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 support of the above proposition in the September Tidings.
The teaching of the Mosaic law regarding sacrifice
We agree that the Mosaic law was built upon the principle of sacrifice, but the common idea that “the animal sacrifices under the law pointed forward to the sacrifice of Jesus” is built upon a serious misreading of the Mosaic law.
To understand the pattern of sacrifice under the Mosaic law, a few basic facts should be noted:
- The majority of sacrifices under the Mosaic system had nothing to do with sin or atonement. The peace offerings, thank offerings, burnt offerings, whole burnt offerings, free will offerings, meal offerings, meat offerings, drink offerings, offerings for the first-born–all these were occasions of rejoicing and even feasting. The sin offering and the trespass offering were offerings for the removal of sin.
- Sin offerings and trespass offerings were only allowed in certain cases, i.e., when a transgression was not punishable by death (see Lev. chapters 2,3). When the law said that a transgression was punishable by death (murder, sabbath-breaking, adultery, etc.), no sacrifice was accepted.
- Under Moses’ law neither credit for right conduct nor guilt for transgression was transferable. There was no provision for imputed iniquity or imputed righteousness. Each individual was accountable for his own conduct, good or bad. This was a long-standing policy with God: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deut. 24:16). When Israel strayed from this clear thinking, God’s prophets brought them back with the reprimand, “What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel….The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:2-4).
- The sacrifices for sin under the Mosaic law are not parallel with the theory that Jesus provided the sacrifice for our sins, because under the Mosaic arrangement any sacrifice for sin or transgression had to be provided by the transgressor himself,. Whether he was a priest, a ruler, or a commoner, the rule was the same (See Lev. 4:3, 13,27; 5:6-13, 14-17.) (The idea that we can sin and someone in better standing may make an offering for us is not Biblical and not parallel with any God-designed arrangement.) Under the law, the offender himself had to bring the animal, present it to the priest, lay his hand upon the animal’s head, and kill it. And he could not bring the poorest, weakest animal in his flock. The sacrifice was intended to be felt. The offender had to bring an animal “without blemish…for a sin offering unto the Lord.” Here was the whole purpose of the law as a teaching mechanism. If our law today required a payment of penalty from someone other than the offender, where would there be any restraint of evil?
- The Mosaic system was a type, a foreshadowing of “good things” to come (Heb. 10:1). It was a “pattern,” a “figure,” teaching deeper spiritual truths. But one rule must be consistently followed: literal in the type, spiritual in the antitype. Literal sacrifices were offered under the law of Moses; spiritual sacrifices are their counterpart in the anti-type. Literal blood was shed under the Mosaic system (the blood of a literal animal); spiritual blood must be shed in the anti type (the life of the flesh nature– Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:2-4).
If we say Christ’s literal death is the appropriate antitype of the sacrifices under the law, we have an immediate incongruity, because His literal death cannot be the antitype of the literal sacrifices offered under the law. To have a fulfillment of the literal sacrifices under the Mosaic system (a type) we must have a spiritual sacrifice in the antitype, and this is what Paul called the offering of our bodies “a living sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1), a complete commitment of our total life to God. This is the shedding of blood (spiritual blood) required for forgiveness, without which “is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).
The Christadelphians state also: “The New Testament says that Jesus was typified by the altar, the High Priest, the mercy seat and the blood on it; all the elements of the Mosaic law pointed forward to Him–Hebrews 9.” We ask, where? Where does the New Testament say even once in a comparison of type and antitype that Jesus was typified by anything other than the High Priest? Always He is the priest officiating, not the animal being slain upon the altar (see Heb. 2:17-18; 3:1-2; 4:14-16; 5:5-10; 7:14-28; 9:11-14; 10:19-22). The High Priest was never the sacrifice.
Passover and the sacrifice of Christ
The Christadelphians infer that the Passover lamb was sacrificed, as though it were an offering for sin and in this way a type of Christ’s sacrifice. Read carefully the account of the first Passover, recorded in Exodus, chapters 12 and 13, and you will see not one reference to any atonement for sin, or offering for sin, or even any seeking of forgiveness. The Paschal lamb was not a sacrifice for sin; it was killed to be eaten as part of a memorial feast.
