Luke 11:2

“`html

An Exegetical Examination of Human Agency in the Petition for God’s Will in Matthew 6:10 and Luke 11:2

This exegetical study of “Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2” is based on a b-greek discussion from January 4, 2008. The initial inquiry introduced Joseph Heinemann’s argument in “The Background of Jesus’ Prayer in the Jewish Liturgical Tradition” that the passive form of “May Thy will be done” (Matthew 6:10) in Jesus’ prayer leaves no room for human beings as active agents. Heinemann, citing K. G. Kuhn, contrasts this with Jewish liturgical tradition where humanity actively performs God’s will, suggesting a fundamental difference in conception.

The central exegetical issue revolves around the interpretation of the aorist imperative passive verbs **γενηθήτω** (Matthew 6:10) and **γενέσθω** (Luke 11:2, in its harmonized form as presumed by the discussion) in the petition “Let Your will be done.” Specifically, the question is whether the grammatical structure of this petition inherently negates human agency in the fulfillment of God’s will, particularly in light of Matthew’s appended phrase **ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς** (“on earth as it is in heaven”). This phrasing, at first glance, appears to invite active human participation in enacting God’s will on earth, paralleling its celestial fulfillment. The discussion explores whether the passive voice necessarily absolves human involvement or if it functions as a theological passive, where God is the ultimate agent, but human beings are the instruments.

Matthew 6:10 (Nestle 1904):
ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς.

Luke 11:2 (Nestle 1904, based on the textual variant discussed for the purposes of this exegesis):
ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• For Matthew 6:10, SBLGNT (2010) is identical to Nestle 1904.
• For Luke 11:2, Nestle 1904 presents an abbreviated text: ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· (Let Your kingdom come). The phrase γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς (Let Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven) is absent from the primary Nestle 1904 text of Luke 11:2, and from most critical editions based on earlier manuscripts. SBLGNT (2010) includes the longer text, but it is bracketed, indicating that it is a Western non-interpolation, likely a scribal harmonization with Matthew. The current exegetical discussion proceeds with the understanding that the longer Lukan text, harmonized with Matthew, is the subject of analysis, as implied by the initial post’s focus on “May Thy will be done” in both passages.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (BDAG)

The textual critical landscape for Luke 11:2 is significant for this discussion. The phrase γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς is widely attested in the Western textual tradition for Luke 11:2, but is absent from some of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts (e.g., P75, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex L). The NA28, like SBLGNT, includes this phrase within double square brackets ([[[ ]]]), signifying a high degree of doubt regarding its originality while acknowledging its presence in important textual traditions. Its inclusion in the present discussion, despite its likely secondary nature in Luke, highlights its theological importance and common reception in various Christian traditions, influencing the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer.

Lexically, the crucial verb is γίνομαι (related to both γενηθήτω and γενέσθω), which BDAG defines primarily as “to come into being, happen, occur, take place.” The form in Matthew 6:10, γενηθήτω, is an aorist imperative, passive voice, third person singular. In Luke 11:2 (in its harmonized form), γενέσθω is also an aorist imperative, passive voice, third person singular. Grammatically, as noted in the original discussion, there is “not really any difference between γενέσθω and γενηθήτω,” as the **θη** passive forms were “in process of supplanting the older aorist middle (and future middle) forms, bearing both middle and passive semantic value.” Both forms are understood to mean “come to pass” or “come to fulfillment.” The term θέλημα (BDAG: “what is willed or desired, will”) refers to God’s divine will or purpose. The phrase ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς (“as in heaven and on earth”) serves as a qualitative and quantitative qualifier for the desired fulfillment of God’s will, suggesting completeness and perfection.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical construction of γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου as an aorist imperative passive is central to the debate about human agency. The aorist imperative typically denotes a decisive, often immediate, action or a specific event to be completed. The passive voice (“let it be done” or “may it come to pass”) foregrounds the action itself, with the agent either unspecified or implicitly divine. Heinemann’s argument hinges on this grammatical feature, suggesting that the passive voice inherently removes human beings as active agents, contrasting with a Jewish liturgical tradition where humans actively “perform Thy will.”

However, rhetorical and theological analysis of the phrase, especially with the Matthean addition ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς, complicates this interpretation. The prayer is not a passive resignation but an active entreaty for God’s will to manifest. The comparison “as in heaven” implies a parallel action “on earth.” While God’s will is perfectly fulfilled in heaven without human intervention, its fulfillment “on earth” necessarily involves the created order, including humanity. The passive voice can function as a “divine passive” or “theological passive,” where God is understood as the ultimate agent, even when the means of fulfillment involve human activity. Thus, the petition might be understood as an appeal for God to enable and empower human beings to be instruments of His will, or for God to bring about His will *through* human obedience and action. As one participant in the discussion noted, “no grammatical perspective precludes the possibility or probability that this is to come about through human agents who will do the will of God.”

The aorist aspect suggests a definitive realization of God’s will, not merely a continuous process. This “complexive” view of the aorist imperative in petitions suggests an expectation for the request to be granted definitively. Therefore, while God is the ultimate actor, the means of this divine action on earth are often mediated through human agents. To interpret the passive as wholly excluding human action would render the earthly petition almost redundant or purely miraculous, neglecting the ethical and moral imperatives for human obedience and partnership with God that are prevalent elsewhere in Jesus’ teaching.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegetical analysis suggests that Heinemann’s interpretation, while grammatically plausible in isolation, may overlook the broader theological and rhetorical context of the Lord’s Prayer. The passive voice of γενηθήτω / γενέσθω, while making God the ultimate subject of the action, does not necessarily preclude human involvement as agents through whom God’s will is manifested on earth. The comparison with heavenly fulfillment strongly implies that humanity is called to embody God’s will in the earthly realm. The aorist imperative emphasizes the definitive nature of this desired fulfillment, rather than a disengagement of human agency.

Based on this analysis, the following translation suggestions attempt to capture the nuances of divine initiative and human responsibility:

1. “Let Your kingdom come; may Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
   This translation maintains the passive voice, emphasizing God’s ultimate sovereignty and the divine initiative, yet it implicitly invites human participation as the means through which God’s will is actualized on earth.
2. “Let Your kingdom come; may Your purposes be accomplished on earth as perfectly as they are in heaven.”
   This rendering uses “accomplished” to convey the definitive aspect of the aorist imperative and “purposes” for θέλημα, suggesting a broader scope for God’s will, which can include both divine acts and human obedience.
3. “Let Your kingdom come; may Your will be put into effect on earth as it is in heaven.”
   This translation highlights the active implementation of God’s will, which is often a collaborative effort between divine empowerment and human response, addressing the tension of human agency more directly.

“`