Which one is better?

DAL

I was looking at the Romans commentaries that are 30% off for this weekend and I saw the following by Douglas Moo:

1. NICNT Romans

2. NIVACNT Romans and

3. Encountering the Book of Romans

If all three are by the same author, should I get all three or just one? If one, which one and why?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mike Childs

Personally, I would rank them in the order that you have them. I have all three, and I think the NICNT is the deeper commentary.

Alex Bui

Agreed. You got them in the right order. NIVACNT Romans seems to complement NICNT Romans very well. If one, pick NICNT Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Romans is also very good.

Sample from NICNT Romans

II. THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL: JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH (1:18–4:25)

In his statement of the theme of the letter (vv. 16–17), Paul moves quickly from the gospel to the salvation mediated by the gospel to the “righteousness of God” revealed in the gospel. It is now this righteousness, God acting to bring people into a right relationship with himself, that occupies Paul’s attention in the first major section of the body of Romans, 1:18–4:25.1 “Righteousness” [Rom, p. 91] (dikaiosynē) and its cognates “justify” (dikaioō) and “righteous” (dikaios) occur 24 times in these verses, being particularly prominent (6 occurrences) in the passage that is the heart of this section, 3:21–26. But even more prominent is another word group: “faith” (pistis) and its (in Greek) cognate verb, “believe” (pisteuō), occur 27 times, and usually in close conjunction with “righteousness” or “justify.” Word frequency does not, of course, tell the whole story, but in this case the statistics are indeed indicative of the theme of these chapters: God’s righteousness as the righteousness of faith.

OT prophets and psalmists predicted that God’s righteousness, his intervention in history to establish Israel’s “right,” would be revealed in the last days. And Jews in Paul’s day continued to look for this act of God on their behalf. Paul announces the coming of this righteousness in the gospel of Christ. But he also emphasizes two aspects of this righteousness that were not widely accepted in his day. First, being an entirely gracious act on God’s part, God’s righteousness could be experienced only by faith. Second, anyone Jew or Gentile could, and needed to, experience it on exactly the same terms. These points, which for Paul are intertwined (for, as he argues, in 3:28–30, if God is to be God of all people, his righteousness must be offered to all on the same basis), are what he wants to get across to the Romans in this part of his letter. The argument takes the form of a “dialogue with Judaism.”2 Not only does Paul address “the Jew” directly (2:17–29; cf. 2:1–5), but the issues of the law and circumcision dominate much of the discussion. The language of “righteousness” itself is OT-Jewish. Even Paul’s indictment of humanity (1:18–3:20) focuses on the Jew (2:1–3:20). As we argue in the Introduction, the fact that Paul dialogues with Judaism here does not mean that the dialogue is itself directed to Jews, or even to Jewish Christians. Paul wants the Christian community in Rome to listen in to this dialogue so that they may understand his gospel. The points he argues in this section are those points for which Paul had to contend throughout his missionary career. It is therefore no wonder that “the Apostle to the Gentiles,” when setting forth his gospel to Christians with whom he had had no contact, would emphasize just these points.

A. THE UNIVERSAL REIGN OF SIN (1:18–3:20)

Our claim that righteousness, or justification, by faith is the focus of 1:18–4:25 might seem odd in light of the statistics that emerge from 1:18–3:20: “righteousness” words occur only six times and references to faith or believing [Rom, p. 92] only twice and then without reference to human faith. It is, in fact, only beginning with 3:21 that “righteousness by faith” becomes central; in 1:18–3:20, sin, wrath, and judgment occupy center stage. Paul implicitly acknowledges that 1:18–3:20 is an interruption in his exposition of the righteousness of God by reprising 1:17 in 3:21: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested.…” Why this interruption? What is the purpose of this step-by-step indictment of humanity? Some think that the “revelation of God’s wrath” is a product of the preaching of the gospel, so that 1:18–3:20 is as much “gospel” as is 3:21–4:25 (see below, on v. 18). But, although Paul clearly considers warning about judgment to come to be related to his preaching of the gospel (2:16),3 his generally positive use of “gospel” language forbids us from considering God’s wrath and judgment to be part of the gospel.

We must consider 1:18–3:20 as a preparation for, rather than as part of, Paul’s exposition of the gospel of God’s righteousness. But it is a necessary preparation if what Paul wants to emphasize about this righteousness is to be accepted by the Romans. For only if sin is seen to be the dominating, ruling force that Paul presents it to be in this section (cf. 3:9) will it become clear why God’s righteousness can be experienced only by humbly receiving it as a gift in a word, by faith. “Only those who are prepared to acknowledge that they are unworthy can put faith in the Giver of grace.”4 And only if Jews as much as Gentiles are understood to be subject to this imprisoning effect of sin will it become clear that all people need to experience this righteousness of God.

This dual focus of 1:18–3:20 is succinctly stated in 3:9: “all people, both Jews and Gentiles, are under the power of sin.” So absolute is sin’s power over people that only God’s power, available in the gospel, can rescue them. And so universal is sin’s power that it has gained sway even over God’s chosen people, the Jews. As we argue below (see the introduction to 1:18–32), Paul’s indictment of humanity in 1:18–3:8 proceeds as if it were moving inward through a series of concentric circles: from the whole of humanity (1:18), to humanity apart from special revelation mainly, then, Gentiles (1:19–32), to the “righteous” person but mainly the Jew (2:1–16), to the Jew explicitly (2:17–3:8).5

This section, then, may practically be divided into two main parts: 1:18–32, which targets Gentiles mainly; and 2:1–3:8, which is preoccupied with the Jews. It is obvious that Paul has carefully formulated an argument in each of the first two sections that will meet the needs of the different people addressed. To counter Paul’s indictment of them, the Gentiles might well claim to have had no chance to make things right with God; thus Paul insists that all people have some knowledge of God and of his will for them. Moreover, Jews might well claim exemption from judgment by virtue of their covenant privileges; so Paul shows that these privileges, though real, do not help them in the judgment because they have broken that covenant through disobedience.6

While, then, 1:18–3:20 brings charges against all humanity, the structure and relative weight of Paul’s indictment reveal that the Jew is his main “target.”7 After all, few people would have to be convinced that Gentiles were in need of God’s righteousness. Except for “God-fearers,” few Gentiles would have ever had any pretense of a relationship to the God of the Bible. But the case was different with the Jews. Were they not God’s people? Had not God already [Rom, p. 94] promised them his righteousness through the terms of the Old Covenant? Can it be said that Jews stand in the same hopeless condition as do godless Gentiles? So might the questions run, questions that Paul had to confront often in the course of his missionary work. And so Paul must argue that Jews are as much subject to sin’s power as are Gentiles and that the old system of the law, in itself, is quite insufficient to provide for release from sin’s power (cf. 3:20). As Beker puts it, “What is argued is the equal status of Jew and Gentile under sin; what is presupposed is the self-evident character of the Gentile under sin.”8

But why this preoccupation with unbelieving Jews in a letter that is written to Christians, and mainly Gentile Christians at that? Although Paul is undoubtedly rehearsing themes from his missionary preaching,9 it is not unconverted Jews but the Roman Christians who are the real audience of what he says in this letter.10 To a considerable extent, of course, Paul’s focus is due to his desire to set before the Romans, in preparation for his visit and request for support, the gospel he preaches and the need for God’s righteousness on the part of both Jews and Gentiles is an important component of that gospel. Add to this Paul’s concern about his upcoming visit to Jerusalem (cf. 15:30–33), and it is no wonder he says as much about the situation of Jews as he does.

But there were factors within the Roman church that made the discussion quite relevant to the Christians there. We must assume that Paul already had his eye on the tensions between the Gentile-Christian majority and the Jewish-Christian minority that he attacks in 14:1–15:13. In this regard, we should not overlook the fact that Paul balances his attack on the Jewish presumption of superiority with affirmations of the Jews’ salvation-historical prerogatives (3:1–2), the legitimate demand of the law (3:31), and the OT roots of the gospel (3:21, 31; 4:1–25). Paul is also aware that perverted information about his teaching on these matters was circulating in the community at Rome (cf. 3:8). If the Christians in Rome were to be united in support of Paul’s ministry, they would have to be convinced of the logical coherence of Paul’s gospel on this central, early Christian issue. Throughout Romans, then, Paul preaches the equality of Jew and Gentile in both sin and righteousness, at the same time as he insists that Israel retains inalienable salvation-historical privileges. In the present section, Paul’s overriding concern is to show that, like Gentiles, Jews are locked up under sin and can receive the righteousness available in the gospel only by faith in Jesus.11

