Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶςKatholikon

Library › Origen › On Prayer

On Prayer

Origen, tr. Oulton, 1954

“Give us this day our daily bread,” or, as Luke has it, “Give us day by day our daily …

GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD
(Chapter XXVII)

“Give us this day our daily bread,”1 or, as Luke has it, “Give us day by day our daily bread.”2 Since some suppose that we are told to pray concerning material3 bread, it is right to refute here their false opinion and to establish the truth concerning “the daily bread.” We must therefore say this to them. How can he, who tells us that we ought to ask for “heavenly things” and “great things,”4 forget as it were in their case his own teaching and command them to address to the Father an intercession concerning an “earthly” and “small thing,” seeing that the bread that is distributed for our flesh is not “heavenly” neither is it a “great” request to pray concerning it?

But we, following him as Teacher, will quote at some length the teaching he gives us concerning bread. He says in the Gospel according to John to them who had “come to Capernaum” to “seek” him5: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled.”6 For he who “eats of the loaves” that were blessed by Jesus, and is filled with them, “seeks” rather to comprehend more perfectly78 the Son of God, and hastens unto him. Therefore, well does he command them, saying: “Work not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you.”9 Whereupon, when those who heard him inquired, saying, “What must we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”10 Now, “God sent his word, and healed them”11 (as it is written in Psalms), that is to say, those who had been sick: they who believe on that Word “work the works of God,” which are “meat abiding unto eternal life.”12 And “my Father,” says he, “giveth you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world.”13 Now, “true bread” is that which nourishes “the” true “man,” who has been “made in the image of God,”14 and he who is nourished with it also becomes “after the likeness”15 of the Creator. But what is more nourishing to the soul than the Word, and what is more precious to the mind of him who makes room for it than the Wisdom of God? And what is more appropriate to the rational soul than truth?

16 But if anyone offer an objection to this and say that he would not have taught us to ask for “the daily bread” as if for some other bread, let such a one observe17 that in the Gospel according to John also he speaks in one place of it as some other than he, and in another place that he himself is the bread; of some other, as follows: “Moses gave you the bread out of heaven, not the true” bread, “but my Father giveth you the true bread out of heaven”18; of himself, he says to those who “said” to him, “Evermore give us this bread, I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”19 And a little further on: “I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”2021

Since every kind of food is called “bread”22 in Scripture (as is evident from what is written concerning Moses: “He did not eat bread forty days and did not drink water”23), the Word which nourishes is varied and diverse, for not all are able to be nourished by the solidity and vigorous force of the divine teachings. Therefore, desiring to command a disciplined24 diet adapted to those who are more perfect, he says, “The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”25 And a little further on: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.”26 This is the “true meat, the flesh” of Christ, which being the “Word” hath “become flesh,” as it is said, “the Word became flesh.”27 When we [ate and28] drank him,29 “he also dwelt among us.” But whenever he is “distributed,”3031 then is fulfilled: “we beheld his glory.”27 “This is the bread which came down out of heaven: not as the fathers did eat, and died: he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.”32

Paul, speaking to the Corinthians as to “babes” and “walking after the manner of men,” says, “I fed you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not able” to bear it: “nay, not even now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal”33; and in the [Epistle] to the Hebrews:34 “And ye are become such as have need of milk, not of solid food. For everyone that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for full-grown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.”35 And I think that the words “One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs”36 were not said by him principally concerning bodily nourishment, but concerning the words of God that nourish the soul: the most believing and perfect man being able to partake of all things (whom he indicates in the words “one man hath faith to eat all things”), the weaker and less perfect being content with simpler teachings which do not produce in him full vigour (and this person he means to point out when he says “but he that is weak eateth herbs”).

And I think that the saying of Solomon in Proverbs teaches us that he who cannot receive the stronger and more important points of doctrine because of his simplicity (but not, however, holding erroneous opinions), is to be preferred to him who though more skilful and quick-sighted and giving greater thought to things, yet fails to see clearly what concerns the peace and harmony of the whole. His saying is as follows: “Better a dinner of herbs where friendship and grace are than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.”37 Certainly, we have often accepted a private and simpler entertainment served with a good conscience, when we were the guests of those who could not offer us more, preferably to high-flown words “exalted against the knowledge of God,”38 which with much persuasiveness proclaim a doctrine foreign to the Father of our Lord Jesus who has given “the law” and “the prophets.”3940 Therefore, in order that we may not be sick of soul through lack of nourishment, nor “die to”41 God because of “a famine” of “the word of the Lord,”42 let us ask from the Father “the living bread,”43 which is the same as “the daily”44 [bread], obeying our Saviour as teacher, putting our faith in him, and living more wisely.45

The word ἐπιούσιος

We must now consider what is the meaning of “daily” (epiousion). And first, it ought to be known that this word epiousios46 is not employed by any of the Greeks or learned writers, nor is it in common use among ordinary folk; but it seems likely to have been coined by the evangelists. At any rate,47 Matthew and Luke are agreed about it, both using it with no difference. The translators of the Hebrew [Scriptures] have done the same kind of thing in other cases. For example, what Greek ever used the words enotizou4849 or akoutieis5051 instead of “receive into the ears” or “shall make to hear” respectively? There is a word similar to epiousion, in the writings of Moses, spoken by God: “And ye shall be unto me a peculiar [periousios]52 people.”53 And it seems to me that each of the two words is derived from ousia,54 the one meaning the bread that comes together into substance, the other indicating the people dwelling around substance and partaking of it.

