OT the language by which he was able to
express the saving act of God in Jesus Christ.
9
Paul is the primary New Testament author to use the καταλλάσσω word group which is
commonly associated with the concept of reconciliation.
10
The three key words are
ἀποκαταλλάσσω (Eph 2:16; Col 1:20, 22), καταλλαγὴ (Rom 5:11; 11:15; 2 Cor 5:19), and
4
καταλλάσσω (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:18, 19, 20).
11
The distinctiveness of Paul’s use of
καταλλάσσω has led many to affirm that reconciliation is a uniquely Pauline category for
interpreting God’s saving act in Christ. For instance, Paul never says that God is reconciled (or,
that God reconciles himself) to human beings, but always that God reconciles human beings to
himself or that human beings are reconciled to God. Paul states that God must not be reconciled
to human beings, but human beings need to be reconciled to God; and that reconciliation
between God and human beings is not accomplished by people’s repentance, prayers, or other
good works, but rather by God’s grace alone. Indeed, God is the initiator and people are the
receptors of reconciliation.Thus, Paul makes a fundamental correction of the Hellenistic Jewish
conception of spiritual reconciliation in his latter usage of καταλλάσσω.
Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is chosen to investigate his usage of καταλλάσσω because
of its distinctive uniqueness among others. The uniqueness of this Prison letter is remarkable in
its description. While, Bruce refers to Ephesians as “the quintessence of Paulinism,”
12
Dodd calls
it “the crown of Paulinism,”
13
and Hendrikson postulates that it is “the divinest composition of
man, the distilled essence of the Christian religion, the most authoritative and most consummate
compendium of the Christian faith, full to the brim with thoughts and doctrines sublime and
momentous.”
14
In Ephesians 2, Paul focuses primarily on “horizontal reconciliation,” that is, how
in Christ the great barrier between Jews and Gentiles was removed, and the Gentiles united with
believing Israel (Eph 2:14-15); and on “vertical reconciliation,” on this he says that both Jew and
Gentile are brought to God, and are given access to him (Eph 2:16-18). What is needed,
however, is a firmer exegetical analysis of Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation, which is
provided in what follows.
Exegesis of Ephesians 2
Ephesians 2:14-18 take us to the thrust of Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation, and since
our exegetical analysis will focus on these verses, it will be helpful to cite them here in full:
For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken
down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the
law of commandments and 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 bringing the hostility to an end. And he came and preached
5
peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near;
for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
Verses 14-15 begin with the horizontal dimension of reconciliation. The phrase αὐτὸς
γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν “for he is our peace” (Eph 2:14), equating Christ with peace, forms an
argument for the entire passage. The purpose of Christ being ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν “our peace” is to
create one new person by reconciling both Jews and Gentiles in one body to God through the
cross, and so effecting peace by killing the hostility in humankind. For instance, the statement
αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν denotes Christ joined the two great divisions of humanity (the
uncircumcision and the circumcision) into one. Christ destroyed τὴν ἕχθραν “the hostility”
between Jew and Gentile, τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας “by removing the barrier” that separated them,
and which inevitably became an occasion of mutual suspicion and animosity. This barrier was
the Mosaic Law with its detailed holiness code, which made it all but impossible for faithful
Jews to live in close proximity with Gentiles. On these regulations, the Letter of Aristeas (c. 100
BC) states,
The legislator [Moses] surrounded us with unbroken palisades and
iron walls to prevent our mixing with any of the other peoples in
any matter μηθενὶ τῶν ἀλλῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιμισγώμεθα κατὰ μηδέν,
being thus kept pure in body and soul … worshipping the one
almighty God or, again, and therefore, so that we should be
polluted by none nor the infected with perversions by associating
with worthless persons, he has hedged us about on all sides with
prescribed purifications in matters of food and drink and touch and
hearing and sight.
15
Paul employs a metaphor probably drawn from the wall in the Jerusalem Temple, or the
temple itself, which prevented Gentiles, on pain of death, from proceeding into the inner courts
where Israel worshipped, was merely the outward expression of the Mosaic requirements.
