Imputation

Charles Buck Theological Dictionary

Is the attributing any matter, quality, or character, whether good or evil, to any person as his own. It may refer to what was originally his, antecedently to such imputation; or to what was not antecedently his, but becomes so by virtue of such imputation only, 2 Samuel 19:19 . Psalms 106:31 . The imputation that respects our justification before God is of the latter kind, and may be defined thus: it is God's gracious donation of the righteousness of Christ to believers, and his acceptance of their persons as righteous on the account thereof. Their sins being imputed to him, and his obedience being imputed to them, they are, in virtue hereof, both acquitted from guilt, and accepted as righteous before God, Romans 4:6-7 . Romans 5:1-21 . 2 Corinthians 5:21 .

See RIGHTEOUSNESS, SIN; Dickinson's Letters, p. 156; Hervey's Theronand Aspasia, vol. 2: p. 43; Doddridge's Works, vol. 4: p. 562; Watts's Works, vol. 3: p. 532.

Webster's Dictionary

(1): Opinion; intimation; hint.

(2): A setting of something to the account of; the attribution of personal guilt or personal righteousness of another; as, the imputation of the sin of Adam, or the righteousness of Christ.

(3): The act of imputing or charging; attribution; ascription; also, anything imputed or charged.

(4): Charge or attribution of evil; censure; reproach; insinuation.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

Romans 5:12-19Philippians 1:18,19

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

See Justification.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

im - pū̇ - tā´shun  :

I. Meaning and Use of the Term

II. The threefold Use of the Term in Theology

Original Sin, Atonement, Justification

III. The Scriptural Basis of these Doctrines

1. Imputation of Adam's Sin to His Posterity

2. Imputation of the Sins of His People to Christ

3. Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to His People

Literature

I. Meaning and Use of the Term

The word "imputation," according to the Scriptural usage, denotes an attributing of something to a person, or a charging of one with anything, or a setting of something to one's account. This takes place sometimes in a judicial manner, so that the thing imputed becomes a ground of reward or punishment. The word is used in the King James Version a number of times to translate the Hebrew verb ḥāshabh and the Greek verb logı́zomai ̌ . These words, both of which occur frequently in Scripture, and which in a number of instances mean simply "to think," express the above idea. That this is the case is clear also from the other English words used in the King James Version to translate these Hebrew and Greek words, as, for example, "to count," "to reckon," "to esteem." Thus ḥāshabh is translated in the King James Version by the verb "to impute" ( Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 17:4; 2 Samuel 19:19 ); by the verb "to reckon" (2 Samuel 4:2 ); by "to count" as something (Leviticus 25:31 English versions). The verb in 1 Samuel 22:15 is שׂים , sı̄m ̌ . Similarly, logizomai is translated by the verb "to impute" (Romans 4:6 , Romans 4:8 , Romans 4:11 , Romans 4:22 , Romans 4:23 , Romans 4:24; 2 Corinthians 5:19; James 2:23 ); by the verb "to count" (Romans 2:26; Romans 4:3 , Romans 4:5 ); "to account" (Galatians 3:6 ); and by the verb "to reckon" (Romans 4:4 , Romans 4:9 , Romans 4:10 ). In the Revised Version (British and American) the word used to render logizomai is the verb "to reckon."

These synonyms of the verb "to impute" bring out the idea of reckoning or charging to one's account. It makes no difference, so far as the meaning of imputation is concerned, who it is that imputes, whether man (1 Samuel 22:15 ) or God (Psalm 32:2 ); it makes no difference what is imputed, whether a good deed for reward (Psalm 106:30 f) or a bad deed for punishment ( Leviticus 17:4 ); and it makes no difference whether that which is imputed is something which is personally one's own prior to the imputation, as in the case above cited, where his own good deed was imputed to Phinehas (Psalm 106:30 f), or something which is not personally one's own prior to the imputation, as where Paul asks that a debt not personally his own be charged to him ( Philippians 1:18 ). In all these cases the act of imputation is simply the charging of one with something. It denotes just what we mean by our ordinary use of the term. It does not change the inward state or character of the person to whom something is imputed. When, for example, we say that we impute bad motives to anyone, we do not mean that we make such a one bad; and just so in the Scripture the phrase "to impute iniquity" does not mean to make one personally bad, but simply to lay iniquity to his charge. Hence, when God is said "to impute sin" to anyone, the meaning is that God accounts such a one to be a sinner, and consequently guilty and liable to punishment. Similarly, the non-imputation of sin means simply not to lay it to one's charge as a ground of punishment (Psalm 32:2 ). In the same manner, when God is said "to impute righteousness" to a person, the meaning is that He judicially accounts such a one to be righteous and entitled to all the rewards of a righteous person (Romans 4:6 , Romans 4:11 ).

II. The threefold Use of the Term in Theology

Original Sin, Atonement, Justification

Three acts of imputation are given special prominence in the Scripture, and are implicated in the Scriptural doctrines of Original Sin, Atonement and Justification, though not usually expressed by the words ḥāshabh and logizomai ̌ . Because, however, of its "forensic" or "judicial" meaning, and possibly through its use in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible , 390-405 ad) to translate logizomai in Romans 4:8 , the term "imputation" has been used in theology in a threefold sense to denote the judicial acts of God by which the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity; by which the sins of Christ's people are imputed to Him; and by which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. The act of imputation is precisely the same in each case. It is not meant that Adam's sin was personally the sin of his descendants, but that it was set to their account, so that they share its guilt and penalty. It is not meant that Christ shares personally in the sins of men, but that the guilt of his people's sin was set to his account, so that He bore its penalty. It is not meant that Christ's people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them, but that His righteousness is set to their account, so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.

