Matthew 5:17-18 "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" Does Fulfill mean "to end" or "to accomplish, complete"?

[JesusFollowerForever]

The word "fulfill" in Matthew, particularly in the context of the New Testament, generally means to accomplish or to realize rather than to end something. It's often used in relation to prophecies or promises, indicating that what was predicted or spoken has come to pass in its entirety. Let's go through some of the key occurrences in the Gospel of Matthew and see how "fulfill" is used, based on the context and the translations. all verses below are from KJV.

Matthew 1:22–23 (Fulfillment of Prophecy)
"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
This refers to the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 about the virgin birth of the Messiah. Here, "fulfilled" means that the prophecy has been accomplished—the prophecy is being realized in the birth of Jesus. It doesn’t imply that something has ended, but rather that what was promised has now been completed in the present moment.

Matthew 13:35 (Fulfillment of Prophecy)
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."
Jesus is referring to the uses of parables. The phrase "might be fulfilled" means that the words of the prophet are now being realized or accomplished. It's a completion of a divine plan, not an end to something. The secret truths of the kingdom of God are now being revealed in Jesus' teachings.

Matthew 26:54 (Fulfillment of Scripture)
"But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"
Here, Jesus is speaking about His impending arrest and the unfolding of events that must happen according to the Scriptures. "Fulfilled" refers to God’s plan being carried out as prophesied, accomplishing the divine will. Again, this is not an end, but a necessary step in God's purpose.

Matthew 27:9 (Fulfillment of Prophecy)
"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;"
This refers to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas for thirty pieces of silver, a fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy. The use of "fulfilled" here indicates that the prophecy was realized—it has reached its final stage or completion, rather than indicating that something has ceased.

Matthew 5:17 (Jesus Fulfilling the Law)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
In this verse, Jesus is speaking about His relationship to the Law of Moses and the prophets. "Fulfill" here means to complete or accomplish the law’s purpose. It's not about ending the law, but about bringing it to its intended completion and perfection. Jesus is not abolishing the law but rather fulfilling or fulfilling its deeper purpose and pointing to its ultimate meaning.

The nuances of "fulfill" on other Translations:
To examine the nuances of "fulfill", lI have looked at a few major translations:

King James Version (KJV): Often uses "fulfilled" in the sense of accomplishing or realizing something that was previously foretold.​

New International Version (NIV): "to fulfill" often appears with a similar sense of completion of prophecy or God's purpose.​

English Standard Version (ESV): The ESV translates "fulfill" in a way that indicates bringing to completion or realizing the prophecy—it maintains the idea of a process coming to fruition.​

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): Similar to the NIV and ESV, it translates "fulfill" as realizing a promise or prophecy. It emphasizes completion of what was foretold rather than termination.​

New Living Translation (NLT): This translation often uses the phrase "this was to fulfill," indicating that something is coming to pass as predicted, which aligns with the idea of accomplishing rather than ending.​

Summary of the Word "Fulfill" in Matthew:
In all instances, "fulfill" in Matthew conveys the idea of accomplishing or realizing something that was previously promised or prophesied. "Fulfill" is rarely (if ever) used to indicate the idea of ending something. Instead, it signals the culmination of a process or the completion of a divine plan. Whether in the fulfillment of prophecy or the purpose of Jesus’ mission, it always involves the idea of bringing something to its intended goal or purpose.

In French all versions found in my e-library use "accomplir' same meaning as accomplish.

