While debates can clarify issues, they can also confuse them. When one of the protagonists does not have a clear answer for a point, they will often seek to distract the audience from seeing the power of a good argument. We often call this “throwing dust in the air.”
Accordingly, the rebuttals will be more useful if one keeps in sharp focus the following pertinent facts.
- Megiddo’s foundation — this debate concerns the doctrine that led to the formation of Megiddo as a separate denomination. The teaching was first promulgated by their founder, L.T. Nichols in 1880.
Following is the relevant section of a biography of Mr. Nichols. Prior to 1880, Mr. Nichols “…preached, practiced and enforced a religion of doing, so that the standard of conduct in his ecclesia was always in marked contrast with the more lax behavior [in Megiddo’s opinion] of other Christadelphian groups. Yet… [in Nichols’ teaching up to this point] there was some efficacy in water baptism to wash away past sins; some vague, mysterious [according to Megiddo] virtue in the sacrifice of Calvary, some loophole in the wall of salvation to let in the well intentioned but imperfect believer. If a man believed and was baptized, should Christ come the next day or he die that night, he would be ready, regardless of his past life.”
In 1880, Mr. Nichols faced his followers “with a confession of past error and the most stupendous proposition offered to men since the Seventh Century…When Jesus said, ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,’ (Nichols) told them, He meant just that and no less: the perfect ordering of every aspect of one’s moral life and conduct…No man could be saved apart from knowing and keeping every commandment of God…
“With the great foundation stone laid bare and swept clean, the temple could now grow in an orderly manner. The Reformation had begun!”
This fundamental view came through clearly in Megiddo’s opening statement in such phrases as: “the basis of our salvation is indeed our own life of obedience and virtue before God…there is no suggestion of any efficacy to be derived from Christ’s literal death…where is any need for the sacrifice of Christ?”
- Megiddo believes baptism is unnecessary — “we take the position that water baptism is not necessary or commanded for today” is the Megiddo statement in their correspondence course, “Understanding the Bible.”
- Figures of speech are founded on That is certainly true in the Bible and is consistently the case in everyday speech. For example, a steamship is spoken of as “sailing” because ships once used sails. A wooden wall will be spoken of as “paper thin” because paper is very thin.
In the Bible, deliverance from the fatal control of sin is spoken of as “redemption,” because the Israelitish slaves were redeemed from the fatal control of Egyptian bondage. And sharing in the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice is spoken of as “eating his flesh” because the flesh of animal sacrifices was eaten. The existence of figures of speech, therefore, does not negate the fact of an underlying reality.
Proposition
The Bible conditions our salvation and eternal rewards upon our individual obedience and virtue, and not upon any merits deriving from the literal death or blood of Jesus Christ.
Megiddo rebuttal to Christadelphian statement in opposition to the above proposition.
Summary of the Megiddo Position
In a limited discussion it is physically impossible to answer completely every aspect of a topic of this magnitude. We will try, however, to reply to the basic areas addressed by Mr. Heaster in his opening statement and at the same time to focus upon the general teaching of Scripture on the subject of salvation.
Our primary concern is to avoid building our confidence on a false premise; i.e., a premise drawn from any school of human philosophy and not from the Bible, the Bible being our only source of inspired knowledge today. What possible value can there be in relying upon the shed blood and righteousness of Christ for our salvation, unless we are absolutely sure this is the God-designed arrangement for us? The matter is of supreme importance because it concerns our eternal salvation; upon it we are Staking our entire hope of future life, If we err, we will have lost all, for we have but one life, and it is soon over.
Picture a narrow bridge-walk across a wide, deep canyon. When you walk out upon that bridge, you want to know that it is structurally sound. If its supports are half rotten, you want to know it. You really do not care if everyone in the community thinks the bridge is safe; you want to know the facts. For when you walk out upon that bridge, you are trusting your life to it. In the same way, when we accept a teaching about salvation, we want to be sure that it has a solid foundation, because we are staking our life upon it. If the foundation proves to be rotten–even if everyone around us believes it is solid–we will not trust it.
