Ok we can take a look at that:
Accomplish, Accomplishment: "to fulfill, to complete, carry out to the full" (as well as to fill), is translated "perfect" in
Rev 3:2, AV; RV, "I have found no works of thine fulfilled before My God;" "accomplish" in
Luk 9:31. See
COMPLETE,
END,
EXPIRE,
FILL,
FULFILL,
FULL,
PREACH.
Note: Its strengthened form,
ekpleroo, "to fulfill," lit., "fill out," is used in
Act 13:33, of the fulfillment of a Divine promise of the resurrection of Christ. ((Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words see
G4137 πληρόω plēroō)
You might want to take another look at that, Matthew uses it throughout his Gospel to speak of fulfilled prophecy (Matt. 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, 8:15, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 26:54-56, Matt. 27:9, 27:35).
Brother Mark... as you are well aware I am sure, no word has one meaning. Both Thayer and Liddel-Scott (the latter is one of the most respected Greek lexicons ever) include as one possible definition of pleroo "to fulfil, i.e.
to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment." Not "fulfill" as in "there is no space left for any more" but rather fulfill in the sense of filling it up, doing it in it's FULLNESS, walking it out "as intended." Like I said before, if the common mainstream understanding is accurate (i.e. pleroo in Matthew 5:17 means done away with, abolish) then that verse literally contradicts itself. Therefore, we cannot use that definition even if that definition is the only one that happens to stand in harmony with our current understanding. That is where I was a decade ago... I realize my position pitted Scripture against Scripture and that isn't how it should be. I found an alternate meaning that stands in harmony not only with the rest of verse 17, but also verses 18 and 19 seeing they would also contradict the common mainstream definition of pleroo.
If you see it otherwise, that is fine brother, I really am not interested in cloning myself.
The difficulties with regards to the Law and the Gospel are as old as Christianity itself. The Jerusalem Council definitively settled the issue as a matter of doctrine, yet our scholars have been arguing over it ever since.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Will give me a 3-5 minutes of your time?
In the days of Messiah, there were TWO sects, two SCHOOLS of Pharisees. One was Beit Hillel (School of Hillel) and it had a slogan... "Spirit of the Law." The other was known as Beit Shamai, or, the School of Shamai. It also had a slogan, "letter of the law." Interestingly this is exactly where the argument that Paul presents between the "letter" and the "spirit" comes from. But, to a degree, I digress.
Hillel and Shamai engaged in a debate about proselytes. The argument hinged on what was expected of a new convert to Judaism. Hillel's position for the NEW convert, was that he should be expected to "abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." Sound familiar? That is "exactly" what came out of the Jerusalem Council. Shamai was more stringent, letter of the law... and his position was ALSO for a new convert to abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
BUT... he ADDED to that one needed to be circumcised AND recite all 613 commandments. Both men agreed that this was the "beginning of a new converts walk," and that they would learn the rest as they moved forward. Shamai's position was accepted as Halacha (Jewish law) and that was the rule of the day during the time of the Apostles.
So when we come to Acts 15 we read in verse 1, "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said,
Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." From this, and from understanding that Christianity at THIS TIME was still considered a sect of Judaism... we can discern that these "certain men" were adherents of Shamai. So, Paul and Barnabas get rightly angered, come back and they have the council meeting.
What happened there? Was ALL doctrine set for gentiles? Of course not... show me "love God" or "love neighbor" or "don't kill" or "refrain from same sex relations." The Acts 15 letter was NOT meant to be the end of the line in terms of doctrine, it was meant to be the starting line. It undid a BAD 50 year old decision and it said, and I am paraphrasing, "do these few things that will set you apart from your pagan brethren and then learn the rest as you go." Remember what came immediately after the letter? Here it is in some context...
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is,
that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them,
that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) F
or Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Don't put too much on them, don't trouble them too much... do these 4 things (two of which modern Christians pay no mind to by the way) and then it says that Moses, an idiomatic reference to Torah (instructions of God) is read every week in the synagogues on the Sabbath. In other words, start with these 4 and then go learn the rest.
