Can the New Holy War Be Avoided? A Review of Justification (Part 1 of 2)
June 28, 2009 by keasInterVarsity Press was gracious to send me a copy of Wright’s new book to review. While reading Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, two historical events kept coming to mind. The first is the sixteenth-century theological showdown now referred to as the Reformation; the second is Barth’s landmine commentary on Romans published almost ninety years ago. My review of Justification will be in two parts, with the second to be posted in two weeks. In this post I’ll tell how Wright’s book came about, outline its overall argument, and then explain how it corresponds with the first of these historical events, the Reformation. The next post will deal with the exegetical part of Justification as well as its relation to the second of these historical events, Barth’s commentary.
Geocentric vs. Heliocentric
Justification was written in reply to a book published in 2007 by John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. Piper’s book is straightforwardly polemical (a PDF version is free online, and whether or not you agree with his writings, you have to respect the fact that he makes them free), with the chapters arranged one punch after another, each aiming at a different aspect of Wright’s teaching on the doctrine of justification. I read The Future of Justification shortly after it came out, and I will say that though Piper has little patience for any view other than his own, the overall tone of his book is courteous. (Unfortunately the same can’t be said for many of Wright’s other critics who have used Piper’s book as angry ammunition in their own writings and blogs; hence, Wright’s comment in his first chapter: “It really is high time we developed a Christian ethic of blogging.”)
Wright’s tone, like Piper’s, is cordial. On multiple occasions he notes where the two agree. But Wright’s extremely critical response is made crystal clear in his opening analogy. He compares Piper to someone who, despite all facts and proof to the contrary, insists that the sun goes around the earth. Here is how the story goes. Due to some “accident of education,” this person was never told how the planetary system really works. So you share with them what we’ve learned through astronomy, that in fact it’s the earth that revolves around the sun. You use books, charts, and diagrams to show him in great detail how we’ve come to know this. But even after long conversations and painstaking explanations, the person insists that we’re at the center and the sun is in orbit. He tells you that new fads and clever theories will always come and go, so we’re better off just sticking with the tried and tested truth. Wright admits this is a crude way to put it, but nevertheless it’s the way he sees it. The problem is not that Piper and others disagree with him but that they haven’t really listened to what he is saying.
So as civil as this debate might appear, there’s no skirting around the fact that both theologians have plenty of strong backhanded slaps directed toward the other in their writings. And we shouldn’t expect anything less, for much is at stake. We’ll return to this point momentarily.
Jigsaw Pieces Left in the Box
Wright’s second analogy opens the main themes of his book, and he continually returns to it. When putting together a jigsaw puzzle it’s tempting to leave half of the pieces in the box to make it easier. It actually makes the puzzle much more difficult, however. You wind up with pieces that obviously don’t fit regardless of how you try to force them, and the end result is a jumbled mess. Wright insists this is case with Piper and company. Their treatment of justification has kept in the box, or swept off the table, or even burned in the fire, jigsaw pieces that are key to Paul’s doctrine. Among those discarded are God’s single plan through history, the covenant made with Abraham, the work of the Holy Spirit, and eschatology. He contends that the “old perspective” (which Piper represents) has consistently read Paul’s letters within a sixteenth-century rather than a first-century context, and continually over-focused on Romans and Galatians at the expense of Paul’s other letters. Wright hopes that by getting all these jigsaw pieces back on the table it will become apparent that Paul’s understanding of justification is based on God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Abraham to rescue the whole world and the human race through Israel’s representative, the Messiah. Paul’s concern reaches beyond questions of “Me and my salvation” to the big question of “How is God saving the world through Israel?”
Wright’s book is divided into two parts. In the first part (oddly titled “Introduction” since it’s half of the book) he frames Paul’s thought within first-century Judaism, gives clear reference points by which key words like righteousness and justification can be defined, and describes what exactly is at stake in this debate. This sets the stage for the second part of the book, which is pure exegesis (I’ll review this in two weeks’ time). He provides mini-commentaries on Galatians and Romans, as well as close examinations of key passages from Philippians, Corinthians, and Ephesians, all in a concerted effort to show from Scripture how he’s arrived at these conclusions.
Wrestling Over Words
Though righteous and just have different root words in English, both Greek and Hebrew have only one root (in Greek, dikaios; in Hebrew, tsedaqah) and many cognates. Analyzing how righteousness is used in not only Paul’s writings but also the Old Testament and second-temple Jewish literature, Wright claims that “God’s righteousness” is God’s faithfulness to the covenant he made with Israel, specifically the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 12 and reiterated in Genesis 15. In this covenant God promised to bless the whole world through Abraham’s family; thus, when Paul speaks of “God’s righteousness” he is referring to God’s own loyalty to his covenant. “God’s dikaiosyne is, not least, his faithfulness to, and his powerful commitment to rescue, creation itself. It always has in view God’s utter commitment to put things right” (65).