We are convinced that the teaching of the Christadelphians upon the subject of salvation is largely the same as that held almost universally throughout Christendom. And that doctrine has its foundation not in the Scriptures but in the time-honored creeds formulated by Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Ambrose and the other Church fathers during the early centuries of our era, who were, in turn, influenced by the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and other pagan philosophers. The thinking of many of the Church fathers was a syncretism of Christian and pagan ideas, which they packaged under the name of “Christian,” but which was wholly foreign to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The inspired writings of the prophets, apostles and Jesus were not their sole source of knowledge.
Widespread among the pagans was the belief that the suffering of a god was of greater efficacy than the suffering of a human or animal victim. Thus the early believers were able to see in the death of Christ a supreme instance of a Deity sacrificing Himself for the sins of the human family to secure their forgiveness and salvation; hence the doctrine of the Atonement, which in time became the central dogma of the Christian Church.
The strangest fact is that Jesus Himself never said that forgiveness of sin and reconciliation to God were to be consequences of His death. Nor did He ever say that the purpose of His life (or death) was to be a sacrificial atonement for sin. On the contrary, Jesus taught the absolute necessity of an upright, pure and holy character, and repentance as the sole basis for forgiveness (see Luke 24:47).
We readily agree that certain passages in the New Testament seem to say that the literal death of Christ is instrumental in our salvation. This has several causes:
- translators who believed the doctrine of the Atonement taught by the Christian Church;
- the firmly established preconception of the doctrine of the Atonement in the minds of most Christian believers today;
- a general misunderstanding of Biblical terms as literal which the writers intended to be symbolic and figurative, which are, by Peter’s description, “hard to be understood” (II Pet. 3:16).
Numerically, the passages in the above category are relatively few, compared with the many hundreds of texts which describe clearly the standard of character which God requires, loves, or commends. Either we must say that the Bible teaches two (contradictory) plans of salvation, or we must find a way to reconcile one group of passages with the other.
Because of the widespread acceptance of the Atonement doctrine throughout Christendom, it is all but impossible today to set prejudice aside and read the Bible with an open mind.
Hence our next question: How often is the idea of the atoning death of Christ read into rather than out of the Bible?How many texts would unprejudiced readers find to “prove” that Christ died to atone for our sins — if they could read the Bible without this thought already in mind?
Take, for example, a few of the passages quoted by the Christadelphians in this debate, and the conclusions they have drawn: Heb. 10:4, “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” and their comment: “Therefore the sacrifice of the body of Jesus was needed.” Could any reading Hebrews 10:4 draw such a conclusion if the theory were not already firm in their minds? The passage says nothing whatever about “the sacrifice of the body of Jesus.” Or John 6:53, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” and their comment: “We must intensely associate ourselves with the sacrifice of Jesus.” John 6:53 says nothing about Jesus’ death or sacrifice.
Or take John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,” and their conclusion that reference is being made to Jesus’ death for all mankind–when the passage contains no mention whatever of Christ’s death. Or take their citing of I Cor. 10:1-2, that “[Israeli were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea,” and their conclusion that this means that “the blood of Jesus brings salvation for the new Israel.” Such conclusions, if drawn from these texts, must be read into the passages, for they cannot be read out of them — they are not there.
We must also be careful not to make statements which cannot be supported. For example, the Christadelphian statement that “The Bible stresses that salvation is through the sacrifice, not the example, of Christ.” We ask, Where does the Bible even make such a statement, with or without any “stress”? Or the Christadelphian statement that “Our salvation is obtainable because of the fact that Jesus offered Himself–His life, His blood, His very soul.” Here is another statement wholly without Bible support.
If our salvation depends upon the merits of Jesus Christ…
— Then why was Paul so concerned about qualifying himself for the crown? He had been serving Christ many years when he wrote, “I therefore so run,…so fight I,…lest that by any means when I have preached to others,I myself should be a castaway” (I Cor. 9:26-27). If Christ’s blood had effect on anyone’s salvation, it surely should have had on Paul.
