Luke 11:3

Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν.

RBT Greek Interlinear:

Strongs 3588; Ton; Τὸν; the; Art-AMS

Strongs 740; arton; ἄρτον; bread; N-AMS

Strongs 1473; hēmōn; ἡμῶν; of ourselves; PPro-G1P

Strongs 3588; ton; τὸν; the; Art-AMS

Strongs 1967; epiousion; ἐπιούσιον; essence of being; Adj-AMS

Strongs 1325; didou; δίδου; give; V-PMA-2S

Strongs 1473; hēmin; ἡμῖν; ourselves; PPro-D1P

Strongs 3588; to; τὸ; the; Art-ANS

Strongs 2596; kath’; καθ’; down; Prep

Strongs 2250; hēmeran; ἡμέραν; day; N-AFS

RBT Hebrew Literal:

I eat, therefore I am

the Bread Loaf of Ourselves, the Super-Essence, give to ourselves the one according to a day.^38b

time, time, half a time
turning time backward

ἐπιούσιον
Drawing on the preposition ἐπι (epi), meaning "toward" or "upon," in conjunction with οὐσία (ousia, meaning "essence" or "substance"). This results in an interpretation that sees τὸν ἐπιούσιον as not merely “daily bread” but as a bread necessary for sustaining existence—bread that is directed toward or upon the essence of life. In this case a super-existence, or "an existence beyond."

Julia Smith Literal 1876 Translation:
Give us our bread sufficient for sustenance by the day.

LITV Translation:
Give us our needed bread day by day;

ESV Translation:
Give us each day our daily bread,

Footnotes

38b

The Rising of the Sun

This word has been heavily debated by scholars simply because of the philosophical/metaphysical implications of the grammatical compound. There is a simple meaning, according to its components, but not one any biblical scholar was willing to accept in theological discourse. 

The term ἐπουσία, though formally straightforward as a compound of ἐπί- ("upon" or "in addition") and οὐσία ("essence" or "being"), has attracted disproportionate interpretive attention due to its latent philosophical and metaphysical potential. While the composite suggests a plausible surface meaning—that which is upon or beyond being—its implications have proven problematic for theological frameworks that resist any notion of intermediary or supervenient being beyond or beside a singular divine essence. Consequently, biblical and patristic scholars were reluctant to adopt the term in its literal or speculative fullness, biased to interpretive routes that maintain doctrinal coherence over lexical possibility. This reluctance underscores a broader tension in ancient metaphysical language: that linguistic derivation does not constrain conceptual interpretation, especially when dealing with terms at the intersection of grammar, ontology, and revelation.

If ἐπουσία is interpreted analogically within a framework of ontological emanation—where being radiates or "beams forth" akin to the sun's light—its prefix ἐπί-, denoting superposition or addition, could signify a plenitudinous extension of essence, not merely spatially, but existentially. Such a concept aligns with metaphysical models wherein existence is not linear or segmented but unfolds as a totality, analogous to perceiving a clock not as a sequence but as an integrated whole. In this sense, ἐπουσία might connote a form of omni-existence—a mode of being in which all times, places, and essences co-inhere without contradiction or division. This reading, while resonant with late Neoplatonic or mystical systems, remains rooted in a conceptual analysis of being as non-successive and non-localized, rather than in any strictly theological dogma.

What?

To put it in simpler terms, the basic meaning of this compound word has caused a lot of debate among scholars because it brings up deep and tricky questions about what it means to exist or to be. One could think about a kind of existence that is beyond normal time and space—like the way the sun shines everywhere in all directions or how a clock can be seen as a whole, not just ticking seconds one after another.

But because these ideas are so complicated and don’t fit easily into any religious beliefs—especially in any Biblical tradition (or early church writings)—most scholars didn’t want to accept the word’s full meaning. Instead, they preferred to distort it in ways that fit better with their religious teachings.

In other words, even though the word seems simple when you look at its parts, the big ideas it suggests made certain people nervous, so they avoided using it the way it naturally might be used.