Defining Legalism

[Christopher R. Dockrey]

For the past few years I have observed that many admonitions to behavioral standards for Christians have been met with charges of legalism. I have done this myself. Searching out the root of legalism can be difficult, yet it often seems to be predicated on whether such exhortations are attempts to glory before God at the expense of others, to the end that someone elevates himself to a status of godliness based on his works.

We [the Church] find ourselves in a difficult situation when it comes to rules. Do we draw back from any behavioral standards at the risk of being legalistic? If so, will this naturally lead to antinomianism? If we exact rules what will be their basis? Who will enforce the rules, and to whom will they apply? What are the implications of breaking them?

Many seem to have an aversion to the word rule itself when it is used in a Christian context, no doubt because they associate it with the Law. Therefore, for the purpose of this article, it will be necessary that we first define the word rule so as to begin with the acknowledgment of its meaning irrespective of any preconceived indications. The primary definition for the word, according to Dictionary.com, is a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc. It should also be noted that the word rule is essentially synonymous with the word law.

'None Other Burden'

To begin an attempt at answering the questions about rules (or laws) from a New Testament perspective, we will examine a passage in Acts 15. When certain Jews from Judea came to Antioch and claimed that the Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved, this started a great controversy in the church. Paul and Barnabas disputed with these men, but a sect of believing Pharisees sided with the men from Judea, affirming not only that the Gentiles would have to be circumcised to be saved, but that they must also keep the Law of Moses. A council of church leaders was convened, and in the end they made this decree to the Gentiles:

²⁸For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: ²⁹ that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (ESV)

From this we could conclude that several things, but I will point out only three. First, rules alone do not constitute legalism. In this case, the rules given to the Gentiles sought to contradict legalism. Second, the imposition of these very basic rules was not overly burdensome. And lastly, the apostles wrote that if the Gentiles kept these requirements, they would "do well".

Should Christians Follow the Ten Commandments?

I believe the question of whether Christians should follow the Ten Commandments is a bit more complex than some have made it. In the American Evangelical community, perhaps the dominant opinion is that Christians should adhere to these requirements. Conflicts over displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings seem to have further enforced the religious zeal of those who have this conviction.

However, there is another opinion within professing Evangelicals that views the Ten Commandments as something solely belonging to the Old Testament. In their opinion, because Jesus fulfilled the Law on behalf of His followers, it has been completely abolished in practical terms. One common New Testament passage used to support this position is found in Colossians 2:

¹³And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, ¹⁴by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (ESV)

A parallel passage is found in Ephesians 2:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility ¹⁵by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace. (ESV)

Those who hold this opinion view the "record of debt" or the "law of commandments expressed in ordinances" as the Law of Moses to which the Ten Commandments belong. Since these commandments were abolished, they reason, that means we are no longer expected to follow them. Most are usually careful to point out that we should still avoid sin, but that the Ten Commandments are not to be rigorously adhered to. Or at least that avoiding sin should be done without trying to keep these rules.

A New Commandment

John 13:

³⁴A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. ³⁵By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (ESV)

Here we see that Jesus gave a new rule or "commandment". He told His disciples that they were to love one another in the same manner that Jesus loved them. We know that this command was not just for the 12 apostles because John reiterated it in his epistles to the church (1 John 2:7; 1 John 2:8; 2 John 1:5).

This commandment, some say, replaced the Ten Commandments because the following of this one principle sums up the entire spirit of Christian morality. Paul seems to say something very similar in Romans 13.

⁸Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. ⁹For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." ¹⁰Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

In this context, it seems clear that Paul equates the Ten Commandments with the Law of Moses, and he says that love fulfills that law. However, does this mean that Christians should never be encouraged not to follow these rules against committing adultery, murder, theft, and being covetous? Certainly we will not wrong our neighbors if we love them, but does that mean that telling someone that they shouldn't break these rules is equivalent to legalism? Is it impossible to admonish someone not to break these rules in the same spirit of love that fulfilled the Law?

Paul the Legalist?

If we believe Paul's epistles to be Scripture, then we must believe that none of the epistles are contradictory. So we must now answer this question: When Paul said that love was the fulfillment of the Law, and that the Law had been abolished by the vicarious work of Christ, did he intend that to mean that Christians should never be admonished to follow any of the Ten Commandments? I believe the following verses, written by Paul, will answer that question. All of the following are taken from the English Standard Version.

Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. (Ephesians 4:28)

Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices. (Colossians 3:9)

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise). (Ephesians 6:1, 2)

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints...For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (Ephesians 5:3, 5)

Here we see that the same Paul, who opposed those who wanted to bring the Gentiles under the Law in Acts 15, telling Gentile Christians to follow precepts contained in the Law without any specific reference to love. What are we to gather from this? That Paul, after earlier resisting legalism, later capitulated to it? That he was simply confused or wanted to play both sides? I think we can only conclude that simply encouraging Christians to follow the Ten Commandments is not akin to legalism. When Paul and others disputed with the Judaizers in Acts 15, it was on the basis of the question as to whether the Law of Moses had to be followed in order to effect salvation. The fact that these Gentile converts were not immediately bombarded with rules does not mean that in the course of time they would not have been held to a higher standard of morality.

So then, What is Legalism?

Legalism is simply the notion that anything other than Christ's sacrifice can merit salvation. It may not always be entirely explicit. Sometimes it is subtle and can be detected in a performance-oriented attitude toward God, as if we are trying to "one up" the brothers and sisters we are commanded to love. Christianity is not climbing a spiritual totem pole; it is obeying the Gospel of God, faithfully submitting to the lordship of Jesus, embracing the truth that He alone was worthy to merit our salvation. To even try to earn God's favor is an affront to what Jesus has done for us.

Yet if Jesus is our Lord, He still retains the prerogative to exercise lordship over us. And if we are His followers, when he advises us to do something or not to do something, we listen - not because we are trying to earn something from Him - but because we love Him. This seems to be a point of confusion for many people who cannot reconcile the idea that Christianity can have rules without being a religion of rules.

When it comes to the New Testament emphasis on the abolishing of the Mosaic Law, we must understand that the Law was a single religious code made up of many sub-laws. The breaking of any of these sub-laws constituted the breaking of the entire religious code. James made this clear when he wrote, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." (James 2:10, ESV) Paul echoes the same thing when he wrote to a church who was falling into legalism, saying, "I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law." (Galatians 5:3, ESV)

It is interesting to note that when Paul warned believers against falling back into legalism that he never warned them against the moral principles found in the Law. What he did commonly warn against was the keeping of regulations that had no explicit moral impact - circumcision, the obligatory religious observation of certain days, etc. Certainly he did mean to suggest that keeping moral precepts could effectively earn special status with God, but that was entirely besides the point, which was that Jewish Christians not neglect the only Way of salvation in favor of a religious code that, at best, could only foreshadow what had already come.

I think we should be careful about using the word legalism too loosely. Particularly in a forum like this we must acknowledge that we have differing perspectives and traditions. We may not completely understand or agree with the traditions of other Christians if we did understand them, but that does not necessarily make them legalistic. How many of us, if we walked into a First Century Jewish church gathering, seeing women on one side of the congregation and men on the other, would call that legalistic? Such a rule did exist, but was it a legalistic rule? Would someone's salvation hinge on whether they avoided breaking the rule about sitting on the proper side? If it was legalistic, why didn't Paul address it as such? If rules automatically constituted legalism then some of us would be legalistic because of our rule about not adopting too many rules.

[Dr. Henry, President of the AOCI]

Amen brother Christopher and I love that Picture! Nice touch! Glory.

[Christopher R. Dockrey]

Brother Alonzoe',

Thank you for your comments as always. My primary aim here was to define legalism so that there is a clearer understanding about what it is and what it is not. As I said, I think that term gets thrown around a lot. And I personally have encountered some confusion about it. I'm sure other ministers have too. If people have been brought up in a rigid religious environment where the Gospel was not preached, naturally they might develop a distaste for rules altogether, having been under the impression that certain rules merited favor with God. But often we throw out the baby with the bathwater so-to-speak, and it becomes necessary to evaluate these things. Even when Paul taught about the grace of God, he had to clarify that he was not advocating lawlessness, and some had accused him of that. I think we must do the same thing from time to time. We should not try to balance Law and grace, but neither should we lower moral standards after having been born again of incorruptible seed; there is a difference between the two. These things can be difficult to sort out. My only hope is that I have not been misunderstood or have not misstated something. If anyone believes I have, I am certainly open to hearing their opinions on the matter.

[Alonzo E Thornton, D.Min.]

Dear Brother Christopher,

My heart bears witness with your noble attempt at addressing one of many critical issues within the Body of Messiah. How long have you been burden with these thoughts and or concerns? And was there something recently that prompted this well written article on your part?

How we sometimes fail to recall our former state before redemption. For now all those who are redeemed of the Lord are slaves to righteousness as opposed to slaves to lawlessness. Notice what the Word of God states: But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of TEACHING to which you were COMMITTED, and having been freed from sin, you became Slaves Of Righteousness. [Romans 6: 16-18]

Notice that Paul did not say we have been “freed from the Law,” instead we have been freed from sin. In the next verse, the apostle goes on to say, “For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. How does this current godless culture need to see this morality practice by those who are indeed redeemed of God?

The Greek word, which is translated here, as “lawlessness” is anomia. It is the opposite of the Greek word nomos, which means “law, or “Torah.” If “nomos” is the Torah, then “anomia” is “Torahlessness.” In Roman 6:19, Paul is saying that we were “slaves to impurity and to Torahlessness, resulting in further Torahlessness. But now we are “slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. What a great time for the Body of Christ, before this current godless culture display this type of sanctification. [Except from the New Hayesod Program of the First Fruits of Zion] How does this process happen? Life-long learning of the Holy Scriptures!

The primary purpose of education in Biblical times was to train the whole person for lifelong, obedient service in the knowledge of God [Prov. 1:7; Eccl. 12:13]. All the children of Abraham were to “keep the way of the Lord” [Gen. 18:19], and Torah was given to keep them on that path [Ps. 119:105]. This aim of learning was holiness in living-to be set apart unto God in every dimension of life. This holiness required knowledge of God’s acts in history and a commitment to observe His mitzvoth [commandments], which instructed one how to live. [Our Father Abraham Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, Chapter 14, A Life of Learning: The Heart of Jewish Heritage, p 279, written by Marvin R. Wilson].

Jesus The Messiah was the embodiment of all of Torah, for He was the Living Torah of God upon the earth, yet history reports that He was “born under law” [Gal 4:4]. Jesus as The Son of Man recognized its authority throughout His life [cf. Rom. 15:8], so Paul upheld the validity of the Law. In his terms, “Do we, then nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law” [Rom. 3:31]. Some 80 times Paul quotes from the Law to establish the authority of his arguments. He emphasizes that “the law is holy, and the commandments is holy, righteous and good” [7:12]. He also says “I delight in God’s law” [7:22]. He recognizes the Law as “good” [1 Tim. 1:8] and “spiritual” [Rom. 7:14], and he builds his theology by drawing heavily on the Old Testament Decalogue [13:8-10].[Wilson, Our Father Abraham, pg. 28.]

Be encouraged my Brother in Christ. Continue in the Way of Messiah and remain ever faithful in the matters of The Kingdom of God.

Charis-Shalom
Brother Alonzoe’