EPHER (n?K ' a [deer] calf ').—!. The name of the second of the sons of Midian nientioiiod in Gn 25', 1 Ch 1", and recorded as one of the descendants of Abraham by his wife Keturah (Gn 25'). For pre- carious attempts to identify this Epher with 'Ofr in Arabia (Wetzstein), with Appiir-u men tioned in Assurbanipal's Inscriptions ((ihiser), see the references in Dillmann. 2. The name of one of the sons of Ezrali, a branch of the family of Judah (1 Ch 4"). 3. The first of a gro;ip of live heads of fathers' houses belonging to the half tribe of Manasseh, who dwelt in the land between Hashan and Mt. Hermon (1 Ch 5"). H. E. Rvle.
EPHES - DAMMIM (a-r}-i dex, "E^fpy^"', 'hfta- ioixixdv). — The place in Judah where the Philistines were encaniped at the time when David slow Goliath (1 S 17'). The same name appears in 1 Ch 11" a-s Pas-Dammim. The form O'si cjn is strange and probably corrupt (see Driver, .SVi;n. 292).
W. J. Hk ECU Eli.
EPHESIAN ('E(^<riot), an inhabitant of the city of Ephesus (which see), is a term used in Ac 19'"- **• " 21™. The usage of St. Luke is more correct than that of Stephanus Ryzant. ; the latter gives 'Eipiatvi as the ethnic ; but the coins and inscriptions show that in the local and universal us-ige '&<piaio% meant an inhabitant of the city, while 'E^jo-ees denoted a member of the tribe V^iptath, the first of the six tribes into which the E. jwpulation was divided (the other five were called iefJatrTij, T>j'ioi, KapT}valoi, VjVi^vvpiOi, MfpL^Lvaloi, of which — f^aar?) was added in compliment to Augustus, the total number having jireviously been five). "The term '^<piaioi. is also applied in the Bezan and Philoxenian Syr. texts of Ac 20* to Tychicus and Trophinius, wlirn> the true reading is 'Asians' ('kaiavol, men of the province Asia). Trophimus was an E. (Ac 21-') : but we may fairly understand that St. LiiUe refrained from using that term about both Tychicus and Troiihiiiius, on the ground that it was not strictly applicable to the former. The reiuson can hardly be that Tychicus belonged to some other city of Asia, for tlie u.sage in this verse leads the writer to state the city where each delegate was
il4
EPIIESIANS, EPISTLE TO
EPHESIAXS, EPISTLE TO
a citizen ; and we sliould expect that lie would have mentioned Tychicus by the ethnic of liis own city. Moreover, Tychicus {)rol)ably inliahited Ephesus.* We may, then, perliaps conclude that Tychicus, though a resident (incola), did not possess the citizenshiij of Ephesus ; and lience 'li^^irios, which strictly is restricted to citizens of Epiiesus, could not properly be used about him. There were many fauiilios of residents who, for various reasons, were not enrolled in any of the tribes, and were therefore not entitled to be called citizens of Ephesus. The entry 'Afffa ^ 'E^eiros in a late Byzantine list of cities which had changed their names (pul)lished by Partliey, Hierodis Synecd. et yotUiat, p. 316 ; Burckhardt, Hierodis Synecd. p. 08) cannot be relied on to justify the taking of 'katavbi in 20^ as a mere synonym for E^^crtos : the document is not earlier than the 12th cent. (cf. the entries EiXixfa, KoXwvia, etc.), and aHbrds no trustworthy evidence for the usage of the time of St. Luke. W. M. Ramsay.
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO—
L Substance and purpose, as gathered
(a) From internal evidence.
(6) From a comparison with Colossiana. tt. Authorship and Date, aa gather^ from
(a) Internal evidence.
(6) Externa] tradition. IIL Destination. It. Place of Composition. v. Doctrinal Importance, vi Literature.
i. Substance and Purpo.se.— The questions of the authorship, date, and destination of this Epistle have been, and are still, so much disputed that it will be well to deal first with the subject-matter and the purpose which reveals itself on a close examination of that. The Ep. might be summed up in the words of the Angelic song (Lk 2") —
ddfa iv u^plffTots Get^ Kal iiri yTJr fifyqi'Tj iv dvdfujnroLS evooKias.
Or, again, it might be described as an expression of thanksgiving that the Lord's prayer for His Church as embodied in Jn 17 was in process of ful- filment. For the writer's tone is eucharistic and his main theme is unity : he does not argue, he makes dogmatic statements ; he blesses God for the great truths revealed in the Gospel ; and calls ui)on his readers to rise to the high dignity of their calling ; and, as he does so, there emerges a picture of the Church as the body predestined before the ages to unite Jew and Gentile together, which through ages yet to come has to exhibit before the universe the fulness of the Divine life, living the life of God, imitating God's character, wearing (Jod's panoply, lighting God's battles, forgiving as God forgives, educating as God educates ; ana all this that it may fulfil the wider work whereby Christ is to be the centre of the universe. Two dangers seem to threaten it when the writer writes, — the danger lest it should slip back into the lower moral standard of the surrounding heathendom, and the danger of a want of unity between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. To meet these, the writer presents the ideal of a body predestined before all ages and to last to all ages, whose aim it is to make men holy and without blemish, and to unite all mankind in peace and love.