When Someone Charges Us with “Legalism”

When Someone Charges Us with “Legalism”

The term “legalist” or “legalism” sounds bad.  But, when I think about whether  I am to be “legal” or “illegal”, it surely seems that I should shoot for “legal” rather than “illegal”. So, it becomes necessary for those who charge someone who is trying to be “legal” with the crime of “legalism” to give a very careful and precise definition.  I have determined that I will try to be as legal as Jesus tried (and succeeded) to be. Jesus and the apostles were against “lawlessness” (illegalism). Is that good or bad? That seems good. The term “legalism” is a recent term, and it is thrown around for prejudice purposes.  Therefore, when someone throws it in my direction, I want to know precisely what is meant by the term and whether it is being applied to me accurately and fairly, and if I should repent of this apparent SIN of legalism, and how repentance of legalism will change my relationship to God and His law.

So, let me see if I can grasp this concept as it applies to Jesus and His apostles.  Jesus was legal, not illegal.  Jesus respected the Law of God and practiced it.  Jesus recognized along with Law the need for others to greatly respect God's Law, while being merciful toward some and not merciful toward others (depending on their penitence or lack thereof).  Those he was merciful toward were those who recognized failure and desired patience for their desire for improvement.  Those who did not have mercy were those who sensed no need for mercy and therefore hardened in their illegal behavior.  I would have great reservations about a concept of the "spirit of the Law" (this is wholly subjective in nature, too open-ended and allows each one to invent in their own desires what they think the "spirit of the law" is).  I would not grant that part of the definition quoted as having any validity to it.

Dictionary Definition #1 is:

1. strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit. 

But this implies that God does not want us to strictly adhere to His Law, but to loosely adhere to it.  But, this leaves us with the sense that there is some way for us to know how loose is OK and when we have gotten just over the line of OK.  If loose adherence is what God was after but He failed to say so, we have a law that we should not do strictly what God said, and we are in a delimma.  We are condemned for being careful and strict AND we are condemned for not being careful and strict but too loose. This also leaves us with the highly subjective idea that each man is free to judge what they think is the "spirit of the Law". In this case the adulterer can say, don't judge me according to the letter of the Law that condemns adultery because I have determined that the spirit of the Law is that we should love everyone and Mrs. Jones across the street is someone.  The homosexual can say for us not to judge him by the letter of the Law because he has determined that the "spirit of the Law" is about "love" and that is what he intends to do. I cannot agree that this definition in the dictionary can stand up to biblical tests. It leaves us being judges of the Law of God, and each man gets to use subjective feeling and desire to tell him/her what the real “spirit of the law” allows and does not allow. Everyone would be doing what is right in their own eyes and no one could say they got the “spirit of the law” wrong.

 So I see Jesus and God as legalists under definition #1 (excluding the nebulous "esp. to the letter rather than the spirit.").  In other words, if God is not a legalist, interested in the sense of "strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription" then there was no basis for striking Nadab and Abihu dead (Lev.10). Nor was there a basis for condemning Adam and Eve. Satan becomes right in saying "you shall not surely die" because God cannot judge them strictly without becoming a "legalist" and this definition implies that it is wrong to be a legalist.  If all sin is not deserving of death, and all law-violations are not "sin", then someone has to have the ability to know which law-violations are permissible and which are not. But, this forces us to be judges of the Law, not judges of our conduct under Law. This outlook is not very satisfactory at all.

