16 April 2024
In the typical Semitic language word order, the next two requests of the Model Prayer go like this:
Let it come -- Thy Kingdom,
let it be done -- Thy will.
First is the Kingdom. Bailey reminds us that this rests on a particular view of human existence. Modern secularism insists that history is just a string of random events, that there is no meaning. Everything will run down into entropy and die out on its own. There may be a Creator, but He's not involved now. More popular among Greek intelligentsia in Jesus' time was the idea that history is cyclical. The cycle is generally longer than any human life span, but it's all going to come around again.
The Model Prayer assumes that history began somewhere and will follow a course to its finish. God is control. His pattern for human events may not be visible to us, and it is generally inappropriate to assume we could understand it, but we can have confidence that God is directing events to His satisfaction, and in accordance with what He has revealed.
He shares three paradoxes in what Jesus teaches here. One is that He said the Kingdom has already come (Luke 11:20), and yet is not fully here (thus we pray it comes). Second is that the Kingdom is near, and yet far away. Jesus talked about it being here already at times, and then told parables about being patient when His disciples began making noises about Him setting up an earthly kingdom right away. Third is that Jesus taught what the signs would be, and then insisted that His disciples could not understand them, nor could they possibly know before it comes.
Of course, Bailey doesn't really do much with this. The whole point in the ancient Hebrew thinking was that the weight of meaning behind paradoxes is meant to shift between the levels of thinking, between the eternal realm and the temporal realm. The Hebrew art of paradox was well understood among their own scholars, at least. The apparent contradictions going at least as far back as the Proverbs were commonly used by the wise to get the attention of those who needed a clue, but keep the truth away from fools. It's rather like "pearls before swine"; the Lord would make it clear to those who cared what He thought.
Bailey says that the four approaches to talking about the "Kingdom of Heaven" were historical (primarily a future event), mystical (in the hearts of believers), political (centered in a human political organization) or ecclesiastical (centered in one church or another). He waffles, trying to suggest that each has some portion of truth. He cites sources indicating that such was the viewpoint beginning at least with Augustine, but I would say that indicates a problem. The Hebrew literature was uniformly mystical, and I believe the New Testament was, as well. How I say it: The Kingdom is eternal and manifests here in our world in multiple ways.
Next, Bailey addresses the will of God. He almost answers this question: "If God is sovereign, why do we need to pray His will be done?" Sometimes I find his pandering tiresome. He's trying to walk between full mysticism and somehow keeping the interest of people who insist we must change this world. I strongly insist that there is no human accomplishment in the will the of God. To add the words, "on Earth as it is in Heaven" does not justify trying to solve the unsolvable human problems.
This petition is asking God to grant that His will be visible to people who must choose how that works here in this world. We are asking to be aligned with His priorities; it's a Hebrew parallel of "Thy Kingdom come". We want more people to become the "earth" wherein His Kingdom stands and His will is done. I really don't like how Bailey handles this part.
The fourth petition is for daily bread. Bailey explains that Matthew's choice of the Greek word epiousios (translated into English as "daily") raises a real problem: Later generations of Greek scholars could not find that word in their Greek vocabularies, including those who spoke Greek as their first language. Was it a made-up word, or was it simply lost from earlier times?
There was some debate among the Early Church Fathers. Does it men "today's bread" or "tomorrow's bread" (like manna, symbolizing the eucharist)? Others insisted it was a question of how much bread. It's typical of Middle Eastern Christians today to treat it as a single ration of bread, enough for one day.
Bailey prefers the answer drawn from the Syriac translation of the Gospels. This tradition emphasizes taking away the fear of poverty. The point is praying that we have only enough not to worry. But I still say he missed the point. For me, it's about the feudal relationship of a Master who provides whatever we need to serve Him, always delivering into our lives on time.
At one point, Bailey almost seems to point to the everlasting Bread of Heaven in our souls, echoing the day that Jesus essentially drove away the crowd of fleshly folks who kept bugging Him to see miracles, particularly wanting to see manna. Jesus spoke about Himself as the true Bread of Heaven, a parable on which the majority of crowd choked, and left Him. This polarization has its place. I would pray for the bread that outsiders cannot see or understand, to alienate those who are not Elect, to keep them out of the way.
This document is public domain; spread the message.