Matthew 6
LenskiCHAPTER VI
Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. Part II, Chapter 6
The Children of the Kingdom in the Righteousness that Is theirs
The Father is before their eyes, and thus they are freed from hypocrisy.
This is developed in a concrete and personal presentation by examples from the religious life. The word Father runs through the chapter.
Matthew 6:1
1 Chapter 5 deals with the false teaching of the scribes and Pharisees and the wrong conduct that resulted; chapter 6 deals with their false piety apart from any special teaching. The first three examples of this false piety are cases of hypocrisy, and the fourth is similar, pretending to trust God and yet trusting Mammon.
Take heed not to do your righteousness in front of men with a view to be observed by them, else you have no reward with your Father in the heavens. This is the opening statement for the first three examples of hypocrisy, v. 2–18. With προσέχετε supply νοῦν: literally “hold your mind toward this,” etc., do it constantly. Instead of δικαιοσύνην some inferior texts have ἐλεημοσύνην, “alms,” in the A. V. The Hebrew tsedaqah as well as the Aramaic equivalent were used to denote mercy, kindness toward the poor, as appears from the LXX and from other translations.
Thus it was easy to take “righteousness” in the sense of “alms,” especially since Jesus deals with almsgiving in his first illustration. But here “to do righteousness” refers to the entire range of good works; v. 1 introduces not only v. 2–4, but v. 2–18. “Righteousness” is here not a quality in us from which our actsflow but something righteous that we ourselves do, something that we expect God to pronounce righteousness in distinction from the imputed righteousness. The righteousness we do is to be better than that of the scribes and Pharisees (5:20); it must grow out of faith and a regenerate heart and thus be done unto God and not as a display before men.
This is the point to which we must give heed. While men are, indeed, “to see” our good works (5:16), these works are to be seen in such a way that men will “glorify your Father in heaven.” The danger is that we may do them “in front of men, with a view to be observed by them,” so that we “may have glory of men” (v. 2). In πρὸςτό with the infinitive we have purpose, R. 1075, and this purpose is the secret motive for doing the righteousness. And θεαθῆναι is used for viewing a spectacle, the dative αὐτοῖς, as with some passives, indicating the agent. It may flatter us when men praise us for our good deeds instead of giving all praise to God for them. Under this stimulus we may do even great and wonderful deeds (7:22, 23) the more to turn men’s eyes upon us. But where this motive prevails, no matter how great the deeds may be, in God’s sight they are completely ruined; in his judgment they cease to be “righteousness.”
The formula εἰδὲμήγε is stereotyped and never has a verb; the sense is: “but if you do not take heed,” “Else you have no reward with your Father” implies that true works of righteousness do receive a reward at the hands of the Father. The phrase παρὰτῷπατρὶὑμῶν points to a reward laid up at the Father’s side to be given us in due time. We need hardly say that this is wholly a reward (μισθός as in 5:46) of grace, yet as such promised to us and fully assured. This makes the matter altogether clear and simple. He who performs his good works to be seen of men has in this seeing of theirs the reward he is after. His own purpose of these good works is thus fulfilled.
Works done as a display before men are, of course, not done for God, to please his eye. They could not be done for him for he abominates duplicity: pretending that we are seeking his praise when we are secretly seeking only our own. Why should he reward such works? The matter is really a choice between two rewards: the transient, empty praise of men; the praise and the blessing of the Father “in the heavens.” Only a fool would snatch at the former, thereby losing the latter. Augustine calls the love of honor the deadly bane of true piety; other vices bring forth evil works, this vice seeks to do good works and destroys them.
Matthew 6:2
2 Whenever, therefore, thou doest alms, trumpet not in front of thee like the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets in order that they may be glorified by men. Amen, I say to you, they have their reward in full. On the principle just laid down “therefore” builds the first specification. Ὅταν with the present subjunctive shows that Jesus expects us to do alms regularly. Μή with the aorist subjunctive is the regular form for a negative command with the aorist; and the aorist means: “do not begin to trumpet,” R. 853. Note the force of ὑπό in ὑποκριταί, giving us the idea of an actor under a mask (R. 633); also of ἀπό in ἀπέχουσι: the hypocrites have, as it were, their money down as soon as their trumpet has sounded, R. 577, 866. The aoristic present with the perfective ἀπό makes this realistic. In ποιοῦσιν we have a gnomic present (R. 866), which denotes actions done at any time.
Diligent search fails to verify the view that the Pharisees used trumpets to call the poor together and to assemble a crowd to witness their almsgiving. Nor would trumpets be used in a synagogue. This indicates that “do not start trumpeting” is figurative; we should say, “do not advertise.” Yet “in the synagogues and in the streets” is quite literal; the Pharisees chose public places to show off their charities. Their delight was “to be glorified by men”; that God might be glorified was not their concern.
The example of the Pharisees is bold and strong, yet as such it includes every hypocrisy of this kind down to the secret desire to have our good deeds praised by men for our own sakes. Luther points out that but few respond when we say that God and his angels will be pleased and that God will reward a hundredfold; and that many grow slack when men ignore and show ingratitude.
“Amen” (see 5:18) puts the seal of verity, and “I say to you” the seal of authority on Christ’s judgment: “they have their reward in full.” They are already paid off in the very coin they are after. Desiring only the glory from men, they have it. If any man’s duplicity goes so far as to think that he will also receive glory from God, he certainly fools himself (25:45: “ye did it not to me”). How much of Christian giving is of this Pharisaic kind we need not say. Church papers and the secular press often serve as trumpets.
Matthew 6:3
3 But when thou art doing alms, let not thy left realize what thy right is doing in order that thine alms may be in secret; and thy Father, seeing in secret, will give thee what is due. According to Besser the Temple provided a place where bashful benefactors might place their gifts to be distributed to the bashful poor, and the place was named “Silence.” Many explanations about the left not knowing what the right is doing are unsatisfactory. The added purpose clause makes the matter clear; what the right hand does when giving alms is to be done so secretly that even the left hand may not find it out. The hands are usually so close together that, if they could see, each would be fully aware of what the other is doing. When one hand does what even the other fails to see, that is doing a thing “in secret” indeed. In the third person the aorist imperative is retained in prohibitions; the second person would have the subjunctive; hence γνώτω, R. 943, and repeatedly.
Matthew 6:4
4 “In secret” is, of course, not in conflict with 5:16. Luther has the key: “Thus I do not see it though other people may see it.” The left hand does not represent men who are, indeed, to glorify God on seeing my good works. The left hand represents myself just as the right does: the right, me with my good deed; the left, me with my good opinion about my deed. If, then, the left does not even know what the right is doing, I shall be absolutely free of desiring any praise or credit from men. This is the secrecy Christ wants even when all the church knows my deeds. The whole matter is in the heart, it is not a mechanical rule about hiding our gifts. For one might hide all his giving in the secret hope of eventually being discovered and then being praised for the saintly secrecy of his gifts.