The word “substance” (ousia) in its proper sense is commonly used55 of incorporeal things by those who maintain that the reality of incorporeal things is primary,56 such things having stable existence, not admitting of addition nor suffering diminution. (For this is the characteristic of bodies that they are susceptible of increase and wasting because they are in a state of flux57 and need a sustaining force to come upon them and nourish them: if at a given time they receive more58 than they lose, there is an increase; but, if less, a decrease. Sometimes it may happen that because nothing at all comes upon them they are in a state of absolute decrease, so to speak.) But those who hold that the reality of incorporeal things is secondary and that of corporeal things is primary,59 define substance as follows. Substance is the prime matter of existents,60 and the source of existents; the matter of bodies, and the source of bodies; of things named, and the source of things named; or it is the first substrate, without quality, or the antecedent of existents; or that which receives all changes or alterations but is itself subject to no alteration61 according to the proper notion of the term; or else that which persists through all alteration or change. For such people substance is without quality or characteristic form62 according to the proper notion of the term, and has no determined size, but as a suitable place, so to speak, is inherent in63 every quality. They formally define as qualities energies and actions in which it has happened that there are movements and stationary conditions;64 they say that substance according to the proper notion of the term does not partake of any of these, but that it is always inseparable from some one of them, and is none the less affected by65 and receptive of every expression of activity,66 according as that acts or changes. For the tension67 that accompanies substance and permeates it in every part is the cause of every quality and of whatever adaptations of it there may be. They say that substance is in every part subject to change and divisible,68 and that any substance may be compounded with any other, and still form a unity.

Since in our discussion of the word “substance” (ousia), necessary because of the terms “daily (epiousios) bread” and “peculiar (periousios) people,” we have shown that the different meanings of ousia are to be distinguished, and since in the preceding discussion we saw that the “bread” for which we are to ask is “spiritual”, we must needs form a conception of the ousia which is akin to that of the “bread.” The bodily bread which is distributed for the body of him who is nourished thereby passes into his “substance.” Similarly, “the living bread” which has “come down out of heaven,”69 being distributed for the mind and the soul,70 imparts a share of its peculiar power to him who has willingly accepted the nourishment that comes from it: and thus the bread which we ask for will be epiousios. And again, according to the quality of the food, whether it be “solid” and adapted to athletes, or of a milky or herbal kind, he who is nourished acquires different forces, so also it follows that, when the word of God is given either as “milk” suitably for “babes,” or as “herbs” suitably for them that are “weak,”71 or as “flesh”7273 seasonably for those who are contesting, each of those who are nourished, in proportion as he has offered himself to the word, can accomplish this or that thing, or becomes such or such a person. There is, however, so-called food which is harmful,74 another kind which produces disease, and yet another which cannot be given at all: and all these may be transferred by analogy to the different kinds of so-called teachings regarded as nourishing. Therefore epiousios bread is that which is best adapted to the reasonable nature and akin to it in its very substance: it provides at once health and vigour and strength to the soul and imparts a share of its own immortality (for the word of God is immortal) to him who eats of it.

This epiousios bread seems to me to have been called in Scripture by another name, “the tree of life,” to which he who “puts forth his hand, and takes” of it, “shall live for ever.”75 And by a third name this “tree” is called the wisdom of God by Solomon, in these words: “She is a tree of life to all them that lay hold upon her, and is safe for them that stay themselves as upon the Lord.”7677 And since the angels also are nourished by the wisdom of God, and from the contemplation of truth and wisdom receive strength to carry out their special tasks, it is said in Psalms that the angels also are nourished, and that the men of God who are called Hebrews share this food with the angels, and so to speak feast together with them. Such a statement is “Man did eat angels’ food.”78 Our mind is not so poverty-stricken as to think that the angels always partake of and are nourished by some such bodily food as we are told came down from heaven upon those who had gone forth out of Egypt,79 or that this was the bread80 which the Hebrews partook of with the angels, who are the “ministering spirits”81 of God.

As we discuss the epiousios bread and the tree of life and the wisdom of God and the food that men and angels had in common, it is not out of place to pay attention also to the “three men” of whom Genesis writes, who turned in and lodged with Abraham and partook of “three measures of fine flour kneaded” for the “making” of “cakes baked in the ashes.”82 Perhaps this is to be taken quite figuratively: for the saints are able to partake on occasion of spiritual and reasonable food not only in company with men but also with diviner powers, either for their own benefit or in order to display what great nourishment they are able to procure for themselves; and angels are glad and are nourished by such a display, and they become the more ready to co-operate in every way and in the sequel to conspire for further and greater understanding on the part of him who gladdens and, so to speak, nourishes them with the nutriment of teachings formerly prepared.8384 And it is not to be wondered at if a man feeds angels, for indeed even Christ acknowledges85 that he “stands at the door and knocks,” so that he may “come in” to him who has “opened” it for him and “sup with him”86 of the things that he has; afterwards he will share what is his own with him who has first entertained, according to his ability, the Son of God.

He who partakes of the epiousios “bread strengthens” his “heart”87 and becomes a son of God; but he who participates in “the dragon”88 is none other than “the Ethiopian”89 spiritually,90 himself changed into a serpent because of the toils of the dragon,91 so that, even when he says he wishes “to be baptized,”92 he hears the reproach of the Word against him, “Serpents,93 offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”94 And David says this concerning the body of the dragon that was feasted upon by the Ethiopians: “Thou brakest the heads of the dragons upon the water: thou didst smite the head of the dragon in pieces95; thou gavest him to be meat to the peoples, the Ethiopians.”96 And if it is not incongruous, since the Son of God subsists substantially, and the adversary97 also subsists, that either of them should be the food of this or that, why should we hesitate to admit, in the case of all powers greater or inferior and in the case of man, that every one of us can be nourished by them all? For example, when “Peter” was about to have fellowship with the “centurion Cornelius” and those who gathered together with him “in Caesarea,” and afterwards to impart of the words of God “to the Gentiles also,” he saw the “vessel let down by four corners from heaven, in which” were “all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things and beasts of the earth”; and when, having been bidden to “rise” and “kill and eat,” he excused himself, saying, Thou knowest “that never hath anything common or unclean entered into my mouth,” he was commanded “not to call any man common or unclean,” in that what was “cleansed” by God ought “not” to be “made common” by Peter. For the saying is: “What God hath cleansed, make not thou common.” Therefore the clean and unclean meats according to the law of Moses, distinguished under the names of several animals, and bearing an analogy to the different characters of creatures of reason, teach us that some are nourishing for us, while others are the opposite, until “God,” having “cleansed”98 them, makes them all nourishing, even those of “every kind.”99

Today

This being so, and there being such a variety of meats, the one that surpasses all that have been named is the epiousios bread, concerning which we ought to pray that we may be deemed worthy of it, and by feeding on “God the Word” who was “in the beginning with God”100 may be deified.101 But someone will say that epiousios is formed from epienai,102103 so that we are bidden to ask for the bread appropriate to the coming age, in order that God by anticipation may give us it now, with the result that what is to be given tomorrow, so to speak, should be given us “today,” “today” signifying the present age, and “tomorrow” the coming age. But the former interpretation104 being in my judgment the better, let us consider the meaning of the “today” as it is found in the passage in Matthew, or the “day by day” which is written in Luke. It is a frequent custom in the Scriptures to call the whole age “today,” as for example in the words: “He is the father of the Moabites unto this day,”105 and “He is the father of the Ammonites unto this day,”106 and “This saying was spread abroad among the Jews until this day,”107 and in the Psalms, “Today if ye shall hear his voice harden not your hearts.”108 And in Joshua there is a very clear instance of this manner of speech: “Depart not from the Lord this day.”109 And if all this age is “today,” perhaps the past age is “yesterday.” This usage occurs in my opinion in Psalms, and in Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews: in Psalms thus, “A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday, which is past”110 (this is perhaps the famous period of a thousand years,111 which is likened to “yesterday” as distinct from “today”); and in the apostle it is written, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yea and for ever.”112 And there is nothing wonderful in the fact that with God the whole age is reckoned as the space of one of our days:113 and in my view, as even less.

And we have to consider if the words written of feasts or solemn assemblies that take place according to “days” or “months” or “seasons” or “years”114 are to be referred to ages. For if “the law” has “a shadow of the things to come,”115 it must needs be that the many sabbaths are a “shadow” of so many days and that the new moons come round in intervals of time, being the result of the conjunction of some moon or other with a certain sun. Now if the “first month” and the “tenth” day “until the fourteenth” and the feast of unleavened bread from “the fourteenth until the one and twentieth”116 contain “a shadow of things to come,”115 “who is wise”117 and so great “a friend” toward God118 as to perceive the “first”119 of many months, and the “tenth day” of it, and so forth? What ought I to say of the feast of the “seven weeks”120 and of “the seventh month”121 (of which the new moon is a day “of trumpets,” but “on the tenth, a day of atonement”122)—things known to God alone who has laid down laws concerning them? And who has so entered into “the mind of Christ”123 that he can understand the seven years of the freedom of the Hebrew servants and “the release” of debts and the relief from tillage of the Holy Land?124 And there is also what is called the Jubile over and above the feast of seven years,125 but what it is clearly or what are the true laws to be fulfilled in it no one can even so much as imagine, save he who has contemplated the Father’s will126 concerning his ordinances in all the ages in accordance with “his unsearchable judgments and his ways past finding out.”127

I have often found myself at a loss, when I bring together two conflicting apostolic sayings,128 how it is “the end of the ages” in which “once” Jesus “hath been manifested to put away sins,”129 if there are “ages to come” which shall be after this one. His sayings are as follows: in the Epistle to the Hebrews, But now “once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sins by the sacrifice of himself”130; and in the Epistle to the Ephesians, “That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness towards us.”131 If I may offer a conjecture on so great a matter, I think that, as the last month is the end of the year, after which the beginning of another month ensues, so it may be that, since several ages complete as it were a year of ages, the present age is “the end,” after which certain “ages to come” will ensue, of which the age to come is the beginning, and in those coming ages God will “shew the riches of his grace in kindness”: when the greatest sinner, who has spoken ill of the Holy Spirit132 and is under the power of sin throughout the present age, will, I know not how, be under treatment133 from beginning to end in the ensuing age that is to come.

He therefore who sees these things, and perceives in his mind a week of ages that he may contemplate a holy sabbath rest,134 and a month of ages, that he may see the holy new moon of God, and a year of ages, that he may understand the feasts of the year, when “all the males” must appear before “the Lord God,”135 and the years proportioned to so large a number of ages, that he may comprehend the holy seventh year, and the seven weeks of ages, that he may sing the praises of him who has laid down laws so great—such a one will go on to ask, how can he regard lightly the smallest portion of an hour of a day of so great an age, and shall he not rather do everything, in order that after his preparation here he may be found worthy to attain to the epiousios bread in the day that is called “today,” and receive it also “day by day,” it now being clear from the foregoing what the “day by day” is?136 He who prays “today” to God who is from infinite to infinite, not only concerning “today,” but also in some sort concerning “day by day,” will be able to receive from him who can bestow “exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think,”137 even—if I speak in hyperbole—what is beyond “things which eye saw not” and beyond “things which ear heard not” and beyond things which “entered not into the heart of man.”138

It has seemed to me very necessary to discuss these questions, in order that a conception may be formed of “today” and “day by day,” when we pray that the epiousios bread may be given us from his Father. Nevertheless, if we examine the “our” in the latter work139 first, when it is said, not, “Give us this day our daily bread,”140 but, “Give us day by day our daily bread,”141 the question must be examined how this “bread” is “ours.”142 Certainly the apostle teaches that “whether life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all”143 are the saints’. Concerning which it is not necessary to speak at present.

