Bible Commentaries

Matthew 6:3. μὴ γνώτω: in proverbial form a counsel to give with simplicity. Let not even thy left hand, if possible even thyself, know, still less other men; give without self-consciousness or self-complacency, the root of ostentation.—ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ: known to the recipient, of course, but to no other, so far as you are concerned, hardly even to yourself. “Pii lucent, et tamen latent,” Beng.—ὁ βλέπων ἐ. τ. κ., who seeth in the dark. “Acquainted with all my ways.” Psalms 139, a comfort to the sincerely good, not to the counterfeits.—ἀποδώσει σοι: a certainty, and not merely of the future. The reward is present; not in the form of self-complacency, but in the form of spiritual health, like natural buoyancy, when all physical functions work well. A right-minded man is happy without reflecting why; it is the joy of living in summer sunshine and bracing mountain air. The ἐν τῷ φανερῷ here and in Matthew 6:6 and Matthew 6:18, a gloss by some superficial copyist, ignores the inward present reward, and appeals in a new form to the spirit of ostentation.

Matthew 6:5-6. Prayer. ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί, as the actors. We shrink from the harshness of the term “hypocrite”. Jesus is in the act of creating the new meaning by the use of an old word in a new connection.—φιλοῦσι stands in place of an adverb. They love to, are wont, do it with pleasure. This construction is common in classics, even in reference to inanimate objects, but here only and in Matthew 23:6-7 in N. T.—ἑστῶτες, ordinary attitude in prayer. στῆναι and καθῆσθαι seem to be used sometimes without emphasis to denote simply presence in a place (so Pricaeus).—συναγωγαῖς, γωνίαις τ. πλατ.: usual places of prayer, especially for the “actors,” where men do congregate, in the synagogue for worship, at the corners of the broad streets for talk of business; plenty of observers in both cases. Prayer had been reduced to system among the Jews. Methodising, with stated hours and forms, began after Ezra, and grew in the Judaistic period; traces of it even in the later books of O. T., e.g., Daniel 6:10-11 (vide Schultz, Alt. Theol.). The hour of prayer might overtake a man anywhere. The “actors” might, as De Wette suggests, be glad to be overtaken, or even arrange for it, in some well-frequented place.—ὅπως φανῶσιν τ. α. in order that they may appear to men, and have it remarked: how devout!

Matthew 6:6 : true prayer in contrast to the theatrical type.—σὺ δὲ, hou, my disciple, in opposition to the “actors”.—ὅταν, when the spirit moves, not when the customary hour comes, freedom from rule in prayer, as in fasting (Matthew 9:14), is taken for granted.—τὸ ταμεῖον, late form for ταμιεῖον (Lobeck, Phryn., 493), first a store-chamber, then any place of privacy, a closet (Matthew 24:26). Note the σου after ταμ. and θύραν and πατρί, all emphasising isolation, thy closet, thy door, thy Father.—κλείσας, carefully shutting thy door, the door of thine own retreat, to exclude all but thy Father, with as much secrecy as if you were about a guilty act. What delicacy of feeling, as well as sincerity, is implied in all this; greatly to be respected, often sinned against.—τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, He who is in the secret place; perhaps with allusion to God’s presence in the dark holy of holies (Achelis). He is there in the place from which all fellow-men are excluded. Is social prayer negatived by this directory? No, but it is implied that social prayer will be a reality only in proportion as it proceeds from a gathering of men accustomed to private prayer.

Matthew 6:7-15. Further instruction in prayer. Weiss (Mt.-Evan.) regards this passage as an interpolation, having no proper place in an anti-Pharisaic discourse. Both the opinion and its ground are doubtful. As regards the latter, it is true that it is Gentile practice in prayer that is formally criticised, but it does not follow that the Pharisees were not open to the same censure. They might make long prayers, not in ignorance, but in ostentation (Lutteroth), as a display of devotional talent or zeal. But apart from the question of reference to the Pharisees, it is likely that prayer under various aspects formed one of the subjects of instruction in the course of teaching on the hill whereof these chapters are a digest.

