Day: March 7, 2020

March 7: Matt 6:10a; Luke 11:2c

Matthew 6:10a; Luke 11:2c

The second petition of the Lord’s Prayer, like the first, is identical in all three versions—Luke [MT], Matthew, and the Didache:

e)lqe/tw h( basilei/a sou
elthétœ h¢ basileía sou
“May your Kingdom come”

Syntactically, this is perhaps the simplest and most straightforward of all the petitions in the Prayer, a fact which belies several difficult points of interpretation. In the shorter (Lukan) version of the Prayer, the first two petitions form a precise pair:

    • “May your Name be made holy”
      “May your Kingdom come”

The Matthean structure is more complex, due the inclusion of an additional (third) petition, to be discussed in the next note. A version in Aramaic, such as may have been spoken by Jesus, would perhaps be: Et*Wkl=m^ hyt@at@ (t¢°têh malkût¹k). There is a similar sort of petition in the Jewish Qaddiš [Kaddish] prayer: “May he cause his kingdom to rule in your lifetime and in your days, and in the lifetime of all the House of Israel” (Fitzmyer, p. 900).

The 3rd person imperative e)lqe/tw (“it must come”) is exactly parallel to the (passive) imperative a(giasqh/tw (“it must be made [i.e. treated as] holy”) in the first petition. As noted previously, the context of a prayer to God requires a slightly difference force to the imperative in translation, as an exhortative request: “may it be that…”, “let it be (so) that…”. The person praying urges God to bring it about that these things happen: (1) His Name is treated as holy by people on earth, and (2) that His Kingdom comes, or is made manifest, on earth. These two aspects, or attributes, of God—His Name and Kingdom—must be considered together, as a conceptual pair. The first of these was discussed in the previous note (on the first petition, cf. also the series “And you shall call His Name…“). I have examined the idea of the Kingdom of God in earlier notes and articles (see “…the things about the Kingdom of God“, Part 5 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”, and an article in the series “Birth of the Son of God”). Here I will be focusing specifically on the theme of the Kingdom in the context of the Prayer.

In Matthew, within the Sermon on the Mount, the expression “Kingdom of the Heavens” (the Matthean parallel to “Kingdom of God” in the sayings of Jesus) occurs eight times (5:3, 10, 19 [twice], 20; 6:10, 33; 7:21), including the opening Beatitude that begins the Sermon (5:3): “Happy are the (one)s…(in) that the kingdom of the heavens is theirs”. This serves as a keynote theme to the Sermon as a whole, and follows upon the initial proclamation by Jesus at the start of his public ministry:

“Yeshua began to proclaim and say, ‘You must change (your) mind [i.e. repent], for the kingdom of the heavens has come near!’…. And he led (the way) around in (the) whole of the Galîl, teaching…and proclaiming the good message of the Kingdom…” (Matt 4:17, 23 par)

It is interesting to compare these two pieces of tradition—if Jesus declared that the Kingdom of Heaven has (already) come near (h&ggiken, perfect form of the vb. e)ggi/zw), how is it that his followers should pray that the Kingdom might yet come (vb. e&rxomai)? The key to understanding this lies in the eschatological context of both Jesus’ initial proclamation and the petition in the Prayer. That the Kingdom of God/Heaven has come near (e)ggu/$) means that has not yet arrived, but is about to very soon. The use of e)ggu/$ and the verb e)ggi/zw in the New Testament, as well as elements like the verb me/llw (“about to be/happen”) and other vocabulary, provides clear and unmistakable evidence of an expectation among early Christians and Jews of the period that the end was imminent. God was about to appear to bring Judgment upon the world and to rescue the faithful ones among his people. Both John the Baptist and Jesus affirmed this in their preaching (Matt 3:2; 4:17 par, etc). I discuss the subject at length in the series “Prophecy and Eschatology in the New Testament” (soon to be posted on this site).

