Review of Bishop Tom’s JUSTIFICATION Book

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.