Apologetics about Substitutionary Atonement

[Pancho Frijoles]

I open this thread after consultation with @Angelina.
The purpose is to provide my Christian brothers and sisters an opportunity to rehearse a defense of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

I will be presenting the following thesis:

God does not need a substitutionary atonement to forgive sins.
God used the concept and practices of substitutionary atonement as a didactic tool to meet specific ends at specific times. This is why it appears in the Bible.

It will be important to stick to the topic. Let's remember that by Forum policy we cannot discuss the Trinity or deity of Jesus. Otherwise the posts or the thread will be deleted (please see full policy in the sticky thread).
Whatever our understanding of the nature of God and Jesus, the topic here is whether God needs a substitutionary atonement to forgive our sins.

I support my proposition in these arguments

A. Jews don't believe and never believed that God needed animal sacrifices in order to forgive their sins.

A1. In the Old Testament, there are clear instances in which God forgives sins without requiring animal sacrifices, or even talking against the value of animal sacrifices.​

A2. Human beings commit sins almost every day. However, before Christ, the Jews never bothered to build sanctuaries in every village or city they lived in, especially those far from Jerusalem, in which animal sacrifices could be made.​

A3. Human beings commit sins almost every day. However, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, Jews never bothered about building any other sanctuary with the same purpose. Today, Jews don't believe that animal sacrifices are needed to be forgiven.​

B. Although Jesus main mission was to save men, He didn't present substitutionary atonement as a requirement for salvation.

B1. Less than 0.001% of the verses of the Gospels, whose content was selected to believe in Christ and be saved, contain any reference to substitutionary atonement. In the 3 verses that refer to it, it is not presented as a required belief to have sins forgiven.​

B2. There are several clear declarations of Jesus on the topic of how God forgive sins. None of them presents substitutionary atonement.​

B3. There is no single instance in which Jesus requires such belief to a person who comes to Him to be healed or forgiven.​

B4. In none of the accounts of direct interaction between Jesus and his apostles after crucifixion and before ascending to heaven, Jesus asks them to teach substitutionary atonement to enable the remission of sins.​

B5. After Pentecost, the apostles do not preach substitutionary atonement as a requirement for the remission of sins.​

C. Once Paul enters into history, references to substitutionary atonement intend to keep united the church in the face of the Judaizing issue.

C1. Judaizing converts wanted new converts from Gentile background to make the trip to Jerusalem, among other practices.​

C2. By believing that Jesus occupies the place of the ancient lambs, both groups of converts unite around the love of Christ. So, an old symbol (which was external and divisive) is replaced by a new symbol (which is internal and unifying). A similar thing happens around at least two other symbols: circumcision and Sabbath keeping.​

​

​

​

 

[Matthias]

“Agent (Heb. Shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, ‘a person’s agent is regarded as himself’ (Ned. 72B; Kidd, 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent.”

(The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, p. 15)

This is a common feature of the Hebrew Bible, but also of the New Testament. The Apostles are acting as the Messiah’s shaliah’s / agents / representatives.

A person’s agent / representative is like himself.

Greek apostolos is the equivalent of Hebrew shaliah.

Paul is Jesus’ agent / representative. Paul is like Jesus. When Paul speaks as Jesus’ sent one, his apostle, his agent, his representative, it is exactly as if Jesus himself is speaking when Paul speaks. Paul speaks with the backing and authority of Jesus.

Once Paul is introduced, accepted and acknowledged as teaching substitutionary atonement, the case is made that Jesus teaches substitutionary atonement. It is essential to salvation. Case closed.

***

What is the out? Simple: Don’t listen to Paul. He isn’t Jesus’ agent / representative. It’s just his private belief, something he came up with in his day to keep the church together.

***

A strike against the agent (the sent one) is a strike against the principal (the one who sent the agent).

A strike against Paul is a strike against Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. (And a strike against the Messiah is a strike against the one who sent him, God the Father.)

