Chunk of text missing from FF Bruce's Romans Commentary? (Tyndale)

Either F. F. Bruce just forgot to comment on v20-24 of Romans 4, or found it devoid of theological value, or some text has gone missing somewhere:

logosres:tntc66rous;ref=Bible.Ro4.17;off=1052

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rosie Perera

That gap is probably intentional. It's that way in the print edition too:

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/543600#Comment_543600

That gap is probably intentional. It's that way in the print edition too:

Guess that is one way to handle a very difficult passage [:D]

Richard Lyall

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/543655#Comment_543655

Well how about that. I had a list of questions I was going to ask when I got to heaven but I might skip them and go straight over to FFB and ask him about this curious omission! Very odd indeed.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/543684#Comment_543684

Peace, Richard! Good Eye! *smile* ... and ... Thanks for sharing .... I just compared Lenski; and he has a lot more to say on the so-called missing verses ...