The following is a review of John Piper’s book The Future of Justification which I have written for the Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology. It is posted here with the approval of the editor of the SBET, Rev. Dr. Iain Campbell. You can obtain the book here. Bishop Wright has written a book in some sense in response to Dr. Piper’s book and it can be found here.
The Future of Justification:Â A Response to N. T. Wright
John Piper
Inter Varsity Press, Nottingham, 2008; 240pp; £9.99; ISBN 978 1 84474 250 9
The worldwide Christian community has been plagued recently with several theological controversies. We have the debate over penal substitutionary atonement, another about the emergent church, and another about the doctrine of justification. Influential to some extent in each of these have been the writings (and sometimes the personal involvement) of Anglican bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright. The present volume under review, The Future of justification, is well-known American pastor-theologian John Piper’s honest attempt to face head on the rising tide of dissatisfaction with the traditional Reformation doctrine of justification that can be seen broadly in the so-called “new perspective on Paul†and more particularly in the voluminous literary output of Wright. Piper has published on the subject of justification before with his The Justification of God and more recently his Counted Righteous in Christ. Piper has addressed several aspects of Wright’s reformulation of justification along ecclesiological rather than soteriological lines and has actually submitted the material in the book to Dr. Wright for his own feedback. As Piper notes, Wright submitted an 11,000-word response to the book and so the book has doubled in size (10).
The Future of Justification does not make for light reading, but it will repay any reader who invests the time to wrestle with the detailed exegetical, biblico-theological and systematic concerns. Wright, as representative of the broader NPP school, holds that the Reformation read Paul wrongly. Paul did not think that second temple Judaism was a works oriented religion. He thought it was narrow and bigoted. Justification is not, Wright tells us, about how a sinner finds acceptance with a holy God based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ and forgiveness of sin though faith alone. That is all wrong. On the contrary, justification is about who is in the covenant community (i.e., the church). Rather than circumcision, kosher dietary rules and Sabbath observance being the badges of membership, faith is now the badge. Additionally, Wright speaks about two justifications. There is the justification in history and then there is a justification at the last judgment for individual believers based upon the whole life lived (per Romans 2:6-11).
Piper interacts at a minute and detailed level with the arguments of bishop Wright in eleven chapters and six appendices. Piper opens with a helpful reminder that not all biblical theology is worthy of the name. One does not have to pit biblical theology against systematic theology as Wright does (annoyingly so from this reviewer’s viewpoint). The sister disciplines mutually enrich and correct each other. Or that is the way it should be. Piper then addresses Wright’s handling of the law court imagery behind justification language in the NT in two successive chapters. In chapter five Piper asks whether the news that Jesus is Lord would be “good†news for the unbeliever. In the next chapter Piper deals with whether justification is about our standing before a holy God and in the next he wrestles with the place of works in the biblical scheme of justification. Then the question is asked as to whether Wright is saying the same thing as the Reformers when he stresses union with Christ and dispenses with the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Truthfully, it is not one or the other. It is both. This is a basic defect in Wright and I am afraid it makes orthodox men frightened by any and all talk of union with Christ. Piper then tackles the contentious issue of Paul’s place in the second temple Jewish milieu and follows that with a discussion of the Jewish ethnic boundary markers or badges and concludes the body of the work in the eleventh chapter with a look at various imputation passages among which we find Philippians 3:9 and 1st Corinthians 5:21. There is a wealth of exegetical richness here. Piper concludes the book with six appendices dealing with further matters related to the law, imputation, faith, and love.
While N. T. Wright has offered to the church some helpful scholarship (he has dispatched the silliness of the Jesus Seminar and the like with humor and abandon), and has rigorously offered arguments in favor of Christ’s resurrection, his work on justification comes up short and needs detailed correction. John Piper has done just that. The Future of Justification is must reading.
Jeff
Thanks for the post. You mention that Wright has been “influential to some extent” in the three controversies that you mentioned. While his involvement in the justification issue is clear, I’m less clear how he has contributed to the emergent church and the penal substitution debate.
I’d welcome your comments.
Matt
Matt
N. T. Wright is one of the theologians emergents are drawn to because of his ecumenical concerns. As for the penal substitution issue, Wright was directly involved in defending/supporting Steve Chalk’s “Lost Message of Jesus” in which Chalk characterizes penal substitution as “cosmic child abuse” and Wright had direct interaction with the folks at Oak Hill College who produced “Pierced for Our Transgressions.”
Hope that helps!
Jeff
Matt
Let me add a note of clarification.
NT Wright and the emergent church share many concerns. The emergents seem drawn to Wright’s view of justification/NPP and his views on Scriptural authority. They also appear to me to share his view of the atonement and in addition to appreciating his ecumenical perspective they also share his horizontal, quasi-social gospel transformationalism. Whether Wright is the source of these views among the emergents or whether it is simply a convergence of viewpoints would be an interesting question to research.
Jeff
Hey, Jeff. I hate to be a pedant, but it is spelled “sneak.”
Ben
Thanks for catching that!
Jeff