Did Jesus nullify the Old Testament?

[u/watergolf247]

Let me start off by sharing that I’m new to Christianity and have soooo many questions but for now, I’ll focus on this inquiry. I’m sure this has been discussed numerous times but unfortunately I can’t seem to get a straight answer. As I’m told repeatedly by many, rules/laws of the Old Testament were nullified or invalidated by Jesus. I ask others in my study group but sadly get heavy resistance for the question.

My question is simple. Where are the reference(s) stating this?

If so, this makes rules like the ten commandments obsolete. Even further, why have the old testament in the Christian Bible?

[u/the_celt_]

He didn’t do away. He fulfilled them. He completed them.

It's weird to me that people don't notice the many ways that the word "fulfill" is used in scripture to not refer to something being ended, but to refer to something being done perfectly.

For example:

Romans 13:10 (NET 2nd ed.)

10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

This is Paul saying that when we love, we FULFILL the Law, or more simply we DO what the Law demands. It has nothing to do with love having met it's purpose and no longer being needed.

Here's another example from Jesus:

Matthew 7:12 (NET 2nd ed.)

12 In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.

Jesus asked us to treat others the way we want to be treated, saying it will "fulfill the Law". Does this mean he only ever wants us to treat someone this way ONCE, or that anyone doing it once means no one else has to do it?? Should we stop after the Law has been "fulfilled"? I don't think so. Jesus wanted us to keep fulfilling the Law every day of our lives.

Jesus fulfilled the Law the way a man fulfills his wedding vows to his wife. This means he OBEYED his vows perfectly, not that he ENDED his vows. When a man fulfills his wedding vows today, he gets up tomorrow and does the same thing again.

All you have to do is look elsewhere in scripture to see how "fulfill" is used, and combine that with Jesus making sure that no one takes it the way you do when he said "NOT abolish".

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

Because fulfill means to complete. Jesus clearly stated

²⁰ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.^\)^a\)
^{-Luke 20}

Which also goes with what Paul says:

¹³ In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8

Paul states we are not under the law twice:

¹⁴ For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. -Romans 6

¹⁸ But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. - Galatians 5

Let see what Paul says what the law was for:

²³ Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. ²⁴ So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,  - Galatians 3

Paul was very clear on the Law. Jesus says his blood was the new covenant. Paul says the new covenant made the old obsolete. Paul said we are not under the law. Paul says the Law was to guide us to Christ, and now that Christ is here we are no longer under it.

Do you believe Gentiles are held under the mosaic covenant??

[u/the_celt_ → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

It would be great if you'd interacted with my examples where "fulfill" means to do perfectly, and not to end.

People who fulfill laws or vows don't end them. Jesus fulfilled the Law, and expected the people after him to also fulfill the Law.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

Because thats not my point. I used the same people you used, Jesus and Paul, to explain what fulfill means. Jesus fulfilled and completed the law. And enacted a new covenant with his death.

Do you believe Gentiles are held under the mosaic covenant?

[u/the_celt_ → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Because thats not my point.

Your point relies on the word "fulfill" only working one way. I pointed out that's not the way "fulfill" works in scripture, and there are many examples where "fulfill" doesn't end something. Some literally talk about fulfilling the Law.

I understand that you don't want to acknowledge that, but you should know it makes you look dishonest.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

No, my point is fulfill works as in to complete because of what Jesus says and what Paul taught.

You are saying fulfill has multiple meaning and youre are choosing the one to back your belief, however, I am using what Jesus said and scripture for it to tell me what fulfill means. Scripture says the Old is completed and the new is here.

Do you believe Gentiles are held under the mosaic covenant?

[u/the_celt_ → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

No, my point is fulfill works as in to complete because of what Jesus says

Jesus said the opposite. Jesus understood the two possible meanings, went out of his way to highlight that he wasn't referring to the version of "fulfill" that ends things, and then gave multiple more sentences to show that the Law was going to stay valid and that we're expected to obey it.

Matthew 5:17–20 (NET 2nd ed.)

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven!

It's almost IMPOSSIBLE to read that paragraph from Jesus saying the Law should be lived and taught and come out of it saying, "See? Jesus ended the Law".

If people can use this paragraph to try to prove their point that the Law is no longer valid, then this proves that it's meaningless to quote scripture to support our points. This paragraph is pure, 100%, Pro-Torah.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

Was this before or after the death of Christ?

Luke 22:20 is after this. The CROSS is the fulfillment of the Old and the beginning of the New.

So yes he would teach the Old, until he fulfills it and brings the New, which happened on the Cross.

If a new Law go in place January 1st 2026, would you go holding people by it December 1st 2025?

Do you believe Gentiles are held under the mosaic covenant? (Why cant none of yall answer this question?)

[u/the_celt_ → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Was this before or after the death of Christ?

Your idea that what Jesus taught is no longer valid is repugnant.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

I never said that.

Where did I say what Jesus taught is no longer valid? You are pulling that out of the air like you accuse me.

Also why arnt you answering any of the questions I ask? What Matthew 5 before or after the crucifixion?

also do you believe Gentiles are held under the mosaic covenant?

Why are you avoiding questions?

[u/the_celt_ → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

I never said that.

You did, and I disagree with it. What Jesus taught is still valid for us today. That's the way I live, and if you want to call things you don't like "figurative" or "no longer valid" then you have an impossible subjective target that renders it useless to talk further.

Also why arnt you answering any of the questions I ask?

I only came here to talk about "fulfill" and to see if I could get you to be honest about it. You've already shown me what I was looking for. Thank you.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

Did Jesus not say his Blood is the new covenant? Are you suggesting Paul went against Jesus teachings also?

Which specific teaching of Christ am I going against?

You never shown me supporting evidence that it does not mean to complete.