Some friends have encouraged me to explain “in a nutshell” and in easy-to-understand laymen’s terms what the big debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright is all about. Many who enjoy reading the works of these men have discovered they lack the time (or patience) to sift through all of the relevant material surrounding the New Perspective on Paul, and just how Wright’s version of this perspective is different from the traditional perspective maintained by men like John Piper.
“The Justification Debate: A Primer” (Christianity Today, June 2009) is my humble attempt at summarizing the two views as succintly and simply as possible. Please note that both John Piper and N.T. Wright looked over my work and made some slight revisions regarding their respective summaries. (To see the summary statements in the form of a helpful chart, download the pdf here.)
Together with the Piper/Wright summaries is an article written by myself and Ted Olsen entitled “Not An Academic Question.” This second article lets pastors sound off on how this theological debate is influencing their ministry.
Trevin,
This is what I have been waiting for. I am one of those who have not had the time or patience to sift through all of the relevant material. I am interested in the debate and see the importance of it, but to actually nail down the two positions such that they are understandable and practical has thus far eluded me. This helps big time.
Comment by Charlie — June 26, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
[...] Piper vs. Wright? For those of you who may be interested in the justification debate between John Piper & N.T. Wright (and a whole host of others…), Trevin Wax put together an overview that was published in Christianity Today this past month. It is now available at his blog. [...]
Pingback by Piper vs. Wright? « samuel arthur haist — June 26, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Nice articles, but I think you’re missing the point–or rather the Bishop’s point. He is not just saying that Piper et al are looking at the Doctrine of Justification through 16th century eyes, but that they are basically yanking it out of Paul’s overall argument in his epistles. The Bishop is saying, first, look at the Doctrine through 1st century eyes–Paul’s–but ALSO in the larger context so we get:
Piper–Doctrine of Justifaction–How I get saved–Anthropology
Wright–Doctrine of Justification–Gods saving Purpose for the WORLD–Theology
Blessings.
Comment by Mich — June 26, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=83876
The Justification debate is new to me. However, I have heard of Piper and NT Wright before.
The article does mention that Piper sees the First Century Jews as using “works of the Law” as a way of establishing their righteousness, but NT Wright sees the First Century Jews as using “works of the Law” as a sign that they are part of the covenant with God, in other words, like a badge that marks them.
However, it is difficult to understand the difference between Piper and NT Wright.
They both seem to say that faith is central to being saved.
Comment by The — June 27, 2009 @ 9:29 am
[...] received a notification via Twitter¹ that “Christianity Today” is hosting an article by Trevin Wax, titled “The Justification Debate: A [...]
Pingback by The “New Perspective on Paul” in a Nutshell « Theology & Culture — June 28, 2009 @ 12:49 am
[...] Piper vs. Wright on Justification: A Layman’s Guide [...]
Pingback by Sunday Shorts (06/28) « Blogging Theologically — June 28, 2009 @ 5:17 am
Thank you so much for linking to this. There is no way on earth I could have the time to read what the two men have written about the subject, and this will be a big help.
Comment by Andrew Comings — June 29, 2009 @ 8:30 am
An old Chinese proverb says, ” Correct definitions are the beginning of wisdom”. It seems that NT and Piper have been wrestling, over this for some time like two Sumo Wrestlers, ” Righteousness, ” Justification”. NT has a broad mind and his real calling may be a biblical theologian, the big picture. But Piper has called the bishop onto the mat, over clarity, what does it mean to be saved, how am I saved, how do we apply redemption in your system???? Does justification mean how this is applied, if so it becomes of supreme importance, thus the debate. But if it is esoteric information than it is not worth the ink. But as Luther struggled to make Romanism work and it failed him, after many and long attempts, is the Bishop now telling us in a very subtle way, it does work. Is he trying to make Reformation, and Romanism really debated something that was never there on either side. He wants to bring Rome and evangelicals together with a modified Dunn theology, is this more than we can take without a fight? With brilliant argumentation, and even insightful biblical theology, are we to throw over board, Calvin who preached the bible from the Hebrew text and the Greek text to his congregation, or Luther who was an Old Testament theologian, they never saw the implications of these words in the whole canon? It seems the bishop has been very muddy in how his system applies justification to our personal life. Luther’s wisdom may win out, the reason justification is the article on which the church rises or falls is, how is it applied for Luther, Rome gave no answers and left him lost, in a doctrine of death and ressurection, but no application to life. Justificaion open the doors for Luther in his study, as he read Romans, redeption applied that started the reformation revolution. To say all was for naught, if only Jimmy Dunn was there is a wild swinging heavy, but are we to buy all without questions and real anwers????? Piper keep him on the mat we are learning more of his real views….
Comment by John Holmes — July 1, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
[...] to Works Paul Helm on N.T. Wright Paul Helm, again Paul Helm, first post in a 4-part series Trevin Wax’ on Piper vs. Wright on Justification: A Layman’s Guide Trevin Wax Michael Bird Interview Trevin Wax N.T. Wright Interview Trevin Wax: The Future of [...]
Pingback by Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision « ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ — July 2, 2009 @ 10:53 am
Gotta say, I think i’m with Wright on this one. For too long Western Christianity has tried to interpret first century Jewish issues with a post enlightenment, neatly packaged Greek philosophy. While I certainly appreciate Piper’s call to a truly holy life, I believe that his interpretation of Justification is more a product of medieval piety and the views it produced. As Christians I believe we really need to rethink the lenses we read unknowingly read the bible through. The Jews never believed that they could earn their salvation. God has always been and always will be a God of Grace. The purpose of the law was to set Israel apart from foreign nations and their “gods” so that the name and character of YHWH could be known ( and obeyed, etc…. all of these stem from an understanding of the reality of YHWH). It was not meant to grind their moral confidence to dust or provide a means of earning salvation. Thus, because of the faithfulness of Christ to the covenant as Israels representative ( and therefore the mediator between God and man) those who were once not included in the covenant can now receive the full benefits of it (forgiveness of sins, resurrection at the last day, eternal life, etc..) and among God’s chosen people. This is Justification : Those who were originally excluded from the people of God , ( and those who were but were not faithful) can now partake in the redemptive plan of God as his chosen people because of Christ’s faithfulness to the covenant. Thus the law is no longer what separates the people of god from the nations, faith in Christ as the Messiah and climax of history does.
RECOMMENDING RESOURCES
Jesus the Jewish Theologian by Brad Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables by Brad Young, The Mission of God by Christopher J.H. Wright ( NO RELATION to N.T.), Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright, Romans and the Theology of Paul by N.T Wright (article), Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus by Ann Spangler and Louis T., and more to come as soon as i finish them !!!
Comment by Steve D — July 3, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
k one more thing and i’ll shut up. One of you guys asked how does Justification apply to our lives personally? Well, as a person who is now , (assuming you have submitted your self to the Messiah as his disciple)included in the people of God, you now share in the redemptive plan of God. Just as God was to use Israel to make his name and character known to the nations, thereby blessing them… so you too are to be used by God to make his name and character known to the nations. Through YOU the world will now the God who lavishes grace and mercy on his people, who longs to see creation restored through the faithful stewardship of his people and who will accept nothing less than all your heart, mind, soul and strength. Through you, having been justified as one of his people, the world will come to know the it has longed for. Practicals? Feed the poor because God has always identified and cared for them. Love the foreigner because God has chosen to love you ( even though odds are you aren’t from chosen Israel. Hold your community to account, challenging (gracefully of course…) sin and always being prepared ” in season and out of season” to confess Christ as the Messiah. Live in peace with your fellow man, Serve ONE king ( not your own nationalistic agenda) and as Wright as put it ” Like an agled mirror” reflect the image of God to the world. These are the things that describe a person who has been justified by the faithfulness of Christ.
In the sure and certain hope of the age to come
Stephen
Comment by Steve D — July 3, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
Steve–no need to shut up, I agree with you!
We are Justified by faith in Christ-making us members of His covenant people, then by dying and rising with Christ–The Resurrection–and being sealed and empowered with the Spirit, we live out the Christian life reflecting His love into the world around us and manifesting Jesus as Lord in our Lives and speaking the Gospel to neighbors and government.
Peace.
Comment by Mich — July 4, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Steve,
You have pretty fairly described Wright’s position here, but have you read some of the more substantive critiques of his thoughts on justification? Personally, I am big fan of Wright in general (as you seem to be), but his proposals on justification are not without their problems. The best point that Piper makes is that righteousness language in Paul seems to be more directly tied to moral performance than covenantal credentials (note the way that Paul lays out the charge “No one is righteous” in Rom 3:10-18). Piper, however, is only one of a number of voices protesting Wright’s proposals. Wright’s (and Sanders’s) work on Judaism has come under serious criticism. The Justification and Variegated Nomism series, Simon Gathercole’s Where Is Boasting?, and Francis Watson’s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith all display the shortcomings of Sanders’s paradigm of covenantal nomism (on which Wright’s proposals depend) through hefty interaction with Jewish sources. The latter two in particular (because they are single author volumes and thus contain one coherent argument rather than a combination of various evaluations) well demonstrate from contemporary Jewish sources that there was a belief among Jews that final salvation was attained by means of one’s fidelity to the law. I would recommend consulting these works for more details (if you haven’t already).
Comment by Andrew Cowan — July 4, 2009 @ 1:31 pm