Synonyms of the New Testament

ai@thma, i[kethri
FOUR of these words occur together at I Tim. ii. 1; on

which Flacius Illyricus (Clavis, s. v. Oratio) justly ob-

serves: ‘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.

Eu]xh< 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. 801 a), eu]xai> para>

qew?n ai]th. On the distinction between it and

proseuxh<, between eu@xesqai and proseu, there is a

long discussion in Origen (De Orat. § 2, 3, 4), but of no

great value, and not bringing out more than the obvious

fact that in eu]xh< and eu@xesqai 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 Oral. Dom. Orat. 2, ad init.

Proseuxh< and de often in the N. T. occur together

(Phil. iv. 6; Ephes. vi. 18; I Tim. ii. i; v. 5), and not

unfrequently in the Septuagint (Ps. vi. 10; Dan. ix. 21,

23 ; cf. i Macc. vii. 37). 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 his treatment of the more im-

portant in this group of words (Ep. 149, § 12-16; cf. Bishop

Taylor, Pref. to Apology for Set Forms of Liturgy, § 31),

which, though interesting, yields few definite results of

value, observes that in his time this distinction between

‘precatio’ and ‘deprecatio’ had practically quite disap-

peared. Theodoret, who had anticipated Grotius here,

§ LI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 189

explains proseuxh< as ai@thsij a]gaqw?n, and de as u[pe>r

a]pallagh?j tinw?n luphrw?n i]ketei. He has

here in this last definition the words of Aristotle (Rhet. ii.

7) before him: dehn ai[ o]re tou

ai[ meta> lu
gignome: compare Gregory of Na-

zianzus, den ai@thsin e]ndew?n. But this distinc-

tion is altogether arbitrary; it neither lies in the words,

nor is it borne out by usage. Better Calvin, who makes

proseuxh< (=’precatio’), prayer in general, de (=’ro-

gatio’), prayer for particular benefits: ]proseuxh< omne

genus orationis, de ubi certum alioquid petitur; genus

et species.' Bengel's distinction amour is very nearly to

the same thing: [de(a dei?) est imploratio gratiae in

necessitate quadam speciali; proseuxh<, oratio, exercetur

qualibet 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 proseuxh< is ‘res sacra,’ the word being

restricted to sacred uses; it is always prayer to God;

de has no such restriction. Fritzsche ( on Rom. xi. 1) has

not failed to urge this: [h[ proseuxh< et hp de differunt

ut precatio et rogatio. Proseu et h[ proseuxh< verba

sacra sunt; precamur enim Deum dei?sqai, to> de

(Aristophanes, Acharn. 1059) et h[ de tum in sacra tum

in profana 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 'Gebt' and ‘Bitte.’

@Enteucij occurs in the N. T. only at I Tim. ii. 1; iv. 5;

(but e]ntugxa four or five times), and once in the

Apocrypha (2 Macc. iv. 8). ‘Intercession,’ by which.

the A. V. translates it, is not, as we now understand

'intercession,' a satisfactory rendering. For e@nteucij does

not necessarily mean what intercession at present) com-

monly does mean—namely, prayer in relation to others

(at I Tim. iv. 5 such meaning is impossible); a pleading

190 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LI.
either for them or against them.¹ 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 kata<, would imply,

when he says: e@nteucij e]sti> kathgori; cf.

Hesychius: de (Rom. viii. 34),

kata< tinoj (Rom. xi. 2); but, as its connexion with e]ntugxa<-

nein, to fall in with a person, to draw close to him so as to

enter into familiar speech and communion with him (Plu-

tarch, Conj. Praec. 13), implies, it is free familiar prayer,

such as boldly draws near to God (Gen. xviii. 23; Wisd.

viii. 21; cf. Philo, Quod Det. Pot. 25; e]nteu,

e]kboh; 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. xxxvi. 18;

xxxvi. 25. The Vulgate has ‘postulationes’; but Augus-

tine, in a discussion on this group of words referred to

already (Ep. 149, § 12-16), prefers ‘interpellationes,’ as

better bringing out the par]r[hsi, the freedom and bold-

ness of access, which is involved in, and constitutes the

fundamental idea of, the e@nteucij--‘interpellare,’ to inter-

rupt 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 e@nteucij. It might mean indeed more than this,

Plato using it of a possible encounter with pirates (Rep.

298 d).

Eu]xaristi, which our Translators have rendered

‘thankfulness’ (Acts xxiv. 3); ‘giving of thanks’ (1 Cor.

xiv. 16); ‘thanks’ (Rev. iv. 9); ‘thanksgiving’ (Phil. iv.

6), a somewhat rare word elsewhere, is frequent in sacred

¹ The rendering of di ] e]nteu 2 Macc. 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.
§ LI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 191
Greek. It would be out of place to dwell here on the

special meaning which eu]xaristi an ‘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 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; I Thess. v. 18; I 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.

Ai@thma occurs twice in the N. T. in the sense of a

petition of men to God, both times in the plural (Phil. iv.

6; I John v. 15); it is, however, by n means restricted

to this meaning (Luke xxiii. 24; Esth v. 7; Dan. vi. 7).

In a proseuxh< of any length there will probably be many

ai]th, these being indeed the several requests, of which

the proseuxh<; is composed. For instance, in the Lord's

Prayer it is generally reckoned that there are seven ai]th<-

mata, though some have regarded the first three as eu]xai<,

and only the last four as ai]th. Witsius (De Orat.

Dom.): 'Petitio pars orationis; ut si totam Orationem

Dominicam voces orationem aut precationem, singulas

vero illius partes aut septem postulata petitiones.’

[Ikethri, with r[aor e]lai or some such word un-

derstood, like i[lasth, dikasth, and

other words of the same termination (see Lobeck, Pathol.

Serm. Graec. 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): kla

th?j i[era?j e]lai(cf. Wyttenbach,

192 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LI.

Animadd. in Plutarch. vol. xiii. p. 89; and Wunder on

Sophocles, OEdip. Rex. 3), the olive-branch bound round

with white wool, held forth by the suppliant in token of

the character which he bore (AEschylus, Eumen. 43, 44;

compare Virgil, AEn. 116: ‘Pacifereque manu ramum

praetendit olivae;' and again ver. 128: ‘Et vitta comtos

voluit praetendere 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 Macc. ix. 18) as i[kethri, and Agrippa

designates one addressed to Caligula: grafh> h{n a]nq ] i[keth-

ri (Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 36). It is easy to trace

the steps by which this, the symbol of supplication, came

to signify the supplication itself. It does so on the only

occasion when it occurs in the N. T. (Heb. v. 7), being

there joined to de