Was the fact that Jesus was as “a lamb without blemish and spot” a suggestion that the Passover feast pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ?
This conclusion is also based upon a misinterpretation of the Mosaic system. Every lamb brought to the priest under the law had to be a lamb “without blemish and without spot.” Whether it was for a peace offering, a thank offering, a free will offering, a burnt offering, or a sin offering, every offering had to be perfect. And such is a perfect parallel with the offering God requires of every believer. This is why Paul said that we must offer our bodies “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is [our] reasonable service” (Rom. 12:1). For this reason Paul preached, “warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom,” that he might “present every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28). Jesus wanted His Church without “spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. 5:26-27). Paul prayed that his brethren might be “sincere and without offence till the day of Christ” (Phil. 1:10). He also charged his son-in-the faith Timothy: “That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Tim. 6:14). The obligation was incumbent upon Timothy, not Christ.
What about the Passover observance pointed forward to the death of Christ? Certainly not the lamb that was killed, because the lamb was not offered to God; it was killed and eaten, as part of a ceremony memorializing the Israelites’ departure from Egypt. Even the blood sprinkled upon the door posts had no connection with a sacrifice for sin. It was a visual demonstration of one’s obedience or compliance, and every obedient one was “passed over.” There was no offering for sin, or plea for forgiveness in the whole ceremony. Passover memorialized Israel’s miraculous deliverance from Egypt, and at the same time re-dedicated them to God–because God had delivered them they belonged to God and were obligated to conduct themselves as people of God.
Jesus, as a loyal Jew, observed the Passover according to the law, but added to it a new significance–His own; for at this moment He was facing the final and supreme test of His life, the completing of His own lifelong self-sacrifice to God, for He “became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8). Concerning the Lord’s Supper observance the apostle Paul explained that “the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” And of the cup He said, “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (I Cor. 11:23-26).
By commemorating the Passover we are memorializing not Jesus’ physical death on the cross but His complete submission to His Father, the complete sacrifice of Himself to God, which is the death that we must “show” until He returns. We would have no way to show forth His physical death; God does not require that we be physically crucified. But we must make the same complete consecration Jesus made by partaking of the same cup of which He drank, that cup which is “the new testament”–or new covenant, an agreement between the one partaking and God. Loyalty to this covenant is the means to all forgiveness and all remission of sins. This is why Jesus said, “This [cup] is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28)–not that it imparts Christ’s righteousness to us but it removes sins that we confess and forsake, according to the terms of the covenant. It was an agreement Christ ratified by His physical death, and which we ratify by our complete sacrifice of ourselves to God.
A death to share
The Apostle spoke frequently of the death of Jesus as a death in which every believer must share, and how can we think they refer to His literal death? Would God ask what we cannot do? Try inserting the words “on Calvary” after each mention of Christ’s death in these passages, to see if Christ’s literal death on Calvary conveys the intended meaning. For example, “We are buried with him by baptism into death [on Calvary] ” (Rom. 6:4). Or, “If we be dead [on Calvary] with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him” (Rom. 6:8). Or II Tim. 2:11, “It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead [on Calvary] with him, we shall also live with him.” Or take this personal statement by Paul himself: “I am crucified with Christ [on Calvary]: nevertheless I live” (Gal. 2:20). Or Paul’s statement, that “being made conformable unto his death [on Calvary]” (Phil. 3:10). Or Paul’s statement in II Cor. 4:10, “Always bearing about in the body the dying [on Calvary] of the Lord Jesus”–how do any of these texts have any meaning when they are applied to the literal death of Jesus?
But when we apply them to the death of which Paul spoke in Romans 6, Jesus’ death of His own will, His “death to sin” (Rom. 6:10), each one is meaningful. Christ died not to spare us the trouble of dying (self-sacrifice). He died to His own will to show us how we must die–to our own will–and so make a complete surrender of ourselves to God, as He did. This is how Peter could challenge his brethren to rejoice in being “partakers of Christ’ s sufferings” (I Pet. 4:13)–not His physical sufferings on Calvary but His life of complete self-surrender, of which His physical death was the completion and crowning act.
