Best material on Romans

[pm]

Hi, I am preparing for a Bible Study on Romans. There is so much material on Romans I will never be able to read it all. I would appreciate suggestions on what you consider the very best material on Romans, especially from a Reformed point of view.

When I talk about material I am asking about commentaries, articles, summaries, timelines, overviews, themes, etc, etc, etc.

Thanks in advance.

 

[christiana]

Tom Schreiner and/or Douglas Moo

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I prefer John Murray's commentary on Romans.

 

[KMK]

I recently finished preaching through Romans and what most impressed me was the commentary by John Brown of Wamphrey here: An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul ... - Google Book Search

It is more expositional than exegetical so I don't know if that is what you need for a Bible Study.

Others: Hodge, Plummer, Haldane

 

[OPC'n]

Romans is my favorite NT book thanks for the links!

 

[chbrooking]

To quote Dick Gaffin, "Get Murray!" I did, and I've never found anything better.

 

[he beholds]

My husband led a small group Sunday School class on Romans once where we [each member of the class] each read from a different commentary in preparation for the week's discussion. We also have Murray, and that's what my husband used--it was great. I borrowed Sproul's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-God-R-C-Sproul/dp/1857924908/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1244035419&sr=1-1"]Gospel of God: Romans[/ame] and I liked it too. Murray's is more exhaustive and does more with the language and history, but Sproul's is very easy to understand and he really did bring the text to light. But I do read Murray's, and it is not difficult to understand, either. It is more like a textbook, whereas Sproul's is more like a teacher, if you know what I mean.

 

[CharlieJ]

Tom Schreiner and/or Douglas Moo

I agree. Moo wrote the most exhaustive Romans commentary I've ever seen, and Schreiner's has the best balance of big picture/detail.

Schreiner or Moo plus a few other older commentaries (like Hodge) would be great.

 

[Beth Ellen Nagle]

Does anyone know if the older edition of Murray's book on Romans is substantially different than the newer edition?

 

[fredtgreco]

I would start with Murray. Haldane is also a good choice.

 

[rbcbob]

To quote Dick Gaffin, "Get Murray!" I did, and I've never found anything better.

 

[Reformed Thomist]

Calvin, Haldane, Hodge, Murray, Moo.

 

[Whitefield]

My vote is for Schreiner.

 

[pm]

Thank you.

Thank you for the great suggestions, and I have several of the commentaries mentioned.

But I wondering, no one suggested D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones massive work. Or Matthew Henry, or John Stott, or even Piper's on line sermons on Romans. Just wondering.

Again, thank you.

 

[DMcFadden]

in my opinion, Calvin, Haldane, Hodge, Murray, Morris, Cranfield, Moo, and Schreiner are the best.
Most folks today prefer either Moo or Schreiner for an up-to-date commentary.

Stay away from the WBC on Romans. Also you can safely ignore Barth (except for historical reasons). Lloyd-Jones is rich but way too much unless you have unlimited time. Edwards, Witherington, and Barrett are also quite good, but unnecessary if you have Moo.

 

[Repre5entYHWH]

Holman New Testament Commentary - Romans by Kenneth Boa i found was good and not a normal commentary

 

[Romans922]

MURRAY.

Lloyd-Jones is probably too detailed for Sunday School.

Schriener and Moo, I would vote against.

MURRAY!!!!

 

[ClayPot]

Thank you for the great suggestions, and I have several of the commentaries mentioned.

But I wondering, no one suggested D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones massive work. Or Matthew Henry, or John Stott, or even Piper's on line sermons on Romans. Just wondering.

Again, thank you.

I listened to whole Romans series by Dr. Piper and found it very useful personally and I grew a lot over the course over the series. However, I have not read a lot of commentaries so I'm not sure how Piper's sermons would stack up. However, I do know that John Piper's sermons aren't meant to be commentaries. He does often discuss various interpretations of a passage and why he favors a certain understanding, but there is no way he is going to go into as much detail as a commentary. Instead of listening to the sermons, I would suggest that you read them from the Desiring God website. The sermons can be very lengthy and you could probably read the information much quicker than you could listen to the sermon.

