The Commandments of God (according to scripture)

[Cameron143]

God's law is about Jesus, so that is contradictory.

Which is greater: Jesus or the law?

 

[Soyeong]

Your last sentence is correct. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to abolish them, as he said in the Sermon on the Mount. He came also to establish a new covenant, of which the laws' meanings are a part.

However, the many laws given to the nation of Israel, including the ten you refer to, are in a mostly-external, national form like the unclean and clean foods and the Sabbath rules, but Jesus and Paul clearly said that all foods are clean.

The things that count as food vary from culture to culture, so when we have one Jew speaking to a group of other Jews about food, then we should consider them to be speaking about the things that they consider to be food rather than insert the things that we consider to be food. An obvious example is that a cannibal should not interpret Jesus as saying that human flesh is good to eat. Jews did not even raise pigs, so the though of eating pork would have never even crossed their minds, especially because it had nothing to do with the topic they they were discussing of whether we can become common by eating bread with unwashed hands. In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus criticize the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so he should not be interpreted as turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing the Pharisees as hypocrites for doing.

So, what's the Bible's own take? The covenant in the Old and New Testaments has continuity and discontinuity. The continuity between the Old and New Testaments is that the internal meanings of the laws continue on for Christians. For example, the two principles of the Sabbath are rest and worship. We Christians are called to follow those principles of the law. Also, the main idea of the clean and unclean foods is our need to seek God's cleansing of the sin-filth in our lives. Thus, our prayers of confession and asking for Jesus' cleansing through his death are important, though, of course, God's has already justified us, that is, declared us "not-guilty" and right with him as our Judge.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so there is strong continuity between covenants. The New Covenant is made with the same God with the same eternal nature and therefore the same eternal law for how to act in accordance with His nature.

God's law is spiritual (Romans 7:14) in that it has always been intended to teach us spiritual principles that are aspects of God's nature/fruits of the Spirit. For example, God could give someone a list of 100 examples of how to act in accordance with His righteousness in various situations, which would allow them to abstract a spiritual principle of righteousness that all of those examples have in common which leads them to take actions that are examples of those principles in accordance with those 100 examples even in situations that were not specifically list. Correctly understanding a spiritual principle will never lead us away from taking actions that are examples of that principle, but rather it will lead us to take actions that testify about that principle in obedience to God's law. So if someone thought that they understood the spiritual principle of love, so they no longer needed to obey God's command to love their neighbor, then they would be missing the point

The outward form of the laws have been nailed to Jesus'' cross, according to Colossians 2. Thus, the early church was free to move the day of worship and rest to Sunday to honor Jesus for his resurrection on that day. However, the inner meaning of the laws continue on in our new covenant or testament.

In Colossians 2:14, it does not specify that it is speaking about the outward form of the laws being nailed to the cross, nor is it even speaking about any laws being nailed to it. There is a difference between these two statements.

1.) You shall not commit murder.

2.) This person has been found guilty of committing murder.

The first is an example of a law that is for our own good while the second is an example of a handwritten ordinance that was nailed to someone's cross in order to announce the charge that was against them. This first perfectly the charge that was against us being nailed to Christ's cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sin, but has nothing to do with nailing any laws to the cross.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so the early church did not have the authority to make changes to it. There is nothing wrong with someone following their own tradition of worshiping on Sunday in addition to obeying God's command to keep the 7th day holy, but they should not hypocritically set aside God's command in order to establish their own tradition. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so trying to honor the resurrection by disobeying God's law is kind of like a husband trying to honor his wife by committing adultery.

 

[TMS]

guess where "love the Lord" and "love your neighbor" are written?

in here:



so your position is that to love one another is lack of faith, regardless of motive?
or is your argument flawed.


when you break the Law apart like that, the decalogue no longer has any basis, because the basis of all the commandments are in the jots and tittles you deleted.
God designed it this way, to expose human wisdom as foolishness.

God did design it this way..
What laws are not changed or removed and which laws have been removed?
I have not deleted any dots and tittles from the 10 commandments. Plan and simple.

 

[TMS]

so your position is that to love one another is lack of faith, regardless of motive?
or is your argument flawed.

