Romans for Normal People: A Guide to the Most Misused, Problematic and Prooftexted Letter in the Bible

by J.R. Daniel Kirk

Paul’s letter to the Roman church is one of the most widely read, rigorously discussed and minutely dissected epistles ever written. What more could there be to say?

Plenty, it turns out.

In this highly engaging, perceptive and accessible commentary, J. R. Daniel Kirk situates Romans firmly in its first-century context, redirecting our attention from a modern-day concern with individual salvation towards the theological questions that consumed the apostle Paul. Questions such as what are the Jews and Gentiles to make of one another? Practically, how are they to live, worship and be community together in the right here and now? And, most importantly for Paul, how can God be faithful if God’s great act of salvation excludes God’s own chosen the covenantal community to whom all promises had been made?

By approaching the text from a first-century perspective, Kirk illuminates a letter and its writer deeply concerned with the day-to-day lives of its readers. A letter written not to provide answers and rules, but encouragement and inspiration. A writer concerned less with waiting for the new creation, than living it. And a God intent on inviting outsiders into a worldwide family.

Romans for Normal People is an invitation to lay down everything you think you know about Romans and discover the text as it is. And in doing so, encounter a letter as relevant today as it was some 2000 years ago.

Genres: Religion, Theology, Nonfiction, Spirituality, Christianity, Faith, Church

212 pages, Kindle Edition

Published November 1, 2022

About the author

J. R. Daniel Kirk (PhD, Duke University) is assistant professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary’s Northern California campus in Menlo Park, California. He is the author of Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God as well as numerous articles.

Reviews

[Roger McCort · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. J.R. Daniel Kirk has a PhD. in the book of Romans. Despite that, he manages to break Paul's longest, most complex epistle into easy to read and engage sections. I won't say easy to understand because the deep theology of the book is going to take your whole brain's processing power, even though Dr. Kirk does a great job of making it accessible to normal people and Bible needs alike.

I love that there are notes to help a leader bring this book and study of Romans to a Bible study group. I love even more that those notes include discussion questions for children as well as adults. Yes! Get the kids into Romans and learning to grasp and process the important information here so that they can develop a truly mature faith!

Overall, very readable for everyone with enough to think about to keep even geeks like me happy. Good work!

[Brad Dell · Rating 4 out of 5]

For 2023 I’ve decided to read a few Romans commentaries from differing perspectives and traditions, just ‘cause — like the book title says — it’s the most misused epistle. (I got a month's headstart on that goal.) This book was a good intro to my deep dive because of its approachable, unpretentious writing. Some sections could have used more clarity and directness, like the portion about homosexuality and how his view differs from the Calvinism he detests, but most of the book is very easily understood. I enjoyed his analogies and humorous voice, and certainly feel I have a better grasp of the letter because his engaging writing helped loads with retention.

[Brady Kronmiller · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Unfortunately, we as a Church spend much of our energy articulating why our boundary markers are the correct ones, and why our standards of righteousness are inviolable. In rebuke, Romans… teaches us that the people of God are those whom God has accepted. Not those who conform to our theology. Not those who conform to our practice.”

[Eric Pearson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of romans. Some claims the author makes are not well explained or fleshed out. Most of this seems to be to avoid getting in the weeds of scholarship, but I do wish the author would have at least mentioned scholarly sources for further reading. All in all a great book, very easy to follow, and the structure was great.

[GReview · Rating 1 out of 5]

I decided to pick up this book because I was about to do a deep dive into Romans and thought I’d take this book along with me. So it took me 10 months to actually finish this book and write this review. I know it’s going to be a long review so many may not make it through. You can also use ChatGPT to summarize it for you ;). I did that and it was actually a pretty good summary of the review.

First of all by the length of the book you can already tell it’s not going to be a serious faithful exegesis of Romans. It’s going to hit parts of Romans that progressives want to change the meaning of to fit the culture of today. So it’s aimed toward those that have already made up their mind how to live and need a “scholar” to affirm those beliefs so they can feel better about the decisions they’ve made based off their feelings.

First off the first note on the first page of chapter one pretty much tells you how the rest of the book is going to lean. When an author tells you the translations used in the book are their own you are off to a wild ride of pure imagination and eisegesis :).

