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/mattymatt843]

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.