You need to understand which laws were nailed to the cross.

I was clear that the laws that were nailed to the cross are the laws we are not to follow when we have faith in Jesus.

God is eternal and some things do not change.

To love is a result of faith and the 10 commandments all point to love for God and Love for our neighbour.

 

[notmyown]

It is not clear to me why you think truth of what I said leads to the expectation that it is something that would be mentioned in Acts 15. In Acts 15:21, the expectation was that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

i don't think so. the "racism" that existed between Jew and gentile was profound. look how the chapter unfolds:

But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and declared, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” So the apostles and elders met to look into this matter. (v 5-6)

Now then, why do you test God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (v 10-11)

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not cause trouble for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” (v 19-21)

it was a concession for the sake of the Jewish believers, that they not be offended. it was very difficult for them to accept gentiles' inclusion to the people of God as it was. the principle is a lot like this:

So about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

But not everyone has this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that they eat such food as if it were sacrificed to an idol. And since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us closer to God: We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

Be careful, however, that your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you who are well informed eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged to eat food sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. By sinning against your brothers in this way and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to stumble. (1 Cor 8:4-13)

if you came to my house for dinner, i would not serve you pork chops, because it would offend you. do you like spaghetti?

 

[Soyeong]

Which is greater: Jesus or the law?

Jesus is God's word made flesh, so he is not greater or lesser than God's word.

 

[Soyeong]

i don't think so. the "racism" that existed between Jew and gentile was profound. look how the chapter unfolds:

But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and declared, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” So the apostles and elders met to look into this matter. (v 5-6)

Now then, why do you test God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (v 10-11)

In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, and Romans 10:5-8 cites that passage as the word of faith that we proclaim, so if Acts 15:10-11 had been describing the Mosaic Law as being a heavy burden that no one could bear, then they would have been denying the truth those verses. However, Acts 15:11 makes it clear that what was being described in Acts 15:10 was not the Mosaic Law, but a means of salvation other than salvation by grace, namely the salvation by circumcision that was proposed by the men from Judea in Acts 15:1.

In Acts 15:5, a group of Pharisees from among the believers opposed the men from Judea by saying that Gentiles should become circumcised and obey the Law of Moses, but not in order to become saved, so again they were debating the means of salvation, not whether Gentiles should obey the Law of Moses.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Furthermore, Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law, and there were the points that Peter was making in Acts 15:6-9 in favor of those in Acts 15:5 and against those in Acts 15:1.

In Acts 15:11-18, they saw the inclusion of Gentiles into Israel as being the fulfillment of prophecy, which agains supports Gentiles obeying the Mosaic Law.

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not cause trouble for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

(v 19-21)

Either Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of a mature Gentile believer or it does not, so it is contradictory to treat it as being a non-exhaustive list by saying that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow like the greatest two commandments while treating it as being an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow. Moreover, if you think that Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandments, then you should also think that Gentiles should obey all of the other commandments that hang on them.

To use an analogy, an employer does not want to overwhelm new employees by making them memorize everything that they would eve need to know about how to do their job on day one, but rather they start with the basics with the understanding that they will continue to learn the rest over time. In a similar manner, they did not want to overwhelm new believers by giving them a long list of laws that they needed to know on day one, but they started with the basics with the understanding that they would continue to learn the rest over time by hearing Moses taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

it was a concession for the sake of the Jewish believers, that they not be offended. it was very difficult for them to accept gentiles' inclusion to the people of God as it was. the principle is a lot like this:

So about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

But not everyone has this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that they eat such food as if it were sacrificed to an idol. And since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us closer to God: We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

Be careful, however, that your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you who are well informed eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged to eat food sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. By sinning against your brothers in this way and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to stumble. (1 Cor 8:4-13)

if you came to my house for dinner, i would not serve you pork chops, because it would offend you. do you like spaghetti?

In 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, Paul was speaking about eating in an idol's temple, not about eating pork chops. In 1 Corinthians 10:14-31, Paul spoke against eating from the altar of an idol, but said that we could eat meat that had been previously offered to idols, so again the issue of defining what counts as idolatry, not whether we are free to disobey God's command against eating unclean animals.

