EVIL-MERODACH

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 (Ro 9"-2<; cf. Job 33", Eo 5^, Is 29"), 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 (Eph l^-" etc.). J. G. Simpson.

EVIL-MERODACH, the Amd-Marduk of the Baby-lonians, son and successor of Nebuchadrezzar on the throne of Babylon (2 K 25"-'"), 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 in the Bible covers sins of un-truthfulness 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; Dt 19i8-'9) and of the NT (Mt E" 1232 1519). Christians must expect this form of persecution (Mt 5"), but must be careful to give no handle to it (Ro 14i!, Tit 28, 1 P 2" S's).

C. W. Emmet.

EVIL SPIRITS.— As a natural synonym for demons or devils, this phrase is used in the NT only by St. Luke (7" 82, Ac 19'2- ". «. i«), and presents no diffl-culty. But In the OT, especially the historical books, reference is made to an evil spirit as coming from or sent by God; and the context invests this spirit with personality. The treachery of the men of Shechem is so explained (Jg 9^5), though in this case the spirit may not be personal but merely a temper or purpose of ill-will. Elsewhere there is not the same ground for doubt: 'an evil spirit from the Lord' is the alleged cause of Saul's moodiness (1 S 16", where notice the antithetical 'the spirit of the Lord'), and of his raving against David (1 S 18'" 19'). Similarly Micaiah speaks of 'a lying spirit' from God (1 K 22M-ffl, 2 Oh IS'"-^). It has been suggested that in all these cases the refer-ence Is to God Himself as exerting power, and effecting good or evil in men according to the character of each. The nearest approach to this is perhaps in Ex 12"- », where Jehovah and the destroyer are apparently iden-tified, though the language admits equally of the view that the destroyer is the agent of Jehovah's will (cf. 2 S 2411'). But the theory is inconsistent with what is known to have been the current demonology of the day (see Devil), as well as with the natural suggestion of the phrases. These spirits are not represented as constituting the personal energy of God, but as under His control, which was direct and active according to some of the writers, but only permissive according to others. The fact of God's control is acknowledged by all, and is even a postulate of Scripture; and in using or permitting the activity of these spirits God is assumed or asserted to be punishing people for their sins. In this sense He has 'a band of angels of evil' (Ps 78"), who may yet be called 'angels of the Lord' (2 K IS^, Is 37""), as carrying out His purposes. Micaiah evi-dently considered Zedekiah as used by God in order to entice Ahab to his merited doom. Ezekiel propounds a similar view (14'), that a prophet may be deceived by God, and so made the means of his own destruction and of that of his dupes, much as David was moved to number Israel through the anger of the Lord against the people (2S24i). Asthe conception of God developed and was purified, the permitted action of some evil spirit is substituted for the Divine activity, whether direct or through the agency of messengers, considered as themselves ethically good but capable of employ-ment on any kind of service. Accordingly the Chronicler represents Satan as the instigator of David (1 Ch 21i).

EXCOMMUNICATION

Jeremiah denies the inspiration of lying prophets, and makes them entirely responsible for their own words and influence (23»- 21. mf); they are not used by God, and will be called to account. They speak out of their own heart, and are so far from executing God's justice or anger upon the wicked that He interposes to check them, and to protect men from being misled.

An evil spirit, therefore, wherever the phrase occurs in a personal sense in the earher historical books of the OT, must be thought of simply as an angel or messenger of God, sent for the punishment of evil (cf. 1 S 19° RVm). His coming to a man was a sign that God's patience with him was approaching ex-haustion, and a prelude of doom. Gradually the phrase was diverted from this use to denote a personal spirit, the 'demon' of the NT margin, essentially evil and working against God, though powerless to withdraw entirely from His rule. R. W. Moss.

EXCELLENCT,EXCELLENT.-These English words are used for a great variety of Heb. and Gr. expressions, a complete list of which will be found In Driver's Daniel (Camb. Bible). The words (from Lat. exceUo, 'to rise up out of,' 'surpass') formerly had the meaning of pre-eminence and pre-emiTient, and were thus good equivalents for the Heb. and Gr. expressions. But since 1611 they have become greatly weakened; and, as Driver says, 'it is to be regretted that they have been retained in RV in passages in which the real meaning is something so very different.' The force of ' excellency ' may be clearly seen in the margin of AV at Gn 4', where ' have the excellency ' is suggested for 'be accepted' in the text; or the marg. at Ec. 2'3, where instead of ' wisdom excelleth folly ' is suggested ' there is an excellency in wisdom more than in folly.' In Dn l"" it is said that 'in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm'; and this is summed up in the heading of the chapter in the words, 'their excellency in wisdom.' The force of 'excellent,' again, may be seen from the table in Hamilton's Catechism, ' Of the pre-eminent and excellent dignitie of the Paternoster'; or from Sir John Mande- ville, Travds, p. 1, 'the Holy Land, . . . passing all other lands, is the most worthy land, most excellent, and lady and sovereign of all other lands.'

EXCHANGER.— See Money-Changer.

EXCOMMUNICATION.— In the OT the sentence against those who refused to part with their 'strange' wives (Ezr 10') — 'his substance shall be confiscated and he himself separated' — is the earliest instance of ecclesiastical excommunication. This was a milder form of the ancient Heb. cittern, curse or ban, which in the case of man involved death (Lv 27^°), and devo-tion or destruction in the case of property. The horror of this curse or clwrem hangs over the OT (Mai 4', Zee 14"). Anathema, the LXX equivalent of chSrem (e.g. in Dt V, Jos 6", Nu 21'), appears in 1 Co 16» 'It any love not the Lord, let him be anathema' (which refers, as does also Gal 1*, to a permanent exclusion from the Church and doubtless from heaven), and in 1 Co 12' 'No one speaking in the Spirit of God says, Jesus is anathema,' i.e. a chjirem or cursed thing under the ban of God. Here there may be a reference to a Jewish brocard which afterwards gave rise to the Jewish tradition that Jesus was excommunicated by the Jews. The forms said to be in vogue in His day were: (1) niddui, a short sentence of thirty days; (2) cKlrem, wliich involved loss of all religious privileges for a con-siderable time; (3) shammjitta, complete expulsion or aquae et ignis interdictio. This last form, however, lacks attestation.

References in the NT to some form of Jewish pro-cedure are: Jn 9" 12<2 16«, Lk 6^2. Mt IS"-" may be a reference to some Jewish procedure that was taken over by the Church. It mentions admonition: (1) in

248