εὐχαριστία, -as, ἡ, (εὐχάριστος. q- V-) 5 1. thankfulness: decree of the Byzantines in Dem. p. 256, 19; Polyb. 8, 14, 8; Add. to Esth. vi. 4 ed. Fritz.; 2 Mace. ii. 27; Sir. xxxvii. 11; πρός τινα, Diod. 17, 59; Joseph. antt. 3, 3. 2. the giving of thanks: Acts xxiv. 3; for God’s blessings, 1 Co. xiv. 16; 2 Co. iv. 15; Eph. v. 4 (cf. 1 Th. v. 18); Phil. iv. 6; Col. ii. 7; iv. 2; 1 Th. iii. 9; 1 Tim. iv. 3 sq.; Rev. iv.9; vii.12; w. dat. of the pers. to whom thanks are given: τῷ θεῷ (cf. W. § 31, 3; [B. 180 (156) ]; Kithner § 424, 1), 2 Co. ix. 11 (τοῦ θεοῦ, Sap. xvi. 28); in plur., 2 Co. ix. 12; 1 Tim. ii. 1.

εὐχαριστία eucharistia 15x

gratitude, thankfulness, Acts 24:3; thanks, the act of giving thanks, thanksgiving, 1 Cor. 14:16; conversation marked by the gentle cheerfulness of a grateful heart, as contrasted with the unseemly mirth of εὐτραπελία, Eph. 5:4

** εὐχαριστία, -ας, ἡ

(< εὐχάριστος), [in LXX: Es 8:13, Wi 16:28, Si 37:11, II Mac 2:27 * ;]

thankfulness, gratitude (Polyb.; Es, Si, II Mac, ll. c.): Ac 24:3.

giving of thanks, thanksgiving (so in π. and Inscr.; M, Th., 41 f.): I Co 14:16, II Co 4:15, Eph 5:4, Phl 4:6, Col 2:7 4:2, I Th 3:9, I Ti 4:3, 4, Re 4:9 7:12; c. dat. pers., II Co 9:11 (cf. τ. θεοῦ, Wis, l.c.); pl., II Co 9:12, I Ti 2:1 (Cremer, 904).†

