John 20:21-22, Receive the Holy Spirit

[Christian2]

John 20: 21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

The disciples received the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. (Acts 2)

Did they receive the Holy Spirit twice? Seems unlikely to me.

So what is the account in John 20:21-22 all about?

Thank you.

[John Reece]

John 20: 21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

The disciples received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. (Acts 2)

Did they receive the Holy Spirit twice? Seems unlikely to me.

So what is the account in John 20:21-22 all about?

Thank you.

D. A. Carson — in his Pillar commentary on John — surveys four different interpretations and then presents an extensive six-part exegesis in favor of the fourth interpretation: that is, that verse 22 is to be regarded as a symbolic promise of the gift of the Spirit later to be given at Pentecost.

[Christian2]

D. A. Carson — in his Pillar commentary on John — surveys four different interpretations and then presents an extensive six-part exegesis in favor of the fourth interpretation: that is, that verse 22 is to be regarded as a symbolic promise of the gift of the Spirit later to be given at Pentecost.

Thank you, John.

[FOR CHRIST]

John 20: 21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

The disciples received the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. (Acts 2)

Did they receive the Holy Spirit twice? Seems unlikely to me.

So what is the account in John 20:21-22 all about?

Thank you.

The answer is in your post,

Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. in John 20,
They received the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost. Acts 2.

[Lost]

The answer is in your post,

Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. in John 20,
They received the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost. Acts 2.

Just a delayed reaction I guess.
As an aside, why did God give the disciples the power to forgive sins, or to not forgive sins?
That seems to give power to the rcc doctrines that forgiveness is not only thru Christ.

[commonman]

There is a key element that I think you might be missing.

At the time Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit, the apostles were considered ceremonially unclean because they had been in the presence of a dead body, Jesus. I know it sounds wacky, but according to the law it is true. Also, they had not completed the "counting of the omer" which represents a process by which we repent of all the things we attach importance to.

At Pentacost they had completed a 7-day cleansing ritual that included animal sacrifice and had completed the counting of the omer. In that sacrifice they acknowledged that they were like that animal and dead to self. By completing the counting of the omer, they were empty of all idolatry.

So while Jesus breathed on them, they had not been sanctified by the High Priest (Jesus was not yet seated at the right-hand of God) and they were not yet emptied through the counting of the omer, so the Holy Spirit could not dwell within them.

At Pentacost, they were sanctified by the High Priest and they had completed the count, so they were empty vessels, and the Holy Spirit could dwell within them.

[Lost]

There is a key element that I think you might be missing.

At the time Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit, the apostles were considered ceremonially unclean because they had been in the presence of a dead body, Jesus. I know it sounds wacky, but according to the law it is true. Also, they had not completed the "counting of the omer" which represents a process by which we repent of all the things we attach importance to.

At Pentacost they had completed a 7-day cleansing ritual that included animal sacrifice and had completed the counting of the omer. In that sacrifice they acknowledged that they were like that animal and dead to self. By completing the counting of the omer, they were empty of all idolatry.

So while Jesus breathed on them, they had not been sanctified by the High Priest (Jesus was not yet seated at the right-hand of God) and they were not yet emptied through the counting of the omer, so the Holy Spirit could not dwell within them.

At Pentacost, they were sanctified by the High Priest and they had completed the count, so they were empty vessels, and the Holy Spirit could dwell within them.

That is interesting, but why all the ceremonies if the new covenant was now in - or did it come in after pentecost or something?

[commonman]

The Old Covenant could not be completed until Christ was in the presence of God seated at His right hand. He couldn't be seated at God's right hand until the time of ascension.

[Lost]

The Old Covenant could not be completed until Christ was in the presence of God seated at His right hand. He couldn't be seated at God's right hand until the time of ascension.

That makes sense.
What do you think about the giving of the power of forgiveness?

[Zguy28]

D. A. Carson — in his Pillar commentary on John — surveys four different interpretations and then presents an extensive six-part exegesis in favor of the fourth interpretation: that is, that verse 22 is to be regarded as a symbolic promise of the gift of the Spirit later to be given at Pentecost.

Most commentaries I have read agree with this, as do I. Although, the Spirit had filled people in the Old Testament previously. Examples include the Judges (Samson, Gideon, etc.), the Prophets, and David (ironically enough he is mentioned by Peter in Acts 2).

