# Top 5-10 Romans commentaries



## Timotheos

Just wanted to hear you all weigh in on this. If you (a) were assigning a commentary for a course on Romans in seminary & (b) wanted 5-10 commentaries to consult for preaching or teaching, which would be #1 that you would demand your students to purchase and then rank the rest of them.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

See https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/commentary-recommendations-romans.93933/#post-1146446

Perhaps the greatest expository series done on Romans ws Martyn Lloyd-Jones majestic Romans series.Worth a listen https://www.mljtrust.org/free-sermons/book-of-romans/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> Perhaps the greatest expository series done on Romans ws Martyn Lloyd-Jones majestic Romans series.Worth a listen https://www.mljtrust.org/free-sermons/book-of-romans/



This makes me happy that MLJ got the first mention. His first sermon on Romans 6 practically changed my life (and the first on Romans 7 is just as good). When I moved back to Georgia from Chicago, my pastors bought me the 13-volume Romans series by MLJ as a going-away gift. I treasure it. MLJ is the best.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Taylor

As a personal rule, though, I never trust that I have truly understood a passage until I have read Calvin's_ Commentary_ on said passage.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## SolaScriptura

You guys are silly. If the reading list was for a “seminary course“ expositional or practical level commentaries would rate no more than a supplemental reading. Even someone like him would only make it to a secondary reading list. There’s just been simply too much paradigm shifting scholarship that has transpired for me too leapfrog over it and pretend it didn’t happen. Only technical commentaries would be on the list. People in seminary need to learn how to engage with scholarship.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

SolaScriptura said:


> You guys are silly. If the reading list was for a “seminary course“ expositional or practical level commentaries would rate no more than a supplemental reading. Even someone like him would only make it to a secondary reading list. There’s just been simply too much paradigm shifting scholarship that has transpired for me too leapfrog over it and pretend it didn’t happen. Only technically commentaries would be on the list. People in seminary need to learn how to engage with scholarship.



I've been to seminary. I'm fully aware of what is required. Thanks.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor Sexton said:


> This makes me happy that MLJ got the first mention. His first sermon on Romans 6 practically changed my life


Glad to hear this Taylor. MLJ sermons have been literally life changing for me. As people will know, many of Dr Lloyd-Jones sermons are available on the MLJ Recording Trust website. The series on Romans, Ephesians, John etc are a blessing to the soul. https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/

Few preachers have gripped me like the Doctor has.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

SolaScriptura said:


> You guys are silly. If the reading list was for a “seminary course“ expositional or practical level commentaries would rate no more than a supplemental reading.


Silly? I doubt Spurgeon, Dr Lloyd-Jones or the Puritans would agree it you. If we want to talk about Seminary, Dr Joel Beeke is the President of an esteemed Seminary. He constantly argues for scholarship *and* piety. Thus I believe Dr Beeke would assign a expositional commentary as well as an academic commentary.



SolaScriptura said:


> Even someone like him would only make it to a secondary reading list.


Not in a seminary that emphasises piety as well as scholarship



SolaScriptura said:


> People in seminary need to learn how to engage with scholarship.


Did Paul say "and my speech and my message were based on the very latest scholarship" in 1 Cor 2?

Far from it!
He said "and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

This is not to undermine the importance of scholarship. It is noteworthy that MLJ himself based his expositions on Romans on the latest scholarship (he read Barth and Brunner etc) but he emphasised that the church needs to get back to what Paul said in 1 Cor 2:3 ff.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

I have been doing research on Romans commentaries as I plan on spending significant time studying it next year. The one's I am going to use are:
John Murray
Shedd
John Brown of Edinburgh 
Calvin
Haldane
And probably Schreiner's new one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Stephen L Smith said:


> Glad to hear this Taylor. MLJ sermons have been literally life changing for me. As people will know, many of Dr Lloyd-Jones sermons are available on the MLJ Recording Trust website. The series on Romans, Ephesians, John etc are a blessing to the soul. https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/
> 
> Few preachers have gripped me like the Doctor has.


I can't speak highly enough of the Doctor. I spent a year listening to sermons as I opened my restaurant, M-F. It was life-changing. I am reading his two-volume biography right now. It is bringing me great encouragement. I plan on starting his Romans series after I finish his sermons on Ephesians.


----------



## greenbaggins

My top ten are as follows, in no particular order: Cranfield (ICC), Moo (NICNT, now in a second edition), Nygren, Boice, Shedd, Lloyd-Jones, Schreiner (now in a second edition), Murray, Haldane, Calvin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK

greenbaggins said:


> My top ten are as follows, in no particular order: Cranfield (ICC), Moo (NICNT, now in a second edition), Nygren, Boice, Shedd, Lloyd-Jones, Schreiner (now in a second edition), Murray, Haldane, Calvin.



Hmmm... Is it time to update your list on greenbaggins?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Stephen L Smith said:


> Silly? I doubt Spurgeon, Dr Lloyd-Jones or the Puritans would agree it you. If we want to talk about Seminary, Dr Joel Beeke is the President of an esteemed Seminary. He constantly argues for scholarship [you]*and*[/you] piety. Thus I believe Dr Beeke would assign a expositional commentary as well as an academic commentary.
> 
> 
> Not in a seminary that emphasises piety as well as scholarship
> 
> 
> Did Paul say "and my speech and my message were based on the very latest scholarship" in 1 Cor 2?
> 
> Far from it!
> He said "and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."
> 
> This is not to undermine the importance of scholarship. It is noteworthy that MLJ himself based his expositions on Romans on the latest scholarship (he read Barth and Brunner etc) but he emphasised that the church needs to get back to what Paul said in 1 Cor 2:3 ff.



