Gordon Fee's work on I Corinthians is a contribution to The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Prepared by some of the world's leading scholars, the series provides an exposition of the New Testament books that is thorough and fully abreast of modern scholarship yet faithful to the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God.

Summary: It is good but fall short on egalitarian

Rating: 4

What Fee wrote on 1 Timothy 2;11-15 and here 1 Corint 14:33-38 is egalitarian in his opinion. I don't believe in egalit view and stronly disagree with those who hold this view. I believe that the Spirit is telling me every time I read the passages in 1 Corint 14:33-38 and 1 Tmothy 2:11-15 that complementary view is what Christ ordains us to follow. Bible says there will come a time when people will seek out teachers to tell them what they want to hear and what make them feel good. They turn their ears to avoid truth and they would be tempted to depart from truth, lured by deceptive false teachers!!!(2 Timothy 4:1-7) At first I am rather reluctant to tell you that Fee is a false teacher but his writings have tempted me to think like that!!! Beware of false teachers who seek world wisdom instead of wisdom from above!!!

Summary: Insight to Fee and 1st Corinthians

Rating: 5

Fee's work and exegesis on the first of the Corinthian letters, actually the second if you have paid attention to this letter, is excellent. Although I do not agree with him on everything his scholarship is second to none. After having gone through this wonderful letter with Fee and his workmanship you will have an obviously more profound view of the letter to the Corinthians and the many things that is dealt with in this letter by Paul. It is a must for true scholarship.

Summary: Great study guide

Rating: 3

Highly recommend for study of Paul's writings. We used it to supplement a class and were very happy with it.

Summary: Value extends across denominational lines

Rating: 5

I would pay top dollar for just the section of this commentary that covers the cross of Christ and human wisdom. The remainder of this commentary is also highly beneficial particularly for pastors (like me). I read this commentary in preparation for preaching through 1 Corinthians. At times, the discussion of textual criticism was more than I needed as a pastor, but it was interesting.

Although I don't share Fee's beliefs pertaining to spiritual gifts, it didn't diminish the value of this commentary for me. While this was one of the most expensive commentaries I've ever bought, my preaching series through 1 Corinthians lasted 10 months and 40 sermons, making this book worth the price.

Summary: Top scholarship that seems to step on some toes

Rating: 5

Fee taught a course on 1 Corinthians for about 15 years at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary before completing this commentary (I only took his course on Textual Criticism). Thus, this book represents mature scholarship, thought, and an awareness of the kinds of questions people want answers to. The students at Gordon-Conwell were from every confessional background, so his teaching and writing has been for the whole church, and not geared toward charismatics. With about a dozen reviews already posted, I not only review Fee's book, but respond to some recurring comments in the other reviews.

Fee's logic is impressive. He takes 30-35 pages to untangle 1 Cor. 11:2-16, which represents one of the most difficult passages in the Greek NT. His evidence and reasoning are strong, and I've concluded the NIV (and most translations) botch this difficult passage. In trying to smooth out the difficulties in the Greek, our translations create meanings that are not well supported by the Greek nor the culture. Fee offers a sane exposition of this section.

Fee's argument that 14:33b-35 was not original to Paul but an early textual corruption may seem radical. Donald Carson, in his book on commentaries, inappropriately calls Fee's conclusion a "lapse," as if Fee thought this up himself. Yet this scholarly opinion goes back a long, long time. A. T. Robertson & A. Plummer's ICC on 1 Corinthians (1911) indicate that various scholars before their time thought those verses were an interpolation (e.g., Weinel, 1906, Schmiedel 1892, Holsten, 1880, and Hilgenfeld, n.d.). It would be difficult to argue that those scholars were motivated by our modern "feminist" movement! In more recent times, C. K. Barrett's Harper's/Black's commentary (1968) prefers the interpolation hypothesis, F. F. Bruce's NCBC commentary (1971) discusses it but passes no judgment (but he notes how several aspects of those verses are very awkward and difficult to square with the rest of the context and the epistle), and H. Conzelmann's Greek Hermeneia commentary (1975) is more adamant than Fee. Those who flippantly dismiss Fee's arguments seem not to have grasped his evidence nor his logic. The "hypothesis" that these verses were not in Paul's original letter has multiple stands of strong evidence, (mostly internal, but some external). By contrast, the "hypothesis" that the text as it stands was originally from Paul's hand is fraught with difficulties (but makes us feel good because we don't like the concept of later interpolations). The church is divided on issues related to women, so Fee's conclusion is controversial. Yet, our view of the role of women should have NO bearing on the question of the originality of those verses. That must be determined by the evidence.

Also, I am NOT in any way, shape, or form, charismatic (I'm a high churchman). But I acknowledge that the Bible never teaches an "end" to the spiritual gifts (well, we can make some verses teach that if we try). However, I'm very SKEPTICAL of most of today's alleged display of gifts. My fellow non-charismatics seem uncomfortable with Fee's interpretations, but such fears are unwarranted. To say God is free to give gifts as he chooses does not oblige us to accept modern Pentecostal practices.

The "problems" with Fee's book brought up by other reviewers represent one of the book's strengths. It is very scholarly and typically lets the chips fall where they may. We need a fresh look at this epistle that isn't laden with all of our traditions and perspectives that have affected us over the last 1900 years. While Fee is not without his biases, any disagreement with him (as a high churchman, I disagree with him at points) must be met with an equal level of evidence and logic, not with an ad hominem argument that Fee is a charismatic. Fee has given the church a great tool for interpreting God's Word, and I am very grateful for that.

Gordon Fee has provided us with such a "packed" and well-reasoned commentary that I can't recommend it more highly.