|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
Come
ye weary, heavy laden,
Bruised and broken by the fall;
If you tarry till you're better.
You will never come at all:
Not the righteous—
Sinners Jesus came to call.
Joseph Hart (1712-1768)
One of the watershed doctrines of theology is the doctrine of the
imputation of sin. It divides liberal from conservative theologians,
Arminian from Reformed, and the Reformed from one another. Consequently we
must give it careful attention.
I.
The Fact of Imputed Sin
A.
The Meaning of the Term "Impute"
The word "impute" means to attribute or reckon over something to a person.
There are three imputations of theological significance.
i.
Of Adam's sin to the race;
ii.
Of the believer's sin to Christ;
iii.
Of Christ's righteousness to the believer.
B.
Biblical Evidence
The key biblical passages on imputed sin are Genesis 3 and Romans 5:12 and
following. They are also much disputed passages on the part of the
exegetes. One kind of disagreement has to do with the genre of literature
with which we are dealing (which in turn affects the theological
implications) and is well illustrated in the statements of various
neo-orthodox writers. Barth, in commenting on Genesis 3 on which the truth
of Romans 5:12 ff. is based, says:
We miss the unprecedented and incomparable thing which the “Genesis
passages tell us of the coming into being and existence of Adam if we try
to read and understand it as
history…. The saga as a form of historical narration is a genre
apart. TP[1]PT
Elsewhere, writing on Romans 5:12, he states:
The meaning is that the whole history of mankind as determined by Adam and
his fall, that whole repetition of his sin and his misery in those who
collectively and individually bear his name, the name "man," is one single
parable of what has happened in Jesus Christ, in virtue of the
righteousness and love of God. A parable, an example (5:14)—just that and
no more—to be considered by us as such and no more. TP[2]PT
C. H. Dodd remarks, "If we think of Adam as a man representative of all
humanity, we approach Paul's thought. But Adam is a myth (though for Paul
he may have been real)…."
TP[3]PT
A similar existential view of Adam and Eve is taken by Dale Moody when he
says we should,"see the experience of the first man and the first woman as
pictures of what happens to every man and every woman." TP[4]PT
The other type of disagreement is strictly theological. It accepts the
literal and historical character of these passages but disagrees as to
their doctrinal significance. Possibly the most thorough recent study of
the imputation of sin which takes the record at face value is found in John
Murray's The Imputation of Adam's
Sin.
1.
Introduction to the exegesis of Romans 5:12 and following
Dia touto
provides the connection between these verses and the preceding context
(5:1-11; or, perhaps, 1:17 on) and is translated "therefore" or "on this
account." Paul has been discussing the universal sinfulness of man and then
the provision of God for man's need—justification by faith. He now turns to
demonstrate that the need of man and the provision of God are based on the
same underlying principle, namely, the unity of the many in the one, the
principle of solidarity. "As Adam's one sin never fails to bring death, so
Christ's one righteous act in behalf of sinners never fails to bring the
opposite award to those who are in Him." TP[5]PT
The lost are looked upon by God as a unit in the first Adam; the saved are
looked upon as a unit in the last Adam.
Murray effectively presents this principle as follows:
The principle of solidarity is embedded in the Scripture and is exemplified
in numerous ways. It is not
necessary to enumerate the instances in which the principle comes to
expression. It is a patent
fact that in God's government of men there are the institutions of the
family, of the state, and of the church in which solidaric or corporate
relationships obtain and are operative.
This is simply to say that God's relations to men and the relations of men
to one another are not exclusively individualistic; God deals with men in
terms of these corporate relationships and men must reckon with their
corporate relations and responsibilities.
There is also the institution of the individual, and to discount our
individuality is to desecrate our responsible relations to God and to men.
The principle of solidarity can be exaggerated; it can become an
obsession and lead to fatalistic abuse (cf. Ezek. 18:2 ff.).
All such exaggeration is evil.
But it is also evil to conceive of our relations to God and to men
atomistically so that we fail to appreciate the corporate entities which to
such a large extent condition our life and responsibility.
Solidarity works for good and for evil.
It is scarcely necessary to be reminded of the beneficent influences
which have emanated from its application in the realm of grace.
Redemption in its design, accomplishment, application, and
consummation is fashioned in terms of this principle.
And in the realm of evil it is a fact of revelation and of
observation that God visits "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate" him (Exod. 20:5).
It is consonant with these facts of the biblical revelation and of our
human experience that the principle of solidarity should come to its
broadest and most inclusive expression in racial solidarity and we should
not be surprised to find in this case the prototypal solidarity.
Racial solidarity is the only possible construction of the various
data which the Scripture brings to our attention.
Paul bears pointed witness to this fact when he says that "in Adam
all die" (I Cor. 15:22). And
it is this same solidaric relationship that forms the background of his
thought when he says, "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last
Adam was made a life-giving Spirit" (I Cor. 15:45).
If we appreciate this fact of racial solidarity and therefore the solidaric
relationship which Adam sustains to posterity and posterity to him, we
shall be less reluctant, to say the least, to entertain the proposition
that the one trespass of Adam can properly be construed as the sin of all.
TP[6]PT
Verse 12 sets up a comparison on the basis of
hōsper and
kai
houtōs as follows:
|
hōsper
(just as) |
kai hōutos
(and so) |
|
di’ henos anthrōpu
(by one man) |
eis pantas anthrōpous
(unto all men) |
|
Hē hamartia kai ho thanatos
(sin and death) |
ho thantos
(death) |
|
eisēlthen
(enter into) |
diēlthen
(spread) |
This, then, is climaxed by a statement of the reason for the connection
between the two: eph' hoi pantes
hēmarton (because all sinned).
In the first half of the comparison he says that sin and death entered the
world (not came into existence; proof that sin existed before Adam's sin)
through the sin of Adam. Verse 14 makes it clear that the one man is Adam.
The second half of the comparison states that the universal reign of death
was caused by the sin of all. The death in view should probably be taken in
the most comprehensive sense of separation. It is the antithesis of the
wholeness and fulfillment that is comprehended in life in its broadest
sense. At the same time, in light of verse 14 the emphasis seems to be on
what we would call physical death, the separation of soul and body.
The key phrase, then, is eph' hoi
pantes hēmarton, since it indicates the connection between the two
halves of the comparison. Eph'
hoi should be translated "in that," that is, "because" or "on the ground of
the fact that." TP[7]PT
2.
The crucial question: What is meant by
hēmarton (sinned) in Romans
5:l2?
The-question that must be answered is meant by
hēmarton?
Three explanations have been offered, of which the third is capable
of a twofold subdivision.
a)
The Pelagian answer
1)
Stated
All men are guilty of actual, personal sin and this refers to the first sin
of each individual after he is born. That is, death is the result of
personal sin.
2)
Refuted
This view is untenable for the following reasons:
i.
It is contrary to fact.
Infants die but are not sinners in the personal sense.
ii.
Verses 13-14 would be contradictory in the argument.
In the no-law (that is, in a formal sense) period there was sin in
the world but it was not reckoned during that time as transgression. The
gar (for) of verse 13 introduces
the explanation of the last clause of verse 12 which is, in essence, death
is due to sin but during this time no one sinned as Adam did. Sin was not
counted as transgression of law until there was a formal law—BUT,
alla, death reigned during this
period.
From verse 15 through verse 19 no less than five times it is clearly stated
that condemnation and death reign over all because of the
one sin of the
one man Adam:
|
Verse 15 |
“by the transgression of the one the many died” |
|
Verse 16 |
“the judgment was from one unto condemnation” |
|
Verse 17 |
“by the transgression of the one death reigned through the one” |
|
Verse 18 |
“through one transgression [judgment came] unto all men unto
condemnation” |
|
Verse 19 |
“through the disobedience of the one man the many were made
sinners” |
b)
The Semi-Pelagian answer
1)
Stated
All men are depraved because all inherited a sinful nature from Adam. That
is, death is the result of original sin or hereditary corruption.
2)
Refuted
The view is untenable because:
i.
hēmarton
is thus given a middle or passive sense whereas the verb is an active form.
It means all “sinned” not all “became sinful”.
ii.
hamartanō
does not mean "to be corrupt."
iii.
The context repeatedly associates this death with the one sin of Adam (see
above). TP[8]PT
(See Shedd, UDogmatic TheologyU, 11,184-5 for refutation of the idea
this means "all are regarded as sinners.")
c)
The classic Protestant answer
1)
Stated
It denotes the first sin of Adam and his posterity considered as a unit,
his posterity being one with him by natural union or by representation or
by both, as held by some but shown by Shedd to be logically impossible. TP[9]PT
Note: which one of these alternatives is preferable will be determined
later.
2)
Supported
This is the only possible exegesis because:
i.
Verse 12 teaches that all die because all sinned.
ii.
Verses 15-19 (see above) teach that all die because of the one sin of Adam.
iii.
The passage is a unit and there is no basis for saying verse 12 refers to
one thing and verses 15-19 to something else.
II.
The Result or Penalty of Imputed Sin
Guilt is placed upon everyone (Christ excepted) at conception which brings
physical death. It should be noted that physical death is not merely the
consequence of sin, but rather it is the penalty for sin (Rom. 6:23).
Guilt, defined theologically, means obligation to render satisfaction to
God’s justice. TP[10]PT
In the New Testament it is the translation of
hupodikos, under judgment and
enochos, liable to a charge;
worthy of punishment.
In his discussion on guilt Thiessen states that it “comes from sin in which we have had a part,” TP