The Power of Prophecy:

A Septuagintal Echo in John 20:19-23

TOBIAS HÄGERLAND
University of Gothenburg
SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden

CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS commonly agree that the Council of Trent, although

infallibly and definitively establishing the dogmatic meaning of John 20:22-23,
did not thereby rule out further discussion concerning the original sense of this
passage.' In the terminology ofthe theory of Catholic biblical interpretation, the
sacramental understanding of John 20:22-23 could well be seen as an instance of
sensus plenior rather than the sensus litteralis to be established by historical-critical
means.^ My aim in the present article is to make a new proposal concerning the
latter of these two senses of John 20:19-23, that is, the meaning put into this text
by its human author. I will draw attention to the possibility of hearing in this scene

' Raymond E. Brown, The Gospei according to Joiin XlIl-XXl: A new translation with intro-
duction and commentary (AB 29A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970) 1041; Rudolf Schnacken-
burg. Das Johannesevangelium (4 vols.; HTKNT 4; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1986) 3. 388;
Joseph Ratzinger, "Congregation for the Doctrine ofthe Faith: Presentation ofthe Apostolie Letter
in the Form of Motu Proprio Misericordia Dei: Intervention," May 2, 2002, [Link]
. Vatican. va/romancuria/eongregations/efaith/doeuments/rc_concfaithdoc_20020502_
ratzinger-penance_en.html (accessed November 17, 2008). For a dynamic discussion ofthe poten-
tial of John 20:22-23 within a contemporary hermeneuties of faith, see Luke Timothy Johnson and
William S. Kurz, The Future of Cathoiic Bihiicai Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 237-48, 257-58.
^For recent discussion of sensus ptenior, see Pontifieal Biblical Commission, The Interpre-
tation oftiw Bible in the Church (Boston: St. Paul, 1993) II.B.3; Peter S. Williamson, Cathoiic Prin-
ciples for Interpreting Scripture: A Study ofthe Pontifical Bibiical Commission s The Interpretation
ofthe Bible in the Church (Subsidia Biblica 22; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblieo, 2001) 204-15;
Carolyn Osiek, "Catholic or catholic? Biblical Scholarship at the Center," JBL 125 (2006) 5-22,
here 21.

84
 THE POWER OF PROPHECY 85

a syntactical and theological echo ofthe LXX version ofthe Balaam cycle of Num-
bers 22-24, which is significant for the critical understanding of John 20:22-23 in
particular.
The phenomenon of intertextual echoes must not be confused with neigh-
boring uses of other texts, such as explicit quoting or typological interpretation.
An echo is neither as readily distinguishable as a quotation, nor necessarily as
thoroughgoing as a typological interpretation. The Gospel of John employs both
these techniques of intertextual cross-reference. Quotations from Isaiah, for exam-
ple, are applied both to John (the Baptist) and to Jesus, in order to align these char-
acters with the classic Israelite prophetic experience and to demonstrate how their
activities fulfill the prophecies of old (1:23; 12:38,40). Typology is explicit in the
comparison between Moses' serpent and Jesus (3:14-15), but is also likely to have
played a decisive role in the formation ofthe entire "Book of Signs," which seems
to be permeated with Moses typology.
Scriptural echoes are fainter and often less exploited than either quotations or
typology, and, consequently, they are less demonstrable. Does the advice of Jesus'
mother at the wedding in Cana (2:5) echo Pharaoh's endorsement of Joseph to the
Egyptians (Gen 41:55)? Is the mention ofthe Sheep Gate in conjunction with Jesus'
commanding a paralytic to "take up his pallet and walk" on the Sabbath (5:2-9) an
echo of the prophet Jeremiah's fervent warning against carrying any burden
through the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath (Jer 17:21 )? Or are these purported
echoes of Scripture merely scholarly fantasies, far too subtle and understated to
have been intended by the evangelist or recognized by the Gospel's first hearers?^
Richard B. Hays has offered an inventory of seven criteria for assessing the alleged
presence of scriptural echoes, which will here be applied to the Johannine peri-
cope. These criteria are (in slightly reformulated terms): (I) availability ofthe "pre-
text" (the text echoed) to the author and first hearers ofthe "metatext" (the text in
which an echo occurs); (2) volume and prominence ofthe echo in the metatext;
(3) recurrence of the echo or other echoes of the same pretext in the metatext;
(4) thematic coherence ofthe echo with the metatext at large; (5) plausibility ofthe
echo being intended and recognized in its historical milieu; (6) previous identifi-
cation ofthe echo in the history of interpretation; (7) "satisfaction," the degree to
which the identification of the echo contributes to a convincing exegesis of the
passage in question."*

^ In the words of Vernon K. Robbins (Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-
Rhetorical Interpretation [Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996] 60), "echo does not
contain either a word or a phrase that is 'indisputably' from only one eultural tradition. Echo is sub-
tle and indirect. One person may hear it while another does not, and the speaker may or may not have
directly intended the echo to be there. The resuh is that interpreters regularly will debate the pres-
ence or absence of a particular echo in the text under consideration."
'' Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven/London: Yale Uni-
 86 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

In the following I will argue that Hays's criteria are met well enough to con-
sider the hearing of an echo of Numbers 22-24 in John 20:19-23 to be something
more than sheer imagination. After an overview ofthe interpretation ofthe Balaam
cycle in early Jewish literature, 1 will tum to the possible impact of these readings
on the theology of John's Gospel and then to 20:19-23 specifically. Finally, 1 will
retum to the seven criteria in order to consider the extent to which they have been
met in this case.

1. Balaam and Early Jewish Refiection on the Nature of Prophecy

Although the Hebrew Bible never calls Balaam son of Beor a "prophet"
(K''D]), referring to him only in passing as "the diviner" (QDpn [Josh 13:22]), the
oracles ascribed to him in Numbers 23-24 can justly be described as the first exten-
sive instance of prophecy in the narrative timeline of the Pentateuch, set in an
epoch when no prophet had yet risen in Israel.' As such, the cycle attains pro-
grammatic importance within the biblical narrative, its notion of mantic and orac-
ular prophecy establishing a theological framework within which to understand
subsequent occurrences of prophetic activity in the canonical order of Scripture.
Balaam is coerced to speak God's "word" ("QI; 22:8, 20, 35, 38; 23:3, 5, 16; cf
23:26; 24:13), however much this confiicts with his own desire or with that of
Balak. The third and fourth oracles are introduced with the revelatory DXJ-fomiula
characteristic of the scriptural prophets, and Balaam professes to be "a hearer of
the words of ^Ël, who sees a vision of Sadday" (24:4, 16). Commenting that prior
to Balaam's third oracle, "the spirit of God came upon him" (24:2), the narrator of
Numbers unmistakably presents Balaam's speech as tme and inspired prophecy.
The character of Balaam himself is rather ambiguous, largely owing to the seem-
ing inconsistency in the portrayal of God's own attitude (22:20-22).* Apart from
Numbers 22-24, the biblical picture of Balaam is thoroughly negative: his own
wish had been to curse Israel (Deut 23:5-6; Josh 24:9-10), and it was he who
prompted the Midianite women to lure the Israelites into idolatry (Num 31:16).

