The Wright Approach to Justification in Paul by Craig L. Blomberg

I have often said it takes a generation for important scholarly developments to permeate the grass-roots levels of Christianity. Thirty-two years after Ed Sanders penned his blockbuster, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, the "new perspective on Paul," as it tends to be called is finally well known among many pastors and well-read laypeople. Or perhaps I should say the label is well known. Unfortunately, much like the expressions, "the new age movement" or "the emerging church," the label covers a number of different and sometimes contradictory perspectives and topics, so it is still not clear to me how much people actually know about the details of what should better be called the "new perspectives" on Paul.

Recent publications of N. T. Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham, England, and John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, have tended to crystallize the debate, however, around the key emphases of these two scholars.

In the past, Wright has often made sweeping pronouncements about how the Reformation was wrong on some key point, but if one keeps patiently reading one later discovers him saying instead that it’s merely a case of putting Reformation concerns into a larger perspective. Piper, on the other hand, has not always represented Wright well, I suspect in large part because he has not always understood him well.

Wright’s new Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (London: SPCK; Downers Grove: IVP, 2009) is an outstanding book. Written in lively, if somewhat polemical style, not encumbered with many footnotes, Wright has here laid out his views with exemplary clarity. In fact, he is affirming all the major Reformation perspectives on justification. The only one he denies is one that was unique to one wing of Calvinism and not even to the entire Calvinist movement. While warmly embracing the representative, substitutionary atonement of Christ through his crucifixion and emphasizing the legal, courtroom context of justification as a metaphor for the declaration of right standing before God not based on anything of our meriting, Wright does deny that Paul, or any other Scriptural author, teaches that the righteousness God imputes to us on the basis of Christ’s cross-work has anything necessarily to do with combining what has been called Jesus’ active obedience (his sinless life) with his passive obedience (his atoning death). And when one looks at the texts often cited in support of such a doctrine (most notably 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 2 Corinthians 5:21), one does indeed look in vain for such a distinction.

The burden of Wright’s work, however, is to highlight how dwelling exclusively on the Reformers’ emphases in Pauline soteriology can easily cause us to miss the bigger picture and the grander narrative in which those emphases are set. Paul’s concern is not first of all the anthropocentric one of how is a person justified, especially when that is interpreted solely as "how do I go to heaven when I die?" but rather the sweeping drama of salvation history. After creation and sin, God called Abram and promised to bless the nations through his seed. The problem for Wright with much of the Reformation and especially with John Piper’s version of Calvinism is that it can quickly lose sight of the plan of God to redeem the entire cosmos through the people of Israel, culminating in the Messiah, as a blessing for the whole world. The Christian’s hope is not just dying and going to heaven—that is what theologians have called the intermediate state. It is rather the resurrection of the body and life in the new heavens and the new earth. It is not merely reconciliation with God, as crucial as that is, but it is reconciliation with fellow believers across those racial and ethnic lines that continue to so deeply divide us, epitomized in Paul’s writings by the Jew-Gentile divide. God’s righteousness is not only his legal declaration of our acquittal, imputed to us, but also it is his covenant faithfulness to all of his promises.

I have a fuller review of this new book in the current issue of the Denver Journal, accessible through Denver Seminary’s website (www.denverseminary.edu). Let me just conclude here by saying that while one may still disagree with Wright’s take on this or that passage or on one specific exegetical conundrum in a given passage (and I do disagree here and there), the only way I can see how one can deny that his major emphases are both correct and profoundly important, is to ignore large swaths of Paul’s writing and especially Ephesians. Perhaps Wright’s critics who are indeed serious about the authority of Scripture trumping tradition, even certain forms of Calvinist tradition (!), will finally recognize Wright as a crucial ally and not an opponent. Surely in this century of so many non-Christian forces waging war against God’s people, Bible-believing Christians need to come together to create a much more united front.

Craig Blomberg (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary. He is the author of seventeen books, including James, a commentary he co-authored with Mariam Kamell.

Comments

[Lane Keister]

Dr. Blomberg, I am here assuming that Wright has not really changed his position on justification with the publication of this book. I have not read the most recent book of Wright's, although I have read everything else of importance to justification that Wright has written. I must respectfully demur from your assessment that all the major emphases of the Reformation are retained in Wright's formulations. The entire hinge on which the debate surrounding justification depended in the time of the Reformation is imputation versus infusion. Let's leave aside for the moment the active/passive obedience formulations, and just talk about imputation. Wright says in several places that if you believe his formulations, you get what imputation was supposed to affirm, plus a whole lot more. However, the main category with which he proposes to accomplish this is union with Christ (the participatory category that Schweitzer advocated). Union with Christ is not a substitute for imputation. Roman Catholicism in the time of the Reformation believed in union with Christ, but they did not believe in imputation. In effect, what Wright does is to play musical chairs with the categories. Unfortunately, imputation is left high and dry. Oh, he believes that a sinner's sin is laid on Christ as our substitute. But he does not believe in double imputation, Christ's righteousness reckoned as ours (see the bland dismissal of the Reformation's views in his commentary on Romans 4). In short, Wright's formulations do not preserve the Reformation distinctive of imputation in justification and infusion in sanctification.

[Paul Adams]

Thanks, Dr. B! I was waiting to hear from you on this most important exchange. I highly value your insights and wholeheartedly agree with them and Wright! (But of course, it's bad to disagree with one's former Greek prof, eh!)

[Paul Adams]

One more thing Dr. B....
You mentioned that a fuller review of yours is at the Denver Journal online, but I'm not finding it to date.

[Jason S. Kong]

A review you personally wrote? I don't seem to see it in volume 12 right now. I see a review of the book by Michael Thompson, but I am assuming you are saying that you personally have a review in the Denver Journal. Is this correct? If so, when will it be available?

[Craig Blomberg]

Sorry, friends. I sent this blog to Zondervan thinking it would be posted next Monday (it was due this Friday) by which time I expected the Denver Journal review to be up and going.

As for Wright changing his position, he explicitly says that he has changed his views in small ways and tried very hard to clarify what was not always clear in the past. Having read EVERYTHING of book length that he has written on this topic, I agree and think that he may have been understating his improvements in both areas. So please don't make any assumptions about his current beliefs based on perceptions of his past writings!

[Paul Adams]

Thanks, Craig. I see that the Denver Journal now has posted your Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision.

[Nic]

Pleasantly surprised to find your review, Dr. B! Appreciated the review (both here and in the D.J.), and look forward to reading Wright's newest work. Hope all is well! NDS

[Ted]

You make the statement that Piper has not always represented Wright "well." How so? I have heard this charge before but it seems baseless and it is never supported by the one who lobs it.

Making claims like this should be done with the utmost caution and only when it is patently clear. The evidence in fact seems to weigh against this claim as Piper spends over a chapter in his book on Justification praising Wright and saying how much he believes he is a godly man and then painstakingly laying out Wright's position from his own writing. He also clearly states that his purpose in engaging in this controversy is not academic or one of notoriety, but is his motivation is born out of pastoral concern and love for his people.

Honestly Dr. Blomberg you should not let your bias toward Wright on the topic lead you mis-portray Piper.

[dan chen]

Dr. Blomberg,

Thanks for poiniting out you review. In your review, what exactly is the contrast between your statement "no one is justifed by works" and "in the final anaylsis, to be judged favorably on the basis of their works"? Is it mainly the Holy Spirit working in the latter situation rather than the former?

Blessings,

Dan

[Steven Carr]

I sincerely hope that you do not represent the views of Denver Seminary. I also sincerely hope that your views aren't indicative of where evangelicalism is heading. Justification is still the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ. Luther was correct in saying that a true theologian is one who properly distinguishes between law and gospel. Wright has failed to distinguish properly between law and gospel; he has made the gospel into a law to be obeyed. Paul however makes the distinction between law and gospel a sharp one: "The Law is not of faith." Let the words of Luther ring loud and true, "He is not righteous who works much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ;" and "The law says 'do this' and it is never done. Grace says, 'believe in this,' and everything is already done."

[Kevin Bushnell]

Dr. Blomberg,

Thank you so much for taking time to review N.T. Wright's latest book both here and on the Denver Seminary site. Your review is quite fair to both men, Wright and Piper, and you have demonstrated your acumen and scholarly discernment over the years in your book reviewing.

I remember the first book I ever read of yours: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. I found it in an OM bookstore in Bombay, India while interning there in 1993. Since that time till now, I have found your attention to the text, it's message and esp. it's exposition of Jesus to us and the world to be the guiding principles of your work.

I have been quite rightly discipled-at-a-distance (though I have had and have many other influences) by your dogged pursuit of being transformed through a renewed mind.

Thank you and God Bless you!

Kevin

PS - A brief(ish) reply to Ted:

I can honestly say that I have been reading and engaging with the writings of both Tom Wright and John Piper now for nearly 17 years. I have met both men in their normal settings. I have studied their works for course work at sound, evangelical institutions. I have heard both of them preach (I was present for a number of sermons during Piper's famous Christ in Romans series that last more than 8 years.)

It is with this knowledge of the men and a thorough understanding of the issues that I make my statements. Your reaction to the, now, commonplace challenge to Dr. Piper (et. al) concerning his "misrepresenting" or "misreading" Dr. Wright seems to me a bit too defensive. You are correct that Piper praises Wright (he praises him often and quite generously, too), but that fact does not absolve him from nor keep him from misunderstanding the large-scale premise of Wright's presentation of Justification.

Before Piper even gives a single word of praise, he states (p 14) that the "...subject matter of this book - justification by faith apart from works of the law - is serious." Of course it is serious and to Wright, too! But Piper doesn't seem to understand - despite Wright's continual explanation and direct denial of the accusation (w/ plenty of explanation) - that Wright at no time is talking about how a person will be justified by works/works of the law. [This is without mentioning the fact that the phrase "works of the law" is not, according to Wright, about earning one's salvation through good works. If you don't read Wright's bigger books, his small ones many times can be misunderstood.]

I can truly say that it is a "patently clear" fact that Piper has not understood Wright. Wright thinks so, too, and has said so on many occasions. And he maintains this even now after he sent Piper an 11,000 word clarification to Piper's manuscript of the book.

(I have just listened again to the 6-part podcast of Piper's presentation of his own book against Wright; he has a whole section where he restates the Reformation doctrine of imputation over and over but he never understands just exactly what or why Wright takes issue with on this point. Classic case of 2 ships passing in the night, although I think Wright understands and grasps very well what Piper is saying.)

Amazing! Here on this blog you have chided Dr. Blomberg about his "baseless" and "unsupported" claims about Piper and bias towards Wright, when he actually was merely pointing out that which now has become all-to-obvious: John Piper is not engaging Tom Wright on the level of 1st Century, 2nd Temple, Eastern Mediterranean, Graeco-Roman and Palestinian Jewish setting, culture & history. (Sorry I know that was a mouth-full.)

Here is a great example of what I am referring to:

Trevin Wax: Do you see a ‘middle ground’ being reached in recent discussions? A post-new-perspective equilibrium or sorts?

N.T. Wright: No, not an equilibrium. A lot of confusion, rather.

I think there’s a danger in ‘old perspective’ supporters still trying to run an implicit ‘conservative versus liberal’ debate on this one, trying to accuse NP folk of some of the failings of an older liberalism. Better to see the historical and theological quest to understand Paul going wide open to encourage everyone to get back to reading the texts in their proper contexts. If that means going beyond this ‘perspectives’ language, so be it. But it is sometimes helpful to put down some markers as a shorthand way of signposting key moves.

One of the truly worrying things about Piper is his insistence that we should be wary of reading Paul in his Jewish context . . . which basically means that we end up reading him as though he was really a 17th-century theologian born out of due time . . . (My emphasis)

http://trevinwax.com/2009/01/13/interview-with-nt-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/

And it's not just Piper but Tom Schreiner, Don Carson, Mark Seifrid, Doug Moo, J.V. Fesko, Guy Waters and a host of others who, fresh off the Excoriation Tour of Greg Boyd, seem to think that their primary calling is informing their flocks and the public at large why the Reformation was the highest point in history and why we must continually reinterpret the bible through the lenses of the 16th century (tongue in cheek).

I do hope some find my words helpful. I have certainly found this entire dialog helpful and nourishing to the renewing of my mind.

Grace and Peace,

Kevin

[Paul Adams]

Dear Kevin Bushnell:
Your comments are very helpful and I completely agree with you. It's so sad and disheartening to read such inflammatory speak toward Wright and Blomberg. It honestly seems like some who critique Wright have not read him, or, for those who have, have not understood him (as in Piper). Of course we're not saved by our works, but we are certainly judged by them. What we do matters! Wright could not be clearer.

[Josh Rowley]

Kevin:

Well said. I have expressed similar views in a series of reviews of Piper's book at www.postyesterdaychurch.blogspot.com

[Lane Keister]

Dr. Blomberg, you wrote this:

"As for Wright changing his position, he explicitly says that he has changed his views in small ways and tried very hard to clarify what was not always clear in the past. Having read EVERYTHING of book length that he has written on this topic, I agree and think that he may have been understating his improvements in both areas. So please don't make any assumptions about his current beliefs based on perceptions of his past writings!"

Dr. Blomberg, over on the Heidelblog, you answered my charge of dismissal with the counterclaim that you had not cavalierly dismissed anyone's arguments. Pray what do you call the above? What are you saying if you are not claiming that I can make zero assumptions on what Wright now believes if I have not read this latest book? Is that not a dismissal of my arguments without engaging my arguments? I seriously question whether Wright's views have changed substantially as to their substance, which was indeed what I was addressing in my first comment.

[D. Silvers]

so when you're out in the world talking to those who don't know Christ, how long do you spend comparing and contrasting these ideas? I am trying to figure out how this discussion allows us or better enables us to be examples of God's love to a lost world.

[Craig Blomberg]

Not at all. That's why it's so sad that others anathematize each other over these kinds of differences.