Romans
Romans

Romans

in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

by Thomas R. Schreiner

5 Rank Score: 5.16 from 2 reviews, 0 featured collections, and 6 user libraries
Pages 1040
Publisher Baker Academic
Published 2018
ISBN-13 9781540960054
This substantive evangelical commentary on Romans by a leading biblical scholar is one of the most popular in the award-winning BECNT series and has been praised as a great preaching commentary. This new edition, updated and revised throughout, reflects Thomas Schreiner's mature thinking on various interpretive issues. As with all BECNT volumes, this commentary features the author's detailed interaction with the Greek text, extensive research, thoughtful verse-by-verse exegesis, and a user-friendly design. It admirably achieves the dual aims of the series--academic sophistication with pastoral sensitivity and accessibility--making it a useful tool for pastors, church leaders, students, and teachers.

Reviews

Add Your Review

BrandonSCorley BrandonSCorley June 27, 2022
I do also want to say that I believe Schreiner is wrong on 10:5. He denies the Mosaic Covenant is a typological covenant of works on page 540, even though he seems to go in this direction at the bottom of 541 and top of 542. His reason for doing so is that the Mosaic Covenant was given to a people "redeemed from Egypt by God's grace". Because God "saved his people and then gave them the law" it is not legalistic. Yet this misunderstands what people mean when they say the covenant is a covenant of works. Yes, the making of the covenant and God's redemption of Israel is out of grace (as all covenants are; God has no obligation to covenant with any man), yet the covenant itself is based on the principle of works in order to stay in the land. This "get in by grace, stay in by works" scheme is the exact same thing that Schreiner opposes in N.T. Wright! So he knows such a scheme is legalistic in Wright, but he fails to see that the Sinai covenant itself was intentionally a legalistic (i.e. works based) covenant typological of Israel as the New Adam and ultimately of Jesus, the Son of God and His obedience. Apart from that, great commentary; just supplement with Moo.
BrandonSCorley BrandonSCorley March 16, 2022
Of all the Romans commentaries I've read (and I've read nearly all of them since Cranfield), I consider this one to be the most accurate of them all. I have one disagreement with Schreiner on Romans 8:4, on which I think Doug Moo has the correct interpretation, but apart from that, I think this to be the best commentary available. While Moo's commentary is certainly meatier and will provide you with more information, Schreiner will always point you in the right direction, and for that reason, I go with quality over quantity.