I. Were the Puritans Legalistic?
For several years I served as a professor at a conservative Christian
college in the Chicago area. Perhaps ninety percent of my students had
been reared in Christian homes and went to what we would call
conservative, evangelical, Bible-believing churches. This always made
for interesting classes. Although most of my classes were in American
history, if I was quick on my
feet, I could get into meaty spiritual issues, regardless of what subject
I was teaching.
Indeed I recall one day in a U.S. history class where we were studying
the Puritans. My students had read Edmund Morgan's The Puritan Dilemma,
a delightful biography of John Winthrop that discussed the founding of
the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1620s. This book talked about the
Puritans coming to America, their first years in North America, and their
attempt to establish a Christian commonwealth.
It was an amazing story. This collection of godly men and women, most of
whom were deeply committed to the Word of God, left families behind in
Europe to come to an unknown and undeveloped America. That meant that
they arrived in a wilderness with no politicians, no states, and no
economy. They had to build a community from scratch. For the Puritans,
this errand into the wilderness was a holy experiment.
So my students read this book about the Puritans.
If nothing else, what the Puritans tried to do was admirable. They tried
to be serious about this holy experiment; they tried to apply the Word of
God to every aspect of life.
I could tell during our class discussion, however, that even though my
students had read this biography, and even though the book gave a
favorable portrayal of the Puritans, my students did not share my love
for the Puritans. They didn't like these guys. They wouldn't come out
and say it, but you could tell that they weren't regarding the Puritans
as their spiritual heroes.
At some point in the discussion I stopped, and I asked my students, "Was
there something wrong with the Puritans? You all seem kind of reserved,
as if you don't like these guys." My students were silent. Finally one
of my students, one of my brightest students, said, "Well, you know, the
Puritans were . . er, . . . they were legalistic."
I said, "They were legalistic?"
He answered, "Yeah, they were legalistic."
I looked at my students and said, "Do you all agree with that? How many
of the rest of you think that the Puritans were legalistic?"
Almost every hand went up.
So I went to the chalkboard, and I wrote down the word legalistic.
Then I asked my class, "Would someone define that word for me, please."
So I waited. Finally I baited them. "Just give me an idea; just get us
started. What does that word mean; what does legalism mean?"
No one said a word.
I continued, "How many people have ever used the word legalism before?"
All the hands went up.
I asked, "Do you guys think the Puritans were legalistic?"
Again all the hands went up.
"Can you tell me what it means?"
No definitions were offered.
Finally my one student, my bright student, said with much hesitation,
"Well, they were just like, er, so concerned with obeying God all the
As he spoke, you could tell he realized that this wasn't a very good
I asked, "Isn't it good to obey God all the time? What's wrong with
Silence. Nobody said anything.
Pointing again to the word I had written on the blackboard, I again
asked, "Can anybody define this word?"
Let me tell you about my students. Even though this was a conservative
Christian college, the students never used the word eschatology, they
never used the word justification, and they rarely used the word
sanctification. But they could deploy the word legalism at the right
moments; they knew that word.
Finally after a long period of silence, my good student, my bright
student, said, "I think you've convinced us that we really don't know
what that word means."
I suspect that this situation is not unusual. Legalism and
legalistic are words that we Christians use with reckless abandon. Yet
I'm not sure that we can define this word accurately. In fact, I am
fully confident that if I were to pass out index cards and ask the men
here in our church to define the word legalism, we would get at least
ten different definitions.
But that doesn't stop us from using the word. We use the word all the
time, as if we knew what it meant, and as if we all meant the same thing
when we used it.
I think this is a bad assumption. I don't think the students in my
classroom were that unusual at all. I think they were a typical
representation of conservative, evangelical, Bible- believing Christians
in America. We are not sure what legalism is, despite our frequent use
of the term.
II. How we Commonly Use the Word Legalism.
Let me give you some examples of some incorrect and unbiblical ways that
I have heard the word legalism used.
We see a brother who is attempting to obey Christ, attempting to do what
he thinks is right, and attempting to apply the Bible to a real-life
situation he is facing. He's careful to obey God's commands. He tries
to obey God's little laws. And he ends up doing something that we don't
do, or he refrains from something that we do. He has unusual convictions
or unusual practices. We would never say it, but deep down inside we
think, "He almost seems to obey God too much." We think he is too picky
about obeying God. We think that he takes obeying God too seriously and
that he should lighten up. And we look at that brother and we say, "He's
We see Christians discussing what it means to obey some commandment. I'll
take the fourth commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."
We find a group of Christians discussing what it means to keep the
Sabbath day holy; how should we apply that commandment today; what should
we do; what should we avoid; what is right; what is the principle at work
Instead of joining in the discussion and contributing to the difficult
task of applying God's Word to our life, we simply remove ourselves from
the discussion. We say, "I don't even want to be a part of that
discussion. I don't want to think about how to obey that commandment. I
don't want to get involved in this, because I don't want to be
legalistic. I don't want to be legalistic about things like that."
In doing this, we often make this word legalism an excuse for
antinomianism, or an excuse for lawlessness. When we don't want to think
about obeying God's laws, we deploy the word legalism.
We are having a discussion with a brother, and that brother says that we
should do something. He tells us we should do this or that because there
is an Old Testament law that tells us to do it. We respond by saying,
"Oh, but I am a New Testament Christian. The Old Testament laws are
abolished. I am not under law." And we walk away thinking our brother who
values the Old Testament law is legalistic.
We get elders and pastors, leaders who are ministering in the local
church, and they do what the Apostle Paul did: they press upon the flock
biblical duties and biblical obligations. These godly elders reprove,
rebuke, correct, and exhort. They actually apply God's Word to the
everyday situations we face. However, because that elder presses
scriptural duties and scriptural obligations upon Christians, church
members go home and label him a legalistic elder.
A local church attempts to govern itself according to the Word of God.
In order to do so, the church establishes biblical standards and makes
biblical rules. Maybe they write these biblical rules into their
constitution. But for us, the very appearance of rules and laws,
regardless of how Scriptural they are -- the very appearance of a law on
the horizon -- makes us furious. We complain about legalism in the church
and legalistic church rules.
Brothers and sisters, all of those uses of the word legalism are wrong.
They demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of this word.
The sad thing is that there does exist something called legalism. It
is alive and well in the Christian world today. In fact, many sincere
Christians are being wounded and burdened by genuine legalism. But we
rarely recognize it. Real legalism flourishes right under our noses,
undetected, while we call walking in God's commandments legalistic.
As we discuss this concept called legalism, I'm not going to provide
you with a full look or even an exhaustive look. I will set before you a
brief overview of the following issues:
A wrong understanding of the word legalism
A correct understanding of the word legalism
The remedy for legalism
We will begin by setting forth the truth of God's Word.
III. A Wrong Understanding of the Word LEGALISM.
From John 14:15 we read,
If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Jesus is not reluctant to talk about commandments, is He? He's not
afraid of being called a legalist. There is a place in the ethics of the
Lord Jesus Christ for the commandments. In fact, this is the only proper
evidence of love for Jesus Christ. Profession alone is not evidence of
love for Christ.
The Lord Jesus Christ says that if you love Him you will keep His
commandments. There's the evidence that we truly love Him: we obey God's
In the next chapter, Jesus says practically the same thing. In John
15:10-11 we read,
If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have
kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love. These things I have
spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made
One thing should be clear thus far: Jesus had no problem with giving
commandments. Jesus had no problem affirming existing Divine laws. And
Jesus had no problem calling for obedience to God's commandments.
Apparently, for the Lord Jesus Christ, there was no conflict between love
and obedience, between grace and obedience. He saw no tension at all;
they both are there in the verse.
In 1 John 2:3-6 we read,
And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His
commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not
keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but
whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected.
By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him
ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
Is the keeping of God's commandments optional?
Is keeping God's commandments what the first-class Christian does, while
the Christian who sloughs off is the tourist-class Christian?
Look at the verse. Obedience to law isn't optional, is it? What a
strong statement! A brother or sister who does not walk in God's
commandments is not really a brother or sister.
Here is another passage, from Psalm 40:8, but this is later quoted in
Hebrews 10:5-9. The reference in Hebrews makes it clear that when the
Psalmist wrote this, it was a prophecy of Jesus Christ. In fact, it was
the Messiah saying these words. So, although this passage appears first
in the book of Psalms, this is the very heart of Jesus. This is what
I delight to do Thy will, O my God; Thy law is within my heart.