Sample from NIVACNT Romans

Original Meaning

Verse 18 comes to the reader as quite a surprise. Paul has just announced his theme for the letter: the gospel as God’s saving power, revealing his righteousness to all who believe. But instead of the exposition of these wonderful truths, we get dire news about God’s wrath against sin. Indeed, it is not until fully two chapters later, in 3:21, that Paul finally picks up on the themes he broached in 1:16–17. Why is this? Apparently Paul thinks it necessary to make clear just why the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel is necessary. Only by fully understanding the "bad news" can we appreciate the "good news." Thus, Paul goes to some lengths to detail for us the nature and dimension of the human predicament (1:18–3:20).

His argument moves in several clearly marked stages. Heading the entire section is the announcement of God’s wrath against sin (1:18–20). But almost as important in this announcement is his insistence that God’s wrath is earned: Human beings have suppressed God’s truth. Paul goes on to show how all people, Gentiles (1:21–32) and Jews (2:1–29) alike, have rejected God’s truth and brought justly on themselves God’s wrath. In 3:1–8 Paul moves away from the main story line to qualify what he says in chapter 2 about the privileges of the Jews. Then, in 3:9–20, he brings the discussion to a close with a final indictment of humanity.

The particular section we are now dealing with divides into three basic parts: God’s wrath against sin and its basis (1:18–20), people’s suppression of truth and its consequences (1:21–31), and a concluding indictment (1:32).

God’s Wrath against Sin and Its Basis (1:18–20)

Verse 18 appears at first sight to be closely related to verses 16–17. A gar ("for") connects verse 18 with what comes before it, and both verses 17 and 18 use the verb "reveal." On this basis a few interpreters have concluded that the revelation of God’s righteousness (v. 17) and the revelation of his wrath (v. 18) are both parts of the gospel (v. 16). But the negative note of God’s wrath does not fit Paul’s consistently positive use of the word "gospel." Probably, then, the "for" that begins this verse introduces all of the section that follows: It is necessary for God to reveal his righteousness in the gospel because God has also found it necessary to reveal his wrath against sin.

Some modern translations use the term "anger" instead of "wrath" for the Greek word used here (orge). But "wrath," while a bit old-fashioned, preserves the more objective sense the Greek word has when applied to God. God’s reaction to sin is not the "anger" of an emotional person; it is the necessary reaction of a holy God to sin. The Old Testament regularly speaks of God’s inflicting wrath on people, both in the course of history (e.g., Ex. 32:10–12; Num. 11:1; Jer. 21:3–7) and, especially, at the end of history. Paul usually also depicts God’s wrath as coming at the Parousia (see, e.g., Rom. 2:5, 8; 5:9; Col. 3:6; 1 Thess. 1:10). Because of this, some interpreters think that the verb "is being revealed" is a futuristic present, meaning "will be revealed." But Paul is probably referring broadly to the sentence of condemnation that all people stand under—a sentence that God sometimes inflicts in the events of history but will carry out with finality at the end of history.

Especially important for Paul is his insistence that God’s wrath falls on people who "suppress the truth." One can only suppress something of which one has knowledge. As a result, Paul goes on in verses 19–20 to show that this word is entirely appropriate to use in describing people’s relationship to God’s truth. Human beings do have knowledge about God. He has revealed it to them (v. 19b), manifesting some of his divine qualities in the world he has created (v. 20). Moreover, these qualities "have been clearly seen" by people.

Paul here establishes the truth of what we sometimes call "natural revelation": God discloses something of his existence and nature to all people in the created natural world (for more on this, see the Contemporary Significance section). Yet the end of verse 20 already anticipates the negative direction that Paul’s argument about natural revelation will take: "so that men are without excuse." Rather than bringing people into relationship with God, natural revelation makes them guilty. Why this is so and how it has happened will be the focus of the next section.

BRIDGING CONTEXTS

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to accurate interpretation of Scripture is the conflict in worldview between the biblical author and readers on the one hand and the contemporary reader on the other. Biblical authors will frequently touch on a concept that is everywhere accepted in their own culture but which clashes violently with the culture of the reader. Two important issues raised in these verses are clear examples of such notions: the wrath of God and homosexuality.

Cultural influences on our understanding of God’s wrath.

One famous scholarly reaction to Paul’s teaching on God’s wrath in Romans 1:18ff. will help us to put the problem in focus. C. H. Dodd, a British scholar active in the middle of the century, made significant contributions to our understanding of the New Testament. But he struggled with Paul’s teaching about God’s wrath. Dodd was deeply trained in ancient Greek literature. Throughout this literature (as, indeed, in the literature of many cultures) the "wrath" of the gods is emotional and capricious, often driven by ego rather than by justice.

A person, a family, a town, or a whole nation, for example, might inadvertently offend a god by failing to offer a sacrifice in the right manner or by refusing hospitality to a visitor. Such a "sinful" act may be the cause of the wrath; in this sense, one could say the wrath was "justified." But the degree of wrath inflicted is all out of proportion to the offense. The motivation for the wrath is not a desire on the god’s part to establish justice but to assuage his offended pride or dignity. Dodd had a hard time believing that the God of the Bible ever acted in such a way. Thus, to avoid any hint of emotionalism or capriciousness in the biblical concept, he argued that God’s wrath was nothing more than "an inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe."

But such an understanding of God’s wrath is more in keeping with a deistic view of God. For deists, God is little more than the original cause of the universe. Having set it in a motion, he is now content to let it run its course without intervention (the usual analogy is the watchmaker). But the Bible presents God as a personal being, interested in and intervening in the course of human history in all kinds of ways. To be sure, we must allow for the frequent anthropopathic element in the biblical description of God. The biblical writers often use analogies with human emotions to depict God, and we are wrong if we attribute these emotions to God in the same way as they are present in us. But we cannot avoid the distinctly personal language used to describe God’s relationship to his world. He chastises, tests, repents, rejoices, and, yes, he grows angry.

But God’s anger is not like ours, nor is it like the wrath of the Greek gods. His anger is like theirs in that it is motivated by an offense against divine standards, but it is never egotistic, as if he feels he needs to defend his dignity. Nor is it capricious, for God always acts justly, on the basis of his own unchangeable standards revealed in his Word to human beings. In fact, rather than dismissing pagan notions of the wrath of the gods entirely, we should perhaps see in them a pale reflection of the truth about the wrath of the real God. In the pagan impulse to appease an angry deity, in both ancient and modern times, we can detect one way in which God has left in the world he created some evidence of himself.

But if immersion in certain cultures leads people to interpret God’s wrath inaccurately, immersion in others can lead us to dismiss the concept altogether. Modern materialism, of course, denies the possibility of God’s wrath. But perhaps a greater danger to the church is the persistent tendency in the midst of the awakened interest in "spirituality" to view God as a purely benign being. If God exists, so many people seem to reason, then he must be a good God who has our own interests at heart. Surely he could never be angry with us or do anything that might inconvenience us!

This view of God is far from the biblical view of a holy and righteous God whose very nature demands that he react negatively to sin. Ultimately a failure to appreciate the reality of God’s holiness and its implication, wrath against sin, warps our understanding of the Christian faith generally. Thus, believers seeking to understand Paul’s presentation of the gospel in Romans need to adjust their own perspective to match the biblical worldview. Reading and rereading Scripture is the only practicable way to soak up that biblical worldview.

Contemporary Significance

In the Bridging Contexts section, we have already moved into the application of this paragraph to contemporary life. But the passage is rich in implication, and we will explore here the significance of two more issues Paul raises in these verses.

Natural revelation. In what becomes both a fascination and a frustration, the interpreter of Romans is confronted in virtually every chapter with a text that is one of the most important in the Bible on a huge and usually debated theological issue. The fascination comes from getting into issues of such far-reaching significance; the frustration comes from the need to study so much Scripture in order to come to a right understanding of the particular text in Romans. Nothing in Romans 1 stimulates these reactions more than Paul’s teaching on natural revelation.

