There are so many excellent works on The Lord’s Prayer that anything I write may seem redundant. But, here in the twenty-first century it doesn’t hurt to take another look. Our “internet culture” has its own lens.
First of all, a general analysis sees seven areas of focus in the prayer:
1. God’s nature
2. God’s kingdom
3. God’s will
4. Daily needs
5. Forgiveness
6. Testing
7. Deliverance from evil
I wonder if Jesus was thinking of Ecclesiastes 5:2 at this point: “God is in heaven and you upon earth, therefore let your words be few.” It is clear that prayer has little to do with volume, public visibility, or pious repetitions. Nor does it function as an information bureau (“who can instruct the Lord as his counsellor?” Is. 40:13). Rather, it is secret, intimate and more about listening than talking. It’s a time to hear the Lord speak. So, get into your own room, close the door, and be quiet.
Remember, “your Father knows what you need before you ask.” He is not, nor will he ever be, a means to our own ends. Prayer is a two-way conversation — mostly “his” way.
As is often the case with language and culture there is a blurring of the lines over time. For example, the “Pharisees” and the “Sadducees” emerged as differing religious sub-cultures in the latter half of the second century before Christ. Their sectarian DNA, however, can be seen as far back as the return of the exiles from Babylon around 537 BC. Once situated again in Judea, they became known as the “Hasideans” and the “Hellenizers”. The Hasideans (or “Hasids” as they are known to this day in modern Israel) were focused on strict adherence to the Law of Moses (and the oral tradition known as the Talmud), while the Hellenizers (or, “Sadducees” as they were later known) were committed to liberalizing Judaism and assimilating the values of Greek culture. The Sadducees essentially were a political sect, the Hasidim (“Pious Ones”) a religious. But there was one issue that found them in agreement: they both felt threatened by Jesus. His life and teaching was antithetical to theirs, and in their world of theological and moral absolutes Jesus was not just counter-culture, he was dangerous. “What if the whole world goes after him?” they spluttered. “He’s got to be stopped.”
So, while the “trumpeted” their alms, Jesus called for total secrecy. His word about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing is intriguing. It may have been a proverbial statement, but it could have referred to the Jewish practice of offering gifts at the altar in the Temple with the right hand. The best instincts of the soul were seen as “right-handed”, while the more pedestrian inclinations were seen as “left-handed”. So there should be no mix of motives in charity, says Jesus. Keep your gifts “close to the chest”. When you do, your omniscient Father will take notice. Any “reward” is up to Him.
This secrecy in giving presents a bit of a conundrum, however. Elsewhere Jesus instructs us to “let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” How does one do both? Secret and open at the same time? Seems undoable. Many theologians agree that what Jesus is saying is that we should be open in our love for neighbour but indifferent to their praise or even their opinion. When we give, we give “as unto the Lord”. Or, as one of the theological thinkers put it, “show when tempted to hide; hide when tempted to show.” The endgame of the process is glory to God.
“Hypocrites” steal glory from God. They relish public recognition. Jesus had a dim view of them.
The word “hypocrite” comes from the Greek “pharisaios”. In turn the Greek root has an etymological parent in the Aramaic word “Pera” meaning “to separate”. But there are added nuances to the word – for instance, a hypocrite could be an actor in a Greek play, playing a part, feigning a personality or character that was not his own.
In the Jewish culture of the time there were three religious core values: alms giving, prayer, fasting. All three could be done in secret but they also could be done publicly with great show of piety. One could give to the beggar, and beseech heaven with theatrical flourish, and fast with slumped shoulders, unwashed face, soiled clothing and bad breath. In every case attention was paid to pious pilgrim by the people, with little or no notice in heaven. Jesus casts such displays as counter-productive. They may impress the public, he says, but your Father will not be pleased.
How NOT to Give vv.2-4
The goal, Jesus is implying, is uncalculating generosity. But to get there one needs to know a few things.
First of all, “alms” meant “righteousness”. Or, as the Greek suggests “rightwiseness”. In the Jewish culture almsgiving and righteousness were equivalent. In the Hebrew language “tzadkah” (righteousness) is used for both. Righteousness was identifies with “mercifulness” and in most cases associated with giving money fo the poor. A much quoted aphorism of the rabbis was, “Greater is he who gives alms than he who offers sacrifices.” Another was, “He who gives alms in secret is greater than Moses.” The ideal, indeed the ultimate, occurred when the donor gave and the recipient received “blindly”. This way only God received the glory.
The love of enemies is the ethical bottomline of the Sermon on The Mount. It seems impossible – as does being “perfect” in v. 48. Mind you, to love your enemy is possible, in that love is essentially volitional. On the other hand, to like your enemy is virtually impossible because “like” is solely emotional. To love is to do. To like is to feel. Love is unconditional. Like has conditions.
Jesus calls on us to “pray for” our enemies. This is hard to do. Indeed an ancient preacher named Chrystotom called prayer for our enemies, “the very highest summit of self-control”. But it can be done. To love is a choice, and we can choose to add value by prayer and/or deeds directed to the betterment even of those “evil” ones who “persecute” us. The embattled Coptic Christians of Egypt have modeled this in the early twenty-first century in their response to violent persecution by so-called Islamic State terrorists. In their case love is expressed via forgiveness. What spiritual maturity!
