Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

This study of the pervasive influence of the Passover on Pauline thinking and the corporate significance of the NT texts was first published in 2004. Dr Tom Holland of the Wales Evangelical School of Theology has not been backward in wanting to draw attention to his work. There is a website devoted to it, with an online version of the book (appallingly badly proof-read, and presenting the work in an earlier form from its modified published version), and a collection of many reviews of the book. The book itself is also available, hardback, at an astonishingly inexpensive price for a work of academic scholarship, and I obtained a copy, new, through Amazon for £10.47.

Contours provides a paradigm for reading Paul in particular, and the NT texts generally, based on the Egyptian Passover and the New Exodus vision of the 8th century prophets. Tom Holland has done his groundwork, and provides detailed and panoramic reference to studies which have preceded his, whilst pointing out that none of these take the implications and significance of their readings as far as he himself is prepared to propose.

In the process, Holland throws out some major challenges to contemporary scholarship, especially the various New Perspective schools or writers. Amongst these, he challenges the vogue for using inter-testamental writings as a way of interpreting the New Testament, based on a model which has Second Temple Judaism as its background. Holland argues that the complexity of the writings, and the difficulty in establishing contexts and schools of thought which provide consistent readings of the writings, make definitive observations and statements about their underpinning of New Testament thought very problematic. He argues for a more thorough-going use by the NT writers and early church of the OT as the background which shaped their thinking and theology, and this in a unique way without parallel in the inter-testamental literature.

However, Holland lines up with NP scholarship in agreeing that Paul’s theology is essentially Semitic, rooted in the Old Testament, and not Hellenistic. His conclusions, based on extensive study, diverge from NP scholarship, however - albeit not totally, but at key points.

In particular, Holland disagrees with Dunn and Wright that Paul’s opposition to the early church arose from his belonging to the Jewish Zealot faction, directed against Hellenists, who supposedly were in the vanguard of encouraging uncircumsised gentiles into the covenant people of God. Holland argues that Paul’s chief contention with the early church was its preaching of a crucified messiah.

Holland also disagrees with Wright’s view that justification was essentially a declaration identifying who belonged to the covenant people of God. By pursuing the New Exodus provenance of the word, Holland argues that while it does have primarily a covenantal rather than forensic significance, the word itself implies the creation of the new covenant, rather than its identification. Holland argues that the Reformers were not wrong in seeing justification as the means of entry to the covenant, but that they failed to emphasise the historical basis of the covenant as being deeply shaped by the Passover paradigm.

Dr Holland pursues in detail a widespread, profound and pervasive use of language in Paul’s writings which firmly anchors his redemptive theology in the narrative historical soteriology of Israel. A key to unlocking this observation is the recognition that the Old Testament, especially the eschatological vision of Ezekiel, and extra-biblical writings, saw an atonement as well as a redemptive significance in the Passover, and that in Ezekiel the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement merged with the observation of the Passover in the eschatological temple. Hence in Holland’s detailed exploration of Romans 3, the hitherto problematic hilasterion (trans. propitiation, or sin offering, whilst actually referring to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant in the temple), finds a natural home and explanation.

On the issue of hilasterion, Holland also refutes contemporary scholarship’s resort to 4 Maccabees 17:22, where it is used to imply a martyrdom theology, this being taken up and subsequently applied to Christ’s own death. Holland points out the limitations of this as a way of interpreting the death of Christ, and provides a way of interpreting the word in its Romans context which resolves the difficulties which it had previously posed.

Thus far has been some observation on details of Dr Holland’s thesis. But not content with detail, which he provides in abundance, his work throws up challenges to various threads of the NP school which require an answer. He also provides a major paradigm for understanding the theology of Paul, and the gospels. The paradigm is significant, because it builds on the work of NP thinkers, and accepts a basic premise, that the narrative history of the people of God is central to understanding the significance of Christ and his death on the cross, and that much that has subsequently been reshaped into ontological categories for interpreting scripture can now be restored to a more convincing home, providing greater integrity, and actually a simpler unifying way of understanding things. This, Holland asserts, was the theology which Paul inherited from his Judaistic background, but which had already been formed by the early church. Paul introduced nothing new.

An example of how this approach works out can be seen in Holland’s exposition of the ‘hymn’ in Colossians 1:15-20. The current consensus sees a Wisdom provenance for the language of the hymn - connecting Proverbs 8 with Genesis 1 in particular. Dr Holland takes the key introductory word prototokos - firstborn, and demonstrates its relationship with the Passover, and why this word, rather than its associate in OT writings, Redeemer, was extensively used in the NT. The prototokos performed the function of Redeemer in OT thought, whilst also connoting substitutionary sacrifice and atonement. (‘Redeemer’ did not imply the latter, and ‘redemption’ was not the sole prerogative of the firstborn - hence, Holland argues, its non-use in describing Jesus in the NT). The hymn ends with a further cultic reference in the blood of Jesus. Holland offers the intervening links to locate it entirely to a New Exodus context.

The other major theme of the book is the exploration of the corporate dimension of Paul’s thinking. Again, there is nothing new in the attempt to move from a highly individualised reading of the letters to the more authentic corporate setting in which they would originally have been read. But Holland takes this much further than many, bearing in mind the corporate significance of the Passover and New Exodus settings which he is using to interpret Paul. So he takes words and phrases such as ‘body of sin’, or ‘the old man’, and ‘the new man’ to be consistently corporate. Going further, he suggests that references to baptism in Romans 6 are not technically related to the meaning of an individual’s water baptism, but have a consistent relationship to the people of God as a whole, based on the Passover paradigm of baptism into Moses, and the corporate passage through the Red Sea. This makes sense, in Holland’s view, of the otherwise uncertain meaning of baptism in, for instance, 1 Corinthians 12:13 (with its distinct Passover references).

Of particular interest, in relation to Dr Holland’s pursuit of the corporate significance of Paul’s thinking within the New Exodus framework, is the light he sheds on the otherwise puzzling 1 Corinthians 6:15ff "Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never" etc. Holland argues, using historical research which suggests that Aphrodite worship did not entail temple prostitution in the Roman period at Corinth, that the prostitute or harlot here is not an individual, but a demonic corporate entity - akin to the harlot of Revelation. The believer may be free to eat meat which has been sacrificed in pagan temple ceremonies, but is not free to engage in the feasts which accompany the ceremonies themselves - as the letter goes on to elucidate, making reference, of course, to the first Exodus.

