# Leon Morris' Commentary on Romans



## Supahrob

Heya!
My wife just bought me Leon Morris' commentary on Romans - and as with all commentaries on Romans, I look to see what they say on Romans 9. He seems to be saying that it talking about Israel as a whole (a slight twist on the nations view) and that they are elected to service in Romans 9, NOT salvation.

I see what he is saying, but I am not entirely comfortable with this reasoning. I believe it IS about individuals, and it IS about salvation. I am considering returning this commentary and getting Moo's volume. It's not that I don't want to read differing views, but rather I am going to a family Bible study next weekend on Romans 9, and would like a more distinctly reformed commentary to aid me in preparing for what will no doubt be more of a debate then a study.

So, would Moo's be better then Morris' in this case? Or perhaps another commentary altogether - I want to stay with a technical commentary that deals directly with the Greek (I am kind of a Greek-Geek lol).

Take care.
Rob


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

With respect, I would have to say that I think you are misreading Leon Morris on Romans 9. His argument about Israel in the section "The Place of Israel" is referring to their place in God's purposes in Redemptive History. Section B goes on to talk about 'God's Sovereign Freedom' and this is in the contact of individual election (look particularly at his thoughts regarding Jacob and Essau). 

As a bit of a Romans-freak I would recommend another reading of Morris, who is excellent on this epistle. However, Moo's work has more meat and is very much worth getting as well. Also, Tom Schreiner gives a very detailed examination of Romans 9 in his commentary for the 'Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament'. 

All that said...still the best and most detailed work on Romans 9:1-23 is John Piper's book 'The Justification of God'. It is an exegetical and theological study of Romans 9 that goes deep into the Greek text and pulls out wonderful Reformed treasures. The great Reformed scholar Dr Richard Muller said that it's "the most compelling and forceful exposition of Romans 9:1-23 that I have ever seen."


----------



## Supahrob

Irish Presbyterian said:


> With respect, I would have to say that I think you are misreading Leon Morris on Romans 9. His argument about Israel in the section "The Place of Israel" is referring to their place in God's purposes in Redemptive History. Section B goes on to talk about 'God's Sovereign Freedom' and this is in the contact of individual election (look particularly at his thoughts regarding Jacob and Essau).
> 
> As a bit of a Romans-freak I would recommend another reading of Morris, who is excellent on this epistle. However, Moo's work has more meat and is very much worth getting as well. Also, Tom Schreiner gives a very detailed examination of Romans 9 in his commentary for the 'Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament'.
> 
> All that said...still the best and most detailed work on Romans 9:1-23 is John Piper's book 'The Justification of God'. It is an exegetical and theological study of Romans 9 that goes deep into the Greek text and pulls out wonderful Reformed treasures. The great Reformed scholar Dr Richard Muller said that it's "the most compelling and forceful exposition of Romans 9:1-23 that I have ever seen."



I greatly appreciate your reply - and will look again, but I don't know how I have it wrong... on page 352 he says "Throughout this section of his letter *Paul seems to have Israel as a whole primarily in mind, not individuals*, and to be *dealing with election to service rather than eternal salvation*." I know I can get things wrong, but.... are you SURE I misunderstood Morris here?


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

My apologies. Having read Morris again (and more careful) I have realized that I have been importing my theology into his writing. Going on from page 352 I thought Morris went back to a more standard Reformed position because he starts to make reference to Justification. Having stressed that the election of Jacob was not by works, I immediately took this to mean that he must be referring to election onto salvation. However, he clearly states that he takes the opposite position to John Murray on this section (which was individual election onto salvation.

Again, I'm sorry that I wasn't giving the commentary a careful reading. Even though I disagree with him here I still think Morris has value. Thanks for pushing me back to the text and the joy of having to turn up John Murray again.


----------

