Another Stab at Rom 5

The word Paul uses for “impute” in Rom 5:13 is used in only one other passage in the NT, Philemon 18. (The Greek is ELLOGEO; elsewhere, the word translated as “impute” is LOGIZOMAI.) Perhaps an examination of Philemon 18 will shed some light on Paul’s usage in Rom 5:13.

Paul’s offer to pay Onesimus’ debts and obligations in Philemon 18 is at one level a gesture of kindness to both Philemon and his slave. But the language Paul uses makes it clear that he has larger issues in mind:

1) In verse 16, Paul suggests that Philemon should receive Onesimus back as “more than a slave,” but rather a “beloved brother” in “the flesh and in the Lord.” This shift from slave to brother rings changes on common terminology of the gospel. Slaves of sin enter the church and become brothers.

2) Paul specifically says that Onesimus has been a brother “especially to me” (v 16). Paul thus lowers himself to the level of a slave, claiming Onesimus as kin. The kenotic theme is unmistakable.

3) Further, Paul as brother to Onesimus the slave wants to exchange places with him. This is the central thrust of verses 17-18. On the one hand, Paul wants Philemon to receive the slave as he would his “brother,” the apostle. And this means receiving him not as a slave but as a “partner.” The phrase translated as “regard me as a partner” in the NASB is ME EXEIS KOINONON – “have me as one who shares all things in common.” Throughout Paul’s writings, the KOINON- word group describes the “fellowship,” the mutual edification and sharing of gifts and goods that characterizes the life of the community. Here, Paul instructs Philemon to receive Onesimus as one who can give to Philemon as well as receive from him. And, again, Paul sets this up with a theme of substitution: Philemon counts Paul as a “sharer in goods”; Paul wants Philemon to put brother Onesimus in that position.

4) The exchange works the other direction in vv 18-19. Paul wants Philemon to “impute” Paul’s status to Onesimus; and Paul wants Philemon to “impute” Onesimus’ obligations and debts to himself. Here Paul uses the word ELLOGEO, translated in the NASB as “charge to my account.” Paul promises to pay two sorts of obligations. First, if Onesimus has wronged Philemon, Paul promises to pay restitution. Second, if Onesimus owes Philemon anything, Paul promises to pay off the debt. For Philemon to “impute” to Paul means that Paul shoulders the obligations of Onesimus. It means that Paul accepts the duty of paying restitution for wrongs done, and repaying any debts incurred.

5) Verse 19 might add an additional dimension. Paul intervenes to write in his own hand that he will take responsibility for all Onesimus’ obligations; he has said it once, and he says it again as a double witness, signed with his own hand. The word for “repay” in v 19 is APOTIO, a hapax in the NT. The verb TIO from which it comes is used once, and has the meaning of “suffer punishment” or “pay the penalty” (2 Thes 1:9). This repeats Paul’s offer to take responsibility for Onesimus’ obligations, but with perhaps an additional note that Paul is taking on a penalty that Onesimus deserves.

6) Clearly, throughout, Paul is describing his own actions with regard to Onesimus as imitations of Christ. Paul hopes to reconcile his “brother” to his master by accepting responsibility for his brother’s wrongs, as Jesus did not scorn being our Brother so that he could bear our sins and reconcile us to the Father.

Now, what does all this say about Rom 5:13? Here are a few suggestions:

1) The usage in Rom 5:13 is divergent from Philemon 18 in a number of ways. In Philemon, the “object” of imputation is clear; the obligations are charged to Paul. And, the “thing imputed” is also clear; Paul accepts responsibility for the debts incurred and wrongs committed by Onesimus. Neither is precisely clear in Rom 5:13. The question, “To whom are the sins imputed?” is not clearly answered. The question of the “thing imputed” is bound up with the prior question: The text says that “sin” is imputed, but it is not clear whether this means that the sin incurs punishment for the person who sins, or whether the sins imputed are being imputed to some unnamed party.

2) Despite the divergence in setting and usage, let me attempt to put Rom 5 into the framework set up by Philemon 18:

-To impute a debt is to charge a debt to someone other than the debtor. In Rom 5:13, sin is being treated as a debt that is going to be paid by someone other than the sinner.
-To impute a wrong is to require someone other than the wrong-doer to make restitution for the wrong. In Rom 5:13, sin is an evil (Philemon 18 uses a negative form of a the word-group DIK- to describe Onesimus’ wrong) that is going to be restored by someone other than the evil-doer.
-Paul’s specific statement is that sin is not imputed when there is no law. That is, where there is no law, there is no arrangement by which a debt can be repaid by someone other than a debtor, and no arrangement by which restitution can be made by another.
-Paul may be implying too that without law, the specific obligations remain unclear. Without a contract, the amount of the debt is not specified; without a law of restitution, the amount of restitution is vague. Once law comes in, then the specific obligations that can be imputed are clarified.

3) Perhaps, then, the logic of Rom 5:12-14 is this: Adam’s sin brought death into the world (v 12), and sin was in the world before the law (v 13) and death reigned before the law (v 14). What was lacking before the law was a mechanism of imputation (v 13). With the law, that mechanism was set up, so that the law makes sin-bearing possible. This makes sense of the OT descriptions of the role of Israel and the priesthood of Israel. Under the law, the sins of the nations were “imputed” to Israel, and the sins of Israel were imputed to the high priest. Israel took on the burden of paying the world’s debt and making restitution for the world’s wrongs.

4) This does not seem to conflict with the other things that Paul says about the effects of the law in Rom 5. The law causes transgression to increase (v 20), and the law does turn sinful behavior into transgression, so that Israel’s sins were sins “in the likeness of the offense (PARABASIS, transgression) of Adam” (v 14). It is clear from the NT’s usage elsewhere that transgression is correlated with law (NOMOS); see Rom 2:23, 25, 27; 4:15; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2; 9:15; James 2:9, 11. The law intensifies sin until it becomes transgression. And the law also “increases transgression” in the sense that it sets Israel up as the scapegoat for the Gentiles. The Law enters a world under the reign of Death, and the result is that the Law places Sin on the throne along with death (v 21).

5) Rom 5:12-14 thus serves as the background for Paul’s declaration that Christ reversed the sin of Adam. This is possible because Jesus is the Last Adam; it is also possible because Jesus is the true Israel, the true Sin-bearer, to whom sin can be imputed.

6) This, finally, perhaps suggests that Paul does not see Jesus as fulfilling a “covenant of works.” Jesus does not come into the world under the covenant of works; He is born “under the Law” (Gal 4:4). Jesus fulfills Torah, and THEREBY reverses the sin of Adam. This could not be done, however, without the system that Torah set up. Without Torah, the world would have been condemned to suffer under the reign of death, everyone paying the pena

lty and debt of his own sins. When Torah is introduced, imputation becomes a reality, and we can be delivered from the reign of sin and death through a sin-bearer, who, like Paul, promises to pay all our debts and make restitution for all our wrongs, so as to reconcile us to our Master.