At the same time, there was still a longing and desire among God’s people for this eschatological moment to be realized, that it might come to pass even as the faithful are waiting for it to occur. We see this expressed at numerous points in the New Testament and the Gospel tradition—e.g., Mark 15:43 par; Luke 2:25, 38, etc.—and it is what is emphasized in the Lord’s Prayer as well. However, the significance of it needs to be considered in the context of the first petition. The wish that God’s name should be treated as holy by people on earth indicates that this is currently not taking place—human beings are not acting and thinking in a way that gives honor to God or that reflects His nature and character. Jesus’ true disciples, if they follow his teaching and example, will reflect God’s own character, and will be worthy of belonging to His Kingdom (Matt 5:3, 10, 19-20, 48; 6:33; 7:21, etc). What about the rest of humanity? They will only come to honor God’s “Name” at the (eschatological) moment when He appears to bring Judgment upon the earth (cf. Phil 2:9-11). Some will be converted even before this point, through the example and witness of believers (Matt 5:16; 1 Pet 2:12, etc). Paul envisions the conversion of “all Israel” as an end-time event prior to the Judgment (Rom 11:25-27).

Another important eschatological aspect to the Kingdom-petition in the Prayer is the fundamental idea of God as King, and the natural (religious) desire to see His power and influence exerted over the world, especially in regard to the elimination of wickedness and evil. This will be discussed further when addressing the last petitions of the prayer. This cosmic conflict, and its resolution at the end-time, is central to most eschatological frameworks, and certainly is evident among Jews and Christians in the first century A.D. Moreover, eschatological and Messianic modes of thought and expression go hand in hand, as I discuss in considerable detail in the series “Yeshua the Anointed“. A climactic expression of this for early Christians is found in the visions of the book of Revelation, especially the scenes of heavenly worship in chapters 4-7, and the hymn of praise following the heavenly battle-scene in chapter 12 (vv. 10ff):

“Now it (ha)s come to be—the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of His Anointed (One)…!”

Thus, the Kingdom-petition is finally realized in the context of these end-time visions. The general clarity and precision of this eschatological hope in the Prayer itself is complicated by two factors:

    1. The additional (third) petition in the Matthean version of the Prayer, and
    2. The variant reading, in place of the Kingdom-petition, in some witnesses of the Lukan version

These will be examined, respectively, in the next two daily notes.

These notes on the Lord’s Prayer commemorate the start of the new feature “Monday Notes on Prayer” on this site.

Saturday Series: John 14:7, 17

John 14:7, 17

We have been looking at a variety of passages from the Gospel of John, using them as the basis for exploring important issues of New Testament criticism and exegesis. Today I wish to turn to the last of the Johannine discourses of Jesus—the great “Last Discourse”, set in the narrative at the time of the Last Supper, prior to Jesus’ arrest (chapter 18). It is comprised of the material in 13:31-16:33—the Discourse proper—and is followed by the famous prayer-discourse of Jesus in chapter 17. I divide the Discourse into three main parts, each of which functions as a distinct discourse itself, containing as a central theme the impending departure of Jesus from his disciples.

The character and orientation differs somewhat from the prior discourses, since here Jesus is addressing only his close followers, at the beginning of his Passion. The departure of Judas from the scene (13:30) is significant for two reasons: (1) it means that only Jesus’ true disciples remain with him, and (2) it marks the onset of his Passion, a time of darkness (“and it was night“, v. 30b). The latter motif is expressed elsewhere in the Gospel tradition (Luke 22:53; 23:44 par), and foreshadowed earlier in John as well (11:9-10; 12:35). Thus Jesus has occasion to speak with his followers in a way that he could not (or chose not to) before.

The discourses of Jesus in John are carefully constructed—almost certainly reflecting both Jesus (as the speaker) and the understanding/artistry of the Gospel writer. While the vocabulary of the Gospel is relatively simple (by comparison with Luke, for example), the thought and logic of the discourses is often complex and allusive. Each word and form used, every nuance, can carry tremendous importance as well as theological (and Christological) significance. Textual variants, however slight, can affect the meaning and thrust of the passage in a number of ways.

