Review of Colin Kruse's Romans Pillar Commentary

Last updated on: September 5, 2012 at 4:34 am by Nijay Gupta

Review of Colin Kruse's Romans Pillar Commentary 2012-09-05T04:34:27-08:00 Nijay Gupta

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Very recently, Eerdmans published a new volume on Romans in the Pillar series that replaces the earlier one by Leon Morris (published 1988). The new volume is by Colin Kruse, Senior Lecturer in New Testament (Melbourne School of Theology). The Pillar series is known for representing a conservative strand of evangelicalism, though far from fundamentalistic. The volumes on Ephesians (O’Brien), John (Carson), and 1 Corinthians (Rosner/Ciampa) are remarkable and respected very broadly.

My first encounters with the work of Kruse are his earlier books, Paul, the Law, and Justification and John (Tyndale Commentary). Both of these works demonstrate that Kruse is a capable exegete. Given his expertise and interest in the area of Paul and the Law, he was certainly a fine choice to serve as author of a replacement volume on Romans.
In my review, I will spend more time on the introduction, and then refer briefly to the commentary notes.
Introduction
As far as introductions go, especially on Romans, I found that Kruse wrote succinctly, commenting on the most important matters. In terms of historical context of Romans, he is persuaded that “the earliest Christian community in Rome would have been Jewish in character” (a view shared by R Longenecker, A. Hultgren, and others), and that by the time the letter was written, the reading/hearing audience was “comprised of a Gentile majority and a Jewish minority” (p. 2).
When it comes to the purpose of Romans, Kruse follows the common proposal that the thesis statement is found in 1:16-17 whereby “the power of God is revealed through the gospel for all who have faith” (p. 7). Kruse finds 15:15-16 also to be critically important, as his intention was “to minister to the believers in Rome for whom he had an apostolic responsibility,” desiring that the Roman believers should be “an acceptable sacrifice to God, consecrated by the Holy Spirit” (p. 11).
When it comes to the New Perspective on Paul, Kruse is quite critical of Dunn, Wright, and Sanders. He does not find “covenantal nomism” to be a worthwhile model to cover the complexity of Second Temple Judaism (p. 21). However, it should be noted that Dunn accepts the variegated nature of early Judaism. Thus, Dunn himself wrote that if we agree it was “variegated,” it is not a choice between “covenantal nomism” and “variegated nomism,” but best termed “variegated covenantal nomism.” I think Dunn is right on this.
I did think that Kruse wrote wisely on the subject of justification and salvation: “The doctrine of justification by faith is not itself the gospel message — the gospel is the good news of what God as [sic] done through his Son’s atoning death and resurrection to deal with the effects of the fall upon individuals, society, and ultimately the cosmos” (p. 22).
I also found his discussion the “righteousness of God” theme to be very well nuanced. He outlines 5 aspects of the righteousness of God in Romans.
1. his distributive justice
2. his covenant faithfulness
3. his saving action whereby God reveals his righteousness in acting for the salvation of his people
4. his gift of righteousness, that is, the status of being declared righteous by God
5. the righteousness of life he requires of believers and is the outworking of his saving righteousness and the gift of righteousness he bestows upon them
(see p. 26)
At the end of the introduction, Kruse talks about the thorny matter of whether or not there is a centrum Paulinum. As far as Romans in concerned, here is his conclusion: “the center, the heart, the organizing principle of Pauline theology is the action of God through the person and work of Jesus Christ to deal with the effects of human sin, individually, communally, and cosmically” (p. 33).
I think this introduction is well written for a target audience of busy pastors who want to get a bird’s eye view of critical issues in the study of Romans, important historical matters, but especially a preview of themes and core concepts. Who said you can’t introduce Romans in under 500 pages? Kruse did this capably in 33!
Commentary Notes
Overall, let me say that I felt Kruse to have balanced discussions of exegetical concerns. He never beats a dead horse. Also, he is fair and respectful to different types of scholars and scholarship. For example, while he disagrees with N.T. Wright on a very great number of things, he does not shy away from commending a portion of his Romans work that he finds lucid and helpful.
The commentary contains a wide number of delineated excurses that deal with thematic matters, such as “eternal life in the Pauline corpus” or “faith and conscience.” These will be useful for wider comprehension of the significance of issues he raises in the commentary notes.
While I was impressed with Kruse’s commentary overall, and I find it on par in terms of “good exegesis” with the other Pillar commentaries, I must say that if a new commentary on Romans should appear, I am expecting it to offer some kind of clear contribution to the study of Romans. If a conservative evangelical were to ask for a good Romans commentary recommendation, I would not hesitate to bring up Kruse’s work, but I might default to Moo as well. Certainly they do not agree on everything, but they do seem to have a similar commitment to traditional interpretations of Paul and Romans.
Perhaps my being underwhelmed by this commentary has to do with the fact that newer series are trying so hard to make their commentaries theological – Brazos, Two Horizons, even the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary (not to mention Belief and the forthcoming Regula Fidei). As I was reading Kruse’s work, finding his exegetical discussions to be solid at every turn, I couldn’t help but wonder: if you went a bit further and drew out the theological depth and implications, wouldn’t this prove so much more powerful for pastors and students and missionaries and Christian leaders?
By the way, if you are interested in where Kruse stands on the debated exegetical issues in Romans, see Mike Bird’s excellent interview with Kruse.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

September 3, 2012

Latest Expository Times Online 124.1 (2012) October issue

Next Post

September 5, 2012 The Jesus Blog, Brought to You By Le Donne and Keith

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Mis)Understanding Philippians 10 Things I Can't Live Without 2023 New Books 30 OT HB Scholars to Read and Follow 5 Books Series 50-2-Follow Academia Christian Theologians to Read and Follow Cruciform Scripture: Contributor Reflections Crux Sola TV Editors Behind Great Books in NT Studies Education Gendering the Holy Spirit Gupta FB Live Lectures In Faith and Doubt In Their Own Words Living the King Jesus Gospel My Top 6 OT Commentaries New Testament Resource Guide New Word Biblical Themes Nijay's A Very Library Christmas Shopping Guide Notes from an Editor Notes on New Books NTRG OT in the NT Paul Seminary Now The Bible in God's World The Word Felt Among Us SPENCER Translating Philippians Uncategorized Why I Use Accordance Women in Ministry

Select a Month March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz