I was excited to receive my copy of Romans Disarmed, although I did not recognize the authors, Sylvia Keesmaat and Brian Walsh, both Bible professors. The design alone is outstanding. Romans, a very complicated document, has suffered much at the hands of interpreters. Some appeal to it to say that Christians should never protest against injustice rooted in one’s government (this is the position of John MacArthur whose huge following makes him somewhat of a celebrity pastor). Other times scattered verses are used selectively when presenting the gospel to someone, to the neglect of Paul’s remaining letters. Despite how many times Romans is cited by Christians (and it’s cited a lot), this letter remains a point of confusion or misunderstanding for many. I was excited then to see what two seasoned bible professors would have to about Romans and its implications for today. Here are my thoughts.
Stretched Exegesis
Rather than beginning with Paul and the context of the New Testament, the authors begin with issues we are currently grappling with societally (homosexuality, world wars, genocide, ecology, and the like). While it is important to bring the text into our everyday world and situation, one must first be rooted in the context of the Bible before the Bible can in turn speak in a real and direct way to our situation.
Unclear
While Romans Disarmed attempts to clear up much of Romans, it really ends up muddying the waters. Reducing Paul to being an outspoken left-leaning (and all-inclusive) social reformer, the authors also make him out to be extremely anti-empire, and hyper vocal against Rome. While it is clear that Paul critiques Rome in his letters, he is not consumed with unbridled rage toward Nero and Empire.
Where the book ends up falling short is its overabundance of exegetical gymnastics, most notably when it comes to Paul and the Empire, as well as Paul and sexuality.
Though Paul does not always think kindly of Rome, we must avoid caricaturing Paul as one utterly opposing Rome. It’s far too easy to look under every stone for anti-imperial language in Pauline literature. Paul’s resolve was spreading Christ, even if spreading Christ puts him at odds with Empire.
Violence to the Text
My problem stems from the authors reducing Paul to being a sort of social justice activist with strong left leanings. While noting the importance of letting the text speak for itself, the authors proceed to go against their own advice.
As the authors make clear, the misreading of Romans has led to all kinds of wrong in the church and in our world, and yet Romans Disarmed offers no real solution, just another misreading of Romans (although one that is not politically conservative).
Romans Disarmed is yet another reminder: do not read your personal preconceived notions (your deep held convictions) into the text. Forming God into our image is idolatry, the very thing Romans was written against.
When it comes to Paul and politics, respected scholar Michael J. Gorman, in his Reading Paul, does a great job of maintaining balance as the author cautions against turning Paul into either a conservative or liberal (both are quite anachronistic). Gorman writes, “Paul may be both less and more offensive than he is normally thought to be. He may… be far less politically and socially “conservative” than we think. Yet he may also be far less “tolerant” on some issues than we want” (p. 6). We should take great care when trying to apply Paul’s letters to our modern politics and hot-topic politically-charged discussions.
Full of not-so-subtle jabs at President Trump as being a modern-day Caesar, Romans Disarmed is yet another example of Christians reading their politics into the text of Scripture.
Emotive and overflowing with conclusions based on rushed exegesis, Romans Disarmed is a book I cannot endorse.
*I received my copy from Baker Publishing.
Questions That Matter 
December 3, 2019 at 12:24 pm
Thanks for the review, Paul. I’m curious how these scholars “disarm” Romans 13, and, additionally, how they deal with the topic of idolatry. It seems to me that Paul’s major complaint against Rome has to do with idolatry and the (mostly) personal wickedness it engenders (Romans 1:18-32, Acts 17:16-34, 19:24-26), not with empire in itself. Starting one’s critique with the injustices/inequalities of empire would be more of a modern approach than an ancient Jewish one in my view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 6, 2019 at 10:46 am
“Starting one’s critique with the injustices/inequalities of empire would be more of a modern approach than an ancient Jewish one in my view.” Well said. The authors did deal a lot with idolatry and the nationalism of Rome. It just seemed somewhat reactionary to what is happening in America and the West in general.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 6, 2019 at 11:39 am
If I may take a shot in the dark here, I would suspect that they critiqued idolatry as an expression of nationalism rather than as an all-inclusive rebellion against the one God and God’s holy people. Nationalistic politics was the main target, not false understandings of who God is (i.e. idolatry).
The Biblical polemic against idolatry is certainly political, but probably not in the sense that it is directly opposed to nationalism or even empire (cf. Psalm 2:7-9). The Bible opposes idolatry firstly because it represents theological untruths about God and man’s relation to him (cf. Romans 1, Isaiah 44:9-20); secondly because it represents those demonic powers that instigate persecution against the saints.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 6, 2019 at 5:45 pm
Yes, that’s the sense I got. They also noted that the Roman mindset and Roman behavior were both sexually oppressive, Romans tending to mingle idolatry with sexual immorality. Paul, they claim, did not have anything to say about modern homosexual relationships (contra N.T. Wright).
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 6, 2019 at 6:20 pm
Paul’s complaint about same-sex relations seems to have more to do with “perversion” against nature and rebellion against the truth about God (Romans 1:24-29) than it does about oppression or inequality—though those things were certainly part of most ancient sexual practices (especially from a modern egalitarian perspective). So Paul condemns both the “oppressing” partner and the “oppressed” partner in 1 Cor 6:9. These are impurities that one must be “washed” of (1 Cor 6:10).
Speaking of 1 Cor 6:9, it’s a pretty interesting list. Virtually all the vices represent illicit desire, whether for sex or for things. I don’t know what to make of that but it’s interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 1, 2021 at 2:07 pm
An interesting review that seems to have read only sections of the book. For instance, the authors nowhere argue that Paul has an unbridled rage against Nero and empire; in fact they argue in the section on Romans 12 and 13 that Paul is calling us to love the empire, as we are called to love our enemies. That is all that is owed to anyone (as Paul states clearly in Rom 13.7). It is hard to see how you missed this important point.
It would be interesting to see you describe their exegesis of any single part of Romans and then provide an exegetical counter-argument. This would provide some evidence that you actually read the book and haven’t just had a knee-jerk reaction to the table of contents. And, by the way, these two authors and Michael Gorman are in complete agreement on Paul if you compare how they exegete passages. They often speak together on academic panels and in church contexts. I could go on (for instance, their discussion of idolatry pervades the whole book and is much wider and deeper than anything in these comments), but I’ll leave it at that.
LikeLike
January 2, 2021 at 12:25 pm
Mervyn, first I really appreciate the comment and feedback. Second, I assure you that I *have* read the book (twice) and I tend to skip the table of contents altogether. 🙂
For me personally, what was most unsettling about *Romans Disarmed* was the way the authors were trying hard to tie Romans to our own American context, as if Paul was writing to modern America and that from a left-leaning perspective. I will say this (and know that Michael Gorman agrees) that Paul upsets both the left and the right, though in different ways. The authors and their tone did not reflect this. Gorman (in what I’ve read by him and in my interviews with him) is very careful in how he brings Paul into our present day. Christians of all stripes need to be cautious here (myself included!).
Your criticism is noted and I will try to be more gracious in my reviews of books which I don’t agree with. When I have time, I will try my best to revisit this book and see if I made serious errors in my judgment.
Blessings and I pray a happy new year for you and yours,
Paul
LikeLike