Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 6:11
Give us this day our daily bread.
11. this day ] In Luke, “day by day.”
our daily bread ] The Greek word translated “daily” occurs only in the Lord’s Prayer here and Luk 11:3, it is not found in any classical author. The rendering of the E. V. “daily” as nearly as possible represents the probable force of the word, which is strictly (bread) “for the coming day,” i. e. for the day now beginning. Others render “bread for the future,” taking bread in a spiritual sense; others, following a different etymology, translate “bread of subsistence.” Bread, primarily the bread on which we subsist (see Prof. Lightfoot in appendix to his work On a Fresh Revision of the N. T.); subsistence as distinct from luxury; but the spiritual meaning cannot be excluded, Christ the Bread of Life is the Christian’s daily food.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mat 6:11
Our dally bread.
Daily bread
1. That even the wants of our bodies are to be subordinated to the purposes of religion.
2. That our dependence upon God for the supply of our bodily wants ought to be recognized.
3. That a sufficiency and not a superabundance of the supplies of life ought to be solicited.
4. That unneedful anxiety about the future ought to be condemned.
5. That all selfish grasping, and all unfair living upon others ought to be avoided. (F. Edwards, B. A.)
I. What is here asked. The poor of Gods flock have special interest in this prayer, and the rich have need of it.
1. That what they have may be preserved.
2. That they may have true enjoyment.
3. That they may suitably improve what they have.
II. The spiritual bread.
1. God alone can break this bread to you.
2. You shall eat bread in the kingdom of heaven. (W. Wilkinson, M. A.)
This is the language of-personal need, conscious dependence, quiet contentment, childlike trust, and fraternal sympathy. (F. J. A.)
Give us this day our daily bread
I. We begin as nature prompteth, with the preservation of our beings and lives; whereby we become capable of receiving and enjoying other good things.
II. By doing so, we also imply the sense we have of our total dependence upon God; avowing ourselves to subsist by His care and bounty.
(1) Disclaiming all confidence in any other means to maintain or support us; in
(2) any store we may have laid up, or
(3) estate we pretend to.
III. We are taught our duty of being willing continually to rely upon God.
(1) We ask not that God would give us at once what may serve us for ever, and put us out of any fear to want hereafter;
(2) we ask not for that which may suffice for a long time, for many years, months, or days; but
(3) that God would give us to-day, or rather day by day; that is, that He would constantly dispense what is needful for us.
IV. We must esteem
(1) Gods providence our surest estate;
(2) Gods bounty our best treasure; and
(3) Gods Fatherly care our most certain and most comfortable support.
V. We learn to ask only for so much as shall be fit to maintain us, not for
(1) rich or plentiful store; not for
(2) full barns nor
(3) heaps of treasures, wherewith to pamper ourselves; but for
(4) daily bread, a moderate provision then to be dealt to us when we need it. (Isaac Barrow, D. D.)
Give us this day our daily bread
Bread, by a common and natural figure, signifies the necessaries of life.
I. We are to make that the only subject of our prayers, which religion allows us to desire.
(1) The gospel, not the
(2) insatiate appetites of men, is to be the measure of their wants.
(3) A Christian must not by prayer seek for anything which is contrary to his holy profession to enjoy.
II. This petition for daily bread shows the true measure of Christian philosophy.
1. It requires us to restrain our wishes by our wants, which are both few and easily supplied.
2. God allows us to ask nothing of Him, but what we may with purity desire, and with innocence enjoy.
3. Religion makes us truly rich in making us temperate, content, and independent. True happiness of man consists not in the extent of possession, but in the restraint of desire. (Thomas Mangey.)
Daily bread
I. We may ask for temporal things if we ask for them lawfully. It is true, prayers to God for spiritual things are more acceptable. As your child pleaseth you better when it comes to you to be taught its book, rather than when it comes for an apple. But we may ask for other things.
1. For they are good and useful to us in the course of our service.
2. Without them we are exposed to many temptations. Prayer easeth you of a deal of carking about them.
II. We must ask for them lawfully.
1. Not preferring these temporal things before His favour, and the graces of His Spirit.
2. In moderate proportion.
III. We must ask them with humility and submission to the will of God.
1. Not for ostentation and riot, that we may live at large and at ease, but that Thy name may be glorified, and that we may be supported in service.
2. We must not come and challenge it, as if it were our due.
3. We must not use the plea of merit, but of mercy. (Thomas. Manton, D. D.)
The fourth petition
I. We put the emphasis on daily bread.
1. Bread means that which is needful to support the life of the body.
2. That which is needful to support all our life in this world.
3. Is prayer that we may have enough.
II. We would now separate the phrase give us that we may think over its special meaning.
1. It implies acknowledgment of dependence.
2. We know that giving is His delight.
3. We mean, give this, for thou art our Father.
4. We mean, through a blessing on our own right use of means.
5. When common means are not within our power, by means of Thine own.
III. Place the emphasis on our. We do not ask for the bread belonging to others.
IV. We next dwell on this day.
V. This petition suggests A higher petition-for heavenly broad. (Dr. Stanford.)
The fourth petition
I. The meaning, place, and reasonableness of this petition.
II. The Giver, our father. God is the universal giver. Giving implies personality, thought, emotion.
III. The gift-daily bread. Religion sanctifies common life.
IV. The community of the gift.
V. The conditions of the gift.
1. Honesty.
2. Industry.
VI. The period of the gift. A warning against covetousness. VII. Prayer for the gift.
1. It teaches humility.
2. It encourages filial confidence in little things.
3. It prompts to daily gratitude. (Newman Hall, LL. B.)
The daily gift
I. The giver, God is the only giver. He gives constantly and quietly. He gives simply. He delights in giving.
II. The gift. All bread comes from God. Bread has an eternal meaning.
III. The expansion of the gift.
1. This little word our excludes every calling which is injurious to the interests of our fellow men.
2. We are to think of the poor and needy.
IV. The limitation of the gift-To-day.
1. Christ would have us free from anxious care.
2. It teaches moderation and contentment.
3. Sometimes God tries the faith of His people, and they are in difficulties about their daily bread. (Dr. Saphir.)
Daily bread
1. These words show that earthly interests and animal wants have an appropriate place in our prayers.
2. Our intimate dependence upon God.
3. We virtually ask for ability and opportunity to obtain our daily bread. The blessing involved in the very effort for acquisition.
4. The relative dependence of others upon us.
5. Our wants are always new daily. (E. H. Chaplin.)
The dependent spirit of the Lords prayer
I. The source of the supply.
II. How the supply is granted. He grants strength of body for toil; by the wonder-working of His providence.
III. Gods blessings are gifts.
IV. God will have us live upon His bounty day by day.
V. The unselfishness and sympathy of the petition-give us.
VI. Contentment with Gods measure supplied is taught by this petition: not what we wish, but what we need. (Dr. O. Winslow.)
The fourth petition
I. Certain suppositions appear to be made in this petition.
1. That temporal blessings are necessary for our happiness.
2. That we can look for them only as they are the free gift of God.
3. It supposes our right to this form of good to be forfeited and lost.
II. The forms of desired good which are to be commended under this clause.
1. Bread the representative of all forms of temporal blessings; a healthy mind, continued energy, for the duties of our calling.
2. The Divine blessing on the gifts we have. Let us never ask for bread without the blessing.
III. Practical lessons.
1. A protest against our sumptuous and luxurious living.
2. Against all covetous and inordinate desires.
3. Against carefulness.
4. An admonition to mercifulness and brotherly love.
5. Prayer must be a daily exercise of the Christian life. (D. Moore, M. A.)
Daily bread
1. It is the believers piety that he seeks all his daily portion at the hand of God.
2. The faith of the prayer. Hard to trust God for temporals.
3. The moderation of the prayer
(1) of time,
(2) of matter,
(3) of degree.
A train of holy contemplation awakened by a morsel of bread
Did the corn wave freely in its beauty in the summer field? Just so was Christ once in the brightness and the expansion of His fathers glory. Did the reaper put in the sickle, and the free corn fall before the scythe: So, in the ripeness of time did the iron enter into the soul of Jesus, and He laid prostrate in the dust. Was the wheat ground within the mill? So was Jesus ground under the tremendous pressure of the worlds sin. Is the one bread broken into many parts? So is Jesus the one life of the whole Church. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)
Prayer for daily bread
I. The meaning.
1. The principle of dependence is developed in it.
2. The principle of moderation.
3. The principle of tenderness towards others.
II. The encouragement to go to God for the bread that perisheth.
1. It is to His Father He goes.
2. It is to the Father who gave us His Son.
III. The still higher encouragements to pray for the bread eternal.
1. From considering the Bread itself. Here no moderation is needed.
2. Here are absolute promises.
3. Covet larger portions of the Bread. (J. H. Evans.)
Men recognize secondary causes rather than the Divine Being in the gift of their daily bread
The Rev. J. H. Wilson of Edinburgh relates: One day I asked the children in our infant school, Who gives you the bread you get to your dinner? Almost every voice answered, My mother. But who gave it to your mother? The baker. And who gave it to the baker? The miller. And who gave it to the miller? The farmer. And who gave it to the farmer? The ground. And only when I asked, Who gave it to the ground? did I get the answer, It was God. How many children of a larger growth, like these infants, attribute their blessings to any second cause rather than to the gift of their Father!
It is suitableness, not superabundance, that gives enjoyment
A dress that fits is more useful to the wearer than one which is too large, though more costly. A shoe that pinches the foot is no easier for all the gold lace upon it. (Newman Hall, LL. D.)
The cry of the needy
I. It is an utterance of felt need.
II. It is an acknowledgment of entire and constant dependence on God.
III. It is the language, of moderation.
IV. It breathes a spirit of trustfulness.
V. The language implies personal effort to gain the bread.
VI. It is the language of brotherly anxiety and love. VII. The great end for which all bread, temporal and spiritual, should be sought and used-the promotion of Gods glory. (J. Morgan.)
All good things from God are gifts
One sharp winter day, so runs a nursery tale, a poor woman stood at the window of a kings conservatory, looking at a cluster of grapes, which she longed to have for her sick child. She went home to her spinning-wheel, earned half-a-crown, and offered it to the gardener for the grapes, He waved his hand, and ordered her away. She returned to her cottage, snatched the blanket from her bed, pawned it, and once more asked the gardener to sell her the grapes, offering him five shillings. He spoke furiously to her and was turning her out, when the princess came in, heard the mans passion, saw the womans tears, and asked what was wrong. When the story was told she said, My dear woman, you have made a mistake. My father is not a merchant, but a king; his business is not to sell but to give; so saying, she plucked the cluster from the vine and dropped it into the womans apron. (Dr. Stanford.)