Before moving on, it’s worth examining a jab Wright makes at Piper at this point. I’ve already noted the respectful tenor of conversation between these two and, secondly, that this doesn’t prevent them from delivering low blows every once in a while. Wright does exactly this when commenting on what he calls “Piper’s idiosyncratic definition of God’s righteousness” (66). According to Piper, both “human righteousness” and “God’s righteousness” in Scripture mean “an unwavering allegiance to treasure and uphold the glory of God” (Piper, 71). Wright remarks:
“There is a sense in which what Piper claims about ‘God’s righteousness’ could be seen as going in exactly the wrong direction. He sees it as God’s concern for God’s own glory, which implies that God’s primary concern returns, as it were, to himself. There is always of course a sense in which that is true. But the great story of Scripture, from creation and covenant right on through to the New Jerusalem, is constantly about God’s overflowing, generous, creative love—God’s concern, if you like, for the flourishing and well-being of everything else. Of course, this too will redound to God’s glory because God, as the Creator, is glorified when creation is flourishing and able to praise him gladly and freely. And of course there are plenty of passages where God does what he does precisely not because anybody deserves it but simply ‘for the sake of his own name.’ But ‘God’s righteousness’ is regularly invoked in Scripture, not when God is acting thus, but when his concern is going out to those in need, particularly to his covenant people. The tsedaqah elohim, the dikaiosyne theou, is an outward-looking characteristic of God, linked of course to the concern for God’s own glory but essentially going, as it were, in the opposite direction, that of God’s creative, healing, restorative love. God’s concern for God’s glory is precisely rescued from the appearance of divine narcissism because God, not least God as Trinity, is always giving out, pouring out, lavishing generous love on undeserving people, undeserving Israel, and an undeserving world. That is the sort of God he is, and ‘God’s righteousness’ is a way of saying, ‘Yes, and God will be true to that character.’ Indeed, it is because God will be true to that outward-facing generous, creative love that he must also curse those ways of life, particularly those ways of life within his covenant people, which embody and express the opposite” (70-71).
If not a deafening blow, this jab at least has a particular sting to it. Those familiar with Piper’s overall theology will understand what I mean. Starting in 1986 with his groundbreaking work, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, the axiom “God is for God first” has been at the heart of Piper’s writing, preaching, and teaching. Labeling this as “divine narcissism” is a strong charge, and one that will surely arouse a reaction. Although Wright’s words are only secondarily related to the discussion about justification, it will be interesting to see how Piper responds.
Now we proceed to how we define the watchword of the debate: justification. Again, this must hold hands with our definition of righteousness since in Greek and Hebrew both words are formed from the same root. Wright and Piper agree that when Paul uses “justification” in a legal context he is describing the act of God reckoning a person as righteous (e.g., Galatians 3:6). But what exactly does this “reckoning” entail? Ah, here’s where the real hand-to-hand combat starts. Piper insists that since God requires a moral righteousness of us that none of us can supply, Christ’s moral righteousness is imputed to us in the act of justification, thereby making us righteous. Wright has two objections: (1) that this righteousness denotes the moral character that’s required of us, and (2) the whole notion of imputation if by it we mean “make righteous” (which is most certainly what the Reformers meant by it). Wright contends that “righteousness” within a lawcourt setting means strictly “the status that someone has when the court has found in their favor” (90).
More To a Car Than Just Its Steering Wheel
What Wright wants to guard against is collapsing the entire range of “becoming a Christian” into the one act of “justification.” He argues that since Paul uses the term far more precisely and exactly, so should we. For Paul, justification “does not denote an action which transforms someone so much as a declaration which grants them a status” (91). Justification is an essential and fundamental aspect of human salvation but it is still only one aspect, and when it’s made synonymous with “salvation,” the entire sequence of thought on how God reconciles, redeems, and transforms the human race becomes blurry and muddled. The metaphor of leaving jigsaw pieces in the box is still fitting, but Wright also illustrates this with the steering wheel of a car. Of course the steering wheel is vital for driving, and in some way or another it’s organically connected to everything else in the car, but if we start referring to the car as “the wheel,” then there’s a good chance that people who had never seen a car might image it as a huge, giant steering wheel equipped with seats and an engine. (As a side note, a friend of mine, upon reading this, remarked that we do in fact sometimes refer to a car as “wheels” or “a set of wheels.” She thinks Wright’s analogy actually strengthens Piper’s argument since we use synecdoche in everyday speech.)
Present and Future Justification
Both Wright and Piper agree that justification consists of an initial verdict pronounced by God in the here and now, and a future verdict which God will pronounce at the final judgment. Here’s where they differ. Piper asserts that in both verdicts the Christian is pronounced righteous because the moral righteousness of Christ has been imputed to that person on the basis of faith.
Wright asserts that in both verdicts the Christian is pronounced righteous but for different reasons: initial justification is purely forensic and is on the basis of faith, whereas future justification will be in accordance with one’s “works” – and these “works” are done by the Christian through the Spirit. Initial justification, then, is the future verdict coming into the present. The work of the Holy Spirit is how these two verdicts correspond, but Wright waits until his exegesis of Romans to really hammer this home.
