The Biblical Antitode to Legalism

[dizzle]

The Biblical Antidote to Legalism
by Gary DeMar

Permission to reprint

We invite you to freely distribute the articles written by American Vision on this web site and in Biblical Worldview magazine. By doing this, you will increase the awareness of American Vision – a ministry that desires to reach as many Christians as possible with the importance and relevance of having a truly biblical worldview.

Our only requirement is that you always include our contact information on republished articles (web, print, etc.):

American Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460.


A great deal of confusion exists in the church over the definition of legalism. There are those who conclude that a legalist is someone who “keeps the commandments.” This cannot be legalism since the Bible commends those who keep God’s commandments. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Others imagine that a legalist is a person who works at keeping God’s law. Such a person is not a legalist since the psalmist extols the beauty and necessity of a love for God’s law (Psalm 119).

Some assert that a legalist is anyone who follows God’s law after he or she has embraced Christ as Lord and Savior. This cannot be legalism since Paul tells us that the law is good if one uses it lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8). What, then, is a legalism?

Legalism is the adding of basic presuppositions to a faith to make that faith more exclusive or less available to “outsiders” who do not think, act, or believe as do the “true” believers. Legalism is one of many power maneuvers by faith leaders who seek to consolidate religious authority in the hands of a very few.1

The Pharisees fit this definition as do many modern-day Christians who erect an ethical system that does not comport with the Bible, either by setting aside its ethical demands or by replacing biblical norms with extra-biblical decrees. The Pharisees, contrary to popular opinion, did not keep God’s law. They were not “the best people of their day.”2 The best people were men like Simeon (Luke 2:25), Zacharias (Luke 1:6), and Joseph (Matt. 1:19), and women like Anna (Luke 2:36), Mary (Luke 1:46–56), and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). Elizabeth and Zacharias “were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:6). The commandments of God were neglected by the Pharisees (Mark 7:8). They “nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep [their] tradition” (Mark 7:9). Jesus told the Pharisees that they had the devil as their father (John 8:44). James B. Jordan sets the record straight:

We are used to thinking of the scribes and Pharisees as meticulous men who carefully observed the jots and tittles [of God’s law]. This is not the portrait found in the Gospels. The scribes and Pharisees that Jesus encountered were grossly, obviously, and flagrantly breaking the Mosaic law, while keeping all kinds of man-made traditions. Jesus' condemnation of them in Matthew 23 certainly makes this clear, as does a famous story in John 8. There we read that the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman taken “in the very act” of adultery (John 8:1–11). How did they know where to find her? Where was the man who was caught with her? Apparently he was one of their cronies. Also, when Jesus asked for anyone " without sin" (that is, not guilty of the same crime) to cast the first stone, they all went away, because they were all adulterers.3

A persistent belief beleaguers the church because the Pharisees have been portrayed as strict adherents to the law. Since Jesus had His greatest theological disputes with the Pharisees; therefore, Jesus was opposed to the law. This is not what the Bible teaches. When the “scribes and the Pharisees . . . seated themselves in the chair of Moses,” that is, when the law was properly taught and applied, the people were to do all that they told them (Matt. 23:2–3). At the same time, Jesus admonished the people “not to do according to their deeds” (23:3).

1. David R. Miller, Breaking Free: Rescuing Families from the Clutches of Legalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 7.

2. George W. Lasher, “Regeneration—Conversion—Reformation,” The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, R. A. Torrey, A. C. Dixon, et al., eds., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1917] 1988), 3:140.

3. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 267.

[Ryokan]

The Biblical Antidote to Legalism
by Gary DeMar

Permission to reprint

We invite you to freely distribute the articles written by American Vision on this web site and in Biblical Worldview magazine. By doing this, you will increase the awareness of American Vision – a ministry that desires to reach as many Christians as possible with the importance and relevance of having a truly biblical worldview.

Our only requirement is that you always include our contact information on republished articles (web, print, etc.):

American Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460.


A great deal of confusion exists in the church over the definition of legalism. There are those who conclude that a legalist is someone who “keeps the commandments.” This cannot be legalism since the Bible commends those who keep God’s commandments. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Others imagine that a legalist is a person who works at keeping God’s law. Such a person is not a legalist since the psalmist extols the beauty and necessity of a love for God’s law (Psalm 119).

Some assert that a legalist is anyone who follows God’s law after he or she has embraced Christ as Lord and Savior. This cannot be legalism since Paul tells us that the law is good if one uses it lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8). What, then, is a legalism?

Legalism is the adding of basic presuppositions to a faith to make that faith more exclusive or less available to “outsiders” who do not think, act, or believe as do the “true” believers. Legalism is one of many power maneuvers by faith leaders who seek to consolidate religious authority in the hands of a very few.1

The Pharisees fit this definition as do many modern-day Christians who erect an ethical system that does not comport with the Bible, either by setting aside its ethical demands or by replacing biblical norms with extra-biblical decrees. The Pharisees, contrary to popular opinion, did not keep God’s law. They were not “the best people of their day.”2 The best people were men like Simeon (Luke 2:25), Zacharias (Luke 1:6), and Joseph (Matt. 1:19), and women like Anna (Luke 2:36), Mary (Luke 1:46–56), and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). Elizabeth and Zacharias “were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:6). The commandments of God were neglected by the Pharisees (Mark 7:8). They “nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep [their] tradition” (Mark 7:9). Jesus told the Pharisees that they had the devil as their father (John 8:44). James B. Jordan sets the record straight:

We are used to thinking of the scribes and Pharisees as meticulous men who carefully observed the jots and tittles [of God’s law]. This is not the portrait found in the Gospels. The scribes and Pharisees that Jesus encountered were grossly, obviously, and flagrantly breaking the Mosaic law, while keeping all kinds of man-made traditions. Jesus' condemnation of them in Matthew 23 certainly makes this clear, as does a famous story in John 8. There we read that the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman taken “in the very act” of adultery (John 8:1–11). How did they know where to find her? Where was the man who was caught with her? Apparently he was one of their cronies. Also, when Jesus asked for anyone " without sin" (that is, not guilty of the same crime) to cast the first stone, they all went away, because they were all adulterers.3

A persistent belief beleaguers the church because the Pharisees have been portrayed as strict adherents to the law. Since Jesus had His greatest theological disputes with the Pharisees; therefore, Jesus was opposed to the law. This is not what the Bible teaches. When the “scribes and the Pharisees . . . seated themselves in the chair of Moses,” that is, when the law was properly taught and applied, the people were to do all that they told them (Matt. 23:2–3). At the same time, Jesus admonished the people “not to do according to their deeds” (23:3).

1. David R. Miller, Breaking Free: Rescuing Families from the Clutches of Legalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 7.

2. George W. Lasher, “Regeneration—Conversion—Reformation,” The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, R. A. Torrey, A. C. Dixon, et al., eds., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1917] 1988), 3:140.

3. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 267.
I don't know, Dee Dee. It seems like a redefining of legalism and a revisionist history of the Pharisees to justify Demar's legalism. At least from my reading of the bible, the legalism Jesus was after was people more worried about showing off how well they followed the law and worrying about others not following the law than with how they themselves followed the law.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I like this one Dee Dee. Honestly, from some Chirstians I can;t help but get the impression that they really think that a person who makes the attempt to model their life on certain principles and do what is right is a legalist because they want to follow rules at all!

For some time now I've thought that really, legalism is all about trying to be a greater moral authority than God on who is in and who is out.

And Ryokan, this is no revision of the Pharisees. Jesus said that of wll the things th pharisees said, the one thing the people SHOULD listen to is when they told the people to follow God's law. Check it out:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

[Ryokan]

I like this one Dee Dee. Honestly, from some Chirstians I can;t help but get the impression that they really think that a person who makes the attempt to model their life on certain principles and do what is right is a legalist because they want to follow rules at all! Really? I don't think that is tenable. Jesus regularly exhorted people to obey the law unless there were extenuating circumstances. (For instance, Jesus didn't think aiding those in need was breaking the sabbath) Most Christians I know of think Christians are obligated to obey a variety of moral codes. Their problem is when Christians see this an excuse to use coercion to force others to obey that moral code.

For some time now I've thought that really, legalism is all about trying to be a greater moral authority than God on who is in and who is out. That we can agree on. But I think legalism also entails concerning oneself with others sins more than ones own. And judging them more harshly than one judges ones own.

And Ryokan, this is no revision of the Pharisees. Jesus said that of wll the things th pharisees said, the one thing the people SHOULD listen to is when they told the people to follow God's law. Check it out:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Jesus was not a revolutionary figure in a political or organizational sense. He wasn't trying to get rid of the Pharisees, the Sadduccees, or the Romans. This quote is consistent with that. When Jesus castigates the Pharisees though, he regularly and consistently berates them fopr their hypocrisy. That's the legalism he has a beef with. They are constantly speaking of their own godliness, and telling people to follow them as they follow God's law, when they don't follow God's law at all, especially in their hearts, where it counts. When they do follow, its for show.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Really? I don't think that is tenable. Jesus regularly exhorted people to obey the law unless there were extenuating circumstances. (For instance, Jesus didn't think aiding those in need was breaking the sabbath)Right, he considered that healing on the Sabbath was not in fact breaking it.
That we can agree on. But I think legalism also entails concerning oneself with others sins more than ones own. And judging them more harshly than one judges ones own.Maybe.
Jesus was not a revolutionary figure in a political or organizational sense. He wasn't trying to get rid of the Pharisees, the Sadduccees, or the Romans. This quote is consistent with that. When Jesus castigates the Pharisees though, he regularly and consistently berates them fopr their hypocrisy. That's the legalism he has a beef with. They are constantly speaking of their own godliness, and telling people to follow them as they follow God's law, when they don't follow God's law at all, especially in their hearts, where it counts. When they do follow, its for show.I agree that Jesus berated the Pharisees for hypocrisy. My point is just that He endorses their teaching when they teach God's law, He just doesn't endorse their practice when they violate the same. So whatever legalism is, it's not the view that we should obey God's law.

[Larry Ancil]

Legalism is the adding of basic presuppositions to a faith to make that faith more exclusive or less available to “outsiders” who do not think, act, or believe as do the “true” believers. Legalism is one of many power maneuvers by faith leaders who seek to consolidate religious authority in the hands of a very few.1
I would generally say that I have strong legalistic tendancies. What I mean by that is I have a hard time keeping righteousness and holiness (in my own life) from becoming rules and regulations that I would impose on myself (or pre-suppose for others). Legalism is law of righteousness without heart. If I feel it is not ok to drink (personal conviction) and then declare that to be law for myself or others, this to me is (at least one aspect of) legalism. It is good to obey the law, but one should not do it for the law's sake. Rather, one should obey God from whom both Law and Liberty come.

[Jaltus]

I would want to respond by asking what the fulfillment language of Paul means, if one is supposed to keep the law.

By the by, that mention of I Timothy is horrible proof-texting.

[NeilUnreal]

Laws are like the Zen proverb:

"Do not confuse the moon with the finger that points it out."

Legalism is when we make this confusion. Paul discusses this same concept in Romans at great length.

The type of righteousness extolled in the New Testament is more like the Zen proverb about the moon reflecting on the water:

"The water is not broken and the moon does not get wet."

This is what is meant by:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

The person who loves selflessly is not constrained, and yet there is no law broken.

-Neil