Romans (The New American Commentary Vol. 27)

Written by Robert H. Mounce Reviewed By Glenn N. Davies

The past two decades have seen a significant number of commentaries published on Paul’s letter to the Romans. Most of these have been contributions to existing commentary series (Dunn, Fitzmyer, Stott, Wilckens), some have been revised editions of earlier works by the same author (Bruce), some have replaced earlier commentaries in the same series (Cranfield), and one has even spawned a whole new series (Morris). One thing is certain, there is no want of good commentaries on the letter to the Romans! It is therefore a fair question for the Bible student to ask: do I need another commentary on Romans on my bookshelf, or more pointedly, will I read another commentary on Romans?

The answer to that question may well depend upon how many commentaries on Romans you already have. However, an investment in Robert Mounce’s recent contribution to the New American Commentary Series on Romans will be rewarded with a very readable and informed treatment of this most important Pauline epistle. The series, like its nineteenth-century counterpart (An American Commentary), is self-consciously and unapologetically rooted in the evangelical tradition. It seeks to inform the pastor, teacher and student of the historical meaning and the contemporary significance of each book of the Bible, with a particular emphasis upon the theological unity of each book and the Scripture as a whole, basing the exposition on the New International Version.

Mounce’s introduction, apart from a treatment of the date, destination and purpose of Romans, provides a helpful overview of the letter as a whole. Here the reader can grasp in short compass ‘a condensed biblical theology of Romans’ (p. 31). The succinctness of this thematic overview is impressive, and Mounce’s ability to summarize the thrust of the book, ‘grasping the argument as a whole’, is a definite strength of the commentary. Unlike many commentaries, Mounce’s writing style is eminently readable. The reader will not get bogged down over an exegetical point of some dispute, but will be carefully guided to an integrated understanding of the letter. Of course, this approach will not satisfy all students of this great epistle. Some will consider the treatment of the difficult verses too slight (e.g. 2:26; 4:15; 5:13; 6:6–7; 10:4; 11:26). However, in order to complete a commentary of this type, sacrifices have to be made, and by and large Mounce has chosen well, often referring the reader to more technical works in the footnotes.

Following the traditional Reformed understanding of Romans as an introduction to the gospel against the background of universal sin. Mounce views the concept of righteousness as an integrating theme. Thus the unrighteousness of all humankind (1:18–3:20) is followed by the righteousness only God can provide (3:21–5:21), the righteousness in which we are to grow (6–8), God’s righteousness vindicated (9–11), and how righteousness manifests itself (12–15). Following this outline Mounce provides a running commentary of the text, interacting with the major English commentaries on Romans in the footnotes, where required. Yet one surprising omission is any attempt to address the concerns of E.P. Sanders and the debates over Pauline interpretation which his works have occasioned. Even when interacting with Dunn’s commentary, there is no real evidence of the concerns of the so-called new perspective on Paul, or any discussion of Paul’s view of the law, which might have been expected.

Devoted students of Romans will be tempted to turn to their favourite passages, or indeed to passages which they know pose significant difficulties, in order to get the measure of a commentary. How does the author deal with Romans 2 in the flow of the argument? What is the relationship between Adam’s sin and ours (ch. 5)? What is the meaning of being dead to sin (ch. 6)? Who is the ‘I’ described in chapter 7? What place do chapters 9–11 have in the argument as a whole? Are the ten commandments normative for today (ch. 13)? Each person will have their own views on these questions, as does Mounce. And most likely not all will be satisfied with his solutions to these exegetical questions. However, the value of this commentary is its ability to provide the reader with a succinct treatment of the book as a whole. It is a good commentary for the person who wants to preach on Romans. It is solid in its commitment to the authority of Scripture, heart-warming in its application of God’s word, and practical without being homiletical. Even for those with a number of Romans commentaries on their shelf, Karl Barth’s dictum still applies: ‘After all, there is always something more to learn from the Epistle to the Romans.’


Glenn N. Davies

Miranda, NSW Australia