Top 5-10 Romans commentaries

[JimmyH]

Thanks for this!

Does he offer any extended comment on Cranfield?

Yes he does; "Probably the best Romans commentary now available is still the new ICC work by C.EB. Cranfield (2 vol 1975-1979) Occasionally Cranfield seems more influenced by Barth than by Paul, but for thoughtful exegesis of the Greek text, with a careful weighing of alternative positions there is nothing quite like it."

The 1993 edition has 5 pages briefly evaluating commentaries of Romans alone, the 2001 revision 7 pages. He includes glosses on Karl Barth, who he has some praise for, and J.D.G. Dunn, which surprised me. He mentions the influence of Saunders on the new perspective, and specifies commentaries which address both sides of the issues growing out of that.

 

[RamistThomist]

You guys are silly. If the reading list was for a “seminary course“ expositional or practical level commentaries would rate no more than a supplemental reading. Even someone like him would only make it to a secondary reading list. There’s just been simply too much paradigm shifting scholarship that has transpired for me too leapfrog over it and pretend it didn’t happen. Only technical commentaries would be on the list. People in seminary need to learn how to engage with scholarship.

Exactly.

If you want commentaries for the lay person in the pew, then MLJ. If you want technicality, then Moo at the very least.

 

[RamistThomist]

Did Paul say "and my speech and my message were based on the very latest scholarship" in 1 Cor 2?

Try that on a seminary paper. Or even try it on a presbytery exam.

 

[RamistThomist]

I also second Carson's NT commentary survey. It reads like a joke book in how he blisters bad commentaries.

My own take, and to keep it short. (No particular order)

1. Moo
2. Murray
3. Calvin, but only because he is referenced by (1) and (2).
4. Chrysostom. He did a decent job in asking questions of the text and his handling of difficult syntax is referenced by (1) and (2).

 

[greenbaggins]

Richard, Nygren is more of a "flow of argument" type of book rather than a verse by verse commentary. I would argue that with a book like Romans, it is absolutely essential to have at least one commentary that will do that, and Nygren does it the best of any I've read.

As to Longenecker and Stott, the former, while sitting on my shelf, is not familiar enough to me such that I could venture an opinion on it. The latter, while decent enough in some places with application, doesn't have anything that Boice doesn't have (and does better!). Plus, Stott goes off the deep end in chapter 5, and is therefore somewhat unreliable.

 

[fredtgreco]

Just wondering, Fred, did you ever consult Thomas Aquinas's Commentary on Romans for your series? I read it recently (online here); there were plenty of good doctrinal observations (not so much on justification), but it was not that great exegetically.

No, I have not. I find that as a pastor, I am limited by how much sermon reading I can do. I simply don't have 25+ hours to put into each sermon. I have to be judicious with my time. So I tend to find one (or at most two) good technical commentary - here, Murray - and then I use other more exegetical and pastoral commentaries to get me thinking about applications.

 

[greenbaggins]

Murray is the best by far and away.

Murray seems to be better in the middle and later part of Romans. I found myself disagreeing with him rather a lot in the earlier part of the commentary, and found Cranfield better. The thing about Cranfield is that he lays out the options so well, and then argues cogently for the position he holds. I don't always agree with him, either, but at least I know that he has considered all the options.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

No, I have not. I find that as a pastor, I am limited by how much sermon reading I can do. I simply don't have 25+ hours to put into each sermon. I have to be judicious with my time. So I tend to find one (or at most two) good technical commentary - here, Murray - and then I use other more exegetical and pastoral commentaries to get me thinking about applications.

That makes sense. I recall when reading the critical comments in J. C. Ryle's Expository Thoughts on John that the Patristic an medieval commentaries would be worth reading for fun and occasional doctrinal insights, but pretty useless for exegesis and sermon preparation. Some of the examples of fanciful interpretations that Ryle provided even from Augustine were truly cringe-worthy.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Folks keep telling me how great John Murray is on Romans, but I wonder does his aberrant view of the covenant of works not seriously affect his interpretation of Romans 5? Moreover, what about the issue of natural revelation as it pertains to Romans 1:20 (keep in mind that I am not a presuppositionalist)?

Of course, I recognise that even if it is deficient in some areas, it can still be very good overall.

 

[Dachaser]

Just wanted to hear you all weigh in on this. If you (a) were assigning a commentary for a course on Romans in seminary & (b) wanted 5-10 commentaries to consult for preaching or teaching, which would be #1 that you would demand your students to purchase and then rank the rest of them.

John Murray
Douglas Moo
Leon Morris
Thomas Schreiner
For a classic take
Cranfield/Hodge

I have gotten the most from the one by Leon Morris....

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Try that on a seminary paper. Or even try it on a presbytery exam.

I gladly would, I was stating Pauls precise argument in context of course.

I also know if Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones were marking the seminary paper they would give me high marks because both men believed 2 Cor 2:1 ff was very important for preaching.

 

[fredtgreco]

Folks keep telling me how great John Murray is on Romans, but I wonder does his aberrant view of the covenant of works not seriously affect his interpretation of Romans 5? Moreover, what about the issue of natural revelation as it pertains to Romans 1:20 (keep in mind that I am not a presuppositionalist)?

