What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Interpreter's Bible Commentary - 12 Volume Set #10
New Interpreter's Bible: Acts - I Corinthians
Volume X: Acts; Introduction to Epistolary Literature; Romans; 1 Corinthians. Volume X contains an excellent Introduction to Epistolary Literature, plus comments on the New Testament books of Acts, Romans, and 1 Corinthians.
KEY FEATURES:
� Easy-to-use format�detailed, critical Commentary and Reflections (a detailed exposition growing directly out of the Commentary)
� Coverage of the entire Bible in twelve volumes
� Includes the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical books
� New material specifically prepared to meet the needs of today�s preachers, teachers, and students of the Bible
� The biblical text is divided into coherent and natural units
� The ecumenical roster of contributors includes top scholars and emerging new voices
� Contributors draw upon a variety of approaches
� Numerous visual aids (illustrations, maps, charts, timelines) enhance understanding and ease of use
� Introductions to each biblical book cover essential historical, literary, sociocultural, and theological issues
� The full texts and critical notes of the New International Version® and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible are presented in parallel columns for quick reference and comparison.
Download The NIB Vol. 10 Errata Sheet
CD-ROM Version for the full Twelve Volumes is also available. Click here for more details.
1007 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 2002
6 people are currently reading
91 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 9, 2014
Review of N.T. Wright’s Romans in the New Interpreter’s Bible.
In many ways, this is not so much a commentary but a daring exercise in biblical theology. And for that reason it will be reviewed, not as a commentary, but as a biblical theology textbook. Many presuppositions are required in reading this commentary. One has to believe that Paul was familiar with the Biblical story (indeed, that the Old Testament even has an overarching narrative, and even if it does, that Paul was concerned about it). One has to believe that Paul saw the church as occupying a key space in God’s continuing narrative that began with Abraham (586).
Accordingly, I will not give a commentary on what Wright thought of each chapter. That is certainly possible and worthwhile, but it misses the narratival thrust of what St Paul is trying to say. Instead, I will highlight major themes and hermeneutical movements that Wright says Paul uses and see if they actually work.
The strength of NTW’s commentary is that his thesis tries to match up with what he deems St Paul’s thesis: God’s righteousness is unveiled in the death and resurrection of his Son—and this is the “gospel.” The Gospel is the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ. St Paul does NOT define the gospel as "receiving the imputed righteousness of God by faith." Read the actual words of Romans 1:3-4, 16, and 17: The word "gospel" is used in connection with the death and resurrection of the Messiah. Verses 16 and 17 say that the revelation of God's rigtheousness (even assuming it means what Luther meant, which is easily contested) is a *subset* of the gospel, but iti s not strictly speaking "the gospel." Further, NTW shows how this theme controls the entire reading of Romans, as can be seen in the neat summary to the book found in chapter 15.
New Exodus, New Creation.
Wright suggests that chs. 3-8 of Romans form a narratival substructure. St Paul is paralleling the Christian experience with that of YHWH redeeming the Hebrews from Egypt. Wright notes, “Allowing for Paul’s new perspective, whereby the promise of the land has been redefined into the promise of inheriting the whole cosmos [4:13; 8:18-25], the pattern is exact” (511). The Israelites were in slavery; God’s people have been redeemed from slave masters (Romans 3:24; 6:16). Other verses could support the claim, and while Wright doesn’t spell out the argument here like in his earlier essay, it runs something like this: chapter 6: sin as a slave master = Egypt; chapter 7: Giving of Torah (ala Exodus 20) = new discussion of Torah and the problem of Torah; end of chapter 7 to 8:11: Israelites in wilderness = Christians being led by the Spirit to their inheritance (same language is used of Spirit as was used of glory cloud in the wanderings).
What do we make of this argument? Admittedly, it does have a remarkable unity to it. It places the drama of redemption on a cosmic field. It retells the Old Testament story but this time around the redemption won in Christ. It implicitly draws upon the strong philosophical and hermeneutical resources of “narrative.” But can we know for certain this is what Paul really meant? Maybe, maybe not. Can we know that Paul really meant us to read his letter like a scientific database to proof-text doctrines? Accepting or not accepting Wright’s argument depends on one’s own hermeneutical allowances.
I think there is a lot to be said for this argument. Israel was called to be the means through which God’s saving work was brought to the world. Yet, Israel became the problem and in a sense, it became the microcosm of the problem. Therefore, reading Romans as a narrative on Israel’s narrative makes sense.
Paul and Torah
Torah was God’s gift to Israel to be given to the world. Yet Torah soon was intertwined with the problem. Instead of dealing with sin, it highlighted the sin. There was no way for Israel to escape the dialectic. God’s son—God’s servant ala Isaiah 40-55—allowed Torah to reach a “critical point” on himself, focusing the world’s sins in one place, and dealing decisively with the sin problem once and for all through the death of the Messiah.
This helps us understand the “works of the law” debate. If works of the law is rightly identified with the rites of ethnic Israel—the boundary markers—then what Paul is saying makes sense. If salvation were through Torah, then the death and resurrection of the Messiah is meaningless. If salvation were through Torah and “identity markers,” then we can’t relate to God through faith. Later Protestant attempts to read “Roman Catholic merit theology” into the phrase “works of the law” destroys any meaning Paul gave to this passage.
Conclusion
This is one of those books that really deserves an extended commentary. It is full of rich insights that cannot be exhausted in one review. There are a few drawbacks, but that happens with any commentary. While the format of the NIB is generally good, the editors’ decision to use the two worst translations on the market (the NIV and the NRSV) as the translations in the text mar a lot of the work. Notwithstanding, this is a fine commentary.
