CCUC Worship Arts

In Matthew 6:13, the words above are not contained in some early copies of the Bible.  How are we to understand this?  What does this mean for us?  Here is an attempt to look at the issue Biblically.

Matthew 6:13 is treated differently by different Bibles:

• Some translations include the longer prayer without brackets
• Some translations include the longer prayer with brackets
• Some translations do not include the longer prayer but give a note to explain the reason.
• Some translations do not include the longer prayer and do not give a note.

ISSUE: The words in question seem to function as a conclusion to the prayer.

• Removing the words in question would seem to have a more abrupt end to the prayer. It would no longer fully represent the expected form of a prayer. So, it would make more sense to keep the longer form.

APPLICATION: Say it through from beginning to end as a prayer.

• Yet, if vss. 9-13 are just a list of things to pray to God instead of an actual prayer, then a conclusion is not needed.  Or, is it possible that using the word “Amen” at the end of a prayer is more a practice of Christians of today instead of 1^st century Israel.  In either case, the shorter form would be justified.

APPLICATION: Use the items in the prayer speckled throughout your prayers.

ISSUE: The theological content of the prayer is at stake.

• In content, the words of declaring God’s power and glory forever are not stated earlier in the prayer. Thus, the longer form should be kept.

APPLICATION:  It is equally important to declare God’s power and glory forever as it is to make supplication.

• Yet, the words in question are similar to the previous words “Your kingdom come, Your will be done.”  So, removing the words would not really remove any theological content that is not contained in the prayer already. Thus, the shorter form would be justified.

APPLICATION: Declaring God’s power and glory is good, but for this prayer, it’s not the primary focus.

ISSUE: The words in question are of a different type than the rest of the prayer

• The words in question are a declaration of God’s greatness.  The prior phrases focus on requests on behalf of God(name be hallowed by men, kingdom come, will be done) as well as requests on behalf of man(bread, debts, temptation).  To end with words of praise would be a third type to this. To not include the words in question would be missing an important part of the prayer.

APPLICATION: We should have both Adoration as well as Supplication when we pray.

• Yet, since the prior phrases are all requests, the words of praise do not fit the prayer and thus the shorter form would be justified.

APPLICATION: This prayer gives examples of Supplication and does not discuss Adoration.

1. How does your Bible treat Matt 6:13?
2. Consider the issues above.  Which seem to be stronger arguments?
3. Study the use of the word “Amen” in the Bible. How is it used?
4. Does it make a difference if the longer phrase is used? How so?
5. Is this a “do-or-die” issue? Or, is it something that people can have different opinions on?

I just came across this quote and I found it to be quite thought provoking.

I thought others might find it thought provoking as well.

It’s a quote by John Sailhamer in “The Meaning of the Pentateuch” on page 104.

The ability to fill out the biblical picture is at the heart of the problem. Using modern historical tools, we have the same ability to fill in the historical details of scriptural narratives as we have of painting intricate details of seventeenth-century life over the shadows of a Rembrandt painting. By painting shadows, Rembrandt deliberately left out many historical details that would have given us much information about the events he recorded on canvas. Historians who understand the culture and life setting of seventeenth-century Europe could easily replace Rembrandt’s dark shadows with historically accurate details of the world around him. In the same way, historians of the ancient world could fill in many historically accurate details about the events recorded in the biblical narratives. They could, for example, help us to better understand the nature of biblical covenants by comparing them with ancient treaty documents. There is no end to the amount of material now available to “fill in” the biblical picture. The problem is that this would have the same effect on the biblical(OT) narratives as on Rembrandt’s paintings. Filling in the biblical narratives with additional historical material may teach us things about the events of which the biblical writers were speaking, but the evangelical’s goal in interpretation and biblical theology is not an understanding of those events as such. The goal, as evangelicals must see it, is the biblical author’s understanding of those events in the inspired text of the Bible(OT). We should not seek to know what lies behind or beneath Rembrandt’s shadows. It is the shadows that are a central part of the paintings, not the historical details that lie behind the shadows and are thus not in the painting. Rembrandt’s meaning lies as much in what is not seen in his painting as in what is seen. The shadows, by blocking out the irrelevant details, help us focus on what is seen. The effect of our adding more details to the painting would be to lose Rembrandt’s focus. The task for evangelicals is to recover the sense of what the biblical texts intend to tell us about the events they are recounting. We can arrive at that goal only by an exegesis of the text.

The main distinction he seems to be making is between Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology. The former looks at every detail to discover what is. The latter looks at the emphasis made by the author. I think there’s a place for both. What are your thoughts?