16
The
enmity which the Mosaic Law occasioned amongst sinful humanity was destroyed ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ
αὐτοῦ “in his flesh” (Eph 2:15). It was destroyed when the Mosaic law, as a unity and as an
indivisible covenant with Israel, was transcended and replaced by the conditions of the new
creation and corresponding covenant inaugurated in Christ. For Paul, the good purpose which the
Mosaic law served, in preserving Israel from the ungodly influence of other nations, gave way to
the even higher purpose stated in verse 15 and reflecting God’s eternal plan (Eph 1:9-10). God
6
wished to “create one new” humanity out of Jew and Gentile. As Barth opines, “The pacification
carried out by Jesus Christ is an act of creation”
17
whereby the two are made into something
entirely new. This act of reconciliation is characterised both in positive and negative terms. First,
the phrase αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν “for he is our peace” is regarded as the positive
message and it forms the basis for the proclamation of peace to all, those both far and near (Eph
2:17; cf. 6:15). Second, the term τὴν ἕχθραν “the hostility,” is rendered the negative term and it
calls for reconciliation, is defined in terms of two human groups, Jews and Gentiles. In that the
Law excluded Gentiles, it was the source of their hostility. Christ’s work on the cross “killed”
this animosity and now constitutes the new condition of Christian existence (Eph 4:3; Rom
11:15). In sum, reconciliation consists of making peace, and of killing animosity.
Verse 16 turns attention to the vertical dimension of reconciliation. In Ephesians 2:16
Barth posits, “The Messiah rather than God is denoted as the one who reconciles.”
18
In this
sense, Christ is the primary agent who effects reconciliation. His work on the cross is still seen as
the means or instrument used to produce reconciliation. For Paul, Jesus at the cross stood as
representative not only of the Jew but of Gentile humanity too, as the last Adam (Rom 5:12-21; 1
Cor 15:45).
19
In the first instance, it was uniquely ἐν αὐτῷ “in himself” (Eph 2:15) that he made
one new man out of the two, and subsequently it is only by union with him ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι “in one
body” (Eph 2:16) that cosmic reconciliation is experienced. By Jesus Christ’s vicarious death he
has removed all obstacles to reconciliation on the part of God and on the part of man. His death
is made efficacious in removing the enmity of the sinner against God, and producing peace. For
through him, Jews and Gentiles have τὴν προσαγωγὴν “the access” to God (Eph 2:18). The term
προσαγωγὴν, which is noun accusative singular common from προσαγωγή, occurs in the New
Testament only in Romans 5:2; Ephesians 2:18; 3:12.
20
The meaning in these occurrences is
probably intransitive, “freedom, right to enter, approach and access.” Προσαγωγή conveys
Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation that Christ absolutely embodies access to God (Eph 3:11-
12; 17-19). Christ acquired this exceptional access for humankind διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ
“through faith in him” (Eph 3:12) by his death—reconciling Israel and all nations including
Nigeria to God.
Reconciliation in other Pauline Letters
7
Existing scholarly works
21
present detailed studies of the Pauline material on
reconciliation. Systematic theologians and ethicists often treat the concept of reconciliation.
However, only a brief survey of other passages besides Ephesians 2 is possible in this work. A
cursory glance at other Pauline passages which speak directly of reconciliation include (i)
Romans 5:6-11; (ii) Romans 11:15; (iii) 2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2; and (iv) Colossians 1
(i) Romans 5:6-11 speak of reconciliation as the loving act of God towards undeserving
sinners in which Christ died for the helpless enemies of God. Once this reconciliation has been
received, the believer may rejoice in his/her salvation from God’s eschatological wrath.
(ii) Romans 11:15 conveys Paul’s defence of the wisdom of God’s plan for the Jews and
Gentiles. If the present national unbelief of Israel has resulted in the reconciliation of the
Gentiles, the marvellous outcome of Israel national repentance can only be described as life from
the dead. The statement καταλλαγὴ κόσμου and κόσμου is undoubtedly an objective genitive
describing the worldwide opportunity for Gentiles to receive salvation through faith in the
Messiah of Israel. In Romans 5:6-11, reconciliation was something received individually but it
has a more of a corporate reference to Gentiles having the opportunity to receive salvation in
Romans 5:11.
(iii) 2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2 describe the origin of reconciliation in the Father, the
mediation of reconciliation through the Son, and the actual accomplishment through the ministry
of Paul.
22
(iv) Colossians 1 emphasises on reconciliation wrought by Christ that leaves nothing outside its
impact. The entire universe, including both visible and invisible beings, has in some way been reconciled
by the blood of the cross (Col 1:20).
23
Reconciliation, therefore, is defined both the defeat of evil powers
(Col 1:20) and the redemption of the Colossians, who are now exhorted to stand firm in their freedom
from the defeated powers (Col 1:23; 2:8, 16-20). Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation conveys the
magnification of Christ as the all-sufficient Lord of the universe.
In so far, this survey reveals that Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation is centred on vertical and
horizontal reconciliation. On one hand, the vertical reconciliation is characterised by the necessity of
reconciliation which is being received individually by faith (Rom 5:11 and 2 Cor 5:20). People are not
passive in the actualisation of reconciliation on earth. The message to be proclaimed is that people must
be reconciled to God and not that they are so already. On the other hand, the horizontal aspect of
reconciliation was proclaimed by Paul’s strained relations with the Corinthians (2 Cor 5:20 and Eph
2:16). The cosmic aspect of reconciliation found in Colossians 1 is connected in 2 Corinthians 5 with the
8
renewal of all things (2 Cor 5:17 and Col 1:20) and reconciliation is a state which must be maintained by
the believer’s perseverance (Rom 11:22; 2 Cor 5:20; 6:1 and Col 1:23)
Paul’s Proclamation of Reconciliation for Israel and for all Nations
The apostle Paul sees the essence of the message of the kingdom of God, which Jesus
proclaimed and implemented in his ministry
24
and because of which he was crucified, in terms of
reconciliation. He states that in the church as well as in the society people of Jewish and of
Gentile religious background who otherwise had to keep at a distance for the sake of avoiding
cultic impurity can live together in peaceful co-existence without the one dominating over the
other. This new community is the beginning of a new creation (Rom 8:18-39; 2 Cor 5:17-21) and
of humanity, which is emerging among the followers of Jesus who has been crucified as a rebel
against the Roman Empire, but raised from the dead and affirmed by God as the risen Lord.
However, Paul’s usage of καταλλάσσω does not directly relate to a corresponding Hebrew term
“slave-owner” or “slave relationships” that was derived from Jewish judicial practice to describe
Israel’s liberation from bondage. But the concern for the change in human relationships
reconciliation envisages is very pronounced in Israel’s faith. For instance, God is seen as the
redeemer who paid the price for redeeming Israel and its possessions from the owner to which it
had been enslaved.
25
This experience of being redeemed placed a special responsibility on the
people not to betray and lose their own liberation by withholding it from others who suffered
from oppression and exploitation, including the foreigners living in their midst. In this sense,
Paul integrated the strong communal component of the Jewish faith in which he was rooted into
his proclamation of reconciliation. For Paul, the universal reconciliation which God has achieved
in Christ places an obligation on believers to overcome hostilities in the human community and
to combat structures and practices of excluding people from sharing in the spiritual and material
sources of humanity.
26
In this respect, Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation has an articulate thrust against the
Roman Empire and becomes highly political.
27
The peace, justice and prosperity it offered to all
nations under its control were secured by the military subjugation of the different nations and fly
the co-option of their leadership so as to accept foreign rule. However, Paul’s proclamation of
reconciliation centres on God, the initiator of reconciliation, who sees the plight of the oppressed
that constituted a threat to the Roman Empire and the divine authority it claimed for the
Emperor. This empire could cope with armed resistance more easily than with a community
9
relying on reconciliation brought about by God who shared the suffering of the people and who
did not resort to violence in responding to the abuse of power.
Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation is relevant to our contemporary society in the sense
that the followership in the sacred and secular worlds needs to be liberated not only from the
outside oppressor, but also from the personal trend alive in each of the oppressed to oppress and
dominate others as soon as one is entrusted with power.
28
Only in this way the cycle of violence
and oppression at force in history can be broken up, and subsequently peace would flow as a
river in Nigeria.
Towards Peace Building in Nigeria
Nigeria as an entity was bound together with love, respect, mutual understanding and
above all, justice and fair play among the constituent parts. However, these essential ingredients
that bound the country together seem fast eroding. Nigerians neither have confidence in
government nor in one another. There is general decay in the provision of social amenities, rise
in social ills (Boko Haram insurgency, armed robbery, assassination, vandalism of oil pipe and
mobile networking, regional defence groups that have of recent become very militant and
violent), injustice and unfair treatment meted out to citizens. In this wise, the three levels: the
judicial, the political and the religious’ contributions to restore peace and foster good governance
in Nigeria shall be discussed.
