Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:51:43.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lord's Prayer in Matthew and in John

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Wm. O. Walker Jr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Similarities have occasionally been noted between the so-called ‘High Priestly Prayer’ of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and the ‘Lord’ Prayer’ as found in Luke and, more particularly, in Matthew and the Didache.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 1982 , pp. 237 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

[1] John 17. On the designation of this prayer as a ‘High Priestly Prayer’ see, e.g. Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi): Introduction, Translation and Notes (Anchor Bible; Garden City, 1970), p. 747: ‘But if Jesus is a high priest here, it is not primarily in the sense of one about to offer sacrifice, but more along the lines of the high priest described in Hebrews and in Rom viii 34 – one who stands before the throne oof God making intercession for us.’Google Scholar

[2] The title, ‘Lord's Prayer’, does not, of course, occur in any of the earliest Christian writings. It is possible that early Christians referred to the prayer by the double term, ‘Abba! Father!’ (Rom. 8. 15; Gal. 4. 6); see, e.g. Smith, C. W. F., ‘Lord's Prayer’, Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Buttrick, George Arthur, et al. (New York and Nashville, 1962), 3, p. 154Google Scholar; Gerhard, Kittel, ‘άββā’, TDNT, 1, ed. Gerhard, Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey, W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids and London, 1964), p. 6Google Scholar; but cf. also, e.g. Gottlo, Schrenk, ‘πατήρ’, TDNT, 5 (1968), p. 1006.Google Scholar

[3] Luke 11. 2–4; Matt. 6. 9–13; Didache 8. 2. The shorter version, found in Luke, is widely (though not universally) regarded as the more primitive, while the longer version, found in Matthew and, with only slight variations, in the Didache, is often understood as a liturgical expansion of the original. For a survey and evaluation of various arguments regarding the original form of the prayer, see, e.g. Philip Harner, B., Understanding the Lord's Prayer (Philadelphia, 1975), pp. 11–17.Google Scholar Joachim Jeremias summarizes as follows: ‘The common substance of both texts, which is identical with its Lucan form, is the oldest text. The Gentile-Christian church [represented by Luke] has handed down the Lord's Prayer without change, whereas the Jewish-Christian church [represented by Matthew], which lived in a world of rich liturgical tradition and used a variety of prayer forms, has enriched the Lord's Prayer liturgically. Because the form transmitted by Matthew was the more richly elaborated one, it soon permeated the whole church’; Joachim Jeremias, ‘The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Recent Research’, trans. John, Reumann, in The Prayers of Jesus (SBT second series; London, 1967), p. 91.Google Scholar It should be noted, however, that Jeremias regards the Matthean wording as closer to the original at some points than the Lukan (pp. 91–3), and thus he concludes (p. 93) that ‘the Lucan version has preserved the oldest form with respect to length, but the Matthaean text is more original with regard to wording’. It should also be noted that Luke's version contains important textual variants, for the most part apparently assimilations to the Matthean text.

[4] Raymond E., Brown, The Gospel According to John (13–21), p. 747Google Scholar; cf. e.g. Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 333–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[5] Graham, Smith, ‘The Matthaean “Addtions” to the Lord's Prayer’, ExpTimes, 82, 2 (11, 1970), 54–5.Google Scholar Smith traces γενηθήτω τό θέλημά σου (Matt. 6. 10) to μή τό θέλημά μου άλλά τό σόν γωέσθω in the Gethsemane prayer (Luke 22. 42) and άλλά πūσαι ήμāς άπό τοū πονηροū (Matt. 6. 13.) to άλλά чνα τηρήσης αύτούς έκ τοū πονηροū in the Hight Priestly Prayer (John 17. 15.)

[6] Only the Lukan form (μή τέλημά μον άλλά τό σόν γωέσθω) has striking verbal similarities to the third petition of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew (γενηθήτω τό θήλημά σου); Matthew has ούχ ώς έγώ θέλω άλλ ώσ, while Mark reads ού τί έγώ θέλω άλλά τί σύ To be sure, Matthew reports a second occurrence of the Gethsemane prayer (26. 42) in words identical to the third petition of his version of the Lord's Prayer (γενηθήτω τό θέλημά σου), but, if Matthew has incorporated the petition from his own version of the Gethsemane prayer into the Lord's Prayer, the question remains regarding the source of his version of the Gethsemane prayer. It is more likely that he has expanded the Gethsemane narrative by including the petition from the Lord's Prayer (note that Luke does not report a repetition of the Gethsemane prayer, and Mark says simply, ‘And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words’).

