John 20:22 And after he said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

The relationship between this gift of the Spirit and the Pentecostal outpouring is debated (Klink outlines seven different interpretations).

Some, such as Barrett, think that the two accounts cannot be harmonised.

Among those who do look for harmonisation, the following interpretations have been proposed.

1. Two versions of the same event?

Many modern commentators argue that there is one gift of the Holy Spirit, independently witnessed to by Luke and John.  So Bultmann, Dodd, Barrett, and others.  Brown speaks for many when he writes: ‘It is bad methodology to harmonize John and Acts by assuming that one treats of an earlier giving of the Spirit and the other of a later giving. There is no evidence that the author of either work was aware of or making allowance for the other’s approach to the question. And so we may hold that functionally each is describing the same event; the one gift of the Spirit to his followers by the risen and ascended Lord. The descriptions are different, reflecting the diverse theological interests of the respective authors.… Yet we do not discount the possibility that Luke preserves an authentic Christian memory of the first charismatic manifestation of the Spirit in the community on Pentecost.… For both of them [John and Luke] the Spirit’s task is to take the place of Jesus, to carry on his work, and to constitute his presence in the world.’

Michaels notes that in the other three Gospels, the promise of the Spirit (e.g. Lk 24:49; cf. Mk 1:8; Mt 3:10/Lk 3:16; Acts 1:5,8) remains unfulfilled.  The only difference between John’s ‘Pentecost’ and Luke’s is that the former is represented as the impartation of ‘life’, and the latter as the giving of ‘power’.  ‘Thus when Jesus breathes on the disciples and says, “Receive Holy Spirit,” it is not an anticipation of Pentecost, but “Pentecost” itself.’  Michaels adds: ‘It has to be that way because, unlike Luke, he has no second volume, and unlike Mark, he is not content to leave the story unfinished.’

However, the differences between the two accounts are two great for this to be plausible.  For for one thing, the present account leads to no immediate change in the disciples’ behaviour, whereas Luke’s leads immediately to great boldness and effectiveness on the part of Peter and the other apostles.  For another thing, in John’s account the gift is given in private, whereas in Acts it is public.

2. Two different events?

Many older commentators view them as two different bestowals of the Spirit.  Chrysostom: the power to forgive sins, and the power to perform miracles.  Calvin; sprinkling with the Spirit, and saturation with the Spirit.  Matthew Henry: the Spirit given in part, and then given in fullness.  Godet: the power of the resurrection and the power of the ascension.

Morris sees them as different manifestations of the Holy Spirit: ‘John tells us of one gift and Luke of another.’

Whiteacre agrees that two distinct events are probably meant.  In John’s account, the immediate effect on the disciples is muted, to say the least: ‘A week later they are not bearing witness but are back in the room with locked doors (v. 26). In the next chapter they are back fishing for fish, not for disciples.’  Whiteacre adds that ‘the conditions for the presence of the Spirit have not been completely met. The Spirit will be given after Jesus’ return to the Father (Jn 14:16, 26; 16:7, 13).’  The giving of the Spirit ‘is a complex process and not a simple, one-time event.’

Some see this as a partial impartation of the Spirit that anticipates the full outpouring of Pentecost.  According to this view, it may be best to see the present gift of the Spirit as more specific to the disciples’ present need (for peace and reassurance) at that time, and as an anticipation (first instalment?) of that larger gift that would be given later.  For Calvin, the present gift is a ‘sprinkling’, to be followed by a Pentecostal ‘saturating’.

Matthew Poole: ‘Our Lord therefore fortifies them with an earnest of that more plentiful effusion of the Spirit, which they afterward received in the days of Pentecost.’

Westcott thinks that the present is the power of a new life, and the future a power for ministry.

‘In fulfillment of Jn 7:39, 15:26 and Jn 16:7, Jesus now “breathes” the Spirit into the disciples, enabling them to bear witness to the sin-sick world. (cf. Jn 14:16-17; 15:26-27; 16:7-11) In comparison with Acts 2, this is a private in-filling of the disciples while the later event at Pentecost is a public empowering which launches the church’s mission.’ (DJG)

As noted above, Klink argues that Jesus’ words and gesture here should be understood in relational, rather than transactional, terms.  Therefore, any chronological markers are bound to be imprecise.  After all, God had been by no means inactive through his Spirit before and during the time of our Lord’s incarnation.  We may regard the present event as a real reception of the Holy Spirit, but not as the equivalent of what happened at Pentecost.

Klink reminds us of the repeated references in this Gospel to ‘the hour’ as marking the time, not only of Jesus’ crucifixion, but of his resurrection and exaltation.  As the ‘hour’ is multifaceted, so is the gift of the Spirit associated with that ‘hour’.  In fact, the two ‘givings’ are associated with two of the key ‘moments’ in that ‘hours’ – the resurrection (Jn 20) and the ascension (Acts 2): ‘John depicts the power of the resurrection and Acts depicts the power of the ascension’.

If we struggle to put these ideas together, then we might reflect that ‘if God is comfortable to leave the modern reader less than satisfied with the account of the original creation (Gen 1–2), certainly he can do the same with the account of new creation.’

3. A symbolic anticipation?

Blomberg (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels) thinks it unlikely that this is a symbolic gesture portraying the future Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit (why would John foreshadow an event he never describes?).

According to Whiteacre, this view was condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 553.

Carson, however, in his extended discussion of the question, finds much to support this interpretation.  He finds problems with many of the alternative interpretations, in that in some way they hold the present verse ‘hostage’ to Act 2.  He notes that the most popular view nowadays is that the present verse represents John’s ‘Pentecost’ (since he betrays no knowledge of any other).  The problem here, of course, is that the story is told in Acts 2 within a completely different scenario, and with many differences between the two accounts.  Of those who hold this view, some (such as Barrett) think that all attempts to reconcile John and Acts are futile, because a low view is taken of the latter’s historical value.  Others (such as Beasley-Murray and Burge) think that John knows of Acts, but places the story here for theological reasons.

Carson cites Theodore of Mopsuestia as suggesting that this verse should be regarded as ‘a symbolic promise of the gift of the Spirit later to be given’.  Among the reasons supporting this, Carson says, it should be noted that (a) the original simply says that Jesus ‘breathed’ (not that he ‘breathed upon them’; (b) the sense of immanence is communicated by present-tense verbs in Jn 12:23, 31; 13:31; 17:1, 5; (c) there is no sign in the remainder John’s Gospel that Jesus’ action here had anything like the results that were seen on the day of Pentecost.  Carson concludes that John preserves the theological unity of the Jesus’ cross-work – death, exaltation, gift of the Spirit – by drawing attention to this last item (the fulfilment of which at Pentecost would have been well know both to him and to his readers) in an anticipatory, parable-like way.

So also IVP Commentary on Acts 2:1-4: ‘Jesus’ giving of the Spirit during a postresurrection appearance (Jn 20:22) is best understood as an acted parable. It foreshadows Pentecost and reinforces the truth that the Spirit is Christ’s gift to his church.’

Kanagaraj: ‘John’s narrative of Jesus’ giving of the Spirit, being a symbolic act, anticipates the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), when Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit (Jn 7:38–39; 14:16–17, 26; 15:26; 16:7) will fully be realized.’

In further support of this third option are the words recorded in Luke’s version of this event (Lk 24:49), which makes it clear that the disciples were to ‘stay in the city’ until they have been  ‘clothed with power from on high.’