Stephen E. Fowl

This monograph provides a wonderfully complete (yet concise) statement of the core distinctives of that hermeneutical movement described as the revival of “theological” interpretation (to be distinguished though not disconnected from more broadly “historical” or “literary” models). Of course, this should not be taken to indicate that Fowl has presented THE definitive explanation of the movement’s entire program. In fact, quite the opposite is true: Fowl introduces his work by critically engaging the methods of “theological” interpretation promoted by such titans as Francis Watson, Brevard Childs, and Werner Jeanrond. In particular, he is at great pains to distinguish “theological interpretation” from the much-abused category of “biblical theology,” which, for him, presents the very sickness the present work seeks to remedy.
What Fowl does so well, then, I think, is to present the core values of this enterprise. It is easy to forget that the canon of Scripture exists in relationship to the community of the Church, and the “shape” of that community has every bit as great an impact on interpretive practice as does the final “shape” of our canon. That is, there are distinctly Christian concerns and priorities that shape our reading of Scripture; we seek not simply to understand the text (in some isolated “historical” or “literary” sense) but to embody it in our distinct practices and disciplines. What Fowl does better than anything here is to show that the relationship between the disciplines of Christian interpretation and the practices of Christian community is always (and inevitably) a two-way street. Our disciplines shape our practices, and our practices in turn shape our disciplines. Not surprisingly, then, the virtues that make for healthy communities—confession, forgiveness, reconciliation, friendship—become the keys to proper interpretation.
The other core value that I see at work here is the primacy of the work of the Spirit in the community. In some ways, though I’m not sure that Fowl is as clear on this point as he could or should have been, the Christian community is constituted by the work of the Spirit. Perhaps it would be even more accurate to say that the Christian community is the work of the Spirit. A crucial piece of the argument here is built around the narrative of Gentile inclusion in Acts 10-15. There are two key features of this story that Fowl develops: 1) the fact of the outpouring of the Spirit on Cornelius’ household and 2) the equally important fact that the story is witnessed and narrated by the Apostle Peter, who, at least in this portion of Acts, is still the “leading Apostle.” For me, this is perhaps the most crucial of Fowl’s many insights: it is not just the fact that the Gentiles received the Spirit that is determinative of the new direction but also the status of the one who testifies to that fact. To put it bluntly, if the witness had been anyone other than Peter (e.g., Matthias), it seems at least arguable that the early Church may have still rejected full Gentile inclusion.
Here, a third core value emerges: the inseparable connection between the known character of the interpreter and the accepted validity of the interpretation. Peter’s witness, Paul and Barnabas’ account, and James’ wisdom all “sway” the council in Acts 15 precisely because and to the extent that they are “known.” All three are available and vulnerable to the community in ways that modern Western individualists may find discomfiting if not outright repugnant. Fowl does a tremendous job here of illustrating this principle at work in Galatians, where Paul uses his credibility as an apostle to offer a surprising re-reading of the Abraham story. (This section alone may be “worth the price of the book,” as they say.)
Insofar as these were Fowl’s larger points, I found myself tracking and agreeing him. However, there are significant points of divergence as well that may serve as cautions to other readers. Fowl’s work on the narrative of Gentile inclusion in Acts 10-15 is followed up by a reflection on the issue of LGBT-inclusion in the contemporary church. In some ways, I’m not sure that sits all-too-comfortably with the rest of the book. To be fair, Fowl handled the issue with exceptional grace, framing important questions rather than offering conclusions. However, it unfortunately raised a question for me whether this section, rather than being just an illustration of a larger point, was not more directly the point itself. This was reinforced a bit when, rather “out of the blue,” the subject returns in the conclusion. Obviously, Fowl has every right to advocate for LGBT-inclusion and such advocacy does not necessarily or automatically invalidate every other point he makes, but it could be seen as unhelpfully politicizing them, creating an unnecessary tension between Fowl and his potential audience(s).
More crucially (to me, at least), is that this move is rooted in an “underdetermined” view of textual meaning (explicated in the second chapter) that allows for multiple valid interpretations of any given text. It is clear that, whatever values he may share with other practitioners of “theological interpretation,” Fowl does so from within a decidedly postmodern framework. This leads him, in the end, to the problematically un-Protestant conclusion that the “authority” of Scripture rests in the community gathered around it rather than in the Scripture itself. I think Fowl ultimately fails to give the Scripture enough independence from the Church; in Fowl’s construction, it is difficult to see how the Scripture could ever actually enact “reform” within the Church. From a historical perspective, I think one could at least say that the Scripture has not functioned in the way that Fowl describes.
One final comment on Fowl’s writing. I’ve previously read and enjoyed his commentary on Philippians in the Two Horizons series. Fowl is a precise thinker and a careful writer. However, this work is particularly dense, even for many advanced students. It is most definitely not a work for “beginners.” Instead, I would recommend Daniel Treier’s Introducing Theological Interpretation (Baker Academic, 2008). However, Fowl’s work certainly does repay the careful attention it demands. He is certainly a provocative thinker who has challenged me to revisit the role of community and community-shaped virtues in my own habits of reading Scripture. For that I am grateful.… (mais)

Stephen Fowl is quickly becoming one of my favorite writers. He is constantly thoughtful and provocative. His work on Philippians is a stellar example of the current revival of "theological commentary." His command of New Testament exegesis is matched by his command of theological tradition , and both are masterfully blended here. I consider this a model for my own hoped-for ventures into the world of commentary writing.

I must say, though, that this is not a book for novices in the field of biblical/theological studies. This was my first sustained study of this particular letter, but I have over 10 years experience in the larger field (my specialty is Old Testament prophets). Beginners may find the work overly daunting, intermediates will find plenty of insightful "nuggets," while experts will find Fowl making informed contributions to some of the key debates in the book.
… (mais)

A measured, overall well balanced commentary on Ephesians.

In an environment when many have written far larger commentaries and treatises on Ephesians, investigating the text on all sorts of levels, the author of this commentary attempts to spend some time discussing the various disputations and controversies regarding the letter, its authorship, and its content, while seeking to maintain focus upon making good theological sense of what is being communicated in Ephesians.

The author takes an "agnostic" view of many of the disputed issues; for the purposes of his commentary he does not presume Paul did or did not write it, and shows throughout the letter how various aspects can be used to justify Paul's authorship or authorship by another and that, in the end, one can find the reasons to believe what one wants to believe about the authorship of the book. On the whole the author does not push a particular denominational or theological agenda in his commentary but instead provides a refreshing and clear perspective on many of the issues addressed in the letter. He rightly laments at the brokenness and divisiveness present within "Christendom"; his understanding of grace and works appreciates the nuances of the text and the roles of each. The only moment of "drift" from this perspective comes in terms of Ephesians 5:22-6:9: the author uncharacteristically emphasizes the cultural context when confronted with the "patriarchal" system described in the text, and while attempting on the surface to remain "agnostic" about the matter, nevertheless prejudices the discussion/understanding toward a more egalitarian and less complementarian view of the matter. I also appreciated the author's use of Chrysostom and Thomas Aquinas, among other ancient/medieval sources, to provide a more thoroughgoing history of interpretation of many of the passages.

A good resource on Ephesians and worthy of consideration.

**---galley received as part of early review program… (mais)