DuGALD Clark.
FORCE.— 1. Force, as defined by modern science, is inherent in matter and inseparable from it. It is defined al.so as the power of doing work. Tlie modes and the efi'ects of its activities are mechanical. It can neither exist nor act, therefore, within the moral sphere of the universe. And from this fact it follows tliat force and its activities are entirely foreign to tlie essential facts and truths of Cliris- tianity. This truth is recognized by tlie four Gospels, for in their records of Christ's life and mission, the entire import of which was moral, no word is employed capable of being construed into the meaning of force as just explained. The word ' force ' occurs only twice in these records (Mt 11'-, Jn 6" EV); and in both cases it is used as the translation of apjrdfu), which signifies to seize or cnrry off (an object by physical force or compul- sion). It is the use of physical force or compulsion that is denoted by St. Jolin's statement that tlie people wanted to take Jesus by force to make Him a king ; and it is probable that our Lord had the employment of force of the same kind in His mind when He said, as St. Matthew reports : ' From the days of John the Baptist until now tlie kingdom of heaven suftereth violence (/Siafercu = ' is carried by force or assault'), and the violent (or a-ssaUants) take it by force ' [apva^ovcnv). The order of ideas here expressed is exactly in terras of the principle of domination by force, which was universal in antiquity ; .t prinriple which was entirely antago- nistic t" lli^ (i-iiitial ideas as to the moral nature of the kiiii;ilum ci liraven, and the moral conditions by mean- ut wIik li alone entrance to it could be gained. And as He fully realized that the prin- ciple alluded to was hostile to the nature, interests, and laws of the heavenly kingdom, and warned His disciples against it (>lk 10'-'*^), it may be con- cluded that He did not express Himself in the language of the force which the dominating powers of tlie ancient world employed, meaning thereby that places in the kingdom of lieaven, as He under- stood and wished His hearers to understand the latter, were in great demand, and that men were eagerly doing their utmost to secure them. His real meaning is not quite apparent. He Himself represented the kingdom of God. He had come to found it. In His life and activities its principles came to perfect realization. To subject Him in any way to the abusive treatment of the force of domi- nating powers or authorities, was to do 'violence' in His Person to the kingdom of lieavcn ; and it was also ' to take ' the kingdom, in the sen.se of inakin" it in His Person an object of violent abuse. When He spoke the words in (question His ministry in Galilee was closing in disappointing circum- stances. John the Baptist had been already made a victim of violent abuse ; and He knew tliat His ' hour,' a more terrible destiny than John's, would not lie long delayed. Might it not be His cross, then, tliat was in His mind when He spoke tlie Avords in question ? [For the more usual view that the A-iolence which takes the kingdom by force is the friendlj' violence of those who seek to enter if, see A. B. Bruce, Expositor's Gr. Test, in lor., Expositor, I. v. [1877] p. 197 ff.].
2. 'Force,' however, is a term which is not aways used in its strictly scientific sense. In ordi- nary use it is synonymous with strength or pouvr. 'Power' is a word of frequent occurrence in the Gospels, and in many instances where it is em- ployed it possesses moral significance of very high value. The word ' power ' in the EV of the Gospels
is rei>resentcd by two Greek Icrius iu the original, Anz. i^ovaia and Si'va/n.;, the former of which is soiuctiiiies translated by the word 'authority.'
'E|oi;o-ia may be taken first. Power in the sense of this word is not always spoken of as Christ's power ; but it is as His power that it has its cliief interest here. The jwwer (efow/o) that Christ possessed was a power in which might was com- bined with right ; and this is why it is sometimes called authority in the Gospels and sometimes ix)wer. He was able to do things because He had the right to do them ; and no one had any right to hinder Him or to call Him in question. And the things that He had the right and the power to do were all of a nature purely moral ; and things, moreover, which He alone could do, and which were of transcendent importance. Sv'liat were thej-'? (1) He, as the Son of man, had power on earth to forgive sins (!Mt 9", ilk 2"'). (2) He has power to give eternal life to those whom the Father has given to Him (Jn 17-). (3) He has jxiwer, or authority, also to execute judg- ment, because He is the Son of man (Jn 5-'). (4) He is invested with all power in heaven and in earth (Mt 28>»). (o) Lastly, He had power to lay down His life on earth, and power to take it again (Jn 10''). The explanation of the various forms of power (efowia) possessed by Christ, and of the grounds on which His claim to the possession of them rests, lies in a domain of essential Christian truth.