Lord’s Prayer Through First-Century Eyes Pt. 1
The Lord’s Prayer Through First-Century Eyes
Introduction
The so-called Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-15) is one of the most well known portions of the New Testament (NT).[2] From the earliest days of church history, one sees that the church has always treasured these words of the Lord Jesus, with the result that it also became a foundational part of the liturgy of Roman Catholicism. Truly, from the earliest of times, and all throughout church history, this has been one of the most beloved portions of the NT as well as one of the most discussed portions of the Bible.
In more recent days, some, in their desire of being biblically precise, have suggested that the Lord’s Prayer would be better called The Disciple’s Prayer, since it was the disciples who had asked Jesus how they should pray,[3] and that the expression The Lord’s Prayer would be better applied to the so-called High Priestly Prayer of John 17. Despite this plea for biblical precision, which this writer endorses, this writer sees no compelling reason for this kind of re-designation and will continue to use the traditional designation The Lord’s Prayer (LP).[4]
The purpose of this paper will be to focus on a fresh interpretation of the LP in a way that might bring certain fresh insights to the reader. In view of all that has been written on this portion of Scripture, some might ask whether there is a need for this kind of study; after all, there has been much written on the LP throughout church history. This writer believes that there is indeed positive value in a fresh interpretation. This is not because great theologians of the past have failed to bless the church with many fine observations over the ages. Rather, it is because a careful, contextual interpretation of this passage might actually help bring to light certain heretofore unrecognized nuances that can be a blessing to the Body of Christ as it seeks clarity in understanding the whole counsel of God’s truth. In particular, this paper will seek to show how two particular aspects of interpretation in this passage have often been missed or glossed over by commentators in past days. One of these major points centers on Jesus’ words in the first portion of the prayer while the second comes out of the second major portion of the prayer.
For starters, this study will first of all begin with a focus on critical hermeneutical issues by presenting a preliminary overview of the importance of progressive revelation and historical context when interpreting the LP. In other words one should ask, is it possible that some past interpretations in the LP have been off the mark because interpreters have sometimes failed to look at the LP in its original historical setting? This writer believes this to be the case. Most theologians will agree that good exegesis takes place when the exegete takes into account the original historical context and where a certain saying occurs in the flow of progressive revelation. A failure to let the text speak from its own historical context sometimes results in theological ideas being read into the original context. For this reason, the first section of this paper will give attention to these broad hermeneutical issues.
The second and third sections of this paper will focus on the text itself by presenting a verse-by by verse interpretation of the LP. Throughout the paper, the reader is encouraged to think about two major points of application that this prayer brings to the Christian. First and foremost, it is the way that Jesus in the first part of this prayer encourages each one of us to have our hearts focused on the glory of God and His promise of redemption and restoration.[5] In the first portion of this prayer, Jesus reminded the disciples that the consuming focus of their hearts and thoughts must be on God’s gracious promise of redemption and restoration, a restoration which will be fully realized with the return of the Lord Jesus. The second major point of application comes in the second half of this prayer wherein the focus is not so much on the vertical aspects of one’s faith, but rather upon the horizontal aspects of faith in terms of how God’s people should properly relate to one another while living in this world.[6] As Jesus made clear, the purpose of God contains crucial truths at both levels, vertically and horizontally. Both of these will be unfolded in the exegetical portions of this paper. God is calling His people to a two-fold focus: (1) an all-consuming focus on the promise of glory and blessing at the return of Jesus Christ, and (2) an all-consuming focus on applying the grace of God in everyday living.
