8. The Holy Spirit
RUDOLF SCHNACKENBURG ISSUES A WARNING TO anyone who studies what the New Testament in general and the Fourth Gospel in particular have to say about the Holy Spirit that in this twentieth century: “consciousness of the presence of the Spirit has to a very great extent disappeared, even in the believing community, and has therefore to be aroused as a prior condition.” He adds, “It is possible to say that the only person who will understand the words about the Spirit is one who has already experienced the presence of the Spirit.”1 We cannot assume that anyone who lays a casual claim to being Christian will really understand what the work of the Holy Spirit is, and the teaching of John on the subject will accordingly not necessarily be obvious. But anyone who genuinely submits to the lordship of Jesus will understand what John is saying. As we approach this subject, then, we must bear in mind that John is writing for believers, not for nominal adherents of the Christian religion.
John has a good deal to tell us about the Holy Spirit, and he does it in his own way. He speaks of the Spirit as “the Spirit of truth” (14:17; 15:26; 16:13) and uses the unusual designation paraklētos of him (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). He associates the Spirit with the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and with the beginning of the spiritual life of believers. He links the gift of the Spirit with the declaration of forgiveness and retention of sins (20:22–23). Even to list such things is to show that John has his own individual contribution to make to our understanding of the Spirit of God.
Some of his references to “spirit” are not important for our purpose. Thus he speaks of Jesus as deeply moved in spirit (11:33) and as troubled in spirit (13:21). These passages refer to Jesus’ human spirit and tell us nothing about the Holy Spirit. The same is probably true of the passage that says that Jesus “gave up his spirit” in death (19:30), although some have found here the thought that the dying Jesus gave the Spirit to the disciples at the cross.2 It is an unusual way of referring to death and may indicate that there was an element of voluntariness about the way Jesus died, perhaps “he handed over his spirit to the Father.” We should also here not give serious consideration to the statements that the worshipper must worship “in spirit and truth” (4:23) and that “God is spirit” (4:24). The former tells us about the involvement of the human spirit in worship (there may well be in addition an allusion to what the Holy Spirit does in true worship, but the primary reference is to the worshipper), and the latter tells us something about the nature of the Father.3 Neither is directly concerned to give information about the Holy Spirit.
But there are several other passages with important teachings about the Spirit. Thus at the beginning of this Gospel’s narrative we have information about John the Baptist. Among other things we read: “John bore witness saying, ‘I saw the Spirit coming down like a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. And I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me, On whomever you see the Spirit coming down and remaining on him, this is he who baptizes in Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and I have borne witness that this is the Son of God’ ” (1:32–34). When Jesus first came to him, the Baptist saluted him as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29), and then reminded his hearers that he had spoken previously about the one who would come after him and who had come to be before him (1:30–31). Next come the words about the Spirit, so the saying comes very early in the Baptist’s acquaintance with Jesus. For him it was important to be clear that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were connected.
He says that he saw the Spirit coming down on Jesus, and there is no real reason for thinking that he meant that he had seen a vision. In this Gospel the verb employed here is used of seeing with ordinary physical sight, and that appears to be the meaning in this passage. John is saying that there was an outward manifestation that looked like a dove4 when the Spirit came on Jesus. From the other Gospels we learn that this was at Jesus’ baptism, but in the Fourth Gospel we do not read of that baptism (the Baptist in this Gospel does one thing only—he bears witness to Jesus). At that time Jesus heard the heavenly voice, “You are my Son, the Beloved, in you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11). From there he went on to the temptation and to the beginning of his mission.
This means that the Holy Spirit came on Jesus as he began his public ministry. Thus it is a fair inference that the human Jesus needed the divine Spirit as he began his work for God and for sinners. In an earlier chapter we saw that the Fourth Gospel puts some emphasis on the reality of Jesus’ humanity; the coming of the Spirit underlines this. We all, being human, need the help and the guidance of the Spirit of God, and in that Jesus underwent the experience of which we read at his baptism we see that he is one with us.
Perhaps we should here look at another of the difficult sayings about the Spirit, this one involving a comment about Jesus: “He whom God sent speaks the words of God, for he does not give the Spirit by measure” (3:34). The precise understanding of the expression is much more difficult than appears on the surface. First, it is not completely certain who it is who gives the Spirit. It could possibly be the one whom God sends, that is, Jesus, but most agree that it is the Father. Some MSS indeed clear the difficulty up by inserting “God” or “the Father” (and JB translates, “God gives him the Spirit without reserve”). But even without such an addition it seems that this is the way the passage should be understood. If we think of Christ as giving the Spirit to believers, there is the problem of “not … by measure”. It is true that when the Spirit is given to believers there is always the thought of abundant supply, but we cannot think that believers receive the Spirit in the same degree as Christ did.5 Augustine and Calvin both draw attention to the fact that grace is given to believers “according to the measure of Christ’s free gift” (Eph. 4:7). This does not specifically mention the Spirit, but it may well have relevance to the Spirit’s presence with believers.
We could think of the Father as giving the Spirit to Christ or to believers. But while we need not doubt that God the Father gives the Spirit to believers,6 it seems that his giving without measure applies better to his gift of the Spirit to Christ. Rieu translates, “God bestows the Spirit on him with no grudging hand”, and this appears to be the sense of it. We should bear in mind that the very next verse tells us that “the Father loves the Son, and he has given all things into his hand” (3:35). The context makes it clear that it is the gifts the Father makes to the Son that are in mind.
It would be possible to take the Greek in the sense, “he whom God sent speaks the words of God, for the Spirit does not give by measure.” While this points to an important truth, it scarcely fits the context, and most agree that it is an unlikely meaning for the passage.
It seems, then, that we are take the words as indicating that God the Father gives the Spirit to the Son unstintingly. The Spirit is to be seen in all his fulness in the ministry of Christ. We need not doubt that this is true also, though to a lesser extent, in the ministry the Lord commits to Christ’s followers. But the primary application is to Christ. The passage reinforces those earlier ones which speak of the Spirit as coming on Jesus for the work of his ministry.