Daily bread
1. Fastidiousness about food is condemned by this petition, so also is sumptuousness of apparel.
2. And as moderation in our desires is here commanded, so is thankfulness for ordinary benefits. (F. C. Blyth, M. A.)
Bread
1. The bread of righteousness.
2. The Word of God (Mat 4:4).
3. God the Word (Joh 6:35).
4. The Holy Eucharist. (F. C. Blyth, M. A.)
Our
1Such food as is suitable for us.
2. Diligence in our calling. 3, Necessities for us, superfluities for our brethren. (F. C. Blyth, M. A.)
Us
1. Excludes selfishness and incites to charity.
2. As we eat with our households so we should pray with them. (F. C. Blyth, M. A.)
This day
1. Uncertainty about the future no excuse for recklessness.
2. Each new day is a special gift from God, in which are contained all the possibilities of His grace.
3. What is our whole lifetime but a day!
4. To any earthly friend we should be ashamed thus frequently to ask a favour. (F. C. Blyth, M. A.)
Contentment
Contentment is a jewel which turns all into gold, yea, want into wealth. Covetousness is a canker which eats into the richest robes and the costliest treasures; a dropsy which, the more it drinks, the more it thirsts. (F. C. Blyth, M. A.)
The wise man, as he looks forth upon the riches and luxuries with which the worldling loves to surround himself, learns to say with Socrates, How many things there are that I do not want!
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 11. Give us this day our daily bread] The word has greatly perplexed critics and commentators. I find upwards of thirty different explanations of it. It is found in no Greek writer before the evangelists, and Origen says expressly, that it was formed by them, ‘ . The interpretation of Theophylact, one of the best of the Greek fathers, has ever appeared to me to be the most correct, , Bread, sufficient for our substance and support, i.e. That quantity of food which is necessary to support our health and strength, by being changed into the substance of our bodies. Its composition is of and , proper or sufficient for support. Mr. Wakefield thinks it probable, that the word was originally written , which coalesced by degrees, till they became the of the MSS. There is probably an allusion here to the custom of travellers in the east, who were wont to reserve a part of the food given them the preceding evening to serve for their breakfast or dinner the next day. But as this was not sufficient for the whole day, they were therefore obliged to depend on the providence of God for the additional supply. In Lu 15:12-13, signifies, what a person has to live on; and nothing can be more natural than to understand the compound , of that additional supply which the traveller needs, to complete the provision necessary for a day’s eating, over and above what he had then in his possession. See Harmer.
The word is so very peculiar and expressive, and seems to have been made on purpose by the evangelists, that more than mere bodily nourishment seems to be intended by it. Indeed, many of the primitive fathers understood it as comprehending that daily supply of grace which the soul requires to keep it in health and vigour: He who uses the petition would do well to keep both in view. Observe
1. God is the author and dispenser of all temporal as well as spiritual good.
2. We have merited no kind of good from his hand, and therefore must receive it as a free gift: Give us, c.
3. We must depend on him daily for support we are not permitted to ask any thing for to-morrow: give us to-day.
4. That petition of the ancient Jews is excellent: “Lord, the necessities of thy people Israel are many, and their knowledge small, so that they know not how to disclose their necessities: Let it be thy good pleasure to give to every man, what sufficeth for food!” Thus they expressed their dependence, and left it to God to determine what was best and most suitable.
We must ask only that which is essential to our support, God having promised neither luxuries nor superfluities.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And forasmuch as in thee we live, and move, and have our life, so the means for the upholding and the preserving of our lives, and the blessing upon them, must be from thee. We beseech thee to give us food convenient for us, that which thou hast ordained for our nourishment and preservation; and that thou wouldst preserve it to us, that we may have it from day to day while we live in the world, with thy blessing upon it; that we may not be tempted to take bread which is not ours, nor be over solicitous and careful for tomorrow, but by daily prayer may obtain daily supplies from thee, so far as shall be necessary or convenient for us.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Give us this day our daily bread. The Arabic version reads it, “our bread for tomorrow”; and Jerom says, that in the Hebrew Gospel, used by the Nazarenes, he found the word , which signifies “tomorrow”: but this reading and sense seem to be contradicted by Christ, Mt 6:34 were it not that it may be observed, that this signifies the whole subsequent time of life, and so furnishes us with a very commodious sense of this petition; which is, that God would give us, “day by day”, as Luke expresses it,
Lu 11:3 that is, every day of our lives, to the end thereof, a proper supply of food: or the meaning of it is, that God would give us, for the present time, such food as we stand in need of; is suitable to us, to our nature and constitution, state and condition, and is sufficient and convenient for us: to which agrees the petition of the u Jews:
“The necessities of thy people are great, and their knowledge short; let it be thy good will and pleasure, O Lord, our God, that thou wouldst give to everyone
, “what is sufficient for his sustenance”, and to every one’s body what it wants.”
“Says R. Jose w, all the children of faith seek “every day” , “to ask their food” of the Lord, and to pray a prayer for it.”
By “bread” is meant all the necessaries of life, and for the support of it: it is called “our’s”; not that we have a right unto it, much less deserve it, but to distinguish it from that of beasts; and because it is what we need, and cannot do without; what is appointed for us by providence, is our’s by gift, and possessed by labour. It is said to be “daily” bread, and to be asked for “day by day”; which suggests the uncertainty of life; strikes at all anxious and immoderate cares for the morrow; is designed to restrain from covetousness, and to keep up the duty of prayer, and constant dependence on God; whom we must every day ask to “give” us our daily bread: for he is the sole author of all our mercies; which are all his free gifts; we deserve nothing at his hands: wherefore we ought to be thankful for what we have, without murmuring at his providences, or envying at what he bestows on others. All kind of food, everything that is eatable, is with the Jews called , “bread” x.
u T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 29. 2. w Zohar in Exod. fol. 26. 2. x Jarchi in Job, vi. 7.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Our daily bread ( ). This adjective “daily” () coming after “Give us this day” ( ) has given expositors a great deal of trouble. The effort has been made to derive it from and (). It clearly comes from and ( and ) like (“on the coming day,” “the next day,” Ac 16:12). But the adjective is rare and Origen said it was made by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke to reproduce the idea of an Aramaic original. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary say: “The papyri have as yet shed no clear light upon this difficult word (Matt 6:11; Luke 11:3), which was in all probability a new coinage by the author of the Greek Q to render his Aramaic Original” (this in 1919). Deissmann claims that only about fifty purely New Testament or “Christian” words can be admitted out of the more than 5,000 used. “But when a word is not recognizable at sight as a Jewish or Christian new formation, we must consider it as an ordinary Greek word until the contrary is proved. has all the appearance of a word that originated in trade and traffic of the everyday life of the people (cf. my hints in Neutestamentliche Studien Georg Heinrici dargebracht, Leipzig, 1914, pp. 118f.). The opinion here expressed has been confirmed by A. Debrunner’s discovery (Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1925, Col. 119) of in an ancient housekeeping book” (Light from the Ancient East, New ed. 1927, p. 78 and note 1). So then it is not a word coined by the Evangelist or by Q to express an Aramaic original. The word occurs also in three late MSS. after 2Macc. 1:8, after . The meaning, in view of the kindred participle () in Ac 16:12, seems to be “for the coming day,” a daily prayer for the needs of the next day as every housekeeper understands like the housekeeping book discovered by Debrunner.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Give us this day,” (dos henin semeron) “Dole out to us today,” this day, one day at a time, to keep soul and body together. This model prayer teaches that daily dependence on God is important, 1Ti 6:8; Pro 30:8-9; Psa 34:10; Job 23:12; Joh 4:34.
2) “Our daily bread.” (ton arton hemon ton epiousion) “The daily bread of us, of our need,” as God gave to Israel daily manna during her forty years of wilderness wandering, as day by day except on the Sabbath, Exo 16:15; Exo 16:26; Exo 16:35-36, the manna fell. Neither the poor nor the rich, learned or unlearned, may have hunger satisfied without bread, but bread satisfies hunger like no other food, so it is with Jesus the bread of life, Joh 6:31-35; Joh 6:50-51; Joh 6:58.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
11. Give us today our daily bread Of the form of prayer which Christ has prescribed to us this may be called, as I have said, the Second Table. I have adopted this mode of dividing it for the sake of instruction. (437) The precepts which relate to the proper manner of worshipping God are contained in the First Table of the law, and those which relate to the duties of charity in the Second. Again, in this prayer, — “I have formerly divided it thus, in order to instruct more familiarly.” our Lord first instructs us to seek the glory of God, and then points out, in the second part, what we ought to ask for ourselves. But it must be observed, that the prayers which we offer for our salvation, or for our own advantage, ought to have this for their ultimate object: for we must not be so exclusively occupied with what is advantageous to ourselves, as to omit, in any instance, to give the first place to the glory of God. When we pray, therefore, we must never turn away our eyes from that object.
There is this difference, however, between the two kinds of petitions which we have mentioned. When we pray for the kingdom of God and the sanctification of his name, our eyes ought to be directed upwards, so as to lose sight of ourselves, and to be fixed on God alone. We then come down to ourselves, and connect with those former petitions, which look to God alone, solicitude about our own salvation. Though the forgiveness of sins is to be preferred to food, (438) as far as the soul is more valuable than the body, yet our Lord commenced with bread and the supports of an earthly life, that from such a beginning he might carry us higher. We do not ask that our daily bread may be given to us before we ask that we may be reconciled to God, as if the perishing food of the belly were to be considered more valuable than the eternal salvation of the soul: but we do so that we may ascend, as it were by steps, from earth to heaven. Since God condescends to nourish our bodies, there can be no doubt whatever, that he is far more careful of our spiritual life. This kind and gentle manner of treating us raises our confidence higher.
Some are of opinion, that τὸν ἄζτον ἡμῶν ἐπιούσιον means our supersubstantial bread This is exceedingly absurd. The reason assigned by Erasmus is not only frivolous, but inconsistent with piety. He reckons it improbable that, when we come into the presence of God, Christ should enjoin us to make mention of food. As if this manner of instruction were not to be found in every part of Scripture, to lead us to the expectation of heavenly blessings, by giving us a taste of temporal blessings. It is indeed the true proof of our faith, when we ask nothing but from God, and not only acknowledge him to be the only fountain of all blessings, but feel that his fatherly kindness extends to the smallest matters, so that he does not disdain to take care even of our flesh.
That Christ speaks here of bodily food may easily be inferred: first, because otherwise the prayer would be defective and incomplete. We are enjoined, in many passages, to throw all our cares into the bosom of God, and he graciously promises, that “ he will withhold from us no good thing,” (Psa 84:11.) In a perfect rule of prayer, therefore, some direction must be laid down as to the innumerable wants of the present life. Besides, the word σήμερον , today, means that we are to ask from God no more than is necessary for the day: (439) for there is no doubt, that he intended to restrain and guide our desire of earthly food, to which we are all immoderately addicted. Again, a very frequent Synecdoche occurs in the word bread, under which the Hebrews include every description of food. But here it has a still more extensive meaning: for we ask not only that the hand of God may supply us with food, but that we may receive all that is necessary for the present life.
The meaning is now obvious. We are first commanded to pray, that God would protect and cherish the life which he has given to us in the world, and, as we need many supports, that he would supply us with every thing that he knows to be needful. Now, as the kindness of God flows in uninterrupted succession to feed us, the bread which he bestows is called ἐπιούσιος, that is, continual: (440) for so it may be rendered. This word suggests to us such a petition as the following: “O Lord, since our life needs every day new supplies, may it please thee to grant them to us without interruption.” The adverb today, as I said a little ago, is added to restrain our excessive desire, and to teach us, that we depend every moment on the kindness of God, and ought to be content with that portion which he gives us, to use a common expression, “from day to day.”
But here an objection may be urged. It is certain, that Christ has given a rule for prayer, which belongs equally to all the godly. Now, some of their number are rich men, who have their yearly produce laid up in store. Why does he command them to ask what they have at home, and to ask every day those things of which they have an abundant supply for a year? The reply is easy. These words remind us that, unless God feed us daily, the largest accumulation of the necessaries of life will be of no avail. Though we may have abundance of corn, and wine, and every thing else, unless they are watered by the secret blessing of God, they will suddenly vanish, or we will be deprived of the use of them, or they will lose their natural power to support us, so that we shall famish in the midst of plenty. There is therefore no reason to wonder, if Christ invites the rich and poor indiscriminately to apply to their Heavenly Father for the supply of their wants. No man will sincerely offer such a prayer as this, unless he has learned, by the example of the Apostle Paul, “to be full and to be hungry, to abound and to suffer need,” (Phi 4:12,) to endure patiently his poverty or his humble condition, and not to be intoxicated by a false confidence in his abundance.
Does any one inquire, why we ask that bread to be given to us, which we call OUR bread? I answer: It is so called, not because it belongs to us by right, but because the fatherly kindness of God has set it apart for our use. It becomes ours, because our Heavenly Father freely bestows it on us for the supply of our necessities. The fields must, no doubt, be cultivated, labor must be bestowed on gathering the fruits of the earth, and every man must submit to the toil of his calling, in order to procure food. But all this does not hinder us from being fed by the undeserved kindness of God, without which men might waste their strength to no purpose. We are thus taught, that what we seem to have acquired by our own industry is his gift. We may likewise infer from this word, that, if we wish God to feed us, we must not take what belongs to others: for all who have been taught of God, (Joh 6:45,) whenever they employ this form of prayer, make a declaration that they desire nothing but what is their own.
(437) “ Je l’ay ainsi divisee par ci devant pour enseigner plus familierement.”
(438) “ Combien que la remission des pechez est bien a preferer a la nourriteurde cette vie.” — “though the forgiveness of sins is greatly to be preferred to the nourishment of this life.”
(439) “ Sinon au pris que le jour vient l’un apres l’autre;” — “only as far as one day comes after another.”
(440) “ Superveniens;” — “ survenant, ou venant par chacun jour;”— “succeeding, or coming by each day.” We subjoin an extract from the Dissertations of Witsius on the Lord‘s Prayer. After mentioning several views of Commentators on this petition, he says: This great variety of expositions has been principally occasioned by the Greek word ἐπιούσιος. That word occurs nowhere else in Scripture, and the most learned men have been unable to discover it in any profane writings. As it is not known to what Hebrew word employed by our Lord it corresponds, it is not surprising that different persons should have assigned to it different acceptations. — I shall not now enter into a critical examination of the very numerous expositions of that word which have been given by learned men. An exposition more copious and learned than any that had previously appeared, has been given by a very celebrated and learned man, JOHN MARCK, formerly my much esteemed colleague in the University of Friesland. It forms a part of his Juvenile Dissertations, as he is pleased to style them, but which contain much profound wisdom. The simplest and most probable of the various etymologies, I have always thought, is that which supposes ἐπιόσιος to be compounded of ἐπὶ and οὐσί α , as περιούσιος is compounded of περὶ and οὐσία The analogy of composition of such words presents no difficulty: for it does not require that the ι in the word ἐπὶ shall be dropped before a vowel. This is proved by the words ἐπιεικὴς, ἐπιόγδοος, ἐπιόρκος, ἐπιόπτομαι, ἐπιοῦρος, and many of the same form. This derivation being granted, which has nothing unusual or anomalous, considerable progress has been made in the investigation of the subject. For as τὸ περιούσιον signifies what is more than enough, and beyond what the preservation of existence requires, so τὸ ἐπιούσιον signifies what is enough. Such is the meaning assigned to it by the ancient Greek writers, who were deeply skilled in their own language. “ ́̓Αρτου ἐπιούσιον, (says Chrysostom, Hom. 30, Ton. 5.) τουτέστιν ἐπὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ σώματος διαζαίνοντα, καὶ συγκρατὢσαι ταύτην δυνάμενον, — “that is, what passes to the substance of the body, and is able to support it.” Ζητεῖν προσετάχθημεν , (says Gregory Nyssen,) τὸ πρὸν τὴν συντήρησιν ἐξαρκοῦν τὢν σωματικὢν οὐσίαν “We have been commanded to seek what is sufficient for the support of the bodily existence.” Basil explains it to be τὸν πρὸς τὴν ἐφήμερον ζωὴν τὢ οὐσία ἡμῶν χρησιμεύοντα, “what is useful to our existence for daily life.” (After referring to Suiceri Thesaurus, and quoting from Cyril of Alexandria and from Theodoret, he concludes ἄρτον ἐπιούσιον to be equivalent to the phrase used by the Apostle James, (Jas 2:15,) τὴν ἐφήμερον τροφὴν , (daily food ) — Bibli ca1 Cabinet, vol. 24, pp. 266, 272-274. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(11) Give us this day our daily bread.A strange obscurity hangs over the words that are so familiar to us. The word translated daily is found nowhere else, with the one exception of the parallel passage in Luk. 11:3, and so far as we can judge must have been coined for the purpose, as the best equivalent for the unknown Aramaic word which our Lord actually used. We are accordingly thrown partly on its possible derivation, partly on what seems (compatibly with its derivation) most in harmony with the spirit of our Lords teaching. The form of the word (see Note in Excursus) admits of the meanings, (1) bread sufficient for the day now coming; (2) sufficient for the morrow; (3) sufficient for existence; (4) over and above material substanceor, as the Vulgate renders it, panis super substantialis. Of these, (1) and (2) are the most commonly received; and the idea conveyed by them is expressed in the rendering daily bread. So taken, it is a simple petition, like the prayer of Agur in Pro. 30:8, for food convenient for us; and as such, has been uttered by a thousand child-like hearts, and has borne its witness alike against over-anxiety and far-reaching desires for outward prosperity. It is not without some hesitation, in face of so general a concurrence of authority, that I find myself constrained to say that the last meaning seems to me the truest. Let us remember (1) the words with which our Lord had answered the Tempter, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Mat. 4:4); (2) His application of those words in I have meat to eat that ye know not of (Joh. 4:32); (3) His own use of bread as the symbol of that which sustains the spiritual life (Joh. 6:27-58); (4) the warnings in Mat. 6:25-31 not only against anxiety about what we shall eat and drink, but against seeking these things instead of seeking simply the kingdom of God and His righteousnessand we can scarcely fail, I think, to see that He meant His disciples, in this pattern Prayer, to seek for the nourishment of the higher and not the lower life. So taken, the petition, instead of being a contrast to the rest of the Prayer, is in perfect harmony with it, and the whole raises us to the region of thought in which we leave all that concerns our earthly life in the hands of our Father, without asking Him even for the supply of its simplest wants, seeking only that He would sustain and perfect the higher life of our spirit. So when we ask for daily bread, we mean not common food, but the Bread from heaven, which giveth life unto the world. So the reality of which the Eucharistic bread is the symbol is the Lords gracious answer to the Prayer He has taught us.
II.THE WORD DAILY, IN Matthew 6:11.
The word has been derived (1) from (sc. )=the day that is coming on; and this meaning is favoured by the fact that Jerome says that the Hebrew Gospel current in his time gave the word mahar (= crastinus) to-morrows bread, and by the very early rendering, quotidianum, in the Latin versions. On the other hand, this meaning introduces a strange tautology into St. Lukes version of the prayer, Give us day by dayi.e., dailyour daily bread. (2) The other derivation connects it with in some one or other of its many senses, and with as signifying either for or overthe former force of the preposition suggesting the thought for our existence or subsistence; the latter, the supersubstantialis of Jerome, that is, over or above our material substance. It is said, and with truth, that in classical Greek the form would have been not , but ; but it is clear that that difficulty did not prevent a scholar like Jerome from accepting the derivation, and it was not likely that the Hellenistic Jew who first translated our Lords discourses should be more accurate than Jerome in coining a word which seemed to him wanted to express our Lords meaning. The derivation being then admissible, it remains to ask which of the two meanings of and of gives most force to the clause in which the word occurs, and for the reasons given above I am led to decide in favour of the latter. New words would hardly have been wanted for the meanings daily or sufficient. When a word is coined, it may fairly be assumed that it was wanted to express a new thought, and the new thought here was that which our Lord afterwards developed in John 6, that the spirit of a man needs sustenance not less than his body, and that that sustenance is found in the bread of God which cometh down from heaven (Joh. 6:33). The student should, however, consult Dr. Lightfoots admirable excursus on the word in his Hints on a Revised Version of the New Testament.
On the assumption that the Lords Prayer included and spiritualised the highest thoughts that had previously been expressed separably by devout Israelites, we may note, as against the meaning of bread for the morrow, the saying of Rabbi Elieser, that He who has a crumb left in his scrip, and asks, What shall I eat to-morrow? belongs to those of little faith.
There is, it must be admitted, a difficulty in conjecturing what Aramaic word could have answered to this meaning of , and the fact that a word giving the other meaning is, as it were, ready to hand, and was actually found in the Hebrew Gospel in the fourth century, has some weight on the other side. That word may, however, itself have been not a translation of the original, but a re-translation of the Latin quotidianus; and the fact that Jerome, knowing of this, chose another rendering here, while he retained quotidianus in St. Luk. 11:3, shows that he was not satisfied with it, and at last, it may be, halted between two opinions.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
11. Daily bread Including all the needs of life.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Give us this day our tomorrow’s (epiousion) bread.’
