![\"Justification\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/NTWright-Justification.png\")
<\/a>N. T. Wright, Justification: God\u2019s Plan and Paul\u2019s Vision<\/i><\/a> (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 279 pages, ISBN 9780830838639.<\/b><\/p>\nJustification<\/i> <\/a>is N. T. Wright\u2019s response to John Piper\u2019s critique of several of Wright\u2019s earlier writings. If those earlier writings from Wright are installments in a program, Justification<\/i> <\/a>is the program\u2019s hub\u2014the point at which it all comes together, and at which the program is presented in a most easily understandable form. (Wright informs us, however, that a more programmatic hub is forthcoming in the form of a \u201cbig book\u201d on Paul.)<\/p>\n This book towers in presence and importance over Wright\u2019s other popularizing works. In the context of theological books aimed at a lay readership, it towers above most of the land as well\u2014it is (at least) a sort of \u201cbook of the year\u201d. While scholars who write repeatedly for lay readers tend to let their academic guard down, Wright remains rigorous throughout this book, perhaps because he is writing in response to parties who will call him on the carpet for any slip.<\/p>\n Given the book\u2019s popularizing and argumentative bent, it seems, at points, to be more invested in rhetoric than in substance. Wright harps a bit too much (in this reader\u2019s opinion) on how traditional Reformed soteriology is usually couched in terms of \u201cme and my salvation\u201d, rather than in terms of what God is doing on a more cosmic scale. (Wright insists that God\u2019s salvation is so much more than \u201cpersonal\u201d salvation.) While Wright\u2019s point is not completely invalid, he presses it too far. After all, should we not expect Paul to tailor his message to people asking about \u201cme and my salvation\u201d? Are we to believe that the ancients did not think in those terms, and that Paul would not have reacted accordingly? My point is that Wright tries to make this rhetoric lift more than it can, and he should have made at least some effort to establishing his point exegetically, especially since he makes such a big deal of doing so on all other points. Other aspects of Wright\u2019s rhetoric are measured out more advisedly. His constant insistence on reading Scripture on its own terms rather than through the lens of tradition is fair and especially fitting, all the more so given the context of the debate with Piper. Wright insists on letting Paul speak for himself.<\/p>\n Wright connects \u201cjustification\u201d to (just about) all that God did to redeem creation, but the term itself, he claims, refers only to the lawcourt-drama aspect of salvation. The lawcourt image is but a metaphor, and God\u2019s salvation consists of so much more. God\u2019s focus is on redeeming all of creation. Given this supposition, Wright\u2019s attempt to remove the term from a narrow focus on personal salvation (esp. the courtroom drama) is understandable. Wright ties everything back to God\u2019s covenant with Abraham, which, on his account, comprises the center of all God\u2019s redeeming activity. Most parts of his argument, I think, are convincing, and he especially convinces in overturning others\u2019 attempts to treat Abraham\u2019s role in Romans 4 as merely an example of how God\u2019s salvation works. Another strong part of Wright\u2019s overall program is found in his constant reminder that the \u201cwe\u201d in Paul\u2019s arguments often refers to the apostles rather than to believers in general. Wright establishes this point conclusively, I think, in a brilliant exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5, showing that the apostles, rather than the Corinthians (or Christians in general), are the \u201cministers of reconciliation\u201d. Perhaps the weakest point of Wright\u2019s overall program lies in his attempts to find exodus typology under every stone. (He even thinks that water baptism typologically recalls the exodus.)<\/p>\n Overall, this is an important book. While it might seem a bit too academic for some, it is well worth the trouble to read. Wright writes in an easy engaging style\u2013with all the measuredness of someone who has been interviewed a thousand times. And the subject matter of this book could not be more important.<\/p>\n Reviewed by John C. Poirier<\/i><\/p>\n For Further Discussion: <\/strong>
\nInterview with N. T. Wright: youtube.com\/watch?v=fwHD9SHpKR4<\/a><\/p>\n