THE LORD’S PRAYER PRAYED

DAVID SEAL
Cornerstone University

The ancient Greco-Roman world was primarily an oral culture. Writers and
speakers knew that words could be composed to create sound patterns that,
when vocalized, could express an attitude or emotion that would reinforce their
message.1 Therefore, an important avenue of investigation looks at how texts
were “performed”—how certain rhetorical devices create sound patterns, how
they would have been heard, and what their function would have been. Rhe-
torical figures of speech are functional devices, integral to the purpose of the
speaker or writer.
The Lord’s Prayer is a good candidate for this type of analysis.2 In the early
Christian communities, the Lord’s Prayer was to be prayed verbatim uorally,3
three times a day (Did. 8.2–3).4 While there are plenty of rhetorical figures in

1 The ancient rhetorical handbooks discuss these techniques. For example, Cicero,

On the Orator, On Fate, Stoic Paradoxes, Divisions of Oratory, trans. E. W. Sutton and
H. Rackham, LCL 349 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942); Cicero, Tusculan
Disputations, trans. J. E. King, LCL 141 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927);
Demetrius, On Style, trans. Doreen C. Innes, LCL 199 (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1995); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Critical Essays 1, trans. Stephen Usher, LCL
466 (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1985); Quintilian, The Orator’s Education,
trans. Donald A. Russell, LCL 124 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002);
Cassius Longinus, On the Sublime, trans. W. Hamilton Fyfe, LCL 199 (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2005). Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civil Discourse.
Newly Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Appendixes by George A. Kennedy
(New York: Oxford, 1991); Rhetorica ad Herennium, trans. Harry Caplan, LCL 403
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954).
2 I refer to the prayer by its popular designation even though it is more accurate to

refer to it as “the disciples’ prayer,” given that Jesus taught it to his followers (Matt 6:9;
Luke 11:2).
3 The expectation that the recipients of the Didache would recite the prayer

verbatim is supported by the comment in 10.7, where it appears that the prophets were
the only ones with the authority to pray in ways other than what was written (Nancy
Pardee, “The Didache and Oral Theory,” in The Didache: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle
in Early Christianity, eds. Jonathan A. Draper and Clayton N. Jefford [Atlanta: SBL
Press, 2015], 330).
4 This would not necessarily imply that the whole Christian community would

gather three times each day. Instead, perhaps those working in the same shop or those in
the same household would gather and pray (Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Trans-
lation, Analysis, and Commentary [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003], 65).
2 RESTORATION QUARTERLY 61:2 (2019)

the Greek text of the Lord’s Prayer, most studies of the prayer in Matthew (6:9 ̶
13), Luke (11:2–4), or the Didache (8:2), do not acknowledge them.5 A few
studies merely identify the rhetorical figures, comment on how they function as
an aid to memory, and perhaps mention that the devices serve to unify a part of
a text or bind the entire composition.6 Relatively few studies, if any, discuss
how the devices function aesthetically or how they enhance the meaning of the
content.7 This present study seeks to address this lacuna. I will identify the
rhetorical figures in Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer that largely are
effective when spoken. Further, I will explore their significance as meaning
enhancing devices and attempt to recreate a translation of the prayer in English
that captures the function of these oral components. While the analysis of NT
documents through the lens of rhetorical criticism has a long history, the
approach of this present study is focused on the last step of that analysis, the
delivery.8
The Lord’s Prayer
The prayer in Matthew is recounted as follows: “Our Father in heaven, hal-
lowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is
in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we
also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial but
rescue us from the evil one” (6:9–13).9

5 E.g., Ulrich Luz, A Commentary on Matthew 1–7, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: For-

tress, 2007); François Bovon, Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51–19:27,
trans. Donald S. Deer, Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013); Kurt Niederwimmer
and Harold W. Attridge, The Didache: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1998); Milavec, The Didache; Roy Hammerling, The Lord’s Prayer in the
Early Church: The Pearl of Great Price (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).
6 Examples of scholars who fall into this category are Church of England, Liturgical

