Book Notice: Perriman, The Future of the People of God

Andrew Perriman

The Future of the People of God: Reading Romans Before and After Western Christendom
Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010.

In this new and provocative book, Andrew Perriman argues that the way forward for the church in the post-Christian, post-postmodern West is to reclaim a historically situated understanding of the Christ faith.

His book is an attempt to read Paul's letter to the Romans fettered, yes incumbered [these are my words not his], by all its historical particularity. While admitting such an approach will "set limits to the dogmatic and pastoral significance of the letter" [and this fact will no doubt concern many], he believes it "opens up interesting possibilities" for solving or at least soothing the church's present self-identity crisis in an age much like that of Paul's when "it is no longer possible (or desirable) to represent the victory of YHWH over the gods of the nations through various forms of political, social, and cultural dominance that made up Christendom" (p. 10).

There is likely much in this book to critically assess and, truth be told, I have not read this book "analytically", in Adler and Van Doren's terminology. The best I've done thus far is a "superficial reading". Still Perriman's hermeneutical intuition is correct in my view and I think the following quote is worth the price of book:

Because the narrative is bounded both geopolitically and temporarlly, because it proceeds the fulfillment that came to be interpreted in accordance with the overweening intellectual self-confidence of Western civilization, we would do well to disable the universalizing assumptions that we bring to the text and, in the interests of exegesis, re-contextualize ourselves--to the point that we come to share Paul's necessarily myopic outlook and limited horizon, to the point that the fate of national Israel matters more to us than the theoretical relationship of the Law to faith, to the point that we are more troubled by the prospect of a pagan backlash than by the suspicion that others have not rightly understood justification theory (p. 9).

Wow! Read that again. And again. Read it several times. Surely wiser words have rarely been spoken in contemporary Pauline studies.

James Dunn on the Reason for Romans

In Beginning from Jerusalem (which is a goldmine of sober historical thinking about early Christianity), Jimmy Dunn returns to the subject of the purpose of Romans esp. in light of Paul's situation at Corinth:

"In these circumstances [finished his mission in the east], and given the relative calm of his few weeks in Corinth, Paul probably concluded that it was time to reflect on his mission to date, on its character, on the tensions and dissensions it had provoked, on what had proved carefully thought through and set down. No doubt the exercise was partly at least with a view to the apologia he might have to make in Jerusalem, and part at least to persuade the Roman believers of the scope and implications of the gospel. But Paul's primary objective, I suspect (with Dahl and Lohse), was to think through his gospel in light of the controversies which it had occasioned and to use the calm of Corinth to set out both his gospel itself and its ramifications in writing with a fullness of exposition which the previous trials and tribulations had made impossible and which would have been impossible to sustain in a single oral presentation."

Calvin on Romans

In the May 2009 issue of Australian Presbyterian, my good friend Joe Mock has an article on "Roman Adventure: Paul's Epistle Provides a Passageway to Profound Treasure" (p. 12) which presents an overview of the influence of Romans on John Calvin. A good short read!

Katherine Grieb on "God's Righteousness"

In a good little book called The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God's Righteousness, A. Katherine Grieb writes about God's righteousness:

"The Story of God's righteousness in Jesus Christ is at once the story of (1) God's sovereign renewal of the created cosmos, (2) God's redemption of humanity from universal bondage to Sin and Death, and (3) God's reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles (which involves both God's faithfulness to Israel and the keeping of God's promises for the Gentiles). It is critical to discern the apocalyptic framework in which the story appears: creations groans with expectation (Rom. 8:22) as Paul and his communities live out the script of the end time; they are players in the last act of God's apocalyptic drama of salvation, a story that began with creation and the fall and continues thorugh Israel's history up to the present moment" (p. xxiii).

Things on Romans to Click

On Romans studies, Alan Bandy has an excellent discussion on the interpretation of ek pisteos eis pistin from Rom 1:17 that I recommend. Also, David Kirk has been blogging through Romans with verve and sensibility.