This is what “perfect” in v. 48 refers to – maturity. The Greek word used is “teleios” which means “functional” or “mature”, no loose ends. A man is “teleios” if he fulfills the purpose for which he was created. We can never attain to the moral or spiritual perfection of our Creator, but we can, like him, fully function as He intended us to do from the beginning. Any “perfection” assigned to us of the moral and spiritual kind will be solely “Christ in us, the hope of glory.” But, just as Christ died for us “while we were yet enemies” so too we can “die” for our neighbour, be he friend or enemy. This is “teleios”.
Essentially what Jesus is saying here is that we are not to take the law into our own hands. Wrong done to us by an “evil” person does not justify out doing a wrong in return. Indeed, when wrong is met with wrong, the cycle of injustice only gains momentum. This is what fuels feuds.
So Jesus does what he sometimes does: he utilizes hyperbole. Someone strikes your right cheek? Let him hit you on the left as well. Someone wants to sue the shirt off your back? Give him your coat, too. Nip the revenge reflex in the bud. Let God sort things out in the end.
The same principle applies to “occupation stresses”. The people of Jesus’ time were under duress due to the Roman forces occupying their country. Any soldier could order you to carry his kit. If he did so, carry it twice as far as he expected. And, be generous with those in need who ask a favour. Not to the point of impoverishing yourselves, but always show compassion. This way you don’t bear a grudge. Personal animosity will be cut off before it can take root.
Revenge is not vengeance. Revenge is vindictive. Vengeance, on the other hand, is retributive justice. Revenge is subjective; vengeance is objective. That’s why the victims of an injustice cannot avenge — only a court of law, or better yet, God himself, can bring vengeance. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay,” says the Lord.” (Ro. 12:19; see also He. 10:30). Only God can right the balance when an injustice has upset the equilibrium of his people. This is why “tit for tat” doesn’t work. The “eye for an eye” principle, by the way, was designed to mitigate the escalation of conflict. If someone took your eye, all you were allowed to do was to take theirs. To take two eyes, or an arm or a leg, was unjust. Only equality of loss would do.
“Vengeance” is part of the legal terminology of the Bible. According to the “Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible” it is “the restoration of wholeness, integrity, to the community, by God or man.” There is, however, a blurring of the lines from time to time in Scripture between vengeance and revenge. But in the main the cries to God for vengeance are “cries for redemption, restoration, health and healing…” Retributive justice in the “final judgment” will be harsh, but it will “right the balance”. Justice ultimately will be done.
“Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the Lord” (Lev.19:12). “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God…” (Ex. 20:7). In Jewish thought the name of God was binding. To abuse his name by invoking it without follow-through was seen as blasphemous.
So, when it comes to truth is must, as one old theologian put it, “stand before God undraped” by any subterfuge. An oath must never be a cover for deceit.
Jesus simply says, “Yes, is yes. No is no.” God is omnipresent so there is no need to invoke his presence in a contract. As Jesus’ half-brother James our it, “Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear — not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No”. Otherwise you will be condemned” (Ja. 5:12). Let your word “be your bond”. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t sign contracts. What it does mean is that our signature is a witness to our integrity. We must need forget that our name is attached to his.
Human nature being what it is, we humans tend to “look out for Number One.” We seek advantage over our neighbour. We hide our agendas. We tell half truths. And often, we lie. To protect ourselves from the other guy we bring in an outside authority. Business is done via contract. If we default we are subject to that objective rule. We live under law. The influence of self-interest is so pervasive we have got to be watched.
Often in ancient times contracts were either “sanctified” by or completely based on oaths. An oath invoked a higher, sacred, or valued “other” that became party to the transaction. Even so, the oath-takers often hedged their secret intentions. A lot of double-dealing was done in the name of deity.
This is why the Lord instructed Israel to never “take the name of the Lord in vain.”
Malachi starts the argument by declaring that Israel has one God and a unique covenant. Israel will be his people and he will be their God. But they have become disloyal to their national family (V. 10), their spiritual family (vv. 11,12), and their marriage partners (vv. 13-16). These grim realities are all evidenced by their idolatry, mixed marriages, adultery, and divorce. In God’s view, as Malachi presents it, there is a continuity and spiritual unity implicit in covenant with God and covenant in marriage. Idolatry and adultery destroy covenant. God hates them both, just as he hates the end result.
So, as Jesus sees it, the marriage covenant is inviolable. Because God is present in every wedding, divorcing your partner at a latter stage suggests that the fracture extends to heaven itself.
This does not mean that divorce is the “unpardonable sin”. Today, as in Jesus day, there are/were all kinds of “extenuating circumstances”. God the Father “pitieth his children” in their distresses, and provides for their healing. But, what Jesus is doing here is declaring the ideal. When the “real” destroys the “ideal” he would be the first to say, “mercy trumps judgement”. But a word to the wise: when you marry keep the back door closed.
Then he warns them that divorce for “any reason” is not on the table. In fact only “sexual immorality” is reason for divorce. Apart from the exception, a man is not free to remarry. And the same principle applies to a woman. Jesus says in Mk. 10:12, if she takes the initiative and divorces her husband “for any reason” (implied) she too commits adultery if she remarries.
The critical issue here is both the protection of the woman (in a man’s world) and the family. Anything that fractures the family is seen as an evil. Divorce is a kind of self-imposed relational schizophrenia. God “hates” it (Mal. 2:16 RSV).
To appreciate God’s hatred of divorce one must examine Mal. 2:10-16. I know this is a “casual commentary”, not given to academic analysis of the text, but it must be said that this passage is very difficult to interpret from the Hebrew. It leaves room for diverse opinions.