Jesus did not say, "Thy law is my enemy." Jesus did not say, "I run away
from Thy law." Jesus did not say, "I am ashamed of Thy law." Jesus said
that God's law is within His heart. It burned within His bosom.
As we consider this word legalism, we need to ask ourselves some
questions. Here is the first one.
Is it legalistic to obey God's commands?
Of course not! But by the way we often use the word legalism, you would
think that it is wrong to obey God! Indeed, we are reluctant to tell
people to obey God. And when we do tell people to obey God's laws, we
quickly add on many qualifiers so no one will think that we are
legalistic (whatever that means). We experience an awkwardness when it
comes to talking about obedience, don't we?
Why are reluctant to call people to obedience? I suspect because we don't
want to be accused of being legalistic. Surely we can all agree on this:
obeying God is good! Isn't it?
If we are going to say (as some professing Christians do) that obeying
laws is bad, then we must face the fact that God is the world's greatest
promoter of legalism.
God has given many laws and many rules and expects obedience to them. In
fact, what is the central prophecy in the Old Testament foretelling the
New Covenant? Jeremiah 31:31-34 says,
"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like
the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by
the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they
broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. "But this
is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those
days," declares the Lord, "I will put my law within them, and on their
heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My
people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each
man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know Me,
from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the Lord, "for
I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
What is the heart of the New Covenant, the covenant built upon the
I will put my law within them, and on their heart I will write it.
Surely obedience to God's laws is good! It is at the very heart of the
New Covenant, isn't it? That's why God puts His laws in our hearts and
in our minds -- so we will obey them!
Shame on me and shame on us if we ever imply that obedience to God is
legalistic and that obedience to God is bad.
Is it legalistic to be careful about obeying God's commands? Is it
legalistic to obey even small commands? Is that legalism?
No, of course not.
Has anyone ever obeyed God's laws perfectly? Has anyone ever walked the
earth in sinless perfection? Yes. Isn't that what the Lord Jesus Christ
did? The Lord Jesus Christ, for thirty-three years, obeyed God's law
perfectly, carefully, and minutely . . . not just in outward action but
in inward spirit. The Lord Jesus Christ was careful to obey all of God's
If obeying God's laws carefully and precisely is legalism, then Jesus was
the world's greatest legalist. Surely, Jesus wasn't legalistic, was He?
We are not going to use that phrase, are we?
And we are called to walk as Jesus walked. Is that not what the Word of
God says, that the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to in the
same manner walk as He walked? (1 John 2:5-6)
Are we not being conformed to the image of Christ, the greatest law
keeper who ever lived on the face of the earth?
Is it legalistic to obey God too much?
What a silly question!
But that day in my classroom when I discussed the Puritans with my
students, my students might well have answered, "Yes." And what my
students were really thinking while we discussed the Puritans was, "We
don't want to go overboard on this obedience stuff."
Of course you can't obey God too much!
Does obeying God's commands create joyless legalism?
Is it not often implied that obeying God's commands somehow robs us of
our joy? Is it not implied that excessive obedience produces joyless
I do not think that it is any mistake, that here in John 15:11, right
after Jesus talks about keeping his laws, he says,
These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that
your joy may be made full.
The context of this statement is Jesus' discussion of vines and branches.
We must abide in Christ or stay united to Him in the same way that
branches are in a vine: close union, tight connection, vital dependence.
In verse 10 Jesus says that if you keep His commandments you abide in His
love. Then, right after that, in verse 11, Jesus says that He'll give you
Obedience to God's laws produces joy.
This is not the way humans look at obeying God's laws, however. Instead
we think, "If you want joy, then throw out those commandments. If you
want to be happy, then let's not talk about rules and laws."
But God's ways are not our ways. With God, the path of joy is the path
of obedience. This is what Jesus says; He links them together as
What about obeying Old Testament commandments? Is it legalistic to obey
the Old Testament moral laws?
I've used the phrase moral laws because we know that there are some
laws in the Old Testament that were designed as ceremonial laws. These
ceremonial laws pointed to the Lord Jesus Christ, and they were fulfilled
when the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross. Nobody here thinks that
there is a binding law today that requires you to go sacrifice pigeons or
bulls or doves or something like that. These requirements have been
fulfilled in Christ. There are also laws in the Old Testament clearly
aimed at the nation of Israel for their political governance. We're
talking here specifically about moral laws, or laws that speak to
morality and ethics. The Ten Commandments would be an example of moral
Is it legalistic to obey Old Testament laws? Of course not! God's laws
are good, wherever you find them. Laws -- be they human or divine -- are
merely expressions of the lawgiver's character or desire. The character
of God has not changed, and God's ethical standards have not changed. And
wherever you find His laws, they are good laws. Let us look for a moment
at a passage and notice how strongly this passage affirms the perpetual
validity of God's laws. Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-19,
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not
come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven
and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away
from the law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the
least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least
in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Now, however you want to define this word fulfill, it does not mean
abolish, does it? The Messiah did not come to abolish the law or the
Note also this word annuls. This word means to loosen the force of
something, or to render something not binding, or to say, "These laws
really aren't as strict or serious as you might think."
What a sobering statement! Whoever moderates or annuls one of the least
of God's commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in
the kingdom of heaven.
On the other hand, whoever keeps and teaches God's laws, he shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven.
I ask you: Do you want to be called great in the kingdom of heaven?
Here's how you can be called great in the kingdom of heaven: know the
law and the prophets, obey them, and teach them. Isn't that what Jesus
Would you like a recipe for being least in the kingdom of heaven? Then
start annulling those Old Testament laws. Say that they aren't binding.
Say they're not in full force.
Paul says the same thing that Jesus does. At the end of Romans 3, Paul
has just finished making a powerful statement of the Lord Jesus Christ
providing justification as a free gift. We are justified freely by his
grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. What a beautiful
statement of Christ as our justification! Here is the heart of salvation
by grace alone, through faith alone!
Then, in anticipation of the error that many will later embrace, Paul
says in Romans 3:31,
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the
contrary, we establish the Law.
Paul says that his Gospel puts God's laws on an even firmer foundation.
He says that the Gospel does not in any way strip the law of its binding
power. And Paul says the same thing in Romans 7:12,
So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and
In concluding this first section that considers the wrong use of the word
legalism, we need to make an application.
As sinful men and sinful women, we have an aversion to law keeping. We
don't want to obey God. The very core of sin is disobedience to God. We
rebel against God's laws. We are just like our great, great, great,
great, great, great grandfather Adam.
But we are church-goers, so we know that we can't come out and say, "I'm
not going to obey God's laws." We don't do that, right? I don't think
I've ever heard a bona fide church member say, "I'm not going to obey
God's laws." We know we can't do that.
Please listen to me here.
I fear that we try, at least at times, to justify our lawlessness with
the word legalism. We escape the demands of God's law by crying
legalistic. "Oh, let's not be legalistic. Let's not be too picky
about obeying God's commands. Let's not talk about rules and laws.
After all, we don't want to be legalistic."
By using the word legalism in this fashion, we have created a
sophisticated theological smokescreen, a fancy way of stripping God's
laws of their binding power.
Brothers and sisters, I fear this is a great tragedy of many conservative
churches, many Baptist churches, many Reformed churches. We use this
word legalism as camouflage for our antinomianism and our sin.
Let us never excuse antinomianism and disobedience with the word
legalism. This is the wrong use of the word legalism, and this is how
my students used it that day in my classroom.
Of course, if there is a wrong use of the word legalism, there is also
a correct understanding of the word.
IV. A Correct Understanding of the Term Legalism.
Again our starting point is divine truth, what God has said in the
scriptures. Let's look at just a few passages that will set the
foundation for this discussion.
From Romans 5:19 we read,
For as through the one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners,
even so, through the obedience of the One the many will be made
Here is the Gospel in a sentence, and it is such a beautiful statement!
Through one man's disobedience, through Adam's disobedience, many were
made sinners. We were constituted sinners. At the level of our nature,
we became sinners. Because of Adam's disobedience, we were born sinful
through-and-through, on the inside, not just in actions, but in attitudes
and desires. Our status as sinners was guaranteed by what Adam did. Our
standing as sinful men and women was secured by what Adam did in the
Garden of Eden.
But by the same token, through the obedience of the One, through what
the Lord Jesus Christ did, the many were made righteous. Many were
In other words, our standing as God's people, as righteous people, is
guaranteed through what the Lord Jesus Christ did.
Look back at the verse we read. It does not say that when Adam sinned, he
made it very, very likely that we might fall into sin. That's not what
it says, does it?
When Adam sinned, he constituted us sinners.
Paul's point in this section of Romans 5 is that Adam and Jesus
correspond. We learn something about Jesus and His work by considering
Adam and his work.
When Jesus died, He didn't just make it, very, very likely, that we might
be righteous before God. No, the Son of God did more than that. He
constituted His people to be righteous. The Lord Jesus Christ made His
people righteous, through His one act of obedience. The perfect
righteousness of the Messiah was imputed (or put to the account of) His
people, so that they now possess the very righteousness of Christ.
So, in Philippians 3, Paul sets forth for us two different ways of having
righteousness. He says in Philippians 3:8-9,
More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing
value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss
of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain
Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own
derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the
righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith ...
Do you see what Paul is saying here? He's saying there are two different
kinds of righteousness you can have. Now, when I use the word
righteousness in this context, I mean my score of acceptability before
God, my score of holiness in God's eyes. And every human has one of two
different kinds of scores. Perhaps you have this kind of
righteousness: you stand in your own righteousness, built by you, by
your good works, by your lifestyle. You accumulate your own holiness
score or acceptability score (or righteousness) by doing good things,
having quiet times, reading the Bible, praying, going to church, and
other such virtuous actions. And this is what Paul means by standing in
my own righteousness.
But, Paul says, no, no, I do not want to have to stand before God and in
any way have to fall back upon what I have done. He says that he is
going to stand before Him in Christ's righteousness, the perfect
righteousness that Christ accumulated during thirty-three years of sinless
obedience. Paul wants that perfect holiness score that was accumulated
by Jesus put to his own account. So Paul stands before God, not in his
own righteousness, but in the righteousness that our Lord Jesus Christ
earned. That's the righteousness that he wants. That's the score that
But this is not a new idea. Romans 4:6 makes it clear that Old Testament
saints sought an imputed righteousness that was different from the one
they themselves earned:
... just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God
reckons righteousness apart from works ...
God has always worked like this. Men have never been able to earn an
acceptable righteousness before God. It was true of Abraham, it was true
of David, and it's true for us. God puts righteousness to His people
without any regard for their activities or their works.
Martin Luther had a beautiful phrase for this; he called it our "alien
righteousness." He said that it was the righteousness that another had
earned, the righteousness earned by Jesus Christ. It is that alien
righteousness, put to our account, that allows us to stand before God as
perfectly righteous people.
From these verses, we see the heart of the Christian gospel. Friends,
this matter of "imputed righteousness" and "alien righteousness" is not
one of several important things; this is the heart, the very heart of the
This means that Christians cannot add to the righteousness that the Lord
Jesus Christ secures for His people. We cannot do things that will
augment or supplement the righteousness that we have in Christ.
What can I possibly do that would improve my standing, considering what
the Lord Jesus Christ did? I'm going to add my two cents to that
colossal work at Calvary? My good deed is going to augment the Son of
Here is the same truth; I'm just saying it a little bit differently.
Christians are approved by God when they stand before Him. And Christians
cannot improve upon this standing that is obtained by the Lord Jesus
Christ. How can I improve upon the perfect righteousness earned by the
Son of God?
Here's my last restatement of the same truth: Christians cannot gain or
earn any more of God's love. Grace has already granted and secured all
the love there is to have. You can't wake up in the morning and say I'm
going to get some more of God's love by doing a certain thing. How can
we obtain more love than what was secured through the Lord Jesus Christ
on the cross? How can we secure more grace for ourselves, in light of
what Christ has secured for His people?
This truth is central to the Bible's message of redemption. And what
makes legalism so serious is that it repudiates this truth. Legalism
strips this truth of its power. It erodes this truth and makes it an
And now, for the first time, I will try to craft a definition of
Legalism is a motive (or attitude) that leads us to establish or improve
our standing before God by our activities.
Note that legalism is not the deed itself; it is the motive or attitude
behind the deed.
Here is what a truly legalistic attitude does.
A legalistic attitude assumes that what Christ has secured for His people
Legalism flourishes when we think that what Christ has done for us and
what Christ has secured for us is not enough and is inadequate.
The legalist says that he can and must do some things that add to what
Christ has done. The legalist believes he has his part to play in
bringing down God's grace. And, when the legalist has done those things,
he has become more acceptable unto God. He's earned more of God's favor.
By virtue of his performance, he has secured something in addition to
what Christ has secured. And he did it through his own efforts! If he had
not done this thing, he would have had less grace.
Look at our definition of legalism once more: Legalism is a motive (or
attitude) that leads us to establish or improve our standing before God
by our activities.
The key words here are motive and attitude. It is good to keep God's
commands, provided we do so with the right motive. But what is the right
Here is the right motive:
We keep God's commands as an expression of our love for Him.
We keep God's commands as a show of our loyalty to Him.
We keep God's laws as an act of devotion to Him.
We keep God's laws out of gratitude to Him.
We do not keep God's commands in order to improve our standing with God.
We do not keep God's laws in order to win His love, or to get more of His
Let me say this a different way. We keep God's commands because He has
already redeemed us and He has already declared us to be righteous before
the Father. We do not keep God's commands because our acceptance before
God is still undecided, the whole thing is still in the balance, and what
I do or don't do influences God's love towards me.
I'm saying the same thing over and over, and I'm trying to say it in
different ways, because I can think of few truths more essential to a
healthy Christian life.
Please hear me; I'll put this as bluntly as possible:
Obeying God's laws is an act of praise, not a bribe.
Obeying God's commands is an act of gratitude, not a payment.
Legalism subverts this whole idea that Christ is our righteousness. It
does this, because legalism is an attitude or motive that sees the
keeping of God's laws, or living a certain way, or doing certain things,
as a bribe or a payment.
And let me recall, the Puritans used to say that there is a Pope in every
man's breast; likewise, I'm convinced that there is a legalist in every
man's breast. It's hard to shake off; it's not something that, if you
cross the bridge one time, it is gone forever.
Let's be honest. Don't we all struggle with this? I do; I struggle;
isn't this a difficulty for all of us?
A legalistic spirit says, "What action of mine will make me right with
God? What behavior of mine will improve my standing with God? What can
I do so that God will love me more? What can I do so I can get more of
Note that last sentence again. Do you catch the oxymoron: What can I do
so I can get more of God's grace? If you're doing is what gets it,
it's not grace, is it?
Legalism is not obeying God's commands. Obedience is good. Legalism is
obeying God's commands with the wrong motive.
This is what the Pharisees were guilty of doing. Their obedience was not
the problem. Jesus never scolds the Pharisees for obeying God's laws or
obeying God's laws too much. The Pharisees' problem was that they obeyed
God FROM THE WRONG MOTIVE. The Pharisees saw obedience (or prayer, or
fasting, or other religious duties) as a bribe or payment.
And, at heart, this is why legalism is so damaging. It assaults what God
has done in Christ. Legalism says, "I am not satisfied with my standing
before God based solely upon Christ's righteousness. It's not good
enough. I'm going to add something to it. I MUST add to what Christ has
By way of application, let me ask you some questions about this issue of
Is attending a public worship service legalistic?
Many of us are in church every time the church door is open. Is
attending the Lord's Day services regularly an act of legalism? It can
be, can't it? Bit it's not necessarily legalistic. It all depends upon
your motive. Why do you do it? If you are in church because you love
God and you want to be here, then amen, you ought to be here. But if you
are here to earn His grace, if you are here because you are supposed to
be here, if you are here because you think God smiles a little more upon
you when you've been to church, then that's legalistic. Why are you
Is tithing legalistic?
Is giving to the Lord's work legalistic? It can be. But it is not
necessarily legalistic, right? Tithing can be a beautiful expression of
praise and worship. Or it can be legalism of the deepest dye, if we
think giving our money somehow improves our standing with God.
Many of us refuse to drink alcoholic beverages, not a drop. Is refusing
to drink alcohol legalistic?
It depends upon your motive. Why are you
refusing to drink alcohol? Are you trying to earn God's favor, or do you
abstain because you love Him, you don't want to sully His name, and you
protect your testimony as an act of love and devotion?
What about wearing certain kinds of clothing? Are there certain rules
for dress in your family? Are there certain guidelines, certain dressing
styles: your dresses have to be so long, your hair has to be so short,
etc. Are these modesty issues legalistic?
Maybe yes, maybe no. It
depends on why you do them, right?
Recall our definition: Legalism is a motive (or attitude) that leads us
to establish or improve our standing before God by our activities. If you
say, "I love my Lord; my righteousness is secured. Because I love Him, I
want to please Him, and I understand that this is what I should do, so
I'm going to do it," then amen! Your obedience is a beautiful act of
worship. It is an example of worshiping God with your life and
presenting yourself a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1).
However, if you hold to some dress code in order to improve your standing
with God, that's legalism, isn't it?
Let me move to a whole different set of questions. Get ready, because
these are a bit more difficult.
Is having a quiet time legalistic? Is having daily devotions legalistic?
Can it be legalistic?
Yes, it most certainly can. It's good to have a
quiet time, it's good to have daily devotions, and I encourage all of you
to have daily devotions. But you must do it with the right motives.
Because quiet times can be done with the wrong motive. I distinctly
recall my experience with quiet times as a new Christian. Poorly taught,
I came out of the Roman Catholic Church, and I moved, finally, to Campus
Crusade for Christ.
Talk about culture shock, there in the Campus Crusade for Christ, I knew
almost nothing except the four spiritual laws. When I woke up in the
morning, I would never say this, but this is what I really thought, as a
21 year-old new babe in Christ. I would wake up in the morning feeling
like I had zero righteousness, and I would say, "I've got to have my
quiet time, right now." And, if I had a good quiet time, if I prayed
well and got through my list, I felt good. I could face the world. I was
triumphant! But if I slept through my quiet time, or if I fell asleep,
if my quiet time didn't work, then the whole rest of my day was
miserable, and I felt like God was against me. At least back in those
early years, I was treating my quiet time legalistically. I was doing it
as a way to establish and improve my standing before God. I was like a
late twentieth century monk who did his daily devotions in order to
establish a new day's righteousness before God. I would feel woefully
guilty and spiritually empty if I missed a quiet time.
Is having a scripture memory program being legalistic?
Maybe yes, maybe
no. I encourage you all to memorize scripture. But don't do it if you
think that earns you brownie points with God. If I think memorizing
Scripture secures more of God's grace for me, then my Scripture memory
becomes a subtle form of Galatianism. The wrong motive makes a good
thing very bad.
Is reading your Bible on a daily basis legalistic?
Surely reading your
Bible daily is a good thing; can it be legalistic? Most certainly it
can! If you see reading your Bible on a daily basis as a way of improving
your standing before God, earning His favor, bringing you more love, then
that's legalism. If you think God loves you less and might even be
against you because you've missed your daily Bible reading, that's
reading your Bible for the wrong motives.
But there is a remedy for legalism.
The Remedy for Legalism.
Understand what Jesus accomplished.
The remedy for legalism is the same remedy for most problems in the
Christian life. That is to see the Lord Jesus Christ more clearly.
See more clearly what He has done. Understand what the Lord Jesus Christ
has accomplished regarding your redemption. Back about a week ago, maybe
ten days ago, a Jehovah's Witness came to my door. And when this happens,
I think to myself, "Listen, if they are going to come to me, I'm surely
going to take time to speak with them and present God's Truth." So this
Jehovah's Witness came to the door and I talked to him for about an hour
or so. And as I talked to the man, I thought, "I'm not going to convince
this person, but I at least want to make sure that this Jehovah's Witness
understands where we disagree."
So I said to this Jehovah's Witness, "Here is the heart of the matter.
What do you think happened when Jesus Christ died on the cross? There
are only two possibilities. Please choose which one you think is correct.
Do you think this: that when Jesus died on the cross, He made it
POSSIBLE for you to be approved by God, provided that you do your part?
Do you think that Jesus accomplished perhaps 90 or 95 percent of the
task, but that now the ball is in your court? Now you have to do your
part? Now you need to add to what Christ did so that you'll be accepted
before Jehovah God. Is that what you think happened?"
"Or," I asked, "do you think Jesus' death on the cross secured and
guaranteed your approval before God? Do you think that the Lord Jesus
Christ fully did it all, fully accomplished all there is to accomplish,
secured all the grace and love there is to secure, and now gives it all
to you as an act of grace? Do you think that you have no role to play in
securing God's blessing, that Christ has already secured it and that
Jesus fully secured maximum acceptance before Jehovah God?"