αἴτημα, ἱκετηρία. Four of these words occur together at 1 Tim. 11. 1 ; on which Flacius Illyricus (Clavis, 5. v. Oratio) justly observes: ‘Quem vocum acervum procul dubio Paulus non temere congessit.’ I propose to consider not these only, but the larger group of which they form a portion. Εὐχή is found only once in the N. T. in the sense of a prayer (Jam. v. 15); twice besides in that of a vow (Acts XViii. 18; xxi. 23); compare Plato (Legg. vii. 801 a), εὐχαὶ παρὰ θεῶν αἰτήσεις εἰσί. On the distinction between it and προσευχή, between εὔχεσθαι and προσεύχεσθαι, there is a long discussion in Origen (De Orat. ὃ 2, 8, 4), but of no great value, and not bringing out more than the obvious fact that in εὐχή and εὔχεσθαι the notion of the vow, of the dedicated thing, is more commonly found than that of prayer. A more interesting treatment of the words, and the difference between them, may be found in Gregory of Nyssa, De Orat. Dom. Orat. 2, ad wit. Προσευχή and δέησις often in the N. T. occur together (Phil. iv. 6; Ephes. vi. 18; 1 Tim. Π|1 v. 5), and not unfrequently in the Septuagint (Ps. vi. 10; Dan. ix. 21, 28; cf. 1 Mace. vii. 87). There have been many, but for the most part not very successful, attempts to distinguish between them. Grotius, for instance, affirms that they are severally ‘ precatio ’ and ‘deprecatio’; that the first seeks to obtain good, the second to avert evil. Augustine, let me note by the way, in §tr SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 177 his treatment of the more important in this group of words (Ep. 149, ὃ 12-16; cf. Bishop Taylor, Pref. to Apology for Set Forms of Liturgy, ὃ 81), which, though interesting, yields few definite results of value, observes that in his time this distinction between ‘ precatio’ and ‘ deprecatio’ had practically quite disappeared. Theodoret, who had anticipated Grotius here, explains προσευχή as αἴτησις ἀγαθῶν, and δέησις as ὑπὲρ ἀπαλλαγῆς τινῶν λυπηρῶν ἱκετεία tpodepoperyn. He has here in this last definition the words of Aristotle (het. ii. 7) before him: δεήσεις εἰσὶν ai ὀρέξεις, καὶ τούτων μάλιστα αἱ μετὰ λύπης τοῦ μὴ γιγνομένου : Compare Gregory of Nazianzus: δέησιν οἴου τὴν αἴτησιν ἐνδεῶν. But this distinction is altogether arbitrary ; it neither lies in the words, nor is it borne out by usage. Better Calvin, who makes προσευχή (=‘precatio’), prayer in general, δέησις (=‘rogatio’), prayer for particular benefits: “ προσευχή omne genus orationis, δέησις ubi certum aliquid petitur; genus et species.’ Bengel’s distinction amounts very nearly to the same thing: ‘ δέησις (a δεῖ) est imploratio gratiz in necessitate quidam speciali ; προσευχή, oratio, exercetur quilibet oblatione voluntatum et desideriorum erga Deum.’ But Calvin and Bengel, bringing out one important point of distinction, have yet failed to bring out another—namely, that προσευχή is ‘res sacra,’ the word being restricted to sacred uses; it is always prayer to God; δέησις has no such restriction. Fritzsche (on Rom. x. 1) has not failed to urge this : “ ἡ προσευχή et ἡ δέησις differunt ut precatio et rogatio. Προσεύχεσθαι et ἡ προσευχή Verba sacra sunt; precamur enim Deum: δεῖσθαι, τὸ δέημα (Aristophanes, Acharn. 1059) et ἡ δέησις tum in sacra tum in profané re usurpantur, nam et Deum rogare possumus et homines.’ It is the same distinction as in our ‘prayer’ (though that has been too much brought down to mundane uses) and ‘petition,’ in the German ‘ Gebet’ and ‘ Bitte.’ "Evrevéts occurs in the N.T. only at 1 Tim. ii. 1; iv. 5 (but evrvyxavew four or five times), and once in the Apocrypha (2 Mace. iv. 8). ‘Intercession,’ by which the A. V. translates N 178 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $11 it, is not, as we now understand ‘ intercession,’ a satisfactory rendering. For évrevéis does not necessarily mean what intercession at present commonly does mean—namely, prayer in relation to others (at 1 Tim. iv. 5 such meaning is impossible); a pleading either for them or against them.' Least of all does it mean exclusively the latter, a pleading against our enemies, as Theodoret, on Rom. xi. 2, missing the fact that the ‘against’ lay there in the κατά, would imply, when he says: ἔντευξίς ἐστι κατηγορία τῶν ἀδικούντων : cf. Hesychius: δέησις εἰς ἐκδίκησιν ὑπέρ τινος (Rom. viii. 84), κατά τινος (Rom. xi. 9); but, as its connexion with ἐντυγχάνειν, to fall in with a person, to draw close to him so as to enter into familiar speech and communion with him (Plutarch, Conj. Prec. 18), implies, it is free familiar prayer, such as boldly draws near to God (Gen. xviii. 23 ; Wisd. viii. 21; cf. Philo, Quod Det. Pot. ΩΡ ; ἐντεύξεις καὶ ἐκβοήσεις ; Plutarch, Phoc. 17). In justice, however, to our Translators, it must be observed that ‘ intercession ’ had not in their time that limited meaning of prayer for others which we now ascribe to it; see Jer. xxvii. 18 ; xxxvi. 95. The Vulgate has ‘postulationes’; but Augustine, in a discussion on this group of words referred to already (Hp. 149, § 12-16), prefers ‘ interpellationes,’ as better bringing out the παῤῥησία, the freedom and _ boldness of access, which is involved in, and constitutes the fundamental idea of, the évrevéis—‘ interpellare,’ to interrupt another in speaking, ever implying forwardness and freedom. Origen (De Orat. 14) in © like manner makes the boldness of approach to God, asking, it may be, some great thing (he instances Josh. x. 12), the fundamental notion of the &revés. It might mean indeed more than this, Plato using it of a possible encounter with pirates (Politic. 298 d). E’yapucria, which our Translators have rendered ‘ thankfulness’ (Acts xxiv. 8); ‘giving of thanks’ (1 Cor. Siy. 10), ‘thanks’ (Rev. iv. 9); ‘ thanksgiving’ (Phil. iv. 6), a some1 The rendering of δι᾽ ἐντεύξεως, 2 Mace. iv. 8, ‘ by intercession,’ can scarcely be correct. It expresses more probably the fact of a confidential interview face to face between Jason and Antiochus. ee ee ee δι SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 179 what rare word elsewhere, is frequent in sacred Greek. It would be out of place to dwell here on the special meaning which εὐχαριστία and ‘ eucharist’ have acquired from the fact that in the Holy Communion the Church embodies her highest act of thanksgiving for the highest benefits which she ᾿ς has received of God. Regarded as one manner of prayer, it expresses that which ought never to be absent from any of our devotions (Phil. iv. 6; Ephes. v. 20; 1 Thess. v. 18; 1 Tim. ii. 1); namely, the grateful acknowledgment of past mercies, as distinguished from the earnest seeking of future. As such it may, and will, subsist in heaven (Rev. iv. 9; vii. 12) ; will indeed be larger, deeper, fuller there than here: for only there will the redeemed know how much they owe to their Lord; and this it will do, while all other forms of prayer, in the very nature of things, will have ceased in the entire possession and present fruition of the things prayed for. Αἴτημα occurs twice in the N. T. in the sense of a petition of men to God, both times in the plural (Phil. iv. 6; 1 John v. 15); it is, however, by no means restricted to this meaning (Luke xxiii. 24; Esth. v. 7; Dan. vi. 7). In a προσευχή of any length there will probably be many αἰτήματα, these being indeed the several requests of which the προσευχή is composed. For instance, in the Lord’s Prayer it is generally reckoned that there are seven αἰτήματα, though some have regarded the first three as εὐχαί, and only the last four as αἰτήματα. Witsius (De Orat. Dom.): ‘ Petitio pars orationis; ut si totam Orationem Dominicam voces orationem aut precationem, singulas vero illius partes aut septem postulata petitiones.’ ‘Ikernpia, with ῥάβδος or ἐλαία, or some such word understood, like ἱλαστήριον, θυσιαστήριον, δικαστήριον, and other words of the same termination (see Lobeck, Pathol. Serm. Grec. p. 281), was originally an adjective, but little by little obtained substantival power, and learned to go alone. It is explained by Plutarch (Thes. 18): κλάδος ἀπὸ τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐλαίας ἐρίῳ λευκῷ κατεστεμμένος (cf. Wyttenbach, Animadd in Plutarch. vol. xiii. p. 89; and Wunder on Sophocles, (μα. fvex, 8), the olive-branch bound round with white wool, held N 2 180 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT δ ταὶ forth by the suppliant in token of the character which he bore (Aischylus, Hwmen. 48, 44; compare Virgil, An. vii. 116: ‘Pacifereque manu ramum pretendit olive’; and again ver. 128: ‘Et νἱ θῶ comtos voluit pratendere ramos’ ; and once more xi. 101). A deprecatory letter, which Antiochus Epiphanes is said on his death-bed to have written to the Jews, is described (2 Mace. ix. 18) as ἱκετηρίας τάξιν ἔχουσα, and Agrippa designates one addressed to Caligula: γραφὴ ἣν ἀνθ᾽ ἱκετηρίας προτείνω (Philo, Leg. ad Car. 36). It is easy to trace the steps by which this, the symbol of supplication, came to signify the supplicationitself. It does so on the only occasion when it occurs in the N. T. (Heb. v. 7), being there joined to δέησις, as it often is elsewhere (Job xli. 8 [xl. 22 LXX.]; Polybius, ii. 112. 8). Thus much on the distinction between these words; although, when all has been said, it will still to a great extent remain true that they will often set forth, not different kinds of prayer, but prayer contemplated from different sides and under different aspects. Witsius (De Orat. Dom. § 4): ‘Mihi sic videtur, unam eandemque rem diversis nominibus designari pro diversis quos habet aspectibus. Preces nostree δεήσεις vocantur, quatenus iis nostram apud Deum testamur egestatem, nam δέεσθαι indigere est; προσευχαί, quatenus vota nostra continent; αἰτήματα, quatenus exponunt petitiones et desideria ; ἐντεύξεις, quatenus non timide et diffidenter, sed familiariter, Deus se a nobis adiri patitur ; ἔντευξις enim est colloquium et congressus familiaris : εὐχαριστίαν gratiarum actionem esse pro acceptis jam beneficiis, notius est quam ut moneri oporteat.’—On the Hebrew correlatives to the several words of this group, see Vitringa, De Synagogd, iil. 2. 18. δ 1. ἀσύνθετος, ἄσπονδος. ᾿Ασύνθετος occurs only once in the N. T., namely at Rom. i. 31; ef. Jer. iii. 8-11, where it is found several times, but not elsewhere in the Septuagint. There is the same solitary use of ἄσπονδος (2 Tim. iii. 3); for its right to a place in the text $in SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 181 at Rom. i. 81 is with good reason contested, and the best critical editions omit it there. It is nowhere found in the Septuagint. The distinction between the two words, as used in Seripture, is not hard to draw ;—I have said, as used in Scripture ; because there may be a question whether ἀσύνθετος hag anywhere else exactly the meaning which it challenges there. Elsewhere often united with ἁπλοῦς, with ἄκρατος (Plutarch, Adv. Stoic. 48), it has the passive sense of ‘ not put together’ or ‘not made up of several parts’; and in this sense evidently the Vulgate, which renders it ‘incompositus,’ has taken it; we have here the explanation of the ‘ dissolute ’ of the Rheims Version. But the ἀσύνθετοι of St. Paul—the word with him has an active sense—are they who, being in covenant and treaty with others, refuse to abide by these covenants and treaties : μὴ ἐμμένοντες ταῖς συνθήκαις (Hesychius) ; ‘pactorum haudquaquam tenaces’ (Hrasmus) ; ‘bundbriichig’ (not ‘unvertriglich,’ as Tittmann maintains) ; ‘ covenant-breakers ’ (A. V.). The word is associated with ἀστάθμητος, Demosthenes, De Fals. Leg. 383. Worse than the δυσδιάλυτοι (Aristotle, Hthic. Nic. iv. 5. 10), who are only hard to be reconciled, the ἄσπονδοι are the absolutely irreconcileable (ἄσπονδοι καὶ ἀκατάλλακτοι, Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Her. 50); those who will not be atoned, or set at one, who being at war refuse to lay aside their enmity, or to listen to terms of accommodation; ‘ implacabiles, qui semel offensi reconciliationem non admittunt’ (Estius) ; ‘unverséhnlich,’ ‘implacable’ (A. V.); the word is by Philo (De Merc. Mer. 4) joined to dovpBaros and ἀκοινώνητος, opposed to εὐδιάλλακτος by Plutarch (De Alex. Virt. 4). The phrase, ἄσπονδος καὶ ἀκήρυκτος πόλεμος is frequent, indeed proverbial, in Greek (Demosthenes, De Coron. 79; Philo, De Prem. et Pan. 15; Lucian, Pisc. 36); in this connexion ἀκήρυκτος πόλεμος does not mean a war not duly announced by the fecial; but rather one in which what Virgil calls the ‘belli commercia’ are wholly suspended: no herald, no flag of truce, as we should now say, being allowed to pass 182 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃ ταὶ between the parties, no terms of reconcilement listened to ; such a war, for example, as that which the Carthaginians in the interval between the first and second Punic Wars waged with their revolted mercenaries. In the same sense we have elsewhere ἄσπονδος μάχη Kat ἀδιάλλακτος ἔρις (Aristeenetus, 2, 14); οἵ. ἄσπειστος κότος (Nicander, Ther. 367; quoted by Blomfield, Agamemnon, Ὁ. 285); ἄσπονδος ἔχθρα (Plutarch, Pericles, 30) ; ἄσπονδος Θεός (Euripides, Alcestis, 481). ᾿Ασύνθετος then presumes a state of peace, which they who are such unrighteously interrupt; while ἄσπονδος presumes a state of war, which the ἄσπονδοι refuse to bring to an equitable close. It will follow that Calvin, who renders ἄσπονδοι ‘ foedifragi,’ and ἀσύνθετοι “ insociabiles,’ has exactly missed the force of both; Theodoret has done the same ; who on Rom. i. 31 writes: ἀσυνθέτους, τοὺς ἀκοινώνητον καὶ πονηρὸν βίον ἀσπαζομένους" ἀσπόνδους τοὺς ἀδεῶς τὰ συγκείμενα παραβαίνοντας. Only by ascribing to each word that meaning which these interpreters have ascribed to the other, will the right equivalents be obtained. In agreement with what has been just said, and in confirmation of it, is the distinction which Ammonius draws between συνθήκη and σπονδή. SvvOjxyn assumes peace ; being a further agreement, it may be a treaty of alliance, between those already on general terms of amity. Thus there was a συνθήκη between the several States which owned the leadership of Sparta in the Peloponnesian War, that, with whatever territory any one of these began the war, with the same it should close it (Thucydides, v. 81). But σπονδή, oftener in the plural, assumes war, of which the σπονδή is the cessation ; a merely temporal cessation, an armistice it may be (Homer, Il. ii. 841). Ibis true that a συνθήκη may be attached to a σπονδή, terms of alliance consequent on terms of peace ; thus σπονδή and συνθήκη occur together in Thucydides, iv. 18: but they are different things ; in the σπονδή there is a cessation of the state of war, there is peace, or at all events truce; in the συνθήκη there is, superinduced on this, a further agreement or alliance.—EicvvOeros, 1 may observe, which would be the Simi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT “183 exact opposite of ἀσύνθετος, finds no place in our lexicons; and we may presume is not found in any Greek author; but εὐσυνθεσία in Philo (De Merc. Mer. 8); as ἀσυνθεσία in the Septuagint (Jer. 111. 7), and ἀθεσία in the same sense often in Polybius (ii. 32).

εὐχαριστία. For this subst. we can cite only one ex. from the papyri, P Lond 1178* (A.D. 194) (= III. p. 216) τῆς πρὸς αὐτοὺς εὐχαριστίας, in the copy of a letter written by the Emperor Claudius to a Gymnastic Club expressing his gratification at games performed in his honour. It is, however, common in the inscrr., e.g. OGZS 2278 (iii/B.c.) διὰ τὴν τοῦ δήμου εὐχαριστίαν, Sy/7 365° (c. A.D. 37) εἰς εὐχαριστίαν τηλικούτου θεοῦ εὑρεῖν ἴσας ἀμοιβάς, and OG/S 199% (i/A.D.) δι᾿ ἣν ἔχω πρὸς τὸν μέγιστον θεόν μουΑρην εὐχαριστίαν, where the editor notes that εὐχαριστία -- τὸ εὐχάριστον εἶναι, and that as the adj. denotes ‘‘non modo grati animi hominem . . sed etiam gratiosum, acceptum,” the meaning almost amounts to ‘‘ quia deus mihi favet.’’ On the Christian use of εὐχαριστία with the corresponding verb see a note by Hort in 7715 iii. p. 594 ff. In _/HS xxvii. p. 65 we hear of a εὐχαριστήριον to Dionysus. MGr εὐκαρίστησι, “contentment,” ‘* pleasure.

εὐχαριστία (eucharistia) — thankfulness. εὐχᾰριστ-ία, ἡ, thankfulness, gratitude, Decrees cited in [Refs 4th c.BC+]; πρός τινα [Refs 1st c.BC+]; πρὸς τὸν θεόν [Refs 4th c.BC+]

2. giving of thanks, εἰς εὐ. θεοῦ [NT+1st c.AD+]