Commission. Modern Liturgical Texts (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian
Knowledge, 1968); Michael Wade Martin, “The Poetry of the Lord’s Prayer: A Study
in Poetic Device,” JBL 134 (2015): 347–72; Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the
Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain
(Matthew 5:3–7:27 and Luke 6:20–49), ed. Adela Yarbro Collins, Hermeneia (Minne-
apolis: Fortress, 1995); H. Benedict Green, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes, JSNTSup
203 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001); Ernst R. Wendland, “Poeticizing the Lord’s
Prayer for Pronunciatio: An Exercise in Oral-Oriented Bible Translation,” Neot 46
(2012): 394–415; Shirley Sullivan, “The Poetic Beauty of the Lord’s Prayer in Greek:
Reflections of a Classicist,” Crux 51.4 (2015): 28 ̶ 35; W. D. Davies and Dale C.
Allison, Matthew 1–7: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according
to Saint Matthew, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2010).
7 One exception to this, though the discussion is minimal, is Ernst Lohmeyer (“Our

Father”: An Introduction to the Lord’s Prayer, trans. John Bowden [New York: Harper
& Row, 1965]).
8 Hans Dieter Betz represents one of the first sustained attempts to apply rhetorical

criticism to the NT (Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in

Galatia, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979]).
9 All quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.
SEAL/THE LORD’S PRAYER PRAYED 3

Based on the content and nature of the requests, the prayer can be divided
into two paragraphs. The first half includes an invocation and has the second
person singular pronoun σου (you) as its focus. The second paragraph has the
first person plural ἡμῶν (us/our/we) as its focus. The two-part division is further
supported by the term οὐρανοῖς / οὐρανῷ (heaven[s]), which appears in the invo-
cation and the last clause of the first stanza, forming an inclusio around the first
half of the prayer. Subsequently, I will examine the how the various rhetorical
devices dictate the way the prayer was expressed orally and how they reinforce
the content of the prayer.
The Invocation
The address Πάτερ opens the first half of the prayer as part of the invocation,
Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (our Father in heavens). The appeal to God as
“father” has various connotations. One inference of the term communicates
God’s comprehensive authority and the obedience and honor that he is due (e.g.,
Mal 1:6; Matt 5:48; 6:14; 18:35).10 As sovereign, he corrects or disciplines those
who disobey him (e.g., Deut 32:4–6; Prov 3:11–12; Heb 12:5–11). Further
highlighting the notion of divine superiority in the term πάτερ is that it appears
first in the Greek sentence. The predication πάτερ ἡμῶν (our Father), with the
pronoun, expresses the aspirations of the group (cf. Luke 11:2; Did. 1:7, 7:1,
10:2). It signifies a liturgical text to be recited communally in worship.
Another connation of the term father emphasizes parental love (e.g., Ps
103:13; Did. 1:7), care, and protection (e.g., Jer 31:9; Matt 6:26; 10:29; 18:10;
14). Often this understanding of the title is present in cries for help and in
prayers of repentance (e.g., Jos. Asen. 12:14–15; 4Q372 1:16). Closely associated
with the paternal meaning of father is that the term can also designate God as
creator or as the head of a family or clan (e.g., Deut 32:4–6; Isa 64:8; Jer 31:9).
In the Lord’s prayer, the address affirms both respect in addressing a
superior and the presence of a profound personal relationship between the one
praying and the one prayed to. Given that the title “father” conveys God’s
parental and sovereign authority, humility would be the proper human dis-
position of the supplicants as they pray. His attitude would be grounded in a
clear self-assessment—including awareness of his creaturely status, limitations,
and sinfulness in relation to the father’s status (Prov 22:4).
The invocation includes the additional designation “in heaven.” The phrase
“father in heaven” was Jesus’s customary way of referring to God (Matt 5:16,
45; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; 10:32, 33; 12:50; 16:17; 18:10, 14, 19). The locational
reference “in heaven” was likely to strengthen what has already been estab-
lished with the understanding of father as sovereign. Here the invocation
acknowledges that heaven is the place of God’s throne (Matt 5:34; 23:22). It is

