FULFILMENT.—The primary meaning of the English word ‘fulfil’ is simply to fill—by a pleonasm, to fill (until) full. We find this use in literature—

‘Is not thy brain’s rich hive

Fulfilled with honey?’ (Donne).

Sometimes it is imitated even in modern English, though only by a deliberate archaism. For with us ‘fulfil’ is specialized to mean not literal material filling, but the carrying out into act of some word—some promise, threat, hope, command, etc. When the Authorized Version was made, ‘fulfil,’ according to the great Oxford Dictionary, meant ‘fill,’ and began to be used by the translators in its remoter sense on the pattern of the Vulgate, which wrote (unclassically) implere and adimplere for Heb. מִלִּא. Thus the transition from one sense to the other, or the metaphor of filling for fulfilling, is Hebrew. But in Greek, too, it is possible that the same metaphor sprang up independently of Hebrew influence; cf. classical references (under πληροῦν) in Cremer, also in Liddell and Scott (πληροῦν, ii. 5). In OT the usage is not very common. Possibly the earliest instance, chronologically, is Jeremiah 44:25. What the Jews in Egypt have said, they do. Their threat to practise idolatry is not left an empty word; it is filled out, or filled up, in action. At Psalms 20:5 we have the word used of answers to prayer: ‘Jehovah fulfil all thy petitions’; the empty vessel, as it were, standing to receive the Divine supplies. For ‘fulfilling law’ or ‘fulfilling a command’ there is no proper authority in OT, though Authorized and Revised Versions at times introduces the term (Psalms 148:8; literally, the forces of nature ‘do’ God’s word). In 1 Kings 2:27; 1 Kings 8:15; 1 Kings 8:24 we have the most important usage of all, the ‘fulfilling’ of the prophetic word or prediction. The passages referred to are marked by modern scholarship as Deuteronomic. We may therefore probably conclude that the theological conception of ‘fulfilling’ is part of the religious language of that great forward movement in OT history, the Deuteronomic reform. Along with these theological applications מִלֵּא may mean ‘fill’ anywhere in the OT. And so in NT (πληροῦν chiefly): in the parable of the Drag-net (Matthew 13:48), the net is ‘filled’ with all kinds of fish; Matthew 23:32, ‘Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.’ More generally, however, the word bears its derivative sense, and has a theological application. Though rare in OT, the usage is quite common in NT, very noticeably, of fulfilled prophecy, in the First Gospel. A beginning of differentiation or specification is made in the NT in this respect, that while πληροῦν may mean ‘fill,’ the simpler but kindred form πιμπλάναι [others assume πλήθω as root form] never means ‘fulfil.’

A second metaphor underlies כָּלָה. This is probably still later theological language. It means specially the fulfilling of prediction. We find it in Ezra 1:1 = 2 Chronicles 36:22. According to Bertholet (on Ezr .c.; he refers to Daniel 12:7 also), ‘Fulfilment ranks simply as the of the prophetic word, which, once spoken, enters among the powers of the real world and gradually works itself out.’ This word and metaphor are also common in NT. Sometimes we have τελεῖν and cognates; though here again there is a tendency (less marked, however, than with πληροῦν in contrast to πιμπλάναι) to prefer a more specialized or technical term—τελειοῦν, τελείωσις. God’s work is by the prophetic word, but till the fact matches the promise.

A third term and metaphor are of some moment in OT, but scarcely enter into NT—הַקים, βεβαιοῦν. (God’s promise may seem to be tottering to its fall,—He will buttress it; support it). See Jeremiah 29:10, Isaiah 44:26, Romans 15:8; but in the Gospels only Mark 16:20 ‘confirming … with signs following.’ (How fully this is a synonym for מִלִּא we see when we note the usage of מִלא at 1 Kings 1:14). שִׁלּם, lit. ‘return’ or ‘reward,’ occurs by an extension of meaning at Isaiah 44:26; Isaiah 44:28 for ‘fulfil’; not imitated in NT. Also, as already implied, Authorized and Revised Versions sometimes introduces ‘fulfil’ or ‘be fulfilled’ where the original has merely ‘do’ or ‘be.’ And we cannot say that this is illegitimate. A very important passage is the last clause of Matthew 5:18 Authorized Version; but R^V^{[Note: Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885.]} ‘till all things be accomplished’ [to mark the contrast with πληρῶσαι, Matthew 5:17. See below—4.—on both verses.]

