I can’t pinpoint the exact day, but about eight years ago I decided I wanted to enrich my faith and relationship with Jesus/Yeshua by following Torah. When I first started doing this some thought I had fallen into a cult. I can understand some of their concern, but part of the problem was I was trying to assimilate too much information way too fast. I had also been listening to some bad teachers.
Even before I started following Torah I had the belief that with the Bible it’s not a buffet where you can pick and choose. It’s all or nothing. I also liked etymology. Studying the origin of words and how they’ve changed over the years is fascinating to me. As a teenager I would notice things, like 1 Tim 6:10 where it says love of money is G5365 φιλαργυρία philarguria Thayer Definition: 1) love of money, avarice. Because it says “for the love of money” it got me thinking because I knew that none of the Greek words for love fit. It’s not agape, nor phileo, nor eros, nor storge. That got me wondering, if it’s not any of them, then what is it and why did they use “love of money”. So I looked it up in an interlinear and sorted it out.
In my late teens I was going to a Sunday school class and the teacher asked us if we would follow the laws as a result of our relationship with God. To me the answer was obvious. I had never dated a girl or had a girlfriend yet, so I was theorizing. I figured that just like a relationship, where you do as your partner wants, not out of duty but out of love. The rest of my Sunday school class disagreed with me. Even the teacher. So I put it away for years.
As I mentioned above I love etymology, so that bled over into the Bible where I wanted to study the Bible in as close to its original language. When I became disabled and could no longer work I spent my time laying on the couch watching TV. The show I was watching at the time was Poltergeist the Legacy. As it was wrapping up one episode it mentioned Paleo Hebrew. This got me so curious that I paused the show and started Googling, researching it. I did find Paleo Hebrew and found that it was real, which then got me curious and I wanted to know what was before Paleo Hebrew, which is Proto Canaanite. This, inadvertently lead me to Torah and what the word means. Most people think it means law. That has to do with how it was translated from Hebrew to Greek. Torah, is Hebrew for instructions. The Bible also says that it is forever and throughout our generations. Most believe it has been done away with, but that is not biblically sound. Matt 5:17-19 makes it clear. In Acts Paul was accused a few times, and it’s recorded twice where Paul defended himself showing that he taught Torah. The first time Paul and some other men went and made a vow. Presumably a Nazarite vow (Acts 21). Later Paul gives his defense in Rome before Agrippa (Acts 26).
But most think that Jesus’ commands to love one another is all we need to do. The problem with that is how do you define what love is and how one should go about it. Of course this is resolved in the Torah. Jesus said that loving God and loving your fellow neighbor are the two pillars on which the whole of the law rests (Matt 22:37-40 and Deut 6:1-19). But still people object and say that the laws are only for the Jews. Gal 3:29 says that when we become believers in Christ that we become seeds of Abraham and heirs to the promise. This is how we are “grafted in”. Since we are grafted in, that makes the Torah applicable to us because it is all who come into covenant with God through messiah. Paul also says in Rom 3:31 that we do not abolish, or put away, the law, but rather establish it. There are tons of scripture that affirm the Torah and our following it. Following the Torah is not about earning salvation but rather demonstrating our faithfulness. As I said above, when you are in a relationship you respect the boundaries and preferences and likes and dislikes of the partner. The Torah tells us how to do just that. But then people complain about how it’s too many, but they don’t realize that some pertains only to farmers, and some only to women, and some only to men, and some only to the priests, and some only to kings. Since I’m a guy I don’t need to worry about following the Torah for women. Since I live in the city, I don’t need to worry about the aspects of farming. I’m not a king, so I don’t have to worry about the bits of Torah that pertain to that. Most believers follow the majority of the Torah without thinking about it. The issue comes up when it’s about Sabbath or food. The first century Christians kept going to synagogue on Sabbath until the temple was destroyed in 70 CE.
My point in all of this is that I’ve now been doing this for eight years and it has enriched my life and my relationship with God and my understanding of the Bible. I keep saying it’s about the relationship, and it is. It’s much easier to have a relationship when you know the rules and boundaries. It’s not about being legalistic or strict. Instead of fumbling around, we know what and how God wants us to act.
The New Testament isn’t antisemitic nor teaches hatred to the Jews. They get those ideas though from Christians. Deut 13:1-5 tells how to test a prophet. First, what he says must come true. 100% of the time. It’s not an “I feel the Lord saying…” But Deut 13:1-5 also teaches that if a prophet comes and performs signs and wonders, and his prophecies come true, but he teaches another law then he is a false prophet and the Lord was testing Israel. So when Christians say that Jesus did away with the law, the Jews hear Deut 13:1-5.
Now Christians teaching what most modern-day Christians teach, that the law was nailed to the cross, shows that they don’t understand, or there is a contradiction in the Bible. I don’t accept that the Bible would contradict itself. First, God doesn’t change His mind. (Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8) Every law that God gave in the Old Testament where He said this is to be throughout your generations (Gen 17:7, 9, Exo 12:42, Exo 27:21, Exo 30:21, Exo 31:16, Exo 40:15, Lev 7:36, Lev 17:7, Lev 21:17, Num 1:42, Num 15:38). God would not create a law that is impossible to keep. That would make Him an unjust God. Also, if God did away with all of those, then that would mean that God did away with Gen 17:7, which would make God a promise-breaker. It’s funny how Christians will claim the blessings and promises in the Old Testament, but not that which is required for those blessings and promises. God keeps His promises and doesn’t go back on His word. Also, there’s the famous Matt 5:17-20 in which Jesus very plainly says that He did not come to do away with the law. I’m sure you know the Greek pleroo and what it means. What I find interesting is that the English dictionary added that fulfill means to do away with. Talk about an antonym. ( 1 d : to bring to an end she came to install herself and fulfill her time at the house— Willa Cather https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fulfill ) They added this to the dictionary because of how Christians use “fulfill” in Matt 5:17. Fortunately pleroo doesn’t experience this issue. (G4137 (Thayer)
πληρόω
plēroō
Thayer Definition:
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete
2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
2b) to consummate: a number
2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
2b2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
2c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
2c1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute
2c2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
2c3) 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
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4134
G4134 (Thayer)
πλήρης
plērēs
Thayer Definition:
1) full, i.e. filled up (as opposed to empty)
1a) of hollow vessels
1b) of a surface, covered in every part
1c) of the soul, thoroughly permeated with
2) full, i.e. complete
2a) lacking nothing, perfect
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4130
G4130 (Thayer)
πλήθω
plēthō
Thayer Definition:
1) to fill
2) to be fulfilled, to be filled
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a prolonged form of a primary pleo (which appears only as an alternate in certain tenses and in the reduplicated form pimplemi) )
So, out of all the definitions for pleroo and its root words, none of them mean to do away with.
Even with Paul, Paul defends that he teaches the law, Torah. The vow that Paul took, and the others who went with him. It is likely that Paul took the Nazarite vow. Paul was accused of not teaching the Torah. (See Acts 18 for Paul taking the vow. In Acts 21 Paul again defends that he taught the law). In Rom 3:31 Paul affirms the law, and again in Rom 8:4. Paul, in Gal 3:29 says that if we’re in Christ then we are the seed of Abraham. We have become children of Abraham through Christ Jesus. It goes back to Gen 17:7.
It’s also important to note that in the trial of Jesus when the High Priest rents his garments, he invalidated himself as a priest. When Jesus said to the high priest would see Him high and lifted up. This was fulfilled when Jesus ascended into heaven. So what Daniel said about the Son of Man would be riding on the cloud (Dan 7), was fulfilled when Jesus ascended into heaven.
Also, if the law was done away with, why did the apostles and the New Testament church continue as they always did, going to synagogue on Sabbath (Acts mentions, either directly or indirectly that they kept Sabbath 85 times), offering sacrifices as they always did, and attending the feasts/holidays as they always did. There are 3 big holidays that are required, Passover/Easter, Shavuot/Pentecost, and sukkot. 2 Pet 3:16 Peter says that Paul is difficult to understand, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
If the NT was taught as the apostles taught it, then I doubt that Jews would think it’s antisemitic and hateful. The Jews thinking this is directly a result of errant teaching. If Jesus did away with the law, then there is no sin, as the law defines sin. Shows what sin is. So if there’s no law then there’s no sin. If there’s no sin then Jesus dying on the cross was pointless. Also, the two pillars on which the whole law hangs is love. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and body, and the other is like it, love your neighbor as yourself. Without the law, love would wax cold (Matt 24:12-13). And what are we seeing today? Love waxing cold. Keeping the law is not about earning salvation. You can’t earn a free gift. However, our keeping the law demonstrates our faithfulness. Every relationship has rules. Some call it boundaries. Either way, a relationship cannot function without rules. We demonstrate our faithfulness by keeping what God says.
Finally, when He comes back and sets up His reign, He will teach the law and sacrifices will be reinstituted, according to Zech. So, why would God give a law that was impossible to keep, only to do away with it when Jesus came, and then reinstitute them when He comes again? That sounds very schizoid. However, if the law that God established is fair and righteous, and Jesus upheld and completed the law, and will teach us how to keep the law and reinstitute the sacrifices, then that is consistent.
Torah Rocker 