Who Is A Legalist?
By Israel Crocker
July 2006
It is ironic to see how history repeats itself, and it also ironic to see the similarities that exists between the religious and political fronts as they seem to "parrot" one another in their argumentation. When obedience to any type of law becomes the topic of discussion it is not long before one will hear the term "legalist" or "legalism" start to creep into the modern-day vocabulary. Sadly, it is ignorance on this topic that leads to much confusion, keeping many from surrendering themselves to God. Is a person more "spiritual" when he shows no interest in the "letter of the law" of God, but focuses more on the "spirit of the law?" Is someone who seeks strict obedience to God's law a legalist? Just who is a legalist? The Scriptures, just as with all spiritual matters, give the answers to these important questions.
Legalism Defined
For a sound study of legalism to be executed there must be a definition for the term itself. As with most terms, there is more than one definition and legalism is no exception. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists these denotations:
1: the principles and practices characterizing the theological doctrine of strict conformity to a code of deeds and observances as a means of justification. 2 a: an often excessive reliance on legal principles and practices especially as interpreted literally: an adherence to the letter as distinguished from the spirit of the law: an importance of formulated rules (as for governing conduct) b: a legal term or rule often having little or no meaning to actual practice.
Legalism, according to Webster, has two definitions: first, is seeking any kind of strict obedience to a law for justification. This definition is the first according to Webster's usage and that is no surprise since it is the one most misapplied. To say that seeking strict conformity to the law is being a legalist is to contradict Jesus' expectations: "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say" (Luke 6:46)? This principle will be expounded upon later.
The second definition is more accurate to the Bible's teaching. It claims that a legalist is one who is occupied with a certain observance in religion, but has no conviction to repent from the ungodliness in his life. This practice was exemplified and condemned repeatedly through out the Old and New testaments.
Legalism Misapplied
The legalistic defense is nothing new to ungodliness. It is amazing the arrogance of these Liberals who believe that they have invented some new kind of "spiritual" argumentation, but history shows that this is not the case. The Progressives of yesteryear employed the same tactics. Consider the words of Isaac Errett, editor of the Christian Standard, which was a promoter of missionary societies and other innovations foreign to the New Testament. He gave the purpose of establishing his paper: it was to wage war against papers like the Gospel Advocate and the American Christian Review, which Errett considered to be harmful to the more "sweeter and lovely spirit." He writes:
There were several weeklies, also, among them the "Review" and "Gospel Advocate," but these were not satisfactory. They were regarded as being narrow in their views in many respects, hurtful rather than helpful to the great cause which they assumed to represent...We may credit these writers with sincerity and honesty, but we cannot read many of their productions without feeling that we are breathing an unwholesome religious atmosphere. They seem to infuse an unlovely and earth-born spirit, which they clothe, nevertheless, in the garb of the divine letter, and enforce with cold, legalistic and crushing power.1
Errett continues that the disciples desired a more,..."wiser, sweeter, better advocacy..."2 Truth of the matter is, the Liberals wanted a liberal mouthpiece for their views.
Yet, Errett and many others like him, were quick to label sound brethren like David Lipscomb and Benjamin Franklin (not the inventor and statesman) as being legalists. If one reads the Advocate and the Review he will discover that these men stood foursquare with the pattern of the New Testament, and they contended strongly for remaining true to the principles of restoring Christianity. They emphasized obedience to God's word and not adding any innovations, such as missionary societies and instrumental music, to simple, New Testament worship.
As the Lord says, "wisdom is justified of all her children" (Luke 7:35), and you shall know a person by his fruit, Errett eventually sold his paper to a Quaker.3 This is the true fruit of the Liberal spirit: labeling "Bible toting and Bible quoting" brethren as legalists, while at the same time joining ranks the with denominations. It amazes this writer that the only consistent thing about the Progressives is that they hate, with a passion, those who stand for Biblical principles, but have no problems with the denominational realm. It seems that most of the time that they would rather befriend people from denominations and spend "quality time" with them, than to put up with a "Bible banger."