The Judicial level: The Judiciary ought to determine any question regarding civil rights
and obligations of the citizens, declaring and enforcing rights, annulling or validating acts,
awarding penalties, including custodial punishments, prohibiting, compelling private and public
actions, generally giving redress, remedies for actionable private and public wrongs. But
Nigerian judiciary has failed in the democratic era. Ogunye
29
states that the former Chief Justice
of Nigeria, Justice Dalhiru Mustapher, confirmed and admitted this ugly development at his
inauguration and swearing in by former president Goodluck Jonathan. The degree of the judicial
decadence has made it impossible for those who are not politically connected to get justice in the
Nigerian courts. Justice in contemporary Nigeria seems to be on sale. In this sense, the hope of
the Nigerian masses on the judiciary is in jeopardy. Furthermore, the judicial systems rooted in
Western tradition aim at containing the spreading of crime and irresponsible behaviour primarily
by the threat of punitive measures deterring people from committing offences and by punishing
offenders. However, its potential to transform the offenders and to change human relationships is
10
rather limited. Good relationships simply cannot feasibly be built on a basis of inequality or
injustice, and, just as self-evidently, inequality and injustice will not be secured over the longer
term without a breaking down of the barriers of misunderstanding and hostility kept alive by
those with an interest in unaccountable power. If the linkages between rights and reconciliation
remain merely implicit, good opportunities for synergy will be lost. In this wise, Paul’s
proclamation of reconciliation in Ephesians provides the hallmark to promote restorative justice
and to contribute towards healing relationships in co-operation with the judicial system.
The Political level: The Federal Republic of Nigeria has put in place some reconciliatory
institutions that would promote good governance in Nigeria. But none of these institutions have
met the kind of peace and good governance admonished by Paul in his reconciliatory message to
the Ephesians. For instance, the Nigeria Stability and Reconciliation Programme which aim is to
reduce violent conflict in Nigeria, through supporting Nigerian stakeholders to better manage
conflict resulting in wealth creation, service delivery and poverty reduction.
30
Little or none has
NSRP achieved in the midst of the recent social vices in the country. The Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has not also done much to bring to bear peace and good
governance in Nigeria. On this, the United States-based group Human Rights Watch says,
“Nigeria’s anti-corruption agency has failed to tackle corrupt politicians effectively...While the
EFCC had prosecuted 30 politicians, only four were convicted and none are now in prison...
Nigeria’s political system continued to reward rather than punish corruption.”
31
Corrupt practices
among the political leadership class have also resulted in undermining the growth and stability of
the nation’s trading and financial system. Corruption has also damaged economic development
and reforms and if care is not taken, it can hinder the growth of democratic institutions. Also,
Obanya
32
avers that Nigerian politics and education policy influence each other through a
continuous process which has failed the education sector, particularly in the last decade. He
opines that the proliferation of Nigerian private universities, making up 30 percent of the total
does not broaden access to education for the poorest. Besides, Nigerian governments have
largely abandoned the control of economic forces. Reckless and uncontrolled competition is
widening the gap between the rich and the poor and between the more well-to-do and the poorer
classes in the individual worlds. In this sense, it is plausible that the desired peace of Nigeria
cannot be attained through its economic scheme. The Nigerian government has to steer its way
amidst two opposing pressures: on the one hand the expectations of the people for economic
11
justice, on the other hand the forces controlling the global economy that insist on the compliance
of our country with so-called free market principles which are largely responsible for the
growing gap between the rich and the poor on a worldwide scale.
33
In addition, peace produced
and maintained by military force is accompanied with streams of blood and tears of
unimaginable portions. Such peace obtained through the military offensive operation is similar to
that of the Pax Romana (Roman peace) which was a victory-peace for the Romans, while for the
vanquished it was a peace of subjection.
34
Undoubtedly peace acquired through military victory
contrasts peace gained from reconciliation proclaimed by Paul. Nigerian democracy needs to
reflect an affinity to the Judaeo-Christian understanding of reconciliation and its concern that the
throne of absolute power is not occupied by any human authority.