Notes

  1. Matt. 6:11.
  2. Luke 11:3.
  3. Lit. “bodily.”
  4. See II, 2.
  5. John 6:24.
  6. John 6:26.
  7. Lit. “exactly,” “accurately.”
  8. XXVII, 2. to comprehend more perfectly] The line of thought here indicated is characteristic. As those who had been fed with material food by Jesus were urged by him to seek for the meat which abideth unto eternal life, so we, when we read of “bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, must not rest upon the thought of a material substance, but rather understand it in a higher and spiritual sense. See section 5.
  9. John 6:27.
  10. John 6:28, 29.
  11. Ps. 107:20.
  12. John 6:28, 27.
  13. John 6:32, 33.
  14. Gen. 1:26, 27; cf. Col. 3:9, 10.
  15. Gen. 1:26.
  16. XXVII, 3. The argument that it is unwarrantable to suppose that “the daily bread” is Christ because the phrase seems to speak of some other bread, is countered by an appeal to the language of John 6. In that chapter sometimes, e.g., in v. 32, the “bread” is spoken of as other than Christ, yet other passages (e.g., v. 35) make it clear that the “bread” is Christ.
  17. Lit. “hear.”
  18. John 6:32.
  19. John 6:34, 35.
  20. John 6:51.
  21. XXVII, 3. “which I will give for the life of the world”] John 6:51. Note that here and in the following section Origen (or the MS. T) by including the words “which I will give” before “for the life of the world” follows the reading of the Textus Receptus.
  22. XXVII, 4. every kind of food is called bread, etc.] A very similar passage occurs in In Joh., X, 17.
  23. Deut. 9:9.
  24. Lit. “athletic.”
  25. John 6:51.
  26. John 6:53–57.
  27. John 1:14.
  28. Supplied in the text by Koetschau.
  29. XXVII, 4. ate and drank him] In supplying the words “ate and” Koetschau refers to the text quoted above: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood,” etc.
  30. John 6:11.
  31. XXVII, 4. whenever he is distributed] A reference to John 6:11: “having given thanks he distributed to them that were set down.”
  32. John 6:58.
  33. I Cor. 3:1–3.
  34. XXVII, 5. Paul, speaking to the Corinthians . . . and in the Epistle to the Hebrews] The views of Origen on the authorship of Hebrews are sometimes misrepresented. It is true that in an excerpt from his homilies on that Epistle, quoted by Eusebius, H.E., VI, 25:11–14, Origen gives it as his own opinion that “the thoughts are the apostle’s, but the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings, and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said.” “But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows.” It has been hastily concluded from this that Origen “rejected” the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. But that is not so. The words “who wrote the epistle” mean “who penned the actual words of the epistle.” Not only in this passage of the De Oratione but frequently elsewhere in his other writings Origen explicitly ascribes Hebrews to Paul: e.g. (to mention only passages in which the original Greek is extant), In Joh., I, 22; II, 10, 11, 17; X, 14; XIII, 33; XX, 32; XXXII, 28; contra Celsum, III, 53; De Orat., XXVII, 5, 13; Exhort., 44; also in In Joh., I, 2, 18 and De Princ., IV, 13, 24, where the Epistle is ascribed to “the apostle,” and by implication also in De Orat., XXVII, 15, where “two apostolic sayings” are quoted from Ephesians and Hebrews. In this Origen followed the view generally held in the Eastern Church of his day. Dionysius of Alexandria took the same view in his letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch (Feltoe, p. 8).
  35. Heb. 5:12–14.
  36. Rom. 14:2.
  37. Prov. 15:17.
  38. II Cor. 10:5.
  39. Matt. 5:17.
  40. XXVII, 6. a doctrine foreign to the Father of our Lord Jesus who has given the law and the prophets] A thinly veiled reference to the Marcionites, who held that the God of the Old Testament was other than the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. See also XXIX, 10, 13.
  41. Rom. 14:8.
  42. Amos 8:11.
  43. John 6:51.
  44. Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3.
  45. δεξιώτερον.
  46. XXVII, 7. this word “epiousios”, etc.] That epiousios is not a literary Greek word is undisputed, as Origen says. Strictly speaking he does not affirm that neither is it ever used colloquially, but only that it is “not in common use among ordinary folk.” The suggestion, however, that the evangelists coined the word, and the two examples of “biblical” words that he gives from the LXX, would appear to indicate that apart from its use in the Lord’s Prayer he was otherwise quite unfamiliar with it. But an apparent example of the use of the word in a papyrus account book came to light when Flinders Petrie published in 1889 a volume entitled Hawara, Biamu and Arsinoe. The text of this document is also given in F. Preisigke, Sammelbuch griechischen Urkunden aus Agypten, I, 5224. An item in these accounts is ½ obol for επιουσι . . ., which doubtless should be completed ἐπιουσίων. The original document appears to have been since lost. On the derivation and meaning of the word, see note lower down. G. Klaffenbach (Museum Helveticum, vol. VI, Fasc. 4 (1949), pp. 216 ff.) believes that the true reading of an inscription (no. 419) discovered in Lindos (1902–1914), and edited by C. Blinkenberg, is τῷ ἱερεῖ τᾶς Ἀθάνας ἐπιουσίῳ, “the next-following priest of Athene.” W. Bauer Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (1952), s.v. σήμερον, accepts this. It would seem, however, to the present writer that further corroboration of this reading is necessary.
