Spring 2026 · Vol. 55 No. 1 · pp. 133–136
Book Review
Romans: A Commentary
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2024. lv + 492 pages.
Beverly Gaventa dedicates this Romans commentary to “Phoebe of Cenchreae and all her sisters.” Gaventa suggests that Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2) was the first interpreter of Romans, commissioned by Paul to carry, read, and explain the letter to the Roman congregations (426–31). Phoebe is thus mentioned in this role throughout the commentary, a lovely, subtle touch by which Gaventa brings attention to women’s contributions to scriptural interpretation.
This commentary is the fruit of two decades of scholarly work on Romans as witnessed by Gaventa’s numerous publications listed in the bibliography. Two previous books, Our Mother Saint Paul (2007) and When p. 134 in Romans (2016), have whetted readers’ appetites for this eagerly anticipated main course. It is here now, and it does not disappoint.
In keeping with the standard features of the New Testament Library series for which this volume has been prepared, Gaventa provides an introduction to the letter, her own translation of each portion of the text, concise textual notes justifying various translation decisions, then the commentary proper. She references numerous scholarly studies but engages only sparsely in interpretive debates. For that she directs attention to the research commentaries by Cranfield, Dunn, Jewett, Moo, and others. Her aim is to provide a dynamic, coherent, comprehensible reading of Paul’s letter. To that end, the translations themselves are gems of clarity, vigor, and accessibility; a straight read-through of these alone would already grant the student of Romans a new sense of the dynamism, urgency, drama, and theological depth of the letter. Preceding each translated section, Gaventa provides an account of how that section fits within the ongoing movement of Romans. The reader is never lost here. Further, Gaventa concludes many paragraphs with a sentence or two that captures the key point under discussion, often with memorable turns of phrase that would be eminently quotable in sermons. In every way, she reveals her outstanding ability as communicator and teacher.
Following closely the work of her mentor, J. Louis Martyn, Gaventa understands Paul as a thoroughly apocalyptic theologian. The apocalyptic Paul sees the arrival of Jesus Christ and the Spirit as God’s active, powerful “intrusion” (4–6) into a cosmos enslaved under the powers of Sin and Death, with radical, universal, liberating effect. The purpose of Romans is to communicate the cosmic liberating power of the gospel, and it aims to evoke a life-changing “Amen” from those who hear it. Gaventa’s apocalyptic interpretation of Romans focuses attention on this world-changing divine agency on every page, and doing it consistently is what distinguishes her commentary from the multitude of others on the letter.
To get a proper sense of Gaventa’s approach (following Paul), the reader may do well to begin with the “Excursus: The Powers of Sin and Death” (162–65). Understanding Sin and Death (with uppercase S and D) as enslaving powers from which God in Christ rescues humanity is a crucial key to the meaning of the letter. How often has Romans been interpreted through the lens of “sins,” “legalism,” “forgiveness,” “repentance,” and “faith” under the overarching theme of “justification by faith”? Yet, as Gaventa demonstrates throughout the commentary, these predominantly anthropocentric terms and themes are far from the central point of the letter. Romans is about what God does, actively and invasively, to deliver p. 135 humankind from captivity under life-destroying, anti-God powers, powers with real agency that even seize and weaponize the good gifts of God, such as human bodies and the Law. In other words, to grasp the message of Romans one must have a sense of the cosmic destructive powers of Sin and Death, and their defeat in the death and resurrection of Jesus. So, start with this excursus; then read the commentary on Romans 5:12-21; then go to the section on Romans 1:18-32, “God Handed Them Over” (54–72), which is one of Gaventa’s signal contributions to understanding Romans and Paul. With these sections under the reader’s belt, the whole of Gaventa’s interpretation begins to make sense of the letter in a revolutionary way. You will never see it the same again.
Gaventa’s approach works wonders on the various sections of Romans. In Romans 4 the focus is not on Abraham and Sarah as “heroes of faith” but on God “who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (Rom 4:17). It is this one whom Abraham and Sarah trust to enliven their “dead” bodies (as far as heirs go). Romans 7 is not about Paul’s struggle with “legalism” but about Sin’s overpowering of God’s holy, just, and good Law, using it for death-dealing purposes, and about God’s deliverance in Christ. Romans 9 through 11, one of the most difficult sections of the letter, is not about the predestination of some to salvation and others to perdition (Rom 9), nor about the necessity of faith for salvation (Rom 10), nor about Israel’s “legalism” and “failure” (Rom 11). It is about God’s creation of, calling of, faithfulness to, and final redemption of the people Israel, and ultimately also the nations, in and through the fact that the larger portion of Israel refuses (this too, by God’s agency) to acknowledge the truth of the gospel. Romans 9–11 is about God’s agency and purpose, which Paul struggles to discern, which he recognizes finally is “unsearchable” and “inscrutable,” but which nevertheless evokes our hearty “Amen” (Rom 11:33-36). Romans 13 is not about “obedience” to governments but about God’s rule over rulers, themselves in thrall to Sin and Death.
Do I have any problems with what Gaventa does here? Not many! One has to do with a particular concern of mine. Early on in a discussion of how to translate the dik-stem words (usually rendered in English with righteous-ness language), Gaventa briefly considers using justice words instead (48), as I have done in a recent publication, but she decides against it because of the usual understandings of justice in terms of behavior or retribution. She decides in favor of righteous and righteousness, used exclusively throughout the commentary. But is this a missed opportunity to p. 136 “evangelize” justice discourse for Christians, an opportunity to “redeem” our talk of justice (19)?
Another quibble is Gaventa’s decision, in a nod to the historical-critical method, to use quotation marks around the personal pronouns (e.g., “I,” “we,” “us”) in the Romans text (2). Besides being a frequent distraction, this effort to acknowledge the distance between Paul’s audience and ourselves may also have the effect of distancing us somewhat from the radical claim of God that the letter lays on our lives. That would run against the grain of Gaventa’s otherwise gripping account of the power of Paul’s gospel to seize, overturn, and rebuild our lives and worlds.
Gaventa’s commentary is readily accessible to all types of readers, from students, pastors, and church leaders to teachers, professors, and scholars. It will stand the test of time not simply because of its deep scholarship but because it lives and breathes Paul’s own purpose, which is to declare the liberating power of God for salvation. It is life-changing. If you purchase only one commentary on Romans in the next decade or so, it must be this one.
