A Conservative Introduction To Biblical Transmission And Textual Criticism

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Bible documents the creation of the world, fall of man, God calling Israel to be His people, His plan of redemption, and the means of redemption. It records the rise and fall of various governments. The Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years by approximately 40 authors.
          -The term "canon" is defined as standard or rule of faith. Therefore, the collection of books which comprise the Bible are to function as the spiritual measuring stick of discernment for the Christian church. 

          -The historic Christian position in regards to the Bible is that it is inspired revelation from God. The Bible proclaims itself to be a product of divine inspiration (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16). It contains both human and divine fingerprints.

• How The Old Testament Canon Was Established:

          -The formation of the Old Testament canon began with God inscribing the Ten Commandments on two stone tablets. Moses was commanded by God to pen down the words of the Law so as to provide the Israelites a rule or faith or standard of judgment.
          -Evidence that Old Testament revelation gradually expanded over time is the fact Old Testament authors recognized other authors. For example, the Prophet Daniel makes mention of the books documenting how the Lord spoke to Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2). The twofold division of the Law and prophets points to the Old Testament canon (Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 16:29-31). The threefold division of the Law, prophets, and the psalms also signifies the complete Hebrew Old Testament (Luke 24:44). This demonstrates the overall consistency within the Old Testament writings.

          -"On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. ‘These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed." (https://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf)

          -"No longer are there compelling reasons to assume that the history of the canon must have commenced very late in Israel’s history, as was once accepted. The emergence in Mesopotamia, already in the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE, of a standardized body of literature arranged in a more or less fixed order and with some kind of official text, expresses the notion of a canon in its secular sense…The Old Testament as it has come down in Greek translation from the Jews of Alexandria via the Christian Church differs in many respects from the Hebrew Scriptures…It should be noted that the contents and form of the inferred original Alexandrian Jewish canon cannot be ascertained with certainty because all extant Greek Bibles are of Christian origin." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Old-Testament-canon-texts-and-versions#ref597311)

• Primary Ancient Witnesses Consulted In Reconstructing And Verifying The Text Of The Old Testament:

          -The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered near Wadi Qumran, are the earliest known extent Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. Codex Leningrad is the earliest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Old Testament, dated around the timing of the eleventh century and reflects Masoretic tradition. Other important ancient witnesses supporting the accurate preservation of the Old Testament Scriptures would include the Samaritan Torah, the Greek Septuagint (LXX), and the Aramaic Targums.

• How We Can Know That The Old Testament Has Been Accurately Transmitted:

          -The Jews carefully preserved the writings that they deemed to be of canonical status. Any texts and scrolls that were reputed to have the unique characteristic of divine inspiration were kept in the temples, under the intense care and supervision of the priests who ministered and the scribes. In short, the concept of canonicity was known to the Israelites. Moreover, Near Eastern scribal practices in religious and political contexts involved meticulous preservation of important documents. Manuscripts would be copied. Manuscripts would be revised. They were compared, and examined letter per letter. The Jews no doubt venerated the Old Testament Scriptures. Thus, the closed and standardized text of the Old Testament has been passed down to us in excellent condition.

          -"Many of the prophets did not speak as recognized leaders of the nation. When we read their strong criticism of many of the leaders of the people, we find it hard to imagine how any nation would accept such books as part of its national treasure. It is a phenomenon that can hardly be paralleled in any other nation. Nor was there any lack of attempts to dispute the authority of the prophets during their lifetime." (Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question, contributor Allan A. MacRae, p. 223)
          -"The care of the Talmudic doctors for the text is shown by the pains with which they counted up the number of verses in the different books, and computed which were the middle verses, words, and letters in the Pentateuch and in the Psalms. The scrupulousness with which the Talmudists noted what they deemed the truer readings, and yet abstained from introducing them into the text, indicates at once both the diligence with which they scrutinized the text, and also the care with which, even while acknowledging its occasional imperfections, they guarded it. Critical procedure is also evinced in a mention of their rejection of manuscripts which were found not to agree with others in their readings; and the rules given with reference to the transcription and adoption of manuscripts attest the care bestowed upon them. The Talmud further makes mention of the euphemistic Keris, which are still noted in our Bibles, e.g. at 2 K. vi. 25. It also reckons six instances of extraordinary points placed over certain words, e.g. at Gen. xviii. 9; and of some of them it furnishes mystical explanations." (William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 651)

