Category: Grant R. Osborne
Short Book Review: The IVP New Testament Commentary: Romans by Grant R. Osborne
Grant R. Osborne, Romans
Grant R. Osborne (2004). The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Romans. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
A few months ago I received a copy of Grant R. Osborne’s Romans commentary from IVP. I was very thankful since my Th.M. thesis will be in this epistle. When I first opened the book I wanted to see how much integration could be seen between Osborne’s work in hermeneutics and his commentary. I was a bit disappointed to find that the author of The Hermeneutical Spiral doesn’t seem to have felt any desire to do integration.
Nevertheless, it is a solid commentary. It gives a basic introduction but nothing too heavy (since there are a million commentaries on Romans amongst other books and journal articles I am sure that the reader can find more data). It does not spend a lot of time dicing and slicing the text, parsing every word, and filling the pages with footnotes. Rather, it is a very handy commentary for the expositor looking for a solid overview of the book.
As I did in my review of Fee’s commentary in the series I will highlight here some of Osborne’s comments on relevant passages:
Exegetical Highlights:
On 1.18-32:
“Cranfield (1975:105) and Dunn (1988a:53) exemplify a recent trend to see this section as a general indictment of all humankind rather than a specific condemnation of the Gentiles. Paul refers to men rather than Gentiles in 1:18, and the language is reminiscent of the Adam story in Genesis 2-3. Also, in 1:23 Paul refers to Psalm 106:20 and Jeremiah 2:11, both dealing with Israel’s idolatry. So Paul could move from general (the sinfulness of all humanity) to the specific (the sinfulness of the Jews). But there is no way any Jewish person reading this would have understood the passage as aimed at himself. The sins mentioned–idolatry, immorality, homosexuality–were part of Jewish polemics against the Gentiles in the first century.” (p. 45)
On 2.14-15:
“While the Jews have the law, the Gentiles do not. However, Paul argues that they do not have a kind of law that God has written on their hearts (vv. 14-15). While some have argued that these are Gentile Christians on the grounds that they are Gentile Christians that are justified in verse 13 (so Cranfield 1975: 155-156, following Barth), it is better to see these as pagan Gentiles…” (p. 68)
On 7.15-16:
In reference to whether this is about unregenerated or regenerated humanity, “There are obviously good arguments for both sides; in fact, one could become virtually certain of each side simply by concentrating on the arguments for one and ignoring the opposite arguments.” (p. 181)
On 8:20-21:
“Verses 20-21 tell us why creation desires to see the revelation of the sons of God. Creation has been unable to realize its God-intended potential because it was subjected to frustration or “futility”. Most believe this goes back to the Adam account, particularly Genesis 3:17-18 (“cursed is the creation because of you”). Creation cannot fulfill the purpose for which God designed it.” (p.211)
On 11.26:
“All Israel refers not to the Jewish people down through the ages but to the nation at the end of history who will be saved.” ( p.306)
With So Many Commentaries Does Anyone “Know” the Text?
Over the years it has been my experience that I think I understand a biblical text only to realize after obtaining new data that I was either very mistaken or partial in my understanding. This is a process documented by Grant Osbourne in the Hermeneutical Spiral and as I understand was something addressed by philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Gadamer. We have a “horizon” of language, culture, and time from which the author writes and the “horizon” of language, culture, and time from which we read. Often the task of hermeneutics is described as trying to bring these horizons together over time in a cycle of presuppositions to new data to new presuppositions and so forth.
When I want to know more about the Book of Genesis, or the Epistle to the Romans, or the Book of Revelation it would seem that one of the first tasks would be to find a good commentary. Anyone who has done this knows there are dozens upon hundreds of commentaries available. Where two authors may agree on one or two parts of a given text it does not seem possible for the entire text to ever be understood the same by any two people. This has been somewhat problematic for me.
It is not troublesome because I expect the opposite. It is troublesome because I wonder if the whole project of commentary writing is as valuable as we make it to be. If there are hundred people reading one text and it results in ninety-eight opinions what is the purpose of you formulating your own ideas? Do you see this as a worthwhile endeavor and if so, why? Or do you think there is another approach to the biblical text–for scholarship and the church–that would be more profitable?
I think commentary and journal article reading is worthwhile but mostly because I want to formulate my own opinions and be prepared for discussion and dialog on a given text. Is there more to it that this? What do you think?
In the Mail: IVP New Testament Commentaries
The wonderful people at IVP (esp. Adrianna Wright) have welcomed me into their book review family. I received two volumes from their IVP New Testament Commentary Series. The first one is the Romans commentary by Grant R. Osborne. The blurb on this volume is as follows:
IVP NT Commentary on Romans by G.R. Osborne
Few individual books of the Bible have changed the course of church history the way Paul’s letter to the Romans has.
Whether one thinks of Augustine’s conversion in the fourth century, Luther’s recovery of justification by faith in the sixteenth or Barth’s challenge to recover theological exegesis of the Bible in the twentieth, Romans has been the catalyst to personal spiritual renewal and the recapturing of gospel basics.
Paul, in seeking to bring unity and understanding between Jews and Gentiles in Rome, sets forth in Romans his most profound explication of the gospel and its meaning for the church. The letter’s relevance is as great today as it was in the first century.
Throughout this commentary, Grant R. Osborne explains what the letter meant to its original hearers and its application for us today.
The second is the Philippians commentary by Gordon D. Fee. The blurb is as follows:
IVP NT Commentary on Philippians by G.D. Fee
Nothing cripples a church’s effectiveness like internal strife. In Philippi, Paul addressed a congregation whose private struggles were compounded by opposition and suffering from without. Paul’s strategy was to write them a letter of friendship and moral exhortation, reminding them of their “partnership in the gospel,” their mutual suffering for the cause of Christ, and their need to “stand firm in one spirit.” His approach and counsel can serve us well today.
In this warm study of Philippians by Gordon Fee, you will discover what this letter meant for its original hearers as well as what it means to us today.
As soon as I get a chance to become more familiar with these two works I will say more here.
