(Part 1)

JBTM Book Reviews
163
work. There are only two footnotes in Sunukjian’s book (60, 84). This is incredible, given
that neither of these footnotes support his rather bold claims regarding the structure
and themacity of Philippians (1–2). As a result, readers should give some pause regarding
the credence of Sunukjian’s more innovative claims. Second, regarding the structure of
Philippians, Sunukjian argues for a macro-chiasm in which Philippians 2:19–30 (Paul’s
vetting of the ethos of Timothy and Epaphroditus) are the key verses of the epistle. No major
commentary surveyed for the purposes of this review follows Sunukjian’s rather remarkable
structural proposal. In fact, out of the works surveyed, I located only two other scholars who
agree with Sunukjian’s hypothesis for a macro-chiastic structure, Luter and Lee—although
Sunukjian disagrees on many of their textual divisions within their chiastic arrangement. 4
Furthermore, none of the works referenced for this review agree with Sunukjian regarding
the key verses within Philippians. Obviously, this means that Sunukjian risks missing Paul’s
main point in Philippians, which is, according to Black, not Paul’s thanksgiving for financial
support (contra Sunukjian), but “unity for the sake of the gospel” (Phil 1:27–30; 4:2–3). 5 Third,
as with any anthology of homilies, there is always the inherent danger that any mistakes in
Sunukjian’s work will be perpetuated by those parroting his sermons.
In sum, Invitation to Philippians provides a fine example of how one can preach inductively
through Philippians, while connecting the key truths within the text to contemporary
congregations in creative, relevant, and meaningful ways. Sunukjian shines in his effective
use of drama, humor, application, and illustrations, which help bring the text to life for
contemporary congregations. However, Sunukjian’s failure to cite his sources as well as
to give his rationale for many of his more innovative exegetical, structural, and thematic
decisions, threaten to undermine the credence of his project. 6 Those looking for an in-depth,
verse-by-verse exposition of Philippians will be left wanting as well.
– Gregory E. Lamb, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina
⁴See A. Boyd Luter and Michelle V. Lee, “Philippians as Chiasmus: Key to Structure, Unity and
Theme Questions,” New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 92. See also C. Richard Wells and A. Boyd Luter,
Inspired Preaching: A Survey of Preaching Found in the New Testament (Nashville: B&H, 2002), 133.
⁵David Alan Black, “The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Textlinguistics,” Novum
Testamentum 37 (1995): 16.
⁶It should be noted that Luter and Lee’s hypothesis of a macro-chiastic structure for Philippians
was severely critiqued (and many consider soundly refuted) by Porter and Reed. See Stanley E. Porter
and Jeffrey T. Reed, “Philippians as a Macro-Chiasm and Its Exegetical Significance,” New Testament
Studies 44 (1998): 13–31.