Christian reader, I urge you to hold firmly to substitutionary atonement. Its source is the Lord God Almighty.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I open this thread after consultation with @Angelina.
The purpose is to provide my Christian brothers and sisters an opportunity to rehearse a defense of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

I will be presenting the following thesis:

God does not need a substitutionary atonement to forgive sins.
God used the concept and practices of substitutionary atonement as a didactic tool to meet specific ends at specific times. This is why it appears in the Bible.

It will be important to stick to the topic. Let's remember that by Forum policy we cannot discuss the Trinity or deity of Jesus. Otherwise the posts or the thread will be deleted (please see full policy in the sticky thread).
Whatever our understanding of the nature of God and Jesus, the topic here is whether God needs a substitutionary atonement to forgive our sins.

I support my proposition in these arguments

A. Jews don't believe and never believed that God needed animal sacrifices in order to forgive their sins.

​

This is not true. While the blood of bulls and goats never took away sins, The jew thought this was why they were ok, and they did nto need christ.

B. Although Jesus main mission was to save men, He didn't present substitutionary atonement as a requirement for salvation.

​

Again, Not true

1. Jesus was called the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (substitution atonement) (John the baptist)
2. he author of Hebrews makes it clear. without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness. he then goes on to say, That jesus died once, and sat down at the right hand of God (substitution atonement)
3. John says our sins were washed in his blood (substitutionary atonement0 Rev 1: 5
4. Paul says we are justified (a legal term) by the redemption (the price paid) by Christ Jesus (substitutionary atonement) Romans 3: 4)
5. Paul says we have redemption through his blood (substitutionary atonement (eph 1: 7)
6. Paul says again, we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sin (col 1: 4 substitutionary atonement)

C. Once Paul enters into history, references to substitutionary atonement intend to keep united the church in the face of the Judaizing issue.

​

​

not sure what your argument here is can you explain?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

not sure what your argument here is can you explain?

Hi Eternally Grateful

Thanks for the question. I'll try to explain it briefly here:

As you know, Paul was very worried about the clash of two groups: those from Jewish heritage and those from Greek-Roman heritage.
Some of the first demanded from the second to comply with the Law of Moses. Those are known as "Judaizing".
They saw Christianism as a continuation of Judaism. So, they demanded from each new convert to Christ adherence to the Law of Moses, including things like getting circumcised, keeping the Sabbath, and traveling to Jerusalem for Temple's ritual sacrifices. These trips were made particularly around festivals like Passover, Pentecost, etc.

As you can imagine, not all converts from Gentile origin were willing to cut their foreskins, keep festivities and, particularly, make the long, expensive and long trip to Jerusalem. So, great tension and division arose among the two groups. More specifically, Judaizing converts made life of Greek converts very hard, and judged them as not entirely converted.

In his letters Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, makes a monumental effort to persuade the churches that ex-Gentiles didn't need to get circumcised, or keep the Sabbath, or participate in animal sacrifices if they didn't want it. Paul shows that faith in Christ makes all those things unnecessary.

• Physical circumcision is now replaced by the spiritual "circumcision of the heart" (Rom 2:29)
• The rest of the Sabbath is now replaced by the spiritual rest that Christ offers (Hebrews 4:9,10)
• The animal sacrifices are replaced by faith in that sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor 5:7) and the living sacrifice of the believers (Rom 12:1)

As you see, the rituals on the left of the bullets (that I highlight in red) are external, while the concepts on the right (that I right in green) are spiritual. Paul uses the concept of the sacrifice of Christ, as a tool to stop Judaizing from asking Greek converts to have to do the long, risky and costly trip to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. To bring unity to the church.

The sacrifice of Christ was only one, not many as the animal sacrifices.
The sacrifice of Christ was invisible to the new converts: it was a past event, not a thing they should start doing.
The sacrifice of Christ was for everyone, not just for the Jews.

