Origen (Ὠριγένης) was born in Alexandria c. 185 and died in Tyre c. 253. He wrote numerous biblical commentaries and was a point of reference for successive commentators, both from the Greek and Latin worlds. The Cappadocian fathers, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa drew on his exegesis, and Ambrose passed it on to the Latin world and to St. Augustine. It should be noted that the Cappadocian fathers Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus were so appreciative of the importance of Origen’s exegetical approach, that they composed a “Philocalia”, a collection of texts they particularly appreciated in Origen’s various works, especially texts which, in defending the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, opposed Gnostic or overly “literalist” and simplistic interpretations.
For a fuller introduction to the life, works and doctrine of Origen, see the two audiences dedicated to him by Pope Benedict XVI:
http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070425.html
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070502.html
[Note: In 553, the Emperor Justinian condemned certain Gnostic interpretations that some monks, known as Origenists, had introduced into Origen’s work in the wake of the monk Evagrius the Pontic (346-399). Evagrius and his Origenist followers had already aroused strong opposition in the 4th century. The problem of the introduction of gnostic theses into Origen’s work has been studied in particular in Antoine Guillaumont’s Les “Kephalaia gnostica” d’Évagre le Pontique et l’histoire de l’origénisme chez les Grecs et les Syriens, Paris, Seuil, 1962].
Origen (Alexandria c. 185 – Tyre c. 253), Peri Eukhēs, 27
27.1 “Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον,” ἢ ὡς ὁ Λουκᾶς-“τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν δίδου ἡμῖν καθ’ ἡμέραν.” ἐπεί τινες ὑπολαμβάνουσι περὶ τοῦ σωματικοῦ ἄρτου λέγεσθαι εὔχεσθαι ἡμᾶς, ἄξιον αὐτῶν τὴν ψευδοδοξίαν διὰ τούτων περιελόντας παραστῆσαι τὸ ἀληθὲς περὶ τοῦ ἐπιουσίου ἄρτου. λεκτέον οὖν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι πῶς ὁ λέγων δεῖν αἰτεῖν ἐπουράνια καὶ μεγάλα, οὔτε ἐπουρανίου ὄντος τοῦ εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἡμῶν ἀναδιδομένου οὔτε ἄρτου μεγάλου αἰτήματος περὶ τούτου ἀξιοῦν, ὡσπερεὶ κατ’ αὐτοὺς ἐπιλαθόμενος ὧν ἐδίδαξε προςτάττει περὶ ἐπιγείου καὶ μικροῦ ἔντευξιν ἀναφέρειν τῷ πατρί;
27.1 “Our bread ἐπιούσιον [which concerns “what is”] give us this day” or like Luke: “Our bread ἐπιούσιον [related to “what is” above] give us every day.” Since some understand that we are told to pray for bodily bread, having removed their false opinion, this deserves to establish the true about epioúsios bread [related to “what is” above]. We must say to them, then: “How is it that he who says that we must ask for heavenly (ἐπουράνια) and great things, being neither heavenly the bread that is given for our flesh, nor a great request that which asks for it, as if, forgetting the things he taught, he commanded to raise to the father a request about something earthly (ἐπιγείου) and small ;
epioúsios (ἐπιούσιος): throughout this article we will see Origen’s effort to account for this singular word which, according to Origen’s interpretation, appears in this sense only in the two Gospels of Matthew and Luke. According to his interpretation, this adjective is formed from the particle epí, meaning “above”, and the word ousía, whose adjectival derivation -ousíos means “which concerns ousía or related to the ousía“. Now, the word ousía has a long history not only in Greek philosophy, but also in the history of Christianity. The word is a noun constructed from the participle of the verb to be (theme ont-) and thus “being” or “that is”: since it is a noun, i.e. a word that can have the function of a subject, we could translate ousía as “that which is” (that which has the quality of being). In the context of the Bible, this recalls God’s revelation to Moses, who wants to know God’s name: “I am what I am” (Exodus 3:14, see the article The name of God). Moses then calls God “I am”. It should be noted that Jesus also says in the Gospel: “I am” (John 8:58), and this was interpreted as blasphemy by those in the temple, who took up stones to stone him. So, translating ousía “that which is” and epí “above”, Origen can refer to the bread “which is above” or “from above” or better « which has the quality of the being (ousía) which is above” as Jesus says.
So, a little further down, below, Origen reports another word from the Greek translation of the Bible, the word perioúsios which is also formed on the word ousía but preceded this time by the particle perí meaning around, as this adjective refers to the people who stood around the presence of God. So, in the context of the Lord’s Prayer, as we shall see, Origen speaks of the bread epioúsios as the bread that came down from heaven, the bread in which the divine presence descends, according to the very words of Jesus who says: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven” (John 6:51, see article John 6:22-59 The bread that came down from heaven).