We must drop ἐντῷφανερῷ from the text. The contrast is between the two phrases ἐντῷκρυπτῷ, “in secret.” All our good works are to be done for God alone so that they may please him. In this sense they are to be done “in secret,” for him who “sees in secret,” and whose seeing penetrates to the inmost motive underneath our deeds. Done thus, with a motive that does not need to fear God’s eyes, we shall look to him alone for a reward of grace and not to men and to their praise when our works bid them glorify God. God is pleased to bestow his reward of grace on us. In ἀποδώσει we again have ἀπό (v. 2): “will give what is due,” i.e., according to his grace and promise of grace, of course, not according to any merit we might claim.
He will reward even a cup of water given in his name. As vicious as is the secret desire for the praise of men, so vicious is the secret mercenary desire to trade our good works for far greater rewards from him.
Matthew 6:5
5 And whenever you are praying you shall not be as the hypocrites, seeing that they love to be praying, standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the wide streets in order to make a display to men. Amen, I say to you, that they have their reward in full. “And” parallels the exercise of prayer with that of almsgiving; the need of others whom we may be able to relieve with our own need which God is to relieve. Ὅταν with the present subjunctive expects us to be praying regularly. Jesus takes our necessity of prayer for granted. This time he uses the volitive future in his command: “you shall not be,” etc., R. 874, 942, so often used imperatively.
Generally, ὅτι is regarded as being causal (R. 963), yet it hardly states why we are not to be “as the hypocrites” (see v. 2) but in what respect we are not to be like them: “seeing that,” etc. The emphasis is not on the “standing,” for this was a regular attitude in Jewish prayer, but on the places in which they loved to stand. These were as public as possible, “in the synagogues” where many worshippers would see these scribes and Pharisees and “on the corners of the wide streets,” the πλατεῖαι (supply ὁδοί; the ῥύμη mentioned in v. 2 is an ordinary narrow street), where many people passed in four directions. These devout Pharisees pretended that they were accidentally caught at such a frequented corner by the hour of prayer and then would not let the public place deter them but turned toward Jerusalem or toward the Temple and made their prayers. Their pretense must have been transparent enough, but hypocrisy was not ashamed to go to this length.
Their purpose was: “in order to make a display to men,” φανῶσι (φαίνω), “to shine” to men. In all prayer the inner motive and the attitude of the heart are the decisive things. Only worldly superficiality will let the outward act pass as being of full value and will disregard the motive and the purpose. These hypocrites did not really pray, they only imitated prayer. Wuttke rightly says that only gold is imitated because it is so precious. Instead of finding fault with Christianity because hypocrites imitate its forms of worship, Christianity deserves the highest honors because men imitate it.
A nation is at a low ebb when it has no real and true religion in its midst that attracts imitators. As regards true piety, this is always connected with a certain reticence and shrinks from public advertisement. The full-blown rose loses its petals and is gone; let your heart be a half-open rose, its chalice turned toward the sun, but its heart still hidden. Because prayer is so high and holy, the devil likes to ruin it in many ways, and he certainly succeeds in the case of all hypocrites.
Here again Jesus adds: “Amen,” etc., as in v. 2, which see. “How should God not be absent from such prayers, when we ourselves are not present with them?”
Matthew 6:6
6 The turn to the singular makes the admonition more personal. But thou, whenever thou art praying, enter into thy room and, having shut the door, pray to thy Father who is in secret; and the Father who sees in secret will give thee what is due. The subject σύ is placed forward for the sake of emphasis: “but thou” in contrast with the hypocrites. “Whenever thou art praying” expects each of us to do this regularly. The ταμεῖον, or the older ταμιεῖον, originally a storeroom that could be locked, is a person’s own room, not, however, the “upper room” on the roof of the building, although this latter might serve as a place for solitary prayer. The contrast is here not with regard to public prayer in the congregation, but only with regard to personal prayer made for the purpose of display before men. Jesus himself called the Temple the house of prayer where public prayer was made.
He took part with all the people in the worship in the synagogue. The disciples saw and heard him pray. In fact, a special promise is added when two or three unite in prayer.
To shut the door of one’s own room means to pray in complete privacy. All intrusion is barred out, the worshipper is alone with God. True praying must start in secret since its very nature is personal communion of the soul with God, and an attitude of prayer and any words of prayer that are not intended for God but to impress men are the worst possible prostitution of prayer. Hence to shut out men and any extraneous influences is an aid to prayer. He who has learned to pray thus in secret will know, too, how to commune with God when other worshippers join him in prayer. Therefore, right praying in secret will aid participation in public worship.
The aorists εἴσελθε, etc., refer to a single act of private prayer. The middle aorist imperative πρόσευξαι is distinguished from the active aorist infinitive προσεῦξαι only by the accent. This word for “to pray” is used only regarding worship and prayer that is addressed to God, while other terms which express petition, request, etc., may also be used when men are addressed. The emphasis is on τῷπατρίσουτῷἐντῷκρυπτῷ. R. 776, etc., points out that the repetition of the article makes the modifier “in secret” emphatic, adding it as a sort of climax in apposition with “to thy Father.” There is a correspondence between praying “in secret” and the Father who is in secret. This correspondence is emphasized: “and the Father who sees in secret,” i.e., in the secret room, even in the secret heart of the one praying.
Here again “openly” is not in the best texts. Ἀποδώσει is explained in v. 4. Jesus speaks of prayer as a good work and thus says that for this good work, truly good in his sight, he “will give what is due,” just as he will for any other good work. Jesus says nothing about God’s answer to the prayer that is thus acceptable to him. God’s answer to every acceptable prayer is assured and is here taken for granted. Of course, the answer may also be the reward for the work that God accepts.
Matthew 6:7
7 The hypocrisy which makes a display of prayers is also inclined toward wordiness in prayer, trying to impress men or even God himself by piling up many words. Moreover, while praying, do not babble like the Gentiles, for they think that they shall be heard for their loquacity. Do not, therefore, become like them, for your Father knows of what you have need before you ask him. The derivation of βατταλογεῖν is still in doubt, C.-K. 683, etc. The word is found only here in Matthew and once in the sixth century. It has nothing to do with stammering.
