Search for specific content:

R. T. France’s Commentary on Matthew

February 16, 2009

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).

Denny Burk

Total posts: 1789

This post was filed in Theology/Bible

Discussion

1. Feb 16, 2009—3:04 am | Permalink Bradley Cochran says

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. Feb 16, 2009—8:52 am | Permalink Brent Hobbs says

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. Feb 16, 2009—7:31 pm | Permalink Ryan Kearns says

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. Feb 17, 2009—12:24 am | Permalink Adam Omelianchuk says

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

ZING!

5. Feb 17, 2009—2:20 pm | Permalink jeff miller says

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. Feb 17, 2009—3:06 pm | Permalink Andy says

Dr. Burk,

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

7. Feb 17, 2009—3:46 pm | Permalink Denny Burk says

Andy,

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

Denny

8. Feb 17, 2009—6:36 pm | Permalink Daniel says

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. Feb 17, 2009—10:03 pm | Permalink Andrew Hebert says

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. Feb 18, 2009—5:24 pm | Permalink Andy says

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. Sep 17, 2009—9:16 am | Permalink Scott F says