This book presents a detailed textual analysis of Calvin’s Interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer, from the last version of the institution de la religion chrétienne (1560), Chapter XX. The author also compares the French Reformer with some of the most important theologians from Augustine to Luther. ISBN 978-3-8233-8119-8 J.H. Mazaheri Calvin’s Interpretation of ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ 78 Calvin’s Interpretation of ‘The Lord’s Prayer’. A Rhetorical Approach by J.H. Mazaheri études littéraires françaises · 78 études littéraires françaises collection fondée par Wolfgang Leiner directeur: Rainer Zaiser Calvin’s Interpretation of ‘The Lord’s Prayer’. A Rhetorical Approach by J. H. Mazaheri Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Natio‐ nalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http: / / dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2017 · Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Ver‐ lages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Überset‐ zungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Gedruckt auf säurefreiem und alterungsbeständigem Werkdruckpapier. Internet: www.narr.de E-Mail: info@narr.de Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-8233-8119-8 To my family 9 11 I. 11 II. 13 III. 15 IV. 16 V. 21 VI. 27 I. 32 I. 32 I.1. 32 I.2. 33 II. 38 II. 42 I. 43 II. 46 III. 50 I. 50 II. 55 58 IV. 59 I. 59 I.1. 59 I.2. 60 I.3. 61 Table of contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Language of Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Prayer vs Private Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bodily Gestures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Way to Pray and the Duration of Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “Pater noster” as a Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Division of the “Lord’s Prayer” into Six Petitions . . . . . . . The address to the Father: “Our Father in Heaven” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Our Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Praying in the name of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Father’s Kindness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who art in Heaven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The first petition: “Hallowed by Thy name” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The 1541-1557 editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The 1560 edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The second petition: “Thy kingdom come” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Institutes 1541-1557 (French) editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The last version of The Institutes (the 1560 French edition) . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The third petition: “Thy will be done” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The 1541-57 editions of the Institutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Only God’s Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Devil and the Reprobates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Our duty and our promise to God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. 62 II.1. 62 II.2. 63 II.3. 64 II.4. 66 III. 68 V. 69 I. 69 II. 71 II. 1. 71 II. 2. 71 II. 3. 72 II. 4. 73 III. 74 III. 1. 74 III. 2. 74 IV. 75 IV. 1. 75 IV. 2. 76 V. 77 V. 1. 78 V. 2. 78 V. 3. 79 VI. 80 VI. 1. 80 VI. 2. 82 VI. 3. 84 VI. 4. 85 VII. 85 VII. 1. 87 VII. 2. 88 The 1560’s edition of the Institutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Will of God, and the Relation between the Third and the Second Petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God’s Secret Will versus the Will indicated in the Third Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God’s Council and the Angel’s role model . . . . . . . . . . . Confessing our natural perversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tertullian (160-220) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Origen (182-254) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The symbolic “Bread” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The variety of “foods” and “needful” (“epiousios”) vs harmful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The adverb “Daily” in “Give us today our daily bread” The word “Today” in “Give us today…” . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cyprian (c. 200-258) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From the “spiritual” viewpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From the “material” viewpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St Gregory of Nyssa (335-395) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Bread”, as a symbol for material life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “Daily Bread” in relation to Righteousness and Hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Augustine (354-430) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The material sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The liturgical sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The spiritual sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martin Luther (1483-1546) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Only Concerning Our Earthly Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Praying for everyone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “Daily Bread” and the “Devil” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean Calvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Notion of “Daily Bread” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Materialism” and Human Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of contents 6 VII. 3. 89 VII. 4. 91 VII. 5. 92 VII. 6. 93 VI. 95 I. 95 II. 97 III. 98 IV. 99 V. 102 VII. 106 I. 106 II. 108 III. 110 IV. 111 IV.1. 112 IV.2. 113 IV. 3. 113 IV. 4. 114 IV. 5. 116 IV. 6. 117 IV. 7. 117 IV. 8. 118 V. 121 VIII. 123 126 130 137 On “Epiousios” (ἐπιούσιος) translated by “Supersubstantial” (supersubstantialis) . . . . . . . . . . . The meaning of “Our” in “Our Daily Bread” . . . . . . . . . On “This Day” and “Daily” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The fifth petition: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” . . . . The Relation between the 5th and the 6th Petition . . . . . . . . . On the word “Dette” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On the word “Mérite” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criticism of those who believe in Human Perfection . . . . . . . On “As we forgive our debtors” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The sixth petition: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” One or Two Petitions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Augustine’s Interpretation of “Lead us not into temptation” . Augustine’s Interpretation of “But Deliver us from Evil” . . . . The Last Petition according to Calvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Believer’s Constant war against the Devil . . . . . . . Various kinds of Temptations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal Causes or Fleshly Lusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . External Causes and Usefulness of Temptations . . . . . . The Devil and its Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God’s Will vs Human’s Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How to Deal with the Original Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding remarks: around the Letter of James and on God’s Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding doxology: “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory for ever. Amen” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography (Works Cited) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of contents 7 141 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgments Three chapters of this book appeared earlier in the following journals: Chapter I (“Our Father in Heaven”) in Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 106, 3-4, 2011, 440-451; Chapter II (“Hallowed be Thy Name”) in Freiburger Zeitschrift für Phi‐ losophie und Theologie 60, 2, 2013, 396-403; and Chapter III (“Thy Kingdom Come”) in Zwingliana 40, 2013, 101-111. I thank the respective editors for per‐ mission to reprint them. I am also grateful to the College of Liberal Arts at Auburn University, for the subvention award I received, to Professor Rainer Zaiser, of Kiel University, for publishing this book in ‘Études littéraires françai‐ ses’, as well as to Mrs. Kathrin Heyng, of Gunter Narr Verlag, for all her help. 1 Francis Higman. “Linearity in Calvin’s Thought,” Calvin Theological Journal 26 (1), 1991, 101 (100-110). Introduction ‘The Sermon on the Mount’ is the longest speech delivered by Jesus in the Gospels, taking up three entire chapters (5-7) in the Gospel of Matthew. The “es‐ sence” of Christianity is most eloquently expounded in these chapters. Now the subject of prayer is situated in the middle of it (6: 5-14), and ‘The Lord’s Prayer,’ a model of prayer offered by Christ, exactly at the center of the sermon. This prayer, being the most significant one for Christians of all groups and denomi‐ nations, has evidently brought about countless publications and interpretations, from the greatest theologians to the most common preachers in the world throughout the history of Christianity. John Calvin’s exegesis of it, in his Insti‐ tutes of Christian Religion and in his Commentaries of the Bible, is no doubt among the most profound and influential ones. Fascinated by its depth and powerful presentation, I would like to share here with others my own reading of Calvin, based on his French works. Although the language of the 16 th century can still be considered Middle French, Calvin’s style announces the classical period by its precision, clarity, and methodical presentation. No wonder then, as Francis Higman rightly points out, that “Ever since the first appearance of Calvin’s writings in French, admiration has been expressed for his handling of that language (…). His friends admired his language. His ennemies did too, cal‐ ling it seductive poison and so on …,” and that “J. Plattard described the 1541 Institutes as the ‘first monument of French eloquence’.” 1 I. The Language of Prayer The 20 th Chapter of Book III of the Institutes of Christian Religion is devoted to prayer. Since the present essay only concerns the “Lord’s Prayer,” I put aside the author’s thorough introduction to prayer in general, and focus only on a few points regarding my limited subject. Calvin raises the double issue of hymns and language. With regard to the latter, criticizing the common habit of praying in Latin at church, he argues that when one prays in public, one ought to do it in the language everyone understands: Introduction 11 2 Jean Calvin. Institution de la religion chrestienne. Livre Troisième. Ed. Jean-Daniel Benoît. Paris: Librairie Vrin, 1960 (III, xx, 33, 375). [“From this also it plainly appears that public prayers must be couched not in Greek among the Latins, nor in Latin among the French or English, as has heretofore been the custom, but in the language of the people, which can be generally understood by the whole assembly. For this ought to be done for the edification of the whole church, which receives no benefit whatever from a sound not understood” (Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 2. Ed. John T. McNeill. Transl. Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960, III, xx, 33, 896)]. 3 The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989. Dont aussi il appert que les oraisons publiques ne se doyvent faire n’en langage Grec entre les Latins, n’en Latin entre François ou Anglois (comme la coustume a esté par tout cy devant), mais en langage commun du pays, qui se puisse entendre de toute l’assemblée, puisqu’elles doyvent estre faites à l’édification de toute l’Eglise, à laquelle ne revient aucun fruit d’un bruit non entendu. 2 The reason we pray in public being the “edification” of ourselves and others, it is evident (“il appert”) that we all need to understand what we are saying to God. Otherwise our prayer is useless, as we receive “no benefit” (“aucun fruit”) from it. These words are apparently addressed mainly to a preacher, who might not even care much about his congregation. Calvin’s idea concerning the language in prayer is actually inspired by saint Paul, to whom he explicitly refers. Indeed, the Apostle writes: Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue, should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive. What should I do then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the mind also. Otherwise, if you say a blessing with the spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say the ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving, since the outsider does not know what you are saying? For you may give thanks well enough, but the other person is not built up. (1 Corinthians 14: 13-17) 3 Those who pray without understanding the words may be sincere and pray “with the spirit,” but this is not sufficient: they must understand what they say. In other words, the prayer has to be said with the “mind” too. Calvin shares this idea. Moreover, he himself happens to have the gift of “interpretation”. Alt‐ hough he refers to Paul concerning the language, he goes beyond the First Co‐ rinthians by alluding to insincere preachers, the ones who do not really care about others, or do not pray even with the “spirit”, let alone with the “mind”. The theologian addresses the latter by saying, “Encore ceux qui n’avoyent aucun Introduction 12 4 “Those who have no regard for either love or kindliness ought at least to have been moved a little by the authority of Paul, whose words are perfectly clear” (Institutes III, xx, 33, 896). 5 “However, we must unquestionably feel that, either in public prayer or in private, the tongue without the mind must be highly displeasing to God. Besides, the mind ought to be kindled with an ardor of thought so as far to surpass all that the tongue can express by speaking” (Institutes III, xx, 33, 896). esgard ny à charité ny à humanité se devoyent pour le moins esmouvoir un petit de l’authorité de sainct Paul, duquel les parolles sont assez évidentes…,” and by quoting the First Corinthians 14: 16 (Institution III , xx, 33, 375-76). 4 Strange ex‐ pectation though, for if someone, who prays in public, does it without “charité” or “humanité”, how could he care about Paul himself ? I must also remind the fact that the former term (“charity”) has a religious connotation, being done for God’s sake, whereas the latter (“humanity”) is profane —it is done for human’s sake. II. Public Prayer vs Private Prayer First, praying without sincerity, whether in public or in private, is not only worthless, but also offensive to God. Calvin states that, “Toutesfois il nous faut tousiours penser qu’il ne se peut faire que la langue sans le cœur, soit en oraison particulière ou publique, ne soit fort déplaisante à Dieu. Davantage, que l’ardeur et véhémence du vouloir doit estre si grande, qu’elle outrepasse tout ce que peut exprimer la langue” (Institution III , xx, 33, 376). 5 The word “cœur” (heart) ex‐ presses the idea that we must truly feel what we are saying in our prayer, for without a pure heart and sincere love to God, it will not be heard by Him. A prayer is not genuine if it is devoid of ardor (“ardeur”), which implies devotion and fervor, as well as a passionate will (“véhémence du vouloir”). An important difference, however, is to be noted between the two kinds of prayer: whereas we must utter words out loud when we pray with others, we can be silent when we are alone with God. Praying in silence is then possible insofar as our desire to communicate with God and our “vouloir” (willingness and eagerness to pray) are more important than the words themselves. Besides, the prayer ought to “outrepasse tout ce que peut exprimer la langue” (“to surpass all that the tongue can express by speaking”). And lastly, Finalement, qu’en l’oraison particulière la langue mesme n’est point nécessaire, sinon d’autant que l’entendement n’est point suffisant à s’esmouvoir soy-mesme, ou bien que par esmotion véhémente il pousse la langue, et la contraind de se mettre en œuvre. II. Public Prayer vs Private Prayer 13 6 “Lastly, we should hold that the tongue is not even necessary for private prayer, except in so far as either the inner feeling has insufficient power to arouse itself or as it is so vehemently aroused that it carries with it the action of the tongue. For even though the best prayers are sometimes unspoken, it often happens in practice that, when feelings of mind are aroused, unostentatiously the tongue breaks forth into speech, and the other members into gesture. From this obviously arose that uncertain murmur of Hannah’s [I Sam. 1: 13], something similar to which all the saints continually experience when they burst forth into broken and fragmentary speech” (Institutes III, xx, 33, 896-97). 7 “Mystic” meaning someone “who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths which are beyond the intellect” (Oxford English Dictionary). The Latin adjective mysticus, itself coming from Greek, relates to “sacred mysteries”. The closer one feels to God and com‐ municates with Him through Christ, the more “mystical” one’s experience. Car combien qu’aucunesfois les meilleures oraisons se facent sans parler, néantmoins souvent il advient que l’affection du cœur est si ardente, qu’elle pousse et la langue et les autres membres sans aucune affectation ambitieuse. De là venoit qu’Anne, mère de Samuel, murmurait entre ses lèvres (I Sam. 1,13), voulant prier. Et les fidèles expé‐ rimentent iournellement en eux le semblable, quand en leurs prières ils iettent des voix et souspirs sans y avoir pensé. (Institution III, xx, 33) 6 As we can observe, Calvin’s theology closely follows the Holy Scripture. Indeed, what he says about silent prayer with such mystical fervor is inspired, at least partly, by the First Samuel. The first point is that words are not, in private prayer, indispensable—and actually the best private prayers might even be silent (“com‐ bien qu’aucunesfois les meilleures oraisons se facent sans parler”). The second point, which is the more significant as it reveals a less known aspect of Calvin’s thought, is the emotional element in prayer. The words emphasized are thus, “s’esmouvoir” (to be moved), “esmotion” (emotion), and “cœur” (heart). Furthermore, the adjectives “véhémente”, “ardente”, as well as the phrase “voix et souspirs” (voice and sighs), which ends this passage, all show how one can get emotional when one’s prayer is deeply felt. True religious people experience this kind of prayer, but only those familiar with Calvin’s works know how sen‐ sitive and fervent he himself must have been. 7 Anyhow, the fact of the matter is that one can pray without uttering any word. Furthermore, sometimes, when one gets too emotional, the words come by themselves—one then prays extem‐ pore (“sans y avoir pensé”). Moreover, not only the tongue, but also other parts of the body, in an ecstatic state, might move in praying (“… qu’elle pousse et la langue et les autres membres”). All this has to be of course sincere, unostenta‐ tious, and not caused by any ambitious motive (“sans aucune affectation ambi‐ tieuse”). Introduction 14 8 “As for the bodily gestures customarily observed in praying, such as kneeling and un‐ covering the head, they are exercises whereby we try to rise to a greater reverence for God” (Institutes III, xx, 33, 897). III. Bodily Gestures With regard to one’s posture and gestures in praying, such as kneeling, Calvin declares that these are “exercises” helping us to intensify our deference to God. In other words, they are helpful if sincerely felt, and not automatically or ritually performed: “Quant aux maintiens et façons extérieures du corps qu’on a cous‐ tume d’observer (comme de s’agenouiller et de se deffuler), ce sont exercices par lesquels nous nous efforçons de nous appareiller à plus grande révérence de Dieu” (Institution III , xx, 33, 376). 8 This is something everyone who prays, so‐ mehow at some point, thinks about. Calvin is quite concise on this subject, and has a liberal approach to it, thus remaining faithful to Jesus’ words. The only thing that really matters to him, is that prayer must be genuine and said with the utmost respect to God (“à plus grande révérence de Dieu”), and that is how one’s posture and gestures may become meaningful as well. If we feel that the act of kneeling down (“s’agenouiller”) better expresses our respect to the Father, then we do it withoutout thinking. The same thing could also be said about taking one’s hat off or just any garment—the verb “deffuler” usually refers, in Middle French, to removing one’s hat; but it could also apply to another garment, such an an overcoat. If we feel that we must remove it out of reverence for God, we do it. Here, one just follows the community’s customs (“coustume”). Non‐ etheless, the main point, implicitly expressed, is that a rite by itself is absurd, and only makes sense if it is observed when sincerely needed, in order to glorify God. To better explicit Calvin’s thought, we may think of Moses at the Burning Bush, a holy place where he felt that he had to remove his sandals. There Moses heard the Holy Spirit saying to him: “Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground” (Exodus 3: 5). So if God himself asks you to observe a certain rite—you hear his voice telling you what to do—, you do it. On the other hand, these rites are not important by themselves; that is why Jesus does not attach any importance to them. We just know how he prays himself: alone, with God, and kneeling down—as it is described in Luke 22: 41. Besides, at this particular moment, “In his anguish he prayed more ear‐ nestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground” (Luke 22: 44). This reveals the intensity of his feeling when communi‐ cating with the Father. Although Calvin does not refer to this passage here, he must have this type of examples in mind to understand what he means by “bodily III. Bodily Gestures 15 9 Here is the Reformer’s own translation: “Or quand vous priez, n’usez de vaines redites comme les Payens: car ils cuident estre exaucez par leur long parler. Ne leur ressemblez donc point: car vostre Pere sait dequoy vous avez besoin avant que vous luy demandiez” (Commentaires de Jean Calvin sur la Concordance ou Harmonie, composee de trois Evan‐ gelistes, assavoir saint Matthieu, sainct Marc, & sainct Luc. Genève: Michel Blanchier, 1563, 122). gestures” in praying. Jesus’ ardor and passion are a perfect model of authentic prayer. IV. The Way to Pray and the Duration of Prayer Concerning the way to pray, or how to address God, Jesus says to his follo‐ wers: “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Mat 6: 7-8). 9 Calvin comments the first part (Mat 6: 7) as follows: Il reprend un autre vice en l’oraison, assavoir l’abondance de paroles. Il use de deux divers mots, mais toutefois en un mesme sens. Car, en premier lieu, il met le mot de Battologie, et puis le mot de Polylogie, desquels le premier signifie une repetition et une redite superflue et affectee. L’autre signifie un babil sans substance. Or Christ reprend la folie de ceux lesquels desgoisent beaucoup de paroles, afin de mieux per‐ suader à Dieu ce qu’ils demandent. Et à ceste doctrine n’est point contraire l’assiduité de prier, qui est louée souvent en l’Escriture. Car quand la priere est prononcee d’une vraye affection, la langue ne s’avance point plus que le cœur. En apres, on ne pretend point de plaire à Dieu par une vaine suite de propos, mais plustost le cœur fidele deslasche ses affections, ne plus ne moins que fleches, pour parvenir iusques au ciel. Cependant ceci est pour condamner la superstition de ceux qui pensent par grans barbotemens rendre Dieu propice à leurs prieres. Duquel erreur nous voyons la Pa‐ pauté tellement abbruvee, que le babil est là tenu pour la plus grande vertu de la priere. Car tant plus un chacun barbote longuement, d’autant plus estime-on qu’il ait bien prié. Davantage, leurs temples resonnent sans cesse de longue chantrerie, comme si Introduction 16 10 I modernize the punctuation whenever I quote from the Commentaires sur la Concor‐ dance ou Harmonie…. [“He reproves another fault in prayer, a multiplicity of words. There are two words used, but in the same sense: for βαττολογία is ‘a superfluous and affected repetition,’ and πολυλογία is ‘unmeaning talk.’ Christ reproves the folly of those who, with the view of persuading and entreating God, pour out a superfluity of words. This doctrine is not inconsistent with the praises everywhere bestowed in Scripture on earnestness in prayer: for, when prayer is offered with earnest feeling, the tongue does not go before the heart. Besides, the grace of God is not obtained by an unmeaning flow of words; but, on the contrary, a devout heart throws out its affections, like arrows, to pierce heaven. At the same time, this condemns the superstition of those who entertain the belief, that they will secure the favour of God by long murmurings. We find Popery to be so deeply imbued with this error, that it believes the efficacy of prayer to lie chiefly in talkativeness. The greater number of words that a man mutters, the more diligently he is supposed to have prayed. Long and tedious chanting also, as if it were to soothe the ears of God, continually resounds in their cathedrals.” ( John Calvin. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. 1. Translated by the Rev. William Pringle. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005 Reprint, 313.) See also A. W. Morrison’s translation in A Harmony of the Gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. 1, in Calvin’s Commentaries, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972 (Repr. 1975), 203. la douceur du son retentissoit dedans les aureilles de Dieu pour le flechir à eux. (Commentaires 123) 10 A too long prayer with “abondance de paroles” could even be unethical, if the words are superfluous. The Evangelist uses the Greek term “battology” (βαττολογία), which means, Calvin reminds the reader, vain repetition of words and an affected speech (“une repetition et une redite superflue et affectee”). The Gospel also uses the term “polylogy” (πολυλογία), meaning verbosity. The the‐ ologian describes it as “un babil sans subtance”. The word “babil” (futile speech) is stressed by the redundant “sans substance” (without any content). Christ, Calvin points out, rebukes people who are mad enough (“reprend la folie”) to think that by repeating and by being loquacious (as they “desgoisent beaucoup de paroles”), they can persuade God to do what they are requesting from Him (“ce qu’ils demandent”). Perseverance in praying (“l’assiduité de prier”) is not of course a problem. On the contrary, it is often praised in the Scriptures (“louée souvent en l’Escriture”), for when the words come from the heart (“prononcee d’une vraye affection”), the speech does not expand beyond the heart (“la langue ne s’avance point plus que le cœur”). We note again the emphasis put on the word “cœur” (heart). It is thus repeated in the following sentence. The faithful heart, in a true prayer, “unburdens” itself (“le cœur fidele deslasche ses affec‐ tions”). The idea of superstition is also important in this passage: Calvin con‐ tends that those who make too long and repetitive prayers are just being “su‐ IV. The Way to Pray and the Duration of Prayer 17 perstitious”. He condemns “la supersition de ceux qui pensent par grans barbotemens rendre Dieu propice à leurs prieres.” I will not insist on Calvin’s criticism of the Pope and his court (“la Papauté”), but rather on his disgust of long, futile, and artificial prayers, as well as his good intention to fight against “superstition” and promote real religion (“ceci est pour condamner la superstition de ceux qui…”). He thus accumulates a number of terms and ex‐ pressions related to false prayers: “grans barbotemens”, “babil”, “bar‐ bote”, “longue chantrerie”…. He ends by saying that those who commit these acts cannot fool God—He will not listen to them, however beautiful their prayers may sound (“la douceur du son…”). Moreover, continues Jesus, the Father already knows what we want to say when we pray, so we should not be like those superstitious people: “Do not be like them [the Gentiles], for your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Mat 6: 8). Here is Calvin’s comment of this verse: Ce seul remede suffit à purger et abolir la superstition qui est ici condamnee. Car d’ou vient cette folie que les hommes pensent beaucoup gagner quand ils importunent Dieu par leur babil, sinon pource qu’ils imaginent qu’il est semblable à un homme mortel, qui a besoin d’estre adverti et solicité? Mais quiconques est bien persuadé que Dieu non seulement a soin de nous, mais aussi cognoist nos necessitez, et previent nos souhaits et solicitudes avant que nous le requerions, cestuy-la sans beaucoup babiller se contentera de prolonger ses prieres tant qu’il sera besoin pour exercer sa foy; mais d’user de grande Rhetorique envers Dieu pour le flechir par paroles, il estimera cela mal-seant et ridicule. Sur ceci on pourroit dire que si Dieu, avant que nous le reque‐ rions, cognoist ce qui nous fait besoin, que c’est une chose superflue de prier. Car s’il est de soy-mesme enclin à nous aider, quel besoin est-il que nos prieres entrevienent pour empescher le cours volontaire de sa providence? La solution est facile, quand nous considerons quelle est la fin et le but de la priere. Car les fideles ne prient pas pour advertir Dieu de quelque chose qui luy soit incognue, pour l’inciter à faire son office, ou le soliciter, comme s’il tardoit trop, mais plustost afin de se resveiller eux-mesmes à le cercher, d’exercer leur foy en meditant ses promesses, de se soulager en deschargeant leurs solicitudes sur luy, et finalement pour rendre tesmoignage tant à eux-mesmes comme aux autres, qu’ils esperent et attendent tous biens de luy seul. Et aussi, luy de son costé, ce que liberalement et n’estant point encores requis, il a deliberé de nous donner. Toutesfois il promet qu’il l’ottroyera à nos prieres. Parquoy il nous faut entendre l’un et l’autre, assavoir qu’il previent volontairement nos requ‐ estes, et que toutesfois par prieres nous obtenons de luy ce que nous demandons. Touchant ce qu’il diffère quelque fois longuement à nous aider, et mesme quelque fois Introduction 18 11 “This single remedy is sufficient for removing and destroying the superstition which is here condemned. For whence comes this folly of thinking that great advantage is gained, when men weary God by a multiplicity of words, but because they imagine that he is like a mortal man, who needs to be informed and solicited? Whoever is convinced, that God not only cares for us, but knows all our wants, and anticipates our wishes and anxieties before we have stated them, will leave out vain repetitions, and will reckon it enough to prolong his prayers, as far as shall be necessary for exercising his faith; but will reckon it absurd and ridiculous to approach God with rhetorical embellishments, in the expectation that he will be moved by an abundance of words. But if God knows what things we have need of, before we ask him, where lies the advantage of prayer? If he is ready, of his own free will, to assist us, what purpose does it serve to employ our prayers, which interrupt the spontaneous course of his providence? The very design of prayer furnishes an easy answer. Believers do not pray , with the view of of informing God about things unknown to him, or of exciting him to do his duty, or of urging him as though he were reluctant. On the contrary, they pray, in order that they may arouse themselves to seek him, that they may exercise their faith in meditating on his promises, that they may relieve themselves from their anxieties by pouring them into his bosom; in a word, that they may declare that from Him alone they hope and expect, both for themselves and for others, all good things. God himself, on the other hand, has purposed freely, and without being asked, to bestow blessings upon us; but he promises that he will grant them to our prayers. We must, therefore, maintain both of these truths, that He freely anticipates our wishes, and yet that we obtain by prayer what we ask. As to the reason why he sometimes delays long to answer us, and sometimes even does not grant our wishes, an opportunity of considering it will afterwards occur.” (Commentary 313-14) [Torrance ed. 203-204] 12 Algirdas Julien Greimas & Teresa Mary Kane. Dictionnaire du moyen français. Paris: Larousse, 1992. ne complaist pas à nos desirs, nous en traiterons en un autre lieu plus propre. (Com‐ mentaires 123) 11 This text contains several interesting ideas: 1º) The idea of “Superstition”. This term was relatively new in French, since the first use of it goes back to the late 14 th century. It is thus mentioned, for the first time in all likelihood, in Raoul de Presles’ translation of Au‐ gustine’s De Civitate Dei (La Cité de Dieu) in 1375. 12 In classical Latin, superstitio refers to the “attitude of irrational religious awe or credulity, particular superstitious belief or practice, foreign or non-orthodox reli‐ gious practice or doctrine,” to which the Oxford English Dictionary adds that it is “in post-classical Latin also luxury, profusion (8 th cent.), super‐ fluity (9 th cent.)…” ( OED ). Maybe, by the excess of words and repetitive prayers, some people think that they will be better heard by God. At any rate, it is thanks to the first translation in French of Augustine’s City of God, in 1375, that the term “superstition” was introduced first in French, IV. The Way to Pray and the Duration of Prayer 19 13 Saint Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. New York: The Modern Library, 1993, 137. The emphasis in the quotes is always mine, unless otherwise indi‐ cated. then from the latter (Middle French) into English. But here is the passage where the word appears in Augustine’s work: Cicero the augur laughs at auguries, and reproves men for regulating the pur‐ poses of life by the cries of crows and jackdaws. But it will be said that an academic philosopher, who argues that all things are uncertain, is unworthy to have any authority in these matters. In the second book of his De Natura De‐ orum, he introduces Lucilius Balbus, who after showing that superstitions have their origin in physical and philosophical truths, expresses his indignation at the setting up of images and fabulous notions, speaking thus: ‘Do you not the‐ refore see that from true and useful physical discoveries the reason may be drawn away to fabulous and imaginary gods? This gives birth to false opinions and turbulent errors, and superstitions well-nigh old wifeish. 13 Here, Calvin highlights the fact that verbosity (“babil”) is folly (“folie”), and is condemned (“condamnee”) by the Lord as superstition. One should not importune Him. What is superstitious, explains the exegete, is that people who pray long, futile, and repetitious prayers, imagine God to be like a human being (“pource qu’ils imaginent qu’il [God] est semblable à un homme mortel)—critique of anthropomorphism, though this term is ana‐ chronic. 2º) But a long prayer is not necessarily a bad sign, Calvin thinks. Indeed, so‐ meone who earnestly has more to say to God, “se contentera de prolonger ses prieres tant qu’il sera besoin pour exercer sa foy.” It is then a matter of personal spiritual need—a prayer can be longer if one feels that in this way one’s faith gets more “exercised” or strengthened, and not because God may be more persuaded, which is just an unsuitable and ridiculous idea (“mal-seant et ridicule”). 3º) Now, if someone objects that praying may not even be necessary, since God already knows what we want, he or she ought to consider the object and purpose of prayer (“quand nous considerons quelle est la fin et le but de la priere”). We are here reminded that if we pray, it is not because we want to tell God something He is not aware of, in order to incite Him “to do his duty” (“l’inciter à faire son office”) or “to listen to our request” (“le Introduction 20 14 Calvin may have in mind James 1: 17, where the Apostle says: “Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” soliciter”). It is because we need to wake up and seek Him (“mais plustost afin de se resveiller eux-mesmes à le cercher”). Prayer is also a spiritual exercise: the believers pray to “exercer leur foy”, i.e., to put into practice their faith and strengthen it, as they meditate on God’s promises (“meditant ses promesses”). Furthermore, they relieve themselves from their solici‐ tudes—word to be taken in the etymological sense (< Lat. Sollicitudo)—of worries, troubles, or anxieties (“se soulager en deschargeant leurs solici‐ tudes sur luy”). Finally, if they pray, it is because they wish to demonstrate that their only hope resides in God, for they know that every good comes from Him. 14 Finally, a prayer testifies to this belief (“finalement pour rendre tesmoignage tant à eux-mesmes comme aux autres, qu’ils esperent et at‐ tendent tous biens de luy seul”), and God, who even gives us more than what we request (“ce que liberalement et n’estant point encore requis, il a deliberé de nous donner”) will grant it with our prayer. 4º) Sometimes, however, we may wait a long time before we receive what we have asked from Him (“il diffère quelque fois longuement à nous aider”), and even sometimes we do not receive it at all (“et mesmes quelque fois ne complaist pas à nos desirs”). The Reformer promises to discuss this issue in another and more appropriate place (“nous en traiterons en un autre lieu plus propre”). V. The “Pater noster” as a Model Calvin points out the fact that Jesus offers us a model of prayer for several reasons. What matters to the Lord is the content or what a good prayer addressed to the Father should consist of. Here is the way the theologian sets it forth in The Institutes: Maintenant davantage, il nous faut apprendre non seulement la façon de faire oraison, mais le stile mesme et formulaire que nostre Père céleste nous en a donné par son trescher Fils, nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ (Matth. 6, 9; Luc 11, 2). En quoy nous pou‐ vons cognoistre une bonté et douceur incompréhensible. Car outre ce qu’il nous ad‐ moneste et exhorte de nous retourner à luy en toutes noz nécessitez, comme enfans ont leurs recours à leur père toutes fois et quantes que le besoin les presse, cognoissant que nous ne pouvons assez entendre combien grande est nostre povreté et misère, ne V. The “Pater noster” as a Model 21 15 “Now we must learn not only a more certain way of praying but also the form itself: namely, that which the Heavenly Father has taught us through his beloved Son [Matt. 6: 9 ff.; Luke 11: 2 ff.], in which we may acknowledge his boundless goodness and cle‐ mency. For he warns us and urges us to seek him in our every need, as children are wont to take refuge in the protection of the parents whenever they are troubled with any anxiety. Besides this, since he saw that we did not even sufficiently perceive how straigtened our poverty was, what it was fair to request, and what was profitable for us, he also provided for this ignorance of ours; and what had been lacking to our capacity he himself supplied and made sufficient from his own.” (Institutes III, xx, 34, 897) 16 Calvin’s translation of the first part of Mat 6.9: “Vous donc priez ainsi…” (“Pray then in this way…”). He thus translates Luke 11.1 and the first part of Luke 11.2: “Il advint aussi comme il prioit en quelque lieu, apres qu’il eut cessé, qu’un de ses disciples luy dit: ‘Seig‐ neur, enseigne-nous a prier, ainsi que Iean a enseigné ses disciples’. Et il leur dit: ‘Quand vous priez, dites…’.” (“He was praying in a certain place, and after he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.’ He said to them, when you pray, say…’.”) comprendre ce qui est bon à luy demander, et ce qui est utile et profitable, il a voulu subvenir à nostre ignorance, et suppléer de soy-mesme le défaut de nostre esprit. (Institution III, xx, 34, 376-77) 15 Jesus, he specifies, also teaches us, not only the way (“la façon”), but also the style (“stile”) of praying, and so proposes us a model or form (“formulaire”) of prayer. In fact, it is the Father himself who teaches us this prayer through his beloved Son. The reason is that He knows that we need such a prayer. So, it is out of kindness, since we do not even know what to say to God and how to say it. Therefore, Jesus incites (“admoneste”) and urges us (“exhorte”) to go back to the Father (“de nous retourner à luy”) for all our needs. We are like helpless children—the words “povreté” and “misère” stress this idea—who need to go to their fathers for help. Calvin stresses the fact that we ourselves do not know what our needs are, i.e. what is useful and profitable for us to ask God (“ce qui est utile et profitable”), that which makes “The Lord’s Prayer” all the more im‐ portant for our happiness. It also shows God’s goodness in teaching it to us. In his Commentaries, Calvin raises an interesting issue with regard to a dif‐ ference existing between the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. He reminds the fact that in the former, one of the disciples asks Jesus how to pray, whereas in the latter it is the Lord himself who decides to teach them the Lord’s Prayer without being asked: “S. Luc dit qu’il en fut requis, & S. Matthieu l’introduit enseignant ceci sans en estre prié” (Commentaires 124). 