• The Establishment Of The New Testament Canon:

          -The New Testament Scriptures were being read and circulated even as the apostles lived (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Revelation 1:10-11). Consequently, it can be affirmed that the New Testament canon was being established in the middle to the later end of the first century. Jesus Himself implicitly indicated that there would be the production of New Testament Scriptures in John 14-16. Most conservative scholars agree that the 27 books of the New Testament were completed by the end of the first century, with the epistle of James being the first and Revelation being last in order of completion. Some, however, argue that Revelation was written earlier than AD 95.

          -22 out of 27 books of the New Testament were received as canonical by the end of the second century. The four gospel accounts and the Pauline corpus were never seriously disputed. The books of Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, and Revelation were questioned for a time. That point shows us the early Christians did not accept any random texts claiming to be of apostolic origin but instead scrutinized them, which bolsters our confidence that we have the rightful books in the New Testament canon. The lack of citation of 2 John, 3 John, and Jude from early patristic writers may be explained by their shortness. Factors used in the canonization process would include the dating, authorship, theology, and level of circulation of writings in the church. The New Testament canon was crystallized through church councils.

• Primary Ancient Witnesses Consulted In Reconstructing And Verifying The Text Of The New Testament:

          -The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament available are papyri, some of which can be dated as early as the second century.

          -Leather parchment eventually replaced papyrus because the material was more durable. 

          -Codex Vaticanus is significant because it contains the entire New Testament. Another manuscript which contains most of the New Testament is Codex Sinaiticus. 

          -There are ancient Syrian, Coptic, and Latin translations which enhance our understanding of the New Testament autograph manuscripts. Those came about as a result of intense missionary work in the early church.

• Textual Variations In Greek New Testament Manuscripts:

          -Causes of unintentional scribal alterations in manuscripts would include poor eyesight, faulty inspection, mistakes in memory, spelling errors, and wrongly viewing inserted marginal notes as corrections of the text.

          -Causes of intentional scribal alterations in manuscripts would include attempts to update archaic grammar and spelling, clarify or harmonize more obscure texts, and protect important doctrines. An example of scribes attempting to protect doctrine (in this case it would be the deity of Christ) would be the insertion of "God" into 1 Timothy 3:16 rather than "he."

          -Most manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments have differences in spelling or grammar that do not pervert the meaning of the text.

          -There are textual variants among manuscripts that read synonymously. For instance, there are manuscripts that render the same passage of Scripture with Christ's name as being "Lord Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ."
          -There are textual variants that can readily be ignored due to being outright irrational or found in poor quality manuscripts.
          -The New Testament documents alone are almost one hundred percent textually pure. They have much earlier and wider source attestation than any other document of antiquity. Not one variation among biblical manuscripts comes close to harming a doctrine of the Christian faith.

• Defining What Textual Criticism Is:

          -The purpose of textual criticism is to accurately convey what was written in the inspired original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible. This process of refinement involves sifting through all the available manuscript data. That is the science of biblical textual criticism.

          -Biblical criticism has been separated into two main categories: higher and lower criticism.

          -It would seem to be common sense procedure to inspect the oldest manuscripts in existence to better reconstruct the original text of the New Testament rather than a harmony of medieval manuscripts. There would be less of a possibility of the former being corrupted because less time passed between the beginning of the church and their production.
          -Textual criticism should be opposed when there are humanistic or anti-supernatural motivations involved. It should be done on the presupposition that the Bible is divine revelation.