Reading for a Romans Course

What five books would you put on a reading list for a course on Romans? Here's my pick:

1. Obviously a good commentary is first up and my go-to volume is Doug Moo (though I recommend Tom Schreiner as a less expensive volume since Moo is $100 AusD and Schreiner is $60 AusD). I think alot of Charles Talbert's Romans commentary too for its background info which I'd say should be # 2 on the commentary list. Robert Jewett is great just for its thoroughness and who can forget Ernst Kasemann, James Dunn, N.T. Wright, Joseph Fitzmyer, or Charles Cranfield as stimulating reads as well. I also would give a mention in despatches to Peter Stuhlmacher, A. Katherine Grieb, L.T. Johnson, Thomas Tobin, and Leander E. Keck too. Commentary decisions will be even harder to make once Richard Longenecker (NIGTC), Craig Keener (NCCS), and Beverly Gaventa's (NTL) volumes come out. Note, watch out for a Michael Bird on Romans commentary in the medium term, though this will be more about application and praxis.

2. On background, I'd have to also include Peter Lampe From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, which puts first century Rome onto the map.

3. The purpose of Romans is of course a big topic so Karl Donfried's revised edition of The Romans Debate must be on the list as well. Second choice here is now A. Andrew Das' Solving the Romans Debate which seems like a sober volume opting for a Gentile readership.

4. Must include a history of interpretation of Romans and the best is by Mark Reasoner Romans in Full Circle. A close second here has to be the IVP Ancient Christian Commentary Series on Romans and watch out for the forthcoming series on the Reformers!

5. Gotta have something on intertextuality too, so much to chose from here, but I'll go for J. Ross Wagner Paul and Isaiah in Concert.

Next post will be what top five journal articles would you make students read?

Book Notice: J.R. Daniel Kirk - Unlocking Romans

J.R. Daniel Kirk
Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
Availabe at Amazon.com

The publication of the doctoral thesis by my buddy Daniel Kirl (of Sibboleth) is now out and it is schmicko! Back in 2002, I wrote a 25, 000 word B.A. Hons. thesis on: "The Relationship Between Resurrection and Justification in Pauline Soteriology with Special Reference to Romans". I'm glad to say that Dan Kirk has written on the same subject but in far better depth and detail than what I did back then.

This book stands in a "progressive reformed" mix as Kirk moves freely between Sanders, Wright, Hays, and Dunn one the one hand and Vos, Ridderbos, and Gaffin on the other hand. Kirk's central thesis is that the question of God's faithfulness to Israel - one of theodicy - is answered by Paul through his explication of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the manifestation of God's faithfulness and is the justification of God himself. Viewed this way, I would say that Romans for Kirk really becomes an exposition of Paul's speech in Pisidian Antioch narrated in Acts 13.32-33: "We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus".

The strenght of Kirk's volume is how he shows that the general statements about salvation must be understood in light of particulars. For example, definitions of grace, work, faith, and law must be related to YHWH's relationship to Israel and not treated as timeless theological terms (p. 5). There is a very good discussion on Rom. 4.25 (pp. 76-81) and he sees Jesus' justification as his resurrection. He also provides some thoughtful points about 'salvation-history' vs. 'apocalypticism' and christological continuity (I want to write a book on this one day). Importantly, Kirk sees justification/resurrection and the theodicy issue in Romans as a way of bringing together soteriology and ecclesiology. He states: "Paul is giving there a christological revision of the identity of the people of God and these, in turn, are the people who have been and will be justified ... Thus, while we may not want to say with N.T. Wright that justification is about ecclesiology before it is about soteriology, he is certainly correct to keep them in closest connection" (p. 223) and "This is yet another reason why ecclesiology and soteriology are inseperable: to be in Christ is to be in his body, the church; to be justified is to be in unioon with his resurrected body" (p. 224). Kirk is also well balanced on final justification, living out resurrection in the present live, but without shifting into a double justification of faith and works: "The death and resurrection of Jesus are sufficient and effective for justification, and they also both spill into the present such that the justified sinners are now able to do deeds of righteousness which are congruous with such a juridical verdict" (p. 225) and "In Paul, the future vindication is the consummation of the verdict of justification that is issued when the gospel message is heard with faith (4:24) it can be based on works that are performed within the orb of Jesus' death and resurrection because this is the person and place in which the grace of God has been manifested, because transfer into this realm is based solely on the grace of God, and because this is the place where there is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. Such a sphere of obedience is fitting for the God whose righteousness is manifest in the resurrected Christ" (pp. 226-27).

One or two minor criticism come to mind. I think Kirk could have been a little kinder to Luther, since it might be a matter of refining some of his points rather than leaving them behind (p. 4). Also, while covenant faithfulness is certainly part of what God's righteousness means (esp. if you read Rom. 1.16-17 in light of 3.3-4), but I think that God's righteousness is a far more comprehensive term than his "covenant faithfulness" and also connotes his intent to establish justice throughout all of creation (hence the echoes of Psalm 98 that Mark Seifrid and Douglas Campbell both agree on).

Kirk has written a very good book and reading it was certainly a bit of deja vu for me, Recommend to anyone who wants to go deeper into Romans.

The Expulsion of Jews from Rome

Walter Wiefel's hypothesis is that Romans should be understood against the backdrop of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49 CE and their return at the accession of Nero in 54 CE which significantly effected the contours of Roman Christianity in the mid-50s. I have made use of this myself in lecturing, preaching, and writing on Romans. In my mind, Romans is essentially a fund raising letter and Paul wants to outline his apostolic message, assuage reservations about his stance vis-a-vis Israel and the Torah, but he also wants to make a positive impact upon Christian groupings there in order to address a potenially fractious cosmopolitan community on the verges of being Balkanized (or Galatianized!) over matters pertaining to Torah observance. I have always wondered, however, that if the Roman expulsion was part of the ocassion of Romans then why does Paul not explicitly mention it? Is it kind of like the grandmother in the sitting room that everybody knows about but never talks about?

In an article review of Bob Jewett's Romans commentary (JSNT 31.1 [2008]: 91-94), John Barlcay questions the evidence for and relevance of the expulsion for interpreting Romans. Barclay makes a good point about how little we really know about Judaism in Rome in the 40s. Dio Cassius' account of Claudius' clamp down on synagogue meetings in 41 CE is of a piece with Claudius' general suppression of meetings in clubs and taverns and not necessarily due to intra-Jewish debates about Jesus, Messianism, and Torah. Suetonius' reference to the impulsore Chresto is not necessarily a faulty latinism of Christus. The name Chrestus was an extremely common Roman name and Suetonius knew that Christians were called Christianoi so he would be unlikely to get them confused if he knew of the Christianoi and their Christus. Furthermore, Paul makes no mention of changes in leadership or shifts from synagogues to house churches as the new meeting places for Jesus believers,which one might expect if seismic ecclesial shifts have transpired among the Roman Christian communities.

Even so, I'm a little more sanguine about the relevance of the expulsion for when Paul writes Romans ca. 55-56 CE. Any study of Judaism and Christianity in Rome in the first and second centuries must take into account Peter Lampe's astute study which provides more detailed evidence and hypotheses about the emergence of Christianity in Rome. Also, there is enough evidence from Tacitus, Tertullian, and textual variants to suggest that mistaking Christus for Chrestus was common place. The evidence from Acts 18.2 about Priscilla and Aquila's journey to Corinth from Rome because of the expulsion is further proof of the expulsion and also Paul's contact with Roman Christianity suffering effects of the expulsion. Like Jewett, I find Barlcay's conclusion that Priscilla and Aquila may not have been converted until after they left Rome unconvincing. Finally, Romans 14-15 looks very much like Paul using prior theological debates (i.e. 1 Corinthians 8-10) as the basis of exhortations to unity and mutual acceptance among the Roman Christians.