We can now see that this debate between Wright and Piper is over more than just how to define justification. It also includes how we understand God’s righteousness, faith vs. works, the scope of God’s salvation, the role of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life, and as we will see in the next post, the faithfulness of Christ, the place of Israel in salvation history, and the breadth of the gospel message.
Preventing a Theological Holy War
While studying under the Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson, I was floored by a comment he made about justification and the Reformation. It’s no secret that this doctrine was the most disputed and, in fact, started the whole disputation in the first place. Jenson told the story of Martin Luther, then a Catholic priest and theology professor, writing the pope a letter that pointed out flaws in the church’s teaching on justification. Jenson remarked that had the pope simply read Luther’s letter (he obviously thinks the pope never laid eyes on it), an entire holy war quite possibly could have been avoided.
This is where Jenson parts from many fellow Lutherans – he refuses to demonize the medieval Catholic Church. He recognizes that Luther’s understanding on justification was fresh, new, and, yes, revolutionary, but he regrets that the Catholic Church reacted in hostility toward a teaching that would have not only corrected their understanding of the gospel and the work of Christ, but also expanded and enriched that which they already believed about justification. The Catholic Church of the sixteenth-century was missing integral elements of sound, historical Christian theology, but they hadn’t strayed so far that they couldn’t comprehend and even incorporate Luther’s radical new perspective. Most believe the Reformation happened because of irreconcilable differences. According to Jenson, however, the real problem was that the bishop of Rome refused to truly listen to what Luther was saying and learn from his insights.
Maybe we can make this historical hypothesis: The great civil war of Christianity that tore the church apart could have been prevented had there been more humility and an ecumenical spirit at its genesis.
I can’t help but see some similarities between the theological holy war of the sixteenth-century and the one emerging in our day. And this isn’t just because both are theological disputes over the doctrine of justification – though that is surely relevant. Before you think I’m being overly dramatic and epic, let me state that in no way do I think the present dispute can even remotely have the seismic impact that the Reformation did. Our context wouldn’t allow it: today the Christian church is much more diversified and divided, there is separation of church and state, and our society has increasingly become post-Christian.
But we mustn’t downplay the potential impact of this present debate either. The last hundred years have seen an unprecedented movement in history as the Christian world’s center of gravity has shifted from West and North to East and South. Attendance is growing in the African church at almost the same rate that it’s declining in the Western church, and there are now more Christians in China than there are people in Germany. Only 25% of the world’s Christians now live in the West. Nevertheless, the theological base of Christianity has yet to experience this shift. The West/North still account for the overwhelming majority of seminaries, Bible colleges, training schools, and teaching materials, and the young church (Christians in the two-thirds world) continues to take its cue for the most part from Western theologies and scholarship. These are broad generalizations, but, nevertheless, they are true. And I am neither validating nor endorsing this situation, but merely stating it is the present situation. (My personal hope is that more frontline theology will emerge from Christians in the two-thirds world, both for their benefit and ours.)
Yes, both Piper and Wright are a part of the Protestant side of Christianity, and even more specifically, the more Evangelical tradition. But both of these theologians have a global influence. They both have followings in the academy and the church; they both are widely read by pastors, students, and those in the pew; and they both authored books that have been translated into numerous languages.
Perhaps now we can see the magnitude of this debate. At first glance it could appear as just a squabbling between two theologians that won’t affect anyone outside of their little highly specialized corner of the church. But if we consider it from a global perspective, we realize the impact could be far greater than we had supposed.
This debate is over justification, but at its root it’s also over how the gospel and God’s saving work in Jesus Christ is understood. And how we think of the gospel will inevitably affect how we think of God’s overarching mission and our place in it. Much is at stake. “Globalization” is just a fancy way of saying we’re all connected, and as the world continues to shrink, the effect of the outcome of this debate will only grow.
But perhaps this emerging theological holy war can be avoided. Perhaps another civil war in the Christian faith can be prevented with humility, ecumenical spirit, and the ability to really listen to one another.
Matt Alexander
Great initial post. Thanks for the concise summaries of the major themes in Wright’s new work…I’m excited to read it soon! Having read several of Piper’s books and listen to many of his sermons, I can definitely see the “divine narcissism” that Wright speaks of in Piper’s work.
It is also clear that this discussion of justification has great implications for how the church understands other doctrines. Faith and works, righteousness, justice, and sanctification are a few obvious theological issues that will need to be adjusted depending on how one understands justification.
Hopefully healthy dialogue will continue between these two great minds. I will say that this is a debate that is worth listening to and considering because of the type of men that both of these theologians are - men who love Christ & His Church, full of intellectual insight, and devoted to seeking Truth. May some common ground be found and may all of us be sharpened and stirred by this dialogue.
Comment — June 28, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
david yates
I express the following things dogmatically, for conciseness, but all of it is open for discussion! In short, Wright is too narrow, and when it comes to exegesis (mainly next time, I suppose!) Wright is poor. (I concentrate on Wright, I have no brief to defend Piper.)
“God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Abraham to rescue the whole world and the human race” - ‘pieces of the jigsaw’. I think Wright too narrowly focuses on the covenant with Abraham. Even before Abraham, and even outside the covenant(s) (actually, as Wright acknowledges, there are many covenants with different people in the Bible) God was at work among people. God’s first promise of rescue was Genesis 3.15, way before Abraham. Paul brings Abraham in as he does because it was a burning issue of the time, not because it has the sort of primary force Wright wants to make it have.
God’s ‘righteousness’ is exegeted too much by Wright as ‘covenant faithfulness’. Paul uses the term more widely than that, and it is better to take it as fundamentally meaning God’s character, from which other things flow. But also, people are called righteous. This means not that they are as God in this respect, or morally perfect, but that they are ‘right’ with God. But Wright sees that too narrowly as meaning they are in some covenant or other with God.
Wright focuses too narrowly on justification being a legal status, so not being about the whole of salvation, and, it doesn’t matter what precise legal account of what is imputed one makes (whether Christ’s moral righteousness or not), both of the foregoing points in the light of the fact that: if someone is justified, it means they are among those who will be in the coming kingdom. (I like the ’synechdoche’ point.)
Wright’s doesn’t say enough on ‘future justification in accordance with one’s works’ to address the issues adequately (this is in the exegesis part, Romans, section 2).
Comment — June 29, 2009 @ 6:34 am
Mary Knapp
I agree with David. Wright is crafting a very narrow attack — and yes, he is also using synecdoche. It seems to me that Wright is not listening carefully to what Piper is saying, at least regarding God’s righteousness as evinced by an overriding concern for his glory.
The “divine narcissism” charge is based on circular reasoning and an artificial division of “inward” and “outward” focus. To use a human analogy (as our teacher Jesus does) - a human mother’s overriding, outward, sacrificial love for her child, whom she didn’t create but merely birthed, ultimately is rooted in her own maternal nature and desire for her progeny to thrive.
For the same reason a soldier will throw himself on a live grenade, not only to save his buddies, but because love and loyalty are his character.
If we, who are evil, carry out seemingly outward, sacrificial demonstrations based on and congruent with our nature, are we also narcissistic? Or just created in God’s image?
I’m looking forward to reading the next post.
Comment — June 29, 2009 @ 7:47 am
Justin Best
I love the analogy of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle left in the box. I think Wright is correct in asserting that G-d’s single plan through history is important to consider, however, I feel that Wright should return to Creation, rather than the Abrahamic Covenant, with G-d’s righteousness pertaining to his faithfulness to Creation rather than to the covenant he made with Israel. Creation in itself was a covenant of community between G-d and Creation, particularly the inspired culture of humanity. This understanding too has the same emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit as well as eschatology. I think the quote from pg 65 “G-d’s dikaiosyne…put things right,” alludes to this viewpoint, regardless, it remains in opposition to that of Piper.
Had Wright rooted his foundation in Creation, rather than the Covenant with Abraham, I believe it would have even furthered the argument that he presented in the excerpt from 70-71 for what exudes G-d’s “overflowing, generous, creative love,” aside from Easter, more than Creation itself? This of course provides further support for Wright’s assertion of Piper’s views as “Divine Narcissism.” It will be interesting, to see Piper’s response.
I appreciate Wright’s attempt to guard “justification” from becoming a once and done transformation that in essence, as widely demonstrated by the U.S. church, ends up inoculating believers from true discipleship. I believe Wright is trying to keep those searching for a cop-out Christian transformation that can ultimately be boiled down to an intellectual ascension rather than a true transformation on a holistic scale.
As for the usage of synecdoche helping Piper’s argument, Wright’s analogy of the steering wheel indeed does indeed strengthen Piper’s point. However, I’m not convinced that Wright’s argument, which essentially states that Piper is toying with anachronism, isn’t relevant. We need not get distracted by the use of synecdoche and miss Wright’s main point, that is, Paul used the term justification precisely.
What Wright and Piper say is important because of the audiences that they hold and thus we need to pay close attention to the way that this debate draws lines and defines things.
As for the brief blurb about Western theologies having a large majority of the holistic theological voice, I agree with your generalizations as well as sharing your hope for more front-line theology out of the non-Western world as I believe it truly will benefit the world on an ecumenical level.
I too look forward to reading the next post and I’m hopeful for the ecumenical spirit coupled with humility and the work of the Holy Spirit.
Comment — June 30, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
keas
Matt,
Glad you enjoyed the post. I agree that this is a debate worth listening to, and not just because both men are brilliant thinkers and much is at stake, but because of how it’s being debating.
Historically speaking, Eastern theology has said the greatest sin is schism, whereas Western theology has said its heresy. Consequently we here in the West don’t have many great models of how to “charitably disagree” (hence, why this feels Reformation-like). Perhaps this debate will be different. Wright has shown diplomatic skills in the past (co-authoring books with John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg), and there’s presently a respectful tone to the dialogue. I share your hope that each side will contend for truth with humility and openness, and that common ground will be found.
Comment — June 30, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
keas
David,
I think you’ve made some great points, especially in regards to Wright’s persistent interpretation of God’s “righteousness” as “covenant faithfulness,” and his insistence that justification is solely a legal status. Most of your criticism will have to wait till our discussion of his exegesis (as you point out), but I’ll add few preliminary remarks to yours in anticipation of that.
You said that Wright has too narrow of a focus on the Abrahamic covenant, and you point out that there are numerous other covenants in the OT, including one prior to Abraham, the promise of rescue in Genesis 3:15. I wonder if you’re proposing Abraham be read in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 as simply an “illustration” that Paul is using. If so, do you see any covenant(s) playing a central role in Paul’s theology? Would first-century Jews given as much weight to a covenant/promise made in primordial history (Genesis 3:15) as they would to one made to their primary patriarch (Genesis 12)? And lastly, if not the covenant to Abraham, do you see any larger story being played out in the background of Paul’s understanding of justification?
I’ve also heard from others that Wright doesn’t address “future justification in accordance with one’s works” adequately to answer the questions that have been put to him by his opponents. I think this book contains his clearest and most extensive explanation of this aspect of justification to date, but the question is whether it’s enough. Again, we’ll have to wait till his exegesis to really get this on the table for analysis. Thanks for you comments, and I hope we can return to some of them in next week’s post.
Comment — June 30, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
david yates
Keas,
Briefly (and non-dogmatically):
a) Abraham, in context, is not just an illustration, but that doesn’t make him primary. Suppose there hadn’t been an Abraham, or promises to him, God had already indicated he would put things right, which is done by Jesus. Wright sees Abraham and the covenant and Torah and exile etc as a mechanical device for chugging out salvation, and without the mechanical operation of all the parts of which together in sequence there couldn’t have been salvation.
b) The sort of relationship God has provided in Jesus goes deeper than covenant.
c) Paul doesn’t go along with all that Jews thought about things.
d) God provided justification because sin got in the way of God having what he wanted. Wright’s idea of what God wants is too small. Wright has a Jehovah’s Witnesses picture of the coming kingdom, on Earth with families sitting round on the grass under the shade of trees having picnics with lions and tigers strolling around. God wants to be in relationship with people, who are to be part of who can imagine what of his eternal glory, including all sorts of things. Wright allows that the promise to Abraham of land was of the world, but why stop there.
Just for the record also, contra Wright, Paul doesn’t always mean ‘Torah’ by ‘nomos’ (law).
Comment — July 1, 2009 @ 6:25 am
david yates
Further background might be useful on the larger story, d). (Again, stated dogmatically only for concision, all is up for discussion!)
The Jews were not a saved people living by Torah with the help of God’s grace. They were a people in need of salvation, who were constantly transgressing even when they thought they were keeping Torah (Jesus said such things as that sinners do good to sinners). It is better to think of Torah as being a shadow indicator of what God wanted in people. Torah was completely overthrown by Jesus, even its moral stipulations were no longer in effect. True morality is living ‘in the Spirit’. Whereas what Torah says about morality might look like it is being practised by Christians (eg ‘Thou shalt not murder’), they are not living as they are in any sense because of, by, or under Torah. It has gone, utterly. Christians are called ‘Israel’ metaphorically, or in the sense that ‘Israel’ was an idea of what God wanted of people. The Jews were never Israel. Actually, Israel is properly only Jesus, and then those in Him. So, the people Israel also is utterly gone, with Torah. Ethnic Israel never was God’s true people, and Christians are not a continuation, not even a redefinition, of that Israel.
Wright has an idea of salvation being the restoration of this earth - in the coming Kingdom we will carry on living pretty much as we do now, just without the bad bits - we won’t be ill or die, we won’t be hungry or homeless, we won’t have money or relationship problems etc, but essentially life will be as we know it day to day now. That’s how he can think God was renewing the earth through ethnic Israel, and when they failed, continuing that with the reconstituted Israel, Christians. But, ethnic Israel was never called to renew the earth, and salvation was never to be accomplished through ethnic Israel. Only Jesus was put forth to save, which he has done, and He will bring in the Kingdom (which will be far more than a renewed earth) when He comes again. So, Christians also are not called to renew the earth.
Comment — July 2, 2009 @ 5:48 am
Justin Best
David,
I agree with a majority of your post however I take issue with one thing that you’ve said, “Torah was completely overthrown by Jesus, even its moral stipulations were no longer in effect…they are not living as they are in any sense because of, by, or under Torah. It has gone, utterly.”
Jesus didn’t negate the moral implications of the Torah and he surely didn’t remove the moral stipulations from it. Jesus himself said that he had come to fulfill it, not do away with it. Being “in Christ” and “living by the Spirit” is necessary in order to fulfill the moral requirements that Jesus sets out in the Sermon on the Mount. I believe that the Spirit was sent in order to enable us to live according to the high standards that Christ places on us, not just by his example, but also through his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. Here’s a short snippet from Richard B. Hays, a New Testament scholar and ethicist from Duke Divinity and what he has to say about Jesus and the Torah.
“The teaching of Jesus constitutes an intensification–rather than an abrogation–of the requirements of the Law. The Law prohibits murder, but Jesus forbids even anger; the Law prohibits adultery, but Jesus forbids even lust. In Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus actually overrules the Torah, despite Matthew 5:17-18. The lex talionis (”An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”) may have originated as a rule limiting the vengeance that might be exacted by an aggrieved party: that is, no more than an eye for an eye. That is how the rule apparently functions in Exodus 21:24. If the saying is understood in these terms, then Matthew 5:39 can be understood as conforming to the pattern of heightening the Torah’s demand: where the Torah restricts retaliation, Jesus forbids it altogether.” (Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 324-325)
Jesus doesn’t negate, nullify, or abrogate the Torah, as Hays points out, it’s an intensification. Instead of looking at the Torah and negating or excusing it, he puts it under the magnifying glass calling his disciples to an even more righteous and saintly living.
I agree that Christians aren’t called to renew the earth (we don’t have that kind of power) we are not called to sit idly either. As Christians we are called to build for the Kingdom, not the Kingdom itself. Jesus’ message was that the Kingdom of G-d is here, now, it’s at hand. Christ, Paul, and Peter all talk about the renewal, redemption, and restoration as something to look forward to with the coming Kingdom. If we say that it’s not our job to do business with the coming Kingdom, then it’s easy to wiggle out of creation stewardship and other ethical issues. However, if we agree that we’re the people of G-d, the church, then I believe there are huge implications for how we live here and now.
While the Jews may not have been saved by living by the Torah with G-d’s grace, we are saved by being disciples of Christ and children of G-d along with the Holy Spirit.
You are right that the Jews were never meant to bring salvation, however, they were to live in a manner that pointed to the G-d of Salvation so that when the messiah came, people would know. Hence First Century Palestinian Christians being called “Followers of the Way,” they lived in a manner that actually revealed something powerful about our G-d (something that I think we haven’t had since Constantine, but I digress…) Since the Messiah has come, we now have to live in a manner that proclaims something, to live for something bigger than ourselves, we are to live as C.H. Spurgeon says take on the mentality of being “just a beggar showing other beggars where the bread is.”
Comment — July 2, 2009 @ 11:34 am
david yates
Justin,
Torah is an external code. When it is ‘written on the heart’ it is no longer really Torah, this is only metaphorical, and in that sense Torah is ‘fulfilled’. Things like the sermon on the mount are about living in the Spirit, and are not external commands or codes. Jesus did not stipulate even more intense external commands. They are about how people live who are perfected. That will only come about totally in the coming kingdom, when we get spiritual bodies. (That Christians do not live lives now of perfection is a problem Christendom has not, and has never had, adequate ideas or theology of.)
We are not to be idle, certainly! But, I don’t think it hits the spot to say even that we are to build for the kingdom. We are now partially already in the kingdom, the kingdom is already partially present (and by partially, I mean minisculely!). So, what we do now is not building for the kingdom, it is already acting within the kingdom. What we do now are kingdom things. We are living out now in this imperfect world what we can of a kingdom way of living. But Wright implies we are transforming this world, and gears people up to expect they will be able to effect socio-political transformations. That has never happened and has not been promised to happen. (In fact, Wright also believes that moral living has effects on the natural world, so that earthquakes will not happen, and crops will flourish, and illnesses will be averted and people will live longer. And, of course, if we don’t live morally, disasters will happen.) Or perhaps Wright can be taken as only meaning we at least will be doing things that will eventually be parts of the coming kingdom. I think this won’t do because it implies that if we don’t do certain things, then they will be missing from the coming kingdom. I don’t think anything will be missing from the coming kingdom if Christians don’t manage to do certain things. Wright doesn’t say enough about what he vaguely implies. What will the lives in the coming kingdom be of those who die as children, or babies, or in the womb, or who are born handicapped? Will they be still undeveloped in the kingdom, just as fulfilled as they can be? That is to bring in ideas like ‘limbo’. For this and other reasons (get your imagination going!), how things will be in the kingdom is unimaginable (the more we get our imaginations going on the matter, the more we see how nothing we can imagine is sufficient!). So, for now, we should be living ‘good’ lives, taking note of such things as the sermon on the mount, but not doing those things as if they are external rules like Torah. And not with Wrightian ideas that we are building for the kingdom. We are also to proclaim the gospel, of course! Preferably much more by how we are rather than just by words and doctrines.
Comment — July 2, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
Justin Best
David,
thanks for taking the time to clarify where I had clearly misunderstood you. And this also helped me to further understand what you had previously written. I think we are now thinking on the same wavelength I believe, so thanks! I look forward to further dialogue after the next post.
Salaam!
Comment — July 2, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Paul
Thanks for this clear review highlighting the differences.
I’ve added your posts to my list of compiled references.
Comment — July 18, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Marc
Tom Wright is a genius and his InterVarsity Press Conference (1999) and teachings on Romans have revolutionised my reading of Paul and of the Gospels themselves.
Piper is good and means well but is unable to break with his tradition whereas Wright is willing to question everything. I love the way Wright deals with Piper’s understanding of Imputation and Atonement without necessarily denying orthodox beliefs.
