# Getting Ready for Romans



## bookslover (Dec 19, 2015)

My pastor is going to start preaching through Romans next February. (He told me that the last time he preached through the book, in a former church, it took him 5-1/2 years.)

So, in preparation, I'm lining up my Romans commentaries (in order to follow along with his exposition, so to speak): Robert Haldane (1836-1839), R. C. H. Lenski (1936), John Murray (1959, 1965), Leon Morris (1988), John MacArthur (1991, 1994), and John R. W. Stott (1994).

I'm thinking of getting at least one more (perhaps Douglas Moo). Any suggestions?


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 19, 2015)

Moo definitely. Schreiner (BECNT) if you have extra money. Luther is also very good for an old dead white guy. I have been helped by Cranfield's 2 vol. ICC.

Several sources rate Moo as the best overall commentary on Romans. His NICNT volume replaced the excellent Murray one.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 19, 2015)

I would also recommend Hendriksen.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 19, 2015)

Moo


----------



## Ed Walsh (Dec 19, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I would also recommend Hendriksen.



And Hodge. This was my first commentary on Romans as a young Christian. I love his four-fold method of teaching each chapter:
Analysis
Commentary
Doctrine
Remarks

https://archive.org/stream/commentaryon1873hodg#page/n5/mode/2up


----------



## KeithW (Dec 19, 2015)

I like Luther's preface to his commentary on Romans. It is a nice summary of the book.

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


----------



## py3ak (Dec 19, 2015)

Calvin's commentary on Romans continues to be very valuable. Hodge is also helpful, although at times his exposition is pretty pallid compared to what came before (e.g., compare him with Thomas Goodwin on Romans 4:25).

You might find yourself tearing your hair a bit over Lenski on Romans 9.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 19, 2015)

John Murray's is great. May I ask how you are going to use these?


----------



## Justified (Dec 19, 2015)

Any news about when Dr. Clark will finish translating Olevian's commentary?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Dec 19, 2015)

You might consider William Swan Plumer, published by Kregel.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 19, 2015)

Plumer available on this page free .pdf https://williamswanplumer.wordpress.com/books/

Frederic Louis Godet http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100588816


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 19, 2015)

The Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in mp3. Romans 1 through 14.. Failing health caused him to retire before he completed the whole book from what I understand. 

http://www.mljtrust.org/collections/book-of-romans/


----------



## bookslover (Dec 19, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> Moo definitely. Schreiner (BECNT) if you have extra money. Luther is also very good for an old dead white guy. I have been helped by Cranfield's 2 vol. ICC.
> 
> Several sources rate Moo as the best overall commentary on Romans. His NICNT volume replaced the excellent Murray one.



And, fortunately, Murray has been kept in print.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 19, 2015)

py3ak said:


> Calvin's commentary on Romans continues to be very valuable. Hodge is also helpful, although at times his exposition is pretty pallid compared to what came before (e.g., compare him with Thomas Goodwin on Romans 4:25).
> 
> You might find yourself tearing your hair a bit over Lenski on Romans 9.



Yes, I've heard that Lenski is a pretty strident Lutheran.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 19, 2015)

jwithnell said:


> John Murray's is great. May I ask how you are going to use these?



I just want to follow along in the commentaries as the pastor preaches through the book, for my own edification.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 19, 2015)

Excellent suggestions so far.

I've noticed, as a general thing, that Romans commentaries seem to be the product of their authors' old age: Haldane and Lenski were both 72 when their books were published (exactly 100 years apart). Murray was 61, Morris was 74, and Stott was 73. An exception was Charles Hodge, who was just 38 when his commentary was published in 1835.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 20, 2015)

Very good list. Personally I would replace John MaCarthur and John Stott with the 14 vol set of Martyn Lloyd-Jones.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 20, 2015)

I heard Stanley Porter has a good exegetical commentary.


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 20, 2015)

I'm waiting for Longenecker's commentary to come out. I found his work on Galatians helpful.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 20, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> I'm waiting for Longenecker's commentary to come out. I found his work on Galatians helpful.



Looks like it just came out....


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 20, 2015)

I've heard Hodge highly recommended by reputable sources outwith the PB.


----------



## MW (Dec 20, 2015)

bookslover said:


> I've noticed, as a general thing, that Romans commentaries seem to be the product of their authors' old age: Haldane and Lenski were both 72 when their books were published (exactly 100 years apart). Murray was 61, Morris was 74, and Stott was 73. An exception was Charles Hodge, who was just 38 when his commentary was published in 1835.



And it appears Hodge rewrote his commentary later in life. There is definitely no substitute for experience.

It is great to see listeners studying along with the preacher's series. I am sure the preacher himself would be much encouraged to hear of it.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 20, 2015)

As a less well-known option, I very much have enjoyed John Brown of Wamphray's Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. I haven't read it cover to cover, but what I've read I've found very profitable.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 20, 2015)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Anders Nygren. A Lutheran commentary, so he's not so good on passages like Romans 6. However, there's no one quite like him for getting the flow of Romans. Cranfield is FAR better than Moo, in my opinion, except that Moo does interact with the New Perspective, which arose after Cranfield wrote. But, in my opinion, Cranfield is far better for sorting out the various options and then being in a position to make an informed exegetical choice. You can see the difference particularly in the much-controverted Romans 7, and the infamous "I" passages, where Cranfield has it all over Moo. Cranfield is worth the price of admission for his comments on chapter 7 alone. Longenecker does promise to be a very thorough commentary. I did not like Murray nearly as much as everyone else seems to. Shedd was far better exegetically. I have not looked at Porter yet, but I am very interested to get my hands on it.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 20, 2015)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Very good list. Personally I would replace John MaCarthur and John Stott with the 14 vol set of Martyn Lloyd-Jones.



