Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright Paperback – November 1, 2007
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
"John Piper's challenging yet courteous book takes issue with Tom Wright regarding Paul's teaching on justification. This serious critique deserves to be read by all who want to understand more fully God's righteousness in Christ and his justifying the ungodly."
—Peter T. O'Brien, Former Vice-Principal and Senior Research Fellow and Emeritus Faculty Member, Moore Theological College, Australia
"The so-called 'New Perspective on Paul' has stirred up enormous controversy. The issues are not secondary, and, pastor that he is, John Piper will not allow believers to put their trust in anyone or anything other than the crucified and resurrected Savior."
—D. A. Carson, research professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; cofounder, The Gospel Coalition
"In this captivating book John Piper defends the truth that justification is the heart of the gospel. Wright's views are presented with scrupulous fairness. I found this book to be not only doctrinally faithful but also spiritually strengthening."
—Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation and Professor of Biblical Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky
"I am very grateful to John Piper, pastor-scholar par excellence, for helping me understand better the doctrines of justification and imputation. Tom Wright's interpretation of key biblical passages on the topic has some major problems, and Piper exposes many of them with great wisdom and skill."
—Andreas J. Köstenberger, Senior Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
"Piper's look at justification does this with a superb tone and a careful presentation of his case. Piper has put us in a position to hear both sides of the debate and understand what is at stake. Be prepared to be sharpened by a careful dialogue about what justification is."
—Darrell L. Bock, Executive Director of Cultural Engagement, Howard G. Hendricks Center, and Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
"John Piper addresses a matter of crucial importance for the church, with a clear-headed command of the issues involved. By writing this book he has done us all, including N. T. Wright, a great favor."
—Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Emeritus, Westminster Theological Seminary
About the Author
John Piper (DTheol, University of Munich) is the founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and the chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. He served for 33 years as the senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and is the author of more than 50 books, including Desiring God; Don’t Waste Your Life; This Momentary Marriage; A Peculiar Glory; and Reading the Bible Supernaturally.
Top customer reviews
Amongst the many soteriological themes to consider and defend, the question is: Just how important is the doctrine of justification? Is it a minor quibble, or is it a major doctrine that needs to be contended for? It seems significant to author John Piper, who devotes an entire book to the subject matter. The Future of Justification is most specifically a response to and a critique of scholar N.T. Wright's take on justification. Wright's view of justification, in Piper's eyes, is a flawed and perhaps a heretical take on the issue. Because of the scope of Wright's influence in the evangelical world, Piper takes the necessary step to openly challenge Wright's interpretation of justification for the sake of biblical truth in modern Christendom. Justification is a topic that is worthy of faithful exposition and clarification, which is why Piper sets out to write about this important salvific truth. In The Future of Justification, Piper documents the errors in N.T. Wright's view on justification and proposes an orthodox solution that is both timeless and true to the intent of the New Testament writers and what has been defined by the Reformers.
The book follows a fairly simple structure of identifying the topic of discussion (justification), the problems raised by an alternative view of justification (N.T. Wright), the true interpretation of the topic (by John Piper), and the implications on Christian living. It begins with Piper commenting on Wright's so-called illuminating discovery concerning the nature of justification, and makes the important point that not all such discoveries are enlightening and true. In fact, this particular one is problematic and detrimental to the Christian faith. The author describes the core meaning of Wright's interpretation of justification by describing Wright's proposal that the righteousness Paul spoke of in the book of Romans really stands for "covenant faithfulness," and not imputed righteousness as the evangelical world understands it. Piper describes in chapters 2 and 3 how Wright comes to this conclusion by subordinating the law-court analogy as merely a tool to affirm that a believer is in God's covenant family, and not the means by which someone is declared righteous and fully qualified to have eternal life. Piper also quotes Wright's understanding of what the gospel message is: that it is not about an individualized faith of saving one's soul from sin and hell, but rather about the coming of God's kingdom and a submission to the Lordship of Christ. Wright's reasoning, as Piper explores in Ch 9, is that Paul wrote his epistles with an understanding that Christian soteriology is really an extension of the salvific message apparent in Second Temple Judaism: that the Jews did not teach salvation by works or adherence to the Law, but rather that they believed in God's grace through faith but acted in error when they tried to impose ethnocentric ideas (ex. Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws) on the Gentiles as a means of salvation rather than faith in Christ as sufficient for salvation. The book ends with an appropriate discussion by Piper on the truth of imputed righteousness and why it is important to hold to this doctrine in contrast to the one proposed by N.T. Wright. As a book critique on another scholar's theology, Piper does a respectable job in writing out his response and upholding the orthodox belief about justification and defending the gospel as a whole.
Although the book is a firm opposition to the theories proposed in the recent years by N.T. Wright (and perhaps others who have held to similar theories of the New Perspective on Paul), it is never condemning or slanderous, as Piper takes moments to defend unjust criticisms against N.T. Wright's theology. A good example of this is in page 44, when Piper defends Wright from critics who accuse Wright of missing or minimizing the forensic dimension of justification. This gives some measure of academic integrity to the intent of the book, because the author does not set out unfairly or unjustly slander and attack the opposing camp (though their theology may be wrong), but to represent them as truthfully as possible so that their views, and Piper's, can be more accurately assessed and taken into consideration, especially as it regards this important, soteriological topic.
