Improve your biblical and theological word power 5: Imputation
Today we are going to conclude our series on biblical word power with something slightly different: a brief introduction to imputation. ‘Imputation’ is not actually a word used in the Bible. Nevertheless, imputation is still a very important word, because it can help us to plumb the depths of the issues surrounding the Bible's use of words like ‘righteousness’ and ‘justification’, which we looked at in previous posts.
(Apologies to those who, like James, were hoping for a speedier conclusion to this series. As Sandy kindly noted, I've just moved to England with my family and so have been a bit too preoccupied to write!).
The issue: How can God justify the wicked?
If you've been following this series, you'll notice that there seems to be a contradiction in the way that the Bible uses the closely related words ‘righteousness’ and ‘justification’.
Righteousness = being in line with a standard.
In particular in the forensic (law court) context,
Righteousness of a defendant = being in line with a legal and/or moral standard.
The job of the law court is to examine an individual and then declare whether that individual is in line with particular legal and/or moral standards. If the court finds that the individual is indeed righteous, then the court ‘justifies’ that individual:
To justify = to declare that a person is indeed righteous (usually in a forensic context, i.e. a law court).
The same is true, in an ultimate and cosmic sense, of God's law court. God acts as judge of each individual, whom he has created. If God finds that the individual is in line with God's own created moral standards, then God justifies that individual. If not, he condemns them.
However, we saw in my previous post that God can and does justify (i.e. declare righteous) people who are not actually righteous (e.g. 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Pet 3:18; Rom 4:5). He does this somehow because of atonement—atonement ultimately through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Rom 3:25-26). How can he do that?
The answer: Imputation
The answer is imputation. The concept of imputation was especially championed by the 16th-century reformers and their successors. But imputation is not just a 16th-century creation; imputation arises naturally from the biblical understanding of righteousness and justification. What is imputation?
Imputation = when God treats Christ's righteousness as if it were my righteousness.
Imputation is the way that God can justify me. In his role as judge of the world, God examines me to determine if I am righteous (i.e. in line with his created moral standards). This is a problem for me (and you!), since I am not in line with his standards; I have sinned. So by rights, I should be condemned, not justified. But instead, God treats Christ's righteousness as if it were mine. And so God justifies me (i.e. God declares that I am indeed righteous). This is the heart of imputation.
Imputation and union with Christ
The obvious criticism of imputation is that it sounds like ‘legal fiction’. How can God justify me on the basis of somebody else's righteousness, and still remain a righteous judge?
Well, there are two excellent and closely connected answers to this objection.
Firstly, God can justify me because of Jesus' atoning sacrifice. In Christ, my unrighteousness has already been condemned. My sin, and God's righteous anger against my sin, has been dealt with (Rom 3:25-26). There is now no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1-4).
Secondly, God can treat Christ's righteousness as if it were mine because I am intimately connected with Christ through faith (e.g. Galat 2:20; Rom 3:26). As I trust in Jesus, and particularly in his death and resurrection, I become united to him through faith. And so God can justly impute Christ's righteousness to me.
The reformer Martin Luther compared this idea to the way in which husband and wife share each other's possessions and status. Because I am united to Christ, Christ takes my sin on himself, and I share his righteousness as my own possession.1
Calvin writes about imputation too, describing it as a “fellowship of righteousness”:
We do not, therefore, contemplate him [i.e. Christ] outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body—in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.
(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.11.10)
Questions about imputation
This post is only an introduction to the concept of imputation. There are lots of questions that we don't have space or time to enter into. For example, what exactly is Christ's righteousness? And how is it related to God's righteousness?
These aren't necessarily easy questions. But we need to realize that these questions about imputation are not just a matter of idle speculation; they are biblically based questions—questions that arise naturally from the way the Bible speaks about righteousness and justification. And we should expect that the more we consider such questions with the Bible open, and the more we take the Bible's insights to heart, the more we will be able to know and love God for who he is and what he has done for us in Christ.
1 Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings, edited by Timothy F Lull, Fortress, Minneapolis, 1989, pp. 600-604.
This is such wonderful stuff, Lionel. Thanks to God for the truth of this, and his great grace in sharing his righteousness with guilty sinners through the offering of blood.
And thanks to you for explaining it so simply and well. May God speed you through your PhD andbring you back, or send you somewhere, to lecture this message in a Bible college—or anywhere really—for many years to come.
Hi Lionel, and good to see you up and running again.
I want to seek a clarification of your comment
Can the concept be found in certain contexts within the semantic range of the Greek word logizomai? This word is used once in each of verse of Romans 4:3-6, where something other than Abraham’s own righteousness is counted to him as righteousness.
It is often translated “credit” (NIV, NET) or “reckon” (KJV) or “count” (ESV) - is even translated as “imputeth” by KJV in Rom 4:6.
BDAG gives the following as possible meanings… reckon, calculate, count, evaluate, estimate, look upon as, consider, including in the context of these verses, the idea of “credit someth. to someone as someth.” (something else, presumably).
