February 2, 2026
Here is the Gospel of Matthew 5:43-48 in the King James Version (KJV):
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?
48. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Jesus told His followers to be perfect as God the Father is perfect. How do we understand this passage of Scripture in Matthew 5:43-48? It is one of the most revealing passages in all of Christian theology because it defines what “perfection” (teleios) looks like in concrete terms.
When talking about perfection with other Christians, you will immediately notice that almost no Christian affirms that they or any Christian can be or actually are perfect. And that is before anyone even attempts a definition. The idea of perfection is an affront to most Christians. Yet, the Word of God uses it more than once.
What does the word perfection mean to you? Does it mean that we have all the knowledge and can answer every question? Does it mean we never make mistakes? Does it mean we never get sick? Does it mean that we can never be wrong about anything? Does it mean that we are absolutely perfect just like God Almighty?
What did Jesus mean when he said we are to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect? Is He telling us that we must have God’s essence? Of course not. Does it mean that we must be sinless like God? But how can sinners be sinless? They can’t. So, what did Jesus mean when he said we must be perfect like God the Father?
Let’s walk through it in four sections, seeing if Christians in the past figured all this out for us:
- The early Church (pre-Augustine and Greek Fathers)
- Eastern Orthodoxy
- Calvinism (Reformed)
- Arminianism and broader Evangelicalism
Number one. The Early Church (2nd–4th centuries)
Our first definition of Perfection is this. Perfection means likeness to God through enemy-love. When we love our enemies, we are perfect, because God loves His enemies.
The early fathers read this passage very directly and morally, not abstractly. What did “perfect” mean to them?
The Greek word teleios means:
- Complete
- Mature
- Brought to its intended end
For the Greek fathers especially, this meant that we are to become like God in moral character. That is close in meaning to becoming complete or brought to its intended end, rather than the meaning of maturity as we commonly use the word.
Many evangelicals today define perfection as maturity. But what exactly does that mean? Is God mature? Is that what we are to become, mature? Can that mean anything other than becoming holy and righteous as God is holy and righteous? If that is what it means, then why not say so?
The word perfect, defined as maturity, is a poor substitute, but preferred by many so-called Christians. When we are told to be perfect as God is perfect, they want us to believe we are to be as mature as God is mature. What does that mean? Can we be mature and sinful at the same time? Many Christians believe so. What a grand deception that is.
And how is God described here?
- He gives sun and rain to the righteous and the wicked. That is benevolent love extended to saint and sinner alike.
- He loves without discrimination.
So, for the early church, perfection means loving our enemies as God loves His enemies. Maturity has little or no place in that definition and is, in fact, a distraction. Let us look at some examples;
Church father, Chrysostom
In his Homilies on Matthew, he says that Christ is lifting us to “the very summit of virtue.” The command to love enemies is the climax of the Sermon on the Mount. It is not optional; it marks divine sonship. He stresses:
- If you only love those who love you, you are still at the level of tax collectors.
- The distinguishing mark of Christians is love toward their enemy.
Church father, Origen
He saw this as part of spiritual ascent or growth in Christ, becoming conformed to God.
The Didache (1st century)
Echoes this teaching plainly: “Love those who hate you.” There’s no forensic framing here. No imputed righteousness is being discussed. It is about:
- Real transformation
- Real imitation of God
- Real moral likeness
Perfection is participatory. With God’s help, we walk in the newness of life and crucify the old man of sin and death.
2. Eastern Orthodoxy
Orthodoxy essentially continues the Greek patristic interpretation. “Be perfect” means being complete in love. Orthodoxy does not interpret this as:
- Legal perfection
- Absolute sinlessness
- Imputed righteousness
Instead, Orthodoxy views this as theosis, becoming like God through grace. Since God’s defining characteristic here is indiscriminate benevolence, perfection means acquiring God’s universal love, including for our enemy. Enemy-love is not a mere ethical command; it is:
- A sign of purification of the heart
- Freedom from passions (anger, resentment)
- Participation in divine life
In Orthodox spirituality:
- Hatred is a passion
- Loving enemies is the evidence of healing
The Desert Fathers were radical here. They saw failure to forgive as a foothold for demons and a sign the heart was not yet purified. So, for Orthodoxy, perfection is completion in divine love. It is a lifelong ascent to the love of God.
3. Calvinism (Reformed)
Here, we start to see a shift away from the early church fathers and the Bible. The Reformed tradition often reads the Sermon on the Mount in one of three ways:
The first way. The law that exposes our inability to love and be holy.
Many Reformed theologians argue:
- “Be perfect as your Father is perfect” sets an impossible standard.
My comment. It doesn’t seem to bother them that this makes God unjust in requiring what we can’t provide.
- It shows us our need for Christ’s righteousness.
My comment. Since we can’t be perfect in any sense, God imputes to us the perfection of Jesus Christ even while we remain in constant sin against God.
- It drives us to grace.
My comment. ChatGPT says that many Reformed/Calvinists are driven to grace because we are unable to do what God requires. They actually do not believe that at all. In their theology, God’s commands do not drive anyone to grace; they simply reveal our inherited inability to do what God commands. Rather, God’s grace drives them irresistibly to God. God’s decree compels them, not their own initiative. They do not believe we can do anything to save ourselves, including reaching out to the grace of God.
Thus, the command reveals our sin and our need for imputed righteousness. This does not mean Reformed Christians deny the ethical command. But structurally in their theology:
- Justification is forensic.
- Perfection is fulfilled in Christ for us. He is our substitute.
- Sanctification is progressive and incomplete.
Calvin himself did not deny the moral force of the command, but Reformed theology often situates it within the law/gospel framework, according to ChatGPT.
Truthfully, Calvin did deny the command’s moral force because he taught that Christians sin daily. How can daily sin uphold the command’s moral force? It does just the opposite.
The second way. Evidence of regeneration
Another common Reformed reading:
- Loving enemies is evidence that you are truly regenerate.
My comment. But let us not forget that Calvin taught that all Christians sin daily, and sin is to not love your neighbor or your enemy. Their supposed evidence is actually the lack of evidence.
- It is fruit, not the basis, of salvation.
My comment. For the Reformed, the basis of salvation is God’s decree and His election. But how does one know if they are one of the elect? By their righteous living? But if they sin daily, how is that any evidence whatsoever? It isn’t.
Thus, perfection is sincerity and integrity of heart, not sinless flawlessness. The Westminster tradition defines perfection more as:
- Whole-hearted devotion
- Not absolute moral flawlessness
My comment. Neither of these two bullet points accurately describes what Calvin actually taught. If Christians sin daily (as Calvinism teaches) and sin is a lack of loving our neighbor and our enemy as we love ourselves, then it can’t be whole-hearted devotion. This is another example of Calvinism’s sophistry.
4. Arminianism
Arminians typically attribute ethical force more straightforwardly than strict Calvinists do. Since Arminian theology emphasizes:
- Synergistic cooperation with grace
- Real possibility of obedience and actual holiness
They tend to interpret this as a genuine, grace-empowered command. Enemy-love is:
- Required
- Possible through prevenient and sanctifying grace
John Wesley, especially, took this passage very seriously.
Wesleyan “Christian perfection.”
John Wesley actually used this verse to support his doctrine of “entire sanctification.”
But note Wesley did not define perfection as:
- Sinless, ignorance-free life
- Freedom from mistakes
My comment. He defined it as perfect love. Which sounds remarkably like the early Greek fathers. So Wesleyan Arminianism is actually closer to the Eastern reading than Calvinism is.
5. Modern Evangelicalism (broadly speaking)
This varies widely, but often you’ll hear:
- “Perfect” means mature.
My comment. But what does that mean in practical terms? Given the fact that most evangelicals believe something close to Calvinism regarding daily sin in the life of the believer, perfection equals maturity that allows for ongoing sin against God, our neighbor, and our enemy. Evangelical perfection might actually be defined as sinful maturity. A contradiction at face value.
- It means loving as God loves.
My comment. Except that it really does mean that. God’s love is pure and without any sin. For many evangelicals, our love is mixed with sin.
- It doesn’t mean sinless perfection.
My comment. It actually means something very far from sinlessness because, like Calvinists and some Arminians, they believe that Christians regularly sin throughout their lives.
