Review in: Interpretation
1997 51: 302
Review door: R.
David KaylorGevonden op: http://int.sagepub.com/content/51/3/302.full.pdf+html
Paul's
Letter to the Philippians, by Gordon D. Fee. The New
International Commentary on the New Testament. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand
Rapids, 1995. 497pp. $34.95. ISBN 0-8028-2522-7.
FEE CONTRIBUTES a second
volume to this series (his first was on 1 Cor) for which he now serves as
general editor. In keeping with the intent of the series to provide
"critical yet orthodox commentary marked by solid biblical scholarship
within the evangelical Protestant tradition," Fee offers a massive work
that combines textual criticism; lexical, grammatical, and literary analysis;
theological reflection; and contemporary application. Fee writes for two
audiences: (1) parish ministers and teachers of scripture, with the aim of
helping them see the letter "as the Word of God for a contemporary
congregation"; and (2) scholars and classroom teachers. This twofold
audience determines the arrangement and the approach. For the first audience,
Fee keeps the text uncluttered and readable. For the second, extensive
footnotes deal with technical matters of exegesis and engage other interpreters
in debate.
Without much argument or
discussion, Fee accepts traditional views on Philippians and other Pauline
letters. He believes Philippians was a single letter written by Paul from Rome
in the early 60s to his "friends and compatriots" in Philippi (p. 1).
When Fee cites other letters, it is "in their presumed chronological
order" (1 and 2 Thess, 1 and 2 Cor, Gal, Rom, Philem, Col, Eph, Phil, 1
Tim, Titus, 2 Tim). He does not explain why he believes the pastoral Epistles
"ultimately derive from" Paul between 62 and 64 CE or what he means
by the phrase.
In a lengthy
introduction, Fee argues that Philippians is a single "hortatory letter of
friendship" combining two types of Greco-Roman letters into a single kind,
appropriate to the mutual bonding between Paul and the church in Christ. Paul
is writing from Roman imprisonment to a church undergoing persecution, with
internal stress but not division or strife. Fee contends that 2:6-11 comes from
Paul; it is prose, not poetry, and it is "inextricably connected to the
present context" grammatically and thematically (p. 46). The theological
contributions of the letter, made through Paul's confessional and doxological
language, include the urgency of the gospel, the Trinity as the "heart and
soul" of Paul's theology, the centrality of Christ, eschatological
urgency, and the cruciform nature of the Christian life.
In analyzing and
commenting on this letter, Fee keeps before the reader certain fundamental
ideas. First, the letter has a purposive unity, centered around the triangular
relationship among Paul, the Philippian believers, and Christ. Paul's
relationship with Christ is first and foremost. His imprisonment, his
friendship with the Philippians, and his concern for what they are undergoing
derive from and express the relationship with Christ. Second, the letter is
full of concern for the gospel, for its progress, and for the Philippians; the
progress of the gospel is tied up with the triangular relationship of Christ,
Paul, and the Philippians. In discussing every section of the letter, Fee
traces the way this theme determines the flow of Paul's thought. Third, Paul
constantly stresses "like-mindedness," which means unity of spirit, a
matter of attitude rather than concept. Both Christ and Paul provide examples
of the right attitude, rejecting status and privilege for the sake of the
gospel. Paul tells the story of Christ (2:6-11) so that the Philippians will
adopt a "mind-set" (phroneite, 2:5) like Christ's, and he
tells his story (3:4b-14) so that they will take a view in keeping with his own
(phronömen, 3:15). Fourth, despite the letter's concern with unity, it
is not a polemic against an "opposition." Fee argues that Paul
assumes mutuality and friendship between himself and the Philippians as well as
basic unity among the Philippians themselves. When he admonishes Euodia and
Syntyche to agree (phronein, 4:2), the problem is not that they are
opponents of each other or of Paul, but that "long-time friends and
co-workers . . . have fallen on some bad times in terms of their 'doing the
gospel' " (p. 389). The "dogs" of 3:2 ("apparently Jewish
Christians who promote circumcision among Gentile believers") are not
present in Philippi, though they "surely will have tried their wares in
Philippi in times past" (p. 294). There is no present serious threat of
'Judaizing" in Philippi, and there is no hint of friction between Paul and
the Philippians; rather, his exhortations are "best understood in the
context of friendship" (p. 358).
The lack of opposition explains why Paul's use of the Old
Testament in Philippians differs from that in other letters. Paul
characteristically cites scripture to support his arguments using the
expression "it is written." In Philippians, however, argument is not
necessary since Paul shares with them a common understanding of the gospel.
Paul therefore uses "intertextuality," consciously embedding Old Testament
fragments into his text.
Fee displays
extensive and intensive knowledge of the literature relating to Philippians and
mastery of the tools of exegesis. For those who share his theological
convictions, especially his view of scripture, it would be difficult to find a
more excellent commentary. Those who resist the tendency to let theological
assumptions determine exegetical outcomes will find difficulties precisely at
this point. Is there really "an intentional Trinitarian substructure"
here (see pp. 179, 302), or is Fee reading later theological constructs into
Paul? Theological presuppositions may be reflected as well in Fee's handling of
metaphor. For example, morphe (form) is not a metaphor when it
characterizes Christ's being God, but it is a metaphor when it characterizes
the way in which he is human (p. 204). "Emptying himself is a metaphor
"pure and simple," and yet it "demands pre-existence," and
"if it does not presuppose pre-existence the metaphor itself has been
'emptied'" (p. 210, n. 78).
Again, theological assumptions may be at work when Fee
asserts that the exaltation of Christ in 2:9 presupposes the resurrection and
ascension, even though there are no hints of these in the text itself, and one
could as easily (and probably more accurately) argue that resurrection and
ascension presuppose exaltation. Similar assumptions may lie behind Fee's
intertextual readings: he sees a connection between 2:9 and Isa 45:23, even
though "every knee shall bend" is a "common idiom for doing
homage." Yet he rejects an intertextual connection between 2:6 and Genesis
2 because there is only a conceptual and not a linguistic link.
Predictably, given the
stance of the commentary series, whenever there is an option for a more
traditional, conservative theological reading of a passage, Fee adopts it. For
example, Paul's assertion that every knee shall bend before Christ does not
indicate universal salvation. Regarding a point that must be disappointing to
the author as well as to the reader, Fee states approval of the new design of the
commentary series that allows the volumes to lie flat on the table. His hope
was disappointed; the reader has to fight the book to keep it open. All said,
this is an impressive commentary, useful for anyone engaged in serious study of
Philippians, whether or not one agrees with all its theology or exegetical
detail.
R. David Kaylor
Davidson College Davidson, North Carolina
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten