Over the centuries, strong but artificial tensions have been created between the Gospel of Paul (proclaimed especially by Augustine and many Protestants) and the “legalism” of the biblical writers James, Peter, Jude, and so on, which Catholic and Orthodox theologians have usually defended. What is at stake in these tensions is the authority of God’s commandments and thus the duty or obligation to obey God’s “commands, decrees and laws.”
A superficial reading of what Paul says might lead one to believe that the apostle is denying the obligatory nature of God’s law and commandments when he states that no one will be justified by the law (Romans 7:4; Galatians 2:19; 3:11; 5:4), or that he is contradicting himself when he states that “it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Romans 2:13; emphasis added).
Paul states categorically that “a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ” (Galatians 2:16), hence the Protestant slogan sola fide, which means “by faith alone.” James is equally adamant that “a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone” (James 2:24), which led Luther to claim that the Epistle of James was “an epistle of straw.” Paul’s teaching on divine grace (God’s favour) as the only means of salvation seems to exclude any human merit. However, the same apostle[1] says that God would prove “unjust” (ádikos, cf. Hebrews 6:10-12) if He did not take into account the works of kindness and love of believers.
Definitions
What do we mean when we use terms such as “God’s commands,” “God’s law,” or “legalism”? They can have both popular and theological meanings. In the Bible, they generally have meanings imposed by Jewish culture, and when we study the Bible we need to let the culture of the biblical writers, not our own, shine a light on its expressions and concepts.
The phrase “God’s (or the Lord’s) commands” refers to all the moral or religious, general or occasional (special) commands given by God, with the Decalogue at the core. In the New Testament, the phrase sometimes refers to the Decalogue (Revelation 12:17; 14:12), but usually includes anything that represents God’s will, such as faith in the gospel: faith in Christ is God’s command, not just a religious option (1 John 3:22-24). Sometimes, the term is used in the singular (“to keep the commandment”), thus individualising each commandment of God (Proverbs 19:16; Ecclesiastes 8:5; 1 Timothy 6:14).
The phrase “the law of the Lord”, or “the Law” (Torah) for short, refers in Scripture to the whole body of instructions given by God through Moses (Galatians 3:17, 19). This is why the books of Moses are commonly called “the book of the Law” (Joshua 8:31; 23:6; 24:26; Nehemiah 9:3). In a narrower or special sense, the book of Deuteronomy was called “the Law” (Deuteronomy 1:5; 27:3; Joshua 8:32) and was read publicly. In an even narrower sense, the term was used in connection with the tablets of the Decalogue (Exodus 24:12; 1 Timothy 1:9).
The writings that followed the Law of Moses were considered part of the same Law (Joshua 24:26; John 10:34, 35). This is how the term “Law” (Torah) came to describe the Holy Scripture (John 12:34; 15:25; 1 Corinthians 14:21). For greater precision, however, the Scripture was called “Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21), and later the “Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms,” a term used in Judaism to this day (Luke 24:44).[2] Broadly speaking, the Law was synonymous with Jewish “religion” (Acts 10:28; 18:15; 22:3; 23:29; 24:6; 25:8; Romans 3:19; 4:16; 1 Corinthians 14:34; Galatians 4:4, 5, 21; 5:18).[3] The Decalogue (“Law of the Ten Commandments”), on the other hand, is most commonly called “covenant” (Exodus 25:16, 21, 22; Deuteronomy 4:13; Hebrews 9:4; Revelation 11:19).
As far as “legalism” is concerned, the dictionary defines it as “a concern to observe the letter of the law scrupulously,”[4] which is commendable according to the Bible. Thoroughness is commended, not condemned (Exodus 15:26; Leviticus 19:37; Deuteronomy 18:13; Nehemiah 10:29; Psalm 119; Matthew 5:17-20; Luke 1:6). True legalism, which misrepresents biblical religion, is the belief that salvation is earned by virtue of conformity to religious requirements or excellence in fulfilling the law, with an emphasis on ritual details and a disregard for moral principles.
To be legalistic is to be pedantic or fastidious in the observance of rules by which others may be judged, but petty or careless in the great principles of character (goodness, righteousness, etc.). In theology, legalism is synonymous with the Judaising position: devotion to fulfilling all the commandments and rules of the Torah to the realistically possible extent, accompanied by a minimisation of God’s grace, the sacrifice of Jesus, and His divinity.
What is the authority of Jesus’ teaching on the law and the commandments for “Paulines” and “Petrinians,” for “graceists” and “legalists,” or for mystics and pragmatists?
Keep in mind that Jesus was Jewish. At His birth, the wise men sought Him as the King of the Jews (Matthew 2:2), and the same “charge” was written on His cross (Matthew 27:37; John 19:19-22). Jesus reminded the Samaritan woman that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). The Samaritans embraced a combination of Judaism and paganism, of Scripture and mixed traditions. Jesus rebuked them for their mystical worship of things they did not know, and their lack of worship in spirit and truth (John 4:21-23).
As a child and as an adult, Jesus honoured all aspects of the Jewish religion: circumcision (Luke 2:21), sacrifices (Luke 2:22-24), priesthood and Levitical laws (Matthew 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14), tithes (Luke 11:42; 20:25), gifts, and contributions to the temple (Matthew 17:24-27; Luke 21:1-4). He never missed a Saturday in the synagogue (Mark 1:21, 39; 6:2; Luke 4:16; 6:6; 13:10), and He made a pilgrimage to the temple for every festival (Matthew 26:17; Luke 2:42-46; John 2:23; 4:45; 5:1; 7:2, 10, 11, 37), even those not commanded by God (John 10:22, 23).
Jesus referred to the temple as “my Father’s house” (Luke 2:49; John 2:16). Yet He predicted that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed and that the Jews would be punished for rejecting Him (Luke 19:41-46; 21:5, 6, 20-24). However, with regard to the Sabbath, He commanded the apostles to pray that they would be able to keep it even in extreme situations (Matthew 24:1, 2, 16, 20). Can we really expect that the same Christ would be casual about the authority of Scripture, the Law, the Decalogue and the commandments of God?
Jesus, the Law and legalism
For Jesus, the will of God revealed in Scripture was non-negotiable: “It is written” was the final authority for Him (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10; 21:13; 26:31; Luke 24:46; John 6:45); “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” (Luke 10:26); “Scripture cannot be set aside” (John 10:35); “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17); “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18); “Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).[5]
But didn’t Jesus make religion more relaxed in comparison with Pharisaism? Yes and no. Yes, because He publicly criticised the petty legalism of the Pharisees, who imposed heavy burdens on others that they were not able to fulfil themselves (Matthew 23:4). Yes, because He abolished the obligations invented by the Pharisees (Matthew 15:6, 9, 13). No, because He did not liberalise obedience. He also said: “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20).
Do we want to outdo the Pharisees in legalistic pedantry? Should we become overly Pharisaical? Jesus was not talking about a quantitative, artificially inflated righteousness, but a qualitative righteousness, a righteousness recognised by God and superior to human merit. It comes from faith like a mustard seed—small but full of life—and not from the number of recited passages, or from fasting, or from avoiding touching sinners.
Jesus emphasised the doctrine of justification by faith by publicly praising people’s faith (Matthew 8:10; Mark 5:34; 10:52; Luke 7:9, 50; 8:48; 17:6, 19; 18:42). He did not expect explicit faith in His Messiahship or divinity, but faith in the God of Israel, honoured by miracles. He also praised works, but only those that came from faith and love (Matthew 12:41, 42; 26:13).
Pharisaism and “rather than” religion
Jesus looked at the Pharisee who was confident in his own “righteousness” and felt that, thank God, he was doing very well, compared to other people (Luke 18:11). Then he looked at the tax collector, who felt so sinful that he dared not look up to heaven. In fact, he had every reason to bow his head and beg for God’s mercy. Confronting the two figures, Jesus said: “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God” (Luke 18:14).
The religion of Jesus is the religion of the aforementioned “rather than”
Looking at the Pharisee with sadness, appreciating his morality in a way (religious people who support the church, control their desires, avoid injustice, greed, debauchery, and corruption like this Pharisee, aren’t to be found everywhere—most Pharisees were not of his calibre—but self-satisfaction and pride, nourished by the theology of merit, and comparison with others, even in prayer, almost nullified his virtues), and then looking at the tax collector crouching in shame before God, Jesus did not say: “At last, this is what I was looking for!” Instead, he considered the tax collector to be more justified “rather than” the Pharisee.
This theme of justification by faith, obedience to the gospel, and joy at the sinner’s repentance is omnipresent in the parables of Jesus. The righteous refuse the invitation to the wedding feast, and then all the uninvited, the outcasts from all walks of life, are invited and receive the wedding clothes. Of the two sons who were sent to work, the one who initially refused, but who repented and turned around, was celebrated “rather than” the other (Matthew 21:28-32). Of the two sons of the exemplary father, the sinful, ragged and weakened younger son, who had returned home with the request to be received as a servant, was celebrated “rather than” the other (Luke 15:11-32). Between Martha and Mary, whom Jesus loved equally, He appreciated Mary’s attitude as a disciple “rather than” Martha’s as a harried deaconess (Luke 10:38-42). And the examples go on.
In all his parables Jesus emphasised spiritual virtues, beginning with faith, love, humility, perseverance, service, the joy of salvation, prayerful watchfulness or joyful obedience, and never praised religious performance per se. He appreciated the law; He didn’t appreciate legalism. He also appreciated the commandments—the Ten, the Eleven, etc., including His commandments (Matthew 19:16-21; John 14:15, 21; 15:10)—in letter, but also in spirit, as God intended from the beginning (Matthew 5:27, 28; cf. Exodus 20:17). And above all, the commandment of perfection, that is, love for all people (Matthew 5:46-48).
Florin Lăiu illustrates the difference between obedience to God’s commandments and legalism, pointing out that Jesus rejected Pharisaism but preserved the value of the Law and obedience to God.
You mights also enjoy reading:
