A consensus of lexical sources tells us that anti means over, for, opposite to, before, because of, over against, exchange, in the place of, in the stead of. These are the basic meanings. Some lexical authorities will also assign "on behalf of" as a meaning as well.

    Huper has a basic meaning of over, above, upon, across and then for, for one’s advantage, for the sake of, on behalf of. Many will also assign the meaning of "in the place of."

    There are dissenting views to this last meaning. Substitution advocates deny that anti ever means on behalf of, and other language authorities deny huper means in the place of in the New Testament passages, especially when the subject is the sacrifice of Jesus. Thayer, page 639, admits that "in the place of" as a meaning for huper is a "disputed sense," which admits that language scholars are not agreed on that meaning for huper. R.C. Trench acknowledges, in his Synonyms of the New Testament, page 311, that some have denied this use of the word. Some, such as Blass & Debrunner, do not list "in the place of" as meaning for huper at all. Louw & Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, which is the most recent lexical effort, says about huper and anti, 90.36, 37,

    "huper (with the genitive): a marker of a participant who is benefited by an event or on whose behalf an event takes place - ‘for, on behalf of, for the sake of.’"

    "anti (with the genitive): a marker of a participant who is benefited by an event, usually with the implication of some type of exchange or substitution involved - ‘for, on behalf of.’"

    Notice that Louw & Nida say that anti may mean "on behalf of." Harold K. Moulton came from a family of Greek scholars. His father was James Hope Moulton and his grandfather was W.F. Moulton, both famous linguists. Harold Moulton served in linguistic translation fields for several decades. I say this only to show that he was not ignorant of his subject. In his book, The Challenge Of The Concordance, page 143, he says,

    "And this brings us finally to the supreme use of this word in the New Testament: Christ died for our sins, and for our sakes. The word huper never means ‘instead of.’ It is always used in the sense of ‘on behalf of."

    Granted, this is just another Greek scholar who dissents from what others have said. But, it does show that there is disagreement by capable men on these word meanings. Even some Calvinist authors caution that one cannot establish the substitution theory by the prepositions while others rely heavily on the meaning of "in the place of" for huper. There are other prepositions involved but I will not take up the space here to deal with them.

    Anti certainly does mean "in the place of," or some variation of that. Matthew 2:22 says that Archelaus was reigning over Judea "in the room of his father Herod." Matthew 5:38 notes the "eye for an eye" of the Old Testament. There are other passages that could be cited for this meaning. It is also used to mean "because," Luke 1:20, II Thessalonians 2:10, Acts 12:23, Ephesians 5:31. These last instances do not exactly describe exchange, substitution or doing something in the place of another. However, as some linguists insist, it can also mean "on behalf of." Secondly, context is a better indication of meaning than lexical definitions. Sometimes the Holy Spirit used human words in a slightly different way than the ordinary. How did the inspired writer use the term. So, let’s look at the most referred to passages where anti is found that supposedly support the substitution view. First, Matthew 17:27,

    "But, lest we cause them to stumble, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel: that take, and give unto them for me and thee." .

    "For (anti) me and thee" is the center of the controversy. Calvinists claim that this illustrates their doctrine. The passage refers to "substitution money." They view this as what they call redemption money as a tax to absolve the lives of the people from divine wrath. Well, regardless of what the priests might do with the money, it was a tax they were obligated to pay, Exodus 30:12-16. Notice the purpose of the tax in verse 16,

    "...for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the Lord, to make atonement for your souls."

    The tax was for expenses and it was the "service of the tabernacle" that was the spiritual activity, made possible by the taxes. The coin was the tax, not a substitute for the tax. Jesus said that tax money owed to Caesar belonged to Caesar, Luke 20:22-25. We are to render to all their due, paying tribute and taxes, Romans 13:6-7. Such taxes are the responsibility of the citizen for support of government, not a substitute for us. The shekel Peter obtained was paid on behalf of Jesus and Peter, whatever it was used for by the temple authorities; it was not a substitute for Jesus and Peter. See Gingrich & Danker Lexicon, page 73 (3.). Now, to Matthew 20:25-28,

    "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

    The preposition "for" is from anti. R.E. Davies in his Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture, 1969, "Christ in our Place - The Contribution of the Prepositions," page 73, after insisting that anti means "in the place of," or "instead of" in this passage, admits,

    "This understanding of the saying is disputed by many scholars, particularly with regard to the meaning of the preposition; it is maintained, that anti can occasionally have the broader, more general meaning, ‘on behalf of’, the strict substitutionary meaning yielding to the general idea of something done for a person’s sake, rather than in his place...."