These doctrines have had a place in theology of the Christian church from the earliest Christian centuries, though the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ was first fully and clearly stated at the time of and following the Reformation. The first two of these doctrines have been the possession of the entire Christian church, while the third one of them is affirmed by both the Reformed and Lutheran branches of Protestantism.

III. The Scriptural Basis of These Doctrines

These three doctrines have a basis in the Scripture, and underlie the Scripture doctrines of Original Sin, Atonement, and Justification.

1. Imputation of Adam's Sin to His Posterity

The doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity is implied in the account of the Fall in Genesis 2,3 , taken in connection with the subsequent history of the human race as recorded in Gen and in the rest of the Old Testament. Many ancient and modern interpreters regard this narrative as an allegorical, mythical or symbolical representation in historical form, either of a psychological fact, i.e. of something which takes place in every individual, or of certain general truths concerning sin. By some exegetes, following Kant, it has been held to depict an advance of the race in culture or ethical knowledge (Reuss; against which view compare Budde, Clemen); by others it has been regarded as a symbolical representation of certain truths concerning sin (Oehler, Schultz); by others it has been regarded as historical (Delitzsch). This latter view is the one which accords with the narrative itself. It is evidently intended as historical by its author, and is so regarded by the New Testament writers. It is, moreover, introduced to explain, not an advance of the race, but the entrance of sin into the world, and the connection of certain penal evils with sin. It does this by showing how these evils came upon Adam as a punishment for his disobedience, and the subsequent history shows that his posterity were subjected to the same evils. It is true that the threat of punishment to Adam in case of disobedience was made to him alone, and that the penalties threatened are said to have come only upon him and Eve (Genesis 3:16-19 ). Nevertheless, it is clear from the account of the subsequent history of the race that it actually shared in the punishments inflicted upon Adam, and that this was in consequence of his sin. This implies that in Genesis 2:16 f are contained the terms of a covenant in which Adam acted as the representative of the race. If, therefore, the race shares in the penalty of Adam's sin, it must also share in his guilt or the judicial obligation to suffer punishment. And this is precisely what theology of the entire Christian church has meant by saying that the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity. This is in accordance with God's method of dealing with men in other recorded instances ( Genesis 19:15; Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 1:37; Deuteronomy 3:26 ); and the assertion of the principle of personal responsibility by Ezekiel and Jeremiah against an abuse of the principle of representative responsibility implies a recognition of the latter (Ezekiel 18:2 , Ezekiel 18:4; Ezekiel 33:12; Jeremiah 31:29 ).

The universality of sin and death is not brought into connection with the Fall of Adam by the other Old Testament writers. This is done, however, by Paul. In 1 Corinthians 15:21 f, Paul says that the death of all men has its cause in the man Adam in the same way in which the resurrection from the dead has its cause in the man Christ. The death of all men, accordingly, is not brought about by their personal sins, but has come upon all through the disobedience of Adam. Upon what ground this takes place, Paul states in the passage Romans 5:12-21 . He introduces the subject of Adam's relation to the race to illustrate his doctrine of the justification of sinners on the ground of a righteousness which is not personally their own. In order to do this he takes the truth, well known to his readers, that all men are under condemnation on account of Adam's sin. The comparison is between Adam and Christ, and the specific point of the comparison is imputed sin and imputed righteousness. Hence, in Romans 5:12 Paul does not mean simply to affirm that as Adam sinned and consequently died, so men sin and die. Nor can he mean to say that just as God established a precedent in Adam's case that death should follow sin, so He acts upon this precedent in the case of all men because all sin, the real ground of the reign of death being the fact that all sin, and the formal ground being this precedent (B. Weiss); nor that the real ground is this precedent and the subordinate ground the fact that all sin (Hünefeld). Neither can Paul intend to say that all men are subject to death because they derive a corrupt nature from Adam (Fritzsche); nor that men are condemned to die because all have sinned (Pfleiderer). Paul's purpose is to illustrate his doctrine of the way in which men are delivered from sin and death by the way in which they are brought into condemnation. The main thought of the passage is that, just as men are condemned on account of the imputation to them of the guilt of Adam's sin, so they are justified on account of the imputation to them of the righteousness of Christ. Paul says that it was by one man that sin and death entered into the world, and it was by one man that death passed to all men, because all were implicated in the guilt of that one man's Sin ( Romans 5:12 ). In proof of this the apostle cites the fact that death as a punishment was reigning during a period in which the only possible judicial ground of this fact must have been the imputation of the guilt of that one man's sin (Romans 5:13 , Romans 5:14 ). Hence, there is a precise parallel between Adam and Christ. Just as men are condemned on account of Adam's disobedience, so they are justified on account of the obedience of Christ (Romans 5:18 , Romans 5:19 ). The thought of the passage is imputed sin and imputed righteousness as the ground of condemnation and of justification respectively.

