Bruno, Christopher R.

English

Digital Commons

Cedarville UniversityDigitalCommons@CedarvilleBiblical and Theological Studies FacultyPublications School of Biblical and Theological Studies6-2009Book Review: GalatiansChristopher R. BrunoCedarville University, cbruno@cedarville.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/biblical_and_ministry_studies_publicationsPart of the Biblical Studies CommonsThis Book Review is brought to you for free and open access byDigitalCommons@Cedarville, a service of the Centennial Library. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in Biblical and Theological Studies FacultyPublications by an authorized administrator ofDigitalCommons@Cedarville. For more information, please contactdigitalcommons@cedarville.edu.Recommended CitationBruno, Christopher R., "Book Review: Galatians" (2009). Biblical and Theological Studies Faculty Publications. 312.http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/biblical_and_ministry_studies_publications/312book reviews 393june 2009contrary to texts such as 1 Tim 5:17 where Paul states that elders rule and have theduty of  preaching and teaching. To claim that those elders who rule and teach or preachare also given the title of  overseer raises another question: why did Paul not simply usethe term overseer (“Overseers who rule well are worthy of  double honor”)? It was alsonoticeable that Clarke failed to consult scholarly works written by Americans and/or evangelicals. Finally, at $130 this book is overpriced and limits the readership con-siderably. This is a book about church leadership that will never be read by manychurch leaders.Benjamin L. MerkleSoutheastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NCGalatians. By Gordon D. Fee. Pentecostal Commentary Series. Dorset: Deo Publishing,2007, ix + 262 pp., $34.95 paper.Gordon Fee’s commentary on Paul’s letter to the Galatians is the third volume inthe Pentecostal Commentary Series. According to Fee’s preface, this series is writtenby Pentecostals, primarily for Pentecostals, specifically, Pentecostal pastors. As Feepoints out, when he finished his Ph.D. in 1966, he was only the second Pentecostal tocomplete such a task. While many others from this tradition subsequently have followedhis path, Fee remains one of  the leading, if  not the leading Pentecostal NT scholar.Therefore, he is uniquely qualified for the task of  writing this commentary. However,Fee is also quick to point out that, since he is committed to the text above his own tra-dition, his aim is to approach Galatians “on its own terms” (p. viii).Fee’s introduction to the book establishes more clearly his method and approachto the commentary. In his discussion of  some of  the standard issues in the study ofGalatians, Fee’s method is refreshingly straightforward. He argues that many of  thescholarly discussions regarding the audience and date of  Galatians are unduly in-fluenced by the Acts narrative. However, since neither Galatians nor Acts provide acomplete picture of  the events in Paul’s life and their causes, Fee is content to rely onthe data in Galatians to answer these questions. Therefore, although he slightly favorsthe southern Galatia hypothesis, Fee argues that we cannot determine from the letteritself  precisely who the Galatians were and whether they lived in the northern orsouthern part of  Asia Minor. Therefore, the audience question is, in some sense, irre-solvable. He also favors using almost exclusively internal evidence to date the letter.Fee dates Galatians in the mid-50s because of  its stylistic similarity to Romans and theCorinthian letters. Neither the audience nor the date, however, is determinative forinterpreting the letter, argues Fee. Rather, the more important issues are the purposeof  the letter and the nature of  Paul’s opponents, since these can be determined moreclearly, if  not precisely, from the letter itself. In short, Fee argues that the “agitators”claimed that Torah-observance was necessary to “complete” the gift of  the Spirit (p. 5).In the commentary proper, Fee devotes most of  the space to his exegesis and com-ments on the text itself, rarely straying too far afield. He generally rejects the “rhetoricalapproach” to the text favored by Hans Dieter Betz and others, noting that Paul waswriting a letter, not an oratory piece. Furthermore, he notes that those who favorthe rhetorical approach rarely agree about how the sections of  the letter correspond tostandard rhetorical categories.In his exegetical footnotes, Fee rarely interacts substantively with other works andmostly focuses on clarifying his argument