- Jeff ... The key to this is on earth as it is in heaven. In heaven god s will is done perfectly. It is an absurdity to think that god s will can be done onMessage 1 of 5 , Feb 5, 1999View SourceJeff
> > Third, there is the implication of Matthew's expansion and explicationThe key to this is "on earth as it is in heaven." In heaven god's
> > of the petition ELHETW hH BASILEIA SOU with the phrase "May your will be
> > done, On earth as it is in
> > heaven" (GENHTHHTW TO THELHMA SOU, hWS EN OURANW KAI EPI GHS, Matt.
> > 6:10b,c). If we assume, as I think we should, that the concern of this
> > explicatory phrase is God's enabling of the disciples' obedience in the
> > face of a desire to be otherwise
> But while we're on the topic, do you see any reason why it *shouldn't*
> be seen as explication?
will is done perfectly. It is an absurdity to think that
god's will can be done on earth as it is in heaven and so, at most,
it can be asserted that this is the statement of an (unattainable)
ideal and, as such, trivial. Much the same as if the next petition
were "give us this day hundreds of pounds of gold." It is
absurd as "God's enabling of the disciples' obedience in the face
of a desire to be otherwise" because there are no instances of god
doing such a thing, and because the petition is a general request
"on earth" that is not directed to the obedience of a specific
individual or set of individuals. If it is a request that god
eradicate disciples' free will, it is certainly theologically
problematic. But see # below.
What then? The petition means what it says. It asks for a change
of circumstances such that in regard to god's will being done
there be no distinction between heaven and earth. Under what
circumstances will this situation pertain? When god's kingdom
Thus one can argue that either "thy will be done on earth as
it is in heaven" is an absurdity, i.e. a pious triviality, or that it
is meant as stated. If it is meant as stated it must be an
explication of the foregoing "thy kingdom come" for under
those circumstances it is entailed.
# It is the case that there is no free will in heaven (and so
many theodicies can be rejected). If in fact the petition is
as you describe it, a request for the eradication of free will,
then this too indicates that the kingdom of god is demanded
for insofar as there is no free will and god's will is done,
the kingdom is here.
Thy kingdom come (and so therefore) thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
- (Assuming that the previous discussion is vaguely recalled,) In a message dated 2/5/1999 1:48:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,Message 2 of 5 , Feb 7, 1999View Source(Assuming that the previous discussion is vaguely recalled,)
In a message dated 2/5/1999 1:48:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
I accept your criticism. You are quite right that here I have assumed,
but not demonstrated, that the "your will be done" petition is
explication of "let your kingdom come". I think it *can* be
demonstrated, but given what I was trying to solicit comments on, it
seemed to me that to do so would have been a digression.
But while we're on the topic, do you see any reason why it *shouldn't*
be seen as explication?>>
Not really, but one would then certainly have to throw the previous line into
the mix as well: "hallowed be thy name". Formally, the three lines in 6:9c and
6:10a and b are very close and seem also to be interrelated in sense. That
"explication" is the correct designation of the relationship between 6:10b and
6:10a is perhaps still open to question or refinement, especially in light of
the third element here introduced. Perhaps all three lines "explicate" the
meaning of the vocative "our Father", and if so, your interpretation of "thy
kingdom come" would seem as good as, if not better than, the traditional one.
I don't know if these remarks bring the discussion forward in any way.
<< I wonder, too, with respect to Rev. 22:20c as a parallel to Matt. 6:10,
whether (a) anyone disputes that it *is* a parallel and (b) whether
anyone knows of *any other* instances in both biblical and secular Greek
of the use of an imperative form of ERCHOMAI + subject?
>>To (a), it is difficult to deny that there is SOME level of parallel between
the two texts, but the differences between the two, it seems to me, should
also be carefully noted before any conclusions are drawn. I am saying this
with only a vague recollection of how you exploited the parallel in your
original post. To (b), it should be noted that kyrie Ieesou is actually a
vocative, and therefore not strictly the grammatical subject of the verb, as
with he basileia sou of Matt 6:10.