Baptism in the Spirit
John the Baptist goes on to contrast the baptism in which he was engaged, “baptism in water”, with what Jesus would do, “baptize in Holy Spirit” (1:33). The exact significance of the expression is not easy to discern,7 but the main thrust is clear: Jesus would bring people a new life, a life characterized by the presence of the Holy Spirit. There is the thought of a richness that could not be brought by such a ministry as that of John the Baptist. John’s baptism was no more than a baptism of repentance; there was something essentially negative about it. It was an important negative and one that is fully taken over into the Christian way. For Christians as well as for the followers of John the Baptist repentance is a necessity; evil must be forsaken. But Jesus does what the Baptist could never do: he brings the gift of the Holy Spirit with all that that means in terms of newness of life.
This truth is further brought out in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, which speaks of the necessity of a rebirth. Jesus first tells the Pharisee that “unless one be reborn from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (3:3).8 We have already learned in the Prologue that the children of God are born “not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (1:13), and there is something of the same truth here. The way into the kingdom is not that of putting forth the best human effort; it requires a completely different life, which can be spoken of as a new birth. It is a new start, freed from all the handicaps of the old life.
Nicodemus responded with the question, “How can a man be born when he is old?” and added another, “He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” (3:4). It may be that he did not like the way the conversation was going and accordingly chose to be deliberately obtuse. Since a proselyte to Judaism was sometimes spoken of as a child newly born, Nicodemus may have thought it inappropriate that such a term be used of a leader like himself. Or he may have been wistful. His reasoning may have been something like this: “I am today the result of my heredity and then of all that has happened to me through the years. It would be nice to break away from the heavy hand of the past with all its bad habits, fears, prejudices, and the like and to make a completely new start. But the lesser miracle of a physical rebirth is quite impossible; how much more that of giving a man a new start in life! Regeneration would be wonderful, but it is quite impossible.”
Jesus replies, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God” (3:5). The “truly, truly” with which the saying begins shows that it is very important and very solemn. The introduction of being born “of water” is somewhat perplexing. Some have thought that we should understand it in terms of purification, perhaps the baptism of John with its stress on repentance. The way into the kingdom would then embrace the negative, the cleansing from sin, and the positive, the work of the Holy Spirit within.
Others remind us that among the Jews anything damp, such as “water”, “dew”, “drop”, or “rain”, was a euphemism for the male semen. If we understand it here in this sense, the saying may mean “unless one is born of natural seed and also of the Spirit …”, that is, “naturally and spiritually.…” We should also notice that “water” and “Spirit” are closely connected in this saying.9 Thus, it may well be that the two should be taken closely together in the sense “of spiritual seed”. In that case the meaning will be much the same as “born of the Spirit” (3:8). This would give a very satisfactory meaning.
In modern times it is often taken for granted that the reference is to Christian baptism: a person must be reborn in baptism in order to enter the kingdom. The point strongly urged in favor of this meaning is that when this Gospel was circulating in the early church, this meaning might well have been favored (actually we have no way of knowing whether it would have been favored or not).10 But against it is the impossibility of Nicodemus’s making sense of such a meaning. Christian baptism had not yet been begun, and would not be for a matter of years. It is not easy to see why Jesus would perplex the Pharisee with a reference to a not-yet-existent Christian sacrament. The only way one can hold this position is by surrendering any view that this conversation is historical. John, it is said, is giving us his view of baptism and doing so by manufacturing this conversation.
Of the three views it seems that the second is the best, and in the form “born of spiritual seed”. Jesus is surely affirming that the way into the kingdom is not by any human device. It is by regeneration brought about by the Spirit of God. We should perhaps notice the plural “you” in the expression “you must be reborn from above” (3:7). Jesus is not speaking of something private to Nicodemus but of what applies to everybody. There is no way into God’s kingdom by our own energies or devisings. We enter when the Spirit of God remakes us.11
In his discourse in the synagogue in Capernaum Jesus has a further saying of interest in the present connection. Towards the end of that address he says, “The Spirit is the life-maker; the flesh profits nothing at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (6:63). The contrast between “Spirit” and “flesh” might lead us to think of the human spirit, but that spirit cannot be said to give life. It is the Holy Spirit who is the giver of life. Jesus is saying to a different audience what he has said to Nicodemus, namely that real life comes from the working of the Holy Spirit and in no other way. It is important to realize that life is a good gift of God.12 When Jesus goes on to speak of his words as Spirit and as life, we should probably understand a further reference to the Holy Spirit. He is saying that his teaching is not to be interpreted in a wooden, literalistic manner, but as the Holy Spirit enlightens. There is a strong emphasis on the connection with real life and the Holy Spirit.
We see, then, that John has a good deal to say about the work of the Holy Spirit in initiating spiritual life. The life Jesus calls on people to live is not attained by a desperate human attempt to bring it into being. It is not something meritorious; it does not earn God’s favor. It is the result of the Holy Spirit at work within the believer in such a way that the person is regenerated by divine power. The Holy Spirit brings such a person to a level of living that could never be attained by any human effort. John is clear throughout his Gospel that it is this sort of living that is significant. The gospel summons people to enter a wonderful way of life, a life characterized by the presence and power of the Spirit of God.
The Era of the Spirit
Another of John’s difficult sayings is found at the climax of Jesus’ words to the people when he went up to the temple at the Feast of Tabernacles. On the last day, the great day of the Feast, he stood and cried, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He who believes on me, as the Scripture said, rivers of living water will flow from his inner being.” John adds the comment, “This he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him would receive; for it was not yet Spirit because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:37–39). There is a problem about punctuation, and for example NEB renders the first part of the passage, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me; whoever believes in me, let him drink.” This is possible, and it is accepted by a number of commentators, but it seems that the other way of taking it is better. It is the thirsty rather than the believer who is invited to drink.13 Jesus is calling on his hearers to come to him and find their spiritual thirst satisfied, and he is doing so in terms of Old Testament concepts.
But our concern is basically with John’s explanation. The words I have rendered “it was not yet Spirit” are usually understood to mean “as yet the Spirit had not been given” (RSV; so NEB, NIV, GNB, etc.) or “there was no Spirit as yet” (JB). The trouble with such translations is that the Spirit had been given, and there was a Spirit. John has spoken of the Spirit as coming down on Jesus (1:32), and he has said that Jesus would baptize with the Spirit (1:33). He has said that people must be “born of the Spirit” if they would enter the kingdom of God (3:5, 6, 8). He has quoted Jesus as saying that the Spirit gives life, and that his words are Spirit and are life (6:63). It cannot be said that in John’s view there was no Spirit or that the Spirit had not been given.
