Viewpoint Brief Bible Studies #17-21 |
||
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
JESUS calls US to be |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
The Christian religion is the worship and service of Jesus Christ. It’s not Mary we worship, but her Son. We worship neither saints, angels, a law code, nor even God’s Spirit. It’s JESUS who is to be honored. The Bible is our guide. |
||
[Meditation based on an article by Michael R. Weed -- ] In the Corinthian church in early days, Paul says that "when (they) assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification" (1 Corinthians 14:26). What laws can a legalist make out of that? ...
[This is derived from a CHRISTIAN STUDIES (from Institute for Christian Studies, 1909 University Ave., Austin TX 78705) article by Editor Michael R. Weed. His article is titled, "And They Were Silent: Reflections on Legalism." Copies of issue #15 of the publication (1995-96), which includes this study, are available from the Institute. A few direct quotations, and much summarization of his good ideas is presented here and in following studies. His article is copyrighted in 1996.]Weed calls attention to a brief word from Emil Brunner, "It is not virtue which is the opposite of sin, but faith, just as it is not vice which is the essence of sin, but unbelief."
Weed notes that most of us, when we want to disparage an unpleasing view, are apt to call it "legalism." And sometimes we're right that the view we dislike is legalistic. But sometimes it's OUR view that is legalistic instead (or also).
"Legalistic" is generally descriptive of moral systems or practices which are characterized by rigid and excessive attention to laws, rules, and regulations. Those who love and respect normal systems of law are NOT properly described as being legalists. Few legalists realize that's what they are, for they think they're merely defending truth.
Weed suggests that "as a moral system or ethic, legalism views the essence of the moral life in terms of laws, rules, and regulations." Law is the beginning, and is EVERYTHING, in their view. It's the HEART of religion. They feel that those who perfectly understand and observe the laws they like are sure of salvation and all others will NOT be saved.
Being lawful (moral, or ethical) consists of knowing, applying, and following the correct law, rule, or regulation. Salvation is based on perfect and persistent observance of the law code which expresses their best understanding of God's will for man today.
As a religious ethic, legalism views the religious life in its entirety in terms of strict adherence to laws, rules and regulations. Whether these (their preferred code of laws) are derived from natural law (commonly held by most people of the culture in question), from an official teaching office (as in Roman Catholic moral theology), or from authoritative scripture (as in most Protestant and fundamentalist ethics), the whole of the religious and moral life of each person holding this view is governed by knowledge of "the law" and correct interpretation as to how it should be applied in given circumstances.
Weed describes two common forms of legalism -- rigorist and laxist.
The rigorous application of law says that there's a regulation to cover EVERY question.
The laxist says instead that when no law requirement is made, that individuals are free to do as their own conscience dictates. I wouldn't describe this "laxist legalist" as a legalist at all, of course. What do you think? Weed's example of a laxist legalist is one who maintains "that abortion is not a moral issue, on the grounds that there is no explicit prohibition of abortion in scripture."
I'm thinking of Christians who realize that whatever God has neither required nor forbidden to Christians is not a matter of law at all, and that those who do love God are left entirely free (no Word saying "must" or "never") of negative or positive guidance in such matters. To me, this means that Christians should never be legalists, even of the laxist variety (which I had not heard of until reading this article).
Weed's introduction concludes, "For both laxist and rigorous approaches, however, the essence of religion and ethics resides in the correct observance of rules, regulations, and rituals."
INTRODUCED above, this article is
continued in Viewpoint study #18, which follows.
===============================
Brief Bible Study #18 His article is titled, "And They Were Silent: Reflections on Legalism."
Not surprisingly, says Weed, attention to religion and morality from legalistic perspectives gives rise to a character-type fundamentally marked by basic attitudes and dispositions which distinguish the legalistic self. Legalists look at any question from a "legalistic" view, which may not agree with how others see the matter.
Some suppose that the real problem with legalism (it is NOT correct Christianity, not ever) is the legalistic mindset which accompanies legalistic moralities.
To many, concerned with immoral and wrong views of daily life around us, legalism may seem commendable because of its call for moral purity and community decency. Legalism certainly promotes a concern with being right and correct in application and performance of the law to which the legalist holds. This can be seen wherever legalists control government, most obviously now in countries such as Iran and Iraq, and those which shape their government after those which are based on strict adherence to the Koran. But it also can easily be seen in congregations where leadership is by control, where "the elders" or "the pastor" make(s) every decision.
Despite any appearance of being in line with God's will, even with commendable concentration on correct interpretation, application, and performance of a law code, legalism inescapably promotes a preoccupation with minute (tiny, miniscule) details and subtle distinctions which ultimately obscure the original intents of any law system. That is, the substance of moral and religious obligation is transmuted into scrupulous attention to a maze of laws and regulations.
This happened before and after Christ came. Men who loved law sometimes loved law more than they loved God, and hence missed observing the purpose of the laws while concentrating on its details (many of which had been added by human tradition and logic).
The legalist aims at performing precisely what is required by his law code -- no more and no less. But love often calls for much more than was required, and the gospel is grace and love rather than laws and regulations.
The legalistic vision of the moral life, and of moral growth in particular, is virtually static. Once given, the code needs no change. Once understood, it need not be BETTER understood.
Especially important in terms of its impact on the formation of character is the fact that legalism does not aim at making one good, much less compassionate. Legalism simply equates being good with being RIGHT.
Thus, since the focus of legalistic morality is not other persons but rather is the law itself, the preoccupations of legalism may evoke a callousness and insensitivity to human concerns.
Weed points us to both Jesus and Paul to understand how they felt about legalism, and what they taught on the subject.
INTRODUCED in Viewpoint #17 and continued
here, this article will be further continued
in Viewpoint article #19.
===============================
Brief Bible Study #19 Both Jesus and Paul encountered forms of religious legalism among the Jews of their time, particularly as represented by the Pharisees. Legalists were enemies of God's truth then. Shall we call them friends of God today? No, we need to ask ourselves whether OUR position can accurately be called legalism, and if so, how we need to change to be in line with what God calls us to think and do.
The gospels are replete with instances of encounters between Jesus and ones who conceived of the religious and moral life primarily in terms of law, including various rules and regulations which detail specific entailments of the law.
By the time Jesus lived on earth, Pharisees had expanded the Sinai covenant into more than 600 prohibitions and requirements, including 39 "main tasks" proscribed by the fourth commandment to "honor the sabbath." The command was to honor the seventh day by resting from work. Interpretations of the command closely defined what was work and what was not work, to the most minute detail...
Repeatedly, Jesus encountered the legalistic attitude. He couldn't commend it. He condemned it.
In one of the most revealing of such events (Mark 3:4), Jesus asked legalists of his day, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" Mark reports that this question brought only the response of silence. At all costs, their regulations MUST be kept.
The answering silence disclosed far more than mere words might. Jesus was pointing out to them that persons may actually, through misplaced religious devotion and more determinations, evade rather than evoke moral and religious objectives.
A person may become so preoccupied with correct and exact observance of laws and regulations that the original purpose and intent of the law itself may be hidden and forgotten. Could WE do that?
Jesus showed compassion toward sinners who recognized their sin. He criticized their critics whose chief interest lay in exact fulfillment of precise regulations by which they hoped to earn righteousness.
Aware of their own moral and spiritual frailty, persons who know themselves to be sinners are able to feel their total dependence upon God's grace and mercy. They come to Him in grateful acceptance of His undeserved (unearned) acceptance of unworthy sinners. Legalists seek acceptance because of their righteous deeds, and miss the point of much of what Jesus taught and did while on earth.
Jesus invites his hearers to respond to a Father who every moment sustains them by unvarying love. He draws needing sinners toward God.
Those who seek to save themselves by righteous deeds repel others who are unable or unwilling to seek in the exact same ways to save themselves. God's love attracts. That righteousness demands a judgment day cannot be denied. It's easy to see that Jesus wants every man and woman to be saved. Those who reject His mercy WILL be lost, but not because God wants them to have made wrong choices. God is love.
The gospel invites sinners to salvation. Those who honor law above all can only call sinners to further frustration because of their inability to do everything "right" every time.
In the gospel according to Matthew, we see Jesus thanking the Father that he hides full truth from those who are the most "wise" on earth, while disclosing himself instead to ones lacking earthly recognition but who have been chosen by the Son of God (Matthew 11:25-30).
But it's in the gospel according to John that the fact is most clearly seen: The worlds represented by Jesus on the one hand and Jewish legalism on the other hand are irreconcilable.
John speaks of above and below, of spirit and flesh, of truth and mere appearance of truth, of light and darkness. The truth brought from God by Jesus is not ambiguous. It's not a mixture of salvation by law and by grace. Sinners CAN be saved, but not by their own wisdom, merit, or might.
The way of salvation by works is NOT the way to which Jesus leads us. Some remain in spiritual darkness because that's where they prefer to remain. They may want to see by the artificial light of human wisdom, by their own theories and interpretations, rather than expose themselves in the full light of God's truth. We all ARE sinners. Some choose to try to hide the fact by great displays of erudition and generous giving to those who obviously have needs.
Jesus points out that true seekers must somehow find righteousness "greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees." Some use this fact to urge people to pay more money into church treasuries, thinking that God's favor is for sale. Some, because of it, call upon people to attend more church services and to stay longer in such services and in private devotions in an effort to exceed the righteousness of those of whom Jesus spoke. Is that what Jesus meant?
Of course it is NOT. Pharisees were meticulous in observing regulations. Who could better them in this? It's in faith and trust, in repentance and confession of faith, that we CAN excel.
Of all that Jesus in calling for excellence might have meant, we can be most sure that he was NOT calling us to try to be more legalistic than the scribes and Pharisees of his time.
So, next study time we seek light from Paul's experiences with later legalists than those who ultimately fought Jesus openly and brought Jesus to death on a Roman cross. Legalists, while appearing to speak FOR God and truth, in reality actually are opposing God's truth!
INTRODUCED in Viewpoint #17 and continued
in #18 and here, this article is further continued in
Viewpoint study #20 which follows. ===============================
Brief Bible Study #20 This study is based on a CHRISTIAN STUDIES (from Institute for Christian Studies, 1909 University Ave., Austin TX 78705) article by Editor Michael R. Weed. His article is titled, "And They Were Silent: Reflections on Legalism." Copies of issue #15 of the publication (1995-96), which includes this study, are available from the Institute. A few direct quotations, and much summarization of his good ideas is presented here. His article is copyrighted in 1996. Weed calls attention to a brief word from Emil Brunner, "It is not virtue which is the opposite of sin, but FAITH, just as it is not vice which is the essence of sin, but UNBELIEF."
Both Jesus and Paul encountered forms of religious legalism among the Jews of their time, particularly as represented by the Pharisees.Legalists were enemies of God's truth then. Shall we call them friends of God today? No, we need to ask ourselves whether OUR position can accurately be called legalism, and if so, how we need to change to be in line with what God calls us to think and do.
THE APOSTLE PAUL, who had been a Pharisee and a trained rabbi before he was converted to Christianity, offers profound insights into the function of LAW in the moral and religious life.
Essentially, Paul argues that although the law given to Israel is in itself "holy and righteous and good" (Romans 7:12), it becomes to those who seek to live by it a way to death rather than to life.
Law is used by the human heart in an evil manner. At one level, the law does disclose God's will for human lives. In doing so, it also brings into awareness the self's failure to live up to God's intentions for every human. It exposes sin. It makes us AWARE of wrong intentions and deeds.
While disclosing God's will, law also evokes a consciousness of the reality and seriousness of human sin. Law is good. Law is, in another sense, bad.
In Romans 7, Paul contends not merely that the law conveys an awareness of sin, but he suggests that thereby sinful desires are awakened and then our sinful nature may take charge so that we turn to deceit in order to continue to feel good about ourselves. Weed words this, "The deception (verse 11) to which Paul refers lies in the fact that the self, conscious of its sinfulness, is deluded into seizing upon the law as a means for addressing its awakened passion for righteousness." (Weed refers to more than one scholar in explaining this thought. Please see the article itself.)
Paul's moving cry in verse 24, "Wretched man that I am" arises from his insight into the dilemma of sinning either by breaking the law or by obeying law from a sinful desire to thereby attain righteousness. It's this latter form of sin to which Paul refers when he states, "I do not do the good I want," (verse 19) that is, I do not in fact become righteous by things I do.
Is Paul saying that he fails to fully obey? Does he suffer from a bad conscience?
On the contrary. Paul's testimony was that he had been a GOOD Pharisee. He was BLAMELESS under the law (Philippians 3:6; Galatians 1:13; Acts 23:1).
Paul realizes that the deceitfulness of sin permits persons to become cut off from God precisely on the basis of their desire for moral and religious rectitude and a clean conscience. The self, Paul said, secure in its performance of legal, moral, and religious requirements, unintentionally solidifies sin's jurisdiction over itself.
In spite of its goodness, law cannot cancel the deceitful power of human sinfulness. Law invites the self to recognize and address specific sins. But it cannot address the deeper problems of the heart in which reside the mystery of human sinfulness. The best LAW is not good enough to take away our sin!
Accordingly, Paul recognizes that NO ONE is justified by law (Galatians 2:16; 3:11). It's by radical FAITH in God -- a faith which involves wholly abandoning confidence in one's own knowledge and abilities, that any person becomes a child of God.
The new birth is not a decision to now keep laws, however good those laws are, but a decision to allow God to make us new persons through a total transformation of self. We'll now not trust in our own abilities or powers for salvation, but our trust will be in the OUTSIDE power of God who raised Jesus from the dead and who can make us NEW.
Thus in Philippians, when Paul refers to "forgetting what lies behind" (3:13), he is not referring to personal shortcomings or failures, or to overwhelming personal triumphs. It's precisely his accomplishments and grounds for confidence in SELF as a Jewish law-keeper that he now counts as "refuse" (verses 4-6).
By contrast, the perfection which Paul presses forward to "accomplish" is not perfect performance of laws -- it's conformity to the self-emptying of Christ (2:5-11). Paul does not see Jesus as having brought a new code of law, somehow better than the law of Moses given by God. Jesus offers the possibility for a new and better SELF than before.
Accordingly, Paul can state not only that confidence in one's abilities and accomplishments must be abandoned, but that the sinful SELF must totally surrender to a new Master. Our selves must be put to death in order that we are then enabled to live with God.
How clear it is! Those who die to the old self of sin (in baptism, Romans 6:6) are raised to walk in new life. They receive the Spirit of Christ and God in their hearts (Galatians 4:6; and compare Romans 8:11 and Acts 2:38).
Walking in NEW life, we no longer live for ourselves. Now we live for the sake of Christ whose love now controls us (2 Corinthians 5:14,15). Indeed, now we ARE the righteousness of God because He has cleansed us and given us right standing with Him (2 Cor. 5:21). NOW we are enabled to live according to "the law of Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2). But this law is not a set of minute regulations. It's living and loving because of a changed self, a changed heart which is now in accord with God and His love.
And so the reign of law is established, in that its original significance is recovered (Romans 3:31). NOW the self-seeking ego has relinquished its claim to righteousness -- this dreadful SELF has been crucified (with Christ). The love of God and neighbor becomes the fulfilling of the intent of God's law from its very beginning (see Rom. 13:10; Gal. 5:14).
We note that Paul is not overemphasizing the part that baptism plays in new birth. Baptism is not a sacrament which in itself brings new birth. Baptism is not a requirement that even CAN be met by the sinful self. It's the expression of renunciation of SELF which allows creation of the new self in whom God lives. We must never seek to separate repentance and baptism, as if one alone could create new life. It's by God's authority that Peter promises salvation and the gift of God to FOLLOW repenting and being baptized (Acts 2:38).
As did Jesus, Paul understands that the way of salvation is not by just learning additional information, but by a change of heart. Not by additional law and regulation, but by changing desires and intentions. It's by giving up self rather than continuing confidence in deeds OF the self (deeds of law-keeping) that we are saved.
INTRODUCED in Viewpoint #17 this article is
concluded in Viewpoint study #21 which follows. ===============================
Brief Bible Study #21
THE HEART OF THE
PROBLEM OF LEGALISM.The fundamental problem about legalism lies deep within the human heart -- at the very dawn of human consciousness [Weed refers us to his earlier study, "The Moralistic Experience: An Enquiry" in RESTORATION QUARTERLY, 15:2 ('72)].
The origin of sin is not when law is first broken. Sin makes its appearance as a breaking of trust with our creator. It's this PRIMAL sin which does not admit to degrees of "greater" or "lesser," underlies and impels all subsequent sins. Sin is against God rather than against particular requirements, against the giver of law rather than against law itself.
To the extent that legalism deals with specific sins rather than sin itself, legalism is a detriment to our spiritual development rather than an aid. The more confident we are in victory over specific sins, the less are we apt to be enabled to win the final victory. For our confidence is in self, and the victory is in Jesus. Legalism's emphasis on regulations rather than on the Savior is its weakness. JESUS saves. Paul words it rightly, "Law kills."
Scrupulously correct and conscientious performance of rules and requirements reinforces confidence in the self's own moral and religious rectitude. At the same time it distracts attention from the self's broken and estranged relationship with its Creator. Law kills only by drawing our attention away from our real need, which is to let God live in us, to surrender our self to His self, to be remade in His image.
Legalism invites an incessant scrutiny and criticism of others -- a comparing between OUR good performance and their less good actions. Another distraction. Our attention needs to be directed toward the perfection of our Savior rather than to our own little victories or to the foibles of others.
In the final analysis, the righteousness to which legalism aspires is that which the self achieves by its own efforts. It's SELF-righteousness. Weed rightly calls this an exceptionally virulent spiritual disease. It's widespread. Those most possessed of it are least aware that they're infected by it. Legalism is a dreadful danger to those most eager to please and serve almighty God.
Weed suggests that the best argument we might use against confirmed legalists is intercessory prayer. Joining them in legalism won't win them out of it. Debating a legalist is an exercise in futility. Until we EACH recognize that the Way of Christ is by giving self up and accepting Him as Lord in every aspect of life, there's no profit in debating which rules and regulations are "binding" on us as Christians.
Legalism is ultimately a minimalist ethic and an external religion. It always demands less than Christianity calls for. Never more. Always less. Stringent. Hateful. But never coming to the heart of new birth without which no soul can be saved.
Weed warns against over-reaction to legalism leading to an overemphasis on grace which might lead us to think that God doesn't care what His children think or do. God is love. Unless we walk in LOVE, we are not His, and are doomed to die regardless of any pious talk. But we MUST avoid making rules and claiming they came from God.
The radical claims of covenant love are not rooted in human abilities. We are called to complete commitment to Jesus -- to live as He did, to think and talk as He did. Covenant love to which we are called demands more than legalism ever could. That's because the One who calls us is enabling and giving more than law could. And he asks no less of us than he gives. What do YOU owe to God? Nothing less than He has given to you.
Brief Bible Studies #17 thru 21 from Ray Downen. To go back to
Viewpoint's first page, click < here. Or here to go on to
Viewpoint Study 22. For Ray's concluding remarks, click HERE.