16 Concerning Luke’s reference to John the Baptist, he gives the following explanation: Quant à ce que sainct Iean avoit baillé à ses disciples une formule particuliere de prier, ie pense qu’il l’avoit faite selon que le temps le requeroit. Il est tout certain que les Introduction 22 17 “John delivered to his disciples a particular form of prayer; and he did so, in my opinion, because the time required it. The state of affairs among the Jews was, at that time, exceedingly corrupted. Every thing connected with religion had so miserably fallen, that we need not be surprised to find few among them, by whom prayer was offered in a proper manner. Besides it was proper, that the minds of believers should be excited, by prayer, to hope and desire the promised redemption, which was at hand. John might, therefore, have collected, out of various passages of Scripture, a certain prayer adapted to the time, and approaching more nearly to the spiritual kingdom of Christ, which had already begun to be revealed” (Commentary 315) [Torrance 205] choses estoyent lors fort corrompues entre les Iuifs; pour le moins toute la religion estoit tellement deschuë, qu’il ne se faut pas fort esbahir si la vraye et pure maniere de prier estoit prattiquee par bien peu de gens. Davantage, pour ce que lors la Re‐ demption promise approchoit, il estoit besoin que les esprits des fideles fussent res‐ veillez à l’esperance et desir d’icelle en priant. Ainsi donques il se peut faire que S. Iean avoit dressé quelque certaine priere, recueillie de divers passages de l’Escriture, la‐ quelle estoit convenable pour ce temps-la, et approchoit de plus pres du Regne spirituel de Christ, qui commençoit desia à estre revelé. (Commentaires 124) 17 First of all, Calvin refuses to explain the difference between Matthew’s exposi‐ tion and that of Luke. Maybe, he points out, Matthew just omitted mentioning the circumstance Luke describes in his Gospel [“il se peut faire que sainct Mat‐ thieu a omis la circonstance et l’occasion laquelle S. Luc touche, combien que de cela ie n’en veux debattre avec personne” (Commentaires 124)]. Secondly, com‐ menting on Luke, he believes that at the time of John the Baptist, a prayer based on the Scripture had been proposed by the Prophet because the Jews were con‐ fused and there was too much corruption among them (“Il est tout certain que les choses estoyent for corrompues entre les Iuifs”) and that their religion was perishing (“toute la religion estoit tellement deschuë”). So the prayer John had taught his disciples, which was based on the Scripture, had certainly been useful in view of that time. But when Christ came, that prayer had to be replaced by the one the Lord prescribed. Calvin suggests that the disciples should not have compared John with Jesus in the first place. The former was just a prophet and did what he could under those circumstances. However, the spiritual kingdom of Christ was approaching and about to be revealed (“commençoit desia à estre revelé”), i.e. the Lord was to show himself. Therefore, we must not think of John’s prayer anymore after the coming of Jesus. In The Institutes Calvin underscores God’s goodness (“bénignité”, “mansué‐ tude”), as He teaches us through the Son how to pray and what to say to Him. This is a great consolation for us, he declares (“une singulière consolation”), for in this way we also know what we ought not to request from Him. Indeed, we V. The “Pater noster” as a Model 23 18 “Plato, on seeing men’s want of skill in making requests to God, which, if granted, would often have been disadvantageous to them, declares this, taken from an ancient poet, to be the best prayer: ‘King Jupiter, bestow the best things upon us whether we wish for them or not, but command that evil things be far from us even when we request them.” (Institutes III, xx, 34, 897) 19 If the authenticity of Alcibiades I has not been questioned by Greek scholars in general, Alcibiades II has been considered as “one of the many imitations of Plato’s writings which were composed in the third and second centuries B. C.” (Lamb’s “Introduction” to Alcibiades II, in Plato with an English translation by W. R. M. Lamb. Vol. 8. London: William Heinemann LTD, 1927, 226 [The Loeb Classical Library]. Lamb adds about this Second Alcibiades: “Its subject—the importance of knowing what one ought to pray for —is Socratic enough; yet the reader who comes to it from an authentic work of Plato, though it be merely an immature study like the First Alcibiades, is soon aware of grievous defects in argumentative force and connexion, and must especially remark an utter absence of the play of humour with which Plato habitually and artfully relieves the onset of his master’s questioning. The language also, while it shows that the author had a considerable knowledge of Plato, is in many points unplatonic….” (226) See also Ni‐ cholas Denyer’s remarks in his edition of the First Alcibiades. Cambridge: CUP, 2001, 14-26. must not ask Him anything improper (“illicite”), anything which importunes Him (“importune”), nor anything extravagant (“estrange”)—in other words so‐ mething not religious. On the other hand, the reference to a dialogue, supposed to be by Plato, is also noteworthy, as it shows the great respect Calvin had for the Greek philosopher and how close he believes the latter subconsciouly was to Christ: Platon voyant l’ignorance des hommes en leurs désirs et souhaits qu’ils font à Dieu, lesquels souvent ne leur peuvent estre concédez sinon à leur grand dommage, déclaire que la meilleure manière de prier est celle qu’a baillé un Poète ancien, de requérir Dieu de nous faire le bien, soit que nous le demandions ou ne le demandions pas, et vouloir destourner le mal de nous, mesmes quand nous désirerions qu’il nous advinst. (Insti‐ tution III, xx, 34, 377) 18 The reference to the Second Alcibiades is quite significant. It does not matter to us whether this dialogue was written by a disciple of Plato in the 3 rd or 2 nd century B. C. and not by himself, for whoever the author is, the text belongs to Pre-Chris‐ tian times. The fact that Calvin compares a Christian text on prayer with a pagan text is interesting by itself. 19 It reveals that to the Reformer, God—there is just one—is present in this pagan work. Now, the Second Alcibiades is focused on prayer, and the comparison between the two texts is quite appropriate. In this dialogue, Alcibiades, a young man going to the temple to pray, accidentally meets Socrates, who strikes up a conversation with him on the subject of prayer. The philosopher would like to know whether Alcibiades knows what to pray Introduction 24 20 Plato. Works. Vol. 8. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. London: William Heinemann LTD, and New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1927 [The Loeb Classical Library], 245. for, or what to ask God. The difference between Socrates and Jesus is that the former indirectly teaches in the form of dialogue and reasoning, whereas Jesus just tells us what to do, and does it with much greater authority. Calvin does not go as far as truly comparing a wise man and a great thinker with God. He does not compare reasoning with faith, but realizes that Socrates’ conception of prayer is very close to that of Christianity; so would be, as a consequence, his understanding of god. Thus, Socrates says to Alcibiades that if one is not aware of what is really good for one’s soul, one might pray for something evil. Such people may face misfortune, and then blame the gods for what happened to them: I question therefore if men are not really wrong in blaming the gods as the authors of their ills, when ‘they themselves by their own presumption’—or unwisdom, shall we say? —‘have gotten them more than destined sorrows.’ It would seem, at any rate, Alcibiades, that one old poet had some wisdom; for I conceive it was because he had some foolish friends, whom he saw working and praying for things that were not for their advantage, though supposed to be by them, that he made a common prayer on behalf of them all, in terms something like these: ‘King Zeus, give unto us what is good, whether we pray or pray not; [B]ut what is grievous, even if we pray for it, do thou avert. 20 Another interesting fact is that Socrates himself refers to Homer, whose Zeus, “the father of gods and men,” thus complains at the beginning of the Odyssey: My word, how mortals take the gods to task! All their afflictions come from us, we hear. And what of their own failings? Greed and folly double the suffering in the lot of man. See how Aigísthos, for his double portion, stole Agamémnon’s wife and killed the soldier on his homecoming day. And yet Aigísthos knew that his own doom lay in this. We gods had warned him, sent down Hermês Argeiphontês, our most observant courier, to say: ‘Don’t kill the man, don’t touch his wife, Or face a reckoning with Orestes The day he comes of age and wants his patrimony.’ V. The “Pater noster” as a Model 25 21 Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fitzgerald. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, Inc., 1961, 12-13. 22 “And, indeed, the heathen man is wise in that he judges how dangerous it is to seek from the Lord what our greed dictates; at the same time he discloses our unhappiness, in that we cannot even open our mouths before God without danger unless the Spirit instructs us in the right pattern for prayer [Rom. 8: 26]. This privilege deserves to be more highly esteemed among us, since the only begotten Son of God supplies words to our lips that free our minds from all wavering.” (Institutes III, xx, 34, 897-98) Friendly advice—but would Aigísthos take it? Now he has paid the reckoning in full. 21 So Calvin highly regards the Greek thinker Socrates, his disciple Plato, as well as the poet Homer, and believes that Jesus was present in them as they talked about their gods in such a way. Speaking of Plato’s conception of prayer, he writes—even though the Second Alcibiades may not have been written by Plato himself, but a fact that which was not known by Calvin and his contemporaries: Enquoy il a bonne opinion comme peut avoir un homme Payen, d’autant qu’il voit combien il est dangereux de requérir à Dieu ce que nostre cupidité nous enseigne. Et pareillement monstre assez nostre mal-heur en ce que nous ne pouvons pas sans dan‐ gier ouvrir la bouche pour rien demander à Dieu, sinon que le sainct Esprit nous conduise à la droite forme de bien prier (Rom. 8, 26). Et d’autant plus ce privilège mérite-il d’estre prisé de nous, que le Fils de Dieu nous suggère quasi les parolles en la bouche, lesquelles délivrent nos esprits de tous scrupules et doutes. (Institution III, xx, 34, 377) 22 We could deduce from these lines that to the Reformer Jesus was present in Plato and Socrates when they thus talked about their god. Moreover, we note that in his Latin version of the Institutes he uses the Latin equivalent of Zeus, Iupiter, to name God—which is what the American translator (Ford Lewis Battles) has taken into account—but in his French version he just uses the term “Dieu”. This reveals in Calvin a very broad and tolerant view of religion, which later leads other theologians to a better understanding of other religions and ecumenical thought. Therefore, when Jesus appears in person in a concrete way, the un‐ derstanding of God becomes complete. Before this historical event, the Holy Spirit showed the right way to humans, but of course that was not sufficient. The Son had to come, or the Word becoming Flesh ( John 1: 1). Anyway, a Socrates was unconconsciously quite close to Christianity, for the Holy Spirit was with him, but he could not go as far as a Paul did, to whose Epistle to the Romans Calvin also refers in this passage. Paul, who saw God when he converted, writes about the Holy Spirit that it “helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how Introduction 26 23 Martin Luther. The Sermon on the Mount (Sermons). Translated by Jaroslav Pelikan. Luther’s Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Vol 21. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1956, 146. 24 St. Augustine. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew [De Sermone Do‐ mini in Monte secundum Matthaeum]. Book II, 46. Translated by the Rev. William Findlay. The Works of St. Augustin. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff. Vol. VI. Book 2 New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888. to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words” (Romans 8: 26). VI. The Division of the “Lord’s Prayer” into Six Petitions Luther had divided the “Prayer” into seven requests, explaining that “the first, second, and third petitions deal with the highest benefits that we receive from Him,” 23 whereas “In the other four petitions we meet the needs that apply to our own daily life and to this poor, weak, and temporal existence” (Luther, The Sermon on the Mount 146). The Sixth Petition being, “Lead us not into tempta‐ tion,” is clearly distinguished from the seventh, “But deliver us from evil.” The former, Luther points out, “is brought on by the fact that we are living on earth, amid all sorts of temptation and trouble, with attacks from every side. (…) We ask Him, therefore, to sustain us in the midst of this danger and need so that it does not overcome and destroy us” (Luther, The Sermon on the Mount 147). On the other hand, the Seventh Petition, clarifies the German theologian, “is that He would ultimately deliver us completely from all evil, and when the time comes for us to pass out of this life, that He would bestow upon us a gracious and blessed hour of death” (Luther, The Sermon on the Mount 147). We note that Luther’s understanding is close to that of Augustine, who pro‐ vides the following reason for the number seven: “The sevenfold number of these petitions also seems to me to correspond to that sevenfold number out of which the whole sermon before us has had its rise.” 24 It is a vague explanation though, because neither the Beatitudes, nor the entire Sermon on the Mount could be easily divided into seven. Augustine and Luther subconsciously wanted the petitions to be sevenfold because of the sacredness attached to number Seven. The examples abound in the Bible. A very important one is when “Peter came and said to him: ‘Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times? ’ Jesus said to him, ‘Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times” (Mat 18: 21-22). Jesus is allu‐ VI. The Division of the “Lord’s Prayer” into Six Petitions 27 25 “This form or rule of prayer consists of six petitions. The reason why I do not agree with those who distinguish seven headings is that by inserting the adversative ‘but’ the Evangelist seems to have meant to join those two members together. It is as if he had said: ‘Do not allow us to be oppressed by temptation but rather bring help for our weakness, and deliver us from falling.’ Ancient writers of the church also agree with us, so that what has been added in seventh place in Matthew exegetically ought to be referred to the sixth petition.” (Institutes III, xx, 35, 898) 26 St. Gregory of Nyssa. The Lord’s Prayer. The Beatitudes. Translated by Hilda C. Graef. New York: Newman Press, 1954, 82-83. ding to the First Book of Moses, where the Lord declares: “Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance” (Gen 4: 15). But according to Calvin, there are only Six Petitions in the “Lord’s Prayer”. As early as the first Latin edition (1536) and the first French edition (1541) of the Institutes, he shows in the following explication his difference from Luther and Augustine on this particular point: Ceste oraison ou reigle de prier contient six requestes. Car j’ay raison de n’accorder point avec ceux qui la divisent en sept articles, d’autant que l’Evangéliste parlant en ceste forme: Ne nous induy point en tentation, mais délivre-nous du maling, lie ces deux membres ensemble pour en faire une seule demande. Comme s’il disoit: Ne per‐ mets point que nous soyons vaincuz de tentation, ains plustost donne secours à nostre fragilité, et délivre-nous, de peur que nous ne succombions. Et de fait les anciens Docteurs accordent à ceste exposition. Dont il est facile de iuger que ce qui est adiousté en sainct Matthieu, et qu’aucuns ont prins pour une septième requeste, n’est qu’une explication de la sixième et se doit à icelle raporter. (Institution III, xx, 35, 377-78) 25 One of these “anciens Docteurs”, to whom Calvin might refer, is Gregory of Nyssa, who, in his homilies on the “Lord’s Prayer”, offers the following inter‐ pretation: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. What, my brethren, do these words mean? It seems to me that the Lord calls the evil one by many different names accor‐ ding to the distinction between the evil actions. He names him variously devil, Beel‐ zebub, Mammon, prince of this world, murderer of man, evil one, father of lies, and other such things. Perhaps, therefore, here again one of the names devised for him is ‘temptation,’ and the juxtaposition of clauses confirms this assumption. For after saying, Lead us not into temptation, He adds that we should be delivered from evil, as if both words meant the same. For if a man who does not enter into temptation is quite removed from evil, and if one who has fallen into temptation is necessarily mixed up with evil, then temptation and the evil one mean one and the same thing. 26 Introduction 28 27 Origen. On Prayer. Translated by William A. Curtis. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Clas‐ sics Ethereal Library. http: / / www.ccel.org / ccel / origen / prayer.html, 64-72. 28 “But even though the whole prayer is such that throughout it God’s glory is to be given chief place, still the first three petitions have been particularly assigned to God’s glory, and this alone we ought to look in them, without consideration of what is called our own advantage. The three others are concerned with the care of ourselves, and are especially assigned to those things which we should ask for our own benefit.” (Institutes III, xx, 35, 898) Now, Origen, who influenced Gregory of Nyssa, had already had the same un‐ derstanding of the the last Petition, as is shown in his exegesis of the “Lord’s Prayer”. Thus, he considers the two parts of the sentence as having basically the same content. 27 As far as the structural content of the “Prayer” is concerned, Augustine di‐ vides it into two distinct parts, the first one consisting of three petitions, and the second of four, stating that “the distinction among these seven petitions is to be considered and commended.” He adds, that whereas “those three things will remain consummated and thoroughly completed in that life which is pro‐ mised us,” the other four “seem to me to belong to this temporal life” (Augustine, Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount II , 45). Luther’s explanation of the second part is basically the same, but regarding the first part he highlights the “benefits we receive from Him,” rather than alluding to the world to come, which is the main point in Augustine’s interpretation. Calvin, however, divides the Petitions into two equal parts (three and three), stating that, although “l’oraison soit telle, qu’en chacune partie d’icelle nous devons regarder l’honneur de Dieu principale‐ ment,” “les trois premières requestes sont spécialement destinées pour désirer la gloire de Dieu, laquelle seule en icelles nous devons considérer, sans avoir aucun esgard à nous-mesmes,” but “Les trois autres contiennent spécialement les choses que devons demander pour noz nécessitez” (Institution III , xx, 35, 378). 28 As we see, he attaches more importance to the glory of God than Luther and Augustine, making it the dominant theme of the entire prayer. We must con‐ stantly, in anything we do, glorify God, he insists. Even though he admits that we also have material needs, the spiritual part matters more, which pertains to the “glory of God”. He refers to Moses and Paul to better illustrate his idea, which concludes his introduction on prayer: Comme on voit en l’exemple de Moyse et de sainct Paul, ausquels il n’a point fait mal, en destournant leur affection d’eux-mesmes, de désirer par un zèle véhément et enf‐ lambé leur perdition, afin que mesmes avec leur dommage, si besoin estoit, la gloire de Dieu fust exaltée et son règne multiplié (Ex. 32, 32; Rom. 9, 3). D’autrepart quand nous demandons nostre pain quotidien nous estre donné, combien que nous demandions VI. The Division of the “Lord’s Prayer” into Six Petitions 29 29 “In the examples of Moses and Paul, we see that it was not grievous for them to turn their minds and eyes away from themselves and to long for their own destruction with fierce and burning zeal in order, despite their own loss, they might advance God’s glory and Kingdom [Ex. 32: 32; Rom. 9: 3]. On the other hand, when we ask to be given our daily bread, even though we desire what is to our benefit, here also we ought especially to seek God’s glory so as not to ask it unless it redound to his glory” (Institutes III, xx, 35, 898-99). 30 Martin Bucer. In sacra quatuor evangelia enarrationes perpetuae secundum recog‐ nitae… Basel: Ionnaes Hervagius, 1536, 208-209. chose concernante nous et nostre profit, toutesfois nous devons premièrement en cela chercher la gloire de Dieu, tellement que si cela ne devoit tourner à icelle gloire, nous n’en voulussions faire requeste, ne le désirer ou vouloir avoir. (Institution III, xx, 35, 378-79) 29 I assume that Augustine and Luther would have agreed with Calvin, but the fact is that they did not so much think of stressing the “glory of God” as the French Reformer did, since they did not mention it as he did with regard to the last petitions. Calvin, here, is closer to Bucer than he is to Luther. 30 Now, let us quickly examine his biblical references on this issue. The one from the Old Tes‐ tament refers to the episode of the Golden Calf, “When the people saw that Moses delayed to come from the mountain” (Exodus 32: 1), where he had received from God the two “Tablets of the Covenant” (Exodus 31: 18), and asked Aaron to “make gods” for them (Exodus 32: 1-24). Then Moses, after having ordered his faithful followers, i.e. “all the sons of Levi,” to punish the sinners—thousands of their own relatives and friends—by killing them, and doing this in the name of God, in other words for the “glory of God” and without caring about people’s lives, he “returned to the Lord and said, ‘Alas, this people has sinned a great sin; they made for themselves gods of gold. But now if you will only forgive their sin—but if not, blot me out of the book that you have written” (Exodus 32: 31-32). He could have said, “Thy Will be done,” because “His glory” matters more than anything else, much more than his own life—“if not blot me out of your Book” has no other meaning. It is also more important than that of his fellow humans. That is why he commanded, as the leader of his people, that the Golden Calf worshippers be killed by the Lord’s followers. Calvin’s other reference is to Paul. The latter writes to the Romans about God’s “Election of Israel”: “I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit—I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh…” (Rom 9: 1-3). We see that not even his own life, but only God’s glory is important to him, that which is also revealed through his “true” children—for “not all of Ab‐ Introduction 30 raham’s children are his true descendants” (Rom 9: 7), and “it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants” (Rom 9: 8). The love of Christ is then everything, says Paul, and one’s life, including his own, is worth nothing. We must go back to the previous chapter to fully understand this passage about the Glory. There we read the following: I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. (Rom 8: 18-21) The life after this one is what we have to consider. We live this one according to the other. Therefore, the “glory” of God alone remains as the common deno‐ minator throughout the Lord’s Prayer. We must die to this world and not think of anything else. Calvin mainly remains faithful to Paul’s theology. He greatly respects Augustine and Paul, but his main teacher is Paul. VI. The Division of the “Lord’s Prayer” into Six Petitions 31 1 On Calvin and prayer, see the following recent studies: David B. Calhoun, “Prayer: ‘The Chief Exercise of Faith’ Institutes 3: 20; ” Jae Sung Kim, “Prayer in Calvin’s Soteriology; ” W. H. Neuser, “Exercitium Pietatis—Calvin’s Interpreation of The Lord’s Prayer; ” and Charles Partee’s The Theology of John Calvin. 2 See also Calvin’s explanations of the address to the Father (Mat 6: 9; Luke 11: 2) in his Concordance qu’on appelle Harmonie…(124-125) and in Le Catechisme de Geneve… (91-93). It would be interesting to compare this Catechism with the Heidelberg Cate‐ chism, which was inspired by Calvin. In the latter, many references to the Bible are provided as well as some other minor differences. See in this regard what W. H. Neuser says in the conclusion of his article (Neuser 107.) I. The address to the Father: “Our Father in Heaven” The Lord’s Prayer starts by the address to the Father. 1 I am examining Calvin’s interpretation in the Institutes and compare it with that of Augustine in De Ser‐ mone Domini in Monte…. Pages 379 to 384 in Benoît’s edition (based on the 1560’s edition, which is the last one) are on “Nostre Père qui es ès cieux.” Four paragraphs (numbers 36-39) are on the first part of the clause (“Nostre Père”), and one (number 40) is on the second part (“qui es ès cieux”.) Augustine’s commentary, on the other hand, is much shorter. He, too, divides the address to the Father into two parts, but the first one (Book II , Chapter IV : 15-16) is barely longer than the second (Book II , Chapter V: 17-18.) This fact may already suggest the idea that Calvin attaches more importance to the term Father than to “Heavens,” whereas Augustine de‐ votes the same amount of exegesis to each part. 2 I. Our Father I.1. Praying in the name of Christ Calvin starts (nº 36) by reminding the reader of the necessity to pray in the name of Jesus. Any prayer addressed to God should be done in this way, he insists: “il faut que toutes noz oraisons soyent de nous présentées à Dieu au Nom de Iesus Christ” (Institution 379). If we call our Creator our Father, Calvin says, it is be‐ cause of Jesus, His only son, by whose grace we are the Father’s children, pro‐ vided that we believe in Him: “si en certaine foy nous acceptons celle grande beneficence” (Institution 379). This idea is based on John 1: 12, which says: “But 3 If my quotes are in English, the reference numbers refer to Augustine’s English edition; if they are in the original Latin text, they refer to the Latin edition. to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God…”. He also ends his exposition in The Harmony of the Gospels by stressing the fundamental role of the “Mediator”: “… nous recueillons d’ici qu’il n’y a point d’autre maniere de bien prier, sinon quand nous venons à Dieu sous l’aveu et appuy du Mediateur” (Concordance 125). Augustine, on the other hand, only writes: “But now we have to consider what things we are taught to pray for by Him through whom we both learn what we are to pray for, and obtain what we pray for” (Augustine 38). 3 I.2. The Father’s Kindness Dont il s’appelle nostre Père, et veut estre de nous ainsi appellé, nous délivrant de toute deffiance par la grande douceur qui est comprinse en ce Nom. Car il ne se peut trouver nulle telle affection d’amour que d’amour paternelle. ( Institution 379) The expressions, “grande douceur,” “affection d’amour,” “amour paternelle,” fol‐ lowed by “sa charité infinie,” “son amour plus grande envers nous que toute celle des pères terriens envers leurs enfants,” and “en toute bonté et miséricorde” (Institution 379), all emphasize the notion of love whose ultimate expression is God. Furthermore, to be realistic with regard to humans, Calvin indicates the fact that some earthly fathers do not have much love for their children, and some are even capable of abandoning them, but we can always count on God’s un‐ failing love, “Car nous avons sa promesse, laquelle il nous a donnée par son Fils, nostre rédempteur” (Institution 379). The heavenly Father is again mentioned along with the Son. Calvin wants us to constantly think of the Father and the Son at the same time. The third part of the Godhead, however, is not mentioned. Augustine’s exposition of God’s Fatherly love is much shorter than Calvin’s. Three points may be noted in this part of his exegesis: I. Our Father 33 4 “… nusquam tamen inuenitur praeceptum populo Israel, ut diceret: pater noster, aut oraret patrem deum; sed dominus eis insinuatus est tamquam seruientibus, id est se‐ cundum carnem adhuc uiuentibus.” (Augustine 105) 5 “nam prophetae saepe ostendunt eundem dominum deum etiam patrem eorum esse potuisse, si ab eius mandatis non aberrarent….” (Augustine 105) 6 “Si dominus sum, ubi est timor meus? Et si pater sum, ubi est honor meus? ” (Augustine 105) 7 In his Commentaries, Calvin writes thus about the beginning of Malachi: “God expos‐ tulates here with a perverse and an ungrateful people, because they doubly deprived him of his right; for he was neither loved nor feared, though he had a just claim to the name and honour of a master as well as that of a father. As then the Jews paid him no reverence, he complains that he was defrauded of his right as a father; and as they entertained no fear for him, he condemns them for not acknowledging him as their Lord and Master, by submitting to his authority. But before he comes to this, he shows that he was both their Lord and Father; and he declares that he was especially their Father, because he loved them.” (Commentaries 463) 1º) The Jews. In the Old Testament, he points out, the Jews are not allowed to call God their Father, because they are “still living according to the flesh” (Augustine 39): “nowhere is there found [in the Holy Scriptures] a precept for the people of Israel that they should say ‘Our Father,’ or that they should pray to God as a Father; but as Lord He was made known to them, as being yet servants” (Augustine 39). 4 They did not deserve to be called God’s children, Augustine insists, because the Prophets had not failed to talk to them about God as the heavenly Father [referring to Isaiah 1: 2], but they did not believe in Him: “for the Prophets often show that this same Lord of ours might have been their Father also, if they had not strayed from His commandments” (Augustine 39). 5 In other words, those who did not or do not believe in God cannot call him their Father, and conversely the latter does not recognize them as his children either, and here he cites Malachi 1: 6: “If then I be a Father, where is mine honour? and if I be a Master, where is my fear? ” (Augustine 39). 6 The theologian is referring to the whole be‐ ginning of Malachi, where God expresses hatred towards some people: “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord. Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau” (Mal 1: 2-3). Calvin’s view is quite different, for instead of thinking of Malachi, he constantly refers to Jesus, who only talks about love and never about hatred. 7 Thus God is kind even to those who have not been good. In this regard, the Reformer quotes Matthew (7: 11): “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask I. The address to the Father: “Our Father in Heaven” 34 8 “Si vous, qui estes mauvais, avez accoustumé de bien faire à voz enfans, combien plus vostre Père céleste qui est tout bon? ” (Institution 380) 9 “Et quoniam quod uocamur ad aeternam hereditatem, ut simus Christi coheredes et in adoptionem filiorum ueniamus, non est meritorum nostrorum sed gratiae dei, eandem ipsam gratiam in orationis principio ponimus, cum dicimus: pater noster.” (Augustine 106) him ! ” 8 But God is all the more forgiving and good when a person repents. Quoting Paul (2 Cor 1: 3): Car si entre les hommes le fils ne sauroit avoir meilleur advocat envers son père, lequel il a offensé, que soymesme, quand en humilité et obéissance recognoissant son forfait il luy vient requérir mercy, d’autant que lors un cœur paternel ne peut mentir, qu’il ne se fleschisse et esmeuve par telles prières, que fera ce Père de miséricorde et Dieu de toute consolation? (Calvin 380) To make the reader feel better God’s great love [“sa charité infinie” (379)] to all, as well as his accessibility, Calvin compares Him to human parents, quoting mainly from The New Testament. The only passages from The Old Testament are about God’s love, like Isaiah 49: 15, in which God says: “La mère pourroit-elle oublier ses enfans? Et encores ia soit qu’elle les oubliast, si ne vous oublieray-ie iamais” (Institution 380), or Psalms 27: 10, which is similar. But Calvin just refers to it (Institution 379) and does not cite it. The repetition of positive notions associated with love emphasizes God’s atti‐ tude towards humans: “bonté,” “clémence,” “miséricorde,” “douceur,” “bé‐ nignité,” etc. Finally, Calvin reminds the reader of the parable of the Lost Son in Luke 15. In sum, he tries to move his reader with a strong persuasive language. When the son goes away, does the father cease to love him? The theologian’s implicit answer is “no,” for the sad father is still a father. Au‐ gustine, however, by referring to Malachi, would suggest the opposite, since Jehovah hates Esau. 2º) God’s Grace. It all depends on God’s Grace, the Church Father writes, whe‐ ther one is to be considered a son or not: And since the fact that we are called to an eternal inheritance, that we might be fellowheirs with Christ and attain to the adoption of sons, is not of our deserts, but of God’s grace; we put this very same grace in the beginning of our prayer, when we say ‘Our Father.’ (Augustine 39) 9 Being allowed to call God our father means that we have been chosen by Him, for we did not deserve anything. In the same manner, God chose Jacob I. Our Father 35 10 “Quid enim non det iam filiis petentibus, cum hoc ipsum ante dederit, ut filii essent? ” (Augustine 106) 11 “Admonentur hic etiam diuites uel genere nobiles secundum saeculum, cum christiani facti fuerint, non superbire aduersus pauperes et ignobiles, quoniam simul dicunt deo: pater noster, quod non possunt uere ac pie dicere, nisi se fratres esse cognoscant.” (Au‐ gustine 107) but not Esau, according to Malachi. Therefore we must be grateful and strive to be worthy of “so great a Father.” In this way, we may obtain wha‐ tever we need from Him, “For what would He not now give to sons when they ask, when He has already granted this very thing, namely, that they might be sons? ” (Augustine 39) 10 How does Calvin treat this issue of elec‐ tion and grace? He just does not mention it here, for his present purpose is to show only God’s infinite love to all humanity. 3º) Why do we say “Our” Father? Augustine ends his interpretation of the first part of the address to God by comparing the relationship existing between the rich and the poor with the one God has established with his children. He says that God is the Father of both, and so they ought to love one another, and especially the rich person should not despise the other but treat him like a brother: Here also is an admonition to the rich and to those of noble birth, so far as this world is concerned, that when they have become Christians they should not comport themselves proudly towards the poor and the low of birth; since toge‐ ther with them they call God “Our Father,”—an expression which they cannot truly and piously use, unless they recognise that they themselves are brethren. (Augustine 39) 11 Calvin’s much longer comment on the possessive “Our” can be divided into two parts. The first one expresses the idea that people, out of charity, ought to pray for everyone, and not only for themselves. Since God likes us all, as a good father does, the children must like one another likewise. No discrimination is allowed, for this neighborly love concerns the whole hu‐ manity and not a particular group. This idea is extremely important to note: Donc l’oraison du Chrestien doit estre ainsi reiglée et compassée, qu’elle soit commune et comprenne tous ceux qui luy sont frères en Iesus Christ; et non seulement ceux qu’il voit et cognoist aujourduy estre tels, mais tous les hommes qui vivent sur terre, desquels nous ne savons point ce que nostre Seigneur a I. The address to the Father: “Our Father in Heaven” 36 12 I emphasize. 13 “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” (Gal 6: 10) déterminé de faire, mais seulement leur devons désirer tout bien, et en espérer pour le mieux. (Institution 381-82) 12 Not only hatred is out of question, but charity should make a Christian pray even for non Christians, for good people and evil ones, for the rich and the poor, for just everybody, all the people on earth (“tous les hommes qui vivent sur terre.”) Nevertheless, following Paul (Gal 6: 10), who strays from Jesus in this case, Calvin thinks that one should pray particularly for the Christians: “Com‐ bien que nous devons avoir en singulière recommandation et affection sur tous les autres les domestiques de la foy, lesquels en toutes choses sainct Paul spéci‐ alement nous recommande” (Calvin 382). 13 In any case, praying for everybody in the world remains the most interesting statement made by Calvin, something lacking in Augustine. It reveals not only the universality of the Reformer’s thought, but also his profound humanism. The second part of Calvin’s comment on the possessive “Our” is about the poor. We can compare his thought in this regard with that of Augustine. The poor, he states, should not be forgotten in a Christian prayer, because God com‐ mands us to help them: Le commandement de Dieu de subvenir à l’indigence de tous povres est général; et toutesfois ceux qui à ceste fin font miséricorde, et eslargissent de leur bien à ceux qu’ils voyent ou savent en avoir nécessité, y obéissent, nonobstant qu’ils ne donnent pas à tous ceux qui n’en ont pas moindre besoin, ou pource qu’ils ne les peuvent tous cognoistre, ou pource qu’ils ne peuvent suffire à tous. (Calvin 382) Since we cannot, even if we are very rich, help financially all the poor people, we can at least pray for them. The possessive “our” would thus include all the poor in the world: Car nous ne pouvons subvenir de noz biens sinon à ceux desquels nous savons la povreté; mais nous pouvons et devons ayder par oraison ceux mesmes desquels n’a‐ vons point la cognoissance, et qui sont esloignez de nous par quelque distance et intervalle que ce soit. Ce qui se fait par la généralité des oraisons, en laquelle sont comprins tous les enfants de Dieu, au nombre desquels aussi ceux là sont. (Calvin 382) I. Our Father 37 14 “… quando quidem ille hoc contemnit in mendico, quo et ipse potest humanarum rerum fragilitate deuenire, deus autem in sordidos mores numquam cadit.” (Augustine 106) 15 “… non enim spatio locorum continetur deus. Sunt autem caeli excellentia quidem mundi corpora sed tamen corpora, quae non possunt esse nisi in loco. Sed si in caelis tamquam in superioribus mundi partibus locus dei esse creditur, melioris meriti sunt aues, quarum uita est deo uicinior. Non autem scriptum est: Prope est dominus excelsis hominibus aut eis qui in montibus habitant, sed sriptum est: Prope est dominus obtritis corde, quod magis pertinet ad humilitatem” (107). Augustine refers to Psalm 34: 18 (“The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit.”) The universality of Calvin’s thought is again shown here, since there is no ge‐ ographical or cultural or religious border for him: any poor person, wherever he or she lives must be prayed for (“et qui sont esloignez de nous par quelque distance et intervalle que ce soit.”) The way Augustine presents the poor is also profound but different. He gives the example of a senator, who, like rich people in general, despises the poor. Then the theologian points out the fact that one’s social condition being fragile, someday this senator could become poor himself, and so he should be compassionate and understand the poor: “Since, indeed, he (the senator) despises that in the beggar to which even he himself may be re‐ duced by the vicissitude of human affairs: but God never falls into baseness of character.” (Augustine 39). 14 In this way, the rich and the poor are the same, both God’s children. II. Who art in Heaven According to Augustine, “Heaven” is both a metaphor and a metonymy: 1º) Heaven conceived as a space. It is a noun, a place, but a spiritual place, not a material one. The metaphor, “in Heaven,” means therefore, “in the holy place” (Augustine 39): For God is not contained in space. For the heavens are indeed the higher material bodies of the world, but yet material, and therefore cannot exist except in some definite place; but if God’s place is believed to be in the heavens, as meaning the higher parts of the world, the birds are of greater value than we, for their life is nearer to God. But it is not written, The Lord is nigh unto tall men, or unto those who dwell on mountains; but it is written, ‘The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart,’ which refers to humility. (Augustine 39) 15 The condition sine qua non of holiness is “humility,” and so God is close to humble people only. The holy place, or “Heaven,” is the latter’s heart. I. The address to the Father: “Our Father in Heaven” 38 16 “Templum enim dei sanctum est, quod estis uos.” (107) 2º) Heaven conceived as a qualifier or a person. As a qualifier, it means “righ‐ teous,” “just,” “holy,” or as a noun, a rightous or holy person. Thus after having compared “heaven” to a place, by referring to the Psalms, Augustine now bases his argument on Genesis 3: 19 in which “heaven” refers to a person: “But as a sinner is called earth, when it is said to him, ‘Earth thou art, and unto earth shalt thou return; ’ so, on the other hand, a righteous man may be called heaven” (Augustine 39). A holy person is at once “heaven” and “in heaven.” 3º) The temple of God. Furthermore, a holy person, as Paul says, is God’s temple. The theologian quotes then I Corinthians 3: 17: “For the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (Augustine 39). 16 Therefore, “the Father in Heaven” means the God who dwells in the holy people, that is, according to Psalm 34: 18, the “broakenhearted” and the “crushed in spirit,” in other words the humble ones. Nevertheless, the radical distinction Augustine makes between the righteous and the sinners is somewhat confusing: does he mean by “the righteous” people who never sin? In this case, his con‐ ception would differ from that of the New Testament, in which even a Peter is not guiltless. But he may also mean by saints people who have been touched by the Grace of God in a special way and their faith is above the ordinary, even though they may temporarily go astray like everyone else. To explain the term “heaven,” Calvin refers to 1 Kings 8: 27, Isaiah 66: 1, Acts 7: 49, and Acts 17: 24, in order to show that it is only a metaphor. Since it is an abstract notion, the Scripture uses a concrete image which corresponds to the highest thing visible, because our “ignorance” and “stupidity” prevents us from understanding the abstract: Mais pourtant que nostre ignorance et imbécillité d’esprit ne peut autrement com‐ prendre ne concevoir sa gloire, puissance, sublimité et hautesse, il nous la signifie par le ciel, qui est la chose la plus haute, et pleine de gloire et majesté que nous pouvons contempler. (Calvin 383) Calvin’s explanation does not differ from that of Augustine insofar as “heaven” is in their view, which is based on the Scripture, only a metaphor, but their divergence must also be noted. Whereas the Church Father brings God down to earth and places “heaven” in the heart of a holy person, a “saint,” so as to make Him more accessible, Calvin wants the believer’s thought to elevate itself and imagine the highest spiritual thing possible, the sublimest, that is God in II. Who art in Heaven 39 his “glory” and “majesty.” Thus we can notice an abstract movement in the ima‐ gination of both theologians with respect to the notion of “Heaven,” but one is descending from God to Man, the other ascending from Man to God. Calvin puts the emphasis on the Father’s infinite “majesty” and “power,” impossible to con‐ ceive, out of reach, and absolute. The expressions he stresses and to which “heaven” refers, are “hautesse infinie,” “essence incompréhensible,” “puis‐ sance inénarrable,” and “immortalité éternelle.” Calvin’s interpretation stimulates the readers’ desire to elevate their spirit by suggesting at the same time their extreme weakness and misery. On the other hand, Augustine’s belief in “saint” and “righteous” people may seem more encouraging and positive, although not in accordance with the Gospels. Yet Calvin does not mean to discourage his reader, for he justifies in the following way his explanation of the term “heaven”: “A ceste cause ce mot nous doit esmouvoir à élever noz cœurs et noz esprits quand nous pensons à Dieu, pour ne rien imaginer de luy charnel ou terrien, et ne le vouloir reigler selon nostre raison mondaine, n’assuiettir à noz affections.” (Calvin 383) We should not feel down because of the infinite distance which separates us from the heavenly Father, but rather become more humble as we realize how helpless and miserable we are if we refuse to depend on Him. Moreover, the idea of the inaccessible Father necessarily brings about the figure of the Mediator. Calvin started his exegesis by emphasizing the fun‐ damental role of Christ without whom the Father could not be known to us; he returns to Him again in order to show that this “heaven,” so far from us, can be approached only through the Son. He became man in order to show us the way to elevate our mind and get closer to the Father. It is important to note that this reference to Christ is absent in Augustine’s exegesis, or at least not evident, as if the relation between the Father and humans would be possible without the Mediator. Furthermore, Calvin does not separate the people into “saints” and “sinners,” for nobody in his view is perfect, and the closeness to God is relative. He just puts the emphasis on Christ without whom there is no approach possible to the Father and no understanding of “heaven” whatsoever: La somme est, que sous le nom de Père, ce Dieu qui nous est apparu en l’image de son Fils, nous est mis en avant, afin que nous l’invoquions en certitude de foy, et que non seulement ce nom de Père, selon qu’il est familier, doit servir à confermer nostre fiance, mais aussi à retenir noz esprits, afin qu’ils ne soyent point distraits à aucuns dieux incognuz ou controuvez, mais plustost qu’estans conduits par le Fils unique, ils mon‐ tent tout droit à celuy qui est seul Père des Anges et des hommes. Secondement, quand son throne luy est establi au ciel, que nous sommes advertis puisqu’il gouverne le monde, que nous ne venons pas à luy en vain, veu que de son bon gré il a soin de ses créatures. (Calvin 383) I. The address to the Father: “Our Father in Heaven” 40 17 “Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the Peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4, 5-7.) 18 “Simul etiam ut qui orat in se quoque ipso uelit habitare quem inuocat; et cum hoc affectat, teneat iustitiam, quo munere inuitatur ad inhabitandum animum deus” (108-09). It is only through Jesus-Christ that we can feel the Father and understand his goodness. He is caring, close to us, and infinitely better than an earthly father. Calvin concludes his exegesis of the address to God in The Lord’s Prayer by referring to Paul, who, in his letter to the Philippians, tells them that they should be confident and trust God before requesting anything from Him in their prayer: “Ne soyez en souci de rien, le Seigneur est prochain” [Phil. 4, 6 (Calvin 384)]. 17 The last word is Christ, who is so close to us. Augustine’s conclusion does not mention Christ but stresses the idea that the “Father in heaven” means that He dwells in the righteous’s soul. So before asking anything from God, writes the Church Father, “he who prays wishes Him whom he invokes to dwell in himself also; and when he strives after this, practises righetousness,—a kind of service by which God is attracted to dwell in the soul” (Augustine 40). 18 In sum, the conception of Christ constitutes the main divergence between the two theologians in their exegesis of the address to God in the Lord’s Prayer. Here, I could say, Calvin’s christology seems to be closer to that of the Gospels, espe‐ cially the one according to John. II. Who art in Heaven 41 1 Jean Calvin. Institution de la religion chrestienne. Livre Troisième. Editée par Jean-Daniel Benoit. Paris : J. Vrin, 1960, 384. [“The first petition is that God’s name be hallowed [Matt. 6: 9]; the need for it is associated with our great shame. For what is more unworthy than for God’s glory to be obscured partly by our ungratefulness, partly by our ill will, and so far as lies in our power, destroyed by our presumption and insane impudence? ” (Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 2. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960, 903). I underline in the quotes. II. The first petition: “Hallowed by Thy name” The First Petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Institution chrétienne III , 20) is, in Calvin’s French, “Ton Nom soit sanctifié.” He calls it “La première requeste” in the last edition of his work (1560), but in the 1541-1545 editions he uses the term “pe‐ tition” instead. He begins his exegesis of this First Petition by implicitly remin‐ ding the reader of the evil that is rooted in man, i.e. the original sin. However, the reader might first expect, by way of introduction, a definition of the term “sanctifié” (“hallowed”). What is, indeed, “sanctification” in his view? But the theologian assumes that the reader’s understanding of this term is the same as his. At any rate, we know that “sanctifier” comes from Latin sanctificare, from sanctus (“saint”) and facere (“faire”). Furthermore, the word “saint” is the parti‐ ciple of sancire (in French “consacrer”), which comes from sancus. The origin of the latter is the Sanscrit word sac, which one finds in the Rigveda, meaning “to adore” or “to worship”. Though Calvin does not define the term “sanctifié”, he from the start stresses man’s evil spirit: La première requeste est: Que le Nom de Dieu soit sanctifié, la nécessité de laquelle nous doit bien faire grand’honte. Car que sauroit-on penser plus vilain que de voir la gloire de Dieu estre obscurcie, partie par nostre ingratitude, partie par nostre malice? qui pis est, que par nostre orgueil et furies desbordées elle soit abolie, entant qu’en nous est? (III, 20, 41) 1 The evil in man, that is in everybody without exception, including Calvin him‐ self, who rightly emphasizes the possessive “nostre” (our), this evil spirit is stressed by the enumeration of negative qualities: “vilain”, “ingratitude”, “ma‐ lice”, “orgueil”, and “furies”. Thus opposing God’s will, we all somehow “obs‐ cure” His “glory”. What is noteworthy is that this paragraph on the First Petition has been entirely rewritten for the last edition of the Institutes. It would then be interesting to compare it with the previous versions (1541-1557 editions) and 2 “The Name of God is used here as He is renowned among men. Now since His Name must be associated with His works, we will understand by that the reputation which all His virtues deserve, such as His power, His wisdom, His justice, His mercy, His truth. For that is how God is rightly great and admirable, all the more so since He is just, wise, merciful, powerful and true. We request therefore that this majesty of God, which shines in all His virtues, be hallowed.” (All the translations from the 1541-57 French editions are mine.) try to find out the reason for the revision. We will at least be able to grasp the evolution which has taken place in the theologian’s thought. The paragraph on the First Petition in the 1541-1557 editions begins as follows: Le Nom de Dieu est icy mis comme il est renommé entre les hommes. Or comme ainsi soit que son Nom doibt estre correspondant à ses œuvres, nous entendrons par iceluy la renommée que méritent toutes ses vertuz, comme en sa puissance, sa sapience, sa iustice, sa miséricorde, sa vérité. Car voilà comment Dieu à bon droit est grand et admirable, d’autant qu’il est iuste, sage, miséricordieux, puissant et véritable. Nous re‐ quérons donc ceste maiesté de Dieu reluisante en toutes ses vertus estre sanctifiée. 2 We immediately notice a radical change in the tone and the way the Reformer presents the petition. In the earlier editions, instead of the evil in man, he em‐ phasizes God’s glory; instead of a series of negative terms, making us ashamed of ourselves, he uses words that are God’s attributes, because he wants for us to feel good about our magnificent world: “puissance” (power), “sapience” (wisdom), “iustice” (justice), “miséricorde” (mercy), “vérité” (truth). Further‐ more, after this enumeration, he stresses even more the positive feeling by listing the adjectives that go with those nouns, such as “just”, “wise”, etc. The sole purpose of redundancy is to incite the readers to get closer to God and also feel better about themselves. In spite of this important difference, the main theme in both beginnings (the 1560 vs the previous editions) is God’s glory. On the other hand, we note, speaking of the latter, that the theologian uses the phrase “la gloire de Dieu” in 1560, whereas in the previous versions he wrote “maiesté de Dieu”. This may be a minor point, but let us now closely examine the differences between these editions in the description of the parallel God / man, which is present in every edition. I. The 1541-1557 editions Nous requérons donc ceste maiesté de Dieu reluisante en toutes ses vertus estre sanc‐ tifiée. Et estre sanctifiée non pas dedens Dieu mesme, lequel en soy ne peut avoir I. The 1541 - 1557 editions 43 3 “Therefore, we request that this God’s majesty, which shines in all of His virtues, be hallowed. And not be hallowed within God Himself, who in Himself neither increases nor diminishes, but that His majesty be holy, that is truly recognized as it is, and glorified as it is appropriate.” 4 “that His Name be according to His works, so that none whose majesty deserves to be exalted, be hidden or obscured by men’s ungratefulness or ignorance.” 5 “In addition, that whatever He does and which is visible to us, that all of His works may seem glorious, as they truly are, so that the Prophet’s word be fulfilled, where he says: Lord, considering your reputation, your praise is manifested by all the earth.” 6 See also Calvin’s Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Translated by James Anderson. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005, 216-233. aucune augmentation ne diminution, mais à ce qu’elle soit estimée saincte, c’est à dire vrayement recongneue telle qu’elle est, et magnifiée comme elle appartient. 3 Calvin is implicitly saying that God’s majesty is not recognized by people in general. So we pray that we might see that and love the heavenly Father. And firstly, “que son Nom soit selon ses œuvres, tellement que nulle œuvre de laquelle sa grandeur mérite d’estre exaltée, ne soit cachée ou obscurcie par ingratitude ou mescongnoissance des hommes” 4 It is then through His Works that one may realize God’s greatness. Now some people intentionally hide the Father’s works, and others “obscure” them by ignorance. Therefore we pray for these people to convert, and we also pray for others not to be influenced by the evil doers or by the ignorant. In sum we pray to have faith in God, we pray for deserving His Grace. Calvin focuses on God’s conspicuous works, insofar as they are concrete things anyone can see and feel, things whose beauty and magnificence are truly uplifting: Davantage que quelque chose qu’on voye qu’il face, toutes ses œuvres apparoissent glorieuses, comme vrayement elles le sont, à fin que la sentence du Prophète soit pleinement accomplie, où il est dict: Seigneur, selon que tu es renommé, ta louënge est manifestée par toute la terre. 5 The theologian refers to Psalm 48, which celebrates the beauty of Mount Zion, but the latter place is not mentioned in his text, because he sees it as a symbol. In fact, he praises the whole earth, even the whole universe, for his conception is that of a universal and not of a national religion. What matters most, anyway, is the fact that both the author of Psalm 48 and Calvin admire the beauty of our natural world, emphasize the concrete visible things surrounding us, and see God through it. 6 The verse that has particularly inspired the Reformer is the one II. The first petition: “Hallowed by Thy name” 44 7 The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Edited by Bruce Metzger and Roland Murphy. New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991. In the French edition, translated by Segond (La Sainte Bible. Alliance Biblique Universelle, 1993), it is Pslam 48: 11. 8 “So much that if He punishes, He may be considered just, if He forgives, merciful , if he keeps His promise, true. In short, that there may be nothing in which His glory does not shine; and thus, may His praises be engraved in every heart, and reason in every language.” 9 “Finally, may every impious act, which desecrates and dishonors his holy Name, perish and be confounded, and by its destruction, may the majesty of God be more conspi‐ cuous.” he quotes: “Your name, O God, like your praise, reaches to the ends of the earth” (Psalm 48: 10). 7 The next point he makes is that whatever God does, whatever his work, we must consider it right and keep praising Him, Tellement que s’il punit, il soit recongneu iuste, s’il pardonne, miséricordieux; s’il tient ce qu’il a promis, véritable. Brief, qu’il n’y ayt chose en laquelle sa gloire ne reluyse; et qu’ainsi ses louënges soient engravées en tous cœurs, et raisonnent en toutes langues. 8 If one recognizes God’s holiness, in other words if one has faith in Him, one ought to praise him in everything He does, for He is always right and good. Furthermore, the prayer is said in behalf of everyone in the world. Calvin insists indeed on the universality of the Lord’s Prayer, underscored by the phrases “tous cœurs” (every heart) and “toutes langues” (every language). Nationalism has no place in the religion of Christ, according to Calvin. The last point the theologian makes is that by saying “Hallowed be Thy Name”, we are praying for the destruction of impiety and immorality: Finalement que toute impiété, laquelle pollue et déshonore ce sainct Nom, c’est à dire qui obscurcit ou diminue ceste sanctification, périsse et soit confondue; en laquelle confusion aussi de plus en plus la maiesté de Dieu soit esclarcie. 9 I point out the fact that Calvin does not blame anyone in particular, but criticizes impiety in general. Every time one overcomes the latter, or whenever God pu‐ nishes the impious, his glory becomes more visible. That is what we pray for. To conclude, this First Petition is not only a request, but also an act of praising the heavenly Father: Ainsi en ceste pétition est contenue l’action de grâces. Car d’autant que nous requé‐ rons le Nom de Dieu estre sanctifié, nous luy attribuons la louënge de tous biens, I. The 1541 - 1557 editions 45 10 “Thus in this petition is comprised the act of thanksgiving. For, inasmuch as we request that God’s name be hallowed, we praise Him for all the good we receive from Him, admit that everything comes from Him, and recognize his grace and goodness towards us, for which he deserves to be considered Holy.” 11 Compare this interpretation to that of Augustine, who thus comments on the First Petition by referring to Pslam 76.1: “For, because it is said, ‘In Judah is God known; His name is great in Israel,’ we are not to understand the statement in this way, as if God were less in one place, greater in another; but there His name is great, where He is named according to the greatness of His majesty. And so there His name is said to be holy, where He is named with veneration and the fear of offending Him” (Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount according to Matthew. Translated by William Findlay. Revised and annotated by D. Schaff. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by D. Schaff. Vol. VI. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888, 40.) It is noteworthy that his commentary ends by mentioning the Name of Christ: “And this what is now going on, while the gospel, by becoming known everywhere through‐ out the different nations, commends the name of the one God by means of the admi‐ nistration of His Son.” On the other hand, the name of Jesus is not mentioned in the commentary of the First Petition by Calvin. 12 “Though all ungodly men should break out with their sacrilegious license, the holiness of God’s name still shines.” Note that “break out” is not as strong as “crever”, which means “to die” or “to perish”. advouons tout estre de luy, et recongnoissons ses grâces et bénéfices envers nous, par lesquelles il mérite d’estre estimé Sainct. 10 To conclude, Calvin’s exegesis of the First Petition in all the editions of the Institutes prior to 1560 (1559 for the Latin edition) contains the following: 1) “Hallowed be Thy Name” is not only a word of request but also of praise; 2) We ask God to have mercy upon us and make us see Him in order to be happy; 3) We praise Him for everything we have; 4) Calvin, inspired by Pslam 48, puts the emphasis on the beauty that surrounds us; 5) We pray that the whole earth see the majesty of God; 11 5) Finally, from a positive point of view, he stresses God’s greatness rather than Man’s sinfulness. Let us turn now to the revision of his text in the last edition. II. The 1560 edition As I described it before, the paragraph on the First Petition starts with a criticism of humans in general, insofar as they are ungrateful and obscure the Name of God. The theologian’s tone gets harsher as he curses the unjust: “Vray est que la saincteté du Nom de Dieu reluit en despit des iniques, voire et deussent-ils crever avec leurs desbordemens pleins de sacrilège.” 12 Here, he refers to Psalm 48: 11, with a slightly different translation: “O Dieu selon que ton Nom est II. The first petition: “Hallowed by Thy name” 46 13 Namely “might, goodness, wisdom, righteousness, mercy, truth.” 14 “Parquoy, d’autant qu’on ravit ainsi outrageusement à Dieu sa saincteté en terre, si nous ne la pouvons maintenir comme il seroit à désirer, c’est pour le moins que nous ayons soin de prier Dieu qu’il la maintienne.” 15 “To this is opposed the profanity that has always been too common and even today is abroad in the world.” 16 The term “vogue” comes from Italian voga, “reputation”. The basic meaning is some‐ thing that has reached its climax. It also means “fashion”, already in the 16 th century. 17 “Hence the need of this petition, which ought to have been superfluous if even a little godliness existed among us.” cogneu, aussi ta louange est estendue sur toutes les fins de la terre! ” In the previous editions we had: “Seigneur, selon que tu es renommé, ta louënge est manifestée par toute la terre.” The emphasis is put in both cases on the ending, which expresses the idea that the entire world ought to know God and admire his works. The specific geographic places of Mount Zion and Jerusalem, high‐ lighted throughout Psalm 48, are deliberately omitted. To go back to the criticism of men, I notice that in the last edition Calvin has in mind ungodly people, “les iniques” (the unjust), whom he curses and wishes for them to die (“deussent-ils crever”)—a pretty crude language indeed! —whe‐ reas in the previous editions he wished for the perishment of ungodliness (“que toute impiété…périsse”). It is neither the same tone not the same idea. For cri‐ ticizing impious individuals presupposes the idea that some people are pure, but criticizing impiety concerns certain acts, and so applies to everybody. Besides, if we prayed for people who commit sin to die, then everyone should perish. Calvin did not mean that, obviously, but the way he expresses his dissatisfaction in the last revised edition of the Institutes may imply such an idea. At any rate, in this Petition, according to Calvin, we pray first for everyone to see God’s majesty, to see his greatness, his virtues, “assavoir puissance, bonté, sagesse, iustice, miséricorde, vérité.” 13 Since the world is deeply defiled, and “God’s ho‐ liness is so unworthily snatched from him on earth, if it is not in our power to assert it, at least we are bidden to be concerned for it in our prayers.” 14 Another new point made in this revision is that people have always sinned, but today more than ever. Thus profanation is a “vice” which “a toujours esté par trop commun au monde, comme encore auiourdhuy il y a trop la vogue.” 15 One of the meanings of the last word, “vogue”, is, in the 16 th century, “the highest point.” 16 Calvin does not make any exception, and believing in the original sin, he emphasizes the ungodliness which caracterizes every human being. If there was only just a little piety in us, he points out, the First Petition would not be necessary: “Et c’est dont vient la nécessité de faire ceste requeste, laquelle seroit superflue s’il y avoit en nous quelque piété.” 17 This reminds us of Jesus saying II. The 1560 edition 47 18 “…and so embrace all that proceeds from him. And his sterness no less than his leniency should lead us to praise him, seeing that he has engraved marks of his glory upon a manifold diversity of works, and this rightly calls forth praises from every tongue.” 19 “But the petition is directed also to this end: that all impiety which has besmirched this holy name may perish and be wiped out; that all detractions and mockeries which dim this hallowing or diminish it may be banished; and that in silencing all sacrileges, God may shine forth more and more in his majesty.” even to his disciples, even to Peter, “You of little faith” (Mat 8: 26 and 14: 31.) Therefore, the Name of God is not “hallowed” as it ought to be. It has never been so, even by the Apostles. So Calvin insists on the adverb, “deuement” (repeated twice) and its synonym “comme il appartient”. Before he had used the expres‐ sion, “comme il seroit à désirer”. We can never honor enough His word (allusion to the Scripture) and His actions, therefore we need to pray for doing better. On the other hand, God may reward or punish us—see “rigueur” (severity, harsh‐ ness) vs “clémence” (kindness)—according to His will, but whatever He does, we must keep His name “holy”, love Him, and praise Him: …que nous embrassions tout ce qui procède de luy, et que sa rigueur ne soit pas moins prisée et louée entre nous que sa clémence, veu qu’en la diversité de ses œuvres il a par tout imprimé certaines marques de sa gloire, lesquelles à bon droit doyvent tirer louange de toutes langues. 18 The prayer concerns the whole world, and concludes on the primordial impor‐ tance of the Bible, without which one could not understand God fully. The au‐ thority of the holy book is something that has not been respected in the Catholic Church, thinks Calvin, who only implicitly mentions it here. If God’s Name is hallowed, then “l’Escriture obtiendra pleine authorité envers nous” (“Thus it will come about that Scripture will obtain a just authority among us”). The Reformer alludes to those, in the traditional church (i.e. the Roman Catholics) who do not read the Bible or do not let others read it. He who does it is impious, he says. Others—allusion to atheists and “libertines” in general—mock or vilify religion and God. And still others—allusion to heretics—deviate from the Scripture, and so are detractors of the Word. He prays that all this impiety perish. The conc‐ lusion is indeed a kind of prayer addressing this issue: La requeste aussi tend à ce but, que toute impiété, laquelle pollue ce sainct et sacré Nom, périsse, que toutes détractions et murmures, et aussi les moqueries qui obscur‐ cissent ou diminuent ceste sanctification, soyent exterminées, et que Dieu, en répri‐ mant et mettant sous le pied tels sacrilèges, face que sa maiesté croisse iournellement en plus grand lustre. 19 II. The first petition: “Hallowed by Thy name” 48 This conclusion, in spite of the positive ending words, is mainly bitter and sad, as we compare it with the previous editions of the Institutes. * First, we can be surprised by the fact that Calvin needed to change completely his text. Then, by comparing the two versions, we realize that the essence, the‐ ologically speaking, is the same. Besides, in both versions, a reference to the same verse of the Psalm helps the interpreter to develop his explanation of the First Petition. However, we notice the following about the last version as op‐ posed to the previous editions: 1) It is longer. 2) The theologian insists more on the evil in man. The previous versions started and ended by highlighting God’s glorious name and majesty, whereas the last version starts and ends by insisting on man’s evil mind. 3) His language is harsher, and in his prayer—because by explaining the petition he implicitly prays himself—he would like to see, not only impiety, but also the impious perish. In a word, I do not see a change in Calvin’s theology, but rather a change in psychology or his attitude towards humans and the future of humanity. It is rather dark. Is it somehow due to his health conditions, to some more disappo‐ intment about the society, or some other psychological reason? It is difficult to know. II. The 1560 edition 49 1 On our topic, see also the following studies: Donald K. McKim, Theological Turning Points. Major Issues in Christian Thought. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1988, 151-165; Von Gunter Zimmermann, “Die Vereinigung mit Gott das Reich Christi nach Cal‐ vins ‘Institutio,” Zwingliana XVIII, 3, 1990, 193-212; Wilhelm Niesel, Reformed Sym‐ bolics. A Comparison of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Transl. by David Lewis. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1962, 292-301; J. H. van Wyk, “John Calvin on the kingdom of God and eschatology,” In die Skriflig 35, 2, 2001, 191-205; I. John Hesselink, “Calvin on the Kingdom of Christ,” in Religion without Ulterior Mo‐ tive. Edit. by E. A. J. G. van der Borght. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006, 139-158; Theodore Plantinga, Learning to Live with Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1982, 135-143; G. Brillenburg Wurth, “Calvin and the Kingdom of God,” in John Calvin. Con‐ temporary Prophet. A Symposium. Edit. By Jacob T. Hoogstra. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1959, 113-126; and Timothy George, “John calvin and Menno Simons: Reformation Perspectives on the Kingdom of God,” in Calviniana. Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin. Edit. By Robert V. Schnucker. Kirksville, Missouri: NMSU Press, 1988 (Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, vol. X), 195-214. 2 Jean Calvin. Institution de la religion chrestienne III, XX, 42. Ed. Jean-Daniel Benoît. Paris: J. Vrin, 1960. In the earlier editions, this text is the paragraph 36 in Chapter XV. III. The second petition: “Thy kingdom come” Calvin translates and publishes his Institutes in French for the first time in 1541, that is five years after the first Latin edition. His commentary of the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer remains basically the same in the following editions (till 1557), but for the definitive version of his work, that of 1560, he rewrites it entirely. First, I propose a close reading of the 1541-57 text; then I compare it with the last one. Why did the theologian decide to rewrite his text? How has his theology evolved? Is there any basic change in his view? These are the qu‐ estions I am asking in this essay. 1 I. The Institutes 1541 - 1557 (French) editions Calvin starts by defining the notion of “Kingdom” with regard to God. He thus states that His Kingdom consists in two parts, both being readily observable, but of an abstract nature. 1) God rules through His Holy Spirit in the heart of every believer (“Car il règne premièrement en tant qu’il dirige et gouverne les siens par son S. Esprit”. 2 ) The theologian uses three terms to define the role of the Heavenly King, since it is assumed that there is no kingdom without a king. Now the three verbs “règne” (rule), “dirige” (direct), and “gouverne” (govern) 3 Oxford English Dictionary [OED], under “to direct”, 3b. 4 Indeed, as T. George writes, “The cross of Christ may in no wise be avoided, for the lamb will never be at peace with the wolf, the dove with eagle, Christ with Belial.” (207) have specific meanings. How does He rule (“il règne”)? ─ The answer is that He governs (“il gouverne”), which means that He rules with authority. Indeed, one can rule but not necessarily govern, in which case he would be a king without authority. But God rules with authority. He also through His Spirit directs (“il dirige”) His children (“les siens”), i.e. He keeps them in “right order, controls, and governs their actions”. 3 Implicitly, He does that to prevent them from being tempted by the Devil. Thus God shows through the believers’ works and words His goodness and abundant mercy (“pour en toutes leurs œuvres ou parolles manifester sa bonté et les richesses de sa miséricorde”). Therefore, one sign of God’s Kingdom is that He is ruling through one’s good deeds and words. So whenever we do good, we ought to know that we are acting under the rule of God, and that we are His obedient subjects or children. 2) But God rules also over the unbeliever. His Kingdom can indeed be seen through the punishment of the ungodly, already here on earth. For God destroys the evil-doers (“abysme les réprouvez”). The reprobate (“réprouvez”) are the ones rejected or disap‐ proved by God, for they are disobedient subjects, wrong-doers, people who do not care about His rule (“qui ne le recongnoissent point pour leur Dieu et Seig‐ neur, et ne luy veulent être subiectz”). God, in this case, throws them into the “abysme” (abyss), in other words, the “infernal pit” or “hell” ( OED , “abyss”, 1c). The Heavenly Father humbles the proud and arrogant people who refuse to recognize Him as their ruler (“rabbat leur orgueil et arrogance”). The metaphor explains the fact that God punishes evil-doers already in this world. One can witness His retribution every day, Calvin writes: “ces choses se font tous les jours devant noz yeux”. To sum up, God’s Kingdom is revealed in two ways, through people’s both good and evil deeds. That is how the Father shows His authority as the only King. Wrongdoing is punished, but is the opposite re‐ warded, according to the theologian? Yes, for even though it is not explicitly mentioned in his exegesis, the reward is perceived through God’s goodness and mercy, which bring about happiness and joy. After this spiritual definition of the Kingdom, Calvin stresses once more the fact that the latter is already right here on earth (“On peut veoir que ce Règne est mesmes en ce monde”), and mentions the power of it. Implicitly expressed is the idea that good people suffer by evil-doers, but God’s Kingdom is not wea‐ kend for all that, for no power is able to resist God’s power: “il n’y a nulle puissance qui puisse résister à la sienne”. God’s good children suffer indeed in this world, but they must accept life’s challenges and bear their crosses. 4 The I. The Institutes 1541-1557 (French) editions 51 good news is that the Lord gives them courage and does not forsake them: “notre Seigneur donne force et vigueur à sa parolle, ainsi érigée comme un sceptre, et la fait fructifier et régner, mesme soubs la croix, contemnement et ignominie du monde.” Two ideas are pointed out here: 1) He who follows the Word receives the power to resist all kinds of difficulties and miseries in this world, including the torture of the cross (“croix”), contempt (“contemnement”), and dishonor (“ignominie”); 2) The Word has a fructifying effect (Dieu “la fait fructifier et régner”). Another explanation is that, believing in the Word makes one pow‐ erful, for it is like a scepter (“comme un sceptre”), which symbolizes the King’s authority and sovereignty. In a third part of his commentary, the name of the Son is introduced: first God the Father was mentioned, then the Holy Spirit, and now Jesus-Christ. It is not that the Holy Spirit should come before the Son—Calvin’s conception of Christ throughout the Institutes is very clear on this point. The Son is the Word of God, and so the Holy Spirit, being the power which instils the Word into one’s cons‐ cience, cannot precede it. So the reason why in this exegesis the Son’s name is mentioned after the Holy Spirit, is because the theologian first explains how the believer is directed. And now he points out that Christ has expressed the fact that the Kingdom is within us (“Pourtant aussi Christ dit que le Royaume de Dieu est en nous”). Two other ideas are then put forth: 1) Christ sometimes calls the Church “Kingdom of Heaven”, (Il “appelle aucunesfois l’Eglise le Royaume des cieux”). This church, of which Jesus is the ruler (“en laquelle vrayement il domine”) is not explained, but one understands that it is a spiritual place. It is a metaphor, neither a congregation, nor a building, nor an institution in the conc‐ rete sense, but rather the community of believers. 2) He also sometimes calls the predication of the Gospel “Kingdom of Heaven” (“aucunesfois la prédication de l’Evangile”). Christ rules by His Word (“par laquelle il establist sa domination”— to be understood in the etymological sense, from dominus, “Lord”). We perceive that the “Kingdom of God” is both a metaphor and a metonymy: as a metaphor, it is like a place, though a spiritual one—it is in one’s heart. It could also be called “Eglise” (church)—from the Latin ecclesia, meaning “community of the faithful.” However, calling the predication or the spreading of the Word a “Kingdom” is a metonymy. The Kingdom is here the belief in the Word of God. If one does believe, one will preach the Gospel and spread it, and that is how it is related to the metaphoric kingdom. The citizens of this Kingdom consider themselves subjects of one king only, Christ. Indeed, the Kingdom without Him does not mean anything, for the Kingdom is his—it is where his Word rules and governs. III. The second petition: “Thy kingdom come” 52 A fourth part of Calvin’s exegesis, in the 1541 edition, concerns the justifi‐ cation of the request made in the prayer. First, after stressing again the spiritual nature of God’s Kingdom (“il est spirituel et consiste en choses spirituelles”), he mentions the qualities of it: incorruptible and eternal (“il est incorruptible et éternel”). Second, the theologian explains the reason for this second petition, since God’s Kingdom is already here, has always been, and will always be. Why, indeed, do we have to ask for its coming? There are two reasons for that, he asserts: 1) We pray for people who do not see God to be touched by His Grace; in other words we pray for the unbelievers to join the community of the faithful. We pray for the wrongdoers to become good. So we pray for the number of believers, who constitute the true church, to increase every day (“c’est à dire que de plus en plus tous les iours nostre Seigneur augmente le nombre de ses subiectz et fidèles”), and that God may be glorified in every way (“desquelz il soit en toutes manières glorifié”). 2) We pray for those, including ourselves, who do believe in Him to have our faith strengthened. We pray for receiving more and more of God’s graces (“et qu’en ceux qu’il aura désia appellez en son Ro‐ yaume il distribue et multiplie tousiours plus abondamment ses grâces”). I sup‐ pose that, since it is about the realm of spirit, the graces we are asking for must be of spiritual nature. We pray for everyone, therefore, to become some day united to God. We pray that God may live and reign in everyone’s heart, and that He make everyone whole, or perfectly sound: that by his Grace, “de plus en plus continuellement il vive et règne en eux, iusques à ce que les ayant parfaic‐ tement uniz à soy, il les remplisse du tout”. This perfect unification of humanity with God somewhat reveals a mystical approach, but this requires a separate discussion, which is beyond the object of the present essay. We reach the last part or the conclusion of Calvin’s exegesis, which is about eschatology, first in the modern theological sense of the word, or eschatology pertaining to things of this world, then to eschatology in the traditional sense. In the last phase of human mental development, according to Calvin, the Devil will be destroyed. What is noteworthy is that this happens gradually in this world, according to the theologian. He thus repeats the expression “de plus en plus” (more and more); he means to emphasize the fact that there is an evolution in the human moral advancement. So one should not think of a sudden radical magical change at some vague point in the future, but consider a gradual process. I. The Institutes 1541 - 1557 (French) editions 53 5 Donald K. McKim points out that “While Calvin can say that ‘the Kingdom of God inc‐ reases, stage upon stage, to the end of the world,’ he does not believe in a gradual, evolutionary growth of the kingdom of God through the structures of the present world. The kingdom is not ours to win; it’s God’s to give (…). The present reign of God is found where people both by denial of themselves and by contempt of the world and of earthly life, pledge themselves to God’s righteousness in order to aspire to a heavenly life.” (163) 6 As John Hesselink puts it, “Calvin also makes clear what was only implied before, na‐ mely, that God reigns in two ways: in the renewal of the lives of believers and in the overcoming of Satan and all God’s ennemies. The goal in both cases is to restore order in a confused and disordered world, for ‘disorder (ataxia) and confusion’ are the ‘op‐ posite of the kingdom of God’.” (158) 7 “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all” (Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publ., 1989). Therefore, eschatology is being realized little by little. 5 It is in the here and now. We pray that “que de plus en plus il veuille illustrer sa lumière et sa vérité. Par‐ quoy les ténèbres et mensonges du Diable et de ses suppostz s’évanouyssent, soient déchassées, confondues et annéanties”. 6 We pray for the progressive re‐ alization of the Kingdom, so that God’s light (“lumière”) and truth (“vérité”) be revealed to everyone, and the Devil (or the evil principle) and its followers gra‐ dually vanish (“s’évanouissent”), be thrown out (“déchassées”), unmasked (“con‐ fondues”), and annihilated (“annéanties”). The evil will eventually completely disappear from this world. We pray for that and believe that it is happening a little more every day.This is certainly a happy and optimistic vision of humanity. But Calvin also believes in eschatology in the traditional sense, and so in the following way he ends his interpretation: “En priant que le Règne de Dieu adv‐ ienne ainsi, pareillement nous prions qu’il soit finalement consommé et ac‐ comply, qui sera au iour de son Iugement, quand toutes choses seront révélées. Auquel iour lui seul sera exalté et sera tout en tous, après avoir recueilly les siens en gloire, et avoir déprimé, subiugué et ruyné tout le règne du Diable.” Therefore, this concrete world on earth will end for the humans at some point in time.This last part of the exegesis, concerning the Day of Judgment, shows of course a theologian who also believes in a world after this material one, which is not surprizing, since this idea is present in the Bible. Calvin, as a faithful reader of the latter, believes that in that Day everything will be revealed and that God alone will be exalted. On that day, everybody will only see Him (“sera tout en tous”), referring to the First Corinthians 15: 28. 7 That means that only the belie‐ vers will remain. In the other world, the Devil will have no place at all, for his fragile kingdom (“le règne du Diable”) will have disappeared: it will be knocked down (“déprimé”), subdued (“subjugué”), and ruined (“ruiné”). It is noticeable that this last part, devoted to eschatology in the traditional sense, is but a small III. The second petition: “Thy kingdom come” 54 8 “[f]or if we consider our languor in the greatest matters of all, it behooves us to extend our discussion in order to drive home something that ought to have been thoroughly known of itself ” (Institutes of the Christian Religion III, XX, 42. Ed. John T. McNeill. Transl. by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.) 9 “Therefore, after we have been bidden to ask God to subject and finally completely destroy everything that casts a stain upon his holy name….” section of the exegesis, which is understandable insofar as nobody knows about the life beyond this one, but one can talk about the progressive eschatology in the present material world. So the main part of the commentary on Matthew 6: 10 is about one’s earthly life, i.e. on eschatolgy in the modern or, if I may say, existentialist sense of the word. Hope is the fundamental idea, for the Kingdom of God is being realized before our eyes on a daily basis; it is at our own hand. Our prayer helps us to appreciate it more and more as we see ourselves changing into better individuals and enjoying life better, and as we see others joining the community of the faithful. Although not explicit, these ideas are somehow sug‐ gested in Calvin’s commentary. II. The last version of The Institutes (the 1560 French edition) We notice first that a few lines have been added to the beginning of the exegesis. In this introduction the commentator asserts that this second petition does not bring anything really new to the first. There is, however, a reason for the re‐ dundancy: “Car si nous pensons bien à nostre tardiveté et rudesse, il est besoin que nous ayons les oreilles battues souvent de ce qui doit estre tant et plus notoire”. 8 Two nouns are here stressed: “tardiveté” (slowness, dullness of intel‐ lect or comprehension) and “rudesse” (ignorance, or even absence of virtue— see “rudeness” in OED 2b ). Because we are slow and ignorant, we need more explanation and repetition. We have ears but we do not hear, Calvin thinks, so we need to hear the Word of God over and over again (“il est besoin que nous ayons les oreilles battues souvent de ce qui doit estre tant et plus notoire”). If we understand the first petition, it is “notoire” (from notorius, from noscere, “to know”), or “it ought to have been thoroughly known of itself ”, that “Hallowed be Thy Name” includes “Thy Kingdom Come”, but we still need to say it again in a different way. Therefore, after we pray that God destroy all that stain his holy name (“Après doncques qu’il nous a esté ordonné de prier Dieu qu’il abbate, et finalement destruise tout ce qui souille son sacré Nom…” 9 ), we pray for the coming of His Kingdom.We see that from the outset the theologian’s tone is II. The last version of The Institutes (the 1560 French edition) 55 10 “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 hea‐ venly life.” 11 “Thus there are two parts to this Kingdom: first, that God by the power of his Spirit correct all the desires of the flesh which by squadrons war against him; second, that he shape all our thoughts in obedience to his rule.” 12 “Therefore, no others keep a lawful order in this petition but those who begin with themselves, that is, to be cleansed of all corruptions that disturb the peaceful state of God’s Kingdom and sully its purity.” more critical in this last edition. Then he states that one can talk about God as one’s King only when one renounces the material world and aspires to live spiritually by devoting oneself to God’s justice: “Dieu est tenu pour Roy, quand les hommes, renonçans à eux mesmes et mesprisans le monde et ceste vie ter‐ restre, s’addonnent à la justice de Dieu pour aspirer à la vie céleste”. 10 He also mentions the fact that he is repeating what he has already discussed elsewhere —referring to the Institutes III , III , 19. We realize that repetition is deliberate and has a didactic reason for Calvin. Repetition is also used by Jesus, as Calvin con‐ tends, in the Lord’s Prayer. From here the theologian goes back to his 1541 version and rewrites it, thus expressing in a new way the main idea of the kingdom on earth as being ma‐ nifested through God’s retribution. In the earlier editions, he had divided the kingdom into two parts, mentioning first God’s goodness and mercy through his deserving children, then his punishment of the sinners. In the last edition, however, he uses a bitter tone saying: “Ainsi il y a deux parties de ce règne: c’est que Dieu corrige et abbate par la vertu de son Esprit toutes cupiditez de la chair, lesquelles se dressent à grand foulle pour batailler contre luy. Secondement, qu’il plie et forme tous nos sens pour les assuiettir à son empire”. 11 The emphasis is put on “correction”, and the distinction between reward and punishment, or good people and evildoers, is not made here. Everyone is equally concerned. The two following stages are indicated: 1) The destruction of evil tendencies and thoughts in humans. 2) The “the rule” of God. Another point the theologian makes is that, in order to become a good subject of God as King, is to start with oneself. Before we wish to change the society, we must change ourselves: “Pourtant, quiconque veut tenir bon ordre en ceste requeste, il faut qu’il commence par soy, désirant d’estre purgé de toutes cor‐ ruptions qui troublent en son cœur l’estat paisible du règne de Dieu, et en in‐ fectent la pureté.” 12 Self-criticism is an essential feature of the new version. In the 1541 version of the Institutes, the prayer stresses more God’s action, whereas in the last edition, the theologian asks for more effort from humans. The human will and responsibility are, indeed, more strongly expressed in this edition. The III. The second petition: “Thy kingdom come” 56 13 “Now, because the word of God is like a royal scepter, we are bidden here to entreat him to bring all men’s minds and hearts into voluntary obedience to it.” 14 “Afterward we should descend to the impious, who stubbornly and with desperate madness resist his authority.” 15 “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….” 16 “at last he slays Antichrist with the Spirit of his mouth, and destroys all ungodliness by the brightness of his coming.” He thus refers to 2 Thess. (2: 8): “And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming.” fact that all are sinners is also better articulated here. Everyone, he insists, must follow His Word, which is like a scepter: “Au reste pource que la parolle de Dieu est comme un sceptre royal, il nous est ici ordonné de prier qu’il assuiestisse les esprits et les cœurs de tous à une obéissance volontaire d’icelle.” 13 The concept of church is also differently conveyed in the new edition. The theologian is less abstract here and talks of church not as much as Jesus does, which corresponds more to the spirit of the first edition, but rather as Paul does. The church has become a more concrete group of Christians. The idea of mission is then conspicuous in the last edition. After we have reached—although not explicit, this idea is presupposed—a certain degree of maturity in our faith, we must go and rescue others: “Après nous pourrons descendre aux meschans qui résistent à son empire avec obstination et fureur désespérée,” 14 and “Nous avons à désirer que cela [God’s retributive justice] se face chacun iour, afin que Dieu recueille des églises de toutes les parties du monde, qu’il les multiplie en nombre, qu’il les enrichisse de ses dons, qu’il y establisse bon ordre….” 15 The following ideas are already clearly presented in the 1541 edition, but in 1560 they are simply rephrased: the perfect world will come with the coming of Christ, one must patiently bear one’s Cross, etc. The idea of evolution, a gradual improvement of humans’ understanding of God and morals, is also present. The ending is hopeful and somewhat similar to the first edition. I note, however, that the term “Antechrist” is used in 1560, instead of “Diable”, which is actually the last word of his commentary in 1541—the Devil who will be completely de‐ stroyed. Moreover, in the first edition, Calvin calls the ending of our material world the Day of Judgment (“jour de son Iugement, quand toutes choses seront révélées”), whereas in 1560, the ending is presented as the Day when Antichrist is destroyed and that God has eliminated “toute impiété par la clarté de son advènement.” 16 II. The last version of The Institutes (the 1560 French edition) 57 Conclusion First, the fact that Calvin needed to write anew his text is significant. His inter‐ pretation has not changed so much, although a shift from Jesus’ view of the church to Paul’s view of it is in my opinion rather important. But, one might argue, since Jesus is being vague on this issue, it is hard to prove that there is a real difference between Paul and him. Furthermore, it seems that Calvin has psychologically changed: he is less optimistic, and needs to blame ourselves more for our shortcomings. He does not exclude himself of course. It is self-cri‐ ticism at the same time. Finally, the fact that the theologian wants to say in a different and longer way basically the same things, justifies what he considers redundancy in Jesus, since, according to Calvin, the first petition should also make the second one obvious (“notoire”). III. The second petition: “Thy kingdom come” 58 1 Jean Calvin. Institution de la religion chrestienne. Livre Troisième. Edition de Jean-Daniel Benoît. Paris : J. Vrin, 1960, 387-88. I underline in the quotes. IV. The third petition: “Thy will be done” For the 1560’s French edition, the last of his Institution de la religion chrétienne, Calvin completely rewrites his commentary of the Third Petition of The Lord’s Prayer. I propose to compare this last version with the previous ones, but also with the interpretation the theologian offers in his Commentaires sur la Con‐ cordance ou Harmonie, composée des trois Evangélistes. Although the differences are mainly formal and do not present any real change in terms of theology, this comparative stylistic study may yet reveal some interesting details about the Reformer’s psychological and spiritual evolution. I. The 1541 - 57 editions of the Institutes The commentary can be divided into three parts. It is followed by a general conclusion on the first three petitions. I will not consider this general conclusion, but only analyze the interpretation of the third request itself. I.1. Only God’s Will Calvin begins by stating that in this petition, we ask God: que comme il ne se faict rien au ciel sinon de son ordonnance, ainsi qu’il assubiectisse la terre à son empire, abolissant toute contumace et rebellion. Et que en ceste manière, en tout et par tout selon sa volunté, il gouverne et dispose toutes choses, conduise les événemens et yssues de toutes choses, use selon son plaisir de toutes ses créatures et assubiectisse à soy toutes leurs voluntez, à fin qu’elles obéyssent à la sienne. 1 This opening stresses the idea contained in the second part of the Petition, na‐ mely in the phrase, “on earth as it is in heaven.” First we are asking God to make the earth obedient to him as it is in heaven, where nothing is done “sinon de son ordonnance,” in other words where his will is absolutely respected. Thus we pray that the heavenly Father help us renounce our rebelliousness. More precisely, we beseech that God abolish “toute contumace et rebellion” on earth, since every‐ 2 Jonathan H. Rainbow rightly points out about Calvin’s interpretation of 2 Timothy 1: 9-10 in a 1555 sermon, that according to the Reformer, “God’s eternal purpose in Christ is for the elect, and the manifestation of Christ in history is for the elect. The reprobate are not in view at all. Therefore, the cavil that Christ is the Redeemer of all men without exception is overturned. And to deny that Christ is the Redeemer of ‘all in common and indiscriminately’ is surely tantamount of denying universal redemption.” The Will of God and the Cross. An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Li‐ mited Redemption. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1990, 124. thing is in his hand. We are at the same time implicitly confessing our sins. We show our guilty-feeling, since the terms “contumace” (from the Latin contu‐ macia), stressed by “rebellion,” denotes obstinacy and arrogance, revealing our perverse tendencies. This makes the Third Petition all the more necessary for our salvation. We make an earnest entreaty to God to forgive us and transform us into obedient subjects. The Reformer emphasizes the word “tout”: indeed we express our need for help in everything we do. The expression “toutes choses” is twice used, and “tout” is repeated seven times in this beginning. The writer insists on the fact that we pray for everyone, in every place, in every circumstance, and in every period. Moreover, the verbs “assujettir,” used twice, and “obéir” also underscore people’s desperate need for taking God’s commandments seriously. We pray for everyone to be happy and saved by living according to the Creator’s will, not ours: “toutes leurs voluntez” and “toutes ses créatures” (every will of every creature). God’s will and sovereignty are stressed by the repetition of the possessive “his”: “son ordonnace”, “son empire”, “sa volunté”, “son plaisir”, as well as “à la sienne,” which ends this opening. In sum, we admit our misery and our helplessness, and recognize that God’s grace alone can help us change ourselves. I.2. The Devil and the Reprobates Voire mesmes qu’il impose tellement Loy et ioug aux meschantes cupiditez du Diable et des réprouvez, qui s’efforcent de fuyr son commandement, et entant que en eux est, le reiettent, qu’ilz ne puissent rien exécuter, que selon son bon plaisir. A distinction here is clearly made between people who can be saved and those who are condemned in advance (predestination is hinted at), namely the Devil (“Diable”) and its followers, i.e. the reprobate (“réprouvez”). 2 We pray that these ennemies of God may have no influence on others, including ourselves, and that they become powerless thanks to the imposition of more divine laws (“Loy”) and yoke (“ioug”). We acknowledge that these incorrigible creatures, on account of their wicked covetousness (“meschantes cupiditez”), are dangerous to us. In‐ deed, they consciously and deliberately rebel against God and avoid his com‐ IV. The third petition: “Thy will be done” 60 mandment (“s’efforcent de fuyr son commandement”). They reject it as much as they can (“et entant que en eux est, le rejettent’). So we pray that they become unable to hurt others, so that we would only do whatever pleases God (“qu’ilz ne puissent rien exécuter, que selon son bon plaisir”). The idea of the reprobate, the incorrigible, as well as that of their master, the Devil, is the main point in the second part of this commentary. I.3. Our duty and our promise to God This part concerns every human being except for the reprobates, who are damned in advance (allusion to predestination), for reasons hidden to us. Fur‐ thermore, only God knows who the reprobates are. Therefore, our prayer is for all the believers, including ourselves, as well as for all the lost ones in the world. This part also justifies the reason for our petition and sums up what has been said in the commentary: Et ainsi faisans ceste prière, nous renonceons à toutes noz cupiditez et désirs, délaissans et abandonnans à Dieu toutes les affections que nous avons, et le prians qu’il ne face point que les choses adviennent selon nostre appétit, mais selon qu’il voit et congnoist estre bon, et ainsi qu’il luy plaist. Et mesmes ne désirons pas seulement que l’effect de noz cupiditez contrariantes à Dieu soit annéanty et destruict, mais que Dieu crée en nous nouveau cœur et nouveau vouloir, tellement qu’il n’y ayt en nous autre désir qu’un accord avec sa volunté. Brief, que de nous mesmes nous ne vueillions point, mais que son Esprit veuille en nous, et nous face aymer les choses qui luy plaisent, et avoir en hayne et horreur tout ce qui luy desplaist. In the first part, the emphasis was on the possessive “his”, that is God’s (his will, his commandment, etc…). In the third and last part, however, it is put on “our”. Here, we stress our wickedness, ours alone. We are not mentioning the Devil in order to better admit our own responsibility. We feel ashamed of our greed (“nostre appétit”) as well as our covetousness (“noz cupiditez”), which is twice mentioned. We realize that these worldly thoughts are detestable to God (“con‐ trariantes à Dieu”). We also pray for a renewal, a resurrection of ourselves. We need indeed a new heart (“nouveau cœur”) and a new will (“nouveau vouloir”). The strong terms “hayne” (hatred) and “horreur”, as well as the verb “displease” (“desplaist”), which end the exegesis, show how much we are sorry to be far from God and how serious we are about our prayer. We acknowledge that our will is corrupted (the original sin being implied), and so we pray that God’s Will alone act in us through the Holy Spirit (“mais que son Esprit veuille en nous”). I. The 1541-57 editions of the Institutes 61 3 See Luther’s Works, vol. 21. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956. 4 This might be a sign of a more rationalist and mathematically oriented mind (even number, two perfectly equal parts) in Calvin’s case, whereas the sacred number “seven” might reveal a more mystical mind in Luther’s. II. The 1560’s edition of the Institutes We first note that the text of this last edition is much longer than that of the previous editions. Second, the commentary is followed, like in the other editions, by a general conclusion on the first three petitions. This shows the importance for Calvin to divide the prayer into two separate and perfectly equal parts (1-3; 4-6), and not, as Luther had done, 3 into seven parts. 4 At any rate, this general conclusion, even though it is part of the commentary of the Third Petition, will not be discussed here. II.1. The Will of God, and the Relation between the Third and the Second Petitions Calvin starts by stating that the Will of God depends on his Kingdom: “La trois‐ ième requeste est: Que la volonté de Dieu soit faite en la terre comme au ciel; ce qui dépend bien de son règne et n’en peut estre séparé” (Institution III , XX , 43, 387-88). Although this idea is somehow understood in the text of the earlier editions, it is made perfectly explicit in the last editions by the words “empire” and “gouverne”, stressed at the beginning of the commentary. The relation bet‐ ween the third and the second petitions is here fundamental. When we ask in the Second Petition, that His “Kingdom come,” we are at the same time expres‐ sing our desire to see his Will respected by everyone. We remember that the theologian had already said the same thing about the relation between the se‐ cond and the first petitions. He had justified the repetition by pointing out the fact that we are too slow to understand, emphasizing our “tardiveté et rudesse” (Institution III , XX , 42, 385). And here, about the Third Petition, he justifies the reason for it in the following manner: toutesfois si n’est-il pas adiousté en vain à cause de nostre rudesse, laquelle n’appré‐ hende pas aisément ne si tost qu’emporte ce mot: que Dieu règne au monde. Parquoy il n’y aura point de mal de prendre ceci comme par forme d’exposition, que lors Dieu sera Roy du monde quand tous seront rengez sous sa volonté. The main point is that if God is recognized by everyone as the absolute ruler of the world (Second Petition), his will is consequently respected too. Again, it is IV. The third petition: “Thy will be done” 62 5 In his Commentaires, this distinction is made at the outset: “Combien que la volonté de Dieu pour le regard d’iceluy, soit une et simple, toutesfois elle nous est proposee en deux sortes és Escritures. Car il est dit que la volonté de Dieu se fait, quand il execute les secrets conseils de sa providence, combien que les hommes s’efforcent obstinément de lui resister. Mais ici il nous est commandé en un autre sens de prier que sa volonté soit faite: assavoir que toutes creatures luy obeissent paisiblement et sans contradiction aucune.” Commentaires de Iean Calvin sur la Concordance ou Harmonie, composee des trois Evangelistes, assavoir saint Matthieu, saint Marc, et saint Luc. Genève: Michel Blan‐ chier, 1563, 126. because of our ignorance and lack of intelligence, both ideas comprised in the term “rudesse”, that repetition is necessary. Furthermore, we must understand that if we earnestly ask God for being his faithful subjects, which we also request in the Second Petition, we must act according to his Will. The two petitions are then reciprocal. II.2. God’s Secret Will versus the Will indicated in the Third Petition Another nunace is clearly added to the previous editions of the Institutes, namely the distinction one ought to make between God’s two wills. 5 The theologian explicates it as follows: Or il n’est pas ici question de sa volonté secrète, par laquelle il dispose toutes choses et les ameine à telle fin que bon luy semble. Car quoy que Satan et les iniques s’es‐ carmouchent et se dressent impétueusement contre luy, toutesfois il a son conseil incompréhensible, par lequel non seulement il sait destourner tous leurs efforts, mais les amener au ioug et faire par eux ce qu’il a décrété. Or ici il nous faut entendre une autre volonté de Dieu, à savoir celle qui nous appelle à une obéissance volontaire. We need to be reminded that whatever we do, and whether we pray or not, God does what He wants. Neither we, nor the Devil, nor the Reprobates, have the power to prevent Him from executing His will. Calvin calls this specific will, which must remain a mystery to us, God’s secret will (“sa volonté secrète”). So we are not requesting anything concerning this will, which is beyond our un‐ derstanding, like the meaning of the world and of our existence. It is true that the Devil (“Satan”) and evil, unjust people (the “iniques”) fight (“s’escarmou‐ chent”) and vehemently incite others to go to war against God (“se dressent impétueusement contre luy”), He has his incomprehensible council (“son conseil incompréhensible”), that is infinite and beyond understanding, with which He always defeats His enemies. Inspired by biblical language, Calvin uses the mi‐ litary metaphors to describe these theological phenomena. One important detail to note is the fact that these enemies, who are his own creation, unawares carry II. The 1560’s edition of the Institutes 63 6 “For even though Satan and men violently inveigh against him, he knows that by his incomprehensible plan he not only turns aside their attacks but so orders it that he may do through them what he has decreed.” Institutes of the Christian Religion III, XX, 43. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960 (The Library of Christian Classics XXI). 7 W. H. Neuser writes: “In the first and second editions of the Institutes he also incorpo‐ rated the eternal decrees of God concerning election and damnation, the execution of which is asked for by the supplicant. In the 1555 commentary of the Gospels and in the Institutes of 1559 he removed the ‘hidden will’ of God which is incomprehensible to men. The supplicant comes face to face with the will of God which is certainly unknown to the angels in heaven and to men on earth. He prays for strength to fulfil this ‘will’.” (“Exercitum pietatis - Calvin’s Interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer,”in Prompte et sincere. John Calvin and the Exposition of the Word of God. Seventh South African Congress on Calvin Research. Edited by R. M. Britz & Victor E. d’Assonville. Acta Theologica Supple‐ mentum 10, 2008, 100.) out His will (“faire par eux ce qu’il a décrété” 6 ). Therefore, we must know that we are, in the Third Petition, talking about another will. 7 Actually the latter has already been presented in the first part of the commentary, but the theologian means to elaborate upon it, after having explained his conception of the Council of God, suggested in the phrase, “as it is in heaven.” II.3. God’s Council and the Angel’s role model The council is of course a metaphor. This military terminology is used in the Bible inasmuch as heaven, impossible for us to know and describe, is compared to our earth. Indeed, we do not know how to talk about God and his works, which are supposed to remain mysterious and beyond our understanding. But a Christian knows about Heaven from the Scriptures, and based on his / her faith, about the existence of heavenly creatures called “Angels”. Unlike humans, the latter are perfectly obedient to God and constitute his faithful “army”: Pourtant le ciel est notamment accomparé à la terre, pource que les Anges servent de leur bon gré à Dieu, et sont attentifs à exécuter ses commandemens, selon qu’il est dit au Pseaume (Ps. 103, 20). Il nous est donc commandé de prier, que comme il ne se fait rien au ciel sinon ce que Dieu a ordonné, et que les Anges se reiglent paisiblement à IV. The third petition: “Thy will be done” 64 8 “But here God’s other will is to be noted—namely, that to which voluntary obedience corresponds—and for that reason, heaven is by name compared to earth, for the angels, as is said in the psalm, willingly obey God, and are intent upon carrying out his com‐ mands [Ps. 103: 20]. We are therefore bidden to desire that, just as in heaven nothing is done apart from God’s good pleasure, and the angels dwell together in all peace and uprightness, the earth be in like manner subject to such a rule, with all arrogance and wickedness brought to an end.” (Institutes III, XX, 43, 906) 9 In the Commentaires, however, right after the exposition of God’s two wills, the theo‐ logian offers an explanation of “as it is in heaven” by mentioning the angels: “Ce qui appert mieux par la comparaison qui est ici aioustee. Car comme il a les Anges à main pour executer tout ce qu’il commande (dont aussi ils sont nommez Ministres, tousiours prests à luy obeir, Pseau. 103. d. 20), ainsi nous desirons que toutes les volontez des hommes soyent formees et duites à un tel consentement avec la iustice de Dieu, qu’ils flechissent et ployent volontairement de quelque costé qu’il voudra.” (Commentaires 126) 10 One should not think of Pascal’s famous saying, “L’homme n’est ni ange ni bête, et le malheur veut que qui veut faire l’ange fait la bête” [Oeuvres complètes. Ed. Louis Lafuma. Paris: Seuil, 1963, 590 (pensée 678)], simply because the philosopher apparently alludes to the hypocrites and self-conceited individuals who claim to be perfect like angels. On the other hand, Ben M. Carter writes about Calvin’s conception of angels: “He calls them celestial spirits and says that God employs them to carry out what he has decreed. It is one of their functions to adorn God’s majesty and to render it conspicuous. Another is to protect believers. He notes that they were present with Christ when he walked on earth but he does not believe that he can confidently affirm that each believer has a guardian angel. Insofar as God makes use of angels he does so not for his sake but for ours. However, all our help comes from God and it is God alone we must worship,” The Depersonalization of God. A Consideration of Soteriological Difficulties in High Calvi‐ nism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989, 43. toute droiture, aussi que la terre soit mattée, et que toute contumace et perversité y soit abbatue, à ce qu’elle soit subiette à l’empire de Dieu. 8 We notice that in the previous editions of the Institutes, the “angels” are not mentioned. 9 This, of course, does not mean that Calvin’s belief in them is less strong in there. It simply shows that in order to elaborate on this petition and explain it better to the reader, the author has thought that in comparing the earth with heaven, the creatures inhabiting the latter ought to be mentioned too, so that humans would have a model to imitate. 10 Christ as a man is not indicated, however, maybe because he is here thought of as God only. Without the angels, the parallel would not be complete, and even though we can never be like angels, we pray that we become as obedient to God as possible. The inspiration for this part of the commentary comes from Psalm 103: 20, where David says, “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, obedient to his II. The 1560’s edition of the Institutes 65 11 The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publi‐ shing, 1989. spoken word.” 11 In fact Calvin must have had the whole psalm in mind when he wrote his commentary of the Third Petition, especially 103: 21, “Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will.” The angels, the Reformer points out, “se reiglent paisiblement à toute droiture,” i.e. they obey God’s laws and justice (“droiture”) peacefully (“paisiblement”), in other words willingly and wi‐ thout perversity. We pray for ourselves to be like these angels, so that our earth would be tamed (“mattée”), and all contumacy and perversity abolished in it (“que toute contumace et perversité y soit abbatue”). Thus we would (willingly) submit to God’s empire—“qu’elle (the earth) soit subiette à l’empire de Dieu.” II.4. Confessing our natural perversity The Latin term perversitas means wrong-headedness, unreasonableness, as well as corruption. From the start (allusion to the notion of Original Sin), we have gone astray. Calvin does not discuss that here, but mentions it implicitly. He accepts it as a Scriptural fact. It is related to flesh and one’s cupidity. We are vicious by nature, and so we need to get rid of our perversity by praying. Here is how Calvin expresses his idea on this subject through the Third Petition: En demandant cecy nous avons à renoncer à tous désirs de nostre chair; car quiconque ne résigne et submet du tout ses affections à Dieu, il s’oppose entant qu’en luy est à la volonté d’iceluy, veu que tout ce qui procède de nous est vicieux. Ainsi par ceste prière nous sommes induits à renoncer à nous-mesmes, à ce que Dieu nous gouverne selon son bon plaisir. Et non seulement cela, mais aussi qu’en réduisant à néant nostre naturel pervers, il crée en nous esprits et courages nouveaux, à ce que nous ne sentions nul mouvement de cupidité qui luy soit rebelle, mais que nous ayons un consentement entier avec sa volonté. En somme, que nous ne vueillons rien de nousmesmes, mais que son esprit conduise noz cœurs, et qu’il nous enseigne au dedans d’aimer ce qui IV. The third petition: “Thy will be done” 66 12 “And in asking this we renounce the desires of our flesh; for whoever does not resign and submit his feelings to God opposes as much as he can God’s will, since only what is corrupt comes forth from us. And again by this prayer we are formed to self-denial so God may rule us according to his decision. And not this alone but also so he may create new minds and hearts in us [cf. Ps. 51: 20], ours having been reduced to nothing in order for us to feel in ourselves no prompting of desire but pure agreement with his will. In sum, so we may wish nothing from ourselves but his Spirit may govern our hearts; and while the Spirit is inwardly teaching us we may learn to love the things that please him and to hate those which displease him. In consequence, our wish is that he may render futile and of no account whatever feelings are incompatible with his will.” (Institutes III, 20, 43, 906-907) 13 David B. Calhoun expounds Calvin’s exegesis of the Third Petition as follows: “When we pray ‘thy will be done,’ we ask not only that what is opposed to God’s will may not be done, but also that ‘we may learn to love the things that please him and to hate those which displease him’ (3. 20. 43). A little later, Calvin warns us not to impose any con‐ dition on God but ‘leave to his decision to do what he is to do, in what way, at what time, and in what place it seems good to him’ (3. 20. 50).” Theological Guide to Cal‐ vin’s ‘Institutes.’ Essays and Analysis. Edited by David W. Hall & Peter A. Lillback. Phil‐ lipsburg, N. J.: P & R Publishing, 2008 (The Calvin 500 Series), 362-63. luy plaist, et hayr ce qui luy desplait; dont il s’ensuit aussi qu’il casse et annéantisse tous appetis qui répugnent à sa volonté. 12 The emphasis in this last part is put on the human nature. The Original Sin is not explicitly mentioned, but only the fact that we are born corrupted. Whatever comes from ourselves is vicious (“tout ce qui procède de nous est vicieux”), Calvin says, which means all of our good thoughts are from God. The reason is that we are born like that; it is in our nature (“nostre naturel pervers”). So we promise through the Third Petition not to follow our nature. We pray that we do not desire anything which pleases the latter, “que nous ne vueillons rien de nousmesmes.” Since we are bent toward the pleasures of the flesh, we must renounce all of these desires (“nous avons à renoncer à tous désirs de nostre chair”). We must give up all kinds of cupidity, which includes of course the greed of gain and power. Our prayer consists in asking God to govern us according to His will, to makes us do whatever pleases Him, that He resurrect us by creating in us new mind and new courage (“crée en nous esprits et courages nouveaux”), and that He teach us to profoundly, with all our heart, like what pleases Him and hate what displeases Him (“qu’il nous enseigne au dedans d’aimer ce qui luy plaist, et hayr ce qui luy desplait”). 13 The concluding sentence is particularly strong: we, explains the theologian, request from God our total death, or the perfect destruction of our perverse nature: “qu’il casse et annéantisse tous ap‐ pétits qui répugnent à sa volonté.” The verbs “casser” (to suppress, to destroy) II. The 1560’s edition of the Institutes 67 14 Calvin’s understanding of “Thy Will be done…” may not be really very different from that of Karl Barth, who writes that in this petition, we are simply saying: “May the fulfillment of his will become consonant on earth with its fulfillment in heaven: Sicut in caelo, et in terra. This means: may the chiaroscuro, this mixture of our secular and ecclesiastical history, this mixture of sanctity and stupidity, of wisdom and vulgarity, which characterizes much of our existence—may all this confusion be dispelled. In heaven his will is perfectly done. Why not among us? ” (Prayer. Second Edition. Edited by Don E. Saliers, from the translation of Sara F. Terrien. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985, 64.) and “annéantir” (annihilate) both allude to death. To conclude, we need to be born again, without our natural tendencies. III. Conclusion We have realized that the last version is more elaborate than the previous one. The theologian has brought up more precisions, mainly with regard to God’s two wills and the role of the Angels. Also the emphasis on humans’ perverse nature helps the readers become more conscious of their challenging condition and the great need everyone has for praying that God’s Will be done. Now it is interesting to compare the last sentence in these different versions. In the 1541-1557 editions, the tone is less tragic. We are just asking God to make us act according to His Will and hate our natural inclinations. The Holy Spirit is also mentioned: “Brief, que de nous mesmes nous ne veuillions point, mais que son Esprit veuille en nous, et nous face aymer les choses qui luy plaisent, et avoir en hayne et horreur tout ce qui luy desplaist.” It seems ending harshly because of the words “hayne” (hatred) and “horreur”, especially when we compare it with the text of the Commentaries, which ends rather joyfully, since we pray that we follow God’s commandments with pleasure: “non seulement afin qu’elle [God’s Will] la reigle de toutes nos affections, mais aussi afin que nous soyons poussez et du tout ravis à l’accomplir avec une telle alaigresse qu’il faut” (Commentaires 126). “Ravis” (exalted) and “alaigresse” (joy) are certainly encouraging words and incite the reader to follow God with great pleasure. The 1560’s version, however, ends in a very different way. We ask God to kill our nature and resur‐ rect us: “qu’il casse et annéantisse tous appetis qui répugnent à sa volonté.” The verbs “casser” (to destroy) and “annéantir” (to annihilate), although concerning our “appetis”, are in fact the expression of our desire to die to this world. This conclusion should not be considered discouraging or cruel, for it simply shows our great need for rebirth. 14 IV. The third petition: “Thy will be done” 68 1 “But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Mat 6: 33); “Instead, strive for his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well” (Luke 12: 31). 2 Tertullian. Prayer. Translated by Sister Emily Joseph Daly. In Tertullian. Disciplinary, Moral and Ascetical Works. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1959, 164. V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” Here I would like, first, to briefly present the interpretations of a few “Church Fathers”, then that of Luther, before I expound Calvin’s own exegesis of the 4 th Petition, based on his Institutes and Commentaries. In fact, I am mainly interested in comparing Calvin with Luther, his eminent contemporary, and so, by way of conclusion, I will end by some remarks on their relations with the early Church theologians examined before. I. Tertullian (160-220) According to the Carthaginian theologian, the reason why this petition and the following ones come after the first three, is because our spiritual needs, which constitute the sole purpose of the first three petitions, are more important than our material ones, although the “bread” itself, being taken both in the figurative (i.e. spiritual) and concrete (i.e. material) sense of the word, relates more to the former. Thus quoting the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, 1 Tertullian writes: “For our Lord has taught us: ‘Seek first the kingdom, and then these things shall be given you besides.’ However, we should rather understand ‘Give us this day our daily bread’ in a spiritual sense. For Christ is our bread,’ because Christ is Life and the Life is Bread.” 2 Here, he is referring to the Gospel of John: “ ‘I am,’ said He, ‘the bread of life.’ And shortly before: ‘The bread is the word of the living 3 “…‘Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.’ Then they said to him, ‘What must we do to perform the works of God? ’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ So they said to him, ‘What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wild‐ erness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ’Then Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ They said to him, ‘Sir, give us this bread always.’ Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty’ ” ( John 6: 27-35). God who hath come down from heaven’ ” (Tertullian 164). 3 Therefore, synthe‐ sizing the thoughts of Matthew, Luke, and John, he accepts the double meaning of the word “bread”, both as a metaphor (the spiritual sense) and a metonymy (the concrete sense), but by stressing the primacy of the former. Concerning the concrete sense, he points out that “since there is admitted also an interpretation of this phrase according to the flesh, it cannot be devoid of religious sense and spiritual instruction” (Tertullian 164). And to show the primacy of the spiritual aspect of the 4 th Petition, he provides other examples taken from the Gospels. The following from Matthew (15: 26) and Mark (7: 27): “Does a father take bread from his children and cast it to the dogs? ” And from Matthew (7: 9) and Luke (11: 11): “If his son asks him for a loaf, will he hand him a stone? ” Also from Luke (11: 5): “That caller, too, who knocked upon the door in the night was asking for bread” (Tertullian 164-65). Thus “He indicates what children expect from their father” (Tertullian 164). As to the addition of “this day” in “Give us this day our daily bread,” it is to the theologian another reason for understanding the “bread” mainly as a metaphor for spiritual food. Referring to Matthew (6: 34) and to Luke (12: 16-21), he concludes: “To this idea He also referred to the parable of that man who, when his crops were plentiful, laid plans for an addition to his barns and a long-range program of security—though he was destined to die that very night” (Tertullian 165). To sum up, Tertullian does not reject the double meaning of the word “bread”, but definitely attaches more importance to the spiritual aspect of the metaphor. If we only think of the latter, God will also provide for our material needs, he says. V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 70 4 Origen. On Prayer. Translated by William A. Curtis. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Clas‐ sics Etheral Library. <www.ccel.org / ccel / origen / prayer.htm> 5 “I fed you with milk, not solid food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarelling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations? ” (1 Cor 3: 2-3) II. Origen (182 - 254) Origen’s interpretation is one of the most elaborated in the history of biblical exegesis, but basically takes the term “bread” in the symbolic sense of it. II. 1. The symbolic “Bread” The Alexandrian theologian begins by rejecting the idea “that we should pray for material bread,” insisting that this “erroneous opinion deserves to be done away with…,” 4 for the “bread” in question is nothing but the Word of God: And my Father, He says, gives you the true bread from heaven, for the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. It is true bread that nourishes the true man who is made in God’s image, and he that has been nourished by it also becomes in the Creator’s likeness. What is more nourishing to the soul than Word, or what more precious to the mind of him that is capable of receiving it than the Wisdom of God? (Origen 52) The Bread is the Word of God, and the Word is Jesus, since the Word became flesh, according to the Gospel of John. Origen reminds Jesus’ assertion that “The bread which I shall give is my flesh which I shall give for the sake of the life of the world” (Origen 53). II. 2. The variety of “foods” and “needful” (“epiousios”) vs harmful The second idea associated with this spiritually nourishing food is that “The nourishing Word is manifold and various, not all being capable of nourishment by the solidity and strength of the divine teachings” (Origen 53). Here, Origen refers to Paul, citing: “I gave you milk to drink, not meat, for you were not yet able. Nay even now you are not yet able, for you are still of the flesh” (Origen 53). 5 We can deduce that if one’s “food” is light or solid, it is because God does not bestow on all humans an equal amount of wisdom. It is also a matter of maturity and practice in the spiritual path. Thus “solid nourishment is for mature men who by force of use have their senses trained to discriminate good and evil” II. Origen (182-254) 71 (Origen 53). These people have been given a stronger will and understanding too. Then, this bread, which is “needful”, “is the bread which corresponds most closely to our rational nature and is akin to our very essence, which invests the soul at once with well being and with strength, and, since the Word of God is immortal, imparts to its eater its own immortality” (Origen 55). On the other hand, certain foods are not good to eat. They can even be harmful for our spirit. Further, Origen elaborates on this idea by explaining the true meaning of “clean” and “unclean” foods in the Bible (Origen 57). As a result, the believer prays for the “needful” food, which is the one coming from God. II. 3. The adverb “Daily” in “Give us today our daily bread” Another important point Origen makes is of a philological nature. He mentions the fact that the Greek word “epiousios” (επιούσιος), meaning “needful” and used as an epithet for “bread”, “is not found in any Greek writer whether in philo‐ sophy or in common usage, but seems to have been formed by the evangelists” Matthew and Luke (Origen 54). It has been translated in Latin by quotidianum and in English “daily”. It qualifies “the bread that contributes to the essence,” the theologian points out (Origen 54). Now, the term “ousia”, he observes, is related to the “periousios” in Moses’ writings and pertains to the “peculiar people” of Israel: “Either word seems to me to be a compound of ousia—essence—the former signifying the bread that contributes to the essence, the latter denoting the people that has to do with the essence and is associated with it” (Origen 54). That is why, to render this idea of “peculiar”, or “essential”, about the bread, Jerome, in his Latin translation of Matthew (6: 11), uses “supersubstantialis” (“panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie”). To be more precise, Origen adds: What I have said in this discussion of essence raised by the expressions the needful bread and the peculiar people has been to distinguish the meanings of essence. And since we have already seen that it is spiritual bread for which we ought to ask, we must needs understand the essence to be akin to the bread, so that just as material bread on assimilation into the body of the nourished passes into its essence, so the living bread which is come down from heaven being assimilated into the mind and soul may impart its own power to him who has lent himself to nourishment from it, and so become the needful bread for which we ask. (Origen 55) Moreover, he does not only refer to Moses, but also to other Old Testament characters or writers, such Solomon and David (Origen 55-56). The relation V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 72 6 “If you rebel against the Lord today, he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel tomorrow” ( Joshua 22: 18). between the “manna” and the “daily bread” seems then quite clear. Thus the theologian definitely rejects the material conception of bread by saying: Far from us be such poverty of mind as to suppose that it is of some material bread, such as is recorded to have come down from heaven upon those who had quitted Egypt, that the angels continually partake and are nourished, as though it was actually in this that the Hebrews had coomunion with the angels, God’s ministering spirits. (Origen 56). All things considered, the “needful bread” is equivalent to the “tree of life”, the Word of God, or the true wisdom, which emanates only from God. II. 4. The word “Today” in “Give us today…” If what one calls today “daily”, in “Give us today our daily bread,” is the “needful” or “essential” bread,“epiousios” (ἐπιούσιος), what does “today” (“Give us today…”)—in Latin “hodie”, and in Greek “semeron” (σήμερον)—mean ? Origen examines the adverb “today” in the sense of the “present age”: “we are bidden to ask for the bread proper to the coming age, in order that God may take it in advance and bestow it on us now. Thus what was to be given as it were tomorrow would be given us today, today being taken to mean the present age, tomorrow the coming” (Origen 57). The best example he provides from the Scrip‐ ture to support his argument is from Joshua, where we see clearly that “today” has the symbolic meaning he is suggesting: “Turn not away from the Lord in the days of today,” Joshua says to the Jewish people (Origen 57). 6 Origen concludes by showing the difference that exists between the “day” in “today” and the one in “daily”, and by stressing the necessity for us to pray for the spiritual bread in this present age, “For he who prays today to God, who is from infinity to infinity, not only for today but also in a sense for that which is daily shall be enabled to receive from Him who has power to bestow excee‐ dingly above what we ask or think even things….” (Origen 59). The mate‐ rial “bread” we are not thinking of and are not asking for, will probably be pro‐ vided too, for God always gives us “above what we ask.” II. Origen (182 - 254) 73 7 Saint Cyprian. The Lord’s Prayer, in St Cyprian, Treatises. Translated and edited by Roy J. Deferrari. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1958, 142. 8 “The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wi‐ cked” (Proverbs 10: 3). III. Cyprian (c. 200 - 258) Cyprian’s interpretation of the 4 th Petition is close to that of Tertullian, but so‐ mewhat different, as we will see. So a brief presentation may be useful. This petition, he writes, “can be understood both spiritually and simply, because ei‐ ther understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation….” 7 By “simply” he evidently means “materially”. III. 1. From the “spiritual” viewpoint Our request, “Give us this day our daily bread,” is taken “spiritually” insofar as “Christ is the bread of life and the “bread” here is of all, but of ours” (Cyprian 142). What he means by this is that although God offers the spiritual “bread” to all humans, we must pray for all the followers of Christ, i.e. those who believe in this “bread”, in other words, “those of us who attain to His body” (Cyprian 142). This idea is new. As to the adjective “daily”, it is to be opposed to “tomorrow.” We ought to pray only for today, and not think of tomorrow. Here, Cyprian stresses the im‐ portance of the Eucharist and why it should be administered every day, for every day, we need to pray for this “bread” of sustenance, in the religious sense. We must “eat” of this “bread” if we do not want to sin more and die spiritually: “if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion” (Cyprian 143). III. 2. From the “material” viewpoint It is true, says Cyprian, that we also have physical needs, but we must not think of them, for God will certainly provide if we are “just”, “For daily bread cannot be lacking the just man” as Solomon says. 8 We also read in the Gospel of Matthew (6: 32-33): “for your Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be given you besides” (Cyprian 145). “Today” is thus taken in the literal sense, and the “bread” symbolizes the material things. It includes food and other material things. We V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 74 9 St. Gregory of Nyssa. The Lord’s Prayer. The Beatitudes. Translated by Hilda C. Graef. New York: Newman Press, 1954 [Ancient Christian Writers 18], 63. must not, however, have anxiety about tomorrow, insofar as “tomorrow, we will have anxieties of its own” (Cyprian 143) and we do not even know if we will be alive tomorrow, like that “foolish rich man who ponders on his worldy wealth” in the Gospel of Luke (12: 13-21), who did not know that he would die that night. The material “bread”, food or other things, must not be beyond the basic needs, because material wealth is “dangerous”. And referring to Paul (1 Timothy 6: 7-10), “He teaches that not only are riches to be contemned but are also dan‐ gerous, that in them is the root of enticing evils, that device the blindness of the human mind with hidden deception” (Cyprian 144). To conclude, Cyprian believes that: 1) The “bread” in the 4 th Petition should be understood both spiritually and materially; 2) Each day, the believer needs to pray for that day only—and the Eucharist is absolutely essential—both for one’s spiritual and material life; 3) Pray both for oneself and the community of belie‐ vers. IV. St Gregory of Nyssa (335 - 395) Gregory offers an interpretation of the 4 th Petition in a series of sermons on The Lord’s Prayer. It is about the material life, but in relation with the spiritual, which is the only thing that matters. IV. 1. “Bread”, as a symbol for material life The symbolic “Bread” is basically only treated in the material sense of the word. We are praying for our material needs, but are doing it in a spiritual way. This means that we are at bottom mainly worried about our spiritual life, the one that is important and lasts, for our material life can end any time, any day, maybe today. Indeed, we know nothing about our future. Then, what should matter to us is our present, and how we are to live it. And since “bread” has a material meaning, an angel does not need to pray for it: “The angel does not pray to God for sufficient bread, because his nature has no need of such things.” 9 And follo‐ wing Origen, Gregory of Nyssa emphasizes the epithet “needful” about this “bread”: we are asking God for what is necessary only, and not more. Now, this symbolic “bread” is not only about the food we eat, but also about other material things, such as clothing, lodging, furniture, jobs, honors, etc. We IV. St Gregory of Nyssa (335 - 395) 75 must not ask for riches or power, or anything extra, for “we have been com‐ manded to seek only what is sufficient to preserve our physical existence” (Gre‐ gory 63). So it is against God’s will to desire more: Not delicacies or riches, nor magnificent purple robes, golden ornaments (…). Nor do we ask Him for landed estates, or military commands, or political leadership (…), nor any other things by which the soul is estranged from the thought of God and higher things; no—but only bread! (Gregory 63-64) Our “soul” is in question. Therefore, the “necessary bread” means a very simple material life. Implicitly speaking, we ought to devote our life to the spirit and constantly think of its nourishment. We just need a very simple life, for wanting more is sign of vanity and dangerous for the soul: Ask for bread because life needs it, and you owe it to the body because of your nature. But all those superfluous things that have been invented by men given to luxury are weeds sown in besides. The seed sown by the Master of the house is corn, from which bread is made. Luxuries, however, are the tares sown in by the enemy with the wheat. If men refuse to satisfy their nature by what is necessary they are truly choked, as Scripture says somewhere, by the pursuit of vanities. (Gregory 64) Besides, desiring more than what is needful does not bring happiness, because we are never satisfied, and even leads to the opposite. Using the metaphor of the serpent in the book of Genesis, he says: And through these things which go beyond the range of what is necessary you will bring in desire, and presently you will see the reptile clandestinely creeping towards covetousness. For having once crept from the necessary food towards delicacies, it will proceed to what is pleasant to the eyes, seeking shiny dishes and attractive ser‐ vants. And so on to silver couches, soft divans (…). And all this serves only to increase the desire for more. (Gregory 66) “Lust” and “Covetousness” will lead people who believe in material happiness to true misery, “And when the serpent has wound its coils about these things and has filled its belly at will, then, as soon as it is sated, it drags itself crawling down to unbridled frenzy. This is the lowest degradation of man” (Gregory 66-67). IV. 2. The “Daily Bread” in relation to Righteousness and Hope Another very important idea associated with the needful “bread” is that when we have more than what we really need for our physical sustenance, we are V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 76 depriving and hurting others, whether we are conscious of it or not. If we are righteous and become rich through honest work, it may seem that we did not commit sin. However, if some people are hungry and we have more than we need, we are responsible and must give away. Otherwise this extra “bread” is not right to have. Gregory expresses this double idea as follows: “You are the master of your prayer, if abundance does not come from another’s property and is not the result of another’s tears; if no one is hungry or distressed because you are fully satisfied. For the bread of God is above all the fruit of justice…” (Gregory 67) As for the term “daily”, since we know nothing about our future, “Why are we disturbed about the morrow? ” (Gregory 68). That is why the 4 th Petition is really about “today” in the concrete sense. The interpreter goes as far as saying in his sermon that God even “forbids you to be solicitous for the morrow” (Gre‐ gory 68). But, as we live with hope and hope is necessary, Gregory finds it ap‐ propriate to clarify the meaning of this notion. It is good to hope, he says, but not for the life of the body, which can perish anytime. But we ought to hope for a better life after this one. Now, its happiness depends precisely on how we live our life today: The life of the body belongs only to the present, but that which lies beyond us and is apprehended by hope belongs to the soul. Yet men in their folly are quite wrong about the use of either; they would extend their physical lives by hope, and draw the life of the soul towards enjoyment of the present. Therefore the soul is occupied by the world of sense and necessarily estranged from the subsisting reality of hope. (Gregory 69) This conception of “hope”, which seems rather extremist, does not in fact con‐ tradict the Gospels. The story of Lazarus whose sickness was not “unto death” perfectly justifies his interpretation. Besides, Gregory points out, why would one hope for something over which one “has no control or authority” (Gregory 69). Therefore, hoping for physical life is not only ungodly, but also illogical. V. Augustine (354 - 430) Augustine discusses the different possible interpretations of this Petition, then draws an interesting conclusion. The “Daily Bread” could be understood in three different ways, he points out: 1º) It may be about our material / bodily needs, “in reference to which He says in His teaching, ‘Take no thought for the morrow: ’ V. Augustine (354-430) 77 10 St. Augustin. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew. Translated by Wil‐ liam Findlay. Revised by D. S. Schaff. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff. Vol. VI. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888, 41. so that on this account there is added, ‘Give us this day’.” 10 2º) It refers to the Eucharist, and so it has a liturgical meaning: “it is put for the sacrament of the body of Christ, which we daily receive” (Augustine 41). 3º) It concerns “the spi‐ ritual food, of which the same Lord says, ‘Labour for the meat which perisheth not’…” (Augustine 41). V. 1. The material sense The Petition could not be about materiality, the Bishop of Hippo believes, and in support of this argument, he reminds the famous word of Christ, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Augustine 42). This means that the material needs will be provided by God if we do not worry about them and only think of a spiritual, godly, life. V. 2. The liturgical sense For two reasons, the theologian also rejects this interpretation: First, the term “daily” does not refer to the rite of “Holy Communion,” since every church does not practice it every day, which is for instance the case in many Eastern regions, he informs the reader. Besides, “they do such things without scandal, and are not prevented from doing them by those who preside over their chur‐ ches, and when they do not obey are not condemned; whence it is not proved that this is not understood as daily bread in these parts” (Augustine 42). This implies that Augustine refuses to judge the Church leaders and think that wha‐ tever they decide must be justified. The second reason why this Petition cannot be about the “daily” church ritual, is because we are allowed to say the Pater each day as many times as we want to, and “who would venture to say that we ought only once to use the Lord’s Prayer, or at least that, even if we have used it a second or a third time before the hour at which we partake of the Lord’s body, afterwards we are assuredly not so to pray during the remaining hours of the day? ” (Augustine 42). Indeed, although we already had the sacred bread today, we still can repeat the Pater noster anytime. We can also “celebrate that sacrament at the very last hour of the day” (Augustine 42), even though the day V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 78 is over. So, even before we go to bed at night, we can ask God: “Give us this day our daily bread.” To conclude, the Petition is not about the liturgical rite. V. 3. The spiritual sense The third interpretation is to understand the Petition in the “spiritual sense.” The “Daily Bread” in this case would be a metaphor for the “divine precepts, which we ought daily to meditate and to labour after” (Augustine 42). He refers here to the biblical verse, “Labour for the meat which perishes not” (Augustine 42). As to the term “daily”, it may have two meanings, he writes: one literal, the other figurative: 1º) In the literal sense of “today”, since we must just strive to live spiritually one day at a time. Implicitly, we must not think of the morrow. 2º) It may also be a synecdoche for our temporal life, meaning as long as, or as many days we are supposed to live on earth, we ask for our “daily bread” or for God’s precepts and help to guide our lives. After we physically die, this prayer will not be necessary any longer, “For we shall be so abundantly provided with spiritual food after this life unto eternity, that it will not then be called daily bread” (Augustine 42). Furthermore, we need this spiritual food, whatever our material condition: we can be rich or poor, in good or bad health… To conclude, although Augustine only believes in the spiritual sense of the 4 th Petition, he does not consider the other ones absurd, as long as the “spiritual” understanding is also accepted and believed to be predominant: But if any one wishes to understand the sentence before us also of food necessary for the body, or of the sacrament of the Lord’s body, we must take all three meanings conjointly; that is to say, that we are to ask for all at once as daily bread, both the bread necessary for the body, and the visible hallowed bread, and the invisible bread of the word of God. (Augustine 42) Thus, we are not doing anything wrong if we ask God for our “Daily Bread” in the material sense (i.e. sufficient food, good health, etc.) as well as in the liturgical sense, provided that we have in mind that the 4 th Petition is first and foremost about our spirit. We do not have to ask God for anything else, as He knows what we need. Augustine’s originality resides in his dialectical presentation, as well as his tolerance. V. Augustine (354-430) 79 11 M. Luther. The Sermon on the Mount. Translated by Jaroslav Pelikan. Luther’s Works. Vol. 21. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956, 147. 12 He starts, in the Preface, by reminding that it was St Augustine’s idea to call the three chapters (5-7) of Matthew, “The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount” (Luther, The Sermon on the Mount 3). 13 M. Luther. The Large Catechism. In The Book of Concord. The Confessions of the Evange‐ lical Lutheran Church. Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959, 430. In fact, the original title was Deudsch Catechismus (The German Catechism), published in Wittemberg in 1529. “Hie bedencken wir nu den armen brod‐ korb unsers leibs und zeitlichen lebens notdurfft” (Luthers Werke. Edited by Otto Clemen. Vol. 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1967, 71). 14 “Denn wenn du teglich brod nennest und bittest, so bittestu alles, was dazu gehoeret das tegliche brod zuhaben und geniessen, und dagegen auch widder alles, so das selbige hyndert” (Luther 71). VI. Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) In one of his sermons on The Sermon on Mount, Luther states that in the 4 th Petition we are asking God, “that He may give us our daily bread—that is, ever‐ ything necessary for the preservation of this life, like food, a healthy body, good weather, house, home, wife, children, good government, and peace—and that he may preserve us from all sorts of calamities, sickness, pestilence, hard times, war, revolution, and the like.” 11 In his view, then, this Petition concerns basically our material needs on earth. This text, however, is not sufficient to show the complexity of his thought, which seems rather far from Saint Augustine whom he admired and to whom he actually refers in the opening of his book on The Sermon on the Mount. 12 So, in order to have a better idea about his conception of the 4 th Petition, it is necessary to turn to his Large Catechism. VI. 1. Only Concerning Our Earthly Life Luther begins by declaring, as he does in his sermon on this Petition, that the “daily bread” is about “the needs of our body and our life on earth.” 13 He adds, however, that we do not pray only for having this “bread”, but also for enjoying it: “When you pray for ‘daily bread’ you pray for everything that is necessary in order to have and enjoy daily bread and, on the contrary, against everything that interferes with enjoying it” (The Large Catechism 430). 14 Therefore we need to consider both terms, “body”(der Leib) and “life” (das Leben). In other words, we must have a healthy body and a good quality life in order to be happy. This is partly a materialistic conception of happiness, different from that of Saint Paul, V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 80 15 “Daruemb muestu dein gedancken wol auffthuen und ausbreiten, nicht allein ynn backoffen odder mehlkasten sondern yns weite feld und gantze land, so das tegliche brod und allerley narung tregt und uns bringet. Denn wo es Gott nicht wachssen liesse, segnete und auff dem land erhielte, wuerden wir nymer kein brod aus dem backoffen nemen noch auff den tisch zulegen haben” (Luther 71). 16 “Und das wirs kuertzlich fassen, so wil diese bitte mit eingeschlossen haben alles was zu diesem gantzen leben ynn der welt gehoeret, weil wir allein umb des willen das tegliche brodhaben muessen. Nu gehoeret nicht allein zum leben, das unser leib sein futter und decke und andere notdurfft habe, sondern auch das wir unter den leuten, mit welchem wir leben und umbgehen ynn teglichem handel und wandel und allerley wesen, mit ruge und friede hynkomen, Summa alles was beide heusslich und nachbar‐ lich und nachbarlich odder buergerlich wesen und regiment belanget” (Luther 71). for instance. Two questions may be asked: 1º) What are these things that are considered by Luther necessary for our sustenance? and 2º) What does he mean by “enjoying” (geniessen)? Here is an explanation: You must therefore enlarge and extend your thoughts to include not only the oven or the flour bin, but also the broad fields and the whole land which produce and provide for us our daily bread and all kinds of sustenance. For if God did not cause grain to grow and did not bless and preserve it in the field, we could never take a loaf of bread from the oven to set on the table. (The Large Catechism 430) 15 The Petition is indeed about our material needs, but the fulfillment of the latter depends on God’s will. It becomes then a spiritual issue. What is implied is that if we are not grateful to God and first say with sincerity the first part of the Lord’s Prayer, in which we glorify the Father and ask that “His Will” be done, not ours, requesting “Daily Bread” means nothing. And, even if we “had” this bread, we would not “enjoy” it. The theologian provides some more explanation: To put it briefly, this petition includes everything that belongs to our entire life in this world: only for its sake do we need daily bread. Now our life requires not only food and clothing and other necessities for our body, but also peace and concord in our daily business and in associations of every description with the people among whom we live and move—in short, everything that pertains to the regulation of our domestic and our civil or political affairs. (Large Catechism 430) 16 Since the “Daily Bread” symbolizes all our needs, it cannot be only about our physical needs, but also about our psychological, family, social, and spiritual life. Furthermore, it is not only for “today”, in the literal sense, but for “our entire life in this world.” “This day” is then synonymous with “temporal life.” On the other hand, the “daily bread” is necessarily related to the secular authority. In Luther’s view, one cannot be truly happy under a bad political regime. Certainly, VI. Martin Luther (1483-1546) 81 17 “Und ist wol das aller noetigste, fur weltiche oeberkeit und regiment zubitten, als durch welchs uns Gott allermeist unser teglich brod und alle gemach dieses lebens erhelt” (Luther 72). 18 “Jtem Keiser, Koenig und alle stende und sonderlich unsern Landsfursten, allen Rethen, oeberherrn und amptleuten weisheit, stercke und glueck gebe wol zuregieren under wider Tuercken und alle feinde zusiegen, Den unterthanen und gemeinem hauffen ge‐ horsam, frid und eintracht unternander zu leben” (Luther 72). it is God who provides for everything, but He does it mainly through our social and political administration. Therefore, worried about the way some leaders perform their jobs, the Reformer, who is not detached from politics, as Jesus and his disciples seem to be, declares that we need to pray for the leaders more than for anyone else, since we directly depend on them for our “daily bread”. This is the way he expresses his idea concerning the connection between “Daily Bread” and secular authority: Indeed, the greatest need of all is to pray for our civil authorities and the government, for chiefly through them does God provide us our daily bread and all the comforts of this life. Although we have received from God all good things in abundance, we cannot retain any of them or enjoy them in security and happiness unless he gives us a stable, peaceful government. For where dissension, strife, and war prevail, there our daily bread is taken away, or at least reduced. (Large Catechism 430) 17 Luther is willing to pray for the political leaders and civil administrators, which is of course a Christian duty, but considering it “the greatest need of all” (das aller noetigste) shows that he is much more concerned about politics than Jesus’ followers are in the Scripture, as well as the Church Fathers. Now “our daily bread” includes many things, he says, such as social peace and security. But are we only thinking of our own country, or do we pray for the whole world? Luther seems mostly concerned about his Germany. On the other hand, if our admi‐ nistrators do not do their jobs well, should we still pray for them? Let us see what Luther believes in this regard. VI. 2. Not Praying for everyone Though in part indirectly, Luther responds to these questions by saying first that in this Petition we also need to ask God to endow the emperor, kings, and all estates of men, and especially our princes, counselors, magistrates, and officials, with wisdom, strength, and prosperity to govern well and to be victorious over the Turks and all our enemies; to grant their subjects and the people at large to live together in obedience, peace, and concord. 18 V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 82 19 “Sihe, Also wil uns Gott anzeigen, wie er sich alle unser not annympt und so treulich auch fur unser zeitliche narung sorget; und wiewol er solchs reichlich gibt und erhelt auch den Gottlosen und buben, doch wil er, das wir daruemb bitten, auff das wir er‐ kennen, das wirs von seiner hand empfahen, und darynne sein veterliche guete gegen uns spueren” (Luther 73). 20 “Denn wo er die hand abzeucht, so kan es doch nicht endlich gedeyen noch erhalten werden, wie man wol teglich sihet und fuelet” (Luther 73). We realize that for the exegete the German nation—he talks about one emperor, who cannot be anyone but Charles V, even though he remained faithful to the old Catholic Church—is more important than others, and that he considers the Turks his enemies—the Ottoman Empire was of course the most dangerous enemy to the Holy Roman Empire, but this from a secular, political, nationalist viewpoint, not according to Christ, to whom no one should be considered en‐ nemy. He also mentions the “king” in his prayer, in the singular form (Koenig), not “kings” as we read in the English translation. Still a vague term! Would he pray for the French king, Francis I, who was actually preparing himself to form an alliance with the same hated Turks? He also believes that his readers should pray even more for the German “princes” than for the Emperor. Nonetheless, he rejects rebelliousness and disobedience to civil authorities in his country, whe‐ ther they be good or evil. He does not reject war against the Turks and company. But, following the Gospels, he admits that we should not exclude in our prayer the “wicked men and rogues” (Gottlosen und buben). He expresses this as follows: Thus, you see, God wishes to show us how he cares for us in all our needs and faithfully provides for our daily existence. Although he gives and provides these blessings bountifully, even for wicked men and rogues, yet he wishes us to pray for them so we may realize that we have received them from his hand and may recognize in them his fatherly goodness toward us. (Large Catechism 431) 19 However, after what he said before, we can assume that the Turks and even the Pope are not even among the “Gottlosen” he would be willing to pray for. Anyway, Luther takes here the opportunity to warn his readers about the “wi‐ ckedness” that rages in his own society, and which is bringing about God’s anger. On account of their transgressions, people are being punished and deprived of “daily bread”, and, adds the interpreter, “When he withdraws his hand, not‐ hing can prosper or last for any length of time, as indeed we see and experience every day” (Large Catechism 431). 20 Maybe it is partly through the same evil administrators that God punishes the wrong-doers, but Luther does not go as far as saying that. VI. Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) 83 21 “Was ist ytz fur ein plage yn der welt allein mit der boesen muentze, ia mit teglicher beschwerung und auffsetzen ynn gemeynem handel, kauff und arbeit deren, die nach yhrem mutwillen das liebe armut drucken und yhr teglich brod entziehen? ” (Luther 73). 22 “Fuernemlich aber ist dis gebete auch gestellet widder unsern hoehisten feind den Teuffel. Denn das ist alle sein syn und begere, solchs alles was wir von Gott haben, zu nemen odder hyndern. Und lesset yhm nicht genuegen, das er das geistliche regiment hyndere und zustoere, damit das er die seelendurch seine luegen verfueret und unter sein gewalt bringet, Sondern weret und hyndert auch, das kein Regiment noch erbarlich und friedlich wesen auff erden bestehe…” (Luther 72-73). 23 “hadder, mord, auffrur und krieg” (Luther 73). What does he mean by wrong-doing or trangression? He provides a few in‐ teresting examples: “How much trouble there now is in the world simply on account of false coinage, yes, on account of daily exploitation and usury in public business, trading, and labor on the part of those who wantonly oppress the poor and deprive them of their daily bread” (Large Catechism 431-32). 21 The terms “exploitation” and “usury” do not exactly render beschwerung and auf‐ fsetzen (literally “oppression” and “fraud”/ “deception”), but clearly express the anti-capitalistic—although this term is anachronic—mentality of the Reformer. Of course, oppression and fraud have always existed, whatever the dominant economic system. VI. 3. The “Daily Bread” and the “Devil” Luther’s remarks on the role played by the “Devil” with regard to the 4 th Petition are also noteworthy: But especially is this petition directed against our chief enemy, the devil, whose whole purpose and desire it is to take away or interfere with all we have received from God. He is not satisfied to obstruct and overthrow spiritual order, so that he may deceive men with his lies and bring them under his power, but he also prevents and hinders the establishment of any kind of government or honorable and peaceful relations on earth. (Large Catechism 431) 22 The main idea, in this passage, is that in reality it is the Devil who causes the double destruction of spiritual and secular orders. He might also implicitly cri‐ ticize: 1) the Pope and the leaders of the Roman Church; 2) The civil authorities who do not follow Christ; 3) The Turks and all those Luther considers enemies. The Devil does not like peace on earth, he emphasizes, and wants people to destroy one another. But his power is not only limited to social matters; he does not only cause “contention, murder, sedition, and war” (Large Catechism 431), 23 V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 84 24 “Jtem ungewitter, hagel, das getreide und viehe zuverderben, die lufft zuvergrifften, etc.” 25 “Sonderlich die, so Gottes wort haben und gerne wolten Christen sein” (Luther 73). 26 “Welchs wir zwar muessen leiden, sie aber muegen sich fursehen, das sie nicht das gemeyne gebet verlieren, und sich hueten, das dis stuecklin ym Vater unser nicht widder sie gehe” (Luther 73). The English editor notes that losing “the intercession of the church” meant in those days losing “public respect” (Large Catechism, n.8, 432). but also “sends tempest and hail to destroy crops and cattle” and “poisons the air” (Large Catechism 431). 24 This second part on the power of the Devil over natural elements outside of men, seem somewhat manichean, or at least different from the New Testament’s theology. Anyhow, the Devil hates humanity, em‐ phasizes Luther, but “especially those of us who have the Word of God and would like to be Christians” (Large Catechism 431). 25 VI. 4. Conclusion Over all, Luther’s conception of happiness, based on his interpretation of the 4 th Petition, is in big part materialistic. None of the Church fathers went so far in this direction. The New Testament writers and Jesus are also rather far from this view of happiness. Thus Paul, in prison in Rome, talks about another type of freedom. Freedom from sin is what matters to him, not social freedom. Luther, however, is faithful to Christian principles as he rejects war and rebellion, and implicitly invites us to resist the Devil, the “chief enemy”, in a spiritual way, in order for us to live in peace and harmony, and so be truly happy. Therefore, in spite of all the frustrations caused by evil rulers, administrators, etc., “we must put up with of course; but let exploiters and oppressors beware lest they lose the common intercession of the church, and let them take care lest this petition of the Lord’s Prayer be turned against them” (Large Catechism 432). 26 At once a political and moral warning. The theologian does not approve of political revo‐ lution and violence, but he is only concerned about his own country; he does not reject war with others, and so does not see beyond his German frontiers. A nationalism not justified in the New Testament. Maybe it is for these differences in theology that Luther does not quote anything from the latter in his interpre‐ tation of the 4 th Petition. VII. Jean Calvin In the last edition of the Institutes (1560), Calvin starts his analysis of the Fourth Petition by stressing much more than in the earlier versions the fact that this VII. Jean Calvin 85 27 Jean Calvin. Commentaires sur la Concordance ou Harmonie, composee des trois Evange‐ listes, assavoir sainct Matthieu, sainct Marc, et sainct Luc. Genève: Michel Blanchier, 1563, 126 [“As the former of the two tables of the Law dealt with the proper service of God, and the latter with the claims of charity, so in this prayer He first fits us to seeking the glory of God, and in the second part shows us what we should ask Him on our own account” (Calvin’s Commentaries. A Harmony of the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. 1. Translated by A. W. Morrison. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Tor‐ rance. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972, 209)]. request concerns basically our earthly material needs. On the other hand, the long paragraph devoted to “Daily Bread” in his Commentaries of the Synoptic Gospels opens with this interesting parallel between Moses and Jesus: Que comme les deux Tables de la Loy, la premiere contient les Commandemens ap‐ partenans au service de Dieu, l’autre ceux qui concernent les devoirs de charité, ainsi en ceste priere nous sommes premierement enseignez de cercher la gloire de Dieu, et puis en l’autre partie, il nous est monstré ce que nous devons demander à Dieu pour nous. 27 This division into two equal parts is not only significant in terms of theology, but also reveals one more time Calvin’s endeavor to provide as much as possible a rational explanation to the Scriptures, even as regards style and composition. Calvin believes in the close relationship between form and content. Thus, ac‐ cording to him, the 4 th Petition, being situated exactly in the middle of the Lord’s Prayer shows the deliberate intention of God to bring us down to earthly matters before lifting us up again in the following petitions and lead us higher to the top in the concluding doxology. This rationalism is purely theological, not philoso‐ phical, for the idea is that God being perfect, His world is made according to perfect reason and harmony, whether we understand His reasons or not. The‐ refore, insofar as the Scriptures are in general the word of God, every term has a precise meaning, and their composition and style are also justifiable. Obviously there are many things we do not understand in these sacred texts, but the exe‐ gete’s task is precisely to try to understand them, with God’s help, and always with humility propose a theologically rational and logical explanation, as much as possible. Thus the division into exactly two equal parts, preceded by the add‐ ress to the Father (“Our Father who art in Heaven”) and ending by the doxology (“For Thine is the Kingdom…”), is perfectly clear to Calvin. If the first part of the Prayer is only about God’s glory, the second is about our earthly life. V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 86 28 J. Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Transl. by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960, 907. Institution de la Religion chrestienne. Livre Troisième. Ed. Jean-Daniel Benoît. Paris: J. Vrin, 1960 (III, xx, 44, 389). VII. 1. The Notion of “Daily Bread” The “Daily Bread” is what is useful to us (“ce qui nous est utile”), only what is beneficial for us (“seulement ce qui nous est profitable”), what is advantageous for us (“ce qui nous est expédient”), in sum whatever preserves us and meets our needs (“les choses qui nous conservent et qui subviennent à noz nécessitez”), including our bodily needs (“tout ce dont nostre corps a besoin pour son usage, sous les élémens de ce monde”). 28 So far, Calvin would agree with Luther. But a close reading of his commentary reveals an approach much more complex and at the same time more faithful to the Gospels. The lengthy introduction in the last edition of the Institutes is not a sign of bad style, or verbosity. Calvin is one of the greatest writers of the sixteenth-cen‐ tury. The repetition and emphasis express two apparently contradictory fee‐ lings: 1º) A kind of embarrassment to talk about earthly or trivial matters; 2º) The necessity to justify the petition, since it is God’s will that we ask for these things. As I indicated above, the Reformer begins by mentioning the movement of the petitions in the Prayer. He points out that after symbolically raising our heads toward heaven for the glorification of God, here in this Fourth Peti‐ tion, “we descend to our own affairs” (“nous descendons à ce qui nous est utile”). The lowering effect of the term “descendre” (to descend) makes us somewhat ashamed of ourselves. But, unfortunately, thinks Calvin, we must deal with our material needs too. However, since even these trivial needs cannot be fulfilled without God’s will and help, we must have the first three petitions constantly in mind and consider them fundamental. Our main goal should indeed be purely spiritual and so we should only be concerned about the other world. Further‐ more, we do not even know what is best for us, or what we really need. There‐ fore, we do not mention in our prayer in a precise manner what we want, but only ask the Father to give us “Our Daily Bread”, that is what He considers useful or beneficial to us (“nous demandons seulement ce qui nous est profitable” (Institution III , xx, 44, 389). We note here an important difference between Calvin and Luther. The latter, indeed, enumerates the things we need in order to be happy, but the French theologian does not even care about one’s health or ma‐ terial condition, social freedom, etc., for in his view, whatever God has decided for us, must be right. Highlighting this idea, he concludes this section as follows: VII. Jean Calvin 87 29 “Briefly, by this we give ourselves over to his care, and entrust ourselves to his provi‐ dence, 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” (Institutes III, xx, 44, 908). 30 “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 wine, grain, and oil, tremble with apprehension. So much more does the shadow of this fleeting life mean to us than that everlasting immortality” (Institutes III, xx, 44, 908). The word “oil” appears in the Latin version, which Battles has in general used. En somme, par ceste pétition nous nous baillons à luy comme en charge, et nous mettons en sa providence, pour estre de luy nourris, entretenus et conservez. Car ce tresbon Père n’a point en desdain de prendre mesme nostre corps en sa protection et sauvegarde, afin d’exercer nostre foy en ces basses et petites choses, quand nous atten‐ dons de luy tout ce qu’il nous faut, iusques à une miette de pain et une goutte d’eau. (Institution III, xx, 44, 389-90) 29 The material needs are considered “basses”, “petites” (base, small, i.e. unimpor‐ tant). Still, God, the Reformer writes, “does not disdain to take even our bodies” under his care. The word “desdain” also denotes the insignificance of our ma‐ terial life. What is implied is naturally the next world, which is the only thing we ought to care about. VII. 2. “Materialism” and Human Nature Although anachronic, I am using this term, not in the philosophical sense though, but in the extended use of it, meaning “the tendency to treat material possessions and physical comfort as more important or desirable than spiritual values” ( OED ). This tendency seems to have always been dominant in the world. At any rate, Calvin does not believe otherwise, and criticizes it here in the fol‐ lowing way: Certes nostre perversité est telle, que nous nous soucions tousiours beaucoup plus de nostre corps que de nostre âme. Et pourtant plusieurs qui s’osent bien fier à Dieu pour leur âme, ne laissent point d’avoir solicitude pour leur corps, et tousiours doutent dequoy ils vivront, et de quoy ils seront vestuz; et s’ils n’ont tousiours en main abon‐ dance de blé, de vin, et d’autre prouvision, ils tremblent de peur d’avoir faute. C’est ce que nous avons dit, que ceste ombre de nostre vie corruptible nous est en beaucoup plus grande estime que l’immortalité éternelle. 30 V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 88 31 “What certain writers say in philosophizing about ‘supersubstantial bread’ seems to me to agree very little with Christ’s meaning; indeed, if we did not even in this fleeting life accord to God the office of nourisher, this would be an imperfect prayer” (Institutes III, xx, 44, 908). 32 “When God condescends to feed our bodies, certainly it is over our spiritual life that He is most concerned” (Commentaries 209). This materialistic tendency seems to be part of our human perverse nature. And Calvin does not exclude himself. That is why he uses the pronoun “nous” (we). Furthermore, even those who have decided to live christianly, “always” worry about their material life (“tousiours doutent dequoy ils vivront”). This “doubt” is a sign of faithlessness, or unbelief. The author does not mention the term “na‐ ture” concerning our human perversity, for he must allude to the notion of “ori‐ ginal sin”. We cannot get rid of it for good, he suggests, as he states that “ceste infidélité” (this unblelief) “est quasi enracinée iusques aux oz de tous les hommes” (somehow rooted in the very bones of everybody). VII. 3. On “Epiousios” (ἐπιούσιος) translated by “Supersubstantial” (supersubstantialis) Calvin rejects Jerome’s translation of “épiousios”, term maybe coined by Mat‐ thew (Mat 6: 11). Indeed, “sufficient for the day” (ἐπιούσιος) and “necessary to support life” (supersubstantialis) do not express the same thing, and so this translation can lead to misinterpretation. The best would be just “daily” (our daily bread). He contends that “Ce qu’aucuns transfèrent cecy au pain super‐ substantiel, il ne me semble pas fort convenable à la sentence de Iesus Christ; et mesme si en ceste vie fragile et caduque nous n’attribuyons à Dieu office de Père nourricier, l’oraison manqueroit et seroit comme rompue en partie” (Institution III , xx, 44, 390). 31 His logic is that, first the translation is not correct, and second, in terms of interpretation, we must accept the fact that it is not because we should strive to live as spiritually as possible, that we can deny our body. And since we need this concrete “bread”, symbolizing our material needs, for our survival, we must, like for our spiritual food, only have recourse to God to pro‐ vide it. Counting on humans, which is in fact Luther’s approach to some extent, or nature as a separate entity, and not thinking that it is God who provides it, as He deems to do it, would be an insult to Him. Thus, although He deigns “daigne se demettre à nourrir nos corps, il n’y a point de doute qu’il ne soit beaucoup plus soigneux de nostre vie spirituelle” (Commentaires 126). 32 In fact, even this godly kindness is meant to lift us up. The end is spiritual, for our trust in Him will in this way increase: “Et pourtant ceste façon de laquelle il VII. Jean Calvin 89 33 “Thus His kindly favour swells our confidence” (Commentaries 209). I must note that the English translation is sometimes different from Calvin’s French version I am using here. It is done from the Latin version of the Commentaries. 34 This translation is somewhat different from Calvin’s text in French, but it is the latest translation available in English: “Some take ἐπιούσιον (daily) bread in the sense of ‘su‐ persubstantial’ (beyond what is necessary to support life); but this is quite absurd. The reasoning that Erasmus applies is both trifling, and contrary to religion, for he does not think it likely that when we approach God’s sight, Christ should tell us to think about food” (Commentaries 209). 35 “But we are bidden to ask our daily bread that we may be content with the measure that our Heavenly Father has deigned to distribute to us, and not gain by unlawful devices” (Institutes III, xx, 44, 909). nous traitte tant benignement et liberalement, esleve nostre fiance plus haut” (Commentaires 126). 33 Among the ancients, Calvin is alluding for example to an exegete like Origen. Among his contemporaries, Calvin openly criticizes Erasmus. He does not mention his name in the Institutes, but does it in the Commentaries: Quant à ce qu’aucuns prenans autrement le mot Grec dont use l’Evangeliste, lisent Nostre pain supersubstanciel, il n’y a apparence aucune. Et la raison qu’allegue Erasme non seulement est frivole, mais aussi contraire à la vraye religion. Il ne luy semble pas que quand nous venons en la presence de Dieu, Christ nous commande de faire men‐ tion de nostre nourriture (Commentaires 126-127). 34 As opposed to Luther, who does not quote the Bible one single time in The Large Catechism, Calvin refers to it for every point he makes, and since the spiritual requests remain Calvin’s main concern, he refers to Paul’s letter to Timothy in which he talks about both our spiritual and physical needs, and specifying that “while physical training is of some value, godliness is valuable in every way, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come” (1 Tim 4: 8) [Institution III , xx, 44, 390]. Luther clearly attaches much more importance to our material needs, and also counts much on social rulers and administrators. In his view, our happiness partly depends on them. Calvin, on the other hand, does not mention at all the role played by the rulers and their responsibilities toward the people—he remains beyond political considerations, being more faithful to both Jesus and Paul in this respect. Besides, he emphasizes the idea that people should be content with whatever God gives them: “Or il nous or‐ donne de prier pour nostre pain quotidien, afin que nous soyons contens de la portion que le Père céleste distribue à chacun et que nous ne pourchassions nul gain par artifices ou finesses illicites” (Institution III , xx, 44, 390). 35 Another idea inferred is that material goods may not be equally distributed by God—this is a V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 90 36 “Meanwhile, we must hold that it is made ours by title of gift; for, as is said in Moses, neither effort nor toil, nor our hands, acquire anything for us by themselves but by God’s blessing [Lev. 26: 20; cf. Deut. 8: 17-18]. Indeed, not even an abundance of bread would benefit us in the slightest unless it were divinely turned into nourishment. Ac‐ cordingly, this generosity of God is necessary no less for the rich than for the poor; for with full cellars and storehouses, men would faint with thirst and hunger unless they enjoyed their bread through his grace” (Institutes III, xx, 44, 909). fact—but spiritually speaking, it is the same, so a poor man may be richer than a king in this sense and have a better life in the other world. We will see this idea more clearly expressed in the following section. Luther’s argument on this issue of social injustice is pretty different, insofar as he believes, not in luxury of course, but in a minimum of material happiness. Maybe Luther is more rea‐ listic, but this is another issue. VII. 4. The meaning of “Our” in “Our Daily Bread” Deceitful people who get richer at the expense of others and exploit them—this actually could apply to anyone from any social class—are now being criticized. Whatever our social and economic condition, Calvin warns, “il nous faut garder d’usurper le bien d’autrui” (Commentaires 127). Let us not “usurp”, or wrongfully appropriate to ourselves, what belongs to another. Now, one good reason why we must say “Our daily bread,” is that we are promising God that we are satisfied with our lot and are grateful for what we have. Besides, following His Law, we do not covet others’ belongings. Nonethe‐ less, writes Calvin: nous avons à noter que le pain est fait nostre par titre de donation, veu qu’il n’y a ny industrie, ne labeur, comme dit Moyse, qui nous puisse rien acquérir, si la bénédiction de Dieu ne s’eslargit sur nous (Lév. 26: 20); mesmes que nulle quantité de vivres ne nous profiterait rien, si elle ne nous estoit tournée en aliment par la bonté de Dieu. Dont il s’ensuyt que ceste sienne libéralité n’est pas moins nécessaire aux riches qu’aux povres, veu qu’ayans leurs greniers et caves bien remplies, ils défaudroyent comme secs et vuydes, si sa grâce ne leur donnoit à iouir de leur pain (Institution III, xx, 44, 391). 36 This “bread” is a “donation”, a gift from God, for everything belongs to Him, and He does not have to help us, all the more so because we are usually ungrateful and unsatisfied, Calvin thinks. It is true that we must work to earn this bread, “Il est vray qu’il faut labourer les champs, travailler pour recueillir les fruicts de la terre,” but without God’s generosity and blessing, without “la liberalité gratuite VII. Jean Calvin 91 37 “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 labour of his own calling, to get himself a living, but this does not prevent us being fed by the gratuitous good-will of God, without which men vainly wear themselves out upon their tasks” (Commentaries 211). de Dieu,” we cannot get anything (“les hommes pourroyent se rompre le corps à travailler, et ne feroyent rien” (Commentaires 127). 37 So when we say “ours”, we do not mean that it—this meal, this property, this money, etc.—belongs to us, but we are just praying God to deign to send us his blessings for our sustenance, and at the same time we are promising Him to follow His Commandments. For we are aware that if we disobey, He will want to punish us, and even if we work hard, we may not have this “bread” at all. Calvin refers here to the verse: “Your strength shall be spent to no purpose, your land shall not yield its produce, and the trees of the land shall not yield their fruit” (Lev 26: 20). In his view, even a rich man may not be happy and benefit from his wealth. Whether we are poor or rich, if God does not bless our “bread”, we will not be happy and enjoy it. And God blesses it only if we try to follow Christ. Calvin’s interpretation is also based on this other one from the Pentateuch: “Do not say to yourself, ‘My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.’ But remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors, as he is doing today” (Deut 8: 17-18). Therefore, it becomes “nostre” (ours) only “par titre de donation” (God’s free gift). Calvin’s originality, which has not always been well understood— though he is faithful to the Scriptures—resides in the fact that he does not see much difference between the poor and the rich, and does not say that the latter are necessarily worse or even happier than the former. Happy, Calvin thinks, is he who only believes in God and follows His commandements. In sum, one should not worry about material life, but still needs to pray to obtain the ne‐ cessary and blessed bread for the day. Now, it is only God’s decision to justify us or not, and give or not give us this “bread”. VII. 5. On “This Day” and “Daily” We saw that the translation of ἐπιούσιος, meaning sufficient for the day, by “su‐ persubstantial”, did not seem satisfactory to the French Reformer. Now we need to know why, in his view, we have the word σήμερον (“today”) and what is its relation to ἐπιούσιος (“daily”). Here is the explanation: Ce mot d’Auiourdhuy, ou iournellement (comme il est en l’autre Evangéliste), item, ce mot de Quotidien, doivent servir à brider toute cupidité désordonnée des choses transi‐ V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 92 38 “The word ‘today’, or ‘day by day,’ as it is in the other Evangelist, as well as the adjec‐ tive ‘daily’, bridle the uncontrolled desire for fleeting things, with which we commonly burn without measure, and to which other evils are added. For if a greater abundance is at hand, we vainly pour it out upon pleasure, delights, ostentation, and other sorts of excess. Therefore we are bidden to ask only as much as is sufficient for our need from day to day, with this assurance: that as our Heavenly Father nourishes us today, he will not fail us tomorrow” (Institutes III, xx, 44, 909). 39 “Also, what is in our hand is not even ours except insofar as he bestows each little portion upon us hour by hour, and allows us to use it” (Institutes III, xx, 44, 909). toires, à laquelle nous sommes trop bouillans; et surtout d’autant qu’elle attire d’autres maux avec soy; c’est que si nous avons abondance, nous la iettons à l’abandon en volupté, délices, parades, et autres espèces de superfluité et dissolution. Parquoy il nous est ordonné de requérir seulement ce qui suffist à nostre nécessité, comme au iour la iournée, et avec telle fiance que quand le Père céleste nous aura auiourdhuy nourris, il ne nous oubliera non plus demain. (Institution III, xx, 44, 391) 38 We always desire more and are constantly worried about tomorrow. We are in fact after superfluity, and do not realize how short this life might be. All these material things, our life on earth, are passing away(“choses transitoires”). This day might actually be the last one for us here on Earth. So we just ask God for what we need today. As for “daily”, it means whatever God considers necessary or sufficient for us each day we are to live. The last sentence shows some hope for tomorrow, but “il ne nous oubliera non plus demain” does not mean that we are sure there will be another day—we know nothing about tomorrow—but since the past is past, we can only think of today, but also of any other day God would like to add to our life on earth. It does not mean that we are worried about it, materially speaking, but praying to remain with God and benefit from His Grace. The “day” is just symbolizing a certain amount of time, or the time we are sup‐ posed to live, according to God’s will. So “today” is now, and “daily” what is necessary each “day”. It does not mean 24 hours. This idea may not be very explicit, but suggested in the clause, “s’il plaist à Dieu d’heure en heure en dé‐ partir et donner l’usage” (Institution III , xx, 44, 391). 39 It is about this free gift, this material sustenance, which we may have now, but not anymore tonight. So, instead of “this day”, we could say” this hour”, and instead of “daily”, what is sufficient for the time we have left. VII. 6. Conclusion The important remark made about the “Manna” in the last part of the exegesis and its relation to the material “Bread” may serve as our conclusion to this essay. VII. Jean Calvin 93 40 “Because the pride of man only most grudgingly allows itself to be persuaded, the Lord declares that he provided singular proof for every age when he fed his people in the desert with manna in order to impress upon us that man does not live by bread alone but rather by the word that proceeds out of his mouth [Deut 8: 3; Matt 4: 4]” (Institutes III, xx, 44, 909). Since, it is the other life which really matters to Calvin, he reminds us that God sent the Manna to the Jews living in the desert in order to show them that spirit is more important than matter. This is how he puts it: Et pource que l’arrogance des hommes ne se laisse point aisément persuader cela, le Seigneur tesmoigne qu’il en a baillé un exemple notable pour tout iamais en repaissant au désert son peuple de la Manne, afin de nous advertir que l’homme ne vit pas du pain seulement, mais plustost de la parolle sortant de sa bouche [Deut 8: 3; Matth 4: 4]. (Institution III, xx, 44, 391) 40 We become arrogant and proud as we think that what we own comes from our own merit, and consider our wealth truly ours, so we do not wish to glorify God. The reality is, however, that without His will and generosity, our land cannot be fertile and produce anything. Our “bread” comes from Him, indeed, i.e. from heaven, so we need to consider the latter our main concern and goal. The word of God is our essential bread, although we also need for our transitory life on earth the material bread for our sustenance. The basic differences with Luther are: 1) Calvin attaches more importance to the spiritual life than the German Reformer does; 2) He constantly refers to the Scriptures, which strengthens his argument, as opposed to Luther who does not quote the Bible at all. V. The fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread” 94 VI. The fifth petition: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” This is how Calvin translates the 5 th Petition: “Remets nous noz dettes, comme aussi nous remettons à noz detteurs” (Institution III , xx, 45, 392). We notice first that his commentary of this Petition in the 1560 edition of The Institutes is much longer than the previous ones (1541-1557). This final French version could be divided into the following parts: I) On the Relation between the 5 th and the 6 th Petition; II ) On the term “dette” used by Matthew; III ) On the term “mérite”; IV ) Criticism of those who believe in Human Perfection; V) On “As we forgive our debtors.” I. The Relation between the 5 th and the 6 th Petition The exegete begins by rephrasing thus the first part of the Petition: “Quitte-nous noz offenses, ou noz dettes” (Institution III , xx, 45, 392). The verb “quitter”, in today’s French, “tenir quitte” (to forgive) is used as a synonym of “remettre”, and “dette” is equivalent to “offense” (offense, or sin), in other words, trans‐ gression or breach of God’s laws. Then Calvin indicates what this Petition has in common with the following and the last one, which is “And lead us not into Temptation, but deliver us from Evil.” In them, he points out, “Iesus Christ a comprins tout ce qui concerne le salut de noz âmes” (“Jesus-Christ has included in them all that concerns the salvation of our souls”). The expressions “tout ce qui” (everything) and “le salut de noz âmes” (the salvation of our souls) are being emphasized. Referring to Jeremiah 31: 33 (and Jer 33: 8), the theologian reminds that “l’alliance spirituelle que Dieu a traitée avec son Eglise consiste du tout en ces deux membres”(Institution III , xx, 45, 392) [God’s spiritual covenant with His Church is entirely comprised in the following two clauses]: “escrire sa loy en noz cœurs, et d’estre propice à noz iniquitez” [to write His Law in our hearts, 1 Battles’s translation (mainly done from Latin) is: “Christ briefly embraces all that makes for the heavenly life, as the spiritual covenant that God has made for the salvation of his church rests on these two members alone: ‘I shall write my laws upon their hearts,’ and, ‘I shall be merciful toward their iniquity’” (Institutes III, xx, 45, 910). And in Jere‐ miah we read: “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” ( Jer 31: 33), adding farther: “I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me” ( Jer 33: 8) [The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1989]. 2 Calvin must also have in mind this word by Paul: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness…” (Rom 2: 13-15). And also this one: “For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but ‘It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.’ This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants” (Rom 9: 6-8). 3 This Introduction was added in the last edition. and be merciful toward our iniquities]. 1 Two remarks on this: 1) Jeremiah’s God addresses the Jewish people, but to Calvin, the latter just means all those who believe in God; 2) He also uses the pronoun “we” rather than “they”. Thus Jere‐ miah, who says in behalf of God, “I shall write my laws upon their hearts,” be‐ comes “to write his laws in our hearts.” If “our” is highlighted, it is because the author considers himself, as well as his Christian reader, members of the sym‐ bolic Jewish people, or God’s People. 2 On the other hand, in the last two Peti‐ tions, two God’s graces are mentioned by Christ: 1) Forgiveness of our sins; 2) Providing us with the Power to resist all kinds of temptations. This is how he puts it: “nostre Seigneur Iesus commence par le Pardon,” and in the last request, we pray that “Dieu nous défende par la vertu de son Esprit, et nous soustienne par le secours d’iceluy, à ce que nous persistions invincibles contre toutes tenta‐ tions” (Institution III , xx, 45, 392). The adjective “invincible”, stressed by the the‐ ologian, demonstrates that by faith everything is possible. We can deduct from this, that if we show weakness before the world’s and nature’s temptations, it is our fault, for we just have to believe and pray. The last two petitions, asking for the two graces in question, are sufficient for our victory over sin and for our salvation. So, there is no 7 th petition, according to Calvin, since the 5 th and the 6 th are all we spiritually need. 3 VI. The fifth petition: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” 96 4 We tend to forget the adverb “previously”, and think that we can continue to sin cons‐ ciously every time we want, and then be forgiven with a superficial prayer. II. On the word “Dette” Sin is called “debt”, Calvin explains, because we owe something to God. Indeed, we ought to be punished for our sins: “Or en nommant les péchez Dettes, il signifie que nous en devons la peine” (Institution III , xx, 45, 392) [“He calls sins ‘debts’ because we owe him penalty for them” (Institutes III , xx, 45, 910)]. Thus, after Jeremiah, the Reformer refers to Paul, who writes: “For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith” (Rom 3: 22-25). Since our sins are forgiven on account of our faith—“be‐ cause in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously com‐ mitted” (Rom 3: 25)—God is doing us a favor. He is actually giving us a “gift” by not punishing us for our previous sins. 4 Otherwise, it would be impossible for us to pay off those debts: “et nous seroit impossible d’en satisfaire, si nous n’en estions délivrez par cette rémission, qui est un pardon de sa miséricorde gra‐ tuite, en ce qu’il luy plait libéralement effacer noz dettes, n’en recevant aucun payment, mais en se satisfaisant de sa propre miséricorde en Iesus Christ, lequel s’est une fois livré pour nous en récompense de tous noz forfaits” (Institution III , xx, 45, 392) [“and we could in no way satisfy it unless we were released by this forgiveness. This pardon comes of his free mercy in Christ, who once for all gave himself as a ransom” (Institutes III , xx, 45, 910)]. Calvin stresses our impossibility to get rid of our debts to God, as well as His liberality and merci‐ fulness. The last point is that, this gift is all the more precious that the Father sacrificed his only son for it. The verb “se livrer” about the Son implies a ransom. He sacrificed Himself in compensation for our “forfaits” (sins). We can infer from the author’s emphasis on Christ’s self-sacrifice, that every time we ask God to forgive us our transgressions, we must have in mind the torture and the cruci‐ fixion scene. We must understand how serious our request is. It involves our sincere belief in God and our promise to follow His word, even though we are aware of the fragility of our faith. II. On the word “Dette” 97 5 “Therefore those who trust that God is satisfied with their own or others’ merits, and that by such satisfaction forgiveness forgiveness of sins is paid for and purchased, share not at all in this free gift” (Institutes III, xx, 45, 910-911). Note that “others’ merits” is not what Calvin says. 6 “For they confessent they are debtors unless they are released by the benefit of forgi‐ veness, which they still do not accept but rather spurn, while they thrust their merits and satisfactions upon God. For thus they do not entreat his mercy but call his judgment” (Institutes III, xx, 45, 911). III. On the word “Mérite” Based on Paul’s clear statement in Romans 3: 25, that God forgives us only if we sincerely believe in Him, and nothing else (faith alone), Calvin rejects the ar‐ gument of those who add to it “merit” (“works”): “Pourtant tous ceux qui se confient d’apaiser Dieu par leurs mérites, ou ceux qui cuydent acquérir pardon d’ailleurs et qui veulent se rachetter par telles satisfactions, ne peuvent com‐ muniquer à ceste rémission gratuite” (Institution III , xx, 45, 393). 5 Those who are confident (“se confient”) that they can satisfy God by their works (“mérites”), or those who imagine / believe (“cuydent”) that they will be forgiven by other means (“acquérir pardon d’ailleurs”), cannot receive God’s free gift—“ne peuvent communiquer à ceste rémission gratuite” (“cannot participate in this free re‐ mission / pardon”). In fact, if they pray in this way, in other words if they think that they can buy their “freedom”, they are just committing another sin. Indeed, they are refusing God’s “free gift”, or they do not believe in His great liberality. Besides, “en priant en ceste façon ne font que soussigner à leur accusation, mesme ratifier leur condamnation par leur tesmoignage propre” (Institution III , xx, 45, 393). [“And while they call upon God according to this form, they do nothing but subscribe to their own accusation, and even seal their own testimony” (Institutes III , xx, 45, 911)]. Both verbs “soussigner” (to subscribe, to sign) and “ratifier” (to affirm) express a certain irony, because instead of getting free from sin, people who add to “faith alone” other things such as “works”, become more sinful. Christ’s crucifixion, Which is God’s sacrifice of his Son, is not suf‐ ficient to them. Thus, “Ils se confessent estre detteurs s’ils ne sont acquitez par rémission gratuite, laquelle toutesfois ils n’acceptent pas, mais plustost la reiet‐ tent en ingérant leurs mérites et satisfactions; car en ce faisant ils n’implorent pas sa miséricorde, mais se veulent acquiter en son iugement” (Institution III , xx, 45, 393). 6 They contradict themselves, for on the one hand, in the Lord’s Prayer, these people ask God to “freely”, “gratuitously”, forgive them for their sins, but at the same time reject his “free gift” by paying Him with their merits and satisfactions. VI. The fifth petition: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” 98 7 Battles’s translation, “have disciples whose itching ears mislead them into errors” is just a translation of Calvin’s Latin version [“discipulos habeat quos aurium pruritus ad fall‐ acias impellit” (Institution III, xx, 45, 393, n. 3)]. Note that the translator’s use of the indicative “have” does not express exactly the subjunctive “habeat” (may have). 8 “seeing that in instructing all to confess their guilt, he admits none but sinners” (Insti‐ tutes III, xx, 45, 911). In the Latin version Calvin uses indeed “omnes” (all). IV. Criticism of those who believe in Human Perfection In the last version of the Institutes, a significant passage is here added. It starts by a long and complex sentence in which Calvin passionately criticizes those who “se forgent par songes une telle perfection qui nous exempte de cette né‐ cessité de supplier pour obtenir pardon” (Institution III , xx, 45, 393) [“those who imagine such perfection for themselves as would make it unnecessary to seek pardon” (Institutes III , xx, 45, 911). The term “imagine” used by Battles cannot render the beauty and the depth of Calvin’s phrase “se forgent par songes.” In fact, the poetic quality of the whole passage is undeniable, but unfortunately many theologians do not pay much attention to the style. Thus sometimes a translation does not provide the full meaning. At any rate, Calvin’s French ex‐ pression here is not for the beauty’s sake alone; it actually conveys the ideas of arrogance and presumption of those who “imagine” such things. Indeed, “Se forger” (to fabricate for oneself) and “songe” (dream or illusion) rhyming with “mensonge” (“a lie”) somewhat imply malice. So it is not about a simple innocent “illusion” or imagination. Besides, it may also allude to the idiom “songe malice”, archaic today but common in the sixteenth-century, and meaning a malicious individual. So these arrogant people, the theologian points out, believe to be so perfect “qu’ils ayent tels disciples qu’ils voudront” (that they may have such disciples as they wish). 7 In reality, by misleading others, they “arrachent à Iesus Christ tous ceux qu’ils acquièrent à eux” (Institution III , xx, 45, 393) [“snatch away from Christ all the people they acquire”]. The verb “arracher” (snatch away) implies some violence. They commit an aggres‐ sive act against God while those under their influence go astray. Now Jesus, explains the Reformer, wants to save everyone, provided that one repents: “veu que luy, en induysant les siens à confesser leur coulpe, ne reçoit ny advoue que les pécheurs” (Institution III , xx, 45, 393) [given that He, by inciting his followers to confess their sins, only receives and approve the sinners]. 8 Only the penti‐ tent “sinner” is accepted into the Kingdom of God, and who is not a sinner? Obviously, Jesus does not mean to make us feel more guilty than we are [“non pas qu’il nourrisse les fautes par flatterie” (“not that he fosters sins by flattery”)]. He evidently knows that we will always be indebted to God for our sins, “pource IV. Criticism of those who believe in Human Perfection 99 9 Instead of “he knew”, it should be “he knows”. We also note that Calvin uses the term “infirmité”, which connotes weakness about one’s flesh, and not “vice”, as is in the English translation. 10 “(…) commands us throughout life to resort to prayer for the pardon of our guilt” (Institutes III, xx, 45, 911). 11 “who will tolerate these new doctors, who try to dazzle the eyes of the simple-minded with the specter of perfect innocence so as to assure them that they can rid themselves of all blame? This, according to John, is nothing else than to make God a liar (1 John 1: 10)” (Institutes III, xx, 45, 911). qu’il sait que les fidèles ne sont iamais tellement despouillez des infirmitez de leur chair qu’ils ne soyent tousiours redevables au iugement de Dieu” (Institution III , xx, 45, 393) [“because he knew that believers are never divested of the vices of their flesh without always remaining liable to God’s judgment” (Institutes III , xx, 45, 911)]. 9 Given the fact that our body is weak (with “infirmitez”), sin is inevitable. Therefore, Calvin stresses our need to work toward perfection, even though we realize that reaching that state is impossible. We just have to strive to improve ourselves [“nous y faut travailler tant qu’il est possible” (“as much as possible”)]. Praying is a fundamental daily exercise and remedy which helps us to gradually move forward: “puisqu’il plaist à Dieu de reformer petit à petit son image en nous, en sorte qu’il demeure tousiours quelque contagion en nostre chair, il n’a pas fallu laisser ce remède” [“because it pleases God gradually to restore his image in us, in such manner that some taint always remains in our flesh, it was most necessary to provide a remedy” ( Institutes III , xx, 45, 911)]. Here the exegete refers to John, who writes in his First Letter: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just, will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 John 1: 8-10). In the 5 th Petition, we are in fact confessing that we have sinned, and we must know that all our life we will continue to sin. For this reason, Calvin points out, Jesus “nous commande d’avoir tout le cours de nostre vie refuge à demander pardon de noz defauts” ( Jesus recommends that throughout our life we have recourse to prayer for asking God to forgive us our sins). 10 The theologian concludes that those who claim that it is possible to be‐ come pure or sinless are not only foolish but also hypocritical. How, he wonders, could anyone testify to their pretensions? : “qui est-ce qui pourra porter ces nouveaux docteurs et follets qui sous ombre d’un fantosme de saincteté parfaite s’efforcent d’esblouir les yeux des simples, leur faisant à croire qu’ils sont purs de toute offense? Ce qui n’est autre chose, tesmoin sainct Iean, que faire Dieu menteur (1 Iean 1: 10)” (Institution III , xx, 45, 393). 11 Apparently, he alludes here to those who were called at that time “Libertines”, and whose ideas he criticizes VI. The fifth petition: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” 100 12 Calvin writes about these “Libertines”: “Ces phantastiques, pour approuver leur erreur, s’arment de ceste sentence de sainct Iehan: Que celuy qui nay de Dieu ne peche point (1 Iehan 3, 9). Or ie leur concede bien, que s’il se trouvoit homme du tout regeneré, qu’en cestuy là il n’y auroit point de peché. Mais le tout est savoir, si la regeneration a iamais esté parfaicte en homme mortel. Ie dis que depuis la creation du monde, il n’y en a pas eu un seul exemple” [Contre la Secte phantastique et furieuse des Libertins qui se nomment spirituelz. Genève: Jean Girard, 1545. In Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia (Corpus Reformatorum, vol. VII, 205). Ed. by E. Cunitz, J. W. Baum, and E. W. E. Reuss. Brunsvigae: C. A. Schwetschke, 1868. New edition by Myriam Veen. Geneva: Droz, 2005 (Series: Scripta didactica et polemica)]. 13 “Also, with the same effort these rascals, by canceling one section of it, tear apart God’s covenant, in which we see our salvation contained, and topple it from its foundation. Not only are they guilty of sacrilege in separating things till now joined, but also they are impious and cruel in overwhelming miserable souls with despair” (Institutes III, xx, 45, 911). in his Contre la Secte phantastique et furieuse des Libertins qui se nomment spi‐ rituelz (1545). In this book, he affirms that since the creation of the world, nobody has been sinless. 12 Furthermore, Calvin says about these extravagant (“phantas‐ tique”), mad (“furieux”), and confused (“brouillons”) people that, “par un mesme moyen deschirent par pièces l’alliance de Dieu en laquelle nostre salut est con‐ tenu, car de deux articles ils en raclent l’un; et en ce faisant la renversent du tout, estans non seulement sacrilèges en ce qu’ils séparent des choses tant co‐ niointes, mais aussi meschans et cruels, accablans les povres âmes de désespoir” (Institution III , xx, 45, 394). 13 Several ideas are contained in this declaration: 1) By qualifying these people “brouillons”(the translation of “rascal” by Battles is not accurate), he views them as confused but also dangerous, for they bring about confusion and trouble among people; 2) They destroy God’s Covenant and so make simple-minded people lose their only hope for salvation. Because, if one can become perfect, then the Lord’s Prayer is useless, and God, as the Apostle John says, is made a liar (1 John 1: 8-10). The way they destroy or made void God’s Covenant for our salvation is that they tear it to pieces (“deschirent par pièces”), for of the two articles in question (God’s Forgiveness and Ours’ Sins), they take off one (for if we become perfect, we do not sin anymore), and here the verb “racler” (to make disappear, erase) implies a certain arrogance in behalf of these people, who allow themslves to cancel God’s word. 3) If one article disappears (“forgiveness” or “Debts”), the whole thing is useless. Indeed, we do not need God’s forgiveness any more, as we think we have become perfect. Consequently the entire Covenant is destroyed (“et en ce faisant la renversent du tout”); 4) The two articles are then “inseparable”, and so whoever separates them, is guilty of sacrilege (“estans non seulement sacrilèges en ce qu’ils sépa‐ rent des choses tant coniointes”)”; 5) These people are evil (“meschans”) and IV. Criticism of those who believe in Human Perfection 101 14 “Indeed they are faithless to themselves and those like them because they induce a state of indolence diametrically opposed to God’s mercy” (Institutes III, xx, 45, 911). cruel (“cruels”), for they overwhelm the miserable souls by leading them into despair (“accablans les povres âmes de désespoir”). Indeed, since we all sin every day, and even many times each day, we are discouraged and feel that we are unable to reach the perfect state, and as a consequence we lose our hope to be saved. 6) To sum up, these extravagant people are loyal neither to themsleves nor to others (“estans desloyaux à eux mesmes et à leurs semblables”). They are unfair to themselves as well “d’autant qu’ils cherchent à s’endormir en une stu‐ pidité, laquelle contrarie directement à la miséricorde de Dieu” ( Institution III , xx, 45, 394). 14 They pretend that if we want to reach the Kingdom of Heaven, we need to become pure, so its coming depends on the abolition of sins in us. This, Calvin insists, is just “une sophisterie trop puérile” (too childish a sophistry). In this expression, we see at once a kind of naivety (“puérile”) and deceptiveness (“sophisterie”). The final word on this point is to remind us that the Lord’s Prayer consists of two parts: in the first one (Petitions 1 to 3), we are required to seek God [“en la première table de l’oraison nous sommes induits à chercher la per‐ fection souveraine” (“in the first section of the prayer, the highest perfection is set before us”)]. We must go toward Him, toward the perfect Creator. Jesus is the Way. In the second part, however, (Petitions 4 to 6), “nostre infirmité nous est proposée” (“our weaknesses are set before us”). We then confess our “infir‐ mities, i.e. our sins. Calvin concludes in a positive and encouraging tone, by praising the Prayer’s format, in the following manner: “Ainsi les deux s’accor‐ dent tresbien, c’est qu’en aspirant où nous prétendons, nous ne mesprisions point les remèdes que nécessité requiert” [“Thus these two admirably accord with each other, so that, in aspiring toward the goal, we may not neglect the remedies that our necessity requires” (Institutes III , xx, 45, 912)]. If we do not pray, we reveal that we underestimate and despise (“mesprisions”) God’s reme‐ dies to our miseries. V. On “As we forgive our debtors” If we must add this clause to the previous one, is because God would not forgive us our sins if we have not already forgiven all those who have sinned against us. Now the offense could be committed either by deeds or by words (“en faits ou en dits”). It includes all kinds of injustice, perversity, insult (“tort ou VI. The fifth petition: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” 102 15 “Et nous demandons finalement ceste rémission nous estre faite comme nous remettons à nos detteurs, c’est à dire, comme nous pardonnons à ceux qui nous ont faits aucun tort ou iniure, et nous ont offensé ou en faits ou en dits” (Institution III, xx, 45, 394) [“Finally, we petition that forgiveness come to us, ‘as we forgive our debtors’ (Mat 6: 12): namely, as we spare and pardon all who have in any way injured us, either treating us unjustly in deed or insulting us in word” (Institutes III, xx, 45, 912)]. 16 “Non pas que nous pardonnions et remettions la coulpe du péché, ce qui appartient à Dieu seul” (Institution III, xx, 45, 394) [“Not that it is ours to forgive the guilt of trans‐ gression or offense, for this belongs to God alone” (Institutes III, xx, 45, 912)]. iniure”). 15 This does not mean that an individual who has hurt you is forgiven by the Father, for the latter alone can remit our sins. 16 Calvin refers here to the book of Isaiah, where God says: “I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins” (Isa 43: 25). So our own personal pardon consists in “willingly to cast from the mind wrath, hatred, desire for revenge, and willingly to banish to oblivion the remembrance of injustice” (“oster volontairement de nostre cœur toute ire, haine, désir de vengeance, et de mettre en oubly toute iniure et offense qui nous ait esté faite, sans garder aucune malvueillance contre personne”). The adverb “volontairement” is being emphasized. We forgive not if the transgressor has apologized, or not because our reason tells us to do so in some cases, but we do it voluntarily without any condition and for any offense committed against us. We do it indeed for God’s sake, because the Holy Spirit tells us to do so. Our faith alone prompts us to forgive unconditionally. The terms “ire” (wrath, anger), “haine” (hatred), as well as the phrase “désir de vengeance” (desire for revenge) show the regular reac‐ tions of people who have been hurt. Even if they are not vindictive or hateful, there is a very good chance that they would be at least angry if someone unjustly hurts them. But Calvin asserts that even “anger” is not acceptable to God. The‐ refore, we must try to control ourselves and go as far as to forget the offense (“de mettre en oubly toute iniure et offense”). We note that the adjective “toute” is being repeated, underscored (“toute ire… toute iniure…”). This implies that wha‐ tever the intensity of the transgression, we are required, if we want to follow Christ, to forgive and to forget. We must do this “sans garder aucune malvueil‐ lance contre personne” (no resentment aginst anyone). We might tell Calvin that seems to be too much to ask. For instance, how can we forget? Sometimes, how can we avoid anger even if there is no hatred or desire for revenge? His answer has already been provided. Jesus alone has been able to forgive in this absolute way, but we, who are weak, must at least strive to do our best. This willingness along with prayer will help us, no doubt, even though we know in advance that we will never reach that perfect state of mind, that perfect condition. At any V. On “As we forgive our debtors” 103 17 “Parquoy nous ne devons demander à Dieu rémission de noz péchez, si aussi de nostre part nous ne remettons, en la manière que dit a esté, à tous ceux qui nous ont offensez, ou qui nous offensent” (Institution III, xx, 45, 394) [“For this reason, we ought not to seek forgiveness of sins from God unless we ourselves also forgive the offenses against us of all those who do or have done us ill” (Institutes III, xx, 45, 912). rate, if we do not try to forgive in the way described those who have transgressed against us , 17 we cannot expect from God to forgive us either. How do we have to forgive and how do we forget? The answer to this question is quite clear: not only any idea of hatred, revenge, or any other evil thought or deed is condemned, but we must even do the opposite, that is doing good to someone who has hurt us. This is of course the perfect way, prescribed by Jesus and the Apostles, but Calvin never says that we are actually able to do that. We just need to try to go that way, which is very hard to everyone. This purely Christian idea, which comes to absolute charity, is thus expounded by Calvin: Et si nous retenons quelque hayne en nostre courage, gardons aucune affection de vengeance, ou pensons comment nous pourrons nuire à noz ennemiz, malfaicteurs ou malvueillans, et mesmes si nous ne nous efforçons de tout nostre pouvoir de revenir en grâce avec eux, nous réconcilier à eux, avoir paix, amour et charité avec eux, leur faire tout service et plaisir, nous requérons à Dieu en ceste prière qu’il ne nous face point rémission de noz péchez. Car nous requérons qu’il la nous face, comme aussi nous la faisons aux autres. (Institution III, xx, 45, 394) [If we retain feelings of hatred in our hearts, if we plot revenge and ponder any oc‐ casion to cause harm, and even if we do not try to get back into our ennemies’ good graces, by every sort of good office deserve well of them, and commend ourselves to them, by this prayer we entreat God not to forgive our sins. For we ask that he do to us as we do to others. (Institutes III, xx, 45, 912)] This rhetorical gradation from one extreme to another, from hatred to love, from being hurt to do good and render service to the offender, which may even seem absurd to many people, has nonetheless a positive effect in one’s conscience, to which refers the term “courage”, in the sixteenth-century sense of course. In general, if the injury someone has done to us is not serious, it does not rouse a feeling of hatred or revenge in us, but if we have been very seriously hurt, whoever we are—and we can imagine here all kinds of horrible things happening to us—even if we do not come to hate that person, or do not seek revenge, still is it possible for us to forgive, and still less to forget what has been inflicted upon us? But Calvin, being consistent in his theology and faithful to Christ, who while being tortured on the Cross, was forgiving his executioners, goes as far as af‐ firming that we must continue to believe in His word, in Him who wants us to VI. The fifth petition: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” 104 forgive “seventy-seven times”, that is a 100 %, and even go beyond, and bless those who are lost and doomed. We must at least try (“nous nous efforçons”) to follow Him, even if that absolute goodness will never be attained by any human being. It is better than saying like some people do: since it is impossible to be perfect, then let us be content with mediocrity. It is with Calvin as it is with Kierkegaard: Either … or. Either we are with Christ or not. There is no middle ground. To Calvin there is only one way: Christ’s Way, the absolute way, the impossible way, the way that seems against nature and instinct. If we do not try to follow Him, we go the opposite way. However, God knows well what we feel, and is much more indulgent and forgiving than we can possibly imagine. Anyhow, the following statement is that if we do not make this effort, i.e. if we do not sincerely desire to forgive those who have transgressed against us, then we are implicitly asking God not to forgive us our own sins either: “nous requ‐ érons à Dieu en ceste prière qu’il ne nous face point rémission de noz péchez” (“we entreat God not to forgive our sins”). This seems contradictory and absurd, for it cannot be called a prayer anymore. Here the Reformer refers to the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus says: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Mat 7: 12). V. On “As we forgive our debtors” 105 1 Institution de la Religion chrestienne. Ed. Jean-Daniel Benoît. Paris: J. Vrin, 1960 (III, xx, 46, 395). 2 J. Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Transl. by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960 (III, xx, 46, 912-913). 3 Jean Calvin. Commentaires sur la Concordance ou Harmonie, composee des trois Evange‐ listes, assavoir sainct Matthieu, sainct Marc, et sainct Luc. Genève: Michel Blanchier, 1563, 128. 4 J. Calvin. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by the Rev. William Pringle. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2005 (Reprinted), 327. VII. The sixth petition: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” I am comparing here Calvin with Augustine. A difference we can notice imme‐ diately is that there are seven petitions according to the latter, but six to the former. Indeed, Augustine considers “Lead us not into temptation” and “Deliver us from evil” as two separate requests. I shall start by studying their reasons for this, then present the other differences I have found in their interpretations. I. One or Two Petitions? Calvin does not raise this question in the Institutes, presupposing that the sixth and last petition is the entire sentence, “Ne nous induis point en tentation, mais délivre nous du Maling” [“Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”], and so he begins by asserting that “La sixième requeste, comme nous avons dit, respond à la promesse que Dieu nous a donnée et faite d’imprimer sa loy en noz cœurs.” 1 [“The sixth petition (Matt. 6: 13), as we have said, corresponds to the promise that the law is to be engraved upon our hearts (Prov. 3: 3; II Cor. 3: 3)…”]. 2 In his Commentaries, however, the exegete, from the outset, makes it clear by criticizing those who see two requests in there: “Aucuns ont mal à propos divisé ceste demande en deux, veu que la chose monstre que c’est une mesme et seule demande, et qu’il appert aussi par la suitte des mots.” 3 [“Some people have split this petition into two. This is wrong: for the nature of the subject makes it manifest, that it is one and the same petition. The connexion of the words also shows it…”]. 4 This criticism may apply to Augustine among the ancient theolo‐ 5 The translator’s emphasis. 6 St Augustine. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew. Translated by William Findlay. Revised and annotated by D. S. Schaff. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff. Vol. VI. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888, 43-45. 7 The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989. gians, as well as to the Roman Church, or to Luther among the Reformers. In‐ terestingly enough, he refers to the Bishop of Hippo, as he writes: “Car ce Mais, qui est mis au milieu, conjoint ensemble ces deux membres: ce que sainct Au‐ gustin a bien consideré aussi. Il faut donc resoudre ainsi ceste sentence, Afin que nous ne soyons induits en tentation, delivre-nous du mal” (Commentaires 128). [“… for the word but, which is placed between, connects the two clauses together, as Augustine judiciously explains. The sentence ought to be read as, That we may not be led into temptation, deliver us from evil” (Commentary 327)]. 5 Unfortunately the French Reformer does not say more about Augustine’s ap‐ proach, not even mentioning the fact that the latter divides the last sentence into two distinct requests. In fact, this is an interesting example of the gap bet‐ ween Calvin’s and Augustine’s interpretations of the Scripture. His comment in Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew (Book II , Chapter 9), is indeed divided into two parts: the first one (Paragraphs 30 to 34), is devoted to the so-called “Sixth Petition,” i.e. “And bring us not into temptation; ” and the second one, much shorter (Paragraph 35) is on the “seventh and last petition,” which is “But deliver us from evil.” 6 Then, he expounds in Chapter 10 (Paragraphs 36-37) the division of the Lord’s Prayer into two parts: the first three petitions, he points out, concern “that life which is promised us,” whereas the other four are about “this temporal life.” Afterwards, he explains in detail, in Chapter 11 (Paragraph 38), the reason why in his view there are seven petitions. To this effect, he draws a parallel between the latter and the famous opening of the Sermon on the Mount, which he also divides into seven parts, noting that “The sevenfold number of these petitions also seems to me to cor‐ respond to that sevenfold number out of which the whole sermon before us has had its rise” (Augustine 46). Since the Beatitudes, to which the theologian refers, are the sentences beginning with the epithet “Blessed” (Μακάριοι), there are nine of them and not seven—Augustine does not justify the reason why he omits the last two sentences, namely “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righ‐ teousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 5: 10) and “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Mat 5: 11). 7 If number 8 (Mat 5: 10) is close I. One or Two Petitions? 107 8 Indeed, εἰσενέγκῃς means both “lead” and “bring.” to number 4 (Mat 5: 6) insofar as both are about the people who strive for “righ‐ teousness,” they are not exactly the same; besides, the last one (number 9) is different from all the others. At any rate, Jesus does not repeat himself, but in every one of his “blessings” he mentions something specific and different. Then there is some arbitrariness in Augustine’s division of the “Beatitudes” into seven sentences. It is possible that he subconsciously believed in the myth of Seven as a sacred number and needed to justify it somehow. Calvin’s division of the Lord’s Prayer into two parts is similar to that of Au‐ gustine in terms of content, as he asserts that “les trois premières requestes sont spécialement destinées pour désirer la gloire de Dieu, laquelle seule en icelles nous devons considérer, sans avoir aucun esgard à nous-mesmes,” but “Les trois autres contiennent spécialement les choses que devons demander pour noz né‐ cessitez” (Institution III , xx, 35, 378) [“… the first three petitions have been par‐ ticularly assigned to God’s glory, and this alone we ought to look in them, wi‐ thout consideration of what is called our own advantage. The three others are concerned with the care of ourselves, and are especially assigned to those things which we should ask for our own benefit” (Institutes III , xx, 35, 898)]. Augustine, on the other hand, though less clear than Calvin, had contended that “the three first petitions begin to be answered in this life” but “consummated and tho‐ roughly completed in that life which is promised us; ” whereas “the other four things which we ask seem to me to belong to this temporal life” (Augustine 45). The question remains as to the number of petitions. Let us also note that there is no allusion to the “Beatitudes” in Calvin. II. Augustine’s Interpretation of “Lead us not into temptation” II . 1. A Translation issue: The Church Father begins (Chapter IX , 30) by clari‐ fying a term—it is about the Greek word εἰσενέγκῃς (from εἰσφέρω). He points out the fact that some Latin manuscripts have translated “bring” (inferas) and others “lead” (inducas), and that both are correct, for “both translations have arisen from the one Greek word which is used.” 8 II . 2. The meaning of the petition: it means, “Suffer us not to be led into temp‐ tation,” because God, sometimes and for some reasons, decides not to help us. This can happen in two ways. 1) For reasons hidden to us: “For God does not Himself lead, but suffers that man to be led into temptation VII. The sixth petition: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” 108 9 The NRSV translates: “… for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul” (Deut 13: 3). 10 Unless otherwise indicated the italics in the quotes are mine. whom He has deprived of His assistance, in accordance with a most hidden arrangement, and with his deserts; ” 2) For reasons revealed to us: “He judges him worthy of being so deprived, and allowed to be led into temptation” (Augustine 43). On the other hand,“To be led into temp‐ tation” should not be confused with “To be tempted.” Indeed, we are not afraid of temptations, because we need to be tested. Our request means, therefore: help us to pass our test successfully. At all events, God knows in advance how we will react (“For even before all temptations we are known to God, who knows all things before they happen”). II . 3. To learn more about ourselves: In Chapter IX (31), “to tempt” is used as a synonym of “to test,” based on a line from Deuteronomy: “The Lord your God tempteth (proveth) you, that He may know if ye love Him.” 9 From this, we might assume that God does not know our actions in advance. So Augustine provides the following explanation: “the words ‘that He may know’ are employed for what is the real state of the case, that He may make you know….” 10 He adds, criticizing those who have read Deu‐ teronomy in that way: “And the heretics who are opposed to the Old Testament, not understanding this, think that the brand of ignorance, as it were, is to be placed upon Him of whom it is said, ‘The Lord your God tempteth you: ’ as if in the Gospel it were not written of the Lord, ‘And this He said to tempt (prove) him, for He Himself knew what He would do’” (Augustine 43-44). He justifies Moses by quoting from the New Testament ( John 6: 6). At any rate, the conclusion, consistent with Jesus’ teachings, emphasizes God’s omniscience, and the fact that temptations are intended to increase our self-knowledge: “But in reality, that was done in order that he who was tempted might become known to himself, and that he might condemn his own despair, on the multitudes being filled with the Lord’s bread, while he had thought they had not enough to eat” (Augustine 44). II . 4. Biblical illustrations of Temptations and the role of Satan: the theologian’s basic idea is that our prayer is not against temptation (“that we should not be tempted”), but for strengthening our faith in God, which would, through all his trials, make us defeat sin. Augustine provides several in‐ teresting examples from the Scripture on temptations, including that of Joseph, who remained faithful to God and resisted temptation. If Job’s II. Augustine’s Interpretation of “Lead us not into temptation” 109 case is particularly emphasized, it is to show that temptations are decided by God alone and never by Satan, who happens to play an important role in that famous narrative: “Job most of all in regard to whose admirable steadfastness in the Lord his God, those heretical enemies of the Old Testament, when they wish to mock at it with sacrilegious mouth, brandish this above other weapons, that Satan begged that he should be tempted” (Augustine 44). We must not, Augustine points out, “take a fleshly view of what is said, ‘The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool’…” (Augustine 44), for God is everywhere and Satan cannot talk to Him as he does in the book of Job. Because God alone decides whether or not someone ought to be tempted, and Satan may become an instrument of God: “Temptations, therefore, take place by means of Satan not by his power, but by the Lord’s permission, either for the purpose of punishing men for their sins, or of proving and exercising them in ac‐ cordance with the Lord’s compassion” (Augustine 45). II . 5. Different types of temptation and concluding remarks: two very different types of temptation from the New Testament are that of Judas, “who sold his Lord,” and that of Peter, “who denied his Lord.” We are dealing here with two different attitudes: Judas was with Satan, and so “sold” God for money, whereas Peter denied the Lord “under the influence of terror.” Another point made by the theologian is that God tries each person ac‐ cording to his capacities, adding the following word from Paul: the Lord “will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Cor 10: 13). Augustine notes that in this sentence, the apostle “makes it sufficiently evident that we are not to pray that we may not be tempted, but we may not be led into temptation” (Augustine). As far as Peter is concerned, we know that Jesus had prayed for him. Addressing him, he said: “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22: 31-32). Why did the Lord not pray for Judas? This pertains to the mystery of double predestination, which the Bishop of Hippo does not explicitly mention. III. Augustine’s Interpretation of “But Deliver us from Evil” He clearly distinguishes this second part of the sentence from the first, and decides to call it the Seventh Petition. In the previous one, he reminds the reader, VII. The sixth petition: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” 110 we ask God not to lead us into temptation, so we can be safe from various trials. But in order to be totally free from Satan, or from the persistent evil, we must also pray that we be “delivered” from it. Indeed, “temptation” is one thing, “evil” another. As we have seen, “temptation” is a necessary test, which, if we do not listen to God’s word, make us go astray and commit sin, but it is not synonymous with evil. The latter is always destructive, and so we must pray in order to get rid of it. This is how the theologian expresses his idea: “For we are to pray not only that we may not be led into the evil from which we are free, which is asked in the sixth place; but that we may also be delivered from that into which we have been already led” (Augustine 45). If we get completely rid of evil, which has never left us, “when this has been done” for good, Augustine thinks, “nothing will remain terrible, nor will any temptation at all have to be feared” (Augustine 45). Therefore, this total freedom is not going to happen, not in this life at least. But we hope that in the future, in the other world, it will, provided that we pray for this blessed state now and be faithful to God. In reality, we are praying for our salvation: “And yet in this life, so long as we carry about our present mor‐ tality, into which we were led by the persuasion of the serpent, it is not to be hoped that this can be the case; but yet we are to hope that at some future time it will take place….” Therefore, the seventh petition is not meant for this life on earth, but especially for the one that comes after, for the after-life, for when our soul is separated from the body, “For thus, after the remaining burden of this mortality has been laid down in the act of dying, there shall be perfected in every part of man at the fit time, the blessedness which has been begun in this life, and which we have from time to time strained every nerve to lay hold of and secure” (Augustine 45). Calvin has, as we are going to see, a different view. Thus, he does not talk about the other world, and shows that the whole prayer, inc‐ luding the last petition, concerns our life on earth. IV. The Last Petition according to Calvin As I mentioned above, the sentence, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,” constitutes, in his opinion, just one request, which is equivalent to: “Afin que nous ne soyons induits en tentation, delivre-nous du mal” (Com‐ mentaires 128). [“That we may not be led into temptation, deliver us from evil” (Commentaries 327).] This makes sense, because as long as the Evil One has power over us, we will be tempted and commit sin. Therefore we need to triumph over the Contriver in our daily battles. The Greek word used in the Gospel of Matthew means, Calvin points out, “evil” or “the evil one” (πονηροῦ). According IV. The Last Petition according to Calvin 111 11 “Le mot Grec qui est ici mis peut estre traduit Le mal, ou le malin. Chrysostome le rapporte au diable qui est autheur de tous maux: et comme il est ennemi mortel de nostre salut, il nous pourchasse incessamment: toutefois on le pourroit aussi propre‐ ment exposer du peché. Et ce n’est pas une chose de laquelle il fale debatre, pource que le sens demeure quasi tousiours un: assavoir que le diable et le peché ont prise sur nous, si le Seigneur ne nous defend et delivre” (Commentaires 129) [“The word evil (πονηροῦ) may either be taken in the neuter gender, as signifying the evil thing, or in the masculine gender, as signifying the evil one. Chrysostom refers it to the Devil, who is the contriver of everything evil, and, as the deadly enemy of our salvation, is conti‐ nually fighting against us” (Commentaries 329)]. to Chrysostom, he adds, it is what the Scripture calls the Devil, 11 i.e. the de‐ structive power which opposes God’s Word. Now, without the Creator’s help, it is impossible for us not to sin. In other words, without his grace, we will surely die, spiritually speaking. IV.1. The Believer’s Constant war against the Devil We know God’s laws, Calvin writes, for the Lord has shown them to us, and they are engraved upon our hearts. So we know exactly what we have to do in order to live, free and happy. However, on account of the original sin, we are always weak, and evil is within us. On the other hand, the Devil is constantly trying to make us fail. He wants us to be tempted, sin, and die. Therefore, we must fight all the time in order not to be destroyed. In the last Petition, the sixth, we pray that God “nous munisse d’armes fortes, et défende de son secours, à ce que nous soyons suffisans pour obtenir victoire” (Institution III , xx, 46, 395) [“here we seek to be equipped with such armor and defended with such pro‐ tection that we may be able to win the victory” (Institutes III , xx, 46, 913)]. The exegete is not talking about a definitive victory—this will never happen—but of small ones, on a daily basis. We need to be “suffisans,” that is being capable of victory. How? The answer is given to us by God himself, as “nous sommes ad‐ vertis” (“we are instructed”). We, believers, are aware that “non seulement nous avons besoin d’estre amollis, pliez et formez par la grâce du sainct Esprit à l’o‐ béissance de Dieu, mais aussi d’estre fortifiez par son ayde, pour estre rendus invincibles tant contre les embusches de Satan que contre ses alarmes” (“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 the stratagems and all the violent assaults of Satan”). Two conditions are necessary: 1º) God’s grace (“the grace of the Spirit”), without which nothing good can come out of us. We pray then for God’s mercy, asking him to make us “obedient” to Him. 2º) We pray for more intelligence. The vocabulary the VII. The sixth petition: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” 112 theologian uses, belongs to the military. Actually, the Bible itself is full of military metaphors, inasmuch as we are living in a constant and tough war between Good and Evil within us. Thus, the Devil lies in ambush (“les embusches de Satan”) and sets traps (“ses alarmes”). In the Latin version of the Institutes, Calvin uses the expression “violentos conflictus.” The idea is the same, but I think that the metaphor in the French text better illustrates the “violence” in question. In any case, we need to be well equipped, because we are fighting a continuous and terrible battle. Ultimately, if we are victorious, it is because we have bene‐ fited from God’s grace. It is always God’s will, not ours, which decides about the outcome of the war against the Devil. Still, we have to pray and hope. If Calvin’s interpretation seems pessimistic to some people, it is nonetheless supported by the Scripture. Besides, it has several moral and spiritual advantages: 1) We may become more humble and understand that it is God’s will which is done; 2) We may become more indulgent toward others, all sinners like us, and not judge them; 3) We may get more grateful and be happier every time we win a little battle against the Devil, since our prayer has been answered. IV.2. Various kinds of Temptations There are different kinds of temptations: “Or il y a plusieurs et diverses manières de tentations” (“Now the forms of temptations are indeed many and varied”). Thus we can be tempted and lose the battle against the Devil for various reasons. We also have to keep in mind that it is God who tries us, but by no means wishes for us to commit sin. His trials may make us spiritually stronger and better, therefore happier. We can win in these battles against the Devil, if we sincerely pray and truly believe in God’s Word, and if we benefit from His grace. And how do we lose the battle? We do not consider here the mysterious case of those who are doomed in advance. Many mysteries are beyond our understanding. IV. 3. Internal Causes or Fleshly Lusts All our transgressions are not incited by the Devil: “Car toutes les mauvaises conceptions de nostre entendement nous induisantes à transgresser la Loy, les‐ quelles ou nostre concupiscence nous suscite, ou le diable esmeut en nous, sont tentations” (“For wicked conceptions of the mind, provoking us to transgress the law, which either our own inordinate desire suggests to us or the devil prompts, are temptations”). Calvin alludes to the notion of Original Sin. It is about our instinctive or natural covetousness (“concupiscence”). And the word that is stressed is “entendement” (understanding, reasoning). This means that IV. The Last Petition according to Calvin 113 because we do not reason well, we have a tendency to do evil, thus accepting our corrupt nature. So we must first fight against our own wicked nature and inclinations if we seek our freedom and want to live happy. IV. 4. External Causes and Usefulness of Temptations There are also “choses qui de leur nature ne sont point mauvaises, toutesfois par l’astuce du diable nous sont faites tentations, quand elles nous sont mises devant les yeux, afin que par leur obiect nous soyons retirez et déclinions de Dieu” (“things not evil of their own nature yet which become temptations through the devil’s devices, when they are so thrust before our eyes that by their appearance we are drawn away or turn aside from God.” Among these external things, some are pleasant (the ones “on the right,” as Calvin puts it), others unpleasant (those that are “on the left”): “A dextre, comme richesses, puissance, honneurs et autres telles; lesquelles bien souvent par l’apparence du bien et clarté qu’elles se monstrent avoir, esblouissent la veue des hommes, et par leur douceur les enyv‐ rent, pour leur faire oublier Dieu” (Institution III , xx, 46, 395-96) [“From the right are, for example, riches, power, honors, which often dull men’s keenness of sight by the glitter and seeming goodness they display, and allure with their blan‐ dishments, so that, captivated by such tricks and drunk with such sweetness, men forget their God” (Institutes III , xx, 46, 913)]. On the other hand, there are things that are negative and also, if we do not remain with God, lead us to perdition: “A senestre, comme povreté, ignominie, mesprisement, afflictions et autres semblables, pour la dureté et difficulté desquelles ils se desconfortent, perdent tout courage, laissent toute fiance et espérance, et finalement soyent du tout aliénez de Dieu” (Institution III , xx, 46, 396) [“From the left are, for example, poverty, disgrace, contempt, afflictions, and the like. Thwarted by the hardship and difficulty of these, they become despondent in mind, cast away assurance and hope, and are at last completely estranged from God” (Institutes III , xx, 46, 913)]. Neither of these trials (pleasant or unpleasant things and events in our lives) should be pretext for us to sin. But since the Devil, by every means, at‐ tempts to deceive and ruin us, and since we, by our own sinful nature, have a penchant to go astray, our only weapon to defend ourselves is praying. We must earnestly pray God to come to our rescue and save us. We know that He is, in spite of our daily misdeeds, merciful, as He shows us the right way and tells us what to do. It is up to us to listen to His voice or not. Now, the Sixth Petition is precisely what we need to say if we wish to win our battles against the Devil: “Or par cette sixième demande nous requérons à Dieu, nostre Père, qu’il ne nous permette point succomber en ces tentations, lesquelles bataillent contre nous, VII. The sixth petition: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” 114 12 On this issue see my article, “J. Calvin on Theft,” Études Médiévales 8, 2006, 81-89. 13 “No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10: 13). tant celles que notre concupiscence produit en nous, que celles qui nous sont pro‐ posées du diable; mais que plustost de sa main il nous soustienne et fortifie, afin qu’en sa vertu nous puissions estre fermes, et consister contre tous les assauts du malin ennemy, quelques pensées qu’il induise en noz entendemens, et que nous tournions à bien tout ce qu’il nous propose d’une part et d’autre, c’est à dire, que ne nous eslevions point pour aucune prospérité, et que ne nous descon‐ fortions ne désespérions pour aucune adversité” (“We pray God, our Father, not to let us yield to the two sorts of temptations which, either aroused in us by our inordinate desire or proposed to us by the devil’s guile, war against us. We pray, rather, that he sustain and encourage us by his hand so that, strengthened by his power, we may stand firm against all the assaults of our malign enemy, whatever thoughts he may introduce into our minds. Then we pray that wha‐ tever is presented to us tending either way we may turn to good—namely, that we may not be puffed up in prosperity or yet cast down in adversity”). We realize that Calvin does not believe that pleasant things, such as wealth and honors, would necessarily cause one to sin. He has surely observed that many wealthy or socially successful people are arrogant and haughty, but it is because of their sinful mind, not because of their good fortune. The evil is not outside, but inside us. Unfortunately, on this issue, Calvin’s thought, though faithful to the Gospels, has sometimes been misinterpreted. 12 We note that his idea about misfortune is not different, for he must have also observed that many people, when facing adversity and tribulations, are inclined to blame God, lose their faith, and commit sin. In reality, Calvin’s exegesis is not based on experi‐ ence but on his belief in the biblical truth. He had an excellent knowledge of the Scripture and was a very meticulous and sagacious reader. Anyway, whatever our social, material, or physical condition, God, the theologian points out, would like for us to be spiritually strong and vigilant. Thus we will be happy and sur‐ vive. The Lord’s daily temptations have no other purpose. Whether they be from the “right” or the “left”, i.e. pleasant or unpleasant, the trials help people to stay “esveillez, picquez et stimulez” (“aroused, pricked, and urged”). If we are not tempted, we tend to get “trop paresseux et endormiz” (“too lazy” and “slug‐ gish”). The Reformer provides some examples from the Scripture to show the usefulness of temptations. He draws a parallel between the Devil’s evil inten‐ tions and God’s good ones. One important difference, for example, he reminds the reader referring to Paul, 13 is that “God, along with the temptation, makes a IV. The Last Petition according to Calvin 115 14 “Discipline yourselves, keep alert. Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5: 8). For the metaphor of Lion, see also the book of Daniel. way of escape, that his own may be able patiently to bear all that he imposes upon them” (Institutes III , xx, 46, 914) [“Dieu ne nous laisse point tenter outre ce que nous pouvons, ains fait bonne issue avec la tentation, afin que nous puis‐ sions soustenir et porter tout ce qu’il nous envoye”]. IV. 5. The Devil and its Role Calvin’s conception of the Devil, based on this passage, may not be quite clear, but worth analyzing. He writes: “Il n’y a pas grand interest d’entendre par le nom du Malin le diable ou le péché, car Satan est l’adversaire qui machine nostre ruine; le péché est les armeures desquelles il use pour nous opprimer et meurtrir” (Institution III , xx, 46, 396-97) [“It makes very little difference whether we un‐ derstand by the word ‘evil’ the devil or sin. Indeed, Satan himself is the enemy who lies in wait for our life” (Institutes III , xx, 46, 914)]. The Devil is the power which incites one to sin. And, implicitly said, trying to visualize it would be as absurd as trying to visualize God. Furthermore, just like God, the Devil has his own “kingdom.” This place is a metaphor, of course, like the other “kingdom,” the good one, the “Kingdom of Heaven.” The Devil’s place is called “Hell.” Ano‐ ther metaphor. It would be the dwelling of sin. Thus, if we do not pray to God to deliver us from evil, or if we do not wish to be “vaincuz n’opprimez par aucunes tentations” (“that we may not be vanquished or overwhelmed by any temptations”), surely we will be heading over to “les portes d’enfer et tout le règne du diable” [“the gates of hell (Matt. 16: 28) and the devil’s whole kingdom”]. Our defeat would be certain, since the “Malin” (or the “diable”), or the evil within us, is “si fort et si grand batailleur” (such a “great warrior”). Another strong image, borrowed from the First Peter, 14 is that the Devil is like a mad lion, and a person not following God’s commandments, is like someone trapped in the beast’s mouth. Therefore, it would be impossible for that person to be saved. If, indeed, “nostre Seigneur est quelque peu esloigné de nous” (just a little away from us), we are “incontinent desmembrez par ses ongles et par ses dents, et, finalement, engloutiz par luy” (“immediately torn to pieces by his fangs and claws, and swallowed down his throat”). The violence of these images has an edifying purpose: we can better imagine our misery without God. VII. The sixth petition: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” 116 15 “O grant us help against the foe, for human help is worthless. With God we shall do valiantly; it is he who will tread down our foes” (Psalm 60: 11-12). Now David appa‐ rently refers to his real battles against his human enemies. But the French Reformer sees in this psalm an allegory, David’s enemies representing various types of evil. IV. 6. God’s Will vs Human’s Will But with the Father’s help and our prayers, we can win the battle against the Devil, despite its extreme difficulty: “estans néantmoins certains que si le Seig‐ neur est présent à nostre aide et combat pour nous sans nostre force, en sa vertu nous ferons vertu” (“yet we know that if the Lord be with us, and fight for us while we keep still, ‘in his might we shall do mightily”). Our actions are effica‐ cious (“nous ferons vertu”) only if we depend on God. And here Calvin, inter‐ preting Psalm 60 (11-12) from a Christian point of view, 15 stresses the fact that human will can do nothing, and that human assistance is useless in our battles against the Devil. Implicitly, various humanist philosophies based on human wisdom are hopeless. God alone can prevent us from sinning and allow us to live freely and happily. Prayer is then indispensable. In a sacrastic interjection, he thus indirectly criticizes those who believe in human wisdom: “Que les autres se confient comme ils voudront de leur franc et libéral arbitre, et de la puissance qu’ils pensent avoir d’eux-mesmes; de nostre costé il nous doit bien suffire que par la seule vertu de Dieu nous consistons et pouvons tout ce que nous pouvons” (“Let others trust as they will in their own capacities and powers of free choice, which they seem to themselves to possess. For us let it be enough that we stand and are strong in God’s power alone”). Man’s free will, he insists, is powerless. Freedom without God is just impossible. And it is God’s decision whether He wants for us to be free or not. We can observe here a major difference that exists between Calvin’s conception of wisdom or ethics and that of a Montaigne. IV. 7. How to Deal with the Original Sin We return to the beginning, that is to our sinful nature. I called it the Internal Causes of Perdition. Calvin is talking about our fleshly lusts, our sensuality, our covetousness, in a word our materialistic mind. Nobody is tempting us here. If we do not make an effort ourselves and do not first fight against our own cor‐ rupted nature, we will not be able to do anything about the temptations sent from God, which actually are good trials for us. Consequently, we will follow the Devil’s way. Indeed, the evil which is within us is our first great enemy, and we must realize that in this fight with ourselves, with our depravity, victory is possible only on two conditions: 1) We do our best and pray God to help us; 2) IV. The Last Petition according to Calvin 117 16 Therefore, as Jesus said to his disciples: “…‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’They were greatly astounded and said to one ano‐ ther, ‘Then who can be saved? ’ Jesus looked at them and said, ‘For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible’” (Mark 10: 24-27). 17 Jesus says these encouraging words to his followers: “Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened” (Mat 7: 7-8). God’s grace, without which we are not saved, whatever we do. 16 We should still hope and not be discouraged. 17 Calvin expresses these ideas, based on the New Testament, in the following manner: “Car si l’esprit de Dieu est nostre vertu pour batailler contre Satan, nous ne pourrons iamais obtenir victoire, que premièr‐ ement nous ne soyons à délivre de l’infirmité de nostre chair, estans rempliz de la force d’iceluy” (Institution III , xx, 46, 397) [“For if God’s Spirit is our power to battle with Satan, we shall never be able to win victory until, filled with the Spirit, we cast off all weakness of our flesh” (Institutes III , xx, 46, 914-915)]. Calvin puts the emphasis on the “infirmité de notre chair,” our fleshly weakness. There is here an allusion to the Original Sin. Before we think of any other temp‐ tation, we must think of this weakness within us, which is not God’s temptation. However, here too, Satan continually incites us to sin. And since we are by nature sensual and weak, we tend to listen to the destructive power, and not to God. But Jesus has given us hope, and salvation is therefore possible for us. We must pray for God’s mercy and strengthen our faith. IV. 8. Concluding remarks: around the Letter of James and on God’s Will Two important points are made by way of conclusion. The first one concerns the Letter of James. Calvin’s interpretation of the last petition is in fact very close to this text. Addressing the Jewish communities living in Diaspora ( James 1: 1), meaning in the difficult conditions of exile, the Apostle begins his letter by stressing the importance of trials: “My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing” ( James 1: 2-4). We note that James does not say “God’s trials,” but just “trials,” which implies that all trials, as Calvin also writes, come from God alone. The word πειρασμός has several meanings, including “trial” and “temptation.” God tests our faith in this way, and His intention is to make us “mature and complete, lacking in nothing,” VII. The sixth petition: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” 118 18 I cannot agree with someone like J. Bolserak, who writes that “Calvin believed himself to be a prophet” and above others (John Calvin as Sixteenth-Century Prophet. Oxford: OUP, 2014, 179). in other words happy. As Calvin also explained, we must make a distinction between “being tempted,” meaning being tried, being tested, and “being led into temptation,” which means “help us not fail our test,” or not follow the Devil. In the same way, James declares farther down in his letter, that “No one, when tempted, should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one” ( James 1: 13). After having referred to this verse, the French theologian returns to the first and basic cause of people’s per‐ dition, namely their own fault or fleshly weakness. We note that Calvin always includes himself, as a sinner and not better than others, by using the pro‐ nouns “nous” 18 : “c’est qu’à proprement parler nostre cupidité est cause de toutes tentations, desquelles nous sommes vaincus, et pourtant que la coulpe nous en doit estre imputée” (Institution III , xx, 46, 398) [“because our lust is properly the cause of all temptations that vanquish us ( James 1: 14), and therefore bears the blame” (Institutes III , xx, 46, 915). It is never God’s fault, and it is not Satan’s fault either. We are free to listen to the good or to the evil voice. If we like the latter better, it is because we do not believe in God, or we doubt. Stressing the fact that God only wants us to be happy, Calvin writes: “Et, de fait, sainct Iaques ne veut autre chose, sinon monstrer que c’est en vain et iniustement que nous taschons de reietter sur Dieu les vices desquels nous nous sentons coulpables” (“And James means only that it is futile and unjust to transfer to God those vices which we are compelled to impute to ourselves because we know ourselves to be guilty of them”). On the other hand, the Apostle mentions the fact that if we ask God, i.e. if we earnestly pray to Him, to give us wisdom, He will bestow it upon us. However, we must do it with a strong faith, not doubting at all, “for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from the Lord” ( James 1: 8). Calvin, here, adds something which is not mentioned by James, and it somehow refers to the notion of double-predestination. The second point made by Calvin may discourage some people, but James already makes salvation extremely hard, as he talks about a perfect faith. Who has it? Who does not doubt a little? Whose faith is very strong? Does not Jesus say to his own disciples, who ask Him why they cannot make miracles as He does, “Because of your little faith,” adding “For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you’” (Mat 17: 20). At any rate, Calvin’s last point is that our salvation ultimately depends on God’s IV. The Last Petition according to Calvin 119 will. Thus, if He decides to make Satan triumph over us, it is not because He has evil intentions. He has some reasons we are not supposed to know. That is all. Actually we have so many examples in the Scripture that support Calvin’s idea. He is just faithful to the Bible. The first example is in the beginning of Genesis with the creation of the Devil, represented by the “Serpent,” who “was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made” (Gen 3: 1). Ano‐ ther example, quite explicit, is this verse of Exodus: “But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses” (Ex 9: 12). In sum, everything happens according to God’s will. The same God who makes Moses a good man, makes Pharaoh. The three basic dif‐ ferences between the Judeo-Christian view of destiny and that of some Greek and Roman philosophers are: 1) There is only one God, who decides about ever‐ ything; 2) This God is good and therefore has good reasons to do what He does; 3) We, humans, will never find out about God’s hidden reasons; we acknowledge our ignorance with humility and just have faith in the Lord’s goodness and absolute truth. Now faithful to these biblical texts, is this Calvin’s last word on the last Petition: “Au reste, cela n’empesche pas que Dieu, quand bon luy semble, ne nous assuiettisse à Satan, qu’il nous précipite en sens réprouvé et en cupiditez énormes, et, par ce moyen nous pousse en tentation d’un iugement iuste, mais occulte et caché; pource que souvent la cause de ce que Dieu fait est incognue aux hommes, laquelle luy est certaine. Dont ie conclu que ceste façon de parler n’est pas impropre, si nous sommes bien persuadez que ce ne sont pas menaces de petis enfans, quand il dénonce tant de fois qu’il exerce son ire et sa vengeance sur les reprouvez, en les frappant d’aveuglement et de dureté de cœur” (Insti‐ tution III , xx, 46, 398) [“But this does not prevent God, when it seems good to him, from turning us over to Satan, from casting us into a reprobate mind and fould desires, and from leading us into temptations, by a just but often secret judgment. For the cause has often been hidden from men, while it is certain with him. From this we gather it is not an improper expression, if we are convinced that with good reason he threatens so many times to give sure proofs of his vengeance, when he strikes the reprobate with blindness and hardness of heart” (Institutes III , xx, 46, 915)]. To sum up, we pray, we do our best to follow God’s word. We do not decide about our fate, for everything depends on God’s will. Humility, if we think well about it, along with faith in total dependance on the Creator: that is all we need. VII. The sixth petition: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” 120 19 Saint Cyprian. The Lord’s Prayer, in Treatises. Translated & edited by Roy J. Deferrari. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1958, 149. 20 Tertullian. Prayer. In Disciplinary, Moral, and Ascetical Works. Translated by Sister Emily Joseph Daly. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1959, 167. V. Conclusion I started by discussing the number of petitions according to Calvin and Augus‐ tine. I presented their reasons. Some theologians among the ancients, like Cyp‐ rian, shared the same opinion as Augustine, as he separates “And lead us not into temptation” from “But deliver us from evil.” In the first part, he points out, “it is shown that the adversary has no power against us, unless God has previously permitted it, in order that all our fear and devotion and obedience may be turned to God, since in temptations nothing is permitted evil, unless the power is granted by Him.” 19 It is noteworthy that like Calvin, he insists on what the latter calls “Predestination.” Implicitly, even when we follow the Devil and commit sin, it is still God’s will which is done. This does not mean that God tells us to be evil. As Cyprian explains, “the power is given to evil against us according to our sins” (Cyprian 149). Another point Calvin will agree with is that all temp‐ tations are positive, insofar as they come from God. They are just trials, and so we must try to pass them successfully by praying to God and do good. The second clause is treated separately by Cyprian. This is basically to him, although he does not number the petitions, the seventh and last one. This is what he says: “For at the very last we state: ‘But deliver us from evil,’ comprehending all adversities which the enemy undertakes against us in this world, from which there can be strong and faithful protection, if God delivers us, if as we pray and implore, He furnish us His aid” (Cyprian 150-151). Our prayer should end here, because after this last word, we do not need anything else, for we have God’s protection. All the Church Fathers do not see in the Lord’s Prayer seven parts, as do Cyprian and Augustine. For instance Tertullian states that “the phrase which balances and interprets ‘Lead us not into temptation’ is “But deliver us from evil’.” 20 But let us focus more on Gregory of Nyssa’s exegesis. He too believes in 6 petitions, and his approach is quite interesting. To him, “temptation” is a sy‐ nonym of the “Devil.” Here is what he says: “It seems to me that the Lord calls the evil one by many different names according to the distinctions between the evil actions. He names him variously devil, Beelzebub, Mammon, prince of the world, murderer of man, evil one, father of lies, and other such things. Perhaps, therefore, here again one of the names devised for him is ‘temptation,’ and the juxtaposition of clauses confirms this assumption. For after saying, Lead us not V. Conclusion 121 21 St. Gregory of Nyssa. The Lord’s Prayer. The Beatitudes. Translated and annotated by Hilda C. Graef. New York: Newman Press, 1954, 83. 22 Martin Luther. The Large Catechism. The Book of Concord. Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959, 435. into temptation, He adds that we should be delivered from evil, as if both words meant the same.” 21 This is somewhat confusing, since “temptation” is by no means bad by itself. If we take the Devil’s way, it turns into evil, but if we listen to the Holy Spirit, the temptation is a blessing. But he clarifies his saying in the following manner: “For if a man who does not enter into temptation is quite removed from evil, and if one who has fallen into temptation is necessarily mixed up with evil, then temptation and the evil one mean one and the same thing” (Gregory of Nyssa 83). At all events, Gregory of Nyssa and Tertullian both be‐ lievd in 6 and not 7 petitions. Among the Reformers, Luther’s approach is certainly original and closer to our modern times. He divides the Prayer into 7 petitions. He thus writes about what he considers to be the 7th or last one: “In the Greek this petition reads, ‘De‐ liver or keep us from the Evil one, or the Wicked One.’ The petition seems to be speaking of the devil as the sum of all evil in order that the entire substance of our prayer may be directed against our arch-enemy. It is he who obstructs ever‐ ything that we pray for: God’s name or glory, God’s kingdom and will, our daily bread, a good and cheerful conscience, etc. Therefore we sum it all up by saying, ‘Dear Father, help us to get rid of all this misfortune.’” 22 Luther’s origi‐ nality lies in the fact that to him the second clause of the last sentence is a general conclusion for the entire Prayer, although this reasoning is questionable. Why not in that case, having a separate independant clause? Anyhow, still, in terms of content, Luther is faithful to the Scripture. What follows in his analysis is very new. He writes, speaking of ‘misfortune’: “Nevertheless, this petition inc‐ ludes all the evil that may befall us under the devil’s kingdom: poverty, shame, death, and in short all the tragic misery and heartache of which there is so incalculably much on earth” (Luther 435). This would imply that people like Paul, who experienced all these miseries, were living in the Devil’s Kingdom. What Calvin says in this regard is so different: to him all temptations, being sent from God, are good for us. Poverty is not evil, and Wealth is not good necessarily. The only evil thing is sin. The only good thing is the word of God. We must resign and accept whatever we get from the Lord, and be always grateful. This is what Calvin says. We see here that Luther’s conception of happiness is dif‐ ferent from that of Calvin, and seems to be closer to materialism. As for the number of petitions, it should not be such an important issue. That is why Calvin did not explicitly criticize Augustine in this regard. VII. The sixth petition: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” 122 1 Karl Barth. Prayer. 2 nd edition. Edited by Don E. Saliers. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985, 86. 2 Gregory of Nyssa is among the exceptions, as he concludes his 5 th and last sermon on the Lord’s Prayer as follows: “But let us rise and say to God, Lead us not into temptation —that is to say, into the evils of the world—but deliver us from evil which holds sway in this world, from which we may be delivered by the grace of Christ, for His is the power and glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always, and for ever and ever. Amen” (St. Gregory of Nyssa. The Lord’s Prayer. The Beatitutes. Transl. and annotated by Hilda C. Graef. New York: Newman Press, 1954, 84) [Ancient Christian Writers 18]. The emphasis in the quotes is always mine, unless otherwise indicated. VIII. Concluding doxology: “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory for ever. Amen” Karl Barth asserts that the last words of the “Lord’s Prayer” in the Gospel of Matthew, “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever,” are not “authentic,” and that they “constitute an adjunction, an enlargement, intro‐ duced for the liturgical usage of the Lord’s Prayer.” 1 So the congregation as early as the second century “pronounced (or chanted) these words as a reply to the six petitions, which were said by the celebrant” (Barth 86-87). Implicitly, they are not so important. As a matter of fact, most theologians, from Augustine to Luther, do not write anything about the doxology, although the German Re‐ former stresses the significance of the word “Amen.” 2 At any rate, the doxology is important enough to Barth to comment a little on it. On the other hand, we note that he, following Calvin, divides the Lord’s Prayer into six petitions. Mo‐ reover, he considers the doxology as having either “a relation to the sixth peti‐ tion,” particularly the second part of it, “Deliver us from the Evil One,” or a relation to the entire prayer. In the former case, the concluding words emphasize the idea that “the kingdom, the power, and the glory belong to God, not to the Devil, sin, death, or hell.” That would justify the conjunction “for”: “This is why we ask thee to deliver us from the Evil One, since to thee belong the kingdom, the power, and the glory” (Barth 87). In the latter case, relating the doxology to the entire prayer, the theologian agrees with the explanation provided by the Heidelberg Catechism. By these words we are saying, he points out, that “It is necessary for us to pray, because to thee belong the kingdom, the power, and the 3 J. Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Transl. by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960 (III, xx, 47, 915). 4 Institution de la Religion chrestienne. Ed. Jean-Daniel Benoît. Paris: J. Vrin, 1960 (III, xx, 47, 398). Unless otherwise indicated, I underline in the quotes. glory, and not to us, human beings, Christians, pious people. All we ask of thee can be done only by thee” (Barth 87). Unlike others, Calvin, from the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), attaches much importance to the closing benediction, although, he writes, “this is not extant in the Latin versions.” 3 He believes that despite this omission or maybe neglect, it is “tellement convenable à ce lieu, qu’elle ne doit point estre omise” 4 [“it is so appropriate to this place that it ought not to be omitted….”] The meaning is that “Le règne, la puissance et la gloire appartien‐ nent à Dieu ès siècles des siècles,” since everything belongs to God alone. This is also the way the Heidelberg Catechism, clearly influenced by Calvin, presents the Prayer’s conclusion. Now the Reformer adds another comment to the 1539 edition of the Institutes. In order, he affirms, that we do not appear too bold before God when we say the Prayer, it is good that we conclude by stressing once more our faith in His absolute sovereignty. We must indeed constantly remind to ourselves that God is the only ruler, and that all Power and Glory belong to Him alone: “Après toutes les requestes est adioustée la cause, dont procède si grande audace de demander et fiance d’obtenir” (Institution III , xx, 47, 398) [“Moreover, there is added the reason why we should be so bold to ask and so confident of receiving” (Institutes III , xx, 47, 915).] Not only do we show in this way our humility and admit our nothingness before our Creator, but also promise to obey Him. We trust at the same time that all that we request in our prayer shall be given, provided of course that we are sincere and ask the Lord the right thing, that which He wants for us to request. Implicitly, we do not admit any other power, or any intercession, and so we do not pray to anyone but God. The Doxology is therefore, in Calvin’s view, related to the entire prayer, to all of the petitions. In the last edition of the Institutes (the 1560 French version), the following is added: Et en ceci nous avons un ferme et tranquille repos pour nostre foy. Car si noz oraisons devoyent estre recommandées à Dieu pour nostre dignité, qui seroit celuy qui oserait seulement ouvrir la bouche devant luy? Maintenant, combien que nous soyons plus que misérables, plus qu’indignes, et n’ayons du tout rien pour nous priser envers Dieu, toutesfois nous aurons touiours cause de prier et ne perdrons iamais nostre confiance, puisqu’à nostre Père ne peut estre osté le Règne, la puissance et la gloire. (Institution III, 47, 398-99) VIII. Concluding doxology: “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory for ever. Amen” 124 This is firm and tranquil repose for our faith. For if our prayers were to be commended to God by our worth, who would dare even mutter in his presence? Now, however miserable we may be, though unworthiest of all, however devoid of all commendation, we will yet never lack a reason to pray, never be shorn of assurance, since his Kingdom, power, and glory can never be snatched away from our Father. (Institutes III, xx, 47, 915-916) An allusion to the notion of Election, which is crucial in Calvin’s theology, is made. God freely bestowes his Grace upon some people, not because of their works, but because He has decided so in advance. He saves for example Jacob but not Esau, even before the former shows any meritorious work. The Scripture says that God loved Him, but hated his brother (Romans 9: 13). This is just one example among many found in the Bible and mentioned by Calvin in the last chapters of the third volume of the Institutes. Now, here, about the Prayer’s conclusion, we make it clear to ourselves and confess to God that we do not count on our good works, as we are aware that since we have sinned much and continue to sin, we do not deserve to be saved, but we still pray and ask Him to forgive us and have mercy upon us, promising Him to do our best: “Car si noz oraisons devoyent estre recommandées à Dieu pour nostre dignité,” which here means merit,“qui seroit celuy qui oserait seulement ouvrir la bouche devant luy? ” We would indeed commit another sin by thinking that we are worthy. So how could we believe that our lack of humility can help us in our prayer? So “however miserable we may be, though unworthiest of all, however devoid of all com‐ mendation” (“combien que soyons plus que misérables, plus qu’indignes, et n’ayons du tout rien pour nous priser envers Dieu”), we still believe that God is so merciful that He will forgive us, and so we pray to Him, to Him alone and no one else, for his “is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory for ever.” The exegete also underscores the importance of hope in the Christian’s life, as he writes that we will “never be shorn of assurance” [“ne perdrons iamais nostre confiance”] and will constantly and earnestly pray for being saved. This last remark is all the more important that many tend to consider Calvin’s doctrine of predestination dark and pessimistic. We will never know who will be saved and who will be damned, including ourselves. We just pray and hope. We must try to follow Christ. This is all we are ordered to do and not inquire about things that are beyond our understanding. In the chapters on Election and Reprobation, which follow the one on Prayer, these questions will be thoroughly and pow‐ erfully expounded by the French theologian, as he remains very close to Paul. VIII. Concluding doxology: “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory for ever. Amen” 125 5 Martin Luther. The Large Catechism. In The Book of Concord. Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959, 436. Amen Regarding the last word of the Prayer, “Amen” (ἀμήν), which in Greek means “truly”, “verily”, or “So be it,” Calvin’s opinion does not differ from that of Luther, but his explanation is somewhat different. As K. Barth reminds us, “Luther affirms that it is a good thing to say ‘Amen’! In other words, it is a good thing to learn not to doubt when we pray, but to believe, because ‘Amen’ means, ‘So be it’ ” (Barth 87). Stressing the ideas of assurance and confidence in God, Barth writes: “Prayer is not an undertaking left to chance, a trip into the blue. It must end as it has begun, with conviction: Yes, may it be so! ” Without sincere belief in God’s supreme power and will, our prayer would indeed be useless, even sinful. Also referring to the Heidelberg Catechism, the Swiss the‐ ologian underscores the idea of total confidence in God—we are sure that God is not indifferent to our prayer, if it is sincere and right. He will respond posi‐ tively. As Barth puts it, the Heidelberg Catechism “declares that ‘Amen’ means the certainty of the divine response is greater than the certainty we feel within ourselves of our needs and our desires” (Barth 88). God does know better what we need. Here it seems that Barth is closer to Luther than to Calvin, insofar as he would easily omit the doxology but keep the “Amen” for sure. The notion of “chance” he also mentions is taken from the German Reformer. But let us see how the latter himself presents “Amen” in the Large Catechism (1529): Aber darauf kommt es an, daß wir auch lernen AMEN dazu zu sagen, das ist: nicht zweifeln, daß es gewißlich erhöret sei und geschehen werde. Denn es ist nichts anders als eines ungezweifelten Glaubens Wort, der da nicht aufs Ungewisse betet, sondern weiß, daß Gott nicht lügt, weil ers zu geben verheißen hat. Wo nun solcher Glaube nicht ist, da kann auch kein rechtes Gebet sein (Martin Luther. Der große Kate‐ chismus). But the efficacy of prayer consists in our learning also to say ‘Amen’ to it—that is, not to doubt that our prayer is surely heard and will be granted. This word is nothing else than an unquestioning affirmation of faith on the part of one who does not pray as a matter of chance but knows that God does not lie since he has promised to grant his requests. Where such faith is wanting, there can be no true prayer. 5 If we doubt whether our prayer will be heard and granted by God, not only is this prayer worthless, but even reveals our very little faith, or even disbelief. VIII. Concluding doxology: “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory for ever. Amen” 126 The word “Amen” then confirms our sincere faith in God and our belief in his absolute power and goodness. Otherwise, how can we expect anything from Him? Consequently, “This word is nothing else than an unquestioning affirma‐ tion of faith.” As Luther puts it: Darum ists ein schädlicher Wahn derer, die so beten, daß sie nicht von Herzen Ja dazu zu sagen und mit Sicherheit zu schließen brauchen, daß Gott erhöret, sondern sie bleiben in dem Zweifel und sagen: wie sollte ich so kühn sein und rühmen, daß Gott mein Gebet erhöre? Bin ich doch ein armer Sünder usw. Das macht, daß sie nicht auf Gottes Verheißung, sondern auf ihre Werke und eigene Würdigkeit sehen, womit sie Gott verachten und Lügen strafen. It is therefore a pernicious delusion when people pray in such a way that they dare not whole-heartedly add ‘yes’ and conclude with certainty that God hears their prayer but remain in doubt, saying, ‘Why should I be so bold as to boast that God hears my prayer? I am only a poor sinner,’ etc. That means that they have their eye not on God’s promise but on their own works and worthiness, so that they despise God and accuse him of lying. (Luther 436) The Reformer intimates that doubt in praying is a sign of bad faith, and self-jus‐ tification, in the guise of humility, only indicates one’s disbelief. Here, the doct‐ rine of justification by faith alone is at the same time alluded to. Indeed, if one thinks that it would be by one’s own works that God justifies and grants one’s prayer, one is in fact despising God and questioning his promise—this is then “ein schädlicher Wahn” (“a pernicious delusion”). If it were for one’s own merit, nobody’s prayer would be heard, and nobody would be justified. Luther thus concludes about such inconsistent prayers, justifying the importance of “Amen”: Deshalb empfangen sie auch nichts, wie Jakobus sagt ( Jak. 1, 6 f.): ‘Wer da betet, der bete im Glauben und zweifle nicht. Denn wer da zweifelt, ist gleich wie eine Woge des Meeres, so vom Winde getrieben und bewegt wird; solcher Mensch denke nur nicht, daß er etwas von Gott empfangen werde.’ Siehe, so viel ist Gott daran gelegen, daß wir gewiß sein sollen, daß wir nicht umsonst bitten und (daß wir) auf keine Weise unser Gebet verachten. Therefore they receive nothing, as St. James says, ‘If anyone prays, let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from God.’ Behold, such is the importance that God attaches to our being certain that we do not pray in vain and that we must not in any way despise our prayers. (Luther 436) By ending his exposition of the word “Amen” with St. James’s poetic and pow‐ erful simile ( James 1: 6-7), Luther encourages the readers to take more seriously Amen 127 6 I am also providing the following translation, which is closer to Calvin’s French ver‐ sion: “Finally, to conclude, there is placed ‘amen.’ This expresses the ardor of our desire to obtain all the petitions which we have made to God, and also confirms our hope that all for which we have prayed is granted to us and certainly will be completed; for it is promised to us by God who cannot lie in His promises” ( John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 1541 French Edition. Translated by Elsie Anne McKee. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009, 491). their prayers, strengthen their faith, and augment their hope. His very last word is that if we are doubting whether our prayer is heard by God, we are simply “despising” it (“unser Gebet verachten”). Implicitly and in reality, we are just denying God. As for Calvin, this is what he writes on the Prayer’s last word, “Amen”, in the 1541 edition of the Institutes: Finalement pour conclurre l’oraison est mis: Amen. En quoy est exprimée l’ardeur du désir que nous avons d’obtenir toutes les demandes qu’avons faites à Dieu. Et aussi est confermée nostre espérance, que tout ce qu’avons prié nous est accordé, et cer‐ tainement sera parfait; car il nous est promis de Dieu, qui ne peut mentir en ses pro‐ messes. (Institution III, xx, 47, 399) At the end is added, ‘Amen’. By it is expressed the warmth of desire to obtain what we have asked of God. And our hope is strengthened that all things of this sort have already been brought to pass, and will surely be granted to us, since they have been promised by God, who cannot deceive. (Institutes III, xx, 47, 916) 6 As we can see, Calvin’s language is not as harsh as that of Luther. He does not say that he who doubts about the fulfilment of his prayer despises God, or ac‐ cuses Him of lying (“womit sie Gott verachten und Lügen strafen”), especially since this individual feels guilty about his own shortcomings (“Bin ich doch ein armer Sünder”). Luther’s rebuke seems excessive. The French theologian, on the other hand, rather incites the reader to pray with more confidence, as God’s promise is to be taken very seriously. God cannot lie (“ne peut mentir”), he asserts. He does fulfil His promises, but one must be not only trustful, but also sincere and ask God what ought to be asked. Thus Calvin emphasizes the “ardeur du désir que nous avons d’obtenir…” (“the warmth of desire to obtain what we have asked”). Another term being underscored regarding our prayer is “espé‐ rance” (“hope”). To sum up, we must show in our requests to God an ardent desire, total confidence in His promises and power, as well as hope. Otherwise, our prayer would not be heard. VIII. Concluding doxology: “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory for ever. Amen” 128 In the last edition of the Institutes (1560), Calvin found it necessary to add the following sentences, which conclude at once his explication of “Amen” and the Doxology : Et cela convient à ce que nous avons cy dessus allégué: Seigneur, fay ce que nous demandons à cause de ton nom, et non pas pour l’amour de nous ou de nostre iustice. Car les Saincts parlans ainsi non seulement monstrent à quelle fin ils prient mais aussi se confessent estre indignes de rien impétrer, si Dieu ne prenait la raison d’y estre induit en soy-mesme; et pourtant que toute leur fiance est en la seule bonté de Dieu, laquelle il a de nature. (Institution III, xx, 47, 399) And this agrees with the form of prayer we previously set forth: ‘Do, O Lord, for thy name’s sake, not on account of us or our righteousness. By this the saints not only express the end of their prayers but confess themselves unworthy to obtain it unless God seeks the reason from hismself, and that their confidence of being heard stems solely from God’s nature. (Institutes III, xx, 47, 916) Calvin is inspired by Daniel’s prayer for his people, which ends as follows: “We do not present our supplication before you on the ground of our righteousness, but on the ground of your mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord forgive; O Lord, listen and act and do not delay! For your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people bear your name! ” (Dan 9: 18-19). What matters is that we are aware of our shortcomings and sins and know that we do not deserve to obtain from God what we are requesting, but we are also sure that God is merciful and forgiving. The theologian thus ends his exegesis of the Lord’s Prayer by high‐ lighting the phrase “la seule bonté de Dieu,” God’s goodness. Amen 129 1 This is Calvin’s French translation of the Greek text: “Et quand tu pries, ne sois point comme les hypocrites: car ils aiment de prier en se tenant és synagogues & és coins des rues, afin qu’ils soyent veus des hommes: en verité ie vous di qu’ils reçoivent leur salaire” (Commentaires de Jean Calvin sur la Concordance ou Harmonie, composee des trois Evangelistes, assavoir sainct Matthieu, saint Marc, & saint Luc… Genève: Michel Blanchier, 1563, 122). 2 “Mais toy, quand tu pries, entre en ton cabinet: & ayant fermé ton huis, prie ton Pere qui ‘est’ en secret: & ton Pere qui te void en secret, le te rendra à descouvert” (Com‐ mentaires 122). Conclusion It is by criticizing people who do not pray in a suitable manner or in accordance with what is morally right in God’s sight, and especially by rebuking the hypo‐ crites, that Jesus proposes to his disciples a model of prayer in order to show the believers what they ought to say to the heavenly Father and what exactly to request from Him. He thus addresses his disciples: “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward” (Mat 6: 5). 1 Indeed, the hypocrites, who are not true believers, take advantage of some people’s simplicity and naivety, and so by praying in a conspicuous way they intend to gain earthly goods and benefits. They actually get what they want, as Jesus admits (“they have received their reward”), but in God’s view, they are condemned and shall be punished. The Lord then tells his followers that they should rather pray in a private manner, so as to be entirely with God: “But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Mat 6: 6). 2 Calvin interprets this passage as follows: Mais veu qu’hypocrisie est toujours ambitieuse, il ne se faut pas esbahir si elle est ainsi aveugle. Christ donques commande à ses Disciples, pour bien prier, d’entrer en leur cabinet. Combien qu’aucuns, pource que ceci semble absurde en apparence, l’exposent par allegorie pour une retraite secrete au dedans du cœur et toutesfois il n’est ia besoin de s’amuser à ceste subtilité. Il nous est commandé en plusieurs passages de prier & louer Dieu en la presence des hommes & assemblee publique, & devant tout le peuple, pour tesmoigner nostre foy & recognoissance des biens de Dieu, & afin que par nostre exemple nous incitions les autres à faire le semblable. Christ ne nous retire point d’un 3 The author’s emphasis. “But as hypocrisy is ever ambitious, no wonder that it is so blind, and so He tells His disciples that if they wish to pray properly, they must go into a withdrawn place. Though some think the instance given is absurd, and attempt an allegorical explanation about the interior precinct of the heart, there is no need for such ingenuity. We are told in many places to give prayer and praise to God in crowded gatherings and assemblies of men, in the face of all the people, and it is for the sake of attesting our faith and gratitude and also to encourage others by our example to do the same thing. Christ is not taking us away from such efforts, but only warning us to keep God before our eyes whenever we settle ourselves for prayer. Se we must not press the words, Enter into thine inner chamber, as though He told men to hide away, and say that we cannot pray aright unless without witness. He is speaking comparatively, meaning that we should rather look for a corner, than go after a crowd of people so that they may see us at prayer. And it is useful for the faithful, in order to pour out their prayers and their appeals more freely in God’s sight, to withdraw from human gaze. There is another advantage in a quiet place, that we may have our minds more free and unbur‐ dened of any outside calls. For this reason Christ Himself, more than once, went away to a secret place to pray. However, this is not the present issue. He is simply putting right a vain desire for glory. This is the sum of it: whether one is alone or in company at prayer the attitude to adopt is to think of God as one’s witness, as though shut off in an inside room. When Christ says that a reward is given to our prayers, He is making plain that whatever reward the Scripture promises us in various places is given not as a due, but as a free gift” (J. Calvin’s Commentaries. A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke. Vol. 1. Translated by A. W. Morrison. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972, 202-203). tel exercice, mais seulement admoneste qu’il nous faut avoir Dieu devant les yeux toutes fois et quantes que nous nous mettons à prier. Et pourtant il ne faut pas prendre à la letre cruement ces mots, Entre en ton cabinet: comme s’il commandoit de fuir la presence des hommes, & vouloit dire que nous ne prions point bien sinon estans loin de tesmoins. Car il parle ici par une forme de comparaison des deux extremitez op‐ posites, signifiant que plustost il faut cercher d’estre seuls, que de desirer grande compagnie qui nous voye prier. Il est vray qu’il est bon aux fideles, afin qu’ils des‐ ployent leurs desirs et gemissements devant Dieu plus franchement, de se retirer de la veue des hommes. Il est bon aussi de cercher quelque retraitte pour une autre raison: assavoir afin que nos esprits soyent plus libres, et desveloppez de tous empeschemens. Et pour ceste cause Christ luy-mesme s’est souvent caché en quelque lieu secret pour prier. Mais ce n’est pas le propos qui est maintenant traitté en ce passage: car il est seulement ici question de corriger la cupidité de vaine gloire. En somme le sens est, soit qu’un homme prie seul, ou en presence d’autres, que toutesfois il doit avoir une telle affection, comme si estant caché en son cabinet il n’avoit aucun tesmoin que Dieu. Quand Christ dit que Salaire sera rendu a nos prieres, il declare assez que tout le loyer que l’Escriture nous promet en plusieurs passages, n’est pas payé comme estant deu, mais qu’il procede d’une liberalité gratuite. (Commentaires 123) 3 Conclusion 131 4 Jean Calvin. Institution de la religion chrestienne. Ed. Jean-Daniel Benoît. Paris: Librairie Vrin, 1960 (III, xx, 48, 399). “We have everything we ought, or are at all able, to seek of God, set forth in this form and, as it were, rule for prayer handed down by our best Master, Christ, whom the Father has appointed our teacher and to whom alone he would have us hearken [Matt. 17: 5]. For he both has always been the eternal Wisdom of God [Isa. 11: 2] and, made man, has been given to men, the angel of great counsel [Isa. 9: 6, conflated with ch. 28: 29 and Jer. 32: 19]. And this prayer is in all respects so perfect that any extraneous or alien thing added to it, which cannot be related to it, is impious and unworthy to be approved by God. For in this summary he has set forth what is worthy of him, acceptable to him, necessary for us—in effect, what he would willingly grant” ( J. Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 2. Ed. John T. McNeill. Transl. Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960, III, xx, 48, 916). As the theologian rightly points out, there are passages in the Scripture which clearly show that public prayers are also good and necessary. So, what Jesus means by “entrer en leur cabinet,” is that when one prays, whether in public or alone, one must only think of God, and of Him alone as witness. Thus, what people think of us and of our prayers should have absolutely no importance for us. The hypocrites, however, who only care about other people’s opinions, want to be seen and praised by them. Moreover, we ought to listen to God alone, and so Jesus in the model of prayer He proposes to his disciples gives them all that they need to say to the Father and request from Him. Nothing else should be added to this perfect prayer, Calvin points out: Nous voyons tout ce que nous devons, et qu’entièrement aussi nous pouvons de‐ mander à Dieu, estre descrit et contenu en ceste oraison, reigle et formulaire de prier, qui nous a esté baillée par nostre bon maistre Iesus Christ, lequel par le Père nous a esté ordonné Docteur, et lequel il veut estre seul escouté et obéy (Matth. 17, 5). Car il a tousiours esté sa sapience éternelle, entant qu’il est Dieu, et entant qu’il a esté fait homme, il a esté son grand ambassadeur et messagier donné aux hommes. Et tellement est ceste oraison parfaite, que toute autre chose qu’on y adiouste laquelle ne s’y peut rapporter est contre Dieu, et ne nous sera iamais ottroyée de luy. Car icy il nous a déclairé tout ce qui luy est agréable, tout ce qui nous est nécessaire, et tout ce qu’il nous veut donner. 4 The first idea expressed by the Reformer is that we need to think of Jesus Christ as our only spiritual teacher: “il veut estre seul escouté et obéy,” as we read in th Gospel (Mat 17: 5). The reference is made to the passage on the Transfigura‐ tion. On the mountain where Jesus had taken with him Peter, James, and John, appear Moses and Elijah (Mat 17: 1-3). “Then Peter said to Jesus, ‘Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah” (Mat 17: 4), which means that all three are equally Conclusion 132 5 “For this reason, those who dare go farther and ask anything from God beyond this: first, wish to add to God’s wisdom from their own, which cannot happen without insane blasphemy; secondly, do not confine themselves within God’s will but, holding it in contempt, stray away farther in their uncontrolled desire; lastly, they will never obtain anything, since they pray without faith. But doubtless all such prayers are made apart from faith, for here the word of God is absent, upon which faith, if it is to stand at all, must always rely” (Institutes III, xx, 48, 916). important to the Apostle. But God makes it clear to him that Jesus is well above the others, for he is the Christ, the only son of God. This message from the Father is symbolically presented by the Evangelist in the following manner: “While he [Peter] was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him! ’ When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, ‘Get up and do not be afraid.’ And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone” (Mat: 5-8). Consequently, as a consistent Christian, J. Calvin constantly listens to Jesus alone. Therefore, as far as prayer is concerned, he considers the Pater noster as the perfect prayer. The second point in the above quote from the Institutes ( III , xx, 48) is that the prayer Jesus teaches us is so complete and perfect that “toute autre chose qu’on y adiouste laquelle ne s’y peut rapporter est contre Dieu, et ne nous sera iamais ottroyée de luy.” He talks about the content and not the form. We could use other words, and might even add other things, as long as we do not go beyond the Lord’s Prayer’s content. Otherwise we would be acting against God (“contre Dieu”). As a result, our impious petition “ne nous sera iamais ottroyée de luy.” We must only ask what we are supposed to, and this is expressed in the best way possible by Christ himself in his Prayer: Parquoy tous ceux qui veulent aller plus avant et qui présument de requérir autre chose à Dieu qui ne soit comprinse et entendue en ceste oraison, premièrement ils veulent adiouster du leur à la sapience de Dieu (qui est un grand blasphème). Secon‐ dement, ils ne se contentent point de la volonté de Dieu, et ne se contiennent sous icelle. Tiercement, ils ne seront point exaucez, d’autant qu’ils ne prient point en foy. Or qu’ils ne puissent point ainsi prier en foy, il est trescertain; car en cela ils n’ont nulle parolle de Dieu pour eux, sur laquelle si la foy ne s’appuye, elle ne peut nullement estre. (Institution III, xx, 48, 399) 5 It would be a “blasphemy,” Calvin points out, to request from God anything that is not somehow contained in the Lord’s Prayer, for a Christian must only depend on God’s wisdom. Anything added to the Lord’s Prayer in terms of content, only Conclusion 133 6 “Or ceux qui, en délaissant la reigle du Maistre, se donnent congé en leurs souhaits et prières d’ensuyvre ce que leur fantasie porte, non seulement ils n’ont point de parolle de Dieu, mais tant qu’ils peuvent ils y contreviennent. Tertullien donc a parlé bien vray et tresproprement l’appellant légitime, signifiant tacitement que toutes autres sont ir‐ régulières et illicites” (Institution III, xx, 48, 399-400). [“But those who, neglecting the Master’s rule, give themselves over to their own desires not only lacl God’s word but contend against it with all their strength. Therefore Tertullian has both truly and ele‐ gantly called it ‘the lawful prayer,’ tacitly indicating that all other prayers lie outside the law and are forbidden” (Institutes III, xx, 48, 916-17)]. reveals one’s disbelief. The exegete highlights the term “foy” (faith). In this way, the serious reader will pay more attention to the importance of the Pater noster. Furthermore, since it is the content not the form or length of the prayer that matters, a mechanical repetition of the Prayer without pondering on the true meaning of each word and each petition, and without taking the whole very seriously, would simply be a superstitious act. Referring to Tertullian, he ends this paragraph by qualifying the Lord’s Prayer as the only “lawful prayer” (“l’O‐ raison légitime”) since all the other prayers are in his view “outside the law” (“irrégulières et illicites”). 6 This view may seem somewhat extreme to us, but we must consider the fact that Calvin’s goal is not only to expound the true doctrine, but also to incite the readers to strengthen their faith and so pray in earnest. Calvin concludes his exegesis of the Lord’s Prayer by stressing the following points: 1) It is not the form or the words, but the content (or the meaning) that must be taken into account by the one who addresses God; 2) Many other prayers in the Scripture are also very useful inasmuch as they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so could be used by a Christian believer; 3) Nonetheless, in both form and content the Lord’s Prayer is truly the perfect prayer, and no other prayer equals it. One cannot “inventer autre meilleur formulaire d’oraison,” or as Calvin puts it in the first Latin edition of his Institutes, “melius aliquid tentandi”: Nous ne voulons pourtant cecy estre ainsi prins et entendu, comme si nous devions tellement estre astreints à ceste oraison et formulaire de prier, qu’il ne fust licite d’en changer une syllabe, ne d’user d’autres parolles en priant. Car nous avons beaucoup d’oraisons par tout en l’Escriture, bien diverses en parolle de ceste-cy, escrites tou‐ tesfois d’un mesme Esprit, et desquelles l’usage nous est grandement utile. Plusieurs aussi sont suggérées assiduellement aux fidèles par un mesme Esprit, lesquelles ne conviennent pas du tout en similitude de parolles. Seulement nous voulons enseigner, qu’entièrement nul ne cherche, n’attende et ne requière autre chose que ce qui est sommairement en ceste-cy. Et combien qu’il face demande bien diverse en parolles, toutesfois que de sens elle ne varie nullement. Comme il est certain que toutes autres Conclusion 134 7 “We would not have it understood that we are so bound by this form of prayer that we are not allowed to change it in either word or syllable. For here and there in Scripture one reads many prayers far different from it in words, yet composed by the same Spirit, the use of which is very profitable to us. Many prayers are repeatedly suggested to believers by the same Spirit, which bear little similarity in wording. In so teaching,we mean only this: that no man should ask for, expect, or demand, anything at all, except what is included, by way of summary, in this prayer; and though the words may be utterly different, yet the sense ought not to vary. Thus all prayers contained in Scripture, and those which come forth from godly breasts, are certainly to be referred to it. Truly, no other can be found that equals this in perfection, much less surpasses it. Here nothing is left out that ought to be thought of in the praises of God, nothing that ought to come into man’s mind for his own welfare. And, indeed, it is so precisely framed that hope of attempting anything better is rightly taken away from all men. To sum up, let us remember that this is the teaching of Divine Wisdom, teaching what is willed and willing what was needful” (Institutes III, xx, 49, 917). oraisons de l’Escriture, et celles dont usent les fidèles se rapportent à ceste-cy. Vraye‐ ment il ne s’en peut trouver nulle autre qu’on puisse, non pas préférer, mais aussi équi‐ parer à la perfection de ceste-cy. Car il n’y a rien esté laissé de tout ce qu’on peut penser pour les louanges de Dieu, ne de tout ce que l’homme doit désirer pour son profit et commodité. Et tout ce y est si bien et si parfaitement comprins, qu’à tous toute espé‐ rance est bien ostée de pouvoir inventer autre meilleur formulaire d’oraison. En somme ayons souvenance que ceste est la doctrine de la Sapience de Dieu, qui a en‐ seigné ce qu’elle a voulu, et a voulu ce qui estoit besoin. (Institution III, xx, 49, 400) 7 The theologian published these lines in 1536. He just added one short and minor sentence in the 1539 edition, and that was it. Nothing else in the following edi‐ tions. This reveals the maturity of his thought already at age 26 or 27. As far as the prayer’s content is concerned, he contends that any good prayer, i.e. any one acceptable to God and found in the Holy Scripture, does not express anything that is not contained in the Lord’s Prayer. If the latter is superior, it is not only because it is complete (“Car il n’y a rien esté laissé de tout ce qu’on peut penser pour les louanges de Dieu, ne de tout ce que l’homme doit désirer pour son profit et commodité”) but also because it is very concise and “precisely framed.” The adverb “sommairement” (briefly) is indeed a sign of good style, and thus Calvin’s linguistic taste is similar to that of the “Classics” of the Seventeenth-Century. In fact, this “classic” spirit can be readily detected in the general form and the rational presentation of the Institutes, as well as in the construction and outline of every chapter of it. We can also observe Calvin’s rationalistic tendency in the exposition of the Lord’s Prayer and its perfect division into two equal parts. The first one (petitions 1-3) is “pour les louanges de Dieu,” and the second (petitions 4-6) for “tout ce que l’homme doit désirer pour son profit et commodité.” In sum, Conclusion 135 it is the best prayer possible, which is not surprising, since it is taught directly by God Himself. It teaches us “la Sapience de Dieu, qui a enseigné ce qu’elle a voulu, et a voulu ce qui estoit besoin.” In other words, we need to pray, and could not have a better prayer than this divine Pater noster… Conclusion 136 Bibliography (Works Cited) Augustine (St.). The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. New York: The Modern Library, 1993. _____. De Sermone Domini in Monte. Libros duos. Ed. Almut Mutzenbecher. Turnholti Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1967 (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, XXXV. Aurelii Augustini Opera. Pars VII, 2). _____. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew. Translated by William Findlay. Revised and annotated by D. S. Schaff. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff. Vol. VI. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888. Barth, Karl. Prayer. Second Edition. Edited by Don E. Saliers, from the translation of Sara F. Terrien. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985. Bible (The Holy). New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publi‐ shing House, 1989. _____. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Edited by Bruce Metzger and Roland Murphy. New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991. _____. La Sainte Bible. Translated by Segond. Alliance Biblique Universelle, 1993. Bolserak, J. John Calvin as Sixteenth-Century Prophet. Oxford: OUP, 2014. Brillenburg Wurth, G. “Calvin and the Kingdom of God,” in John Calvin. Contemporary Prophet. A Symposium. Edit. By Jacob T. Hoogstra. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1959, 113-126. Bucer, Martin. In sacra quatuor evangelia enarrationes perpetuae secundum recog‐ nitae… Basel: Ionnaes Hervagius, 1536. Calhoun, David B. “Prayer: ‘The Chief Exercise of Faith.’ Institutes 3: 20,” in Theological Guide to Calvin’s ‘Institutes.’ Essays and Analysis. Edited by David W. Hall & Peter A. Lillback. Phillipsburg, N. J.: P & R Publishing, 2008 (The Calvin 500 Series), 347-367. Calvin, Jean. Institution de la religion chrestienne. Livre Troisième. Ed. Jean-Daniel Benoît. Paris: Librairie Vrin, 1960. _____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 2. Ed. John T. McNeill. Transl. Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960. _____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 1541 French Edition. Translated by Elsie Anne McKee. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009. _____. Le Catechisme de Geneve: c’est à dire le formulaire d’instruire les enfants en la Chrestienté, fait en maniere de dialogue, où le Ministre interrogue, et l’Enfant respond. Genève: Jean Girard, 1549. _____. Commentaires de Jean Calvin sur la Concordance ou Harmonie, composee de trois Evangelistes, assavoir saint Matthieu, sainct Marc, & sainct Luc. Genève: Michel Blan‐ chier, 1563. _____. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. 1. Translated by the Rev. William Pringle. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005 (Repr.). _____. A Harmony of the Gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. 1, in Calvin’s Commen‐ taries, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Translated by A. W. Mor‐ rison. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972 (Repr. 1975). _____. Commentaries on the Prophet Malachi, in Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Pro‐ phets, by John Calvin. Translated by John Owen, vol. 5, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2005. _____. Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Translated by James Anderson. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005. _____. Concordance qu’on appelle Harmonie, composee de trois Evangelistes, assavoir sainct Matthieu, sainct Marc, et sainct Luc. Genève: Michel Blanchier, 1563. _____. Contre la Secte phantastique et furieuse des Libertins qui se nomment spirituelz. Genève: Jean Girard, 1545. In Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia (Corpus Re‐ formatorum, vol. VII, 205). Ed. by E. Cunitz, J. W. Baum, and E. W. E. Reuss. Brunsvigae: C. A. Schwetschke, 1868. New edition by Myriam Veen. Geneva: Droz, 2005 (Series: Scripta didactica et polemica). Carter, Ben M. The Depersonalization of God. A Consideration of Soteriological Difficulties in High Calvinism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989. Cyprian (St.). The Lord’s Prayer. In Treatises. Translated and edited by Roy J. Deferrari. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1958. George, Timothy. “John calvin and Menno Simons: Reformation Perspectives on the Kingdom of God,” in Calviniana. Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin. Edit. By Ro‐ bert V. Schnucker. Kirksville, Missouri: NMSU Press, 1988 (Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, vol. X), 195-214. Gregory of Nyssa (St.). The Lord’s Prayer. The Beatitudes. Translated by Hilda C. Graef. New York: Newman Press, 1954 [Ancient Christian Writers 18]. Greimas, Algirdas Julien, & Teresa Mary Kane. Dictionnaire du moyen français. Paris: Larousse, 1992. Hesselink, I. John. “Calvin on the Kingdom of Christ,” in Religion without Ulterior Mo‐ tive. Edit. by E. A. J. G. van der Borght. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006, 139-158. Higman, Francis. “Linearity in Calvin’s Thought,” Calvin Theological Journal 26 (1), 1991, 100-110. Bibliography (Works Cited) 138 Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fitzgerald. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, Inc., 1961. Kim, Jae Sung. “Prayer in Calvin’s Soteriology,” in Tributes to John Calvin. A Celebration of his Quincentenary. Edited by David W. Hall. Phillipsburg, N. J.: P & R Publishing, 2010, 343-355. Luther, Martin. The Sermon on the Mount (Sermons). Translated by Jaroslav Pelikan. Luther’s Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Vol 21. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1956. _____. The Large Catechism. In The Book of Concord. The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fort‐ ress Press, 1959. _____. Luthers Werke. Edited by Otto Clemen. Vol. 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1967. Mazaheri, John. “J. Calvin on Theft,” Études Médiévales 8, 2006, 81-89. McKim, Donald K. Theological Turning Points. Major Issues in Christian Thought. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1988. Neuser, W. H. “Exercitium Pietatis—Calvin’s Interpreation of The Lord’s Prayer,” in Prompte et Sincere. John Calvin and the Exposition of the Word of God. Seventh South African Congress on Calvin Research. Edited by R. M. Britz & Victor E. d’Assonville. Acta Theologica Supplementum 10, 2008, 95-107. Niesel, Wilhelm. Reformed Symbolics. A Comparison of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Pro‐ testantism. Transl. by David Lewis. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1962. Origen. On Prayer. Translated by William A. Curtis. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Partee, Charles. The Theology of John Calvin. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. Pascal, Blaise. Oeuvres complètes. Ed. Louis Lafuma. Paris: Seuil, 1963. Plantinga, Theodore. Learning to Live with Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1982. Plato. First Alcibiades. Edited by Nicholas Denyer. Cambridge: CUP, 2001. _____. Second Alcibiades. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. In Plato’s Works. Vol. 8. London: William Heinemann LTD, 1927 [The Loeb Classical Library]. Rainbow, Jonathan H. The Will of God and the Cross. An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Redemption. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publica‐ tions, 1990. Tertullian. Prayer. In Disciplinary, Moral, and Ascetical Works. Translated by Sister Emily Joseph Daly. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1959. Van Wyk, J. H. “John Calvin on the kingdom of God and eschatology,” In die Skriflig 35, 2, 2001, 191-205. Bibliography (Works Cited) 139 Zimmermann, Gunter von.“Die Vereinigung mit Gott das Reich Christi nach Calvins ‘In‐ stitutio,” Zwingliana XV III, 3, 1990, 193-212. Bibliography (Works Cited) 140 Index Augustine 19, 20, 27-41, 46, 77-80, 106-111, 121-123 Barth, Karl 68, 123-124, 126 Bolserak, John 119 Brillenburg Wurth, G. 50 Bucer, Martin 30 Calhoun, David B. 32, 67 Carter, Ben M. 65 Chrysostom 112 Cyprian 74-75, 121 Erasmus, Desiderius 90 George, Timothy 50-51 Gregory of Nyssa 28, 29, 75-77, 121-123 Greimas, Algirdas J. 19 Hesselink, I. John 50, 54 Higman, Francis 11 Homer 25-26 Jerome 72, 89 Kane, Teresa M. 19 Kim, Jae Sung 32 Lamb, W. R. M. 24 Luther, Martin 27-30, 62, 69, 80-85, 87, 89-91, 94, 107, 122-123, 126-128 McKim, Donald K. 50, 54 Montaigne, Michel de 117 Neuser, W. H. 32, 64 Niesel, Wilhelm 50 Origen 29, 71-73, 75, 90 Pascal, Blaise 65 Partee, Charles 32 Plantinga, Theodore 50 Plato 24, 26 Rainbow, Jonathan H. 60 Raoul de Presles 19 Tertullian 69, 70, 74, 121-122, 134 Van Wyk, J. H. 50 Zimmermann, Gunter von 50 Index 142 This book presents a detailed textual analysis of Calvin’s Interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer, from the last version of the institution de la religion chrétienne (1560), Chapter XX. The author also compares the French Reformer with some of the most important theologians from Augustine to Luther. ISBN 978-3-8233-8119-8 J.H. Mazaheri Calvin’s Interpretation of ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ 78 Calvin’s Interpretation of ‘The Lord’s Prayer’. A Rhetorical Approach by J.H. Mazaheri