We may be helped if we look at the reason he gives for it being not yet Spirit, namely “because Jesus was not yet glorified.” John has had glory before him ever since “we saw his glory” (1:14), but this is his first use of the verb “glorify”, a verb he will use 23 times in all (no other New Testament writing has it more than Luke with nine times). It is a significant concept for John. Glory is usually understood in terms of majesty and splendor, but John has the profound idea that real glory is to be seen in lowly service. When someone who is entitled to a high and lofty eminence leaves all that to render lowly and loving service, that for John is real glory. He sees this in the way Jesus lived in lowliness when he came to earth to save us, and especially when he died on the cross. John views the crucifixion as the glorification of Jesus.14 In this willing acceptance of a shameful death with sinners and for sinners, John sees the supreme glory. It is in this that Jesus is “glorified”.
John is explaining, then, that the death of Jesus is the necessary preliminary to the full work of the Spirit. We may profitably reflect that Calvary preceded Pentecost, and John is saying that in the divine economy this is necessarily the order. There could be preliminary manifestations of the Spirit, but the full working of the Spirit of God depended on the accomplishing of the atoning work of Christ. To use the language of later theologians, justification precedes sanctification. As we have seen in the earlier passages we have noted, John does not minimize the importance of what the Spirit was already doing. But he looks forward to a time when the “glorification” of Jesus would prepare the way for a fuller manifestation of the Spirit.15
The Spirit of Truth
In the Farewell Discourse Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit of truth” (14:17; 15:26; 16:13). This is a very unusual expression, found nowhere else in the New Testament and not common in Jewish writings. It is found in the Qumran scrolls and in the Testament of Judah 20:1, 5 (and does not appear to be attested elsewhere), but John’s usage is not that of either. In the Qumran writings “the spirit of truth” is set in opposition to “the spirit of falsehood”. Here, for example, is an extract from The Community Rule:
He has created man to govern the world, and has appointed for him two spirits in which to walk until the time of His visitation: the spirits of truth and falsehood. Those born of truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of falsehood spring from a source of darkness. All the children of righteousness are ruled by the Prince of Light and walk in the ways of light, but all the children of falsehood are ruled by the Angel of Darkness and walk in the ways of darkness.16
Clearly this “spirit of truth” differs greatly from “the Spirit of truth” in John’s Gospel. In the Qumran writings there are two more or less equal spirits (“God has established the spirits in equal measure until the final age, and has set everlasting hatred between their divisions”17); they are engaged in a continuing battle which sometimes appears to be a battle for people and sometimes a battle within people as the “spirit of truth” tries to get people to do what is right and the “spirit of falsehood” tries to enlist them in the ways of evil.
It is fairly clear that John is not writing about the same thing as the author of the Scroll. While there is an arresting similarity of language, there is an impassable gulf between their meanings. John is telling us about a very great Being, one who stands with the Father and the Son, whereas the Scrolls refer to a created being on a much lower level, one who is perpetually at war with a spirit who is his equal.
The Testament of Judah also refers to two spirits: “So understand, my children, that two spirits await an opportunity with humanity: the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. In between is the conscience of the mind which inclines as it will.”18 A little later this document assures us that “the spirit of truth testifies to all things and brings all accusations.”19 Clearly this is a dualism not unlike that which we see at Qumran. In many Jewish writings there is the thought of two Yetzers, one good and one evil, that strive within mankind, and the Qumran use, that of the Testament of Judah, or both may well be a development of this concept. But it is clear that despite the similarity of terminology these writings tell us nothing about the Spirit of truth in John.
In 1 John there is a contrast between two spirits: “From this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6). This could be understood in the same sense as the Qumran writings,20 but it is more likely that here as in the Gospel by “the Spirit of truth” John means the Holy Spirit and that “the spirit of error” is a way of referring to Satan.21 The evil one is not called by this title elsewhere, but a similar expression is used of him when he is called “the deceiver of the whole earth” (Rev. 12:9).
John does not tell us why the Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” in these passages, but it is not unlikely that he means that the Spirit characteristically bears witness to the truth. In 1 John we find that the Spirit “is the truth” (1 John 5:6), which in the context seems to mean that the Spirit’s testimony is thoroughly reliable; it must be accepted because the nature of the Spirit is truth. The Spirit speaks God’s truth.22 In John 14:17 the thought that the Spirit is in believers is stressed. The world cannot receive this Spirit; it neither sees nor knows him. But it is different with believers, for the Spirit lives in them. The Spirit of truth “proceeds from the Father”,23 and he will bear witness about Christ (15:26). The combination emphasizes that the Spirit’s testimony about Christ is to be accepted.
The Spirit of truth, Jesus says, “will guide you in all the truth” (16:13). The verb “guide” (hodēgeō, here only in John) is connected with the word for “way” (hodos); just as Jesus is the Way, so he is the Truth (14:6) to whom the Spirit of truth leads people. The work of the Christ and that of the Spirit are thus seen to be closely related. It is not certain whether Jesus is saying that the Spirit will lead them “into (eis)” or “in (en)” the truth. Some commentators think the meaning to be that the Spirit leads people so that they come to know the truth, others that the Spirit leads people who do in fact know the truth in the ways of truth. But the two prepositions were not sharply enough distinguished in the New Testament period for us to make much of this. Both of the suggested meanings are true, and we may thankfully accept both. But in this place where Jesus is speaking to believers the emphasis is on the Spirit’s work in leading us in the knowledge of the truth.
Jesus goes on to say that the Spirit will not speak from himself but what he hears, which is a way of saying that the Father and the Spirit are at one in what the Spirit will do in the way of leading in the truth. Jesus says further, “he will declare to you the things that are coming.” This is probably to be understood as a reference to the whole body of Christian truth, most of which lay in the future at the time Jesus spoke.24 It is scarcely possible to take it to mean that the Spirit will unveil the future to believers, for Christians through the ages, even deeply spiritual Christians, have been as bad at foretelling what will happen as unbelievers have been. But the Spirit has been active in leading people on and on into the entire body of Christian truth. All the more is this the likely meaning in that Jesus goes on to say, “He will glorify me, for he will take of mine and declare it to you” (16:14). The work of the Spirit is in no sense in opposition to that of the Son: it is what the Son has that the Spirit will declare.25 “The Spirit of truth” thus proves to be a very illuminating way of referring to the Holy Spirit. It does not cover all his activities, but it does make plain a number of important truths. The Spirit who fulfils all that is involved in being the Spirit “of truth” is a very significant being.
