^{page 50 note 1} Klos, H., Die Sakramente im Johannesevangelium (Stuttgart, 1970), p. 9f.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 2} Käsemann, E., The Testament of Jesus (London, 1968), p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 3} Lohse, E., ‘Wort und Sakrament im Johannesevangelium’, NTS, 7, 1960/1961, pp. 110–125, especially p. 124.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 1} It is possible to describe this personal relationship in Bultmannian terms as ‘existential confrontation’, but John is in no sense an ‘existentialist’. He thinks in realistic personal categories, which should not be dissolved into subjectivism.

^{page 52 note 1} For Luther's more moderate view, cf. Lohse, p. 117 and note 1.

^{page 52 note 2} As is done, for instance, by Cullmann, O., Urchristentum und Gottesdienst (Zurich, 1962)Google Scholar, and by Niewalda, P., Sakramentssymbolik im Johannesevangelium? (Limburg, 1958).Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 3} For the interpretation of John 2.1–11, cf. Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (The New Century Bible) (London, 1972), pp. 123–128.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 4} Lohse, art. cit., p. 124.

^{page 53 note 1} So also Bultmann, ad loc.

^{page 53 note 2} John 4.2, limiting this activity to the disciples, is almost certainly a gloss.

^{page 53 note 3} Lohse, art. cit., p. 123.

^{page 54 note 1} cf. Ezek. 36.25f and especially 1QS 4.QOf: ‘Then God in his truth will make manifest all the deeds of man, and will purify for himself some from mankind, destroying all spirit of perversity.…, and purifying him with a spirit of holiness (cf. Rom. 1.4) from all deeds of evil. He will sprinkle upon him a spirit of truth like waters for purification ….’

^{page 54 note 2} Hence Käsemann speaks of the Johannine church as ‘the community under the word’. It is important to remember, however, that to John Jesus is the content of the word as well as its author, so that response to the word is never merely an intellectual assent, but a fully personal response leading to the establishment of a lasting personal relationship.

^{page 54 note 3} The pedilavium is primarily an example of humble service, but John has added into the original tradition a dialogue in verses 6–10 which draws attention to the effect of the washing. As this is something that cannot be understood now, but only at a later stage (meta tauta,.verse 7), it is clear that the primary reference of the dialogue is to the cleansing effect of the passion. It remains possible, however, that John also intends a secondary reference to baptism, whereby men ‘have part with Jesus’ (echeis meros met' emou, verse 8). For the literary analysis of the pericope and the text of verse 10, cf. Lindars, B., The Gospel of John, pp. 446–452.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 1} There are no secure grounds for assigning 5.28f to an interpolator (against Bultmann).

^{page 56 note 1} In chapter 9 John uses a tradition of the healing of a blind man to teach the need for the enlightening of the mind, in preparation for the full revelation of the identity of Jesus which will be given in chapter 10. This suggests that he has the experience of conversion in mind (cf. Acts g.17f), and therefore the possibility of an allusion to baptism here cannot be excluded (cf. Heb. 10.32; 1 Pet. 2.9).

^{page 56 note 2} The reading ‘Son of God’ in this verse is probably due to the use of this chapter in connexion with baptism, so that the words have been conformed to the baptismal confession (hence also the interpolation of verses 38, 39a, which are missing from some important manuscripts).

^{page 56 note 3} This is another passage where the primary reference is to spiritual cleansing in preparation for the coming kingdom, but a secondary reference to baptism is possible, even probable. There is no warrant for the omission of ‘water’ in verse 5 (held by Bultmann to be an addition by the ecclesiastical redactor). It can, of course, be interpreted of spiritual cleansing (cf. the quotation from 1QS 4.2 of above) without requiring any reference to baptism (so Lohse, art. cit., p. 116).

^{page 56 note 4} Water is not only a symbol of purification, but frequently represents a source of life (cf. Ps. 36.9; Isa. 12.3; 55.1; Ezek. 47.1; Zech. 14.8).

^{page 57 note 1} It is tempting to treat this verse as an explanatory gloss, but it is (rightly, in my view) accepted by Bultmann.

^{page 57 note 2} Here again Bultmann brackets the operative words (kai exēlthen euthus haima kai hudōr) as a gloss intended to introduce a sacramental allusion. But ‘blood’ here can hardly refer to the eucharist. Rather, it refers to the death of Jesus considered as a sacrifice, so that ‘water’ is to be taken as a hint of its atoning and cleansing effect, cf. 1 John 1.7; 5.6–8. Once more, an allusion to baptism is possible, but not certain. See further Klos, op. cit., pp. 74–81.

^{page 57 note 3} cf. also Ezek. 37.9, where the same word (enephusēsen) is used.

^{page 57 note 4} This is the mission charge of the risen Christ to the apostles as representatives of all the disciples (cf. Matt. 28. 19f; Mark 16.15Q, and there is no necessary reference to ecclesiastical ordination as a sacrament. Similarly verse 23 refers to the response to the mission preaching, rather than to the discipline of penance, as in Mark 16.16, cf. Sanders, J. N. and Mastin, B. A., The Gospel according to St. John, Black's New Testament Commentaries (London, 1968), ad loc.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 5} For further references cf. 3.34 and the Paraclete passages (14.16f, 26; 15.26f; 16.5–15).

^{page 58 note 1} The liturgy of Didache 9–10, which shows literary dependence on the Fourth Gospel, and may perhaps emanate from the Johannine circle, is best explained as an instruction for the agapē. Only at the end do we have the opening of the eucharist, including the maranatha invocation (10.6). Hence the eucharistic words are not included. The omission of the eucharistic liturgy is almost certainly due to the disciplina arcani In this document eucharistia is used in its proper sense of‘blessing’. The eucharist proper (as opposed to the agapē) is called thusia, thus indicating the connection with the passion, which is not mentioned otherwise in the Didache (14).

^{page 59 note 1} On Col. 2.16 see Hooker, M. D., ‘Were there False Teachers in Colossae?’, in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule, edited by Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. S. (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 315–331.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 1} See the survey in Klos, op. cit., pp. 11–44.

^{page 60 note 2} cf. Schürmann, H., ‘Joh. 6.51c—ein Schlüssel zur johanneischen Brotrede’, BZ, N.F. 2 (1958), pp. 244–262.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 3} Thus the scandal is not the supposed ‘carnal’ idea of the sacrament in these verses (Lohse speaks of ‘eine so krasse sakramentale Auffassung’), but the passion. Hence Bultmann transposes 6.60–71 to follow 8.40.

^{page 60 note 4} Lohse, art. cit., p. 118f, lists a few small points which are contrary to John's usual style, but none is without parallel elsewhere in the gospel.

^{page 60 note 5} This analysis of the discourse was worked out by Borgen, P., Bread from Heaven, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 10, Leiden, 1965.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} The verse constitutes a reversal of Ecclus. 24.21. Cf. also Prov. 9.5; Isa. 55.1 (the latter may well be in mind, in view of the quotation of Isa. 54.13 in verse 45).

^{page 61 note 2} If the Aramaic underlying sōma is gūph, then ‘this is my body’ (1 Cor. 11.24) could mean ‘this [bread] is myself’. It is thus possible that ‘I am the bread’ is an intentional allusion to the eucharistic words, adapted to the needs of the discourse at this point. On the other hand John's sarx in verses 51ff does not support interpretation of soma in this sense in his circle.

^{page 61 note 3} This view is taken by Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, revised edition, London, 1966, pp. 125–137.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 4} cf. Lohse, art. cit., p. 122.

^{page 61 note 5} For examples of the technique, cf. Lindars, B., The Gospel of John, p. 595.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 1} Chapter 6 was added in the second edition of the gospel, according to the two stage theory of composition advanced in Lindars, B., Behind the Fourth Gospel (London, 1970)Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 2} cf. 1 Cor. 11.24 huper humōn; Mark 14.24 huper pollōn; also John 6.51 huper tēs toil kosmou zōēs.

^{page 63 note 1} This article was first published as ‘Parola e sacramento nel quarto vangelo’ in Chiesa per il mondo: miscellanea teologico-pastorale nel LXX del card. Michele Pellegrino (Bologna, 1974), Tom. I, pp. 105–19.