I often wonder how many people who say the Lord’s Prayer around the world, or simply use the phrase “our daily bread”, are aware of the fact that the word rendered ‘daily’ is of uncertain meaning. The Greek word epiousion may well mean ‘daily’, but ‘for tomorrow’ and ‘necessary for existence’ are also possibilities. This is yet another example of how the great efforts of translators and scholars to make sense of the text and give readers who know only English access to it smooths over a vast terrain that is intricate and complex, and often bumpy.
What I consider even more interesting is the question of what it means for people in places like North America and Western Europe to pray for “daily bread”. There is a wonderful, thought-provoking treatment of this topic in Maurice Wiles’ book God’s Action in the World
Jeffrey Gibson read a paper at a recent SBL conference that was very helpful in addressing this topic. He suggests that the ‘petition’ was in fact an expression of thankfulness for what is provided, rather than a request for what is not, along the lines of the similar phrase in the Jewish Scriptures. This would fit well with the neighboring ‘petitions’ which also imply aligning oneself with the divine will, more than asking for a direct intervention. After all, how is God’s name hallowed, if not when those who bear it act uprightly (see Ezekiel 36:22-23)? What does Matthew say it means for God’s kingdom to come? That God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven. So in a similar way, as Maurice Wiles also suggests, to pray for daily bread is, for us at least, an expression of gratitude for what we have, and a recognition that others who pray this prayer will go without unless we work for justice on a global scale in our world.
Thinking about the reference to bread in the Lord’s Prayer is helpful in reflecting on ideas like divine action more generally. On my way back from a conference in Romania, I missed a connection, which had the pleasant effect of leaving me with nothing to do but wander around New York City with my family. I would not claim, however thankful I might be for the opportunity, that this was divine providence. To do so would be to claim that God has caused the chaos that currently dominates JFK airport, and was responsible for planes not being able to get to their gates after landing, and so on. I doubt we were the only ones who missed connections that day – was everyone to whom such things happened supposed to get somewhere late? To envisage this degree of divine micromanagement would seem to leave no room for free will, but more than that, it is a troubling impression one gives of God if one claims that God made everyone on a particular plane late, just so as to benefit one or even a small handful of individuals. I have long been troubled by those who proclaim God’s goodness when they alone survive an accident or remain healthy, implying (although never explicitly asserting) God’s badness to those around them.
Because of our knowledge of the causal nexus of explanations connected to events in our lives and our universe, if we use traditional religious language, it often leads us to use two ways of speaking about the same events. Was it God’s time to take an individual home, or was it a result of diet and lack of exercise over the course of a lifetime? Or can it be both? As we seek to express traditional faith in a scientific worldview, it is important to think about these questions.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In