By Randal Seiver
'Covenants & The Law'
Legalism Defined
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of any investigation is the task of defining terms. So it is in the case of our investigation of legalism. Just what do we mean when we say that a person is a legalist? Is he someone who feels a sense of duty and responsibility to obey God's revealed will? Is a legalist someone who makes rules that God has not made and seeks to impose them on other people? Is legalism a carefully defined system of theology? The answer to all these questions is "N0!" Every true believer in Jesus Christ feels a sense of duty and responsibility to obey God. Christ's love constrains him to do so. If a legalist is a person who makes rules that God has not made and seeks to impose them on other people, then every parent who takes his responsibility seriously is a legalist. If legalism were a carefully delineated system of theology, we would not have such trouble defining it. What, then, is legalism?
Legalism is an attitude that a person has regarding his (or someone else's) approach to God. Such a person allows law (either God's law or a list of man-made rules) to stand between himself and God. He seeks either to merit or retain God's smile through personal obedience to the law.
There are four components of this definition we want to consider in greater detail. First, legalism is an attitude or mentality. Second, legalism concerns a person's approach to God. Third, legalism imposes law on the believer's conscience so that it comes between him and God. Fourth, a legalist seeks either to merit or to maintain God's smile based on his obedience to law.
One reason legalism is so difficult to define is that it is not a carefully delineated theological system. Instead, it is a way of looking at life. In a sense, whether a person is a legalist has little to do with his theological views. There are, of course, certain types of theology that seem to lend themselves to a legalistic mentality, but legalism seems to cut across all theological lines.
If you have a legalistic mindset, it will affect how and what you think about God. It will affect how you view sinners. It will affect how you perceive yourself and your approach to God. Ultimately, it will affect your view of the gospel itself.
Often, when we think of legalism, we think in terms of making and enforcing rules. Yet, making and enforcing rules is not the essence of legalism. There are some situations in which it is necessary for those in authority to make rules for those under them. For example, the administrators of a Christian college sometimes need to make rules to insure that the institution will run smoothly. Yet, this does not in itself make them legalists. The problem occurs when they either state or imply that failure to conform to one of these rules will affect a person's standing or communion with God.
Legalism imposes law on a believer's conscience in such a way that it affects his approach to God. Clearly, the New Testament Scripture is not a book without laws. Jesus sets His own words ("these sayings of Mine") forth as the laws of the New Creation. The injunctions of the New Testament writers have no less binding authority than the commandments Jesus Himself spoke while on earth. Yet, not one of those laws can bring the true believer into condemnation before God's throne. One reason Jesus died was that we, His people, should no longer feel guilty in the presence of God. Clearly, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews intended to teach that once a sacrifice had been offered that could take away sins, the worshipers of God would no longer feel guilty for their sins. He wrote, ". . .For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins" (Heb. 10:1-2). Brothers, Jesus has offered such a sacrifice, and God has received Him into His holy presence. Now, ". . .justice smiles and asks no more." If we continue to feel guilty in our approach to God, then we are giving way to a legalistic mentality.1
Finally, legalism is marked by an effort to win or retain God's smile by our works. Most evangelicals would completely reject the idea that sinners can merit God's justifying favor by our obedience to His Word. Yet, many evangelicals fall into a trap when they seek to retain God's smile (in the realm of sanctification) by their obedience to His will. They imagine that if they are obedient to God, they will somehow obligate Him to shower His blessings on them. For example, believers often think that if they are open-handed in giving to the Lord's work, God will generously repay them with material blessings. When things go wrong, they assume they must have done something wrong. God must be punishing them for some sin in their life. This kind of thinking is unmistakable evidence of a legalistic spirit.
At times, believers become so intent on looking for evidence of saving grace that their evidence becomes the object of faith and the ground of their assurance before God. Edward Mote was surely right when he wrote,
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus' name.
We must not deceive ourselves by fancying that we are right
with God when our lives bear clear evidence to the contrary. The New Testament
Scriptures unambiguously teach that there are times when self-examination
is needful. Yet, if we look at our evidences of saving faith more than we
look to Christ, then we are legalists.
The words and actions of the Scribes and Pharisees give us a clear insight into the symptoms of a legalistic attitude. It is impossible to find clearer examples of legalism and its devastating effects anywhere in the New Testament Scriptures. Jesus continually exposed and rebuked them for their legalistic attitudes. It was in contrast to the harsh spirit they displayed that the compassionate Sun of righteousness arose with healing in His wings. Let's consider together some of the symptoms of legalism they exhibited.
The legalist delights in making rules and imposing them on another person's conscience. It was this legislative delight that Jesus rebuked when He said concerning the Pharisees, "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers" (Matt 23:4). The legalist is a burden binder not a burden bearer. He does not rejoice when burdens are lifted from the oppressed. His only delight is in seeing to it that people keep the rules. The Pharisees never rejoiced to see Jesus heal the lame or restore sight to the blind. They concerned themselves too much with enforcing the rules. To make matters worse, these legalists did not even keep the rules themselves. Jesus said concerining their practices, ". . .they say things, and do not do them" (Matt 23:3). Similarly, Paul writes concerning the Judaizers who were wreaking havoc with the churches of Galatia, "For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised, that they might boast in your flesh" (Gal 6:13). In both cases, it is clear that legalism does not lead to personal holiness.
A Desire to be Seen by Others
It is interesting that in both passages cited above, delight in legislating and imposing rules on others is connected with a desire to be seen of others (Matt 23:5) and to make a fair show in the flesh (Gal 6:12). The NIV renders this verse as follows, "They want to make a good impression outwardly."
It was concerning this desire that Jesus often challenged the legalists of His day. The problem was not in what they were doing. They usually did what was right, according to the letter of the law. The problem was that they performed all their deeds for the wrong motive. They did not concern themselves with the attitude of their hearts, since that was not visible to other people. In Matthew 6:1, Jesus said, "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven." Notice that Jesus does not forbid being seen by others when we practice our faith. Religion is not a private thing between the individual and His God. In the preceding chapter, Jesus told His disciples that they "are the light of the world" (v.14). Also, He told them to let their light shine so that others may see their good works and glorify their Father who is in heaven (v.16). He is not condemning them for being seen by others, but for doing what they do to be seen by others. That which matters most in true religion is the condition of the heart before God. If our hearts are right, then our outward actions will also be right. If our hearts are not right, then God will not accept the best deeds we can perform. The most important question a person can ask himself is not "What am I doing?" but, "Why am I doing what I am doing?"
An External Standard of
Sanctification
Since legalism ignores the condition of the sinner's heart, its only standard of sanctification is an external one. It continues to focus solely on the outward appearance. It measures holiness by criteria such as the length of a person's hair or the style of his clothing. Though these external matters may, in some cases, reflect the rebellion in a person's heart, they are never a sure indication of his inward condition. As far as the legalist is concerned, if a person conforms to this artificial standard, then he is deemed holy. If he does not, he could not be holy, whatever the condition of his heart before God. We need to learn once for all that the way a person dresses or what he eats and drinks cannot affect the condition of his heart.
The Scribes and Pharisees manifested this kind of exclusive concern for external matters when they questioned Jesus about the failure of His disciples to wash their hands before they ate. Matthew writes, "Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" (Matt 15:1-2). They were not concerned about physical hygiene but about tradition and ceremony. Jesus' disciples had broken one of their rules. Their assumption seems to be that if a person did not observe this traditional ceremony, he could not be holy. In the narrative that follows, Jesus makes it plain that these legalists concerned themselves more about tradition than about truth, more about ritual than about righteousness, and more about symbol than about substance.
Ritual above Righteousness
Clearly, these legalists were more concerned that Jesus's disciples had violated one of their rituals than they were for principles of righteousness. Some people will be more grieved if a pastor fails to give an altar call at the end of an evangelistic meeting than they would be if the pianist were living in adultery.
Tradition above Truth
Jesus' answer to these legalists cuts to the heart of the matter. He shows them that they are more concerned about their man-made rules than they are about God's commandments. Matthew writes,
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God, ' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: "'These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain; Their teachings are but rules taught by men'"(Matt 15:3-9).
Jesus knew these people were not really concerned about righteousness at all. Though their lips proclaimed that they loved God, in their hearts they were far from Him. The clear evidence that they did not love Him was their readiness to supplant His law with their traditions and circumvent His commandments by their chicaneries.
Symbol above Substance
The substance behind the symbolic ceremonial washing of the hands before a meal was clearly the need to be pure in the presence of God. Used properly, the symbol could have been valuable in reminding people of this great need. Yet, the Scribes and Pharisees had exalted the symbol to such an extent that they had completely forgotten the substance. They were so busy checking to see if everyone had cleansed their hands they did not have time to purify their hearts before God. Jesus explains to His disciples that it is inward, not outward defilement that needs cleansing. The focus of our attention should be on the heart, not on the hands. Jesus said,
Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what makes a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean'" (Matt 15:17-20).
Like physical wounds, spiritual wounds heal from the inside out. We will never heal our sinful hearts merely by treating the symptoms, namely, our outward actions. Purity of heart is the root of all true external purity. Jesus said,
Woe unto you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean (Matt 23: 25-26).
Notice the order: "First clean the inside, then the outside also will be clean." Also notice that Jesus does not say "First, clean the inside, then clean the outside." Instead, He says if we clean the inside, the outside will take care of itself.
Hypercritical and Judgmental Spirit
A critical and judgmental attitude has its roots in pride, and self-trust. A self-righteous man is always a proud man. Yet, he is not necessarily a man who is comfortable and confident about his standing before God. Consequently, he will always find fault in others in contrast to whom he will appear more righteous. Luke describes the Pharisees as "certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised (looked down on) others" (Luke 18: 9). Whenever we come across a person who is overly critical of others, we can be sure that person's confidence that he is right before God is in himself.
It may be that the person in question is quite shaky concerning his personal standing before God. It is likely he delights in finding others to look down on because in so doing he can buttress his sense of personal righteousness. Such a person feels good about himself and his "righteousness," not because he measures up to God's objective standard, but because he measures up to his personal, subjective, standard. He makes a list of rules that he can keep, then judges himself and everyone else according to that list. He will always look for a cause to accuse others so that he can feel better about himself.
Notice that the Pharisee in Jesus' parable (Luke 18:9-14) does not ask God for anything. Since he has met his self-concocted standard, he does not think he needs anything. To enforce his good opinion of himself, he contrasts himself with others (Luke 18:11). He congratulates himself that he is not even like that other man, the tax-collector, who is in the temple worshipping (v.11).
Considering our earlier point about externalism, it is noteworthy that every sin he has avoided and every duty he has performed is external in nature. He only concerns himself with what he has done or not done outwardly. Yet, what he needs to understand is that the Lord looks on the heart.
Accompanied by Self-justification
the legalist not only does manifests a self-righteous attitude; he also seeks constantly to justify himself before others. Jesus said to the Pharisees,
You are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knows your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16:15). See also Luke 10:29.
Majoring on Minors
The legalist generally tries to justify himself before others either by discovering comparatively insignificant faults in his brother's life or by touting his own obedience in relatively minor matters. He is so busy examining the brother's eye for a speck of sawdust he can totally ignore (and wants everyone else to ignore) the plank in his eye (Matt 7:3-5).
Jesus rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees because they majored on minor duties and totally ignored the more important ones (Matthew 23:23-24). Tithing was right and good. Done properly, it required care under the old covenant. Yet, their meticulous attention to this duty did not excuse Jesus' hearers from their responsibility to show justice, mercy and faithfulness. For this reason, Jesus called them "blind guides" who "strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matt 23:24). Clearly, by this statement, Jesus was saying the Scribes and Pharisees concerned themselves too much with insignificant matters and too little with important ones. He was telling them they could not justify their neglect of one duty (usually internal and of major importance) by their careful performance of another (usually external and of relatively minor importance) duty.
Rationalization of Wrong Behavior
To put himself in the best possible light, the legalist constantly engages in intricate rationalization concerning his sinful behavior. At times he will euphemize his actions so they will appear to be virtues instead of vices. For example, he might refer to uncaused anger as "righteous indignation." It is amazing how easy it is for a legalist to identify wrong behavior in the lives and ministries of others while he ignores or excuses the same behavior in his life.
Several years ago a well-known pastor sent a financial appeal to members of the local church that I served. The church he pastored was engaged in a building program, and he apparently felt justified in appealing to those on his tape ministry mailing list for contributions. None of this would have bothered me too badly except that this pastor had been quite vocal concerning his views on the local church. In fact, he and his group subsequently separated from another group of Christians because the latter group established a missionary service that involved the cooperation of many local churches. The first pastor felt a missionary ought to be sent from a local church, not several local churches. He is welcome to hold that position, but why can't he be consistent? If it is right for people outside his local church to support his building program, why isn't it right for people outside the other local church to support their missionary program? In my opinion, this is a clear example of the legalist's willingness to justify his personal behavior while he condemns the analogous behavior of others.
A friend of mine, who claims to be a Sabbatarian, told me one Sunday evening that he had gone to his neighbor's house that afternoon to "cool off" in the swimming pool. I strongly suspect that on any other day of the week, he would have called the same activity "swimming."
It seems that wherever legalism exists there will also be a sectarian spirit. In Matthew 23:15, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their willingness to travel over land and sea to gain one adherent to their party. Since he lacks compassion for sinners, the legalist has little interest in true evangelism. He would sooner spend his time convincing others of his narrow viewpoint or examining others to determine if they meet his peculiar standard. Legalists tend to split over nonessential matters.
The legalist does not speak a great deal about joy and rejoicing. He seems to delight more in moaning and groaning. He gives the impression that if a believer rejoices in the assurance that he is right with God, there must be something wrong with his spiritual experience. He seems to believe the best way to produce sanctification in the people of God is to keep them in a guilt laden condition.
In Luke 15, Jesus presented three parables about lost things (a sheep, a coin, and a son). Yet, the focus of these parables is not on these lost things, but on the reaction that occurs when they are recovered. Jesus spoke these parables to reprove the wrong attitude of the Scribes and Pharisees. They were grumbling because Jesus was receiving sinners and eating with them (v.2). When Jesus contrasts "sinners who repent" with "those who need no repentance," He refers not to the reality of the case, but to their perception of the case. All sinners, including the Pharisees, need to repent. In the parable of the lost son, we need to focus our attention on the elder son who never left home. It is his attitude about his brother's repentance that is the focal point of Jesus' parable. When he sees everyone else rejoicing over his brother's return from the far country, he becomes angry and refuses to go into the party. It seems the legalist is always on the outside of the party looking in. He seems to rejoice more in his own supposed righteousness than in the fact that Jesus receives sinners and eats with them (15:2). The legalist is a person who seems to have no sense of the depths of his guilt and depravity. Consequently, he, unlike those who have come to feel the burden of their guilt, cannot fully appreciate the overflowing mercy of the Savior. It is impossible for him to relate to the sentiments expressed in the words, "I the chief of sinners am, but Jesus died for me."
Since the legalist has not experienced the inward joy of full forgiveness, he cannot understand the joy of others in God's presence. Not only does the text tell us the elder brother refused to go into the party. It also tells us he was angry. In his mind, the party the father was giving for the younger brother was totally undeserved. He was right. He went wrong in assuming that by his obedience he deserved to have a party thrown in his honor. The legalist cannot rejoice in the sovereign, unmerited grace of God. The thought of his supposed merit so totally consumes him that he cannot consider his need for grace, much less rejoice in the free mercy of God.
The Scripture makes it clear that the legalist deeply resents worship freely given to Jesus. Whenever he sees others who are exuberant in their worship, he regards it as excessive. The woman who anointed Jesus' head at the home of Simon the leper (Mark 14:3-9) provides us an excellent example of costly worship, freely given to Jesus. She did not merely pour a small portion of her expensive perfume on His head; she broke the vial and expended its entire contents on Jesus. Look at Mark's account.
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly. "Leave her alone, " Jesus said. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. . . ." (Mark 14:3-6).
There are several lessons we can learn from this account. First, it is plain that we should not consider extravagant any degree of true worship and adoration we give to Jesus. He deserves the best we can offer Him in worship. Second, we should expect that legalists will always be indignant in the presence of costly and exuberant worship because they cannot understand the hearts of gratitude from which it flows. We also learn from this passage that legalists are always harsh. Since they cannot relate to sinners, they have no compassion for them. They have never understood that, at heart, in God's presence, they, too, are wicked and bankrupt sinners. They cannot experience the joy of forgiveness because they have not truly felt the burden of their guilt.
We need to understand at the outset that correct doctrine alone is not the biblical cure for legalism. As we stated in the first section, legalism cuts across all theological lines. This does not mean, of course, that our doctrine is of no importance. That which we believe and teach is very important, both in our individual lives and in the corporate life of the Church. The cure for legalism is found in a proper understanding and consistent application of biblical doctrine. All our problems as Christians result from a failure in one of these areas. Tragically, in most of our evangelical churches the theological foundation is either totally missing or so corrupted that it could never support the superstructure of biblical Christian living. It makes no difference how carefully we teach "practical truth;" the edifice of practical Christian living will inevitably crumble without a solid biblical and theological foundation. Yet, if there is no superstructure erected on the foundation of biblical and theological truth, that foundation is absolutely worthless. In some churches there is a rather elaborate foundation of Christian truth, yet there is little, if any, practical building on that foundation. Neither of these situations is acceptable. What is our duty as Christians? Our entire duty is to understand accurately every truth the Bible teaches and to practice everything we know to be true.
There are many biblical truths that evangelicals have neglected in our day. This neglect has led to devastating results in the lives of many of God's people. We will never correct this situation unless we abandon the current evangelical obsession with "practical teaching." Such teaching will never be practical until we restore the biblical foundation on which it must rest. We will never build true, personal righteousness in the live of God's people apart from a solid biblical foundation.
We need to follow Nehemiah's plan of operation. We must first examine our current foundations to see if there is anything we can use. Then, we need to spend time wheeling away the rubbish that well-meaning but ignorant preachers have foisted on us. Finally, we must engage in the arduous task of laying again the foundations. In this section, we want to begin that task by considering several theological foundation stones on which the superstructure of proper Christian practice must rest.
One of the foundation stones of the Christian faith that many have discarded is the truth of the unconditional love and mercy of God. If a person approaches life with the idea that God will love him more or bless him more fully because of his faith, love, obedience, etc., it will be difficult, if not impossible, for him to avoid a legalistic spirit. The Bible plainly teaches that God not only grants His mercy to sinners apart from any condition they have met, but also contrary to what they deserve. God does not show us mercy because we have desired it or because we have worked for it. He grants us mercy apart from (in fact, contrary to) our natural desire and decision and apart from our exertion. Paul wrote, "It [God's granting of mercy and compassion] does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy" (Rom 9:16).
If we have not grasped this truth, it will be virtually impossible for us to shed a legalistic attitude toward life. We will continue to seek to earn God's smile of approval by such things as our obedience, faithfulness, and our evidence of saving grace.2 We will continue to think legalistically toward ourselves and toward others The way we react toward others will continue to depend on their actions toward us. We will not be able to love unconditionally or forgive others freely. One reason people are unable to love and forgive in this way is they have never come to grips with the truth that this is the way God has loved them.
A Clear View of Our Sinfulness
It is far easier to discover the sins in our brother's life that it is to recognize our personal sins. It is no great task to examine his life; it is a mammoth burden to examine ourselves. If we are to avoid a legalistic and condescending spirit toward others, one of our first projects must be to become acquainted with our sinful potential. We must examine ourselves first, before we ever busy ourselves in "helping our brothers and sisters in Christ to straighten out their lives."
Luke recounts a parable Jesus spoke to Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:39-47). Simon was incensed because Jesus had allowed a sinful woman to come in contact with Him. "If he were a prophet," he thought, "he would have known who and what manner of woman this is that is touching him: for she is a sinner" (v.39). The force of Jesus' parable was to press on Simon the truth that, in God's presence, his sin and spiritual destitution was equal to that of this sinful woman. When the two debtors of Jesus' parable stood before their creditor, they were both bankrupt. They were both unable to repay their debt. Their creditor canceled both their debts graciously (freely and without cause).
In some believers it is not difficult to develop a strong sense of having been forgiven much, since their pre-conversion lives were marked by heinous outward sins against God. Yet, others whose lives before conversion were moral and upright tend to forget that their debt before God was just as great as that of others whose sinfulness was readily apparent. Since the bank of heaven will not accept the currency of human morality and uprightness, every sinner must depend on grace to settle his account with God. All sinners are equally bankrupt in God's sight.
Once we acquire an understanding of the latent sinful potential in our hearts, we will appreciate, as never before, that we have no reason to boast in ourselves. At heart, there is no difference between us and the vilest sinner who has ever lived. If God has declared us righteous in His holy sight, we must attribute it to free and sovereign grace alone. Such an understanding will be of great help in dispelling a legalistic attitude.
If we are going to enjoy spiritual joy and health as Christians we must labor to get a clear view of Christ and the fullness of His redeeming work. It is impossible to experience spiritual joy if we focus solely or even principally on ourselves and on our vital signs. Yes, there are times when we need to examine ourselves, but the Christian's principle focus must be on Christ. An obsession with our sinful emptiness will only lead to discouragement and depression. We will continually wonder whether we have been obedient enough, had motives that were pure enough, or loved God fervently enough. And, the answer will always be "NO!" Only when we gaze on Christ will we be able to rejoice in the knowledge that,
Jesus paid it all,
And all to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.
Apart from understanding that He and the fullness of His redeeming work alone are the ground of our acceptance and rejoicing before God, we will never be free from a legalist spirit.
People sometimes get the idea they can earn spiritual blessings by their faithfulness and obedience to God. The truth is, God has already granted every spiritual blessing to believers "in Christ" (Eph 1:3). God blesses us because of Christ's faithfulness and obedience, not because of our's. The New Testament Scriptures never instruct us to obey in order that God might bless us. They always exhort us to obey because He has blessed us. The message of the New Testament Scripture is twofold: 1. See what you are in Christ, and 2. Be what you are in Christ. If we are to be free from legalism, we must stop trying to earn, by our obedience, those blessings God has already granted to us in Christ.
It should be clear to every Bible student that the Old Covenant was a legalistic covenant (see my comments on this subject in The Fullness of Time, and The Cross: The Heart of New Covenant Theology). The governing principle of that covenant was "do and live." Paul writes,". . . the man who does these things will live by them" (Gal 3:12). It was God's purpose in giving the law to impose His strict and unbending demands as an imposing barrier that would prevent the free access of sinners into His presence. The only person who enjoyed free access into God's holy presence was the one who obeyed the law perfectly. The sinner's guilty conscience was the veil that prevented his bold entrance into God's presence. Sinners could only obey that covenant legalistically.3 They could not obey any of its commandments according to the principles of Christian liberty. Only perfect legal obedience could give peace to the nagging conscience and grant free and bold access into the holy presence of God.
The new covenant is vastly different. We as new covenant believers enter boldly into the holy presence of God not because we have personally satisfied God's rigorous demands, but because we are in Him who has fully satisfied those demands. Not only is it imprudent for us to allow that law to hinder our approach to God, it is now sin for us to do so. If we allow any one to bring us back under a [any] yoke of bondage, we have thereby renounced the liberty we have in Christ (Gal. 6:1).
Do not allow anyone to impose law between you and God or allow the law to set up its government in your conscience. Hear the insightful words of John Bunyan on this matter. He wrote,
Wherefore, whenever thou who believest in Jesus, dost hear the law in its thundering and lightning fits, as if it would burn up heaven and earth; then say thou, I am freed from this law, these thunderings have nothing to do with my soul; nay, even, this law, while it thus thunders and roars, it doth both allow and approve of my righteousness. I know that Hagar would sometimes be domineering and high, even in Sarah's house, and against her; but this she is not to be suffered to do, nay, though Sarah herself be barren; wherefore serve it also as Sarah served her, and expel her out from thy house. (Gen.xvi. 1-5.) My meaning is, when this law with its thundering threatenings doth attempt to lay hold on thy conscience, shut it out with a promise of grace; cry, The inn is took up [sic] already; the Lord Jesus is here entertained, and here is no room for the law. . . .I being now made upright without it [the law], and that too with that righteousness which this law speaks well of and approveth; I may not, will not, cannot, dare not, make it my savior and judge, nor suffer it to set up its government in my conscience; for by so doing I fall from grace, and Christ Jesus doth profit me nothing. (Gal. 5:2).4
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm,
then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery" (Gal
6:1).
When we begin to examine the New Testament Scriptures concerning the believer's liberty in Christ, there are many aspects of this freedom that begin to emerge. The believer is free from the shackles of sin. He is free in his approach to God. He is free from Satan's domain. He is free from the law (old covenant). He is free from the fear of death. He is free from condemnation. He is free from his nagging conscience. He is free from the doctrines and commandments of men. It is to this last aspect of the believer's freedom that we wish to devote our attention in this study. The question we will seek to answer is,"Who has the authority to establish a value system for a Christian?" Who has the right to determine what we should believe and practice?
Christian values are those qualities or principles Christians believe to be important. These values are based on explicit 5 statements of the New Testament Scriptures. The Christian not only wants these qualities to characterize and these principles to govern his life; he also expects (and has a right to expect) every other believer to live according to the same standard.
When we speak about "Christian values" we are referring to those values that all Christians have in common. Though individual Christians may have personal values 6 that are not based on moral absolutes, they must not seek to bind the consciences of their brethren by imposing their personal value systems on them.
Christ alone is the law-giver. He alone has the right to legislate a standard of conduct for His new covenant people. The New Testament Scriptures are the sole rule and binding authority for the Christian's beliefs and conduct. The Christian may safely ignore all man-made rules and opinions. Only the practice of that which Christ has forbidden (including failure to do what He has commanded) is sin. Only the practice of that which He has commanded is righteousness. No other person, group of people, church, or Church council has authority, apart from the New Testament Scriptures, to determine what Christians should believe and practice.
Often, certain Christians try to legislate "a proper dress-code for Christian women" based on such passages as 1 Tim 2:9-10 in which Paul writes,
I want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
Yet, there are serious problems that attend their efforts to establish a universal dress-code based on such verses. First, apart from the specifics Paul lists, a person must subjectively determine the definition of "modesty" in dress. That which is "modest" in one culture may be indecent in another. That which is acceptable in the twentieth Century would have shocked the Puritans to their foundations.
Second, though we may translate the word katastol' "clothing" or "apparel," it is likely we should understand it in this context in the wider sense, i.e., "demeanor" or "deportment" (see Moulton and Milligan, also Ellicott). Of course, this would include, but not be limited to clothing. The word translated "modest" (kosmios) means "well-arranged," "well-ordered," "moderate," or "modest." It (kosmios) is one of the traits that must characterize those who aspire to oversee the church ("of good behavior" AV; "respectable"-NIV). If this is the proper way to understand these words, then Paul was saying, "I want the deportment of women to be well ordered," that is, I want them to behave themselves respectably. Further, Paul exhorts women to cultivate a moral repugnance at the thought of doing that which is dishonorable. A Christian woman is to keep a constant rein on her passions (especially sexual) lest she act with impropriety. The lifestyle Paul prescribes is one that is inconsistent with the lavish outward trappings usually associated with beauty. Instead, Christian women should show their godly behavior in their good deeds.
This does not mean that a woman's manner of dress is a matter of indifference in the absolute sense. It means an individual's heart attitude will determine what is proprietas in outward adorning, not the imposition of an artificial standard, concocted by other people. Apart from Paul's prohibition of extravagant accessories and outlandish hairdos, there is no timeless "Christian standard" of dress for all women, in every place.
Does this mean, then, that Christian women may wear anything they like? The answer is that the Christian woman whose life is characterized by the inward attitude Paul describes in 1 Tim 2:9-10 will not need anyone to prescribe a dress-code for her. She will assiduously avoid impropriety in this area and in every other area of her conduct. Yet, we must decide this, as well as every other question of Christian conduct in which the Bible has not given explicit definition, individually. Each believer must, under Christ's authority, decide such matters for himself. On the other hand, a person whose heart attitude is wrong will displease God regardless of the outward appearance.
A third problem that attends matters such as this is that there is no one on earth who has the authority to establish a definitive standard of behavior for all Christians. Christ alone has that authority. Further, He has already given us the onlyauthoritative standard of faith (what we are to believe) and practice (what we are to do). Anyone who establishes a definitive standard of behavior that goes beyond the biblical standard and seeks to impose that standard on other Christians is guilty of usurping Christ's authority.
Finally, even if the word "modest" refers exclusively to clothing, it has nothing to do with modesty in the sense of decency (what parts of the body are covered). It has to do instead with the temptation to go overboard in one's concern for the outward appearance. Paul says nothing about what parts of the body a woman is to cover. Instead, he condemns extravagance and outlandishness in the pursuit of beauty. True beauty is a matter of the heart, not the outward appearance.
When Paul refers to the weak and the strong in Romans 14, he is referring to their consciences not to them personally. In other words, he makes no reference to their vital godliness.
The weak believer is one who has scruples concerning certain practices that the Bible has neither commanded nor forbidden, for example, eating meat, or regarding one day as more holy than another. The strong believer, on the other hand, is one who understands that nothing is inherently sinful but that which Christ has explicitly forbidden.
In the matter of Christian Liberty, the weak and the strong believer are vulnerable to different temptations (Romans 14:3). The sin that tempts the weak believer is the sin of judging (condemning) the strong believer for what he does. The sin the strong believer is liable to fall into is the sin of looking down on the weak believer because of his scrupulosity in inconsequential matters. The matters in question here are not moral absolutes. They are matters that are neither sinful nor holy. Whether a person practices such deeds has nothing to do with his sanctification. Clearly, Paul assumes that both the weak and the strong believer love Christ. They engage in their respective practices as under His watchful eye and from hearts grateful to God (Rom 14:6). The weak and the strong both act in submission to His authority (vv.7-9).
Only One Master
What is the basis of Paul's exhortations to the "weak" and the "strong" in this passage? The basic force of his charge is, "Mind you own business." Why does he give such an exhortation? There are at least two bases in this passage for doing so. The first basis for Paul's exhortation is that the Christian has only one Master. If we engage either in judging or looking down on our Christian brethren, we are usurping Christ's authority as the sole Lord of His Church. Paul's question is, "Who are you to judge another's servant?" It makes no difference whether a servant pleases every other master on earth. If his master is displeased with him, then he is in trouble. "To his own master he stands or falls" (v.4). Additionally, the weak should not imagine that those whose practice violates their personal standards (the standards of the weak) cannot please Christ. Paul assures them their concerns are unwarranted. He writes, "And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand" (v.4). Believe it or not, we can trust the Lord to accomplish His work, according to His standard, without the aid of restrictive rules of conduct imposed by well-meaning believers.
Love for and submission to the Lord is common to all believers. In each case, the weak and the strong believer pursue opposite courses of action and do so in service to Christ, "unto the Lord" (vv. 6-8). In matters about which the New Testament Scriptures are silent, we cannot discern the reality of a person's love for and submission to Christ by outward observation. In such matters it is the responsibility of each individual to "be fully convinced in his own mind" (v.5) that he is doing that which pleases his master. In other words, in some cases (those areas not addressed in Scripture)7 it does not matter what you do as long as you do what you do because you love Christ and desire to please Him. In Rom 14:14a Paul wrote, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. . . ."
Closely related to Paul's teaching that a Christian has only one Master is the truth that believers have only one judge. Paul bases his prohibition against passing judgment on one another on the fact that God is our judge. He writes in Rom 14:10-13.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written:
"'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"
12 So then, each one of us will give an account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.
One reason God alone can be our judge is that He alone knows all the facts of the case. He alone knows the heart. He alone understands the motivation behind our actions. Since these matters are concealed from us, we must refrain from judging others. Our judgment simply cannot be trusted.
In his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, John Brown quotes an excellent comment Calvin made on the proper handling of Christian freedom. In this comment Calvin shows that Christian liberty does not allow a person to do as he pleases. Love for his brothers in Christ will in many cases cause the Christian to curb the use of his liberty. He writes,
There is a great difference between Christian liberty, and the use of Christian liberty. Christian liberty is an internal thing and belongs to the mind and conscience, and has direct reference to God. The use of Christian liberty is an external thing; it belongs to the conduct, and has reference to man. No consideration should prevail on us for a moment to give up our Christian liberty; but many a consideration should induce us to forego the practical assertion or display of our liberty.8
The New Testament Scriptures point to several considerations that should induce Christians to forgo the practical assertion of the freedom we possess. Yet we need to emphasize that these limitations are self-imposed. They are not imposed externally by the application of someone else's list of legalistic rules. The following are a few of the principles we find in the New Testament Scriptures that must govern us in the use of our liberty.
The limitations a wrongly instructed conscience places on a believer's liberty do not properly belong to the subject at hand. In reality, this is a hindrance to liberty itself, not a voluntary restriction on its exercise. Still, we need to say that one factor that limits a believer's liberty is a poorly instructed conscience. We have defined conscience as that innate ability God has given human beings to judge between right and wrong. It cannot make an action right or wrong; it can only pass judgment on an action. Since sin has defiled the conscience, it is not a safe guide. Yet, it is never safe to disobey conscience. Before we engage in an action the conscience condemns, we must first reprogram the conscience using the Bible as our standard. Though Paul stands fully convinced that"nothing is unclean in itself," he states that "to him who thinks anything is unclean, to him it is unclean"(Rom 14:14). He states further that even though all food is clean, the one who continues to have doubts (is not fully persuaded in his own mind) is condemned if he eats that about which his conscience is unclear (Rom 14:23).
What should a believer in this situation do? First, he should seek to put away all the misinformation that has cluttered his conscience. Then he should diligently seek to reprogram his conscience according to the perfect standard of the New Testament Scriptures. He must not go on until he can do so with a clear conscience. His practice must not overtake his conscience. The moment he begins to practice anything his conscience makes him feel guilty about, he is guilty of sin. In forging ahead this way, he is saying in effect, "I don't care whether this is right or wrong; I am going to please myself."
Paul is very careful to warn the strong not to use liberty in such a way that they "put an obstacle or a stumbling-block in a brother's way"(Rom 14:13,21). It is important to understand that when Paul wrote about giving offense, he was not referring to offending another person's personal tastes. Nor was he referring to the a subjective feeling of pain that the weak feel when they see the strong exercising their freedom. Instead, it is a cause of stumbling. It is an action that encourages a weak believer to violate his conscience and do that which he esteems to be disloyalty to Christ and therefore sinful. Commenting on Rom 14:15, John Murray wrote, "It might appear that the grief is the pain of annoyance and displeasure experienced when he sees the strong believer partake of food which he, the weak brother, esteems to be forbidden. He takes offense at the liberty which the strong believer exercises."9 Then he continued for the next two pages to argue that this cannot be Paul's meaning in Rom 14:15. In the course of his argument he wrote,
Hence a weak believer 'is grieved' when he has violated his religious convictions and is afflicted with the vexation of conscience which the consequent sense of guilt involves. It is this tragic result for the weak believer that the strong believer must take into account. When the exercise of his liberty emboldens the weak believer to violate his conscience, then, out of deference to the religious interests of the weak, he is to refrain from the exercise of what are intrinsically his rights.10
In other words, Paul is not talking about another believer's feelings concerning what he sees his Christian brother doing. It is the guilt and grief he feels when, as a result of a stronger brother's influence, he has violated his weak conscience by engaging in a practice he has sincerely judged to be sinful. That which strong believer's need to avoid is behavior that tends to lead weak believers to violate their sensitive consciences. Any believer who callously flaunts the use of his liberty before a weaker brother who might thus be led into sin, is failing to "walk in love" (Rom 14:15). Instead of building up God's work, he is guilty of tearing it down.
It is impossible to live life in such a way that we will never offend another's personal tastes. We cannot always avoid causing weak believers to feel "grief" when our practices violate their strict personal codes. There will always be some believers who feel sorrowful when they see others engaging in practices in which they do not feel free to engage. We cannot avoid these "offenses." That which we must avoid is using our liberty in ways that will entice the weak to violate their tender consciences.
In Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians there are several verses that shed important light on the use of Christian freedom. Two of these verses are very similar (6:23; 10:23). In both verses Paul seems to argue that he does not abstain from anything because it is forbidden ("All things are lawful 11 for me.") 12 Yet, there are important factors that effectively limit the practical exercise of Paul's individual freedom. There is one important consideration He mentions in both verses. It concerns the matter of spiritual profitability. As Christians, not only do we need to ask whether we have a legal right to engage in certain practices. We also need to know if such a practice will be good for us spiritually. As a believer, I have a legal right to eat all the bacon and eggs I can hold. Yet, in the long run, such a practice might kill me. There are many legitimate activities in which believers may engage that could prove to be spiritually detrimental to them. Therefore, we must not only avoid the illegal but also the unprofitable. The problem is, what is unprofitable for one may not be for another. Each believer needs to decide such matters for himself. In addition, we need to consider our practices corporately. What will be the effect of our legitimate practices on others. Will the Church profit, or will such actions be a disadvantage to the cause of Christ (see 1 Cor 10:33)?
Closely related, to the idea of spiritual advantage is the question of "edification." In I Cor 10:23, Paul writes that though all things are permitted to him, all things do not "edify." The idea is that all things do not cause an advance in sanctification. We should engage only in those practices that will cause us and those with whom we associate to be more like Christ.
Another consideration that might limit the use of a believer's liberty is the question of "authority." In 1 Cor 6:12 Paul asserts that though all things are permitted to him, he refuses to be brought under the authority of anything. If that which I have liberty to practice brings me under its authority, then my "liberty" has turned into bondage. True liberty involves the freedom to say "no" as well as the freedom to say "yes." Whenever anyone or anything begins to usurp the authority of Christ and become my master, at that point I have exchanged my freedom for bondage. There are some activities that, though legitimate in themselves, can get out of hand. It is only the individual Christian who knows when he is coming under the authority of another. Thus, the limitation of liberty in such a case must be an individual decision.
Paul makes it clear that "giving God thanks" indicates that the believer is engaging in the practice for which he is expressing his gratitude as "unto the Lord," that is, in service to Christ (Rom 14:6). He also writes in 1 Cor 10:30, "If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks" (see also Col 3:17; 1 Tim 4:3-4)?
The gratitude the believer expresses regarding that which he consumes implies that he recognizes that the food or drink is God's good gift that He has richly supplied and fully intends for him to enjoy. We must not eat any food, drink any beverage, or engage in any activity we cannot enjoy in thankfulness to God. We must remember that nothing is unclean of itself. It is only the abuse and distortion of that which God has given that renders it an unfit object for our gratitude.
Finally, as we seek to implement our liberty properly, we must do so with an eye to God's glory. In 1 Cor 10:31, Paul writes, "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." The believer must undertake every activity with a conscious desire to honor God. No action that fails to bring glory and honor to God can possibly be right. No action that aims (in the right way and for the right reasons) directly at honoring Him can possibly be wrong. Obedience to the revealed will of God that springs from the proper motives and aims directly at declaring God's glory cannot fail to honor Him. Yet, in matters in which God has not expressly stated His will, the individual believer is responsibile to examine the motives and aims that actuate him in performing all his duties. Any activity a believer cannot undertake for the express purpose of bringing honor to God must be considered outside the realm of the believer's liberty.
Christian Values-Those qualities or principles that Christians believe to be important. These values are based on plain statements of the New Testament Scriptures. For this reason, the Christian not only wants these qualities to characterize and these principles to govern his life; he also expects (and has a right to expect) every other believer to live according to the same standard.
Moral absolute-A value that has universal application without restriction, exception, or qualification. An absolute concerns that which is always right or wrong in any situation, at any time, in any place.
Relative values-Values relating to behavior that a person may judge right or wrong,elative values depending on the situation, time, or geographical location. Relative values concern matters that the Scriptures do not explicitly approve or condemn. They concern behavior that is not intrinsically right or wrong.
Weak believer-One who has scruples concerning certain practices that the Bible has neither commanded nor forbidden, e.g., eating meat, regarding one day as more holy than another. The term does not refer to the person but to his conscience.
Strong believer-One who understands that nothing is inherently sinful but that which Christ has explicitly forbidden.
Despise-To hold in contempt; to look down on. This is the attitude that the "strong believer" is in danger of having toward the "weak believer" who has not yet completely understood the believer's liberty in Christ.
Judge-To condemn as an unbeliever (or at least a weak Christian) a person who practices behavior about which weak believers have scruples.
Conscience-That innate ability that God has given to human beings to judge between right and wrong. It cannot make an action right or wrong; it can only pass judgment on an action. Because of sin, the conscience is defiled and, therefore, is not a safe guide. Yet, it is never safe to disobey conscience. Before we engage in an action that the conscience condemns, we must first reprogram the conscience using the Bible as our standard.
Offense-A cause of stumbling. An offense is an action that encourages a weak believer to violate his conscience and do that which he esteems to be disloyalty to Christ and therefore sinful. We must not understand "offense" in terms of offended tastes or the "grief"a weaker brother feels when he sees his Christian brother performing actions he does not feel at liberty to practice.
1 We do not intend to suggest that believers ought not to feel guilty when they are guilty of committing acts of sin. We simply mean that sin should no longer keep believer's at a distance from God. When the Christian sins, there is all the more reason for him to approach the throne of grace to seek and find forgiveness through the blood of Christ.
2 We are not denying that, as our Father, God is displeased with us when we disobey Him. Nor are we denying that we have His smile of approval when we are obedient. We are denying that we can merit God's smile by our obedience, since even our obedience results from God's grace that enables us to pleases Him.
3 This does not mean no one under the old covenant obeyed the law out of love for God. Clearly, David, and others who penned the Psalter, delighted in the assurance of God's love, based on the covenants of promise, despite their consciousness of personal guilt. It simply means they could not approach God with such assurance based on the old covenant. It was God's purpose in giving that covenant to make sinners conscious of the sin barrier that keeps them from His holy presence. Even the sacrifices offered under that covenant could not remove the barrier that kept sinners from approaching God freely. In the law, God promised blessing based on obedience. If a person wanted to merit or maintain God's smile based on that covenant, he would have to do so through perfect obedience.
4 John Bunyan, The Complete Works of John Bunyan. vol. 2. (Marshallton, DE: The National Foundation for Christian Education, reprint ed. 1968), pp. 535-6.
5 By the word "explicit" we do not mean every duty is spelled out in detail, e.g., "Every Christian must be monogamous." We mean that the New Testament writers expressly stated these duties and spelled them out clearly enough that Christians universally recognize them to form an unambiguous revelation of Christ's will for His Church. Therefore they are universally binding. For example, Paul explicitly stated that women should be "modest" in their demeanor (1 Tim 2:9). Yet, he did not explicitly specify the type of clothing that Christian women should wear. There are some matters that are clearly stated in the New Testament as moral absolutes. These are always binding on all Christians everywhere. There are other practices that the New Testament writers do not command or forbid. It is in such matters that the Christian has the right (and duty) of private judgement.
6 We may consider the values that any Christian holds "Christian values" since it is a Christian who holds them, for example, a Christian may value one day above another (Rom. 14:5). We are using the term in this discussion of those values that all Christians esteem highly. We base these values on the moral absolutes that Christ, both personally and through His apostles, has required of His new covenant people.
7 Obviously, a person cannot practice idolatry, commit murder or adultery, lie, steal, etc., out of love for Christ. The Lord has clearly forbidden these practices. In these areas outward observation can detect a failure to love Christ. In such areas, our practice matters a great deal.
8 John Brown, The Epistle to the Galatians, (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics, reprint ed., n.d.), p.126
9 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p.190.
10 Ibid., p.191.
11 exestin--it is allowed, it is permitted.
12 This, of course, does not mean that a Christian is free to do as he pleases contrary to the clearly revealed will of Christ. The New Testament Scriptures establish explicitly defined boundaries within which the Christian must live. Any violation of the revealed will of God is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).