Previous and Other Pages of Article: The confusion between Original Sin and Imputed Sin

< BACK / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4

Biblical Context

Is the idea of imputed sin, the guilt of one's sin(s) being charged to another, consistent within the context of the Bible? Consider the following evidence found in the Bible:

1. In revealing the Ten Commandments to Moses, Gods says, "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." (Ex 20:5, 34:6-7, and Num 14:18)
2. In His instructions to the Israelites on how they are to live in order that they have fellowship with Him, God also reveals punishments if they fail in their responsibilities of the covenant, "I will let loose among you the beasts of the field, which will bereave you of your children and destroy your cattle and reduce your number so that your roads lie deserted." (Lev 26:22)
3. The sin of Achan led the deaths of his sons and daughters and the destruction of all of his livestock and property (Josh 7:1-26).
4. Amalek's treatment of Israel brought death and destruction on all his people and livestock (1 Sam 15.1-5).
5. For his apostasy, the Lord condemned and destroyed King Jeroboam and his house (1 Kings 14:7-11).
6. For his sin of greed and lying, the leprosy of Naaman was given to Gehazi and his descendants forever (2 Kings 5:20-27).
7. With complete assurance in God, King David declares, "Their offspring You will destroy from the earth, and their descendants from among the sons of men." (Ps 21:10)
8. "The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish." (Prov 14:11)
9. The prophet Jeremiah understood that God's judgment could be based on imputed sin, "who shows lovingkindness to thousands, but repays the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. The LORD of hosts is His name." (Jer 32:18)
10. The Pharisees recognized that sin could be imputed when they questioned Jesus about the blind man from birth, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" (John 9:1-3)

With the principle of imputed sin, God deals with men, not only as individuals but also, as a community. Yet despite the biblical evidence, there are many who still deny the existence of the principle of imputed sin. Listed are the most commonly used biblical evidence and why they fail as proof texts.

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deut 24:16)

In this section of various miscellaneous laws here in Deuteronomy, there is little context to understand fully the meaning of the passage. However, there are 2 apparent problems if one were to use this passage to refute the principle of imputed sin: A) It is not consistent with God's revelation of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:5, 34:6-7, and Numbers 14:18, and B) the doctrine of imputed sin referred to descendants bearing the guilt (and subsequent penalty) of their parent's sins, not parents bearing the penalty of their children's sins.

In matters of moral and legal dispute, ancient Near East and Middle Eastern cultures sought solutions that emphasized corporate responsibility (i.e. Code of Hammurabi, Law 230). Thus a family member may suffer the consequences of another member's sin. Some aspects of this judicial approach still exist today in the Middle East. Many scholars believe that Moses was referring to this.

"In those days they will not say again, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge." (Jer 31:29-30)

"Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers eat the sour grapes, but the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live,' declares the Lord GOD, 'you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore.'" (Ezek 18: 1-3)

These two passages refer to a proverbial saying that was common at the time, namely children were suffering for their parents sinful behavior. Suffering from the consequences of a history of rebellion against God, people blamed their ancestors rather than take responsibility for their sins. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were telling the people that they might suffer for the sins of their parents but that they will be held accountable and judged for their own sins.

Cultural Context

Up until this time, Paul had not visited Rome nor had any other apostle; Peter had not yet arrived. Paul's letter to the Christians (both Jewish and Gentile) in Rome represent the longest and most systematic presentation of the doctrine of salvation and justification through faith in Christ. In addressing the unspoken conflict between Judaizers and Gentiles, Paul clearly states that while God's wrath is towards all sin in both Gentile and Jew alike, there is a universal message that God saves through the justifying action in Christ.

The cultural-theological context during this time was very diverse; pre-70 AD Judaism was a complex of Jewish sects among them:

1. Qumran: Associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls, this group considered itself the true remnant of Israel and more pure than the Pharisees.
2. Pharisees: Committed to uphold the laws of tithing and ritual purity, the Pharisees were a religious and political party. Made up of faithful Jews called Hasidim, they were noted for their strict observance of the Mosaic Law as interpreted and applied by the scribes.
3. Diaspora/Hellenistic: Throughout their history, the Jews experienced dispersions from the land of Israel. After the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Greek language and culture was widely spread and lingered even after the Roman conquests.
4. Early Christianity: In its infancy, Christianity was considered a Jewish sect!

During this time, most discussions regarding the Torah were in the oral tradition; it was much later (200 AD) that the oral tradition was collected into Rabbinic Texts. However, available to the Jews were a variety of writings used for religious and social purposes among them:

1. Apocrypha / Pseudoepigrapha: These Jewish writings are expansions and embellishments of the biblical texts, stories, histories, hymns, letters, etc but are not part of the Jewish or Protestant canons. Some writings of the Apocrypha however are included in the Catholic canon.
2. Dead Sea Scrolls: Found in Qumran, these scrolls contained portions of the Old Testament, commentaries on the Torah, hymns, prayers, and apocalyptic writings.
3. Philo of Alexandria: Considered the best witness of Diaspora Hellenistic Judaism, he wrote commentaries and philosophy. However, because his work reflected Greek philosophy rather than Hebrew tradition, Jews considered it suspect.
4. Josephus: Largely a historian and reporter of Jewish life, Josephus was an apologist for Judaism.
5. The Apostle Paul: Paul's work is considered the only voice of a Pharisee thus far recovered from this period.
6. Targums: These Aramaic texts were paraphrases of the Bible.

The Jews' hermeneutic approach to the Old Testament was not unlike the approaches that exist today among Christianity:

1. Literal (peshat): Rabbinic literature was not all midrashic. There were many examples of a literal, grammatical, and historical interpretation especially in the reading of the Mosaic Law.
2. Midrash: Using hermeneutic rules established by highly regarded Rabbis (ie. Rabbi Hillel's seven Middoth, Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha's set of thirteen, or Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha-Galili's thirty-two), midrashic interpretation attempts to find the contemporary meaning of the Torah. This form of exegesis usually did not consider the historical or grammatical context of the biblical passage. During the first century, the Pharisees mixed literal and midrashic hermeneutic approaches and made no conscious effort to differentiate the methods until the third or fourth century.
3. Pesher: This form of hermeneutic approach applies principally to the Qumran sect. They felt that they were living in the final days and prepared for the coming of the Messiah. Instead of elucidating the Torah, pesher was the focused on the application of eschatological (end times) prophecy as it pertained to their situation. Much of their interpretive views were characterized as imminent and catastrophic.
4. Allegorical: The writing of Philo of Alexandria is regarded as a prominent example of an allegorical approach toward the Torah during the first century. Instead of considering the literal and historical context, his Greek texts focused on the figurative symbolism in striving to understand the spiritual meaning of the passage. Some Rabbis and the Qumran sect also practice this form of exegesis; however, it was not a dominant form in Palestine.

Because of these various approaches to the Torah, there was no normative Jewish theology. With regard to the concept of sin during the time of Christ, there were three competing views: 1) sin was the result of a sin nature genetically passed down, 2) sin was the result of one's own personal action, and 3) sin was connected to Adam, in an undefined manner, and for which posterity is liable for.

Against this theo-cultural milieu, Paul's letter to the Romans is distinctive for two reasons: 1) his unique focus on the Adam-Christ relationship, and 2) his orientation towards the Old Testament. Both Adam and Jesus Christ were real historical people to Paul, and his approach to both Adam/Christ and the Torah was literal and historical.

Article Continues: The Controversy

1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / NEXT >