Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

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.” 45
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.” 46 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 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
45 Outlines of Theology, p. 408.
46 Light From the Ancient East, p. 153.
416