Karl Barth on Vegetarians

I have never met so many vegetarians since coming to the UK. I'm more of Peteresque, "kill and eat" kind of a guy. If found interesting then, Barth's comments on Romans 14 about vegetarians:

"Contrasted with the strong man is the weak man who – eateth only vegetables. This, at any rate, is a clear, concrete standpoint. The uninstructed, non-Pauline man has this advantage at least. His ambiguity is not at once obvious; he does, at any rate, do something. Party-men, Sectarians, Churchmen, are vigorous and full of life. They occupy a position. They have pronounce characteristics. Their lives form a proper subject for the biographer. They are concerned with ‘deeds and facts’. Ranged behind the vegetable eaters at Rome we see the devotees of Orpheus and of Dionysus, the Neo-Pythagoreans, the Therapeutes, and the Essences, of the Ancient World; the Monks of the Middle Ages; the Baptists of the Age of the Reformation; the Total Abstainers, the Open-Air Enthusiasts and the Vegetarians of the Present Day."

This passage needs to be put in context of what Barth says about freedom, detachment, and the true Paulinist; however, Pagans and Baptists and Vegetarians are just different manifestations of the same problem.

John Locke on Romans - Must Read This!

I have found many precursors to the New Perspective on Paul. By that I mean those who find the centre of gravity in Romans to be how Gentiles are incorporated into the people of God and how they relate to (i) Jesus-believing Jews, and (ii) unbelieving Israel as opposed to schemes that see Romans as focused mainly on individual soteriology. Working backwards from E.P. Sanders there is Markus Barth, Krister Stendhal, W.D. Davies, and F.C. Baur. It is possible to find similar thoughts in the Church Fathers, esp. Origen and even Augustine, and I would be prepared to argue that even the magisterial Reformers like Luther and Calvin were not completely oblivious to these issues even if their expositions and analyses were dominated by dogmatic questions and wrongly sidelined the social and salvation-historical present in the text.

But I have just been able to access John Locke's paraphrase of Paul's letters (1709) and this is cool. Stop what you are doing and read it this weekend! It is available to read and download at Google Books. Let me give you a quote from what he says on Rom. 3.26: ‘God rejected them [i.e. the Jews] for being his people, and took the Gentiles into his church, and made them his people jointly and equally with the few believing Jews. This is plainly the sense of the apostle here, where he is discoursing the nation of the Jews and their state in comparison with the Gentiles; not of the state of private persons. Let anyone without prepossession attentatively read the context, and he will find it to be so’. Locke stands in sharp contrast to the highly individualistic and pietistic readings of Romans by the English Puritans in the late seventeenth and eighteenth century. His preface to Romans, his introduction to each section, his paraphrase, and notes all contain thoughts that gained currency later. In many ways he anticipates F.C. Baur by seeing Romans not as a dogmatic treatise but as Paul's justification for the inclusion of Gentiles into the church. Locke does not like 'imputation' in Romans 5, he treats the 'I' of Romans 7 as all those who were under the law in order to show that Gentiles do not have to submit to the law of Moses. I bring this to peoples attention not because I am necessarily convinced by Locke's exegesis at every point, but because Locke was way ahead of his time and he anticipates alot of the debate that was to come three hundred years later. Take up and read!

Calvin: Justification, Union with Christ, and Good Works

In reading Calvin on Rom. 3.22, I found this:

‘Faith is therefore said to justify, because it is the instrument by which we receive Christ, in whom righteousness is communicated to us. When we are made partakers of Christ, we are not only ourselves righteous, but our works are also counted righteous in the sight of God, because any imperfections in them are obliterated by the blood of Christ. The promises, which were conditional, are fulfilled to us also by the same grace, since God rewards our works as perfect, inasmuch as their defects are covered by our free pardon.’

