Featured What did Jesus do? A Biblical case for using the Law in evangelism

If the argument here is that the Decalogue is given to the world, and the world is “under the Ten Commandments” (which seems to be Evan’s position), then what needs to be determined is how it and when it was given as a binding covenant to a people other than Israel. In Deuteronomy 5, Moses specifically delivers the Ten Commandments within the context of a covenant made with those brought out of Egypt (v 6) and their descendants (v 31). So this “introduction” or “summary” to God’s “decrees and laws” is part of a covenant given to and binding upon Israel (Deut. 4:44). My question then is what passage extends these commandments as a covenantal authority beyond what God described as His covenantal people (Deut. 7:6-8; 8:1)?

 

The “whole Law” is given to Moses beginning in verse 31, the Decalogue is a sort of constitution that informs all the rest of the detailed legislation that follows (and yes, within the Law the Ten Commandments stand out). But in Deut. 5:31 God is giving Moses not “all the commands” but literally “the whole command” or the whole substance of the law considered as a single entity (kol-hammiṣwâ is singular). Keeping the “whole command” is directed to walking in the way Yahweh commands. Here Moses is given the whole law, not just details of specific legislation (decrees and laws).

In other words, the statement that Jesus has summarized the Ten Commandments is backwards. Jesus is actually responding with the whole command from which the Decalogue is derived.

Deut. 5:30 Go and say to them, “Return to your tents.” 31 But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you the whole commandment and the statutes and the rules that you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land that I am giving them to possess.’ 32 You shall be careful therefore to do as the LORD your God has commanded you. You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. 33 You shall walk in all the way that the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you shall possess. 6:1 “Now this is the commandment—the statutes and the rules—that the LORD your God commanded me to teach you, that you may do them in the land to which you are going over, to possess it, 2 that you may fear the LORD your God, you and your son and your son’s son, by keeping all his statutes and his commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be long. 3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and be careful to do them, that it may go well with you, and that you may multiply greatly, as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey. 4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

Within the topic of the OP, however, we are drifting with this argument. What is being asked is if we should use the Law in evangelism. And it depends on the context of its usage. As an example I don't think anyone would object (God's transcendence, his perfect nature, and man's fallen status are illustrated through the Law). But in terms of putting people "under the Law" (even if we conclude we are speaking of only the Ten Commandments), what needs to be shown are that people are actually under the authority of the law, or the Decalogue (which is by definition binding). I am willing to grant for arguments sake (and to stay on target) that the Ten Commandments are given before the Law and separate from the Law (a concession for the sake of argument,dismissed with prejudice). What still needs to be shown is how the world is included in this covenant.

 

I will, brother - I'm off to dinner (my wife's birthday). But the bigger issue for me here is the inclusion of those outside Israel under this Law. Perhaps we can discuss this tomorrow.

 

I have to leave for church, but before I go I'd like to respond to Romans 2:14-15.

Paul is not saying that Gentiles are “under the law”. Instead he is distinguishing between Jews who are under the law (literally "within the sphere of" the law) and Gentiles who are not but who have a natural moral law written in their hearts. This is not referring to placing Gentiles under the law or the Ten Commandments for salvation. It is appealing to God’s nature made known in that Creator/creation relationship. Jews and Gentiles are on equal footings because they both fall short of God’s law (while the Jew alone is under the authority of Torah…to include the Ten Commandments). The moral commands are the same, but the covenantal authority is not.

