Deuteronomy 8:11-20

11 Take care that you do not forget the LORD your God, by failing to keep his commandments, his ordinances, and his statutes, which I am commanding you today. 12 When you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses and live in them, 13 and when your herds and flocks have multiplied, and your silver and gold is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied, 14 then do not exalt yourself, forgetting the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, 15 who led you through the great and terrible wilderness, an arid wasteland with poisonous snakes and scorpions. He made water flow for you from flint rock, 16 and fed you in the wilderness with manna that your ancestors did not know, to humble you and to test you, and in the end to do you good. 17 Do not say to yourself, “My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.” 18 But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors, as he is doing today. 19 If you do forget the LORD your God and follow other gods to serve and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. 20 Like the nations that the LORD is destroying before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 8:11-20, NRSV)

On March 2, 2009 (Monday in the week of the First Sunday of Lent, Year One), comments were repeated from May 15, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated from February 26, 2007 (Monday in the week of the First Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were combined with revision and supplement from February 14, 2005 (Monday in the week of the First Sunday of Lent, Year One), and from May 3, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One). The revised comments are repeated again here:

Moses’ admonition to obey God’s commandments continues. “Take care that you do not forget the LORD your God, by failing to keep his commandments, his ordinances, and his statutes, which I am commanding you today” (Deut. 8:11). Richard D. Nelson presents an outline of the structure of this chapter which, by its chiasm, that is, a structure in the shape of the Greek letter chi (C, cf. English ex, X), focuses on verse 11 as the central point:

v. 1: “today . . . that Yahweh swore to your ancestors”

v. 2: “remember”

vv. 2-3: “led you in the wilderness in order to humble you, to test you . . . fed you with manna which . . . nor did your ancestors know”

v. 10: “eat . . . have enough . . . good”

v. 11 “be careful lest you forget”

v. 12: “eat . . . have enough . . . good”

vv. 15-16: “led you in the . . . wilderness . . . fed you manna . . . about which your ancestors had not known, in order to humble you and to test you”

v. 18: “remember”

vv. 18-19: “that he swore to your ancestors . . . today” (Deuteronomy, OT Library, 2002, p. 108, on Deut. 8:1-20)

Nelson sees the above chiastic structure as based on “vocabulary,” and offers another, “based on topic”:

vv. 2-6: the wilderness (“heart,” vv. 2, 5; “bread,” v. 3)

vv. 7-10: the land (“water,” v. 7; “bread,” v. 9; bracketed by “good land” in vv. 7a and 10b)

v. 11: the central imperative

vv. 12-13: the land

vv. 14-16: “the wilderness (“heart,” v. 14; “water,” v. 15) (ibid., pp 108-109)

As noted, then, Nelson sees Deuteronomy 8:11 as “the central point of the chapter” (ibid.)

The tests of prosperity replace the tests of wilderness deprivation, but the lesson that was clear in the wilderness will be less obvious in the rich land. . . . Indeed, the danger of forgetting permeates the larger parenetic context (4:9, 23; 6:12; 8:14, 19; 9:7; cf. Hos. 13:5-6). This warning can be understood as introducing four modes of forgetting: to fail to observe the laws (v. 11 b), to be proud and ignore one’s dependency on Yahweh (v. 14), to rely on one’s own strength (v. 17), and to run after and serve other gods (vv. 19-20). (ibid., p. 113, on v. 11)

As Nelson suggests, Moses anticipates prosperity in the promised land. “When you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks have multiplied, and your silver and gold is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied” (vv. 12-13), says Moses, Israel should not become complacent: “then do not exalt yourself, forgetting the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, who led you through the great and terrible wilderness, an arid wasteland with poisonous snakes and scorpions” (vv. 14, 15a). As Nelson’s chiastic structure indicates, the continuation reflects prosperity in terms of the issues mentioned earlier. “He made water flow for you from flint rock, and fed you in the wilderness with manna that your ancestors did not know, to humble you and to test you, and in the end to do you good” (vv. 15b, 16, cf. vv. 2, 3). “Do not say to yourself,” says Moses, “‘My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth’” (v. 17). Israel is to “remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors, as he is doing today” (v. 18). The reading closes with a solemn warning: “If you do forget the LORD your God and follow other gods to serve and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. Like the nations that the LORD is destroying before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God” (vv. 19-20).

