This is spot on. The whole thing boils down to how Scripture is read. Is every single word to be exposited with earnestness. If someone says, “The whole town awoke,” does that mean every single person? Did Jesus really say, word for word, the Beattitudes? Etc Etc. Or, is the Bible the book of the Church in that it is all inspired, but not meant to be decoded in a sermon series on Romans lasting seven years? After all, four Gospels take up alot more space than one epistle in the canon. So, we get back to the question of the nature of the Bible, and why, if every word is inspired, we are not all encouraged to study the original languages versus Piper, Wright, or better yet, Eugene Peterson. On top of that, are Piper and Wright followers that devoted to truth, or to their respective church cultures. Given my observation of most peoples understanding, I’d have to say the latter. Both guys have hit on important aspects of truth. Both could be wrong on lots. Remember, Luther wanted at one point to trash several books of Scripture (think about that on the modern blogosphere” “Hey, guys, James is bullsh-t!”), and Calvin had a guy burned at the stake… after striving with him in love. It’s a fallen world. We need to choose carefully the swords we die on. How many people think C.S. Lewis would champion John Piper?

I continue to think this must be a cultural rather than exegetical problem. Other reviewers and endorsers of Wright’s book have said it to be the clearest presentation of his arguments yet. I too find myself very clear on his arguments and evidences. It must be a matter of plausibility structures, exposure and what one is accustomed to. That’s not a way of saying those who get it are more enlightened or educated, but simply to note that this debate ultimately exposes a deep divide within evangelicalism about what the Bible is and how one interprets it (and so what counts as “proof” of one’s interpretation).

Excellent point John, I think you’ve highlighted one of the key concerns here.

I would warn against the perception that Wright teaches that we are justified by our works and not by the righteousness of Christ. That is not the case. What he does say that gets him in trouble with Reformed folk is that “righteousness” and “justification” are not synoymous with “salvation” but have in view the more specific issue of how one is a member of the people of God. Most evangelical Reformed have learned to think about “justification” and “righteousness” as referring to the abstract question “how can one be morally perfect in the eyes of God and so have eternal life.” Wright says “righteousness” refers to one’s status with respect to the covenant God made with Abraham – one is “righteous” when he or she has fulfilled the covenant obligations and “unrighteous” when he or she has failed to do so. Same for God. Thus, the question Romans 1-4 is addressing is how can God be “righteous,” i.e. faithful to his covenant which promised salvation through the family of Abraham when the family of Abraham has been unfaithful to their end of the covenant. And Wright is very clear that the answer is only because Christ fulfills, as Israel’s representative, or Messiah, the covenantal obligations of the children of Abraham so that all who have faith in him are “righteous” with respect to that covenant and therefore members of God’s people through whom God blesses the world (per Genesis 15). The person who has faith in Christ has been justified because Christ has fulfilled humanity’s covenantal burden. Thus, God can be faithful to his covenant (righteous) by the work of Christ. It’s very similar to the traditional Reformed view, and many people have now noticed that, but he’s just refusing to answer some of the questions most dear to evangelicals (i.e., how does one get to heaven when they die?). To be sure, Wright does have answers for those questions, but his point is that those questions aren’t the one’s most dear to the text of Scripture; God is much more concerned with blessing the world – restoring the created order and humans into his image – through his chosen people than with trying to collect souls for eternal bliss. Wright wants our focus to be more biblical in this way. But he clearly says that it is Christ’s work, not ours that justifies us and makes us “righteous” which, again, is a member of the family of Abraham, not “morally acceptable in God’s eyes.” He’s just tweaking the concepts and definitions, but in a way that he thinks more closesly adheres to the canon of SCripture.

As one who has been reading Wright for twenty years I can guarantee you he is anything but shallow in any opinion that he ever takes. Perhaps Wright could be describing a world that you have yet to encounter. I am not a Wright apologist (no true scholar ever needs one) but he has always struck me as one who will humbly reconsider everything for the sake of the Scripture being what it is. How can he do this? Because the man trusts God. Hopefully we will have the same kind of confidence.

Just a thought from someone who likes aspects of other areas of both Wright and Piper’s works.

At least, Wright is approaching that balance.

Your comments are very thought-provoking, thank you.

Rather, what is being pointed out here is that BOTH the overall story of Scripture AND the individual contours and specific flow of thought in particular passages are important. To focus on one at the expense of the other is the true exegetical fallacy (it goes both ways, not just the one way T.C.R. mentioned). Both Piper and Wright agree on the proper methodology here (which is why these kinds of fussy debates between their followers is always so bizarre). Both men agree that the larger canonical storyline, grounded in history, AND the grammatical-historical details of individual texts must both be brought in to inform our exegesis. They just differ on what they think is there in Paul and the Bible with respect to justification. So let’s start dealing with the arguments, not with straw men.

I actually think Wright has a lot of helpful, right things to say, and I likewise think Piper is mistaken on numerous aspects of justification passages in Paul. But what is indisputable, clearly, at this point, is that most of Piper’s specific questions or objections in his book on justification were ignored by Wright in his new book, as he did not even attempt to provide answers or responses to Piper’s detailed exegesis. Wrong Piper may be on some issues here, but the “fly over” treatment Wright gives in his latest book is insufficient whether he is correct or not (simply giving superficial treatments of a host of NT letters does not count for in-depth exegesis, a point I am sure Wright himself would acknowledge).

Wright can (and no doubt will in his forthcoming book) do such exegesis. What people like Mathis are asking for is the kind of exegesis that some of Wright’s older stuff, like his articles in “Climax of the Covenant”, manifest. Actually dealing with the nitty-gritty of what Paul actually SAYS in the flow of argument in meticulate detail. So far, Piper has done this but Wright has not in any of his popular level treatments of justification. That doesn’t mean Piper is right. It just means that Wright has work to do, and it is absolutely appropriate for Mathis to ask for it.

The November 2009 issue of Themelios features yet another review of N.T. Wright’s Justification: Paul’s Vision and God’s Plan, this time by one David Mathis. David Mathis calls N.T. Wright’s exegesis into question: Exegesis has …

The November 2009 issue of Themelios features yet another review of N.T. Wright’s Justification: Paul’s Vision and God’s Plan, this time by one David Mathis. David Mathis calls N.T. Wright’s exegesis into question: Exegesis has …

What’s with all the suspicious questions? Mathis seems to be wondering, not just if Wright is a bad exegete, but if he is a fiendishly clever Straussian exegete who is masking his “real agenda”

That makes me a bit suspicious of Mathis

But, not all who have sympathies toward Wright are running to Rome. We are, in fact, seeking to uncover that Reformation in toto. Rome is still quite a distance away. Thankfully.

From what you are saying it is a critical subject – what righteousness and justification are and how they are applied to us affects our eternal salvation, and for those of us who preach, what we tell people that the Word of God is. I am not convinced though that the answer is to throw up our hands in despair and run to Rome!