Philippians

Abstract

Mark Keown’s two-volume commentary on Philippians is a carefully researched and comprehensive analysis of this Pauline letter. Keown has provided a close reading of the text, while also engaging the historical possibilities that the text suggests. He brings into this analysis ancient sources to support his historical reconstructions as well as ancient and contemporary interpreters of Philippians to illuminate text and context. Keown demonstrates thorough knowledge of the range of perspectives on key questions but is not overly derivative. While holding traditional views on a number of issues, including the integrity of the letter, its Roman provenance, and the divine identity of Christ in the hymn of ch. 2, Keown also proposes new possibilities for text and setting in his more than 1,100 pages of commentary.Two significant examples relate to (1) Paul’s ambiguous references to choosing life or death (1:20–25) and (2) locating the central occasion of the letter in the conflict between Euodia and Syntyche (4:2–3). Keown argues for the possibility that Paul’s deliberations in 1:20–25 arise because he is considering escape from his Roman imprisonment to return to the churches he has founded (p. 1:12). For Keown, this resolves various textual difficulties, including the agency Paul affirms over his life-threatening situation (1:22), his absolute confidence that he will leave prison alive (1:25; cf. 2:24), the presence in Rome of supporters to assist him (1:14–18), and his reference to keeping his decision a secret (with ginōskō as “I do not make known”; 1:22).Another distinctive is Keown’s understanding that the conflict between Euodia and Syntyche explains more of the letter’s paraenesis than 4:2–3 and 2:2–4. For Keown, they are “the two people at the heart of the Philippian problem” (p. 2:305). He understands their conflict potentially to account for or at least influence 1:14–18a (“false motivations in mission”); 2:14 (“quarreling and grumbling”); 2:1–11, 19–30 (Christ, Timothy, and Epaphroditus as exemplars), and the theme of joy (possibly “a degree of sorrow in the community over this issue”) (pp. 2:314–15). While I suggest that some of these connections border on mirror reading, Keown’s ability to reconstruct the possibilities of the historical setting impressed me. In general, he demonstrates a keen ability to imagine the potential realities that occasioned the letter. And, in his commentary on 4:1–9, I valued Keown’s careful case for the prominence of female leadership in the Philippian church (e.g., pp. 2:311–313).The commentary proceeds across eight major sections of Philippians (1:1–11, 12–26; 1:27–2:18; 2:19–30; 3:1–21; 4:1–9, 10–20, 21–23), with the following areas addressed in each section: “Introduction” (extended summary, including literary contextual observations), translation, textual notes, commentary (extensive verse-by-verse analysis), conclusion (short passage summation), biblical theology comments (canonical reflections, with some extensions to the contemporary church), application and devotional implications (thematic application to the church today), and selected bibliography.Keown consistently addresses the Philippian tendency to mimic the Roman penchant for power and status. The gospel as expressed in Philippians exposes false ideas of power, encouraging instead the honoring of others over self. This attention to social issues includes a sensitivity to the social nature of mission: “social justice is embedded in authentic mission” (p. 2:67). This emphasis was especially refreshing in a commentary from an expressly evangelical perspective. I was also impressed with the moments when the author indicated that he had changed his mind on an issue that he had previously argued in print. This kind of scholarly humility befits a letter that highlights humility as a crucial Christian virtue (2:3–4).Being appreciative of Keown’s work in large measure, I register a minor critique. He routinely provides extensive lexical analyses (a page or more), with the commentary reading at these points something like a lexicon. While these lexical discussions include much helpful content, the frequent reference in these to etymology could imply, inappropriately, that etymology is typically relevant to the current meaning of a word (e.g., pp. 2:39, 131: ekklēsia does not mean those who are “called out”). And while not a critique limited to this particular commentary, I wish for a moratorium on “literal” used in relation to word meanings (e.g., pp. 1:63; 2:134, 161), with its implication that a word has a basic (English) meaning from which other meanings or translations arise.In summary, I am grateful for the contribution that Keown has made to Philippians scholarship, not only from an evangelical perspective but from a scholar who has clearly devoted himself to this important NT letter. His commentary is impressive, and this interpretive offering to the academy and the church promises to be significant.