Dr Holland is not the first to explore the New Exodus as a way of understanding Paul or the NT generally, and he enumerates many others who have done some sort of work on the subject. He is probably the first to pursue the New Exodus to an extent in which it is shown to shape the thinking of Paul on a broad scale, and to suggest that this is what underpinned the theology of the NT writers, in relating the messiah Jesus to the OT narrative. In so doing, he throws up considerable challenges to contemporary biblical studies, in relation to Paul in particular, although, as already suggested, not exclusively to Paul. Dr Holland’s style is sometimes rather whimsical, occasionally overdoing assertions of what he has proved, rather than letting the arguments speak for themselves. I occasionally found it helpful to read the words to myself with a Welsh accent. Somehow the Celtic voice seemed to help interpret the script, in the strange interior world of my head.

As the book throws up some challenges to the narrative historical reading of the NT provided by The Coming of the Son of Man, I felt it would be particularly interesting to interact with it on opensourcetheology.

This is one of the most stimulating works of academic scholarship I have read. I wonder how well it will transfer into the realm of popular thinking and theology in the church at large - in ways that the NP paradigm(s) seem not to have been able to do.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Comments

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

A great review, Peter. Thanks.

I wonder about the suggested link between Colossians 1:15-20 and the Passover. The firstborn of the Egyptians are killed, but they are foreigners and their death is not redemptive. The firstborn of livestock and sons are subsequentlty consecrated to the Lord, but again the redemptive theme is not apparent - or is it?

Perhaps more to the point, it looks to me as though the firstborn motif in Colossians has more to do with preeminence than with redemption: ‘head… beginning… firstborn… that in everything he might be preeminent’. Romans 8:29 is similar. I would have thought Psalm 89:26-27 constitutes a more relevant background:

He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.

One implication of Paul’s use of the firstborn metaphor here and in Romans 8 is that Christ is seen as unique only in that he is first among many - first ‘among many brethren’. In my view, the thought is of Christ as being preeminent among those who will suffer and be vindicated after him.

I also wonder how you see Hollander’s book as a challenge to the thesis of The Coming of the Son of Man. He seems generally to accept the narrative-historical approach but differs with regard to which themes or Old Testament narratives have greater prominence in Paul’s thought. Is that a fair inference from your review?

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

According to Holland, the prototype of redemption at the Passover lay in the firstborn as representatives of the whole family - which was true of Egypt as it was of Israel. The act of redemption in relation to Israel was in the redeeming of the firstborn through the blood of the sacrificial lamb (and subsequently in the Levites being taken by YHWH in place of the firstborn). In Jesus, the roles of sacrificial lamb and firstborn are combined - according to Holland. (This needs more explanation, and Holland devotes a great deal of attention to it).

Holland’s book is only a challenge to COSM in the sense of how the two narratives might be reconciled to each other. Part of Holland’s argument is about how the New Exodus paradigm, as presented by the 8th century prophets, picks out the worldwide significance of this second occurrence in Israel’s history - giving it a universal significance that the COSM narrative seems not to wish it to have. In other words, that Israel’s story was always to have a universal significance, and not to be a story merely about herself.

I don’t suppose it would be too difficult to make a case for harmonising the two narratives; I think the main argument would probably once again be whether the Passover narrative would relate primarily (or exclusively) to the (smaller) narrative of the judgement on Jerusalem  (and Rome, of course - if a historical case can be made for it), or whether it is part of a (bigger) story of atonement and redemption for mankind (which Abraham and the prophets seem to foreshadow).

In many other respects, such as narrative/historical being a major hermeneutical key to OT and NT, Contours and COSM are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Still a bit puzzled by the ‘firstborn’ argument. It still looks as though the firstborn is not the means of redemption but the one redeemed, the recipient of redemption, who/which is then set apart for some special purpose. But this really needs much closer attention.

The COSM thesis does not deny that the redemption conceived by the prophets had ‘worldwide significance’ - or even, really, that Israel’s story was always meant to have universal significance. It’s difficult to guess how Holland develops this from the New Exodus paradigm, but my emphasis would be this: God judges and restores Israel, understood prominently as an exodus, and this action, which is a victory over the gods of Israel’s enemies, has an impact on the nations to the extent that they acknowledge YHWH as God of the whole earth, even participating in Jewish worship. This is the sense in which Israel’s salvation has universal significance - a narrative which is repeated, of course, in the New Testament.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I think you have raised a good point about the supposed link between firstborn in Colossians 1 and the Passover, Andrew. I will take another look at Holland’s arguments here. You can see what he says for yourself in the online version of the book - it comes in Chapter 11: The firstborn and the Jewish cult.

Tom Holland has read the review on the website by the way; he thinks it broadly has the measure of the arguments. I’m hoping he might be enticed to enter the discussion on Colossians 1!

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Apologies for replying to my own reply, but Andrew’s question has raised another question for me, which I’m slightly wary of asking since there may be a totally obvious answer that I have failed to notice! The question is: if the death of the firstborn was YHWH’s punishment on Egypt and Pharaoh, why did the firstborn of the Israelites also need protection from the angel of death?

Presumably the angel of death did not need help in distinguishing which were the homes of the Israelites and which were Egyptian. It must mean that the Israelites were in some way as worthy of death as the Egyptians, but that God provided a means of escape for them which he did not provide for the Egyptians - namely the blood of the sacrificial lamb daubed on the doorposts.

Of course, if you theologically fill in the gaps, you say something like this: the Israelites had also committed many sins for which they deserved death (but what, at this stage in their history they were, is unspecified, and the proposition does not fit with the narrative of their deliverance, which was not from sin but from oppression by Pharaoh).

