^{page 172 note 1} ‘John’ is used simply as the most convenient designation for the author, who is taken to be an unknown figure writing ca. a.d. 100. It will be assumed that the Gospel can be interpreted as a meaningful whole in its present form. Though a number of sources and various influences stand behind the Fourth Gospel, the hand which gave it to us has imposed on his materials a unity of thought, purpose, language, and style. See Barnett, C. K., The Gospel According to St. John, New York, 1957, p. 20Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1953, p. 290CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a presentation of various theories of partition, redaction, and dislocation see Howard, W. F., The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation (revised by C. K. Barrett), London, 1955, pp. 95–128Google Scholar, 164–72, 297–303.

^{page 172 note 2} Cited by Flew, R. Newton, Jesus and His Church, London, 1951, p. 172.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 3} Scott, E. F., The Fourth Gospel, Edinburgh, 1951, pp. 109, 117–18, 138–9.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 4} Flew, op. cit., p. 172.

^{page 172 note 5} The Fourth Gospel, London, 1951, pp. 45, 302–5Google Scholar. In his analysis of the Fourth Gospel, Strachan calls John 1.19–4.54 ‘The Origins of the Christian Church’ and John 5–12 ‘The Conflict between the Church and the World’, p. 97.

^{page 172 note 6} C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 78.

^{page 172 note 7} Bultmann, Rudolf (translated by Grobel, Kendrick), Theology of the New Testament, London, 1955, II, 91–92.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 1} See Hort, F. J. A., The Christian Ecclesia, London, 1898, pp. 30, 31, 33Google Scholar; Flew, op. cit., p. 175; Scott, op. cit., pp. 137–8.

^{page 173 note 2} For confirmation of this see Dodd, op. cit., pp. 87–93.

^{page 173 note 3} See Scott, op. cit., pp. 137–8.

^{page 173 note 4} W. F. Howard sees in 10.9 the undershepherds or pastors. They are saved and receive their pastoral authority by passing through the door, Jesus. See Christianity According to St. John, London, 1952, pp. 139–146Google Scholar; The Interpreter's Bible, New York and Nashville, 1952, VIII, 625Google Scholar. According to Strachan (op. cit., pp. 223–4), both 10.7 and 10.9 refer to the ordinary Christian who finds life by passing through Jesus the door. The reference to ‘thieves and robbers’ in 10.8, however, implies by indirection that Christian ministers must also pass through the door. That the ’thieves and robbers’ refer to the synagogue officials who excommunicated the man born blind and/or to false Christian ministers (Strachan) seems more natural here than that they refer to messianic pretenders and bogus Hellenistic saviours (Barrett, op. cit., pp. 306, 308). Barrett holds 10.7 to mean that Jesus is the door to the sheep through which the true shepherd will enter and also the door through which the sheep enter the fold, while 10.9 has only the latter meaning (op. cit., p. 308). This seems close to the truth. It would seem that the shepherd of the sheep who goes through the door in 10.2 at least includes the minister, for it is not likely that John would think that Jesus had to have the porter's permission to enter (10.3).

^{page 174 note 1} See Pedersen, J., Israel, London, 1954, I–II, 109–110, 178, 171ffGoogle Scholar; Knight, G. A. F., A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity, Edinburgh, 1953, p. 11Google Scholar. For a fuller discussion of the author's views on corporate personality and the Church see ‘The Church as the Body of Christ in the Gospel of Matthew’, Scottish Journal of Theology, XI (1958), 272–274.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 2} See Rowley, H. H., ‘The Servant of the Lord in the Light of Three Decades of Criticism’, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament, London, 1952, pp. 50–54.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 3} See Barrett, op. cit., pp. 277–8; Dodd, op. cit., pp. 201–3; Brown, Raymond E., ’The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles’, The Scrolls and the New Testament, New York, 1957, pp. 184–186, 192–5.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 4} But see 1 John 1.5.

^{page 174 note 5} Howard, , Christianity According to St. John, p. 83Google Scholar. Barnett, op. cit., p. 277–8. Dodd, op. cit., pp. 202–3. Bultmann (op. cit., pp. 20–21) from a slightly different perspective states that the gnostic cosmological dualism becomes in John a dualism of decision.

