The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 238

cott and Hort). The insertion ill at first xvii. 11), so that it Is likely to be his own •ight suspicions, but ilB there is no trace phrnsc, and therefore less origln&l tha.n St. of such an addition in vcrs. 1, 4, 6, 14, 18 Me.tthew's ••this day" (cf. Weiss, •Jlfottbii.us- (in ver. 32 only ~•), it is haTd to see why it should have been interpolated here. Its Ev.,' and Page, Fxpositor, III. vii. 436). omission, on the other hand, is easily ae- On the other hand, the words," Which art in count.ed for by it.a abscnee in those passages. heaven,'' are so cbarncterietio of St. Matthew The internal evidence, therefore, corroborates ( eh. x. 32, SS; cf. xii. 50: xv. 13; xvi.ii. 10~ the st.rong external evidence of I:{•, B. Our 141 19, 35; uiii. 9), a.nd especially of the Lord here said " God " to emphasize the majesty and power of " your lt'atber." sermon on the mount (eh. v. 16; vi. 1; vii. Xnoweth; i.e. intuitively (oil.,.); cf. ver. 32. 11, 21 ; cf. v. 45, 48; vi. 14, 26, 32), that it seems more natural to suppose that this. Vere. 9-13.-The pattern of prayer. clause at least was added by him or by the J>ara.llel passage: Luke xL 2-4. For most authors of his sources to the original form, 1n10-o-eetive remarks on the Lord's Prayer, rather than that it was omitted by St. Luke. both generally and in it.s greater difficulties In connexion with this it may be pointed· of detail, compare by all means Chase, 'The out how easy it was for onr •Lord to say Lord's Prayer in the Eft.l'ly Church:' (Caqi- only •• Father" (Luke xL 2) immediately bridge Texts and Studies). after his own prayer to him (Luke xi. 1). Observe: (1) If the prayer had already Te.king everything into consideration, it. been given by the Lord in the sermon on 11eems reasonable to arrive at twoconolusions, the mount, " one of his disciples" would First, that the form in Luke presents, a• hardly afterwards have asked him to tea.eh a whole, the more primitive and original them to pray, e.s John also taught his instruction of the Lord, and that that given disciplcs(Lnke :ri. 1). Itismnchmoreeasy, in Matthew presents the Lord's words as- therefore, t.oconsider that the original occasion fully developed, partly perhaps by him- of its utterance is recorded by St. Lnke, and self directly, partly by his indirect guidance that it therefore did not belong to the sermon of Christion usage. St. •Me.tthew's Gospel on the monnt as that discourse was origin- would thus at once both show the effecfl ally delivered. and be the cause of the preference for the (2) A ques-tion that admits or a. more longer form in liturgical use. Secondly, doubtful answer is whether the more original a.nd more exactly, that both the evangelists- form of the prayer is fonnd in Matthew record the prayer after it had passed through or in Lnke. It will be remembered that some development in different parts of the in the tnie text aC bis Gospel, the latter Church, St. Matthew giving it a generally doe■ not record the -words, "Which art in later et.age, but preserving one or two olauaea, heaven," "Thy will be done, as in heaven, in an earlier and better form. so on earth," "But deliver 11B from evil," Ver. 9.-After this manner therefore. besides reading "day by day " instead of Thffejore ; in contrast to the heath~n pmo- "this day,'' "sins" instead of" debts," e.nd tice, and in the full confidence w~1cb _y_ou "for we ourselves also forgive every one that have in yonr almighty Father's· mtu1tive is indebted to us " instead of " as we also knowledge of your needs. After this manner ( o/J-r,.,,). Not " in these words ; " but be will he. ve forgiven our debtors." Most writel'S most closely imitate the manner who most 11uppose St. Matthew'sform to be the original, often reminds himself of it by using th& and St. Luke's to be only e. shortened form. words. Pray ye. "Ye" emphatic-ye my In fe.vonr of this a.re the considerations that disciples; ye the children of such a Father. (a) St. Matthew'11 words, "Forgive ns our Our Father. In English we just lack the power to keep, with a plural possessive pro- debts,'' represent a.n older, because parabolic, noun (contrOBt "father mine"), the order of form of expression tbe.n tbe apparently inter- CLrist'e words (mfr,p .;,,.;;,.,) which other lan- pretative" Forgive us our sins" in St. Luke. guages possess (Pater no,ter; Yater "lffller). (b) St. Matthew's words," as we also," seem Cbriet ple.oes in the very foref~nt the I?~- to be expanded into "for we ourselves also," mary importance of the recogn1ti?n of epm- tual relationship to God. There 1s no direct in St. Luke. (e) St. Luke's "day by da.y" thought here of God as the All-Father in occnrs elsewhere in the New Tt:Stament the modem and often deistio sense. Yet it only in hill writings (Luke xix. 47; Act■ is affirmed elsewhere in Boripture (Aots uiL  llH. VJ. 1-84.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 2-31