The Paraclete
Another title used of the Spirit in the Farewell Discourse is the Greek term paraklētos. There is no real English equivalent for this term, so we transliterate it as “Paraclete”.26 The Greek term means “called to the side of”, which is understood as being for the purpose of helping. It was often used in legal contexts, so that the meaning “advocate” is often found.27 But we should understand this in a wide sense. It might denote the functionary we call “the counsel for the defence”, but it was not confined to him. Any friend who could come to court and speak in defence of the accused was his paraclete. The significant points are that the word has a legal air about it and that it means someone who helps.
The term occurs four times in the Farewell Discourse and nowhere else in the Fourth Gospel. The only other occurrence of the word in the New Testament is in 1 John 2:1, where we learn that if we sin we have “an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous”. Here “Advocate” is clearly the right word, as Christ is envisaged as pleading for us before the Father’s throne when, since we have sinned, we are in real need.
There appears to be a reference to Christ in the first use of the term in the Gospel, where Jesus says, “I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth …” (14:16–17). “Paraclete” is here applied to the Spirit of truth, but in that he is “another” Paraclete there is room for the thought that the first such helper is Jesus. This is strengthened by the fact that every function assigned to the Holy Spirit in this Gospel is elsewhere said to be performed by Christ. Thus the Spirit teaches believers (14:26), and so does Jesus (7:14); the Spirit is the Spirit of truth (14:17), and Jesus is the truth (14:6); the Spirit is in the disciples (14:17), as is Jesus (14:20; cf. also 1 John 2:24); the Spirit bears witness (15:26), and Jesus does the same (8:14). Both come from the Father (15:26; 16:27–28); the world knows neither (14:17; 16:3). We could go on, but this is enough to show that John takes seriously the idea that Jesus and the Spirit can be linked under the concept “Paraclete”.28
As John sees it, the Spirit is the divine presence when Jesus’ physical presence is taken away from his followers. The passages we have just looked at have made it clear that there is a very close relationship between Jesus and the Spirit: the Spirit is the continuing presence of Jesus with his followers. As J. D. G. Dunn puts it, “The lengthening time gap between John and the historical Jesus, and the continuing delay of the parousia do not mean a steadily increasing distance between each generation of Christians and the Christ. On the contrary, each generation is as close to Jesus as the last—and the first—because the Paraclete is the immediate link between Jesus and his disciples in every generation.”29 In view of this it is important that the Spirit “abides” or “dwells” in believers (1 John 3:24; cf. 4:13).
The Paraclete is here identified with “the Spirit of truth” (14:16–17) and later with “the Holy Spirit” (14:26), connections that point us to an intense moral purpose. As E. A. Abbott put it, “emphasis is laid on the Paraclete, or Advocate, as not being one of the ordinary kind—the kind that takes up a client’s cause, good or bad, and makes the best of it—but as being ‘holy,’ and—which is twice repeated—‘a Spirit of truth’ ”.30 Indeed, it is well to bear in mind that not only in the Paraclete passages but throughout the New Testament the characteristic way of referring to the Spirit is “the Holy Spirit”, not “the powerful Spirit” or “the wise Spirit” or any such expression. We should not miss the strong moral note that is connected with the Spirit’s work.
It is the Father who sends the Spirit (14:26), and sends him to teach (cf. 1 John 2:27).31 This is clearly an important function, but it is not clear how it is to be carried out. Does Jesus mean that the Spirit will be at work within believers so that each will have teaching direct from God? Or does he mean that the Spirit will so guide the church’s teachers that they will convey divine teaching to those they instruct? Perhaps we should not make too sharp a distinction, for surely the truth is that the Spirit may use either method. The important thing is that the kind of teaching John is giving he can rightly attribute to the work of the Spirit working as Jesus had said he would.32
The Spirit is also to bring to the disciples’ remembrance what Jesus had taught them (14:26). This indicates that the teaching the Spirit will carry out is in the fullest harmony with what Jesus taught: we are not to think of the Paraclete as instituting new doctrines that contradict or replace what the Savior taught.33 The two are in perfect harmony, and indeed things that the disciples may well have forgotten will be recalled to their memories by the Spirit (a truth well worth bearing in mind when we are considering what is included in our Gospels).
Allied to the thought of the Spirit as a teacher is that of him as a witness (15:26). He comes from the Father, and he bears witness. John does not explain in what way he bears this witness, but it would seem that it is in the way the Spirit indwells believers and leads them in the right way.34 As the Spirit leads and directs them, they are led into a fuller understanding of who and what Jesus was and to a firmer commitment to his cause. This saying goes right on to affirm, “you also bear witness” (15:27), and since the witness of the disciples is to outsiders it would appear that this is part of the Spirit’s witness as well. The thought is probably that what the Spirit does in believers forms a witness to those not yet Christian. It is part of the way the world is to be won for Christ. The thought recurs in 1 John, where we find the Spirit linked with “the water” and “the blood” in bearing witness (1 John 5:8). There are problems here, but our best understanding is that “the water” refers back to Jesus’ baptism and “the blood” to his death on Calvary.35 This means that the Spirit’s witness is linked with the critical points of Jesus’ ministry. Again we see that the Spirit directs people to Jesus. Something like this is also the thrust of the passage in which John urges his readers to test the spirits (1 John 4:1) and tells them that this is the way they know “the Spirit of God”: “every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not of God”; he adds, “this is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2–3). Plainly the work of the Spirit and the work of Christ are related in the most intimate fashion.
