AN ANALYSIS OF JOHN OWEN’S VIEW OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT

I. INTRODUCTION

In this paper, I will seek to examine John Owen’s thought on the Mosaic covenant, which is generally understood as a bilateral covenant between God and Israel at the time when Moses was the human leader of the Israelites, thus termed the Mosaic covenant. Sometimes it is called Sinaitic covenant because this covenant was given at Mount Sinai. Owen however calls this covenant the old covenant in contrast to the new or better covenant of Hebrews 8.[1] This sometimes confuses readers because Owen also uses the same term to refer to the covenant of works.[2] In this treatise, however, while the terms Mosaic, Sinaitic, and old covenants are synonymous, I will employ the former.

In understanding Owen’s view of the Mosaic covenant, readers should humbly realize the presence of predicament. In the first place, Owen’s writings themselves are complicated to read and grasp. This is especially true for those who study him without proper knowledge of the historical background in which he penned his volumes. These people often end up with a wrong conclusion about Owen’s view of the Mosaic covenant. Hence, specialists of Owen strongly suggest scrutinizing Owen according to his historical context.[3] Richard C. Barcellos, in his article—“John Owen and New Covenant Theology,” states:

It must also be recognized that some things he [Owen] said are difficult to understand. Some statements may even appear to contradict other statements if he is not followed carefully and understood in light of his comprehensive thought and the Reformation and Post-Reformation Protestant Scholastic world in which he wrote.

If one reads some of the difficult sections of Owen’s writings, either without understanding his comprehensive thought and in light of the theological world in which he wrote, or in a superficial manner, some statements can easily be taken to mean things they do not. When this is done, the result is that authors are misunderstood and sometimes, subsequent theological movements are aligned with major historical figures without substantial and objective warrant.[4]  

Then Barcellos cites John Reisinger as an example of one who has misinterpreted Owen’s understanding of the old covenant (i.e. Mosaic covenant). Remember that Reisinger is an advocate of the new covenant theology, and he believes that Owen also held his same view. But Barcellos has tried to disprove it in his article. Indeed, many writers have misconstrued Owen’s covenant theology; mostly the misapprehension arises from the question whether Owen’s Mosaic covenant falls under the covenant of works or under the covenant of grace, and how Owen understands the Mosaic covenant in relation to the covenant of works and grace.   

II. BRIEF HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF PURITAN UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT

Before I present Owen’s thought concerning the relationship of the Mosaic covenant to the covenants of works and grace, I will first take an historical look at various views about this issue. As we shall see later, Puritans were divided on this matter. Listen to Edmund Calamy (1600-1666), a Puritan divine and active member of the Westminster assembly, who wrote a book on the subject of covenants in which he dialogued with other Puritans:

There be severall opinions about the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of grace, to the great disturbance of many Christians; some hold that there be foure Covenants, two of Works, and two of Grace; the two first, one with Adam before the fall, and the other with Israel at their returne out of AEgypt, and the Covenants of Grace the first to Abraham, and the other at the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; this M. Sympson affirmed before a Committee of the Assembly of Divines in my hearing.     2. Others hold that there is but three Covenants; the first with Adam, the second with Israel at their going out of AEgypt, and a third with Jesus Christ, the two first of Workes, and the last of Grace, and this M. Burroughes delivered in his Exposition Sermon in Cornhill in my hearing.     3. Others hold that there is but two Covenants, the one of Works, and the other of Grace; yet the first they hold was made with Israel at Mount Sinai, and no Covenant of workes before that, and now it is vanished away, and the other a Covenant of grace yet not made till the death of Christ the testator, and this is affirmed by James Pope, in a Book entituled, the unveiling of Antichrist.     4. Others hold that the Law at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of grace, implying that there is more then one Covenant of grace, and this is affirmed by Mr. Anthony Burgesse in his Vindication of the Morall Law the 24. Lecture, text the 4. of Deuteronomy.     5. Others with my selfe hold that there is but two Covenants, the one a Covenant of Workes, and the tree of life, was a Sacrament or signe and token of it, this was made with Adam before his fall…But then there was a Covenant of grace which God the Father made with Jesus Christ from all eternity to save some of the posterity of Adam….[5]

Calamy’s statement suggests that there are at least three views among the Puritans about the Mosaic covenant relating to the covenants of works and the covenant of grace.  The first view is that the Mosaic covenant belongs to the covenant of works. Observe what he says: “some hold that there be foure Covenants, two of Works, and two of Grace; the two first, one with Adam before the fall, and the other with Israel at their returne out of AEgypt.” Here he is telling his readers that those Puritans, who believed that there were four covenants, incorporated the Sinaitic covenant to the covenant of works. This is also his appeal in his second and third points. Puritans who held to this first view were Symson,[6] Jeremiah Burroughes, and James Pope.  The second view that we find in Calamy’s observation is that the Mosaic covenant is simply a covenant of grace. Notice what he mentions in his fourth point: “Others hold that the Law at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of grace,” which according to him was Anthony Burgesse’s position. The third view is that of Calamy itself who argued that there are only two covenants: works and grace, and believed that the Mosaic covenant did not belong to either the covenant of works or to the covenant of grace. He said: “Some object and say the Law at Mount Sinai was a covenant of grace, and others say it was a covenant of works, but I shall prove that it was neither.”[7] To him the Mosaic covenant was “only given to those that were in covenant as a rule of obedience.”[8] By this he means that the Sinaitic law was given to the Israelites who were already in God’s covenant, and was given to them as a rule of obedience. He explains it this way: 