Sufficient Proofs For The Word Of God

"Men crave in these days some demonstration from the unseen world. Here is abundance of such evidence—Here is clear proof of an unseen and almighty intelligence presiding over human history, and showing us that He does so by describing beforehand the whole course of its events. What need we any further proof? The order of the visible world is evidence of the invisible to him who reads history in the light of prophecy! He beholds the hand of God in human experience, and watches the development of the Divine plan in the progress of the world. He knows, moreover, what events to expect, for he discerns his own chronological position in the stream of time; and as nine-tenths of the program have already been fulfilled, he doubts not that the remaining tenth will be in its predicted and fast-approaching season. And further, it is clear that if by so many infallible proofs we are convinced that the Bible as a whole is from God, no difficulties as to the mode of its inspiration, no scientific or critical objections, should be suffered to interfere with our hearty and thankful reception of its revelation. If God has spoken, man is responsible to hear, to believe, and to obey. And lastly, may we say, that to study the Christian evidences, whether of this or of any other kind, is merely to examine the foundations of the house. It is well at times to do this. But it is better to enter and abide in the house! It is infinitely better to avail one’s self of its shelter from the stormy blast, to enjoy its rich and spacious accommodation, to dwell in safety and peace under its blessed roof and to gaze on the widespread prospect from its windows."

Henry Grattan Guinness (1835-1910)

Contradictions Between Sexual Revolution And The #MeToo Movement

"There is a deep tension between the premises of the sexual revolution and those of #MeToo. The sexual revolution promises greater availability and enjoyment of sexual pleasure without commitment or guilt. This promise can only be accomplished by the trivialization of the intrinsically personal meaning of sex. It is very difficult to see how we can simultaneously promote the trivialization of sex and treat sexual assault with the seriousness that it deserves.

But a powerful personal drive like sexual desire cannot really be trivialized, and its personal meaning cannot be completely denied. If sex ceases to be about love, it will necessarily be about war. This is evident in the hook-up culture, which pushes the revolution’s core premise—sex without marital commitment, or “free love”—to its logical conclusion by elevating sex without any commitment at all. In the hook-up culture and its #MeToo reaction, we can see how sex without comprehensive commitment necessarily becomes predatory, thus paving the way for sexual assault."

Elizabeth Schlueter and Nathan Schlueter, What #MeToo and Hooking Up Teach Us About The Meaning of Sex

Sex Needs More Than Just Consent

"Certain moral norms follow from the personal meaning of sex. In the first place, there is a need for consent. Sexual contact without consent is a direct assault against the whole person. It is deeply depersonalizing. But sexual assault is only the most extreme kind of sexual depersonalization. Every time a person is used for sexual gratification, he or she is depersonalized. This fact accounts for the true meaning of sexual modesty (and shame), not puritanical repression. It is our natural defense against the “objectifying” gaze, against being used for someone else’s gratification.

But not just any kind of consent is adequate to the intrinsic and personal language of sex, and thus to the dignity of the person. Because sex is an embodied union of thewhole person, consent to sex without total commitment to the whole person contradicts the meaning and language of the body. It makes an act that speaks love between persons into an act of use of persons.

Sex is thus very different from other human activities. In some contexts, the mutual “use” of persons is morally acceptable. In typical market transactions, for example, the parties “use” one another for their own benefit. When someone purchases bread from the baker, each person is unproblematically looking to his or her own advantage, and (unless the transaction involves force or fraud) neither person feels“used.”

Why is it that “feeling used” is a common experience in sexual intercourse, even when it is consented to? And what conditions for sexual intercourse would prevent that feeling? While “affirmative consent” may at least avoid rape, most people have a sense that consent should be broader, that sex should at least be “a part of a relationship.” But what kind of relationship is sufficient to prevent sex from being depersonalizing? A committed one? How committed? Experience leads us to the following conclusion: Nothing short of comprehensive personal consent—in other words, marriage—is adequate to the intrinsic language of sex or the vulnerability it necessarily entails."

