Anyways, back on topic!

I don’t believe he did. If he is I haven’t heard about it but that doesn’t mean much. Longenecker and NIGTC sounds like a recipe for confusion for me.

I read Schreiner’s and liked it a lot. Moo would have been my second choice. I requested Moo from our library and to my surprise they bought it. I did some comparisons and Moo didn’t seem quite as decisive. Moo’s comments on propitiation vs. sacrifice of atonement confused me even after I read it three times. Schreiner just used propitiation and didn’t go off that.

Schreiner’s commentary on Romans 8-10 kind of read like a manual of Calvinism but it was a real turning point for me in becoming reformed.

Mucho digressio.
Jeff

Speaking of him, isn’t he doing (or did?) a commentary on Romans for NIGTC?

The Longenecker commentary was a tough read. A lot of Greek grammar that’s over my head and an abundance of Latin rhetorical terms. I didn’t get as much out of the commentary as the ones I read for Romans through Corinthians and maybe Galatians itself was a little tougher for me too.
Jeff

If we “obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:9) and then try to perfect it by works of the law, we are going backwards:

Even more than going backwards, they were going back to something that never was to begin with. When Paul brings up Abraham being counted righteous by faith, he is essentially saying, “Why are you going back to the law for salvation? The time of the old-covenant is over, and furthermore it was never about works-based salvation to begin with! Look at Abraham!”

As my NT Prof says, the law was meant to serve the promise, not the other way around.

Excellent look at an incredible book, Jeff.