Comments:

1. It seems to me that for Calvin, union with Christ is logically prior to any act of imputation (in contrast, I think, to Michael Horton and Bruce McCormack who I believe argue vice-versa, namely, that union is based on imputation - others can enlightenment me if that is indeed the case).

2. In union with Christ, good works, actually become good. Here we have, I think, a link between justification and works that can make better sense of passages like 2 Cor. 5.10 and Rom. 14.10, etc. Here is the tension I find in Calvin's thought: (a) He rejects justification based on the gift of faith and renewal of the Spirit, (b) He rejects justification based on works of the law = moral effort, but (c) He grants that in Christ God can "reward" good works. Although what he means by reward is not spelled out.

Interview with Charles Cranfield

Over at Dunelm Road, Ben has an excellent summary of conversations over afternoon tea with C.E.B. Cranfield.

Martin Bucer on Rom. 2.13

Indebted to T.H.L. Parker, I was introduced to Martin Bucer's handling of Romans 2.13 which I summarize as follows:

Bucer identifies a ‘tacit irony’ (123a) directed against the Jews who presupposed their advantages but did not translate hearing the Law into practice of the Law. But the statement of 2.13 can be taken at face value because, for Bucer, the ‘doer’ of the Law is one who has a regenerate heart. The logic of Bucer’s argument is that those who do the Law in 2.13 are those who are genuinely ‘doers’ of the works of the Law and it is according to works that God will judge humanity. But to do the Law means to devote one self seriously to what the Law commands and not merely to perform some of the actions demanded by the Law. This can be done only by those who truly believe in the Lord. For Bucer, the actual deeds performed are not those of the believer, but the works of Christ in us! This is not simply Christ inspiring works of Law, rather, believers are justified by the merits of Christ (i.e. Christ’s life, death, and obedience) which become ours through union with Christ by faith. He writes: 'God saves us of his pure mercy and by contemplating the merit of Christ, which is given to us and becomes our own we believe in Christ. For the deeds [of the Law] according to which God justifies us … are Christ’s works in us, given with him, out of a sheer and gratuitous benevolence of God. So the goodness of God is always, per se, the first and complete cause of our salvation’ (129b).

Two comments:

1. It appears that in the early days of the reformation Rom. 2.13 was handled in basically three ways: (a) reconciled with Medieval catholic view of merit, grace, and penance (e.g. Cajetan, Sadoleto); (b) treated it as a hypothetical statement (e.g. Melanchthon, Calvin); or (c) God works his works in the believer through the works of Christ (Bucer).

2. When I read this, I automatically thought of Mark Seifrid's excellent lecture on Justification by Faith at SBTS in 2000 which is evidently Bucerian!

On-Line Lecture by Robert Jewett on Romans and the New Perspective

An online version of a lecture by Bob Jewett on Romans and the New Perspective can be found at the Australian College of Theology website. I won't bother summarizing it, suffice to say, Jewett's view is that a sharper sociological perspective renders many of these debates obsolete. It's a good lecture, controversial in its interpretation at points, but well worth listening to. 

The Theme of Romans: Calvin, Barth, and Wright

Contrast the following commentaries on Romans and their conclusion on Rom. 1.16-17:

Calvin: "We have now the principal point or the main hinge of the first part of this Epistle, that we are justified by faith through the mercy of God alone. We have not this, indeed as yet distinctly expressed by Paul; but from his own words it will hereafter be made very clear that the righteousness, which is grounded on faith, depends entirely on the mercy of God" (p. 29).

Barth: "Where the faithfulness of God encounters the fidelity of men, there is manifested His righteousness. There shall the righteous man live. This is the theme of the Epistle to the Romans" (p. 42).

