Review of Bishop Tom’s JUSTIFICATION Book

Last updated on: April 1, 2009 at 7:21 pm by Nijay Gupta

Review of Bishop Tom’s JUSTIFICATION Book 2009-04-01T19:21:54-08:00 Nijay Gupta

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I have finally finished reading Tom Wright’s new Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (SPCK, 2009). I dare not attempt the very detailed and insightful mutiple-post review that Ken has so admirably accomplished. Rather, I wish to just offer some ‘reflections’ on my understanding and appreciation for what the good bishop has said. (DISCLAIMER: One of the reasons I chose to study at Durham was so that I might just be that much closer to him, to let something seep in, even if he did not ‘lecture’ anymore; thus, be prepared for a largely positive review).

The first thing you need to know is that this is a response to a book by John Piper (The Future of Justification, Crossway) which critiques Wright’s perspective on justification. The second thing to know is that this discussion can get a bit technical from a New Testament scholarship standpoint. The third thing you will need to know is, most people who buy either book (and who specialize in Pauline studies) have already made up their mind on the debate before reading the first page.

Thus, I don’t wish to engage the debate itself, but simply point to some things the bishop writes.

EUAGGELION (Greek: ‘good news’): What in the world does Paul mean when he uses this word? The ‘good news’ of salvation? The ‘good news’ of non-works righteousness? Conta Piper, Wright is insistent that when Paul’s own literary and historical context is considered, the word refers to something fundamentally Christological (the Lordship of Jesus) and not primarily soteriological (the ‘salvation of humanity’). On the reformometer, Wright is falling into the red (Karl Barth says – what? The Gospel is about God and not humans, yes! ). Wright is arguing – if we are going to get justification right (and Paul’s thinking in general), we need to go bigger. Not about humans. Its wider. Deeper. COSMIC.

Many of Wright’s evangelical-reformed critics have accused him of having a very narrow conception of justification. If Wright was unclear in the past (and he opens up this possibility…reluctantly), he makes it crystal clear here. In fact, though Wright can get repetitive, his perspective is lucidly expressed. The kind of full-orbed justification that Wright claims for Paul is this big:

– SOCIAL – the unification of all people in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (see pp. 93-96)

– NARRATIVAL- what he refers to as ‘the single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world (see 155, passim)

– COVENANTAL – (the reformometer spikes!), especially the importance of the Abrahamic covenant (see p. 102, passim)

– DECLARATIVE/FORENSIC – there is no doubt that Wright has made an almost airtight case for the law-court background of dikaoo; it is bewildering to me that some critics deny this!

-ESCHATOLOGICAL – given the status as ‘righteous’ or ‘in the right’ now, but future judgment still awaits; it is also eschatological in that this pronouncement of righteousness comes as a result of the faithfulness of Christ and the final verdict is rendered ahead of time (see p 57, passim)

– POLEMICAL – there is no way around the fact that many of Paul’s clearest justification statements come in the midst of defensive or offensive moves in view of agitators or enemies or whatever (see 64). That doesn’t make it any less ‘real’ or ‘true’, but it means we must be careful to do good historical and literary criticism before making synthetic theological conclusions.

– PARTICIPATIONISTIC – Wright happily recognizes both forensic sort of JF elements of soteriology in Paul as well as participationistic dimensions that complement instead of compete: see p. 26: Rom. 8.1 speaks of ‘justification by incorporation’. See also 201.

– COSMIC/APOCALYPTIC – Cosmic in scope (the renewal of all things) see p. 107.

– TRINITARIAN – Here is where I think Wright has responded in a show-stopping way. Some have said, ‘Wright does not believe people are morally transformed through justification, only that they are declared righteousness’. Wright responds: ‘Yes, justification is a forensic, declarative term. But, when Paul refers to the transforming of behavior and morality and virtue, he does not do so with dikaoo. That’s the job of the Spirit!’ (my paraphrase, for more, see 164-5). Again, the reformometer spikes!

My little review here does not do justice (!) to Bishop Tom’s artful way of discussing the issue. I wish to whet your apetite. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and I feel that his vision of Paul’s vision is certainly well developed and pastorally stimulating. I have several friends here who know Tom well and respect him highly as a churchman and a scholar. This book, I think, is a great summary of his thought on biblical theology in general. One might even consider it a short-guide to his much longer commentary on Romans (New Interpreter’s Bible) which rests under Chris Tilling’s pillow at night.

As a final note, it interesting that Bishop Tom chose, as his cover, the epiphany/theophany/christophany depicted in Carravaggio’s Paul on the road to Damascus. Of course, the obvious link is the subtitle: Paul’s Vision… But, even Wright makes a comparison between himself and the great apostle- both men of God who have tried to spread the gospel despite attacks from fellow believers who have tried to re-convert their own flock. What is funny about the painting is that (as in the Acts narrative of Paul’s ‘conversion’) no one sees the light or hears the voice (clearly) except Paul himself! Ha! What can we say about Wright by analogy? Is he only hearing voices? Well, the Acts story goes on and Paul is mistaken for a god, beaten to death time and time again, and eventually stands the test of time as God’s apostle. Wright claims no legacy for himself, but I think there will be a place for him in the history of 20th century and early 21st century scholarship. (His book on the Gospel of Judas probably won’t make the cut, though).

On a class on Paul’s theology, it would be profitable to have students read Piper and Wright and make up their own mind. Like I said, many people won’t ‘change sides’ as a result, but perhaps people will stop treating Wright like a furtive heretic now that he has said his peace.

Previous Post

March 31, 2009

On Choosing a Journal to Publish With

Next Post

April 2, 2009 Tony Thiselton on Fitzmyer's 1 Cor Commentary

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Mis)Understanding Philippians 10 Things I Can't Live Without 2023 New Books 30 OT HB Scholars to Read and Follow 5 Books Series 50-2-Follow Academia Christian Theologians to Read and Follow Cruciform Scripture: Contributor Reflections Crux Sola TV Editors Behind Great Books in NT Studies Education Gendering the Holy Spirit Gupta FB Live Lectures In Faith and Doubt In Their Own Words Living the King Jesus Gospel My Top 6 OT Commentaries New Testament Resource Guide New Word Biblical Themes Nijay's A Very Library Christmas Shopping Guide Notes from an Editor Notes on New Books NTRG OT in the NT Paul Seminary Now The Bible in God's World The Word Felt Among Us SPENCER Translating Philippians Uncategorized Why I Use Accordance Women in Ministry

Select a Month March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz