Will (Hastings' Dictionary)

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.

Tlie fact, however, which is perliaps of most significance for us is that all words of this class, without material exception, even those which have the most decidedly phj-sical associa- tions, or which are used frequently in a bad sense, are applied to God no less than to men in the Hebrew OT. Thus pan to cleave in love to (used of sexual passion, Gn 34*), tliough also more gener- ally for what tlie mind desires (1 K !)"), is used of"(!

od's love to Israel (Dt 7' lO"), and also of man's love to God (Ps 9V*) ; while icri to covet (Ex 20", and Mic 2'-) describes God's feeling for Zion, Ps 68" ("). It is used also of a spiritual desire in man, Ps ig'"!"] Some words, such as pri to favour, and its subst. [n favour, grace, nj-i and jiin, with much the same meaning, and inp to choose, have, esp.

through their Greek repre- sentatives, come to be more particularly con- nected in our minds with the mysteries of saving grace ; but their early history was not dissimilar to the rest, i.e. their transference to God was at first somewhat crudely anthropomorphic. The instance of ihk to lore, to which further reference will be made, should especially bring this home to us. In the LXX several of these Heb.

words are most commonly rendered by ,3oi'Xe<rSoi, BiXau, and eiSoKctv, which more simply express the act of willing : — all three are used for nzij and ijn, oii povXeailai and oO S^Xetv for [xp, BiXem and eu5oKe7t> for n>"! ; for n;N, BeXeiv, and also inBvfieh ; for n;n, j3oi/Xfff^ai, evSoKuv, and iTriBvfif'tv. A feeling is, however, manifested in the LXX that some dif- ference of language is advisable in speaking of God ; iTTiBv^ciu is avoided in connexion with Him.

3ns also, in the case both of God's love for men and men's love for God, is translated not by (piXeh but by d7a7r^>', though it is to be added that this is, on the whole, the commoner rendering of the word in all contexts, and that <pi\(Tp is used for the love of wisdom (Pr 8" 29^ Wis 8°). The non-classical word B^Xii/ia is many times used both for fsn and psi, and for the latter sometimes also eiSoicla.. Tlie usage of NT is based upon, and in the main conforms to, that of LXX.

In regard to 6^\riij.a, in particular, we maj- observe that alike in LXX and NT it frequently denotes an individual wish or desire, and hence is used in pi. (Ps 102 (103) '• ", Ac 13, , Eph 2'). But it may also describe such a permanent inclination as shows the bent of the character (Sir 32", cf. SATjffit in 2 Ch 15", and /SouXtj/xo in 1 P 4'). Other noteworthy uses are to be found in Jn T^, 2 P 1".

In Rev 4" the ordated universe is said to proceed from an act of the Divine will, for in accordance with biblical usage we must understand 0{\ri/ia to denote an act here rather than a faculty. ii. The human will.

— In considering the con- ception of the human will and its present con- dition, as well as of the Divine will, to be derived from the Bible, grave subjects which have been treated in other articles (Fall, Grace, Pre- destination, and Election) come before us again ; but they are to be regarded here, as it were, on their psychological, moral, and meta- phj^sical side, and such a Wew of them ma^ assist us in rightly apprehending them.

At the same time, we may expect that some light will be thrown by the study in which we are engaged on questions which have been debated in the philosophical schools. It is true that little, if any, trace is to be found in any part of the Bible of direct specu- lation on the nature and prerogatives either of tha human or the Divine will.

Nevertheless, through the vivid presentation in Scripture of moral and spiritual truth in its practical bearing on man, imjiortant elements in the problems relating both to the will in man and to God's will are brought into relief, and this may contribute to the right solution of those ]iroblenis. 1.

The proposition that the will is free is com- monly understood, alike by those who asisert and those who deny it, to mean that man has, at least within certain limits, the power of self-determina^ tion, of yielding to or resisting motives, — those which arise within him as well as those which plainly have their origin without him, — and of modifying his own character in some degree. The notion of moral freedom, however, which meets us in Scripture is something dilierent from this.

It appears there simjily as the opposite of the bondage of sin. From this point of view, ' to be free ' is to have the power of acting according to one's true nature as God designed it ; and those whom we cannot imagine to be an}' longer capable of doing wrong, like the perfected saints, because no tendency to evil remains in them and they are thoroughly established in holiness, would yet in this sense be free, indeed the only true freemen (Jn 8f^-3«, Ro 6",, 8'8, ' ; cf. also Ja 1== 2'=).

There is evidently profound truth in this conception : such must be the freedom of God Himself. 2. Nevertheless, Christian theologians of all schools have ever deduced from Scripture that man, originally at least, possessed free will in the common sense of the term, whether they admit that he stUl retains it to any extent or not. And, indeed, even apart from what is im- plied in the narrative of the Fall and all subse- quent express statements (e.g.

Ec 7*", Ro 1-'"^-), this alone is compatible with the Scripture doctrine of God as at once the all-powerful and all-wise and the perfectly good Creator. Man's fallen con- dition must be due to his own fault. For some good reason God suffered man to be tempted, but He intended th.at the temptation should be, as it might have been, withstood. Sufficient light had been granted to man to enable him to discern the true good, and power to choose it ; yet he chose evil.

It is worthy of note that even those who have been most ready to silence criticism of the morality of the action which is attributed to God in theories of the method and scope of redemption, by alleging that these are matter of Divine revelation, and by declaring that God's ways are not to be submitted to a human tribunal, have yet themselves asserted, and sought to convince men of, the justice of man's punishment on the ground that in Adam he brought It upon himself.

But we must go a step further. The attempt to satisfy the sense of human justice, significant as it is when made in the quarters just indicated, must break down so long as it is supi>oscd that men lost their moral freedom totally by the first fall, and therewith all hope of salvation except in so far as they should be visited by irresistilde grace, which to some, and even the majority of the race, woulii never come at all. The Bible, we are bold to atfirni, does not support such a position.

It is true that it speaks of man as enslaved by sin, as unable to accomplish his own deliverance, as dependent ujion God at every step for salvation, and even for the first motions towards good (Eph 2'-°-, Ro 3'-', Tit 3*-«, Jn 6"- "). But the strongest statements to this efl'ect, even if they stood alone, could not fairly be made to mean that nothing depends on the con- sent, or resistance, of man's own will to the work of God in and upon him.

And by the sacred WILL WILL 921 writers who insist most emphatically on man's helplessness by himself, as well as in other parts of Scripture, it is plainly declared, or assumed, that he is responsible for being compliant (Jn 1"- 5* and 6", Ph 2'-), and in more general terms for his temper of mind and conduct, and that he will be punished or rewarded on ordinary principles of justice (Ro 2'-" 3"-=i, .

In 7"); in short, that each man bom into the world is put to a probation si ill, however the conditions of his trial may be aliected by the failures and successes of all who have gone before. So that the tragic interest and solemnity of the story of Adam's fall lies not only in the thought of what was lost for the human race from the beginning of its history, but also in its being the type of a conflict between good and evil which IS perpetually renewed in the soul of every man.

It is less than the truth to say, as many do, that the recognition accorded in Scrijiture to the prin- ciple of man's moral freedom on the one hand, and its doctrine of grace on the other, present an in- soluble antinoni}', and that those who accept the authority of the Bible nmst accept both, though with a sense that they cannot be reconciled. This is certainly a wiser attitude than that of those wlio virtually deny the one in the interests of the other.

It must, however, be admitted on reflexion that the sacred writers themselves do not seem to be conscious of any contradiction ; and we cannot but infer that if to us there seems to be one it is largely of our own maUiiig, through the ellect upon our minds of later controversies and the tratlitions they have left. The real difliculties in connexion with the conception of the freedom of the will are not, in point of fact, raised through the endeavour to combine in one view those moral and .

spiritual truths regarding Divine grace and human responsi- bility to which the Bible bears testimony, nor could they naturally have been indicated there.

We gather from its teaching that the Spirit of God IS the source of all moral and spiritual good, that Divine grace must be present with and must precede all rightful action of the human wUl, that this grace is bestowed in some measure upon all, and always with the design of leading on to salva- tion ; but that it rests with man to respond to the Divine love, to yield to the Divine promptings.

Confusion and error have probably bi-en intro- duced into the subjects disputed by Augustinians, Calvinists, and Pelagians, more through the too narrow nutiim of Divine grace in whicii all alike shared — as though it were to lie traced only in de- finite Christian faith and its special fruits, and in the godly of Israel under the Old Dispensation — than from any other cause. Hence the Calvinist ha.

s been led to make a distinction between an ' eflcctual ' giace granted in certain cases, and an operation of God's Spirit in other cases which has no saving purpo.se, and to regard the signs of moral and spiritual life in a multitude of instances as wholly illusory. Hence also, on the other hand, the Pelagian lias supposed man to be capable of many kinds of good apart from God.

Nowhere does the mistake to which reference has been made ajiijcar more clearly as the initial source of error than in the doctrine of certain schoolmen that grace was to be deserved de cont/ruo, the authors of which theory evidently aimed at |irescnting tliat which they regarded as the truth lu I'elagianism in the form in which it would bo least open to attack.

l''or here it was supposed that tliough man could not be finally saved without grace, yet by a character and a course of conduct, in shapmg and inspiring which grace had had no part, he could win it. Tlie diflerent opinions here referred to are unscriptural, baseless, and profoundly irre- ligious.

In contrast with all alike we would place the belief — justified, as we contend, by particular declarations of Scripture, and still more l>y a com- ]ireliensive view of the Divine training of man, which finds its clearest interpretation in the Bible — tliat no human spirit is left destitute of the life- giving visitations of the Divine Spirit, and that, rudimentary as that moral and spiritual life may be which at first He has sought or seeks to create and to foster, e.ff.

in the savage or in many e\en of those who live in Christian lands, no uou.hIs can be set to the growth which may, and which \la intends should, result in this world or anothv', wherever the human will is consentient.

This, is consistent with our ideas of justice, while at Che same time it reco"nizes man's absolute dependence always upon God's grace, and can atroril man no ground for claiming merit in the sight of God ; for there can be no merit in his allowing himself to be saved, though he maj' justly expose himself to blame and loss if he frustrates God's merciful design.

Further, it does not lower the super- natural to the level of the natural, thovigh it treats that which is often called mere natural goodness as itself the outflow of a supernatural life, and as one of the lower stages, it may be, in an ascent to the highest saintliness. 3. To the extent, then, at least of giving or withholding that resjionse to the leading of the Divine Spirit of which we have spoken, man is, according to the teaching of Scripture, free.

It will, however, be said on behalf of Necessitarian- ism by adherents of the so-called Experience Philosophy, or Naturalism, that this response itself, and with it every feeling, thought, j)urpose, so far as they are not determined by causes now external to the individual, are the result of char- acter, which has been itself completely determined and could be fully accounted for, and its products also predicted, if we knew fully the human beings parentage and life-history, as well as his present circumstances, and if the whole combination were not too complex for us to deal with by the aid of any science which we possess or are likely to pos- sess.

The force of this reasoning — and it cannot be denied that it has force — lies in the fact that to a very large extent mental phenomena are, or may with a high degree of probability be held to he, subject to Natural Law, and that the ra|)id and vast extension in our conception of its domain which has in recent times taken place, predis- poses us to believe that all our experience may in reality come under it.

On the other side, however, it may be urged that the consciousness in man of a power of choice, of a sense of responsibility fur his conduct, his conviction often that he might have done better or acted in some way otherwise than he has, and the remorse whicli he feels, in spite of his readiness to complain of the action of an adverse fate, the bl.

ame which he imimtes to him- self or to others for any lack of loyalty to truth and right, of firmness and of courage, are facts which cannot be satisfactorily explained on the principles of Naturalism. We seem here to be brought f.

ace to face with an element in the sources of human character and action which, whatever its laws may be, is not subject merely to laws analogous to those which we can trace in the physical order, — a power of self-determination, a force which within a limited — in each individual a very limited — range is truly creative, a causation which is not merely phenomenal but real.

As believers in the biblical revelation, we can suppose only that the all-wi-se and loving Creator, without diminishing aught from the fiilness of His own power, has yet, in making man a spiritual being, imparted to him a certain— by comparison infini- tesimal— amount of power like His own, and lefl him to make an independent use of it with a 92:; WILL view to the discipline and training which he would thus receive, and also to the response which the creature ini^^ht then render to the Creator, and which would be otherwise impossible (of.

R. Browning, Christirias Eve and Easter Day, § 5).

On the pliilosophical side we derive support for this view from many of the ablest thinkers of the past 150 years, from Kant and Hegel onwards, tliough it is necessary that we should emphasize the separation between the liunian and the Divine will more decidedly than some of the transcen- dental school do, in order to guard against Pan- theism and against falling again virtually into Necessitarianism, though one of a ditl'erent kind from that before spoken of.

Before passing on, it may be well to point out to what a small extent there can be any alliance between those theologians who hold that man altogether lost freedom of the will by the Fall, and philosophical Necessitarians of any school. The tatter build upon their conception of what has ever been the constitution of num, of nature, and of the universe ; whereas the theologians to whom we have referred regard, and must regard, man as, according to his original and true constitution, free.

It is only in attempts to prove that man's belief in his own freedom is wholly illusory that they can make common ground ; but this is the weakest part of the philosophers' case.

On the other hand, men in general, and that common-sense philosophy which has aimed only at formulating common opinion and at making it self-consistent, show far too little sense of the mystery attaching to the freedom of the will, or of the binding power of character, which, though not so fixed as to be beyond all possibilitj' of being modified even by the action of the will itself, can, in general, only be altered slowly.

But Holy Scripture, which lays so much stress on the bond- age of sin, the operation of Divine grace, and the appointment of the circumstances of human lives by Divine Providence, cannot be said to ignore the limitations to human freedom. In this connexion it is important to observe that man's responsibility for the use of any freedom that he possesses is not diminished in proportion to the sniallness of its amount.

He is as much bound to turn to good account what he has if it be but a very little, as if its stock were practically unlimited.

So at least he must be on the Scriptural view of his hopes and opportunitins, 'The etfort to strive against strongly riveted habits of evil might not seem worth while on the supposition that the time for seeking to undo them was very brief, and that he was left solely to what he could accomplish for himself and to human assistance ; but it is otherwise if the inlliiences of the Divine Spirit are at his disposal, and there is a prospect oi infinite time in which a change in his nature may be effected.

Thus it is that the Bible can give such prominence to the necessities affecting our human condition, and yet inspire and stimulate human endeavour to the utmost. iii. The Divine will. — The created universe is said to proceed from an act of God's will (Rev 4", and of. Sir 43" ; this is, of course, also implied in the Language used in Gn !'• * etc., Ps 33' etc. ; as regards the creation of man see Ja 1"). His will furnishes the true end and rule for human action.

Very broadly, Jn 7", Ro 12-, Col 4", and in the Lonrs Prayer, MtB'"; with a more special reference, 1 Th 4'. The Law of the Old Dispensation is not any- where directly called 'the will' of God, but that it is a principal expression of God's will is plainly suggested in Ro 2""^. With this passage Jn !!•'" may be compared, both being put into the mouth of Jews.

' The will of God ' is also used specifi- cally of God's purpose of redemption through Christ, WILL — ^ as by our Lord Himself in speaking of His mission, Jn 4*' etc., and also in Ac 22", Eph 1». St. Pau] ami others look for indications of God's will to direct their missionary course (BiX-qixa without art. in 1 Co 16'- may probably mean God's will, cf. KVm). It is to be recognized in the ordering of events and the variety of human lots (1 P 3").

This last point brings us to the manifestation of God's will in the choice of some for special des- tinies or for temporal, moral, and spiritual ad- vantages— a subject which, on account both of its peculiar difficulty and its connexion with that of human responsibility, needs particular con- sideration.

We have seen that words used in the case of men to describe preferences of a kind for which we do not ordinarily seek to discover rational motives, and which we are content to treat as matters of individual idiosyncrasy, are applied to God, especially in OT. Such language may serve to teach in a simple way the lesson of the absoluteness of the Divine will.

It may im- press upon our minds the practical truth that when God wills this or that, man's duty lies in submission and obedience, or in humble thank- fulness for His unmerited favour, on the part of tho.se whom He exalts and blesses. But it must not be assumed that, when no motive ia assigned for God's action, therefore it has not a moral and rational motive.

It has to be remembered that if words descriptive of simple desire and attraction and the mere exercise of will are applied to God, so also are those which imply planning and taking counsel with oneself (Is 19", Jer 51-«, 2 Ch 25'«, Ps 33", Job 12'^ etc.) There are, besides, passages in which we are ex- pressly told what the Lord delights in (1 S 15, , Jer 9", Is 1" 6512 66^ Pr ll-» 12- 15^ Ec 5^).

Indeed all those many declarations in OT, that purity and righteousness of heart and life are required in those who would please God, are here in point ; and it is to the principle thus laid down that the elevating effect of the religion of Israel was largely due. The chief objects, however, of God's favour mentioned in OT are the Israelite nation and Da\id with his ro3'al house. And, in the case of the former at least, it may be said, the freedom of God's election is insisted on.

But the language used can scarcely form a basis for a formal doctrine on this subject, and certainly not for a view of it which convej's the notion of arbitrariness. Later generations of Israelites were indeed taught that rod's goodness to them was not due to any merit of theirs.

But other reasons for it are given : it was part of the ptirpose which He had been pursu- ing from the days of their fathers, men of vei7 <lifferent worth from themselves, and which He, in whom constancy is so notable a characteristic, could not abandon, and it was connected also with the punishment of other nations for their excep- tional wickediiess (Dt 9^-« 8"*). Special acts of Divine favour are seen in their true place in the light of the revelation of God'i character as a whole.

There could be no more in- structive study in the history of the progress of the knowledge' of God than that which is supplied by following out the conception of the love of God in the Bible. We have already touched upon the gradual refinement of the idea as shown in the use of language. But we have to observe also that the love of God spoken of in OT is always a distin- guishing love for particular individuals and a par- ticular race.

The earliest lesson to be learnt by men, and all that they were capable of understand- ing, was that the good which happened to them- selves was the result, not of chance or fate but of God's appointment, and the proof of His merciful regard. As we pass on to the NT the image is pre- WILL WIXD 923 Dented by Clirist Himself of tlio Universal Father wlio loves impartially all His human oliildren. It is evident that this revelation ought to control all more partial views.

Those who at lirst were made the recipients of special privileges could not fully enter into the largeness of the Divine intention m their bestowal. But this became apparent when the Church of Christ became the heir of the truth communicated to Israel. The princi])le of .special grace and voca- tion was not then abandoned. It is indeed written large in human experience, and in the days of the lirst preaching of the gospel it was manifested in a new and deeper manner than ever before.

Its application to individuals took the place of that to a nation, while spiritual blessings absorbed the attention which had been largely occui)ied by such as were material. But Gods purpose in confer- ring such favours, viz., that those whom He chooses and calls to receive special knowledge, or upon whom any gift is conferred, should be ministers of it to others, is plainly set forth (Gal l'«, llo 1', 1 P 4"'- ", Ro 11"- ■"■'■'-). V. H. SlWNTON.