Who is speaking the truth?

[Gerr]

Jesus: "Be perfect....go and sin no more."

Tom Wetmore's signature line: "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal."

Gerry

[olger]

Well, in the past I have learned to put my faith in the Word. I'm gonna go with that.

oG

[Morning Glory]

What's your point, Gerry? I think his signature line is definitely tongue in cheek. WE CAN'T be perfect!! Only God is perfect!! The Biblical meaning of the word "perfect" is "Maturity," from what I have understood from Biblical Scolars. Perhaps you have another interpretation that I would love to know?

It probably IS shallow to try to be something that one can never be.......it is NOT shallow to place our hope and trust in our Loving Saviour, though.

Words do have different meanings for different people...... and the impact on one person may not be the same for someone else. I have a feeling that this line means something special and personal to this individual.......and personally, I plan to "leave it alone."

One needs to pick one's battles.........some are really not worth the emotional outlay.

Just thinking.....

Morning Glory

[Gerr]

What's your point, Gerry? I think his signature line is definitely tongue in cheek. WE CAN'T be perfect!! Only God is perfect!! The Biblical meaning of the word "perfect" is "Maturity," from what I have understood from Biblical Scolars. Perhaps you have another interpretation that I would love to know?

It probably IS shallow to try to be something that one can never be.......it is NOT shallow to place our hope and trust in our Loving Saviour, though.

If you mean attaining to the perfection of God, then, NO. And I agree with you. That kind of perfection is NOT possible and will NEVER be possible for us. But what did Jesus mean when He said, "Be perfect....go and sin no more?" Is that possible? Or is it just a shallow goal?

Quote:

Words do have different meanings for different people...... and the impact on one person may not be the same for someone else. I have a feeling that this line means something special and personal to this individual.......and personally, I plan to "leave it alone."

One needs to pick one's battles.........some are really not worth the emotional outlay.

Just thinking.....

Morning Glory

Sorry, but I found his line extremely offensive. I find it to be contrary to everything that I understand the Bible to teach. Sin brought all kinds of imperfections that has brought untold woe to the inhabitants of this planet, and pain to the heart of our Creator of which the Cross provides only a glimpse of that suffering. It is his goal to restore His creation back to sinless perfection. And that's a shallow goal?

Gerry

[Morning Glory]

In my opinion, it is NOT a shallow goal for JESUS to restore HIS creatoin to perfection. That is, is it not, our GREAT HOPE, to be a part of that restored perfection?? It is our HOPE, but not in our POWER to attain that goal. We can do our best, with Jesus' help, to become mature in our walk with Him....THAT should be our goal, and that is NOT a shallow goal.

Perhaps you should go back and reread what Tom explained was HIS intention and meaning behind that particular statement like CoAspen suggested. Frankly, when I first read it I was confused as to what he meant, too!! However, in reading his posts, I have come to the understanding that he is NOT knocking the salvation provided to us in any way. My take is that he wants to have thoughtful discussions on this board about important topics, not the shallow ones.

Just my thoughts....... not trying to minimize your sensitivity, but suggesting that perhaps you would be better served to not dwell on it.....

Morning Glory

[Clio]

Sorry, but I found his line extremely offensive. I find it to be contrary to everything that I understand the Bible to teach. Sin brought all kinds of imperfections that has brought untold woe to the inhabitants of this planet, and pain to the heart of our Creator of which the Cross provides only a glimpse of that suffering. It is his goal to restore His creation back to sinless perfection. And that's a shallow goal?Gerry

Quite an agenda for a molehill, Gerry. Especially since you tend to set yourself up as an authority on how people should be treated or how they should behave.

You find it offensive, so instead of following the instructions in Romans 14:1 you decide to stir things up with a post designed to start an argument. Just in case you've forgotten, Roman's 14:1 is on the Main Start Page of CA.

Personally, I find your offensensitivity offensive.

Clio

[Gerr]

Go ahead, lay it on, Clio.

Gerry

[Bravus]

Paging Dr Mod

[David Koot]

The Biblical meaning of the word "perfect" is "Maturity," from what I have understood from Biblical Scolars.

[David Koot]

As a point of interest, I should add that 'known sin' would seem to include 'knee-jerk reactions' as well: impatience, irritability, anger, etc. 'Sin' is not limited to premeditated acts.

[Morning Glory]

Well, David, since YOU are the Biblical scholar and I am decidedly NOT one, I would appreciate it if you would drag out your scholarly books and list all of the meanings of the original word that "perfect" was translated from. I did not mean to say that that was the ONLY meaning of the word. I was only repeating what has been explained to me by those who are familiar with the original languages.

If this is NOT the way you menat it, I apologize in advance, HOWEVER, your comment came across as condescending and I need to let you know that I don't appreciate that attitude. I may just be a bit sensitive right now but that is how it struck me. The part about "some preachers use that interpretation to support their particular belief." That comment.

All of this stuff is important, actually. Trying to live the best that we can, of course with God's help. If you don't like what I said, would you please ask Tom about how HE meant his byline? That is what this arguement is all about, after all.

The beginning of this thread was stated in the spirit of trying to pick a fight after not accepting someone's explaination of what they meant by what they said. If the explaination doesn't resonate with you, and that is what the author said, well, it is just time to let it go. You aren't going to change his mind, and he isn't going to change yours. Be respectful enough of someone else's opinion to not drag it out in an open debate. I admit that I fell for the bait. Not proud of it, but I did. Now, I have said what I really should have said a couple of days ago. And, I am done.

I really did mean it, David. I would appreciate more definations of that word. Mature is the only other word that I have heard, so I very interested to hear other options. The part about "be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is Perfect" has always caused me anguish as there is NO WAY that I CAN be perfect. To me it has been the most discouraging verse of the whole Bible. So, if you have any other illumination on the true meaning.....I am glad to hear it.

Thanks,

MG

PS: I apologize to the originator of this thread. I know that you were very troubled by the byline, however, YOU can't change anyone. To argue about it only inflames you and the other person, and then folks like me jump into the frey and end up getting mangled as well. Sometimes the kindest thing to do is to not dwell on it. So, since I can't make you "not dwell on it" I will take my own advice. I am out of this dog fight.

[jasd]

QR frame:

Abstract...

At times, to satisfactorily incorporate the exhaustive ‘tonalities’ of a lexicon -- requires, at the least, an essay or thesis and, admittedly, a Thesaurus: a simple post on these boards proves insufficient. Sometimes, though not absolute in specificity – simply, a word is preferred and correctly used to satisfy the immediate – bearing in mind that, as in most cases – there is that which is lost in translation. (note: the many, many translations of Writ – to varying degrees – that are, with the exception of the few objections, acceptably correct)

Were one, wishing to dwell upon a litany of variations upon the theme – ‘sin’ – might include such as overeating, vanity, smugness, pedantism, presumption, evil insinuation, false promising, etc; the list would be encyclopedic. Why, even silence can be sin! (it is probable, difficult as it is, that we ought to strive for vertical thinking rather than declination towards our intrinsically evil nature)

More simply and inclusively, ‘sin’ may be thought of as – frailty or flaw. Sin might be so elliptically defined that one – is advised to exercise caution in its ascription.

In differentiating ‘sin’ from the OT chata the NT employs the Greek hamartia – yielding the image of a bullseye target set before for the archer. Given his handful of arrows (usually ten) the archer shot for the bullseye (absolute perfection) and if missed – it would have been hamartanein – the English ‘sin(ned)’. Extrapolating,

the Greek hamartia suggests more precision (absolute perfection) than does the Hebrew word which is translated – sin. The Hebrew chata is not so much concerned with the person’s particular act/transgression as it is with that person’s direction in choices made.

Clarifying and ameliorating the ‘absolute perfection’ of the Greek hamartia, YLT translates 1 John 3:4 thusly...

“Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,”

sin is the practice of lawlessness

Per Biblical ‘perfection’, one is reminded that even Jesus Christ was not made ‘perfect’ until He had been crucified.

That said, the Bible provides no formal definition of sin.

[Tom Wetmore]

To merely strive to be perfectly free from or without sin as the goal for a Christ follower is too superficial. To forgive, yes, to love perfectly as the God who is love - there is a lofty goal infinitely deeper than simply obeying ten simple rules of conduct. That was the context of Jesus' statement to be perfect even as the Father in heaven is perfect.

Tom

[David Koot]

HOWEVER, your comment came across as condescending and I need to let you know that I don't appreciate that attitude. I may just be a bit sensitive right now but that is how it struck me. The part about "some preachers use that interpretation to support their particular belief." That comment.

[olger]

David is correct in regards to the meanings of "perfect." The general meaning of the Greek word tel'-i-os is "completeness, ultimate and uttermost." It also means mental and moral character.

These definitions point to the consecrated life, sanctified by the Holy Spirit and accompanied by obedience, self-denial and victory.

[David Koot]

Now, more of herr Kittel, this time specifically on the NT usage of telios:

"1. In Greek thought and usage teleios often means 'totality' . . . This justifies the rendering of corresponding Hebrew terms by teleios, primarily in Mt. The one who does the 'whole' will of God . . . the heart which is 'undivided' in obedience to God . . ."

The article is good. It may be found on pp. 73 - 77 (v. VIII)

The idea of teleios in Mt. 5 meaning 'mature' is simply not supported by the literature (in the real world, outside the liberal SDA establishment). Incidentally, herr Delling, the author of the article in Kittel, was NOT Adventist.

[Bravus]

I think David has it covered from the scholarly point of view. It suggests that 'mature' is not a good rendering, but perhaps that neither is 'perfect' as we normally understand that word. 'teleios' comes to us in our English word 'teleology' - the idea that something has a particular endpoint toward which it is headed. So to say to someone 'be perfect' in this sense is to say 'be complete, be fully grown up (oops, that sounds like 'mature'!), be all God intended you to be'.

I think Tom's whole point was that often our notion of perfection is narrow because it focuses on what we stop doing, and doesn't expand to what we start doing...

[JeriAnne]

Hmmm....Perfection!!! NOT my department!

God is the AUTHOR and FINISHER of My Faith! If He says I will be perfect He ought to know!!! I DON't...wouldn't recognize it if it hit me in the head!! Sooo.....even definitions don't help much here! And neither does persuing it! HOWEVER! Persuing God DOES make a LOT of sense....and even that is often beyond me! Praise be He is usually persuing me!! He is MUCH better at this endeavor!!! I just get to BE ME! IN the moment! And viola' as each day changes SO DO I!

[jasd]

QR frame:

Considering the distress many experience when overburdened by the unattainable imperative – I thought it might be interesting to view this issue from another perspective...

ESESQE OUN hUMEIS TELEIOI hWS hO PATHR hUMWN hO OURANIOS TELEIOS ESTIN

YLT Matt 5:48 ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who is in the heavens is perfect.

“ESESQE is 2 pers. pl. fut. indic. and therefore a statement of fact - in this case of a future fact and is not an imperitive. It should read then "Therefore, you shall be perfect..." ”

In its Matthew 5:48 application, rather than being construed as a present imperative (as is usually done) – the text, more correctly, appears to suggest (though possibly imperatively) a future tense-indicative, that is, a ‘spiritual maturation’ (contextually, of behaviour) interpretation rather than the ‘moral absolute’ of a Gd-perfection. To suggest that it is employed in commanding a present and absolute Gd-teleios, strains credulity and, as Blomberg puts it, “Frustrates” Jesus Christ’s “hearers with an unachievable ideal...”

Matthew 5:48, even were it divorced from the entirety of the passages preceding it (Sermon on the Mount/Beatitudes), strains credulity and would seemingly be unable to sustain the argument that Jesus Christ’s ‘hearers’ were commanded (imperative) to be Gd-teleios.

Notwithstanding D. A. Carson, Carl L. Blomberg states it well...,

“Regarding the command in Matt 5:48 to be “perfect” [te,leio,j], it is generally argued that the adjective “perfect” [te,leio,j] may here be conveying the idea of spiritual maturity, not moral perfection. In support of this understanding Blomberg notes, “Jesus is not frustrating his hearers with an unachievable ideal but challenging them to grow in obedience to God’s will – to become more like him.” (41)

However, as noted by Carson, this understanding of “perfect” [te,leio,j], while possible, minimizes the force of the antitheses. (42)

Rather, we may understand this text as a genuine exhortation to grow towards the type of moral purity possessed only by God [recognizing that the ideal will not become reality until we are in His presence]. Note the close parallel with our understanding of the message of 1 John.

(41) Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (Nashville, TN.: Broadman Press, 1992), 115.

(42) Carson, Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan,

1984), 134-35.”

Phil 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

Phil 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: ...

Phil 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded:

If not St Paul, then who – was/is perfect? or was/is it that “perfect” denotes other than what we perceive “perfect” to mean or to have meant?

“BDF para. 362 explains that Mt. 5:48 is a quotation (albeit with a plural verb) from Deut. 18:13 (LXX), and the LXX uses future indicative for "categorical injunctions and prohibitions (negative OU) in the legal language of the OT". BDF cites Mt. 5:43, quoting Lev. 19:18, and Mt. 5:21, quoting Exod. 20:13//Deut. 5:17--both using the future indicative as a command form. See also Mt. 6:5; 20:26; 21:3.”

Perfect? this side of heaven? ...as perfect as Gd?

Umm...

[David Koot]

'teleios' comes to us in our English word 'teleology' - the idea that something has a particular endpoint toward which it is headed.

With all respect which is so justly due to my esteemed colleague Bravus . . . Ahem. Here, you seem to be suggesting that an English word, in contemporary usage, may shed light on the meaning of a Greek word which was used to translate a Hebrew word, in A.D. 28 or so? Indeed.

Word meanings, even within a culture, change over time. It is for that reason that a decent lexical source will include the history of a word--in the OT, similar roots in ANE cultures, on down through the stages of Israel's existence, down through post-exilic, (where significant changes often occurred) and later. With Greek, the survey could typically begin with Homer and continue onward to various NT writers, and post-apostolic Church Fathers. Now, to go even beyond that, and make a quantum leap from Palestine in A.D. 28, describing a Hebrew concept which predated that time, to the English-speaking cultures in A.D. 2007, would, I submit, have similar weight as the announcement by the student that he has developed and successfully tested a time machine.

But as for 'teleology,' the Greek root 'telos,' from which 'teleology' derives, is different than the word 'teleios' which, in the Greek-speaking world of Jesus' day, had a different meaning.

Regards as always, old chap.

Dave

[Tom Wetmore]

...But as for 'teleology,' the Greek root 'telos,' from which 'teleology' derives, is different than the word 'teleios' which, in the Greek-speaking world of Jesus' day, had a different meaning...

Quote:

teleology

"study of final causes," 1740, from Mod.L. teleologia, coined 1728 by Ger. philosopher Baron Christian von Wolff (1679-1754) from Gk. teleos "entire, perfect, complete," prop. gen. of telos "end, goal, result;" see tele- + -logia.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

According to the lexicon the etymological root of the Greek adjective teleios is the neuter noun telos. It would seem that they are very much related words.

The lexicon offers the defintion of teleios as:

1) brought to its end, finished

2) wanting nothing necessary to completeness

3) perfect

4) that which is perfect

a) consummate human integrity and virtue

of men

1) full grown, adult, of full age, mature

And it defines telos as:

1) end

a) termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be (always of the end of some act or state, but not of the end of a period of time)

the end

1) the last in any succession or series

2) eternal

c) that by which a thing is finished, its close, issue

d) the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose

2) toll, custom (i.e. indirect tax on goods)

All those hair-splitting distinctions without much difference aside, David - I am not sure I see your point? Or it's relevance? Or how it actually contributes to the topic at hand?

Tom

[Bravus]

Just a short note that my intention was to enrich the discussion, rather than to derail. I was not saying "this musing on the word 'teleology' supplants all the careful work David K has done" (in fact I was pretty explicit on that point) but rather "here's something I think is interesting that might add a supplementary perspective". Not arguing a case, just enjoying a chat.

I liked jasd's discussion above very much: it seems to me one of the problems with David K's approach is the exclusive focus on one word in a sentence. The notion that 'be ye perfect' might have been better rendered as 'you will be perfect' is intriguing... however perfect is defined.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, I understood it that way and I quite agree with what you just posted...

I tend to take into account the full semantic range of meanings and the nuances that the etymology and context of the original words bring to a particular passage or thought and only narrowing down or eliminating possibilities which are obviously out of place or illogical. I think it helps to enrich our understanding.

Tom

[David Koot]

J just enjoying a chat

[melvin mccarty]

In context I prefer the NIB rendering. "There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father's goodness knows no bounds." It is a summation of the preceding verses.

mel