The two verses I wish to look at today are found in the first division of the Discourse (14:1-31), which I would outline as follows:

  • 14:1-31—Discourse/division 1—Jesus’ departure
    • The relationship between Jesus and the Father (vv. 1-14)
      • Initial statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 1-4)
      • Question by the disciples [Thomas] (v. 5)
      • Jesus’ response: I AM saying (vv. 6-7)
      • Question by the disciples [Philip] (v. 8)
      • Jesus’ response: I AM saying (vv. 9-11)
      • Concluding statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 12-14)
    • Jesus’ Words for His Disciples (vv. 15-31)
      • Instruction to the Disciples: Love and the Commandments (vv. 15-24)
        —Initial statement: Promise of the Spirit (vv. 15-17)
        —Instruction: Relation of the Disciples to Jesus and the Father (vv. 18-21)
        —Question by the disciples [Judas] (v. 22)
        —Jesus’ response: The disciples and the world in relation to Jesus and the Father (vv. 23-24)
      • Exhortation for the Disciples: Farewell Promise of Peace (vv. 25-27)
        —Initial statement: Promise of the Spirit (vv. 25-26)
        —Exortation: Jesus’ gift of his Peace (v. 27)
      • Concluding statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 28-31)

The two verses relate to the two thematic sections—the first (v. 7), to the relationship between Jesus and the Father (with the central “I Am” sayings in v. 6 and 10-11), and the second (v. 17), to Jesus’ closing words for his disciples, with the two-fold promise of the Spirit (vv. 15-17) and Peace (vv. 25-27) which will be given to them.

John 14:7

This statement by Jesus follows the great “I Am” saying in v. 6. It is a conditional statement, marked by the particle ei (“if”). However, the exact force and meaning remains uncertain, largely due to variant readings involving the four verbs (indicated by placeholders with braces):

“If you {1} me, (then) you {2} my Father also; and from now (on), you {3} Him and {4} Him”

There is little or no variation in terms of the verbs used; rather it is the specific form which differs. Let us briefly consider each of these in turn:

Verb #1—ginœ¡skœ (“know”). The manuscripts show a surprising variety, indicating a lack of certainty among scribes; however, the options can be reduced to two—the difference being one of verb tense: (a) perfect (egnœ¡kate), “you have known”, or (b) pluperfect (egnœ¡keite), “you had known”. Just one or two letters are involved, but it creates a distinct difference in the force of the condition:

    • “if you have known [i.e. come to know] me…”, assuming a positive condition: as indeed you have.
    • “if you had known [i.e. come to know] me…”, assuming a negative condition: as indeed you have not (yet).

The former is the reading of several key manuscripts (Sinaiticus [a], the original copyist of Bezae [D], and the minuscule 579; see also the Bodmer papyrus Ë66). The latter is read by the majority of manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus [B].

Verb #2—ginœ¡skœ/eídœ (“know”). There is even more diversity with the form of this verb, though again it comes down to two options regarding the tense: (a) future (gnœ¡sesthe), “you will know”, or (b) pluperfect (¢¡deite or egnœ¡keite), along with the subjunctive particle án, “you would have known”. Again, the latter is the majority reading, including Codex Vaticanus [B], while the former is essentially the reading of the Bodmer papyrus Ë66, Sinaiticus [a] and Bezae [D]. Thus the text-critical choice comes down to two pairs of verb forms:

    • (1) “If you have known me [i.e. as indeed you do], (then) you will also know my Father…”
    • (2) “If you had known me [i.e. as yet you do not], (then) you would have also known my Father…”

Verbs #3 and 4—ginœ¡skœ (“know”) and horᜠ(“look/gaze [at]”). Despite some minor variation, in this case we can be fairly certain of the text—a present indicative form (ginœ¡skete) “you know”, followed by a perfect form (heœrákate) “you have seen”. The form of these two verbs, in my view confirms option (2) for the first pair, specifically the use of the verb eidœ (instead of ginœskœ) in #2. Now both eidœ and ginœskœ can mean “know”, but the former verb literally means see, often taken in the sense of “perceive, recognize” (i.e. “know”). Thus internal considerations confirm the majority reading of v. 7a, and yield a text for the verse which would be translated:

“If you had known me, (then) you would have seen [i.e. known] my Father also; (but) from now (on) you (do) know Him and have seen Him”

Keep in mind that verses 9ff deal specifically with the idea of seeing God the Father (in the person of Jesus), while the earlier vv. 5ff emphasize knowing. Verse 7 combines both motifs—seeing/knowing—as is often the case in the Gospel of John.

If this reading is correct, how is it to be understood? The key, I believe, is the setting of the Last Discourse, in the light I have discussed above. It is only now that Jesus can begin to reveal the truth fully to his disciples. Before this point, even his close disciples have not really known him—that is, his true identity in relation to the Father. Now, with this revelation (in the Last Discourse), and through his coming death and resurrection, they do truly know him. And, since, knowing him means seeing him, they also have seen the Father, as it is only through Jesus that we come to see/know the Father.

John 14:17

In this verse, there is again a pair of verbs, for which there is an important variant. The saying of Jesus here follows upon the basic idea (and language) in verse 7. The first part of the saying, which I present along with v. 16 (as a single sentence), may be translated:

“And I will ask (of) the Father, and he will give to you another (one) called alongside [parákl¢tos], (so) that he might be with you into the Age—the Spirit of Truth, which the world is not able to receive, (in) that [i.e. because] it does not see/observe him and does not know him; but you know him…”

The contrast between believers and “the world” is introduced, a theme which will take on greater prominence in chapters 15 and 16 of the Discourse. While the world is unable to recognize the Spirit of Truth (the one “called alongside” [parákl¢tos], i.e. ‘Paraclete’), Jesus’ true disciples (believers) are able to see and know him, since they (and we) now know and see Jesus. The concluding portion of verse 17 contains the variant. Again it will be helpful to examine each of the two verbs:

Verb #1—ménœ (“remain, abide”). Here there is no variation, the manuscripts being in agreement on its form: present tense (ménei, “he remains”). This is perhaps a bit surprising; we might have rather expected the future tense (i.e. “he will remain”), since, from the standpoint (and chronology) of the narrative, the Spirit has not yet been given to believers (see 7:39, 16:17 and, of course, 20:22). This apparent discrepancy may help to explain the variant readings for the second verb.

Verb #2—eimi (verb of being). The manuscript evidence is rather evenly divided between present and future forms: estín (“he is”) vs. éstai (“he will be”). The present tense matches that of the previous verb; but this could reflect either the consistency of the author or a harmonization by the copyists. On the other hand, the future tense better fits a future coming of the Spirit (in 20:22); but copyists might have modified the present form for just this reason. In my view, the present of the first verb (“he remains”) + the future of the second verb (“he will be”) is the more difficult reading, and best reflects both the most likely original of the text and the context of the discourse. Here is how this portion would be translated:

“…you know him, (in) that [i.e. because] he remains alongside you and he will be in you.”

Why the present tense if the Spirit has not yet been given to the disciples? This is sometimes described as a proleptic use of the present (i.e. anticipating something in the future). However, in my view, a better explanation is at hand here in the discourse. The expression is “remains alongside [pará]”. This reflects the very title given to the Spirit—as “one called alongside [parákl¢tos]”. Note that here Jesus refers to the Spirit as “another parákl¢tos“, which suggests that Jesus himself was a parákl¢tos (“one called alongside” believers, by the Father). An important idea, introduced in the Last Discourse, is that the Spirit/Paraclete takes the place of Jesus with believers. This sense of continuity is expressed both by the present tense of the verb, and by the verb itself (“remain”). Through the Spirit, Jesus remains with believers.

Why then the shift to the future tense? Why would Jesus not say “he remains alongside you and he is in you”, as some manuscripts indicate? While Jesus remains with believers through the Spirit, the coming of the Spirit also indicates something new, a new condition. This condition—the indwelling of the Spirit—does not begin until after Jesus’ resurrection, during his appearance to the disciples in 20:19-23. This is stated in verse 22: “And, having said this, he blew in(to them) and (then) says to them, ‘Receive (the) holy Spirit…'” While the preposition en (prefixed to the verb, “blow in/on”) could be read “he breathed on (them)”, it is better to translate literally here: “he breathed/blew in(to) (them)”. This may reflect the original creation narrative, in which God breathed life into the first human being (Gen 2:7). The coming of the Spirit would then indicate a new birth (“from above”) for believers, by the Spirit, as expressed in 3:5-8.

I hope this study demonstrates how carefully one must read and study the Greek, especially in the context of passages such as the Last Discourse, where even small differences in the form of a word can significantly affect the interpretation. For next week, I would ask that you continue reading through to the end of the Last Discourse, including the prayer-discourse of chapter 17. I will be looking at a couple of verses in that chapter which also involve text-critical questions, and which have proven challenging for commentators over the years.

If you wish to study the Last Discourse, and the Passion Narrative, in more detail, I would recommend that you explore the series Jesus and the Gospel Tradition, being (re-)posted here on this site. I will begin posting the notes and articles dealing with the Passion Narrative this week.