versity Press, 1989) 29-32; idem. The Conversion ofthe Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's
Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 34-48.
^ See Martin Rösel, "Wie einer vom Propheten zum Verfuhrer wurde: Tradition und Rezep-
tion der Bileamsgestalt," Bib 80 (1999) 506-24, here 508-10.
* For source-critieal analyses ofthe Balaam cycle, see John T. Greene, Balaam and His Inter-
preters: A Hermeneutical History ofthe Balaam Traditions (BJS 244; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992)
17-68; Horst Seebass, "Zur literarischen Gestalt der Bileam-Perikope," ZAW \Q1 (1995) 409-19;
Jo Ann Hackett, "Balaam," ABD, I. 569-72. On the Balaam inscriptions from Deir 'Alia, see
Michael S. Moore, The Balaam Traditions: Their Character and Development (SiBLD^ 113; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1990) 66-96; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21-36: A new translation with introduc-
tion and commentary (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 241-75.
 THE POWER OF PROPH EC Y 87

None of this seems to have detracted from the validity of his predictive prophecies,
since in delivering them he was the mouthpiece of Yhwh.
The LXX labels Balaam a "diviner" (liávtic; [Josh 13:22]) and presents him
in a less favorable light than does the MT of Numbers 22-24. In various ways, the
Greek translator dissociates Balaam from the God of Israel, tuming him into a
decidedly pagan soothsayer and a worshiper of some indefinite deity.^ Yet the
inspired character of Balaam's speeches is emphasized in the Greek text, which
introduces both the first and third oracles with "and the spirit of God came upon
him" (KOI èyevriGri [¿YeveTo] Tiveù|ia öeoö en' aÙTÔ) psium 23:7; 24:2]), whereas
only the third oracle is prefixed with an equivalent phrase in the Hebrew text. The
description of visions having come to Balaam "in his sleep, his eyes being uncov-
ered" (èv íJTivü), ànoKEKaXi)|^pévoi oí ô(p9a\|ioi aÙToiJ [24:4, 16]) may indicate a
hypnotic or ecstatic state.
Whether the oracles lend themselves more easily to eschatological or even
messianic interpretations in the Greek version has been debated.^ The temporal
indication "in the last ofthe days" (en' èaxaxou tcov f)|iEp(I)v [24:14]), which pre-
cedes the fourth oracle, is not peculiar to the LXX but concurs quite literally with
the Hebrew. In 24:17, by announcing the coming rise of a "human being"
(áv9pü)7io(;) in place ofthe Masoretic "sceptre" (Ü^tt?), the Greek translator has
actually made the exegesis of the passage in royal messianic terms less attrac-
tive.' On the other hand, "a human being will come forth from his seed and rule
many nations" (èÇeÀeuoETai dvöpcünoc; ÈK TOÙ aTrépiiatoc; aùtoû Kal Kupieúasi
eöviüv KoXXtüv [24:7]) seems to add a potential of messianic interpretation not
present in the Hebrew text. Perhaps this, in combination with the stress on the
pneumatic nature of Balaam's speeches, can be said to promote the status ofthe
oracles slightly, while simultaneously the character ofthe diviner himself is some-
what denigrated. If the value of Balaam's prophecies is not dependent on his own
morals and intentions according to the Hebrew text, then it is even less so in the
Greek.
Early interpreters of Numbers 22-24 usually designate Balaam as a "diviner"

' ó BEÓÍ; ("God") is the translation of mn' ("Yhwh") in Num 22:13, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
31, 32, 35; 23;3, 5, 8, 12, 16, 26; 24:13. In 22:18, Balaam speaks of TO pfj^ia Kupíou TOÖ Seoù ("the
word ofthe Lord God") in contrast to the suffixed Tl'^N mn' 'D ("the mouth of Yhwh my God") in
the MT See John William Wevers, Notes on the Creeic Text of Numbers (SBLSCS 46; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1998) xxix, 370-75, 377-80, 385, 387, 389, 391, 393, 398, 410.
* See Géza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (SPB 4; Leiden:
Brill, 1961) 59-60, 159-60, 165-66; cf. J. Lust, "The Greek Version of Balaam's Third and Fourth
Oracles: The ävöpcünoc; in Num 24:7 and 17; Messianism and Lexicography," in VIH Congress of
the Internationai Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Paris 1992 (ed. Leonard J.
Greenspoon and Olivier Munnich; SBLSCS 41 ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 233-52.
' Lust, "Greek Version," 240-41.
 88 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

([iávTic;), less frequently as a "magician" ([iáYOc;) or "prophet" (npocpiÎTric;)."' His

oracular activity is referred to with the verbs "conjure" (£Tri0eiá(eiv), "deliver ora-
cles" (oeaniÍEiv), "foretell" (TipoXÉYeiv), and "prophesy" (7Tpo(pr|T£Úeiv); and with
the nouns "divination" (|iavTiKti) and "prophecy" (prophetia).^^ Only the Liber
antiquitatum biblicarum grants some sympathetic traits to Balaam, characterizing
him as something of a "tragic hero" who does not recognize his fateful mistake
until it is too late.'^ The other interpreters ofthe cycle have to grapple with the
problem of prominent and divinely inspired prophecies having been delivered by
a man who was not only a Gentile but also had recourse to pagan practices of div-
ination and who sealed his career with drawing Israel into licentiousness and idol-
atry. In the following I will summarize and discuss briefly the theological
interpretations ofthe Balaam cycle according to the rewritings of biblical history
by Josephus and Philo.'^
Josephus may have had the Balaam cycle at his disposal in three languages,
Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.''' It is certainly misleading to argue that Josephus
does not censure Balaam or even that he views Balaam as "the greatest of the
prophets," as has been done by some commentators.'^ In contradistinction to the
biblical story, Josephus's Balaam expresses his "eagerness" (Ttpo0u|iia, anouSií) to
comply with Balak's request and curse Israel {A.J. 4.6.2 § 105). '^ God's unexpected
approval of Balaam's going with the envoys from Balak in the biblical cycle (Num
22:20) is interpreted by Josephus as a deceiving command in response to Balaam's
pushy questioning {A.J. 4.6.3 §107). Having delivered, against his own will (4.6.5
§122), an oracle that was favorable to Israel, Balaam has additional sacrifices

'"Josephus^./ 4.6.2 §104; 4.6.4 §112; PhiloMg/^ 114; Moi. 1.276,282,285 (all i
Philo Mos. 1.276 ((iáyoc;); 2 Pet 2:16 (npO9iÍTr|i;); cf. Philo Mos. 1.266 (áaTeíCó|i£voc; luc op T(I)V
eXXoyinwv npo<priT(I)v yzyovwc) and 4Q339 1-2, where Balaam comes first in a list of "false
prophets" (K"lp[îi']'N''::])
• . Philo also calls Balaam a "sophist" (aocpioxtii; [Det. 71]), an "augur"
(oiü)vó|javTii; [Conf. 159]; oicuvoaKÓnoc; [Mut. 202]), and a "soothsayer" (xepaToaKÓnoc; [Conf
159]).
" Josephus A.J. 4.6.5 §118 (émeeiáíeiv); Philo Mos. 1.274, 277 (eecniCeiv); Josephus A.J.
4.6.5 § 125 (npoXÉYeiv); Philo Mac. 1.283 (rtpocpnTeÚEiv); 1.285 (navxiKii); ¿./4,ö. \S.\2 (prophetia).
^'^L.A.B. 18.10-12. See Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, \li-16; Rösel, "Wie einer vom
Propheten zum Verfuhrer wurde," 521.
'^ For an extensive treatment, see John R. Levison, The Spirit in First-Century Judaism
(AGAJU 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 25-55. On targumie and midrashic interpretations, see Vermes,
Scripture and Tradition, 127-77.
'"* Louis H. Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation ofthe Bible (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London:
University of California Press, 1998) 23-36; Levison, Spirit, 27 n. I.
'5 See Karl Georg Kuhn, "BaXaáji," TWNT, 1. 521-23, here 522; Greene, Balaam and His
Interpreters, 144. Greene reads too much into the characterization of Balaam as "a most excellent
diviner of those [who lived] then," |jávTi<; dpicToç Tûv tóxe (Josephus A.J. 4.6.2 § 104).
" See the discussion in Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentaiy,
vol. 3, Judean Antiquities 1-4 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 367-68 n. 318.
 THE POWER OF PROPHECY 89