P18 he likens Roman’s to a CCR song. Key verses and then something something something and another key verse. You know the ones about Christ died for us sinners and wages of sin are death and confession Jesus is Lord to be saved. I see this author doing the same thing in the book but the opposite progressive idea something something something progressive idea and the something something part is the actual exegesis of the Scripture.

P23 Is the first example of Kirk coming up with his own translation to fit his narrative. Paul references Habbakkuk in stating that “the righteous shall live by faith” In Kirk’s translation he wants to you to believe the righteous one mentioned here is Jesus and not people. This is where Kirk reads what he wants into the Scripture because when you do exegesis you will find no where else does Paul give Jesus the title of righteous. It is consistently applied to humans. Why would Kirk want to now in this only example apply this faith to Jesus. Because Jesus lived by faith so you don’t have to believe/trust in any one way to be saved. Which leads down the path of universal salvation. According to Kirk’s translation ALL people, no matter if you put your trust in Jesus, repent of your sins, deny themselves or follow Him, are saved now. So live out the desires of your heart. Congrats! The gospel of self with all the sin benefits and none of that pesky Scripture following.

Of course like any good little progressive Kirk has to address and gloss over the end of Romans 1 which includes a vice list of sins that is kicked off by homosexual actions P32. Kirk takes the easy road out and punts to another book that addresses this issue which I haven’t read but am positive its full of eisegesis of pederasty and dominant relationships. And that Paul had no idea about committed same sex relationships (which were talked about in the Greco-Roman literature of Pauls day already) He does say that same-sex partners are not God-denying idolaters P33. However what would you call it when you deny God and worship the idol of sex. Which in Pauls day is that gross sexual immorality that Jews found rampant among the Gentiles was traced directly to idolatry. People make gods/idols of everything. In today’s world the idols are made out of money, sex, power, fame, etc. Kirk seems to be one of the people Paul talks about in v32. One that commends/congratulates/approves of others to continue in the sins listed in this chapter. And according to Paul those people commit an even greater evil than the ones committing the sins themselves.

On p35 Kirk states that you are saved by works not a conversion experience based on Romans 2:5-6. This is what is called proof-texting. When taken out of context it seems Paul is saying is you are saved by works but when taken in the context of Romans and the full counsel of Scripture you’ll find that salvation is a gift of God’s grace and obtained through the faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The works here will be the result of the gift of salvation when you follow Jesus. Works are necessary in the judgement but as the fruit of genuine faith and not as a means of justification.

Next we get to one of the most proof-texted verses used to push universalism, Rom 3:26. Of course as a card carrying progressive Kirk pushes in his book too. Some Scholars translate this verse that it’s because OF the faithfulness of Jesus Christ not a believer’s faith IN Jesus do we see God’s righteousness revealed. This is certainly a possibility but not definitive. Even if this is the correct interpretation universalist are ignoring the context of Scripture which Paul also conceptualizes that we must have faith IN Christ as well. God's righteousness is available ONLY through faith in Christ and it is available to ANYONE who has faith in Christ because of the faithfulness/obedience of Christ. Why look at the context to try and figure out this particular verse instead of reading what you want into it? Because NO WHERE else in Paul’s writings does he ever mention anything about the faith OF Christ. He does however have plenty to say about believers having faith in Jesus Christ(Rom/Gal), faith in Christ Jesus(Gal/Col), faith in Christ(Col), and faith in the Lord Jesus(Eph). All have to do with the believer’s faith in Jesus and NEVER about Jesus's own faith/faithfulness. This is the ONLY place in Paul’s writings where he has any indication of writing about the faith/faithfulness of Christ. And yet progressives like Kirk want to base their whole theology of it not being about the believer’s faith but all to do with the faith of Jesus as to what saves you. All because this one verse seems to hint that. That's a very dangerous way to read Scripture and it most definitely an example of proof texting to fit what you want to believe. 

On page 62, Kirk states getting the “we” right takes up so much space in the first few chapters. I know who the we is, those that put their trust in Jesus that receive righteousness by the grace of God. However I tried to find if Kirk has defined “we” up until now and I haven’t found it, maybe it’s there. My dog did get a hold of the book and ripped parts of some pages out of the first few chapters. I will give him the benefit of the doubt since he skipped right over one of the universalist’s favorite verses 5:18. I may change my mind as I continue reading as for now I think Kirk has things correct.

In chapter 6 Kirk doesn’t come out and say it but circles around the idea that it’s ok to sin because it has no power anymore because you are in Christ. This is far from the truth. Paul states you are a slave of something, if you practice sin then you are a slave to that sin. As slaves to sin people are free from the power and influence of the conduct that pleases God. Do we all sin, yes, should we continue to practice sin, absolutely not. Kirk also says Paul is an “annihilationist” (77). Although Paul does not use the Greek words translated “hell,” he does speak about the destination of those who reject Jesus. He does speak about the destination of those who reject God’s means for their salvation. He teaches that all those who reject this must endure the wrath of God, become useless, and be forever separated from God. There is no evidence in Paul (or the rest of the NT for that matter) for a concept of final annihilation of the godless.

In chapter 9 Kirk states a number of times there is nothing for us to do in Romans 8. Which is correct, it talks about what Jesus Christ has done but in Romans 8 he is specifically talking to those that have but their trust/faith in Jesus. Followers of Christ, otherwise known as Christians. Yes Jesus accomplished a lot for the human race but if you don’t put your trust in Jesus and follow the Way then unfortunately everything he accomplished is null and void in your life. That’s the glaring thing missing when Kirk writes about what’s included in Romans 8. It’s very sad to leave such a very important point out to leave readers astray.

In chapter 10 I read that Kirk believes Paul only thinks of Jesus death has being a martyr that God sends. If you ready any of Paul’s writings he thinks of Jesus as more than just a martyred Messiah. I get from Kirk that he doesn’t agree with penal substitution (PSA) as taught in the Scriptures. Most of the time folks like this don’t like the idea of it so they try to believe it can’t found in Scripture. I suppose they use blinders for these types of things so they can’t see it. It sounds to me he is just like the other progressives that PSA is cosmic child abuse and says that’s what Paul actually thinks it is. We can’t ask Paul this side of Heaven but we can properly interpret the Scriptures and see PSA aspects in Scripture. Do you have to believe in PSA in order to be saved, I don’t think so but you are taking away huge parts of what Jesus did for us and that’s the sad part about it. If you don’t truly understand what Jesus actually did for us then you can’t truly appreciate the sacrifices Jesus accomplished on that cross. Which is why a lot of progressives just walk away from Christianity all together with the help of Kirk and the Bible for Normal People crew such as Enns and Byas. I would not like to be them on judgement day.

In chapter 11 Kirk goes through one of the most cherished chapters of Scripture for Calvinists. I actually agree with Kirk on how Calvinist get things wrong with double predestination. God can choose to do whatever he wants with his creation and humans have no position to criticize what the molder does with his mold. God’s divine sovereignty does come into play on who is saved however so does human responsibility of putting their faith in Jesus Christ. Paul is content with not reconciling how those two things work together here or anywhere else in Scripture so it really is a mystery how it all works. There is God’s part and there is our part and they both work together in harmony some how. What concerns me in this chapter is Kirk seems to be hinting at some sort of universalism, that all will be saved. He doesn’t come out and say that but hints at it. Unfortunately here or anywhere else in Scripture points to the concept of all being saved. You must follow Jesus, that is our responsibility. The saving of any is God’s mercy. Those who complain against God who refuses to save all reveal that they believe that God “should” save all, and that salvation is not a merciful gift of God but a necessary part of God’s contracted obligation to human beings. Bottom line, put your faith in Jesus by following him and you WILL be saved!

In chapter 12 Kirk asks the question “how are we supposed to know what faithfulness to God looks like?” He goes on to tell you it’s not how you believe and act but only that you only believe in Jesus’ Lordship and his resurrection. Which I agree thats essential to being saved. However it does not stop there. If you truly make that confession and start following Jesus then your life should also start showing it. Kirk never actually tells you what that looks like. If you read and study the NT it will tell you what a person who follows Christ should look like. But you will never hear that from Kirk and his progressive bunch. What they will lead you to believe is that believing Jesus is it, then you go on with your life like you always did looking and acting just as the world. The truth of the matter is once you put your trust in the rabbi Jesus, you eventually start acting, talking, looking like Jesus. It’s called sanctification. Which means the longer you follow Christ the more you continue to become like Him. You should “see” that confess you made by being set apart from the world and eventually looking nothing like what it worships, self. It’s not following rules or laws it’s following Jesus. However, the more you follow Jesus the more it will look like you are following those “rules” progressives love to hate. It’s not because you are trying to be a better person to get into Heaven it’s because you are becoming more like Jesus. And that’s what progressives like Kirk miss the mark. If you were in a line up with people who are not Christ followers and someone would watch and hear what you and them do and say. They should be able to easily pick you out because you stick out like a sore thumb. If they can’t you have to seriously go back and question whether you are following Jesus or the world. Because as a Christ follower you are in the world not of the world. (John 17) If you’re saved and you know it, then your life will surely show it ;).

