John Piper’s “The Future of Justification”

Having spent some time with N. T. Wright’s “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP), we’re now ready to engage John Piper’s critique in The Future of Justification. Here is a brief chapter by chapter summary:

Introduction. Key quote: “My conviction concerning N. T. Wright is not that he is under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, but that his portrayal of the gospel – and of the doctrine of justification in particular – is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize as biblically faithful.”

Chapter 1: Caution: Not all Biblcial-Theological Methods and Categories are Illuminating. Key thought: Both systematic and biblical theology have the potential to distort an accurate exegesis of the text. Wright allows biblical theology to distort.

• Biblical theology can distort through:
  • A misunderstanding of first-century ideas or a greater confidence in these extra-biblical sources than the biblical source
  • A misunderstanding that one particular first-century idea may not represent other first-century ideas.
  • A misapplication of external idea to the biblical text. An NT writer may go beyond the extra-biblical material.
• Wright, despite his Anglican background, is overly enamored with “new ideas.”

Chapter 2: The Relationship between Covenant and Law-Court Imagery for Justification. Key thought: Wright believes that the gospel leads to covenant membership which leads to justification. Piper believes that the gospel leads to justification which leads to covenant membership.

• “For N. T. Wright, God’s covenant with Israel is the dominant concept for understanding Paul and justification.”
• Wright’s definition of justification (a declaration that a person is in the covenant family) fails because: 1) certain texts don’t allow for this meaning (Rom. 3:4, 1 Tim. 3:16) and 2) when Paul uses justification it accomplishes something (Rom. 5:1)
• For Piper, “justification does not denote or mean covenant membership, but it does imply covenant membership.”

Chapter 3: The Law-Court Dynamics of Justification and the Meaning of God’s Righteousness. Key thought: Contrary to Wright, justification occurs in the present and God’s righteousness is an allegiance/vindication of God’s glory.

• The term “justification” is often used for ordinary courtrooms and other immediate settings (Deut. 25:1, 1 Kings 8:32, Job 33:32, Is. 5:23, etc).
• By contrasting the righteousness of the judge and the righteousness of the plaintiff/defendant, Wright denies imputed righteousness. In doing so, he ignores 1,500 years of church history and interpretation.
• For Piper, the key of God’s righteousness is not God’s covenant faithfulness but God’s ultimate allegiance to His glory, not his covenant. Similarly, sin is failing to glorify God, so God does provide His righteousness in the sense that He gives people allegiance to His glory.

Chapter 4: The Law-Court Dynamics of Justification and the Necessity of Real Moral Righteousness. Key thought: Since God is an omniscient judge he does not merely acquit and forgive (as Wright claims), but he imputes righteousness.

• “Wright’s way of setting up the law-court imagery is that it does not seem to come to terms with the fact that the judge is omniscient.”
• Justification is more than acquittal and forgiveness (as Wright claims) because Romans 4:4-6 speaks of imputation of righteousness.
• “And an omniscient, just judge does not say that a defendant has moral righteousness when he is guilty of having no moral righteousness – unless there is a way that an alien moral righteousness can be counted as his.”

Chapter 5: Justification and the gospel: When Is the Lordship of Jesus Good News? Key thought: Contrary to Wright, the gospel does include justification and does lead to salvation.

• Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:38-48 clearly relates the preaching of the good news to the reality of salvation. (See also Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. 15:1-3)
• Without an understanding of justification, the gospel that “Jesus is Lord” doesn’t really provide any “good news.” It is merely an empty belief.
• Escape from wrath is not a subplot of the gospel. Rather, the gospel must answer the question, “why does Jesus as Lord help me as a guilty sinner?” (See 1 Cor. 15:1-3).

Chapter 6: Justification and the Gospel: Does Justification Determine Our Standing with God? Key thought: Wright acknowledges that justification occurs immediately after the call to faith but he denies that it is a part of conversion. Piper says it is an essential aspect of conversion because of how it changes our standing with God.

• Wright claims that God’s effectual call awakens our faith by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 1:23-24) which places us in the covenant family. Justification, then, confirms this standing and gives assurance of this standing. “In other words, the divine act of justification is not part of what God does in putting us in right standing with himself but is the declaration that we are in that position.”
• Piper agrees that “justification does not consist in the changes of the human heart in conversion.”
• But, Piper claims, that “justification is the change that takes place in the relationship between a sinner and God at the moment of faith” (see Rom. 5:1).

Chapter 7: The Place of Our Works in Justification. Key thought: Piper and Wright agree that justification should lead to good works, but Piper denies that they are in any manner the basis of justification.

• Wright understands the Rom. 2:13 justification by works as the obedience of our lives that is produced by the Holy Spirit (not legalism or merit).
• Piper provides at least four other interpretive options for Rom. 2:13.
• Piper responds to Wright’s accusation that Reformed pastors and scholars do not talk about the role of works enough with a summary of four historic Reformed confessions of faith.
• “I have no hesitancy in agreeing with Wright when he says, ‘The attempt to shore up justification by faith in saying that the life we now live will be irrelevant at the final judgment is unPauline, unpastoral and ultimately dishonouring to God himself.’ On that we agree.”

Chapter 8: Does Wright Say with Different Words What the Reformed Tradition Means by “Imputed Righteousness”? Key thought: When Wright speaks of imputation, he means the imputation of status (covenant membership), not the imputation of obedience, which makes the role of works in justification ambiguous.

• Wright claims that he agrees in theory with the traditional protestant view of imputation (which is related to union with Christ), he merely disagrees with the language that is often used to describe it. Wright believes imputation is taught in Romans 6:1-6 and Galatians 2:19-20.
• But Piper claims that Wright doesn’t completely agree with the traditional protestant view because he doesn’t speak of the imputation of obedience.

