What do you think?
Rate this book
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries #12
Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary (Volume 12)
Colossians presents a picture of Christ who is 'the firstborn over all creation' and has disarmed and triumphed over the powers and authorities. The letter also appeals to its readers to seek humble maturity, a maturity not possible apart from the person and work of Jesus Christ. N. T Wright's stated goal is to "give the text back to the reader uncluttered by a mass of glosses." In Philemon, Paul makes a personal appeal to a fellow believer to receive a runaway slave, Onesimus, in love and forgiveness. For Wright, it is "an acted parable of the gospel itself." The original, unrevised text of this volume has been completely retypeset and printed in a larger, more attractive format with the new cover design for the series. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries have long been a trusted resource for Bible study. Written by some of the world's most distinguished evangelical scholars, these twenty volumes offer clear, reliable, and relevant explanations of every book in the New Testament. These Tyndale volumes are designed to help readers understand what the Bible actually says and what it means. The introduction to each volume gives a concise but thorough description of the authorship, date, and historical background of the biblical book under consideration. The commentary itself examines the text section by section, drawing out its main themes. It also comments on individual verses and deals with problems of interpretation. The aim throughout is to get at the true meaning of the Bible and to make its message plain to readers today.
199 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1987
86 people are currently reading
329 people want to read
About the author
N.T. Wright
460 books2,864 followersN. T. Wright is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England (2003-2010) and one of the world's leading Bible scholars. He is now serving as the chair of New Testament and Early Christianity at the School of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews. He has been featured on ABC News, Dateline NBC, The Colbert Report, and Fresh Air, and he has taught New Testament studies at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford universities. Wright is the award-winning author of Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, The Last Word, The Challenge of Jesus, The Meaning of Jesus (coauthored with Marcus Borg), as well as the much heralded series Christian Origins and the Question of God.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
June 5, 2024
Wright, N. T. Colossians & Philemon. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Intervarsity Press, 1986.
This is N. T. Wright before his notoriety regarding the New Perspective on Paul. As such, there is very little in the book. Although this is early in his career, one can find themes he will develop much later: election, monotheism, and New Creation. The commentary itself, whatever else one may say about N. T. Wright, is outstanding, more so because it is limited by the space constraints in the Tyndale Series.
While we cannot simply recommend Wright’s works, the mature reader needs to be familiar with him and give calm, rational responses to him, telling others where he is right and wrong. In my opinion, that is the best way to evaluate him. Shrill responses, even if technically correct, do more to drive people to Wright than anything else.
Authorship and Purpose
Wright does a good job making the case for Pauline authorship. In fact, one does not even need to make the case. One can simply show that the case against Pauline authorship is in fact quite weak. It will not do to say that Colossians has stylistic differences with the main body of Paul’s works. Whether it does or does not, we simply do not have that many of Paul’s works to make such a claim. Moreover, if the stylistic differences were so great, early readers would have seen that–unless, of course, we moderns are just so much smarter than they. Nor are the thematic differences that great. True, Colossians does not treat justification in the same detail that Romans and Galatians do. But neither do the Corinthian letters, and no one doubts their authorship.
For Wright, Paul is combating a latent Judaism in Colosse. I am not convinced. It is true, and he is probably correct, that the “philosophy” in chapter 2 can refer to Jewish schools. I think the real problem for his case is the syncretic elements. It does not make sense to worry about a strong Jewish presence if you also have to warn against that presence worshiping angels.
Indicative and Imperative
Although he does not call it such, one can see something of the indicative and imperative in his commentary. “Because Christ has done x, therefore….” He rightly notes that doctrine and ethics cannot be divided. We live the way we do because of who Christ is, and who we are in Him. This explains Paul’s warning against be enslaved to the commands of the old creation. “Genuine holiness, which is an anticipation of the life of the age to come into which the risen Christ has already entered (1:18; 3:1-4), is not to be had by methods whose very nature, focusing as it does on perishable things, binds them to the present age” (Wright 128).
Some Textual Notes
1:9. “The knowledge of God’s will’ is more than an insight into how God wants his people to behave: it is an understanding of God’s whole saving purpose in Christ, and hence (as in v. 10b) a knowledge of God himself” (57). The terms “knowledge,” “wisdom,” and “understanding” are best understood through their Old Testament background
Wisdom is the “whole human person.” In a footnote, Wright references Ex. 31.3; 35.31, 35; Dt. 34.9; Is. 29.14.
As Christians grow, they will awaken their intellectual powers.
