How many Romans Commentaries do we need?

Status
Not open for further replies.
All right, all right! I guess there must be room on people's shelves for more commentaries. I just feel that if I were a scholar found myself agreeing with Calvin's or Luther's, or whom-have-you's commentary, I wouldn't bother writing one myself. Perhaps I'm too practical to be a serious student. But, as the Preacher said, "of the writing of books there is no end"
I wish you all much profit from your studies.
 
I'm assuming you've come to a conclusion on what the cut off point is for the ONE valid interpretation ? Please enlighten me, was it the Church Fathers, or subsequent exegesis ? Inquiring minds want to know.

For those, such as myself, who continue to value the efforts of those who continue to search the Scriptures, Stephen Westerholm's 'Perspectives Old And New On Paul,' gives a wonderful overview of the major contending viewpoints on the New Perspective.

https://www.amazon.com/Perspectives...And+New+On+Paul&qid=1592229282&s=books&sr=1-1
Well, do you think there's more than ONE interpretation for each passage? That each one might mean different things for different people? Wouldn't that militate against inerrancy? As for which historic option is correct, well, you and I already disagree on the subject of Baptism, but both our views go back hundreds of years. Surely there's not a common third principle on baptism that no one has discovered yet but is actually the right one.
And so my point in asking, is there any nuance left in Romans that hasn't been hashed out in the last 2000 years of diligent inquiry?
The consensus, to my astonishment, seems to be that there is.
 
2 Timothy 3:7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The OP has a point; what does it profit to fill the head with knowledge if wisdom and understanding is not gained? John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Fleshly knowledge pertains to the mechanical facts which we need to know, but the truth, spiritual truth comes only by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ Jesus the King. The Spirit of Christ enables the word of God and all natural revelation to edify us in the knowledge of Christ.
 
The OP has a point; what does it profit to fill the head with knowledge if wisdom and understanding is not gained?

That begs the question that those writing Romans commentaries are just after head knowledge. That's poisoning the well. But if that's the case, then we need to pass similar judgment on Luther/Melancthon/Calvin/Hodge/Haldane/Murray because they just wrote new commentaries instead of being content with the old ones.
 
That begs the question that those writing Romans commentaries are just after head knowledge. That's poisoning the well. But if that's the case, then we need to pass similar judgment on Luther/Melancthon/Calvin/Hodge/Haldane/Murray because they just wrote new commentaries instead of being content with the old ones.
Heresy is a work of the flesh; until heresy is mortified, one should not publish anything, otherwise their work will be a work of their flesh and not the Spirit of God.
 
Heresy is a work of the flesh; until heresy is mortified, one should not publish anything, otherwise their work will be a work of their flesh and not the Spirit of God.
??????

Again, that begs the question that the person is "of the flesh" and a heretic. You gave a fairly true proposition that has nothing to do with the issue at stake.
 
??????

Again, that begs the question that the person is "of the flesh" and a heretic. You gave a fairly true proposition that has nothing to do with the issue at stake.
Certainly not. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Romans 8:13. I am merely saying that a babe in Christ who has not attained to a measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, should not be one to publish anything. If one thinks one has attained, so be it, if they think they can edify others, so be it, God will judge. The Spirit of God gives power unto words spoken by the regenerate, where before their words were without power and effect.
 
Last edited:
Certainly not. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Romans 8:13. I am merely saying that a babe in Christ who has not attained to a measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, should not be one to publish anything. If one thinks one has attained, so be it, if they think they can edify others, so be it, God will judge. The Spirit of God gives power unto words spoken by the regenerate, where before their words were without power and effect.
Well, by this metric, no one would ever publish anything. Who could say of himself "I've attained the stature of the fullness of Christ?" Rubbish. I don't deny the usefulness of commentaries: I question the need for yet another one. Evidently, most here are eager for more commentaries. Perhaps the answer to "how many?" is: "as many as the market will bear"
 
Certainly not. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Romans 8:13. I am merely saying that a babe in Christ who has not attained to a measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, should not be one to publish anything. If one thinks one has attained, so be it, if they think they can edify others, so be it, God will judge. The Spirit of God gives power unto words spoken by the regenerate, where before their words were without power and effect.

This has nothing to do with the thread.
 
Well, by this metric, no one would ever publish anything. Who could say of himself "I've attained the stature of the fullness of Christ?" Rubbish. I don't deny the usefulness of commentaries: I question the need for yet another one. Evidently, most here are eager for more commentaries. Perhaps the answer to "how many?" is: "as many as the market will bear"

That's the key question. A good publisher will ask what this book does that the others don't. That doesn't rule out Romans commentaries, but it leaves them to guys like Moo, Murray, and Schreiner.
 
until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ Eph 4:13 (ESV)
 
Overall, there are three legitimate reasons for new commentaries:

1. New light on Scripture;
2. Summarizing/incorporating scholarly developments;
3. Presenting material in a form that contemporaries can understand and digest.

With number 3, of course it will be the case that new commentaries continue to be written, even if they don't really add anything to the existing body of interpretation. If number 2 is done well, a new commentary might justify its existence by an ability to supersede several older commentaries. Number one does happen, though not very often. With regard to number one, Dr. Marcus Mininger, mentioned above in this thread, has the latest actually new insight into Romans that I am aware of. If I'm remembering his classroom articulation clearly, commentaries are not where one would most expect new light, because the constraints of the format, the limitations of the approach, and the requirements of publishers impose certain disadvantages. One of the places where new light has broken forth is in the area of structure; and a commentary with its verse-by-verse (or paragraph-by-paragraph) approach is not ideally suited for drawing that out.

It would probably be good for many to work through James Durham's analysis of whether a pastor should consider himself called to write or not. Although in one sense we certainly have too few books, part of the reason is that we have so many that go over the same territory in the same way. After a while, the prefaces to the different commentary series blur together because they're all trying to claim uniqueness using the same small circle of buzzwords.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top