This issue is unclear in the Bible, with many texts to be considered and not all them appearing to move in the same direction. Moreover, the religious pluralism of our culture has put the whole matter of God’s revelation in other religions at the top of the theological agenda. We have neither the space nor the expertise to treat this issue adequately. But several points can be drawn from what Paul teaches here in Romans 1.

(1) There is such a thing as natural revelation. A few scholars, notably the important twentieth-century theologian Karl Barth, have denied the existence of any true revelation of God apart from Christ. But Paul seems clear: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" (v. 20). Not only has God left clear evidence of himself in the world he has made, but this evidence is actually perceived by people: It is "clearly seen"; "God has made it plain to them" (v. 19).

Most theologians have, therefore, rightly concluded that alongside "special" revelation—God’s acts and their authoritative interpretation in Scripture—we must also place "natural" revelation—God’s disclosure of information about himself in the world. The reality of natural revelation and its universal availability has consequences for one of the most often-asked questions about God’s justice: What about the fate of those who have "never heard"? This is a question I myself asked when people were witnessing to me in my college days. It has no easy answer. But one thing we can say on the basis of Romans 1: All people have heard. God has revealed certain truths about himself in the world, and all people have access to that truth. Every person is guilty of rejecting that knowledge of God universally available.

(2) What God reveals to people in nature is limited. In this context, Paul refers to certain "invisible qualities" of God and to a recognition that sinful acts are worthy of death (v. 32). He does not mention any other theological truths as available to people through natural revelation. His silence does not, of course, mean that God might not reveal other truth through this means. But natural revelation is rather limited in the amount of information about God that it conveys.

(3) The results of natural revelation are negative. We must recall the larger purpose of Paul at this point in Romans. He is showing why the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel is necessary—because all people are locked up under sin’s power (3:9) and are helpless to free themselves from its grip. The drastic step God has taken in the gospel—sending his Son to die on a Roman cross—would surely be unnecessary if rescue were available elsewhere. We will pursue this issue further when considering 2:14–16. Suffice it to say here that Paul’s whole argument makes any positive role for natural revelation at this point in Romans unlikely.

More important is what Paul explicitly says about natural revelation in this passage. For verse 20 concludes: "so that men are without excuse." Paul presents the reality of natural revelation in order to justify his assertion that people "suppress the truth" (v. 18). His purpose is to vindicate God by proving that he is perfectly just in inflicting his wrath on people. They had some knowledge of God; they turned away from that knowledge; thus, they are "without excuse" before God when he pours his wrath out on them.

Calvin’s summary of the matter is worth quoting at length:

It is therefore in vain that so many burning lamps shine for us in the workmanship of the universe to show forth the glory of its Author. Although they bathe us wholly in their radiance, yet they can of themselves in no way lead us into the right path. Surely they strike some sparks, but before their fuller light shines forth these are smothered.… But although we lack the natural ability to mount up unto the pure and clear knowledge of God, all excuse is cut off because the fault of dullness is within us.

But we must not take this negative point too far. As Calvin has rightly put it, the truths revealed by God in nature "of themselves" cannot bring one to a true knowledge of God. But Paul does not deny that these truths may help lead people to search for true knowledge of God or to illustrate that knowledge. An important passage here is Acts 17:22–34, where Paul uses natural revelation as a stepping-stone to the presentation of the gospel to intellectuals in Athens. Thus, the evidence of Scripture as a whole leads us to conclude that natural revelation has a real, but limited, purpose. The beauty and intricacy of the world can help people understand that there must be a Creator; that religious traditions can reinforce notions of sin, judgment, and atonement; and that history can point to a providential ordering of events. Such things can stimulate in people a search for the true God. But Paul emphasizes how limited such knowledge is. Apart from God’s grace, it does not lead people to worship the true God. Without further revelation about Christ and his work on the cross, disclosed in the gospel, it cannot bring salvation.

Idolatry.