epouraníou (ἐπουρανίου) and epigeíou (ἐπιγείου): here Origen uses two adjectives that have a similar construction to epioúsios. One to say what is heavenly, we could translate “related to heaven” and the other to say earthly or “related to the earth”. Thus, as we shall see, Origen sets the premises for introducing the explanation of the term epioúsios as that on which “that which is” is found, the ousía. But when he speaks of ousía, of “that which is”, he is speaking of God who is eminently: “that which is”. In this sense, then, the bread of which Jesus speaks is that which carries the divine presence, on which “that which is” is found. If Origen insists so much on the link between epioúsios and ousía, it’s because this reading wasn’t obvious to everyone, for it can also be argued that this word is formed from the particle epí and the participle of the verb εἶμι, which means to go or to come, instead of the verb εἰμί, which means to be. Indeed, we can’t decide between these two readings, and many have translated the word epioúsios as “which comes”, “which approaches”. The presence in the same sentence of two other adjectives, epouraníou (celestial) and epigeíou (terrestrial), which are constructed in a similar way to epioúsios, could therefore not be fortuitous, and that by providing two other adjectives formed by epí plus an adjectival formation (-ouraníou and -geíou) of the same type as -ousíos, i.e. “relative to”, he wanted to further emphasize the almost sacred presence of the word ousía. It should also be noted that the word ousía was later used at the Council of Costantinople in 381 to express the mystery of the Trinity, affirming that God is: “mía ousía, treis hupostáseis“, i.e. one is “what is”, three are the hypostases. Now, the word hypostasis literally means “that which subsists”, for in God are the Father, the Son (or the Word of God) and the Holy Spirit. This is also affirmed by the apostle John in his first letter (1 John 5:7):
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι].
Because three are those who bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one]. (The part of the sentence in brackets is found in the text in use in the Greek Orthodox Church).
27.2 ἡμεῖς δὲ ἑπόμενοι αὐτῷ διδασκάλῳ, διδάσκοντι τὰ περὶ τοῦ ἄρτου, διὰ πλειόνων ταῦτα παραθησόμεθα. φησὶν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Ἰωάννην πρὸς ἐληλυθότας εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ ζητεῖν αὐτόν- “ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ζητεῖτέ με οὐχ ὅτι εἴδετε σημεῖα, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐκ τῶν ἄρτων καὶ ἐχορτάσθητε.” ὁ γὰρ φαγὼν “ἐκ τῶν” ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ εὐλογηθέντων “ἄρτων” καὶ πληρωθεὶς αὐτῶν μᾶλλον ζητεῖ καταλαβεῖν ἀκριβέστερον τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ σπεύδει πρὸς αὐτόν. διόπερ καλῶς προστάττει λέγων-“ἐργάζεσθε μὴ τὴν βρῶσιν ἀπολλυμένην ἀλλὰ τὴν βρῶσιν μένουσαν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἣν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑμῖν δώσει.”
27.1 but we who follow this master will quote many things he teaches about bread. In [the gospel] according to John, he said to those who had come to Capernaum seeking him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, You seek me not because you saw signs, but because you ate bread and were fed to your fill.” (John 6:26). Indeed, those who have eaten of the bread blessed by Jesus, and have been satiated by it, seek to understand the Son of God more precisely, and hurry to him. That’s why [Jesus] recommends, saying: “Do not work for the food that is destroyed, but for the food that subsists for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” (John 6:27).
πρὸς ταῦτα δὲ πυθομένων τῶν ἀκουσάντων καὶ λεγόντων-“τί ποιῶμεν, ἵνα ἐργαζώμεθα τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ; ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς- τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα πιςτεύητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος.” “ἀπέστειλε” δὲ ὁ θεὸς “τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰάσατο αὐτοὺς,” ὡς ἐν ψαλμοῖς γέγραπται, δηλονότι τοὺς νενοσηκότας- ᾧ λόγῳ οἱ πιστεύοντες ἐργάζονται “τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ,” ὄντα “βρῶσιν μένουσαν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.” καὶ “ὁ πατὴρ” δέ μου, φησὶ, “δίδωσιν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν-
When they heard this, those who had heard said, “What shall we do, to work the works of god?” Jesus replied and said to them, “This is the work of God: that you believe in him whom he has sent” (John 6:28-29). As it is written in the Psalms (Psalm 101:20), God “sent his Word and healed them”, those who were sick: those who believe in the Word work the works of God, which are “food for eternal life” (John 6:27). And he says: “My Father will give you the true bread of heaven:
ὁ γὰρ ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ καταβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ζωὴν διδοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ.” “ἄρτος” δὲ ἀληθινός ἐστιν ὁ “τὸν” “ἀληθινὸν” τρέφων “ἄνθρωπον,” τὸν “κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ” πεποιημένον, ᾧ ὁ τραφεὶς καὶ “καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν” “τοῦ κτίσαντος” γίνεται. τί δὲ λόγου τῇ ψυχῇ τροφιμώτερον, ἢ τί τῆς σοφίας τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ νῷ τοῦ χωροῦντος αὐτὴν τιμιώτερον; τί δὲ ἀληθείας λογικῇ φύσει καταλληλότερον;
indeed, the bread of god is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (John 6:32-33). It is a true bread that nourishes the true man who has been made in the image of god; he who feeds on it becomes in the likeness of the one who created him. What could be more nourishing for the soul than the word (lógos)? Or more precious than God’s wisdom for the intellect of the one who contains it? What is more appropriate for the nature endowed with speech (λογικῇ) than truth?
