>That Christians are required to follow the ten commandments is axiomatic.


One of the themes covered in this topic has been how supporters th Dual Law
theory justify the Ten Commandments applying to the Gentiles by saying "it
is traditional" or in this case "is axiomatic". This is because there is no
case to be found in Scripture.

>
>Afterall, Jesus said (John 14:15) if you love Him keep His commandments.
He
>is obviously referring to those He wrote on the stone tablets.


The Gospel of John uses the term "commandments" to refer to Jesus New
Commandments, as opposed to the "law" of Moses.

The law refers to the old covenant, it is the law of Moses: "the law was
given through Moses" (1:17), "Moses wrote about in the law" (1:45), "it is
the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat" (5:10), "has not Moses
given you the law, yet not one of you keeps the law" (7:19), "the law of
Moses" (7:23), "this mob knows nothing of the law" (7:49), "the teachers of
the law" (8:3), "in the law Moses commanded us to stone..." (8:5), "we have
heard from the law that the Messiah will remain forever" (12:34), "we have a
law and according to that law he must die" (19:17), "judge him by your own
law" (18:31).
But "command" is the new commandment of Christ: "a new commandment I give
you: love one another" (13:34), "if you love me you will obey what I
command" (14:15), "whoever has my commands and obeys me, he is the one who
loves me" (14:21), "I do exactly what my Father has commanded me" (14:31),
"if you obey my commands you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed
my Father's commands and remain in his love" (15:10), "my command is this:
love each other as I have loved you" (15:12), "you are my friends if you do
what I command" (15:14), "this is my command, love one another" (15:17),
"this command I received from my Father" (10:18), "for I did not speak of my
own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to
say it. I know his command leads to eternal life" (12:49-50).
Indeed, John shows that "the law" belongs to the Jews and has nothing to do
with the new age, "the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came
through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17), the Jews speak of "our law" (7:51), Jesus
calls it "your own law" (8:17) and "your law" (10:34), hence Jesus new
commandment of love is for Christians under the new covenant, the old
covenant of the law of Moses is passed away. These meanings of "law" and
"command" are repeated in John's writings: "we can be sure we know him if we
obey his commands, the man who says 'I know him' but does not do what he
commands is a liar" (1 John 2:3-4, see 1 John 2:7-8, 3:21,23-24,4:21,5:2-3,
2 John 1:4-6, also Revelation "keep God's commandments" Rev 12:17,14:12).
So although "commandment" ("entole" in the Greek) is generally synonymous
with "law" ("nomos" in the Greek) in the New Testament, this is not the case
in the writings of John. As we have seen above, in John the term "law" and
"commandments" are used to have specifically different meanings. It is
misleading to simply quote "commandments" from John and imply it is used in
the same sense as the rest of the New Testament. In particular, it most
certainly is *not* the same as the Jewish law!

>
>Also, the Ark containing the stone tablets is kept in the Temple of God in
>Heaven (Rev 11:19).  We are under the ten commandments for all time.

The ark of the covenant contains the Ten Commandments, which are called "the
words of the covenant" (ex 34:28), and the law of Moses contains the details
of the covenant. Who was that covenant with? The Gentiles? No, it was made
with Israel. The Ten Commandments are God's written signature to Israel of
his part in the covenant.

>
>Besides, the *only* thing that is accomplished by those who argue otherwise
is
>a rationalization of why they don't have to keep the fourth commandment.

The *only* thing accomplished by those who argue for the Ten Commandments is
a rationalisation why they have to keep the fourth commandment. Actually it
isn't the only thing, although it is interesting that Dual Law theorists
think it is the only thing. The point is about the written law. Is a written
law required, or do we follow the law written on the heart?

>Unless they are suggesting that Christians are indeed allowed to kill,
steal,
>have other God's before Him, and so on.

So the law written on the heart allows all this does it? I don't think Paul
would agree. The other point made on this topic is that the law increases
sin - so the Bible teaches - so those who argue the TORAH is applicable to
Gentiles need to consider whether they can justify the increase in sin this
will bring.

John