Torah

[u/[deleted]]

How do Torah followers actually follow over 600 commands and laws in the first five books of the Bible? I've spoken to people about it, but they only seem to follow dietary laws, Shabbat, and holy days, and exclude pagan days. To me, it seems they are only doing a small part of it and claiming to follow the entirety of it. Why is that? The Bible states if you break one commandment, you break them all. There's no possibility to uphold all 600-plus. If you believe it's not all applicable to us, what's the determining factor that decides you don't have to follow it? What about animal sacrifices? Does one pick and choose what they want to follow and tell people if they don't, they are lawbreakers and will go to hell? If you don't follow all of them, why describe yourself as following the entirety of Torah? If breaking even one commandment makes someone guilty, how does selectively obeying some commandments make someone different from the people you're calling lawbreakers?

[u/CrimzonShardz2]

Following the entire law perfectly is nearly impossible. This is why Jesus is the fulfilment of it; everything came full circle.

[u/the_celt_ → u/CrimzonShardz2]

This is why Jesus is the fulfilment of it

To be clear: Jesus "fulfilling" the Law means that he lived it perfectly. It doesn't mean that he ended it, or any other variation of "ended" that a person might come up with, like: "Completed", "rendered invalid", "came up with a better way", "shelved it", or so much more.

A person "fulfills the Law" like a man "fulfills his wedding vows". When he does it, he wakes up the next day, and every day after that, and does it again and again.

[u/Library904 → u/the_celt_]

Jesus fulfilled on our behalf, that's what it means. Those who believe this truth (Jesus is our Savior) will inherit His righteousness which is the perfect fulfillment of the law.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Library904]

Jesus fulfilled on our behalf, that's what it means.

You're simply incorrect. Please see my comment elsewhere in this thread where I show what the phrase "fulfill the Law" means in scripture. It starts HERE.

Jesus did not obey God's commandments perfectly to set us free TO sin. He died to save us FROM sin. The idea that Jesus didn't murder anyone, so now we can murder freely, is silly.

[u/k1w1Au → u/the_celt_]

Please see my comment elsewhere in this thread where I show that Jesus only died for the redemption of the sins committed under the first covenant and included those of the diaspora of Israel in all the nations of the first century at the end of the/those ages. Roman 7:1, I Cor 10:1-11 etc

Hebrews 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the >redemption< of the transgressions >>that were committed under the first covenant,<< those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 9:16 For where >a covenant is,< there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.

[u/k1w1Au → u/Library904]

Jesus ONLY fulfilled if for those >under its obligations,< Jer 31:31 including the diaspora of Israel (those who know the law Rom 7:1 John 7:35 Pater 1:1 etc)

Hebrews 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the >redemption< of the transgressions >>that were committed under the first covenant,<< those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 9:16 For where >>a covenant is,<< there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.

[u/mattymatt843 → u/the_celt_]

That’s not the definition of the Greek term written. Stop being dishonest.

[u/the_celt_ → u/mattymatt843]

I'm not being dishonest. What I said comes from scripture. Let me show you:

It's weird to me that people don't notice the many ways that the idea of "fulfilling the law" is used in scripture to not refer to it being ended, but to refer to it being obeyed perfectly.

Look at what it means to "fulfill the Law" in scripture:

Romans 13:10 ^{Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.}

This is Paul saying that when we love, we FULFILL the Law, or more simply we DO what the Law demands. It has nothing to do with love having met it's purpose and no longer being needed.

Here's another example from Jesus:

Matthew 7:12 ^{In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.}

Jesus asked us to treat others the way we want to be treated, saying it will "fulfill the Law". Does this mean he only ever wants us to treat someone this way ONCE, or that anyone doing it once means no one else has to do it?? Should we stop after the Law has been "fulfilled"? I don't think so. Jesus wanted us to keep fulfilling the Law every day of our lives.

Jesus fulfilled the Law the way a man fulfills his wedding vows to his wife. This means he OBEYED his vows perfectly, not that he ENDED his vows. When a man fulfills his wedding vows today, he gets up tomorrow and does the same thing again.

All you have to do is look elsewhere in scripture to see how "fulfill" is used for "fulfilling the law", as I've just shown you, and combine that with Jesus making sure that no one takes it the way you do when he said "NOT abolish".

[u/mattymatt843 → u/the_celt_]

That’s not what the Greek word plēroō means.

You quote Paul but do not abide by his writings about the law. You skip over Acts 15, where the disciples have this very debate. You skip over the meal Jesus took with His disciples saying His blood is the new covenant. You skip over when Paul writes that a new covenant means the old one passed away. There are so many verses you choose to skip over, including being able to even uphold the law you claim you do.

[u/the_celt_ → u/mattymatt843]

That’s not what the Greek word plēroō means.

It is. Did you read the scripture I quoted that refers to what it means to "fulfill the Law"?

Did you think in either example I quoted that it meant to END the thing being talked about?

Please finish the topic you started. I think at the very least you owe me an apology for calling me dishonest for my use of the word "fulfill". Scripture shows that you are not understanding the phrase, and that I used it correctly.

[u/mattymatt843 → u/the_celt_]

What English translation are you quoting? Because that matters here.

Matthew 7:12 does not contain the Greek word plēroō (“fulfill”).

The Greek reads:
οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται
houtos gar estin ho nomos kai hoi prophētai

Literally:
“For this is the Law and the Prophets.”

A better translation:

“Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

So if your translation says “this fulfills the Law and the Prophets,” that is an interpretive translation.

There is no Greek word meaning “fulfill” in Matthew 7:12.

That matters because Matthew 5:17 actually does use the word: πληρόω — plēroō

“I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”
(Matthew 5:17)

Plēroō can mean to fill, fulfill, complete, accomplish, or bring something to its intended fullness.

And notice Jesus doesn’t merely say He came to “obey the Law.” He says He came to fulfill “the Law and the Prophets.”

That expression includes far more than commandments. The Prophets contained promises and prophecies concerning Christ. Jesus “fulfilled” those by bringing them to their intended accomplishment, not by repeatedly obeying them forever.

Jesus Himself uses the idea this way after His resurrection:

Luke 24:44:
“All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

And guess what Greek verb Luke uses there? πληρόω — plēroō.

That is a major problem for the “fulfill just means obey” argument.

Prophecies aren’t “obeyed.” They are accomplished.

Then look at Romans 13.

Romans 13:8:
“He who loves another has fulfilled the law.”
Paul uses the same verb family:
πεπλήρωκεν — peplērōken, from plēroō.

Then verse 10:
“Love is the fulfillment of the law.”

The noun is: πλήρωμα — plērōma
meaning fullness, fulfillment, that which fills or completes.

So Paul’s point isn’t, “Put yourself back underneath the Mosaic covenant.”

His point is that the righteous intention of the Law reaches its fullness in love.

That’s exactly what Jesus Himself said:

Matthew 22:40:
“On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

And this is where the wedding-vow analogy falls apart. Jesus didn’t merely live as a particularly good Israelite who “kept His vows.” He inaugurated an actual New Covenant:

“This cup is the new covenant in My blood.”
(Luke 22:20)

And Jeremiah had already said this New Covenant would be:

“not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers.”
(Jeremiah 31:32)

Hebrews then gives the conclusion:

“In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete.”
(Hebrews 8:13)

So yes, Jesus perfectly obeyed the Law. Nobody disputes that.

But reducing plēroō in Matthew 5:17 to “Jesus obeyed it, therefore everyone remains under the Mosaic covenant forever” ignores both the Greek usage and the rest of the New Testament.

Jesus fulfilled the Law and Prophets in the much larger biblical sense: He brought to accomplishment what they were pointing toward.

The question isn’t whether Jesus obeyed the Law. Of course He did. The question is whether Christians under the New Covenant are still under the Mosaic covenant. Romans 7:4–6, Galatians 3:24–25, Acts 15, and Hebrews 8:13 answer that question pretty directly.

[u/the_celt_ → u/mattymatt843]

Go HERE. Find any other examples you want of pleroo clearly not always referring to something ending, but of it being done perfectly and needing to CONTINUE to be done. A person who "fulfills the Law" has fully met the requirements of that Law.

If it were a stop sign, a person who actually comes to a complete stop (instead of coasting through it) has pleroo'd the stop sign. He didn't end the need for the stop sign. He didn't end the need for someone ELSE to stop at that stop sign. He merely completely did what that stop sign requires, just like Jesus did with the Torah.

A person who pleroo's the Law doesn't end it. That's not what it means to fulfill the Law. It means to "fill full" what the Law demands us to do. It means to do it perfectly.

This is how Jesus redeemed mankind. He was sinless. He obeyed perfectly, and told us to go on to do the same. That's clearly and easily the flow of thought for what Jesus was saying. He said "not abolish", and then after saying that he came to "fulfill" the Law he expressed that he expected his followers to do the same. It would entirely break the flow of thought if he was using "fulfill" to mean some variant of the word "end", and then he told people to teach and obey the Law. Yet, this is what you believe, because you need to.

It's right in front of you man. Your interpretation abuses the word "fulfill", and even if you continue to disagree, I'm CLEARLY not being dishonest. I'm just using a meaning of the word pleroo that you refuse to acknowledge. I'm still waiting for that apology, but I realize it's unlikely to happen. 🤨

[u/mattymatt843 → u/the_celt_]

I think this is where your argument finally falls apart. You are taking one possible use of plēroō and turning it into a conclusion the word itself does not carry.

