Thoughts On The Imputation Of Adam's Sin
(I wrote this essay in 2019, so keep this in mind)
Introduction: The Nature of Imputed Sin
Sin is not imputed or credited to our account based on fallen nature alone. Instead, the fallen nature is created and sustained based on Adam's sin imputed to us, whereby we are constituted as sinners. This status applies to the entire corrupted mass of mankind, even to infants, who die and are liable to many great afflictions.
Part I: Biblical Foundations
The Pauline Framework
Saint Paul establishes the theological foundation for understanding original sin in Romans 5:11-21:
...Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Therefore as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned. For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not charged when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those whose sins weren't like Adam's disobedience, who is a foreshadowing of him who was to come. But the free gift isn't like the trespass. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not as through one who sinned: for the judgment came by one to condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses to justification. For if by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; so much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life. For as through the one man's disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous. The law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace abounded more exceedingly; that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Here we see that the antipathy of divine favor is found in sin itself. We die because we are sinners. Our sin need not be founded in the actual sin of Adam alone. We are constituted sinners in the same way that we are constituted righteous—by the imputation and representation of another. Only afterward does the ontological import of corruption and perfection enter into the equation.
The Causal Efficacy of Divine Declaration
God's declaration of sin on Adam has effects on the entire nature thereafter. God's Word is causal and efficacious. When God declares us just, we really do thereby become just. When God declares the whole race sinful in Adam, we really are constituted as corrupt—that is, a good willed to Adam is no longer willed to his offspring.
Part II: The Problem of Vicarious Liability
General Principles of Moral Responsibility
Can we be held responsible for the sin of another? In most cases, it appears that we may not. Rational deliberation and consent are ordinarily requirements for moral culpability. However, there are many plausible instances where the moral culpability of a subordinate or even a superior may be justly attributed to another.
Classical and Legal Precedents
As we see in Cicero, classical cases of legal responsibility often involved the imputation or transfer of one crime to another by way of surety. Damon offered himself as a hostage for Pythias so that by Damon's suffering, Pythias might be able to return home for a time before execution. Retribution involves a commitment to the common good, which isn't placated or destroyed by the vicarious liability of another. In modern law, the actions of an employee can be deemed the activities of the employer in certain legal matters.
The Principle of "Fit" in Transferred Responsibility
Is a prior condition of consent the sufficient reason for the transfer of responsibility? Perhaps not. What matters is the "fit" of the burden, whereby the obligation of fulfillment is passed on to another agent. If a newborn infant is dropped off in front of a nursery by a negligent and unfeeling mother, an obligation is placed upon the nursery that doesn't proceed from strict and natural justice, whether they wish to take care of the infant or not. The nursery ought not to be responsible for the sustenance and education of the child, ceteris paribus. Nevertheless, the nursery actually is responsible, and the liability that should be the parents' thence becomes theirs.
A few examples of improper vicarious conditions do not destroy this general maxim. The child of a murderous father is not held responsible for his sin because the fit between his actual crime and the consent of agreement in legal representation does not further the common good, nor is it known to us that the child would approve of his action. God punishes concerning justice, for the promotion of the common good is furthered when God acts as He may, punishing those who have natures represented by devious actors or actions. The state punishes for external sustenance. God punishes for His justice.
Part III: Biblical Limitations on Vicarious Punishment
The Teaching of Ezekiel
The Prophet Ezekiel provides crucial insight into the limitations of vicarious liability:
Yahweh's word came to me again, saying, What do you mean, that you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, you shall not use this proverb anymore in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins, he shall die. But if a man is just, and does that which is lawful and right, and has not eaten on the mountains, neither has lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither has defiled his neighbor's wife, neither has come near to a woman in her impurity, and has not wronged any, but has restored to the debtor his pledge, has taken nothing by robbery, has given his bread to the hungry, and has covered the naked with a garment; he who has not lent on interest, neither has taken any increase, who has withdrawn his hand from iniquity, has executed true justice between man and man, has walked in my statutes, and has kept my ordinances, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, says the Lord Yahweh. If he fathers a son who is a robber who sheds blood, and who does any one of these things, or who does not do any of those things, but even has eaten on the mountains, and defiled his neighbor's wife, has wronged the poor and needy, has taken by robbery, has not restored the pledge, and has lifted up his eyes to the idols, has committed abomination, has lent on interest, and has taken increase; shall he then live? he shall not live: he has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be on him. Now, behold, if he fathers a son, who sees all his father's sins, which he has done, and fears, and does not such like; who has not eaten on the mountains, neither has lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, has not defiled his neighbor's wife, neither has wronged any, has not taken anything to pledge, neither has taken by robbery, but has given his bread to the hungry, and has covered the naked with a garment; who has withdrawn his hand from the poor, who has not received interest nor increase, has executed my ordinances, has walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, robbed his brother, and did that which is not good among his people, behold, he shall die in his iniquity. Yet you say, Why doesn't the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son has done that which is lawful and right, and has kept all my statutes, and has done them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins, he shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him. (Ezekiel 18:1-20)
Key Principles from Ezekiel
Here we see several crucial principles:
Vicarious liability for punishment is not the general rule of the Scriptures. Many instances of it are, in fact, wrong.
This is especially true when we have no knowledge of any counterfactual conditions where the relevant parties can be legally represented.
God relays an important fact: if we do not approve of the sins and have no actual basis for their representation, we are not punished on their account.
