i. Wliile it is impossible to be satisfied with any one of these historic theories, as re.spects its bear- ing on the integrity or concrete reality of Christ's manhood, it is far from easy to offer a definite sub- stitute which is not open to exception. Indeed, an attempt at strict construction is certain to mis- carry. The extraordinary as such rebels against complete elucidation, and by supposition the union of the Divine and the human in Christ is an extra- ordinary fact. Any one who accepts tlie Incarna- tion must admit that the individuality of Christ's manhood was specially conditioned ; but equally, any one who admits the extraordinary character of the Incarnation must grant the impossibility of giving a full explanation of the mode and measure of this special conditioning. AVe cannot fidl)' con- strue our own relation to the DiNdne ; how then should we expect to gain clear insight into the
relation of the human to the Di\-ine in the person of our Lord ? Probably the best that can be done is to form an ideal picture of the normal relation of perfected manhood to the DiWne, and then beyond this to postulate the mystery of a special band between Cfhrist's manhood and His Divinity. The forming of the ideal picture will be distinctly helpful. For, having clearly apprehended the great truth that manhood loses nothing of its proper character by intimate union with the Divine, that the human spirit is never more itself than when it is possessed by and insphered in the Divine Spirit, that freedom is never so complete as when the human will by its own consent passes under the absolute diiection of the Divine will, we shall be prepared to believe that manhood in Clirist suffered no retrenchment by its extra- ordinary union with the Divine, but rather is to be accounted the full-orbed specimen of manhood as respects ethical worth and all tender and beauti- ful traits.
Taken in a popular sense, rather than in relation to Christological theory, the subject of individu- ality suggests a discussion of those characteristics which may be regarded as specially distinctive of Christ as a historic personage. This discussion, however, is reserved for the art. UNIQUENESS.
LiTKRATCRK. — J. A. Domer, History of the Doctrine of the
Fundamental Jdea^ of Christianity, Lectures xiii.-xv. ; Con- tentio Veritatii, eh. ii. ; IlUngworth, Personality Human and Dioine. HeXRY C. ShELDON.
INDOLENCE.— The spirit of Christ's religion is inimical to indolence in the sphere of business (Lk 16", Mt 24^^ 25-"), but more especially indolent Cliri>tuuuty i- .s.ilt iclt/ioiit savour (Mt 5"). Not only i-- II ,~tati- of .-.alvation hard to maintain (Mt 7"), liut iioifirtiou is to be aimed at {o*^). An enemy >-u\vs tait-s wliile we sleep (13'-^). The oil in our lamps consumes as we rest (25^). AVatch- fulness is the very opposite of indolence (26^')- The hid talent will reproach the indolent in the day of reckoning (25"). Most deadly is the spiritual indolence which is satisfied to have Abraham for father (Lk 3', Jn 8**), or Christ for Saviour, without response to the impulses of the Holy Spirit, the source of life and motion and progre-s.
A siL'tial jiiiluiauut may be executed ujion the indukiit .^oul, either after a period of further pro- bation (Lk lo"'-'), or suddenly and unexpectedly when that day comes as a snare (Lk 21**), and the Judge pronounces the sentence (Mk II"). The conscience must be kept awake and intelligent (Mt 5^- •"). The beginnings of evil must be checked (v. '*'•)■ The ears must be open to learn, and the heart ready to believe (11'^). The rock foundation to build the house upon may need much toil to reach it (7"^). And continually the servant of Christ must be ready for his Master's coming, with loins girded and lights burning (Lk 12^J. — Love is not indolent in seeking the lost sheep (Mt 18'=). Hope is not indolent in running to the sepulchre ( Jn 20'), or hastening to the manger (Lk 2'*). Faith is not indolent in pressing through the crowd to be healed (Mk 5"). ' The zeal of thine house shall eat me up' (Jn 2'").
1
also art. SlothfulNESS. W. INFANCY.-
B. Fraxklaxu.
usually weaned at i
ol age or
^ ill Heb. to
describe childhood and youth at various stages; and in this earliest period before a cllild has become a gdmiit (7!CJ ' weaned '), there are tliree different terms that may be applied to hJiu. The infant is l''; (f. ^h-J, the (new-) born (ct. • bairn,'
INFANCY
INFANCY
823
'barn'), plV (the suckling), and- '^Viy (or '??;)), also indicating dependence for nourishment. In NT, apart from the general use of T«7; or -raih^oy, the terms used are (1) (3fli<pos (applying to the unborn child as well (Lk l-iij), and (2) "^yo,-. The aspect of infancy connoted by .»t,«,-, as contrasted with the Heb. terms, is inability to speak ( = Lat, infaufi). In Mt 21^'', in the quota- tion from Ps 83, LXX, the Greek translators use iwim as = '7Siy, and the ptcp. flii^iaCs). as = pjv. With the exception of Lk 1815, 0fii0oi occurs in the Gospels only in Lk.'s account of the birth of Christ ; and rima, in addition to Mt 21i6, only in a figurative useinMtll25=Lki02i.
2. All that the Gospels have to tell concerning the infancy of Jesus is found in Lk 2 and Mt 2. Excluding the story of the Birth, we have the following series of events :— the Circumcision, the Presentation, the Visit of the Magi, the Flight into Egypt, the Slaughter of the Innocents, the Return and Settlement at Nazareth. The insuper- able difficulties in tlie way of weaving these narratives into a coherent and harmonious whole are now generally recognized. Harmonists have not been able to agree even as to the time-order in which the events should be placed. (Andrews, in his Life of Our Lord, p. 91 f., conveniently shows the diversity that has obtained). If it were a matter of supreme importance to settle sucli order, Wieseler's view (Chron. Synopsis, i. ch. iii.) seems the mcst reasonable, arranging as follows : — Cir- cumcision, Presentation (or Purification of Mary), Visit of the Magi, Flight into Egypt and Slaughter of the Innocents, Return to Nazareth. So far, liowever, as the narrative in Mt 2 is concerned, it is evidently unrelated to Lk.'s account of the infancy of Jesus ; it stands as a story by itself, detached from its own context ; the opening [rod Sk 'l-q(7ov •yivvriBivTo^, k.t.\.) is quite indefinite as a time-expression, and anything like chronological interest is at a minimum.