The Principles Of The Atonement
Transcript of a Debate With Ruth Sisson
1992
As debated in:
Christadelphian Tidings and
Megiddo Message magazines
Motion for discussion: “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.”
Speakers:
For the above motion: Pastor Ruth Sisson (Megiddo Mission)
Against the above motion: Mr. Duncan Heaster
8-1-1 The Conditions Of Salvation
Motion for discussion: “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.”
Opening Statement By Duncan Heaster
If our own righteousness and human endeavor will save us, then why is there the need for salvation through Jesus? Why was Jesus the Son of God, and not just an ordinary man who lived without sinning? The flesh (body) and blood of Jesus are associated in John 6:53; Heb. 10:19,20; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:27. To say that the blood of Jesus is not a precondition for our salvation is to say that his body and person was also unnecessary: i.e. Jesus was not essential; we can do it all ourselves, we don't need him. By saying this, we are not suggesting that Christ's example is unimportant; this debate is about the significance of his death.
" There is none righteous, not one" (Rom. 3:10). " It is not in man that walketh to (spiritually) direct his steps" (Jer. 10:23). " All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Paul had a sinful tendency within his life which in practice stopped him being totally obedient to God; when he would do good, this " evil" was present with him (Rom. 7:15-25).
The Megiddo Church correctly understands that the " devil" refers to this principle of evil within us. But their understanding remains at an abstract, academic level. In reality, this principle means that it is impossible by our own endeavor and virtue to completely conquer the flesh.
It should be evident from these passages, as well as from our own experience, that we cannot achieve salvation by ourselves. We cry with Paul: " O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ" (Rom. 7:25). Although we cannot save ourselves, God will not do it all for us. We must come to the correct balance between these two extremes.
" God imputeth righteousness...the righteousness of God" (Rom. 4:6; 2 Cor. 5:21). We can only be reckoned righteous by being in Christ, not having our own righteousness, but that which is imputed to us by God's system of justification (Phil. 3:9). Trying to establish our own righteousness is effectively rebelling against God's righteousness (Rom. 10:3 cp. Job 35:2; Ezk. 33:13; Deut. 9:4,5). Our righteousness in God's sight is by reason of our association with Christ, " the Lord our righteousness" (Jer. 23:6; 1 Cor. 1:30).
Imputation means that God looks on us as if we are perfect, even though we are not of ourselves. Why is there such Biblical emphasis upon this idea of justification and imputed righteousness, if our salvation depends upon our own virtue/righteousness? (See Romans. 2-4; 3:21; 4:3-6; Heb. 11:7; Deut. 24:13; Psa. 24:5). It is because of the imputation of righteousness that Jesus could say, " Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father...is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). We are surely being presumptuous to think that we have ever lived on God's level of moral perfection even for a day.
The believer will be presented " faultless" before the judgment seat (Jude 24), " without blame before him" because " he hath made us accepted (by being) in the beloved" (Eph. 1:4,6)- by baptism into him. Christ cleanses us, that he might present us to himself (he does it, not us) " a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing" (Eph. 5:26,27), as Jesus was " without spot" (Heb. 9:14). All these statements become meaningful within the context of righteousness being imputed.
Megiddo members must admit that they are not faultless. Yet they say that only the faultless will be accepted. No matter how hard we try from now on to be faultless, we still need forgiveness. Megiddo must have a strange concept of forgiveness, if salvation is by human effort, with no reference to the sacrifice of Jesus. Surely Megiddo members try hard not to sin. But when they do, they must have a terrible conscience, because they know no way to put themselves straight with God afterwards (cp. Heb. 9:14). Am I correct?
We need something more than our own " obedience and virtue;" forgiveness and the imputation of righteousness is made possible by the death of Christ.
The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Because of this, God has ordained a life must be poured out (i.e. death) as a basis for the forgiveness of sins. Seeing that " the life is in the blood," it follows that blood must be poured out for sins to be forgiven. Just " trying harder next time" isn't the means for forgiveness. " Without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22; 10:11-12).
The consistent teaching of scripture is that we cannot atone for our own sins. The pouring out of our blood (or life) to the death would not get us forgiveness. Because we have sinned, and therefore deserve to die, it would be our receiving the wages due our sins, i.e. death. This is where the unique place of Jesus is so vital. He was of our nature, of our " flesh and blood," a suitable representative of us (Heb. 2:14-18). That blood was shed, a perfect life was poured out, with which we can be associated, and then finally share in the immortality which followed.
These ideas of shedding or pouring out of blood are concepts based on priestly acts, of killing the sacrifice. With regard to Christ, they speak of his literal death: " thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood" (Rev. 5:9). The shedding of his blood (his death) is the basis of remission of sins. One of the values of his death is in providing a suitable basis for our forgiveness. Without this basis no forgiveness is possible, " if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves..." (1 John 1:8).
In contrast with Megiddo's rejection of the importance of Christ's blood, scripture emphasizes that our reconciliation with God is on account of Christ's blood: " The Father...having made peace through the blood of (Christ's) cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself" (Col. 1:19,20). We were " redeemed...with the precious blood of Christ' (1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:9). Those " in" Jesus " have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Col. 1:14; Eph. 1:7). Our redemption is paralleled here with our forgiveness. In Christ, and only in him, our sins are not held against us; we will not receive eternal death as the wages of sin; in God's grace, we can be given immortal nature, salvation from our sin-stricken condition.
" Christ died for us...being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Rom. 5:8,9). Thus Jesus " washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5; notice how Jesus does this to us, rather than we achieving it for ourselves). " The blood of Christ (can) purge your conscience" (Heb. 9:14). In this way, Christ " purchased (us) with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).
" His own blood" highlights the very personal relationship which we have to Jesus, once his blood covers us. We cannot have this if we seek reconciliation by our own virtue. We are " justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood" (Rom. 3:24,25). If the blood of Jesus is irrelevant to our salvation, how are we justified through faith in his blood? Surely these passages invite us to focus our mind upon the blood (i.e. literal death) of Jesus?