27.3 ἐὰν δέ τις πρὸς ταῦτα ἀνθυποφέρῃ λέγων μὴ ἂν αὐτὸν διδάσκειν ὡς περὶ ἑτέρου ὄντος ἄρτου τοῦ ἐπιουσίου αἰτεῖν, ἀκουέτω ὅτι καὶ ἐν τῷ κατὰ Ἰωάννην ὅπου μὲν ὡς περὶ ἑτέρου παρ’ αὐτὸν διαλέγεται, ὅπου δὲ ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ ἄρτος ὤν- ὡς μὲν περὶ ἑτέρου διὰ τούτων-“Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ,οὐ τὸν ἀληθινὸν, ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου δίδωσιν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν”-.
27.3 If anyone raises an objection to this, saying that [Jesus] does not teach to ask about the bread epioúsios [which concerns “that which is” above] as being something else, listen to what is [said] also in [the Gospel] according to John where in some places it speaks of a bread that is other than he [Jesus] and in other places of a bread that is the same: of a [bread] that is other by these words: “Moses gave you the bread from heaven, not the real bread, but it is my Father who gives you the real bread from heaven. “
ὡς δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ φησι πρὸς εἰπόντας αὐτῷ- “πάντοτε δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον,” “ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς- ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρός με οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ μὴ διψήσῃ πώποτε.”καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα-“ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς- ἐάν τις φάγῃ ἐκ τούτου τοῦ ἄρτου, ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα- καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ, ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω, ἡ σάρξ μου ἐστὶν, ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς.”
He speaks about himself to those who say to him, “Give us always of this bread,” [he answers,] “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me let him not hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” (John 6:34-35) And shortly afterwards: “I am the bread, the living one who came down from heaven: if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
27.4 ἐπεὶ δὲ πᾶσα τροφὴ “ἄρτος” λέγεται κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν, ὡς δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ περὶ Μωϋσέως ἀναγεγράφθαι-“ἄρτον οὐκ” ἔφαγε “τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας καὶ ὕδωρ οὐκ” ἔπιε, ποικίλος δέ ἐστι καὶ διάφορος ὁ τρόφιμος λόγος, οὐ πάντων δυναμένων τῇ στεῤῥότητι καὶ εὐτονίᾳ τρέφεσθαι τῶν θείων μαθημάτων- διὰ τοῦτο βουλόμενος παραστῆσαι ἀθλητικὴν τελειοτέροις ἁρμόζουσαν τροφήν φησιν- “ὁ ἄρτος δὲ, ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω, ἡ σάρξ μου ἐστὶν, ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς,” καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα-“ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
27.4 Secondly, according to Scripture, all food is said to be “bread”, as is evident from what is written about Moses: “He ate no bread for forty days and drank no water” (Deuteronomy 9:9). The word that nourishes is varied and different, since not everyone is capable of being nourished by the hardness and vigor of divine teachings: that’s why, wanting to present food for athletes suited to the most accomplished, he says: “the bread I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” and shortly afterwards: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἐγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ἀληθής ἐστι βρῶσις, καὶ τὸ αἷμά μου ἀληθής ἐστι πόσις. ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει, κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ. καθὼς ἀπέστειλέ με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ, κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα- καὶ ὁ τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ζήσει δι’ ἐμέ.” αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ “ἀληθὴς” “βρῶσις,” “σὰρξ” Χριστοῦ, ἥτις “λόγος” οὖσα γέγονε “σὰρξ” κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον-“καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.” ὅτε δὲ φάγοιμεν καὶ πίοιμεν αὐτὸν, “καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν”- ἐπὰν δὲ ἀναδιδῶται, πληροῦται τὸ “ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ.” “οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβὰς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον- ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον <τὸν ἄρτον> ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.”
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life (aiõnion), and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:53-57). This, then, is the true food, the flesh of Christ, the Word (λόγος) made flesh, as it was said: “And the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). When, then, we eat and drink it [the word, the lógos], it is then that he “dwelt [pitched his tent] in us” (John 1:15); then, it is distributed and this is fulfilled: “We beheld his glory” (John 1:14). “This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died: he who eats this bread will live for the eternity (aiõna)” (John 6:58).
…
27.6.13 ἵνα τοίνυν μήτε δι’ ἔνδειαν τροφῶν τὴν ψυχὴν νοσήσωμεν μήτε διὰ “λιμὸν λόγου κυρίου” τῷ θεῷ ἀποθάνωμεν, τὸν ζῶντα ἄρτον, ὅστις ὁ αὐτός ἐστι τῷ ἐπιουσίῳ, πειθόμενοι τῷ διδασκάλῳ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν, πιστεύοντες καὶ βιοῦντες δεξιώτερον, αἰτῶμεν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός. τί δὲ καὶ τὸ “ἐπιούσιον,” ἤδη κατανοητέον. πρῶτον δὲ τοῦτο ἰστέον, ὅτι ἡ λέξις ἡ “ἐπιούσιον” παρ’ οὐδενὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων οὔτε τῶν σοφῶν ὠνόμασται οὔτε ἐν τῇ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν συνηθείᾳ τέτριπται, ἀλλ’ ἔοικε πεπλάσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν.
27.6.13 In order, then, that we may not make sick the soul through lack of food, nor die to god through hunger for the word of the Lord, let us ask god for the living bread, which is the same as the epioúsios [bread] [which concerns ousía, “what is” above], obeying the savior our master, believing and living more uprightly, let us ask the Father. We must, then, now consider what it is [the term] “epioúsios”. The first thing to know is that the term “epioúsios” [which refers to ousía, “that which is”] is not named by any of the Greeks, nor by the sages, nor is it used in the common man’s current [language], but seems to have been coined by the evangelists.
27.7.5 συνηνέχθησαν γοῦν ὁ Ματθαῖος καὶ ὁ Λουκᾶς περὶ αὐτῆς μηδαμῶς διαφερούσης, αὐτὴν ἐξενηνοχότες. τὸ ὅμοιον δὲ καὶ ἐπ’ ἄλλων οἱ ἑρμηνεύοντες τὰ Ἑβραϊκὰ πεποιήκασιν. τίς γάρ ποτε Ἑλλήνων ἐχρήσατο τῇ “ἐνωτίζου” προσηγορίᾳ ἢ τῇ “ἀκουτίσθητι” ἀντὶ τοῦ “εἰς τὰ ὦτα δέξαι” καὶ “ἀκοῦσαι ποίει”; ἰσομοία τῇ “ἐπιούσιον” προσηγορίᾳ ἐστὶ παρὰ Μωϋσεῖ γεγραμμένη, ὑπὸ θεοῦ εἰρημένη-“ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθέ μοι””λαὸς περιούσιος.” καὶ δοκεῖ μοι ἑκατέρα λέξις παρὰ τὴν οὐσίαν πεποιῆσθαι, ἡ μὲν <τὸν> εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν συμβαλλόμενον ἄρτον δηλοῦσα, ἡ δὲ τὸν περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν καταγινόμενον λαὸν καὶ κοινωνοῦντα αὐτῇ σημαίνουσα.
27.7.5 Yet Matthew and Luke agreed about this word, which has not the slightest difference [in both gospels]; they reported the same. The same thing was done by those who interpreted the Hebrew words. What Greek, indeed, ever used the expréssion “enōtizou” (lend an ear, listen) or “akoutísthēti” (make one hear) in place of “eis tà ōta déxai” (receive into the ears) or “akoûsai poíei” (make one hear). An expression similar to “epioúsios” was written by Moses and spoken by God: “You shall be to me a people “perioúsios” (who are around the ousía, “that which is”) (Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; 26:18). It seems to me that each of the two terms was made from [the word] ousía (“that which is”), one showing the bread that is united to the ousía and the other designating the people who dwell around the ousía and is in communion with it.
In explaining the word “epioúsios”, Origen is referring to the divine bread that came down from heaven, the word of God made flesh in Jesus Christ and united to the ousía of bread, that is, to what the being of bread is, what has the characteristics of bread. This bread which, according to its earthly characteristics, is a single dough formed by a multitude of seeds, which are human beings, the members of Christ’s body, and whose divine ousía is Christ, who is the head that vivifies the body. In fact, God’s being, the ousía par excellence, “that which is”, is united with the earthly ousía of bread. So, in explaining the word “perioúsios” Origen speaks of the divine presence, of the ousía around which the people stand, a priestly people, as Exodus 19:6 says: “You shall be to me a royal priesthood.”
In his commentary on Matthew’s Gospel, Jerome focuses on the word perioúsios: this translates the Hebrew word segullah (סְגֻלָּה) which is found in the original text in passages from the book of Deuteronomy (7:6; 14:2; 26:18) to designate the people chosen to be god’s treasury, a royal priesthood that stands by god, where god descends among his people. (See Jerome’s article on the Lord’s Prayer).
Here’s one of the passages in Deuteronomy where the expression laòs perioúsios appears, both in the original Hebrew and in the Greek translation of the Septuagint:
כִּ֣י עַ֤ם קָדֹושׁ֙ אַתָּ֔ה לַיהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ וּבְךָ֞ בָּחַ֣ר יְהוָ֗ה לִֽהְיֹ֥ות לֹו֙ לְעַ֣ם סְגֻלָּ֔ה מִכֹּל֙ הָֽעַמִּ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל-פְּנֵ֥י הָאֲדָמָֽה׃
ὅτι λαὸς ἅγιος εἶ Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ σου, καὶ σὲ ἐξελέξατο Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου γενέσθαι σε λαὸν αὐτῷ περιούσιον ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπὶ προσώπου τῆς γῆς.
For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, it is you whom the Lord God has chosen to be the people, who are his special treasure (in Hebrew segullah and in Greek perioúsios) among all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
But Origen, according to the above passage, would translate, therefore, rather by: “the people who stand around god’s being, around “that which is”, the divine presence”, as was the case when god’s presence used to descend on the tent of meeting (Exodus 28:5 and 33:7). This tent of meeting, this temple of God, prefigures Christ himself, who states in the Gospel: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19), and the evangelist explains: “But he spoke of the temple of his body” (John 2:21). Now, this bread epioúsios, the bread he offers to the apostles and the multitude, is indeed his body offered as a sacrifice. Sacrificial offering implies communion with his people, just as the lamb sacrificed at Easter was then consumed, eaten, to seal the covenant. His blood shed for the remission of sins, his body offered in sacrifice, that is, in communion with the sacred, with the presence of God. The word Jesus uses (John 2,19) to say I will raise him (ἐγερῶ egerō) corresponds to the one also used in Hebrew (qūm to stand, iaqīm to raise) meaning the resurrection, when men will stand before god, who will have raised them from their graves.
