Everything follows, or every decision we make should follow, from the top  two commandments.  It is impossible to escape the ways of this present world completely and still live in the world...but we can work toward a world where it is on earth as it is in heaven, and not worship the ways of this world...seek to correct our mistakes...meanwhile recognizing that the ways of the present world exist until they are changed into new ways. Also, I don't think we have come to understand the scriptures in the way they were intended to be understood in the time they were written, I don't think that's what's being taught in many churches, and that is something we should seek to understand better I think. We have been following many aspects of the Bible that have been changed by powerful men who were false prophets, and in the last 100 plus years we have Americanized and westernized everything, and hence, distorted it. We need to be able to open our minds, and "go back" and see things through the lense it was meant to be seen from.

 

Well stated, unsafe. Love the curtain rod metaphor. That's certainly how I've always read Jesus teaching in this regard.

 

Mendalla

 

 

Well said Kimmio. It is all too easy to read the Bible looking at it only through the lens of our culture and times. We need to strive to examine the culture of the time it was written, the mindset of the authors, the nature of the audiences to which it was addressed, etc.

Hi MorningCalm ---I don't think I can agree with you hear . You sound like God is going to change for each Generation. Where as God does not change. So as He was then, so He is now. Don't you think God would have told us, to look for these changes?He did not.---God Bless ----------airclean33

 

It all depends on how one defines God.

 

If one defines God as the self-creative totality of being, then God evolves along with everyone and everything.

 

But, even then, one can differentiate between godly content and context. The content (energy capable of transcendence) is eternally unchanging while the forms that energy transcends into are constantly changing. The content is unchanging while the context is constantly changing.

 

In other words, the forms are changing and temporary, but the substance of which the forms consist is unchanging and forever.

 

Where does one draw the dividing line between substance and form? If the substance is godly, is then the form not also and equally godly?

 

"Love being the curtain rod that holds up the other commandments " - nice quote unsafe.  Augustine took this one step further, stating (to paraphrase) that if the commandment cannot be held up by the "curtain rod of love", then that commandment does not come from God/Christ.  I believe he called it the "Rule of Love".  There are times when we must decide between the principle (love) and the specifics (law/commandment). Jesus is quite clear that the principle comes first. Many Christians are at odds with Christ by insisting that the specifics (commandments) come first. Every time that Jesus is put to the test by the law-abiding Pharisees (and they were very conscientious in being so), his answer was invariably:  "what's important here?"  And what was important was love - love of God, which we manifest through love of God's creation and love of each other.

But human beings often have a difficult time applying the principle (just as my students may know the details, but have a hard time applying the concept to anything other than the given example). We ask, "can you be a bit more specific". That's people talking, not Christ. Christ often gave examples, but just as I might teach an example of how a concept might be applied doesn't mean that particular example will apply in all circumstances. One must often return to the concept to make sure your example (or example of an example) hasn't strayed too far from the original.

 

Hi waterfall ---

 

This comes from Matthew 7:6 ----I am unaware of this being one of the commandments of Jesus which is what your Thread says it's about-- so I am curious as to why you ask me to give meaning to this piece of scripture. Please clarify --Thanks

 

Peace

 

Hi waterfall:

 

I doubt that Jesus actually said this. And, if he did, I don't know what he meant by it. Sayings about dogs and swine have particular meanings in cultures were such creatures are regarded as unclean. Calling somone a dog, for instance, could be a compliment or an endearment in Western culture but is a supreme insult in Mid-Eastern cultures.

 

 Judging other people as to whether or not they are swine, and withholding our wisdom from them if we think they are, does not seem to be in line with Jesus' other teachings.

 

I, for one, gladly cast my pearls before my fellow swine.

Hi Waterfall,

 

 

In my opinion every commandment in the scriptures (whether Jesus said it or not) is relevent even today.  The chief question then becomes, in what way is this particular commandment relevent today?

 

As to disregarding any commandment.  Well, some only come into play as the result of breaking some earlier commandment.  I would think that anyone able to honour some of the first commandments wouldn't spend a lot of time completing the second commandments.

 

It has long been thought and taught that the Two Great Commandments (which are not original to Jesus but him quoting from the Mosaic Codes) are first order commandments and most of the rest are commentary on how those first order commandments can be kept and honoured.

 

 

No.  It is ignorance.  If you disregard any secondary commandment then you are resisting the first order commandment it provides commentary on.

 

That said.  Commentary is really good for original contexts and perhaps shaping contemporary practices.  Should all times be the same as that one time?  I don't believe that scripture suggests that at all.  Jesus says "You have heard it said" and he picks a commandment, then he says, "But I tell you" and he drops a new commandment which at face value conflicts with what came before.

 

If both commandments are seen as beginning and end points they appear to point to contradiction.  It is not my understanding that they are meant to function as end points so much as steps along a journey. Both are essentially mid-points.  The beginning point being what was and the end point being what will be.

 

 

I have to admit I was intrigued by the number of hits that the search turned up so I poked around and was not surprised to find that most of the lists differed in some ways (or appeared copied from some original source).

 

I'm not convinced that Jesus was big on making commandments.  Depending upon which translation you use the word commandments occurs infrequently or all the time. Which points to a translation issue (ie. should entole be translated as commandments or commands?)

 

Is there a difference between a command and a commandment?  I think that there is theologically speaking.

 

I think that the difference between The Two Great Commands and all other commands is similar to the difference between managing and micro-managing.

 

I'm also aware that no matter how hard we try we will miss the mark (classic definition of sin) and that if we place our hope and trust in adherence to any set of commands or commandments we will, at the end of the day, stand condemned for failure.

 

Which is not me saying that it isn't worth any effort to try living out the commandments or commands.  It is me saying that no matter how hard we try we will ultimately fall short in some way and grace finally becomes more important to me than any commandment because it is what I have most pressing need of.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John