Additional Note On Ὑπερ In Galatians 3:13

c. The resultant state of the believer

Holders of substitutionary ideas have sometimes been criticized as being indifferent to moral values, but this criticism cannot be urged against the biblical writers. In the Scripture we see the price paid, the curse borne, in order that those who are redeemed should be brought into the liberty of the sons of God, a liberty which may paradoxically be called slavery to God. The whole point of this redemption is that sin no longer has dominion; the redeemed are saved to do the will of their Master.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON ὑπερ IN GALATIANS 3:13

It seems likely that the preposition here conveys a substitutionary thought. It is true that the word usually signifies ‘on behalf of’, but this is not all the story. It can convey the idea of substitution. For example, in Euripides’ Alcestis, where the plot centres on Alcestis’ death as a substitute for her husband, the prepositions ἀντί, ὑπέρ and πρό are used practically interchangeably. ὑπέρ in such passages clearly means substitution. Again, the very existence of verbs like ὑπερθνήσ 007

ω and ὑπεραποθνήσ 007

ω shows that the preposition can denote substitution.

Just as this is true in the classics, so is it the case in the more popular language of the papyri. Thus E. Mayser says, ‘Tolerably widespread is the use of ὑπέρ = instead of, in the place of, in substitution for someone, exclusively of persons, yet generally in such a way that it is not a simple, external, mechanical substitution, but there predominates the basic meaning, “in the name, in the interest, for the benefit of someone”. Yet there also occur cases in which ὑπέρ stands completely in the sense of ἀντί.’¹¹⁷ We see this, for example, in papyri wherein the scribe says that he is writing ὑπέρ someone else. However we choose to translate it, this cannot mean anything other than that he writes in the place of that other.

The New Testament use is such that Karl Barth can link ἀντί, ὑπέρ and περί as pointing to Christ’s ‘activity as our Representative and Substitute’. He says, ‘They cannot be understood if- quite apart from the particular view of the atonement made in Him which dominates these passages - we do not see that in general these prepositions speak of a place which ought to be ours, that we ought to have taken this place, that we have been taken from it, that it is occupied by another, that this other acts in this place as only He can, in our cause and interest, that we cannot add to anything that He does there because the place where we might do so is occupied by Him, that anything further which might happen can result only from what is done by Him in our place and in our cause.’¹¹⁸ This argument is apart from any one particular passage. Barth sees the force of the prepositions throughout the New Testament.

C. Hodge has a worth-while comment on 2 Corinthians 5: 14. He points out that ὑπέρ ‘may have the general sense, for the benefit of, in behalf of, or the stricter sense, in the place of’. He further says, ‘In all those passages in which one person is said to die for another ... or in which the reference is to a sacrifice, the idea of substitution is clearly expressed. The argument does not rest on the force of the preposition, but on the nature of the case. The only way in which the death of the victim benefited the offerer, was by substitution. When, therefore, Christ is said to die as a sacrifice for us, the meaning is, he died in our stead. His death is taken in the place of ours so as to save us from death.‘¹¹⁹

In the New Testament the substitutionary sense seems necessary in some passages. This is surely the case with the reference to those ‘that are baptized ὑπέρ the dead’ (I Cor. 15: 29), however we translate the word. It is not otherwise with the reference to Onesimus’ serving ὑπὲρ σου 009

(Phm. 13; Goodspeed translates ‘in your place’), or to the activity of the preachers who preach ‘in Christ’s stead’ (2 Cor. 5: 20, AV). In view of the resemblance between I Timothy 2: 6 and Mark 10: 45 the ὑπέρ of the former must be very nearly identical in meaning with the ἀντί of the latter. Other passages where ὑπέρ is most naturally understood of substitution include John 10: 11; 11: 50; Romans 16:4.

From all this it seems plain enough that there is no reason why a substitutionary meaning may not be given to ὑπέρ in some at least of the passages where Christ is said to have died ὑπὲρ ἡµω 009

ν. In the passage under discussion such an interpretation has strong claims.¹²⁰

↑ Back to top