Or you could say that the Israelites shared original sin with the Egyptians - but that isn’t a concept in the story at all at this point - and only becomes one by stretching the representative role which Jesus shared with the firstborn Adam - as ‘the last Adam’ - 1 Corinthians 15:45

Assuming a missing link in the logic here: that the Israelites were in some way guilty and worthy of death (let’s not get excited about an irrascible and capricious YHWH here), then I think the explanation of the redemptive significance of the firstborn works something along the following lines: 

- Holland points out the potential, if not actual, offering of the firstborn to God through death as a theme which occurs throughout the OT, and which has a focus in the offering of Isaac by Abraham

- As a consequence of the Passover, YHWH claimed the firstborn as his own, and the discharge of the obligation was only set aside by another requirement with explicit atoning significance - the enlisting of the Levites to serve YHWH by assisting the Aaronic priests in place of the firstborn

When Jesus came, as the ‘firstborn from the dead’ - Revelation 1:5, he fulfilled the duties and obligations which had been anticipated in the regulations for Israel’s firstborn at the Passover. In Jeremiah 31:9, Israel herself (Ephraim) is described as God’s firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9) - underlining the obligations entailed latently on the entire nation. Jesus then, as the firstborn, represented the entire community, something which was triumphantly announced in his resurrection from the dead.

The title of firstborn as given to Jesus also gathers to itself all the other associations that come with the word, such as head of the community, king and messiah. In Colossians 1:15, the representative role is extended to the entire creation - something which Holland sees as having been anticipated in Isaiah, with its close association of king, YHWH, and renewal of the entire creation. 

The messiah/king Jesus represented YHWH to the people and the people to YHWH in a similar way to the king representing the people in Israel’s history.  (Holland also interestingly points out the dominant role of the king in the Passover celebrations described in the OT).

Jesus was also ‘the lamb which takes away the sin of the world’ - John 1:29, which to the Jews would have evoked associations with the sacrificial lamb of the Passover. Jesus’s blood was shed on the cross at the feast of the Passover, also associating him with the sacrificial lamb of the Passover.

The firstborn and the sacrificial lamb of the Passover were combined in the representative redeeming and atoning significance of Jesus. Holland points out that the role of redeemer (of family honour through vengeance, of land belonging to the family, and fulfilling the law of the levirate) was a responsibility of the firstborn, but not exclusive to him. There was, however, an exclusive association of atonement with the firstborn. In the NT, Jesus is described as the firstborn, which includes his representative role as redeemer/king, but is never described in the NT as redeemer. Holland suggests this is because the obligations of redemption were assigned to all (male) family members in the OT, but atonement was exclusively associated with the firstborn, in addition to the general obligations of redemption he shared with other family members.  

The argument in Chapter 11 of Contours is very dense, and not always easy to follow, and in highlighting what I think Holland is saying, as well as raising further issues, I may not have made it very clear either!

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

The following post is from Tom Holland, the author of ‘Contours of Pauline Theology’. (He would have posted this on the website himself - but the post went astray!). The comment answers the first question in my previous comment about why the Israelite firstborn needed protection from the angel of death which came upon the Egyptians.

The situation of the Jews in Egypt was desperate. They had deliberately stayed away from the promised land after the death of Jacob and such action meant that they were embracing Egypt and her institutions. This could only have happened if Israel engaged in Egyptian life and culture - and that meant idolatry. Ezek 20:6-13 makes clear that she did do this.

But the judgment was not so much on Egypt and Israel, it was on Egypt’s gods. It was a cosmic conflict, and as in Adam all die, so ‘in Pharaoh’. Israel, choosing to be there, effectively meant that she had accepted his headship. She could not escape the judgement that came upon Pharaoh. Israel’s firstborn, as well as Egypt’s firstborn, had to die.

Ex 20:5-6 makes it clear that judgment comes on the children’s children to the third and fourth generation. Sin is so serious that it is the most treasured of the Jewish people who have to pay for it, their children, and specifically their most beloved, their firstborn who were under judgement - representing the sin of the nation.

If you have any doubts about Israel’s’ condition, just see how quickly she reverted to idolatry, and at the greatest moment of her history, the giving of the law! If the implications of all this are followed through, Israel had given Ra, Egypt’s god her allegiance, and like she was to do centuries later, she had entered into covenant with him (Isa 28:18). In this passage the reference to a covenant with death refers to Israel’s intention to enter a covenant with Egypt for protection against Babylon, a covenant that necessitated accepting Egypt’s deities, one of which was Mott the god of death, hence a covenant with death.

This fact, of child sacrifice being the only adequate sacrifice, lies at the heart of all child sacrifice. It is the offering of the most valued to Yahweh, Michah 6:6-7. These ideas/principles flow through the scriptures (Gen 22 - the Jews coming to interpret this as a sacrifice for their sins, the child sacrifice tradition that is echoed throughout the OT and which Israel herself at times copied, Ps 78:49-50 a passage about the slaying of Israel’s firstborn in the Passover and Zech 12:10). The ideas emerge in the NT with Jesus, God’s firstborn and the believing community’s elder brother, coming forth and bearing the full force of wrath against sin.

This sketch needs to be read in the light of the fuller argument given in Contours, but may help answer some of the questions posted.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

"This fact, of child sacrifice being the only adequate sacrifice, lies at the heart of all child sacrifice. It is the offering of the most valued to Yahweh."

So many thoughts come to mind when I read this assertion. I wonder: does Tom Holland regard this god as worthy of admiration?

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Many thanks to Tom Holland for the answer proffered to my question: Why were the Israelites at risk of losing their firstborn to the angel of death as well as the Egyptians?. Commentators must have encountered this question before, mustn’t they? Is this a common conclusion they have come to?

I do have some questions about the detail of the rest of the comment. It’s credible that a mechanism of judgement was at work against the Israelites for their (assumed) worship of Egyptian gods - a judgement which would have been representatively suffered by their firstborn if the lamb had not been sacrificed and the blood daubed on the doorposts and lintels. But does this make child sacrifice ‘the only adequate sacrifice’ (para. 5) ? Doesn’t that confuse judgement with sacrifice?

Micah 6:6-7 is talking about propitiatory sacrifice, but is it really showing that YHWH valued the actual sacrifice of the firstborn? I realise this is discussed in Contours - but for the sake of this comment, I’m simply asking the question. It certainly seems from the passage that the speaker feels intensely that sacrifice of his firstborn is the only sacrifice which will atone for the transgressions of Israel in her history (Micah 6:1-5), but what tradition is this speaker echoing? Is it a tradition which comes from YHWH, or somewhere else? Is there sufficient evidence elsewhere in the OT to show that Israel acknowledged the adequacy of child sacrifice to YHWH? There is certainly evidence to show that YHWH found child sacrifice as practised to other gods to be abhorrent.