If the blood of Jesus is not one of the preconditions for salvation, then it must mean that the life and death of Jesus are not necessary for it either. If we were to analyze the literal blood of Christ with no regard for the saving work which he did for us, then it would not be meaningful. It is not some kind of talisman in itself, as Catholicism teaches. But we cannot analyze Christ's sacrifice by supposing that, for the sake of argument, he did not die for us. The fact is that he was born and he died, " for us." This was his very reason of being. We cannot analyze his work apart from the purpose for which it was done: i.e. our salvation. It is as a result of such separation of Christ from his work that the conclusion has been reached that the literal blood of Christ is insignificant.
Under the Mosaic Law, the Israelite found atonement with God by placing his hand on the head of an animal, which then represented him. This animal was killed, and the blood poured out. This was because " the blood...I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). But we must compare this with Hebrews 10:1-10: " it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins," and therefore the sacrifice of the body of Jesus was needed.
But according to Leviticus 17:11, the animal blood did make atonement for sin. It was not the literal blood which did so on its own; that blood made atonement because it pointed forward to " the blood" of Jesus. With this blood as well as that of Jesus, it is not the blood as literal blood that is effective, but its relation to something of which the blood-shedding points forward.
Megiddo must have difficulty accepting that the blood of the animal sacrifices points forward to that of Jesus. If his blood is irrelevant, then why did the Mosaic system of reconciliation with God achieve this through blood, which pointed forward to that of Jesus? We must remember that the body and blood of Jesus was the actual fulfillment of the Mosaic types. Those types did not just point forward to Jesus as our example. 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 (Heb. 9).
Furthermore, Jesus was the equivalent of the Passover lamb. " Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us...(Jesus) the lamb of God that taketh (" beareth" ) away the sin of the world...sprinkling of the blood of Jesus...the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Cor. 5:7; John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:2,19). These are all obvious allusions to the Passover lamb as that lamb had to be without spot, having its blood sprinkled around the lintels of the door. Did the blood of the Passover lamb point forward to that of Jesus or not? If the answer is " No," then why do Megiddo still keep a " Passover" feast on 14th of Nisan? But if " Yes," then as the lamb's blood brought salvation for Israel, so must the blood of Jesus bring salvation for the new Israel (1 Cor. 10:1,2).
By associating ourselves with his death, God looks on us as if we are sinless. Jesus died for us (1 Cor. 15:1,2), so that we too might share his death and therefore his resurrection. The divinely appointed means for making this association is immersion (water baptism) (Rom. 6:3-6; Phil. 3:21; 2 Cor. 4:10). Because Megiddo fails to understand the need to associate ourselves personally with Christ's death and resurrection in this way, they have rejected the doctrine of water baptism.
Many verses in the Bible speak of baptism as a one-time act. Why is this so, if baptism is only symbolic of some inner spiritual process? How can we be baptized into the death and body of Jesus by this? (Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Cor. 12:13). Water baptism beautifully symbolizes dying with Jesus, and then rising to new life with him.
Because forgiveness and the hope of salvation is only available through Christ's own death, we need to associate ourselves with him. " Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53); we must intensely associate ourselves with the sacrifice of Jesus. Without regularly breaking bread, are we really associating ourselves with Christ's saving work? The early church broke bread very often (Acts. 20:7; 2:42,46). Megiddo's failure to frequently do this is explicable by their lack of appreciation of the value of Christ's sacrifice. One mistake has led to another.
Jesus " his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24). How can Jesus be a sin bearer if salvation is just conditioned on our own virtue? How do Megiddo understand Christ being our sin bearer (Isa. 53)? " We are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus" (Heb. 10:10); we are " reconciled in the body of his flesh through death" (Col. 1:21,22).
Also note that Jesus has brought about our salvation " because he hath poured out his soul unto death" (Isa. 53:12). Our salvation is obtainable because of the fact that Jesus offered himself ‑ his life, his blood, his body, his very soul. The parallel between Christ's body and blood and himself is because the giving of Christ's life involved the giving of his complete self; including his literal blood. Separating the body and blood from the whole self of Christ is not a valid biblical distinction. Accordingly, if the blood and body of Jesus are not necessary conditions for our salvation, then neither was Jesus.
If Jesus was only our example, then he was useful but not essential. Megiddo must assume that the Bible records of many other men, e.g. Joseph and other types of Christ, could be our ideal example. Yet the Bible stresses that salvation is through the literal death, not just the example of Christ.
As one of the human race, Jesus' sacrifice was partly for his own benefit, seeing He was one of us; he was redeemed by his own blood in that he totally represents us, who are also redeemed by his blood (Heb. 5:3; 7:27; 9:7,12; 13:20). It was “for himself that it might be for us”. Because Jesus was of our nature, he destroyed " the devil...(and) abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (Heb. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:10). Megiddo teaches that Jesus benefited from his own sacrifice; if he benefited by his own blood, and he was of our nature (which Megiddo also believe), then surely we too must benefit from his blood?
By being truly baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus, we are counted by God as being part of Jesus, and therefore our bodies will also be glorified at Christ's return. The reconciliation made available through the offering of Christ's body is only available to those who continue faithful in him (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). By baptism into Jesus, we are baptized into the body of Jesus, we become part of his body (Eph. 1:23; 4:16; Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 12:13,27). At Christ's return, he will " change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil. 3:21). " The life also of Jesus (i.e. the eternal life given through his resurrection) (will) be made manifest in our mortal flesh" (2 Cor. 4:10).
Jesus was perfect by character; yet in order to represent us who have to die, he " died for us." Because he had done no sin, he was raised again to immortal life. By being baptized into Jesus, he represents us, and therefore if we faithfully remain " in him," we will also share in his immortalization. Thus our salvation is on account of Christ's death.
Megiddo teaches that a person must develop perfection to be saved. Until they reach that point, they are without hope. The scripture position is that we are considered part of the eternal grace of God now, unless we fall away from it: " Even when we were dead in sins, (God) hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:5-6).
