The Lord's Prayer And Textual Criticism

This morning we looked at the Lord's Prayer, found in Luke 11 and Matthew 6. The two versions are different: Luke omits certain phrases found in Matthew, and neither version includes the standard liturgical ending (For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever).

So which version is the "real" Lord's Prayer - Matthew's, Luke's, or the standard liturgical version? How do we explain the differences? The science that answers these questions is called textual criticism (or lower criticism, in some cases). The current question poses a good test case for a basic overview of text-critical analysis. And hey, why not toss it around on the blog? It's at least as interesting as Brent counseling a goose.

We start from a presupposition that Scripture is authoritative. Matthew and Luke are both inspired writers, and neither one "forgot" anything. They are at least as conscientious as writers of our day would be in checking their sources and getting their facts straight.

Hypothesis #1: One explanation is that Jesus taught the same prayer pattern multiple times. Luke recorded one instance of Jesus' teaching, Matthew another. It is clear from the contexts that the writers may have two differing occasions in view: Matthew places the Lord's Prayer as part of the Sermon on the Mount; Luke places it as a response to the disciples' query "teach us to pray." And if this truly was Jesus' "pattern prayer," he most certainly taught it on more than one occasion. But this hypothesis is weakened by the obvious fact that if every part of the prayer is important, it's hard to understand why Jesus would leave stuff out on one occasion or add stuff on another.

Hypothesis #2: Many textual critics propose that Luke's prayer is the "authentic" one, because textually speaking, it's easier to explain the lengthening of material than the shortening of it (a process called conflation). The hypothesis goes like this: the Lord's Prayer was being used in churches VERY early - before either gospel was even written. Luke recorded the prayer as Jesus actually taught it. But Matthew recorded it as it was being used in the worship life of the churches. The early Christians had taken the basic outline that Jesus taught (Luke's prayer) and added to it in ways consistent with the rest of Jesus' teaching ("Our Father" being lengthened to "Our Father who is in heaven," for instance, in keeping with Mark 11:25). When Matthew wrote, he chose to use the version of the Lord's Prayer that his readers knew instead of the more basic version Luke recorded.

This is a really sound proposal in light of the overwhelming evidence that both Matthew and Luke used source material - perhaps the gospel of Mark or the written testimony of Peter - in composing their gospels. So both writers had access to the same material, and certainly neither one was writing in a vacuum. Matthew knew he was writing down a different version of the Lord's Prayer than Luke had written, and he did so intentionally.

We have thousands of manuscript copies of Scriptural writings. (Keep in mind, no copy machines back in the day). In some manuscripts, Matthew's prayer is shortened to match Luke's; in others, Luke's prayer is lengthened to match Matthew's. So it's evident that the early Christian scribes knew of the differences and sought to harmonize them for the reader. This was their way of affirming that these two writers were teaching the same truth and of assuring the reader that there was no conflict between them.

Hopefully this little exercise helps you see how the gospel writers can preserve the same truth in different ways without conflicting with one another. The Scriptures are a complex, multi-layered portrait of God's truth, and it takes careful thought and study to understand them well.

Now: you read both versions of the Lord's Prayer, consider the hypotheses above, and offer your opinion. Which one do you think is a better explanation for the differences?

Jesus: A Person of Vital Relevance

In Coram Deo's teaching on spiritual formation, we have unapologetically been drawing from the insights of theologian and philosopher Dallas Willard. We don't accept the words of men uncritically; we test everything in light of Scripture. But we would be arrogant and foolish not to learn from teachers wiser and more seasoned than ourselves. Willard certainly falls in that category.

I have recommended his book Renovation of the Heart most widely. But today, in preparation for my sermon on Sunday, I re-read some sections of his magnum opus, entitled The Divine Conspiracy, published in 1998 by HarperCollins. His introductory chapter was so good that I have taken the liberty of reproducing parts of it below. Hopefully it may spur some of you to further reading. Conspiracy is a long and complex book, full of insight. It's not for everyone... but it may be for some of you. I love the introductory sentence:

My hope is to gain a fresh hearing for Jesus, especially among those who believe they already understand him.

Very few people today find Jesus interesting as a person or of vital relevance to the course of their actual lives. He is not generally regarded as a real-life personality... but is thought to be concerned with some feathery realm other than the one we must deal with now. And frankly, he is not taken to be a person of much ability...

It is the failure to understand Jesus and his words as reality and as vital information about life that explains why, today, we do not routinely teach those who profess allegiance to him how to do what he said was best. We lead them to profess allegiance to him, or we expect them to, and leave them there, devoting our remaining efforts to 'attracting' them to this or that.

Jesus' instructions [that we should make disciples of Him] are starkly clear. We just don't do what he said. We don't seriously attempt it. And apparently we don't know how to do it. You only have to look honestly at our official activities to see this. It saddens me to say such things, and I do not mean to condemn anyone. But it is a matter of extreme importance, and unless it is openly acknowledged, nothing can be done about it.

...Individual Christians still hear Jesus say, 'Whoever hears these words of mine and does them is like those intelligent people who build their houses upon rock' (Matthew 7:24-25). How life-giving it would be if their understanding of the gospel allowed them simply to reply, 'I will do them! I will find out how. I will devote my life to it! This is the best life strategy I ever heard of!' and then go off to their fellowship and its teachers, and into their daily life, to learn how to live in his kingdom as Jesus indicated was best.

