Reflections on Jerry Sumney’s Colossians Commentary

Tonight I finished reading Jerry Sumney’s Colossians commentary for the New Testament Library series (WJK, 2008).  The series, as a whole, has not produced seminal volumes (though Luke Timothy Johnson’s volume on Hebrews has received positive reviews).

Having recently reviewed and read through Douglas Moo’s Pillar commentary on Colossians, I was not expecting a shorter commentary to impress me (the NTL volumes are quite brief).  However, I was pleasantly surprised with Sumney’s overall contribution.

His approach is primarily rhetorical and theological.  Because he leans towards viewing the letter as pseudonymous, he refers to ‘Colossians’ doing things in the letter: E.g. ‘Colossians tries to show that…’.  This can be a bit off-putting, but overall it is a solution I can cope with for the sake of hearing Sumney out.

His reading of Colossians overall is very perceptive.  He focuses on Colossians as a response to the rhetoric of certain ‘visionaries’ who are trying to convince the Colossians (and other surrounding churches) that special revelatory visions and experiences are needed to perfect their faith.  Sumney does not presume that this is a Jewish perspective through and through, but perhaps the visionaries are influenced by a number of backgrounds and contexts.  Asceticism is practiced by many religious groups.  The boasting of ecstatic experiences was quite common all around.

A high point in Sumney’s commentary is attention to counter-imperial criticism and evidence of ‘hidden transcripts’ of resistance and alternative-identity formation with political overtones.  Unlike some maximalists, Sumney doesn’t overplay subversive language, but flags up key points in the letter where such critical language appears to surface.

Another excellent discussion involves the Household codes.  Again, Sumney wisely avoids slipping into the Balch-Elliott debate by recognizing patterns of accommodation and re-intepretation (or alternative conceptualization).

Finally, though Sumney does feel that Colossians is dissimilar enough to be considered pseudo-Pauline, he does not press the realized-ness (? is that a word?) of the eschatology in Colossians.  Time and time again he highlights where future aspects of the eschatology are in view (and this is something Moo brings up frequently).

My one critique is that, at times, Sumney’s rhetorical approach can make it seem that the author was only writing certain things because of convention- that is, because it met his rhetorical goals of getting his readers to think and do the things he wants.  Now, certainly rhetorical approaches look at the means of persuasion used in discourse, but at times the way it is expressed by Sumney makes it appear that certain sentiments or attitudes expressed by the author were ingenuine (i.e. merely rhetoric; like capitatio benevolae).  I do not think Sumney was trying to come across this way on purpose, but the combination of the pseudonymous view with this style of reading the rhetoric of Colossians can make it come across as manipulative.  The fact that so many details about the apostle, his companions, and his attitudes and self-reflections would just have been ‘made up’ by the false writer for rhetorical means just does not seem like the most satisfying way to read the letter exegetically.

Overall, however, I enjoyed reading Sumney’s exegetically commentary on Colossians and I recommend it to all, especially his discussion of and excursus on the Household codes.