The signature of this sn].eni.ituial life which the Evangelists depict ,l,-ii- a- Ininj. lies thus in the perfection of the f..ic-iL:hi h\ which it was governed. Of the reality oi this foresight they leave their readers in no doulit, nor 3'et of its com- pleteness. They suggest it by the general picture they iliaw of the self-directed life which Jesus li\eil in view of His mission. They record repeated instances in which He mentions beforeh.uid events yet to occur, or foreshadows the end from the beginning. They connect thesis manifotations of foresight with the possession by Him of knowledge in general, in comprehension and penetration alike far beyond what is native to man. It may per- haps be natural to surmise in the first instance that they intend to convey merely the conviction that in Jesus was manifested a prophet of supreme greatness, in whom, as the culminating example of prophecy (cf. Ac 3~- -^), resided beyond precedent the gifts proper to prophets. There can be no question that to the writers of the Gospels Jesus was ' the incarnate ideal of the prophet, who, as such, forms a class by Himself, and is more than a prophet' (this is what Sehwartzkoptt' thinks Him,
T/ic I'njphcirs ofJrsH, Christ, p. 7). They record with evident symjiathy the impression made by Him at the outset of His ministry, tliatOod had at
last in Him visited His | pie (Mk i;'\ I,k 7'", Jn
4'i'9"); theytrace the ripcnine: of tin- impression into a well-settled belief in His |no|ilict ii: char- acter (Mt 21", Lk 24'-', Mt --'l"', l.k T'-', Jn 7-"'); and they remark upon the \xidespread suspicion which accompanied this belief, that He was some- thing more than a prophet — possibly one of the old prophets returned, certainly a very special prophet charged with a very special mission for the introduction of the Messianic times (Mt 16'*, Mk 6'= S'\ Lk gs-'", Jn 6'* 7"). They repre- sent Jesus as not only calling out and accepting this estimate of Him, but frankly assuming a
rahet's place and title (Mt 13", Mk 6^ Lk i'^, i**, Lk 13**), exercising a prophet's functions, and delivering prophetic discourses, in which He unveils the future (Mt 24-', Mk 13-3, j^ 1429. cf. Mt 28«, Lk 24«, and such passages as Mt 26^-- **, Mk 16'). Nevertheless it is very clear that in their allusi.ms to the snpern.itnral knowledge of Jesus, th.' I',van-e1i-tv suppo-c thcin^ch.^s to be illustratiim Miniethin- v.ny nmch ei cater than merely ].rophetic m-piration. The -pccilic differ- ence between . I esiis .anil .a pro]ihet, in their view, was that wliile .a jirophet's human kiniwledge is increased by many things i-eve.-iled to him by God (Am 3'), Jesns participated in all the fulness of
GIO
FORESIGHT
FORESIGHT
the Divine knowledge (Mt ll^', Lk lO-'^ Jn 16'= 18* 16=" 21"), so that all that is knowable lay open before Him (Jn 17'°). The Evangelists, in a word, obviously intend to attribute Divine omniscience to Jesus, and in their adduction of instances of His supernatural knowledge, whether with respect to hidden things or to those yet buried in the future, are illustrating His possession of this Divine omniscience (cf. Muirhead, The Eschatoloqy of Jesus, p. 119, where, in partial correction of the I'nore inadequate statement of p. 48, there is recog- nized in the Evangelists at least a 'tendency' to attribute to our Lord ' Divine dignity ' and ' literal onmiscience').
Tliat this is the case with St. John's Gospel is very commonly recognized (for a plain statement of the evidence see Karl MilUer, Gottliches Wissen unci gbttliche Macht des johann. Christus, 1882, §4, pp. 29-47 : ' Zeugnisse des vierten Evangeliums fiir Jesu gottliches Wissen'). It is not too much to say, indeed, that one of the chief objects which the author of that Gospel set before himself was to make clear to its readers the superhuman know- ledge of Jesus, with especial reference, of course, to His own career. It therefore records direct ascriptions of omniscience to Jesus, and represents them as favourably received by Him (Jn 16™ 21" ; cf. Liddon, liampfim T.rrfnrrs, ed. 4, 1869, p. 466). It makes it alum-t thr Ijusiness of its opening cliapters to e\liil)it tlii> omniscience at work in the especially l)i\iiic lorm (Lk 16'*, Ac l''". He 4'-, I's 138 (139)^ Jer 17"^ 2u'- ; cf. Swete on Mk 2^) of immediate, universal, and complete knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the human heart (cf. Westcott on Jn 2^), laying down the general thesis in 2'"- =* (cf. 6"- ™ 21"), and illustrating it in detail in the cases of all with whom Jesus came into contact in the opening days of His ministry (cf. Westcott on Jn 1-"), Peter (1^-), Pliilip (l^^), Nathanael (1^'), Mary (2^), Niiu.liMuu-; Ci), the woman of Samaria (4). In tho (-inrially ^Hiking ca.se of the choice of Judas lsc:iiioi ,is (jih- of the Apostles, it exjiressly explains th.-it tins was due to no ii;nniami' of .hiclas' character or of his futui'e .•utiim id'-' Ki"), liut was done as part of our Lcmls \..luiilaiv fxecution of His own well-laid plans. U [lictuics Jesus with great explicitness as liroseculing His whole work in full knowledge of all the things that were coming upon Him (Jn 18^, cf. Westcott), and with a view to subjecting them all to His governing hand, so that His life from the beginning should run steadily onward on the lines of a thoroughly wrought-out plan (Jn l" 2"'- '^ S'-*