What did Jesus mean when he said "If you love me you will keep my commandments?"

Soyeong said:

Deuteronomy 18:15-19 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— 16 just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ 17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.

Click to expand...

Some might claim this to be Joshua... Yehoshua... and others might claim this to be Messiah. Both perhaps? One being a picture of the other?

YouAreAwesome said:

The commandments of Jesus are different to the commandments of Moses.

Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. (John 6:32)​

Click to expand...

We love others as Jesus loves us. We love others by believing in Him, and doing His Word -- not trying to follow a set of rules He gave when He was on the earth, this would just be like trying to follow the laws of Moses. No, we follow the commandments of Jesus -- that is, His actual words. Today. We listen with our spirit. We walk in the Spirit. His commandments are to believe in Him and love. And we know how to love because He first loves us. And we know how to love because His love is within us. The phrase "His commandments" is synonymous with "walking in the Spirit".

We must never replace heart to heart relational connection with a list.

Click to expand...

We are commanded to love our neighbor in Leviticus 19:18, so there was nothing brand new about that command. His Word is a set of rules and they are rules for how he wants us to love him and our neighbor. In John 14:23-24, Jesus said that if we love him, then we will obey his teachings and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so his words did not depart from those of the Father. Likewise, John 7:16 says that he came only to do the Father's will. The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Romans 8:4-7, it says that those who have a carnal mind refuse to submit to God's Law in contrast with walking in the Spirit. So "the Father's commandments" are also synonymous with "walking in the Spirit" unless you think that the Father was acting against His Spirit when he gave the Law of Moses or that the Spirit is in disagreement with the Father about which commands we should follow. The purpose of obeying the Mosaic Law is to grow in a relationship with God.

Ken Rank said:

Some might claim this to be Joshua... Yehoshua... and others might claim this to be Messiah. Both perhaps? One being a picture of the other?

Click to expand...

There are many parallels between Moses and Jesus, though there are also parallels between Joshua and Jesus, so both are foreshadows of him, though it seems that Moses was speaking about the future and not about his immediate successor.

discipler7 said:

.
It is a great burden to require a new Gentile Christian man to become circumcised, eg GENESIS.34:25, ie he will be physically incapacitated for about 1 month of needed healing and nursing. Very few can afford to do this, ie keep the law of circumcision.
... It will be like "hell-on-earth" if he 'accidentally' got sexually stimulated with an erection or have a morning 'glory' or wet dream.

OTOH, it is alright for babies of married Gentile Christians to be circumcised, like the Jews as per Moses Law. Circumcision also brings health benefits and a desensitized penis = less lustful, besides being a memorial about Abraham's covenant with God. That is why uncircumcised China and India have an over-population problem.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the Law does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised and certainly not for the purpose of becoming saved. While God did require all Jews to become circumcised, not even they were required to do so in order to become saved. So if God did not require that, then it is therefore a man-made requirement that was the burden that they were rejecting, not God's Law.

Soyeong said:

The problem is that the Law does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised and certainly not for the purpose of becoming saved. While God did require all Jews to become circumcised, not even they were required to do so in order to become saved. So if God did not require that, then it is therefore a man-made requirement that was the burden that they were rejecting, not God's Law.

Click to expand...

Circumcision was required.

Almost there said:

When he said "fulfill", I juxtapose that against "extend". I believe he fulfilled the law, much as exercising a purchase in a "lease with option to purchace" fulfills the contract. And it is no longer a lease.

We can eat pork now.

Mmmmmm. Bacon...nom, nom, nom.

Click to expand...

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law in contrast with abolishing it, so it doesn't make any sense to interpret fulfilling the Law as essentially the same thing. There is nothing in the Bible that speaks about fulfilling the Law is that sense, but rather the Bible speaks about God's Law as being eternal. Rather, to fulfill the Law means "to cause God's will as made known in the Law to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS 2c), which is precisely what Jesus immediately proceeded to do six times throughout the rest of Matthew 5. In Galatians 5:14, it says that anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law, which refers to obeying it as it should be, not to something unique that only Jesus did to fulfill a contract and do away with the Law. In Galatians 6:2, it says that bearing one another's burdens fulfils the Law of Christ, which again refers to obeying it as it should be, not to doing away with it. In Romans 15:18-19, it says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, which referred to causing the Gentiles to fully obey it in word and in deed, not to doing away with it.