Peter described it precisely when he said that “Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps” (I Pet. 2:21), and he immediately continued to show the moral qualities of that death, showing that it was not His physical crucifixion but His supreme nobility of character. “Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not” (vs. 22-23).
No imputed righteousness
Picture a court scene. A man is on trial for abusing and killing his child. Everyone in the court knows the man is guilty. They have all seen him abuse the child numerous times, and the man himself admits that he is guilty. But when the judge gives the verdict, he pronounces the man “not guilty” because his next door neighbor is extremely kind to his children, and he wishes to credit the guilty man with the good conduct of his neighbor.
Or take the reverse situation. The good neighbor is on trial for abusing his child. Everyone knows he is not guilty, and everyone knows also who the guilty man is. But the judge pronounces the good neighbor “guilty” and subject to punishment because of the misconduct of the first man.
Now this is imputed righteousness, and imputed iniquity. And where is the justice? Is this the way God operates? Is this the way He treats His human family? It is, if the Christadelphians’ theory of “imputed righteousness” is true. If God can impute righteousness, what is to keep Him from imputing iniquity?
But praise God! No such unfairness blots the record of the Almighty. His principle is clear: “His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be Holden with the cords of his sins” (Prov. 5:22). Also, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:20)–it, not some other.
The prophets even went so far as to state precisely that all the righteousness of the most righteous man would not be able to save the evildoer. “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, where in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God” (Ezek. 14:14). If they could deliver “but their own souls by their righteousness,” how can God make an exception of Christ’s righteousness and be true to His own principles?
The word “impute” is used 15 times in Scripture, and of these, 7 refer to imputing sin or iniquity, 2 are irrelevant, 4 speak of imputing righteousness to the righteous individual himself, and 2 others refer to imputing righteousness to those who believe. There is no passage in the Bible which says that Christ’s righteousness can be imputed to us so that God will count us as righteous when we are not. “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness” (James 2:23). And righteousness will likewise be imputed “for us also,… if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom. 4:22-24),
“Impute” simply means to “put down to one’s account,” to make a record of what is due to one on the basis of his actions. This is exactly God’s method: to reward every man according to his works. The record is being kept, and according to that record each servant of God will be judged and rewarded (Mal. 3:16-17; Rev. 20:12).
Neither righteousness nor sin is transferable from one individual to another, no matter who the individual may be. We ourselves must become pure as Christ is pure (I John 3:3). We ourselves must become holy as God is holy (I Pet. 1:15,16). Abraham was counted righteous because he believed God and acted upon his belief. “Because thou hast obeyed my voice,” said God, he received the blessing (Gen. 22:16-18). We will be counted righteous by the same process, just as we believe and act upon our belief.
Our righteousness, not Christ’s
The Christadelphians say that for Christ to present us “faultless before the presence of His glory” (Jude 24), or “without blame before him,” He must cleanse us, that only so can He present to Himself “a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. 5:26-27). ” All these statements,” they say, “become meaningful within the context of righteousness being imputed.”
But what about Paul’s own words in II Cor. 7:1: “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God”? Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit–this does not sound as though Christ does it for us. And the very passage they cite from (Eph. 5:26-27) shows what is the cleansing medium: “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” The washing is accomplished “by the word,” by the application of His message, His gospel. This is the cleansing medium, just as Jesus said, “Now are ye clean”–because I am going to shed my blood on the cross for you? No, “now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3).
The place of forgiveness
The Christadelphians say, “Megiddo must have a strange concept of forgiveness, if salvation is by human effort, with no reference to the sacrifice of Jesus.” We do indeed want and need forgiveness, but we want it on God’s terms, not our own. And we do not find any evidence in the Bible that “forgiveness and the imputation of righteousness is made possible only by the death of Christ.” What does the Bible say about God’s terms of forgiveness? “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly ” (Isa. 55:7). What more could one need?
