Eucharist – Evil Speaking

Eucharist

This is the earliest title for the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. It is found in Ignatius and the Didache, and is based upon the eucharistia or giving of thanks with which our Lord set apart the bread and wine at the Last Supper as memorials of Himself (Matthew 26:27. Luke 22:17, 19. 1 Corinthians 11:24). The name Lord’s Supper, though legitimately derived from 1 Corinthians 11:20. is not there applied to the sacrament itself, but to the Love-feast or Agape, a meal commemorating the Last Supper, and not yet separated from the Eucharist when St. Paul wrote. The irregularities rebuked by the Apostle (ll^i’ 28) are such as could only have accompanied the wider celebration, and doubtless contributed to the speedy separation of the essential rite from the unnecessary accessories. The title Communion comes from 1 Corinthians 10:16. where, however, the word is a predicate not used technically. The breaking of (the) bread (Ac 2) probably refers to the Eucharist (ct. 20. Luke 24), but until modern times does not seem to have been adopted as a title.

1. The institution is recorded by each of the Synoptic Gospels, but not by St. John. A fourth account appears in 1 Corinthians.

Mark 14:22–25. Matthew 26. 22 As they were eating, he Ab they were eating, Jesus took bread, andwhen he had took bread, and blessed, and blessed, he brake it, and gave brake it; and he gave to the to them, and said. Take ye: disciples, and said, Take, this is my body. 23 And he ‘eat: this is my body. 27 And t9ok a cup, and when he had he took a cup, and gave given thanks, he gave to thanks, and gave to them, them: and they all drank of saying. Drink ye all of it; it. 24 And he said unto 28 for this is ray blood of the them. This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins, many, f Verily I say_ unto 29 But I say unto you, I will you, I will no more drink of not drink henceforth of this the fruit of the vine, until fruit of the vine, until that that day when I drink it new day when I drink it new with in the kingdom of God. you in my Father’s kingdom

Luke 22:14–20. 1 Corinthians 11:23–25. " When the hour was come, 23 1 received of the Lord that hesat down. andtheapostles which also I delivered unto with him. And he said you, how that the Lord Jesus imto them,’With desire I have m the night in which he was > desired to eat this passover betrayed took bread; 24 and with you before I suffer: when he had given thanks, he IS for I say unto you, I will brake it, and said.This is my not eat It, until it oefulfilled body, which is for you: this in thekingdomof God. i’And do m remembrance of me. he received a cup, and when 25 Jq h^q manner also the he had given thanks, he said, cup, after supper, saying. Take this, and divide it This cup is the new covenant among yourselves: *3 for I in my blood: this do, as oft say imto you, I will not drink as ye drink it, in rememf rom henceforth of the fruit brance of me. of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. " And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body [which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 jind the cup in like manner after supper, saying. This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you].

A comparison shows variations of minor importance between Mark and Matthew. But the most remarkable differences are those of Luke, which mentions what is apparently a second cup. It seems scarcely credible that at a supreme moment, like that in which a sacred rite was being established, our Lord should have created the possibility of confusion by solemnly delivering two of the Paschal cups, dividing between them the words which, according to the other Synoptics, belong, as it would seem appropriately, to one. Nor, if He were about to hallow a succeeding cup as Eucharistic, is it likely that He would have spoken of the fulfilment of the Paschal wine in relation to another (v. 17). In spite, therefore, of the fact that the majority of MSS and Versions favour its inclusion, Westcott and Hort are probably right in regarding the passage inclosed in brackets above as an interpolation. With this omitted, the narrative is assimilated to the other Synoptics. The inversion of bread and cup, which now becomes apparent and which probably belongs not to Luke but to his source, is perhaps due to the fact that the writer, dwelling on the Lord’s intention that the Passover should be fulfilled in a Messianic rite, records at the opening of his narrative a declaration similar to that which Matthew and Mark assign to a later stage, the delivery of the cup (Matthew 26:29. Mark 14:25). These words, though referring more particularly to the Eucharistic bread, yet, as extending to the whole meal (‘this passover’), require no mention of the action that would accompany them; whereas the companion statement concerning the fruit of the vine (Luke 22:18) necessitates the mention of the cup (v. 17). The first half of v. 19 (the consecration of the bread), which, if the account were symmetrical, would appear (as arranged in Rushbrooke’s Synopticon) before v. 15. is then added to complete the institution. A copyist, assuming a part of the narrative to be wanting, would then introduce, probably from a contemporary liturgical formula, the second halt of v. 19 and v. 20, which bear a striking resemblance to the Pauline account, of which Luke is otherwise independent. A similar inversion is found in the sub-Apostolic Teaching of the Apostles.

2. From the Synoptic record the following inferences may be drawn: (1) The words of institution cannot themselves determine the meaning of the rite. Luke (unless v. 20 be genuine) omits ‘This is my blood of the covenant.’ [Notice also that the other traditional form varies the phrase — ‘the new covenant in my blood’ (1 Corinthians 11:25).) This may be due to the fact that Luke introduces the cup primarily in relation to our Lord’s utterance concerning the fruit of the vine. But the sentence may be an interpretation of Christ’s action, based on its correspondence with the hallowing of the bread. Matthew futher amplifies by adding the words, ■ unto remission of sins’ (Matthew 26:28). it is clear that. although formulas were probably already in use, the language was not yet stereotyped. We cannot, therefore, be certain of the precise form of words that our Lord adopted.

(2) The rite, like the gospel of which it is on ordinance, is Apostolic. The whole Twelve, but none other, are present with Jesus (Mark 14:17))). Judas had not yet gone out (Luke 22:21). The significant relation of the Apostles to the congregation of the spiritual Israel, prominent in Mark from the first (3:14), is not only emphasized by their seclusion with Jesus in this supreme hour, but explicitly stated by Luke (22:24–34). Though, therefore, there is nothing beyond the form of the record itself to indicate the permanent and monumental character of the institution, yet the place which from the first the rite assumed as the bond of Christian fellowship, and for which Christians like Ignatius in the sub- Apostolic age claimed the authority of the Apostles, accords with and interprets the Synoptic narrative. Tobit 8 behind the Apostolic Eucharist is no more possible for historic Christianity than to separate the actual Christ from the Apostolic witness.

(3) The Eucharist is Paschal in origin and idea. — It is unnecessary to determine whether the Last Supper was in fact the Passover, according to the impression of the Synoptists, or, as St. John seems to imply, anticipated by twelve hours the Jewish Feast. (See Sanday, in Hastings’ DB, art. ‘Jesus Christ,’ II. E. ii.) No mention is made of the lamb, and the significant identification of the elements accessory to the feast, whether typically or effectually, with the sacrifice of Christ, suggests that its chief feature was absent. And this would seem to bind the rite thus instituted more closely than ever to that suffering before which He earnestly desired to celebrate it (Luke 22:15). and wherein St. John contemplated the fulfilment of the Paschal type (John 19:36; cf. Ex. 12:46). The bread and wine, as eaten in fellowship by Christ and His disciples on the night of the betrayal, and distributed, as often as the rite is renewed, to those who believe gn Jesus through the Apostolic word, is the Christian Passover celebrated beneath the Cross, where the very Paschal Lamb is offered for the life of the world. Its interpretation must, therefore, begin from the great Hebrew festival, in which it finds its origin, and which was regarded as a corporate communion of the Covenant People beneath the shelter of the sprinlded blood, an extension of that first sacred meal eaten when the destroying angel was passing over and working redemption for Israel (see Schultz, OT Theol., Eng. tr. vol. i. pp. 196, 197, 363-366).

3. St. Paul’s account of the institution (see above) was written not later than a.d. 58, and is therefore older than the Synoptics. He claims to have received it as part of the inviolable deposit of the gospel (1 Corinthians 11:23). which he must hand on unimpaired to those to whom he ministers the word. The phrase ‘from the Lord’ can hardly imply, as some have maintained, that a direct revelation was given to Mmself , extending to the form of words; but only that the record is part of that original message of which the Apostles were the guardians rather than the interpreters (1 Corinthians 15:3. Galatians 1:6–9). The form of tradition here reproduced brings out explicitly the fact that the Eucharist was regarded in the Apostolic Church as an ordinance to be observed in Christian congregations till the Lord’s Coming (‘as oft as ye drink,’ with comment v."). It is St. Paul only that introduces the command, ‘This do in remembrance of me’ (y.^), an expression fruitful in controversy. It has been urged that the word rendered ‘do’ means ‘offer,’ and that the Eucharist is, therefore, by its terms sacrificial. Not only is this an uncommon use of the Greek, unsuspected by the Greek commentators themselves, but the word ‘this’ (Gr. neuter) which follows can only be ‘this action,’ not ‘this bread,’ which would require the masculineform of the Gr. pronoun. Clearly, however, the phrase refers to the whole Eucharistic action, not to the particular acts of eating and drinking, the latter of which is differentiated from it in v.. It is further argued that the word used for ‘remembrance’ (anamnesis, vv.) implies a ritual memorial before God. The word, however, almost invariably used in the LXX with this signification is different (mnSmosynon, Leviticus 2 S’^, Numbers 5:26; anam. is found in Leviticus 24:7 and Numbers 10:10). And, though the form of words in which, according to the traditional ritual, the house-father recalled the redemption from Egypt is probably present to the Apostle’s mind, it is uncertain whether this recital of Divine deliverance was directed towards God. As now used it would seem to be intended to carry out the injunction of the Law given in Exodus 12:26, 27 (see Haggadah for Passover). The same uncertainty attaches to St. Paul’s explanatory statement — ‘ye proclaim the Lord’s death’ — though the natural interpretation of the Greek is in favour of the idea suggested by the RV, viz. announcement to men rather than commemoration before God (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:14). The evidential value, not the mystical significance, of the rite is here asserted.

4. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is involved in the declaration that the bread broken is a communion of the body, the cup of blessing a communion of the blood, of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). The table of the Lord is contrasted with the table of demons (v. 21) through the medium of the sacrificial system of the OT, of which it is a fundamental principle that to eat of the offerings is to have communion with the altar (v. 18). The words ‘Lord’s table’ and ‘altar’ are found as synonyms in Malachi (1:7, 12). The Levitical code includes many forms of oblation in which feeding on the sacrifice, if it ever existed, has disappeared; but provision is made for it in the case of the peace-offerings (Leviticus 7:15–21). A closer study of the OT brings into greater prominence the connexion between sacrifice and feasting (Exodus 32:6 ff.; Deuteronomy 12:5, 12 26:10, 11. 1 Samuel 1:3 ff. 16:2, 11; see Schultz, OT Theol., Eng. tr. i. c. xil.). The end of sacrifice in Israel, as among other nations, is the union of the worshipper with the object of worship, through the covering wUch the priest supplies (W. R. Smith, BS^ Lect. xi.). This is especially evident in the Passover, which is a sacrifice (Exodus 12:27 34:25. Numbers 9:7, 13). and, as including a repast, should rank among the peace-offerings. The Eucharist, therefore, is a sacrifice, not as the commemoration of the death of Christ, but as the means of participation in the Paschal Lamb slain for us (1 Corinthians 5:7). in the offering of the body of Christ once made on the Cross (Hebrews 10:10; cf. John 19:36. 1 Corinthians 10:17). The crucifixion of Christ’s natural body results in the institution of that instrument of union, the sacramental body, in respect of which the unworthy partaker is guilty (1 Corinthians 11:27. but see below), and through which the faithful have fellowship with Christ in His mystical body (10). The transition from one application of the word ‘body’ to the others — ‘one bread, one body’ — is very subtle, and they are no doubt so vitally connected in the mind of St. Paul as hardly to be capable of exact distinction. But it is unlikely that in a passage where the argument would have been satisfied by the use of one word — ‘body’ — on the analogy of the common pagan identification of the god with the sacrifice, he should have used the longer phrase — ‘communion of the body’ — if he had not felt that the single word would have failed to give the exact meaning. The sense of the whole passage depends upon the reality of the gift conveyed through the feast in which it is symbolically presented. St. Paul holds that there is a real communion in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen, though in this case with demons (v. 20), whose presence is incompatible with that of Christ (v. 21).

5. The crucial words of the second passage (11:17–34) are ‘if he discern not the body.’ ‘Lord’s’ is an interpolation of the TR, which the RV properly rejects (v. 29). The RV also brings out the fact that the verb tr. ‘discern’(v.2’) is again used in v. 31 — ‘if we discerned ourselves’ — thus showing that the word does not mean ‘perceive’ but ‘discriminate.’ ‘Body’ is left undefined, including, as it apparently does, the mystical body which the unworthy despise in the Church of God, the sacramental elements which they dishonour by profane use, and the sacrifice of Christ with which they reject communion, thereby becoming guilty in respect of each

(VV.21- 22. 26. 27).

6 . Both passages express what is implicit in the division of the sacrament into two kinds. It is the body and blood as separated in death through which communion is attained. In 1 Corinthians 10:16. by placing the cup first, as in St. Luke’s account of the institution, St. Paul emphasizes the sacrificial death of Christ as a necessary element in the Eucharistic feast. The Epistle to the Hebrews shows that access to the Holy Place is gained through the offered body and sprinkled blood (Hebrews 10:19–22) St. John, that union with Christ is found in that Living Bread which implies death because it is flesh and blood (John 6:52–58). Commenting on the unique phrase ‘drink his blood,’ Westcott says that to Jewish ears the idea conveyed is the appropriation of ‘life sacrificed’ (see note on 6:53 in Gospd ace. to St. John). There is nothing to warrant the medi£Eval inference that the phrase ‘flesh and blood’ is equivalent to ‘personality,’ and that therefore ‘the whole Christ’ is sacramentally present in the Eucharistic elements. But it does imply vital union with Him who became dead and is alive for evermore (Revelation 1:18). a Lamb ‘as though it had been slain’ (5:6). a Priest upon His throne (Zee 6:13; cf. Hebrews 8:1), who through the one offering of Himself has perfected for ever (10:14) those that come to God through Him.

7 . In conclusion, however, it must be frankly admitted that, while one view of the sacrament may seem on the whole to express more fully than others the general tenor of NT teaching on the subject, none of the explanations which have divided Christendom since the 16th cent., not even the theory of transubstantiation when precisely defined, can be regarded as wholly Inconsistent with the language of Scripture.

J. G. Simpson.

Euergetes

(Prof. to Sirach). See Benefactor.

EtmiENES n.— The king of Pergamus, to whom Rome gave a large slice of the territory of Antiochus m., king of Syria (b.c. 190), including, not ‘India’ (1 Mac 8«-«), but the greater part of Asia north of the Taurus (Liv. xxxvii. 44). J. Taylok.

Eunice

The Jewish mother of Timothy (2 Timothy 1. Acts 16:1). married to a Gentile husband, and dwelling at Lystra. She had given her son a careful religious training, but had not circumcised him.

A. J. Maclean.

Eunuch

In the proper sense of the word a eunuch is an emasculated human being (Deuteronomy 23:1), but it is not absolutely certain that the Heb. sSrls always has this signification, and the uncertainty is reflected in our Eng. tr., where ‘officer’ and ‘chamberlain’ are frequently found. It is interesting to note that the group of scholars who rendered Jeremiah for’ the AV adhered to ‘eunuch’ throughout: unhappily the Revisers have spoiled the symmetry by conforming Jeremiah 52 to 2 Kings 25:19. The following reasons, none of which is decisive, have been advanced in favour of some such rendering of saris as ‘officer’ or ‘chamberlain.’ 1. That Potiphar (Genesis 37:36) was married. But actual eunuchs were not precluded from this (see Ter. Eun. 4, 3, 24; Juv. vi. 366; Sirach 20:4 30:20 etc.). And the words in Genesis 39:1 which identify Joseph’s first master with the husband of his temptress are an interpolation. 2 . That in 2 Kings 25:19 etc. ‘eunuchs’ hold military commands, whereas they are generally unwarlike (.imbelles, Juv. I.e.). But there have been competent commanders amongst them. 3. That the strict meaning cannot be insisted on at Genesis 40:2, 7. Yet even here it is admissible.

The kings of Israel and Judah imitated their powerful neighbours in employing eunuchs (1) as guardians of the harem (2 Kings 9:32. Jeremiah 41:16) Esther 1:12 4:4 are instances of Persian usage; (2) in military and other important posts (1 Samuel 8:15. 1 Kings 22:9. 2 Kings 8:6 23:11 24i2- 25:19. 1 Chronicles 28:1. 2 Chronicles 18:8. Jeremiah 29:2 34:19 38:7; cf. Genesis 37:36 40:2, 7. Acts 8:27. Daniel 1:3 does not of necessity imply that the captives were made eunuchs). For the services rendered at court by persons of this class and the power which they often acquired, see Job. Ant. xvi. viii. 1. But their acquisitions could not remove the sense of degradation and loss (2 Kings 20:18. Isaiah 39:7). Deuteronomy 23:1 excluded them from public worship, partly because self-mutilation was often performed in honour of a heathen deity, and partly because a maimed creature was judged unfit for the service of Jahweh (Leviticus 21:20 22:24). That ban is, however, removed by Isaiah 56. Euseb. (.HE vi. 8) relates how Origen misunderstood the figurative language of Matthew 19:12; Origen’s own comment on the passage shows that he afterwards regretted having taken it literally and acted on it. See also Ethiopian Eunuch.

J. Taylor.

Euodia

This is clearly the correct form of the name, not Euodias as AV (Philippians 4:2 f.), for a woman is intended. St. Paul beseeches her and Syntyche to be reconciled ; perhaps they were deaconesses at Philippi.

A. J. Maclean.

Eupator

See Antiochus v.

EUPHRATES, one of the rivers of Eden (Genesis 2:14). derives its name from the Assyr. Purat, which is itself taken from the Sumerian Pura, ‘water,’ or Pura-nun, ‘the great water.’ Purat became Ufrdtu in Persian, where the prosthetic vowel was supposed by the Greeks to be the word u, ‘good.’ In the OT the Euphrates is generally known as ‘the river.’ It rises in the Armenian mountains from two sources, the northern branch being called the Frat of Kara-su, and the southern and larger branch the Murad-su (the Arsanias of ancient geography). The present length of the river is 1780 miles, but in ancient times it fell into the sea many miles to the north of its existing outlet, and through a separate mouth from that of the Tigris. The salt marshes through which it passed before entering the sea were called Marratu (Merathaim in Jeremiah 50:21). where the Aramsean Kalda or Chaldaeans lived. The alluvial plain between the Euphrates and the Tigris constituted Babylonia, the water of the annual inundation (which took place in May, and was caused by the melting of the snows in Armenia) being regulated by means of canals and barrages. The Hittite city of Carchemish stood at the point where the Euphrates touched Northern Syria, and commanded one of the chief fords over the river; south of it came the Belikh and Khabur, the last aflSuents of the Euphrates. The promise made to the Israelites that their territory should extend to ‘the great river’ (Genesis 15:18 etc.) was fulfilled through the conquests of David (2 Samuel 8:3 10. 1 Kings 4:24). A. H. Sayce.

Euraquilo

(Acts 27:14 RV). There is some doubt as to the reading. The Greek MSS which are esteemed to be the best read Euraklyon; so do the Bohairic Version, which was made in Egypt in the 6th or 7th cent, from a MS very like these, and the Sahidic Version made in the 3rd cent. ; the Vulgate Latin revision, made towards the close of the 4th cent., reads EuroaquUo, which points to a Greek original reading Euroakylon. Our later authorities, along with the Pesh. and Hark. Syriac, read Euroclydon (so AV). No doubt Eur(o) akylon is the correct name, and the other is an attempt to get a form capable of derivation. The word is, then, a sailor’s word, and expresses an E.N.E. wind, by compounding two words, a Greek word (euros) meaning E. wind, and a Latin word (aquUo) meaning N.E. wind. This is exactly the kind of wind which frequently arises in Cretan waters at the present day, swooping down from the mountains in strong gusts and squalls. The euraguilo which drove St. Paul’s ship before it was the cause of the shipwreck. A. Socter.

Eutychus

A young man who fell down from a third storey while sleeping during St. Paul’s sermon at Troas, and was ‘taken up dead’ (Acts 20:9). St. Paul fell on him and, embracing him, declared life to be in him. It is not actually said that Eutychus was dead, but that seems at least to have been the general belief. The incident is described in parallel terms with the raising of Dorcas and of Jairus’ daughter. A. J. Maclean.

Evanc

Evanc rGLIST (‘one who proclaims good tidings’ [‘evangel,’ ‘gospel’]). — The word occurs 3 times in NT (Acts 21:8. Ephesians 4:11. 2 Timothy 4:5), and in each case with reference to the proclamation of the Christian gospel.

Acts 21:8 gives what appears to be the primary Christian use of the word. Philip, one of the Seven (cf. Acts 6:1–6). is there called ‘the evangelist.’ And how he obtained this title is suggested when we find that immediately after Stephen’s martyrdom he went forth from Jerusalem and ‘preached the gospel’ (literally eeangdized) in Samaria, in the desert, and in all the cities of the coast-land between Azotus and CEesarea (Acts 8 In the first place, then, the evangelist was a travelling Christian missionary, one who preached the good news of Christ to those who had never heard it before.

In Ephesians 4:11 Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are all named as gifts bestowed on the Church by the ascended Christ. It is impossible to distinguish these 5 terms as referring to so many fixed ecclesiastical ofBces. There is no ground, e.g., for thinking that there was an order of pastors and another of teachers in the early Church. St. Paul, again, while discharging the exceptional functions of the Apostolate, was himself the prince of evangelists and the greatest of Christian teachers. We conclude, therefore, that the evangelist as such was not an official, but one who, without having the higher powers of Apostleship or prophecy, or any special talent for teaching or pastoral work, had a gift tor proclaiming the gospel as a message of saving love — a gift which was chiefly exercised, no doubt, by moving as Philip had done from place to place.

That ‘evangelist’ denotes function and not special office is confirmed by 2 11 4:5. Timothy Is exhorted to ‘do the work of an evangelist,’ but also to engage in tasks of moral supervision and patient doctrinal instruction (vv. 2, 3) which suggest the settled pastor and stated teacher rather than the travelling missionary. In his earlier life, Timothy, as St Paul’s travel-companion (Acts 16:1 ff. IQi"! 20:4. Romans 16:21 etc.), had been an evangelist of the journeying type. But this passage seems to show that there is room for the evangelist at home as well as abroad, and that the faithful minister of Christ, in order to ‘make full proof of his ministry,’ will not only watch over the morals of his flock and attend to their upbuilding in sound doctrine, but seek to win outsiders to Christ by proclaiming the gospel of His grace.

The special use of ‘evangelist’ in the sense of an author of a written, ‘Gospel’ or narrative of Christ’s life, and specifically the author of one of the four canonical Gospels, is much later than the NT, no instance being found till the 3rd century. J. C. Lambert.

Eve

Eve (Heb. ChawwSh; the name probably denotes ‘life’: other proposed explanations are ‘life-giving,’ ‘living,’ ‘kinship,’ and some would connect it with an Arab, word for ‘seri>ent’). — 1, Eve is little more, in Genesis, than a personification of human life which is perpetuated by woman. See Adam. 2. In the NT Eve is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:3. 1 Timothy 2:13–15. The former is a reference to her deception by the serpent. The latter teaches that since ‘Adam was first formed, then Eve,’ women must live in quiet subordination to their husbands. And a second reason seems to be added, i.e. that Adam was ‘not deceived,’ in the fundamental manner that Eve was, lor ‘the woman being completely deceived has come into [a state of] transgression.’ Here St. Paul distinctly takes Eve to be a personification of all women. The personification continues in v. 15, which is obscure, and must be studied in the commentaries.

A. H. M’ Neile. EVENING.— See Time.

Evi

One pf the five kings of Midian slain (Numbers 31:8. Joshua 13:21).

Evidently

Acts 10:3 ‘He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day’; Galatians 3:1 ‘before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth.’ The meaning is clearly, or openly as in RV. Cf. Boh. Crusoe (Gold. Treas. ed. p. 250), ‘He saw evidently what Stock of Corn and Eice I had laid up.’

Evil

Evil is an older form of the word ‘ill’; used, both as substantive and adjective, to tr. various synonyms and ranging in meaning from physical unfltness to moral wickedness. The former is archaic, but occurs in Genesis 28:8 (AVm), Exodus 21:8 (AVm), Jeremiah 24:3 (AV), and Matthew 7:18. though the two last passages are not without an ethical tinge. But the word almost invariably connotes what is either morally corrupt (see Sin) or injurious to life and happiness.

1. In the OT the two meanings are at first scarcely differentiated. Whatever comes to man from without is, to begin with, attributed simply to God (Amos 3:6, Lamentations 3:38, Ezekiel 14:9. Isaiah 45:7). Destruction is wrought by His angels (Exodus 12:23. 2 Samuel 24:16, Psalms 78:49). Moral temptations come from Him (2 Samuel 24:1. 1 Kings 22:23). though there is a tendency to embody them in beings which, though belonging to the host of heaven, are spoken of as evil or lying spirits (1 Samuel 16:14. Judges 9:23. 1 Kings 22:22). The serpent of the Fall narrative cannot be pressed to mean more than a symbol of temptation, though the form which the temptation takes suggests hostility to the will of God external to the spirit of the woman (2 Corinthians 11:3, cf. Genesis 3:1–3). Then later we have the figure of the Adversary or Satan, who, though still dependent on the will of God, is nevertheless so identified with evil that he is represented as taking the initiative in seduction (Zee 3:1, 1 Chronicles 21:1. but cf. 2 Samuel 24:1). This marks the growth of the sense of God’s holiness (Deuteronomy 32:4 etc.), the purity which cannot behold evil (Habakkuk 1:13) and correspondingly sharpens the problem. Heathen gods are now identified with demons opposed to the God of Israel (Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalms 106:37; cf. 1 Corinthians 10:20). This tendency, increased perhaps by Persian infiuence, becomes dominant in apocryphal literature (2 Peter 2:4 and Jude are based on the Book of Enoch), where the fallen angels are a kingdom at war with the Kingdom of God.

2. In the NT moral evil Is never ascribed to God (James 1:13), being essentially hostile to His mind and will (Ro li’-2i 5:10. 1 John 1:5–7 2:16, 29 3:4, 9) but to the Evil One (Matthew 6:13 13:19, 1 John 5:19). an active and personal being identical with the Devil (Matthew 13:39, John 8:44) or Satan (Matthew 4:10. Mark 4:15. Luke 22:31. John 13:27), who with his angels (Matthew 25:41) is cast down from heaven (Revelation 12:9. cf. Luke 10:18), goes to and fro in the earth as the universal adversary (1 Peter 5:8. Ephesians 4:27 6:11. James 4:7). and will be finally imprisoned with his ministering spirits (Revelation 20:2, 10. cf. Matthew 25:41). Pain and suffering are ascribed sometimes to God (Revelation 3:19, 1 Thessalonians 3:3. Hebrews 12:5–11). inasmuch as all things work together for good to those that love Him (Romans 8:28) sometimes to Satan (Luke 13:16. 2 Corinthians 12:7) and the demons (Matthew 8:28 etc.), who are suffered to hurt the earth for a season (Revelation 9:1–11 12:12).

The speculative question of the origin of evil is not resolved in Holy Scripture, being one of those things of which we are not competent judges (see Butler’s Analogy, i. 7, cf. 1 Corinthians 13:12). Pain is justified by the redemption of the body (Romans 8:1, 1 Peter 4:13). punishment by the peaceable fruits of righteouaness (Hebrews 12:7–11), and the permission of moral evil by the victory of the Cross fjn 12. Romans 8:37–39. Colossians 2:15. 1 Co 15). . Accept the facts and look to the end is the teaching of the Bible as a guide to practical religion (James 5:11)., . Beyond this we enter the region of that high theology which comprehensive thinkers like Aquinas or Calvin have not shrunk from f ornmlating, but which, so far as it is dealt with in the NT, appears rather as a by-product of evangelical thought, than as the direct purpose of revelation (as, e.(7., in R9 9, where God’s elective choice is stated only as the logical presupposition of grace). St. Paul is content to throw the responsibility for the moral facts of the universe upon God (Romans 9:19–24; cf. Job 33:12. Eo 5^, Isaiah 29:16). who, however, is not defined as capricious and arbitrary power, but revealed as the Father, who loves the creatures of His hand, and has foreordained all things to a perfect consummation m Christ the Beloved (Ephesians 1:3–14 etc.). J. G. Simpson.

EVIL-MERODACH, the Amd-Marduk of the Babylonians, son and successor of Nebuchadrezzar on the throne of Babylon (2 Kings 25:27–30). promoted Jehoiachin in the 37th year of his captivity. He reigned B.C. 562-560. Berosus describes him as reigning lawlessly and without restraint, and he was put to death by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who succeeded him. C. H. W. Johns.

Evil Speaking

Evil speaking in the Bible covers sins of untruthfulness as well as of malice. It includes abuse, thoughtless talebearing, imputing of bad motives, slander, and deliberate false witness. Warnings against it are frequent ; it is forbidden in the legislation of the OT (Ninth Commandment; Deuteronomy 19:16–19) and of the NT (Matthew 6:22 12:32 15:19). Christians must expect this form of persecution (Matthew 5:11). but must be careful to give no handle to it (Romans 14:16, Titus 2:8. 1 Peter 2:12 S’s).

C. W. Emmet.