Customer Reviews

The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament)

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is simply one of the best commentaries I have ever read. I do not agree with his pentecostal or evangelical feminists views, but the quality of writing, exegesis, and argumentation are clearly superior to what you will find in most commentaries. Fee does a particularly good job of tracing the flow of thought. He doesn't just interpret verses as isolated, unrelated units of thought. His treatments of chapters 7 and 8 and 11:17-34 really changed the way I viewed this passages.

One of my principle in pick up a commentary is when everthing equal, the newer is the better one. So when I planned to bought one commentary on 1 Corinthians, I prefered Garland's more than Fee's. Both come from a conservative point of view. They have almost the same size (Fee: 904; Garland: 896) and the same prize (Fee US$ 54; Garland US$ 50). Both also get very positive reviews. The different is Fee wrote his 1 Corinthians commentary in 1987 while Garland wrote in 2003, so there is almost twenty years gap between them.

Then when I planned to gave an expositionary preaching from 1 Corinthians 15, I knew that I need Fee's as a comparison. What a surprised! I find that at least for 1 Corinthians 15, I gain more insight from Fee than from Garland. For me, Fee's argument is more mature, and he is also braver and firmer when he must to state something. Garland make Fee as one of his sparring partner but when he disagrees with Fee, it seems to me that he do not give enough power to send his counter attack.

Both are good, really! But now if I must choose one commentary in 1 Corinthians, my choice is clear. For this time, the old recipe is the better one.

NB. I am also skimming Thiselton's work. This one is a huge commentary but at least from the preacher's point of view I must agree with D.A. Carson that "I do not have a good feel for it yet." Too many debate in it. If you need a third choice for 1 Corinthians, I will recommend Ancient Christian Commentary Series produced by Gerald Bray (ed.). You will be surprised with what you can get inside.

Dr. Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians is one of the best commenataries on one of the most problomatic books in the NT. Scholars often debate the issues of 1 Corinthians such as the issue of the sexual immoral man in chapter five, the sexual purity of the Corinthians themselves in chapter six, the issues of the Lord's supper in chapter eleven, and the gifts of tongues and prophecy in chapters twelve through fourteen.

Dr. Fee dives into the book of 1 Corinthians with careful exegesis of the texts. He is a charismatic in his own practice but he is often critical of charismatic abuses within the spiritual gifts context of the book. Fee is also one who is not ashamed to put the words of those who might disagree with him in this work. All Greek words are transliterated for those who do not know Greek.

Overall this is a solid work on 1 Corinthians. While it lacks the expository outlines of Dr. John MacArthur's commentaries, it remains one of the deepest and best I've read on 1 Corinthians to date.

Fee taught a course on 1 Corinthians for about 15 years at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary before completing this commentary (I only took his course on Textual Criticism). Thus, this book represents mature scholarship, thought, and an awareness of the kinds of questions people want answers to. The students at Gordon-Conwell were from every confessional background, so his teaching and writing has been for the whole church, and not geared toward charismatics. With about a dozen reviews already posted, I not only review Fee's book, but respond to some recurring comments in the other reviews.

Fee's logic is impressive. He takes 30-35 pages to untangle 1 Cor. 11:2-16, which represents one of the most difficult passages in the Greek NT. His evidence and reasoning are strong, and I've concluded the NIV (and most translations) botch this difficult passage. In trying to smooth out the difficulties in the Greek, our translations create meanings that are not well supported by the Greek nor the culture. Fee offers a sane exposition of this section.

Fee's argument that 14:33b-35 was not original to Paul but an early textual corruption may seem radical. Donald Carson, in his book on commentaries, inappropriately calls Fee's conclusion a "lapse," as if Fee thought this up himself. Yet this scholarly opinion goes back a long, long time. A. T. Robertson & A. Plummer's ICC on 1 Corinthians (1911) indicate that various scholars before their time thought those verses were an interpolation (e.g., Weinel, 1906, Schmiedel 1892, Holsten, 1880, and Hilgenfeld, n.d.). It would be difficult to argue that those scholars were motivated by our modern "feminist" movement! In more recent times, C. K. Barrett's Harper's/Black's commentary (1968) prefers the interpolation hypothesis, F. F. Bruce's NCBC commentary (1971) discusses it but passes no judgment (but he notes how several aspects of those verses are very awkward and difficult to square with the rest of the context and the epistle), and H. Conzelmann's Greek Hermeneia commentary (1975) is more adamant than Fee. Those who flippantly dismiss Fee's arguments seem not to have grasped his evidence nor his logic. The "hypothesis" that these verses were not in Paul's original letter has multiple stands of strong evidence, (mostly internal, but some external). By contrast, the "hypothesis" that the text as it stands was originally from Paul's hand is fraught with difficulties (but makes us feel good because we don't like the concept of later interpolations). The church is divided on issues related to women, so Fee's conclusion is controversial. Yet, our view of the role of women should have NO bearing on the question of the originality of those verses. That must be determined by the evidence.

Also, I am NOT in any way, shape, or form, charismatic (I'm a high churchman). But I acknowledge that the Bible never teaches an "end" to the spiritual gifts (well, we can make some verses teach that if we try). However, I'm very SKEPTICAL of most of today's alleged display of gifts. My fellow non-charismatics seem uncomfortable with Fee's interpretations, but such fears are unwarranted. To say God is free to give gifts as he chooses does not oblige us to accept modern Pentecostal practices.

The "problems" with Fee's book brought up by other reviewers represent one of the book's strengths. It is very scholarly and typically lets the chips fall where they may. We need a fresh look at this epistle that isn't laden with all of our traditions and perspectives that have affected us over the last 1900 years. While Fee is not without his biases, any disagreement with him (as a high churchman, I disagree with him at points) must be met with an equal level of evidence and logic, not with an ad hominem argument that Fee is a charismatic. Fee has given the church a great tool for interpreting God's Word, and I am very grateful for that.

Gordon Fee has provided us with such a "packed" and well-reasoned commentary that I can't recommend it more highly.

It is unfortunate that several reviewers with axes to grind have driven down the score on Fee's commentary, which is a momumental work. As a person with an M.Div. and other graduate degrees, I found the book to be lucid in its exegesis and useful in its application sections.

But let reviews from more credible sources than I be allowed to speak. Granted the following come from the book's jacket, but consider the weightiness of these sources. From the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, "Fee has given us a paradigm of what a commentary should be." From the Journal of Biblical Literature, "This is an excellent commentary. Writing in the best tradition of evangelical scholarship, Fee has produced the most thorough interpretation of 1 Corinthians to have appeared in English in this generation." And from Studies in Religion, "This commentary is a full and thorough reading of the text, reliable in its discussions of the scholarly debates, cautious in its exegetical judgments, sensitive in its handling of Paul, and constructive in its theological content. It offers more substance than any other available commentary."

This is about as good a commentary on 1 Corinthians as you will find. That does not mean it is without flaws however. It only means that 1 Corinthians has not been as adequately explained yet as we would like.

If you are committed to the cessation of the gifts, seeing his interpretation in 1 Cor 12-14 is going to get you annoyed. However, I would say he is largely right. (And I am not a charismatic.)

The biggest issues for me in the commentary are the problematic ways he takes the passages rgarding the role of the women in the Church at Corinth. Most notorious is his conclusion, on textual critical grounds, that 1 Cor 14:34 does not belong in the text. This is despite the fact that evidence FOR the passage is overwhelming. Otherwise, this is a good commentary, but one with flaws.

I have thoroughly enjoyed this commentary by Gordon Fee. Fee does an excellent job of combining all the elements of an exegetical commentary that make it worthwhile (historical-culture contexts, grammatical, linguistics and textual issues, a fair and balanced assortment of a variety of interpretations of any given passage, (and even some applicational suggestions). This is a commentary designed for both scholars as well as laymen. Fee's methodology should be emulated by all those who write serious Biblical commentaries. Anyone desiring to do serious study of 1 Corinthians should include Fee's commentary in their repetoire. Very simply, this is an outstanding commentary by an outstanding New Testament scholar. I would recommend this commentary without any reservation whatsover.