The Importance of Progressive Revelation and Historical Context
One of the cardinal rules of sound exegesis revolves around the importance of recognizing the original historical context when searching for a correct interpretation of the biblical text.[7] One simple example that can illustrate the importance of this basic hermeneutical principle comes from an incident in the wilderness when God commanded Moses to make a bronze serpent as a means of healing for rebellious Israel (Num 21). As the text indicates, Israel had been in rebellion against God and His chosen leader Moses, so God sent poisonous serpents among the people to judge them for their rebellion. The people began to cry out for mercy, so God commanded Moses to make a bronze serpent and raise it up on a pole so that healing might come to any who would look upon the brazen serpent. As Jesus later revealed (John 3:14), this incident would actually find a spiritual, typological realization in the crucifixion of Himself when He was lifted up on the cross of Calvary. Jesus spoke these words and the Apostle John recorded them so that we might know this typological connection. However, it would be wrong for anyone to ever assume that the OT audience knew or believed that the brazen serpent was a type of Jesus Christ and His crucifixion. Progressive revelation would later show this typological connection, but the original audience in the time of Moses (and for that matter, for anyone who read this passage before John 3:14-15) would have no way of knowing that such a connection existed. In other words, the exegesis of Numbers 21 must focus on the original historical context of Moses and his hearers. Likewise, a later reading and exegesis of Numbers 21 must refrain from reading John 3 into the exegesis of Numbers 21. This one example serves as a simple reminder that Bible exegetes must pay special attention to original historical context and not make the error of reading later, progressive revelation into earlier, antecedent revelation at the exegetical level.
This is not to say that one cannot or should not bring out the theological connections that truly do exist in the Bible. The theologian and Bible expositor is certainly right for showing such theological relationships. The relationships, though, are at the theological level and not the exegetical level. In other words, the exegesis of Numbers 21 must take place only within the historical context of the original audience. It is then, after the contextual interpretation of Numbers has already taken place, that the theologian and expositor can (and should) bring out the theological significance of this passage in connection with the redeeming work of Christ on the cross. It is a hermeneutical error, however, for someone to re-interpret an earlier passage on the basis of later revelation. It is proper, however, to allow earlier revelation-revelation that is already part of an informing theology to the later biblical writers-to help inform one when seeking interpretation of the later passage.[8] This importance of this hermeneutical principle will show itself in the next section in the analysis of the LP. At this point, it is time to begin a focus on the text itself and how the Lord Jesus has taught His people about proper priorities of prayer.
[1] Tim Dane holds an M. Div. and Th. M. from The Masters Seminary in Sun Valley, CA and is a Ph. D. student at Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. He has over 10 years of pastoral experience and serves as President of Front Range Bible Institute where he also teaches.
[2] Although the Lord’s Prayer is found in another portions of the Synoptic Gospels (i.e., Luke 11:2-4), this paper will focus solely on that which has been recorded by the apostolic eyewitness Matthew, in verses 6:9-15. It is beyond the scope of this paper to interact with the claims of Redaction Critics as they seek to explain the relationship of the Matthean and Lucan accounts. D. A. Carson presents a helpful summary of these issues in his commentary titled “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 166-167. This writer assumes the full historical integrity of the account as presented by the apostolic eyewitness Matthew.
[3] While the desire for biblical precision is always commendable, a renaming of the Lord’s Prayer may be considered by some as an unnecessary, theological hair splitting.
[4] John Broadus points out that historical evidence as early as A.D. 250 shows that this portion of Scripture has been called the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990), 132.
[5] Peter reminds his readers that the believer should “fix his hope completely on the grace to be brought” at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13).
[6] Just as Peter admonished believers to have a strong vertical focus (cf. 1:13), he also reminded believers that they should “fervently love one another from the heart” as well (1:22). The Lord’s prayer brings the reader face to face with each of these two issues and shows the reader how he is to shape his life in view of the challenges every Christian must face.
[7] There are some who would seek to discard this time-tested principle, especially when the issues concern eschatological issues. Some, for example, would prefer to take a “Canonical Approach” to exegesis rather than letting each passage be interpreted in its own historical context. Rather than focusing on a text in its own historical context, taking into account where this saying or writing appears in the flow of progressive revelation, such writers would say that all exegesis (or at least exegesis involving eschatological contexts) should be done at a canonical level. In other words, earlier passages should be interpreted on the basis of the entire corpus of canonical revelation. For example, one would be justified to use the Book of Revelation as a basis for exegeting statements by Moses. This writer believes that one should always give due attention to the original historical context of any writing and to the issue of progressive revelation. Bruce Waltke illustrates this kind of thinking when he writes, “The classical rule . . . [that] the New Interprets the Old-should be accepted by all Christian theologians” (in “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg [Wheaton: Crossway, 1988], 264). This kind of faulty reasoning shows a blatant disregard for the contextual meaning of the original text in its own historical context.
[8] Nevertheless, even at this point, each passage must be interpreted on its own. Earlier passages cannot become interpretive grids for later passages.
Current Comments