“That’s legalism,” has become one of the quickest ways to end a biblical discussion.
Suggest that Christians should follow a biblical pattern for worship, marriage, church organization, or holy living, and someone may dismiss the idea as “legalistic.” Appeal to the authority of Scripture, and you may even be compared to the Pharisees.
But before we accept that label…or use it ourselves…we should ask a more important question:
What did Jesus actually condemn?
That question matters because the word “legalism” never appears in Scripture. That doesn’t mean the ideas people associate with the word are absent from Scripture. Nor does it necessarily make the word itself wrong. It simply means we must allow Scripture…not modern terminology…to define those ideas. Christians have long used helpful terms not found in Scripture, such as “Trinity” and “incarnation.” The danger is not using a non-biblical word. The danger is allowing that word to mean whatever we want instead of letting Scripture define it. When that happens, we can end up condemning things Jesus never condemned…or defending things He plainly rebuked.
So rather than beginning with modern definitions, let’s begin with Jesus’ own words.
The Pharisees’ Real Problem
Matthew 23 records some of the strongest words Jesus ever spoke.
Repeatedly He pronounces “woes” upon the scribes and Pharisees, exposing their failures with remarkable clarity. Because this chapter is filled with rebukes, many people assume Jesus was condemning people who simply cared too much about keeping God’s law…But that is not what the chapter says.
Jesus begins by acknowledging that the scribes and Pharisees “sit in Moses’ seat.” Then He tells the crowds:
“Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do” (Matthew 23:2-3).
That statement alone should make us pause.
Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for taking God’s law too seriously. He condemned them for failing to practice the very law they claimed to uphold. “They say, and do not do.”
Their problem was hypocrisy. They taught obedience but failed to practice it themselves. They laid burdens upon others while refusing to bear those burdens themselves. They loved public recognition more than humble service. They carefully polished the outside while neglecting the inside. Everything revolved around appearances rather than genuine faithfulness.
The heart of the chapter comes in verse 23:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.”
Those final words deserve careful attention.
Jesus did not criticize them for tithing. He said they ought to have done those things. Their failure was not careful obedience in small matters. Their careful attention to one area did not excuse their neglect of another. His answer was not less obedience. It was more complete obedience. That is a very different picture than many people imagine.
What Jesus Actually Rebuked
Matthew 15 helps us understand Matthew 23.
When the Pharisees criticized Jesus because His disciples ignored the traditions of the elders, Jesus immediately turned the conversation around:
“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3).
Notice the contrast.
The issue was never God’s commandments versus freedom…it was God’s commandments versus human tradition. The Pharisees had elevated their traditions until those traditions actually nullified the Word of God. That is what Jesus condemned.
He condemned hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and substituting human traditions for God’s commands. He condemned religion that looked impressive while the heart remained far from God.
But nowhere did He suggest that taking God’s commandments seriously was itself the problem.
Grace Does Not Replace Obedience
The rest of the New Testament follows the same pattern.
Jesus asked,
“Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).
Similarly, he warned that not everyone who called Him “Lord” would enter the kingdom, but those who did the will of His Father (Matthew 7:21-23).
To the woman caught in adultery He extended mercy, yet He also said,
“Go and sin no more” (John 8:11).
None of these passages diminish grace. They show that grace calls people to repentance and faithful obedience.
Grace is not the opposite of obedience. Grace is God’s answer for people who have failed to obey perfectly. That distinction is essential.
Sometimes people use “legalism” to describe the belief that we can earn salvation through flawless obedience. If that is what is meant, Scripture clearly rejects it.
“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
Every one of us needs the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. No amount of personal goodness can erase our guilt before God. But increasingly the word is used very differently.
On the other hand, sometimes “legalism” is used whenever someone simply insists that Christians should obey what Christ has commanded. That is a definition worth rejecting.
If urging disciples to obey their Lord is legalism, then what are we to do with Jesus Himself? He constantly called people to repent and to obey. He constantly warned against disobedience. He never apologized for expecting obedience.
A Better Question
Perhaps, then, we should stop asking whether someone is “legalistic” and begin asking better biblical questions.
Are they binding human traditions where God has not spoken?
Are they trusting their own goodness instead of Christ?
Are they practicing hypocrisy while demanding righteousness from others?
If so, Scripture plainly condemns those attitudes. But if someone simply believes that disciples should obey their King, we should be careful before attaching a negative label the Bible itself never uses.
The New Testament rejects two opposite errors. One says, “If I keep enough rules, I can save myself.” The other says, “Since I am saved by grace, obedience is no longer very important.” Jesus accepted neither.
He called sinners to Himself because they could never save themselves. He also called those same sinners to repent, deny themselves, and follow Him.
Rather than allowing a modern label to define the discussion, perhaps we should return to the language of Scripture and let Christ define the terms.
He rejected hypocrisy. He rejected human traditions that displaced God’s Word. He rejected self-righteousness. But Jesus never apologized for expecting obedience.
