Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of Empire

by Scot McKnight

To read Romans from beginning to end, from letter opening to final doxology, is to retrace the steps of Paul. To read Romans front to back was what Paul certainly intended. But to read Romans forward may have kept the full message of Romans from being perceived. Reading forward has led readers to classify Romans as abstract and systematic theology, as a letter unstained by real pastoral concerns. But what if a different strategy were adopted? Could it be that the secret to understanding the relationship between theology and life, the key to unlocking Romans, is to begin at the letter’s end? Scot McKnight does exactly this in  Reading Romans Backwards . McKnight begins with Romans 12–16, foregrounding the problems that beleaguered the house churches in Rome. Beginning with the end places readers right in the middle of a community deeply divided between the strong and the weak, each side dug in on their position. The strong assert social power and privilege, while the weak claim an elected advantage in Israel’s history. Continuing to work in reverse, McKnight unpacks the big themes of Romans 9–11―God’s unfailing, but always surprising, purposes and the future of Israel―to reveal Paul’s specific and pastoral message for both the weak and the strong in Rome. Finally, McKnight shows how the widely regarded "universal" sinfulness of Romans 1–4, which is so often read as simply an abstract soteriological scheme, applies to a particular rhetorical character’s sinfulness and has a polemical challenge. Romans 5–8 equally levels the ground with the assertion that both groups, once trapped in a world controlled by sin, flesh, and systemic evil, can now live a life in the Spirit. In Paul’s letter, no one gets off the hook but everyone is offered God’s grace. Reading Romans Backwards  places lived theology in the front room of every Roman house church. It focuses all of Romans―Paul’s apostleship, God’s faithfulness, and Christ’s transformation of humanity―on achieving grace and peace among all people, both strong and weak. McKnight shows that Paul’s letter to the Romans offers a sustained lesson on peace, teaching applicable to all divided churches, ancient or modern.

Genres: Theology, Biblical Studies, Christian, Spirituality, New Testament, Religion, Christianity

236 pages, Paperback

Published September 1, 2021

About the author

Scot McKnight is a recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. McKnight, author or editor of forty books, is the Professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Lombard, IL. Dr. McKnight has given interviews on radios across the nation, has appeared on television, and is regularly speaks at local churches, conferences, colleges, and seminaries in the USA and abroad. Dr. McKnight obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Nottingham (1986).

Reviews

[Carmen Imes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scot X. McKnight's Reading Romans Backwards has been so illuminating! Just finishing it up today. He presents Paul's arguments with the end in mind: a family of faith in which Jewish and Gentile believers are made one in Christ. Viewing the whole letter with this pastoral end in mind cuts through some of the knotty interpretive questions of the book.

If it was me, I would have put more emphasis on starting with chapter 16 as showcasing the kind of multicultural, boundary-crossing family of faith that Paul is aiming for in his entire letter. But I love the way that he referred to Phoebe throughout the book.

I'm not sure that that he quite nails Torah. I occasionally squirmed at his characterization of it. Ultimately I think he lands in a decent place on it, but I wish he had shown throughout the book that Paul is not disagreeing with the Torah, that the purpose of the Torah was never salvation, but that it was a matter of mission.

Still, with these weaknesses aside, I found the whole book so helpful. Turning the book inside out allowed new insights to emerge. I'm grateful for his work!

[Andrew Lafleche · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Reading Romans Backwards" by Scot McKnight serves as a blueprint for a lived theology of Christoformity: being loved by God and loving God. As the title suggests, McKnight proposes that the traditional reading of Romans from beginning to end might not be the most effective way to grasp its message. His thesis is that starting from the conclusion and working back to the beginning allows readers to appreciate the overarching themes and arguments of the letter. Beginning at the end, with the practical implications of Paul's theology, readers can better understand the context and purpose of his teachings comprising the earlier passages. Using his deep knowledge of biblical scholarship, McKnight encourages readers to engage with the text in a more critical and nuanced manner. It’s lived theology, pure and simple. "Reading Romans Backwards" offers valuable insights into one of the most significant and complex texts in the New Testament and its relevance for contemporary Christian life.

