Gregory of Nyssa on Daily Bread
By Alex Fogleman
The following passage is taken from Gregory of Nyssa’s fourth of five sermons on the Lord’s Prayer. There’s nothing about these sermons that directly suggests a catechetical context—though nothing to deny it either. If Gregory’s Great Catechetical Oration is any indication, Gregory did not shy away from plumbing the speculative depths in catechesis, even as he sought to present the common teaching of the church.
In Gregory’s exposition, he takes a unique approach to organizing the petitions. Unlike, for example, Augustine, who divided the Lord’s Prayer between the first three “eternal” petitions (hallowed name, kingdom come, will done) and the latter four “temporal” petitions (bread, forgiveness, temptation, deliverance), Gregory treats the third and fourth together. “Thy will be done on earth as in heaven” pairs with “Give us this day our daily bread.” This pairing opens up some interesting interpretive paths.
In the first half of the sermon, Gregory explains what it means for God’s will to be done on earth—drawing on the field of medicine to exemplify the way in which Christ the Physician brought about the healing of souls. He then discusses “on earth as in heaven,” and asks the question: If a person longs for angelic beatitude, why are we instructed to ask for daily bread?
Given both the patristic precedent for interpreting this passage, as well as Gregory’s own Platonically inclined theological habitus, we expect Gregory here to interpret the bread spiritually—as a reference to the Eucharist (Cyprian) or to Christian doctrine (Augustine) or, most likely, to spiritual knowledge (Origen). Gregory takes none of these routes, however. Instead, he interprets the bread as, primarily, plain old bread.
And yet, Gregory’s interpretation of the bread as corporeal bread does not map on to the way modern commentators read this passage as a petition for daily bread. Gregory remains sensitive to the way our desires for physical food are ordered to our spiritual, and indeed angelic, telos. Still thinking in the medical idiom in which he began, Gregory explains that we need daily bread—by which he means the most basic needs our bodies have to regulate according to nature—in order to restore balance to our psycho-physical constitution.
Gregory goes one step further, however, in his exposition. He situates this restricted, ascetical diet in terms of our desire for abundance and also, relatedly, as matter of justice and labor. The two are closely related, for Gregory, because the covetous desire for abundance that this petition curbs is at the same time dependent upon the exploitation of the poor who must toil so that we can eat in lavishness.
So, while Gregory reads this petition “literally,” his interests remain rooted in the spiritual interpretation common among the church fathers. Gregory’s reading is hard to locate in both the patristic and contemporary worlds. But it’s all the more interesting even so.
Without any further ado, here are some of the key passages from this homily.*
I once heard a medical expert speaking on the subject of health, and what he said may perhaps not be without interest for us in regard to the well-being of the soul. He defined as the principal cause of a state of illness the deviation from the right proportion of one of the elements [stoicheiae] in us. And, conversely, he said that the cure of the cause of the disease was brought about by restoring the balance that had been viciously disturbed. And therefore he advised that as a contribution to health, care should be taken to weaken those elements in us which were particularly stirred up to disorder by the proper strengthening of the opposing clement. (Graef, 57)
…
[Gregory explains “Thy Will be done”]
Now the health of the soul is the accomplishment of the Divine Will, just as, on the other hand, the disease of the soul that ends in death is the falling away from this good Will. We fell ill when we forsook the wholesome way of life in Paradise and filled ourselves with the poison of disobedience, through which our nature was conquered by this evil and deadly disease. Then there came the true Physician who cured the evil perfectly by its opposite, as is the law of medicine. For those who had succumbed to the disease because they had separated themselves from the Divine Will, He frees once more from their sickness by uniting them to the Will of God. For the words of the prayer bring the cure of the disease which is in the soul. For He prays as if His soul was immersed in pain, saying, Thy Will be done. Now the Will of God is the salvation of men. If therefore we prepare to say to God: Thy Will be done also in me, it is absolutely necessary first to renounce what was contrary to the Divine Will and to give a full account of it in confession. (Graef, 58-59)
…
[Gregory then turns to explain the clause, “on earth as in heaven”]
But what means the additional clause, on earth as it is in Heaven? … The whole rational creation is divided into the incorporeal and the corporeal natures. The incorporeal species is the angelic creature, and the other one is we men. The spiritual creature, inasmuch as it is separated from the body that weighs down—I mean the earthly body that is solid and heavy—sojourns in the upper region. It dwells in the light and ethereal places and is of a nimble and agile nature. But the other nature has necessarily been allotted to the earthly life because of the kinship of our body, which is, as it were, a sediment of mud, with what is earthly.
Now I do not know what was the purpose of the Divine Will in so ordering it. Perhaps it was to bring the whole creation into relationship with itself, so that neither the lower portion should be without part in the heavenly heights, nor heaven wholly without a share in the things pertaining to earth. Thus the creation of man would effect in each of the elements a participation in the things belonging to the other; for the spiritual nature of the soul, which seems to be decidedly akin to the heavenly powers, dwells in earthly bodies, and in the restoration of all, this earthly flesh will be translated into the heavenly places together with the soul.
Yet the desire for the good and the beautiful is equally inherent in both natures, and the Lord of the world has both equally endowed with self-determined free will and complete freedom from necessity. Thus, every being privileged to possess a rational mind is meant to be governed by an autonomous free will. Now the heavenly life is perfectly free from evil, and none of the powers known to be opposed to it has communion with it. On the other hand, every impulse or emotion connected with the passions resides in the life below, where human nature is at home. Therefore the Divinely inspired Word fixes the attention on the heavenly city, the dwelling place of the holy powers, which is perfectly free from even the slightest stain of sin and evil. (Graef, 61-62)
…
Since, then, the life above is passionless and pure, whereas this wretched life here below is immersed in all manner of passions and miseries, it should be clear that the city above, being pure from all evil, is firmly established in the good Will of God. For where there is no evil there must necessarily be the good. But our life, which has fallen away from sharing the good things, has at the same time fallen away from the Divine Will. Therefore the prayer teaches us thus to purify our life from evil that the will of God may rule in us without hindrance, in the same way as it does in the life of heaven. In other words: As Thy Will is done by the thrones and principalities and powers and dominations and all the supramundane hosts, where no evil hinders the action of the good, so may the good be accomplished also in us. Thus, when all evil has been removed, Thy Will may be accomplished in our souls in all things. (Graef, 62).
[Gregory then turns to the petition “Give us this day our daily bread.”]
But someone might suggest an objection: How can those who have been destined for life in the flesh achieve the purity which is in the disembodied spirits? Do not the needs of the body plunge the soul into a thousand cares? Therefore I propose to solve this problem whilst dealing with the apparent difficulty in the next part of the subject under discussion.
For I believe that a definite doctrine is presented to us in these words, in that we are commanded to ask for our daily bread; that is to say, the nature that is temperate and content with little according to the idea of apatheia should be made equal to the nature that has no material needs at all. The angel does not pray to God for sufficient bread, because his nature has no need of such things. But man is commanded to ask this, because what is empty certainly needs to be filled. For the human life is constituted unstable and transitory, seeking to renew itself by supplying for what it loses. A man, therefore, who gives but nature its due and does not let his vain thoughts stray after things outside his needs is not far below the angelic state: he imitates their need of nothing as far as in him lies by being content with little. Therefore we have been commanded to seek only what is sufficient to preserve our physical existence.
So we say to God: Give us bread. Not delicacies or riches, nor magnificent purple robes, golden ornaments, precious stones, or silver dishes. Nor do we ask Him for landed estates, or military commands, or political leadership. We pray neither for herds of horses and oxen or other cattle in great numbers, nor for a host of slaves. We do not say, give us a prominent position in assemblies or monuments and statues raised to us, nor silken robes and musicians at meals, nor any other thing by which the soul is estranged from the thought of God and higher things; no—but only bread! (Graef, 64-65)
…
[Gregory proceeds to read the Serpent’s temptation of Eve allegorically:] Do not give access to the reptile creeping into the inner chamber, for its whole trail enters with it immediately. Cling only to what is necessary; let your care for your livelihood end when you have supplied for your needs by what you can easily obtain. If with you, too, Eve's counsellor converses about what is pleasing to sight and sweet to taste, you will seek over and above your bread this or that flavor, making it more tasty by all manner of seasonings. And through these things which go beyond the range of what is necessary you will bring in desire, and presently you will see the reptile clandestinely creeping towards covetousness.
For having once crept from the necessary food towards delicacies, it will proceed to what is pleasant to the eyes, seeking shining dishes and attractive servants. And so on to silver couches, soft divans, and transparent, gold-embroidered veils, magnificent chairs and tripods, washing vessels, mixing bowls, drinking horns, wine coolers and pitchers; water stoups, candlesticks, censers and similar things. And all this serves only to increase the desire for more. For in order that none of these paraphernalia may be missing, one needs an income adequate for providing all these requirements.
And so someone must weep, his neighbor must sorrow, many who are deprived of their property must be miserable, in order that their tears may contribute to enhance the ostentatious display of his table. And when the serpent has wound its coils about these things and has filled its belly at will, then, as soon as it is sated, it drags itself crawling down to unbridled frenzy. This is the lowest degradation of man.
In order that none of these things may happen, life is defined by bread which is easily obtainable, for which you may seek the flavoring that is provided by nature itself. This is above all a good conscience which makes the bread tasty because it is eaten in justice. (Graef, 66-67)
…
For if God is justice, the man who procures himself food through covetousness cannot have his bread from God. You are the master of your prayer, if abundance does not come from another's property and is not the result of another's tears; if no one is hungry or distressed because you are fully satisfied. For the bread of God is above all the fruit of justice, the car of the corn of peace, pure and without any admixture of the seed of tares. But if you cultivate what is another's property, if you practice injustice and confirm your unjust gains by written documents, then you may indeed say to God: Give bread; but another will hear this your plea, not God. For the fruit of injustice is the product of the contrary nature. He who pursues righteousness receives his bread from God, whereas the man who cultivates iniquity is fed by the father of iniquity. (Graef, 67-68)
*I’ve used the translation from Hilda Graef in the Ancient Christian Writers series vol. 18. A free online version of the sermon can be found here. A new translation from Mark DelColgliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz in the ridiculously expensive Brill series just came out, too.).