|
Book Review
Tom Holland, Scotland, UK: Mentor, 2004, 392 pp.
Generally
speaking, conservative Reformed criticisms of the new perspective on Paul
strike me as lackluster and predictable. That cannot be said, however, of Tom
Holland’s new book, which is bound to shake loose some long-standing
presuppositions in Pauline studies.
The
book is not without its weaknesses. Holland’s
apparent anxiety about the contributions of liberal scholarship (a hallmark
of conservative works) can be slightly distracting. One may also question
whether Holland has adequately made his case that the literature of
second-temple Judaism is too fragmentary to provide much insight into Pauline
studies, while at the same time apparently presupposing that nothing stood
culturally between the texts of ancient Israel and Paul’s understanding of
those texts. The significance of intertestamental
writings, many of us believe, is that they serve as reference points in
recovering the way in which Jews of that time understood their Scriptures,
and considering the fact that we know Paul only through a scattered
collection of letters bearing his name, one could very well argue that
understanding the apostle’s thought is actually more challenging than
understanding the thought of other authors of the time, and quite frankly we
can use all the help we can get.
Nevertheless,
Holland argues
his case well and with refreshing verve (his analogy on pp. 65 and 66 is
particularly interesting). These methodological differences aside, Holland’s book
raises enough questions about traditional assumptions to clear the way for
groundbreaking research, and his approach does allow for a rigorous
reexamination of the degree to which Paul is indebted to texts like Isaiah
and the Pentateuch.
Holland’s
central thesis is strong because it is so simply stated: That Paschal
theology ties together early Christianity’s key doctrines. A survey of New
Exodus themes provides an important framework for this thesis, and tightly
weaves together Holland’s
evangelical interpretation of the Pauline doctrines of atonement, justification,
and christology. A particularly cogent articulation
of his concern about N.T. Wright’s reliance on Maccabean
martyrdom traditions as a key to understanding the atonement is found on page
180:
If it is true that Paul’s understanding of the
death of Jesus is that he is the great example of the Jewish martyr, then it
means that his death is of no more significance than the death of any
innocent sufferer. … In other words, martyrdom theology is a surrender of the
great evangelical doctrine of the unique substitutionary
sufferings of Christ. Without realising what has
been surrendered, evangelical scholars have abandoned the historical doctrine
of the uniqueness of Christ’s atoning suffering and have replaced it with a
doctrine that has no distinct Christian content. It fails to uphold the
uniqueness of the sufferings of Jesus. This outcome is the result of
embracing psuedepigraphal writings as the key to
New Testament interpretation rather than taking seriously the statement of
Paul that the redemption Christ has achieved was witnessed to by the Law and
the Prophets.
I
would argue that it is the resurrection that imbues Jesus’ death with unique
significance – but then again, to be fair, I don’t believe in a penal substitutionary atonement either.
Holland’s alternative
explanation for the hilasterion of Romans
3:25 hinges on the argument that the blood of the Passover lamb described in
Exodus 12 was understood to have propitiatory value, an argument strengthened
by Ezekiel 45:25 which describes the anticipated
eschatological Passover as involving sin offerings.
When
he turns his attention to the doctrine of justification and the new
perspective on Paul, Holland quickly brushes aside Sanders’ articulation of
covenantal nomism but dedicates considerable space
to challenging Dunn’s and Wright’s portrayal of the pre-conversion Paul as
one “zealous” for the law in the tradition of the Maccabean
revolutionaries. For Holland, this
is of particular significance because if Paul was not a Zealot then his
initial persecution of the church was based not on nationalistic pride
(brought to a head in issues like circumcision) but rather opposition to the
proclamation of a crucified Messiah per se. On the other hand, while arguing
that justification did indeed have a forensic dimension, Holland points out
that it nevertheless cannot be read outside of a covenantal (hence corporate)
framework. More on this below.
Finally,
when turning his attention to the doctrine of christology,
Holland
dedicates considerable space to articulating his thesis that the description
of Jesus as the “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15ff and elsewhere is to be
understood in a Pascal, New Exodus context. As a result, he is able to argue
that a high christology is implicit from the very
beginning of Christian reflection, since “Only God himself [sic.] could be the firstborn/redeemer of the whole creation” (p.
269). Of the earliest Christians, Holland
writes, “Their Christology was not ontologically based, although this was its
inevitable conclusion, but functionally based. … New Testament Christology is
clearly basically functional, and not only is Jesus seen to be fulfilling the
Messianic promises, but into this fulfillment model are drawn statements that
can mean nothing other than that Jesus is uniquely and ontologically
identified with Yahweh” (ibid).
As
the above-cited argument demonstrates, Holland is
apparently able to stay firmly within the Reformed tradition even while
proposing new categories of Pauline thought. He argues that proponents of the
new perspective have misread the Reformers while simultaneously arguing that
his own approach is fully compatible with their theology. Having said that, Holland’s
thesis is likely to present a significant challenge to traditional Calvinists
as well. His interpretation of key texts throughout 1 Corinthians and Romans
involves the most vigorous argument for a corporate dimension of Pauline
theology that I’ve seen. Those conservative Presbyterians who are struggling
to reconcile the current state of Pauline studies with traditional Reformed confessionalism may find this book of considerable value.
But there’s enough here to challenge everyone, regardless of their
confessional background. As Dr. Peter Head of Cambridge has
written in a pre-publication review, “Challenging, unsettling and
infuriating, Dr. Holland’s tour de force cannot be ignored.” I agree. This
book is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate in Pauline studies and
deserves serious consideration far and wide.
Mark M. Mattison
|
