Comments on: My Romans Commentaries https://oxgoad.ca/2016/01/31/my-romans-commentaries/ fundamentalism by blunt instrument Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:51:14 +0000 hourly 1 By: ox https://oxgoad.ca/2016/01/31/my-romans-commentaries/comment-page-1/#comment-107581 Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:51:14 +0000 http://oxgoad.ca/?p=2244#comment-107581 In reply to Carlos Galvan.

Hi Carlos,

Thank you for the kind comments. Well, I guess I should do something more regular here. I am so busy with Proclaim & Defend that this has become a ‘rountuit’ sort of place. Perhaps your note will inspire me to do something more regularly here. It’s not that there is a shortage of things to talk about!

I do hope you also follow P&D. We are putting out some good stuff over there.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

]]> By: Carlos Galvan https://oxgoad.ca/2016/01/31/my-romans-commentaries/comment-page-1/#comment-107574 Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:59:06 +0000 http://oxgoad.ca/?p=2244#comment-107574 I read a limited number of blogs but rarely comment in any of them. The best part about this recent blog post is that you are blogging again! I hope your time and health allows you to continue regular contributions to oxgoad. It is one blog that is worth reading.

]]> By: ox https://oxgoad.ca/2016/01/31/my-romans-commentaries/comment-page-1/#comment-107372 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 05:17:48 +0000 http://oxgoad.ca/?p=2244#comment-107372 In reply to Andy Efting.

Thanks for the note. You are probably right about Schreiner, but he made me mad with that footnote and I was already reading too many commentaries as it is.

I was in a meeting with some fellow-pastors today. One of them suggested that I should have cut out some of my lighter devotional commentaries instead, adding in the extra scholarly ones. The thing is, I value the devotional commentaries and they actually don’t take that much time to read. The devotional commentaries help with the heart of the passage, not losing sight of the forest for the trees.

I think you are probably right on the ranking, too, but not having read much of Schreiner and none of Boice/Cranfield, I have to say Murray and Moo are very close in value. Moo has all the issues surrounded, he can give you all the technical detail and (usually) a good reason for taking the view he takes. But Murray gives you the technical stuff with better heart, I think. He is a bit wordy at times, though.

Anyway, thanks again for commenting. Watch my FB page tomorrow, you’ll see what I was up to today.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

]]> By: Clovis Gentilhomme https://oxgoad.ca/2016/01/31/my-romans-commentaries/comment-page-1/#comment-107353 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 22:06:26 +0000 http://oxgoad.ca/?p=2244#comment-107353 Very interesting, to the point, critique, Tim.

]]> By: Andy Efting https://oxgoad.ca/2016/01/31/my-romans-commentaries/comment-page-1/#comment-107352 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 21:54:06 +0000 http://oxgoad.ca/?p=2244#comment-107352 Don,

I know you have expressed frustration in the past with Schreiner but I would put him up a step below Moo for thoroughness and helpfulness. Cranfield is often profound but he is very technical and sometimes too succinct. I’ve mentioned Boice to you before and I would say his four-volume work on Romans is a must have. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones can be good but he is very laborious – so laborious that he never finished before he died. Based on my experience I’d rank my commentaries:

Moo
Schreiner
Murray
Boice
Cranfield
Leon Morris
Lloyd-Jones
Hodge

]]>