Transcript
Our presenter this afternoon is Professor Elsie Anne McKee. Professor McKee is currently a professor of church history at the Andover Newton Theological Seminary, but in January she will join the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary in the Alexander Chair of the History of Worship. And so we welcome her at this occasion. Professor McKee was born in what is now Zaire in Africa and was educated there until she came to the United States to college. She received her
PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1982 after study also in Cambridge University and in Geneva, the University of Geneva. She has been writing about Calvin in various contexts. She has a book on John Calvin and the diaconate and liturgical almsgiving. There is also a book on the elders and the plural ministry, the role of exegetical history in illuminating John Calvin's theology. There is a more recent book on diakonia in the classical reform tradition and today. And
finally, many of you know her book, which she edited, the Festschrift für Ed Dowie, which again came out of the Princeton community. She has also been writing on a variety of topics in ecumenical circles. So Professor McKee this afternoon will speak on John Calvin's teaching on the Lord's Prayer and we welcome her. Thank you. In an appropriately Calvin type way, I begin, I have the privilege of beginning by saying thank you. Gratitude and grace go together.
Thank you to Dr. Neumann and President Gillespie and the committee for the invitation and to the committee for its graciousness in allowing me to do Calvin and not the entire Reformation. That's greatly appreciated. Also, I wanted to want to thank Professor Douglas and Professor David Willis Watkins. It's going to be such fun to be working with more Calvin people here coming from where I am. I'm the only Calvin person around. You have to look in the
mirror to have anybody to talk to and that's not much fun. I wanted to say that this was, invitation to do this was fun in a way that most research is but particularly because it's on prayer. I find that my inner life doesn't really have compartments as much and so when I am working vigorously on Calvin's understanding of prayer, I'm finding that when I pray, I stop and think about this or when I'm reading Calvin, I
think, now this challenges, this is an insight for what I am living and experiencing in my own life. As I reread the paper, I realized that not as much of that dimension came into the paper so I'm hoping that we will have an opportunity to talk more about how that relates to Calvin's teaching on the Lord's Prayer a bit later because as I've worked it, it's primarily a historical study. I've also timed it, if you understand,
so I don't dare get a coughing spell on the way or I will run over. Careful now. The 16th century reformation is remembered as a time of renewal in the worship, teaching and life of the Christian church. It is natural then that the Lord's Prayer was a subject of considerable importance and in fact, many expositions of the Lord's Prayer were published by Christians of different languages and varied confessions. Monocular explanations of the Lord's Prayer were not
really new, though it was unusual for people to begin to pray this special prayer regularly in their own language. In the 16th century, even lay people or others with no formal pastoral charge were eager to expound the Lord's Prayer for their friends. One may think of the devout and lively Katharina Schützel of Strasbourg who wrote out a clear and simple explanation of the Lord's Prayer at the request of some acquaintances who asked for her help in
understanding how to live according to God's will. Very practical. Or the mystical Spaniard Juan de Valdes whose commentary on Matthew and many other works were written for a circle of evangelicals gathered around the Duchess Giulia Gonzaga. Of course, among the most influential of all writers was Martin Luther, the great German Lutheran. Luther, former, produced a number of texts explaining the Lord's Prayer. The two earliest of these, "The German Explanation of the Lord's Prayer for Simple Laity",
published in 1519 and "The Little Prayer Book" of 1522, were first written in German. They were soon translated into Latin and vernaculars such as French, thus reaching ever-wider audiences. In 1529, Luther produced his larger Catechism, while a new and somewhat different form of The Little Prayer Book appeared as the smaller Catechism. Both of these texts, which included expositions of the Lord's Prayer, were also immediately available in Latin. I focus on these because they would be
the ones accessible to a non-German speaking public. Translators and translations played a vital role in the exchange of ideas, especially in this first stage of printed books. For example, Louis de Berquin, a French evangelical who was later to pay with his life for his faith, translated Luther's "First Explanation of the Lord's Prayer" and the Biblical paraphrases on Matthew and Luke by the famous Erasmus for the small but growing number of French-speaking evangelicals. Erasmus' longer
study of the Lord's Prayer, the Precatio Dominica of 1523, was soon turned into Tudor prose by Margaret More Roper. To attempt to discuss in one hour all of the writings on the Lord's Prayer published in the Protestant Reformation would be to court incoherence, superficiality, or disaster. So the focus of this presentation today is restricted to John Calvin's teaching on the Lord's Prayer. However, it is necessary to place Calvin's work in historical context and to do this
in two ways. First, Calvin was a generation younger than Luther, and thus it would be appropriate to compare and contrast Calvin's thought with that of some of his most important predecessors, specifically Erasmus, Martin Luther, and Martin Buser. The Church Fathers, Calvin newsed, will be mentioned but not considered in depth. I wish that I had had Professor Froehlich's paper when I was writing this. I would have had a lot more fun doing the digging there. I can
do cross-references later. I think that's appropriate Biblical commentary. Secondly, Calvin himself learned and grew throughout his busy life, from his conversion until his death. Thus, it is very interesting to see the development of his thought over time in order to appreciate the nuances and the richness of what he says about the Lord's Prayer. These two facts, the historical context and the development of Calvin's own thought, have shaped the method and order followed in this study.