In Jesus wants to save Christians (explicitly inspired by Contours of Pauline Theology), Rob Bell asks why Abraham never questioned YHWH’s command to sacrifice Isaac. The answer Bell offers is that child sacrifice was so widespread in ancient Middle Eastern culture, that Abraham would have had little reason to doubt that YHWH could have asked for such a sacrifice. The crucial point to be made is that YHWH did not let Abraham make the sacrifice, and provided a separate sacrifice instead, that of the ram.

Perhaps YHWH was making a point about child sacrifice, and the sacrifice of the firstborn, amongst the various other points that were bring made in the testing of Abraham over his son Isaac: that not only did he not require it, but that an alternative sacrifice was anyway provided to satisfy the intensely felt need to sacrifice the most valuable thing that was available to a community.

Could it be that Exodus is introducing a deity who, contrary to the deities of the cultures of the time, wanted to prevent his people from engaging in child sacrifice of any kind? This is demonstrated in an acted-out drama with Abraham and Isaac. It is reinforced with the institutes given to the Israelites at Sinai, by YHWH’s requiring the firstborn to be his own as a ‘repayment’ for the Passover, and in that sense protecting them from rather than exposing them to danger. YHWH then provided a substitute for the firstborn in the form of the Levites, who instead of the firstborn were to assist the Aaronic priests in temple duties, perhaps out of consideration for the families of the firstborn. The right of possession of the firstborn nevertheless still belonged to YHWH.

If we look at the law in this light, as with much else about it, in the culture of its day it was limiting, modifying and in some senses reversing what could be said to have been the universal practices and understanding of the times.

YHWH did not however withdraw the possibility of judgement, which in its severest form fell on entire peoples, or in the case of the Egyptians (and potentially but not actually the Israelites) on their firstborn, as representatives of the entire people. (Something I understood from Contours was that even this representative function of the firstborn was not fixed by some immutable law, but came into Israel’s history through the Egyptians, for whom the firstborn represented the future of the people, and especially, in Pharaoh’s household, their relationship with their deities).

It’s interesting to consider the history of God’s people as something like a dialogue with the practices and cultures of people in their times - rather than the presentation of abstract and universal sets of laws which are somehow outside of time and cultural contexts. This also helps me to come to terms with things which today we would find distasteful and abhorrent. (Not least the mass public slaughter of animals in religious ceremonies). Sometimes distasteful practices (to our eyes) are the price to be paid for even more abhorrent alternatives.

By the time of Jesus, the word firstborn had acquired additional associations - but still retained its representative function from the days of the Passover. 

When Jesus died on the cross, he died literally as the firstborn in his natural family;  he was therefore doubly a representative firstborn for Israel through his obedience to YHWH, and as the last Adam (also in his way God’s firstborn), the representative of humanity. In firstborn over all creation Jesus was the source of creation’s renewal predicted by Isaiah, and as firstborn from the dead (Revelation 1:5), he was the representative of all those martyred for their faith, and representative ultimately of the entire renewed, resurrected humanity in addition to those who had died for their faith.

This response picks up some of the burden of John Doyle’s question, which I would not presume to try to answer.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I find this all very problematic.

I don’t see how Tom would support his argument that the Jews deliberately and wrongly stayed in Egypt. There is no suggestion in Genesis 50 that Joseph should not have returned to Egypt. On the contrary, his assumption appears to be that his family would stay in Egypt until God himself visited them and brought them to the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Gen 50:24). Moroever, the Israelites prospered in Egypt for many generations (Ex. 1:7), and the creational language here hardly suggests that God was angry with them.

As far as I can see, nothing in the Exodus narrative suggests that the people were culpable, that their suffering was the consequence of idolatry or disobedience; they are instead presented as the victims of Pharaoh’s fear and ambition. Ezekiel’s comment about the idolatry of the people in Egypt (Ezek. 20:6-13) needs to be taken into account, but where does he get that idea from? It is not in the Exodus narratives, so it would be rash to use it to explain the ‘first-born’ motif.

Exodus 20:5-6 says nothing about first-born children. Indeed, I would have thought that the extension of judgment to later generations has to be understood in corporate or national terms.

There is no basis for reading the ‘covenant with death’ of Isaiah 28:15, 18 back into the Exodus narrative. There is no hint in the texts that the Jews in Egypt had made a similar covenant with Egyptian deities, so it is inappropriate to make this thought key for the interpretation of the first-born motif.

On the basis of Tom’s admittedly sketchy explanation, therefore, I fail to see how to account for his argument that, because of idolatry, ‘Israel’s firstborn, as well as Egypt’s firstborn, had to die’. The argument in Exodus is much simpler (Ex. 4:22-23). YHWH will act, as Joseph had prophesied, to rescue his ‘first-born son’ from oppression. If Pharaoh is presumptuous enough to stand in the way, YHWH will slay all the first-born sons throughout the land of Egypt, as punishment and as a sign of his power over the Egyptian deities.

In order to ensure that the Israelites do not also fall victim to this otherwise indiscriminate plague, the blood of a lamb is smeared on the doorposts and lintel of their homes. But the lamb is not interpreted as a sacrifice for Israel’s sin, as far as I can see; and there is certainly no suggestion that the first-born sons of Israel would otherwise have died so that the rest of the nation might live. The blood marks them out as God’s people, and so they escape the effect of the plague.

As far as the brief argument about child sacrifice goes… The hyperbole and escalation in Micah 6:6-7 and the repudiation of the argument in 6:8 suggest that at most the sacrifice of one’s first-born for one’s own sin (not in any case a good analogy for Christ’s sacrificial death) constituted a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Whatever Jewish tradition may have made of the story of the near-killing of Isaac, in the text itself what is at stake is Abraham’s trust in the promise - notice that Isaac is spoken of as Abraham’s ‘only son’, not his first-born son (Gen. 22:16). Psalm 78:50-51 refers to the destruction of Egypt’s, not Israel’s, first-born. Zechariah 12:10 only indicates that the first-born was valued more highly than subsequent children; there is no ‘child sacrifice tradition’ here.

I don’t think, therefore, that there is a biblical tradition which somehow acknowledges the acceptabilty (even metaphorically) of child sacrifice to YHWH. On the contrary, it is, as Peter points out, regarded as an abomination. So, as I said earlier, I don’t think that the description of Jesus as ‘first-born’ is meant to evoke the death of the first-born in Egypt.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Maybe Ezekiel obtained his information about Israel’s idolatry in Egypt by divine revelation. (Or maybe tradition). I don’t think we can dismiss it.

