Introduction

I read the 612 pages of the text book as required. I also read the entire Epistle to Romans three times as required. I played the King James Version of Romans on my car cassette player several times.

Because I am leaving the country soon and will return after August 1, 2002, my pace of reading was accelerated. Reading it in about 5 sittings, I was overwhelmed at times. I feel that this book would have been much more useful if it worked in tandem with class lecture. There are some issues in the book that I would have liked to raise in class. Likewise, there were some parts of the lecture that are now clearer because of this text. This text is well suited for a 14 week class where the pertinent portions are read every week. For a short class like this, I'm not sure that this text is appropriate. It felt at times like I was reading through an encyclopedia.

Style

I thought that the writing style was scholarly, yet not turgid or overly difficult. I did not look up any words in my dictionary because the more difficult words and concepts were footnoted and explained. Some words still puzzle me like "trans-subjective" on page 430. A reader does not need to understand NT Greek to make sense of the book, but a rudimentary understanding (like mine) greatly assists in following arguments and explanations. For example on page 220, "hilasterion" is discussed. Much of Paul's meaning hinges on nuanced Greek. How much better if the reader appreciates the nuances. The relationship between the English words "righteousness" and "justified" (page 86-87) or "belief" and "faith" are examples of Greek word sets that are cognates in the original language but are interpreted differently in English. I appreciated the explanation of "heaping fiery coals on the head" found on page 778-9. Other footnotes were worth reading as well: the meaning of tenses when used in commands in prohibition (p 382) and interpretations of homosexuality (p 114).

Moo's practice was to use the paragraph as the carrier of meaning. I understand this. However, this practice made the discussion was hard to follow. For instance, page 396 contains the text for Romans 6:15-23. On page 403, the author says, "19 the first sentence of this verse is not explicitly linked to what proceeds". I was constantly turning back to find out what Moo was talking about. About half way through the book, I began to have a Bible open to Romans, so I wouldn't have to flip pages so much. I thought that the method used by Murray J. Harris in his Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament - Colossians and Philemon was easier to follow. Harris introduced and explained a paragraph, then went back line by line so that the commentary was never more than one page from the text. Maybe you can only do this with Greek parsing, though.

I thought that Moo's use of "excursus" was good and in some ways better reading than the main body, because a theme was maintained for several pages. I note that the author made an effort to keep the language gender neutral, often using "him or her" in a sentence. I appreciate this effort.

Theology

I thought that the theology was mainstream evangelical. He rejects all the extreme views: that Paul really wasn't condemning all homosexuality (p 115), that believing Jews have a special means of salvation through the law (p 549), or that chapter 16 is not original to Romans (p 7). The author is obviously a Christian believer and this shines through his text.

There are places in the text where the Calvinist and Arminian positions collide. On page 547, Moo agrees with Calvin that nothing can separate us from Christ, even our own free will exercised against Christ. Throughout he seems to favor a Calvinist position.

Because I grew out of a Pentecostal background, I was interested in how the author handled "Pentecostal issues" like glossolalia. On page 525, Moo discusses the interceding of the Spirit through "groaning" (Romans 8:26). He dismisses the Pentecostal interpretation, saying that Paul is not referring here to "the gift of tongues". He does not seem to recognize the Pentecostal distinction between "the gift of tongues" that only certain believers possess and the "sign of tongues" that is available to all believers. But that is the Pentecostal distinction. I disagree with Moo on this point and think that this groaning may refer to a kind of "prayer language".

This last semester, I wrote a research paper on St. John Chrysostom. I appreciate the continuous reference to Chrysotom's Homily on Romans. I counted 76 Chrysostom references from the index (page 1010). That's more than Martin Luther.

Thoroughness

I thought that the book was thorough in covering Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Weighing in at over 1000 pages, it would be difficult to claim that this book was less than through. Of course it could not be exhaustive. I made some notes in columns of the text as a reminder to follow up on some interesting comments that were not pursued by Moo. I want to read more about "abba, father" that what was in the book. I will probably go back to see what Luther, Calvin and Crysostom actually wrote about Romans. While writing the research paper for this class, I had the occasion to compare passages in Moo's text with the Romans commentary of James Dunn in the Word Biblical Commentary. At least for the section that I read (Romans 1:18-32), I think I got more out of Dunn. However, his Romans commentary is in two volumes.

Best Target Audience

I can't imagine ever reading this book cover-to-cover again. It is too encyclopedic. I will certainly consult Moo whenever I preach a passage from Romans (which will probably be more often now). I am also learning to focus on paragraphs rather than on verses or other fragments. This is an excellent reference for anyone preaching or teaching from Romans. I would have enjoyed the text more if the contents could have been spread over a three-month period interspersed with discussions after readings. I now feel comfortable with Romans, unlike before the class. I doubt that I will ever be competent in fully understanding Romans.