Product Description

This book is a magisterial response to the recent spate of criticism directed at Tom Wright for his theology of justification. He introduces readers to the debate and outlines his position without engaging in polemic against his opponents. 'This sprightly and gracious, yet robust, work is Tom Wright's carefully argued and scripturally based response to those who think that he has deeply misunderstood Paul's doctrine of justification… This is definitely one of the most exciting and significant books that I have read this year… Strongly commended!' Professor I. Howard Marshall, University of Aberdeen

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #36865 in Books
• Published on: 2009-02-19
• Binding: Paperback
• 256 pages

Review
"This sprightly and gracious, yet robust, work is Tom Wright's carefully argued and scripturally based response to those who think that he has deeply misunderstood Paul's doctrine of justification... This is definitely one of the most exciting and significant books that I have read this year... Strongly commended! Professor I. Howard Marshall, University of Aberdeen 'Paul's gospel of God's reconciling, world-transforming grace has no more ardent and eloquent exponent in our time than Tom Wright. If his detractors read this book carefully, they will find themselves engaged in close exegesis of Paul's letters, and they will be challenged to join Wright in grappling with the deepest logic of Paul's message... Wright's sweeping, incisive sketch of Paul's thought, set forward in this book, will help us all in that task.' Professor Richard B. Hays, the Divinity School, Duke University"

About the Author
Tom Wright is the Bishop of Durham and is a regular broadcaster on radio and television. He is the author of over forty books, including the For Everyone guides to the New Testament, the highly acclaimed series Christian Origins and the Question of God, and the best-selling books Simply Christian and Surprised by Hope.

Customer Reviews

Brilliant and . . .
N. T. Wright's response to John Piper's critique (The Future of Justification) is his most thorough book on Paul yet. It is, in many ways, a masterful unpacking of Paul's thought. Wright shows how Paul's theology of justification is grounded in God's covenant with Abraham and plan to bring redemption to the world through Israel, and ultimately through Jesus. He explores how justification is informed by Jewish law-court imagery, eschatology, and Christology. Wright's unpacking of the narrative substructure to Paul's thought is, at times, brilliant. And after reading this book, I think that Wright and Piper are actually much closer in their thinking than either one of them may think.

However, confusion and misunderstanding continues, and this due not least of all, to Wright himself. It's unfortunate that he sometimes caricatures positions that he rejects out of hand and misconstrues the thought and theology of his opponents. (Can anyone who knows John Piper seriously believe that there is no place for the Holy Spirit in his theology?!) Wright's reasons for rejecting imputation are not fully convincing. I still suspect that he takes some wrong steps in his exegesis at some crucial points. And his articulation of how justification by faith in the present relates to future judgment according to works is still a little fuzzy and subject to misunderstanding.

With that said, I think Wright's unpacking of the believer's union with Christ comes fairly close to achieving what imputation achieves for Piper and traditional Reformed theology. Not all his critics agree, but Wright should at least be carefully read and listened to before stones are cast.

I've heard Don Carson say before that Wright's problem is in backgrounding what should be in the foreground and foregrounding what should be in the background. I think I understand that critique. But after reading both Wright and Piper (and Waters, and Westerholm, and Carson, and Moo!) I am wanting to see a synthesis of the different insights and strengths these pastors and scholars bring to the table.

I recommend this book to those who are following the conversation on the New Perspective on Paul. If you've read Piper, definitely read Wright. But in my opinion, it would be better to read neither than to read only one side of the argument. 3 1/2 stars.

Breathtaking, Insightful, Necessary
This is one of the most extraordinary books to come out of the theologically conservative camp in the past fifty years. Wright both cogently and devastatingly shows how conventional evangelical notions of "justification by faith" are construed out of garbled, cliched, and ultimately shallow readings of the New Testament. Or to put it another way: they are gleaned from the teachings of the Reformers (Luther in particular) rather than the Bible. The problem with Luther, Wright opines, is that he assumes that Paul was addressing the Roman Catholic Church in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians. This exegetical stance has wrongfooted generations of Protestant Christians.The Mosaic Law, Wright contends, was not given to the Jews so that they might keep it and thus be assured of heaven when they die, for the Law had already been given to Israel "after" God had redeemed the nation. Rather by keeping the Law Jews signified their status as God's chosen people and their calling to bring light to the Gentiles. Their failure to fulfil this mission meant that in his own life and sacrificial death Jesus the Messiah lived out Israel's original calling. Salvation, then, is about incorporation into the life, death, and resurrection of Christ - such that his life, death, and resurrection become in turn the believers' new mode of existence. For Wright "justification by faith", as traditionally understood in Protestant circles, is too "man centred". It's typically about "my" faith, my "personal" salvation, etc., which stands over against Paul's (more communal) notion of salvation because of Christ's faith and faithfulness.

However Wright's exclusive focus on Paul raises questions about other parts of Scripture, and whether, in the case of the synoptic gospels, for instance, we can so readily assume that first century Jews believed they were saved simply because they were the chosen people. Matt 19:16-30 (cf. Lk 18:18-30, Mk 10:17-22) records an incident where a Jew approached Jesus and asked what he must do to "inherit eternal life". Jesus answered: "keep the commandments". At a superficial level this doesn't fit easily with the scenario which Wright presupposes above - and at least opens up other avenues of interpretation. Even so,this is no mean book. Every conservative evangelical Christian should read it at least five times. It is spiritually demanding, challenging, and rewarding.

There is more to the cross than "sin management theology"
I have been very much influenced by Mark Driscoll's sermons since I first listened in 18 months ago. But if I think about it he doesn't introduce any different ideas or emphasis from the emphasis I was taught growing up in a Conservative Evangelical Church here in Wales. He does it in a more cool/hip/rad/street-cred/cussing way, but content and emphasis wise it's nothing new for me. Tom Wright on the other hand balances me off nicely from an emphasis that was missing in my conservative evangelical upbringing. I became a Christian around the age of 14 I think - but for many years after that I didn't grow in the faith because the only thing I was taught was sin management theology - I already got that and what I needed was a deeper understanding of the Cross, a deeper understanding of the restoration through Jesus, a deeper understanding of His Kingdom. From the age of 18 onwards I saw that there was more to Christianity than sin management theology and by the age of 23 when I first got hold of books by people like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and now Tom Wright I discovered that there were other Christians out there who had been through the same journey as me!

The emphasis of atonement for our personal sin is important, very important, perhaps the most important angle to get right but it is only half the story, the half I had been over fed with in the tradition I was bought up. Carrots and peas are good for you but eating only carrots and peas and nothing else is not good! It's not that I find the reformed evangelical account wrong; only that it tells half the story. There is another half to the story of the Cross and to the story of redemption and restoration. Perhaps Rob Bell and Brian McLaren over compensate a little at times (in the same way as some reformed evangelicals over compensate the other way) so we can look at Tom Wright as someone who gets the balance better to bring the discussion back to the centre. This is a'n important book.