Review of France's Matthew, Part Seven

For the final sample of France's commentary I'll briefly consider his discussion of the  Mission Statements (10:5-6; 28:16-20).

In discussing the relationship between the two mission statements in Matthew, France interprets the second (28:19-20) as and extension of the first (10:5-6): he comments: “The Gentile mission extends the Jewish mission – not replaces it; Jesus nowhere revokes the mission to Israel (10:6), but merely adds a new mission revoking a previous prohibition (10:5)” (1115). France’s point is surely correct although I wish he would have developed this idea more. In what way is the mission new? Does the new mission consist of a different task along with its different target—thus, implying two complementary missions? Or does France think that the newness of the mission of 28:19-20 is merely in its scope—now the mission is to all nations, including Israel? From the statement itself, I am inclined to think that he would take the latter view.

France’s comments on the direction of reading Matthew’s Gospel are useful and interesting. It is of course commonplace to consider the end of Matthew as its Schlüssel and there is the tendency to read it from back to front. France admits the theological significance of this scene in Matthew influences the reading of the whole and gives the approach some legitimacy. Still he seems prefer to read Matthew from front to back as a literary work “arriving at this final pericope in which all the strands have come together”. I would go further than France and assert that one can understand the significance of the elements of 28:19-20 from Matthew’s perspective only after reading the unfolding narrative. For example the significance of Jesus’ proclamation: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” as well as the place of the Gentile mission. One of course would come away with the impression that Matthew’s Jesus has cosmic authority and that is the basis for a mission to the nations, but the texture of the ideas is lost without the narrative. 

Related to this point is one of the most important pieces of analysis in the whole commentary in my view. Here France rightly places the stress of the passage on the culmination of Jesus kingship. By doing so, he reveals that Matthew’s narrative climaxes with Jesus’ Davidic kingship. Matthew, then, ends where he began with the affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth is the Davidic Messiah who is not simply “the king of Jews” as the Magi heralded, but is king over the heavens and the earth. France states, “It is the universal kingship of the Son of Man which has emerged as a distinctive feature of Matthew’s presentation of Jesus” (1113).

Review of France's Matthew, Part Six

I continue with my review of France's commentary with a reflection on his commentary on the Parable of the Vineyard (21:33-44).

France’s discussion of the Parable of the Vineyard provides a window into his understanding of Matthew’s perspective on Israel. Despite his comments in the introduction about the nature of early Christianity making the question of extra muros or intra muros complex, he seems to quite clearly in the extra muros camp.

While acknowledging that the context demands that the “tenants” of the parable be understood as the “current Jerusalem leadership”, France takes Jesus statement “the kingdom of God will be taken from you and will be given to a nation which produces its fruit” as a suggesting Matthew conceives of a redefinition of Israel as a new people of God comprised of ethnic Israel and Gentiles. France states:

The vineyard, which is Israel, is not itself destroyed, but rather given a new lease on life, embodied now in a new “nation.” This “nation” is neither Israel nor the Gentiles, but a new entity, drawn from both, which is characterized not by ethnic origin but by faith in Jesus (817).

One, however, may wish to question when background “hints” (800) and subtle implications (810) become “fore grounded” arguments. It seems to me that such a reading inappropriately sidelines what is for Matthew’s narrative primary. Even if the Gentiles of Matthew 8:11-12 are included in this “nation” (note the singular) this does not imply redefinition, but fulfillment in line with the Isaianic prophecies of 56:3-7 and 66:18-21. This prophetic fulfillment in 21:13, Matthew has already echoed with his statement of rational for the Temple action: “My house will be called a house of prayer” (Isa 56:7).

Isa. 56:3-7
3 Let no foreigners who have bound themselves to the LORD say, “The LORD will surely exclude me from his people.” And let no eunuch complain, “I am only a dry tree.” 4 For this is what the LORD says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant— 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever. 6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

Isa. 66:18-21
18 “And I, because of what they have planned and done, am about to comea and gather the people of all nations and languages, and they will come and see my glory. 19 “I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations—to Tarshish, to the Libyansb and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations. 20 And they will bring all your people, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the LORD—on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says the LORD. “They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the LORD in ceremonially clean vessels. 21 And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites,” says the LORD.

Review of France's Matthew, Part Five

Fulfillment of the Torah (5:17-20)
France’s conclusions about Matthew’s view on Torah-observance reveal a propensity , albeit a right one, to interpret Matthew against the wider context of the New Testament. But it should be said that the theological content of the NT context is a presupposition not argued for but assumed.

France begins this section with the notice that a plain surface reading of the passage, which clearly presents an author who took a very conservative line on Torah observance, would be “out of step with the overall thrust of NT Christianity and with the almost universal consensus of Christians ever since” (179). Later in the section again he comments similarly about 5:19:

The use of the verb ‘do’ in v. 19 is easily read as meaning that the rules of the OT law must still be followed as they were before Jesus came, and thus as reinforcing the ‘righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees’ which the next verse will disparage. But if that is what Matthew intended these words to mean, he would here be contradicting the whole tenor of the NT by declaring that, for instance, the sacrificial and food laws of the OT are still binding on Jesus’ disciples – and surely by the time Matthew wrote Christians were already broadly agreed that they were no longer required” (186).

While there is much to commend with France’s analysis of this important Matthean text, I find the manner in which he attempts to harmonize Paul with Matthew inappropriate (180). He does suggest that one can see the tension with the surface reading of 5:17-20 within Matthew itself (e.g. 15:11), but it appears that the tensions in Matthew present themselves clearly only when one brings a certain reading of Paul’s perspective to Matthew. Furthermore, his attempt to show that Matthew has brought together different responses to two opposing tendencies—a Pauline Torah-free and a Pharisaic Torah observance—in the paragraph is a reach to far in my estimation (181). There is little in the text of Matthew to support such a hypothesis especially given the unity of the paragraph and the section as a whole.

Review of France's Matthew, Part Four

Introduction of Galilean Mission (4:12-17)
In these verses Matthew introduces Jesus Galilean mission supported by a quotation from Isaiah 9:1-2. I think this passage reveals the need for a more robust understanding by France of the territorial interests of Matthew that he has himself so usefully pointed out. This weakness also relates to his view of the central concept of the kingdom of Heaven.

Isaianic Quotation
With respect to the significance of the Isaianic quotation, I think France overlooks a significant point that his own comments have suggested. He much to briefly sets aside Matthew’s reference to the tribal areas of Zebulun and Naphthali as merely echoes of Isaiah’s prophesy which he was about to write. Since, according to him, “tribal areas had little actual relevance by NT times”, Matthew’s mention of them was only apparently at the level of style and not theology. This is an unconvincing argument because it overlooks both his exegesis and a major point of emphasis for the significance of Jesus’ mission according to Matthew.

First, France shows an inconsistency in his reading of Matthew’s geographical interests by concluding that Matthew’s mention of the land of Zebulun and Naphthali is of little importance. Earlier when discussing Matt 2:6, France makes much of Matthew’s insertion of “land of Judah” into the quotation substituting it for “Ephrathah”. Contrasting with others who have seen little importance in this alteration, France suggests that Judah is emphasized to underline Jesus’ Judean origins and Davidic identity (2:6). Matthew seems theological (I would say politically as well) driven in his mention of geographical information not just in 2:6, but also here in 4:13 and else where.

Also, France notes that Matthew’s abbreviated citation “throws the focus on the geographical terms” of the quotation emphasizing “the link between his Galilean location and the dawning of the light”. Furthermore, he comments that Matthew’s rendition put the phrases: “way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations” and “land of Zebulun and Naphthali” in apposition and suggest a westward looking orientation. France asks: “Did he then understand Isaiah to be speaking not from his own Palestinian standpoint but from that of the Assyrian invader?” Finally, France sees “Galilee of the nations” as referring to the significance Gentile presence in the northern region of Israel due to the “Assyrian conquest”.

These points suggest that Matthew is placing Jesus kingdom proclamation in the context of Israel’s exile. This point France seems to miss. It is curious because his observations point strongly in this direction. Instead he seems to read these clear points as “hints” of Matthew’s Gentile mission not launched until 28:16-20. However, Matthew’s opening genealogy focused on the exilic condition of Israel and the fulfillment of God’s end-time promises of a restored Davidic throne. Matthew’s narrative is enfolding this story. It seems that the introduction to the Galilean mission reveals Jesus mission in Galilee as the inauguration of the reversal of Israel’s exilic condition.

Kingship of God (4:17; cf. 3:2)
Given France’s stress on the Davidic focus of the Gospel it may come as a surprise, at least it did to me, that when he defines the central phrase “kingdom of heaven/God” in 3:2 (referring back to it when discussing 4:17), he does not bring the Davidic element into the discussion or allow it to exercise any influence on his understanding of the definition of the kingdom. Instead France offers a familiar definition that posits a more spiritually oriented sense of the term. He criticizes the use of the term “kingdom” and opts for “kingship” as a better definition: the kingship of God” since this better captures the idea of God’s reign. While there is nothing wrong or unbiblical about his definition, it is not the whole story. If France is right about Matthew’s fixation on Davidic messianism then the kingship of God is seen in the presence of the Davidic messiah and his kingship. The Old Testament expectations of a future Davidic king are dependent on the statements in 2 Samuel 7 wherein God links his own kingship to David’s such that in time and space God’s kingship is tangible perceived through the Davidic dynastic reign. Thus, it is not simply “the coming of God” that is in view, but the coming of God through the coming of Messiah. The kingdom of God can no more be limited to reign as it can to realm. The creational kingship of God through Davidic messianism is a kingship through Israel over the all the nations.

Review of France's Matthew, Part Three

Continuing the series of posts reviewing France's Matthew commentary in the NICNT, I begin addressing specific passages. The first is the Genealogy (Matthew 1:1-17)

France’s comments on the genealogy reveal his view on the question of the proper theological context for the interpretation of the First Gospel. France rightly presents Davidic Messianism as fundamental to Matthew’s presentation of Jesus.

Matthew’s genealogy is divided into three sets of 14 generations as is well known. Careful study shows that this can only be accomplished by a selective and historically imbalanced presentation. The point that France makes from this observation is that Matthew’s genealogy is a selective “survey of the history of the people of God” including a “royal list”, a “dynastic document” to imply that the succession of the Davidic throne continued while the actual monarchy had not. France concludes that the genealogy “focuses on the royal dimension . . . which finds its culmination in the coming of Jesus, the “son of David” and thus potentially in the restoration of the monarchy” (32).

The structure of the list with its two pivots at David (1:6) and the Exile (1:12), reveals Matthew’s interests in the issues of Davidic kingship and exile. France summarizes:

Its aim is clear enough: to locate Jesus within the story of God’s people, as its intended climax, and to do it with a special focus on the Davidic monarchy as the proper context for a theological understanding of the role of the person to whom Matthew, more than the other gospel writers, will delight to refer not only as “Messiah” but also more specifically as “Son of David” (33).

The Davidic character of the opening of the Gospel is absolutely the “proper context for a theological understanding” of Jesus’ mission. This observation is impressive and important. Although most would not disagree, few, even France himself, have yet to provide a reading of Matthew that is thoroughly Davidic.

Review of France's Matthew, Part One

I will be excerpting sections of my review of R. T. France's The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament) in a series of posts. Here is the first installment.

R. T. France’s commentary on Matthew is a significant contribution simply in its size: a massive 1117 pages of introduction and commentary—with emphasis squarely on the latter as the introduction is a brief 22 pages. Much more than that however, France’s Matthew is the fruit of a life of labor toiling in the field of the Gospels more generally and Matthew specifically. Whatever weaknesses one may think it has, are significantly outweighed by its overall strength. One will go away from the commentary not only with a greater understanding of the First Gospel, but more importantly in my view with a greater passion for following its central character. Lay folks and scholars alike will find France’s commentary a useful guide to apprehending Matthew’s message. It will no doubt take its place alongside the few other evangelical Matthew commentaries that are widely consulted within the field.

This review will be extremely selective and admittedly superficial—but how does one do justice to such a tome in such a short presentation? The purpose of my study was to take some soundings of France’s commentary to grasp a sense of his reading of Matthew. I will proceed through the commentary sequentially dealing first with introductory matters and proceeding through the commentary proper. Then I will discuss interpretive issues that I found to be interesting or curious in what I deem to be key Matthean passages: (1) the genealogy Matt 1:1—17, (2) the introduction of Galilean mission (4:12-17), (3) the fulfillment of the Torah (5:17-20), (3) the parable of the vineyard (21:33-44), and (4) the mission statements (10:6; 28:19-20). This seemed to be the most useful strategy given France’s own words to potential reviews. He wrote:

I have noticed that reviews of biblical commentaries often focus on the introduction rather than undertaking the more demanding task of reading and responding to the commentary itself. Potential reviewers of this commentary who hope to use that convenient shortcut will, I fear, be disappointed (1)

Matthew’s Structure & Outline
One thing that immediately stands out to me in the introduction is France’s understanding of the structure of the Gospel. He argues, in contrast to most modern commentaries, that Matthew has structured his Gospel geographically. Following Mark, Matthew organized Jesus’ story within a geographical framework. He writes, “This geographical outline of the story seems to me a more satisfying basis for discerning its narrative structure than the search for verbal division markers” (4). He comments further,

To read the Gospel of Matthew as a continous [sic] narrative, structured around the geographical progress of the Messiah from his Galilean homeland to his rejection in Jerusalem, with its final triumphant scene back home in Galilee, is to begin to appreciate its power as a work of literature, no simply as a source for theological or historical data” (2007: 4-5).

In France’s earlier work, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, he notes that “references to Jesus’ geographical movements punctuate Matthew’s narrative even more clearly than Mark’s” giving the following as evidence: Matthew 3:13; 4:12-16; 4:23-25; 9:35; 11:1; 14:13; 15:21; 15:29; 15:39; 16:13; 16:21; 17:22; 19:1; 20:17-18; 20:29; 21:1 (1989: 151).

France’s outline of the Gospel, then, is as follows:
I. Introducing the Messiah (1:1—4:11)
II. Galilee: the Messiah revealed in word and deed (4:12—16:20)
III. From Galilee to Jerusalem: the Messiah and his followers prepare for the confrontation (16:21—20:34)
IV. Jerusalem: the Messiah in confrontation with the religious authorities (21:1—25:46)
V. Jerusalem: the Messiah rejected, killed, and vindicated (26:1—28:15)
VI. Galilee: the Messianic mission is launched (28:16-20)

While this geographical structure is a significant development and represents a turning back to a much earlier understanding of the Gospel’s structure (see for example Allen), one may ask why France sees a narrative turn at 16:21 since no major geographical move has happened. The next geographical statement of structural consequence comes rather in 19:1: “he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan River”. This is the first time in the narrative since 4:12 that Jesus is said to be moving to Judea.

New Covenant Commentary Series

The first two volumes of the NCCS are now out and they include Colossians/Philemon by Michael Bird and Romans by Craig Keener. You can order them from Wipf & Stock here. Even better, in the Wipf & Stock email notice you can get a 40% discount if you order both volumes! (Email me if you want a copy of the promotion with codes for the discount). Forgive my shameless promotion of the series (but I am an editor), but listen to these endorsements.

“Every generation needs to grapple anew with the Bible, and every pastor needs a series that pushes the text into the community and this commentary series accomplishes these tasks. May God bless these commentaries to yield communities that live out God’s gracious covenant with us” —Scot McKnightKarl A. Olsson Professor in Religious StudiesNorth Park University

“By grounding his exposition of Romans in the world of the first century, yet keeping his eye on the needs and concerns of the contemporary world, Keener offers here a rare commodity: a lucid commentary that is simultaneously conversant with the latest biblical scholarship and pastorally sensitive.”—John T. Fitzgerald, University of Miami

“Michael Bird’s treatment of Colossians and Philemon is incisive, informative, and independent . . . This is a masterpiece of succinct writing and an auspicious start to the New Covenant Commentary Series.”—Paul Foster, University of Edinburgh

ABOUT THE New Covenant Commentary Series:

The New Covenant Commentary Series (NCCS) is designed for ministers and students who require a commentary that interacts with the text and context of each New Testament book and pays specific attention to the impact of the text upon the faith and praxis of contemporary faith communities. The NCCS has a number of distinguishing features. First, the contributors come from a diverse array of backgrounds in regards to their Christian denominations and countries of origin. Unlike many commentary series that tout themselves as international the NCCS can truly boast of a genuinely international cast of contributors with authors drawn from every continent of the world (except Antarctica) including countries such as the United States, Puerto Rico, Australia, the United Kingdom, Kenya, India, Singapore, and Korea. We intend the NCCS to engage in the task of biblical interpretation and theological reflection from the perspective of the global church. Second, the volumes in this series are not verse-by-verse commentaries, but they focus on larger units of text in order to explicate and interpret the story in the text as opposed to some often atomistic approaches. Third, a further aim of these volumes is to provide an occasion for authors to reflect on how the New Testament impacts the life, faith, ministry, and witness of the New Covenant Community today. This occurs periodically under the heading of "Fusing the Horizons and Forming the Community." Here authors provide windows into community formation (how the text shapes the mission and character of the believing community) and ministerial formation (how the text shapes the ministry of Christian leaders). It is our hope that these volumes will represent serious engagements with the New Testament writings, done in the context of faith, in service of the church, and for the glorification of God.

Forthcoming volumes:

REVELATION – Gordon Fee
EPHESIANS – Lynn Cohick
JAMES – Pablo Jimenez
1–3 JOHN – Sam Ngewa
JOHN – Jey Kanagaraj
PASTORAL EPISTLES – Aida Besancon-Spencer
MARK – Kim Huat Tan
ACTS – Yongmo Cho
LUKE – Jeannine Brown
2 PETER AND JUDE – Andrew Mbuvi
MATTHEW – Joel Willitts
1 PETER – Eric Greaux
1–2 THESSALONIANS – TBD
PHILIPPIANS – Linda Belleville
HEBREWS – Tom Thatcher
GALATIANS – Brian Vickers
1 CORINTHIANS – TBD
2 CORINTHIANS – David DeSilva

Revelation Bonanza - Part 2: Reception History

I have a copy of Judith Kovac and Christopher Rowland's book The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ in the Blackwell Bible Commentaries. It is a commentary on reception-history and it is one of the more interesting things about the Apocalypse that I've read in recent years. What was genuinely new to me was that the first commentary on the Apocalypse by Victorinus of Poetovis (ca. 260 AD) took a chiliastic interpretation (this is in addition to Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian), while the first amillenialist interpretation appears in the fourth century with Tyconius and Augustine (although symbolic interpretations are as early as Origen and Cyprian). I have to recommend this volume as a good read on the Apocalypse. Kovacs/Rowland also cite the admonitory opening words of the Geneva Bible's comments on the Apocalypse: "Read diligently; judge soberly and call earnestly to God for the true understanding hereof" - probably good advice!

Colossians Commentary - Lessons Learned (Part 2)

I have just completed the first draft of my Colossians/Philemon commentary for the New Covenant Commentary Series and here are my final reflections on commentary writing (see earlier posts here):

1. I affirm my earlier post that continued commentary writing still has a place in scholarship. It is a good place to learn and to disseminate what you actually think about a given book of the Bible. The biggest problem is that you do not have something unique or ground breaking to say in every single verse. Still, commentaries need to be updated in light of on going research of the day and we need to continually ask how the text relates to the church of our own day.

2. I have no intention of writing a commentary on every book of the New Testament. I could revisit Colossians again ten years from now in light of planned archaeological excavations for a technical commentary like Hermeneia, ICC, or something similar. I might like to do another one on Galatians, Mark, or John; but I don't see myself trying to cover every single one. Kudos to Ben Witherington for doing it, but I'm not gonna even try.

3. I've learnt that one can read, cite, and interact with secondary literature ad infinitum. I think it's best to identify two major dialogue partners (for Colossians it was Dunn and O'Brien, if I was doing Galatians it would be Dunn and Martyn) and go to the rest as needed.

4. Finishing a commentary is alot like finishing a sermon series. It ocassions reflection on what you've learned, what you've changed your mind on, how to preach or efficiently, and how to live your Christian life in a new way.

Why write a Commentary - Calvin's View!

When time allows I'm working through Colossians which is rip roaring fun. In the mornings I'm reading through a plethora of Reformed commentaries on Romans and preparing class notes for August. I was much inspired by Calvin's justification for writing another commentary on Romans despite the fact that Melanchthon, Bullinger, and Bucer had done so recently as well. This is what Calvin had to say: ‘Since so many scholars of pre-eminent learning have previously devoted their efforts to explaining this Epistle, it seems unlikely that there is any room left for others to produce something better … It will, however, I hope, be admitted that nothing has ever been so perfectly done by men that there is no room left for those who follow them to refine, adorn, or illustrate their work. I do not dare to say anything of myself, except that I thought that the present work would be of some profit, and that I have been led to undertake it for no other reason than the common good of the Church’. I'm certainly glad he did!

New Commentary Series on the New Testament

The contributors for a new commentary series have been finalized. It is called, The New Covenant Commentary Series (NCCS).

Editors:
Craig Keener (Palmer Seminary)
Michael Bird (Highland Theological College).

Details:
Publisher: Wipf & Stock, USA
Publication Dates: 2009-2014.

Preface:

The New Covenant Commentary Series (NCCS) is designed for ministers and students who require a commentary that interacts with the text and context of each New Testament book and pays specific attention to the impact of the text upon the faith and praxis of contemporary faith communities.

The NCCS has a number of distinguishing features. First, the contributors come from a diverse range of backgrounds in regards to their Christian denominations and ethnic background. Unlike many commentary series that tout themselves as being international, the NCCS can truly boast of a genuinely international cast of contributors with authors drawn from every continent of the world (except Antarctica) including North America, Puerto Rico, Australia, the United Kingdom, Kenya, India, Singapore, and Korea. We intend the NCCS to engage in the task of biblical interpretation and theological reflection from the perspective of the global church. Second, the volumes in this series are not verse-by-verse commentaries, but they focus on larger units of text in order to explicate and interpret the story in the text as opposed to rigorous analytical approaches. Third, a further aim of these volumes is to provide an occasion for authors to reflect on how the New Testament impacts the life, faith, ministry, and witness of the New Covenant Community today. This occurs periodically under the heading of ‘Fusing the Horizons and Forming the Community’. Here authors provide windows into theological interpretation, application, and special emphasis given to spiritual, ministerial, and community formation. It is our hope that these volumes will represent serious engagements with the New Testament writings, done in the context of faith, in service of the church, and for the glorification of God.

Contributors:

Matthew
Joel Willitts (North Park University, Chicago)

Mark
Kim Huat Tan (Trinity Theological College, Singapore)

Luke
Jeannine Brown (Bethel Seminary, St. Paul)

John
Jey Kanagaraj (Hindustan Bible Institute & College, India)

Acts
Youngmo Cho (Asia Life University, South Korea)

Romans
Craig Keener (Palmer Seminary, Philadelphia)

1 Corinthians
Bruce Winter (Queensland Theological College, Australia)

2 Corinthians
David deSilva (Ashland Theological Seminary, Ohio)

Galatians
Brian Vickers (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville)

Ephesians
Lynn Cohick (Wheaton College, Wheaton).

Philippians
Linda Belleville (Bethel College, Indiana)

Colossians, Philemon
Michael Bird (Highland Theological College, Scotland)

1-2 Thessalonians
David Garland (George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Texas)

Pastoral Epistles
Aida Besancon-Spencer (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Masschussets)

Hebrews
Tom Thatcher (Cincinnati Christian University, Ohio)

James
Pablo Jimenez (Pastor, Puerto Rico)

1 Peter
Eric Greaux (Winston-Salem State University, North Carolina)

2 Peter, Jude
Andrew Mbuvi (Shaw University Divinity School, North Carolina)

1-3 John
Sam Ngewa (Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology, Kenya)

Revelation
Gordon Fee (Regent College, Canada)

Forthcoming Acts Commentaries

I'm currently re-hashing my lecture notes on a course on Luke-Acts, so I'm naturally interested in forthcoming Acts commentaries. A few I've learnt of:

1. Steve Walton (WBC).
2. Richard I. Pervo (Hermeneia).
3. Craig Keener (Eerdmans).

A (Fairly) New Commentary Series from Conservative German Scholars

Before you say "Conservative" plus "German" in biblical studies doesn't make any sense, German publisher R. Brockhaus has a commentary series in production entitled Historisch Theologische Auslegung (HTA) and the authors would probably identify themselves as Evangelicals to some extent (in Germany Evangelische basically means "Protestant"). Current volumes include:

Heinz-Werner Neudorfer, Der erste Brief des Paulus an Timotheus
Gerhard Maier, Der Brief des Jakobus
Rüdiger Fuchs, Der Brief des Paulus an Titus
Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther

Aims of the series are:

1. Eine präzise und wortgetreue Übersetzung der neutestamentlichen Texte
2. Bemerkungen zum Kontext, zum Aufbau, zur literarischen Form oder Gattung sowie zum theologischen Hintergrund des Abschnitts
3. Vers für Vers Exegese
4. Zusammenfassung, in der die Wirkungsgeschichte der Verse verfolgt sowie ein Brückenschlag in die Gegenwart und die praktische Anwendung gegeben wird.

I am also under the impression that Mark A. Seifrid (SBTS) will be writing the volume on Galatians, but in German, so kudos to Mark if he pulls that one off.