G. Henton Davies comments on this passage:

Truly, life in Canaan is to be Israel’s welfare state but it brings its problem. In her new affluence will Israel still recognize that she lives by everything that comes from God [as with the manna in the wilderness], or will her prosperity lead her to pride, to forgetfulness of God and worse? Is Israel to attribute her good fortune to God, which is true worship, or to herself, which is, as G. E. Wright says, virtually self-deification? The words (17), ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth’, show that the speaker is envisaging an alternative to God. (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprint 1972, sec. 235 f, p. 274, on Deut. 8:7-18).

Davies finds here an analysis of idolatry with three possibilities:

There is first the view that man depends upon God for everything including the welfare state with all its knowledge and achievements, for God sustains his covenant, his relationship with Israel and with all mankind, at all stages of man’s pilgrimage (cf. 18). There is secondly the danger that Israel will abandon the true God, and will serve other gods. That is the continuing idolatrous alternative to which many in Israel and in the modern world turn. There is however the third possibility. If man does not worship the true God, and reaches the stage when he is too cultured or educated to worship idols and other gods, he then is inclined to promote himself to the divine vacancy. Thus in 17 and 18 the preacher stands on the threshold of the final analysis of idolatry. In 17 it is man, in 18 it is God. Man worships either God or himself. . . . Idolatry in any form is ultimately man’s self-deification, and apparently in the wonderful blessings of a welfare state, man is more than ordinarily prone to it. (ibid., sec. 235 g, pp. 274-275, on vv. 7-18)

  or Deuteronomy 18:15-22

A New Prophet Like Moses

15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet. 16 This is what you requested of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: "If I hear the voice of the LORD my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die." 17 Then the LORD replied to me: "They are right in what they have said. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. 19 Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable. 20 But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak-that prophet shall die." 21 You may say to yourself, "How can we recognize a word that the LORD has not spoken?" 22 If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it. (Deuteronomy 18:15-22, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from May 15, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One):

Because Deuteronomy is presented as, for the most part, three long speeches by Moses to his people, the promise presented here of a prophet like Moses is given in the first person. “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet” (Deut. 18:15). At Mount Sinai, when the Ten Commandments were given, there was a display of God’s awesome power. “When all the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking, they were afraid and trembled and stood at a distance” (Exod. 20:18). So they said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen, but do not let God speak to us, or we will die” (v. 19). Now, Moses reminds them of the earlier request. “This is what you requested of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: ‘If I hear the voice of the LORD my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die’” (Deut. 18:16). According to Moses, “the LORD replied to me: ‘They are right in what they have said’ ” (v. 17), and so the LORD made this promise: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command” (v. 18). The Apostle Peter explains this text as a reference to Jesus as “a prophet like me from among your own people” (Deut. 18:15):

Moses said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people.” (Acts 3:22-23 NRSV, citing Deut. 18:15-16 LXX and Lev. 23:29 LXX)

According to Bernard M. Levinson,

The prophet’s oracles do not originate from other deities, from dead spirits, from skilled manipulation of objects, or from the prophet’s own reflections. God instead affirms, I will put My words in his mouth. The prophet reiterates the words of Israel’s God. That metaphorical promise is reused in the call narrative of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:9) and then dramatically enacted in Ezekiel’s call, where the metaphor is taken literally (Ezek. 2:9-3:3). (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Deut. 18:18; cf. his briefer comments, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Deut. 18:18))

The LORD places sanctions on the ones who hear the true prophet’s words but do not heed them. “Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable” (v. 19). But he places more severe sanctions on the false prophets. “But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods,” says the LORD, “or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak–that prophet shall die” (v. 19). A test of true prophecy is offered. “You may say to yourself, ‘How can we recognize a word that the LORD has not spoken?’” (v. 21). The criterion is based on the outcome. “If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it” (v. 22). “Having established an Israelite model of prophecy,” says Levinson,

the law provides two criteria to distinguish true from false prophecy. The first is that the prophet should speak exclusively on behalf of God, and report only God’s words. Breach of that rule is a capital offense (Jer. 28:12-17).

