Matthew 6:9-13 is commonly referred to as the Lord’s Prayer.” In this passage, Jesus presented a prayer pattern to his disciples, suggesting how God should be addressed and what petitions we are entitled to present. What makes this prayer so intriguing that many people delve into its meaning? It is interesting to note that Jesus’ prayer places God first. The first half of the prayer focuses solely on God and His agenda, as believers adore, worship, and submit to His will before introducing their own personal petitions.
The second half of the prayer focuses on how disciples should invite God into their daily lives and live upon God’s continuous spiritual provision. Even with the introduction of their wills in the second half, God still maintains a dominant position in the relationship. The discipleship of followers is presented through day-to-day prayers.
To fully understand the meaning of this text, it is necessary to examine the socio-historical background of its writing and the time when it was written. By doing so, we can fully grasp the context of this paragraph.
The Gospel of Matthew was most likely written before A.D. 100. This is supported by the fact that it is quoted by Ignatius (Smyrn. 1. 1) who wrote around 110-115 A.D., and it may also be referenced in the Didache, which could date back to the late 90s. External evidence suggests that Matthew wrote primarily for Jewish Christian congregations who were either on the brink of or recovering from a significant split from Judaism as a whole.
If Matthew’s writing depends on Mark’s, then it must have been written after Mark, but there is uncertainty surrounding the dating of Mark.
It is commonly believed that Mark was persecuted during the Neronian persecution in the mid- to late-60s, but there is little concrete evidence to support this claim. However, certain details within Matthew’s Gospel suggest an earlier dating. For example, why would only Matthew mention the temple tax (17:24-27), offering (5:23-24), and ritual (23:16-22), or Sabbath keeping in Judea (24:20) in a time period after 70 when none of these practices were still observed? Additionally, why would he emphasize Jesus’ opposition to the Sadducees when they had already died out? One possible explanation is that these events occurred during Jesus’ lifetime.
Given the consistent pattern of the evangelists in selecting episodes from Jesus’ life that were theologically meaningful for their communities, one may wonder if these data indirectly point to a pre-70 date. The evidence is finely balanced, but it is believed that there is a slight weight in favor of opting for a date in the 60s, sometime after Mark’s composition. Today, most scholars conclude that the author was a Jewish Christian based on probable circumstances of its composition. Strictly speaking, like all four canonical Gospels, this Gospel is anonymous.
Canonical Matthew is written in relatively good Greek, better than Mark, but not as polished as that of the native Greek writer, Luke. It is believed that due to the amount of Hellenization that had infiltrated Galilee by the first century and given the regular contacts with Gentiles that a toll collector would have had, the apostle Matthew would have become a reasonably cosmopolitan Jew capable of this kind of writing. Some scholars have inferred from references like 13:52 that Matthew himself was a scribe either before or after becoming a Christian and therefore could not also have been a toll collector.
In fact, if he were a Christian scribe or teacher, his previous experience with an occupation that required writing and record-keeping might have even better prepared him for his later responsibilities. Without any ancient traditions to the contrary, Matthew remains the most plausible choice for the author of this book. This author, at least of an original draft of this book, seems quite probably to have been the converted toll collector named Levi who became one of Jesus’ Twelve apostles (cf. 0:3; 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17).
Literary context suggestions for Matthew’s Gospel have always involved apologetic design in trying to convince non-Christian Jews of the truth of the Gospel, encouragement to witness in a hostile world and deepening Christian faith by providing more details about Jesus’ words and works. All these proposals make good sense and may well form part of Matthew’s intention.
To what kind of church under what circumstance would such a Gospel be addressed?
The text itself never explicitly states who the Gospels are addressed to. However, it is generally assumed that they are primarily intended for Christian communities, as these documents have been read within these communities since the earliest days of Christian testimony. When discussing the church to which Matthew may have been writing, scholars often attempt to connect the circumstances of that particular group of believers with the broader Jewish world. While most evidence simply suggests that Matthew wrote to the Hebrews,” some sources occasionally suggest a specific location in Palestine.
