Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Radical Christian Living  /  Obeying Christ is Not Legalism  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 6
When Bercot defines genuine legalism using Matthew 12:1–7 (“I desire mercy and not sacrifice”) and contrasts “letter” vs “spirit,” how does his discussion of Romans 7:6 and 2 Corinthians 3:6 (including the capital-S ambiguity) reshape how you read Paul, and what safeguards are needed so “spirit of the law” doesn’t become permission to ignore Christ’s actual commands?
Another way to ask: How does Bercot’s “letter vs spirit” idea change how you read Paul in Romans 7:6 and 2 Corinthians 3:6? What boundaries keep “spirit of the law” from turning into an excuse to ignore Jesus’ commands?

Direct Answer Bercot suggests Paul’s “letter vs Spirit” language may often mean the “spirit/intent” of God’s commands rather than primarily the Holy Spirit, so Paul isn’t excusing disobedience but condemning Pharisaic, technical rule-keeping that ignores mercy. The safeguard is to pursue the command’s purpose without treating “spirit” as a loophole to disregard Christ’s teachings.

Support from Transcript:

  • Matthew 12:1–7: Pharisees condemn disciples for plucking grain; Jesus replies, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice…you would not have condemned the guiltless.”
  • Bercot defines genuine legalism as being “more concerned with technicalities…with the letter…not with the Spirit or intent.”
  • Romans 7:6: serve in “newness…not…oldness of the letter.” 2 Cor. 3:6: “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
  • He explains the translation ambiguity: Greek manuscripts used capitals, so “Spirit” could mean “spirit of things,” not necessarily the Holy Spirit.
  • Early Christians read Paul as “not the letter…we need to follow…it’s the spirit of the law,” and he cites Methodius about removing “the veil of the letter.”
  • He warns we can “adhere to the letter…violate its spirit,” and also “violate the letter…without violating the spirit” (Sabbath example).
Discussion Follow-ups What practical tests help ensure “spirit” doesn’t become disobedience dressed up as insight? How can a church teach “mercy” without minimizing Jesus’ actual commands (since Bercot insists obedience is required)?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10
Back Questions Next