Good/bad/perfect

[sami]

 

Good (טוב)

tov, Strong's #2896? What is good? From our modern western perspective this would be something that is pleasing to us but, from an Hebraic perspective the Hebrew word tov, usually translated as good, means something that is functional. A complex set of gears in a watch that functions together properly is tov. However, if the gears are not functioning properly then they are ra [str:7451], usually translated as evil or bad but the more Hebraic meaning is dysfunctional. And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good (tov). And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. When God saw his creation it is not that it was "pleasing" to him rather, he saw that it functioned properly.



What does "good" mean? The first use of this word is in Genesis chapter one where God calls his handiwork "good". It
should always be remembered that the Hebrews often relate descriptions to functionality. The word tov would best be translated with the word "functional". When looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was "good", he saw that it was functional, kind of like a well - oiled and tuned machine. In contrast to this word is the Hebrew word "ra". These two words, tov and ra are used for the tree of the knowledge of "good" and "evil". While "ra" is often translated as evil it is best translated as "dysfunctional". Strong’s 3966 exceedingly (meod)  -  Strong’s 2896 good (tov) Genesis 1:31  God saw all that he had made, and behold it was very excellent.


**The word "perfect" that we knock around so much is often misunderstood. We tend to apply an unqualified philosophical meaning to it and have it mean "without flaw" or "without error" or put it into other absolute categories. It then becomes easy to say that Jesus' command in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:48), "Be therefore perfect,
even as your heavenly Father  is perfect," is a laudable goal, but one that is impossible for human beings to achieve.  That is even easier to do from certain doctrinal or theological positions that assume human beings cannot ever respond to God beyond their contaminated sinful nature.




The problem in this thinking is that the Hebrew word (tam or tamim) does not carry the meaning of "without flaw" as does the term "perfect" in English.  It normally means complete or mature or healthy (for example, Lev 22:21). That meaning of mature dominates most use of the equivalent Greek term in the New Testament (telos). Something, or someone, can be complete or mature yet not be "without flaw." In fact, it is much easier to be mature and still have flaws, than it is to be without error or without flaw. Many people are mature, but few if any are "without flaw." A six year old can be mature, and still have a lot of growing to do, just like a person can be "holy" and have a lot to learn about spiritual maturity.



John Wesley used the term "perfect" frequently and argued that it was a biblical term. But, the term is only "biblical"
in English. That is what creates our problems since the word has a different range of meaning in English than the biblical words it translates. I would certainly not discount Wesley’s ability in biblical language, since he wrote grammars for both Greek and Hebrew. On the other hand, in the past 250 years we have come to understand a lot more about the biblical languages, especially the thought world and culture that lay behind Hebrew. It is not that Wesley was wrong.
"Perfect" may have been the best choice for 1740. But perhaps if he had the command of Hebrew and knowledge of Hebraic culture that we do today, or if he were communicating in our culture, he would have chosen a different way to express the idea.



The term "perfect" is associated with too many metaphysical connotations in our culture, and describes something different
than do the biblical terms in either Hebrew or Greek. Most people in our western culture outside of the church no longer use categories of thought that speak of ultimate absolutes like perfection, especially applied to people, or if they do they reject them as impossible. We quickly admit that such things are rare, especially among human beings. We are much more inclined to think
existentially in terms of how we function in the world at any given time. That is why I think a more existential term will communicate better to people for whom the term "perfect" identifies something that is impossible to achieve.



Both Hebrew and Greek terms carry much more that existential dimension of meaning anyway than they do the absolute overtones that we have come to associate with the term perfect.  From the biblical perspective, "perfect" describes something that functions as it was intended to function or of someone who acts appropriately
(note that in Romans 12:2, the Greek term "perfect," teleion, is used with "good" and "acceptable"). And of course for Wesley,
perfect was always qualified with the category of love, so that any perfection of which he spoke was in the context of loving God and neighbor. That is why the true Wesleyan concept is perfect love, never perfection as a general category.




 Wesley himself fought against the concept of perfectionism, and the accusation leveled at him by many Calvinists that he promoted it. Wesley did not promote any form of perfectionism. Yet sadly, that strand of thinking entered the American Holiness tradition later and heirs of that tradition have been struggling with a tendency toward perfectionism ever since.
Modern Wesleyans do not believe in a perfectionism that translates into "without error." But they do believe in being perfected in love in which human beings are transformed as a result of God’s grace into mature, growing, and healthy Christians governed by love rather than self-interest. That is all Wesley ever meant by "perfect," and I am convinced that is the meaning in Scripture, most especially in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew (5:48).  That is why I think Jesus' command is more than an impossible goal for which we struggle in vain strive. It is the very achievable goal of all Christian living, as God enables us with his strength (cf. Phil 4:13).