The second criterion makes the fulfillment of a prophet’s oracle the measure of its truth. That approach attempts to solve a critical problem: If two prophets each claim to speak on behalf of God yet make mutually exclusive claims–(1 Kings 22:6 versus v. 17; Jer:27:8 versus 28:2)–how may decide which prophet speaks the truth? The solution offered is not free of difficulty. (ibid. [from The Jewish Study Bible], on v. 20, and on vv. 21-23; cf. his similar comments in NOAB)

Levinson presents an extensive elaboration of this difficulty (loc. cit. [from The Jewish Study Bible]) that is condensed in his notes in the New Oxford Annotated Bible: “If a false prophet is distinguished by the failure of his oracle to come true, than making a decision in the present about which prophet to obey becomes impossible. Nor can this criterion easily be reconciled with 13:2, which concedes that the oracles of false prophets might come true” (loc. cit. [NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001]). S. Dean McBride says, “On the criterion’s utility, see 1 Kings 22:5-28; Jer. 18:5-12; 28; Ezek. 12:21-28; 33:30-33; Jon. 3:10-4:5; Hab. 2:1-3).

James 1:16-27

16 Do not be deceived, my beloved.

17 Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. 18 In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

Hearing and Doing the Word

19 You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for your anger does not produce God's righteousness. 21 Therefore rid yourselves of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness, and welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls.

22 But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. 23 For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; 24 for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like. 25 But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act-they will be blessed in their doing.

26 If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (James 1:16-27, NRSV)

On November 14, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 11, Year Two), comments were repeated from, or based on, some of the earlier comments from November 12, 2004 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), from May 3, 2005 (Tuesday of the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One), from November 17, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), from May 15, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One), and from September 21, 2008 (the Sunday closest to September 21, Year Two). The combined comments are repeated here with editing and supplement:

Do not be Deceived by Temptation (cf. James 1:12-16)

Today’s reading begins with what we might call the “tag end” of yesterday’s reading, “Do not be deceived, my beloved” (Jas. 1:16). In the NRSV, this brief verse concludes the warning that “one is tempted by one’s own desire” (James 1:14), which, “when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and . . . to death” (v. 15). In Today’s New International Version (TNIV), this verse begins the following paragraph. Either way, it provides a transition from the blessing on those who endure temptation (vv. 12-16), and the reminder that God, who only gives good gifts (vv. 17-18), is not the source of temptation (v. 13).

God’s Gracious Gift: “Birth by the Word of Truth”

“Every generous act of giving,” says James, “with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (v. 17). In particular, James explains, “In fulfillment of his own purpose he [i.e., ‘the Father of lights’ = God] gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures” (v. 18). According to Sophie Laws, the reference to a “generous act of giving” in verse 17, followed by the reference to “birth” (v. 18), is apparently to God’s gift of life to us in the creation of humanity, “or more probably to the re-birth of Christians by the word of the Gospel (see Jn. 3:3-7; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:3, 23” (Sophie Laws, Harper-Collins Study Bible, 1^st ed., 1993, on Jas. 1:18). Cain Hope Felder agrees with the latter view, for he sees here “a return to the subject of God’s generosity (v. 5)” which “gave us birth [v. 18], i.e., as Christians (cf. 1 Pet. 1:23)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jas. 1:17-18). The “word of truth” by which he “gave us birth” is the gospel. He also notes the use of the phrase “Father of lights” in reference to God in several Jewish texts (the Damascus Document 5:17-18; Apocalypse of Moses 36:5; and the Testament of Abraham 7:60) (Ibid.).

