Imputation of Sin

Paul’s argument in Romans 5:12-14 seems to be this:

1. Through one man, death entered the world, and death spread.

2. Yet, sin is not imputed where there is no law. That is, sin is not liable to punishment when there is no law. This is a basic principle of legality, it would appear. Certain human actons are not liable to punishment, though they may be morally evil, until a law is promulgated forbidding the action.

3. Implicitly, Paul raises the question: How then was there death in the world between Adam and Moses, before the Law was introduced? Why were people being held accountable ?Ehow was sin being imputed ?Ewhen there was no law?

4. Implicitly, the answer must be that everyone between Adam and Moses who died was suffering the consequences of Adam’s own sin. There was a law for Adam, and therefore his sin did leave him liable to punishment, and that punishment spread to those who come from him.

5. Rom 5:14 then offers proof that Adam’s sin is imputed, that his sin makes him liable to punishment, and also makes even those who did not sin against law liable to the curse of death.

6. This part of the argument sets background for Paul’s main discussion, which is about Christ’s reversal of Adam’s sin.

If this is correct, Paul does teach the imputation of Adam’s sin. “Imputation” here doesn’t appear to mean precisely what it means in traditional Reformed theology. Paul’s concern is with how God treats actual sins ?Ewhen a law is present, actual sins are “imputed.” Adam’s sin is “imputed” in the sense that it renders him liable to the curse of death; and because of Adam’s position as the head of the human race, others suffer the consequences of his sin as well. Adam cuts off humanity from God, and therefore from life, and this alienation (the “spread of death” in v 12) leads to universal sin. Paul does not appear to be saying that in God’s register book, “Adam’s sin” can be found in the ledger of MY sins. Also, this way of understanding the argument avoids the contortions of Murray’s interpretation that I critiqued in an earlier post.

But how is it just for people between Adam and Moses to suffer the curse of death if they are not held guilty of Adam’s sin? This seems to force us back to a more traditional understanding of “imputation,” and that may well be the right answer. Imputation in this traditional sense would then be a “good and necessary consequence” of Paul’s argument rather than an explicit teaching. But it may also be that this can be explained simply in terms of Adam’s position as the first man and as a covenant representative. For instance, Abel was not allowed to return to the garden, but this was not because he was directly held guilty of Adam’s sin. Perhaps it was simply because his father had made a terrible error and God cast him out of the garden, and that God determined that no one would return until a perfect sacrifice had been offered, until “dying you shall die” had been carried out on an innocent substitute. (Abel was still born in sin, since he was born under the curse and born to parents who were alienated from God.)