Legalism by Josh

Sermons by Eli Hofer
03/14/01
08/22/01
08/11/02

The Writings of Ulrich Stadler
Volume 1
Volume 2
Volume 3
Volume 4

The Church and the Narrow Path

Things Hutterite

To Vote or not to Vote

Two Ways

Way of the Lord

Which Kingdom?

Legalism
by Josh Scott

> Can anyone provide me with a good (thorough) definition of
> legalism ? And possibly provide and example or maybe two ?

> Thank you in advance,
> Mickey M.

GREAT question, Mickey. Something I have been thinking about ALOT lately (as a lover of Jesus and a student of the Bible). I am still in process on this one though, so I can't give you a definitive answer, but let me share with you where I am at right now. Perhaps this will spark some discussion. This is a term that gets thrown around a lot these days, especially in evangelical circles. So, its a good question and worth investigating thoroughly.

You will find that people define this term very differently. On the one end, you have those who define it very narrowly as pertaining simply to a misuse of Law or rules in the Christian life, but seeing no problem even with a highly developed set of rules for Christian living. On the other end, you have the antinomian view which basically sees any kind of rules, standards, obligations, or specifics at all in the Christian life to be "legalistic."

I see two things that come into play. In the Gospels, Jesus is involved with numerous confrontations with the Pharisees. In these confrontations, He condemns them for hypocrisy, for self-righteousness, for laying heavy burdens on the backs of the people of Israel while not "lifting a finger" on their own accord, of nullifying the Law of God through their tradition, for doing works of righteousness to be noticed by men, for washing the outside of the cup while the inside was full of sin (externalism), neglecting the weightier matters of the law (justice, love, mercy) by focusing on smaller issues like almsgiving, etc., thereby "straining out a gnat to swallow a camel," and some other things. Some people define legalism very broadly as any kind of Pharisaism.

Secondly, in Galatians, you have the Judaizers. The Judaizers came in and told the people that they had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved. Paul and the Jerusalem council came back and said, no you don't, and so legalism in this case seems to be the mistake of doing works of law or righteousness for the purpose of being saved. But even here, Paul's response leads him into a discussion in chapters 5 & 6 about freedom in Christ. So he takes it beyond the issue of salvation to the broader issue of Christian living in general it seems.

In the gospels, Jesus presents kingdom righteousness in contradistinction to the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. And if you look closely at what He does, He gives an example from the Pharisees of what not to do, then presents what He wants you to do instead. And each time, He shows their prideful, self-righteous externalism, and then takes the issue to the heart (see Matthew chapter 6:1-18 for example). Instead of the proud externalism of the Pharisees, Jesus wants His disciples to have a RIGHT HEART, and from that should flow their righteous deeds. Then their deeds will be truly righteous. So Jesus shows the error of the Pharisees, and then makes this shocking statement to the crowd:

Matt 5:20
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
(KJV)

Well, what does He mean by that? Everyone knew how religious the Pharisees were. They were obsessed with keeping the Law and their traditions. So what did He mean? Well, look at the standard He just gave in Matt. 5:1-19. The Beatitudes. Blessed are the almsgivers, for they shall see God? No, blessed are the pure in heart. Blessed are those who pray long prayers in public? No, blessed are the meek. You see, all His descriptions are heart issues; attitudes.

So what Jesus meant by a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees is a righteousness that goes beyond externals TO THE HEART.

Where I think people go wrong is they think, "Oh, well, Jesus is only concerned about the heart, so externals don't matter." Well, no, its not either/or. Its not heart vs externals. If you look in the text, you see that the right heart will lead to the externals. Right after giving the Beatitudes, Jesus then says, now, be salt and light.

Matt 5:14-16
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
(KJV)

"See our good works?" But isn't that what He condemned the Pharisees for!?! Ahh, but the Pharisees were not wrong for their external righteousness, and Jesus did not condemn for that, but that they did the good works for men and not for God, so that people would praise them and not God. And this is consistent with what He says when He pronounces the "Woes" on them: they neglected the weightier matters of the law, the heart issues of love, faith, and mercy. And it was these they should have done "without neglecting the others." (see below)

So, you see the progression in Matthew chapter 5:1-16. It goes from the heart to the externals. First, be meek, gentle, a peacemaker, poor in spirit, humble, etc. Then you will be salt and light and the externals will follow. Your witness to the world as salt and light is predicated on having a right heart. Right heart will produce the externals. Externals without heart are not what God wants.

The woes:

When He condemns the Pharisees for focusing on the minutia of the Law to the exclusion of the bigger issues, He says:

Matt 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
(KJV)

Do you see that last part? "...and not to leave the other undone."

So works of righteousness are only legalistic if they are done with a wrong attitude. If you do righteous works to be praised by men or seen by men, that's legalistic. If you do righteous works for any other reason but love for God and a desire to please Him, its legalism.

And according to Galatians, if you do works of Law or righteousness for the purpose of being saved, or earning your salvation from God, that is legalism as well.

Let me just add that in sum, I see two kinds of legalism. In the Galatian sense, it is "doing works of righteousness for the purpose of earning salvation." Legalism in the Pharisaical sense is "doing righteous works for the wrong reasons."

Sorry that was so long. Hope that helps you along.

In Him,
Josh

P.S. Its worth noting what legalism is NOT. Obedience to Scripture is not legalism! Jesus says, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." Having love for God is defined as obedience by Jesus. So, keeping the greatest commandment, loving God, is defined as obeying God. So don't ever let anyone tell you that specific obedience to Scripture is legalism. But you have to keep in mind that Jesus' commandments begin with the heart. So if you want to obey Jesus strictly, you gotta start with your heart! You gotta get those qualities described in Matthew 5. A right heart will sanctify all of your externals, even your church traditions and regulations that you follow. Notice Jesus never condemned them for having godly traditions. He condemned them for elevating them to the place of Scripture where they were nullifying Gods word by their traditions (Matt. 15:6)

(Josh Scott has a web site at http://jacob.biola.edu/~jscott)

Psalm 133: "For there [in brotherly community] the Lord has commanded the blessing, life for evermore."