Associate professor of church history princeton theological seminary baker book house

Download 4,25 Mb.
Date conversion27.04.2018
Size4,25 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   38


rendered it neither impossible nor improper to join Jesus in his invocation of God as " our Father." That this prayer is not intended as an utterance of an individual but of believing disciples as a body appears in Luke's version from the fourth petition, and from Matthew's in the addition to the invoca­tion "Our Father," etc. As the synagogue prayer was evidently congregational, so Jesus gave a prayer which was common and not individual. God is also addressed as Father in heaven (Matt. v. 48, vi. 14, 26, 32, xv. 13, xviii. 35, xxiii. 9) to indicate the distinction between him and a merely earthly father. With this may be compared the old Hebrew usage (Isa. xmwiii. 5), and in the Kad­dish is read: " Let all Israel pray, and flee to the Heavenly Father." The Heavenly Father is the God unlimited by earthly bounds, who knows all, sees all, is the omnipotent. He is the Father who " seeth in secret" and hears the secret prayer (Matt. vi. 4, 6, 18). In other words he is the God who is spirit and life (John iv. 24, v. 26). In the earliest years of Jewish Christianity, for the use of which the first Gospel was written, the prayer was not considered a cast‑iron form, but as the gift of Jesus which might be altered and expounded at will in the words which Jesus himself employed.

2. The First Petition: "Hallowed be thy name." The Greek tiransla,tion of the original Aramaic uses throughout the aorist imperative, except in the fourth petition of Luke's version, didow. The sorist is employed to express an act at once com­pleted (cf. I Pet. i. 13, where Wei& elpisate ex­presses a hope continuing to the end). The peti­tion is not expressed in the active voice, " Hallow thou thy name," but " let thy name be hallowed by men, especially by thy disciples." As Bengel says: " God is holy, that is God is God, he is there­fore hallowed when he is acknowledged, worshiped and proclaimed to be what he is " (Gnomon, on Matt. vi. 9).

8. The Second and Third Petitions: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Although it might be said that the full object of the prayer is attained when God's name is hallowed, yet this can actually never be realized until heaven and earth become one. God is manifested in his chil­dren, and his children walk as under his eye. There­fore Jesus directs the gaze of his disciples toward the future union of the heavenly and the earthly world. These two petitions must therefore be taken in an eschatological sense. " The kingdom of God, which we pray may arrive, tends unto the consum­mation of the age " (Tertullian, De orations, v.; ANF, iii. 683). Then shall the world be changed from a state of sin and death into a land of peace and life and the perfect congregation of the saints shall praise their king whose will it is their delight to fulfil.

The next four petitions deal with the earthly in­terval which must elapse before the consummation of all things and the actual kingdom of God arrive. The disciples of Jesus are taught to pray that they may have strength to live in faith and love as chil­dren of God and thus hallow the name of the Fa‑ I ther, who is asked to supply their material and

spiritual needs.

I 4. The Fourth Petition: " Give us this day our daily bread " (Matthew), " Give us, day by day, our daily bread " (Luke). Bread is the staff of life, " all that pertains to the support and neces­sities of life " as Luther says. The followers of Jesus may well expect to receive daily the bread they need, as on the night of his passion Jesus asked his disciples: When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, lacked ye anything? (Luke xxii. 35). The anxiety of the Gentiles or pagans about food and clothing is put forth by Jesus as a warning in Matt. vi. 25‑34. Although Cyprian (" On the Lord's Prayer," viii.; ANF, v. 452) and Tertullian (De orations, vi.; ANF, iii. 683) em­phasize the spiritual meaning of the word " bread," yet they admit that it is used here also in a mate­rial sense. Jerome in translating epiousion by sw­Persubataretialia also attributes to it a spiritual meaning; still not only is this a false translation but it gives a false meaning to the words of Christ. Hugo Grotius is perhaps nearer the true interpre­tation when he says (Critici sacri, vol. vi.): " Epi­ousia is all that period of life which we have yet to live; unknown to us, known to God; epiousion what is sufficient for that period." In the same way Bengel interprets the word (Gnomon, on Matt. vi. 11), " Bread, as a single gift, is to be supplied to us for our whole life, but the giving of it is por­tioned off day by day."

6. The Fifth Petition: "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" (Matthew), "And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us" (Luke). The interval which the disciples of Jesus moat spend before the com­ing of his glorious kingdom brings them not only in need of bodily nourishment but of permanent peace in the soul also. Man lives not by bread alone (Matt. iv. 4), especially sinful man. This is the connection of the fifth with the fourth petition. The forgiveness of sins prayed for refers to a daily forgiveness. The words imply that in comparison with God the suppliant is not good but evil (Matt. vii. 11); the spirit being willing but the flesh weak (Matt. xxvi. 41). It would be a sign of self‑deceit against which Jesus gives express warning (Matt. vii.) for a man to consider himself sinless John i. 8). The disciples of Jesus are to take an attitude exactly opposite to that indicated in the proud prayer of Apollonius of Tyana, " O ye gods pay the debts ye owe tome" (Vita APollonii, IL, i. 11, ed. Kayser, p.10). The term debt, opheile, opheilema, is primarily used of money owed but not paid (Matt. xviii. 32); hence in a spiritual sense it becomes equivalent to Paraptamata "transgressions" (Matt. vi. 15), or hamartice, "sins " (Luke xi. 4;, cf. Luke xiii. 4 and 2). But this prayer that God would re­mit our debts to him is not so much the appeal of slaves to a master (Luke xvii. 10) as of children to a father (Matt. xxi. 28‑31), and the less the dis­ciples of Jesus boast of their own perfection and the more conscious they are of their debts to God, so much the more when they utter this prayer will they have the consciousness of God's forgiveness and feel moved to forgive their brethren, even to the end (Matt xviii. 22; Luke xvii. 4). For when the disciple of Jesus forgives his neighbor it is by no


means in the sense in which God forgives him. A man's "debtor" in a spiritual sense is not a debtor to him as he himself is a debtor to God. As Jesus bids the man who brings a gift to the altar while at variance with his brother first to be reconciled to his brother before he dare to offer it (Matt. v. 23, 24), so he enjoins his disciples to "lift up holy hands, without wrath and disputing" (I Tim. ii. 8), and to dismiss rancor and hatred from their hearts before they come with s prayer to their father (cf. Matt. vi. 14, 15). This is illustrated in the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. xviii. 23‑35). A spirit of unmercifulness shuts the door of the father's mercy. This petition is even more pointed and earnest than parallel clauses in the Shemoneh `Esreh: " For­give us, our Father, for we have sinned; pardon us, our King, for we have transgressed:' Polycarp recalls the intense devotion of this petition in the words: " If then we entreat the Lord to forgive us, we ought also ourselves to forgive; for we are before the eyes of the Lord" (Philippians, vi.; A NF, i. 34). Luther in his " Greater Catechism " (iii. 64) alludes to the spirit of the petition and says: "If you do not forgive, remember that God does not forgive you; but if you forgive others, you may have the certainty and consolation of know­ing that you are forgiven in heaven."

8. The Sixth Petition: "And lead us not into temptation." The connection of the sixth with the fifth petition is evident. As the disciples of Jesus, during the time which elapses before the setting up of his kingdom in glory, utter the fifth petition with the consciousness of their sins, so they utter the sixth petition with the consciousness of their own weakness and of the ever‑present danger of their sinning. In this connection may be recalled the words of Jesus to his disciples in Gethsemane: " Watch and pray, that ye enter not into tempta­tion; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak " (Matt. wi. 41). This temptation is espe­cially imminent when men go out into the world, where pleasure or the force of evil influence sur­rounds them, or the power of the spiritual world and of the enemy of mankind seek an opportunity of sifting the disciples like wheat (Luke xxii. 31). This temptation is very different from the trial by which the faith of the disciples is actually strength­ened (James i. 2). Watchfulness which avoids light‑mindedness, overweening confidence, or cow­ardice, and sees all the dangers as they really are, prevents the falling into temptation, and the prayer against it insures at least that when temp­tation comes it may merely result in a sort of judgment in which only the unworthy fall (I Pet. iv. 17; cf. Rev. iii. 10; II Pet. ii. 9). When the spirit of the forgiving father produces in the dis­ciples a strong disposition toward reconciliation with others, the deliverance from temptation asked of the father appears in their flight from sin, so that they do not seek out opportunities for sin­ning but avoid them. In strict accordance with the meaning of this sixth petition are such exhor­tations se those of St. Paul to the Corinthians (I Cor. vi. 18, x. 14). To be led into temptation is, however, sometimes a punishment from God, and Origen (" On Prayer," xxix. 16) observes: " Let