The final reference to the Paraclete is Jesus’ saying, “If I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you” (16:7). This reinforces what we saw earlier about the Spirit reminding disciples of what Jesus had taught, and even more of the truth that during the time of Jesus’ ministry “it was not yet Spirit, for Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). The ministry of Jesus necessarily preceded that of the Spirit, and it was not until he went away from earth, his mission of salvation completed, that he would send the Spirit.36
The passage goes on to speak of the Paraclete as convicting the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. The work of the Spirit is usually concerned with believers; indeed, this is the one place where he is said to do a work in the unbelieving world. Again, his work is usually said to be that of helping, but here he is convicting the world. It is an important work, for in the first place people do not easily come to see themselves for what they are, sinners. They need a work of the Spirit of God in their hearts to bring this about. He will also convict the world of “righteousness”, which surely means the righteousness that Christ brought about by dying for needy sinners. Only as the Spirit works in their hearts do people come to see that they cannot be righteous in God’s sight by their own puny efforts. And it takes the work of the Spirit for anyone to discern righteousness in that dreadful miscarriage of human justice that put Jesus on the cross. Jesus adds, “because I go to the Father and you see me no more” (16:10), a statement that points forward to the cross and to the ascension. In both of these (though in different senses) Jesus would be taken from them. But the Spirit at work in them would teach them the meaning of it all. Finally, Jesus speaks of convicting of “judgment, because the prince of this world has been judged” (16:11). The defeat of the evil one is not merely a military victory, but an act of judgment. There is justice in what happened at the cross even if that is not apparent other than to those to whom the Spirit of God gives enlightenment.
So far we have noted that “Paraclete” is a term with a legal background, although it is not quite as definite a term as our “counsel for the defence”. We should notice that a number of attempts have been made to give the term a more precise meaning. The King James Version translated it by “Comforter”, a translation that might be supported by the fact that the context has some indications of trouble: “Let not your heart be troubled” (14:1); “I will not leave you as orphans” (14:18); “Let not your heart be troubled or be cowardly” (14:27); “a little while and you will no longer see me” (16:16); “you will wail and lament … you will be grieved … you therefore now have grief” (16:20–22). The King James translators could also have enlisted support from a number of the early Greek commentators who, for reasons not apparent to us, saw the term as meaning something like “Consoler”.37 This meaning, however, is not supported either by Greek usage generally or by that in the Greek Old Testament.38 Despite Davies it seems that the only way we could defend “Comforter” is by taking seriously its derivation from the Latin con (“with” or intensive) and fortis (“strong”) and by seeing it as meaning “Strengthener”. But this is not what we mean by “Comforter”. A number of modern translations render the term as “Helper” (e.g., Goodspeed, GNB). To this it is objected that it scarcely does justice to the passive idea in the term (it means “called alongside”).
The legal background leads many to regard “Advocate” (NEB, Rieu) or “Counselor” (RSV) as the right translation. This is supported by the usage in 1 John 2:1, where few would doubt that “Advocate” is suitable, as well as by the fact that in the context there are several references to keeping commandments (14:15, 21, 23, 24). Because sinners do not always obey God’s commands, they need an Advocate. It could also be pointed out that judgment is one of the great themes of this Gospel. Against this view is the fact that an advocate addresses himself to the court, or speaks to others on behalf of his client, whereas in John he speaks rather to the client (cf. 16:7–11). If the Spirit speaks on behalf of anyone, it is neither the disciples nor the unbelieving world, but Christ; he is Christ’s advocate.39 We should also bear in mind that in this Gospel much of the Paraclete’s work, for example teaching or bearing witness, is not specifically related to judgment or to our failure to keep the commandments.
The legal background is undoubted, but perhaps we should bear in mind that the term could be used of anyone who was a friend in a legal dispute; it was not confined to the counsel for the defence. It is perhaps this that leads to translations like “Friend” (C. K. Williams; cf. R. Knox, “another to befriend you”). The objection to such renderings is that the term does not denote friendship in general; there is a legal background to be borne in mind. Perhaps something like “Friend at court” gives the idea as well as we are able to recover it. The Spirit is the Friend of sinners who are in no good case when they face the judgment of God. They need help. This may come in a variety of ways, as reminding them of Christ’s teachings, bearing witness, convicting of sin, teaching, and other activities. There appears to be no one term in English that covers all these activities. We must either use a term that draws attention to one of them, or use different terms in different contexts, or retain “Paraclete”.40
“Receive Holy Spirit”
There is a very important but very difficult passage towards the end of the Gospel in which Jesus commissions his followers and equips them with the Holy Spirit for their task in the world. On the evening of the day that Jesus rose from the dead the disciples were gathered together when Jesus came and stood in their midst. He gave them the greeting of peace and showed them his hands and his side. Then he said, “Peace to you; as the Father has sent me, I also send you.” John tells us that he then breathed into or upon them and said, “Receive Holy Spirit; if you forgive the sins of any, they have been forgiven them; if you hold the sins of any, they have been held” (20:21–23).
There has been a good deal of discussion about the relationship of this passage to the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost as related in Acts 2. Not a few scholars hold that Luke and John are referring to the same thing and that John sees the definitive gift of the Spirit to the church as made on Easter Day whereas Luke locates it several weeks later. Bultmann goes further and says that for John “Easter, Pentecost, and the parousia are not three separate events, but one and the same.”41 This is surely an exaggeration. It seems best to think of John as referring to a gift of the Spirit other than that of which Luke speaks.42 Where that Evangelist refers to the outpouring of the Spirit to equip the church for its continuing ministry throughout the world, John is speaking of the way the Spirit enables believers to declare what sins are forgiven and what sins are not. John is not writing with what Luke says in mind, either by way of correcting him or supplementing him.
First, let us notice that Jesus sends the disciples on their mission. One of the key thoughts of this Gospel is that the Father sent the Son into the world; reminding them of that truth, Jesus goes on to send the disciples, indeed to send them in the same way: “as the Father … I also.…” We cannot say that they were sent to do the same thing as Jesus did, for his saving work was unique and far beyond the power of any created being. But we can say that their work proceeds from his. Jesus lived and died and rose that our sins might be dealt with, and the disciples go out with the gospel message that there is salvation in Jesus for all who turn to him. The one mission is closely linked with the other.
