3. Imputation

Imputation

Introduction

‘Imputation’ is an important revelation of divine dealings with man. Walvoord (1960, p. 281) defines imputation as “reckoning to the account of another”, giving the book of Philemon as a Biblical illustration (v. 18 reading, “Put that on mine account”).

Imputation was an important component of the Levitical sacrificial system. On the annual Day of Atonement the high priest was to take two male goats for a sin offering in order to atone for the sins of the Israelite community as a whole (Leviticus 16:5). One goat was to be sacrificed in the usual manner, while on the living goat’s head the high priest was to lay both his hands and confess over it (thus, impute to it) all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites (v. 21). He was then to drive the goat away into the desert, and it would carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place (v. 22).

In the New Testament, imputation relates specifically to the sin of Adam and the work of Christ, and may be categorised into three theological connections, to follow.

New Testament words

In the New Testament, two words are used. ejl l ogevw (ellogeo) means to charge to one’s account (Vine, 1981, p. 252). It occurs twice, in Philemon 18 and in Romans 5:13.

Secondly, and more frequently, l ogizomai (logidzomai) means to reckon, take into account or metaphorically put down to a person’s account (Vine, 1981, p. 252, 258). The word occurs 43 times in the New Testament, most frequently from Romans 2:3 to 14:14. It is used of numerical calculations, such as in Luke 22:37; to consider or calculate, such as in II Corinthians 10:11; and to suppose, judge or deem, such as in Romans 2:3. However, more importantly l ogizomai is used metaphorically, by a reckoning of characteristics or reasons to take into account – precisely that understood by imputation. The Biblical passages that use the word in this sense provide significant data about imputation.

Imputation of Adam’s sin to man

According to Paul’s argument in Romans 5:12-21 the one sin of Adam was imputed to mankind to the extent that “death reigned” (v. 14). All were condemned in Adam (v. 18) and all have been made sinners (v. 19). It is because of Adam’s sin that one is born with a depraved nature and under God’s condemnation (Romans 5:12; Ephesians 2:3).

Controversy exists over the extent of the effect of Adam’s sin on modern man. At one extreme, Pelagius taught that the only effect of Adam’s sin on his posterity is a bad example; each person is created entirely innocent and free from depravity (Thiessen, 1979, p. 186).

Others, such as Thiessen, believe that not only does man receive a depraved nature from Adam’s sin but that each man is personally responsible for the sin of Adam. He states, “There was an impersonal and unconscious participation by all of Adam’s progeny in this first sinful act” (Badham, nd., p. 38).

In attempting to refute the theories of Arminius Thiessen cites Romans 5:12 as meaning that all are responsible for the sin of Adam. Yet, this is not what the verse teaches, despite Thiessen’s use of “according to the Scriptures” (1979, p. 187). Romans 5:12 explains that sin has entered the world through Adam’s sin. Further, death has come through sin (as stated in Ezekiel 18:4). The conclusion then, is that death has and will come to all men, because all men have sinned. To equate the sin of each person with the sin of Adam is to infer from the verse more than it actually says, and perhaps to suggest the likelihood that a person may not commit their own sins, the only reason that “all men have sinned” being that they have been held accountable for the sin of Adam.

The doctrine of the depravity of all men is most real. However, although man is conceived with a sinful nature (Psalm 51:5) because of Adam there is no Scriptural reason why man is individually held responsible for Adam’s sin itself. Rather, all have sinned (Romans 5:12) and are held accountable for this. All have been made sinners (Romans 5:19) but Zodhiates (1992, p. 924) explains that this is a declaration based on the disobedience of man, and not a setting or placing of man in such a position.

Imputation of man’s sin to Christ

In contrast to the imputation of Adam’s sin to mankind, the sin of man has been imputed to Christ. Walvoord (1960, p. 282) differentiates these as a real and a judicial imputation.

Christ bore the griefs and carried the sorrows of man. He was wounded for the transgressions of all and carried the iniquity of all (Isaiah 53:4-6). He knew no sin but was made to be sin on mankind’s behalf – that humans might become the righteousness of God in Him (II Corinthians 5:21). He bore the sins of man in His own body (I Peter 2:24). God declined to impute sins to man, or count them against man (II Corinthians 5:19), but has imputed them to Christ Himself.

Stott (1989, p. 148-9) makes the important point that such imputation does nothing at all to imply the transference of one person’s moral qualities to another. The moral turpitude of sins has not been transferred to Christ, and He has not been made personally sinful or ill-deserving.

