# Commentary Recommendations (Romans)



## Romans922 (Oct 2, 2017)

Looking to do a sermon series on Romans.

Need exegetical commentaries and pastoral/applicatory commentaries. Give me your recommendations with reasoning why they are good, any quirks they might have, and weird thoughts on particular passages. Thanks.


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 2, 2017)

Get Moo, Murray, Cranfield, Shedd, and Hodge for exegesis. They are the most penetrating exegetes, I believe. Make sure you pick up a copy of Anders Nygren’s work used as his work gets at the flow if Paul’s argument . If you want a good history of interpretation, Cranfield and Longenecker will give you that. Boice is great for preaching

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## KeithW (Oct 2, 2017)

Luther wrote a commentary on Romans. I don't find his book very interesting but he did write a wonderful preface in his book giving a good solid explanation of the entire book of Romans.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/romans/files/romans.html


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 2, 2017)

Moo


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 2, 2017)

Stan Porter came out with a good exegetical one I hear too.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Oct 2, 2017)

I have really enjoyed John Brown of Wamphray if you would consider older ones. Exhaustive with very useful practical and doctrinal observations on each verse.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 2, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> Moo


And Samuel said, What _meaneth_ then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 2


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 2, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> And Samuel said, What _meaneth_ then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?


D.A. Carson, in one of his sermons, or lectures, tells of Douglas Moo's grandfather coming to Ellis Island from the Netherlands. He spoke no English and the government clerk who was checking him in asked him what village he was from. His reply sounded like Moo and that is what the clerk put down as his name, hence he and his progeny are stuck with it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 3, 2017)

I found Hodge and Calvin most helpful when I preached through it. I also used Beale/Carson's Commentary on the NT use of the OT. Didn't agree with everything, but it was very helpful overall. Also, Edward Donnelly's sermon series through Romans was great prep work for me devotionally. I listened to most of it prior to starting my own series.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Oct 4, 2017)

Check out Haldane as well in addition to the great list already provided.


----------



## Silas22 (Oct 4, 2017)

Schreiner, Moo, Calvin.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 4, 2017)

timfost said:


> Check out Haldane as well in addition to the great list already provided.


I second this. Both Spurgeon and Martyn Lloyd-Jones had a very high regard for this commentary. Martyn Lloyd-Jones owed 'much profit and pleasure to it', characterising its contents as unsurpassed in 'warmth of spirit' and 'practical application.'


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 4, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> And Samuel said, What _meaneth_ then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?


Did you expect Puritanboard Members to be "Mooved" by this verse from scripture? Actually I found the joke udderly funny

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## reaganmarsh (Oct 4, 2017)

I'll third Haldane. Calvin, Comm on NT Use of OT, and Stott's BST volume are all helpful. Schreiner is solid exegetically. And don't neglect Poole...brief, but often insightful.


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 4, 2017)

Murray.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 4, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> And don't neglect Poole


Now we can tie this nicely together. Thirsty "brown" cows give a gentle "moo" when they find a "poole" of water. 

Sorry my humour is particularly bad today

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## reaganmarsh (Oct 4, 2017)

Parakaleo said:


> Murray.



Based on the one excerpt of Murray I've read, I heartily concur. One of these days, I'll pick up a copy of his commentary for my library.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 4, 2017)

I found vol. 1 of Murray's commentary on Romans at a used book store a few weeks ago. Still on the hunt for vol. 2!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Oct 5, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> I'll third Haldane. Calvin, Comm on NT Use of OT, and Stott's BST volume are all helpful. Schreiner is solid exegetically. And don't neglect Poole...brief, but often insightful.



Doesn't Stott have some sort of weird view on Romans 7.7-25?


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 5, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> I'll third Haldane. Calvin, Comm on NT Use of OT, and Stott's BST volume are all helpful. Schreiner is solid exegetically. And don't neglect Poole...brief, but often insightful.



Stott's views on the first and last Adam are way off, although he has a lot of good things to say, too. Read him with discretion. Schreiner is off on his denial of imputation in the Romans commentary, something he fixed later in his scholarship. He believes imputation now. I wish he would update his Romans commentary to reflect further scholarship and his change in views.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## reaganmarsh (Oct 6, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Stott's views on the first and last Adam are way off, although he has a lot of good things to say, too. Read him with discretion. Schreiner is off on his denial of imputation in the Romans commentary, something he fixed later in his scholarship. He believes imputation now. I wish he would update his Romans commentary to reflect further scholarship and his change in views.



I quite agree, Lane -- was typing quickly and didn't have time to qualify my note with those caveats. 

Thanks for that!


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Oct 23, 2017)

Dr Thomas Chalmers' Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans.

Slightly bias due to my church background.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Oct 25, 2017)

I've found Moo to be a little strange in more than a few places. The ones I go to first are 1. Hodge and 2. Haldane. Next tier for me is Calvin and Murray. I've found these 4 commentaries to be the most helpful on Romans.


----------



## TheInquirer (Oct 25, 2017)

Re: Haldane, is the Banner of Truth version worth the cost or would you recommend one of the reprints?

Btw, this by far is my favorite site for book recommendations.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 26, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> I've found Moo to be a little strange in more than a few places. The ones I go to first are 1. Hodge and 2. Haldane. Next tier for me is Calvin and Murray. I've found these 4 commentaries to be the most helpful on Romans.


May I ask how so?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Oct 27, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> May I ask how so?



Brother,

Thanks for asking that. I actually had to go back and look into it because I couldn't remember on what points exactly. The big one for me is his view of Romans 7 as describing an unregenerate person, but I know that's a common view as well and many people take it. Other things had to do with finer points on Romans 5:12-21 that I had studied through a few years back. On page 327, he says that the classical/traditional view that "all sinned" in Romans 3:12 (that all sinned in and with Adam in his sin) "rests almost entirely on the juxtaposition of v. 12 with vv18-19). He takes the correct view, and it's true that the correlation of v12 with vv18-19 is definitely key for understanding the passage, but there are a lot of other reasons that back up this interpretation as well. For instance, the grammar of the aorist in 5:12 "sinned" would lead to this interpretation as well as the whole theological paradigm between Adam and Christ: just as we were condemned in Adam solely because of his sin, completely apart from any personal sins of our own--so it works in justification--we are justified in Christ solely because of his righteousness, completely apart from any personal righteousness of our own. This isn't a huge deal, it's just that there are other (good) reasons for taking Romans 5:12 the way that we do, that are important. The other one from Romans 5 was in Romans 5:14, where he interprets "those who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam" in a bit of a strange way; he footnotes that Murray holds this to be infants; but in reality the great majority view of this is that it is indeed referring to infants (this wasn't just Murray), as opposed to the view Moo takes. There were other minor points like this through his exposition of Romans 5:12-21. 

All that to say, as I re-read my notes on Moo, though I had some question marks etc, I also had a ton of stars and underlines. A lot of his commentary (and I've only read probably 1/10 of it) is good, I just found for myself I needed to back-check what he says about finer points with people like Hodge and Haldane.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## KMK (Oct 27, 2017)

I have preached through Romans twice. The most valuable I have read are Calvin, Murray, Hodge, and Haldane. Only slightly less valuable would be Mounce, John Brown, and Plummer, Next time, I will shell out the bucks for Cranfield.

Here is a great resource for commentaries: https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/commentaries-for-the-whole-bible/

Reactions: Like 1


----------

