The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Pillar New Testament Commentary) by Douglas J. Moo

Pillar New Testament Commentary

by Douglas J. Moo

Exhibiting the same brilliant exegesis and sound practical insight found in his previous works, noted commentator Douglas J. Moo in this new volume not only explains accurately the meaning of the letters to the Colossians and to Philemon but also applies that meaning powerfully to twenty-first-century readers. Moo both interacts with the Greek text of these letters and clearly explains the English text to a contemporary audience.Informed, evangelical, methodologically astute, and displaying a careful balance between good scholarship and pastoral concern -- earmarks of the Pillar New Testament Commentary series as a whole -- Moo's Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon will offer insights to a wide range of readers, from teachers and students, to pastors and parishioners, to scholars and laypersons.

Genres: Theology, New Testament, Christian, Nonfiction, Reference

Unknown Binding

First published August 1, 2008

About the author

Douglas J. Moo (PhD, University of St. Andrews) is Kenneth T. Wessner Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School in Wheaton, Illinois. He is the author of commentaries on Romans, James, 2 Peter and Jude, and Colossians and Philemon and coauthor of An Introduction to the New Testament. He also headed the committee on Bible translation for the NIV revision.

Reviews

[Taylor Bradbury · Rating 4 out of 5]

Slight preference for Beale’s commentary (in BECNT series). But Moo was great much of the time too.

4/5 stars

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

As far as commentaries go, this was outstanding. Scholastically erudite, pastorally sensitive and exceedingly helpful. My only quibble is Moo's use of, and pre-occupation with, the TNIV... Seems an odd choice to use as the guiding translation for mine.

[Nathan White · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best, most comprehensive commentary on Colossians in my opinion. Exegetical, theological, evangelical, practical.

[Jon Pentecost · Rating 4 out of 5]

Exegetically helpful, pastorally aware.

Used in preparation for preaching Colossians in 2019

[Bauer Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent commentary from an exceptional series of commentaries!

[Philip · Rating 5 out of 5]

Douglas Moo's fresh commentary on Colossians does not fail to follow in the tradition of the writer's excellent and extensive work on Romans. The volume also contributes to what appears to be a very satisfying trend in the relatively new Pillar Commentary set by Eerdmans - solid conservative scholarship and excellent readability. The Wheaton Professor explains in his preface that the research for this work felt "like coming home" (x). This feeling of the writer's personal fascination and joy in study of the book overflows into its readability. Not even Bruce (see review on The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (New International Commentary on the New Testament))can match these literary qualities in the mind of this reviewer.

As to the content of the work, Moo devotes 46 pages to an introduction to Colossians, 90 pages to Colossians 1 (30 of which are dedicated to the 6 verse "Christ hymn"), 79 pages to chapter 2, 73 pages to chapter 3, 36 pages to chapter 4, and 85 pages to the Book of Philemon. A thorough index of authors, subjects, scripture, and extra-biblical literature fills the final 28 pages. For the purposes of this review, a focus will be given to the majority of the book - the commentary on Colossians.

Moo's introduction to the book leaves nothing lacking. Initially Moo surveys the recipients and moves on to tackle the question of authorship. With a skillful presentation of the opposing sides of the issue, Moo presents a set of logical criterion which each side must meet and then proceeds to demonstrate how the critical approach fails to meet each criteria and how the conservative interpretation succeeds on each point. Moo narrows his focus to what he believes to be the main criticisms of the Pauline authorship of the book: linguistic and theological. Over the next 14 pages, the writer ably defends each point. Following the discussion of authorship, the date and provenance are discussed (6 pages). The occasion of the book (the Colossian heresy) receives no less than 15 pages of thorough treatment. In the reviewer's opinion, no better analysis of the positions on the Colossian heresy exists in print. Moo discusses the difficult subject with a great deal of humility, admitting that he is "not convinced that the letter provides enough information for us to be even reasonably sure about the identification of the false teaching" (49). Moo begins by quickly passing up the minor view that the Book of Colossians deals not with a real heresy, but a theoretical doctrinal aberration (47) as well as the rapidly diminishing view of Gnosticism (53). The author gives a fair treatment of the 3 major views by weighing in with positive and negative aspects of each one (Jewish mysticism, standard Judaism, and syncretistic philosophy, respectively) before cautiously settling on the final view (58). The final 12 pages of the introduction comprise a theological analysis of the book.