In the last few chapters of Kirks book he tackles Romans 12-16. As you would guessed this progressive scholar glosses over much of what is said Paul in these chapters. Especially when it comes to what it looks like when you are truly a Christ follower. You see up until chapter 12 Paul writes about everything Jesus has done for us and makes a case on why we should follow Him. When we get into chapter 12 onward Paul gets into the nitty gritty of what your life should look like when you become a Christian and start following Jesus. Things progressives hate. Which is why Kirk barely touches any of that in his book. He skips over writing about anything in context that has to do with any kind of sin. Especially those types of sins that are championed and glorified in culture. He goes into detail on things that even non-Christians think are good and do anyway without being a Christ follower. I find it fitting at the end that Kirk believes Romans 16:17-20 isn’t part of Paul’s letter. I’d say that these verses are talking straight to the content of this book and anything the Bible for Normal People puts out. “17 And now I make one more appeal, my dear brothers and sisters. Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things contrary to what you have been taught. Stay away from them. 18 Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people. 19 But everyone knows that you are obedient to the Lord. This makes me very happy. I want you to be wise in doing right and to stay innocent of any wrong.”

So I’ll end this review here. I doubt anyone will read the whole thing but if you scanned down to the end I’ll sum it all up with this. If you really want to be serious about studying Romans find a better book/commentary. This one isn’t worth going through even if you got it for free. I bought it used and now it’s time to throw it into the fire. Books like this are just for people that want a little bit of Jesus but not so much that it causes them to live a different life.

[Josh Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

J.R. Daniel Kirk has written one of the most engaging, insightful, and accessible books on Romans that I’ve read. His interpretation of the letter raises some new and thought-provoking ideas around Pauline theology, especially in his reading of “the faith of Christ” as the means by which humans are saved. I think Kirk is right to place a greater emphasis on God’s work in salvation in Paul’s thinking than is typically found in Christian teaching and would highly recommend this book to anybody.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'll start with a confession - I rushed to finish this to complete my Goodreads annual challenge.

But I'm so glad I did, as this is an excellent book in the fabulous "Bible for Normal People" series.

Kirk is one of the best starship captains, but in this case, he's also a New Testament scholar with a PhD on the topic of Romans.

Romans is one of the most theologically dense books in the Bible, but often overlooked is its pastoral sensitivity in helping us live with difference and diversity.

What I loved about this book, is that unlike many other commentaries on Romans that seem to use the text to validate their theology, Kirk here starts with the writer Paul (or technically, Tertius 😉) and helps us explore what he was trying to say and why. Kirk also allows space for Paul's humanity, including his insecurities, which I found to be deeply refreshing.

I made the mistake of dipping in to the book and returning to it months later (I almost gave it 3 stars as a result, but that was my fault, not the book's). That made it harder to follow the flow - which is ironic, as that's a problem most of us face with the book of Romans. Keeping focused and reading it alongside the text is a great way to get the most out of this book.

Overall, another great addition to the Bible for Normal People series.

[Lauren O'Connell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul hasn’t traditionally been my favourite but Daniel Kirk’s super accessible commentary gave me a deeper appreciation for what Paul was trying to do when he wrote this letter to the Roman church.

About halfway through reading Romans for Normal People, I realised my issues with Romans were largely with the way this letter has been wielded in support of (questionable) theologies or reduced to (equally questionable) sound bites designed to wound. I still have questions about the text itself, but I have a better understanding of Paul’s context and his own struggles as he wrestled with how his experience of Jesus required a radical reframing of everything he thought he knew about God.

I don’t necessarily agree with where Paul landed in all of his wrestlings, but I respect the process he went through and have a richer appreciation for how my own experiences of God and the world that I live in frame my encounters with scripture…including Romans.

Highly recommend for anyone who has wrestled with Romans and its interpretations, or who would like to know a bit more about Paul’s context when he wrote this letter.

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoy The Bible for Normal People podcast, where I heard about this book, so I thought I would enjoy this book... and I did.

