Volumes have been written on the supposed sacramental character of John’s gospel concerning baptism and the Lord’s supper. This usually makes the historical-chronological testimony of secondary importance. However, when viewed in context, we see that John put emphasis on relating historical events that had tremendous spiritual ramifications.
But using such sacramental techniques of interpretation one might easily prove there is a also sacrament of "lighting lamps" during conversion-initiation. The following serves as an example of such logic.
"... Believers are "enlightened" in the Kingdom. This must certainly arise from a literal understanding of "let your lamps shine before men."
Of course this means we view the physical act of lighting lamps at conversion-initiation as a vehicle of grace for spiritual enlightenment. The source of this enlightenment arises from Messiah Himself, as we read in the sacramental gospel, "I am the Light of the world, he who follows me shall not walk in darkness."
He is the "Light of men" and the "Light shines in the darkness." When a candidate lights his lamp, "Light has come into the world, and he who practices truth will come to the Light." "While you have the Light, believe in the Light, that you may become sons of Light."
Then the formula is recited, "I have come as a Light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." The ten virgins of course depict the sacral lighting of the lamps to usher in the reception of the Lord, those, who during the act of lighting the lamp exercise true faith and are ushered into the Lord’s banquet...etc., etc."
But if no one takes John’s gospel to teach a sacrament of lighting lamps why should passages about baptism or water have such interpretations imposed on them? The Lord said "I am the Door" John 10:7, is there also a "sacramental entry door"?
In John’s gospel only the verb baptizo is used, the nouns baptismos or baptisma are not found.
R. John is given special prominence as a testimony to Messiah,3 comparable with what is found in Luke, but more than the other two synoptics.
"Born of water" in John 3 can be seen to relate to John’s baptism. The context is pre-resurrection, and Yeshua’s disciples also perform Israel’s end-time baptism, John’s, immediately after this episode.
There is no sign of a command for a new baptism after the resurrection. We should also remember that John’s gospel contains four post-resurrection episodes, more than any of the synoptics.
At the same time a specific scene related to the receiving of the Spirit from the risen Messiah is given which is impossible to connect to water baptism. Yeshua breathed on disciples in a defined, lucid event with a command to receive the Holy Spirit with no connection to any ritual. (More about this below.)
Luke and Acts also omit the establishment of a new baptism and also speak of receiving the Spirit from on High. Taking all this together, one might well argue that John’s gospel, far from teaching a sacrament of baptism, was meant to correct a mistaken idea that water baptism was something other than John’s, or that it was important for anyone but Jews.
Questions sometimes arise because of Messiah’s actions on resurrection day, John 20:22. Some feel His breath on the disciples actually distributed the Holy Spirit. However on close examination we see an intimate sign of what would occur several weeks later on Shavu’ot.
First of all, not all the apostles were present and it would have been more appropriate for all eleven to receive the first spiritual gifting of Messiah’s body.
Also, the Lord breathed on them first and then said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." But it would seem to make more sense to first encourage them to receive the Spirit and then breathe on them if He were really distributing His Spirit.
Otherwise His physical breath was already in them by the time He told them to receive the Spirit. Why bother telling them to receive something He had just given them? If this were a distribution of His Spirit it would be an awkward sequence.
Others have commented that eight days later the disciples did not act any different, as if having received the Holy Spirit. The doors were locked just as they had been the week before, John 20:26, before Messiah appeared to them.
Taken as a sign of coming blessings, Messiah’s intimate breath would closely correspond to the sequence of the Passover supper where He signified His imminent death in the events in the meal itself. The Lord told His disciples to "take" and eat the broken bread as a sign of His imminent suffering, using the same word on that night of the Passover, labete, as He did on resurrection evening to encourage them to "receive" the Holy Spirit.
It is reasonable to conclude the Lord signified to His disciples through an intimate sign of breathing what would soon occur on Shavu’ot, confirmed later in Luke 24:49 where He told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they were clothed with power from on High.
Previous to the sign of breath on the disciples, in John 14:16, 15:26 and 16:7 the Lord made it clear He would not send forth His Spirit until after He ascended to His Father. In Mark 16:19 we find testimony that the Lord was received up into Heaven after He had spoken to His disciples on the evening of resurrection day, after He breathed on them, which would mean He had not previously sent His Spirit because He had not yet ascended.
The other appearances of the Lord after He appeared to Mary, in Matthew 28:9-10, Luke 24:34, 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Luke 24:13-32, seem to show He did not immediately ascend to Heaven after He spoke with Mary in John 20:17.
When the Lord told Mary to tell His brethren, "I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God," we do not conclude the Lord ascended the moment she left. Rather this was His victory message. He would ascend to His Father because He was resurrected from the dead but He would not have to ascend the moment Mary was gone. Besides, He had already been resurrected for some time anyway, long enough for the women to go from the tomb, tell Peter and John, let them come and take a look, let them leave, and let Mary stand outside weeping. If the Lord had to ascend to His Father immediately after His resurrection He could have done so. And just after Mary left, the Lord appeared to the rest of the women, Matthew 28:5,10, and tends to indicate He did not immediately ascend to His Father after talking with Mary.
Therefore it seems certain that on resurrection evening the Lord did not send out His Spirit. Instead, He gave His disciples an intimate sign of His promise to send the Spirit to them which He would fulfill on Shavu’ot, giving them the promise of the Father, Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4-5.
This is precisely what the apostle Peter proclaimed in Acts 2:33, that Messiah had received the promised Holy Spirit and had poured out what was seen and heard. John recorded the sign on resurrection evening to let all readers know that they should also look forward to receiving the Holy Spirit of God, apart from any water ritual, just as the original disciples did.