[7] See, e.g. Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London, 1958), p. 417Google Scholar: ‘The present prayer is a summary of Johannine theology relative to the work of Chiist⃜ The effect of putting this summary into the form of a prayer is to consummate the movement of Christ to God which is the theme of the last discourses, and anticipates his lifting up on the cross.’ Cf. also, e.g. Ernst, Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17, trans. Gerhard Krodel (Philadelphia, 1968), p. 3Google Scholar: ‘it is unmistakable that this chapter is a summary of the Johannine discourses and in this respect is a counterpart to the prologue’. Käsemann explicitly asserts (p. 5) that the prayer ‘was composed [by the Evangelist] in the form of a prayer’ and points out (p. 4): ‘In the composition of chapter 17, the Evangelist undoubtedly used a literary device which is common in world literature and employed by Judaism as well as by New Testament writers. It is the device of the farewell speech of a dying man.’

On the question of possible sources used by the Fourth Evangelist, see, e.g. Kümmel, Werner Georg, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. Howard, Clark Kee (Nashville and New York, 1975), pp. 200–17.Google Scholar Rudolf Bultmann assigns most of the High Priestly Prayer to the ‘Discourse Source’ or Offenbarungsreden; see Bultmann, Rudolf, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. Beasley-Murray, G. R., general editor, Hoare, R. W. N., and Riches, J. K. (Philadelphia, 1971), esp. pp. 486–522Google Scholar; on Bultmann's source theory, see, e.g. Smith, Dwight Moody Jr., The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel: Bultmann's Literary Theory (New Haven and London, 1965).Google Scholar

Hereafter, the author of the High Priestly Prayer will be referred to simply as ‘John’ or ‘the (Fourth) Evangelist’, with no intention of thereby resolving either the question of sources or that of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel.

[8] Indeed, the generally accepted dating of the two Gospels, if nothing else, would make this highly unlikely; see, e.g. Kümmel, op. cit., pp. 119–20, 246.

[9] Even if the Fourth Evangelist knew Mark and/or Luke, however, most scholars regard it as less likely that he also knew Matthew; see, e.g. Kümmel, op. cit., pp. 201–4; cf. Tyson, Joseph B., A Study of Early Christianity (New York, 1973), p. 215: ‘The use of Matthew [by John] is not seriously entertained.’Google Scholar

[10] Käsemann, Ernst, The Testament of Jesus, p. 5: ‘This is not a supplication, but a proclamation directed to the Father in such manner that his disciples can hear it also. The speaker is not a needy petitioner but the divine revealer and therefore the prayer moves over into being an address, admonition, consolation and prophecy. Its content shows that this chapter, just like the rest of the farewell discourse, is part of the instruction of the disciples.’Google Scholar

[11] Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), p. 745.Google Scholar

[12] Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 333–4Google Scholar; cf. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), p. 417, n. 4.Google Scholar Dodd cites John 17. 11: πάτερ άγιε τήρησον αύτούς έν τ όνόματί σον (cf. Matthew 6. 9: πάτερ… άγιασθήτω τό όνομά σου) and 17. 15: чνα τηρήσης αύτούς έκ τοū πονηrgr;οū (cf. Matthew 6. 13: ρūσαι ήμāς άπό τοū πονηροū); he also refers to John 6. 33: ό πατήρ μου δίδωσω ύμίν τόν άρτον έκ τοū ούρανοū τόν άληθωόν (cf. Matthew 6. 11: τόν άρτον ήμν τόν έπιούσιον δός ήμimacr;ν σeeacgr;μερον), which, of course, is not a part of the High Priestly Prayer. His summary of the ‘homiletical treatment’ of the passages from the Lorďs Prayer is as follows: ‘in the sanctity of the name of the Father is the strong protection of believers; the Father in heaven to whom they pray for άρτος έπιούσιος answers the prayer by the gift of άρτος άληθινός, and while they are by his appointment still in the world, with all its perils and trials, he answers the prayer for deliverance from the evil that is in the world’.

Dodd does not believe, however, ‘that John needed to learn his Paternoster out of the Gospel according to Matthew’, since ‘the prayer must have belonged to the liturgical tradition of the church from the earliest period, and it is from that source that both Matthew and John (as well as Luke) have drawn’ (p. 334).

[13] See n.7 above.