Geese Need Counseling, Too

Ends and Means

Last Sunday, we talked about the difference between ends and means. For the sake of dialogue, I thought I'd post today 1) the basic outline of my message, and 2) some links to writings on the Musings blog that relate to the topic.

Definitions:
End = 'the goal toward which an agent acts'
Means = 'intermediate steps; something useful or helpful to a desired end'

3 Biblical Points (sorry if it feels like I'm yelling... the caps are the result of cut and paste):

1. GOD IS SOVEREIGN; THEREFORE HE CAN ACCOMPLISH HIS ENDS WITHOUT USING HUMAN MEANS (Psalm 115:1-3; Isaiah 45:5-7; Jeremiah 18:1-6)
2. GOD HAS SOVEREIGNLY CHOSEN TO USE HUMAN MEANS TO BRING ABOUT HIS DIVINE ENDS (Joshua 1:1-3).
3. THEREFORE, WHAT I DO MATTERS, BECAUSE GOD USES IT TO ACCOMPLISH HIS ENDS!

5 Applications of these truths to spiritual formation:

#1: God has ordained not just the end of spiritual formation, but the means as well. The objection that 'I can't become the person God wants me to be' denies this reality. If God has ordained the end (your sanctification - 1 Thess 4:3), he has also provided the means to that end. If you're not using the means... don't blame God.

#2: You will not reach the end if you don’t use the means. They go together.

#3: Don’t let the means become ends in themselves. (This is where legalism comes from).

#4: Both the end and the means are communal. God does not shape our souls in isolation. Read The Kingdom of Couches for some practical help in learning to do spiritual disciplines communally.

#5: The situation determines the appropriate means. Everyone uses the same means, but we need them in differing degrees, depending on our individual situation.

FOR MORE:

That Christ Be Formed In Us (reflections on means and ends)
If You Love Me (how false want keeps us from intending to obey Jesus)
The Kingdom of Couches (the post, not the book) (the point of practice is to play!)
Funk & Faith (reflections on missional community)
The Disciples Training

(If Will Walker wasn't my best friend, referencing so many of his blog writings would definitely constitute a man-crush.)

Why Spiritual Formation Matters

Last week, Todd and Amy had dinner with their friend Bob, who converted to orthodox Judaism a few years ago. Todd was asking him what in particular appealed to him about Judaism (and in the process, trying to discern what 'angle' he might take in talking with Bob about Jesus).

The answer: Bob liked the fact that Judaism gave him a life-long goal. "There's no way you can keep all the commandments," he said. "I'll be working my whole life to try to be the kind of person God wants me to be." Then he added, "That's what's wrong with Christianity. People can say they're a Christian, then go on living however they want!"

Astute readers will detect notes of works-righteousness and self-salvation in Bob's answer. He is tripping over grace, which is the defining mark of Christian spirituality. However, we should not neglect his rebuke. The evangelical church has substituted "cheap grace" (Bonhoeffer) for the true, life-transforming power of the gospel... and even an unbeliever can see the effects! A gospel that does not bring transformation is no gospel at all - and is not worthy of the name of Christ.

John Piper put the same thing in different words in a recent sermon:

You don't honor fully what you don't enjoy! God is not glorified fully by being known rightly. He is glorified by being known and so enjoyed that our lives are transformed into the kind of lives that display his infinite worth.

That's a pretty radical kind of life, too. 'Cause most lives look like we treasure the world. If you want to live a kind of life that looks like you treasure the King of Kings... it's gotta change.

That's why spiritual formation matters. If the purpose of my life is to bring glory to God... then a lot of things have got to change!

In the Ivy League

Ivy is my hero.

We hired her to do administrative work - to manage details and do accounting and generally support the work of Coram Deo. Technically she'd get paid whether or not she led the rest of us in mission. But leading the rest of us in mission is what she does, often.

Last week JD challenged us about intention. If we don't intend things, they don't happen. The car at left is parked near our offices every day. The bumper stickers suggest a driver with some pretty strong opinions. I've considered initiating a friendly conversation with her... but I've never actually intended it.

Ivy did. Where I saw a person who was probably pretty hostile toward Jesus, Ivy saw... a person. She initiated a conversation and made a friend and ate lunch today with this woman - who does have some atheistic leanings, but who also has a name and a soul and a story.

Glory to Jesus, and props to Ivy... the best church planting administrative assistant on the planet!

How Serving God Becomes Selfish

We have been doing this Coram Deo thing for almost a year now. And many of us who try to keep our finger on the pulse of our community can sense a communal tiredness, a retreat toward comfort, a reversion to the old patterns of church that have driven us for so long. Some of this is just the weariness of mission. We need Sabbath and refreshment in the presence of Jesus.

But undoubtedly some of our tiredness results from our tendency to consume - manifested in ways we don't even realize.

Will has a great post over on Musings that fleshes this out. It's one of those pieces of writing that makes you look at your heart and say, "Hmm... I never considered that before." (Which, of course, means that you have to repent of sin that you didn't know was there before. Which is a good thing.)

Heart check time! Go read it.