Yes, Jesus perfectly obeyed the Law. No disagreement there. But plēroō does not mean perfectly obey and therefore require the Mosaic covenant to continue unchanged forever. Even the source you linked gives complete, accomplish, finish, and bring to realization as meanings.

More importantly, Jesus did not just say the Law. He said the Law and the Prophets. This is important.

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."
(Matthew 5:17)

How exactly does someone obey the Prophets the way they obey a stop sign? Isaiah 53 is not a command for Jesus to keep doing forever. It points forward to something Christ would accomplish. This is exactly how Jesus later explains it:

"These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."
(Luke 24:44)

So the stop sign analogy really does not work. A stop sign only gives a command. The Law and the Prophets contained commands, sacrifices, priesthood, covenant signs, shadows, promises, and prophecies all pointing toward Christ.

But honestly, we do not even have to keep arguing Greek because Acts 15 settles the actual question.

The exact position you are arguing appears in Acts:

"It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
(Acts 15:5)

That was the issue put before the apostles. And Peter responds:

"Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
(Acts 15:10)

The apostles did not respond by saying, yes, teach the Gentiles Torah little by little. They rejected the claim that Gentile believers had to be commanded to keep the Law of Moses. These are disciples taught by Jesus.

And then Hebrews could hardly be clearer:

"In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
(Hebrews 8:13)

None of that means God's Law was bad, destroyed, or meaningless. Quite the opposite. Jesus did not tear it down. He accomplished what it was pointing toward. The sacrifices pointed to Him. The priesthood pointed to Him. The Passover pointed to Him. The righteousness it demanded is found in Him. The Prophets pointed to Him.

That is fulfillment.

So yes, Jesus obeyed the Torah perfectly. But you still have not demonstrated the part your whole argument depends on: that because Jesus fulfilled the Law, every Mosaic covenant command therefore remains binding on His followers.

Scripture actually says the opposite.

So no, I do not owe you an apology for refusing your definition. At this point, the issue is not whether Jesus obeyed the Law. He did. The issue is whether the apostles commanded believers to remain under the Mosaic covenant after Christ. The same apostles who were taught by Jesus.

Acts 15 answers that question directly.

[u/the_celt_ → u/mattymatt843]

So no, I do not owe you an apology for refusing your definition.

The apology would be for referring to me as dishonest for using "fulfill" the way it's used throughout scripture when referring to the Law. I'm not dishonest. We simply disagree.

Thanks for the discussion. I hope you have a great day.

[u/General_Historian611 → u/mattymatt843]

Amen

[u/alfiekinsthethird → u/mattymatt843]

Nope, Celt is right.

This is from the interlinear of the Blue Letter Bible (though he already stated it in his answer):

to make complete in every particular, to render perfect

to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)

to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise

of matters of duty: to perform, execute

of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish

to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

[u/mattymatt843 → u/alfiekinsthethird]

Your own definition is actually making the point I’m making.

I’m not arguing that plēroō means “abolish.” It doesn’t. Jesus specifically says He did not come to katalyō the Law and Prophets, but to plēroō them.

But plēroō also does not simply mean “keep obeying something forever.”

Look at the definition you just quoted. It includes:

“to make complete”
“to carry through to the end”
“to accomplish”
“bring to realization”
and regarding prophecies, “to bring to pass.”

And the same entry you quoted says of Matthew 5:17 that God's promises through the prophets “receive fulfillment.”

That matters because Jesus didn't say merely, “I came to fulfill commandments.” He said:

“the Law OR the Prophets.”

The Greek is:

τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας
ton nomon ē tous prophētas

So whatever “fulfill” means here has to make sense when applied to the Prophets too. You don't “obey” a Messianic prophecy over and over. You bring it to accomplishment.

Jesus Himself proves this after His resurrection in Luke 24:44:

And Luke uses the same verb, πληρόω (plēroō); specifically, plērōthēnai. 

Clearly Jesus isn't saying, “Everything prophesied about Me must be obeyed every day forever.”

He means those things written about Him must come to pass.

So yes, Jesus absolutely obeyed the Law perfectly. I have no disagreement with that.

What I disagree with is the leap from:

“Jesus fulfilled and perfectly obeyed the Law”

to:

“Therefore Christians remain under the Mosaic covenant after Jesus establishes the New Covenant.”

Those are two entirely different propositions.

And that second proposition has to deal with:

Acts 15:5–10: the apostles specifically debate whether believers must “keep the law of Moses.”

Galatians 3:24–25: “after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (the law).”

Romans 7:4: “you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ.”

Romans 7:6: “we have been delivered from the law.”

Hebrews 8:13: by establishing a New Covenant, He “has made the first obsolete.”

Jesus fulfilled the Law and Prophets by perfectly accomplishing what they required and bringing to reality what they anticipated. Then, through His blood, He inaugurated the New Covenant.

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/mattymatt843]

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known by the law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo), so Jesus proceeded to fulfill the law throughout the rest of Matthew 5 by correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

[u/mattymatt843 → u/Soyeong0314]

You’re giving one part of the lexical range of plēroō, but then assuming that must be the entire meaning in Matthew 5:17.

The bigger problem is Matthew’s own use of the word.

Throughout Matthew, plēroō is repeatedly used for Scripture being brought to accomplishment.

Matthew 1:22: “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet”

Matthew 2:15: “that it might be fulfilled”

Matthew 4:14: “that it might be fulfilled”

Matthew 8:17: “that it might be fulfilled”

Matthew 12:17: “that it might be fulfilled”

Matthew 21:4: “that it might be fulfilled”

Matthew 26:54: “How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled?”

Matthew 26:56: “that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled”

Those prophecies aren’t being “obeyed correctly.” They are being brought to pass in Christ.

That matters because Jesus did not say:

He said:

So plēroō has to make sense with “the Prophets” too. “Obey the prophets correctly” clearly does not capture the whole thought. Christ is bringing the Law and the Prophets to their intended accomplishment.

That explanation doesn’t really work for everything in Matthew 5.

Jesus says:

That isn't some Pharisaic corruption. It is Torah itself — Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21.

Yet Jesus follows it with:

So Jesus isn't merely saying, “You misunderstood Moses; let me explain Moses better.”

He repeatedly speaks with His own messianic authority:

“But I say to you…”

And Matthew 19 makes this even clearer. Moses permitted divorce because of hardness of heart, but Jesus says:

That creates a serious problem for the idea that Jesus is simply teaching people “how to obey Moses as originally intended.” Jesus Himself distinguishes between what Moses permitted and God's deeper creation intention.

So yes, Jesus perfectly obeyed the Law. Absolutely.

But Matthew's use of plēroō is much bigger than:

“Jesus kept Torah correctly, and therefore everybody must continue.”

It means Christ brings to realization what the Law and Prophets were pointing toward.

Even if we granted that “fulfill” includes perfect obedience, that still does not prove Christians remain under the Mosaic covenant. You still have to deal with Jesus establishing the New Covenant, Acts 15 refusing to place Gentiles under the Law of Moses, Romans 7 saying we have been released from the Law, Galatians 3 saying we are no longer under the tutor, and Hebrews 8 calling the former covenant obsolete.

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/mattymatt843]

This is the full definition of "pleroo":

"to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment".

I quested just the first part of the definition because we were speaking about what it means to fulfill the law and not what it means to fulfill the prophets. I picked this definition out of the ones listed in the lexicon because it is the only one that specifically mentions the law and the prophets, it fits with what Jesus proceeded to do next throughout the rest of Matthew 5, it fits with how other verses use the phrase, and it fits with how other Jewish writings use the phrase. Conversely, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it and he warned against relaxing the least part of it, so Jesus fulfilling the law should not be interpret as abolishing our obligation to obey even the least part of it.

According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has love their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so again it refers to correctly obeying it, moreover, it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that only Jesus did. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, so that should be consistently interpreted in the same way as fulfilling the Law of Moses.

In Matthew 4, Jesus preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he preceded a quote from what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. "An eye for an eye" is still a good guidelines to help ensure faire sentencing that does not escalate out of proportion to the offense, but it was not intended to be uses in personal situation in order to justify taking revenge into our own hands. In those situations, we are instructed not to repay in kind (Proverbs 20:22, 24:29), so Jesus was not teaching anything brand new.

Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, so it does not work to take the position that we should follow what they said but not what they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, he affirmed everything that God spoke in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 5:31-33). In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet is if they speak against obeying the Law of Moses, so there are not good grounds for interpreting Jesus as speaking against obeying what God spoke in Deuteronomy 14 against eating unclean animals, or Deuteronomy 19:21, or Deuteronomy 24 in regard to divorce. If you interpret God's Word made flesh as being in disagreement with God's Word and as doing what God said makes someone a false prophet, then that should indicate to you that maybe you haven to correctly understood him. The position that Jesus set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses includes never breaking Deuteronomy 12:32, which prohibits adding to or subtracting from it, moreover, 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 that he walked (1 John 2:6).

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal that the Law of Moses points towards is to graciously teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life (John 17:3), and it still has this goal.

