Recommendation of Romans Commentary

Status
Not open for further replies.

classicalkev

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm looking for a good commentary of Romans. More expository than anything else.

A google search will provide many of course, but I would rather ask you.

Thanks.
 
Aside from the best of the "Golden Oldies," the best modern exegetical commentary on Romans is Moo's.

For expositional... it is pretty massive, but have you checked out Lloyd-Jones?
 
Aside from the best of the "Golden Oldies," the best modern exegetical commentary on Romans is Moo's.

For expositional... it is pretty massive, but have you checked out Lloyd-Jones?


All reviews gush over Moo, but have they seriously read his Romans 7 views?

That and Chapter 9 are the two I first turn to in order to see if a commentary is worth adding to the 3 dozen or so in the collection.
 
I'm currently reading about 45 commentaries on Romans in preparation for my sermons on Romans. I have not found Haldane as helpful as others seem to have, although he certainly makes good points here and there. For expository commentaries, I prefer Lloyd-Jones and Boice. One commentary I think is essential is an out of print commentary by Anders Nygren. This is an absolute jewel, especially for his sense of the flow of Romans. In fact, it is the best book I know of for getting the big picture. Sproul is okay, but it could have had greater depth. And it's missing a sermon. There's no sermon on 3:27-31. I was especially disappointed in this, because of all the hay that N.T. Wright attempts to make out of the passage. For exegetical commentaries, despite his sometimes Barthian tendencies, I find Cranfield the most helpful of the moderns. Hodge and Meyer are excellent older exegetical commentaries. Schreiner's commentary needs updating, as some of his positions have changed (he now holds to imputation, for instance). Moo I do not find as helpful as some do.
 
I'm looking for a good commentary of Romans. More expository than anything else.

A google search will provide many of course, but I would rather ask you.

Thanks.
The gentleman you picture at your heading is your solution ! Martin Llloyd Jones' Romans volumes are the best I have encountered. Actually they are sermons and not technically a commentary.
But still, anyones study will be greatly blessed by reading these volumes.
 
Actually they are sermons and not technically a commentary.




I'm assuming that is what the OP meant by expository.
 
Hodge
Shedd
Murray
Hughes
Brown
Chalmers
Stott
Plumer
Sproul
Boice
Lloyd-Jones


Stott was fine until his discourse on hominids existing for 100,000 years and possibly one of them becoming Adam. Or whatever he was getting at in that side essay in Chapter 5.

[That moment when you look up from the book and it feels like you're falling 10 floors through an elevator shaft.]
 
Aside from the best of the "Golden Oldies," the best modern exegetical commentary on Romans is Moo's.

For expositional... it is pretty massive, but have you checked out Lloyd-Jones?


All reviews gush over Moo, but have they seriously read his Romans 7 views?

That and Chapter 9 are the two I first turn to in order to see if a commentary is worth adding to the 3 dozen or so in the collection.

I think he gives ample reasoning for his view of Romans 7 describing a pre-conversion Paul, even if I don't ultimately agree with him. It's certainly not a test of orthodoxy as many seem to feel it is. I also don't agree with him on Romans 11:26 describing a future conversion of ethnic Israel, and I think his arguments here are much weaker than those for chapter 7. Otherwise it is a great commentary, and admittedly the only Romans commentary I've read.
 
Aside from the best of the "Golden Oldies," the best modern exegetical commentary on Romans is Moo's.

For expositional... it is pretty massive, but have you checked out Lloyd-Jones?


All reviews gush over Moo, but have they seriously read his Romans 7 views?

That and Chapter 9 are the two I first turn to in order to see if a commentary is worth adding to the 3 dozen or so in the collection.

I think he gives ample reasoning for his view of Romans 7 describing a pre-conversion Paul, even if I don't ultimately agree with him. It's certainly not a test of orthodoxy as many seem to feel it is. I also don't agree with him on Romans 11:26 describing a future conversion of ethnic Israel, and I think his arguments here are much weaker than those for chapter 7. Otherwise it is a great commentary, and admittedly the only Romans commentary I've read.


I fully understand that there can be reasonable disagreement on Romans 7.

And it is not a test of orthodoxy.

But a view like this on Romans 7 would not be in a book that I advise confessionally Reformed people to start with (or take to the desert island.)

At least the support is better than Reymond's attempt to justify a third way.

I don't think all the people gushing about Moo's tome read it thoroughly [imagine that...]

I vowed years ago to not recommend a book I had not absorbed, as doing so lead to embarrassing episodes.
 
The Anders Nygren commentary that Lane refers to (post #11) is: Commentary on Romans by Anders Nygren; translated from the Swedish by Carl Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949); 457 pp. Swedish original published in 1944.

Nygren (1890-1978) was Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy of Religion at the University of Lund. He was also Bishop of the Diocese of Lund in the Church of Sweden.

The commentary has been published in paperback since 1972 and should be readily available used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top