Dear friends
Some people think that we are now under a "law of Christ", and to speak of the 10 Commandments, or the "the law of God" is something past, related only to the Jewish people.
But I would invite those who think like that to try to answer the questions below because in this way I hope such a person will realize how baseless is this rationale. God's law and Christ's law is only one and the same, as Chist and God are ONE.
10 QUESTIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE LAW OF GOD/LAW OF CHRISTJesus said: "I and My Father are One" (John 10:30)1 – Where does the Bible say, in a direct, clear, straightforward way, that “the law of Christ” took the place of the “law of God” for the Christians?
2 – If now we just have the “law of Christ”, that replaced the supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul still refer to the “law of God”, saying he has pleasure on it, and keep it in his mind, that the “inclinação da carne” ["inclination of the flesh"] is not subject to the law of God, etc. (Rom. 7:22, 25; 8:7 e 8')? Why does he still refer to the “law of God”, “commandments of God”, things that would be past, instead of focusing only on the “law of Christ”?
3 – If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced the supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul enumerate the Decalogue’s commandments (“law of God”), prescribing them to the Christians as to be obeyed according to the principle of “love”, instead of speaking of the “law of Christ” (Rom. 13:8-10)?
4 – If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced the supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul remind the Ephesians of a commandment of the Decalogue (“law of God”) as still in force, instead of urging them to obey the same principle, applying it to a different code, related to the “law of Christ” (Eph. 6:1-3)?
5 – If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul say that now importa obedecer os “commandments of God”, and not the “commandments of Christ” (1 Cor. 7:19)?
6 – If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does John speak of “law of God” and “law of Christ” interchangeably in his various epistles (see 1 John 2:7; 3:21-24; 4:7-12, 21)?
7 – If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does John in the book of Revelation say clearly that the faithful children of God are characterized as those who “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12)? Why doesn’t he say that they “keep the commandments of Christ”?
8 – If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Hebrews 8:6-10, dealing with the change of the Old to the New Covenant, refer to “My laws” (God’s), which are written on the hearts and minds of those who accept this New Covenant [New Testament], and not the “laws of Christ”?
9 – If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does James mention the Decalogue’s commandments (“law of God”) as norms for the Christians, instead of concentrating attention on the “law of Christ” (James 2:10-12)?
10 – If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why as John defines what sin is—transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)—he doesn’t specify that this applies now to the “law of Christ”?
Note.: The context of that verse doesn’t even speak of Christ, only of God. His primary readers would clearly identify the “law” as being God’s. The onus of the proof rests with whoever deny that.
======
Edited to insert "inclination of the flesh" in the proper place per other post. - Daryl