However, in many evangelical circles, the radical edge of enemy-love gets softened into:
- “Have a forgiving attitude.”
- “Don’t hold grudges.”
Whereas in the early Church and Orthodoxy, it meant:
- Active benevolence toward our enemies
- Concrete acts of mercy toward enemies
- Refusal of retaliation even in persecution
Modern evangelical preaching often emphasizes:
- The impossibility of perfection because they believe we sin all of our lives
- Christ fulfilling the law for us and not holding us accountable for our impenitence
Major Theological Differences
| Tradition | What is “Perfection”? | Is It Attainable? | Emphasis |
| Early Church | Likeness to God through enemy-love | Yes, progressively | Transformation |
| Eastern Orthodox | Theosis: mature divine love | Yes, through ascetic struggle | Healing & participation |
| Calvinism | Moral integrity; fulfilled perfectly in Christ | Not fully in this life | Imputed righteousness + fruit |
| Arminian (Wesleyan) | Perfect love | Yes (entire sanctification possible) | Cooperative grace |
| Broad Evangelical | Maturity, sincere love | Partially | Evidence of salvation |
The Core Question
My belief is that this call to perfection means loving your enemies and doing good to those who spitefully use you. That reading is exactly how the early Church and Orthodoxy read it. For them, the structure is clear:
- God loves His enemies.
- Therefore, if you love your enemies,
- You are like your Father, and He is holy
- That is perfection as Jesus defined it.
No metaphysical gymnastics. No forensic detours. Just the imitation of God. In this chapter, Jesus defined perfection as loving our enemies. I think He probably knew what He was talking about. How about you?
In this next section, we will consider the following.
- Whether Augustine significantly shifts the interpretation of Matthew 5:43-48
- Whether “be perfect” was ever interpreted as sinless perfection in early Christianity
Number One. Did Augustine Shift the Interpretation of Perfection?
Yes, he did. But not by denying enemy-love; he reframed “perfection” within his developing doctrines of grace, sin, and the impossibility of moral perfection in this life.
A. Before Augustine (the Greek Fathers)
As we saw:
- Perfection equals likeness to God
- Enemy-love equates to the summit of virtue
- The command is genuinely attainable through ascetic struggle and grace
- Emphasis is transformational and participatory
Early church father, Chrysostom, for example:
- Treats this as a real command Christians must obey. It is not optional.
- Sees it as the mark of divine sonship.
- Does not frame it as an impossible standard meant to drive us to despair.
There is no doctrine yet of:
- Inherited guilt
- Total inability
- Absolute moral corruption (That comes later with Augustine, Luther, and Calvin)
Sin is serious, but the will is still considered capable of cooperation with grace. Real and practical holiness and righteousness are demanded of the Christian.
B. Augustine’s Context
Augustine’s false interpretation develops especially during his anti-Pelagian writings (early 5th century).
The Pelagians were supposedly arguing:
- Humans can obey God without special interior grace.
- Commands imply ability.
Augustine responds:
- No, fallen humanity cannot fulfill God’s law without grace.
- Even baptized believers struggle with concupiscence and sin daily.
This radically affects how Matthew 5:48 is read. And it is radically different than what the earlier church fathers taught.
C. Augustine on “Be Perfect”
Augustine does affirm:
- Loving enemies is the height of Christian morality. (But he denies it is possible.)
- Christians must strive toward it. (Even though they will never achieve it.)
However, Augustine adds two crucial shifts. According to Augustine, perfection is never fully realized in this life.
In On the Spirit and the Letter and Retractions, Augustine argues: No one in this life lives without sin. In other words, Christians sin daily. This differs greatly from the teachings of the early church. It is also vastly different from saying that perfection is never fully realized in this life, when daily sinning is the expectation.
So “be perfect” becomes:
- A command that shows us the goal, which is unattainable.
- A command that drives us to continual dependence on grace, yet it is still unattainable even with God’s grace.
- A standard fully realized only in the life to come.
That is different from Chrysostom’s tone and text. And it is a false and ruinous shift. An unattainable goal is no goal at all. No rational person strives for an impossible goal.
The Lord’s Prayer as proof
Augustine famously argues: If Christians must pray daily, “Forgive us our trespasses.” Then they must still be sinning. Therefore:
- Sinless perfection in this life is impossible.
- Even the holiest saints still have defects and sins.
This becomes foundational for Western theology. But where is it written that Christians must pray daily, “Forgive us our trespasses,” outside this model prayer? And what about all the many passages that tell us that sin shall not be master over us and that the one who sins is not born of God but is born of the devil? See Romans 6 and 1 John 3. Read also my article on 1 John 2:8: If we say we have no sin, we lie, and the truth is not in us.
The Big Shift
Here is the structural change. The Greek Fathers equated Perfection with real transformation into the divine likeness (Does God sin daily?), an attainable goal.
Augustine equated Perfection with an ultimate ideal, fully realized only in heaven, never fully embodied here, according to ChatGPT. But that leaves the impression that if it isn’t fully embodied here, then might it be substantially embodied here? Not according to Augustine and Calvinists, for they teach that Christians sin daily until they die. Never fully embodied is misleading, for if Christians continue to sin daily all their lives, then it is not ever developed or not ever embodied.
ChatGPT says Augustine does not deny transformation when he actually does deny it, and he places strong emphasis on:
- Ongoing sin
- Ongoing need for forgiveness
- Interior corruption
This shift later becomes even sharper in the Reformers. Again, this completely denies transformation, contrary to what ChatGPT claims.
Number Two. Was “Be Perfect” Ever Interpreted as Sinless Perfection?
This is where nuance is essential.
A. Early Church (Pre-Augustine)
The early Church did not commonly teach:
- Absolute metaphysical sinlessness
- Freedom from ignorance
- Freedom from mistake
However, some strands did speak very strongly about moral purity. And that is not sinning daily in thought, word, and deed, as Calvinists and many evangelicals today believe. That aligns more with what I have been teaching. For genuine Christians, sin is the rare exception, not the rule, in their lives.
B. The Ascetic Tradition
Certain early ascetics (Desert Fathers, especially) spoke of:
- Purity of heart
- Freedom from passions
- Unceasing prayer
- Total forgiveness toward enemies
Evagrius and others described advanced monks as:
- No longer dominated by anger
- Free from hatred
- Possessing apatheia (dispassion)
But this was:
- Freedom from deliberate sin and passions
- Not absolute ontological flawlessness
Even they assumed:
- Continued humility
- Need for God’s mercy
C. Origen’s View
Origen taught:
- The soul can become perfected in love.
- But growth continues eternally.
Perfection equals maturity in holiness, not static flawlessness. Note that, in his thinking, maturity is attached to holiness. Today, the substitute word (maturity) for perfection is most often detached from maturity in holiness and righteousness.
D. Pelagianism (The Real Sinless Perfection Claim)
Pelagius (early 5th century) argued:
- Some Christians have lived without sin.
- It is fully possible.
Pelagius argued that living without sin was possible for every command of God; by definition, it must be possible for us, or God would never command it. To do so would make God unjust. But that is not the same thing as arguing that most Christians have never sinned. He did not believe that.
Augustine reacted strongly against this. After Augustine, Western theology becomes deeply suspicious of any talk of present sinlessness. But why should it be repellent that real Christians stop sinning? Is God’s grace insufficient? Are God’s promises empty?
When we are told that we can do all things through Christ, who gives us strength, are we to assume that we can suffer persecution for Christ, but we can’t stop sinning for Christ? Is the promise a lie? Doesn’t all this actually make Christ a minister of sin? See my article, “Is Christ a Minister of Sin?”
1 John 3, Romans 6, and 8 make it clear that the Christian is free from the bondage of sin. But Augustine and most Christians today deny these and other similar passages. They want a sinning Christianity, but why?
See my many other articles on Augustine, Pelagius, How Free Is Our Will, the Book of Titus, Repent, and Major Church Councils.
E. Eastern Orthodoxy
Orthodoxy maintains:
- Theosis is real.
- Saints can become radiant with divine love.
- Some saints become extraordinarily purified.
But they still say:
- Absolute sinlessness belongs properly to Christ alone. (Because sinners can be cleansed but can never be absolutely sinless.)
- Even saints rely on mercy.
