Book Review 1: The Future of Justification

Although I usually post my book reviews on Fridays (indeed, I plan to post on Vanhoozer's chaps 3 and 6 tomorrow), I am chomping at the bit to dig into John Piper's new book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. In biblical studies, this is the equivalent of a cafeteria fight--"A fight, a fight," and everyone scrambles from the table to watch.

And of course when the two people are notorious opponents, the fight becomes all the more salacious, like in Matrix when Neo and Morpheus are fighting in the virtual room.

Now neither Tom Wright nor John Piper would approve of this description of their disagreements. Indeed, I consider both of these to be godly men who will not only be in heaven but who, dare I suggest, may even be entirely sanctified--even though neither of them believe in the doctrine. Piper is gracious in his introduction to Wright, and indeed sent an earlier version of the book to Wright, who sent back an 11,000 word response.

[I feel compelled to make the major disclaimer that I detest Piper's particular version of Calvinism and his theology in general, but that is not my topic today. As he sees Wright a threat to sound theology, I see him as an enormously negative influence on American pop-theology]

But as extensive an influence as Piper has, he has seen the impact Wright is having on his circles. Piper explains that no one from his church has ever come up to him with one of James Dunn or E. P. Sanders' books. But they have come up to him with a rather large volume written by Wright. He feels the need to respond.

I should say that neither of these individuals represent my understanding exactly. As I read through Piper's introduction, I found myself sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing with his initial thoughts. I'm of course very sympathetic to aspects of the new perspective on Paul and Judaism. But I also agree with Piper that at times, Wright is in his own world.

And I laughed to myself when I read Piper's comment that Wright sometimes leaves his readers, "not with the rewarding 'ah-ha' experience of illumination, but with a paralyzing sense of perplexity" (24). I know that feeling when reading Wright--what is he saying here?
__________________

The tone of the introduction is humble. I infer that Piper recognizes that Wright is an intellectual powerhouse. Piper's a preacher. I'm not calling him uneducated by any means (he actually has a ThD). But he's tussling with perhaps the most renowned Bible scholar of this century so far--not his usual fare.

A number of Piper's comments also said to me, "I'm too old for this." :-)

Let me briefly list the main aspects of Wright's thoughts on justification to which Piper will take exception in the book:

1. That the word "gospel" does not mean for Paul "how to get saved"
I agree with Wright against Piper here.

2. That justification is not about how you become a Christian
I agree more with Piper than with Wright here.

3. That justification is not the gospel
Technically, I agree with Wright.

4. That we are not justified by believing in justification
OK, agree with Wright

5. That the imputation of God's righteousness does not make sense
Generally agree with Wright, as Paul uses the words.

6. That future justification on the basis of the complete life lived
Agree with Wright on this comment, but recognize Piper's point that Wright has redefined justification in a strange way.

7. That Judaism was not about "legalistic self-righteousness"
I agree more with Wright than Piper.

8. That God's righteousness is His covenant faithfulness to Israel
I agree more with Wright than with Piper.

So on the whole, I will agree more with Wright than Piper on justification, although Piper I think rightly recognizes a number of eccentricities to Wright's reconstruction of Paul.

This is just a review of the introduction... next installment on Saturday.