Customer Reviews

The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (New International Commentary on the New Testament)

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

 

 

Gordon Fee has long been one of our finest New Testament scholars. His numerous works in the field, including some fine commentaries along the way, have made him a much-respected expert in the area. Thus any new work by Fee is always worth obtaining.

He does not disappoint here, with another fine commentary in the NICNT series, of which he is currently the editor. He had already penned an outstanding work in the series, his 1987 commentary on 1 Corinthians. At the time it was the largest and most substantial English-speaking commentary available on the book. Also in this series he penned the commentary on Philippians (1995).

The NICNT series was started in the late 1940s, and is near completion. All that remains is the 2 Peter/Jude volume. The two Thessalonian epistles were actually covered way back in 1959 by another great NT scholar, Australian Leon Morris. But a number of these volumes are now being replaced by more up-to-date commentaries. Thus Fee's replacement volume.

It joins several other recent conservative/evangelical commentaries on the letters, including Green (PNTC, 2002) and Witherington (2006). He is sparing on introductory matters (utilising only six pages on each epistle), and assumes Pauline authorship from around 49-50 CE. for both letters.

As to the commentary itself, it of course follows the format of the series, using an English text with more technical matters relegated to footnotes. Controversial sections, such as 1 Thess. 4:13-18 are dealt with in a careful and gracious manner. Fee argues that this passage is not about a secret rapture, as Paul was not concerned about "eschatological speculation" here.

In Paul's discussion of election in 1 Thess. 1:4-7, a corporate view is in mind, not an individual one, argues Fee. Other often difficult passages are not shirked. Fee explains 2 Thess. 2:11 (God sending a strong delusion) by noting the present tense of the verb: the failure of the people to love the truth "results in a divine response".

As with many scholars, Fee notes the "healthy tension between divine activity and human responsibility". And as a Pentecostal pastor, Fee lays heavy emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, as does Paul himself. The indicative and imperative must go together.

Concerning those who are idle and disruptive (2 Thess. 3:1-15), Fee follows Paul's pastoral emphasis here, which includes a very high Christology. The aim is to bring glory to God, harmony in the community, and restoration of the wayward. While Fee reminds us that the exact circumstances being addressed here are simply unknown to us, the practical treatise on church discipline is of value to all believers.

All commentators are of necessity interpreters as well. Not every direction Fee travels along in this commentary will resonate with readers. But as a model of exegetical precision, intellectual clarity and theological sensitivity, this commentary is top rate. If you can only afford to purchase one new commentary on these letters, this volume will be well worth getting.

Gordon Fee is always interesting, especially when he's cranky and dogmatic. That holds true in this commentary. Fee takes aim at end times weather forecasters whenever he can, and in his footnotes, he'll accuse other scholars of taking of positions without any evidence. So the guy is fun to read.

Fee steadfastly maintains that Paul wrote both 1 and 2 Thessalonians, in that order. He sagely notes that Paul introduces the theme of hard work and labor and perseverance early on in 1 Thessalonians 1:4-6 because these are themes that will be amplified later on in this epistle, and as it turns out, in 2 Thessalonians as well. Fee for some reason thinks that the emphasis in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 is on the wrath that will come upon the idolaters, when to me, the emphasis is ont eh coming of Christ to rescue those who have turned from idols.

In 1 Thessalonians 2, Fee strongly and (to me, successfully), defends the translation "infants" rather than "gentle" in 1 Thessalonians 2:7, and he wards off those who accuse Paul of anti-Jewishness in 2:14-16.

In 1 Thessalonians 3:11-12, he sees Paul rewriting the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, though this to me is uncertain. He also contends that the holy ones of 3:13 refer to angels, noting that it reflects the language of Zechariah 14:5 and is made clear by his identification of the accompanying angels in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:4: Fee translates skeuos as "vessel," meaning the male sex organs. Although Fee argues strenuously and is joined by I.H Marshall, this will not command assent amongst all interpreters.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is hotly debated, and Fee clearly notes that this text is more about comforting believers with the news that we will be reunited with our deceased loved ones with Christ than he is in telling us where exactly this will be. Fee surprisingly says nothing about Paul's use of apantesis in verse 17, and he writes off the pretribulational perspective with a passing sentence and no dialogue with those who hold to this position. For this alone, Fee gets docked a star in my review. I did like his discussion of the holy kiss in 5:26.

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Fee is helpful, but I also wish he would have put forth more of an effort discussing the katechon in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. Furthermore, there is no discussion about the linking of the day of the Lord with the coming of Christ and our being gathered to him. Fee never says whether or not these are all part of one and the same event, nor does he try to distinguish the Day of the Lord as an event in its own right. He never discusses how the day of the Lord could come like a thief in the night in 1 Thessalonians 5 and yet be heralded by signs in advance in 2 Thessalonians 2, nor does he discuss how this might cause people to question the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians. He simply dismisses those who question Pauline authorship with the wave of a hand.

Don't get me wrong: I affirm the Pauline authorship of both epistles. I'm just saying that I expected a more thorough commentary from Fee on this and other issues, especially since this is a series which allows for more expansive commentaries, and Fee himself is the general editor! Perhaps a hint for the short shrift is given in the introductions to these two epistles where Fee makes clear that these two epistles in his opinion are not Paul's finest moments.

Unfortunately, this commentary is not one of Gordon Fee's finest moments, either. Leon Morris' commentary on these epistles has been replaced by this one, but after reading this, I personally prefer Morris. I love Fee on 1 Corinthians and Philippians, but in this volume, although he remains zesty and provocative, he has not given us his best work.

I think this is now the best overall commentary on Thessalonians. I'm probably biased since I am a fan of Fee's work, but I found this to be the most insightful as I prepared to preach from various passages in Thessalonians. Fee is great reader of texts, and so I always feel like I'm getting an insiders view of what Paul is saying. He is sensitive to the nuances of Paul's thought as reflected in the grammar and syntax of the text and brings these out for the reader. Besides his close reading of the text, Fee writes with zest and is interesting, challenging, enlightening, and sometimes frustrating. You will not agree with everything Fee says, but this book will not bore you, and you in turn will probably not bore your congregation. While Fee excels in details, he also sprinkles some profound reflections or applications throughout, some of which are almost alone worth the price of the book. I also very much like Green and Malherbe, which are both outstanding in their own ways, but Fee's work seems to me to have the best combination of attributes in one volume.

Impressed by his commentary on 1 Corinthians, I did not hesitate to buy this brand new one. But as I read it, both the writing style and the message are against my expectation. His writing seems awkward that do not bear enough message. Dissappointing.