Thus they were in covenant before the rule of obedience was given, for the Law is not of faith, but the man that doth them shall live in them, Gal. 3:12. that is, he that obeyeth that rule being in the new covenant by faith in Christ shall live, yet not for his doing but for his believing, Rev. 5:1, 2; Gal. 3:26. it was given as a glasse to see their sin, James 1:23, 24, 25. by the Law is the knowledge of sin, see Rom. 3:20; 7:7. it was given them as a schoolemaster to drive them to Christ, Gal. 3.24. as the pursuer of blood drove the murtherer to the City of refuge, Joshua 20:3. then the Law at Sinai cannot be a covenant of grace.[9]         

What I want to point out here is that the Puritans were not united in their understanding of the Mosaic covenant. We have seen three different positions so far: (1) the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works; (2) the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of grace; and (3) the Mosaic covenant as neither a covenant of works, nor a covenant of grace. This I call a ‘neither-nor position.’ Ferguson calls this third view a ‘mediating position,’ which, according to him is what Owen adopted.[10] To quote Ferguson: “In company with a number of others, he [Owen] adopted a third, mediating position.”[11] Ferguson’s statement suggests that there were other Puritans who adopted the same position that Owen did. But the problem in this statement is that it assumes that these ‘other Puritans’ had exactly the same view as Owen, which may not be absolutely true.[12] It appears that not all Puritans who held the mediating position had exactly the same perception concerning the Mosaic covenant. There were diversities of opinions even among those who favored the mediating position. Thus, this mediating position should be further classified. Ernest F. Kevan comments: “It is not possible to make an accurate classification of the Puritans on the basis of their views about the Mosaic Covenant, because many of them held several of the different views in varying combinations.”[13] In fact, in the writings of Anthony Burgess, there seems to be another view, that is, the Mosaic covenant is a “mixt covenant of works and grace,” which for Burgess, “is hardly to be understood as possible, much lesse as true.”[14] But this mixed view[15] may simply be another way of saying the ‘neither-nor position.’ Because even those who said that the Mosaic covenant was neither a covenant of works, nor a covenant of grace, found elements of truth from both the covenants of works and grace in the Mosaic covenant. In this sense, the Mosaic covenant is a mixed covenant of both works and grace.

I will not go further in elaborating the different views held by the Puritans, but rather address my main concern in this paper—how did Owen understand the Mosaic covenant in relationship to the covenants of work and grace?   

III. EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF OWEN’S MAJOR WRITING ON THE MOSAIC COVENANT

There is no better way to determine Owen’s thought on the Mosaic covenant than to peruse his writings themselves. Such a task requires great diligence, considering that Owen’s writings are voluminous. However, since this paper is not intended to be lengthy, what I will do as I investigate Owen’s view on the Mosaic covenant is to focus on Owen’s exposition of the epistle of Hebrews, particularly his exposition of Hebrews 8 where he extensively elucidates the Mosaic covenant.

Owen is convinced that the old covenant, which the author of Hebrews had in mind, refers to the Mosaic covenant: “The other covenant or testament here [i.e. in Heb 8:6] supposed, whereunto that whereof the Lord Jesus Christ was the mediator is preferred, is none other but that which God made with the people of Israel on mount Sinai.”[16] Previously, he has mentioned that this other covenant cannot be the covenant of works: “This is the covenant of works, absolutely the old, or first covenant that God made with men. But this is not the covenant here intended [i.e. in Heb 8].”[17] And to him, the new or better covenant in Hebrews 8 belongs generally to the covenant of grace: “This [the better covenant] can be no other in general but that which we call ‘the covenant of grace’ And it is so called in opposition unto that of ‘works,’ which was made with us in Adam; for these two, grace and works, do divide the ways of our relation unto God, being diametrically opposite, and every way inconsistent...”[18]

Here we observe the following: first, Owen calls the covenant at Mount Sinai ‘the other covenant or testament.’ This may imply that besides the two covenants (works and grace) that he has touched on, there is yet another covenant, the Mosaic covenant. We find also from his writings that he believed in the idea of a covenant of redemption. In reference to the covenant of grace, he asserts: “it was virtually administered from the foundation of the world, in the way of a promise.”[19] This is basically the notion of a covenant of redemption. Thus, Ferguson’s analysis that Owen has four covenants (redemption, works, Mosaic Covenant, and grace) is right.[20]

 Second, this Mosaic covenant cannot be a covenant of works, nor can it be a covenant of grace, since what Owen considers the covenant of grace[21] is the better or new covenant. Hence, Owen falls under the neither-nor position category. But this idea should be explained more fully. Third, as I have already mentioned in my introduction, Owen uses the term ‘old covenant’ for the covenant of works. This is somewhat perplexing, since in other pages he employs that same term for the Mosaic covenant.[22] However, we should not conclude that the Mosaic covenant is the old covenant of works, for Owen is very clear that it is not. How then does he understand the Mosaic covenant?

Owen notes that “the way of reconciliation with God, of justification and salvation, was always one and the same; and that from the giving of the first promise none was ever justified or saved but by the new covenant, and Jesus Christ, the mediator thereof.”[23] He adds: “the writings of the Old Testament, namely, the Law, Psalms, and Prophets, do contain and declare the doctrine of justification and salvation by Christ.”[24] To Owen then the Mosaic covenant cannot be a covenant of works, simply because in the Mosaic covenant salvation was through the work of the Lord Jesus Christ and not through the work of obedience of man as in the ‘do this and live’ principle of the covenant of works. The Mosaic covenant was not given for saving purposes. Owen asserts: “by the covenant of Sinai, as properly so called, separated from its figurative relation unto the covenant of grace, none was ever eternally saved.”[25] He further explains: “This covenant thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally.”[26] In this way, Owen disagrees with other divines who regarded the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works.