In 1 Peter 1:13-16, it says that we are to have a holy conduct because God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus, such as Leviticus 11:44-45, where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct in accordance with His holiness, so the only way to do away with these instructions is to first do away with God's eternal holiness. The God that we serve has said that it is an abomination for His followers to eat pork, so do so at your own risk.

ToBeLoved said:

Circumcision was required.

Click to expand...

Please quote where the Law required all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved or admit that it was not required.

Soyeong said:

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law in contrast with abolishing it, so it doesn't make any sense to interpret fulfilling the Law as essentially the same thing. There is nothing in the Bible that speaks about fulfilling the Law is that sense, but rather the Bible speaks about God's Law as being eternal. Rather, to fulfill the Law means "to cause God's will as made known in the Law to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS 2c), which is precisely what Jesus immediately proceeded to do six times throughout the rest of Matthew 5. In Galatians 5:14, it says that anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law, which refers to obeying it as it should be, not to something unique that only Jesus did to fulfill a contract and do away with the Law. In Galatians 6:2, it says that bearing one another's burdens fulfils the Law of Christ, which again refers to obeying it as it should be, not to doing away with it. In Romans 15:18-19, it says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, which referred to causing the Gentiles to fully obey it in word and in deed, not to doing away with it.

In 1 Peter 1:13-16, it says that we are to have a holy conduct because God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus, such as Leviticus 11:44-45, where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct in accordance with His holiness, so the only way to do away with these instructions is to first do away with God's eternal holiness. The God that we serve has said that it is an abomination for His followers to eat pork, so do so at your own risk.

Click to expand...

Holy = separate

So, in the context of my tag line, I interpret all of this in a simple way: Love God. Love your fellow man. Love your fellow man as God instructs and love God as God instructs and, within that paradigm, live life fully and with joy in the gift(s) God has given you.

Soyeong said:

There are many parallels between Moses and Jesus, though there are also parallels between Joshua and Jesus, so both are foreshadows of him, though it seems that Moses was speaking about the future and not about his immediate successor.

Click to expand...

Many. I don’t think many is the right word. Maybe a few

Almost there said:

I get all that. Peter's vision is part of it, as is this: Mark 7:19 Lexicon: because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Click to expand...

In Peter's vision, it said that all kinds of animals were let down, so the key to correctly understanding his vision is to understand why he didn't obey God's command to kill and eat by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals. The issue was that there was a man-made ritual purity law that said that things that were clean that came in contact with something unclean became common (Mark 7:3-4) and because all of the animals in his vision were bundled at the center of the sheet held up by its four corners, they had all become common. This why Peter objected to God's command by saying that he had never eaten anything that was common or unclean. Note that God did not rebuke him for referring to clean animals as unclean, but for referring to clean animals as common, so his vision was in regard to the incorrect status of clean animals, which he interpreted as being in regard to the incorrect status of Gentiles, and had nothing to do with eating unclean animals now being permissible. He interpreted his vision three times and not once did he even hint at being able to eat unclean animals, nor would anyone have accepted his words if he had tried to speak against obeying God's commands, and neither should we if we think that he did so, but rather we should think that he would have needed to repent of his sin.

As I referenced in Mark 7:3-4, it is important to keep in mind that the topic of that chapter is whether someone can become common by eating kashrut food with unclean hands and not about whether God's followers should follow His commands. Jesus' statement at the end of the parallel account in Matthew 15:20 confirms that he was still speaking against becoming common by eating with unwashed hands and never jumped topics to speaking against obeying God.

In Mark 7:1-9 and Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus had been extremely critical of the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the command of God in order to establish their own traditions, so it would have been even more hypocritical of Jesus if he had turned around and set aside the commands of God just a few verses later. That would have made him a sinner in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and a false prophet in violation of Deuteronomy 13:4-6, and would have for once given his critics a legitimate reason to stone him, and they wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial. However this incident was never even brought up and they didn't even seem to have noticed that he did something as radical as speaking against obeying the God of the universe. It is much, much more reasonable to simply interpret him as taking the opposing position in regard to the topic he was discussing.

A number of translation don't say "thus he declared all foods clean" primarily because there is no "thus he declared" in the Greek, but even if it were granted that that is the correct translation, it still wouldn't mean that we can eat pork. The concept of which things are considered to be food varies from culture to culture, so when you have one Jew speaking to other Jews about food, we need to interpret them as speaking about the things that they considered to be food, namely what God said was food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, and not insert the things that you consider to be food, such as pork. So at most, it is saying that all kashrut food is clean in direct opposition to the position of the Pharisees.