We have then to look chiefly to מִלּא, πληροῦν, while not forgetting other forms. And the question may be raised, whether the NT writers were alive to the implication of steady quantitative growth towards fulfilment? Or had the original suggestions of quantity and of continuousness passed away,—was there assumed a mere between the word and its fulfilment? (If one pours water into a vessel, it fills degrees. But if one is fitting together a ball-and-socket joint, the socket is empty at one moment, full at the next. The two correspond, but their correspondence is not reached by gradual growth). We shall have to distinguish in this as in other respects between different senses of πληροῦν (or its synonyms).

1. Fulfilment of time. Here, if anywhere, we may expect to find the ideas of continuity and gradualness. Now ‘fulfil’ is constantly used in the OT of the elapsing of a given time—alike in Hebrew, Greek, and English; or, in NT, alike in Greek and English. It is used of the period of a woman’s gestation (e.g. Genesis 25:24; πληρόω, LXX Septuagint; Luke 1:57; Luke 2:6—πιμπλάναι; Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘fulfilled’ in all 3 cases). There is no more striking or more frequently noted parable of

The slow sweet hours that bring us all things good,

The slow sad hours that bring us all things ill;

or sometimes, as George Eliot has expressed it in Adam Bede, of ‘swift hurrying shame,’ ‘the bitterest of life’s bitterness.’ But the word is also used of other measured times—of periods fixed by OT law (e.g. Luke 2:21-22, πιμπλάναι, Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘fulfilled’; cf. Leviticus 12:4, כָלִא (Qal); LXX Septuagint πληρόω). From such usages as these, we pass on to times of Divine fulfilment. ‘The fulness of the time came’ (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου), Galatians 4:4. And our Lord’s own message is summed up in Mark 1:15 : ‘The time is fulfilled (πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός) and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe in the gospel.’ (Probably secondary in comparison with Matthew 4:17, ‘Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’; yet thoroughly significant of Biblical and primitive Christian beliefs, cf. Isaiah 61:2, Luke 4:19). The idea is, that God has fixed a time, ‘His own good time,’ as our pious phrase runs. (Is that a misquotation of Isaiah 60:22? Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘in its time’; Authorized Version [same sense; archaic English] ‘in his time’). The number seventy (70 years of exile, Jeremiah 25:11 [Jeremiah 29:10], cf. Daniel 9:2; Daniel 9:24) was specially important for this conception of a fixed period Divinely appointed. Yet we have signs that the ‘time’ or its ‘fulness’ is not, for the Bible writers, mechanically predetermined. The eschatological discourse (Matthew 24:22 = Mark 13:20) tells us that the time of trouble, at the world’s end, shall be cut short out of mercy to God’s people. [Lk. omits, and inserts a reference to ‘times of the Gentiles’ which must be ‘fulfilled,’ Luke 21:24.] And it is possible that another popular religious phrase—the ‘hastening’ of God’s kingdom—may have Biblical warrant. It appears at Isaiah 60:22 [quoted above]. But when (as Marti advises) we refer back to Isaiah 5:19, we find that the word ‘hasten’ was introduced originally to express the temper of a sneerer—‘Let God hurry up, if He is really going to act [and not simply talk].’ So that ‘hasten,’ when used at Isaiah 60:22, may have come to mean no more than ‘fulfil.’ Cf. also Habakkuk 2:4; 2 Peter 3:4-9. Still, when the fulness of a Divinely appointed time is spoken of, all these qualifications drop out of sight. In some sense a period of time is Divinely ordained; and efflux time brings the day when God acts. Fulfilment of time is not indeed identical with fulfilment of God’s promise [or threat]. The first is a condition of the second. In regard to the first, at least, the quantitative sense of ‘fulfil’ is maintained in clear consciousness. (‘My time is not yet fulfilled,’ John 7:8 = ‘mine hour is not yet come,’ John 2:4).

2. Fulfilment of joy (πληρόω). Here again there is an ambiguity. When St. Paul says (Philippians 2:2) ‘Fulfil ye my joy,’ what does he mean? Is it (1) ‘Complete my happiness; unless I hear of your being thoroughly at one, I cannot be perfectly happy’? or (2) does he mean, ‘I have sacrificed many ordinary sources of happiness; give me this my chosen joy’? Authorities seem to prefer the first; perhaps, ‘complete the joy I already have in you.’ That is, ‘fulfilment’ of ‘joy’ is taken as a quantitative and continuous idea. Elsewhere the phrase is peculiarly Johannine (John 3:29; John 15:11; John 16:24; John 17:13, with 1 John 1:4, 2 John 1:12). The Baptist, e.g. (John 3:29), has his joy in full. He has all the joy he can expect. Yet there is more than this in the words. He has full joy—‘rejoiceth greatly.’ In the Johannine passages the two thoughts seem included: the joy (Christ’s joy, e.g.) is given; and what is given is a full joy. So prominent is the latter thought—the more quantitative—that one is tempted to regard Authorized Version ‘full’ as a better rendering, in regard to joy, than the more literal ‘fulfilled’ of Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885.

3. Fulfilment of prophecy or of Scripture or of Christ’s words (usually πληρόω, Matthew 1:22 and very often; Mark 15:28 [doubtful text]; Luke 1:20, John 12:38 and elsewhere. In Christ’s words, Matthew 26:54; Matthew 26:56 [a ‘doublet’] = Mark 14:49 [Luke 22:53 has not the word]; Luke 4:21; Luke 21:22; Luke 24:44; cf. Luke 9:31 ‘his decease’; Luke 21:24 ‘times of the Gentiles’; Luke 22:16 the Passover ‘fulfilled in the kingdom of God’; John 13:18; John 15:25 and elsewhere. But τελειόω, John 19:28. There is perhaps a slight difference in meaning—not the word of Scripture verified, but the terrible things spoken of in Scripture made actual—when we have τελέω at Luke 18:31; Luke 22:37. Purely in the sense of ‘fulfilment,’ perhaps, at John 19:28; John 19:30. συντελέω occurs Mark 13:4; the noun συντέλεια [τοῦ αἰῶνος ‘end of the world,’ (Revised Version margin) ‘consummation of the age’] in Mt.’s, Matthew 24:3, and also at Matthew 13:39-40, Matthew 28:20. [Hebrews 9:26, συντἑλεια τῶν αἱώνων ‘end of the ages,’ Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885; marg. ‘consummation’]. τελειόω [Authorized Version ‘finish,’ Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘accomplish’] is used in the Johannine discourses of Christ’s work [ἔργον, John 4:34; John 17:4] or works [John 5:36, cf. again John 19:30]). As far as the words rendered ‘fulfil’ are concerned, they are used in the same sense throughout; whether the fulfilment is of the past (the OT) in the present (Christ), or of the present (Christ’s words) in the (eschatological) future. And several Greek words are fairly represented by the same English meaning. Moreover, for a full index of the Scripture teaching we should need to include passages like Luke 24:25-27, where no word ‘fulfil’ occurs. (But we have it in Luke 24:44). This holds especially of the fulfilment of Christ’s own words. It is true, the word as well as the thought, occurs in the Fourth Gospel (John 18:9; John 18:32), but in the Synoptics the phrasing is different. The nearest approach is Mark 13:30 ||, ‘until all [these] things be accomplished (γένηται)—a difficult passage, discussed below (under ‘Fulfilment of law’). We must lay down, in general, that the NT thinks of fulfilment as occurring in detailed mechanical correspondence with the letter of prediction. God has said so-and-so, therefore it must happen exactly as was said. In John 19:28 it is difficult to take any other view of the Evangelist’s meaning than that Jesus exclaimed ‘I thirst,’ because the Passion psalms had spoken of the cruel thirst of the Sufferer. We must not, of course, exaggerate the simplicity of the Bible writers. A few verses earlier, where John 18:9 interprets Jesus’ protection of His disciples, at the moment of His own arrest, as the fulfilment of the word which He spake, ‘Of those whom thou hast given me I lost not one,’ the Evangelist knows perfectly, and trusts his readers to remember, that the true sense of Christ’s words belongs to a different region. In that one instance, at least, he is consciously accommodating, as we might do in quoting a line of Shakspeare. And there is more. The Evangelist discerns in Christ’s care for the disciples a type of the supreme spiritual transaction. Even outwardly, Christ saves others, while not saving but sacrificing Himself. Still, in general, the letter of the NT takes the letter of the OT as a magic book, foreshowing what must happen to Christ. Deeper views are no doubt latent in the NT, but they are nowhere formulated by it. They do not rise to the surface of consciousness in Evangelist or Apostle.