Elizabeth Schlueter and Nathan Schlueter, What #MeToo and Hooking Up Teach Us About The Meaning of Sex

Commentary On Hebrews 10:7

"Then said I, lo, I come,.... Christ observing that legal sacrifices were not acceptable to God; that there was a body prepared for him; and that it was written of him in the book of God, that he should come; and the time being now come, with a note of attention and admiration, the matter being of great moment and concern, he cheerfully expresses his readiness to come, immediately, without any compulsion, even he himself, and not another.

In the volume of the book it is written of me; in the book of the law, as the, Targum and Kimchi on Psalm 40:7 interpret it; and which may design the Bible in general, the whole book of the Scriptures of the Old Testament: so ספר, "the book", is used for the whole BibleF18, and it is saidF19, all the whole law, that is, all Scripture, is called מגילה, "a volume"; accordingly there are things written of Christ in all the writings of the Old Testament, in the law, and in the prophets, and in the psalms. Jarchi interprets it of the law of Moses, and so it may design the pentateuch, or the five books of Moses; and there are several places therein, in which it is written of Christ, and particularly in Genesis, the first of these books, and in the head, the beginning, the frontal piece, the first part of that book; namely, Genesis 3:15 which may be principally designed. Books were formerly written in rolls of parchment, and hence called volumes; See Gill on Luke 4:17, See Gill on Luke 4:20. The end of his coming is next expressed by him,

to do thy will, O God; which, when he came, he set about with the utmost delight, diligence, and faithfulness, in preaching the Gospel, performing miracles, doing good to the bodies and souls of men, and in finishing the great work of man's redemption, which was the main part of his Father's will he came to do; and which he did, by fulfilling the law in its precept and penalty; by offering himself a sacrifice to God; by suffering death, the death of the cross; by destroying all his and our enemies, and so working out everlasting salvation."

Gill, John. "Commentary on Hebrews 10:7". "The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/hebrews-10.html. 1999.

The Biblical Definition Of Repentance

        There is confusion amongst professing Christians as to the definition of repentance, namely whether it consists of a change in mind or a change in ways. Scripture does provide a definitive answer to this question, but it does not appeal to many in our culture and to those who preach a watered-down version of the gospel. Nowadays, it is commonly assumed that people are good as they are. People are therefore offended when they are told that they need to change. The reception of the gospel is to be followed by a change of heart from sinful ways to godly living.  

        According to Scripture, the act of repentance is more than a change of mind. It involves turning from sinful ways. It involves entrusting oneself to God who forgives our sins. Repentance is not a work, but a change in heart. It is a change in purpose and perspective. Repentance is crying out to God, admitting the futility of remaining in sin. This theme was taught especially in the Book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 14:6; 18:20-31). The underlying theme of the gospel is repent or perish. Repentance can be accompanied with godly sorrow and grief, as was the case of the Apostle Peter who denied knowing Jesus Christ (Luke 22:62-64). Consider also how the men of Nineveh responded to the preaching of Jonah:

         "Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes He issued a proclamation and it said, “In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.” When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it." (Jonah 3:5-10, emphasis added)

         The response of the people who heard his message was not rejection, but covering themselves with sackcloth and ashes. This was an expression of sorrow for their sins of idolatry, sexual perversion, and godlessness. The Ninevites changed their ways and obtained for themselves mercy from God. Note how Jesus Christ used this event in calling the Pharisees to repentance:

         "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here." (Matthew 12:41)

          It is clear that Christ Himself viewed repentance as turning from sinful ways. If we define that term to mean a change of mind, then we are at best giving an incomplete definition. Christians have a desire to serve God because their hearts have been changed by the Holy Spirit. They have been given a new nature. The lives of the apostles are evidence of this truth.

