How Can You and i be Perfect?

[Socrates4Jesus]

How do i know what He meant by these words? I suppose i would know the same way i know what any author writes. Let me use an example:

Lets say i never read or heard someone quote Shakespeare. Lets also say i read a commentary on his *Hamlet *that states that the character of Hamlet in that play never considered committing suicide. Lets say several Catholics tell me this is true, for they read that commentator’s work and believe what he said. They have read Hamlet too, they tell me, though they cannot quote any of it word for word, and found nothing that might be construed as suicidal in the words of Hamlet.

Then along comes a Lutheran who says with a smile, they’re all deceived. Read act 3, scene 1 and you will see the truth. At first i want to believe the Catholics, for so many of them are so sure that what they tell me is certainly true. Yet, this Lutheran seems as confident as they that the opposite is true. Who do i believe?

The answer, it seems to me, is to read Hamlet and decide for myself. So, i turn to act 3, scene 1 and read this:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:

And as many words as i can count fingers and thumbs on two hands tells me what the Lutheran says is true. How so? Well, i consider whether the meaning of these words would change if Shakespeare used the word become instead of be.

To become, or not to become: that is the question:

And i see that, yes, changing two words changes the entire meaning of the passage. The former is definitely speaking of Hamlet contemplating suicide, for the word be means to be in a state of being. In essence, Hamlet was saying:

To be alive, or not to be alive: that is the question:

Yet, if i add the word alive to the latter, i get nonsense:

To become alive, or not to become alive: that is the question:

(Although, i can picture Jesus saying something similar to Nicodemus in John, chapter 3.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The statement, “To be, or not to be” means to be in a state of being. When Hamlet said this, he meant, “To be alive, or not to be alive”. This was the question he was trying to answer, and this means that he acknowledged that:

(1) He was alive.
(2) He was trying to decide whether to stay that way.

If he had said, “To become or not to become” the question to ask him would be, “Become what?” For to say this would be to acknowledge that:

(3) He was not what he considering becoming.
(4) He was trying to decide whether to become what he was considering becoming.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

So i come to the conclusion that my Lutheran friend is right about Hamlet and my Catholic friends are wrong. Hamlet was contemplating suicide! What would i do with that truth? Well, it is not a matter of life or death; it’s just a matter of to be or not to be (please excuse my poor attempt at humor). So, in the case of Hamlet, i’d only discuss it with someone willing to consider the truth i had found.

In the case of Jesus’ words, it can be a matter of life and death. The stakes are higher, so it behoves me to be certain that i’m understanding exactly what He is saying. Hence, i take a close look at His words:

“So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
I notice something similar: Both the Roman Catholic Shakespeare and our God use the same word, which is be. I reason, then, that i determine the meaning of the words of Christ the same way i determined the words of Hamlet. Since Jesus used the word be, what He is saying, it appears, is this:

(a) The true Christian is already in a state of being as perfect as God the Father.

(b) The true Christian should remain in that state.

Now, if Jesus had used the word become, what He would be saying is quite different:

“So become perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
which would mean:

(c) You are not yet as perfect as God the Father.
(d) Strive to become as perfect as God the Father.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Can anyone appreciate the dilemma in which i find myself? I sincerely want to believe what Catholics are telling me is true, and if what they are telling me is true, then i most certainly will believe it, for i consider myself a philosopher first, and a religious person second. A philosopher is one who holds to the truth and discards all lies, no matter how painful it might be to do so.

This is my dilemma: What the thoughtful and sincere Catholics here are telling me is that when Jesus says:

“So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

What he means, Catholics tell me, is this:

(c) You are not yet as perfect as God the Father.

(d) Strive to become as perfect as God the Father.

What Protestants at forums like www.keylife.org are telling me is that you are all deceived, for Jesus most certainly is saying this:

(a) The true Christian is already in a state of being as perfect as God the Father.
(b) The true Christian should remain in that state.

“Jesus lived the perfect life you or i could never live,” Protestants tell me, “and offers it to us as an absolutely free gift.”

It seems they are right. If they are wrong, can anyone tell me how i am misinterpreting the words of our loving Savior and God?