A very thorough and scholarly work. The ability of Dr. Fee to carry out the exegesis back to Corinth, and then forward to the modern Church. I have found the historical and original meanings to several sections to be extremely helpful. Dr. Fee coming from an active gifting background is also helpful to me, it is enlightening to see the reasons from that side presented in a very cognitive and cogent manner. The most encouraging thing to me about this commentary is the willingness to acknowledge and address not only his professional point of view of the passages, but also treat other views with courtesy and respect even in disagreement.

I would pay top dollar for just the section of this commentary that covers the cross of Christ and human wisdom. The remainder of this commentary is also highly beneficial particularly for pastors (like me). I read this commentary in preparation for preaching through 1 Corinthians. At times, the discussion of textual criticism was more than I needed as a pastor, but it was interesting.

Although I don't share Fee's beliefs pertaining to spiritual gifts, it didn't diminish the value of this commentary for me. While this was one of the most expensive commentaries I've ever bought, my preaching series through 1 Corinthians lasted 10 months and 40 sermons, making this book worth the price.

While preparing for a class I am teaching on 1 Corinthians, I have to say that this is the most helpful commentary I have read on 1 Corinthians so far. A few points:

The Good:
- The biggest strength of this commentary by far is Fee's determination to find the unifying problem lying under the issues at Corinth. In this respect, he succeeds remarkably well, and as a result has completely given new light to my understanding of the Corinthian problem.
- In conjunction with that, I was especially interested in the way that Fee highlights the Corinthian's "over-realized eschatology." He successfully demonstrated that this was a major problem at Corinth, and found several applications of it in the text that I had not previously considered.
- The handling of the first four chapters is top-notch, and it should be since these chapters serve as the foundation to Paul's argument. By the time I was done with chapter 4, I felt as if the book had already paid for itself (and there was still more to go!)
- Fee's coverage of chapters 7, 8-10, and 11:17-34 in particular are excellent. He takes a fresh approach to each of these passages and helps resolve some of the numerous problems with their traditional understandings.
- As already stated in another review, Fee's coverage of the resurrection materials in chapter 15 was extremely mature, and gave good food for thought.
- Finally, I was deeply appreciative not only of Fee's scholarship, but also of his commitment to viewing the word of God as something relevant, a fact that is too often lost in most scholarly treatises. The end of each section is given a short editorial comment that raises some practical / hermeneutical observations about how we in the church today should view these passages. In a commentary this thick and this rich in academic insights, this made the writer seem more personable than your stereotypical "ivory-tower" professor.

The Not-So-Good:
- Although Fee's logic is extremely compelling throughout the bulk of the material, there were a few of places where I felt he was ignoring key evidence to grind an axe. The most obvious example is his coverage of 14:34-35, where he adopts a reading that appears in no extant witnesses at all, insisting that the Western Text must be accounted for. I cannot help but think that if the passage in question dealt with anything other than the roles of women, he would have been less quick to see the Western reading as needy of explanation. While I do not dismiss Fee's conclusion outright, I felt that the case against these verses was heavily overstated in the commentary.
- Also, Fee dismisses outright (in the footnotes, no less!) the idea that 11:2-16 could be talking about anything other than an assembly setting. The fact is that the structure of 1 Corinthians seems to lend more to including that section with the chapters on temple meals (8-10), rather than artificially grouping it with 12-14 as a section on worship and the assembly. While I realize this is a minority viewpoint, it is a viewpoint that I subscribe to, and I was disappointed that it was not at least addressed. This dismissal ironically contributes to his reason for rejecting 14:34-35.

In spite of my criticisms, I would still give this commentary 5 stars. In a book this thick, one is unlikely to agree with everything (I also find his charismatic ideas questionable!), but that does not take away from the thoughtfulness and insight that the author offers on this especially challenging book of the bible. I definitely recommend using this book, but using it intelligently (as with any book).