10Noteworthy is that the title pater patriae (father of his country) was awarded to
Julius Caesar (Suetonius, Jul. 76). Augustus officially acquired the same title in 2 BCE
(Suetonius, Aug. 58). The term functioned to establish a relationship of loyalty between
the emperor and the Roman people. In the Lord’s prayer, the use of father perhaps
highlighted that God’s authority superseded Rome’s authority.
4 RESTORATION QUARTERLY 61:2 (2019)

the setting where the father’s name is hallowed by those who cry holy, holy,
holy (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8).11
The rendition “Father of us, the one in the heavens” captures the Greek
word order, placing the divine recipient of the prayer in the place of prom-
inence.12 The phrase is an emotional invocation, conveying one who is to be
respected and one who cares—it sets the mood and tone of the requests that
follow. Prayer, like other rituals, can be an emotionally loaded occasion. The
premodern world understood petitionary prayer as a highly stylized ritual script
that aimed to generate a vivid experience of the deity’s presence within the
practitioner.13 Calling the name of the deity through the invocation perhaps was
thought by the supplicant to be necessary to get the attention of God (cf. 1 Kgs
18:24; Ps 116:4). This is unlike in human face-to-face interaction where a
person does not feel the need to invoke the other party’s name when initiating
conversation. On a psychological level the invocation may have assisted the
prayers in viewing themselves in God’s presence.
Consequently, a sense of awe was felt when approaching God in prayer
(e.g., Luke 5:26; 7:16; Acts 19:17). The Lord’s Prayer would have been spoken
in a respectful tone and not been delivered deadpan. The way it was vocalized,
the tone, pace, the use of pause, and changes in volume, would have reflected
the reverence and respect acknowledged in the address to God as father. Next,
I will demonstrate how stylistically the poetic devices in the first half of the
prayer achieve this reverential tone and express the passions of the petitioner.
The First Stanza
The following translation captures most of the effects of the rhetorical figures
to be discussed below:
ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου·
ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·
γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου,
ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς·
Hallowed be the name of you,
Come be the reign of you,
Done be the aim of you,
As in heaven also on earth.14

11 David Clark, The Lord’s Prayer: Origins and Early Interpretations, Studia
Traditionis Theologiae, Explorations in Early and Medieval Theology, ed. Thomas
O’Loughlin (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2016), 98.
12 This translation was suggested by David Wenham, “The Sevenfold Form of the

Lord’s Prayer in Matthew’s Gospel,” ExpTim 121 (2010): 379.

13 See Angelos Chaniotis, “Emotional Community through Ritual: Initiates, Citi-

zens, and Pilgrims as Emotional Communities in the Greek World,” in Ritual Dynamics
in the Ancient Mediterranean: Agency, Emotion, Gender, Representation, ed. Angelos
Chaniotis (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2011), 263–90.
14 Adapted from Martin (“The Poetry,” 372) and Wenham (“The Sevenfold,” 379).
SEAL/THE LORD’S PRAYER PRAYED 5

