What is legalism and why is it wrong?
One is inclined to say that legalism is putting the letter of the law above the spirit of the law:
2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (NIV)
But surely one can take seriously both the spirit and the letter of the law? And if we believe in plenary verbal inspiration surely the letter of the law is as inspired as the spirit?
Maybe a legalist is someone that takes literally a command that isn't meant to be taken literally? What would be an example? Well, Origen famously took the following command seriously, even though it doesn't seem to have been meant as such (though, having said that, the second sentence is literally true, so why shouldn't we take the first as such?).
Matthew 5:30
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (NIV)
2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (NIV)
But surely one can take seriously both the spirit and the letter of the law? And if we believe in plenary verbal inspiration surely the letter of the law is as inspired as the spirit?
Maybe a legalist is someone that takes literally a command that isn't meant to be taken literally? What would be an example? Well, Origen famously took the following command seriously, even though it doesn't seem to have been meant as such (though, having said that, the second sentence is literally true, so why shouldn't we take the first as such?).
Matthew 5:30
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (NIV)
posted by Daniel Hill | 6/18/2006 01:10:00 pm
3 Comments:
Dear brother,
Can I respectfully submit that you have interpreted 2 Cor. 3:6 incorrectly, unless I understand you wrongly?
'The letter' refers to the law, which cannot save, but only kill the natural man.
Only the Sprit can give life through the Gospel.
John Calvin, Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry all agree with me in this interpretation.
This passage deals with soteriological legalism, or how the term 'legalism' is strictly used in theology (i.e. seeking salvation through the law) as opposed to how the term 'legalism' is often used today (i.e. being stricter than God's Law).
"For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit... [T]he carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom. 8:3,4,7,8)
Thanks for this, Timothy. I didn't make myself very clear: I was using 'legalism' in the popular sense, rather than the theological, and wasn't trying to suggest that 2 Cor 3: 6 defined that. Perhaps it would have been better not to have mentioned the verse at all!
But I'm not sure that 'being stricter than God's law' is quite right as a definition of the popular sense of 'legalism'. The Pharisees were legalistic even in the way in which they applied what was God's law, never mind going beyond it.
Yes, legalism comes in all shapes and sizes; hence "often used".
And often it means being strict in any way.
And often it means (as you say) putting the letter of the law above the spirit.
Post a Comment
<< Home