Available at Monergismbooks.com for purchase or at Desiring God as a pdf download.
There has been a lot of talk about justification and the New Perspective on Paul, if you happen to follow that sort of thing. I happen to be a budding theology geek, not for something else to do or to prove I halfway smart (or not…), but because I believe very strongly that one cannot believe something that one knows nothing about. People claim to be saved and to love someone called Jesus, but most people who say that they are Christians don’t even know much about the Bible, who Jesus really was, what he did, or why they need to be “saved” in the first place. This may sound pessimistic, and perhaps judgmental, but from my experience, it is unfortunately the case. Beliefs affect your actions. Knowing what you believe allows you to grow in your walk with Christ, ward off enemy attacks, and encourage and witness to others. Not knowing what you believe causes one to be tossed about like a ship on the water without any type of propulsion or steering. The great theologian John Cougar Mellencamp stated in one of his songs that you have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything. This is especially true of religion.
Justification is an important topic that few ordinary Christians know much about. This book by John Piper is a passionate plea to get the gospel right. In his introduction, he states, “We will give an account to the all-knowing, all-ruling Lord of the universe in a very few years-or days. And when we do, what will matter is that we have not peddled God’s word but ‘as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ’ (2 Cor. 2:17).” And again, “Getting the good news about Jesus right is a matter of life and death. It is the message ‘by which you are being saved’ (1 Cor. 15:2).” So getting the gospel right is vitally important, and justification is a key component of that gospel.
This book by Piper is a response to a very prominent British N.T. Wright and his views on justification and the theology of Paul. The book is a very serious response with a lot of meat and interaction with Wright’s work, but is in no way critical of the man in a derogatory way. In fact, Piper has gone out of his way to be civil, Christian, and yet engaging on all of the pertinent points. In essence, Wright is recasting much of the reformation theology and Pauline theology around the gospel in a vastly different light. In the introduction, Piper addresses several questions and statements that Wright proposes with his new perspective:
- The gospel is not about how to get saved.
- Justification is not how you become a Christian.
- Justification is not the gospel.
- We are not justified by believing in justification.
- The imputation of God’s own righteousness makes no sense at all.
- Future justification is on the basis of the complete life lived.
- First-century Judaism had nothing of the alleged self-righteous and boastful legalism.
- God’s righteousness is the same as his covenant faithfulness.
It is these questions and statements that Piper addresses in this book. In order to help people understand the issues and to help them determine if they even want to read this book, I would like to summarize the pertinent arguments and points of each of the chapters. These will be very brief, one page at most I hope. They will not be all-encompassing, but will be a brief summary of the material. If you want the details and nuances of the arguments, read the book!
Chapter 1 is entitled, “Caution: Not All Biblical-Theological Methods and Categories Are Illuminating.” In this chapter, John Piper cautions us that it is possible to distort the categories of Biblical Theology as well as Systematic Theology. Many scholars claim to accurately interpret a biblical author in terms of the first century, but it is often overlooked that “this might result in bringing ideas to the text in a way that misleads rather than clarifies. But common sense tells us that first-century ideas can be used (inadvertently) to distort and silence what the New Testament writers intended to say.” Piper gives several reasons for this:
- First, the interpreter may misunderstand the first century idea. It is amazing how many scholars have overwhelming confidence in their assured interpretation of extra-biblical sources and apply them to less sure readings of biblical texts.
- Secondly, an external 1st century idea may accurately reflect certain first century documents, but it may only reflect one among many first century views. Therefore, one must be cautious in saying on the basis of one’s interpretation of extra-biblical texts that this is how the first century Jews viewed the world, for instance.
- A third reason is that while a New Testament writer may embrace the external idea in general, a scholar may misapply it to the biblical text. For example, “Paul may agree that one important meaning for gospel (eujaggevlion) is the announcement that God is king over all the universe (Isa. 52:7) but not intend for this meaning to govern or dominate what he means by the gospel in every context.”
There is and always has been an infatuation for what is new. New is good; old is bad. But this is not always the case. It rarely is. Piper states, “My own assessment of the need of the church at this moment in history is different from Wright’s: I think we need a new generation of preachers who are not only open to new light that God may shed upon his word, but are also suspicious of their own love of novelty and are eager to test all their interpretations of the Bible by the wisdom of the centuries.” John Piper’s impressions of the works of NT Wright are that large conceptual frameworks are brought to the text of the NT from outside and are providing a lens through which the meaning is seen. This is not always helpful.
In a few more days I will have additional chapters.
