"By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."—Heb. 10:10.
"For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."—Heb. 10:14.
"Nor yet by the blood of goats and bulls, but through his own blood entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption."—Heb. 9:12.
"This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins."—Matt. 26:28.
"And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe and tongue and people and nation."—Rev. 5:9.
"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."—1 John 4:10.
"The Son of God who loved me, and gave himself up for me."—Gal. 2:20.
Reader, God's justice and love are both shown in the Saviour dying for our sins. Substitution is the only way of salvation when justice and love are both considered. It was God's justice that made it necessary for Christ to die for our sins. "Even so must the Son of man be lifted up,"—John 3:14;—"that he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus."—Rom. 3:26. And it was God's love that let Him die for our sins, "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son."—John 3:16. What you, reader, ought to desire to know, is simply God's way. The Scriptures at the beginning of the chapter, if language can make anything plain, show clearly that the sinner's only escape from the just punishment of his sins lies in Jesus dying in his place to set him free from the just penalty due his sins; and they make it plain that this settles the full penalty for all sins.
But the objection is raised and pressed with all the force of human ingenuity and scholarship, backed by the prestige of some occupying the highest positions in literary and theological institutions, that it is morally wrong for the innocent to suffer the penalty of the guilty. With a zeal deserving a better cause, many who stand high as professed Christians and teachers join hands with the rankest, most blatant infidels, and press this, to them, unanswerable objection to Christ dying for our sins as our substitute. This friendship between infidelity and professed Christian teachers reminds one of another occasion when our Saviour was set at naught and two became friends with each other that very day (Luke 23:11, 12). Let us face this objection honestly and earnestly, for our eternal destiny turns on this one point. Is it morally wrong for the innocent to bear the sins of the guilty? In the first place it is not morally wrong, because God would not do morally wrong, and God did let the innocent suffer the penalty of the guilty. The language of Scripture teaching that Jesus suffered the penalty of our sins for us is plain and simple, and all efforts to take from the Scripture language its simple, plain, natural meaning are pitiable, and if contempt were ever justifiable, would deserve the contempt of all honest men. Let the reader turn back and read the Scriptures at the head of this chapter and decide for himself as to their obvious, intended meaning.
Now, because God's word tells us plainly that God gave His only begotten Son, that He might be just, and thus the justifier of him who believes in Jesus, that Christ died for our sins, that He gave Himself for our sins, the just for the unjust,—it is right for the innocent to suffer the penalty of the guilty. To any honest, candid man, which is the correct way to reason? This thing is wrong; God did this thing; therefore, God did wrong? or, God does right; God did let Christ, the innocent, suffer and die for our sins, to redeem from all iniquity; therefore it is right for the innocent to suffer the penalty of the guilty?