N. T. Wright's Colossians & Philemon is an insightful and innovative contribution to the corpus of modern commentaries on the Book of Colossians. Wright's style is characteristic of the theologian - clear and concise. An average reader could complete the book in about 10 hours of devoted reading. Wright's methods remain unchanged - unique and controversial. The work is immersed in the theologian's emphasis on Pauline theology and a re-understanding of 2nd Temple Judaism.
The commentary is divided as follows: Preface material (18 pages), Colossians introduction (27 pages), Colossians commentary (118 pages), Philemon introduction (8 pages), and Philemon commentary (21 pages). For brevity, the review will focus primarily on the introduction and commentary on Colossians.
The author's insights into the passages are enlightening in numerous instances. Wright points out that the repetition of the term "understanding" in 1:9-10 is not a circular logical device, but a spiral (58). He also argues that the term "firstborn" (1:15) does not have to be either time or rank, but can plausibly be both (71). The author explains that the term "mystery" (2:2-3) should be "both a comfort and a challenge to Christians" (95). He presents helpful points regarding balancing intellectualism (131) as well as views regarding inward and outward sin (133). Wright also correctly notes that the "taking off" and "putting on" (3:9-10) are events that have taken place at salvation (138). His careful balance when dealing with the household code is also commendable (147-151). Wright graciously points out the reason why Paul did not advocate the end of slavery (150) and spells out beautifully the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians (161).
Just as Wright's insights on matters of little or no discussion are helpful, so are his insights in regard to passages around which certain amounts of debate swirl. The authorship of the book is no small debate in the milieu of discussions regarding Colossians. Wright makes clear objections to the liberal assertions that another author is easily posited (31), that the style does not match with other known Pauline epistles (32), and that the theology does not match with other known Pauline epistles (32-34). One of Wright's more helpful contributions along this line is his analysis and critique of the supposed "Timothy co-authorship" view (31). The deity passages (1:15, 19; 2:9) are another matter of heated debate, and Wright traverses them adequately (71). Wright, as other theologians, does not clearly press the matter as far as the text may allow. The author weighs in on the powers (1:16) and believes that they can be either angelic or political (72); however, the weight of his argument seems to fall on their being political. The writer also clearly presents his view on another of the most confusing verses in the New Testament (1:24). Wright supports the view that Christ has left the Church a quota of suffering to fulfill during the time prior to His return (87-90). According to this view, Paul was rejoicing in his sufferings because he knew that they were distracting satanic forces or diminishing the amount of suffering that the Colossian church would need to endure. Unfortunately, when discussing the interpretation of 2:18, Wright equivocates and does not draw a conclusion. He states that the verse "almost defies translation, let alone comprehension," ultimately chocking the verse up to irony (123). The "wrath of God" (3:6) is treated extensively (135-136). Finally, Wright views the "Epistle from Laodicea" (4:16) as the Book of Ephesians (162), dismissing theories with even more scholarly support.
Wright's support of the novel is not uncharacteristic of his writing as a whole. He purposes theories and ideas that are on the one hand fresh and deep, but, on the other hand, can be overdrawn and reckless. The reader leaves the book introduction wondering if the writer is simply being novel for novelties' sake. He disparages the overwhelmingly common analysis of the book as being doctrine (cc. 1-2) and practice (cc. 3-4), arguing that the two cannot be separated (21). Wright's analysis of the "Colossian heresy" is also suspect. He denies any aspect of Gnosticism in the book (57, 66, and 75) and claims that the cult is none other than plain old vanilla Judaism as found in Galatians (23, 27, 28, 97, 104, 122, and 123). The majority of scholars admit that some element of Jewish philosophy is at play in the book, but only a handful (or less) has agreed with Wright's position. Yet the author's novelty persists. He insists, contrary the majority of scholarly opinion, that the provenance of Colossians was actually from prison in Ephesus (35, 39, 154, and 157) rather than Rome, as the traditional and common view would hold. Even his dating of the book (AD 52-55 or 53-56) is highly unusual, albeit based on his assumption of an origin from Ephesus (37). These introductory theories and hypotheses run counter to major prevailing thought and are, for that reason, worthy of study for their freshness, and worthy of caution due to their novelty.
