Justification: God's Plan Paul's Vision

N. T. Wright, Justification, God's Plan and Paul's Vision (Downers Grove, Il, IVP Academic Press, 2009) Nicholas Thomas Wright, recently Anglican Bishop of Durham, stands out as an important, successful churchman in three different fields. The first, evident in his title, is that he is a successful cleric and pastor. The second, evident in this book and many of the commentaries `...For Everyone' he has written, as Tom Wright, on Paul's letters, is as a missionary of ideas to the laity. The third, highly important to his credibility in the second role, is as a scholar on Paul's letters and the issues therein. This book falls somewhere between the second and third roles, as it is a book written for a lay audience, addressing a scholarly challenge to Wright's espousal of what is known as the 'New Perspective' on the theology of Paul. The challenge comes from a book by John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright (Memphis, Crossway Books, 2007). I have not read Pastor Piper's book, but I wish to assure you, dear reader that you need not do that to gain great value from this book. For a lay person only recently dipping into Biblical research, thisbook broadens my view of its subject, and adds to my surprise at how much controversy there has been over the last century on the understanding of Paul's theological positions. The issues run so deep that there has even been disagreement over what issues were most important to Paul. Earlier in this century, important voices, including that of Albert Schweitzer, claimed that issues on the law and justification were quite secondary to one's participation in the body of Christ. This was true because only two of Paul's eight certifiably authentic letters, Galatians and Romans, dealt with this issue. The importance of that observation is reflected in the fact that these are the only two of Paul's letters which are addressed in detail in this volume. This position has faded into history, but the issue of Paul's stand on Justification is as lively today as it has been since, possibly, the 16th century, in the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other reformers. And, it is precisely the reformers' positions, what may be called the `Old Perspective' on Paul, which is at issue between Wright, Piper, and a battalion of other scholars. From the vantage point of someone who has read some of the leading writers on the `New Perspective', including earlier works by Wright himself, I am similarly surprised that the `New Perspective' may not be so totally new and different as one may be lead to believe. For example, looking at the issues at a macro level, one can say with some honesty that while the champion of the `Old Perspective' is Luther's positions, John Calvin's theology is not entirely out of line with many points of the `New Perspective'. One thing which may trouble a lay reader of this book is the sense that there is tension between two of the Reformation's most cherished positions sola fide (faith alone) and sola scriptura (scripture alone). Wright's position leans just a bit in the direction of Schweitzer in saying that Paul's overall theology rests on several issues, and ignoring any one of these is misleading. The most important issues are covenant, righteousness (and the issue of forensic judgment), eschatology, and Christology. Wright describes some of Piper's shortcomings as being similar to trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle while leaving some of the pieces in the box. The primary `paradigm shift' of the `New Perspective' lies with the Christian scholars' understanding of Paul's relation to Jewish doctrine. The cardinal sin of exegesis of the early reformers is to identify second temple Jewish theology with the 16th century Roman doctrines of dealing in dispensations. This lead to the misunderstanding of Christ's sacrifice as a balancing the books on sin, so that our `good works' are no longer necessary to pay our way into heaven. Second temple Judaism was not at all like 16th century Roman practice, and Paul did not reject it. To him, it was literally a `babysitter' or `nursemaid' who cared for the Israelites and nurtured them until God's plan played out its next act in Christ's sacrifice and resurrection, bringing on the beginnings of the next step in creation, the step which would cure the rip in the moral fabric made by Adam. This is the importance of Paul's citing the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham, and the connection of all peoples, Jews and Gentiles alike, to Abraham's parentage. Wright writes like a gentleman regarding his intellectual opponent, Pastor Piper, returning the favor of Piper's good manners. Since I have not read Piper's book, I cannot offer an opinion on which writer has done a better job of making his case. I do believe that Wright has been true to the very Lutheran principle of sola scriptura, taking it wherever it leads. Wright has eminently succeeded in demonstrating, for the layman, that a full understanding of any one aspect of Biblical doctrine is simply not easy, but he has also eminently realized the quote from leading Lutheran scholar, Ernst Käsemann that `...the text has an inner logic to it, even if it is initially not entirely comprehensible to us.' This is especially true of Paul, who was a `polemical' writer, always addressing specific issues. The book succeeds as an answer to John Piper, but it does not fully address the subject of its subtitle, and it should not be taken as a good source for a full understanding of Galatians and Romans. For those matters, you need to see Alister McGrath's history of Justification, and one or more of the commentaries on Galatians and Romans which Wright cites in his bibliography.