The purpose of Christ’s life
What was the purpose of Christ’s life? The Christadelphians say, “The fact is that Christ was born and he died, ‘for us’, This was his very reason of being.” No Scripture is given to support this point–because none exists. But Jesus stated clearly the purpose of His life. When questioned by Pilate, “Art thou a king then?” He answered, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth” (John 18:37). This fact is reinforced by a statement made prophetically of Christ in Psalm 40, that He came to do His Father’s will, a statement directly applied to Christ (see Heb. 10:7). This same statement in Hebrews 10 says also that God does not value literal sacrifice, that “Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein” (v.8)–why, then, would He demand the sacrifice of His own Son? But on the contrary, He wanted a life of obedience, of delighting to do the Father’s will. “Lo, I come,… to do thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:7).
About breaking of bread and associating with Christ’s saving work
The Christadelphians say that “because forgiveness and the hope of salvation is only available through Christ’s own death”–a statement for which they offer no evidence–we “need to associate ourselves with him.” The inference as that we do this by regularly breaking bread, every week. The early Church, they say, “broke bread very often,” and cite Acts 20:7 and 2:42,46.
There is a basi problem with this stance. How can we know that “breaking of bread” always referred to the Passover memorial? We read in Matthew 12 that when Jesus had commanded the multitude to “sit down upon the grass,” He took bread and “brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples.” Were all of these thousands of people keeping the sacred memorial? The same is said when He fed the multitude the second time (Matt. 15:33-38). Was He instituting the sacred memorial supper with all these multitudes? The apostle Paul also took bread and brake it when the ship was on the verge of being wrecked. We read that “He took bread, and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat” (Acts 27:35). Was this the time to observe the Passover? The term “breaking of bread” was simply a way of stating that the people had a meal together. It may or may not have been a Passover ceremony.
Do we have any instructions to partake of the emblems each week? During five full weeks after His resurrection (Acts 1:3), Jesus did not partake of the Passover with His brethren. How do we know? We have His own statement, made at the time He observed the sacred ceremony with His disciples on the evening of Abib 13, that He would no more eat thereof “until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:16; see also Man. 26:29; Mark 14:25).
In observing the Passover, Jesus was observing the ancient Passover, an annual remembrance of the night of the Israelites’ miraculous deliverance from Egypt. It was an anniversary, which is always a yearly occasion. In keeping it, Jesus re-memorialized it by associating it with Himself on the night before He suffered. But how could He change an anniversary (annual observance) into a weekly observance?
Christadelphian rebuttal to Megiddo statement in support of the above proposition in the September Tidings.
In His Word, God reveals only two ways to gain eternal life: the first is to be completely obedient (only Christ did this), the second is to be saved by grace through true faith in the sacrifice of Christ. Megiddo acknowledges the first, denies the second and asserts another way to salvation which is based on reaching the “moral stature of Christ” at some point in our lives.
The problem is that the moral stature of Christ is unattainable once we have sinned, which we all have done. Christ did no sin. We see the “glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Cor. 4:6), God’s glory referring to His moral attributes, the virtue of His character (Ex. 33:18; 34:5-7). Of everyone else it is said, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Once we sin, thus failing to reach the standard of moral perfection exhibited in Christ, our only hope is to be “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus [not our own works]: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood [the blood which Megiddo claim to be irrelevant to our salvation], to declare His [God’s] righteousness for the remission of sins that are past…that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:23-26).
The idea of being saved because we reach a stage in our lives where we act, think and speak perfectly is foreign to scripture.
Acceptable believers still sin
John describes some who received his first epistle in favorable terms. “Your sins are forgiven you…ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one” (I John 2:12,14). If Megiddo is correct, such Christians would no longer sin. They would have reached a stage where they had become pure even as Christ is pure. Yet John writes, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (I John 1:8-10). These people still sinned and needed forgiveness.
Elsewhere we read, “There is not a just man upon earth, that…sinneth not…there is no man that sinneth not” (Eccl. 7:20; Prov. 20:9; I Kgs. 8:46). Megiddo would say there are some people on earth who have reached the stage where they do not sin. In contrast, the Bible reveals that those justified in God’s sight (justified by their faith in His righteousness, Hab. 2:4), still sin. This is exactly as taught in I John 1.
Furthermore, if by the end of our days we have achieved moral perfection, then why do we receive “mercy” at the judgment (see II Tim. 1:18; Jude 21)? Why are the faithful portrayed as being unaware of the good works which they did in their lives (Matt. 25:37)? As Paul said, he desired to “be found in [Christ], not having mine own righteousness…but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9). We must not trust in our own obedience but in God’s gracious gift of righteousness. No man has ever or will ever be perfect as Christ and we will never reach a point where we commit no sins.
What God means by “perfect”
Biblically, the words translated “perfect” do not necessarily imply moral perfection, i.e. sinlessness. Rather do they carry the idea of completeness and fullness: “Perfect and entire, wanting nothing” (Jam. 1:4). Mary and Joseph “fulfilled (same word translated “perfect”) the days” of the Passover (Lk. 2:43); “the scripture was fulfilled” (John 19:28). Christ is “a more perfect tabernacle” (Heb. 9:11). “More perfect” indicates a relative sense of completion, for one cannot be “more” perfect in the absolute sense. The Hebrew translated “perfect” is also rendered “sincere” (Jud. 9:16; Josh. 24:14). Again, there is no implication of sinlessness.
The scriptures teach that both individuals and the church as a whole must develop toward some point of “perfection” (Lk. 8:14; Heb. 6:1). However, this is a point of completion of spiritual development in certain aspects, not moral sinlessness. David, Asa and others are said to be perfect of heart all their days yet they still sinned in their hearts (I Kgs. 15:3; II Chron. 15:17; 16:10,12). Therefore, “perfection” is not total sinlessness; it is a condition of true faith in God and of trying to obey Him.
There is a way that we can be considered “perfect” before God, but it is a way that Megiddo rejects. It is the blood of Christ which perfects: “By one offering [Christ] hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (Heb. 10:1,14).
A way of life of obedience
Malicious people will not be saved. Merciful people will be. But malicious people do some righteous acts; they may be merciful to their families and loyal to their employers. Scripture says, “every one that doeth righteousness is born of him” (I John 2:29). That obviously does not mean that every malicious person who does a few good things is considered a child of God. Therefore, “doeth righteousness” cannot refer to isolated right acts but to a way of life.
On the other hand, merciful people will occasionally be inconsiderate or unkind. A few verses later, scripture says, “whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God” (I John 3:10). Does this mean that every merciful person is excluded from eternal life because he commits an occasional unkind act? In no way; scripture is speaking about a pattern of obedience or of sin just as it does in regard to David, Asa and others.
Megiddo says that to be saved we must become exactly like Christ. God does not say that. Because of our human nature, combined with the fact we are not begotten of God as was Jesus, we can improve to a high level of obedience but we will never be free from sinful actions. We can walk in a pattern of obedience and that is what God sets as our goal. We will be considered “perfect,” however, if we sincerely believe in the word of God, for He will count our faith as righteousness.
The Problem of Human Nature
Megiddo’s view of salvation implies a misconception of man’s nature. The analogy about the repentant bank robber implies that it is only our personal sins, of which we can repent, which separate us from God. This overlooks the fact that our very nature is condemned: “Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation…” (Rom. 5:18). Being freed from the guilt of our own sins is not the only factor in our salvation.
The point is further reinforced by the statement “The wages of sin is death.” This is why we all die. If obedience alone is all that is required to obtain redemption, and we can reach a state of total obedience at some point in our lives, then why do we still die? We are not condemned for our past sins, they are forgiven. The answer must be that we are born dying creatures as a result of the judgment passed on Adam’s sin. Megiddo do not deal with this problem at all. The sacrifice of Christ does.
