Now You Know

 

I began this series on legalism with the post, Is this or that or this other thing legalism? in which I offered several real life examples or situations and asked, Are any of these legalism? At the end of the list I said, “some of these examples are indeed legalism and some are not, but which ones are which?”

I feel confident that I have demonstrated that legalism is not a matter of being concerned with and actively attempting to be righteous, but is instead:

• the belief that one can be right with God by the works of the Old Testament Law of Moses
• this is easily expanded to include trying to be right with God following any set of rules or laws
• these rules, obligations, or laws are extra-biblical / manmade
• emphasizing the external, doing the right thing, the right way, at the right time
• using Scripture for selfish purposes, to fulfil the lusts of the flesh:
• doing the right thing in order to be seen by and impress the people around us.

Using this as our guide, let’s try to answer the questions and situations I posed.

+ Is teaching God’s blessings come to those who obey legalism?
No. The Lord Jesus said, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” The apostle John wrote, “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.”

+ Is a Christian school with a dress code, which they enforce, legalism?
No. This is simply a matter of having standards. It is not legalism unless they are teaching that conforming to those standards is necessary to salvation. What if they strictly enforce the dress code? No. This is a code of conduct for time spent at school and school functions. It is true that it is extra-biblical, but unless it is presented as the way to be right with God, it is not legalism.

I’ve witnessed Christian schools who require their basketball coaches to wear dark pants, white shirt and tie, and their cheerleaders to wear skirts below the knee. Surely this is legalism. Unless they are saying this is required to be saved, it is simply their attempt to please God. I admit that the stricter the standards, the greater the temptation to slip into legalistic attitudes, but I repeat, unless they are presenting this standard as the way to be right with God, it is not legalism.

+ Is using the words commandment or commandments legalism.
Absolutely not. The Lord Jesus did. “A new commandment I give unto you.” “This is my commandment.” “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”

+ Is teaching people there are specific things they can do to please God legalism?
Nope. The apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. “Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:” (1 Thessalonians 4:1-5)

+ Is warning folks there are things they might do that would not please God legalism?
No. See 1 Thessalonians 4:1-5.

+ Is not having a computer or TV in order to avoid temptation legalism?
It is if you think this will make you right with God, otherwise, No; it’s simply a matter of being concerned with and actively attempting to be righteous.

+ Is having a set time for prayer and Bible reading legalism?
No, that is discipline. However, if you are not able to be flexible, as in, "God won’t bless me at a different time", you could very well be legalistic.

+ Is believing your devotional time must follow a strict pattern legalism?
It is probably being legalistic, but unless you believe it is necessary for salvation it is not. 
I knew a couple once who had a major fight about their morning devotions. He believed the proper way to have devotions was to pray and then read the Bible. She read her Bible and then prayed. Yes, sadly they had legalism and legalistic issues, plus a bunch more!

+ Is believing you must keep the sabbath in order to be saved legalism?
Yes. In all capital letters. As well as believing you must be circumcised, keep the feasts, and follow the dietary laws.

+ Is parents setting strict rules for their children regarding social media/cell phone use legalism?
Only if they are saying following the rules is necessary for salvation. They need to work hard at reminding their children these are not for salvation. They may be in danger of being legalistic.

+ Is a pastor handing out a list of expressions/words to avoid because they are clean substitutes for profanity (dang, darn, gosh darn, dagum, what in tarnation) legalism?
I know this pastor, we are very close. I know that he was not saying using these words will keep you out of heaven. It was not legalism. However, he was probably being legalistic.

+ Is a pastor preaching “If you have one drink of wine, you will go to hell” legalism?
Absolutely.

+ Is not working, shopping, eating out, or using electronic devices on the Lord’s Day legalism?
If this is a personal choice and an attempt to please the Lord, No. If it is an attempt to make yourself right with God, then Yes. If this is proclaimed to others as the way to be right with God, Yes. As with all rules, there is probably a tendency to drift into being legalistic.

