Legalism I. Prayer II. Introduction A. While we were all told that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me," many of us have recognized it as a lie: words can and do hurt, especially pejorative, derisive slurs B. When slurs are uttered, people generally have one of three responses 1. Complete, vehement rejection, and an attempt to clear one's name: explanation, rationalization, denunciation 2. Projection: the more advanced version of the playground "I know you are, but what am I?" response, trying to demonstrate how the slur is more appropriate for the one giving it than the recipient 3. Ownership: the attempt to defang the slur by owning it and making it one's own: perhaps the origin of "Christian", see also "queer," the use of the term that shall not be named among black people, etc. C. And so we come to a slur used against the people of God many times: legalist! Pharisee! D. A lot of responses to this slur have run the gamut 1. Some have rejected it and sought to demonstrate why 2. Others have projected it back on those who would use it, with varying degrees of effectiveness 3. But many have decided to own it, and often proudly: "yes, I am a legalist! We should all be legalists!" E. We do well to thus consider legalism 1. What is legalism? 2. Is an appeal for authority for a practice inherently a legalistic enterprise? 3. Is legalism really a good thing or a bad thing? What would be the problem with legalism? 4. How can Christians most effectively glorify God in finding authority yet avoiding legalism? II. Legalism A. What, therefore, is legalism? B. The American Heritage Dictionary definition: 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 C. Many will see a definition like that, especially the first half, and think it is well and good; shouldn't we all be legalists, to make sure that we have authority from God to accomplish His purposes? 1. In such a view, an appeal to authority and legalism are conflated, justifying the use of the slur 2. But is an appeal to authority inherently a legalistic enterprise? D. When and why is the "legalist" slur thrown around? 1. Recognition: there are times and places when Christians might well be approaching a matter in a legalistic way, and the slur is not unfounded 2. Generally, however, "legalist" is thrown around when the request is made to provide Biblical authority for something regarding which explicit authority is not forthcoming 3. In my experience, it is the reflexive reaction when a practice which a person has essentially taken for granted is questioned; when book, chapter, and verse cannot be found, it tends to be easier to cry out that the one asking for such authority is a legalist than to concede that the practice is not based in explicit Biblical authority E. Is expecting explicit Biblical authority a problem? 1. Colossians 3:17: all we do should be done "in the name of," or by the authority of, the Lord 2. Romans 6:14-23: we are reckoned as slaves of righteousness, serving the Lord; we ought to seek what pleases the Lord, and thus what is based in what He would have us do 3. Matthew 5:19, 23:23: Jesus indicted the Pharisees and scribes in both passages, yet we should not miss what He established in each: willfully breaking the least of the commandments is not justified; the problem was never with exactitude in tithing even spices F. Many do exist who wish to justify and rationalize divergences from the Lord's way by appealing to "freedom in Christ" and "grace," as if either excuses or commends doing things which God has not authorized in Christ, or even at times the violation of things God has authorized in Christ! G. Thus, often when "legalist" is thrown around it means "I cannot justify my position on Biblical grounds so I'm going to call you a nasty name to try to save face," and we must be clear-eyed about this H. But we have yet to resolve the fundamental question: is an appeal to authority inherently a legalistic enterprise? III. Authority and Legalism: Jesus and the Pharisees A. The best way to understand whether appealing to authority is inherently legalistic is to consider Jesus and His interaction with the Pharisees B. Jesus Himself lived under authority, declaring that all He did was according to the will and purpose of His Father (e.g. John 17:4, 7-8, 14) 1. Jesus did not teach anyone to violate the Law; He came to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-20) 2. Jesus never chastised anyone for following or observing the Law C. Jesus thus appealed to authority, but chastised and condemned the Pharisees for their practices as it related to themselves and the Law (Matthew 5:17-48, 23:1-36)! 