Very importantly, Paul sees sacrifices as OFFERINGS, as GIFTS agreeable to God. I will present that in another post.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Hi Eternally Grateful

Thanks for the question. I'll try to explain it briefly here:

As you know, Paul was very worried about the clash of two groups: those from Jewish heritage and those from Greek-Roman heritage.
Some of the first demanded from the second to comply with the Law of Moses. Those are known as "Judaizing".
They saw Christianism as a continuation of Judaism. So, they demanded from each new convert to Christ adherence to the Law of Moses, including things like getting circumcised, keeping the Sabbath, and traveling to Jerusalem for Temple's ritual sacrifices. These trips were made particularly around festivals like Passover, Pentecost, etc.

I agree

As you can imagine, not all converts from Gentile origin were willing to cut their foreskins, keep festivities and, particularly, make the long, expensive and long trip to Jerusalem. So, great tension and division arose among the two groups. More specifically, Judaizing converts made life of Greek converts very hard, and judged them as not entirely converted.

yes, this I agree with also

In his letters Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, makes a monumental effort to persuade the churches that ex-Gentiles didn't need to get circumcised, or keep the Sabbath, or participate in animal sacrifices if they didn't want it. Paul shows that faith in Christ makes all those things unnecessary.

• Physical circumcision is now replaced by the spiritual "circumcision of the heart" (Rom 2:29)
• The rest of the Sabbath is now replaced by the spiritual rest that Christ offers (Hebrews 4:9,10)
• The animal sacrifices are replaced by faith in that sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor 5:7) and the living sacrifice of the believers (Rom 12:1)

As you see, the rituals on the left of the bullets (that I highlight in red) are external, while the concepts on the right (that I right in green) are spiritual. Paul uses the concept of the sacrifice of Christ, as a tool to stop Judaizing from asking Greek converts to have to do the long, risky and costly trip to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. To bring unity to the church.

Yes, Again I agree

The sacrifice of Christ was only one, not many as the animal sacrifices.
The sacrifice of Christ was invisible to the new converts: it was a past event, not a thing they should start doing.
The sacrifice of Christ was for everyone, not just for the Jews.

Very importantly, Paul sees sacrifices as OFFERINGS, as GIFTS agreeable to God. I will present that in another post.

agree again

Not sure what this has to do with trying to prove to me that there is no penal substitution in the NT. or am I misunderstanding your first point?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

This is not true. While the blood of bulls and goats never took away sins, The jew thought this was why they were ok, and they did nto need christ.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to start then with argument A.

Some few Jews could have believed that God really needed blood from animals to forgive their sins... but history and the Bible show us that this was not the understanding of most Jews.

First of all, let's remember that animal sacrifices were considered an offering to God. Harvested cereals or vegetables were also considered an offering. In this respect, it was part of the culture of many ancient peoples, not just the Jews.

If we study Genesis, we find plenty of events of people offering animals or vegetables to God without any connection to the need of being forgiven for personal sins using the animal as a substitute for the sinner. Rather, it is presented as a form of worship, to praise God, to show thankfulness or appreciation to God, and to appease his wrath in general (not his wrath towards individual sins)

• Let's read the story of Abel and Cain and their offerings. Does the Bible present Abel or Cain as seeking God's forgiveness of their sins by doing this? No. Furthermore, the difference between their offerings, is that Abel was righteous while Cain was evil (Heb 11:14, 1 J 3:12) . So, the argument of some theologians in regards that Cain's offering was rejected because it consisted in vegetables and not in an animal is not sustained by the Bible. Actually, God asked Israel to offer vegetable offerings as well.
• Let's read the story of Noah, offering a sacrifice after coming off the boat (Gen 8:20-22). Was Noah seeking God to forgive his sins? Not at all.
• Let's read the story of Abraham and his son in Genesis 22. Is there any hint in the sacred text that Abraham was seeking God's forgiveness to any sin? No. Not in Genesis, and very importantly, not in the New Testament (Heb 11:17).
• Let's read about two sacrifices recorded from Jacob (Gen 31:54 and 46:1). Not the slightest hint that Jacob was seeking atonement for any of his sins.
• Let's read the Book of Exodus, which keeps presenting burnt-offerings without any connection to the forgiveness of individual sins.

