The Threat of Legalism

By Harold Key

[Page 17]

     I know of no better way of beginning my remarks than to use the words of a backwoods, overall-clad preacher to a little congregation in the Smoky Mountain country, who began his sermons by saying, "My fellow sinners." And that is the way I feel. I am well aware that there are many more learned and capable speakers who could be here instead of me. I have no desire to pose as an expert on this subject, and suggest that I can answer all the questions and problems relating to it. Neither do I consider myself as a savior of the brotherhood. I certainly have no desire to condemn, ridicule or embarrass anyone. God forbid that either by word or tone of voice I should convey any impression of feeling superior to anyone here or anywhere else. But I do feel that what I have to say is vital, for I know that it has meant so much to me that I have felt a great burden lifted from my own heart and laid at the foot of the cross of Christ. And I believe that it can also do that for you and for every other soul. Therefore, if God can use me to help even in the least toward drawing our minds and hearts closer together in Christ Jesus, then I shall be grateful.

     This subject tonight, "The Threat of Legalism," is one which is liable to much misunderstanding and many differences of opinion. Unless there is a common consent in terminology used, and in the ideas that are conveyed, all differences are magnified and positions are attributed which do not accurately represent those who supposedly hold them. For example Paul wrote in Romans 3:8, "Some people slanderously charge us with saying, 'Why not do evil that good may come?'" Even with the best intentions, we are all human, and since we are, if a thing can be misunderstood, it will be misunderstood.

     The term "Legalism" is one which is so emotionally colored by the way in which it has been variously used in the past that it is difficult for us to use it objectively and in unanimity. Back when I was in the first grade, for a time I was mortified and humiliated by some older boys who kept taunting me, "You've got garments on you!" In my ignorance I didn't know what "garments" were, but by the very tone of their voice, I supposed they were something terrible. So it is that in charges and countercharges, people often misunderstand the terms which are used, and sometimes more harm than good is done.

     Let me say this, legalism does not consist in awareness of God's commandments and recognition of responsibility to obey God. I point this out and I try to point it out emphatically, because those who defend legalism often think this is what is meant. And it may be that this actually is what some do mean, for they have defined legalism in terms of "letter versus

[Page 18]

spirit," implying that these are in conflict and that a follower of Christ must choose one or the other. The practical result of such a concept is the tragedy of antinomianism--rebellion against law. The anti-nomians apparently forget that the Apostle Paul as the greatest voice against legalism in the early church, shuddered at the thought of anyone's taking his emphasis upon justification by grace through faith apart from reliance upon law, and misunderstanding it to mean that grace is defiance of law. He wrote in Romans 6:15, "Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! (God forbid!)"

     Certainly legalism is nothing new among us-- it is as old as law itself. That which the ethical prophets of ancient Israel (Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), that which they confronted and denounced among the priesthood and worshippers of Jehovah was legalism. That which made the scribes and Pharisees such implacable enemies of Jesus, and that for which he pronounced a sevenfold woe upon them, was their legalism.

     That which caused the Jews to follow the Apostle Paul and try to undo his work was legalism. What, then, is legalism? Legalism is the attempt to reduce the will of God to a code--to a list of commandments--with the subsequent concentration upon the commandments rather than the God whose will the commandments attempt to express. Legalism is obviously an attempt to be related to God upon the basis of law. It is a legal rather than a personal relationship. It holds the position that justification and eternal life are rewards of fully and correctly doing all that the law requires.

     The origin of legalism is not difficult to discern, for it lies in the very nature of the Old Covenant. "And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him out of the mountain, saying, 'Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel..."Now therefore, if you shall obey my voice and keep my commandments, you shall be my own possession among all peoples...and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."' So Moses came and set before them all the words which the Lord had commanded him. And all the people answered together and said, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do." These words are found in Exodus 19, after which follow in chapter 20 the Ten Commandments spoken in a loud voice by God directly to the people. Immediately after enunciating the tenth commandment, the scripture reads, "Now the people were afraid and trembled; and they stood afar off, and said to Moses, 'You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die.'

     The arrangement that followed was such that Israel did not deal personally with God, but with a formal system of law. What they were to learn was that this very system of law was designed not only to educate them to moral and spiritual values, but to make them realize their sin and their need for something higher than law, and thus lead them to the condition of heart in which God could directly manifest Himself to them. Legalism necessarily results in one or the other of two responses. The desired response, of course, is insight into the nature of true purity and holiness with the accompanying sense of personal failure to measure up to that purity and holiness, and with the yearning of the whole heart for God to forgive and to empower. The other response to legalism is a closing of the eyes to all the will of God except the literal, wooden letter itself that frames the commandment, without any sense of the relation between letter and spirit, or any sympathy for the spirit. In this condition, even the offer of forgiveness is seen as merely another legal arrangement, an option, so to speak, where one may substitute one set of commandments for others which he could not or would not keep perfectly.

     As a result of the legalistic attitude, the commandments which can outwardly and mechanically be performed are relegated to positions of comparatively great importance. Consequently, with the sense of having kept the most important com-

[Page 19]

mandments, or, as it is said, "the essentials," self-righteousness and its handmaiden, hypocrisy, are invited. Legalism reverses the true order of religious values: over-emphasizing ritual, mechanical matters and de-emphasizing inner, spiritual matters. This is why Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel."

     Legalism can never understand what Jesus meant when He repeatedly said "Go and learn what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice," for legalism expresses it in exactly the reverse order: "I desire sacrifice and not mercy." Legalism emphasizes the completely servile attitude and actually places the highest premium upon the blindest obedience. Its position is that faith is exhibited most where no human reason for the commandment can possibly be seen. It says that if one can see any reason for the commandment apart from divine fiat, then obedience is not prompted solely by faith, and therefore loses its value. In this kind of theology the washing of hands is considered just as vital as chastity, or mercy or brotherly-kindness. In fact, ritualistic performances are actually magnified and moral principles are minimized. Inner godliness in terms of justice, mercy and faith become classified as "non-essentials" while outward acts comparable to the tithing of mint, anise and cummin are regarded as "essentials." If we lack these "non-essentials," the grace of God will spare us. But if we lack these "essentials," nothing can save us, not even God!

     Therefore, legalism sees the New Testament scriptures, not in terms of helping people to sustain a dynamic personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, but simply as a code-book of commandments, rules and regulations of a legal character. It is considered as the Law of Christ in the same way that the Decalogue was considered the Law of Moses. Such equating of the law of Jesus Christ with a mere code necessarily invites an endless search for loopholes, for ways of being counted righteous without keeping the intent of the law. Thus the constant spectacle of Christians debating over things as whether "scriptural" and "un-scriptural" until they are often convinced that it is "unscriptural" to do that which is plainly taught in scripture. It is so parallel to an insurance company which used to advertise throughout the nation by radio when I was a boy- -"For three pennies a day." Among the hazards which were covered was injury in the event of being kicked by a horse. A man in our town who was insured by this company was kicked by a mule and hospitalized. When he applied for compensation he was rejected because the company pointed out the policy was quite specific in stating the animal insured against was a "horse," and a mule certainly is not a horse! Now a legalist would probably see nothing at all inconsistent or absurd or repulsive with this kind of dealing, because this is exactly the way he regards the New Testament scriptures, as a kind of spiritual insurance policy subject to the terms in the fine print.

     Legalism is indeed a threat. It destroys the very nature of the New Covenant. Legalism interprets "new" only in a legalistic way. In its interpretation, the only real difference between the new and the old is in the subtraction of some commands and the addition of others. Basically, it is viewed as a revision, rather than a repeal. The New Covenant is considered identical in nature with the Old Covenant: a new code of laws by which people are related to God, the same holding to the position that justification and eternal life are rewards of fully and correctly doing all that the "new law" requires.

     But Jesus insisted He did not come to put a new patch on an old garment or to put new wine in old wine skins. He said He came to make all things new, including a new basis of relationship with God. Jeremiah the prophet foretold of such a new covenant in chapter 31:31-34.

[Page 20]

"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." The writer of the Hebrew epistle, in discussing the New Covenant, quotes Jeremiah's prophecy word for word, and makes the significant statement in Hebrews 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second." The fault of the first covenant was not in bad commandments but in its very nature of legalism.

     Therefore, the difference between the Old and the New Covenants is not merely in their commandments, but in their basic nature. Consider well the nature of the two covenants. In the Old Covenant God said, "Here are My commandments. Keep them and live; break them and die." In the New Covenant God says, "Here am I in My Son. Receive Him and live; reject Him and die." Legalism tears the very heart and soul out of the New Covenant. When men are led to regard it as consisting merely in the believing of certain intellectual propositions and the attending to certain outward observances, how can there be any real inner transformation from Spirit touching spirit? In the final analysis, legalism neither stimulates to good nor really restrains from evil. Such religion is without vigor or beauty. It is only a form without life, and as a dead corpse, it is both corrupted and corrupting.

     Now if this can be an accurate presentation of the threat of legalism then what is the force that will save mankind in the face of it? That which will save anyone from legalism is the same power that will save anyone from modernism, or any other destructive idea or practice. In a word, that which will save us from any and every sin is the Savior, Jesus Christ the Lord. But not as one who merely dictates new commandments, even if those commandments are more comprehensive as moral and spiritual dicta. A dying patient needs more than merely the knowledge that he is sick--even the knowledge that he is fatally sick, and he definitely needs more than merely exhortations to live. So also a sinner's ultimate need is not more revelation that he is a sinner, or more demand that he be righteous. Most of all, the sinner needs a Savior who in Himself can supply every need, a Savior who in Himself can deal with both the guilt and the power of sin--with both the force and the effect of sin.

     Thank God, we have just such a Savior in Christ Jesus our Lord. One of the favorite expressions used by the Apostle Paul in referring to the relation of the sinner to the Savior is the phrase "in Christ." This is used in the scriptures no less than 64 times; enough to overthrow all the weight of legalism. What does the expression, "in Christ," mean? For instance, there are those passages which say (such as Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27) that we are "baptized into Christ." Or, as 2 Cor. 5:17, "If any one is in Christ, he is a new creature; old things have passed away, behold, all things have become

[Page 21]

new." In what sense is this true? Consider this related passage (Phil. 1:21), "For me to live is Christ." What did Paul mean by that? Or in the next verse, the statement, "When Christ who is our life appears?" Or in Eph. 2:6, "and made us to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Again: "Him we preach...that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Col. 1:28) Notice the aim of preaching Christ Jesus is so that every man may be perfect in Him. And what did the Apostle Peter really mean, if not this, when he declared to the legalists of Jerusalem concerning Jesus Christ, "There is salvation in no one else!"

     "In Christ" is the answer to everything--one who perfectly unifies all things both in heaven and on earth, and so makes at-one-ment, or, as we usually say, atonement. "In Christ" we have one who not only perfectly represents God to man, but who also perfectly represents man to God. In Christ Jesus we have one who not only perfectly reveals the law in God's stead, but we also have one who perfectly obeys the law in man's stead. And here is the death blow to legalism; if one is in Christ, then by virtue of Christ as his representative, he has perfectly kept the law. Whatever Christ has done, the one who is in Christ has also done.

     Extend if you will this awe-inspiring thought, "in Christ," to every need of the sinner, and realize that Christ is the answer. Sinful flesh cannot trust God perfectly, but my Savior can and does--for me. Sinful flesh cannot repent perfectly, but my Savior can and does--for me. Sinful flesh cannot resist temptation perfectly, but my Savior can and does--for me. Sinful flesh cannot obey the will of God perfectly but my Savior can and does for me. Sinful flesh cannot pray perfectly, but my Savior can and does--for me. Sinful flesh cannot worship perfectly, but my Saviour can and does--for me. Sinful flesh cannot prevail in death, but my Savior can and does--for me.

     How can any heart keep from bursting into praise when he considers with the Apostle Paul this glorious truth, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Do we dare to believe what we have heard--"no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus?" Yes, we are to believe it, and the reason is, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do; sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Rom. 8:1-4)

     Not only does being in Christ deal with the guilt of sin, but in Christ there is real power provided to actually conquer sin as a force. An iron poker thrust into the fire and remaining in the fire takes on characteristics of fire, so that we can say the fire is now in the poker. Just so one who is in Christ and remains in Christ, takes on the character of Christ. And so the frequent expression of the New Testament scripture, "Christ in you." All that is embraced in the concept of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is included in the expression, "Christ in you." For the empowering Holy Spirit is the very Spirit of God which is imparted through union with Jesus Christ His Son. This is our salvation: we are in Christ and Christ is in us!

     In earlier days, when I was depending upon my own obedience and my own worthiness, I was often disturbed by the honest realization that I did not actually feel in my heart any real love for God or for His Son. I tried to convince myself that zeal for His law was the same as love for Him, but I never was quite successful. But after realizing something of what salvation by grace apart from law really is, how can I keep from loving Him, for now I see His love and I know that it is truly love that triumphs over all things--even my sin! I think I now understand something of what the Apostle John meant when he exclaimed, "We love because He first loved us."

[Page 22]

          O  love that wilt not let me go,
          I rest my weary soul in Thee;
          I give Thee back the life I owe,
          That in Thine ocean depths its flow
          May richer, fuller be.