Although this salvation will not be physically manifested until the return of Christ, we are spoken of as having received it in prospect. Having received this great gift, our works should be motivated by gratitude for God's " unspeakable gift," rather than provoked by a feeling that our obedience will bring our salvation. In prospect, we have been saved.
Our ultimate acceptance will be on account of our living faith in God's grace, not our works: " For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works, lest any man should boast...And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise works is no more work" (Eph. 2:8,9; Rom. 11:6). If we really believe that we are acceptable to God, then we will show our faith by " works" of obedience (James 2:14-26).
" Works" do not just refer to the actions prescribed by the Mosaic Law, as Megiddo have claimed. James 2:14-26 says " works" include giving food and clothing to needy Christians. Romans 4:2-5 speaks of " works" being done before the Mosaic Law was given. The argument of Romans 2-7 which negates relying on the works of the Mosaic Law for salvation, also negates relying on obedience to any legal code as a means of justifying ourselves before God. The real work of God is to believe in the work of Christ (John 6:69).
Christ's cleansing our conscience by his sacrifice means that therefore with works we " serve the living God" (Heb. 9:14; Tit. 2:14). We can never have this kind of clear conscience if our relationship with God depends solely upon our own obedience.
While the Lord Jesus set an example of perfect obedience, his literal death, the shedding of his blood, is critical to our salvation. We all need forgiveness of sins which God only grants upon our association with the death of Christ. The necessity of death as the basis of the forgiveness of sins is set forth in the Mosaic Law, the vocabulary of which is applied to Jesus Christ. By association with Christ through baptism, God imputes righteousness to us; He counts our faith for righteousness. Our good works must spring out of our rejection of sin which is implicit in our faith in and association with the death and resurrection of Christ.
Duncan Heaster, July, 1992
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 Church statement in support of the above proposition.
We take the positive side of this discussion because we want to believe only what is clearly taught in the Bible. Of what benefit is any belief in salvation, if God is not its author? For we cannot give ourselves eternal life; we cannot save ourselves from pain, sickness and death. Only God can bestow salvation.
Our whole premise, then, must be, what does the Bible teach?
While the subject of the inspiration and authority of the Bible lies outside the scope of this discussion, for purposes of this discussion we must establish that the Bible is the work of an all-wise God, and as such presents on plan of salvation. Whether the writer be David, or Isaiah, or Peter, or Paul, all taught one gospel, all " spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (II Pet. 1:21).
On the negative side of this discussion are a number of texts which, upon surface reading, seem to indicate that Christ's literal death and blood are the means of our salvation. But what about the other side of the question, where many more texts state just as clearly that God demands righteousness, holiness, purity as a precondition for salvation? Either we must conclude that the Bible is contradictory, or that it presents more than one plan of salvation--or that the problem lies in our understanding of the passages on one side or the other.
All of us recognize God as the creator of life. Accordingly, He has set laws in motion by which the human race is perpetuated and sustained. To each is given a limited span, which each is free to use as he pleases. At the same time God has, through His written Word (the Bible) revealed His larger plan, offering a superior life - an eternal life, salvation. To whom does He offer this? What are the conditions God has placed upon the salvation He offers? Is it for all who are " reckoned righteous" because of the shed blood of Christ? Or does it depend on our individual obedience and virtue?
What did Jesus teach? What did He say in the Sermon on the Mount? Is the state of eternal blessedness for the one who trusts in His blood or His righteousness to save them? Read the entire sermon (Matthew, chapters 5 to 7), and you will find not a single statement about the need for Christ's literal death or blood. Each blessing is linked directly to the need for obedience and virtue. The blessings include comfort...the earth for an inheritance...complete satisfaction of every want...heavenly mercy...seeing the face of the eternal Creator Himself...a place in the kingdom of heaven. And what are the preconditions for all these? " Blessed are the poor in spirit...Blessed are they that mourn...Blessed are the meek...Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness...Blessed are the merciful...Blessed are the pure in heart" and so on. According to Jesus, there must be virtue and obedience before there can be blessing.
And the obedience Jesus taught is not a mere outward formality. It is a heart obedience. Referring to the law of Moses Jesus said, " Ye have heard that it was said...But I say...." Where the old law demanded mere outward conformity, Jesus' law demanded inner purity. For example, the old law forbade adultery, but Jesus said " that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28).
Through the remainder of chapter 5 Jesus spells out more commands, then at the end of the chapter He makes this summary statement: " Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). He is saying, in other words, This is the sum total of all that I have been saying: " Be ye therefore perfect..." In other words, if you do all that I have been saying, you will be morally perfect.
Shall we say that He was not capable of saying what He meant, or that His words do not mean what they say? Or was He requiring something we cannot do?
If this were the only such statement in Scripture, we might wonder if we are understanding it correctly.
And when we read elsewhere that we must become pure even as Christ is pure (I John 3:3); that we must come to the measure of the stature of Christ (Eph. 4:13); that we must be holy in our manner of living as God is holy (I Pet. 1:15-16), why not accept Jesus' command that we must become perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect? Unless we reject the plain teaching of Scripture that God will judge and reward each according to his works, whether good or bad (Eccl. 12:13-14; II Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22:12; Rom. 2:6; Jer. 17:10), that we reap exactly as we have sown (Gal. 6:7-8), we have no alternative but to believe that the basis of our salvation is indeed our own life of obedience and virtue before God. If we sow " to the flesh," live to please our natural instincts, we shall reap " corruption." If we sow " to the Spirit" we shall reap " life everlasting."
The remainder of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount spells out more commands to virtue and obedience. Comparing believers to fruit trees He says, " Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit" is saved by the righteousness of Christ? No, it must be " hewn down, and cast into the fire." And if there has been any question about the need for obedience as a precondition of salvation, Jesus says clearly, " Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21).
Jesus follows this with a miniparable about two builders. One builds on the rock, the other on the sand; one's structure stands, the other's falls. What is the difference between the two? Only this: that one hears Jesus' sayings and obeys them, the other hears and does not obey (Matt. 7:24-27).
Notice again that there is no suggestion of any efficacy to be derived from Christ's literal death.
