[5:48] The chapter ends with either an
incredibly demanding command or an incredibly gracious promise: either “Be
perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect,” or “You will be perfect, as your
Father in heaven is perfect.” Betz comments: “It is not clear from the outset
whether esesthe is merely an
imperative (‘Be perfect’), or a prediction (‘You will be perfect’), or an
eschatological promise (‘You may be perfect’). Grammatically as well as
contextually, one could justify each of the options.” The inferential particle,
oun, can either lead to a culminating
command that follows from the six antitheses, or return to the eschatological
promises of the Beatitudes. Betz takes a judicious position: “My suggestion is
that the ambiguity is intended precisely to combine the various aspects, none
of which can be isolated without losing grasp of the theology of the SM as a
whole.”
Taken as a command, “Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is
perfect” is such a high standard that some have sought an alternative meaning:
“Be complete” (CEB) or “be whole” (Guelich). The ultimate demand, however, fits
the tone of hyperbole we have noted in the antitheses. The Greek term teleios can mean to be “fully developed
in a moral sense” (BDAG 996) and sometimes translates the Hebrew tām, “complete, morally innocent, having
integrity” (BDB 1071) or “blameless” (Job 9:20–22). Noah was teleios (Gen 6:9 LXX; cf. Jub. 10.17;
Sir 44:17); Job was tām (Job 1:1;
2:3). Moses instructed the children of Israel to be tāmîm, “blameless” (LXX teleios),
when they entered the land (Deut 18:13). God as the Rock is tāmîm (Deut 32:4). According to
Jubilees, God commanded Abraham to “be perfect” (15.3), and so he was: “Abraham
was perfect in all of his actions with the Lord” (23.10).
Both Matthew and the Essenes called their communities to perfection.
By perfection, the Essenes meant full obedience to all the laws of the
community (cf. Matt 28:20). Nevertheless, Davies advises caution; although
there is “a certain similarity between the emphasis on perfection in Qumran and
in Matthew,” there are “deep differences” between the two. In a word, “Qumran
demanded more obedience, Matthew deeper.” All who joined the Qumran community
were required to “carry out God’s decrees” and “walk in perfection in his
sight” (1QS 1.7–8, García Martínez). The Council of the Community was composed
of twelve men and three priests who were “perfect in everything that has been
revealed about all the Law” (1QS 8.1, García Martínez).
Later in Matthew, Jesus instructs the rich young man, who kept all the
commandments, that if he wished to be perfect (teleios) he must sell all he had and give the money to the poor
(19:21). Similarly, Paul speaks of believers who are teleios, where the term is usually translated “mature” in modern
translations (1 Cor 2:6; 14:20; Eph 4:13; Phil 3:15; Col 1:28; 4:12). In Jas
1:4 to be teleios is to be “lacking
in nothing,” and one who never errs in speech is teleios (Jas 3:2).
The demand for perfection is rooted in the concept of a holy people in
covenant relationship with a holy God (Lev 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7, 26) and hence
comes from “Jewish theology.” The admonition to “be perfect,” therefore, serves
as a conclusion not only for the final antithesis but for all six antitheses
(5:21–48). Jesus’ radical commandments all point the way to moral perfection.
(R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew: A Commentary [The New Testament
Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021], 120-21)