But I’m still puzzled, if the idolatry explanation doesn’t fit, about why Israel needed protection from ‘the angel of death’. And if there was a ‘natural’ explanation (a plague), why were only the firstborn of Egypt struck down with it? How in this case did blood on the doorposts/lintels of the Israelites protect the Israelite firstborn?

If it was a divine judgement, God or the angel didn’t need directions to find the Egyptian households and avoid the Israelites. Unless angels are unable to identify occupants of houses. And why were the Israelites under judgement along with the Egyptians?

I think there is a PhD thesis and substantial advancement in the world of theological studies lurking here. The question has obviously never been raised before. Don’t knock it Andrew. This could be my big break.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I have followed the discussion with interest. You might be interested to hear the some of the review of Howard Marshall who said: ‘He has certainly produced a strong argument for a much greater influence of Passover typology than has generally been thought to be the case, and his arguments for the atoning sacrificial understanding of the original Passover sacrifice powerfully support the case argued by J. Jeremias and L.Morris.’ Also Anthony Thiselton said:’ It provides a fresh and useful treatment of Pauline theology, and many of its arguments offer corrections to widespread misunderstandings of Paul.’ Forgive the name dropping, but the work has been well reviewed and it is hardly wise to engage an argument on the basis of a qouted few texts.
A work I came accross after almost completing my research is

Levenson, J, D., The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity, New Haven, 1993.

It is all the more remarkable as, written by a Jewish scholar , the last thing they want to say is that there was any human sacrifice influence in the OT, but that is exactly what he concludes, and sees the figure of the firstborn as crucial, even urging Jewish and Christian theologians to explore a common tradition.

Just one last thought. The only son is a particular expression for the firstborn son. If a son is the only son, he can be nothing other than the firstborn son.

Thank you for your interest.

Tom

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Tom, thanks for engaging with this. I have no objection to the name-dropping, but I was rather hoping for a more detailed response to the various points that have been raised. As to this very brief remark…

The only son is a particular expression for the firstborn son. If a son is the only son, he can be nothing other than the firstborn son.

Of course, this is true. But it’s not the point of the Abraham and Isaac story. If Abraham had killed Isaac, he would have put an end to the promise that he would have been the father of a great nation - at issue, therefore, is whether he really trusts God. Isaac being his only son means that there would be no further prospect of a family. Neither being first-born, which presupposes subsequent issue, nor sacrifice for sin play any part in the story.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Andrew, I fear that the exercise is a bit like pulling a brick out of a wall and making comments on its texture size etc without seeing that it is one of many others that combine to make a home. There is no way of avoiding this frustration other than examining the wall! I am not trying to be difficult on this but the argument is not dependent on one verse alone, as important as correct exegesis is.

Nevertheless, let me respond to what has been said. Through scripture and the Jewish traditions of the binding of Isaac there are a range of interpretations, and as you have correctly noted, Abraham’s faith is certainly part of the tradition, but it does not rest with that one understanding. I would be rewriting Contours if I attempted to go over this, but it is documented.

Also a comment was made; I am not sure by whom, that the Exodus account does not suggest that they considered that they were staying in Egypt beyond what they were supposed to be. This is a reasonable argument but it cannot be isolated from other material which builds the overall picture up. Rather like reading the account of Israel at Sinai, you would not read into that awful experience that it was a marriage ceremony, but that is how the prophets went on to interpret it and if you miss their ‘spin’ you miss so much of what the prophets and then the NT says about the death of Christ, i.e. the NT exodus. The essence of Biblical Theology is noting the twists and turns in the story so as to see how it emerges in the NT.

Just one example of how recognizing the propitiatory role of the death of the firstborn can be seen is the universally famous Jn 3:16. God gave his only son. If the context is missed, that it was the Passover (2:23), that the occasion is saturated with Exodus imagery, coming at night, wind, new birth (Ezekiel’s image of the second Exodus Ezk 37) and the serpent on the pole, only if all this is kept in mind does the statement take on its vital significance. In Egypt Yahweh’s firstborn was protected, in the New Exodus of Christ, God gives up his firstborn to save the world from judgment.

I am going to have to stop there. But thanks for your interaction. Please do look at Contours and also Levinson’s work on the firstborn. I will gladly try to interact when the argument as a whole has been read.

Best wishes

Tom

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I’m afraid I’m not getting it: a "new exodus" of whom, from where, and toward where?

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Well, here’s my simplistic take on it: just as God brought the people from slavery in Egypt into a promised land, he will lead the captives back from Babylon and Israel will be restored. Isaiah 52 is a good example of the theme. Then, I suppose, we find the motif reused in the New Testament to give expression to the hope of liberation and restoration for a people once again in captivity to ‘Babylon’, for which read Rome (see also the recent exchange beginning here.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I’m now probably rendering my immediately preceding comment obsolete by shifting attention to something else - but my understanding of the New Exodus is the reiteration of Exodus imagery in the 8th century B.C. prophets, notably Isaiah, directed at Israel in captivity in Babylon.

The actual return of Israel from captivity by no means lived up to the prophets’ triumphant and wide-ranging pronouncements (worldwide blessing, inclusion of the gentiles in the covenant people and renewal of creation). So at the time of Jesus, the prophecy awaited its complete fulfilment.

In the gospels, and notably in Paul, but in the other letters also, there is abundant Exodus and New Exodus imagery - suggesting that it is a major paradigm for understanding the ministry and work of Jesus. if you want to know how this is spelt out in detail in Paul - read Holland’s book!

I don’t personally make the association of New Exodus imagery with ‘exodus’ from Rome, the new ‘Babylon’, because I don’t see the imagery being used in that way. The prophets do not associate New Exodus imagery with a third oppressive empire, after Egypt and ancient Babylon, from which God’s people will need deliverance.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I don’t personally make the association of New Exodus imagery with ‘exodus’ from Rome, the new ‘Babylon’, because I don’t see the imagery being used in that way. The prophets do not associate New Exodus imagery with a third oppressive empire, after Egypt and ancient Babylon, from which God’s people will need deliverance.