us do nothing which shall cause us by the just judgment of God to be led into temptation."

7. The Seventh Petition: "But deliver us from evil" (not found in Luke). This petition merely puts in positive form the substance of the negative sixth petition. The Church Fathers have been di­vided as to the meaning of " the evil "‑whether it means the Evil One (Satan), as Tertullian and the Greek fathers after Origin think, or the evil thing, sin, as Cyprian and the Latin fathers interpret it. The point seems to be decided by II Tim. iv. 18, where the exact words of the Evangelist are em­ployed: " The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work."

8. The Doxology: "For thins is the kingdom

and the power and the glory for ever and ever.

Amen." The oldest form of the doxology, as would

appear from the Didache, omits " the kingdom "

and " Amen." The Amen probably did not ap­

pear in the original text of Matthew and Luke. At

an early period, however, it was imported into the

Christian liturgy from the synagogue prayers. In

the Didache the Lord's Prayer was ordered to be

repeated thrice a day, an order in which may be

seen the influence of the Jewish custom, which was

to recite the Shemoneh `Eareh thrice a day. The

variations in the versions of Matthew and Luke

seem to intimate that the congregation of the

disciples of Jesus when assembled in prayer

were not bound in slavish bondage to the letter,

but were united in the freedom ~r and power of

the spirit. (J. IIAUBSLEITER.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The commentaries on Matthew and Luke are, of course, to be taken into account; many of them give considerable on the history of the exegesis of the Lord's Prayer. Patristic comment of note, other than that mentioned in the teat, is by Cyprian, De dominica orations; Augustine, De sermons Domini in monte, in MPL, xxxiv. 1229‑1308; Crisco, Peri euchee; Gregory of Nyasa, in MPG, xliv. 1120‑1193. A collection of patristic comment is by G. Tillman, Dae Gebet, each der Lehrs der Heiligen darpeatellt, 2 vols., Freiburg, 1878. From the historical and critical side may be named: A. H. H. Kamphaueen, Dae Gebet des Herrn, Elberfeld, 1888; A. Tholuck, Die Berprede Christi, Goths, 1872; E. Aehe­lie, Die Bergpredipt each Matthdue and Lukas, Bielefeld, 1875; F. H. Chase, The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church, in TS, i., no. 3, Cambridge, 1891; G. Delman, Die Worte Jam vol. i., Leipeic, 1898, Eng. travel.. Edinburgh, 1902; O. Dibelius, Dos VaEerunser, Umriaae zu einer Geachichte des Gebeta, Giessen, 1903; E. Bischoff, Jesus and die Rabbinen, Berlin, 1905; G. Hiinnicke, in NKZ, avii (1908), b7‑67, 108‑120, 189‑180; DB, iii. 141‑144; EB, iii. 2818‑23; DCC, ii. 573.

More of the homiletical is found in: N. Hall, The Lord's Prayer; a practical Meditation, Edinburgh. 1889; G. Karney, Peter Noater; Studies on the Lord's Prayer, Lon­don, 1889; H. J. Van Dyke, The Lord's Prayer, New York, 1891; J. Ruskin, Letters to the Clergy on the Lord's Prayer and the Church, late ed., New York, 1898; E. Wordsworth, Thoughts on the Lord's Prayer, ib. 1898; C. W. Stubbs, Social Teaching of the Lord's Prayer London, 1900; L. T. Chamberlain, The True Doctrine of Prayer, New York, 1908; F. M. Williams, Spiritual Ineduc­tions on the Lord's Prayer, New York, 1907. Sermonic treatment is given by: H. Hutton, London, 1883; W. Glad­den, Boston, 1881; H. W. Foots, ib. 1891; R. Eyton, ib. 1892; M. Dods, Cincinnati, 1893; F. W. Farrar, London and New York, 1893; W. J. $. Simpson, London, 1893; W. R. Richards, Philadelphia, 1910.

Important or interesting are: A. $. Cook, Study of the Lord's Prayer in English, in American Journal of Phi­lology, zii. 59‑88; idem, in Biblical Quotations of Old Enp­fiah Prom Writers, pp. 147 eqq., New York, 1898; The Lord's Prayer in 500 Languages, ed. R. Rost, London, 190b,

III. Confessional Statements.

TV. The Liturgy in the Churches of the Reformation.

1. Luther and the Lutheran Church.

Luther's First Form (¢ 1).

Luther's Revised Form (¢ 2).

Variant Lutheran Forms (¢ 3).

2. Zwingli.

3. The Reformed Services.

4. The Anglican Communion.

V. Certain Points of Interest not Al­ready Treated.

Infant Communion (¢ 1),

Communion of the Sick (¢ 2).

Requirements for Communicants (¢ a>.

Practises Connected with Admin‑

istration (¢ 4).

on his entrance into the Church, but

how much of this is the original fact and how much

comes from subsequent Christian practise is difficult

to determine. Ruckert is inclined to believe that

Jesus said nothing of a repetition of the observance,

but that it was daily repeated from the beginning in

the belief that this would be at least aCCeptable to

him, sad that thus the idea of an express command

grew up. According to Weiss, the apostles had

no express command either for this repetition or

for the performance of the baptismal rite, but car­

ried out what they understood to be the Master's

intention, fording in both a bond of union for the

disciples. Weizebcker asserts positively that the

sacrament rests on a distinct command; and Bey­

echlag calls the institution the moat certain of all

the facts recorded of Jesus. Recently Jillicher and

Spitta have vigorously denied it, while Harnack

accepts it, though giving the rite another meaning

than that expressed in the New Testament accounts.

(1884), only questioning how far the

:. Question details, as given by the Evangelists, are of Chrfatic to be accepted. According to him,

Origin. Paul gave the tradition as be found it

I. The New‑Testament Doctrine: As to its origin, no one ever questioned that the Lord's Supper was instituted by the Lord himself for his Church before H. E. G. Paulus (Commentdr fiber das Ne:Lilbeek, 1800‑04; Leberi Jean, 2 vole., Heidelberg, 1828), followed by Kaiser in his BaZlliache Theologie (2 vole., Erlangen, 1813­1821). David Strauss apparently denied it in the first edition of his Leben Jean (183b) but admitted its possibility in the later popular form of this work

The Lord's Supper is one of the two sacraments generally recognized in the Christian Church, con­sisting in the blessing or consecration of bread and wine, the repetition of the words of institution (Matt. xzvi. 26‑29; Mark aiv. 22‑25; Luke xxii. 17‑20; I Cor, xi. 23‑28), and the eating and drink­ing of the consecrated elements. In connection with the treatment here given certain other articles should be consulted‑for the liturgy of the early Church and the method of celebration, the article EUCHARIST; for doctrine and liturgy of the Roman Church, MASS and TRANSUBSTANTIATION; for the Greek Church, EASTERN CHURCH, IIL, 5; and the special articles like ErIgLEpSIS; Kiss OF PEACE; MY6TwO00ICAL THEOLOGY; 17YMBOLIaM, etc.


Doctrine of Irensaus (¢ 7). The Origenietic Doctrine (¢ 8). The Symbolic‑Sacrificial View (¢ 9). Cyril (¢ 10). Gregory of Nyeea and Chryeostom (¢u). Doctrine in Fifth and Sixth Centuries (¢ 12).

2. Development in the West. Tertullian and Cyprian (¢ 1). Transition to Transubstantiation (12). Augustine's Check upon Development (¢ 3). Transubstantiation (14). Teaching of the Reformers (¢ 5). Doctrine in the Lutheran Church (¢ B), The Reformed Doctrine (¢ 7). The Anglican Doctrine (¢ 8).

Entrance of Sacrificial Conception (¢ e).

Oriental Influences upon the Con­ception (¢ b).

Early Designations of the Elements (¢ 4>.

Justin Martyr (¢ a>.

The Didsohe and Ignatius (¢ 2).

Difficulties of the Problem (¢ 1).

Significance for Humanity (¢ b). II. The Church Doctrine. L In the East.

Christ's Purpose in the Institution (¢ 4).

The Basal Accounts (¢ 3).

Textual Basis for Denials (¢ 2).

Question of Christie Origin (¢ 1).

I. The New‑Testament Doctrine.

Lord's 8annsr THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 94

The denial of the institutional character of

Christ's action is based on the variation of the so­

I counts‑the words " This do in remembrance of

me " being found only in two places (Luke sxii. 19

and I Cor. xi. 25). This variation is the more re­

markable because in Codex D the text of the

former passage omits altogether " which is given

for you; this do in remembrance of me." The re­

searches of Bless in the Acts render it very doubt­

ful whether the text of Codex D can

a. Textual be accepted absolutely, and appear to

Basis for indicate that what seems a reminiscence

Denials. of Paul may be a correction accepted

by Luke himself rather than a later

accretion. The relation of Luke to Paul, and the

value of the letter's testimony to the view of the

institution taken by apostolic Christianity, makes it

improbable that a tradition existed which did not

contain a trace of the intention of Christ to have it

repeated. There is no analogy for the account of

Luke as found in D, and the teat of D may perhaps

best be regarded as defective, if it is not rather an

ancient corruption. Nor can the point be pressed

that Matthew and Mark fail to mention the injunc­

tion of repetition. In both of them (Matt. xxvi. 28;

Mark xiv. 24) the contents of the cup are designated

" my blood of the covenant"; and Christ could

scarcely have given his " blood of the covenant " in

such a way as to offer it alone to the disciples there

present, to say nothing of the reinforcement of this

thought by the " many " following. Thus the so­

counts would have to be deprived of the presum­

ably original form of Christ's words in order to

sustain the hypothesis of an intention which did

not include repetition. To this Paul's account

would offer a further obstacle. When he says

(I Cor. xi. 23) " for I received of the Lord that

which also I delivered unto you," he uses apo in­

stead of Para to express the idea that he has re­

ceived this from the Church as from the Lord him­

self. The analogy of Acts ii. 42, 46 shows that this

must have been at the time of his baptism, and the

basis of his account is thus put twenty years fur­

ther back than the date of I Corinthians, into the

very earliest days of Christianity; it becomes an

evidence that the Christian Church never had any

thought but that the institution was meant for

repetition. The only real difficulty may be found

in the fact that the Gospel of John is entirely si‑


lent as to the institution. The hiatus which has been looked for in this Gospel, in order to find a place where this originally might have been, is dis­covered by Spitta just before chap. xv. Here he thinks the account once was, vi. 51‑59 having been afterward put in by another hand to supply its place when it had dropped out. But there is no need for this ingenious hypothesis. It is indubi­table that when this Gospel was written the Lord's Supper was everywhere celebrated in the Church. The purpose of the Gospel presupposes an acquaint­ance with the whole story (cf. chap. vi.).

The real ground for the denial of the institution as an ordinance for the Church lies elsewhere than in the discrepancy of the accounts. RUckert finds it in the danger of externalism inevitably accom­panying a formal rite. Spitta declares impossible the relation of the Supper to the death of Christ, since such a relation could be understood only in connection with the general New‑Testament view of the person and office of Christ, which he and others decisively reject. Harnack's position on the question shows that it is not absolutely neces­sary on this account to deny Christ's intention to institute a permanent observance. In any case, the institution would lose its real abiding value if the view of it contained in all the sours were not recognized. What this view is must next be considered.

