And he said to them, When ye pray, say, Father, thy name be hallowed; thy kingdom come;
A disciple watched Jesus praying and asked to be taught. Luke's record of the answer is shorter than the one in Matthew. What He gave them starts not with their needs but with God — one word of address, then two desires.
The prayer opens with one word of address. One writer marks how far that word moves beyond the names God's people used before.
Our Lord then directs the disciples to their Father. This is the first and very significant word of the prayer. When believers today address God as Jehovah or Almighty God, do they not forget that they are Christians? People addressed God as Almighty with understanding in the days of Abraham and the patriarchs. They were the days of promise. Later, when God called out the nation of Israel and put it under law, they knew Him as Jehovah-God. Now it is as Father that the Christian knows Him.
Many readers know the longer wording from Matthew and wonder where it went. The answer lies in how copyists worked.
It is true that the King James Bible has it in the matching passage of Luke. But everyone who knows this subject well knows there are strong reasons for cutting the clause there back to the single word "Father." My own conviction is that copyists took the longer form in the common text of Luke from Matthew.
The brevity itself carries a warning against treating the words as a fixed formula:
It is the Spirit of God who has decided this. He gives an outline that matches the moral character of Luke's Gospel. But it is an outline, not meant for repeating word for word, since it has no closing sentence and no "Amen."
A "name" in Scripture is not a label. It stands for everything God has shown Himself to be. So this first thing we ask for lands on the one praying.
"Name" in Scripture always expresses what God is as revealed. So, joined to the Father, it is the truth of what God is in that relationship. So when we long for His name to be hallowed, we are asking that it be kept holy in us, by us, and by all who have the privilege of calling on God by this precious title. We are asking that there be in us an answering response to His holiness in this relationship.
The words ask for a kingdom that belongs to the Father. Writers set it apart from the Son of Man's reign over the earth.
It is not the kingdom of the Son of Man, the kingdom of Christ, that is spoken of here, but the Father's kingdom. It is not "my kingdom come," but "your kingdom come." The Father's kingdom is the sphere where the heavenly saints will shine like the sun. The Son of Man's kingdom is the sphere where all peoples, nations, and languages will serve Him. Heaven and earth will both come under the Lord Jesus when He comes, and both will make up the kingdom of God. But the Father's kingdom is the upper department, and the Son of Man's kingdom is the lower one.
Commentators differ on when that kingdom comes. Some place it beyond the thousand-year reign:
For this kingdom of the Father we must look past every age of God's dealings to the sabbath rest of God Himself. To confuse it with the millennium would be a complete mistake, and would drag its character far down. The millennium, with all its blessedness, is only a step toward this glorious completion.
We do not naturally pray in this order.
How often we put ourselves and our interests first in our prayers. It was not like this that the Lord taught His disciples. He taught them to put God first: to pray that His name might be hallowed, and then to stretch their desires out to the furthest bounds of the earth… Only then, when the heart has reached up to the sacred glory of God's name and has widened to take in every home of man, may we ask for our daily needs.
These desires are not only for a future day. They can shape a life now.
In a coming day of persecution and distress God's earthly people will cry this prayer from their anguished hearts, but how blessed if we are in the moral good and truth of it now.
- Father — The first word fixes the relationship. Not Almighty, as with Abraham. Not Jehovah, as under the law. Father — the name Christians know God by.
- Fewer words — Luke's short form is the true text. Copyists carried the longer address over from Matthew. It is an outline for prayer, not a formula to recite.
- Name — "Name" means all God has revealed Himself to be. To ask that it be hallowed is to ask that His holiness find an answer in us.
- Kingdom — We ask past the Son of Man's rule over the earth for the Father's own kingdom. Commentators differ on what that is: the heavenly side of Christ's reign, or the eternal rest beyond it.
- Order — God's name, then God's kingdom, then our bread. Pray in that order, and you stop putting yourself first.
give us our needed bread for each day;
Jesus has just taught His disciples to pray for the Father's name and kingdom. Now He turns to something as ordinary as a loaf of bread. That shift raises three questions. How much may we ask for? How often? And why does God feed us in small instalments instead of all at once?
The request for bread does not open the prayer. Commentators see meaning in that order:
Short, yet suggestive! Short, because it packs so much into a few sentences. Suggestive, because it reminds us that God's glory, and what concerns our Father, should have the first place in the heart. At the same time, we are perfectly free to make our wants known as well.
The English word "daily" is a weak stand-in for the Greek word behind it.
Then comes a petition expressing dependence on God for our ordinary need. "Give us our needed bread for each day." It takes up the pure and simple need of the body. The word "daily" is a very imperfect expression in English of the original term. The Greek word epiousios really means our "sufficient" bread. It seems to be a word made for this very idea, set against having more than we need. If we ask for more than enough, we slight the wisdom of the Lord.
The same writer links this request to contentment.
Give us today our sufficient (or, necessary) bread. So the disciples are taught to begin by confessing dependence for ordinary wants, as the apostle called us to be content with food and clothing.
Matthew records "this day." Luke records "day by day" — the ESV renders it "each day." Kelly sees a change of outlook behind the change of words:
The believing Jews looked simply at the one day, it might be, before them. It was a definite request for the present need... But in Luke the Lord was teaching the Gentile believer — the one who is not a Jew. That believer shows a more constant spirit of dependence: "day by day" is the word. He was never to expect rest or a settled home on earth, as the Jewish believer might. His inheritance lay elsewhere; his portion here was to be always that of a stranger... The word for "give" is the same verb in both Gospels, but its form and force differ a little. In Matthew it implies a single passing act; in Luke it is the continuous habit, which naturally goes with the phrase "day by day."
Commentators differ on how far this request reaches. Kelly takes it as the plain need of the body. Others point to the manna, the bread God gave Israel in the desert, and hold that the request cannot stop at the body:
It is not straining the request for daily bread to make it include a spiritual application too. With the Lord it would be simply impossible, while remembering the need of the body, to forget the immensely greater need of the soul. In both ways the supply must be continual. The manna had to be fresh every morning, and freshly gathered as the morning came: hoarded, it bred worms and went bad.
God could settle our needs once and for all. Grant explains why He does not:
Often all we think of is having our need met; but how little a thing is that with God! It would cost Him nothing, we may say, to meet the need of a lifetime in a moment. A lesser love than His would supply it all at once and be rid of a constant burden. But that is not His way. To supply the need is a small thing. But He means to supply it in a way that makes us feel, in each supply that comes just in time, that the Father's eye is never turned away from us and the Father's heart is always taken up with us.
Praying this way exposes where we really look for security.
"Give us this day our daily bread." Many a believer would almost break his heart if he thought his income would come to an end in twelve months' time. But this prayer means we look to Him as our only resource for today's needs.
- Order: God's name and kingdom come first, then our wants. We are still perfectly free to bring those wants.
- Enough: The word behind "daily" means sufficient. God teaches us to ask for what we need, not for more.
- Daily: Luke's "day by day" is a habit, not a single request — the outlook of a stranger whose inheritance is elsewhere.
- Fresh: Like the manna, the supply must keep coming. Hoarded provision spoils. God feeds body and soul alike.
- Love: God could meet a lifetime's need in a moment. He gives it day by day so we feel the Father's eye and heart on us.
and remit us our sins, for we also remit to every one indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation.
The disciples had asked to be taught to pray, and this verse gives two requests for the soul: pardon and protection. But whose forgiveness is in view, does forgiving others earn God's pardon, and how could God lead anyone into temptation?
The people the Lord was teaching were already His followers. So they are not asking for the pardon that settles a person's standing before God. They ask for the pardon a Father gives His own children when they fail.
This is not a sinner's forgiveness, when he first comes to know the Lord. It is the forgiveness of the disciple living under the daily government of his Father. How misleading, then, to make an unconverted person ask forgiveness as if he were already a child of God! Under the gospel, the unconverted receive forgiveness of sins by faith in the blood of Jesus — by receiving the gospel itself. This passage speaks only of a child's forgiveness: the removal of whatever gets in the way of fellowship with God.
Applied to someone not yet converted, this prayer would make pardon depend on his own conduct.
Does God make the forgiveness of an unconverted man depend, in any sort or degree, upon his forgiveness of others? By no means. That would demand a very high standard of conduct from a person in the lowest possible condition... In a word, it would ruin and deny the gospel, which would then be of works and no more grace.
Matthew's account of this prayer uses a different word, and the change is worth noticing.
If in Matthew it is said "debts" and in Luke "sins," there is a slight shade of difference that ought not to pass unnoticed. "Sin" says plainly how deep the soul's moral need is. The simplest non-Jew would understand the word "sin." A Jew would feel what a debt was in his responsibility to God. It assumes a known relationship — one he already stood in, and in which he had failed. To those who had never stood in that position, the idea of "debt" was not so clear... "Debt" is more of a picture, though a Jew understood it perfectly.
The next words tie how I treat people to how God deals with me day by day.
That means our attitude to others has a serious bearing on ourselves. No doubt this passage looks at forgiveness from the standpoint of God's government. And it is exactly on those lines of government that the matter becomes very serious. Do I forgive? Then I can call upon God to forgive me. Am I hard and unforgiving? I shall reap what I sow.
Knowing your own debt is cancelled does not make you casual about wrongdoing. It makes you gentle with others who fail.
God counts no sin against us now; it is all put away. But will that make me hard when others fail? No. Seeing that Christ went through agony on the cross for me gives me a sense of my freedom, but not indifference about sin. Instead of hardness, it will give us tenderness and softness of spirit.
God never tempts anyone to do wrong, so the word here means something else: being tested and put to the proof.
The disciples knew their own weakness, so they were right to ask God not to lead them into such severely testing circumstances. No prayer such as "Lead us not into sin" is or could be in the Bible, for that would charge God with moral evil. The temptation here means putting a person fully to the proof. If there is evil in the heart that has never been judged, the test brings it out to his shame.
This prayer comes from knowing yourself, and Christ's prayer for Peter shows what happens without it.
Whoever knows himself will pray, "Lead us not into temptation." May the grace of God work in us so that Satan need not sift us to strip away our pretensions. When Jesus prayed for Peter, whom He knew to be self-confident, He did not ask that His disciple escape the enemy's sifting, but only that his faith should not fail.
Luke's account ends without the closing line found in Matthew, and the oldest copies support that.
The most ancient copies leave out "Deliver us from evil"... This is not taking anything away from Scripture; it is laying aside what is not Scripture. We still have these words, and rightly, in Matthew: leaving them out here is a gain, not a loss.
- Family, not court. A child asks his Father to clear away what spoils daily fellowship. This is not a stranger asking to be let off forever.
- Plain word. Luke writes "sins" where Matthew writes "debts." A debt assumes a known relationship already failed. "Sin" names the moral need in words anyone understands.
- Mirror clause. How I treat those who owe me sets the measure of God's daily dealings with me. Forgive, and I can ask forgiveness. Stay hard, and I reap what I sow.
- Softened, not slack. Knowing my own guilt is gone makes me tender toward those who fail, never careless about wrong.
- Sifting, not sin. God tempts no one to evil. The prayer asks Him to keep us out of tests that would expose hidden weakness — the prayer a self-confident heart never thinks to pray.