Yes yet righteous is and it is imputed based on one's faith
Romans 4:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 4:19–24 (KJV 1900) — 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Why I hold to PSA.
Excursus: God is Both Just and the Justifier
This understanding of Isaiah 53 is not without difficulty or debate, for it raises a
question. How can one man pay the penalty for another? Or from a close reading of the Bible,
how can God ―justify the ungodly‖ (Rom. 4:5) when it says, ―He who justifies the wicked and he
who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD‖ (Prov. 17:5)?
Today, the doctrine of the atonement is under fierce attack, and what is at stake is
nothing less than the gospel. For if this doctrine is lost, so is the good news of forgiveness and
eternal life.22
This is why understanding Isaiah 53, exegetically and theologically, is so
important. It details the great effects of the cross, and makes sense of God‘s plan of redemptive
history.23
Even if the doctrines of grace and justice seem at first to be at odds with one another,
as Scripture speaks, the purpose of the cross becomes more apparent.
The message of Isaiah 53
is that Christ‘s cross is the place ―where wrath and mercy meet‖ and salvation is procured.24
John Piper‘s treatment of the theological quandary raised in Isaiah 53 is immensely
helpful and many of his arguments are included here.25
As he wrestles with the divine purpose in
the death of Christ, he begins to resolve matters in the Godhead by asking the question, ―Who-----
22 See Roger Nicole‘s short but powerful post script in The Glory of the Atonement (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2004), 445-52.
In that brief summary, Nicole warns that rejection of penal substitution inevitably
makes the cross of Christ impotent. In his words, penal substitution is ―the linchpin without which everything else
loses its foundation and flies off the handle so to speak‖ (The Glory of the Atonement, 451).
23 For instance, the disciples on the road to Emmaus could not make sense of the Scriptures or the
events of Jesus‘ passion until Jesus explained to them all that the Scriptures said about him—his suffering and
exaltation (Luke 24).
24 This phrase is taken from a song by Graham Kendrick, entitled ‗Come and See,‘ as cited in a recent
book by the same name which makes an able defense of penal substitution. (David Peterson (ed.), Where Wrath &
Mercy Meet: Proclaiming the Atonement Today (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2001), xiv.
25 For a full treatment of this subject see John Piper, The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God’s
Delight in Being God (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2000), 157-178.
10
killed Jesus?‖26
Citing Isaiah 53:10, he answers that God did. ―The LORD was pleased to
bruise him.‖ Behind the senseless violence of wicked men stood the Father. It was according to
his ―definite plan and foreknowledge‖ that Jesus died as the suffering servant (Acts 2:23; cf.
4:27-28). This was done to put sin to death and to end its marring effect on the glory of God.27
Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 attest to YHWH‘s commitment to his own glory. So too Isaiah
43:6-7 teaches that mankind was created for the glory of God. Yet, the world under Satan‘s
thralldom is imprisoned to sin and wars against God‘s glory. The devil deceived Adam and Eve
to sin in the beginning, and ever since mankind has been God‘s enemy (Rom. 5:8; Eph. 2:1-3).
―All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God‖ (Rom. 3:23). Sin is directly connected to
God‘s glory, and since God is committed to his glory and to the beings created in his image, he
sent his Son to undo the works of the devil and to redeem a people for his glory (1 Jn. 3:8; Tit.
2:14). Yet, the only way to do that is through the death of sin in the death of his son.28
Piper moves from God‘s glory to humanity‘s sin, contending that Jesus died to make a
―propitiation‖ for sins, whereby ―God averted his own wrath through the death of his Son.‖ 29
26 Ibid., 160.
27 Many contemporary formulations of a ―non-violent atonement‖ fail to recognize the gravity of sin.
Thomas Schreiner articulates this glaring deficit as he surveys other views of the atonement in his chapter, ―Penal
Substitution View‖ in The Nature of the Atonement edited by James Beilby and Paul Eddy [Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2006], 67-98.
28 Thomas Schreiner‘s defense of penal substitution argues along these same lines (―Penal Substitution
View,‖ 67-98). Sin necessitates a penalty to be paid, and only through the payment of that penalty can any sinful
man or woman truly be legally freed from the debt they owe God. This is what is absent in all other models of the
atonement. None of them sufficiently handle the problem of sin. They either minimize it or shift attention to
something else. However, Scripture teaches that this humanity‘s biggest problem and therefore the central issue of
the cross.
