The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum "fullfill" in Matthew 5:17

I have question that I hope someone can answer. I remember reading somewhere that Bahnsen stated that Pleroo ( "fullfill") in Matthew 5:17 should be rendered as "confirm". If this is true, on what basis can he do this? All the lexicons that I've searched so far gives Pleroo no such meaning. I've searched the New testament Greek lexicon from Crosswalk.com and the Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon online, and a few others. Maybe I'm missing something. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]. <br><br><br>in Christ, <br>Carlos

Hi Carlos,<br><br>Are you sure that was his argument, i.e., that lexically speaking pleirow should be rendered "confirm"? In what writing did you see this?<br><br>The BDAG comments:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Mt 5:17; depending on how one prefers to interpret the context, pleirow is understood here either as fulfill=do, carry out, or as bring to full expression=show it forth in its true mng., or as fill up=complete.</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>Regards,<br><br>~Jason<br>

Hello again Carlos,<br><br>Well, I found some discussion about this from "No Other Standard".<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]In the first place, as a student of the New Testament, I would be happy to translate Plarosai in Matthew 5:17 simply as “to fulfill.” The immediate question arises, however, “In what sense did Christ fulfill the law?” Thus, we are forced to offer a precising definition of the Greek word involved...So I claim that Plarosai teaches that “He came to confirm and restore the full measure, intent, and purpose of the Older Testamental law.” (No Other Standard, pg 277)</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Regards,<br><br>~Jason<br>

Hi Jason,<br><br>All I meant to say is that to my knowledge he argued that it can take the meaning of "confirm". As far as his specific argumentation of it, I do not know. See below for where I got the info. If I'm wrong about this I will apololgize and keep quiet. But if not, then how can the word pleroo ever take on such a meaning?<br>I hope that clarifies what I am saying. The place where I found the info is :<br>Judicial Warfare<br><blockquote><br> Greg Bahnsen’s claim that plerosai, which is translated “fulfill” in the King James Version, should instead be translated “establish” or “confirm”(10) is disproved by how this word is used elsewhere in the New Testament. In Mark 1:15, we find Jesus’ first recorded words in the preaching of the Kingdom: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel.” Here, the word pleroo clearly means that the time of anticipation was over and that the prophesied Kingdom was then being revealed. Bahnsen’s definition of pleroo as “to establish” would render this proclamation nonsensical. Likewise, in Luke 21:24, we read that “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” We must interpret this as “until the times of the Gentiles be completed,” not “until the times of the Gentiles be established.”<br></blockquote><br><br>And in another place someone quoted him as saying "<br><blockquote><br>Indeed when we examine his responses to the examples I have <br>provided where pleroo could be translated "confirm"…we find basically <br>the same thing. (His previous sentence concluded [that the] reasons <br>Poythress offers are really nothing more than quibbles) He does not <br>demonstrate that this translation cannot be correct, but simply <br>offers his own reasons for taking the word in a slightly different <br>way." (No Other Standard p. 320 n. 32) </blockquote><br><br>thanks,<br>Carlos<br>

No need to apologize or keep quiet, the only thing I wanted to understand was the context of the remark, which indeed goes further than a simple lexical definition. If you want to understand the linguistic support for his interpretation, I think the best thing to do would be to read a few pages from this link to No Other Standard. Go to page 317 (which is HTML page 321 in the window to the left) and read his section on the fulfillment of the law in Matthew 5:17.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>~Jason<br>

Hi Jason,<br><br>Thanks for the quotation and for the link to the book. Hopefully I will get chance to look at it later. In the meanwhile, I do disagree with his statement “[color:blue]So I claim that Plarosai teaches that “He came to confirm and restore the full measure, intent, and purpose of the Older Testamental law</font color=blue>.” I believe that in the book of Matthew, “fullfill”, which is used about 16 times, means much more than simply “to confirm and restore the full measure....”. I believe all those scriptures where it is used point to “accomplished” or “to bring to pass” the promises and prophecies, the purpose of the law, etc. In addition, Luke 24:44, which is similar passages seems to confirm this, no pun intended. Luke 24:44 states, "Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be <span style="background-color:yellow;">fulfilled</span>." The same can be said of of Matthew 26:54, which states, “How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen this way”. <br><br>in Christ,<br>Carlos<br>

Hi Carlos,<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] In the meanwhile, I do disagree with his statement "So I claim that Plarosai teaches that "He came to confirm and restore the full measure, intent, and purpose of the Older Testamental law. I believe that in the book of Matthew, "fullfill", which is used about 16 times, means much more than simply "to confirm and restore the full measure....". I believe all those scriptures where it is used point to "accomplished" or "to bring to pass" the promises and prophecies, the purpose of the law, etc</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I have not done a survey of pleirow in the Book of Matthew, and I am not an expert on Bahnsen's exegesis of this passage, however I do remember a couple of points to his argument as to why this is not a reference to the promises and prophecies. If you take a look at the context, Matthew 5:16 is talking about good works. After the verse in question, Jesus proceeds to talk about breaking commandments, and how our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, citing particular commandments such as murder, adultery, giving oaths, "an eye for eye", etc. These are not dealing with the fulfillment of prophecies, rather with the fulfillment of moral stipulations. This is important because He is blasting the Pharisees for their own twisted instruction on these virtues, but Jesus affirms the abiding continuity of these laws while correcting the Pharasaic distortions, and hence confirming and restoring the moral law to a full measure.<br><br>As a side note, when the Westminster Confession affirms the following about the Law of God:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>It gives as a proof text to my emphasized point Matthew 5:17-19. Hence the Westminster Assembly did not see this text as teaching a fulfillment in the way of abrogation, but in confirmation.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Hence the Westminster Assembly did not see this text as teaching a fulfillment in the way of abrogation, but in confirmation.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I'm quite sure that Carlos is not arguing for a meaning of "fulfill" as an abrogation of the law, (I'm sure Carlos will affirm this! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img] ), but rather that Christ was going far beyond "affirmation", i.e., He was first re-establishing the moral law (not civil as Bahsen would have us believe), i.e., confirming the perpetuity of the moral law but much more establishing Himself as the perfect "Law-doer"; as the second Adam and representative of those for whom He came to redeem. Thus, as Matthew shows in his recording of Christ's teachings, He sets forth the depth and spirituality of the moral law in contradistinction to the corrupted teaching of the law as was taught by the Pharisees and the tradition that was handed down to them over many generations.<br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I'm quite sure that Carlos is not arguing for a meaning of "fulfill" as an abrogation of the law, (I'm sure Carlos will affirm this! )</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yes, I believe Carlos would too, and that's why I thought it was relevant to point out that Christ confirms the perpetuity of the law and the prophets here, for if this is the case then it is not referring to Christ "accomplishing" (and thereby bringing to completion) the promises and prophecies (typology, ceremonial law, etc.), which is how I understood Carlos' interpretation. If that is not what Carlos meant, then I don't grasp the nuance by which he is distinguishing himself from Bahnsen's precising definition.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Christ was going far beyond "affirmation", i.e., He was first re-establishing the moral law (not civil as Bahsen would have us believe), i.e., confirming the perpetuity of the moral law but much more establishing Himself as the perfect "Law-doer"; as the second Adam and representative of those for whom He came to redeem. Thus, as Matthew shows in his recording of Christ's teachings, He sets forth the depth and spirituality of the moral law in contradistinction to the corrupted teaching of the law as was taught by the Pharisees and the tradition that was handed down to them over many generations. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I agree in substance with most of that. You know about one difference and I won't elaborate on it out of respect for your previous request not to bring up that topic. As far as Christ establishing Himself as the perfect "Law-doer", of course I have no problems with that theologically speaking, but I only see this passage as contributing to that indirectly and not explicitly. Thus, I see the text primarily in terms of your first and third point, that Christ confirms the perpetuity of the moral law, setting forth its depth and spirituality in contradistinction to the distorted teachings of the Pharisees.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>