2. Imputation of the Sins of His People to Christ

That our sins are imputed to Christ is not expressly stated in the Scripture, but is implied in those passages which affirm that Christ "bore our sins," and that our iniquities were "laid upon him" by Yahweh. To bear inquity or sin, though it may sometimes mean to bear it away or remove it, is an expression often applied in Scripture to persons charged with guilt and subjected to the punishment of their own sin (Leviticus 5:17; Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 19:8; Leviticus 22:9 ). That the Hebrew verb nāsā' has this meaning is also indicated by its being interchanged with the verb ṣābhal , which means "to bear as a burden" and is used to denote the bearing of the punishment of sin (Isaiah 53:11 ). In the Old Testament sacrificial system, which according to the New Testament is typical of the sacrifice of Christ, the imposition of hands on the head of the victim signified the substitution of it for the offender and the transfer of his guilt to it. This idea is brought out clearly in the case of the two goats on the great Day of Atonement (Lev 16). When, therefore, the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 53:1-12 is said "to bear iniquity" ( Isaiah 53:11 ), or that "the chastisement of our peace was upon him" (Isaiah 53:5 ), or that "Yahweh hath laid (literally, "caused to fall") on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6 ), the idea expressed is that Christ bore the punishment of our sin vicariously, its guilt having been imputed to Him. The thought of the prophecy is, as Delitzsch says, that of vicarious punishment, which implies the idea of the imputation of the guilt of our sins to Christ.

The same idea underlies these expressions when they occur in the New Testament. When Peter wishes to hold up Christ as an example of patience in suffering, he takes up the thought of Isa, and adduces the fact that Christ "his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree". (1 Peter 2:24 ). The context indicates that Peter had the prophecy of Isaiah 53:1-12 in mind, so that his meaning is, not that Christ carried our sins even up to the cross, but that in His death on the cross Christ bore the punishment of our sin, its guilt having been imputed to Him. The same thought is expressed by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the contrast between the first and second advents of Christ is made to hinge upon the fact that in the first He came to be sacrificed as a sin-bearer, burdened with the guilt of the sin of others, whereas in His second coming He will appear without this burden of imputed or vicarious guilt ( Hebrews 9:28 ). Paul also gives expression to the same thought when he says that Christ was "made. to be sin on our behalf" (2 Corinthians 5:21 ), and that He became "a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13 ). In the former passage the idea of substitution, although not expressed by the preposition hupér which indicates that Christ's work was for our benefit, is nevertheless clearly implied in the thought that Christ, whose sinlessness is emphasized in the ver, is made sin, and that we sinners become righteous in Him. Paul means that Christ was made to bear the penalty of our sin and that its guilt was imputed to Him in precisely the same way in which we sinners become the righteousness of God in Him, i.e. by the imputation of His righteousness to us. The same thought is expressed in Galatians 3:13 , where the statement that Christ was made a curse for us means that He was made to endure the curse or penalty of the broken law. In all these passages the underlying thought is that the guilt of our sin was imputed to Christ.

3. Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to His People

The righteousness upon the ground of which God justifies the ungodly is, according to Paul, witnessed to in the Old Testament (Romans 3:21 ). In order to obtain the blessedness which comes from a right relation to God, the pardon or non-imputation of sin is necessary, and this takes place through the "covering" of sin (Psalm 32:1 , Psalm 32:2 ). The nature of this covering by the vicarious bearing of the penalty of sin is made clear in Isaiah 53:1-12 . It is, moreover, the teaching of the Old Testament that the righteousness which God demands is not to be found among men (Psalm 130:3; Psalm 143:2; Isaiah 64:6 ). Accordingly, the prophets speak of a righteousness which is not from man's works, but which is said to be in Yahweh or to come from Him to His people (Isaiah 32:16 f; Isaiah 45:23; Isaiah 54:17; Isaiah 58:8; Isaiah 61:3; Jeremiah 51:10; Hosea 10:12 ). This idea finds its clearest expression in connection with the work of the Messiah in Jeremiah 33:16 , where Jerusalem is called "Yahweh our righteousness" because of the coming of the Messianic king, and in Jeremiah 23:6 where the same name is given to the Messiah to express His significance for Israel. Although the idea of the imputation of righteousness is not explicitly asserted in these passages, the idea is not merely that the righteousness spoken of is recognized by Yahweh (Cremer), but that it comes from Him, so that Yahweh, through the work of the Messiah, is the source of His people's righteousness.

This idea is taken up by Paul, who makes explicit the way in which this righteousness comes to sinners, and who puts the idea of imputed righteousness at the basis of his doctrine of Justification. By the righteousness of Christ Paul means Christ's legal status, or the merit acquired by all that He did in satisfying the demands of God's law, including what has been called His active and passive obedience. Notwithstanding the fact that most of the modern expositors of Paul's doctrine have denied that he teaches the imputation of Christ's obedience, this doctrine has a basis in the apostle's teaching. Justification leads to life and final glorification (Romans 5:18; Romans 8:30 ); and Paul always conceives the obtaining of life as dependent on the fulfillment of the law. If, therefore, Christ secures life for us, it can only be in accordance with this principle. Accordingly, the apostle emphasizes the element of obedience in the death of Christ, and places this act of obedience at the basis of the sinner's justification (Romans 5:18 ). He also represents the obedience of the cross as the culminating point of a life of obedience on Christ's part (Philippians 2:8 ). Moreover, Paul affirms that our redemption from all the demands of the law is secured by the fact that Christ was born under law (Galatians 4:4 ). This cannot be restricted to the fact that Christ was under the curse of the law, for He was born under law and the result of this is that we are free from all of its demands. This doctrine is also implied in the apostle's teaching that Justification is absolutely gracious, taken in connection with the fact that it leads to a complete salvation.