[Catherine McNiel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Seriously guys, it's time to stop misusing Romans.

[Eusebiu Florescu · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would give it a 3.65 if I could.

Now, the author succeeded in what he was trying to achieve - that is to shed light on the actual context of the Romans house churches by reading Romans letter backwards.

In that, we get the author's fresh perspective, which I agree to be extremely helpful for studying the Roman's letter, yet the book falls short on placing this perspective in a broader history of infinite paradigms of reading Romans.

I believe such a perfect feat to be totally impossible, but the problem I have is that Scot McKnight doesn't even try.

The book portrays Romans letter only from the pastoral point of view - to encourage the Weak and the Strong of Rome to embrace and love each other despite their conflict of power and privilege, but lacks any kind of hermeneutics outside of this way of thinking.

Final conclusion: The purpose of the book was achieved 100%, but it could have even included this fresh perspective inside the grander multitude of Romans interpretation.

[Mark Taylor · Rating 1 out of 5]

The main thrust of this book is on target: we need to read Romans in light of its own ecclesial context of division between the week in the strong. McKnight guides us through this process highlighting important insights along the way. He is especially helpful and clear in the early chapters which put the book in context and discuss chapters 12 - 16. However, when he attempts to unpack the dense arguments in Romans 1 - 8, clarity often becomes a casualty to brevity and clunky attempts at creativity. My main issue with this book was how often I got tripped up by arduous sentences. While I appreciate McKnight's keen and creative mind, in this case his thoughts seemed to outpace his ability to articulate them. It reads as if he sent a rushed draft to Baylor University Press and they found a couple of sleepy students to edit it. It was a strange combination of sentences thar were right on point with concise clarity and others that were almost jibberish. This is unfortunate because, aside from a few places where the conclusions seem unsubstantiated and unlikely, the book makes an important and compelling case overall. But delivery matters.
It deserves more than 1 star. For some reason the app won't let me change my rating. It would give it 3.

[JD Tyler · Rating 3 out of 5]

A really interesting take on reading Romans. McKnight’s emphasis on reading this as a Pastoral letter before an abstracted theology is very helpful (and refreshing). Much of his interpretive decisions were new to me and understanding of the original audience has changed how I read Romans. Parts of his argument felt forced but overall a helpful read.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 4 out of 5]

A nuanced but unapologetic interpretation that has paradigm-shifting power for one's reading of one of the most influential New Testament documents in Western Christianity.

This was so, so close to 5 stars for me. I really appreciated McKnight's argument, and found myself resonating deeply with it. The only hitch is that, in McKnight's attempt to keep the book accessible (avoiding too many footnotes, and keeping the overall length down) he actually makes some sections too dense, and occasionally gets too repetitive (in apparently an effort to help lay-readers track with the argument). Certain sections could actually have used a bit more space for development - he rips through layered theological concepts quickly, kind of like Romans itself! But it's still a very effective piece of argumentation.

What I appreciate the most, and what McKnight explicitly states as his goal here, is the foregrounding of the social/ecclesial context into which Romans was written. This gets lost so quickly in abstract-theologizing-obsessed Western (esp. Reformed) Christianity, and this short book, more than any other I have read on the subject, makes the setting of the Roman house churches feel "real." The constant repetition of the Strong-v-Weak theme, as McKnight unpacks the very-familiar "Romans Road" passages, truly illuminates the ways in which those passages would have been heard/felt/experienced by the original recipients, and what was at stake in the division within those communities. For those who have been a bit burnt-out on the tract-evangelism approach of Romans, myself included this fresh reading really does recover the beauty and power of the letter.

Lastly, McKnight writes with a pastor's heart, ending with a powerful gut-punch conclusion in which he makes the case that a more correct, contextual reading of Romans is an urgent need in the American church, which is plagued by our own "Strong and Weak" party lines. His short book is a gift to us in that church setting, and we do well to listen carefully to his clarion call.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Romans is notoriously a challenging piece of literature. There is a lot of theology packed in, especially in the first 11 chapters. It is easy to see the last few chapters as the applications tacked on, as if to say once we get our beliefs and theology correct then we can deal with living.

