Jesus said he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, warning that not one letter would pass away until all is accomplished (Matt 5:17-19), yet Paul teaches believers are no longer under the law, abrogates circumcision and festival observance (Gal 3:23-25, 4:10-11, 5:2, Eph 2:14-15), and describes becoming 'as one outside the law' to win converts (1 Cor 9:20) -- Paul contradicts Jesus.

The Greek verb 'fulfill' (pleroo) in Matt 5:17 denotes bringing the law to its intended goal and completion, not a bare re-assertion of perpetual ritual observance -- and the Sermon on the Mount itself already shows Jesus exercising authority over the law's application ('you have heard it said... but I say to you'), which is fulfillment-transformation, not static perpetuation. Paul's statements about freedom from law concern the Mosaic covenant's temporary role as a 'guardian' (paidagogos, Gal 3:24-25) until Christ, a redemptive-historical claim, not a moral-relativizing one. Paul repeatedly upholds the moral substance of the law (Rom 3:31, 'we uphold the law'; Rom 13:8-10, love fulfills the law; 1 Cor 7:19, 'keeping the commandments of God is everything'). What Paul relativizes are specifically Israel's covenant boundary-markers -- circumcision, festivals, food laws -- the ceremonial and civil law, not the moral law, a distinction with deep roots (already implicit in Jeremiah's promise of a new covenant, Jer 31:31-34) and later formalized by Aquinas and Calvin as the moral/ceremonial/judicial distinction. 1 Cor 9:20 is explicitly framed as Paul's strategic missionary accommodation, not a theological claim about the law's abiding authority. The objection equivocates by treating 'law' (nomos) as a single monolithic referent when both Jesus and Paul use the term across a real range of senses -- moral law, ceremonial law, and the law as a redemptive-historical epoch.

Jesus's ministry is itself the fulfillment, and Paul, commissioned by the risen Christ, gives the Spirit-guided apostolic interpretation of what that fulfillment means for the Gentile mission. This was not an idiosyncratic Pauline innovation set against Jesus: the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) reaches, collectively and independently, essentially the same conclusion Paul argues for, showing a unified apostolic discernment rather than a lone dissenting voice.