Book title: JustificationAuthor: N.T. WrightDowners Grove, InterVarsity Press, 2009Number of pages: 252Leading New Testament scholar N.T. Wright has taken C.S. Lewis's seat at the table. As Lewis changed the way people looked at Christianity, read their Bibles and thought about God in the twentieth century, Wright will do the same in the twenty-first. Like Lewis, Wright has a talent for making difficult biblical concepts accessible to the average person.He is a primary scholar in the New Perspective on Paul. Wright sheds light on aspects of Paul and his theology that have left to gather dust in the dark corners of church tradition.Wright's rise to popularity makes him a lightning rod for controversy. He intends to educate, but theological sacred cows are kicked over in the process. Incoming criticism rains down on him from several theological strong-holds. Some he deflects and some he absorbs. His most public fire-fight revolves around his treatment of the Doctrine of Justification.Opponents say that Wright's New Perspective is out of balance; that examining Paul in a historical Jewish context is a mistake. Wright's answer: "...we end up reading [Paul] as though was really a 17th-century theologian born out of due time..." Wright posits in his book Paul: In Fresh Perspective that most of what we accept about Paul is based on scholarship that has been delivered to the world since the Reformation. But Paul pre-dates the Reformation.Author Scot McKnight attempts to sum up the New Perspective in three bullet points:1. Judaism was not a works-earns-salvation religion.2. Paul was therefore not opposing a works-earns-salvation religion.3. Therefore, the Reformation's way of framing the entire message of the New Testament as humans seeking to earn their own redemption rests on shaky historical grounds."Right or wrong," writes McKnight, "the New Perspective is the most Protestant move made in the 20th Century -- and by that I only mean that it seeks to get back to the Bible and challenge our beliefs in light of what we find in that Bible."John Piper leads the assault. In his 2007 book The Future of Justification, Piper attempts to punch holes in Wright's position.Wright's new book, Justification, is a response to his critics. Wright gives a thorough explanation of justification doctrinally and exegetically from Paul's epistles. Piper, in his book, explains justification against the backdrop of Reformed Tradition appealing mostly to Luther and Calvin rather than re-examining the Bible in its historical context.Piper's position on the doctrine of justification is that the righteousness of Christ and His perfect obedience is imputed to the believer once faith is placed in Christ. That is, Christ's perfect obedience, morality and virtue becomes the believer's perfect obedience, morality, and virtue. Piper makes the point that Wright believes God merely declares us righteous based on the work of Christ and includes us in His family.Wright does not hide the fact that this is what he believes: That Jesus defeated evil and sin and took our place on the cross. God vindicated Jesus by raising Him from the dead and in our identification with that (the resurrection) we, too, are vindicated. This is what Justification does. Wright says that we are given status as righteous, but that - and here's where the Calvinist's cages get rattled - obedience, morality and virtue are worked out in the believer's life through the Holy Spirit.But this looks like a works based way of pleasing God the Calvinist traditionalist will say. It looks like "works of the law" are what please God and we all know that this can't be true because only faith pleases God.Piper disputes Wright's take on the doctrine of Justification. Piper is convinced that Paul teaches the necessity to know what Justification IS, not just what it DOES. If one doesn't know what it IS, then one's understanding of what Christ accomplished on the cross will be misunderstood. In fact, Piper fears that what the church believes about Justification may be distorted for years to come due to Wright's ever expanding influence."Discovering that God is gracious," writes Wright, "rather than a distant bureaucrat or a dangerous tyrant, is the good news that constantly surprises and refreshes us. But we are not the center of the universe. God is not circling around us. We are circling around him. It may look, from our point of view, as though 'me and my salvation' are the be-all and end-all of Christianity. Sadly, many people--many devout Christians!--have preached that way and lived that way. This problem is not peculiar to the churches of the Reformation."Wright presents justification less in terms of personal conversion and more in terms of "who is in the people of God."Piper, seems to think covenantal readings belittle Paul. To this, Wright says, "Dealing with sin, saving humans from it, giving them grace, forgiveness, justification, glorification -- all this was the purpose of the single covenant from the beginning, now fulfilled in Jesus Christ". Justification is embedded in the covenant -- "the saving call of a worldwide family through whom God's saving purposes for the world were to be realized."Wright uses the imagery of a divine court of law as the controlling environment for justification and he sees God as judge finding in favor --giving righteous status-- of those who believe in Jesus Christ.The emphasis of Wright's writing is that Christianity runs deep within a person and effects every part of a person's life; it changes the way a person sees the world (as God's New Creation) and his or her own participation in the world (building for God's Kingdom here on earth)."It isn't that God basically wants to condemn and then finds a way to rescue some from that disaster. It is that God longs to bless, to bless lavishly, and so to rescue and bless those in danger of tragedy - and therefore must curse everything that thwarts and destroys the blessing of his world and his people."Wright's hope is that this robust dialogue between himself and his critics "will send the next generation of thoughtful Christians back to Scripture itself, not to this or that tradition."