offered in a vain attempt to persuade God to allow him to "bind the people with
curses" (4.6.5 §123). Balaam's fmal advice about how Balak should infiltrate the
Israelites with the help of Midianite women, said explicitly to be against the will
of God (4.6.6 § 127), completes a depiction of the diviner that is anything but pos-
itive.
It is not Balaam's character that guarantees the validity of his prophecies but
the fact that they are inspired by the spirit of God. By elaborating the reference to
the spirit found in the biblical cycle, Josephus emphasizes the pneumatic nature of
the oracles.'^ When Balaam prophesies, he has been "conquered" (veviKr||iévo(;) by
the divine spirit; the spirit of God "takes possession" (Aa^ißaveiv) of him (4.6.5
§§118-19). This enthusiastic type of inspiration effectively renders all personal
faculties of the diviner passive and powerless. The medium is not "in himself (èv
éauTCü [4.6.5 §118]). It is not a human matter of choosing whether to keep silent
or to speak the divine oracles; the diviner cannot voluntarily control what he or she
speaks or resist the will of God. Once the deity has entered the enthusiastic prophet,
"nothing within us belongs to us any longer" (4.6.5 §§119-21).'^ Such is the Hel-
lenistic view of inspired speech that, for Josephus, serves to reconcile the lasting
validity of Balaam's oracles with the bad character of their medium.
Philo, moving along the same lines, denigrates Balaam even more. This may
have been facilitated partly by his use of the Greek version of Numbers, which, as
noted above, exhibits an unfavorable attitude toward Balaam. Philo frankly states
that Balaam pretended to be among the distinguished prophets {Mos. 1.266) and
that he went so far as to claim to see even the Creator (1.272). At times, when the
biblical story alleges that God spoke to Balaam and gave him instructions (Num
22:12, 20), Philo indicates that these auditions and dreams were simulated by
Balaam without any divine intervention at all {Mos. 1.266, 268). Philo takes only
the oracles to be genuinely inspired by God. Here Philo draws a sharp line between
Balaam's uninspired and inspired states and notes explicitly several times that the
diviner passes from one state to the other (1.277,281,283,288,294). The inspired
mode is caused by the "prophetic spirit" (7tpo<pr|TtKÔv 7tveù|ia [1.277])." Balaam
is declared to be "inspired" (ëv0ou<; [1.277, 288; cf 1.286]), to be in a state of
divine "possession" (KaTOKcoxn [1.277, 281]). God employs Balaam's tongue as a
tool for God's oracles, relegating the diviner himself to the position of an "inter-
preter" (£p|ir|V£i)(;) of words proposed by the deity (1.274, 277, 281, 286). This

" See Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evi-
dence from Josephus (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 176-77 n. 75.
'* For a diseussion of the Platonic eharacter of these notions, see Feldman, Judean Antiqui-
ties 1-4, 373-74 n. 367.
" On Philo's reluctance to call Balaam a prophet, despite his statement that Balaam prophe-
sied {Mos. 1.283), see J. R. Baskin, "Origen on Balaam: The Dilemma of the Unworthy Prophet,"
KC37 (1983) 22-35, here 24.
 90 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

takes place without Balaam's consent or comprehension (1.274, 283). Other treat-
ments of prophecy in Philo contain strikingly similar formulations.^" Much as in
Josephus, Philo's Balaam is a temporarily possessed diviner whose evil intentions
cannot impede the divine oracles from being delivered.

II. Prophets and Prophecy in the Gospel of J^ohn

Could the author ofthe Gospel of John have been familiar with these or sim-
ilar reflections on Balaam's prophetic gift? With regard to the biblical Balaam
cycle, it is quite probable that John (by which name I will henceforth designate the
author) had access to it in a Greek version. The Gospel may not be entirely con-
sistent in its use ofthe OT, hut some ofthe quotations do seem to come from the
LXX.-^' Echoes ofthe Book of Numbers can be heard throughout the first part of
the Gospel. The mention of manna in John 6:49 may refer the reader back to Num-
bers 11, while the sheepfold imagery and the phrase "will come in and go out"
(eioEXeúaetai Kai è^eXEUGerai [John 10:9]) appear to echo Num 27:17.^^ Two pas-
sages serve to portray Jesus in terms associated with Moses in Numbers: "I can-
not do anything of myself ' (où ôuvapai èyà) noieîv an' è[iavTO\) oùôév [John 5:30])
is suggestive of "the Lord sent me to do all these works, for [I do them] not of
myself (KÚpioc; àTtéotEiXév JÍE7ToifjaainávTa taepyaxaOxa, öxiOÙKan' £(iauToí3
[Num 16:28]), and the Jews' remark "to Moses God has spoken" (MtuiJasI
\£\áXr|KEv ó 0EÓc; [John 9:29]) approximates a direct quotation of Num 12:2. Most
obvious is, of course, the typological application of Num 21:8-9 to Jesus in John
3:14-15.
This recurring use of Numbers makes it likely that John knew ofthe book in
its entirety and thus could have drawn also on the Balaam cycle. Whether he was
also aware ofthe interpretation of Balaam's prophetic activity in Hellenistic terms
as represented by Josephus and Philo is more difficult to say. The relationship
between Philo and John is usually viewed today as one of common Jewish
Hellenistic background rather than of direct dependence.^^ Since both Philo and
Josephus have placed the Balaam cycle within practically the same interpretative

^^ Philo Her 258-66 (on prophecy in general); Mos. 1.57, 175, 201; 2.246-91 (on Moses);
Spec. 1.65 (on the prophet like Moses and prophecy in general); 4.49 (on prophecy in general).
^' John 10:34; 12:38; 19:24. See Bruce G. Schuchatd, Scripture within Scripture: The Inter-
relationship of Form and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John
(SBLDS 133; Atlanta: Seholars Press, 1992) 61, 87-88, 126-27, 151-54 (preferring the term "OG"
over against "LXX"); Marten J. J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Stud-
ies in Textual Form (CBET 15; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 14-15.
^^ On John 10:9, see Rudolf Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (KEK; Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1941) 287 n. 6.
^' Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (ed. Francis J. Moloney; Anchor
Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 2003) 129-30.
 THE POWER OF PROPHECY 91

