Ephraim – Esli

Ephraim

A grandson of Jacob, and the brother of Manasseh, the first-born of Joseph by Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On (Genesis 41:50 f. IE], cf. v. 45 [Jl). The ‘popular etymology’ of E connects the name with the verb pOrah, ‘to be fruitful,’ and makes it refer to Joseph’s sons. In the Blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49:22) there may be a play upon the name when Joseph, who there represents both Ephraim and Manasseh, is called ‘a fruitful bough.’ The word is probably descriptive, meaning ‘fertile region’ whether its root be parah, or ‘ipher,’ earth’(7).

Genesis 48:14 ff. ■ (J) tells an interesting story of how Jacob adopted his Egyptian grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, into his own family, and at the same time, against the remonstrances of Joseph, conferred the blessing of the firstborn upon Ephraim — hence Ephraim’s predestined superiority in later history.

P’s Sinai census gives 40,500 men of war (Numbers 1:33). but this is reduced at the Plains of Moab to 32,600 (26:37). which is less than any of the tribes except Simeon, which ‘hardly existed except in name’ (Sayce, Hist, of Heb. p. 77). Contrary to what we should have expected from the Blessing of Jacob, Ephraim, according to P, lost in the meantime 20 per cent, while Manasseh gained 40 per cent.

The appearance of Joseph in the Blessing of Jacob, with no mention of his sons, who according to J had been adopted as Jacob’s own, and were therefore entitled on this Important occasion to like consideration with the others, points to a traditional echo of the early days in the land when Ephraim and Manasseh were still united. In the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) it is the ‘family’ Machir, the firstborn (Joshua 17:1), the only (Genesis 50:23) son of Manasseh, that is mentioned, not a Manasseh tribe. From 2 Samuel 19:20 (cf. art. Benjamin) it is plain that Shimel still regarded himself as of the house of Joseph; and, despite the traditional indications of a late formation of Benjamin (wh. see), the complete political separation of Manasseh from Ephraim appears to have been still later. At all events, Jeroboam the Ephraimite, who afterwards became the first king of Israel (c. B.C. 930), was appointed by Solomon superintendent of the forced labour of the ‘house of Joseph,’ not of Ephraim alone. Ephraim, Machir, and Benjamin were apparently closely related, and in early times formed a group of clans known as ‘Joseph.’ There are no decisive details determining the time when they became definitely separated. Nor are there any reliable memories of the way in which Ephraim came into possession of the best and central portion of the land.

The traditions in the Book’ of Joshua are notably uninforming. Canaanites remained in the territory until a late date, as is seen from Judges 1:29 and the history of Shechem (ch. 8 f.). Ephraim was the strongest of the tribes and foremost in leadership, but was compelled to yield the hegemony to David. From that time onwards the history is no longer tribal but national history. EU, priest of Shiloh and judge of Israel, Samuel, and Jeroboam i. were among its great men. Shechem, Tirzah, and Samaria, the capitals of the North, were within its boundaries; and it was at Shiloh that Joshua is said to have divided the land by lot. See also Tribes of Iskael. James A. Craiq.

Ephrah

Ephrah n.— 1. A place near Baal-hazor (2 Samuel 13:23) It may be identical with the Ephraim which the Onomasticon places 20 Roman miles N. of Jerusalem, somewhere in the neighbourhood of Sinjil and el-Lubban. If Baal-hazor be represented, as seems probable, by Tell ‘AsUr, the city by relation to which such a prominent feature of the landscape was indicated must have been of some importance. It probably gave its name in later times to the district of Samaria called Aphaerema (1 Maccabees 11:34. Jos. Ant. xin. iv. 9). The site is at present unknown. 2. A city’ near the wilderness,’ to which Jesus retired after the raising of Lazarus (John 11). ‘The wilderness’ is in Arab, el-barriyeh, i.e., the uncultivated land, much of it affording excellent pasture, on the uplands to the N.W. of Jerusalem. The Onomasticon mentions an ‘Efraim’ 5 Roman miles E. of Bethel. This may be the modern et-Taiyibeh, about 4 miles N.E. of BeiKn, with ancient cisterns and rock-hewn tombs which betoken a place of importance in old times. See also Ephhon, 4.