For that mission they will need all the help they can get. Thus Jesus proceeds to equip them with the Holy Spirit. First he “breathed”, where the compound emphysaō may mean that he breathed into them or that he breathed upon them. We should notice that there is no mention of individual gifts: Jesus is not said to have gone round the little group, breathing on each one of them individually. The gift that he gave as he breathed was a gift for the group as a whole. It was a gift to the church rather than to individual members. It is sometimes urged that the gift was made to the apostles and thus to the ministry of the church. But nowhere do we read that the group consisted only of apostles. There is every reason for thinking that this was the group of which Luke 24:33ff. speaks, and that group included Cleopas and an unknown person. In any case this group is called “disciples” (20:19), not apostles. They surely represent the church as a whole rather than the ministry of the church.43
The words that accompanied the gift were “Receive Holy Spirit.” From the fact that there is no definite article some have drawn the conclusion that what is meant is not the Holy Spirit, but some gift of the Spirit or even “a holy spirit”. But this seems to put too strong an emphasis on the lack of the article. It probably means no more than that an emphasis is put on the fact that the gift is nothing less than Holy Spirit. The idea that an impersonal gift of the Spirit is in mind here, whereas the Spirit comes fully personally on the Day of Pentecost, runs into the difficulty that there is no definite article with Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4. There and here we should understand the expression to refer to “the Holy Spirit” and not “a holy spirit”.
Jesus proceeds to speak of forgiveness and the reverse: “if you forgive the sins of any, they have been forgiven them; if you hold the sins of any, they have been held.”44 Some sections of the church have held this to mean that certain individuals have the power to forgive or to withhold forgiveness, but it is not easy to see this in the words used. First, in the forthright words of William Barclay, “One thing is quite certain—no man can forgive any other man’s sins.” He immediately goes on, “But another thing is equally certain—it is the great privilege of the Church to convey the message and the announcement and the fact of God’s forgiveness to men.”45 Keeping these two facts in balance is the real problem for us. We should notice that the gift was made to the group as a whole, not to individual members. It may be argued that the church must act through individual members, but this is not necessarily so. The church has often acted through synods and congregations, and it is at least arguable that a matter as important as the forgiveness of sins cannot be left to the decision of an individual. Jesus did not speak of individuals, and we must have strong evidence if we are to transfer the words from the church as a whole to some individual members of it.
Then we should notice the plural “any” (tinōn). Just as the gift was made to the church as a whole, so it refers to classes of sinners, not to individuals. It may well be argued that what refers to classes has its application to individuals, but we should be clear that Jesus did speak of classes only. He did not say “the sins of what individual sinner you forgive.…” Inspired by the Holy Spirit the church may say, “Such and such sins are forgiven, whereas such and such are not.” The words do not mean more.
We should not overlook the fact that the verbs “forgiven” and “held” both seem to be in the perfect tense. Some MSS have the present tense with “forgiven”, and a few even have the future, but most have the perfect. And the perfect is practically universal with “held”. If we take the tense seriously, the meaning is “they have been forgiven … they have been held.”46 In other words, it is not a case of the church actually doing the forgiving. That is a divine prerogative. All that the words indicate is that the Spirit-filled church may say authoritatively, “Such and such sinners have been forgiven … such and such sinners have not been forgiven.” It is a declaration of what God has done, not of what the church is currently doing. It may be difficult for us to understand how that is going to work out in practice, but that is no reason for denying the force of the language used.
Nor should we forget that the power to forgive and the power to withhold forgiveness go together. Those who see Jesus as conferring authority on chosen individuals within the church (priests?) to forgive do not always give sufficient attention to the fact that these two powers go together. It gives us no great problem that an individual priest might say to a sinner, “I forgive your sins”. But if that is what the words mean, then that same individual priest might say to another sinner, “I refuse to forgive your sins”, and those sins would be retained. Now individual priests, even godly priests, sometimes make mistakes, but it is impossible for us to hold that God will retain sins that should have been forgiven. But the one right goes with the other. B. F. Westcott comments, “It is impossible to contemplate an absolute individual exercise of the power of ‘retaining’; so far it is contrary to the scope of the passage to seek in it a direct authority for the absolute individual exercise of the ‘remitting.’ ”47 That must remain an insuperable difficulty in the way of seeing the words as conveying to individuals a personal power to forgive sins.
There can be no doubt that these words refer to forgiveness and the withholding of forgiveness. But our best understanding of the passage is not to see a definitive giving or withholding of this great gift as residing in fallible human hands. Jesus is saying that the Spirit-led church has the authority to say which sins have been forgiven and which not. John Marsh has a useful comment: “There is no doubt from the context that the reference is to forgiving sins, or withholding forgiveness. But though this sounds stern and harsh, it is simply the result of the preaching of the gospel, which either brings men to repent as they hear of the ready and costly forgiveness of God, or leaves them unresponsive to the offer of forgiveness which is the gospel, and so they are left in their sins.”48 We should bear in mind further that in recounting what happened in a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples, the Lord reminded them that “so it is written, that the Christ should suffer and that he should rise from the dead on the third day, and that there should be proclaimed in his name repentance for the forgiveness of sins …” (Luke 24:46–47). This may be much what Jesus is saying in our present passage.
John thus has a singularly rich and significant understanding of the work of the Spirit of God. Some of the things he has said are difficult for us to comprehend, and there remain some passages where exegetes must agree to differ. But the main thrust of the teaching is plain enough. The Spirit continues the work of Christ. In the divine economy it was Christ who gave the definitive teaching and made the atoning sacrifice, and it was Christ who rose triumphant over death. Then when Christ returned whence he had come, it was the Spirit who lived in the hearts of God’s people, the Spirit who would lead and guide and strengthen them for service. The life of the people of God is a life enriched by the never-failing presence of the Spirit of God.
1. The Gospel according to St John, III (New York, 1982), p. 153.
2. E. C. Hoskyns translates “He handed over the Spirit”, and thinks the words were “directed to the faithful believers who stood below.” He speaks of “The outpouring of the Spirit here recorded”, and says that 1 John 5:8 “seems to make this interpretation not only possible, but necessary” (The Fourth Gospel, London, 1947, p. 532). So also R. H. Lightfoot, “to them primarily, when the Lord inclines His head to rest, in the peace of His union with the Father and of His accomplished work, He hands over the new dispensation of the Spirit” (St. John’s Gospel, Oxford, 1956, p. 320). But this is an improbable exegesis.
3. J. D. G. Dunn holds that this verse refers to God’s “relationship to men” rather than to “the being of God”: “Spirit is God’s mode of communication with men. Consequently he looks for men to respond in the same manner—to worship in Spirit and truth” (Jesus and the Spirit, London, 1975, p. 353). We may agree that God does communicate with us by the Spirit, but that does not mean that John 4:24 is not telling us something about the nature of God. Cf. J. H. Bernard, “It is the Essential Being, rather than the Personality, of God which is in question” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, I, Edinburgh, 1928, p. 150).
4. It is perplexing that the Spirit came in the form of a dove. It is often said that the dove was a symbol of the Holy Spirit, but there seems no evidence of this (see C. K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition, London, 1947, pp. 35–39). Among the Rabbis the dove symbolized Israel (see SBk, I, pp. 123–25; I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I, New York, 1967, p. 48). If this is in mind here, Jesus is depicted as the true Israelite as he received the Holy Spirit. But this is conjectural.
5. Cf. Edwin H. Palmer, “To us God gives the Spirit in part and never in fullness, but to Christ he gave him not by measure, but without measure, limitlessly, in completion and fullness” (The Holy Spirit, Grand Rapids, 1958, p. 67).
6. H. B. Swete argued for this view: “God gives His Spirit to men ungrudgingly; there is no limit to His bounty but that which comes from the incapacity of the recipient” (The Holy Spirit in the New Testament, London, 1910, p. 136).
7. John speaks of Jesus as baptizing en pneumati hagiōi. This might conceivably signify being “in” the Spirit (with “in” having some such sense as it has in being “in Christ”) or as the Seer who came to be “in the Spirit” (Rev. 1:10; 4:2, etc.). Again Christians are to pray in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18), they have love in the Spirit (Col. 1:8), they are sanctified in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:16). But it is usually accepted that in the present passage the parallelism with baptism “in water” shows that we should take “Spirit” as the means or the agency of the baptism in question. Cf. J. H. Bernard, “the contrast of ‘water’ and ‘spirit’ in the Baptist’s references to his ministry of baptism is intended to convey that it was only preparatory to, and symbolical of, a greater ministry that was at hand” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, I, p. 52).
8. The meaning of gennēthēi anōthen is not obvious. The verb strictly denotes the action of the male parent, “beget”, rather than that of the female, “give birth to” (we have the same terminology in 1 John 3:9), but we should probably not insist on this; “be born” gives the sense of it. The adverb may mean “from above” or “again”. Elsewhere in this Gospel it means “from above” (cf. v. 31), but in this context Nicodemus clearly understood it in the sense “again”. But this is certainly wrong; if we decide against “from above” we should understand the sense “anew”, for Jesus is certainly not speaking of a repetition of one’s physical birth. He was speaking of something completely new.
9. The Greek is ex hydatos kai pneumatos, not ex hydatos kai ek pneumatos. The use of only one ek and the absence of the definite article bring the two terms together. The expression seems to mean “of water-and-spirit” rather than “of water and of spirit”.
10. Cf. J. D. G. Dunn, “Besides assuming that we know when the Gospel was written, and the sacramental understanding of the readers to whom it was addressed, it assumes also that it was John’s intention to fit his writing into the context of that understanding and not to challenge or alter it in any radical way” (Baptism in the Holy Spirit, London, 1970, p. 190).
11. Perhaps we should notice here Eduard Schweizer’s contention that “The only miracle … is the Spirit’s gift of faith in Jesus as the Son sent by God” (The Holy Spirit, London, 1981, p. 107). It is only the Spirit of God that can bring sinners to believe in Jesus, and without that there would be no Christianity.
12. This was not always appreciated by Jewish teachers. We read in the Mishnah, “Great is the Law, for it gives life to them that practice it both in this world and in the world to come” (Aboth 6:7). On this view it is practising the law that is important, not the gift of God.
13. I have discussed the passage and given reasons for my position in The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, 1971), pp. 422–27.
14. Cf. E. F. Harrison, “The word ‘hour’ in the Fourth Gospel points regularly to the death of Christ. Jesus was not seeking to invest the cross with an aura of splendor which it did not have, in order to conjure up a psychological antidote to its pain and shame. Rather, glory properly belongs to the finishing of the work which the Father had given him to do, since that work represented the perfect will of God” (Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, 1984, p. 444).
15. Donald Guthrie remarks that the words here “mark a clear line of distinction between the Spirit’s activity in the ministry of Jesus and his subsequent work in the church” (New Testament Theology, London, 1981, p. 529).
16. Cited from G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth, 1968), pp. 75–76.
17. Ibid., p. 77.
18. 20:1, cited from James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I (New York, 1983), p. 800.
19. 20:5, ibid.
20. J. L. Houlden cites the passage from Qumran and comments, “The similarity with the doctrine of our present passage is striking” (A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, London, 1973, p. 106).
21. So Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John (New York, 1982), p. 501. He translates the title of the evil one as “the Spirit of Deceit”, which links it more firmly with Rev. 12:9.
22. Cf. I. H. Marshall, “it is possible that John is thinking here of the activity of the Spirit who witnessed in the past to Jesus as the Son of God and who still bears his testimony, confirming to the believer what he has already said” (The Epistles of John, Grand Rapids, 1978, p. 235).
23. This verse is the scriptural support for the position of the Eastern Church that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only, not the Father and the Son, as is held in the West. But the passage will scarcely support the weight that is placed upon it. The preposition is para rather than ek. On this point B. F. Westcott comments, “The use of para in this place seems … to show decisively that the reference here is to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, and not to the eternal Procession” (The Gospel according to St. John, II, Grand Rapids, 1954, p. 213). The context is not concerned with intra-Trinitarian relationships but with the coming of the Spirit to believers. It is the way the Spirit will continue the ministry that Jesus has had among believers, not the origin of the Spirit, that is in mind.
24. Cf. Swete, “He will carry forward the revelation of Christ and complete it. He will declare the coming things: the things of that great and untried life which was about to open before the Church at the Pentecost and to reach its perfection at the Second Coming; the things of the new age, the dispensation of the Spirit” (The Holy Spirit in the New Testament, p. 163).
25. Cf. Donald Guthrie, “The Spirit is essentially self-effacing.… He does not seek his own glory; only that of Christ. This was to prove a valuable test; for any movement claiming the possession of the Spirit, and yet which glorifies the Spirit instead of Christ, would be seen to be alien to the teaching of Jesus about the Spirit” (New Testament Theology, p. 531).
26. The meaning given in Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (rev. H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie) is “called to one’s aid, in a court of justice: as Subst., legal assistant, advocate”; they add “summoned” and “intercessor” as other possible equivalents. J. Behm says, “the history of the term in the whole sphere of known Greek and Hellenistic usage outside the NT yields the clear picture of a legal adviser or helper or advocate in the relevant court” (TDNT, V, p. 803).
27. We get “advocate” from the Latin advocatus, which is the exact Latin equivalent of paraklētos.
28. Stephen S. Smalley concludes that the Paraclete in this Gospel is to be identified with the Spirit, “But the Paraclete in John is not just the Spirit with another name, even if ‘Paraclete’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ appear together as synonymous in John 14:26. For the Johannine doctrine of the Paraclete adds to what we know of the Spirit from elsewhere. In particular, the Paraclete is not only … like Jesus in nature; he is also like Jesus in activity” (John: Evangelist and Interpreter, Exeter, 1978, p. 231).
29. Jesus and the Spirit, p. 351. Cf. Raymond E. Brown, “In all that John says of this figure, the intimate relation of the Paraclete to Jesus is what is dominant” (NTS 13, 1966–67, p. 126). Cf. also J. M. Boice, “His revelation is an extension of Christ’s revelation. The Spirit is the revealer of Jesus” (Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John, Exeter, 1970, p. 152).
30. Johannine Grammar (London, 1906), p. 40.
31. R. Schnackenburg finds this “an original Johannine view about the Spirit, since ‘teaching’ as a function of the Holy Spirit is encountered elsewhere only in Lk 12:12” (The Gospel according to John, III, pp. 141–42).
32. Cf. D. G. Vanderlip, “It appears valid, therefore, to say that one function of the Paraclete doctrine in John is to give a defense for the validity of the deeper insights and understanding which the Fourth Gospel gives. The Paraclete, in other words, is both the source and the endorsement for the developed perspective on the life and ministry of Jesus contained in John” (Christianity according to John, Philadelphia, 1975, p. 172).
33. F. D. Bruner says of the sayings about the Paraclete in this Gospel, “When one arranges the several sayings the most pervasive mark is Christocentricity. The Holy Spirit appears to have as not only the center but as the circumference of his mission the witness to Jesus” (A Theology of the Holy Spirit, London, 1971, p. 277). Similarly J. D. G. Dunn, “The dominant theme is the continuity between the ministries of Jesus and the Paraclete” (Baptism in the Holy Spirit, p. 175).
34. Cf. W. G. Kümmel, “Here it is clearly stated that the disciples, who can tell of Jesus because they have joined themselves to him, disseminate the Paraclete’s witness to Jesus in that the Paraclete is speaking through them” (The Theology of the New Testament, London, 1974, p. 318).
35. The alternative is to see a reference to the sacraments of baptism and holy communion. This is not as probable, but if it be accepted it still points us to Jesus.
36. So Swete: “The mission of the Spirit could not begin till the mission of the Son was ended; Jesus could not come in the Spirit till He had ceased to live in the flesh” (The Holy Spirit in the New Testament, p. 157).
37. J. G. Davies, however, examines the LXX uses of the term and concludes: “We may conclude therefore that, despite its passive form, paraklētos, set by the author of the fourth gospel in the same complex, has assumed an active significance and that its primary meaning is ‘comforter’ ” (JTS, n.s. 4, 1953, p. 38). Alan Richardson is impressed by the connection of the word with paraklēsis and parakalein, but understands this in terms of “the consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25) and similar passages. Paraclete, he says, “bears a markedly eschatological sense” (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, London, 1958, p. 114).
38. J. M. Boice finds an objection to the idea of Comforter: “the difficulty lies in reconciling the idea of comfort with the revelational and judgmental aspects of the Spirit’s witness” (Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John, p. 145).
39. Raymond E. Brown reminds us that “the Fourth Gospel is written in a legal atmosphere where Jesus is put on trial. This theme runs from the opening scene in John where official interrogators challenge the Baptist, through the many interrogations of Jesus about his witnesses (v.31–40; viii.13–19), to the dramatic trial before Pilate. In this background the forensic function of the Paraclete is to show the disciples (and through them to show the world) by his witness that Jesus was victorious in the trial.…” Brown proceeds to reject “advocate” and “counsellor” as translations and to point out that a purely forensic translation “does not do justice to his role as teacher” (NTS 13, 1966–67, pp. 116–17).
40. Schnackenburg examines a number of ideas about the source of the term “Paraclete” (The Gospel according to St John, III, pp. 144–50).
41. Theology of the New Testament, II (London, 1955), p. 57.
42. Although G. E. Ladd holds that “There is no substantial objection to taking the Johannine incident as an acted parable that was actually fulfilled at Pentecost” (A Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1974, p. 289). James Moffatt points out that John connects the gift of the Spirit very closely to Jesus, which is not the case with Acts, though he does not give attention to the significance of Acts 2:33 (The Theology of the Gospels, London, 1912, p. 187).
43. E. Schweizer holds that if they are regarded as office-bearers, “then the Parting Discourses (including, e.g., the commandment of love) must be completely restricted to them” (TDNT, VI, p. 442, n. 753).
44. I have taken the an to mean “if”, but it could be the suffix “-ever”, as in ASV, “whose soever sins.…” But there is no real difference in meaning.
45. The Gospel of John, II (Edinburgh, 1956), p. 318.
46. Nigel Turner points out that the perfect tense “has to express two truths at once: the previous inception of the condition and the present continuance of it.” In the present passage he rejects the idea that the perfects can be understood in the sense of the present or the aorist and translates, “whose soever sins you forgive, they have been forgiven (perfect); whose soever sins you retain, they have been retained” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1965, pp. 80, 81).
47. The Gospel according to St. John, II, p. 352.
48. The Gospel of St John (Harmondsworth, 1968), pp. 641–42. Cf. Lesslie Newbigin, “The Church, consecrated in the truth by the promise of the Spirit, is sent into the whole world to be the bearer of that effective action. It will be insofar as it manifests in its corporate life the marks of Christ’s passion. And as the effective presence of the light it will also bear the dread responsibility of being the occasion of judgment upon those who prefer the darkness to the light” (The Light Has Come, Grand Rapids, 1982, p. 269).