Free Audio on Romans Taught by Dr. Moo

Here's a free course on Romans taught by Professor Doug Moo of Wheaton College. I took a Greek exegesis course on Romans with him last spring. I was not disappointed. It helped to sharpen some of my thinking on the so-called New Perspective on Paul. N. T. Wright's commentary was assigned to be read alongside Moo's.

Professor Moo's commentary, published in 1996, is still tops. I recall D. A. Carson saying somewhere that Moo's commentary is the best one on Romans in the English language. And my understanding is that Dr. Moo may even be putting out a revision before too long.

Enjoy.

Our Future-Oriented Salvation

Commenting on the salvation language of Rom. 5:9 in particular and Paul's writings generally, Doug Moo says:

This future-oriented use of σῴζω is quite usual in Paul. For while he sometimes uses the verb to denote the deliverance from the penalty of sin that comes at conversion (e.g., Rom. 8:24; Eph. 2:5, 8), he more often used the word (and its cognates; cf. Rom. 13:11) to depict the final deliverance of the Christian from the power of sin, the evils of this life, and, especially, judgment (e.g., 1 Cor. 3:15; 5:5; Phil. 2:12). Paul pictures the Christian as having been saved, as looking forward to being saved, and even as in the process of being saved (cf. 2 Cor. 2:15; 2 Thess. 2:10).

 —The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 310-311.

Evidence of Man's Deepest Corruption

Doug Moo on the implications of Rom. 1:22:

In that this "becoming foolish" involves the various idolatrous religions that people invent for themselves (v. 23), Paul's estimation of non-Christian religions also becomes clear in this verse. Far from being a preparatory stage in the human quest for God, these religions represent a descent from the truth and are "evidence of man's deepest corruption" [quoting Nygren].

 —The Epistle to the Romans (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1988), p. 108.

Sola Fide

No doubt many are aware that Luther's addition of the word "alone" in his translation of Rom. 3:28 caused quite a row. And to this day, it is frowned upon by Roman Catholics. A literal rendering of the verse reads thus: "For we reckon that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (translation mine). The word for "alone" is not there in the original. Yet Luther saw that the sense of the verse, the meaning intended, warranted it. 

But not all see this (I almost said, "not all have faith," 2 Thess. 3:2). Some still object to Luther's temerity to add a word where there isn't one to be found in the corresponding Greek. Moreover, increasing the temerity, it isn’t to be found anywhere in Pauline usage: Paul never explicitly says "justified by faith alone," or the like. To the shock of some Protestants, James alone does, only he adds the negative "not" to "justified by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24). But that's another post for another time.

So it'll be of interest to some that others preceded Luther in this "temerity": namely, Thomas Aquinas, Origen, Theodoret, Hilary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, Chyrsostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, and Theophylact (Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans, 360-361). These "fathers" used the "alone" language in their discussions of justification, and they weren't all expounding Jas. 2:24. It should be duly noted that Fitzmeyer, after listing these names in his commentary on Romans, appears to doubt the propriety of using "alone," stating that "it is a theological extension of Paul's teaching that presses beyond what he states" (362). He also asks "whether Luther meant by 'only' what his predecessors meant" (362). Nevertheless, such usage antedating Luther brings intrigue, even if only to point out that Luther was not the first to introduce it.

In any case, each has to reckon with whether or not Luther's translation and this Reformation sola bona fide comport with apostolic teaching. As for me and my house, the judgment of Moo undoubtedly stays the gospel course: “A serious erosion of the full significance of Paul’s gospel occurs if we soften this antithesis; no works, whatever their nature or their motivation, can play any part in making a sinner right with God” (Douglas Moo, Romans, 251).

Paul's Blessed "But Now"

Oh that blessed "but now" of Rom. 3:21! Here's Doug Moo's redemptive-historical understanding of it, surely right on:

The phrase could have a purely logical force—"but now here is the situation apart from the law"—but is more likely to preserve its normal temporal meaning. As in Rom.6:22; 7:6; 1 Cor. 15:20; Eph. 2:13; and Col. 1:22, "but now" marks the shift in Paul's focus from the old era of sin's domination to the new era of salvation. This contrast between two eras in salvation history is one of Paul's most basic theological conceptions, providing the framework for many of his key ideas. Rom. 1:18-3:20 has sketched the spiritual state of those who belong to the old era: justly condemned, helpless in the power of sin, powerless to escape God's wrath. "But now" God has intervened to inaugurate a new era, and all who respond in faith . . . will be transferred into it from the old era. No wonder Lloyd-Jones can exclaim, "there are no more wonderful words in the whole of Scripture than just these two words, 'But now.'"

—The Epistle to the Romans, p. 221.