Insofar as the concept of imputation connects with the Biblical and Patristic concept of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, one point worth noting, regarding forensic imputation, is that it is not reducible to being portrayed as an invented 16th-17th Century concept. It is a Biblical concept, and it is a Patristic concept. Below we will demonstrate through both Scripture and St. Maximus that this is clearly Orthodox teaching.
Although a full analysis of the underlying Hebrew and Greek terms for imputation is impossible here, the primary terms in question are the Hebrew חָשַׁב châshab and, to a lesser extent, מָנָה mânâh, and the Greek term λογίζομαι logízomai, and also ἐλλογέω ellogéō.
châshab means “to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count”
mânâh also means to “to count, reckon, number, assign, tell, appoint, prepare”
logízomai means “to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over”
ellogéō means “to reckon in, set to one's account, lay to one's charge, impute”
*The LXX translates both châshab and mânâh as logizomai.
“So the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And He was numbered (logizomai) with the transgressors'” (Mark 15:28).
In other words, Christ was numbered (logizomai) with the transgressors. Transgression was imputed (logizomai), calculated, computed, or assigned to Him. And since this verse is quoting Isaiah 53:12, it is worth noting that the Hebrew term in use there is mânâh. Christ was reckoned, counted as among the transgressors. This is what imputation means, and since He had no sin, it therefore had to be imputed to Him. But a distinction must be made, for it is not a metaphysical imputation, which is to say Christ is not, in His own Person, any kind of transgressor, and so rather than metaphysical it is said to be a forensic or legal imputation, i.e. having a real character that is yet not metaphysical.
Chapter 4 of Romans, although not the only place, is the key chapter discussing the Scriptural concept of forensic imputation. St. Paul teaches: “For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted (logízomai, the Hebrew text being quoted is Genesis 15:6, and uses the term châshab) to him for righteousness’” (Romans 4:3). Abraham had done nothing yet, but on the basis of his faith righteousness was imputed to him, accounted to him.
St. Paul continues: “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted (logízomai) as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted (logízomai) for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes (logízomai) righteousness apart from works: ... 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute (logízomai) sin." 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted (logízomai) to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted (logízomai)? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed (logízomai) to them also, ... 22 And therefore "it was accounted (logízomai, cf. Genesis 15:6 châshab) to him for righteousness." 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed (logízomai) to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed (logízomai) to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom 4:3-6, 8-11, 22-24).
This concept of reckoning or imputation is at the center of Paul’s understanding of the Atonement as a core, non-periphery way of understanding what Christ has accomplished for us. In this way, despite the brief and indicative nature of the present treatment, it is clear that forensic imputation is derived from Scriptural categories of thought, both Old and New Testaments, and is unambiguously associated with the Atonement, for "It shall be imputed (logízomai) to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead" (Rom 4:24).
The Scriptural case being outlined, St. Maximus also makes mystical reference to the concept of forensic imputation and Penal Substitutionary Atonement in Question 54 of his Ad Thalassios (Catholic University of America Press). He writes that Jesus:
did not become a captive together with us, neither was he dragged away into the captivity of the passions, 'for He committed no sin, neither was there any guile found in His mouth.' Instead, He was born among captives as if He were also a captive, and He was 'reckoned (logízomai) among transgressors' (Mark 15:28; Isaiah 53:12), 'assuming the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin.' (54.14, pg 340)
St. Maximus is distinguishing between Christ’s essential or metaphysical sinlessness, on the one hand, and His taking on of the likeness of sin, on the other. He does this to show how an essentially sinless Person can be made to be “as if” a sinner.
Metaphysically, or ontologically, Christ cannot be a sinner, so the challenge is to show how He can be both sinless and the carrier of sin. In order to make this connection, St. Maximus is quoting a verse that centers on the very concept of forensic, non-metaphysical logízomai or imputation of sin. He does this not only as generally referring to it but also centering on the specific logízomai term, and thus shows the necessity for distinguishing a forensic, non-metaphysical imputation, because the divinely legal aspect insures that it is real, and not a fictional carrying of sin. Since Christ cannot metaphysically be a sinner or sinful, Maximus indicates that Christ had to undergo a process of logízomai or reckoning, which is to say imputation; sin has to be legally or forensically imputed to Christ.
