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

[InTheLight]

Both of those examples you gave were Jews, one was even an expert in the law. Naturally, Jesus is going to use the law when addressing these people.

When Jesus encountered the Samaritan woman he didn't use the law, he promised her a wonderful life (drink of the living water and never thirst again.)



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[Revmitchell]

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

Before I jump into my argument let me point out that not once did Jesus give the good news of the gospel to a proud, self-righteous, and arrogant person caught up in his/her sin, so blindly willing to consider the gospel.

The story of the rich young ruler comes to mind.

The practice of telling people that "God Loves them" is a common one in our world today, but its not a Biblical practice.

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

The Bible says that God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble (Jm 4:6; 1 Pt 5:5). James 4:6 ESV "But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” The proud are those that are an abomination to God Pro 16:5 ESV "Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished."

You really need someone to disciple you so you will stop misusing scripture like this.

 

[evangelist6589]

The story of the rich young ruler comes to mind.



Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.




You really need someone to disciple you so you will stop misusing scripture like this.

Yet you do not even look at my main arguments? Nice try Rev.

 

[evangelist6589]

Both of those examples you gave were Jews, one was even an expert in the law. Naturally, Jesus is going to use the law when addressing these people.

When Jesus encountered the Samaritan woman he didn't use the law, he promised her a wonderful life (drink of the living water and never thirst again.)



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

The Bible says that the gentiles have the law of God written on their hearts.

 

[Don]

Evangelist - consider the "lawyer" of whom you provided an example. WHY did Jesus ask him what the law said?

Because that man was under the belief that the law was the way to salvation. Jesus didn't ask him what the law said to convict him of his sin; He brought his attention to the fact that the law couldn't save him.

As Rev pointed out, the rich young ruler is a prime example that negated your first paragraph. He was an arrogant, prideful young man who sought Jesus. But even more so, in this example Jesus started with the commandments, but went beyond when He told the young man to give it all to the poor and follow Him; in other words, don't just follow the commandments, but exemplify the love He has for those less fortunate.

If that doesn't translate to "God loves you," I don't know what does.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Evangelist - consider the "lawyer" of whom you provided an example. WHY did Jesus ask him what the law said?

Because that man was under the belief that the law was the way to salvation. Jesus didn't ask him what the law said to convict him of his sin; He brought his attention to the fact that the law couldn't save him.

That's not unusual, Jews naturally thought the Law saved them, or that they had kept it, Lawyer's aside. You'd be amiss in thinking He didn't use the law to convict him of sin, as He in fact did just that.

Note Luke 10:25-37, how the lawyer asked who his neighbor is, the illustration of Christ to show how he had missed keeping it, and assuredly as 'the rest' (Eph. 2:3) this man missed the mark. This is God's way, showing how we missed the mark and fall short, convicting of sin. Therefore he did not love the Lord with all his heart, mind, and strength, nor his neighbor as himself, which is possibly why he retorted with questioning who his neighbor is. So he had not kept the law and Christ used this fact to convict him of his 'missing the mark'.

As pointed out, the rich young ruler is a prime example that negated your first paragraph. He was an arrogant, prideful young man who sought Jesus. But even more so, in this example Jesus started with the commandments, but went beyond when He told the young man to give it all to the poor and follow Him; in other words, don't just follow the commandments, but exemplify the love He has for those less fortunate.

If that doesn't translate to "God loves you," I don't know what does.

The rich young man never kept the commandments, he fell short, as have all men; Romans 3:9, 23. This was Jesus' point and why He stated for him to give up everything he had to follow Him, in other words the Christ of God was proving he had in fact not kept the commandments from his youth up. The rich man was covetous, which is idolatry Col. 3:5 and this showed he hadn't kept even the first of the commandments, Exodus 20:3-5.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

When Jesus encountered the Samaritan woman he didn't use the law, he promised her a wonderful life (drink of the living water and never thirst again.)

He convicted her of the sin of adultery.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

If that is part of our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus (some commentators think it ends with verse 15), then He has already told him that unless he is born again he will neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. In any case John 3:16 is not telling Nicodemus that God loves him. It is pointing him to the Saviour. Telling people that God loves them before they have repented and trusted in Christ merely affirms them in their sin.

I know; I was that man.

 

[Internet Theologian]

When Jesus encountered the Samaritan woman he didn't use the law, he promised her a wonderful life (drink of the living water and never thirst again.)

Not quite. Twice the woman said 'He told me all that I ever did' which was showing her conviction of sin, John 4:29, 39, which was her life of breaking God's law proving her sinfulness. Crack open that Bible.

 

[Internet Theologian]

If that is part of our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus (some commentators think it ends with verse 15), then He has already told him that unless he is born again he will neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. In any case John 3:16 is not telling Nicodemus that God loves him. It is pointing him to the Saviour. Telling people that God loves them before they have repented and trusted in Christ merely affirms them in their sin.

I know; I was that man.

Thanks for sharing that brother! God bless!

 

[JonC]

He convicted her of the sin of adultery.

No, brother, he exposed her sin. She was already convicted. Read the passage again and note her response. She perceived him a prophet.

Men live under the conviction of sin. As Evan pointed out, this is "written" on our hearts. What men need is not the Law to reveal what is already made known but the gospel of Jesus Christ that they might be brought to a godly sorrow leading to repentance.

 

[Internet Theologian]

God doesn't just expose sin for naught, it is for the purpose of convicting and convincing one as guilty. 'He told me all that I ever did'. Convicted, He impressed her with a sense of guilt. This is what God does, and it is His way. Note Isaiah for example, he was convicted, and showed his sense of guilt when he encountered YHWH, Isaiah 6:5. Conviction exposes ones sins to their conscience. This exposing sin does not exclude conviction, that is unless a person is simply quarreling words to remain correct instead of giving credit where it is due.

 

[JonC]

God doesn't just expose sin for naught, it is for the purpose of convicting and convincing one as guilty. 'He told me all that I ever did'. Convicted, He impressed her with a sense of guilt. This is what God does, and it is His way. Note Isaiah for example, he was convicted, and showed his sense of guilt when he encountered YHWH, Isaiah 6:5. Conviction exposes ones sins to their conscience. This exposing sin does not exclude conviction, that is unless a person is simply quarreling words to remain correct instead of giving credit where it is due.

This seems to me as reading into the text. Jesus confronted her with her sin, which did not lead to repentance but an acknowledgement that Jesus knew what he shouldn't have known as a stranger. She precieved him a prophet.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, brother, he exposed her sin. She was already convicted. Read the passage again and note her response. She perceived him a prophet.

No. First our Lord convicted the woman of sin (Verses 16-18), then she perceived Him as a prophet (v.19). Up to that point there is no evidence of any conviction of sin.

While the Law of God is written on the hearts of all men, it is smudged and defaced by sin, and the consciences of many are 'seared with a hot iron' (1 Tim 4:2), which I take to mean that their consciences have become insensitive to sin. The Law must be preached to activate such consciences. 'You who make your boast in the Law, do you dishonour God through breaking the Law?' (Rom. 2:23).

 

[Internet Theologian]

This seems to me as reading into the text. Jesus confronted her with her sin, which did not lead to repentance but an acknowledgement that Jesus knew what he shouldn't have known as a stranger. She precieved <sic> him a prophet.

She was convicted of her sin, thus her twofold statement. That isn't reading a thing into the text.

But what I am seeing is this attempt to minimize the ministry of the Spirit of Christ as merely exposing her sin, in your comments. This simply isn't the case here, obviously she thought Him to be a Prophet, that much is a given, but she was also convicted of her sins which He exposed. This is you reading something out of the text that is there, as you do in your struggles to acknowledge PSA and texts that show this doctrinal truth clearly.

 

[Revmitchell]

Telling people that God loves them before they have repented and trusted in Christ merely affirms them in their sin.

I know; I was that man.

Where does scripture say this affirms that.

 

[JonC]

No. First our Lord convicted the woman of sin (Verses 16-18), then she perceived Him as a prophet (v.19). Up to that point there is no evidence of any conviction of sin.

While the Law of God is written on the hearts of all men, it is smudged and defaced by sin, and the consciences of many are 'seared with a hot iron' (1 Tim 4:2), which I take to mean that their consciences have become insensitive to sin. The Law must be preached to activate such consciences. 'You who make your boast in the Law, do you dishonour God through breaking the Law?' (Rom. 2:23).

John 4:16-19 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.” The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet."

Sorry, brother, but I don't see Jesus here as convicting her of sin. I believe that the law is written in the hearts of man. God may harden our hearts, we may harden our hearts, but the Holy Spirit convicts of sin (the evidence of our sin is already there). So we disagree but there is not enough here (in the passage) to argue about. Insofar as the passage goes, we know that based on Jesus' words she viewed him as a prophet, not that she was convicted as if seared with a hot iron. Perhaps she was and it is simply not recorded here.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sorry, brother, but I don't see Jesus here as convicting her of sin. I believe that the law is written in the hearts of man.

And yet both can and are true at the same time. We have a way of avoiding our internal conviction.

 

[JonC]

And yet both can and are true at the same time. We have a way of avoiding our internal conviction.

The text itself, Rev, does not bare that out, but you may be right. There have been other principles read into the passage, but I think that this is simply a prophetic statement that the woman took as a sign of Jesus' authority (at least as a prophet) and the discussion turned towards religion. I realize that my position is literally taking the passage as a whole and perhaps there are underlying principles that I am not including (you'd say this conviction process, many others link this to 2 Kings 17 and determine the woman is a representative of that people). But that's our disagreement. I am not reading into this passage a specific principle, but am taking it at face value.

My point is that when I mentioned that this idea of confronting her with sin is not in the text (yet the text doesn't deny it either) we instantly have 3 "disagrees" (I.T., C1, and Icon). Yet it is clearly not in the narrative itself (not in the English or Greek text). We can discuss these things, but we cant take inference as Scripture itself. Some take this as a guiding to a religious discussion, some as dealing with a people group through the woman, some as convicting of sin, and some that this is a sign that she takes to affirm what Jesus is about to say. But the text itself does not clarify (write it out, word for word, if you don't believe me).

 

[Revmitchell]

The text itself, Rev, does not bare that out, but you may be right. There have been other principles read into the passage, but I think that this is simply a prophetic statement that the woman took as a sign of Jesus' authority (at least as a prophet) and the discussion turned towards religion. I realize that my position is literally taking the passage as a whole and perhaps there are underlying principles that I am not including (you'd say this conviction process, many others link this to 2 Kings 17 and determine the woman is a representative of that people). But that's our disagreement. I am not reading into this passage a specific principle, but am taking it at face value.

All I am saying is that I sen no reason to exclude one to the other. Not even sure why anyone would believe why that is not bared out in the passage. as you say.