4. Fulfilment of law [and prophets?]. [Fulfilment generally?] The interpretation here raises very difficult questions, hardly to be settled without some critical surgery. First let us take what is simple; to ‘fulfil’ the Law is to obey it—τελεῖν—at Romans 2:27, James 2:8; or πληροῦν, Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8; Romans 13:10. (On these last, see below). Unambiguous, too, is ‘to fulfil all righteousness’ (πληρῶσαι, Matthew 3:15); and the saying may well be historical, though unsupported in the parallels. It fits the circumstances (see present writer’s paper on ‘Dawn of Messianic Consciousness’ in Expos. Times, 1905, p. 215), if perhaps tinged in expression with the Evangelist’s phraseology. But what of Matthew 5:17 (‘Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy but to fulfil’—πληρῶσαι)? (a) Much has been written on this subject since the present writer discussed the passage in Christ and the Jewish Law, 1886. Even more decidedly than then, he must insist that if Matthew 5:18—and especially if Matthew 5:19—is a genuine part of Christ’s discourse, we are shut up to understand ‘fulfil’ in the sense of ‘obey’ (so Cremer’s Lexicon, bracketing Matthew 5:17 with Matthew 3:15). But (b) the case for omitting Matthew 5:18—with its Pharisaic aspect, its at least seemingly exaggerated canonization of the whole letter of the Pentateuch—is being very strongly pressed to-day (e.g. Votaw, art. ‘Sermon on the Mount’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, Ext. Vol.). If Matthew 5:18 [some would say Matthew 5:18-19] be a gloss [or belong properly to a different context in a somewhat different form], we may render ‘not to destroy but to perfect the law,’—raising it to its ideal height of purity, and carrying it to its ideal depth of inwardness. This view probably holds the field at present. It goes well with Matthew 5:21, etc., where our Lord, in a series of brilliant paradoxes, sweeps away the mere letter of the OT [? or the legal glosses added to it by ‘scribes and Pharisees’ (Matthew 5:20)]. But there are difficulties. It is ‘hard’ to think that our Lord ever exercised the supposed conscious detailed intellectual criticism of the OT as such (so the late A. B. Davidson, in conversation with the present writer’s informant). And would He have called His paradoxes a ‘perfected’ law? They are at least as like a ‘destruction’ of the régime of law! Moreover, we have the reference to the ‘prophets.’ (c) When ‘fulfil’ is predicated of ‘prophecy,’ the sense is well known; the ‘prophets’ become the predominant partner in such a juxtaposition as ‘to fulfil law and prophets’; and we have to think of the OT’s moral lawgiving as a sort of type, fulfilled, when the word of the prophets is fulfilled, in Christ’s person. [Christ and the Jewish Law tried in a particular way to carry through this meaning of ‘fulfil’]. ‘Law and prophets’ repeatedly occur together in Christ’s words, esp. in Mt. (also at Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:40, Matthew 11:13 = Luke 16:16, cf. Luke 24:44). We can hardly doubt that our Lord Himself used the expression; and it is probable, too, that He used it as a general designation for the OT. Still, it is conceivable that the Evangelist has brought in the phrase here. A further measure of critical surgery would then dismiss (c), and leave the field so far to (a) and (b). But (d) we might raise a new possibility, either by exegesis, or if necessary by a minor form of critical excision. We might take Matthew 5:17 b either as spoken here in pure abstraction—‘I am not a destroyer but a fulfiller’—or as originally a separate logion worked into this context by the Evangelist.

In view of these rival interpretations one might turn for help to the Epistles. For, especially on ethical points, the teaching of Christ visibly moulds St. Paul’s inculcation again and again. And in this way we might learn how the earliest Church understood its Lord’s words. Galatians 5:14 and Romans 13:8-10 [see above], while their use of πληρόω suggests Matthew 5:17, refer in substance rather to Matthew 22:35-40 [Mark’s ||, (Mark 12:31) omits the very element which lives in the Epistles—love to God and man not only the chief duty but the whole of duty. In this case the Epistles decidedly support Mt.’s tradition. In Luke (Luke 10:27) we have an unwarranted suggestion that the scribes had already woven together Deuteronomy 6:5 with Leviticus 19:18. Thus Luke’s tradition here seems still less exact. On Christ’s originality in this matter, comp. Montefiore in Hibbert Journal, Apr. 1905]. Commentators seem to take Galatians 5:14—‘all the law is fulfilled (πληροῦται) in one word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’—as parallel not to Romans 13:9 (‘all the law is summed up—ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται—in Thou shalt love thy neighbour,’ etc.), but rather to Romans 13:8; Romans 13:10, ‘Love πεπλήρωκε—is the πλήρωμα of the law.’ St. Paul then takes fulfil = obey, as in (a), above. But does St. Paul’s language really support (a)? Is there not something more than obeying law in the Pauline thought of ‘fulfilment’ (Romans 8:4)? The requirement—δικαίωμα—of the Law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. The utmost we can say is that πληρόω, in the sense of ‘fulfil,’ had been given such currency in the Greek version of our Lord’s words that St. Paul instinctively weaves it in when he is quoting another passage. Thus, after all, the evidence of the Epistles as to the original meaning of Matthew 5:17 is neutral, or at any rate not decisive.

Summary.—In Matthew 5:17, then, Christ claims either (a) to render a perfect obedience to law, or (b) to perfect the moral lawgiving of the OT, or (c) to fulfil absolutely the ideals of the OT generally, or (d) to be in general a fulfiller rather than a destroyer. (a) is not without evidence in its support. (b) is perhaps most generally popular. (c) we are inclined to regard as due to the mistaken intrusion in Matthew 5:17 of [‘law] and prophets,’—words doubtless used by Christ (of the OT as a whole?) in other connexions. (d) was on the whole supported in the above discussion—if necessary, at the cost of regarding Matthew 5:17 b as by rights an independent logion. (We have not discussed the extravagant suggestion that there was no Sermon on the Mount in Christ’s ministry at all).

Matthew 5:18. We have quoted with sympathy a suggestion that this verse ought to he struck out of the context of Matthew 5. But there is no ground for denying that it represents one of the sayings of Jesus. We have Luke’s ||, Luke 16:17; and, besides that, all three Synoptics have a similar phrase in the eschatological chapter. There they coincide almost to a word—‘This generation shall not pass away till all [these] things be accomplished [γενηται]. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away’ (Matthew 24:34-35 = Mark 13:30-31 = Luke 21:32-33). This (as has often been pointed out) must surely be an alternative version of the logion Matthew 5:18. According to Matthew 5, Christ spoke of the perpetuity of the Law; according to Matthew 24, of the assured truth of His own words. We must note the presence of 3 corresponding clauses in each of the two passages: heaven and earth passing away—all things being accomplished—a Divine word not ‘passing away.’ In Matthew 5:18 the first two elements jar against each other. The same sentence contains two limits—two clauses each beginning ἓως ἃν. In that respect Matthew 24:34-35 shows to better advantage, and can advance the stronger claim to rank as the original. On the other hand, the verses in ch. 24 are themselves exceedingly difficult. It is no mere blind conservatism which hesitates to believe that our Lord pledged His supernatural knowledge for the conclusion of the world’s story within a generation. The words, as we have them, mean that and nothing else; and it is surely incredible that Jesus should have so erred. We do not deny that He may have expected the end shortly; there is at least a strong NT tradition, direct and indirect, that He did. We do say that He could not stake everything, with the very greatest emphasis, upon—a date! which besides was a mistaken date. B. W. Bacon’s solution is attractive—that the original logion referred to the word of God, but not specifically either to the OT law or to the Master’s own words, though different lines of tradition insisted on one or the other identification.

5. ‘Fulfilment’ in general.—Some individual passages. (a) Luke 1:1 speaks of the things ‘fulfilled’ among us (πεπληροφορημένων; perf. particip. from a derivative of πληρόω, or at least of πλήρης). The connexion with v. 4—‘the certainty of those things wherein,’ etc.—makes Authorized Version’s rendering tempting; ‘things … most surely believed.’ But authority favours the rendering ‘fulfilled.’ Not, however, in the sense of ‘Divinely fulfilled.’ In these, the most classical verses from St. Luke’s pen, we must look rather to classical models; and we should probably take ‘fulfilled’ as meaning ‘fully accomplished.’ So Holtzmann; or Adeney—‘Luke will record complete transactions, a finished story.’ Probably, therefore, there is nothing to be made of this passage. (b) In Luke 22:37 we read ( Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885), ‘This which is written must be fulfilled (τελεσθῆναι) in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors; for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment’ (τέλος ἔχει). Here there is room for difference of opinion. Holtzmann is respectful to the passage—a ‘valuable separate tradition of Luke’s,’—but doubts whether the individual verse is a genuine saying of the Lord’s. And he takes it as meaning merely that death, or the end, is hurrying near; on the analogy of Mark 3:26—Satan if divided against himself ‘hath an end.’ On the other hand, Adeney, like the Revisers (apparently), thinks that Divine fulfilment is pointed to here. It is an interesting possibility. We can hardly say more. (c) If the suggestion offered above—(d)—regarding Matthew 5:17 b should be adopted—if that were originally a separate logion, or if, at any rate, it was spoken quite in general—then the central Gospel passage on ‘fulfilment’ gives us a general point of view, in the Master’s own words.

Any of these individual passages, if such an interpretation as we have discussed is warrantable, centres round the idea of the fulfilment of prophecy; though Matthew 5:17 b would mean something broader or something profounder than what the letter of the NT generally attains to. It will be interesting if we can regard such broader and profounder teaching as coming directly from our Master.

Different senses of ‘fulfilment’ reviewed again. These do not to any great extent correspond to different Greek words. To fulfil joy is πληρόω (usually in the passive), to complete joy, but (sometimes at least, we thought) to give joy in its fulness. To fulfil time (again usually a passive) is also πληρόω, but might be the kindred πιμπλάναι, which is used even in NT in the less theological applications. The appointed time—whatever authority enacted it—is now full. To fulfil Scripture—or prophets’ words, etc.—is indifferently πληρόω (or cognates, possibly once πιμπλάναι, Luke 21:22 v.l.; and possibly, but not probably, once πληροφορέω, Luke 1:1; see above, 5), or τελέω (or cognate τελειόω; once τέλος ἔχειν); nor should we forget γίνομαι in construction. To fulfil law in the Epistles is τελέω or πληρόω. In the Gospels we have πληρόω in kindred applications—once, ‘to fulfil righteousness’; and once, in the great passage, as we were inclined to think, in a purely general sense, ‘to fulfil.’ But see above, 4. Cf. further in Epistles πληροφορέω, ‘to fulfil one’s ministry,’ 2 Timothy 4:5; ‘fully to proclaim the message,’ τὸ κήρυγμα, 2 Timothy 4:17.

Can we unify these leading senses? Probably not; probably not any two. They are, of course, connected, especially the first three. It is God who gives joy in fulness, God who ordains times, God who keeps His promise. At His own time His keeping of promise fills His people with joy. Nay more; the fourth sense is also near of kin. Christ, the fulfiller of all promises, is also, on any view of particular passages, the supreme pattern of obedience, and the author of new obedience in others. But the word ‘fulfil’ probably does not occur on the same ground in any two of the senses discriminated above. There is, in some cases, an idea of fulness as against half fulness (of time, or of joy; two different fulnesses, therefore). In others (prophecy, or law) there is a mere idea of correspondence—fulness against emptiness, so to speak—the act answering to the word (but answering it in two different ways).

