I've been listening to some of David Bercot's audio CDs recently that I borrowed from my cousin-in-law and so far I'm enjoying them. Bercot has a very straightforward, almost pleading tone and a common sense way of approaching things that makes him easy to listen to and quite persuasive. I've also read a few of his books in the past that I've enjoyed (and found challenging) so I looked him up on Amazon.com and perused through the comments on some of his books (just for fun). One person made this statement regarding what we really needed to understand (in the midst of a very long review of Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up?):
You must understand the world of 2nd Temple Judaism, because that's the world of Christ Jesus, His Apostles, and some of the earliest, Apostolic Fathers of the Church which Bercot writes about. Bercot does not understand this world. I very, very strongly recommend reading two simple books of N.T. Wright's, "The Challenge of Jesus" and "The Crown and the Fire."
That was an interesting assertion so I went and looked up N.T. Wright's books (the ones mentioned and others) and found that he is a much-admired bishop in the Church of England. In the course of this search I also found a web site with some of his writings and lectures posted and started reading through a PDF titled "New Perspectives on Paul." (There is actually an entire movement titled, "New Perspectives on Paul" and this paper has to do with that, but I'm not going to go into that movement now.) In the PDF I found the following statement by Wright:
For me then and now, if I had to choose between Luther and Calvin I would always take Calvin, whether on the Law or (for that matter) the Eucharist. But as I struggled this way and that with the Greek text of Romans and Galatians, it dawned on me, I think in 1976, that a different solution was possible. In Romans 10.3 Paul, writing about his fellow Jews, declares that they are ignorant of the righteousness of God, and are seeking to establish 'their own righteousness'. The wider context, not least 9.30–33, deals with the respective positions of Jews and Gentiles within God's purposes – and with a lot more besides, of course, but not least that. Supposing, I thought, Paul meant 'seeking to establish their own righteousness', not in the sense of a moral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership?
He goes on to state that this, "Would make excellent sense of Romans 9 and 10" and that it has been "Deeply rewarding exegetically right across Paul." He is, therefore, very fond of the position that he found and I wondered if it might have some merit, so I went and looked up that passage he was referring to and it says this:
For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
(Rom 10:3-5)
He of course is focused on verse 3 and is pondering the meaning of the righteousness that Israel tried to establish on their own. He draws the conclusion in the paragraph above that this isn't about the Jews piling up works for salvation but rather believing that they have a permanent covenant with God because of their possession of the Law. This might be something that you could ponder for longer than a few minutes if I hadn't pasted the verses right after verse 3 in the cut above, and especially the part that says, "For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them." Yes, so this must have something to do with the "righteousness that is based on the law" (it sure seems to from the fact that it uses the same words and starts the sentence with a "for") and it says that "the person who does the commandments shall live by them." That really looks like somebody thought they could "live" by "doing commandments" if for no other reason than the fact that it is exactly what the passage says. But maybe I didn't go far enough back before the verse to really get the gist of what Wright was trying to say. After all, the "wider context" he mentions stretches back into chapter 9. So in chapter 9 we read this:
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
(Rom 9:30-33)
This is exactly the passage Wright mentions as being a part of the "wider context." It states that Israel pursued a righteousness but did not obtain it "Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works." Once again, the passage seems very clear. It seems to say exactly what it means. The most frustrating part about this is that there are parts of Romans that are tough to understand, but this isn't really one of them, unless you make it tough to understand, like Mr. Wright does.
This is another good example of a person over-thinking the Bible. Almost everybody who comments about Wright's books believes him to be incredibly intelligent. There are many comments about the lack of worthiness of the commenter in the face of such superior intellect (you can see how the person above who commented on Bercot's book gives a nod to Wright's superiority, which is not unique). This really brings to mind a passage in 1 Corinthians that we don't read much because it really doesn't sync very well with our idea that people who are highly educated in a particular field ought to be better at that field than people who are not. That passage says this:
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
(1Co 1:26-29)
and again later,
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."
(1Co 3:18-20)
It is possible to over-think the Bible and to make incredible errors in the process. Yes, whether or not all of your Amazon.com commenters believe you be the smartest human on the planet, you are still just that, human.
