1. We saw, under a previous head, that in the Jewish sacrifices the victim was in the most literal sense con- ceivable substituted for the offerer to bear the penalty due him, and thus to discharge his obligations to the law. Reconciliation was effected through propitiation, propitiation through expiation, and expiation through the substitution of life for life. Christ suffered as a sacrifice, and hence was substituted in a sacrificial sense.
2. The preposition veo with the genitive, generally — though not always, carries with it the idea of strict sub- stitution. Caiaphas said (John xi, 50), “It is expedient for us, that one man should die for (wep) the people, and that the whole nation perish not;” that is, that one should die in the place of the nation—that is, instead of their death. Paul says (2 Cor. v. 20): “We pray you (veo Xpicrov) in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God”—that is, we do in Christ’s place what he would do in person if present. © Paul writes to Philemon that he sends back to him Onesimus, “‘ whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead (v7ep cov) he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel” (Philem. 13). The same construction is habitually used to set forth the nature of Christ’s substitution for us: “We thus judge, that if one died for all (dep ravtwv), then were all dead” (2 Cor. v. 14). “For he hath made him to be sin for (szép) us, who knew no sin” (2 Cor. v.21). “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for (v7ep) us” (Gal. iii, 13). “That he by the grace of God should taste death for (vep) every man” (Heb. ii. 9). “ For Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just for (U7ep) the unjust, that he might bring us to God” (1 Pet. i. 18).
3. The preposition ayti expresses more precisely than
CHRIST’S SUFFERINGS VICARIOUS. 155
any other word in the Greek language the exact idea of substitution in the strictest sense of the word. ‘This is the radical and definite usage of the preposition.*
Thus it is said (Matt. 11. 22), ‘““Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of (avtt) his father Herod.” Again (Matt. v. 38), “An eye for (avrv) an eye, and a tooth for (av7t) a tooth.” And when this word is used to express the relation of Christ to those in whose behalf he acted, its sense is rendered, if possible, more precise and em- phatic by association with the word AvTpoy, redemption- price. Thus (Matt. xx. 28), ‘The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many (AUTpoy avTt ToANOY). The same is repeated in Mark x. 45. And in 1 Tim. i. 6, Paul, after his manner, combines in one most emphatic formula the force of all the three words most exactly expressing substitution: ‘‘Who gave himself a ransom (avridutpor) for (v7ép) all” —that is, gave himself to be a substitutionary ransom in the place of all. If the Holy Ghost did intend us to understand that Christ was strictly substituted in the law-place of his people, he could have used no language more exactly adapted to express his meaning. If this were not his meaning, we may well despair of arriving at the understanding of his meaning on any subject through the study of his words in any department of Scripture.
_ When the purpose is to express the relation which the death of Christ sustains, not to the persons of his people, but to their sins, the prepositions used are wep! and umep, with the genitive. Robinson says that crepe apapTias, in this connection, signifies “on account of sin, or for sm—that is, for doing away or expiating sin.” (Rom, vii, 3; Heb. x. 18, 26; 1: Pet. iii 18; 1 John ii, 2; iv. 10. The same authority renders vrep when construed with auapti@y, as indicating the ‘ ground,
* See Winer’s Gram. of New Test. Diction, part iii., sect. 47.
CHAPTER x.
CHAPTER
X.
Barnes’s
inconsist-
ency.
156 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
motive, or occasion of the action” (1 Cor. xv. 8. See Heb, v. 1-3; vii. 27). This usage may give no addi- tional force to the argument proving that Christ is our substitute in a literal sense, which I have presented above, but it abundantly disproves the Moral view of the Atonement in any form it can assume. Christ died for, because of, our sins. This naturally suggests, and has, as a matter of fact, always suggested to the great majority of men, that the immediate reason of his dying was the removal of sin; not that our sin was the remote occasion which render a his dying proper.
Barnes maintains (a) That the idea of substitution i is, “that the person substituted is to do or suffer the same thing which the person for whom he is substituted would have done.” (6) That Christ suffered and died as the true substitute of his people. And yet he affirms that Christ did not suffer the true penalty of the law; that is, he did not suffer what they would have done—that is, that he was their substitute, while he lacked that which is essential to