This book was really helpful in framing and understanding Romans. It's a quick read and flows like the author is sitting in the room talking to you. There are also little jokes sprinkled throughout the book. It is always nice when an author doesn't forget how to have some fun.

This is not a criticism of the book, but I do crave a little bit deeper of a dive. I believe the author has another book about Romans that might offer that. This book was for normal people, after all.

[Sharon · Rating 5 out of 5]

We read this for bible study, one chapter per week. It completely changed my relationship with Paul, giving me a deeper understanding of his conversion experience, and a greater appreciation for what he was trying to accomplish with his mission. The book generated lively and thoughtful discussion among our bible study participants. Kirk's personal analogies are always relevant and he makes clear Paul's writings to the, mostly gentile, Christians in Rome, in the context of Paul’s Jewish roots.

[Manfred · Rating 3 out of 5]

7.0/10; An accessible, easy, informative read. Some new, different perspectives. Interesting to read the book and Romans as a full letter, seeing the big picture, larger themes, instead of picking, extracting select chapters and verses.

But Romans is a meaty, long sixteen chapters. Having a deep understanding of Romans requires multiple readings and a variety of commentary and study books to cross-reference.

[Kristina Knight · Rating 4 out of 5]

An accessible launching point for anyone looking for a framework of Romans that isn't laden with all of the trappings of the modern reformed/neo-Calvinist movement. There are times I overwhelmingly agreed and times I vehemently disagreed with some of Kirk's interpretations, but the beautiful part of this book is that it normalizes engaging with the text critically and allowing space for disagreement. Overall, a worthwhile read.

[Weston Snyder · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great read and helped explain Romans very well! I appreciated the explanation of context at the time of writing, as well as the references to old testament scripture. Now, I just need this for every book of the Bible 😂!

[Nav · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even if you don't agree with everything, a great example of how context and intended audience matters. Though I think you will agree with the implication that a strict adherence to a coherent/tidy codex is less important than religious strictures that result in good works.

[Scott Rushing · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book with my Sunday School class. It’s a challenging project because Romans is one of the most influential yet difficult books of the New Testament. I thought Kirk managed to write to as wide an audience as possible. My class got bored with it though by the time we reached Rom 9-11.

[Wayne's · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction to the book.

[Ray Kincaid · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was such a helpful book. I learned so much.

[Nelson Thurman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A different perspective on Paul and his letter to the Romans. A lot to think about.

[Gail Holman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent short commentary for a community Bible study.

[Beth · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book for an in-depth Bible Study Group.

[Adam Curfman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good summary of Romans. I really appreciated the deep insight on each chapter and the new perspective it provide.

I did feel a little lost sometimes though; I felt that I couldn’t fully follow the themes or high level ideas throughout the book. A little disjointed in my opinion. Still a great resources and would recommend.

[Brian Hutzell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Throughout the book of Romans, Paul is, as Daniel Kirk admits (p. 184) “trying to make sense of that which cannot be explained.” The impossibility of the task does not stop Paul from trying. Romans is a book I often point to as evidence that sophisticated thinking and theology are not new. Two thousand years ago, Paul was one sharp cookie! Nevertheless, his letter to the Romans is confusing as all get out. Paul’s reasoning can be circular and convoluted. Reading him, I often wish he had been familiar with Occam’s Razor.

Any book attempting to explain Romans is also bound to be difficult and at times convoluted. Kirk does an admirable job of trying to get to the meat of Paul’s message, and present it in a way that makes sense. He gives Paul all due respect without acting as a mere apologist. Both Paul and Kirk take as a given that the crucifixion/resurrection story as related in the Gospels is true. I would like to see a commentary on Romans that not only questions some of Paul’s conclusions, but also questions some of his premises.

The ...For Normal People series of books, spearheaded by Pete Enns and Jared Byas, grew out of the “Bible For Normal People” podcast. The podcast and books are a lot of fun–approachable yet intellectually rigorous.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great commentary on Romans. Daniel Kirk presents an understanding of Romans based on new perspective on Paul which gives a different, I would say more holistic, way to understand this complex book. Written in very practical prose makes it easy reading. Generally there is a chapter for every chapter in Romans.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kirk puts Romans in a perspective/context in which my faith tradition ignores. This makes Paul’s letter make sense and easier to understand. Outside of the Calvinist leaning, it’s a good, solid read and a good complement to the Bible for Normal People canon.