          If we truly wish to inherit eternal life, then we must turn to God and seek the forgiveness that He provides. True repentance will inevitably result in a changed lifestyle. An aspect of repentance is the conviction that sin should no longer persist in our lives. We must recognize that we are spiritually bankrupt sinners who are in need of His redemption. The word order of faith and repentance in the New Testament indicates that both are inseparable (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). If there is no repentance from sin, then there can be no forgiveness by God. If repentance is removed or redefined from its original meaning, then the gospel falls apart.

Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 In The Würzburg Glosses, 8th Century

.... Very interesting: Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 in the Würzburg Glosses, from an Irish theologian in the 8th Century:

"23 For all have sinned and do need the glory of God. 24 Being justified freely by his grace [that is, by faith alone, i.e. the faith of belief in Jesus Christ], through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [that is, it is He that has redeemed and it is He also that is the ransom, i.e. by the blood] 25 Whom God had proposed to be a propitiation [that is, it has been set forth in the mysteries of the Godhead, to make atonement for those who believe his liberation would be in the blood], through faith in his blood, [that is, through the faith of every one who believes in his salvation through His blood] to the showing of his justice, for the remission of former sins."

https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/03/per-fidem-solam-romans-324-in-wurzburg.html

Abortion Is Wrong Even If The Fetus Is Not A Person

"Marquis thinks abortion is wrong even if the fetus is not a person.

Once again, to see the force of this strategy, imagine two people on a sidewalk debating the issue. If someone told you that the two debaters had come to agree that the fetus is not a person, you’d probably form the belief that the “pro-choice” side had won; likely, you’d conclude that the “pro-lifer” had been convinced.

But Marquis’ argument doesn’t rely on the fetus being a person.

Here it is:

(1) What makes killing someone wrong, in most respects, is it deprives them of a future of value.

(2) When a fetus is killed, it suffers the same kind of loss.

Thus,

(3) Abortion is immoral just as killing an adult or a child is immoral.

As Marquis puts it:

When I am killed…I am deprived of all the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his or her future. …

The future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies to fetuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie seriously morally wrong.

Notice that Marquis’ argument doesn’t rely on the fetus being a person. Marquis is in essence shoving the question of personhood aside and looking strictly at what it is that makes killing someone wrong.

If it turned out that what makes killing someone wrong crucially relies on personhood, then Marquis wouldn’t have an argument against abortion (using the assumptions he’s relied on). But the wrong-making feature of killing that he’s identified is something adults, children, and fetuses share when each of them are killed. So if the feature that makes killing someone from the first two groups wrong is that it deprives them of a future of value, then it also furnishes us with an argument against abortion, since the fetus, like the child and the adult, has a future of value.

(Interestingly, Marquis’ argument does not provide grounds for seeing euthanasia as wrong, given that in many cases the candidate for euthanasia does not have a future of value.)

Notice that Marquis’ argument is not vulnerable to the familiar “pro-choice” lament that anti-abortionists are “giving full rights to a potential person” or anything like that. The question of personhood is irrelevant.

Marquis’ argument relies on a theory about what makes killing someone wrong, and then noticing that the same effects occur when a fetus is killed — the fetus, like the adult, is wrongly stripped of a future of value. It’s not like, when an adult is killed, someone can plausibly respond “Yes, but, they only had this ‘future of value’ potentially — so there’s no wrongdoing here.” No one would accept this reasoning. That’s because, as Marquis notes, we see this future of value as something an adult possesses in the present. That’s precisely why we’re so scandalized when someone is killed — they are robbed of something — the most precious thing — they possess: their future of value.

That’s what makes abortion seriously immoral."

https://arcdigital.media/abortion-is-wrong-even-if-the-fetus-is-not-a-person-bd7552841366

Presenting A Different Jesus

"The Jesus being presented in many churches today is different because He is not the One we find in the Bible. The popular Jesus being presented is the one who fills churches to the rafters with fans and not disciples. People are following a genie in a bottle that will grant them all of their hopes and dreams. He is a Hallmark card version of Jesus who is willing to overlook sin and just be a good friend to pal around with. He never makes us feel bad or consider ourselves less than number one.

Many of our modern churches focus on self-improvement instead of dying to self. This is works based nonsense and basically, the same thing practiced among many pseudo-Christian cults including Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism. The logic is if you work hard enough and be good enough, you can earn eternal life.

Instead of lovingly warning people about fleeing the wrath to come, we decide we know a better approach. We attempt to woo people into the Christian life by presenting its features and benefits much like a good salesman. This isn't the biblical model of how to present the gospel and it is certainly not the way to make disciples.

The local church's main purpose isn't to help people improve their financial planning skills, have a better marriage, or to get them connected into activities galore for the whole family. What people desperately need is to hear the gospel to come to the end of themselves and be truly born again. We don't want to present a different Jesus who is a cosmic genie who caters to our felt needs and desires.

Trouble begins when seeker-sensitive hirelings who are not shepherds water down the gospel. They present a different Jesus and this is a deception plaguing many churches today. These preachers may want to improve their image, popularity, or ministry numbers, so they make coming to Jesus about life enhancement, not dying to oneself.

I feel the uneasy tension when [speaking] to people about heaven, hell, eternity, sin, and repentance. The Lord never promised it would be easy to be His disciple but he promised to be with us always and give us the words to say when we testify about Him. It's my deep desire and prayer for each of us to renew our commitment to speak the truth, with love as the motive and do it with boldness as the Holy Spirit directs us. While many are compromising and presenting a different Jesus, I pray the faithful remnant will continue to make Him known."

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/presenting-a-different-jesus-howard-green.html

Does Hebrews 6:4-6 Teach That Apostates Cannot Be Forgiven?

        The text of Hebrews 6:4-6 has been a source of controversy amongst Christians as to its meaning. It certainly is thought-provoking in a solemn sense. In fact, it has put believers into a state of needless panic over it seemingly teaching that those who stumble into sin are beyond any hope of obtaining forgiveness from God. That statement would be true only in the case of one who dies in a state of unrepentance and persistent rebellion. Scripture elsewhere exhorts us to spiritually assist backsliders in coming to repentance (Galatians 6:1). Exposure to the truth of the gospel does not result in regeneration except if it reaches the heart.

        What may serve as an antidote to this difficult passage of Scripture is the recognition that the audience to which this epistle was originally written was of a Jewish background. It was primarily addressing Jewish Christians who were thinking of reverting to Judaism in the face of upcoming persecution. In summary, the author of Hebrews goes on to demonstrate Christ as being superior to the Old Covenant. He urges them to fervently hold fast to the gospel. They were in need of spiritual edification (Hebrews 6:1-3).

        This epistle goes in depth concerning various types, shadows, and how they are fulfilled in the New Testament. It describes Christ as being greater than Moses and the angels. It affirms Him to be our Sabbath and High Priest. The author of Hebrews affirms Christ to be greater than the temple and its sacrifices. He is the fulfillment of the Law, which cannot save us. Its customs are useless to us. Jesus established the New Covenant. The Jewish Christians were encouraged to continually remain faithful to the Lord and endure persecution for His sake (Hebrews 10:23-39).

        So, the point of this passage is not to say that God will refuse to forgive the sins of those who humbly turn to Him in repentance. Rather, those who persistently seek the Law as a means of justification are only destining themselves for eternal condemnation. These people are inexcusable because they already know and understand the truth of the gospel. Sacrificial alters have no power to redeem us. The priesthood cannot atone for our iniquity. Jesus Christ has already made full atonement for our sin (Hebrews 10:10-14). We are place our trust in His work for salvation. Those who attempt to reinstate Old Covenant practices are putting Christ to an open shame. They are rejecting the sufficiency of His work.