You will do what he says if you love him..

Almost there said:

Holy = separate

So, in the context of my tag line, I interpret all of this in a simple way: Love God. Love your fellow man. Love your fellow man as God instructs and love God as God instructs and, within that paradigm, live life fully and with joy in the gift(s) God has given you.

Click to expand...

I would says that holiness has more to do with being set apart for a specific purpose rather than saying that any two things that are separate are holy. Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being God's instructions for how He wants us to love Him and our neighbor.

ToBeLoved said:

Many. I don’t think many is the right word. Maybe a few

Click to expand...

I can assure you that it is many.

Soyeong said:

I would says that holiness has more to do with being set apart for a specific purpose rather than saying that any two things that are separate are holy. Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being God's instructions for how He wants us to love Him and our neighbor.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I was just keeping it simple.

Almost there said:

And this
Colossians 2:21-23

Christians also don't tithe. They give.

Click to expand...

Why do you take something that was only against people promoting human traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body as being against obeying the Law of the God that we serve?

Almost there said:

Here is the thing: This was settled in m mind and heart a LONG time ago. It is clearly discussed in Romans 14:1-6 and I defer to it.

The ONLY reason for abstaining from ANY food is if I am told it was sacrificed to idols or to honor the tyranny of the weaker brother. http://www.popc-cville.org/Romans.pdf

Click to expand...

The topic of Romans 14 is stated in the first verse, namely in regard to how to handle disputes of human opinion, not whether followers of God should follow His commands. Paul was not saying that it is ok to disobey God as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok. The Bible clearly commands against idolatry, so no one was disputing whether God's command should be obeyed, but they did dispute about which things count as idolatry. Meat that had been offered to idols was often later sold on the market, so if someone was at a community meal and couldn't verify how the animal had been soldered, then they might be of the disputable opinion that only vegetables should be eaten. They were judging those who ate everything at the meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:2-3).

In Romans 14:5-6, it is speaking about eating unto the Lord or refraining from eating, so it is speaking about those who esteem certain days for fasting. The only day that God commanded fasting is on the Day of Atonement, but in the 1st century it had become a common practice as a matter of disputable opinion to fast twice a week or to commemorate certain events (Luke 18:12). Those who esteemed certain days for fasting were judging those who did not and were in turn being resented, and this is exactly the sort of issue that Paul was writing this chapter to address. We even have it recorded in Didache 8:1 that they were judging each over which days of the week they chose to fast:

8:1 But as for your fasts, let them not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week, but do ye fast on the fourth and sixth days.

We are not to keep the Sabbath because we esteemed, but because God esteemed it, blessed it, made it holy, and commanded it to be kept. So whether someone chooses to fast on other days is a disputable matter of human opinion, but whether someone chooses to fast on the Day of Atonement is a matter of obedience to God.

Soyeong said:

Why do you take something that was only against people promoting human traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body as being against obeying the Law of the God that we serve?



The topic of Romans 14 is stated in the first verse, namely in regard to how to handle disputes of human opinion, not whether followers of God should follow His commands. Paul was not saying that it is ok to disobey God as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok. The Bible clearly commands against idolatry, so no one was questioning whether that command should be obeyed, but they did dispute about which things count as idolatry. Meat that had been offered to idols was often later sold on the market, so if someone was at a community meal and couldn't verify how the animal had been soldered, then they might be of the disputable opinion that only vegetables should be eaten. They were judging those who ate everything at the meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:2-3).

In Romans 14:5-6, it is speaking about eating unto the Lord or refraining from eating, so it is speaking about those who esteem certain days for fasting. The only day that God commanded fasting is on the Day of Atonement, but in the 1st century it had become a common practice as a matter of disputable opinion to fast twice a week or to commemorate certain events (Luke 18:12). Those who esteemed certain days for fasting were judging those who did not and were in turn being resented, and this is exactly the sort of issue that Paul was writing this chapter to address. We even have it recorded in Didache 8:1 that they were judging each over which days of the week they chose to fast:

8:1 But as for your fasts, let them not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week, but do ye fast on the fourth and sixth days.

We are not to keep the Sabbath because we esteemed, but because God esteemed it, blessed it, made it holy, and commanded it to be kept. So whether someone chooses to fast on other days is a disputable matter of human opinion, but whether someone chooses to fast on the Day of Atonement is a matter of obedience to God.

Click to expand...

Well, after reading all that, all I can say is that I disagree. But to be clear, this is something I've worked out for myself in my own studies. I'm not a strong champion for either side. I don't choose to argue the point because I fall back on Romans 14 (still). You must decide and then live with a clear conscience regarding your decision, as I do.

I have no idea what point you are making in your first sentence, though. Could you break it down to the individual points you are making and the reason you are directing them at me?

Almost there said:

Well, after reading all that, all I can say is that I disagree. But to be clear, this is something I've worked out for myself in my own studies. I'm not a strong champion for either side. I don't choose to argue the point because I fall back on Romans 14 (still). You must decide and then live with a clear conscience regarding your decision, as I do.

Click to expand...

Where do you disagree? Do you really think that Paul was saying that it is ok to sin in disobedience to what God has commanded as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok? If I became convinced in my own mind that it is ok to steal something, would I be free to do that? Where God's Word gives a clear command, then human opinion must yield, but where God's Word is not clear, only then should we each be convinced in our own minds. If our conscience is not bothered by doing something that God said was an abomination, then that doesn't mean that we are free to do that, but that our conscience has become seared.

I have no idea what point you are making in your first sentence, though. Could you break it down to the individual points you are making and the reason you are directing them at me?

Click to expand...

The reason why so many people do not understand what is said about laws in the Bible is that they fail to distinguish between what is said about God's Law and what is said about man-made laws, and erroneously take something that was only against man-made laws as being against obeying the Law of the God that were serve. If you look at Colossians 2:16 by itself, then it is ambiguous as to whether Paul was saying that they were not to let anyone judge them for keeping God's holy days or for not keeping them, but if we look at the context of the views of the people judging them, as well as keep in mind the theme that we must obey God rather than man, then it becomes clear:

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.

Paul would not have described those who were teaching people to obey the Law in accordance with the example that Christ set for his followers as taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, and not according to Christ. He went into more details about what these elemental spirits of the world are later in the chapter:

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

So the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in accordance with God's commands, they were being judged by those who were teaching human traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was writing to encourage them not to let any man keep them from obeying God.

Soyeong said:

Where do you disagree? Do you really think that Paul was saying that it is ok to sin in disobedience to what God has commanded as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok? If I became convinced in my own mind that it is ok to steal something, would I be free to do that? Where God's Word gives a clear command, then human opinion must yield, but where God's Word is not clear, only then should we each be convinced in our own minds. If our conscience is not bothered by doing something that God said was an abomination, then that doesn't mean that we are free to do that, but that our conscience has become seared.



The reason why so many people do not understand what is said about laws in the Bible is that they fail to distinguish between what is said about God's Law and what is said about man-made laws, and erroneously take something that was only against man-made laws as being against obeying the Law of the God that were serve. If you look at Colossians 2:16 by itself, then it is ambiguous as to whether Paul was saying that they were not to let anyone judge them for keeping God's holy days or for not keeping them, but if we look at the context of the views of the people judging them, as well as keep in mind the theme that we must obey God rather than man, then it becomes clear:

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.

Paul would not have described those who were teaching people to obey the Law in accordance with the example that Christ set for his followers as taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, and not according to Christ. He went into more details about what these elemental spirits of the world are later in the chapter:

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

So the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in accordance with God's commands, they were being judged by those who were teaching human traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was writing to encourage them not to let any man keep them from obeying God.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I simply don't have the time to get into the specifics of this to the extent you are in this thread. I've studied His word. I've prayed. I've repeated both many times and am comfortable with my opinion on this. I believe the bible is pretty plain on this stuff and, as this particular issue percolates to the top of the issues on bible wisdom I'm studying, I'll dig into it deep again. But it's not. At least not at this time.

Soyeong said:

Please quote where the Law required all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved or admit that it was not required.

Click to expand...

Exodus 12:48-50
48 "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. 49 "The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you." 50 Then all the sons of Israel did so; they did just as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron.

ToBeLoved said:

Exodus 12:48-50
48 "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. 49 "The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you." 50 Then all the sons of Israel did so; they did just as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron.

Click to expand...

That was not to become saved*. That was to allow them to celebrate the Passover.

*By saved, I mean the salvation the blood of Christ brings.