framework of Hellenistic mantic inspiration, one cannot rule out the possibility
that they reflect at this point a eommon tradition of interpretation, which may have
been available to John.
John does not offer an elaborate theory of prophetic inspiration. In a few pas-
sages, TtpocpriTric; is employed with reference to the scriptural prophets of the OT
(1:23,45; 6:45; 8:52-53; 12:38). The single mention of prophecy explicitly said to
take place within the narrative is the oracle unwittingly delivered by the high priest
Caiaphas concerning the benefit of one man dying for the people rather than the
whole nation being destroyed (11:49-50). Here the narrator quickly points out,
"But this he did not say of himself (àcp' éauToù), but being high priest that year he
prophesied (ÈTipocpiÎTEuaev)" (11:51). This notion of prophecy, which insists that
the self of the medium is bypassed in the delivery of an oracle, is in harmony with
the early Jewish interpretations ofthe Balaam cycle.
In the LXX, Balaam tells Balak, "I will not be able to transgress the word of
the Lord... by myself (nap' ¿nauTou)" (Num 24:13).^"'Josephus, as already men-
tioned, says that Balaam prophesied "while not in himself (OÙK ÜV ÈV êauTcI) [A.J.
4.6.5 §118]) and contrasts the all-powerful will ofGod with the impotence of those
who claim prognostic ability "by themselves" (nap' eauTtöv [4.6.5 §121]). Philo
has Balaam maintain that in his inspired state he speaks "nothing that is his own
('iôiov oùôév), but whatever the deity proposes" (Mos. 1.281), whereas when
released from possession he offers "guesses of my [own] thinking" (1.294). 1 noted
above that both Philo and Josephus take Balaam not to have understood what he
was prophesying. The same holds true for Caiaphas, with the added Johannine
twist that his words contain a double entendre: Caiaphas thinks that he is offering
practical advice on how to spare the people from Roman destruction by having
Jesus executed, but he is unwittingly giving voice to the early Christian doctrine
of Jesus' redemptive death (John 11:51-52). The notion of prophecy being deliv-
ered by an ignorant medium is not, to be sure, limited to Balaam but is applied
also to Israelite prophets in rabbinic literature.^^ Caiaphas, however, is like Balaam
in that he is an antagonist in the story, involved in deadly opposition to its hero;
only divine action "turned the curse into a blessing" (cf. Deut 23:6; Neh 13:2).
Among early commentators on John's Gospel, Origen noticed the resem-
blance of Caiaphas to Balaam.^* In his homily on Num 22:15-28, the third-century
scholar says that one should not be perplexed on seeing that Balaam prophesied
about Christ, "for we read that Caiaphas also did this" (Horn. Num. 14.4.4). In his
detailed commentary on John, Origen treats the topic extensively. Admitting that
both Caiaphas and Balaam did prophesy (Ttpo9r|T£Úeiv), he argues that this does not

^'' Bultmann {Das Evangelium des Johannes, 187) notices the relevance of this notion of
prophecy for John's christology.
" See Str-B, 2. 546.
^'On Origen's interpretation of Balaam in general, see Baskin, "Origen on Balaam."
 92 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

make either of these wicked men deserving of the title TTpocpiixrn; {Comtn. Jo.
28.98-105). Furthermore, in view of John's remark that "the Spirit was not yet,
since Jesus had not yet been glorified" (John 7:39), Origen thinks that Caiaphas's
prophecy cannot have been caused by the indwelling ofthe Holy Spirit (Cotntn. Jo.
28.127-29). Balaam is mentioned, along with other biblical examples, as proof
that other spirits may inspire true prophecies (28.130-49). A fmal analogy between
Caiaphas and Balaam is to be found in the fact that the prophecies of both were
prompted by special circumstances (28.175-77).
The prophet par excellence in the Gospel of John is, however, Jesus himself.
Both the Samaritan woman and the man bom blind identify Jesus as Kpoipiitric;
(John 4:19; 9:17), while his opponents deny this to him because of his Galilean ori-
gin (7:52). Other people acclaim Jesus as the prophet, ó Ttpo(pr|Tr|(; (6:14; 7:40), a
title that the Baptist did not accept when it was applied to him (1:21, 25).^' This is
likely a reference to the "prophet like Moses" (see Deut 18:15-18), since the
Gospel portrays Jesus in terms evocative of Moses' prophetic ministry, as men-
tioned above.^^ Although Jesus' statement that a prophet has no honor in his home-
land (4:44) cannot be taken to indicate that the Johannine Jesus views himself
precisely as a prophet, it is nevertheless significant that he never declines this des-
ignation, unlike the Baptist. He appears to accept being called a prophet, although
he is certainly much more than a prophet.^^ John repeatedly associates Jesus with
prophetic characteristics that are found also in the LXX Balaam cycle and its ear-
liest interpretations. Among these can be mentioned the following:
1. Inspiration by the Spirit. Of Balaam it is said, "the spirit of God (Tiv£ü|ia
öeoö) came upon him (en' aÙTô))" (Num 23:7; 24:2). At the beginning of Jesus'
ministry, the Baptist sees "the Spirit (TO 7tv£ö|ia) descend and remain on him (en'
aÚTÓv)" (John 1:32-33). When later Jesus speaks about the Spirit, some among the
crowd recognize him as the prophet (7:39-40).
2. Hearing and seeing hidden things (the mantic function).^" Balaam is "a
hearer of God's oracles, one who has seen a vision from/of God (opaaiv 9eoû)"

^' "John the Baptist" ('Iü)ávvr|<; ó ßanTiCcüv/o ßanTiarrii;) is so designated in Josephus and the
Synoptic Gospels, but never in the Gospel of John. I employ this un-Johannine appellative only lo
distinguish "the Baptist" from the author ofthe Gospel.
^^ See Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christoiogy
(NovTSup 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967)45-46, 87-99.
^' See C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation ofthe Fourth Gospei (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1953) 254-55; David E. Aune, Prophecy in Eariy Christianity and the Ancient Mediter-
ranean IVorid (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 155-56.
^^ For a diseussion of the terminological distinction between npocpqTEÍa and pavTEia, see
Christopher Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Eariy Christianity and its Heilenistic Envi-
ronment (WUNT 2/75; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995) 188-217.
 THE POWER OF PROPHECY 93

