★★★★★

This is a deep, controversial look at some of the more important aspects of Paul’s writings. Many scholars essentially consider Paul the founder of Christianity, recognizing his contributions in building a Gentile religion. But Holland adamantly disagrees, and points to Paul’s Jewishness by addressing the dependence of Paul’s theology on Hebrew Bible themes. Paul, he says, never left the religion of the Old Testament and never departed from the teachings of Jesus.

Central to Holland’s thesis is the Passover and Exodus teachings, which he shows were a strong part of Jewish doctrine. Observing Jews anticipated a second exodus of some sort—though it appears there were differing ideas of what this second exodus would be like—and Holland recognizes this theme weaving its way through Paul’s writings. 

Holland leans on the community aspects of the Passover and Exodus themes to highlight two different ways of thinking: Individualistic, and Corporate. Consider Paul’s writings about the Body of Sin. Does Paul mean our individual bodies are prone to sin, and warn about individual sinfulness, or is he concerned about community sanctification—mankind as a whole, or the Jewish nation, or the Christian community? Paul, says Holland, is speaking of the state of unredeemed humanity in its relationship to Satan (Sin). A man or woman’s righteousness depends upon the community to which they belong … a very Semitic way of thinking. I can’t say I’m convinced yet, but before rejecting this line of thinking out of hand, Holland’s arguments are worth further study, and I hope to read over Paul’s letters soon from this vantage point.

So where do Gentiles fit in? The prophets said that the Gentiles would become members of the covenant community when the New Exodus had taken place. 

Paul writes that “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.” Most read this to mean God takes up residence in our individual bodies, but Holland argues it should be read in a corporate manner: the church, or community, is the temple of the Spirit. When Paul writes, “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body,” Paul speaks not of an individual visiting a prostitute, but of a community frolicking with Satan. 

Also in the context of the Passover/New Exodus/Community thinking, Holland addresses the meaning of baptism, redemption, justification, and the implication of Christ as the firstborn. He explains that the role of the firstborn in the Passover was vitally important to the early church, who used its imagery to describe the work of Jesus. 

Holland concludes that Paul did not tamper with the Christian message; he is not responsible for leading the church to a “high Christology.” Rather, the church held this view from reading the prophets long before Paul converted. Thus, when Holland examines the Colossian hymn, which many scholars believe was not penned by Paul at all, he finds it consistent with Pauline thinking in terms of Christology and the motifs already discussed, and concludes that “there is therefore no need to treat the letter as anything other than a Pauline letter.”

Not an easy read, but well worth the effort.

//Most casual Bible readers imagine David to be the first king of Israel. He wasn’t. Saul, Israel’s first king, seems to be quite a manly sort, but he proves to be politically and religiously inept, and is superseded in time by King David. Whatever went wrong with Saul?

Today’s verse may provide the answer. Immediately following a verse in which we’re told the Spirit of the LORD settles upon David (verse 13), we read that it is taken away from Saul. In fact, not only is it taken, but it is replaced by an evil spirit, which begins to harass poor Saul. What we might today label as schizophrenia begins to take hold, and Saul begins to develop symptoms of paranoia. The music that used to soothe him no longer works. He behaves erratically, becomes deeply depressed, and is plagued by strange voices and visions.

David, of course, is waiting in the wings. Saul’s violent outbursts and bizarre behavior causes a switch in Israel’s allegiance to David, which only heightens Saul’s torment. Saul loses control … of his kingdom, his family, his mind. And David supplants him, to become Israel’s second king.

//John’s Gospel contains a beautiful, hope-filled picture of a good shepherd. It also contains a warning about a bad shepherd, referred to as the “hireling.”

This passage is sometimes misunderstood to refer to the shepherding instincts and skills of the clergy. Some religions, disdaining the collection plate, even point to the word “hireling” and criticize those “shepherds” who accept a salary.

The fact is, however, this verse must be read in context, noting the source of John’s theology … not just in the Gospel of John but in the book of Revelation. The books of Ezekiel and Zechariah and Isaiah are fundamental to John’s “shepherd” theology, and the most important thing to realize is that there is only one of eachshepherd. “The” good shepherd, “the” bad shepherd. This displays a dichotomy that grew common in Judaic writings, particularly apocalyptic writings such as passages found in these O.T. books. There would one day come a messiah, who would battle an antichrist. There would one day come a good shepherd, who would oppose an evil shepherd. Nowhere is this more clear than in the book of Zechariah.

John’s stance is simple and exciting: We’ve found one of the two! The good shepherd has been discovered! It’s Jesus! John doesn’t name the bad shepherd. His point in bringing up Jesus’ evil twin seems to be merely to highlight the contrast: “See, Jesus is the one we’re waiting for to be the good shepherd, because he hangs in there to the very end, even dying for his flock.”

So, while I agree with the concern that clergy need to be good shepherds instead of “hirelings,” this was never a scriptural command.

//Bishop John Shelby Spong’s new book, Reclaiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World, pointed out three interesting parallels between Joseph, the father of Jesus, and Joseph, the most-beloved son of Jacob in the Old Testament. This comparison comes from the book of Matthew, and in fact, Matthew was the first book written to identify the father of Jesus as Joseph. Did Matthew borrow his story from the Old Testament?

Here are the startling comparisons:

[3] Both saved their family by taking them down to Egypt.

Coincidence, foreshadowing, or creative license on Matthew’s part?

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Ephesians 1:4-5, For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.

Romans 9:15: For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.  

Acts 13:48, When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

But what about the other side? How about if we’d rather believe we have some semblance of a choice in the matter? Before delving back into the New Testament, let’s start with God’s expectation of obedience throughout the Old Testament, which is easily summarized in this one passage:

Deuteronomy 11:26-28, See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse–the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God.

Will this simple matter of us choosing our own destiny carry forward into the New Testament? Are we in command of our own will? There, it’s not so clear:

1 Corinthians 7:37, But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.

Revelation 22:17, The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

While these verses are encouraging, they only provide hints of free will. None of them directly address the issue of  whether or not we are masters of our own destiny. Did God give up on his Free Will experiment after the Old Testament, where his people seemingly couldn’t learn to behave?