Since our human nature, in addition to our personal sins, separates us from God, it follows that we need access to something more than our own effort if we are to be given immortality (II Pet. 1:4). In our condemned condition, we need a God-provided Savior. The proof is as follows:
- Under the law of Moses, a mother was defiled by childbirth and was to bring an offering to the priest “who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her” (Lev. 12:7). No personal sins were involved but an atonement was still required. Why? Because the woman was defiled by the child who had come from within her. She had not brought forth sin, but she had brought forth a human being bent toward sin.
- There are clear references to “the body of sin,” “sinful flesh,” etc. Our very beings, not just some of our actions, are unclean by nature. While we must separate our thinking from our natural tendencies and develop a new mind based on that of Christ, our physical, mortal condition cannot be changed in this life. For this reason, mortal man cannot approach God’s personal presence (Ex. 33:20; II Tim. 6:16). Thus our separation from God is not due solely to our specific sins.
- Romans 7 describes how Paul’s human nature featured “sin that dwelleth in me,” “in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing” which stopped him from performing the righteousness he wished to. He finally exalts in the solution: “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ.” Christ is, therefore, the means of deliverance from this sin-prone nature we have. Just being our example is not a deliverance from this. God provided a way for us to break our captivity to that which Paul described by “sending his son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin” so that Jesus destroyed the power of sin through sharing our very nature (cp. Heb. 2:14-18).
Without Christ’s destruction of the sin-principle, we would be doomed to continual sin and, therefore, condemnation. We must become “in Christ” so that God will treat us as if we, too, have overcome. If Christ is just our example, why is there the language of being in Christ? Biblically, the point of entry into Christ is water immersion into him; remaining in him is dependent upon our subsequent obedience and conformity to the commands of Christ. - The fact that our sin-prone nature must be purified explains how Jesus benefited from his own blood. “When Christ came as high priest…he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11-12 NIV). From what was Christ redeemed by his own blood? Not from his personal sins, because he had none, but from his defiled nature. He required redemption and he required cleansing. “It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves [Christ is one of the ‘heavenly things] with better sacrifices than these” (Heb. 9:23 NIV). The point is clear: Christ required purification. From what? Not from sins, but from his condemned nature. And this purification came by means of his own sacrifice.
Jesus was redeemed and purified by participation in his own sacrifice; he was also saved from death through it. “[God] through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus” (Heb. 13:20 NIV). His blood was not needed with respect to his sins but it was needed with respect to the nature with which he was born. Thus, as our representative, the sacrifice of Christ was required for his own salvation. If it was necessary for his salvation, how much more is it necessary for our own? - We are all under the Adamic curse of death. By Adam, sin entered into the world, and death by sin (Rom. 5:12). The way of escape from this curse is not by obedience alone. Genesis 3:15 promised that Christ as “the seed of the woman” would overcome the power of sin. We must, therefore, associate ourselves with his death, through which he destroyed the power of sin (Heb. 2:14-16).
Steps To Salvation
In setting forth their ideas, Megiddo totally omits immersion as being necessary to salvation. This is in sharp contrast to the emphasis of Christ and the apostles. When asked what one should do to be saved, Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). This parallels Jesus’ instruction: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:15-16).
The Megiddo emphasis on obedience fails to appreciate that we enter a blessed relationship through Christ at baptism. We who were dead in our sins are made alive with Christ, for he “hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus…for by grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:5-10).
This blessed condition is conditional upon our continuing in a faith that works by love. If we do not, we can fall from grace: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). But unless we fall from the Truth, we stand in grace and thereby rejoice in the forgiveness of sins. We must continue believing in the work of Christ which we show by our “patient continuance in well-doing.”
God takes the initiative
Megiddo’s idea is that if we do something then God will respond. But God has taken the initiative. Rather than our obedience leading to His response, “He first loved us…[by sending] His son to be the propitiation for our sins” (I John 4:10,19). It is this which motivates our love of God.
What is Megiddo’s motivation for belief in the doctrine of perfect obedience? Do they want salvation as part of a legalistic arrangement which is linked solely to their own actions? This leads to human-centered thinking, an approach which is wholly overthrown by the right balance of reliance on God’s grace in the sacrifice of Christ and our works springing from our response to that grace.
