I am reading through
@SavedByGrace OP (
On The Use of The Greek ὑπέρ and ἀντί) in another thread and in that post he mentions that:
According to Colin Brown, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,
"hyper" (Der Zweite Brief an Die Korinther, 1976, 152f.) is shown to bear a substutionary sense by inference.
He goes on for two posts from there, and you all can read for your own enjoyment.
The actual definition does not fit Substitution, but can only be applicable through adding or modification of the "hyper - hooper" definition.
The word is a placement word, one who is over, under, above, beyond, and signifies something of benefit for the sake of betterment.
It does NOT function as one who substitutes for another.
Substitute uses the Greek word "anti" and is used primarily as offsetting, in place of, substitution, ...
The two word in Scriptures are NOT similar, are not interchangeable, and cannot be interchanged.
Indeed, the BAGD (as
@SavedByGrace posted) lists on ONE single verse that may have a "substitutionary sense" that bears on atonement - 1 Corinthians 5:14.
Christ did not "SUBSTITUE" anything. He is not our substitute, but our redeemer.
He took the sin, yet we still sin. What He took then was the condemnation of which believers now have none.
What was the condemnation? Death, and after death the judgement.
Because Christ was without sin, He was never judged a sinner, and therefore death had no power over Him (the same as the first Adam was not to die until sin enter him). Therefore the Scriptures teach that it is by the unmerited favor of God that believers have been saved, heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Ephesians and Titus).
Hebrews 10:
19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence
to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20b
y the new and living way opened for us through the curtain of His body, 21and since
we have a great priest over the house of God,
22let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Christ did not substitute my blood for His blood, my body for His body, my life for His life, my Spirit for His Spirit. He gave, He redeemed, He bought with a price, He cancelled, He nailed to the cross, ... He NEVER was a "substitute" nor conformed to substitutionary atonement.
Now I realize that
@JonC and I will not be in total agreement on this, for, like I have posted before, I typically present a harder line then He does. He, like some of my good friends now long dead, would contend for a softer more temperate view caused by the "inference" and suggest it as if it were doctrine.
But doctrine should never be supported on something only held by "inference" but that which is clearly taught by both statement and portrayal.
Inference has the properties of water. Apply enough outside force and it changes states.
Doctrine never changes states, and holds firm upon Scripture fact.
