Was Jesus a Legalist?
Well, we need to first define what Legalism is before we answer this kind of question.
Source:
Definition of legalism | Dictionary.com
Legalism is defined in the dictionary as:
1. Strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence to law, especially to the letter rather than the spirit.
2. Theology: The doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
In judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.
Is this true?
Well, usually I am in support of secular dictionaries in what they say because they generally are not attached with religious bias. But in this case because it refers to a theological word, this word was unfortunately created by religious men and it has later branched off to have different meanings in the secular world (See definition 3).
Okay. So is definition 1 correct? Is strict law keeping according to the letter of Scripture contrary to the Spirit? No. There is no actual verse or passage that says such a thing in the Bible.
Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). In other words, Scripture is literally God breathed by the Holy Spirit. The Word of God (Scripture) is called the Sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17).
Jesus did not sin (1 Peter 2:22) (Hebrews 4:15) (2 Corinthians 5:21).
To sin is transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4).
Jesus referred to Scripture many times.
In all His teachings He referred to the divine authority of the Old Testament (
Mt. 5:17-18;
8:17;
12:40-42;
Lk. 4:18-21;
10:25-28;
15:29-31;
17:32;
24:25-45;
Jn. 5:39-47). He quoted the Old Testament 78 times, the Pentateuch alone 26 times. He quoted from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, and Malachi. He referred to the Old Testament as “The Scriptures,” “the word of God,” and “the wisdom of God.”
So if Jesus did not break God's laws and He had a high regard for Scripture, this means He was a strict legalist according to Scripture or the written Word. Jesus also abided with the Holy Spirit. So being a strict legalist according to the letter is not contrary to abiding with the Spirit. For it is the Spirit that inspired Scripture to give us hundreds of commands in the New Testament. Many of these commands deal with salvation. Repentance is a commandment (Acts of the Apostles 17:30). Believing in Jesus is a commandment (1 John 3:23). To not be a strict legalist means one can kind of break God's laws a little (Which would be sin). Jesus never sinned.
So this first definition is false. It may be true from the religious man's perspective or thinking, but it is not true according to Scripture.
The first half of the second definition says, "Theology: The doctrine that salvation is gained through good works."
Is this true or false? Well, we are not saved by good works alone or Law Alone. We are initially and ultimately saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ without the deeds of the Law. But after we are saved by God's grace, we have to enter the Sanctification Process (Which involves the power of God working in us to live a holy life). This is the second step or phase of the salvation process. It is the second work of God done in our life that is a part of salvation. This includes good works of the Lord done through the believer. So good works on some level do play a part in the salvation process. It is just not works alone that saves us because we first need God's grace to be saved in order to wipe out our past slate of sin so as to be forgiven. But it sounds like this second definition is against all forms of doing good works. If this is the case, then this second definition is also false.
The term "legalistic" appears to be traced back as early as 1838.
See:
legalistic | Origin and meaning of legalistic by Online Etymology Dictionary
According to Wikipedia, and the Bible, the Greek word "
nomos" was most definitely used in a legalistic sense in Galatians 2:16.
Source:
Legalism (theology) - Wikipedia
Is this true? Yes. There is a Legalistic wrong way that a person can end up going according to the Bible. Paul preached strongly against "Law Alone Salvationism" via by one thinking they had to be circumcised in order to be saved.
I call this the heresy of "Circumcision Salvationism."
Paul fought against this false belief heavily and you can glean it mostly from his writings to the Galatians and to the Romans.
- Galatians 2:3 says, “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:”
- Galatians 5:2 says, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”
- Galatians 5:6 says, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
- Galatians 6:15 (NLT) says, “It doesn't matter whether we have been circumcised or not. What counts is whether we have been transformed into a new creation.”
- 1 Corinthians 7:18-19 says, 18 For instance, a man who was circumcised before he became a believer should not try to reverse it. And the man who was uncircumcised when he became a believer should not be circumcised now. (NLT) 19 “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.” (NASB)
- Romans 2:28-29 says, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
- Romans 3:1 says, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?”
- Romans 4:9-12 says, ”9 “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”
- Acts of the Apostles 21:21 says, “And they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.”
The heresy of "Circumcision Salvationism" is clearly defined for us at the Jerusalem Council:
- Acts of the Apostles 15:1 says, “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
- Acts of the Apostles 15:5 says, But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
- Acts of the Apostles 15:24 says, “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:”
Basically it was a huge problem because if somebody thought they first had to be circumcised in order to be saved, they would in essence be making the Law of Moses or Law Alone-ism the foundation of their salvation and it would not be based any longer on being saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ and the gospel as per 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. That's the problem that Paul fought against. This was the wrong form of Legalism that Paul fought against.
In other words, there is a good Legalism, and a bad Legalism. Obeying God strictly is never wrong. But obeying laws that have been superseded by the New Covenant, or man made laws is bad Legalism.
So in Conclusion:
Was Jesus a legalist?
Yes, and no. It depends on what you mean by a legalist.
Jesus always obeyed the Father, and He did everything in line with Scripture and the Spirit and He fulfilled Scripture to a "T." So yes. Jesus was a good legalist because He strictly obeyed His Father. Jesus was not a bad legalist; For a bad legalist is someone who strives to obey old laws (like OT laws) that are no longer in effect or they strive to obey man made traditions that are not God's laws.