The work of Christ has provided a means of atonement for the consequences of man’s depravity. He has voluntarily accepted liability for man’s sin.

Imputation of God’s righteousness to the believer

Thirdly, embodied in the doctrine of justification by faith is the imputation of the righteousness of God to the Christian believer.

The imputation of righteousness is a judicial act by which the believer is declared righteous before a holy God. Although experiential sanctification, conversion and other spiritual manifestations accompany such imputation, it is not in itself an experience but a fact, and a divine pronouncement. Christian believers are declared to be “justified by faith” (Romans 5:1) and Abraham and David are cited as Old Testament examples (Romans 4:1-22).

This imputation must be received through repentance of sin, and by faith towards God. It is not an automatic action, as would be the ramification if man were held responsible for Adam’s sin. If Romans 5:19 (“through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners”) meant that the guilt of Adam’s sin had been credited to every person (in addition to a depraved nature), then the parallel with Jesus (“so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous”) would imply that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to all men – unconditionally, and universally. There is no distinction between believer and unbeliever, and no need for man to repent, for just as Adam’s sin was imputed to all, so has Christ’s righteousness been imputed to all.

The righteous work of Christ is reckoned to the account of the believer as a gift of righteousness apart from human merit or works (Ephesians 2:8-9). As John Owen states, “we ourselves have done nothing of what is imputed to us, nor Christ anything of what is imputed to Him” (Stott, 1989, p. 148).

Conclusion

Imputation is an important Biblical doctrine and Walvoord (1960, p. 282) believes it “rests at the heart of the doctrine of salvation”. Stott (1989, p. 149) states that when one considers the New Testament application of imputation to the death of Christ one is

Imputation and its important ramifications, both negatively and positively, are summarised by Paul in Romans 5:18 thus:

Propitiation

Introduction

Propitiation is the turning away of wrath by an offering. Jacob appeased Esau with a present in Genesis 32:20, and King Mesha of Moab offered a sacrifice to Chemosh in II Kings 3:26 thereby turning away wrath from Moab. From an evangelical view, ‘propitiation’ is concerned with the turning away of divine wrath towards man, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Biblical terminology

In the Old Testament, the principal verb rendered as propitiation is kapher. In the New Testament the idea is conveyed by the use of iJl avskomai (Hebrews 2:17), iJl asthvrion (Romans 3:25) and iJl asmov” (I John 2:2 and 4:10). The iJl avskesqai word group is that used also in the Septuagint for kapher (Hebert, 1950, p. 25; Easton, s.v. ‘Propitiation’).

Disagreement exists, however, as to whether the original Biblical words above do actually mean an atoning action directed towards God – propitiation – or rather towards the offence – expiation.

According to Morris (1984, p. 888) the word group to which the Greek words belong unquestionably has the significance of averting divine wrath (and hence the appeasement of God). In contrast, C. H. Dodd suggests that the word group denotes expiation and not propitiation denying that “the wrath of God” means anything other than a process of cause and effect whereby disaster inevitably follows sin (Morris, 1984, p. 888).

However, Scripture cannot support expiation as the primary understanding. It is true that the Levitical atoning actions – the basis for Old Testament atonement – had a direct effect on sins. It covered them and ‘blotting them out’ (Leviticus 4:20-26) – but the idea of the wrath of God is firmly rooted in the Old Testament, with 585 references. Further, the words of the iJl avskomai group do not denote simple forgiveness or cancellation of sin, but that forgiveness or cancellation of sin, which includes the turning away of God’s wrath (Thayer, 1981, p. 2417), for example, as in Lamentations 3:42-43.

Examples of expiation may be found, but to suggest it is the sole meaning of the original language words presented is disharmonious with Scripture and contemporary pagan usage of the words (Morris, 1950, p. 888; Pecota, 1994, p. 345). Such a view is not founded on a linguistic basis but on predetermined theology. Pecota (1994, p. 346) presents the simple solution,

If one accepts what the Bible says about God’s wrath, a possible solution presents itself. We could see the words as having a vertical and a horizontal reference. When the context focuses on the Atonement in relation to God, the words speak of propitiation. But they mean expiation when the focus is on us and our sin.

This solution is reasonable, and II Kings 24:3-4, Psalm 78:38 and Romans 3:25 all provide examples of God’s anger or punishment joined with forgiveness or atoning sacrifice. Hence, the historical and literary context determines whether propitiation or expiation is the appropriate meaning for a given passage.

