of the fact of His knowing. John describes the Lord’s knowl- edge by two words which it is important to distinguish. Twocxewv, as here, implies acguired knowlege ; knowledge which is the result of discernment and which may be enlarged. This knowledge may be drawn from external facts (v. 6; vi. 15) or from spiritual sympathy (x. 14, 27; xvii. 25). Evéévar (i. 26) implies absolute knowledge: the knowledge of intuition and of satisfied conviction. Hence it is used of Christ’s knowledge of divine things (iii. 11; v. 32; vii. 29), of the facts of His own being (vi. 6; viii. 145; xiii. 1), and of external facts (vi. 61, 64; xiii. 11), In xxi. 17 the two words appear together. Peter says to Jesus, appealing to His absolute knowledge, “ Thou knowest (otéas) all things: ” appealing to his discernment, “ Thou know- est or percewest (ywoaxes) that I love Thee.”
25. He needed not (ov ypelav eixev). Lit., he had not need.
Testify (uaptupjon). Rev., better, bear witness. The same word is in i. 7, 8, 15, 32 (see on i. 7).
Of man (epi tod avIpwrov). Better, as Rev., concerning man.
He knew (autos éyivwoxev). The pronoun is expressed, and with a view to emphasis, as Rev., “ He himself knew.” The imperfect expresses continuance: He was all along cognizant as the successive cases presented themselves; thus falling in with the next words, “what was in the man,” ¢.e., in each par- ticular man with whom He had to do. No such characteristic as this was attributed to the gods of Paganism. ‘ While, then, the gift of anything like general foreknowledge appears to be withheld from all the deities of invention, that of ‘the discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,’ is nowhere found; nor was it believed of any member of the Olympian community, as it was said of One greater than they, ‘ He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in man,’” (Gladstone, “ Homer and the Homeric Age,” ii., 366).