Customer Reviews

The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letters

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Paul's letter to the Romans has turned out to be one of the most misunderstood books in the Bible. His words have been interpreted in such diverse ways as to launch various religious movements and spawn new theologies that are completely contradictory to the message that Paul intended. One such example would be "Replacement Theology." Such ideas are based in part on anti-Semitism, which in turn, is based in part on a misunderstanding of Paul's words.

The author notes that Paul is not well liked. "Jews often perceive him as a traitor, or worse. Christians often consider him arrogant and manipulative, at the very least, and among scholars and those sensitive to the integrity of the Jews and Judaism his perceived disregard for and betrayal of his Jewish heritage and the Jewish people is justifiable cause for suspicion."

Mark Nanos "locates in the author of Romans a very different Paul: a thoroughly Jewish Paul, functioning entirely within the context of Judaism, giving priority to Israel..." With this mindset, "The Mystery of Romans" starts to reveal a message different from what history and Christianity has perhaps taught us.

"The Mystery of Romans" is a fascinating book based on brilliant scholarship. There are extensive footnotes throughout. One of the most rewarding chapters, Chapter Three, asks and answers the question: "Who were the 'weak' and the 'strong' in Rome?" It was this chapter alone that opened up a new understanding of Romans for me personally.

Every once in a while you come across a book that you wish every Christian would read. This is such a book. - Ronni

The real strength of Nanos' book lies in the exposition of Rom. 14:1-15:6, where Paul discusses the "weak in faith" and the "strong in faith" in Rome. The author refutes the traditional view that the weak in faith were Christian Jews, arguing that they were almost certainly non-Christian Jews. These Jews were weak in faith because they refused to accept Jesus as Israel's true messiah, not because they lived by the works of the law. On the contrary, those who observed purity laws, fasting, sabbath -- or any Jewish works -- were to "be fully convinced in their own minds what is right" (Rom. 14:5). They were to continue "observing the sabbath in honor of the Lord" (Rom. 14:6a) as well as "abstaining from meat in honor of the Lord" (Rom. 14:6b). Paul didn't believe that the Jews in Rome were "weak in practice" or "weak in opinions". He thought they were "weak in faith", refusing to believe that the messiah had come and initiated the eschatological age.

Nanos handles the implications of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20) very well. He allows that while Paul may have disagreed with James' compromise in theory ("nothing is unclean in itself" (Rom. 14:14a)), he agreed with apostolic wisdom in practice ("food is unclean, however, for those who think it is unclean" (Rom. 14:14b)). Gentiles, while in the company of Jews, must abide by the minimal purity standards of the Apostolic Decree. "If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love" (Rom. 14:15). Paul exhorted the Gentiles in Rome to observe any purity regulations that would otherwise have offended their Jewish associates. "It is good not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that causes your brother to stumble" (Rom. 14:21). Paul wanted the strong in faith to accommodate the weak in faith and "not please themselves" (Rom. 15:1), so that, hopefully, soon, the Jews would embrace Christianity and both groups could worship as "one voice" (Rom. 15:5-6).

So Gentiles may be theoretically free from the works of the law, but that freedom must always be examined in light of the company one is in. Israel's place is preeminent (Rom. 11:17-18), and Gentile arrogance will result in being cut off from the church and salvation altogether (Rom. 11:20b-21). Jewish heritage demands respect. This book could go a long way in promoting honest Jewish-Christian dialogue. While not a comprehensive commentary of Romans, its focus on key passages clears up serious confusion and provides a solid foundation for understanding Paul's most famous letter.

Nanos is unequalled in his ability to write and back up his thoughts with proof. He has a twist in this book, from a Jewish perspective, he attempts to show how Paul is writing to Jews and Romans to consider one another as brothers, to emphasize toleration.

Nanos' thesis is that Paul was writing a correction to both, neither should think more of themselves than what they should. It was not the Jews who thought too much of themselves, it was he Romans who were thinking they were more than just simple Christians. His reference to Romans 9 is very insightful.

It is a difficult read, written mostly to a more educated audience, however, it is a good tool for anyone who has a desire to understand the depth of scripture from a Jewish perspective.

If only all christians would remember that the early church was originally all Jewish until the conversion of the Samaritans. The core of Paul's work was done in synagogues and Jews were among the converts throughout Europe and Asia Minor.

Nanos goes a long way to reveal a much needed dialog between Christian and Jew. Christian roots, Jewish ideas, a need for understanding.

Nanos pulls from the history, the culture, the Greek language, and even the archaeology to bring a "fresh" interpretation of a mysterious book to our time. In doing so, he comes closer to putting us into the minds of Jewish Christians living in the 40s, 50s than most commentators.

