Introduction to the Lord’s Prayer Steve Moyise

Traditional form Modern form Our Father, who art in heaven, Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name; hallowed be your name, thy kingdom come; your kingdom come, thy will be done; your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. on earth as in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, Give us today our daily bread. and forgive us our trespasses, Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who trespass against us. as we forgive those who sin against us. And lead us not into temptation; Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, For the kingdom, the power and the glory, the power, and the glory are yours for ever and ever. now and for ever. Amen Amen.

The traditional form found in the Book of Common Prayer (1662) was updated for the Alternative Service Book (1980), removing the archaic pronouns (thy, thine), changing ‘trespass’ to ‘sin’ and making a few stylistic changes (who art in heaven/in heaven; this day/today; thine is/are yours).1 Surprisingly, they did not feel the need to change ‘hallowed’ into something like ‘honoured’, as in the Good News Bible (GNB). It is difficult to decide whether these changes resulted in a change of meaning. Certainly the word ‘sin’ is very different from what ‘trespass’ has come to mean (walking on private property), but that was hardly the meaning intended by Tyndale when he used it in his translation (1526). What is less known is that both versions differ considerably from what ‘our Saviour taught us’, as recorded in the two versions found in the .

Mt 6:9-13 NRSV Lk 11:2-4 NRSV Our Father in heaven, Father, hallowed be your name. hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, And forgive us our sins, as we also have forgiven our debtors. for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial, And do not bring us to the time of trial. but rescue us from the evil one.

1 For other ancient versions, search the web for ‘History of the Lord’s Prayer’. 1

The most obvious difference is that neither of the biblical versions have the final ‘kingdom, power and glory’ clause. It would appear that when the prayer was used liturgically (ie. not part of a reading of Matthew or Luke), a more suitable ending was required and this was supplied by adding words from 1 Chron 29:11 (‘Yours, O Lord, are the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty’). This have happened at an early stage as it appears in a work known as the (early 2nd c.).2 It is not said in Roman Catholic services.

The second major difference occurs in the forgiveness saying. Matthew uses the Greek opheil- root to refer to debts and debtors. Since the first clause concerns our debt before God, the word ‘sin’ is a reasonable translation and is indeed what we find in Luke’s version. It is less clear if it is warranted for the second clause, where both Matthew and Luke speak of debtors/those indebted to us. Are we being asked to release people from their debts, as in the jubilee regulations (Lev 25:8-11), or is it simply being used figuratively? The Revised English Bible (REB) translates, ‘those who have wronged us’, but most English versions stick with ‘debtors’. Calvin thought it was important not to lose the monetary sense and ‘debts’ and ‘debtors’ and it can be found in a number of traditions, such as Scottish Presbyterianism.

The difference between ‘deliver’ and ‘rescue’ in the final clause is negligible but there are two other differences. The first concerns the meaning of peirasmos. This word can mean ‘temptation’, ‘trial’ or ‘test’, as can be seen from its other occurrences in the NT. For example, almost all versions translate Lk 22:28 as, ‘You are those who stood by me in my trials’. It is referring to the events leading up to his arrest and would be odd to translate it as, ‘You are those who stood by me in my temptations’. Similarly, Paul says in Gal 4:14, ‘though my illness was a trial to you’ (NIV). It is unlikely that Paul means, ‘though my illness was a temptation to you’. On the other hand, most Bible versions render Jesus’ words in Gethsemane as, ‘Pray that you will not fall into temptation’ (Lk 22:40) rather than ‘Pray that you will not fall into trial’. So what is the best choice for the Lord’s prayer? The NIV/ESV stick with the traditional ‘lead us not into temptation’ but REB/GNB use the stronger ‘test’ or ‘testing’. We are not praying for protection against every chocolate biscuit and glass of wine but the trials and tribulations of this life (1 Pet 1:6). On the other hand, the NRSV is virtually alone in referring not to trials in general but ‘the time of trial’, a reference to the eschatological trial or final judgement.

According to the OT, God sometimes tests people to see if their faith is genuine (Gen 22:1-2; Exod 16:4) but this petition seems to be asking God not to do it to us. The difficulty is not new, as we can see from Jas 1:13-14: ‘No one, when tempted, should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. But one is tempted by one’s own desire …’. Perhaps the meaning is something like: ‘Do not allow us to be tempted/tested beyond what we can resist’, as in 1 Cor 10:13 (‘God is faithful, and he

2 Didache 8 has a 2-fold form: ‘Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever’. What is of particular interest is that it is introduced by the words ‘as the Lord commanded in his ’ and instructs the Church to pray it 3 times a day. 2 will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it’). Pope Francis suggested in 2017 that the English translation should be changed to ‘do not let us fall into temptation’, though this is yet to appear in a published prayer book.

The second difference in the final clause is the translation of ponēros. Grammatically, this could be neuter (‘evil’) or masculine (‘evil one’). Many modern versions of the Bible (NRSV, NIV, REB, GNB) think the personification of evil (devil, Satan) makes more sense than the abstract concept of ‘evil’. It may be that the revised form of the Lord’s Prayer (1980) came too early to pick up on this trend.

Meaning of the Lord’s Prayer While the Lord’s Prayer has been considered the archetypal ‘Christian’ prayer, it is noteworthy that it makes no mention of Christ and is in fact similar to Jewish prayers of the time. For example, a synagogue prayer known as the Kaddish (‘holy’) reads: ‘Magnified and sanctified may his great name be in the world that he created, as he wills, and may his kingdom come in your life and in your days and in the lives of all the house of Israel, swiftly and soon’. If Jesus knew this prayer (or one like it), then what he is offering is a greatly simplified version, with three short statements about honouring or revering God’s name, kingdom and will. As all commentators point out, prayer begins by focusing on who God is, which puts our own needs into perspective.

The prayer begins ‘Our Father’,3 which highlights Jesus’ intimate relationship with God and invites us to share it. The view of Jeremias that the word abba means ‘daddy’ is no longer held today, as Jewish documents also show adult men using it of their fathers. However, the insight that it points to intimacy is basically correct. At the time of his greatest need, Jesus cried out in Gethsemane, ‘Abba, Father, for you all things are possible’ and Paul sees it as the mark of a Christian that they can do likewise (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). As Ulrich Luz points out, the demanding will of God that we read about in the Sermon on the Mount is shown in the Lord’s Prayer to be the will of a Father.4

The three divine petitions are followed by three human petitions (food, forgiveness and protection). It is tempting to see the forgiveness clause in the light of later Christian doctrine but two things should be noted: (1) Jewish prayers also asked for forgiveness, as in the sixth of the ‘Eighteen Benedictions’;5 and (2) The statement ‘as we also have forgiven’ (reinforced in 6:14: ‘For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you’) sounds very unlike later Christian formulations. The disposition to give glory to God leads to the ability to forgive others and to receive forgiveness ourselves.

3 Lk has the simple ‘Father’ but the use of ‘us’ and ‘we’ in the petitions shows that it is also intended as a corporate prayer. 4 Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 314. 5 ‘Forgive us, our Father, for we have sinned; pardon us, our King, for we have transgressed: for Thou pardonest and forgivest. Blessed be Thou, O Gracious One, who multipliest forgiveness.’ 3

It is not easy to explain the differences between the versions in Matthew and Luke. One suggestion is that Luke’s shorter form is closer to what Jesus actually said and that Matthew expanded it so that the three human petitions are now matched by three divine petitions (adding ‘Your will be done’) and the three human petitions now all have a second clause (adding ‘but rescue us from the evil one’). This seems more probable than Luke abbreviating what is already a very short prayer. An alternative suggestion is that Jesus offered the prayer in different forms. After all, the contexts are very different. In Matthew, it is part of the Sermon on the Mount but in Luke, the disciples ask Jesus to teach them to pray as John the Baptist taught his disciples to pray (11:1).

Epiousios One significant piece of data in such discussions is that the Greek word usually translated ‘daily’ (epiousios) is completely unknown. Whatever Jesus may have said in his native Aramaic, the first translator appears to have made up a word to convey its meaning. It is just about impossible to imagine Matthew and Luke both doing this independently. It is more likely that either one Gospel copied it from the other (Mark Goodacre6 thinks Luke used Matthew) or that they both got it from a common source. Most scholars think the latter is more likely and have designated this source by the letter Q (from the German word Quelle, meaning ‘source’). On this theory, Q had a translation of the Lord’s Prayer and Matthew and Luke used it differently and in different contexts.

Thus it turns out that what looks like the simplest of the petitions (‘daily bread’) is actually the most difficult to interpret because we don’t know what epiousios means. There have been three main suggestions, leading to the following interpretations (1) ‘Give us today the bread we need to exist’. Medieval exegetes took this as a reference to the and hence the tradition of a daily eucharist. (2) Give us today the bread to come. This was taken as a reference to the heavenly banquet spoken about in some of Jesus’ parables. In other words, let us experience today something of the heavenly banquet to come; (3) Give us today the bread for tomorrow. Anybody saying the Lord’s Prayer today (‘Give us today our daily bread’) will probably assume that it is talking about physical needs and find options (1) and (2) fanciful but it should be noted that in the service, the Lord’s Prayer comes immediately before the words, ‘We break this bread to share in the ’. Its position in the service invites the identification,7 even if we think it unlikely that this could have been what Jesus meant.

Conclusion Although the Lord’s Prayer is one of the most basic texts in Christianity, it raises a whole host of questions, not least when introduced by the words, ‘As our Saviour taught us’. The versions we say in church are considerably different from the versions in Matthew and Luke, which also have significant differences from one another. There is no doubt that Jesus is the

6 Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem. A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2001). 7 Luz (Matthew 1-7, 320) notes that since the time of a daily Eucharist has been justified by reference to the Lord’s Prayer, along with the refusal of the cup for the laity. Although Augustine championed both a literal and spiritual meaning, it was the Reformers who established the literal meaning. 4 originator of the prayer and it reflects his intimate relationship with the Father. Perhaps the abiding message of the prayer is that we are invited to share in that intimacy, enabled to forgive and be forgiven while glorifying God in all that we do.

Questions • Do you think any of the differences introduced in the modern version (1980) affect the meaning of the prayer? • Is it a problem that the forms we say in church differ from what we find in the Gospels? • What would you feel about modern Jews praying this prayer and claiming it as their own?

5