The Lord’s Prayer, also known as the Our Father, is likely the most well-known prayer in Christianity. Found in Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4, this prayer outlines how Jesus taught his disciples to pray. However, there has been some debate over whether the ending of the prayer – specifically the doxology “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” – was original to Jesus’ teaching or added later. Looking at the textual evidence and theological implications provides insight into this discussion.
The Textual Evidence
When examining the original Greek manuscripts of Matthew and Luke, there are differences regarding the ending of the Lord’s Prayer. The earlier and most reliable manuscripts do not contain the doxology, while later manuscripts include it (Metzger 1994, 23). Specifically:
- Matthew – the doxology is not found in early manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, or the Beatty papyri. It appears in later manuscripts like Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi.
- Luke – the doxology is absent from all Greek manuscripts before the 6th century CE.
Most scholars believe the doxology was not part of the original version of the prayer, but was added early on by scribes and copyists, likely due to liturgical influence. The early church typically ended prayers with doxologies like this. So it is thought over time it was incorporated into the biblical text (Hagner 1993, 148).
In addition to the Greek manuscripts, evidence from early church writings also omit the doxology when quoting the Lord’s Prayer. Sources like the Didache and writings of Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian leave it out (Carson 2010, 170). The earliest source to include it is the late 4th century Apostolic Constitutions.
Based on the textual evidence, most Bible translations do not include the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer, at least not in the main text. Some translations move it to a footnote (ESV, NIV, NRSV) while others omit it altogether (NASB, NLT). This reflects the scholarly consensus that Matthew did not originally include it.
Theological Implications
Beyond the textual considerations, some theologians argue against including the doxology because it goes against Matthew’s theological emphasis in the Sermon on the Mount. In this sermon, Jesus is correcting misconceptions about the kingdom of heaven and humility before God. The doxology implies the kingdom already belongs to the Father and exalts His name. But an inaugurated eschatology where God’s kingdom is already here in full was not accurate to Jesus’ teaching, where the kingdom was still in the future (Luz 2007, 376). Jesus taught the kingdom was “at hand” or near, but not fully realized yet. So some scholars believe adding a doxology about the kingdom detracts from Matthew’s message.
On the other side, some theologians think including the doxology better fits the theology and emphasis of Matthew’s gospel. The theme of Jesus as the merciful divine king emerges throughout the book, so an exaltation of God’s eternal kingdom aligns with this. It also elevates the status and divine authority of Jesus, which Matthew emphasizes (Hagner 1993, 148). So although strong textual evidence is against it, there are theological reasons for its inclusion.
Liturgical Tradition
From early on, the doxology was used to conclude the Lord’s Prayer liturgically during worship services. This practice contributed to its addition into biblical manuscripts over time. Even today, it is included when the Lord’s Prayer is recited corporately in church traditions from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. Although not original to the text itself, it has a long history in Christian liturgy and worship.
Several factors help explain its widespread liturgical use. The practice of ending prayers with doxologies was common in Jewish worship and early Christian worship. Its trinitarian nature resonated with Christian theology. And it elevated God, aligning with priorities in corporate worship. For these reasons, most Christian traditions have maintained the doxology in their liturgical reciting of the prayer (McKnight 2017, 146). So although likely not authentic to Matthew 6, it carries liturgical and traditional significance.
English Bible Translations
Given the mixed evidence, how different English Bible translations handle the doxology varies:
- Omit it – NASB, NLT, ESV (in text)
- Include it in brackets or italics – NRSV, NIV
- Include it without brackets – KJV, NKJV
- Include it as footnote – ESV, NRSV, NIV
Some translations remain closer to the earliest manuscripts by leaving it out entirely. Others compromise by retaining it but marking it as a later addition. And more traditional versions continue to include it fully in the text.
Conclusion
In summary, several lines of evidence help explain the debate around the ending of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:
- Textual evidence suggests the doxology was not part of Matthew’s original manuscript.
- However, it gained wide liturgical use early on in Christian worship.
- Theologically, reasonable cases can be made both for and against its inclusion.
- Given this, English translations handle it in different ways.
So while strong textual evidence points to the doxology as a later scribal addition, its theological beauty and traditional liturgical role still make it a cherished part of the Lord’s Prayer for many Christians today.