Modern scholars have often suggested that Syria, particularly its central city of Antioch, which was up to one-seventh Jewish and a center of early Christian missionary effort, could be the origin of this Gospel. However, it is more fruitful to discuss the type of situation within Judaism that would have provoked the writing of this Gospel. Some scholars argue for a Gentile audience and interpret Matthew’s Jewish emphasis as teaching Gentile Christians how to appropriate their Jewish heritage and Scriptures. Others are content with labeling the community as mixed.
Most interpreters recognize that Matthew’s audience was a Jewish-Christian congregation, or congregations, that were either on the verge of or just recovering from a substantial break from Judaism as a whole. Graham Stanton suggests that the concept of the church had broken from but was still in debate with the synagogue. Studies of formative Judaism” indicate how diverse Jewish thought and practice were before AD 70. However, after the destruction of the temple, only two primary branches emerged: rabbinic Judaism and Christian Judaism.
The tension was quite high as each of these groups competed in the same communities to defend the claim that they alone were the true heirs to their religious heritage. This situation can explain why Matthew was so concerned with showing Jesus as the fulfillment of all things Jewish, while also stressing the rebellion of Israel’s leaders. In Matthew’s mind, this rebellion was comparable to the hostility of synagogue leadership in his day.
Passage Analysis/Implication:
The paragraph selected is commonly known as the “Lord’s Prayer”. Versions of this prayer appear in both Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4. Most translations render “Pray then like this” similarly. Translators may use phrases such as “When you pray, you should pray in this way,” “Your praying should be like this,” or “When you pray, this is the kind of prayer you should make.”
The form of address used by Matthew (“Our Father who art in heaven”) appears differently in Luke simply as “Father” (Luke 11:2). The modifier “Our” reminds us that no believer stands alone, while “in heaven” serves both to differentiate between earthly fathers and our heavenly Father and at the same time preserve distance between God and man.
The use of first-person plural pronouns throughout the prayer reminds us that our praying should reflect the corporate unity, desires, and needs of the entire church. Hallowed be thy name” is translated as “may your name be honored” by Phps and “may your name be held in reverence” by Brc. The last part of this verse and the entirety of the following verse show that the three petitions are parallel in thought, and both the passive form and use of “name” reflect the attitude of reverence found in Jewish prayers. “Thy kingdom come” is parallel to the first petition.
The reference is to the final establishment of God’s reign on earth, and the prayer requests that God establish his reign for us, not that we establish it for him. The next petition, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven,” is not found in Luke’s presentation of the Lord’s Prayer. This petition is an exact parallel to the first petition concerning the honoring of God’s name and stands parallel with the second petition as well. The meaning of this petition may be expressed in a variety of ways: “May people obey you as you are obeyed in heaven” (MACL), or “May you be obeyed all over the earth as you are obeyed in heaven” (INCL).
Thy will be done” is a passive phrase that does not specify who should do God’s will. Some translations have interpreted it as “may people do what you will” or “may people carry out the things you desire on earth, just as they are carried out in heaven.” However, it is more accurate to assume that God’s will is already being done in heaven and the prayer is for people on earth to carry out his will.
The first half of the prayer focuses exclusively on God and His agenda. Believers adore, worship, and submit to His will before introducing their own personal petitions. Give us this day our daily bread” is a short verse that is difficult to interpret. The problem concerns the meaning of the word “daily.” This word appears only in Christian literature, and its origin and meaning have never been explained to the satisfaction of all. Several solutions have been offered and are summarized in commentaries.
One of the standard Greek lexicons presents the petitions in the following order:
- Necessary for existence.”
- “For today, for the current day.”
- “For tomorrow, for the following day.”
Some commentators argue that this interpretation makes the petition less spiritual, but Jesus and his followers took seriously the needs of the body.
This seems to be the favored interpretation by translations that render “daily”.
This would refer to a daily ration of bread given for the next day; therefore, “give us today our daily portion”.
Mft translates the phrase “give us today our bread for tomorrow,” while Brc renders it as “Give us today our bread for the coming day.” There are several possible meanings to this phrase. If the prayer was said in the morning, then the “coming day” would refer to the current day. It is also possible to interpret this phrase in an eschatological sense, where the “coming day” could refer to a future Messianic banquet. However, such an interpretation is unlikely in this context. Another interpretation is “bread for the future,” which falls under (3) and is known as an eschatological interpretation.