Ok.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I can't speak highly enough of the Doctor. I spent a year listening to sermons as I opened my restaurant, M-F. It was life-changing. I am reading his two-volume biography right now. It is bringing me great encouragement. I plan on starting his Romans series after I finish his sermons on Ephesians.


I say Amen to all this Robert. The 2 volume biography was also life changing for me. I cannot praise it too highly! You will also enjoy "Martyn Lloyd-Jones: messanger of grace" also by Iain Murray.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Reformed Bookworm said:


> John Murray
> Shedd
> John Brown of Edinburgh
> Calvin
> Haldane


Lloyd-Jones would recommend Haldane as an 'expositional' commentary alongside the academic commentaries.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lloyd-Jones would recommend Haldane as an 'expositional' commentary alongside the academic commentaries.


Indeed. I know he found great benefit from it but then again he didn't go to seminary. I suppose Haldane wouldn't be proper reading for seminary course work.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Stephen L Smith said:


> I say Amen to all this Robert. The 2 volume biography was also life changing for me. I cannot praise it too highly! You will also enjoy "Martyn Lloyd-Jones: messanger of grace" also by Iain Murray.


Glad to hear it! Thanks for the recommendation. I will add it to my queue. Sorry to hijack the thread and turn it into one about MLJ.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins

KMK said:


> Hmmm... Is it time to update your list on greenbaggins?


 Well, if I updated it every time a new edition came out or a new commentary, I would do nothing else. It's still a pretty good list.


----------



## JimmyH

I truly believe the Holy Spirit used MLJ's writings and sermons to contribute mightily to my salvation. He preached at the Hawthorne Gospel Church in north NJ a few years before I first came to believe, and I availed myself of tapes of those sermons shortly thereafter.
Reading his Studies in the Sermon on the Mount was instrumental in increasing my faith, and I think everyone should read it. It was transcribed from sermons he gave shortly before they began the recordings. 
I've been listening to his sermons on Romans one per night for awhile now, and I'm up to chapter 5. The commentaries he recommends so far are Hodge as well as Haldane.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

If you were assigning commentaries for reading in a seminary class, you would assign the best critical commentaries that enable the student to best understand the meaning of the Greek text of Romans. The more doctrinal and devotional commentaries would, as Ben says, be recommended as supplementary readings.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover

greenbaggins said:


> My top ten are as follows, in no particular order: Cranfield (ICC), Moo (NICNT, now in a second edition), Nygren, Boice, Shedd, Lloyd-Jones, Schreiner (now in a second edition), Murray, Haldane, Calvin.


 
No Longenecker? No Stott?


----------



## JTB.SDG

My top would be a tie between Hodge and Haldane. From there I would also add Murray and Moo as well as Stott to make my top 5.


----------



## bookslover

JimmyH said:


> I truly believe the Holy Spirit used MLJ's writings and sermons to contribute mightily to my salvation. He preached at the Hawthorne Gospel Church in north NJ a few years before I first came to believe, and I availed myself of tapes of those sermons shortly thereafter.
> Reading his Studies in the Sermon on the Mount was instrumental in increasing my faith, and I think everyone should read it. It was transcribed from sermons he gave shortly before they began the recordings.
> I've been listening to his sermons on Romans one per night for awhile now, and I'm up to chapter 5. The commentaries he recommends so far are Hodge as well as Haldane.



I think his _Studies in the Sermon on the Mount_ (2 volumes: 1959, 1960; usually published as one volume now) is his best work. Recommended.


----------



## Taylor

Reformed Covenanter said:


> If you were assigning commentaries for reading in a seminary class, you would assign the best critical commentaries that enable the student to best understand the meaning of the Greek text of Romans. The more doctrinal and devotional commentaries would, as Ben says, be recommended as supplementary readings.



Probably. But the point falls on deaf ears when it is made as rudely and insultingly as he did.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Taylor Sexton said:


> Probably. But the point falls on deaf ears when it is made as rudely and insultingly as he did.



That is why I made it politely.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## fredtgreco

I'm in Romans 8 now in my series. Murray is the best by far and away. I also think there is a difference between reading a book in seminary and preparing to preach. I don't spend a lot of time with technical commentaries. I've been doing Greek for 31 years, so I don't need to wade through a bunch of dreck so the author can give me his insights on the aorist tense.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

fredtgreco said:


> I'm in Romans 8 now in my series. Murray is the best by far and away. I also think there is a difference between reading a book in seminary and preparing to preach. I don't spend a lot of time with technical commentaries. I've been doing Greek for 31 years, so I don't need to wade through a bunch of dreck so the author can give me his insights on the aorist tense.



Just wondering, Fred, did you ever consult Thomas Aquinas's _Commentary on Romans_ for your series? I read it recently (online here); there were plenty of good doctrinal observations (not so much on justification), but it was not that great exegetically.


----------



## bookslover

greenbaggins said:


> My top ten are as follows, in no particular order: Cranfield (ICC), Moo (NICNT, now in a second edition), Nygren, Boice, Shedd, Lloyd-Jones, Schreiner (now in a second edition), Murray, Haldane, Calvin.



Nygren isn't actually a typical commentary, though, is it?


----------



## JimmyH

D.A. Carson's 'New Testament Commentary Survey' (5th edition 2001) lists 'best buys' for single Romans commentaries as;
D.J. Moo in NIC
T.Schreiner
C.E.B. Cranfield (for advanced students)
A. Nygren
The earlier version of 1993 lists best buys as;
Cranfield
Moo (wait for NIC)
F.F. Bruce
C.K. Barrett
A. Nygren

On Nygren he says, " One of the best for the theological flow of thought in Romans is the work of Anders Nygren (Fortress 1949) Everyone who can do so who can do so should grasp his general introductory remarks on pages 16-26. Unfortunately, however, the book is inadequate as a verse-by-verse commentary."

Carson covers all of the authors of commentaries on Romans with at least a gloss. Haldane gets an honorable mention, as well as Hodge. On John Murray, "will guide you stolidly with the heavy tread of the proverbial village policeman (although with more theology; and note especially the useful appendices and notes)"

On MLJ; "Lloyd-Jones is probably not the model most preachers should imitate, but the set is easy to read, and Lloyd-Jones sometimes offers material one is hard pressed to find elsewhere--in addition to the wealth of his practical application of Scripture."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor

JimmyH said:


> D.A. Carson's 'New Testament Commentary Survey' (5th edition 2001) lists 'best buys' for single Romans commentaries as;
> D.J. Moo in NIC
> T.Schreiner
> C.E.B. Cranfield (for advanced students)
> A. Nygren
> The earlier version of 1993 lists best buys as;
> Cranfield
> Moo (wait for NIC)
> F.F. Bruce
> C.K. Barrett
> A. Nygren
> 
> On Nygren he says, " One of the best for the theological flow of thought in Romans is the work of Anders Nygren (Fortress 1949) Everyone who can do so who can do so should grasp his general introductory remarks on pages 16-26. Unfortunately, however, the book is inadequate as a verse-by-verse commentary."
> 
> Carson covers all of the authors of commentaries on Romans with at least a gloss. Haldane gets an honorable mention, as well as Hodge. On John Murray, "will guide you stolidly with the heavy tread of the proverbial village policeman (although with more theology; and note especially the useful appendices and notes)"
> 
> On MLJ; "Lloyd-Jones is probably not the model most preachers should imitate, but the set is easy to read, and Lloyd-Jones sometimes offers material one is hard pressed to find elsewhere--in addition to the wealth of his practical application of Scripture."



Thanks for this!

Does he offer any extended comment on Cranfield?


----------



## JimmyH

Taylor Sexton said:


> Thanks for this!
> 
> Does he offer any extended comment on Cranfield?


Yes he does; "Probably the best Romans commentary now available is still the new ICC work by C.EB. Cranfield (2 vol 1975-1979) Occasionally Cranfield seems more influenced by Barth than by Paul, but for thoughtful exegesis of the Greek text, with a careful weighing of alternative positions there is nothing quite like it."

The 1993 edition has 5 pages briefly evaluating commentaries of Romans alone, the 2001 revision 7 pages. He includes glosses on Karl Barth, who he has some praise for, and J.D.G. Dunn, which surprised me. He mentions the influence of Saunders on the new perspective, and specifies commentaries which address both sides of the issues growing out of that.


----------



## RamistThomist

SolaScriptura said:


> You guys are silly. If the reading list was for a “seminary course“ expositional or practical level commentaries would rate no more than a supplemental reading. Even someone like him would only make it to a secondary reading list. There’s just been simply too much paradigm shifting scholarship that has transpired for me too leapfrog over it and pretend it didn’t happen. Only technical commentaries would be on the list. People in seminary need to learn how to engage with scholarship.


 Exactly. 

If you want commentaries for the lay person in the pew, then MLJ. If you want technicality, then Moo at the very least.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Stephen L Smith said:


> Did Paul say "and my speech and my message were based on the very latest scholarship" in 1 Cor 2?



Try that on a seminary paper. Or even try it on a presbytery exam.


----------



## RamistThomist

I also second Carson's NT commentary survey. It reads like a joke book in how he blisters bad commentaries.

My own take, and to keep it short. (No particular order)

1. Moo
2. Murray
3. Calvin, but only because he is referenced by (1) and (2).
4. Chrysostom. He did a decent job in asking questions of the text and his handling of difficult syntax is referenced by (1) and (2).


----------



## greenbaggins

Richard, Nygren is more of a "flow of argument" type of book rather than a verse by verse commentary. I would argue that with a book like Romans, it is absolutely essential to have at least one commentary that will do that, and Nygren does it the best of any I've read. 

As to Longenecker and Stott, the former, while sitting on my shelf, is not familiar enough to me such that I could venture an opinion on it. The latter, while decent enough in some places with application, doesn't have anything that Boice doesn't have (and does better!). Plus, Stott goes off the deep end in chapter 5, and is therefore somewhat unreliable.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## fredtgreco

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Just wondering, Fred, did you ever consult Thomas Aquinas's _Commentary on Romans_ for your series? I read it recently (online here); there were plenty of good doctrinal observations (not so much on justification), but it was not that great exegetically.


No, I have not. I find that as a pastor, I am limited by how much sermon reading I can do. I simply don't have 25+ hours to put into each sermon. I have to be judicious with my time. So I tend to find one (or at most two) good technical commentary - here, Murray - and then I use other more exegetical and pastoral commentaries to get me thinking about applications.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

fredtgreco said:


> Murray is the best by far and away.


 Murray seems to be better in the middle and later part of Romans. I found myself disagreeing with him rather a lot in the earlier part of the commentary, and found Cranfield better. The thing about Cranfield is that he lays out the options so well, and then argues cogently for the position he holds. I don't always agree with him, either, but at least I know that he has considered all the options.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

fredtgreco said:


> No, I have not. I find that as a pastor, I am limited by how much sermon reading I can do. I simply don't have 25+ hours to put into each sermon. I have to be judicious with my time. So I tend to find one (or at most two) good technical commentary - here, Murray - and then I use other more exegetical and pastoral commentaries to get me thinking about applications.



That makes sense. I recall when reading the critical comments in J. C. Ryle's _Expository Thoughts on John_ that the Patristic an medieval commentaries would be worth reading for fun and occasional doctrinal insights, but pretty useless for exegesis and sermon preparation. Some of the examples of fanciful interpretations that Ryle provided even from Augustine were truly cringe-worthy.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Folks keep telling me how great John Murray is on Romans, but I wonder does his aberrant view of the covenant of works not seriously affect his interpretation of Romans 5? Moreover, what about the issue of natural revelation as it pertains to Romans 1:20 (keep in mind that I am not a presuppositionalist)?

Of course, I recognise that even if it is deficient in some areas, it can still be very good overall.


----------



## Dachaser

Timotheos said:


> Just wanted to hear you all weigh in on this. If you (a) were assigning a commentary for a course on Romans in seminary & (b) wanted 5-10 commentaries to consult for preaching or teaching, which would be #1 that you would demand your students to purchase and then rank the rest of them.


John Murray
Douglas Moo
Leon Morris
Thomas Schreiner
For a classic take
Cranfield/Hodge

I have gotten the most from the one by Leon Morris....


----------



## Stephen L Smith

BayouHuguenot said:


> Try that on a seminary paper. Or even try it on a presbytery exam.


I gladly would, I was stating Pauls precise argument in context of course.

I also know if Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones were marking the seminary paper they would give me high marks because both men believed 2 Cor 2:1 ff was very important for preaching.


----------



## fredtgreco

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Folks keep telling me how great John Murray is on Romans, but I wonder does his aberrant view of the covenant of works not seriously affect his interpretation of Romans 5? Moreover, what about the issue of natural revelation as it pertains to Romans 1:20 (keep in mind that I am not a presuppositionalist)?
> 
> Of course, I recognise that even if it is deficient in some areas, it can still be very good overall.


I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean "aberrant view on the covenant of works?" He does prefer different nomenclature, but his treatment of Romans 5:12-21 is excellent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

fredtgreco said:


> I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean "aberrant view on the covenant of works?" He does prefer different nomenclature, but his treatment of Romans 5:12-21 is excellent.



As I understand it, he denied the covenant of works, though some say it was just semantics. I would be interested to see what he has to say concerning the promised reward for Adam's obedience.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> Plus, Stott goes off the deep end in chapter 5, and is therefore somewhat unreliable.



Do you recall how he went off the deep-end?


----------



## bookslover

JimmyH said:


> D.A. Carson's 'New Testament Commentary Survey' (5th edition 2001) lists 'best buys' for single Romans commentaries as;
> D.J. Moo in NIC
> T.Schreiner
> C.E.B. Cranfield (for advanced students)
> A. Nygren
> The earlier version of 1993 lists best buys as;
> Cranfield
> Moo (wait for NIC)
> F.F. Bruce
> C.K. Barrett
> A. Nygren
> 
> On Nygren he says, " One of the best for the theological flow of thought in Romans is the work of Anders Nygren (Fortress 1949) Everyone who can do so who can do so should grasp his general introductory remarks on pages 16-26. Unfortunately, however, the book is inadequate as a verse-by-verse commentary."
> 
> Carson covers all of the authors of commentaries on Romans with at least a gloss. Haldane gets an honorable mention, as well as Hodge. On John Murray, "will guide you stolidly with the heavy tread of the proverbial village policeman (although with more theology; and note especially the useful appendices and notes)"
> 
> On MLJ; "Lloyd-Jones is probably not the model most preachers should imitate, but the set is easy to read, and Lloyd-Jones sometimes offers material one is hard pressed to find elsewhere--in addition to the wealth of his practical application of Scripture."



His Romans recommendations in the 7th and current edition (2013) are:

Moo
Schreiner
Cranfield

in that order. Also, Carson, who will be 72 tomorrow (12/21), has retired from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he has taught since 1978. A good 40-year run.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

BayouHuguenot said:


> Exactly.
> 
> If you want commentaries for the lay person in the pew, then MLJ. If you want technicality, then Moo at the very least.


See Joel Beeke's new book Reformed Preaching. I like his balance when it comes to preaching in the context of the church.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Also, if I were teaching a seminary class on Romans, I would probably only have 1 (or maybe 2) commentaries as required texts. There would also be reading on righteousness, faith, imputation, etc. you know: the themes that are prominent in Romans that inform the rest of Scripture and vice versa.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Stephen L Smith said:


> I gladly would, I was stating Pauls precise argument in context of course.
> 
> I also know if Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones were marking the seminary paper they would give me high marks because both men believed 2 Cor 2:1 ff was very important for preaching.



That's all well and good, but presbytery exams and seminary papers are going to expect technical exegesis and knowledge of textual variants, etc.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Do you recall how he went off the deep-end?


Speculating, as it has been a while since I read the volume, but it is probably related to his commitment to theistic evolution and how a hominid is formed into Adam.

Reactions: Informative 4


----------



## RamistThomist

Here is the main reason I say go for the more technical resources (this works a bit better in Hebrew studies). It avoids the plagiarism problem that is currently on the Reformed scene. If you know how to work with the languages and scholarly monographs (none of which you will ever write into your sermon), then you really don't need to read that many commentaries to get a few pious insights to pad your sermon with.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Speculating, as it has been a while since I read the volume, but it is probably related to his commitment to theistic evolution and how a hominid is formed into Adam.



Thanks, Patrick. I was just thinking earlier that that might have been the issue to which Lane was alluding. 

I never read the work on Romans, but the other John Stott commentaries that I did read were generally pretty good.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

There are certainly others, but here are some that I would turn to...

John Calvin
Martin Luther 
Robert Haldane 
Charles Hodge 
John Brown (of Edinburgh)
William S. Plumer
Geerhardus Vos
John Murray 
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
William Hendriksen

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Thanks, Patrick. I was just thinking earlier that that might have been the issue to which Lane was alluding.
> 
> I never read the work on Romans, but the other John Stott commentaries that I did read were generally pretty good.


In my Th.M./Ph.D. class on Judges, I regularly assign readings in contemporary and historical pastoral resources (from Gregory of Nazianzus to Matthew Henry to John Piper and Tim Keller) alongside technical commentaries. Since my goal is to train students how to do exegesis in service of the church (and exegesis without application is necessarily incomplete), I want them to learn from and critique their forerunners and contemporaries. Having said that, I rarely read devotional commentaries in preparation for preaching from the OT, since the writers' devotional thoughts so rarely grow out of a really solid technical understanding of the text. I make an exception for Ralph Davis. The situation is probably somewhat better in the NT, but still I'm more interested in commentaries that can unpack the flow of thought of the text than technical details of text criticism, historical background and source criticism. Life is short and (unlike my good friend Rick Phillips, who devours thirty commentaries on each passage he is about to preach on), I rarely use more than about four or five regularly.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's all well and good, but presbytery exams and seminary papers are going to expect technical exegesis and knowledge of textual variants, etc.


We don't disaree on technical exegesis, indeed solid exegesis of the scriptures based on the original languages. We agree on this.

But I am saying something more. If Joel Beeke was one of the examiners on Presbytery he would look for two more important things:

Are you convinced of the importance of Reformed experiential preaching? (See his book Reformed preaching)
Do you know something of Paul's emphasis in 1 Cor 2 where he explicitly states "and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." An emphasis found in MLJ's and Spurgeons ministries.
I don't want to hijack the thread and have a busy couple of days, so will call it quits. But trust this clarifies.


----------



## RamistThomist

Stephen L Smith said:


> Do you know something of Paul's emphasis in 1 Cor 2 where he explicitly states "and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." An emphasis found in MLJ's and Spurgeons ministries.



Both MLJ and I are continuationists, so I agree with him on this one. Ironically, I've had far more "force" and "power" in teaching (which is my gift) from immersing myself in technical monographs than in a dozen commentaries. But that's just me.

Adolph Deissmann in his book "The Philology of the Greek Bible" makes the following statement "A single hour lovingly devoted to the text of the Septuagint will further our exegetical knowledge of the Pauline Epistles more than a whole day spent over a commentary."

No doubt he overstated it, but that's my approach to biblical studies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan Kiser

Timotheos said:


> Just wanted to hear you all weigh in on this. If you (a) were assigning a commentary for a course on Romans in seminary & (b) wanted 5-10 commentaries to consult for preaching or teaching, which would be #1 that you would demand your students to purchase and then rank the rest of them.



I recommend Charles Hodge's commentary on Romans. It is part of the Geneva Series of Commentaries. Very excellent work!


----------



## Taylor

I don't think anyone is denying either the importance of technical study or deep devotion. (I'm certainly not.) But I do have a personal reflection that may help one understand my position:

The closer I got to graduating from seminary, the more frustrated I got with my biblical studies courses. It seemed that more and more we were being forced to occupy ourselves with heavily technical commentaries and resources. They dealt with everything—critical issues, textual variants, historical details, cultural specifics, etc. Yes, they dealt with everything, almost always except one thing: what the text _means_. I found increasingly,_ even when using commentaries by evangelicals_, that I walked away from the study knowing everything about the surroundings of the text, yet not the text itself. Of course, I understand that all that information is important for understanding the text.

The tipping point for me was when a good friend of mine had points taken off the grade of his OT exegetical paper because he cited Calvin's_ Commentary_ on the passage, since Calvin is neither modern nor overly technical. Again, I fully understand that Calvin will not deal with modern controversies over critical theory and historical questions. Yet I never walked away from Calvin without the meaningful import of any given biblical passage weighing heavily upon my soul. But I found increasingly that, at the seminary level, we were far more focused about what Spinoza or some other God-critic theorized, to the utter exclusion of what bearing the text at hand had upon our lives. It was, frankly, life-sucking. I understand and appreciate that we need to be able to converse with these things, obviously.

So, again, I would never say that technical study is unimportant._ Of course_ it is of immense importance. Perhaps I have just been very influenced by Rushdoony and his strong criticism of what he called "constipated theology"—theology that so interested in the abstract and theoretical that it never gets to what theology actually is, "the _application_ of Scripture, by persons, to every area of life" (John Frame,_ Systematic Theology_, p. 8; emphasis added). So, for me, a commentary that does not at the very least conclude with the bearing the text has on our lives is, frankly, not worth much of my time, if any at all. I realize I am drawing somewhat of a false dichotomy (i.e., that commentaries can either be only technical or only pastoral), but in my experience this seems to be the way things actually are, hence my concerns above.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

I guess I am different from everybody. I've never got a spiritual buzz from devotional commentaries (largely because after a while they tend to say the same things, which is perhaps why Derek Thomas got in trouble).

I get devotional buzzes from technical works.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH

BayouHuguenot said:


> I guess I am different from everybody. I've never got a spiritual buzz from devotional commentaries (largely because after a while they tend to say the same things, which is perhaps why Derek Thomas got in trouble).
> 
> I get devotional buzzes from technical works.


I am the opposite. I began a self teaching regimen in Koine Greek a couple of years ago and, as I learned vocabulary, I would feel very enthused in reading technical commentaries in which I understood some of the Greek in them. 
After awhile I felt myself growing cold. For instance, I had read the 8 volume Ephesians series by MLJ, and felt the presence of God so strongly in my daily life. I read a chapter per day until I was through the series. It was as if I had batteries that were being charged daily. 

I am intrigued by technical commentaries, and I learn from them, admittedly with my limited education, not appreciating the content as much as you, but they don't exhort or admonish the way that devotional material does. At least not with me at this stage of the game.


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> I guess I am different from everybody. I've never got a spiritual buzz from devotional commentaries (largely because after a while they tend to say the same things, which is perhaps why Derek Thomas got in trouble).
> 
> I get devotional buzzes from technical works.



Just to be clear, I’m not after some “buzz,” but rather edification. And I agree with you, I am often very edified by technical commentaries, but not by virtue of mere technical discussion (which I do enjoy), but when that technical discussion is brought to bear upon the meaning of the passage for God’s people. That’s all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Thanks, Patrick. I was just thinking earlier that that might have been the issue to which Lane was alluding.



In a word, yep.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> I don't think anyone is denying either the importance of technical study or deep devotion. (I'm certainly not.) But I do have a personal reflection that may help one understand my position:
> 
> The closer I got to graduating from seminary, the more frustrated I got with my biblical studies courses. It seemed that more and more we were being forced to occupy ourselves with heavily technical commentaries and resources. They dealt with everything—critical issues, textual variants, historical details, cultural specifics, etc. Yes, they dealt with everything, almost always except one thing: what the text _means_. I found increasingly,_ even when using commentaries by evangelicals_, that I walked away from the study knowing everything about the surroundings of the text, yet not the text itself. Of course, I understand that all that information is important for understanding the text.
> 
> The tipping point for me was when a good friend of mine had points taken off the grade of his OT exegetical paper because he cited Calvin's_ Commentary_ on the passage, since Calvin is neither modern nor overly technical. Again, I fully understand that Calvin will not deal with modern controversies over critical theory and historical questions. Yet I never walked away from Calvin without the meaningful import of any given biblical passage weighing heavily upon my soul. But I found increasingly that, at the seminary level, we were far more focused about what Spinoza or some other God-critic theorized, to the utter exclusion of what bearing the text at hand had upon our lives. It was, frankly, life-sucking. I understand and appreciate that we need to be able to converse with these things, obviously.
> 
> So, again, I would never say that technical study is unimportant._ Of course_ it is of immense importance. Perhaps I have just been very influenced by Rushdoony and his strong criticism of what he called "constipated theology"—theology that so interested in the abstract and theoretical that it never gets to what theology actually is, "the _application_ of Scripture, by persons, to every area of life" (John Frame,_ Systematic Theology_, p. 8; emphasis added). So, for me, a commentary that does not at the very least conclude with the bearing the text has on our lives is, frankly, not worth much of my time, if any at all. I realize I am drawing somewhat of a false dichotomy (i.e., that commentaries can either be only technical or only pastoral), but in my experience this seems to be the way things actually are, hence my concerns above.


I also have at times tried to wade through an impressive amount of study material that was placed in a very good commentary, and yet the end result to me was getting bogged down into more of the various discussions on why such and such did not did not actually author this Book, the historical context of the times, the various views that have been held over the years, current controversy about the subject matter of the Book. Yet, not really that much of what was the intended meaning of the Book, and how to understand and then apply it.
When do you consult a commentary, in the beginning stages, or after have done own work up on the book and its doctrines yourself? or just for trouble passages in particular?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH

Dachaser said:


> When do you consult a commentary, in the beginning stages, or after have done own work up on the book and its doctrines yourself? or just for trouble passages in particular?


This would be a good topic for a stand alone thread. 

Answering the question for myself I'd have to say it varies. More or less all of the above for one book of the Bible at one time or another.


----------



## Dachaser

JimmyH said:


> This would be a good topic for a stand alone thread.
> 
> Answering the question for myself I'd have to say it varies. More or less all of the above for one book of the Bible at one time or another.


The school that trained me in in how to read and understand and apply the doctrines of the bible was really big on us going through the Book ourselves first, and then use the Commentary as a consulting work in order to help clarify disputed or not well understand scriptures.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

Dachaser said:


> When do you consult a commentary, in the beginning stages, or after have done own work up on the book and its doctrines yourself? or just for trouble passages in particular?



I was taught, as a general rule, to avoid consulting commentaries until you yourself have done your own textual/lexical/grammatical, contextual, historical, and theological analysis of the passage. There are several reasons for this:

1) Consulting commentaries_ before_ doing your own exegetical work can foster laziness—not necessarily so, but if it becomes a practice.

2) Similarly, when the preacher/teacher digs deep into the text for himself _before_ all else, there is a much better chance it will be "in his bones," which makes the preaching/teaching occasion much more authentic, which makes it only more powerful for the listeners.

3) Consulting commentaries is much more fruitful when you have done your homework first. Consulting a commentary without doing your own exegetical work first would be similar to attending a doctoral seminar without having done the reading first. You would be unable to engage in discussion or debate, or to contribute to the thought in any way, and thus learn much less in much more time.


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> I was taught, as a general rule, to avoid consulting commentaries until you yourself have done your own textual/lexical/grammatical, contextual, historical, and theological analysis of the passage. There are several reasons for this:
> 
> 1) Consulting commentaries_ before_ doing your own exegetical work can foster laziness—not necessarily so, but if it becomes a practice.
> 
> 2) Similarly, when the preacher/teacher digs deep into the text for himself _before_ all else, there is a much better chance it will be "in his bones," which makes the preaching/teaching occasion much more authentic, which makes it only more powerful for the listeners.
> 
> 3) Consulting commentaries is much more fruitful when you have done your homework first. Consulting a commentary without doing your own exegetical work first would be similar to attending a doctoral seminar without having done the reading first. You would be unable to engage in discussion or debate, or to contribute to the thought in any way, and thus learn much less in much more time.


Do you find that under your point 2, that when the Holy Spirit makes the passage make sense to you in the sense that you now really understand and start to apply it, is something that the Commentary cannot do, as that would be someone else understanding of that passage?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

As it turns out, I listened to Fred's sermon on Romans 7:13-25 a bit earlier today, which was very good.


----------



## fredtgreco

Reformed Covenanter said:


> As it turns out, I listened to Fred's sermon on Romans 7:13-25 a bit earlier today, which was very good.


I appreciate the encouragement. That is a very difficult passage and much controverted.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Timotheos

greenbaggins said:


> My top ten are as follows, in no particular order: Cranfield (ICC), Moo (NICNT, now in a second edition), Nygren, Boice, Shedd, Lloyd-Jones, Schreiner (now in a second edition), Murray, Haldane, Calvin.


Have you had a chance to review Thielman's new one?


----------



## greenbaggins

Timotheos, I have it, and I have looked very briefly at it. I am not super impressed. Not much discussion of imputation. He does seem to reject the NPP, but not as strongly as I would like.


----------



## KMK

Taylor Sexton said:


> I was taught, as a general rule, to avoid consulting commentaries until you yourself have done your own textual/lexical/grammatical, contextual, historical, and theological analysis of the passage. There are several reasons for this:
> 
> 1) Consulting commentaries_ before_ doing your own exegetical work can foster laziness—not necessarily so, but if it becomes a practice.
> 
> 2) Similarly, when the preacher/teacher digs deep into the text for himself _before_ all else, there is a much better chance it will be "in his bones," which makes the preaching/teaching occasion much more authentic, which makes it only more powerful for the listeners.
> 
> 3) Consulting commentaries is much more fruitful when you have done your homework first. Consulting a commentary without doing your own exegetical work first would be similar to attending a doctoral seminar without having done the reading first. You would be unable to engage in discussion or debate, or to contribute to the thought in any way, and thus learn much less in much more time.



I have heard that as well, but I don't agree. That would be like telling a conductor to refrain from listening to Solti/Vienna perform Wagner before conducting it himself.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

KMK said:


> I have heard that as well, but I don't agree. That would be like telling a conductor to refrain from listening to Solti/Vienna perform Wagner before conducting it himself.



For me it would depend on the nature of the commentary and where I am in my studies. A good exegetical commentary is worth ten devotional ones in terms of what the text actually says. 

Ideally, a good monograph or journal is even better but those are hard to come buy.


----------



## Taylor

KMK said:


> I have heard that as well, but I don't agree. That would be like telling a conductor to refrain from listening to Solti/Vienna perform Wagner before conducting it himself.



I didn’t mean to write what I wrote as a strict rule, of course. I think we were taught that particular way simply to encourage us to not be lazy regarding our own study by merely copying what others have said without engaging in our own critical thought. It obviously wouldn’t be a sin to read a commentary before doing one’s own exegetical work. Besides, in my opinion, everyone has their own method of exegesis. As long as it leads them to a faithful understanding and exposition of Scripture, then that’s the point. If their method or process looks totally different than mine or anyone else’s, that’s fine!

(Solti is _fantastic_ with Wagner, by the way. You’ve given me the itch to go listen again. Haha.)


----------



## Dachaser

KMK said:


> I have heard that as well, but I don't agree. That would be like telling a conductor to refrain from listening to Solti/Vienna perform Wagner before conducting it himself.


The main concern would be that a Pastor or teacher would be totally relying upon what others see the passage as stating, and not discerning that first for themselves.


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> I didn’t mean to write what I wrote as a strict rule, of course. I think we were taught that particular way simply to encourage us to not be lazy regarding our own study by merely copying what others have said without engaging in our own critical thought. It obviously wouldn’t be a sin to read a commentary before doing one’s own exegetical work. Besides, in my opinion, everyone has their own method of exegesis. As long as it leads them to a faithful understanding and exposition of Scripture, then that’s the point. If their method or process looks totally different than mine or anyone else’s, that’s fine!
> 
> (Solti is _fantastic_ with Wagner, by the way. You’ve given me the itch to go listen again. Haha.)


My Senior pastor has 2 earned PhD's in the scriptures, and that is the way that he was taught to approach the learning of the scriptures themselves for teaching and preaching purposes.


----------



## JimmyH

Thinking about the question of text before commentaries, in preparing sermons, it occurred to me that in his sermons my pastor will sometimes mention how one or another commentator interprets a passage of Scripture. He has been pastor at our OPC congregation for 18 years. He graduated from WTS more than 20 years ago. 

Say that to say, he has undoubtedly been through the text, the commentaries, many, many times. With years of experience would it make a great deal of difference in sermon preparation for a pastor to reference various commentaries on particular passages first, or start at the text first? I'm thinking that with years of preaching under his belt, the average pastor must have a firm grasp, and is more or less refreshing his memory ?

I'm not saying that a pastor shouldn't continue to search the Scriptures, and the commentaries, in a continuing effort to better understand and exegete it. Just that it seems to me the veteran pastor would have a great deal of knowledge stored in the grey matter. 

I can see where a 'new' pastor, without the years of preparing and preaching sermons, would possibly be better off going directly to the text first, but I'd bet those with years of experience don't _need_ to use that approach.


----------



## Dachaser

JimmyH said:


> Thinking about the question of text before commentaries, in preparing sermons, it occurred to me that in his sermons my pastor will sometimes mention how one or another commentator interprets a passage of Scripture. He has been pastor at our OPC congregation for 18 years. He graduated from WTS more than 20 years ago.
> 
> Say that to say, he has undoubtedly been through the text, the commentaries, many, many times. With years of experience would it make a great deal of difference in sermon preparation for a pastor to reference various commentaries on particular passages first, or start at the text first? I'm thinking that with years of preaching under his belt, the average pastor must have a firm grasp, and is more or less refreshing his memory ?
> 
> I'm not saying that a pastor shouldn't continue to search the Scriptures, and the commentaries, in a continuing effort to better understand and exegete it. Just that it seems to me the veteran pastor would have a great deal of knowledge stored in the grey matter.
> 
> I can see where a 'new' pastor, without the years of preparing and preaching sermons, would possibly be better off going directly to the text first, but I'd bet those with years of experience don't _need_ to use that approach.


I have been listening to John MacArthur recently, and he will be celebrating his 50th anniversary at his church as senior pastor this march, and remarkable to me how he still spends so much time in the scriptures, and states that he still finds something new and fresh every time to teach on and about.
He has written many books and commentaries over the years, but have been encouraged to see him sticking into the scriptures. themselves.


----------



## JimmyH

Dachaser said:


> I have been listening to John MacArthur recently, and he will be celebrating his 50th anniversary at his church as senior pastor this march, and remarkable to me how he still spends so much time in the scriptures, and states that he still finds something new and fresh every time to teach on and about.
> He has written many books and commentaries over the years, but have been encouraged to see him sticking into the scriptures. themselves.


John MacArthur, in his 'How To Study The Bible', recommends always using the _same_ copy of the Bible, whichever translation, so that you'll be able to memorize Scripture verses, and find them not by the chapter and verse number, but by the location, because you'll know _your_ copy of your Bible like the palm of your hand. I read too many versions to take advantage of that advice, but this is how he says he does it. He also repeats all that in a radio series he did on studying the Bible.


----------



## Dachaser

JimmyH said:


> John MacArthur, in his 'How To Study The Bible', recommends always using the _same_ copy of the Bible, whichever translation, so that you'll be able to memorize Scripture verses, and find them not by the chapter and verse number, but by the location, because you'll know _your_ copy of your Bible like the palm of your hand. I read too many versions to take advantage of that advice, but this is how he says he does it. He also repeats all that in a radio series he did on studying the Bible.


He also would have each person really write into the margins whatever God is teaching you each time you open the Bible, as you develop over time your own commentary on the books of the Bible.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He also would have each person really write into the margins whatever God is teaching you each time you open the Bible, as you develop over time your own commentary on the books of the Bible.



I think he got that idea from WA Criswell, who said you should write bibliographic notes in the margins, which you would then cross-reference to your personal library. You would then use that to prep for sermons.


----------

