What do you think?
Rate this book
The Epistle to the Romans (Eerdmans Classic Biblical Commentaries
Careful scholarship and spiritual insight characterize this enduring commentary by John Murray on Romans, first published in 1959 as part of the New International Commentary on the New Testament series.
After a brief introduction to the authorship, occasion, setting, and message of the epistle, Murray provides a verse-by-verse exposition of Romans that is deeply penetrating in its elucidation of the text. In ten appendices he gives special attention to select themes and scholarly debates—the meaning of justification, Isaiah 53:11 in relation to Romans, Karl Barth on Romans 5, the interpretation of the “weak brother” in Romans 14, and more.
Murray’s classic commentary on Romans in this new edition will continue to be valuable to pastors, students, and scholars everywhere.
After a brief introduction to the authorship, occasion, setting, and message of the epistle, Murray provides a verse-by-verse exposition of Romans that is deeply penetrating in its elucidation of the text. In ten appendices he gives special attention to select themes and scholarly debates—the meaning of justification, Isaiah 53:11 in relation to Romans, Karl Barth on Romans 5, the interpretation of the “weak brother” in Romans 14, and more.
Murray’s classic commentary on Romans in this new edition will continue to be valuable to pastors, students, and scholars everywhere.
736 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 30, 1960
53 people are currently reading
301 people want to read
About the author
John Murray
1,721 books15 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
April 4, 2023
Thorough and deep. If you are looking for an expository or application-focused commentary, this is not the one for you. But if you want a close look at the text, verse by verse, word by word, Murray's commentary is excellent.
April 28, 2025
An amazing academic commentary on the book of Romans!
January 26, 2025
Murray is a classic Reformed work on Romans, and should be read by the preacher working through the epistle. However, many of Murray's views are picked up in more complete commentaries.
October 29, 2013
Murray's Commentary on Romans was amazing!
Being the top tier scholar that he was Murray understands all of the problems in the book of Romans that scholars hammer out and brings them down to the level of laymen. Not to say he reduces the doctrine (he still uses big words and the Greek New Testament) but makes it understandable.
Murray is very good on the topic of law and the different meanings it has in the letters of Paul, or even the many different ways Paul uses it in Romans.
Highly recommended! Get this book and digest it.
Being the top tier scholar that he was Murray understands all of the problems in the book of Romans that scholars hammer out and brings them down to the level of laymen. Not to say he reduces the doctrine (he still uses big words and the Greek New Testament) but makes it understandable.
Murray is very good on the topic of law and the different meanings it has in the letters of Paul, or even the many different ways Paul uses it in Romans.
Highly recommended! Get this book and digest it.
October 1, 2024
A SOLIDLY “REFORMED” COMMENTARY ON THE MOST COMPLEX EPISTLE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
John Murray ( 1898-1975) was a Scottish-born Calvinist theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary and helped found Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught Systematic Theology for thirty years until his retirement in 1966.
He comments on 1:18-21, “the truth is regarded as asserting itself within the men concerned but that they hold it down or suppress it… Undoubtedly there is a witness of the truth welling up from within which men suppress by their unrighteousness… the apostle is dealing with the truth derived from the observable handiwork of God in the work of creation. The notion of ‘holding back’ is well suited to express the reaction which men by their unrighteousness offer to the truth thus manifested… they hinder the truth because there is a manifestation of the truth to them, and the truth manifested to them is described as ‘that which is known of God.’” (V1, pg. 36-37) He adds, “we cannot eliminate from the all-inclusive ordination and providence of God the design which is presupposed in the actual result.” (V1, pg. 40)
He observes, “In appealing to this text [Gen 15:6] it should be apparent that Paul is basing his argument mainly upon the fact that it is the FAITH of Abraham that is in the foreground.” (V1, pg. 129-130) He continues, “The antithesis is therefore between the idea of compensation and that of grace… The antithesis is not simply between the worker and the non-worker but between the worker and the person who does not work BUT BELIEVES.” (V1, pg. 132) [I must point out that Murray refrains from a detailed discussion of James 2:17-22 in his commentary, which he mentions only in passing, and only in the second volume.]