Owen also states that “the use of all the institutions whereby the old covenant [i.e. Mosaic covenant] was administered was to present and direct unto Jesus Christ, and his mediation.”[27] Thus for Owen the Mosaic covenant was given to point sinners to Christ through all its institutions. He goes on to say: “That this other covenant [i.e. the Mosaic covenant], with all the worship contained in it or required by it, did not divert from, but direct and lead unto, the future establishment of the promise in the solemnity of a covenant, by the ways mentioned.”[28] To put it this way, Owen understands the Mosaic covenant as a subservient covenant to the covenant of grace.[29] As such, he is with Samuel Bolton, who concludes “that there was no end or use for which the law was given, but such as was consistent with grace and serviceable to the advancement of the covenant of grace.”[30] 

Owen also does not favor the view of other divines that the Mosaic covenant was just a different administration of the covenant of grace. He argues: “But this [i.e. the Mosaic covenant] was so different from that which is established in the gospel after the coming of Christ, that it hath the appearance and name of another covenant.”[31] Then he concludes: “Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely, to be intended.”[32] Owen therefore sees the Mosaic covenant as a separate covenant, “made with a particular design, and with respect unto particular ends.”[33] This Mosaic covenant is particular[34] because it “was never intended to be of itself the absolute rule and law of life and salvation unto the church.”[35] It is another covenant, with a particular design, which is to guide sinners to the new or gospel covenant, as Owen writes: “[it] was given of God for this very end, that it might lead and direct men unto Christ.”[36]

Concerning the Mosaic covenant’s relation to the covenant of works, Owen notes that “this covenant at Sinai did not abrogate or disannul that covenant [i.e. of works], nor any way fulfil it.”[37] However, he believes that the Mosaic covenant “re-enforced, established, and confirmed that covenant [of works].”[38] He explains it in three ways:

[1.] It revived, declared, and expressed all the commands of that covenant [of works] in the decalogue; for that is nothing but a divine summary of the law in the heart of man at his creation.

[2.] It revived the sanction of the first covenant, in the curse or sentence of death which it denounced against all transgressors. Death was the penalty of the transgression of the first covenant: “In the day that thou eatest, thou shalt die the death.” And this sentence was revived and represented anew in the curse wherewith this covenant was ratified, “Curse be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,” Deut. Xxvii. 26; Gal. iii. 10.

[3.] It revived the promise of that covenant,—that of eternal life upon perfect obedience.[39]

Hence, later Owen speaks that in the Mosaic covenant there is a “revival and representation of the covenant of works, with its sanction and curse;”[40] and that in connection to the covenant of grace, there is a “direction of the church unto the accomplishment of the promise.”[41]  

IV. CONCLUSION

Owen has a unique understanding of the Mosaic covenant. He calls it old covenant, in contrast to the new or better covenant, and that these two “differ in their substance and end.”[42] “The old covenant was typical, shadowy, and removal, Heb. X. 1. The new covenant is substantial and permanent, as containing the body, which is Christ.”[43] However, Owen sees a connection between these two covenants, that the old covenant functions as a subservient covenant to the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace, although not absolutely. Yet, one must understand that when Owen speaks of the Mosaic covenant as a serviceable covenant to the covenant of grace, what he means is not the covenant of grace promised after the fall, but the covenant of grace established in the death of Christ, which he sometimes calls the gospel covenant.[44] Therefore, to Owen, the Mosaic covenant is subservient to the gospel covenant; that is, this Mosaic covenant is another covenant whose ultimate end is to guide sinners to the gospel of Christ.      

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bolton, Samuel. The True Bonds of Christian Freedom, 1645; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of

        Truth Trust, 2001.      

Calamy, Edmund. Two Solemne Covenants Made between God and Man. London: Printed for

        Thomas Banks, 1647.

Coxe, Nehemiah, et al. Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ. Palmdale, CA: Reformed

        Baptist Academic Press, 2005.  

Ferguson, Sinclair B. John Owen on the Christian Life. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987.

Kevan, Ernest Frederick. The Grace of Law; A Study in Puritan Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker

        Book House, 1965.

Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 22. Edited by William Goold. Edinburgh: The

        Banner of Truth Trust, 1991.

                                                                                                                                                           

Trueman, Carl R. The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology. Cumbria, U.K.:

        Paternoster Press, 1998.   

                                                                                   

---

      [1] John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), XXII: 49, 61.  

      [2] Ibid., 61. 

      [3] See “Owen in Context” of Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Cumbria, U.K.: Paternoster Press, 1998), 1-44.  

      [4] Richard C. Barcellos, “John Owen and New Covenant Theology: Owen on the Old and New Covenants and the Functions of the Decalogue in Redemptive History in Historical and Contemporary Perspective” in Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ ed. Roland D. Miller, et al. (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), 1.

     [5] Edmund Calamy, Two Solemne Covenants Made between God and Man (London: Printed for Thomas Banks, 1647), 1 (italics his). 

     [6] Calamy has not specified whether this Symson is Archibald or Patrick.  

     [7] Calamy, 8 (italics his).

     [8] Ibid.

      [9] Ibid.

     [10] Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 28.

     [11] Ibid.

