Basic HTML Version
361
(1) The Old Testament teaches us to regard the sacrifices that were brought upon the altar as
vicarious. When the Israelite brought a sacrifice to the Lord, he had to lay his hand on the head
of the sacrifice and confess his sin. This action symbolized the transfer of sin to the offering, and
rendered it fit to atone for the sin of the offerer, Lev. 1:4. Cave and others regard this action
merely as a symbol of dedication.[The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, pp. 129 f.] But this does
not explain how the laying on of hands made the sacrifice fit to make atonement for sin.
Neither is it in harmony with what we are taught respecting the significance of the laying on of
hands in the case of the scape-goat in Lev. 16:20-22. After the laying on of hands death was
vicariously inflicted on the sacrifice. The significance of this is clearly indicated in the classical
passage that is found in Lev. 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it
to you to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason
of the life.” Says Dr. Vos, “The sacrificial animal in its death takes the place of the death due to
the offerer. It is forfeit for forfeit.” The sacrifices so brought were pre-figurations of the one
great sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
(2) There are several passages in Scripture which speak of our sins as being “laid upon” Christ,
and of His “bearing” sin or iniquity, Isa. 53:6,12; John 1:29; II Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Heb. 9:28; I
Pet. 2:24. On the basis of Scripture we can, therefore, say that our sins are imputed to Christ.
This does not mean that our sinfulness was transferred to Him — something that is in itself
utterly impossible — but that the guilt of our sin was imputed to Him. Says Dr. A. A. Hodge: “Sin
may be considered (1) in its formal nature as transgression of the law, I John 3:4; or (2) as a
moral quality inherent in the agent (macula), Rom. 6:11-13; or (3) in respect to its legal
obligation to punishment (reatus). In this last sense alone is it ever said that the sin of one is
laid upon or borne by another.”[Outlines of Theology, p. 408.] Strictly speaking, then, the guilt
of sin as liability to punishment was imputed to Christ; and this could be transferred, because it
did not inhere in the person of the sinner, but was something objective.
(3) Finally, there are several passages in which the prepositions peri, huper, and anti are used in
connection with the work of Christ for sinners. The substitutionary idea is expressed least by
the first, and most by the last preposition. But even in the interpretation of huper and anti we
shall have to depend largely on the context, for while the former really means “in behalf of,” it
may, and in some cases does, express the idea of substitution, and while the latter may mean
“instead of,” it does not always have that meaning. It is rather interesting to notice that,
according to Deissmann, several instances have been found on the inscriptions of the use of
huper with the meaning “as representative of.”[Light From the Ancient East, p. 153.] We find a
similar use of it in Philemon 13. In such passages as Rom. 5:6-8; 8:32; Gal. 2:20; Heb. 2:9 it
probably means “instead of,” though it can also be rendered “in behalf of”; but in Gal. 2:13;
John 11:50, and II Cor. 5:15 it certainly means “instead of.” Robertson says that only violence to