McKnight argues this is not the best way to read Romans. To demonstrate this, he encourages us to read it from front to back. Beginning then with chapters 12-16, McKnight emphasizes this is “lived theology” that provides the context for the entire book. Specifically, the messages to Weak and Strong are not limited to just chapters 14-15 but are in sight throughout. Lived theology is deeper than mere practical application; rather than a simple ordering where one thing leads to another in a linear fashion, we see a sort of circle as faith (theology, Romans 1-11) and practice (lived theology, 12-16) feed off each other.

From this, McKnight’s take on Romans 1-8 pushes against the common belief that here Paul is presenting a sort of universal, context-less theology. If we imagine Paul sitting down to write out a summary of his theology, we are already off on the wrong foot. Of course, that is how Romans has usually been read. McKnight argues 1-4 is a message to the Weak. Thus, Romans 1 is not just a list of sins that plague all humans, it is the way the Weak (Jewish Christians) see the sins of others they look down on. Further then, Romans is not about Christianity vs. Judaism but instead is an intra-Christian debate between the Strong and Weak.

I have been using this as I lead a Bible study on Romans. I would recommend it for anyone who is leading a study. It is brief and thus readable for any Christian. The only negative was McKnight’s treatment of Romans 5-8. I did not like how he broke it up into sections addressed to “We”, “I” and “you”. I would rather have had him just take it in order. Of course, that’s an odd ask for a book already going backwards…

[Becker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scot McKnight presents a fresh and interesting way of reading what is perhaps Paul’s most influential letter. Romans is full of “land mines” and is the source of much debate and disagreement among Pauline and New Testament scholars, which trickles down to local churches. In Reading Romans Backwards, McKnight is not trying to present a traditional commentary. There are no footnotes (but a few endnotes at the end of the book) and he does not wade into any of the current debates or conversations on Romans or Pauline theology. Instead, as he states in the beginning, McKnight is offering his own reading and understanding of Romans, based on his own personal study and wrestling with all of the various opinions that are out there. He is very clear that his understanding sits within the New Perspectives stream and that there are many commentaries available that get into the debates and interpretive options if one is interested (many of these types of books can be found in his bibliography).

Reading Romas Backwards is a simple and straightforward (but backwards) reading of Paul’s letters to the churches in Rome. From what I have read by McKnight, he tends to write in a very direct and repetitive way, and this book was no exception. He begins with the closing chapters of the letter, in an attempt to construct the setting and circumstances that prompted the letter. What is observed in these chapters becomes the interpretive guide in understanding the letter as a whole. Romans is not Paul’s systematic theology or an abstract theology followed by an application, rather it is a letter written to believers (Jewish and gentile) encouraging and providing a vision for a lived theology that is shaped by and conformed to the image of Christ. Reading Romans Backwards was a fun read that I am sure I’ll refer back to.

[Daniel Greiwe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scott McKight offers a compelling context for treating Romans as a pastoral letter and not an abstract theology essay. I learned a lot from him weaving the backdrop of the two camps, the Strong and the Weak, into all parts of the letter.

It is worth noting this book reads more like a commentary on Romans than a history essay on the house churches in Rome and I definitely skimmed parts because of that. However, I am very glad Scott wrote this book and will be quick to reference it in the future when I am trying to understand complicated bits of Romans

[Ben Franklin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding! The state of Christian scholarship is reaching new heights. I was taught to read for context and historical background 30 years ago in college, but that was not what people actually did. For the first time, I feel as if I truly understand The Letter to Romans. Read this book!

[Alan Marr · Rating 3 out of 5]

I lied. I didn't really finish it but I read enough to know that it could be useful if I ever want to speak about Romans in the future.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a phenomenal help to seeing Paul as a pastor and driving the church toward peace in his time and now. I am grateful for Mr. McKnight's work.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. My primary use for it was to prepare sermons.

[Sophie · Rating 3 out of 5]

McKnight's thesis is great. I'm here for it. However, the book felt unnecessarily wordy and (as other reviewers have mentioned) in need of some more editing.

[Bridgette · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommend this insightful book. Great for small group Bible study.