True, by the time we get to Rome we are at some remove from the original Exodus typology, but inasmuch as the salvation that Jesus achieved was a liberation from Israel’s enemies, there is a natural alignment of Egypt and Rome. Jesus enacted at least symbolically a new defeat of the demonic powers that Pharaoh’s magicians exercised, a new crossing of the river, a new journey through the wilderness, etc. But it is now Rome that holds the people in bondage.

I know it is much disputed whether the later chapters of Revelation speak of judgment on Rome, but the bowls that are poured out on the new Babylon are a clear allusioin to the plagues of Egypt (Rev. 16). The thought is not of a departure from Rome as from Egypt or Babylon, but there is a judgment on the imperial power that will result in the deliverance of the people from oppression.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

You write: ”However, Holland lines up with NP scholarship in agreeing that Paul’s theology is essentially Semitic, rooted in the Old Testament, and not Hellenistic.”

It’s is easy to discern if Paul’s theology was Hellenistic or not.

The big question is what is written in Torah in Hebrew.
The central tenet of Judaism is expressed in the Shema where Torah states that one is required to do his or her utmost to keep the mitzwot (commandments) in Torah (which includes Halakhah as defined by the beit din (Jewish Court; in an unbroken chain since Mosheh (Moses) in the legitimate Jewish community of Israel) and that only those who DO (not merely believe) this qualify for kipur [atonement] and resulting portion in olam ha-ba (the non-dimensional realm; “heaven”). The NT is a post-135 C.E. Roman-Hellenist displacement counterfeit—and faith in a counterfeit Christ cannot provide “salvation.”

The mitzwot (commandments) in Torah are for example: To keep Shabat; to not eat pig, etcetera.

For words you don’t understand; see www.netzarim.co.il ; Glossaries

The Torah IS the expression—and THE expression taught by Ribi Yehoshua from Natzrat (hellenized to Nazareth) ( the first century pro-Torah Messiah)—of how to treat both the Almighty and one’s neighbor with love.

Ribi Yehoshua taught:

Don’t think that I came to uproot the Torah or the Neviim [prophets], but rather I came to reconcile them with the Oral Law of emet (truth). Should the heavens and ha-aretz (the land, particularly referring to Israel) exchange places, still, not even one ’ (yod) nor one ` (qeren) of the Oral Law of Mosheh shall so much as exchange places; until it shall become that it is all being fully ratified and performed non-selectively. For whoever deletes one Oral Law from the Torah, or shall teach others such, by those in the Realm of the heavens he shall be called “deleted.” Both he who preserves and he who teaches them shall be called Ribi in the Realm of the heavens. For I tell you that unless your Tzedaqah (righteousness) is over and above that of the Sophrim and of the [probably ‘Herodian’] Rabbinic-Perushim (corrupted to “Pharisees”), there is no way you will enter into the Realm of the heavens! “
The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 5:17-20

The research of world-recognized authorities in this area implies that Ribi Yehoshua from Natzrat was a Pharisee (a Torah-practising Jewish group - who according to 4Q MMT (Jewish document found among the Dead Sea Scrolls) practised both written and oral Torah). As the earliest church historians, most eminent modern university historians, our web site (www.netzarim.co.il) and our Khavruta (Distance Learning) texts confirm, the original teachings of Ribi Yehoshua were not only accepted by most of the Pharisaic Jewish community, he had hoards of Jewish students. In NHM we have removed all things Ribi Yehoshua impossibly cannot have said.

The conclusion is that Paul taught against both Torah and the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua from Natzrat. The teachings of Paul are certainly not based in Tan’’kh – the Jewish Bible.

Finding the historical Jew, who was a Pharisee Ribi and following him brings you into Torah, which gives you a rich and meaningful life here on earth and great rewards in life after death (“heaven”)!

From Anders Branderud
Geir Toshav, Netzarim (www.netzarim.co.il) in Ra’anana in Israel who are followers of Ribi Yehoshua – Messiah – in [meta-]Orthodox Judaism

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Peter,

I have just noted that you asked in your review how the New Exodus paradigm would fit into the church at large. I am glad to say that I know of a number of men who say that it has revolutionised their ministry and that their churches are benefitting from their new insight with grow at several levels.

Best wishes,

Tom

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I’m currently a research student under the direction of Tom Holland and worked alongside Don Golden (co-author of Jesus Wants to Save Christians with Rob Bell) when Mars Hill introduced a particular way of ministering to the broader community of Grand Rapids and the world.

In a very pragmatic way, Don Golden was essential in helping the Mars Hill community take the idea of a new exodus motif. He was able to take some of Holland’s considerations and move them it into the realm of Mars Hill’s structure. At www.marshill.org you can see how they have implemented this sort of thinking into the overall life of their community.

This is not to say that Holland would completely agree with Mars Hill’s take on the New Exodus but it should be noted that there is now a grounding theology within the Mars Hill community that connects Holland’s work with the new exodus motif to their overall vision and mission. Much of this hard work was implemented while Don Golden was at Mars Hill as their lead Pastor.

A theology that can be implemented into the life of the church is a theology worth considering and that is one reason I am thankful for the conversations that take place here at OST!

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Am I the only person following this thread who still doesn’t get it?

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I.e., does the church as influenced by Holland’s work propose to pull itself away from the world in which it finds itself exiled? Does the liturgy embrace the sacrificial motif of Roman Catholicism? Is each Christian to sacrifice his/her firstborn to Yahweh in some metaphorical sense? That sort of thing. Nate?

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

(From ‘Pate’, not Nate)

John - first you have to familiarise yourself with the references to Exodus/new Exodus in the prophets and NT. It’s extensively there in Isaiah (through imagery of the Exodus more than direct comparison). It’s latent in the NT - eg John the Baptist baptising in the wilderness; the river baptism recalling the Red Sea baptism etc; especially in the ‘last supper’ - Jesus self-consciously modelling his forthcoming death and resurrection on the Passover feast (which is about to take place - and which is recalled by association in the meal with the disciples). It is much more extensively represented in the gospels and letters - so you’ll need to get the book!

As Nate has mentioned, Mars Hill (Bible Church - Grand Rapids) has taken Tom Holland’s ideas and worked them into a pattern for church life - especially focusing on New Exodus as bias towards the poor and oppressed - at home and abroad (Cp Isaiah 35 and Luke 7:21-23). To see (something) of the way this is developed, you’ll need to purchase ‘Jesus wants to save Christians’ - Rob Bell.