^{page 174 note 6} See Bultmann, op. cit., pp. 17–18.

^{page 175 note 1} ibid., pp. 18, 25. Dodd (op. cit., pp. 203, 210) seems to believe that for John the darkness was already there and the light made it manifest. Barrett (op. cit., p. 289) holds that the Devil's being ἀπ' ἀρχς (8.44) is parallel to the Word's being ἐν ἀρχ; He also allows that there may be a reference here to a fall from the truth ἐν ἀρχ. Hoskyns (Edwyn Hoskyns and Francis Noel Davey, The Fourth Gospel, London, 1947, pp. 343–4) states that the verb tense in Greek does not allow any reference to a fall of the Devil and holds that ἀρχς here refers to the fall of Adam. Bultmann says that the meaning of 8.44 is that the Devil lurks behind every sin; or sin shows that a man is in essence a sinner, determined by unreality (op. cit., p. 25).

^{page 175 note 2} See Hoskyns, op. cit., pp. 207–9.

^{page 176 note 1} The vision of the human predicament in Sartre's No Exit is very similar to John's. Garcin arrives at the conclusion that hell is other people. It is other people in the precise sense that one cannot escape the necessity of winning approval from them. The door to hell flies open, but Garcin refuses to go out of it because he must stay and convince Inez that he is not a coward. He will not face the uncertainty on the other side of the door and risk life alone, so he shuts the door. There is much similarity between John's synagogue of darkness and Sartre's Second-Empire-drawing-room-hell, but, of course, there is a great difference: the synagogue has an exit.

^{page 176 note 2} Ramsey, A. M., The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ, London, 1949, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 3} ibid., pp. 23, 27.

^{page 177 note 1} Dodd, op. cit., p. 206.

^{page 177 note 2} op. cit., p. 59.

^{page 177 note 3} Dodd. op. cit., pp. 207–8.

^{page 177 note 4} Ramsey, op. cit., p. 71.

^{page 177 note 5} This interpretation is favoured by Strachan (op. cit., p. 127), Dodd (op. cit., p. 302), and Lightfoot, R. H. (St. John's Gospel, Oxford, 1956, p. 114)Google Scholar. Hoskyns (op. cit., p. 196) thinks that it is implicitly there, and Barrett (op. cit., pp. 167–8) thinks that this idea may be there.

^{page 177 note 6} For examples see Barrett, op. cit., pp. 132, 173.

^{page 178 note 1} Robinson, J. A. T., The Body, S.C.M., 1952, pp. 48–49.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 2} See Bultmann, op. cit., pp. 18–21.

^{page 178 note 3} For a fuller discussion of the author's view on the body in Paul and for a justification of this scheme see op. cit., pp. 271–5

^{page 179 note 1} See Dodd, op. cit., p. 403.

^{page 179 note 2} Barrett, op. cit., p. 409.

^{page 179 note 3} See Dodd, op. cit., p. 404; Barrett, op. cit., p. 382; Hoskyns, op. cit., p. 454; Strachan, op. cit., p. 280.

^{page 179 note 4} op. cit., p. 276.

^{page 179 note 5} Dodd, op. cit., p. 405.

^{page 179 note 6} Hoskyns, op. cit., p. 454. Barrett, op. cit., pp. 380, 382, 387, 410.

^{page 179 note 7} Cited by Hoskyns, op. cit., p. 459.

^{page 179 note 8} op. cit., pp. 288–9.

^{page 180 note 1} Hoskyns, op. cit., p. 459.

^{page 180 note 2} Barrett, op. cit., p. 387.

^{page 180 note 3} See Dodd, op. cit., pp. 194–5.

^{page 181 note 1} Bultmann (op. cit., p. 92) is well aware of the ethical unity.

