So, the reason for this thread is to discuss
Matt 5:17-18. Did Jesus fail to fulfill what He came to do or did He keep His word and during His stay on this Earth bring an end to the Law? We have no qualms about His fulfilling and bringing to a final end the prophecies concerning Him. Why do some hesitate to believe He did the same for the Law?
to be fair this is poorly worded and is more along the lines of a strawman as no one from any position claims Jesus failed at anything and it feels like a trap when posed that way. The difficulty is Jesus came to fullfill the law which is then juxtaposed with this idea that law is not done away with nor should we teach others to break it. The two ideas seemingly conflict with each other, where a fullfilled law would mean it is no longer kept, but a law that is no longer kept also seems to creep into the "broken" category.
regardless of which position you land at it seem we all can agree that the sacrafical system is fulfilled so that we are no longer required to do it. So do we break the sacrificial system and teach others to do the same? No, because Christ fullfilled being the perfect sacrafice himself the sacrafice is now satisfied through Christ, which is the key take away.
The sacrificial system is included in the context of Mat 5 so however we justify the sacrafical system to be complete through Christ, we can use that same logic to complete really any law and certainly any ritual-based law which innately has no moral components. This really is not an arguing point, we forfiet our claims on keeping an aspect of the law when we don't keep all law.
So can Christ also complete moral laws like stealing or murdering? Christ can't make a 4-sided triangle so to say he makes harming others all of a sudden good is strawman. harming others still remains wrong and will always be wrong. What Christ does is show us a better way through his law of loving God first then loving neighbour showing us more of a heuristic approach to serving God then a list of dos and donts that can be exploited. Christ uses the language that all the law and the prophets hang upon these two commandments and NT teaching uses the language that it fulfills law itself. I don't think it's that if I bake my neighbour brownies, it fulfills law but that if I abide with Christ with the product of love to others, it fulfills law. The fullfilling part is not by my works but through Christ, however my abiding with Christ will produce the love requirement and in doing so loves God.
A comparison of 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 will show the context that Paul approaches "commandments" and by comparing these verses it seems conclusive what Paul means by keeping God's commandments
1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.
Gal 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Gal 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.\
if we continue to follow the context in Galtions this is where Paul says "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” this is Gal 5:14 and is in the same context of 5:6 and 6:15. It is clear Paul is looking at "what matters" through a lense of Christ's law and not invoking the 10 commandments. Since 1 Cor 7:19 is mirror language and it's still Paul talking, we shouldn't inject a competing focus. Paul is addressing the same context in 1 Cor 7:19 as he is in Galatians. his conclusions are keeping Christ's law, they are nothing else. In doing so we don't break law or teach others to do the same so long as we continue to abide with Christ as Christ fulfills/completes law. Without Christ then certainly are lawless and lost so Christ is integral to the fulfilling aspects.