Divine wrath

Paul explains that man’s sin receives its due reward, not because of some impersonal retribution but because God’s wrath is directed against it (Romans 1:18, 24, 26, 28). The whole of his argument in the opening chapters of Romans is that all men – Gentiles and Jews alike – are sinners. They have come justly under the wrath and the condemnation of God.

Ultimately God Himself initiates the removal of wrath. Of the process of atonement by sacrifice He says, “I have given it to you” (Leviticus 17:11). Psalm 78:38 says, “Time after time He restrained His anger and did not stir up His full wrath”. At no point do the Scriptures refer to reconciliation being required of God, rather the enmity between man and God is uniquely a problem relating to man. Sacrifice was given by God to man as a means whereby He would not remember sins committed.

North (1950, p. 213) makes the important point that the only sins for which a sinoffering could make actual atonement were breaches of ritual committed in ignorance. In practice a person may well sincerely offer a sacrifice with the expectation that known sins would thereby be forgiven but this was an assumption with no justifiable basis in the law. Forgiveness was certainly a real concept in the Old Testament, but it was not a quid pro quid for sacrifice. Rather it was the free gift of God, dependent only upon repentance and confession (c.f. Psalm 32:5; Psalm 51:1, 16-17; I Samuel 15:22).

When turning to salvation, Paul thinks of Christ’s death as iJl asthvrion (Romans

3:25) – literally a “mercy seat” (Zodhiates, 1992, p. 923). Christ is thus the antitype of the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews 9:5) and is here designated as the actual place where the sinner deposits sin, as well as the means of removing the divine wrath itself. As in the Old Testament, God Himself has provided the means of removing His own wrath. Again, it is a free gift which can not be earned (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The purpose of Christ

The love of the Father is shown in that He “sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins” (I John 4:10). The purpose of Christ’s coming was “to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17). His propitiation is adequate for all people (I John 2:2).

It is not right, however, to conceive of God’s wrath as having been ‘appeased’ by Christ’s sacrifice as explained by transactional theories of the Atonement. It is God who in Christ reconciled the world to Himself, just as He was behind the redemptive action of the servant in Isaiah 53:10.

Genesis and Exodus provide many biographical descriptions that have as their turning points the building of an altar and an act of sacrifice. Similarly, Israel was delivered from Egypt by a method with a symbolism attached to the Passover. Two discernible concepts arise; redemption and the shedding of blood are connected, and a form of substitution exists. These concepts are given fuller detail in the book of Leviticus and are extensively illustrated in the instructions for the sacrifices and priesthood. Christ’s teaching was consistent with such Levitical instructions and the entire New Testament declares that His death was the consummation and fulfilment of such teaching of sacrifice.

An essential distinction must be made between the sacrifices of the Old and New Testaments. Hebrews 10:4 explains that the Levitical priest would repeatedly make sacrifices for sins – first for himself and then for the people. This would occur repeatedly because “it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins”. In contrast, Christ has offered one sacrifice for sin that is able to deal with the root problem of indwelling sin (Hebrews 10:11-14) – expiation of guilt was secured, effected by vicarious substitutionary punishment.

It is important to realise that Christ’s atonement is not merely a ‘covering’ of sins whereby they are treated as non-existent and the sinner as if he had not committed them. Sin is serious, and confession must occur for forgiveness (I John 1:8-9). However the regenerate believer has been reconciled and united with Christ as a member of His body, and hence shares in the righteousness of Christ (Galatians 2:20; Colossians 1:21). One is justified, not in the sense of possessing a righteousness of one’s own (Philippians 3:9) but because one belongs to Christ.

Conclusion

Lean Morris (1950, p. 888) expresses the consensus of evangelicals in saying that the consistent Biblical view is that the sin of man has incurred the wrath of God. Only Christ’s atoning offering averts that wrath. From this standpoint, His saving work is properly called propitiation.

“Reconciliation” sets forth the benefit of the death of Christ for the sinner but propitiation indicates both this and the manner whereby sinners are made friends of God. Christ both propitiates and offers Himself as the propitiation. He is the sacrifice and the High Priest who sacrifices Himself (John 1:29, 36; I Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 10:14; I Peter 1:19; Revelation 5:6, 8).

Just as the covering of the Ark in the Tabernacle was the place where God’s forgiving mercy was shown, so now the cross of Christ is the place where His saving mercy has been manifested.