John 20.22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Many that adhere to the Classical Pentecostal Tradition use this verse as one of various means in justifying their position on the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Which I used to believe in myself). For those of you that are unfamiliar with the baptism with the Holy Spirit, it is best explained by those who adhere to it. From the Assemblies of God doctrinal statement we learn this:
It is a special work of the Spirit beyond salvation…Though many non-Pentecostals teach a baptism in the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues, the position of the Assemblies of God is clearly declared in Section 8 of its Statement of Fundamental Truths: “The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2:4).” The evidence always occurred (and still does today) at the time believers were baptized in the Spirit, not at some indeterminate future time.
What does John 20.22 have to do with the baptism with the Holy Spirit?
To answer this question let’s consider the words of Ralph Riggs, from his now Classic Pentecostal book The Spirit Himself, who said of this passage:
We can now understand more clearly what happened to the disciples on the night of the resurrection when Jesus said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” This Spirit of the resurrected, glorified Christ was now available for human hearts, and Jesus hastened to impart this life to His disciples. The Spirit of God’s Son, the Spirit of Christ, as the Spirit of conversion, came into their hearts on that occasion. He had died and become a glorified being in order that He might come into the lives of all believers…John 20.22 was the first step of the Spirit’s incoming. The final fulfillment of John 14.17 came on the day of Pentecost (pgs. 44-45)
From this passage can we reasonably deduce such a meaning? Can we say agree with Ralph Riggs that the disciples were converted at this moment?
Based upon the larger context of this passage I do not believe that we can. What I believe we can conclude is that this episode served as a foretaste of what was to come at Pentecost. For Jesus Christ had not yet been exalted which was the moment the Holy Spirit was to be mediated in a new way.
The Larger Context of the Gospel of John
In John 7.37-39 we observe that Jesus Christ is the mediator of the Spirit. As the mediator of the Spirit, the Spirit was not to be given through Christ until He was glorified. This is clearly enunciated in the 39th verse of this chapter, which reads:
Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (Italics mine).
Not only do we see this here, we also observe that the Spirit was not to be poured out until the completion of Jesus’ work in John 16.7. We read here,
Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you (Italics mine).
What was implied by Jesus at this point by “going away” is the same as Him being glorified. It was not until this point in time that the Helper (i.e. the Spirit, cf. 14.16-17; 14.26) would come (Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, pg. 366)
The Larger Context of the Bible: The Book of Acts
Even though Ralph Riggs says that Jesus had already been glorified, I do not believe we can make such a conclusion. What we discover in the Book of Acts is that the Spirit was not poured out until the day of Pentecost (Acts 2.1-4) which occurred after Jesus’ ascension into Heaven (Acts 1.9-11).
We see this no clearer than in Acts 2.32-33, which reads:
This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
It is clear that Peter referenced the events of Pentecost as the pouring out of the Spirit that Jesus had promised upon His exaltation. Consequently, since Christ had not been exalted, the Holy Spirit had not bee given, which means that Jesus could not have breathed new life into the disciples as suggested by Mr. Riggs.
If this is the case, how then are we to understand this passage?
In the End…
We must understand the event in John 20.22 as a foretaste – a prolepsis – of what was to occur on Pentecost in fullness later.
In explaining this event as a foretaste, Stanley Grenz said,
In order to clarify the close link between the Spirit and Jesus, John reminded his readers of a proleptic event that occurred prior to Pentecost: Jesus breathed on them thereby symbolizing the future outpouring of the Spirit that he would soon effect as the exalted Lord (Ibid., pg. 369).
Besides, it is difficult to deduce from this passage two different impartations of the Spirit which would assume two different ascensions since the pouring out of the Spirit is directly tied into the glorification of Jesus Christ (cf. John 20.17).
What is more, there is no evidence indicating that the disciples entered into their service as Christians since they had not yet been endued with power by the Holy Spirit who was not yet given (Acts 1.8) (G.E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, pg. 325). This is why we can comfortably conclude that John 20.22 does not indicate an initial indwelling of the Holy Spirit, or the first of two steps towards the baptism with the Holy Spirit within the Classical Pentecostal Tradition.
What we can conclude is that this incident was a foretaste of what was to come in fullness later.
Lesson Learned from John 20.22? Simple: Text without Context is Pretext.
Enjoy this post? Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.
Consider sharing this post:
Related posts:
- The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) on the Experience of the Holy Spirit Today The following is from the Presbyterian Church in America’s Historical...
- Twisting Truth: Matthew 7.1 and the Question of Not Judging Others Matthew 7.1: “Judge not, that you be not judged.” in...
- Twisting Truth: Jeremiah 29.11 – Prosperity, Future, Hope, and the American Dream? Jeremiah 29.11 For I know the plans I have for...
- The Pre-em-i-nence of Christ Proven by the Baptism of John Up to this point we have seen that the “things”...
- Reformed Continuationist: Why Ephesians 2.20 does not Disprove the Continuation of the Gifts of the Spirit Based upon Ephesians 2.20, some argue that the gift of...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
ScottL
on Feb 2nd, 2010
@ 9:43 am:
Jesse -
I am not one to box in the baptism of the Spirit. I think Scripture allows for both the baptism of the Spirit to come at conversion and at a latter point.
You stated: What we can conclude is that this incident was a foretaste of what was to come in fullness later.
