The case for substitution

The theme of substitution allows full scope for us to understand the depth and completeness of Christ’s involvement in the human condition. From this perspective, it is truly hard to understand why there is so much resistance to it. How does it make the self-sacrifice of Christ more palatable to say that he gave himself only for our benefit, rather than in our place? Even if it is construed exclusively as a victory over the Powers — as in the Christus Victor motif — does that explain why the Son of God had to under go crucifixion to defeat Sin, Death, and the devil? Does it not require some suspension of disbelief in any case? Why should we resist the most obvious sense of the words “for us” and “for me” in the case of Jesus on the cross? Since he clearly did not deserve what happened to him, why is it not right to conclude that we should have been there instead of him? Is that not the most basic sort of human reaction? We have all heard of people saying, “It should have been me instead of him.” Why should we want ruthlessly to eliminate such thoughts concerning Christ on the cross? The plain sense of the New Testament taken as a whole gives the strong impression that Jesus gave himself up to shame, spitting, scourging, and a degrading public death before the eyes of the whole world, not only for our sake but also in our place.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 529 (emphasis original)