Mat 5:17 (french (LS) Ne croyez pas que je sois venu pour abolir la loi ou les prophètes; je suis venu non pour abolir, mais pour accomplir.
Mat 5:17 (french OB) Ne pensez pas que je sois venu abolir la loi ou les prophètes; je ne suis pas venu abolir, mais accomplir.
Mat 5:17 (French DB) Ne pensez pas que je sois venu pour abolir la loi ou les prophètes: je ne suis pas venu pour abolir, mais pour accomplir;

from the study tools in Bible Hub;
""but to fulfill them.
The concept of "fulfillment" is crucial in understanding Jesus' mission. To "fulfill" means to bring to completion or to realize the intended purpose. Jesus claims that His life and ministry are the culmination of what the Law and the Prophets anticipated. This fulfillment can be seen in several ways: through His perfect obedience to the Law, His embodiment of the prophetic messages, and His role as the promised Messiah. This phrase also connects to other scriptures, such as Luke 24:44, where Jesus explains that everything written about Him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Additionally, this fulfillment is not merely a legalistic adherence but a deeper realization of God's redemptive plan for humanity, as seen in the sacrificial system and the prophetic visions of a new covenant.""


In Conclusion:

• Jesus did not end the Law, but He came to accomplish it. This involves:
• Completing the Law’s purpose.
• Perfectly obeying the Law.
• Revealing the deeper spiritual truths embedded in the Law.
• Instituting a New Covenant, where His work on the cross makes believers right with God, rather than their ability to keep the Law.

While the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects of the Law were fulfilled in Christ, the moral aspects of the Law, which reflect God’s nature, continue to be important for Christians today.

Blessings

 

[Josheb]

We know the word "fulfill" cannot mean "end" because every single New Testament writer quoted the Law, referenced the Law, and indirectly alluded to the Law repeatedly AND they applied the Law to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ. They simply did not do so as a means of attaining righteousness or justification. Outside of those to objectives the Law serves many functions. According to Paul, the Law was holy, righteous, good, and spiritual (and he wrote that long after Calvary and Pentecost).

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

We know the word "fulfill" cannot mean "end" because every single New Testament writer quoted the Law, referenced the Law, and indirectly alluded to the Law repeatedly AND they applied the Law to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ. They simply did not do so as a means of attaining righteousness or justification. Outside of those to objectives the Law serves many functions. According to Paul, the Law was holy, righteous, good, and spiritual (and he wrote that long after Calvary and Pentecost).

Many on this forum and others that I have been to, do believe the word "Fulfill" in Mat 5:17-18 means "to end" as meaning the the end of the law, it is why it became important for me to explain in detail the meaning of Fulfill in the proper context.

Blessings.

 

[Josheb]

Many on this forum and others that I have been to, do believe the word "Fulfill" in Mat 5:17-18 means "to end" as meaning the the end of the law, it is why it became important for me to explain in detail the meaning of Fulfill in the proper context.

Blessings.

So?

Are we to measure the meaning, truth and veracity of God's word based on consensus? Would you please address the point of Post 2. How can the Law have ended if every single New Testament writer continued to use the Law after Jesus supposedly ended it? In other words, the example, the precedent, of the New Testament writers themselves is that the Law did not end with Jesus' earthly work, Calvary, or Pentecost. Given a choice between the uniform and unanimous precedent established by the New Testament writers and the appeal to what "many on this forum and others that you have been to" why should anyone choose what others believe over what the apostles proactively and diversely taught?

What many believe is wrong.

And I am asking you to reconcile the belief the Law has ended with the fact the New Testament writers repeatedly demonstrated the Law had ended in only two specific areas (attaining righteousness and justification). This should be simple and the response immediately and direct. Something like.....

Yes, of course, Paul and James did, in fact, later clarify the Law never served a function for obtaining righteousness or justification apart from Christ and, yes, it is abundantly clear in both word and precedent the New Testament writers repeatedly applied the Law after Calvary to both Jewish and Gentil converts to Christ.​

But feel free to put it in your own words . So please do not avoid Post 2, or its central point. Please just address the facts in evidence.

Do you need me to walk through a few examples of the NT writers using the Law post-Calvary? Is this something you have never observed reading Acts, the epistolary, and Revelation?

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

So?

Are we to measure the meaning, truth and veracity of God's word based on consensus? Would you please address the point of Post 2. How can the Law have ended if every single New Testament writer continued to use the Law after Jesus supposedly ended it? In other words, the example, the precedent, of the New Testament writers themselves is that the Law did not end with Jesus' earthly work, Calvary, or Pentecost. Given a choice between the uniform and unanimous precedent established by the New Testament writers and the appeal to what "many on this forum and others that you have been to" why should anyone choose what others believe over what the apostles proactively and diversely taught?

What many believe is wrong.

And I am asking you to reconcile the belief the Law has ended with the fact the New Testament writers repeatedly demonstrated the Law had ended in only two specific areas (attaining righteousness and justification). This should be simple and the response immediately and direct. Something like.....

Yes, of course, Paul and James did, in fact, later clarify the Law never served a function for obtaining righteousness or justification apart from Christ and, yes, it is abundantly clear in both word and precedent the New Testament writers repeatedly applied the Law after Calvary to both Jewish and Gentil converts to Christ.​

But feel free to put it in your own words . So please do not avoid Post 2, or its central point. Please just address the facts in evidence.

Do you need me to walk through a few examples of the NT writers using the Law post-Calvary? Is this something you have never observed reading Acts, the epistolary, and Revelation?

I do not like endless debates, what I wrote is about Mat 5:17-18, If you feel you need to reconcile writings please just go ahead, it is NOT the intended purpose of this thread It was to make One point: that christ did not say the law has ended/abolished.

Measurement by consensus, No there is only one truth and I explained it as per scripture. I just wanted to know How many believed that law was ended, but few will say.

 

[Josheb]

I do not like endless debates,

It is always within your ability to remain silent and not post. That is the fastest and most effective way to prevent debate. It also prevents discussion and conversation and any non-debate form of exchange. In point of fact, characterizing a discussion as "debate" is a form of debate. It's like saying, "I don't want to argue." Saying "I don't want to argue" is an argument!

Just post your views, read and consider others' views, and enjoy doing so. Nothing here is personal (unless you make it personal)

...........If you feel you need....

Like that.

Measurement by consensus, No there is only one truth and I explained it as per scripture. I just wanted to know How many believed that law was ended, but few will say.

See how easy that was?

Yes, there is only one truth but, no you did not explain anything with scripture. What you did is try to justify an appeal to consensus with a selectively used single text. The problem is that Matthew 5 text does not speak for the whole of scripture. What you've done is a form of quote mining. This becomes apparent when other passages from scripture are also examined.

Which is why I asked you how you reconcile the passage you quoted and all the passages I referenced? You do not like endless debates but you just posted part of an exchange that did not answer the question asked and did not further the discussion op-relevantly. We are supposed to be discussing the meaning of "fulfill" relevant to Jesus' statement he came to fulfill the law. Nothing more. I have asserted it is not exegetically or logically possible to interpret "fulfill" to mean "end" except in two arenas (righteousness and justification) because the NT writers did NOT treat the law as if it had, in fact, ended, AND I have asked you to explain how people can read Matthew 5's "fulfill" to mean end given the facts of scripture.

I have also asked you if you would like me to walk you through the New Testament to see and understand what I have described.


And you are avoiding all of this. If you would like to stick with the position "full means end" then just say so. I will probably continue to provide a few examples of the law being used after Calvary so subsequent participants in the thread can see an alternative viewpoint supported by whole scripture. There's no need for you to post another word if you're not going to reconcile your reading of Matthew 5:17-18 with the rest of scripture and the precedent established by Jesus' followers in the NT era.


Think about it. Take your time. I gotta go but I'll check back in a day or three. Maybe look up where and how OT laws were used in the epistolary and consider those examples in light of Mathhew 5's text. Maybe Read Romans 2-3 and Galatians 2-3 and see how Paul explicitly specified the Law's inability and limits.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Here’s why this is so important:

• The Law pointed to Christ: The Law itself was never meant to be an end in itself. It was a shadow of what was to come (Hebrews 10:1). The Law pointed forward to Jesus, who would fulfill its deepest meaning. For example, the sacrificial system in the Law pointed to Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice on the cross.
• Perfect obedience: Jesus perfectly obeyed the Law in a way that humanity could never do, thus fulfilling its righteous requirements. His life and obedience were the perfect expression of God’s will, something the Law pointed to but couldn’t achieve in itself.
• Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment: Jesus is the goal or telos of the Law (Romans 10:4). He embodies the true spirit of the Law, fulfilling its demands perfectly and revealing its deeper meaning. When He says He has come to fulfill it, He means that He is bringing it to its full expression.

These are good points. The law contain blessings and curses. But the law could not deliver on the blessings because of the weakness of the flesh (Ro 8:3). And though the law had a mechanism (animal sacrifices) to deal with lawbreaking, the mechanism was weak because it was impossible for animal sacrifices to take away sins. Therefore, God sent His Son to be an effective sacrifice as required by the law (Ro 8:3) so that our failures in the flesh to obey the law might be forgiven and by the new lives we receive from Christ we might fulfill the law's demands for righteousness and receive its blessings (Ro 8:2-4). Apart from faith in Christ for the remission of sins, there is no escape from the curses of the law. The law, therefore, stands.

 

[timothyu]

He fulfilled/brought into actuality, the prophecies of the coming messiah.

 

[Bob S]

So, Jesus didn't end the Law. Why then, if you believe that He didn't, are you not keeping all of the 613 laws that would pertain to the individual Israelite?? I don't see any of you, if you are a male, advocating not cutting your sideburns. Some of you do not keep the feast days, new moons and I could go on and on. What do you all do with not one jot.........?

Once again, why did Paul write 2Cor3:6-11, Eph2:15, Col2 and Gal3:19? You cannot have it both ways my friends.

 

[Bob S]

He fulfilled/brought into actuality, the prophecies of the coming messiah.

He brought the prophecies concerning Him to an end, so how can we split the Law into a different category?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

So, Jesus didn't end the Law. Why then, if you believe that He didn't, are you not keeping all of the 613 laws that would pertain to the individual Israelite?? I don't see any of you, if you are a male, advocating not cutting your sideburns. Some of you do not keep the feast days, new moons and I could go on and on. What do you all do with not one jot.........?

Once again, why did Paul write 2Cor3:6-11, Eph2:15, Col2 and Gal3:19? You cannot have it both ways my friends.

For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

The New King James Version (Ga 3:21). (1982). Thomas Nelson.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

So, Jesus didn't end the Law. Why then, if you believe that He didn't, are you not keeping all of the 613 laws that would pertain to the individual Israelite?? I don't see any of you, if you are a male, advocating not cutting your sideburns. Some of you do not keep the feast days, new moons and I could go on and on. What do you all do with not one jot.........?

Once again, why did Paul write 2Cor3:6-11, Eph2:15, Col2 and Gal3:19? You cannot have it both ways my friends.

Where does it say gentiles have to keep all these laws added to the ten commandments tailored for the israelites thousands years ago? many of these laws CANNOT be kept today, I did tell you this before.

No you cant have it both ways I know that Jesus is the only way to eternal life, Listen to him!

 

[BobRyan]

While the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects of the Law were fulfilled in Christ, the moral aspects of the Law, which reflect God’s nature, continue to be important for Christians today.

True.

Heb 10:4-11 the animal sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross "He took away the first to establish the second"

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"
1 John 5:3-4 "this is the Love of God - that WE Keep His Commandments"

most people know , for example, that the commandment "do not take God's name in vain" still applies and is one of the TEN, so it is included in the moral law of God -- no matter that it is never quoted in the NT

 

[timothyu]

no matter that it is never quoted in the NT

Thy Will be done

 

[BobRyan]

So, Jesus didn't end the Law. Why then, if you believe that He didn't, are you not keeping all of the 613 laws

because we take the time to read Heb 10:4-8 where we are told that the animal sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross.

