Mt. 6:5-15, H. A. W. Meyer

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of Matthew, 1873. [pp. 143-151]*
See bio on him and his commentary, which represents the first critical commentary on the NT in the modern era and became the model for subsequent commentary writing for decades to come, at Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (in English translation). In order to display and print the Greek and Hebrew texts in this file, you must first download and install the free BST Greek and Hebrew fonts located at the Bible Study Tools web site.

     Ver. 5 Oujk e[sesqe] See the critical remarks. The future, as in v. 48. -- o^ti] as in v. 45. -- filou'sin they have pleasure in it, they love to do it, -- a usage frequently met with in classical writers,²though in the New Testament occurring only here and in xxiii. 6 f. -- eJstw'te" ] The Jew stood, while praying, with the face turned toward the temple or the holy of holies, 1 Sam. i. 26; 1 Kings viii. 22; Mark xi. 25; Luke xviii. 11;³ at other times, however, also in a keeling posture, or prostrate on the ground. Therefore the notion of fixi, immobiles (Maldonatus), is not implied in the simple eJstw't ., which, however, forms a feature in the picture; they love to stand there an pray. --ejn tai'" gonivai" t. pl] not merely when they happen to be surprised, or intentionally allow themselves to be surprised (de Wette), by the hour for prayer, but also at other times besides the regular hours of devotion, turning the most sacred duty of man into an occasion for hypocritical ostentation.
        Ver. 6. Tamei'on] any room in the interior of the house, as opposed to the synagogues and the streets. We are therfore not to think exclusively of the closet in the strict sense of the word, which was called uJperw/'on; see not on Acts i. 13. For the expression, comp. Isa. xxvi. 20; for tamei'on, conclave.⁴ -- ajpodwvsei soi] for thy undemonstrative piety. It is not public prayer in itself that Jesus condemns, but praying in an ostentatious manner; rather than this, He would have us betake ourselves to a lonely room.⁵
        Ver. 7. Dev] indicating a transition to the consideration of another abuse of prayer. -- battologei'n]⁶ is not to be derived, with Suidas, Eustathius, Erasmus, from some on of the name of Battus (passages in Wetstein), who, according to Herod. v. 155, was in the habit of stammering, but, as already Hesychius correctly perceived (kata; mivmhsin th'" fwnh'"), is to be regarded as a case of onomatopoeia (comp. Bavttalo" as a nickname of Demosthenes, battarivzw, battarismov", battaristhv"), and means, properly speaking, to stammer, then to prate, to babble, the same thing that is subsequently called polulogiva. B a have the form battalog.; see Tisch. 8. -- oiJ ejqnikoiv] Whose prayers, so wordy and full of repetitions (hence, fatigare Deos), were well known.⁷ In Rabbinical writers are found recommendations sometimes of long, somtimes of short, prayers (Wetstein). For an example of a Battological Jewish prayer, see Schoettgen, p. 58. f., comp. Matt. xxiii. 15; and for disapproval of long prayers, see Eccles. v. 1, Sir. vii. 14. -- ejn th/' polulogiva/ aujtw'n] in consequence of their much speaking; they imagine that this is the cause of their being heard.⁸
        Vers. 8. Ou\n] seeing that you are expected to shun heathen error. --oi\de ga;r, k.t.l.] so that, this being the case, that battologei'nis superfluous.
        Vers. 9 "Having now rebuked and condemned such false and meaningless prayer, Christ goes on to prescribe a short, neat form of His own to show us how we are to pray, and what we are to pray for," Luther. --The emphasis is, in the first place, on ou&tw", and then on uJmei'", the latter in contrast to the heathen, the former to the battologei'n; while ou\n is equivalent to saying, "inasmuch as ye ought not to be like the heathen when they pray." Therefore, judging from the context, Christ intends ou&tw" to point to the prayer which follows as an example of one that is free from vain repetitions, as an example of what a prayer ought to be in respect of its form and contents if the fault in question is to be entirely avoided, not as a direct prescribed pattern (comp. Tholuck), excluding other ways of expressing ourselves in prayer. The interpretation, "in hune sensum" (Grotius), is at variance with the context; but that of Fritzsche (in some brief way such as this) in not "very meaningless" (de Wette), but correct, meaning as he does, not brevity in itself, but in its relation to the contents (for comprehensive brevity is the opposite of the vain repetitions). On the Lord's Prayer, which now follows, see Kamphausen, d. Gebet d. Herrn, 1866; J. Hanne, in d. Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1866, p. 507 ff.; and in Schenkel's Bibellex. II. p. 346 ff. According to Luke xi. 1, the same prayer, though in a somewhat shorter form, was given on a differnt occasion. In regard to this difference pof position, it may be noted: (1) That the prayer cannot have been given on both occasions, and so given twice (as I formerly believed); for if Jesus has taught His disciples the use of it as early as the time of the Sermon on the Mount, it follows that their request in Luke xi. 1 is unhistorical; but if, on the contrary, the latter is historical, then it is impossible that the Lord's Prayer can have been known in the circles of the disciples from the date of the Sermon on the Mount. (2) That the characteristic brevity of Luke's version, as compared with the fulness of that of Matthew, tells in favor of Luke's originality; but, besides this, there is the fact that the historical basis on which Luke's version is founded leaves no room whatever to suspect that legendary influences have been at work in its formation, while it is perfectly conceivable that the author of our version of Matthew, when he came to that part of the Sermon on the Mount where warnings are directed against meaningless repetitions in prayer, took occasion also to put this existing model prayer into our Lord's mouth. Schleiermacher, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sieffert, Olshausen, Neander, de Wette, Ewald, Bleck, Holtzmann, Weiss, Weizsäcker, Schenkel, Hanne, Kamphausen, also rightly declare themselves against the position of the prayer in Matthew as unhistorical. The material superiority of Matthew's version (see especially Keim) remains unaffected by this verdict. On the Marcionitic form, especially in the first petition, and on the priority of the same as maintained by Hilgenfeld, Zeller, Volkmar, see the critical notes on Luke xi. 2-4. --pavter hJmw'n] This form of address, which rarely occurs in the O.T., ⁹ but which is constantly employed in the N.T. in accordance with the example of Jesus, who exalted it even into the name for God,¹⁰ brings the petitioner at once into an attitude of perfect confidence in the divine love; "God seeks to entice us with it," and so on, Luther.¹¹ But the consciousness of our standing as children in the full and specially Christian sense (c0mp. on v. 9), it was not possible perfectly to express in this address till a later time, seeing that the relation in question was only to be re-established by the atoning death. -- oJ ejn toi'" oujranoi'"] distinguishes Him who is adored in the character of Father as the true God, but the symbolical explanations that have been given are of an arbitrary character (Kuinoel, "Deus optime maxime, benignissime et potentissime;" de Wette, "the elevantion of God above the world;" Baumgarten-Crusius, "God who exists for all men;" Hanne, "Father of all"). Surely such a line of interpretation ought to have been precluded by ver. 10, as well as by the doctrine which teaches that Christ has come from heaven from the Father, that He has returned to heaven to the right hand of the Father, and that He will return again in majest from heaven. The only true God, though everywhere present (2 Chron. ii. 6), nevertheless has His special abode in he4aven; heaven is specially the place where He dwells in majest, and where the throne of His glory is set,¹² from which, too, the Spirit of God (iii. 16; Acts. ii.), the voice of God (iii. 17; John xii. 28), and the angels of God (John i. 52) come down. Upon the idea of God's dwellingplace is based that very common Jewish invocation my;mvbv zgyba (Lightfoot, pl 229), just as it may be affirmed in a general way that¹³ "pavnte" to;n ajnwtavtw tw/' qeivw/ tovpon ajpodidovasi," "all men assign the highest place to the Deity," Aristot, de. Coelo, i. 3.¹⁴ On heaven as a plural (in answer to Kamphausen), comp. note on 2 Cor. xii. 2; Eph. iv. 10. -- aJgiasqhvtw] Chrysost., Euth. Zigabenus, doxasqhvtw; more precisely, let it be kept sacred (Ex. xx. 8; Isa. xxix 23). God's name is, no doubt, "holy in itself" (Luther), objectively and absolutely so; but this holiness must be asserted and displayed in the whole being and character of believers ("ut non existiment aliquid sanctum, quod magis offendere timeant," Augustine), inwardly and outwardly, so that disposition, word, and deed are regulated by the acknowledge perfection of God, and brought into harmony with it. Exactly as in the cas of vDkg, Lev. x. 3, xxii. 2, 32; Ezek. xxvii. 22, xxxviii. 23; Num. xx. 13; Sir. xxxiii.4; 1 Pet. iii. 15. -- to; o[nomav sou] Everything which, in its distinctive conception, Thy name embraces and expresses, numen tuum, Thy entire perfection, as the object revealed to the believer for his apprehension, confession, and worship. So hwhy sv, Ps. v. 12, ix. 11; Isa. xxix. 23; Ezek. xxxvi. 23;p and frequently also in the Apocrypha. Everything impure, repugnant to the nature of God, is a profanation, a. bebhlou'n to; o[noma to; a&gion (Lev. xviii. 21). --Observe once more that the three imperatives in vv. 9, 10 are not meant to express the idea of a resolution and a vow (Hanne, comp. Weizsäcker), which is opposed to proseuvcesqe, but they are aijthvmata (Phil. iv. 6), supplications and desires, as in xxvi. 39, 42. [See note VI., p. 159 seq.]
