The Doctrine of Atonement, Imputation, and Justification

Definition and Etymology

Imputation represents a comprehensive theological concept with its focal point in the doctrine of atonement. The Latin term imputare carries the literal meaning "to reckon" or "to charge to one's account," which accurately captures the sense of the Greek noun logizomai. This legal concept draws partly from the commercial and juridical terminology of the Greco-Roman context; individuals to whom something is imputed bear legal accountability (e.g., Philem. 18).

The concept also possesses distinctly Hebrew origins (cf. ḥāšab, "to count for, reckon"), appearing, for instance, within the context of the sacrificial system (Lev. 7:18; 17:4).

Philemon 1:18 - But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account; (ellogeō verb)

Alien Righteousness

The New Testament teaches that believers receive what Martin Luther called "alien righteousness"—a righteousness originating from God himself, given as a "gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:15). The pattern mirrors God's treatment of Abraham, whom God declared righteous solely on the basis of Abraham's faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3). Similarly, others receive blessing when the Lord chooses not to count their sins against them (Ps. 32:1–2; Rom. 4:7–8). This divine forensic declaration rests not upon human achievement but upon God's love (Rom. 5:6–8).

Romans 4:1-8 - For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."

Christ's Righteousness Imputed to Us

Romans 8:1-4 - Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Romans 8:31-34 - What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Our Sins Imputed to Christ

While Scripture does not explicitly state that our sins are imputed to Christ, this truth emerges implicitly from the Old Testament sacrificial system, which prefigures Christ's sacrifice. The ritual of laying hands upon the sacrificial victim's head symbolized both the substitution of the animal for the guilty party and the transfer of guilt to the substitute. Consequently, when Isaiah describes the Suffering Servant of Yahweh in Isa_53:1-12 as one who would "bear iniquity" (Isa_53:11), or states that "the chastisement of our peace was upon him" (Isa_53:5), or declares that "Yahweh hath laid (literally, "caused to fall") on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa_53:6), the concept being conveyed is that Christ vicariously endured the penalty for our sin, with our guilt having been imputed to Him.

Galatians 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"—

2 Corinthians 5:21 - He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

1 Peter 2:24 - and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Definition

In biblical usage, the term "justify" (Heb. ṣādēq; Gk. dikaioun [LXX and NT]) means to declare, accept, and treat as just—meaning, on the one hand, free from penal liability, and on the other hand, entitled to all privileges belonging to those who have fulfilled the law's requirements. Justification therefore establishes the legal standing of the justified person and functions as a forensic concept (Deut. 25:1; Prov. 17:15; Rom. 8:33–34).

The lexical evidence does not support the interpretation that "justify" means, or includes within its semantic range, "make righteous"

Justification constitutes a legal declaration whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer (Rom. 4:11, Phil. 3:9).

Justifying the Ungodly

Paul's intentionally paradoxical description of God as "justifying the ungodly" (Rom. 4:5)—employing the identical Greek expression found in Exodus 23:7 and Isaiah 5:23 to describe the kind of corrupt verdict God abhors—demonstrates his recognition that this teaching is profoundly shocking.

The notion appears inconceivable that a God who displays such righteous and unyielding anger toward all human ungodliness (Rom. 1:18) would declare the ungodly to be just.

(Rom. 3:25–26). Paul's assertion is emphatic because the matter is critical. He argues that the gospel, which appears to announce God's disregard for justice, actually unveils divine justice.

The Just Ground of Justification

God declares sinners righteous on a just basis, specifically, that God's law has been completely satisfied on their behalf. The law has not been modified, set aside, or ignored to achieve their justification, but rather fulfilled—by Jesus Christ, functioning as their representative. Through perfect obedience to God, Christ perfectly satisfied the law's demands (cf. Matt. 3:15). His obedience reached its climax in death (Phil. 2:8); he absorbed the law's penalty in our stead (Gal. 3:13) to provide propitiation for sins (Rom. 3:25). Based on Christ's obedience, God credits righteousness rather than sin to believing sinners (Rom. 4:2–8; 5:19).

Romans 4:3-8 - For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."

Introduction

The term atonement derives from the phrase "at onement," indicating a condition of unity. Its fundamental meaning centers on reconciliation, particularly between God and humanity.

The New Testament proclaims that God, motivated by his profound love, has supplied the mechanism of atonement through Christ. Through his crucifixion, Christ has enabled the reconciliation of estranged and condemned sinners to God (Jn 3:16).

Yet the question remains: How did Christ's crucifixion resolve the alienation and condemnation of sinners standing before a holy God, thereby reconciling us to him?

Throughout church history, numerous theories of the atonement have emerged: ransom theories, satisfaction theories, moral influence theories, penal substitution theories, among others.

Biblical Foundation

Isaiah 53:3-8 NLT - He was despised and rejected—a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God's paths to follow our own. Yet the LORD laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people.

1 Peter 2:21-24 - To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."

Romans 3:22-26 - This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood--to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Was Christ Punished for Our Sins?

Penal substitution: God imposed upon Christ the suffering we merited as penalty for our sins, with the result that we no longer merit punishment.

Did God punish Christ for our sins?

• No? Christ experienced the suffering that would have constituted our punishment had it been imposed on us.

