so this prayer is the sum and abridgment of all
other prayers.’ It covers all earthly and spiritual needs and all heavenly aspirations. It is not meant to supersede all other forms of supplication. When Christ gave us this, He did not forbid others. But this one rightly accompanies all other prayers, either following them to sum them up and prevent grave omissions, or preceding them as a guide or model: praemissa legitima et ordinaria oratione quasi fundamento, accedentium desideriorum jus est superstruendi extrinsecus petitiones (Tert. de Orat.). It is breviarium totius evangelii (ib. i.).
For the prayer is also a pattern. It shows in what manner and spirit our other supplications are to be made. We may pray only for those things which tend to the glo: ὡς God and the good of man; and the glory of God comes first. The final end of prayer is not that our will should be done by Him, but that His will may be done inus. In the beautiful image used by Clement of Alexandria, ‘Just as men at sea attached to an anchor by a taut rope, when they pull at the anchor, draw not it to themselves, but themselves to the anchor; so in the gnostic life those who (as they mean it) draw God to themselves are unawares eerie them- selves towards God’ (Strom. Iv. xxiii. p. 633, ed. Potter).
A consideration of the petitions one by one belongs to commentaries and homiletics rather than to a dictionary ; but some notice must here be taken of three details in the prayer, (a) the opening address, (4) the central word ἐπιούσιος, and (c) the last clause.
(a) The address Πάτερ ἡμῶν has no parallel in OT. There God is spoken of as the Father of the Jewish nation (Dt 32", Is 0315, Jer 3.19 31°, Mal 12?) ; but He is nowhere called the Father of individuals. This step is taken in the Apocr. (Wis 2° 14%, Sir 23) # 51°, To 134, 3 Mac 68), But it is only in NT that
LORD’S PRAYER 143 we are told that men have received the ‘right to become children of God’ (Jn 1, οὗ, Ro 8%, Gal 4°). Every Christian, and indeed every human being, is justified in regarding himself as the offspring of God (Ac 1755 3), and in addressing Him with refer- ence to his fellow-men as ‘Our Father.’ The address is at once a claim to be heard, and to be heard for others as well as for oneself. Quid enim jam non det filiis petentibus, cum hoe ipsum ante dederit, ut filii essent (Aug.). See vol. il. p. 618.
(δ) It is not likely that we shall ever know with certainty either the origin or the exact meaning of the adjective ἐπιούσιος, the only adjective in the
rayer. Nowhere in Gr. literature is the word ound until the Gospels gave it currency. To derive it from ἐπεῖναι, ἐπών, or ἐπί and οὐσία, is precarious; for in that case we should expect ἐπούσιος, and not ἐπιούσιος." Most ancient versions support the derivation from ἐπιέναι, by giving the epithet a temporal rather than a qualitative ren- dering; 6.5. ‘of to-morrow,’ or ‘for the coming day,’ or ‘that cometh,’ or ‘continual,’ or ‘daily.’ Jerome changed quotidianum in Mt to super- substantialem, but made no change in Lk; so that in the West there was a general belief that the two evangelists had used different words. It is possible, as Chase suggests, that there was no epithet in the Aram. original, and that its insertion comes from liturgical use. But that hypothesis, if true, is not decisive as to meaning, although it supports the temporal rather than the qualitative interpretation. For the temporal meaning see Grotius, Wetstein, Fritzsche, Meyer, and, above all, Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the NT, App. I. For other views see Suicer, Tholuck, Alford, Wordsworth, and, above all, M‘Clellan, The NT, i. pp. 632-647. RV retains ‘daily’ in the text, and puts ‘for the coming day’ in the margin. The American Committee would add ‘needful’ in the margin. It is a strange pheno- menon that the meaning of this unique word in the model prayer should, almost from the earliest times, have been doubtful. The Didaché, which has the earliest quotation of the prayer (viii.), throws no light on this point.
(c) Does ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ mean ‘ Deliver us from (the) evil,’ or ‘Deliver us from the evil one’? Have we here τὸ πονηρόν, as in Lk 6*, Ro 12°; or ὁ πονηρός, as in Mt 1319. 88. Eph 6, 1 Jn 218-14 312 518, and also probably Mt 5° *, Jn 17%, 2 Th 3°, 1 Jn 5”? The latter is almost certainly correct. (a) The references just given show that in NT itself there is abundant justification for this meaning. (8) The context suggests the masculine, ‘Bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the tempter.’ Τί evil in general, including pain and sorrow, were meant, we should have ‘ and deliver us from evil.’ Some Fathers explain Luke’s omission of the clause by saying that it is really contained in ‘ Bring us not into temptation.’ (y) Of the earliest versions, ‘the Syr. and Sahidie point to the mascu- line,’ the Lat. isas ambiguous as the Greek. (6) The liturgies of St. James, of St. Mark, and of Addzeus, which are each of them representatives of a group, all explicitly oy sk the masculine. See Hammond, Liturgies Eastern and Western, pp. 47, 48, 188, 189, 279, 280. (e) The Greek Fathers, who in such a matter have great weight, are unanimous for the masculine. (ἢ) So also the earliest Latin Fathers, Tertullian and Cyprian. See Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision, App. [δ 0g from which these six heads are taken; also Lightfoot on 9 ΤῊ 353, Erasmus, Beza, Maldonatus, Fritzsche, Meyer, Ebrard, Wordsworth, support the masca-