            “Anger does not Produce God’s Righteousness”

James admonishes us to live righteously. “You must understand this, my beloved” he says: “let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger” (Jas. 1:19. Felder calls this “a three-part wisdom saying (cf. Sir 5:11) [that] alerts the reader to an important distinction between James and Paul. Paul (2 Cor. 5:21) probably means a ‘righteousness found in God’ but imparted to believers as a gift, whereas the Jewish Christian James means a standard of righteousness established by God to which the believer seeks to conform” (op. cit., on James 1:19). This admonition to be “slow to speak,” says James B. Addison,

may refer to the perils of the tongue and the perils of overmuch speaking–a stock theme of the ancient moralist. ‘Be not hasty in thy tongue, and in thy deeds slack and remiss’ [Sir. 4:29]. In the second part of the Epistle (chs. 3, 4) James mentions one particularly vicious sin of the tongue, viz., malicious slander (4:11), which the rabbis called ‘the third tongue’ (lishan telitay), for it slays three persons–the speaker, the spoken to, and the spoken of [b ‘Arakin 15b]. (The Epistle of James, NICNT, 1995, p. 78, on Jas. 1:19)

The admonition to be “slow to anger” is followed by the explanation, “for your anger (ojrghv, orgē, ‘wrath’ AV/KJV) does not produce God’s righteousness (dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosynē). Among other interpretations of this which Addison cites, he prefers that of J. H. Ropes, “this is the warning against the wrong but common Jewish doctrine that anger ‘is sometimes valuable as an engine of righteousness.’ While man may imitate certain divine qualities, according to the Jews, certain ones, notably anger, are forbidden: ‘Thrice was Moses angry, and thrice he failed to produce the mind of God’ ” (ibid., pp. 78-79, citing b Pes. 66b). Addison adds:

The objection to [human] wrath is not simply that it is bad tactics and futile. Even if a pedagog’s wrath–contrast God’s patience (1:5)–may produce righteousness in his pupil (Zahn), Christians are not told to eschew wrath because it has no good effect on the persons wronged. The reason is not necessarily the possible effect on the target of my wrath: you might be more grieved, and even damaged, by cold, calculated, and justified censures than by any heated chastisement from my tongue. In Christianity, sin is forbidden primarily because of its effect on the sinner. (ibid., p. 79 on v. 20)

We are further advised to rid ourselves “of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness,” welcoming instead “the implanted word that has the power to save [our] souls” (v. 21). This “implanted word,” says Felder, is “a rare phrase meaning the same as ‘word of truth’ in 1:18” (op. cit., on v. 21). After considering various views, Addison concludes that “implanted” ( e[mfutoV, emphytos) does not mean “innate” (Hort), but rather, based on Hort’s reference to “a secondary ingrowth,” and to “a Divine gift” (Hort’s phrase), “we may very well say ‘sown’ or ‘planted’ (but not ‘engrafted,’ KJV), in the regularly used metaphorical sense” (op. cit., p. 81, on v. 21). Addison adds:

The Jewish Torah was held to be redemptive, the medicine of life and a ‘spice’ against the yetser [i.e. the (evil) impulse. with ref. to b. Qid. 30b and b Baba Bathra 16a]. ‘Torah is the only way that leadeth to life’ [“Wayyiqra Rabba 29]. Like the Torah, the implanted Word was redemptive, uniquely so since this was the ‘Torah of the Messiah.’ James may not mention Christ by name, but Christ’s Saviorhood, if not explicitly elaborated here, is everywhere implied. (ibid., with ref. to Oesterley)

Doers of the Word

James calls for righteousness in our actions. He says, “be (or ‘become,’ Givnesqe, Ginesthe) doers (poihtaiv, poiētai) of the word, and not merely hearers (ajkroataiv, akroatai) who deceive themselves” (v. 22). Later he will argue that faith without “works” is useless; they belong together (James 2:14-26). Addison calls attention to the present tense of the verb be, with its “continuative sense: ‘Keep on striving to be doers of the Word.” He adds that “the Hebraic doers (Vulgate factores), comparable to ‘doers of the law,’ is almost adjectival, like ‘law-abiding,’ ‘law-breakers’ (ibid., p. 82, on v. 22, with ref. to Hort). The “word” of which we are to be “doers” is, of course, the “word of truth” (v. 18), the “implanted word” (v. 21), “the gospel as taught by Jesus, then practiced and proclaimed by his followers” (ibid.). James goes on to describe two kinds of people. Some “are like those who look at themselves in a mirror . . . and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like” (vv. 23-24). Others, “who will be blessed in their doing,” are the ones “who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act” (v. 25). Addison finds here

two contrasts: (i) between a hasty, forgetful glance and an attentive, sustained study; (ii) between the picture, glimpsed in a mirror of a mortal, physical face, and the picture, contained in the divine law, of the ideal pattern of each immortal soul for the time being inhabiting the mortal flesh, and while still in that flesh, striving to approach that immortal ideal. (ibid., pp. 82-83 on vv. 23-25)

The actions are similar, but the reflections are from different sources, the one from a mirror, and the other from “the perfect law, the law of liberty” (v. 25). The immediate forgetting of the one has little or no effect, but the “attentive, sustained study of the other is life-transforming. Sophie Laws comments on the law of liberty: “Jewish teachers also argued that the law is not a constraint, but rather gives true freedom” (op. cit., on Jas. 1:25). Torah (hrAOT), the Hebrew word for “law,” frequently means “direction,” or “instruction,” and is related to the verb y-r-h (hry) , which means “instruct, teach” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1971, 4^th impression 1978, impression 1988, s.v. hrAOT, torah, and hry, y-r-h III). We might understand the liberty or freedom which following the laws (rules) gives if we think of the rules of an athletic game (e.g. baseball, soccer) or the principles of music. One who knows the rules of the game and is trained in following them can follow the rules with good results. One who knows the principles of music and is trained in the use of a musical instrument can play with a freedom unavailable to the novice. In both instances, “breaking the rules” will lead to unsatisfactory results. As with many topics treated in James, chapter 1, this one relates to a fuller treatment later in the book (i.e. 2:8-13).

Pure and Undefiled Religion

James moves on to say, “If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless” (v. 26, cf. v. 19). As before this saying anticipates a later section of the book (3:2-21). The truly religious person will care for the needy, “orphans and widows,” and will “keep oneself unstained by the world” (v. 27; cf. 2:14-17). So James gives us a lot to think about. Being “doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves” (v. 22), has broad implications. We might search this chapter for things to do–what does he mean? But though the chapter concludes with a warning to “bridle” our “tongues” (v. 26), and a definition of pure religion as “to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (v. 27), the “doing” is not confined to this chapter. Fulfilling “the perfect law, the law of liberty” (v. 25), means not being partial (chap. 2), taming the tongue (chap. 3) and so forth.

Luke 11:1-13

Today’s reading from Luke is presented with parallel texts in the following table:

On November 25, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from May 15, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated from October 28, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two), when comments were combined with some revision from October 23, 2004 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two, and from May 3, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One). The combined comments are repeated again here:

Some have wondered why the Lord’s Prayer appears in different contexts in Matthew and in Luke. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary introduced his chapel sermon on the Lord’s Prayer at Friends Bible College (now Barclay College) a few years ago (1979). “Luke gives the occasion when Jesus taught his disciples the Lord’s Prayer when they asked him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples’ ” (Luke 11:1). “Matthew includes it with other teachings on piety in chapter 6” (I’m quoting from memory, perhaps not verbatim). For many, Matthew’s version is familiar from use in worship, but Luke’s version is notable for the emphasis on daily bread for “each day.” “Give us each day (to; kaq j hJmevran, to kath’ hēmeran) our daily bread” (Lk. 11:3). Dennis C. Duling comments on Matthew 6:11: “Daily translates a rare Greek word [ejpiouvsioV, epiousios} that probably means bread in the morning for the rest of the day or for tomorrow” HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 5:11). Luke’s version translates the same Greek word in the phrase “daily bread,” but his phrase,“each day” (see above) emphasizes continuing trust in God for meeting our needs day by day. This difference is reflected in the verbs used in the petition. Matthew has “give ( dovV, dos) us today,” with an aorist imperative verb that implies a simple request for today’s bread. Luke has “give ( divdou) us each day,” with a present tense imperative verb that implies continued or repeated action. We should continually pray that the Lord will supply our needs.