        Ver. 10.¹⁵ jElqevtw, k.t.l.] Let the Kingdom of the Messiah appear. This was likewise a leading point in the prayers of the Jews, especially in the Kaddish, which had been in regular use since the captivity, and which contained the words, Regnet tuum regnum; redemptio max veniat.¹⁶ Here, likewise, the kingdom of God is no other than the kingdom of the Messiah, the advent of which was the supreme object of pious longing.¹⁷ This view of the kingdom and its coming, as the winding up of the world's history, a view which was also shared by the principal Fathers (Tertullian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Euth. Zigabenus), is the only one which corresponds with the historical conception of the basileiva t. qeou' throughout the whole of the N.T.; comp. on iii. 2, the kingdom comes with the Messiah who comes to establish it; Mark. xi. 9, 10; Luke. xxiii. 42. The ethical development xiii. 31 ff., xxiv. 14; comp. on iii. 2, v. 3 ff., 48; also on Acts iii. 21), which necessarily precedes the advent of the kingdom (Luke xix. 11) and prepares the way for it, and with which the diffusion of Christianity is bound up, xxviii. 19 (Grotius, Kuinoel), forms the essential condition of that advent, and through ejlqevtw, k.t.l., is thus far indirectly (as the means toward the wished-for end) included the petition, though not expressly mentioned in so many words, so that we are not called upon either to substitute for concrete conception of the future kingdom (Kuke xxii. 18) on of an ethical, of a more or less rationalistic character (Jerome, Origen, Wetstein: of the moral sway of Christianity; Baumgarten-Cruisus: the development of the cause of God among men), or immediately to associate them together. This in answer also to Luther ("God's kingdom comes first of all in time and here below through God's word and faith, and then hereafter in eternity through the revelation of Christ", Melanchton, Calvin, de Wette, Tholuck, "the kingdom of God typified in Israel, coming in its reality in Christ, and ever more and more perfected by Him as time goes on;" comp. Bleck. -- genhqhvtw, k.t.l.] May Thy will (vii. 21; 1 Thess. iv. 3) be done, as by the angels (Ps. ciii. 21), so also by men. This is the practical moral necessity in the life of believers, which, with its ideal requirements, is to determine and regulate that life until the fulfilment of the second petition shall have been accomplished. "Thus it is the third petition, descending into the depths of man's present condition and circumstances, damps the glow of the second," Ewald.¹⁸ Accordingly the will of God here meant is not necessarily the voluntas decernens (Beza), but praecipiens, which is fulfilled by the good angels of heaven. This petition, which is omitted in Luke, is not to be taken merely as an explanation (Kamphausen) of the one which precedes it, nor as tautological (Hanne), but as exhibiting to the petitioner for the kingdom the full extent of moral requirement, without complying with which it is impossible to be admitted into the kingdom when it actually comes. As, according to ver. 33, the Christian is called upon to strive after the kingdom and the righteousness of God; so here, after the petition for the coming of the kingdom, it is asked that righteousness, which is the thing that God wills, may be realized upon the earth.
        Ver. 11 To;n a[rton] same as sxl, victus; Gen. xviii. 5; Prov. xxx. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 12; Sir. x. 26; Wisd. xvi. 20. -- to;n ejpiouvsion] occurring nowhere else in the Greek language but here and in Luke xi. 3.¹⁹ It is possible that it may be derived from oujsiva, and accordingly the phrase has been supposed to mean: the food necessary for subsistence, Qx sxl, Prov. xxx. 8. So Syr., Origen, Chrysostom, theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Etym. M; Beza, Maldonatus, Kuinoel, Tholuck. Ewald (de Wette undecided), Arnoldi, Bleek, Wiezsäcker, Keim, Hanne, and probably this explanation has also given rise to the renderling "daily bread" (It., Chrysostom, Luther), ejfhvmero", Jas. ii. 15.²⁰ But oujsiva does not mean subsistence (suvstasi"), but²¹ essence, as also reality, and, finally, possessions, res familiaris, in which sense also it is to be taken in Soph. Trach. 907 (911), where the words ta;" a[paida" oujsiva" denote a home without children. In deriving the expression, therefore, from oujsiva, the idea of necessary food²² must be brought out in a very indirect way (as Gregory of Nyssa: that which is requisite or sufficient for the support of the body; comp. Chrysostom, Tholuck, Hitzig). Again, if the word were to be derived from oujsiva (ei\nai), it would have to be spelt, not ejpiouvsio", but ejpouvsio", in a way analogous to the forms ejpousiva, overplus, ejpousiwvdh", non-essential, which come from ei\nai. Forms in which there is either a different preposition (such as periouvsio"), or in which the derivation has no connection with ei\nai (as ejpiorkei'n), have been brought forward without any reason with a view to support the above ordinary explanation. After all this we must, for reasons derived from grammatical considerations (in answer to Leo Meyer, Weizsäcker, Kamphausen, Keim), prefer the other possible derivation from hJ ejpiou'sa (therefore from ejpievnai), dies crastinus,²³ which is already expressly given by Ambrose, lib. v. de sacram. 