–Or why did Paul write, “I have not yet reached perfection, but I press on, hoping to take hold of that for which Christ once took hold of me….I press towards the goal to win the prize”–was not such effort needless, if Christ’s righteousness was imputed to him by God’s system of justification? (Phil. 3:12-14, NEB). If perfection was Paul’s through Christ automatically, or if his own virtue and obedience did not matter to his salvation, why was he so concerned to achieve it?
–Or why did Paul write, “If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead?” (Phil. 3:11). Would this not be a meaningless statement if his salvation was sure because of the merits of Christ?
— Or why did Jesus in His letters to the seven churches warn each that they must “repent,” “hold fast,” or “be faithful unto death,”–or lose their crown? (Rev. 2:5, 16,25, 10). What need for the warning, “I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love” (Rev. 2:4), if they were saved by the righteousness of Christ?
— Or why was every blessing in those letters prefaced with the condition: “To him that overcometh”? (See Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21.) And why this admonition: “Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God” (Rev. 3:2)–if being “perfect before God” was not required for salvation?
— Or why did Jesus say, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able” (Luke 13:24) if entering were as simple a matter as accepting Christ’s imputed righteousness?
— Or why are we commanded to “walk worthy” of our high calling in Christ (Eph. 4:1-2) if our salvation is already won for us? Or why is the eternal reward, of being made “equal unto the angels,” reserved for those who shall “be accounted worthy” (Luke 20:35-36), if our individual effort is not a direct condition in our salvation?
— Or why should we “fear” lest we come short of obtaining the promises of God (Heb. 4:1), if we can claim those promises through the righteousness of Christ?
–Or why did Paul write to his brethren who were believers that he was enduring “for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory?” (II Tim. 2:10). They were elect, they were believers, they were in Christ, but their salvation was not yet sure.
— Or why should there be any “if” in the context of salvation if it is as simple as being baptized into Christ and receiving His merits? Why did Paul write to the Colossians that Christ had reconciled them “in the body of his flesh through death” and then go on to say‘ If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled”? Why was there any if–if by what he had just said he meant that their salvation was secured by Christ’s literal death? (Col. 1:22-23).
— Or why is it written of the faithful bride of Christ, “his wife bath made herself ready,” or that she is arrayed in “fine linen, clean and white” which is “the righteousness of saints” (Rev. 19:7,8)–if the credit rightfully belongs to Christ, and the righteousness is His, not hers?
— Or why does the Bible repeatedly state God’s method of rewarding “every man according as his work shall be” (Rev. 22:12) if our salvation does not depend wholly upon what we do, i.e., our own virtue and obedience? This principle is repeated in Scripture not once or twice but more than fifty times. What right have we to disallow it?
Much as we would like to think otherwise, we have to conclude that there is more — much more — to obtaining salvation than the simple formula of being baptized into the righteousness of Christ, or receiving merits He won for us.
The use of figurative language in Scripture
Figurative or symbolic language is common in everyday speech. Suppose we hear that “the door closed suddenly on a promising career.” A picture is created in our minds which we relate to the situation described. Or if we hear that a man “lost his shirt” in a business venture, we readily understand the meaning.
The Bible writers also used symbolic or figurative language, which can be readily understood if studied in the context of the overall teaching of the Bible.
The Apostles, having witnessed firsthand the dramatic life, death and resurrection of their Lord, were so deeply impressed by it all that in writing and teaching they drew heavily from His experience. His “life,” His “death,” His “crucifixion,” His “blood,” His “resurrection” — all were terms which they used freely and with deep significance to describe every believer’s commitment. Were we to take these terms literally we would destroy their meaning. For example, they wrote of “our old nature” being “crucified with him (Jesus Christ), that the body of sin might be destroyed” (Rom. 6:6). No one understood from this that every believer must be literally “crucified.”