The Problem of Pride
“That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord” (I Cor. 1:29-31). “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). The spirit of God’s plan of salvation is perfectly clear –the glory is not to man but to Him because of His gift to us in Christ Jesus.
In contrast, Megiddo speaks of how we must “merit eternal rewards.” They say “God provides the knowledge of what we must do, along with the mental and physical powers we need. But it is our responsibility to use all these to develop the character He requires.” Their only mention of depending upon God is that we depend on Him to change us from mortal to immortal.
Under the Megiddo scheme of salvation, those who think they are righteous cannot help but have an inner sense of self-satisfaction. It is not Christ who is made to them righteousness but their own effort and self-discipline. Salvation is not a gift but something that they merit.
The frame of mind that would inevitably be developed is very similar to the person who prayed with himself before God, saying, “I thank thee that I am not as other men are…” He stood in contrast to the man who “smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.” The man who confessed he was a sinner and relied upon the grace of God “went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Lk. 18:9-14).
The right approach to salvation does not result in personal exaltation but humble thankfulness before God. With a right conviction, we rejoice that He cleanses us through the blood of His only begotten Son and counts our faith in this for righteousness. With a wrong approach, we are in danger of being grouped with those who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous.”
Megiddo 4,000 Years Wrong
If the primary purpose of Christ was to be an example and not the God-provided Savior, there is no reason for God to delay his birth for 4,000 years. Everyone, right from Adam, needed to know how to live an upright life. If Megiddo is correct, for 4,000 years people were deprived of a right example and right teaching.
Realizing Christ is our Savior, however, fits perfectly with the delay in his begettal. As each generation lived, they would see that there was no perfect person. “There is none righteous, no not one…all have sinned…” (Rom. 3:10,23). Even though God called out one nation, the Jews, and worked with them, openly showing His power and sending them His word through special prophets, there was no one who could reconcile man to God: “And he [God] saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him” (Isa. 59:16).
All men, every single one of them, were alienated from God by their wicked works (Col. 1:21). “And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me…and I found none” (Ezk. 22:30). Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Daniel were all alive when these words were written but they had all sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Each person thus has every reason to be convinced he cannot save himself. We need God to save us. This He has done in providing His Son that through him salvation might be offered to all who believe: “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us…through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:4-7).
True, it is humbling to be saved by the righteousness of another and not by our own perfect walk. Looking at the history of mankind, however, we are convinced we cannot save ourselves and should respond with grateful hearts to the fact we can be reconciled “in the body of his [Christ’s] flesh” if we truly believe in him and are baptized into the Lord Jesus.
Summary
The Bible sets forth the necessity of a sanctified life and the need for sharing in the merits of the sacrificial death of Christ. Megiddo sees this as an unresolveable conflict of ideas. In fact, the two themes complement each other as is evidenced by their appearing side by side throughout the Bible.
Furthermore, when applied to God’s’ requirements for us, the words for “perfect” are seen to refer to a pattern of obedience and not to absolute perfection. Even though we strive to do God’s will, we all sin and always will commit some sins.
We need deliverance not only from our specific transgressions but also from our human nature. We need a savior and God has provided one in our Lord Jesus.
The forgiveness of sins is based upon repentance and upon our faith in the commands of e Old Covenant brought sacrifice of Christ. Obedience to the the about rewards on account of the blood which ratified that covenant This pointed forward to the blood of Christ under the New Covenant, for it was “shed for…the remission of sins.” “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” This is I how important association with the blood of Christ is.
Symptomatic of Megiddo’s mistake is their leaving baptism out of the steps to salvation. They do so in contrast to Christ and the apostles.
The importance of the issue is highlighted at the very beginning of scripture in the incident of Cain and Abel. Cain was rejected because he brought God the works of his hands rather than accepting the importance of shedding literal blood. Doubtless he reasoned, like Megiddo, pouring out of blood as a life of service. that what he was doing symbolized the But he failed to appreciate that the symbolic must have a basis in the literal.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One