 

[Contarini]

Well, Edwin, if the truth of Jesus’ words are a trap

But of course that is not what I said. I suspected you, perhaps unfairly, of trying to draw Catholics into the admission that we have to be perfect and cannot ourselves be perfect, and then you would spring imputed righteousness on them. Sorry if I was too paranoid–I am willing to accept that you are a sincere seeker.

You put too much weight on the be/become distinction. If you want to get technical, the word is actually in the future tense: “you shall be perfect.” Certainly this is future with imperative meaning (a common construction in Greek, particularly in the NT influenced by Hebrew). But I see absolutely no basis for the argument that Jesus is addressing people who are already perfect. Wouldn’t you expect a word like “remain” in that case? The keylife argument is based on a strained interpretation of the text and simply does not hold up. “Be” in the imperative is often used in every language I know with the sense of “become.” We often tell people to be something they are not yet–the same is true in Greek. The people making this argument not only don’t know Greek (presumably) but don’t think very carefully about language–they are just trying to support their erroneous dogma.

Edwin

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…You put too much weight on the be/become distinction. If you want to get technical, the word is actually in the future tense: “you shall be perfect.” Certainly this is future with imperative meaning (a common construction in Greek, particularly in the NT influenced by Hebrew). …

Thank you, Edwin. I think i would be inclined to believe that “you shall be perfect” is the correct translation of the Greek or Latin if that is what the English translations of the text actually said. However, i find no reputable translation of the Bible that uses those words.

To say that all these English translations (Roman Catholic included) have incorrectly translated the text is possible, but highly improbable. I’m assuming that men who have made translating Greek and Latin the profession of their lives know more than you as to the correct way to translate Matthew, chapter 5. They certainly know more than i!

Perhaps i am wrong?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… But I see absolutely no basis for the argument that Jesus is addressing people who are already perfect. Wouldn’t you expect a word like “remain” in that case? The keylife argument is based on a strained interpretation of the text and simply does not hold up. “Be” in the imperative is often used in every language I know with the sense of “become.” We often tell people to be something they are not yet–the same is true in Greek. The people making this argument not only don’t know Greek (presumably) but don’t think very carefully about language–they are just trying to support their erroneous dogma.

At this point i am trying to apprehend what Jesus is saying. I’m not trying to comprehend how it can be true. Once i know what he is saying, then i can ask, as Nicodemus, “How can this be true?” and trust that the Holy Spirit (perhaps through the loving words of others) will show me.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Contarini:

Please notice the edit to reply #46. I’m admitting you most likely know more of Latin and Greek than i ever will. I’m not putting you down, just saying the translators of good translations of the Bible have more authority on the matter than you do.

 

[Contarini]

Thank you, Edwin. I think i would be inclined to believe that “you shall be perfect” is the correct translation of the Greek or Latin if that is what the English translations of the text actually said. However, i find no reputable translation of the Bible that uses those words.

To say that all these English translations (Roman Catholic included) have incorrectly translated the text is possible, but highly improbable. I’m assuming that men who have made translating Greek and Latin the profession of their lives know more than you as to the correct way to translate Matthew, chapter 5. They certainly know more than i!

Perhaps i am wrong?

I did not say that “you shall be perfect” is the correct translation. In English we often tell people to “be” something that they currently are not–a point I made in my previous post and you neglected to address. Consider the following statements without any context:

Be kind!
Be patient!
Be generous!

Would you automatically assume that the people being addressed were already kind, patient, or generous? I certainly wouldn’t. If anything, I’d assume that they probably were lacking in these virtues, or the command would be unnecessary.

Greek has several different ways to express a command. You can use the present imperative (which in this case would be “este”) which does usually have the meaning “keep on being.” Or you can use the aorist imperative, which indicates an action to be performed at a point in time (i.e., probably something the person is not yet doing). The problem is that the verb “to be” has no aorist. So Greek typically uses the word “become” instead in that case. Neither of these is being used here–instead, the future tense is used with imperative meaning. That obviously has the sense of “here is what you are to do in the future” (otherwise the future tense would not be used!). All of these can be translated by a simple “be” in English.

Bottom line: if the passage meant what you are suggesting, then the present imperative and not the future indicative would be used.

