# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1928_S21
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

of the Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America. 1928. 21

what he could suffer for the very reason that mankind was in sins." (Der
Schriftbeweis [The Scripture Proof], second half, first division, 1853, p.
320 ff.)

Von Hofmann denies that we rightly understand the words of the New Testament
"Christ died for us." It depends here on the translation of the Greek
preposition hyper, which Luther renders with "für" ["for"]. In von Hofmann's
opinion the word must not be translated "instead of" but must mean "in favor
of," "for the benefit of." But is it not as clear as day that von Hofmann, in
spite of all his acuteness, is on a wrong path here? Let us look at some of the
Scripture passages that come into consideration. 2 Cor. 5:14 says: "For the
love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all,
then were all dead." Here the concept of substitution lies open to view. One
died for all, in the place of all, so that one can now say they have all died.
In this apostolic word "for" evidently means as much as "instead of." Let us
note further once more the passage Gal. 3:13: "Christ hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law, being made a curse for us." What is the sense? Surely this: We
were cursed by the Law; Christ redeemed us from this terrible situation by being
cursed in our place. This too is a clear testimony to Jesus' vicarious work.
If von Hofmann, were he still living, wished to object that hyper (the
preposition used in these passages) cannot have the meaning "in place of" but
must mean "for the benefit of," we can soon show him that he is greatly
mistaken. Precisely the new study of language in the Greek field has shown that
in that period this preposition was very often used in the sense of "instead
of." The newest dictionary for the New Testament (Preuschen-Bauer) gives this
meaning. So von Hofmann's contradiction with his own reasoning is to be thrown
on the scrap heap [literally "to the old iron"].

Others have thought it unjust for God to let Jesus, the Righteous One, suffer in
the place of the unrighteous. They use strong expressions. They designate what
we teach not only as unjust but also as immoral, unethical. Their reproach
seems justified at first glance. What should we think of a judge who let a
thief go and declared: "In place of this wrongdoer we will punish the innocent
citizen N. N."? It would at once make our blood boil, and we would protest
against such conduct. — Our answer to this runs as follows: First, it is to be
noted that in God no injustice, no unjust action can take place. He gave the
Innocent One into death for the guilty. That is certain. With that it is also
already said that this was not something unjust. Second, the matter here lies
quite differently from the example cited. Jesus wanted to suffer. His death was
not a forced but a voluntary death. One would indeed have a right to speak of
crying injustice if this burden and this suffering had been laid on Jesus
against his will; but we know that he came of his own free will to bleed and to
die. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the beautiful Psalm passage is quoted in
which the Messiah says: "Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of
me, that I should do thy will, O God." The well-known words of the Savior in our
hymn:

Yes, Father, yes, from the bottom of my heart,
Lay on, I will bear it for thee;
My willing hangs upon thy mouth,
My working is thy saying,