[Joshua · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this. It is a little scholarly (I had to read slow) at times, but makes the case that Romans is not a theological treatise with some pastoral words for the Roman churches at the end; but that all that is written in chapters 1-8 has to be seen through the lens of what is addressed in chapters 12-16.

Very insightful. I will recommend to others.

[Sanjuro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Teetering between 4 and 5 stars. McKnight offers a fresh reading of the whole of Romans, and the book is full of powerful insights and interesting approaches to some sticky problems. McKnight's reading thoughtfully pulls us away from reading the letter as generically universal, or even as applying to all Jews and gentiles broadly as it oscillates its audience, and instead reads the letter through and to the very specific types of Jews and gentiles trying to live in harmony in the Roman house churches. I think that, on the whole, McKnight's reading on this is lively and convincing. In fact, I'm sure I'll even start teaching the letter as an exchange between the weak and the strong in Rom 14, in similar ways to the ways that McKnight frames the letter.

I do, however, have three issues. First, there are points when McKnight doesn't deal with certain problems in his readings. For example, he twice mentions that halesterion refers back to Lev 16, without ever recognizing how truly tenuous this connection is. Recently, Patrick McMurray has shown that Lev 16 is probably not really on Paul's mind here, and that instead halesterion has more to do with a peacemaking gift at the end of a conflict than with cultic sacrifice. There are a few instances where McKnight never entertains possible objections to his own claims, where I would have liked some clarification on these objections, especially because McKnight is offering a systematic reading of the whole text.
Second, there are points where McKnight's treatments of certain texts lacks detail. For example, regarding Romans 5-8 McKnight enters into convoluted discussions regarding the identity of the "I," "we," and "you" passages, but he says very little about the fictive kinship language in Rom 8 (adoption, God-as-father, Jesus-as-big brother, audience as sons, siblings, and co-heirs). This language is absolutely vital to the make-up of the community, and the sibling nature of the weak and the strong, and McKnight hardly mentions these terms and certainly does not expound on how Paul's fictive kinship might support McKnight's model. This is especially strange considering that siblingness is literally the driving point of the book.
Third, and most important, although I agree with McKnight's overall approach, I think he fell in love with the weak and strong delineations to the point where one can often detect an overreading. Afterall, Paul never actually uses the weak and strong language until Rom 14, and when he does, he does not apply this language to his overall arguments, but instead applies it strictly to a few brief examples. Is McKnight right to read this into the whole letter? I think he is, but he seems committed to the paradigm so much that he read it into every nook and cranny of the letter, and I'm not sure it fits so smoothly into as much of the letter as McKnight argues. I'm going to reread Romans a few more times with McKnight's reading in mind, and time will tell if I start to see the weak and the strong in as many corners as does McKnight.

On the whole, this is a compelling reading of Romans. So compelling, in fact, that aside from a few overread details, I'll likely adopt much of this reading in my own teaching of the text. It's refreshing, and insightful, and makes a ton of sense of Paul's pastoral approach to his audience.

[Patrick Willis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've said this before and I'll say it again, I really like Scot McKnight's stuff! While I didn't agree or end up at the same conclusions 100% of the time as McKnight in this book, I would say that I would agree or think he's right in around 90-95% of his points. That being said, McKnight himself said that this book was first and foremost NOT a commentary (even though I shelve it as such) due to the broad scope used in the letter of Romans as a whole (though he did mention that he is toying and probably eventually going to embark on the adventure of writing a commentary through the lens which he uses in this book). By approaching Romans with the mindset of the end first, and thus reading it backward, the letter itself SCREAMS to be way more pastoral in nature versus the giant tome-only of theology I hear people identify it as so often (not denying that the way we currently read Romans is 'wrong', but I agree with McKnight that our obsession with 'theology-proper' in the West has limited our capacity of seeing the 'other stuff' that is just as important). After reading this book, I will never read Romans the same again. I had the joy of teaching a class as I read through this book (as well as a companion book 'Teaching Romans Backwards') and it proved to be even more enriching! This easily has become one of my top 5 favorite books I've read. It's certainly a book that will keep you engaged and you'll probably have a hard time putting it down (I know I did. The only reason I was able to take my time, was because I forced myself to read it slowly in relation to what chapters/sections I was teaching). Overall, I think EVERY person interested in studying Romans should read this book, EVEN if you end up disagreeing with McKnight on nearly everything he says. At the very least, it would be of great benefit to expose yourself to an alternative focus and more applicable application with this approach, using it as a supplement to your current Pauline-regiment.

