My apologies for the wrong citation. Note to self: proofread.
and it's in second aorist (meaningless tense in English and therefore cannot be accurately translated into English, except that it is usually a past tense, whihc is nonsense).
Correction, it is aorist passive imperative γενήθητε (the second aorist would be ἐγένησθε). The distinction between the present imperative and the aorist imperative is not one of tense but of duration. The aorist imperative refers to the action without saying anything about its duration or repetition, while the present imperative refers to it as continuing or as being repeated.
Second Leviticus is an imperative (shall), a commandment something every Jew is ordered to perform, and is menaningful only within confines of Judaism.
By the fact that it is quoted by St. Peter in his instruction shows that it is indeed still meaningful.
Third Matthews 5:48 is in future tense (become perfect...theosis).
The future tense indicates any time after the present. Given that this comes after a series of instructions on how to treat one's enemies, it is clear that our Lord is saying that we should strive for perfection now.
Fourth, the decision who will be what in Church is God's and not ours (at least according to the Christian Bible) … So, the desire should be to serve God whatever God has decided for us, rather than let pride and ambition and glory get the better of us.
Seeking to become a saint, i.e. striving for holiness, has nothing to do with one's station in the Church. One, by the grace of God, can become a saint in the anonymity of one's own family, a holiness unknown to anyone but God. It is a product of humility, not pride.
So, what? The meaning is the same. Take it up with publishers who disagree with you. And the KJV version is based on the corrupt Textus Receptus, which doesn't agree with any of the older reliable versions, namely: ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος εἰμι, a simple future: you will be holy because I am holy!
By the fact that it is quoted by St. Peter in his instruction shows that it is indeed still meaningful.
Hardly, given that Christians are not under the Law, so quoting Leviticus as something binding is pointless—unless he was addressing Jewish Christians (since they observed the Torah). Either way it is a miss.
The Septuagint version of Leviticus 19:2 reads like the reliable NT versions, namely ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν, a simple future "you will be[come]..." and not the way KJV fraud reads.
And while Jews are obligated to follow specific mitzvot to be acceptable (righteous) in God's eyes, the Christians are not give any specific tasks to follow (as points towards holiness), so quoting Leviticus to the Christians does not make it meaningful, again, unless the apostle to the Jews was addressing the Torah-observant Christians in Israel.
The future tense indicates any time after the present. Given that this comes after a series of instructions on how to treat one's enemies, it is clear that our Lord is saying that we should strive for perfection now.
But the inability to reach perfection in specific tasks is precisely why Paul argued that the Law cannot save us and that Christians are not saved by the Law but by Grace, totally undeserving.
Unfortunately, Christianity is an amalgam of approaches that seem to oscillate between grace and works-based perfection, reflecting the two rival schools (Petrine and Pauline) that were eventually awkwardly and artificially reconciled but not without gaps.
Seeking to become a saint, i.e. striving for holiness, has nothing to do with one's station in the Church. One, by the grace of God, can become a saint in the anonymity of one's own family, a holiness unknown to anyone but God. It is a product of humility, not pride.
Seeking holiness is vanity, period. You don't strive for holiness but to serve God; let God decide who becomes holy and who doesn't—you know, "Thy will be done...and not mine," conforming oneself to Christ.
One, by the grace of God, can become a saint in the anonymity of one's own family, a holiness unknown to anyone but God. It is a product of humility, not pride.
There you go again...holiness is a "product of humility." Holiness is not a "product." But as long as we look at it that way, nothing short of pride will define it.