How Can Jesus Dying for the Guilty be Morally Right?

Dr. Craig discusses "vicarious liability" as it relates to the Atonement. This question was submitted online following his lecture for Apologia Sweden.

INTERVIEWER: We don’t allow in our legal system an innocent person to take the punishment that should rightly be inflicted on a guilty person. So how can the idea of Jesus, who is innocent, taking the place of the guilty be morally justified?

DR. CRAIG: What this person would be surprised to learn is that the idea of imputation of liability and even guilt to an innocent or blameless third person is a common feature in Western systems of justice. It's called vicarious liability. In both civil law and even in criminal law wrongdoing by one person can be imputed to another person who is then vicariously liable or guilty. In my book on the atonement I lay out quite a number of court cases where there have been findings of vicarious liability or guilt. It is based upon a principle called respondeat superior which means roughly translated “the master is answerable.” The idea here is that a superior can be held liable or guilty for crimes or wrongs committed by a subordinate. In Western systems of justice this principle is widely applied to cases involving employers and employees so that an employer who is blameless in the matter can be held vicariously liable for crimes and wrongs committed by the employee. I think this provides a very striking analogy to the doctrine of the imputation of our sins to Christ so that when Christ was punished for our sins God did not punish an innocent person. He punished a guilty person, namely Christ, who had been imputed the guilt of our sins. So it's not a matter of punishing an innocent person. He was vicariously liable for our sins.