Or when describing how new is the believer’s life in Christ, they called it a “resurrection” or “life from the dead,” so complete was the change from the old life to the new (Rom. 6:2-5). Again, they spoke of the new way of life as being newly begotten by the Word of truth (see I Pet, 1:3; I Cor. 4:15; James 1:18). So drastic was the change from the old way of life that being “in Christ” was like becoming a whole “new creature” (II Cor. 5:17).
In the same way, the term “death” was a fitting description of the old life completely given up, sacrificed, what Paul called a “living sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1). Paul, describing his daily battle with his own nature, said of himself, “I die daily” (I Cor. 15:31). No one thought he was literally dying every day. Rather, he was describing how completely he was giving up himself and his natural desires, instincts and affections. Again he wrote of himself, “I am crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20), and again no one pictured him on Golgotha with Christ. Using the same terminology he commanded his brethren to “put to death” their earthly tendencies (Col. 3:3-5, RSV).
Jesus Himself used figurative language when He said: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (John 6:53). If we take these words literally, as alluding to His physical flesh and blood, we accuse Jesus of advocating cannibalism — and also must conclude that He was talking to people who were literally dead because He said “Ye have no life in you.”
But no, Jesus was not speaking of things physical. Rather, His hearers were not spiritually alive because they were not partaking of the spiritual flesh and blood which He was offering them.
What was the spiritual flesh and blood that could produce and support spiritual life? Jesus Himself answered when He said, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that! speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). His “flesh and blood” were His words, His teachings–these support spiritual life, just as physical flesh and blood support physical fife.
In the same message, Jesus explained His point even more clearly: “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me” (John 6:57). We live by eating of Jesus in the same way that Jesus lived by eating of His Father. (This is obviously not literal.)
“The life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11)–so the life of the spiritual flesh is in spiritual blood. How appropriate, then, that the Apostle should use the term “blood” with a symbolic meaning of life (spiritual life), also of that which supports or imparts spiritual life, i.e. the words of Jesus, His wisdom, His teachings. The heavenly wisdom, as spiritual blood, performs the functions that support and maintain spiritual life just as physical blood does for physical life. For example:
— The spiritual blood, or word of God, is the sanctifying medium. We read in Revelation that the saints “washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:14). Either we must have literal robes made literally white in literal blood (impossible!) or we must have spiritual robes made spiritually white (clean) in spiritual blood. What performs the functions of blood in a spiritual sense? Jesus explained it when He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth” (John 17:17, 19). “The truth,” His word, was the sanctifying medium. Paul said the same when speaking of Christ’s relation to the Church, “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). He sanctifies and cleanses His church (His people) by the word.
— The spiritual blood, or word, cleanses from sin. The apostle John wrote in I John 1:7, “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Jesus said the same in these words: “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3). Peter said the same when he wrote, “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth” (I Pet. 1:22). Obeying the truth was the means of cleansing.
–The spiritual blood, or word, gives life, Jesus said, using blood as a symbol for His words: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (John 6:53). The Psalmist said the same when he wrote, in plain language, “Thy word bath quickened me” (Ps. 119:50).
— The spiritual blood, or word, saves. The gospel is “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). “By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you” (I Cor. 15:1,2). Likewise spiritual blood, or the word, saves (redeems). “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7).
Christadelphian rebuttal to Megiddo statement in support of the above proposition.
Summary of the Christadelphian Position
Many of the points raised in the Megiddo opening statement are covered by the reasoning presented in the initial Christadelphian statement.
Man is of sin-prone nature both before and after conversion (Rom. 3:10,23; 7:12-25; Jer. 10:23). Except for Jesus Christ, who is the only begotten son of God, it is impossible for us to attain God’s perfection through our own righteous acts. For this reason, salvation is conditioned on faith in the sacrifice (the blood, the death) of Christ (Rom. 3:25 cp. Heb. 11:28) and is through grace, i.e. unmerited favor. “(God) hath saved us…not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 19 cp. Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:5,8).
