The “traditions-history” of this commentary is convoluted. In 1983 I was asked by Moody Press to contribute a commentary on Romans to their new Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary series. I began work and produced the first volume of that commentary in 1991 (Romans 1–8). Shortly after the appearance of that volume, however, Moody Press decided the cancel the series. I therefore began searching desperately for a publisher who would be willing to republish Romans 1–8 along with the second volume of the commentary, on which I was already at work. In the providence of God, the William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company was at that very time seeking an author to write a revised commentary on Romans for their New International Commentary on the New Testament series. I gladly accepted their offer to put my commentary in their series.
The very different natures of the two commentary series required rather extensive revisions of my first volume. This I found to be both a curse and a blessing. The curse was having to transfer much detailed argumentation of my Wycliffe volume into footnotes in the New International Commentary series—requiring extensive rewriting of both text and notes. But the blessing was that this rewriting enabled me to sharpen my arguments and improve my style at a number of places. Readers of my Wycliffe Romans 1–8 should know, however, that I made few substantive changes—a nuance here, a caveat there, and, of course, interaction with scholarly literature that had appeared since Romans 1–8.
I wrote in the preface to my Wycliffe volume that I did not (in 1990) regret my decision to write a commentary on the much-worked-over letter of Paul to the Romans. I still do not. For what makes study of Romans so challenging is just what makes it so rewarding—being forced to think about so many issues basic to Christian theology and practice. At the same time I am more convinced than ever of the need for interaction with the “new perspective on Paul” that I feature in this commentary. I pray that what I have written will be of service to the church and that readers of this commentary will grow in that “practical divinity” which counts before God: “the doctrine of living to God,” as the Puritan divine William Ames put it.
Many people contributed to this commentary. Several research assistants at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School helped compile bibliography and proofread various part of the MS: Joe Anderson, Harrison Skeele, David Johnson, Jay Smith, and George Goldman. Many students, too numerous to mention, sharpened my thinking about the text through their papers and class interaction. I am grateful to the Board and Administration of Trinity for their generous sabbatical program. The editors of the Wycliffe volume, Moisés Silva and Ken Barker, helped me think through several issues and polish my grammar; their contributions may still be discerned in this revised commentary. And I want especially to thank Milton Essenburg at Eerdmans and Gordon Fee, series editor, for taking my commentary on and interacting fully with my work.
Most of all, I thank my family, who have supported me and prayed for my work: my wife Jenny, and my children Jonathan, David, Lukas, Rebecca, and Christy. My youngest daughter (twelve years old), Christy, brought home to me just how long they have given this support when she commented as I finished the MS that my Romans was as old as she was.
DOUGLAS J. MOO