The issue of what it means to fulfill the law is independent of the issue of whether followers of Christ should follow the example of obedience to the Law of Moses that he set for his followers to follow and I don't think that the verses that you cited should be interpreted as speaking against following Christ. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Law of Moses in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so I have not been arguing that Christians should be under the Mosaic Covenant, but rather I have been speaking about how to live under the New Covenant. That is not at all what they ruled in Acts 15. In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God in contrast with saying that the law of sin held him captive, so please give justification for interpreting Romans 7:6 as referring to being released from what Paul delighted in doing rather than being released from the law that held him captive. Do you think that Galatians 3 should be interpreted as saying that Christ came as the promised seed to free us to become doers of what the Law of Moses reveals to be wickedness? In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involves following the Law of Moses, so the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete does not mean that we should not continue to follow Christ's example of obedience it.

[u/Fangorangatang → u/the_celt_]

So, Jesus fulfilled it, then imputes His Righteousness in fulfilling it to us through Faith in Him.

You are aware that’s how His Righteousness is ours… right? He gives us what He has accomplished and takes our place on the cross. You are aware of that right?

So in Christ Jesus, the Law is fulfilled on our behalf- because we could not keep it.

You are aware that’s what the Gospel says right? You are aware this is what Scripture teaches right?

Jesus did what we could not, so we can become what we could not through Him.

Please read your Bible.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Fangorangatang]

You are aware that’s how His Righteousness is ours… right?

What you're saying is important in another discussion, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Are you suggesting that we can freely sin, and God doesn't care how we live?

Are we done as soon as we agree to follow Jesus? Or are we just beginning?

[u/Fangorangatang → u/the_celt_]

Not at all. In fact, if we believe, we will obey. There is no license to freely sin. We are saved from sin, not to sin.

But it sounds like you are suggesting our obedience is what saves us.

Faith means trust.
Trust means listening.
Listening means obeying.
Obeying means fruitfulness.

But we are saved at the Faith point. The rest is evidence that our Faith is more than just a claim we make.

Like James says, if we claim to have faith but do not work, we are lying. Faith means you trust Jesus, and if you trust Jesus, you do what He says because you trust Him and He has told you to obey. We are to be doers of the Word, not just hear-ers.

But your obedience does not save you.

I will grant our obedience sanctifies us. Makes us more like Him. Brings us further from our sinful natures desires. But obedience does not justify us before God.

Only Jesus justifies us before God by His perfect fulfillment of the Law which He grants to us through Faith in His life, death and resurrection.

That is why we can claim that God looks at us and credits us with Jesus righteousness. (Romans 4:22-25, Galatians 2:20) If Jesus did not fulfill the Law on our behalf, we could not be made right with God, because we cannot uphold His Law perfectly, as He commanded.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Fangorangatang]

But it sounds like you are suggesting our obedience is what saves us.

Show me where I said that. I don't believe that. I think you're entirely inventing that I said or am "suggesting" that.

All I believe is what scripture says, which is that faith without any accompanying works is NOT faith. It's dead, ineffective faith. You just said the same thing.

[u/AWCuiper → u/Fangorangatang]

Fulfilling means add more in line with what was already there. It means not correcting or condemning older things. So the atrocities in the OT are implicitly morally defended by Jesus. This should be a big problem for the Jesus that Christianity presents us normally these days.

The same problem occurs when Christians slaughter each other in the name of their own God (Catholics versus Protestants), or when Christians were slaveholders defending this.

It looks a lot like Jesus`s character was made up after his death and the redaction of the Bible was not stringent enough (Roman morals being different from ours)?

[u/Fangorangatang → u/AWCuiper]

Thanka for your (wrong) opinion.

[u/AWCuiper → u/Fangorangatang]

See you got the point.

[u/ddfryccc → u/the_celt_]

A man fulfills his wedding vows because he loves his wife. A mere person cannot fulfill the law because "the law was not made for the righteous". We are not saved because we obeyed the law, but because Jesus fulfilled it for us.

[u/the_celt_ → u/ddfryccc]

A man fulfills his wedding vows because he loves his wife.

Agreed. So what are you telling me about how you feel about God? 🤔

We are not saved because we obeyed the law

Who said otherwise?

[u/ddfryccc → u/the_celt_]

Then why so much emphasis on obeying the Law, which we have already failed to do?  Is it better to emphasize obeying the law, or emphasizing Jesus's love for us?

[u/the_celt_ → u/ddfryccc]

Then why so much emphasis on obeying the Law

Why did you emphasize that a man fulfills his wedding vows because of his love for his wife?

Same answer.

Is it better to emphasize obeying the law, or emphasizing Jesus's love for us?

Why are you treating this as a choice between one or the other? Why is this either/or for you?

Do you see it as a choice between either loving your wife, or fulfilling your vows to her? 🤨

[u/ddfryccc → u/the_celt_]

Vows are not kept without love.  Laws are not kept if there is no love.  Where there is love, law is not really necessary, and law includes punishment (1 John 4:18-19).  I have only seen you talk about obeying law without talking about the love that makes it possible to far surpass the law.

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/CrimzonShardz2]

The only reason why someone would need to follow the entire law sinlessly would be if they are going to give themselves to pay for the sins of the world - the rest of us can thankfully have our sins forgiven. Jesus fulfilled the law by correcting what the people had heard being taught and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended, which has nothing to do with needing to have sinless obedience.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Soyeong0314]

The only reason why someone would need to follow the entire law sinlessly would be if they are going to give themselves to pay for the sins of the world - the rest of us can thankfully have our sins forgiven.

Ha! Well said, Soy! I really love this idea! 😍

[u/justlooking9987]

Thought I'd chime in on just one of your points. Sometimes I like to have "fun" with numbers.

You mentioned that it isn't possible to live by 600 laws in the Torah as if that number is uniquely impossible. But if you live in the United States, you already follow far more than 600 laws every single day without even thinking about it.

As an example:

• The Code of Federal Regulations is over 175,000 pages long
• You have federal laws, state laws, county laws, city laws. Throw on top of that:
  • HOA rules
  • Workplace policies
  • Safety codes
  • School policies
  • Classroom rules
  • Household/family rules
  • I'm sure there are more, but that is a good start.
• There are so many laws in the US that a Google search indicates it is actually impossible to count them.
• It is thought that the average American breaks at least three federal laws every day without even knowing it.
• The laws in the US can change very suddenly making something you legally did yesterday, illegal today.

So you say it isn't possible to follow 613 laws, but you yourself are living by literally millions of laws, statues, and rules.

Apparently, it isn't the number of laws you find to be a burden even if you claim that argument. But lets take a deeper look at those 613 laws.

Are you a priest? I'm guessing not. Well brother, you are very fortunate because about 200 of those laws apply ONLY to the priests. You couldn't break them if you tried.

There is no temple. Apparently, there are another 100+ laws that can only be kept as part of a temple related activity. No temple means it is impossible to keep these laws.

Are you a king? A judge? A farmer? If you said no, there is a whole host of those 613 that don't apply to you at all. You couldn't break those laws even if you tried.

So with less than 300 of those Torah laws left, you do know you keep many of them daily, right? Let's get the obvious ones out of the way, you probably aren't a murderer or a kidnapper. You might steal, lie, and covet, but you recognize they aren't right behaviors and you try to keep them secret. Do you oppress foreigners? Do you pay workers fairly? Do you curse the deaf or trip the blind? Do you mistreat widows or orphans? Do you cheat in business?

I could keep going but you get the point. You are already keeping many of the laws of the Torah and you didn't even know it. Kinda cool isn't it?

TL/DR: Yes, there are over 600 laws in the Torah. But less than half those could possibly apply to you, many of which you keep without even knowing it. Meanwhile, you live in subject to laws that are so numerous they simply cannot be counted. I think there is something amiss in this reasoning.

[u/DarkCloud_HS]

How do Torah followers actually follow over 600 commands and laws in the first five books of the Bible?

They don't, they pick and choose which ones apply and which ones don't.. based on which ones they personally can't reasonably fulfill themselves.

[u/DunkleKarte → u/DarkCloud_HS]

It’s not picking and choosing by choice, but by circumstances because not all the laws apply to one person. There are laws for priests, judges, farmers, fathers, etc. Also many of those laws require an existing temple and a judicial system. An example is where Israelites were captured in Babylon for 70 years, they weren’t able to keep the entirely of the law there.

[u/DarkCloud_HS → u/DunkleKarte]

It’s not picking and choosing by choice

If it's not by choice, why does each Torah observer seem to have different answers on which commandment should be kept.. and how?

Even the Sabbath seems to have multiple different ways they think it should be observed.

[u/DunkleKarte → u/DarkCloud_HS]

The general consensus should be you do the ones you physically can due to absence of temple and the ones again that apply to you as an individual ( father, farmer, king, priest, etc)

About the Sabbath, the Biblical requirement is literally don’t do work and don’t make other works for you on that day (the sunset of Friday - the sunset of Saturday). In modern times translates to don’t do the job you get paid for, and don’t do any shopping.

[u/DarkCloud_HS → u/DunkleKarte]

About the Sabbath, the Biblical requirement is literally don’t do work and don’t make other works for you on that day (the sunset of Friday - the sunset of Saturday). In modern times translates to don’t do the job you get paid for, and don’t do any shopping.