Wright's attempt to be original spills over into other realms as well. His emphases are driven by what appears to be a cautious postmodern theology, an anti-Western politic, and a strong focus on Jewish teachings. As for the cautious postmodernism, Wright displays a tendency to doubt the traditional and conventional (as in the introductory section, above). He also finds the need to attack traditional teachings such as those regarding "legalism" (30, 42-43) while essentially saying the same thing at times (133). He despises the modern tendency to only see truth in one system of religion, but does go on to say that the only door to God is through the Christian religion (79). Wright's seemingly anti-Western political views appear to color his attacks on "western" values (43), his purpose for allowing the demythologization of angelic language (72), and his extreme emphasis on the community and social activity in the church (54, 80, and 124). The extreme Jewish focus is evident throughout the work (61, 62, 63, 67, 69, 101, and 102). In a book where no Old Testament quotations exist and most theologians struggle to arrive at Old Testament analogies, Wright finds scores. The readers must ask themselves, are these insights due to the impressive abilities of the writer or due to overstretched "allusions" and hypothesized Jewish practices? To be fair, Wright's fresh perspective does ask some fair questions. Has the church focused too much on its Western culture and lost focus on the Eastern culture from which it originated? Has the church focused too much on the individual and not enough on the corporate body? It is these perceived issues to which the author appears to be (over?) reacting. It is also worthy to note that Wright often appears to catch himself from time to time, and rebalances himself on the issue at hand. For example, following a strong emphasis on the need for the church to be socially active, he notes that the "central calling [for pastors and teachers is] not (first and foremost) to comment on current affairs or to alleviate human problems, good and necessary as those activities may be, but to announce that Jesus is Lord" (93).
The final consideration that the reader should have in regard to the commentary is that of the writer's theology. Most readers are already keenly aware that the writer is one of the key proponents (along with Dunn and Sanders) of the quasi-system of theology known as the New Perspective on Paul. Whatever the reader's view is of this theology, there must be a tacit admission that it will affect major portions of the work. A majority of those effects have been mapped in the previous two paragraphs, but the final consideration, the deep-seated theological presuppositions and expressions of the author have yet to be probed. Wright's theology contains a simple eschatology. Israel was a local and national people of God which was expanded at Christ. Currently Christians live under the kingdom of Christ and in the future they will live in the kingdom of God. Not much beyond this is divulged by the writer. Wright appears cautious around the doctrine of the Trinity. He tiptoes around the subject and ensures that the monotheistic origins of Christianity are not upset by the passages at hand. While the caution in the over-emphasis of the multiple persons of God is admirable, Wright's caution appears to have pushed him into the opposite corner - under-emphasis of the Trinity. He speaks often of God working in and through Christ and even twice speaks of Christ's divinity, but never refers to Christ as God or deity. This may be due to oversight, caution, or a misunderstanding on the part of the reviewer, but a clearer affirmation of the deity of Christ could have been made. A final caution should be made in regard to Wright's statements in regard to baptism. Occasionally, some have inferred that Wright's statements speak to baptismal regeneration; however, Wright denounces this by stating that Protestants have "rightly" opposed the Catholic doctrine that the "rite of baptism...makes one the possessor of eternal life" (107). Wright's seemingly misleading statements regarding baptism (99, 105, and 106) can be easily explained in light of his focus on the real local community of the local church (cf. 107). Wright's position, as best as the reviewer understands it, is that faith and baptism generally took place in rapid succession in the early church. At a believer's baptism, he or she would confess (Rom. 1:9-10) openly their testimony of salvation and adherence to the faith. The writer appears to connect these two events quite closely, but does keep a proper, albeit slim, gap placed between the two.
N. T.
Read more ›