I'm pretty burned out on Lloyd-Jones (I read a lot of him in earlier years). Besides, life is too short at my age (63) to be plowing through 14 volumes. LOL


----------



## bookslover (Dec 20, 2015)

MW said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > I've noticed, as a general thing, that Romans commentaries seem to be the product of their authors' old age: Haldane and Lenski were both 72 when their books were published (exactly 100 years apart). Murray was 61, Morris was 74, and Stott was 73. An exception was Charles Hodge, who was just 38 when his commentary was published in 1835.
> ...



Yes, Matthew, Hodge basically re-wrote the entire commentary for the second edition, published in 1864, when he was 67.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 20, 2015)

greenbaggins said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned Anders Nygren. A Lutheran commentary, so he's not so good on passages like Romans 6. However, there's no one quite like him for getting the flow of Romans. Cranfield is FAR better than Moo, in my opinion, except that Moo does interact with the New Perspective, which arose after Cranfield wrote. But, in my opinion, Cranfield is far better for sorting out the various options and then being in a position to make an informed exegetical choice. You can see the difference particularly in the much-controverted Romans 7, and the infamous "I" passages, where Cranfield has it all over Moo. Cranfield is worth the price of admission for his comments on chapter 7 alone. Longenecker does promise to be a very thorough commentary. I did not like Murray nearly as much as everyone else seems to. Shedd was far better exegetically. I have not looked at Porter yet, but I am very interested to get my hands on it.



I'd like to get the Cranfield set (he died earlier this year at 99), but I would like to make sure I get the most recent printing of each volume, since he kept tinkering with the commentary over the decades. I think the last time he tinkered with volume 2 was for the 2012 printing, when he was just a lad of 96!

Lane, have you read Karl Barth's (I know, I know...) commentary? Setting his neo-orthodoxy to one side, does he have anything of value to offer?


----------



## bookslover (Dec 21, 2015)

arap said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > I'm waiting for Longenecker's commentary to come out. I found his work on Galatians helpful.
> ...



Per Eerdmans' website, Longenecker's Romans commentary will be published in March, 2016, for $80. It's available for pre-order on Amazon for $56.

You might remember that Longenecker has already published his volume dealing with introductory matters in Romans. It came out in 2011 under the title _Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul's Most Famous Letter_.

Per the Eerdmans' site, Longenecker's Romans commentary "sets a course for the future that will promote...a more relevant contextualization of its message." Whatever _that's_ supposed to mean.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 21, 2015)

bookslover said:


> Lane, have you read Karl Barth's (I know, I know...) commentary


You are not too excited about reading Lloyd-Jones on Romans, but happy to read Karl Barth. I'll have to set up my backsliding monitor to check you


----------



## Captain Picard (Dec 21, 2015)

To the Westminsterians of various stripes in the room, does Moo's commentary reflect a bias in favor of NCT and post-NCT positions?

I ask this as a reader of his contribution to various works on (that is, I would say, denying) the three-fold division of the law.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 21, 2015)

Stephen L Smith said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Lane, have you read Karl Barth's (I know, I know...) commentary
> ...



I'm not happy to read Barth, and probably won't. Just wondered if there was anything valuable in it, on the a-stopped-clock-is-still-right-twice-a-day principle. LOL


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 22, 2015)

bookslover said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised no one has mentioned Anders Nygren. A Lutheran commentary, so he's not so good on passages like Romans 6. However, there's no one quite like him for getting the flow of Romans. Cranfield is FAR better than Moo, in my opinion, except that Moo does interact with the New Perspective, which arose after Cranfield wrote. But, in my opinion, Cranfield is far better for sorting out the various options and then being in a position to make an informed exegetical choice. You can see the difference particularly in the much-controverted Romans 7, and the infamous "I" passages, where Cranfield has it all over Moo. Cranfield is worth the price of admission for his comments on chapter 7 alone. Longenecker does promise to be a very thorough commentary. I did not like Murray nearly as much as everyone else seems to. Shedd was far better exegetically. I have not looked at Porter yet, but I am very interested to get my hands on it.
> ...



There are not huge differences among the editions of Cranfield, from what I can tell. I have read about a third of Barth's commentary. It is not very exegetical. It is Barth's theology, using Romans as a springboard. It is more useful for determining what Barth's theology is than Paul's. 

James, there is some NCT bias in Moo's commentary, the worst of which comes out in his treatment of chapter 7, which I find seriously lacking.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 22, 2015)

bookslover said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > timmopussycat said:
> ...



Oh ok. I looked on amazon and saw December 18th 2015....I guess I did not read further.


----------



## KMK (Dec 22, 2015)

Hodge, Murray, Haldane, Calvin and Keister. When does the Keister commentary come out again?


----------