The quality of the exegesis is demonstrated throughout the volume in numerous passages, but for the purposes of this review several highlights will be noted. Moo's diagram (81) and discussion of the opening prayer/thanksgiving is extensive and helpful. As noted above, the discussion of the "Christ hymn" (107-137) is nothing less than impressive. The listing of all imperatives in the book (175-176) is a helpful tool that many commentators fail to include. Also, helpful lexical metaphors are well noted throughout the text (e.g. 180). Another theme that presents itself throughout the commentary is the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians. Moo demonstrates that the relationship is fluid and points out differences in argument between the books as well as points of agreement (e.g. 231-232). The exegesis of 3:3 is of the highest caliber (250), weaving serious lexical and historical arguments into some very practical conclusions. Another aspect of the work that this reviewer particularly enjoys is that the writer is not content to simply abandon the discussion of the authorship of the book following the introduction to the book, but rather proceedes to drive the point home on various passages throughout the text (cf. 245, 333-4, 337, 344). Textual variants are treated as extensively as necessary (e.g. 259-260). The treatment of the Haustafeln (292-317) handles well some of the hermeneutical hurdles of topics such as the relationship of husbands and wives and the institution of slavery. In every section the rhetorical and literary structure is presented carefully (e.g. 318). Overall, the handling of each paragraph is filled with quality exegesis and in-depth analysis.

This analysis is no better demonstrated than by the manner in which the writer deals with the interpretational difficulties throughout the book. Moo argues against Dunn's co-authorship theory (76), holds that "all the world" (1:6) is a rhetorical rather than a historical statement (89), believes that the "spirit" of 1:8 is, in fact, the Holy Spirit (92), attaches "joy" (1:11,12) with "giving thanks" rather than "patience and longsuffering" (100), and cautiously holds to the view that Paul modified an existing Christian (114) hymn in 1:15-20 (110). The challenge of the "firstborn of all creation" is handled with ease (119-120). The writer believes that "faith" in 1:23 is a reference to "your faith" rather than "the faith" (144) and that "now" (1:24) is a transitional marker. The challenge of 1:24 is dealt with reasonably well, but the writer's position is not as clearly articulated as this reviewer would have preferred (151-153). The author argues against Wright's pun theory in 2:8 (185), holds to spiritual circumcision in 2:11 and physical baptism in 2:12 (200-202), views "dead in your sins" (2:13) as causal rather than locative (206), dismisses the various theories regarding the "handwriting" (2:14) in favor of the view of a general IOU dismissed at Christ's crucifixion (210-211), views "having stripped" (2:15) as an intensive middle instead of Wright's true middle (213), and holds that "worshipping of angels" is worship given to angels (226-227). Moo dismisses the idea that the "right hand (3:1) is an Old Testament allusion (247), views the "wrath of God" as eschatological (258-259), holds that the "bond" (3:14) is of the prior virtues rather than a bond of believers (281), sees "rule" (3:15) as both an athletic and an administrative metaphor (283), views "word of Christ" as an objective genitive, explains that the "children" of 3:20 are neither very young or of any age, but rather something of a middle ground (304), treats extensively the ethical challenge of slavery (308-310, 315), translates "serve" (3:24) as imperitive rather than indicative (313), applies 3:25 to slaves only (314), views "grace" (4:6) as either/or, both/and divine grace and human graciousness (330), argues for a literal view of the "fellow-prisoner" in 4:10 (338), and holds that the Epistle to the Laodiceans is an uninspired and unpreserved letter written from Paul to the believers at Laodicea (351).

