Jn 14:16 – “Then I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever—14:17 the Spirit of truth.”

Summary

There are two Greek words for ‘another’.  In classical Greek, ‘allos’ meant ‘another of the same kind’, whereas ‘heteros’ meant ‘another of a different kind’.  By NT times, however, the distinction had become less pronounced.  In the present passage, there are contextual reasons for concluding that the Holy Spirit is an Advocate of the same kind as Jesus.

In detail

Surprisingly few commentators discuss this in relation to the present verse.  Of those that do:

(a) Some think that the ‘allos’ here does indicate that the other Advocate is of the same kind as Jesus.  According to Morris, Lightfoot and Swete recognised the distinction (although the former thought that sometimes the two words are interchangeable).  Also A.T. Robertson.

Klink:

‘The adjective “another” (ἄλλον) signifies “another of the same kind” in contrast to the other adjective that could have been used, “other” (ἕτερον), which signifies “another of a different kind” (cf. the use of both adjectives in Gal 1:6–7). The implication is that Jesus was also a Paraclete, just a different Paraclete than the Spirit (see also 1 John 2:1).’

(b) According to others, the distinction does not hold in the NT, and context alone must be appealed to in order to determine any distinction.  So Carson, Kruse.

Calvin, interestingly, gently underscores the distinction between the two ‘Comforters;, rather than their similarities:

‘He calls the Spirit ANOTHER Comforter, on account of the difference between the blessings which we obtain from both. The peculiar office of Christ was, to appease the wrath of God by atoning for the sins of the world, to redeem men from death, to procure righteousness and life; and the peculiar office of the Spirit is, to make us partakers not only of Christ himself, but of all his blessings. And yet there would be no impropriety in inferring from this passage a distinction of Persons; for there must be some peculiarity in which the Spirit differs from the Son so as to be another than the Son.’

According to Vine, allos and heteros

‘have a difference in meaning, which despite a tendency to be lost, is to be observed in numerous passages. Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes “another of the same sort;” heteros expresses a qualitative difference and denotes “another of a different sort.” Christ promised to send “another Comforter” (allos, “another like himself,” not heteros), Jn 14:16. Paul says “I see a different (AV,”another”) law,” heteros, a law different from that of the spirit of life (not allos, “a law of the same sort”), Rom 7:23. After Joseph’s death “another king arose,” heteros, one of quite a different character, Acts 7:18. Paul speaks of “a different gospel (heteros), which is not another” (allos, another like the one he preached), Gal 1:6,7. See heteros (not allos) in Mt 11:3; Acts 27:1; in Lk 23:32 heteroi is used of the two malefactors crucified with Christ. The two words are only apparently interchanged in 1 Cor 1:16; 6:1; 12:8-10; 14:17,19, e.g., the difference being present, though not so readily discernible.’

Bill Mounce notes that the distinction between allos and heteros held in classical Greek, it was not always present by the time of the NT.  Neverthess, he agrees that it is preserved in a number of places.  For example, in 1 Tim 1:3 ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν the context indicates that Paul is referring to teaching that is essentially different from his own.  That particular word occurs elsewhere only in 1 Tim 6:3, and appears to have been coined by the apostle himself.

Ian Paul has some doubt that the grammar supports a clear distinction in Jn 14.  However, he agrees that there are contextual reasons why the Holy Spirit could be regarded as a like-for-like replacement for Jesus.  He quotes Craig Keener:

‘The discourses are clear that the Spirit, above all else, carries on Jesus’ mission and mediates his presence. The personal functions of the Spirit are also the functions of Jesus in the rest of the book, and the sensitive reader cannot miss the connection.’