Getting Ready for Romans

[bookslover]

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]

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]

I would also recommend Hendriksen.

 

[RamistThomist]

Moo

 

[Ed Walsh]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Justified]

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

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

You might consider William Swan Plumer, published by Kregel.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

 

[JimmyH]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[arapahoepark]

I heard Stanley Porter has a good exegetical commentary.

 

[timmopussycat]

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

 

[arapahoepark]

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

Looks like it just came out....

 

[Peairtach]

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

 

[MW]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[bookslover]

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]

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

Looks like it just came out....

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]

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]

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.