4. 24, and according to which we should have to interpret the words as meaning tomorrow's bread.²⁴ This explanation, furnished historically by the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where Jerome found rxm, is recommended in the context by the shvmeron, which, besides, has no correlative, nor is it incompatible with ver. 34, where the taking no thought for tomorrow doe3s not exclude, but rather presupposes (1 Pet. v. 7), the asking for tomorrow's bread, while, moreover, this request is quite justified as a matter of prayer, considering how certain is the uncertainty of life's duration. The granting to-day of to-morrow's bread is, accordingly, the narrow limit which Christ here assigns to prayers for earthly objects, -- a limit not open to the charge of want of modesty (Keim), inasmuch as it is fixed only at de die in diem. Of late, Olshausen and Delitzsch ("the bread necessary for man's spiritual and physical life") have again adopted, at least along with the other view, the erroneous explanation, -- exegetically inconsistent with shvmeron, but originating in a supposed perverse ascetism, and favored by the tendency to mystical interpretation generally, no less than by the early (Irenaeus, Haer. iv. 18) reference to the Lord's Supper in particular, -- the explanation, namely, that what is here meant is supernatural,²⁵ heavenly food (John vi.), as, indeed, many Fathers (Cyprian and Jerome) and older expositors understood both kinds of bread to be included. [See note V., p. 158, seq.]
        Vers. 12. JW" kai; hJmei'", k.t.l.] does not indicate the extent (Chrysostom, Baumgarten-Crusius) to which forgiveness is asked from God, which is not in harmony with the tone of the prayer; rather is wJ" the as which assigns the reason as well as makes the comparison, doubtless not as being directly equivalent to nam (Fritzsche), but it expresses the existence of a frame of mind on the part of the petitioner corresponding to the divine forgiveness: as then, we also, and so on.²⁶ Yet not as though human forgiveness can be supposed to merit the divine pardon, but the former is the necessary moral "requisitum subjecti" (Calovius) in him who seeks forgiveness from God.²⁷ -- ajfhvkamen] see the critical remarks. Jesus justly presupposes that the believer who asks from God the remission of his own debts has already forgiven (Sir. xxviii. 2; Mark xi. 25) those who are indebted to him -- that, according to Luke, he does it at the same time.
        Ver. 13. After the petition for forgiveness of sin, comes now the request to be preserved from new sin, negatively and positively, so that both elements constitute but one petition. Luke makes no mention whatever of the ajlla; rJu'sai, etc. -- mh; eijsenevgkh/", k.t.l.] Neither the idea of mere permission, ²⁸ nor the emphatic meanings which have been given, first to the eijsenevgkh/",²⁹ then to the peirasmov",³⁰ and lastly, to the eij",³¹ are in keeping with the simple terms employed; such interpretations are rationalistic in their character, as is also, once more, the case with Kamphausen's limitation to temptations with an evil result. God leads into temptation in so far as, in the course of His administration, He brings about a state of things that may lead to temptation, i.e., the situations and circumstances that furnish an occasion for sinning; and therefore, if a man happens to encounter such dangers to his soul, it is caused by God -- it is He who does it (1 Cor. x. 13). In this way is solved, at the same time, the apparent contradition with Jas. i. 13, where it is a question of subjective inward temptation, the active principle of which is, not God, but the man's own lusts.³² In these latter are also to be found, in the case of the believer, and that in consequence of his savrx (xxvi. 41; Gal. v. 17), the great moral danger which renders this prayer a matter of necessity. -- ajlla; rJu'sai hJma'" ajpo; tou' ponhrou'] Rom. xv. 31; 1 Thess. i. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 2; 2 Tim. iv. 18. But tou' ponhrou' may be neuter (Augustine, Luther, ---see, however, Catech. maj. p. 532 f., --Tholuck, Ewald, Lange, Bleek, Kamphausen) as well as masculine (Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Maldonatus, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Ebrard, Keim, Hilgenfeld, Hanne). In the former case, it would not mean "evil" in general,³³ but, according to the New Testament use of ponhrov", as well as the context, moral wickedness, Rom. xii. 9. However, it is more in keeping with the concrete graphic manner of view of the New Testament (v. 37; xiii. 19; John xvii. 15; 1 John ii.13, iii. 8, 12; Rom. xvi. 20; Eph. vi. 16; 2 Thess. iii. 3), to prefer the masculine as meaning the devil,³⁴ whose seductive influence, even over believers, is presupposed in the seventh peitition, which also supplicates divine deliverance from this danger, by which they know themselves to be threatened (ajpov: away from; not ejk, as in Rom. vii. 24; 2 Cor. i. 10; Col. i. 13; 2 Tim. iii. 11; iv. 17; 2 Pet. ii. 9).³⁵ For an opposite view of a by no means convincing kind, see Kamphausen, p. 136 ff.

REMARKS.--- The Lord's Prayer, as it stands in Matthew, is an example of a prayer rich and true in respect of its contents, and expressed in language at once brief and comprehensive; see on ver. 9. It is only in an indirect way that it presents itself in the light of a summary of the principal matters for which one is to pray (Nösselt, Exercitatt, sacr. p. 2 ff., Kuinoel, de Wette), inasmuch as Jesus, as a matter of course, selected and connected with each other such leading requests as were appropriate to the solemn period when the establishment of His kingdom was at hand, that, by setting before us a prayer of so comprehensive a character, He might render the model thus supplied all the more instructive. Tertullian, indeed, correctly describes the contens of it as breviarium totius evangelii. According to Möller (neue Ansichten, p. 34 ff.) and Augusti (Denkwürdigk, IV. p. 132), the prayer before us is made up merely of the opening words of well-known Jewish prayers, which Jesus is supposed to have selected from the mass of Jewish forms of devotion as being eminently adapted for the use of His disciples. Wetstein already was of opinion that it was "ex formulis Hebraeorum concinnata." But between the whole of the parallel (Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Wetstein), not even excepting those taken from the synagogal prayer Kaddisch, there is only a partial correspondence, especially in the case of the first and second petitions; but lively echoes of familiar prayers would so naturally suggest themselves to our Lord, and any reason for rejecting them was so entirely wanting, that the absence of such popularly consecrated echoes, extending to the very words, would even have been matter for surprise. -- Augustine divides the contents into seven petitions; and in this he is followed by the Lutheran practice, as also by Tholuck, Bleek, Hilgenfeld. On the other hand, Origen and Chrysostom correctly make six, in which they are followed by the practice of the Reforme Church in the catechisms of Geneva and of the Palatinate, as also by Calvin, Keim. As to the division of the prayer in respect of form, it is sufficient to observe, with Bengel: "Petita sunt septem, quae universa dividuntur in duas partes. Prior continct tria priora, Patrem spectantia; tuum, tuum tua; posterior quatuor reliqua, nos spectantia." According to Calvin, the fourth petition is the beginning of "quasi secunda tabula" of the prayer. In regard to the matter, the twofold division into coelestia and terrena, which has been in bogue since Tertullian's time, is substantially correct; and in the more detailed representation of which there follow -- after the upward flight toward what is of highest and holiest interest for believers, and the specific nature of which, with the aim for which it longs, and its moral condition, floats before the praying spirit -- a humble frame of spirit, produced by the consciousness of man's need of God's favor, first in the temporal and then in the moral sphere, in which the realization of that with which the prayer begins can be brought about only through forgiveness, divine guidance, and deliverance from the power of the devil. The division into vows and petitions (Hanne) is inaccurate; see on ver. 9.

Ver 14f. Gavr] points back to ver. 12, the subject of which is now further discussed. ---ajfhvsei] like the preceding ajfh'te, placed first to render it emphatic. For the thought, the fundamental basis of which was stated in ver. 44 ff., comp. Sir. xxviii. 2 ff.

Footnotes:
*The English translation of the original German text commentary is very literalistic, resulting in impossibly long English sentences at times. This is often the case with foreign language religious writings that are translated into English. The original German text was styled in very eloquent and readable German, but Peter Christie, who did the translating, chose to approach it almost word-for-word from the German into the English. Be patient and work your way through it!

²Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II, p. 910f.

³Lightfoot, p. 292 f.

⁴See Xen. Hell. v. 5.; Matt. xxiv. 26; Sir. xxix. 12; Tob. vii. 17.

⁵Theoplylact: oJ tovpo" ouj blavptei, ajll j oJ provpo" kai; oJ skovpo".

⁶Simplic. ad Epict. p. 340.

⁷Terent. Heautont. v. i. 6 ff.

⁸As to the thing, consider the words of Augustine: "Absit ab oratione multa locutio, sed non desit multa precatio, si fervens perseveret intentio;" the former, he adds, is "rem necessariam superfluis agere verbis," but the multum precari is: "ad eum, quem precamur, diuturna et pia cordis excitatione pulsare." "Let much speaking be absent from prayer, but let not much supplication be wanting, if fervent purpose steadfastly abides;" the former, he adds, is "to accomplish a necessary duty with superfluous words," but the supplicating much is, "to urge us, with long continued and pious rousing up of soul, to Him whom we supplicate." (Ep. 130, 20, ad probam.)

⁹Isa. lciii. 16; Deut. xxxii. 6; in the Apocrypha, in Wisd. ii. 16, xiv. 8; Sir. xxiii. 1; li. 10; Tob. xiii. 4; 3 Macc. vi.3.

¹⁰Mark xiv. 36; Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 200 ff.

¹¹In his translation, Luther renders it here and in Luke xi. 2 by unser Vater; in the Catechism and manuals of prayer and baptism, Vater unser, after the Latin Pater noster. See Rienecker in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 328f. Kamphausen, p. 30 f.

¹²Isa. lxvi. 1; Ps. ii. 4, cii. 19, cxv. 3; Job xxii. 12ff.; Acts vii. 55, 56; 1 Tim. vi. 16.

¹³Comp. the qeoi; oujranivwne" of Homer.

¹⁴Comp. generally, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nov. Opusc. p. 218ff. Augustine, Ep. 187. 16, correctly thinks that there may be an allusion to the heavenly temple, "ubi est populus angelorum, quibus aggregandi et coaequandi sumus, cum finita peregrinatione quod promissum est sumserimus," "Where is the host of angels, to who we are to be joined and made equal, when, our peregrination being finished, we shall have attained that which is promised."

¹⁵On the inverted order of the second and third petition in Tertullian, see Nitzsch in the Stud. u Krit. 1830. p. 846 ff. This transposition appeared more logical and more historical.

¹⁶Hence the canon, hb !yav hkyb lk hkyb hgya tyblm... Bab. Berac. f. 40. 2.

¹⁷Luke ii. 25, xvii. 20; Mark. xv. 43; Luke. xxii. 18, xxiii. 51; w Tim. iv. 8.

¹⁸"Coelum norma est terrae, in qua aliter alia fiunt omnia," "Heaven is the pattern for earth, where all things are inharmonious," Bengel.

¹⁹See Origen, de Orat. § 27: e[oike pepla'sqai uJpo; tw'n eujaggelistw'n, "it seems to have been formed by the evangelists."

²⁰Comp. Victorinus, c. Ar. ii. p. 273, Augustine.

²¹Ast. Lex. Plat. II. p. 491 f.

²²To this amounts also the view of Leo Meyer in Kuhn's Zeitschrif. f. vergleich. Sprachforsch. VII. 6, p. 401 ff., who, however, regards the word as expressing adjectively the idea of the aim involved in the ejpiv: "what ejpiv is." In this Kamphausen substantially concurs. The word is said to be derived from ejpei'nai: "belonging to," in which the idea of being "sufficient" or necessary is understood to be implied. But in that case we should also have expected to find ejpouvsio", and besides, ejpei'nai certainly does not mean to belong to but to be by, also to be standing over, to impend, and so on. This explanation of ejpiouvsio" is an erroneous etymological conjecture. Bengel very properly observes: "ejpiv non semper quidem in compositione ante vocalem amittit, sed amittit tamen in e[pestin," "ejpiv does not indeed always lose in composition before a vowel, but yet it loses in e[pestin." [See Lightfoot, A Fresh Revision of the English New Testament, Appendix on the words ejpiouvsio", periouvsio". -- Ed.]

²³Lobeck, ad Phryn.; Prov. xxvii. 1.

²⁴Not what is necessary for the next meal (Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 238). Baumgarten-Crusius, correctly, "today, what we need for tomorrow." On shvmeron was founded the very ancient (Constitutt. apost. vii. 24. 1 f., Tertullian, Cyprian) daily use of the Lord's Prayer. So Ar., Aeth., Copt., Sahid., Erasmus, Annot., Scaliger, Salmasius, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 190, and V; also Winer, p. 92 (E.T. 120), Fritzsche, Käuffer, Schegg, Döllinger, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Wittlehen.

²⁵The expression was derived partly from ejpiwvn (as Ambrose) -- the bread of the world to come (so again Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 201); partly from oujsiva, in which case it was interpreted to mean: the bread requisite for the life of the soul; or, as though it were uJperouvsio": panis supersubstantialis; as in the Volg. and Jerome ("super omnes substantias"). Melanchthon fully and pointedly expresses his opposition to the view of heavenly bread, when he says: "Its advocates are deficient in eruditio et spirituale judicium." However, it is likewise found in Erasmus' Paraphr.; but Calvin pronounces: "prorsus absurdum est."

²⁶See on John xiii. 34; Schaeffer, ad Dem. V. p. 108; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 460; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 766; comp. Luke xi. 4.

²⁷Comp. xviii. 21 ff.; Apol. Conf. A. p. 115 f.; Cat. maj. p. 528; Kamphausen, p. 113.

²⁸mh; paracwrhvsh/" eijsenecqh'nai, Euth. Zigabenus, Tertullian, Melanchthon.

²⁹mh; katapoqh'nai uJpo; tou' peirasmou', "not to be swallowed up by the temptation." Theophylact.

³⁰Jerome, in Ezek. xlvii.; "in tentationem, quam ferre non possumus."

³¹Grotius: "penitus introducere, ut ei succumbas," "to bring deeply within, so that one would yield to it."

³²Comp. Köster, Bild. Lehre. v. d. Versuch, p. 19 f.

³³"Omneid, quod felicitati nostrae adversum est," Olearius.

³⁴kat j ejxoch;n de; ou&tw" ejkei'no" kalei'tai, "preminently is that one thus called," Chrysostom.

³⁵Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 447; Krummacher in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 122 ff.