  47. XXVII, 7. it seems likely to have been coined by the evangelists. At any rate, etc.] Observe that Origen expresses himself cautiously. But the previous note would seem to show that his suggestion is incorrect. If epiousios was in use as a non-literary word, no explanation is required for its appearance in the forms of the Lord’s Prayer as used by Greek-speaking Christians of the first century. The word may have been chosen by the author of Q as the translation of an Aramaic original, and subsequently taken over by both Matthew and Luke. On the other hand, if the Lord’s Prayer in these Gospels is derived from two independent forms of oral tradition (as it may well be), and not based upon a common written document, the use of epiousios in both would strongly suggest its use also in the common speech. It may be an accident that we do not happen to have discovered another example of it in a papyrus of a non-literary character. In literary documents we could not expect to find it.
  48. Cf. Job 33:1, 31; 34:16; 37:14; Isa. 1:2.
  49. XXVII, 7. enotizou] The verb ἐνωτίζεσθαι occurs about thirty-seven times in the LXX and once (Acts 2:14) in the New Testament. The second person present imperative ἐνωτίζου is found in Job 33:1, 31; 34:16; 37:14; Isa. 1:2. The word appears to be a “Biblical” creation for the purpose of rendering the Hiphil of the Hebrew verb ’azan, “to give ear.” But it is also used in the LXX as the translation of other Hebrew verbs. Some scholars have questioned the view that the translators of the LXX coined the word. But until examples, which are not yet forthcoming, for its use elsewhere have been produced, Origen’s statement must be allowed to stand. See H. St. J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, 267; J. H. Moulton and J. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, s.v.
  50. Ps. 50:10 (LXX): see note.
  51. XXVII, 7. akoutieis] T reads in the passage: τίς γάρ ποτε Ἑλλήνων ἐχρήσατο . . . τῇ “ἀκουτίσθητι” ἀντὶ τοῦ . . . “ἀκοῦσαι ποιεῖς”; ἰσομοία τῇ “ἐπιούσιον” προσηγορία ἐστὶ κτλ. Obviously, emendation is necessary: for (1) neither ἀκουτίσθητι nor any form of the passive ἀκουτίζειν (a “Biblical” word, like ἐνωτίζεσθαι) occurs in the LXX; and (2) the explanation “thou makest to hear” does not in any case fit it. Koetschau, perversely retaining ἀκουτίσθητι, emends the explanation to ἀκούεσθαι ποίει σε “make thee to be heard.” The Anonymous scholar reads ἀκούτισον (which occurs in the LXX in S. of Sol., 2:14; 8:13) and ἀκοῦσαι ποίει. I suggest ἀκουτιεῖς (Ps. 50 (51):10 “thou shalt make (me) to hear”), and ἀκοῦσαι ποιήσεις; ὁμοία for ἀκοῦσαι ποιεῖς; ἰσομοία. A dittography may lurk in -θητι ἀντὶ; and ἰσομοία is a suspiciously rare word, whereas ὅμοιος is common in Origen.
  52. XXVII, 7. periousios] This word occurs in the LXX in Ex. 19:5; 23:22; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18, always as the translation of segullah, a special or peculiar possession (in Deut. the Vulg. translates peculiaris). In the Hebrew it is preceded only in Deuteronomy by the word ’am, “people”: but the LXX in every case, both in Exodus and Deuteronomy, renders λαὸς περιούσιος; and probably ’am should be restored in the passages in Exodus (see A. H. McNeile on Ex. 19:5). Periousios literally means “that which is over and above” (from peri and the verb “to be”), hence “specially acquired,” with a meaning similar to the classical ἐξαίρετος. Although no clear example of the adjective has been found in the papyri, there are many examples of the substantive periousia, meaning “superfluity,” “abundance.” (J. B. Lightfoot on I Clem., LXIV; F. J. A. Hort on I Pet. 2:9; W. Lock on Tit. 2:14; Moulton and Milligan, s.v.)
  53. Ex. 19:6, 5.
  54. XXVII, 7. each of the two words is derived from “ousia”] For the derivation of periousios, see above. That epiousios is derived from ousia, substance or being, is very unlikely. The only meaning quotable in the New Testament (Luke 15:12, 13) or the papyri for ousia is “property” or “estate”; and in any case it is unlikely that the philosophical meaning would be present in a word employed in so simple and ordinary a context as the Lord’s Prayer. Two other derivations are possible. (1) epienai “to come close upon” (Latin instare): epiousios bread meaning the bread of the “immediately following” day (cf. Acts 16:11); or, if the prayer were used in the morning, the bread of “that same day.” This is preferable to (2), the derivation from epi (ten)ousan (the participle of the verb “to be”), in which case epiousios bread would be the bread for “the (day) that is,” i.e., for “the current day”: but no instance of this phrase, in which “day” has to be supplied, is forthcoming. The general meaning of epiousios artos appears in the Latin diaria (found in a wall-inscription at Pompeii), i.e., daily rations for slaves, soldiers, etc. (J. H. Light-foot, On a fresh Revision of the New Testament, pp. 217 ff.; J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, II, 313 f.; Moulton and Milligan, s.v.; T. W. Manson, The Mission and Message of Jesus, 461; G. Kittel, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum N.T., s.v.)
  55. XXVII, 8. The word “substance” (“ousia”) in its proper sense is commonly used, etc.] This section describes the views on “substance” of two different schools of philosophy: (1) the Platonists, who held that substance is immaterial, and (2) the Stoics, who held that substance is the prime matter of existents.