The first point is a brief sketch of the relationship between Calvin's thought and some of his major sources, then a short summary of different stages in his development and the setting in his wider teaching on the doctrine of prayer, then a few words about the paradigmatic role of this prayer for all right prayer, and a note on Calvin's understanding of the structure of the prayer. The central portion of the presentation is a more detailed exposition of
each individual part of the Lord's Prayer, combining a historical approach with a summary of Calvin's mature theology sources. Martin Luther's explanations of the Lord's Prayer were among the most important in the early Reformation, or the most important, and continued to have an enormous influence. But in fact, they were apparently not the critical ones for John Calvin. That honor goes to Martin Buser, the leader of the Reformation in Strasbourg and Calvin's senior colleague for several years. As
might be expected, patristic exegetes such as Chrysostom were also important influences in Calvin's theological treatment of the Lord's Prayer, though that receives much less attention. Calvin certainly knew and read Luther's works on the Lord's Prayer, which were available in Latin. There are a number of resemblances between Calvin's thought and that of Luther, particularly for example on the problem of those who think they are too good to need forgiveness, rather appropriately in the Reformation period, or the
significance of the Amen. However, the dis-similarities between the two writers on such matters as the number of petitions and the development of the theme of daily prayer are also notable. I think that perhaps the most important similarity between the two lies not in the texts themselves, but in the fact that both men repeatedly made vernacular explanations of the Lord's Prayer for ordinary Christians. This was a common Protestant activity. They were not unique, certainly, but they
seem to have been unusually prolific and influential. Martin Buser's discussion of the Lord's Prayer and his commentary on the harmony of the synoptic gospels, published in 1527 and reissued in 1530 with the John commentary, is very closely related to that of Calvin, and it may have been the source of a number of his ideas and positions, specifically in his earlier development of the prayer. Calvin follows Buser in several important ways, most notably on the petition for
daily where both Buser and Calvin adopt the interpretation of the homilies on Matthew, which they knew as John Chrysostom's. Calvin is no mere follower, however, and never simply a copyist. His treatment of the Lord's Prayer, particularly in later years, is characterized by independent judgment and especially by a clarity and brevity, coherence and order, which are hallmarks of his thought generally. For example, although Calvin read Erasmus on the Lord's Prayer, he frankly criticizes the great humanist's interpretation
of particular points, such as the relationship of God to mundane matters like physical nourishment. As often in exegetical matters, the works of John Chrysostom were especially important to Calvin as to Buser, but Calvin does not hesitate to disagree politely with both of his mentors if he thinks the occasion warrants it. For example, on the question of the identity of evil from which we pray to be delivered. One of the interesting things is the development. When one
examines Calvin's teaching on the Lord's Prayer, it quickly becomes evident that there is not just one locus in which to find it. 1559 institutes of the Christian religion is the natural place to look, and it is the single fullest form. But to restrict one's view to that final statement is to miss the pleasure and excitement of watching a child grow up. The earliest exposition of the Lord's Prayer is, of course, in the first edition of the
institutes in 1536. This text serves as the basis for all of the later developments, and most of Calvin's ideas are sketched or at least adumbrated here. There is, however, a real development over the years. Calvin's first catechism of 1537 includes a short exposition of the Lord's Prayer, which is, practically speaking, a translation of parts of the 1536 Institute. A certain number of editions are made in the 1559 institutes. These can more easily be traced in the
1541 First French edition. The two are not precisely the same. There are variations. But since the 1539 institutes is not available except in first editions, it is practical to read the French 1541 and account for the slight variations in other ways. Some of these editions fill out the discussion of naming and refuting opposing views, which the first edition had omitted, and giving Calvin's arguments to steer unwary readers away from opinions which he thinks are unacceptable. In
1552, two more versions of the Lord's Prayer appeared, each different from the Institute in style, but similar in orientation. Both of these, like the first catechism, were written directly in French. One of these was Calvin's liturgy, La forme des prières. The Sunday service includes a rather lengthy paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer as the final part of the Prayer of Intercession after the sermon. Paraphrase, no matter how long, cannot cover all of the points of an exposition,
but one of these characteristic expressions of Calvin's understanding of the Lord's Prayer in the way that he rephrases the various petitions. For example, in regard to forgiving others, Calvin leads the congregation to pray not only that they may cease to be angry with those who have harmed them, but that they may also seek good relationships with these enemies. The Geneva Catechism of 1542 is considerably more full than its 1537 predecessor, but it adds little to the
content of the Lord's Prayer as found in the 1539 Institutes. One of the rare editions will be noted later. Perhaps the most significant feature of this portion of the catechism is the clarity with which this little classic reveals the importance of prayer in Calvin's larger theology. I won't be able to go into that unhappily. There are no additions to the teaching on the Lord's Prayer in the next revisions of the Institutes published in 1543 and 1550,
