BUILDING A NEW TESTAMENT LIBRARY: PHILIPPIANS—PHILEMON

Students of Paul are blessed with a rich array of commentary on Philippians. The contributions of G.D. Fee in the New International Commentary on the NT (NICNT [Eerdmans, 1995]) and P.T O’Brien in the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC [Eerdmans, 1991]) have garnered pride-of-place among commentators for nearly two decades, and for good reason based on their judicious exegetical engagement, the positioning of their own readings within contemporary scholarly discussions, and the former’s overt enthusiasm and skill in elucidating the theological and pastoral dimensions of the letter. The revised work of M. Silva (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Academic, 2005) is now fully conversant with Fee and O’Brien (and numerous others!), and both distinctive and valuable for its focus on the “thrust” of the letter’s argument, eschewing verse-by-verse exposition in favor of an identification of the paragraph as the basic unit of meaningful thought.

Moreover, one must now give attention to the fresh work of G.W. Hansen in The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC; Eerdmans, 2009) and the superb commentary by M. Bockmuehl in Black’s New Testament Commentary (Hendrickson, 1998). Hansen’s chastened use of the canons of classic rhetoric wisely avoids the trappings of similar approaches—a “preoccupation with rhetorical form over substance” (14)—and his emphasis upon the meaning of theological themes and practical exhortation in the letter is helpful for those preparing for the task of preaching. Bockmuehl, in what is probably the best overall choice, is a model of erudition, charity in the evaluation of scholarly positions, and clarity in expression. A key theological contribution of this commentary is the way it explores not only “the letter’s history of interpretation” but, “equally, the history of its effects upon those who heard and interpreted it” (45). 

The serious interpreter of Paul’s letter to the Colossians must consult the work of J.D.G. Dunn in The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (NIGTC; 1996). Dunn provides a new translation for the Greek text of Colossians (and Philemon) and explores an understanding of the problems addressed in the letter against the backdrop of Judaism (contra many approaches) as opposed to gnostic and syncretistic tendencies. In contrast, the most recent work of D.J. Moo (PNTC; 2008) explores the letter’s syncretistic background, yet he does not allow this hypothetical framework to overshadow his careful reading of the letter. Moo displays a seasoned and sound approach to exegetical decision-making with a keen eye to matters of faith and practice. Even though the work of M.M. Thompson in The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 2005) is less comprehensive in its scope, it is by no means less savvy in its engagement (section by section) of the letter, and her placement of Colossians within the context of the larger biblical narrative, the larger framework of Pauline theology, and in conversation with contemporary constructive theology is unique and illuminating with respect to the letter’s significant theological contributions. For a brief, yet particularly insightful, engagement of Colossians, one should look to the work of A.T. Lincoln in the New Interpreter’s Bible ([NIB; ed. L.E. Keck; Abingdon, 2000] 11:553-669).

Each of the preceding commentaries on Colossians also creatively engage (e.g., Moo’s central emphasis upon the theme of koinōnia over and against slavery, or Thompson’s treatment of various theological issues stemming from the letter like dualism of body and soul, freedom and inner dignity, and the important task of how to read and embody Scripture) the letter of Philemon, Paul’s shortest letter. For a solid, traditional (and stand alone) approach, the work of J. Fitzmyer in the Anchor Bible (AB; Doubleday, 2000) explores not only the social background, but also the political and economic realities that stand behind a proper understanding of the letter, and suggests a new way of understanding the relational circumstances of the letter. Both its exhaustive bibliographic information and its interaction with other interpreters make it a helpful choice.

For commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians, the work A. Malherbe (AB; 2000) demonstrates, on the one hand, his expertise in the literary and social dimensions of ancient literature, and, on the other hand, his acquaintance with Greco-Roman philosophy for exploring the social, cultural, religious, and philosophical context underlying these letters. His detailed introduction, along with his extensive bibliography, new translation, and engaging discussion, reveal Paul as a mature theological thinker who displays real concern for nurturing the moral and spiritual lives of the Thessalonians. Similarly, the work of B. Witherington III (Eerdmans, 2006) explores the letter through both a social (e.g., with abuse of patron-client relationships as the particular backdrop) and rhetorical (i.e., structured according to the rhetorical conventions of the day) lens. Alongside his exegetical analysis, he takes a “closer look” at a number of relevant and insightful themes before intentionally and helpfully concluding each major section with theological and pastoral reflection. Most recently, the careful interpreter will want to consult the work of G.D. Fee (NICNT; 2009). As usual, Fee’s ability to balance exegetical detail with a penetrating engagement of things both theological and pastoral (thus, seeking to impact the life of the church) proves beneficial to the student of these early Pauline letters.

There is presently no lack of useful commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. The work of I.H. Marshall in the International Critical Commentary (T&T Clark, 1999) excels especially in illuminating the relationship between grammar and exegesis, yet his discussion is limited with respect to the history of exposition and how the epistles inform the theological task for modern readers. The work of W.B. Mounce (WBC; Nelson, 2000)—standing over and against Marshall with respect to the issue of Pauline authorship and a “traditional” understanding of the role of women in the church—excels especially in demonstrating the relationship between theology and Christian living throughout his exposition, yet is less incisive in his exegetical analysis. More recently, and stemming from seasoned scholarly engagement with the Pastorals, P. Towner (NICNT; 2006) combines the exegetical strengths of Marshall and the pastoral strengths of Mounce throughout his exposition. Moreover, he works knowledgeably and insightfully with the letters’ contextual (i.e., the social) and intertextual (i.e., the Old Testament) backdrops, and even succeeds in his deliberate attempt to allow each of the letters to sound their own distinctive notes. A little different, and a little off the beaten path, are the smaller, yet clear and substantive work of R. Collins in The New Testament Library series (Westminster John Knox, 2002) and the explicitly theological work of R. Saarinen in the Brazos Theological Commentary of the Bible (in a volume that includes Philemon and Jude [Brazos, 2008]).

Finally, the essential interpretive task of locating a reading of each of the preceding Pauline letters—excluding Philippians—within the context of the early church fathers is helpfully facilitated by the work of P. Gorday in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (InterVarsity, 2000).

By J. Christian Stratton, Managing Editor of Catalyst, and Director of Spiritual Formation, Wesley Biblical Seminary.