He comments on 5:12, “If Paul meant that death passed upon all because all men were guilty of actual transgression... Pelagians say so. There are conclusive objections to this view… It is not historically true. Not all die because they actually and voluntarily sin. Infants die and they do not voluntarily sin… The most conclusive refutation of the view in question is the explicit and repeated affirmations … to the effect that condemnation and death reign over all because of the ONE SIN of the ONE MAN Adam.” (V1, pg. 182-183) He concludes, “we must reject the supposition that when Paul says, ‘in that all sinned’ he means the actual voluntary sins of all men.” (V1, pg. 184)
He says of 7:18-20 [“it is not more I that do it…”], "he appears to dissociate his own self from the sin committed... and places the responsibility for the sin committed upon the indwelling sin… no longer does HE commit the sin but rather the sin that dwells in him---the reason is that what he does HE does not will.” (V1, pg. 263-264)
He interprets “the statement ‘Esau I hated’ is not satisfactorily interpreted as meaning simply ‘not loved’ or ‘loved less’ but in the sense that an attitude of positive disfavor is expressed thereby. Esau was not merely excluded from what Jacob enjoyed but was the object of a displeasure which love would have excluded and of which Jacob was not the object because he was loved… Thus the definitive actions denoted by ‘loved’ and ‘hated’ are represented as actuated not by any character differences in the two children but solely by the sovereign will of God…” (V2, pg. 23)
He states, “In view of the sustained emphasis on the free, sovereign will of God we must recognize that this sovereignty is just as inviolate in the hardening as it is in showing mercy… the sovereignty of God is ultimate in both cases and as ultimate in the negative as in the positive.” (V2, pg.. 27) He asks rhetorically, “How can God blame us when we are the victims of his irresistible decree?... The answer is the appeal to the reverential silence which the majesty of God demands of us… we have an ultimate on which we may not interrogate him nor speak back when he has uttered his verdict. Why are WE to dispute his government?” (V2, pg. 31) He adds, “If God in the exercise of his sovereign right makes some vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy what have we to say?” (V2, pg. 33)
About 10:9-10, he observes, “the accent falls upon believing in that heart that God raised him… We are not to regard confession and faith as having the same efficacy unto salvation. The contrast between mouth and heart needs to be observed. But we may not tone down the importance of confession with the mouth. Confession without faith would be vain… But likewise faith without confession would be shown to be spurious… In verse 10 the order is inverted; faith is mentioned first and then confession. This shows that verse 9 is not intended to announce the priority whether causal or logical.” (V2, pg. 55-56)
He says of 13:1-2 [“the powers that be are ordained of God”], “He is not now treating of government in the abstract nor entering into the question of the different forms of government. He is making categorical statements regarding the authorities in actual existence… The civil magistrate is not only the means decreed in God’s providence or the punishment of evildoers but God’s instituted, authorized, and prescribed instrument for the maintenance of order and the punishing of criminals who violate that order… At the same time… We cannot but believe that he would have endorsed and practised the word of Peter and other apostles: ‘We must obey God rather than men… ' ... Paul does not deal with the questions that arise in connection with revolution… in this passage as a whole there are principles which bear upon the right or wrong of revolution. But these matters… are not introduced into this passage… The apostle is not writing an essay on casuistical theology but setting forth the cardinal principles …regulating the behaviour of Christians.’” (V2, pg. 148-150)
On 14:5-6 [“One man esteemeth one day above another”], he says, “Since this difference of conviction among believers is in the same category as the difference respecting the use of certain kinds of food, we must conclude that the observance of the days in question did not proceed from any continuing divine obligation. The person who esteems every day alike… is recognized by the apostle as rightfully entertaining this position. This could not be the case if the distinction of days were a matter of divine obligation… The injunction to be fully assured in one’s own mind refers not simply to the RIGHT of private judgment but to the DEMAND.” (V2, pg. 177-178)
He says of Phoebe in 16:1, “It is highly probable that Phoebe was the bearer of the epistle to the church at Rome… It is common to give Phoebe the title of ‘deaconess’ and regard her as having performed an office in the church corresponding to that which belonged to men who exercised the office of deacon… there is neither need nor warrant to suppose that she occupied or exercised what amounted to an ecclesiastical office comparable to that of the diaconate. The services performed ... is one of mercy to the poor, the sick, and the desolate… there is no more warrant to posit an OFFICE…” (V2, pg. 226)
This is a detailed commentary by a highly-respected Reformed theologian; it will be of great interest to anyone studying Romans.
John Murray ( 1898-1975) was a Scottish-born Calvinist theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary and helped found Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught Systematic Theology for thirty years until his retirement in 1966.
