Dr. John Piper’s new book, as its subtitle indicates, is a rejoinder to N. T. Wright’s take on justification in the letters of Paul. The volume consists of eleven chapters and six appendices, all endeavouring to lay bare what Piper considers to be the shortcomings of Wright’s understanding of justification and related matters. In his Acknowledgements (11), Piper informs us of his intentions and expectations in a quotation from Solomon Stoddard: “The general tendency of this book is to show that our claim to pardon and sin and acceptance with God is not founded an any thing wrought in us, or acted by us, but only on the righteousness of Christ.” By thus framing the issue, Piper’s book functions as a broadside against any and all attempts, especially those of Wright, to introduce things “wrought in us” or “acted by us” into the Pauline preaching of justification by faith, thereby detracting from “the righteousness of Christ only.” A certain amount of hype has attended the advent of this publication, particularly the “warning” that any other than Piper’s outlook on Paul is playing fast-and-loose with the apostle’s teaching. According to Piper’s web page, “Piper is sounding a crucial warning in this book, reminding all Christians to exercise great caution regarding ‘fresh’ interpretations of the Bible and to hold fast to the biblical view of justification” (http://www.desiringgod.org / Store/Books / 728_The_Future_of_Justification). In the Conclusion (184), Piper clarifies that the book’s title is intended to draw attention to where the doctrine of justification may be going, as well to “the critical importance of God’s future act of judgment when our justification will be confirmed.”

The Introduction to the book commences on a sombre note. That is to say, eternal life hangs in the balance: “How we live and what we teach will make a difference in whether people obey the gospel or meet Jesus in the fire of judgment…. This is why Paul was provoked at the false teaching in Galatia. It was another gospel and would bring eternal ruin to those who embraced it” (14). Now, Piper’s “conviction” is that Wright himself is not under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 24, n. 30), and yet the latter’s “portrayal of the gospel—and of the doctrine of justification in particular—is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize it as biblically faithful” (15). Piper further maintains that Wright has engaged in no less than a “top-to-bottom rethinking of Paul’s theology largely different from the way most people have their New Testament in the last fifteen hundred years.” Hence, “When someone engages in such a thorough reconstruction, critics must be extremely careful” (16-17). Wright’s reconstruction is “global” in proportions and as such has collided with more traditional outlooks on Paul’s theology, especially as regards justification: “his paradigm for justification does not fit well with the ordinary reading of many texts and leaves many ordinary folk not with the rewarding ‘ah-ha’ experience of illumination, but with a paralyzing sense of perplexity” (24). Consequently, Piper prefers the older guides to the new when it comes to the “deeper issues of how justification really works both in Scripture and in the human soul…” (25, cf. 37-38).

This manner of posing the argument makes for two rather noticeable inconsistencies. For one, if Wright’s portrayal of the gospel is what Piper claims, then how could the former not be under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, if his portrayal is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize it as biblically faithful? Is that not, more or less, what Paul thought of the “other gospel” of his opponents in Galatia? Of course, Wright is hardly under the curse, but these are strong terms and, as we will see immediately below, Piper does not carry them through uniformly. Second, it is none other than Wright who thoroughly concurs that “how we live,” as well as “what we teach,” has an effect on others. Ironically enough, it is Piper who downplays or at least refocuses the all-encompassing demands of the gospel as articulated by Paul’s phrase “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26) as it relates to final justification.

Piper’s initial sweeping criticisms are modified, if not mollified, as the book progresses. (a) Wright’s definition of justification may not be a devastating mistake, because it may simply conflate denotation and implication when it comes to the matter of covenant membership (44). (b) Wright does indeed use “justification” in more traditional ways (44). (c) Wright is quoted to the effect that in Jesus of Nazareth God had overcome evil and was creating a new world in which justice and peace would reign supreme (45), meaning in principle that Wright does see justification as a creative act. (d) For Wright, justification is both-and: the declaration of God the judge that one is in the right and one’s sins are forgiven and that one is a member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham (53). (e) Wright even sounds Protestant (119-20).

READ THE REST