Versión de HTML Básico
Everett Tilson
providence can only be construed as an insult to God. Who are we to say that
( iod, if he or she had been so vitally interested in the separation of the races,
could have produced no better plan of separation than one that does not sep
arate? Besides, we must ask, does not Pentecost (Acts 2:5-13) dramatize the
purpose of God in Christ to reverse the effects of the separation at Babel?
The call of Abraham to live in separation from certain peoples (Gen. 12-
15) is also frequently cited as a biblical warrant for racial separation. Since
this call likewise includes a demand for Abraham’s separation from his own
kinsmen and countrymen, it is difficult to see why, in the absence of any
mention of race, one can read it as a prescription for racial separation. More
over, when we consider the explicit repudiation throughout the New Testa
ment of the requirements of circumcision, the mark of Abraham’s separa
tion, we can only view this reading of the passage by Christians as a shocking
betrayal of the writings and faith of the New Testament.
Some champions of human separation on racial grounds view Leviticus
19:19, which puts under the ban any mixture of breeds of cattle, seed in a
field, or fabrics in a garment, as sort of a golden text for their cause. Yet even
children know that any suspension of such mixtures in animal or plant hus
bandry would obviously effect a revolution. Any merchant with so little
sense as to stock 100 percent wool suits with 100 percent wool linings would
soon go 100 percent bankrupt. Any application of this passage to race would
obviously presuppose a ban on all mixtures of color in animals, plants, and
fabrics. But who on earth would think of outlawing Dominique chickens,
orchards with both Grimes Golden and Virginia Beauty apple trees, or the
use of pheasant feathers in female headdress? The obvious answer is nobody.
Even the people who use this text as a sanction for the racial separation of
human beings, which it never mentions, do not practice the separation of
animals, plants, or fabrics, which it expressly enjoins. Since Jesus derived the
second half of the Great Commandment from Leviticus 19:18, it is not at all
surprising to see people turning to the Book of Leviticus in search of light on
the problem of race. But the use separatists make of Leviticus 19 is instruc
tive. Whereas Jesus ignored verse 19 but quoted 18, separatists ignore 18
and quote 19. Even more surprising is their disregard of verses 33-34 of this
same chapter, for these verses prescribe the proper treatment of [non-] Isra
elites by Israelites—and with no suggestion whatever of any distinction
between Caucasian strangers and Negroid strangers. . . .
Advocates of the separatist doctrine like to appeal to Jesus’ command on
one occasion to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. They conve
niently overlook the fact that obedience to this injunction would spell the
end of missionary activity to any Gentiles, white or black. They likewise
ignore Jesus’ replacement of this commandment with a later commission to
bear witness to the gospel to all people in every place (i.e., Acts 1:8). More
amazing still, they take no account of the proclamation of the gospel by the