---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Editor's Note: The word "Legalism" when undefined creates
confusion in the hearers. We would be better served to simply describe
wrong attitudes by scripture!) - LWR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It
is very common to hear the slur of "legalist" or "legalism" being hurled
at those who would defend the truth. It is natural to hear such things
when insistence is placed on what the Scriptures actually say.
Yet many will wear the
term as a type of badge of honour. Many attempts have been made to
justify "legalism" and a "legalistic" attitude in religious matters.
There is no doubt that these attempts are well-intentioned, yet by
commending "legalism" we may find ourselves justifying an attitude that
Jesus has firmly condemned.
Normally legalism is
defended by an appeal to its definition-- "strict, literal adherence to
the law or to a particular code, as of religion or morality; a legal
word, expression, or rule," as the American Heritage dictionary defines
the term. The idea of holding firmly and strictly to the law of God as
revealed in Scripture is then commended.
Let none be deceived: it
is important for us to have authority for the things we say and do. All
things should be done by Christ's authority
(Colossians 3:17).
If a practice comes with no Biblical authority, we should not
participate in it
(cf.
Romans 14:23). Yet
there is much more to the definition of "legalism" than just attempting
to do what God says.
We should first note what
the more expansive definition of "legalism" is, evidenced in the Random
House Dictionary's entry for the word:
“Strict
adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription,
esp. to the letter rather than the spirit; the doctrine that salvation
is gained through good works. The judging of conduct in terms of
adherence to precise laws.”
As
Christians we should be diligent to do the best we can to be properly
understood. If we speak with someone who has a good understanding of the
full meaning of "legalism," and we declare that we believe "legalism" to
be a good idea, why should we be surprised if they believe that we think
that we are saved by good works? The Scriptures are clear-- we cannot be
saved by works (cf.
Romans 3:21, Ephesians 2:8-9). We are saved through obedient
faith (Romans 1:17,
6:2-21, 1 Peter 1:22, James 2:14-26). Therefore, on a theological
level, we cannot be "legalists" and be pleasing to God.
Concern
should be given over more than just the theological definition of the
term. Consider the constant emphasis: "strict adherence." "Adherence to
precise laws." In the eyes of many, this is not a bad thing-- we should
strive to adhere to God's standards. Yet again, however, we have a
challenge. While it is absolutely true that we should strive to adhere
to God's standards, there is more to "strict adherence" than simply
"striving to do God's will." "Strict adherence" has a negative, as well
as positive, dimension.
This is
best illustrated by the Biblical examples of the legalists: the scribes,
the lawyers, and the Pharisees. These are the ones whom Jesus condemned
for their intransigence and immorality
(cf. Matthew
23:1-39). Let us notice what it was that they did. We must first
make clear that Jesus followed the Law and God's purposes and yet was
not a legalist. In
Matthew 5:17-18 He declares that He came to fulfil the Law; in
Matthew 23:23,
He does not condemn the Pharisees and scribes for following the minutiae
of the Law, the tithing of various spices. Jesus' quarrel is not with
doing what God says in the way God says to do it. Yet notice what He
says about these scribes and Pharisees in
Matthew 5:20:
"For I
say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter
into the kingdom of heaven."
What
was the problem with the "righteousness" of the scribes and Pharisees?
It was based in their legalism-- strict adherence, to be sure, but
strict adherence often with the intention of doing the least that was
necessary or justifying current conduct. It is a carnal desire-- missing
the purposes and character of God in search for the minutiae that would
justify them. This same spirit can be discerned in the lawyer
questioning Jesus in
Luke 10:25-29. There is no better example of true legalism in
action. The lawyer tests Jesus by seeing what He will say is necessary
for salvation. Jesus gets the lawyer to make the appropriate answer--
the exhortations to love God and neighbour. And then the legalism comes
in-- the lawyer wants to justify himself, to establish the "strict
adherence" that will make everything easier, asking who his neighbour
is, and hoping to hear that it is his fellow Jew to whom he already acts
as he should. Jesus answers him with the parable of the good Samaritan,
and the lawyer is duly shamed
(Luke 10:30-37).
It may
seem ironic, but it is certainly the case: our righteousness must exceed
the righteousness of a legalist if we desire to be saved. The reason for
this has nothing to do with the desire to follow God's purposes. The
reason is that the true legalist sees everything in terms of law and has
missed the example of Christ who was the fulfilment of the Law of Moses
and the embodiment of God's expectations for believers today
(cf. Matthew
5:17-18, Romans 8:29, 1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 John 2:3-6). When law
is the focus, conformity to the image of the Son, understanding the will
of God and accomplishing it in a form of "second nature" is not.
Instead, legalism is all about the bare minimum and doing whatever is
possible. "If I can I should" is axiomatic for the legalist! Many
examples could be brought forth to establish the principle. The legalist
declares that he is only required to assemble with the saints on the
first day of the week in the main assembly to partake of the Lord's
Supper (Acts 20:7);
he will not be there for any other opportunity when the saints come
together. The legalist will very narrowly define how he has "prospered"
and his giving will reflect that
(1 Corinthians
16:1-3, 2 Corinthians 8-9). After all, it is about the letter of
what is written. If the letter of what is written allows us to get away
with something, all the merrier! (Editor's Note: The "letter" in
this example is the false perception of one who leaves out the heart. In
fact this person cannot properly apply God's written word! God's word
has always required both "Spirit and Truth" - LWR)
There
is reason for confidence that most of those who would defend the use of
the terms "legalism" or "legalist" would be uncomfortable with the
examples illustrated above-- and that is because such people are not
really legalists. While they seek Biblical authority for all they say
and do, they understand that we should not use God's revelation to find
ways to justify conduct that is clearly contrary to the purposes of God
as revealed through Jesus the Incarnate Word or the Scriptures, God's
revealed Word. We must understand that the Scriptures are a guide to
life, that they equip us for every good work
(2 Timothy 3:16-17),
but that there is more to righteousness than slavish holding to the
letter of the law
(cf. 2 Corinthians 3:4-6). We must also honour God's intentions--
and that will often require us to go "the extra mile" in our service!
It is
tragically lamentable that so many in the religious world have used
statements regarding the "spirit" over the "letter" of the law, and the
idea of "grace" above "law" to justify immoral conduct and a loosening
of the guidelines that God has given through His Scriptures. Such
represent blatant abuses of what God has said. Such conduct, however,
does not justify imbalance on the other side. We are not saved through
slavish, strict adherence to the letter of the law; no one can be
(cf. Romans 3:20).
Nor can we say that our conduct does not matter, or that we can freely
neglect parts of what God has revealed-- may it never be
(Romans 6:1-23,
Colossians 3:17). Let us not be guilty of either legalism or
laxity-- let us serve God in Christ, reflecting the image of the Son.
Other
Articles
Are You a Heretic?
If We Believed What They Believed
Just Was It Up and Start Over
The Booing Spectators