Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 6:11 - 6:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_6:11. Τὸν ἄρτον ] same as ìÆçÆí , victus; Gen_18:5; Pro_30:8; 2Th_3:12; Sir_10:26; Wis_16:20.
τὸν ἐπιούσιον ] occurring nowhere else in the Greek language but here and in Luk_11:3. See Origen, de Orat. § Matthew 27 : ἔοικε πεπλᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν . It is possible that it may be derived from οὐσία , and accordingly the phrase has been supposed to mean: the food necessary for subsistence, ìÆçÆí çË÷ÌÄé , Pro_30:8. So Syr., Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Etym. M.; Beza, Maldonatus, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Ewald (de Wette undecided), Arnoldi, Bleek, Weizsäcker, Keim, Hanne, and probably this explanation has also given rise to the rendering “daily bread” (It., Chrysostom, Luther), ἐφήμερος , Jam_2:15; comp. Victorinus, c. Ar. ii. p. 273, Augustine. But οὐσία does not mean subsistence ( σύστασις ), 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 τὰς ἄπαιδας οὐσίας denote a home without children. In deriving the expression, therefore, from οὐσία , 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 ΟὐΣΊΑ ( ΕἾΝΑΙ ), it would have to be spelt, not ἘΠΙΟΎΣΙΟς , but ἘΠΟΎΣΙΟς , in a way analogous to the forms ἘΠΟΥΣΊΑ , overplus, ἐπουσιώδης , non-essential, which come from εἶναι . Forms in which there is either a different preposition (such as ΠΕΡΙΟΎΣΙΟς ), or in which the derivation has no connection with ΕἾΝΑΙ (as ἘΠΙΟΡΚΕῖΝ ), 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, Weizsäcker, Kamphausen, Keim), prefer the other possible derivation from Ἡ ἘΠΙΟῦΣΑ (therefore from ἘΠΙΈΝΑΙ ), 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, Käuffer, Schegg, Döllinger, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Wittichen. This explanation, furnished historically by the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where Jerome found îçø , is recommended in the context by the σήμερον , 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 σήμερον , 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 (John 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 ἐπί : “what ἐπί is.” In this Kamphausen substantially concurs. The word is said to be derived from ἐπεῖναι : “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 ἐπούσιος , and besides, ἐπεῖναι certainly does not mean to belong to, but to be by, also to be standing over, to impend, and so on. This explanation of ἐπιούσιος is an erroneous etymological conjecture. Bengel very properly observes: “ ἐπί non semper quidem in compositione ante vocalem amittit, sed amittit tamen in ἔπεστιν .” [See Lightfoot, A Fresh Revision of the English New Testament, Appendix on the words ἐπιούσιος , περιούσιος .—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 σήμερον 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 ἐπιών (as Ambrose)—the bread of the World to come (so again Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 201); partly from οὐσία , in which case it was interpreted to mean: the bread requisite for the life of the soul; or, as though it were ὑπερούσιος : 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.”