1. Even though He does not use the term, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their legalism 2. We see all three primary principles of the definition at work in the Pharisees 3. Strict adherence to law, more to the letter than the spirit: consider the exactitude of Matthew 23:23, focused on the law, but having missed the spirit and purpose of God's desire for justice and righteousness (although, ironically, Jesus also is condemning them for not being sufficiently "legalistic," for they have not truly strictly adhered to the Law!) 4. Salvation is gained through good works: consider the "model prayer" of the Pharisee in Luke 18:11-12, confident in his standing because he did not do some bad things and did some good things 5. Judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws: the Pharisees were all over this, considering the rest of Israel to be "sinners" because they did not observe the Law the way the Pharisees observed the Law (e.g. John 9:15-16, 24) 6. Thus, Jesus spoke truly in Matthew 5:20: one's righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees and scribes to enter God's Kingdom, because the righteousness of the Pharisees was not complete in the sight of God! D. The Pharisees thus exemplify the major difficulties of legalism, and demonstrate to us that an appeal to authority need not be legalistic, and that we should not want to be legalists! 1. We do well to appeal to authority and make sure we are authorized in what we do in matters big or small (Matthew 23:23, Colossians 3:17) 2. Nevertheless, we must never fall into the trap of believing that we are justified because we are keeping the Law meticulously: first of all, because we are not, since we all sin and fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:9), and secondly, because salvation is God's free gift, unearned, unmerited, given in grace and received by faith, and not earned through lawkeeping (Romans 3:20, 5:6-11, 6:23, Ephesians 2:1-10) 3. Furthermore, the legalistic posture is not, "how can I glorify God in all I do?", but instead is, "what is the least I can do and get away with in order to appease God?", as exemplified in the lawyer who prompted the parable of the good Samaritan, looking to rationalize and justify himself in his chauvinism and in doing the least, not seeking to understand what God is really about and trying to glorify Him (Luke 10:25-29) 4. We should not neglect the final principle of legalism: judging others in terms of adherence to precise laws, which has proven to be a major challenge among many of God's people, and plagued the Pharisees a. The Pharisees could never "see" who Jesus really was because He violated one of their fundamental principles that wasn't even respecting the fullness of God's revelation on the matter: He had healed on the Sabbath, thus, to them, He could be nothing other than a sinner (John 9:15-16, 24) b. The spirit of judgmentalism is rife among legalists, who are all too eager to condemn those who do not share their views c. Let none be deceived: that which God has condemned, we ought to condemn, and warn about condemnation coming (Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10) d. But we should exercise care regarding that which God has not explicitly condemned, and cannot automatically be associated with the "works of the flesh": maybe God does not care about it as much as we do! e. Romans 14:10-12, James 4:11-12 are also in Scripture, as is Matthew 7:1-7: we are not the judge; God is; we do well to let God be God and do the judging f. It is for us to serve God and seek authority for what we do, and leave the judging of people to God g. Furthermore, James 2:12-13: judgment is without mercy to those who have showed no mercy, a terrifying prospect indeed E. Legalism, therefore, is not a positive thing, and no one should want to be a legalist 1. Most Christians, when the full nature of legalism is discussed, will admit that they do not want to be thus 2. Legalism will not save anyone, for it cannot; we are not saved by meticulous observance of any law, for we have all sinned and fallen short, and depend on God's grace and mercy if we would be saved (Romans 3:20, Ephesians 2:8-9)! IV. Christians, Authority, and Law A. As we have seen, legalism is not a good thing, and no one should boast or glory in being a legalist B. Yet the issue goes well beyond just concern about scrupulous law-keeping to the heart of the matter itself: a faith-based posture versus a law-based posture C. We often see the commendation of the law-based posture, even if a person will not go so far as to become a legalist 1. Even though there is the recognition that we are not saved by lawkeeping, we can very easily still make it all about law, or "the rules" 2. One way of seeing this is all the discussions of the "new law," which attempts to display the points of continuity between old and new covenants to an extreme 3. Galatians 6:2 and James 2:12 are not just cited, but become the fundamental posture of the way Christianity is viewed: a new law code, better than the old law code D. One can see a high veneration in Scripture of God's instruction and its value in establishing righteousness and avoiding sinfulness (e.g. Psalm 119:1-176); it is easy to extend this into the new covenant E. Yet if we really are to maintain a law-based posture in the New Testament, isn't it a bit odd that the term is only used a couple of times, and even then, doesn't really look like a law code? 1. There is no Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy per se in the New Testament 2. In Galatians 6:2, Paul says that Christians are to "bear one another's burdens," and thus fulfill the "law of Christ": sounds more like a restatement of John 13:31-35 than anything approximating a law code 3. James 2:12, beyond being written to Jewish Christians who, by all accounts, maintained great zeal for the Law of Moses, speaks of Christians as being judged by a "law of liberty," also not very law code-ish F. A law-based posture is not in keeping with what God has made known in Jesus; in fact, it is explicitly contradicted in Romans 6:14: Christians are not under law, but under grace! G. What?!? Does this mean Christians are not under any kind of commandment? Are we to be antinomian, and against law? 1. When Paul wrote Romans 6:14, he knew this alarm/concern would be raised, and addressed it in Romans 6:15-23 2. God forbid that Christians sin while not under the law but under grace! 3. Note well Paul's reasoning: we who were once slaves of unrighteousness have become obedient to the standard of teaching to which we have been committed, and have become slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:16-18) 4. I fear we have too easily granted the conceit to some of our opponents, assuming even in our own minds that "grace" would allow us to do whatever we want; God forbid! 5. For those locked in a law-based posture, what Paul is trying to say is mystifying, because the imagination cannot conceive of the nuance that Paul is offering here: yet it is a faith-based posture H. From beginning to end, the New Testament provides for Christians a faith-based posture 1. The New Testament constantly speaks of the faith that is in Christ Jesus (e.g. Acts 3:16, 13:8, 16:5, 26:18, Romans 1:5, 16-17, 1 Corinthians 16:13, Jude 1:3) 2. Paul will ironically speak of Christians as justified not by works of the law, but by the "law of faith" (Romans 3:20-28) 3. A faith-based posture is appropriate because there is no Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy in the New Testament, just Jesus, and the expectation that Christians live and walk as Jesus lived and walked (1 John 2:6) 4. Are there commandments? Yes, Jesus gave commandments, and we should walk in them (1 John 2:3-6) 5. Yet Jesus also gave His example, and the Apostles testified to His example with their examples, and we should walk in them (1 Corinthians 11:1) 6. A faith-based posture recognizes we have not earned salvation, but have received it as a free gift, and we trust in God in Christ; that trust will lead us to seek to be pleasing to Him in all we do, as indicated in Romans 6:14-23 7. It cannot be about law-keeping or performance or exactitude in understanding, insight, or even practice, since by all of these measures we fail to measure up (Romans 3:20, 23, 1 John 1:7-10): this is not an appeal to not do anything, or not strive to do all we can to glorify Christ, but to re-frame ourselves away from the law-based mindset toward one which is relationally based in God in Christ (John 17:20-23)! I. The limitations of the law-based posture are numerous 1. A law-based posture invariably will lead to some kind of self-justification: it does not seek to glorify God, but to just accomplish the letter of the law 2. A law-based posture will become myopic, using certain laws as standards and bellweathers, demanding exact uniformity in those strictures while allowing wider latitude in others 3. A law-based posture tends toward justification by works: I have done the law, and thus deserve a reward; such is intolerable in the New Testament 4. A law-based posture puffs up in self-righteousness: ah! I am doing the law, or I at least know what the law is, and so I am so much better than/thank God I am not like those denominationalists or secularists! 5. A law-based posture reduces everything to right and wrong, good or bad; any nuance regarding profitability or concession for weakness is lost (contra Romans 14:1-23, 1 Corinthians 10:23-28) 6. A law-based posture can often lead to the most arcane exercises in logic and contortions in argument to justify or condemn a thing: witness the Talmud, or closer to home, some of the finer tuned argumentation regarding certain practices J. In the end, so many times the legalistic or law-based perspective will make it about rules over people, and if that is how Jesus had treated us, where would we be? 1. So many times, the reaction, spoken or unspoken: but...but...they broke the rules! 2. Okay...what about it? What now? 3. It is a good exercise: what if God in Christ had been legalistic toward mankind? 4. What if God always, without fail, chose rules over people? We would all be going to hell! 5. Are there times when people must suffer consequences for breaking the rules? Yes, absolutely; we all have participated in the wages of death thereby (Romans 6:23) 6. Yet the God who made the rules also wants all people to be saved, and sent His Son to die for us because we broke the rules (Romans 5:6-11, 1 Timothy 2:4)! 7. Yes, people break the rules; we have all broken the rules; if we want mercy to triumph over judgment for us, should we be so uncomfortable with the prospect that God might do the same for others? K. We have all broken the rules; we have no standing before God based on law; but thanks be to God that we are not under law, but under grace, and have received grace to trust in God in Christ! V. Christians, Authority, and Faithfulness A. So it is not just legalism that causes difficulties; a law-based posture in the new covenant can prove challenging as well B. So how can we, as Christian, maintain a respect for authority, seek authority, and not fall into the trap of legalism or a law-based posture? C. We must always and thoroughly ground ourselves in Jesus: God has given Jesus all authority in heaven and on earth, and all that we do, in word or deed, should be done in Jesus' name (Matthew 28:18, Colossians 3:17) 1. The New Testament is very consistent about this: God has made Jesus Lord and Christ; Christians serve Jesus 2. Christians keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:3-5); Christians walk as Jesus walked (1 John 2:6) 3. Jesus empowered the Apostles and prophets to make known His purposes for His Kingdom; the record of their teaching in Scripture is authoritative for our faith and practice (Ephesians 2:20, Hebrews 2:3-4, Jude 1:17) 4. Thus, yes, we demonstrate our authority for what we do by appealing to what God has made known in Scripture, but it remains authoritative because it comes by Jesus' authority, and all to the end of glorifying Jesus in all we think, say, feel, and do! D. We serve a Person, the Risen Lord, by grace through faith in the Spirit; it is not about a law code, or a series of irreducible principles, but about following Jesus and embodying Him to people today (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:1-15, Ephesians 2:8-9) E. Christ has set us free from the law so that we would no longer be under law but under grace; may we prove obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which we have been committed in Jesus in the Scriptures, live and expect justification by faith and not works of the law, eschew legalism and emphasizing rules over people, and find eternal life! F. Invitation Scripture, Meditation, and Application 1: Because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20). The slur is often leveled at those who wish to ascertain Bible authority in all things: legalist! Sometimes the slur is justified. A lot of times the slur is the reflexive response when something someone has taken for granted is challenged. But we should not try to appropriate legalist as if it is a good thing. Legalism is seeking a works-based justification. No one can be justified by law; we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. May we all glorify God in Christ and seek His purposes! 2: "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" (Matthew 5:20). Legalism is not just about attempting to maintain a works-based justification. Legalism is also the attempt to focus on the bare minimum of what is expected. Legalism also leads a person to sharply judge those who do not abide by the rules to the degree you believe they should. The Pharisees displayed such legalism. Jesus declared that we would have to exceed their righteousness to enter the Kingdom. The Pharisees' approach proves insufficient. May we seek the Kingdom of God and righteousness in Jesus by faith and obtain eternal life! 3: For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace (Romans 6:14). Even if we are not legalists, we can fall into a law-based posture. We often hear of the "new law," even though the New Testament does not use such terminology. In fact, Paul declares that Christians are not under law, but under grace. This is not an excuse to sin or justify unrighteousness; we still must obey the Lord Jesus. We do better to maintain a faith-based posture in Christ. May we trust in God in Christ, prove faithful to His standard as made known in Scripture, and obtain life! 4: He that saith, "I know him," and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected. Hereby we know that we are in him: he that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked (1 John 2:4-6). If not law, then what? Jesus! Jesus is our authority. We keep Jesus' commandments, because Jesus commanded them, and He is Lord. He is our example in whose steps we should walk. Jesus empowered the apostles and prophets to establish His purposes in His Kingdom, and we have the record of that message in Scripture. In all things we must make sure we have authority to do what we do from Scripture, yet realize that all we are doing is to be done to the glory of God in Jesus. May we seek Jesus in faith, seek to embody Him to the world, and glorify God in Him!