Wright: "Romans has been thought of for centuries as the letter in which Paul expounds his doctrine of ‘justification by faith’. This half-truth has opened up some aspects of the letter and concealed others. As will become clear, the theological content of this substantial opening section contains ‘justification by faith’ within it by implication, but this is not the stated theme of the letter. The theme is, to repeat once more, the revelation of God’s righteousness, God’s covenant faithfulness, God’s justice, in and through the gospel proclamation of the crucified and risen Messiah … but this letter has announced itself as a treatment, not so much of humans, their plight and their rescue (though all of that has its proper place), but of God – God’s gospel, God’s righteousness. We will not understand Romans unless we grasp this from the outset and remember it throughout" (p. 426).

Why write a Commentary - Calvin's View!

When time allows I'm working through Colossians which is rip roaring fun. In the mornings I'm reading through a plethora of Reformed commentaries on Romans and preparing class notes for August. I was much inspired by Calvin's justification for writing another commentary on Romans despite the fact that Melanchthon, Bullinger, and Bucer had done so recently as well. This is what Calvin had to say: ‘Since so many scholars of pre-eminent learning have previously devoted their efforts to explaining this Epistle, it seems unlikely that there is any room left for others to produce something better … It will, however, I hope, be admitted that nothing has ever been so perfectly done by men that there is no room left for those who follow them to refine, adorn, or illustrate their work. I do not dare to say anything of myself, except that I thought that the present work would be of some profit, and that I have been led to undertake it for no other reason than the common good of the Church’. I'm certainly glad he did!

Bob Jewett to Visit Melbourne

Robert Jewett is due to visit the Bible College of Victoria (Melbourne, Australia) for a day of lectures on Romans and Paul on the 10th of June 2008. If you're in Melbourne try to get yourself to that event.

On the subject of Romans, in reflection, my top five 'modern' commentaries on Romans would be:

1. Robert Jewett (Hermeneia). - judicious and thorough in everything from the text of Romans to exegetical comment and background.

2. Doug Moo (NICNT) - good evangelical commentary with great interactions on theological aspects of Romans and responses to the New Perspective.

3. James D. G. Dunn (WBC) - the quintessential new perspective commentary on Romans.

4. N.T. Wright (NIB) - like him or despise him, he writes well and stimulates the mind and heart about Paul, Christ, and God.

5. C.E.B. Cranfield (ICC) - The strength of Cranfield's commentary is his theological interaction with Barth and that he speaks Greek with a genevan accent.

Mention in despatches for Kaesemann, Stuhlmacher, Schreiner, and Schlatter. If you're talking ancient commentaries on Romans it is hard to go past Origen, Ambrosiaster, and Augustine. I don't know about Reformed Romans commentaries yet (I'm about to teach a Master's Course on Romans in the Reformed Tradition) but I hope to investigate this in the near future.

Rom. 1.17: Anthropological vs. Christological Readings

I've currently reading through Desta Heliso's Pistis and the Righteous One (Mohr/Siebeck, 2007) which is about Romans 1.17. As I see it, this is the case, pro and con, for the christological intepretation of Rom. 1.17:

1. It is absurd to talk of human faith as the mechanism through which the "righteousness of God" is revealed when, in Rom. 3.21-26, it takes place in the Christ-event (Heliso, p. 36).
2. Could not the phrase "the righteous [one] shall live by faith" refer to the Messiah who acquired eschatological life through his faithfulness and is the one who will come to save the faithful (Heliso, p. 70)?
3. Hab. 2.3-4 was interpreted messianically in the LXX .
4. The title ho dikaios was a christological title in the early church (e.g. Acts 3.14; 7.52).

But on the negative side (see esp. Francis Watson):

1. Christ is not mentioned by name in the entire passage!
2. Paul's main concern is to demonstrate: (a) the conformity of his gospel to the pattern of Scripture, and (b) to show the link of "righteousness" and "faith" in counter-point to an ethnocentric nomism.
3. Most uses of Hab. 2.3-4 in Judaism (e.g. Qumran) were not messianic.
4. 1.16 clearly focuses on human faith, while 1.17 is probably more focused on divine faithfulness.