 

[Cameron143]

Jesus is God's word made flesh, so he is not greater or lesser than God's word.

I don't think you realize what you have written, and I'll point out how wrong your statement is in a moment. But first, is Jesus God?

 

[posthuman]

You need to understand which laws were nailed to the cross.

I was clear that the laws that were nailed to the cross are the laws we are not to follow when we have faith in Jesus.

and that is clearly a false doctrine.

you clearly said "the law of Moses" is nailed to the cross and sinful to keep no matter what your intention is.
and you clearly define "the law of Moses" as everything except the decalogue -- though scripture clearly defines it as the entire Law given to the Jews as their portion of their covenant at Horeb, including the decalogue.

so what you clearly say is sin to keep is any part of the law apart from the decalogue -- including Leviticus 19 & Deuteronomy 6, which God clearly tells us is the basis of the entire law, including the decalogue. the decalogue is clearly not the basis of the Law. two obscure rules about love are.

but you call those sinful to keep, because, no better than a Judaizer, you want to delete 98.37% of the Law and hold believers under the remaining 1.63% of the Law. what makes you equivalent to a Judaizer is that the basis the Spirit of God gives us for not being under any of the Mosaic law is the same basis it gives us for not being all of it: that we, because we believe in Christ for salvation, have died with Him -- and no law apples to the dead.

we did not 98.37% die.
Jesus did not give 98.37% of His life for our sins -- He gave 100%

we are 100% saved by faith, not 98.37% faith and 1.63% works.

 

[posthuman]

You need to understand which laws were nailed to the cross.

you have absolutely no basis other than the tradition of men to imagine that the Law can be selectively and arbitrarily deleted and chopped into binding & non-binding bits.

it is a blasphemous & erroneous & hideously common view.

 

[posthuman]

You need to understand which laws were nailed to the cross.

the scripture does not say "which laws" are nailed to the cross.

the scripture says "it" singular. one law. one thing that condemns us all and causes legal indebtedness.

it is 100% human tradition you are teaching by dissolving the Law into pieces and trying to make salvation by 1.63% works.

Salvation is by the gracious work of Christ, by our faith in it, apart from our works.

what you're saying sounds great to human ears and your fathers and grandfathers all taught it and kept it as a tradition handing it down ((because it is not in the Bible at all, it has to be handed down)) -- but it's completely contrary to scripture.

 

[posthuman]

the 10 commandments all point to love for God and Love for our neighbour.

you have this upside down.

God Himself, standing in front of the worlds greatest experts in God's covenant law with the Jews, told them explicitly that the entire basis of the ten commandments and every other part of their covenant law is to love Him and to love their neighbor.

without love, the decalogue is completely baseless. but you delete love.

without the decalogue, love still has basis - because God is love.

keeping a list of no-no's doesn't teach anyone to love.
but loving teaches one what does harm and what does not.

you're dead wrong, bro -- the human tradition you are preaching leads to death.

 

[SabbathBlessing]

you have this upside down.

God Himself, standing in front of the worlds greatest experts in God's covenant law with the Jews, told them explicitly that the entire basis of the ten commandments and every other part of their covenant law is to love Him and to love their neighbor.

without love, the decalogue is completely baseless. but you delete love.

without the decalogue, love still has basis - because God is love.

keeping a list of no-no's doesn't teach anyone to love.
but loving teaches one what does harm and what does not.

you're dead wrong, bro -- the human tradition you are preaching leads to death.

Not according to God who said right in the Ten Commandments that is based on love. Love and obedience to God go hand in hand. How can one love God but not love Him enough to do what He asks.

Exo 20: 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.


1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments.

 

[SabbathBlessing]

the scripture does not say "which laws" are nailed to the cross.

the scripture says "it" singular. one law. one thing that condemns us all and causes legal indebtedness.

it is 100% human tradition you are teaching by dissolving the Law into pieces and trying to make salvation by 1.63% works.

Salvation is by the gracious work of Christ, by our faith in it, apart from our works.

what you're saying sounds great to human ears and your fathers and grandfathers all taught it and kept it as a tradition handing it down ((because it is not in the Bible at all, it has to be handed down)) -- but it's completely contrary to scripture.

View attachment 259283

It does...

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

It was the law that was the prescription for sin (pointing to Jesus) as shown in Hebrews 7, Hebrews 9, Hebrews 10, not the law that defines sin, the Ten Commandments Rom 7:7 Mat 5:19-30

Moses handwrote the law of ordinances; God finger wrote the Ten Commandments. Exo 31:18 Exo 32:16

 

[mailmandan]

Colossians 2:14 - Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

Ephesians 2:15 - having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.

Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15 refer to the old covenant of law including the ten commandments.

Leviticus 19 lists 5 of the 10 commandments as well as 24 references to the "ceremonial law" and calls them My statutes and all My ordinances without differentiation.

In Deuteronomy 5:1 the ten commandments are called "My statutes and all My ordinances."

In Deuteronomy 5:1-6:25 we have two whole chapters that deal exclusively with the ten commandments and the following 5 terms are used interchangeably without distinction: "statutes", "ordinances", "commandments", "judgments", "testimonies."

In Ezekiel 20:19-21 My sabbaths (including the weekly sabbath) is called "My statutes and all My ordinances."

In Nehemiah 9:13-14 the weekly sabbath is included without distinction: "ordinances, true laws, good statutes, commandments."

Malachi chapter 4 closes with a call to keep "statutes and ordinances" which obviously include the 10 commandments.

2 Corinthians 3:6 - who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

5. What are the "Commandments of God"?

Bible Truth Versus Adventist Truth - Mark of the Beast (nonsda.org)

 

[SabbathBlessing]

Colossians 2:14 - Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

Ephesians 2:15 - having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.

Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15 refer to the old covenant of law including the ten commandments.

Leviticus 19 lists 5 of the 10 commandments as well as 24 references to the "ceremonial law" and calls them My statutes and all My ordinances without differentiation.

In Deuteronomy 5:1 the ten commandments are called "My statutes and all My ordinances."

In Deuteronomy 5:1-6:25 we have two whole chapters that deal exclusively with the ten commandments and the following 5 terms are used interchangeably without distinction: "statutes", "ordinances", "commandments", "judgments", "testimonies."

In Ezekiel 20:19-21 My sabbaths (including the weekly sabbath) is called "My statutes and all My ordinances."

In Nehemiah 9:13-14 the weekly sabbath is included without distinction: "ordinances, true laws, good statutes, commandments."

Malachi chapter 4 closes with a call to keep "statutes and ordinances" which obviously include the 10 commandments.

2 Corinthians 3:6 - who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

5. What are the "Commandments of God"?

Bible Truth Versus Adventist Truth - Mark of the Beast (nonsda.org)

Is handwritten by Moses the same as finger written by God? Col 2:14 is very specific. Something that is holy and blessed by God, is not the definition of contrary. Only God can reverse His blessing Num 23:20

What does Jesus say on the matter does He teach we can break the Ten Commandments? He certainly does not. Mat 5:19-30 Mat 15:3-9 Mat 19:17-19 Mark 7:7-13 or the apostles 1 Cor 7:19 1 John 5:3 Rev 14:12 Rev 22:14-15

You are missing a lot of "ands" in the texts you provided.

 

[notmyown]

In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, and Romans 10:5-8 cites that passage as the word of faith that we proclaim, so if Acts 15:10-11 had been describing the Mosaic Law as being a heavy burden that no one could bear, then they would have been denying the truth those verses. However, Acts 15:11 makes it clear that what was being described in Acts 15:10 was not the Mosaic Law, but a means of salvation other than salvation by grace, namely the salvation by circumcision that was proposed by the men from Judea in Acts 15:1.

In Acts 15:5, a group of Pharisees from among the believers opposed the men from Judea by saying that Gentiles should become circumcised and obey the Law of Moses, but not in order to become saved, so again they were debating the means of salvation, not whether Gentiles should obey the Law of Moses.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Furthermore, Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law, and there were the points that Peter was making in Acts 15:6-9 in favor of those in Acts 15:5 and against those in Acts 15:1.

In Acts 15:11-18, they saw the inclusion of Gentiles into Israel as being the fulfillment of prophecy, which agains supports Gentiles obeying the Mosaic Law.


Either Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of a mature Gentile believer or it does not, so it is contradictory to treat it as being a non-exhaustive list by saying that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow like the greatest two commandments while treating it as being an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow. Moreover, if you think that Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandments, then you should also think that Gentiles should obey all of the other commandments that hang on them.

To use an analogy, an employer does not want to overwhelm new employees by making them memorize everything that they would eve need to know about how to do their job on day one, but rather they start with the basics with the understanding that they will continue to learn the rest over time. In a similar manner, they did not want to overwhelm new believers by giving them a long list of laws that they needed to know on day one, but they started with the basics with the understanding that they would continue to learn the rest over time by hearing Moses taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.


In 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, Paul was speaking about eating in an idol's temple, not about eating pork chops. In 1 Corinthians 10:14-31, Paul spoke against eating from the altar of an idol, but said that we could eat meat that had been previously offered to idols, so again the issue of defining what counts as idolatry, not whether we are free to disobey God's command against eating unclean animals.

i see you're not good with the idea of a principle. that's okay. tell me, does Moses allow eating meat sacrificed to idols?

my point was to buttress my understanding of what was decided at the Jerusalem council. we have liberty in Christ, but we never use it in a way that will be offensive to a weaker brother.
Paul goes on in his letter to the Corinthians to say things like,

To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. (1 Cor 9:22)

Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God (10:32)

hey! i have an idea! what if you take, say, a month, in which your Bible reading would consist solely of the New Testament epistles? it's always good to read an entire letter to follow what's being said. and, after all, we are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

 

[notmyown]

15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments.

i see lawyer types quoting this verse often. the word "keep" is in a future indicative active tense, and is more accurately translated, you will keep.

If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

you see, it's not a threat. it's a promise. the work is performed by Christ in us.

 

[SabbathBlessing]

i see lawyer types quoting this verse often. the word "keep" is in a future indicative active tense, and is more accurately translated, you will keep.

If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

you see, it's not a threat. it's a promise. the work is performed by Christ in us.

There is the word "If" there and I do not see "keep" as future like now we do not need to keep His commandments, but at a later time we do. God's will for us is the same now as it is in heaven. Matthew 6:10

I do not see it reading as a threat either, but more as a statement. If we love Jesus, why would we not want to do everything He asks of us.

 

[Soyeong]

i see you're not good with the idea of a principle. that's okay.

Why does it make sense to you to think that we can follow a principle, but not the things that are examples of a principle that were given to teach us how to follow it?

tell me, does Moses allow eating meat sacrificed to idols?

In Revelation 2:20, it also speaks against eating food offered to idols, so that is not permitted in the NT either in principle or in action. What Paul did was interpret that being a prohibition from eating food directly from the altar and participating in the sacrifice, not has causing something wrong with

my point was to buttress my understanding of what was decided at the Jerusalem council. we have liberty in Christ, but we never use it in a way that will be offensive to a weaker brother.
Paul goes on in his letter to the Corinthians to say things like,

To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. (1 Cor 9:22)

Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God (10:32)

It should not make sense to you to think that the weaker brother is the one who is obeying what God has commanded, but rather that is the stronger brother. It is important to distinguish between what the Bible says in regard to obeying God's commands and what it says in regard to following man's opinions, where someone's conscience prevents them from doing what God as permitted them to do. In Acts 21:20-24, Paul planned to take steps to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against obeying God's law and to show that he continued to live ion obedience to it, and in Acts 24:14, he testified that he worshiped the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, so should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying the Law or in a way that would include himself or Jesus for that matter as the weaker brother.

hey! i have an idea! what if you take, say, a month, in which your Bible reading would consist solely of the New Testament epistles? it's always good to read an entire letter to follow what's being said. and, after all, we are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Everything that proceeded from the mouth of God includes everything that God said in the OT, so I don't see how you can use that to justify focusing on reading a small part of what has proceeded from the mouth of God. Likewise, I don't see how you can believe that we should live by every word that proceeds from the most of God while also believing that we shouldn't live by things that proceeded from God's mouth in the OT.