In what follows, Origen offers an excursus on the definition of the word ousía, restoring the meaning and usage of this term in the philosophical context of the time.
27.8 ἡ μέντοι κυρίως οὐσία τοῖς μὲν προηγουμένην τὴν τῶν ἀσωμάτων ὑπόστασιν εἶναι φάσκουσι νενόμισται κατὰ τὰ ἀσώματα, τὸ εἶναι βεβαίως ἔχοντα καὶ οὔτε προσθήκην χωροῦντα οὔτε ἀφαίρεσιν πάσχοντα (τοῦτο γὰρ ἴδιον σωμάτων, περὶ ἃ γίνεται ἡ αὔξη καὶ ἡ φθίσις παρὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὰ ῥευστὰ, δεόμενα τοῦ ὑποστηρίζοντος ἐπεισιόντος καὶ τρέφοντος- ὅπερ ἐὰν πλεῖον ἐν καιρῷ ἐπεισίῃ τοῦ ἀποῤῥέοντος, αὔξησις γίνεται, ἐὰν δὲ ἔλαττον, μείωσις- τάχα δέ τινα οὐδ’ ὅλως τὸ ἐπεισιὸν λαμβάνοντα ἐν ἀκράτῳ, ἵν’ οὕτως εἴπω, μειώσει γίνεται),
27.8 Now, principally, [the word] (ousía) [“that which is”] has been used in connection with incorporeal beings by those who assert that it is the hypostasis [“that which is subsistent”] of incorporeals and that it precedes them, and that [incorporeals] have a permanent being and that they contain no addition nor suffer from substraction (this, indeed, is the peculiarity of bodies, concerning which there is growth and decay on account of their fluidity [they are in continual transformation], requiring that which occurs (ἐπεισιόντος) [continually] to sustain and nourish them: if this occurs at the right time in greater measure than what is eliminated, there is growth, if there is less, [there is] diminution: rapidly, therefore, if some [corporeal] receive nothing that arises [to nourish them, a supply] (τὸ ἐπεισιὸν), then, so to speak, there is pure diminution)
epeisióntos (ἐπεισιόντος): here Origen makes use of a verb epeíseimi (ἐπείσειμι) which means precisely that which occurs afterwards. By this he seems to further rule out the possibility of reading the word “epioúsios” referred to bread, as meaning the bread that is given every day, daily. By using epeíseimi, a verb close to epeîmi, he also shows that if the apostles Matthew and Luke had wanted to say this, they could have used another form, either this one or possibly epousíos and not epioúsios, since it is the term epousía that is used rather to say what is in excess, what occurs again and again.
τοῖς δὲ ἐπακολουθητικὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι νομίζουσι προηγουμένην δὲ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων ὅροι αὐτῆς οὗτοί εἰσιν- οὐσία ἐστὶν ἢ πρώτη τῶν ὄντων ὕλη, καὶ ἐξ ἧς τὰ ὄντα, ἢ τῶν σωμάτων ὕλη, καὶ ἐξ ἧς τὰ σώματα, ἢ τῶν ὀνομαζομένων, καὶ ἐξ ἧς τὰ ὀνομαζόμενα, ἢ τὸ πρῶτον ὑπόστατον ἄποιον ἢ τὸ προϋφιστάμενον τοῖς οὖσιν ἢ τὸ πάσας δεχόμενον τὰς μεταβολάς τε καὶ ἀλλοιώσεις, αὐτὸ δὲ ἀναλλοίωτον κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον λόγον, ἢ τὸ ὑπομένον πᾶσαν ἀλλοίωσιν καὶ μεταβολήν.
For those who consider that it [the ousía of incorporeals] is accessory, while that [the ousía] of corporeals precedes them, [their] definitions of it are as follows: ousía is
– either the first matter of the beings [of what is] and the beings [what is] are from it
– or the matter of bodies, and bodies are from it
– either [it is the ousía] of that which receives a name and that which receives a name [receives it] from it
– either the first hypostasis without qualities
– or the hypostasis [προϋφιστάμενον that which is subsistent before] which precedes the beings
– either that which receives all transformations and also alterations, being itself, on the other hand unalterable according to its own lógos
– or that which remains permanent under all alterations and transformations.
κατὰ τούτους δὲ ἡ οὐσία ἐστὶν ἄποιός τε καὶ ἀσχημάτιστος κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον λόγον ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ μέγεθος ἀποτεταγμένον ἔχουσα, πάσῃ δὲ ἔγκειται ποιότητι καθάπερ ἕτοιμόν τι χωρίον. ποιότητας δὲ διατακτικῶς λέγουσι τὰς ἐνεργείας καὶ τὰς ποιήσεις κοινῶς, ἐν αἷς εἶναι τὰς κινήσεις καὶ σχέσεις συμβέβηκεν- οὐδέ τινος γὰρ τούτων κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον λόγον μετέχειν φασὶ τὴν οὐσίαν, ἀεὶ δέ τινος αὐτῶν ἀχώριστον εἶναι πάθει τήνδε, οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ ἐπιδεκτὴν πασῶν τῶν ποιοῦντος ἐνεργειῶν, ὡς ἂν ἐκεῖνο ποιῇ καὶ μεταβάλλῃ- ὁ γὰρ συνὼν αὐτῇ τόνος καὶ δι’ ὅλων κεχωρηκὼς πάσης τε ποιότητος καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὴν αἴτιος ἂν οἰκονομιῶν- δι’ ὅλων τε μεταβλητὴν καὶ δι’ ὅλων διαιρετὴν λέγουσιν εἶναι, καὶ πᾶσαν οὐσίαν πάσῃ συγχεῖσθαι δύνασθαι, ἡνωμένην μέντοι.
Now, according to these the ousía is without qualities and also it cannot be given form (askhēmátistos) according to its own lógos not having any attributable magnitude either, on the other hand it underlies every quality as if it were a kind of adaptable surface [or space]. They call qualities the way in which acts (ἐνεργείας) and productions (ποιήσεις) in whose being movements and states have taken place are ordered together; indeed, they say that the ousía does not participate in one of these according to its own lógos, but that always it is inseparable from one of these by the fact of undergoing the one that is there, none being lesser and capable of receiving any kind of act of the agent, at whatever moment the latter produces or transforms; indeed, to this one [to the ousía] is associated a force (τόνος) and this one remains throughout the whole of every quality and cause among all that could concern it; they say that it can transform into everything and divide into everything and that every ousía is capable of mixing with every ousía, having made one [with it].
Here Origen seems to be referring to certain passages in Aristotle, in particular: Metphysics, Book 5 (Delta), 1017b 10-25.
27.9 ἐπεὶ δὲ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας ζητοῦντες διὰ “τὸν ἐπιούσιον” “ἄρτον” καὶ τὸν περιούσιον λαὸν εἰς τὸ τὰ σημαίνοντα διακριθῆναι οὐσίας τῆς ταῦτ’ εἰρήκαμεν, ἄρτος δὲ ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων νοητὸς ἦν, ὃν αἰτεῖν ἡμᾶς ἐχρῆν, ἀναγκαῖον συγγενῆ τῷ ἄρτῳ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι νοεῖν- ἵν’ ὥσπερ ὁ σωματικὸς ἄρτος ἀναδιδόμενος εἰς τὸ τοῦ τρεφομένου σῶμα χωρεῖ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν, οὕτως “ὁ ζῶν” καὶ “ἐξ οὐρανοῦ” καταβεβηκὼς “ἄρτος” ἀναδιδόμενος εἰς τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν μεταδῷ τῆς ἰδίας δυνάμεως τῷ ἐμπαρεσχηκότι ἑαυτὸν τῇ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τροφῇ- καὶ οὕτως ἔσται ὃν αἰτοῦμεν “ἄρτον” “ἐπιούσιον.”
27.9 Since in what I have said in seeking about ousía through the bread epioúsios and the people perioúsios so that the meanings [of the term] ousía are distinguished, the bread we had to ask about, in the foregoing, was intelligible, it is necessary to understand that ousía is of the same kind as bread: as the bodily bread administered to the body of him who is fed passes to the ousía of him, so the “living” bread and descended “from heaven” would transmit its proper power to the intellect and psykhē of him who has surrendered to the power of the food that comes from it, so it will be with the epioúsios bread we seek [it will transmit its power to us].
καὶ πάλιν ὃν τρόπον κατὰ τὴν ποιότητα τῆς “τροφῆς,” “στερεᾶς” οὔσης καὶ ἀθληταῖς ἁρμοζούσης ἢ γαλακτώδους τινὸς λαχανώδους, ἐν διαφόρῳ δυνάμει ὁ τρεφόμενος γίνεται, οὕτως ἀκόλουθόν ἐστι, τοῦ λόγου τοῦ θεοῦ ἤτοι ὡς γάλακτος παιδίοις ἁρμοζόντως διδομένου ἢ λαχάνου ἀσθενοῦσιν ἐπιτηδείως ἢ σαρκὸς ἀγωνιζομένοις προς καίρως, ἕκαστον τῶν τρεφομένων κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν, ᾧ ἐμπαρέσχεν ἑαυτὸν λόγῳ, τόδε τι ἢ τόδε δύνασθαι καὶ τοιόνδε ἢ γίνεσθαι.
And again, according to another point of view, as he who is fed assumes a different power according to the quality of the food, solid and suitable for athletes or dairy and vegetables, so it follows, that the word of God is given as milk suitable for children or as a vegetable suitable for the sick or as meat suitable for those who fight, each of those who are fed insofar as he has surrendered to the word, will be capable of this or that, will become in this or that way.
ἔστι μέντοι γε τὶς νομιζομένη τροφὴ, οὖσα δηλητήριος, καὶ ἑτέρα νοσοποιὸς καὶ ἄλλη μηδὲ ἀναδοθῆναι δυναμένη- ἅπερ πάντα κατ’ ἀναλογίαν μετενεκτέον ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν νομιζομένων τροφίμων μαθημάτων. ἐπιούσιος τοίνυν ἄρτος ὁ τῇ φύσει τῇ λογικῇ καταλληλότατος καὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ αὐτῇ συγγενὴς, ὑγείαν ἅμα καὶ εὐεξίαν καὶ ἰσχὺν περιποιῶν τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ τῆς ἰδίας ἀθανασίας (ἀθάνατος γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) μεταδιδοὺς τῷ ἐσθίοντι αὐτοῦ.
Indeed, there is food that is considered as such, but is harmful, another that makes one sick and another that cannot be administered: all these, precisely, can correspond, by analogy, to the different types of nourishing teachings. The bread epioúsios, then, is that which corresponds to the nature of the word and is of the same kind as ousía, simultaneously providing the soul with health, good condition and strength, and transmitting its own immortality to the eater (the word of God being indeed immortal).
27.10 οὗτος δὴ ὁ ἐπιούσιος ἄρτος ἄλλῳ ὀνόματι δοκεῖ μοι ἐν τῇ γραφῇ “ξύλον ζωῆς” ὠνομάσθαι, ἐφ’ ὅπερ ὁ ἐκτείνας “τὴν χεῖρα” καὶ λαβὼν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ “ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.” καὶ τρίτῳ ὀνόματι τοῦτο τὸ “ξύλον” “σοφία” τοῦ θεοῦ ὀνομάζεται παρὰ τῷ Σολομῶντι διὰ τούτων-“ξύλον ζωῆς ἐστι πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντεχομένοις αὐτῆς, καὶ τοῖς ἐπερειδομένοις ὡς ἐπὶ κύριον ἀσφαλής.”
27.10 Now, this same bread epioúsios seems to me to be called, in Scripture, by another name, that of “tree of life”, indeed he who “stretches out his hand and takes of it shall live for the ages” (Genesis 3:22) and this tree is called by a third name, that of “wisdom of God”, by Solomon through these words: “For all those who cling to it [wisdom] is a tree of life, and for those who lean on it, it is like leaning on the steadfast Lord” (Proverbs 3:18).
ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι σοφίᾳ τρέφονται θεοῦ, ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν μετὰ σοφίας θεωρίας δυναμούμενοι πρὸς τὸ τὰ ἴδια ἔργα ἐπιτελεῖν, λέγεται ἐν ψαλμοῖς καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους τρέφεσθαι, κοινωνούντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοῦ θεοῦ, οἵτινες Ἑβραῖοι προσαγορεύονται, τοῖς ἀγγέλοις καὶ οἱονεὶ συνεστίων αὐτοῖς γινομένων. τοιοῦτον δέ ἐστι τὸ “ἄρτον ἀγγέλων ἔφαγεν ἄνθρωπος.”
Secondly, also the angels feed on the wisdom of God, by which they are able to perform the works proper to them according to the truth that comes from contemplating wisdom, since it is said in the Psalms that the angels feed, the men of God, those who are called Hebrews, have this in common with the angels and it is as if they partake of the same meal with them. It is in this sense that it is said: “Man has eaten the bread of the angels” (Psalm 77:25).
μὴ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον πτωχεύσαι ὁ νοῦς ἡμῶν, ὡς οἰηθῆναι σωματικοῦ τινος ἄρτου, τοῦ ἱστορουμένου οὐρανόθεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐξεληλυθότας τὴν Αἴγυπτον καταβεβηκέναι, τοὺς ἀγγέλους ἀεὶ μεταλαμβάνοντας τρέφεσθαι, τούτου αὐτοῦ κεκοινωνηκότων τῶν Ἑβραίων τοῖς ἀγγέλοις, τοῖς λειτουργικοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ πνεύμασιν.
Indeed, our intellect must not be so poor as to think that such bread is like that bodily bread, which is reported to have descended from heaven upon those who had come out of Egypt and that it is having partaken of this bread that the angels always feed and that it is this same bread that the Hebrews shared with the angels, who themselves are the spirits who perform the service of God.
…
τούτων δὴ οὕτως ἐχόντων καὶ τοσαύτης διαφορᾶς βρωμάτων οὔσης, εἷς παρὰ πάντας τοὺς εἰρημένους ἐστὶν ὁ ἐπιούσιος ἄρτος, περὶ οὗ εὔχεσθαι δεῖ, ἵνα ἐκείνου ἀξιωθῶμεν καὶ τρεφόμενοι τῷ “ἐν ἀρχῇ” “πρὸς θεὸν” θεῷ λόγῳ θεοποιηθῶμεν. ἐρεῖ δέ τις τὸ “ἐπιούσιον” παρὰ τὸ ἐπιέναι κατεσχηματίσθαι, ὥστε αἰτεῖν ἡμᾶς κελεύεσθαι τὸν ἄρτον τὸν οἰκεῖον τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, ἵνα προλαβὼν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς ἤδη ἡμῖν δωρήσηται, ὥστε τὸ οἱονεὶ αὔριον δοθησόμενον “σήμερον” ἡμῖν δοθῆναι, “σήμερον” μὲν τοῦ ἐνεςτῶτος αἰῶνος λαμβανομένου αὔριον δὲ τοῦ μέλλοντος. ἀλλὰ βελτίονος οὔσης τῆς προτέρας ἐκδοχῆς ὅσον ἐπ’ ἐμοὶ κριτῇ, τὸ περὶ τῆς “σήμερον” παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ τούτοις προσκείμενον ἢ τὸ “καθ’ ἡμέραν” παρὰ τῷ Λουκᾷ γεγραμμένον ἐξετάσωμεν.
Things being so, and so great being the difference of the foods, only one of all those named is the epioúsios bread, concerning which we must pray, that we may be worthy of it and that, fed by the word of God which “in principle” (en arkhē) was with god, we may be divinized. Then someone will say that the [word] epioúsion is formed from the [verb] epiénai (to arise, to approach), in such a way that we are invited to ask for the bread that belongs to the age to come, so that, god anticipating it, it is already given to us, so that we are given today the bread that should [have] been given to us tomorrow, “today” being understood of the present age and “tomorrow” of the age to come. But, the first interpretation being better, in my opinion, let us examine carefully the [word] sēmeron (today) which is added to these in Matthew or the [word] kath’heméran (every day) written in Luke.
…
29.1 “Καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμὸν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ”- τὸ δὲ “ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς πονηροῦ τοῦ” παρὰ τῷ Λουκᾷ σεσιώπηται. εἰ μὴ ἀδύνατα προςτάττει ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμᾶς εὔχεσθαι, ζητήσεώς μοι ἄξιον φαίνεται, πῶς κελευόμεθα, παντὸς τοῦ ἐπὶ γῆς ἀνθρώπων βίου πειρατηρίου ὄντος, προσεύχεσθαι μὴ εἰσελθεῖν “εἰς πειρασμόν.” ᾗ γάρ ἐσμεν ἐπὶ γῆς περικείμενοι τὴν στρατευομένην σάρκα “κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος,” ἧς “τὸ φρόνημα” “ἔχθρα” ἐστὶν “εἰς θεὸν,” μηδαμῶς δυναμένης ὑποτάσσεςθαι “τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ,” ἐν πειρασμῷ ἐσμεν.
29.1 And do not bring us into trial, but free us from evil. Now, in [the Gospel of] Luke, [the phrase] “but deliver us from evil” is passed over in silence. If the Savior does not prescribe that we pray for impossible things, it seems to me that this merits investigation: “How are we asked not to enter into trial, when the whole life of man on earth is a trial?” Indeed, because on earth we are clothed with flesh that is at war with the spirit and whose “intention is hatred towards God”, being in no way capable of being subject “to the law of God” (Galatians 5:17), we are in trial.
29.2ὅτι δὲ “πειρατήριον” πᾶς “ὁ” “ἐπὶ” ἀνθρώπινος “βίος,” ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰὼβ μεμαθήκαμεν διὰ τούτων-“πότερον οὐχὶ πειρατήριόν ἐστιν ὁ βίος τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπὶ γῆς;” καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑπτακαιδεκάτου ψαλμοῦ τὸ αὐτὸ δηλοῦται ἐν τῷ-“ἐν σοὶ ῥυσθήσομαι ἀπὸ πειρατηρίου.” ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Παῦλος Κορινθίοις γράφων οὐχὶ τὸ μὴ πειράζεσθαι ἀλλὰ μὴ παρὰ δύναμιν πειράζεσθαί φησι χαρίζεσθαι τὸν θεὸν, λέγων-“πειρασμὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ εἴληφεν εἰ μὴ ἀνθρώπινος- πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς, ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑμᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε, ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ἔκβασιν τοῦ δύνασθαι ὑπενεγκεῖν.”
29.2 That man’s whole life on earth is a trial, we learn from Job through these [words]: “Is not the life of men on earth a trial?” (Job 7:1) And in Psalm 17 the same is shown through these [words]: “In you I shall be free from trial” (Psalm 17:30). But also Paul, writing to the Corinthians, affirms that God extends the grace not of not being put to the test, but of not being tested beyond one’s strength, saying: “Testing has not taken hold of us without it being within man’s reach: yet god, who is to be trusted (πιστὸς), will not allow us to be tried beyond what is [in our] power, but with the trial he will also provide the escape so that we can bear it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)
…
29.9 πᾶς τοίνυν “ὁ βίος,” καθὼς προείρηται, τοῦ “ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς” “ἐστι” “πειρατήριον”- διόπερ εὐχώμεθα ῥυσθῆναι πειρατηρίου, οὐκ ἐν τῷ μὴ πειράζεσθαι (τοῦτο γὰρ ἀμήχανον, μάλιστα τοῖς “ἐπὶ γῆς”) ἀλλὰ ἐν τῷ μὴ ἡττᾶσθαι πειραζομένους.
29.9 So, as it has been said, “Man’s whole life on earth is a trial” (Job 7:1). This is why we pray to be freed from testing, not in the sense of being freed from being tested (this, indeed, is impossible, especially for those on earth), but so that when we are tested, we are not defeated.
Origen gives us the meaning of the trial, which is to show man’s greatness. God wants man to be a reflection of his glory, to sanctify his name, the name of God. When man emerges victorious from trial, the victory of love is manifested, and God leads man through trial in the sense that he guides man, supports him in difficulty and gives him the means, helping him to overcome it. When love is put to the test, when man is betrayed by his fellow human beings, hated and humiliated, the temptation is to give in to hatred and vengeance, rather than seeking to win the enemy’s heart through love, by looking to him as a brother and a friend. It is God’s unconditional regard for his creatures that enables man to see a brother in his persecutor, and to ceaselessly seek victory over the evil that separates them and afflicts the human heart. Forgive endlessly, give again and again a chance, offer the other cheek to find the path that leads together to the kingdom where God’s children live as brothers and sisters.
This article is an in-depth study of Matthew 6:9-13 Our Father