# Moo's Commentary on Romans (NICNT)



## RamistThomist (Oct 1, 2020)

Moo, Douglas J. _The Epistle to the Romans. _New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

This is a near-perfect commentary in every way. It is a model of judicious, analytical reasoning yet always with an eye to the church. To better serve the theology student, this won't be a standard book review. I am going to highlight many of the key exegetical moves Moo makes, so that you will know what to look for.

*1:16*. "Paul's ministry to the Gentles derives from his understanding that the Gospel itself as eschatological revelation that fulfills the OT promises about the universal reign of Yahweh" (68).

Per the "righteousness of God," I will deal with Moo's position in his comments on the New Perspective. Justification, of course, is the verdict of a judge, not a moral transformation.

_Works of the Law_

If Jews were not insisting on works as a means of salvation, it's not clear then why Paul brings up the contrast between faith and works (217).

*3:25*. Defends propitiation as a legitimate translation given the background of God's wrath. The connotations involved with expiation, however, should not be dismissed. Cleansing from guilt is an important part.

*4:18*. Abraham's faith is not an existentialist leap in the dark, but a leap from "the evidence of his senses into the security of God's word and promise" (283).

*6:4, *passim. Paul makes baptism the means (_dia_) by which we are buried with Christ, not the place (361). Baptism mediates such a union. It does not contain it.

*Romans 7*. Moo deviates slightly from the traditional view that Paul is talking about the current struggles of a Christian. Moo sees the text as making more sense in light of Israel and Torah. Of course, he denies the Christian can be sinless in this life.

"Israel stands in redemptive history as kind of a 'test case'" (417).

*Romans 9*. Moo adopts the standard Calvinist reading, but notes that we shouldn't abstract it from the history of Israel. It's important to notice that "spiritual Israel" means the remnant of God's people. It is a group within ethnic Israel (574).

*Romans 11*. Key problem: How will "All Israel be saved"? Israel's hardening will be removed when a numerical completion of the gentiles happens (719).

*26a*. Does the _toutos_ mean "in this way" or "and thus?" Grammatically, it seems to be the former. Moo notes, however, that it also has a temporal reference (720). Of course, it can't mean the church in this passage, and Moo marshals a number of arguments against such a view: Israel has meant "ethnic Israel" at least ten times in this pericope. Paul wouldn't suddenly shift to the church without warning. It would also imply a partial hardening on the church.

*Romans 13*. The simplest reading requires obedience to authorities, even if they are bad. Civil disobedience, understood properly, is allowed but not so much in taking up arms against the government.

_Chiasms_

Romans 2:6-11

A. God will judge everyone equitably (6)
B. Those who do good will attain eternal life (7)
C. Those who do evil will suffer wrath (8)
C' Wrath for those who do evil (9)
B' Glory for those who do good (10)
A' God judges impartially (11).

*Conclusion*

Working through this commentary will teach you how to think analytically.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 1, 2020)

I understand the second edition to be a fairly well updated version.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Oct 1, 2020)

I’m not sure which edition this is, but Logos has this commentary at a significant discount this month here.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 1, 2020)

Carson is completely out of the picture now?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 1, 2020)

ZackF said:


> Carson is completely out of the picture now?



Carson's reputation precedes him, but Moo might win in terms of size.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 1, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> I understand the second edition to be a fairly well updated version.


Hopefully, he has updated it on the 'righteousness' language per Irons, Horton, Gordon, etc. Last time I perused through it, he opted for an eclectic definition.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 2, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Carson's reputation precedes him, but Moo might win in terms of size.


I goofed. I was confusing their NT commentary with this. I have the Romans by Murray.


----------



## bookslover (Oct 3, 2020)

Has D. A. Carson written a commentary on Romans? I was unaware of that, if true. I know about his commentary on John, which will be 30 years old next year.


----------



## ArminianOnceWas (Oct 3, 2020)

Interestingly, I spoke to a teaching assistant of Carson's from 1998 and another from 2019, twenty years apart, and evidently, D.A. committed to writing about 6 commentaries in the 1990's that still aren't published yet.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 3, 2020)

ZackF said:


> I goofed. I was confusing their NT commentary with this. I have the Romans by Murray.



Yes, I understand that Moo replaced Murray in the NICNT series.


----------



## Susan777 (Oct 3, 2020)

I keep reading the post title as Mao’s Commentary on Romans.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 3, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> I keep reading the post title as Mao’s Commentary on Romans.


That exact kind of thing routinely happens to me when I read thread titles!


----------



## bookslover (Oct 3, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> I keep reading the post title as Mao’s Commentary on Romans.



I did exactly the same thing when I first encountered the thread! A commentary by Mao? That would be Commie Commentary.


----------

