Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 6:9 - 6:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_6:9. “Having now rebuked and condemned such false and meaningless prayer, Christ goes on to prescribe a short, neat form of His own to show us how we are to pray, and what we are to pray for,” Luther.
The emphasis is, in the first place, on οὕτως , and then on ὑμεῖς , the latter in contrast to the heathen, the former to the βαττολογεῖν ; while οὖν is equivalent to saying, “inasmuch as ye ought not to be like the heathen when they pray.” Therefore, judging from the context, Christ intends οὕτως to point to the prayer which follows as an example of one that is free from vain repetitions, as an example of what a prayer ought to be in respect of its form and contents if the fault in question is to be entirely avoided, not as a direct prescribed pattern (comp. Tholuck), excluding other ways of expressing ourselves in prayer. The interpretation, “in hunc sensum” (Grotius), is at variance with the context; but that of Fritzsche (in some brief way such as this) is not “very meaningless” (de Wette), but correct, meaning as he does, not brevity in itself, but in its relation to the contents (for comprehensive brevity is the opposite of the vain repetitions).
On the Lord’s Prayer, which now follows, see Kamphausen, d. Gebet d. Herrn, 1866; J. Hanne, in d. Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1866, p. 507 ff.; and in Schenkel’s Bibellex. II. p. 346 ff. According to Luk_11:1, the same prayer, though in a somewhat shorter form, was given on a different occasion. In regard to this difference of position, it may be noted: (1) That the prayer cannot have been given on both occasions, and so given twice (as I formerly believed); for if Jesus has taught His disciples the use of it as early as the time of the Sermon on the Mount, it follows that their request in Luk_11:1 is unhistorical; but if, on the contrary, the latter is historical, then it is impossible that the Lord’s Prayer can have been known in the circle of the disciples from the date of the Sermon on the Mount. (2) That the characteristic brevity of Luke’s version, as compared with the fulness of that of Matthew, tells in favour of Luke’s originality; but, besides this, there is the fact that the historical basis on which Luke’s version is founded leaves no room whatever to suspect that legendary influences have been at work in its formation, while it is perfectly conceivable that the author of our version of Matthew, when he came to that part of the Sermon on the Mount where warnings are directed against meaningless repetitions in prayer, took occasion also to put this existing model prayer into our Lord’s mouth. Schleiermacher, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sieffert, Olshausen, Neander, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Holtzmann, Weiss, Weizsäcker, Schenkel, Hanne, Kamphausen, also rightly declare themselves against the position of the prayer in Matthew as unhistorical. The material superiority of Matthew’s version (see especially Keim) remains unaffected by this verdict. On the Marcionitic form, especially in the first petition, and on the priority of the same as maintained by Hilgenfeld, Zeller, Volkmar, see the critical notes on Luk_11:2-4.
πάτερ ἡμῶν ] This form of address, which rarely occurs in the O. T. (Isa_63:16; Deu_32:6 : in the Apocrypha, in Wis_2:16; Wis_14:3; Sir_23:1; Sir_51:10; Tob_13:4; 3Ma_6:3), but which is constantly employed in the N. T. in accordance with the example of Jesus, who exalted it even into the name for God (Mar_14:36; Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 200 ff.), brings the petitioner at once into an attitude of perfect confidence in the divine love; “God seeks to entice us with it,” and so on, Luther.[419] But the consciousness of our standing as children in the full and specially Christian sense (comp. on Mat_5:9), it was not possible perfectly to express in this address till a later time, seeing that the relation in question was only to be re-established by the atoning death.
ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ] distinguishes Him who is adored in the character of Father as the true God, but the symbolical explanations that have been given are of an arbitrary character (Kuinoel, “Deus optime maxime, benignissime et potentissime;” de Wette, “the elevation of God above the world;” Baumgarten-Crusius, “God who exists for all men;” Hanne, “Father of all”). Surely such a line of interpretation ought to have been precluded by ver.10, as well as by the doctrine which teaches that Christ has come from heaven from the Father, that He has returned to heaven to the right hand of the Father, and that He will return again in majesty from heaven. The only true God, though everywhere present (2Ch_2:6), nevertheless has his special abode in heaven; heaven is specially the place where He dwells in majesty, and where the throne of His glory is set (Isa_66:1; Psa_2:4; Psa_102:19; Psa_115:3; Job_22:12 ff.; Act_7:55-56; 1Ti_6:16), from which, too, the Spirit of God (Mat_3:16; Acts 2), the voice of God (Mat_3:17; Joh_12:28), and the angels of God (Joh_1:51) come down. Upon the idea of God’s dwelling-place is based that very common Jewish invocation àáéðå ùáùîéí (Lightfoot, p. 229), just as it may be affirmed in a general way that (comp. the ΘΕΟῚ ΟὐΡΑΝΊΩΝΕς of Homer) “ ΠΆΝΤΕς ΤῸΝ ἈΝΩΤΆΤΩ Τῷ ΘΕΊῼ ΤΌΠΟΝ ἈΠΟΔΙΔΌΑΣΙ ,” Aristot. de Coelo, i. 3. Comp. generally, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nov. Opusc. p. 218 ff. Augustine, Ep. 187. 16, correctly thinks there may be an allusion to the heavenly temple, “ubi est populus angelorum, quibus aggregandi et coaequandi sumus, cum finita peregrinatione quod promissum est sumserimus.” On heaven as a plural (in answer to Kamphausen), comp. note on 2Co_12:2; Eph_4:10.
ἁγιασθήτω ] Chrysost., Euth. Zigabenus, δοξασθήτω ; more precisely, let it be kept sacred (Exo_20:8; Isa_29:23). God’s name is, no doubt, “holy in itself” (Luther), objectively and absolutely so; but this holiness must be asserted and displayed in the whole being and character of believers (“ut non existiment aliquid sanctum, quod magis offendere timeant,” Augustine), inwardly and outwardly, so that disposition, word, and deed are regulated by the acknowledged perfection of God, and brought into harmony with it. Exactly as in the case of ðÄ÷ÀãÌÇùÑ , Lev_10:3; Lev_22:2; Lev_22:32; Eze_28:22; Eze_38:23; Num_20:13; Sir_33:4; 1Pe_3:15.
τὸ ὄνομά σου ] Everything which, in its distinctive conception, Thy name embraces and expresses, numen tuum, Thy entire perfection, as the object revealed to the believer for his apprehension, confession, and worship. So ùÑÅí éÀäÉåÈä , Psa_5:12; Psa_9:11; Isa_29:23; Eze_36:23; and frequently also in the Apocrypha. Everything impure, repugnant to the nature of God, is a profanation, a ΒΕΒΗΛΟῦΝ ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ ΤῸ ἍΓΙΟΝ (Lev_18:21).
Observe once more that the three imperatives in Mat_6:9-10 are not meant to express the idea of a resolution and a vow (Hanne, comp. Weizsäcker), which is opposed to ΠΡΟΣΕΎΧΕΣΘΕ , but they are ΑἸΤΉΜΑΤΑ (Php_4:6), supplications and desires, as in Mat_26:39; Mat_26:42.
[419] In his translation, Luther renders it here and in Luk_11:2 by unser Vater; in the Catechism and manuals of prayer and baptism, Vater unser, after the Latin Pater noster. See Rienecker in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 328 f. Kamphausen, p. 30 f.