He comments on 1:18-21, “the truth is regarded as asserting itself within the men concerned but that they hold it down or suppress it… Undoubtedly there is a witness of the truth welling up from within which men suppress by their unrighteousness… the apostle is dealing with the truth derived from the observable handiwork of God in the work of creation. The notion of ‘holding back’ is well suited to express the reaction which men by their unrighteousness offer to the truth thus manifested… they hinder the truth because there is a manifestation of the truth to them, and the truth manifested to them is described as ‘that which is known of God.’” (V1, pg. 36-37) He adds, “we cannot eliminate from the all-inclusive ordination and providence of God the design which is presupposed in the actual result.” (V1, pg. 40)
He observes, “In appealing to this text [Gen 15:6] it should be apparent that Paul is basing his argument mainly upon the fact that it is the FAITH of Abraham that is in the foreground.” (V1, pg. 129-130) He continues, “The antithesis is therefore between the idea of compensation and that of grace… The antithesis is not simply between the worker and the non-worker but between the worker and the person who does not work BUT BELIEVES.” (V1, pg. 132) [I must point out that Murray refrains from a detailed discussion of James 2:17-22 in his commentary, which he mentions only in passing, and only in the second volume.]
He comments on 5:12, “If Paul meant that death passed upon all because all men were guilty of actual transgression... Pelagians say so. There are conclusive objections to this view… It is not historically true. Not all die because they actually and voluntarily sin. Infants die and they do not voluntarily sin… The most conclusive refutation of the view in question is the explicit and repeated affirmations … to the effect that condemnation and death reign over all because of the ONE SIN of the ONE MAN Adam.” (V1, pg. 182-183) He concludes, “we must reject the supposition that when Paul says, ‘in that all sinned’ he means the actual voluntary sins of all men.” (V1, pg. 184)
He says of 7:18-20 [“it is not more I that do it…”], "he appears to dissociate his own self from the sin committed... and places the responsibility for the sin committed upon the indwelling sin… no longer does HE commit the sin but rather the sin that dwells in him---the reason is that what he does HE does not will.” (V1, pg. 263-264)
He interprets “the statement ‘Esau I hated’ is not satisfactorily interpreted as meaning simply ‘not loved’ or ‘loved less’ but in the sense that an attitude of positive disfavor is expressed thereby. Esau was not merely excluded from what Jacob enjoyed but was the object of a displeasure which love would have excluded and of which Jacob was not the object because he was loved… Thus the definitive actions denoted by ‘loved’ and ‘hated’ are represented as actuated not by any character differences in the two children but solely by the sovereign will of God…” (V2, pg. 23)
He states, “In view of the sustained emphasis on the free, sovereign will of God we must recognize that this sovereignty is just as inviolate in the hardening as it is in showing mercy… the sovereignty of God is ultimate in both cases and as ultimate in the negative as in the positive.” (V2, pg.. 27) He asks rhetorically, “How can God blame us when we are the victims of his irresistible decree?... The answer is the appeal to the reverential silence which the majesty of God demands of us… we have an ultimate on which we may not interrogate him nor speak back when he has uttered his verdict. Why are WE to dispute his government?” (V2, pg. 31) He adds, “If God in the exercise of his sovereign right makes some vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy what have we to say?” (V2, pg. 33)
About 10:9-10, he observes, “the accent falls upon believing in that heart that God raised him… We are not to regard confession and faith as having the same efficacy unto salvation. The contrast between mouth and heart needs to be observed. But we may not tone down the importance of confession with the mouth. Confession without faith would be vain… But likewise faith without confession would be shown to be spurious… In verse 10 the order is inverted; faith is mentioned first and then confession. This shows that verse 9 is not intended to announce the priority whether causal or logical.” (V2, pg. 55-56)
He says of 13:1-2 [“the powers that be are ordained of God”], “He is not now treating of government in the abstract nor entering into the question of the different forms of government. He is making categorical statements regarding the authorities in actual existence… The civil magistrate is not only the means decreed in God’s providence or the punishment of evildoers but God’s instituted, authorized, and prescribed instrument for the maintenance of order and the punishing of criminals who violate that order… At the same time… We cannot but believe that he would have endorsed and practised the word of Peter and other apostles: ‘We must obey God rather than men… ' ... Paul does not deal with the questions that arise in connection with revolution… in this passage as a whole there are principles which bear upon the right or wrong of revolution. But these matters… are not introduced into this passage… The apostle is not writing an essay on casuistical theology but setting forth the cardinal principles …regulating the behaviour of Christians.’” (V2, pg. 148-150)
On 14:5-6 [“One man esteemeth one day above another”], he says, “Since this difference of conviction among believers is in the same category as the difference respecting the use of certain kinds of food, we must conclude that the observance of the days in question did not proceed from any continuing divine obligation. The person who esteems every day alike… is recognized by the apostle as rightfully entertaining this position. This could not be the case if the distinction of days were a matter of divine obligation… The injunction to be fully assured in one’s own mind refers not simply to the RIGHT of private judgment but to the DEMAND.” (V2, pg. 177-178)
He says of Phoebe in 16:1, “It is highly probable that Phoebe was the bearer of the epistle to the church at Rome… It is common to give Phoebe the title of ‘deaconess’ and regard her as having performed an office in the church corresponding to that which belonged to men who exercised the office of deacon… there is neither need nor warrant to suppose that she occupied or exercised what amounted to an ecclesiastical office comparable to that of the diaconate. The services performed ... is one of mercy to the poor, the sick, and the desolate… there is no more warrant to posit an OFFICE…” (V2, pg. 226)
This is a detailed commentary by a highly-respected Reformed theologian; it will be of great interest to anyone studying Romans.