  56. XXVII, 8. the reality of incorporeal things is primary] Cf. Plato, Phaedrus, 247C, “The colourless, formless, and intangible truly existing substance, with which all true knowledge is concerned, holds this region (sc. above the heavens] and is visible only to the mind”; Timaeus, 34C, “God made the soul to be older than the body and prior in birth and worth”; Laws, X, 892A, “the soul is older than the body”; Laws, X, 892C, “By ‘nature’ they mean the origin of things primary; but if soul shall be shown to have been produced first (not fire or air, but soul first and foremost): then it would most truly be spoken of as a superlatively ‘natural’ existence”; Laws, X, 896C, “we find soul to be prior to body, and body secondary and posterior.” Ps.-Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum, I, 10: “Pythagoras and Aristotle [affirm] that the first causes are incorporeal.”
  57. XXVII, 8. state of flux] Cf. H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci, 307: “The disciples of Thales and Pythagoras and the Stoics hold that matter is changeable and variable and alterable and in a state of flux.” Hippolytus, Philosophumena, I, 23:1, 2 (C.B., XXVI, 27): “The sect of philosophers called ‘of the Academy’ . . . whose founder was Pyrrho, [affirm] that all substance is in a state of flux and changeable and never remains in the same place.”
  58. XXVII, 8. if . . . they receive more, etc.] Cf. Timaeus Locrus, περὶ ψυχᾶς καὶ κόσμω, ch. XIV (Teubner, p. 417): “All nourishment is brought to the body from the heart as its root through the belly as its channel; and if the body receives more moisture than that which flows off, there is said to be an increase; but, if less, a wasting.”
  59. XXVII, 8. those who hold that the reality . . . of corporeal things is primary] Plutarch, Epit., I, 11 (Diels, 310): “The Stoics [affirm] that all causes are bodily”; cf. Epit., IV, 20 (Diels, 410): “The Stoics say that the voice is a body: for everything that does or makes is a body.” Hippolytus, Philosophumena, I, 21:1 (C.B., XXVI, 25), refers to the tenet of the Stoics that “the body is the purest of all things.” Aëtius, I, 3:25 (Stoicorum Veterum fragmenta, ed. J. von Arnim, I, 24): “Zeno the son of Mnaseas of Citium says that God and matter are the first principles of which the one is the cause of action, the other of being acted upon.” Theodoret, Graecarum affectionum curatio (P.G., LXXXIII, 901): “Zeno of Citium, the son of Mnaseas, the disciple of Crates, who began the Stoic heresy, said that God and matter are first principles.”
  60. XXVII, 8. the prime matter of existents] Stobaeus, Ecl., I, 11:5a (Diels, 457; von Arnim, I, 24): “Zeno affirms that substance is the prime matter of existents, and that as a whole it is eternal and becomes neither greater nor less.”
  61. XXVII, 8. subject to no alteration] See the last note in this section.
  62. XXVII, 8. substance is without quality or characteristic form] Cf. contra Celsum, III, 41: “Let him attend to what is said by the Greeks concerning matter without quality in the proper sense of the term”; contra Celsum, IV, 56: “the same matter underlying all bodies is without quality or characteristic form in the proper sense of the term”; cf. also contra Celsum, IV, 61. Timaeus Locrus, ch. I (Teubner, p. 407): “he said that this matter is eternal, not indeed immovable, but without shape in itself or characteristic form, yet receiving every kind of shape.”
  63. XXVII, 8. is inherent in] Or, perhaps better, “underlies,” reading ὑπόκειται with the Anonymous.
  64. XXVII, 8. movements and stationary conditions] κινήσεις καὶ σχέσεις. These two terms are not seldom found in opposition in Stoic writers, e.g., in Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, XI, 2: “So too with the dance, if thou do the like for each movement and stationary condition,” and in Plutarch, Quaestionum Convivalium, 747C (IX, 2): “Dancing consists of movements and stationary conditions.”
  65. XXVII, 8. is none the less affected by] Reading εἶναι, παθητὴν δὲ οὐδὲν with von Arnim, II, 115.
  66. XXVII, 8. receptive of every expression of activity] Cf. contra Celsum, IV, 57: “That the underlying matter is receptive of those qualities which the Creator wishes [to bestow] is firmly held by all of us who accept Providence.”
  67. XXVII, 8. the tension] ὁ τόνος. A force, according to the Stoics, in nature and man. It was regarded as holding the universe together: cf. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, VI, 38: “Meditate often on the intimate union and mutual interdependence of all things in the universe. For all things are after a manner mutually intertwined, and accordingly all things are dear to one another. For they follow in order one upon another because of the movement resulting from tension [διὰ τὴν τονικὴν κίνησιν] and like spirit and the unification of all substance [τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς οὐσίας].” In the soul, “tension,” imparted to it by atmospheric substance therein existing, was the cause of virtues and vices. See note on VI, 5, and Plutarch De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 7 (Teubner, VI, 218): “Cleanthes . . says that ‘tension’ is a stroke of fire, and if there is enough of it in the soul to master circumstances, it is called force and power.” See de Faye, III, 123 ff.
