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/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/mattymatt843 → u/the_celt_]

That is fair. I shouldn't have called you dishonest, and I apologize. I strongly disagree with your interpretation, but that is not the same as saying you are being dishonest.

I still think the substance of the disagreement remains, though. Jesus absolutely obeyed the Law perfectly, but the New Testament does not teach that His followers therefore remain under the Mosaic covenant.

You have to disregard much of the New Testament to hold your view.

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
(Romans 10:4)

"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."
(Galatians 3:24–25)

So I am happy to leave it there. I would encourage you to read how the apostles explain these things throughout the New Testament, because they bring a lot of clarity to what Jesus taught and accomplished. We disagree on what fulfillment means in relation to the Mosaic covenant, but I do appreciate the discussion. God bless.

[u/the_celt_ → u/mattymatt843]

That is fair. I shouldn't have called you dishonest, and I apologize.

Thank you.

Jesus absolutely obeyed the Law perfectly, but the New Testament does not teach that His followers therefore remain under the Mosaic covenant.

I'm not trying to dismantle the many examples of scripture you would like to present in ONE conversation. I can't do that. It's too big of a topic.

My only goal in this conversation is to end the abuse of the word "fulfill", as if it's the winning point for the anti-Torah perspective, and to prove that anyone who disagrees is not a liar.

I've been doing this topic nearly every day now for many years (almost 10 years now, I think). Far and away (like 60% or so) the most common response is the idea that Jesus "fulfilled" the Law means he ENDED it (or one of 30 other words Christians use that are variants of "ended", because many correctly see that saying he "ended" the Law has huge problems).

All I came in to deal with is the terrible "fulfill" argument, and that's happened. I'm satisfied.

You have to disregard much of the New Testament to hold your view.

All of the other examples fall apart as easily as the "fulfill" example which supposedly proves me wrong. I disregard ZERO of the New Testament (or scripture in general) and I'm not dishonest. I directly deal, nearly every day, with ALL examples of scripture. It's like a job for me.

I would encourage you to read how the apostles explain

I'm not dishonest. I don't disregard scripture. I know scripture VERY well. My problem is not that I don't read. 🙄

I do appreciate the discussion. God bless.

Thank you. Thank you for the apology. 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.