By the way imputation - although an unusual word - is used in the financial world. In Australia, if you have shares in a company and they pay tax on their earnings before paying you a dividend, then you can claim a ‘tax credit’ where the tax paid by them is attributed or “imputed” to you, as having been paid by you - out of your share in the company’s profits. This can reduce your own tax liability. (Please excuse any imprecision in my layman’s financial explanation.)
Lionel,
Thanks for that, nice post. A few thoughts:
1. Your definition of imputation would not satisfy many hard corps Presbyterians who want to emphasize the imputation of the active obedience of Jesus Christ. So you might need an answer to that question ready.
2. Note in Romans 4 that Paul says that “faith” is imputed and later that “righteousness” is imputed. You need to account for that. What’s the difference and why the switch?
3. On the legal fiction charge, G.E. Ladd rightly said that justification establishes a relation between us and God, and because the relationship is real, so too is the righteousness that God attributes to us.
4. I think you need to follow the logic of Calvin further. We are justified by virtue of union with Christ where we participate (or are incorporated) into his death and vindication. Imputation is how we describe our sin being identified with him and his justification (= resurrection) being identified with us.
5. I’m still tormented by the words of the Protestant theologian James Denny. If justification is a status, does it make any sense to say that a status can be imputed? I think Denny is right insofar are as some Protestants still have a Catholic view of righteousness as a substance or material entity and the ONLY difference is whether it is imparted or imputed. But I’m beginning to suspect that the whole gambit falls apart once you grasp a more union-centred view of justification.
Thanks Gordo.
And Sandy - I agree, there’s a certain conceptual connection between the biblical word λογιζομαι and the theological word imputation. But they are different, and the difference is significant.
As you pointed out, in Romans 4 it’s Abraham’s own faith that is regarded/counted as if it were Abraham’s righteousness (same person, different characteristics). But in the theological use of the word imputation, Christ’s righteousness is counted as our righteousness (same characteristic, different people).
Of course, λογιζομαι and imputation are connected: the reason that Abraham’s faith can be counted as righteousness is because Christ’s righteousness is imputed to Abraham. But the words are not the same.
Part of the problem with equating λογιζομαι (an accounting term) too closely with the theological word imputation is that you can end up thinking about our relationship with Christ in accounting terms (“credit”, etc.) which is OK as an approximate model but ultimately is fraught with danger. Apologies to all the accountants out there, but using accounting terminology too much when we speak of our relationship with Christ can imply an impersonal distance between ourselves and our Saviour, as if our relationship with God is based on a bank error in our favour. Witness the medieval indulgence system for an example of what can happen when this idea gets out of hand.
Nevertheless, I see your point about the semantic connection. Maybe it would be more accurate for me to have said that the word imputation is not used in the Bible in the same way (or with the same referents) as it’s commonly used in theological discourse.
Hi Michael,
Helpful points, let me give some quick responses.
1. I’m not a hard core (sp?) Presbyterian, but I would have thought that my definition of righteousness as “being in line with a standard” (particularly, in this case, a moral standard) would encompass Christ’s active obedience? I’m happy to be corrected.
2. I probably could account for this, but I don’t think I need to for the purposes of this post (see my previous comment)
3. Yes, God in his sovereignty can technically do anything he likes. But the legal fiction charge comes from those who are disturbed by the idea that God seems to be acting completely arbitrarily in justification, with no reference to the norms he has set up as creator and judge. This is an attempt to answer this issue.
4. Actually I think Christ’s righteousness involves more than simply his vindication (= justification). In Calvin’s quote, it is Christ’s righteousness, not his justification, that is imputed to us. See point 1 in this comment.
5. Part of what I’m trying to do with these posts is to be precise about the language of justification, and here is a place where such precision is important. Justification is not merely a status; it is the declaration that a person is indeed righteous, and so it is based on a reality. Imputation is the view that the reality upon which justification is based is not our own righteousness, but Christ’s, which we truly share by being united to him by faith. It is not the status that is imputed to us, but the righteousness itself.
Lionel,
Thanks for that. It’s a good post.
1. Even the WCF does NOT mention “active” obedience.
2. I think Paul uses Gen 15.6 to demonstrate the fact that justification occurs rather than saying how, i.e., justified by faith = credits righteousness by faith.
3. No argument for legal fiction from me, I think Ladd proves that it’s not.
4. I think you are regarding Christ’s righteousness as his moral merit. But is righteousness a substance or a status? The word dikaiosyne can mean ethical righteousness, right relations, or a status. Note the reference to Jesus’ justification in 1 Tim 3.16 and Richard Gaffin, Mark Seifrid, and N.T. Wright all interpret Jesus’ resurrection as his justification. So union with him must mean participating in his justication.
Hi Mike - congrats on your new post in Queensland!
My view of the lexical meanings of righteousness and justification are spelled out in my previous 5 posts - is there anything there that you think I’ve got wrong?
Commenting rules
If you would like your comment to be considered for publication, please observe the following rules:
Failure to adhere to these rules will result in your comment being quietly deleted.
If you want to give us feedback but don't want your comments to appear on the blog, DON'T use the form below. Instead, please send us an email or click on the button below.
Your Comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.