How the significance of this petition depends very much on the meaning of ‘epiousion’. The problem is that this word is otherwise unknown to us prior to the date of this Sermon, and is rarely found, if at all in secular literature, certainly not as meaning ‘daily’. Nor are we helped much by Luke’s present imperative followed by ‘kath hemeron’, ‘Give us day by day our daily/tomorrow’s (epiousion) bread’. We may well ask in this case, why, if Jesus meant physical food, He did not simply repeat the idea of ‘today’, or why in fact the translater into Greek did not make it clear? In Luke especially ‘daily’ would have been so easy to say.
This is further accentuated by the fact that Jerome (c. 342-420 AD) tells us that in the lost Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes the term mahar, which means ‘tomorrow’, appears at this place in the Lord’s prayer, which suggests therefore that the reference is to bread “for tomorrow”. The Gospel of the Nazarenes was not, of course, as old as our first three Gospels. Rather it depended on our Gospel of Matthew. But the Aramaic wording of the Lord’s Prayer in the Gospel of the Nazarenes (“bread for tomorrow”) must surely be seen as representing the ancient form of the prayer in Aramaic, and therefore in that regard as older than the Gospel of the Nazarenes itself, and older even than our Gospels. For in first-century Palestine the Lord’s Prayer would almost certainly have been prayed constantly by Aramaic-speaking Christians in an uninterrupted Aramaic form, right from the time when the words were first taught by Jesus, so that a person translating the gospel of Matthew into Aramaic would undoubtedly translate the Lord’s Prayer in terms of the original Aramaic which they knew to be the Lord’s words, especially if there was any ambiguity or doubt as to the meaning of the Greek word. Thus when the translator of Matthew into Aramaic came to Mat 6:9-13, he would naturally write the prayer down in the way that he knew that it was prayed day by day by Aramaic-speaking Christians, as it had been through the years. In other words, the Aramaic-speaking Jewish-Christians, among whom the Lord’s Prayer lived on in its original Aramaic wording in unbroken usage from the days of Jesus first giving of the prayer, prayed, “Our bread for tomorrow give us today.”
Jerome also tells us that, “In the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews — I found mahar, which means ‘for tomorrow,’ so that the sense is, ‘Our bread for tomorrow that is, our future bread — give us today.’ ”
It has therefore been suggested that in mind here is the provision in Exo 16:22; Exo 16:29 where on the sixth day they were given not only sufficient for the sixth day but also bread ‘for the morrow’, that is, ‘for the Sabbath’, with the Sabbath then seen, as it often is, as the coming (and now come in Jesus) Messianic age. This provision of ‘bread from Heaven’ by Moses was probably expected to be repeated by the Messiah (see Joh 6:30-31). And to this Jesus replied that His Father was giving them the true bread from Heaven in the giving of Himself.
So the best explanation for this reference to “tomorrow” is probably that it refers to the great ‘Tomorrow’ as anticipated by the Jews, the bread that they would eat at Messiah’s table at the Messianic Banquet at the coming great Sabbath rest. That would not exclude the idea of their receiving their physical ‘bread’ from their heavenly Father as well as their spiritual bread, for such Messianic provision was also expected, but it would seem to encourage the idea that, either way, they are to be seen as receiving not just physical food but God’s Messianic provision of blessing in every way. And this is brought out even more emphatically in Luke where the prayer is preceded by Jesus receiving food at the house of Martha and Mary, at which point He specifically directs Martha’s attention to the greater importance of spiritual food by listening to His words (Luk 10:38-42), and is followed by a parable which uses ‘bread’ as a picture of the need to pray for the ‘good things’ that their heavenly Father has for his children, including the Holy Spirit (Luk 11:5-13). And this is especially so in view of the fact that in the sermon Jesus will shortly stress that their eyes are to be Heavenward rather than earthward (Mat 6:20).
Three facts very much favour this interpretation. The first is the emphasis that Jesus has laid on their Father already knowing their physical needs (Mat 6:8). This brings out the fact that they are therefore not to be anxious about food and clothing (Mat 6:5), because God is the great Provider, providing such things to His creatures without any need for prayer. And this is then underlined by the fact that that is precisely the kind of things that the Gentiles do seek when they pray (Mat 6:32), an example which they are not to follow (Mat 6:31). It would seem strange then if physical bread were to be made their first request in the Lord’s prayer. While if this prayer was for Messianic provision, including both physical and spiritual, it is perfectly explicable. Such provision would be seen as a special promise of God (e.g. Isa 25:6) and would only be available for those who are His.
The second is that what they are rather to be ‘anxious about’ is the Kingly Rule of God and His righteous deliverance (Mat 6:33). It is those things which they are to seek. And while this idea may certainly be seen as in mind in their being forgiven and in their being kept from evil, we see at once that there is no request in the second part of the prayer concerning their need for positive strengthening or positive righteousness. Was Jesus really saying that apart from food, all that they needed was forgiveness and protection from evil? That is a very negative way of seeing the Christian life.
The third is that there can be no question but that Jesus does constantly very much emphasise their positive need for spiritual bread, in contrast with physical bread. In His temptation in Mat 4:4 He had declared that ‘man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ Given Luke’s clear connection of the Lord’s prayer with spiritual bread in Mat 10:38 to Mat 11:13 (even putting it in a bread sandwich) that must surely be seen as significant. Furthermore He then asks in Mat 7:9 what father will give a stone to a son who asks for bread, and refers it to the ‘good things’ of the Messianic age which will be given to them by their heavenly Father (compare in Luke where the good things specifically refer to ‘the Holy Spirit’ (Luk 11:13). Note especially how on both occasions when He gives the prayer to His disciples He follows it up with this need to ask for spiritual benefits (Mat 7:7-12; Luk 11:5-13), spiritual benefits which are not actually otherwise included in His model prayer, and yet are spoken of in terms of bread. It strongly suggests therefore that the bread that He has in mind in the prayer refers to the blessings of the Messianic age into which they have now entered so that they can enjoy ‘Tomorrow’s bread’, that is the blessings seen by Israel as coming in the great Tomorrow.
References to the spiritual significance of bread can be multiplied. In Mat 15:26 the ‘bread’ for the children signifies Scriptural truth, in Mat 16:5; Mat 16:7-8; Mat 16:11-12 where the disciples make the mistake of thinking that Jesus is speaking of physical bread He points out that He means ‘the leaven (teaching) of the Scribes and Pharisees. And finally in Mat 26:26, while there is certainly physical bread in mind, it is as a picture of the Lord’s body which will be given for them. So in all such cases where He speaks of bread He has in mind spiritual bread.
And greater weight can be added to this argument when we consider Jesus’ teaching in Luke and John. Indeed in the very context of their not seeking physical bread (Luk 12:22-34) Jesus immediately describes how when He comes again He will sit His disciples down to eat meat and He will serve them (Mat 12:37). But the idea is not really of a great party where Jesus will act as servant and indulge their appetites. It is rather a promise of the great blessings that He will pour on them in that Day, and as a lesson in humility. In all His provision for us God is acting as our Servant, for the point is that He not only makes the gifts, but also applies them Himself. And the portion of food that the unfaithful servant was supposed to give to his fellow-servants, and failed to give (Mat 12:42), was surely more than just bread. The point behind the descriptions was that the servants appointed by God had failed to provide His people with what they needed in their spiritual lives. Furthermore the Pharisee who said, ‘Blessed is he who will eat bread in the Kingly Rule of God’ (Mat 14:15) is unquestionably thinking of Messianic blessings, and Jesus follows it up with the parable of the Great Supper, which surely has in mind more than just physical bread, as in fact does the feeding of the five thousand (and the four thousand) which while it involved physical bread was pointing to something greater (Joh 6:35). The Kingly Rule of God might often be depicted in terms of bread, but surely more than that was regularly intended. And while the husks, bread and dainties of the parable of the prodigal son were very real (if fiction can be real) what they really represented in the interpretation of the parable was spiritual food. So the disciples were aware that when Jesus spoke of bread they must regularly recognise that He meant spiritual bread. And when we come to John we have the well known picture of Jesus as the bread of life, which will take away the hunger (and thirst) of men and women (Joh 6:35). For the one who eats of that bread will live for ever, for it is His flesh which He will give for the life of the world (Joh 6:51). And He then goes on to point out that they must therefore feed on Him. More could be added but we think that we have said enough.
But it may be asked, if that was the meaning why did Jesus not make it clearer? Why have Christians down the ages seen it as referring to physical bread? One answer to that is in fact that it is not true. In the early church that we do know about it was seen as referring to spiritual bread, and in fact mainly to the bread at the Lord’s Supper. Indeed the whole prayer was probably reserved for use within the fellowship, especially at the Lord’s Table, and not expected to be used by those who were not accepted members of their spiritual community. Interpreting it of the Lord’s Supper is probably too narrow an interpretation, unless widely expanded on, although it was certainly understandable. It is the ideas behind the Lord’s Supper that are in mind. However, in fairness it should be pointed out that the more enlightened preachers did make clear that the Lord’s Supper was a picture of great spiritual blessing available to His people. Thus the bread indicates the fullness of the blessings of Christ. It may be seen as rather the later pedantic interpreters who turned it into a request solely for physical bread, and that because the Lord’s prayer became the common lot of men who only thought in terms of physical benefit, although it was also possibly as a reaction against the misuse of the bread and wine by the mediaeval church.
What it does seem rather to signify is all the blessings, both physical and spiritual, which were to come to them because they belonged to the Messiah. It signified the full provisioning of both body and soul as Messiah’s people, both the Messianic banquet and the Messianic blessing. It is ‘Tomorrow’s bread’ available ‘today’ for those who are His. So what they are to pray is, ‘Father in Heaven, we are Messiah’s people, grant us Messianic provision.’ Compare Isa 25:6; Isa 40:11; Isa 49:10; Jer 3:15; Jer 23:4; Jer 50:19; Eze 34:13-15; Eze 34:23; Eze 36:29-30; Mic 5:4; Psa 23:2-3; Psa 23:5.
So yes it does include a promise that God will provide His people, as Messiah’s people, with what they physically need, and that they can therefore ask Him for it with confidence, but it is not in the way in which the world asks for it. It is asked of Him by Messiah’s people, and expected by them to be provided for them by their Father, because they are within His favour, and as part of a far more abundant provision in spiritual power and blessing. It signifies all that they need which can be found in Him, food for body and soul, and not just physical bread, which for most people should in fact be the last thought on their minds (Mat 6:33). It is praying, ‘Father, feed us body and soul with all the Messianic blessedness’, with Your word that is better than bread (Mat 4:4), with the righteousness which You will pour down from above (Isa 45:8; Isa 44:1-5; Isa 32:15-18) for which we are to hunger and thirst (Mat 5:6), and we may possibly add, especially with what is expressed in the beatitudes.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Temporal gifts are also included:
v. 11. Give us this day our daily bread. In putting the petition in this form, Christ teaches humility and frugality. For this day we pray, taking no thought for the morrow, not yielding to anxious care. And the daily bread we are to ask for, that which is sufficient for the present day, enough to nourish us from day to day. God, in His infinite goodness, includes much more than the things which are necessary for our bare existence, as Luther shows in his explanation of this petition.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 6:11. Give us this day our daily bread 4. The word rendered daily in our version, is nowhere else to be found; neither in the LXX, nor in any Greek author, nor in any place of the New Testament, except in this part of the Lord’s Prayer. Commentators differ much in their interpretation of it. That in Etymol. Magna, seems as just as any: ‘, ‘ : “that which is sufficient to our life;” and so Theophylact explains it: “What will strengthen us from day to day, for serving God with cheerfulness and vigour.” Bread, accordingto the Hebrew idiom, signifies all the provisions of the table. See Gen 18:5 and inthe present petition it signifies raiment also, with convenient habitation, and every thing necessary to life. See Agur’s Petition, Pro 30:8. Since then we are not allowed to ask provision for rioting and luxury, but only for the necessaries of life, and that not for many years, but from day to day, the petition forbids anxious cares about futurity, and teaches us how moderate our desires of worldly things should be; and whereas not the poor only (whose industry all acknowledge must be favoured by the concurrence of Providence, to render it successful), but the rich also, are enjoined to pray for their bread day by day. This is on account of the great instability of human affairs, which renders the possession of wealth absolutely precarious; and because, without the divine blessing, even the abundance of the rich is not of itself sufficient to keep them alive, far less to make them happy. This petition contains a most excellent lesson, says Dr. Doddridge, to teach us, on the one hand, moderation in our desires; and, on the other, a humble dependence on divine Providence for the most necessary supplies, be our possessions or our abilities ever so great. But this petition seems to include something farther; and accordingly Erasmus, Heylin, and many others, understand it, after the Fathers, in a spiritual sense also. Bread, says Heylin, here signifies all things needful for our maintenance; the maintenance of the whole man, both body and soul; for each of these have their proper sustenance; to one belongs the natural bread, to the other the spiritual, and both are included in this petition: the natural bread means all things needful for the assistance of the body; the spiritual bread, the grace of Christ, which must also be our daily bread for the maintenance and growth of our souls in holiness. The petition, therefore, may be paraphrased: “Give us, O Father; for we claim nothing of right, but only of thy free mercy;this day; for we take no solicitous thought for the morrow;our daily bread; all things needful for our souls and bodies; not only the meat that perisheth, but thy grace; the food which endureth to everlasting life.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 6:11 . ] same as , victus; Gen 18:5 ; Pro 30:8 ; 2Th 3:12 ; Sir 10:26 ; Wis 16:20 .
] occurring nowhere else in the Greek language but here and in Luk 11:3 . See Origen, de Orat. Matthew 27 : . It is possible that it may be derived from , and accordingly the phrase has been supposed to mean: the food necessary for subsistence, , Pro 30:8 . So Syr., Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Etym. M.; Beza, Maldonatus, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Ewald (de Wette undecided), Arnoldi, Bleek, Weizscker, Keim, Hanne, and probably this explanation has also given rise to the rendering “daily bread” (It., Chrysostom, Luther), , Jas 2:15 ; comp. Victorinus, c. Ar. ii. p. 273, Augustine. But does not mean subsistence ( ), but (Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 491 f.) essence, as also reality, and, finally, possessions, res familiaris, in which sense also it is to be taken in Soph. Trach. 907 (911), where the words denote a home without children. In deriving the expression, therefore, from , the idea of necessary food [421] must be brought out in a very indirect way (as Gregory of Nyssa: that which is requisite or sufficient for the support of the body; comp. Chrysostom, Tholuck, Hitzig). Again, if the word were to be derived from ( ), it would have to be spelt, not , but , in a way analogous to the forms , overplus , , non-essential , which come from . Forms in which there is either a different preposition (such as ), or in which the derivation has no connection with (as ), have been brought forward without any reason with a view to support the above ordinary explanation. After all this we must, for reasons derived from grammatical considerations (in answer to Leo Meyer, Weizscker, Kamphausen, Keim), prefer the other possible derivation from (therefore from ), dies crastinus (Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 464; Pro 27:1 ), which is already expressly given by Ambrose, lib . v. de sacram . 4. 24, and according to which we should have to interpret the words as meaning to-morrow’s bread . [422] So Ar., Aeth., Copt., Sahid., Erasmus, Annot ., Scaliger, Salmasius, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Valckenaer, Schol . I. p. 190, and V; also Winer, p. 92 [E. T. 120], Fritzsche, Kuffer, Schegg, Dllinger, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Wittichen. This explanation, furnished historically by the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where Jerome found , is recommended in the context by the , which, besides, has no correlative, nor is it incompatible with Mat 6:34 , where the taking no thought for to-morrow does not exclude, but rather presupposes (1Pe 5:7 ), the asking for to-morrow’s bread, while, moreover, this request is quite justified as a matter of prayer , considering how certain is the uncertainty of life’s duration. The granting to-day of to-morrow’s bread is, accordingly, the narrow limit which Christ here assigns to prayers for earthly objects, a limit not open to the charge of want of modesty (Keim), inasmuch as it is fixed only at de die in diem . Of late, Olshausen and Delitzsch (“the bread necessary for man’s spiritual and physical life”) have again adopted, at least along with the other view, the erroneous explanation, exegetically inconsistent with , but originating in a supposed perverse asceticism, and favoured by the tendency to mystical interpretation generally, no less than by the early (Irenaeus, Haer . iv. 18) reference to the Lord’s Supper in particular, the explanation, namely, that what is here meant is supernatural , [423] heavenly food (Joh 6 ), as, indeed, many Fathers (Cyprian and Jerome) and older expositors understood both kinds of bread to be included
[421] To this amounts also the view of Leo Meyer in Kuhn’s Zeitschr. f. vergleich. Sprachforsch . VII. 6, p. 401 ff., who, however, regards the word as expressing adjectively the idea of the aim involved in the : “ what is .” In this Kamphausen substantially concurs. The word is said to be derived from : “ belonging to ,” in which the idea of being “ sufficient ” or necessary is understood to be implied. But in that case we should also have expected to find , and besides, certainly does not mean to belong to , but to be by , also to be standing over, to impend , and so on. This explanation of is an erroneous etymological conjecture. Bengel very properly observes: “ non semper quidem in compositione ante vocalem amittit, sed amittit tamen in .” [See Lightfoot, A Fresh Revision of the English New Testament , Appendix on the words , . ED.]
[422] Not what is necessary for the next meal (Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit . 1838, p. 238). Baumgarten-Crusius, correctly, “to-day, what we need for to-morrow .” On was founded the very ancient ( Constitutt. apost . vii. 24. 1 f., Tertullian, Cyprian) daily use of the Lord’s Prayer.
[423] The expression was derived partly from (as Ambrose) the bread of the World to come (so again Weisse, Evangelienfr . p. 201); partly from , in which case it was interpreted to mean: the bread requisite for the life of the soul ; or, as though it were : panis supersubstantialis ; as in the Vulg. and Jerome (“ super omnes substantias ”). Melanchthon fully and pointedly expresses his opposition to the view of heavenly bread, when he says: “Its advocates are deficient in eruditio et spirituale judicium .” However, it is likewise found in Erasmus’ Paraphr.; but Calvin pronounces: “ prorsus absurdum est .”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 1315
THE LORDS PRAYER
Mat 6:11. Give us this day our daily bread.
IN those petitions which relate to the glory of God, that occurs first which is the most comprehensive and the most important: in these which relate to the welfare of man, a different order is observed. The comfortable support of our bodies, instead of being of chief importance, is, when compared with spiritual blessings, quite insignificant. Yet is a petition respecting that with great propriety placed first; because, unless our bodies be preserved in life, there will be no further scope for the communication of grace on Gods part, or the exercise of it on ours. The subject of this petition indeed is such, as many would think scarcely worthy of a place in so short a summary of prayer as that before us: but our Lord did not account it so; and therefore we should not.
That we may form a right judgment concerning it, let us consider,
I.
The import of this petition
There are two things in it which call for explanation:
1.
The general scope of it
[Some have thought, that, because Christ is represented as the bread of life which every one must eat, we are here taught to pray for the knowledge and enjoyment of Him: whilst others have thought, that the prayer referred to the sacramental bread, which in the primitive Church was partaken of daily by the whole body of believers. But neither of these interpretations accords with the terms in which the petition is conveyed. The plain and literal sense of the words seems to be that which was intended by our Lord. It may be thought strange indeed, that, when three petitions only are suggested for the welfare of man, one of them should be confined to his bodily concerns. But it must be remembered, that those are the concerns in which we are most apt to overlook the interpositions of Heaven; and consequently, that we particularly need to have this very direction given us. Nor is it a small matter to acknowledge the agency of God in things of such apparently inferior moment: for it leads us to realize the thought of an overruling Providence in every thing, even in the death of a sparrow, or the falling of a hair of our head.]
2.
The particular limitations contained in it
[The thing which we pray for, is limited to the necessaries of life. This is the general acceptation of the term bread in Scripture: it comprehends all the things which are needful for the body, but not any luxuries or superfluities. Doubtless those necessaries will vary according to our rank and situation in life, and according to the numbers we have dependent on us for support: and what would be a superfluity under some circumstances, would be no more than absolutely necessary under other circumstances: but, due respect being had to these things, this must be the limit of our requests. If we ask for any thing, to consume it upon our lusts, we ask amiss [Note: Jam 4:3.].
The measure also of these necessaries is limited. We are not to ask for a store on which we may subsist for a time independent of God; but simply for such things as are requisite for our present subsistence. The term that is used in our text [Note: .] is indeed variously interpreted: but, when compared with the corresponding passage in St. Luke [Note: Luk 11:3. .], its meaning will evidently appear to be that which our translators have affixed to it: we pray from day to day, that God will give us what is necessary for the day. We are not even to take thought for the morrow; at least, not so as to feel any anxious care respecting it [Note: ver. 34.]: for we know not that we shall be alive on the morrow; or, if we be spared, we know that He who provided for us yesterday and to-day, can do the same to-morrow: on Him therefore we should cast our care, believing that he careth for us, and that he will provide whatever in his wisdom he shall see good for us. In every place, in every event, in every thing, we should see, as it were, that name inscribed, Jehovah-jireh, The Lord will provide [Note: Gen 22:8; Gen 22:14.].]
Now this petition will be found extremely important, if we consider,
II.
The instruction to be derived from it
We need not put any forced interpretation on our text in order to render it instructive; for,
It teaches us many practical lessons that are of great importance:
1.