     [12] Ferguson gives one Puritan example, Samuel Bolton, who had the same basic view of Owen. But strictly speaking, the two differ in so far as their understanding of the covenant of grace and its relationship to the Mosaic covenant (see footnotes 20 & 27). Nevertheless, Ferguson’s statement would have been stronger if he had given more than one example.     

     [13] Ernest Frederick Kevan, The Grace of Law; A Study in Puritan Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), 113.

     [14] Cited in E. F. Kevan, The Grace of Law, 113.  

     [15] Samuel Bolton also mentions the mixed view: “For the clearing of these difficulties, let it be said that divines have distinguished between various kinds of covenants. Some of them have set down these three: a covenant of nature [i.e. works], a covenant of grace, a mixed kind of covenant consisting of nature and grace.” Samuel Bolton, The True Bonds of Christian Freedom, 1645; reprint, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2001), 89.    

     [16] Owen, Works, XXII: 63.

     [17] Ibid., 61. 

     [18] Ibid. (italics his). 

     [19] Ibid., 64.

     [20] Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 22. I am aware that I have not really proven that Owen believes in the covenants of redemption, works and grace. I have intentionally refrained from discussing this matter, since this is not my main purpose in this treatise. See Ferguson’s John Owen on the Christian Life, pp. 22-25.

     [21] Owen further regards this better covenant “not as absolutely the covenant of grace, but as actually established in the death of Christ, with all the worship that belongs unto it” (XXII: 69,). Owen then makes a distinction between the covenant of grace and the better or new covenant. He asserts: “When we speak of the ‘new covenant,’ we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though that were not before in being and efficacy, before the introduction of that which is promised in this place” (XII: 74; italics his). Ferguson explains this: “He [Owen] argues for a distinction to be made between the covenant of grace and the new covenant, in terms of salvation in Christ as a principle and a promise, and salvation in Christ established in historical redemption” (Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 30; italic his).  

     [22] Ibid., 49, 64, 70. Owen, however, clarifies, in the context of Hebrews 8, that he does not use the term old covenant to mean the covenant of works. He says: “When we speak of the ‘old covenant,’ we intend not the covenant of works made with Adam, and his whole posterity in him” (XII: 74; italics his).     

     [23] Ibid., 71 (italics his).

     [24] Ibid., (italics his).  

     [25] Ibid.

     [26] Ibid., 85.

     [27] Ibid.

     [28] Ibid., 75 (italics his). The ‘promise’ Owen has in mind is the one “given unto our first parents immediately after the entrance of sin” (Ibid., 78). 

     [29] But one needs to remember that when Owen speaks of the covenant of grace in the context of Hebrews 8, he means not the covenant of grace absolutely, but that which was established in the death of Christ, which he also calls the gospel covenant (XXII: 76). In this sense, Owen differs from Bolton, who makes no distinction between the covenant of grace and the new or better covenant in connection to the Mosaic covenant. See footnote 21. 

     [30] Bolton, 109.

     [31] Owen, XXII: 71.

     [32] Ibid., 76 (italics his).

     [33] Ibid., 77.

     [34] Owen employs the word ‘particular’ to mean that the Mosaic covenant was not given as a general rule to the church (XXII: 77). 

     [35] Ibid.

     [36] Ibid., 81.

     [37] Ibid., 77.

     [38] Ibid.

     [39] Ibid., 77-78 (italics his).

     [40] Ibid., 80.

     [41] Ibid.

     [42] Ibid., 96. 

     [43] Ibid.

     [44] See footnotes 21 and 29.

The Lord’s Prayer: A Set Form or a Pattern or Both? A Brief Look at the Attitude of the Puritans toward this Issue (outline)

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Panorama of the Lord’s Prayer from Church Fathers to Puritans

III. Puritan Perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer

     A. The Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form

     B. The Lord’s Prayer as a pattern only

     C. The Lord’s Prayer as an exceptionally God-given form

IV. Conclusion

      Bibliography

(To read the entire article, click this.) 

The Lord’s Prayer: A Set Form or a Pattern or Both? A Brief Look at the Attitude of the Puritans toward this Issue

I. Introduction

When Jesus says, “After this manner therefore pray ye,” what does he mean? Is he telling his disciples to pray the exact words of the Lord’s Prayer, or is he telling them to just use this Prayer as a pattern, or perhaps both? Is the Lord’s Prayer a set form (an order of words to pray) or a pattern (a sample of prayer) or both? I will deal with these questions in this article, particularly focusing on how the Puritans understood those words of Jesus. In the first part of this treatise, I will briefly survey some works on the Lord’s Prayer from church fathers to Puritans, and in the second part, I will address my main objective—to see how the Puritans interpreted this Prayer insofar as the questions that I have mentioned are concerned. At the end, I will briefly state my personal perspective regarding this controversy, and give some practical implications of this study.    

II. Panorama of the Lord’s Prayer from Church Fathers to Puritans

In his article, The Lord’s Prayer in the First Century, Simon J. Kistemaker observes: “Admittedly the evidence relating to the Lord’s prayer in the first centuries of the Christian era is sparse. Yet valuable background information may be gleaned from sources including Qumran, Judaism, and even Scripture itself. Source material from the early Church is very limited. Besides the evidence in the Didache and references in the writings of the apostolic fathers, virtually no information is available.”[1] However, as D. Richard Stuckwisch says: “Treatises on the Our Father [i.e. the Lord’s Prayer] – whether in the form of catecheses, sermons, lectures, or written commentaries – are not uncommon in the history of the church, especially after the fourth century.”[2] Church father Tertullian, for example, wrote a tract called On Prayer[3] (circa A. D. 192), where he expounded the Lord’s Prayer. Origen’s On Prayer[4] (circa A. D. 233) also contains an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. Likewise, Cyprian had a treatise On the Lord’s Prayer[5] (circa A. D. 252). And as it has been pointed out already, other church fathers touched on the Lord’s Prayer in their catechetical lectures, sermons, and commentaries of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.[6] Medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas also devoted pages on this Prayer.[7] Similarly, the Reformers treated it in their writings. Luther elucidated it in his An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for the Simple Laymen[8] (1519), Personal Prayer Book[9] (1522), Large and Small Catechisms (1530), and A Simple Way to Pray[10] (1535). Calvin discussed it in his Institute of the Christian Religion[11], and gave comments on it in his Harmony of the Gospels.[12]

References to the Lord’s Prayer are also scattered in the writings of the Puritans. The Westminster Assembly’s Larger[13] and Shorter[14] Catechisms, which were composed by Westminster Divines, have sections on it. And some Puritan works on the Lord’s Prayer available today were products of an exposition of that Shorter Catechism. Thomas Watson’s The Lord’s Prayer[15] is an example of this. John Flavel also spelled it out in his An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism.[16] Similarly, William Fenner,[17] Richard Baker,[18] and Robert Hill[19] did treatises on it in the form of catechism. John Dod[20] and Lancelot Andrewes[21] had preached on it, and later their sermons were published.  And Puritan commentators like Matthew Henry[22] and Matthew Poole[23] gave notes on it in their commentaries of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

This brief survey shows that the Lord’s Prayer was not ignored among church fathers, medieval theologians, Reformers, and Puritans. I will now go to my main mission in this paper—to analyze how the Puritans understood this Prayer. But again it is not my purpose to expound this Prayer; rather, my intention is just to know how these Puritans interpreted the Lord’s Prayer’s preface:[24] “After this manner therefore pray ye.”[25]   

  

III. Puritan Perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer

Puritans were not united in their understanding of the Lord’s Prayer. Some would say that this Prayer is only a pattern or a model that needs not to be repeated. Others would claim that while it is a pattern, it is also a form, and thus can be recited as a prayer itself to God. Basically, there are three Puritan perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer.

A. The Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form

The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks: “What rule hath God given for our direction in prayer?” Then it answers: “The whole word of God is of use to direct us in prayer; but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples, commonly called The Lord’s Prayer.”[26]  Here it is suggested that the Lord’s Prayer is both a pattern (“special rule of direction”) and a form (“form of prayer”). It is important to note that not all Puritans were against the use of forms of prayer. Richard Baxter, for instance, published written prayers called Forms of Prayer and Praises, for the use of Ignorant Families that need them.[27] Similarly, Matthew Henry wrote “Some short Forms of Prayer, for the use of those who may not be able to collect for themselves out of the foregoing Materials.”[28] But it needs to be said that Baxter and Henry were not part of the Westminster Assembly. However, since most of the members of this Assembly were Presbyterians, it is not a surprise that the Shorter Catechism regards the Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form; because, even if the Presbyterian Divines believed this Prayer to be a pattern, they used it as a form in their public worship.[29] Though, Edmund Calamy tells us that in the early eighteenth century, not all Presbyterians employed this Prayer in public worship:[30]

‘Some ministers use the Lord’s Prayer constantly, others frequently, others seldom or never, as reckoning it rather given for a Directory, than to be used as a Form.’[31] 

The Larger Catechism further confirms our point that the Shorter Catechism regards the Lord’s Prayer as not only a pattern, but also a form:

How is the Lord’s prayer to be used? The Lord’s prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern, according to which we are to make other prayers; but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer.[32]

While the Larger Catechism does not explicitly proclaim that the Lord’s Prayer is a form, it permits the use of this Prayer as a prayer itself. This point is also seen in The Directory for the Public Worship of God of the Westminster Assembly:

And because the prayer which Christ taught his disciples is not only a pattern of prayer, but itself a most comprehensive prayer, we recommend it also to be used in the prayers of the church.[33]

It now becomes clearer that the Westminster Divines understood the Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form. The use of this Prayer as a form, though not commanded, is commended, and even recommended.  However, aware of the danger of its use as a form, Puritan Divines[34] like John Flavel warns:

That form of words may be lawfully used, but it is plain its intention was to regulate our petitions by it; and therefore they that use it in spells and charms, as the Papist; or those that think nothing is prayer, but that form of words; abuse Christ’s intention in it.[35]

Flavel is convinced that the Lord’s Prayer is a pattern; however, he is not totally against its use as a form so long that it is not abused. This is also the position of Matthew Poole:  

Not always in these words [of the Lord’s Prayer], but always to this sense, and in this manner. None ever thought Christians obliged to use no other words than these in prayer, though none must deny the lawfulness of using those words which Christ hath sanctified.[36]

Here two things can be detected. First, the Westminster Divines not only allow the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, but recommend it also. Second, other Puritan Divines, such as Flavel and Poole, while persuaded that this Prayer is a pattern, permit its use as a form, given that it is not abused. Nevertheless, what is important to know here is that some Puritans regarded the Lord’s Prayer not only as a pattern but also as a form.