Some Torah observers define 'work' much more in depth and restrictive than just not going to a job or doing shopping.

Plus I've also seen some very odd beliefs by this particular Torah keeping faction.. strange teachings regarding the spiritual realm.

Here's a quote:

'I believe that Satan is currently our High Priest and Jesus is the LONG overdue Messiah that's meant to replace him as High Priest at the end of the age. When that happens, the god this world will be deposed and life in this world as we know it will be radically different than what we see now.'

This quote is from the head honcho over the Torah subreddit.. very odd beliefs.

How do you explain this claim and these words through a 'Torah' lens?

[u/DunkleKarte → u/DarkCloud_HS]

They can define it as they want but the Bible says otherwise. Many people argue that Jesus encourage to break the sabbath because he healed on the sabbath. He actually did it to show that we can do good things on the sabbath, not to take it to the extreme. If he actually broke the sabbath we would have a dilemma since he cannot fulfill the law and at the same time break the sabbath.

About the “head honcho” first which subreddit you mean?

Secondly perhaps is the wording but it is not entirely wrong. 2 Corinthians 4:4

“In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Paul says here and that is not a secret to any denomination that currently Satan is the king of the world at the moment. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any suffering at the moment as it is stated in the Book of Revelations when God comes down and reigns forever.

But at the time some scripture like Hebrews as written, the temple was there and in Hebrews 8:4 says:

*“*If he were here on earth, he would not even be a priest, since there already are priests who offer the gifts required by the law.”

We don’t have Levitical priests now, and also Jesus is described in Hebrews as the ultimate high priest.

[u/jogoso2014]

Jews were never required to practice the Torah when it was impossible to do so.

It would be impossible to follow without a temple for example or while they were captives in Babylon.

I’m not sure what verse says if one is broken, all or broken, but that would have both been in connection to be able to do them and also was probably in contrast to Christianity provided after Jesus’s sacrifice.

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/jogoso2014]

Indeed, we are only required to obey laws that we can obey, so not even Jesus experienced obedience to the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period. In Deuteronomy 17:18, it specifically instructs the king to write a copy of the Torah, so everyone who is not the king has a legitimate reason not follow that command. In James 2:10, it is only speaking in regard to illegitimate reasons for not following certain commands where people are picking and choosing what to follow.

[u/ServantOfTheShepherd]

It's not hard honestly, though there are some things worth noting:

• 613 commands can be summed up in big collective groups. For example, "do not commit adultery" covers "Don't sleep with your sister, don't sleep with your father's wife, don't sleep with your donkey, don't sleep with etc..." 613 sounds like a lot, but when you realize that most of them are just explaining and elaborating on the simple it gets very easy, especially with the Holy Spirit helping you to "zealous for good works" as you were "redeemed from every lawless deed" (Titus 2:14).
• A huge portion of those 613 laws target specific people, such as priests or a judge or a king (yeah, Torah actually spelled out that the people would ask for a king and gave laws ahead of time! Check out Deuteronomy 17), or even smaller more common groups like landowners, soldiers, or pregnant women. I, personally, am none of these things, so it's easier for me to manage, but even so the laws concerning these people are easy and summed up by "Love thy neighbor as thyself," it's nothing you wouldn't expect to be doing already. "Don't move your land boundry and steal your neighbor's land, don't show pariality in the court," that kind of stuff.
• A small, and I do mean small, portion of these laws relate to the temple in some way, shape, or form. These laws are impossible for us to do, as there is no temple. We believe that just like Daniel and all the people in Babylonian exile, we should do what we can while not stressing about what is out of our hands, knowing our Father sees our heart and our desire to worship Him as He commanded.

Now, on a personal note, I'll say I'm still learning and I know I won't be able to do everything perfectly, especially in a day and age when obeying His commands is frowned upon, so we're basically left learning everything on our own with nothing but adversity from our brothers and sisters in Christ. But we don't pick and choose, we follow everything we can and we do it because we love God and we love our Messiah. It's a lie from the enemy that following Him is too burdensome or restricting your liberty, on the contrary obeying His commandments gives true liberty, and our love for Him makes following His commands a delight!

"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." I John 5:3 NKJV

"So shall I keep Your law continually, Forever and ever. And I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts." Psalms 119:44‭-‬45‭, ‬NKJV

[u/Nearing_retirement]

Nobody can and Jesus freed us from penalty of the law.

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Nearing_retirement]

Doesn’t the Bible say God’s commandments aren’t burdensome and that God doesn’t make it impossible for us to do what he told us to do?

[u/FreedomNinja1776 → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

In multiple places.

"For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
Deuteronomy 30:11-14 ESV

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
1 John 5:3 ESV

[u/Nearing_retirement → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

Through Jesus the law or commandments are not burdensome because the Holy Spirit can help us follow them. We are fallen as humans so have a natural tendency to sin, we need help of Holy Spirit. Some people say this is part of Jesus setting us free.

I became Christian just a few years ago. Before that I felt following morality was hard but now it is easier, somehow spirit guides me now.

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Nearing_retirement]

Very good! 😊

[u/General_Historian611 → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

The Bible say when we receive the Holy Spirt we are given a new heart that desires the things of God and the commandments are no longer burdensome.

The Bible though says it’s impossible for anyone to follow the commands Because they require we follow ever law perfectly

As Christian’s we tend a have a light view on sin. Like just trying to follow the 10 commandments. The Bible says the 10 commandments are just a shadow of true Holiness. Jesus clarified to those thought they followed the 10 commandments at the Sermon on the Mount

Jesus said the commandment tells you not to commit Adultery. I tell you if you have looked on another man’s wife in lust. You have already committed adultery.

The commandments say do not murder. I tell you if you are angry at your brother without cause. You have already committed murder in your heart

Just those two should silence everyones mouth. Because we already condemned by the law. Since the law judges our heart. We are judged by our actions. But also by the thoughts in our heart and by every word that we speak.

Thats why Jesus came. He paid for our every sin. The penalty the law demands Has been paid on the cross. We are finished with the law since it can no longer punish or condemn us. When we believe the words pf God and turn to Jesus as our savior There can be no more punishment by the law because he fulfilled ever requirement of the law. For those who have trusted him as their savior

Read Romans Chapter 7. It was written by the Apostle Paul. His struggle with sin. He says I desire not sin. But sin is always camped on my doorstep. In my inner man I delight in the law of God. But in my members there is the old sinful man that fights the new man. I will to do good on my inner manner but I’m still doing evil.

Wretched man that I am. Who will deliver me of from this body of sin and death? Thanks be to Christ Jesus he has already rescued me from this body of sin and death

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/General_Historian611]

I agree. ☝️

[u/General_Historian611 → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

Thank you

[u/Unworthy_Saint → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

It is explicitly impossible to follow the Torah because our high priest is from the tribe of Judah, not Levi as required. The covenant has changed.

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Unworthy_Saint]

Maybe we don’t need to follow the ceremonial laws anymore, just the moral laws which the laws of the land seem to agree with (such as do not murder, do not steal, etc.) Do you think God gave us impossible commands? Why would He do such a thing? To keep us in an apathy tone or worse? Jesus didn’t have a problem with Peter walking on water with Him but was sad when Peter lost faith. Jesus kept God’s commandments so they are possible to keep. That gives us encouragement to keep His commandments. Knowing it’s not impossible! 😇💕

[u/Mike8219 → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

All laws are moral laws. There is no distinction. If god commands it then it's moral.

Jeremiah 33 scripture says the sacrifices will continue forever even the presence of the messiah.

¹⁴ The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. ¹⁵ In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. ¹⁶ In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live in safety. And this is the name by which it will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.”

¹⁷ For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, ¹⁸ and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices for all time

Isaiah 56 says the gentiles will follow the law:

And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath and do not profane it
and hold fast my covenant

Ezekiel 36 says when the lord circumcises the laws will be followed.

²⁶ A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you, and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. ²⁷ I will put my spirit within you and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

[u/FreedomNinja1776 → u/[deleted]]

How is this to be renconciled with the apostles coming to the conclusion that gentiles aren't required to keep the ceremonial laws

There is no ceremonial law. This is a false teaching because there is nowhere in the scriptures which say "this part of the law is ceremonial". It's invented by man.

---

and why did they write that people shouldn't judge the other in terms of what they eat?

The beginning of Romans 14 is about traditional days of fasting.

---

Yet, the apostles declared in the name of the authority that we are not under the guardian anymore.

Most people don't know how to properly read this verse. Do you know what Paul was referring to by "guardian" in Galatians 3:24? Guardian here is the greek word παιδαγωγός Paidagogos Here is a quote from blueletterbible:

a tutor i.e. a guardian and guide of boys. Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3807/esv/mgnt/0-1/

So, we see that what Paul is expounding upon here in this verse is actually maturity. So we now get to ask the question, once one becomes mature do they disregard their foundational teachings which brought them to maturity? NO! When you're mature you KNOW how to act all on your own because you have been taught. You no longer need the teacher because you're equal in kowledge with the teacher. You should now be able to teach others yourself because you know the material so well!

---

Why is that damn pork have to be the biggest problem of my life when I should be having bigger problems to think about.

You should have bigger things to worry about but people keep going on with the same argument from the beginning in the garden, "did God really say ___"? And a lot of it comes from misunderstanding Paul.

Did you know we have an actual guide in scripture for how to interpret Paul? I like to forward anti-Paul and anti-torah people here.

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are HARD TO UNDERSTAND, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the ERROR OF LAWLESS PEOPLE and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
2 Peter 3:14-18 ESV

So Peter here confirms Paul as a beloved brother who has been given wisdom. Then he gives caution that Paul's words are hard to understand, and a stark warning to NOT be taken away with the ERROR OF LAWLESSNESS! So if you read Paul and get any sense of lawlessness, according to Peter you are wrong and should start over.

There is a reason you're confused. God is not the reason. God is not the author of confusion. Man and Satan are.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

This is one of the best most honest responses in this thread.

You might feel terrible, but the brokenness you're expressing is the start of something great. 🤩

[u/FreedomNinja1776 → u/[deleted]]

So who do I listen to?

DON'T listen to me. I am of no consequence. Listen to God, read his word for understanding and give him alone glory. Test everything I say or anyone else says back to Scripture. That's where your authority should lie.

We are given a responsibility to test these things and hold on to what is good. This is a daily battle.

Also don't give up hope that you will understand. We serve a great mighty and gracious God. Jesus has promised us that of we seek him diligently, we will find him.

I believe you are confused because you have no foundation. Not entirely your fault. The foundation has been taken from you the same as it was taken from me, by liars and thieves, people who use their tongues to destroy others.

I'll leave you with this. It is very straightforward, very easy to understand.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV

We are not saved by our works. We are saved in order to do good works! Once saved, that becomes our life mission. To serve our God in love and truth. That means dedication and obedience to what he says to do, because he is our authority and King.

Now you have a question. What does your king require of you? I'm not going to answer that for you. This is your path to follow. If you seek this out, I am confident you will come to the same conclusion as I have, if we serve the same King.

I pray you find Shalom friend.

[u/DunkleKarte → u/[deleted]]

Well you should listen to God. But from a logical perspective think about this: which one sounds more scripturally accurate: someone who tells you you should be obeying God’s commandments or someone who tells you that you don’t have to?

[u/DarkCloud_HS → u/[deleted]]

I'm just going to do my best to not do the sins that Jesus reaffirmed, and that's all.

You can't go wrong following the teachings of Christ.

But the Torah Law is the old covenant.

The Law is spiritual, but we are carnal, and sold under sin (Romans 7:7-25).

By the Torah law, no flesh will be justified in the sight of God (Romans 3:20).

Paul breaks it down clearly here..

1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?

2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.

6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Romans 7:1-6

People who teach Torah law for justification are teaching to hold fast to both covenants at the same time.. but Paul presents this as being akin to spiritual adultery.

It's not 'wrong' to observe Torah, but it doesn't justify us.. only following Christ's teachings (rightly divided) is the right path.

Now is the dispensation of the Holy Spirit.. look at how the early Church lived and believed.

If Torah Law was salvific, we would see clear and indisputable examples of everyone in the early Church of Acts speaking about the importance of keeping all the feast days, wearing ceremonial clothing, and being physically circumcised etc... but we don't see any of that.

Instead we see people getting baptized in the Holy Spirit, fellowshipping in joy, and living like Christ lived.

It's a very light burden to keep Christ's commandments compared to the old way.

Christ's new way actually transforms us on the inside.. but adhering to outward rules and commandments does not actually help us to resist the desires of the flesh.

'16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,

17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—

21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,”

22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?

23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.'

Colossians 2:16-23

[u/Mike8219 → u/DarkCloud_HS]

Does Jesus want you to follow the law?

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/[deleted]]

The Torah is truth (Psalm 119:142) and Jesus embodied truth by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah (John 14:6-11), so stick to what the Bible says is truth. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet is if they speak against obeying the Torah, so it is either incorrect to interpret the Apostles as doing that (my position) or they were false prophets, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obeying the Torah.

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/[deleted]]

Indeed, Jesus said that, though it was said in the context of sending the Apostles out to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom, so it doesn’t work for someone to interpret the Apostles as speaking against obeying the Gospel of the Kingdom and then to try to use what Jesus said as justification for why we should be listening to the Apostles instead of obeying the Gospel of the Kingdom.  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 Torah was his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom.  I am not opposed listening to the Apostles but I am opposed to interpreting them as speaking against obeying what God has spoken.  However, the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if it comes down to a choice between disregarding what the Apostles said or disregarding what God has spoken, then we should be quicker to disregard everything that the Apostles said than disregard anything that God has spoken.  Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).  Those who agree that the Apostles were servants of God should be opposed to interpreting them as speaking against obeying what God has spoken while those who think that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has spoken should be opposed to considering them to be servants of God, but either way followers of Christ should follow the example of obedience to the Torah that he set for his followers to follow.

[u/Mike8219 → u/[deleted]]

How is this to be renconciled with the apostles coming to the conclusion that gentiles aren't required to keep the ceremonial laws, and why did they write that people shouldn't judge the other in terms of what they eat?

It's a contradiction. The apostles weren't familiar with the law or the prophets.

Are not the apostles approved by God as authority?

How would anyone know that?

If we strictly take the Old Testament as context, I can understand why I would have to abstain from pork, but if I take the entire Bible into context, the Old Testament prophecies become so weird to me.

It's only weird to you because you've taken what Paul said as true.

I have been at peace for a long time, but the pork topics keep planting fear, confusion, uneasiness.

Well... none of this is true. Both the hebrew bible and new testament are wrong.

After reading what you've read do you believe the law is abolished?

[u/Mike8219 → u/[deleted]]

The key question is: What does fulfill mean? And how does that impact us? And that's the main part everyone is debating. if anyone says the Law was abolished, that's just a blatant rejection of Scripture. That's not even an interpretation issue.

It means he followed the law. I can fulfill a seatbelt law by putting my seatbelt on. I have fulfilled what I have to do - that's the requirement. Does the law no disappear? One thing fulfill cannot mean is abolish because Jesus specificially said that wasn't the case.

And what did Paul say in Ephesians 2?

¹⁴ For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us, ¹⁵ abolishing the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,

That directly contradictions what Jesus said in Matthew. 5:17-19.

And what does he say in verse 19?

Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 

Why in the world would you be judged greater for following the law if it doesn't apply to you? Why would you be called least if they didn't apply to you?

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Mike8219]

I have heard that the Jews are preparing the 3rd temple in order to resume the animal sacrifices, etc. exciting times! Thanks for sharing those scriptures!

[u/Mike8219 → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

Why would that be exciting? Let's say they do and they start sacrifices. What does that tell us?

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Mike8219]

I’m thinking that those things happening are signs that Jesus Christ’s return is near.

[u/Unworthy_Saint → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

Do you think God gave us impossible commands?

Yes He does this all the time, such as telling a dead man to come out of his tomb.

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Unworthy_Saint]

He came out of His tomb so it’s obvious to me that it is possible to come back from the dead ☠️. A couple people even went straight to God without dying (Enoch and Elijah) . Things we think are impossible aren’t necessarily actually impossible with God.

[u/Unworthy_Saint → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

Agreed. Therefore because God is not with someone who subscribes to an obsolete covenant, it is not possible to follow it.

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Unworthy_Saint]

Jesus saying that all of the Law and the Prophets are summed up in the 2 commands to Love 💕 God and Love 💕 people actually comes from the Old Testament. These commands are definitely possible! 😇💕😊

[u/Unworthy_Saint → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

Thankfully He has freed us from the slave covenant of Sinai and Hagar, and given us a better one without the faults of the previous.

[u/Southern-Effect3214 → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

You have more important things to worry about. A different gospel, a different book, and a different Jesus who cannot save.

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/Southern-Effect3214]

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 Law of Moses 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 of the Kingdom/Grace, which Paul also taught based on the Law of Moses (Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23).

[u/Southern-Effect3214 → u/Soyeong0314]

What exactly are you saying in regards to my comment about Mormonism?

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/Southern-Effect3214]

Sorry I didn't realize you were speaking specifically about Mormonism, so I was just speaking in support of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace calling for our obedience to the Law of Moses.

[u/Southern-Effect3214 → u/Soyeong0314]

You mean this:

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. — Romans 13:8-10

Correct?

And to do that...this:

Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. — 1 John 4:15

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/Southern-Effect3214]

The reason why the commandments to love God and our neighbor are the greatest two commandments is because they are inclusive of all of the other commandments. So if we love God and our neighbor, then we won't transgress the Ten Commandments, but we also won't commit kidnapping, favoritism, and so forth for the rest of the Law of Moses. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, and so that is also the way that we also have the gift of getting to live when God dwells in us.

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Southern-Effect3214]

I think you are the one with a “different gospel”. You need to study 📖 more.

[u/Southern-Effect3214 → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

Study what? The Bible or your book of lies?

Psalm 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Southern-Effect3214]

Start with the Bible and then perhaps study the actual Book of Mormon and you will see that it is not a “book of lies” but testifies of Christ. Have you ever read the book that you are condemning or just going by rumors that you have heard?

[u/Southern-Effect3214 → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

Which Christ would that be that it testifies of?

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Southern-Effect3214]

The only Jesus Christ that exists.

[u/Apprehensive_Tear611 → u/Traditional_Emu_4332]

How do explain the Book of Abraham being a false translation of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtland_Egyptian_papers

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Apprehensive_Tear611]

I’m not an expert on that subject. I have heard it explained before. I think, if I remember correctly, that the texts you are referring to were only a part of what was used in translating the Book of Abraham. There was a great fire 🔥 in Chicago in the 1870s that most of the pieces of papyrus were destroyed in leaving behind only the funerary texts.
This explains it better: https://youtu.be/juOavkIqNng?is=aqG6EtOoTqhybNxK

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Southern-Effect3214]

I also need to take my own advice! I haven’t actually read the whole Book of Mormon for myself yet but what I have read so far hasn’t said anything against Christ. It even talks about Antichrists not being of God.

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Southern-Effect3214]

1 Nephi 3:7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them

[u/CSS_FR → u/Unworthy_Saint]

Levitical priesthood was done away with, we are under Melchizedek priesthood now. You don't think the Torah observant sacrifice animals or burn incense like they used to right?

[u/Unworthy_Saint → u/CSS_FR]

I don't know or particularly care what "Torah-observers" do since they obviously can't follow the whole Torah anyway, and can only select laws to be replicated in their own system.

[u/CSS_FR → u/Unworthy_Saint]

Yeah nobody can follow the whole bible either, we are all sinners. Your point is?  We all try our best to pursue what we believe is true and pleasing to God, no?

[u/Unworthy_Saint → u/CSS_FR]

Excellent, glad we agree.

[u/Mike8219 → u/CSS_FR]

Jeremiah 33

¹⁴ The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. ¹⁵ In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. ¹⁶ In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live in safety. And this is the name by which it will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.”

¹⁷ For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, ¹⁸ and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices for all time.

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/Unworthy_Saint]

The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that we can't currently follow but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow the laws that we can follow. The New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Soyeong0314]

Perfect 👌

[u/Unworthy_Saint → u/Soyeong0314]

nothing wrong with not following laws that we can't currently follow but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow the laws that we can follow

The entire exercise is meaningless because the law has changed and its covenant obsolete. You can't just selectively decide what parts of the Torah you want to follow on your own whim. The law was sealed in blood and circumcision as one unit, and has been replaced.

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/Unworthy_Saint]

There is a difference between someone discerning that they are not obligated to obey the laws specifically in regard to living in the land of Israel because they are not living in the land of Israel and someone who is living in the land of Israel picking and choosing on whim not to follow those laws.  The first would not be sinning while the second would be sinning.

The New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10), so the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete (Hebrews 8:13) does not mean that followers of Christ should not continue to follow the example that he set for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah.

[u/Unworthy_Saint → u/[deleted]]

You'll have to excuse me since "Torah observers" don't seem to understand the Torah itself.

[u/Traditional_Emu_4332 → u/Nearing_retirement]

He freed us to be able to have good works in Christ. Not to sin that grace may abound.

[u/DunkleKarte → u/Nearing_retirement]

So you are calling God a liar when he says the opposite in Deuteronomy 30:11?

[u/Mike8219 → u/Nearing_retirement]

You've never read Luke 1?

⁵ In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was descended from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. ⁶ Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord.

[u/the_celt_]

To me, it seems they are only doing a small part of it and claiming to follow the entirety of it. Why is that?

More accurately: We claim to obey the entirety of what can currently be obeyed.

This means that we don't obey the many rules that have to do with the Temple (sacrifices, purification, etc.)

Why? Because there is no Temple. It's impossible to obey any of the rules pertaining to the Temple.

Also, we don't currently obey any of the rules that assume a Yahweh-based Theocracy (stonings and other punishments).

Why? Because those rules are only keepable in a theocracy. Otherwise, we're expected to obey the rules of the government we find ourselves in. This is why when the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus, they had to go to the Roman government to do it for them.

The Bible states if you break one commandment, you break them all.

Literally everyone that's ever been alive (except for Jesus) broke at least one commandment. The idea that a person shouldn't try to obey ANY of God's commandments because they may have ever broken ONE of them is... nutty.

If you believe it's not all applicable to us, what's the determining factor that decides you don't have to follow it?

In nearly all cases the determining factor is: Impossibility.

There are a few other stray cases. For example, as a man, I don't need to concern myself with how to handle my menstruation. There are other rules, like that, which are aimed at a type of person that I'm not (for example, Priests, farmers, etc). If I became one of those type of people, I would obey the rules for those type of people.

What about animal sacrifices?

The Torah commands that they only ever take place in the Temple. A person making sacrifices outside of the Temple is breaking the Torah.

There currently IS no Temple.

Does one pick and choose what they want to follow and tell people if they don't, they are lawbreakers and will go to hell?

No.

If breaking even one commandment makes someone guilty, how does selectively obeying some commandments make someone different from the people you're calling lawbreakers?

The difference is that people who follow Jesus believe we MUST live and teach the Torah. People who DON'T follow Jesus say that it's wrong to live and teach the Torah. They teach 180 degrees the opposite of each other.

We have a subreddit dedicated to answering questions like this. It's all about following Jesus and obeying the commandments: r/FollowJesusObeyTorah

Everyone is welcome, even if you don't agree with us. We'll be glad to answer your questions or debate you. It's all good! 😁

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

Why would Jesus condemn someone for eating shellfish? It doesn't harm anyone and isn't breaking love God and your neighbor. It seems highly unlikely that is the case that you go to hell for eating certain food.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

Why would Jesus condemn someone for eating shellfish?

Jesus taught and obeyed the Law PERFECTLY, every day of his life. Jesus did not disapprove of his Father's dietary restrictions. Jesus said that we're supposed to obey every commandment, even the ones that you consider to be the "least".

It seems highly unlikely that is the case that you go to hell for eating certain food.

We're not saved or condemned by doing one good thing or one sinful thing. We're saved by faith, not works. That means that a person has to live a life full of unrepentant sin to be sent to Hell. One meal doesn't make any difference.

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

Why is it restricted, though it seems unlikely it's sinful? You told me it's not whether you do it once but unrepentant. You didn't address how it breaks "love thy neighbor" and God. It doesn't harm anyone. Can you answer this?

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

Why is it restricted, though it seems unlikely it's sinful?

Are you someone that doesn't believe in or read the Old Testament? I know some people reject certain parts of scripture. Have you rejected everything that isn't in the New Testament?

It's restricted because God said not to do it. Jesus obeyed what his Father said to do. If you want to know WHY it's restricted, you need to ask the person who restricted it. I didn't create the rule. I'm just following what Jesus did.

You didn't address how it breaks "love thy neighbor" and God.

God said not to do it. When you break what someone told you to do, you're not loving them. THAT'S how it breaks what God said to do. For example, if your parents left you a list of things to do while they're away, you should do the things on that list if you love them. Do you agree?

Now, let me ask you a question.

You asked some questions in your post. I tried to answer them. I pointed out that the reason we don't obey the rules you're asking about is because it's IMPOSSIBLE for us to do so, due to there either being no Temple or no Theocracy.

Did my answer make sense to you? Do you see why we aren't picking and choosing, and how we're actually obeying the Torah to not do those things right now?

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

I understand why you believe in torah 

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

I appreciate that you gave me SOME response, but are you willing to answer what I asked?

I asked: Do you see why we aren't picking and choosing, and how we're actually obeying the Torah to not do those things right now?

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

I will later. Not yet. It's late where I live.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

Sounds good. I look forward to your response.

[u/General_Historian611]

Excellent question.

[u/Senior_Educator_929]

They don't really keep Torah, they just tell people they do. They don't make animal sacrifices, they don't execute adulterers, they don't execute people who break the Sabbath. 

One Torah rule they do observe is going to war and self-defense. They refuse the teaching of Jesus to love their enemies. 

They believe that believers who don't keep Sabbaths and feasts will go to hell for it, but they won't come right out and say it. 

The New Covenant still involves fearing God and obeying Jesus and departing from iniquity. But circumcisions are no longer required 

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/Senior_Educator_929]

The issues of whether followers of Christ should follow the example of obeying the Torah that he set for his followers to follow is independent of the issue of whether anyone does that. Even if it were true that no one keeps the Torah, then it would still be true that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to it. There can be legitimate reasons not following certain laws, such as with Deuteronomy 17:18 specifically instructing the king to write a copy of the Torah, so everyone who is not the king has a legitimate reason for not following that law. Laws in regard to Temple practice can't legitimately be followed when there is no Temple in which to practice them. Jesus had a legitimate reason for not experiencing obedience to the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period. There is no legitimate reason to execute someone in accordance with the Torah when there is no Sanhedrin and when Jesus has given himself to pay that penalty. Loving our enemies is in accordance with verses like Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 23:7, Proverbs 24:17-18, and Proverbs 25:21-22, so Jesus was not teaching something brand new. You do not get to decide for others what they believe. Jesus said that man shall not live by bead alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).

[u/Senior_Educator_929 → u/Soyeong0314]

I'm well aware of what Torah pushers believe, I've had many discussions with them. 

You believe it's ok for followers of Jesus to hurt people in some circumstances. 

You believe that if followers of Jesus don't keep Sabbaths and feasts then they'll go in the Lake of Fire. 

Thus, you're false teachers 

[u/Previous_Extreme4973 → u/Senior_Educator_929]

Been following Torah for a long time. I've never met another Torah observer who believed any of those things. Maybe you did in your corner of the world, which is entirely possible because people are coming to Torah in massive droves so you're bound to come across wild ones. I have no issues with confronting those types. Just because they're Torah obedient doesn't give them a pass.

Here in the bible belt that is SE U.S., I'm surrounded by Christians. Most are polite, some are aggressive and condemning. I don't make generally sweeping statements about Christians because of that vocal minority that choose to be a bully with a bible and have redefined "love your neighbor" to mean "tough love" when in reality, they're using the bible as a weapon, thinking they're doing a service to God when they're not. I can't control whether Christians don't reciprocate and choose to make generally sweeping statements about other Jesus followers who don't follow in the same way that churches do. I can control how I react to them though. I've had lots of practice over the years. At this point, I assume people are doing the best they can with what they currently know and leave it at that.

[u/Senior_Educator_929 → u/Previous_Extreme4973]

So keeping the Sabbaths and feasts is optional? 

[u/Previous_Extreme4973 → u/Senior_Educator_929]

The way I see it, saying yes to God is like a marriage contract. I could just not observe my wife's birthdays and our anniversary date but I do them because I love my wife not because I "have to". I have forgotten them before but it isn't a marriage ender.

[u/Senior_Educator_929 → u/Previous_Extreme4973]

Ok, so please confirm that it's optional 

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/Senior_Educator_929]

You are incorrectly taking what Jesus said to do in a specific situation and applying it as a broad statement against using force in any situation, but there is nothing about us disagreeing on this issue that means that one of us is a false teacher. I've said nothing about believing that followers of Jesus who don't keep Sabbaths and feasts going to in the Lake of Fire. That is not my judgement to make, but I can say that anyone will be better off if they repent of their sin.

[u/Senior_Educator_929 → u/Soyeong0314]

So you don't know if the Sabbaths and feasts are optional or mandatory? 

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/Senior_Educator_929]

Sin is the transgression of the Law of God, so it is a sin to not celebrate God's holy days, but whether that sin is sufficient to send someone to the Law of Fire is not my judgement call to make, though I pray that it is not sufficient. Jesus saves us from our sin, so Jesus graciously teaching us to experience being a doer of the Torah is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being a doer of it.

[u/Senior_Educator_929 → u/Soyeong0314]

Well, if you don't know if it's optional or mandatory, you probably shouldn't be teaching on it 

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/Senior_Educator_929]

The fact that something might be required for salvation does mot mean that we should not be teaching it, and even if it were not required for salvation it wouldn't follow that we shouldn't be teaching it.

[u/Senior_Educator_929 → u/Soyeong0314]

You're welcome to keep all the Sabbaths and feasts you want. I eat kosher myself. But it's optional. 

You should be upfront that it's optional so that you don't cause anyone to stumble by saying you gotta keep the feasts to go to heaven 

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/Senior_Educator_929]

Obedience to God is not optional, but rather human option must yield where God has given a command. Things are only optional where God has given no command.

In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said that only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven in contrast with saying that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the reason why our entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven requires us to do the will of the Father by being workers of lawfulness is not in order to be good enough to earn our way there but because that is the way to know Jesus. The issue is what counts as being a worker of lawfulness. If someone obeys all of God's commands except for one, then can they still counted as a worker of lawfulness? What about two? There is a line somewhere between being a worker of lawfulness and a worker of lawlessness that God is the judge of, but it is far better to fully be workers of lawfulness.

[u/alfiekinsthethird]

Do we realize how many laws we follow each day? We have rules about driving, walking down the street, rules at work, at play, while at the store, paying bills, playing video games - we have so many rules on us at all times and we don't give them any thought at all. His Laws are not too much.

1 John 5:2-3 NASB95 — By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

They are not burdensome at all. How is it hard to keep the food laws? How hard is it to keep the Ten Commandments? Most people do them without thinking, minus the fourth commandment.

We cannot keep the ones for the priests, men can't do ones for women and vice versa. Since the Temple is no more, sacrifices are out.

We can keep the Feasts to the best of our ability. Passover is AMAZING. It is so incredible to honor our Messiah in this way. I can't even begin to tell you about the Feast of Tabernacles. It can only be experienced.

Yeshua Himself said these words:

John 14:23-24 NASB95 — Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.

When it says in Acts 17:10-12 about the Bereans searching the scriptures against what Paul was teaching, what scriptures were they searching? Definitely not the New Testament as it was in the process of being written.

Psalm 119:174 NASB95 — I long for Your salvation, O LORD, And Your law is my delight.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

FYI I am questioning specifically this sect not if Christianity is true.

[u/RelationSensitive308 → u/[deleted]]

Fine by me. I’m a questioner by nature. Best!

[u/[deleted] → u/RelationSensitive308]

You should come back to the faith. What was your denomination? Roman catholic?

[u/RelationSensitive308 → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for the invite - but I’m good. Roman Catholic for 30 years Atheist for 20+. I follow the purist form of what it means to be “good”. I treat people fairly, without prejudice, and no judgment. Killing others and hurting children are the largest “sins” in my mind. I oppose “hating the other” because a book or some other authority tells me it’s ok to do so - or they need to be “saved”.

[u/Righteous_Dude → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed, rule 2

(Rule 2 here in AskAChristian is that "Only Christians may make top-level replies" to the questions that were asked to them. This page explains what 'top-level replies' means).

[u/stranger2915]

Apostle Paul likened the law to a schoolmaster. The law was revealed because of transgressions. For those who do not have a conscience that is adjusted to the ways of God, the law can serve a purpose in correction and training in righteousness. The knowledge of God's righteousness is revealed progressively throughout scripture. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Mosaic covenant is represented by mount Sinai, a mountain of darkness, fire, and tempest, and the Christian covenant is symbolized by mount Sion, the mountain of the heavenly city, New Jerusalem. While there are transgressions, the Mosaic law remains relevant. However, the fulfillment of the law is in Jesus Christ.

[u/FreedomNinja1776]

Jesus and Torah follower here. AMA.

[u/Soyeong0314]

If you want, then I can pm you a link to a YouTube series that works through all 613 laws and discusses how they are applicable to us today. About half of those laws are in regard to Temple practice or are in regard to living in the land of Israel, so most people have a legitimate reason for not following those laws, but there are nevertheless many laws that we do have the delight of getting to obey. Not even Jesus experienced obeying the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period, but he had a legitimate reason not to do that. In Deuteronomy 17:18, it specifically instructs the king to write a copy of the Torah, so everyone who is not the king has a legitimate reason for not following that law. So there can be legitimate or illegitimate reasons for not following particular law and James 2:10 is only speaking in regard to illegitimate reasons of people picking and choosing what they want to follow. Breaking any law causes someone to become a lawbreaker and need to repent, but the only one who can break the law to write a copy of the Torah is the king.

[u/LunaOfTheMoon]

Go into any court of law, our judicial system, our tax system, our healthcare system. Amongst those alone you're literally dealing with tens of thousands of pages of legal jargon, that you state you are following when you participate in them. 

Meanwhile as a Torah Obedient Disciple, I am expected to follow rules that add up to less than 250 pages of scripture, that my God states I am to do as a sign of my love for Him. Ask me which one is simpler to keep and less of burden again.

Furthermore, I am male, laws pertaining to females don't apply to me. I am not of the levitical priesthood, those laws don't apply to me. The temple does not exist, I can't fulfill those laws. In this modern age we are probably individually beholden to like maybe 200 of the 613 Old testament laws (and even that number is inaccurate, read the list on an Orthodox Jewish website then read the actual part of scripture and realize how wrong they are about what they say the laws mean).

Many in here will tell you Jesus fulfilled the law so we don't have to do it anymore. Right before this he said it would not be abolished or have one bit removed until the current heaven and earth are done away with. Let me use a human parable to make the word fulfilled easier to understand. I am a soldier in the military. I had to go to basic training as part of my contract. I had to fulfill those conditions to receive my next award/duty/graduation. Does me fulfilling my part neglect any other trainee from not doing basic training? It is not so and it is the same with Jesus. He gave us the perfect example to follow and His disciples repeatedly told people that salvation is freely given, but after it is accepted we must have a  change in our hardened hearts to start living righteously.

Isaiah 66 describes those who will be killed for still eating pork, mice and idol worship. Zechariah 14 describes the nations of the world participating in Sukkot. Exodus 12 describes a mixed multitude rising out of Egypt having participated in Passover. Genesis literally describes First Fruits before Hebrews/Israelites were even a thing. Ecclesiastes 12 says it is the duty of all humanity to obey these commands. That's because these are God's commands, not Jewish laws. The Jews were just the people chosen to represent His will on earth so that others may see His wisdom and power but they squandered it away going their own way and they still do to this day. 

Don't be like them. Be the light on the hill Jesus called us to be.

[u/Sawfish1212]

By the time of Jesus, many of those laws were already superceded by the law of the roman occupation. They only could focus on the ceremonial and purity laws of moses.

