In what sense(s) should we use the word "fulfill"?

[SkylerGerald]

I've recently come across a position regarding the use of the word fulfill with respect to the law. I'll do my best to convey it with a few bullets:

1. People often use the phrase "Jesus fulfilled the law on our behalf" to convey the reality that Jesus perfectly kept the requirement of the law in the place of sinners in a justification sense. This may be said even as "Jesus fulfilled the law so that I don't have to".
2. The Bible never uses the word "fulfill" in this sense but routinely uses it with respect to the Christian to describe what their relationship to the law can and should be (Rom 8:4, Rom 13:8-10, Gal 5:13-14, Gal 6:2). In this view, Jesus' use of the term in Matt 3:15 and Matt 5:17 do not convey "I'm fulfilling it so that you don't have to fulfill it".
3. The view concludes that since the Bible does not use the phrase "fulfill the law" to convey a justification reality then we should follow suit

I personally think it makes sense to use that term so long as we know we mean with respect to justification. Any thoughts?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The position you describe begs the question: "Does 'fulfil' ever present in the forensic sense?" Point 1 precludes that study, by asserting that it never does. Rom.8:4 is a case where just such a sense fits quite well, so well in fact it is the sense most often taken by Reformed exegetes/commentators throughout history.

Furthermore, none lives up to the "love" demand. So, there's an attenuated sense to what Paul declares when he points to love's fulfillment. LOVE fulfills, but do we who are trying to love well meet the perfect demand of the law? Hardly.

 

[SkylerGerald]

so well in fact it is the sense most often taken by Reformed exegetes/commentators throughout history.

I had this same thought. I often do morning prayers with Valley of Vision which I've noticed routinely uses the term in a forensic sense.