Was Jesus a legalist?

[Davidius]

If I am correct, "legalism" is thinking that one can merit justification through keeping the law, although it is commonly used in a much broader sense to mean any kind of seriousness about God's law.

Trying to merit salvation by keeping God's law is basically trying to be saved on the Covenant of Works model which Adam had before the Fall instead of the Covenant of Grace model, right? Since Christ was the Second Adam and perfectly kept the law in order that we might be justified in Him, i.e. subjected himself to the CoW and met the requirements, could we say that Christ was in some way the legalist who was allowed to be one, or had to be one in order to purchase redemption?

 

[Davidius]

No, Jesus was not a legalist. He didn't have to keep the law, etc. He did it on our behalf.

A perfect man, the Perfect God Man, needed to merit nothing from God. He was already perfect. In fact, He was God. He merited it for us.

I just meant that he was not under grace because he was not a sinner. In his human nature he met the requirements of the CoW. People who are real legalists are people who are trying to do that.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Are there not three (accurate) definitions of legalist:

1. A person who tries to keep the law as a covenant of works to merit his own salvation.

2. One who imposes unbiblical laws on others.

3. A person who focuses on small matters at the expense of the "weightier matters of the law."

 

[Davidius]

People who are trying to do that when they can't. The wrongness of legalism is in the fact that a sinful man thinks he can merit favour with the thrice Holy God.

Right, it's wrong for them because they can't do it. But Christ could do it and did do it.

 

[Davidius]

Are there not three (accurate) definitions of legalist:

1. A person who tries to keep the law as a covenant of works to merit his own salvation.

2. One who imposes unbiblical laws on others.

3. A person who focuses on small matters at the expense of the "weightier matters of the law."

Perhaps. I tried to make myself clear by limiting the scope of my definition to the first one you gave.

 

[KMK]

Are there not three (accurate) definitions of legalist:

1. A person who tries to keep the law as a covenant of works to merit his own salvation.

2. One who imposes unbiblical laws on others.

3. A person who focuses on small matters at the expense of the "weightier matters of the law."

You should add a 4th: Any person who points out that another man might be sinning.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Legalism can be best defined as any approach to Law without Christ. True Legalism is one who speaks of sanctification of man by having him look to Law without looking through Christ'sd fulfillment of Law on our behalf. The oneous becomes all on the believer apart from Christ. thats my 4 cents worth

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Are there not three (accurate) definitions of legalist:

1. A person who tries to keep the law as a covenant of works to merit his own salvation.

2. One who imposes unbiblical laws on others.

3. A person who focuses on small matters at the expense of the "weightier matters of the law."

Perhaps. I tried to make myself clear by limiting the scope of my definition to the first one you gave.

I understood what you were asking. It's interesting that I happened to be teaching on Galatians 2 last week and told the listeners that we are all saved by works - that is, the works of Christ. Christ did come to fulfill all righteousness. His sacrifice was perfect in that He completely fulfilled every demand of the Law. More properly, He merited salvation on our behalf.

Now, one qualification I would give to the above list of definitions is that, strictly speaking, the legalist really doesn't focus on the Law becuase, by definition, items 2 and 3 above are additions to and subtractions from the Law. The Jews are said to not pursue righteousness because, in point of fact, they are unable to pursue the Law. Hence, legalism is a disease of a fallen heart that re-writes the Law according to what man can accomplish and replaces Law with a list achievable by fallen man.

The only Person who ever pursued the Law, in all its holiness, was not really a legalist by that definition because He wasn't pursuing the law that men had replaced God's Law with but He was fulfilling the perfect and holy Law of God.

Thus, I would say that Christ came to be perfectly obedient to the Law in a way that we cannot and was able to approach the holiness of the Law in a way that we could not because our fallen hearts are only able to pursue a counterfeit standard. Sinai was a burning and fearful mountain to the Israelites in the desert because of the nature of their hearts in relation to the holiness of God. It is only in pursuing Christ that we can pursue righteousness through the Gospel because we are pursuing the only One who kept righteousness perfectly.

 

[moral necessity]

I would also add that Jesus was not at all trying to perform the law to attain a righteousness, for he already was righteous. He brought his righteousness with him, (if such a thing can be said). In my opinion, his righteousness was even higher than that of the law, as the Beatitudes and his treatment of the Sabbath display, as well as his teaching of divorce. He fulfilled the law with ease, for it was written upon his heart. So, I don't think he tried to follow a set of rules, so as to attain to some standard of righteousness. I think he already was the standard of righteousness, and that his standard encompassed the entirety of the law as well as the entirety of the Father. If you are one who thinks in terms of a Venn-diagram, Christ would be the outer circle, with the law being an inner circle.

That's how I see it for now.

Blessings!