Fowl, S. Philippians. THNTC. Eerdmans, 2005 (254 pp.).  This series is dedicated to theological interpretation of NT books, which means bridging the gap between modern biblical studies (which tends to emphasize textual and/or historical analysis at the expense of application) and modern systematic theology (which tends to emphasize doctrinal coordination at the expense of the text’s own agenda). F’s opening discussion of the difference between historical exegesis and theological exegesis is exceptionally clear and helpful. The former attempts to understand the text on the basis of its historical setting, the latter on the basis of its content. The former may or may not result in theological reflections and judgments, whereas the latter is consumed with them from start to finish. In an important sense, all of the commentaries reviewed here could be located in relation to these two main categories (e.g., see the confusion represented in O’Brien, directly below). F excels at the latter, and his commentary will be good reading for anyone interested in moving beyond the tendency to see in scripture mainly the opportunity to restate routine doctrinal platitudes.

O’Brien, P. The Epistle to the Philippians. NIGTC. Eerdmans, 1991 (597 pp.).  This is an enormous commentary for a short book, and the value is in the detail attributed to the careful examination of each part of the text of Philippians. However, as noted in the review of Fowl, above, there is tremendous hermeneutical confusion on the relationship between theology and history in regard to the interpretation of biblical texts. The Forward (written by I. Marshall and W. Gasque) applauds the recognition in recent scholarship of “the primarily theological character of the books of the New Testament,” but then expresses its intention “therefore . . . to provide a theological understanding of the text based on historical-critical-linguistic exegesis” (x). But as Fowl explains in his commentary, theological interpretation does not orientate itself relative to historical-critical concerns, and the linguistic features of the text are not understood as ends in themselves. Nevertheless, O’s commentary frames its discussion in relation to these very issues (e.g. the city and people of Philippi, their religious life, as well as authorship issues lying behind the text itself—dating and geography, and whether it was a self-standing letter, or several combined, and if the latter, then what impact this may have on interpreting the literature). These comments should not detract from the value the commentary holds for attending to the features of the text itself. But they should underscore the importance of reading this kind of commentary only alongside others that are driven by theological concerns like Fowl’s or Thurston’s (below).

Thurston, B. and J. Ryan. Philippians and Philemon. SP. Liturgical Press, 2005 (290 pp.).  We are increasingly fond of the Sacra Pagina series of commentaries and will probably continue to purchase them for our library. T writes the Philippians commentary in this volume, dividing the introductory matter into two points of discussion: various aspects of the historical situation the book presents, and various aspects of the book as literature (two of which are also historically calibrated). Although her attention to these matters might suggest that the commentary will take on the same character as O’Brien’s, her actual hermeneutical orientation is properly understood in terms of Christian spirituality and the life of prayer (4, 5). Because of this orientation, T is able to draw together her exegesis in service to productive theological reflection (note the excursus sections in this regard). She stays in touch with Protestant scholarship on Philippians throughout the work, but also with fresh voices from the Catholic tradition, increasing the value of the commentary significantly in our view. The textual work and notes (following the translation) are at times fairly technical, but the interpretation sections make sense of them.

Martin, R. and G. Hawthorne. Philippians. WBC. Nelson, 2004 (305 pp.).  An extensive commentary on a short book may have its place (see O’Brien’s, above), but it is doubly intriguing that it should be written jointly. (More precisely, it is a revision of H’s 1983 publication in which M has updated the bibliography, added paragraphs here and there, and reworked some aspects of the discussion.) In a day when the Church’s leaders are at every turn attempting to reinvent the (concept of) “church,” and when each pastor, Bible study leader, and arm-chair theologian is absolutely sure his (or her) theological convictions are the right ones, it is refreshing to see one scholar submitting his own ideas to the previously established constraints of another. There is something very biblical about this (and anyone who has studied canon at MIQRA will know what that means). One interesting aspect of M’s contribution is the inclusion of Wirkungsgeschichte—the subsequent “history” of the book’s “effects” on those who have read it, specifically in the life of the Church (not the same as a history of interpretation)—in the comments. As always with commentaries in the Word series, a working knowledge of Greek will be required to benefit fully (though that shouldn’t discourage those for whom it has become rusty to use this as a fine opportunity to brush up).