R. T. France’s Commentary on Matthew

I am preparing a sermon for Southern Seminary’s chapel on Tuesday, and I have been making extensive use of R. T. France’s commentary on Matthew’s Gospel. France holds to the priority of Mark, but he nevertheless believes that Matthew’s Gospel was written before the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. Thus he is persuaded that the apostle Matthew is indeed the likely author. This commentary was published in 2007, so it is relatively up-to-date. It is an excellent exposition of the text, and I commend it to you.

R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Eerdmans, 2007).

11 Responses to R. T. France’s Commentary on Matthew

  1. Bradley Cochran February 16, 2009 at 3:04 am #

    R.T. France is a beast. Dr. Vickers has his Mark Exegesis class read his entire commentary on Mark. It was the best commentary I’ve ever read on any gospel.

    Blessings,

    Bradley

  2. Brent Hobbs February 16, 2009 at 8:52 am #

    I agree with you Denny, I’ve been preaching through Matthew (in ch. 5 now) and France has become the place I turn to first, before Nolland, Blomberg, and even Carson. I don’t have the ICC set, so can’t comment on that one, but France’s volume has been excellent.

  3. Ryan Kearns February 16, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    I would also comment that France’s Matthew commentary is incredible. The only I have found is his treatment of the annihilationism debate in Matthew 25.

  4. Adam Omelianchuk February 17, 2009 at 12:24 am #

    Isn’t RT France and egalitarian who buys into trajectory hermeneutics?

    ZING!

    🙂

  5. jeff miller February 17, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    uhh ohh 2007! What if he says something different? He might have a different perspective, or even one somebody might call “new”.

    And if he doesn’t say anything different, why buy the commentary?

    I confess, different is not better, but greater biblical fidelity is… so bring on the RT France.

  6. Andy February 17, 2009 at 3:06 pm #

    Dr. Burk,

    What is your position on Matthew priority? Matthew first or Mark?

  7. Denny Burk February 17, 2009 at 3:46 pm #

    Andy,

    I still hold to Markan priority, but I wouldn’t die for it.

    Denny

  8. Daniel February 17, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    I haven’t gotten my hands on the commentary yet, but I benefited quite a bit from reading France’s book “Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher”. I owe a debt of gratitude to Jonathan Pennington for forcing me to read it.

  9. Andrew Hebert February 17, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    Have you seen Craig Keener’s commentary on Matthew? I just finished going through Blomberg’s comment. with Dr. Metts for class. Not bad, but France is much better.

  10. Andy February 18, 2009 at 5:24 pm #

    Thank you Dr. Burk.

    Do most of the profs. in the NT department at Southern hold to Markan priority too?

    Why do you think there is a shift in modern scholarship towards Markan priority. If I am not mistaken, historically, Matthew is always taken as first. Markan priority is a new thing. Correct me if I am wrong.

  11. Scott F September 17, 2009 at 9:16 am #

    Andy: Markan priority is well established in mainstream academia. Of course mainstream academics are liberals and infidels… 🙂

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes