Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision
N. T. Wright
Hardcover: 279 pages
Publisher: IVP Academic (May 30, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0830838635
ISBN-13: 978-0830838639
Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.3 x 1.2 inches
Buy Here: Amazon.com

Thanks to Adrianna Wright and IVP Press for sending me a copy to review!

John Piper and N. T. Wright fighting it out is like a reformed theologians dream UFC match-up. Both are masters of the pen and word, who preach and teach in such a way that makes you feel like if you were to hold up their books their excitement would start to ooze of the page. We need more excitement like that. You either love them, or hate them, but when they butt heads everyone wants to watch. That’s what excited me most when Piper’s “The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright” came out. That’s why I was even more excited when I found out that Wright was writing a response: Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. All that was missing was an octagon.

I love to read and listen to both Piper and Wright. I highly agree with them in some areas, and highly disagree with them in others. Both have been influential to me. Last year, I listed Wright’s “Surprised by Hope” as my favorite book that I read (along with Andy Crouch’s “Culture Making”). Imagine my surprise, then, when I found Wright’s new book to be, well, frustrating. Don’t get me wrong—it’s an excellent read. Wright always challenges me to take another look on my view of Justification in ways that other New Perspective writers don’t. I also, to ruin the end of the review early, recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in the matter. If you were ask me if I were to not recommend it, I would have to echo Paul’s favorite way to say no, “μὴ γένοιτο!” May it never be! I highly recommend the book. It still frustrates me, however.

There are several reasons that I find it frustrating. First, Wright’s language comes off as unnecessarily arrogant and condescending. This, it seems, may be primarily cultural differences. I certainly don’t think Wright intends to be this way in writing, but it is frustrating. Second, it seems that the debate is really over two sides of the same coin (excluding some obvious issues such as imputation and righteousness). To his credit, Wright recognizes this, and tends to point out where both old and new perspectives go hand-in-hand. At the same time, however, it seems that he pushes the false dichotomies, picturing some of his critics as only caring about the individual aspects of salvation, but not the cosmic aspects. While true, some may emphasize the former over the latter, but great strides have been made in recent reformed theology to remind us of God’s total cosmic purpose. Third, Wright fails to adequately deal with some of the major questions put forward by his critics—which makes me wonder, why do the book at all? Wright tells us that his fullest treatment of justification is forthcoming, so why take the time for a response that isn’t much of a response? For example, the question of future justification is barely mentioned, save for a bit at the end that is more enigmatic than clear. Wright goes out of his way to show us that writing the book was a bit of frustration for him because he didn’t have the time to adequately give to the process. We could have simply waited for his fuller treatment, which could have included the material of this book fairly easily it seems.

Though frustrating, there is much that I love about this book as well. I do love Wright’s emphasis on God’s plan being a cosmic plan, one where the whole universe is in view. God’s plan for redemption is nothing less than the entire universe. Here, Wright seems like a corrective for those who only see the individual aspect of redemption as important, though, he may at times be an over-corrective. I also enjoy Wright’s emphasis on the Abrahamic covenant, which I agree is the central theme of the Biblical narrative, and theme that can only find resolution in Jesus. But even here, Wright is a bit frustrating, as it seems that he thinks that he is the first person to see covenant theology in the Bible (as many other reviewers have also pointed out).

Justification is divided into two parts. The first half of the book is the introduction, where Wright introduces the debate and gives his “rules of engagement.” This comprises the first two chapters, and honestly, it could have been condensed into a single, smaller chapter. Things quickly progress with the final two chapters in the first part “First Century Judaism: Covenant, Law, and Lawcourt” and “Justification: Definitions and Puzzles.” The second half of the book is the exegesis section, where Wright applies the frame-work he has built in part 1 to actual Pauline texts. Galatians and Romans, the two books most held in contention in the debate, get their own chapters while Philippians, Corinthians, and Ephesians are all condensed into a single chapter. Having only three chapters dealing with this content before the concluding chapter makes for some long reading, that possibly could have been broken up somewhat more.

The crux of the matter comes in the last two chapters of part 1. It is here we find that link that will make or break the rest of Wright’s chain of exegesis. It’s not found in his definition of justification, but in his definition of God’s righteousness. Justification, Wright says, “does not denote an action which transforms someone so much as a declaration which grants them a status” (pg 91, emphasis his). So far so good. No arguments from me here. I suspect you wouldn’t get any argument from Piper and other theologians either. The reformation has always stated that justification is the declaration of being “right,” not the actual making of someone right. In chapter 3, Wright critiques pipers definition of God’s righteousness, and correctly so I believe. Piper defines God’s righteousness as “God’s concern for God’s own glory.” I would have to agree with Wright here, that Piper’s definition simply doesn’t work (see pgs 64 and following). The problem here with Wright, then, is not in his critique of Piper, but in the answer he puts in its place. Wright argues that God’s righteousness is “God’s covenantal faithfulness.” The irony is that both of these answers, as given, are wrong for the same reason: Both God’s concern for his own glory, and his faithfulness to the covenant he made seem to be results of God’s righteousness, not his righteousness itself.

The problem seems to stem from Wright’s particular brand of covenant theology. Throughout the entire book, he links the covenant to Abraham and the promise to the world God gave to him (and to be done through him). Again, so far so good. The problem is that Wright stops with Abraham. If God’s righteousness is his faithfulness to the covenant, and that covenant begins with Abraham&mdashwhat are we to do with the long history from creation to Wright? Are we able to speak of his righteousness before Abraham? I suspect that Wright would say “of course,” but just how he would be able to with his definition of righteousness can’t be seen from this present work. This incomplete view of covenantal theology brings up another issue in regards to righteousness: imputation. Throughout the book, the role of Adam is missing. What of the fall? Certainly, Wright talks about its effects in sin and the curse on the universe, and points us rightfully to Jesus as the answer. This is particularly seen in his cosmic emphasis, and in our individual need of salvation, yet at the same time, by not discussing how Adam’s fall effects all of mankind, namely that his sin is imputed to us all as our covenant head, he removes the necessity of the imputation that is given through our new covenant head, the second Adam, Jesus Christ. There is a connection between the first and second Adam that must be seen in covenantal theology that Wright misses, which ends with his rejection of the reformational doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness to his people. This, it would seem, is the fatal flaw in Wright’s argument.

Since this idea of God’s righteousness is central to Wright’s exegesis, the entire second half of the book is built upon it. While the exegesis section is very well-written, if not somewhat convoluted (Wright rivals Paul at times in terms of sentence length!), it suffers from having a flawed foundation. It wouldn’t be fair to say that it isn’t challenging, and even enlightening many times, but it still suffers from a flawed definition of righteousness, and a lack of a full biblical view of covenant theology. There are also times when Wright makes some incredible, and indefensible, leaps of logic. There were many times where, after reading the first half of a sentence or paragraph, my response was a very vocal “Yes!” but upon finishing the sentence or paragraph, I was left wondering how Wright got to the end of his argument. One example is on page 148 where Wright says:

“If the end has come forward into the present—if the Messiah has arrived in the middle of history—if resurrection itself has happened in one case while death still appears to reign all around—then the verdict of the last day is already known,”

Which is absolutely spot on. Wright is absolutely correct here, and the picture he paints is a glorious one. But then he continues with the “conclusion” of the sentence:

“and the careful eschatological schemes by which various quite different groups of Jews had organized themselves, their lives, and their soteriologies must be seen in a different light.”

Wait… what? Why? Wright’s point makes no sense. Why would we have to look at the beliefs and lives of the many Jewish groups of the first century in a different light? What effect did the resurrection have on those who rejected it? Why would it change how we view their theology? They, rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, would simply continue on following their soteriology as practiced before Jesus came on the scene. The only group of Jewish believers who would have their theology changed by the resurrection are those who joined “the Way,” that is, those first Jewish people who became Christ-followers. Certainly, we don’t see a change in the soteriology of the Essenes, the Pharisees, The Sadducees, the Zealots, etc. They continued in their practices and beliefs—that is, until 70 AD when the temple was destroyed, but if that’s what Wright has in mind, it doesn’t show in his argument. Instead, it’s just a leap of logic that doesn’t quite make sense.

In the end, Wright’s book is frustrating, terse (in regards to answering the main questions of his critics), and his arguments flawed. And though the majority of this review has been negative, it is also an excellent book in terms of what Wright does get right. Wright’s emphasis on the cosmic dimension of redemption and his emphasis on God’s single-plan for redemption through the Abrahamic covenant (though neglecting the overarching covenant that contains it) are quite simply excellent. Wright drives home these points with skill and precision, unlocking parts of the Biblical narrative that are often neglected today. I have been more negative in this review, because the points of disagreement between Wright and I are, for the most part, all contained in the foundation of his view of God’s righteousness and ours, which is the main thrust of the book. If you look at my notes throughout, however, for every negative note I have, I have at least one positive note beside it and sometimes more. In the end, those who agree with Wright’s view of righteousness will continue to agree with Wright, and those, like myself, who disagree with Wright’s view of righteousness will continue to disagree. There is much good here, however, that serves to challenge some of our reformational presuppositions even if we walk away continuing to hold them. It’s my belief that if we’ll listen to Wright for what he is saying, we’ll walk out of the debate with our view intact, but it will be a much more robust view, challenged at several key levels.

You can buy N. T. Wright’s book Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision at Amazon.com

You can find a comprehensive list of book reviews on Justification at Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (Great job Nick!).