When attempting to find negative elements of a massive tome such as this, one would initially believe that such a task would be relatively easy; however, Moo leaves the reviewer quite a challenge in this area. A handful of small challenges can be presented though. First, Moo's choice of the TNIV was not the best in the mind of the reviewer. At numerous occasions the writer finds himself defending or explaining some of the more "interpretative" elements of the translation (e.g. 345-346). The ESV would have been a much better translation for the purposes of this commentary. Second, it seems that Moo at times grants too much credibility to some of the more questionable views of the text (e.g. 123). Third, a more thorough explanation of his views in regard to circumcision and baptism could be warranted (202). Finally, some textual variants seem to get swept under the rug rather than actually wrestled with (e.g. 335-336). In perspective, these flaws are minor and they do not weigh heavily enough to influence the reviewer's high ranking of the commentary.

In light of the commentary's literary qualities, extensive treatment of the text, helpful and thorough introduction to the book, quality exegesis, and solid handling of exegetical difficulties, this reviewer would without hesitation or qualification recommend this volume as the single best exegetical commentary on the Book of Colossians.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, is an New Testament commentary, written by the famed scholar Douglas J. Moo published by Eerdmans. This commentary is one of the finest volumes in the Pillar New Testament Commentary Series with famed editor D.A. Carson, a series which is synonymous with superior exegesis and excellent application, this volume continues this legacy. This volume is one of the most articulate and practical modern commentaries on the books of Colossians and Philemon. Moo is no stranger to Biblical commentaries nor foray into this renowned commentary series having also written the series entry on the book of James .

The Letters of Colossians and Philemon, has six mains, sections, yet three for each book, including the typical general introduction, and then followed by an group of insightful treaties on the theology of each of the books, followed by an exegetical commentary on said books. With regard to the general introduction it is the typical study into the introductory matters of the epistles while demonstrating its place within scripture as a whole. This is a serious scholarly work which dives into contextual as well as the as the different mythological approaches to study these books, a needed aspect when studying these epistles.

In reference to the commentary section on the text of these epistles, Moo takes great care in carefully showing the original context of passage while applying it directly to the modern day reader. He also uses his the TNIV, something I personally to not see as a great translation, yet it is the translation the series uses as a whole, but also interacts with other translations and inserts his own translation when he differs with all other translations, which demonstrates his depth of knowledge of the text itself.

With regard of recommending in, The Letters of Colossians and Philemon, to others I would whole heartily recommend this commentary to students of scripture, with one caveat. By this I mean I recommend this work to Pastors, Bible Teachers, Bible College Students, and to some extent Laymen, there is enough scholarly weight to this work to understand a particular issue in the text while giving aid to pastors in preaching the text. The caveat is to the laymen that is looking for a devotional commentary this is not a devotional type of commentary and it would be hard to use it as such. There are many commentaries about these epsitles available at this moment but AThe Letters of Colossians and Philemon of the Pillar New Testament Commentary series is one of the greatest treatments on these Biblical books that has ever been.

This book was provided to me free of charge from Eerdmans in exchange for an unbiased, honest review.

[Ryan Rust · Rating 5 out of 5]

I leaned on this text heavily as I taught through Colossians this fall. Well researched, easily accessible, and holding true to orthodox teaching, Moo gives a gift to the church in this commentary. incorporating the original audiences perceived interpretation of the text while relating the text to the modern cultural context is the strength in this work.

[Jared Criswell · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent exegetical commentary that represents multiple viewpoints on the more difficult passages. I read through the commentary as I was leading a College Ministry through the two books. I would recommend reading it through rather than just using it as a reference, because it reads through well as a whole work.

[Rick Dobrowolski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably the best commentary currently out there on these two books.

[Kofi Opoku · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written commentary, but very technical. Douglas Moo opens up the semantic range of most of the words in the text if you’re into that kind of stuff.

[Simon O'Mahony · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. A clearly written, and insightful commentary.

[Jim Lehman · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best commentary I've used on Colossians and Philemon. I used it while prepping sermon series on both books. Outstanding!

