Matthew 5:48

Thanks Guest,

This is still interesting to me.  Even had the wording been changed in the bible to complete or mature, that is different than having to be perfect.

purps

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/themissionary.asp?FROM=biblecenter

Purps, Chick is a baaad place to be getting info from, generally speaking.

BTS

ok, thanks for the heads up BTS.

purps

I got this from a blog

http://castleofnutshells.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/blind-comparisonkind-of-matthew-548/

another translation,

Oh, this is a subject I know a little about.  The prediction that those who follow Jesus "will be perfect" (esesthe teleioi) in Matthew 5:48 expresses the promise of attaining righteousness through steadfast obedience to the Law.  This incorporates a technical term widely used in the Second Temple period to refer to faithful observance of the Law.  The command that Jesus gives borrows its language from two commandments from the Torah:

Leviticus 19:2 LXX: "You shall be holy (hagioi esesthe), for I the Lord your God am holy (hagios)".

Deuteronomy 18:13 LXX: "You shall be perfect (teleios esé) before the Lord your God".

Matthew 5:48: "Then you shall be yourselves (esesthe humeis) perfect (teleioi), just as your Father in heaven is perfect (teleios esti)".

Both passages being paraphrased in Matthew 5:48 refer to observance of the Law.  In the case of Leviticus 19:2, it occurs at the beginning of a long series of commandments (including the admonishment to "love your neighbor as yourself" in v. 18 that Jesus quotes in Matthew 22:26-40 as part of the "greatest commandment of the Law"), a series that ends with the similar injuction: "Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them" (v. 37).  Deuteronomy 18:13 similarly occurs at the end of a series of commandments forbidding "the detestable ways of the nations".  In the case of Matthew 5:48, it occurs at the end of a series of halakha on the Law (v. 17-48), that gives interpretations of the Torah in typical rabbinical fashion (i.e. "You have heard" or "It is said" introducing a quotation of the Law in v. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43, and "but I tell you" giving the rabbi's interpretation of the commandment in v. 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44).  The combination of Leviticus with Deuteronomy in Matthew 5:48 is fitting since the first three halakhic interpretations in the chapter give commentary on three commandments from Deuteronomy (v. 21 = Deuteronomy 5:17, v. 22 = Deuteronomy 5:18, v. 31 = Deuteronomy 24:1), while the second three interpretations give commentary on three commandments from Leviticus (v. 33 = Leviticus 19:12, v. 38 = Leviticus 24:20, v. 43 = Leviticus 19:18).  All of this follows the lengthy admonishment to fulfill the entire Law in v. 17-20: "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.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law untill everything is accomplished.  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven".  This Jewish-Christian view of the Law is closer to that attributed to Peter in postbiblical tradition than that expressed by Paul in his letters, e.g. "For we say that he is a worshipper of God who does the will of God and observes the precepts of his Law ... he who, believing in God, fulfills his Law and does his will, though he is not circumcised" (Kerygmata Petrou, Rec. 5.34).  There is an inner-Christian polemic in Matthew 5:17-20, as it criticizes those Christians who do not practice the Law and who teach others to ignore even the least of the commandments.  The same inner-Christian polemic reoccurs in 7:15-23 which condemns those who are content to call Jesus "Lord" and who perform charismatic works but who do not "do the will of God" (v. 21). 

"Perfect" is a valid translation of teleios but it can be misleading since this word has different meanings in English.  The older sense of "perfect", which is still widely used today, is perfection in the sense of completeness, of being finished and needing nothing to be added in order to accomplish one's purpose.  We would use this sense, for example, in saying that a device is perfect for a particular function, or has been perfected for a particular function, i.e. being apt and suitable without lacking anything.  Perfection is here defined on one's own merits or abilities or characteristics.  But the word is also used to express a superlative sense of being "most excellent" compared to others, of being not just apt but the best possible.  This sense is largely outside the scope of Greek teleios and since Matthew 5:48 compares human perfection with that of God, it is certainly misleading unless it is understood in a technical sense.  The idea in this passage is definitely not that humans will attain the same level of perfection and holiness as God; what it refers to is the attainment of righteousness in following the Law, just as God himself is righteous on his own accord.  It doesn't construe perfection in an abstract or superlatively ideal sense, as if a person could be sinless or without error.  It means that through Jesus a person may finally be able to follow the Law completely as it was originally intended.  Thus the term teleios ("being complete, finished") is related to the word plerósai "to fulfill, bring to a completion" in 5:17.  The idea is probably that the halakha given by Jesus in ch. 5-7 (and elsewhere in his teaching) brings out the true meaning of the Law and shows how it is to be properly observed -- bringing about an increase of righteousness beyond that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law (v. 20).  In particular, Jesus teaches that love is the central principle behind the Law and that a person guided by love will be able to attain the righteousness that others fail to attain, cf. the woes against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 who as hypocrites "do not practice what they preach" by failing to show love for neighbor, even though they teach the Law correctly and authoritatively.  Ideally a person should practice "the most important matters of the law, justice, mercy and faithfulness, without neglecting" the lesser commandments (23:23), such that one should obey (térein) the teachers of the Law "and do everything they tell you, but do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach" (23:2-3). 

It is important to note that the term teleios is used in this way in another passage in the gospel:

Matthew 19:16-22: "Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, 'Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?' 'Why do you ask me about what is good?' Jesus replied. 'There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments (téreson tas entolas).' 'Which ones?' the man inquired. Jesus replied, ' "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother," and "love your neighbor as yourself." '  'All these I have kept,' the young man said. 'What do I still lack (ti eti husteró)?' Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect (ei theleis teleios einai), go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.' When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth".

Here perfection is the absence of a lack in righteousness by acting above and beyond what is specifically prescribed in the Law.  The youth has obeyed individual commandments without fully realizing his complete potential in righteousness, which can only be done by renouncing his possessions and showing genuine love for his neighbor (for if you love completely, no more can be asked).  Short of doing that, he still has room to grow in righteousness.  Perfection is thus achieved through spiritual maturity, cf. 1 Corinthians 14:20: "Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking become perfect (teleioi ginesthe)", i.e. become fully mature.  This is how the term was used at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  In the Community Rule, initiates in the community were distinguished from converts who may not yet have attained perfection in their works:

1QS 1:11-14, 5:20-24, 8:1-2, 9:7-11: "All who volunteer for his truth are to bring the full measure of their knowledge, strength, and wealth into the community of God.  Thus will they purify their knowledge in the verity of God's laws, properly exercise their strength according to the perfection of his ways, and likewise their wealth by the canon of his righteous counsel.  They are not to deviate in the smallest detail from any of God's words as these apply to their own time...When anyone enters the covenant to live in compliance with all these ordinances, to enroll in the assembly of holiness, they shall investigate his spiritual qualities in the community, each member taking part.  They shall investigate his understanding and works with respect to the Law, guided both by the sons of Aaron, who have jointly volunteered to uphold his covenant and to observe all the ordinances that he commanded them to execute, and by the majority of Israel, who have volunteered to return as a community to his covenant.  They are to be enrolled by rank, one man higher than his fellow, as the case may be, by virtue of his understanding and works.  Thus each will obey his fellow, the junior obeying his senior.  They shall examine spiritual qualities and works annually, promoting a man because of his understanding and perfection of walk, or demoting him because of his failings.  One should reproach one another in truth, in meekness, and in compassionate love for one's fellow man.... In the community council there shall be twelve men and three priests, perfect in everything that has been revealed of the Law to implement truth, justice, judgment, compassionate love and unassuming behavior of one to another.... Only the sons of Aaron will have authority in the matter of judgment and of goods, and their work will settle the lost of all provision for the men of the community and the goods of the men of holiness who walk in perfection.  Their goods must not be mixed with the goods of the men of deceit who have not cleansed their path to separate from injustice and walk in a perfect manner.  They should not depart from any counsel of the Law in order to walk in complete stubbornness of their heart, but instead shall be ruled by the first directives which the men of the community began to be taught until the prophet comes, and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel".

It is also worth looking at how the term is used in the Didache, an early Christian catechism for gentiles that comes from the same Jewish-Christian milieu as Matthew.  This work similarly distinguishes those who are perfect and those less mature who only "do what they can":

Didache 6:1-3, 16:2: "See that no one leads you astray from this way of the teaching, for such a person teaches you without regard for God.  For if you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord (ei dunasai bastasai holon ton zugon tou kuriou), you will be perfect (teleios esé).  But if you are not able (ou dunasai), then do what you can (ho duné touto poiei).  Concerning food, bear what you are able (ho dunasai bastason), but in any case keep strictly away from meat sacrificed to idols... Gather together frequently, seeking the things that benefit your souls, for all the time you have believed will be of no use to you if you are not found perfect (ean mé teleióthéte) in the last time".

In rabbinical texts, the Torah is referred to as the "yoke of the Law", the "yoke of the kingdom of heaven", and the "yoke of God" (cf. m. Abot 3:5-6, b. Sanhedrin 94b, b. Berakot 13a, t. Sotah 14:4), and the same is the case with Second Temple literature.  The Psalms of Solomon 7:9-10 says that "we are under your yoke forever and under the whip of your discipline, you will direct us in the time of your support", and 2 Baruch similarly refers to "many of your people who separated themselves from your statutes and who have cast away from them the yoke of your Law" (41:3).  In his polemic against the Law, Paul refers to the Law as a "yoke of slavery" (zugó douleias) in Galatians 5:1, and Barnabas 2:6 similarly rejects the Law as a "yoke of necessity" (zugos anagkés).  Most interestingly, the Law is referred to as a "yoke which we have been able to bear" (zugon hon iskhusamen bastasai) in Acts 15:10, and the decree in v. 28 recommends that the apostles "lay upon you [gentile converts] no greater burden (baros) than these necessary things", which include a forbidding of eating meat sacrified to idols.  This is very similar to what is said in Didache 6:1-3, which recommends that gentiles "do what you can" if you are not able to "bear the whole yoke of the Lord" but who must abstain from meat sacrificed to idols.  What is interesting is that the Didache more faithfully represents the Jewish-Christian point of view: gentiles who do not bear the whole yoke of the Law cannot be "perfect" and thus are spiritually less mature than those who follow the Law.  This reflects the way gentile God-fearers were regarded in Judaism, that they may attend synagogue and adopt Jewish ways, but unless they bear the whole yoke of the Law (which includes circumcision), they are still ritually separate and not full members of the community.  The perspective in Acts is closer to that of Paul, who accepted gentiles as full members of the church even if they do not follow the commandments of the Law, but who still behave above and beyond the Law in terms of displaying love of neighbor (in other words, the Law has become for Paul essentially irrelevant).  From the point of view of the Didache, this was not acceptable because eventually at the last time, all who were to be saved need to be found "perfect", and perfection requires one to bear the whole yoke of God and not just the minimum.  And from the point of view of Matthew, this also was not acceptable because the lesser commandments were not to be neglected and one should not teach others to not observe the lesser commandments (5:17-20, 23:2-3, 23).  This was the essence of the conflict between Peter and Paul in Galatians; whereas Peter under the influence of James observed ritual separation from certain gentiles, Paul insisted that there were no divisions whatsoever in Jesus (2:11-14, 3:26-29).  It was therefore possible in Paul for a Christian to be "perfect" (spiritually mature) and not follow the Law per se, as long as consistent and conscientious love for neighbor was shown.  The issue of meat sacrificed to idols is an interesting example of the difference between Paul and the Jewish-Christian view found in Matthew (which looks to Peter in particular as having halakhic authority in 16:18-19; cf. 18:18 and the halakhic connotation of "binding" and "loosing" in rabbinical literature) and the Didache.  In the Didache, the reason why meat sacrified to idols was forbidden was that it "involves the worship of dead gods" (6:3), i.e. idolatry.  This is an allusion to Numbers 25:1-18, the same incident involving Balaam at Baal-Peor that is alluded to in Revelation 2:14 in its condemnation of meat sacrified to idols (cf. Psalm 106:28: "They yoked themselves to Baal of Peor and ate sacrifices offered to dead gods").  The argument in Paul however is quite different.  Eating meat sacrificed to idols is not forbidden at all and one is provisionally free to do so if he or she is spiritually mature and realizes that idols are nothing, "we are no worse off if we do not eat and no better if we do" (1 Corinthians 8:4, 8).  But Paul advised his brothers to "be careful that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak" (v. 9).  For he realized that in the congregation there were brothers with "weak consciences" who still thought of the meat "as having been sacrificed to an idol" (v. 7), and who would be stumbled to see "you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple" (v. 10).  Paul therefore dispenses with a blanket forbidding of meat sacrificed to idols on account of it being idolatrous (and thereby breaking a commandment of the Law), and instead used love for neighbor as the guiding principle (v. 2), for "when you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ" (v. 12). 

Thanks heaps Leo,

I was hoping you would have what I wanted/needed.

I appreciate it very much,

Leslie

Hi, purplesofa.

from the Bible Basic English

Wesley's notes on the bible

Scofield Reference Notes

Peoples New Testament

Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary

Leolaia and others have done a thorough job here. Maybe I can add just a little more.

Based on the context from vs. 43-48 (and even back to v. 38), a characteristic of this "perfection" or maturity is the practice of graciousness. Jesus uses the Father as the model:

In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.

Jesus says the Father does not discriminate in his provision, supplying what is needed for life to both the righteous and unrighteous. Jesus calls on his disciples to follow the Father’s example and be gracious to all others, regardless of their behavior toward the disciples.

It is normal to extend kindness to friends and family, and even beyond to those whom we are comfortable with and accept into our world. For that, we receive signs of appreciation, we get affirmation, and maybe even kindness reciprocated. We receive a reward of some kind, even if only psychological, in the here-and-now. This was true for his listeners as it is for us. But as he often does, Jesus here challenges his disciples to distinguish themselves by going beyond the normal—beyond what even a "good" person would do. Jesus countered the conventional wisdom and even teaching that would shake its head at doing anything benefiting someone who would mistreat or persecute the disciple. Jesus calls on the disciple to be gracious simply for the sake of being gracious—graciousness is part of this person’s nature that would normally show in any interaction.

Maybe this perfection, maturity, or completeness is manifested in not relying on the short-term material or psychological rewards of limited grace. Out of his completeness, the disciple is free to extend acts of grace to anyone independent of any reinforcing behavior from the beneficiaries. Whatever the rewards actually are, they come from outside the situation.

I also think this is consistent with the theme of what constitutes blessedness that Jesus spoke of at the beginning of the Beatitudes.

Hey possible-san

Why did you delete your post?

purps

The original Greek text says -na iste telioi(perfect)osper o patir mas en tis ouranois telios estin. Be perfect like our father in heavens is perfect.

This is the goal for each Christian. To be perfect, to have a holy life, and immitate God's perfect qualities

hi purps

here is another slant from

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=22&lexicon=true&strongs=G5046

It will be seen that there is a certain ambiguity in our word ‘perfect,’ which, indeed, it shares with t??e??? itself; this, namely, that they are both employed now in a relative, now in an absolute sense; for only so could our Lord have said, “Be ye therefore perfect (t??e???), as your Heavenly Father is perfect” (t??e???), Matt. 5:48; cf. 19:21. The Christian shall be ‘perfect,’ yet not in the sense in which some of the sects preach the doctrine of perfection, who, as soon as their words are looked into, are found either to mean nothing which they could not have expressed by a word less liable to misunderstanding; or to mean something which no man in this life shall attain, and which he who affirms he has attained is deceiving himself, or others, or both. The faithful man shall be ‘perfect,’ that is, aiming by the grace of God to be fully furnished and firmly established in the knowledge and practice of the things of God (Jam. 3:2; Col. 4:12: t??e??? ?a? pep????f???µ????); not a babe in Christ to the end, ‘not always employed in the elements, and infant propositions and practices of religion, but doing noble actions, well skilled in the deepest mysteries of faith and holiness.’¹ In this sense St. Paul claimed to be t??e???, even while almost in the same breath he disclaimed the being tete?e??µ???? (Phil. 3:12, 15).

Eckharte Tolle does have a point imo but in a non scholarly way. It seems to me that he isn't trying to be a christian and is more of a buddhist but welcomes both.  Philosophically he is Hegelian.  Hegel defined some concepts (especially the one Tolle is based on) that were/are very widely accepted by learned christians and scholarly philosophers.  I wouldn't dismiss what he has to say if it benefits you.

I knew there was something I did not agree with about Tolle and it is this, from The Power of Now, page 102

"Already for most humans, the only respite they find from their own minds is to occasionally revert to a level of consciousness below thought...this also happens to some extent through sex, alcolol, and other drugs that suppress excessive mind activity.  If it weren't for alcohol, tranquilizers, antidepressants, as well as illegal drugs, which are all consumed in vast quantites, the insanity of the human mind would become even more glaringly obvious than it is already. I believe that if deprived of their drugs a large part of the population would become a danger to themselves and others.  These drugs of course, simply keep you stuck in dysfunction.  Their widespread use only delays the breakdown of the old mind structures and the emergence of higher consciousness.  While individual users may get some relief from the daily torture inflicted on them by their minds, they are prevented from generating enough conscious presence to rise above thought and so find true liberation."

To me the above sounds very sweeping and irresponsible.  I don't agree with his dismissal of  medically supervised drugs as standing in the way of true liberation.  I think he does have some useful thoughts about meditation but needs to be appproached in a critical way and not taken as an authority. 

Sorry about going off point here purps.

ql

Sorry.

Since there was no reaction of yours, I inferred that you did not need my information.
Then, I deleted it.

I am a person who thinks it important to convey the "words of appreciation" to the person who gave information.

If you need the information which I showed, I put up that information here once again.

possible
http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/

Ah, so if I'm a pedophile I should rejoice and continue ... hmmmm think that'll hold in court?

RR