Romans

Bird’s commentary is lively, wide-ranging, and often illuminating, especially in its attention to the Jewish–Gentile tensions that shape Romans, but at times a legitimate contextual insight is given more interpretive weight than the text can securely bear. His treatment of “works of the law” does acknowledge all that the Torah commands, yet he frames the expression chiefly as the Jewish way of life and repeatedly foregrounds its ethnic and social boundary function; this risks obscuring the broader contrast in Romans 1–4 between universal human sin and justification by faith, and between working for wages and receiving righteousness as a gift. His claim that “we received grace and apostleship” in Romans 1:5 includes Paul’s coworkers is also difficult to sustain, since Paul alone is named and the surrounding passage describes his particular apostolic commission. Bird’s identification of a Gentile God-fearer as the likely “I” of Romans 7 is historically conceivable but textually underdetermined: the passage never identifies the speaker in this way, and resemblance to a God-fearer’s possible experience does not establish that person as the speaker. In Romans 9, Bird rightly emphasises corporate identity, salvation history, divine mercy and human culpability, and he expressly allows that the passage contributes to individual election; nevertheless, his corporate emphasis can receive greater weight than Paul’s concern with the actual belief or unbelief of persons within Israel, while his explanation does not adequately account for Paul’s direct statement that God himself hardens whom he wills. Similarly, Bird’s statement that the Spirit replaces Torah requires careful qualification: he preserves the law as prophecy and wisdom, but Paul also presents the Spirit as fulfilling the law’s righteous requirement and producing the love in which its moral intention is realised. Bird’s language that faith, faithfulness and obedience are “prerequisites” for righteousness, and that obedience is a necessary condition of salvation, is likewise liable to confusion, even though he clearly denies human merit and grounds obedience in grace, union with Christ and the Spirit’s work; it would be more precise to distinguish faith as the instrument of justification from obedience as its necessary fruit and evidence. Finally, Bird’s move from justified civil disobedience to the possible legitimacy of violent resistance against tyrannical government is not adequately established by Romans 13 itself, which assigns the sword to governing authority while Romans 12 prohibits private vengeance. The recurring weakness is therefore not lack of learning or insight, but a tendency at several points to elevate a plausible historical reconstruction, theological synthesis or contemporary application beyond what the immediate wording of the text can decisively establish.

Bird combines careful exegetical work with lively prose, minimal technical jargon, and references to contemporary culture. Following the goal of this commentary series, he successfully sets Paul’s arguments within the big picture of the Bible’s grand narrative, modeling for readers how to do biblical theology. [Full Review]

It’s just fun to read MFB. He’s clever, he’s witty, and has many flashes of interpretive brilliance. He often bridges OPP and NPP and he brings a non-American (Australian) perspective to the study of Paul. [Full Review]

I was pleasantly surprised by this commentary. I love Michael Bird (I recommend you read some of his other works) as a scholar and writer, but I just wasn't expecting much from this commentary series, especially on such a complex letter like Romans. The commentary series focuses on interpreting specific books in light of the meta-narrative of Scripture (which I am all for). It's less technical than other commentaries and moves to application more often than others. Bird does an outstanding job of explaining complex exegesis in a simple and profound way. He is very strong in Biblical theology and this dictates much of his reading of Romans. I would call this commentary a hybrid between the NICNT and the NIVAC: it's both technical and applicational...updated link. [Full Review]

I was pleasantly surprised by this commentary.  I love Michael Bird (I recommend you read some of his other works) as a scholar and writer, but I just wasn't expecting much from this commentary series, especially on such a complex letter like Romans.  The commentary series focuses on interpreting specific books in light of the meta-narrative of Scripture (which I am all for).  It's less technical than other commentaries and moves to application more often than others.  Bird does an outstanding job of explaining complex exegesis in a simple and profound way.  He is very strong in Biblical theology and this dictates much of his reading of Romans.  I would call this commentary a hybrid between the NICNT and the NIVAC: it's both technical and applicational... [Full Review]

Michael F. Bird strikes a very rare combination in this commentary on Romans. He is able to interact with the various textual and theological issues in Romans in a way that is academically significant, in addition to being accessible. I would feel comfortable putting this commentary in the hands of the majority of the people in my congregation. His comments on some of the most disputed issues in Romans are helpful. Particularly with issues such as the correct translation of "the Righteousness of God" or the identity of the "I" in Romans 7, he is generous with his treatment of other views, and thorough in defense of his own. The "Live the Story" sections are very applicable. He keeps it interesting by adding just enough of his Australian humor, but he still maintains the seriousness of the subject at hand. Overall, this is a very good commentary, and even though I do disagree with his conclusions from time to time, I find his argumentation to be pleasing. I would recommend this commentary to anyone from the youth pastor to the phd student.