Matthew 5:48

by purplesofa 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hmike

  Interesting to compare this section of Matthew with the corresponding section of Luke:

  Matt. 5: 38-48...

  "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

  "You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

  Luke 6:27-36...

  "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

  "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even `sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even `sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even `sinners' lend to `sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

  The message is the same in both—that the Father provides for the needs of people without regard to how they feel and act towards him; his grace is extended to all. Jesus challenges his disciples to follow the Father's example in their lives (and so, by doing what he does, be regarded as "sons"). However, notice the difference in the last verse. Matthew uses the word teleios, translated perfect, whereas Luke uses the word oiktirmos, translated merciful. To be merciful means to have regard for the needs of others, and is sometimes translated compassionate. Considering these two verses together, it looks like we can say that extending mercy or compassion to all—even those who are against the disciple—is the most mature, whole, and complete kind of action the disciple could undertake. This harmonizes well with other NT texts that speak of God's love (e. g., I Jo. 4:16, "God is love" and Jo. 3:16, "For God so loved the world...") and call for the faithful to extend love to others.

  Perhaps Luke chose to use oiktirmos because he, most of any of the gospel writers, was an advocate of the poor and rejected, and wanted to be very clear about what Jesus was saying. Matthew, with a different background and choice of emphasis, looks at attaining the highest state righteousness, as if this maturity or completeness is the goal. Yet perfection and mercy are brought together in Matthew's story of the rich young man in 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."

  "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?"

  Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect [teleios] , 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.

  There are a host of other issues, linguistic and philosophical, that could be discussed here if there is interest. Perhaps leolaia would come back in, or maybe narkissos, to help out.
• 

  Narkissos

  hmike,

  It might be noted that Matthew "bends" the story in 19:16ff (// Mark 10:17ff; Luke 18:18ff) in a number of ways beside the use of teleios. For instance:
  - the adjective agathos in the initial request is moved from qualifying Jesus as the "good teacher" (didaskale agathe) to qualifying the works:ti agathon poièsô, "what good shall I do"; Jesus' reply consequently is not "why do you call me good?" but "why do you ask me about the good", making the counter-argument ("one is the good") a bit more awkward but still significant (i.e., don't ask me about that which is good, ask the only good one).
  - a positive connection is made between "entering life" and "keeping the commandments" (which also reflects the Jewish-[Christian] views).
  - instead of Mark's unscriptural "commandment" "do not harm anybody" (mè aposterèsès, which Luke also omits) a further quotation of the Law (Leviticus 19:18, "you shall love your neighbour as yourself") is added and once again (cf. 22:37//) combined to the Decalog.
  - the question about "what is still missing" is moved from Jesus' (hen se husterei) to the young man's lips (ti eti husterô), allowing for the brand new introduction of the last reply: "if you want to be perfect", ei theleis teleios einai.(Of course there are a lot of other changes but these ones appear to be ideologically consistent.)

  On the specific use of oiktirmôn in Luke 6:36, whether it is a free adaptation of a Matthean (or Matthean-like) use of teleios or it depends on another ("Q"?) source using that word (which otherwise appears only in James 5:11 in the NT) is difficult to say. It certainly fits Luke's ideology of "compassion" (generally represented by the use of eleos ktl.). However it has often been noted that Luke's idealisation of poverty and concern about the poor reflects the pathos of the higher middle class rather than the practice and spiritualisation of poverty in some Jewish circles (e.g. Essenes), to which Matthew is probably closer.
• 

  hmike

  Narkissos,

  Thank you for your interest and reply.

  - a positive connection is made between "entering life" and "keeping the commandments" (which also reflects the Jewish-[Christian] views).

  I notice that in both Matthew and Luke, keeping the commandments was not enough to qualify the young man. I also find it interesting that the commandments Jesus quotes all deal with relating to people. He did not include the "greatest commandment" of Deut. 6:5 that he quotes in the synoptics. Do you think the listeners/readers were expected to believe the young man's statement that he kept those commandments?

  it has often been noted that Luke's idealisation of poverty and concern about the poor reflects the pathos of the higher middle class rather than the practice and spiritualisation of poverty in some Jewish circles ( e.g. Essenes), to which Matthew is probably closer.

  I agree with that for the most part. Whether the book was written by the physician who accompanied Paul or not, I do see it written by someone who was familiar with the worlds of wealth and poverty, and had taken a hard line against wealth because of the lack of compassion he had witnessed on the part of those with means. As I said in another thread about the use of "Blessed are you who are poor..." in Luke 6:20, and "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." in Matt. 5:3, I think Matthew was written or compiled by a man of means (whether a tax collector or not) who knew it was possible to be wealthy and humble and compassionate.

  In the original language of Matt. 5:43-48, does it look like Jesus is instructing the disciples to imitate the Father in behavior (the way I understand it)? One alternative understanding would be that one attains perfection by being gracious. Another, along the lines suggested by quietlyleaving, is that one is already perfect and would simply be acting accordingly (a concept I think is foreign to Matthew).

  Thank you.
• 

  Narkissos

  Do you think the listeners/readers were expected to believe the young man's statement that he kept those commandments?

  Why wouldn't they? The theology of ethical suspicion, i.e. that nobody observes the Law, must not be assumed where it is not explicit. There is a long way from Paul's rhetorical use of this motif to Augustine's dogmatical assertion of original sin and subsequent moral impotence. The Synoptic dramas do not cast doubt in principle on "righteous" characters, although they do differ as to the role of Law observance in attaining "righteousness".

  In the original language of Matt. 5:43-48, does it look like Jesus is instructing the disciples to imitate the Father in behavior (the way I understand it)? One alternative understanding would be that one attains perfection by being gracious. Another, along the lines suggested by quietlyleaving, is that one is already perfect and would simply be acting accordingly (a concept I think is foreign to Matthew).

  I'm not sure whether the first two understandings are really "alternative", but I do perceive a nuance: Luke generally presents Christian mercy as a consequence of divine grace. Those who are"sons of the Most High" behave like him, because he is "kind (khrèstos!) to the ungrateful and the wicked". Otoh, in Matthew, the command of "loving the enemies" is the starting point. This is what you must do, "so that you may become (hopôs genèsthe) sons of your heavenly Father" (and share his supra-moral perspective, which makes no difference between "the good and the wicked") -- this is, to Matthew, the paradoxical key to "perfect" fulfillment of the Law, never to freedom from the Law...
• 

  hmike

  Do you think the listeners/readers were expected to believe the young man's statement that he kept those commandments?

  Why wouldn't they? The theology of ethical suspicion, i.e. that nobody observes the Law, must not be assumed where it is not explicit. There is a long way from Paul's rhetorical use of this motif to Augustine's dogmatical assertion of original sin and subsequent moral impotence. The Synoptic dramas do not cast doubt in principle on "righteous" characters, although they do differ as to the role of Law observance in attaining "righteousness".

  Actually, I wasn't thinking about "original sin." Looking at the specific commandments Jesus cited—against murder, adultery, stealing, false testimony, and in favor of honoring parents, and loving one's neighbor—in their simplest form, it would not be too difficult for someone to claim he has kept them. However, once someone begins to elaborate on what keeping those commands means, then he can run into problems. This was done in the latter books of Moses, and elaborated on even further by the teachers. Jesus then takes it even further when he elaborates on what is adultery and murder. What I'm thinking is that many people could say they've kept these commandments, and really believe it, but someone who knows that person could say, "What about the time you... ." The listeners/readers might consider how difficult it would be to make this claim.

  Whether or not the young man actually kept the commands is not the point anyway, is it? The point is that it was not enough for him. He may have kept the letter of the law in it's simplest form, but his heart was not right, and the invitation of Jesus exposed that.

  In not casting doubt on "righteous" characters, you're not including the religious leaders whom Jesus chastised?
• 

  Narkissos

  Whether or not the young man actually kept the commands is not the point anyway, is it?

  Probably not, but it was your question...

  The point is that it was not enough for him. He may have kept the letter of the law in it's simplest form, but his heart was not right, and the invitation of Jesus exposed that.

  The part of your sentence which I have underlined nicely illustrates what I meant by "ethical suspicion": I for one don't read that in the text.

  I agree with the "not enough" part though. Perhaps the core of Matthean theology (and its main difference with Pharisaism) might be summed up in the idea that the Law can only be perfectly fulfilled (joining the close meanings of plèroô and teleios) by excess. But the excess is, by definition, beyond good (or right), and the lack of such excess cannot be simply characterised as "wrong" -- although not "perfect". Iow, the supra-ethical dimension of "perfection" does not fall under ethical judgement.

  Stepping back from the Matthean context, it might be worth remembering one important sentence from the Markan version (dropped by both Matthew and Luke): "Jesus looked at him and loved him"...

  In not casting doubt on "righteous" characters, you're not including the religious leaders whom Jesus chastised?

  No, but it is still interesting to note the difference in wording between Matthew and Luke on this issue: in the former, they only "seem righteous to men" (but are actually full of hypocrisy and lawlessness, 23:28); in the latter, they can also be "persuaded of being righteous" (18:9; cf. 16:15; 20:20). That's one step further in the direction of "ethical suspicion" -- although in both Matthew and Luke, other characters are still depicted as "righteous" (e.g. Joseph, Simeon and Hanna), without any reservation.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  hmike

  Another, along the lines suggested by quietlyleaving, is that one is already perfect and would simply be acting accordingly (a concept I think is foreign to Matthew).

  fair enough - Tolle freely admits to a timeless spiritual interpretation and his specific goal is to enable people to find peace and end suffering.

  Narkissos you have some very interesting points

  This one is a gem

  Stepping back from the Matthean context, it might be worth remembering one important sentence from the Markan version (dropped by both Matthew and Luke): "Jesus looked at him and loved him"...
• 

  purplesofa

  This may throw a whole quirk in this discussion, was Adam's being perfect the same as US(you or I) being perfect in any way this scripture is being used?

  purps
• 

  quietlyleaving

  purps

  This may throw a whole quirk in this discussion, was Adam's being perfect the same as US(you or I) being perfect in any way this scripture is being used?

  purps

  I guess Leo, hmike and Narkissos will give us the theological, historical, lingusitic, philosophical, ideological perspectives.

  What facinates me is the wisdom inherent in ancient writings.

  Regarding your question, (and for our own benefit) I would say yes but would opt for an open ended sort of "perfection" which allows for different limitless becomings.
• 

  Narkissos

  Hello purps,

  was Adam's being perfect the same as US(you or I) being perfect in any way this scripture is being used?

  Nowhere afaik does the Bible ascribe "perfection" to Adam (or to Jesus, for that matter: Hebrews speaks of Jesus being "perfected," i.e. "enabled" in a quasi-technical priestly sense, through suffering and death). This is strictly unscriptural JW doctrine.