So then , obviously, like most Christians today we do not offer animal sacrifices but we DO submit to God's command "do not take God's name in vain" no matter that it is not quoted verbatim in the NT.

Once again, why did Paul write 2Cor3:6-11, Eph2:15, Col2 and Gal3:19? You cannot have it both ways my friends.

Paul wrote
1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of GOD"
John wrote:
1 John 5:3-4 "THIS IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"
John also wrote
Rev 14:12 "The saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Paul reminds us that "Honor your father and mother - is the first commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6:2-3

 

[BobRyan]

For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

The New King James Version (Ga 3:21). (1982). Thomas Nelson.

Laws such as "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
and "Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:2-3, Rom 13, Ex 20:12
and "love your neighbor as yourself" Matt 22, Matt 19, James 2, Lev 19:18

Such laws do not give life to the lost soul. Only the gospel can do that.

But God never said "Ignore all my Words unless they are for giving eternal life to the lost". Much of what God has written is for those who are children of God - who have already accepted the Gospel.

 

[timothyu]

Matthew 22: 37Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

 

[BobRyan]

Matthew 22: 37Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’

Which of course is - Deut 6:5

38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

Which is of course Lev 19:18

40On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

both of them -- from the Law of Moses.

Interesting in Luke 10:25-28 Jesus turns the tables on the Jews asking them for the first commandment - and the answer from the Jews is the same as the one Jesus gives in Matt 22. This reference and importance of those two commands in the Law of Moses was known to BOTH Christ and the non-Christian Jews of Christ's day.

Neither Jews nor Christians thought that Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 - deleted the Law of Moses.

 

[Bob S]

because we take the time to read Heb 10:4-8 where we are told that the animal sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross.

I wonder just how you ar able to use those verses to rectify not keeping the 613 laws, given by God, that pertained to the individual Israelite?

So then , obviously, like most Christians today we do not offer animal sacrifices but we DO submit to God's command "do not take God's name in vain" no matter that it is not quoted verbatim in the NT.

I do too because not taking God's name in vain is part of loving Him. How can anyone try to teach that those ten commands cover all the wrongs man can do to their fellow man and God. It is no wonder that Paul wrote that the ten came with glory, but that glory faded because they were meant to be transitory, temporary. 2Cor3. Jesus gave all mankind a better Law to live by. We are to love others as He loves us. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. Jn15

Paul wrote
1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of GOD"
John wrote:
1 John 5:3-4 "THIS IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"
John also wrote
Rev 14:12 "The saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Paul reminds us that "Honor your father and mother - is the first commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6:2-3

No where in all of the New Testament does it tell us God's commands for us are the ten commandments. Eph 6 certainly is a reference to one of the ten, but that doesn't mean we are under the ten commandments. Nine of the ten are included in Jesus Law of Love. The new covenant nowhere indicates that the ritual command to observe a day is part of Jesus' new covenant. Just as the feast sabbaths and new moon celebrations are not part of any obligation to observe. The old covenant was nailed to the Cross just as Jesus indicated would happen. 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

See where I underlined? Every law of the old covenant of the old covenant is still in binding if Jesus failed to fulfill, bring them to an end, them at Calvery.

 

[Bob S]

Where does it say gentiles have to keep all these laws added to the ten commandments tailored for the israelites thousands years ago? many of these laws CANNOT be kept today, I did tell you this before.

No you cant have it both ways I know that Jesus is the only way to eternal life, Listen to him!

Where does it say Gentiles have to keep the ten commandments.

Again, what do you do with Jesus' admonition, that I underlined below, to the Jews in Matt 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Either Jesus did end the old covenant law or those who believe He didn't are obligated to keep the 613 laws that would pertain to the individual Jew. You cannot have it both ways Jff.