LORD’S PRAYER
LORD’S PRAYER
Is that which our Lord gave to his disciples on the Mount. According to what is said in the sixth chapter of Matthew, it was given as a directory; but from Luk 11:1. some argue that it was given as a form. Some have urged that the second and fourth petition of that prayer could be intended only for a temporary use; but it is answered, that such a sense may be put upon those petitions as shall suit all Christians in all ages; for it is always our duty to pray that Christ’s kingdom may be advanced in the world, and to profess our daily dependence on God’s providential care. Nevertheless, there is no reason to believe that Christ meant that his people should always use this as a set form; for, if that had been the case, it would not have been varied as it is by the two evangelists, Mat 6:1-34 : Luk 11:1-54 : It is true, indeed, that they both agree in the main, as to the sense, yet not in the express words; and the doxology which Matthew gives at large is wholly left out in Luke. And, besides, we do not find that the disciples ever used it as a form. It is, however, a most excellent summary of prayer, for its brevity, order, and matter; and it is very lawful and laudable to make use of any single petition, or the whole of it, provided a formal and superstitious use of it be avoided.
That great zeal, as one observes, which is to be found in some Christians either for or against it, is to be lamented as a weakness; and it will become us to do all that we can to promote on each side more moderate sentiments concerning the use of it.
See Doddridge’s Lectures, lec. 194; Barrow’s Works, vol. 1: p. 48; Archbishop Leighton’s Explanation of it; West on the Lord’s Prayer; Gill’s Body of Divinity, vol. 3: p. 362, 8vo. Fordyce on Edification of Public Instruction, p. 11, 12; Mendlam’s Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Lord’s Prayer
A prayer taught by Christ (Luke 11:2-4; Matthew 6:9-15) and therefore the most revered and oft-used formula of the Christian religion, frequent in Liturgy. The strictly correct form is that in use among Catholics, the termination “For thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory” used by Protestants being an interpolation. It is referred to as the Pater Noster as these are the first two words of the prayer in Latin.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Lord’s Prayer
Although the Latin term oratio dominica is of early date, the phrase “Lord’s Prayer” does not seem to have been generally familiar in England before the Reformation. During the Middle Ages the “Our Father” was always said in Latin, even by the uneducated. Hence it was then most commonly known as the Pater noster. The name “Lord’s prayer” attaches to it not because Jesus Christ used the prayer Himself (for to ask forgiveness of sin would have implied the acknowledgment of guilt) but because He taught it to His disciples. Many points of interest are suggested by the history and employment of the Our Father. With regard to the English text now in use among Catholics, we may note that this is derived not from the Rheims Testament but from a version imposed upon England in the reign of Henry VIII, and employed in the 1549 and 1552 editions of the “Book of Common Prayer”. From this our present Catholic text differs only in two very slight particulars: “Which art” has been modernized into “who art”, and “in earth” into “on earth”. The version itself, which accords pretty closely with the translation in Tyndale’s New Testament, no doubt owed its general acceptance to an ordinance of 1541 according to which “his Grace perceiving now the great diversity of the translations (of the Pater noster etc.) hath willed them all to be taken up, and instead of them hath caused an uniform translation of the said Pater noster, Ave, Creed, etc. to be set forth, willing all his loving subjects to learn and use the same and straitly commanding all parsons, vicars and curates to read and teach the same to their parishioners”. As a result the version in question became universally familiar to the nation, and though the Rheims Testament, in 1581, and King James’s translators, in 1611, provided somewhat different renderings of Matthew 6:9-13, the older form was retained for their prayers both by Protestants and Catholics alike.
As for the prayer itself the version in St. Luke, xi, 2-4, given by Christ in answer to the request of His disciples, differs in some minor details from the form which St. Matthew (vi, 9-15) introduces in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, but there is clearly no reason why these two occasions should be regarded as identical. It would be almost inevitable that if Christ had taught this prayer to His disciples He should have repeated it more than once. It seems probable, from the form in which the Our Father appears in the “Didache” (q.v.), that the version in St. Matthew was that which the Church adopted from the beginning for liturgical purposes. Again, no great importance can be attached to the resemblances which have been traced between the petitions of the Lord’s prayer and those found in prayers of Jewish origin which were current about the time of Christ. There is certainly no reason for treating the Christian formula as a plagiarism, for in the first place the resemblances are but partial and, secondly we have no satisfactory evidence that the Jewish prayers were really anterior in date.
Upon the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer, much has been written, despite the fact that it is so plainly simple, natural, and spontaneous, and as such preeminently adapted for popular use. In the quasi-official “Catechismus ad parochos”, drawn up in 1564 in accordance with the decrees of the Council of Trent, an elaborate commentary upon the Lord’s Prayer is provided which forms the basis of the analysis of the Our Father found in all Catholic catechisms. Many points worthy of notice are there emphasized, as, for example, the fact that the words “On earth as it is in Heaven” should be understood to qualify not only the petition “Thy will be done”, but also the two preceding, “hallowed be Thy name” and “Thy Kingdom come”. The meaning of this last petition is also very fully dealt with. The most conspicuous difficulty in the original text of the Our Father concerns the inter pretation of the words artos epiousios which in accordance with the Vulgate in St. Luke we translate “our daily bread”, St. Jerome, by a strange inconsistency, changed the pre-existing word quotidianum into supersubstantialem in St. Matthew but left quotidianum in St. Luke. The opinion of modern scholars upon the point is sufficiently indicated by the fact that the Revised Version still prints “daily” in the text, but suggests in the margin “our bread for the coming day”, while the American Committee wished to add “our needful bread”. Lastly may be noted the generally received opinion that the rendering of the last clause should be “deliver us from the evil one”, a change which justifies the use of “but” in stead of “and” and practically converts the two last clauses into one and the same petition. The doxology “for Thine is the Kingdom”, etc., which appears in the Greek textus receptus and has been adopted in the later editions of the “Book of Common Prayer”, is undoubtedly an interpolation.
In the liturgy of the Church the Our Father holds a very conspicuous place. Some commentators have erroneously supposed, from a passage in the writings of St. Gregory the Great (Ep., ix, 12), that he believed that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were consecrated in Apostolic times by the recitation of the Our Father alone. But while this is probably not the true meaning of the passage, St. Jerome asserted (Adv. Pelag., iii, 15) that “our Lord Himself taught His disciples that daily in the Sacrifice of His Body they should make bold to say ‘Our Father’ etc.” St. Gregory gave the Pater its present place in the Roman Mass immediately after the Canon and before the fraction, and it was of old the custom that all the congregation should make answer in the words “Sed libera nos a malo”. In the Greek liturgies a reader recites the Our Father aloud while the priest and the people repeat it silently. Again in the ritual of baptism the recitation of the Our Father has from the earliest times been a conspicuous feature, and in the Divine Office it recurs repeatedly besides being recited both at the beginning and the end.
In many monastic rules, it was enjoined that the lay brothers, who knew no Latin, instead of the Divine office should say the Lord’s Prayer a certain number of times (often amounting to more than a hundred) per diem. To count these repetitions they made use of pebbles or beads strung upon a cord, and this apparatus was commonly known as a “pater-noster”, a name which it retained even when such a string of beads was used to count, not Our Fathers, but Hail Marys in reciting Our Lady’s Psalter, or in other words in saying the rosary.
———————————–
HERBERT THURSTON Transcribed by Tomas Hancil
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IXCopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Lords Prayer
the common title of the only form given by Jesus Christ to his disciples. Matthew inserts it as part of the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 6:9-13); nor is it inappropriate to the connection there, for the general topic of that part of the discourse is prayer. Luke, however, explicitly assigns the occasion for its delivery as being at the request of the disciples (Luk 11:2-4); and we cannot reasonably suppose either that they had forgotten it, if previously given them, or that our Lord would not have referred to it as already prescribed. The following analysis exhibits its comprehensive structure:
The closing doxology is omitted by Luke, and is probably spurious in Matthew, as it is not found there in any of the early MSS. The prayer is doubtless based upon expressions and sentiments already familiar to the Jews; indeed, parallel phrases to nearly all its contents have been discovered in the Talmud (see Schttgen and Lightfoot, s.v.). This, however, does not detract from its beauty or originality as a whole. The earliest reference found to it, as a liturgical formula in actual use, is in the so-called Apostolical Constitutions (q.v.), which give the form entire, and enjoin its stated use (7:44), but solely by baptized persons, a rule which was afterwards strictly observed. The Christian fathers, especially Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, are loud in its praise, and several of them wrote special expositions or treatises upon it. Cyril of Jerusalem is the first writer who expressly mentions the use of the Lord’s Prayer at the administration of the holy Eucharist (Catech. Myst. 1). St. Augustine has also alluded to its use on this solemn occasion (Hom. 83). The Ordo Romanus prefixes a preface to the Lord’s Prayer, the date of which is uncertain. It contains a brief exposition of the prayer. All the Roman breviaries insist upon beginning divine service with the Lord’s Prayer; but it has been satisfactorily proved that this custom was introduced as late as the 13th century by the Cistercian monks, and that it passed from the monastery to the Church. The ancient homiletical writings do not afford any trace of the use of the Lord’s Prayer before sermons (see Riddle, Manual of Christian Antiquities). Its absurd repetition as a Pater Noster (q.v.) by the Romanists has perhaps led to an undue avoidance of it by some Protestants. In all liturgies (q.v.) of course it occupies a prominent place, and it is usual in many denominations to recite it in public services and elsewhere. That it was not designed, however, as a formula of Christian prayer in general is evident from two facts: 1. It contains no allusion to the atonement of Christ, nor to the offices of the Holy Spirit; 2. It was never so used or cited by the apostles themselves, so far as the evidence of Holy Writ goes, although Jerome (Adv. Pelag. 3:3) and Gregory (Epp. 7:63) affirm that it was used by apostolical example in the consecration of the Eucharist. The literature of the subject is very copious (see the Christ. Remembrancer, January 1862). Early monographs are cited by Vobeding, Index Programmatum, page 33 sq., 131. Among special recent comments on it we may mention those of Bocker (Lond. 1835), Anderson (ibid. 1840), Manton (ib. 1841), Rowsell (ibid. 1841), Duncan (ibid. 1845), Kennaway (ibid. 1845), Prichard (ibid. 1855), Edwards (ibid. 1860), and Denton (ib. 1864; N.Y. 1865). SEE PRAYER.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Lord’s Prayer
the name given to the only form of prayer Christ taught his disciples (Matt. 6:9-13). The closing doxology of the prayer is omitted by Luke (11:2-4), also in the R.V. of Matt. 6:13. This prayer contains no allusion to the atonement of Christ, nor to the offices of the Holy Spirit. “All Christian prayer is based on the Lord’s Prayer, but its spirit is also guided by that of His prayer in Gethsemane and of the prayer recorded John 17. The Lord’s Prayer is the comprehensive type of the simplest and most universal prayer.”
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Lord’s Prayer
LORDS PRAYER
Mat 6:9-13.
Mat 6:8 Thus therefore pray ye:
(1)Our Father which art in the heavens;
(2)Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10(3)Thy kingdom come.
(4)Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on [the] earth.
Mat 6:11(5)Our daily (?) bread give us to-day.
Mat 6:12 (6)And forgive us our debts, as we also [forgive] our debtors.
Mat 6:13(7)And bring us not into temptation;
(8)But deliver us from the evil (one?).
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, unto the ages. Amen.
Luk 11:2-4.
Luk 11:2 Whensoever ye pray, say,
(1)[Our] Father [which art in the heavens];
(2)Hallowed be thy name.
(3)Thy kingdom come.
(4)[Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on the earth.]
Luk 11:3(5)Our daily (?) bread give us day by day.
Luk 11:4(6)And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us.
(7)And bring us not into temptation;
(8)[But deliver us from the evil (one?)].
The request of one of the disciplesLord, teach us to pray (Luk 11:1)expresses a desire which doubtless found a place in the hearts of all. Great teachers were expected to give their disciples a form of prayer. Because John had taught his disciples to pray, Christ was petitioned to do the same for His followers.
The Lords Prayer has been delivered to us in two forms, one by Mt., another by Lk.; in each case in a different context. The forms are set out above for comparison, in a literal translation, as a preliminary to the consideration of questions connected with the texts and the contexts. The places in which there is a difference of reading, or where words are omitted by some authorities, are enclosed in brackets. The form in Mt. consists of eight clauses, which correspond, clause by clause, to an equal number in Lk., according to the longer text. The shorter Lukan text omits clauses 4 and 8. The Doxology is found only in MSS of Mt., and not in the oldest of these.
Thus, after this manner (Mat 6:9) introduces the prayer as a model of acceptable devotion. Whensoever (Luk 11:2) enjoins the use of the words which follow, and implies that the prayers of Christs disciples should be conceived in the spirit of the form He was giving them.
In clause 4 (Mt.) the article before earth is omitted in some MSS; but as, by a well-known rule, the article in Greek is often implied, but not expressed, after a preposition, the omission does not demand a change in the translation.
In clause 6 (Mt.) a few old authorities read the perfecthave forgiven.
In Lk., clause 1, the words Our and which art in the heavens, and the whole of clauses 4 and 8, are omitted by a few ancient authorities, and, in consequence, have been rejected by the RV [Note: Revised Version.] . Yet the TR [Note: Textus Receptus.] of Lk. is attested by the majority of the MSS. If we go behind these witnesses, and, in spite of their evidence, accept the shorter Lukan form, it will perhaps follow that the rejected clauses were never parts of the Prayer, as taught by Christ, but are later amplifications, which obtained a place in Mt., and thence were copied into the Lukan text.
Clause 6 in Lk. explains the corresponding words in Mt. In the latter as is not of strict proportion, but of general condition. It cannot be, as is sometimes stated in devotional exegesis, that we are to pray God to measure His boundless pity by our imperfect attempts to forgive; but we plead that we have endeavoured to remove what would be a bar to His grant of pardon; and this is expressed clearly in Lk., for we ourselves also forgive.
The Doxology, which is not found in the oldest MSS, is contained in the majority of copies. The evidence of the ancient versions is divided. Some of the Fathers, in commenting on the Lords Prayer, take no account of a Doxology; but Chrysostom and others recognize it, and note its connexion with the preceding petitions. If the Doxology be not an integral part of the Matthan text, it is certainly of very great antiquity. It may have been interpolated from a Liturgy; for it is now admitted that liturgical forms existed in the earliest days of Christianity, although perhaps at first they were unwritten, and were transmitted orally.
The word in clause 5 which we have provisionally rendered daily was of doubtful import in early times, for different interpretations have been given by the ancients.
Origen (3rd cent.), the greatest textual critic of primitive days says that the word (epiousios) was coined by the Evangelists, and is not found in earlier Greek writers. Among the Syrians, one Version (Curetonian) has in Mt. bread constant of the day, in Lk. bread constant of every day; in Lk. the Lewis Version (not extant in Mt.) has the same as the Curetonian; in Mt. the Pesh. has bread of our need today, in Lk. bread of our need daily. The ancient Latin rendering of epiousios was daily. This is read now in the Vulgate in Lk., but in Mt. was altered by Jerome to super-substantial. The term is derived either from epi and ienai, to come upon, i.e. succeed, be continual; or from epi and ousia, upon substance, i.e. added to, or adapted to, substance. The Syriac rendering constant comes from the first derivation; the second derivation permits their other rendering of our need, bread adapted to our human substance. Jeromes rendering in Mt. takes epiousios in a spiritual sense, something added to natural substance. In either case bread may be taken in an earthly or a heavenly sense. The fulness of Scriptural language justifies the widest application of the term. If we adopt the derivation from ienai to come, the bread epiousios will be(i) whatsoever is needed for the coming day, to be sought in daily morning prayergive us to-day; (ii) whatsoever is needed for the coming days of life. The petition becomes a prayer for the presence of Him who has revealed Himself as the Bread. Another application, the coming feast in the Kingdom of God (cf. Luk 14:15), seems excluded by the reference to the present time in both Evangelists.