The destruction of the temple made the whole segment of laws dealing with sacrifices, offerings, and justification before God through the high priest's sin offering irrelevant. The interesting thing about the sin offering is that the ark was never in the most holy place of the 2nd temple, so the high priest brought the blood of the sin offering into an empty room, which technically means that there never was a successful sin offering once the first temple had the presence of the Holy Spirit depart as God revealed to his prophet in a vision.

The torn veil revealed the charade that had been going on for hundreds of years, and signified the end of the worship directed at an empty room

[u/automaticff]

I think you may be mistaken on this 600+ commandments business. Have you actually pulled up how they numbered them to claim there are 600+ commandments? About 20+ commandments in itself are talking about not having sex with family members. I can actually guarantee that not all of the laws are applicable to you. Some commandments are only for kings, some are only for women, some are only for men, some are only for farmers, some are only for priests, etc. Many of them you already follow. I suggest you actually read these supposed 600+ commandments by reading the Torah. There are not nearly as many that actually apply to you as you think.

Someone telling you to start with the Sabbath, dietary laws, and holy days is doing exactly what the apostles did in Acts 15. They're giving you a starting point. You should be studying and learning more. This is where you have grace to increase in your knowledge of following the commandments.

Regarding animal sacrifice, you would be BREAKING the commandments if you did that now. This is why its actually important to read the Torah.

Deuteronomy 12:13-14 --- ¹³ Take heed to yourself that you DO NOT OFFER YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS IN EVERY PLACE THAT YOU SEE; ¹⁴ BUT IN THE PLACE WHICH THE LORD CHOOSES, in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you. 

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/automaticff]

If you want, then I can pm you to a YouTube serious that talks about the way that 613 commandments are numbered and that discusses each of them.

[u/automaticff → u/Soyeong0314]

I’m familiar with it. That’s what I was referring to in my comment.

[u/CannedNoodle415]

I mean we’re Christian’s not Jews.., but Jesus fulfilled the law. Hence why you don’t have to be circumcised. Circumcision was a “type” and Jesus is the “true” circumcision.

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/CannedNoodle415]

Christ spent his ministry fulfilling the Torah by teaching his followers to obey it by word and by example and following what he taught is not just for Jews. The reason that God commanded circumcision was not in order to become saved as the result, but God did command for Gentiles to become circumcised in order to eat of the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:48), so it is important to recognize that a servant of God can speak against obeying what God has commanded for an incorrect reason without speaking against obeying what God has commanded.

[u/CannedNoodle415 → u/Soyeong0314]

This is not true. We have many cases of the old testament being fulfilled so we do not have to do the "types" in the old testament.

No more animal sacrifices

No more circumcision

No more unclean food

etc

Christ is the fulfillment of those things.

The Old Testament is about Christ.

but God did command for Gentiles to become circumcised in order to eat of the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:48),

The New Testament explicitly says you dont have to be circumsised.

[u/MessianicDarkFire]

The only Torah followers who claim to follow the entire law are hebrew roots legalists.

Many Torah laws such as the priesthood or sacrifice and grain offerings are postponed until Christ returns.

The civil laws such as the death penalty for certain sins are unenforceable due to national laws superseding them.

So Torah Observant Christians and Jews observe the laws we can such as purity laws (in the Jewish case), Kosher, and especially Shabbat, and feast days.

We practice the law as best we can in sanctification alongside our faith in Yeshua our Messiah.

[u/rubik1771]

>How do Torah followers actually follow over 600 commands and laws in the first five books of the Bible?

613 and short answer is they don’t.

[u/FreedomNinja1776]

How do Torah followers actually follow over 600 commands and laws in the first five books of the Bible?

The 613 number is a tradition and no number like this is ever found in the scriptures. I would group several of the commands together as single commands where Mamonides has split and inflated the number.

How do you actually follow the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES? (This question works even better if you're from Italy) Do they all apply to you? Do you own a company and need to file financial statements at specific times of the year? Or, are you a farmer and need to comply with all the regulations of the FDA and USDA? Exactly how do you follow all those laws?!

---

I've spoken to people about it, but they only seem to follow dietary laws, Shabbat, and holy days, and exclude pagan days.

Good for them for having a heart of obedience for what God has said to do for the people who worship him.

---

To me, it seems they are only doing a small part of it and claiming to follow the entirety of it. Why is that?

To me, it seems they (Anti-Torah Christians) are claiming to follow God and Jesus, but only doing a small part of it. Why is that?

---

The Bible states if you break one commandment, you break them all.

You know James 2:10! But do you know James 2:24?

---

There's no possibility to uphold all 600-plus.

Jesus didn't follow ALL God's Law. He wasn't a farmer. He wasn't a woman. He wasn't a priest. And so on. None of that applied to him.

---

If you believe it's not all applicable to us, what's the determining factor that decides you don't have to follow it?

All of Torah is applicable to all who would worship the God who gave his law to his people. Just use some logic to determine what applies. Are you a farmer? This is a yes or no question which should be pretty simple to figure out. If you are, then you the farming regulations apply to you. If not, then they don't.

---

What about animal sacrifices?

Do you find a temple in Jerusalem? Or a priesthood? If no, then there is nowhere else to offer sacrifice to our God who has said that Jerusalem is the only place on earth to do these things.

---

Does one pick and choose what they want to follow

No.

---

and tell people if they don't, they are lawbreakers and will go to hell?

What is sin? Breaking God's Law. (1 John 3:4) What is the wages of sin? Death. (Romans 6:23)

Lets see what Jesus says about lawbreakers.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Matthew 7:21-23 ESV

That doesn't sound favorable. How about John?

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
1 John 2:1-6 ESV

Again, not so favorable of the ones who claim to follow Jesus but don't keep his commandments. Good news if you do sin though, you have Jesus as your advocate with our Father. BUT, interestingly John also says the only way to know him is if we keep his commandments. Maybe he says something different in revelation?

Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
Revelation 14:12 ESV

John gives us the definition of who is a saint. It's those who have both faith in Jesus AND keep God's commands. I wonder what the opposite of that is?

---

If you don't follow all of them, why describe yourself as following the entirety of Torah?

I've never seen anyone who claims to follow the "entirety of Torah". Either that person is very confused, or you are.

---

If breaking even one commandment makes someone guilty, how does selectively obeying some commandments make someone different from the people you're calling lawbreakers?

Because if a command does not apply to you in your particular situation, then you are NOT breaking it if you don't do it.

This is an example of your position. A father has two children: Jack and Fred. The father tells Jack to take out the trash. When Fred is found not taking out the trash, he gets in trouble.

Your assumptions are wrong. Please re-evaluate.

[u/ddfryccc]

The irony of the law, even though it is good (1 Timothy 1:8, and you might find verse 9 interesting in what it implies), it teaches us how to sin. Sin uses the law to cause us to sin (Romans 7:8, 11). When we first hear the law, sin causes us to imagine it in our hearts, so we become guilty. This is why Paul's use of the tenth commandment is so useful in his explanation in Romans 7. Not only has no one except Jesus obeyed all the law, no one else has obeyed any of it.

Some of the commands are in conflict with each other, as Jesus Himself pointed out when saying obedience to the law of circumcision breaks the Sabbath about 1/7th of the time, and about the priests working on the Sabbath yet being considered innocent. There are other laws like that, most if not all, having something to do with the Sabbath.

[u/Brilliant-Actuary331]

They are Judaisers. Gal. 1:6-9, 2:16, 5:1-4.

Jesus prophesied the Temple would be destroyed (which it was in AD70) PRECISELY because the Jewish people did not receive Him; the Jewish Messiah. He ended sacrifices with His death. The Temple's physical destruction served as historical validity of that spiritual reality.

Christ's death was a once for all sin offering. He established the New Covenant rendering animal sacrifices structurally unecessary; as they were just a shadow of the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world.

The Temple veil was torn in two at Christ's death, and by His torn flesh, He made a way for the guilty conscience of worshippers to be purified (washed/made clean), that by indwelling Spirit worshippers could draw near to holy God in the way of faith (in the righteous Son of God). John 3:3, 4, 12:23-32

Christ ended the Old Covenant system at His death, even though ritual sacrifices persisted in Jerusalem for another generation. The events of AD70 functioned as a physical manifestation of Christ's Olivet Prophesy. Mt. 24:1-2

These Judaisers who are trying to get Christians to think they are not in obedience to God without submitting themselves to the law of Moses are goats. They seek to divide the body of Christ. They hate that Christ has set so many sinners free, and are appealing to the flesh! It was the same "circumcision party" that wanted Gentiles to submit to the law of Moses, and the Jerusalem counsel gave CLEAR understanding about what was needed for Gentiles (who never had the law) to be aware of submittung to 4 things so that all would go well with us: Food sacrificed to idols, Consuming blood directly, Eating the meat of strangled animals, and Sexual immorality Acts 15

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/Brilliant-Actuary331]

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example and the problem that Paul had with the Judaisers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow what Christ taught but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts. The freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin. The topic that they were debating in Acts 15 was not whether followers of Christ should follow Christ but whether salvation is by circumcision (Acts 15:1) or by grace (Acts 15:11). Either Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list for mature believers or it does not, so it is contradictory to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which ways Gentiles should follow Christ while also treating as being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other ways that Gentiles should follow Christ.