Find me one qualified NT scholar who thinks that “esesthe teleioi” implies that the people being addressed are already perfect. If you want to rely on the fact that translators use “be”, then you should be able to find a *qualified *commentator who gives it this meaning.

Edwin

 

[scriabin]

I don’t know if this applies; but I’ve always thought it had to do with love as a motivator.

For instance, in the terms “perfect contrition” vs. “imperfect contrition” the perfect contrition **doesn’t mean flawless **contrition, it means a sorrow motivated for the love of God.

Conversely, imperfect contrition is sorrow for sin, not beacause we have offended God whom we love, but because of a fear of penalty from God whom we have offended.

Since this gospel story is about sharing love, I thought it had to do with loving for love’s sake, as opposed to loving for a reciprical love or gain.

Loving for the sake of God whom we love is not flawless love, but a love motivated of God.

 

[Angainor]

Socrates,

All I know how to do is witness to the truth as I know it.

God demands perfection:
So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:48

No one meets these strict demands:
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 3:23

We need forgiveness of our shortcomings.
Pray then like this:…
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Matthew 6:9a, 12

That forgiveness is granted on account of Christ.
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
1 Peter 3:18

That is the good news.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Psalm 51:10

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I did not say that “you shall be perfect” is the correct translation. …

My apologies, Edwin, when you said:

Originally Posted by Contarini forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

*…You put too much weight on the be/become distinction. If you want to get technical, the word is actually in the future tense: “you shall be perfect.” *
i assumed you did mean that was the correct translation.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… In English we often tell people to “be” something that they currently are not–a point I made in my previous post and you neglected to address. Consider the following statements without any context:

Be kind!
Be patient!
Be generous!

Would you automatically assume that the people being addressed were already kind, patient, or generous? I certainly wouldn’t. If anything, I’d assume that they probably were lacking in these virtues, or the command would be unnecessary.
…

Edwin:

My wife tells me that to say “Be quiet!” when one means “Become quiet!” is incorrect grammar. I trust her opinion, as she was the only English major in her class to get an A in the feared advanced grammar class at her university. Today, she is an educator who teaches other professional teachers how to teach grammar, reading and writing. While it is true that people say, “Be quiet!” to those who are being loud, it is also true that this is grammatically incorrect.

Now if my sons were being silent, say, in a library and i wanted to encourage them to remain that way, it would be grammatically correct for me to say, “Now, be quiet, boys” to them and to mean remain quiet. Were you to assume they were being loud because i told them to become quiet because they were loud, you would be mistaken.

I think, perhaps, that what you are saying is:

(A) Jesus used incorrect grammar.

or

(B) Jesus used correct grammar but Matthew, in recording his words, did not.

or

(C) The words “Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect” mean exactly the same as “Become perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Or perhaps you are making some other point of which i am unaware? Please tell me, are you saying (A) or (B) or (C) or something else?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Greek has several different ways to express a command. …Bottom line: if the passage meant what you are suggesting, then the present imperative and not the future indicative would be used. …

There’s the rub, Edwin! for St. John tells me:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.(1 John 4:1)That is, i am to test what you say to see for myself if you speak the truth. Not that you are ignorant, for your knowledge of Greek grammar undoubtedly surpasses my own! Your intelligence, no doubt, exceeds mine as well. Yet intelligence and wisdom are not the same. Many a person with a high IQ believes and does foolish things. Not that you are a false prophet, but you might be deceived by one. You might be genuinely sincere, and yet sincerely wrong.

How, then, can i obey my good friend St. John and examine what you say to see if it is truth? Greek, after all, is all Greek to me! My only option, since i have not the time to learn Greek grammar, is to rely on what i know somewhat, which are English words and English grammar. Not that i comprehend these much better than Greek, but i have access to resources that will help me understand them.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If you would be so kind, Edwin, to condescend to reason with this ignorant kid in a language he can understand, i would be grateful. Please tell me which of the following definitions of the word be applies to our God’s words in Matthew 5:48?

be http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/bi; unstressed bi, bɪ/- bee; unstressed bee, bi]*verb and auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person ***am, ***2nd ***are **or (Archaichttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) **art, ***3rd ***is, ***present plural ***are; ***past singular 1st person ***was, ***2nd ***were **or (Archaichttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) **wast **or **wert, ***3rd ***was, ***past plural ***were; ***present subjunctive ***be; ***past subjunctive singular 1st person ***were, ***2nd ***were **or (Archaichttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) **wert, ***3rd ***were; ***past subjunctive plural ***were; ***past participle ***been; ***present participle ***be·ing. ***–verb (used without object) *1.to exist or live: *Shakespeare’s “To be or not to be” is the ultimate question. *2.to take place; happen; occur: *The wedding was last week. *3.to occupy a place or position: *The book is on the table. *4.to continue or remain as before: *Let things be. *5.to belong; attend; befall: May good fortune be with you. 6.(used as a copula to connect the subject with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative, in order to describe, identify, or amplify the subject): Martha is tall. John is president. This is she. 7.(used as a copula to introduce or form interrogative or imperative sentences): *Is that right? Be quiet! Don’t be facetious. **–auxiliary verb *8.(used with the present participle of another verb to form the progressive tense): *I am waiting. *9.(used with the present participle or infinitive of the principal verb to indicate future action): *She is visiting there next week. He is to see me today. *10.(used with the past participle of another verb to form the passive voice): *The date was fixed. It must be done. *11.(used in archaic or literary constructions with some intransitive verbs to form the perfect tense): *He is come. Agamemnon to the wars is gone. *I have obtained these definitions from www.dictionary.com and if you will tell me what number definition to insert in the place of the word be in the following sentence of Jesus, perhaps i will see things from your point of view.

“So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t know if this applies; but I’ve always thought it had to do with love as a motivator.

For instance, in the terms “perfect contrition” vs. “imperfect contrition” the perfect contrition **doesn’t mean flawless **contrition, it means a sorrow motivated for the love of God.

Conversely, imperfect contrition is sorrow for sin, not because we have offended God whom we love, but because of a fear of penalty from God whom we have offended.

Since this gospel story is about sharing love, I thought it had to do with loving for love’s sake, as opposed to loving for a reciprocal love or gain.

Loving for the sake of God whom we love is not flawless love, but a love motivated of God.

Thank you, Scriabin.

Yes, i agree that you and i should be continuously repentant, though i’m unsure i can be perfectly so. There are certainly passages in the Bible that teach this.

The passage we are examining, however, does not seem to me to carry this meaning you suggest.

“So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
(Matthew 5:48)

How are you and i to be (in the present tense) perfect? Jesus’ answer to us: You are to be as perfect as God the Father, Himself. God our Father does not need to be perfect in contrition because he is sinless and does not need to repent.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates,

All I know how to do is witness to the truth as I know it.

God demands perfection:
So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:48

No one meets these strict demands:
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 3:23

We need forgiveness of our shortcomings.
Pray then like this:…
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Matthew 6:9a, 12

That forgiveness is granted on account of Christ.
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
1 Peter 3:18

That is the good news.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Psalm 51:10

Yes, my Lutheran friend, i agree that without the mercy and grace (i.e., undeserved favor) of God i would remain in my imperfect sinful state.

That is, i would be, in the perpetual present tense, “without God and without hope in the world,” as St. Paul wrote. Yet, once i am forgiven, am i good? or am i in a state of neither being good nor bad? My Catholic friends tell me that i then need to do good things to achieve a state of goodness (i.e., righteousness) that forgiveness alone cannot give me.

What i am trying to determine, here, is whether or not this is what Jesus taught. Is righteousness something i earn, with God’s help, or is it something i receive from God as an absolutely free gift? How do you think St. Paul answered this question?

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.(Romans 5:17)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I find the idea that righteousness is a gift (and not a reward) gives me a sense that i am free indeed to love and obey God. No longer do i worry about losing his love by disappointing Him and failing to live up to his expectations. Having been given such an undeserved gift i find the strongest desire to return His love by loving others as He has loved me.

I’m here to investigate whether this idea is a deception. I’m here to discover for myself the truth regarding the teaching that Jesus lived the perfect life you or i could never live and offers it to us as an absolutely free gift.