[Spencer R · Rating 4 out of 5]

You can read my fuller review at Spoiled Milks (8/16/19).

Paul wrote to "a set of house churches in Rome in the first century when Nero was emperor and Paul was planning his future mission to Spain" (x). Paul wants these Christians to be conformed to Christ (“Christoformity”). McKnight has "imagined how the Strong and Weak heard this letter" (ix).

The issue in the church in Rome is the same we have today: the issue is the inability of the Privileged and the Powerful [the Strong] to embody the gospel's inclusive demand and include the Disprivileged and the Disempowered [the Weak] (xiii). Romans 1–11 offer the rationale to the "lived theology" Paul gives his readers in Romans 12–16. They should seek the good of one another because God has made them one in Christ. They both have the same salvation, the same Spirit, they serve the same King, and have the same Father.

A few things that were a tad annoying:

McKnight reminds us who the Weak and the Strong are almost every time he brings them up. It makes sense to add on to the definitions of the Weak and Strong at the beginning of each chapter (even if that is repetitive), but to give small reminders throughout the chapter was a bit overkill.

Phoebe is a fantastic woman, but she seems to be thrown into the conversation to make sure I didn't forget about her, often distracting me from the argument’s flow.

Finally, random nouns are capitalized (like in German). Placing the words in bold would have had a better effect.

This book was great. McKnight doesn't claim that this way is the way to read Romans, but he does this to help give us a proper perspective on whom Paul was writing to and why he did so. I think readers will come away with a helpful sense of reading Romans. I plan to read Romans next time with these ideas in mind to see how well I agree with it.

[Laura S · Rating 3 out of 5]

The letter Paul wrote to the Roman church is theologically dense and, by the time that I get halfway through it, I usually experience the same fatigue McKnight identifies in his preface. His suggestion is to read the book backwards.

This approach to reading is not revolutionary but is helpful because it sets the stage to better understand the audience it was intended for. It highlights the necessity of radical unity that can only be achieved by the putting on of a Christoform identity during especially turbulent times.
.

[Jake Owen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Would recommend for anyone who wants an intro for the new perspective and how they would articulate their theology. A little extreme and some areas and very repetitive as well. But overall, great book and articulation of the what,why, and how of Romans. 4.3 stars

[Grant Klinefelter · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Romans is too often read as if it worth theoretical theology. It’s not. Romans is a pastoral theology front to back or, in our case, back to front, and it’s deepest concern is Peace, not Privilege, not Power” (p. 57).

i’ve been eager to read this book for sometime. The title, subtitle, in fact that Scott McKnight wrote it all allured me. And…it was all right.

Scot is brilliant, I love his thoughts. But I do struggle with his writing style. I found this a hard book to read.

But there are great insights and lessons derived from Paul’s Magnum Opus.

I loved his emphasis that Romans is not abstract theology for clergy. Romans is applied theology for Christians. All Christians.

The whole theme of “peace in the heart of the Empire” is very good. And he’s right, in the conclusion, when he said, “no other book in the entire Bible except for Philemon, is more relevant for the churches of the United States that Romans” (p. 180).

I do wish he dove into Paul’s take on election in Romans 9-11 more. But if there’s one thing I did get from his take on these chapters is that our “Calvinist vs. Arminian” reading is not what Paul had in mind. Even an individualistic, soteriological reading is not the point.

Instead, these chapters form the “theological underpinnings” of Paul’s embodied theology which is —neither Torah observance or freedom from the law bring peace and transformation. Only Christ and the pursuit of Christoformity bring transformation and peace in the heart of the empire.

In sum, a good book. Not a great book. Would recommend to some.

