The intense ethical dualism of the Fourth Gospel is another perplexing phenomenon to those who look for philosophical consistency in a religious treatise. Christian Platonism, into which the Logos theology passed as its most important in- gredient, seems to leave no room for a personal devil, or for human beings who are children of the devil. It seems rather to fa\-our the conception of evU as mere privatio boni. St. John, liowe\'er, is quite unconscious of any such difficultr. Although the Logos is the immanent cause of all life, so that 'without him nothing « li.ilivci cniK' into being,' the 'darkness' in which the li-hl shines is no mere absence of colour, but a |)cisiti\c malignant thing, a rival kingdom which has its own subjects and its own sphere. Smiie critics have even been reminded of the mel.-iphysii'.i,! dualism of Manicha'an .specula- tion. Tliis last, however, is in too flagrant con- tradiction witli the Logos theology to ettect a lodgment in the Evangelist's mind. The Logos is the true light which lighteth every man as it conies into the world. But since the philosophical pro- blem is not present to the mind of the writer, he is not careful to draw the line between the ethical dualism which was part of his religious experience, and the metaphysical dualism which would have subverted the fmiiiihiticmsof liis intellectual system. The sources of ll]is eihieal iln.ilism may lie found partly in the s|.iritu.il stni.L;;;Ies of an intensely devout nature, hut to a greater extent, probably, in the furious antagonism of Judaism to nascent Christianity, a hostility which, to a Christian, must have seemed really diabolical. The temper of his own age was luicon-sciously transferred to
890
JOHX. GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
the ministry of Jesus, who certainly tuukl not have adopted the attitude of unc(iiii|iriiiiii>iii;_: antagonism to 'the Jews' which we IukI mi iIm- Gospel. But it is wortliy of note llial -onu- <ii the devotional literature of later tiiuc.^, wliiuh shows the closest affinity with Johannine ideas, — the Theologkc Gernmnka is a particularly good example, — displays the same extreme ethical dual- ism as the Gospel. Stockl, in criticising the Theologkt Gennanka from the standpoint of modern Komanism, finds in it the ' Gnostic dual- ism' which, with equal justice, he might have detected in parts of the Fourth Gospel. In neither the one nor the other does the distinction corre- spond with the Gnostic division of mankind into pneumatic and psychic, with an impassable gulf between them. Compare, e.g., the Evangelist's use of ' the world ' in 15'".
(1) Doctrine of God the Fat/ier. — According to the logic of the system, it has often been said, God should always manifest Himself through the Logos. No man hath seen or heard God at any time (l'» 5" &■'% So Philo holds that there can be no immediate communication between God, who is transcendent and unknowable, and the world. Nevertheless, it is impossible to impose this philosophical idea upon St. John. His God is not the unknowable ' One ' of the later Platon- ism. He is Spirit (4^), that is, on the negative side, He is non-material, not appreciable by sense, spaceless and timeless. Yet He is not darkness, but Light ; and light includes the ideas of radiation and illumination. Further yet, He is Love. He loves the world. As loving the world. He is the principle of action, the principle of tlie activity of the Logos. He is the Father, who 'draws' men to Himself. Several other passages {e.g. 5"- -' 9-^)
iiunicate to i
ipjy independent direct action by the Father, this as a ]) of the Evangelist's disagreement with Philo. Philo,
Still,
-emphasize this as a proof
no doubt, could not acknowledge an Incarnation hut the idea of theophauies was naturally very familiar to him from his OT studies. There is nothing un-Philonic in the 'voice from heaven' (12^). Philo, too, speaks of ' a voice formed in the air, not coming from any animate body.'
(2) Doctrine of the Holu Spirit. — The dualism of Flesh and Spirit in St. John is one expression of the ethical dualism of which we have spoken above. It is very clearly set forth in the conversation with Nicodemus, when Christ says that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he be born from above (or afresh). This He explains by repeating that unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. ' That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' This regeneration l)y water and the Spirit is the birth from above, not a simple moral renovation, but a real communication of the Divine Spirit. Natural generation is only a feeble image of this supernatural generation, wiiich, says Loisy (perhaps too boldly, in the absence of any expression of this thought in tlie Gospel), 'is attached to the same order as the Incarnation of the Word.' St. John does not draw this com- parison ; but he says of the elect that they ' were born, not of blood, nor of the will of tlie flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God' (1"). The sphere of the Spirit forms a world absolutely opposed to the world of the flesh. What, theii, is the content of this world of the Spirit ? Since God is Spirit, the world of Spirit is the world of God, and partakes of the Divine attributes. It is absolute and indestructible ; the Father ' hath life in himself,' and has given this absolute life to the Son also. Even so the Son can transmit it, ' quickening whom he will.' The Spirit quick- enetli, the flesh profiteth nothing: it w^as to oom-