Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians

Abstract

Beale’s contextual and exegetical perspectives are largely conventional. Regarding Colossians, Beale holds the epistle to be authentically Pauline (pp. 7–8), written in the early 50s CE, perhaps from Ephesus (or Rome), though Beale notably appears to exclude Caesarea from possessing any legitimate claim to provenance (p. 8). One noteworthy observation regards the identification of the Colossian heresy, which Beale perceives as primarily Jewish, though with some pagan elements (p. 13). Furthermore, the opposition constitutes a specific Jewish-Hellenistic false teaching rather than a general false ideology (p. 16 n 36). The letter to Philemon, being written around the same time, possesses a similar contextual background, though with a slightly later date in the mid-50s CE (p. 367). In his introduction to Philemon, however, Beale backs off the Ephesian provenance a bit, cautioning against holding too dogmatically to either an Ephesian or Roman provenance. Beale’s insights into OT allusions in Colossians mark his commentary’s distinctive contribution. Beale sees OT allusions throughout Colossians, whereas other scholars might not. For instance, Beale identifies 1:26–27 as a potential allusion to Dan 2:19–22, 28–30, while admitting that “most commentators . . . do not see an allusion to Dan. 2, apparently not detecting the unique verbal parallels” (pp. 147–48). Whatever one’s opinions regarding allusions and verbal parallels, Beale’s more open standards allow him to explore the implications of the OT on Paul’s thought more broadly. Perhaps, one critique, however, regards Beale’s unwillingness to distinguish between echoes and allusions (p. 444). Although Beale’s rationale that the broadly varying criteria for distinguishing between echoes and allusions is unsettled and, therefore, unhelpful is legitimate, his approach tends to possess alternative weaknesses. Beale might see an allusion in which Paul could have legitimately used language that simply was ingrained in his social and religious context without intending to draw direct parallels with any immediate interpretive implications (e.g., 3:9b–10 as a potential allusion to Gen 1–3). Stated simply, Beale’s approach is unable to distinguish between levels of intent regarding the use of OT allusions, which seems to be at least marginally germane to matters of interpretation. Although Beale communicates well his extensive knowledge of scholarship beyond merely Colossians and Philemon, he still displays a considerable measure of originality, in which he complements his exegesis of the text with pertinent scholarly dialogue rather than the alternative. In the author’s preface, Beale clarifies his intention in writing, claiming that he wishes broadly “to provide an exegesis of Colossians and Philemon that would be especially helpful to teachers, pastors, students, and others seriously interested in interpreting Colossians and Philemon for the benefit of the church” (p. xi). While the interests of these different groups can vary widely, Beale’s commentary generally hits the mark. The main commentary text only occasionally departs into dense, technical discussions, leaving much of the more meticulous or peripheral issues for the extensive “Additional Notes” sections that conclude each subunit. In sum, Beale’s commentary is a worthy addition to the libraries of scholars and pastors alike, particularly due to the author’s insights regarding the various possible OT allusions in Colossians.