Our Father who art in heaven
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done
On earth as it is in heaven. (sicut in caelo et in terra.)
This is the first half of the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples according to Matthew 6: 9-13. My question concerns a seeming ambiguity in the second two lines. Are we praying that a) the kingdom come on earth, or are we praying b) not that the kingdom come on earth, but that it come in heaven, and that the will of the Father be done on earth as it is in heaven?
Perhaps it would be better to put the problem in terms of an amtriguity (to coin a word). In the second two lines, are we praying that
a) the Father’s kingdom be realized on earth?
or that
b) the Father’s kingdom be realized in heaven?
or that
c) the Father’s kingdom be realized both on earth and in heaven, perhaps by way of some mysterious spiritualization of the material realm concomitantly with a materialization of the spiritual realm?
I claim that there is this amtriguity (three-fold ambiguity) in the second two lines. How deal with it? My natural Platonic (some would say ‘gnostic’) tendency is to view (b) as the correct interpretation. But I am open to (c) and thus to the idea that Christianity in its innermost core is involved in a mysterious synthesis, a sort of quasi-Hegelian Aufhebung of the matter-spirit opposition in a way that lies beyond the power of our discursive-dianoetic minds to grasp, except by way of images and shaky analogies.
But we need to back up a step.
I take ‘earth’ to refer to the entire material realm, and not to the planet Earth, although of course our home planet, “the third stone from the Sun” (Jimi Hendix) is a tiny bit of the material realm, i.e., the physical cosmos. This is an important distinction, which is why you should always use the majuscule ‘E’ when referring to our home planet. When the Artemis astronauts broke free of the Earth’s gravitational field, and took a look at the dark side of the Moon, they remained on earth (in terra). They remained within the material realm. They did not enter heaven, assuming that ‘heaven’ refers to a pure spiritual, and thus immaterial, realm. You cannot rocket into heaven, and no matter where in the universe the rocket takes you, you will be on earth. Not even Elon Musk can rocket you into heaven.
Collateral observation: When Christ ascended into heaven, he did not take off like a rocket into outer space. He did not ascend like a rocket ascends. He ‘dematerialized.’ But not in the ‘beam-me-up-Scotty’ sort of way via matter transmitter, but in a mysterious, wholly spiritual way. In the Ascension, Christ did not de-materialize in order to re-materialize in a different spatiotemporal location. “The right hand of the Father” cannot refer to a spatial location. In the Ascension, Christ vanished from the material realm and entered a purely spiritual, hence wholly immaterial, realm. Or at least, that is the (Platonic-gnostic) way I am inclined to think of the Ascension.
I hope the Ascensive digression helps explain the distinction between earth (the earthly realm) and heaven (the wholly spiritual, and thus immaterial, realm).
But there is wrinkle that must be noted. I distinguished between earth (the material realm) and the planet Earth. But of course Earth is a part of the material realm. (Everything Earthly is earthly, but not conversely.) So if the Father’s kingdom comes (is realized on earth), it will presumably be realized on the planet Earth, although not necessarily to the exclusion of its being realized elsewhere in the material realm.
Now given the distinction between the earthly as the realm of space-time-matter and the heavenly as the realm of the immaterial, non-spatial, and eternal, there is a clear difference between the realization of God’s kingdom on earth in the future and its realization in heaven in eternity.
(The vexing question of the relation of time and eternity obtrudes here, but it must relegated to the ‘back burner’ for now. For example, does eternity come after Time? What on earth, or in heaven, could that mean?)
And so, in conclusion, I pose the question: which of (a)-(c) did Christ intend when he taught his disciples to pray the Pater Noster?
Bill,
I think that (a) and (c) are reasonable understandings of this passage from the Our Father, but if I had to choose, I prefer the latter, c.
Looking at the passage from a strictly grammatical stance, the first of its two lines is composed of two independent clauses, linked without a conjunction; the verb (“come”) of the first of these clauses is unmodified, while that (“be done”) of the of second is modified by both a locative adverbial phrase (“on earth”) and a comparative adverbial clause (“as it is in heaven’). According to the leading English dictionaries, American and British, “as it is” essentially refers to something in its current state or exactly as it exists. It follows that the second modified clauses is a plea or petition to God that the human realm (“on earth”), the material world, one made imperfect by sin, both original and actual, come into harmony with the already existing, perfect, heavenly realm. Given this, one could say that when we pray these two lines, we are asking that (a) “the Father’s kingdom be realized on earth.”
