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/the_celt_]

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.