but in his Commentary on the Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in 1555, Calvin significantly develops his teaching, and these alterations are then carried over into the final edition of the Institutes in 1559. In this period, Calvin enriches his basic exposition of the Lord's Prayer with a number of new nuances. He also adds some very interesting comments relating different petitions of the prayer and linking them with other parts of his theology. Calvin's last discussions of the Lord's
Prayer in his Homilies on the Synoptic Gospels, preached in the early 1560s, are unhappily not extant. The stenographer who was recording the sermons died early in 1562 when Calvin was working his way through Matthew 5, and no one was found to replace him very quickly. The context, prayer, the chief exercise of devotion. Calvin, like many others, locates his treatment of the Lord's Prayer in the setting of a general consideration of Christian prayer. This order is biblical
as well as logical. Matthew was the dominant voice in the synoptics in the 16th century, and in Matthew, prior to giving them the particular form known as the Lord's Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples how they should pray, and specifically says that they are not to do as the Pharisees. Thus, before beginning to explain the Lord's Prayer, Calvin discusses the manner in which one should pray. Like many other reformers, Calvin emphasizes the importance of inward and spiritual
prayer. Fundamentally, prayer is a matter of the heart and spirit, although the tongue may have a part, especially in corporate praise. Calvin objects strongly to outward show. Prayer is not heard because it is wordy, and it is not to be done to impress other people. Most importantly, no one ever prays rightly without faith in God and an awareness of personal sinfulness. Prayer begins with acknowledging our unworthiness and need, and affirming trust in God's mercy as the
sole and sufficient source of hope. It is wrong, indeed fatal, to rely on one's own merits or those of any other person, no matter how good. Calvin, like others, attacks the invocation of the dead, invocation of the saints. The right attitude is to put all trust in God's mercy and Christ's intercession, and none in oneself. The instruction to pray in secret leads to a consideration of where and when one should pray. Calvin affirms that both individual
or not-gathered prayer and corporate prayer are commanded, but over time, the balance between the two seems to shift. Very interesting development in 1 Timothy 2:1, and following his use of that, over time seems to change. In 1536, the emphasis is largely non-institutional, but by 1539, there are signs of change as Calvin moves toward his fully developed ecclesiology. This is not a sharp break, but a shift in emphasis. That topic is a development as
a topic for another occasion. Here it is sufficient to say that Lord's Prayer plays an important role in both private and communal prayer. The Lord's Prayer is the rule of right praying. For Calvin, prayer is the chief exercise of piety devotion, the center of worship, and the Lord's Prayer is the perfect rule for right prayer, the specific form which God Christ provided to show his disciples for what they should pray. The attitude or manner of prayer
is the principal thing, Calvin's word is ratio, or one of them, but the way or form is also critically important, and having Christ's own instruction is a very special gift to help us in our weakness and sin. At various times, Calvin calls the Lord's Prayer the pattern or rule or form or law or formula, model of right praying, all appear to be synonyms. It includes all that we should ask and guides us in knowing God's will
for us. The Lord's Prayer is our perfect model, but this does not mean that we are constrained to use only its precise words. Calvin himself did not hesitate to paraphrase the text for Sunday worship to enable the people better to understand what they were asking. He also points out that there are many scriptural prayers inspired by the same spirit which use different words than the Lord's Prayer. The point is that all of these prayers and all
right prayers must tend to the same end as the Lord's Prayer. We wander outside God's will when we pray for anything not covered by the major headings of the prayer which Christ gave his disciples. Divisions of the Lord's Prayer. Traditionally, the Lord's Prayer was often divided into a preface or foreword, seven petitions, and frequently a kind of conclusion. Luther and many others in the 16th century follow Augustine and other patristic fathers in dividing the petitions into
seven, but Buser and Calvin do not. Instead of reading, deliver us from evil, as the seventh request, these two reformers like Chrysostom consider this phrase the second part of the sixth petition, which they read as follows, lead us not in temptation, but deliver us from evil. In reaching this conclusion, Calvin is also influenced by the discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, since the latter omits, deliver us from evil. Calvin seeks here to harmonize the two gospels, insisting
that Luke would not have left out anything of importance. Chrysostom doesn't actually call it the sixth petition, but he treats the two combined, and Buser and Calvin name it sixth. Another division, which is more important for Buser and Calvin, is the grouping of the six petitions into two parts, each containing three points. The three petitions of part one are concerned first and foremost with God and what is owed to God, although there is in fact benefit
for us in the hallowing of God's name, the coming of God's kingdom, and the doing of God's will. The second set of three petitions is concerned with human needs, though here again we should always ask that these be given to us only if that serves God's glory. This again is a patristic division. Repeatedly Calvin insists that all six petitions have as their ultimate goal the glory of God, but in fact every part also benefits believers. It
