For those looking to deepen their understanding of the letter to the Colossians (and Philemon, in the case of Beale’s commentary), the scholarly choices are looking bright. As the following review will evidence, studies in Colossians are on the rise. Members of the academic world are no strangers to the authors of the following volumes. G. K. Beale holds the J. Gresham Machen chair of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA; Scot McKnight holds the Julius R. Mantey chair of New Testament at Northern Seminary, Lisle, IL; and Joel White is university lecturer in New Testament at Freie Theologische Hochschule, Giessen, Germany.Given the nature of commentaries and the amount of material being surveyed and reviewed, the following engagement will be somewhat limited in its attention to particulars. Instead, I want to focus on the layout of each commentary and some of the distinctives one can glean from each volume. I will begin with Beale’s commentary because it is the only one of the three that deals with two books. The book begins with the typical introduction of addressing questions concerning authorship, dating, location, occasion, and outline/argument. The exegesis follows a straightforward outline, splitting the letter into four sections: the letter opening (1:1–2), the letter thanksgiving (1:3–23), the letter body (1:24–4:6), and the letter closing (4:7–18). Philemon is analyzed similarly with four major sections: the letter opening (vv. 1–3), the introductory thanksgiving and prayer (vv. 4–7), the letter body (vv. 8–21), and the letter closing (vv. 22–25). The textual analysis is followed by five excurses. These sections address the difficulties of establishing Pauline and non-Pauline authorship, the criteria for discerning OT allusions, interpreting “Christ among the Gentiles,” the OT background of “the uncircumcision of your flesh,” and the master-slave relationship.McKnight’s commentary opens similarly to Beale’s. He addresses authorship, opponents, date and imprisonment, Paul’s theology in Colossians, and the structure of the book. McKnight’s structural analysis concludes that the book is divided into four parts: introduction (1:1–2:5), doctrinal correction (2:6–3:4), practical exhortation (3:5–4:6), and conclusion (4:7–18). One fundamental difference in McKnight’s approach is his preference for non-epistographical designations for each section. As he states, he is less confident of rhetorical conclusions concerning the letter’s message and prefers to split the letter according to the pastoral and theological emphases.White’s commentary also begins with the standard introductory matters as the previous commentaries, with one small difference: he devotes a small section to the textual integrity of the text, which examines the manuscript evidence of Colossians. This section devoted to textual witnesses is helpful for those who want to find this information in one place. The commentary proceeds with its textual analysis. White opts for a threefold structure: introduction (1:1–2:5), letter body/corpus (2:6–4:6), and letter closing (4:7–18). Each of the volumes concludes with extensive bibliographies that have various arrangements but are all equally helpful.The benefits of each volume are as long as the volumes themselves. I will limit my comments to a few advantages of each commentary. Beale’s treatment of the text is less a word-for-word exegesis, and more focus is given to individual thought units (paragraphs) and how they relate to what precedes and what follows. Consider his treatment of Col 1:9–14, where Beale notes the lexical parallels with 1:3–8 and the ensuing literary chiasm (or concentric structuring) between the two sections. If one is familiar with Beale’s other projects, particularly his attention to the OT in the NT, they will recognize the emphasis on OT allusions and their function within Colossians. Beale has placed helpful charts throughout the commentary to illustrate the parallels between passages and their respective antecedents (see the comparison of Col 2:2–3 with Dan 2 [Theod] and Prov 2:3–6 on p. 156). One benefit to those who may not know Greek is Beale’s translations of difficult words/phrases and “additional notes” at the end of structurally pivotal points in the letter. These additional notes give parsing information for difficult Greek terms and their use in the rest of the NT and extracanonical literature. Another interesting feature of Beal’s commentary is his use of the NASB, which is a departure from the norm of the BECNT series.The advantages of McKnight’s commentary align with his differing perspectives on theological frameworks. McKnight begins his theological exploration of Paul not through the lens of soteriology but rather through the lens of the Christological mystery. McKnight argues that Paul’s theology begins with a “missional, ecclesial theology” tied to a given location. In so doing, McKnight highlights how Paul’s writing is concerned with the mission of cosmic reconciliation in forming a group set apart for Christian fellowship (emphasis McKnight’s, p. 50). Another aspect of McKnight’s commentary that is commendable is his handling of prior scholarship. As he notes, some of his teachers and professional predecessors (Harris, Dunn, Moo, Pao, and Campbell) have written commentaries on Colossians. He pays tribute to their work in his introduction and throughout the commentary.The contribution of White’s commentary is its footnotes. White’s primary interlocutors are his fellow Germans. Read side-by-side with the commentaries of Beale and McKnight allows the reader to grasp scholarship from both sides of the Atlantic. White also does not burden the reader with excessive amounts of footnotes. In places where the secondary literature is extensive, White cuts through the burden for the interpreter. Consider the exegesis of Col 1:24. Here, interpreters have been vexed by how properly to understand Paul’s role in completing “what is lacking with regard to the sufferings of the Messiah.” White does his due diligence in explaining the relationship between Paul’s apostolic calling and the Isaianic Servant traditions but in a clear and condensed manner. Beale initially provides eight pages of exegesis followed by three more pages in his “additional notes” section while McKnight provides an exegetical section and a six-page excursus on the topic. Both of these latter interpreters have copious numbers of footnotes for further research. One volume is not necessarily to be preferred, but each volume offers different approaches and attention to the problems of interpreting this verse.In conclusion, each volume can be recommended for its distinctives. The three authors have given us research that models charitable engagement with interlocutors, various grammatical and historical gems, and implementation of new theological frameworks for reading this important letter. While no one will agree with all conclusions, reading the breadth of these commentaries will do well to provide exegetically significant insights for students, pastors, and scholars.