  68. XXVII, 8. substance is in every part subject to change and divisible] If this is consistent with what has been said of substance above, it must refer to that part of the definition of it which says that it “persists through all alteration or change.” Stobaeus, Ecl., I, 11:5a (Diels, 457; von Arnim, I, 24): “According to Zeno substance is the prime matter of all existents, and as a whole it is eternal, neither greater or less. But its parts do not always remain the same, but are divided and commingle with one another. Through it runs the Logos of the universe, which some call fate, just as seed does in the act of generation.” Cf. also Cicero, Acad., I, 7: “subjectam putant omnibus sine ulla specie, atque carentem omni illa qualitate . . . materiam quandam, e qua omnia expressa atque effecta sint; quae una omnia accipere possit, omnibusque modis mutari, atque ex omni parte.”
  69. John 6:51.
  70. XXVII, 9. the living bread which has come down out of heaven, being distributed for the mind and the soul] So also Ambrose, De Sacramentis, V, 24, referring to this clause in the Lord’s Prayer, says: “It is not the bread which passes into the body, but that bread of eternal life, which supports the substance of the soul. Therefore in Greek it is called epiousion.” J. H. Srawley in his note, ad. loc., thinks that Ambrose is here dependent upon Origen.
  71. Cf. Heb. 5:12–14; Rom. 14:2.
  72. John 6:51.
  73. XXVII, 9. either as “milk” . . . or as “herbs” or as “flesh”] Whereas Ambrose interprets the bread of the Eucharist, given for the faithful “daily,” Origen’s treatment is definitely non-sacramental. To feed on the living bread of Christ is to feed on his spiritual teachings. And these, according to Origen’s favourite thought, must be adapted to the several capacities of the hearers. See Introduction, p. 199.
  74. XXVII, 9. There is so-called food which is harmful] Cf. In Joh., XIII, 33: “There is also a kind of food which is harmful, such as we hear of in the fourth Book of the Kingdoms, when certain persons said to Elisha ‘There is death in the pot, O man of God’” (II Kings 4:40).
  75. Gen. 2:9; 3:22.
  76. Prov. 3:18.
  77. XXVII, 10. “and is safe for them that stay themselves as upon the Lord”] Some MSS. of the LXX in Prov. 3:18 omit “is safe.” The Hebrew has: “And happy is every one that retaineth her.” See C. H. Toy, ad loc., in the I.C.C. for readings underlying the Greek translation.
  78. Ps. 78:25.
  79. Ex. 16:12–16.
  80. XXVII, 10. or that this was the bread] So the Anonymous emends (ἄρτου for τούτου).
  81. Heb. 1:14.
  82. Gen. 18:2–6.
  83. Text emended by Delarue.
  84. XXVII, 11. teachings formerly prepared] This slight emendation of Delarue brings out clearly the connection with what has gone before. As the angels partook of the meal that had been prepared for them, so they are also nourished from the store of spiritual things that the saint has to offer them.
  85. XXVII, 11. even Christ acknowledges] An example of Origen’s penetrating analysis of the words of Scripture, in this case of Rev. 3:20. Origen points out that in the feast here mentioned Christ is both guest and host: he sups with the man, and the man with him; indeed, according to the order of the words, it is the man who first entertains the Son of God. This thought of a mutual giving and receiving as between God and man runs through this and the preceding section, and emerges clearly in the “entertainment” that Abraham provides for the angels who lodged with him.
  86. Rev. 3:20.
  87. Ps. 104:15; cf. James 5:8; I Thess. 3:13.
  88. XXVII, 12. he who participates “in the dragon,” etc.] A reference, as is made explicit, to the LXX of Ps. 73:13, 14, which has “dragon” for “leviathan” and “the peoples of the Ethiopians” for “the people inhabiting the wilderness.” The “dragon” is interpreted in the light of Rev. 12:9, where it is identified with “the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan,” or, as Origen says lower down, “the adversary.” A similar interpretation is found in Theophilus Alex., Ep. pasch., as translated by Jerome (P.L., XXII, 782; C.V., LV, 170): “The food of all the wicked is the accursed Devil himself, as the prediction of the prophet proclaims, ‘Thou didst give him as food to the people of Ethiopia.’”
  89. Ps. 73:13, 14 (LXX).
  90. XXVII, 12. the Ethiopian spiritually] This use of νοητὸς is common in Origen. Cf. De Princ., IV, 25 (Philocalia, p. 31): “If then the prophecies concerning Judaea and concerning Jerusalem and Israel and Judah and Jacob, since we do not take them in a fleshly sense, suggest some such mysteries, it would follow that the prophecies also concerning Egypt and Egyptians, and Babylon and Babylonians, and Tyre and Tyrians, and Sodom and Gomorrah and the rest of the nations, do not tell simply of these Egyptians and Babylonians and Tyrians and Sidonians in a bodily sense. For if there are Israelites in the spiritual sense of the term, it follows that there are also Egyptians and Babylonians in the spiritual sense of the term.”
  91. Cf. Rev. 12:9.
  92. Luke 3:7.
  93. Matt. 23:33.
  94. Matt. 3:7; Luke 3:7.
  95. This clause is found in Codex ℵ (LXX).
  96. Ps. 73:13, 14 (LXX).
  97. Cf. Zech. 3:1.
  98. Acts 10:1, 9, 11–15, 24, 34, 45; 11:8, 9.
  99. Matt. 13:47.
  100. John 1:1.
  101. XXVII, 13. may be deified] The text of T reads “may deify,” which has been corrected into the passive by another hand. The thought (for which see also XXV, 2, note) is appropriate to this discussion, which is based on the assumption that the epiousios bread has a kinship in substance with him who eats it. Cf. XXVII, 2 (end): “True bread is that which nourishes the true man, who has been made in the image of God, and he who is nourished with it also becomes after the likeness of the Creator”; XXVII, 9 (end): “Epiousios bread is that which is best adapted to the reasonable nature and akin to it in its very substance: it provides at once health and vigour and strength to the soul and imparts a share of its own immortality (for the Word of God is immortal) to him who eats of it.”
  102. I.e., “to come close after.”
  103. XXVII, 13. some one will say that “epiousios” is formed from “epienai”] See note on XXVII, 7, p. 364.
  104. I.e., deriving it from ousia.
  105. Gen. 19:37.
  106. Gen. 19:38.
  107. Matt. 28:15.
  108. Ps. 95:7, 8.
  109. Cf. Josh. 22:16, 18.
  110. Ps. 90:4.
  111. XXVII, 13. this is perhaps the famous period of a thousand years] A reference to Rev. 20:4–6. The period was “famous” because of the controversy that centred around it in the Church even from early times. Among holders of millenarian views prior to or contemporary with Origen were Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, all of whom interpreted the passage of a literal reign of Christ on earth (although it is to be noted that the author of Revelation does not use the words “on earth”). Naturally, Origen spiritualized the passage after the Alexandrine manner; and subsequently Dionysius of Alexandria (ap. Eusebius, H.E., VII, 25) followed on the same lines. But the details of Origen’s interpretation are not clear. He regards, however, the “thousand” years as past already and to be contrasted with “today.” Possibly in some work which is now lost he had discussed the passage more fully.
  112. Heb. 13:8.
  113. XXVII, 13. the whole age is reckoned as the space of one of our days] Cf. In Matt., XV, 31 (P.G., XIII, 1344 f.; C.B., XL, 442): “See if we can speak of the whole present age as in a sense a day.”
  114. Cf. Gal. 4:10.
  115. Heb. 10:1.
  116. Ex. 12:2, 3, 6, 15, 18.
  117. Hos. 14:9.
  118. Cf. James 2:23.
  119. XXVII, 14. perceive the “first”] The Greek is simply “see,” which apparently here means to “see the inner meaning of.” An exceptionally spiritual man may, according to Origen, understand the significance of the numbers mentioned in connection with the feast of unleavened bread: but no man can understand such deeper mysteries as underlie the feast of the seven weeks, and so forth. The same thought is found in the passage from In Matt. quoted in the last note.
  120. Deut. 16:9.
  121. Lev. 16:29 etc.
  122. Lev. 23:24, 27.
  123. Cf. I Cor. 2:16.
  124. Cf. Ex. 21:2; Lev. 25:4–7, 10–17; Deut. 15:1–3.
  125. Cf. Lev. 25:8 ff.; 27:17 ff.
  126. XXVII, 14. save he who has contemplated the Father’s will] i.e., the Logos. Cf. In Joh., II, 2: “He would not have remained God, did he not remain in the unceasing contemplation [θέᾳ] of the Father’s abyss”; In Joh., XXXII, 28: “For in my opinion no one except his Son can grasp [χωρῆσαι] the full effulgence of the whole glory of God.” As regards the former of these quotations, Origen explains elsewhere (In Matt., XV, 31: P.G., XIII, 1345; C.B., XL, 444) that by “abyss” he means profundity of thought.
  127. Rom. 11:33.
  128. XXVII, 15. two conflicting apostolic sayings] Note that Origen believed the author of Hebrews and the author of Ephesians to be the same person. See on XXVII, 5. A similar juxtaposition of these two sayings is to be found in In Matt., XV, 31 (P.G., XIII, 1346f; C.B., XL, 445).
  129. XXVII, 15. “to put away sins”] All textual authorities read “sin” in Heb. 9:26 except the Codex Claromontanus (D2) which supports Origen here. But in the passage in In Matt. referred to in the last note Origen has the singular. This is also read in the Latin of De Princ., II, 35: “ad refellendum peccatum.”
  130. Heb. 9:26.
  131. Eph. 2:7.
  132. Cf. Matt. 12:31.
  133. XXVII, 15. be under treatment] It is implied that this disciplinary process will be successful in delivering even the greatest sinner from his sin. Cf. In Joh., XIX, 14; contra Celsum, V, 16, and In Matt., XV, 31.
  134. Cf. Heb. 4:9.
  135. Deut. 16:16.
  136. XXVII, 16. it now being clear . . . what the “day by day” is] The present age is “today,” and of this it is possible to form some conception, just as we can also of single “days” under the Mosaic dispensation (see note on section 14) and how they are a shadow of the good things to come. It follows, therefore, that “day by day” refers to the succeeding ages, when this age is over, when the riches of God’s grace, at present uncomprehended, will be manifest. These wonders were symbolized in the old law by the larger measures of time, the weeks and months and holy seventh year and so forth; and he who can contemplate such mysteries may in some sort enter into the secrets of the “day by day,” that is, of the super-abundance of the blessings that God will bestow in those far-stretching ages of grace.
  137. Eph. 3:20.
  138. I Cor. 2:9.
  139. I.e., Luke.
  140. Matt. 6:11.
  141. Luke 11:3.
  142. XXVII, 17. how this “bread” is “ours”] i.e., how the bread of the succeeding ages can be ours. Origen points out that “things to come” as well as “things present” belong to the saints.
  143. I Cor. 3:22.

· Contents ·