Matthew 6:7. βατταλογήσητε: a ἅπαξ λεγ. in N. T., rarely used anywhere, and of doubtful derivation. Some (Erasmus, e.g.) have thought it was formed from Battus, the stammerer mentioned by Herod. (iv. 155), or from a feeble poet of the name who made long hymns full of repetitions (Suidas, Lexicon), but most now incline to the view that it is onomatopoetic. Hesychius (Lex.) takes this view of the kindred word βατταρίζειν (ἐμοὶ μὲν δοκεῖ κατὰ μίμησιν τῆς φωνῆς πεποιῆσθαι). It points to the repetition without end of the same forms of words as a stammerer involuntarily repeats the same syllable, like the Baal worshippers shouting from morning till noon, “O Baal, hear us” (1 Kings 18:26, cf. Acts 19:34, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians”). This repetition is characteristic of Pagan prayer, and when it recurs in the Church, as in saying many Aves and Paternosters, it is Paganism redivivus.—ἐθνικοί, the second of three references to Pagans (Matthew 5:47, Matthew 6:32) in the Sermon on the Mount, not to be wondered at. The Pagan world was near at hand for a Jew belonging to Galilee with its mixed population. Pagan customs would be familar to Galileans, and it was natural that Jesus should use them as well as the theory and practice of scribes and Pharisees, to define by contrast true piety.—πολυλογίᾳ, epexegetical of βατταλογ. The Pagans thought that by endless repetitions and many words they would inform their gods as to their needs and weary them (“fatigare deos”) into granting their requests.

Matthew 6:8, οὖν, infers that disciples must not imitate the practice described, because it is Pagan, and because it is absurd. Repetition is, moreover, wholly uncalled for.—οἶδεν γὰρ: the God whom Jesus proclaims—“your Father”—knows beforehand your needs. Why, then, pray at all? Because we cannot receive unless we desire, and if we desire, we will pray; also because things worth getting are worth asking. Only pray always as to a Being well informed and willing, in few words and in faith. With such thoughts in mind, Jesus proceeds to give a sample of suitable prayer.

Matthew 6:9-13. The Lord’s Prayer. Again, in Luke 11:1-4—vide notes there. Here I remark only that Luke’s form, true reading, is shorter than Matthew’s. On this ground Kamphausen (Das Gebet des Herrn) argues for its originality. But surely Matthew’s form is short and elementary enough to satisfy all reasonable requirements! The question as to the original form cannot be settled on such grounds. The prayer, as here given, is, indeed, a model of simplicity. Besides the question as to the original form, there is another as to the originality of the matter. Wetstein says, “tota baec oratio ex formulis Hebraeorum concinnata est”. De Wette, after quoting these words, asserts that, after all the Rabbinical scholars have done their utmost to adduce parallels from Jewish sources, the Lord’s Prayer is by no means shown to be a Cento, and that it contains echoes only of well-known O. T. and Messianic ideas and expressions, and this only in the first two petitions. This may be the actual fact, but there is no need for any zeal in defence of the position. I should be very sorry to think that the model prayer was absolutely original. It would be a melancholy account of the chosen people if, after thousands of years of special training, they did not yet know what to pray for Jesus made a new departure by inaugurating (1) freedom in prayer; (2) trustfulness of spirit; (3) simplicity in manner. The mere making of a new prayer, if only by apt conjunction of a few choice phrases gathered from Scripture or from Jewish forms, was an assertion of liberty. And, of course, the liberty obtains in reference to the new form as well as to the old. We may use the Paternoster, but we are not bound to use it. It is not in turn to become a fetish. Reformers do not arise to break old fetters only in order to forge new ones.

Matthew 6:9. οὕτως, thus, not after the ethnic manner.—προσεύχεσθε: present, pray so habitually.—ὑμεῖς: as opposed to the Pagans, as men (i.e.) who believe in an intelligent, willing God, your Father. The prayer which follows consists of six petitions which have often been elaborately explained, with learned discussions on disputed points, leaving the reader with the feeling that the new form is anything but simple, and wondering how it ever came into universal use. Gospel has been turned into law, spirit into letter, poetry into prose. We had better let this prayer alone if we cannot catch its lyric tone.—Πάτερ. In Luke’s form this name stands impressively alone, but the words associated with it in Matthew’s version of the address are every way suitable. Name and epithet together—Father, in heaven—express reverential trust.—Ἁγιασθήτω τ. ο. σου: first petition—sanctified, hallowed be Thy name. Fritzsche holds that σου in this and the next two petitions is emphatic, σοῦ not σου enclitic. The suggestion gives a good direction for the expositor = may God the Father-God of Jesus become the one object of worship all the world over. A very natural turn of thought in view of the previous reference to the Pagans. Pagan prayer corresponded to the nature of Pagan deities—indifferent, capricious, unrighteous, unloving; much speaking, iteration, dunning was needed to gain their ear. How blessed if the whole pantheon could be swept away or fall into contempt, and the one worshipful Divinity be, in fact, worshipped, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ επὶ γῆς; for this clause appended to the third petition may be conceived as common to all the first three. The One Name in heaven the One Name on earth, and reverenced on earth as in heaven. Universalism is latent in this opening petition. We cannot imagine Jesus as meaning merely that the national God of Israel may be duly honoured within the bounds of His own people.

Matthew 6:10. Ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου: second petition. The prayer of all Jews. Even the Rabbis said, that is no prayer in which no mention of the kingdom is made. All depends on how the kingdom is conceived, on what we want to come. The kingdom is as the King. It is the kingdom of the universal, benignant Father who knows the wants of His children and cares for their interests, lower and higher, that Jesus desires to come. It will come with the spread of the worship of the One true Divine Name; the paternal God ruling in grace over believing, grateful men. Thus viewed, God’s kingdom comes, is not always here, as in the reign of natural law or in the moral order of the world.—γενηθήτω τ. θ. σ.: third petition. Kamphausen, bent on maintaining the superior originality of Luke’s form in which this petition is wanting, regards it as a mere pendant to the second, unfolding its meaning. And it is true in a sense that any one of the three first petitions implies the rest. Yet the third has its distinct place. The kingdom, as Jesus preached it, was a kingdom of grace. The second petition, therefore, is a prayer that God’s gracious will may be done. The third, on the other hand, is a prayer that God’s commanding will may be done; that the right as against the wrong may everywhere prevail.—ὡς ἐν οὐρ. καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς. This addendum, not without application to all three petitions, is specially applicable to this one. Translated into modern dialect, it means that the divine will may be perfectly, ideally done on this earth: as in heaven, so also, etc. The reference is probably to the angels, described in Psalms 103, as doing God’s commandments. In the O. T. the angels are the agents of God’s will in nature as well as in Providence. The defining clause might, therefore, be taken as meaning: may God’s will be done in the moral sphere as in the natural; exactly, always, everywhere.

The foregoing petitions are regarded by Grotius, and after him Achelis, as pia desideria, εὐχαί, rather than petitions proper—αἰτήματα, like the following three. The distinction is not gratuitous, but it is an exegetical refinement which may be disregarded. More important is it to note that the first group refers to the great public interests of God and His kingdom, placed first here as in Matthew 6:33, the second to personal needs. There is a corresponding difference in the mode of expression, the verbs being in the third person in Group I., objective, impersonal; in the second in Group II., subjective, personal.