• Traditional Reformed: Faith-Union with Christ-Imputation of Christ’ death, obedience, resurrection-Assurance of final vindication. Piper believes this is taught in Romans 4:1-6 and Romans 5:12-19.
• Wright: Faith-Union with Christ-Imputation of Christ’ death, __________, resurrection-Assurance of final vindication.

• Piper claims this absence has three problems: 1) “it leaves the gift of the status of vindication without foundation in real perfect imputed obedience,” 2) “This absence of a foundation for our vindication, in real perfect obedience, results in a vacuum that our own Spirit-enabled, but imperfect, obedience seems to fill as a part of the foundation or ground or basis alongside the atoning death of Jesus,” and 3) “the ambiguity about how works function in “future justification” leaves us unsure how they function in present justification.”
• Wright is even more ambiguous when he states that justification by “faith” may mean the same as justification by “faithfulness/faithful obedience.”

Chapter 9: Paul’s Structural Continuity with Second-Temple Judaism. Key thought: Wright sees a structural similarity between Paul and the Qumran community, namely, they enter the covenant by grace and live lives of obedience out of gratitude for this grace.

• For Wright, the Jewish “works of the law” are not efforts made in attempt to earn salvation, but are “markers/badges” that identify God’s chosen people in the present.
• Wright says that when Paul challenges “works of the law” he is not challenging legalism, but that they are promoting the wrong “marks.” For Paul, the only “mark/badge” of God’s chosen people is faith in Christ.
• Therefore, the problem in Galatia (according to Wright) is not legalism but a form of ethnocentrism, failure to see that faith in Christ is a “marker/badge” for God’s chosen people including Gentiles.
• Piper provides six implications of this view: 1) Judaism is a religion of grace, not legalism, 2) the Galatian Jews weren’t demanding legalism but were demanding Jewish “marks,” 3) “works of the law” are done out of gratitude for gracious salvation, 4) Paul opposes “justification by works” because the “works” are acutally incorrect markers (sabbath, circumcision, diet), 5) “justification by faith” is not how a person gets saved, but how one knows who is in the saved community, namely, the mark of faith, and 6) the gospel eliminates all ethnic boundaries.

Chapter 10: The Implications for Justification in the Single Self-Righteous Root of “Ethnic Badges” and “Self-Help Moralism.” Key thought: Piper believes that Wright has failed to realize that some parts of Judaism were legalistic and that, even if ethnocentrism is the issue, this has the same self-righteousness as legalism.

• Piper believes that even people who believe in God’s grace can act legalistically. He believes that 4QMMT (the primary Qumran document Wright utilizes to support his views) shows this type of legalism.
• Wright claims that Paul’s conversion did not change his Israelite zeal, but Piper claims that Paul often speaks negatively of his life as a Pharisee (Eph. 2:3, . This supports Piper’s claim that some Jews did act legalistically.
• Piper points out that Jesus seems to condemn legalism as well (Matt. 12:39, Matt. 16:4, Matt. 23:5, Matt. 23:13, Matt. 23:25-28, Luke 18:9-11, John 5:44.
• Even if the primary issue in Galatia was ethnocentrism, this poses a similar problem as legalism: “the root of ethnic pride is the same root as legalism, namely, self-righteousness, and that this root can produce branches that boast in God’s grace…The issue was that the Jewish badge itself (circumcision, diet laws, etc) had become the trust of many Jews (like the Pharisee in the parable of Jesus) and was thus a means of exalting self, not God and had therefore led to contempt for others, and was therefore a morally unrighteous form of legalism.”

Chapter 11: “That in Him We Might Become the Righteousness of God.” Key thought: Wright’s view of justification as covenant faithfulness is too shallow, Piper believes “God counts us as having his righteousness in Christ because we are united to Christ by faith alone.”

• Romans 4:3-8. In this passage Paul uses justification not as law-court language, but as a ledger, “a book in which are ‘counted’ a person’s ‘wages.’”
• Romans 5:18-19. This passage reveals the imputation of Adam’s sin (not just guilt) and the imputation of Christ’s obedience.
• Philippians 3:9. “Notice that the righteousnes Paul counts on having ‘from God’ is pursued with a longing to ‘be found in Christ.’ The righteousness that he has ishis because he is ‘found in Christ.’”
• 1 Corinthians 1:30. Wright acknowledges that this may be the one verse that teaches imputation and Piper affirms this in some detail.
• 2 Corinthians 5:21. This is the most significant imputation passage in the Bible, and is Wright’s most unique exegesis.

Conclusion. “My ultimate reason for writing this book is to avert the double tragedy that will come where the obedience of Christ, imputed to us through faith alone, is denied or obscured. Inevitably, in the wake of that denial, our own works – the fruit of the Holy Spirit – begin to take on a function that contradicts the very reason that these good works exist. They exist to display the beauty and worth of Christ whose sacrifice and obedience (counted as ours through faith alone) are the only and all-sufficient security of the factthat God is completely for us. That’s the first tragedy…The other tragedy that I pray we can avert is the undermining of the very thing that makes the works of love possible. What makes radical, risk-taking, sacrificial, Christ-exalting works of love possible is the fact that Christ’s perfect obedience (counted as our righteousness) and Christ’s perfect sacrifice (counted as our punishment) secured completely the glorious reality that GOd is for us as an omnipotent Father who works all things together for our everlasting joy in him.”

John Piper’s book concludes with six appendices. They are not reviewed here because they were not written in response to N. T. Wright.