The concept of atonement appears for the first time in Leviticus. We'll keep reviewing the idea of substitutionary atonement among Jews a bit later.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to start then with argument A.

Some few Jews could have believed that God really needed blood from animals to forgive their sins... but history and the Bible show us that this was not the understanding of most Jews.

First of all, let's remember that animal sacrifices were considered an offering to God. Harvested cereals or vegetables were also considered an offering. In this respect, it was part of the culture of many ancient peoples, not just the Jews.

If we study Genesis, we find plenty of events of people offering animals or vegetables to God without any connection to the need of being forgiven for personal sins using the animal as a substitute for the sinner. Rather, it is presented as a form of worship, to praise God, to show thankfulness or appreciation to God, and to appease his wrath in general (not his wrath towards individual sins)

• Let's read the story of Abel and Cain and their offerings. Does the Bible present Abel or Cain as seeking God's forgiveness of their sins by doing this? No. Furthermore, the difference between their offerings, is that Abel was righteous while Cain was evil (Heb 11:14, 1 J 3:12) . So, the argument of some theologians in regards that Cain's offering was rejected because it consisted in vegetables and not in an animal is not sustained by the Bible. Actually, God asked Israel to offer vegetable offerings as well.
• Let's read the story of Noah, offering a sacrifice after coming off the boat (Gen 8:20-22). Was Noah seeking God to forgive his sins? Not at all.
• Let's read the story of Abraham and his son in Genesis 22. Is there any hint in the sacred text that Abraham was seeking God's forgiveness to any sin? No. Not in Genesis, and very importantly, not in the New Testament (Heb 11:17).
• Let's read about two sacrifices recorded from Jacob (Gen 31:54 and 46:1). Not the slightest hint that Jacob was seeking atonement for any of his sins.
• Let's read the Book of Exodus, which keeps presenting burnt-offerings without any connection to the forgiveness of individual sins.

The concept of atonement appears for the first time in Leviticus. We'll keep reviewing the idea of substitutionary atonement among Jews a bit later.

We are talking about the law. Namely the offering of the high priest on the day of atonement. We also have sin offerings they were told to offer for sin

I believe the first sacrifice was the animals used to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I agree

yes, this I agree with also

Yes, Again I agree

agree again

Not sure what this has to do with trying to prove to me that there is no penal substitution in the NT. or am I misunderstanding your first point?

I'm trying to say that Paul didn't believe that God needed blood to forgive our sins. That would have been contrary to Jesus clear teachings on how God forgive sins. It would have been against his Judaic background (that we will keep exploring together). That would have been against the teachings of the apostles after Pentecost (that we will also review, my friend).

Paul was using the sacrifice of Jesus in the cross as a figure to replace another figure: that of animals being slaughtered in the Temple.
By replacing one figure with another figure, Paul was preventing Judaizing to demand from Greeks traveling to the Temple and offer animal sacrifices. Paul was replacing the Levitical rituals by a concept. Which concept? Look:

If we have faith in Christ, if we repent, if we get reconciled with God, if we are born into a new life (the life of Christ), we have eternal life.
What God wants from us is to present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God, just as Jesus presented his life, until his death on the cross, as a sacrifice to God.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. (Romans 12:1)

Please look how Paul interprets Jesus sacrifice from a deeply spiritual perspective:

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. (Galatians 2:20)

 

[PS95]

I open this thread after consultation with @Angelina.
The purpose is to provide my Christian brothers and sisters an opportunity to rehearse a defense of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

I will be presenting the following thesis:

God does not need a substitutionary atonement to forgive sins.
God used the concept and practices of substitutionary atonement as a didactic tool to meet specific ends at specific times. This is why it appears in the Bible.

It will be important to stick to the topic. Let's remember that by Forum policy we cannot discuss the Trinity or deity of Jesus. Otherwise the posts or the thread will be deleted (please see full policy in the sticky thread).
Whatever our understanding of the nature of God and Jesus, the topic here is whether God needs a substitutionary atonement to forgive our sins.

