This past Sunday was a special day. For the second year in a row, we had a combined service in the parking lot of the new building for our north campus. There easily could have been around 4,000 people there in attendance and it was exciting to be together worshipping God with one voice. And John Piper was back! He again thanked us for his sabbatical, and then delivered a great message.
As is typical upon his return from a writing leave, Piper preached a message birthed from his thoughts and labor over the writing of his books during the past few months. As soon as the sermon is posted onine at Desiring God, I plan to link to it. [update, it is posted now, read it by clicking here. Also, Justin Taylor recently provided the link to the audio, in a recent post providing an excerpt from this same sermon.] But I couldn’t wait until then to comment on it. The sermon’s text was Luke 18:9-14, the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector. While his main point had to do with his book on Justification’s importance (an answer to N.T. Wright), he also touched on a topic relative to his other book on the demands of Jesus in the Gospels. I want to discuss both of these points below.
The Gospels
Piper stressed that in going through all of Jesus’ commands in the Gospels, he discovered one very important consideration. You must read the Gospels backward. By this he meant that you must always keep in mind that Christ was coming to die and shed His blood to provide for our justification and redemption. This thought really riveted me, as I will explain in a second, but first we must look to his proof.
Piper showed that each of the Biblical writers of the Gospels had clues in their book that this was the case. Matthew, Luke, and John all have such clues at the beginning of their works: Matt. 1:21, Luke 2:10-11, & John 1:29. And for Mark, the very structure of his book trumpets this fact. His book spends half of its chapters dealing with the very last week of Jesus’ life. I would marshall a few other considerations to defend Piper’s point. One, Mark 1:1 would be in the vein of the opening declarations in Matthew, Luke, and John mentioned above. But, secondly, consider that all of these Gospels were written several years (30 to 50 or more) after Jesus’ life. Certainly as the writers themselves had been experiencing the new covenant blessings bought by Christ’s death, they were writing in light of them. They were not out to give a historical biography primarily, rather they were trying to give a thematic biography centering on Jesus’ gospel/the gospel of Christianity–which centered on Christ’s atoning work on the Cross and His resurrection. That is why each of those books begins with the title, “The Gospel according to…”.
This truth, that the everything in the Gospels has the cross ultimately in view, has some astounding implications. Piper stressed one of them. Namely, that Jesus’ commands are not suggestions for living a blessed life. They are not a creed for having a successful Business. (Piper was pretty emphatic on this, saying it made him sick that people use Christ’s teaching as a basis for business success, when they really need to hear Christ’s message and be saved.) Neither are they requirements for living the kind of life that will let you in to heaven. Rather, the commands first highlight your guilt in the fact that you cannot keep them, and then they point you to dependence on the only one who can keep them–Jesus Christ. Further, they are given with the seeking and saving ministry of Christ fulfilled on the Cross in view.
Another implication that I immediately considered has to do with a proper hermeneutical approach. Dispensationalists often emphasize that Christ came to offer his kingdom first and then being rebuffed, went to the Cross. Now some make it seem like His purposes were thwarted, while others emphasize that He knew all along that he would be rejected, but in either case this view leads to such extremes as a hyper dispensationalism which disallows virtually any application of the Gospels to our Christian life today, and free grace theology which declares that Christ’s hard sayings in the gospels are not for us today–they have no bearing on what is necessary for salvation in this dispensation. Not all who hold those extreme views would say it exactly as I do above, but many think that way, I am sure. This is where reading the Gospels backward seems to demolish these views. Every chapter of the Gospels has the end of Christ’s life in view–in the author’s mind, and even in Christ’s mind for he is speaking and working to that end. This should at the least inform our hermeneutic. And it might help us avoid some of the extremes birthed from an incorrect view of the Gospels.
Justification
The core of the message centered on the doctrine of justification. From the first and last verses in the story, Piper concludes it is clear the passage is about justification. But he made an important assessment of the passage which has great bearing on N.T. Wright and his doctrinal teachings concerning justification.
Piper sees no reason to doubt the Pharisee’s self assessment. He had a righteousness which was moral, ceremonial, and God-given. Piper highlighted the words “God, I thank you that…”. While we cannot say for sure if the Pharisee was a synergist or monergist, Arminian or Calvinist, clearly he attributed his righteousness to God and not his own self merit. So Piper argues the Pharisee is NOT a legalist. He was not working for his salvation, he saw his works as being given graciously from God.
But he WAS trusting in his righteousness to secure his standing before God–this much Christ makes clear. N.T. Wright and a rapidly increasing number of theologians are saying that our Christ-wrought righteousness is the very basis of our acceptance with God/our justification. Yet this passage teaches that it is not a God-given righteousness in which we should trust, but rather we should be looking away from ourselves and trusting/pleading for God’s mercy as the publican does. This is not to say God-given righteousness is not important, but it is to say that looking at the righteousness as our surety is not only wrong but perilously so.
With sadness, Piper concluded the message emphasizing four words Christ spoke: “rather than the other”. Piper said he can see no reason for those four words in v. 14 other than Christ making it absolutely clear what we should expect of the Pharisee and others who “(trust) in themselves that they (are) righteous”, namely that they are not justified and have no place in heaven. Piper made it clear that he would rather not think such of those who disagree with the historic doctrine of justification–for he knows many people who do; but this passage forces him too. He also made it clear that he believes some who follow this new teaching do not really believe it, but sadly others like the Pharisee do. It was a sobering message, for sure, and a foretaste of his book which hopefully will be published soon.