 

[Reformed Thomist]

Lloyd-Jones is rich but way too much unless you have unlimited time.

 

[bookslover]

Someone in a post above mentioned Cranfield. Let me second that. Cranfield's commentary (the second volume of which is 30 years old this year) does a thorough job in explaining Romans. Plus, he highlights Paul's theology everywhere. In addition, unlike too many commentaries, Cranfield is an elegant writer; it is a very well-written commentary.

Cranfield, by the way, will be 94 in September.

 

[he beholds]

Thank you for the great suggestions, and I have several of the commentaries mentioned.

But I wondering, no one suggested D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones massive work. Or Matthew Henry, or John Stott, or even Piper's on line sermons on Romans. Just wondering.

Again, thank you.

In the class I described, one of the members did read from Stott, and I do remember thinking a few times, "What a great point!" but I've never read it myself. From what I can tell/remember, it was also easy to understand.

 

[greenbaggins]

Schreiner's commentary is in need of revision, since he has changed his position on imputation. He didn't believe that imputation was a correct way of looking at justification when he wrote his Romans commentary. He changed by the time he wrote his theology of Paul. Hopefully, he will revise the Romans commentary sometime. In terms of solid, Reformed commentary, you cannot do better than Murray and Haldane. Murray's commentary never went to a second edition of which I am aware. The new edition is only an exact reprinting. I would recommend Moo, not because he is fully Reformed (he isn't), but because he is just about the only solid commentary on Romans who interacts with (and refutes) the New Perspective on Paul. Moo is also off in his interpretation of chapter 7, in my opinion. But Moo is also encyclopedic. Cranfield is also of exceptional quality (his strength is in laying out the arguments for various positions fairly and clearly). However, it is a very technical commentary. I'm surprised no one has mentioned Morris's good contribution to the Pillar series, which I would recommend. Shedd's commentary is outstanding. In fact, the late S. Lewis Johnson thought that Shedd's commentary was the best one out there (Johnson taught through the Greek text of Romans at least 15 times). Anders Nygren has written a commentary that helps greatly with the flow of argumentation. Hodge's commentary is also very sound, although Murray has picked up on all the best insights of Hodge. Stott and Barnett would be very good on the more popular side. I understand that Guy Waters might eventually write a commentary on Romans. Watch out for that one if it comes!

 

[speric]

What about Barnhouses's commentaries on Romans?

 

[greenbaggins]

What about Barnhouses's commentaries on Romans?

Barnhouse is not really a commentary on Romans. He takes Romans as a point of departure, and then really departs from the actual text to talk about mostly topical stuff. Not that he is heretical or anything. It's just not really a commentary. I would go with Boice over Barnhouse any day.

 

[speric]

What about Barnhouses's commentaries on Romans?

Barnhouse is not really a commentary on Romans. He takes Romans as a point of departure, and then really departs from the actual text to talk about mostly topical stuff. Not that he is heretical or anything. It's just not really a commentary. I would go with Boice over Barnhouse any day.

Good point. I never read Boice on Romans. Duly noted for future reference.

 

[DMcFadden]

Schreiner's commentary is in need of revision, since he has changed his position on imputation. He didn't believe that imputation was a correct way of looking at justification when he wrote his Romans commentary. He changed by the time he wrote his theology of Paul. Hopefully, he will revise the Romans commentary sometime. In terms of solid, Reformed commentary, you cannot do better than Murray and Haldane. Murray's commentary never went to a second edition of which I am aware. The new edition is only an exact reprinting. I would recommend Moo, not because he is fully Reformed (he isn't), but because he is just about the only solid commentary on Romans who interacts with (and refutes) the New Perspective on Paul. Moo is also off in his interpretation of chapter 7, in my opinion. But Moo is also encyclopedic. Cranfield is also of exceptional quality (his strength is in laying out the arguments for various positions fairly and clearly). However, it is a very technical commentary. I'm surprised no one has mentioned Morris's good contribution to the Pillar series, which I would recommend. Shedd's commentary is outstanding. In fact, the late S. Lewis Johnson thought that Shedd's commentary was the best one out there (Johnson taught through the Greek text of Romans at least 15 times). Anders Nygren has written a commentary that helps greatly with the flow of argumentation. Hodge's commentary is also very sound, although Murray has picked up on all the best insights of Hodge. Stott and Barnett would be very good on the more popular side. I understand that Guy Waters might eventually write a commentary on Romans. Watch out for that one if it comes!

