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

[Iconoclast]

The gospel is given in 1 Cor 15:1-8 and there is no mention of the Law in those verses. Paul even goes on to say, "This is what we preach" in verse 9. No law in sight. I do see the word 'grace' several times though.

Your continued insistence that Paul preached the law or used the law in evangelism is wishful thinking. It is not recorded as happening in the Bible.

You illustrate my exact point here, and show how you will not come to truth....Paul repeats the phrase according to the scriptures.........you ignore that....he has the whole ot in view...
He says to Timothy that he has known the scriptures since he was a child which are able to make him wise unto salvation......that implies the person reads and understands the scriptures.

 

[Internet Theologian]

You are more familiar with it than I am.
I know it when I see it......like someone looking at repentance described in Thessalonians but because the word itself is not there they say it does not teach it....lol

People need to think outside the box on theology to a certain extent. Part of the problem is to employ a proof-text mentality instead of using the 2 Tim. 2:15 admonition. This is sought instead of looking at dogma and the 'whole counsel of God' on the issue. It is possibly due to a loss of hard work, expecting an immediate result, proof, answer and the end result is dumbed-down theology.

Biblical repentance is a turning from sin, this truth from the OT language is carried over into the NT language and is seen by example. Some person came along and used a tight dictionary definition of repentance and limited it that dictionary definition and since this fit into an already truncated gospel it was convenient and it has stuck.

Let me show the inconsistent hermeneutic employed by some of these. Take for instance the term 'nekros' which means 'death, corpse'. When speaking of this in terms of spiritual death these same will not use the strict dictionary definition but will call it 'separation from God' and then preach man's ability in salvation to which Christ and Scriptures claim man has no ability whatsoever, Matthew 19:26; John 6:44 for example. In other words they ditch the dictionary definition here, they do not like to think of mans condition biblically as they should. Yet they do it differently with repent to make it fit into their theology. But like I said this 'change of mind' only thing is recently new, and it is highly doubtful that any person has had a 'change of mind about God' if said continues in a lifestyle of sin.

Concepts are seen in Scripture without the actual theological word being in the passage. Repentance is a change of mind in that the persons heart has been changed and is evidenced by turning from sin, something the lost do not do, and something that some are obviously teaching others is unnecessary, some will find themselves on the wrong end of Revelation 9:21 fully expecting heaven because this is what they have been taught by some preachers, and these don't have to be pastoring preachers, just simply others teaching others.

 

[Iconoclast]

By this logic I could quit a job by saying, "I quit, because this is a lousy job," and it would be exactly the same way as someone who quit by saying, "I must leave your esteemed company, as wonderful as it is."

Huh? Sorry, but what does this have to do with my post?

If you think I did that, you are not reading my posts.


It would be great if you would prove this instead of simply stating it.

But more than that, the OP is about using the moral law as the proper way to evangelize. I have showed in the book of Acts that Paul did not evangelize that way. It would be nice if someone actually interacted with that.
Huh? It's used quite often, and translated into many languages (including Japanese).--but it's not mine. I didn't write it, and have never used it or passed it out.

Huh? It's in 1 Cor. 15? Tell me why "the Scriptures" there refers to the moral law and not prophecy. My position is that it refers to prophecy.

The Greek word for "Scripture" (graphe) occurs 51 times in the NT. Many times it demonstrably does not mean the moral law. So give me your criteria for deciding it means "moral law" in 1 Cor. 15.

Huh.?....sorry.........you are not going to get it...lol
Huh? sorry......you and ITL prove my point exactly.
Huh? sorry.....it has everything to do with your posts.
Huh?sorry......I will stand by what I posted....
Huh?sorry.....I do not have to parse words and explain everything I say to you as you 3 do not want a real answer.
Huh? Sorry.......according to the scriptures does not only mean the 10 commandments but it includes them.
Huh ? Sorry......but that is exactly what Jesus did in lk24:25-27

 

[Iconoclast]

People need to think outside the box on theology to a certain extent. Part of the problem is to employ a proof-text mentality in spite of using 2 Tim. 2:15 admonition. This is sought instead of looking at dogma and the 'whole counsel of God' on the issue. It is possibly due to a loss of hard work, expecting an immediate result, proof, answer and the end result is dumbed-down theology.

Biblical repentance is a turning from sin, this truth from the OT language is carried over into the NT language and is seen by example. Some person came along and used a tight dictionary definition of repentance and limited it that dictionary definition and since this fit into an already truncated gospel it was convenient and it has stuck.

Let me show the inconsistent hermeneutic employed by some of these. Take for instance the term 'nekros' which means 'death, corpse'. When speaking of this in terms of spiritual death these same will not use the strict dictionary definition but will call it 'separation from God' and then preach man's ability in salvation to which Christ and Scriptures claim man has no ability whatsoever, Matthew 19:26; John 6:44 for example. In other words they ditch the dictionary definition here, they do not like to think of mans condition biblically as they should. Yet they do it differently with repent to make it fit into their theology. But like I said this 'change of mind' only thing is recently new, and it is highly doubtful that any person has had a 'change of mind about God' if said continues in a lifestyle of sin.

Concepts are seen in Scripture without the actual theological word being in the passage. Repentance is a change of mind in that the persons heart has been changed and is evidenced by turning from sin, something the lost do not do, and something that some are obviously teaching others is unnecessary, some will find themselves on the wrong end of Revelation 9:21 fully expecting heaven because this is what they have been taught by some preachers, and these don't have to be pastoring preachers, just simply others teaching others.

Yes indeed......just look at the first two responses here by 2 of the 3 suspects....lol.....
It is a rigid ,narrow defective approach, ...in the pulpit you would here the fundy speak in the third person and say in "preacher"......in my bible it says......just watch, they cannot do otherwise. ....lol

 

[John of Japan]

You illustrate my exact point here, and show how you will not come to truth....Paul repeats the phrase according to the scriptures.........you ignore that....he has the whole ot in view...
He says to Timothy that he has known the scriptures since he was a child which are able to make him wise unto salvation......that implies the person reads and understands the scriptures.

When someone disagrees with you, just tell them they won't come to truth. That'll work.

Huh.?....sorry.........you are not going to get it...lol
Huh? sorry......you and ITL prove my point exactly.
Huh? sorry.....it has everything to do with your posts.
Huh?sorry......I will stand by what I posted....
Huh?sorry.....I do not have to parse words and explain everything I say to you as you 3 do not want a real answer.
Huh? Sorry.......according to the scriptures does not only mean the 10 commandments but it includes them.
Huh ? Sorry......but that is exactly what Jesus did in lk24:25-27

So to you, "Moses" always, always means "the law," is that correct? You are aware, are you not, that there is prophecy in the five books of Moses?

You appear to be getting frustrated that we don't agree with you. Sit down, relax, take a deep breath. This is a debate. You have to prove things.

 

[John of Japan]

While the other side natters on, I'll share the start of an actual, real Bible study I've been doing. I know, no one has yet answered my list of Paul's method of evangelism in Acts, but I'll try again. Here is the first installment of how Christ did evangelism.

In this study I’ll only deal with times Jesus obviously evangelized by words. In other words, this is about when Jesus spoke with the purpose of bringing people to salvation. I will not include times when people believed through witnessing miracles when salvation is not presented, nor when Jesus simply quoted Scripture (e.g. Mark 12:25-21), nor will I include simple calls to discipleship (e.g., Matt. 4:19). My source is the A. T. Robertson Harmony of the Gospels.

Evangelizing Nicodemus: John 3:1-21--Jesus used the extended metaphor of the new birth, which is an actual description of spiritual birth. He talked about believing in order to avoid judgment and receive eternal life. He did not mention the law, and did not quote from the OT.

The woman at the well: John 4:5-42-- Jesus brought conviction of sin by referring to her six husbands and current live-in man. He did not quote the law or the OT.

Repeating John’s Message: Matt. 4:17, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 4:14-15

Preaching from Isaiah: Luke 4:16-31--Jesus used the widow of Nain and Naaman for sermon illustrations. He did not use the OT other than Isaiah, or the law. His hometown residents then tried to kill Him.

Preaching the Gospel: Matt. 4:23, Luke 4:43—the Gospel of the Kingdom of God

The man sick of the palsy: Matt. 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-26)—no law, but forgiveness of sin.

Sermon to Jews who wanted to kill Him: John 5:19-47—Himself as Messiah, judging all, belief in Himself as Savior, Moses prophesied Christ (but nothing about the moral law)

The Sermon on the Mount: Matt. 5-7 (the “Sermon on the Plain” in Luke 6 is much of the same material)—It is debatable whether or not this message is to believers or unbelievers. Jesus does use the law in this sermon, even the Decalogue. However, Matthew distinctly says this is to disciples (4:1-2), so my view is that He was not evangelizing in this message, but rather teaching the Christian life.

Woes upon cities: Matt. 11:20-30—This is not evangelization per se.

Forgiving the sinful woman: Luke 7:36-50—Jesus speaks specifically about the forgiveness of many sins, but not specifically about the law, when the woman chose to follow Him by anointing His feet.

Evangelizing Galilee: Luke 8:1-3—Jesus evangelized about “the gospel of the kingdom of God,” but the law is not mentioned.

 

[Iconoclast]

When someone disagrees with you, just tell them they won't come to truth. That'll

So to you, "Moses" always, always means "the law," is that correct? You are aware, are you not, that there is prophecy in the five books of Moses?

You appear to be getting frustrated that we don't agree with you. Sit down, relax, take a deep breath. This is a debate. You have to prove things.

No..... when someone remains in a little shell, and repeats like a chant....it does not say it...it does not say it, without taking any time to consider it.....it shows an attitude that does not lend itself to making progress.
They will not come to many truths because it is a flawed approach. It is not if they agree with me or not...is not the issue.
I am aware of a the scriptures offer in the first 5 books and all the other books.
I am not frustrated at all. You men say what you do.
We say what we do....let the reader decide but I think you 3 are being exposed here

 

[Internet Theologian]

Yes indeed......just look at the first two responses here by 2 of the 3 suspects....lol.....
It is a rigid ,narrow defective approach, ...in the pulpit you would here the fundy speak in the third person and say in "preacher"......in my bible it says......just watch, they cannot do otherwise. ....lol

Agreed and I got a laugh out of it because it is true!

 

[Internet Theologian]

While the other side natters on,

Evangelizing Nicodemus: John 3:1-21--Jesus used the extended metaphor of the new birth, which is an actual description of spiritual birth. He talked about believing in order to avoid judgment and receive eternal life. He did not mention the law, and did not quote from the OT.

Do you figure that, just perhaps the teacher in Israel had a solid grasp of the OT Law? He boasted in the Law, trusted in the Law. In Christ's way He used this against the man, that in which he trusted - the Law and his own works. Instead of trusting in this he was instructed that before he can see the Kingdom he must be born from above. This would have shaken his faith in the law. It didn't need to be mentioned ('the Law!') to see how it was represented there in the person of Nicodemus, and he full well knew in his heart he had never kept the law.

The woman at the well: John 4:5-42-- Jesus brought conviction of sin by referring to her six husbands and current live-in man. He did not quote the law or the OT.

He didn't need to quote it, it was written on her heart and as a Samaritan she was aware of it.

Repeating John’s Message: Matt. 4:17, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 4:14-15

Introductory statements to the declaration of the Kingdom and of course He didn't say 'the Law' but He did certainly use that later. Hardly a checkmate or proof-text there with those passages friend...

 

[John of Japan]

No..... when someone remains in a little shell, and repeats like a chant....it does not say it...it does not say it, without taking any time to consider it.....it shows an attitude that does not lend itself to making progress.
They will not come to many truths because it is a flawed approach. It is not if they agree with me or not...is not the issue.
I am aware of a the scriptures offer in the first 5 books and all the other books.
I am not frustrated at all. You men say what you do.
We say what we do....let the reader decide but I think you 3 are being exposed here

Okay, enough nattering by both of us.

I have posted two lists, one of the evangelism of Paul in Acts and the other of some of the evangelism of Jesus. If the OP is correct, that we should evangelize using the law, seems like Paul and Jesus would have used it a lot more. Please tell me why Paul and Jesus used the law so rarely in their evangelism.

 

[InTheLight]

You illustrate my exact point here, and show how you will not come to truth....Paul repeats the phrase according to the scriptures.........you ignore that....he has the whole ot in view...
He says to Timothy that he has known the scriptures since he was a child which are able to make him wise unto salvation......that implies the person reads and understands the scriptures.

The phrase Paul repeats, "according to the Scriptures" in 1 Cor. 15 is referencing OT prophecy concerning Christ. They are specific references to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

Here are the verses from 1 Cor 15:

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Paul is mainly referencing Isaiah 53 here. Also other verses like Psalm 16:10. He is not referencing "the whole OT in view".

 

[InTheLight]

No..... when someone remains in a little shell, and repeats like a chant....it does not say it...it does not say it, without taking any time to consider it.....it shows an attitude that does not lend itself to making progress.

John of Japan has showed many, many instances where, in fact, the Bible does not say what you guys are alleging. You have not shown one specific instance where Paul used the Law. Instead you say that the whole of Scriptures should be used. That's fine. That method may or MAY NOT include the Law. But as to historical instances, you guys have got nothing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Evangelizing Nicodemus: John 3:1-21--Jesus used the extended metaphor of the new birth, which is an actual description of spiritual birth. He talked about believing in order to avoid judgment and receive eternal life. He did not mention the law, and did not quote from the OT.

Our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus is choc-a-bloc full of OT references. That is why He says to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not know these things?" John 3:10). In other words, if Nic was such a great O.T. expert, he would know what the Lord Jesus is talking about instead of spluttering. "How can these things be?"

First of all, the reference to 'water and the Spirit' alludes to Ezek. 36:25-27 and Psalm 51:7-11. Nicodemus' outward law keeping cannot save him; he needs a two-fold cleansing by the Holy Spirit. Next, in verse 13, we have a reference to good ol' Agur the son of Jakeh in Proverbs 30:4. Instead of looking to Moses for his righteousness, Nic needs to look to the One who came down from heaven. Then, obviously, we have the reference to Numbers 21:9. Israel is under judgement and needs to look to the One who would shortly be made sin for all mankind. The Lord Jesus is preaching Himself as the Saviour of mankind.

 

[Internet Theologian]

The phrase Paul repeats, "according to the Scriptures" in 1 Cor. 15 is referencing OT prophecy concerning Christ. They are specific references to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

Here are the verses from 1 Cor 15:

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Paul is mainly referencing Isaiah 53 here. Also other verses like Psalm 16:10. He is not referencing "the whole OT in view".

I really like it when you use the Scriptures brother!

 

[DHK]

Do you figure that, just perhaps the teacher in Israel had a solid grasp of the OT Law? He boasted in the Law, trusted in the Law. In Christ's way He used this against the man, that in which he trusted - the Law and his own works. Instead of trusting in this he was instructed that before he can see the Kingdom he must be born from above. This would have shaken his faith in the law. It didn't need to be mentioned ('the Law!') to see how it was represented there in the person of Nicodemus, and he full well knew in his heart he had never kept the law.'.

You are confused.
First, notice the passage that you are referencing:

Evangelizing Nicodemus: John 3:1-21--Jesus used the extended metaphor of the new birth, which is an actual description of spiritual birth. He talked about believing in order to avoid judgment and receive eternal life. He did not mention the law, and did not quote from the OT.

It says nothing about Nicodemus being a teacher of the law, but rather "a teacher of Israel."
In what "Law" do you think he boasted? (That phrase is actually attributed to Paul, not Nicodemus). You are confused. However, the subject here, if you notice the title of the thread, is:
What did Jesus do? A Biblical case for using the Law in evangelism.
--Nicodemus was a Rabbi, and if he taught the "law" it would not necessarily be the Decalogue. "A teacher of the "law" was a teacher of the OT scriptures, not the Ten Commandments.

Jesus said to him:
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
That is what the KJV says. More literally, Young's translations puts it this way:
(YLT) Jesus answered and said to him, `Thou art the teacher of Israel--and these things thou dost not know!
--The definite article is used. He was "the teacher," the preeminent teacher in Israel of that time, and he could not understand these spiritual truths that Christ was speaking about.
Christ was not speaking about the law!
You are reading that into this conversation.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus is choc-a-bloc full of OT references. That is why He says to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not know these things?" John 3:10). In other words, if Nic was such a great O.T. expert, he would know what the Lord Jesus is talking about instead of spluttering. "How can these things be?"

That's what I was saying prior!

 

[Internet Theologian]

You are confused.
First, notice the passage that you are referencing:

It says nothing about Nicodemus being a teacher of the law, but rather "a teacher of Israel."

Gee...I wonder what a Jewish teacher, 'the teacher' of Israel specifically taught? Branch Davidian teachings? Mormonism? FGT? Heaven's Gates teachings?

Or, the OT Law perhaps? <---------------<<<

That you cannot pick that up via NT theology 101 is scary. It's not even that high on the education scale, it's more like kindergarten theology. You are, as always in complete error while holding to a baseless argument.

 

[DHK]

That's what I was saying prior!

Not really. The thread is about the Ten Commandments and evangelism. Nicodemus knew the OT well. On that we can agree. But neither Jesus nor Nicodemus referred to the Ten Commandments. Jesus was not evangelizing Nicodeumus using "The Law" that is, "The Decalogue." Perhaps a case may be made for oblique references to other OT passages, but not the Ten Commandments, which is what the OP is about.

 

[DHK]

IOW, where in the conversation with Nicodemus did Jesus use the Ten Commandments to show that Nicodemus was a sinner?

 

[Iconoclast]

IOW, where in the conversation with Nicodemus did Jesus use the Ten Commandments to show that Nicodemus was a sinner?

Jesus was teaching this teacher truth.
He should have known these things.
He like many here look carnally in the natural.
Jesus showed him another way.