The first two alternatives are similar to each other. The third alternative, if taken as a reference to the present day, essentially means the same as the first two possibilities. The fourth interpretation, although attractive, does not seem to be in focus in the present passage. An eschatological interpretation should be rejected; therefore, the translation of “this day” should not be “in these days” or “in this age”. It simply means “today”, although it can be interpreted as “each day” or “day by day” in some constructions depending on how daily” is dealt with.
The Greek word for bread” is used here with a broader meaning of “food.” Some have interpreted “bread” to represent all our needs, both spiritual and physical. However, most translators follow the first two interpretations: “Give us each day the food we need.” The word “forgive” has proven difficult to translate and can be expressed through figures of speech such as “forget the wrong” or “no longer see the wrong.” The term “debts” represents a literal translation of the Greek word.
However, commentators note that the word is used figuratively here for sins.” The focus is primarily on spiritual debts to God. Our plea for continued forgiveness as believers, which involves requesting the restoration of fellowship with God following the alienation that sin produces, is based on our having forgiven those who have sinned against us. As verse 15 emphasizes, without this interpersonal reconciliation on a human level, we cannot be reconciled to God. In the clause “As we also have forgiven,” the pronoun “we” is emphasized.
The verb have forgiven” represents an aorist indicative in Greek. Some translations give it a habitual or timeless force, while others specify that the action is past in reference to the petition for God to forgive. The word “as” is important and should be interpreted as “in the same way” or “just as”. This means we ask God to forgive us in the same manner we forgive others. The final petition can be difficult to interpret since the Greek word translated as “temptation” may also mean “trial” or “persecution”. However, this petition does not imply that we should ask God not to bring us to the place of temptation or not allow us to be tempted, since God’s spirit has already done both with Jesus (4:1).
Nor does the clause imply don’t tempt us” because God has promised never to do that anyway. Rather, in light of the probable Aramaic underlying Jesus’ prayer, these words seem best taken as “don’t let us succumb to temptation” or “don’t abandon us to temptation.” We do, of course, succumb to temptations every once in a while but never because we have no alternative (1 Corinthians 10:13).
Thus, when we give in, we have only ourselves to blame. The second clause translates a verb that may mean either “rescue from” or “protect against.” The word “evil” translates a noun that may also mean “the evil one”. New Testament scholars are divided on their judgment. Some believe the word is neuter because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic uses the evil one” to denote Satan. Others believe the phrase may refer to the Evil One, i.e., the Devil, based on 13:19. In either case, this passage speaks of the power of evil as a reality.
Numerous late manuscripts add various forms of a conclusion to Jesus’ prayer, probably based on 1 Chr 29:11-13. No doubt this was done to give the prayer a proper doxology that it otherwise lacked. This well-known conclusion appears in the NIV margin but almost certainly did not appear in Matthew’s original text.
The “Lord’s Prayer” is actually closer to a disciple’s prayer in its content. As the sinless One, Jesus cannot ask God to forgive his sins. However, Jesus sets an example of prayer for us to follow.
Only by fulfilling various petitions can we reconcile with God in unity. We are called to honor God’s name in our daily lives and be used by Him to build His kingdom. We should pray to God every day for the needs of our body and ask for forgiveness of our sins. Jesus calls on his disciples to pray for deliverance from and protection during testing, which we cannot avoid. God allows us to be tested by the evil one to confirm our faith in Him. When such testing comes, only God’s strength can see us through.
We may note that the use of the plural pronoun our” reminds us that as we approach God as our heavenly Father, we must also remember God’s other children as our brothers and sisters. It is important to seek not only our daily bread but also the needs of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
This prayer serves as a great reminder for our highly individualized society. We often pray for everything in our lives, big or small. While there is nothing wrong with praying for ourselves, it is important to remember to pray for others too.
We pray for better grades, better health, more time, more patience, and better lives. It’s always about us. We often fail to realize that we are trying to take control of everything. Instead of letting God be in control of the situation, we pray to Him for His help.” Through studying this prayer, I realize that only through God’s power can we stand against the storms in our lives and find true peace. Additionally, we must seek provision not only for ourselves but also for those around us. Our intimacy with God must lead to prayer and active commitment to the needs of all His people.