April 27, 2020
Another good commentary for the book of Romans. John Murray is one of the favorites of several of my favorite Bible teachers and it did not disappoint. Recommended
October 4, 2023
If you want to truly understand the book of Romans, I highly recommend John Murray’s commentary. This is the kind of resource that can be passed down through generations containing rightly divided truths about the word do God!
May 25, 2024
Murray does a great job of interpreting Romans up until chapter 8 when he unreasonably veers off into his personal, pre-programmed Calvinist interpretation of salvation. There is much to gain from this commentary, as long as one can endure his explication of chaps. 8-11.
September 20, 2017
Usefull and quite comprehensive, a lot of insights from a systematic perspective and background since it is Murray's area of expertise.
October 17, 2022
Excellent, classic commentary on Romans. Though there are more recent, comprehensive commentaries on Romans (Moo, Schreiner, Longenecker), Murray is clear, thoughtful and worth consulting.
April 9, 2024
This commentary has been a steady companion. The appendix on Justification alone is worth the price of the book.
May 17, 2025
Pretty darn solid. Combines a reformed ST with good exegesis. Wish more commentaries wrote the way Murray did. Does not deal with a plethora of arguments like Moo's
January 18, 2008
Murray's work on Romans may not match the pastoral brilliance of John Stott, or be as up to date in scholarship as Douglas Moo (which replaced this volume in the wonderful NICNT series), but it is a must have. There have been hundreds of commentaries written on Romans over the past few centuries, but Murray's has joined the small cluster at the top of the 'classics' list (with Charles Hodge and Martin Luther, and the less orthodox Barth). All future commentaries will continue to reference Murray, as the standout work of its kind for the mid-20th century.
In addition to its usefulness for preachers and seminary students, it is also a nice window into the kind of teaching hat was coming out of Westminster Seminary in a golden period of productivity when that school was THE leading Reformed school of the English speaking world.
In addition to its usefulness for preachers and seminary students, it is also a nice window into the kind of teaching hat was coming out of Westminster Seminary in a golden period of productivity when that school was THE leading Reformed school of the English speaking world.
January 8, 2016
Simply incredible. John Murray has been blessed with amazing insight and clarity regarding the book of Romans. Do not let the page length intimidate you. He writes in an easy to understand manner so a one bite at a time approach makes this readable for anybody. If I can get through it, anyone can! If you want to seriously mine the depths of Romans, this is your book. This is not the latest and flashiest on Romans, but is a fundamental, sound classic.
January 18, 2016
This is one of the most significant commentaries I have ever read! John Murray is succinct, albeit with tremendous Biblical insight. Especially valuable are his commentaries on chapters 5, 7 and 11. His appendix on Karl Barth and Romans chapter 5 ("universalism") are worth the price of the book alone!
April 10, 2024
This is a super helpful resource. If you don't have the time to read through Schreiner's commentary, this would be my next choice. Murray is succinct, which is helpful if you are needing to prep quickly to teach.
July 24, 2011
A great commentary on Romans. I refer to it regularly.
May 13, 2016
Written before the time of the New Paul Perspective, Murray offers perhaps the best, and my favorite, commentary on Romans.
October 21, 2022
Probably the single most useful Romans commentary.
August 15, 2023
Very good and to be recommended.
Dare I say slightly overrated among the Reformed community.
Dare I say slightly overrated among the Reformed community.
March 13, 2024
This is a work of art.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews