I’ve been studying Galatians, and of course ran into the issue of the Law as a tutor. I understand that the Law became a tutor (a servant who led the children to school) for the Jews in that the Law led them to Christ. The Law kept them in custody. But insofar as evangelism is concerned, Galatians does not offer the Law as an example of a methodology to reach the lost. Paul’s use of the Torah seems to run contrary to such claims. For example, just one chapter back (Galatians 2) we see Paul correcting Peter for rebuilding the Law, the Torah. If he does so, then he is condemned by that same wall that he is constructing as he is now numbered among those from whom he is separating. Acts which were transgressions under the Law were not necessarily sins for those outside of the Law. It is foolish to assert that those who don’t believe it necessary to put the lost under the Torah hold to “easy-believism,” (which has happened here on the BB). Sin was sin prior to the Law. Paul references Abraham in Galatians 3 (the same chapter that deals with the Law as a tutor), yet Abraham who’s belief was “reckoned to him as righteousness” did not have the Law as his tutor. Abraham’s sins were not transgressions of the Law. It seems to me that Paul views Christ as ushering in a new age. The Torah is not a necessary element in convicting the lost of sin - although I do get the point that the lost must realize their condition as a part of evangelism (I am not saying not to ignore sin - I am suggesting that it is not necessary to convince the lost they have transgressed the Law - the Torah, as Paul indicates the Law to be). How did we get to the point when we could feel not only comfortable but justified in taking “the Law as a tutor” in Galatians 3:24 out of the Pauline context to apply it to non-Jewish evangelism? We could say that the Law, in our usage, does not mean “the Torah.” BUT then we are altering Scripture, taking the passage out of context, and using it for our own agenda. The Law (i.e., the Law became our tutor) is the Torah...to miss that is to miss the entire argument of Paul in these chapters. I guess my question is whether or not the ends justify the means. Can we take Scripture so lightly - take one verse so far out of context to presume it to be a mandate - if by doing so we arrive at an effective and concise method of evangelism (and I’m not saying that it is effective, but it is concise)?