Stylistically, the first three petitions form an isocolon (also called parisosis
or parison), where there is a parallelism of structure consisting of almost an
equal number of syllables and words in each clause (Rhet. Her. 4.20.27;
Quintilian, Inst. 9.3.80).15 The first three petitions comprise a phonologically
balanced 10-9-9 syllable count.16 Further, each request contains four words.
Also grammatical parallelism is in the first three petitions, where verbs
occupy the first place in each clause and the pronoun σου (you) completes it.17
This latter feature is referred to as antistrophe, where the last word is repeated
in successive phrases. It creates rhythm and puts emphasis on the repeated word
(Rhet. Her. 4.13.19; Quintilian, Inst. 9.3.30–31). For the author of Rhetorica ad
Herennium, antistrophe joins other figures of repetition (cf. Rhet. Her. 4.13.19–
4.14.21) in which there exists in the repetition “an elegance which the ear can
distinguish more easily than words can explain” (Rhet. Her. 4.14.29–30). 18
Thus the figure antistrophe directs the ear on what is most important (you, [the
father]) as well as provides the spoken petitions with a sense of majesty.
Homoeoteleuton is also present in the three requests.19 This figure occurs
when there is similarity of sound (-ά σου) at the end of successive phrases (Rhet.
Her. 4.20.28; Quintilian, Inst. 9.3.77). Along with antistrophe, this feature aids
in creating an aesthetically pleasing end rhyme.
The nearly equal syllable count and the equal word count in each clause,
together with the use of antistrophe and homoeoteleuton, help provide the first
three petitions with rhythm. Rhythm transpires when there is the periodic re-
emergence of the same significant element or factor. Pseudo-Longinus, in dis-
cussing the sublime or that which produces exalted language and has the effect
of being dignified and filled with grandeur, points to the aural effects of rhythm
(Subl. 39–42). Rhythm in speech implies something unusual—it is not language
used in everyday life. It implies that both the content and recipient are different,
involving a different type of communication.20 The style of the aspirations in
the first half of the prayer adorn the spoken words with extreme reverence,

15 Betz notes the isocolon (The Sermon on the Mount, 376). Sullivan also notes the
“complex scheme of syllables” but does not identify it as isocolon (“The Poetic Beauty,”
28 ̶ 29). Martin also notes isocolon (“The Poetry,” 362). Wendland also notes the similar
syllable count, but does not label it (“Poeticizing,” 400n20).
16 The author of Rhetorica ad Herennium notes that it may happen “that the number

of syllables seems equal without being precisely so—as when one colon is shorter than the
other by one or even two syllables, or when one colon contains more syllables, and the
other contains one or more longer or fuller-sounding syllables, so that the length or fullness
of sound of these matches and counterbalances the greater number of syllables in the other”
(Rhet. Her. 4.20.28).
17 Lohmeyer notes this form of parallelism without identifying it as antistrophe

(“Our Father,” 27). Martin notes antistrophe (“The Poetry,” 363). Wenham also
identifies this feature but does not label it (“The Sevenfold,” 380).
18 Rhet. Her., 281.
19 Martin notes the employment of homoeoteleuton (“The Poetry,” 363).
20 Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, T&T

Clark Biblical Languages (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 113.

6 RESTORATION QUARTERLY 61:2 (2019)

fitting for the honor and respect due the recipient of the prayer, the sovereign
father.
Another stylistic device that embellishes the text with a sense of honor and
respect is the presence of several vowels that, by their pronunciation, create a
sense of dignity. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his grammar handbook,
discussed the sound-meaning association relative to jaw positions. He stated,
“The short vowels, or those which are pronounced short, are inferior, because
they lack volume and restrict sound. Again, of the long vowels, the one with
the best sound is a, when lengthened, for it is pronounced with the mouth open
to the fullest extent and the breath forced upwards to the palate” (Comp. 14).21
In addition, he argues, “Of the short vowels neither is beautiful, but o is less
ugly than e: for the former causes the mouth to open wider than the latter, and
receives the impact more in the region of the windpipe” (Comp. 14).22 He felt
the long vowels α, ē, ō, and y were the “most powerful” (Comp. 14).23 The use
of various long vowels within words of a phrase can help create an effect of
size or grandeur. This suggests an aesthetic and even persuasive function of
sound. By their very nature and frequent occurrence, the repeated ω and ά
vowels in the first stanza express the majesty of God.
Another significant feature in the first three petitions that also affects the
delivery of the prayer is asyndeton.24 This figure of speech involves the sup-
pression or omission of conjunctions in separate parts of a sentence (Quintilian,
Inst. 9.3.50; Rhet. Her. 4.30). Connecting particles are omitted between each of
the phrases, which in succession request the sanctifying of God’s name, the
coming of his kingdom, and the accomplishment of his will. The exclusion of
conjunctions gives the impression of haste when spoken. According to one
ancient rhetorician, “For just as you deprive runners of their speed if you bind
them up, emotion equally resents being hampered by connecting particles and

21 Dionysius, Comp., 97.

22 Dionysius, Comp., 97.
23 Dionysius, Comp., 95‒96. Certain vowels sound bigger or louder than others. In

pronouncing the syllable chα– the mouth is opened to a full extent “in order to sound the
aspiration of the palatal in front of the following open vowel” (William Bedell Stanford,
The Sound of Greek: Studies in the Greek Theory and Practice of Euphony, Sather
Classical Lectures 38 [Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1967], 185). See
John B. Foley, who makes similar arguments with respect to complex (long A, E, U)
and pure vowels (those that when spoken include no motion of the mouth, tongue or lips
such as “I”) (“An Aural Basis for Oral Liturgical Prayer,” Worship 56 [1982]: 132–52).
Complex vowels have more energy and require more motion of the mouth, tongue or
lips to pronounce. They require more force or muscular energy, which translates into
more energy when a sentence has a high volume of words with complex vowels. As the
higher energy vowels increase in words and sentences, a statement will convey increased
energy.
24 Lohmeyer notes the presence of asyndeton (“Our Father,” 27).
SEAL/THE LORD’S PRAYER PRAYED 7

other appendages. It loses its freedom of motion and the sense of being, as it were,
catapulted out” (Longinus, Subl. 21).25
Asyndeton was often used by orators and playwrights to implore someone
in a tone of desperation or longing. For example, Orestes in Aeschylus’s
Libation-Bearers, is lamenting his family’s misfortune and begging the gods of
the underworld to look at him and his sister and help them: “See what is left of
the Atreid family, in a state of helplessness, excluded in dishonour from their
home!” (Aeschylus, Cho. 407–8).26 According to Aristotle, asyndeton is depen-
dent on the voice of the speaker to be effective. He contended that the lack of
conjunctions in a sentence requires changes in the vocal ploys of delivery (Rhet.
1413b30–1414a6). This device encourages the supplicant to speak the first
portion of the prayer more rapidly, in a tone expressing the longing for the final
advent of God’s kingdom rule on earth.
In addition to asyndeton, the three divine passive imperatives, ἁγιασθήτω,
ἐλθέτω, γενηθήτω (hallow, come, done), also give the sense that the supplicant
desires the eschatological appeals to materialize quickly (Did. 9:4; 10:5 ̶ 6).27
Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner comment that asyndeton can also lend
solemnity to language.28 The effect of three different imperative verbs in an
asyndetic series gives the requests a striking focus, a solemn urgency, and a
“pathos reinforcing intensification.”29 While the brevity conveys haste, it also
expresses humble confidence that words to God do not need to be verbose to be
heard and answered.
Finally, I should note the repetition of the word οὐρανῷ (heaven) in the
final line of the first stanza, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς (as in heaven also on
earth), echoing its appearance in the invocation. The repetition of heaven forms
an inclusio around the entire first half of the prayer. This feature lends support

25 Longinus, On the Sublime, 237–39. The orator Demetrius also believed that
conjunctions diminished the emotional impact of a sentence (On Style, 194).
26 Aeschylus, Oresteia: Agamemnon, the Libation-Bearers, the Eumenides, ed. and

trans. Alan H. Sommerstein, LCL 146 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009),
263.
27 The sanctification or hallowing of God’s name (Ezek 36:23) is accomplished by

God, not humans. In the OT it was Israel who profaned the holy name along with the
nations. In Ezekiel, as is likely the case here, what is envisioned is a complete, definitive,
and eschatological manifestation of God’s holiness (1 En. 1:3–9; Jub. 1:22–25; T. Mos.
10:1–12). The parallel petition that God will cause his kingdom rule to be manifested
sees the event as done solely by God, thus supporting the sanctifying act as his act alone
(cf. John 12:28; John P. Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, vol. 2 of A Marginal
Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, AYBRL [New York: Doubleday, 1994], 296).
28 Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament

and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1961), 241 §462. As noted by Keith A. Reich, Figuring Jesus: The Power
of Rhetorical Figures of Speech in the Gospel of Luke (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 46.
29 Heinrich Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary

Study, eds. David E. Orton and R. Dean Anderson, trans. Matthew T. Bliss, Annemie,
Jansen, and David E. Orton (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 315 §709.
8 RESTORATION QUARTERLY 61:2 (2019)

to the idea that the phrase “as in heaven also on earth” modifies all three of the
preceding petitions.30 In addition to rounding off the section, it also serves to
emphasize that there is something fundamentally different between the father’s
realm and the realm of humanity. The prayer sets heaven and earth in opposi-
tion.31 It implies the lack of something on earth while asserting there is a plen-
titude in heaven.
Warren Carter argues that Matthew’s community appeared to be experi-
encing tension with the local synagogue.32 In this context of conflict, Matthew’s
community likely felt persecuted (Matt 5:10–12; 10:17–18). The church com-
munity struggled to make sense of their pain and hostility. The first stanza of
the prayer provides the beleaguered church a way to express their longing for
better circumstances.
The rhetorical figures of antistrophe and homoeoteleuton, the phonological
and grammatical parallelism, and the presence of certain robust vowels in the
initial petitions of the Lord’s Prayer convey respect for God’s parental, royal,
and holy authority. Further, imperative verbs coupled with asyndeton provide
the request for a quickening of the arrival of the divine kingdom with a feeling
of urgency and solemnity when spoken.
The Second Stanza
Ernst Lohmeyer is right to observe that there is a transition from a sacred,
measured solemnity displayed in the language of the first half of the prayer to
one of more richness, characteristic of human speech in the last stanza.33 The
translation below attempts to capture most of the effects of the rhetorical figures
in the portion of the prayer to be examined next.
Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον
δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον·
καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν,
ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν·
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν,
ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

30 Wendland, “Poeticizing,” 400n21.

31 Clark,The Lord’s Prayer, 98 ̶ 107.
32 Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious

Reading, The Bible and Liberation Series (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2000),
31, 32. These tensions are evident, for example, in the changes that Matthew makes to
his sources, Mark and Q. For example, some changes omit favorable references to the
synagogue from the sources. Whereas Jairus is a “ruler of the synagogue” in Mark 5:22,
35, 36, 38, in Matthew the term synagogue disappears, and he is simply a “ruler” or
“official” (Matt 9:18, 23). Changes from the sources also target the religious leaders and
heighten their negative presentation. Unique to Matthew are his descriptions of the
scribes and Pharisees as “blind guides” and “blind fools” (23:16, 17, 19, 24, 26; cf.
15:14). The term “rabbi” becomes a negative term used only by false disciples. For in-
stance, Judas calls Jesus “rabbi” rather than Lord (Matt 26:21–25).
33 Lohmeyer, “Our Father,” 31.
SEAL/THE LORD’S PRAYER PRAYED 9

The bread of us for the coming day,34

give us today.
And forgive the debts of us,
as also we have forgiven the debtors of us.
And do not expose [and then abandon] us
to temptation (‘or to the testing time’),
but preserve us from evil.35

An initial striking feature of the second stanza is the repetition of the

numerous mutations of the first person plural pronoun ἡμῶν.36 It occurs eight
times in various cases in this stanza—three times in the genitive (ἡμῶν, of us),
twice in the dative (ἡμῖν, to us), once in the nominative (ἡμεῖς, we), and twice
in the accusative (ἡμᾶς, us). Polyptoton is the repetition of a noun or pronoun
in different cases spread throughout a unit of text (Rhet. Her. 4.21.29–4.23.32;
Quintilian, Inst. 9.3.36–37). It can be effective when recited orally as the
speaker stresses the repeated root. The first petition associated with the first
person plural pronoun asks God to meet one’s physical needs, the next three
ask for assistance in one’s spiritual well-being. The petition for bread begins a
series of requests that acknowledge humanity’s extreme frailty and ongoing
intrinsic neediness—their daily need for life’s requirements,37 their tendency to
sin (Did. 2, 3, 5), their (implicit) problem in forgiving others (Did. 4:14; 14:1),
their proneness to temptation, and their susceptibility to the powerful influence
of evil (Did. 3:1; 10:5 ̶ 6).38 Spread throughout the second part of the prayer,
polyptoton emphasizes the “us/we” thereby demonstrating the Christian com-
munity’s physical and spiritual poverty and their great need of the father.
Another poetic feature in this stanza that stresses humanity’s vulnerability
is polysyndeton. Unlike the omission of conjunctions in the first half of the
prayer, in the second half the multiple connecting particles (καὶ, ὡς, καὶ, καὶ,
ἀλλὰ)39 gives the impression that the list of personal needs could go on forever.
It produces the effect of extensiveness and abundance by means of an exhaus-
tive summary.40

34 The purpose of this study is not to address the possible denotations of ἐπιούσιον.

See Lohmeyer (“Our Father,”141–59) for a discussion of its various potential meanings.
The translation understands the “coming day” as the eschatological banquet. Looking
forward, Christians expected bread to be served at the Messiah’s end-time banquet (Luke
14:15; cf. Matt 8:11; Luke 22:29–30).
35 This translation was adapted from Martin (“The Poetry,” 372) and Wenham

(“The Sevenfold,” 379).

36 The feature is noted by Sullivan, but she does not label it polyptoton (“The Poetic

Beauty,” 28 ̶ 29). Martin notes the use of polyptoton (“The Poetry,” 365).
37 The term ἄρτον (bread) is a synecdoche through which the whole is known from

a small part (Rhet. Her. 4.33.44), so the bread represents all the necessities for sustaining
life (Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 376–77).
38 Clark, The Lord’s Prayer, 99.
39 Quintilian defines polysyndeton as the use of many connecting particles, the

same ones or different (Inst. 9.3.50).

40 Blass, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, 240 §460.
10 RESTORATION QUARTERLY 61:2 (2019)

Homoeoteleuton surfaces again in the second stanza.41 But different from

its appearance in the first stanza where it has the effect of creating a rhythm
between several clauses, here in the request for bread (τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν
ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον) the need for nourishment is amplified in a single
clause. The repeated homonymous ending of -ον gives a strong emotional edge
to the plea for a life-sustaining essential. It empowers the statement with pathos.
One might imagine hearing the prayer from a day laborer who has no way of
knowing whether he will find work again tomorrow from which he and his
family can live. Many in Matthew’s church perhaps lacked adequate access to
what they needed to sustain life and others procured excessive resources by
unjust means that deprived those in need. 42 The petition recognizes that re-
sources for one’s survival are not justly distributed.
The final clause, “And do not expose [and then abandon] us to temptation
(‘or to the testing time’), but preserve us from evil,” is not two requests, but a
single petition set in antithetical parallelism.43 The request to be preserved from
evil is parallel to the request not to be exposed to temptation. It takes the initial
request further by emphasizing the reality of the evil that lies behind the
temptation and by asking to be delivered from it. Antithesis is a method of am-
plification (Cicero, Part. or. 16.55). Repeating the idea in a different form likely
would have included a verbal intensification when it was spoken, admitting the
petitioner’s weakness and God’s power to overcome it.44
Conclusion
I have identified numerous rhetorical figures and more importantly discussed
their multiple functions as they appear in Matthew’s rendition of the Lord’s
Prayer. Rhetorical figures serve to elevate the style and to enrich the language
in a manner that would be honorable to the prayers’ recipient, the sovereign and
loving father. The figures also serve to intensify and expand the meaning of the
content and to emphasize essential ideas in spoken language that are appropriate
to the subject matter of the prayer. The form and style of the supplication
supports the force and meaning of the prayer. In all its poetic and dramatic
richness, the prayer was not intended to be performed before a human audi-
ence—that is theater. Rather it was meant as worship, properly performed and
offered before God, to be seen and heard by him.

41 Martin recognizes the use of homoeoteleuton in this section of the prayer (“The
Poetry,” 365).
42 Carter, Matthew, 167.
43 Green, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes, 81.
44 Green, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes, 81n27.