Read the Gospels backward! First the indicative (What Christ did for us), second the imperative (How we are to respond to Him)! That’s right up my alley!
Interesting angle to emphasize that while the Pharisee attributed his works to be a free gift of God, he was trusting that those freely given works were the basis of his justification before God. Sounds like a classic case of confusing justification and sanctification.
We’re not justified by our sanctification, nor do we remain justified by our sanctification, we pursue sanctification by God’s grace BECAUSE we’ve been justified by God’s grace!
Those who haven’t been justified by grace through faith, either don’t pursue sanctification, or will become a failure or a phony (a Pharisee!).
I do think that the dispensational reading of the gospels is artificial. I also think that the point of the gospels is first to reveal who Christ is and out of that what he did.
Isn’t it possible that the Pharisee’s problem was that he thought he was righteous (thanking God for the fact being a way to bring the fact up) but wasn’t? That those who recieve mercy are the sorrowful and penitent?
Thanks for the good comments, John.
Alana,
Glad to hear you agree on the Gospels, and yes I am sure they stress who Christ is as that is integral to the nature of his mission and the nature of the Gospel.
I am sure it is possibile the Pharisee only thought he was righteous, yet Christ does not criticize him for that. I am sure Piper has other reasons for concluding as he does about that parable, having heard many messages from him, I know that all the exegetical and contextual options and points are weighed before he concludes on something. He mentioned this passage would be pivotal in his new book on justification, and so I am sure he will defend all the reasons for his conclusion there.
It is true that those who have no justification are not truly righteous, but externally they appear so. Yes, only the sorrowful and penitent receive mercy–but not because they are sorrowful and penitent, but only on the basis of Christ’s righteous and His graciousness to forgive his people. The sorrow and penitence and also the God-given righteous are evidences of a possessed justification because of Spirit-wrought faith, but these evidences are not to be confused as the basis of our acceptance with God. N.T. Wright, and other modern theologians are saying that God judges based on the works/evidences and that this righteousness is the basis of acceptance with God. They are totally discounting the substitutionary atonement theory of Christ suffering for our sins and to provide us with His righteousness. That is what Piper believes this passage clearly gets at.
Good questions, and I am not sure I have the definitive answer. Piper has other reasons for his conclusion, but I have not seen them.
Thanks for stopping by, Alana.
God bless.
It will be interesting to read the book. I’m glad someone is defending substitutionary atonement and justification by faith against those who are attacking it in the name of orthodoxy. I think within our own circles, where such doctrines are never questioned, it’s an even more important defense to bring back the other doctrines of the gospel fully.
I’m afraid I’m not familiar with Wright but I have little inclination to sympathize with the generality of modern theologians. They always seem to be chipping away at something or other, don’t they?
So if I understand you, you see penitence, righteous living, and etc. as evidence of justification? I had thought they were evidences of regeneration, which is a pretty different thing though simultaneous, surely. And as such they could be seen as pleasing to God in themselves – I’m pretty sure the scriptures, especially the O.T. make that clear – though not a basis of reconciliation between the sinner and God.
Is Wright saying that Christ’s righteousness or the sinner’s reformed character is the basis of acceptance? Is he denying substitutionary atonement in favor of imputed righteousness or in favor of mere repentance?
Great chatting with you, by the way. This blog is doing great.
God keep you.
Alana,
Good point. Technically the works are evidences of regeneration. But they also are pointers as to who we should assume is truly justified.
I agree these works are vital and essential but not the basis of reconciliation. The works testify to the reality of the claimed faith. Now granted works are only seen absolutely clearly by God, and there are times we as humans might make improper judgements on the basis of others’ works.
As for Wright, it appears he is emphasizing the character of the individuals as covenant members as what is the basis of their acceptance with God. He explicitly denies imputed righteousness and then redefines justification. I am no expert on him, but you can go to this article and this one, to gain some knowledge and see some other links about him. I admit I am going by what others whom I respect and who have studied the issue in depth say on this one.
Thanks for chatting–I enjoy it too.
Thanks for the post, and please to continue to update us about Piper’s book — I fear it is much needed. I keep hearing Wright lauded as an Evangelical and adept scholar, even among old friends with much the same theological convictions as I have. However, as soon as you say that Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to us, I don’t care how many other good and helpful things you say, you have in that one sentence alone denied the gospel. Wright may appear harmless because he has so many good things to say, and “is this not a minor, semantical squabble?” But in spite of the many good things he says, his teaching on the imputation is vastly destructive to the gospel.
Anyway, thanks again, and keep us updated.
It was sad to see Piper twist this text in Luke in order to make it a polemic against Wright. The Pharisee’s pride in his own moral behavior is clearly the problem. He overlooks the sin in his life. He’s just happy that he’s better than the tax collector. The problem is not his trusting in his justified status as opposed to Christ’s work on the cross. That seemed really contrived.
Wright’s view of justication is very complex and it takes time and study to understand it properly. Piper’s sermon indicates that he doesn’t understand it. Wright views justication in terms of God’s covenant with Abraham. Here’s a paper that will give you a better understanding of Wright’s interpretation of this important doctrine.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf