All these questions, more or less connected with one another, occur at once to the mind ; but in the NT no direct answer to them is to be found. The NT writers were not in any sense psychological analysts ; their object was to describe their re- ligious experiences and to induce them in others. Their psychological equipment for doing this — if the adjective can be used at all — w^as the language of the or and the simple categories common to the conversation of plain but thoughtful men. In their psychology the Rabbis themselves were no more than thoughtful amateurs — perhaps the world has gained rather than lost thereby. On the other hand, the Language of the NT writers on this subject — like their use, e.g., of the Greek preposi- tions— though simple, is surprisingly careful. They did not work out their theology ; but a theology was implicit in all that they wrote ; and, without being conscious of doing so, they have given us materials for a reasoned conception of the will, as it may be predicated of both God and man.
To understand this, we must first pay attention to the writers' vocabulary. The choice of words is determined as much on subconscious as on con- scious levels ; we employ one expression and reject another instinctively ; and in casesliUe the present, where a system or a belief is implicit rather than explicit, language yields some of our best evidence. The language of the OT suggests three manifesta- tions of will : (a) desire and aversion — the latter perhaps more often actually e.xpressed — [nd, nnx (k^), niN, Tpn, terms which can all be applied either to man or to God ; (6) satisfaction in a certain state of things, real or contemplated — njr-i, with the cognate noun, and y;n ; these again are equally applicable to man and to God ; (c) a continued and persistent purpose, Vxin, or the phrase zh D'i' or 37"'?K ; the former is more commonly used of man ; the latter suggests the familiar connexion between will and attention, 3^ being always regarded by
the Hebrews as the seat of thoughts rather than of emotions. The iS'T writers start from the same circle of ideas. From the undillerentiated material of likes and dislikes are developed deep mental and moral satisfactions, and acute physical desires or loathings. Will, for or against, is the natural jjrecursor of action. Two wills may clash — those of man and man or of man and God. And out of will may grow a steadfast purpose, good or evil, which may fix the destiny of the whole life. When we examine the NT vocabulary more closely, a further distinction emerges, ' Will' is expressed by both di\u and fSouXoixai and their cognate nouns, as well as by a furtlier little group of words which must also be noticed.
0i\w is nearly always used of man. There are exceptions in Ac 18=', Ko 9">- '^ 1 Co 4'» 12'» 15™, Ph 2'* (the only occurrence of the word in this Epistle), Col P', and Ja 4'°. In the GospeLs, the word is very commonly used of man in general, and of Jesus; rarely of God, outside the quotations from the OT— Hos 6« in Mt 9^'^ and parallels, and Ps 22^ in Mt 27''^ (where the original is fsn). The non- classical cognate noun, BiX-qiia, however, is almost entirely used of God. There are exceptions in Eph 23 (cf. 1") and 2 P l^'. The word is generally singular, but the plur. occurs in Ac 13=^ and Eph 2^ In He 1* 0i\ri<Ti.i is found, also of God. The same usage is found in the Gospels, especially in the Fourth Gospel ('the will of my Father,' 'of him that sent me ') ; the exceptions really prove the principle (1'3 53" 6^).
The above makes it clear that the verb is used quite generally for 'wish,' 'desire,' and 'want.' The distinction common in English psychology since T. H. Green, between more and less conscious self-presentation in the act of will, is absent from the NT. But the verb covers a range wide enough to stretch from St. Paul's favourite phrase, oil 0i\iji v/xd.! dyvoHf, to the baffling experiences hinted at in Ro 7. It can thus be used of both man and God. On the other hand, the noun is practically con- lined to the idea of a solemn Divine purpose ; hence its inapplicability to human desires.
When we turn to /3oi/Xo^ai we find that the verb is always used of man, except in Lk 22^, He 6" (the only ease where the word occurs in Heb. ), 2 P 3", and Ja 118 (cf_ ]yit 11", 1 Co 12"). The nouns ^ov\y and ^ovXruxa &Te rare ; ^ovX-q is used about equally of God and of man (for the latter use see Ac 5** 19' 27"'' *- ; for the former Eph 1" and He 6" ; note also 1 Co 4", /SoiiXds Tw;" Kapdiijp). In the Gospels it occurs only twice — in Lk 7^" of God, and in 23^' of man. ^ovK-nixa. is used once of man (Ac 27''^), once of God (Ro 9"), and once of the ' nations' (1 P 4').
The verb thus denotes plan and settled deliber- ate purpose, rising, however, out of uncertainty, needing etiort for its realization, and liable to frustration ; hence it is unsuitable for application to God. The noun denotes a deliberate and settled choice, which is more appropriate to the calm omnipotence of God (cf. Ac 2=^) than the ignorant strivings of man ; it maj', of course, imply a choice of alternatives, though not necessarily a long balancing between them. pov\ev/ia does not occur ; ^ovXevofiai is not used of God. /SokAt), indeed, would seem to correspond somewhat nearly to the Aristo- telian vpoaipeais {Eth. Nic. iii. ). euSox/a denotes a choice in w hich satisfaction is found ; it is used of both God and man ; like the cognate verb, how- ever, it is comparatively rare (cf. Ro 10', Ph 1'°, 2 Th 1"). In Lk 2'-' evdoda corresponds to the Hebrew ps";, and the whole phrase most naturally means ' men in whom God feels satisfaction,' not 'good-will' in the sense of the AV.