Today, the misuse of legalism has not diminished, but instead seems to be more prevalent. One danger of Liberalism is how it leads the weaker brethren away from seeking the will of God through obedience to the Bible; instead, it promotes a lack of respect for biblical authority. As has been the experience of this writer, when one gives book, chapter, and verse for what he does to prove his actions to be true, he is labeled as a legalist; or, if one confronts a brother about a false doctrine he is teaching, asking for scriptural authority, when that man cannot answer with the Bible, he attacks with the legalistic assertion.
What is the purpose of calling someone a legalist? Truth is, if the person could give an answer with scripture, he would; but since the worldly, and those of like mind, cannot provide scripture for what they believe, all they can do is make personal attacks. So, instead of answering a person who has confronted him, he hides behind the "legalism crutch."
Another false misuse of legalism is the belief that one is seeking to justify his salvation by good works alone. McClintock and Strong provide an example of this misnomer in their definition of legalist:
He is ignorant of the grand scheme of salvation by free grace: proud of his own fancied righteousness, he submits not to the righteousness of God; he derogates from the honor of Christ by mixing his own works with His; and, in fact, denies the necessity of the work of the Spirit by supposing that he has the ability in himself to perform all those duties which God has required.4
They continue with a misapplication of Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Obviously, they are Calvinistic with their belief that if one does any righteousness it can not be attributed to his own salvation. Therefore, they contend, it is legalistic to believe that one can obey any law and have that obedience rendered to his salvation.
This is not true because persons can contribute actions that will affect one's soul for the positive; and, the Bible teaches, "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). It is true that one cannot earn his salvation as per the grace of God (cf. Titus 3:5), however, a child of God must obey God's law in order to become saved (Acts 2:40-41) and to remain saved. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24). Thus, it is not legalistic to be obedient to Christ's law for salvation's purpose.
Strict Obedience is Commanded
The legalism "ploy," as previously discussed, is a tactic used to mock those who would seek to obey God's law in every way. Still, Christ never chided anyone for obeying God's law; in fact, He said the opposite. He taught the Jews to remain faithful to the law of Moses up to the smallest marking.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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. 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. 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. (Matt. 5:17-20)
Boles comments on these verses:
The law shall last till the new order of things is brought into force; the prophets shall stand until their predictions become history. "Jot" is for the Hebrew letter "jod," which is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. "Tittle" is the little bend or point which serves to distinguished certain Hebrew letters of similar appearance. The Jews were familiar with the expression used by Jesus. Everything may change, but the word of God expressed by either "the law" or "the prophets" must stand until it has been accomplished that which God intended. All shall stand "till all things be accomplished."5
Jesus never belittled obedience, but rather said that strict observance was required for the Jews to be faithful; up to the very last "jot or tittle." One should notice that seeking to maintain righteousness to the law was not mocked by Jesus, but encouraged. He spent the rest of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) showing them how to keep the law of Moses properly-He did not ridicule the principle of law-keeping.
Old Testament examples also provide guidance. The Bible says of Noah's obedience in constructing the ark, "Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he" (Gen. 6:22). Did Noah become too consumed with the "letter of the law" and forget the "spirit of the law?" Did God rebuke Noah for precisely following His word? Certainly not. Noah was faithful to God because he kept all of the commandments. A person can only truthfully understand the spirit of the law by respecting the letter of the law. These two principles cannot be separated; only man has separated them.
Other scriptures teach the same principle in the New Testament era. Jesus taught, "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" (John 14:21, cf., vs. 15, 23). The one who loves Christ is the one who keeps His law and, through God's law, will He reveal Himself to that individual. In spite of that, Liberalism criticizes the one who is worried about "commandment keeping." (Only the Devil and his children could be behind such a belief, cf. John 8:44.) When did Jesus ever imply that people should not be concerned with keeping God's law, or keeping it exactly as God has given it?
Consider this, the very essence of God's deity requires that His faithful children will follow every desire found in His commands. (By the way, what do the Progressives do with Psalm 119? This one chapter mentions the law of God, His precepts, statues, commandments, etc., in almost every one of the 176 verses. Was David a legalist? Is the Holy Spirit a legalist since the only way He reveals Himself to us is by the written command?) "The disciple is not above His master, nor the servant above his lord" (Matt 10:24). Could it be anymore plain that someone can only serve God if he submits to His commands? Only the Devil and his followers would say "no."
Who Is a Legalist?
Saying that legalism does not exist would be untrue. It does exist, but what exactly is it? It has been established that legalism is not strictly adhering to God's law, or seeking justification by good works of the law alone. Who, then, is a legalist?
Webster's Dictionary did have the Biblical answer in its denotations, although it was not the prominent definition: "...a legal term or rule often having little or no meaning to actual practice." This, dear reader, is true legalism. When a person practices a certain action in religion that has little to no spiritual meaning, he is guilty of having a legalistic attitude. The commanded acts of worship and tenets of Christian obedience were given by God to accomplish His purpose in our lives; and, that means God intended more than just giving us something to do to occupy time. Jesus revealed, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). A legalist is one who comes to services but never worships; even though he may move his lips to songs, bow his head in prayer, and stare at the preacher as he preaches. This man will perform these outward actions, but if his heart is not in the right place as he participates, he is guilty of being a legalist. Barnes makes a true comment on John 4:24, "A pure, a holy, a spiritual worship, therefore, is as such as He seeks-the offering of the soul rather than the formal offering of the body-the homage of the heart rather than that of the lips."6 Truly it is a sin against God to just "go through the motions of worship."
Another fruit of the legalistic mindset is a person who pretends to be a Christian at Sunday services, but when in the world's viewing, he acts just like the worldly. This person is legalistic to his core. He only comes to worship to appease his own mind as he takes part in the acts of worship and listens to the sermon. Nonetheless, he sees no need to change his life apart from the congregation's setting. It is evident that his worship has no spiritual implications on his soul. The Bible warns, "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves" (James 1:22).
God's people have always had to struggle with keeping this attitude from creeping into their lives, and plenty of Old Testament examples and prophecies reveal that many did not succeed. Prophets such as Jeremiah and Isaiah had to condemn the people of God for their legalistic, hypocritical ways.
Thus saith the LORD unto this people, Thus have they loved to wander, they have not refrained their feet, therefore the LORD doth not accept them; He will now remember their iniquity, and visit their sins. Then said the LORD unto me, Pray not for this people for their good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence. (Jer. 14:10-12)
God tells Jeremiah to not even waste his time praying for the wicked Israelites of Judah, because God will not answer. The reason God would not listen to this prayer, nor accept the fastings and offerings of the people is because of their sinful, idolatrous lives. "O LORD, though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy name's sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against thee" (Jer. 14:7). Evidently, the Jews were legalistic in their worship.
Brethren, please do not fall prey to these false notions that have been used by the Devil and his children-calling a person who is a legalist who seeks to follow God's word completely. Jesus never rebuked anyone for following the Scriptures; in fact, Jesus quoted scripture many times Himself. The Holy Spirit only compliments the ones who would seek to be faithful to the truth (cf. Acts 17:11, 2 Tim. 2:15,) and the Father praised His Son Jesus at His baptism because Jesus was faithful in everything that God had commanded Him to do (cf. Matt 3:13-17, John 10:17ff., Heb. 5:8-9, etal.) Be warned, however, that Legalism does exist in the lives of people who pretend to be Christians. Legalism is deadly to our souls and one must examine himself regularly to be sure he does not fall in this snare of the Devil.
END NOTES
1. Earl Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order, Volume Two (Germantown, TN: Religious Book Service, 1994), 29.
2. Ibid., 30.
3. Ibid., 41.
4.John McClintock and James Strong, "Legalism," in Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, eds. McClintock and Strong, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981,) 5: 326.
5. H. Leo Boles, The Gospel According to Matthew (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Co., 1989), 131.
6. Albert Barnes, The Gospels, in Barnes Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996) 9: 219.