Nanos' thesis is that Paul is rebuking Gentile Christians for being arrogant about their grace-oriented lifestyle, and that the weak and the strong in Romans aren't Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians (as interpreted for, goodness, 1900+ years?), rather non-Christian Jews and Jewish/Gentile Christians. The Christians are the "strong" because they rely on God's grace, the Jews "weak" because they rely on the law. However, the term "weak" is not necessarily prejorative. In fact, Nanos states that the weak are stumbling *because* of the arrogance of the strong regarding violating the Law. The Christians are chastized in the letter, not exalted, and the Christians are asked to be more "Jewish", or at least, Noachidic.

The Jews are still considered brethren, the calling of God is irrevocable, the seed of Abraham is the branch which sustains the Church, and "all Israel will be saved" (pas Israel sothesetai). Nanos backs all this up. This is a challenge to 'Replacement Theologians,' as Replacementers rely on this letter for much of their arguments.

I also found Nanos' comments on the Shema and its role in the Gospel enlightening.

Finally! This is simply a great book. Contextually sound, theologically based, and historically appropriate, this book peels back the layers of Romans and breaks it down into its simplest terms. The LCD (Least Common Denominator) is the focus of this study (The Shema) and if your eyes remain focused, the contradictions simply dissolve. If every Christian was to read this book and act according to the understanding that comprises these pages we would be united and the internal strife would end (1 Cor. 1:10-13). At the same time if the Hebrew people would read this text, they might not have the animosity they do toward Christianity, provided we live up to our end of the bargain. If you read this book and don't come away with appreciating the Hebraic roots of Christianity and a thirst for more, then your heart is hard. I don't give many 5 star ratings!

This was the most stimulating book on Paul's epistle to the Romans that I have ever read. It challenged my thinking and shifted my paradigm.

Essentially, Nanos argues that the 'weak' in Romans are not Christian Jews, but rather Jews who have not yet believed in Christ. With this in mind, Nanos interprets the entire epistle as a sustained plea to gentile Christians not to cause offense to Jews, but rather to live in such a way as to cause them no stumbling block to believing in Jesus as the Christ.

There were some elements on Nanos' theory which I found unconvinving. For example, his critique of Luther's view is somewhat overstated, though some criticisms are warranted. Also, Nanos' treatment of the governing officials from Rom 13 being synagogue officials seems a little too narrow. His treatment of the Claudius Edict is also unconvincing. In my opinion, Paul is writing to the gentiles for them to take not a 'hands-off' approach towards Jews, but rather a 'hands-on' evangelistic approach.

One feature of the presentation I thoroughly disliked was the amount of argumentation which appeared in the footnotes. I could not see why most of Nanos' arguments in the footnotes could not have been put into the body of the work. Footnotes should, in my opinion, be reserved for referencing and short peripheral statements. On occasion, Nanos' footnotes take over in arguing his case.

Nevertheless, Nanos' work is highly thought-provoking and well-worth a read. You will not be disappointed by reading this book closely. I did and it altered my outlook on Romans (for the better, I believe).

It was said of Paul that he wrote some things difficult to understand which some "twisted" to their own distruction. Well, I wouldn't say Mark Nanos twisted anything, but it sure was a difficult book for me to read. Mark did an excellent job of documenting his research and supporting his conclusions which I thoroughly enjoyed when I finally figured them out. Furthermore, I think his controversial positions deserve serious consideration & adjustment in the thinking of many , if not most, conservative Christians & evangelicals. My only suggestion is to shorten the sentences & organize the thoughts that have been penned a bit more concisely. Again, I was awed by the research & insight but distracted & sometimes left wondering where he started in a sentence (or thought) soley because of his writing style. Sometimes less is more. Is it just me?

Mark Nanos leads the reader through the historical context in which Romans written with substance undergirding his thesis. His historical and pastoral exegesis does not detract from the spiritual guidance Paul was communicating to the Romans, but amplifies it. He skillfully addresses dissimiliar scholarly orthodoxy with reason and facts. This is a thoughtful and flowing work that holds the reader's interest to the end. For those interested in additional information that seems to support Nanos' conclusions read The Christians and the Roman Empire by Marta Sordi, and The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark.

This book will open the book of Romans to many that have never seen the absolute Jewishness of Paul's writings. Reading this book should be a must for all, and especially for all those that think Paul intended Christianity to be a new religion separate from Judaism.

Takes a refreshing approach to Paul's ministry. This book removes a major plank of supersessionist theology. The narrative picks through some major points, but is not a verse by verse commentary.