(Num 24:4; cf. 24:16). In Philo, this has escalated into a claim to see "not only the
world but also the creator ofthe world" {Mos. 1.272). John states that Jesus, who
is from above, testifies to "what he has seen and heard" (John 3:32; cf. 3:11 ; 5:30;
8:26, 38, 40, 47; 15:15). Whatever the Father does he "shows" (ôeiKvuaiv) to his
Son (5:20). Moreover, the Johannine Jesus claims that he has actually seen the
Father, since he comes from God (6:46; cf. 1:18).
3. Obedience to God's word. Balaam cannot go beyond "the word ofthe Lord
God" (T6 pniia Kupiou TOO Geoù [Num 22:18; cf. 22:20, 35, 38; 23:3, 5, 16, 26;
24:13]). Similarly, John writes that the one whom God has sent speaks "the words
of God" (TO pr||iaTa TOO öeoö) and ascribes this ability to God's immeasurable gift
ofthe Spirit (John 3:34; cf. 6:63, 68; 8:47; 10:21; 14:10; 17:8).
4. Speaking the word (the prophetic function). Balaam is able to speak no
more and no less than the word of God. Among the verbs employed by the Greek
translator are "speak" (XaXetv [Num 22:20, 35, 38; 23:5, 12]; cf. ÈKXaXeïv in Philo
Mos. 1.283) and "proclaim" (àvayYÉXXEiv [Num 23:3]; cf. ànaYYeXia in Josephus
A.J. 4.6.5 §122). The Johannine Jesus is also said to speak (XaXeîv [John 3:11, 34;
6:63; 7:17-18; 8:26, 28, 38, 40; 12:48-50; 14:10, 25; 15:22]) and proclaim
(àvayyéXXeiv [4:25]; ànayéXXeiv [16:25]) whatever he has seen and heard from
God.
5. Distance to the mediated message. As noted above, the LXX, Josephus,
and Philo express by various means that Balaam's prophecies do not in any way
originate with himself. In this respect, John's Jesus is both like and unlike Balaam.
On the one hand, Jesus is an unequivocally good character "in himself: he has life
and knowledge "in himself (ev éauTW [John 5:26; 6:61]) and professes to lay down
his own life "of himself (àcp' éautoû [cf. 10:18]). On the other hand, he repeat-
edly stresses that his message is not his own (5:30; 6:38; 7:16; 14:24) and that he
does not speak and act "of himself" (àcp' éautoû [5:19; 7:17-18; cf. 5:30; 7:28;
8:28, 42; 14:10]) or "from himself (è^ eauToi [cf. 12:49]).3i
6. Disinterest in personal gain and honor. In the Balaam cycle, Balaam con-
stantly declines Balak's persistent attempts to entice him into cursing Israel in
exchange for material donations (Num 22:17-18,37-38; 24:13). When Balak real-
izes that he cannot buy curses from the diviner, he reproaches Balaam for having
failed to earn the promised "glory" (ôoÇa [24:11 ; Philo Mos. 1.293]). Likewise, the
Johannine Jesus professes to be disinterested in ôoÇa from human beings (John
5:41; 7:18; 8:50; cf. 12:43). He values no ôo^a apart from that which comes from
God(l:14; 7:18; 8:54; 11:4; 12:28; 13:32; 17:1,5,22,24).

' See Bultmann, Das Evangetium des Johannes, 187-8

 94 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

By highlighting these common characteristics I do not suggest that they serve

to portray the Johannine Jesus in tenns of a Balaam typology. In fact, most of them
are to be viewed more properly as emulating Mosaic traditions, as Wayne A. Meeks
demonstrated forty years ago.-'^ They do indicate, however, that John knew of Hel-
lenistic Jewish reinterpretations of prophecy and that he did not hesitate to employ
these categories to characterize Jesus. Like Philo, he could have subsumed the
activities of both Balaam and Moses under the heading of "prophecy." And
although "prophecy" would certainly not be sufficient to describe fully the unpar-
alleled mission of Jesus, some elements of it would fall under this notion.

IIL Commissioning of the Disciples as Prophets (John 20:19-23)

Although Jesus' disciples are not labeled prophets in the Gospel of John, in
my opinion they are depicted as such in John 20:19-23, a passage that both echoes
the Balaam cycle in the LXX version and draws on the portrayal of Jesus' prophetic
ministry in the Gospel. I begin by briefly calling attention to how the first part of
the Johannine pericope (vv. 19-20) prepares for the narration of how Jesus gives
the Spirit to his disciples in the second part (vv. 21-23).
Jesus' salutation "Peace to you" (elpiivr| v[ñv) is the first indication of the
pneumatological contents of the passage: elptivr| was first used in the Gospel in
14:27, immediately after a mention of the Paraclete to come (14:26). The subse-
quent "I go away and come to you" (14:28) is a reference to Jesus' departure and
the coming of the Spirit (see 16:7). Accordingly, Jesus' statement about his peace
in V. 27 should probably be interpreted also as a reference to the giving of the Spirit
in the future, the verbs "I leave" (à(pir||ii) and "I give" (5ÍOÍÜ|ÍI) being future in
meaning, just as "I come" (£pxo|jai) in v. 28 has a future sense.^^ These promises
—to send the Spirit, to give peace, and to come again—are now to be fulfilled.
Another pneumatological catchword is "side" (KAeupá), which provides a
link to the crucifixion and the piercing of Jesus' side (19:31-36). There are good
reasons to view the water that flows from Jesus' side as a symbol of the Spirit:
water and Spirit are paralleled in 3:5, and Jesus' death is a necessary prerequisite
for the coming of the Spirit (7:39; 16:7). In 7:38-39, John explicitly identifles the
rivers of living water, which will flow from Jesus, with the Spirit. This is fulfilled
in 19:34.^" Now that Jesus shows his pierced side to the disciples, he not only
proves himself to be the very same paschal lamb that died on the cross but has

" Meeks, Prophet-King. 286-319.

'•• ' See also Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes. 536; Comelis Bennema, "The Giving
of the Spirit in John's Gospel—A New Proposal?" EvQ 74 (2002) 195-213, here 211.
'''On the reasons for taking the pronoun "his" (aùtoû) in 7:38 as a reference to Jesus, see
iVIenken, Old Testament Quotations. 192-93.
 THE POWER OF PROPHECY 95

subsequently been raised; he also indicates that the Spirit has gushed forth from
him and can now be given to the disciples.-'^

A. "As the Father has sent me, I too send you " (20:21)
Earlier in his Gospel, John referred proleptically to a sending ofthe disciples
that is analogous to Jesus' sending by the Father (13:20; 17:18). God sent Jesus to
speak God's words and teaching (3:34; 7:16; 8:26; 12:49; 14:24), to do God's will
and works (4:34; 5:30, 36; 6:38-39; 9:4), and to save the world (3:17). By itself,
the introductory "as" (KOÖCÜC;) in 20:21 need not imply that the comparison goes
beyond the act of sending: the Father has sent Jesus, and now Jesus likewise sends
his disciples. But several passages in the Gospel suggest that the analogy reaches
further and that the disciples are to function as prophets of Jesus, much as Jesus
functioned as the prophet of his Father.^^ As Jesus has seen the Father, so they
have seen Jesus; and through this they have, in effect, seen the Father (14:7-9).
Since Jesus has made known to them all that he heard from his Father (15:15),
what they have heard from him is actually the Father's word (14:24). The words
(piÎpaxa) that were given to Jesus by the Father, Jesus has given to the disciples
(17:8). Just as Jesus testifies about what he has seen and heard (3:11, 32), so his
disciples are to testify concerning him (15:27). As a branch cannot bear fruit of
itself (àcp' éauToû) but only by remaining in the vine, so they are to remain in
Jesus, "for without me you can do nothing" (15:4-5). Jesus has granted them the
ôoÇa that his Father gave to him (17:22). In sum, the prophetic characteristics
exhibited by Jesus are attributed to his disciples after his glorious death, resurrec-
tion, and ascension. They are sent on a prophetic mission.