The importance in Paul's thought of the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer can be seen from the fact that the question how righteousness was to be obtained occupied a central place in his religious consciousness, both before and after his conversion. The apostle's conversion by the appearance of the risen Christ determined his conception of the true way of obtaining righteousness, since the resurrection of Christ meant for Paul the condemnation of his entire past search for righteousness by works of the law.

That the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer does lie at the basis of Paul's doctrine of Justification can be further seen from the fact that Justification is absolutely free and unmerited so far as the sinner is concerned (Romans 3:24; Romans 5:15; Galatians 5:4; Titus 3:7 ); its object being one who is ungodly (Romans 4:5 ); so that it is not by works (Romans 3:20 , Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:11; Galatians 5:4; Philippians 3:9 ); and yet that it is not a mere pardon of sin, but is a strictly "forensic" or judicial judgment, freeing the sinner from all the claims of the law, and granting him the right to eternal life. This last truth is plain because God's retributive righteousness lies at the basis of Paul's doctrine of Justification (Rom 2); is manifested in it (Romans 3:25 f); because Christ's expiatory work is its ground ( Romans 3:25 ); and because our redemption from the curse of the law rests upon Christ's having borne it for us, and our redemption from all the demands of the law depends upon their fulfillment by Christ (Galatians 3:13; Galatians 4:4 ). Hence, the gracious character of Justification, according to Paul, does not consist in its being merely a gracious pardon without any judicial basis (Ritschl); or in God's acceptance of a subjective righteousness produced by Him in the sinner (Tobac); or in the acceptance of faith instead of a perfect righteousness (Cremer). The gracious character of Justification consists for Paul in the fact that the righteousness on the ground of which God justifies the ungodly is a righteousness which is graciously provided by God, and which Paul contrasts with his own righteousness which comes from law works (Philippians 3:9 ). The sinner, therefore, is pardoned and accepted as a righteous person, not on account of anything in himself, but only on account of what Christ has done for him, which means that the merits of Christ's suffering and obedience are imputed to the sinner as the ground of his justification.

This truth is explicitly affirmed by Paul, who speaks of God's imputing righteousness without works, and of righteousness being imputed (Romans 4:6 , Romans 4:11 ). The idea of the imputation of righteousness here is made clear by the context. The one who is declared righteous is said to be "ungodly" (Romans 4:5 ). Hence, he is righteous only by God's imputation of righteousness to him. This is also clear from the contrast between imputation according to grace and according to debt (Romans 4:4 ). He who seeks righteousness by works would be justified as a reward for his works, in antithesis to which, imputation according to grace would be the charging one with a righteousness which he does not possess. Accordingly, at the basis of Justification there is a reckoning to the sinner of an objective righteousness. This same idea is also implied and asserted by Paul in the parallel which he draws between Adam and Christ (Romans 5:18 f). The apostle says that just as men are condemned on account of a sin not their own, so they are justified on account of a righteousness which is not their own. The idea of imputed sin and imputed righteousness, as was said, is the precise point of the parallelism between condemnation in Adam and justification in Christ. This is also the idea which underlies the apostle's contrast of the Old and New Covenants ( 2 Corinthians 3:9 ). The New Covenant is described as a "ministry of righteousness," and contrasted with the Old Covenant which is described as a "ministry of condemnation." If, therefore, this last expression does not denote a subjective condition of men under the old dispensation, but their relation to God as objects of His condemnation, righteousness must denote the opposite of this relation to the law, and must depend on God's judicial acquittal. The same truth is expressed by Paul more concretely by saying that Christ has been "made unto us righteousness from God" (1 Corinthians 1:30 ). Here the concrete mode of expression is chosen because Paul speaks also of Christ being our sanctification and redemption, so that an expression had to be chosen which would cover all of these ideas. One of the clearest statements concerning this objective righteousness is Philippians 3:9 . The apostle here affirms that the righteousness which the believer in Christ obtains is directly opposite to his own righteousness. This latter comes from works of the law, whereas the former comes from God and through faith in Christ. It is, therefore, objective to man, comes to him from God, is connected with the work of Christ, and is mediated by faith in Christ.

The idea clearly stated in this last passage of a righteousness which is objective to the sinner and which comes to him from God, i.e. the idea of a new legal standing given to the believer by God, explains the meaning, in most cases, of the Pauline phrase "righteousness of God." This phrase is used by Paul 9 t: Romans 1:17; Romans 3:5 , Romans 3:21 f,25 f; Romans 10:3 (twice); 2 Corinthians 5:21 . It denotes the Divine attribute of righteousness in Romans 3:5 , Romans 3:25 f. The customary exegesis was to regard the other instances as denoting the righteousness of a sinner which comes to him from God, in accordance with Philippians 3:9 . More recently Haering, following Kolbing in general, has interpreted all these instances as denoting God's justifying action. But this interpretation is most strained in 2 Corinthians 5:21 , where we are said to "become the righteousness of God," and in Romans 10:3-6 , where the righteousness of God is identified with the righteousness which comes from faith, this latter being contrasted with man's own inward righteousness. That a righteousness of man which he receives from God is here referred to, is confirmed by the fact that the reason given for the error of the Jews in seeking a righteousness from law works is the fact that the work of Christ has made an end of this method of obtaining righteousness (Romans 10:4 ). This righteousness, therefore, is one of which man is the possessor. The phrase, however, cannot mean a righteousness which is valid in God's sight (Luther), although this thought is elsewhere expressed by Paul (Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:11 ). It means a righteousness which comes from God and of which He is the author. This is not, however, by making man inwardly righteous, since all the above passages show the purely objective character of this righteousness. It is the righteousness of Philippians 3:9; the righteousness which God imputes to the believer in Christ. Thus we "become the righteousness of God" in precisely the same sense in which Christ was "made to be sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21 ). Since Christ was made sin by having the guilt. of our sin imputed to Him so that He bore its penalty, Paul must mean that we "become the righteousness of God" in this same objective sense through the imputation to us of the righteousness of Christ. In the same way, in Romans 10:3 , the contrast between God's righteousness and the Jew's righteousness by works of the law shows that in each case righteousness denotes a legal status which comes from God by imputation. It is this same imputed righteousness which makes the gospel the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:17 ), which has been revealed by the law and the prophets, which is received by faith in Christ by whose expiatory death God's retributive righteousness has been made manifest (Romans 3:21 , Romans 3:22 , Romans 3:25 , Romans 3:26 ), and which is represented by Peter as the object of Christian faith (2 Peter 1:1 ).

