The Justice of the Imputation of Adam's Sin

Even those who admit that God does punish sin may balk at the idea of God imputing Adam's sin to the human race. They do not see it as fair that God would punish the whole human race for the sin of one man. However, the imputation of Adam's sin to all his natural posterity is Biblical and thus also just.

The imputation of Adam's sin means that Adam's sin is attributed to us in such a way that the human race is judged guilty and worthy of punishment on the basis of that sin. Charles Hodge explains: "In the imputation of Adam’s sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to believers, the nature of imputation is the same, so that one case illustrates the other" (Systematic Theology, 2:194). In this essay, I would like to argue that this doctrine is taught in the Bible. Then, I will seek to answer some of the objections to this doctrine.

Arguments for the Imputation of Adam's Sin

1. In Genesis 2-3, Adam did not act merely for himself. He acted as head of the human race. For example, when he was expelled from the Garden of Eden, the entire race was expelled from the Garden. Thus, the entire race was punished for Adam's sin.

2. The common sinful condition implies that there is a common guilt. As Turretin states, "The immediate imputation of the first sin being denied, the principal foundation of the justice of the propagation is removed. Nor can a sufficient reason be given why God willed that hereditary and inherent stain to be transmitted from the parents to their posterity" (Institutes, IX.ix.21). In other words, if infants were not guilty of sin, how could it be that they would born in sinful corruption? How is it that infants sometimes die?

3. Romans 5 explicitly teaches that this is the case. Bypassing the difficulties of Rom. 5:12, the rest of the passage is sufficiently clear. "By the one man's offense many died" (v. 15). "The judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation" (v. 16). "By one man's offense death reigned through the one" (v. 17). "Through one man's offense judgment came to all men resulting in condemnation" (v. 18). All of these passages state that the specific reason for the condemnation was not the corruption or sinfulness of the individuals who were condemned but the sin of the one man, Adam. This is verified by the obedience of Christ. It is the obedience of Christ that is the ground of the justification of others and adjudication of life to others (v. 18); consequently, Adam's sin is also the ground and the material cause of the condemnation and punishment of the human race.

4. This doctrine is also confirmed by the express statement of this principle in other instances as well as examples. Exodus 20:5 tells us that God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." Of the many examples in Scripture, we can cite Achan (Josh. 7:24-25), the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:2-3), the sons of Saul (2 Sam. 21:6-9), Jeroboam's family (1 K. 14:9-10), etc.

5. This is also confirmed by history and common human experience. As Hodge notes, "There is no nation now existing on the face of the earth, whose condition for weal or woe is not largely determined by the character and conduct of their ancestors" (Systematic Theology, 2:199). Hodge also notes that this is the common view of the Church. "It is only since the rise of Arminianism that any considerable body of Christians have ventured to set themselves in opposition to a doctrine so clearly taught in the Bible, and sustained by so many facts of history and experience" (2:204).

Answers to Objections

1. The main Scriptural objection is found in Ez. 18:20. It reads, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." The answer to this is rather simple. This does not state a general principle of God's actions. Rather, it denotes a specific dispensation of God toward those to whom this prophecy is addressed. As Turretin notes, "There is not here any declaration of right, but only the declaration of a special agreement. He does not say what he can rightly do, but against the complaints of the people, what he wills to do" (Institues, IX.ix.27).

2. The other main objection is that it is unjust. The opponents of this doctrine would argue that it cannot be Biblical because it is unjust. Of course, we may simply reply, it is Biblical; therefore, it is just.

However, I believe that more may be said. To begin with, we must understand what the condition of Adam and the human race would have been under what Girardeau calls "a naked dispensation of law." Every human being is under absolute obligation to obey everything that God tells them to do. Moreover, since all men owe this to God, they cannot demand that God give them anything in return for what they already owe Him (see my article on merit and the covenant of works). The result of this would be that every individual human would have to obey the law himself and that none of them could expect anything in return.

Girardeau argues that what is an act of benevolence cannot be an act of injustice. Since God could have required obedience of all indefinitely without promising anything, it was an act of benevolence for God to require it of only one man and set before him and his posterity the blessing of eternal life (see my article on this point here). Moreover, this man was fully qualified for the task and well-equipped to complete it.

Someone many further object that Adam was not chosen by the human race. Girardeau responds well to this point when he says,

To take the ground that the application to the race of the representative principle would have been unjust because they had no suffrage in its adoption is to maintain that the subjects of God’s government have a right to take part in its administration. This is absurdly to press the analogy of human government (Calvinism & Evangelical Arminianism, 252).

God was better-equipped to make the choice of a representative than anyone else or the whole human could have been. At any rate, God is the absolute ruler, and He has the right to organize the government of His creatures.

Finally, we should note on this point that if imputation is morally wrong, then it is wrong in all cases. In other words, if it is wrong for God to judge someone based on another's actions, then it is always wrong. In this case, the imputation of our sin to Christ and Christ's obedience to us would be morally wrong. In this case, we would all be forever confined to hell. As Giradeau noted, "Atonement or eternal death: these are the only alternatives to the transgressors of an infinite law" (Ibid., 255).

Conclusion

The Biblical doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin should teach us the true root of the sin of the human race. It is the sin of our first father, Adam, that brought sin and death into the world. We need to recognize that we are involved in this guilt. We ought to mourn over it and confess it to the Lord. We should recognize that we are not worthy to look at the sun, to have a thread to cover our bodies, or to have a morsel of bread. We are worthy of God's wrath and curse. This should lead us to seek the only way out of our common condemnation. We must have our sins imputed to the last Adam, who alone was able to satisfy God's justice for them, and have His righteousness imputed to us. We stand before God either in the first Adam or the last Adam. The former road leads to condemnation; the latter leads to eternal life.