In many ways, this is not so much a commentary but a daring exercise in biblical theology. And for that reason it will be reviewed, not as a commentary, but as a biblical theology textbook. Many presuppositions are required in reading this commentary. One has to believe that Paul was familiar with the Biblical story (indeed, that the Old Testament even has an overarching narrative, and even if it does, that Paul was concerned about it). One has to believe that Paul saw the church as occupying a key space in God’s continuing narrative that began with Abraham (586).
Accordingly, I will not give a commentary on what Wright thought of each chapter. That is certainly possible and worthwhile, but it misses the narratival thrust of what St Paul is trying to say. Instead, I will highlight major themes and hermeneutical movements that Wright says Paul uses and see if they actually work.
The strength of NTW’s commentary is that his thesis tries to match up with what he deems St Paul’s thesis: God’s righteousness is unveiled in the death and resurrection of his Son—and this is the “gospel.” The Gospel is the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ. St Paul does NOT define the gospel as "receiving the imputed righteousness of God by faith." Read the actual words of Romans 1:3-4, 16, and 17: The word "gospel" is used in connection with the death and resurrection of the Messiah. Verses 16 and 17 say that the revelation of God's rigtheousness (even assuming it means what Luther meant, which is easily contested) is a *subset* of the gospel, but iti s not strictly speaking "the gospel." Further, NTW shows how this theme controls the entire reading of Romans, as can be seen in the neat summary to the book found in chapter 15.
New Exodus, New Creation.
Wright suggests that chs. 3-8 of Romans form a narratival substructure. St Paul is paralleling the Christian experience with that of YHWH redeeming the Hebrews from Egypt. Wright notes, “Allowing for Paul’s new perspective, whereby the promise of the land has been redefined into the promise of inheriting the whole cosmos [4:13; 8:18-25], the pattern is exact” (511). The Israelites were in slavery; God’s people have been redeemed from slave masters (Romans 3:24; 6:16). Other verses could support the claim, and while Wright doesn’t spell out the argument here like in his earlier essay, it runs something like this: chapter 6: sin as a slave master = Egypt; chapter 7: Giving of Torah (ala Exodus 20) = new discussion of Torah and the problem of Torah; end of chapter 7 to 8:11: Israelites in wilderness = Christians being led by the Spirit to their inheritance (same language is used of Spirit as was used of glory cloud in the wanderings).
What do we make of this argument? Admittedly, it does have a remarkable unity to it. It places the drama of redemption on a cosmic field. It retells the Old Testament story but this time around the redemption won in Christ. It implicitly draws upon the strong philosophical and hermeneutical resources of “narrative.” But can we know for certain this is what Paul really meant? Maybe, maybe not. Can we know that Paul really meant us to read his letter like a scientific database to proof-text doctrines? Accepting or not accepting Wright’s argument depends on one’s own hermeneutical allowances.
I think there is a lot to be said for this argument. Israel was called to be the means through which God’s saving work was brought to the world. Yet, Israel became the problem and in a sense, it became the microcosm of the problem. Therefore, reading Romans as a narrative on Israel’s narrative makes sense.
Paul and Torah
Torah was God’s gift to Israel to be given to the world. Yet Torah soon was intertwined with the problem. Instead of dealing with sin, it highlighted the sin. There was no way for Israel to escape the dialectic. God’s son—God’s servant ala Isaiah 40-55—allowed Torah to reach a “critical point” on himself, focusing the world’s sins in one place, and dealing decisively with the sin problem once and for all through the death of the Messiah.
This helps us understand the “works of the law” debate. If works of the law is rightly identified with the rites of ethnic Israel—the boundary markers—then what Paul is saying makes sense. If salvation were through Torah, then the death and resurrection of the Messiah is meaningless. If salvation were through Torah and “identity markers,” then we can’t relate to God through faith. Later Protestant attempts to read “Roman Catholic merit theology” into the phrase “works of the law” destroys any meaning Paul gave to this passage.
Conclusion
This is one of those books that really deserves an extended commentary. It is full of rich insights that cannot be exhausted in one review. There are a few drawbacks, but that happens with any commentary. While the format of the NIB is generally good, the editors’ decision to use the two worst translations on the market (the NIV and the NRSV) as the translations in the text mar a lot of the work. Notwithstanding, this is a fine commentary.
Currently reading
November 2, 2009NT Wright's commentary on Romans was definitely a bit of a turn from what I've grown up with in reading various sermons/commentaries on this massive letter from Paul. It's hard not to get lost in his references to extrabiblical literature (Baruch, 4 Ezra, Maccabees), but that's just due to the fact that I have no education in these areas. His so-called 'redefinition' of the word(s) translated into the phrase "the righteousness of God" as "God's covenant faithfulness" has given me pause- and in spite of many fierce critics from the Reformed wing of Evangelicalism, I think that Wright's definition is not incorrect- but I think it's not necessarily complete either. This commentary is still teaching me lots that I've never understood before in Romans, and has made so much better sense of the letter as a whole, as opposed to breaking it up into sections supposing that Paul was jumping around talking about different things.
June 22, 2008
All three of the commentaries in this volume are excellent, but here's the real draw: N.T. Wright on Romans. Need I say more?
October 14, 2011
I got this to read N. T. Wright's extended commentary on Romans, which was just as spectacular as I expected it to be. If you want all the juicy typology and structure of Romans, here's your stop.
May 14, 2012
Wright's study of Romans is golden
November 28, 2020
Just read through Wright’s commentary on Romans. Best I’ve read on Romans.
December 10, 2015
bought this for N.T. Wright on Romans...excellent
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews