Love

Theme


Throughout His ministry, Jesus reduced the Ten Commandments to two simple rules: love God and love your neighbor. Yet neither rule was first spoken by Jesus. Both appear in the Torah, the five books of Moses. The first great commandment is stated in Deuteronomy.

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Deuteronomy 6:4–5

The second great commandment is stated in Leviticus.

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:18

Although the Pharisees were blind to much of God's revealed truth, they did not overlook these two bedrock principles. They themselves understood that God gave these as His own summary of the whole law. On one occasion a scribe asked Jesus, "Which is the first commandment?" When Jesus pronounced the duties to love God and man, the scribe by no means reacted as though Jesus' answer seemed strange. Rather, he agreed with Jesus.

28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

Mark 12:28–34

On another occasion, when a lawyer asked Jesus how to obtain eternal life, Jesus returned the question, saying in essence, "What do you think?" and the lawyer quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Luke 10:25-28

The summary of the law that Jesus taught was evidently well known to the Pharisees.

Yet although in their study of the law they had correctly identified the two core principles, they did not fully understand what it means to love God and to love your neighbor. As teachers of the law, they failed to explain these principles correctly. As a result, the people saw the law through distorting spectacles, giving them the impression that a system of profound ideals intended to mold righteousness in the heart was really a system of external works.


Nonresistance to Evil


In the next portion of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus sought to raise the people's level of understanding. He specifically targeted the central errors in the Pharisees' interpretation of the two core principles. For the Pharisees, loving God was little more than public piety, and loving your neighbor meant showing kindness to the people around you, such as close friends and family—to the people you love anyway. Jesus roundly rejected both distortions and showed the kind of love that the law truly required.

First, He dealt with the critical question, Who is my neighbor? He began with the startling assertion that my neighbor includes those who bring evil into my life.

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Matthew 5:38-42

Jesus used as a springboard for His discussion a famous point of Mosaic law. He quoted the rule, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," which appears in the law three times (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). The people of Israel had abused this rule by making it an excuse for retaliation and vengeance. They construed it as saying, "If someone knocks out my tooth, I have a moral right to knock out his tooth." But God had not intended this rule to authorize violence. Rather, He had given it to prevent what we call cruel and unusual punishment. In other words, just as a court in our time cannot impose penalties beyond certain limits, so also the judges of Israel could not dictate a punishment out of proportion to the damage done. If one man had wrongfully taken the sight of another, the offender could suffer no more in punishment than the loss of his own sight.

When the people of Israel used the law of Moses to justify endless attacks upon an enemy, they had no excuse for their lust to wreak vengeance, because the Old Testament clearly taught them that vengeance belongs to the Lord.

To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

Deuteronomy 32:35

O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself.

Psalm 94:1

The same rule against getting even is also prominent in the New Testament.

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Romans 12:19

Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

1 Peter 3:9

Why should we not avenge ourselves by retaliating? For many reasons.

  1. It exposes us to danger. The one attacked may defend himself by doing us great harm. Notice Jesus’ warning to His disciples when He was being arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane.

    Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

    Matthew 26:52

  2. Vengeance reduces us to the level of a bloodthirsty beast, having no conscience against seeking another’s hurt or destruction. If you are a man, do you consider yourself a gentleman, even though the code of a gentleman is vanishing, and the breed is dying out? Why should you as a gentleman allow an evildoer to force you out of your role into the role of an evildoer like himself? I will not be so petty as to persecute others for persecuting me. I will not stoop to their level. I will keep my self-respect.
  3. Only God can handle the evildoer in a way that is exactly right, and that achieves what is exactly best. He is infinitely better at adjusting outcomes to the needs of justice and goodness.
  4. By withholding vengeance, we learn to trust God. We learn to make Him our shield and defender. A buzzword in our family is "radical faith." We exhort each other to have radical faith when everything seems to be going wrong and darkness descends upon us.

Jesus dismissed "an eye for an eye" as a proper guide for how we should behave under attack. He was not rejecting what the law of Moses said, but rather He was objecting to how the law was applied. The people had turned a humane rule into an excuse for inhumane vengeance. He then gave a new rule. He said categorically, "Resist not evil." Notice that this rule is far stricter than the rule not to avenge ourselves (Rom. 12:19; 1 Pet. 3:9). Not avenging ourselves means that we do not retaliate in kind. Not resisting evil means that we submit to it and allow it to happen. The new rule sets a standard that is difficult to grasp even for the wisest of men and difficult to apply even for the most civilized of men. It raises some of the greatest difficulties we find in the moral teaching of Scripture.

But in all honesty we must admit that the Bible is full of difficulties. Why? Many are superficial and easily set aside. Some require a great deal of digging before we can explain them. Some defy explanation and leave us scratching our heads. To view them correctly, we must understand that God put difficulties in the Bible for a reason. Think about an incident that happened about a year after Jesus began His ministry. He was being followed by a great multitude impressed by His ability to do miracles, such as making food for thousands out of almost nothing. They wanted to set Him up as a king immediately, whereas Jesus wanted them to prepare for His kingdom by repenting of their sin. Although they gave Him adulation, He was not pleased with their resistance to His spiritual message. So, He introduced a difficult new teaching. He said that to be part of Him, they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

. . . .

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

John 6:51–56, 66

It sounded as if He were suggesting a sort of cannibalism. Most of His followers were so offended that they forsook Him and never returned. The teaching had the desired effect of weeding out followers with the wrong motives.

It helps us understand God’s ways when we recognize that the evidence of His existence is overwhelming. In recent years some of the world’s most knowledgeable scientists have come to admit that the universe must be the creation of a supreme Being. The complexity of cell chemistry does not allow any other possibility. The notion that a living cell evolved by mere chance is ridiculous. It has to be the work of a designer. Likewise, the evidence that Jesus is God is overwhelming. But the plainness of ultimate truth leaves God with a problem. There is a danger that such strong evidence for the Christian worldview will force people to believe who have no real heart for God. Salvation is intended only for the humble. It is not intended for the proud. The proud must be kept from any belief that would give them a claim upon God’s mercy, for it is God’s will to resist the proud and give grace to the humble.

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

James 4:6

How does God keep the proud from finding the truth in Christ? He does it partly by filling His Word with difficulties that the proud can seize upon to justify unbelief. These difficulties serve as excuses to carp rather than learn, to nit pick rather than draw closer. In other words, these try the hearts of men and find whose faith is genuine.

It is evident that Jesus follows much the same strategy in the Sermon on the Mount. We find many hard sayings that will reach an audience only among the godly. Everyone else will view them as impenetrable, or boring, or even dumb, and will tune them out. But we dare not be among those who tune out the teaching, "Resist not evil."

What did Jesus mean? Does Jesus really mean that we should stand by and let evil happen? Not exactly. He clarified what He meant by giving us four examples of evil we should not resist.


Turning the other cheek

He said, "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39). No saying of Jesus has stirred up more debate or elicited greater scorn than this one. So, in explaining one difficulty, Jesus offers another which is perhaps even greater. Many suppose that Jesus here was teaching an ethic of total nonviolence—an ethic assuming that violence is never an appropriate response to evil. But that interpretation is not correct. Jesus expected us to understand the saying in light of other Scriptures. Scripture as a whole does not support nonviolence.

For example, it authorizes violence as a tool of those who enforce law and order—to magistrates, police, and penal officers. Describing them as ministers of God, the Bible states that God has given them a sword to punish evildoers.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Romans 13:3–4

It would therefore be wrong if someone with civil authority failed to resist criminal conduct. In fact, God commanded capital punishment of murderers.

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Genesis 9:5-6

Can soldiers also be viewed as ministers of God? Certainly, if the military is used to keep domestic peace and to repel invaders. But if the military is used as a tool of aggression against an innocent foe, it ceases to be a legitimate arm of government. God's people have a right to condemn an unjust war and to defy any effort to make them serve as soldiers. The Christians in Nazi Germany had no obligation under God to fight in Hitler's army. But, generally speaking, the modern wars waged by America and other Western nations have pursued the legitimate purpose of punishing evildoers.

Furthermore, contrary to what many have alleged, the rule of turning the other cheek does not prohibit self-defense. As we have seen in our discussion of Jesus' view of the Sabbath, He had little patience with any interpretation of the law that did not recognize the utmost importance of preserving life. To make nonviolence the chief test of a moral decision would never have won Jesus' sympathy. The chief test is whether the decision will yield real benefits to real people.

Suppose that someone is threatened by bodily attack. If he imagines that turning the other cheek requires nonviolence, he will not resist, and the result may be that he and others will suffer harm, or even be killed. Has he fulfilled his role as salt and light in a corrupt world? Certainly not. By resisting the attack, he may prevent harm and death. Even if he must kill the attacker, he does so only to spare the innocent. Remember that to stop violence is good even for the perpetrator, for it saves him from being guilty of a worse crime. The law of Moses required a woman under sexual assault to defend herself.

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Moreover, it exonerated a man who killed a nighttime intruder into his home.

2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Exodus 22:2-3

We will go far astray in our understanding of turning the other cheek if we see it as a general rule, applying to every kind of attack. It is not. In the culture of Jesus' day, a slap on the cheek was about the most degrading insult a person could suffer. Even in our culture, a slap on the cheek has much the same meaning. It is not an attack with the potential of doing grave bodily injury. It is simply an insult. By urging us to turn the other cheek, Jesus was teaching us to bear an insult without retaliating. We should never descend to the insulter's level by trading caustic comments with him. We should ignore an insult as much as possible, shrug it off from our tender feelings, and return good for evil.

Indeed, turning the other cheek pictures nonresistance to the extent of inviting another attack. That may be the result if we refuse to retaliate. In the short run, we may encourage more evil, but in the long run, we may through our Christlike response win the soul of the evildoer.

How can we be sure that the requirement to turn the other cheek has a limited application to insulting treatment? Notice that although slapping someone on the face might be viewed in our day as a form of criminal assault, it was not against the law in Jesus’ day. Here is a curious thing. The same is true of all four incidents that Jesus uses to illustrate how we should respond to provocation (Matt. 5:39-42). It was not illegal to slap someone or to bring a lawsuit. The law did not prohibit a soldier from compelling a citizen to carry military gear for a mile. And it was certainly not a crime to ask for permission to borrow something. In Jesus’ day, none of these aggravations was grounds for arrest and prosecution. Indeed, none is a really serious form of evil.

If Jesus had wanted to teach us that we should refrain from resisting every kind of evil, however serious, He could have brought forward some better examples. If He did not wish us to resist thieves and murderers, for instance, why did He not say so? Why did He limit His examples to aggravations not condemned by human legal codes? The reason is obvious. He expected us to have enough sense to realize that forms of evil in violation of criminal and civil law should be resisted.

We should not resist them by taking the law into our own hands. There is never a warrant for Lone Ranger justice. Rather, we must rely on civil authorities to maintain order in society. Human government, with all of its police and military powers, is the mechanism God ordained to enforce the law by resisting and punishing offenders. The Sermon on the Mount was by no means intended to deprive us of protection under the law.

Along with the right of protection, however, goes the responsibility to assist government in its role of combating crime. And government has a responsibility as well. It is legitimately exercising its powers only if it proceeds with mercy and fairness. Its goal should not be raw vengeance, but the prevention of further crime and, if possible, the reclamation of the criminal.


Yielding to a lawsuit

Next, Jesus said, "If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also" (Matt. 5:40). Jesus is saying again, as He said earlier in His sermon, that we should avoid legal battles.

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Matthew 5:25–26

We should settle out of court. Here, He adds instruction on what kind of settlement we should accept. We should, in fact, give our adversary even more than he demands. In other words, by our response to his demands we should show him that we attach little value to material possessions—that, as followers of Christ, we are laying up treasure in heaven rather than on earth.

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Matthew 6:20

But most of us have a practical streak that makes this saying difficult to accept. The realities of life in a corrupt world, where we are surrounded by greedy men who are trying by every means legal and illegal to take what little wealth we possess, have taught us to guard our possessions. If we were not vigilant against high-pressure salesmen, sharp dealers, con men, and thieves, we would soon have nothing left. Therefore, from the perspective of worldly wisdom, Jesus' saying seems like a recipe for financial ruin. Once others realize that our Christian convictions prevent us from resisting frivolous suits, will they not pick us clean?

The answer is twofold.

  1. Jesus is not teaching that we should hand over our wealth to anyone who wants it. We have no obligation to satisfy the covetous desires of all those shady characters we listed earlier—high-pressure salesmen, sharp dealers, con men, and thieves. The first two give us a choice, and we should choose wisely, to be good stewards of what we have. The last two operate outside the law. Again, to be salt and light, we must uphold the law in its efforts to combat corrupt and criminal practices. But the law permits suits of the kind Jesus is describing, and Jesus tells us not to resist them. They may or may not have a legitimate foundation. Either way, according to Jesus, we should not resist them.
  2. The objection remains, will we not then be vulnerable to the predatory demands of unjust suits? The answer is, we would be except for God's protection. In a later section of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus promises us that if we have the right priorities, we can be sure that God will provide all the material possessions that we need, plus more than we need.

    30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

    31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

    32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

    33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

    Matthew 6:30-33

    Implicit in this promise is a guarantee that He will not allow us to suffer ruin in consequence of a lawsuit.
         Yet a question remains in our minds. Why does the Lord discourage us from fighting an unfair lawsuit and defeating it, thereby teaching the suer a good lesson? One probable reason is that from God's perspective, we have better things to do in life than spend time in court. Our lives should center on work, family, ministry, and worship.

Going the second mile

Next, Jesus taught, "Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain" (Matt. 5:41). The saying is difficult when severed from its historical context. The Roman soldiers who occupied Palestine had a practice of forcing bystanders to carry their baggage and paraphernalia when they were marching from place to place. In Jesus’ audience were many Jews who had gone through the experience of being picked by soldiers to walk a mile or more with them. Jesus advised these Jews not to resist, but to go further than they were asked to go.

The larger principle here is that we should not resist the demands of government, even though these demands may be oppressive. We in our day have no trouble thinking of applications, because government has grown to such size and power that it crowds our lives with unreasonable demands. But, according to Jesus, we should not resist them.


Lending freely

Jesus spoke of yet another occasion when nonresistance is God's will. "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matt. 5:42). He was not talking about dishonest petitions for help. Again, we have no obligation to support or reward any criminal practice, including fraud. Rather, He is talking about people who come to us and seek money or goods to meet a real need. He says we should help them unconditionally and generously.

Why does He classify such petitions as a form of evil? Because ordinary people in Jesus' day were rather poor by modern standards. They could not afford to give money or property to somebody else. Most Christians even in our day have limited means. To give money or property to anyone who wants it might also be a big sacrifice for them. A request for a gift or for a loan may therefore be evil in the sense that compliance will do harm to the giver. Yet even then, the person who brings the request is not necessarily an evildoer, certainly not if he is the victim of a war, or of a natural disaster, or of a personal tragedy. But he is an evildoer if he finds himself in a place of need as a result of his own irresponsible conduct. It is easy to think of examples. Many of the people who apply to churches for help have fallen into trouble by taking the path of sin—the path of family conflict, laziness, overspending, drinking, drug use, etc.

The teaching, "Resist not evil," is perhaps the most difficult ethical guideline in the whole New Testament. Jesus did not leave us without help in applying it, however. He showed us that its compass was limited to to the kinds of evil for which there is no legal remedy: insults, lawsuits, the unreasonable demands of government, and honest petitions for help that we really cannot afford to provide. Although obeying this guideline may leave us feeling vulnerable, we should remember that one of God's purposes in forbidding resistance is to teach us greater dependence on Him. We should trust for defense not in our impotent selves, but in God's omnipotence.


Loving Evildoers


In the previous section of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has demonstrated that even those people who bring evil into our lives should be treated with love. We should not insult an insulter, but show him that we refuse to return his hatred—a response manifestly proceeding from our desire to love rather than to hate. If someone initiates a lawsuit against us, we should demonstrate by the settlement we accept that our motive is love seeking to be his friend and benefactor. An arbitrary government official should find us willing to cooperate, so that he will conclude that we want to help him do his job, and through this conclusion will arrive at the belief that we love him. Anyone who seeks our help should receive it and come away convinced of our love. It should always be obvious that we value souls more than things.

Jesus has now finished laying the groundwork for an astounding new teaching.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Matthew 5:43–47

He starts by pointing out that although the Jewish people understood from the law of Moses that they should love their neighbor, they falsely distinguished between their neighbor and their enemy. Jesus rebuked them for thinking that their enemy ought to be hated.

The rule, "Hate thine enemy" (v. 43), is not a quotation from the Old Testament, but a Pharisaical distortion of what the Old Testament teaches. It is based on all those passages which show God directing Israel to exterminate the pagan peoples of Canaan or to fight against a nation that was bringing harm to Israel. Israel had to take a belligerent stance if it wanted to survive in a hostile world. But God's authorization of wars to protect the interests of Israel and enlarge its influence was never meant to justify a general hatred of enemies. One reason God wanted Israel to prosper was so that it might teach the gentile nations about Himself. He wanted them to know that the real God is a God of love—a concept wholly missing from all pagan religions. But instead of showing them God's love, Israel hated these nations, and consequently failed to fulfill its intended role.

Jesus dismissed the rule, "Hate thine enemies," as false and substituted another teaching—a teaching that the world had never heard before. Far from being objects of hatred, enemies should be objects of love. The one saying, "Love thine enemies," is sufficient in itself to prove that Jesus was an original genius in the realm of ethics. And the love He wished us to have is of a fervent kind, extending so far as blessing them, doing good to them, and praying for them. The enemies who should receive this treatment include the very worst, even the ones who despitefully use us and persecute us.

Jesus next challenged us to compare ourselves with God on the one hand and, on the other hand, with the publicans, in that day generally regarded as the worst of sinners. Even these publicans, Jesus observed, exchange enthusiastic greetings with their friends and heap love upon them. Thus, the people of God should not deceive themselves that they are being righteous when they show kindness to people they like. Such kindness is natural and human and good, but not with the quality of divine goodness. Being entirely convenient to self, it will receive no reward in heaven.

If we wish to follow God’s example, we must love not only our friends, but also our enemies. Even to His worst enemies among the wicked, God gives sun and rain. He gives them food and family. He gives them life itself. He treats them with a love they do not deserve—indeed, with a love they do not even acknowledge.


Moral Perfection


The conclusion of the matter is also the intended application.

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Matthew 5:48

Righteousness has for its standard the character of God. Nothing falling short of His perfection can pretend to be righteous.

But this concluding verse in Matthew 5 has often been misconstrued. It does not mean that we should seek sinless perfection or that it is possible to attain it. The word "perfect" is teleios, but the English and Greek words are by no means equivalent in meaning. The English word speaks of something flawless, whereas the Greek word has a different shade of meaning. Originally, it was used to describe something that had achieved its intended purpose. In New Testament times, it had come to mean simply "complete" or "mature." The latter sense is illustrated in many texts describing a believer who is no longer a spiritual babe.

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect [teleios]: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

1 Corinthians 2:6

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men [teleios].

1 Corinthians 14:20

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect [teleios] man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Ephesians 4:13-14

But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age [teleios], even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Hebrews 5:14

Yet "mature" cannot be the sense of teleios in Matthew 5:48, for we cannot speak of God as mature, as if He has undergone a process of growth. Here the right translation is the other common meaning of the word, "complete." The idea is that God is complete in His goodness. His goodness is so thoroughgoing that it governs His dealings even with His worst enemies. In no policy conceived by God, and in no work performed by God, can we see anything but goodness. Likewise, our goodness should be complete. It should shine forth in every realm of life and enfold our enemies as well as our friends.

By insisting on perfection, Jesus sought to deflate the self-satisfaction that swells man’s resistance to divine correction. The delusion that he is good enough keeps man from accepting the gospel, which insists that he needs a savior from sin. It keeps him also from accepting the ethic of radical righteousness that Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount.

The natural human reaction to this sermon is to bridle up and protest that it is all idealistic nonsense. The first reaction of our sinful hearts is to scoff at Jesus' severe requirements. "What?" we say. "I must never blow off a little steam when my brother gets ornery and exasperating? I must never relish the beauty of a young girl? I must never cut down a rude person with a few choice comments? I must never oppose a lawsuit or deny help to someone in need? Such restrictions are the ravings of a religious fanatic." No, they define the perfection that God expects in His people.

When we object that they are unrealistic, what we really mean is that they force us to a higher plane of self-denial—a plane where we are not accustomed to living. But we could live there if we wanted to. And, contrary to our fears, we could live there and be happy. Forsaking our outbursts of anger and lust would leave no painful vacuum. If we refused to resist evil, no one would take such advantage of us that we would suffer real loss.