^{page 181 note 2} See references in Nelson, J. Robert, The Realm of Redemption, London, 1956, p. 101.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 3} Best, Ernest, One Body in Christ, London, 1955, pp. 98–101Google Scholar. The same concern is expressed by Filson, Floyd in his Jesus Christ the Risen Lord, New York and Nashville, 1956, p. 193.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 1} Dodd, op. cit., pp. 138–1. Robinson, H. Wheeler (‘Prophetic Symbolism’, Old Testament Essays, London, [1927], p. 11Google Scholar) argues that in Hebrew thought metaphysical significance was ascribed to events in the external world so that they were conceived as parts of a larger whole of reality.

^{page 182 note 2} Brooks, Cleanth, ‘Metaphor and the Function of Criticism’, Spiritual Problems in Contemporary Literature, New York, 1957, pp. 133–135.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 3} Dillistone, F. W., ‘How is the Church Christ's Body?’, Theology Today, II (1945), 59fGoogle Scholar. Cited by Nelson, op. cit., p. 102.

^{page 182 note 4} Filson, op. cit., p. 193.

^{page 183 note 1} For the meaning of koinonia see Campbell, J. Y., ‘Koinonia and its Cognates in the New Testament’, Journal of Biblical Literature, LI (1932), 353.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 2} Buber, Martin (translated by Smith, Ronald G.), I and Thou, Edinburgh, 1944, p. 45Google Scholar. The Qumran Sect used the word ϒaḥad as a name for the community, and Dupont-Sommer, ([translated by Rowley, E. Margaret] The Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford, 1952, p. 46Google Scholar) held that the term is comparable to the Greek koinonia. This identification was challenged by Edwards, George (‘The Qumran Sect and the New Testament Church’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Duke University, 1955, pp. 132–138Google Scholar) who pointed out that the dominant element in yaḥad is association rather than participation in something held in common: however, there is some similarity between the two words at the point of community sharing. Marcus, Ralph (‘Philo, Josephus, and the Dead Sea ϒaḥad’, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXI [1952], 207–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar) had also recognised that in both biblical and post-biblical Hebrew yaḥad normally means ‘together’ and not ‘community’, and he implies that the connotation of ‘community’ in 1QS is a change from the usual. He associates yaḥad, however, with the Greek oμoλoς which Philo and Josephus used of the Essenes. This word means ‘crowd’, usually in the sense of ‘disorderly crowd’.

Cross, Frank (The Ancient Library of Qumran, London, 1958, pp. 57–61, 155–6Google Scholar) sees a close parallel between the unity of the church in the Fourth Gospel and yaḥad of the Scrolls. He holds that yaḥad refers to the principal sect community, the one at Qumran, and that it has also the more general sense of the eschatalogical community of the new covenant. It also refers to the activities of the sect ‘in common’. Cross associates yaḥad with koinonia and suggests such English renderings as ‘community’, ’communion’, ‘unity’, ‘fellowship’, and ‘togetherness’. He does not appear, however, to distinguish between the ideas of association and participation in something held in common.

Reicke, Bo (‘The Constitution of the Primitive Church in the Light of Jewish Documents’, The Scrolls and the New Testament, New York, 1957, pp. 148, 149, 156Google Scholar) affirms that the Qumran yaḥad is an organic community constituted by the strict hierarchic ranking of the various classes (priests, Levites, and Israel) within the community. Yet, he says, the members were not so closely united as the brothers in Christ would later be. This is the key to the real difference between the Qumran yaḥad and the Johannine Church.

The Qumran Sect was a messianic community in a stricter sense than Judaism in general; the messianic events have started to happen by anticipation. Possibly the Teacher of Righteousness was expected to return as Messiah, but he was not and is not the Messiah. For the Church, on the other hand, Jesus by His Resurrection has introduced the age to come and already rules as Lord and Christ (see Krister Stendahl, ‘The Scrolls and the New Testament: An Introduction and a Perspective’, The Scrolls and the New Testament, pp. 5, 12–14, 15; Cross, op. cit., pp. 181, 183). Sometimes the yaḥad seems to mean no more than ‘together’ or ‘in association’ (1QS 6.3, 8, 9.6). At other times there is the idea of participation or sharing: in common property and mutual knowledge (1QS 1.11–12, 5.2, 6.18), in common meals (1QS 6.5), in the law and covenant (1QS 5.2–3, 1.16), and perhaps in a common lot or spirit (1QS 3.17–19, 20, 2.2, 5, 3.7, 4.15). In the Fourth Gospel, however, the members of the Church share together in the transcendent life of the resurrected Son of God, which enables one to live in the world, and not withdraw from it, while freeing one from the enslaving powers of the world.

