TheEmotionalLifeofourLord

byB.B.Warfield

TableofContents

Introduction

I.CompassionandLove

II.IndignationandAnnoyance

III.JoyandSorrow

IV.Conclusion

Endnotes

Introduction

ItbelongstothetruthofourLord’shumanity,thathewassubjecttoallsinlesshumanemotions.lIntheaccountswhichtheEvangelistsgiveusofthecrowdedactivitieswhichfilledthefewyearsofhisministry,theplayofagreatvarietyofemotionsisdepicted.IthasneverthelessnotprovedeasytoformauniversallyacceptableconceptionofourLord’semotionallife. Not only has the mystery of the Incarnation entered in as adisturbingfactor,theeffectofthedivinenatureonthemovementsofthehuman soul brought into personal union with it has been variouslyestimated. Differences have arisen also as to how far there may be

attributed to a perfect human nature movements known to us only aspassionsofsinfulbeings.

Two opposite tendencies early showed themselves in the Church. One,derived ultimately from the ethical ideal of the Stoa, which conceivedmoralperfectionundertheformofapatheia,naturallywishedtoattributethis ideal dira0eaa to Jesus, as the perfect man. The other, under theinfluence of the conviction that, in order to deliver men from theirweaknesses, theRedeemermustassumeandsanctify inhisownpersonallhumanpatha,asnaturallywaseagertoattributetohiminitsfulnesseveryhumanpathos.Thoughinfarlessclearlydefinedforms,andwithacomplete shifting of their bases, both tendencies are still operative inmen’sthoughtofJesus.Thereisatendencyintheinterestofthedignityofhispersontominimize,andthere isa tendency inthe interestof thecompletenessofhishumanitytomagnify,hisaffectionalmovements.TheonetendencymayrunsomeriskofgivingusasomewhatcoldandremoteJesus,whomwecanscarcelybelievetobeabletosympathizewithusinallour infirmities.Theothermaypossiblybe indangerofofferingusaJesusso crassly human as scarcely to command our highest reverence.Between the two, the figure of Jesus is liable to take on a certainvaguenessofoutline,andcometolackdefinitenessinourthought.Itmaynot be without its uses, therefore, to seek a starting point for ourconception of his emotional life in the comparatively few2 affectionalmovementswhicharedirectlyassignedtohimintheGospelnarratives.Proceedingoutwardfromthese,wemaybeabletoformamoredistinctlyconceivedandfirmlygroundedideaofhisemotionallifeingeneral.

Itcannotbeassumedbeforehand,indeed,thatalltheemotionsattributedto Jesus in the Evangelical narratives are intended to be ascribeddistinctivelytohishumansoul.3Suchisnodoubtthecommonview.Anditisnotanunnaturalviewtotakeaswecurrentlyreadnarratives,which,whateverelse theycontain, certainlypresent somedramatizationof thehumanexperiencesofourLord.4Nodoubtthenaturalnessofthisviewisitssufficientgeneraljustification.Only,itwillbewelltobearinmindthatJesus was definitely conceived by the Evangelists as a two-naturedperson,andthattheymadenodifficultieswithhisduplexconsciousness.Inalmostthesamebreaththeyrepresenthimasdeclaringthatheknows

theFather through and through and, of course, also all that is inman,andtheworldwhichisthetheatreofhisactivities,andthatheisignorantofthetimeoftheoccurrenceofasimpleearthlyeventwhichconcernshisownworkveryclosely;thatheismeekandlowlyinheartandyetatthesametimetheLordofmenbytheirrelationstowhomtheirdestiniesaredetermined,—“nomancomethuntotheFatherbutbyme.”Inthecaseofa Being whose subjective life is depicted as focusing in two centers ofconsciousness, we may properly maintain some reserve in ascribingdistinctivelytooneortheotherofthemmentalactivitieswhich,sofarastheir nature is concerned, might properly belong to either. Theembarrassment instudyingtheemotional lifeofJesusarisingfromthiscause,however,ismoretheoreticalthanpractical.SomeoftheemotionsattributedtohimintheEvangelicalnarrativeare,inonewayoranother,expresslyassignedtohishumansoul.Someofthembytheirverynatureassign themselves to his human soul.With reference to the remainder,justbecausetheymightequallywellbeassignedtotheonenatureortheother,itmaybetakenforgrantedthattheybelongtothehumansoul,ifnotexclusively,yetalongwiththedivineSpirit;andtheymaythereforeveryproperlybeusedtofilloutthepicture.Wemaythus,withoutseriousdangerofconfusion,gosimplytotheEvangelicalnarrative,and,passingin review the definite ascriptions of specific emotions to Jesus in itsrecords, found on them a conception of his emotional life which mayserveasa starting-point for a studyof this aspectofourLord’shumanmanifestation.

Theestablishmentofthisstarting-pointisthesingletaskofthisessay.NoattemptwillbemadeinittoroundoutourviewofourLord’semotionallife.ItwillcontentitselfwithanattempttoascertaintheexactemotionswhichareexpresslyassignedtohimintheEvangelicalnarrative,andwillleave their mere collocation to convey its own lesson. We deceiveourselves, however, if theirmere collocation does not suffice solidly togroundcertainveryclearconvictionsas toourLord’shumanity, and todeterminethelinesonwhichourconceptionofthequalityofhishumannaturemustbefilledout.

I.CompassionandLove

The emotionwhichwe should naturally expect to findmost frequentlyattributed to that Jesus whose whole life was amission ofmercy, andwhose ministry was so marked by deeds of beneficence that it wassummedup in thememoryofhis followersasagoing throughthe land“doinggood”(Actsxi.38),isnodoubt“compassion.”Inpointoffact,thisis the emotion which is most frequently attributed to him.5 The termemployed to express it6 was unknown to the Greek classics, and wasperhapsacoinageoftheJewishdispersion.7Itfirstappearsincommonuse in this sense, indeed, in the Synoptic Gospels,8 where it takes theplaceofthemostinwardclassicalwordofthisconnotation.9TheDivinemercyhasbeendefinedas thatessentialperfection inGod“wherebyhepitiesandrelievesthemiseriesofhiscreatures”:itincludes,thatistosay,the two parts of an internal movement of pity and an external act ofbeneficence. It is the internal movement of pity which is emphasizedwhen our Lord is said to be “moved with compassion” as the term issometimesexcellentlyrenderedintheEnglishversions.10Intheappealsmade to hismercy, amore externalword11 is used; but it is thismoreinternalword that is employed to express our Lord’s response to theseappeals: the petitioners besought him to take pity on them; his heartresponded with a profound feeling of pity for them. His compassionfulfilled itself intheoutwardact;12butwhat isemphasizedbythetermemployed toexpressourLord’s response is, inaccordancewith itsveryderivation,theprofoundinternalmovementofhisemotionalnature.

ThisemotionalmovementwasarousedinourLordaswellbythesightofindividualdistress(Mk.i.41;Mt.xx.34;Lk.vii.13)asbythespectacleofman’suniversalmisery(Mk.vi.34,viii.2;Mt.ix.36,xiv.14,xv.32).Theappealoftwoblindmenthattheireyesmightbeopened(Mt.xx.34),theappealofaleperforcleansing(Mk.i.41),—thoughtheremayhavebeencircumstancesinhiscasewhichcalledoutJesus’reprobation(verse43),—setourLord’sheartthrobbingwithpity,asdidalsothemeresightofabereavedwidow, wailing by the bier of her only son as they bore himforthtoburial,thoughnoappealwasmadeforrelief(Lk.vii.13).13Theready spontaneity of Jesus’ pity is even more plainly shown when heintervenes by a greatmiracle to relieve temporary pangs of hunger: “I

have compassion on” — or better, “I feel pity for” — “the multitude,becausetheycontinuewithmenowthreedays,andhavenothingtoeat:andifIsendthemawayfastingtotheirhome,theywillfaintintheway;andsomeofthemarecomefromfar”(Mk.viii.2;Mt.xv.32),—theonlyoccasion onwhich Jesus is recorded as testifying to his own feeling ofpity. It was not merely the physical ills of life, however, — want anddiseaseanddeath,—whichcalledoutourLord’scompassion.These illswere rather looked upon by him as themselves rooted in spiritualdestitution. And it was this spiritual destitution which most deeplymovedhispity.Thecauseandtheeffectsare indeedvery closely linkedtogetherinthenarrative,anditisnotalwayseasytoseparatethem.Thusweread inMarkvi.34: “Andhecame forthandsawagreatmultitude,and he had compassion on them”— better, “he felt pity for them,” —“becausetheywereassheepnothavingashepherd,andhetaughtthemmanythings.”ButintheparallelpassageinMt.xiv.14,weread:“Andhecameforthandsawagreatmultitude,andhehadcompassionon”(“feltpityfor”)“them,andhehealedtheirsick.”Wemustputthetwopassagestogether to get a complete account: their fatal ignorance of spiritualthings,theirevilcaseunderthedominionofSataninalltheeffectsofhisterrible tyranny, are alike the object of our Lord’s compassion.14 Inanotherpassage(Mt.ix.36)theemphasisisthrownverydistinctlyonthespiritual destitution of the people as the cause of his compassionateregard:“Butwhenhesawthemultitude,hewasmovedwithcompassionforthem,becausetheyweredistressedandscattered,assheepnothavingashepherd.”Thisdescriptionofthespiritualdestitutionofthepeopleiscast in very strong language. They are compared to sheep which havebeenwornoutandtornbyrunninghitherandthitherthroughthethornswithnone todirect them,andhavenow fallenhelplessandhopeless totheground.15ThesightoftheirdesperateplightawakensourLord’spityandmoveshimtoprovidetheremedy.

No other term is employed by the New Testament writers directly toexpress our Lord’s compassion.16 But we read elsewhere of itsmanifestation in tears and sighs.17 The tears which wet his cheeks18when,lookingupontheuncontrolledgriefofMaryandhercompanions,headvanced,withheartswellingwithindignationattheoutrageofdeath,to the conquest of the destroyer (Jno. xi. 35), were distinctly tears of

sympathy. Even more clearly, his own unrestrained wailing overJerusalem and its stubborn unbelief was the expression of the mostpoignantpity:“Othatthouhadstknowninthisday,eventhou,thethingswhich belong unto peace” (Lk. xix. 41)!19 The sight of suffering drewtearsfromhiseyes;obstinateunbeliefconvulsedhimwithuncontrollablegrief. Similarly when aman afflicted with dumbness and deafnesswasbroughttohimforhealingweareonlytoldthathe“sighed”20(Mk.vii.34);butwhenthemalignantunbeliefofthePhariseeswasbroughthometo him he “sighed from the bottom of his heart” (Mk. viii. 12).21“Obstinate sin,” comments Swete appropriately, “drew from Christ adeepersighthanthesightofsuffering(Lk.vii.34andcf.Jno.xiii.20),asighinwhichangerandsorrowbothhadapart(iii.4note).”22Wemay,at any rate, place the loud wailing over the stubborn unbelief ofJerusalem and the deep sighing over the Pharisees’ determinedoppositionsidebysideasexhibitionsof theprofoundpaingiven toourLord’s sympathetic heart, by those whose persistent rejection of himrequired at his hands his sternest reprobation. He “sighed from thebottomofhisheart”whenhedeclared,“Thereshallnosignbegiventhisgeneration”;hewailedaloudwhenheannounced,“Thedaysshallcomeupon thee when thine enemies shall dash thee to the ground.” It hurtJesustohandoverevenhardenedsinnerstotheirdoom.

IthurtJesus,—becauseJesus’primecharacteristicwaslove,andloveisthe foundation of compassion. How close to one another the twoemotions of love and compassion lie, may be taught us by the onlyinstance in which the emotion of love is attributed to Jesus in theSynoptics(Mk.x.21).HerewearetoldthatJesus,lookingupontherichyoungruler,“loved”23him,andsaidtohim,“Onethingthoulackest.”Itis not the “love of complacency” which is intended, but the “love ofbenevolence”;thatistosay,itisthelove,notsomuchthatfindsgood,asthat intends good, — though we may no doubt allow that “love ofcompassion is never” — let us rather say, “seldom” — “absolutelyseparatedfromloveofapprobation”;24thatistosay,thereisordinarilysomegoodtobefoundalreadyinthoseuponwhomwefixourbenevolentregard.TheheartofourSaviourturnedyearninglytotherichyoungmanand longed to do him good; and this is an emotion, we say, which,especially in the circumstances depicted, is not far from simple

compassion.25

It is characteristic of John’s Gospel that it goes with simple directnessalways to the bottom of things. Love lies at the bottom of compassion.And love is attributed to Jesus only once in the Synoptics, butcompassionoften;whilewithJohnthecontraryistrue—compassionisattributedtoJesusnotevenonce,butloveoften.Thisloveiscommonlytheloveofcompassion,or,rather,letusbroadenitnowandsay,theloveofbenevolence;butsometimesitistheloveofsheerdelightinitsobject.LovetoGodis,ofcourse,theloveofpurecomplacency.WearesurprisedtonotethatJesus’lovetoGodisonlyonceexplicitlymentioned(Jno.xiv.31);butinthissinglementionitissetbeforeusasthemotiveofhisentiresavingworkandparticularlyofhisofferingofhimselfup.Thetimeofhisofferingisathand,andJesusexplains:“Iwillnomorespeakmuchwithyou,fortheprinceofthisworldcometh;andhehathnothinginme;but[I yieldmyself tohim] that theworldmayknow that I love theFather,andastheFathergavemecommandment,evensoIdo.”26ThemotiveofJesus’ earthly life and death is more commonly presented as love forsinfulmen;hereitispresentedaslovingobediencetoGod.HehadcometodothewilloftheFather;andbecausehelovedtheFather,hiswillhewill do, up to the bitter end.He declares his purpose to be, under theimpulseoflove,“obedienceuptodeath,yea,thedeathofthecross.”

TheloveformanwhichmovedJesustocometohissuccorinhissinandmiserywas, of course, the love of benevolence. It finds its culminatingexpressioninthegreatwordsofJno.xv.13:“Greater lovehathnomanthanthis,thatamanlaydownhislifeforhisfriends:yearemyfriends,ifye do the things which I command you”27 — rather an illuminatingdefinitionof ‘friends,’by theway,especiallywhen it is followedby: “YedidnotchoosemebutIchoseyouandappointedyouthatyeshouldgoandbear fruit.” “Friends,” it is clear, in thisdefinition, are rather thosewho are loved than thosewho love. This culminating expression of hislove for his own, by which he was sustained in his great mission ofhumiliationforthem,issupported,however,byrepeateddeclarationsofit in the immediate and wider context. In the immediately precedingverses, for example, it is urged as themotive and norm of the love —springofobedience—whichheseeks fromhisdisciples: “Herein ismy

Fatherglorified,thatyebearmuchfruit;andsoshallyebemydisciples.EvenasmyFatherhathlovedme,Ialsohavelovedyou:abideyeinmylove. Ifyekeepmycommandmentsyeshallabide inmy love;evenasIhave kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. ThesethingshaveIspokenuntoyou,thatmyjoymaybeinyouandthatyourjoymaybefulfilled.Thisismycommandment,thatyeloveoneanother,evenasIhavelovedyou”(Jno.xv.8-12).AshislovetotheFatherwasthesource of his obedience to the Father, and the living spring of hisfaithfulnesstotheworkwhichhadbeencommittedtohim,sohedeclaresthattheloveofhisfollowerstohim,imitatingandreproducinghislovetothem,istobethesourceoftheirobediencetohim,andthroughthat,ofall the good that can come to human beings, including, as the highestreachofsocialperfection,theirloveforoneanother.Self-sacrificingloveis thus made the essence of the Christian life, and is referred for itsincentive to the self-sacrificing loveofChristhimself:Christ’s followersareto“havethesamemindinthemwhichwasalsoinChristJesus.”Thepossessivepronouns throughout this passage— “abide inmy love,” “inmy love,” “in his (the Father’s) love” — are all subjective:28 so thatthroughoutthewhole,itisthelovewhichChristbearshispeoplewhichiskept inprominentviewasthe impulseandstandardof the loveheasksfromhispeople.Thislovehadalreadybeenadvertedtomorethanonceinthewidercontext(xiii.1,34,xiv.21) in thesamespirit inwhich it ishere spoken of. Its greatness is celebrated: he not only “loved his ownwhich were in the world,” but “loved them utterly” (xiii. 1).29 It ispresented as the model for the imitation of those who would live aChristian life on earth: “even as I have loved you” (xiii. 34). It ispropoundedastheChristian’sgreatestreward:“andIwill lovehimandmanifestmyselfuntohim”(xiv.21).

TheemotionofloveasattributedtoJesusinthenarrativeofJohnisnotconfined, however, to these great movements — his love to his Fatherwhich impelled him to fulfil all his Father’s will in the great work ofredemptionandhisloveforthosewhom,infulfilmentofhisFather’swill,hehadchosen tobe therecipientsofhissavingmercy, layingdownhislifeforthem.Thereareattributedtohimalsothosecommonmovementsofaffectionwhichbindmantomaninthetiesoffriendship.Wehearofparticularindividualswhom“Jesusloved,”themeaningobviouslybeing

thathisheartknititselftotheirsinasimplehumanfondness.Thetermemployedtoexpressthisfriendshipisprevailinglythathightermwhichdesignates a love that is grounded in admiration and fulfils itself inesteem;30butthetermwhichcarrieswithitonlythenotionofpersonalinclinationanddelightisnotshunned.31WearegiventounderstandthattherewasaparticularoneofourLord’smostintimatecircleofdiscipleson whom he especially poured out his personal affection. This disciplecametobeknown,as,bythewayofeminence,“thedisciplewhomJesusloved,”thoughtherearesubtlesuggestions that thephrasemustnotbetakenintooexclusiveasense.32Bothterms,themoreelevatedandthemoreintimate,areemployedtoexpressJesus’loveforhim.33TheloveofJesus for the household at Bethany and especially for Lazarus, is alsoexpresslyintimatedtous,anditalsobybothterms,—thoughthemoreintimateoneistactfullyconfinedtohisaffectionforLazarushimself.Themessagewhich the sisters sent Jesus is couched in the language of thewarmestpersonalattachment:“Behold,hewhomthoulovestissick”;andthe sight of Jesus’ tears calls from thewitnessing Jews an exclamationwhichrecognizesinhimthetenderestpersonalfeeling:“Behold,howhelovedhim!”ButwhentheEvangelistwidensJesus’affectiontoembracethe sisters also, he instinctively lifts the term employed to the moredeferential expressionof friendship: “NowJesus lovedMartha, andhersister, and Lazarus.” Jesus’ affection forMary andMartha, while deepandclose,hadnothinginitofanamatorynature,andthechangeintheterm avoids all possibility of such a misconception.34 Meanwhile, weperceive our Lord the subject of those natural movements of affectionwhichbindthemembersofsocietytogetherinbondsofclosefellowship.He was as far as possible from insensibility to the pleasures of socialintercourse(cf.Mt.xi.19)andthecharmsofpersonalattractiveness.Hehadhismissiontoperform,andhechosehisservantswithaviewtotheperformance of his mission. The relations of the flesh gave way in hisheart to the relations of the spirit: “whosoever shall do the will of myFatherwhichisinheaven,heismybrother,andsister,andmother”(Mt.xii. 50) and it is “those who do the things which he commands them”whomhecallshis“friends”(Jno.xv.14).Buthehadalsothecompanionsof his human heart: those to whom his affections turned in a purelyhuman attachment. His heart was open and readily responded to thedelights of human association, and bound itself to others in a happy

fellowship.35

II.IndignationandAnnoyance

The moral sense is not a mere faculty of discrimination between thequalities which we call right and wrong, which exhausts itself in theirperception as different. The judgments it passes are not merelyintellectual,butwhatwecallmoraljudgments;thatistosay,theyinvolveapproval anddisapproval according to thequalities perceived. Itwouldbe impossible, therefore, for amoral being to stand in the presence ofperceivedwrongindifferentandunmoved.Preciselywhatwemeanbyamoral being is a being perceptive of the difference between right andwrongandreactingappropriately torightandwrongperceivedassuch.Theemotionsofindignationandangerbelongthereforetotheveryself-expressionofamoralbeingassuchandcannotbelackingtohiminthepresence of wrong. We should know, accordingly, without instructionthatJesus, livingintheconditionsofthisearthlylifeunderthecurseofsin,couldnotfailtobethesubjectofthewholeseriesofangryemotions,andwearenotsurprisedthateveninthebriefandbrokennarrativesofhis life-experiences which have been given to us, there have beenpreserved records of themanifestation inword and act of not a few ofthem.Itis.interestingtonoteinpassingthatitisespeciallyintheGospelofMark,whichrapidandobjectiveasitisinitsnarrative,isthechannelthroughwhichhasbeenpreservedtousalargepartofthemostintimateof the details concerning our Lord’s demeanor and traits which havecomedowntous,thatwefindtheserecords.

ItisMark,forinstance,whotellsusexplicitly(iii.5)thattheinsensibilityof the Jews to human suffering exhibited in a tendency to put ritualintegrityabovehumanity,filledJesuswithindignantanger.Amanwhosehandhadwithered,metwith in the synagogueoneSabbath, affordedasortoftest-case.TheJewstreateditassuchand“watchedJesuswhetherhe would heal him on the Sabbath day, that they might accuse him.”Jesusacceptedthechallenge.Commandingthemanto“riseinthemidst”of the assemblage, he put to them the searching question, generalizing

thewholecase: “Is it lawful todogoodor todoevilon theSabbath, tosave life or to kill?” “But,” says the narrative, “they kept silent.” ThenJesus’angerrose:“helookedaroundatthemwithanger,beinggrievedatthe hardness of their heart.”What is meant is, not that his anger wasmodified by grief, his reprobation of the hardness of their hearts wasmingled with a sort of sympathy for men sunk in such a miserablecondition.Whatismeantissimplythatthespectacleoftheirhardnessofheart produced in him the deepest dissatisfaction, which passed intoangry resentment.36 Thus the fundamental psychology of anger iscuriouslyillustratedbythisaccount;forangeralwayshaspainatitsroot,and is a reaction of the soul against what gives it discomfort.37 Thehardness of the Jews’ heart, vividly realized, hurt Jesus; and his angerroseinrepulsionofthecauseofhispain.Therearethustwomovementsof feeling brought before us here. There is the pain which the grossmanifestationofthehardnessofheartoftheJewsinflictedonJesus.Andthereisthestrongreactionofindignationwhichsprangoutofthispain.The term by which the former feeling is expressed has at its basis thesimpleideaofpain,andisusedinthebroadestwayofeverykindofpain,whetherphysical ormental, emphasizing, however, the sensation itself,ratherthanitsexpression.38Itisemployedhereappropriately,inaformwhich throws an emphasis on the inwardness of the feeling, of thediscomfortofheartproducedinJesusbythesightofman’s inhumanitytoman.Theexpressionofthisdiscomfortwasintheangrylookwhichheswept over the unsympathetic assemblage. It is not intimated that thepainwas abiding, the anger evanescent. The glance inwhich the angerwas manifested is represented as fleeting in contrast with the pain ofwhichtheangerwastheexpression.But the termused for thisanger isjustthetermforabidingresentment,setonvengeance.39Preciselywhatis ascribed to Jesus, then, in this passage is that indignation atwrong,perceivedassuch,wishingandintendingpunishmenttothewrong-doer,which forms the core of what we can vindicatory justice.40 This is anecessaryreactionofeverymoralbeingagainstperceivedwrong.

On another occasionMark (x. 14) pictures Jesus to us as moved by amuch lighter form of the emotion of anger. His disciples, — doubtlesswith a view to protecting him from needless drafts upon his time andstrength, — interfered with certain parents, who were bringing to him

theirbabies (Lk.xviii. 15) “thathe should touch them.”Jesus sawtheiraction, and, we are told, “was moved with indignation.” The termemployedhere41expresses,originally,physical(such,forexample,as isfeltbyateethingchild),andthenmental(Mt.xx.24,xxi.15,xxvi.8;Mk.x. 41, xiv. 4; Lk. xiii. 14, cf. II Cor. vii. 11) “irritation.” Jesus was“irritated,”orperhapswemaybetterrender,was“annoyed,”“vexed,”athisdisciples.And(sothetermalsosuggests)heshowedhisannoyance,—whetherbygestureortoneorthemereshortnessofhisspeech:“Letthechildrencometome;forbidthemnot!”42ThusweseeJesusashereactswithangerat the spectacle of inhumanity, so reactingwith irritation atthespectacleofblunderingmisunderstanding,howeverwell-meant.

YetanotherphaseofangryemotionisascribedtoJesusbyMark,butinthiscasenotbyMarkalone.Mark(xiv.3)tellsusthatonhealingaleper,Matthew (ix. 30) that on healing two blind men, Jesus “straitly,”“strictly,” “sternly,” “charged” them,—as ourEnglish versions strugglewith the term, in an attempt to make it describe merely the tone andmannerofhisinjunctiontothebeneficiariesofhishealingpower,nottotell of the cures wrought upon them. This term,43 however, does notseem tomean, in its ordinary usage, to “charge,” to “enjoin,” howeverstraitly or strictly, but simply to “be angry at,” or, since it commonlyimpliesthat theanger is great, to “be enragedwith,”or,perhapsbetterstill, since it usually intimates that the anger is expressed by audiblesigns, to “rage against.” If we are to take it in its customary sense,therefore,whatwearereallytold inthesepassages is thatJesus,“whenhehadragedagainsttheleper,senthimaway;”that“heragedagainsttheblindmen,saying,‘Seethatnooneknowit!”Ifthisrageistobesupposed(with our English versions) to have expressed itself only in the wordsrecorded,themeaningwouldnotbefarremovedfromthatoftheEnglishword“bluster”initssomewhatraretransitiveuse,as,forexample,whenan old author writes: “He meant to bluster all princes into perfectobedience.”44 The implication of boisterousness, and indeed of emptynoise,whichattendstheEnglishword,however,isquitelackingfromtheGreek, the rage expressed by which is always thought of as very real.Whatithasincommonwith“bluster”isthusmerelyitsstrongminatoryimport. The Vulgate Latin accordingly cuts the knot by rendering itsimply “threatened,” and is naturally followed in this by those English

versions (Wycliffe, Rheims) which depend on it.45 Certainly Jesus isrepresented here as taking up a menacing attitude, and threateningwordsareplacedonhislips:“Seethatthousaynothingtoanyman,”“Seethatnooneknowit”—aformofspeechwhichalwaysconveysathreat.46But“threaten”canscarcelybeacceptedasanadequaterenderingof thetermwhetherinitselforinthesecontexts.WhenMatthewtellsus“Andhewasenragedatthem,saying...”theragemaynodoubtbethoughttofind its outlet in the threatening words which follow:47 but theimplicationofMarkisdifferent:“Andragingathim,”or“havingragedathim”—“hestraightwaysenthimforth.”Whenitisadded:“Andsaithtohim,‘Seethatthousaynothingtoanyone”asubsequentmomentinthetransactionis indicated.48HowourLord’sragewasmanifested,wearenottold.AndthisisreallyjustastrueinthecaseofMatthewasinthatofMark.To say, “hewas enragedat them, saying (threateningwords),” isnot to saymerely, “he threatened them”: it is to say that a threat wasutteredandthatthisthreatwasthesuitableaccompanimentofhisrage.

ThecauseofourLord’sangerdoesnot lieonthesurface ineithercase.ThecommentatorsseemgenerallyinclinedtoaccountforitbysupposingthatJesusforesawthathisinjunctionofsilencewouldbedisregarded.49Butthisexplanation,littlenaturalinitself,seemsquiteunsuitabletothenarrativeinMarkwherewearetold,notthatJesusangrilyenjoinedtheleper to silence, but that he angrily sent him away. Others accordinglyseek the ground of his anger in something displeasing to him in thedemeanoroftheapplicantsforhishelp,intheirmodeofapproachingoraddressing him, in erroneous conceptions with which they wereanimated,andthelike.KlostermannimaginesthatourLorddidnotfeelthatmiraculous healings lay in the direct line of his vocation, andwasirritated because he had been betrayed by his compassion intoundertaking them. Volkmar goes the length of supposing that Jesusresentedtheover-reverentialformoftheaddressofthelepertohim,ontheprinciplelaiddowninRev.xix.10,“Seethoudoitnot:Iamafellow-servantwiththee.”EvenKeilsuggeststhatJesuswasangrywiththeblindmenbecausetheyaddressedhimopenlyas “SonofDavid,”notwishing“thisuntimelyproclamationofhimasMessiahonthepartofthosewhoheldhimassuchonlyonaccountofhismiracles.”Itismorecommontopointoutsomeshortcomingintheapplicants:theydidnotapproachhim

withsufficientreverenceorwithsufficientknowledgeof thetruenatureofhismission;theydemandedtheircuretoomuchasamatterofcourse,ortoomuchasiffromameremarvel-monger;andinthecaseoftheleperatleast,withtoolittleregardtotheirownobligations.Alepershouldnotapproachastranger;certainlyheshouldnotaskorpermitastrangertoputhishanduponhim;especiallyshouldhenotapproachastranger inthestreetsofacity(Lk.v.12)andveryparticularlynotinahouse(Mk.i.43: “He put him out”), above all if it were, as itmight well be here, aprivate house. That Jesuswas indignant at such gross disregard of lawwasnaturalandfullyexplainshisvehemenceindrivingtheleperoutandsternlyadmonishinghimtogoandfulfil the legal requirements.50Thisvarietyofexplanationistheindexoftheslightnessoftheguidancegivenin thepassages themselves to the cause of our Lord’s anger; but it canthrownodoubtuponthefactofthatanger,whichisdirectlyassertedinboth instances andmust not be obscured by attributing to the termbywhich it is expressed some lighter significance.51 The term employeddeclares that Jesus exhibited vehement anger, which was audiblymanifested.52This anger did not inhibit, however, the operation of hiscompassion(Mk.i.41;Mt.ix.27)butappearsinfullmanifestationasitsaccompaniment.Thismay indicate that itscause layoutsidetheobjectsof his compassion, in some general fact the nature of which we maypossiblylearnfromotherinstances.

ThesametermoccursagaininJohn’snarrativeofourLord’sdemeanorat thegraveofhisbelovedfriendLazarus(Jno.xi.33,38).WhenJesussawMaryweeping—orrather“wailing,”forthetermisastrongoneandimplies the vocal expression of the grief53 — and the Jews whichaccompaniedheralso“wailing,”wearetold,asourEnglishversionputsit, that “he groaned in the spirit and was troubled”; and again, whensomeoftheJews,remarkingonhisownmanifestationofgrief in tears,expressedtheirwonderthathewhohadopenedtheeyesoftheblindmancould not have preserved Lazarus from death, we are told that Jesus“againgroaned inhimself.”Thenatural suggestionof theword “groan”is, however, that of pain or sorrow, not disapprobation; and thisrendering of the term in question is therefore misleading. It is betterrendered in the only remaining passage in which it occurs in the NewTestament,Mk.xiv.5,by “murmured,” though this ismuch tooweaka

wordtoreproduceitsimplications.Inthatpassageitisbroughtintocloseconnection with a kindred term54 which determines its meaning. Weread:“Butthereweresomethathad indignationamongthemselves . . .and theymurmured against her.” Their feeling of irritated displeasureexpressed itself in an outburst of temper. The margin of our RevisedVersion at Jno. xi. 33, 38, therefore, very properly proposes that weshould for “groaned” in these passages, substitute “moved withindignation,” although that phrase too is scarcely strong enough.WhatJohn tells us, in point of fact, is that Jesus approached the grave ofLazarus,inastate,notofuncontrollablegrief,butofirrepressibleanger.Hedidrespondtothespectacleofhumansorrowabandoningitselftoitsunrestrained expression, with quiet, sympathetic tears: “Jesus wept”(verse 36).55 But the emotion which tore his breast and clamored forutterancewas just rage.Theexpressionevenof this rage,however,wasstrongly curbed. The termwhich John employs to describe it is, as wehaveseen,adefinitelyexternalterm.56“Heraged.”ButJohnmodifiesitsexternalsensebyannexedqualifications:“Heraged inspirit,”“raging inhimself”HethusinteriorizesthetermandgivesustounderstandthattheebullitionofJesus’angerexpendeditselfwithinhim.Notthattherewasnomanifestationof it: itmusthavebeenobservabletobeobservedandrecorded;57 it formed amarked feature of the occurrence as seen andheard.58ButJohngivesustounderstandthattheexternalexpressionofourLord’s furywasmarkedlyrestrained: itsmanifestation fell farshortof its real intensity.Heeven traces forus themovementsofhis inwardstruggle:“Jesus, therefore,whenhe sawherwailing, and theJews thathadcomewithherwailing,wasenragedinspiritandtroubledhimself’59...andwept.Hisinwardlyrestrainedfuryproducedaprofoundagitationofhiswholebeing,oneofthemanifestationsofwhichwastears.

Why did the sight of the wailing of Mary and her companions enrageJesus? Certainly not because of the extreme violence of its expression;andevenmorecertainlynotbecause itarguedunbelief—unwillingnessto submit to God’s providential ordering or distrust of Jesus’ power tosave.Hehimselfwept,ifwithlessviolenceyetintruesympathy.withthegrief of which he was witness. The intensity of his exasperation,moreover,wouldbedisproportionatetosuchacause;andtheimportanceattached to it in the account bids us seek its ground in something less

incidentaltothemaindriftofthenarrative.Itismentionedtwice,andisobviouslyemphasizedasanindispensableelementinthedevelopmentofthestory,onwhich,initsdueplaceanddegree,thelessonoftheincidenthangs.ThespectacleofthedistressofMaryandhercompanionsenragedJesusbecauseitbroughtpoignantlyhometohisconsciousnesstheevilofdeath, its unnaturalness, its “violent tyranny” as Calvin (on verse 38)phrases it. InMary’s grief, he “contemplates” — still to adopt Calvin’swords(onverse33),—“thegeneralmiseryofthewholehumanrace”andburns with rage against the oppressor of men. Inextinguishable furyseizesuponhim;hiswholebeingisdiscomposedandperturbed;andhisheart,ifnothislips,criesout,—

“FortheinnumerabledeadIsmysouldisquieted.”60

Itisdeaththatistheobjectofhiswrath,andbehinddeathhimwhohasthe power of death, andwhomhe has come into the world to destroy.Tearsofsympathymayfillhiseyes,butthisisincidental.Hissoulisheldby rage: and he advances to the tomb, in Calvin’s words again, “as achampion who prepares for conflict.” The raising of Lazarus thusbecomes, not an isolated marvel, but — as indeed it is presentedthroughout thewhole narrative (compare especially, verses 24-26)— adecisive instanceandopensymbolofJesus’conquestofdeathandhell.WhatJohndoesforusinthisparticularstatementistouncovertoustheheartofJesus,ashewinsforusoursalvation.Notincoldunconcern,butinflamingwrathagainstthefoe,Jesussmites inourbehalf.Hehasnotonlysavedusfromtheevilswhichoppressus;hehasfeltforandwithusinouroppression,andunder the impulseof these feelingshaswroughtoutourredemption.61

ThereisanothertermwhichtheSynopticGospelsemploytodescribeourLord’s dealing with those he healed (Mt. xii. 16), which is sometimesrendered by our English versions — as the term we have just beenconsideringisrenderedinsimilarconnections(Mk.i.43;Mt.ix.30)—by“charged” (Mt. xli. 16, xvi. 20; Mk. iii. 12, viii. 30, ix. 21); but morefrequently with more regard to its connotation of censure, implyingdispleasure,“byrebuked”(Mt.xvii.18;Mk.ix.21;Lk. iv.35-41,xix.42;Mk.viii.30;Lk.ix.55;Mt.viii.20;Mk.iv.39;Lk.iv.39,viii.24).62This

term,thefundamentalmeaningofwhich is “tometeoutduemeasure,”with that melancholy necessity which carries all terms which expressdoingjusticetosinfulmendownwardsintheirconnotation,isusedintheNew Testament only in malam partem, and we may be quite sure isneveremployedwithoutitsimplicationofcensure.63WhatisimpliedbyitsemploymentisthatourLordinworkingcertaincures,and,indeed,inperformingothers of hismiracles—aswell as in laying charges onhisfollowers — spoke, not merely “strongly and peremptorily,”64 butchidingly, that is tosay,withexpresseddispleasure.65There is intheseinstances perhaps not so strong but just as clear an ascription of theemotionofangertoourLordasinthosewehavealreadynoted,andthissuggeststhatnotmerelyinthecaseoftheraisingofLazarusbutinmanyother instances inwhichheput forthhisalmightypowertorescuemenfrom the evils which burdened them, our Lord was moved by anebullition of indignant anger at the destructive powers exhibited indiseaseorevenintheconvulsionsofnature.66In instances likeMt.xii.16;Mk.12;Mt.xvi.20;Mk.viii.30;Lk.ix.21,thecensureinherentinthetermmayalmost seem tobecome something akin tomenace or threat:“he chided them to theend that they shouldnotmakehimknown”;hemade a show of anger or displeasure directed to this end. In the caseswhere, however, Jesus chided the unclean spirits which he cast out itseemsto lie inthenatureof things that itwas the tyrannousevilwhichthey were working upon their victims that was the occasion of hisdispleasure.67 When he is said to have “rebuked” a fever which wastormenting a human being (Lk. iv. 39) or the natural elements — thewindandsea—menacinghumanlives(Mt.viii.26;Mk.iv.39;Lk.viii.24), there is no reason to suppose that he looked upon these naturalpowers as themselves personal, and as little that the personification isonly figurative;wemaynot improperly suppose that thedispleasureheexhibitedinhisupbraidingthemwasdirectedagainstthepowerbehindthese manifestations of a nature out of joint, the same malignantinfluencewhichheadvancedtotheconquestofwhenhedrewneartothetombofLazarus.68InanyeventtheseriesofpassagesinwhichthistermisemployedtoascribetoJesusactsinferringdispleasure,greatlyenlargesthe viewwe have of the play of Jesus’ emotions of anger.We see himchiding his disciples, the demons that were tormenting men, and thenaturalpowerswhichweremenacingtheirlivesorsafety,andspeakingin

tonesofrebuketothemultitudeswhoweretherecipientsofhishealinggrace(Mt.xii.16).Andthatwearenottosupposethatthischidingwasalwaysmildweareadvisedbytheexpressdeclarationthatitwasinoneinstanceatleast,“vehement”(Mk.iii.12).69

Perhaps in no incidents recorded in the Gospels is the action of ourLord’s indignation more vividly displayed than in the accounts of thecleansings of the Temple. In closing the account which he gives of theearlierofthese,Johntellsusthat“hisdisciplesrememberedthat itwaswritten,Thezealof thinehouseshalleatmeup”(Jno. ii.17).Thewordhereemployed—“zeal”—maymeannothingmorethan“ardor”;butthisardormayburnwithhotindignation,—wereadofa“zealof firewhichshall devour the adversaries” (Heb. x. 27). And it seems to be this hotindignationatthepollutionofthehouseofGod—this“burningjealousyfor the holiness of the house of God”70 — which it connotes in ourpresent passage. In this act, Jesus in effect gave vent “to a righteousanger,”71andperceivinghiswrathfulzeal72hisfollowersrecognizedinittheMessianic fulfilment of thewords inwhich the Psalmist representshimself.as filledwithazeal for thehouseofJehovah,andthehonorofhimwhosits in it, that “consumeshim likea fireburning inhisbones,whichincessantlybreaksthroughandragesallthroughhim.”73TheforminwhichitherebreaksforthisthatofindignantangertowardsthosewhodefileGod’shousewithtrafficking,anditthuspresentsuswithoneofthemoststrikingmanifestationsoftheangerofJesusinact.

It is far, however, from being the only instance in which the action ofJesus’ anger is recorded forus.And the severityofhis language equalsthe decisiveness of his action. He does not scruple to assault hisopponentswiththemostvigorousdenunciation.Herodhecalls“thatfox”(Lk.xiii.32);theunreceptive,hedesignatesbriefly“swine”(Mt.vii.6);thosethattempthimhevisitswiththeextremetermofignominy—Satan(Mk.viii.33).Theopprobriousepithetof“hypocrites”isrepeatedlyonhislips (Mt. xv. 7, xxiii. passim; Lk. xiii. 15), and he added force to thisreprobationbyclothingitinviolentfigures,—theywere“blindguides,”“whited sepulchres,” and, less tropically, “a faithless and perversegeneration,” a “wicked and adulterous generation.”He does not shrinkevenfromvituperativelydesignatingthemraveningwolves(Mt.vii.15),

serpents,broodofvipers(Mt.xii.34),evenchildrenoftheevilone:“Yeare,” he declares plainly, “of your father, theDevil” (Jno. viii. 44). ThelongarraignmentofthePhariseesinthetwenty-thirdchapterofMatthewwith its iterant, “Woeuntoyou,ScribesandPharisees,hypocrites!”andits uncompromising denunciation, fairly throbs with indignation, andbringsJesus,beforeusinhissternestmood,themoodofthenoblemanintheparable (Lk. xix.27),whomhe representsas commanding: “Andasforthesemyenemies,bringthemhitherandslaythembeforeme.”74

The holy resentment of Jesus has been made the subject of a famouschapter inEccoHomo.75The contention of this chapter is that hewholovesmenmustneedshatewithaburninghatredallthatdoeswrongtohuman beings, and that, in point of fact, Jesus never wavered in hisconsistent resentment of the special wrong-doing which he was calledupontowitness.Thechapterannouncesasitsthesis,indeed,theparadoxthat truemercy is no less the product of anger than of pity: that whatdifferentiates the divine virtue ofmercy from “the vice of insensibility”which is called “tolerance,” is just the under-lying presence ofindignation.Thus—so the reasoning runs,— “themanwho cannotbeangry cannot be merciful,” and it was therefore precisely the anger ofChrist which proved that the unbounded compassion hemanifested tosinners “was really mercy and not mere tolerance.” The analysis isdoubtless incomplete; but the suggestion, so far as it goes, is fruitful.Jesus’anger isnotmerely theseamysideofhispity; it is the righteousreactionofhismoralsenseinthepresenceofevil.ButJesusburnedwithangeragainstthewrongshemetwithinhisjourneythroughhumanlifeastrulyashemeltedwithpityat thesightof theworld’smisery:and itwasoutofthesetwoemotionsthathisactualmercyproceeded.

III.JoyandSorrow

WecallourLord“theManofSorrows,”andthedesignationisobviouslyappropriateforonewhocameintotheworldtobearthesinsofmenandtogivehislifearansomformany.Itis,however,notadesignationwhichisapplied toChrist in theNewTestament,andeven in theProphet (Is.

liii. 3) it may very well refer rather to the objective afflictions of therighteous servant than to his subjective distresses.76 In any event wemustbearinmindthatourLorddidnotcomeintotheworldtobebrokenby thepowerof sinanddeath,but tobreak it.Hecameasaconquerorwith the gladness of the imminent victory in his heart; for the joy setbeforehimhewasabletoendurethecross,despisingshame(Heb.xii.2).Andashedidnotprosecutehisworkindoubtoftheissue,neitherdidheprosecuteithesitantlyastoitsmethods.Herather(sowearetold,Lk.x.21)“exulted in theHoly Spirit” as he contemplated theways ofGod inbringingmanysons toglory.Theword isa strongoneandconveys theidea of exuberant gladness, a gladnesswhich fills theheart;77 and it isintimatedthat,onthisoccasionatleast,thisexultationwasaproductinChrist—and therefore inhishumannature—of theoperationsof theHoly Spirit,78whomwemust suppose tohavebeen alwaysworking inthehuman soul ofChrist, sustaining and strengthening it. It cannot besupposed that, this particular occasion alone being excepted, Jesusprosecutedhisworkonearthinastateofmentaldepression.Hisadventintotheworldwasannouncedas“goodtidingsofgreat joy” (Lk. ii. 10),andthetidingswhichhehimselfproclaimedwere“thegoodtidings”bywayofeminence.Itisconceivablethathewentaboutproclaimingthemwitha“sadcountenance”(Mt.vi.16)?Itismisleadingthentosaymerely,withJeremyTaylor,“WeneverreadthatJesuslaughedandbutoncethathe rejoiced in spirit.”79 We do read that, in contrast with John theBaptist,hecame“eatinganddrinking,”andaccordinglywasmalignantlycalled “a gluttonousman and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans andsinners”(Mt.xi.19;Lk.vii.34);andthiscertainlydoesnotencourageustothinkofhisdemeanoratleastashabituallysorrowful.

Itispureperversion,tobesure,whenRenan,afterthedebasingfashionofhissentimentalizingfrivolity,transmutesJesus’ joy inhisredemptivework(Jno.xv.11,xvii.13)intomerepaganlightnessofheartanddelightinliving,asifhisfundamentaldispositionwereakindof“sweetgaiety”which “was incessantly expressing itself in lively reflections, and kindlypleasantries.”Heassuresus thatJesus travelledaboutPalestinealmostas ifhewas some lordof revelry,bringinga festivalwhereverhecame,andgreetedateverydoorstep“asa joyandabenediction”:“thewomenandchildrenadoredhim.”Theinfancyoftheworldhadcomebackwith

him“with itsdivinespontaneityand itsnaivedizzinessesof joy.”Athistouch the hard conditions of life vanished from sight, and there tookpossessionofmen, thedreamofan imminentparadise,of “adelightfulgardeninwhichshouldcontinueforeverthecharminglifetheynowwereliving.” “How long,” asks Renan, “did this intoxication last?”, andanswers: “We do not know. During the continuance of this magicalapparition,timewasnotmeasured.Durationwassuspended;aweekwasa century. But whether it filled years or months, the dream was sobeautiful that humanity has lived on it ever since, and our consolationstillistocatchitsfadingfragrance.Neverdidsomuchjoystirtheheartofman.Foramomentinthismostvigorousattemptithasevermadetoliftitselfabove itsplanet,humanityforgotthe leadenweightwhichholds ittotheearthandthesorrowsofthelifeherebelow.Happyhewhocouldseewith his own eyes this divine efflorescence and share, if even for aday,thisunparalleledillusion!”80

Theperversionisequallygreat,however,whenthereisattributedtoourLord,asitisnowverymuchthefashiontodo,“beforetheblackshadowofthecrossfellathwarthispathway,”theexuberant joyofagreathopenever to be fulfilled: the hope ofwinning his people to his side and ofinauguratingtheKingdomofGoduponthissinfulearthbythemereforceofitsproclamation.81Jesuswasneverthevictimofanysuchillusion:hecameintotheworldonamissionofministeringmercytothelost,givinghislifeasaransomformany(Lk.xix.10;Mk.x.4;Mt.xx.28);andfromthebeginninghesethisfeetsteadfastlyinthepathofsuffering(Mt.iv.3f.;Lk.iv.3f.)whichheknewledstraightonwardtodeath(Jno.ii.19,iii.14;Mt.xii.40;Lk.xii.49-50;Mt.ix.15;Mk.ii.1-9;Lk.v.34,etc.).Joyhehad:butitwasnottheshallowjoyofmerepagandelightinliving,northedelusive joy of a hope destined to failure; but the deep exultation of aconqueror setting captives free.This joyunderlay all his sufferings andsheditslightalongthewholethorn-besetpathwhichwastroddenbyhistorn feet.We hear but little of it, however, as we hear but little of hissorrows:thenarrativesarenotgiventodescriptionsofthementalstatesofthegreatactorwhoseworktheyillustrate.Wehearjustenoughofittoassureusofitspresenceunderlyingandgivingitscolortoallhislife(Lk.iv.21;82Jno.v.11,xvii.1383).IfourLordwas“theManofSorrows,”hewasmoreprofoundlystill“theManofJoy.”84

Ofthelighterpleasurableemotionsthatflitacrossthemindinresponseto appropriate incitements arising occasionally in the course of socialintercourse,wealsohearlittleinthecaseofJesus.Itisnotoncerecordedthathelaughed;wedonoteverheareventhathesmiled;onlyoncearewe told that hewas glad, and then it is rather sober gratification thanexuberantdelightwhichisspokenofinconnectionwithhim(Jno.xi.15).But,then,wehearlittlealsoofhispassingsorrows.ThesightofMaryandher companions wailing at the tomb of Lazarus, agitated his soul andcausedhimtears(Jno.xi.35);thestubbornunbeliefofJerusalemdrewfrom him loud wailing (Lk. xix. 41). He sighed at the sight of humansuffering(Mk.vii.34)and“sigheddeeply”overmen’shardenedunbelief(viii.12):man’sinhumanitytomansmotehisheartwithpain(iii.5).Butitisonlywithreferencetohissupremesacrificethathismentalsufferingsareemphasized.Thissupremesacrificecast,itistrue,itsshadowsbeforeit.ItwasintheheightofhisministrythatourLordexclaimed,“Ihaveabaptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it beaccomplished”(Lk.xii.50).85Floodsliebeforehimunderwhichheistobe submerged,86 and the thought of passing beneath their waters“straitens”hissoul.Thetermrendered“straitened”87importsoppressionand affliction, and bears witness to the burden of anticipated anguishwhichourLordborethroughoutlife.Theprospectofhissufferings,ithasbeenjustlysaid,wasaperpetua188Gethsemane;andhowcompletethisforetastewaswemaylearnfromtheincidentrecordedinJno.xii.27,89although this antedated Gethsemane, by only a few days. “Now is mysoul90troubled,”hecriesandaddsaremarkableconfessionofshrinkingat the prospect of death, with, however, an immediate revulsion to hishabitualattitudeofsubmission to,orratherofheartyembracingof,hisFather’swill.—“AndwhatshallIsay?Father,savemefromthishour!91Butforthiscause,cameItothishour!Father,glorifyThyname!”Hehadcome into theworld to die; but as he vividly realizeswhat thedeath iswhichheistodie,thererisesinhissoulayearningfordeliverance,onlyhowever,tobeatoncerepressed.92Thestateofmindinwhichthissharpconflictwent on is described by a term the fundamental implication ofwhichisagitation,disquietude,perplexity.93Thisperturbationofsoulisthree times attributed by John to Jesus (xi. 33, xii. 27, xiii. 21), andalways as expressing the emotions which conflict with death stirred inhim.Theangerrousedinhimbythesightofthedistressintowhichdeath

hadplungedMary and her companions (xi. 33); the anticipation of hisownbetrayaltodeath(xiii.21);theclearlyrealizedapproachofhisdeath(xii.27); threwhim inwardly intoprofoundagitation. Itwasnotalwaystheprospectofhisowndeath(xii.27,xiii.21),butequallythepoignantrealizationofwhatdeathmeantforothers(xi.33)whichhadthepowerthustodisquiethim.Hisdeepagitationwasclearly,therefore,notduetomererecoilfromthephysicalexperienceofdeath,94thoughevensucharecoil might be the expression not so much of a terror of dying as ofrepugnancetotheideaofdeath.95Behinddeath,hesawhimwhohasthepower of death, and that sin which constitutes the sting of death. Hiswhole being revolted from that final and deepest humiliation, inwhichthepowersofevilweretoinflictuponhimtheprecisepenaltyofhumansin. To bow his head beneath this stroke was the last indignity, thehardest actof thatobediencewhich itwashis to render inhis servant-form,andwhichweare toldwithsignificantemphasis,extended“uptodeath”(Phil.ii.8).

Soprofoundarepugnancetodeathandallthatdeathmeant,manifestingitself during his life, could not fail to seize upon him with peculiarintensity at the end. If the distant prospect of his sufferings was aperpetualGethsemanetohim,theimmediateimminenceofthemintheactualGethsemanecouldnotfailtobringwithitthat“awfulanddreadfultorture”whichCalvindoesnotscrupletocallthe“exordium”ofthepainsofhellthemselves.96MatthewandMarkalmostexhausttheresourcesoflanguagetoconveytoussomeconceptionofourLord’s“agony”97asanearly interpolator of Luke (Lk. xxii. 44) calls it, in this dreadfulexperience.98Theanguishofreluctancewhichconstitutedthis“agony”isinpartdescribedbythemboth—theyaloneoftheEvangelistsenterintoour Lord’s feelings here — by a term the primary idea of which isloathing,aversion,perhapsnotunmixedwithdespondency.99Thistermis adjoined in Matthew’s account to the common word for sorrow, inwhich, however, here the fundamental element of pain, distress, isprominent,100 so thatwemayperhaps renderMatthew’s account: “Hebegan to be distressed and despondent” (Mt. xxvi. 37). Instead of thiswide word for distress of mind, Mark employs a term which morenarrowlydefinesthedistressasconsternation,—ifnotexactlydread,yetalarmeddismay:101“Hebegantobeappalledanddespondent”(Mk.xiv.

33).BothaccountsaddourLord’sownpatheticdeclaration:“Mysoul102is exceeding sorrowful even unto death,” the central term103 in whichexpresses a sorrow, or perhaps we would better say, a mental pain, adistress,whichhems inonevery side, fromwhich there is thereforenoescape; or rather (for the qualification imports that this hemming-indistressismortallyacute,isananguishofasortthatnoissuebutdeathcanbe thoughtof104)whichpresses inandbesets fromevery side andtherefore leaves no place for defence. The extremity of this agonymayhavebeenrevealed,astheinterpolatorofLuketellsus,bysweatdroppinglike clotsofbloodon theground,asourLordevermore importunatelyurged thatwonderful prayer, inwhich asBengel strikingly says,105 thehorror of death and the ardor of obedience met (Lk. xxii. 44). Thisinterpolator tellsus (Lk. xxii.43)also thathewas strengthened for theconflict by an angelic visitor, andwemaywell suppose that had it notbeenforsomesupernaturalstrengtheningmercifullyvouchsafed(cf.Jno.xii.27f.),theendwouldthenhavecome.’106Butthecupmustneedsbedrained to its dregs, and the final dropwasnot drunkuntil that cry ofdesertionanddesolationwasuttered,“MyGod,myGod,whyhastThouforsakenme?” (Mt. xxvii. 46;Mk. xv. 34).107 This culminating sorrowwasactuallyuntodeath.

In these supreme moments our Lord sounded the ultimate depths ofhumananguish,andvindicatedonthescoreoftheintensityofhismentalsufferings the right to the title ofMan of Sorrows. The scope of thesesufferings was also very broad, embracing that whole series of painfulemotions which runs from a consternation that is appalled dismay,throughadespondencywhich isalmostdespair, toa senseofwell-nighcompletedesolation.Inthepresenceofthismentalanguishthephysicaltortures of the crucifixion retire into the background, andwemaywellbelieve that our Lord, though he died on the cross, yet died not of thecross,but,aswecommonlysay,ofabrokenheart, that is to say,of thestrain of his mental suffering.108 The sensitiveness of his soul toaffectionalmovements, and the depths of the currents of feelingwhichflowedthroughhisbeing,arethusthrownupintoaveryclearlight.Andyetitisnoticeablethatwhiletheytorehisheartandperhaps,intheend,brokethebondswhichboundhisflutteringspirittoitstenementofclay,theynevertookthehelmof lifeoroverthreweitherthe judgmentofhis

calmunderstandingorthecompletenessofhisperfecttrustinhisFather.Ifhecriedoutinhisagonyfordeliverance,itwasalwaysthecryofachildto a Father whom he trusts with all and always, and with the explicitcondition,Howbeit, notwhat Iwill butwhat Thouwilt. If the sense ofdesolationinvadeshis soul, he yet confidingly commendshis departingspiritintohisFather’shands(Lk.xxiii.46).109Andthroughallhisagonyhisdemeanortohisdisciples,hisenemies,hisjudges,hisexecutionersisinstinct with calm self-mastery. The cupwhichwas put to his lipswasbitter:noneofitsbitternesswaslosttohimashedrankit:buthedrankit;andhedrank itashisowncupwhich itwashisownwill (because itwashisFather’swill)todrink.“ThecupwhichtheFatherhathgivenme,shallInotdrinkit?”(Jno.xviii.11),—itwasinthisspirit,notofunwillingsubjectiontounavoidableevil,butofvoluntaryenduranceofunutterableanguish for adequate ends, that he passed into and through all hissufferings. His very passion was his own action. He had power to laydownhislife;anditwasbyhisownpowerthathelaiddownhislife,andbyhisownpowerthathetrodthewholepathwayofsufferingwhichleduptotheformalactofhislayingdownhislife.Nowhereishethevictimofcircumstancesorthehelplesssufferer.Everywhereandalways,itishewhopossessesthemasterybothofcircumstancesandofhimself.’110

The completeness of Jesus’ trust in God which is manifested in theunconditional “Nevertheless, not as I will but as Thou wilt” of the“agony,” and is echoed in the “Father, into Thy hands I commend myspirit” of the cross, finds endless illustration in the narratives of theEvangelists. Trust is never, however, explicitly attributed to him in somany words.111 Except in the scoffing language with which he wasassailedashehungonthecross:“HetrustethinGod;lethimdeliverhimnowifhedesirethhim”(Mt.xxvii.43),theterm“trust”isneversomuchasmentionedinconnectionwithhisrelationswithGod.Noristheterm“faith.”112 Nor indeed aremany of what wemay call the fundamentalreligiousaffectionsdirectlyattributedtohim,althoughheisdepictedasliterallyliving,movingandhavinghisbeinginGod.Hisprofoundfeelingof dependence on God, for example, is illustrated in every conceivableway, not least strikingly in the constant habit of prayer which theEvangelistsascribetohim.113ButweareneverdirectlytoldthathefeltthisdependenceonGodor“fearedGod”orfelttheemotionsofreverence

and awe in the divine presence.114 We are repeatedly told that hereturnedthankstoGod,115butwearenevertoldinsomanywordsthathe experienced the emotion of gratitude. The narrative brings Jesusbeforeusasactingundertheimpulseofallthereligiousemotions;butitdoesnotstoptocommentupontheemotionsthemselves.

The same is true of the more common emotions of human life. Thenarrativeisobjectivethroughoutinitsmethod.Ontwooccasionswearetold that Jesus felt that occurrences which he witnessed wereextraordinary and experienced the appropriate emotion of “wonder”regarding them (Mt. viii. 10; Lk. vii. 9;Mk. vi. 6).116 Once “desire” isattributedtohim(Lk.xxii.15),—hehad“sethisheart,”asweshouldsay,upon eating the final passover with his disciples — the term usedemphasizingtheaffectionalmovement.117AndonceourLordspeaksofhimselfasbeingconceivablythesubjectof“shame,”thereferencebeing,however,rathertoamodeofactionconsonantwiththeemotion,thantothe feeling itself (Mk. viii. 38; Lk. iv. 26).118 Besides these few chancesuggestions,therearenoneofthenumerousemotionsthatriseandfallinthehumansoul,whichhappentobeexplicitlyattributedtoourLord.119Thereadersees themall inplay inhisvividlynarrated life-experiences,butheisnottoldofthem.

WehavenowpassedinreviewthewholeseriesofexplicitattributionstoourLord in theGospelsof specific emotionalmovements. It belongs totheoccasionalmannerinwhichtheseemotionalmovementsfindrecordin the narrative, that it is only our Lord’s most noticeable displays ofemotion which are noted. One of the effects of this is to give to hisemotions as noted the appearance of peculiar strength, vividness andcompleteness.Thisservestorefutethenotionwhichhasbeensometimesadvancedundertheinfluenceofthe“apathetic”conceptionofvirtue,thatemotionalmovementsneverrantheirfullcourseinhimasweexperiencethem,butstoppedshortatsomepointintheiractiondeemedthepointofdignity.120Indoingso,itservesequally,however,tocarryhometousaveryvividimpressionofthetruthandrealityofourLord’shumannature.Whatwearegivenis,nodoubt,onlythehighlights.Butitiseasytofillinthepicturementallywith themultitudeof emotionalmovementswhichhavenotfoundrecordjustbecausetheywereinnowayexceptional.Here

obviouslyisabeingwhoreactsaswereacttotheincitementswhicharisein daily intercourse with men, and whose reactions bear all thecharacteristicsofthecorrespondingemotionswearefamiliarwithinourexperience.

PerhapsitmaybewellexplicitlytonotethatourLord’semotionsfulfilledthemselves,asoursdo, inphysicalreactions.Hewhohungered (Mt. iv.2),thirsted(Jno.xix.20),wasweary(Jno.iv.6),whoknewbothphysicalpainandpleasure,expressedalso inbodilyaffections theemotions thatstirred his soul. That he did so is sufficiently evinced by the simplecircumstance that these emotionswere observed and recorded. But thebodily expression of the emotions is also frequently expressly attested.Notonlydoweread thathewept (Jno.xi.35)andwailed (Lk.xix.41),sighed (Mk.vii.34)andgroaned (Mk.viii. 12) ;butwereadalsoofhisangryglare(Mk.iii.5),hisannoyedspeech(Mk.x.14),hischidingwords(e.g.Mk.iii.12),theoutbreakingebullitionofhisrage(e.g.Jno.xi.33,38) ; of theagitationofhisbearingwhenunder strong feeling (Jno.xi.35),theopenexultationofhisjoy(Lk.x.21),theunrestofhismovementsin the face of anticipated evils (Mt. xxvii. 37), the loud cry which waswrungfromhiminhismomentofdesolation(Mt.xxvii.46).NothingislackingtomaketheimpressionstrongthatwehavebeforeusinJesusahumanbeinglikeourselves.

Itispartofthecontentofthisimpression,thatJesusappearsbeforeusinthe lightof theplayofhisemotionsasadistincthumanbeing,withhisownindividualityand—shallwenotsayit?—eventemperament.It is,indeed, sometimes suggested that the Son of God assumed at theincarnation not a human nature but human nature, that is to say, nothumannatureasmanifestingitselfinanindividual,buthumannatureingeneral, “generic” or “universal” human nature. The idea which it ismeanttoexpress,isnotaveryclearone,121andisapparentlyonlyarelicofthediscountenancedfictionofthe“real”existenceofuniversals.Inanycase the idea receivesnosupport froma surveyof the emotional lifeofour Lord as it is presented to us in the Evangelical narratives. Theimpression of a distinct individuality acting in accordance with itsspecificcharacterassuch,whichisleftonthemindbythesenarrativesisvery strong. Whether our Lord’s human nature is “generic” or

“individual,”itcertainly—theEvangelistsbeingwitness—functionedinthedaysofhisfleshasifitwereindividual;andwehavethesamereasonfor pronouncing it an individual human-nature that we have forpronouncing such any human nature of whose functioning we haveknowledge.122.

ThisgeneralconclusionisquiteindependentoftheprecisedeterminationofthepeculiarityoftheindividualitywhichourLordexhibits.Hehimself,onagreatoccasion,sumsuphisindividualcharacter(inexpresscontrastwithotherindividuals)inthedeclaration,“Iammeekandlowlyofheart.”And no impression was left by his life-manifestation more deeplyimprintedupontheconsciousnessofhisfollowersthanthatofthenoblehumilityofhisbearing.Itwasbythe“meeknessandgentlenessofChrist”that they encouraged one another to a life becoming a Christianman’sprofession(IICor.x. 1); for “thepatienceofChrist” that theyprayed inbehalfofoneanotherasablessingworthytobesetintheiraspirationsbythesideofthe“loveofGod”(IIThess.iii.5);totheimitationofChrist’smeekacceptanceofundeservedoutragesthattheyexhortedoneanotherin persecution — “because Christ also suffered for sin, leaving you anexample, thatyeshouldfollowinhissteps;whodidnosin,neitherwasguile found inhismouth;who,whenhewas reviled, revilednot again;when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him thatjudgeth righteously” (I Pet. ii. 21-23).Neverthelesswe cannot fix uponhumility as in such a sense our Lord’s “quality” as to obsecure in himotherqualitieswhichmightseemtostandinconflictwithit;muchlessascarrying with it those “defects” which are apt to accompany it when itappearsasthe“quality”ofothers.MeeknessinourLordwasnotaweakbearingofevils,buta strong forbearance in thepresenceofevil. Itwasnot so much a fundamental characteristic of a nature constitutionallyaverse to asserting itself, as a voluntary submission of a strong personbentonanend.Itdidnot,therefore,somuchgivewaybeforeindignationwhenthetensionbecametoogreatforittobearupagainstit,ascoexistwith a burning indignation at all that was evil, in a perfect equipoisewhichknewnowaveringtothissideorthat.’Itwas, inaword,onlythemanifestationinhimofthemindwhichlooksnotonitsownthingsbutthe things of others (Phil. ii. 5), and therefore spells “mission,” not“temperament.”We cannot in any case define his temperament, as we

define other men’s temperaments, by pointing to his dominantcharacteristicsortheprevailingdirectionofhisemotionaldischarges.123Inthissensehehadnoparticulartemperament,anditmightwithtruthbesaid thathishumannaturewasgeneric,not individual.Themarkofhis individualitywasharmoniouscompleteness:ofhimaloneofmen, itmaybetrulysaidthatnothingthatishumanwasalientohim,andthatall that is human manifested itself in him in perfect proportion andbalance.

TheseriesofemotionsattributedtoourLordintheEvangelicalnarrative,intheirvarietyandtheircomplexbutharmoniousinteraction, illustrate,though,ofcourse,theycannotofthemselvesdemonstrate, thisbalancedcomprehensivenessofhis individuality.Variousastheyare, theydonotinhibitoneanother;compassionandindignationrisetogetherinhissoul;joyandsorrowmeetinhisheartandkisseachother.Strongastheyare—notmere joy but exhultation, notmere irritated annoyance but ragingindignation, not mere passing pity but the deepest movements ofcompassionandlove,notmeresurfacedistressbutanexceedingsorroweven unto death, — they never overmaster him. He remains ever incontrol.124 Calvin is, therefore, not without justification, when, tellingus125that in takinghumanaffectionsourLorddidnot take inordinateaffections,butkepthimselfeveninhispassionsinsubjectiontothewilloftheFather,headds:“Inshort,ifyoucomparehispassionswithours,theywilldiffernotlessthantheclearandpurewater,flowinginagentlecourse,differsfromdirtyandmuddyfoam.”126Thefigurewhichishereemployed may, no doubt, be unduly pressed:127 but Calvin has nointentionofsuggestingdoubtofeither therealityorthestrengthofourLord’s emotional reactions.He expressly turns away from the tendencyfromwhichevenanAugustineisnotfree,toreducetheaffectionallifeofourLordtoamereshow,andcommendstousrather,asScriptural,thesimplicitywhichaffirmsthat“theSonofGodhavingclothedhimselfwithourflesh,ofhisownaccordclothedhimselfalsowithhumanfeelings,sothathedidnotdifferatall fromhisbrethren, sinonlyexcepted.”He isonlysolicitousthat,asChristdidnotdisdaintostooptothefeelingofourinfirmities, we should be eager, not indeed to eradicate our affections,“seekingafterthatinhumanapatheiacommendedbytheStoics,”but“tocorrect and subdue that obstinacywhich pervades them, on account of

thesinofAdam,”andtoimitateChristourLeader,—whoishimselftheruleofsupremeperfection—insubduingalltheirexcesses.ForChrist,headdsforour encouragement,had this very thing inview,whenhe tookouraffectionsuponhimself—“thatthroughhispowerwemightsubdueeverything in them that is sinful.” Thus, Calvin, with his wontedeagernessforreligious impression,pointstotheemotional lifeofJesus,not merely as a proof of his humanity, but as an incitement to hisfollowers toaholy lifeaccordantwith thewillofGod.Wearenot tobecontenttogazeuponhimortoadmirehim:wemustbecomeimitatorsofhim,untilwearemetamorphosedintothesameimage.

Even this is, of course, not quite the highest note. The highest note—Calvindoesnotneglectit—isstruckbytheEpistletotheHebrews,whenit declares that “it behoovedhim in all things to bemade like unto hisbrethren, thathemightbeamerciful and faithfulHigh-priest in thingspertainingtoGod,tomakepropitiationforthesinsofthepeople”(Heb.ii.17).“Surely,”saystheProphet(Is.liii.4),“hehathborneourgriefsandcarriedoursorrows”—ageneralstatementtowhichanEvangelist(Mt.viii. 1) has given a special application (as a case in point) when headduces it in the form, “himself took our infirmities and bore ourdiseases.”Hesubjectedhimself totheconditionsofourhumanlifethathe might save us from the evil that curses human life in its sinfulmanifestation.When we observe him exhibiting the movements of hishuman emotions, we are gazing on the very process of our salvation:everymanifestationof thetruthofourLord’shumanity isanexhibitionof the reality of our redemption. In his sorrows he was bearing oursorrows, andhavingpassed throughahuman life likeours,he remainsforeverabletobetouchedwitha feelingofour infirmities.SuchaHighPriest, in the language of theEpistle to theHebrews, “became” us.Weneededsuchanone.128Whenwenote themarksofhumanity inJesusChrist,we are observinghis fitness to serve our needs.Webehold himmade a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, and ourheartsaddourwitness that it becamehim forwhomareall thingsandthroughwhomareallthings,inbringingmanysonsuntoglorytomaketheauthoroftheirsalvationperfectthroughsuffering.

IV.Conclusion

It is not germane to the present inquiry to enter into the debate as towhether, in assuming flesh, our Lord assumed the flesh of fallen or ofunfallenman. The right answer, beyond doubt, is that he assumed thefleshofunfallenman:itisnotfornothingthatPaultellsusthathecame,notinsinfulflesh,butin“thelikenessofsinfulflesh”(Rom.viii.3).Butthisdoesnotmean that the fleshheassumedwasnotunderacurse: itmeans that the curseunderwhichhis flesh restedwasnot the curse ofAdam’sfirstsinbutthecurseofthesinsofhispeople:“himwhoknewnosin,hemade sin inourbehalf”;hewhowasnot, evenasman,under acurse,“becameacurseforus.”Hewasaccursed,notbecausehebecameman,butbecauseheborethesinsofhispeople;hesufferedanddiednotbecauseofthefleshhetookbutbecauseofthesinshetook.Hewas,nodoubt,bornofawoman,bornunderthelaw(Gal.iv.4),inoneconcreteact;heissuedfromtheVirgin’swombalreadyoursin-bearer.Buthewasnotsin-bearerbecausemadeofawoman;hewasmadeofawomanthathemightbecomesin-bearer;itwasbecauseofthesufferingofdeaththathewasmadea little lower than theangels (Heb. ii.9). It isgermane toour inquiry, therefore, to takenoteof the fact thatamong theemotionswhichareattestedashaving foundplace inourLord’s life-experiences,therearethosewhichbelongtohimnotasmanbutassin-bearer,whichneverwouldhaveinvadedhissoul inthepurityofhishumanitysaveashestoodunderthecurseincurredforhispeople’ssins.Thewholeseriesofhis emotionsare,nodoubt, affectedbyhispositionunder the curse.Even his compassion receives from this a special quality: is this notincluded in the great declaration ofHeb. iv. 15?Canwe doubt that hisanger against thepowers of evilwhich afflictman, borrowedparticularforcefromhisownexperienceoftheirbanefulworking?Andthesorrowsand dreads which constricted his heart in the prospect of death,culminating in the extreme anguish of the dereliction, — do not theseconstitutetheverysubstanceofhisatoningsufferings?AswesurveytheemotionallifeofourLordasdepictedbytheEvangelists,therefore,letusnotpermitittoslipoutofsight,thatwearenotonlyobservingtheproofsofthetruthofhishumanity,andnotmerelyregardingthemostperfectexample of a human life which is afforded by history, but arecontemplating the atoning work of the Saviour in its fundamentalelements.Thecupwhichhedranktoitsbitterdregswasnothiscupbutour cup; and he needed to drink it only because he was set upon our

salvation.

ENDNOTES

1. “Certainly,” remarks Calvin (Commentarius in HarmoniamEvangelicarum,Mt. xxvi. 37), “those who imagine that the Son ofGodwas exempt from human passions, do not truly and seriouslyacknowledgehimtobeaman.”“ButChristhavingahumannaturethe same for substance that ours is, consisting both of soul andbody,”arguesThomasGoodwin(Works,Edinburghed.,1862,iv.p.140), “therefore he must needs have affections, — even affectionspropertoman’snatureandtrulyhuman.Andtheseheshouldhavehad,althoughthishumannaturehad,fromtheveryfirstassumptionofit,beenasgloriousasitnowisinheaven.”“Inwhatsensethesoulis capable of suffering,” says John Pearson (An Exposition of theCreed,NewYorked.,1843,p.288),“inthathewassubjecttoanimalpassion. Evil apprehended to come tormented his soul with fear,whichwasastrulyinhiminrespectofwhathewastosuffer,ashopeinreferenceto therecompenseofa reward tocomeafterand fromhissufferings.”

2. There is some exaggeration in the remark: “The notices in theGospels of the impressions made on his feelings by differentsituations in which he was placed, are extraordinarily numerous”(JamesStalker,ImagoChristi,1890,p.302).TheGospelnarrativesare very objective, and it is only occasionally (most frequently inMark) that they expressly notify the subjective movements of theactorsinthedramawhichtheyunfold.

3. DirectmentionofourLord’shuman‘soul,’underthatterm(psucha)), isnot frequent in theGospels:cf.SweteonMk.xiv.34,“Thoughthe Gospels yield abundant evidence of the presence of humanemotionsinourLord,(e.g.iii.5,vi.6,x.14,Jno.vi.33),thisdirectmentionofhis‘soul’hasnoparallelinthemifweexceptJno.vii.27;forinsuchpassagesasx.45,Jno.x.11psucha istheindividual life(see Cremer s. v.) rather than the seat of the emotions.” J. A.

AlexanderonMk.xiv.34remarksthat“mysoul”there“isnotamereperiphrasis for the pronoun, (I), but refers his strange sensationsmore directly to the inward seat of feeling and emotion.” Cf.,however, the Greek text of Ps. xlii. 6, 12, xlv. 5; but also Winer,Grammar,etc.,Thayer’s tr., 1872,p.156.Thetermpneumaoccursrather more frequently than psucha, to designate the seat of ourLord’s emotions:Mk. viii. 12; Jno. xi. 33, xiii. 21; cf.Mk. ii. 8;Mt.xxvii.50;Jno.xix.30.

4. Suchanattempt as thatmadebyW.B.Smith (EcceDeus, 1911, p.101), toexplainawaythe implicationofourLord’shumanity in theearliest Gospel transmission, is, of course, only a “curiosity ofliterature.” “Mark,” says he, “nowhere uses of Jesus an expressionwhich suggests an impressive or even amiable human personality;or, indeed, any kind of human personality whatever.” What MarksaysofJesus, iswhat is commonly said ofGod—of Jehovah.Theseeming exceptions aremerely specious.He ascribes “compassion”toJesus:itistheverycoreoftheorientalconceptionofGodthatheismerciful.HespeaksofJesus“rebuking”(epitimao)or“snortingat”(embrimaomai) men: these are expressions suitable to God andemployed in theOld Testament of Jehovah.He tells us that Jesus“loved”therichyoungman—theonlyascriptionoflovetoJesus,bytheway, intheSynoptics:but therichyoungman is justasymbol,thesymbolofIsrael,whomJehovahloves.Andsoon.

5. Mt.xx.34;Mk.i.41;Lk.vii.13;Mt.ix.38,xiv.14,xv.82;Mk.vi.34,viii.2.Cf.Mk.ix.22.NotatallinJohn.

6. Splagchalzomai: see Bleek, An Introduction to the NewTestament,§33,(vol.i,p.75);J.A.AlexanderonMk.i.41;PlummeronMt.ix.38.Buttig’smonograph,DeEmphasisplagchalzomai,wehavenotseen.

7. SoLightfoot,onPhil.i.8.8. ItisfoundintheLXXinthismetaphoricalsenseapparentlyonlyat

Prov.xvii.5.Cf.SweteonMk.i.41.9. Oikteiro,whichdoesnotoccur intheSynopticGospels,andindeed

onlyonce(Rom.ix.15)intheN.T.Theadjective,oiktirmonoccursatLk.ix.38(alsoJas.v.11onlyinN.T.);thenounoiktirmos,occursinPaul(Rom.xii.1;2Cor.i.3;Phil.ii.1;Col.iii.12;alsoHeb.x.28only).

10. A.V.Mk.i.41,vi.34;Mt.ix.38,xiv.14;R.V.Mk.i.41;Mt.ix.36,xx.34.

11. ’Eleeo(sometimes,eleao),Mt.ix.27,xv.22,xvii.15,xx.30-31;Mk.x.47-48;Lk.xvii.13,xviii.38-39;cf.Mk.v.19;Mt.xviii.33.ThiswordalsoisnotfoundinJohn.InMk.ix.22onlyissplagchnizomaiusedinanappeal, and even there itsmore subjective sense is apparent.Oneleosand itssynonymyseeJ.H.HeinrichSchmidt,Synonymikder grieschischen Sprache iii., 1879, § 143, pp. 572sq.; and theexcellent summary statementbyThayer inThayer-Grimm,Lexiconetc., sub voc. eleeo.G. Heine, Synonymik des N. T: -lichenGriechisch, 898, p. 82, states it thus: “eleos is the inclination tosuccorthemiserable,OIKr&puSsthefeelingofpainarisingfromthemiseriesofothers...oiktirmosisthefeelingofsympathydwellingintheheart;eleosissympathyexpressingitselfinact.”splagchnizomaiisatermoffeeling,takingtheplaceofoiktiro.

12. W.Lutgert,DieLiebeimNeuenTestament,1905,thinksitimportanttolaystressonthissideofourLord’slove.“IntheSynopticportraitofChristthetraitwhichstandsoutmostclearlyistheloveofJesus.Henotonlycommandedlove,butfirsthimselfpracticedit.Itisnotmerelyhisthoughtbuthiswill,andnotmerelyhiswillbutaboveallhis deed. He therefore not only required it but aroused it. Itexpresses itself accordinglynotmerely inhisword, but in the firstinstance in his act. Jesus’ significance to the Synoptists does notconsist in his having discovered the command of love, but in hishaving fulfilled it. For them Jesus is not a ‘sage’ who teaches oldtruthsornew,butadoer,whobrings the truth true, that is,acts itout” (p. 53). “His love never remains a powerlesswish, that is, anunsuccessfulwilling,butitalwayssucceeds.TheworkingofJesusisdescribedintheGospelsasalmightylove”(p.54).“Sincehisactsarereally love, theyhaveprimarilynootherpurposebut tohelp.TheirmotiveisnothingbutthecompassionofJesus”(p.58).Accordingly,Lutgertinsists,nocrytoJesusforhelpwasevermadeinvain:“Jesusacts precisely according to his own command, Give to him thataskeththee”(p.55).

13. Render, not “he had,” but “he felt compassion,” to bring out theemphasisonthe“feeling.”

14. J.A.Alexander’snote(onMk.vi.34,repeatedverballyatMt.ix.36

andxiv.14) isthereforetooexclusive:“Whatexcitedhisdivineandhumansympathywasnot,ofcourse,theirnumbersortheirphysicalcondition,buttheirspiritualdestitution.”Itwasboth.Cf.Liitgert,asabove,p.68:“ItisacharacteristictraitofJesusthathefeelspitynotmerelyforthereligious,butalsofortheexternal,needofthepeopleand that he acts out of this pity. The perfection of his love standsprecisely in this— that it is independent of gratitude.He helps tohelp.”

15. Cf.Plummerinloc.:“Astrongword(eskulmenoi)isusedtoexpressstheir distress. . . . Originally it meant ‘flayed’ or ‘mangled,’ butbecameequivalentto‘harassed’or‘vexed’withwearinessorworry....‘Scattered’seemstosuitshepherdlesssheep,butitmaybedoubtedifthisistheexactmeaningofeppimenoi....‘Prostrated’seemstobethemeaninghere.”

16. According to some commentators, sullupoumenos at Mk. iii. 5expressessympatheticcompassion(soe.g.Meyer,Weiss,Morrison,J.B.Bristow,art.“Pity”inDCG);seenote38.Somecommentatorsalsoreadagathos,Mk.x.18,of‘benevolence’;cf.kalos,Jno.x.11,14.

17. Cf.JamesStalker,ImagoChristi,1890,p.303.“Henotonlygavetherequiredhelpinsuchcases,butgaveitwithanamountofsympathywhichdoubleditsvalue.Thus,henotonlyraisedLazarus,butweptwithhissisters.Incuringamanwhowasdeaf,hesighedashesaid‘Ephphatha.’Allhishealingworkcosthimfeeling.”

18. Dakruo, silentweeping: see Schmidt,Synonymik der griechischenSprache,I.1876,§26,p.470sq.

19. Klaio, audible wailing: see Schmidt, as above. Cf. Hahn in loc.:“eklausen of the loud and violent wailing called out by an innerfeeling of pain. . . . The contrast should be observed between thejoyful outcry of his disciples, and the inner feeling of Jesus whosespiritsawthetruesituationofthings,undeceivedbyappearances.”

20. Stenazo,“pityingasIthink,”commentsFritzsche,“thecalamitiesofthe human race” and so Euth. Zig., Grotius, Meyer. On the otherhand, DeWette, Weiss, Lagrange think the sigh, a sigh not ofsympathybutofprayer(Rom.viii.23,26).

21. ’Anastenazo,intensiveform,hereonlyintheN.T.,butfoundinLXX.“The Lord’s human spirit,” comments Swete, “was stirred to itsdepths.”

22. “In both cases,” Swete (onMk. vii. 34) suggests, “perhaps the vastdifficultyand longdelaysof theremedialworkwereborne inuponourLord’shumanspiritinanespecialmanner.”

23. ’Agapase,Onthewordsfor“love”seeSchmidt,Synonymik,etc.III.1879;§136,pp.474sq;agapao,pp.482sq.

24. Morrison in loc. Cf. Liitgert, as cited, p. 59: “According to theGospels, therefore, Jesus loves the needy.WhenWemlemaintainsthattheEvangelistshaveshownusaChristwholeadshislife‘injoyover nature and good men’ (p. 83), this conception of ChristcontradictstheearnestnessoftheGospelsthroughandthrough:itisprecisely the characteristic of theGospels that themotiveof Jesus’loveaccordingtothem,sofarasitliesinmen,isinthefirstinstancenegative. The people called out his compassion (Mt. ix. 36). Jesus’love does not have the character of admiration, but simply ofcompassion. It is not delight, but deed, gift, help. It requiredthereforeaneedyrecipient.

ButtheloveofJesustothepeoplehasalsoapositivemotive,whichis, however, nowhere expressed,— that is, pleasure in their good.”Cf.whatLiitgertsays,pp.92sq.,ofthecoexistencewithJesus’loveofhate,directedtoallthatisevilinmen.

25. ThenegativesideoftheexpositionisstatedverywellbyWohlenbergin loc.:“It would contradict fundamental elements of Jesus’preachingifthosewererightwhoholdthatJesuswasinwardlyoftheyoungman’smind,and,lookinguponhim,conceivedanaffectionforhim, precisely because he had already made so much progress inkeeping the divine commandments, and showed himself burningwith enthusiasm for undertaking more. And how would thisharmonizewithwhatisafterwardssaidinverses23and24sq.” . . .ThepositivesideisgivenexcellentlybyJ.A.Alexanderinloc.:“Mostprobably, love, as in many other places, here denotes not moralapprobation,noraffection foundeduponanythingbelonging to theobject,butasovereignandgratuitouscompassion,suchas leadstoevery act ofmercy onGod’s part (compare Jno. iii. 18;Gal. ii. 20;Eph. ii. 4; 1 Jno. iv. 10, 19).The sensewill thenbe,not that Jesuslovedhimonaccount ofwhathe said, orwhathewas, orwhat hedid,but that,havingpurposesofmercytowardshim,heproceeded

tounmaskhimtohimself,andtoshowhimhowentirelygroundless,althoughprobablysincere,washisclaimtohavehabituallykeptthelaw.TheSaviour’s love is thenmentioned,notas theeffectofwhatprecedes,butasthegroundormotiveofwhatfollows.”

26. For the construction, see Westcott in loc. The term is, of course,agapao.

27. Thetermisagapa—althoughitscorrelativeisoiphiloi.28. Cf.Meyerinloc.:“Theagapahaemaisnotlovetome,but:mylove

toyou,as isclear fromagapasahumasand fromtheanalogyofhacharahaema verse 11, cf. verses 12, 13.” This instance carries theotherswith it.Westcott, if we understand him,wishes to take thisphrase undifferentiatedly as including both the subjective andobjectivesenses:“ThemeaningofthewordscannotbelimitedtotheideaofChrist’sloveformen,ortothatofman’sloveforChrist:theydescribetheabsolutelovewhichismanifestedinthesetwoways,thelovewhichperfectlycorrespondswithChrist’sbeing.”“Hislove,”heapparentlytakesobjectively,oflovetoGod.

29. Westcott:“totheuttermost”:soGodet,etc.Lutgert,ascited,p.154note: “eis telos means, not ‘until the end’ but ‘to the utmost,’absolutely; cf. I Thess. ii. 16; Lk. xviii. 5, and besides the parallelsfromHennas adduced by Jiilicher,Gleichnisreden Jesu, II. p.282,also Barnabas iv. 6, eis telos apoleson autan and xix. 11, eis telosmisaseis ton ponaron. Therefore John too has the conception ofcomplete,purifiedlove.”Inthetexthehadwritten:“Thewordxiii.1is a parallel to xii. 28. According to the oneword the life of JesushithertoisdescribedasaglorificationofGod,accordingtotheotheras love tohispeople.The lovewhichhepracticed inhisdeath, theApostle places by the side of the love which he had hithertopracticed:ontheotherhanditisdistinguishedfromhislovehithertoas an especial, new manifestation of love. By the love which hepracticedinhisdeath,helovedthemtotheuttermost.Nowhisloveis become an absolute, purified love, for his love first becomesabsolutewhenhegiveshissoul.ThedeathofJesusservesthereforeforJohnnotonlyasthelastandhighestproofofhislove,butasitsperfecting.”

30. ’Agapao:xi.5,xiii.23,xix.26,xxi.7,20.Cf.Mk.x.21.31. Phileo:xi.3,36,xx.2.

32. Jno. xx. 2, not “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” but “the otherdisciple whom Jesus loved.” Jesus loved both Peter and John. Cf.Westcottinloc.HenceWestcottsays(onxiii.23)thatthephrase“thedisciplewhomJesusloved,”“marksanacknowledgmentofloveandnotanexclusiveenjoymentoflove.”

33. ’Agapao:xiii.23,xix.26,xxi.7,20;phileo:lat.2.34. Cf.MeyeronJno.xi.5:“agapa:anexpressionchosenwithdelicate

tenderness(themoresensuousphileinisnotagainusedas inverse4), because the sisters are mentioned”: and Westcott: “TheEvangelist describes the Lord’s affection for this family as that ofmoralchoice(agapa..).”

35. Cf.Mt.xi.19,Lk.vii.34(xii.4),Jno.xi.11(xv.14,15).36. Theprepositionintheparticiplesullupoumenosmerelyemphasizes

theinwardnessoftheemotion(Thayer-Grimm,Lexicon,etc.subvoc.suv,ii.4).Cf.Fritscheinloc.:“BezaandRosenmiillerhaveproperlyseen that the preposition suv is not without force. But theirinterpretation: ‘when he had looked indignantly about him at thesame time grieving, etc.’would requireama lupouµevosand doesnotrendertheforceofsullupouµevo,.Wehavenodoubt,therefore,thattheprepositionsuv,shouldbereferredtothemindofJesus,i.e.,‘whenhehadlookedabouthimwithanger,grievinginhismind...hesaid’”

37. “It is” says James Denney (DCG., I. p. 60) justly, “the vehementrepulsionofthatwhichhurts,”

38. See Schmidt, Synonymik etc. II, 1878, § 83. 14, 588 sq. Trench,Synonymsof theNewTestament7 1871, p. 224: “This lupa, unlikethe grief which the three following words [pentheo, phraneo,kopto]express,amanmaysoentertaininthedeepofhisheart,thatthere shall beno outwardmanifestationof it, unlesshehimself bepleasedtorevealit(Rom.is.2).”

39. SeeSchmidt,asaboveIII,1879,§142:orgais“wrath(Zorn)asitisdirected to punishment or vengeance” (p. 512) ; “orga stands incloser relation to the vengeance which is to be inflicted thanthumos”(p. 553); “it accordingly can be nothing else than theviolently outbreaking natural impulse, uncontrolled by the reason,whichwecallbytheword‘wrath’(Zorn);andtheideathatsuchanimpulse seeks its end, and therefore the thought of vengeance or

punishmentwhichthisimpulseseekstowreakontheguiltyone,liesclose” (p. 555). Cf. Trench, p. 124. Lutgert, as cited, pp. 98, 99, iscareful to point out that Jesus’ anger is never personal, and neverpassesintorevengefulfeelingsonhisownbehalf.

40. Cf. “thewrath of theLamb”Rev. vi. 18. ThomasGoodwin (Works,IV. p. 144) wishes us to understand that when such emotionalmovementsareattributedtotheExaltedChrist, theyhavetheir fullqualityashumanemotions,affecting thewholeChristbodyaswellasspirit.“Therefore,whenaswereadofthe‘wrathoftheLamb,’asRev. vi. 18, namely, against his enemies, as her of his pity andcompassion towards his friends andmembers, why should this beattributedonlytohisdeity,whichisnotcapableofwrath,ortohissoulandspiritonly?Andwhymayitnotbethoughtheistrulyangryasaman,inthewholeman,andsowithsuchawrathashisbodyisafflictedwith,aswellasthatheiswrathfulinhissoulonly,seeinghehath takenupourwholenature,onpurpose to subservehisdivinenatureinalltheexecutionsofit?”

41. ’Aganakteo:see Schmidt, Synonymik etc. III, 1879, pp. 360-562:’Aganaktein and aganaktasis designate, to wit, the displeasure(Unwillen) which we feel at an act in which we see a wrong(Unrecht)or which outrages our human sentiment and feeling” (p.561). “Jesus” comments Lagrange in loc. “was irritated by theirhardness.”

42. Swete in loc.: “We hear the Lord’s indignant call, as it startles thedisciplesintheactofdismissingtheparty.”

43. ’Embrimaomai:seeespeciallythedetaileddiscussionofthiswordbyFr. Cumlich in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1862, pp.260-269.“Itis,now,exegeticallycertainthatJesushere(Jno.xi.33)was angry. Only this, open and vehement anger, and no othermeaningbelongsphilologicallytoeubrimasthai”(p.260,openingthediscussion).“Fromwhathasbeensaid,itissufficientlyclearthat,1)bremo,justlikefremoalwaysexpresses,transferredtoman,nothingbut the active affection of anger, never ‘a general [mentalmovement],’ least of all ‘sorrow; 2) that moreover brima, and itsfrequentatively heightened and yet at the same time interiorizing(en) intensive embrimasthai,expresses only a strong, or thestrongest degree of wrath, which, precisely on account of this

strengthbeingincapableofbeingheldin,breaksoutexternally,butstill gives vent to itself rather in uncontrollable sound than word”(pp. 265-6, closing the discussion). Cf. p. 209: “Embrimasthaidesignates primarily a single emotion, and this one is a vehementebullition of his anger, a real infremere.”Cf.Meyer on Jno. xi. 33:“Thewordsbrimaomaiandembrimaomaiareneverusedotherwisethan of hot anger in the Classics, the Septuagint, and the NewTestament (Mt. ix. 30; Mk. i. 43, xiv. 5 ), save when they denotesnorting or growling proper (Aeschyl, Sept.461, Lucean, Necyom.20.”

44. Fuller(Webster),about1801,citedinTheOxfordDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage,I.951,whereothercitationsalsoaregiven.

45. Certain late grammarians (see Stephens’ Thesaurus sub voc.embrimasthaiandbrimoomai)definebrimosmai“tothreaten”;andsome of the lexicographers do the like: Hesychius for exampledefines brima as “threat,” and Suidu embrimasthai itself as “tospeak with anger and to blame with harshness,” the latter part ofwhichisrepeatedintheEtym.Mag.AscholiastonAristophansa,Eq.855definesbrimasthaias“tobeangryandtothreaten.”

46. Mt.viii.4,ix.30,xviii.10,xxiv.6;Mk.i.44;IThess.v.15;Rev.xix.10,xxii.9only.

47. So thatZahn (onMt. ix.30,p.385) ismisled into explaining: “Headmonishedtheminamenacingtone.”Somethingmorethanthisissaid.

48. MeyeronMk. i.43quiteaccuratelyconnectstheembrimasamenosautowith exebalen only, translating: “after he had been angry athim,”thoughhesupposestheexebalentohavebeenaccompaniedby“avehementbegonenow!awayhence!”and accordingly arbitrarilyparaphrasestheembrimansamenos“wrathfullyaddressedhim.”OnMt. ix. 30 he accurately translates: “Hewas displeasedwith them,andsaid.”

49. J. A. Alexander, inMt. ix. 30, puts this view in itsmost attractiveform: “It can only mean a threatening in case of disobedience,charging them on pain of his serious displeasure anddisapprobation.”ItcomestothesamethingwhenWestcott(onJno.xi. 33) says: “There is the notion of coercion springing out ofdispleasure.”Cf.Morrison:“Peremptorilychargedthem”(Mk.i.43);

Zahn:“Heenjoinedtheminamenacingtone”(Mt.ix.30).Others,ofcourse,transferthematterfromChristtotheEvangelists;thusevenWeisscanwrite(onMt.ix.39):“PerhapstheEvangelististhinkingwith respect to this ebullition of the resultlessness of suchprohibitions,whichissostronglyemphasizedbyMark(cf.vii.36).”

50. Three or four such comments onMk. i. 43 as the following,whenread consecutively, are instructive. Weiss: “But obviously Markthinksof thehealingastakingplace inahouse(exebalen),perhaps,accordingtotheconnectionwithverse39,inasynagogue.Entranceinto the house of another was, no doubt, forbidden to lepers,accordingtoLev.xiii.48cf.Num.v.2 (seeEwaldonthepassages,andAlterth.p.180),butnotaltogetheraccesstothesynagogues:inanycasetheresortofthepeopletoJesusandhishealingofthesickbroke through the restrictions of the law, and from this also isexplicableJesus’demeanor of haste and vehemence.”Wohlenberg:“Afterorwiththemanifestationofvehementanger,Jesussendstheman forthwith away (exebalen)fromhis presence . . . and nothingindicatesthatMarkconceivedtheoccurrencetohavetakenplaceinahouse.An intensely angry emotionwas exhibitedby Jesus towardsthehealedman,becauseheobservedinhimafalseandperverseideaof the transaction.” Keil: “The occasion, however, of the angryexpulsion of the healed man, we certainly are not to seek in theleper’sbreachofthelawthroughenteringthehouseofanother(Lev.46cf.,Num.v.2)butchieflyinhisstateofmind”...Edersheim(LifeandTimes, etc., I. 496) : “This [‘cast himout’], however, asGodethas shown (Comm. on St. Luke, German trans. p. 137), does notimply that the event took place either in a house or in a town, asmostcommentatorssuppose.It is, tosaythe least, strange that theSpeaker’sCommentary,followingWeiss,shouldhavelocateditinasynagogue’ It could not possibly have occurred there, unless allJewishordinancesandcustomshadbeenreversed.”

51. Ase.g.LagrangeonMk.i.43:“’Embrimaomai:(againxiv.5;Mt. ix.30; Jno. xi. 33, 38) cannot mean anger here, but only a certainseverity.Jesusspeaksinatonewhichdoesnotadmitofreply.”

52. ZahnonMt. ix.30(p.385)remindsusthatthewordsuggests“theaudibleexpressionofwrath.”Cf.Mk.xiv.4-5wherewearetoldthat“there were some that had indignation (aganaktountes), among

themselves—and theymurmured (enebrimonto)againsther.”Theinward emotion is expressed by aganakteo,its manifestation inaudibleformbyembrimaomai.

53. Seeabove,note19;andcf.Gumlich,TSK,1882,p.258.54. ’Aganakteo:seeabove,notes41and52.55. Dakruo(notklaioasinverse33):seeabove,note18.56. Seeabove:note43.57. SoHengstenberg,inparticular,andmanyafterhim.58. John Hutchison, The Monthly Interpreter, 1885, II. p. 288: “A

stormofwrathwasseentosweepoverhim.”59. Kai etaraxen eauton. Many commentators insist on the

voluntarinessofJesus’emotion,expressedbythisphrase.ThusJohnHutchison,asabove,p.288:“Itwasanactofhisownfreewill,notapassionhurryinghimon,butavoluntarilyassumedstateof feelingwhichremainedunderhisdirectionandcontrol....Inawordtherewasnoataxia in it.” For the necessary limitations of this view seeCalvinonthispassage.Cf.Lutgertascited,p.145.

60. Cf. John Hutchison, as above, p. 375: “He was gazing into ‘theskeleton face of the world,’ and tracing everywhere the reign ofdeath.Thewholeearth tohimwasbut ‘thevalleyof theshadowofdeath,’ and in these tearswhichwere shed inhis presence, he sawthat

‘OceanofTime,whosewatersofdeepwoe,Arebrackishwiththesaltofhumantears.’”

61. The classical exposition of the whole passage is F. Gumlich’s, DieRathsel der Erweckung Lazari, in the Theologische Studien undKnitlken,1882,pp.65-110,and248-336.SeealsojohnHutchison,inTheMonthlyInterpreter,1885,II.pp.281-296and374-386.

62. ’Epitimao: See Schmidt, Synonymik etc. I. 1876, § 4, 11, p. 147:“epitmanisproperlytoimputesomethingtoone(asafault)...Andindeed it denotes harsh and in general vehement reproaches withreference tounworthydeeds or customs, construed ordinarilywiththe dative of the person: to condemn with harsh words, to heapreproacheson.”Cf.alsoTrench,§4(p.12).

63. Swete,onMk.i.25:“epitiman,Vg.comminari,WycliffeandRheims‘threaten,’otherEnglishVersions,‘rebuke’:thestrictmeaningofthe

wordis‘tomete-outduemeasure,’butintheN.T.itisusedonlyofcensure.”PlummeronLk. iv. 35: “InN.T.epitimraohas no othermeaning than ‘rebuke’; but in classical Greek it means— 1. ‘lay avalueon,rate’;2.‘layapenaltyon,sentence’;3.‘chide,rate,rebuke.’”“Theverbisoftenusedofrebukingviolence(verse41,viii.24,ix.42;Mt. viii. 26, xviii. 18; Mk. iv. 39; Jud. ix); yet must not on thataccount be rendered ‘restrain’ (Fritzsche on Mt. viii. 26, 325).”Morrison accordingly thinks that “rated” might give the essentialmeaningof theword.Lagrange (onMk. i. 28)undulyweakens theterm.

64. MorrisononMk.ill.12.65. Hahn on Lk. iv. 35: “epitimasen auto, that is, he vehemently

commandedhim,chargedhimwithstrong,chidingwords(cf.verses39,41,viii.24,ix.21,42,55),anexpressionbywhichLukewouldsaythat Jesus spoke the following words in a tone of highestdispleasure”:cf.onverse39.

66. Cf. Gumlich, TSK, 1862 p. 287: “Similar movements of anger,epitimaninsteadofembrimasthaidirectlybeforeorafteramiracle,wefindalsoelsewhereinhim:threats(Bedrohen)tothewindandthesea(Mt.viii.26),mostfrequentlyinthecaseofhealingsofpossessedpeopleofadifficultkind(Mt.viii.28,vii.18;Mk.ix.21,i.25,iii.12;Lk.iv.41).”

67. In Mk. viii. 33; Lk. ix. 55 the objects of his displeasure were hisfollowers.

68. Cf. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 1908, p. 480, note 82:“Since Jesus, without prejudice to his faith in the all-embracingprovidence and universal government of God, looked upon alldisease,andnotmerelypossession,astheworkofSatan(Lk.xiii.16,x.19,cf.Actsxvi38;IICor.xii.7),andheldhimtobetheauthornotonlyofisolatedmiseries,butofthedeathofmaningeneral(Jno.viii.44) ;Heb. ii. 14doesnot gobeyondJesus’ circle of ideas.”—AlsoHenryNorrisBernard,TheMentalCharacteristicsoftheLordJesusChrist,1888,pp.90-91:“ThemiraclesofChrist formedpartof thatwarfare which was ever waging between the Son of God and thepower of evilwhich hewasmanifested to destroy. The rage of theelements, the roaringwind, and the surgingwaves ever seeking toengulf the fishers’ boat: the fell sickness racking with pain man’s

body;theparalysisofthementalpowersdestroyingman’s intellect,and leaving him a prey to unreasoning violence, or to uncleandesires;thedeathwhichshroudedhimintheunknowndarknessofthe tomb— these things were to the Saviour’s vision but objectiveforms of the curse of sinwhich it was hismission to remove. TheKingdomofGodandtheKingdomofSatanwerebroughttogetherinopposition. The battle between the Lord’s Christ and the greatadversarywasevergoingon.Man’sinfirmitiesandhissicknesses,inthe eyes of Christ, were the outward symbol of the sin which wastheircause.Sotheinspiredwriter,inthehealingofthesick,andinthecastingoutofdevils,seesdirectblowsgiven,which, intheend,shallcauseSatan’sempire to totter to its fall.Every lepercleansed,everyblindman restored to sight, everyhelplessparalyticmade towalk,everydistractedmanbroughtbacktothesweetnessoflifeandlight of reason, above all the dead recalled to life — each, in thesalvationaccordedthem,furnishedaproofthatagreaterthanSatanwashere,andthattheKingdomofGodwasbeingmanifesteduponearth.”

69. Cf.Swete in loc.; alsoLagrange: “polla, takenadverbially, does notmeaninMk.‘often,’noreven‘inaprolongedfashion,’but‘earnestly;‘strongly;‘greatly’(exceptperhapsini.45);cf.v.10,23,43,vi.20,ix.26;theVulgatehas,therefore,wellrendereditvehementer(hereandxvi.43).”

70. Westcottinloc.71. Zahninloc.:p.168.72. Meyerinloc.:“Inthiswrathfulzealwhichtheysawhadtakenboldof

Jesus,theythoughttheysawtheMessianicfulfilmentofthatwordofthepsalm....

73. Delitzschinloc.74. Cf. James Denney, article “Anger,” and E. Daplyn, article

“Fierceness,” inHastings’DCG.Also Lutgert, as cited, p. 97whereinstancesofourLord’sexpressionsofanger, “whichoccupya largeplace in theSynoptics”aregatheredtogether,andp.99where it ispointedoutthat“Jesusgroundshisdeclarationsofwoe,notonwhathisopponentshaddonetohim,butpurelyontheirsinsagainstthelaw and the prophets . . . Jesus’ anger remains therefore purebecause itbumsagainstwhat isdoneagainstGod, andnot against

whathashappenedtohimself.”75. Chapterxxi.“TheLawofResentment.”76. Soe.g.Cheyne,G.A.Smith,Skinner,Workman.77. ’Agalliaomai&:seeG.Heine,SynonymikdesN.T.-lichenGriechisch

1898,p. 147: “chairo in general,gaudeo, laetor (chara),agalliao, -omaiexsulto,vehementergaudeo,Mt.v.12;Lk.x.21(agalliasis)Lk.i.14,44,summumgaudium(frequentlyinLXX;notclassical.”Thereis a good brief account of the word given by C. F. Gelpe, in theTheologische Studien und Kritlken, 1849, pp. 645-646: “theprofoundestandhighesttransport.”Cf.Codetinloc.“’Agalliasthai,toexult,denotesaninnertransport,whichtakesplaceinthesamedeepregionsofthesoulofJesusastheoppositeemotionexpressedbytheembrimtsthai, to groan (Jno. ix. 33 ). This powerful influence ofexternaleventsontheinnerbeingofJesusproveshowthoroughlyinearnesttheGospelstakehishumanity.”

78. Plummer in loc.:“This joy is a divine inspiration. The fact isanalogoustohisbeing‘ledbytheSpiritinthewilderness,’(iv.1).”

79. TheWholeWorksofJeremyTaylor.Ed.Heber,London1828.II.p.lxvii.JeremyTaylor’sobjectistoshowthatChristisnotimitablebyusineverything;henceheproceedsatonce:“Butthedeclensionsofournaturescannotbeartheweightofaperpetualgravedeportment,without the intervals of refreshment and free alacrity.” Thiswholeview of our Lord’s deportment lacks justification: but it has beenwidelyheldfromtheearliest times.Basil theGreat, for instance, incondemning immoderate mirth, appeals to our Lord’s example, —although he accounts for his deportment on a theory which bearstraces of the “apathetic” ideal of virtue so wide-spread in his day.“And the Lord appears to have sustained” says he (Regulae fusiusTractatae. 17:Migne, PG. xxxi. p. 961), “the passions which arenecessarytothefleshandwhateverofthembeartestimonytovirtue,suchasweariness,andpity to theafflicted:butnever tohaveusedlaughter, so far as may be learned from the narrative of theEvangelists,buttohavepronouncedawoeuponthosewhoareheldbyit(Lk.vi.25).”Chrysostom(Hom.viinMatth.:Migne,PG.lvii.p.69)incommendingagravelifebytheexampleofChrist,exaggeratesthematter:“Ifthoualsoweepthus,thouhastbecomeanimitatorofthyLord.Forhealsohimself.wept,bothoverLazarusandoverthe

city;and touchingJudashewasgreatly troubled.And this, indeed,he isoften tobe seendoing,butnever laughing (gelonta), andnoteven smiling even a little; at least no one of the Evangelists hasmentionedit.”

80. ViedeJesus,ch.xi.adfin.;ed.2.1863,pp.188-194.81. Cf. the article “Foresight” in Hastings’ DCG. See for example, A.

Julicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. I. p. 144; Paul Wernle, DieAnfange unserer Religion,p. 65: “There was a time in Jesus’ life,when a wholly extraordinary hope filled his soul. . . . Then, Jesusknewhimselftobeinharmonywithallthegoodforcesofhispeople.. . that was the happiest time of his life. . . .We only need to askwhether Jesus retained this enthusiastic faith to the end. To thatperiodofjoyfulhopetheresucceededadeepdepression.”

82. ’Ayalliaomai;seenote77above.83. Chara: consult also theuse inparables of bothchara,Mt. xxv. 21,

23;Lk,xv.10,andchairo,Mt.xviii.13;Lk.xv.5,32.84. A.B.Bruce,TheHumiliationofChrist,21881,p.334:“Hence,though

a man of sorrow, he was even on earth anointed with the oil ofgladnessabovehisfellows....Shallwewonderthattherewasdivinegladness in the heart of him who came into the world, not byconstraint,butwillingly;notwithaburningsenseofwrong,butwitha grateful sense of high privilege; and that he had a blessedconsciousnessoffellowshipwithhisFatherwhosenthim,duringthewhole of his pilgrimage through this vale of tears?” A. E. Garvie,Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus, 1907, p. 318: “Although in hisemotions,varyingnotesofjoyorgriefwerestruckbythechangefulexperiencesofhis lifeamongmen,yettheundertonewasthesenseofagreatgoodtobegainedbytheenduranceofagreatsorrow.”G.Matheson,Studies in the Portrait of Christ,101909, I. pp. 274 sq.:“Wespeakofthe‘ManofSorrows,’yetIthinkthedeepestnoteinthesoulofJesuswasnotsorrowbutjoy.”C.W.Emmet,DCG.ii.p.607b:Christ “is theManof Sorrows, yetwe cannot thinkofhim for amomentasanunhappyman.Herathergivesusthepictureofsereneanduncloudedhappiness.Beneathnotmerelytheoutwardsuffering,buttheprofoundsorrowofheart,thereisdeeperstillacontinualjoy,derived from the realized presence of his Father and theconsciousnessthatheisdoinghiswork.Unlessthisisremembered,

theideaoftheManofSorrowsissentimentalizedandexaggerated.”F.W.Farrar,TheLifeofChrist,1874,i.p.318;ii.p.103.

85. Hahn in loc.: “We see from this verse that Jesus had a distinctforeknowledgeofhispassion,as indeedhebearswitnessalreadyinix.22,44.Theremeetsushere,however,thefirstintimationthathelooked forward to it with inner dread (Angst),though there arerepeated testimonies to this later (Cf.xxii.42;Jno.xii.2;Mt. xxvi.37).”Cf.Mt.xx.22:“AreyouabletodrinkthecupthatIamabouttodrink?”;Mk.x.38:“AreyouabletodrinkthecupthatIdrink?ortobebaptizedwiththebaptismthatIambaptizedwith?”

86. Cf.Meyer onMk. x. 38: “The cupandbaptismof Jesus representmartyrdom.Inthecaseofthefigureofbaptism...thepointofthesimilitude lies in the being submerged . . .Cf. the classical use ofkataduein and, baptizein, to plunge (immerge) into sufferings,sorrows,andthelike.”

87. Sunecho:seeG.Heine,Synonymiketc.,1898.p.149:“sunechomai,affligor, laboro.”Cf. Plummer in loc.: “How am I oppressed,afflicted, until it be accomplished! Comp. viii. 37; Jno. v. 24. Theprospectofhis sufferingswasaperpetualGethsemane:cf.Jno.xii.27.”Weiss in loc.: “And how I am afflicted (bedrangt) until it beaccomplished! Expression of human anxiety in prospect of thesufferingswhichweretocome,asinGethsemaneandJno.xii.27.”

88. The heos hotou emphasizes the whole intervening time: “I amstraitenedthroughallthetimeuptoitsaccomplishment.”

89. Zahn in loc.,(p. 509) : “The essential content of this incident,narratedbyJohnalone,isthesamethattheSynopticsrecordintheprayer-conflict in Gethsemane, which John passes over in silencewhenhisnarrativebringshimtoGethsemane(xviii.1-11).”

90. Seenote3.91. Thisprayerisfrequentlytakenasacontinuationofthequestion.So,

e.g.Zahn.(p.507):“tothequestiontieipo,thewordswhichfollow:pater,swsonmeektashopastautascannotbringtheresponse;fortheprayerisatoncecorrectedandwithdrawn(allaktl),andreplacedby an absolutely different one (verse 28). The first prayer sharestherefore inthe interrogatory inflectionoftieipoandis tobefilledoutbyanara(orn)eipoderivedthence,withthenewquestion,‘AmI to say, perhaps: Father saveme from this hour?’ “ Against this,

however,Westcott forcibly urges “that it does not fall in with theparallelclause,which follows: ‘FatherglorifyThyName’;norwiththeintensityofthepassage,noryetwiththekindredpassagesintheSynoptics(Mt.xxvi.39andparallels).”

92. Zahn(p.509):“IntotheworldofJesus’conceptionsthepossibilityofgoinganotherwaythanthatindicatedbyGodcouldintrude;thatwashistemptation;buthiswillrepelledit.”

93. Tarasso: see Schmidt, Synonymik etc., iii. 1879. § 739. 8. p. 518:Heine,Synonymiketc.,1898,p.149.

94. Cf. Calvin Com. in Harm. Evang., on Mt. xxvi. 37: “And whencecametohimbothsorrowandanxietyandfear,exceptbecausehefeltindeathsomethingsadderandmorehorriblethantheseparationofthe soul and body? And certainly he underwent death, notmerelythathemightmove fromearth toheaven,butrather thathemighttake on himself the curse to which we were liable, and deliver usfromit.Hishorrorwasnot, then,atdeathsimpliciter,asapassageout of the world, but because he had before his eyes the dreadfultribunal of God, and the Judge Himself armed with inconceivablevengeance;itwasoursins,theburdenofwhichhehadassumed,thatpressedhimdownwith their enormousmass. It is, then, not at allstrangeifthedreadfulabyssofdestructiontormentedhimgrievouslywithfearandanguish.”

95. Thus Mrs. Humphrey Ward reports a conversation with Mr.Gladstone(“NotesofConversationwithMr.Gladstone,”appendedtothesecondvolumeofRobertElsmere,Westmorelanded.1911):“Hesaidthat though he had seenmany deaths, he had never seen anyreallypeaceful.Inalltherehadbeenmuchstruggle.Somuchsothat‘ImyselfhaveconceivedwhatIwillnotcallaterrorofdeath,butarepugnancefromtheideaofdeath.Itistherendingasunderofbodyandsoul,thetearingapartofthetwoelementsofournature,—forIhold thebody to be an essential element aswell as the soul, not ameresheathorenvelope.’”

96. lnstitutes.II.xvi.12:“Ifanyonenowask,whetherChristwasalreadydescending into hellwhen he prayed to be delivered fromdeath, Ireplythatthiswastheexordium,andwemaylearnfromitwhatdiroset horribiles cruciatus he sustained when he was conscious ofstandingatthetribunalofGod,arraignedonouraccount.”“Itisour

wisdom,”Calvinremarks inthecontext,“tohavea fitsenseofhowmuch our salvation cost the Son ofGod.” Cf. the discussion in thesame spirit of ThomasGoodwin,Works. v. pp. 278-288: “For it isGod’swraththatishell,asitishisfavorthatisheaven”(p.281).

97. ’Agonia: see G. Heine, Synonymik etc., 1898, p. 189: “Contest,quaking,agitation(andanxietyoftheissue?)Lk.xxii.44;Luther,‘hegrappled with death,’ Weizsacker, ‘he struggled,’ Bengel; ‘supremegriefandanguish.Itproperlydenotestheanguishandpassionofthemind,whenitentersuponaconflictandarduous labor,evenwhenthereisnodoubtofagoodissue:”Plummerinloc.:“Fieldcontendsthatfearistheradicalnotionof theword.Thepassages inwhichitoccursinLXXconfirmthisview....Itisthereforeanagonyoffearthat is apparently to be understood.” It would be better to sayconsternation,appalledreluctance.

98. The discussion of the language employed, by John Pearson, AnExposition of the Creed, (New York, 1843), p. 288, note †, is verypenetrating.

99. ’Adamoneo: see Heine, Synonymik etc., 1898, p. 148: “pavesco,anger.”Cf.Lightfoot, onPhil. ii. 26: “Theprimary ideaof thewordwillbeloathinganddiscontent.”“Itdescribestheconfused,restless,half-distractedstate,whichisproducedbyphysicaldiscouragement,or by mental distress, or grief, shame, disappointment, etc.”Lagrange on Mk. xviii. 33: “seized with despondency.” ThomasGoodwin(Works.v.278):“sothatweseeChrist’ssoulwassickandfainted,”“hisheartfailedhim.”

100. Aupeomai:seenote38.101. ’Ekthambeomai:seeHastings’DCG.i.p.48,article“Amazement”;G.

Heine,Synonymiketc.,p.149:It“isusedofthosewhosemindsarehorror-struck by the sight or thought of something great oratrocious, notmerely because it injects fear, but because themindscarcely takes in its magnitude.” Weiss in loc.: “ekthambeisthaicannot designate the dread (Angst)but only the horror(Erschrecken)which attacks Jesus at the thought of the sufferingswhich stand before him.” ThomasGoodwin (Works, v. p. 275): “Itsignifies‘tobeinhorror.”‘

102. Seenote3.103. Perilupos.J.A.Alexander:“Grievedallround,encompassed,shutin

by distress on every side.” Morrison: “The idea is, My soul issorrowfulallroundandround.”

104. Swete’s“asorrowwhichwell-nighkills”istooweak:themeaningis,it is a sorrow that kills. Thomas Goodwin (Works. v. p. 272)distinguishes thus: “Aheavinessuntodeath,notextensive, soas todie, but intensive, that if he had died, he could not have sufferedmore.”

105. OnJno.xii.27.TheevidencederivedfromtheconflictofwillsinthisprayerthattheseemotionshadtheirseatinourLord’shumannatureisoftenadvertedto,—e.g.byJ.R.Willis,Hasting’sDCG.i.p.17a:—“Thethrice-repeatedprayerofJesus inwhichhespeaksofhis ownwillasdistinctfrombutdistinctlysubordinatetohisFather’saddstothe impression already gained, of the purely human feelingsexhibitedbyhiminthisstruggle.”

106. Cf.thedescriptionofthis“agony”inHeb.v.7:“Who,inthedaysofhisflesh,havingofferedup,withstrongcryingandtears,prayersandsupplicationsuntohimthatwasabletosavehimfromdeath.”

107. Calvin,CommentariusinHarmoniamEvangelicarum,onMt.xxvii.46:“Andcertainlythiswashischiefconflict,andharderthanallhisother torments, becausehewas so far frombeing supported inhisstraits by his Father’s help or favor, that he felt himself in somemeasureestranged.Forhedidnotofferhisbodyonlyinpaymentforour reconciliation with God, but in his soul also he bore thepunishments due to us; and thus became in very fact the man ofsorrows, as Isaiah says (liii. 3). . . . For that Christ should makesatisfactionforus,itwasnecessarythathebesistedasguiltybeforethe tribunalofGod.Butnothing ismorehorrible than to incur thejudgmentofGod,whosewrathisworsethanalldeaths.When,then,there was presented to Christ a kind of temptation as if he werealreadydevotedtodestruction,Godbeinghisenemy,hewasseizedwithahorrorinwhichahundredtimesall themortals inexistencewouldhavebeenoverwhelmed;buthecameoutof itvictor,by theamazing power of the Spirit” . . . Also Institutes II. xvi. 11: “Andcertainly it isnotpossible to imagineamore terribleabyss than tofeel yourself forsaken and abandoned (derelictum et alienatum)byGod,and,whenyoucalluponhim,nottobeheardasthoughhehadconspired for your destruction. Christ we see to have been so

dejected(dejectum)astobeconstrainedintheurgencyofhisdistress(urgente angusta)to cry out, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thouforsaken me?’ “Calvin adds with clear insight that though it isevidentthatthiscrywasexintimianimaangoredeductam,yet thisdoesnotcarrywithittheadmissionthat“Godwasevereitherhostileorangrywithhim.”“Forhowcouldhebeangrywithhisbelovedson,in whom his soul delighted, or how could Christ appear in hisintercessionforothersbeforeaFatherwhowasincensedwithhim?”All that is affirmed is that “he sustained the weight of the Divineseverity; since, smitten and afflicted by the hand of God, heexperiencedallthesignsofanangryandpunishingGod.”

108. Thathisdeathwasduetopsychicalratherthanphysicalcausesmaybethereasonwhyittookplacesosoon.JacobusBaumanninamostdistressing book (Die Gemutsart Jesu,1908, p. 10)appeals to therapidity with which Jesus succumbed to death as evidence of acertaingenerallackofhealthfulvigorwhichhefindsinJesus:“Withthisliabilitytoeasyexhaustion,hisquickdeathonthecrossagrees—athingwhichwasunusual.”

109. Calvin,Institutesii.xv.12doesnotfailtoremindusthateveninourLord’s cry of desolation, he still addresses God as “My God”:“althoughhesufferedagonybeyondmeasure,yethedoesnotceasetocallGod his Cod, evenwhen he cries out that he is forsaken byhim.”ThenatlargeintheComm.inHarm.Evang.,onMt.xxvii.48:“Wehavealreadypointedoutthedifferencebetweennaturalfeelingandtheknowledgeoffaith.TherewasnothingtopreventChristfrommentally conceiving that God had deserted him, according to thedictation of his natural feeling, and at the same time retaining hisfaith that Cod was well-disposed to him. And this appears withsufficientclearnessfromthetwoclausesofthecomplaint.Forbeforehegivesexpression tohis trial,hebeginsbysaying thathe flees toCodashisCodandsohebravely repelsby this shieldof faith thatappearance of dereliction which presented itself in opposition. Inshort,inthisdireanguishhisfaithwasunimpaired,sothatinactofdeploringthathewasforsaken,hestilltrustedinthepresenthelpofGod.” Similarly Thomas Goodwin (Works. v. p. 283): “And boththesedifferingapprehensionsofhisdidChristaccordinglyexpressinthatonesentence, ‘MyGod,MyGod,whyhastThouforsakenme?’

Hespeaks itasapprehendinghimselfasonstillunited toGodandbelovedbyhim,andyetforsakenbyhimasasuretyaccursed.”

110. Cf.theremarksofH.N.Bernard,TheMentalCharacteristicsofourLordJesusChrist,1888,pp.257sq.

111. Cf. Heb. ii. 13. In Jno. ii. 24we are told that Jesus “did not trusthimself (episteusen)”to those in Jerusalem who believed on himwhen they saw the signswhichhe did. Cf. Lutgert, as cited, p. 63:“FromthistherelationofJesustoGodreceivesatwo-foldform:ontheonesideitisabsolutetrust,acertaintyofreceivingeverything,awish and prayer directed to God, which leads to a completeexaltationabovenature;butthissideofhisfaithJesusmakesuseofonlyformen.Byvirtueofthishisconfidencehefulfilsthewishofallwhoaskhim.Inthisuseofhis faithheexpresseshis love formen.The faith of Jesus has however also another side; it is bowing,renunciationandsubordination toGod.Thissideofhis faithJesusemploys only for himself. The story of the temptation shows thatJesus uses this renunciation in order to glorify God.” (Further, p.89).

112. Cf.A.Schlatter,DieTheologiedesNeuenTestaments, 1909,p.317:“Perfect love involvesperfect trust, and isnot thinkablewithout it.Yet thoughthediscipleshavedeclared thatJesusempowered themfor faith and demanded faith of them, they have said nothing ofJesus’own faith.EvenJohnhas saidnothingof it althoughhehasrichformulasforthepietyofJesusandspeaksoffaithastheactbywhichJesusuniteshisdiscipleswithhimself.Thenotionof faith isintroducedbyhimonlywithrespecttoJesus’relationstomen, ‘Hetrustedhimselfnottothem’;while,ofJesus’relationtoGod,hesays‘Heheardhim,lovedhim,knewhim,sawhim,’butnot,‘Hebelievedonhim’(Jno.ii.24,viii.26,40,xi.10,xiv.31,x.15,xvii.25,iii.11,vi.46,viii.35).AsarulefortheconductofthedisciplestowardJesusisexpresslydrawnfromJesus’conducttowardstheFathertheformula‘BelieveinmeasIbelieveintheFather’mighthavebeenexpected.Butitdoesnotoccur.”

113. Mk.i.35,vi.46,xiv.32,35;Mt.xiv.23,xix.13,xxvi.36-39,42-44;Lk.iii.21,v.16,vi.12,ix.18-28,xi.1,xxii.41,44.Cf.Lutgert,ascited,p. 90:“Also in the expression of his love to God, Jesus fulfilled,accordingtotheEvangelists,hisowncommandment,nottoexhibit

hispietyopenly,buttopracticeitinsecret.TheEvangeliststhereforedesignedly lay stress on Jesus’ seeking solitude for prayer. Thecommunion of Jesus with God, the ‘inner life’ of Jesus, fallsaccordinglyoutsidetheirnarrative.TherelationofJesuswithGodisnot discussed, his communionwithGod remains a secret.” This isspokenof theSynopticswhoalonetellsusofJesus’habitofprayer(proseuchomai,proseucha,donotoccurinJohn).

114. Cf.Heb.v.7:“havingbeenheardforhisgodlyfear(eulabeia),“ i.e.forhisreverentandsubmissiveawe,“thatreligiousfearofGodandanxiety not to offend him which manifests itself in voluntary andhumble submission to hiswill” (Delitzsch in loc.).Davidson in loc.:“The clause throws emphasis on the Son’s reverent submission.”Humanitarian writers debate whether “fear” of God is to beattributed to Jesus. Wellhausen (Israel. und jud. Geschichte,5p.383,expanded in Skizzen and Vorarbeiten,i.1884, p. 98)representshimaspassinghislifeinfearofthejudgeofall:“Hefeelstherealityof God dominating life, he breathes in the fear of the judge whodemandsaccount.ofeveryidlewordandhaspowertodestroybodyandsoulinhell.”SimilarlyBousset(Jesus,1904,pp.54,99,E.T.pp.112,203)speaksofhimaslearningbyhisownexperience“thatGodisterrible(furchtbar)andthatanawfuldarknessanddreadencircleshimevenforthosewhostandnearesttohim,”andas“sharingtothebottomofhissoul”“thefearofthatalmightyGodwhohaspowertodamn body and soul together,” which he “has stamped upon thehearts of his disciples with suchmarvellous energy.” Karl Thieme,however, from the same humanitarian standpoint (Die christlicheDemut, i.1906,pp. 109sq.) repels suchrepresentationsaswithouthistorical ground: we may historically ascribe reverential awe(Ehrfurcht)to Jesus but not fear (Furcht).“Of course hecomprehendedGodinthewholeovertoweringmajestyofhisbeing,and adored his immeasurable exaltation in the deepest reverence(Ehrfurcht).”But “we may maintain in Jesus’ case an altogetherfearless(furchtlos)assuranceofGodandself.”“Wecannotspeakofa‘fearofthejudge’inJesus’case,becauseitdoesnotwellharmonizewithhisfaithinhisownjudgeshipoftheworld.Butwecannodoubtcalltheintensityofhisobedience,thelivingsenseofresponsibilityinwhichhemadeithisend,hiswhole life through, towalk, inallhis

motions,with theutmost exactnessaccording to thewill ofGodasthealmightymajesticLord,his fearofGod.”Lutgert (DieLiebe imNeuenTestament, 1895,pp.88,89)points toJesus’ turning to theFather in Gethsemane and on the cross, not as something terrible(furchtbar) but with loving confidence, as decisive in the case. Ontheplaceof ‘thefearofGod’ inChristianpiety,seeLutgert’sarticleDieFurchtGotten,publishedintheTheologiecheStudien,presentedtoMartinKuhleron6January1905(Leipzig,1905,pp.163sq.).

115. ’Eucharisteo,Jno.xi.41;Mt.xv.36;Mk.viii.8;Jno.vi.11,23;xxvi.27; Mk. xiv. 23; Lk. xxii. 17, 19; I Cor. xi. 24. On the word, seeLobeck, Phrynicus, p.18; Rutherford, The New Phrynicus, p.69.’ExomologeomaiMt.xi.25;Lk.x.21;R.V.mg. ‘praise’:soMeyer,Hahn,Zahn,alsoKennedy,SourcesofN.T.Greek,p.118.Fritzsche:“Gratias tibiago,quod.”Better,Plummer: “acknowledgeopenly tothinehonour,givetheepraise.”SimilarlyJ.A.Alexander.

116. Thaumazo:seeSchmidt,Synonymiketc.,iv.§185,pp.184sq.:“itisperfectly generally ‘to wonder’ or ‘to admire,’ and is distinguishedfrom thambein precisely as the German sich wundern, orbewundern is from staunen: that is, what has seized on us in thecaseofthaumazeinistheextraordinarynatureofthethingwhileinthecaseofthambeinitistheunexpectednessandsuddennessoftheoccurrence.”Cf.Art.“Amazement”inHasting’sDCG.I,pp.47,48.

117. ’Epithumia:seeSchmidt,Synonymik,III,§145,3,5;146,8;andof.J.C.Lambert,art.“Desire”inHastings’DCG,I,453.

118. ’Epaischunomai: see Schmidt, Synonymik,III, § 140; TrenchSynonyms,§§19,20.OnShameinourLord’slifecf.JamesStalker,ImagoChristi,p.190,andThieme,asabove,p.111.

119. WhenWellhausen (Geschichte Israels,2p. 346) says, “There brokeoutwithhimfromtimetotimemanifestationsofenthusiasm,buttotheseelevationsofmoodtherecorrespondedalsodepressions,”—heis going beyond thewarrant of the narrative,which pictures Jesusratherassingularlyequableinhisdemeanor.Cf.Lutgert,ascited,p.103.

120. Origen, for example, in his comment on Mt. xxvi. 37 lays greatweight on the words: “He began to be,” in the sense that theimplication is that he never completed the act. Jesus only enteredupontheseemotions,butdidnotsufferthemintheirfulness.Hewas

subject to propatheia but not to the patha themselves. SimilarlyCornelius a Lapide wishes us to believe that Christ instead of“passions”hadonly“propassioneslibereassumptae.”Foramodernwriterapproachingthisposition,seeJohnHutchison,TheMonthlyInterpreter,1885,II,p.288.

121. It isnotclear, forexample,preciselywhat ismeantbyA.J.Mason(TheConditions of ourLord’sLife onEarth, 1896, p. 46),when hesays: “When Christ is called ‘a Man’ it sounds as if he wereconsidered only an incidental specimen of the race, like one ofourselves,andnot,asheis infact,theuniversalMan,inwhomthewhole of human nature is gathered up, — the representative andhead of the entire species.” What is a “universal man?” And howcould“thewholeofhumannature”be“gatheredup”inJesus,exceptrepresentatively,—which is notwhat ismeant— unless universalhumannatureisanentitywith“realexistence?”AndifevenMasonis unintelligible, what shall we say of a writer like J. P. Lange(Christliche Dogmatik; Zweiter Theil; Positive Dogmatik, 1881,pp.770-771):“ThemanintheGod-manisnotan individualmanofitself,but themanwhich takesmankindup into itself, asmankindhas takennature up into itself. And so it coalesceswith the divineself-limitation,astheSonofGoduniteswiththehumanlimitation.The man in the God-man embraces the eternal Becoming of thewholeworldasitgoesforthfromGodaccordingtotheenergyofhisnature. So it is also radically the real passage of the Becomingthrough the perfected Becoming into the absolute Being, andtherefore theproperorganof theSonofGodaccordingtohis idealentrance into the absoluteBecoming. It is the limited unlimitationwhichcoalesceswiththeunlimitedlimitationofthedivineman,whotakesup into itself thehumanGod.”It isonly fair tobear inmind,however, thatthisstatement ispartlyrelievedof itsunintelligibilitywhenitisreadinconnectionwithLange’sexpositionoftheideasofmanandtheGod-maninhisPhilosophicalDogmatics,which,inhissystem,precedeshisPositiveDogmatics.

122. Cf.A.B.Bruce,TheHumiliationofChrist,21881,pp.262, andpp.427-428: “I see in him traces of stronglymarked, though not one-sidedindividuality...Generallyspeaking,thereality,notideality,ofthehumanityisthethingthatliesonthesurface;althoughthelatter

is not to be denied, nor the many-sidedness which is adduced inproof of it by Martensen and others.” Cf. Martensen, ChristianDogmatics,ET,pp.280sq.

123. E.P.Boys-Smith,Hastings’DCG, II,p.163a:“Thefulness,balance,andunityoftheMaster’snaturemakeit impracticabletouseinhiscasewhatisthecommonestandreadiestwayofportrayingaperson.Thisistothrowintotheforegroundofthepicturethosefeaturesinwhich the character is exceptionally strong, or those deficiencieswhich mark it off from others, and to leave as an unelaboratedbackgroundthecommonstuffofhumannature.Thus,bysketchingtheidiosyncrasies,andcastingafewhighlights,themanissetforthsufficiently.ButwhattraitsarethereintheLordJesuswhichstandout because more highly developed than other features? Nothingtrulyhumanwaswantingtohim,nothingwasexaggerated.Thefactwhichdistinguishedhimfromallotherswashiscompletenessatallpoints....”

124. T.B.Kilpatrick,Hastings’DCG,I.pp.294b-295a:“Yetwearenottoimpute to him any unemotional callousness. He never lost hiscalmness;buthewasnotalwayscalm.Herepelledtemptationwithdeepindignation(Mk.viii.33).Hypocrisyarousedhimtoaflameofjudgment(Mk.iii.5,xi.15-17;Mt.xxiii.1-36).Treacheryshookhimtothecenterofhisbeing(Jno.xiii.21).Thewavesofhumansorrowbrokeoverhimwithagreatergriefthanwrungthebereavedsisters(Jno.xi.33-35).Thereweretimeswhenheboreanunknownagony...Yetwhateverhissoul’sdisciplinemightbe,heneverlosthisself-control, was never distracted or afraid, but remained true to hismission and to his faith.He feels anger, or sorrow, or trouble, butthese emotions are under the control of awill that is onewith thedivinewill,andthereforearecomprehendedwithintheperfectpeaceof a mind stayed on God.” There is a good deal of rhetoricalexaggeration in the language in which the phenomena are heredescribed; but for the essence of the matter the representation issound:ourLordisalwaysmasterofhimself.

125. Com.onJno.xi.35.126. Fr.Gumlich.TSK,1862,p.285noteb,callsonusto“guardourselves

from” Calvin’s statement that “his feelings differ from ours as apure,untroubled, powerful but onflowing stream from restless,

foaming, muddy waves.” But do not his sinless emotions differpreciselysofromoursinfulpassions?

127. Piscatorenlargesuponitandappliesitthus:“justaspureandlimpidwaterwhenmixedwith apuredye if agitated, foams indeedbut isnotmade turbid;butwhenmixedwithan impureanddirtydye, ifagitated, not only forms foambut ismade turbid anddirty; so theheartofChristpurefromallimperfection,wasindeedagitatedbytheaffectionsimplantedinhumannature,butwassoiledbynosin;butourheartsaresoagitatedbyaffectionsthattheyaresoiledbythesinwhichinheresinus.”

128. Westcott in loc.: “Even our human sense of fitness is able torecognize the complete correspondence between the characteristicsofChristasHighPriestandthebelievers’wants.”Davidson,inloc.:“Hesuitedournecessitiesandcondition.”