Can we not get these two guys to do a debate and have it published in MP3 on the web? That would be GOLD!
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
Sue
Any and every one who talks about a “holy” war, in any context whatsoever, should wash their mouth out with very strong soap!
Comment — July 21, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
keas
Marc,
I agree with you that though Piper and Wright stand in the same tradition, Piper seems unable to put to question the areas of that tradition that need rehashing and possibly refashioning. Seen from this angle, Wright appears to be the more “Reformed” of the two; it was the Reformers who insisted tradition should always be questioned (and if need be, reworked) in light of scripture.
If you ever get together that debate, let me know!
Comment — July 22, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
keas
Sue,
“Holy War” is being used in this review in a figurative, non-literal sense. If you wish to know what I think about literal war, read my reply to your comment on the former post.
Comment — July 22, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
John
It seems a quote from the esteemed reformed theologian RC Sproul may be appropriate here, ” Pelagianism is rejected by all serious theologians, Catholic or Protestant, but the more dangerous heresy is semi-pelagianism”… Because it is harder to see….” I love Tom Wrights wide lenses biblical theology, but at times, he seems to use Greek words the way he wants them and plays the super-scholar card, and equally great Greek scholars, take the Greek words another way. So how do we work through this? He also seems to like to take us through the lenses of Second Temple Judaism, and make it work with Paul, it seems it has a higher priority than scripture itself, a new tradition over the scriptures, the confusion of the Rabbis and than which ones! The more I listen carefully, are these the subtle winds of semi-pelagianism, that concerned, Piper, Carson, Horton, and a host of new testament scholars! Acts 15:1 Says there were some Rabbi’s who said you could not be saved unless you were circumcised…. This caused the first great council of the church, Peter rises after much debate, and says something Tom, does not seem to agree with, justification is not about being saved for Jews, but ethic badges, this he learned from Dunn, etc. ” Acts 15:11
” But we believe that we are saved through the grace same way as they also, Jews and Greeks, are saved the same way. This council was about, justifying faith that saves, or it was about nothing.
Dunn, Saunders the well Tom drinks froms would have issue with this!The first 4 chapters of Romans, shows all in rebellion and Sin, full of sins, that come from Adams sin,( Jew and Gentile) Bishop Wright glossed this issue like a liberal theologian, ( were is the strong doctrine of the fall in NT?) and than tries to redefine the argument with Second Temple Judaism, whatever flavor of that you choose. The Anglican Bishop Paul Barnett who also is a renowned, careful new testament scholar has challenged Tom on these issues,and on straightforward exegetical ground. So this debate is far from over but there are holes in the Swiss chess and some of it is rotten, the reformers may have more Right, than wrong, NT thinks he is WRIGT but he has yet to prove his case…… I hope he is not leading us to censure him for semi-pelgianism and the Council of Orange theologians will speak again, I love NT’s brilliant mind, and he is a great speaker, but at times he is selective in his arguments, and uses debaters technique more than his claimed exegesis. How is a totally fallen man saved, Jew and Gentile, Rom 1-4, By the cross,Jesus take my sins, and I receive his righteousness, the great exchange, called imputation, Tom Says NO!, Calvin, Luther, Ridderbos, Bruce, Sproul, Carson and countless new testament scholars have said yes, I say yes Tom….. I hope I don’t get Dunce hat in class, but they have the stronger argument, the better exegesis, there are more than ethic badges at stake, mans penalty for sin is being dealt with Jews and Greek, Rom 3:9…. Dunn may brow beat his students but he is not infallible, Carl Trueman the reformed historian decked him when he misquoted and misread Luther, hope Tom is more careful….
Comment — September 18, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
John
These are the directives of the Council of Orange against semi-pelagianism,
My question is if a Rabbi in Second Temple taught this, and we have to be historical correct NT, than Paul the Apostle taught it too, this seems like a logical fallacy of the highest order! Ronald Regan loved jelly beans, Ronald Regan was president, those who eat jelly beans are presidents, syllogism of non-sense, maybe the new perspective in not that new!
CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake” (Phil. 1:29). And again, “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, “I have obtained mercy to be faithful” (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, “because I was faithful,” but “to be faithful.” And again, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (Jas. 1:17). And again, “No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven” (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.
Comment — September 18, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
David
We shouldn’t forget the rhetorical dimension of Paul, nor of earlier Scripture. Augustine, for one, notes the rhetorical figurations utilized by the prophet Amos. In chapter 6, the prophet invokes tradition by using the representation or synechodoche of “brother”, that being “Joseph”, rather than the literal word “brother”.
In short, the rustic prophet says that Israel has been acting too much like David in composing music for themselves and drinking wine from a bowl and “yet they have not grieved over the ruin of Joseph” (Amos 6.6) Clearly, Amos knew that by invoking the name and heritage and narrative of “Joseph” (the quintessential brother) he would have a far greater effect than he would by just using the literal word “brother”. Paul picks up on the same rhetorical figurations during his ministry, utilizing the same heritage of Amos.
Tradition matters because it is rhetorical. Paul was on the move with his message, therefore, he needed words that stood out rooted in tradition instead of vague generic words. This is precisely why he used “Lord”, as the political dimension of that word diminished Casear’s lordship (quite contra to PC).
Comment — October 16, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Brendan
The debate between Piper and Wright, and persons who tend to side with either’s perspective, is going to be extremely difficult to resolve because both operate as self-sufficient worldviews. Both camps are well entrenched which is very clear both from the debate between the two authors, and from the message board above.
Personally, I am someone who held a Reform view for several years, and now believes to see things more alongside of Wright when it comes to the priority of Israel’s covenant in terms of God’s salvation history plan.
Both views operate like pairs of glasses, that can they be used to look through at Scripture, 1st century culture, church history, and present Christian living. The test for each is what does it help focus and what does it blur? Wright’s glasses bring in to clarity huge portions of the OT that are very blurry in Piper’s, including many passages of judgment in the Psalms & prophets, and God’s purposes for Israel in His plan to restore the consequences of the Fall on creation and humankind. Those glasses also help make crisp and clear elements in Paul’s letters that are otherwise foggy. In my experience, the Reform lenses at first brought greater clarity on to topics and certain passages that had been difficult to interpret previously, particularly on the topics of sin, the sovereignty of God, and election. At the same time however, they unfortunately leave too many passages of Scripture foggy and unclear particularly when it comes to the OT and Jesus & Paul’s use of the OT in the NT.
At the end of the day, it is a big thing for one side to ask the other side to risk taking off their glasses to try the other’s pair. Yet without doing that, neither will be able to hear the other’s arguments - because Wright’s points can’t be understand piece meal style while wearing Piper’s glasses and vice versa is also true.
As impossible as it is to suggest: try each other’s glasses. Wear them for a few hours, or days, or weeks. Use them to interpret all of Christian Scripture, history, experience, and application. Then after having taken it all in, you’ll be in a better place to decide which makes God and His world clearer or fuzzier. In essence, its the same approach we need to take as we share the gospel with those who don’t know Christ - we need to try on their lenses to understand them and to relate to them , and they need to try on Christ’s to see experience the truth of the Christian worldview. And as N.T. Wright loves to say, “the proof is in the pudding” (or on this case, in the wearing).
Comment — November 2, 2009 @ 3:43 am
tentacle
list of tentacle hentai
Comment — December 5, 2009 @ 3:42 am
naruto
naruto x sasuke doujinshi
Comment — February 1, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
hentai
free hentai pregnant
Comment — February 2, 2010 @ 11:51 am
Buy Viagra online
sCATrEoc Buy Viagra online
Comment — February 2, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
Buy Tramadol
cdFBeDHh Buy Tramadol
Comment — February 2, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
hentai
free hentai lesbian porn
Comment — February 3, 2010 @ 5:14 am
hentai
free hentai url download
Comment — February 3, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
free
free psp hentai xxx
Comment — February 3, 2010 @ 12:37 pm
Buy Cialis
PGgTyz Buy Cialis
Comment — February 3, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
Buy Klonopin
QWmDvZZ Buy Klonopin
Comment — February 3, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
hentai
curvy 3d hentai babe
Comment — February 3, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
hentai
free mahoromatic hentai
Comment — February 3, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
hentai
free 3d preteen hentai
Comment — February 4, 2010 @ 4:30 am
graysenpar
lime 2008 comment though stance
Comment — February 4, 2010 @ 8:19 am
melbournee
broader water estimates benefits
Comment — February 4, 2010 @ 8:21 am
Cigarettes
nKnrzZG Cigarettes
Comment — February 4, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
erin
erin andrews 911 audio
Comment — February 4, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
Valium
HZomVes Valium
Comment — February 4, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
erin
erin andrews peepin tom pics
Comment — February 5, 2010 @ 5:09 am
Buy Viagra online
oOGUmNiS Buy Viagra online
Comment — February 6, 2010 @ 1:54 am
hentai
lesbian hentai squirting
Comment — February 6, 2010 @ 3:29 am
hentai
hentai lolita videos
Comment — February 6, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
hentai
henti videos for i phone
Comment — February 6, 2010 @ 12:52 pm
hentai
hentai rape video
Comment — February 6, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
hentai
megaman-roll hentai video 3-d
Comment — February 6, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
gomez
selena gomez being fucked
Comment — February 7, 2010 @ 4:44 am
Cialis
MaoTIVqD Cialis
Comment — February 7, 2010 @ 5:35 am
gomez
selena gomez fashion
Comment — February 7, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
kendra
kendra wilkinson body cast
Comment — February 7, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
Pharmc687
Hello! edgdkec interesting edgdkec site!
Comment — February 8, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
Pharmf115
Very nice site! cheap viagra
Comment — February 8, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
Pharmg182
Very nice site! [url=http://oieapxy.com/tyrart/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
Comment — February 8, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
Pharme99
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://oieapxy.com/tyrart/4.html
Comment — February 8, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
Pharmb286
Very nice site!
Comment — February 8, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
Pharmg39
Very nice site!
Comment — February 8, 2010 @ 6:19 pm