Jn2i9 3iJ, Mtl2»(Lf. ■•:, I,V. -■" ■• T-'OIkSil,
Lk534), JnO"'! Tits, Mt n I -^1 Mt 171V (Mk
'•=), Mt ir=!-23(Mk 1
~" Ml 202«(Mk
.Mt a.-' C.Mkl427',Jn ), Lk U-^ *i.
The following allusions to His resurrection are in the same order :
The following are, in like order, the allu His return :
(Mk 1462, Lk 2269).
The most cursory examination of these series of passages in their setting, and especially in their distribution through the Evangelical narrative, will evince the cardinal place whicli the eschatological element takes in the life of the*Lord as depicted in the Gospels. In particular, it will be impossible to escape the conviction that it is distinctly the teachin" of the Evangelists that Jesus came into the world specifically to die, and ordered His whole life wittingly to that end. As Dr. Dennej puts it (expounding Jn 10", on which see also "\\ estcott's note), ' Christ's death is not an incident of His life, it is the aim of it. The laying down of His life is not an accident in His career, it is His voca- tion ; it is that in which the Di\Tne purpose of His life is revealed.' 'If there was a period in His life during which He had other thoughts, it is antecedent to that at wliicli we have any know- ledge of Him ' {Death of Christ, pp. 259 and 18). Notliing could therefore be more at odds with the consentient and constant rejjresentations of I he Evangelists than to speak of the ' shadow of the cross ' as only somewhat late in His history begin- ning to fall athwart our Lord's ])athway ; of the idea that His eartlily career should close in gloom as 'distinctly emerging in the teaching of Jesus only at a comparatively late period,' and as there- fore presuinal.1v imt eailier 'ili-ar in His mind': unless, in«l..,!, ii !„■ t]ie a. c..ni]ianying more general judgment thai ■ilieie v.a^ imthing extraordinary or supernatural ia Je.>u»' foreknowledge of His death,' and that ' His prophecy was but the expres- sion of a mind which knew that it could not cease to be obedient while His enemies would not cease to be hostile ' (A. M. Fairbairn, The Expositor, 1897, i. ; V. iv. [1896] 283, 285). It is not less unwarranted to speak of Him as bowing to His fate only ' as the will of God, to which He yielded Himself up to the very end only with difficulty, and at best against His will ' ( Wemle, Stjnopt. Fr'age, 200).
Such expressions as these, however, advise us that a very different conception from that presented by tlie Evangelists has found widespread accept-
FOEESIGHT
FORESIGHT
613
ance among a class of modern scholars, whose efforts have been devoted to giving to our Lord s life on earth a character more normally luimaii than it seems to possess as it lies on the pages ot the Evangelists. The negative principle of the new constructions ottered of the course ami springs of our Lord's career being rejection of the account given by the Evangelists, these scholars are thrown back for guidance very much upon their own subjective estimate of probabilities. 1 he Gospels are, however, the sole sources of information for the events of our Lord's life, and it is impossible to decline their aid altogether. Few, accordingly, have been able to discard entirely the general framework of the life of Christ they present (for those who are inclined to represent Jesus as making no claim even to be the Messiah, see H. Holtzmann, NT Theol. i. 280, note ; Meinhold as there referred to- and Wrede, Das 31essiast)chci»inis, especially Appendix vii.). Most have derived enough from the Gospels to assume that a crisis of some sort occurred at C.-esarea Philippi, where the Evangelists represent our Lord as beginning formally and frankly to prepare His disciple- '- "- -i"-^'^ '^^ 16=' II).
Great differences arise at once hon <
thickly the clouds gatliered over His head, ii. incxtinfimshaWe hope in God and His interposition in His behalf (ef. the brief general sketch of opinions in Wrede, Mesniasgeheimnis, p. 86).
Thus, over-against the 'dogmatic' view of the life cif riirist, set forth in the Evangelists, accord- iiiu tci w hull .Jesus came into the world to die, and N\ hiih is (l.iminated, therefore, by_ foresight, is set, in polar i.|iiiosition to it, a new view, calling itself ' historical," the principle of which is the denial to Jesus of any foresight whatever beyond the most limited human forecast. No pretence is ordinarily made that this new view is given support by the Evangelical records; it is put forward on a priori or general grounds— as, for example, the only psychologically possible view {e.</. Scliwartz- kopff, Praphecies of Christ, p. 28; cf. Denney, Death of Christ, p. 11, and especially the just strictures of Wrede, Messiasgchcimnis, pp. 2, 3). It professes to find it incredible that Jesus entered upon His ministry with any other expectation than Contact with men, however, it allows,
for His death (Mt
m tl(
iswillintt to believe He suspected II earlier, and supposes that He i o\v f r self such; P. W. Schmidt and Lob day He both put the Messianic cro^ death looming in His path; Weizsickci He thought and proclaimed Himselt tl e
ginning, and suppose that what s ne v here is that onlv now Sid He come to see with clearness that H s mm strv would end in His death,— and as death for the Mes lah means ret irn they add that here He begins His proclamation of His return in glorj . To this Schenkel and Hase find difficulty in assenting, feeling it impossible that the Founder of a spiritual kingdom should look forward to its consummation in a physical one, and in- sisting, therefore, that though Jesus may well have predicted the destruction of His enemies, He can scarcely have foretold His own coming in glory. On the other hand, Strauss and Kaur judge that a predictio'n of the destruction of Jerusalem too closely resembles what actually occurred not to be post erentinn, but see no reason why Jesus should not have dreamed of comiii- back on the clouds of heaven. As to His death, Strauss tluiil.^ He began to anticipate it only shortly before His last jourm y I '■ Jerusalem ; while Holsten cannot believe that He realized « li n was before Him until He actually arrived at Jerusalem, :.".l even then did not acquiesce in it (so Spitta). That He wini i ■ Jerusalem for the purpose of dying, neither Weizs.ackcr, n' r Brandt, nor H. Holtzmann, nor Schultzen will admit, tlion ;l the two last named allow that He foresaw that the J™"ii. would end in His death ; or at least that it possibly woulil, ;m 1. 1 - Plinier, since, of course, a possibility of success lay opni L. Himfcf. H. Holtzmann, NT Theol. i. 285-286, note). Aa iniun men, so many opinions. As the positive principle of coii-^hn. tion in all these schemes of life for Jesus is desupernatuin i ;, Hon, they differ, so far as the prophetic element in His tea c 1 1 1 1 1 j as reported by the Evangelists is concerned, chiefly '". "|' to the Evangelists car'rving their own ideas, or the ideas, if lli. community in which they lived, back into Jesus' moulli : ■ i allow it more or less fully to Jesus, indeed, but only in .i l^ni which can be thought of as not rising above the natural v'"- nostications of a man in His position. A few deny to Jcsiis i In entire series of predictions reported in the Gospels, and asM-i them in mass to the thought of the later community (■ / Eichhom, Wrede). A few, on the other hand, allow the w Iml. or nearly the whole, series to Jesus, and explain thciii :il naturalistically. Most take an interiiiediate position, deter mined by the principle that all whic" incapable of naturalistic explanation