[14] Joachim Jeremias (‘The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Recent Research’, pp. 82–5), among others, has argued that use of this prayer was widespread in the ancient church, particularly as a part of the eucharistic and baptismal liturgies, but that the privilege of using the prayer was restricted to ‘those who were full members of the church’; cf. also, e.g. Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 334.Google Scholar

[15] On the term, ‘midrash’, see, e.g. Townsend, John T., ‘Rabbinic Sources’, in Richard, Bavier, et al. , The Study of Judaism: Bibliographical Essays (New York, 1972), p. 41Google Scholar: ‘The word midrash comes from the Hebrew verb darash, which in post-biblical times meant ‘expound’ or ‘interpret’. Thus a midrash is a work which expounds or interprets Scripture.’ The aim of midrash ‘was to elucidate the meaning of the text of the Holy Writ, to penetrate into its inner significance, to deduce from it new laws and principles, and to establish by reference to it authentic religious and ethical doctrines’; Epstein, I., ‘Midrash’, in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, p. 376Google Scholar. Samuel Sandmel observes that, while the ‘root meaning’ of ‘midrash’ could be translated as ‘inquiry’, that is, ‘inquiry into what a Scriptural verse means or implies’, the term has a derivative meaning that might be rendered as ‘embellishment’; he continues: ‘Midrash, as embellishment, takes on the connotation of the romantic, or the fanciful, or the bizarre, for imagination was often creative and unrestrained. The ancient rabbis were gifted at midrash, as was Paul; the various accounts of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels and in those gospels that were not included in the New Testament reveal a comparable Christian gift for midrash. In the post–biblical period, then, midrash had a rich and robust existence’; For a full treatment, see, e.g. Miller, M. P., ‘Midrash’, in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, ed. Keith, Crim, et al. (Nashville, 1976), pp. 593–7Google Scholar; cf. also Roger Le Déaut, ‘Apropos a Definition of Midrash’, Interpretation, XXV, 3 (07, 1971), 259–82.Google Scholar

To be sure, the meaning of the term, ‘midrash’, is somewhat ‘stretched’ in the present discussion, since the subject of the ‘midrash’ is not Holy Writ but rather words attributed to Jesus; nevertheless, the dominical sayings must have been regarded in the early church as on a level at least approaching that of Scripture, and there is ample evidence that they were subject to various types of interpretive and applicational techniques. For a provocative study of Paul's use of dominical sayings, see Dungan, David L., The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life (Philadelphia, 1971).Google Scholar For a highly controversial argument that Matthew is a midrashic adaptation and expansion of Mark, see Goulder, M. D., Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speaker's Lectures in Biblical Studies 1969–71 (London, 1974).Google Scholar

[16] Hereafter, unless otherwise specified, references to ‘Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer’ or ‘the Matthean version’ will include the version of the prayer found in the Didache, since this version is so similar to the Matthean version.

[17] See, e.g. Philip Harner, B., Understanding the Lord's Prayer.Google Scholar

[18] On this title, see, e.g. Gottlob Schrenk, ‘πατήρ’, pp. 979–81, 985–7. Note that the Didache has the singular, τ ούραν (‘the heaven’), rather than the plural, τοīς ούρανοīς (‘the heavens’), perhaps reflecting non-Jewish influence.

[19] The first three occurrences (verses 1, 5, and 11) are in the vocative case, while the last three (verses 21, 24, and 25) are nominative in form (note, however, that in verse 25 the nominative form, πατήρ is combined with an adjective in the vocative case, δίκαιε). There is, of course, a tendency in Hellenistic Greek ‘for the nominative to usurp the place of the vocative’; Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek Gammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature’, trans. and rev. Funk, Robert W. (Chicago, London, and Toronto, 1961), pp. 81–2.Google Scholar As to why John uses the vocative form the first three times and the nominative the last three, it can only be surmised that, toward the end of the prayer, he in effect forgets that he is composing a prayer and lapses into ‘Because’ style (see, e.g. Raymond Brown, E., The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), p. 748Google Scholar: ‘Because there is an audience, the prayer is just as much revelation as it is intercession. The “you” addressed is God, but Jesus is speaking to the disciples as much here as in the rest of the Discourse.’); or, since this does not explain the use of the vocative case adjective, δίκαιε, with πατέρ in verse 25, perhaps the πατέρ in verse 21 is ‘a real nominative’ (Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St John, p. 429Google Scholar), which then influences the forms in verses 24 and 25.

On πάτεράγιε (‘Holy Father’), see, e.g. Didache 10.2, where the same form of address occurs in the eucharistic prayer, which is in some respects similar to the High Priestly Prayer, as is also the first eucharistic prayer in Didache 9. 2–4.

[20] See, e.g. C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p.418: ‘This name for God is very frequent in John and the most natural for use in a prayer ascribed to Jesus.’ CF.further, Joachim Jeremias, ‘Abba’, trans John Bowden, in The prayers of Jesus (SBT second series; London, 1967), pp.11–65; ‘The lord’s prayer in the light of recent research’, pp.95–8; and Gerhard kittel, ββα͊’, pp.5–6.Google Scholar

[21] A number of manuscripts, some of them ancient, read πάτεπ έμω⋯;ν ό έν τοι¯ς ούρανοίς (‘ Our Father who art in the heavens’), but this is apparently an assimilation to the Matthean text; see, e.g. Smith, C. W. F., ‘Lordrsquo;s prayer’, p.154.Google Scholar

[22] IT is perhaps significant that, in a similar context in 11. 41, John reads ήρεντούςόφθαλος⋯νω (‘he lifted up his eyes’), rather than έπάρας τούς όφθαλμούς αύτου¯ είς τόν ούρανόν (‘having lifted up his eyes to heaven’), and it is thus possible that the έίς τ όν ούρανόν (lsquo;to heaven’) in 17. 1 reflects the influence of the Matthean version of the Lord’s Prayer.

Note that John has the singular, τόν ρανόν (‘the heaven’), While Matthew has the plural, τοι¯ς ούρανοι¯ς (’); Didache also has the singular, τ ούραν (‘the heaven’), however, this being one of the very few differences between Matthew's and Didache's versions of the Lord's Prayer.

[23] The author could, of course, have used something like πάτερ μον (‘My Father’), perhaps followed by something like ό έν τοι¯ς ούρανοι¯ς (‘who art in the heavens’); indeed, John does frequently have Jesus refer to God as ό πατέρ μου (‘my Father’), but this never occurs in a context of prayer, where the customary Johannine address is simply πάτερ (‘Fathers’).

[24] The phrase never occurs in the Fourth Gospel. Gottlob Schrenk (‘πατέρ’, pp. 985–6) suggests that Luke, writing for the Greek world, characteristically changes the Jewish expression, ‘Father in the heavens’, whenever he finds it in the tradition, and John, also writing for a Hellenistic audience, may well have done the same.

[25] Raymond Brown, E., The Gospel According to John (13–21), p. 747.Google Scholar

[26] It is possible, of course, that John knew both the Matthean and the Lukan versions of the Lord's Prayer, following sometimes the one and sometimes the other. Since all of the Lukan version is included within the Matthean, however, with only minor verbal differences, it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate that Hohn knew Luke's version, unless, at the points of minor verbal difference between Matthew and Luke, John agreed with Luke as against Matthew.

[27] Marcion's text of Luke apparently had έλθέτω τό πνευ¯μά σον γννν έφ ήμα¯ς και καθαρισάλω ήμα¯ς (‘Thy Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us’) as the first petition; see, e.g. Joachim Jeremias, ‘The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Recent Research’, pp. 83–4.

[28] Cf. e.g. Raymond Brown, E., op. cit., p. 747Google Scholar: ‘compare the petition “May your name be glorified [hallowed]” to the themes of glorification of the Father and the use of the divine name in xvii 1, 11–12’ also Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 333.Google Scholar

[29] Raymond Brown, E., op. cit., p. 754: ‘Verse 2 mentioned the men that God had given to Jesus; vs. 4 said that Jesus had glorified God on earth by completing the work that God had given him to do. Verses 6–8 bring these two themes together: the work of Jesus that glorified God was his revelation of God to those whom God had given him. In 6 the task of revelation is phrased in terms of making God's name known. (This chapter is the only place in John where Jesus is explicitly said to have revealed God's name to men.)’ See the entire discussion, pp. 754–6. Since it is only in the High Priestly Prayer that Jesus’ revelation of God is characterized as the revelation of the divine ‘name’, it is quite possible that John is here influenced by the petition in the Lord's Prayer about the ‘hallowing’ of God's name.Google Scholar

‘30’ Ibid., p. 759: ‘… the ‘in’ is both local and instrumental: they are to be both marked with and protected by the divine name that has been given to Jesus’.

[31] There is a textual problem regarding the antecedent of the relative pronoun, ‘which’, in verses llb–12a. Raymond E. Brown (op. cit., p. 759) summarizes the evidence and the most likely solution: ‘The best witnesses, including p66, have the dative neuter singular relative, and this means that ” is the antecedent. A large number of later and less reliable textual witnesses have a masculine plural relative, the antecedent of which must be “them”, namely, the disciples. We have accepted the first reading, while SB and NEB accept the second (RSV is ambiguous). The second reading probably represents a scribal harmonization with vss. 2, 6, and 9 which speak of men being given by God to Jesus. The reading that we have followed makes 11 and 12 the only instances in John where God is said to have given the (divine) name to Jesus.’

[32] Philip, B.Harner, (Understanding the Lord's Prayer, pp. 60–7Google Scholar) suggests that ‘Hallowed be thy name’ is ‘a petition that God himself might act by manifesting his holiness’ (p. 66); cf. also Raymond, E.Brown, , op. cit., p. 747Google Scholar, where ‘glorified’ in the High Priestly Prayer and ‘hallowed’ in the Lord's Prayer are apparently equated.

[33] Harner, , op. cit., p. 61.Google Scholar

[34] Ibid., p. 63.

