Basic HTML Version
362
the text can get rid of that meaning here. The preposition anti clearly means “instead of” in
Matt. 2:22; 5:38; 20:28; Mark 10:45. According to Robertson any other meaning of the term is
out of the question here. The same idea is expressed in I Tim. 2:6.
d. Objections to the idea of a vicarious atonement.
Several objections are raised against the
idea of vicarious atonement.
(1) Substitution in penal matters is illegal.
It is generally admitted that in cases of a pecuniary
debt payment by a substitute is not only permissible, but must be accepted and at once cancels
all further obligation on the part of the original debtor. However, it is said that penal debt is so
personal that it does not admit of any such transfer. But it is quite evident that there are other
than pecuniary cases in which the law has made provision for substitution. Armour in his work
on Atonement and Law mentions three kinds of such cases. The first is that of substitution in
cases of work for the public benefit required by law, and the second, that of substitution in the
case of military service required in behalf of one’s country. Respecting the third he says “Even
in the case of crime, law, as understood and administered by men in all lands, provides that the
penalty may be met by a substitute, in all cases in which the penalty prescribed is such that a
substitute may meet it consistently with the obligations he is already under.”[p. 129.] It is
perfectly evident that the law does recognize the principle of substitution, though it may not be
easy to cite instances in which innocent persons were permitted to act as substitutes for
criminals and to bear the penalties imposed on these. This finds a sufficient explanation in the
fact that it is usually impossible to find men who meet all the requirements stated under (b)
above. But the fact that it is impossible to find men who meet these requirements, is no proof
that Jesus Christ could not meet them. In fact, He could and did, and was therefore an
acceptable substitute.
(2) The innocent is made to suffer for the wicked.
It is perfectly true that, according to the
penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement Christ suffered as “the righteous for the
unrighteous” (I Pet. 3:18), but this can hardly be urged as an objection to the doctrine of
vicarious atonement. In the form in which it is often stated it certainly has very little force. To
say that this doctrine makes the innocent suffer the consequences of the guilt of the wicked,
and is therefore unacceptable, is tantamount to raising an objection against the moral
government of God in general. In actual life the innocent often suffer as a result of the
transgression of others. Moreover, in this form the objection would hold against all the so-
called theories of the atonement, for they all represent the sufferings of Christ as being in some
sense the result of the sins of mankind. Sometimes it is said that a moral agent cannot become
reasonably responsible for any sin, except by doing it personally; but this is contradicted by the