35
Such an understanding of
democracy could provide a foundation for a co-operation of people of different religious
backgrounds and of people without a particular religious affiliation to search together for the best
possible solutions for bringing violent conflicts to an end as well as for the sharing of resources
and opportunities without excluding anybody. For instance, the former president of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, Dr Goodluck Jonathan has asked Nigerians to put the recent presidential
elections behind them and reconcile their differences “as children from the same womb,
Nigeria.”
36
The concern for reconciliation leads to the demand that democratically controlled
political authorities on a national level assume responsibility for economic justice. They can
fulfil their purpose only if they are inspired and directed by the mutual acceptance of people, the
recognition of their humanity and the sharing of responsibility for one another which Paul’s
proclamation of reconciliation in Ephesians offers to all human governments.
The Religious level: Nigeria, a country of over 160 million people, is made up of two major
religions: Christianity and Islam. Both religions have similar core value attributes and sanctions
against indiscipline, oppression, wickedness and corruption. The ideals of the Christian faith are
important for good governance so are the Muslim belief. Most secular and sacred leaders belong
to either of both religions. But there have been consistent indiscipline, flagrant abuse of power,
intolerance, societal dysfunction, crime escalation, unprecedented corruption and ineffective
leadership amongst others in Nigerian society. Most religious leaders and royal fathers turn their
eyes against social injustice; their silence on social injustice probably affirms what they believe
in. Religious pedigree has become a blinding interference, overshadowing integrity, strong
character and competence. Nigerians are more religious but its religions fail to reconcile
12
individuals as well as the entire nation to God. However, reconciliation in the Judaeo-Christian
tradition aims at a transformation of human relationships that emanates primarily from the victim
of injustice. The latter responds to the perpetrator not by retaliation, but by forgiveness. The
perpetrator is forgiven even if he or she shows no signs of repentance and does not confess his or
her guilt. In fact repentance on the part of the perpetrator is a consequence of the forgiveness
which he or she has received. Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation requires co-operation with
people without any particular religious affiliation who hold themselves responsible for the
promotion and well-being of all people and of nature.
Today, Nigeria comprises 36 States and a Federal Capital Territory-Abuja. It has six geo-
political regions namely; North West, North Central, North East, South West, South South and
South East. All the regions have six states except North West and South East with seven and five
in that order. Each of the geo-political regions is made up of many indigenous ethnic groups
except South West and South East which have only Yoruba and Igbo respectively. Sewakpo,
37
citing Otitie, avers that scholars have currently identified over 350 ethnic groups in Nigeria. Each
group develops and manipulates its own mythology of descent, ritual beliefs and moral practices,
while its members share an exclusive culture and normative behaviour. Members of each group
share an identity which they use as a means of forging relationship within the political and
economic spheres and in accessing resources in the new state. Each group, therefore, devices
means of consolidating its boundaries sustained by myths and symbolism. Since each group co-
exists with others in the new state, its social and cultural boundaries are frequently broken
through interactions. Therefore, culture and civilization have also proven incapable of bringing
to bear the kind of peace earned from Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation.
Kelly and Hamber may be right as they view reconciliation as “moving from the premise
that relationships require attention to build peace. Reconciliation is the process of addressing
conflictual and fractured relationships and this includes a range of different activities.”
38
The
process, as defined, involves five interwoven and related strands: developing a shared vision of
an interdependent and fair society; acknowledging and dealing with the past; building positive
relationships; significant cultural and attitudinal change; and substantial social, economic and
political change. Reconciliation has to be lived out in the created world entrusted to humans in
which the living together of people of different persuasions and convictions and economic
13
interests can only be maintained with the help of political, social and judicial arrangements as
enshrined in the proclamation of Paul’s reconciliation in Ephesians.
Conclusion
An exegesis of Ephesians on the biblical theology of reconciliation indicates that Paul’s
proclamation may be explained as vertical and horizontal. While Ephesians 2:11-15 focus
primarily on how in Christ the great barrier between Jews and Gentiles was removed, and the
Gentiles united with believing Israel (horizontal reconciliation), Ephesians 2:16-18 explain how
both Jew and Gentile are brought to God and given access to him (vertical reconciliation).
Individual reception of the message changes both vertical and horizontal relationships as peace
permeates the whole of one’s life. Individuals cannot experience reconciliation with God apart
from faith in the proclamation of the Messianic mediation of God’s gracious initiative. As
individuals respond to the message of reconciliation, they gain confidence that they are now at
last in harmony with God who has begun a new creation in them (2 Cor 5:17). The actualisation
of reconciliation has even greater effects as reconciled individuals begin to live at peace with one
another in the community of the people of God.