However, the Christian doctrine of the Second Coming complicates matters, since it affirms that when Christ returns in glory, abolishing evil and suffering, raising the dead, and passing final judgement on mankind, “a new heaven and a new earth [come into existence]; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away” (Revelation, 21). And with this doctrine in mind, we could take these two lines of the Our Father as a plea for the Second Coming, for a new a heaven and a new earth, and if we take it in this way, then your (c) “the Father’s kingdom be realized both on earth and in heaven….” makes more sense.
Thinking further about this question, I believe that it is possible that Christ “intend[ed] both (a) and (c) when “he taught his disciples to pray the Pater Noster.” His plea for (a) “that the Father’s kingdom be realized on earth” would conform to the central focus of his earthly mission, the calling of sinners to redemption in a fallen world, a redemption made universally possible by the Atonement. He knows that “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, …[that] few there be that find it” (Mt 7:14), yet Christ, the Good Shepard seeking the salvation of souls, still prays that this not be the case, that, instead, men turn away from sin and remake the world as God intended it to be. However, knowing all things, he also intends (c), a final eschatological act by which heaven and earth are remade at the end of time, with his Second Coming.
There are three petitions: that the Father’s Name be hallowed, that his Kingdom come and that his Will be done. Then comes the modifying phrase ‘as in heaven, also in earth’. No doubt all these states of affairs are already realised in heaven. We are asking that something be realised in earth as well. But does this refer to all three petitions or just to a subset of them? There is no point in praying that his Name be hallowed in heaven, nor that his Kingdom come in heaven, nor that is Will be done there. Since all three things are already realised in heaven, we must be asking that they be realised also in earth. I vote for (c).
Jonathan Barber,
As you say, “There is no point in praying that his Name be hallowed in heaven, nor that his Kingdom come in heaven, nor that is Will be done there.” So the petition must be that these three be realized on earth, i.e., in the material realm. But how is this to be achieved? By a spiritualization of the material world that somehow preserves its materiality in a subtilized, refined, rarefied form, together with a cancellation of ‘gross matter,’ OR by an elimination of materiality altogether? In the END, do we return to God, a purely spiritual being, to enjoy with him ‘for all eternity’ — whatever that exactly means — a purely spiritual existence? The Platonic element in Xianity suggests precisely that. But the Platonism does not comport well with the Jewish, materialistic side of Xianity. After all, orthodox Xianity teaches the resurrection of the body.
And as Vito suggests, the Second Coming has to be considered, with its materialistic overtones. Has any theologian maintained that the Second Coming of Christ is a re-Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity.
There is also the problem of whether, after the Ascension, matter is imported into the wholly immaterial Godhead.
Hey Bill,
Speaking of the Father, I’ve been wondering: do you think He actively punishes evil deeds — even the smaller ones — in this life, or does He let them slide for now?
I’m not thinking so much about the big, obvious evils, but the everyday injustices we see all around us: bosses who exploit their workers, colleagues who sabotage others for personal gain, people who pick fights, hold grudges, or act vindictively.
I know these kinds of people often end up suffering the natural consequences of their own bitterness and negativity — the “venom” they carry tends to poison them too. But that feels more like an effect than actual Divine Justice. What’s your take on this? Do you have any posts you’ve written on the subject, or could you share a bit of your perspective?
Regards from Brazil.
Thanks for the comment, Vini. I have nothing to say about this at the moment. I’d have to think about it.
Thank you for your comment, Professor. As you demonstrate, there is tension between the Jewish aspect of Christianity and the Hellenic aspect. So far as the resurrection of the dead is concerned, the creeds differ in their terminology. The Athanasian says that all men will rise with their bodies. The Apostles’ affirms the resurrection of the flesh (carnis resurrectionem). The Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed simply affirms belief in the resurrection of the dead. St Paul says, speaking of the resurrection (1Cor 15:44),”sown in a physical body; raised in a spiritual body”.
No orthodox theologian could ever say that the second Coming of Christ is a re-Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. The Incarnation is an unrepeatable event because, while it has occurred in the temporal realm, it has been sublated (aufgehoben) into the eternal realm – where the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world.
What is imported into the eternal Godhead is not matter per se, but human nature. This happened at the Incarnation – the Ascension made only this difference, that Christ’s physical presence is no longer to be found in the temporal realm, but in the eternal realm. (Many would make an exception in respect of the Eucharist.)
My own view is that of a non-denominational Christian Platonist: so I would say that, Christ being our paradigm, in some way or other the materiality of our human nature is sublated. However, these are mysteries beyond our pay-grade and further speculation is unprofitable and irreverent. The Judaeo-Christian story remains the greatest anagogical myth, where ‘myth’ is not a synonym for ‘falsehood’.
Good comments, Mr. Barber.
1) St. Paul’s is the orthodox view. But it generates the puzzle of how there could be such a thing as a spiritual body. The triune God is a purely spiritual being who might not have created anything. ‘Before’ creation — the nature of this priority is a puzzle unto itself since it is neither temporal nor logical — there was nothing but pure spirit. Ultimate reality was wholly unembodied. Now it is conceivable to me how a finite spirit could be ‘implanted’ in a hunk of matter, but rather less conceivable, bordering on inconceivable, how one and the same individual substance could be a spiritual body. That would be like a Cartesian res cogitans that was identical to a res extensa. Of course, I do not deny that Cartesian and Platonic substance dualisms have their own problems.
2) I agree with your second para. The Incarnation is absolutely unique (uniquely unique!) and thus unrepeatable. I don’t doubt that that is the orthodox line. But then how do we make sense of the Second Coming? How can Christ come again sans some form of embodiment?
“the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world.” Does that mean that the Lamb of God (agnus dei) who taketh away (qui tollit) the sins of the world (peccatti mundi) died on the cross starting at the ‘first moment’ of creation? (The priority question obtrudes itself once again.) And what does ‘world’ mean here? I once cataloged twelve different senses of ‘world.’ In Christianity it has maybe three senses. S1: the totality of creatures. S2: a particular epoch or period in history. Cf. Jesus sparring with Pilate. JC says, “My kingdom in not of this world.” That has been taken to mean that his kingdom lies in the future. S3: The main Christian sense of ‘world,’ as it seems to me , is the sense it has in ‘contempt of the world’ (contemptus mundi). Christians are enjoined to cultivate a certain contempt of the world, which of course is not contempt for the totality of creatures, not is it contempt for any particular historical epoch.
Is the Lamb slain from/for all eternity? Or only from the ‘moment’ of creation, thus thus for all time? Either way it make no sense to the discursive intellect.
Response to Barber, cont.
3) “What is imported into the eternal Godhead is not matter per se, but human nature.” You say this happened at the Incarnation. That is not the way I understand it. The Incarnation is a unique and unrepeatable and modally contingent event — one that would not have occurred were it not for Adam’s contingent act of disobedience — an event that occurred in the material realm, on earth, and thus on Earth (though it could have occurred on some other planet) at a particular time and at a particular place, when the Second Person of the Trinity (necessarily existent from all eternity) became identical to a male human being, a composite of human soul and human body. The result was the God-Man, a particular individual that is both divine and human, both fully divine and fully human.
Now this identity makes no discursive sense –how can one and the same item possess contradictory attributes ?– but that is not my present point. My present point is that there was no importation of matter into the eternal Godhead at the time of the Incarnation. But the other way around: the 2nd Person, eternally and necessarily existent, and wholly immaterial, entered into a modally contingent material individual — one of Mary’s ova — and started growing like any other human fetus, to be born eventually in a stable in Bethlehem.
You don’t seem to appreciate the problem. How can Christ be physically present in the wholly non-physical Godhead?
4) In your fourth para, you approximate to something like my POV. Whatever is actual is possible whether or not we have the intellectual capacity to understand how it is possible. The Incarnation is actual: God really did become man in Jesus of Nazareth! Therefore it is possible whether or not we can understand how it is possible.
That is a reasonable response. But it is equally reasonable to run the argument in reverse. Whatever is actual is possible. But if, after centuries of effort by the best and brightest, it has not been definitively shown HOW it is possible, then it reasonable to deny that it is possible.
Theoretically, it is a stand-off. A mystery? Or an impossibility?
So, in the end, and practically, it is a matter of faith. Nothing can be proven here one way or the other. The will comes into it, as I have said a hundred times. You have to decide what you will believe and how you will act. No dogmatic affirmation and no dogmatic denial. Critical and tentative affirmation or denial.
This is the sanest of positions. It is CLASSICALLY liberal. If you understand it, you will understand the folly of murdering people over abstruse theological questions. Luckily, we have a great leader in DJT. I expect him to put paid to the Muslim savagery of the current Iranian regime.
Thank you again for your response, Professor.
1) St Paul’s ‘spiritual body’ is his attempt to express the inexpressible. I don’t know the answer to the conundrum. I do believe that sprit has priority over matter: metaphysically, epistemologically, logically, axiologically and temporally. I would say that what makes a contingent thing real is that it is held in the knowledge and will of God: however something holds me back from going full Idealist and denying that matter has any real existence.
2) I am not sure who is saying that the Second Coming is an unembodied Parousia. Acts 1:11 would seem to rule such a view as unorthodox.
That the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world is not true literally and temporally, but it is true proleptically. Where time and eternity intersect we should expect to find anomalies and wonders beyond our comprehension.
You say, “there was no importation of matter into the eternal Godhead at the time of the Incarnation.” And I sympathise, but I suspect that in an attempt not to confuse the natures (viz human and divine) in Christ you are in danger of appearing to divide the person.
“How can Christ be physically present in the wholly non-physical Godhead?” I would venture to say, What is present in the Godhead as a result of the Incarnation is Christ’s perfect human nature. In our temporal, sub-lunary existence a physical body is a necessary component of such human nature. But we come back to St Paul’s ‘spiritual body’. It is clear from the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus that his body does not obey the same physical laws in the same way as our bodies do. Jesus indeed consumes food and offers the print of the nails for Thomas to feel, but he is also able to materialise and dematerialise. Even before the Crucifixion he was transfigured on Mount Tabor. His human nature is perfect (as in pre-lapsarian), so we have no data point in our own post lapsarian experience to form a valid comparison.
I take comfort from the fact that you do not find my point of view (expressed in my fourth paragraph) to be totally unreasonable. I often recall the words of the poet Tennyson in ‘The Ancient Sage’:
For nothing worthy proving can be proven,
Nor yet disproven: wherefore thou be wise,
Cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt,
And cling to Faith beyond the forms of Faith!
Thanks, Mr. Barber. Time now only for a response to your first point. I agree with it except for the final bit: ” however something holds me back from going full Idealist and denying that matter has any real existence.”
I tend to think that classical theism is a form of onto-theological absolute idealism. I sketch my view in a Substack article: https://williamfvallicella.substack.com/p/is-classical-theism-a-type-of-idealism?r=f3tzc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
If God, classically conceived, creates and SUSTAINS, moment-by-moment, the material world and everything in it, how can idealism be avoided? That’s a rhetorical question. Idealism cannot be avoided. I assume you do not want to say that the material world, once created, would go on existing if PER IMPOSSIBILE God were to cease to exist. If you agree, then some form of idealism has to be true.
If I make a meatball and then I am obliterated, the meatball will continue to exist. But if God makes a meatball in his sui generis purely spiritual way, and then God commits deicide (per impossibile), the meatball will cease to exist. A mearball enjoys existential inertia WRT me, but not God.
Gotta go. Time for dinner. Spaghetti and meatballs! (No joke.)
Bill,
I’ll pick a). c) introduces speculations that only God could resolve. In my daily prayer I mentally articulate the prayer like this: “Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth (as it is in heaven).” If we don’t attempt to Platonize this it seems pretty straightforward. “Earth” is simply the realm of sinners and sinners don’t do God’s will. Heaven is the realm of God where all is in accordance with God’s will, at least since he kicked the fallen angels out. All this seems properly expressed in the formulaic subjunctive, an assertive form of a wish. I don’t know if this reflects the Koine Greek and my lexicons don’t help me here. As Jonathan Barber says, there are three petitions: that his name be revered, his kingdom come, and his will be done. We pray these in the expectation that it will align us to God and thus help us to be better fit to enter his kingdom when the time comes. Following this in hierarchical order comes (paraphrased) 2) take care of my basic need (give us this day our daily bread), and 3) forgive my debts as I forgive others theirs. For me 3) is where the real ambiguity lies. I read it as a plea that God chastise my hypocrisies with hard knocks to the point where I judge only myself by God’s example, not others. On the other hand, God’s atoning grace clearly forgives my debts IN SPITE OF how I’ve treated others. These two perceptions are not necessarily mutually exclusive though.