However, the Orthodox are far more comfortable speaking of:
- Victory over passions
- Deep moral transformation
- Real holiness
Orthodoxy makes these claims without immediately qualifying them with “but we’re still totally depraved” and sin daily.
Comparison Summary
| Question | Greek Fathers | Augustine | Reformers |
| Is enemy-love attainable? | Yes, through grace | Yes, but imperfectly | Yes, but never fully |
| Can one be morally perfected in this life? | Deeply purified, yes | No | No |
| Is sinlessness possible? | Rarely taught; mostly no | Strong no | Absolute no |
The Deeper Theological Divergence
The real divide underneath Matthew 5:48 is anthropology:
- How damaged is the will?
- How deep is sin?
- How powerful is grace in this life?
Greek tradition:
- Humanity is wounded.
- Grace heals.
- Healing can go very far.
Augustinian-Western tradition:
- Humanity is deeply corrupted, totally depraved, and totally unable
- Grace forgives and renews.
- But corruption persists until death.
Now Here’s the Critical Question
When Jesus says, “Be perfect as your Father is perfect.” Is He:
- Giving an impossible ideal to expose sin?
- Giving a real command empowered by grace?
- Declaring what sonship looks like?
- Defining divine likeness?
The early Church overwhelmingly read it as #2 and #4. Augustine adds a strong emphasis on #1. The Reformers heavily stress #1.
Let us say that Augustine (5th century) and Calvin (16th Century) were correct. Jesus gives us an impossible command, which means we must suffer the consequences of our irresistible disobedience and be condemned for it by God Himself. If you actually believe that of God, then you may be beyond hope. You have reduced God to an unjust tyrant.
In this next section, we will consider:
Whether evangelicals have diluted the radical force of Matthew 5:43-48, which has been structurally softened in modern preaching.
First, what Makes Jesus’ Command Radical?
In its original context, this command was explosive. Jesus says:
- Love your enemies
- Pray for those who persecute you
- Do good to those who hate you (Luke’s parallel)
- So that you may be sons of your Father
Then Jesus also tells us, “Be perfect as your Father is perfect”.
The radical features are:
- It eliminates retaliation.
- It eliminates tribal love.
- It defines divine likeness as indiscriminate or disinterested benevolence.
- It makes enemy-love the distinguishing mark of God’s children.
In the early church, this meant:
- Refusal to take revenge
- Refusal to participate in vengeance
- Prayer for persecutors
- Concrete acts of mercy toward enemies
Christians became famous for this in the Roman world. This radical love remains central to true Christianity today.
Secondly, modern evangelical preaching often softens this Radical Demand.
Again, this is not universal within all evangelical churches. But there are common patterns.
A. It Becomes “Have a Forgiving Attitude”
Instead of:
- Active, costly love toward enemies
It becomes:
- “Don’t hold grudges.”
- “Let it go.”
- “Release bitterness.”
That’s not wrong, but it’s reduced. Jesus doesn’t say, “Feel neutral toward your enemies”. He says, actively love them. The early church understood this as positive benevolence. Modern preaching often stops at internal disposition. Do we understand the difference?
B. It Is Detached from Concrete Obedience
In many evangelical settings, the Sermon on the Mount is framed as:
- Evidence of true faith
- Fruit of salvation
- Not the conditions of entering the kingdom, which is a false teaching.
That theological framing often results in this subtle shift. Instead, you must love your enemies to be sons of your Father. It becomes: if you are already justified, you will gradually show this kind of love, maybe someday. But even if you don’t, it will not prevent you from inheriting the kingdom of God.
The emphasis moves from an urgent moral demand to diagnostic evidence. That changes the text’s psychological force. It is no longer an urgent and indispensable demand.
C. It Is Reframed as “Impossible Ideal”
In some Reformed preaching, especially, you’ll hear that “Be perfect” is meant to show you that you can’t do it. It drives you to Christ’s righteousness. That interpretation tends to blunt the immediate ethical demand and leave Christians in their sins, believing that it is normal for a child of God. If they are wrong, this will cost many professing Christians eternal life. And I believe they are wrong.
Instead of asking themselves, Am I actively loving those who wrong me? The listener asks, Do I trust in Christ’s perfection and His obedience to save me even while I refuse obedience to the command? The center shifts from transformation to a fictional imputation and a legal gimmick.
