The Lord's Prayer: Some Observations

The Lord’s prayer stands as the most important prayer in the West. In Matthew Jesus states that we should not pray “as the Gentile, because they think that in their many words they will be heard.” In Luke, Jesus seems to encourage us to pray with an annoying persistence. The change in context does not change the meaning, but gives depth and texture to how we ought to present our requests to God.

Matthew

Matthew situates the prayer in a part of the Sermon of the Mount. Here Jesus focuses on our righteousness as we relate to God. First, Jesus states that when give, pray, fast, that we should do it in private. This theme runs throughout this section (Matt 6:1-18). Second, Jesus sums up the heart of the sermon by stating that we should store up our treasures in heaven (Matt 6:19-21) and give our concerns to God, who knows what we need anyway (Matt 6:25-34).

Here Jesus reiterates the fact that all good gifts come from God, we don’t have to manipulate him into providing for us. We need to exercise our faith and believe that he will provide for us when we need provision. We can live thankfully as we remember the times that he provided for us in the past.

Luke

Unlike Matthew, Luke omits the prayer from the Sermon (Luke 6:20-49). Luke places it later (Luke 11:2b-4). Here Jesus gives a parables that teaches us to ask for what we need with shameless persistence. The parable tells a story of a man, who is surprised by guests that stop by his house. He doesn't have anything to provide for these late night guests, so he goes to his neighbor. Jesus suggests that the neighbor will not want to provide food for his friend. After showing persistence, the neighbor finally gives the man bread (Luke 11:8). 

From a Western perspective, this seems to contradict what Matthew says--don’t pile up words to get God to do what we want. Yet in Luke, I imagine a man standing at the door knocking until the man gives him what he wants. The images are in conflict.

Luke describes the man as action without care of what others think of him, “ignoring convention.” In a first century Jewish context, it would have been offensive for the man not to offer his guests food after the journey. The only way that he can get the food he needs is to humble himself before his neighbor. He gets the bread by making himself a spectacle before his neighbor. The neighbor provides for him to save him from further embarrassment. 

We should approach God in the same way--realizing that everything we receive from him is based on sheer grace, not on anything within us.

Relating to God

On a surface level Matthew and Luke seem to draw two different pictures. Matthew says to avoid many words and believe in God. Luke says that we should demonstrate a shameless persistence in our prayer life. On a deeper level, these seem to be two sides of the same coin. Matthew focuses on how we should view God. He’s faithful; he will provide for us. Luke focuses on how we should present ourselves to God, as one who is contrite and dependent on God, realizing that there is nothing we can do to evoke his grace.

Paul or Jesus?

2d year Greek student echo the title, but
it's after two years of Pauline Exegesis.

If you were given a choice, would you have dinner with Jesus or Paul? I’m willing to bet we would all choose Jesus. Let’s face it, everybody likes Jesus better than Paul. Jesus bucked the religious and political authorities; Paul is accused of perpetuating slavery. Little children wanted to sit with Jesus; Paul reminded the church that women shouldn’t speak during the meeting. Jesus actually turned water into wine; Paul probably began the tradition of serving grape juice at the Lord’s Supper. Jesus went around telling stories; Paul went around telling people how to live their lives. In the world in which we live, stories are valuable cultural currency, but putting forward some type of ethical standard comes across as judgmental.

J. R. Daniel Kirk’s book, Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul? A Narrative Approach to the Problem of Pauline Christianity (Grand Rapids, Baker: 2011), addresses the growing divide in our culture between Jesus and Paul, which appears to have begun as early as Peter, who had trouble understanding Paul. Kirk makes the case that in reality Jesus and Paul really aren’t that far a part. If we read Jesus carefully, we’ll actually see that he puts forward a standard for those who wish to follow him. And Paul, just like Jesus, believes that God is saving the world through those who are marginalized through society. When we set the two in conflict, we are most likely not reading them accurately.

For me, two aspects of the book stand out. 

First, in the subtitle, Kirk notes that he comes to Paul through narrative. By this, Kirk means that you have to understand the worldview that is behind Paul’s thinking to actually understand Paul. Once that’s clear, then Paul’s writing will begin to make sense. And the divide between Jesus and Paul won’t look so great. Worldview is narrative, or a story about how the world functions. One way to define the Christian life or maturity, is by seeking to conform our own worldview to the worldview of the Bible. I’ve written about this in brief here.

Many biblical theologians will say that theologizing with Gospel literature is more implicit than the didactic literature we get from Paul, and therefore more difficult. This assumes that Paul writes in a straightforward manner. In truth a narrative runs behind Paul’s own theology, and if you don’t understand Paul’s backstory of God’s work through Israel, Jesus, and the church, you'll misunderstand Paul himself. The tragedy is that many who assume that they understand Paul really don’t, because they don’t share the values of the apostle, or understand God’s story they way that he does.

This is becoming somewhat of a popular approach to Pauline theology. Timothy Gombis has written a book about understand the narrative behind Ephesians. A few years ago, Ben Witherington wrote a similar book on approaching Paul through narrative.

Second, Kirk looks at a number of current issues and addresses them through his understanding of the Christian narrative. This is a marked difference in recent work in biblical theology. In the past, biblical theology has been descriptive of the text. The second part of Kirk’s book investigates current issues from women in ministry to homosexuality. Readers will not agree with Kirk on all of these issues, but his critique that Christians have engaged the discussion in a markedly unchristian manner is right on.

For me, good biblical theology should be descriptive, but it should also call us to respond. The Christian story ought to challenge us and our approach to the world. This is a step in the right direction.

What problems have you had with Paul? If you had a chance, how would you steer the conversation at dinner?