+ Is saying, “I need to pray more” legalism?
I actually read an article where the author said such a statement was legalism. If the person is saying, “I need to pray more in order to be saved”, then obviously, Yes. But it is more likely just an evaluation of the person’s spiritual life and a confession that adjustments need to be made.

I think it is evident that we need to explain the difference between legalism and legalistic. As one of my friends explained it, “I see legalism as doctrinal, believing one must do good works to be saved. I view legalistic in terms of behavior. I myself was guilty when younger of insisting that I was saved by grace through faith but was so into keeping rules I was legalist.” The rules are almost always extra-biblical. Rules and guidelines can be helpful, whether that’s a school dress code, or a time for devotions, or rules of behavior for children, but when the rules become more important than the Lord and His Word, that’s being legalistic.

Grace, mercy, love are our watchwords.


FINIS

Jesus tackles legalism, part 3

 

We’ve come to the final passage I will look at as we consider how Jesus responded to the legalism he encountered in His ministry. In parts 1 and 2 I went through the Sermon on the Mount. Today, Matthew 15:1-20. It begins with the disciples not washing their hands and then explodes!

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

The tradition of the elders taught them to wash their hands before eating. This is more fully explained in Mark 7

3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

“The tradition of netilat yadayim [hand washing] prior to eating bread originated with the rabbis of the Talmud. It derives from various practices concerning ritual impurity from when the ancient Temple stood in Jerusalem. The priests who performed the temple rituals were given gifts of oil, wine and wheat that could be eaten only after ritual washing. For various reasons, the ancient rabbis extended this practice to all Jews before eating meals.” (you can read this here)

This tradition is a good example of legalism. There is no specific instruction in the Law to wash your hands before eating bread. The priests were required to perform ritual washing, and “For various reasons, the ancient rabbis extended this practice to all Jews before eating meals.” In other words, they added an external observance to the Law. Hand washing is obviously not a bad idea, but they made it a requirement. “One talmudic sage even says that eating bread without washing is tantamount to having sex with a prostitute...”

Jesus responds, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? He admits His disciples transgressed the tradition of the elders (why do ye also), but turns the question back on them, with a much more serious charge.

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to father or mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

The commandment of God was to Honor thy father and mother, but they had a tradition that permitted them to declare the money normally used to support their parents a gift given to God.

“It is a gift - something consecrated to the service of God in the temple, by which a man had the privilege of approaching his Maker. This conduct was similar to the custom of certain persons who bequeath the inheritance of their children to Churches or religious uses. It was in this way that, in the days of popish influence, the principal lands in the nation [England] had fallen into the hands of the Church. In those charters, multitudes of which have passed through my hands, a common form was, ‘For my salvation, and for the salvation of my predecessors, and for the salvation of my successors, and for the salvation of my wife, etc., etc., I give and bequeath to God and his Church, etc.’" (Adam Clarke)

The point is, ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition and they were teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Tradition had negated the force of the commandment, that is, it freed them from obeying the commandment. Their righteousness consisted of obeying the tradition, while breaking the commandment. And they had ascribed to the tradition more authority than the Word of God. This is hypocrisy. Why did Jesus call them hypocrites? Because, while they said they honored God and His Word, the reality was they were honoring tradition above the Word. This is robust, full-blooded legalism.

10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Apparently He was done with the religious leaders, he called the multitude and explains to them what defiles a person: It’s not what goes in your mouth, but what comes out of your mouth.

12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
He seems to be fed up with the Pharisees, Let them alone.

15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
The disciples have been so programmed that they still don’t get it, so He explains it again in more detail. He concludes, What proceeds out of the heart defiles a man, not eating with unwashed hands. Eating with unwashed hands is external, Jesus is concerned with the internal.

Legalism is focused on the external – doing the right thing the right way (and there was a right way to wash the hands); Jesus is focused on a thorough transformation of the internal, of the heart. If what proceeds out of the heart defiles me, that means I need a new heart and a new spirit. And this is the very thing God promises to do for us, A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ... And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (Ezekiel 36:26-27) It's called being born again.