Matthew 6:11. Fourth petition. τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν: whatever the adjective qualifying ἄρτον may mean, it may be taken for granted that it is ordinary bread, food for the body, that is intended. All spiritualising mystical meanings of ἐπιούσιον are to be discarded. This is the one puzzling word in the prayer. It is a ἄπαξ λεγ., not only in O. and N. T., but in Greek literature, as known not only to us, but even to Origen, who (De Oratione, cap. xxvii.) states that it is not found in any of the Greeks, or used by private individuals, and that it seems to be a coinage (ἔοικε πεπλάσθαι) of the evangelists. It is certainly not likely to have proceeded from our Lord. This one word suffices to prove that, if not always, at least in uttering this prayer, Jesus spoke in Aramaean. He would not in such a connection use an obscure word, unfamiliar, and of doubtful meaning. The problem is to account for the incoming of such a word into the Greek version of His doubtless simple, artless, and well-understood saying. The learned are divided as to the derivation of the word, having of course nothing but conjecture to go on. Some derive it from ἐπὶ and οὐσία, or the participle of εἶναι; others from ἐπιέναι, or ἡ ἐπιοῦσα = the approaching day (ἡμέρα understood). In the one case we get a qualitative sense—bread for subsistence, bread needed and sufficient (τὰ δέοντα καὶ αὐτάρκη. Proverbs 30:8, Sept[37]); in the other, a temporal—bread of the coming day, panem quotidianum (Vulg[38], Luke 11:3), “daily bread”. Either party argues against the other on grammatical grounds, e.g., that derived from οὐσία the word should be ἐπούσιος, and that derived from ἐπιοῦσα it should be ἐπιουσαῖος. In either case the disputants are ready with their answer. Another source of argument is suitableness of the sense. Opponents of the temporal sense say that to pray for to-morrow’s bread sins against the counsel, “Take no thought for the morrow,” and that to pray, “Give us to-day our bread of to-morrow,” is absurd (ineptius, Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. ἐπιούσιος). On the other side it is said: Granting that the sense “sufficient” can be got from ἐπὶ, οὐσία, and granting its appropriateness, how comes it that a simpler, better-known word was not chosen to represent so plain a meaning? Early tradition should have an important bearing on the question. Lightfoot, in the appendix on the words ἐπιούσιος and περιούσιος, in his work “On a fresh Revision of the N. T.,” summarises the evidence to this effect: Most of the Greeks follow Origen, who favoured derivation from οὐσία. But Aramaic Christians put for ἐπιούσιος Mahar = crastinum. (Jerome comm. in Mt.) The Curetonian Syriac has words meaning, “our bread continual of the day give us”. The Egyptian versions have similar readings. The old Latin version has quotidianum, retained by Jerome in revision of L. V. in Luke 11:2, while supersubstantialem is given in Matthew 6:11. The testimony of these early versions is important in reference to the primitive sense attached to the word. Still the question remains: How account for the coinage of such a word in Greek-speaking circles, and for the tautology: give us to-day (σήμερον, Mt.) or daily (τὸ καθʼ ἡμέραν, Luke), the bread of tomorrow? In his valuable study on “The Lord’s Prayer in the early Church” (Texts and Studies, 1891), Principal Chase has made an important contribution to the solution of this difficulty by the suggestion that the coinage was due to liturgical exigencies in connection with the use of the prayer in the evening. Assuming that the original petition was to the effect: “to us give, of the day, our bread,” and that the Greek equivalent for the day was ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, the adjective ἐπιούσιος was coined to make the prayer suitable at all hours. In the morning it would mean the bread of the day now begun, in the evening the bread of to-morrow. But devotional conservatism, while adopting the new word as convenient, would cling to the original “of the day”; hence σήμερον in Matt. and τὸ καθʼ ἡμέραν in Luke, along with ἐπιούσιος. On the whole the temporal meaning seems to have the weight of the argument on its side. For a full statement of the case on that side vide Lightfoot as above, and on the other the article on ἐπιούσιος in Cremer’s Bib. Theol., W. B., 7te Aufl., 1893.

[37] Septuagint.

[38] Vulgate (Jerome’s revision of old Latin version).