This book is part of a continuing conversation between Wright and John Piper, who wrote  The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright  in response to some of Wright's earlier writings on Pauline theology. This is then Wright's response to Piper. The book divides into 2 (almost equal) parts. The first part is Wright's more direct response to Piper's book, combined with a restatement and clarification of some points, though these will be familiar to readers who have followed the same route that I did ( What St Paul Really Said  ->  Paul: Fresh Perspectives  - >  The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright ). The second half is an exegesis on the key sections in Paul's writing relating to the theme of justification.As the publishers chose to publish in the name of `Tom' rather than `N.T.' one might expect this to be at the more "everyday" level, more akin to  Simply Christian  or  Surprised by Hope  than his work on the Christian Origins and the Question of God series. Don't let this lull you into a sense that there isn't much to think through. Wright's argument needs a great deal of care and attention in order to follow it. Indeed, one of his criticisms of Piper and other critics is that they have cherry-picked their objections, failing to see the bigger picture. There are flashes in the first half of some of Wright's exasperation which some have taken to be slightly less than gracious. I must admit that I have some sympathy with this view, as the introduction comes across as though this was a book that Wright was compelled to write, which interrupted his schedule.I must confess that I found the 2nd half of the book much tougher than the first. This is where Wright goes into detail on the key passages relating to justification in Galatians and Romans, with an interlude looking at Philippians, Corinthians and Ephesians. The trouble stems from the fact that Wright doesn't include any of the texts he is talking about. So one is compelled to read this book in one hand and a bible in the other. Even then, the large sweeps Wright takes encapsulates large chunks of text at a time. While Wright is keen to show the "big picture" I couldn't help but get a little bit lost along the way. Speaking to others about the book, it appears several `gave up' at this point though I would strongly encourage anyone who has done so to try again.One of the great treats of the book is that at several places, Wright echoes Paul's writing style (especially his rhetorical questions) with the likes of, "What shall we say to these things?" or, "Where then is boasting in human traditions (including those of the Reformation)?" before going on to answer these questions himself. Having followed, chronologically by publication, some of the New Perspective writings, I'm not sure how accessible this book might be to those who haven't followed the same path. There are certainly a lot of riches to be discovered, though I would recommend tracing the journey that resulted in arriving here. But for anyone who wants to understand the background, the debate and the interpretations that are important to the New Perspective, then this would have to be core reading. The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. WrightWhat St Paul Really SaidPaul: Fresh PerspectivesThe Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. WrightSimply ChristianSurprised by Hope