[35] On Johannine Christology, see, e.g. Sidebottom, E. M., The Christ of the Fourth Gospel in the Light of First-Century Thought (London, 1961).Google Scholar The Johannine Christology is clearly significantly different from (‘higher’ than) that of the Synoptic Gospels, not to mention that of the historical Jesus; thus, it is understandable that not only the Father but also the Son should be ‘glorified’.

[36] See, e.g. Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 195–6Google Scholar: ‘At every point the unity of Father and Son is reproduced in the unity of Christ and believers. As the love of the Father for the Son, returned by Him in obedience, establishes a community of life between Father and Son, which exhibits itself in that He speaks the Father's word and does His works, so the disciples are loved by Christ and return His love in obedience; in doing so, they share His life, which manifests itself in doing His works; it is really He who does them (just as the works of Christ are done by the Father), and by the doing of them the Father is glorifed in the Son. This is what is meant by the expression, “I in you and you in me”.’ Cf. the entire discussion, pp. 187–200.

[37] See, e.g. Raymond, E.Brown, , The GospelAccording to John (13–21), p. 754Google Scholar: ‘… the work of Jesus that glorified God was his revelation of God to those whom God had given him. In 6 the task of revelation is phrased in terms of making God's name known’. Note that both the divine name and glory are given by the Father to the Son and by the Son to the disciples (verses 11–12 and 22).

On the relationship between ‘name’ of God and ‘glory’ of God, see, e.g. Hans Bietenhard, ‘öνομα,όνομάῂω, έπονομάῂω, ψενόώ͊νυμος’, in TDNT, V (1968), p. 272Google Scholar: ‘The name of God belongs to His manward side, the side of revelation. In this respect- especially in Jn. -it is linked with δόξα, ⋯νομα thus expresses the concrete connection between God and man, the personal relationship which declares itself in a specific approach of God and which demands a specific approach from man. When Jesus prays: “Father, glorify thy name”, and God answers: “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again”, Jn. 12. 28 (note 12. 23), the three words …πατ͊⋯ρ, δοξάáςω… and ⋯νομα are so closely connected with one another that they have to be expounded together.’

[38] Except in association withπνεμα (‘Spirit’), i.e. as the ‘Holy Spirit’ (1. 33; 14. 26; 20. 22), the adjective γως (‘holy’) occurs only at 6. 69 and there as part of the title ó ἅγως τού θεού (‘The Holy One of God’); the verb daiew (‘to hallow’) occurs only at 10. 36, where the reference is to the one (i.e. Jesus) whom ‘the Father hallowed and sent into the world’ (ν ό πατ͊ηρ ͊ηγίαοεν καίάπέστειλεν είς τόν κόσμον).

[39] See, e.g. Marcus, Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York, 1950), 2, p. 1319Google Scholar; Montefiore, C. G. and Loewe, H., A Rabbinic Anthology: Selected and Arranged with Comments and Introductions (Meridian edition; Cleveland and New York; Philadelphia: 1963), e.g. pp. lxxxix–xci, 86–7, 117, 232–71, 305, and 326.Google Scholar

[40] The allusions to the crucifixion are to be seen in the references to Jesus leaving the world and coming to the Father (verses 11, 13, etc.) and perhaps even the references to the glorification of the Son (e.g. verses 1, 5; cf. such passages as 3. 14 and 12. 32, where the ‘lifting up’ of the Son apparently refers both to his crucifixion and to his exaltation). It is understandable that the allusions to the crucifixion are nothing more than allusions, since, as the Evangelist constructs the scene, the crucifixion is still in the future; the statements in the High Priestly Prayer, however, presuppose the crucifixion as an accomplished fact.

[41] Didache has έλθέτω, as do a number of manuscripts, some of them ancient, in Luke, but the meaning is the same. On a more significant variant, see, e.g. C. W. F. Smith, ‘Lord's Prayer’, p. 156: ‘A few witnesses testify to the substitution for this petition in Luke the words έλθάτω τό άγιον πνευáμά σου έϕ έμα͊ς καί καθαριτω ήμς, “May thy Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us” (162, 700, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus). It seems to be a Christian variant rather than an original reading, although it fits Luke's emphasis on the Holy Spirit. It may possibly have been a form connected with Christian initiation.’ Cf. e.g. Joachim Jeremias, ‘The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Recent Research’, pp. 83–4. According to Tertullian, Marcion had it as a substitute for the first petition (see n. 27 above).

[42] ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ never occurs in the Fourth Gospel, and ‘Kingdom of God’ is found only at 3. 3, 5, leading Raymond Brown, E.to suggest the possibility ‘that there is traditional material in the Nicodemus discourse’ (The Gospel Accoring to John 1–12, p. 130, cf. pp. 135–6Google Scholar). Note however, Evans, O. E., ‘Kingdom of God, of Heaven’, in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 3, p. 25Google Scholar: ‘The word “king” is used of Jesus frequently in the Fourth Gospel (1. 49; 6. 15; 12. 13, 15; 18. 33, 37, 39; 19. 3, 12, 14–15, 19, 21), and in 18. 36 Jesus himsel speaks of his “kingship” (ERV-ASV “kingdom”; the Greek is βασιλεία), which “is not of this world”. This usage implies the idea of a spiritual sovereignty which Jesus is already exercising as Messiah.’ Apparently, then, in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is the king, not God.

[43 ] See, e.g. Schässler Fiorenza, E., ‘Eschatology of the Nt’, in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volum, ed. Keith, Crim, et al. (Nashville, 1976), pp. 275–6Google Scholar: ‘This evangelist views eschatological salvation as realized in the present. Believers already possess eternal life and no longer come under judgment (5. 24). It is debated whether the so-called future, apocalyptic statements (5. 28. 6. 27; 12. 25; 14. 2–3; 17. 24) are a genuine element of the evangelist's theology or whether they are added by an ecclesiastical redactor Bultmann). Even if these statements did originally belong to the gospel text, they are outnumbered, and the basic mood of the gospel reflects realized eschatology.’

[44] Brown, Raymond E., op. cit., p. 99, cf. the fuller discussion, pp. 517–18.Google Scholar

[45] See, e.g. Evans, O. E., ‘Kingdom of God, of Heaven’, p. 25Google Scholar: ‘In general, however, this evangelist has reinterpreted the teaching of Jesus, so that instead of speaking of the kingdom of God he speaks of eternal life, or LIFE.’ Cf. e.g. Wilbert Howard, F., ‘The Gospel According to St. John’, Interpreter's Bible vol. 8 (New York and Nashville, 1952), p. 743Google Scholar: ‘Eternal life (vs. 3), the summum bonum in this Gospel, as the kingdom of God is in the Synoptics, consists in the knowledge of God…’

[46] Verse 2 is translated in the Revised Standard Version, ‘since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him’. Since the Greek here translated as ‘to all whom’ is the neuter singular, παα¯ν ⋯ (literally, ‘everything which’) in either the nominative or the accusative case, and since there is an indirect object in the dative plural later in the sentence (agr;ύτοι¯ς), a better translation might be, ‘since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give to them everything which thou hast given him, namely, eternal life’. (A similar construction occurs in verse 3: δν άπέοτειλας ‘Ιηρουνν χριοlgr;όν.)

[47] Note that it is the Son, not the Father, who is king in the Fourth Gospel (see n. 42 above), and this kingship is present, not future (see n. 43 above).

[48] A number of manuscripts, some of them ancient, include this petition in Luke, but this is apparently an assimilation to Matthew's text.

[49] Cf. also John 5. 30; 6. 38–40.

[50] Cf. e.g. Raymond Brown, E., The Gospel According to John (13–21), p. 747Google Scholar: ‘compare“May your will be done” to the theme of completing the work that the Father gave Jesus to do in xvii 4'. If John did, in fact, know the Lord's Prayer, it is highly probable that traces of its influence would appear in parts of the Fourth Gospel other than the High Priestly Prayer. Dodd, C. H., for example (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 333)Google Scholar, finds an ‘echo’ of the Lord's Prayer in John 6, 33, and it is possible now to suggest similar ‘echoes’ in 4. 34; 5. 30; 6. 38–40.

[51] Apart from this verse, the word γ (‘earth’) appears only eight times in the Fourth Gospel (3. 22, 31; 6. 21; 12. 24, 32; 21. 8, 9, 11), always preceded by a preposition (εις, έκ, άπό, or έπί). In only two other instances, however (3. 31. 12. 32), and the only other instance of έπί τηmacr;ς γη¯ς (6. 21) clearly means ‘at the land’ (with reference to the landing of a boat).

[52] Philip, Harner, B., Understanding the Lord's Prayer, pp. 60, 81.Google Scholar Scholars have debated at length whether the three ‘thou’ petitions ‘express duifferent aspects of essentially the same idea’ or ‘quite different ideas’. Harner concludes quite cogently (pp. 80–1): ‘We have seen that they all refer to God's work of bringing in his new time of salvation. In this sense they all express essentially the same idea … The petitions differ in the sense that they depict different aspects of the idea that God is bringing his salvation. God's ‘name’ signifies his essential nature and personal identity. The petition that God may sanctify his name stands first, because God's work of salvation originates within his innermost being. God's ‘kingdom’ is the expression of his nature in his effective reign over the world, and his ‘will’ is the work that he performs in his role as king. These two petitions refer more specifically to God's external relationship to his world.’

[53] It is generally agreed that the ‘thou’ petitions in the Lord's Prayer are eschatological in their reference, but it is debated whether this eschatology should be understood as purely ‘futuristic’ or as what some have called ‘inaugurated’; see, e.g. Harner, , op. cit., p. 81, cf. p. 139, n. 17.Google Scholar

[54] There are also stylistic differences between the ‘thou’ petitions and the ‘we’ petitions; see, e.g. Harner, , op. cit., p. 83. Indeed, Joachim Jeremias (‘The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Recent Research’, p. 100)Google Scholar suggests that the ‘thou’ petitions recall the Jewish Kaddish prayer (see pp. 98–9) and that, in the Lord's Prayer, ‘the accent lies completely on the new material which Jesus added, that is, on the two “We-petitions”’, which thus ‘form the real heart of the Lord's Prayer, to which the two “Thou-petitions” lead up’ (note that Jeremias is working from the Lukan, not the Matthean, form of the prayer).

[55] Cf. also verse 20: ‘I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word …’

[56] Luke has τόν άρτον ήμων τόν έπωύσων διδον ήμίν tgr;ό καθ ήμέραν (‘Give us each day our daily bread’ or perhaps ‘our bread for the morrow’), but Matthew's wording is likely closer to the original; see, e.g. Joachim, Jeremias, ‘The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Recent Research’, pp. 91–2Google Scholar; Harner, , op. cit., pp. 84–5.Google Scholar

[57] Debate centres around the meaning of έπωύσως in the phrase τόνάρτον ήμων τόν έπωύσων. See, e.g. Harner, , op. cit., pp. 85–6Google Scholar: ‘In general, according to the derivation that we assume, there are four major possibilities for the meaning of epiousios. It could mean (1) ”, (2) “for today”, (3) “for the coming day”, or (4) “for the future”.’ Agreement has not been reached; see, e.g. the discussions in Harner, , pp. 85–99Google Scholar; and Joachim Jeremias, ‘The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Recent Research’, pp. 100–1.Google Scholar

[58] So, e.g. Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel According to John (i-xii), pp. 268–94Google Scholar, who, however, makes a distinction between verses 35–50, where the eucharistic theme is ‘only secondary’, and verses 5 1–58, where it ‘comes to the fore and becomes the exclusive theme’ (p. 284).

[59] Note the eucharistic prayer in Didache 9.4: ‘As this broken bread (τούτο τό κλάσμα) was scattered upon the mountains, but was brought together and became one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom …’ Note also Ignatius' reference (Eph. 20) to ‘breaking one bread (ένα άρτον κλωντες), which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote that we should not die, but live for ever in Jesus Christ’.

[60] Note that the High Priestly Prayer's setting in the Fourth Gospel is the last gathering of Jesus with the disciples on the evening before his death, which, in the Synoptic Gospels, is the occasion of the inauguration of the Eucharist. Joachim Jeremias (‘The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Recent Research’, pp. 82–5Google Scholar) argues that, throughout the ancient church, ‘the Lord's Prayer was a constituent part of the celebration of the Lord's Supper ’ (p. 83), and many interpreters have also associated the High Priestly Prayer with the ancient Eucharist, citing particularly the parallels with the eucharistic prayers found in Didache 9–10; for a summary of the evidence, see, e.g. Brown, Raymond E., op. cit., pp. 745–7; note, however, that Brown regards the association as only ‘possible’.Google Scholar

[61] Note that Dodd, C. H. (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 333Google Scholar) associates this petition of the Lord's Prayer with the reference to ‘the true bread from heaven’ (τόν άρτον έκ τού ούρανού τόν άληθωόν) in John 6. 32. Harner, Philip B. (Understanding the Lord's Prayer, pp. 97–8Google Scholar) suggests that the petition should be translated, ‘Give us this day our bread for the future’; he continues: ‘In this sense the followers of Jesus would be praying that they may receive, here and now, some of the benefits of the future time of salvation. The phrase “this day” refers to the present aspect of the kingdom, and “bread for the future” symbolizes the future aspect of the kingdom.’ Such an interpretation of the petition is not far removed from the realized eschatology of the Fourth Gospel.

[62] Diadche has καί øες ήμīν τήν όøειλ****ήν ήμ͊ν, ώς καί ήμεīς άøίεμεν τοīς όøειλέταις ήμ͊ων (‘And forgive us our bebt, as we also forgive our debtors’), while Luke has καί ἅøες ήμīν τάς άμαρτίας ήμ͊ων, καί γάρ αύτοί άøίομεν παντί όøείοντι ήμήμīν (–And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive every one who is indebted to us’). The wording of the Matthean version is likely closer to the Mramaic original; see, e.g. Joachim, Jeremias, ‘The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Recent Research’, p. 92.Google Scholar

[63] The ‘notable exception’ is John 20. 23, which reads, ’If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven (ἅν τινων άø͊ητε τάς άμαρτίας άøέωνται αύτοīς); if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ This is surely based upon pre-Johannine tradition; see Matthew 16. 19; 18. 18. Otherwise, neither the verb άøιέναι in the sense, ‘to forgive’, nor the noun ἅøεσις (‘forgiveness’) occurs anywhere in the Fourth Gospel. Note that ‘forgiveness’ terminology is also rare in the letters of Paul; see, e.g. John, Knox, Chapters in A Life of Paul (New York and Nashville, 1950), pp. 142–5.Google Scholar

[64] Rudolf, Bultmann ‘άøίημι, ἅøεσις, παρίημι, πάρεσις’, in TDNT, 1, (1964), p. 512.Google Scholar

[65] Clearly, άγιάζε΄ς (‘to sanctify’) cannot here have the same meaning as άøιέναι (‘to forgive’), since, in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus speaks also of his own ‘sanctification’ or ‘consecration’ (17. 19; cf. 10. 36). Nevertheless, it seems to represent a Johannine re-interpretation of the Synoptic idea of ‘forgiveness’.

[66] The verb does occur twice in 1 John (1. 7, 9), in the sense of ‘cleansing’ from sin or unrighteousness. It is by no means certain, however that the same author wrote both the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle; thus, the epistle can be used to illuminate the thought of the Fourth Evangelist only with caution. See, e.g. Werner, Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 442–5.Google Scholar

[67] See, e.g. Rudolf, Bultmann, The Gospel of John, pp. 466–73.Google Scholar

[68] Cf. verse 6 and perhaps verse 8.

[69] Apparently, according to the Fourth Evangelist, the disciples have already been cleansed by the word which Jesus gave them. Insofar as they remain in that word (also expressed as remaining in the divine name and remaining in the Son), they need no further cleansing.

[70] Cf. e.g. John, 13. 34–35Google Scholar: ‘A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.’ It is possible that the prayer for oneness in the church reflects a concern about schism, but see, e.g. Bultmann, ibid., pp. 512–18, on verses 20–23.

[71] Luke reads only καί μή είσενέγκμς ήμας είς πειρασμόν (‘And lead us not into temptation’) in the best manuscripts; a number of witnesses, some of them ancient, include άλλά ό͊υσ αι ήμ͊ας άπότο͊υ πονηρο͊υ (‘but deliver us from evil’ or ‘from the evil one’), but this is most likely an assimilation to the Matthean text.

[72] See, e.g.Raymond E., Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), p. 747Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 333.Google Scholar

[73] Joachim, Jeremias, ‘The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Recent Research’, pp. 105–6.Google Scholar

[74] Note that this is apparently not the final eschatological testing, as in Matthew's Lord's Prayer, but rather the day-to-day opposition encountered by the disciples in the world.

[75] Debate continues regarding the preferable translation of το͊υ πονηρο͊υ in Matthew; see, e.g. Harner, Philip B., Understanding the Lord 's Prayer, pp. 110–13.Google Scholar On το͊υ πονηρο͊υ in the High Priestly Prayer, see, e.g. Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St John, p. 425Google Scholar: ‘It is impossible to be certain whether John means ό πονηρόπονηρόν. The only other uses of πονηρός in the gospel are 3. 19; 7. 7 – both adjectival. But the use in 1 John (2. 13 f.; 3. 12;5. 18 f.) suggests strongly that John is thinking of the Evil One, not of evil. The death of Jesus means the judgment of the prince of this world (12. 31; 14. 30; 16. 11), but he is not deprived of the power to harm the disciples, if they are left without divine aid.’ Despite the parallels in 1 John, το͊υ πονηρο is an idiom which is foreign to the Fourth Gospel, except in the High Priestly Prayer, and its presence here may well be the result of the influence of the Lord's Prayer. As for John's use of τηρεīν (‘to keep’) rather than the όύεσθαι of the Lord's Prayer, note that όύεσθαι never occurs in the Fourth Gospel.

[76] Brown, Raymond E., op. cit., p. 761.Google Scholar

[77] Werner, Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 119Google Scholar; cf. most recently, Farmer, William R., ‘The Post-Sectarian Character of Matthew and Its Post-War Setting in Antioch of Syria’, Perspectives in Religious Studies, 3, 3 (Fall, 1976), 235–47.Google Scholar

[78] See, e.g. Philipp, Vielhauer, Geschichte des urchristlichen Literatur. Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter (Berlin and New York, 1975), p. 737.Google Scholar

[79] See, e.g. Kümmel, , op. cit., p. 247.Google Scholar

[80] Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 334.Google Scholar