This will be an expensive week for you, as you will probably also want to see which items of yours I have included from OST in ‘Crossways - Journeyings etc’. I could tell you - but that would spoil the suspense. (I did ask your permission to print, didn’t I? Horrible thought - I don’t remember! It was a long time ago).

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I think I’ll pass on buying the first two books, mostly because my interest in the subject is fleeting at best. Besides, I’m already biased against a god who loves child sacrifice above all things — perhaps even more than he loved perpetrating genocide on the Palestinians at the end of the first exodus.

As for your book, Pate: yes you did ask my permission which I was happy to grant. But why should I pay for a book that I partly wrote myself and that I can read on this blog for free? You’d think I’d get a complimentary copy or something…

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

John - this book is for insomniacs! You can’t go to sleep nursing a laptop on your duvet or counterpane. Only the book will do.

Besides, between the covers (of the book I mean), the extracts are transformed into a decoding of an exposé so dastardly, that had I not taken the initiative to bring it to light, to blow the whistle, to grass it up, it would have shaken our seminaries of theological disquisition to their foundations! On the other hand, maybe that’s a fair reason for not making the purchase. Sit tight and wait for the fireworks.

The other titles you really should make the effort to peruse though - whether by purchase or loan. However will you keep up if you don’t?

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

A fascinating book to have reviewed Peter. I finally did download a copy. There may be merit in parts of Dr. Holland’s understanding of the significance of the passover for Pauline theology, but I don’t find the argument of chapter 10 (linking the firstborn of the passover with ideas of sacrificial merit from the OT passages that he cites) to be at all convincing. In fact I feel that this is quite a diversion from some of his other major themes.

It is precisely because Jesus went to the cross himself with his eyes wide open that he is considered to have become our redeemer. The NT consistently refers to Jesus sacrificing himself. Furthermore, re John 3:16, while the passage may be steeped in a passover context, to imply that “God gave” is equivalent to “God sacrificed” is definitely in my book an excellent example of eisegesis.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Good review, Peter.

I think that Holland’s work is actually a good compliment to Andrew’s. I’m not convinced by Andrew’s discussion of a future resurrection and new creation. Utilising Contours could give theological backing to the idea that the resurrection spoken of in 1 Cor. 15 is primarily corporate and refers to the ‘restoration’ of Israel.

Anyway, this was a great summary. Thanks for posting it.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

So I guess I really was the only one who didn’t get it. Never mind then — nice review Pate etc. etc.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Actually, part of the interest of Tom Holland’s book is the suggestion that none of us had really got it, although some had noticed, in a somewhat disconnected, non-joined-up way, a scattering of references to the 2nd Exodus, or New Exodus, in the OT prophets and in the NT.

I think it’s fair to say that the ehrwürdige Herr Doktor Tom Niederlande stole a march on the Guild of Biblical Studies by joining up the dots and presenting a much more widely prevalent and complete picture of the use of the term(s) than any of us had realised.

Furthermore, the picture joins up the dots between our present and Jesus’s past. The New Exodus is still something in which we are invited to participate, is still taking place, apparently, and adds a challenging social dimension to our understanding of redemption, which includes, not least, a strong dimension of social justice.

So what does one do when one realises one had not got it, Herr Doktor Doyle? Not go off and sulk in the corner, one hopes. Still less compose emails which reduce themselves to the level of the questionable taste and juvenile humour of this one I have just composed.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Again, if the new exodus is anything like the old one I want no part of it, and if God loves child sacrifice I want no part of him. My view in brief is this: As portrayed by the Old Testament writers, God’s support of Israel vis-a-vis other nations is fascistic and genocidal. If Jesus and Paul really wanted to see Israel prevail according to the terms set forth in the OT, then they’re no better than the OT writers. If, on the other hand, it’s possible to interpret Jesus’ and Paul’s vision for the world as one that leaves the whole Israel paradigm behind, then it’s possible for non-believers like me to find common cause with them and their followers. (Whether that’s of interest to anyone but me is another matter.) If Jesus and Paul wanted to see people condemned to death for not being Christians in the same way that God allegedly condemned the Canaanites to death for not being Jews, then in my view the end of Christianity can come none too soon.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

Followers of this thread might like to know that Peter responded to my last comment, and I in turn responded to his, in an on-topic and mutually respectful manner. The fact that these two comments have now disappeared forebodes nothing more consequential than the fleetingness of all conversation.

The art of lost conversation

Just for the record, John, if two comments have indeed gone missing, it was nothing to do with me. Let me know if they turn up.

Re: The art of lost conversation

This mystery has generated a flurry of transatlantic email exchanges between John and myself, which established that the messages were brought down by the cyberpolice somewhere over the (English) channel. The fact is, that while missing email (a) is accounted for (from myself), there is a mystery concerning the whereabouts of email (b) from John. It never arrived on the site. Or did it? As for my email, if I mention the words ‘extraordinary rendition’ and ‘Guantanamo (Mk 2)’, it should suffice. Anyway, it is a mystery, but no one need worry about it OK? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Re: The art of lost conversation

It never arrived on the site.”

The truth is out there, Agent Scully. I suggest we go undercover for this investigation. I happened to find these monastic robes hanging in the Director’s closet — never mind what I was doing in his closet, Scully…

Re: The art of lost conversation

(Buried deep in the musty cobwebbed archives of my computer I found a copy of my wayward comment. As with so many of the preserved fragments of the early Church Fathers, the reader is forced to re-create the contours of the lost document — this one neo-Petrine in origin — to which I’m responding here.)

* * *

the overarching question, as I understand it, is whether God had been faithful to his covenant commitment to his people”

That commitment, as expressed by the OT writers, is in my view contemptible. If Holland says that these writers’ understanding of Yahweh’s intentions were mistaken — as do many liberal, postliberal, postmodern, etc. hermeneuticists — then I might find his work more interesting. To elaborate on Holland’s own comment on this thread: his research shows that the OT Yahweh loves child sacrifice. I for one regard that as yet another interesting piece of evidence that must be held against either Yahweh or his OT apologists. I hear you, Peter, offering the usual reverse psychology interpretation of Abraham’s sacrificial gesture (which even if true is a pretty sadistic test of someone’s faith, wouldn’t you say?), but it doesn’t sound to me as though Holland would accept it.