Its meaning seems to be “to babble,” schwatzen, Luther; plappern, to utter a lot of useless and superfluous words. “Like the Gentiles” is more than a reference to the custom of the pagans in their praying, for the Jews often prayed in the same way. The heathen tried to tire out their gods with such endless prayers. Mere formulas were repeated over and over again; the Jews had such prayer formulas, Catholics also have them in the form of their rosary. It is heathen folly to measure prayer by the yard. The aorist imperative is peremptory.
The folly of this procedure is the fact that such people “think that they shall be heard for their loquacity,” πολυλογία, the great volume of their words, even if they are not mere thoughtless babble. Even undue length vitiates prayers, a truth which many to this day fail to understand, thinking that long prayers spoken with an unctuous tone mark true spirituality.
Matthew 6:8
8 “Do not, therefore, become like them,” again a peremptory aorist imperative, doubles the prohibition for the disciples as though Jesus felt that there was a danger in this direction. Instead of letting the wrong example of others mislead us, such an example should serve as a warning to us. Another consideration is brought in: God knows our needs even before we ask. To talk and to act as though we had to inform him of everything and as though by omitting some detail he would be left in ignorance, is to debase God and thus to insult him. Why forget that he is omniscient? The opposite error is that, since God knows all our needs and is ever ready to help, prayer is unnecessary save in its reaction on us, relieving our hearts and making us more comfortable.
Prayer is more than autosuggestion with a mere psychological effect. “Ye have not, because ye ask not, or because ye ask amiss,” James 4:2. Not to pray and ask is to reject both the commands and the promises of God and to throw away the means which God himself has appointed for us to secure his blessings and to secure them so that they will, indeed, be blessings. On πρὸτοῦ with the infinitive see R. 1075; the aorist αἰτῆσαι is not constative (R. 857) but effective, indicating actual asking.
Matthew 6:9
9 In this manner, therefore, be praying, προσεύχεσθε, present imperative, whenever you pray. Jesus adds an illustration of the right manner of prayer, that is right in form, content, and spirit. Not a word of it is superfluous, and that not as to style but as to the substance here put into words. The Lord’s Prayer is perfect in every respect; no human prayer has ever equalled it. Both οὗτως and ὑμεῖς are emphatic: “thus … you,” i.e., as my disciples. Both words place the disciples in contrast with all others who may pray.
It is incorrect to assert that any Jew could today use this prayer. “Thus” and “you” require faith in the God who sent Jesus as the Messiah. In the old covenant any Jew who believed in the coming Messiah could have prayed this prayer; and in the new covenant only those Jews (and Gentiles) can pray it who believe in Jesus, the Messiah. In Luke 11:1, etc., we have the same prayer with some changes. The contexts are so decidedly different that we are compelled to conclude that, as was true with regard to other sayings of Jesus, this prayer, too, was repeated by him. The claim that Luke gives the real occasion and that Matthew inserted the prayer in this sermon has never been made plausible.
Father of ours who art in the heavens, Hallowed be thy name. In the Greek πάτερ is placed first, and many translations follow that word order. Our English idiom prefers, “Our Father.” Only a true child of God can address him as “Father,” and only faith in Christ makes one a child of God. Only true disciples and believers can truly pray this prayer; all others find advice in John 8:42, 43. They may try to call him “Father” as the Jews did in the Schemone esre (prayer of 18 verses), or as the Unitarian, the modernist, and the deist of today do, but God’s only answer will be, “I never knew you.” “Our” presupposes the possession of faith, it is like the Old Testament “the Lord, our God.” We on our part appropriate him, and he on his part endorses that appropriation. “Our” is plural so that, whether one prays this prayer by himself or in union with others, the intercession for all the other children of God is always included. Thus love is joined to faith in “our Father.” But must we not include also the world?
No (John 17:9), we are not to combine God’s children with those of the world. And yet, as in Christ’s Great Intercession (John 17) where he says, “that the world may believe,” we do pray for the world, namely in the first three petitions. As for us, so for the world, the one avenue to the Father and to his blessings is through faith in Christ.
“Our Father” draws him down to us, but the apposition “who art in the heavens” (in the Greek appositions to vocatives are in the nominative) reveals the greatness of him who is thus drawn down. The thought is not that he is only in heaven, yet heaven is his glorious abode. The plural “heavens” is frequently used by Matthew as a rendering of the Hebrew hashamayim. This prayer is intended for the disciples on earth who raise their hearts and their eyes to heaven, their future home. Our guarantee for this hope is the fact that our Father is in heaven. Thus in this address hope is added to faith and to love.
Loehe points to the first three petitions as parallels to the first three Commandments. Each of these three refers to God above, then the petitions that follow, like the Commandments that follow, descend to our earthly affairs. The pronoun “thy” binds the three petitions together and separates them from the rest which have the pronouns “us” and “our.” God’s “name” is more than any individual term by which we refer to him, more than all these terms taken together. His name is that by which he makes himself known to us, his revelation. God’s Word is his ὄνομα, his complete name, made known to us so that we may know God and enter into communion with him. In every passage of Scripture God looks toward us, and we must see him there.
But for us Christ is the heart of this name, John 14:9. It is presumptuous on our part to invent any name for God such as “the great architect of the universe.” This is a deviation from his Word and from Christ or the result of perverted piety.
The three aorist imperatives of the first three petitions are striking because all three are the third person; the other four are the second person. These first three have a mandatory sound; what they say must be done. God could not consent to the opposite, nor could God’s children. The aorist tense helps to emphasize this: God will certainly do what he is in this striking way asked to do. For back of these imperatives is God himself. The name, the kingdom, and the will are his.
His name is not a mere sound, concept, thought revealed to us; it is God himself revealed to us. His kingdom is not the mass of his subjects merely but his kingly authority, dominion, power, and rule as revealed in all his subjects. His will is not a mere statement of what he wants but he himself in his action of willing and accomplishing his will. The ἁγιασθήτω does not suggest the thought that an increase of holiness could be given to God or to his name. He and his revelation are what they are irrespective of us. The imperative has men in mind, namely the thought that many do not receive God’s revelation of himself and revere and honor it as they should.
Even God’s children fall short in many respects. “To hallow,” “to sanctify” means to set apart from everything common and profane, to esteem, prize, honor, reverence, and adore as divine and infinitely blessed. The opposite is “to profane,” to treat the Word as not being divine, to neglect, change, or contradict it by word or by deed. The passive “be hallowed” calls on God to make his Word and revelation in Christ Jesus supreme in the hearts of men. By placing the verb forward it receives great emphasis.
