Grace 11
________________________________________________
In the last two posts, I warned that two popular
understandings of legalism will ultimately fail to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked in this battle against the “legal spirit.” Those two understandings are the idea that legalism is simply being overly strict, and the second is the idea that legalism is only an effort to save oneself by one’s good works. Last week, I gave a biblical definition of understanding based on a very brief sketch of the issues Paul addressed in Galatians and Sinclair Ferguson’s treatment of the temptation of Eve in the garden (Ferguson, 82-83). I came to the conclusion that in its most distilled definition, we can describe legalism as “an abuse of law and grace so that God’s favor becomes something that must be earned.”Now we come to the messy job of finding this sin of the heart and rooting it out, and like any battle against the Christian’s remaining sin, it is an ongoing conflict that requires perpetual vigilance and a willingness to be exceedingly thorough in examining our hearts. This is not a call to morose introspection that is followed by a retreat into one’s own sense of helplessness and a pining away for the perceived lack of progress towards holiness. While the Sauls wring their hands in their tents, let the Davids go to the battle in the name of the LORD. King Jesus has smitten his enemies before him, let us ride out with him and utterly destroy the retreating stragglers.
But we must find them. The legal spirit is a master of disguise – a shape-shifting sin who is able to sneak through defensive positions undetected. He hides in the dens and in the rocks of our hearts and minds. How can we find him and flush him out?
Let me share with you what has helped me in the battle against this particular sin. Keep in mind that I am no expert here. I share this with you “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.” I freely confess that I am a man of like passions and the Canaanites remain in my land, too. But this has helped me, and perhaps it will help you.
 |
| The Return of the Prodigal Son Rembrandt, 1669 |
In the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), Jesus tells the story of a man who had two sons: the youngest demanded his inheritance and then proceeded to waste it all on sin. Later he “came to himself” and determined to return to his father in repentance. He indeed returned, and the father welcomed him home with gracious mercy. A party was given in honor of the occasion, but the eldest brother refused to attend. The eldest son was indignant and said to his father, “thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.”
Luke chapter 15 begins with these words: “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them...” The three parables of lost things (the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son) were parables spoken to the Pharisees to expose their sin of the indignation against Jesus for his reaching out in mercy to the worst of the worst. The eldest son was emblematic of the scribes and Pharisees who mumbled and murmured that publicans and sinners (the prodigals of the world) were getting saved. The eldest son was a rank legalist.
In the above-mentioned sermon, the preacher said in reference to the oldest that, “I kinda like the guy. I wouldn’t have gone to the party...he’s my kinda guy.” And further into the sermon, the preacher added, “This kinda guy [the eldest brother] is exactly what this Bible conference is all about.” He went on to preach how we need to be throwing parties for the young people who never go into sin – the faithful ones who never rebel, just like the eldest brother.
Such preaching totally misses the point of the Savior’s parable and commits a serious error by making a hero out of a legalist instead of humbling our hearts at the gracious mercy we have received from the Father. Jesus didn’t tell this story to pat the Pharisees on the backs for their works of righteousness, but to expose the corrupting legalism that had so infected their hearts with spiritual arrogance that they assumed they had a right to the Father’s blessings because of their many years of faithful service.
Listen again to the eldest son’s complaint: “Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.” (Luke 15:29). These are the words of the legalist. “You owe me for what I have done. I have earned your blessing.”
 |
| The Return of the Prodigal Son Guercino, 1619 |
At this point, many fly off the rails because they balk at the interpretation of the eldest son representing a Pharisee and the prodigal son representing converted publicans. They want the prodigal to be the backslidden Christian and the eldest to be the faithful Christian. They might say, “How could the prodigal be called a son if he wasn’t saved at the beginning of the story? And how could the eldest represent a Pharisee if the father spoke of the eldest son affectionately whereas the Pharisees were enemies of Christ?” These are good questions, but they are representative of the old adage “missing the forest for the trees.” The parables of Christ generally teach one truth, but when we get bogged down by trying to make all the details of the story find some exact parallel we end up pounding square pegs into round holes. The one truth of the parable of the prodigal son is that God is gracious to sinners. It’s about grace – something the Pharisees needed to learn.
So here’s how you can shine the lamp of grace into the corners of your heart as you search for the leaven of legalism: ask yourself, “Do I admire the eldest son? Do I sympathize with his feelings? Do I feel like I have earned a fatted calf because I have been faithful in my work?”
Does God owe me a fatted calf because I pray for exactly 60 minutes every day and not 23? Does God owe me a party with my friends because I knock on doors an hour every week, rain or shine? Do I feel that asking a hundred times a day “O God! Give me your power!” functions like some progress bar wherein the more I ask the more power I get?
Do you feel that your praying, Bible reading, soul winning, church attendance, fasting, or whatever good works you perform earn something from God? Oh, my brothers and sisters! God owes us nothing. It’s better than that. He has freely given us all things in Christ. This is grace.Romans 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Does this mean that obedience isn’t required? Can we live any way we want and still expect these blessings offered to us in Christ? No. Obedience is still relevant. We will sort through these issues when we discuss how we can defeat the legal spirit.
Assuming we have detected legalism in our hearts, how can we destroy it? I’ll offer an answer next time.
________________________________________________
Works Cited
Ferguson, Sinclair. The Whole Christ. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016. Print.
I remember an experience I had a number of years ago that made me aware of my self-righteous (legalistic) thinking. I was in the car driving and listening to an episode of Focus on the Family.
ReplyDeleteIt was not a regular show – it was a very unusual show.
Dr. James Dobson had obtained the right to an exclusive interview with serial killer Ted Bundy days before Bundy was scheduled to be executed. The reason was because Ted Bundy had announced that he was DAYS BEFORE HIS EXECUTION suddenly a born-again Christian.
Deep skepticism and resentment was on everyone’s mind including Dr. Dobson and so a long part of the interview was devoted to the questions of was he really repentant and “saved”. But the deeper question that was never asked but what was on everyone’s mind was -- did a man capable of such brutal evil to dozens of women and young girls deserve to be saved?
Dobson did not gloss over Bundy’s violent cruelty during the interview. They talked at length about what was going through his mind when he butchered girls as young as 12 that he had kidnapped, tortured and raped. One by one they talked about each victim but did not have time to get through the entire list.
Then Dobson asked theological questions but of course being a new convert Bundy wasn’t able to get too theological so he shared his testimony and seemed truly repentant of his guilt.
At the end of the interview Dr. Dobson told his audience that he could not be sure of Bundy’s salvation only because he could not judge the man’s heart. Obviously a man capable of such evil would not stoop to lying in a last ditch effort to rescue a vestige of a positive earthly reputation.
However, Dr. Dobson told everyone that it would appear that Bundy, who had a reputation for being highly intelligent, -- he worked in a law school and for a Washington State government agency -- understood what salvation was, who Jesus was and expressed appropriate sorrow and contrition – the only conditions needed for salvation.
The prodigal son story does not portray a young man as disburbed as a necrophiliac predator and certainly the tragic consequences of Bundy’s choices dramatically overshadow a more identifiably pathetic prodigal son. But if we truly believe there is no limit to God’s grace – or God’s healing – we have to believe that one day we may share paradise with this man.
insightful
Delete