When I laid out these two options, the Jehovah's Witness didn't hesitate
a moment. The Jehovah's Witness said, "Oh, I believe in the first
scenario. Of course I have to do my part."
Most of us evangelicals/fundamentalists/Bible believers will see this
response for what it is: a bold affirmation of works salvation and a
nullification of the gospel of grace.
But hear me now, friends.
I suspect that it's not just the Jehovah's Witnesses that believe this.
I suspect that there are many in sound, conservative,
salvation-by-grace-alone churches who believe this.
The Lord Jesus Christ's provision is the sole cause of divine acceptance!
When the Messiah went to Calvary, He paid for our sins. But, do you
realize that He did more than that.
"How could there be more than that?" you ask.
Yes, there was more than that. For thirty-three years the Messiah lived a perfect
life. He earned a perfect righteousness. He never yielded to temptation.
He never lost his temper incorrectly. He always obeyed all of God's
commandments. With all His heart, He loved His neighbor as Himself. He
fully obeyed all of God's laws. Can you imagine how high Jesus' score
was on the score sheet of righteousness? It was off the chart! Imagine,
thirty-three years of perfect obedience, a perfect righteousness. And when He died
on the cross, does not the Bible say that God made Jesus who knew no sin
to be sin on our behalf -- our sin transferred to Jesus -- that we might
become the righteousness of God in Jesus?
Just as our sin was transferred to the Messiah, His perfect righteousness
was transferred to His people. So when God's people stand before the
Father, they have Jesus' perfect righteousness as their own "holiness
score." That is what we mean when we say "Jesus Christ's provision is
the sole cause of divine acceptance." What could be more complete than
the perfect righteousness, earned by the Son of God, painstakingly earned
over an entire lifetime, culminating in the obedience of death on the
cross? This is the righteousness that Jesus Christ put to his people.
And, now I'm going to do my part? I'm going to add to that? My quiet
time will make me more acceptable to God? My church attendance will
bring down a little more grace?
To really understand what the Messiah did on the cross at Calvary means
that I'll never try to add anything to what He accomplished. How could
I? How preposterous, that a sinful man, living in the midst of sinful
people, could somehow add to the perfect righteousness earned by Christ.
Indeed, if I'm trying to add to what Christ did, then I don't really
understand what Christ did.
It is a perfect righteousness, put to the account of his people. If I
understand what the Messiah did, I'll never try to add to this.
If I realize what the Lord Jesus Christ has done and secured for me, then
this will cause me to want to demonstrate my love for Him, to lay my life
before him, to be a living sacrifice. I'll say with Isaac Watts, "Love
so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all."
In other words, seeing Calvary correctly produces the right motives in
me. I no longer pray or tithe or live a certain kind of lifestyle in
order to earn God's approval; I live as He wants me to live as an act of
love, gratitude, and loyalty.
When I see what Christ did at Calvary, then I understand that on my worst
day -- the day that I oversleep, miss my quiet time, sin, and lose my
temper -- on my worst day, I'm STILL clothed in the righteousness of
Christ. That means I am STILL accepted in the Beloved, even on my worst
Oh, will that not elicit the most extraordinary love and obedience and
compliance with His commands?
And when we see Christ at Calvary clearly, when we understand this issue
of alien righteousness correctly, it will elicit something else. It
will produce Christians that display something that is increasingly rare
today. It will produce Christians who hold to BOTH a high view of grace
AND a high view of Law simultaneously. In other words, we will affirm
high octane grace, sovereign grace that means 100% God and 0% me,
aggressive grace WHILE AT THE SAME TIME affirming high view of the Law of
God, a high view of obeying God's commands, and a determination to walk
in His statutes. That combination is rare today, isn't it?
But that is why the Messiah came. He gives an alien righteousness as well
as the proper motive for obedience.
That is why Legalism is so serious. It robs us of what Christ did on the
cross. It forces us to try to earn our own salvation. It condemns us to
never being secure in our acceptance before the Holy One of Israel. It
drives us to do good things from a wrong motive.
Brothers, join me today in rejoicing that God has provided a perfect
salvation. Has He not? Do we not have a full salvation, a salvation
that is completely of grace and that most certainly elicits whole-hearted
obedience to the law of God?