N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision

It’s taken me a couple months, but I finally finished N.T. Wright’s new book, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, which is, in large part, a response to John Piper’s book, The Future of Justification. This is an important book that deserves careful attention from important reviewers. But since they’re busy I thought I’d take a stab.

Ok, not actually a book review, more like comments and questions. Today, I’ll make some comments. Then over the next two days I’ll ask some questions.

• N.T. Wright and I go way back, at least seven or eight years. When I was a student at Gordon-Conwell, Wright gave a guest lecture (or chapel or both or something – I went to it but I can’t remember exactly what it was). As Wright walked with one of our professors through the hallway one afternoon my friends and I nearly cracked the English bishop in the back of the head with an apple. I promise you it was accidental. What are seminary students supposed to do to unwind if not pick up wiffle bats and swing at apples in the hallway? Anyway, Wright, ever the gentleman, took the apple-rolling-toward-his-feet-unintentional assault like a man, and we were very embarrassed. A little cleaner contact with the barrel of the bat and the New Perspective on Paul could have ended that very day, as could have my seminary career.

• I like reading Wright. Wright is wicked smart and witty – a rare combination. He challenges me to think. He believes the Bible and writes well.

• The tone of Justification is not harsh toward John Piper (and others like him), but it is exasperated. I admit to getting a little impatient with Wright’s impatience toward Piper (and Reformed people like me), but then again Wright feels like we just doesn’t get it, which is bound to be frustrating.

• In a day when emoting passes for argumentation and hurt feelings trump rational discourse, it’s refreshing to see Piper and Wright actually give reasons for their positions and go to the text to support their convictions. Even though I disagree with Wright in some key places, he is surely trying mightily to exegete the text. I have a lot of respect for Wright’s scholarship and ministry. How can you not? His work on the gospels is well-worth reading. His work on the resurrection is a masterpiece. His defense of marriage is commendable. Not that he cares what I think (nor should he), but he strikes me as a decent, honest, Jesus loving chap, deeply committed to the Church and the Scriptures.

• Wright is right about a lot in this book. He is right to follow Calvin’s view of the law more than Luther’s. He is right to think that lawkeeping in Judaism was supposed to be a gracious response to God’s covenant mercy (“supposed to”, not “always was” in my opinion). He is right to see that the story of the Bible has God at the center and not us. He is right to see that Paul’s gospel is steeped in “single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world” theology. He is right to think that not all his critics have taken the time to understand what he is saying (though Piper certainly has). In short, Wright is right more often than he is wrong. But I don’t think he is always right, nor is he always clear. More on that tomorrow.