Umm. See post #15, Rev. Keister.

I never purchased Shedd. At one time, I was using 27 commentaries on Romans but never got Shedd. Thanks for the tip. As usual, your bibliographic suggestions are excellent and reflect the maturity of one who has been in ministry much longer than you have, Mr. Greenbaggins.

My warning to stay away from Dunn should be repeated. Just say NOOOOO. His "evangelicalism" is never all that evangelical and he flirts with too many bad ideas (e.g., NPP).

 

[greenbaggins]

Schreiner's commentary is in need of revision, since he has changed his position on imputation. He didn't believe that imputation was a correct way of looking at justification when he wrote his Romans commentary. He changed by the time he wrote his theology of Paul. Hopefully, he will revise the Romans commentary sometime. In terms of solid, Reformed commentary, you cannot do better than Murray and Haldane. Murray's commentary never went to a second edition of which I am aware. The new edition is only an exact reprinting. I would recommend Moo, not because he is fully Reformed (he isn't), but because he is just about the only solid commentary on Romans who interacts with (and refutes) the New Perspective on Paul. Moo is also off in his interpretation of chapter 7, in my opinion. But Moo is also encyclopedic. Cranfield is also of exceptional quality (his strength is in laying out the arguments for various positions fairly and clearly). However, it is a very technical commentary. I'm surprised no one has mentioned Morris's good contribution to the Pillar series, which I would recommend. Shedd's commentary is outstanding. In fact, the late S. Lewis Johnson thought that Shedd's commentary was the best one out there (Johnson taught through the Greek text of Romans at least 15 times). Anders Nygren has written a commentary that helps greatly with the flow of argumentation. Hodge's commentary is also very sound, although Murray has picked up on all the best insights of Hodge. Stott and Barnett would be very good on the more popular side. I understand that Guy Waters might eventually write a commentary on Romans. Watch out for that one if it comes!

Umm. See post #15, Rev. Keister.

I never purchased Shedd. At one time, I was using 27 commentaries on Romans but never got Shedd. Thanks for the tip. As usual, your bibliographic suggestions are excellent and reflect the maturity of one who has been in ministry much longer than you have, Mr. Greenbaggins.

My warning to stay away from Dunn should be repeated. Just say NOOOOO. His "evangelicalism" is never all that evangelical and he flirts with too many bad ideas (e.g., NPP).

I didn't read your post carefully enough, Dennis. Sorry! Morris is good on almost everything he says.

 

[dbroyles]

Definitely get John Murray. If you procure an old hardback, make sure it contains both volumes (all 16 chapters). There are plenty of early vol. I singles out there. The easiest thing would be to just order a new paperback from Amazon. It is still published as two volumes, each with its own contents, indexes, and appendices, but in one physical book.

I agree with Rev. Keister on the editions of this commentary. The 2 volumes are simply reprints of the originals.

I find satisfactory explanations with Murray more often than with any other commentary on Romans. The last paragraph of the Author's Preface illustrates why this commentary should be treasured. Dr. Murray writes:

"It would be culpable beyond words to close this preface without making the acknowledgment that is supreme. The epistle to the Romans is God's Word. Its theme is the gospel of his grace, and the gospel bespeaks the marvels of his condescension and love. If we are not overwhelmed by the glory of that gospel and ushered into the holy of holies of God's presence, we have missed the grand purpose of this sacred deposit. And it is only because the God of grace has put treasure in earthen vessels that we men have been given the task and privilege of undertaking exposition. If any success has attended this effort it is only of the grace of the Holy Spirit by whose inspiration the epistle was written and by whose illumination the church has been led in the interpretation of it. Profound humility should always be ours. The excellency of the power is of God and not of us and to him alone be all praise and glory."