The Forest of Ephraim (Heb. ya’ ar Ephraim) was probably not a forest in our sense of the term, but a stretch of rough country such as the Arabs still call wa’ r, abounding in rocks and thickets of brushwood. The district is not identified, but it must have been E. of the Jordan, in the neighbourhood of Mahanaim. It was the scene of Absalom’s defeat and death (2 S Igeff.). The origin of the name cannot now be discovered. Mount Ephraim, Heb. har Ephraim. is the name given to that part of the central range of Western Palestine occupied by Ephraim, corresponding in part to the modern Jebel Nabliis — the district under the governor of Nablus. Having regard to Oriental usage, it seems a mistake to tr. with RV ‘the hill country of Ephraim.’ Jebel el-Quds does not mean ‘the hill country of Jerusalem,’ but that part of ‘the mountain’ which is subject to the city. We prefer to retain, with AV, ‘Mount Ephraim.’ W. Ewing.

Ephrath, Ephrathah

See Bethlehem, and Caleb-ephrathah.

Ephrathite

1. A native of Bethlehem (Ruth 1:2). 2. An Ephraimite (Judges 12:4. 1 Samuel 1:1. 1 Kings 11:26).

Ephro

Ephro ir. — 1 . The Hittite from whom Abraham purchased the field or plot of ground in which was the cave of Machpelah (Gn23). The purchase is described with great particularity; and the transactions between Ephron and Abraham are conducted with an elaborate courtesy characteristic of Oriental proceedings. Ephron received 400 shekels’ weight of silver (23’s) : coined money apparently did not exist at that time. It we compare the sale of the site with other instances (Genesis 33:19, 1 16). to have made a good bargain. 2. A mountain district, containing cities, on the border of Judah, between Nephtoah and Kiriath-jearim (Joshua 15:9). The ridge W. of Bethlehem seems intended. 3. A strong fortress in the W. part of Bashan between Ashteroth-karnaim and Bethshean (1 Mac &‘"!■,■ 2 Maccabees 12:27). The site is unknown. 4. In 2 Chronicles 13:19 RV reads Ephron for AV Bphrain. The place referred to is probably the Ephraim of John 11:54. See Ephraim (city). No. 2.

Epicureans

St. Paul’s visit to Athens (Acts 17:15–34) led to an encounter with ‘certain of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers,’ representatives of the two leading schools of philosophy of that time.

Epicureanism took its name from its founder Epicurus, who was born in the island of Samos in the year B.C. 341. In B.C. 307 he settled in Athens, where he died in B.C. 270. A man of blameless life and of a most amiable character, Epicurus gathered around him, in the garden which he had purchased at Athens, a brotherhood of attached followers, who came to be known as Epicureans, or ‘the philosophers of the Garden.’ His aim was a practical one. He regarded pleasure as the absolute good. Epicurus, however, did not restrict pleasure, as the earlier Cyrenaic school had done, to immediate bodily pleasures. Whatever may have been the practical outcome of the system, Epicurus and his more worthy followers must be acquitted of the charge of sensuality. What Epicurus advocated and aimed at was the happiness of a tranquil life as free from pain as possible, undisturbed by social conventions or political excitement or superstitious fears.

To deliver men from ‘the fear of the gods’ was the chief endeavour and, according to his famous follower the Roman poet Lucretius, the crowning service of Epicurus. Thus it may be said that, at one point at least, the paths of the Christian Apostle and the Epicurean philosopher touched each other. Epicurus sought to achieve his end by showing that in the physical organization of the world there is no room for the interference of such beings as the gods of the popular theology. There is nothing which Is not material, and the primal condition of matter is that of atoms which, falling in empty space with an inherent tendency to swerve slightly from the perpendicular, come into contact with each other, and form the world as it appears to the senses. All is material and mechanical. The gods — and Epicurus does not deny the existence of gods — have no part or lot in the affairs of men. They are relegated to a realm of their own in the spaces between the worlds. Further, since the test of life is feeling, death, in which there is no feeling, cannot mean anything at all, and is not a thing to be feared either in prospect or in fact.

The total effect of Epicureanism is negative. Its wide-spread and powerful influence must be accounted for by the personal charm of its founder, and by the conditions of the age in|which it appeared and flourished. It takes Its place as one of the negative but widening influences, leading up to ‘the fulness of time’ which saw the birth of Christianity. W. M. Macdonald.

Epilepsy

See Medictne.

EtlPHI (2 Maccabees 6:38). See Time.

EB. — 1. The eldest son of Judah by his Canaanitish wife, the daughter of Shua. For wickedness, the nature of which is not described, ‘J" slew him’ (Genesis 38:3–7. 26:19). 2. A son of Shelah the son of Judah (I Ch 4:21). 3. An ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3:28).

Eran

Grandson of Ephraim (Numbers 26 P). Patronymic, Eranites, ib.

Erastus

The name occurs thrice in NT among the Pauline company. An Erastus sends greetings in Ro 16^, and is called ‘the treasurer (AV’ chamberlain’) of the city’ (Corinth). The Erastus who was sent by St. Paul from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 19:22), and who later remained in Corinth (2 Tl 4:20). is perhaps the same.

A. J. Maclean.

Erech

Named second in the list of Nimrod’s cities (Genesis 10:10). the very ancient Babylonian city of Arku, or Uruk, regarded as exceptionally sacred and beautiful. Its ruins at jWarka lie half-way between Hillah and Korna, on the left bank of the Euphrates, and W. of the Nile Canal. The people of Erech are called Archevitea in Ezra 4:9. C. H. W. Johns.

Eri

Son of Gad, Genesis 46:16 (Numbers 26:16, P). Patronymic Elites, ib.

Esaias

The familiar AV spelling of Isaiah in Apocr. and NT; it is retained by RV only in 2 Esdras 2:18.

ESARHADDON, son and successor of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19. Isaiah 37:38). reigned over Assyria B.C. 682-669. He practically re-founded Babylon, which Sennacherib had destroyed, and was a great restorer of temples. He was also a great conqueror, making three expeditions to Egypt, and finally conquered the whole North, garrisoning the chief cities and appointing vassal kings. He subdued all Syria, and received tribute from Manasseh, and Ezra 4:2 mentions his colonization of Samaria. He ruled over Babylonia as well as Assyria, which explains the statement of 2 Chronicles 33:1 that Manasseh was carried captive there. C. H. W. Johns.

Esau

1. The name is best explained as meaning ‘tawny’ or ‘shaggy’ (Genesis 25:25) Edom or ‘ruddy’ was sometimes substituted for it (v. 30), and Esau is represented as the progenitor of the Edomites (36:9, 43, Jeremiah 49:8 ff.: Ob’). He displaced the Horites from the hilly land of Seir, and settled there with his followers (Genesis 32 36:8, Deuteronomy 2:12). His career is sketched briefly but flnely by weaving incidents collected from two sources (J and E; in the early part, chiefly the former), whilst the Priestly writer is supposed to have contributed a few particulars (Genesis 26:34 f. 28:9 36). The standing feature of Esau’s history is rivalry with Jacob, which is represented as even preceding the birth of the twins (Genesis 25:22, Hosea 12:3). The facts may be collected into four groups. The sale of the birthnght (Genesis 25:29 ff.) carried with it the loss of precedence after the father’s death (27:29). and probably loss of the domestic priesthood (Numbers 3). and of the double portion of the patrimony (Deuteronomy 21:17). For this act the NT calls Esau ‘profane’ (Hebrews 12:16). thus revealing the secret of his character; the word (Gr. beKlos) suggests the quality of a man to whom nothing is sacred, whose heart and thought range over only what is material and sensibly present. To propitiate his parents, Esau sought a wife of his own kin (Genesis 28:8, 9), though already married to two Hittite women (26). His father’s proposed blessing was diverted by Jacob’s artiflce; and, doomed to live by war and the chase (27:40). Esau resolved to recover his lost honours by killing his brother. Twenty years later the brothers were reconciled(33*); after which Esau made Seir his principal abode, and on the death of Isaac settled there permanently(352» 36:6, Deuteronomy 2:4, 5, Joshua 24:4).

By a few writers Esau has been regarded as a mythical

fersonage, the personiflcation of the roughness of Idumsea. t is at least as likely that a man of Esau’s character and habits would himself choose to live in a country of such a kind (Mai 1:3) ; and mere legends about the brothers, aa the early Targums are a witness, would not have made Esau the more attractive man, and the venerated Jacob, in comparison, timid, tricky, and full of deceits. Against the historicity of the record there is really no substantial evidence.

2, The head of one of the families of Nethinim, or Temple servants, who accompanied Nehemiah to Jerusalem(1 Esdras 5:29) see Ziha. R. W. Moss.

Eschatology

Eschatology is that department of theology which is concerned with the ‘last things,’ that is, with the state of individuals after death, and with the course of human history when the present order of things has been brought to a close. It includes such matters as the consummation of the age, the day of judgment, the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, the millennium, and the fixing of the conditions of eternity.

1. Eschatology of the OT.— In the OT the future life is not greatly emphasized. In fact, so silent is the Hebrew literature on the subject, that some have held that personal immortality was not included among the beliefs of the Hebrews. Such an opinion, however, is hardly based on all the facts at our disposal. It is true that future rewards and punishments after death do not play any particular r61e in either the codes or the prophetic thought. Punishment was generally considered as being meted out in the present age in the shape of loss or misfortune or sickness, while righteousness was expected to bring the corresponding temporal blessings. At the same time, however, it is to be borne in mind that the Hebrews, together with other Semitic people, had a belief in the existence of souls after death. Such beliefs were unquestionably the survivals of that primitive Animism which was the first representative of both psychology and a developed belief in personal immortality. Man was to the Hebrew a dichotomy composed of body and soul, or a trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit. In either case the body perished at death, and the other element, whether soul or spirit, went to the abode of disembodied personalities. The precise relation of the ‘soul’ to the ‘spirit’ was not set forth by the Hebrew writers, but it is likely that, as their empirical psychology developed, the spirit rather than the soul was regarded as surviving death. In any case, the disembodied dead were not believed to be immaterial, but of the nature of ghosts or shades (^rephaim).

•The universe was so constructed that the earth lay between heaven above, where Jehovah was, and the great pit or cavern beneath, Sheol, to which the shades of the dead departed. The Hebrew Scriptures do not give us any considerable material for elaborating a theory as to lite in Sheol, but from the warnings against necromancers, as well as from the story of Saul and the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28:3–18). it is clear that, alongside of the Jehovistic religion as found in the literature of the Hebrews, there was a popular belief in continued existence and conscious lite of the spirits of men after deatii, as well as in the possibility of recalling such spirits from Sheol by some form of incantation. The legislation against necromancy is a further testimony to the same fact (Deuteronomy 18:11). Early Hebrew thought also dealt but indistinctly with the occupations and conditions of the dead in Sheol. Apparently they were regarded as in a state resembhng sleep.

There is no thought of resurrection of the body in the OT, the clause in Job 19:26 generally used to prove such a point being more properly translated ‘apart from my flesh.’ The resurrection expected was not individual, but national. The nation, or at least its pious remnant, was to be restored. This was the great evangel of the prophets. In the midst of this prophetic thought there was occasionally a reference to individual immortality, but such a belief was not utilized for the purpose of inculcating right conduct. Yet the new and higher conception of the worth of the individual and his relation with Jehovah paved the way to a clearer estimate of his immortality.

The later books of the Canon (Pss 49. TS’s-a.) refer more frequently to immortality, both of good and of evil men, but continue to deny activity to the dead in Sheol (Job 147 26:6. ps 88 94 115. Ecclesiastes 9:10). and less distinctly(Is 26) refer to a resurrection, although with just what content it is not possible to state. It can hardly have been much more than the emergence of shades from Sheol into the light and life of the upper heavens. It would be unwarranted to say that this new life included anything like the reconstruction of the body, which was conceived of as having returned to dust. In these passages there are possibly references to post-mortem retribution and rewards, but if so they are exceptional. OT ethics was not concerned with immortality.

In the Hebrew period, however, there were elements which were subsequently to be utilized in the development of the eschatology of the Pharisees and of Christianity. Chief among these was the Day of Jehovah. At the first this was conceived of as the day in which Jehovah should punish the enemies of His nation Israel. In the course of time, however, and with the enlarged moral horizon of prophecy, the import of this day with its punishments was extended to the Hebrews as well. At its coming the Hebrew nation was to be given all sorts of political and social blessings by Jehovah, but certain of its members were to share in the punishment reserved for the enemies of Jehovah. Such an expectation as this was the natural outcome of the monarchical concept of religion. Jehovah as a great king had given His laws to His chosen people, and would establish a great assize at which all men, including the Hebrews, would be judged. Except in the Hagiographa, however, the punishments and rewards of this great judgment are not elaborated, and even in Daniel the treatment is but rudimentary.

A second element of importance was the belief in the rehabilitation of the Hebrew nation, i.e. in a national resurrection. This carried within it the germs of many of the eschatological expectations of later days. In fact, without the prophetic insistence upon the distinction between the period of national suffering and that of national glory, it is hard to see how the later doctrine of the ‘two ages,’ mentioned below, could have gained its importance.

2. Eschatology of Judaism.— A newperiod is to beseen in the OT Apocrypha and the pseudepigraphic apocalypses of Judaism. Doubtless much of this new phase in the development of the thought was due to the influence of the Captivity. The Jews came under the influence of the great Babylonian myth-cycles, in which the struggle between right and wrong was expressed as one between God and various supernatural enemies such as dragons and giants. To this period must be attributed also the development of the idea of Sheol, until it included places for the punishment of evil spirits and evil men.

This development was accelerated by the rise of the new type of literature, the apocalypse, the beginnings of which are already to be seen in Isaiah and Zechariah. The various influences which helped to develop this type of literature, with its emphasis upon eschatology, are hard to locate. ‘The influence of the Babylonian myth-cycles was great, but there is also to be seen the influence of the Greek impulse to pictorial expression. No nation ever came into close contact vrith Greek thought and life without sharing in their incentive to aesthetic expression. In the case of the Hebrews this was limited by religion. The Hebrew could not make graven images, but he could utihze art in literary pictures. The method particularly suited the presentation of the Day of Jehovah, with its punishment of Israel’s enemies. As a result we have the very extensive apocalyptic literature which, beginning with the Book of Daniel, was the prevailing mode of expression of a sort of bastard prophecy during the two centuries preceding and the century following Christ. Here, however, the central motif of the Day of Jehovah is greatly expanded. Rewards and punishments become largely transcendental, or show a tendency towards transcendental representation. In this representation we see the Day of Judgment, the Jewish equivalent of the Day of Jehovah, closing one era and opening another. The first was the present age, which is full of wickedness and under the control of Satan, and the second is the coming age, when God’s Kingdom is to be supreme and all enemies of the Law are to be punished. It was these elements that were embodied in the Messianic programme of Judaism, and passed over into Christianity (see Messiah).

The idea of individual immortality is also highly developed in the apocalypses. The condition of men alter death is made a motive for right conduct in the present age, though this ethical use of the doctrine is less prominent than the unsystematized portrayal of the various states of good and evil men. The Pharisees believed in immortality and the entrance of the souls of the righteous into ‘new bodies’ (Jos. Ant. xviii. i. 3), a view that appears in the later apocalypses as well (Eth. Enoch 37-60, cf. 2 Maccabees 7:11 14:46). This body was not necessarily to be physical, but like the angels (Apoc. of Baruch and 2 Esdras, though these writings undoubtedly show the influence of Christian thought). There is also a tendency to regard the resurrection as wholly of the spirit (Eth. Enoch 91:18 92:3 103:3 f.). Sheol is sometimes treated as an intermediate abode from which the righteous go to heaven. There is no clear expectation of either the resurrection or the annihilation of the wicked. Resurrection was hmited to the righteous, or sometimes to Israel. At the same time there is a strongly marked tendency to regard the expected Messianic kingdom which begins with the Day of Judgment as super-mundane and temporary, and personal immortality in heaven becomes the highest good. It should be remembered, however, that each writer has his own peculiar beliefs, and that there was no authoritative eschatological dogma among the Jews. The Sadducees disbelieved in any immortality whatsoever.

3. Eschatology of the NT.— This is the development of the eschatology of Judaism, modified by the fact of Jesus’ resurrection.

(o) In the teaching of Jesus we find eschatology prominently represented. The Kingdom of God, as He conceived of it, is formally eschatological. Its members were being gathered by Jesus, but it was to come suddenly with the return of the Christ, and would be ushered in by a general judgment. Jesus, however, does not elaborate the idea of the Kingdom in itself, but rather makes it a point of contact with the Jews for His exposition of eternal life, — that is to say, the life that characterizes the coming age and may be begun in the present evil age. The supreme good in Jesus’ teaching is this eternal life which characterizes membership in the Kingdom. Nothing but a highly subjective criticism can eliminate from His teaching this eschatological element, which appears as strongly in the Fourth Gospel as in the Synoptic writings, and furnishes material for the appeal of His Apostles. It should be added, however, that the eschatology of Jesus, once it is viewed from His own point of view, carries with it no crude theory of rewards and punishments, but rather serves as a vehicle for expressing His fundamental moral and religious concepts. To all intents and purposes it is in form and vocabulary hke that of current Judaism. It includes the two ages, the non-physical resurrection of the dead, the Judgment with its sentences, and the establishment of eternal states.

(6) In the teaching of primitive Christians eschatology Is a ruling concept, and Is thoroughly embedded in the Messianic evangel. Our lack of literary sources, however, forbids any detailed presentation of the content of their expectation beyond a reference to the central position given to the coming day of the Christ’s Judgment.

(c) Eschatology was also a controlling element in the teaching of St. Paul. Under its Influence the Apostle held himself aloof from social reform and revolution. In his opinion Christians were living in the ‘last days’ of the present evil age. The Christ was soon to appear to establish His Judgment, and to usher in the new period when the wicked were to suffer and the righteous were to share in the joys of the resurrection and the Messianic Kingdom. Eschatology alone forms the proper point of approach to the Pauline doctrines of justification and salvation, as well as his teachings as to the resurrection. But here again eschatology, though a controlling factor in the Apostle’s thought, was, as in the case of Jesus, a medium for the exposition of a genuine spiritual life, which did not rise and fall with any particular forecast as to the future. The elements of the Pauline eschatology are those of Judaism, but corrected and to a considerable extent given distinctiveness by his knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus. He gives no apocalyptic description of the coming age beyond his teaching as to the body of the resurrection, which is doubtless based upon his belief as to that of the risen Jesus. His description of the Judgment is couched in the conventional language of Pharisaic eschatology; but, basing his teaching upon ‘the word of the Lord’ (1 ‘Th 4:15). he develops the doctrine that the Judgment extends both over the living, who are to be caught up into the air, and also over the dead. His teaching is lacking in the specific elements of the apocalypses, and there is no reference to the establishment of a millennium. Opinions differ as to whether St. Paul held that the believer received the resurrection body at death or at the Parousia of Christ. On the whole the former view seems possibly more in accord with his general position as to the work of the Spirit in the believer. The appearance (.Parousia) of the Christ to inaugurate the new era St. Paul believed to be close at hand (1 Thessalonians 4:15, 17). but that it would be preceded by the appearance of an Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1 f.). The doctrine of the Antichrist, however, does not play any large r61e in Paulinism. While St. Paul’s point of view is eschatological, his fundamental thought is really the new life of the believer, through the Spirit, which is made possible by the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ. With St. Paul, as with Jesus, this new life with its God-like love and its certainty of still larger self-realization through the resurrection is the supreme good.

(d) The tendencies of later canonical thought are obviously eschatological. The Johannine Apocalypse discloses a complete eschatological programme. In the latter work we see all the elements of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology utilized in the interest of Christian faith. The two ages, the Judgment and the Resurrection, and the final conquest of God are distinctively described, and the programlne of the future is elaborated by the addition of the promise of a first resurrection of the saints; by a millennium (probably derived from Judaism; cf. Slav. Enoch 32. 33) in which Satan is bound; by a great period of conflict in which Satan and his hosts are finally defeated and cast into the lake of fire; and by a general resurrection including the wicked for the purpose of judgment. It is not clear that in this general resurrection there is intended anything more than the summoning of souls from Sheol, for a distinction should probably be made between the resurrection and the giving of the body of the resurrection. This resurrection of the wicked seems inconsistent with the general doctrine of the Pauline literature (cf. 1 Corinthians 15), but appears in St. Paul’s address before Felix (Acts 24:15). and in a single Johannine formula (John 5:29). The doctrine of the ‘sleep of the dead’ finds no justification in the Apocalypse or the NT as a whole.

4 . Eschatology and Modern Theology .—The history of Christian theology until within the last few years has been dominated by eschatological concepts, and, though not in the sense alleged by its detractors, has been otherworldly. The rewards and punishments of immortality have been utilized as motives for morality. This tendency has always met with severe criticism at the hands of philosophy, and of late years has to a considerable extent been minimized or neglected by theologians. The doctrine of the eternity of punishment has been denied in the interest of so-called second or continued probation, restorationism, and conditional immortality. The tendency, however, has resulted in a disposition to reduce Christian theology to general morality based upon religion, and has been to a large extent buttressed by that scepticism or agnosticism regarding individual immortality which marks modern thought. Such a situation has proved injurious to the spread of Christianity as more than a general ethical or rehgious system, and it is to be hoped that the new interest which is now felt in the historical study of the NT will reinstate eschatology in its true place.

Such a reinstatement will include two fundamental doctrines: (1) that of individual immortality as a new phase in the great process of development of the individual which is to be observed in life and guaranteed by the resurrection of Jesus. Distinctions can easily be drawn between the figurative media of NT thought and the great reality of eternal life taught and exemplified by Jesus. (2) The doctrine of a ‘Kingdom of God.’ This expectation, since it involves the elements of a loving personality like that of a God of love, involves a belief in a new humanity that will live a genuinely social life on the earth, although the conditions of such a life must be left undefined. In a word, therefore, the modern equivalent of Jewish eschatology for practical purposes is that of personal (though truly social) immortality and a completion of the development of society. Utterly to ignore the essential elements of NT eschatology is in so far to re-establish the non- Christian concept of material goods as a supreme motive, and to destroy all confidence in the ultimate triumph of social righteousness. Shailer Mathews.

Eschew

In the older Eng. versions of the Bible ‘eschew’ is common. In AV it occurs only in Job 1 2 of Job himself, as 1:1 ‘one that feared God, and eschewed evil,’ and in 1 Peter 3:11 ‘Let him eschew evil, and do good.’ The meaning is ‘turn away from’ (as RV at 1 Peter 3:11 and Amer. RV everywhere).

Esdraelon

The Greek name for Merj Ibn ‘Amr, the great plain north of the range of Carmel. It is triangular in shape, the angles being defined by Tdl el- Kassis in the N.W., Jenin in the S.E., and Tabor In the N.E. The dimensions of the area are about 20 miles N.W. to S.E., 14 miles N.E. to S.W. It affords a passage into the mountainous interior of Palestine, from the sea-coast at the harbours of the Bay of ‘Acca. It is drained by the Klshon, and is, over nearly all its area, remarkably fertile. It was allotted to the tribe of Issachar.

Esdraelon has been the great battlefield of Palestine. Here Deborah and Barak routed the hosts of Jabin and Sisera (Judges 4), and here Gideon defeated the Midianltes (7). Saul here fought his last battle with the Philistines (1 S 28-31). Josiah here attacked Pharaoh-necho on his way to Mesopotamia and was slain (2 K 23). It is the scene of the encampment of Holofernes (Judith 7:3). in connexion with which appears the name by which the valley is generally known: it is a Greek corruption of Jezreel. Here Saladin encamped in 1186; and, Anally, here Napoleon encountered and defeated an army of Arabs in 1799. It is chosen by the Apocalyptic writer (Revelation 16:14–16) as the fitting scene for the final battle between the good and evil forces of the world. R- A. S. Macalistbe.

Esdras

See Apocrypha, and Apoc. Literature.

Esdris

Mentioned only 2 Maccabees 12:36. The text is probably corrupt. AV has Gargias, and this is likely enough to be correct.

Esek

Esek (‘contention,’ Genesis 26:20). well dug by Isaac in the region near Rehoboth and Gerar. The site is unknown.

Esebebias

Esebebias fAV Esebrias),l Es8". See Sherebiah.

Eshan

Eshan (Joshua 15:52). A town of Judah in the Hebron mountains, noticed with Arab and Dumah. The site is doubtful.

Eshbaal

See Ishbosheth.

Eshban

An Edomite chief (Genesis 36. 1 Chronicles 1:41).

Eshcol

1. The brother of Mamre and Aner, the Amorite confederates of Abraham, who assisted the patriarch in his pursuit and defeat of Chedorlaomer’s forces (Genesis 14:13, 24). He lived in the neighbourhood pf Hebron (Genesis 13:18) and possibly gave his name to the valley of Eshcol, which lay a little to the N. of Hebron (Numbers 13:23). 2. A wady, with vineyards and pomegranates, apparently near Hebron (Numbers 13:23, 24 32:9, Deuteronomy 1:24). Esticol is usually rendered ‘bunch of grapes.’ The name has not been recovered.

Eshek

A descendant of Saul (1 Chronicles 8).

Eshtaol

A lowland city of Judah (Joshua 15:33 on the borders of Dan (19"), near which Samson began to feel ‘the spirit of the Lord’ (Judges 13:25). and was buried (16:31) the home of some of the Danites who attacked Laish (18:2, 11). It is supposed to be the same as Eshu’a, near ‘Ain esh-Shems (Beth-shemesh). The Eshtaolites are enumerated among the Calebites (1 Chronicles 2).

R. A. S. Macalister.

Eshtemoa

In the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:50 here called Eshtemoh), a Levitical city in the district pf Hebron (21"), to which David sent a share of the spoil of the Philistines (1 Samuel 30:28). The name as es- Semu’a survives about 8 miles S. of Hebron; extensive remains of antiquity are here to be seen.

R. A. S. Macalistek.

Eshton

A Judahite (1 Chronicles 4:11, 12).

Esli

An ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3:25).