Faith is developed by an intellectual response and appreciation of God’s word (Rom. 10:17), and its existence is shown by works which are motivated by our response to the great salvation which was accomplished through Jesus Christ. Christadelphians do not suggest that works are irrelevant in God’s scheme of justification; but while we will not be saved without works, we are not saved because of them. We are saved by God’s grace as He provides the gift of redemption in Christ.
Our faith is in the gospel concerning Christ — that he was our representative, sharing our nature, yet he never sinned personally. Therefore his body was raised from the dead, and glorified with immortal life. By being baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection and by continuing in his way, our faith is counted for righteousness. In other words, we are treated by God as if we are as righteous as Christ. Because of this, those “in Christ” have the sure hope of “the redemption of the body” at Christ’s return, to be given a glorified body like he now has (Phil. 3:19-21). It is for this reason that we presented so many passages which link salvation with the body and blood of Christ, which were offered for the forgiveness of our sins.
The Authorship of Salvation
Christadelphians and the Megiddo Church agree that God is the author of our salvation. But Megiddo fail to analyze on what basis He achieves this. Hebrews 5:4-10 explains how God called Christ to the priesthood, and perfected him on account of his death on the cross: “And being made perfect, he (Christ) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” God became the author of salvation through the death of Christ. It is for us to show that we really believe this by living in obedience to Christ.
The gift of righteousness
The fact that salvation is a gift from God (Rom. 6:23) on account of His grace, contradicts the Megiddo statement that “The law of God is as straightforward as ‘Obey and live.” If our obedience merits salvation, there is no place for God’s unmerited favor, or “grace.”
Furthermore, righteousness itself is a gift: “They which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by…Jesus” (Rom. 5:17). Megiddo makes clear their view that developing a righteous character is our responsibility. They do not view righteousness as a gift. In contrast to Megiddo, scripture speaks of righteousness as a gift because we do not have to reach a point of full obedience to be considered righteous by God. Rather, our faith in Him is counted for righteousness: Abraham “did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why ‘it was credited to him as righteousness.’ The words ‘it was credited to him’ were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness — for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom. 4:20-24 NIV).
Our obedience, however, is not irrelevant to God’s system of salvation. The balance between faith and works is to be found in appreciating that God’s gift of salvation is offered in response to faith, not works; but real faith will produce works as an intrinsic by-product (James 2:18-26).
Megiddo’s mistake
Megiddo does not reconcile two great Bible themes:
- That salvation is by grace through faith in Christ’s sacrifice, “not according to works of righteousness which we have done” (Titus 3:4-7).
- That works are also necessary in God’s scheme of redemption, “that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works” (Titus 3:8).
Their position is that these two themes are contradictory. They contend that one or the other must be explained away.
The fact is that the two themes beautifully complement one another. Belief in the sacrifice of Christ teaches the need for self-sacrificial love and dedicated obedience in our own lives. Attempting to live an obedient life teaches us the need for the grace of God to forgive us for Christ’s sake.
The concept of justification by a vibrant faith makes perfect sense of both these themes. Note that in Titus 3:8 belief comes first; first we must believe in the work of Christ and then we show this belief by our works.
Both Themes in the Same Scripture
While Megiddo may feel these themes are contradictory, the Bible obviously does not. They are found together throughout scripture, even in the places Megiddo uses to prove their points.
In the Old Testament
Isaiah 1:16,17 is quoted by Megiddo as proof that repentance, not the blood of Christ, is the basis of salvation. But it is only one of the preconditions for it. That passage goes on to say that God will make our scarlet-red sins “as white as snow…as wool.” It is Christ who is “white like wool, as white as snow” (Rev. 1:14; Mk. 9:3). By being in Christ, we are counted by God to be as righteous (as white) as he (Christ) is. This same figure of speech is used in Revelation 7:14, which speaks of believers washing the redness of their sins in the blood of Christ, so that their clothing is white. It is therefore in Christ that our sins are forgiven and we are presented holy and without blame before God.
Later in his prophecy, Isaiah makes clear that God offers forgiveness on the basis of the literal death of the Messiah: “The chastisement of our peace was upon him (Jesus); and with his stripes we are healed…the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all…thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin…by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:5,6,10,11).
Ezekiel speaks of repentance resulting in forgiveness. But the repentant Israelite at that time was under the Mosaic law. If he repented, he would have to offer a sacrifice: “it is the blood that maketh atonement” (Lev. 17:11), and “without the shedding of blood is no remission” of sins (Heb. 9:22). Repentance was not, therefore, the only necessity for forgiveness under the Old Covenant.
In the gospels
Megiddo claims that Jesus did not teach that he was going to die and shed his blood for the salvation of mankind. That is not true.
At the last supper, he referred to the symbolic significance of the wine: “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Earlier in his ministry, he told his disciples, “the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45). Jesus taught Nicodemus about the efficacy of his literal crucifixion: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:14,15). After his baptism, he was introduced as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). While the Lord stressed the need for obedience, his teaching about the need for us to share in the benefits of his sacrificial death was perfectly clear.
In the gospels, the language of the rituals of the Law is consistently applied to the sacrificial death of Christ blood of the testament…life a ransom…serpent on a pole…lamb of God. His sacrifice was superior to and replaced these rituals with the true sacrificial death to which they had pointed forward. Sharing in the merits of his death is thus essential; it is the only way to eternal life. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, bath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:53,54). The eating and drinking speaks of sharing in the benefits of his literal death. We do this when we believe and are baptized into Christ: “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life…he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (vs.47,35).
Yes, Jesus may refer to the need for obedience more than he refers to his sacrificial death. Both, however, are an integral part of his message and neither should be denied.
In the Acts
Megiddo claim that the gospel which the apostles preached focuses on the need for repentance rather than faith in the blood and death of Christ. But Jesus told them to preach “remission of sins…in his name: (Lk. 24:47). Remission is through Christ, not just through our personal repentance and obedience. This is why we preach the gospel of salvation through Christ, not of human effort.
Acts shows how the early preaching stressed the death and resurrection of Christ, repentance and then water baptism: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…by him all that believe are justified from all things” (Acts 2:38; 13:39).
Furthermore, Jesus Christ is presented as unique: “Neither is there salvation in any other…through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses” (Acts 4:12; 13:38-39).
His teaching was not unique. All that he taught is found in the Old Testament, including the need to love God with all the heart and to love our neighbor as ourselves (cp. Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18).
Jesus was not unique in providing an example of right conduct. Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, Daniel and many others provided examples of the conduct of which God approves. But right teaching and right example were not enough to provide deliverance from sin. What was needed was the Savior: “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43).
In the epistles and the Revelation
The passages which speak of salvation through obedience also include our need for the sacrifice of Christ. Some of these passages consciously allude to this need. Revelation 22:14 is an example: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Yet Christ is the way to the tree of life, he is the door through which a man may enter salvation (John 14:6; 10:9). It was through his sacrificed body and poured-out blood that we have this way to God (Eph. 2:16-18). Likewise, “He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (I John 2:17); but an integral aspect of the will of God is that we should believe on Christ as the sacrifice provided by God (John 6:33-40).
Megiddo say, “Walk in the light and that’s all you need.” This contradicts I John 1:7: “If we walk in the light…the blood of Jesus cleanseth us from all sin.” The Biblical position is that we must forsake our sins believing that the blood of Christ cleanses us from both our old sins and any new ones we may occasionally commit.