Of course, I recognise that even if it is deficient in some areas, it can still be very good overall.

I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean "aberrant view on the covenant of works?" He does prefer different nomenclature, but his treatment of Romans 5:12-21 is excellent.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean "aberrant view on the covenant of works?" He does prefer different nomenclature, but his treatment of Romans 5:12-21 is excellent.

As I understand it, he denied the covenant of works, though some say it was just semantics. I would be interested to see what he has to say concerning the promised reward for Adam's obedience.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Plus, Stott goes off the deep end in chapter 5, and is therefore somewhat unreliable.

Do you recall how he went off the deep-end?

 

[bookslover]

D.A. Carson's 'New Testament Commentary Survey' (5th edition 2001) lists 'best buys' for single Romans commentaries as;
D.J. Moo in NIC
T.Schreiner
C.E.B. Cranfield (for advanced students)
A. Nygren
The earlier version of 1993 lists best buys as;
Cranfield
Moo (wait for NIC)
F.F. Bruce
C.K. Barrett
A. Nygren

On Nygren he says, " One of the best for the theological flow of thought in Romans is the work of Anders Nygren (Fortress 1949) Everyone who can do so who can do so should grasp his general introductory remarks on pages 16-26. Unfortunately, however, the book is inadequate as a verse-by-verse commentary."

Carson covers all of the authors of commentaries on Romans with at least a gloss. Haldane gets an honorable mention, as well as Hodge. On John Murray, "will guide you stolidly with the heavy tread of the proverbial village policeman (although with more theology; and note especially the useful appendices and notes)"

On MLJ; "Lloyd-Jones is probably not the model most preachers should imitate, but the set is easy to read, and Lloyd-Jones sometimes offers material one is hard pressed to find elsewhere--in addition to the wealth of his practical application of Scripture."

His Romans recommendations in the 7th and current edition (2013) are:

Moo
Schreiner
Cranfield

in that order. Also, Carson, who will be 72 tomorrow (12/21), has retired from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he has taught since 1978. A good 40-year run.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Exactly.

If you want commentaries for the lay person in the pew, then MLJ. If you want technicality, then Moo at the very least.

See Joel Beeke's new book Reformed Preaching. I like his balance when it comes to preaching in the context of the church.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Also, if I were teaching a seminary class on Romans, I would probably only have 1 (or maybe 2) commentaries as required texts. There would also be reading on righteousness, faith, imputation, etc. you know: the themes that are prominent in Romans that inform the rest of Scripture and vice versa.

 

[RamistThomist]

I gladly would, I was stating Pauls precise argument in context of course.

I also know if Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones were marking the seminary paper they would give me high marks because both men believed 2 Cor 2:1 ff was very important for preaching.

That's all well and good, but presbytery exams and seminary papers are going to expect technical exegesis and knowledge of textual variants, etc.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do you recall how he went off the deep-end?

Speculating, as it has been a while since I read the volume, but it is probably related to his commitment to theistic evolution and how a hominid is formed into Adam.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is the main reason I say go for the more technical resources (this works a bit better in Hebrew studies). It avoids the plagiarism problem that is currently on the Reformed scene. If you know how to work with the languages and scholarly monographs (none of which you will ever write into your sermon), then you really don't need to read that many commentaries to get a few pious insights to pad your sermon with.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Speculating, as it has been a while since I read the volume, but it is probably related to his commitment to theistic evolution and how a hominid is formed into Adam.

Thanks, Patrick. I was just thinking earlier that that might have been the issue to which Lane was alluding.

I never read the work on Romans, but the other John Stott commentaries that I did read were generally pretty good.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

There are certainly others, but here are some that I would turn to...

1. John Calvin
2. Martin Luther
3. Robert Haldane
4. Charles Hodge
5. John Brown (of Edinburgh)
6. William S. Plumer
7. Geerhardus Vos
8. John Murray
9. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
10. William Hendriksen

 

[iainduguid]

Thanks, Patrick. I was just thinking earlier that that might have been the issue to which Lane was alluding.

I never read the work on Romans, but the other John Stott commentaries that I did read were generally pretty good.

In my Th.M./Ph.D. class on Judges, I regularly assign readings in contemporary and historical pastoral resources (from Gregory of Nazianzus to Matthew Henry to John Piper and Tim Keller) alongside technical commentaries. Since my goal is to train students how to do exegesis in service of the church (and exegesis without application is necessarily incomplete), I want them to learn from and critique their forerunners and contemporaries. Having said that, I rarely read devotional commentaries in preparation for preaching from the OT, since the writers' devotional thoughts so rarely grow out of a really solid technical understanding of the text. I make an exception for Ralph Davis. The situation is probably somewhat better in the NT, but still I'm more interested in commentaries that can unpack the flow of thought of the text than technical details of text criticism, historical background and source criticism. Life is short and (unlike my good friend Rick Phillips, who devours thirty commentaries on each passage he is about to preach on), I rarely use more than about four or five regularly.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

That's all well and good, but presbytery exams and seminary papers are going to expect technical exegesis and knowledge of textual variants, etc.

We don't disaree on technical exegesis, indeed solid exegesis of the scriptures based on the original languages. We agree on this.

But I am saying something more. If Joel Beeke was one of the examiners on Presbytery he would look for two more important things:

1. Are you convinced of the importance of Reformed experiential preaching? (See his book Reformed preaching)
2. Do you know something of Paul's emphasis in 1 Cor 2 where he explicitly states "and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." An emphasis found in MLJ's and Spurgeons ministries.

I don't want to hijack the thread and have a busy couple of days, so will call it quits. But trust this clarifies.

 

[RamistThomist]

Do you know something of Paul's emphasis in 1 Cor 2 where he explicitly states "and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." An emphasis found in MLJ's and Spurgeons ministries.

Both MLJ and I are continuationists, so I agree with him on this one. Ironically, I've had far more "force" and "power" in teaching (which is my gift) from immersing myself in technical monographs than in a dozen commentaries. But that's just me.

Adolph Deissmann in his book "The Philology of the Greek Bible" makes the following statement "A single hour lovingly devoted to the text of the Septuagint will further our exegetical knowledge of the Pauline Epistles more than a whole day spent over a commentary."

No doubt he overstated it, but that's my approach to biblical studies.

 

[Ryan Kiser]

Just wanted to hear you all weigh in on this. If you (a) were assigning a commentary for a course on Romans in seminary & (b) wanted 5-10 commentaries to consult for preaching or teaching, which would be #1 that you would demand your students to purchase and then rank the rest of them.

I recommend Charles Hodge's commentary on Romans. It is part of the Geneva Series of Commentaries. Very excellent work!

 

[Taylor]

I don't think anyone is denying either the importance of technical study or deep devotion. (I'm certainly not.) But I do have a personal reflection that may help one understand my position:

The closer I got to graduating from seminary, the more frustrated I got with my biblical studies courses. It seemed that more and more we were being forced to occupy ourselves with heavily technical commentaries and resources. They dealt with everything—critical issues, textual variants, historical details, cultural specifics, etc. Yes, they dealt with everything, almost always except one thing: what the text means. I found increasingly, even when using commentaries by evangelicals, that I walked away from the study knowing everything about the surroundings of the text, yet not the text itself. Of course, I understand that all that information is important for understanding the text.

The tipping point for me was when a good friend of mine had points taken off the grade of his OT exegetical paper because he cited Calvin's Commentary on the passage, since Calvin is neither modern nor overly technical. Again, I fully understand that Calvin will not deal with modern controversies over critical theory and historical questions. Yet I never walked away from Calvin without the meaningful import of any given biblical passage weighing heavily upon my soul. But I found increasingly that, at the seminary level, we were far more focused about what Spinoza or some other God-critic theorized, to the utter exclusion of what bearing the text at hand had upon our lives. It was, frankly, life-sucking. I understand and appreciate that we need to be able to converse with these things, obviously.

So, again, I would never say that technical study is unimportant. Of course it is of immense importance. Perhaps I have just been very influenced by Rushdoony and his strong criticism of what he called "constipated theology"—theology that so interested in the abstract and theoretical that it never gets to what theology actually is, "the application of Scripture, by persons, to every area of life" (John Frame, Systematic Theology, p. 8; emphasis added). So, for me, a commentary that does not at the very least conclude with the bearing the text has on our lives is, frankly, not worth much of my time, if any at all. I realize I am drawing somewhat of a false dichotomy (i.e., that commentaries can either be only technical or only pastoral), but in my experience this seems to be the way things actually are, hence my concerns above.

 

[RamistThomist]

I guess I am different from everybody. I've never got a spiritual buzz from devotional commentaries (largely because after a while they tend to say the same things, which is perhaps why Derek Thomas got in trouble).

I get devotional buzzes from technical works.

 

[JimmyH]

I guess I am different from everybody. I've never got a spiritual buzz from devotional commentaries (largely because after a while they tend to say the same things, which is perhaps why Derek Thomas got in trouble).

I get devotional buzzes from technical works.

I am the opposite. I began a self teaching regimen in Koine Greek a couple of years ago and, as I learned vocabulary, I would feel very enthused in reading technical commentaries in which I understood some of the Greek in them.
After awhile I felt myself growing cold. For instance, I had read the 8 volume Ephesians series by MLJ, and felt the presence of God so strongly in my daily life. I read a chapter per day until I was through the series. It was as if I had batteries that were being charged daily.

I am intrigued by technical commentaries, and I learn from them, admittedly with my limited education, not appreciating the content as much as you, but they don't exhort or admonish the way that devotional material does. At least not with me at this stage of the game.

 

[Taylor]

I guess I am different from everybody. I've never got a spiritual buzz from devotional commentaries (largely because after a while they tend to say the same things, which is perhaps why Derek Thomas got in trouble).

I get devotional buzzes from technical works.

Just to be clear, I’m not after some “buzz,” but rather edification. And I agree with you, I am often very edified by technical commentaries, but not by virtue of mere technical discussion (which I do enjoy), but when that technical discussion is brought to bear upon the meaning of the passage for God’s people. That’s all.