Reviewed by:

• Colossians and Philemon by G. K. Beale
• Philip La G. Du Toit

This full-fledged commentary by G. K. Beale on Colossians and Philemon is a worthy addition to the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series. Since the commentaries in this series are targeted at both the scholar and “the motivated lay Christian” (ix), it is both technical and accessible. Having published a commentary on 1–2 Thessalonians in the IVP New Testament Commentary series (2003), one on Revelation in the New International Greek Testament Commentary series (1998), as well as a shorter commentary on Revelation (2015), Beale can be considered a proficient commentary writer. But Beale’s participation in writing a commentary on the use of the Old Testament in the New, together with D. A. Carson (2007), probably constitutes the most definitive element in Beale’s publication background that shapes his particular approach to his commentary on Colossians.

Beale has a unique approach to Colossians in that his commentary has the following two aims: “(1) study the OT allusions in a more trenchant manner than previously in order to determine how they might affect the interpretation of Colossians; (2) study how Jewish exegetical tradition interpreted these same OT allusions and how such interpretation related to the use in Colossians” (xi). Since in Beale’s view “Philemon probably has no clear OT allusions” (xi), his main contribution is in his commentary on Colossians. Apart from finding allusions to texts in the OT, Beale consults an array of later Jewish documents such as the Babylonian Talmud, midrashic writings, OT pseudepigrapha and targums (xiii–xiv). It is a question, however if finding parallels in the latter writings is always useful or even legitimate, especially because of their later date (see, e.g., Beale’s reference to the concept of Shekinah from Targum to 1 Kgs 8 in connection with the fullness that dwells in Christ [126] or his reference to rabbinic writings in connection with how barbarians were perceived by Jews [285]).

Beale strongly defends Colossians’ Pauline authorship. The high Christology, ecclesiology, realised eschatology and household codes are not seen as insurmountable problems in confirming authenticity. While harmonising the Christology, ecclesiology and eschatology of Colossians [End Page 399] with the authentic letters, Beale acknowledges that the household codes do not find a parallel in the authentic letters (1–5). Yet he does not see this as evidence of inauthenticity either, but leaves room that Paul could have developed “new thoughts in his own writings” (5). At the same time, Beale problematises the idea of pseudonymity in that he identifies an element of deceit in such a practice (5–7).

In respect of Beale’s identification of OT allusions in Colossians, allusions to texts about the OT temple play an important role in the overall interpretation of the letter, especially its Christology. For example, in 1:9, Beale sees allusions to Exod 31:3; 35:31–32; 1 Kgs 7:14 and Isa 11:2–3. The Exodus passages and 1 Kgs 7:14 specifically involve the skill given by the Spirit to build the tabernacle and the temple respectively, whereas the text in Isaiah focuses on “my holy mountain,” which is a development of “the mountain of the house of the Lord.” In Beale’s view, Paul addresses a wrong view of the temple in 1:9–10 (55–56). In the commentary on both 1:19 and 2:9–10, a strong allusion to Ps 67:17–18 ^LXX (68:17–18^MT) is identified, implying that Christ fulfils the role of the temple and inaugurated the end-time temple in which the fullness of God began to dwell (108–109, 176–182).

Another OT motif is identified in the concept of the “mystery” in Colossians. In his commentary on both 1:26–27 and 2:2–3, Beale sees an allusion to the mystery of Dan 2:19–22 and 28–30 (147, 156), which concerns the establishment of the eschatological kingdom. The mystery, which is similar to how the same...

审核人：

• GK Beale的歌罗西书和腓利门书
• 菲利普·拉·杜·托伊特（Philip La G.Du Toit）

GK Beale关于歌罗西书和腓利门书的完整评论，是贝克对《新约》系列的释经评论的一个值得补充。由于本系列中的评论针对学者和“有动力的非基督徒”（ix），因此它既技术又易于使用。在《 IVP新约评论》系列（2003年）中发布了有关1-2个帖撒罗尼迦人的评论，在《新国际希腊约书》评论系列中发表了关于启示录的评论（1998年）以及关于启示录的简短评论（2015年）之后，比尔可以被认为是精通评论的作家。但是比尔（Beale）和DA卡森（2007）共同撰写了关于新旧圣经使用情况的评论，

比尔对歌罗西书有一个独特的方法，他的评论具有以下两个目的：“（1）以比以前更加尖锐的方式研究旧约的典故，以确定它们如何影响歌罗西书的解释；（2）研究犹太人的训tical传统如何解释这些旧约的典故，以及这种解释与歌罗西书中的用法有何关系”（xi）。由于比尔认为“菲利蒙可能没有明确的旧约典故”（xi），因此他的主要贡献在于他对歌罗西书的评论。除了在旧约中找到对典故的比喻之外，比尔还查阅了一系列后来的犹太文献，例如巴比伦塔木德书，midrashic著作，旧约伪经文和柏油胶（十三至十四）。这是一个问题，但是，在后来的著作中找到相似之处是否总是有用的，甚至是合法的，

比尔强烈捍卫歌罗西书的宝琳著作权。高度的基督教学，教会论，已实现的末世论和家庭法典在确认真实性方面不被视为不可克服的问题。在使歌罗西书的基督教学，教会学和末世论与真实字母协调一致的情况下（见第399页），比尔承认家庭法典在真实字母中没有发现相似之处（1-5）。然而，他也不认为这是不真实的证据，而是留下了保罗本来可以“在自己的著作中发展出新思想”的余地（5）。同时，比尔（Beale）对假名的概念提出了质疑，因为他确定了这种作法中的欺骗因素（5-7）。

关于比尔（Beale）在歌罗西书中对旧约典故的辨认，对旧约寺院文本的典故在对这封信，特别是其基督教学的整体解释中起着重要作用。例如，在1：9中，比尔看到了对出埃及记31：3的暗示。35：31–32; 1公斤7:14和赛11：2-3。出埃及记和1 Kgs 7:14特别涉及圣灵给予的技巧，分别建造会幕和圣殿，而以赛亚书中的文字侧重于“我的圣山”，这是“房屋山”的发展耶和华的。” 在比尔看来，保罗在1：9-10（55-56）中对圣殿的观点是错误的。在关于1:19和2：9-10的评论中，强烈暗示了诗篇67：17-18 ^LXX（68：17-18 ^MT）被确认，这意味着基督履行了圣殿的角色，并开创了神的丰盛开始居住的末日圣殿（108-109，176-182）。

在歌罗西书的“神秘”概念中，发现了另一个旧约主题。在对1：26–27和2：2–3的评论中，比尔都想到了丹2：19-22和28-30（147，156）的奥秘，这与末世论王国的建立有关。这个奥秘，类似于如何相同...