A discussion panel entitled N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification just came to my attention. The panelists are Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Dr. Denny Burk, Dr. Tom Schreiner, Dr. Mark Seifrid and Dr. Brian Vickers. I have expressed before frustration with the tone of such panels and surprise that people of the caliber of these scholars keep making distorted statements about what N. T. Wright has to say about justification. But, what I found particularly interesting was the quote below by Dr. Mohler which probably says a lot about the way some Evangelicals perceive N. T. Wright:

“In reading through his [Wright’s] work, listening to his lectures, having met him and having heard him, engaging in discussion with him, I think of the British meaning of the word “clever.” He is extremely clever. And, in this sense, I dare say that this cleverness is a real issue because it also comes hand in hand with an incredible, almost unspeakable, audacity because his claim is no less than that the protestant reformers and their heirs have misunderstood not only Paul and not only first century Judaism, but the doctrine of justification and thus the gospel.”

I wonder what the British meaning of the word “clever” is.

I am currently reading N. T. Wright’s book Justificaion: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision which is basically a response to John Piper’s book The Future of Justification. Although he interacts with Piper at various points in the book, it is not a point by point response which, in my opinion, makes it a much better read. I have read the first part of the book and gotten through his exegesis of Galatians. For those familiar with Wright’s work on this subject, there is probably not going to be a lot that is new, but I am finding that Wright is (re)explaining things in this book in a way that is proving to be extremely helpful for my understanding of justification and Paul in general. I specially appreciated his spending some time explaining exactly what he means by “covenant” (as in God’s righteousness being God’s faithfulness to the covenant). I won’t attempt to summarize it here because it is exactly within the context of all that he is saying in this book that “covenant” makes sense. All I can say is that people should read this book and try to listen to what Wright is saying.

Of course, this doesn’t mean people will get on board and change their worldviews or shift their paradigms. One good example is the Boyce College’s panel Assessing the Piper-Wright Debate on Justification. This was done before the book was released in the US, and I am already surprised at the comments from the panel (after only reading half of the book). As a matter of fact, I recommend that you read the comments at Denny Burk’s blog which, in my opinion, proved to be a lot more helpful than the panel itself. Now that the book has been released here, we are starting to see some helpful reviews, and one that may bring a little balance to this discussion is Scot McKnight’s review.
Read more »

Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2008.

Unlocking Romans first came to my attention in a post by Foolish Tarheel Daniel Kirk’s New Book: Unlocking Romans. Although I was not planning to read anything on Romans now (since I had spent some time on it last year), I was impressed by FT’s recommendation of Daniel Kirk as a person and his work. FT thinks that Kirk’s exegesis is “careful and sensitive” and whose sensitivity spans from “historical, cultural, communal, and theological issues of the first century to missional, practical, theological, and pastoral concerns for both then and now.” With this recommendation and the fact that Daniel Kirk would probably interact with the New Perspective on Paul, I decided to read the book. I was not disappointed.

Starting with the question of “Who is God?,” Kirk says that “no question is more central to the study of Paul than to determine at the outset which God we expect to find as the topic of his letters” (2). Can God be defined in universal terms without reference to the story of Israel? His answer is no.

If this is true, then we need to start asking questions about how God will fulfill his promises to Israel and be faithful to His covenant. Therefore the following statement gets to the heart of the thesis of the book:

“In Romans, the resurrection of Jesus becomes Paul’s key for demonstrating that the promises contained in the Scriptures have been fulfilled in the Christ event…Because Paul’s God is the God of particulars, the God whose righteousness is tied to a particular story in which God has promised to act in a particular way and to bless a particular people, Paul must show that his gospel message makes sense as the fulfillment of that God’s actions fulfilling precisely those promises and blessing that particular people” (8).

Basically, Jesus’ resurrection is the hermeneutical key for understanding Romans. In a sense, this book is proposing that Paul’s hermeneutics is a hermeneutics of resurrection.
Read more »