Matthew 6:11

Fourth petition. τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν : whatever the adjective qualifying ἄρτον may mean, it may be taken for granted that it is ordinary bread, food for the body, that is intended. All spiritualising mystical meanings of ἐπιούσιον are to be discarded. This is the one puzzling word in the prayer. It is a ἄπαξ λεγ., not only in O. and N. T., but in Greek literature, as known not only to us, but even to Origen, who (De Oratione, cap. xxvii.) states that it is not found in any of the Greeks, or used by private individuals, and that it seems to be a coinage (ἔοικε πεπλάσθαι) of the evangelists. It is certainly not likely to have proceeded from our Lord. This one word suffices to prove that, if not always, at least in uttering this prayer, Jesus spoke in Aramaean. He would not in such a connection use an obscure word, unfamiliar, and of doubtful meaning. The problem is to account for the incoming of such a word into the Greek version of His doubtless simple, artless, and well-understood saying. The learned are divided as to the derivation of the word, having of course nothing but conjecture to go on. Some derive it from ἐπὶ and οὐσία, or the participle of εἶναι; others from ἐπιέναι, or ἡ ἐπιοῦσα = the approaching day (ἡμέρα understood). In the one case we get a qualitative sense bread for subsistence, bread needed and sufficient (τὰ δέοντα καὶ αὐτάρκη. Proverbs 30:8, Sept [37]); in the other, a temporal bread of the coming day, panem quotidianum (Vulg [38], Luke 11:3), “daily bread”. Either party argues against the other on grammatical grounds, e.g., that derived from οὐσία the word should be ἐπούσιος, and that derived from ἐπιοῦσα it should be ἐπιουσαῖος. In either case the disputants are ready with their answer. Another source of argument is suitableness of the sense. Opponents of the temporal sense say that to pray for to-morrow's bread sins against the counsel, “Take no thought for the morrow,” and that to pray, “Give us to-day our bread of to-morrow,” is absurd (ineptius, Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. ἐπιούσιος). On the other side it is said: Granting that the sense “sufficient” can be got from ἐπὶ, οὐσία, and granting its appropriateness, how comes it that a simpler, better-known word was not chosen to represent so plain a meaning? Early tradition should have an important bearing on the question. Lightfoot, in the appendix on the words ἐπιούσιος and περιούσιος, in his work “On a fresh Revision of the N. T.,” summarises the evidence to this effect: Most of the Greeks follow Origen, who favoured derivation from οὐσία. But Aramaic Christians put for ἐπιούσιος Mahar = crastinum. (Jerome comm. in Mt.) The Curetonian Syriac has words meaning, “our bread continual of the day give us”. The Egyptian versions have similar readings. The old Latin version has quotidianum, retained by Jerome in revision of L. V. in Luke 11:2, while supersubstantialem is given in Matthew 6:11. The testimony of these early versions is important in reference to the primitive sense attached to the word. Still the question remains: How account for the coinage of such a word in Greek-speaking circles, and for the tautology: give us to-day (σήμερον, Mt.) or daily (τὸ καθʼ ἡμέραν, Luke), the bread of tomorrow? In his valuable study on “The Lord's Prayer in the early Church” (Texts and Studies, 1891), Principal Chase has made an important contribution to the solution of this difficulty by the suggestion that the coinage was due to liturgical exigencies in connection with the use of the prayer in the evening. Assuming that the original petition was to the effect: “to us give, of the day, our bread,” and that the Greek equivalent for the day was ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, the adjective ἐπιούσιος was coined to make the prayer suitable at all hours. In the morning it would mean the bread of the day now begun, in the evening the bread of to-morrow. But devotional conservatism, while adopting the new word as convenient, would cling to the original “of the day”; hence σήμερον in Matt. and τὸ καθʼ ἡμέραν in Luke, along with ἐπιούσιος. On the whole the temporal meaning seems to have the weight of the argument on its side. For a full statement of the case on that side vide Lightfoot as above, and on the other the article on ἐπιούσιος in Cremer's Bib. Theol., W. B., 7te Aufl., 1893.

[37] Septuagint.

[38] Vulgate (Jerome's revision of old Latin version).