One of the strengths of this book is how vividly Piper quotes Wright's material and interacts with his views through sound exegesis of selected texts. Because the book revolves around the idea of solving the meaning of "righteousness," it is Piper's task to state what Wright's understanding of the Greek term is ("covenant faithfulness") and what that means. Piper's extensive use of the Greek language and defining its meaning also proves to be helpful in the author making his case for the orthodox interpretation of this issue. Piper's proposed definition of righteousness as "God's unwavering commitment to the honor of His glory" establishes a foundation for what righteousness is, in contrast to how it merely acts as Wright believes. Piper is also reasonably thorough in his analysis of Wright and his theology, linking Wright's justification theory to Wright's understanding of the religion of Second Temple Judaism, which informs his understanding of the idea of a future justification of the saints based on their remaining in the covenant through faith and works. This proves to be a tremendously strong case for Piper's conclusion that Wright's view of justification is unbiblical, and even dangerously close to the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification discussed in Chapter 11. No matter how much Wright thinks his idea to be enlightening, innovation, or truthful, the fact is that it has no basis either in the Bible, amongst the early church fathers, or in the teachings of the Reformation, in which Piper hints that Wright's view of justification is nearly identical to the process of sanctification and is essentially makes salvation a works-based system.
Though this book gives a good overview of the issue at hand and gives a clear-cut presentation of Wright's understanding of justification, there are a couple of themes that could have been touched on. Chapters 2 and 5 discuss Wright's understanding of the gospel as the narrative of Christ and the need to submit to Him as Lord, but they do not really give an explanation of what Wright thinks about the issue of Jesus as "Savior," and what that means. How would this relate to his understand of salvation through grace by faith alone? How would this relate, in any way, to his theology of justification? Another issue that could have used further elaboration was Wright's theory about how one stays within the covenant family after his inclusion into it by repentant faith. In other words, how much faith, works, or fruit does the believer need to bear in order to testify of the security of his inclusion in the covenant family? Is there any assurance of final salvation? How does this relate to other soteriological themes such as perseverance of the saints, apostasy, or salvation by works? These are some questions that Piper could have included (if such things were in his immediate knowledge) in the book so as to give us a better picture of whether or not N.T. Wright is a false teacher or not (if that was the intent of Piper to begin with), but it is a commendable thing that Piper extends the invitation for N.T. Wright to respond to difficult questions he has concerning Wright's integrity as a scholar.
In conclusion, The Future of Justification is a noteworthy book that sets out to accomplish its goals and is a sound commentary on the nature of biblical justification. It takes an unorthodox idea, such as the one set forth by Wright, and demonstrates how it is unbiblical and why such theories need to be refuted. Piper does not see this issue as a secondary one, but a primary one since it deals with soteriology and the foundation of Christian theology that traces its roots back to the Reformation. I thoroughly recommend this book as a good introduction into topics such as the New Perspective on Paul and the importance of what justification by faith entails. The foundations of the Christian faith must always be contended for and preserved, which is why even defenses like these against professing Christian scholars are absolutely necessary so as to inform the evangelical public who need to exercise discernment.
I saw that some previous reviewers thought Piper's book 'boring'. At least one was annoyed by the frequent interjections of Koine Greek to illustrate Scriptural points. I found the book so interesting I hated to put it down,and being a student, albeit self taught and struggling, of Koine, I really appreciated the inclusion of the real thing, not transliterated. For me it is a terrific read and I highly recommend it, but read Wright first to really follow the argument.
Some thoughts on NT Wright:
Trying to understand Wright on justification is a tortured task (as this book testifies). It was comforting to know that I wasn't alone in being totally confused. As Piper points out, Wright repudiates the classic definitions and is not entirely consistent even with his new definitions. On the whole, Wright is maddeningly vague about what he means. Much of Piper's book is painstaking exegesis of Wright's writings, which, come on, we shouldn't have to do with a masterful theologian as Wright.
If you are going to take on the huge theological project of redefining the classic Catholic-Protestant debate on justification (and announcing that everyone's heretofore got it wrong), you have to be exquisitely clear and systematic. Perhaps we'll see a fuller discussion with his upcoming book on Paul (the 4th in his Christian Origins series). In the end, after much parsing and analysis on Piper's part, it seems that Wright's view on the ground of our standing with God is much closer to the Roman Catholic view (a grace-infused life of good works) rather than the classic Protestant view (Christ's imputed works alone).
Some thoughts on Piper on Wright:
I think Piper made several excellent points: (1) Pharisaism, at its heart, was legalistic and self-justifying moralism. I really don't get how Wright could absolve rabbinic Judaism from this charge. Wright contends the only crime of the Pharisees was an overly restrictive view of covenant membership (ethnocentrism), but as Piper points out, the heart of that restrictive view was indeed self-justifying moralism. Was there not an arrogance behind the clean-law restrictions? And especially in light of Jesus and Paul's dispute with Pharisaism, I just don't get how Wright could transform the Pharisees into a heroic group. My guess is that the scholar fell in love with his subject and lost objectivity.
(2) God's righteousness is not merely God's covenant faithfulness (his actions), but his character. I think Piper overkills this point but it's a good point. Wright, for his part, believes that this means God's righteousness is like a vapor that moves across the courtroom to the defendant, which doesn't say so much about the Protestant view but Wright's really poor understanding of the Protestant view on justification.
Some thoughts on Piper:
(1) The book was way too long. Piper mentions how he doubled the length at one point - bad advice! I kinda wish a good editor had carved out a shorter, punchier version, without the laborious clarifications and scholarly asides (though I liked the footnotes!).
(2) I wish Piper could have interacted a bit more with Wright's view of covenant. Wright thinks covenant membership is the same thing as being justified by God. But not all Israel is Israel. Not everyone who is 'in the covenant' is known by God. There is the old Reformed distinction of the 'invisible church' and the 'visible church,' which I guess is not a concept well-known to Baptists?
(3) The was a very different book from Piper's usually stuff. I like it. I sometimes forget Piper has a Ph.D. in theology. I hope he publishes more scholarly stuff in the future.