Ephesians calls Nigerians to build bridges not minefields. It is also a challenge for those
who promote division within the judiciary, the politicians, the royal and religious leaders,
religions (Christianity and other faiths), rich and middle class, people of majority and minority
groups (Hausa or Fulani, Igbo or Yoruba), etc.
39
Such homogeneous groups may naturally get on
better together as they reflect on Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation.
The paper brings to bear how peace gained from Nigerian military force, political,
economic, culture and civilisation, and religious bodies’ perspective contrasts Paul’s concept of
God’s reconciliation that is consequent to holistic peace. Paul’s proclamation of reconciliation is
entrusted to every Nigerian as a potential to transform human relationships in Nigeria in a way
that transcends anything that can be achieved by the judicial, political, and religious measures. It
could be a source of strength for Nigerians and elsewhere where individuals are struggling for
good governance as well as help them attain lasting and enduring peace.
Ephesians challenges Nigerians to find better ways of making Nigeria a society of people
whose lives and peaceful coexistence witness to the cosmic unity begun in Christ, and are deeply
imbued with his presence. To attain a golden age in Nigeria where peace shall flow like a river,
Paul’s understanding of reconciliation is hereby recommended.
14
Endnotes
1
F. Foulkes, Ephesians, TNTC (England: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 19-49; G. B. Caird, Paul’s
Letters from Prison (OUP, 1976), 11-29.
2
The alleged shifts are either misunderstandings of Ephesians, or are to be explained in terms of
the special nature and circumstances of the writing of this letter.
3
Ernst Fuchs, Studies of the historical Jesus (London: SCM, 1964), 8 & 211.
4
J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 1.502. Louw and Nida
also include the words εἰρηνοποιέω (Col 1:20), εἰρηνοποιός (Matt 5:9), μεσίτης (1Tim 2:5), and
ἄσπονδος (2 Tim 3:3) under the semantic domain of reconciliation.
5
C. Breytenbach, Versöhnung. Eine Studie zur paulinischen Soteriologie (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), 40-83.
6
Josephus. Jewish Antiquity. 7. 184.
7
H. I. Marshall, “The Meaning of ‘Reconciliation’,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament
Theology: Essays in Honor of G. E. Ladd, ed. R. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 120-
121, 129-130.
8
H. I. Marshall, “The Meaning of ‘Reconciliation’,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament
Theology: Essays in Honor of G. E. Ladd, ed. R. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 129-
130.
9
O. Hofius, “Erwägungen zur Gestalt und Herkunft des paulinischen Versöhnungsgedankens.”
Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 77 (1980): 186-199. Reprinted in his Paulusstudien, 1-14.
Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989.
10
The simple verb ἀλλάσσω, which means “to change” or “exchange,” occurs in non-redemptive
contexts in Acts 6:14; Rom 1:23; 1 Cor 15:51, 52; Gal 4:20; and Heb 1:12. The other
occurrences of this word group outside of Paul involve reconciliation between human
adversaries. For instance ἀπαλλάσσομαι in Luke 12:58, διαλλάσσομαι in Matt 5:24, and
συναλλάσσω in Acts 7:26.
11
Καταλλάσσω also occurs in 1 Cor 7:11 describing marital reconciliation.
12
F. F. Bruce in The Epistles To The Colossians, To Philemon, and To the Ephesians (Grand
Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), p. 229.
15
13
C. H. Dodd, “Ephesians,” in The Abingdon Bible Commentary. F. C. Eiselen, E. Lewis, and D.
G. Downey, eds., (New York: Doubleday, 1929), 1224-1225.
14
William Hendriksen, Exposition of Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967), p.
32.
15
Letter of Aristeas, 139, 142, emphasis added. All translations of the Letter of Aristeas by R. J.
H. Shutt, “Letter of Aristeas,” in OTP,ed., James H. Charlesworth 2:7-34, 2 vols. (New York:
Doubleday, 1985). On the date of the Letter of Aristeas, see Shutt, Letter of Aristeas,” 8-9.
16
M. Turner, “Ephesians,” in New Bible Commentary. D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer,
and G. J. Wenham. Eds., (England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004), 1231.
17
M. Barth, Ephesians (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 308.
18
M. Barth, Ephesians (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 266.
19
S. E. Porter, “Peace, Reconciliation,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Gerald F.
Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Eds. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993, pp. 698-99
20
U. Borse, “προσαγωγή,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol.3. H. Balz and G.
Schneider, eds., (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 161.
21
J. Dupont, La reconciliation dans la theologie de Saint Paul (Bruges:Desclee de Brouwer,
1953); J. Fitzmyer, "Reconciliation in Pauline Theology," NoFamine in the Land: Studies in
Honor of John L. McKenzie (ed. J. W. Flanagan and A. W. Robinson; Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press, 1975) 155-77; D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1981) 486-92; E. Kasemann, "Some
Thoughts on the Theme The Doctrine of Reconciliation in the New Testament,'" The Future of
our Religious Past: Essays in Honor of Rudolf Bultmann (ed. J. M. Robinson and R. P.
Scharlemann; New York: Harper, 1971) 49-64; G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 450-56; I. H. Marshall, "The Meaning of 'Reconciliation,'"
Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd (ed. R. A.
Guelich; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 117-32; L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the
Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955) 186-223; R. Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s
Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981); J. Murray, "The Reconciliation," in Studies in Theology,
Reviews (Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982) 4.92-112; H.
16
Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 182-86; and V.
Taylor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation (London: Macmillan, 1941) 83-129.
22
D. L. Turner, “Paul and the Ministry of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2,” in Criswell
Theological Review 4.1 (1989):82.
23
P. T. O’Brien, “Colossians 1:20 and the Reconciliation of All Things,” Reformed Theological
Review 33 (1974): 44-53.
24
T. Sundermeiner, “Erlösung oder Versöhnung?:religionsgeschichtliche Anstösse,” in
Evangelische Theologie 53 (1993): 136-138.
25
T. Sundermeiner, “Erlösung oder Versöhnung?:religionsgeschichtliche Anstösse,” in
Evangelische Theologie 53 (1993): 136-138.
26
D. Georgi, Der Armen zu gedenken: Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem
(Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen- Vluyn, 1992), 84-87.
27
N. Elliot, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Mary-Knoll,
New York: Orbis Books, 1994), 168-170, 180-195.
28
T. Sundermeiner, “Erlösung oder Versöhnung?:religionsgeschichtliche Anstösse,” in
Evangelische Theologie 53 (1993):139-141.
29
J. Ogunye, “A New Nigerian Judiciary Is Necessary,” in Sahara Reporters Commentary
(October 3, 2011-14):29.
30
Accessed 01 September, 2015, from http://www.nsrp-nigeria.org/
31
Nigeria’s EFCC ‘Failing to tackle corrupt politicians’ (25 August 2011). Accessed 02
September, 2015, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14671687.
32
Pai Obanya, “Education in Nigeria: The Impact of Bad Politics and a Blueprint for Progress.”
Accessed 02 September, 2015 from http://www.lidc.org.uk/news/education-nigeria-impact-bad-
politics-and-blueprint-progress.
33
U. Duchrow, “Alternatives to Global Capitalism,” in Biblical History Design for Political
Action (International Books with Kairos Europa: Heidelberg, 1995), 69-116.
34
K. Wengst, Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ. John Bowden, Trans. (London: SCM,
1987), 12.
35
F. Crüsemann, Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes
(München : Kaiser, 1992), 75.
17
36
“Easter: Jonathan urges reconciliation, progress after Nigeria’s presidential elections,” in
Premium Times (April 4, 2015). Accessed 02 September, 2015, from
http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/180600-easter-jonathan-urges-reconciliation-
progress-after-nigerias-presidential-elections-2.html
37
H. Sewakpo, “Ethnic, Linguistic and Religious Diversity,” in Nigeria Handbook: All You
Want to Know About Nigeria. Stanley Okafor, Chris Ikporukpo and Godwin Ikwuyatum. Eds.,
(Abuja: Federal Ministry of Information, Abuja, Nigeria, 2014), 27-32.
38
G. Kelly and B. Hamber, Reconciliation: Rhetoric or Relevant? Befast: Democratic Dialogue
(2005), 17-18.
39
H. Sewakpo, “The Relevance of James’ Attitude towards partiality for Nigeria,” in African
Journal of Biblical Studies, vol. xxxi, 1 &2 (2013):114-115.