I have repeatedly said that legalism substitutes manmade rules and obligations for the Word of God. Here it was done under the name tradition of the elders. Such tradition frequently makes the commandment of none effect. Jesus calls this hypocrisy. I repeat myself from my last post, Legalism is deadly.

In my final post I will seek to answer the questions and situations I posed in my first post.

NEXT: Now You Know

Jesus tackles legalism, part 2

 

After offering specific scenarios and asking if they were legalism, I offered a definition of legalism; next we looked at the robust, full-blooded legalism found in the New Testament. Then we really began getting to the meat of the matter in my last post, Jesus tackles legalism, in which I simply began going through the Sermon on the Mount to see how the Lord dealt with this problem, for it was a problem in His day. This is a continuation of the same, or what I call, Part 2.

Matthew 5:38-42 An eye for an eye
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
This is another quote from the Law, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot (Exodus 21:24). This was given as a sentencing guideline for the judges of Israel, but the Jews had done the same thing we’ve done, they applied it to personal retribution. It is interesting that the Lord does not correct the misinterpretation but rather deals with retribution or vengeance.

39a But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
But I say, instead of personal revenge, eye for eye, Resist not evil. Jesus is radical and his teaching is revolutionary! He is clearly calling us to a supernatural life.

He offers four examples of not resisting evil

39b but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

I don’t need to tell you this is not natural. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth naturally lends itself to the external and loveless righteousness of legalism. Jesus is calling for a thorough interior transformation, which can only be produced by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 43-48 Love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

The first half of this is, once again, from the Law: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:18) This is interesting, a main characteristic of the New Testament is from the Law!

So how could this be a problem of legalism? The Jews wrestled with “neighbor", which is why in Luke 10 “a certain lawyer" asked Jesus, Who is my neighbour? And actually, as I have read, the Jews understood “neighbor” to refer to fellow Jews and “enemy" to the Gentiles.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

But I say unto you – another radical, revolutionary teaching that requires thorough, interior transformation! Love your enemies. Love, bless, do good, pray for, I intentionally make the effort, but this requires the power of the Spirit.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father – “ye shall be filled with the spirit of that God whose name is Mercy, and whose nature is love. God has many imitators of his power, independence, justice, etc., but few of his love, condescension, and kindness. He calls himself Love, to teach us that in this consists that perfection.” (Adam Clarke)

In other words, love thy neighbor, hate thine enemy is mere external religion, or legalism. Love thine enemy is the exact opposite!

Matthew 6:1-18 Take heed that you do not do your righteousness to be seen of men
1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Another layer of legalism - doing the right thing in order to be seen by men. And the Lord presents three of the most common righteous acts for the Jews: Alms, Prayer, Fasting.

2-4 Alms
2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Sound a trumpet is obviously a figure of speech, hyperbole, but have the glory of men is not. They gave in such a way as to be noticed. This is legalism, doing the right thing in order to be noticed.

3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
You can't help but be noticed sometimes, this goes to motive, who do we want to see us?

5-15 Prayer

Jesus spends much more time on prayer.

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

That they may be seen of men – Isn't it funny, legalism is doing the right thing the right way in order to be right with God, yet one of the problems of legalism is looking at men, hoping they see you and are impressed, rather than looking to God.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Prayer is not to be an exhibition, the people around us are not our audience; it is rather personal, a private part of our relationship with our heavenly Father. This does not mean we can never pray in public, it speaks to why and how we pray before others. We can and should pray in church, with others, with our family, just not to impress them.

Use not vain repetitions – this does not mean we can’t offer the same petition for years, or repeat it as we labor in prayer. Jesus explains it, they think they shall be heard for their much speaking.
This is sad, they are praying, which is good, but they don't know the Father.

for your Father knows what things you have need of, before you ask him - Prayer is personal, private, and flows out of faith in God who loves me and knows what I need before I ask (sometimes even before I know myself).

In v 9-13, Jesus gives us what we call The Lord’s Prayer. This is a prayer He expects us to pray privately, in groups, in church. 

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

When will we outgrow this prayer? When every petition is answered – thy kingdom come. Maranatha!

14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
I am aware that there are those who stumble over this, “That’s so legalistic.” I choose instead to say, “This is what Jesus my King taught. This is life, not legalism.”

16-18 Fasting
16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

when ye fast – He seems to expect we will be fasting. I confess, I don’t fast as often as I used to.

that they may appear unto men to fast – doing the right thing in order to be seen by the people around us, to impress them with our righteousness. Jesus calls such folks hypocrites!


What we’re seeing is that legalism is not a matter of being concerned with and actively attempting to be righteous, as in doing alms, praying, fasting, it is rather only being concerned with mere outward conformity – doing the right thing the right way at the right time, and of course trusting in this for salvation. In Part 1 we saw a new layer of legalism, Seeking to use or twist the Scriptures to enable you to satisfy your own passions. Here in Part 2 we saw yet another layer, Doing the right thing in order to be seen by the people around us, to impress them with our righteousness. Legalism is ugly and deadly.


NEXT: Jesus tackles legalism, part 3 (Matthew 15)

Jesus tackles legalism

 

In my introduction to this series I pointed out that the word legalism never appears in the Bible, which creates a problem: How do we define this danger when the Bible doesn't speak of it? Furthermore, how can I now say Jesus tackles legalism if the word never appears in the Bible? Have I painted myself into a corner?

Nope! I defined legalism as: the belief that one can be right with God by following any set of rules or laws, usually extra-biblical and man-made, with the emphasis on the external or outward (doing the right thing the right way). This being the case, my friend was on the right track when he wrote, “I think that Jesus deals head on with this in Matthew 5-7 when he is talking about the Kingdom kind of Righteousness, which he pitted against the Pharisaical kind of external, showy righteousness.”

Much of the Lord's teaching touches on this. He may not use the word legalism, but he does speak about tradition and hypocrisy, which seem to go hand in hand with legalism. So let’s take a look.

Matthew 5:17-20 Grace and Righteousness
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
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.

First, Jesus tells us that the saving grace of the gospel is not opposed to or contrary to righteousness. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, and He said our righteousness should exceed that of the Pharisees. What does that even mean? Read on.

Matthew 5:21-26 Murder

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Thou shalt not kill or murder is not a manmade tradition, it is the 6th commandment, and the prohibition actually predates the Law. But, as in all of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explains that there is more to this law than the act of murder.

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
He goes to the root of murder: the heart; that is, being angry with your brother, as expressed by calling him Raca (a vain, empty, worthless fellow, shallow brains, a term of great contempt) or thou fool (a rebel against God, apostate from all good). You may not ever kill someone, but such an attitude of the heart toward another person puts you in danger of judgment and hell fire! There’s more!

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Jesus is rather radical here! It's not just "Don't kill your brother" or even "Don't be angry with your brother", He encourages us to be concerned about reconciliation with your brother!! Legalism may correctly say, “I may hate his guts, but I never touched him”, to which Jesus says, “Nope, doesn’t work.”

Matthew 5:27-30 Adultery
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Once again, this is an actual commandment, the 7th. There is a notion popular today that Jesus and the gospel free us from the righteousness of the Law. Is this true? Is He declaring that the prohibition against adultery is passé? out of date?

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Nope! He again raises the bar and goes to the heart – looking on a woman and lusting for her is adultery! Legalism, mere outward conformity to the commandment, might say, “I may have ogled her, I may have fantasized being with her, but I never touched her. I’m OK” and to this Jesus says, “You committed adultery.” You see how the righteousness required by Jesus is higher and deeper than mere outward conformity to the Law?

In v 29 & 30 He goes even further, And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out. When the Lord says to pluck out your eye / cut off your hand, He is not being literal - it's hyperbole. He is speaking of taking drastic action to avoid sin. And to this some people cry, “That’s legalism!” No, it’s not; unless you are doing all this in an attempt to get right with God; otherwise, it’s called following Jesus.

Matthew 5:31-32 Divorce & Remarriage
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Once more Jesus is quoting Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). The problem in Israel was they were a divorce happy culture, which comes out in Matthew 19:3-8, where we see the Pharisees ask Jesus, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause (that is, for any passing whim)?

He answers, What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Oh now they’ve got him! Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? They’re on solid ground, scriptural ground – the Bible actually says this.

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

We have to be careful to understand the whole counsel of God. They had Scripture, wherein lieth their hypocrisy and legalism? They were using Scripture for their own selfish purposes, to fulfil the lusts of the flesh: “That woman is much prettier than my wife. I want her.” Jesus says, divorcing your wife and marrying another is adultery. I’m afraid there are a lot of people nowadays who would accuse the Lord Himself of legalism!

In reality, Jesus adds a new dimension to legalism – using the Scriptures for your own purposes. But He still encourages and expects us to obey the Scriptures, to fulfill the righteousness of the Law, to have a righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees.

Matthew 5:33-42 Swearing and oaths
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
Once again, the Lord is referring to the Old Testament. The Jewish leaders clearly had their problems, but being ignorant of their scriptures was not one of them.

Leviticus 19:12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. 5 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

There are three distinct yet related activities in view here: vowing, swearing, oath taking.

A vow was a solemn promise you made to God, to give something to Him, or to do something for Him.

Swearing in the Bible does not refer to profanity or the use of bad words. To swear was to appeal to God to verify that what you said was true. There are two formulas provided for us in the Old Testament: “As the LORD liveth” and “May He do so to me and more.” It may surprise you to learn that God swears in the Old Testament, “As surely as I live” is His formula.

5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
They were swearing or appealing to something greater and holier than them to verify they were telling the truth. The Lord says, Swear not all. Instead

5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
The Jewish people of His day felt they could promise something, but if they didn’t swear to it, they weren’t obligated to perform it. To this the Lord said, Be a person of your word.

What we’re seeing is that legalism is not a matter of being concerned with and actively attempting to be righteous, it is rather only being concerned with mere outward conformity, and of course trusting in this for salvation. We’ve also seen a new layer of legalism, Seeking to use or twist the Scriptures to enable you to satisfy your own passions.

Grace and righteousness (righteous living) are not enemies. For the grace of God that bringeth salvation men hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world, looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

We only just begun. The Sermon on the Mount is found in Matthew 5-7, and we're not even through with chapter 5! In my next post we will continue working through this teaching of Jesus.

NEXT: Jesus tackles legalism, part 2

Do we find legalism in the New Testament?

In my previous post, With a little help from my friends, I asked several friends of mine (involved in various aspects of ministry) if they could define legalism. I summarized their definitions this way: Legalism is...

+ the belief that one can be right with God by the works of the Old Testament Law of Moses

+ this is easily expanded to include trying to be right with God following any set of rules or laws

+ these rules, obligations, or laws are (usually) extra-biblical and man made

+ an external or outward righteousness, with an emphasis on doing the right things a certain way

And I concluded, “Legalism is not about intentional and determined effort to live a life pleasing to God, rather it is the belief that one is saved or made right with God by keeping rules or laws, that salvation is by what I do, and do the right way, rather than by the grace of God.”

Do we find this anywhere in the New Testament?

Oh yes! Robust, full-blooded legalism can easily be found in the New Testament.

First, in the Jewish community and culture, especially in the leaders: Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests, high priest, and synagogue rulers. My next post will focus on the Lord and his interaction with these people, but in Matthew 26 we read of a nearly unbelievable incident which illustrates the legalism of the Jewish leaders:

3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
4 And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill [him].
5 But they said, Not on the feast [day], lest there be an uproar among the people.

These men were very concerned about observing the Passover, while at the same time they were planning to have Jesus murdered! It seems obvious that their observance of Passover was merely an external rite – the right thing, at the right time, done the right way. In addition, we can see that legalism hardens the heart so that you can be concerned about doing the right thing the right way and still plan to kill somebody in cold blood. Admittedly, the word legalism does not occur, but surely this is a perfectly clear illustration of legalism.

This reminds me of a very sad testimony I recently came across: There was a man, a dad, who was active in his church, very public with his faith and service, well thought of by the people in that church, but who all the while was abusing his daughter. This is disgusting, makes one very angry with the father, and breaks your heart for the daughter. This is legalism - he was doing all the right things, in the right way, at the right time, but it was purely external. And his heart was hardened to enable him to commit such heinous acts.

Second, there were the people we now refer to as Judaizers who we encounter in Acts, Galatians, Colossians, and Philippians. What did these Judaizers preach and teach? Their message was Gentile believers in Christ needed to be circumcised, keep the sabbath, observe the dietary laws and feasts in order to be saved.

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

This is what I meant by robust and full-blooded. This was an all-out assault on the Gospel and a very trying time for the early church. The future of the church and the salvation of the Gentiles hung in the balance. 

In Acts 15 the apostles and elders came together to discuss this matter. This is the first church council. These men came to Antioch and started teaching this. Paul and Barnabas began contending with them, so the church sent them to the apostles in Jerusalem. After much discussion Peter, who was the first apostle to lead Gentiles to Christ, said, God put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith and We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. James concluded, Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.

It is robust, full-blooded legalism we encounter in the New Testament - the belief that we are made right with God by keeping (at least certain parts of) the Law. The apostles were clear, we are saved by grace through faith in Christ. But this notion easily morphs into the idea that we can be made right with God by observing external religious acts, going to church, giving money in the offering, wearing the right clothes, y'know, Doing the right things, the right way, at the right time. Peter's words apply here as well, We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved. Amen.

NEXT WEEK: The Lord Jesus tackles legalism

With a little help from my friends

What would you think if I sang out of tune?
Would you stand up and walk out on me?
Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song
And I'll try not to sing out of key

Oh, I get by with a little help from my friends
Mm, I get high with a little help from my friends
Mm, gonna try with a little help from my friends
(John Lennon / Paul McCartney 1967)

What an way to begin a blog post on legalism! Calm down, nobody is helping anybody get high. I take that back, I hope we get eight miles high* on Jesus, His Word, and His grace!!

In an attempt to answer this question, I asked fifteen friends for their definition of legalism. These folks are all in the ministry in one way or another - pastors, retired pastors, missionaries, Christian school administrators. Of the fifteen contacted, eight responded. Here, with a little help from my friends, are some definitions of legalism.

“I can’t easily define legalism, but I do interpret it this way. Jesus addressed Pharisees and Jews generally, who had the Torah (law of Moses) and the halakhah, the extra laws brought in to help you keep the other ones. Jesus took aim at Pharisees for upholding and strictly promoting halakhah while neglecting the greater, living truths behind them. “You tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God” (Luke 11:42). Where Christians get hung up on maintaining extraneous requirements and push them on to others, we’re in the legalism field.”

“I would define legalism as 'requiring someone to practice a strict adherence or obedience to a law or ritual in order to aquire salvation or acceptance with God.'"

“I always define ‘legalism” as one who uses man’s law above God’s Word.”

“Belief that one is saved primarily by keeping rules/laws rather than by saving faith in Jesus Christ. Salvation by works rather than salvation by grace. I see legalism as doctrinal, believing one must do good works to be saved. I view legalistic in terms of behavior.”

“I'm not sure I feel comfortable saying Paul talks about legalism. He talks about relying on works for salvation. My own hunch is that Paul is specifically imagining the works of circumcision, food and sabbath observance. These were traditional "boundary markers" for Jews. So if I were to say a definition, it would be relying on the works of the law to be justified before God.”

“My definition of legalism would be something like, "a sustained environment of individual rules or laws being upheld as the definition of goodness or right-standing." I would say "sustained," because I think we're all prone to being legalistic from time to time, when we temporarily elevate rules or our preferences over reasonably mitigating factors.”

“I think that Jesus deals head on with this in Matthew 5-7 when he is talking about the Kingdom kind of Righteousness which he pitted against the Pharisaical kind of external, showy righteousness. I like the phrase which Dallas Willard describes legalism as “…legalism—thinks of rightness only in terms of particular actions.” (Divine Conspiracy) An outward righteousness creates so much deadness and hardness of heart.”

“Legalism is a demand, a feeling, a belief, a position held (often, as it were, over others) that works have value in bringing us into a relationship with God.”


I believe I can summarize their definitions this way: Legalism is...

+ the belief that one can be right with God by the works of the Old Testament Law of Moses

+ this is easily expanded to include trying to be right with God following any set of rules or laws

+ these rules, obligations, or laws are extra-biblical and manmade

+ an external or outward righteousness, with an emphasis on doing the right things the right way

Legalism is not about intentional and determined effort to live a life pleasing to God, rather it is the belief that one is saved or made right with God by keeping rules or laws, that salvation is by what I do, and do the right way, rather than by the grace of God.


(I made a mistake in the question I posed to my friends, I didn’t include legalistic. While they are obviously related, there is a slight difference. “Legalism is doctrinal, believing one must do good works to be saved. Legalistic refers to behavior”, “when we temporarily elevate rules or our preferences over reasonably mitigating factors.”)

Even though the word legalism is not in the Bible, does legalism itself appear in the Bible, as defined and summarized above?

NEXT: Do we find legalism in the New Testament?


* Eight Miles High, the Byrds; written by Gene Clark, Jim McGuinn (a.k.a. Roger McGuinn), and David Crosby; 1966.

Is this or that or this other thing legalism?

In 2016 I wrote a four article series on legalism for my blog. I began:

“It would seem that a big danger facing the church today is something called legalism. And the uniting feature of legalism is everybody throws it around - conservatives and liberals. I've been a Christian long enough to remember when preachers warned of heresy, error, and liberalism. Today, one hardly, if ever, hears these words much less the warnings. But we do hear often of the grave danger of legalism.

But what is legalism?? The word never appears in the Bible and this creates a problem: How do we define this danger when the Bible doesn't speak of it? Consequently, everyone's definition is a little different. Hmmm... This is tricky.”

Right off I need to edit this. Legalism does make an appearance in The Message Bible in Galatians 5:22-24. The Message is “a highly idiomatic translation and it falls on the extreme dynamic end of the dynamic and formal equivalence spectrum.” In plain English, it is a paraphrase, and a paraphrase that is often more commentary than translation. Bottom line, there is no Greek word for legalism in the Bible. Which brings us back to our question

Here are a few real life examples or situations. Are any of these legalism?

+ teaching God’s blessings come to those who obey

+ a Christian school with a dress code, which they enforce

+ using the word "commandments"

+ teaching people there are specific things they can do to please God

+ warning folks there are things they might do that would not please God

+ not having a computer or TV in order to avoid temptation

+ having a set time for prayer and Bible reading

+ believing there is only one proper way to have your devotions

+ believing you must keep the sabbath in order to be saved

+ parents setting strict rules for their children regarding social media/cell phone use

+ pastor handing out list of expressions/words to avoid

+ pastor preaching “If you have one drink of wine, you will go to hell”

+ not working, shopping, eating out, or using electronic devices on the Lord’s Day

+ saying, “I need to pray more”

Let me step up and say, some of these examples are indeed legalism and some are not, but which ones are which? Ah, that leads to my next post, in which I attempt to define legalism.

NEXT: With a little help from my friends