The Epistle to the Romans

Surely there will be someone else writing about this book, so I'm going try to help you in another way. When you start reading biblical commentaries you will need to be aware that the thoughts expressed by the author deal with facts and speculations that should of happened. You can NEVER rely on only one commentary to affirm something about the Bible. You need at least three good commentaries. Try to read biblical commentaries from different confessions of faith (e.g., Calvinism vs. Arminianism; Pentecostal vs. non-Pentecostal; Catholic vs. Protestant; Egalitarian vs. Complementarian; Amillennialism vs. Premillennialism vs. Postmillennialism; etc). Look for their arguments: What do they agree or disagree on? Which of them is closest to the biblical text? It's not a sin to read commentaries written from other points of view. You will notice that what is fact or solid argument will be seen over and over on different commentaries, so you will start learning what is speculation and what is not. As Haddon W. Robinson said in his book, Biblical Preaching, (second edition, page 22), "In approaching a passage, we must be willing to reexamine our doctrinal convictions and to reject the judgments of our most respected teachers." Remember, a commentary is not the biblical text. Do not replace the authority of the Bible with a commentary. The same apply for Study Bibles. The study notes there are not written by "apostles and prophets," so never confuse the "gospel" with the teacher or preacher. Learn to separate it. Commentaries are important because nobody can get a poem from one language and translate it with the same structure to another language. This simply does not exist. Words, phrases, and sentences are rooted in a specific time, culture and custom. About Bibles, the best way is to check different translations, but be cautious about a very loose translation. For you to appreciate any biblical commentary you need to know what level of reading you are. I'm going call them beginner, intermediate and advanced. I recommend the following biblical commentaries that you can start from. All of them have both Old Testament and New Testament. (If you're thinking of buying the whole set, look for the CD edition; it's cheaper and you can take it with you where you go.) Beginner - NIV Application Commentary (NIVAC) by Zondervan. (or) The Bible Speaks Today Series (BST) by IVP (This is a growing series and not yet complete.) Intermediate - New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) and New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT) by Eerdmans Advanced - Word Biblical Commentary (WBC) by Thomas Nelson These are basic commentaries on their own level, but there are a lot of commentaries today, so don't forget to look for more information. Maybe you can get information from one of these: (1) Commentary and Reference Survey: A Comprehensive Guide to Biblical and Theological Resources by John Glynn, (2) New Tes

Leon Morris always does a solid job, and this commentary is no exception. He deals with the text, presents his interpretations on the tricky parts (which is the main reason an exegete should use a commentary), and uses sound exegetical technique throughout. I highly recommend this as a comprehensive and solid commentary on the Letter to the Romans.

This is the second commentary I have by Leon Morris. Also, I appreciate being able to access this book on my computer. Leon Morris' commentaries are excellent publications, great assets to comprehensive Bible study.

Back in January I started a slow study through Romans along with the Pillar New Testament Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans written by Leon Morris. This morning, I finished the study. When I started the study, I was looking to walk through something that wouldn't spend too much time teaching the reader how to apply the text (not that that's a bad thing) but would spend more time exegeting the actual text and leave the application up to the individual. That's quite exactly what this commentary did; I know that has a name, but I'm not accustomed to it. The format of the commentary is simple and familiar. A block of scripture is laid out, followed by a deconstruction and explanation of each verse. Explanations on any one verse ranged anywhere from one or two sentences, up to three or four pages, but with most of them coming in around two paragraphs. Multiple verses are scarcely combined into one comment. The first four chapters of Romans make up about forty percent of the commentary, as much of the foundation for the Apostle's theological statement fall within those chapters. Morris has a manner of writing that communicates an appealing sense of humility. While he holds his particular views, he also (usually) uncritically presents the opposing views and the arguments for all of them. During my reading of the book, this style helped me to look at the text and think critically for myself about what is said. In the majority of cases, Morris' standpoint is the most rational and represents of the majority view of bible scholars. Morris is clearly a member of the reformed theology tradition, but in his writing he presents himself as firstly committed to scripture. This comes out clearly in several places in which he is not at all afraid to unpack scripture that appears `dangerous' to reformed thought. Rather than trying to fanangle the scripture, he treats in plainly and openly. Although it's based on the NIV, the PNTC Epistle to the Romans comes across as a scholarly commentary. It finishes out at about 550 pages and spends a good deal of time on linguistics and Greek. Looking back on the commentary, I have only two real criticisms. The first criticism being that it's not too clear why the commentary was based on the NIV. In Morris' comments he regularly makes reference to NIV having "missed the mark"; not every time, but often enough to make one wonder why they didn't just go with the ESV (a translation that Morris regularly refers back to with fond words). The other criticism is that Morris places a lot of information within parenthesis. This makes reading choppy at times. Had the parenthetical information been placed in the footnotes, reading would have been much clearer and smoother. Both of these are minor concerns. All in all, this is a good commentary that I recommend as a reference tool to anyone, and a good tool for a student's private study. The average reader may not benefit from purchasing this commentary purely for reference, as

Murray's commentary on Romans is the best 20th century treatment of the work, easily beating Barth's earlier work. Tying in with his "Redemption Accomplished and Applied", Murray seizes the main theme of Romans, our justification, and carefully exegetes the book with a continual thought to the overall theme