Fulfilment: modern theological study. The central subject is fulfilment of prophecy. (It has also the most passages). Modern study of ‘Prophecy and Fulfilment’—title of a book by von Hofmann—brings out a truth which (unless possibly adumbrated in our Lord’s words, Matthew 5:17 b) is nowhere formulated in Scripture. Fulfilment is not only like what prediction expected, but is also in some ways different, because the prophets’ partial wisdom was not adequate to the full splendour of the fulfilment. Christ, in so far as He differs from the Messianic portrait of the OT, is not lesser but greater spiritually; He necessarily differs. It is true, some elements of the fulfilment are transferred to Christian eschatology. As yet they are unfinished things. But if the First Advent differed (for the better) from the letter of expectation, we may infer that there are symbolical or metaphorical elements in the prophetic pictures of the Second Advent and eschatology. All this, while not formulated in the NT, is learned by believing study of the phenomena of Scripture, and is our age’s proper contribution to the conception of fulfilment. The main lines of expectation fulfilled in Christ are perhaps three: (1) The hope of the Messianic King (Is 9 is the great passage)—most important, not because of its intrinsic spiritual depth (in that respect it did not stand very high), but from what we may call its dogmatic sharpness, and its emphasis in the NT age. It lent the Christian Church its first creed—viz. that ‘Jesus is Christ.’ It was fulfilled only through the transference of Christ’s royalty from temporal to exalted, or from present to future conditions. (2) There is the hope of God’s own coming to His people in person, Isaiah 40:10—and throughout Isaiah 40-55. This pointed strongly to Christ’s Godhead. (3) There is the type or ideal of the Suffering Servant, included in Isaiah 40-55 (also in Psalms 22 and others), chiefly at Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12. This teaching furnished Christian theology with its deepest elements. We can also now explain what amount of truth is conveyed by the idea of ‘double fulfilments.’ When the historical reference of a prophecy is to some lesser or earlier personage than Christ Jesus, yet if that person is important in the history of God’s purpose, the same principle may be fulfilled partially in him which is (ultimately) more perfectly fulfilled in Christ. Thus we may have a multiple, a repeated fulfilment of great principles; yet all pointing on to Christ as the grand or absolute Fulfiller. We do not affirm a great cryptogram, with designed artful ambiguity. The prophetic human speaker did not mean two (and just two) sets of events. He meant one event. But his words were capable of meaning many. And something in his spiritual messages corresponds to Christ more than to Christ’s forerunner. Again, individual or detailed fulfilments have their own subordinate place. Some indeed may be rather a play of pious fancy than a serious argument. The OT is full of plays upon words; and the NT citations of ‘I called my son out of Egypt,’ and of ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’ (Matthew 2:15; Matthew 2:23), are probably of this sort—things that carried more weight in Judaea long ago than they can possibly carry now. At times the resemblance to the OT is—innocently and unconsciously—filled out. The exact reproduction of Psalms 22:8, which we find at Matthew 27:43, is unknown to the earlier narrative of Mark. Where the matter is of some weight (e.g. probably the birth at Bethlehem), its chief importance is that it emphasizes or advertises the deeper analogies and correspondences in virtue of which Christ fulfils—and, may we say, transcends—the spirit or the religion of the OT; alike in Himself and in His gospel.

Literature.—See the Lexicons; also the following two articles, and the Commentaries. On Matthew 5:17, etc., see further the present writer’s Christ and the Jewish Law, 1886; works on the Sermon on the Mount (B. W. Bacon; Votaw, in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, Ext. Vol., and literature there quoted). On the fulfilment of prophecy, modern works by von Hofmann, Riehm (Muirhead’s translation), A. B. Davidson, Woods (The Hope of Israel), etc. On the eschatological discourse, Schwartzkopff’s Prophecies of Jesus Christ (English translation).

R. Mackintosh.

Bibliography Information
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Fulfilment'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/f/fulfilment.html. 1906-1918.

Bible Dictionaries Fulfilment

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Bible Dictionaries
Fulfilment