The first edition of this book appeared in 2004, and it has been used widely in both undergraduate and graduate theological courses. This extensively revised new edition contains six chapters of introductory matter, followed by chapters on each of the thirteen letters in the Pauline corpus, arranged in what Gorman regards as a likely chronological order of composition. There is a final epilogue on “Paul Our Contemporary.”
Gorman is primarily interested in the letters as spiritual and theological texts. Paul did theology for pastoral reasons (166 et passim), and Gorman believes that “the most pressing need” for modern Christians is that they become “a living exegesis of the texts they read” (669). Gorman now believes that Paul was “more or less directly responsible for eleven of the thirteen letters” (111), the exceptions being 1 Timothy and Titus, but one can detect no difference in their treatment—Gorman uses “Paul” throughout for the letters’ composer. This approach to authorship, combined with the theological, homiletic descriptions of the letters’ contents, raises some issues for the teaching of Paul in relation to the church and world today.
Gorman's approach confines the Pauline corpus to a comparatively narrow time frame, and the distinctiveness of, say, Ephesians over against Galatians, is attenuated. Gorman argues, for instance, that the household codes of Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5−6 are fully consistent with the uncontested letters (565–67 and 603–07). Many scholars see decades of debate between “the first Paul” (Borg and Crossan) and the “Paul” of the pastoral letters, but those debates and disagreements disappear in this treatment. The corollary is that Paul's personal authority is stamped on texts where others see later accommodations to patriarchy and empire. Gorman properly sees canonicity as independent of authorship (111), but here authorship has a canonizing effect.
The book's theological-pastoral emphasis can enable Paul-inspired debate on key issues that engage, not to say rivet, the church in the modern world. To further such debate, Gorman provides “questions for reflection” at the end of the discussion of each letter. He leaves the debate to his readers, though, and does not himself engage any of the fraught issues, beyond providing brief diverse quotations from commentators throughout the centuries. But, given the intention to view the letters in the context of the pressing needs of modern Christianity, surely the voice “in front of” the text requires more representation.
No author can address all the controversies Paul's letters raise, but two crucial examples jump to mind, which this commentary leaves in limbo. Gorman seems to favor, without discussing, a traditional view on the ethics of homosexuality; this comes across at various points of translation and in footnotes (180, 201, 297, and especially 414, n. 15). Though Gorman commends “humility” and “charity” in interpretation, Paul's view in Romans 1:26-27 not only goes unchallenged, it is somewhat “canonized.” The presupposition seems to be that Paul's view, once established, is beyond dispute, or at least that “Western culture” is merely self-willed in its alternative thinking. In other areas, however—cosmology and biology come to mind—modern science is allowed broad influence in biblical exegesis. Why not in the realm of sexuality? Gaudium et Spes (§62) requires that “in pastoral care, sufficient use must be made … of psychology and sociology.” It is on that basis that Romans 1:26-27 is no longer regarded as normative by numerous Christian ethicists.
A further example is the issue of women in church ministry. Gorman knows well enough that the Paul of the undisputed letters knew women to occupy authoritative roles, “even apostle” (472; 318, 518). But his acceptance of the disputed letters allows the patriarchalism of what many would see as belonging to decades after Paul into the thinking of the apostle himself. The modern debate is thereby slanted—without discussion—in favor of Paul requiring women to be submissive in ways not required of men (e.g., 329). Gorman even suggests that Phoebe did not teach, “since the diaconal ministry … does not require teaching” (641), a view that no exegesis can establish.
A great strength of this commentary is its focus on Gorman's favorite theme of “cruciformity.” The development of this idea to seeing God as cruciform (144), and the way Gorman works that out in describing the spirituality of the letters is one of the book's gems. Paul's voice, despite the leveling effect of the dubious letters, does come through. Regarding cruciformity, however, the voice “in front of” the text needs more volume, since—as Elizabeth Johnson has made clear in Creation and the Cross (Orbis Books, 2018)—the pall of Anselm and the satisfaction theory hangs heavy over the modern theological imagination and spirituality.
I do not wish the aforementioned criticisms to be a disparagement of the accomplishments of this massive study. It is easy to see why teachers have valued Gorman's text in the past, and this new edition will serve many well in the future. But historical-critical studies are often subject to the critique that they leave the text in the past, eschewing theology. Gorman's pastoral-theological approach promises more, but with its view on authorship and neglect of the modern voice, it delivers less than it could.