D. Cultural Accommodation
In American evangelical culture, especially:
- Political polarization
- Culture war rhetoric
- Us-versus-them identity formation
Have sometimes normalized hostility toward perceived enemies. So, what happens? “Enemy” is redefined as someone who personally hurt me. But not:
- Political opponents
- Ideological adversaries
- Cultural rivals
Yet in Jesus’ context, Rome and the Jewish leaders were the enemy. Persecutors were enemies. The early church prayed for emperors who executed them. That level of radical love is rarely pressed in our evangelical churches.
Thirdly, what are the structural Reasons for the Softening?
This isn’t just bad preaching. It’s theological structure.
A. Assurance-Centered Systems
In many evangelical systems, the controlling pastoral question is: How can I know I’m saved?
Matthew 5 becomes:
- A test of regeneration
- A fruit-check
Rather than:
- A command that defines sonship
The emphasis becomes inward, “Do I see evidence I am already saved?” Rather than outward, “Am I actively loving enemies?”
B. Forensic Priority Over Transformational Priority
If justification is the primary lens (and it most often is), then the Sermon on the Mount often functions as:
- The law that Christ fulfilled for me, or instead of me fulfilling it personally
- Or the ethical outworking of gratitude
But in the early church and Orthodoxy, the Sermon on the Mount is:
- The description of kingdom life itself
Not secondary. Not merely evidential. But constitutive. But practical righteousness and holiness.
Fourthly, What Has Been Lost?
Here’s what often gets muted:
1. Enemy-love as the defining mark of divine likeness and perfection
Early Christians believed that if you cannot love enemies, you are not yet like God. Modern preaching often avoids that kind of direct statement.
2. Enemy-love as spiritual warfare
The Desert Fathers believed that refusing forgiveness gives demons a foothold. Modern evangelical preaching often treats resentment as emotional immaturity, not spiritual danger.
3. Enemy-love as participation in the cross
Jesus loved His enemies while they crucified Him. Early Christians saw martyrdom as the perfection of enemy-love. Modern evangelical culture, especially in the West:
- Rarely frames suffering injustice as an opportunity for divine likeness.
- Often frames it as a rights violation. This is especially true of progressive and Liberal Christian Churches.
Fifthly, to Be Fair: What Evangelicals Preserve Well
It’s important to balance this. Evangelicals often emphasize:
- Personal forgiveness
- Grace toward sinners
- The necessity of heart transformation
- The impossibility of loving enemies without the Spirit
Those are strengths. The issue isn’t denial. It’s a reduction of scale, importance, and practicality.
Sixthly, what Would It Look Like Unsoftened?
If preached in its early church force, Matthew 5:43-48 would mean:
- You must actively pray for those who attack you.
- You must seek their good.
- You must refuse retaliation.
- You must treat ideological opponents with tangible benevolence.
- Your love must mirror God’s indiscriminate generosity.
This is not optional Christianity. It is sonship. That’s how Chrysostom preached it. That’s how Orthodoxy still reads it. That’s how Wesley read it. That’s how martyrs embodied it.
Now here’s the probing theological question underneath it all:
If enemy-love defines divine likeness, and divine likeness defines perfection, and perfection defines sonship, then what happens to assurance theology if a believer harbors ongoing hostility? That tension lies at the heart of much modern evangelical discomfort.
What is the bottom line?
Christ commanded His followers to be perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect. The idea that we cannot comply is so prevalent in most Reformed and evangelical churches that it makes compliance with Christ’s commands impossible. These churches believe in a gospel of salvation “in” the present lifestyle of sin, not from the ongoing habit of sinning. That determines their interpretation of this and similar passages. The wonder of it all is that they have no problem contradicting Jesus and demonizing the Father. The Father commands impossibilities and damns those who don’t comply. May I suggest to you that if that is your view of God, you are very deceived.
Evangelicals are so used to the preaching of a sinning Christianity that they rarely consider the commands and promises of God objectively. It is a very sad day.
Please consider the four articles titled (Can A Christian Stop Sinning) on my website under the page Sin Nature/Original Sin.
