Notwithstanding the transcendent relationship in which Jesus stood to the Holy Spirit, we are not left -without witness that even in this sphere of His life He was like us in all things (see Westcott, Gospel of St. John, on Jn 11**). It is this word {to irpevfx.a) that is used to describe the death on the cross by three of the Evanoelists (cf. Mt 27®", Lk 23"*®, Jn 19*"), although in other places we find i^i'Xrj employed in a sense very similar (see Jn JQi5. 17^ (.f_ 253 10^'). It is possible, however, to see in the use of the former word a wider range of thought, as if it was intended to include the latter in its scope. It is as if Jesus desired to commend to His Father's keeping not only the spirit, the principle of His highest and Divinest life, but also the soul, the seat of His personal eai'thly life (cf. Hastings' DB, vol. iv. 612^).
That •4'!^%--5 is, nevertheless, sometimes found to denote more than this is evident from references by Jesus Himself to its indestructibility and its incomparable value as the goal of all human progress, where we should have expected either tveS/^ik or Ttiiv/j-x and -^ux'^i to convey His full meaning (cf. Mt 1028- 39, Lk 1733, Mk 835, Jn 12^5). The distinction and confusion, how- ever, in these two words are in accordance with OT usage, where ruafi (NT Tuiif/jx.) denotes the Divinelj' imparted principle of life, and nephesh (NT -^vxr,) the result of the impartation (see 1 Co 15'*5 ; cf. Gn 27, where nephesh hayydh occurs, an expres- sion which is also used of the lower life of the animal creation, Gn 120). The indiscriminate use of these two words to denote the same idea is fovmd, e.g. , in Is 269 (LXX), a parallel to which we have in the Song of the Virgin Mary (Lk l-^^f-). See Soul.
In other places where this word is used in con- nexion with the Personality of Jesus, we find it emploj^ed somewhat vaguely and in loose contrast with the outwai'd or physical senses. He is said to have perceived the gist of the murmured reason- ings of His critics ' in his spirit ' {^TTLyvovs Tqi irvevfxaTi aiTov, K.T.X., Mk 28 ; cf. Gould, ' St. Mark ' in ICC, adloc). There is here an evident contrast implied between that intuitive knowledge gained by infer- ence and deduction, and that acquired by direct heading with the ears. Again, He is spoken of as sighing inwardly, as distinct from audibly (dcoo-re- vd^as TO) TTvevfMaTi avTov, Mk 8^2)^ and being indignant 'within himself or 'in his spirit,' -without ex- pressing His feelings* in words (cf. ivejipifMrjaaTo ry TTveiJ/xaTi, Jn 11*^, and fV iavTi^i, 11*®). An interest- ing example of a subtle psychological distinction between irvevixa and ypvxv is found in tlie personal experiences of Jesus with two distinct sources of trouble and sorrow. As the cross drew near, His ' soul ' (17 ^vxr} fiov T€TdpaKTai, Jn 122') revolted from the horrors of the vision ; while Ave, as we read the narrative of self-revelation, perceive the origin and cause of His sympathy Avith 'the feeling of our infirmities' (He 4^®). On the other hand, and in close connexion Avith His approaching death, there Avas the dark treachery of Judas ; and Avhen Ave remember the profound joy and holy satisfac-
SPIRIT
SPIRITUALIZING OF PARABLES 673
tion witli which Jesus reviewed the success of His work in keeping near Him those committed to His cliarge (see Jn 17*"^), we can understand tlie grief caused by the loss of ' the son of perdition. ' With reference to tliis fact, St. John notices that Jesus ' was troubled in spirit ' ('Itjcrovs irapaxdv '''V '"'vev- fj-aTL, 13-'), as though he would wish us to infer that He was stirred to the verj^ depths of His being by tiie sight of a soul hurrying to its doom.
Instances are not wanting in the Gospels of con- trasts, simple and definite, in which tiiis word plays a part, though we have no exam])le of the antitheses so familiar to students of tlie Pauline Christology. Perhaps the nearest to the latter is the reference by Jesus to the contrast between the strength and perseverance of the spirit and the weakness of the flesh (rb irvevfia wpbdvfxou . . . i] crap^ aadev-qs, Mk 143» = Mt 26^'). When, in His conver- sation with Nicodemus, Jesus refers to fleshly (eV ttJs (rapKdi) birth and spiritual {iK rod wvev/xaros) birth, He is not contrasting the limitations of tlie one with the inherent independence, as to time, space, etc., with their consequent imperfections, of the other. He has in His mind simply the two spheres of being to which man, qud man, stands related. By his (rdp^ he is in fellowship, spiritual, mental, and physical, with the whole visible creation. By his Trvevjxa he touches and enters the sphere of spiritual life in the entirety of his com- plete nature. Both orders of existence have their characteristic j^rinciples, and it is man's unique privilege to unite the two in his complete life and experience. The perfect synthesis is accomplished only in the Incarnation, and it is only by keeping steadily in view the two great constituent elements in Jesus' Person that we shall succeed in truly interpreting His language in His discourses at Capernaum, which were so vitally misunderstood. Neither the spirit alone nor the flesh alone can a])prehend and appropriate the Christ, the Son of Man. ' The flesh ' is of no avail {t] crapj ovk ijb<pe\e2 ovdiv, Jn 6"^), 'the spirit' alone has the power of conveying life (t6 irv€vfx.d 4<ttiv rb ^ciioirotoOy). At the same time, in order to a genuine participation, the life-giving mes.sage must be clothed in lan- guage which may be heard and, in part at least, understood (rd prj/xara . . . -irvevfj.d ianv Kal fwTj). The historic fact of the Incarnation was necessary to meet the needs of man both on his spiritual and fleshly side, and so we understand the force of the words of the writer of tlie Epistle to the Hebrews (ov yap dri irov dyyiXwv iTriKafx^dverai, He 2'^). And while it would be going beyond the strict limits of certainty to say that Jesus on this occasion is making specihc reference to the rite which He afterwards instituted in words of similar import, it will scarcely be disputed that in His Last Supper He embodied the principles referred to above. In it, too, ' the flesh profiteth nothing,' it is the spirit that giveth life ; but the invisible, intangible spirit is clothed with a visible, tangible body, while man, working through and by the latter, reaches uijwards and partakes of the former (cf. Westcott, Gospel of St. John, ad loc).