I find it hard to go past the anthropological reading when it is tied more closely to divine activity (as opposed to a believing versus doing antithesis). Mark Seifrid is about to argue (in our forthcoming "Faith of Jesus Christ" book) that this passage means "Faith has its source in the faithfulness of the God who promises and fulfills". Interesting stuff!

Robert Jewett on Rom. 2.13-16

In several places I have advocated the Gentile Christian reading of Rom. 2.13-16. I was glad then to read Bob Jewett's comments on this section:

"The Most likely of these views from a rhetorical point of view is that Paul is here describing the status of converted Gentiles. Having assented that wrath is already evident among unconverted Gentiles (1:18-31) and that Jews are not exempt from God's impartial judgment (2:1-13), the audience consisting mainly of converted Gentiles would assume that their current situation is described in these verses which provide a preliminary form of Paul's strategy of touting Gentile conversion in order to provoke Jewish conversion through jealousy (11:11-14). The alleged contradiction between these verses and chap. 3 is removed if one takes the latter as claiming that all unconverted Gentiles and Jews have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that salvation is by grace alone for Jews as well as Gentiles.

The gar ('for') of v. 14 indicates an argumentative connection with the foregoing thesis concerning the impartial judgment of God in v. 11. It is significant that Paul refers here to the ethne ('Gentiles') without the article implying that some but not all Gentiles are in view. The expression ta me nomon echonta ('those that do not have the law') refers to the absence of the Jewish Torah within the cultural tradition of Gentiles, whereby the word phusis should be taken as qualifying their identity rather than behavior. It refers to Gentiles whose birthright lacked exposure to the Torah. Yet they do the 'deeds of the law,' a claim that in the experience of the Roman audience could only have referred to converted Gentiles" (pp. 213-14).

Mark Reasoner: Romans in Full Circle

Mark Reasoner's volume Romans in Full Circle (see Google Books for a preview) is one of the best volumes I've read in a long time. He concentrates on several loci of Romans such as 1.16-17, 3.21-26, 5.18-21, etc and he looks at how different commentators over the centuries have handled these passages (e.g. Origen, Augustine, Abelard, Aquinas, Luther, Barth, post-Barthians). I learnt several interesting things such as Origen entertained the idea of the subjective genitive interpretation for the pistis christou phrase in Rom. 3.22, Barth and Erasmus both interpreted Rom. 1.17 in terms of God's faithfulness, and there has been some interesting discussions on universalism and Rom. 5.18-21, 11.32. So far (I'm only half-way through the book) I'm disappointed that there wasn't any or much on Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, and Calvin. I think you need to read Ambrosiaster before you read Augustine esp. on Rom. 5.12. While Reasoners sees the history of interpretation as the salvation of the individual emphasis epitomized by Augustine versus the Jew-ethne line epitomized by Origen, I think Augustine was a little more aware of salvation-historical themes than what Reasoner gives him credit for. This is a good volume that those interested in biblical and theological studies should attempt to read it sometime.

The blurb reads:

The New Testament book of Romans has played an important role in the life of the church from the period of the early church and through to the present day. In this concise survey of the major theological changes associated with Paul's letter, Mark Reasoner focuses on its history and interpretation, particularly through the works of Origen, Augustine, the medieval exegetes, Luther, and Barth. In doing so, he reveals that by a circuitous route, western Christians in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are returning to reading Romans in ways very similar to Origen's concerns in the third century. This is true particularly in regard to issues of the human will, sensitivity to Jews and Judaism, openness to the possibility of universalism, and a deconstructive reading of the obedience to government passage in Romans 13. Thus, in addition to giving a helpful overview of Romans itself, this book will help readers situate their theological questions within the two thousand-year history of conversations about Paul's letter to Roman believers.