Obedience and the sprinkling of Christ’s blood are needed for salvation: “elect…unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (I Pet. 1:2). “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things…but with the precious blood of Christ [his sacrifice]…unto unfeigned love of the brethren [obedience] ” (I Pet. 1:18-22). The blood of Christ purges our conscience, resulting in our doing the “works” of continued obedience (Heb. 9:14). This was prefigured in the cleansing of the leper (representing our need for cleansing from sin). The blood of the lamb (representing Jesus) was placed on the ear, thumb and toe of the leper, to show how the blood of his redemption should affect his every action; the blood enabled him to enter the congregation of God’s people, and then he could do acceptable works of virtue (Lev. 14:25). Obedience must work together with the redemption which has been made possible through Christ’s blood.
Obedience and the blood of Christ
Obedience is likened to a man building on a rock (Mt.. 7:24-27). But “that rock was Christ,” the rock smitten on the cross (1 Cor. 10:4); the rock refers to faith in Christ as God’s Son (Mt. 16:16-18). It is upon the rock of our faith that we build our house of obedience. Faith in Christ’s sacrifice comes first, for it is Christ’s blood which purifies us (Rev. 15:6; Heb. 1:3; 9;14,22) and makes it possible for us to offer acceptable obedience to God. As Jesus says, if we are not in the Christ-vine, we cannot produce good fruit before God (John 15:5).
It is our faith in Christ rather than our works which will save us (Rom. 3:27; 9:11; Gal. 2:16). Because salvation is by grace, it is not by works, but on account of Christ’s sacrifice (Rom. 11:6; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5; Heb. 4:10). Righteousness is imputed by faith to us “without works” (Rom. 4:2). There is the need for works, but works cannot save us; yet we will be judged for our works. There is no conflict in this. The resolution of this is that salvation is conditioned upon our faith in Christ’s sacrifice; but if that faith is real, it will inevitably show itself in works.
Acceptable faith will not exist without works. Works alone cannot bring salvation and acceptable works cannot exist without our being cleansed by the redeeming blood of Christ. These two scriptural themes do not contradict one another; they complement each other.
The Forgiveness of Sins
The Bible does not teach that repentance alone can bring forgiveness. In the case of the bank robber, each time he robbed a bank, he committed a sin. If he stops robbing, each of these sins has still been committed. The punishment for sin is death. It’s not enough just being sorry and saying “I won’t do it again.” Adam sinned, therefore he had to die. Every sinner needs some other intervention to bring about his salvation in addition to forsaking his sins. Galatians 3:10 shows that everyone who didn’t always obey every one of God’s commands was condemned. That situation has been changed by Christ’s sacrifice (Gal. 3:13). If Megiddo do not accept the benefits of that sacrifice, then they are in the same position as Israel under the Law — condemned because they have not all their lives always obeyed God’s laws.
Christ over the law
If forgiveness is conditioned only upon obedience, then there is no difference between the Old and New covenants. Megiddo’s legalistic attitude to the Sermon on the Mount seems identical to Israel’s relationship to the statutes of the Mosaic law. Hebrews 9:9 and 10:1 reasons that the priesthood of Christ can make us “perfect,” in contrast to the previous system which could not do so. “Perfection” is not attainable, therefore, by our own obedience alone. If it was, then Christ’s work would not have made “perfection” any more possible than it was before.
The Law denied blessings to those who broke it in any way (Gal. 3:10; Ex. 24:7). Yet we know that men who did break that law will be saved and were called “perfect” (e.g. David). It follows that they found justification with God in a way other than perfect obedience, i.e., through faith in Christ’s perfect sacrifice. David knew that “with the LORD there is mercy and…plenteous redemption (because) he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities” (Psa. 130:7,8). These words are quoted about Jesus, “He [Jesus] shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).
Secret faults
David was forgiven for his “secret faults,” those which he did not even recognize. Megiddo addresses only major flaws in our conduct which will be exposed upon reading the Bible. Due to our natures, however, we often sin without realizing it. For example, we may be discourteous, irritable or slothful and never realize our sinful acts. Like David (Psa. 19:12), we ask for God’s mercy regarding this. In this sense, we receive forgiveness without specific repentance, through recognizing the frequent sinfulness springing from our sin-prone nature.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One