[commonman]

What do you think about the giving of the power of forgiveness?

Are you referring to Matthew 16:13-20 and Matthew 18:15-20?

[Flux]

John 20: 21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Just an observation... Jesus says "Receive the the Holy Spirit" as an imperative - a command. There seem to be a few ways in which this verse can be interpreted:

• Jesus was supernaturally imparting the Holy Spirit
• Through some kind of symbolic action, Jesus was foreshadowing them actually receiving it (this interpretation has been suggested by a few people here)
• Jesus was instructing / imploring them to receive the Holy Spirit

The next verse (23) is very similar to Mat 16:19. It suggests that at this point Jesus is giving them the "keys to the Kingdom" referred to in Mat 16:19. I have read that when a rabbi passed down authority to his disciples, effectively granting them rabbi status, this was referred to as giving them the "keys". In keeping with this, the "binding" and "loosing" were commonly used in the context of interpreting Scripture - which parts people were "bound" to and which parts could be "loosened". There was great debate among rabbis concerning this sort of thing, with most rabbis relying on support from the writings of Moses and the Prophets to give their interpretation "authority". Jesus spoke on his own authority (which is why the Pharisees were astounded that he taught "as one having authority"), and his disciples in turn spoke on his authority. So in John 20:22 it seems that this is in the context of Jesus passing on the proverbial baton to his disciples. The previous verse clearly conveys this idea: "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."

All that was simply to suggest that maybe Jesus' concern in this passage is that his disciples be faithful, and live and teach according to the same Holy Spirit that Jesus had.

[Harfelugan]

Just an observation... Jesus says "Receive the the Holy Spirit" as an imperative - a command. There seem to be a few ways in which this verse can be interpreted:

As it's been shown earlier that OT gives examples of men having recieved the Holy Spirit , we can also note that they did'nt evidence it for the rest of their lives . Therefore I can say that the recieving of the Holy Spirit from these examples can be viewed as a special annointing that God imparts for a certain situation and is removed in the same manner . That Jesus at any time in His physical existence had the ability to forgive sins , and preform miricles , it is only a small step to say that He could also impart the Holy Spirit in a pre-glorified state . However after saying all that I would have to concur that this scripture may fit the symbolic sense in that if they had recieved the Spirit at that time with an imparitive command attached , why would they show confusion about it by going fishing . Obviously they did'nt receive the Holy Spirit at time . Take note that the actual penecost experience occured only a short time after .

[Chytraeus]

Just a delayed reaction I guess.
As an aside, why did God give the disciples the power to forgive sins, or to not forgive sins?
That seems to give power to the rcc doctrines that forgiveness is not only thru Christ.

It is really better to look at the whole text.

John 20:21-23 "So Jesus said to them again, 'Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.' And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'"

Jesus began by telling the disciples, "Peace to you!" Oh, how they needed to hear those words. Their Messiah has died, and although He has now come back to them, nothing seems to be going the way they expected. They have lots of questions, lots of doubts, lots of confusion and hurt. They need peace. Peace in their souls, peace with God, and Jesus gives it to them with these simple words. All their sins are forgiven and their relationship with God has been restored.

Then Jesus says, "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." It is important to keep in mind who is hearing these words. A few verses earlier it says that the "eleven" were in the room. It used to be the "twelve" but Judas has betrayed them and is now dead, so there are just eleven. These are the first shepherds of the Church. Actually, Thomas is not with them, which shows that the term "the eleven" was simply used for "the hand-picked disciples."

An aspect of this sentence that gets lost in translation is that even though Jesus starts with the word, "as" meaning a similarity between his being sent by the Father and the disciples being sent by him, He then goes on to use entirely different words for sending. The first is the word "apostoleo" which puts the emphasis upon the authority of the one being sent. The word implies that Jesus, in being sent, had the authority of the Father given to him. It was now also his authority. However, Jesus sends (pempo) the disciples using a word that emphasizes the authority of the one doing the sending. The disciples do not have any authority handed to them, they only have the authority as long as they are doing what Jesus sent them to do. Theirs is a derived authority, it is not theirs, but is always given to them by Christ.

Finally Jesus does in fact give them the authority to forgive and retain sins. This is the background for the Roman Catholic doctrine, but it does not mean that mean that forgiveness of sins is not only through Jesus. In fact, the paragraph above shows that this is not the case. They can only forgive and retain sins by the authority of Jesus Christ which He exercises through them. By-the-way, the Roman Catholic church does not say that forgiveness of sins is not only through Jesus. The priest does not give forgiveness of sins, he gives works of penance that help to repay the temporal punishment of sins. The eternal punishment of sins is completely forgiven in Christ. The problem with their doctrine is the belief that anyone can remove the temporal punishment of sins. They see the temporal punishment as a part of God's justice that can be in some way appeased. However, the temporal punishment of sins is nothing more than the natural consequences of sins, and it does not extend beyond this life, as death is the final consequence of sins, and nothing can prevent it.

Jesus was giving a special dispensation of the Holy Spirit to his disciples so that they could exercise his authority for forgiveness on earth in his physical absence. As ministers of the Church, they were given the special power to announce the forgiveness of sins to repentant sinners, and to announce the wrath of God to unrepentant sinners. This is the same forgiveness that was won for all mankind on the cross, but no one believes it until someone tells them that their sins are in fact forgiven. This should only be said to those who realize that they are sinners who need forgiveness.

This passage does give some support to the rcc practice of the confessional. James and Paul make it fairly clear that the church, through her shepherds, was to hear people confess their sins and to announce the forgiveness of Jesus Christ to them. From early on this was done as part of the public worship service in front of all believers. As the church grew, and an increasing number of unregenerate began to fill pews, the need to take this rather private matter of bearing one's soul to God behind closed doors became necessary, and so the private confessional was born. The original intent was simply that when a member of the church became burdened with sins of which they were not sure God would forgive them, they could go to an elder (pastor) and confess that sin. Then the elder would announce God's forgiveness as obtained for them by Jesus Christ. Having God's own man announcing God's forgiveness verbally, and especially with a specific command and promise of Jesus standing behind this forgiveness, that if the pastor forgives sins, God forgives them as well, was a great comfort to the saints. It is there not to create an aristocratic priesthood, but to comfort the priesthood of all believers in Christ Jesus and to strengthen their faith. It's a really good practice if done properly. Of course, no one would go to the pastor if they thought he would hold those sins against them or gossip about them, so the Church set up rules forbidding such actions by threatening such gossips and overlords with being defrocked. Only a few churches today maintain this practice.

Why does Jesus give the Holy Spirit to the disciples twice? This dispensation was only for the ministers of the Church, and is therefore only given to the "eleven". Thomas got it later, and it was also handed on to Mattias and Paul. When other ministers were chosen to serve the growing church, the Apostles laid hands on them, giving them this dispensation of the Spirit, much like Elijah laying his robe on the shoulders of Elisha in the OT. When the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost, all the believers were there. We do not know how many, but we know that it was many more than just the "twelve". The Marys were all there, and a great many more. The Holy Spirit came on them all as a gift to the priesthood of all believers. However, after this giving of the Holy Spirit, only the Twelve got up to preach. This was because of the extra dispensation of the Spirit which had been given to them earlier by Jesus himself.

This is also what stands behind the Apostolic Succession, but those churches who brag much about having such succession have added many rules to this. They claim that there is a hierarchy among ordained "priests" (not a good word for the ministry office), and that only Bishops can pass on the apostolic succession. The Bible makes almost no distinction between Presbyters (elders or bishops) and deacons (ministers), except that the elder had to be able to teach. Therefore, those churches which broke away from the RCC during the reformation and brought their pastors with them, and have continued the practice of ordaining new pastors also have the apostolic succession. While the words are never used in Scripture, Paul makes it quite clear to both Timothy and Titus that the reason they have authority over the churches under their care is because of the gift of the Spirit that was given to them by the laying on of hands.

I know that this understanding of all this is very unpopular with modern evangelicals, but that does not mean that it is not true. It only means that they are terrified of anything that looks remotely Roman and so they rewrite the Bible to suit their prejudices. This is not a good way of doing interpretation.

[Harfelugan]

Thank you ! That was very insightful . Something that I hadn't came across before and ties up alot of loose ends .