Lest his discussion be less clear, he continues to unfold the logic of PSA:
He was in the ‘likeness of the flesh of sin,’ for whereas by nature He is impassible God, He deemed it worthy in His plan of salvation to become a naturally passible human being, without suffering any change in His divinity. And this was ‘concerning sin’ inasmuch as He was led to death on account of our sins, and 'for the sake of our sins He suffered, and on account (logízomai) of our sins He was wounded, and bruised on account of our iniquities, so that by His bruises we might be healed' (Isaiah 53:4-5). (ibid, 341)
Not only generally referring to the Scriptural section which is dealing with logízomai, St. Maximus, in a mode of Biblical exposition he calls "mystical contemplation" (ibid, pg 340), is honing in on and utilizing especially the logízomai concept, which is to say imputation, accounting, reckoning, or assigning of sin to Jesus who has no sin. Since it is not actual sin committed by Christ, the only way for sin to “adhere” to Him is imputationally. This concept of imputation, then, as indicated by St. Maximus in its mystical or "inner meaning," is the mechanism by which the sin of man was applied to, and thus atoned for by, Christ. Showing how in general he thinks mystically about the sacrifices, St. Maximus states elsewhere that "the law was not principally given to them [the Old Covenant Jews], but to us, in whom it was spiritually perfected according to Christ" (36.2, pg 215). Thus the reality of the Law and its legal sacrifices are not trivialized by Christ, nor dismissed by St. Maximus, but find their true spiritual meaning in Him for, as St. Maximus acknowledges, in Christ is revealed "the inner principle of the commandments" (ibid). Therefore "let us examine with piety the inner logic of those sacrifices" (ibid).
St. Maximus, although he is not focusing on the literal aspects of imputation and PSA, its "inner logic" obviously plays a key role that informs his mystical approach and analysis of Scripture, for he does not pit the spiritual against the literal cum historical but sees Christ as meaningfully addressing and fulfilling them both, the letter and the spirit (cf. 54.25, pg 347). In this way PSA as understood in a fuller Orthodox treatment moves beyond the more restricted Protestant treatments of the same, avoiding some of the grosser caricatures that emerge in the less responsible presentations of this mighty and subtle act of God. That principle being established, Question 42 also beautifully expresses this mystical perspective on Penal Substitutionary Atonement:
The condemnation of my freely chosen sin - I mean, of human nature's passible, corruptible, and mortal elements - was assumed by the Lord, who for my sake became "sin" in terms of passibility, corruption, and mortality, voluntarily by nature assuming my condemnation - though He is without condemnation in His free choice - so that He might condemn the sin of my free choice and nature as well as my condemnation, simultaneously expelling sin, passibility, corruption, and death from nature, bringing about a new mystery concerning me, who had fallen through disobedience: the dispensation of Him, who for my sake and out of His love for mankind, voluntarily appropriated my condemnation through His death, through which He granted that I be called back and restored to immortality. (ibid, 42.4, pg 243)
In St. Maximus' view, Christ’s Incarnate ontology did not complete the totality of the Atonement apart from the economy of the Cross, for without sin being imputed to Christ, that is "the corruption of nature" (42.3, pg 242), sin cannot be applied to Him so as to be atoned for "through His death" (ibid, 42.4, pg 243). Therefore, not only is the concept of forensic, non-metaphysical imputation a Biblical concept, but also a Patristic one, as St. Maximus demonstrates according to the mystical mode of his reasoning on the subject. The vicarious suffering of the just for the unjust hinges therefore on forensic imputation, and can in no way be styled a legal fiction, as the reality of the bloody sacrifice amply demonstrates. Penal Substitution is therefore a necessary aspect of any orthodox Orthodox understanding of the Atonement, including a mystical one.
By way of conclusion, the antipathy that some seem to have for legal categories is unfounded. God is a Lawgiver, and a Judge, and the Scriptures are filled with references to legal concepts. Using Scriptural legal concepts, and reasoning according to them, is not a capitulation to secular views of law, nor to an incipient legalism. It is not merely "Western." Although many have perhaps abused the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, certainly the Orthodox are not beholden to the Protestant conception or presentation of it, much less to its grosser caricatures in some folk theologies. That being said, it is also true that the attack on this aspect of the Atonement is harmful; it is harmful both to the faithful and to purposes of evangelism. What is more, the acknowledging of the rightful place of PSA among the Atonement's other modes of description will serve to disabuse the Orthodox from those who falsely seek in Orthodoxy an escape from Biblical, and Patristic, categories of reasoning.
-Fr. Joshua Schooping
This series on Penal Substitutionary Atonement began here, continued here and here, and continues here.