N.T. Wright is the kind of writer who takes me out of my comfort zone. Widely regarded as one of the greatest New Testament scholars alive today, this is his response to John Piper's response to him ("The Future of Justification"). It is a captivating read. What I've learned from N.T. Wright is that it is not faith in justification by faith that saves, but faith in Christ that saves. There are many believers around the world who may not be able to articulate the doctrine of justification in a way that would be satisfactory to certain brethren who are paid up members of the 'Frozen Chosen Brigade', but they love Christ nonetheless, and are looking to Him for their salvation. The implication of what Piper (and others) seem to be suggesting is that believers throughout Church history who have not had this 'forensic' understanding of the doctrine, are headed for oblivion. This is deeply troubling. The vast majority of professing Christians will be in hell because they couldn't say the right thing, in a mechanical fashion, about a particular doctrine?? I'm not comfortable thinking this way any more. Thank God that the Lord knows those who are His, irrespective of whether they are able to articulate this doctrine in a forensic manner or not.Wright is not always easy to read, but if you invest the time to engage him through this book, you will be challenged and richly rewarded. Wright is also very good at the 'Big Picture', 'Grand Narrative', and 'Drama of Redemption' - so if you enjoy Biblical Theology you will certainly enjoy Wright!For evangelicals who like to think outside the box, it's Five Stars!

Both for those of us Christians who are familiar with Professor Tom Wright’s writing, and even more for those who have yet to read him and have some catching up to do, it is high time that we accept his challenges to our motivation and discipleship. ‘For too long we have read scripture with nineteenth-century eyes and sixteenth-century questions. It’s time to get back to reading with first-century eyes and twenty-first-century questions’ (p 21). Exactly so! This is what he himself has been doing, brilliantly and eruditely, on our behalf for several decades. Now we we need to stop being dazzled, and join the revolution.This particular book, which Wright says he did not want to have to write, is a prime example of the ‘nineteenth-century eyes and sixteenth-century questions’ bit, in which he answers critics of his studies of St Paul with barely concealed exasperation. The irony of having to take on ‘sola scriptorum’ advocates who nevertheless want to stick with Reformation (sixteenth-century) tradition, rather than explore fresh first-century insights, is almost comical. (I have read Piper, by the way.) Much of the book focuses on justification and related theological and soteriological concepts (the jargon does rub off a bit). It needs to be said first, that there is a very great deal on which Wright and Piper et al do actually agree; and secondly, that many people will regard the ‘evangelical arm-wrestling’ which detailed exegesis seems to involve as largely irrelevant to daily discipleship. I’m fairly sure that our heavenly Father doesn’t regard it as that important either.However the book as a whole is fabulously rich in all sorts of things which really do matter, and demonstrates how Wright’s fascinating scripture-based insights can be woven together into an overarching structure which is truly breathtaking in its potential to shake up our thinking. These strands include God’s plan to redeem creation, initially through his chosen people Israel; his covenant faithfulness and how this expresses itself as God’s righteousness; the metaphor of the law court; the decisive action of God through his son to defeat sin and death, and end Israel’s state of exile; the reality of the physical resurrection of Jesus; the opening wide of the door to us Gentiles; and the ongoing, non-stop real-time story in which every single one of us has a continuing part to play. The first chapter contains two brilliant parables, of the sunrise - which takes us way beyond what one reviewer has aptly called ‘sin management theology’ - and of the jigsaw puzzle. Ponder them! Chapter 8 - ‘Conclusion’ - is a short but cogent summary of the scripture-centred riches of this book. Scattered throughout, to make us chuckle when we spot them, are brief parodies of Paul’s literary style.Five stars are not enough for a book of this importance. Read it! - and also ‘What St Paul really said’ (this is the one that Piper et al didn’t like but didn’t properly read), ‘Simply Jesus’, ‘Surprised by hope’, ‘Scripture and the authority of God’, ‘When you believe’. Read them all - and then let’s all get cracking. There’s clearly lots to do.

Tough scholarly stuff I needed (and still need) to get my head round. As a beginning theology student books like this by acknowledged scholars are essential - even better when they are also readable, but you can go back to bits you didn't understand and think about them afterwards. I do like this man's style.

Brought as a present for my son. He found it very informative.