Matt 7:21

 

An Exegetical and Textual-Critical Analysis of the Article with Ουρανοις in Matthew’s ‘Father in Heaven’ Constructions

Abstract/Summary

This exegetical study of An Exegetical and Textual-Critical Analysis of the Article with Ουρανοις in Matthew’s ‘Father in Heaven’ Constructions is based on a b-greek discussion from December 2011.

The initial observation centers on a recurring textual problem in Matthew regarding the presence or absence of the definite article τοῖς before οὐρανοῖς (heaven) when referring to God as “Father in heaven.” While some early manuscripts and a majority of critical editions include the article, a significant number of other pre-10th-century witnesses and an earlier edition of Tischendorf (7th) show a preference for its omission in specific contexts.

The main exegetical issue under investigation is to establish Matthew’s consistent authorial usage concerning the definite article τοῖς when accompanying οὐρανοῖς in the construction πατήρ (Father) + possessive pronoun + article + ἐν +/- article + οὐρανοῖς. Particular attention is paid to instances where πατήρ is in the genitive case. By identifying Matthew’s established stylistic pattern in indisputable passages, this study aims to inform textual-critical decisions in passages where the presence of the article is debated. The hypothesis is that the inclusion of τοῖς in genitive constructions where it is typically absent by Matthew’s custom is a secondary development, likely stemming from scribal assimilation to the more prevalent pattern observed in other grammatical cases where the article is consistently present.

Οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων μοι Κύριε Κύριε, εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀλλ’ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. (Matthew 7:21, Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• In Matthew 7:21, 10:32, 10:33, and 5:45, the SBLGNT (2010) aligns with Nestle (1904) by retaining the definite article τοῖς before οὐρανοῖς in the genitive construction “τοῦ πατρός μου/ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.”
• The present exegetical analysis, informed by Matthew’s established authorial usage, argues for the secondary nature of this article in these specific instances. It suggests that a reading *without* τοῖς would be stylistically more consistent with Matthew’s original intent for genitive constructions, thus differing from the textual choices made by both Nestle (1904) and SBLGNT (2010) in these particular verses.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

The textual problem surrounding the presence or absence of τοῖς before οὐρανοῖς in Matthew is meticulously documented in critical editions such as NA28 for passages like 5:45; 7:21; and 10:32-33. The apparatus reveals a significant divergence among early manuscript witnesses. A substantial group of manuscripts, including ℵ B C Z Δ Θ 0281vid f1 33. 892. 1424, and influential editors such as Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (8th), and Vogels, support the inclusion of τοῖς. Conversely, a robust collection of pre-10th-century witnesses, notably E G K L M O S U V W X Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 047 Byz f13.35 565. 1500. 2224, along with Tischendorf (7th), omit the article. The argument advanced here, drawing on intrinsic evidence of Matthew’s authorial style, favors the omission in genitive contexts, positing that the article’s inclusion in these cases is likely an assimilation to the pattern consistently observed in other grammatical cases (nominative, dative, accusative, vocative).

Lexically, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) provides a comprehensive theological exposition of οὐρανός (heaven) and πατήρ (father). While the article’s presence or absence does not fundamentally alter the core semantic meaning of “heaven” as the divine abode or “Father” as God, it does subtly affect the grammatical nuance. The anarthrous (without article) use of οὐρανοῖς in a prepositional phrase like ἐν οὐρανοῖς can, in certain contexts, emphasize a conceptual realm or a qualitative aspect rather than a specifically delimited physical location. BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Lexicon) further elucidates that οὐρανός refers to “sky, heaven,” and in phrases denoting God’s dwelling, whether ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς or ἐν οὐρανοῖς, it indicates the divine abode. The specific textual debate surrounding τοῖς underscores the intricate nature of Greek articles. Anarthrous nouns in prepositional phrases can sometimes function akin to proper nouns or denote a state of being. The proposed omission of τοῖς in genitive constructions for Matthew might reflect a deliberate stylistic choice to avoid redundancy or to present “heaven” in a more generalized, yet still uniquely divine, sense within this particular grammatical structure, thereby distinguishing it from other case constructions.

Translation Variants

An in-depth analysis of Matthew’s style concerning the construction πατήρ + PRONOUN + ARTICLE + ἐν +/- ARTICLE + οὐρανοῖς reveals a consistent pattern across various grammatical cases. This internal stylistic consistency, particularly evident in indisputable passages, provides a robust criterion for evaluating textual variants in those passages where manuscript evidence is divided.

• Nominative/Vocative Constructions:
  • Examples: ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Matt 5:48; 7:11), Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Matt 6:9), ὁ πατὴρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Matt 16:17).
  • Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis: In these instances, where πατήρ is in the nominative or vocative case, the definite article τοῖς consistently precedes οὐρανοῖς. This usage unequivocally specifies “the Father *who is* in the heavens,” thereby precisely identifying the unique celestial dwelling of the divine Father. The uniformity across these grammatical forms suggests a deliberate authorial choice for clarity and specific spatial identification.
• Dative Constructions:
  • Examples: τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν τῷ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Matt 6:1), τῷ πατρὶ σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ (Matt 6:6, 18).
  • Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis: Analogously, in dative constructions, the article τοῖς (or τῷ for the singular κρυπτῷ) is consistently present. This sustains the precise identification, translating as “to the Father *who is* in the heavens,” reinforcing the established pattern of specific article usage for these cases.
• Accusative Constructions:
  • Example: τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Matt 5:16).
  • Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis: For the accusative case, the article τοῖς is again consistently employed, maintaining the same pattern of specific reference: “your Father *who is* in the heavens.”
• Genitive Constructions (Observed Distinction):
  • Examples: τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν ουρανοῖς (Matt 12:50; 18:10, 19), τοῦ πατρός ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν ουρανοῖς (Matt 18:14).
  • Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis: A crucial distinction emerges in genitive constructions: the article *always* precedes οὐρανοῖς *except* when πατήρ and its accompanying possessive pronoun are *also* in the genitive case (e.g., τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς). In these instances, based on Matthew’s *undisputed* passages, the article τοῖς is consistently *omitted* before οὐρανοῖς. This observation is paramount. The prior presence of the genitive article τοῦ, introducing the entire participial phrase τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, may have rendered a subsequent τοῖς either grammatically redundant or stylistically cumbersome for Matthew. Rhetorically, the anarthrous οὐρανοῖς in this specific construction might serve to emphasize the *quality* or *realm* of the Father’s dwelling, rather than a numerically or spatially delimited instance of “the heavens,” thereby subtly differentiating it from other case constructions. Applying this consistent genitive pattern to the disputable passages (Matt 5:45; 7:21; 10:32, 33) suggests that manuscript additions of τοῖς are likely secondary assimilations to the pattern prevalent in other cases, rather than reflecting Matthew’s original compositional choice. This assimilation hypothesis is further strengthened by the pervasive presence of τοῖς in similar preceding constructions throughout Matthew’s Gospel (5:16, 48; 6:1, 6, 9, 18; 7:11).

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The systematic analysis of Matthew’s “Father in Heaven” constructions reveals a clear stylistic preference: the definite article τοῖς consistently precedes οὐρανοῖς in nominative, dative, and accusative contexts, yet is conspicuously absent when πατήρ is in the genitive case (e.g., τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς). This robust intrinsic evidence strongly indicates that instances where τοῖς is textually attested in genitive constructions (e.g., Matthew 5:45; 7:21; 10:32, 33) represent scribal assimilation to the more common pattern rather than original Matthean authorship. Consequently, translations should endeavor to reflect this nuanced stylistic distinction, prioritizing the anarthrous reading in genitive contexts where textual evidence is divided, thereby honoring Matthew’s distinct literary craftsmanship.

Here are three translation suggestions for Matthew 7:21, crafted to reflect the conclusions of this exegetical study:

1. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”
   • This translation employs a common English idiom, using “in heaven” without an article to broadly refer to the divine abode. This rendering aligns well with the proposed anarthrous Greek reading for genitive constructions, emphasizing a qualitative or general reference to the Father’s dwelling.
2. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father, the one in heaven.”
   • This option highlights the appositional nature of the Greek participial phrase τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς (“the one in heaven”) by introducing a comma. While maintaining an anarthrous “in heaven,” it clarifies the relationship as an attribute of the Father, emphasizing His characteristic location.
3. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my heavenly Father.”
   • This more idiomatic and concise translation uses “heavenly” as an adjective, effectively capturing the sense of the Father’s celestial dwelling without needing to replicate the precise Greek prepositional phrase structure. This rendering aligns with the potential qualitative nuance implied by the anarthrous οὐρανοῖς.