29 Piper, The Pleasures of God, 163. Piper explains the necessary use of ―propitiation‖ as the proper
interpretation of hilasterion. He writes on the same page, ―This old word is important because other words like
―expiation‖ and ―sacrifice of atonement‖ do not press forward the idea of appeasing wrath which is in the word. The
point of the word is that God‘s wrath is against the ungodly because of the way they have desecrated his glory, and a
way must be found for this wrath to be averted. This is what happened in the death of Jesus. That is what
11
Often debated as a term originating in Greek mythology, Leon Morris contends that in the Bible
this notion of heathen propitiation is abandoned.30
Still questions of God‘s love and his demand
for a propitiation to satisfy his wrath abound. John Murray‘s treatment addresses these issues:
1) to love and to be propitious are not controvertible terms [i.e. mutually exclusive]. It is
false to suppose that the doctrine…regards propitiation as that which causes or constrains
the divine love… 2) propitiation is not a turning of the wrath of God into love. The
propitiation of the divine wrath, effected in the expiatory work of Christ, is the provision of
God‘s eternal and unchangeable love…3) propitiation does not detract from the love and
mercy of God; it rather enhances the marvel of his love. For it shows the cost that
redemptive love entails…God appeases his own holy wrath in the cross of Christ in order
that the purpose of his love to lost men may be accomplished in accordance…his glory.31
Through the propitiation of God‘s wrath, the mercy of God makes payment to the
wrath of God,32 making a transaction that will once and for all clear Him of injustice and at the
same time bring an end to sin, Satan, and death.33
On the cross, God‘s wisdom is revealed (1
Cor. 1:18ff; Eph 3:10) and the tension of God‘s seething wrath and unfailing mercy are resolved.
As Paul says about Jesus in Romans 3:25-26,
whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to
show God‘s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sin.
It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier
of the one who has faith in Jesus.34
propitiation means: God averted his own wrath through the death of his Son (emphasis mine).‖
30 Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 210-11.
31 John Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 31-32.
32 John Stott captures the essence of this, ―The only way for God‘s holy love to be satisfied is for his
holiness to be directed in judgment upon his appointed substitute, in order that his love may be directed towards us
in forgiveness…Divine love triumphed over divine wrath by divine self-sacrifice. The cross was an act
simultaneously of punishment and amnesty, severity and grace, justice and mercy‖ (The Cross of Christ, 158-59).
33 Though it is out of the purview of this paper, this accomplishment must be understood in an already /
not yet fashion. While Christ‘s work has been completely fulfilled on the cross (John 19:30), the effects of that
propitiatory victory are still being worked out. Much like Nazi-occupied France between D-Day and V-Day, we live
in between the time when Jesus won the decisive victory on the cross and when he will return and reign on the earth.
34 For an excellent treatment of this passage which argues for the historic understanding of penal
substitution see D.A. Carson, ―Atonement in Romans 3:21-26: ‗God presented him as a propitiation,‘‖ in The Glory
of the Atonement, 119-139.
12
Some may ask, ―Couldn‘t God forgive humanity without such a payment?‖ However,
such a cheap forgiveness would militate against his veracity and justice. By forgiving without
payment, God‘s initial warning in Genesis 2:17 and mankind‘s rightful curse would only be vain
words from an inconstant God. This would invariably denigrate the value of God‘s glory. For if
sin impugns His name, and God merely excuses this kind of defiant behavior as accidental or
minimal, the great judge would display reprehensible justice as he dismisses sin without
concomitant justice.35
Instead, by the death of his son, God the Father upholds his justice while
extending forgiveness to all those for whom Christ died.36
Conversely, some question the love of God because of His commitment to his own
glory and the execution of his righteous judgment. Sadly, there are some, who with limited
human understanding, categorize God as a child abuser. Yet, it must be remembered that Jesus
gladly obeyed the Father and voluntarily laid down his life as a ransom (Mark 10:45; cf. John
10:11, 18). There is no evidence for a cosmic quarrel in the Godhead. To deny God‘s love
because of penal substitution is to fly in the face of biblical evidence. In the Bible, God‘s love is
not denied, but demonstrated, on the cross (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 8:31-39; Gal. 2:20-21; 1 Jn.
4:10). ―[P]ropitiation is the fruit of the divine love that provided it…[it] is the ground upon
which the divine love operates the channel through which it flows in achieving its end.‖37
Piper‘s words illumine the significance and necessity of Christ‘s death. Reflecting on
35 It should be mentioned at this point, that God is not subservient to an external law forcing him to be
just. No, his own eternal and internal character is the enforcing agent. God must be just, because his nature is holy.
His holiness requires divine retribution against any sin that wars against him. For more on the relationship between
God and His law see Garry Williams, ―The Cross and the Punishment of Sin‖ in Where Wrath and Mercy Meet
(Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2001), 81-98.
36 Stott expounds this proposition in his chapter, ―The Self-Substitution of God,‖ in John Stott, The
Cross of Christ, 133-63.
37 John Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, 32.
Amen and Amen
Praise God
Johann