    The solution is simple. Take special note of the context in the quotation from Matthew 20. The very subject Jesus is discussing is doing something on behalf of, or for the benefit of, others. He uses Himself as an example of His instruction. That included giving His life "for" (anti) all. The logical understanding of anti in the context is "for the benefit of," "service to." Understanding it as substitution is not required here. Now to I Timothy 2:5-6,

    "For there is one God, one mediator also between God a men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom (antilutron) for (huper) all."

    Antilutron is found only here in the Bible, a compound of anti and lutron. Substitution advocates admit that huper means "on behalf of" in this passage so their argument hinges on antilutron. A ransom is a price paid to redeem something. "Exchange" is in some way involved, but exchange and substitution are not necessarily the same thing. The blood of Christ was the payment to purchase us but He did not make that purchase in our place for we were never intended to make such a sacrifice in the first place. Jesus did not take our place as a redeemer. Notice that Jesus gave Himself as the purchase price on our behalf! Anti, in the compound with lutron, only heightens the importance of the meaning of ransom.

    In regard to huper, several authors insist that huper is used most often because it means both on behalf of and in the place of. The reason is that often what is done on behalf of someone is done in their place. However, that is not necessarily true even in English. We do things on behalf of others frequently without taking their place. Do we forget that as Christians we are taught that very principle. I can fulfill the teaching of laying down my life for the brethren and do so without taking their place. If I wanted to express that thought in Greek, then huper would be the perfect way to express it. Jesus died on my behalf but did not take my place on the cross. Huper expresses that. The substitution theory is not true to begin with so huper cannot express something that does not exist. Let’s examine some passages used by Calvinists to argue their point on huper. First, Deuteronomy 24:16, where huper is used in the Septuagint,

    "The fathers shall not be put to death for (huper) the children, neither shall the children be put to death for (huper) the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

    In the Septuagint, huper is found twice in this passage, translated "for." However, in the place of their children or the father is not what is meant here. A general practice among nations around Israel was that a criminal’s children would be punished along with the father, or the parent would be punished along with the his criminal children. Haman’s ten sons were hung along with their father, Esther 9:13-14. We find Deuteronomy 24:16 put into practice in II Chronicles 25:3-4,

    "Now it came to pass, when the kingdom was established to him, that he slew his servants that had killed the king his father. But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The father shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin."

    Family members were not to be punished for crimes in which they took no part. Substitution was not the point in this law and so huper is the correct preposition to be used.

    In John 10:11-15, Jesus says that He knows His sheep and He "layeth down his life for the sheep." Substitution is asserted by advocates of the theory. But, enlarging this to the literal situation of a shepherd with his sheep, how can we say that the wolves killing the shepherd would thus satisfy the wolves so they would leave the sheep alone? And, what shepherd just laid down and let the wolves eat him without a fight? Was the shepherd saying to the wolves, "come on and eat me in the place of my sheep and I know you will leave them alone then because I am their substitute dinner?" No. Let’s not push the illustration of Jesus beyond what He intended by His saying. In John 13:37-38, Peter says that he would lay down his life for the Lord. Did he mean by this that he would take the place of Jesus? Peter demonstrated what he meant by his claim when he drew his sword to protect Jesus in the garden. He wasn’t taking the place of Jesus but was protecting him and would have died to protect Him, just as the shepherd was doing for his sheep. Next, John 11:49-52 says,

    "But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, ye know nothing at all, nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. Now this he said not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad."

    It is claimed that this means Jesus would die instead of, as a substitute for, the nation dying. The substitution argument misses the fact that what Caiaphas said was a prophecy from God. Caiaphas didn’t realize it himself. Caiaphas intended it for evil. But, what concerned the rulers the most is found in verse 48,

    "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."

    Notice the statement that the Romans will "take away from us both the place and the nation." "From us" is related equally to both "place" and "nation." Their only concern was for their position of authority and control in Israel. The Romans already "owned" Israel. Rome allowed these priests and Pharisees only limited control. What the priests feared was losing what they did have. From the standpoint of this prophecy, in what sense would "the nation perish" or not perish? Certainly not in the sense that the physical state of Israel might cease to exist just because people believed on Jesus. The prophecy was that Jesus would die, physically, so others would not perish, eternally. Substitution advocates assume that Jesus’ dying "for the nation" means in the place of. Louw and Nida, Lexicon, 90.36 are certain it means "on behalf of" because they translate it, as do other capable translations, "in order that one person might die on behalf of the nation." Now, notice II Corinthians 5:14-15, which says,

    "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for (huper) all, therefore all died; and he died for (huper) all that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes (huper) died and rose again."

    This is presented as a prime instance of substitution. However, the context indicates the meaning of huper. In verse 15, Jesus died AND rose again for (huper) us. Huper no more means that He died in our place than that He was raised in our place. Whatever He was raised for, He died for and He was raised on our behalf and thus died on our behalf.

    Further, it’s obvious that "died" does not mean the same thing throughout. When it says Christ "died," it means He physically died. When it says all "died," it cannot mean physical death. Everyone dies physically, regardless of what Christ did. "Died" in the second instance must be figurative and all interpretations accept this. The question is, what is the figure?

    Obviously, the word "live" refers to being spiritually alive. The resurrection of Jesus is specified, implying that a burial also took place. So, there is a death, burial and a resurrection being considered here. Romans 6:1-11 gives us the detailed explanation of II Corinthians 5:14-15. We are baptized into His death, buried with Him and raised with Him into newness of life. We are thus united with Him in the likeness of His death and thus the likeness of His resurrection. "...if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him." There is no substitution involved here. Now to II Corinthians 5:20,

    "We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God." ASV

    Some translations say "we beseech you in Christ’s stead," or something like that. Every inspired man, Apostle or Prophet, in whatever century, was the channel through whom God revealed His mind to man. None functioned as the Vicar of God but rather they all worked on behalf of God. In the preceding verse, Paul says they were given "the ministry of reconciliation:" and then says God was "entreating by (dia, through) us."

    Now, to one of the most often referred to passages on "substitution," Galatians 3:8-14. The pertinent statement is that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for (huper) us." To put this in perspective, note the comments of well known grammarian, J. Gresham Machen in his commentary on Galatians, page 181,

    "Here we come to the very heart of Paul’s teaching. The curse which Christ bore upon the cross was not a curse that wrongly rested upon Him; it was not a curse pronounced upon Him by some wicked human law. No, it was the curse of God’s law; it was a curse therefore, we tremble as we say it, but the Scripture compels us to say it, it was a curse which rightly rested upon Him. But if that be so, there can be no doubt but that the substitutionary atonement is taught in Scripture. The only way in which a curse could rightly rest upon a sinless One is that he was the substitute, in bearing the curse, for those upon whom it did rightly rest. That is the heart of Paul’s teaching and the heart of the whole Bible."

    Of course, Dr. Machen was a renowned Calvinist, a Professor at Westminster Seminary. We would expect him to take such a position. Please take note of his statement, "but if that be so..." Substitution writings are full of "if," "probably," "perhaps," and the like. Actually, the understanding of Galatians 3 is simple.

    First, the Law of Moses had no provision for absolute forgiveness of sins, Romans 4.1-6, Hebrews 10:1ff, Colossians 2:13-14, Ephesians 2:14-16. Such a system of law required perfect obedience, which no one attained, Romans 3:9. By His sacrifice, Jesus removed the authority of the Old Law and established a better one by which we can be sanctified,

    "He taketh away the first, that he my establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all," Hebrews 10:9-10.