Consider the following commentators as well:

“Paul saw the world as divided into two classes of people. He saw the Jews with their law given to them direct from God and written down so that all could read it. He saw the other nations, without this written law, but nonetheless with a God-implanted knowledge of right and wrong within their hearts” (William Barclay, The Letter to the Romans,53-54)

“….. Gentiles do not have the law. It was neither revealed to them nor given to them. Nevertheless, Paul insists, this difference can be exaggerated. For there is no fundamental distinction between them in the moral knowledge they have (since the requirements of the law are written on all human hearts) …..All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law. They will not be judged by a standard they have not known. They will perish because of their sin and not because of their ignorance of the law.” (John Stott, Romans, 85-86)

“The reference to the conscience also points in the direction of natural law. The conscience in Gentiles proves that they are keenly aware of moral norms that accord with the Mosaic law…..the conscience is not the origin of moral norms but passes judgment on whether one has abided by those norms….Here the purpose is to witness to the moral norms of the law. First, the commands of the law are written in their hearts, and second, the conscience also testifies to the validity of those moral norms, in that it condemns or approves the behavior practiced. We have seen that several pieces of evidence conspire to show that Paul refers to natural law in verses 14-15. (Thomas Schreiner, Romans, 124-125)

“’Law’ in Romans refers first of all to the law God gave Israel through Moses, the Torah. In verse 12 therefore, all who sin apart from the law” are Gentiles and “all who sin under the law” are Jews, for only Jews stand ‘under the law” (the Greek is literally, ‘in [the sphere of] the law’). Nevertheless, Paul alleges, the results for both groups is the same…Paul’s language resembles ancient discussions about the ‘natural law.’ Originating with the Greeks, who speculated about ‘natural law’ as a way of making certain moral norms universal, discussion of the natural law was taken up by Jews such as Philo of Alexanderia. Paul seems to be alluding to these discussions, and his purpose would then be to show that, through Gentiles have not been given God’s law in the specific form of Torah, they nevertheless have knowledge of God’s moral requirements. They may not have the Mosaic law (Torah), but they do have law – moral demands that God puts in the conscience of every human being.”(Douglas Moo, Encountering the Gook of Romans, 67-68)

“Gentiles will not be condemned for failure to conform to a law-code which was not accessible to them. ” (F.F. Bruce, Romans, 96)

 

Martin,
I agree with you. I mistakenly took your comments as a defense for Evan’s position (much of which was discussed on another thread).

Yes, of course we can use the Ten Commandments, or even the entire Law (even just the sacrificial system itself), or God's revealed nature, or this 'natural law' to explain human sin. I am absolutely not trying to say that it is inappropriate to use the Law in evangelism. What I am saying is that it is incorrect to teach that appropriate evangelism uses the Law. And it is heresy (and another gospel) to teach that the lost must be placed under the Law (using a biblical definition of "under the Law") in order that they be saved. I have no problem with WOTM, but some go too far and exceed biblical warrant.

The problem is not in the practice of using the Ten Commandments in evangelism. I understand the necessity to explain sin. I agree that the Law is useful here. But there is a problem is when error gives birth to heresy.

“Think of God’s Law as an extension cord that is plugged into the power of Heaven. The gospel is a light bulb. Without the Law, the gospel is powerless,”(Ray Comfort, What did Jesus Do?”, pg. 20)

“Once the gospel is connected to the Law, it becomes the power of God to salvation. The Law gives the gospel its light…” (Ray Comfort, What did Jesus Do?”, pg. 20)

To put it another way, God delivered to Israel through Moses the Ten Commandments within the context of a covenant (Ex. 19:1-6; Deut. 5:1-3). If they will obey his voice and keep his covenant, they shall be his treasured possession and shall be to him a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex.19: 5-6). If another nation learned of the Ten Commandments or the Law, they would be foolish to put themselves under its authority in hopes of gaining those covenantal promises as they were not promised to anyone but Israel. But they certainly could learn from the Law and see God’s moral law reflected within its commands. The Law and the Ten Commandments are useful tools, but they are not the "power" of the gospel. We cannot put people "under the Law" in order to save them, but we can use the Law to explain sin to them (to explain the sickness so that they understand the cure).

 

On this issue I believe that we are in perfect agreement.

 

My apologies. I forgot to hit the new thread reset. Anyway, I had taken what he explained to me elsewhere into this dialogue. Good catch Rev.