News

I have found that N.T. Wright's commentary on Romans in Volume 10 of the New Interpreter's Bible to be my go-to source for understanding Romans. Wright may be the most accomplished Romans scholar of our day and he brings an understanding of Romans that ties the whole book together into a comprehensive message that Paul was communicating to the church in Rome to support his ministry in the years to come (albeit limited by future events unknown to Paul at the time of his writing).

I'm currently working through the book myself. I've found several commentaries to be helpful, more or less helpful from time to time. Wright's is one of them. I'd add a couple others: first, one of the most interesting and helpful to me has been Aaron Sherwood's Commentary, written for Lexham Press, it is good and has unique perspectives that are excellent. He also wrote a book entitled: The Word has not Failed: Paul's use of the Old Testament in Romans 9. This one was very interesting and helpful as well. For the original languages, Harvey has two editions on Romans and both are helpful and not a regurgitation of one another: A Commentary on Romans by Kregel and Romans in the EGGNT. I'd also recommend both Longenecker (NIGNT) and Bird (The Story of the Bible Commentary). Thielman has a fairly new commentary in the ZECNT series, it is also excellent. One more, Peterson has done a recent commentary in the EBTC (Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary) again by Lexham Press. Each of these has been helpful to me in my study of this amazing book. Enjoy!

Raymond and David, I thank you for the kindness of taking the time to respond. I have purchased several of your recommendations and thank God for the wisdom He has blessed you with.

I always thought God did it because, he is able to break into and to overshadow any religion, astrology or "heathen" nation, and without affirming it. But - abit like Paul on Areopagos. He breaks into the unknown. And abit like John 3,16: He is for the whole world. He can command every false prophet to speak right. He break into any false astrology system, and use their system for them selves, as a way to abolish it: Who needs astrology after Jesus have come with Peace for the Whole Earth ? And lastly: the heathen was invited at his birth, because he was king of all the nations. And yes - I think you are right. Nobody else was willing to go, that is especially true of these times, and probably also then.

Yes, and all that He does is centered out of His love. So while hypothetically He could break into and overshadow, His love would lead Him to not coerce. Romans 8:28, He works all things together, or synergy. Not addition rather multiplication in harmonizing even the bad and the sinful to bring the best. “Looking for the jewel. amongst the rubbish”

Terry Wildman thank you for this insight!

@Fred Sprinkle Thank you for inserting the author’s clarification. I read it together with the preceding paragraph I insert below: “Second, I have frequently used ‘god’ instead of ‘God’. This is not a printer’s error, nor is it a deliberate irreverence; rather the opposite, in fact. The modern usage, without the article and with a capital, seems to me actually dangerous. This usage, which sometimes amounts to regarding ‘God’ as the proper name of the Deity, rather than as essentially a common noun, implies that all users of the word are monotheists and, within that, that all monotheists believe in the same god. Both these propositions seem to me self-evidently untrue. It may or may not be true that any worship of any god is translated by some mysterious grace into worship of one god who actually exists, and who happens to be the only god. That is believed by some students of religion. It is not, however, believed by very many practitioners of the mainline monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) or of the non-monotheistic ones (Hinduism, Buddhism and their cognates). Certainly the Jews and Christians of the first century did not believe it. They believed that pagans worshipped idols, or even demons. (The question as to how Jews and Christians regarded each other’s beliefs on this topic will be addressed in Part V of the present volume.) ”  n.t.wright: “The early Christians used the phrase ‘the god’ (ho theos) of this god, and this was (I believe) somewhat polemical, making an essentially Jewish-monotheistic point over against polytheism. In a world where there were many suns, one would not say ‘the sun’.” I checked in the Greek grammars. I translate from German: „The article before θεός doesn't mean in NT “the God” (a certain, well known one among many others), but simply ‘God’ (the only One). Why is the article in NT there while we omit it? The people in the ancient world believed in many gods. Through the article used, the only God stood from them out. In the West influenced by the Christendom, thinking of God, we think of the only and true God. That is why we leave the article out.” (W. Stoy, K. Haag and W. Haubeck, “Bibel Griechisch leicht gemacht“, p. 33). This is an excerpt from an English book: „John 3:10 ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ ᾽Ισραήλ - the teacher of Israel  There were many teachers of Israel, but Nicodemus was either well known or, if the article is par excellence, the number one professor on the Gallup poll! Often ‘the gospel’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) and ‘the Lord’ (ὁ κύριος) employ articles par excellence. In other words, there was only one gospel and one Lord worth mentioning as far as the early Christians were concerned.” And in the footnote he writes: “ὁ θεός also may be regarded as par excellence rather than monadic in many contexts. This is not to say that to the NT writers there were many gods, but that there were many entities and beings called θεός. Only one truly deserved the name.” (Daniel B. Wallace, “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”, p. 223) @Terry Wildman We have to remember that the first manuscripts until 9th century were uncial. “About the beginning of the 9th cent. a new style of script was introduced (known as ‘minuscule’)” (Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (Eds.). (2005). In “The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church” (3rd ed. rev., p. 1037). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.). “Uncial” this means that all the letters were capital. Only from the beginning of the 9th century the manuscripts were minuscule – in small letters.

@Placyd Thanks for the correction, however the effect is the same. It is interesting that the definite article might be the designator, but I am not sure that is always the case.

He's a more better writer than I thought.  My most bestest book

Thank you!

He seems to focus more on bearing the "image of God" than of Jesus specifically. But he says this in his book "Paul: Fresh Perspectives" in a the section on 1 Corinthians 15: "The end result is the creation of a new type of human beings, once more in the image of God but now, more specifically, in the image of the risen Messiah: as we have born the image of the earthly human being, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly one."

That is very helpful.  Thanks!

Insightful and helpful. Thanks for sharing.