This is a very definite statement that you have made. But, in the end, I am not sure we can be so defined about John 20:22 only being a ‘foretaste’. It could have been a foretaste and pointer to Pentecost, but even that suggests that something happened in John 20:22. A foretaste does not leave us with nothing, it at least leaves us with something being done and given, even if it was a pointer of something greater to come.
Not only that, but you do have to deal with the various cases in Acts of people receiving the Spirit for empowering (’baptism’ of ‘filling’ of the Spirit) post-conversion. Even Paul himself experience this in Acts 9.
Now, I am fine for those who believe in a one-time experience, that it all happens at conversion. But I think you have tried too tightly to box the baptism of the Spirit. I don’t believe Scripture allows so tight a structure to it. Not only that, but we have to consider what Luke’s point is when talking about the Spirit in Acts. He really never focused on the conversion-salvation-initiation aspect of the Spirit, but rather the empowering for service of the ‘Spirit of prophecy’ (as the Spirit became known to Jews). Hence, why the Spirit (or baptism of the Spirit) was received at times following conversion in the book of Acts.
Those are some of my thoughts.
Jesse
on Feb 2nd, 2010
@ 11:36 am:
@ Scott
You make some great points.
First off, I am not contending for no post conversion experiences with the Holy Spirit. I too see there are, what I would call, “empowerings” (As someone Reformed, I just look to avoid “baptism” language for these post conversion experiences).
My intent was to simply address John 20.22 being used in a way that it was not intended to be used.
I am not one to box in the baptism of the Spirit. I think Scripture allows for both the baptism of the Spirit to come at conversion and at a latter point.
Depends on how you define terms.
This is where I would vary with you. I would see that the “baptism of the Spirit,” as used in Matt. 3.11; Mark 1.8; Luke 3.16; John 1.33; Acts 1.5; 11.16; Eph. 4.5; and 1 Cor. 12.13, is referring to a one-time event that is not repeated.
This is a very definite statement that you have made. But, in the end, I am not sure we can be so defined about John 20:22 only being a ‘foretaste’. It could have been a foretaste and pointer to Pentecost, but even that suggests that something happened in John 20:22. A foretaste does not leave us with nothing, it at least leaves us with something being done and given, even if it was a pointer of something greater to come.
Correct, but I don’t believe that we can conclude with Ralph Riggs that this was a salvific incident that preceded a second “baptism.” Even if there was something that occurred, it is obvious that nothing substantial did since they did not proceed in their ministry until they were endued with power at Pentecost.
Not only that, but you do have to deal with the various cases in Acts of people receiving the Spirit for empowering (’baptism’ of ‘filling’ of the Spirit) post-conversion. Even Paul himself experience this in Acts 9.
I don’t disagree with you here.
Now, I am fine for those who believe in a one-time experience, that it all happens at conversion. But I think you have tried too tightly to box the baptism of the Spirit.
If you take what I have written as a means of denying all post conversion experiences, then yes, I would agree with you. Like I said above, my intent was simply to address John 20.22 without addressing this topic as a whole.
Hence, why the Spirit (or baptism of the Spirit) was received at times following conversion in the book of Acts.
This I would have to disagree. I would read the incidents in Acts 2, 8,. 10-11 as a means of historic fulfillment and the expansion of the Gospel to different people groups.
Acts 9 and 19 would be different cases
What do you think about what I just shared?
Cheers, Jesse.
ScottL
on Feb 2nd, 2010
@ 11:46 am:
Jesse -
Thanks for the comment back. I would say that Luke (in Acts) uses varying terminology to describe the one experience of the ‘baptism of the Spirit’. Luke would use these differing terms:
• Baptised in the Holy Spirit (1:5)
• Holy Spirit come upon you (1:8; 19:6)
• Filled with the Holy Spirit (2:4; 9:17; 13:9)
• Pour out my Spirit (2:17; 10:45)
• The gift of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 10:45)
• Holy Spirit fell on (8:16; 10:44)
• Receive the Holy Spirit (8:15)
Hence, why I believe Luke’s words can lead us to see the ‘baptism’ of the Spirit as sometimes following conversion-initiation, but does not have to. Too many varying experiences here.
We don’t know if John 20:22 is a salvation-conversion or a foretaste or something else. I agree with a lot of your conclusions about the specific verse, but I felt you were saying that the overall conclusion is, thus, unequivocally that the baptism of the Spirit cannot be a post-conversion experience. Maybe you were simply saying that John 20:22 could not be used to teach us that.
Jesse
on Feb 2nd, 2010
@ 10:33 pm:
@ Scott,
Maybe you were simply saying that John 20:22 could not be used to teach us that.
Bingo
ScottL
on Feb 3rd, 2010
@ 6:14 am:
Good start.
But, again, I think we have to deal with Luke’s teaching and emphasis in Acts.
Paul emphasised salvation-initiation with the Spirit. Luke emphasised empowering for service with the Spirit. And Luke talked about being baptised and filled with the Spirit a lot more than Paul. I don’t want to pit those two against one another, for Scripture is a harmonious whole. But I think we have to listen to Luke as a theologian and what he was teaching about the empowering of the ‘Spirit of prophecy’, as the term was known to Jews.
I believe Luke’s testimony shows that the baptism in the Spirit for empowered service can come post-salvation, though it can also come at salvation.