B. The Lord’s Prayer as a pattern only  

While some Puritans approved the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, others did not. John Bunyan, for example, argues:

As to that called a form, I cannot think that Christ intended it [the Lord’s Prayer] as a stinted form of prayer. He himself lays it down diversely, as is to be seen, if you compare Matt. 6 with Luke 11. Whereas, if he intended it as a set form, it would not have been so laid down, for a set form is so many words and no more. We do not find that the apostles ever observed it as such; neither did they admonish others to do so…. Christ by those words, ‘Our Father, &c.’, instructs his people what rules they should observe in their prayers to God…[37]

So for Bunyan, the Lord’s Prayer is just a pattern given to instruct “his [Christ’s] people what rules they should observe in their prayers to God.”[38] Bunyan strongly rejects any forms of prayer. In fact, his treatise—I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also is an attack on the use of any set of prayer, especially the forms found in the Book of Common Prayer. Bunyan insists that prayer should be spontaneous from the heart. It is also worth mentioning that his total rejection of the use of any forms is a result of his pneumatological emphasis on prayer. For him to pray with these forms is to tie up the Holy Spirit to them: 

We ought to prompt one another to prayer, though we ought not to make forms of prayer for each other. To exhort to pray with Christian direction is one thing, and to make stinted forms for tying up the Spirit of God to them is another thing. The apostle gives Christians no form in which to pray, yet directs to prayer (Eph. 6.8; Rom. 15. 30-32). Let no man therefore conclude, that because we may give instructions and directions to pray, therefore it is lawful to make forms of prayer for each other.[39]  

Bunyan therefore disagrees with the Westminster Divines’ view on the Lord’s Prayer. In addition to his disagreement with the Westminster Divines, he also differs from the position of Flavel and Poole who tolerate the practice of this Prayer as a set form. Bunyan is convinced that this Prayer is only a pattern. William Fenner shares Bunyan’s sentiment, but he is not as strict as Bunyan as we can see later. Fenner gives six reasons why this Prayer should not be taken as a set form:  

First, because the Apostles prayed in other words, and did more specialize their Petition, Act.1.24.

Secondly, this prayer is diversly set downe by the Evangelists, one way in one, Math.6.11. another way in Luke, Luke.11.3. one way in one, Math.6.12. another way in the other, Luke 11.4.

Thirdly, who knowes this is all that Christ uttered, John.21.25. we see plainely Mathew sets down more, than Luke doth; it may be Christ spake more that either hath expressed, Math.6.13.

Fourthly, Christ himself did not use these very words ever, when he would pray Lazarus alive, he did not say the Lords prayer over the grave, Joh.11.41. when he would pray for his Apostles, he did not say the Lords prayer over them, John.17.1.

Fiftly, our speciall sinnes and wants, doe require that we should pray more specially then so, 2 Kings.19.15.

Sixtly, we read of praying all night, we cannot think that the Lords prayer was said over and over againe and againe Luke.6.12. we are to continue in prayer, what by going over and over the Lords prayer? No, Col.4.2. neither is it necessary to conclude our prayers with this, Act.4.30. and yet we may if we will, Luke.11.2. neither is there any thing against it. No, though it be Scripture, the same thing may be Scripture and the word of God, and yet the prayer of a man, Psal.90.12.[40]     

In Fenner’s sixth point it is noticeable that he does not strictly or completely prohibit the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form. Listen to him again:

we are to continue in prayer, what by going over and over the Lords prayer? No, Col.4.2. neither is it necessary to conclude our prayers with this, Act.4.30. and yet we may if we will, Luke.11.2. neither is there any thing against it. No, though it be Scripture, the same thing may be Scripture and the word of God, and yet the prayer of a man, Psal.90.12. [41]

Thus while Fenner does not concur with the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, he does not see anything wrong if one concludes his prayer with it. Though he argues that ending our prayer with this Prayer is not necessary, and yet we may if we will; and then, he gives a supporting verse—Luke 11: 2: “When ye pray, say….” Citing this verse implies that Fenner takes the Lord’s Prayer in Luke as a form. This interpretation is also held by John Dod, who believes that the Lord’s Prayer is both a form and a pattern. But this is how he justifies his view:  

The Evangelist Mathew being to set down the holy Prayer, saith after this manner, Therefore pray you: but in Luke it is, when you pray, say The difference  betweene the Evangelists is thus reconciled, that St. Mathew makes it a forme[42] or patterne according to which all our prayers and praises are to bee directed: and St. Luke proposes it as an excellent and heavenly prayer to be used by all Gods servants. Whence we learne that the Lord’s prayer, is both a forme and patterne to guide us in prayer, and a prayer itselfe.[43]    

Dod then understands the Lord’s Prayer in two ways—in Luke it is a form, while in Matthew it is a pattern. So both Fenner and Dod take the Prayer in Luke as a form, an argument that Fenner himself uses to open the door for the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form. Moreover, Fenner allows the utterance of this Prayer, because for him there is not anything against it. Then, he explains why: “Though it be Scripture, the same thing may be Scripture and the word of God, and yet the prayer of man, Psal.90.12.” His point is that we can pray this Prayer, and make it our own prayer. It is just like quoting other Bible verses in our prayer. But again as Fenner appeals: “neither is it necessary to conclude our prayers with this.”[44] Robert Hill puts it this way:

Is it necessary ever to repeat all this prayer? It is surely a good conclusio[n] for our ordinary course of praying both publikely and privatly, because those things which we cannot at such times crave, or give thanks for in particular, are all contained in this platforme: but that every petition should ever be used, it is not necessary.[45]

Hence, while Fenner and Hill admit that nothing is wrong in the use of this Prayer as a form, for them, to do so is not necessary. This presupposes that Puritans who take the Lord’s Prayer as a pattern only, can be further  narrowly categorized into two: one who is extreme (Bunyan), and other who is moderate (Fenner). The former will prohibit absolutely the use of the Prayer as a form, while the latter will make arguments against, but are tolerant.    

C. The Lord’s Prayer as an exceptionally God-given form

One unique Puritan perspective on the Lord’s Prayer is that of John Owen, who like Bunyan, gave a strong pneumatological emphasis on prayer. In fact, Owen’s treatise, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer (1682), is similar in nature to Bunyan’s I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also (1662). Like Bunyan, Owen also defended the practice of free, or extemporaneous, prayers: “We are expressly commanded to pray, but are nowhere commanded to make prayers for ourselves, much less for others.”[46] Owen adds:

There is assistance promised unto believers to enable them to pray according unto the will of God; there is no assistance promised to enable any to make prayers for others.[47]

However, Owen, who differs on this point from Bunyan, considers the Lord’s Prayer an exception. For him this Prayer is a God-given form and therefore can be used by the church:

Whatever forms of prayer were given out unto the use of the church by divine authority and inspiration, as the Lord’s Prayer and the Psalms or Prayers of David, they are to have their everlasting use therein, according unto what they were designed unto.[48]

So while Owen ardently repudiates the use of any set prayers, he sanctions, as an exception the use of the Lord’s Prayer (along with the Psalms or Prayers of David) as a form.   

IV. Conclusion

So far we have looked at three primary Puritan perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer: (1) that it is both a pattern and a form, which the Westminster Divines hold;[49] (2) that it is only a pattern. But as we have noted, this second position can be further boiled down into two classifications: extreme (Bunyan) and moderate (Fenner); and (3) that it is an exceptionally God-given form, held uniquely by Owen.

These various views imply that the subject of prayer is important for the Puritans. This issue that we have been studying may appear insignificant for us, but for the Puritans it is crucial. It is vital for them because of their remarkable concern to fashion their prayer after the Bible. These different views are a result of their struggle to have a ‘perfect’ or scripturally based prayer. How sad it is that today prayer has become less important in the lives of many believers. Many are indifferent about the manner and matter of their prayers. But let us be challenged to really think about our prayers.

What view then do I hold? I personally uphold Fenner’s position. I believe that the Lord’s Prayer (both in Matthew and Luke) is to be taken as a pattern; however, like Fenner, I do not see anything wrong if one uses it as a form in prayer, given that it is not ritually abused. I will also suggest that our prayers ought to be indeed modeled after this Prayer. Doing so provides us two benefits, as Watson beautifully states:  

Let us have a great esteem of the Lord’s prayer; let it be the model and pattern of all our prayers. There is a double benefit arising from framing our petitions suitably to this prayer. Hereby error in prayers is prevented. It is not easy to write wrong after this copy; we cannot easily err when we have our pattern before us. Hereby mercies requested are obtained; for the apostle assures us that God will hear us when we pray ‘according to his will.’ I John V 14. And sure we pray according to his will when we pray according to the pattern he has set us. So much for the introduction to the Lord’s prayer, ‘After this manner pray ye.’[50]

“Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1).

Bibliography

Andrews, Lancelot. The Morall Law Expounded, 1. Largely, 2. Learnedly, 3. Orthodoxl.

        London: Printed for Sparke, Robert Milbourne, Richard Cotes, and Andrew Crooke, 1642.

Baker, Richard. Meditations and Disquisitions upon the Lords Prayer. London: Printed by Anne

         Griffin.

Baxter, Richard. The Poor Man’s Family Book. London: Printed by R. W. for Nevill Simmons,

        1674.

Bunyan, John. Prayer. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005.

Davies, Horton. The Worship of the Puritans. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997.

Dod, John. A Plaine and Familiar Exposition on the Lords Prayer. London: Printed by M. D.,

        1635.

Flavel, John. The Works of John Flavel, vol. 6. Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint

        1997.

  

Fennor, William The Spirituall Mans Directory. London: Printed by T. F. for John Rothwell,

        1651.

Henry, Matthew. A Method for Prayer. Edited by Ligon Duncan. Greenville, SC: Reformed

        Academic Press, 1994.

________. Matthew Henry’s Commentary: Matthew to John. Vol. 5. Hendrickson

        Publishers, Inc., 2003.  

Hill, Robert. The Path-way to Prayer and Pietie. London: Printed by Richard Hodgkinsonne,

        1641.   

Kistemaker, Simon, J. “The Lord Prayer in the First Century,” Journal of the Evangelical

        Theological Society 21 (1978) : 323.   

Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Vo. 4. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967.

Poole, Matthew. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible: Matthew to Revelation. Vol.

        3. Hendrickson Publishers.

Stuckwisch, D. Richard. “Principles of Christian Prayer from the Third Century: A Brief Look at

        Origen, Tertullian and Cyprian With Some Comments on Their Meaning for Today,”

        Worship 71 (1997) : 2.

Watson, Thomas. The Lord’s Prayer. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972. 

Westminster Confession of Faith. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publication, 2001.

---

      [1] Simon J. Kistemaker, “The Lord’s Prayer in the First Century,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (1978) : 323.  

      [2] D. Richard Stuckwisch, “Principles of Christian Prayer from the Third Century: A Brief Look at Origen, Tertullian and Cyprian With Some Comments on Their Meaning for Today,” Worship 71 (1997) : 2.

      [3] Tertullian, “On Prayer,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint, 1989), 681-91.   

      [4] Origen, “On Prayer,” trans. Rowan A. Greer in Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 81-170.

      [5] Cyprian, “On the Lord’s Prayer,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint, 1989), 447-57.  

      [6] For the definitive list of all extant patristic writings on the Lord’s Prayer, see Appendix of Robert L. Simpson, The Interpretation of Prayer in the Early Church (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965), 175-77. 

      [7] Thomas Aquinas, “Whether the Seven Petitions of the Lord’s Prayer are Fittingly Assigned?” in The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, part II, LXXX-C, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD., 1922), 47-50. 

      [8] Martin Luther, “An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for the Simple Laymen,” in Luther’s Works: Devotional Writings 1, vol. 42, ed. Martin O. Dietrich, trans. Martin H. Bertram (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 19-81.   

      [9] Martin Luther, “Personal Prayer Book,” in Luther’s Works: Devotional Writings 2, vol. 43, ed. Gustav K. Wiencke, trans. Martin H.  Bertram (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 29-38.  

     [10] Martin Luther, “A Simple Way to Pray,” in Luther’s Works: Devotional Writings 2, vol. 43, ed. Gustav K. Wiencke, trans. Carl J. Schindler (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 187-211. 

     [11] John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), Book 3, chapter 20, sections 34-49.   

     [12] John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. 1, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. A. W. Morrison (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 204-13. 

     [13] “The Larger Catechism,” in Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; reprint, Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publication, 2001), Questions & Answers 186-196 [hereafter LC Q & A 186-196]. 

     [14] “The Shorter Catechism,” in Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; Glasgow: Free Presbyterian, 2001), Questions & Answers 99-107 [hereafter SC Q & A 99-107].  

     [15] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Prayer (1692; reprint, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972).

     [16] John Flavel, “An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism,” in The Works of John Flavel, vol. 6, (Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint 1997), 293-317.  

     [17] William Fennor, The Spirituall Mans Directory (London: Printed by T. F. for John Rothwell, 1651), 66-106. 

     [18] Richard Baker, Meditations and Disquisitions upon the Lords Prayer (London: Printed by Anne Griffin).

     [19] Robert Hill, The Path-way to Prayer and Pietie (London: Printed by Richard Hodgkinsonne, 1641), 1-212.   

     [20] John Dod, A Plaine and Familiar Exposition on the Lords Prayer (London: Printed by M. D., 1635)1-234.

     [21] Lancelot Andrews, “Nineteen Sermons of His, upon Prayer in Generall, and upon the Lords Prayer in Particular,” in The Morall Law Expounded, 1. Largely, 2. Learnedly, 3. Orthodoxly (London: Printed for Sparke, Robert Milbourne, Richard Cotes, and Andrew Crooke, 1642), 39-136.

     [22] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary: Matthew to John, vol. 5 (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 59-62.

     [23] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible: Matthew to Revelation, vol. 3 (Hendrickson Publishers), 27-28. 

     [24] The Larger and the Shorter Catechisms consider the preface to be “contained in these words, Our Father which art in heaven,” see LC Q & A 189 and SC Q & A 100. However, in this paper, I employ the term ‘preface’ to refer to “After this manner therefore pray ye.”  

     [25] This is the preface found in Matthew 6:9, and I am aware that Luke has a different wording: “When ye pray, say.” Later we will find out that John Dod  interpreted the preface in Luke to mean that the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer is a form, while the Matthean version is a pattern. Therefore, according him, this Prayer is both a patter and a form.

     [26] SC Q & A 99 (italics mine except for The Lord’s Prayer). 

     [27] Richard Baxter, The Poor Man’s Family Book (London: Printed by R. W. for Nevill Simmons, 1674), 346 ff.

     [28] Matthew Henry, A Method for Prayer, ed. Ligon Duncan (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 1994), 209-49.

     [29] Horton Davies, in his book—The Worship of the Puritans, gives a summary of the history of the controversy concerning the use of the Lord’s Prayer: “The History of the discussion tends to show that the more radical Puritans and Separatist regarded the Lord’s Prayer as a pattern and held that it was not intended that it should be repeated. The Anglicans interpreted it as a literal command for the repetition of that particular prayer. The Presbyterians combined both views and therefore held themselves free to repeat it and to model their extemporary prayers on it.” See Horton Davies, The Worship of the Puritans (1948; reprint, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997), 99.        

     [30] Ibid., 101.

     [31] Cited in Ibid.

     [32] LC Q & A 187 (italics mine).

     [33] “The Directory for the Public Worship of God,” in Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; reprint, Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publication, 2001), 382.  

     [34] To avoid confusion, in this paper, I use the term ‘Puritan Divines’ to refer to Puritans who were not part of the Westminster Assembly. 

     [35] John Flavel, Works, 295.

     [36] Matthew Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible, 27. 

     [37] John Bunyan, “I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also,” in Prayer (1662; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), 46.  

     [38] Ibid.  

     [39] Bunyan, Prayer, 44-45.

     [40] William Fennor, The Spirituall Mans Directory, 67. 

     [41] Ibid.

     [42] Dod uses the words ‘form’ and ‘pattern’ synonymously.

     [43] John Dod, A Plaine and Familiar Exposition on the Lords Prayer, 5.

     [44] Fennor, 67.

     [45] Robert Hill, The Path-way to Prayer and Pietie, 5.  

     [46] John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), IV: 240 (italics his).

     [47] Ibid (italics his).

     [48] Ibid (italics his). 

     [49] Matthew Henry also affirms this view: “The Lord’s prayer being intended not only for a form of prayer itself, but a rule of direction, a plan or model in little, by which we may frame our prayers;” see Matthew Henry, A Method for Prayer, 189.  

     [50] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Prayer, 2.