In clause 8 the Greek may be the genitive case of ho ponros, the evil one, or of to ponron, where the article to is generic, the evil, whatsoever is evil. The Greek is indefinite, and commentators have taken the words in both applications.
We have already observed that the longer readings in the Lukan form of the Prayer may be due to the attempts of copyists to harmonize the text with the form found in their days in Mt. Some may further argue that the two forms are different reminiscences of the same instruction. If it beheld that the Gospels are late compositions, in which, long after the events recorded, certain unknown writers gathered together, without method, or accurate knowledge, such traditions as had reached them, it will be as justifiable as it is convenient to treat all related passages as mere varying traditions of the same original. But if it be admitted that the Evangelists were accurate and well-informed historians, there is no ground for identifying the Prayer in Lk. with that in Mt. They occupy different places in the history. Mt. records the Prayer as part of a discourse. It was delivered unasked, as a specimen of right prayer, in contrast to the hypocritical and superstitious habits which the Master condemned; and it is followed by an instruction on forgiveness. The occasion in Lk. is altogether different. Christ had been engaged in prayer; then, in response to a request, He delivered a form for the use of His disciples, and enforced the instruction by a parable and exhortations teaching the power of earnestness in prayer. The differences of text, especially if the shorter readings in Lk. be adopted, distinguish the one form from the other; and it is unreasonable to deny that the Master would, if necessary, repeat instructions on an important subject.
The Prayer is rightly named the Lords, because it owes to the Master its form and arrangement; but many of the sentiments may be paralleled in Jewish writings, and are ultimately based on the teachings of the OT.
In a work accessible to the ordinary reader, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (ed. C. Taylor), we read (ch. 5:30): R. Jehudah ben Thema said, Be strong as a lion, to do the will of thy Father which is in heaven. In ch. 4:7 (n. [Note: . note.] 8) examples are given of the use of the Name as a substitute for titles of the Almighty, and including all that they imply. The Rabbinical doctrine of the correspondence of the upper with the lower world is exemplified by Taylor, ch. 3:15 n. [Note: . note.] Hillel said of a skull floating on the water (2:7), Because thou drownedst, they drowned thee, and in the end they that drowned thee shall be drowned; which illustrates clause 6 of the Prayer. From Talmudic prayers are quoted (p. 128) the petitions: May it be thy will to deliver us from evil man, evil chance, etc.; and Bring me not into the hands of sin, nor into the hands of temptation. In the OT we may compare with clause 1, Isa 63:16; clause 2, Exo 20:7; clauses 2, 3, Zec 14:9; clause 4, Psa 103:20; Psa 135:6; clause 5, Exo 16:4, Pro 30:8; clause 6, Oba 1:15. The Doxology may be compared with 1Ch 29:11.
It is remarkable that there is no instance in the NT of the use of the Prayer by the disciples; but the scantiness of the records forbids an adverse conclusion. There is in 2Ti 4:18 what seems to be an allusion to clause 8, and to the Doxology, in relation to St. Pauls experience. The first word of the Prayer in our Lords vernacular and in the Evangelists translation is alluded to in Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6. It is doubtful whether an Oriental would consider that he had satisfied the requirements of the thus and the whensoever by ex tempore or other devotions, which merely expressed the sentiments of the Prayer. In any case, from early days the opinion has prevailed in the Church that the use of the actual words is an essential part of every act of worship.
G. H. Gwilliam.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Lord’s Prayer
Mat 6:9-13 Luk 11:2-4
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
LORD’S PRAYER
Mat 6:9-13; Luk 11:2-4