 

[JaneFrances]

I hope that I’m not interfering in the posts expressly addressed to Edwin (who is perfectly capable of answering himself–indeed, I hope he does)! I only respond as I heartily appreciate any good analysis of English grammar especially as it pertains to the derivative process and Scripture. Indeed, now outside of academia, it is rare that I find worthwhile opportunities to exercise whatever I may have retained from my own years of graduate level grammar! It’s just gotta be good for something, right!? You just can’t get this stuff discussing Blue’s Clues.

Not that i comprehend these much better than Greek, but i have access to resources that will help me understand them.

I am not sure which resources you are consulting. Scholarly commentary is always useful in discerning the truth of God’s written Word, so I wonder if you have found such which would indicate that the verbiage used in Matthew 5:48 means something other than the future first person singular conjugation of the verb “to be,” which the Greek dictates???

Please tell me which of the following definitions of the word be applies to our God’s words in Matthew 5:48?

be /bi; unstressed bi, bɪ/- [bee; unstressed bee, bi]verb and auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person am, 2nd are or (Archaic) art, 3rd is, present plural are; past singular 1st person was, 2nd were or (Archaic) wast or wert, 3rd was, past plural were; present subjunctive be; past subjunctive singular 1st person were, 2nd were or (Archaic) wert, 3rd were; past subjunctive plural were; past participle been; present participle be·ing.
–verb (used without object)

Interestingly, the English, as you have presented above, does not treat the future tense very well. As you have pointed out previously, English is too poor to allow the full sense of the future tense of “to be,” as it appears classically. So, then, the question, indeed, becomes why “be” and not “become”?

I believe the answer lies in the poverty of language.

If the English translations were to use “become,” it would limit the possibility of active grace at work. It would require an exclusivity and particularity which the Greek does not.

We use “be” because it, grammatically or not, best allows the fullest sense of Christ’s command and prophetic injunction.

How are you and i to be (in the present tense) perfect?

What i am trying to determine, here, is whether this is what Jesus taught or not. Is righteousness something i earn, with God’s help, or is it something i receive from God as an absolutely free gift? How do you think St. Paul answered this question?

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
(Romans 5:17)

As you have rightly discerned, righteousness before the Lord is only attainable through grace. In this sense, it is a free gift. HOWEVER, as with all gifts, one must receive them. There is the provision. There lies the cooperation. Our loving Father is not the parent who forces the birthday child to open the gifts at the party, all the while coaxing and coercing the smiles and the thanks for the gifts the child begrudgingly consumes. The great mystery of perfect Love is that our Creator allows us, in perfect freedom, to choose Him and freely receive the gifts of grace and sanctification he presents through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

“So **be **perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

As Edwin has already suggested, I think the be/become issue is tired. Perhaps a more profitable study is the concept of “perfect”???

What is the Scriptural sense of human perfection?

We know the dictate:

Matthew 5:48
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

We know the possibility:

Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

We know the contingencies:

1 Corinthians 13:10
but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

We know the process:

Philippians 3:12
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.

And we know the reality:

James 3:2
We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

Perfection is possible, but it is a continual process through which our Lord strengthens, encourages, and fortifies us by the movement of grace which we are told not to receive in vain (2 Cor. 6:1).

 

[JaneFrances]

No longer do i worry about losing his love by disappointing Him and failing to live up to his expectations.

Perhaps you confusing His Love and His favor?

God LOVES perfectly. It is impossible to lose His love. This is never the concern, as we know nothing can separate us from the Love of God. Certainly, even as imperfect parents, we can clearly understand this.

Now, on the other hand, it is entirely possible that one could fall out of favor with God through rejection and disobedience. Whereby, through predeterminant Providence and perfect Justice, God chooses to withhold his graces from the unrepentent sinner and unbeliever.

And while grace itself is freely given, God DOES crown his own grace in us as we cooperate with his free gifts. He, the perfect parent, DOES reward our obedience. St. Augustine treats this idea especially well.

So, in truth, we needn’t “worry” about losing Love, yet we should always ask for and seek increases in grace through constant conformity, effort and obedience.

Matthew 7:7
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”