Matthew 6:10
10 Thy kingdom come. On “kingdom” see 3:2. This kingdom is the heavenly reign and rule of God through Christ in the gospel of grace. Where Christ is, there this kingdom and rule is, and, of course, also those who through him participate in the blessings of this rule and kingdom, the kings and priests unto God. “Let it come” means by its own inherent power, and the aorist is effective (R. 855): “let it come actually and completely.” This aorist is not a reason for thinking only of the consummation, the kingdom of glory. This consummation includes all that precedes it in the rule of grace, which finally shall become the rule of glory (1 Cor. 15:24–28). It also includes the defeat of the kingdom of that wicked old Pharaoh, Satan, pictured in the escape of Israel from the Red Sea and in the drowning of the pursuing hosts. Note that again the verb is placed forward.
This is also true with regard to the next petition. Thy will be done, as in heaven, just so on earth. This is God’s good and gracious will, Luther (John 6:40). The thought is not that he has more than one will but that the highest aims and purposes of his one will regarding us center in his grace. That will centers in Christ who came to do his Father’s will and will carry it to its goal. If no opposition interfered with God’s will, a prayer such as this would not be needed; but here the same undercurrent of hostility in “the devil, the world, and our flesh” is implied.
In this petition God’s children put their own wills into complete harmony with their Father’s will and thus into opposition to the will of all his foes. Let us realize this when we pray thus. Let us also realize that our lives are placed wholly under our Father’s will, and that we accept what his blessed will sends us, also crosses, trials, sufferings, etc. “As in heaven,” etc., applies only to the third petition; for in the second we cannot say that the kingdom can “come in heaven”; it has always been there. Ps. 103:21 shows how God’s will is done in heaven. In this way it is to be done also on earth—perfectly, with every creature being an agent of that will; καί, “just so,” R. 1181.
Note the climax: first, the Father’s revelation; secondly, his authority and rule; thirdly, his own personal will which exercises this rule and, therefore, also has given this revelation. These impressive aorists imply more than that these petitions are to be realized only to a certain degree, say as much as possible. They call for a complete hallowing coming, and doing and thus look forward to the great consummation when every opposition will be abolished forever, and God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Rev. 21:1–4).
Matthew 6:11
11 The three petitions that pertain to God are symbolic of the Trinity; the four pertaining to us symbolize the world; and the seven symbolize God in connection with the world. Even in such points this prayer is perfect. Yet Luke has only six petitions (twice three), showing that the real perfection lies in the substance. The variation between Matthew and Luke is no reason for altering the fixed form of the Lord’s Prayer which the church employs in its liturgy, catechism, etc. Now the imperatives are the second person, and we feel the difference. The objects mentioned in these four petitions cannot be identified with God himself as were his name, kingdom, and will; they are only gifts and acts of God for our various needs.
The aorist imperatives are still strong because all four petitions harmonize with God’s will. The four again rise to a climax, and their perfect order permits no transposition.
Our needful bread give us this day. The emphasis is now not on the verb but on the “bread.” Jesus begins with our least but often most troublesome need and with one stroke takes the bread out of the way, leaving our hearts free for the more vital needs. “Bread” is a concrete and compact term for what we need to sustain our bodily life, and no finer exposition of it than that found in Luther’s Smaller Catechism has ever been given. In the whole Greek language ἐπιούσιος appears only here and in Luke 11:3, and linguists are still not agreed on its derivation and its precise meaning. The Vulgate and Jerome translate supersubstantialis, and the Catholic Douai version, “our supersubstantial bread”—which but few will understand—meaning the bread above (ἐπί) all nature (οὐσία), “the Bread of Life.” The best efforts to date regard οὐσία as the root in the sense: was zum Dasein gehoert, what belongs to our existence; hence: “our needful bread,” Am. Com., R. V., and the exhaustive discussion in C.-K. 407, etc.
This adjective which is appended by a second article (R. 776, see v. 6) makes the adjective a kind of climax to the emphatic noun. The disciples, as God’s children, receive all their bread as a gift from their Father’s hand. “Give us this day” is interpreted by Luke, “go on giving us (δίδου, present imperative) day by day.” We are to be satisfied with having enough for the day. Thus we are to renew our petition daily, always depending wholly on our Father. God often and generally gives us far more than enough for the day; but even in the midst of great plenty (which may be swept away in an instant) our real safety lies in the Father alone. Jesus excludes greed and worry. Ps. 37:25.
Matthew 6:12
12 And dismiss for us our debts as we, too, did dismiss our debtors. Here the verb is placed first and thus is emphatic: “dismiss,” “send away,” “as far as the east is from the west,” so that they will never be found. The ὀφειλήματα, “debts” or “obligations” which we must justly meet Luke defines as our “sins,” ἁμαρτίαι. It goes without saying that this dismissal is effected by grace alone, through Christ, by contrition and faith—justification by faith alone. On debts and on our debtors see Matt. 18:23, etc. So great are our debts to God that we can never hope to pay them, and our only help is that God will remit them gratis, by way of gift, for Christ’s sake.
The aorist expresses definite, final remission. This tense does not say that God is to remit daily; this is not needed since our prayer is renewed daily. Justification is continuous: “richly and daily forgives all sins to me and all believers,” Luther.
The ὡς is not causal (R. 963, 967); it does not state the reason why God should treat us likewise but the necessary requisitium subjecti (Calov) without which no believer would dare to appear before God to ask for his remission. In view of the remission we think of asking for, our hearts must be cleansed of all resentment against others. The aorist ἀφήκαμεν designates an act that just happened (R. 967), i.e., that we have now remitted although we may not at once have done so when we were sinned against. “To dismiss our debtors” means that we no longer consider them as debtors. Their debts to us are as nothing compared with what we owe God. Our forgiving others is the evidence that God’s grace has really wrought faith in us and made us his children.
Matthew 6:13
13 And bring us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil. From past sins the prayer turns to possible future sins and dangers. James 1:13 settles the matter as far as the tempter is concerned. James 1:2–4, 12; 1 Pet. 4:12, 13 settle the point that we are bound to be tempted and tried in this life. 1 Cor. 10:13 indicates how God answers this sixth petition. “Temptation” is here used in the pregnant sense, referring not only to the act of tempting or of being tempted but to any situation in which, because of our own weakness and Satan’s cunning, we should succumb to sin. The realm of attractive things where our lusts may carry us away and the realm of direful things, pain, shame, etc., where fright and cowardice may bring us to fall are included. Our petition, then, is the opposite of false security, temerity, and presumption.
We ask our Father to take providential charge of us and thus not to bring us into temptation in the effective sense; hence, to keep us out of some situations because our faith could not endure them (example, Peter) and in other situations so to strengthen us that we may be victorious. Two things stand out in this petition: the faith which dreads the fall and the assurance that in his own way God will not let us fall.