I support my proposition in these arguments

A. Jews don't believe and never believed that God needed animal sacrifices in order to forgive their sins.

A1. In the Old Testament, there are clear instances in which God forgives sins without requiring animal sacrifices, or even talking against the value of animal sacrifices.​

A2. Human beings commit sins almost every day. However, before Christ, the Jews never bothered to build sanctuaries in every village or city they lived in, especially those far from Jerusalem, in which animal sacrifices could be made.​

A3. Human beings commit sins almost every day. However, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, Jews never bothered about building any other sanctuary with the same purpose. Today, Jews don't believe that animal sacrifices are needed to be forgiven.​

B. Although Jesus main mission was to save men, He didn't present substitutionary atonement as a requirement for salvation.

B1. Less than 0.001% of the verses of the Gospels, whose content was selected to believe in Christ and be saved, contain any reference to substitutionary atonement. In the 3 verses that refer to it, it is not presented as a required belief to have sins forgiven.​

B2. There are several clear declarations of Jesus on the topic of how God forgive sins. None of them presents substitutionary atonement.​

B3. There is no single instance in which Jesus requires such belief to a person who comes to Him to be healed or forgiven.​

B4. In none of the accounts of direct interaction between Jesus and his apostles after crucifixion and before ascending to heaven, Jesus asks them to teach substitutionary atonement to enable the remission of sins.​

B5. After Pentecost, the apostles do not preach substitutionary atonement as a requirement for the remission of sins.​

C. Once Paul enters into history, references to substitutionary atonement intend to keep united the church in the face of the Judaizing issue.

C1. Judaizing converts wanted new converts from Gentile background to make the trip to Jerusalem, among other practices.​

C2. By believing that Jesus occupies the place of the ancient lambs, both groups of converts unite around the love of Christ. So, an old symbol (which was external and divisive) is replaced by a new symbol (which is internal and unifying). A similar thing happens around at least two other symbols: circumcision and Sabbath keeping.​

​

​

​

hello. You are Bahai?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I'm trying to say that Paul didn't believe that God needed blood to forgive our sins.

Well that is not what Paul said

That would have been contrary to Jesus clear teachings on how God forgive sins.

It would? How

It would have been against his Judaic background (that we will keep exploring together). That would have been against the teachings of the apostles after Pentecost (that we will also review, my friend).

I am not sure really how this relates

Paul was using the sacrifice of Jesus in the cross as a figure to replace another figure:

What?

What did Jesus die for?

that of animals being slaughtered in the Temple.
By replacing one figure with another figure, Paul was preventing Judaizing to demand from Greeks traveling to the Temple and offer animal sacrifices. Paul was replacing the Levitical rituals by a concept. Which concept? Look:

Jesus was not a figure he was the thing the figure pointed to

If we have faith in Christ, if we repent, if we get reconciled with God, if we are born into a new life (the life of Christ), we have eternal life.

Why? Who pays for our sins god does not just throw out his judgment. Does he

What God wants from us is to present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God, just as Jesus presented his life, until his death on the cross, as a sacrifice to God.

How can I sacrifice
Myself enough to pay for my sin?

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. (Romans 12:1)

Please look how Paul interprets Jesus sacrifice from a deeply spiritual perspective:

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. (Galatians 2:20)

But he literally was crucified with Christ. He was baptized into his death (Roman’s 7)

 

[PS95]

I'm confused. I thought these forums were for Christians only- that's what it says.

 

[Matthias]

I'm confused. I thought these forums were for Christians only- that's what it says.

Christian Formation & Apologetics isn’t a “Christian's Only” section of the forums. Some sections are; this one isn’t.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

What is the out? Simple: Don’t listen to Paul. He isn’t Jesus’ agent / representative. It’s just his private belief, something he came up with in his day to keep the church together.

Let's listen to Paul. Paul is Jesus's agent and apostle and speaks and acts as such.
We are listening to Paul, and that is the main theme of argument C.