So now, one must either (1) regard Holland’s scholarship as misinformed, (2) soften it up for squishy contemporary palates that find human sacrifice just too hard to chew, (3) regard Holland’s interpretation as an accurate portrayal of the OT writers’ mistaken understanding of God, or (4) regard his interpretation as an accurate portrayal of the OT writers’ accurate understanding of God. Why not just come out and say it, Peter: if the OT shows evidence that Yahweh likes child sacrifice, then either Yahweh is a maniac or his followers made a terrible mistake. Likewise for the Canaanite genocide passages. Alternatively you’re stuck in a “his ways are not our ways” sort of fideism that justifies all manner of atrocities.

Unbeliever” is a Pauline term for the likes of me — just using the technical terms of the Christian tradition. Daniel Dennett has tried to popularize the term “bright,” but I think we’d all agree it’s pretentious.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

We can discuss in a separate post the points I’ve brought up here, though I won’t be the one who writes that post. There should be no mystery about my position, since I believe I’ve been quite clear and consistent here and in other threads. The OT writers portray a Yahweh who is fascistic in his exclusive support for one nation/people and genocidal in his dealings with other nations/peoples. Specifically with respect to the “new exodus” theme you’ve introduced here, I’ve not read Holland’s book but I have read the Bible. The Exodus narrative begins with Yahweh killing all the first-born children of Egypt and ends with Yahweh commanding the Israelites to slaughter all the Canaanites man woman and child. To the extent that Jesus and Paul herald a “new exodus” that recapitulates the old exodus, and to the extent that anyone celebrates this recapitulation as commendable, to that extent I regard the paradigm as reprehensible. While Holland is the one who asserted that Yahweh really likes child sacrifice, I’ll take your word that this is not a major theme in the book.

I’m done here if you are.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I have deleted my comment - though I wouldn’t want contributors to think it was quite as John described it.

I suggest any further conversation between John (whom I consider a colleague and respected co-contributor) & myself be continued off-line.

(Explanation: a paragraph from John’s comment above was removed, at his request; but this and the following comment I have left intact as Shiert has entered the conversation, and to make sense of what she says I have left this and John’s subsequent and final comment intact).

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I thought I could delete or edit my most recent comment within 24 hours of posting, but apparently not. So maybe, Peter, I can prevail upon you to delete my last comment. Or, maybe even better, just leave the last paragraph intact, inasmuch as it recapitulates my specific objections to the Exodus motif. Then of course you can delete this comment, as well as your most recent one, and we’ll both take a break as the doves of peace return to the battered countryside.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I am not sure what is going on here. But, I wanted to state that it would be a loss if both of these contibuters took their soccer ball and went home. The sin of pride, I think, foolish pride. Please continue to post and comment.

Tracy

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

It’s common for “bitch fights” to generate a lot of traffic to a blog, so perhaps there are unintended side benefits. I’m not sure what the sin of pride has to do with it, Shiert — on my own blog I’d have deleted this remark too as untoward personal criticism directed at fellow bloggers. However, I’ll read behind the substance to the intent, which I regard as a friendly gesture of mediation. Maybe your accusation of sinful pride refers to my saying that I wouldn’t be the one to write a post about the subjects I’ve addressed toward the end of this thread. It’s not that I’m taking my ball and going home; rather, I feel like a spectator wandering onto the playing field during an intramural game. I’d rather a self-professed Christian carry the ball.

In the post prior to this one C.S. Cowles, whom I infer is a card-carrying Christian, wrote a long, scholarly, and impassioned comment criticizing Andrew’s reading of the Canaanite genocide. Andrew threw a spotlight on this comment by turning it into a post, which I thought was great. But then Cowles never came back to the conversation, which gradually meandered off into what I regarded as technical points of hermeneutics rather than a direct engagement with the main point. Eventually Paul Hartigan, bless his heart, tossed in a firecracker about contemporary Israeli-Palestinian politics. I followed up with a provocation of my own. Almost immediately, though, someone came along and told us to take it outside: inappropriate, off-topic. I acceded, but why? Paul and I were responding to the original intent of the post. Controversial? Absolutely.

This post about Holland’s book introduces the theme of a “new Exodus.” Surely there are hermeneutical issues of theoretical interest to those of us who participate in the ongoing OST cabal. Maybe it’s even possible to tease out some take-home lessons for local churches and Sunday schools. But aren’t there sociopolitical implications as well? These implications affect not just the Church, the new Israel, and participants in the new Exodus; they also affect those with whom the Church interacts: the “unbelievers” as Paul calls us; the new Canaanites and the new Egyptians if you will.

So okay, I’ll probably write a post as a card-carrying member of new Canaan who has no desire to join the new Israel, who interprets the world in non-Christian terms, but who would like to live in harmony with the new Israelites. It might be informative and entertaining, even if we never get to the yelling and cursing that pulls in the crowds.

Re: Contours of Pauline Theology - Tom Holland

I’m very sympathetic with your concern regarding the ‘the death of the firstborn’ and what life during the exodus must have been like. It should be noted that there are other theologians who take the new exodus motif in other directions: Silvia Keesmatt, Rikki Watts, and David Pao.

I’ve read Contours through twice as well as heard lectures on the first-born motif. During the first read - I had similar feelings and concerns - and still have some - but what I have discovered is that much of my concern was rooted in a particular theology in which I was raised (very escapist in nature), rather than looking more closely at Holland’s gift to the church through his work. He has set a foundation for further study of the new exodus motif, especially in regard to justification and soteriology. His work is a very biblical based motif, affirmed by many theologians, even if they might describe the new exodus a bit differently i.e. Wright and those noted above.

Holland’s challenge to the church is to remember its corporate nature of the faith. Mars Hill, as explained in a previous post, has focussed this motif in a somewhat liberationist manner i.e. God’s favor being with the poor and oppressed. Mars has done this to promote a more holistic gospel then mere salvation from sins but the need to feed others because we have been fed, bless others because we have been blesses etc. etc.

If one is to think methodologically about the use of the ‘new exodus’ for church life rather than mere theologizing of particular doctrines then the two will look polarized. But when Holland’s work is looked at by practitioners it can work itself out in a many number of ways.

Therefore, for the Mars Hill context, Don brought three questions with him.

Who is Jesus?

Why did he come to town?

How do we organize ourself around what he is already doing?

The third was rooting in a biblical new exodus motif and then implemented from a missiological perspective, which is Don’s experience and training.

I hope this is helping.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.