and interacting with text and translationissues. This is not to say, however, that he avoids controversy altogether, since, whenjournal of the evangelical theological society394 52/2necessary, Fee summarizes important scholarly discussions and provides his own per-spective on the issue at hand. For example, while avoiding becoming bogged down injustification and the New Perspective on Paul, Fee summarizes the major options forthe meanings of  “justify,” “works of  the law,” and “faith of  Christ” in about six and ahalf  pages. He also frequently points to other works that discuss controversial issuesbeyond the scope of  this commentary.After each section of  the text as he has divided it, Fee includes his “reflectionand response.” Although the exegetical sections will certainly be of  great benefit to hisreaders, Fee’s pastoral reflections may be the most helpful part of  the commentary forthe intended audience of  Pentecostal pastors. In these sections, Fee often reflects bothon instances where his tradition has succeeded in properly applying Paul’s injunc-tions in Galatians and where it has failed to do the same. While I do not come from aPentecostal tradition, many of  Fee’s comments were helpful and sobering to me. Myguess is that they may be doubly so for those within the tradition. Regardless, Fee’s re-flections on the text represent years of  careful and mature thinking about Galatiansand will benefit anyone who is serious about understanding and applying the letter.A review of  this length is obviously not the place to enter into serious debate oneither the method or exegesis in this commentary. However, there were a few placeswhere Fee’s argument in this book seemed to be somewhat lacking. First, while Fee’sinsistence on discussing the recipients of  the letter in light of  the evidence in Galatiansitself  is indeed refreshing, his similar rationale for dating the book late is less con-vincing. Betz and others have demonstrated that one need not commit to the southernGalatia hypothesis in order to argue for an early date of  composition (see Hans DieterBetz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia [Hermeneia;Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 5, 12). While Fee mentions that Paul’s famine relief  visitto Jerusalem described in Acts 11 can be reconciled with an early date for Galatians,he seems to ignore its relevance for his later dating of  the book. While it is one thingto deal primarily with the evidence of  Galatians itself, it is quite another to overlookother relevant evidence. However, as Fee points out, the audience and dating of the bookare somewhat irrelevant to the interpretation of  Galatians itself. These phenomena aremuch more relevant when attempting to establish a chronology of  Paul’s life.Another place that raised a question in my mind was Fee’s discussion of  Gal 3:28.As I mentioned above, this review is no place to enter into substantial discussion of Fee’sdetailed exegesis. However, given Fee’s well-known position as a theological egalitarian,coupled with the importance of  this verse for some egalitarian arguments, it was sur-prising that only half  of  a paragraph was devoted to the role of  women in Fee’s dis-cussion of  Gal 3:28. For pastors who may be seriously wrestling with this issue, thisseems to be an insufficient amount of  discussion. However, as Fee points out, the egali-tarian position is often the default position in the Pentecostal tradition; therefore, giventhe intended audience of  this volume, he was perhaps justified in his minimal discus-sion of  this issue.Apart from the questions raised above, which may be excusable given the intendedaudience and aims of this commentary, and perhaps a few other minor exegetical points,I found this commentary just what one would expect from a mature and thoughtfulscholar such as Gordon Fee. As he states in his preface, this work is essentially theproduct of  his many years of  teaching Galatians. Fee’s masterful summaries of  complexissues and clear explanations of  his favored positions are obviously the fruit of  his yearsof  labor in the book. While this commentary may be of  most benefit to the Pentecostalpastor, students of  the Bible from all traditions will richly benefit from Fee’s clear ex-planations and thoughtful reflections on Paul’s letter to the Galatians.Christopher R. BrunoWheaton College, Wheaton, ILOne Line Long

Book Review: Galatians

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1309&context=biblical_and_ministry_studies_publications

Book Review: Galatians

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons