Legalism

By Donald A. Nash

[Page 171]

     It is common within religious and theological circles to use generally accepted terms without full cognizance of their meaning, or to use them loosely apart from their dictionary definitions. As a consequence much misunderstanding results from a confusion of terms. The word "legalism" falls into this classification. The liberal element of the Christian churches accuse the conservatives of being legalists and the conservative instrumental music user in turn labels the non-instrumental group legalistic. The word when so used is considered an opprobrious term of condemnation. What is the true picture of the situation?

     In order to answer this question we must consider that this term can be used in both a good and bad sense. The former we will call the dictionary meaning; the latter the scriptural usage. The dictionary defines legalism in theology as strictness to a code of ethics and observances as a means of justification. If this be legalism I am a legalist! Legalism in this sense cannot and will not trouble the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is scriptural!

     Jesus said, "Not everyone that saith, 'Lord, Lord)' shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." God's will is revealed in the Bible as a code of deeds, that is, righteousness, purity, mercy, love and Christian works. It is revealed as observances to be followed: baptism,

[Page 172]

the Lord's Supper, prayer. When Jesus said that only he who doeth the will of the Father will enter heaven, he was enforcing strictness in conformity to the deeds and observances enjoined and commanded of God.

     Again He pictured the judgment throne at which those who had given the cup of cold water, clothed the naked, visited the sick and fed the hungry in his name were awarded eternal life and those who had not were condemned to hell. Is this not making a code of deeds a strict test of eternal justification. Moses was warned to make all things according to the pattern and the writer of the Hebrews enjoins the same observation of the details of the Christian system on the followers of Christ, saying, "Let us hold fast our profession... Let us consider one another to provoke unto good works...Let us not forsake the assembling of ourselves together." He then enforces these observances with the warning that those who despised Moses' law died without mercy and of how much sorer punishment will those be thought worthy who disregard the Son of God.

     So I say that legalism is good when defined as strict conformity to a code of deeds and observances as the basis of justification, if these codes and observances are the expressed and plain will of God. We all should be legalists! Such legalism is the need of the hour! Such legalism cannot disturb the churches but if observed by all would bring peace and unity to the whole of Christendom in practice, life and doctrine.

     When the liberal element among the churches accuse of legalism those who insist on the strict observance of baptism in its New Testament form and of other so-called formal aspects of the Christian faith, they are right. We are legalists in this dictionary definition of the word and I, for one, am proud to be a legalist from this point of view. The basis on which they endeavor to undermine the validity of such legalism (strict adherence to the commands of the New Testament) is by claiming that Paul denounced such legalism. In proof of this they cite 2 Corinthians 3:6, "The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life." Thus, they argue, conformity to the letter of the commands of Christ is unimportant and actually deadens the spiritual life so only the right spirit is necessary. Sincerity is all that counts. Obedience is discounted.

     The right spirit, they claim, is love, but as practiced by them love is manifestly compromise. In this argument they are definitely in error for they have taken this scripture out of its context. The letter of this passage is the Mosaic law; the spirit is the gospel of grace. Paul is saying that observance of the Mosaic law by the Christian kills for it brings no hope of salvation. But the gospel of grace gives life for through it the law is fulfilled and salvation is achieved. The contrast in the verse is not between strict and loose observance of the Christian commands, but between the law and the gospel.

     This brings us to the fact that there is a bad sense in which we can legitimately use the term legalism, and which we might call the scriptural usage although the term does not appear in the New Testament. The doctrine of the Pharisees which was sharply condemned by Jesus is generally considered legalism. Likewise the practices of the Judaistic group who wanted to bind the Mosaic law on Gentiles could be called legalism. In analyzing both these types of New Testament legalism in its opprobrious sense, we will see that legalism consists of an attitude or action--either or both. The Pharisees were legalistic because of the attitude in which they kept the law. Jesus never condemned them for strictly keeping the law as such for to have done so would have been to defeat his own purpose. The law, as Paul says, was a schoolmaster to lead to Christ (Gal. 3:24). It was good and holy for that purpose (Rom. 7:12). In order for it to carry out that purpose it had to be observed strictly and carefully.

     Jesus did condemn the Pharisees for their attitude in observing the written

[Page 173]

law. He said, "Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin but have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and peace, these ought ye to have done and not left the others undone." The tithing of the smallest herbs was strict observance of the law of God. Jesus did not condemn them for this. He said it ought to be done but he did denounce their attitude which omitted the inward qualities of mercy, judgment and peace. The legalism which Jesus condemned was outward observance of God's commands without inward spiritual life. This is the same condition Paul referred to when he wrote of speaking with tongues of men and angels, removing mountains, having all wisdom, giving to the poor, and suffering death without love. It is useless! He does not condemn the celestial tongues, the miracles, the benevolence, the martyrdom, but the attitude in which one does them without the inward quality of love.

     Closely akin to this is the attitude that these works in strict observance of the word of the Lord merit in themselves salvation apart from God's beneficent grace. No works merit salvation. It is the gift of God. Yet works as strict observance of God's commands are the conditions of salvation. Salvation is unmerited but not unconditional, a distinction the denominational "faith only" cults have never grasped. It is this legalistic attitude that Paul is refuting in the Roman letter when he develops the theme that one is justified by faith. He is not condemning or eliminating the necessity of Christian works in strict observance of God's ordinances, for in the sixth chapter he exalts baptism; nor the Christian works of deeds of righteousness for in the twelfth chapter he glorifies them, but he does claim that the attitude that the works of the law merit salvation is erroneous. It is legalism.

     But legalism as seen in the New Testament is not only an attitude, it is an action! Jesus condemned the Pharisees not only for the lack of spiritual nature and hypocrisy but for adding human traditions to the revealed law of God. Thus he tells them that God said to honor father and mother, that this is commendable and should be strictly observed, but they had nullified it by their tradition concerning the gift of Corban which relieved a person of God-given responsibilities through man-made ceremonies. The Judaizers under the Christian dispensation were guilty of the same type of legalism. They wanted to add to the revealed will of God for the Christian dispensation an observance other than the requirements given by the apostles under divine inspiration. They wanted to add circumcision as a test of fellowship. Valid as this was under the Old Dispensation it was a human addition to our freedom in Christ.

     So I conclude that from the New Testament standpoint legalism is the attitude of observance without the spirit, but that does not sanction the liberal doctrine of the efficacy of the spirit without observance. Into this spiritual error of legalism any of us might easily degenerate if we do not guard ourselves against it through prayer and a supply of the Spirit of God. Legalism is also an action of superceding the expressed commands of God with human innovations and tests of fellowship which are not set forth in the New Testament. When anyone substitutes or accepts as a substitute a human ceremony for baptism, he is the legalist. He is playing the Pharisee. When anyone imposes as a test of fellowship over the church an action or requirement not expressly stated in the scriptures he is playing the Judaizer and is a legalist.

     To those who are legalists in the good, or dictionary sense, as I first defined it, who want to follow the letter of the New Testament scriptures, I say, "God bless them." They are being true to the historic position of our plea, "Where the scripture speaks we speak; where the scriptures are silent we are silent." To those who are legalists in the bad sense of setting aside the commands of God by human innovations and tests of fellowship or by attitudes of Pharisaical

[Page 174]

hypocrisy or self-pity, I say, "Repent of this thy wickedness if perhaps the Lord might forgive thee."