Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible

and Theology
http://btb.sagepub.com

Your, Ours, and Mine: Jesus' Use of the Prophetic Possessive in the Gospel of Matthew
Robert L. Foster
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 2007; 37; 3
DOI: 10.1177/01461079070370010201

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/1/3

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/37/1/3

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009

 Your, Ours, and Mine: Jesus’ Use of the
Prophetic Possessive in the Gospel of Matthew

Robert L. Foster

Abstract

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus overwhelmingly prefers to use the term Father in addressing the disciples, which
often appears to affirm the special relationship the disciples have with God. In several instances, however, Jesus uses
the phrase “my Father,” making a distinction between himself and the disciples. The use of this phrase extends over
a significant portion of the gospel narrative and has the rhetorical force of pressing the disciples, and the implied
readers who come to identify with the disciples, to adopt certain actions and avoid others, lest they lose their honored
status in the Jesus-community.

I n 1988 Robert L. Mowery produced an important study

of the various terminology used for God in the book of Mat-
thew. Nearly a decade later Mowery followed his initial
study with an article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly noting
the transition of language in the early part of the Gospel
from an emphasis on God as Lord (kyrios) to a vision of
God as Father (pater), beginning in the Sermon on the
Mount. Mowery makes several enlightening points on the
use of the language of God in Matthew, several of which are
foundational for this study. First, Jesus does not use the term
Father in discussion with either the Pharisees or the devil,
but only in discourse with the disciples or disciples/crowds.
In fact, Jesus prefers the term Father in addressing the dis-
ciples overwhelmingly more so than Lord or God (Father
37x, God 8/9x, Lord 2x; Mowery 1988: 27–28). Second,
Jesus is the only character in the Gospel of Matthew to use
the term Father, with one exception in 21:9 (Mowery 1988:
33). Third, Jesus identifies God as his own Father through
the use of the phrases my Father, my heavenly Father, or my
Father in heaven on sixteen occasions (Mowery 1988: 28).
Finally, the first occasion of Jesus’ use of my Father occurs
near the end of the Sermon on the Mount (7:21), though
thereafter he usually identifies God as his father (Mowery
1997: 655).
Mowery correctly notes that “These references to the Fa-
ther repeatedly remind the reader of the unique relationship
between the Father and the Son” (1997: 655). Yet it is im-
portant to recognize nuances within Jesus’ use of possessive
paternal language in the Gospel after the Sermon on the
Mount. For example, on two occasions Jesus uses possessive
language in direct address to God, i.e., in prayer (26: 39,
42). That means the remaining fourteen instances occur in
direct discourse with the disciples. Of significance for this
study is the way that Jesus uses the possessive my Father in
addressing the disciples on a number of occasions.
Several scholars of the First Testament note that the
prophets occasionally use special phrasing to distinguish
their relationship to yhwh from their perception of the
people’s relationship to yhwh. Consequently, on occa-
sion, when a prophet says, “Thus says yhwh my God,”
the prophet intends to distinguish his relationship to yhwh
from the people’s relationship to yhwh. The subtle insult
here is that the prophets claim a relationship with yhwh
that they simultaneously deny to the people. Thus, when Isa-
Robert L. Foster is a PhD candidate at Southern Methodist Uni-
versity. His previous publications include “Why on Earth Use
‘Kingdom of Heaven’? Matthew’s Terminology Revisited,” New
Testament Studies 48 (2002): 487–99. Currently he is engaged
in writing his dissertation on a biblical theology of justice with
particular emphasis on Jeremiah, Matthew, and Romans.

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009

 Foster, “Yours, Ours, and Mine”
iah confronts Ahaz when he refuses to ask for a sign, Isaiah
says, “Hear then, O house of David. Is it too little for you to
weary men, that you weary my God also” (Isa 7:13). Isaiah’s
use of my God makes the implication that Ahaz has proven
that yhwh is not his god by his unwillingness to listen to the
message of yhwh through Isaiah. In Zechariah 11:4, the
prophet begins his message to the poor shepherds, “Thus
said yhwh my God.” The text following (Zech 11:5–17)
makes clear that, in fact, yhwh does not want to assert any
claim to the shepherds, but instead seeks their destruction.
Yhwh is not their god. I have chosen to use the phrase “the
prophetic possessive” for such usage (I believe that I borrow
this phrase from another scholar, but have not found it in the
resources I drew upon in this particular study: e.g. Eissfeldt:
9–11; Mason: 139; Meier, Meyers/Meyers: 249).
In my analysis of the fourteen remaining instances of Je-
sus’ use of the possessives my Father, my heavenly Father,
or my Father in heaven, I believe that nine of these function
as prophetic possessives. That is, though Jesus uses the Fa-
ther-language in discourse with the disciples, this language
is nuanced and in many cases Jesus particularly uses this
prophetic possessive. Furthermore, the use of the prophetic
possessive extends across a significant length of the narrative
of the Gospel of Matthew so that it appears to achieve a rhe-
torical effect through repeated use. The fact that the parallel
material in Mark and Luke lacks this possessive form lends
some credence to the idea that this language produces a rhe-
torical effect in the Gospel of Matthew. In this article I aim
to investigate the rhetorical effect of the prophetic possessive,
how it is achieved, and how this affects our understanding of
the Gospel of Matthew and its theology.
Challenge–Riposte and Rhetoric
David DeSilva observes that the study of honor discourse
opens up avenues for understanding rhetoric and especially
the rhetoric of the Gospels (34, 66). What we want to see
in the use of the prophetic possessive in Matthew is that this
reflects an honor/shame discourse that makes demands upon
the (implied) reader who is intended to identify with the dis-
ciples in the story, so that the demands upon the disciples be-
come demands upon the readers (here following the classical
definition of rhetoric by Aristotle in terms of persuasion).
Challenge–riposte is a social-scientific description of what
happens in a culture of honor because honor is, like any oth-
er good, a limited good that requires maintenance and can
be lost (Malina: 36). The more familiar challenge–riposte
mechanisms of the recent past include the judicial court and
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
the duel (Pitt-Rivers: 27–31). In the Gospels we often see
challenge–riposte in the challenges that the religious leaders
place before Jesus concerning his interpretation and practice
of Torah, as in the series of challenges presented to Jesus at
the Temple in Jerusalem recorded in Mark 12. As we notice
in Jesus’ defense of his honor to the challenge of the religious
leaders, honor is a public commodity, something one must
defend in the eyes of the larger group (Malina: 33). Thus,
Mark reports the crowd’s favorable response to Jesus’ replies
to the religious leaders (12:12, 17, 37). In the Gospels this
evaluation actually occurs at two levels, both at the story level
in the response of the crowds, but also at the discourse level
as the (implied) reader responds to the interaction of the
characters within the story (borrowing the useful distinction
between story and discourse first introduced by Chatman).
Bruce Malina proposes three levels of challenge that one
may present to another in a culture that values honor. At the
extreme is total dishonor of another that cannot be repaid in
any way (murder, adultery, kidnapping). Only slightly less
offensive are those extreme affronts to the honor of an indi-
vidual or an individual’s family that nevertheless allow for
some form of repayment (e.g. theft, seduction of a virgin).
Finally, there are the ordinary interactions that require regu-
lar social responses, which, if not met, will bring dishonor
to the individual or family (e.g. repaying a gift, marriage
between families; Malina: 44–45). The challenges the
Pharisees present to Jesus through much of the Gospel of
Matthew fall into this final category, though we see early on
in Matthew that the Pharisees contemplate the most extreme
form of dishonor (12:14, 21:45), which reaches fulfillment in
the crucifixion of Jesus (27:32–50).
Jesus’ challenges to his disciples also fall within the last
category of those that require regular social response, though
we will see that in Jesus’ use of the prophetic possessive, not
responding appropriately holds significant consequences.
The uniqueness of Jesus’ challenges to the disciples in the
Gospel of Matthew is that he sets up the discourse in a way
that makes the disciples his equals through his use of Father/
son language in the Sermon on the Mount (agreeing with
Luz 1989: 214 that the Sermon on the Mount serves as a
programmatic statement for reading the rest of the Gospel).
In normal social interaction in honor-shame cultures, the in-
ferior is not considered to have sufficient honor to resent the
affront of a superior (Pitt-Rivers: 31). Rather, the inferior
is expected simply to submit to the various abuses of the
superior. Only when persons recognize their relative shared
status is one in a position either to challenge the honor of
another or to be required to respond to a challenge (a su-
 B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N • VO LU M E 3 7
perior can often ignore the affront of an inferior, though
the superior may choose to punish impudence; Pitt-Rivers:
31). We notice that the Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew
consider Jesus their equal as they often address him simply
as “teacher,” one competing with them for honor in the per-
ception of the crowds; only the disciples come to recognize
Jesus as more than a teacher (for this contrast between the
Pharisees’ view of Jesus as teacher and the disciples/reader’s
view of Jesus as more than this see Johnson: 195).
Jesus presents the disciples with a challenge as those of
equal honor especially through the first major discourse of
the Sermon on the Mount. Of course, in the discourse of the
Gospel, the implied author presents Jesus as honorable in
a number of ways before the implied reader encounters the
Sermon on the Mount. DeSilva enumerates the variety of
ways that the first four chapters of the Gospel present Jesus
as honorable: his birth in the line of Abraham and David,
the formulaic citations of Scripture as prophecies of future
greatness, Jesus’ mediation of God’s presence to the people,
the new star signaling the birth of a noble ruler confirmed
by the adoration of the magi, his deliverance from danger
by angelic visions, and his victory in the challenge–ripostes
with the devil (40–42). Perhaps most significant for our
discussion is the declaration by God at Jesus’ baptism of
Jesus as his beloved Son (3:17). This acclamation of Jesus’
Sonship marks the first of only two interventions of the voice
of God in the Gospel, the second of which confirms the
original acclamation (17:5).
One important thing Jesus does in the Sermon on the
Mount, as the mediator of God’s presence in the world
(1:23), is transfer his honor as God’s Son to the disciples.
He offers a blessing to those who make peace by noting they
will be called sons of God (5:9; I retain the masculine termi-
nology here to emphasize the connection to the earlier accla-
mation of Jesus as God’s “Son”). The good works of the dis-
ciples will bring glory to their Father in heaven (5:16). They
are to be perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect (5:48).
The disciples should perform their acts of righteousness in
secret so as not to lose their reward from their Father in
heaven (6:1, 4, 6, 18). The prayer Jesus teaches his disciples
to pray opens with the address “Our Father” (6:9), though
the disciples must recognize that their forgiveness from their
Father depends on their forgiving others (6:14–15). They
ought not worry about what to eat, drink, or wear, because
their Father takes care of the sparrows (6:26) and knows
all the disciples’ needs (6:32). In fact, they must expect that
their Father will give to them when they ask because he is so
much greater than their earthly fathers who, despite being
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
evil, know to give their children fish and bread (7:11).
It is at the end of this lengthy discourse in which Jesus
frequently affirms to the disciples that God is your Father,
where Jesus invites them to pray our Father, that Jesus pres-
ents his first challenge to the disciples through the use of
the prophetic possessive, my Father. The sermon is full of
challenge, to be sure. But these challenges assume that the
disciples will live up to their calling based on their intimate
relationship with God as their Father. In the use of my Fa-
ther, Jesus challenges their honored position as something
they could lose based upon their response to his challenges,
a phenomenon which will carry on through much of the
Gospel. Jesus’ use of the prophetic possessive differs from
the prophets’ usage in that the prophets indicate no relation-
ship to yhwh. Jesus’ use of the prophetic possessive pre-
sumes a relationship between the disciples and God, but one
that may be lost if the disciples do not respond appropriately
to the challenges Jesus puts before them.
The Challenge of My Father to the Disciples
The first use of the prophetic possessive in Matthew at
the end of the Sermon on the Mount apparently intensi-
fies the sermon’s demands upon the disciples, noting that to
enter the kingdom of the heavens requires entering through
the narrow gate that leads to life (7:13). The determina-
tion of who enters through this gate is imagined through
the metaphor of fruit-bearing; only those who bear fruit will
enter the kingdom of the heavens (7:18–20). What perhaps
surprises the disciples in the text (though perhaps not the
implied reader) is that not all who share the life of the Jesus-
community will be friends of the community; instead false
prophets will infiltrate the community, strikingly envisioned
as devouring wolves (7:15). In this context Jesus utters the
warning, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will
enter the kingdom of the heavens, but only those who do
the will of my Father who is in the heavens” (7:21). Some
people who do wonders in the community, prophesying and
casting out demons, will nevertheless not enter the kingdom
of the heavens because they do not do the will of God as
taught by the mediator of God’s presence to the world—Je-
sus (7:22–23; see Aune: 222–24 for a discussion of these
prophets as Christian).
Ulrich Luz is certainly correct to connect vv 21–23 with
the preceding section of vv 15–20, especially with prophecy
as one of the key activities of those condemned in both sec-
tions (vv 15, 22; 1989: 439 notes the bracketing of poieo-
in vv 15–20 and 22; Davies & Allison 1988: 693–94 list
 Foster, “Yours, Ours, and Mine”
further connections; cf. Betz: 539). To regard vv 21–23 as
an exhortation against self-delusion (Betz: 539) seems a bit
off the mark. Rather, the disciples must protect themselves
against being deluded by the charismatic, by those who
prophesy and cast out demons. The disciples must not be led
astray from obedience to the teachings of Jesus (7:24–27)
by those with great charismatic gifts, gifts not unlike those of
Jesus (e.g., chs. 8–9). Thus, it seems the warning here aligns
with the similar warning that occurs later in the Gospel in
the so-called apocalyptic discourse (24:11–12, 23–28) of the
possibility of being deluded by false prophets at the end.
The challenge Jesus gives to the disciples
is . . . to keep to the will of the Father as
presented by Jesus.
The use of the prophetic possessive here reinforces the
possibility of charismatic leaders’ infiltrating the Jesus-com-
munity and leading the disciples astray. These false proph-
ets, rather than fulfilling the just demands of the Torah as
taught by Jesus (5:17–20), instead work lawlessness and so
must depart from the kingdom of the heavens (7:23). Logi-
cally, those who follow these workers of lawlessness will also
engage in works of lawlessness and find themselves in danger
of being on the outside looking in. Only those who side with
Jesus and do the will of my Father in the heavens (build their
house on a solid rock; 7:24–27), will enter the kingdom of the
heavens. Betz (548) notes that the my Father separates Jesus
sharply from, in Betz’s discussion, “the Gentile Christians he
rejects.” I am simply adding that this also points to the dan-
ger such Christians (Gentile or not) present to the disciples
and, inferentially, the implied reader. The use of my Father
coincides with language that images God as a judge (Betz:
548), whose co-regent, Jesus, passes a condemning sentence
that casts the false prophets (and their followers?) out of the
kingdom for their rebellious disobedience (7:23; Schweizer:
188 writes that my Father appears in 7:21 “perhaps precisely
because in the next verse Jesus appears as judge, as autho-
rized representative of the Father). The challenge Jesus gives
to the disciples is not to let themselves fall under the charis-
matic spell of the false prophets but to keep to the will of the
Father as presented by Jesus.
We find the next use of the prophetic possessive in the
Gospel of Matthew in the second major discourse, issuing a
similarly stern warning. As the missionary discourse (chapter
10) heads toward its end, Jesus warns the disciples that, like
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
Jesus, they will find themselves maligned even by members
of their own families (10:24–25), shall we say persecuted
on account of Jesus (5:11). The disciples must guard against
letting the fear of persecution lead them to deny Jesus be-
fore their persecutors (10:26–33). Notice that Jesus affirms
the disciples at one level by reminding them that even the
sparrows cannot fall to the ground apart from your Father’s
knowledge (10:29). Jesus turns to the use of my Father to
state, positively, that those who confess him before their per-
secutors Jesus will confess before my Father who is in the
heavens (10:32). Stated negatively, Jesus warns that those
who deny him before their persecutors he will deny before
my Father who is in the heavens (10:33).
It is interesting, first of all, to note here that Jesus sets
before the disciples the possibility that their witness will end
in the most extreme form of shame—according to the scale
set forth by Malina—death (10:28). Yet, Jesus states that
an even greater shame may lie ahead of them if they deny
Jesus before their persecutors—to have both body and soul
destroyed in Gehenna (10:29). Here we find a figure of
God as judge following quite closely upon an image of God
as Father who cares even for the sparrows that fall to the
ground (Weaver: 109). “Jesus asserts that the same God
who is Judge over all humankind is in fact none other than
Father to the disciples” (Weaver: 110).
Dorothy Jean Weaver points out that the main thrust of
the argument in 10:26–33 is that Jesus plays a central role
both in regard to the disciples’ witness and the judgment of
God (111). Jesus truly mediates the presence of God who is
both judge and Father. But, in this instance, the use of the
prophetic possessive my Father lays emphasis on God as
potential judge of the disciples. The challenge that Jesus lays
before the disciples involves their willingness to share with
him in death in the face of persecution in order to receive the
greatest honor: to have Jesus confess them before his Father
in the heavens. But if they deny him, they will suffer the
greatest shame of having Jesus deny them before his Father
in the heavens. Jesus switches his language quickly from
your Father to my Father to drive home the point that the
disciples must choose right actions (confessing Jesus before
their persecutors) in order to maintain their honored status
in the Jesus-community.
Jesus’ use of my Father occurs next in a situation that
seems to reaffirm the status of the disciples rather than chal-
lenge it. In 11:27 Jesus notes that all those that he has, he
received from his Father. This assertion that he receives all
from his Father leads to an invitation for those tired from
their labors and loaded down by burdens to come and receive
 B
B II B
BLL II C
CAAL
L T
THHE
EOOL
LOOG
GYY B
BUUL
LLLE
ETT II N
N •• V
VOOL
LUUM
MEE 33 77
his burden which is easy and light (11:28–30). In the next
instance of my Father we find another use of the prophetic
possessive, though with a slightly different direction. After
a series of conflicts with the Pharisees (12:1–14; 22–45),
interrupted by Jesus’ withdrawal because of their potential
threat to him (12:15–21), Jesus receives the report that his
mother, brothers, and sisters wish to speak to him (12:46).
Jesus stretches out his hand toward his disciples in front of
the gathered crowds (12:46) and states boldly, “Behold my
mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my
Father who is in the heavens, this one is my brother and
sister and mother” (12:49b–50).
Here the challenge to the disciples is indirect, but again
we find an interesting mixture of honor and shame discourse.
Jesus honors the disciples as those who are truly his brother,
sister, and mother, in a culture that expected the greatest
honor to obtain in the family (Malina: 29; Dupont: 108,
writes that nobility in ancient Rome did not depend upon
the clan or family name but was built up or torn down within
the household or family setting). Yet, at the same time, we
find a challenge similar to the first use of the prophetic pos-
sessive: only those who do the will of my Father maintain
their honored status.
At the level of discourse it appears that the implied reader
should notice the distinction made between the crowds and
the basic expectation of disciples through the use of the pro-
phetic possessive. Jack Dean Kinsbury’s assessment of the
crowds as generally favorably disposed to Jesus yet without
faith, seems a bit innocuous (24–25). Rather, here we find,
through an awareness of intertextuality, that one of the basic
elements that determines future judgment, whether people do
the will of my Father who is in the heavens (as mediated by
Jesus; 7:21), separates the disciples from everyone else, both
the crowds and, as implied by the text, Jesus’ family. We may
find further contextual support for this hard distinction be-
tween the disciples and crowds if we link this to the preced-
ing story that warns of the demonic activity experienced by
“this evil generation” (taking my cue from Harrington 1991:
191–92, who notes that this evil generation seems to include
all those who do not do the will of the Father). This does not
mean that the implied author views “the Jews” as completely
outside election and salvation (Barnett). The main target of
condemnation in the Gospel is the religious leaders (Foster),
with the crowds as an ambiguous group, sometimes on the
outside of the Jesus-community, as here, but at others enter-
ing the kingdom instead of the religious leaders as in 21:23
(notice these people include prostitutes and sinners). The
implication for the implied reader in chapter 12 is that, to
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
maintain their honored status, in contrast with others outside
of the Jesus-community, they must continue to do the will of
Jesus’ Father. Thus, the challenge to the disciples in 7:21
receives affirmation here in 12:50 (for this link between 7:21
and 12:50 see, e.g., Nolland: 519).