    As long as the Old Law remained in effect, the curse of a system of law remained. So, "Cursed is every one who continueth not in all the things that are written in the book of the law, to do them," Galatians 3:10. We have seen that the word "cross" is a figure of speech to stand for everything Jesus did to accomplish redemption. By the "cross," Jesus removed the "curse" of the law, "hanging on a tree," by taking away the authority of the law.

    Second, the word "curse" in Galatians 3:13, is from katara. It means consigning someone to something bad, to be doomed to destruction, a cursing. We are pointed back to Deuteronomy 21:22-23,

    "And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

    Here is capital punishment for capital crimes. A criminal hanging on a tree provides a graphic image for all who see him that he is a violator of God’s law. Hence, it’s obvious that he is cursed because he did not continue to do what God commanded. See Joshua 10:26-27.

    But, Galatians 3:13 cannot literally be applied to Jesus. The fact is, it only appeared to others that He was accursed of God. This was the visual image of Deuteronomy 21. Gingrich & Danker Lexicon, page 410 says,

    "they will be saved by the accursed one himself (i.e. by Christ who, in the minds of those offended by him, is accursed; cf. also Gal. 3:13, katara)."

    The Jews treated Him as though He were guilty; they considered him to be a criminal, charged with blasphemy and thus worthy of death. Note Matthew 27:39-43,

    "And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou are the son of God, come down from the cross. In like manner also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, he saved others; himself he cannot save. He is the King of Israel; let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on him. He trusteth on God; let him deliver him now, if he desireth him: for he said, I am the Son of God."

    See also Psalm 22:6-8. Jesus went through false imprisonment, public spectacle, suffering, scorn and torturous death but it was on our behalf, not in our place.

    Third, the real point at issue in Galatians 3:13 is the preposition huper. Thomas Crawford, one of the most energetic of Calvinists, said in his book, The Doctrine of the Atonement, page 43, says,

    "The chief thing, however, to be noticed in these texts is, that they evidently represent our Lord’s sufferings as vicarious. They imply an interchange of parts between Him and us - a laying of our burden upon Him, with the view and to the effect of securing our deliverance from it ... It was ‘for us’ - that is, probably, ‘instead of us,’ certainly ‘ on our behalf’ - that He was made so."

    Crawford wants to occupy the substitution position here but seems a little tentative with his "probably." A.T. Robertson in his Word Pictures, Vol. 4, page 294, is certain this is a clear case of huper meaning substitution. Others are not so sure. Winer’s Grammar, page 383, footnote, says,

    "Still in doctrinal passages relating to Christ’s death (Gal. iii.13; Rom.v.6,8; xiv.15; I Pet.iii.18, etc.) it is not justifiable to render huper hemon and the like rigorously by instead of..."

    The same conclusion is indicated by Gingrich & Danker Lexicon, page 412, giving the following translation of Galatians 3:13, "by becoming a curse-offering (or an object of a curse) in our behalf." Next, Philemon 10-13 says,

    "I beseech thee for my child, whom I have begotten in my bonds, Onesimus, who once was unprofitable to thee, but now is profitable to thee and to me: whom I have sent back to thee in his own person, that is, my very heart: whom I would fain have kept with me, that in thy behalf he might minister unto me in the bonds of the gospel."

    This is the ASV translation of the passage. Others have rendered huper as "in thy place," "in thy stead," "as your representative," or, as the New English Bible puts it, "as you would wish."

    Notice Paul says "Onesimus, who once was unprofitable to thee, but now is profitable to thee and to me." How was it that Onesimus was now profitable to Philemon? It must have been because of his contact and study with Paul. Onesimus was now a Christian who had Paul’s respect and confidence and was valuable to Paul in his work. If Onesimus could have continued with Paul, instead of going back to Philemon at that moment, he would have become an even better servant, a more spiritual and capable Christian with more knowledge in the truth. That would have made him even more profitable and beneficial to Philemon. Thus, any continuation of Onesimus with Paul would have been, not in the place of Philemon, but for the benefit of Philemon. That fits the context.