The Beginnings of Legalism
(Bible Study - February 1999) Perhaps the single most powerful anti-legalism passage we find in all of the New Testament comes in Paul's letter to the ecclesia at Colossae. Paul wrote that at his crucifixion Christ nailed the law to the cross; therefore, the keeping of special feast days provided no righteousness (2:14-17). Jesus rose from the dead, but the law stayed dead. Unlike the risen Christ, it could not give life to its adherents. Paul referred to confidence in the works of the law as "empty deceit, human tradition, according to the fundamental spirits of the universe" (v.8). He contrasted this vain show with the true substance of religion, which is Christ, for in him "the fullness of the Deity dwells" (v.9).
Then, in the passage where he really denounces legalism (vv.20-23), Paul writes that rules-and-rituals religion is worse than worthless, it’s downright deceptive and dangerous. Unfortunately, the archaic King James Version here is barely intelligible. However, many translators and revisers have given us a variety of colorful renditions of Paul’s intent. The NIV gives this straightforward account:
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Rules and rituals religion
Today we have the phrase, "you can’t legislate morality." Paul
says this, and much more. In the passage above, he gives us three key ideas to consider
concerning the "rules and rituals" approach to religion.
1) Rules don’t work because they only deal with externals. "Things that perish with use" refers to material items such as food and clothes. Many Mosaic restrictions classify various items as unclean or forbidden. However, sin and temptation have an internal locus -- our own thinking. Rules don’t operate on our thinking; therefore, they miss the mark. A rule can regulate behavior, but not thinking. A rule can declare something clean, but a rule can’t make us "think clean."
2) Rules have an appearance of holiness. It might seem "holy" to abide by a long list of prohibitions. But, as noted above, true holiness can never come from following rules. This makes rules dangerous. They masquerade as righteousness. They give one the facade of being holy and religious. They can even replace true faith, but never do the job right. Therefore, rules are worse than useless; they are deceptive and dangerous.
3) Rules-based religion anteceded both the Pharisees and the Law of Moses. Paul gives two leads here.
First Paul uses the phrase "basic principles." Paul wrote, "since we died to Christ, we died also to the basic principles of the world." The phrase, "basic principles," sometimes translated "rudiments of the world," or "elemental spirits of the universe," evidently refers to a fundamental human predisposition. It occurs twice in Galatians (4:3,9 RSV) and twice here in Colossians (2:8,20). (The only other occurrences come in II Peter, describing that which will perish at the Lord’s judgment when the elements burn with fire, so the phrase clearly is negative in connotation.) In both Galatians and Colossians, the context deals with the shift from law to grace. The "basic principles" refers to the opposite of grace, which is law.
People have always been saved by grace, whether looking forward or backward to the sacrifice of Christ. And biblical history shows that all people have also struggled with the innate tendency to live by rules which govern the external world. It is a pervasive condition. We are looking at a greater principle than that which developed in those living under the law of Moses. Paul uses the phrase "basic principle" to emphasize that this is a universal fundamental principle, of which the Jewish condition was but one manifestation.
The second hint that the "basic principles" refers to some process broader than the Jewish approach comes from the list of Paul’s examples in v.21: "Touch not, taste not, handle not" (Col. 2:21 KJV). Other versions reverse this order, more accurately reflecting the nuances of the Greek verbs. This list refers to various Mosaic restrictions and ensuing Pharisaic additions -- that is, the "fences" the Pharisees built to maintain their purity. Theirs was a religion of "don’t even touch."
There seems to be something else, however, as "do not touch" is a quote from Gen. 3:3, when Eve spoke to the serpent; Paul uses the same Greek word as in the Septuagint. Eve told the serpent that they shouldn’t eat of the tree, and neither should they even touch it. In looking at the circumstances of this dialogue, it seems Paul refers to the temptation of Adam and Eve as the primal account of the failure of rules-based religion, now labeled as "the elemental spirits of the world."
Back to the garden
Turning our attention to Genesis, we see that Paul’s allusions and the details of
the account of Adam and Eve’s temptation show us that legalism is as old as mankind.
It is our pedigree; it is a human condition. We cannot say it belongs to someone else.
As we attempt to understand the process of transgression, we understand that the first sin involved also the first temptation, and, subsequently, the first confession, and the first act of forgiveness. We want to look in detail at the process of temptation and answer the question, "What failed in Adam and Eve’s strategy for dealing with temptation?"
Most of us have, no doubt, noted that the apostle John’s description of the "lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" (I John 2:16 NKJV) has a striking resemblance to "good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise" (Gen. 3: 6 RSV). What went wrong so that yielding to, rather than resisting temptation, carried the day?
We start by carefully noting the words of God to Adam recorded in Genesis 2:16,17 (RSV): "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Eve had yet to appear, so we assume that her understanding of this command came from Adam. However, in the face of temptation (which came from both the perceived benefits of the fruit itself and from the serpent’s deceptive questioning) Eve retorted, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but God has said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’"
If we compare Eve’s words to what the Lord God told Adam, we will find several discrepancies, which include additions, deletions, and substitutions. For instance, she mitigates the penalty of "you will surely die" to "you will die." She reduces the beneficence of God in "you may abundantly eat" to "you may eat." These have more significance in Hebrew than in English. There are other key differences also, but we want to focus on just one for the present lesson, and that is the addition to God’s law of "neither shall you touch it."
Remember, God’s instruction to them forbade only eating. He made no mention of touching or not touching. Eve’s reply to the serpent marks the first and only time the prohibition against touching occurs (see also 3:1, 11). Moreover, Eve gave it the reinforcing "God has said" (italicized above) -- making their addition to God’s law -- "touch not" -- equal to His own decree, which was merely "eat not."
What have we here but the beginnings of Pharisaism? Our first parents failed because they thought that erecting a moralistic fence between themselves and the tree would protect them. However, the temptation to eat of the fruit had to be met by faith, not by law.
Adding to the law
What does this mean? Paul understands it to mean that adding to God’s law has
been a human folly from the beginning. We add vainly to God’s word, giving it the
imprimatur of Vox Dei (the word of God) itself, to no avail. The result of Adam and
Eve countering temptation with law, not faith, resulted in the terse, "she took
of the fruit, and did eat." Did you notice the apparently unnecessary
"she took of the fruit?" Of course she would have to in order to eat it.
Why mention this? To highlight the sad fact that in failing to keep God’s command,
Adam and Eve broke their own "addition" first!
Just as Paul said, laws cannot constitute morality, for they don’t address the real issues of faith and temptation. Adam and Eve were tempted, but they dealt with the temptation as an external issue, that is, focusing on the fruit, rather than their own response.
Perhaps their line of thinking went this way:
"If the fruit of that one tree is ‘off limits,’ then it must have some inherent ‘not goodness’ about it. Why else would God have declared it off limits? Something must be wrong with that tree. It is ‘unclean!’ And if it is ‘unclean,’ then by all means, even touching it would be wrong! We must not even handle the fruit, let alone eat it!"
Hence, they added to God’s law, to protect themselves from a perceived external "contamination." In fact, Eve wouldn’t use its name when talking to the serpent; she referred to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as "the tree in the midst of the garden."
We may feel the above line of thinking is too speculative, but that is the thought process people follow in the legalistic approach. The point is Adam and Eve certainly thought that adding to God’s law would give them an extra measure of protection. They addressed the problem of temptation by adding a stricter rule that would give them another barrier against committing transgression. The result? Their strategy failed. They succumbed to the temptation, and in so doing they broke their own law as well as God’s.
The failure of rules as a basis of morality has its roots in the rudiments of the world, wrote Paul. This is the example upon which he based that teaching.
The declaration in Colossians puts us in the very uncomfortable position of realizing that we cannot escape our legalistic tendencies. It has been so from the beginning. It’s not a Pharisee thing, it’s a human condition. And if that’s how our first parents, in all their created glory, dealt with temptation, what can we say about ourselves now?
A beginning lesson
We aim at present to raise our awareness of the pervasive problem of the
rule-making approach to religion. In later articles we plan to look at many of the
questions raised by this observation. We need to know how Paul could also call the law "holy,
just, and good." We need to know about the rules necessary for the maintenance
of order and organization in a group endeavor, such as an ecclesia. We need to know how to
set rules for our children, for whom rules are necessary and appropriate. We need to know
when -- and how -- to make rules for ourselves for our own growth.
Above all, we need to take Paul seriously on this issue, and not let our worship devolve into rule-following. Paul knew what he was writing -- rules don’t work. They are not a substitute for, or a supplement to, saving faith. Let us develop faith, not hide behind the facade of rules and rituals. Especially, let’s not force our scruples on others with the imprimatur of "God has said...," when in fact He did no such thing. Our faith should lead us to a righteousness based on grace, and on the obedience out of love to the teachings of the New Covenant. The addition of laws, rules, regulations, and codes lead to the misguided sense that avoiding something brings holiness. Worse yet, rules divert our attention from the true internal problem, and emasculate our ability to deal with temptation.
David Levin