That we should be moderate in our desires of earthly things
[Our hearts are naturally set on earthly things. Our Lord tells us, that the Gentiles think of little except what they shall eat, and drink, and wear [Note: ver. 32.]. And it is precisely thus with the great mass of those who bear the Christian name. The heathen themselves do not exceed us in an eager pursuit after the good things of this life. Nor is perfect contentment known even among those who possess the largest fortunes: there is always something beyond their present attainments, which they are aspiring after, and anxious to possess. But it should not, nor indeed can it, be thus with any true Christian. The man who sees the worth and excellence of heavenly things can no longer pant after the worthless things of time and sense: he is like a man, who, having looked at the sun, sees a dark spot upon every earthly object. From that moment, Agurs wish is his [Note: Pro 30:8-9.]: in his addresses to his heavenly Father, he can ask for nothing more than food and raiment [Note: Gen 28:20.]: possessing that, he is content [Note: 1Ti 6:8.]: or even if he do not possess it, he knows how to suffer need as well as to abound [Note: Php 4:11-12.]; and, when having nothing, feels that he possesses all things [Note: 2Co 6:10.].
Let this lesson then be learned by us: and let every one of us apply to himself that solemn caution, Seekest thou great things unto thyself? Seek them not [Note: Jer 45:5.].]
2.
That we should depend on Gods providence for the supply of them
[God is the true source of temporal, no less than of spiritual blessings. It is he who causeth the earth to bring forth [Note: Psa 104:14-15.], and instructs men how to cultivate it to advantage [Note: Deu 8:17-18.]: and, without his blessing, all our labours would terminate in disappointment [Note: Hag 1:6.]. The whole creation subsists upon his kind and bounteous provision [Note: Psa 104:27-28.]. Now because we have so long been habituated to receive the productions of the earth, either spontaneously presenting themselves to us, or rewarding the labours of our hands, we are very apt to overlook the Donor, and to forget our dependence upon God. But we are in fact as dependent on him as the fowls of the air, which neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns: and we should in the habit of our minds live upon his providence, precisely as the Israelites did in the wilderness; and receive our daily bread at his hands, as much as if it were daily given to us from the clouds. We are indeed to labour for the things which are necessary for the body, as well as for those which pertain to the soul. The prohibition which our Lord gave respecting this, is not absolute, but only comparative [Note: Joh 6:27.]. If we will not labour for ourselves, we have no claim for assistance either from God or man [Note: 2Th 3:12.]. Nevertheless, when we have laboured with ever so much skill and diligence, we must bear in mind, that our daily bread is as truly the gift of God, as if we had not laboured for it at all: and our hope for the future must be in him alone, as much as if we were, like Elijah, subsisting daily on provision brought to us by ravens.]
3.
That, whatever be the portion which God sees fit to give us, we should be therewith content
[A person who should form his judgment by outward appearances, would think that there is an exceeding great difference between the comforts of the rich and of the poor. But there is really far less difference than we are apt to imagine. The richest man has no security for his possessions: experience proves, that kings may be hurled from their thrones, and nobles be reduced to subsist on charity. Moreover, whilst men possess their wealth, they may, by disease of body or perturbation of mind, be deprived of all comfort, and be made to envy the poorest man who is in the enjoyment of health and peace. But the pious poor have necessaries secured to them on the most inviolable of all tenures, the promise of a faithful God [Note: Mat 6:33. Psa 34:10.]. Besides, the rich have very little conception of the happiness that is derived from seeing the hand of God in their daily provision. This happiness is reserved for the poor. They are constrained to feel their dependence on God: and, when they receive their supplies, they often behold such peculiar circumstances attending them, as mark in the strongest manner the interposition of the Deity in their behalf. Can any one doubt whether provision sent in such a way be enjoyed with a greater zest than that which is supplied out of our own store? Surely the thoughts which arise in the mind of a poor man on such occasions, which fill his eyes with tears of gratitude, and his mouth with songs of praise, are an infinitely richer feast than all the luxuries which even royal wealth could procure. Let not any then be discontented with their lot: the rich and the poor meet together far more nearly than is generally supposed [Note: Pro 22:2.]: A mans life does not consist in the abundance of the things that he possesseth, but in the blessing which he enjoys along with it: The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich; and he addeth no sorrow with it [Note: Pro 10:22.]. Our blessed Lord, who often wanted bread to eat, and a place where to lay his head, has sanctified a state of want, and shewn that the Fathers love is not to be judged of by his external dispensations, or his childrens happiness materially affected by them. Are any of you then under circumstances of trial? Be of good cheer: it is a small matter: it is a small matter for your bodies to be in want, provided your souls be satisfied with the plenteousness of your Fathers house. Only eat abundantly of the living bread, which is meat indeed; and then the scantiest pittance that you can subsist upon shall be sweet as honey or the honeycomb. Feed richly, I say, on that; and you shall never hunger, as long as the world shall stand [Note: Joh 6:35; Joh 6:55.]. As it respects your body, your bread shall be given you, and your water shall be sure; and, as it respects your soul, you shall evermore delight yourself in fatness [Note: Isa 33:16; Isa 55:2.].
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
Ver. 11. Give us this day ] We have not a bit of bread of our own earning, but must get our living by begging. Peter himself was to obtain his very bread by humble petition, how much more his salvation? He that shall go to God, as the prodigal did, with, “Give me the portion that pertaineth to me,” shall receive the wages of sin, which is eternal death, Rom 6:23 . God “giveth meat in abundance,” saith Elihu, Job 36:31 ; “That thou givest they gather,” saith David, Psa 104:28 . And again, “Thou givest them their meat in due season.” Now what more free than gift? Beggars also pay no debts, but acknowledge their insufficiency, and speak supplications in a low language, as broken men ( non sum solvendo ): so must we. Oh lie daily begging at the beautiful gate of heaven: look intently upon God, as he did, Act 3:1-8 , upon Peter and John, expecting to receive something. And because beggars must be no choosers, ask, as our Saviour here directs, (1.) for quality, bread only, not manchets a or juncates, b but downright household bread c (as the word imports), “the bread of carefulness or sorrows,” Psa 127:2 , which the singing Psalms interpret “brown bread.” Our Saviour gave thanks for barley bread; and his disciples were glad to make a sabbath day’s dinner of a few ears of grain rubbed between their fingers. A very philosopher could say, He that can feed upon green herbs need not please Dionysius, need not flatter any man. And Epicurus himself would not doubt to content himself as well as he that hath most, might he have but a morsel of coarse meat and a draught of cold water. d The Israelites had soon enough of their quails: they had quaffs with a vengeance, because manna would not content them. They died with the meat in their mouths: and by a hasty testament, bequeathed a new name to the place of their burial, Kibrothhattaavah, the graves of lust: Cibus et potus sunt divitiae Christianorum, saith Jerome: Meat and drink are the Christian man’s riches. Bread and cheese (saith another) with the gospel is good cheer. Nature is content with a little, grace with less, saith a third. A godly man, as he asketh but for bread, so (2.) for the quantity, but for daily bread, the bread of the day for the day, enough to bring him home with Jacob, so much only as will bear his charges, till he return again to his father’s house. e He passeth through the world, as Israel through the wilderness, content with his omer by the day, with his statute measure, with his Father’s allowance. As he journeyeth to the promised land, he bespeaks the world, as Israel did Edom through whose country they would have passed: “Let me pass through thy land: we will not turn aside into the fields nor vineyards; neither will we drink of the water of thy wells; we will go by the king’s highway, until we be past thy country,” Num 21:21-22 . And as a traveller when he cometh to his inn, if he can get a better room or lodging, he will; but if not, he is content, for he considereth it is but for a night. So the Christian pilgrim, if God send him in a plentiful estate, he gladly makes use of it; but if otherwise, he can live with a little: and if his means be not to his mind, he can bring his mind to his means, and live upon reversions. f Give him but necessaries, he stands not upon superfluities. Give him but daily bread, that is, bread for necessity, saith the Syriac, so much as will hold life and soul together, said Brentius. Sufficient to uphold and sustain nature, saith Beza (with the Greek scholar), that wherewith our nature and constitution may be content, and he is well paid and satisfied: g he cries out with Jacob, “I have enough;” and with David, “The lines are fallen unto me in a fair place.” A little of the creature will serve turn to carry him through his pilgrimage; in his Father’s house he knows is bread enough, Luk 16:21-22 . And on the hope of that he goes on as merrily, and feeds as sweetly, as Samson did from his honey-comb, or Hunniades when he supped with the shepherds.
This day ] Or, as St Luke hath it, by the day: h for who is sure of tomorrow? May not his soul this night be taken from him? We are , as Diogenes was wont to say of himself: i and should (as Quintillian speaketh of the birds and beasts) in diem vivere, to live for the day, taking no further thought than for the present sustenance. The Turks never build anything sumptuously for their own private use, but contenting themselves with their simple cottages, how mean so ever, commonly say, that they be good enough for the time of their short pilgrimage.
a A small loaf or roll of the finest wheaten bread. Now only arch. or dial. The bread was moulded into small loaves, round and flattish, or into rolls, thicker in the middle than at the ends. D
b Any dainty sweetmeat, cake, or confection; a sweet dish; a delicacy D
c , . Horat. Opponit panem libis et placentis, 1 eph 10.
d Epicurus dicebat se cum Iove etiam paratum esse de felicitate certare, si aquam haberet et offam.
e Ale me pane praescripti vel demensi mei, Pro 30:8 .
f Scite et breviter. Clem. Alex. , Socrates ab Archelao ad facultates ampliores accersitus, , inquit, ’ . Arian. ap. Stobaeum.
g Panem necessitatis. Syr. Vitae conservativum. Brent. In Annotat. Eum quo contenta esse possit natura et constitutio nostra. Camer.
h , . Suid. , Luk 11:3 ; Luk 12:20 .
i Dioque erat , , , , ,
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
11. . . . .] as ‘ created for us ,’ ‘provided for our use by Thee:’ , Euthym [65] The word has been very variously explained. Origen says of it, , , , . The derivations and meanings given may be thus classified (after Tholuck). I. , : and that, either (1) from the participle , as , , , or (2) from the subst. . Against both , an objection is brought that thus it would be ., not .; but this is not decisive; we have and , , , &c. Against (2) it is alleged that adjectives from substantives in – and – end in – or – , , , , and from not but : , , not being from but from the fem. particip. But this is not always so: we have from , from , and and from : while itself is derived by some from . II. , : and that, either (1) from the fem. part. , understanding , or (2) from , understanding . (1) has much apparently in its favour. In the N.T., LXX, and Josephus, , , and this expression itself are often found in this elliptic sense. Jerome found for this word, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, “mahar ( ) quod dicitur crastinus.” (So also crastinum cop [66] .) The objection brought against it (Salmas. Suicer), that, viz., from the analogy of , , , &c. does not seem valid to disprove the existence of the more general possessive adj. in – . But the great objection to this derivation is in the sense: which would then be in direct opposition to Mat 6:34 . Nor does it answer this to say, that by making to-morrow’s bread the subject of prayer we divest ourselves of anxiety respecting it; since our Lord’s command is not to feel that anxiety at all. The same objection will apply to (2) , or to giving (as Grot. a [67] .) a wider sense to , as meaning all future time , according to the Hebr. usage of . (Cf. venturum or venientem sa [68] .) Nor will bear the Hebraistic interpretation of ‘from day to day,’ . Add to this that independently of the discrepancy with Mat 6:34 , Salmasius’s objection to this sense, ‘quid est ineptius, quam panem crastini diei (and we may say fortiori ‘omnis futuri temporis’) nobis quotidie postulare?’ seems to me unanswerable. Returning then to the derivation from , which has in its favour the authority of the Greek fathers, especially of Origen, and of the Peschito ( indigenti nostr ), Tholuck thinks it most probable that it is formed after the analogy of , from the substantive . The substantive signifies not merely existence (as alleged in the 1st edn. of this work), but also subsistence , compare Luk 15:12 , where is a curious illustration of this word. And even were existence only, it would still be open for us to take the meaning of the Greek fathers, . , Theophylact: similarly Chr [69] , Basil, Greg [70] Nyss [71] , and Suidas, and the Etym. Mag. Thus will be required for our subsistence proper for our sustenance, after the analogy of , ‘fit for marriage,’ , ‘proper for the banquet,’ &c. So that will be equivalent to St. James’s ( Mat 2:16 ), and the expressions are rendered in Sy [72] . by the same word. Thus only, has its proper meaning. The in Luk 11:3 is different; see there.
[65] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
[66] The Coptic or Memphitic Egyptian version. Fourth century?
[67] alii
[68] The Thebaic or Sahidic Egyptian version. Third century?
[69]
[70] Gregory, Bp. of Rome , 590 605
[71] Nyssa, Gregory, Bp. of, 371
[72] The Peschito (or simple) Syriac version. Supposed to have been made as early as the second century . The text as edited is in a most unsatisfactory state.
It yet remains to enquire how far the expression may be understood spiritually of the Bread of Life. The answer is easy: viz. that we may safely thus understand it, provided we keep in the foreground its primary physical meaning, and view the other as involved by implication in that. To explain (as Orig [73] Cyr.-jer [74] ), , and understand the expression of the Eucharist primarily , or even of spiritual feeding on Christ, is to miss the plain reference of the petition to our daily physical wants. But not to recognize those spiritual senses, is equally to miss the great truth, that the whose bread is prayed for, are not mere animals, but composed of body, soul, and spirit, all of which want daily nourishment by Him from whom all blessings flow. See the whole subject treated in Tholuck (pp. 353 371): from whom much of this note is taken. Augustine well says (Serm. lviii. 4 (5), vol. v. pt. 1): ‘Quicquid anim nostr et carni nostr in hac vita necessarium est, quotidiano pane concluditur.’ The Vulg. rendering, supersubstantialem (substituted for the old lat. quotidianum ), tallies with a large class of patristic interpretations which understand the word to point exclusively to the spiritual food of the Word and Sacraments.
[73] Origen, b. 185, d. 254
[74]-jer. Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 348 386
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 6:11 . Fourth petition . : whatever the adjective qualifying 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 are to be discarded. This is the one puzzling word in the prayer. It is a ., 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 ( ) 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 and , or the participle of ; others from , or = the approaching day ( understood). In the one case we get a qualitative sense bread for subsistence, bread needed and sufficient ( . Pro 30:8 , Sept [37] ); in the other, a temporal bread of the coming day, panem quotidianum (Vulg [38] , Luk 11:3 ), “daily bread”. Either party argues against the other on grammatical grounds, e.g. , that derived from the word should be , and that derived from it should be . 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. ). On the other side it is said: Granting that the sense “sufficient” can be got from , , 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 and , 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 . But Aramaic Christians put for 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 Luk 11:2 , while supersubstantialem is given in Mat 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 ( , Mt.) or daily ( , 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 , the adjective 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 in Matt. and in Luke, along with . 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 in Cremer’s Bib. Theol., W. B., 7te Aufl., 1893.
[37] Septuagint.
[38] Vulgate (Jerome’s revision of old Latin version).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
daily. Greek. epiousios. A word coined by our Lord, and used only here and Luk 11:3, by Him. Compounded from epi = upon (App-104.), and ousios = coming. This is derived from eimi = to come or go, which has the participle epiousa (not from eimi = to be, which would make the participle = epousa). Therefore it means coming or descending upon, as did the manna, with which it is contrasted in Joh 6:32, Joh 6:33. It is the true bread from heaven, by which alone man can live the Word of God, which is prayed for here. Epiousion has the article and is separated from “this day” by the words “give to us”; “daily” here is from the Vulgate. Epiousios has been found in the Papyri (Codd. Sergii), but as these are, after all, not Greek (as shown by Prof. Nestle in 1900) but Armenian; the evidence for the word being Greek is still wanting.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
11. . …] -as created for us, provided for our use by Thee: , Euthym[65] The word has been very variously explained. Origen says of it, , , , . The derivations and meanings given may be thus classified (after Tholuck). I. , : and that, either (1) from the participle, as , , , or (2) from the subst. . Against both, an objection is brought that thus it would be ., not .; but this is not decisive; we have and , , , &c. Against (2) it is alleged that adjectives from substantives in – and – end in – or -,-, , , and from not but : , , not being from but from the fem. particip. But this is not always so: we have from , from , and and from :-while itself is derived by some from . II. , : and that, either (1) from the fem. part. , understanding , or (2) from , understanding . (1) has much apparently in its favour. In the N.T., LXX, and Josephus, , , and this expression itself are often found in this elliptic sense. Jerome found for this word, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, mahar () quod dicitur crastinus. (So also crastinum cop[66].) The objection brought against it (Salmas. Suicer), that, viz., from the analogy of , , , &c. does not seem valid to disprove the existence of the more general possessive adj. in -. But the great objection to this derivation is in the sense: which would then be in direct opposition to Mat 6:34. Nor does it answer this to say, that by making to-morrows bread the subject of prayer we divest ourselves of anxiety respecting it; since our Lords command is not to feel that anxiety at all. The same objection will apply to (2) , or to giving (as Grot. a[67].) a wider sense to , as meaning all future time, according to the Hebr. usage of . (Cf. venturum or venientem sa[68].) Nor will bear the Hebraistic interpretation of from day to day, . Add to this that independently of the discrepancy with Mat 6:34, Salmasiuss objection to this sense, quid est ineptius, quam panem crastini diei (and we may say fortiori omnis futuri temporis) nobis quotidie postulare? seems to me unanswerable. Returning then to the derivation from , which has in its favour the authority of the Greek fathers, especially of Origen, and of the Peschito (indigenti nostr), Tholuck thinks it most probable that it is formed after the analogy of , from the substantive . The substantive signifies not merely existence (as alleged in the 1st edn. of this work), but also subsistence, compare Luk 15:12, where is a curious illustration of this word. And even were existence only, it would still be open for us to take the meaning of the Greek fathers, . ,-Theophylact: similarly Chr[69], Basil, Greg[70] Nyss[71], and Suidas, and the Etym. Mag. Thus will be required for our subsistence-proper for our sustenance, after the analogy of , fit for marriage, , proper for the banquet, &c. So that will be equivalent to St. Jamess (Mat 2:16), and the expressions are rendered in Sy[72]. by the same word. Thus only, has its proper meaning. The in Luk 11:3 is different; see there.
[65] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
[66] The Coptic or Memphitic Egyptian version. Fourth century?
[67] alii = some cursive mss.
[68] The Thebaic or Sahidic Egyptian version. Third century?
[69] Chrysostom, Bp. of Constantinople, 397-407: Chr-montf, a MS. cited from Montfaucon; Chr-wlf, Wolfenbttel MS. of Chr. written in centy. vi.; Chr-Fd, Fields edn. of the Hom. on Mat 6:1-34
[70] Gregory, Bp. of Rome, 590-605
[71] Nyssa, Gregory, Bp. of, 371
[72] The Peschito (or simple) Syriac version. Supposed to have been made as early as the second century. The text as edited is in a most unsatisfactory state.
It yet remains to enquire how far the expression may be understood spiritually-of the Bread of Life. The answer is easy: viz. that we may safely thus understand it, provided we keep in the foreground its primary physical meaning, and view the other as involved by implication in that. To explain (as Orig[73] Cyr.-jer[74]), , and understand the expression of the Eucharist primarily, or even of spiritual feeding on Christ, is to miss the plain reference of the petition to our daily physical wants. But not to recognize those spiritual senses, is equally to miss the great truth, that the whose bread is prayed for, are not mere animals, but composed of body, soul, and spirit, all of which want daily nourishment by Him from whom all blessings flow. See the whole subject treated in Tholuck (pp. 353-371): from whom much of this note is taken. Augustine well says (Serm. lviii. 4 (5), vol. v. pt. 1): Quicquid anim nostr et carni nostr in hac vita necessarium est, quotidiano pane concluditur. The Vulg. rendering, supersubstantialem (substituted for the old lat. quotidianum), tallies with a large class of patristic interpretations which understand the word to point exclusively to the spiritual food of the Word and Sacraments.
[73] Origen, b. 185, d. 254
[74]-jer. Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 348-386
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 6:11. , the bread) sc. nourishment of the body; see Mat 6:19, etc., 25, etc., from which it is evident that the disciples were not yet raised above the cares of this life. This short petition is opposed to the much speaking of the heathen, mentioned in Mat 6:7, which principally referred to the same object;[260] and it is placed first amongst those petitions which refer to ourselves, because the natural life is prior to the spiritual. Every want of ours is cared for in this prayer.-, of or belonging to us) our, sc. earthly. But the spiritual bread is the bread of God, i.e. that which is [given] by God, and [cometh forth] from God.-, daily) This adjective is derived , from the following day, and is composed of and .[261] For from , to be (from which also comes ) or from , essence or private property, would be composed, , in the same manner as , etc.: since although does not always lose the in composition before a vowel, it does lose it in , as also in from which this adjective must be originally derived according to this hypothesis. Our heavenly Father gives each day what is needed each day. Nor is it necessary that He should give it before. This His paternal and providential distribution suggests the expression , for the coming day. The continuance, therefore, of our indigence, and of Gods fatherly beneficence as from year to year, so from day to day, is denoted by this phrase. Cf. 2Ki 25:30.- , the proportion for the day on its day. Cf. Act 6:1, , daily ministration. The bread, as a whole, is appointed us for all our days; but the giving of it is distributed through the several days of our life, so as to take place each day. Both these ideas are expressed by the word . What was necessary for the support of my life on any particular day, needed not to be given me on the day before that, but on that very day; and what was necessary on the following day, was given soon enough on that day, and so on. The sense therefore of extends more widely with regard both to the past and the future, than that of crastinus to-morrows.-, to-day) In Luk 11:3, we find , day by day. Day by day we say and pray, to-day. Our confidence and contentedness ()[262] are thus expressed. Thus in Jam 2:15, we have , daily food. Cf. also Pro 30:8. Thus was manna given.
[260] viz. the cares of this life.-ED.
[261] The feminine of , the participle present of to go.-(I. B.)
[262] See p. 150 and f.n. 3.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Mat 4:4, Exo 16:16-35, Job 23:12, Psa 33:18, Psa 33:19, Psa 34:10, Pro 30:8, Isa 33:16, Luk 11:3, Joh 6:31-59; 2Th 3:12, 1Ti 6:8
Reciprocal: Gen 1:29 – to you Gen 18:5 – And I Gen 47:15 – Give us bread Exo 16:4 – a certain rate every day Rth 1:6 – in giving 2Sa 9:7 – eat bread 2Ki 25:30 – a daily rate Psa 37:16 – General Ecc 2:22 – and of the Jer 52:34 – there was Dan 1:5 – a daily Mat 6:34 – no Mat 18:22 – but 2Th 3:8 – eat
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
ONLY BREAD
Give us this day our daily bread.
Mat 6:11
How small a part of this model prayer is devoted to our bodily necessities! One single petition is all, and this of the simplest kind. Yet it is a larger one than it looks. The word bread must stand for the necessaries of existence.
I. A rebuke of extravagance.This prayer rebukes extravagance and intemperance and enfeebling luxury. It is quite possible for us to create wants which are no part of our Divine endowment. The word bread may show that only the simple, healthy satisfaction of an incorrupted nature is here referred to. We may indulge and spoil ourselves until we want a thousand things which are altogether unnecessary and unnatural. This prayer is as far removed from wasteful indulgence as it is from offensive self-neglect. It recognises our bodily existence as worthy of prayer; it does not recognise the deadly parasites which prey upon it.
II. A prayer for a manly will.There are many who eat bread which is not their own. Whosoever is not working, says Carlyle, is begging or stealing. What is the cause of the greater part of our painful poverty? Of course there are exceptional cases. But as a rule men bring poverty on themselves, or it is their own fault that they do not rise out of it. They break the law of work, and because they will not work neither do they eat. There is what Burke calls a. guilty poverty. We must change mens characters and convert them from idleness and improvidence and intemperance, and the pauperism will disappear. Prayer is that way by which character is changed. Once a whole nation, in deep reverence before God, and in submission to His manifested will, prays this prayer, Give us this day our daily bread, then the workhouse may be abolished.
III. A prayer for the spirit by which we may gain bread.It is a prayer that we may be saved from the vice of indolence, improvidence, extravagance, and intemperance. It is a prayer that our characters may be cleansed from a degrading selfishness, and started and strengthened in the path of manly regard and duty. It is a prayer for an honourable spirit of independence which disdains to be a beggar, a hanger-on upon others, the recipient of doles spent in fashionable or squalid self-indulgence, to be a shameless borrower who never pays, and a debtor who preys upon the unwary.
IV. A prayer which will evoke the spirit of brotherly love.He who says, Give usnot me merely, not a selfish prayerhe who says, Give us our daily bread, and says it to God for God to hear him, and to look into his heart to see that he is sincere, will not pass by his needy brother. The charity which prays but does not give is shallow charity.
Dean W. Page Roberts.
Illustration
Certain French missionaries travelled with a Buddhist who professed to be a Christian. When they had safely crossed over a difficult mountain top, the Buddhist proposed that they should give something as a thanksgiving for their deliverance from peril. He suggested that they might provide horses for the service of future worn-out travellers. The priests were astonished at the proposal, for they had no horses to give nor money with which to buy any. Then the Buddhist, being a religious man, explained that it was not necessary to give real horses; if they made imitations of horses of bits of paper and threw them over the precipice and let the wind carry them away, and then said one or two prayers, the bits of paper would be changed into real horses by Divine power. And when we pray for ourselves and for others, Give us this day our daily bread, and are stingy and wasteful and hard-hearted, giving nothing, or giving but the shabbiest offering, our charity is but paper charity; not bank paper but waste paper.
(SECOND OUTLINE)
AS WELL FOR THE BODY AS THE SOUL
If we were to sum up in short petition all our ordinary wants we should express them very differently. We are toiling for tomorrow, for next year, for our old age, and our children when we are gone. But text teaches us a better and nobler lessonone of simple dependence upon God.
I. Daily bread for the body.In this sense the prayer is one for our physical well-being in generalfood, raiment, shelter. We leave ourselves in His hands. See, too, it is the great family who are praying, Give us. Are there any near you known to be destitute? Such want this prayer pledges us to relieve.
II. Daily bread for spiritual life.The text has a higher import. Spiritual life needs its daily bread. What is the spiritual food on which the soul must feed? The Lord answers: I am the Bread of Life. Not faith, nor love, nor holiness, nor anything short of Christ Himself can feed the spiritual being of man. Do we need wisdom, holiness, a perfect pattern, a dear friend? All these we have in Him. We pray that we may live each day on Christ. We do not pray for long days to come, but for our daily bread, just so much food for our spirits as God may see fit to send us.
Dean Alford.
(THIRD OUTLINE)
THE CHRISTIAN AND TEMPORAL GIFTS
Look at the believers way of seeking temporal things from God. See the piety of the prayer, and then the faith, and then the moderation.
I. The piety of the prayer.It is a beautiful thing, in the sight of God and His holy angels, to see a godly man get up in the morning, and surrounded by his wife and children, put special emphasis upon the words of my text, Give us this day our daily bread. He looks round and sees his family. He knows that the bread they eat depends more or less on his toil, and he puts an emphasis on the us. He thanks God that He has made the us so large that it includes all that he holds dear, his wife, his children; yes, possibly many more, and he prays, Give us this day our daily bread. What does it matter if the next meal does depend upon his labour? Things may change, health may fail, trials may draw near, but it is the Lord Who changeth not; and that poor man goes forth from his knees to his work full of joy.
II. The faith of the prayer.We have far more difficulty in trusting God with regard to temporal matters than with regard to spiritual matters. Spiritual things, we say, these are in Gods province; for temporal things I have to depend upon myself. Is it so? God withdraws His Hand. You lie, perhaps, upon the bed of sickness, you live by charity. Do you depend upon your own powers, upon your own ability? No, it is given you, given; and what a useful lesson it is! Every morning, yes, often during the day, you should pray, Give us. Why? Because I depend upon Thee, Great Lord, because the power of brain and body which Thou hast given me Thou canst take away. Therefore, give it me, keep it for me. Give me all that is included in the word, bread.
III. The moderation of the prayer.We see that in time, manner, and degree. Enough for the day is the evil thereof. Do not imagine that I do not want you to make provision for tomorrow; I do. But I do not want you to make anxious provision. That is all the difference in the world. That is the difference between what is good and what is evil. God will provide. In the East this word bread is made to stand for all the necessaries of life. God knows what is necessary. We leave it a blank in Gods Hand. We say, Give us this day all that we need for our bodily sustenance. Is that not enough?
The Rev. J. J. Jenkins.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
6:11
There are two outstanding thoughts in this verse. Daily is from a Greek word that means “necessary,” showing they were to pray for what they needed and not what they merely desired. And this day indicates that prayer should be offered daily.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Give us this day our daily bread.
[Our daily bread.] That is, provide to-morrow’s bread; and give it us to-day, that we be not solicitous for to-morrow…
“The necessities of thy people Israel are many, and their knowledge small, so that they know not how to disclose their necessities; let it be thy good pleasure to give to every man what sufficeth for food;” etc.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 6:11. Give us this day our daily bread (fourth petition). First of the second division relative to our wants. These are subordinate, but not opposed, to the subjects of the previous petitions. Bread, food in general; the form in the Greek hints that it is ours, i.e., created for our use; this day, shows that we are to pray daily and to ask neither for riches nor poverty, but, with contentment and thankfulness for the days portion only. The word translated daily has occasioned a great deal of discussion, as it occurs only in the Lords Prayer (here and Luk 11:3), and was not current in colloquial Greek (Origen). Explanations (1) required for our (physical) wants, needful; (2) coming, i.e., tomorrows bread; but this is contrary to the whole context (Mat 6:34), and gives no good sense, since we do not need tomorrows bread this day; (3) Romanists refer bread to spiritual nourishment (the sacraments); but while this is cither included or suggested, the primary sense must be that of actual bodily food. For a full discussion, see Lange, Matthew, pp. 121, 126, and Lightfoot, Revision of the Eng. New Testament (Appendix). The propriety of daily family prayer is suggested by this petition for our daily bread.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 6:11. Give us this day our daily bread As the original word, , here rendered daily, is not found anywhere else; neither in the LXX. nor in any Greek author, nor in any other part of the New Testament, save in the parallel passage in Luke, commentators differ in their interpretation of it. That given by Theophylact, one of the most approved of the Greek fathers, seems the best: Bread sufficient for our sustenance or support: which is the sense in which the word is understood by Chrysostom, and in Etymol. Magna, where it is explained thus:
, that which is sufficient to our life; or what will strengthen us from day to day for serving God with cheerfulness and vigour. Thus, also, Mr. Mede interprets the expression. The Latin version, in Jeromes time, had panem quotidianum, daily bread, which our translators have copied, because in the parallel passage, Luk 11:3, , day by day, is joined with . Daily bread, it must be observed, according to the Hebrew idiom, signifies the whole provision of the table, see Gen 18:5; and here it includes raiment also, and every thing necessary to life. Since, therefore, we are not allowed to ask provision to gratify a luxurious appetite, but only the necessaries of life, and that not for many years, but from day to day, the petition forbids anxious cares about futurity, and teaches us how moderate our desires of worldly things ought to be. And whereas, not the poor only, whose industry all acknowledge must be favoured by the concurrence of Providence to render it successful, but the rich are enjoined to pray for their bread, day by day, it is on account of the great instability of human affairs, which renders the possession of wealth absolutely precarious; and because, without the divine blessing, even the abundance of the rich is not of itself sufficient so much as to keep them alive, far less to make them happy. Indeed, the petition teaches all men to exercise an humble dependance on Divine Providence for the most necessary supplies, be their possessions or abilities ever so great. It may be observed further here, that Erasmus, Heylin, and many others, following the fathers, understand it in a spiritual sense also. Bread, says Heylin, here signifies, all things needful for our maintenance; the maintenance of the whole man, both body and soul; for each of these have their proper sustenance; to one belongs the natural bread, to the other the spiritual, and both are included in this petition.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
6:11 Give us this day our (d) daily bread.
(d) That which is suitable for our nature for our daily food, or such as may suffice our nature and complexion.