[Kelton Zacharias · Rating 5 out of 5]

I rarely read commentaries cover to cover, but this one is excellent.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 5 out of 5]

My new favorite commentary on Colossians and Philemon

[Nate Weis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic. Doug Moo is my favorite commentator.

[Marie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent commentary, and very thorough.

[Mike E. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have not read this in its entirety.

This is the best commentary I've seen on Colossians. It's not technical (one does not need to know the biblical languages) but interacts with the Greek text in a way that serious students of the English Bible will benefit. All Greek and Hebrew terms are transliterated into English.

About the only criticism I have is the frequent references to the TNIV. No one uses this translation, I wish he had used a different English version as his standard.


QUOTES:

In none of Paul’s letters can we find his “theology,” considered in the abstract. What we find, instead, is contextualized theology, particular points and emphases from the “platform” of his theological convictions that he uses in debating with his opponents and correcting his flock. So in Colossians. The theology that comes to expression in this letter is intended to convince the Colossian Christians not to succumb to the false teaching that has arisen in their midst.


on chapter one, vv 15-20:
This passage, the most famous in the letter, is one of the christological high points of the New Testament and provides a critical basis for the teaching of the letter. As Thompson puts it, “One of the distinctive contributions--if not the distinctive contribution--of Colossians is its comprehensive vision of reality with the focal point of christology.”


on 2:6
The focus of v 6, however--and, in a sense, the focus of the entire letter--is the response that Paul now calls on his readers to make: “continue to live your lives in Him.” As they have begun, so they must continue, looking to Christ, and Christ alone, for all their spiritual needs.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish Moo's commentary was written differently. His theological overviews of the books are excellent, but come first and as he works through the text verse by verse they are too often lost to debates over the translation of particular words and phrases. He repeatedly and repeatedly compares and contrasts modern English translations, and while not weighed down by the Greek, it is a great drag on his text. His point that the new self Christians are to put on in Colossians 3 is Christ and is communal is an exciting point I will ponder for a long time. His discussion of slavery in the Roman world and the Christian response to it is also measured and thoughtful. Too much else that is glorious in the book has been hidden behind the quibbles of translation word order. Such quibbles have their place - I am just not interested in them having so central a place in commentaries I am reading.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Any commentary by Douglas Moo is worth getting. His commentary on Romans replaced the venerable Romans commentary in the NICNT series by John Murray. But I digress. His commentary on Colossians is full of insights deals with some challenging technicalities in the book fairly well (Paul's filling up the afflictions of Christ, 1:24, e.g.). Has a reformed slant, which I like. Helpful for the student who does not know Greek well. I like Lightfoot and Eadie on Colossians, and O’Brien in the Word Commentary series is good, but I think this is the first one I would buy and turn to if I could only get one.

BTW, I understand in some ways Ephesians and Colossians are parallel. Yet what I do not like about some commentaries is that they understand Colossians as though it was a “footnote” to Ephesians. It is my understanding that while there are some obvious parallels, Colossians needs to be read, studied and understood as a separate, stand-alone book. I think Moo handles this farily well.

[Jacob · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a marvelous commentary on Colossians/Philemon. His use of the Greek in this commentary is exemplary as he does not attempt to prove too much with it, or get lost in word studies that are full of fallacious attempts at exegesis. It is simply a look at different options and a discussion of what seems to be more probable. I preferred this over Dunn and O'Brien.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent commentary that dealt with the issues very well and balanced. A little technical for most people with very little application given, but that is not the structure of this series. Moo always does good stuff and this is no exception.

[Michael Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I don't agree with all of Moo's exegesis, I appreciate his honesty in presenting alternate views, especially in the book of Philemon. He also presents the historical information necessary to understand the setting of Philemon, especially slavery in the ancient world.

[Eric Durso · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, well-informed and detailed commentary from one of the best commentators around. Didn't read the Philemon portion, but the Colossians portion was excellent. It was my go-to commentary.

[Brent Meyers · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best commentary on Colossians that I've read. Very comprehensive and informative!

[Anthony Hayden · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best Commentary I used in my series through Colossians and Philemon