For the understanding of the purpose and mean­ing of the institution, consideration is limited to four accounts, the scantiness of which is in inverse ratio to the importance which the sacrament held from the beginning in the Christian assemblies, but is, on the other hand, a proof that the primitive community was untroubled by doubts

3. The as to what the Lord had left behind .

Basal him. No part of the New Testament Accounts. offers an exposition of the meaning of the Lord's Supper. What Paul gives in I Cor. a. 122, xi. 23 eqq., is not an exposition, but a reminder of what was self‑evident to the Church, though perhaps in other places than Corinth (as is so often the case with self‑evident truths) it was not sufficiently borne in mind. According to all the sources, the institution stands in immediate actual, not merely chronological, relation tb the death of Christ. He gathers his disciples about him for the last time to celebrate the Passover. He stands face to face with death, which he has all along foreseen as in a special sense the purpose of his mission. He has repeatedly told his disci­ples, not only that they must not on that account lose faith in his Meesiahahip, but that they should have begun to understand something of the coun­sels of God (Matt. xvi. 23). They have not, how­ever, understood. The hour of the Passover has come; of that sacred feast which pointed not only backward to the deliverance from Egypt, but also forward (as Pa, esvi.‑exviii., sung at the feast, show) to the fulfilment of prophecy in the final redemption. What is to become of their hopes if Jesus dies? Where is the promised " new cove­nant " (Jer. xxxi. 31) P This is the last Passover of the old; one day he will celebrate it with them in a new manner in his kingdom (Luke xzcii. lfi‑18, 29, 30). But they do not understand what lies be‑

tween‑his death; they do not believe it possible, as their strife for precedence shows. They are sim­ply straining their eyes for the dawn of the new covenant. Jesus avails himself of a symbol. He takes the bread used in the paschal supper, gives it to them, and speaks words which lend it a new meaning. At the end of the supper, before the singing of the Halted, he takes in like manner the cup of wine, which was passed from hand to hand four times during the paschal meal, and gives it to them with similarly significant words. Amid the variants, what were the ipsisaima verbs of Christ can not be determined; the only question is whether the more extended forms correspond to his thought, or whether they add something to it or depart from it. This question may be answered by considering the undoubted connection of the two distributions. If they are taken together, the mention of a cove­nant which is common to all the accounts in con­nection with the giving of the cup supplies a key. This, term connects the institution with the Pass­over, which is closely connected with the old cove­nant, as this with the new. The giving of the body will thus have the same relation to the foun­dation of the new covenant as that of the blood, and both together will have reference to the sacri­ficial death (see Heb. a. 10) of Christ. The foun­dation of the new covenant is indicated by the shedding of the blood for many, for the remission of sins. In it the expression " my body given for you " finds its completion. No different thought is expressed in I Cor. g. 17 (taken in connection with aii. 27), where the words " for we being many are one bread, and one body" rest on the partici­pation in the one bread; and this bread is (verse 16) " the communion of the body of Christ," as the cup is " the communion of the blood of Christ " ‑a community with the body and blood of Christ answering to that which those who ate of the Sao­rificea of the old law had with the altar, and that which those who took part in heathen sacrifices had with demons. The sacrificial conception domi­nates the whole Pauline doctrine on the subject, and contains the same interpretation of " my body given for you " which is to be taken from the con­nection of the bread and the cup and their relation to the " covenant." Thus what Jeans wished to symbolize for his disciples‑and not to symbolize alone‑was his coming death; but that death is not, as they suppose, a misfortune; it is to nerve the purpose of the " covenant," to be a sacrifice. Promises and hopes have not come to naught; as the old covenant comes to an end, the new (Jer. xxxi. 31) is instituted.

But this is not all. The purpose of Christ is not merely to give his disciples the right point of view for the understanding of his death. It is to give them himself, in order that they may overcome the

temptation to doubt into which the

4. Christ's mere thought of his death has thrown

1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   38

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page