B. "Receive holy Spirit" (20:22)

John then relates how Jesus "breathed into" (£VE9ÚGr|Gev) the disciples, evi-
dently interpreting his own breath as holy Spirit. Just as the descent ofthe Spirit
marked the beginning of Jesus' ministry (1:32-33), so now the gift of Spirit inau-
gurates the disciples' mission.^^ Jesus spoke earlier of the Spirit of truth, which

"Templ
• e symbolism appears to be involved also in 19:34 and 20:19-20. See Mary Coloc,
"Raising the Johannine Temple (John 19:19-37)," AusBR 48 (2000) 47-58, here 54-57; Sandra M.
Schneiders, "The Raising ofthe New Temple: John 20.19-23 and Johannine Ecelesiology," NTS 52
(2006) 337-55, here 347-48.
^* See Gary M. Bürge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 199-204.
•" See Martin Hasitschka, "Befreiung von Sünde nach dem Johannesevangelium," in Sünde
und Erlösung im Neuen Testament (ed. Hubert Frankemölle; QD 161; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna:
Herder, 1996)92-107, here 106.
 96 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

remains (névei) with the disciples (14:17) as it remained (£(ieiv£v) on Jesus (1:32).
This is the Spirit of prophecy, which is itself depicted in prophetic terms: "For it
will not speak of itself, but whatever it hears it will speak, and coming things it will
proclaim to you" (où yap XaXqaei à(p' éauToû, àXk' öaa àKouoei XaXiíaei Kai xà
èpxo[ieva àvoYYEXEÎ u|iîv [16:13]). Here several prophetic characteristics are
applied to the Spirit: it will both hear and speak/proclaim hidden things, and it
functions as the medium ofthe message, not as its originator. It will testify to Jesus
and thus provide a model for the disciples' testimony (15:26-27).
The verb ¿(icpuaiäv ("breathe into") in John 20:22 is used also in LXX Gen
2:7 with reference to God's life-giving breathing into Adam. This has led com-
mentators to interpret it in the light ofthe verse from Genesis. According to this
interpretation, the function ofthe Spirit is to cleanse the disciples from sin and to
establish them as a new creation.^^ But the position ofthe mention of "holy Spirif
indicates that it is given to the disciples not for their own sake but for the sake of
others. They receive the Spirit as part of their commission as prophets to the world.^'
Origen, as noted above, doubted that Caiaphas could have prophesied by the
Holy Spirit, since not even the apostles had received the Spirit prior to Jesus' glo-
rification. "But," writes Origen, "when the Savior had risen, he breathed into his
disciples and said to them, 'Receive holy Spirit,' and so on" {Comm. Jo. 28.128).
We may infer from this comment that Origen took John 20:22 as narrating the
bestowal ofthe Spirit of prophecy on Jesus' disciples. Unlike Caiaphas, they are
now able to prophesy by the Holy Spirit. The wording "and so on" (xai Ta e^fjc;)
seems to imply that Origen viewed John 20:23 as an integral part ofthe same
prophetic commissioning, and we will see shortly that this indeed is the case.

C. "If you forgive the sins of any . . . " (20:23)

The authorization to forgive sins is both the most enigmatic part of the disci-
ples' commissioning and the place where the Balaam cycle comes through most
strongly. Klaus Berger, in his extensive treatment of literary forms and types in the
NT, places John 20:23 in the category of "conditional clauses concerning the assured
result of liturgical words" (Konditionalsätze über den sicheren Erfolg liturgischer
Worte). Its characteristic structure is a conditional clause, conditional relative, or
imperative clause, followed by a gnomic future or (more rarely) present indicative.
Among other passages that Berger includes in this group are Mark 11:23; Matt
18:19; T. Abr. [A] 8:7.'*''An example from John may serve as illustration:

^^ See, e.g., Schneiders, "Raising ofthe New Temple," 351-52.

^' See Thomas R. Hatina, "John 20,22 in Its Eschatological Context: Promise or Fulfillment?"
5/7)74(1993) 196-219, here 217-18; Ben Witherington \U, John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the
Fourth Goi-/»e/(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995) 342-43.
'"' Klaus Berger, Formen und Gattungen im Neuen Testament (Uni-Taschenbücher 2532;
Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 2005) 231-32.
 THE POWER OF PROPHECY 97

John 14:13-14
A Conditional relative ö TI àv aÍTr|ar|T£ èv TÍI) óvóiaaTÍ \iov
Whatever you ask for in my name
B Apodosis TOÙT0 Ttotrjocu (ïva ôo^aaofj ó 7taTf)p èv TCU UÍÜ))
this I will do (in order for the Father to be
glorified through the Son).
A Conditional eáv Tt aÍTiÍ0r|Te [le èv T<¡) ovó[iaTÍ \iov
If you ask me for something in my name
B Apodosis èyù noir]oui.
I will do it.

John 20:23 can, however, be assigned to a more limited subtype to which

belong also Matt 16:19b and 18:18.'" The sayings of this type are antithetical. Each
member ofthe antithetical saying consists of a conditional clause or conditional rel-
ative (A and A'), followed by an apodosis (B and B'). The predicate of A is also
the predicate of B, and that of A ' is also that of B ' ; the verb employed in A and B
is semantically the opposite ofthat employed in A' and B'. In A and A', the verb
is in the second person subjunctive and carries active force, while in B and B', the
verb is in the passive third person simple perfect or periphrastic future perfect
indicative."*^ Thus:

'" Full diseussion ofthe diachronie relationship of these three sayings would exeeed the lim-
its of this article. Matthew 16:19b is commonly thought to be prior to 18:18 (see, e.g., Samuel
Byrskog, Jesus the Oiiiy Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israei. Ancient
Judaism and the Matthean Community [ConBNT 24; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994] 359-
60). Schneiders's recent suggestion that John 20:23 is unrelated to the Matthean sayings ("Raising
ofthe New Temple," 352-54) is contradicted by the tendency to juxtapose and conflate the sayings
in early Christianity (e.g., Cyprian Unit. ecci. 4; Ep. 72[73].7; Firmilian Ep. ad Cyprianum H;
Ps.-Cyprian De aieatorihus 1; Origen Comm. Matt. \2.\\; [Link]. Soph. 141). C. H. Dodd (Historicai
Tradition in the Fourth Gospei [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963] 347-49) argued
convincingly that the Johannine version is not literarily dependent on Matthew; and Brown {Gospei
according to John. 1041 ) thought that "the Johannine formula is more kerygmatie and perhaps pre-
serves more ofthe original import ofthe saying than does the juridie fonnula used in Matthew." For
a reeent and detailed argument to this effect, see Michael Theobald, Herrenworte im Johannes-
evangeiium (HBS 34; Freiburg: Herder, 2002) 174-96.
"•
^Thi s formal description ofthe subtype distinguishes it from Ernst Käsemann's "sentences
of holy law" ("Sätze heiligen Rechtes im Neuen Testament," NTS 1 [1955] 248-60). Like Matt
16:19b; 18:18; and Num 22:6, but unlike the "sentenees of holy law," John 20:23 is neither ehias-
tie (as mistakenly asserted by M. Eugene Boring, The Continuing Voice of Jesus: Citristian Prophecy
and tite Gospei Tradition [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991] 163) nor expressive ofthe
principle of ius taiionis.
 98 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

Matt 16:19b
Ö èàv oriarjc; tn\ trie; yf\c,
A Conditional relative Whatever you bind on earth
Eotai ôeôe|iévov èv TOÏC; oùpavoic;,
B Apodosis will be bound in the heavens,
Kai Ö èàv Xúar|c; èm Tfjç yf\c,
A' Conditional relative and whatever you loose on earth
\eXu|ièvov èv TOÎÇ oùpavoïc;.
B' Apodosis
will be loosed in the heavens.

Matt 18:18
oaa èàv 6iíar|Te èni tfjc; yf\c
A Conditional relative Whatever you bind on earth
taxai Ô£Ô£[ièva èv oùpavô)
B Apodosis will be bound in heaven,
Kai öoa èàv Xúcrire ènl tríe; yf\c,
A' Conditional relative and whatever you loose on earth
eatai \eXu|ièva èv oùpavcl).
B' Apodosis will be loosed in heaven.