As the gospel bears fruit, we should bear fruit and grow in the knowledge of God. More Genesis 1 echoes.
1:12b-23
Verses 12 and 13 echo the language of the Exodus, we are delivered and given a new inheritance.
1:13. “Paul shares with the New Testament writers, and with Jesus himself, the belief in the existence of a dark power to whom the human race, and the world, is subject because of sin” (62).
1:14. A Jew reading this passage would recall the slave pens of Egypt and Pharaoh.
1:15-20. Because of who Christ is, Paul’s readers should not look to Judaism for protection against pagan principalities and powers. “Having Christ, God’s true Wisdom, they possess all they need” (68).
1:15. “The doctrine of incarnation which flows from this cannot, by definition, squeeze either ‘divinity’ or ‘humanity’ out of shape” (70).
1:21. “Thought and act are both tainted, each pushing the other into further corruption…Wrong thinking leads to vice, vice to further mental corruption” (81).
1:24. How do we “fill up the sufferings in Christ,” given that Christ’s sacrifice is perfect and complete? Wright draws upon Jewish ideas of God’s purposes. “First, there is corporate Christology…That which is true of Christ is also true of his people” (87). Second, “there is the concept of Messianic woes, which Paul alludes to also in Romans 8:18-25” (88).
1:26. “The word ‘mystery’ is…God’s secret plan, anticipated in visions and symbols by holy men of old, and now at last unveiled before all his people” (91).
2:8-15
“The context of Colossians 2 shows that here and in verse 20 the correct meaning is that of local presiding deities, the national ‘gods’ supposed to rule over the different areas and races of the world” (101-102).
2:9-10. “First, he shows that Christians have no need to pay homage to lesser supernatural beings” (103).
2:16-17. “Here he is in effect saying: even in terms of pagan religion itself, Judaism has to do with the shadow-world, not with reality” (120).
Conclusion
This commentary, although aimed at the pastor-scholar, is accessible to the educated layman. Because it is relatively early in Wright’s career, it lacks some of his–I hate to call them this–cliches about New Creation, making it quite refreshing in many ways.
This is N. T. Wright before his notoriety regarding the New Perspective on Paul. As such, there is very little in the book. Although this is early in his career, one can find themes he will develop much later: election, monotheism, and New Creation. The commentary itself, whatever else one may say about N. T. Wright, is outstanding, more so because it is limited by the space constraints in the Tyndale Series.
While we cannot simply recommend Wright’s works, the mature reader needs to be familiar with him and give calm, rational responses to him, telling others where he is right and wrong. In my opinion, that is the best way to evaluate him. Shrill responses, even if technically correct, do more to drive people to Wright than anything else.
Authorship and Purpose
Wright does a good job making the case for Pauline authorship. In fact, one does not even need to make the case. One can simply show that the case against Pauline authorship is in fact quite weak. It will not do to say that Colossians has stylistic differences with the main body of Paul’s works. Whether it does or does not, we simply do not have that many of Paul’s works to make such a claim. Moreover, if the stylistic differences were so great, early readers would have seen that–unless, of course, we moderns are just so much smarter than they. Nor are the thematic differences that great. True, Colossians does not treat justification in the same detail that Romans and Galatians do. But neither do the Corinthian letters, and no one doubts their authorship.
For Wright, Paul is combating a latent Judaism in Colosse. I am not convinced. It is true, and he is probably correct, that the “philosophy” in chapter 2 can refer to Jewish schools. I think the real problem for his case is the syncretic elements. It does not make sense to worry about a strong Jewish presence if you also have to warn against that presence worshiping angels.
Indicative and Imperative
Although he does not call it such, one can see something of the indicative and imperative in his commentary. “Because Christ has done x, therefore….” He rightly notes that doctrine and ethics cannot be divided. We live the way we do because of who Christ is, and who we are in Him. This explains Paul’s warning against be enslaved to the commands of the old creation. “Genuine holiness, which is an anticipation of the life of the age to come into which the risen Christ has already entered (1:18; 3:1-4), is not to be had by methods whose very nature, focusing as it does on perishable things, binds them to the present age” (Wright 128).
Some Textual Notes
1:9. “The knowledge of God’s will’ is more than an insight into how God wants his people to behave: it is an understanding of God’s whole saving purpose in Christ, and hence (as in v. 10b) a knowledge of God himself” (57). The terms “knowledge,” “wisdom,” and “understanding” are best understood through their Old Testament background
Wisdom is the “whole human person.” In a footnote, Wright references Ex. 31.3; 35.31, 35; Dt. 34.9; Is. 29.14.
As Christians grow, they will awaken their intellectual powers.
As the gospel bears fruit, we should bear fruit and grow in the knowledge of God. More Genesis 1 echoes.
1:12b-23
Verses 12 and 13 echo the language of the Exodus, we are delivered and given a new inheritance.
1:13. “Paul shares with the New Testament writers, and with Jesus himself, the belief in the existence of a dark power to whom the human race, and the world, is subject because of sin” (62).
1:14. A Jew reading this passage would recall the slave pens of Egypt and Pharaoh.
1:15-20. Because of who Christ is, Paul’s readers should not look to Judaism for protection against pagan principalities and powers. “Having Christ, God’s true Wisdom, they possess all they need” (68).
1:15. “The doctrine of incarnation which flows from this cannot, by definition, squeeze either ‘divinity’ or ‘humanity’ out of shape” (70).
1:21. “Thought and act are both tainted, each pushing the other into further corruption…Wrong thinking leads to vice, vice to further mental corruption” (81).
1:24. How do we “fill up the sufferings in Christ,” given that Christ’s sacrifice is perfect and complete? Wright draws upon Jewish ideas of God’s purposes. “First, there is corporate Christology…That which is true of Christ is also true of his people” (87). Second, “there is the concept of Messianic woes, which Paul alludes to also in Romans 8:18-25” (88).
1:26. “The word ‘mystery’ is…God’s secret plan, anticipated in visions and symbols by holy men of old, and now at last unveiled before all his people” (91).
2:8-15
“The context of Colossians 2 shows that here and in verse 20 the correct meaning is that of local presiding deities, the national ‘gods’ supposed to rule over the different areas and races of the world” (101-102).
2:9-10. “First, he shows that Christians have no need to pay homage to lesser supernatural beings” (103).
2:16-17. “Here he is in effect saying: even in terms of pagan religion itself, Judaism has to do with the shadow-world, not with reality” (120).
Conclusion
This commentary, although aimed at the pastor-scholar, is accessible to the educated layman. Because it is relatively early in Wright’s career, it lacks some of his–I hate to call them this–cliches about New Creation, making it quite refreshing in many ways.
May 10, 2020
Ce livre est à la fois débordant d'érudition et facile à lire. L'auteur y propose un commentaire qui met en lumière des subtilités philologiques grecques, amenant ainsi le lecteur à une compréhension plus approfondie de ces deux épîtres.
Personnellement, le commentaire sur l'Épitre à Philémon m'a scotché.
Personnellement, le commentaire sur l'Épitre à Philémon m'a scotché.
January 19, 2022
Per usual, Wright excels at the big picture. A worthy commentary for any bookshelf
December 17, 2023
Good stuff, Tom.
June 24, 2023
Not a very detailed but still an extremely useful commentary by one of the best NT scholars. Great for preachers and Bible study leaders.
February 22, 2011
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. Wright's unique focus offers the student of Colossians the opportunity to get a glimpse of Colossians from fresh eyes. Wright appears to offer the reader an untainted look at the contents of the book, but the reader must never forget that the author's own view is contaminated by his own presuppositions. None of these presuppositions (the readers' or the authors') are necessarily bad, per se, but do need to be confronted from time to time. The reader will, no doubt, find their presuppositions challenged and will be stronger as a result.
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. Wright's unique focus offers the student of Colossians the opportunity to get a glimpse of Colossians from fresh eyes. Wright appears to offer the reader an untainted look at the contents of the book, but the reader must never forget that the author's own view is contaminated by his own presuppositions. None of these presuppositions (the readers' or the authors') are necessarily bad, per se, but do need to be confronted from time to time. The reader will, no doubt, find their presuppositions challenged and will be stronger as a result.
February 15, 2021
This is my first time reading NT Wright and his mix of insight, attractive writing style, and preaching made this one of the best of the Tyndale Commentaries for me as it informed me and caused me to desire God more deeply which was unexpected in a commentary.
Colossians is the bulk of the volume. The intro mostly covers when and where the letter was written and who Paul was opposing. NT Wright believes this to be the Jews while I tend to think it was Judiazers, Pharisees who came to Christ yet still wanted Judaism, though in the end the difference is rather small. The author's opinions do run counter to some other positions, but I think he defends them well.
The Commentary portion is fairly deep for an intro commentary but written simply enough to understand. I read it more slowly than some others in the Tyndale line but also profited more, so a fair trade-off.
Philemon is more of an add-on though a solid little work where the author sees Paul as being Christ-like as a connection between Paul Philemon.
Colossians is the bulk of the volume. The intro mostly covers when and where the letter was written and who Paul was opposing. NT Wright believes this to be the Jews while I tend to think it was Judiazers, Pharisees who came to Christ yet still wanted Judaism, though in the end the difference is rather small. The author's opinions do run counter to some other positions, but I think he defends them well.
The Commentary portion is fairly deep for an intro commentary but written simply enough to understand. I read it more slowly than some others in the Tyndale line but also profited more, so a fair trade-off.
Philemon is more of an add-on though a solid little work where the author sees Paul as being Christ-like as a connection between Paul Philemon.
November 21, 2022
NT Wright wins with his prose and his theological and pastoral reflection.
However, I wonder if he were to put out a second edition of this commentary if there would be some significant differences with how he handles the newness of Jesus and the relation to the Jewish people. I couldn't tell if his sometimes strong at-times anti-Judaism interpretations were just a younger NT Wright coming into his own as a scholar and commentator or just the limited word count of the Tyndale commentary forcing imprecision.
However, I wonder if he were to put out a second edition of this commentary if there would be some significant differences with how he handles the newness of Jesus and the relation to the Jewish people. I couldn't tell if his sometimes strong at-times anti-Judaism interpretations were just a younger NT Wright coming into his own as a scholar and commentator or just the limited word count of the Tyndale commentary forcing imprecision.
March 20, 2019
Action-packed.
January 18, 2022
Good. Really helpful historically and for following the flow of thought. I expected to argue with him a lot more than I did.
December 8, 2023
Characteristic of N.T. Wright, this is a beautiful commentary on two important writings of the New Testament. It is scholarly and pastoral, without being purely academic, and I heartily recommend it.
January 17, 2013
“God does not put his saving power into operation by some automatic or magic process which bypasses the consciousness of its recipients. Paul describes the effect of Epaphras' preaching in Colosse in terms not of an emotional reaction, nor even of people 'accepting Christ into their hears' but of hearing truth and understanding it. The task of the apostolic herald is to announce truth: the word here translated 'understood' indicates that the response sought is an intelligent thinking through and recognition of that truth. Paul was in doubt about the Colossians' state of heart, but he knew that Christian emotion must be undergirded with a clear-headed grasp of truth. it is important to stress at the same time that the response to the gospel will involve not only the intellect but also the emotions; but is hould also be aid that intellect and emotions, head and hear, are not simly two separate compartments without an adjoining door. Clear recognitiion and understanding of the genuine Christian gospel – that God loved the world so much that he gave his Son to die for it – is a most powerful stimulus to full-hearted Christian love for God in return. Such an emotional response can in its turn fuel the desire for a deeper intellectual understanding (see 1:9) of God's nature and purposes.” (Wright 54-55)
“'The gospel' for Paul, is an announcement,a proclamation, whose importance lies in the truth of its content. It is not, primarily, either an invitation or a technique for changing people's lives. It is acommand to be obeyed and a power let loose in the world (cf. Rom. 1:16-17), which cannot be reducted to terms of the persuasiveness or even the conviction of the messsenger. It works of itself to overthrow falsehood.” (Wright 52)
“The gospel, seen almost as a personified force, is at work in the world through those commissioned to proclaim it; where its truth is recognized and its command obeyed, it bears fruit. In a world where many varied 'religious experiences' were on offer, Paul gives the Colossians the theological framework of understanding within which they will be able to make sense of what God has been doing in their lives. Without this framework, experience remains ambiguous and even potentially misleading.” (wright 49-50)
“What is worked for must first be prayed for. The source of all peace is grace.” (Wright 49)
“'The gospel' for Paul, is an announcement,a proclamation, whose importance lies in the truth of its content. It is not, primarily, either an invitation or a technique for changing people's lives. It is acommand to be obeyed and a power let loose in the world (cf. Rom. 1:16-17), which cannot be reducted to terms of the persuasiveness or even the conviction of the messsenger. It works of itself to overthrow falsehood.” (Wright 52)
“The gospel, seen almost as a personified force, is at work in the world through those commissioned to proclaim it; where its truth is recognized and its command obeyed, it bears fruit. In a world where many varied 'religious experiences' were on offer, Paul gives the Colossians the theological framework of understanding within which they will be able to make sense of what God has been doing in their lives. Without this framework, experience remains ambiguous and even potentially misleading.” (wright 49-50)
“What is worked for must first be prayed for. The source of all peace is grace.” (Wright 49)
November 19, 2011
Like other volumes in the Tyndale Series, Wright's commentary is a good, concise, mid-level commentary. Wright makes his case for his understanding of the text, occasion for Paul's writing (and that Paul wrote it), and the context to who Paul was writing to. But in this volume (as with the whole series) Wright is concerned with presenting his reading of the text more than a detailed account of the scholarship underpinning it. In a number of places he refers readers to more techinical treatments of Colossians (i.e. O'Brien, Moule, Caird).