• Yes? Christ received punishment in our stead and therefore bore the penalty for our sins.

Definition of Punishment

Punishment entails severe treatment.

Severe treatment does not necessarily equate to punishment.

• God may legitimately impose suffering on an individual without that suffering constituting punishment.

What, then, distinguishes severe treatment from punishment? Here the debate commences.

Four Elements of Punishment

An action qualifies as punishment only when it possesses four essential elements:

1. It must inflict some form of burden or deprivation upon, or minimally remove a benefit that would otherwise accrue to, the individual being punished.

2. The one administering punishment must act deliberately, not accidentally, and not merely as an incidental consequence of pursuing another objective.

3. The burden or deprivation must be administered as a response to what is perceived as a wrongful action or failure to act.

4. The burden or deprivation must be administered, at least partially, as a means of communicating condemnation or censure for what is perceived as a wrongful action or failure to act.

References:

• https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/justice-retributive

• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/punishment/

This represents a variant of what philosophers term an expressivist theory of punishment, which maintains that severe treatment must communicate "condemnation or censure" to qualify as punishment.

Censure:

1. An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.

2. An official rebuke, as by a legislature of one of its members.

Punishment vs. Penalty

How does punishment differ from penalty?

Penalties lack the element of condemnation or censure.

Common usage typically excludes the term punishment when referring to parking tickets, sports infractions, employment terminations, academic failures, competition disqualifications, contractual breaches, and civil law violations.

Penalties may be quite severe and frequently convey society's "resentment" and "stern judgment of disapproval" regarding the offense committed.

Certain punishable offenses appear not to communicate censure. https://www.lectlaw.com/mjl/cl019.htm

Consider the distinction between exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph versus 50 mph.

The Alleged Incoherence of Penal Substitution

Critics of penal substitution have argued that God punishing Christ for our sins represents a conceptual impossibility. Their reasoning: God could not condemn or censure Christ, given that Christ committed no wrong. The objection does not claim that punishing Christ for others' wrongs would be immoral, but rather that any severe treatment God inflicted on Christ for those wrongs would fail to qualify as punishment because it would lack the element of censure.

Responses to Alleged Incoherence

Do We Need Experience of Imputation?

Assuming the doctrine of imputation is valid, must we possess some experiential parallel of such transfer in human contexts?

• We need not. What argument establishes this requirement?

• We might reasonably contend that imputation of sins or guilt constitutes a uniquely divine prerogative. Plausibly, only God as ultimate Lawgiver, Judge, and Sovereign possesses the authority to impute one person's sins and guilt to another.

• Observe that the issue does not involve transferring guilt from one person to another in the sense of removing guilt from one individual and relocating it to another.

Replication vs. Transfer of Guilt

Advocates of the imputation doctrine do not claim that when my guilt is imputed to Christ, it thereby disappears from me. Rather, guilt is duplicated in Christ.

The fundamental logic of penal substitution centers instead on guilt's removal through punishment. The relevant question, therefore, becomes whether we possess any experience of guilt being replicated in someone other than the person who committed the act.

We do possess such experience!

• Civil law includes cases involving what is termed vicarious liability.

Vicarious Liability

In these situations, the legal principle of respondeat superior (roughly, the master bears responsibility) operates to impute a subordinate's liability to a superior, such as holding a master liable for actions performed by his servant.

• For instance, an employer may bear liability for actions performed by an employee acting in their employment capacity, despite the employer not personally performing these actions.

Vicarious liability cases thus demonstrate responsibility for an action being imputed to someone other than the actor.

Notably, vicarious liability represents another instance of strict liability, wherein the superior is deemed guilty without a finding of blameworthiness, as no mens rea is necessary. The superior thus bears guilt and liability for punishment despite lacking culpability.

Consequently, the legal concept of vicarious liability demonstrates that imputing our guilt to Christ is not entirely without experiential parallel. The law's imputation of guilt to someone other than the actor provides a remarkably close analogy to the doctrine of imputing our guilt to Christ.

Justification of Punishment

Theories of justice:

• Retributive: punishment finds justification in the fact that the guilty merit punishment.

  • Backward-looking, administering punishment for offenses already committed

• Consequentialist: punishment finds justification in the external benefits it may produce, including crime deterrence, isolation of dangerous individuals, and rehabilitation of offenders.

  • Forward-looking, administering punishment to prevent future offenses.

The Alleged Injustice of Penal Substitution

The objection states that God punishing Christ in our stead would constitute divine injustice. Retributive justice holds as axiomatic that punishing an innocent person is unjust. Christ was innocent. Therefore, given God's perfect justice, he could not have punished Christ.

The objection continues that appealing to Christ's voluntary self-sacrifice provides no solution, since the nobility of his selfless action cannot nullify the injustice inherent in punishing an innocent individual for offenses he did not commit.

Consequentialist Response

A straightforward approach to this objection involves embracing a consequentialist theory of justice. Consequentialist justice theories can justify punishing the innocent under certain conditions.

A consequentialist penal theorist could readily justify God's punishment of Christ for our sins on the grounds that doing so averts the destruction of the entire human race.

However, Scripture teaches that the wicked merit punishment (Rom 1:32; Heb 10:29), indicating that retributive justice must constitute at least a component of the justification for divine punishment.

Responses to the Alleged Injustice