“But Jesus Fulfilled the Law!” — The Psychology Behind Christianity’s Most Common Argument Against Torah Observance
Why do so many Christians believe that fulfilling God’s commandments means His people are no longer obligated to obey them? A biblical and psychological examination of one of Christianity’s most deeply entrenched theological assumptions
There is an extraordinary phenomenon that occurs whenever I discuss the enduring authority of the Torah with Christians. I present a relatively straightforward biblical argument: God gave His Torah to Israel, commanded us to observe His commandments throughout our generations, and explicitly warned us against following anyone who would lead us away from those commandments.
I frequently reference Deuteronomy 13:1–5, where God warns Israel that even a prophet who performs miraculous signs must be rejected if he attempts to lead the people into disobedience to God. Almost invariably, the Christian responds with the same familiar declaration:
“But Jesus fulfilled the Law!”
I have heard this response countless times. It is so predictable that I can often anticipate it before the person finishes speaking.
But here is the problem.
That statement does not actually answer the argument.
The question is not whether Yeshua fulfilled the Torah. The question is whether his fulfillment of the Torah somehow releases Israel from commandments that God explicitly instructed us to observe.
These are two fundamentally different propositions.
Yet many Christians appear unable to distinguish between them.
Why?
Is this simply a misunderstanding of Scripture? Is it theological conditioning? Or is something more psychologically complex taking place?
I believe the answer involves several well-established psychological mechanisms that help explain why otherwise intelligent, sincere, and educated people can repeatedly defend a theological proposition without recognizing that they have not actually demonstrated it.
And understanding these mechanisms may be just as important as understanding the biblical passages themselves.
1. Cognitive Dissonance: When Two Beliefs Collide
One of the most useful concepts for understanding this phenomenon is cognitive dissonance.
In psychology, cognitive dissonance refers to the mental discomfort that can arise when a person holds conflicting beliefs or encounters information that challenges an established conviction.
Consider three propositions commonly affirmed within Christianity:
God gave His Torah to Israel.
God is perfect, truthful, and does not contradict Himself.
The coming of Jesus fundamentally changed or ended the obligation to observe many commandments of the Torah.
For Christians who believe all three, a serious theological question emerges.
If God commanded Israel to observe His commandments throughout its generations, how can those commandments subsequently become unnecessary?
This is not a trivial question.
Exodus 31:16–17 describes the Sabbath as a perpetual covenantal sign between God and the children of Israel.
Deuteronomy 29:28 in Jewish numbering (29:29 in most Christian Bibles) declares that the revealed things belong to Israel and our children forever, so that we may perform the words of the Torah.
Deuteronomy 13 warns against religious figures who would redirect Israel away from fidelity to God’s commandments.
How, then, does one reconcile these declarations with the belief that Israel’s obligation to observe the Torah has been superseded?
For many Christians, the answer is immediate:
“Jesus fulfilled the Law.”
Psychologically, this response can resolve the apparent contradiction.
The word fulfilled sounds positive. It suggests completion, accomplishment, and divine purpose.
The Christian can therefore believe that God has not contradicted Himself because the commandments were not technically abolished; they were fulfilled.
But this raises an important question:
If fulfillment produces the same practical result as abolition, what is the meaningful covenantal difference?
Cognitive dissonance does not prove that a person’s theology is incorrect. Nor does every Christian experience this tension in the same way.
Nevertheless, it helps explain why a familiar theological formulation may feel like a sufficient answer even when the underlying contradiction has not been resolved.
2. Motivated Reasoning: Reading Scripture Through a Predetermined Conclusion
A second psychological mechanism is known as motivated reasoning.
Motivated reasoning occurs when a person’s desired conclusion influences how they evaluate evidence.
This does not necessarily involve conscious dishonesty.
Indeed, people engaging in motivated reasoning may sincerely believe they are being entirely objective.
Consider how Christians are commonly taught to approach the Hebrew Scriptures.
Many have inherited a theological framework in which the Torah is understood primarily as preparation for Christ, the sacrificial system as foreshadowing his death, and the new covenant as introducing a fundamentally different relationship to Mosaic commandments.
Consequently, when they encounter a passage such as Deuteronomy 13, they may not begin by asking:
“What did this commandment mean to Israel when God originally gave it?”
Instead, they may begin with a different question:
“How must this passage be interpreted in light of what my church teaches about Jesus?”
Those are very different interpretive methods.
The first begins with the original covenantal context.
The second begins with a theological conclusion and interprets the earlier revelation through that conclusion.
Of course, Christians may argue that interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures through the New Testament is precisely what their faith requires.
That is a legitimate theological position to examine.
But it does not eliminate the underlying question of authority.
If a later interpretation appears to contradict an earlier divine commandment, the contradiction must be addressed rather than assumed away.
And intellectual integrity requires acknowledging that Jews, too, can engage in motivated reasoning. No religious community is immune to the tendency to defend inherited beliefs.
The proper remedy is the same for everyone: careful exegesis, attention to historical context, and a willingness to distinguish what Scripture actually says from what our theological systems have taught us to expect.
3. Semantic Compartmentalization: When “Fulfilled” Functions as “Abolished”
Perhaps the most revealing feature of this controversy is the distinction Christians frequently make between the words fulfilled and abolished.
Consider Matthew 5:17:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
Christians understandably emphasize the distinction between destroying and fulfilling.
And linguistically, the two terms are not synonymous.
The Greek verb translated “fulfill,” πληρόω (plēroō), can convey ideas such as filling, completing, bringing about, or bringing something to its intended realization, depending on context.
It does not inherently mean abolishing.
That distinction is important.
But here is where the theological problem emerges.
A Christian may insist that Jesus did not abolish the Sabbath while simultaneously maintaining that God’s people are no longer required to observe it.
He may insist that Jesus did not abolish the dietary commandments while maintaining that those commandments no longer bind believers.
He may insist that Jesus did not abolish the Torah while teaching that its covenantal requirements are no longer obligatory.
At that point, the discussion cannot be settled by appealing to the word fulfill.
We must examine the actual consequences of the interpretation.
When fulfillment is used to terminate an enduring covenantal obligation, it functions as abolition with respect to that obligation, regardless of the terminology employed.
This does not mean every Christian interpretation of fulfillment is equivalent to abolition.
Some Christian traditions distinguish between commandments they regard as moral, ceremonial, and civil. Others argue that particular commandments remain binding upon Israel but not upon Gentiles.
Those distinctions require separate examination.
However, whenever someone claims that a commandment explicitly given to Israel as an enduring obligation is no longer binding upon Israel, that person must explain the biblical authority for the change.
Consider three examples.
The Sabbath: Exodus 31:16–17 describes the Sabbath as a perpetual covenantal sign between God and Israel. Where does the Torah authorize the termination of that obligation?
The dietary commandments: Leviticus 11 establishes distinctions between permitted and forbidden animals. What authorizes the conclusion that these distinctions have ceased to govern Israel?
The prohibition against religious apostasy: Deuteronomy 13 warns Israel against following anyone who would lead the people away from covenantal faithfulness. How can a later theological interpretation legitimately overturn the authority of that warning?
Simply responding, “Jesus fulfilled the Law,” does not resolve these questions.
It merely repeats the proposition whose meaning and consequences are being disputed.
4. Identity-Protective Cognition: When Theology Becomes Personal Identity
Religious beliefs are rarely isolated intellectual propositions. They are often deeply connected to personal identity, family, community, spiritual experience, and one’s understanding of salvation.
For many Christians, the belief that Jesus fulfilled the Torah in a way that changed its binding authority is central to their understanding of Christianity. Questioning that interpretation can therefore feel like questioning Christianity itself. This is where identity-protective cognition becomes relevant.
People are often motivated to defend beliefs that support their identity and their membership in a valued community. Imagine a Christian who has spent forty years believing that the Law of Moses was fulfilled and is no longer binding. He has heard this preached from the pulpit, taught in Bible studies, explained in commentaries, and reinforced through conversations with fellow believers.
Then someone presents Deuteronomy 13 and asks:
“If God forbids Israel from abandoning His commandments, how could the Messiah authorize their abandonment?”
That question may challenge much more than his interpretation of one passage. It may challenge his understanding of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, the meaning of salvation, and the authority of the religious tradition in which he has invested his life. Consequently, the conversation can become defensive.
Instead of examining the specific biblical argument, the person begins defending the broader theological system.
This is not necessarily deliberate evasion.
It can be an ordinary psychological response to a perceived threat to one’s foundational convictions. Interestingly, the continued obligation of Israel to observe the Torah does not logically disprove every possible understanding of Yeshua as Messiah. Indeed, one can affirm Yeshua’s messianic identity while maintaining that the Torah remains authoritative for Israel.
But for Christians whose theology depends upon a sharp discontinuity between Torah observance and faith in Christ, that possibility may be difficult to accommodate.
5. Repetition and Familiarity: When Theological Slogans Become Unquestioned Truths
There is another explanation that may be even more influential than the others.
Repetition.
For generations, Christians have repeatedly heard statements such as:
“Nobody can keep the Law.”
“The Law was given to show us that we are sinners.”
“Jesus fulfilled the Law so that we don’t have to.”
“The Law points us to Christ.”
“We are under grace, not under Law.”
These formulations are so familiar that many believers no longer recognize them as theological interpretations. They simply assume they are biblical facts.
Psychologists recognize a related phenomenon called the illusory truth effect: repeated exposure to a statement can increase its perceived truthfulness.
Familiarity is easily confused with accuracy.
Of course, repetition does not make a proposition false any more than it makes it true.
But repetition can reduce the likelihood that someone will critically examine a familiar claim.
This is particularly relevant to the assertion that God gave the Torah primarily to demonstrate that human beings could not obey it.
Where does the Torah actually say that?
6. Did God Give the Torah to Prove That Obedience Is Impossible?
This is one of the most consequential theological claims in popular Christianity.
It is also one that deserves far more scrutiny than it generally receives.
Consider Deuteronomy 30:11–14.
Moses tells Israel that the commandment God has given them is not too difficult, nor is it beyond their reach.
He explains that the word is near them, in their mouths and hearts, so that they may perform it.
Notice the purpose.
So that they may perform it.
Not so that they may discover that performing it is impossible.
Deuteronomy 30:15–16 continues by presenting obedience and disobedience as meaningful choices with covenantal consequences.
Likewise, Deuteronomy 10:12–13 asks what God requires of Israel and answers that Israel must fear Him, walk in His ways, love Him, serve Him, and keep His commandments.
And why?
For Israel’s good.
Psalm 19:7–11, in common English numbering, describes the Torah as perfect, restoring the soul, making the simple wise, enlightening the eyes, and being more desirable than gold.
These passages do not portray the Torah primarily as an impossible standard designed to demonstrate human helplessness.
Comments