The prayer is given above as presented in Matthew, in Luke, and in the very early second century work known as the Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Matthew’s version has six petitions–count them--as numbered above, unless “hallowed be your name,” an ascription of honor, counts as a petition, making seven. Luke’s version has only four in the earliest manuscripts, but many of the later manuscripts, including a late “corrector” of Sinaiticus, add “but rescue us from the evil one (or from evil) (cf. NRSV text note d).

For the omission of the second petition in Luke, “A few ancient authorities read Your Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us. Other ancient authorities add Your will be done, on earth as in heaven” (NRSV text note b). The “restoration” of the second and / or sixth petitions in Luke by later scribes is understandable. They were probably accustomed to praying Matthew’s form of the prayer in worship. The form of the prayer presented in the Didache apparently reflects early Christian usage, and has the six petitions.

Luke follows the prayer with teaching about persistence in prayer, illustrated by the friend who needs “three loaves of bread” in the middle of the night (Lk. 11:5-6O. Although the neighbor puts him off–“Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything” (v. 7), Jesus says that the friend’s persistence will prevail. “I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, at least because of his persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs” (v. 8). An a fortiori (“all the more”) argument asks, if persistence will prevail with the reluctant neighbor, how much more will God respond to one’s persistence in prayer?

Another paragraph, this time with a parallel version in Matthew and similar admonitions in John, tells us to “Ask . . . search . . . and knock” (Lk. 11:9; cf. Mt. 7:7; Jn. 16:24). Assurance that God will hear and respond is given, as Jesus says, “For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Lk 11:10 = Mt. 7:8). The Greek text of these verses is identical in Matthew and Luke, though in Luke, some manuscripts have ajnoivgetai (anoigetai, present tense, “is opened”) for ajnoighvsetai (anoigēsetai, future tense, “will be opened”). If the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4^th rev. ed., 1993) is correct in using the future tense here, though marking it with “C,” that is, with “a considerable degree of doubt,” then the verses are identical in the Greek of Matthew and Luke as well. Further assurance is given by comparing a human father’s response to his child’s request to that of God, our heavenly Father. This again is an a fortiori (“all the more”) argument. In Luke’s account, Jesus first rhetorical question, “Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish?” (Lk. 11:11), is similar to the second in Matthew’s account, “Or if the the child asks for a fish, will give a snake?” (Mt. 7:10). Luke’s second rhetorical question, “Or if the child asks for an egg, will give a scorpion?” (Lk. 11:12), can be compared to Matthew’s first–though the request and the response differ, “Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone?” With different objects, bread and a stone in Matthew, an egg and a scorpion in Luke, the point is the same, though Luke’s image is sharper. Of the terms “fish” and “snake,” Robert H. Stein says, “these are similar in appearance, as are the egg-scorpion, for a scorpion with its claws and tail rolled up resembles an egg” (Luke, The New American Commentary, vol. 24, 1992, p. 328, on Lk. 11:11-12). Stein also refers to earlier comments, where he says snakes and scorpions “were both well-known symbols for evil” (ibid., p. 310, Lk. 10:19). The conclusion Jesus draws indicates assurance that God will hear and respond to our prayers. “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven (Mt.), the heavenly Father (Lk.), give good things (Mt.), give the Holy Spirit (Lk.), to those who ask him” (Mt. 6:11; Lk. 11:13). Luke finds ways to emphasize the Holy Spirit throughout the two volume set, Luke-Acts. God’s gift of the Holy Spirit will provide for many other “good things” in our lives. The instruction, “Ask and you will receive” (Jn. 16:24; cf. Mt. 7:7-8; Lk. 11:9-10), assumes that one will ask in accord with God’s will. The one who asks must ask in Jesus’ name (Jn. 14:14) and abide in him (Jn. 15:7). It’s not a kind of open-ended blank check.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net