I would agree with other reviewers that this commentary is not Wright at his most brilliant, but I think he does a phenomenal job of presenting a reading of Colossians which is compelling and well informed. Is this the best commentary on Colossians? No, but for a simple, concise but well informed look at the Colossian epistle, this is perhaps my go-to commentary. O'Brien and Louse (Word and Hermenia) are where I go if I want a more detailed treatment than what Wright has here, though I have not worked through those commentaries as closely, so cannot comment on their overall understanding of the Colossian correspondence.
I would agree with other reviewers that this commentary is not Wright at his most brilliant, but I think he does a phenomenal job of presenting a reading of Colossians which is compelling and well informed. Is this the best commentary on Colossians? No, but for a simple, concise but well informed look at the Colossian epistle, this is perhaps my go-to commentary. O'Brien and Louse (Word and Hermenia) are where I go if I want a more detailed treatment than what Wright has here, though I have not worked through those commentaries as closely, so cannot comment on their overall understanding of the Colossian correspondence.
June 22, 2016
N. T. Wright towers as both a New Testament and Early Christianity scholar and a most cordial and passionate bishop. Without vaunting exegetical repository, the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries has prudently chosen Wright to speak on such influential epistles: Colossians and Philemon. Colossians 1:15-20 alone stands as one of, if not, the most important Christological texts; Wright's terse words acts as both constructive introduction and refreshing review. Philemon encompasses beautiful and witty rhetoric that inspires Christian living in koinonia. In this short commentary*, Wright helpfully sketches the big picture with brief, easy-to-read annotations.
*the rating is based on the commentary series' vision for quick and accessible scholarship. Personally, I love detailed exegetical work, but TNTC intentionally discourages that work to be printed (though they know its immeasurable worth!).
cf. www.sooholee.wordpress.com
*the rating is based on the commentary series' vision for quick and accessible scholarship. Personally, I love detailed exegetical work, but TNTC intentionally discourages that work to be printed (though they know its immeasurable worth!).
cf. www.sooholee.wordpress.com
August 1, 2013
Although there are some serious cautions I would give to much that comes from NT Wright, this little commentary is excellent. While preaching through Colossians, I've surveyed about a dozen different commentaries of the book, and this one is by far the most helpful. It's not the best exegetical commentary, and it's not the most comprehensive commentary (see Moo and O'Brien), but it is the most insightful. Wright has subtle insights that everyone else seems to miss, probably because, in large part, other commentaries all seem to copy each other. Sometimes his insights are wrong and are driven by his other theological presuppositions. But oftentimes he is right, and convicting, particularly in his practicality. Highly recommended.
June 27, 2018
Our church spent six months going line by line through Colossians in one of our Sunday school classes. Out of all the commentaries consulted (WBC, NAC, NCC, ONTC) Wright's commentary was immensely helpful and the one I turned to first. It's only technical when absolutely necessary, making it a an easy and very enjoyable read.
March 21, 2014
N. T. Wright strikes a good balance between the historical, literary, cultural and practical aspects of the letter to the Colossians. He also provides a well considered 'then-ness and now-ness' in his implications and applications. One of the better commentaries on this book.
October 23, 2019
A clear and concise commentary on Colossians and Philemon. The commentary is accessible to most readers in that it only becomes technical when it has to. The commentary flows well thanks to Wright's style of writing.
January 14, 2009
Maybe my expectations of N.T. Wright are too high, but this one was kind of underwhelming.
July 3, 2009
This is a great midsized commentary. Highly accessible to non-scholars yet full of insights.
August 30, 2011
For structural stuff you need to contact Jason Farley. For the rest, Wright is outstanding here and concise to boot.
June 14, 2012
Really great starting point for Colossians. Insightful because he keeps his nose buried in Paul.
May 2, 2013
well thought out. at times a heavy influence by C.S. Lewis was apparent.
May 24, 2019
Helpful.
November 4, 2019
Fantastic commentary.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews