3. There are passages in AV in which ' will ' Would now he considered redundant, as Gn 32" 'I fear him, lest he will come, and smite me ' (RV ' lest he come ') ; Lv 2' ' When any will oUer a
oniillini; where we should now insert, and sometimes Insert- inir where we should omit. Cf. Othello, ll. Hi. 190, ' You were wont be civil,' with iv. ii. 12, • 1 duryt, my I^ord, to wa^er she is honest.' The omission is found also in Milton, Sonnet to ilr. Lawrence —
* A^liere shall we sometimes meet, and by the Are Help wasto a sullen day?'
And (fuost quotes two consenulive lines from the Afirrvr /or Magisfrattt, one of which omits, the other inserts this • to' —
' And though we owe I = oujrht] the fall of Troy requite. Yet let revenge thereof from goils to light.'
* For the distinction between "lA* and fiaCf^fim consult EUicott on I Tl 6'*, Lightfoot on Philem '», Moyor on Ja 3*, SandoV'Headlam on Ito 7'"*, and esp. ' the full and excellent oote' [Sanday-Ueodlaml in Thayer, X.T. Ltx. i.v. SiiM.
meat oflTering unto the Lord ' (RV ' when anyone oll'ereth ') ; >It '.f ' Pray ye therefore tlie Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest' (RV 'that he send'); Mk 3-'' 'No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his mods, except he will lirst bind the strong man ' (RV ' except he first bind ').
J. Hastings.
WILL. — In this art. the consideration of the teaching of the Bible regarding both the Divine and the human Will is to be included. These may seem at lirst sight to be subjects of very dill'erent kinds ; nevertheless, an adequate treat- ment of either niu.st clearly be impossible if the other is not taken into account. The light of revelatiim falls upon both the human and the Divine will in the sphere of their relations to one another. We derive our idea of the Divine will in Scripture chiefly, if not entirely, from what we are told of God's mind towards find purpose for man, which have led and lead toactionou His part, where- by the action of the human wOl must necessarily be conditioned. .-Vnd, further, Scripture is no excepti(m to the rule that the ideas which men can frame or receive about God are all'ected by their knowledge of themselves. Tlie conceptions commonly formed of tlie mind and soul of man have ever been transferred to the Divine nature, with more or with less oualilication and exten- sion ; and this has especially been the case in the absence of philosophical thought, and particularly so in iirimitive times.
1. llUdical terms for the act of xoilling. — The psychological and nieta]jhysical, and to some ex- tent also the theological, ideas of early ages, and of the majority of men at all times, are to be studied in language. It is, then, lirst to be ob- served that there is no word either in OT or NT for the will, as a faculty ; and even the act of willing is not contemplated in an abstract manner. As a point of some psychological interest we may also note, that of the two Ileb. words in fre(|Uent use which seem to describe an act of the will most purely as such ([lo in Pi. and ^jx), one has a negative signilication, and the other is almost in- variably joined with a negative. (The exceptions are Is 1'% Job 3'.)"). It is in the absence of ap- ])arent reason, and in the resistance oliered to a pressure from without, that the power of will is most barely presented, and therefore most readily aiipiehcnded. We may coni|)are our term ' wil- fulness.' The latter of the two Heb. words just named is often used of the wrongful assertion of the human will in opposition to the Divine will (e.g. Ps 81'= i"', Pr !»"). See also, as regards the former word. Ex 7". The notion of an exer- tion of the will, not for resistance hut for the achievement of something, appears to be most dis- tinctly conveyed by hx', in Iliph., but it is not so commoii as either of the words above mentioned. Lit. it means to set oneself, determine, undertake, to do sometltiiifj ; a sense which we can trace in the LXX renderiii" ipxarOai.
Wo need also to consider tlie whole group of words signifying to desire (.tin, in Pi. and Hitlip., and 1^!}), to tn/ce pleasure in (I'sin), to favour ([j;j and .i^cj), to loi^e (ariK and pc'ri), to c/ioase (v?). Where tli'ie has as yet been little or no psycho- logical relle.\ion, such words may, and commonly do, involve the notion of willing. The mind has not become accuslomed to distinguish between the motive — whether this consists in some purpose whicli'commends itself to the reason, or a |ihysical want, or external attraction acting uiion the senses — and its adoption by the will ; nor, again, be- tween the act of the will and the feeling which accompanies its exercise. This is eminently true of the language of OT. In the case of men, in-leed.
there ie the beginning of a distinction in the prominence given to tlie phenomena of tempta- tion, l)ut it IS not followeii out pliilosophically ; while in regard to God, wlio can ellect what He pleases, the distinction naturally does not suggest itself in the same way.