[James Korsmo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think McKnight is on to something here. His basic case is that we shouldn't treat Romans as a theoretical treatise with some context specific application at the end but should instead listen carefully to what chapters 12-16 tell us about the issues at play among the Christians in Rome and then keep that in mind as we read the rest of the letter. To do this, he works backward through Romans, focusing on what we can know of the situation from chapters 12-16, then looking at how Romans 9-11 fits into that, and finally looking at how Romans 1-4 and 5-8 fit in to that same situation. He sees the weak and the strong as being key to Paul's thinking throughout. I look forward to continuing to think about his overall case, but I think it's quite strong. It doesn't completely upend the way we understand Romans, though it does put some discussions (especially in chapters 1-4) in a different and helpful light.

[Kerri Thorn · Rating 4 out of 5]

We in the church tend to struggle when it comes to interpreting the Pauline in epistles in light of their original context and intent. Rather than look at the big picture, we tend to assume a direct correlation to our context and behave as though any particular verse or passage can be applied at face value to our situation. McKnight does an excellent job of pulling us out of that tendency. This book requires the audience to view the biblical text through the lens of the following questions: “in what ways does my local church struggle with issues of power, legalism, and disunity? How does Paul expect Christians to respond to those issues?” This book is a must read for pastors and ministry leaders. It’s more of an academic read, so can be a bit dense at times (much like the text it seeks to interpret).

[Andrea Huelsenbeck · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve studied the letter of St. Paul to the Romans several times before, but this Bible study increased my understanding greatly. The author says:
To read Romans well, all of Romans must be read in light of the context in Romans 14—15. . .
we read it as pastoral, ecclesial theology for a specific church in a specific time. To be sure, Romans fares well in other contexts, but, until we profile those contexts and the message of Romans for those contexts, we don’t know what to make of it for other contexts.
The last time I studied Romans, it was with a bunch of Calvinists, and it was a very different experience. I am grateful for the insights I have gained from reading Reading Romans Backwards, and I recommend it to anyone who is serious about digging deep into this epistle.

[Jacob Gane · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars
This book essentially argues that Romans is primarily pastoral and that in order to understand this, we must have the contextual framework for the letter (chapters 12-16) at the forefront of our minds.
I found myself frustrated at McKnight’s writing style from time to time and I think this is due to how short the book is; some of his arguments are too compressed or too drawn out which required me to read a lot of the material a couple of times over:/ Although his argument is really helpful for understanding the letter in general, he is a bit too ambitious with some of his interpretation.
Despite the qualms I had with the book, I learned a lot and I’m looking forward to reading Romans with fresher eyes because of it!

[Courtney · Rating 4 out of 5]

While Christians often view the Paul's letter to the Romans as a grand theological treatise, Scot McKnight points out that it wasn't written for yawning seminarians in a classroom but rather for everyday believers in divided house churches in Rome. Under this reminder that context is key, McKnight explores the social dynamics of Jewish and Gentile believers in Romans 12-16. Two primary factions within the Roman house churches were "the Weak" and "the Strong," surmised by McKnight to be Jewish believers wanting Gentiles to observe the Torah (Jewish law such as keeping kosher, etc.), and Gentile believers critical of them. I appreciated McKnight's focus on "lived theology," reminding us that theology is not about dusty tomes but about vibrant life transformed by Jesus Christ.

[David Westerveld · Rating 3 out of 5]

The overall topic is, I think, a helpful way to read through the book of Romans. Thinking about how it isn't abstract theology, but rather a pastoral letter written to a set of churches in a particular context, is helpful for better understanding the letter. This book also made me open my bible to frequently to read through passages, which I appreciated as well.

On the downside, I didn't love his writing style and he was a bit a repetitive at time. I think the author tried to keep it from going into an overally academic work, but at times it was still at bit too academic with specialized terms that were not adequately explained. I could figure things out, but it added to the cognitive overload of the read.

[Bill Hooten · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scot McKnight always make me think! I may not always agree with everything that he says, but he engages my mind and makes me consider what he is saying. This book was one that I really liked, and thinking of what Paul was trying to say in the first 11 chapters; is determined by the setting in the local church(es) was eye-opening! I didn't agree with some of the conclusions as he was dissecting the individual passages, but I sure do like the approach. I would recommend this to any student of Romans.