John 20:23
A Conditional dv Tivíüv àcpfiTe tac; à[iapTÎac;
If you forgive the sins of any
B Apodosis à(pèu)VTat
they are forgiven for them,
A' Conditional dv Tivwv KpaxfJTe
if you retain [the sins] of any
B' Apodosis
they are retained.

Preeisely this structure is exhibited also in Balak's words to Balaam in Num-

bers 22:''3

"•^ J. A. Emerton ("Binding and Loosing—Forgiving and Retaining," JTS 13 [ 1962] 325-31)
hypothesized a common Aramaic form behind Matt 16:19b; 18:18; and John 20:23, derived from
Isa 22:22 but structurally reorganized. Apparently he had not noticed the closer fomial correspon-
denee of Num 22:6 LXX to the sayings in Matthew and John. Syntactically, Num 22:6 eomes clos-
est to Matt 16:19b; 18:18 in the dependent elauses (whieh are conditional relative elauses, as opposed
 THE POWER OF PROPHECY 99

Num 22:6
A Conditional relative oüc; èàv EÙÀoyriaric; GÚ.
Whoever you bless
B Apodosis euXóyrivTai,
are blessed,
A' Conditional relative Kal oiJc; èàv KaTapàGi] GÚ
and whoever you curse
B' Apodosis KeKattípavTat.
are cursed.

The Greek translator's choice of perfect indicatives to represent the Hebrew

pual participle TIDÜ ("is blessed") and qal passive (or possibly hophal) imperfect
nxv ("is cursed") has important consequences for how the story is read in the LXX
version."*^ According to the Hebrew text, Balak expresses his conviction that "who-
ever you eurse is cursed," that is, will be cursed through the execration pronounced
by Balaam. He has not reckoned with the superior might of Israel's God, without
whose consent even a mighty soothsayer like Balaam is unable to bless and curse
(Num 22:12; 23:8). In the Greek version, by contrast, Balak's statement in 22:6
takes on an ambiguous sense. It is still possible to interpret eúAóyr|VTai ("are
blessed") and KeKatiipavtat ("are cursed") as gnomic perfects, bearing a meaning
that is more or less equivalent to the Hebrew participle and imperfect forms. But
it is equally possible to read Balak's word as an unwitting confession that only
those who are already blessed or cursed by God can be blessed or cursed by Balaam.
This is what God tells Balaam: "You shall neither go with them nor curse the peo-
ple; for it is blessed (EGTIV yap £ÚXoyr||aevov)" (22:12). Balaam cannot curse those
who are blessed, from which we can be certain that whoever he does curse are
indeed cursed by God. And Balak was right without knowing it.
The perfect forms ácpécüvtai ("are forgiven") and KeKpárqvTat ("are retained")
in John 20:23 can be understood correspondingly."*^ How these perfects are to be
construed is an issue that has been vigorously debated but that cannot be settled on
purely grammatical grounds."** Recognizing an echo of the Balaam cycle may.

to the Johannine conditional clauses) but to John 20:23 in the main clauses (which employ the sim-
ple perfect, rather than the Matthean periphrastic ftiture perfects),
'*'' Wevers (Notes. 363) erroneously takes eúXóyrivTai as the present tense.
• •^ It has often been noted (e.g., Emerton, "Binding and Loosing," 327) that the use of Kpatelv
as an antonym of àcpiévai in the sense "to forgive" demands explanation. The suggestion offered here
may open up the possibility of hearing KEKpáTpvTai as a phonetic echo of KeKaxripavxai in Num 22:6.
"'^ In at least three articles, Julius R, Mantey ("The Mistranslation ofthe Perfect Tense in John
20:23, Mt 16:19, and Mt 18:18,"yS¿ 58 [1939] 243-49; "Evidence that the Perfect Tense in John
20:23 and Matthew 16:19 is Mistranslated," JfFS 16 [1973] 129-38; "Distorted Translations in John
 100 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

however, contribute to a solution ofthe problem. If the phenomenon of Jesus' dis-

ciples forgiving and retaining sins by virtue ofthe Spirit parallels that of Balaam
blessing and cursing in the spirit of God, then the perfects of John 20:23 do not
imply a divine blanket ratification of any forgiveness and retaining of sins pro-
claimed "at will" by the disciples. Rather, they express the notion that by the
prophetic Spirit given to them, the disciples will be able to forgive the sins of those,
and only those, whose sins have been forgiven by God or Jesus.''^ Once again.
Origen appears to have understood the passage in the sense that, in my opinion, was
originally intended by John. In his treatise on the Lord's Prayer, he makes a dis-
tinction between, on the one hand, all Christians' authority and duty to forgive
those sins that have been committed against them and, on the other hand, the apos-
tolic authority to forgive and hold sins. Regarding the latter, he writes:
But the one inspired by Jesus, like the apostles, who can be known from his fruits to
contain the Holy Spirit, and has become spiritual through being led by the Spirit in the
way of the Son of God to each of the proper duties, forgives whatever God has for-
given and retains those sins which cannot be cured (à(pir|0iv ü èàv à(ç>f\ ó 6EÓÍ;, Kai
KpaTEÎ xà àviaTa TWV ájiapTqiiáxaiv), Thus, just as the prophets [served] God by not
speaking things of their own (Ev Ttp Xeyeiv où xà ïôia) but that which pertained to the
divine will, he too serves God, who alone has authority to forgive, (Or. 28)
Origen then proceeds to deal with the misinformed reading of John 20:22-23 that
supposes an apostolic ability to forgive all sins without exception and thus to com-
pel God to forgive all human beings. This is not how it works, according to Origen,
for just as the Israelite priests are not entitled to sacrifice for grave offenses, the
apostles can forgive only what God has already decided to forgive:
Now also the apostles, and those who are like the apostles, being priests in accordance
with the great high priest and having received knowledge ofthe service of God, know,
since they are taught by the Spirit, for which sins they should offer sacrifices, and
when, and how, and distinguish [the sins] for which they should not do this.
He concludes the section on forgiveness by lamenting those "who have taken upon
themselves what is beyond priestly dignity . . . and are proud of their ability to

20:23; Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18," RevExp 78 [1981 ] 409-16) has argued that the perfect tense
can only be taken to imply that God's action of forgiving and retaining precedes that ofthe disci-
ples temporally. See, however, the valid objections to this by Henry J, Cadbury ("The Meaning of
John 20:23, Matthew 16:19, and Matthew 18:18," JS ¿ 58 [1939] 251-54) and J, Duncan M, Derrett
("Binding and Loosing [Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23])," JBL 102 [ 1983] 112-17, here 112-13), The
correspondence between Num 22:6 and John 20:23 lessens the probability ofthe suggestion for-
warded by Schneiders ("Raising ofthe New Temple," 352-54), who sees in John 20:23 a synony-
mous rather than an antithetical parallelism. Against Schneiders, see also Jan Lambrecht, "A Note
on John 20, 23b," ETL 83 (2007) 165-68,
'" See Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John: The English Text with Introduction, Expo-
sition and Notes (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 847-49,
 THE POWER OF PROPHECY 101

pardon even acts of idolatry and to forgive acts of adultery and fornication," In a
similar vein, Tertullian argued that, although it is true that the church has power to
forgive sin (potest ecclesia donare delictum), those who claim to exercise this pre-
rogative must also be able to display their prophetic status {Pud. 21,3-8), It is the
church ofthe Spirit, Tertullian's church ofthe new prophecy, that can forgive sins,
not the church of bishops. For the judgment belongs to God, not to the priest
(21,17),''8
Such prophetic proclamation of forgiveness and its opposite is also evoca-
tive ofthe Johannine Jesus' ministry,'" In line with his prophetic status, the Son has
received the Father's authorization to execute judgment (John 5:22, 27, 30; 8:16,
26; cf, 3:19; 12:31, 48; 16:11), although God's ultimate aim in sending Jesus is
not to judge the world but to save it (3:17; 12:47),^" Jesus warns those who do not
believe in him that they will die in their sin(s) (8:21,24), Their sin "remains" (nevei
[9:41; cf, 15:22, 24; 19:11]),^' In his discourse on the Paraclete that will replace