Several chapters later Jesus presents a direct challenge
to the disciples at the story level through the use of the
prophetic possessive, though we again find the disciples
contrasted with another group, in this case the Pharisees.
In an exchange over whether eating with unwashed hands
makes an individual unclean (15:1–11), Jesus challenges
the Pharisees’ use of tradition, calling them hypocrites for
upholding their traditions while making void the word of
God (15:6). The disciples express some concern over Jesus’
exposing his interlocutors to public shame instead of trying
to persuade them in what they would consider a more ap-
propriate manner (15:12; Keener: 413). Jesus challenges
the disciples to think differently about the Pharisees: they
are not plants planted by my Father in heaven and will be
uprooted (15:13). Perhaps the implied reader is intended to
experience another moment of intertextuality in Jesus’ use of
the planting/uprooting imagery. Earlier in the Gospel, both
John the Baptist and Jesus speak of trees in danger of being
uprooted and cast into the fire (3:8–10; 7:15–20). Perhaps
the implied reader is intended to fill in the blank here in
chapter 15, concluding that those uprooted will be cast into
fire, which would once again link the use of my Father to an
image of God as judge.
The force of “leave them” in 15:14 seems quite strong
considering that Jesus labels the Pharisees as blind guides
who lead other blind people into a pit (cf. Harrington: 230,
who writes that “let them be” asks for “patient tolerance”).
Consequently, at the story level, though the statement ex-
plicitly condemns the Pharisees as honoring their traditions
above God’s word and as blind guides leading the blind
into a pit, the challenge is aimed at the disciples not to turn
to the Pharisees as guides in the interpretation of Torah,
lest they show themselves to also be blind and follow the
Pharisees into the same pit. The implied reader will note
that the disciples find themselves in danger of being deluded
not only by those inside the community (7:21) but also by
those outside of the community, particularly the Pharisees of
formative Judaism (15:14). To maintain their honored status
in the Jesus-community requires that the disciples recognize
that the key religious leaders of formative Judaism are not
planted by my Father in heaven and so not reliable guides
in the way of God.
Perhaps most interesting of the uses of the prophetic pos-
 Foster, “Yours, Ours, and Mine”
sessives I identify in the Gospel of Matthew occurs in the
blessing to Peter in 16:17–19. As is well known, Peter offers
the right answer concerning Jesus’ identity by confessing Je-
sus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God (16:16). Jesus
blesses him, stating that Peter did not receive this revelation
from human beings but from my Father who is in the heav-
ens, promising to build his church upon this petra (16:17–
18). It appears that this instance of the possessive language
is similar to the use in 11:27, given that Jesus begins his ad-
dress to Peter with “Blessed are you” (Nolland: 666, notes
the link between 11:27 and 16:17 in the shared use of revela-
tion and “flesh and blood” language). But, given that the
language of my Father has proven negative in three of the
four previous occurrences, perhaps this should give us pause
to consider whether this is another instance of the use of the
prophetic possessive.
Jeannine Brown argues that it is common for scholars to
view the confession of Peter as a sign that the disciples un-
derstood Jesus’ identity as Messiah, but the following section
(16:21–28) seems to contradict this, so that the disciples
at the least do not understand what the Messiah is about
(59–60). I argue that part of the problem of determining the
tradition history of this text lies just in the seeming contra-
diction between Jesus’ affirmation of Peter and then Peter’s
quick turn against Jesus’ professed purpose, which leads to
Jesus calling Peter “Satan” (see Davies & Allison 1991:
653–55 for a brief discussion of the place of vv 21–23 in
the pericope). However, perhaps the implied author leaves
the implied reader a clue in vv 13–20 that things are not as
they seem by including the phrase “my Father.” Thus, the
statement in verse 17 would not simply represent the source
of the revelation (not human but divine), but rather provide
some distance between the revelation/revealer and Peter.
If we follow the reading argued for by Chrys Caragounis,
that the petra here refers to the confession and not Peter
(88–113; cf. Davies & Allison 1991: 627), then we see
that some distance exists between the content of the revela-
tion/the one revealing the content and Peter. In essence, my
Father reinforces this distance, so that the implied reader is
not as surprised by the quick turn of events as she might be
otherwise (perhaps further reinforced by Jesus’ stating that
he will build my ekklesia on this petra?).
As a result, the challenge here seems to lie at the dis-
course level. The implied author envisions Peter here as a
new Abraham establishing a new people of God based on
the revelation he receives (Davies & Allison 1991: 623–24).