^{page 185 note 1} In view of all this it is difficult to believe that E. F. Scott is quite right when he says (op. cit., pp. 119–21) that orthodoxy as a necessary condition for salvation has its roots in John. Scott also recognises, however, that John wanted to allow for new ideas and to prevent an undue hardening of doctrine.

^{page 185 note 2} An indirect confirmation of the deep insight of John is seen in Hiltner, Seward (Sex and the Christian Life, New York, 1957, p. 76)Google Scholar: ‘A “field theory” of personality is developing, according to which each man's individuality is real but is to be seen as the “focus” of a whole “field” or network of interrelationships. Without such a network or field, there could not be a focus. Focus and field are related internally and not merely accidentally.’ Hiltner cites Murphy, Gardner, Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure, New York, 1947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 185 note 3} Virtually the same saying is found in Matt. 10.40. See the author's view (op. cit., pp. 276ff) of the Messiah's identification with the Church in Matthew.

^{page 186 note 1} See Chavasse, Claude, The Bride of Christ, pp. 17Google Scholar, 61. Cited by Nelson, op. cit. p. 80.

^{page 186 note 2} Scott, op. cit., pp. 142–3.

^{page 186 note 3} See Nelson, op. cit., pp. 98–99.

^{page 186 note 4} Barth, Markus, ‘A Chapter on the Church—The Body of Christ’, Interpretation, XII (1958), 141, 148.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 1} For example, the disciples baptise by Jesus' authority, and in this action He acted. So John can say that Jesus baptised and did not baptise (3.22, 4.1–2). See Hoskyns, op. cit., p. 225.

^{page 188 note 1} Bultmann, op. cit., pp. 41, 61–69.

^{page 188 note 2} Hoskyns, op. cit., pp. 254–5. Tillich would seem to be quite Johannine when he holds that Jesus demonstrates his character as the Christ in the sacrifice of himself as Jesus to himself as the Christ. The New Testament picture shows no trace of self-elevation in spite of his awareness of his messianic role. See Tillich, Paul, Systematic Theology, Chicago, 1957, II, 123, 126.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} Jones, G. V., Christology and Myth in the New Testament, London, 1956, pp. 73, 91.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 2} ibid., p. 134.

^{page 189 note 3} ibid., p. 142.

^{page 189 note 4} ibid., pp. 142–4.

^{page 190 note 1} The myth of the glorious return of Christ serves the same purpose, but once his cosmic significance for the end has been seen it is only logical to see it at the beginning also. Moreover, the symbol of pre-existent agency in creation prevents better than the parousia does any radical discontinuity between nature and grace.

^{page 191 note 1} The Greek is ἀφίημι and πρατἐω. Compare Matt. 16.19, 18.18 where it is δἐω and λύω.

^{page 191 note 2} See Barrett, op. cit., p. 475.

^{page 191 note 3} Hoskyns, op. cit., pp. 270, 320. Barrett (op. cit., p. 475) suggests that there may also be a reference here to conferring or not conferring baptism. It is also possible that the power of excommunication is in mind (15.6).

^{page 192 note 1} See Hoskyns, op. cit., p. 439. Barrett, op. cit., pp. 363–4.

^{page 192 note 2} See Ramsey, op. cit., p. 70.

^{page 192 note 3} E. F. Scott, op. cit., pp. 116–17.

^{page 192 note 4} See Barrett, op. cit., p. 422. Cross (op. cit., p. 156) thinks that the Johannine hostility towards the world is reminiscent of, though milder than, the Qumran injunction to ‘hate all the children of darkness’. This implicit criticism of John is, I believe, countered by the remarks above. Burrows, Millar (More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York, 1958, p. 125Google Scholar) voices something of the same opinion as Cross but recognises that the logical implication of the Johannine motivation for love is to love all mankind.