This point is, perhaps, obvious—but no interpretation of Romans 1 would be complete without reminding ourselves of all the varied shapes that idolatry can take. Paul accuses people of turning from the "glory" and "truth" of God to images and lies of their own making (vv. 23, 25). Few of us worship images, but we are all prone to put something in the place that God alone deserves in our lives. That "idol" may be something evil in itself. But more often, the devil is more insidious, using a perfectly good or innocent pleasure to lure us from the wholehearted devotion to God that he deserves and demands.

Recently, for instance, my old love for photography has reawakened, and I find myself as an almost "empty-nester" with a bit (but only a little bit!) more disposable income than in the last couple of decades. I have therefore been buying some equipment (though, of course, one never has enough equipment) and spending time reading books on photography, chatting with other photographers on the Web, and taking trips and walks where I can take photographs. I am convinced that photography is a good creative outlet, a healthy change-of-pace from reading, studying, and teaching, and a wonderful hobby that my wife and I can share together. But I have also seen that photography is capable of taking up far too much of my time and money. It can, in brute fact, become an "idol" for me.

Idols lurk everywhere, lying in wait for those not fully enough aware of the danger. Liberated from idolatry in the ultimate sense by the work of God in Christ applied to our hearts, we can still fall prey to idols in a weaker sense, allowing people, things, or activities to deflect our worship and service of the true God.

David Paul

I have scads of commentaries, including these three, and buy more from time to time, but I hardly ever use them. Still, I asked a similar question about these same 3 resources about a year ago, and though the NICNT is clearly more detailed than Encountering Romans is, I found that the brevity that was part of ERs make-up actually made for a more candid, more to-the-point, more quotable resource. So if you are looking for deep study for your own enlightenment, NICNT is your choice. If you want a candid, quotable summary that cuts to the chase, ER would be the way to go. The other one would either be the best of both worlds or the best of neither...I'll let you figure that one out.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/568879#Comment_568879

NICNT is clearly more detailed than Encountering Romans is, I found that the brevity that was part of ERs make-up actually made for a more candid, more to-the-point, more quotable resource.

I have also found this same principle to be the case. Each type of commentary serves its own purpose and that's why it is valuable to have a variety in our libraries.

RyanB

DAL,

I have the NICNT and NIVACNT and love them both. There is a bit of overlap between the two in a few areas (This will happen almost every time the same author writes two commentaries on the same subject) however, they have different focuses (foci?).

The NICNT focuses on a verse by verse breakdown while the NIVAC focuses more on the passages relevancy for today's world and how to apply it.

I love them both but if I could only have one, I'd pick NICNT - that is the Gold Standard Romans commentary.

Ryan

PS - I also agree with Alex that the Baker Exegetical Commentary on Romans is also great.

DAL

Thanks for your input. I'm gonna go ahead and try NIVACNT Romans and Encountering the Book of Romans. I'll save NICNT for later when, if God Wills, I buy the whole set. I may end up just keeping one or both, I'll have to read a few chapters on each commentary to wet my appetite and make a better decision.

DAL

DAL

After reading 1 chapter and a few samples here and there all I can say is: "Wow, talk about (verbatim) overlap!" LOL. I think a better choice would be NICNT and ER instead of NICNT and NIVAC. I like the succinct way ER does things and in fact it sometimes gives you a little extra tidbits here and there. NIVAC on the righteousness of God Moo says there are 3 major interpretations and in ER he says there are 4 major interpretations of the phrase "the righteousness of God."

I think I will only keep ER and buy some other commentary on Acts, since I'll be teaching Acts soon. For Romans I've chosen Focus on the Bible and Encountering the Book of Romans for the sake of practicality. For Acts I may do BECNT since I have the Spanish version of F.F. Bruce of the NICNT series along with PNTC and other good volumes on it.

Anyway, thanks!

DAL

RyanB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/569048#Comment_569048

I know DAL already purchased his commentaries but I thought these two sentences from DA Carson's New Testament Commentary Survey would be beneficial to any other readers asking the same question.

"The best Romans commentary now available in English is the work of Douglas J. Moo (NICNT)." pg 84

"Only the most poorly trained pastor will prefer Moo’s NIVAC commentary on Romans to his NICNT volume." pg 85