However, even Peter did not fully understand the destiny
of this Messiah Jesus, much as Abraham did not seem to
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
understand fully the blessing he received from God (note
that immediately after the call and blessing of Abraham, he
enters into Egypt where he promptly lies about Sarah and
hands her over to Pharaoh out of fear for his own life; Gen
12:10–20!). The implied reader must not make the mistake
of misunderstanding the Messianic mission of Jesus, which
led to his death and not the restoration of Israel, lest she be
shamed by taking the side of Satan instead of God.
A series of three instances of my Father occurs in the dis-
course of chapter 18, which has to do with life in the ekkle-
sia, especially regarding sin and forgiveness. The first major
section of the chapter involves a discussion of the “little ones”
and the need to guard against causing them to stumble or
be tempted to sin (18:5–14). The language of this chapter is
thick with images of judgment: being drowned in the sea is
better than causing a little one to stumble (18:6); one should
cut off a hand or gouge out an eye rather than be thrown into
the fires of Gehenna (18:8–9). I would agree with Luz that
this latter statement is aimed at the little ones, warning them
not to have contact with persons who would want to destroy
their faith (Luz 2001: 435).
In this context of judgment Jesus offers the initial prophet-
ic possessive in this chapter, “See that you do not despise
one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in
the heavens always see the face of my Father who is in the
heavens” (18:10). Again, within the Jesus-community reside
those who, at least potentially, look down on others, whether
for their inferior social status or their status in the church
(Luz 2001: 440). Those who despise such little ones do not
understand the honored status of these little ones: not only
do their angels continually see the face of my Father, but
the Father, like a shepherd, rejoices over the one found more
than the ninety-nine who did not go astray (18:12–13). Thus,
verse 10b stands both as a word of comfort to those who seem
little, despised in the community, and a warning for those in
the Jesus-community who despise such persons (Luz 2001:
441). The challenge that Jesus places before the disciples is
not to despise the little ones and so lead them into temptation
lest they find themselves opposed to the will of the Father
(18:14; the textual variant is quite appealing here as it also
reads my Father), in which case they might as well tie a mill-
stone around their necks and drown themselves in the sea.
The next section in this discourse deals particularly with
what to do when a member of the Jesus-community is caught
in sin (18:15–20). Here the emphasis seems to be on making
every effort to forgive that person and restore him/her to the
community, especially given the following parable (18:21–
35; we should, at the same time, note that the reference to
 B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N • VO LU M E 3 7
the gathering of “two or three” in 18:20 resembles the law
in the First Testament stating that a person may be put to
death only on the word of “two or three witnesses” Deut
17:6). Yet, here we find a mix of both hope for restoration
of the individual and potential judgment, so that the binding
and loosing are both validated by my Father who is in the
heavens (18:19). Given that previous instances of the use
of my Father often occur in texts of judgment, perhaps the
implied author uses this expression here because the double-
edged nature of the comment includes potential judgment.
Thus, at least for some members of the community, God will
serve, not as their Father but their judge. As Brown notes
(73), the thrust of the section 18:1–20 gives some indication
of Jesus’ concern that the disciples have not understood the
nature of discipleship. I would add that, as a consequence,
Jesus presents them a challenge to respond to by not despis-
ing others in the community, which could lead little ones to
sin, and to exercise appropriate discipline in the community,
which for some will entail judgment. In both cases there
are some in the community who stand in danger of being
shamed in the courtroom of God rather than continue to
abide in their honored status as the children of God.
The final instance of the use of the prophetic possessive in
the discourse of Matthew 18 occurs at the end of the parable
of the unforgiving servant who inexplicably will not forgive a
paltry sum to a fellow servant after being forgiven an unimag-
inable amount of debt by the king (18:23–34; Keener: 458–
59 writes, “This fact starkly reveals the laughably hyperbolic
character of the illustration: the poor man owes the king more
money than existed in circulation in the whole country at the
time!”). Not unexpectedly, the story ends with an image of
judgment: the servant who at first received mind-blowing
mercy must now go to jail until he can repay his unrepayable
debt! To this Jesus adds the sobering comment, “So also will
my Father in the heavens do to you unless you forgive, each
one their brother or sister, from the heart” (18:35).
Interestingly, the parable does not focus on the king, but
rather upon the servant and the servant’s reaction to the ex-
perience of being forgiven so great a debt (Keesmaat: 268–
69). But, the servant obviously did not learn the lesson that
living in this kingdom, which offers release from exorbitant
debt, requires the same in kind to others (Keesmaat: 269).
So, too, the challenge presented by Jesus to Peter (and the
rest of the disciples?) is to not fall into a place of dishonor by
failing to live up to the standards set by the Father, who for-
gives extravagantly. The Jesus-community emphasizes for-
giveness, not only of my sin, but especially of those who sin
against me. Living an unforgiving life once again puts one in
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
danger of losing one’s honored status as a child of the Father
and instead finding oneself under the judgment of God.