Particular sins are not the subject of Romans 5. Particular sin exists in individual natures. Sin actually entered into the world through Satan, but that is actual and not original sin.
The Unique Case of Adam
In Adam, the counterfactual conditions are quite fit, since we are all constituted sinners who love our sin given sufficient time. In fact, before his fall, Adam was given ample gifts, making his representation one of grace and not debt.
Part IV: Edwards's Analysis and the Nature of Representation
Jonathan Edwards's Interpretation
Jonathan Edwards lays out this reasoning as follows:
The thing denied, is communion in the guilt and punishment of the sins of others, that are distinct parts of Adam's race; and expressly, in that case, where there is no consent and concurrence, but a sincere disapprobation of the wickedness of ancestors. It is declared, that children who are adult and come to act for themselves, who are righteous, and do not approve of, but sincerely condemn, the wickedness of their fathers, shall not be punished for their disapproved and avoided iniquities. The occasion of what is here said, as well as the design and plain sense, shows, that nothing is intended in the least degree inconsistent with what has been supposed concerning Adam's posterity sinning and falling in his apostasy. The occasion is the people's murmuring at God's methods under the Mosaic dispensation; agreeable to that in Lev. 26:39, "And they that are left of you, shall pine away in their iniquity in their enemies' land, and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them:" and other parallel places, respecting external judgments, which were the punishments most plainly threatened, and chiefly insisted on, under that dispensation (which was, as it were, a foreign and carnal covenant), and particularly the people suffering such terrible judgments in Ezekiel's time, for the sins of Manasseh; according to what God says by Jeremiah (Jer. 15:4) and agreeable to what is said in that confession, Lam. 5:7, "Our fathers have sinned and are not, and we have borne their iniquities."
The Distinction Between Adam and Other Ancestors
Those who do not consent to broader elements of the sin are not at all similar in fit. The more general and disconnected parts of the race are not in view, for they have not. Adam is our legal representative now, and he is justly so. We share his sinful nature, and all originate from him. The sins of others are not justly imputed to us.
When men procreate, they transfer a species and not an individual. Individual sins are not rightfully attributed in such a case. Adam's situation is different. For he originated the species and lost the original gifts that were natural to us, and which rendered eternal life a possibility. Therefore, the natural and generic fit of approving of sin, which is represented by the Adamic nature, is justly in view. The mode of mediation is determined by a similar nature. This is why Christ can be our mediator after faith unites us to Him, and God imputes His righteousness over our sins.
Covenantal Considerations
In short, God never entered into a distinct covenant with the persons of this passage, apart from the bond available to all the persons individually. The effects of that covenant might flow to other generations, but they are not willed adequately as punishments for the faithful but as temporal chastisement, which God works for those who love Him.
Even Calvin would agree. Calvin would argue the visiting of iniquities ordinarily implies that the generations are established to be God-haters, making the initial judgment of God to punish them by the conduit of their forefathers just and fair. If there is no distinct approval for the father's specific sin, the channel is weak. Those who hate God are reared as approvers of the related crimes. Participation and imitation are suitable for liability, but the fit we see with Adam is much more excellent.
Part V: Political Analogies and the Question of Counterfactuals
Is a Counterfactual Requirement Necessary?
Back to the question earlier: is a counterfactual requirement necessary for imputation? Ordinarily, it might be, and I have appealed to it throughout. Nevertheless, one can formulate the problem far differently.
The Analogy of Political Representation
When an election occurs, a president is chosen as the leader of a particular country. He represents the entire country quite naturally—his decisions become the whole country's decisions, and we are judged rightly on his merits or demerits on the world stage. An act of war becomes an act of war by the entire country. This even applies in some cases where the people represented are not of age or even still do not approve. In the US, a decision to enter into a trade war with China can render the entire consumer base corporately responsible, even if the parties voted differently.
One can be freed from this guilt quite naturally. Viewed individually, each person may remove himself from the country. A soldier has no warrant or motive to kill an innocent private person. Nevertheless, a state might declare war against a foreign body generically, which includes private persons.
Generically, a private person may wish to identify with the broader country, even in spite of their sins, for some other morally sufficient reason. In such a case, that person is allowing a sort of imputation, even a bad one, to keep occurring so that some good—i.e., the maintenance of democracy—may come about some sunny day.
Part VI: Theological Resolution
The Divine Purpose in Adamic Representation
This is similar to a reason why God continues to allow the existence of natural Adamic representation. The glory of His salvation is manifested when it is compared to the state of total depravity. God treated us non-suitably and even non-justly (not unjust or unsuitable, however), not damning us from our first moment in Adam so that a sufficient amount of Adamic corruption might shine forth.
To this mass, God became just and the justifier of those who believe upon Him. As Aquinas states, the happiness of the blessed is made more apparent by the imposition of contraries. We experience God as a redeemer in the Adamic world, perhaps in the most (broadly speaking) great way imaginable.
The Justice of Natural Representation
God allowed our nature to suitably be represented by our progenitor—our life and being tends towards him. This is just representation and a fit one. Our nature does not tend towards any of the particular sins of our forefathers, but it does tend towards the prototypical penalty and generic disobedience that issued forth from Adam's iniquity.
From Adam to Christ
By faith, we have corporately moved away from Adam, still undeservedly but not unbecomingly, to Christ. Faith is a proper fit, whereby we passively receive the promises of Christ, and His Spirit begins to reign in our lives, producing new gracious motions. Adam and faith remain. Faith is far better.