In two passages Paul affirms that Abraham believed God and "it was imputed to him for righteousness" (Romans 4:3 the King James Version; Galatians 3:6 ). The old Arminian theologians, and some modern exegetes (H. Cremer) assert that Paul means that Abraham's faith was accepted by God instead of a perfect righteousness as the meritorious ground of his justification. This, however, cannot be the apostle's meaning. It is diametrically opposed to the context where Paul introduces the case of Abraham for the very purpose of proving that he was justified without any merit on his part; it is opposed to Paul's idea of the nature of faith which involves the renunciation of all claim to merit, and is a simple resting on Christ from whom all its saving efficacy is derived; and this interpretation is also opposed to Paul's doctrine of the absolutely gracious character of Justification. The apostle in these passages wishes to illustrate from the case of Abraham the gracious character of Justification, and quotes the untechnical language of Genesis 15:6 . His meaning is simply that Abraham was justified as a believer in God, and not as one who sought righteousness by works. See Sin; Atonement; Justification .

Literature

Besides the Comm., see works on Old Testament Theology by Dillmann, Davidson, Oehler, Schultz; and on New Testament Theology by H. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, Schmidt; also Chemnitz, De Vocabulo Imputationis , Loc. Theol ., 1594, II, 326ff; J. Martin, The Imputation of Adam's Sin , 1834,20-46; Clemen, Die Christliche Lehre yon der Sünde , I, 1897,151-79; Dietzsch, Adam und Christus , 1871; Hünefeld, Romans 5:12-21 , 1895; Crawford, The Doctrine of the Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement 2, 1876, 33-45, 188-90. Compare also the appropriate sections in the works on the Scripture doctrine of Justification, and especially on Paul's doctrine of Justification, e.g. Owen, Justification , 1st American edition, 185-310; Ritschl, Die Christliche Lehre von der Rectfertigung und Versöhnung , II2, 1882, 303-331; Böhl, Von der Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben , 1890, 115-23; Nösgen, Schriftbeweis für die evangel. Rechfertigungslehre , 1901, 147-96; Pfleiderer, Die Paulinische Rechtfertigung , Zwt (Hilgenfeld herausg.), 1872, 161-200; Paulinism , English translation, I, 171-86; with which compare Pfleiderer's later view of Paul's teachings, 2nd edition, 1890, 178-89; G. Schwarz, Justitia Imputata? 1891; H. Cremer, Paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre 2, 1900, 329-49; Tobac, Le problème de la justification dans Saint Paul , 1908, 206-25. On Paul's doctrine of the righteousness of God, of the many monographs the following may be mentioned: Fricke, Der Paulinische Grundbegriff der δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ erörtert auf Grund v. Röm. III , 21-26, 1888; Kölbing, Studien zur Paulinische Theologie , TSK , 1895, 7-51; Häring Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ bei Paulus , 1896.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

in the O.T. םחָשִׁב in the N.T. λογίζομαι , is employed in the Scriptures to designate any action, word, or thing, as accounted or reckoned to a person; and in all these it is unquestionably used with reference to one's own doings, words, or actions, and not with reference to those of a second person (comp. Genesis 15:6; Psalms 105:31; Numbers 25:6; Numbers 18:27; 2 Samuel 19:19; Psalms 31:2; Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 17:4; Proverbs 27:14; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 2 Timothy 4:16; Romans 4:3-23; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23). The word imputation is, however, used for a certain theological theory, which teaches that

(1) the sin of Adam is so attributed to man as to be considered, in the divine counsels, as his own, and to render him guilty of it;

(2) that, in the Christian- plan of salvation, the righteousness of Christ is so attributed to man as to be considered his own, and that he is therefore justified by it. (See Fall Of Man).

I. "Whatever diversity there may exist in the opinions of theologians respecting imputation, when they come to express their own views definitely. they will yet, for the most part, agree that the phrase God imputes the sin of our progenitors to their posterity, means that for the sins committed by our progenitors God punishes their descendants. The term to impute is used in different senses.

(a.) It is said of a creditor, who charges something to his debtor as debt, e.g. Philemon 1:18.

(b.) It is transferred to human judgment when any one is punished, or declared deserving of punishment. Crime is regarded as a debt, which must be cancelled partly by actual restitution and partly by punishment.

(c.) This now is applied to God, who imputes sin when he pronounces men guilty, and treats them accordingly, i.e. when he actually punishes the sin of men (Ο᾿φι β - ωφξ, λογίζεσθαι ἁμαρτίαν, Psalms 32:2).

The one punished is called נָשָׂא עָוֹן, in opposition to one to whom חָשִׁב לַצְדָּקָח, who is rewarded (Psalms 106:31; Romans 4:3)" (Knapp, Theology, § 76).

1. The stronghold of the doctrine of imputation, with those who maintain the high Calvinistic sense of that tenet, is Romans 5:12-19. "The greatest difficulties with respect to this doctrine have arisen from the fact that many have treated what is said by Paul in the fifth of Romans-a passage wholly popular, and anything but formally exact and didactic-in a learned and philosophical manner, and have defined terms used by him in a loose and popular way by logical and scholastic distinctions. Paul shows, in substance, that all men are regarded and punished by God as sinners, and that the ground of this lies in the act of one man; as, on the contrary, deliverance from punishment depends also upon one man, Jesus Christ. If the words of Paul are not perverted, it must be allowed that in Romans 5, 12-14 he thus reasons: The cause of the universal mortality of the human race lies in Adam's transgression. He sinned, and so became mortal. Other men are regarded and treated by God as punishable, because they are the posterity of Adam, the first transgressor, and consequently they too are mortal. Should it now be objected, that the men who lived from Adam to Moses might themselves have personally sinned, and so have been punished with death on their own account, it might be answered that those who lived before the time of Moses had no express and positive law which threatened the punishment of sin, like those who lived after Moses. The positive law of Moses was not as yet given; they could not, consequently, be punished on account of their own transgressions, as no law was as yet given to them (Romans 5:12 to Romans 14:14). Still they must die, like Adam, who transgressed a positive law. Hence their mortality must have another cause, and this is to be sought in the imputation of Adam's transgression. In the same way, the ground of the justification of man lies not in himself, but in Christ, the second Adam.

"We find that the passage in Romans 5 was never understood in the ancient Grecian Church, down to the 4th century, to teach imputations in a strictly philosophical and judicial sense; certainly. Origen, and the writers immediately succeeding him, exhibit nothing of this opinion. They regard bodily death as a consequence of the sin of Adam, and not as a punishment, in the strict and proper sense of this term. Thus Chrysostom says, upon Romans 5:12,Ε᾿κείνου πεσόντος (Ἀδάμ ), καὶ οὑ μὴ φαγόντες ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, γεγόνασιν ἐξ ἐκείνου θνητοί . Cyril (Adv. Anthropom. c. 8) says, Οἱ γεγονότες ἐξ αὐ τοῦ (Ἀδάμ ), ὡς ἀπὸ φθαρτοὶ γεγόναμεν .

"The Latin Church, on the other hand, was the proper seat of the strict doctrine of imputation. There they began to interpret the words of Paul as if he were a scholastic and logical writer. One cause of their misapprehending so entirely the spirit of this passage was, that the word imputare (a word in common use among civilians and in judicial affairs) had been employed in the Latin versions in rendering Romans 5:13 of Romans 5; and that ἐφ᾿ ῳ (Romans 5:12) had been translated in quo, and could refer, as they supposed, to nobody but Adam. This opinion was then associated with some peculiar philosophical ideas at that time prevalent in the West, and from the whole a doctrine de imputatione was formed, in sense wholly unknown to the Hebrews, to the N.T., and to the Grecian Church. This clearly proves that the Grecian teachers, e.g. those in Palestine, took sides with Pelagius against the teachers of the African Church.

2. "Many have inferred the justice of imputation from the supposition that Adam was not only the natural or seminal, but also the moral head of the human race, or even its representative and federal head. They suppose, accordingly, that the sin of Adam is imputed to us on the same principle on which the doings of the head of a family, or. of the plenipotentiary of a state, are imputed to his family or state, although they had no personal agency in his doings. In the same way they suppose Christ took the place of all men, and that what he did is imputed to them. According to this theory, God entered into a league or covenant with Adam, and so Adam represented and took the place of the whole human race. This theory was invented by some schoolmen, and has been adopted by many in the Romish and Protestant Church since the 16th century, and was defended even in the 18th century by some Lutheran theologians, as Pfaff of Tiibingen, by some of the followers of Wolf (e.g. Carpzov, in his Comm. de Imputatione facti proprii et alieni), and by Baumgarten, in his Dogmatik, and disputation ‘ de imputatione peccati Adamitici.' But it was more particularly favored by the Reformed theologians, especially by the disciples of Cocceius, at the end of the 17th and commencement of the 18th century, e.g. by Witsius, in his (Economia feaderum. They appeal to Hosea 6:7, They transgressed the covenant, like Adam, i.e. broke the divine laws. But where is it said that Adam was the federal head, and that his transgression is imputed to them? On this text Morus justly observes, ‘ Est mera comparatio Judaeorum peccantium cum Adamo peccante.' Other texts are also cited in behalf of this opinion.

"But, for various reasons, this theory cannot be correct. For

(a.) the descendants of Adam never empowered him to be their representative and to act in their name.

(b.) It cannot be shown from the Bible that Adam was informed that the fate of all his posterity was involved in his own.

(c.) If the transgression of Adam is imputed, by right of covenant, to all his posterity, then, in justice, all their transgressions should be again imputed to him as the guilty cause of all their misery and sin. What a mass of guilt, then, would come upon Adam! But of all this nothing is said in the Scriptures.

(d.) The imputation of the righteousness of Christ cannot be alleged in support of this theory; for this is imputed to men only by their own will and consent. This hypothesis has been opposed, with good reason, by John Taylor, in his work on original sin."

3. "Others endeavor to deduce the doctrine of imputation from the scientia media of God, or from his fore-knowledge of what is conditionally possible. The sin of Adam, they say, is imputed to us because God foresaw that each one of us would have committed it if he had been in Adam's stead, or placed in his circumstances. Even Augustine says that the sin of Adam is imputed to us propter consensionem, or consensum praesumptum. This theory has been advanced, in modern times, by Reusch, in his Introductio in Theologiasn revelatam, and in Bremquell's work Die gute Sache Gottes, bei Zurechnung des Falls (Jena, 1749). But it is a new sort of justice which would allow us to be punished for sins which we never: committed, or never designed to commit, but only might possibly have committed under certain circumstances. Think a moment how many sins we all should have committed if God had suffered us to come into circumstances of severe temptation. An innocent man might, by this rule, be punished as a murderer because, had he lived at Paris on St. Bartholomew's night, in 1572, he might, from mistaken zeal, have killed a heretic."

II. "Since none of these hypotheses satisfactorily explain the matter, the greater part of the moderate and Biblical theologians of the Protestant Church are content with saying, what is manifestly the doctrine of the Bible, that the imputation of Adam's sin consists in the prevailing mortality of the human race, and that this is not to be regarded as imputation in the strict judicial sense, but rather as the consequence of Adam's transgression" (Knapp, Theology, § 76).

III. "The enlightened advocates of imputation do after all disclaim the actual transfer of Adam's sin to his posterity. They are well aware that the human mind cannot be forced up to such a point as this. But they do still urgently contend for the idea that all Adam's posterity are punished for his sin, although they did not, in fact, commit it; and that in this sense, therefore, they are all guilty of it. Turretin's view is, that Adam's sin imputed is the ground or cause why men are born-with original sin inherent, i.e. with natural depravity; and this is, in his view, the punishment inflicted because of Adam's sin imputed to them. And with him many others agree. But Calvin, Edwards, Stapfer, and others, reject the doctrine of the real imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, while they maintain that native inherent depravity is the consequence of it, which is chargeable to us as sin. This Turretin declares to be no imputation at all, i.e. a real rejection of his doctrine. Rejecting these views of Turretin, then, Edwards, in order to account for it how all men came to be born with inherent sin, labors to show that there is a physical and psychological unity between Adam and all his posterity. According to him, this would account for the commencement of native depravity, and when commenced it is imputed to us as sin, and therefore punishable, on legal ground, with temporal and eternal evil. But Turretin makes all to be punishment from the outset, and that on the ground of the sin of Adam, which is actually imputed to his descendants" (Stuart on Romans, 5, 19, p. 592). Dr. H. B. Smith, in an article in the Christian Union, takes the advanced ground that while it must be con ceded "that there is a proper interpretation," and that Adam's posterity do inherit, "by virtue of their union with him, certain penal consequences of the great apostasy." man can be "delivered" from these evils by "divine grace," and "that for original sin, without actual transgression, no one will be consigned to everlasting death" [italics are ours]. In an article in the Princeton Theological Essays (1, 138 sq.), a member of the Presbyterian Church takes even more liberal ground. "We know that it is often asserted that Augustine and his followers held the personal unity of Adam and his race ... Let it be admitted that Augustine did give this explication of the ground of imputation. Do we reject the doctrine because we reject the reason which he gives to justify and explain it? .. It is no special concern of ours what Augustine held on this point. .. Any man who holds that there is such an ascription of the sin of Adam to his posterity as to be the ground of their bearing the punishment of that sin, holds the doctrine of impatation, whether he undertakes to justify this imputation merely on the ground that we are the children' of Adam, or on the principle of representation, or of scientia media; or whether he chooses to philosophize on the nature of unity until he confounds all notions of personal identity, as President Edwards appears to have done."

IV. The question of the imputation of Christ's active obedience to believers is very skillfully treated by Watson (Theological Institutes, pt. 2, chap. 23), himself a believer in the doctrine of imputation in a modified way. We give here a summary of his statement of the subject.

There are three opinions as to imputation.

(I.) The high Calvinistic, or Antinomian scheme, which is, that "Christ's active righteousness is imputed unto us as ours" In answer to this, we say,

1. It is nowhere stated in Scripture.

2. The notion here attached to Christ's representing us is wholly gratuitous. 3. There is no weight in the argument that, "as our sins were accounted his, so his righteousness was accounted ours ‘ for our sins were never so accounted Christ's as that he did them.

4. The doctrine involves a fiction and impossibility inconsistent with the divine attributes.

5. The acts of Christ were of a loftier character than can be supposed to be capable of being the acts of mere creatures. 6. Finally, and fatally, this doctrine shifts the meritorious cause of man's justification from Christ's "obedience unto death" to Christ's active obedience to the precepts of the law.

(II.) The opinion of Calvin himself, and many of his followers, adopted also by some Armenians. It differs from the first in not separating the active from the passive righteousness of Christ, for such a distinction would have been inconsistent with Calvin's notion that justification is simply the remission of sins. This view is adopted, with certain modifications, by Armenians and Wesley. But there is a slight difference, which arises from the different senses in which the word imputation is used: the Armenian employing it in the sense of accounting to the believer the benefit of Christ's righteousness; the Calvinist, in the sense of reckoning the righteousness of Christ as ours. An examination of the following passages will show that this latter notion has no foundation in Scripture: Psalms 32 -l; Jeremiah 23:6; Isaiah 45:24; Romans 3:21-22; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:18-19. In connection with this last text, it is sometimes attempted to be shown that, as Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity, so Christ's obedience is imputed to those that are saved; but (Goodwin, On Justification);

(1.) The Scripture nowhere affirms either the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, or of the righteousness of Christ to those that believe.

(2.) To impute sin, in Scripture phrase, is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man, with a purpose to punish him for it. And

(3.) as to the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity if by it is meant simply that the guilt of Adam's sin is charged upon his whole posterity, let it pass; but if the meaning be that all Adam's posterity are made, by this imputation, formally sinners, then the Scriptures do not justify it.

(III.) The imputation of faith for righteousness.

(a.) Proof of this doctrine. —

1. It is expressly taught in Scripture (Romans 4:3-24, etc.); nor is faith used in these passages by metonymy for the object of faith, that is, the righteousness of Christ.

2. The testimony of the Church to this doctrine has been uniform from the earliest ages — Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, etc., down to the 16th century.

(b.) Explanation of the terms of the proposition that "faith is imputed for righteousness."

1. Righteousness. To be accounted righteous is, in the style of the apostle Paul, to be justified, where there has been personal guilt.

2. Faith. It is not faith generally considered that is imputed to us for righteousness, but faith (trust) in an atonement offered by another in our behalf.

3. Imputation. The non-imputation of sin to a sinner is expressly called "the imputation of righteousness without works;" the imputation of righteousness is, then, the non-punishment or pardon of sin; and by imputing faith for righteousness, the apostle means precisely the same thing.

(c.) The objections to the doctrine of the imputation of faith for righteousness admit of easy answer.

1. The papists err in taking the term justification to signify the making men morally just.

2. A second objection is, that if believing is imputed for righteousness, then justification is by works, or by somewhat in ourselves. In this objection, the term works is used in an equivocal sense.

3. A third objection is, that this doctrine gives occasion to boasting. But

(1.) this objection lies with equal strength against the doctrine of imputed righteousness.

(2.) The faith itself is the gift of God.

(3.) The blessings which follow faith are given in respect to the death of Christ.

(4.) Paul says that boasting is excluded by the law of faith.

(IV.) The theologians who assert the extreme doctrine of imputation are ably answered by the closing words of an article on this subject in Chambers's Cyclopaedia, 5, 529: "To impute sin is to deal with a man as a sinner, not on account of his own act, or at least not primarily on this account, but on account of the act of another; and to impute righteousness is to deal with man as righteous, not because he is so, but on account of the righteousness of Christ reckoned as his, and received by faith alone. The act of another stands in both cases for our own act, and we are adjudged - in the one case condemned, in the other acquitted - lot for what we ourselves have done, but for what another has done for us.

"This is a fair illustration of the tyranny which technical phrases are apt to exercise in theology as in other things. When men coin an imperfect phrase to express a spiritual reality, the reality is apt to be forgotten in the phrase, and men play with the latter as a logical counter, having a force and meaning of its own. Imputation of sin and imputation of righteousness have in this way come to represent legal or pseudo-legal processes in theology, through the working out of the mere legal analogies suggested by the word. But the true spiritual reality which lies behind the phrases in both eases is simple enough. Imputation of sin is, and can be nothing else than, the expression of the spiritual unity of Adam and his race. Adam ‘ being the root of all mankind,' the stock which has grown from this root must, share in its degeneracy. The law of spiritual life, of historical continuity, implies this, and it requires no arbitrary or legal process, therefore, to account for the sinfulness of mankind as derived from a sinful source. We are sinners because Adam fell. The fountain having become polluted, the stream is polluted. We are involved in his guilt, and could not help being so by the conditions of our historical existence; but, nevertheless, his sin is not our sin, and cannot, in the strict sense, be imputed to us, for sin is essentially voluntary in every case-an act of self- will, and not a mere quality of nature; and my sin, therefore, cannot be another's, nor another's mine. In the same manner, the highest meaning of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ lies in the spiritual unity of the believer with Christ, so that he is one with Christ, and Christ one with him, and in an true sense he becomes a partaker of the divine nature. The notion of legal transference is an after-thought-the invention of polemical logic- and the fact itself is deeper and truer than the phrase that covers it. The race one with Adam, the believer one with Christ, are the ideas that are really true in the phrases imputation of sin and imputation of righteousness."

See Watson, Institutes, 2, 215, 241; Knapp, Theology. § 76, 115; Whitby, De imputatione Peccati Adamitici; Taylor, Doctrine of Original Sin; Wesley, Sermons, 1, 171-4; Edwards, On original Sins; Walch, De Obedientia Christi Activa (Gottingen, 1754, 4to); Walch,,Neueste Religionsgeschichte, 3, 311; Princeton Rev. April, 1860; Baird, The First and Second Adam (Philadelphia, 1860. 12mo); Princeton Repertory, 1830, p. 425; Whately, Difficulties of St. Paul, Essay 6; Stuart, On Romans, Excursus 5, 6. (See Obedience Of Christ); (See Justification).

The Nuttall Encyclopedia

The theological dogma of the transference of guilt or merit from one to another who is descended naturally or spiritually from the same stock as the former, as of Adam's guilt to us by nature or Christ's righteousness to us by faith; although in Scripture the term generally, if not always, denotes the reckoning to a man of the merit or the demerit involved in, not another's doings, but his own, as in a single act of faith or a single act of unbelief, the one viewed as allying him with all that is good, or as a proof of his essential goodness, and the other as allying him with all that is evil, or as a proof of his essential wickedness.