Matthew 20:20–28 contains the last instance of the use
of the prophetic possessive in the Gospel. Here the mother
of the sons of Zebedee approaches Jesus to ask for John and
James to sit at Jesus’ right and left in the kingdom (20:20–
21). Jesus tells them that they do not understand the na-
ture of their request. Not only do they not understand what
it means to partake in the same cup as Jesus, they do not
understand that only my Father determines who will hold
what place in the kingdom (20:22–23). The other disciples
become indignant upon hearing this request, which prompts
Jesus to remind them of the proper order in this kingdom:
the first in this kingdom are servants, just as the Son of man
did not come to be served but to serve and give his life as a
ransom for many (20:24–28).
Here we do not find explicit reference to the danger of
judgment but, as in chapter 18, the problem Jesus addresses
has to do with the misalignment between the disciples’ un-
derstanding of the kingdom and that of Jesus (Carter: 171
writes, “… in the context of the mother’s question in 20.20,
such elevation to greatness and to being first will come only
in the judgment for those who have been slaves and servants
in the present.” It is tempting to follow Carter’s lead here,
but I do not see any indication of a time of judgment in
this text but only of an unspecified future). Jesus’ kingdom
is not like the kingdoms of this world (“the rulers of the
Gentiles lord it over [their subjects]”—20:25). Rather, this
kingdom reverses normal expectations. Jesus’ challenge to
the disciples again has to do with seeking proper honor and
avoiding shame. Those who act as servants receive the great-
est honor; those who seek the greatest honor experience the
greatest shame.
Conclusions
Part of the rhetorical effect of the use of the phrase “my
Father” in the Gospel of Matthew is that it reinforces the pic-
ture of the disciples as not fully understanding the nature of
Jesus, the kingdom, or the Jesus-community. In other words,
Brown’s major thesis, in her The Disciples in Narrative Per-
spective, that the disciples are not so quick to understand as
scholars often portray them because of comparisons with the
characterization of the disciples in Mark, gains further sup-
port through careful investigation of the Father-language in
Matthew (29–34). This proves of especial interest consider-
ing that Brown’s work focuses on the narrative between 16:21
and 20:28, while six of the nine occurrences of the prophetic
 Foster, “Yours, Ours, and Mine”
possessive discussed above fall within chapters 15 and 20, so
that perhaps one of the main functions of chapters 15–20 is
this exposition of the disciples’ misunderstandings.
One thing I find significant is the fact that in several cas-
es of the use of the prophetic possessive, the narrative does
not show an immediate response by the disciples, especially
at the end of the three major discourses in chapters 5–7,
10, and 18. Furthermore, Jesus’ use of the prophetic posses-
sive ends immediately before his entrance into Jerusalem in
chapter 21, which is followed by the narrative of his demise.
It is in the narrative of Jesus’ passion that we find at the story
level the response of the disciples to the challenge in chapter
10 not to deny Jesus in the face of persecution. In their first
chance to respond to Jesus’ challenge the disciples abandon,
deny, and betray Jesus. The disciples’ misunderstanding of,
especially, the nature of Jesus as Messiah and the nature of
the kingdom, leads to the disciples’ shame in the eyes of the
implied readers who see all the disciples denying Jesus in
some way during Jesus’ passion.
However, the Gospel does not end with the crucifixion
or, like Mark, with an ambiguous resurrection story. Rather,
Jesus tells the disciples to meet him in Galilee, perhaps giv-
ing those shamed a chance for redemption (28:10). Here it
is important to highlight the fact that the narrator presents a
mixed review of the remaining eleven disciples: “when they
saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted” (28:17).
Thus, whether the disciples live up to the challenges Jesus
placed before them in the Gospel remains an open question
for the narratee, though these same disciples may perhaps
restore their honor in responding positively to Jesus’ chal-
lenges, including the last one given in 28:18–20. Signifi-
cantly, the commission Jesus gives the disciples includes the
instruction: “teaching them to keep all of whatever I com-
manded you” (28:19). This presumably would include in-
structions for life in the Jesus-community, which previously
the disciples misunderstood.
At the level of discourse, the use of the prophetic posses-
sive gives us a fairly clear picture of at least some of the strug-
gles the implied author believes confront the implied reader.
The implied reader must guard against false prophets who
lead people astray from obedience to Jesus’ teaching (7:21
[12:50]). As with the disciples, the implied readers may also
deny Jesus in the face of persecution rather than confess Je-
sus (10:32–33). The Pharisees pose their own threat to the
implied reader, who may be tempted to (re-)turn to follow-
ing the Pharisees’ interpretation of Torah, a certain pitfall
in the eyes of the implied author (15:13). Several potential
misunderstandings threaten the implied readers of the Gos-
10
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
pel including misunderstanding the nature of Jesus as Mes-
siah (16:17), the life of the Jesus-community (ekklesia) with
regard to sin and forgiveness (18:10, 19, 35), and thinking
of life in the Jesus-community as the Gentiles do rather than
shaped by the example of Jesus (20:23). Though we are care-
ful not to draw a one-to-one correspondence between these
dangers and the life of original real readers of the Gospel of
Matthew, these indications of the implied author’s concerns
certainly give us a vision of what one real author in forma-
tive Christianity considered imminent threats to at least one
Jesus-community (duly noting here the caution regarding the
audience of the Gospels posed by Bauckham et al.).