As a good Jew acquainted with the Tanakh, Paul knew that God forgives sins out of his mercy. God didn't ask anything in return, but a sincere repentance, a contrite heart.
As an apostle of Christ, loyal to Christ's own words and teachings, Paul knew that God forgives sins out of his mercy. God didn't aske anything in return, but to show to others the mercy we were asking for ourselves.

Paul was not introducing the need of blood to obtain God's forgiveness, because such a requirement never existed in the first place.
Never in the Old Testament. Never in the New Testament. Never in God's mind. Never in our minds.
Forgiveness means forgiveness.

 

[Matthias]

Let's listen to Paul. Paul is Jesus's agent and apostle and speaks and acts as such.
We are listening to Paul, and that is the main theme of argument C.

Then your position has been refuted. Jesus is teaching substitutionary atonement through Paul.

As a good Jew acquainted with the Tanakh, Paul knew that God forgives sins out of his mercy. God didn't ask anything in return, but a sincere repentance, a contrite heart.
As an apostle of Christ, loyal to Christ's own words and teachings, Paul knew that God forgives sins out of his mercy. God didn't aske anything in return, but to show to others the mercy we were asking for ourselves.

Paul was not introducing the need of blood to obtain God's forgiveness, because such a requirement never existed in the first place.
Never in the Old Testament. Never in the New Testament. Never in God's mind. Never in our minds.
Forgiveness means forgiveness.

Substitutionary atonement is taught in the Hebrew Bible. It was there to point to the Messiah.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Christian Formation & Apologetics isn’t a “Christian's Only” section of the forums. Some sections are; this one isn’t.

I asked @Angelina by PM and she encouraged me to open the thread about the topic of substitutionary atonement in this subforum.
But I will certainly follow whatever the instructions of the administrators are.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Let's listen to Paul. Paul is Jesus's agent and apostle and speaks and acts as such.
We are listening to Paul, and that is the main theme of argument C.

As a good Jew acquainted with the Tanakh, Paul knew that God forgives sins out of his mercy. God didn't ask anything in return, but a sincere repentance, a contrite heart.
As an apostle of Christ, loyal to Christ's own words and teachings, Paul knew that God forgives sins out of his mercy. God didn't aske anything in return, but to show to others the mercy we were asking for ourselves.

Paul was not introducing the need of blood to obtain God's forgiveness, because such a requirement never existed in the first place.
Never in the Old Testament. Never in the New Testament. Never in God's mind. Never in our minds.
Forgiveness means forgiveness.

Paul also understood the price of mercy.

Its why jesus went to the cross.

 

[Matthias]

I asked @Angelina by PM and she encouraged me to open the thread about the topic of substitutionary atonement in this subforum.
But I will certainly follow whatever the instructions of the administrators are.

You made that clear in your first post. It’s fine for you to participate in this forum. I was just trying to help @PS95 understand that.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Then your position has been refuted. Jesus is teaching substitutionary atonement through Paul.

My thesis is that Jesus is NOT teaching, through Paul, that God needs blood from another being to forgive our sins.
My thesis is that it is much more consistent with the rest of the Bible, with history, and with reason, to think that substitutionary atonement was a figure, a tool, a concept, used by Paul to stop Judaizing converts to demand ex-Gentile converts from following the Law of Moses.

In an apologetic forum, we have the opportunity to present arguments and refute arguments.

 

[Matthias]

Do you understand that you aren’t under the new covenant @Pancho Frijoles?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

My thesis is that Jesus is NOT teaching, through Paul, that God needs blood from another being to forgive our sins.
My thesis is that it is much more consistent with the rest of the Bible, with history, and with reason, to think that substitutionary atonement was a figure, a tool, a concept, used by Paul to stop Judaizing converts to demand ex-Gentile converts from following the Law of Moses.

In an apologetic forum, we have the opportunity to present arguments and refute arguments.

God does not just forgive people

His justice demands a payment for sin, Its why he sent his son