" • * T, Worden's article on the sacrament of penance ("The Remission of Sins," Scr 9 [ 1957] 65-
79, 115-27) may, unfortunately, leave the impression that interpreters of John 20:22-23 before Cyril
of Alexandria generally took the passage as a reference to baptism. It is true that Cyprian and his
associates interpreted the passage as a command to baptize {Ep. 72[73].7; 75[69]. 11 ; Fimiilian Ep.
ad Cyprianum 16; cf. Worden, "Remission of Sins," 67), but this is hardly enough to warrant
Worden's assertion that "the early Fathers saw in this text a reference to the power ofthe apostles
to remit sins through Baptism" (pp. 67-68). As a matter of fact. Worden (pp. 65-66 n. 2) concedes
that Origen Or 28 does apply John 20;23 to the forgiveness of postbaptismal sins, but points out that
"Origen does not see in this text the conferring of a juridical power." This is certainly correct inso-
far as the power is prophetic, not juridical. Worden also notes (pp. 66-67 n. 3) that Tertullian Pud. 21
constitutes evidence that Matt 16:17-19 was read as an authorization to forgive posthaptismal sins;
as 1 noted ahove (n. 41), the Matthean and Johannine sayings were frequently conflated in early
Christianity, and Tertullian too appears to combine them. In addition, there are some third-century
texts that cite or allude to John 20:22-23 without specifying the exact nature ofthe apostolic author-
ity (Ps.-Cyprian De alealorihiis 1 ; Hippolytus Trad. ap. 3,4-5; Acts Thom. 94 [possibly]; Pisl. Soph.
141). In sum, the interpretation of John [Link]-li in the first centuries was more manifold than an
uncritical reading of Worden's essay might allow, and the exegesis ofthe passage in prophetic terms
belongs to a very early epoch, perhaps one that came to an end as a result ofthe Montanist crisis.
""See Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes. 537; Brown, Gospel according to John,
1042-43; Steven E. Hansen, "Forgiving and Retaining Sin: A Study ofthe Text and Context of John
20:23," HBT 19 (1997) 24-32, here 28-29.
f Balaam's words, "I was taken hold of for blessings, not curses" (napEXii(p9i-|v 6' en'
c;, où KaTÓpaic, iy¿i [Philo Mos. 1.283]). See also Hartwig Thyen, Studien zur Sünden-
vergebung im Neuen Testament und seinen alttestamentlichen und jüdischen Voraussetzungen
(FRLANT 96; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 248-49.
' ' Donald A. Carson (The Gospel according to John [Pillar New Testament Commentary;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991] 656)correctly observes that Jesus'"retention of sins" as well as the
Paraclete's continuation ofthat mission through the disciples is "both description and condemna-
tion." In neither case can the retaining and forgiving of sins be reduced to mere statements of facts;
this prophetic activity effectuates forgiveness and its opposite, just as Balaam's oraeles actually
worked to bring blessing on Israel.
 102 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

him, Jesus says that the Spirit will continue his ministry of judging and dealing
with the world's sin of unbelief (16:8).^^ This takes place in a context where, as
noted above, prophetic characteristics are applied to the Paraclete itself. It is rea-
sonable to view 20:21-23 as Jesus' commissioning ofthe disciples to put into prac-
tice the ministry ofthe prophetic Spirit, a ministry that includes a prophetic ability
to identify and proclaim sinñilness and forgiveness.

IV. Conclusion: Checking the Criteria

By way of conclusion, I will employ the criteria adopted from Hays as a
checklist to assess my argument that John 20:19-23 echoes the language and the-
ology ofthe LXX Balaam cycle.
1. Availability ofthe pretext. This criterion is definitely met. John made use
ofthe Greek OT and accordingly, in all probability, had access also to the LXX ver-
sion of Numbers. Some passages in the Gospel allude to Numbers, most promi-
nently the typological reading of Num 21:8-9 in John 3:14-15.
2. Volume and prominence. This criterion is probably met. Numbers 22:6, to
my knowledge, parallels John 20:23 more closely than any other textual specimen
in early Jewish or Christian literature as far as syntax is concerned. This, com-
bined with the theological correspondence between the Gospel pericope and the
Balaam cycle, warrants the conclusion that the echo is prominent.
3. Recurrence. This criterion is met to some extent. As mentioned, the Gospel
of John echoes the book of Numbers in several places. Possibly John's concepts
of prophecy and prophets draw on reflection on the Balaam cycle, but the evan-
gelist's failure to mention Balaam weakens the case, and Moses typology fre-
quently provides a better explanation.
4. Thematic coherence. This criterion is definitely met. The interpretation of
John 20:19-23 as a narration ofthe disciples' commissioning to a prophetic min-
istry including the proclamation of sin and forgiveness is coherent with the depic-
tion ofthe prophetic activities of Jesus and the Spirit in the Gospel.
5. Plausibility. This criterion is definitely met. Early Jewish interpreters ofthe
Balaam cycle saw it as paradigmatic for the understanding of all prophetic activ-
ity. John's Gospel seems to have been written by and for people familiar with eariy
Hellenistic Judaism as represented by, for example, Philo.
6. History of interpretation. This criterion is met to some extent. I know of
no commentator, ancient or modem, who has drawn a link between John 20:19-23

^^ See Hansen, "Forgiving and Retaining Sin," 28-29.

 THE POWER OF PROPHECY 103

and the Balaam cycle. Even the syntactical parallel between Num 22:6 and John
20:23 appears to have gone unnoticed. But Origen noticed the similarity between
the prophecies of Balaam and the Johannine Caiaphas. He also indicated that the
bestowal ofthe Spirit in John 20:22 enabled prophetic activity and, like Tertullian,
Origen interpreted the disciples' empowerment to forgive and retain sins in 20:23
as prophetic.
7. Satisfaction. Whether this criterion has been met is for others to judge. If
the line of argumentation here is accepted, however, it may offer a contribution to
the solution of an exegetical problem. The question whether historical-critical exe-
gesis of John 20:23 supports or reñites the doctrine of sacramental absolution may
be less meaningñil, for it is really a question of what would happen if the disciples
hypothetically chose to forgive or retain a person's sins independently of, or con-
trary to, the will of God. Such a possibility does not exist for John. The disciples,
like Balaam, do not speak of themselves but by the inspiration ofthe Spirit. They
speak the living and strong word that the risen Lord places in their mouths (cf.
Num 22:38; 23:5, 12, 16). And herein lies the true power of prophecy.