Finally, I think it is right to conclude that the Father-
language in the Gospels in a number of instances affirms
the honored status of the disciples. Yet, a pregnant irony
exists in the use of my Father on a number of occasions.
That is, when Jesus uses my Father he often simultaneously
infers that his Father will be “your Judge.” This seems to me
quite an artful maneuver by the implied author to invoke the
image of judgment by means of Father-language. I am re-
minded of the fact that kings of the ancient world were often
considered the highest court of appeal in the nation (thus,
e.g., Paul’s appeal to Caesar recorded in Acts 25:11). The
familial language of Father denotes some form of intimacy,
yet in the use of the prophetic possessive the implied author
creates space that allows this same Father to act as judge in
the kingdom of the heavens. Certainly, the kingdom of heav-
en is present at hand in the Gospel of Matthew (3:2; 4:17)
but, to borrow George Eldon Ladd’s felicitous terminology,
it is “now and not yet” (24–51). In the kingdom being “not
yet” the Gospel anticipates a time when it will come in its
future and often this is imaged as a time of judgment (e.g.
13:47–50; 25:31–46). Jesus’ use of the prophetic possessive
in the Gospel of Matthew reinforces this theme of judgment
and reminds the implied reader that the same one they pray
to as “our Father” may still, in the end, serve as their Judge
if they do not respond to the challenge offered by Jesus in
the Gospel.
Works Cited
Aune, David E. 1983. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the
Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids, MI: William
B. Eerdmans.
Barnett, Fred W. 1992. “Exposing the Anti-Jewish Ideology of
Matthew’s Implied Author: The Characterization of God as
Father.” Semeia 59: 155–90.
Bauckham, Richard. ed. 1998. The Gospels for All Christians:
 B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N • VO LU M E 3 7
Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids, MI: Wil-
liam B. Eerdmans.
Betz, Hans Dieter. 1995. The Sermon on the Mount, ed. A. Y.
Collins. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Brown, Jeanine K. 2002. The Disciples in Narrative Perspective.
Academia Biblica. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.
Carter, Warren. 1994. Households and Discipleship: A Study of
Matthew 19–20. Journal for the Study of the New Testament,
Supplement 103. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic.
Caragounis, Chrys C. 1990. Peter and the Rock. Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58. Berlin,
Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Chatman, Seymour. 1978. Story and Discourse: Narrative Struc-
ture in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Davies, W. D., & Dale C. Allison. 1991. A Critical and Exegeti-
cal Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. vol. 2. Edinburgh,
UK: T&T Clark.
1988. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of
Matthew. vol. 1. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark.
DeSilva, David A. 1999. Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse in New
Testament Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
DuPont, Florence. 1993. Daily Life in Rome. trans. C. Woodall.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Eissefeldt, Otto. 1947. “‘My God’ in the Old Testament.” Evan-
gelical Quarterly 19: 7–20.
Foster, Robert. 2002. “Why on Earth Use ‘Kingdom of Heav-
en’? Matthew’s Terminology Revisited.” New Testament
Studies 48: 487-99.
Harrington, Daniel J. 1991. Gospel of Matthew. Sacra Pagina.
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Johnson, Luke Timothy, with the assistance of T. C. Penner. 1999.
The Writings of the New Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Keener, Craig S. 1999 Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Keesmaat, Sylvia C. 2000. “Strange Neighbors and Risky
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
Care.” Pp. 263-85 in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables, ed. R.
N. Longenecker. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. 1988. Matthew as Story. 2nd revised &
enlarged ed. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.
Ladd, George Eldon. 1958/1995. The Gospel of the Kingdom.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Luz, Ulrich. 2001. Matthew 8–20, trans. J. E. Crouch, ed. H.
Koester. Minneapolis: Fortress.
1989. Matthew 1–7, trans. W. C. Linss. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress.
Malina, Bruce J. 2001. The New Testament World: Insights from
Cultural Anthropology. 3rd ed., revised & expanded. Louis-
ville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
Mason, Rex L. 1973. Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zecha-
riah IX-XIV. PhD Dissertation, University of London.
Meier, Samuel A. 1992. Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct
Discourse in the Hebrew Bible. Vetus Testamentum, Supple-
ment 46. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
Meyers, Carol L. & Eric M. Meyers. 1993. Zechariah 9–14.
Anchor Bible, vol. 25C. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Mowery, Robert L. 1997. “From Lord to Father in Matthew
1–7.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59: 642-56.
1988. “God, Lord and Father: The Theology of the Gospel of
Matthew.” Biblical Research 33: 24-36.
Nolland, John. 2005. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on
the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Pitt-Rivers, Julian. 1966. “Honor and Social Status.” Pp. 19–77
in Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society,
ed. J. G. Peristiany. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Schweizer, Eduard. 1975. Good News according to Matthew,
trans. D. E. Green. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press.
Weaver, Dorothy Jean. 1990. Matthew’s Missionary Discourse: A
Literary-Critical Analysis. Journal for the Study of the New Tes-
tament, Supplement 38. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic.
11