is interesting to note that in the gospel harmony commentary in 1555, Calvin explicitly likens the two parts of the Lord's Prayer to the two tables of the law. The first three petitions, like the first table of the law, are concerned with the glory and worship of God. The final three petitions of the prayer, like the second table of the law, deal with matters of human life and common sharing, although their ultimate purpose is still the right
service of God. Now finally for the meat of the thing. The first words of the Lord's Prayer, our Father, who art in heaven, are normally understood as a kind of preface or address for the whole prayer. Calvin, like other interpreters, discusses a number of common topics, but he also gives a distinctively Protestant turn to the explanation and adds particular nuances of his own. Calvin speaks first of the importance of our calling God Father. This is possible
only through Christ, because it is only in Christ that we have the privilege of becoming children of God, when God puts the Holy Spirit in our hearts to enable us to trust and to cry Abba. Without Christ as mediator, there is no possibility of coming to God. However, Christ is the only intercessor we need, and then we, those sinners, may approach God our Father directly. Indeed, we must do so, acting in the faith and trust which
God's goodness to us inspires. Calvin says that the privilege of calling God Father frees us from fears. We must not make even our sinfulness an excuse for avoiding God, because if we seek help anywhere else than in our Father, we are in fact accusing God of cruelty or poverty, as if our Father did not love us enough or have enough power to meet our needs. God welcomes repentant sons and daughters, just as the Father in the
parable welcomed his prodigal son. The interpretation of God's being in heaven is hinted in this discussion of God as Father. First, heaven means God's glory. It is not a place but an evidence of God's majesty and power. However, this power is for our assurance, because it signifies that God can provide for those who believe. The appeal to the Father expresses our access and God's goodness and love. The reference to heaven confirms God's ability to care for
those who trust God's mercy in Christ. Calling on God as our Father in heaven not only engenders trust, but also is a guard against the temptation to idolatry, to keep us from being drawn away to false gods. One of the interesting parts of this preface is the way that Calvin treats the word our. Professor Lochman quoted a piece of this the other evening. It is common for interpreters to point out that this plural is important, as
a sign that no one should claim God as his or her father alone, to the exclusion of others. Calvin's formulation of the traditional idea, though, is somewhat distinctive, at least not expected in Calvin. First he points out that this word our is an indication of the kind of brotherly love which we ought to feel for each other as common children of a father. Quote, the prayer of the Christian man often to be conformed to this rule
in order that it may be in common and embrace all who are his brothers in Christ, not only those whom he at present sees and recognizes as such, but all men who dwell on earth. For what the Lord has determined concerning them is beyond our knowing, except that we ought to wish and to hope the best for them. Yet we ought to be drawn with special affection to those above others of the household of faith. End
quote. Note that Calvin includes all people who dwell on earth, a remarkable openness for someone who is usually identified primarily with predestination. The emphasis on our makes prayers common because the object is the shared good of all. We may pray for ourselves and particular individuals, but only if we keep the community, always in mind and never turn away from it, turn our backs on it, cannot do that. Calvin draws a comparison between prayer and almsgiving. Both
are commands of God by which we serve others, but almsgiving is more restricted because we can only help those that we see. Quote, but we are free to help by prayer even utterly foreign and unknown persons, however great the distance that separates them from us. This too is done through that general form of prayer where in all children of God are included among whom they also are. End quote. In the final edition of the Institutes, Calvin
adds a further note. According to Paul's teaching, quote, strife shuts the gate to prayers, end quote, and thus Christians should offer their petitions in common with one accord. End quote. As Calvin explains it, the opening words of the Lord's Prayer teach believers that they must approach God with trust through Christ. Even though they are sinners, believers will find God a loving Father willing to save them and powerful enough to do so because Christ mediates for them
and the Holy Spirit witnesses that they are adopted children of God. Believers do not pray for themselves alone, however. All their prayers should look to the common good of all of God's children, near and far, known and unknown. First three petitions. First three petitions of the Lord's Prayer are directed to God. In each discussion, Calvin treats the points in order, but there are a number of changes over time between 1530s and the 1550s, particularly in the
second petition. These changes are primarily substitutions, which do not alter the basic meaning. As Calvin makes explicit in 1555, quote, there is a great affinity and likeness among the first three petitions. The hallowing of God's name is always attached to his reign, and the chief feature of his reign is to be acknowledged in the doing of his will, end quote. It is not superfluous for Christ to distinguish the three points, however, since we are so bold
and apathetic that we need this triple list to urge us on. Therefore, Calvin himself also treats each petition separately, although there is some inevitable overlapping. Hallowed be thy name. To hallow God's name is to accord God the honor which is owed to God, and not to obscure God's glory in any way. God's holiness is in itself always secure, but it can be profaned and obscured by human ingratitude and irreverence. God's, quote, glory flows from and depends
upon men's recognition of his wisdom, goodness, righteousness, power, and all the virtues that are in him, end quote. We hallow God's name by acknowledging and praising God as is fitting. In short, by worshiping God rightly. Luther says that this petition, in fact, in a sense covers the whole prayer. I think Calvin would agree with him, though he doesn't actually say that. Thy kingdom come. Calvin's explanation of thy kingdom come alters considerably over time, but more in
expression than in substance, though there is also a shift in emphasis. The treatment in the first editions of the Institutes appears to give somewhat more attention to the invisible church, while that in the later writings has a distinctly, slightly more institutional orientation. Although the essence of the different stages is similar, it is worthwhile to examine the first two editions of the Institutes, 1536-39, separately from the commentary and the final version of the Institutes. In Calvin's
earliest descriptions of the second petition, he explains that God's kingdom is manifest in two ways, in the Holy Spirit ruling and acting in believers to make God's goodness and mercy known, and in the judgment of the wicked. We pray for God to add new believers and to fill them with gifts so that God's light and truth may shine out and Satan may be overcome. In 1539, Calvin adds more biblical material to explain what Christ means by
the kingdom of God, which is fundamentally within us. Sometimes the kingdom of heaven signifies the church where Christ reigns. Sometimes it is the preaching of the gospel, the means by which Christ's reign is established. In the 1550s, Calvin greatly reworked his discussion of the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. He also reworked first and third, but not as extensively. The earlier explanation is largely replaced, though much of 1559 is simply a recasting of 1536-39. The
simplest definition, which appears in the final edition of the Institutes, is not much different from previous writings. Quote, God reigns where men both by denial of themselves and by contempt of the world and of earthly life, pledge themselves to his righteousness in order to aspire to a heavenly life. Thus, there are two parts to this kingdom. First, that God, by the power of his spirit, correct all of the desires of the flesh which by squadrons war
against him. Second, that he shape all of our thoughts in obedience to his rule. End quote. However, a second remark on the coming of the kingdom illustrates the shift toward a more institutional focus in Calvin's ecclesiology. The reference to new believers in 1536 is replaced by churches, and there is a concern for right order. Quote, we must daily desire that God gather churches unto himself from all parts of the earth, that he spread and increase them
in number, that he adorn them with gifts, that he establish a lawful order among them. On the other hand, that he cast down all enemies of pure teaching and religion, that he scatter their councils and crush their efforts. End quote. The commentary expresses clearly the means and the goal of the coming of God's kingdom. Note particularly the pairing of the spirit and the word. Quote, so the sum of this application is that God will illuminate the
heart by the light of his word, bring our hearts to obey his righteousness by the breathing of his spirit, and restore to order at his will all that is lying waste upon the earth. End quote. There is an eschatological note in Calvin's discussion of the coming of God's kingdom, but this reference to the fulfillment of Christ's rule is typically moderate. When we pray each day, thy kingdom come, we are asking that God's reign may increase daily
and at last be perfected in the revelation of the judgment day, when Satan will be finally defeated. Thy will be done. The interpretation of the third petition, thy will be done, is quite similar to that of the second. We ask God to answer our prayers not as we wish, but as God foresees is best. We should pray not only that what is opposed to God's will not be done, but also that God may create us fresh
to desire what is in accord with God's will. In the later writings, both commentary and 1559 institutes, Calvin adds an explanatory word about a problem in speaking of God's will. We know that in itself, God's will is one and simple, but for us and in scripture, it appears twofold. There is the revealed will of God and then God's secret judgment by which all things are ruled whether they want to obey or not. In this prayer, we
are not concerned with God's hidden will, but we are taught to ask that all may obey willingly, quote, that all creatures may yield to God in quietness and without hostility, end quote. Again an eschatological note is heard as Calvin answers the question of whether we should pray for something which God says will never happen until the end of the world, that is the perfect obedience of all creatures. Calvin replies in what seems to be a very
specific and practical manner. It is sufficient, he thinks, for us to witness by our prayer that we hate all which is opposed to the will of God so that we may be governed by God's will and eagerly offer ourselves to participate in its fulfillment. Essentially, he's sidestepping the question a certain way. Praying of the first part of the prayer, Lord's Prayer, is a kind of watershed for Calvin. Those who refuse to hallow God's name or pray
for God's kingdom and will are not to be reckoned children of God. Note that the word is reckon. Even here, Calvin does not speak as if he or the earthly church possesses omniscience regarding the elect and the reprobate. On the other hand, those who truly seek the fulfillment of the first three petitions of the Lord's Prayer testify and profess themselves to be the children of God. Second triad of petitions in the Lord's Prayer has reference to
human beings' own concerns, though the ultimate purpose is still the glory of God. Again, as in the case of the first part of the prayer, there are developments in Calvin's exposition, though these take the form of additions rather than substitutions. Particularly the new remarks on the interrelationships of the various petitions enrich the teaching and become an integral part of the meaning of the second part of the Lord's Prayer. Give us this day our daily bread. Busser's
and Calvin's discussion of the fourth petition, the request for daily bread, is among the most interesting of the whole prayer, particularly in contrast with some of the earlier commentaries on the Lord's Prayer. According to Erasmus, the bread for which we pray is not mere earthly food. In the paraphrases, Erasmus calls the bread heavenly doctrine, and the longer Precatio Dominica is similar. In the annotations on the New Testament, it is less clear precisely what the bread is,
but is also more explicitly described as not being earthly. Erasmus prefers the interpretation supersubstantial, beyond natural food, because, quote, in such a heavenly prayer, celestial prayer, Christ would not speak of that kind of bread that even Gentiles receive from their parents, end quote. For the early Luther, the principal meaning of daily bread is the preaching of the word, though there are also references to the Lord's Supper and ordinary food. The explanation of the Lord's Prayer in
1519 speaks at some length of the need for good preachers to feed the people spiritual food, especially the word, but also the sacrament. At the end, physical bread is also mentioned. The first little prayer book includes the sacrament with the primary concern of preaching. When Luther published his two catechisms in 1529, he had slightly altered his view of daily bread and appears to be following Chrysostom, as had Buser in his commentary two years earlier, the position
which Calvin also followed. For Buser and Calvin, the bread for which we pray is the sustenance needed for our earthly lives. Buser calls upon Chrysostom as support for his view that here we are to pray for food and other necessities of the body. Calvin does not mention Chrysostom at this point, but his explanation of daily bread is the same as Buser's, and he's obviously using Chrysostom, as you see elsewhere. Quote, by this petition, we ask of
God all things in general that our bodies have need to use under the elements of this world, not only for food and clothing, but also for everything God foresees to be beneficial to us that we may eat our bread in peace. Briefly, by this we give ourselves over to his care and entrust ourselves to his providence that he may feed, nourish, and preserve us, for our most gracious Father does not disdain to take even our bodies
under his safekeeping and guardianship in order to exercise our faith in these small matters while we expect everything from him, even to a crumb of bread and a drop of water. End quote. Calvin goes on to explain the value of praying for bread in a way which at least sounded at least to me very contemporary. Quote, for since it has come about in some way or other through our wickedness that we are affected and tormented with
greater concern for body than for soul, many who venture to entrust the soul to God are still troubled about the flesh, still worry about what they shall eat, what they shall wear, and unless they have on hand abundance of grain, wine, and oil, they tremble with apprehension. So much more does the shadow of this fleeting life mean to us than that everlasting immortality. End quote. Once we have trusted God for this life and its necessities, Calvin
maintains that we are more ready to trust God also for the gift of salvation. In 1539, Calvin objects to the interpretation of daily bread as super substantial because this does not seem in accord with the meaning of Jesus' words. But the comment is explicit, but it is anonymous. He doesn't mention any names and quite calm. Calvin returns to the development of this argument in the 1550s. In the commentary, he makes it evident that it is indeed
Erasmus' remark in the annotations which he considers unbiblical, not simply wrong, unbiblical. Essentially, Erasmus believes that it is inappropriate for us to think of ordinary food when we approach God. But Calvin says that this reasoning is trivial and contrary to devotion. Scripture shows us the opposite in many places. Earthly good is used to lead us to hope for heavenly good. The ultimate test of faith is to trust God for everything, including the least things, the needs
of our flesh. Having demonstrated the biblical character of reading Christ's words about daily bread in a material sense, Calvin continues by pointing out the appropriateness of including earthly food in the perfect model prayer. If Christ had not spoken of bodily food here, the prayer would be incomplete, not perfect. For we are told in many places to cast all our cares on the lap of God, and he himself generously undertakes that he will fail us at no
point. So in a correct order of prayer, there must be some instruction on the innumerable necessities of this present life. Because God cares for every detail does not mean, however, that earthly food is the most important thing. Perhaps because of the controversy led him to defend his understanding of ordinary bread, in the commentary Calvin feels obliged to explain the relationship between this petition and those which follow, saying at the same time why Christ mentions the lesser
petition before the greater. And though the remission of sins is to be preferred to food as far as the soul naturally is superior to the body, Christ yet begins with bread and the support of our earthly existence in order to lead us higher from such elementary things. So we do not ask to be given our daily bread before we are to be reconciled to God, as though the passing diet of the stomach were worth more than
the salvation of our eternal soul, but our thoughts ought to ascend from earth to heaven as by the rungs of a ladder. A second part of the petition for daily bread concentrates on the meaning of daily and how we can call this bread ours. With regard to daily, partly what is intended is that we should not be greedy. Daily bread is that which is sufficient for the day for moderate needs, not extravagance. Again, a futuristic echo,
as we heard this morning from Professor Froehlich. Calvin goes on to emphasize that no matter what we think we possess, we are able to enjoy it only by God's grace. All we can have will nourish us only if God so ordains, and not by any intrinsic value of the elements. Thus, it is necessary that we continue to ask for daily food, even when we apparently have ample supplies. This bread is also called ours only by God's
grace. Whatever we have is a gift, even if it comes to us apparently by our own work and diligence. Our bread is that which we have earned without detriment to others, and calling the bread ours is a warning not to desire the possessions of others. Again, the commentary adds what is for me an intriguing note, linking this prayer for daily bread with the teaching on vocation and the right worship of God. Of course, the fields are
to be tilled. We must sweat over the gathering in of the fruits of the earth. Each must undergo and endure the labor of his own calling to get himself a living. But this does not prevent us being fed by the gratuitous goodwill of God, without which men vainly wear themselves out upon their tasks. So, we are taught to acknowledge at his hand all that appears to be the proceeds of our own effort. At the same time,
we may understand from this utterance that if we wish to be fed at God's hand, we must not go to another's. Those who ask God for their daily bread honor God as God. Those who trust themselves or someone else or the abundance of their possessions both refuse to glorify God and also deny themselves sustenance. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. Calvin's discussion of the fifth petition, Forgive us our debts as we forgive our
debtors, includes the strongest Protestant notes, but also reminds the reader of certain typical reformed themes such as the third use of the law. From the beginning, 1536, until the end, the central issues are the sinfulness of all people, which makes forgiveness a constant necessity for everyone and especially the corollary that forgiveness is given only by the free mercy of God without any human merits. There is no one living who does not need forgiveness. Those who claim
not to need it separate themselves from Christian society. They claim the church is sinful and they are not. They are separating themselves from Christ. If Christ in this prayer commands us to pray for forgiveness throughout our lives, it is obvious that those who think they do not need to repent are defying God. Calvin says that there is a glimmer of righteousness in the saints, but throughout this life they are burdened with sins which require forgiveness. God
gradually restores the image of God, but the remedy of repentance and forgiveness continues to be necessary in this life. Forgiveness comes only by God's sheer grace. There is no place for bargaining with God as if we could deserve grace or offer something in return. Only God's gratuitous goodness can give us freedom from our debts or sins, accepting us for Christ's sake, as if we were pure and clean. The second part of the petition, as we forgive
our debtors, might sound like a contradiction of this insistence on our inability to earn forgiveness. Calvin, however, refutes the idea that our forgiving others is a kind of condition by which we oblige God to forgive us. We cannot, in fact, forgive sin. Only God can do that. What we are told to do, though, is to cast wrath and desire for revenge out of our hearts and even to seek to win the good will of our enemies.
That is, we are not only to bear ill will, but we are to act for the good of our enemies. Such forgiveness on our part can only be accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the presence of the Spirit in our hearts is the witness of our adoption. The Spirit is what distinguishes those who are the children of God from those who are not. The children are forgiven, but those who don't recognize God as
Father neither ask forgiveness nor can be forgiven. Thus, our forgiving others does not earn God's forgiveness, but it is a sign or a seal of our being forgiven by God to comfort us in our weakness. Lead us not into temptation. For Buser and Calvin, the prayer that we not be led into temptation but delivered from evil is a single petition with two parts. The first part deals with temptation and what it means to be led into
it and by whom. Calvin begins by discussing various kinds of temptation. Temptations are not evil in themselves, but they can be used by the devil for our downfall. Some temptations are from the right, that is, great wealth, good things of this life, which can distract us and tempt us to forget God. Others from the left, afflictions and poverty of all sorts, which can make us despair and lead to bitterness and alienation from God. Calvin explains the
purpose of the petition. We are not praying that we may feel no temptation because we need to be tested in order not to become lazy and sluggish. God tempts us in order to exercise our faith and always provides a way out. The devil, however, who attacks the defenseless, tempts in order to destroy. We are to pray then not to escape all testing, but to be kept from yielding and falling into sin. We ask God to deliver
us because we are not able, in our own power, to resist the devil. When we ask to be delivered from evil, we are in fact seeking new increases of God's grace until we finally triumph. The theme of God's tempting is a thorny one. Buser discusses this issue at great length. His explanation of the sixth petition fills almost half of the entire passage on the Lord's Prayer. He's considerably exercised by it. Calvin, on the other hand, treats
the matter with what was unexpected brevity, considering the opportunity it might have afforded for investigation of predestination and reprobation. The educational aspect of God's testing is the focus in 1536. A little more is said in the 1542 Catechism, where Calvin simply states that God preserves the faithful but abandons those God wishes to punish. The commentary in the 1559 edition of the Institutes expand the discussion very slightly, although some of this repeats the educational theme. As regards
the abandoning of Psalm, Calvin attributes this to the secret or obscure judgment of God. He affirms that God is not the author of evil, and God's action is just, though hidden from our understanding. Then Calvin drops it. Calvin's comment on the meaning of the word evil is equally calm and undogmatic. Buser follows Chrysostom in identifying the evil which tempts us with the devil, pleading the article for the word. Calvin, however, although he mentions Chrysostom's interpretation, remarks
that the word can signify Satan or sin, but it does not much matter which one we choose, since the meaning is about the same. The problem of temptation, however, is not the soul or even the most important part of this final petition. The positive side, deliver us from evil, is fully as clear and even more interesting. The Institutes of 1559 sums up Calvin's view of this part. The sixth petition, as we have said, corresponds to the
promise that the law is to be engraved upon our hearts. But because we obey God, not without continual warfare and hard and trying struggles, here we seek to be equipped with such armor and defended with such protection that we may be able to win the victory. By this we are instructed that we need not only the grace of the Spirit to soften our hearts within and to bend and direct them to obey God, but also his
aid to render us invincible against both all of the stratagems and all the violent assaults of Satan. The importance of this statement may be better grasped by examining other developments of Calvin's exposition in the 1550s. As has been noted above in his commentary, Calvin adds some interesting remarks about the interrelationships of the three petitions which concern human needs, and these are transferred to the final edition of the Institutes. Calvin ranks the request for daily bread lower
than the two final petitions, despite the fact that it precedes them in order, since earthly sustenance is secondary to eternal salvation. Christ is building up to the most important points, from physical concerns to spiritual. Calvin's viewpoint on the last two petitions of the Lord's Prayer is particularly noteworthy. In essence, the forgiveness of sins and the deliverance from yielding to evil temptation serve as a summary of the Gospel. Quote, now Christ has put into petitions the objects
of our souls, eternal salvation and spiritual life, as though these were the two headings of the divine covenant, which comprise our whole salvation. He offers us free reconciliation by not imputing our sins to us, and he promises the Spirit to engrave upon our hearts the righteousness of the law. End quote. In the Institutes, Calvin also uses the language of this spiritual covenant, citing Jeremiah 31:33, I shall write my laws upon their hearts, I shall be
merciful toward their iniquity. Calvin adds that those who tear these two points apart are tearing apart God's covenant. Specifically, those who say that we do not need to ask for forgiveness daily are in fact being sacrilegious and unloving, rejecting God's will and causing destruction for other people. We cannot have salvation without both forgiveness and deliverance from evil, or repentance and newness of life, as Calvin phrases it elsewhere. At the end of the three petitions for human
needs, Calvin returns to the theme of their import for the community. Quote, these three petitions clearly show that the prayers of Christians ought to be public and to look to the public edification of the church and the advancement of the believer's fellowship. End quote. For thine is the kingdom, power, and glory. The conclusion of the Lord's Prayer is treated by Calvin and others as a kind of reassurance, a repose for faith, again, as Professor Lochman said
the other night. Calvin remarks that the phrase thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory is not found in the Latin, but he says that it is so appropriate that it should not be omitted. This doxology is a reminder that we always have a reason to pray, no matter how miserable and sinful we may be, because we know that God's kingdom, power, and glory are invincible, and thus we are safe in God's care as we
could never be in our own. The amen signifies a warmth of desire and strengthened hope that all we ask has already come to pass, since these things have been promised by God, who cannot deceive. Conclusion. How might we sum up Calvin's teaching on the Lord's Prayer? First, this prayer is clearly central to his understanding of prayer in general, which itself is the chief exercise of our devotion, the most important practice of our worship life. The Lord's
Prayer serves as a model for all right prayer, not in its precise words, but in the major concerns for which we are to pray. It is a provision for our weakness to teach us how to pray, and it includes all that is necessary and good. The Lord's Prayer was given to us by God's will. Because Christ is our Savior, because by the power of the Holy Spirit we are adopted as children of God, we are privileged
to address Christ's Father as our Father. Thus, we are assured that God loves and cares for us, that the goodness and power of God will never fail those who are Christ's sisters and brothers. We receive this promise as a family, as those who are bound together in love, and we pray in common for the whole of God's people, known and unknown. The petitions of the Lord's Prayer, like all right worship, are primarily concerned with the glory
and honor of God. We pray that God's name may be revered as it should be, that God may be honored as God. We pray that all creation may willingly accept God's rule, that all may be brought to will as God's wills. Although the ultimate goal of all prayer is the worship of God, yet Christ also teaches us that we may and should ask our Father for the things which we need. Here are included not only spiritual
and eternal, but also physical and earthly needs. God knows that we are weak of faith if we lack daily bread. And God cares for our bodies so that we will know that nothing is too small for God's love. We also pray for the two most important things we could possibly ask. The first is forgiveness for our sins, which separate us from God. The second is the presence of the Holy Spirit to create us anew in God's
image and bring us safely through all evil to the final joyous fulfillment of God's kingdom, power, and glory. (applause)