The adversative ἀλλά does not combine the sixth and the seventh petitions into one. The two are too diverse to form two halves of a whole, one being the negative side, the other the positive. Even such repetition is avoided in this prayer. “But” is due merely to the negative form of the sixth petition. The aorist ῥῦσαι implies effective and thus also complete and final deliverance. The newer commentators as well as Luther and the A. V. regard ἀπὸτοῦπονηροῦ as neuter: “from the evil,” not as masculine: “from the evil one,” the devil.
All moral wickedness is referred to, and pain and distress only in so far as they may injure our souls. While the abstract term “temptation” might connote the devil, the sixth petition speaks of providential leadings and thus avoids this connotation and its implication in the seventh petition. Thus the deliverance we ask, while it includes rescue from wickedness throughout our lives, really asks for deliverance from the entire wicked world by a blessed death. In the nature of the case this is the final petition—we need nothing more when it is at last granted. Thus these seven petitions form a complete circle. The seventh links into the first.
God’s name and revelation bring us the grace by which we shall be delivered from this wicked world. In this respect the Lord’s Prayer resembles the Ten Commandments: the fear and love of God is to free us from all coveting and lust.
The textual authority for the genuineness of the doxology with the amen is rather greater than one is led to think by commentators who sometimes refer to 2 Tim. 4:18 as the source. It seems that the doxology was added when the prayer came to be used in the church and thus was inserted with some variations into copies of Matthew’s Gospel. The doxology with its ascription of praise eminently fits the prayer although it is hardly derived from Second Timothy. We have no reason to eliminate it when we now use the prayer.
Matthew 6:14
14 To the prayer Jesus adds an explanation regarding the way in which to pray it aright. For if you dismiss for men their missteps, your heavenly Father will dismiss them also for you; but if you do not dismiss for men their missteps, neither will your Father dismiss your missteps. This explanation (γάρ), added to the prayer, does not refer only to the fifth petition, as is supposed, nor only to the last three petitions, but refers to the entire prayer. Luther sees the connection when he says that here Christ throws a band around all Christians. Remember, we are to pray, and this we is plural, and that means not only for each other but also in union with each other. From the first “our” to the last “us” we pray as brethren.
The one thing that makes us the Father’s children and thus brethren who can pray as such, is the fact that our sins are forgiven. If they are not forgiven, we are out of the sacred circle, and all our praying is vain. Now one of the plain marks by which we can judge where we stand, is our own forgiveness of others. For, if we forgive, God forgives us, and then we can pray this prayer; if we do not forgive, God does not forgive us, and we are out of the prayer. Of course, all this refers to v. 12, yet not as explaining that petition but as something that is wider and greater.
In τοῖςἀνθρώποις Jesus includes all men, even non-disciples. The παράπτωμα is any act by which one falls to the side (παρά), off the right path, thus “a misstep,” “a blunder.” This word is used extensively as a designation of sin. We cannot call it a mild term, as some do; for it indicates only one side of sin, a fatal misstep, just as ἁμαρτία denotes another, a missing of the mark. Jesus uses παραπτώματα for the same reason that he used ὀφειλήματα in v. 12: he selects a term which fits both men’s offenses against us and our offenses against God. In v. 14 the contrast is between the persons: “for men,” “also for you.”
Matthew 6:15
15 But in v. 15 the contrast is between the missteps, hence this term is repeated, and the second dative ὑμῖν is omitted.
Matthew 6:16
16 Moreover, whenever you are fasting be not as the hypocrites, melancholy; for they make unsightly their faces in order to make a sight to men as fasting. Amen, I say to you, that they have their reward in full. Fasting often accompanied prayer. In this, too, “the hypocrites” (see v. 2) should be a warning to the disciples for they make themselves look “melancholy” and woebegone. The law required fasting only on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:27, etc.). The Jews fasted also on anniversaries of national calamities and in cases of great drought.
Here, however, Jesus refers to private fasting such as was practiced by the Pharisees on every Thursday (when Moses ascended Mt. Sinai) and on Monday (when he came down again). Fasting and sorrow went together. It had its place in Judaism not as an ascetic practice but as an accompaniment of prayer when expressing deep sorrow for sin and asking God to turn his penalties away. But the Pharisees practiced private fasting as a means to secure the reputation of great holiness among the people. The wordplay in ἀφανίζουσι and φανῶσι we endeavor to imitate by the translation, “make unsightly,” “to make a sight.” They disfigured their faces with ashes so that they became “unseen” and thus made “a sight” of them for men.
On “amen,” etc., see v. 2. Since they were seeking the applause of men alone, when they got it, they had the coin they wanted, paid down at once and in full.
17, 18) But thou, when fasting, oil thy head and wash thy face in order that thou make no display to men as fasting but to thy Father in secret; and thy Father, who sees in secret, will give thee what is due. Jesus offers no new law in regard to fasting and does not interfere with the voluntary custom of fasting. But all hypocrisy in fasting is abominable to him. He forbids any and all display of this religious practice before men. “Oil thy head and wash thy face” is in opposition to making the face unsightly, hence is not figurative but a concrete way of expressing the thought for Jewish hearers: “in order that thou make no display (φανῶσι as in v. 5) to men as fasting.” Do your fasting in secret to the Father who sees in secret, and when it is done thus in purity of heart, he will reward you (see the conclusion of v. 6).
Matthew 6:19
19 Hypocrisy deceives others, yet it deceives the person guilty of it most of all. From the deception of others Jesus now turns to the deception of self; and the example he uses is the seeking of perishable treasures instead of the imperishable. The cure for this folly is the same as the cure for all deception: the disciples must keep the Father before their eyes. Note how “Father” is thus repeated in v. 26 and 32; even the reference to what “the Gentiles do” is renewed in v. 32. This answers the assertion that v. 19–29 are not original in the Sermon on the Mount, and that the true place for them is Luke 12:22, etc.
Do not treasure for yourselves treasures on the earth where moth and eating make things disappear, and where thieves break through and steal; but treasure for yourselves treasures in heaven where neither moth nor eating makes things disappear, and where thieves do not break through nor steal; for where your treasure is, there will be also your heart. Jesus might have continued with another ὅταν clause followed by a negative command (as in v. 2, 5, 16): “Whenever you treasure treasures do not be like those who deceive themselves.” Since from the hypocrites (v. 3, 5, 16) he turns to self-deception he varies the form and starts with the negative command, “do not treasure.” Here the present imperative may mean, “stop treasuring,” forbidding something the disciples were already doing, R. 853. “To treasure treasure” (cognate object) makes the thought highly emphatic, especially by the repetition in v. 20.
Graphically Jesus brings out the self-deception. To treasure treasures that take wings and disappear, ἀφανίζειν (as in v. 16), “to make to vanish,” “to take from sight,” is to deceive and cheat oneself. You think you have treasures and in reality you do not have them. Instead of describing the perishable nature of these treasures by a relative clause, “which disappear,” Jesus names the place “where” these treasures are stored: “on the earth, where,” etc. This is no place to store treasures, for here on earth any treasures we may seek to keep for ourselves (ὑμῖν here has the force of a reflexive) are subject to all manner of destructive forces. Three of these Jesus names, and the first two are combined.
Because σής and βρῶσις are named together; the latter is thought to have a meaning that is similar to the former. Yet βρῶσις means simply “eating,” either the act of eating as distinguished from βρῶμα, the food eaten, or das Essen, the food and the act of eating combined. In order to get a mate to “moth” βρῶσις is taken to mean “Fresser” and thus “rust” or “corrosion.” The Hebrew is referred to in order to secure such a meaning, but it would have this meaning in this passage only. The simple fact is that βρῶσις means “eating” and nothing else. In v. 25, etc., clothing and food are again mentioned as a treasure about which men worry. So here “moth and eating” are the two that make clothes and human food disappear.
A moth-eaten garment, however fine, is unsightly and is thrown away, and our food disappears by being eaten either by ourselves or by vermin. The only alternative worthy of consideration is that “moth and eating” are a hendiadys, the moth’s eating; but this would make the first ὅπου clause refer only to clothes.
The third way in which earthly treasures of all kinds disappear is by the work of thieves who “dig through and steal.” The two “where” clauses are, of course, not exhaustive. Clothes wear out, food spoils, and we lose valuables in other ways than by theft. But these three specifications are sufficient to indicate how foolish it is to lay up treasures on earth. Though we succeed in keeping the moth and the thieves away, all earthly treasures are transient because they are subject to destructive forces.
Matthew 6:20
20 Just as the negative present imperative may mean, “stop treasuring,” so the positive may mean, “start treasuring.” “In heaven” is the direct opposite of “on the earth.” The places mark and characterize the respective treasures. Those we lay up “in heaven” are neither fine garments, rich and abundant bodily food, nor earthly valuables of any kind; hence “where neither moth nor eating,” etc. What these heavenly treasures are we are told in v. 33: “the kingdom and his righteousness.”
Matthew 6:21
21 The γάρ clause states why the place is so important in the matter of treasures and of treasuring. What really makes a treasure valuable is the affection of the heart. He whose treasures are on earth has his heart anchored to the earth; he whose treasures are in heaven has his heart anchored there. The earth and all its treasures must pass away; what, then, about the heart that loses all its treasures? Heaven alone abides forever; the heart whose treasures are there will never lose them.
Matthew 6:22
22 Since by setting its affection upon something the heart makes a treasure of it, everything depends upon the eye. The lamp of the body is the eye. The predicate is placed forward for the sake of emphasis, and the article used with it shows that the predicate is identical with the subject, R. 768. The proposition is self-evident. The eye is the one member of the body which acts as a lamp by which a man sees. The context, however, limits the application to the treasures which the earth offers to the body. These seek to captivate the eye and thus to win the heart and the body and their affection. The thought that the eye furnishes the necessary light for all bodily actions is quite foreign to the connection.
Everything thus depends on the spiritual quality of the eye. If, therefore, thy eye be single, the entire body will be full of light; but if thy eye be wicked, thy entire body will be full of darkness. When he speaks of the eye with reference to the body, Jesus has in mind the earthly treasures which captivate the eye. These are bodily treasures, such as rich clothing, wealth of food, money, and other valuables. How these treasures will be viewed by the eye in regard to the body will depend upon whether the eye is “single” or “wicked.” The fact that ἁπλοῦς and πονηρός are opposite conditions goes without saying. But some think that here these adjectives are part of the figure and thus describe the natural eye.
Because πονηρός was used by Plato with reference to a diseased eye (in the expression πονηρίαὀφθαλμῶν), it is assumed that the adjective here means a “diseased” eye, and that ἁπλοῦς, therefore, must mean a sound or “healthy” eye, although not a single instance of this meaning has been found. This disease is thought to have been ophthalmia. But this view loses sight of the connection.
Both ἁπλοῦς and πονηρός are spiritual qualities. The eye that is “single” looks to the one thing alone that is named in v. 33. It sees this and this alone as its true treasure. And thus the entire body will be φωτεινόν, “full of light,” never for a moment deceiving itself in regard to bodily and earthly treasures as though these were genuine.
Matthew 6:23
23 But the eye that is πονηρός (a term that is far stronger than κακός), “wicked,” godless, idolatrous, looks at earthly treasures in a corresponding way. It places these ahead of God and his kingdom. Hence the entire body is σκοτεινόν, “full of darkness,” full of the self-deception which places bodily and earthly treasures ahead of all others and sees them as the only possessions that are worth-while. Jesus, therefore, exclaims: If, therefore, the light in thee is darkness, how great that darkness! The two preceding ἐάν clauses speak of expected cases; the εἰ clause contemplates an actual case. This is described by a striking paradox: if the light is darkness.
The idea is not that the eye is blind. In this case the natural eye sees just as perfectly as the natural eye of the true disciple. But instead of being a light to the person concerned it is in reality darkness. Seeing, it does not see what is so plainly to be seen and thus it deceives. The addition of ἐνσοί with a second article makes the phrase equally emphatic with the noun it modifies: “the light, the one in thee,” R. 776, etc.; see v. 6. Here we have the commentary on the eye that is not “single” but “wicked.” The repetition of τὸσκότος makes the term decidedly emphatic.
The very organ that ought to furnish “light” furnishes nothing but “darkness.” In drastic language the light is darkness. “That darkness (the article of previous reference) how great!”
Matthew 6:24
24 Thus far the contrasts are exclusive: either treasures on earth or treasures in heaven. The self-deception thus lies in choosing the one kind in place of the other. Now Jesus turns to the self-deception which would grasp at both. No one can be a slave to two masters. The proposition is again self-evident. The emphasis is on δουλεύειν with which, as a matter of course, goes the idea of having a master.
The matter is viewed exclusively from the standpoint of the slave; hence οὐδείς is the subject. How two masters would act in such a case is not touched upon. A slave’s person and his work belong wholly to his master. This excludes the possibility of devoting himself and his work to a second master. Two masters or even more might own a slave jointly and might even share in his service; but this would make the two one, and this thought is thus not a contradiction of the proposition. The thought that underlies this word of Jesus is the fact that no man is his own master; it is ingrained in our very nature that our heart, will, and work be governed by another.
The only question is who this other shall be.
With γάρ Jesus elucidates the impossibility from the standpoint of the slave. Suppose he did try to be a slave to two masters. The two masters would surely not consent to such a thing, and the slave would only make a fool of himself to make such an attempt. For either he will hate the one and will love the other or he will hold to one and will despise the other; and thus the slave himself will demonstrate that he cannot be a slave to two masters. Hate and love refer to the slave’s inner, personal motive, while hold to and despise refer to the nature of his actions. After all, the slave makes one of the two his real master.
It is mere self-delusion to think that he is really a slave to both masters. In ἀγαπᾶν, although the word is here used with reference to a mere slave, we have the love that involves a certain intelligence plus the corresponding purpose; more is intended than simple φιλεῖν or liking. Note the contrast between ἀντί and κατά in the compound verbs: “to hold oneself face to face with”—“to think down or against someone,” R. 573. Here ἕτερος is proper, not ἄλλος, because the two masters Jesus has in mind are opposites, R. 749.
Since all this is so plain and self-evident, Jesus makes the application: You cannot be slaves to God and to mamon (all the uncials and most of the minuscules have μαμωνᾷ, with one m). The cunning which would try to divide its devotion and its service between these two masters cannot possibly succeed; it only deceives itself. While the derivation of μαμωνᾶς has not been determined (C.-K. 712), its meaning is plain. It is not the name of an idol but a designation for valuable possessions, was probably of Aramaic origin and yet current among the ancient Greek Christians and needed no translation, so that even Luke 16:13 retains the word much as we do today. This word enables Jesus to name the second master as though he, too, were a kind of god, the opposite of the true God to whom alone the disciples should be attached.
Matthew 6:25
25 On the principle thus laid down and elucidated Jesus rests the admonitions and the illustrations which ought to keep us undivided slaves of God and free us from all attachment to mamon. For this reason I say to you, Stop worrying for your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink; nor yet for your body, what you shall put on. The present imperative implies that the disciples had worried, and that this is to cease, R. 853. The word ψυχή refers to the immaterial part of man as this animates the material (the body), hence in this connection the meaning is “your life,” and the dative is the ordinary dative of advantage, “for your life,” R. 538. The first two questions form a pair. The worry about drink refers to the hot climate of Palestine and to the lack of water in that rugged land.
Food and drink we need daily, clothes last longer, hence they are placed last. The subjunctives of deliberation are retained in the indirect discourse which changes the first person (v. 31) to the second, R. 1028, 1044. Compare the treasures indicated in v. 19. Worry about earthly and bodily needs turns the heart from God.
Is not the life more than the nourishment, and the body more than the thing put on? This question uses the argument from the greater to the less. Will he who gave us our life and the body fail to give us the little food we need and the few garments we require? The most elementary logic ought to place every disciple above worry.
Matthew 6:26
26 A simple illustration drives this truth home. Look at the birds of the heaven, that they do not sow nor reap nor gather into storehouses; and your heavenly Father nourishes them. Are you not far superior to them? Luther pictures the little birds as “live saints” who sing their praises to God without the least worry and are fed by him day by day. They are even without our advantages, for we can sow, reap, and store up supplies whereas they live from hand to mouth. Yet see how God feeds them!
What old fools are we who cannot learn from them! The argument is now reversed, from the less to the greater. The verb διαφέρω, literally “to bear apart,” means “to differ” (R. 581), i.e., advantageously. We are “by far” (μᾶλλον) different, i.e., superior to them. Will God nourish birds and forget his own children? Here again the keyword “your heavenly Father” appears.
The cure for all hypocrisy (v. 2–18) and for all self-deception is this that we keep our eyes upon this Father. Though he made the birds and feeds them, he is in the relation of a “Father” only to us who are his children in Christ Jesus. To us he is far more than he is to the birds.
Matthew 6:27
27 The question about the length of life completes the thought connected with the birds and their food. Moreover, who of you, by worrying, is able to add to his lifetime a single half yard? While ἡλικία is used with reference to stature, it is also used with reference to length of life. Here we have no reason to think of stature, which produces a ridiculous thought. Who except a dwarf or a child would want to be a half yard taller? Nor does πῆχυς the length of a forearm, about 18 inches, compel us to think of bodily height. Ps. 39:5 speaks of the length of life as “a handbreadth,” a few inches. Other examples have been found where linear measures are used when speaking of time. Worry does not lengthen life, it usually shortens life. The participle indicates means: “by worryng,” R. 1128.
Matthew 6:28
28 From food Jesus turns to dress and uses another example from nature. And concerning something to put on (ἔνδυμα, as in v. 25), why are you worrying? when it is equally useless, foolish, and hurtful? Consider well the lilies of the field, how they grow. They do not toil nor do they spin. Yet I say to you, that even Solomon in all his glory did not robe himself like one of these. The aorist imperative implies actual learning, and κατά makes the verb perfective: “learn well or thoroughly” the lilies.
As “the birds of the heaven” in v. 26 are those that fly freely, so “the lilies of the field” are those that grow wild, without human care. The point to be noted regarding them is “how they grow.” Without labor of any kind and without spinning a thread they come to wear garments so exquisite that Jesus exclaims:
Matthew 6:29
29 “I tell you” their garment exceeds all that Solomon at the height of his royal glory ever wore, περιεβάλετο, “threw around himself” (middle, R. 807) in the way of a regal robe. And he certainly was Israel’s most magnificent king. “Like one of these” bids us pause and marvel at even one of the lovely flowers. Jesus spoke these words in the open, which makes the reference to the birds and the lilies the more effective. Just what flower κρίνον designates no one really knows. Some have thought of the iris, others of more than one variety of flower.
Matthew 6:30
30 Again the application employs the argument from the less to the greater and with overwhelming effect. But if the grass of the field which today exists and tomorrow is thrown into an oven God thus enrobes, how much more not you, men of little faith! The flowers that Jesus refers to have a grasslike foliage and are thus called χόρτος as are all plants of this type. Some think that actual grass is referred to, the lilies growing in the grassy field and thus decorating the grass. But this view is shut out by the verb ἀμφιέννυσι, “to clothe round about,” which refers to the flowers and not to ordinary grass. Both the designation “grass” for the little lily plants and the description of their brief life and beauty heighten the contrast with the disciples who are destined for eternal life.
In a country where fuel was scarce dried grass and stalks of all kinds were used to heat ovens for baking. Combined with the appeal from the less to the greater is a second appeal that is just the reverse, from the greater to the less. If God enrobes the lowly and ephemeral lilies so gorgeously, he surely will give common garments to his far higher creatures. In v. 26 “your Father” rested the appeal on the special relation of children to their heavenly Parent. Now Jesus adds that already as “God,” our Creator, under whose benign providence all his children live, he will provide us with the needful clothing.
The apodosis needs no verb and is thus the more incisive: “how much more not you!” The negative οὐ implies an affirmative reply. Ὀλιγόπιστοι is a distinctive New Testament term. It is found four times in Matthew, once in Luke: “men of little trust.” This address, placed effectively at the end, shows that Jesus is still speaking of the disciples although he uses “God” and not “your Father.” While the term admits the trust of the disciples it reproves the littleness of this trust as this is evidenced by the worry that still persists. Our trust ought to shut out every bit of worry.
Matthew 6:31
31 Hence (οὖν) the admonition: Do not, therefore, worry, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, With what shall we enrobe ourselves? In v. 25 the present imperative forbids the worrying already begun: “stop worrying”; now the aorist follows (a subjunctive because negative commands use this mode in the aorist) forbidding all worrying as such: “do not worry at all.” The order is quite peremptory because it is an aorist. In the three questions the subjunctives are deliberative, all in direct discourse, and all disjunctively parallel; in v. 25 they are in indirect discourse, and the first two are drawn together. No question such as these three—and many more might be added—is ever to worry our hearts.
Matthew 6:32
32 The two γάρ add two connected reasons. For all these things the Gentiles seek after; for your heavenly Father knows that you have need of these things all. To the first negative reason the second positive reason is added as its counterpart. In v. 7 the ἐθνικοί are the Gentiles as pagan individuals; here τὰἔθνη are all the pagan nations. Worry is like heathen unbelief. The pagan world knows nothing about God who is “our Father” (6:9) in Christ Jesus.
Their moral life is according. In v. 7 Jesus has pointed to Gentile men as a horrible example. Do the disciples want to descend to this abominable level? Since Jesus is speaking to Jews, this reference to the Gentiles is highly effective. Note that in πάνταταῦτα, “all these things,” and then in τούτωνἁπάντων, “these things all,” the first words have the emphasis, R. 705. Pagan people imagine that they themselves must provide for their needs, hence their seeking is bent upon (ἐπί in the verb) all these things.
The disciples live in a higher world, they have a Father in heaven. And “he knows that you have need of these things all.” Compare v. 8: “even before you ask him.” Being, indeed, “your Father,” of a heavenly character, almighty and full of love especially for his children, he will act accordingly. Leave all your worries to him.
Matthew 6:33
33 The disciples, too, will seek; but they will seek something that is far beyond the thought of the heathen world. But be seeking first the kingdom and the righteousness that are his, and these things all will be added unto you. This supreme seeking, described as hunger and thirst in 5:6, is the distinctive mark of all true disciples. We may translate the present imperative, “go on seeking.” The desire for the kingdom and the righteousness is constantly satisfied, for what we seek is ours by grace; and yet the seeking is always to continue, for the object of our desire can be ever more fully attained. This seeking is, of course, in no sense synergistic but the desire of the regenerate and believing heart to enter ever more fully into union with God. Grace kindles the desire and keeps it ever active in this life.
On “the kingdom” compare 5:3; also 3:2 and 6:10; on “the righteousness,” 5:6. Here the two are combined, for αὐτοῦ belongs to both. To seek “his kingdom” is to desire more and more participation in the rule of the Father’s grace in Christ, enjoying more and more the blessings (5:3, etc.) of that rule of grace which eventually becomes a rule of glory. Only the righteous participate in the kingdom, hence all seeking of the kingdom is at the same time a seeking after “his righteousness,” that which he has prepared for us in Christ, bestows upon us by faith, and ever acknowledges as righteousness in his judgment. “To seek” means on our part “to seek to obtain and enjoy.” The pronoun “his” makes the treasures sought stand out as objective; they are God’s, as C.-K. 317 states: God’s royal rule and his righteousness, i.e., “that he himself in his absolute majesty receive his rights.” For by pronouncing us righteous and thereby making us partakers of his kingdom God is vindicated both in his royal rule, as the “only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15)), and in his own perfect righteousness.
The adverb πρῶτον does not imply that we may make earthly treasures the object of our seeking as long as we put them in second place. This would contradict all that Jesus has said. In the very next clause he tells us that “these things all shall be added unto us,” thrown in, as it were, for good measure. On the other hand, “first” or “in the first place” does not imply that he who seeks the kingdom first will seek nothing more. After the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer comes the fourth. The promises given to prayer are entirely general, covering every need.
He who seeks the kingdom, etc., first will seek all other things from the Father in the right way, by humble and submissive prayer, without worry, and without a false estimate of these other things. Thus Christ’s promise will be fulfilled: “these all” will be supplied to you, 1 Kings 3:11, etc.; 1 Tim. 4:8.
Matthew 6:34
34 In conclusion the command of v. 31 is repeated but with a new and final modification. Do not, therefore, worry into the morrow, for the morrow will worry for itself. Sufficient for the day is the trouble thereof. We translate, “into the morrow,” for εἰς indicates either the limit (as in this case) or the duration (“until”), R. 594. We are not to go from today into tomorrow with worry. “For the morrow” in the sense of “about tomorrow” would require a genitive (as in the last clause) or an accusative or a different preposition. The idea that we may worry about today but not about tomorrow is shut out. Of course, ἡαὔριον (supply ἡμέρα) refers to any morrow, thus reaching into the indefinite future.
The morrow “will worry for itself” is a striking personification which bids us throw all our worries onto the morrow and thus go on without worry day after day. If the morrow is to do the worrying, we are free; and as the morrow is always in the future and just beyond us, our worries are also always to be beyond our reach. The idea is not, “Let God worry!” for he never worries. Nor, “Wait until the morrow comes and then worry!” for the morrow always moves on, and the idea that it becomes today is far from the thought of this striking statement. Nor can we change the meaning of μεριμνήσει into something good such as, “will take care of itself”; for the verb runs through this entire section and should not be given a new and even opposite meaning in this final statement. No; the morrow is never here, it does not exist today.
If, then, the morrow is to do the worrying, no worrying will ever be done. And that is what Jesus desires.
Why not be satisfied with today as though it did not have enough κακία, and we had to go into the future to borrow more? Here κακία cannot mean moral evil but refers to the natural trouble, pain, and burdens incident to our present life; it is well translated by Luther with Plage, “plague.” Each day has its own sufficient share of “trouble,” ἀρκετόν, neuter; yet this is not a breach in gender with regard to the feminine κακία, R.411.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.