Have you tested the word "fulfill"?
G4137
πληρόω
plēroō
play-ro’-o
From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.
As a Rabbi, Yeshua gave clarity to the law. He said a man who looks at a woman with lust, has committed adultery. Before that, the law of adultery was an act of sexual intercourse by married persons. That is just one example. Another example is Yeshua/Jesus said:
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
“...But Jesus fulfilled the whole law of God so I don’t have to.” This statement clearly makes the mistake of not realizing that it is a blessing to keep a law of God. There are many places in the Bible just to prove this. See Psalm 119.
Paul also teaches in Romans 8 that it’s the fleshly minded that think this way, but those who are spiritual love the law of God.
Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
So, what if someone implies that it is a good thing that the law of God was removed by our Messiah? So, what are we to do with such a response from professed believers?
Sometimes Matthew 5 is cited in this belief. The word “fulfilled” and Matthew 5:17 are either interpreted as being fulfilled in the sense of fully preaching or teaching the law of God, or fulfilled in the sense of no longer making the law of God applicable. Those are our choices.
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.
Interpreting fulfill as meaning that the law is no longer applicable makes absolutely no sense in light of the next two verses in which it is stated nothing will change until heaven and earth disappear. Then, Yeshua/Jesus, even goes on listing consequences if anyone practices and teaches even the least of the commandments are no longer applicable.
Matthew 5:18-19 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So, if we choose for the word “fulfill” in verse 17 to mean that the whole law of God is no longer going to be applicable to believers, here’s what we have Yeshua/Jesus saying:
In verse 17, “I come not to destroy the law but to make it no longer applicable.”
Verse 18, “but until heaven and earth pass, every jot or tittle of the law still stands.”
Verse 19, “Even though the law of God is no longer going to be applicable as stated in verse 17, anyone teaching that the whole law of God is no longer applicable will be least in the kingdom.”
That definition of fulfill in verse 17 just doesn’t seem to work in any way possible. This means that “fulfilled” in Matthew 5:17, the Greek word “pleroo,” must mean to fully preach or fully teach the law of God and cannot teach that any part of the law of God is no longer applicable because it would then render verses 18 and 19 as irrelevant or even contradictory.
Obviously Yeshua/Jesus did not say in verse 17 that He intends to fulfill the whole law of God that it is no longer applicable and then immediately proceed to tell us that it is applicable to us, at least until heaven and earth pass away.
And then, as if that was not enough, then proceed in the very next verse to say that there are eternal consequences to the believer for teaching and practicing that even the least of the Commandments are no longer applicable. That would make either Yeshua/Jesus schizophrenic or insane.
How could the law of God be removed and not be removed at the same time? And, if the law of God was removed by Him fulfilling it, then why would there be negative consequences that would result if someone teaches and practices that some of the commandments no longer apply?
Obviously, that does not make sense, so the answer is clear.
This is about as easy as it gets, despite what one might believe about Paul and we already know that Peter said that Paul is perhaps the most difficult teacher to understand as it relates to matters of God’s law. Yet, how many want to run to his writings thinking they understand Paul taught the whole law of God is no longer applicable?
Meaning this, Yeshua/Jesus did not come to destroy the law or make it no longer applicable. Instead, He came to fully teach us the law of God. This should make much more sense considering the fact that Yeshua/Jesus spent His whole ministry teaching and practicing what Moses already wrote as the Father’s Word. Even teaching in Mark chapter 7 that nullifying what Moses wrote is a very bad thing to do. But let’s suppose we ignore all that and that verses 18 and 19 of Matthew 5 no longer exist. How else would we
know that it does not make much sense to believe that when Yeshua/Jesus said in Matthew 5 that He came to fulfill the whole law of God in the sense that He did not mean that we no longer have to do it anymore?
Well, one clear reason beyond all the context offered is the fact that Yeshua/Jesus did not do the whole law of God. And, He never will. Yeshua/Jesus did not fulfill the whole law of God in the sense of actually doing the whole law of God. That is not possible. There are commandments that are only for women. And Yeshua/Jesus , He will never do those. There are commandments that are only for farmers, and Yeshua was not a farmer. There are commandments for the judges, the Sanhedrin, and Yeshua is not part of them. There are commandments for the Levites, and Yeshua was not a Levite.
Yeshua/Jesus did not come to fulfill the whole law of God by doing the whole law of God so that we don’t have to. Yeshua did not do the whole law of God and He never will.
The only thing “fulfill” can mean in Matthew 5:17 is that He came to fully teach the whole Word of God as truth. This is the exact same word used Matthew 3:15 “But Jesus (Yeshua) answered and said to him permit it to be so now for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”
So, if Matthew 5:17 means that Yeshua/Jesus fulfilled the whole law of God so that we do not have to, does that mean that Yeshua/Jesus also fulfill practicing all righteousness so that we no longer have to practice righteousness? Obviously not.
1 John 2:29 “If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.”
1 John 3:7 “Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous just as He is righteous.”
1 John 3:10 “In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest. Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God nor is he who does not love his brother.”
G1343 dikaiosunē
From G1342; equity (of character or act); specifically (Christian) justification: - righteousness.