On N.T. Wright's book, "Justification"

I’ve spent several hours digesting the opening chapters of N.T. Wright’s book, Justification. At this point I can only make a brief observation.

He misunderstands the nature of the covenant. Christ, not Israel, is the “linchpin” of the covenant.

Having said that, his emphasis on the teleos (goal) of God, that it is not “merely” the salvation of man, but the restoration of an entire world, is good if not limited from an Adventist perspective. (He misses the larger theme of the controversy between Christ and Satan and the vindication of God in judgment.)

His reading is vast in quantity but limited in scope. He seems unconcerned- he can hardly be unaware- of theological threads outside of the Lutheran / Calvinist tradition. Of course, this book is a direct reply to the Reformed scholar and pastor, John Piper, and other popular Reformed critics of his work. That does focus and understandably limit the discussion.

Yet considering the theological nature of the subject and Wright’s emphasis and inclusion of extra-biblical literature, one would think he would be as broad in his efforts toward a contemporary theological context. Adventist theology and the larger concerns of Arminian theology are absent members at the table, at least in is opening, repetitive salvo of the preface and first two chapters. 

One other point, more important than the above, one that applies generally to most theology I read. Few academic works on Scripture taste anything like it. They lack what is called “doxology”. Seldom do contemporary theologians, those who pride themselves on objective scholarship, break out into humble anthems of worship as did the prophets and apostles. They write as if unmoved by what God has done in Christ for the salvation of their own sin-stricken, judgment-bound souls. I can’t help believing this is a telling sign of their conformity to a method that is often removed from Jesus Christ himself. (John 5.39).

We’ll see how this critique fairs when I come to his exegesis of specific N.T. passages relating to Justification. Perhaps he has begun with strong generalizations that will be modified later. I have my doubts, considering the nature of his polemical method, but I’m willing to wait and see.