Centuries earlier the Psalmist was teaching the same standard of obedience as a requirement for salvation. " Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord....They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways" (Ps. 119:1-3). They " do no iniquity" --here is the source of their righteousness, not in Christ's attainment but in their own strict adherence to the law of God, to the extent that they " do no iniquity."
Moses foretold the coming of Christ, that He would be a prophet, and that all would have to hearken to Him, and that " whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him" (Deut. 18:18-19) . What did Christ preach as He traveled from village to village? Did He teach that He was going to die and shed His blood for the salvation of mankind, that this was the purpose of His life? No, " He went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God" (Luke 8:1). In fact, so little did He have to say about His approaching death that the disciples, when it actually happened, could not comprehend it, even though He had told them.
What did Jesus, as He was parting from His disciples, commission them to teach? He told them clearly: " That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47). If His death had been the key to their salvation, would this not have been a likely time to have said so? But no, even after He had died and been resurrected, it was still necessary for them to repent so that their sins could be forgiven.
If our ultimate acceptance before God depends upon the righteousness of Christ imputed to us through His death and not upon our own obedience or virtue, why does the Bible define so precisely the type of life God requires? When we see a sign posted along the highway announcing the speed limit or giving us directions to stop or to go, we conclude that the sign was set up to be obeyed. Similarly, when we read in the Bible, " Be ye holy in all manner of conversation" or " Let patience have her perfect work" or " Cease from anger, and forsake wrath" or " Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth," is it not wise to conclude that these commands are to be obeyed? Why are there literally hundreds of admonitions to holiness, virtue and obedience if we are saved by the righteousness of Christ?
Not only does the Bible spell out the virtues God requires, but it also establishes clearly the link between our obedience and our salvation. The law of God is as straightforward as " Obey and live, disobey and die."
What can the fact that Christ shed His blood on Calvary do to make anyone morally pure and upright? Suppose a driver has been consistently violating the rules of the highway. What must he do to become a law-abiding driver? He must stop violating the rules.
Suppose a man is making his living by robbing banks. Now suppose this man accepts Christ and His righteousness, yet goes right on robbing banks. Is he immediately counted righteous, pure and holy because of Christ's death for him, even though he continues his same sinful habits? To be cleansed and forgiven, must he not change his manner of life? He must stop robbing banks and earn his living honorably. The blood of Christ can do nothing to change his record; he himself must reform.
The basis of salvation God prescribes is a simple, practical summons to personal reformation: stop doing wrong and do right. " Cease to do evil, learn to do well" (Isa. 1:16-17). The " wicked" must " turn from his transgressions...and do that which is lawful and right." Then, once we turn from our sin and do right, no guilt from our former sins remains. " None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live" (Ezek. 33:14-16). Where is any need for the sacrifice of Christ?
Isaiah stated the same fact: " 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 pardon" (Isa.
55:6-7). When God has abundantly pardoned, what more can we need?
We are
forgiven our sins as we forsake them. " He that covereth his sins shall not
prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy" (Prov.
28:13). We " purify" our souls by " obeying the truth" (I Pet. 1:22). If our
weakness has been to steal, Paul has the simple formula: " Let him that
stole steal no more" (Eph. 4:28). If we have been telling lies, we must stop
lying and tell only what is true (Col. 3:9). If we have been using
profanity, we must stop it (Eph. 5:1-5). If we have been getting angry, we
must be patient and kind (Eph. 4:31-32).
When we stop disobeying any law
of God, we become clean on that point--not because Christ shed His blood for
us but because we stopped committing the sin, just as the bank robber must
stop robbing banks and take an honorable job to earn his living. As long as
he continues to rob banks, the blood of a thousand Christs could do nothing
to make his record clean. He must actually stop committing the sin before He
can even consider being forgiven.
Just as we can become clean on one
point, so we can become clean on another, and another, until our whole life
and character reaches the standard God requires and we are " holy and
acceptable unto God" (Rom. 12:1).
The Bible does not offer salvation on a free-for-all basis, nor does God
impart or impute the righteousness He requires. Each aspirant must purify
his own heart and character (I John 3:3), his own initiative, with the help
of God, before God will bestow salvation. We must not overlook the help of
God, because 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. We cannot expect Him to change
our character. This is our part of the agreement.
Every promise of God
has two sides, a human side and a divine side. God says, You do this
(indicating obedience and virtue on the human side)...and I will do this
(indicating God's bestowment of eternal blessings). God says, " IF" you do
thus and thus, " THEN" I will do thus and thus.
Jesus promised to save
those who would endure unto the end (Matt. 24:13). The Psalmist promised
God's deliverance to those who pay their vows to God (Ps. 50:14-15). Isaiah
said that God will recognize " him that is poor and of a contrite spirit,
and trembleth at [His] word" (Isa. 66:2). He promises salvation " to him
that ordereth his conversation (conduct) aright" (Ps. 50:23). He will "
render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient
continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal
life" (Rom. 2:6-7). The promise is based on the expressly stated condition
that the believer patiently continue in well doing, not that he accept any
righteousness imputed to him by Christ.
Jesus' last message emphasizes
the same point: " 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" (Rev. 22:14).
If Jesus' literal death and blood was the key to
salvation and forgiveness, why did Jesus in His parable commend the obedient
servant for what he had done: " Well done, thou good and faithful servant:
thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many
things" (Matt. 25:21). If the servant had not been good and faithful, could
Jesus have said this?
Paul himself says clearly that there is an " if"
condition in the matter of salvation. Writing to the Corinthians he spoke of
the gospel he had preached to them, " By which also ye are saved, if ye keep
in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain" (I Cor.
15:1-2). They had heard the gospel, and they might or might not be saved -
there was still an " if" in the picture.
Hebrews is likewise specific,
that salvation depends on our individual obedience. " Follow peace with all
men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14).
James is equally direct, that only the " doers of the word" will merit
eternal rewards. " Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving
your own selves....Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and
continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work,
this man shall be blessed in his deed" (James 1:22-25). Notice that one must
continue in the law, and be a " doer of the work," and then " this man shall
be blessed in his deed."
James says again, " Blessed is the man that
endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of
life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him" (James 1:12). "
The crown of life" is to the one who endures under trial.
The apostle
John concurs, making this plain statement: that the world passes away, and
the lust thereof, and only " he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever"
(I John 2:17).
Briefly, the Bible outlines three steps to salvation. These three steps
are summarized in Rev. 1:3: " Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear
the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein:
for the time is at hand."
The first step in the process of salvation is
learning what God requires of us. Knowledge comes first. This is the normal
pattern of life. The newborn child must spend years in learning before he is
able to live as a responsible adult. And if he wishes to pursue a
profession, he must acquire even more knowledge. This knowledge is not
automatically transplanted into his mind. He must apply himself and learn.
The same is true for the aspirant to eternal salvation. He must first learn
what God requires. And the source of that knowledge is the Book God has
provided for our instruction, the Bible.
The second step to salvation is
to apply the knowledge one has acquired, to live according to the law of
God, to develop in one's life the standard of virtue God requires.
The
third step is the physical change from mortality to immortality. We are now
mortal, subject to death. We must depend upon God for this third step,
because we cannot save ourselves. Only God's power can " change our vile
body and fashion it like unto his glorious body" (Phil. 3:21). Only He can
make us like unto the angels, so that we will not die (Luke 20:35-36).
We
are responsible for taking the first two steps during this present life,
given the tools and the help which God provides. Then Christ when He returns
will accomplish for each worthy one the third step, the physical change to
immortality. " When the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a
crown of glory" (I Pet. 5:4). This reward will be brought " at the
revelation of Jesus Christ" (I Pet. 1:13). Jesus Himself said that He was
coming to bring His reward with Him (Rev. 22:12).
The Bible is contradictory if it teaches that salvation is the reward for
an upright and holy life and also teaches that our salvation depends upon
the death and shed blood of Christ. However, upon careful study we find that
the problem is not with the Bible but with the false and misleading
doctrines which have for centuries been taught in its name. God has one plan
and one basis for salvation. And when we take the statements about Jesus'
death and blood as a symbolic representation of the complete sacrifice we
ourselves must make (Rom. 12:1) - and which Jesus Himself made--we have
harmony.
We, too, would prefer to trust in Christ's sacrifice to atone
for our sins, if only we could be sure it was God's way. But how tragic to
go to judgment depending upon the righteousness of Jesus, only to learn -
when too late - that we are to be judged and rewarded according to what we
ourselves have done!
Ruth Sisson
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.
1. Megiddo Mission's foundation ‑ this debate concerns the doctrine that
led to the formation of Megiddo Mission as a separate denomination. The
teaching was first promulgated by their founder, L.T. Nichols in 1880.
Following is the pertinent 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 groups. Yet there
was [in Nichols' teaching up to this point the idea that] there was some
efficacy in water baptism to wash away past sins; some vague, mysterious
[according to Megiddo Mission] 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
Mission'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?"
2. 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."
3. We believe a person can fall away from the grace of God through denial of the faith or flagrant misbehavior. This is a prominent element of our first principle teaching and of our exhortations.
4. Figures of speech are founded on reality. 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.
Don Styles
Many of the points raised in the Megiddo opening statement are covered by
the reasoning presented in the initial 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 has not
been possible in practice for any of 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. 1:9 cp. Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:5,8).
Faith is developed by a 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.
I 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.
We both 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 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 does not reconcile two great Bible themes:
1) 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).
2) 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 elicits from us
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.
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.
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.
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, hath 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.
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).
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 the new ones
we 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 be on account of the redemption which
has been made possible through Christ's blood.
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 (through
baptism into him), 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 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.
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).
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. 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 our frequent sinfulness.
Duncan Heaster, September, 1992
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 Duncan Heaster statement in opposition to the above proposition.
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:
1) translators who believed the doctrine of the Atonement taught by the Christian Church;
2) the firmly established preconception of the doctrine of the Atonement in the minds of most Christian believers today;
3) 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 " [Israel] 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.
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 himself
‑ 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 hath 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.
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 being 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 I 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 life.
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.
" 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 hath 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).
Pastor Ruth Sisson
The Problem of Human Nature
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.
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; 1 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 imputed righteousness, Hab. 2:4), still sin. This is
exactly as taught in 1 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 works of obedience but in God's gracious gift of righteousness.
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).
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. We are saved in prospect at baptism. We are not
begotten of God as was Jesus; and the reality is that we can improve to a
high level of obedience but we will never be free from the moral results of
our past sinful actions. We can walk in a pattern of obedience and that is
what God sets as our goal. We will, however, be considered " perfect" if we
sincerely believe in the work of Christ, for He will count our faith as
righteousness.
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 we partake in the effect of Adam’s sin: " 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 committed 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.
From all this 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. Consider:
1. 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, nor committed sin by the act of
conception; but there was the need for atonement.
2. There are clear
references to " the body of sin," " sinful flesh," etc. Our whole humanity ,
not just some of our individual actions, are associated with sin. While we
must separate our thinking from our natural tendencies and develop a new
mind based on that of Christ, our 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. We need a change of nature, to that which Jesus now has.
3. Romans 7 describes how Paul struggled with " 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, which we all too easily give in to. 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" : in that Jesus destroyed the
power of sin through sharing our very nature (cp. Heb. 2:14-18).
Without
Christ's destruction of the power of the sin-principle, we would be doomed
to the results of continual sin, i.e. condemnation. We must become " in
Christ" so that God will treat us as if we, too, have overcome as our Lord
did. 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 living a life of faith “in him”.
4. 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).
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."
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.
" That no flesh should glory in his presence…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, and which God owes to them as a wage
(Rom. 6:22,23).
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."
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.
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. The life of grateful conformity to Jesus issues from a belief in His
death for us, and the redemption by grace which this has achieved.
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 likely
will always commit some categories of sins.
We need deliverance not only
from our specific transgressions but also from our human condition. 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 sacrifice of Christ.
Obedience to the commands of the Old Covenant brought 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 the crucial importance of
association with the blood of Christ.
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, that seeing he was being obedient, he was fulfilling the symbol of
outpoured lifeblood. But he failed to appreciate his need for forgiveness
through sacrifice, his own inadequacy; and that the symbolic must have a
basis in the literal.
Duncan Heaster, September, 1992
Sacrifice In The Law Of Moses
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:
1) The majority of sacrifices under
the Mosaic system had nothing to do with sin or atonement. The sin offering
and the trespass offering were offerings for the removal of sin. 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.
2) Sin offerings and trespass offerings were only allowed in certain cases,
i.e., when a transgression was not punishable by death (see Lev. 2, 3). When
the law said that a transgression was punishable by death (murder,
sabbath-breaking, adultery, etc.), no sacrifice was accepted.
3) 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).
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?
5) 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 antitype. Literal blood was shed under the
Mosaic system (the blood of a literal animal); spiritual blood must be shed
in the antitype (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.
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 an
insufficient knowledge 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.
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).
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.
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 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 pardon" (Isa. 55:7). What more could one need?
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).
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 is that we do this by regularly breaking bread, i.e., every
week. The early Church, they say, " broke bread very often," and cite Acts
20:7 and 2:42, 46.
There is a basic problem with this stance. How can we
know that " breaking of bread" always referred to the Passover memorial? We
read in Matthew 14 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 Matt. 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?
Ruth Sisson, September, 1992
The Word And Blood Of Christ
The seeker for truth will have noticed many fundamental doctrines that underlie our position in this debate. We believe that Christ was our representative, of human nature, who was of morally perfect character. We are all mortal and we are all personally sinners. We all need to be saved from our mortality and from our sins; we cannot save ourselves. Even Jesus, while being free of personal sin, needed redemption from his mortal condition (Heb. 9:12). By association with Christ's death and resurrection, shown by water baptism and a life of conformity to his words, we can share in his exaltation to immortality at his return. Because Christ was our representative, we are to share in his commitment to God. We are to identify with his crucifixion by putting sin to death in our lives; we are to identify with his resurrection by living in newness of life. If we fail to do this, we openly demonstrate that we do not truly believe in him (Rom. 6:4,11-12).
Knowing this, Megiddo is surely putting up a smoke-screen by claiming
that I have the neo-pagan view of the atonement held by orthodox
Christendom. They know we believe that Jesus is not God but that he is an
immortalized man. He was one of us and that is why he is now an effective
representative. This is basic to the power and truth of the Bible doctrine
of the atonement.
As one of us, Jesus showed us how to overcome sin in
our lives. And, because he understands our struggle against human nature, he
is wonderfully suited to help us now in our times of need for spiritual help
(Heb. 4:15-16).
Because he did not sin, he did not personally deserve to
die and therefore God raised him from the dead. In the mercy of God, we, who
do deserve to die, can benefit from the righteousness of Christ by belief in
him, baptism into his name and a faithful life (Rom. 5:18-19). Furthermore,
we have made it perfectly clear that a belief in Christ must result in a
right pattern of life. If it does not, we will be rejected at the judgment
seat of Christ. Obedience does matter to our salvation. This is not the
orthodox view of the atonement, it is the biblical one.
I reject the idea
that we are once saved, always saved. We believe that our individual effort
is mandatory if we are to remain in the way of life. Megiddo knows this and
is simply raising a smoke-screen when it ignores our beliefs in this regard.
Megiddo's position is that our salvation depends " wholly upon what we
do, i.e. our own virtue and obedience." Because they have this " works only"
idea, they deny the connection between forgiveness of sins and Christ's
death. We have shown that Megiddo's view is directly denied by specific
Bible statements.
" In whom we have redemption through his blood, the
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his [God's] grace...For by
grace are ye saved through faith...not of works, lest any man should boast"
(Eph. 1:7; 2:8-9). " The kindness and love of God our Savior toward man
appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to
his mercy he saved us...through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being
justified by his grace..." (Titus 3:4-7).
God says salvation is by grace
through faith, not by works of righteousness which we have done.
Understandably, Megiddo has not addressed such passages as they clearly
contradict their contention that salvation depends wholly upon our own
virtue.
How can Jesus be our Savior (and why does " Jesus" mean savior?)
if we effect our own salvation? The redeemed praise Christ, " Thou art
worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain
and has redeemed us to God by thy blood." Why would they offer such praise
if they were saved wholly by their own virtue? The salvation and forgiveness
of those who lived before Christ was dependent upon the blood of Christ
(Heb. 9:15). Why is this true if salvation is a matter of individual
obedience without reference to Christ's blood? Why is salvation dependent
upon the resurrection of Christ, after he had set the example in his life (I
Cor. 15:12-21)?
Megiddo says we must become perfect. If Megiddo is right, no one but the
Lord Jesus will be saved. Consider Abraham -- " Abram believed the LORD, and
he credited it to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15:6 NIV). After this time,
Abraham did not behave flawlessly: at age 85, he shared Sarah's doubt,
taking her handmaid to conceive an heir; fourteen years later, he doubted
that he and Sarah could have children at an advanced age and, that same
year, he deceived the Philistine, Abimelech, regarding the status of Sarah
(Gen. 16:2; 17:17; 20:2). Abraham's faith was very great and led him to
offer Isaac, trusting God would raise Isaac from the dead. It was not
adequate, however, to result in unblemished conduct. According to Megiddo,
Abraham could not be considered righteous until he had reached a point of
sinlessness. Thankfully, that is not the way God works.
Consider Moses ‑
" By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of
Pharoah's daughter...By faith he forsook Egypt...Through faith he kept the
passover...(he) obtained a good report through faith..." (Heb.
11:24,27,28,39). Yet within a few months of his death, Moses committed a
very serious sin which led to his exclusion from entering Palestine at that
time (Num. 20:12). Like many people whom God saves, Moses did not steadily
improve throughout life to a point of sinlessness (cp. Asa, Jeshoshaphat and
Josiah, noting their last recorded action is a transgression, II Chr. 11,12;
20:37; 35:22). Megiddo's message that we must reach a point of no more
sinning is not the Bible's message.
Consider ourselves ‑ the great
Christian command is to love one another. Of love it is said, " Love worketh
no ill to his neighbor" (Rom. 13:10). Who would ever dare say they do not,
even by thoughtlessness, occasionally work hardships and ill on others.
Despite good intentions, our forgetfulness and insensitivity (aspects of our
human nature) make it impossible for us to reach a point of not sinning.
Megiddo claims forgiveness comes when we overcome a sin and transgress no
more in that way. Such reasoning may apply to robbery and drunkenness but it
hardly applies to being thoughtless, insensitive or sarcastic. Just when we
think we are exhibiting love, we realize we thoughtlessly caused much
trouble to another person. When considering the finer virtues, scripture
confirms what is an observation of sincere believers: " If we say that we
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (I John 1:8).
The truth is that when we believe and are baptized into Christ, we enter
into a most blessed relationship with God. He forgives us our sins; He
counts our faith for righteousness; He considers us part of His own family.
He works with us and helps us develop personal holiness, unless we forsake
the Truth and persist to walk in sin.
Megiddo rejects the idea of imputed
righteousness. In doing so, they reject the forgiveness of sins, because
having righteousness imputed to us simply means one's sins are forgiven. "
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also
describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness
without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and
whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute
sin" (Rom. 4:5-8).
This is not a mystical matter of someone else's
righteousness being attributed to us. In the gracious purpose of God, this
is a matter of the forgiveness of our sins being made possible through the
righteousness of Christ. In other words, God counts our attitude of faith as
righteousness and deals with us as if we were actually righteous. In Bible
terms, we thus have a righteousness that is of God.
Megiddo claims that God is fair and will deal with us " exactly" as we
deserve. If that were true, no one would have a chance as we are all sinners
and " the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23).
Forgiving sins is not fair;
it is merciful. As already indicated, Megiddo speaks of forgiveness of
specific sins when a person ceases to commit that kind of sin. In
acknowledging even this form of forgiveness, Megiddo concedes the whole
fairness issue. We do not want fairness, we want mercy.
Being judged
according to our works is speaking in relative, not absolute terms. Noah,
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David were upright men, all of whom will be saved
(Heb. 11:39-40). Yet they all sinned and came short of the glory of God
(Rom. 3:23). They were upright in that, after their commitment of faith to
God, they " walked before thee (the LORD) in truth, and in righteousness,
and in uprightness of heart" (I Kgs. 3:6). They committed sins, but sin was
not the pattern of life in which they walked (I John 1:6-7).
God is fair
in that He is not biased by race, economic condition or social standing. He
is fair in that He saves those who believe Him and walk in His way but He
will destroy those who disdain His commands. Thankfully, He does not give us
" exactly" what we deserve, for all we deserve is death. As Paul says, " O
wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I
thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 7:24).
Because Megiddo believes that every type has a spiritual, abstract
antitype, they have to deny that the Mosaic institutions pointed forward to
the Lord Jesus, except for the obvious type of the high priest. The New
Testament points out that many other aspects of the law also typified
Christ. Jesus is also the antitypical altar (Heb. 13:10). And the bodies of
the animals who were burnt " without the camp" pointed forward to Christ,
who " that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without
the gate" (Heb. 13:11,12).
Megiddo asks where is it " that Jesus was
typified by anything other than the high priest?" The whole of Hebrews 7 -
10 show that Jesus was typified by the sacrifices: " (Jesus) needeth not
daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins,
and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up
himself...Nor yet that ye should offer himself often, as the high priest
entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others: for then must
he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in
the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself...so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many...By the which
will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once
for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes
the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he
had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of
God" (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-12).
The point could not be more clearly
stated. The daily sacrifices typified the Lord Jesus as did the annual ones
on the day of atonement. He was the antitypical burnt, sin and trespass
offering as well as the antitypical scapegoat. Megiddo's challenge is
clearly answered.
The passover lamb also pointed forward to the sacrifice
of Christ. True, it was not a sacrifice for sin; true, again, that the
unblemished quality of the animal is an exhortation to personal obedience.
The fact is not changed, however, that the blood of the slain lamb saved
from death those who relied upon it. This aspect of the ritual is directly
applied to Christ: " Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (I Cor. 5:7).
There are many passages, as Megiddo admit, which " seem to say that the
literal death of Christ is instrumental in our salvation." To explain these
away, Megiddo have gone down a tortuous path of twisted semantics and
fallacious logic. They seek to " prove" that the references to Christ's
death and resurrection refer only to an example which we should follow by
spiritually dying to the flesh, rather than also being the means of
atonement for our sins.
Megiddo asserts that the typical is literal while
the antitypical is spiritual. The inaccuracy of their assertion is obvious.
They admit that the Lord Jesus is an antitypical, yet literal, high priest.
The vine is a symbol of Israel, but this does not mean that the vine is not
a literal plant, nor does it mean that Israel is something symbolic. " At
the second time Joseph was made known unto his brethren" (Acts 7:13), as
Christ will be accepted at his second coming by his Jewish brethren, having
been rejected by them 2,000 years ago. Thus the life of Joseph has a literal
antitype. Melchizedek was a non-Levitical priest, and a king of Jerusalem.
As such, he typified Christ (Heb.7). This does not mean Christ will be only
a symbolic priest and king. The wine represents Christ's literal blood. If
Christ meant us to see the wine as symbolizing only his exemplary life
rather than his literal blood, he would have said, " This is my way of
life." Substitute " way of life" for " blood" and his words make no sense: "
this is my blood [way of life] which is shed for many for the remission of
sins" (Matt. 26:28). Our salvation is based upon his literal death, for "
without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22).
Megiddo equates
the " word" with the " blood" of Christ. They say: " The blood cleanses and
the word cleanses. Therefore, the blood is the word." But I wash with soap,
and I wash with water. But this does not mean that soap is water. Again,
they fail to appreciate that the end product, i.e. cleansing and salvation,
results from a number of different factors, not just one (i.e. obedience to
the word). Obedience to the word is a necessary response to " the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus."
While there is much figurative language in
scripture, we make a grave mistake if we fail to see the literal reality
that underlies the powerful lessons expressed in figures of speech.
I look to Christ as the great example to follow. But he is more than an
example, he is the Savior. We agree that there is much exhortation to
personal godliness in the death and resurrection of Christ. Megiddo has done
a good job of pointing that out. But there is redemption as well as
exhortation in the cross and the resurrection to glory that followed.
Megiddo see the exhortation but needlessly reject the redemption.
Tragically, if a person rejects redemption in Christ he is still in his
sins. No matter how much right doctrine a person may believe, no matter how
holy he might live, he remains unforgiven: " For all have sinned, and come
short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood...where is boasting then: it is
excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith" (Rom.
3:23-27).
The great irony is that personal righteousness will only be
developed by those who rely upon God in faith rather than upon their own
virtue and obedience. By being forgiven in Christ, we have a right
relationship with God in which He helps us to develop the fruits of the
spirit. In addition, we are motivated by His love in giving Christ and by
Christ's love in giving himself.
If we yield ourselves to the word and
work of God, striving to cooperate with Him in the molding of our
characters, our faith brings forth righteousness (Gal. 5:5-6). " The just
shall live by faith" speaks of how the just become just. They do so through
faith in God. Consequently, they do not look at the goodness that develops
as their virtue. They do not feel such goodness warrants God's favor, for
they know any virtue they have is attributable to God in their lives.
Being forgiven in Christ precedes the development of such personal holiness.
" If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But
there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared" (Psa. 130:3-4).
Knowing we are forgiven, every sin does not rest as a crippling burden on
our minds (Heb. 9:14). If we are not walking in sin but are walking in
Christ, the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin; we thus rejoice as
forgiven people (I John 1:7).
There is no conflict between redemption by
faith in Christ and the development of personal holiness. When rightly
understood, our growth from repentant to upright people is dependent upon
our forgiveness. The Megiddo approach is much like Rabbinic Judaism which
started with the demand of obedience and pointed to forgiveness and sonship
as its goal. The gospel starts with the free gift of forgiveness and sonship
through faith and points to righteousness as its goal.
Failing to acknowledge our need to be associated with Christ's literal
death, Megiddo rejects the need for immersion into Christ in their steps to
salvation. Again, this is a tragic mistake. Immersion into Christ is when
the forgiveness of sins begins: " Buried with him in baptism in which you
were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised
him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having
forgiven us all our trespasses..." (Col. 2:12-13 RSV).
If we are faithful
to our commitment, God has designated this humble act as the starting point
for a life of forgiveness and the development of the fruits of the spirit.
This debate has shown the need to have a framework upon which to hang all
our Biblical research. It has shown the need to understand the whole system
of basic doctrinal truth which is in scripture. Just one major mistake, in
one element of that system, leads to a denial of the basic Gospel message.
It is tragic that Megiddo members have so many elements correct, but are
astray on this fundamental issue of the atonement. We would dearly like to
have more contact with anyone who is seeking the full system of truth. I
would be delighted to send a free copy of our 380 page book Bible Basics to
any who care to write to me and also to answer any questions concerning the
matters presented in this debate. My address:
info@carelinks.net .
In the
course of this debate, we have touched upon most of the main elements of the
true Gospel. Man needs redemption because he is mortal and because all of us
have sinned. Our redemption was made possible by God through Christ, our
redeemer, the promised descendant of Eve, Abraham and David who was to
destroy sin's power. Being of our nature and acting as our representative,
he destroyed sin in the very arena of sin's dominion, his human nature. Thus
he was not of God's nature, neither did he physically exist before his
birth.
By water baptism into his death and resurrection, we become " in
Christ" . We, therefore, live now in the spirit of the resurrection, walking
" in newness of life," serving God and not the flesh (Rom 6:11).
In
grace, we have been granted forgiveness of sin by being " in Christ," but we
still have the very real possibility of falling from grace. Our personal
righteousness springs from a firm faith in Christ's redeeming work for us.
We strive to endure the daily crucifixion of the flesh which being " in
Christ" entails, knowing that " if we suffer with him, we shall also reign
with him." We therefore look forward to his return to establish God's
kingdom on earth when our warfare with sin will be over. We eagerly
anticipate the day of resurrection and judgment, believing that, through the
forgiveness of our sins in Christ we will stand " faultless before the
presence of his glory with exceeding joy." In that day, we will realize,
even more than we do now, the degree to which " God was in Christ...not
imputing our iniquities unto us." In that day, we will express our praise
for God's redemption through Christ even more powerfully, with far greater
intellectual clarity and vigor: " To the only wise God our Savior, be glory
and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."
Duncan Heaster, October, 1992.
Sacrifice In The Law Of Moses
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:
1) The majority of sacrifices under
the Mosaic system had nothing to do with sin or atonement. The sin offering
and the trespass offering were offerings for the removal of sin. 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.
2) Sin offerings and trespass offerings were only allowed in certain cases,
i.e., when a transgression was not punishable by death (see Lev. 2, 3). When
the law said that a transgression was punishable by death (murder,
sabbath-breaking, adultery, etc.), no sacrifice was accepted.
3) 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).
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?
5) 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 antitype. Literal blood was shed under the
Mosaic system (the blood of a literal animal); spiritual blood must be shed
in the antitype (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.
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 an
insufficient knowledge 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.
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).
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.
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 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 pardon" (Isa. 55:7). What more could one need?
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).
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 is that we do this by regularly breaking bread, i.e., every
week. The early Church, they say, " broke bread very often," and cite Acts
20:7 and 2:42, 46.
There is a basic problem with this stance. How can we
know that " breaking of bread" always referred to the Passover memorial? We
read in Matthew 14 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 Matt. 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?
Ruth Sisson, September, 1992