I recently finished preaching through the book of Romans. My usual method of preaching in our church is verse by verse exposition. I usually am working on one or more books of the Bible in our regular preaching sessions. I call my method \u201cthe glacial approach to exposition,\u201d which is to say, \u201cI go slow.\u201d<\/p>\n
I began my Romans series on September 23, 2007. We finished 318 messages later on November 15, 2015. Of course there were interruptions for special speakers, mini-series, special occasions and Christmas (I usually take a month or more off for Christmas, preaching on a special Christmas theme each year).<\/p>\n
My son suggested that I write up an annotative bibliography of the commentaries I used for the series. That is what this post is all about. With all that as an introduction, here is my list. I think I\u2019ve read pretty close to every word in these books:<\/p>\n
Custer, Stewart. The Righteousness of God: A Commentary on Romans<\/i>. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2007.<\/p>\n
Dr. Custer was one of my favorite professor\u2019s, a brilliant man who read \u201ca book a night\u201d with note-taking. I profited a great deal from his insight and labours. In recent years he has had health difficulties and I understand this affected his writing.<\/p>\n
I offer that preface because I was disappointed with this commentary. Occasional flashes of Dr. Custer\u2019s brilliance can be found, but the commentary is very brief and usually not much more than would be obvious to reasonably well-trained student. I used this commentary first in my studies, looking for the little gems that would show up from time to time, but I have to say that if you chose to pass this commentary by without buying it if you would miss little.<\/p>\n
I should add that I understand Dr. Custer\u2019s health has not been good and this may have affected his efforts in this and other commentaries.<\/p>\n
Denney, James. \u201cSt. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Romans.\u201d In The Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament<\/i>, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967.<\/p>\n
I forget where I heard of Denney and the Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament<\/i>. This is an older commentary on the Greek and my copy is well worn. Denney, however, has tremendous insight. One writer commented that Denney expresses liberal views at points, but I didn\u2019t detect significant problems. Almost always found something useful. Comments are brief but insightful. I think he was somewhat contemporary with Sanday & Headlam. He refers to them frequently, but has his own insight to add.<\/p>\n
Harrison, Everett F. \u201cRomans.\u201d In The Expositor\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/i>, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, Vol. 10. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.<\/p>\n
Everett Harrison was one of the original professors at Fuller Theological Seminary. I believe he was one of the more conservative faculty members. This stance is reflected in his commentary. It is relatively brief (as compared to Moo and Murray) but always has helpful material.<\/p>\n
Hodge, Charles. A Commentary on Romans<\/i>. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975.<\/p>\n
Charles Hodge was a godly Presbyterian professor at Princeton before Princeton went bad. He is well-reasoned, careful with the text, generally lets the text speak. He has decided opinions, of course, and is thoroughly Calvinistic, so I found myself arguing with him at points. Nevertheless, he has much helpful material. His commentary is well worth having, you don\u2019t have to wade through a massive analysis of contrasting opinions. He may allude to other views, but spends his time on what he thinks is the correct view. Since he is writing in the 19th<\/sup> century, he offers no help on current research. Very helpful.<\/p>\n Hoyt, Herman A. The First Christian Theology: Studies in Romans<\/i>. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1977.<\/p>\n An excellent little gem. I read about Hoyt in a column by Mark Minnick and found a used copy (the only way to get this now, I believe.) It is packed with good material. Hoyt is brief, but he is really insightful. I don\u2019t think anyone would regret purchasing this one if you can find it.<\/p>\n Ironside, H. A. Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans<\/i>. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1923.<\/p>\n A devotional commentary. Not a lot of exegetical help, but easy to read and occasionally you will find that good bit \u2026 a turn of phrase, a keen insight, etc. Worth having, though don\u2019t expect much.<\/p>\n Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans<\/i>. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1996.<\/p>\n Moo is massive. His work is probably the definitive commentary on Romans. I liked and loathed his commentary. He is fairly current, he knows the text and the issues, and will do a thorough job of discussing all alternatives known to man. He is quite helpful, but theologically he is Lutheran and ecclesiologically, he is New Evangelical, so I do have issues, sometimes severe ones, with his conclusions. He has the maddening evangelical habit of giving too much credit to unbelieving scholarly views. He is a good scholar though, and worth having.<\/p>\n Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans<\/i>. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.<\/p>\n Murray is a bit older now, but still a fine work. He is not quite as thorough as Moo, though almost, and his conclusions are generally sound. He is less affected by New Evangelicalism than Moo. If I had a limited budget for Romans, I would by Murray over Moo, but I would want both.<\/p>\n Newell, William R. Romans<\/i> Verse by Verse<\/i>. Chicago: Moody Press, 1947.<\/p>\n I love William Newell. He is not a scholar; he is a preacher. He preaches through Romans from a decidedly<\/i> fundamentalist and dispensational point of view. He is a bit dated, I would say, but he is a pleasure for his forthrightness and you will find some strong affirmations of biblical truth in his book.<\/p>\n Sanday, William, and Arthur Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans<\/i>. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992.<\/p>\n I believe S&H are Arminian in theology, though I did not notice anything that even Calvinist readers would find objectionable (though I am not a Calvinist, that is probably partly why!). Their commentary is on the Greek, they are very good with the Greek, pithy and often helpful. I think their commentary is well worth having, though they do not deal with every issue that comes up in interpreting Romans.<\/p>\n Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Right<\/i>. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1977.<\/p>\n Wiersbe is another devotional commentary. He is a tremendous outliner. You will also find some insight you can use in preaching. I like to have devotional commentaries to balance the technical ones. They are a help to keep you from being a \u201cheady\u201d preacher.<\/p>\n There you have it. I loved preaching through Romans. These books were my friends and my burden. But I think I grew a lot working through the text just as these men did. I think our people did also. On to the Acts of the Apostles, now!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I recently finished preaching through the book of Romans. My usual method of preaching in our church is verse by verse exposition. I usually am working on one or more books of the Bible in our regular preaching sessions. I call my method \u201cthe glacial approach to exposition,\u201d which is to say, \u201cI go slow.\u201d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[111,48,41,42,70],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2fYWj-Ac","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2244"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2244"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2244\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2248,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2244\/revisions\/2248"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2244"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2244"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2244"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}