Dictionary Definition #2-a is

2. Theology. a. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works. 

This is illegal, not legal.  It invents a concept never given by God, and therefore is illegal.  God never said I'll forget your law-violations if you will deserve My forgiveness by earning it. When will enough good works earn salvation and merit the removal of law-violations from the record?  This was the only option, in theory, that the Jews had who rejected Jesus and thought their law could save them.  That was an illegal concept. It was not in harmony with God's law at all.  I've never known any brethren who thought salvation is gained through good works, though I hear the accusation made frequently from misguided concepts people have. In God's plan mercy is needed to go along with high demands of holiness, and the law is holy and good (Rom.7). I'm thankful that it is not Law alone that hangs over us. Mercy is needed.  Without Law there is no need for mercy.  With Law alone there can be no mercy.  Thank God we have holy Law that is good indeed, but thank God we have mercy too. As far as the nature of God is concerned, He cannot be unmerciful in nature, nor can He be unjust in nature. Mercy is needed by us because justice and righteousness and holiness are required.  Such cannot be expressed to us and demanded of us without Law, and mercy cannot be needed without a system of law in place. No one can earn salvation from justice by doing other things already required or also required. Good works are already required. How can they pay for our law-violations?  Violations have to be paid by our death, or by the death of Jesus.  In this case, mercy is offered, and the sinner is pardoned, not by his own good works, but by the mercy obtained.  It is illegal for an absolutely just judge to ignore law-violations.  But, it is also impossible for a GOOD judge to be without mercy and ONLY interested in laws and penalties.  In a good judge, the law must be upheld AND mercy always hovers above the law to make good relationships possible.

Perhaps the definition not given in the dictionary, but the one that would be most consistent with the scriptures is that a "legalist is one who imposes law WITHOUT MERCY and penalty of law without mercy".  Conversely, an "illegalist" is one who will respect no law.  He may also promote an idea of mercy-not-needed-because-no-law-will-be-recognized.  God is not a legalist in the sense of one who imposes law without mercy, but He is a legalist in the sense of one who demands strict respect for His law.  The qualifier is in the position that mercy does or does not occupy.  But, in a sense, it is against the law of good character to be without mercy. Thus it is illegal (against the law of good character) to be unloving and merciless.  We need to be legal, but fully aware that the ONLY way we are really legal is through mercy and pardon found only in Jesus. At the same time we need to be fully aware that we do not have mercy when we become lawless or plan to continue in sin (Rom.6:1).

Dictionary Definition 2-b is:

b. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws. 

This definition is itself too vague. It seems to imply that if God has any precise laws, God would not be legalistic and actually demand that people do precisely what He said. Further, it implies that maybe God's law is designed to always be imprecise on everything so that it becomes illegal to ever judge conduct at all because all law is imprecise anyway.  Definition 2b should not be accepted because the Corinthians SHOULD have judged precisely when that man had his father's wife (1 Cor.5) and should have judged that man's conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws of holiness. It would have us draw the wrong conclusion that Paul was being a "legalist" by so judging this man, and that such legalism is wrong or illegal.  It opens the door for people to judge Paul in terms of his conduct in writing that judgmental letter (1 Cor.5-6), but act as if the man who had his father's wife should escape the critical judgment.  If being a "legalist" is "judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws" and there was something precise about God's law that should have moved the Corinthians to judge this man's conduct as lawless or sinful, then this definition makes Paul's response to that situation at Corinth, the response of a legalist who expected all the brethren at Corinth to likewise be legalists toward that situation.  If this is so, then we must join Paul in being legalists. The only other option I can see here is to acknowledge that this definition of a "legalist" is sorely lacking in meaningful association to the biblical facts we see in such examples as 1 Cor.5.  So, I find Paul a "legalist" if we allow this definition. That does not work well at all.  If this is the right definition of a legalist, then it is precisely what Jesus and Paul were and what we too SHOULD be.

 Dictionary Definition #3 is:

"(in Chinese philosophy) the principles and practices of a school of political theorists advocating strict legal control over all activities, a system of rewards and punishments uniform for all classes, and an absolute monarchy."

This definition has no association to the nature of the law of God that went forth from Jerusalem under the headship of Jesus Christ (Isa.2:1-4). But Jesus is "head over all things to the church"(Eph.1:19f), so we do have to advocate that Jesus is to have control over all activities and every thought should be brought under His authority and obedience of faith should be given to Him.  If this principle makes us "legalists" in the same way as the chinese philosophy does, then we must be "legalists" without shame. But, this definition leaves us wondering if it is legal to apply this definition's concept to the fact of Jesus' being "head over all things to the church" and therefore having legal control over all activities? 

Wouldn't that definition imply that Jesus was/is a legalist and that the church should therefore apply the principle of Jesus' absolute headship even if it means we will be legalists? So, Definition #3 is also sorely lacking in meaningful association to the biblical facts we see in such places as Matthew 28:18-20 and Eph.1:19-22 and 2 Cor.10:5. 

Now, here is how it looks.  We apparently have the following choices before us:

1) Be legal (operating within bounds of God's Law) while recognizing the need for mercy and/or the need to extend mercy to others who mess up and regret it (are penitent). This is really the only correct course or position to take.

2) Be illegal (operating outside the bounds of God's Law) and therefore without mercy. God has no mercy upon the lawless.

3) Be a legalist - one who sternly calls for law and penalty without a place for mercy (this would be the only biblically valid usage of the term "legalist"). But, I’ve never known a legalist in this sense.

4) Be an Illegalist - one who will not recognize the place and authority for any law.

Now, of the latter two options, let us observe:

a) The legalist is not really legal (operating within bounds of God's Law), because it is illegal to misuse the Law so as to fail to see one's own sins and need of mercy. God's law does not allow judgmentalism without mercy.  But, a legalist, in this sense, is one who will not forgive because they have no room for mercy; just law and penalty. This position is not lawful because God does not allow us to impose only law and offer no mercy to the penitent. This view would also be hypocritical, because no one is in position to consistently judge others without mercy and live so as not to need mercy.  It is not legal to be judgmental (quick to judge others and harsh in judgment) and unmerciful, but it is legal and right to judge self and others by God’s word and extend mercy only to the penitent sinner.

b) The illegalist is illegal before God, because He does hold all accountable to His law even though the man thinks he is not accountable to law.  Some illegalists may also be self-deceived about there being only mercy and no law (which is self-contradicting because mercy is not needed where no law is being violated).

 So, we all need to be "legal" (which is neither a legalist without mercy nor an illegalist).  But, if we are suggesting that preachers and churches must not judge violations of God's law (such as the man who had his father's wife at Corinth) lest we be "legalists", then we have thrown out a definition or a concept that will get us in trouble with God's truth.

 Too many are throwing out that word recklessly and carelessly in a way that undermines churches that demand that we be "legal", by implying that mercy can be had without being legal.  In Christ you cannot have mercy if you are lawless. But, in Christ there is not just hard, cold, law alone. There is mercy in Christ. It is not lawless mercy. It is mercy controlling law and tempering the handling of the law. Paul could not be merciful to the man who had his father's wife at Corinth WHILE the man continued to act in illegal ways, nor should the church have ignored it.  At the same time, when that man expressed sorrow (2 Cor.2) and repentance, mercy is recognized as needed and should be extended freely to the penitent man.  But, if the man does not repent, it is not time to be merciful. It is time to make sure we are legal and that he knows he is NOT legal.

 So, I am concerned about those who imply that we need to be very loose and lenient with God's word.  We must not let them intimidate us into thinking there is something wrong with trying to be legal (making sure we are operating within bounds of God's law).  We must not let them shift the words "legalism" and "legalists" into meanings that suggest that we should shun being careful in applications of God's law.  That is a misuse of the terms and it leads to false conclusions and applications, and it criticizes the law-abiding citizen of God's kingdom unfairly and promotes a loose and lawless mindset in churches with a false assurance that such will be saved anyway. That is lawless and dangerous. It is far more dangerous than attempts to be legal (as some seem to suggest that it is wrong to try to be legal in what we do and teach).

I would encourage my brethren to define your term properly and apply it properly.  I would also encourage brethren to DEMAND a proper definition when someone is throwing out the term. It can be a subtle tool of Satan to intimidate brethren from trying to be careful followers of God’s law. We must not be intimidated in this manner.

I think Jesus was legal, not illegal when it came to doing the will of God.  If one is not legal when it comes to doing the will of God, then all I can make of this is that one is trying to be illegal.  Is there a third option?  If not, then count me in with Jesus, the legal One.  In fact, in whatever category you put Jesus and His apostles, I hope to be recognized in that camp.  Now,  Jesus said His food is to do the will of God, and His brothers and sisters are those who do the will of the Father. That sounds legal to me. Count me in!  But, if a “legalist” is someone who insists on law without mercy for the penitent, then count me out. Jesus was for law AND mercy for the penitent, law and no mercy for the impenitent.  - Terry W. Benton