NO, it does not. I'm sorry but you are ignoring the real definitions and creating and cherry picking ones that fit your opinion. Please read them again. Fulfill is to complete. The Mosaic law requirements were completed, filled up, by Yeshua. There are no more requirements left.
Can you please acknowledge that "to perform or execute a matter of duty" and "to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should" are real definitions that are listed as possibilities that the term can mean and that I've given reasons for why I think Yeshua was using the term in accordance with those definitions and why I think he wasn't using the other definitions? I hope that you can dispense with the rhetoric of "ignoring the real definitions and creating and cherry picking ones that fit your opinion" so that we can have a fruitful discussion about how to word should be correctly interpreted. I've even given reasons for why the other definitions fit with filling up our knowledge of the Law, which is something Yeshua did throughout Matthew 5 by teaching how to correctly obey it, so I'm not ignoring definitions, and I would appreciate it if you would at least consider the possibility that Yeshua was using the definition I listed.
Again, this is the way that the term is used in other verses and other Jewish writings. For example, you do not interpret "fulfilling the Law of Christ" in Galatians 6:2 or "fulfilling the Gospel" in Romans 15:18-19 in a way that is consistent with how you interpret "fulfilling the Law and the Prophets".
To say otherwise is to disregard what Yeshua did and state that there is more needed to be pleasing to G-d. However, that is in direct contrast to the Scriptures.
I am not disregarding what he said, but rather I interpret what he said differently than you do. The way to please God is to live by faith and living by faith is always associated with a willingness to submit to God's will. For instance, every example of saving faith listed in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone submitting to God's will. Yeshua said that faith was one of the weightier matters of the Law, so you should not consider submitting to God's commands as adding something more apart from faith.
Please consider this dangerous doctrine you are espousing. The sacrifice that Yeshua made, His death, resurrection and implementing of His New Covenant is all well and good, but Adonai still *requires* us to adhere to the OLD system that He said has passed away. So, you are preaching another Gospel, one of works, or aka Jesus PLUS the Law. That is very, very dangerous.
In Mark 4:17, 23, Yeshua began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Law is how his audience knew what sin was, so repenting from our disobedience to the Mosaic Law is an integral part of the Gospel message. In Acts 15:18-19, Paul's Gospel message also involved bringing the Gentiles to full obedience in word and indeed, so he was on the same page as Yeshua in teaching repentance from our sins, and I am teaching the same Gospel as they did. This obedience is not adding our works to the Gospel, but rather it is an integral part of the Gospel and why it is good news.
That is the view that you choose to believe, just like you cherry picked a definition for fulfill that matched your views. That is not proper hermeneutics. The view that I see in the Scriptures is inline with the entire Word where the Law has been made null and void, yet remains as lessons to us. The Law of Moses was Adonai's intricate plan to show us that we needed a Savior because of our sin. It was never meant to last once Yeshua came. So Yeshua told us not to disregard what we should learn about it, but He did NOT say any place to observe the Law under the New Covenant, that just isn't there, no matter how much you want it to be. Hermeneutics is having the Scriptures speak the truth, not reading into them what is not there.
I agree that the Law was given to reveal what sin is to show our need for a Savior, but it was also given to teach us how to walk in God's ways like our Savior. Our sanctification is about being made into someone who does what is holy, righteous, and good like Christ, or in other words being made into someone who is Torah observant like him in reflecting God's image to the world. In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being training to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to refrain from doing what is ungodly and sinful, so following God's instructions for how to do that is not adding to our salvation, but is part of what our salvation from sin is, and is no less part of the New Covenant.
According to Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are eternal, so there is nothing about that that is temporary. If the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness has become null and void, then it would only be because God's righteousness has first become null and void, but God's righteousness is likewise eternal (Psalms 119:142).
Look at the verses you quoted closely:
1) Yeshua did not come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets. As stated previously, this upholds the whole counsel of Scripture, the Law is not evil, the Law is good, the Law showed us our sin and need for a Savior as well as G-d's wisdom and how He dealt with His children - for our education and edification. We are not to disregard it.
We know that this is the correct understanding because He also brings in the Prophets. He is not telling us to act like the Prophets! He is saying the same as about the Law. Do not disregard them, they are for our education. Your view does not hold up when we view these verses in context and in detail.
You just said that the Law has been made null and void and now you say that he did not come to abolish it? In the New Covenant, we are required to actually do what is holy, righteous, and good, and to refrain from sin, not just learn about how to do that. In James 2:20, faith without works is dead, and in Romans 2:13, it is not the hearers of the Law who will be justified, but the doers.
2) Yeshua fulfilled the Law. As previously pointed out, that means He completed it. It's done and finished. Complete. You cannot simply cherry pick a definition that you like because it fits your view, when the definition says something different.
We are discussing what he meant by that, so asserting your conclusion as a reason for why I should accept your conclusion is circular.
3) He said that not one tiny part of the Law would disappear until it was "all accomplished". He just finished saying that He had fulfilled the Law, every tiny part, every jot, every iota, He completed. And He is now affirming that it is "all accomplished". By Him. Done and completed.
A major problem with this is that Yeshua also said that it would not happen until heaven and earth disappeared, which last I checked are still here, and will not disappear until the events spoken in Revelation 21:1 come to pass, so "until all is accomplished" is inclusive of everything that happens in the end times. A 2nd problem is that Yeshua did not obey the jot and tiddle of single Law before his death, such as the laws relating to a woman's period or giving birth, or that pertained to the duties of the High Priest. A 3rd problem is that Titus 2:14 says that Yeshua gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, not that he gave himself to free us from the Law and from having to do the good works that it instructs. A 4th problem is that it would not have made sense for him to have spent his entire ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Law by word and by example and commissioning his disciples to make their own disciples teaching them everything that he had taught them, if he was planning on completing it so that his followers no longer had to follow him, but rather he set an example so that he followers would follow it, as we are instructed to do (1 Peter 2:21-22). A 5th problem is that Yeshua said nothing specifically in regard to his death in Matthew 5 and did not teach anything specifically about concept of completing the law so that people would no longer have to follow it after his death, nor would his audience have understood him as referring to that.
4) Then Yeshua goes on to say not to relax "these commandments" and not to teach others to do the same. What commandments? The Old Covenant ones? No! He just told us that He completed them, so they are no more to follow. The "commandments" Yeshua is referring to are the ones He spoke of just a few moments before, the Sermon on the Mount. His NEW commandments in the New Covenant.
The Beatitudes are rooted in the OT, such as with Psalms 24, Psalms 37:11 and Isaiah 61:1-9 (Luke 4:16-21), so he was not saying anything brand new and the commandments are all in accordance with the Law. In John 14:23-24, Yeshua said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, and in John 6:38 that he came only to do the Father's will, so he did not depart from the teachings of the Father in the slightest.
Why thank you for your concern, but you need not worry about me. I believe you are misinterpreting the Scriptures and elevating the Law where Yeshua freed us from it. So, you see, you are the one who had better take this seriously because what you're preaching denies Yeshua's work on the cross.
Our salvation is from sin and sin, the Law is not sin, but reveals what sin is, and sin is defined as the transgression of the Law, so our salvation is not from the Law, but from living in transgression of the Law. Again, Titus 2:14 does not say that he came to free us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness, so to return to our Lawlessness is to deny what he gave himself to accomplish.
Wrong. If you look at His words with the correct understanding, as I've explained above, His words clearly explain that we are to obey His NEW commandments, not the old and the correct definition, which is upheld by the whole of Scripture, is that the Mosaic Law was completed by Yeshua.
Yeshua did not say anything along these lines:
"I am giving myself to complete the Law and free you from having to follow it, my teachings, and my example."
That is a fallacious argument. G-d's attributes can never change, but how He deals with His people did. Look through the Old Testament, there are several changes and they are all different. Yet, HE never changes. Your fallacy is in stating that recognizing the truth that how G-d deals with His people had changed, somehow says His attributes have changed. Wrong conclusion. They are two different issues and not one that you have mashed them into. Actions are not attributes.
God's commands are not arbitrary, but rather they were given to instruct people how to walk in His ways, which are in accordance with His attributes. For example, when we follow the Law's instructions to help the poor, we are reflecting God's righteousness to the world. If at some point in the future helping the poor is no longer reflecting God's righteousness, then that wouldn't just be God dealing with people differently, but would mean that God's righteousness is no longer what it once was. God can perhaps reveal more instructions about how to practice righteousness, but practicing righteousness will always be inclusive of helping the poor and everything else that God has revealed to for how to reflect His righteousness.
Look, honestly, I've seen you post this same old false doctrine over and over and over. Nothing anyone says makes any difference to you. So, why do you keep on posting it? Just go ahead and place yourself under the Law if that's what you believe. And go in peace.
I've only interacted with you a few times, so I've hardly had time to do anything over and over and over or for you to have grounds to say that nothing anyone says makes any difference. I've been persuaded to change my opinion many times, even about something as major as the role of the Mosaic Law in our lives, so that proves that I am not unwilling to consider whether there is any merit to positions that I disagree with. I keep posting both because I want to continue to learn and because I love others enough to share what I've learned. I see that the Law was given to reveal what sin is, that we should not do what God has revealed to be sin, and I seek to gently correct those who are caught in sin.
