Worship in the fourth gospel: a cultural interpretation of John 14-17—Part II

Worship in the fourth gospel: a cultural interpretation of John 14-17—Part II

Jerome H. Neyrey
Abstract

Typical readers interpret John 14-17 as a Farewell Address, and for good reason. But that hardly exhausts its contents, for the form of a farewell address simply misses all that Jesus has to say about worship in the group. From the gospel's beginning we find a steady focus on temple, mountains for worship, feasts and their objects of prayer and celebration, and the like. But in John 14-17 we are told about prayer: Jesus' own prayer to God and his instructions to the disciples to petition "in my name." If prayer is communication to God, God also communicates to his devotees, primarily in words. Hence we find exhortations to remain and to love; oracles of many sorts, such as warning, judgment, assurance, salvation and the like. We find a particular focus on the words of Jesus, things he said but were not understood, special revelations to a special group, all of which is facilitated by the Advocate/Spirit. Most importantly, the personnel of worship are dearly defined: the Patron Father who bestows benefaction on his clients by means of Jesus, the Broker. Jesus, in turn, brokers the concerns to the clients to the Patron. Finally, the household with many rooms is not space out of the world, but relationships brokered by Jesus. These remain miscellaneous pieces until seen in the light of a cultural model of worship.

**********

Part Two: Place of Worship & Patron-Broker

In the first part of this article, emphasis was placed on communication "upwards," as it were: the disciples' learning to pray. In what follows, the emphasis is reversed, as we see Jesus teaching the disciples to listen.

Patron-Broker-Client Relations.

Patrons and Clients

Patron-client relations have long enjoyed the attention of classicists (Saller, Wallace-Hadrill). Frederick Danker's book BENEFACTOR brought to the attention of New Testament scholars the tradition of honoring benefactors, a form of patron-client relations characteristic of the eastern Mediterranean. And Bruce Malina pioneered the formal use of the anthropology of patron-client relations to interpret early Christian literature (Malina 1988). Malina's model of patron-client relations describes those that arise between peoples of unequal status and resources: landlord/vassal, aristocrat/peasant, king/subject, father/son, and God/Israel. Thus patron-client relationships describe the vertical dimension of exchange between higher-status and lower-status persons.

When John Elliott defines patron and client relations, he highlights the mutual exchange of goods and services: "A 'patron' (patronus, patrona) is one who uses his or her influence to protect and assist some other person who becomes the patron's 'client' (cliens). In return, this client provides the patron with certain valued services" (Elliott: 148-49). As noted above, the topic of patron-client relations is not new to the study of the New Testament and early Christianity Mott: 60-72), and so does not need to be rehearsed here. We should, however, widen the model to accommodate another person in the patron-client relationship, the broker (Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998:117-119). In social or commercial terms, a broker places people in touch with each other, such as a real estate broker, a stock broker, or a marriage broker (Malina 1988:11-18). A broker must be suitably placed to be accessible both to clients seeking aid and patrons who might provide assistance. Thus a broker is a bridge (i.e., pontifex) or link or mediator between patrons and clients.

Broker in Patron-Client Relations

Writing on "mediator" in 1967, Albert Oepke identified the following social roles in the ancient world that exemplify the role of broker or mediator. A mesites is a person who (I) is "neutral" to two parties and negotiates peace or guarantees agreements, (2) arranges business deals, (3) receives as king divine laws and offers sacrifice for the people, (4) offers as priest prayers and sacrifice to God on behalf of individuals and the people, (5) brings as prophet a teaching or mighty work from God, (6) founds a new cult or religion, and (7) delivers as angel communication from God.

As Oepke also notes, the New Testament calls Jesus a broker in many ways: he is the unique mediator between the one God and humankind (1 Tim 2:5), the mediator of the new covenant (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24) and a "priest according to the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:17). In contrast to the Levitical priesthood, Jesus' priesthood/brokerage is vastly superior because Jesus "is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25).

We are hardly the first to read John 17 in terms of mediation. Already back in patristic times, the prayer comprising John 17 was labeled "the high priestly" prayer, a tag still affixed to it. Our interpretation accepts the perception of Jesus' role as a mediator figure, not simply in chapter 17, but in the whole Farewell Address. Building on past studies of John 14-17, we wish to use the social science model of patron, broker, and client to interpret the role of Jesus as broker as an essential part of understanding worship in the Fourth Gospel (Borgen: 137-48).

What does the role of "broker" look like in a system of patron-client relations (Oepke: 615)? One anthropologist identifies four elements of a broker's functioning: (1) capital (channels of influence and communication), (2) tariff (what the broker receives for services), (3) debt (promises he makes), and (4) interest (his calculation of what and when his tariff will be paid) (Boissevain: 158-62). It helps, moreover, to distinguish what is exchanged in a patron-broker-client relationship. Clients typically seek protection and access to scarce resources, which are called first-order resources. A broker most frequently has second-order goods, namely, access to patrons and skill in connecting the right client with the right patron. In the rough and tumble of village or urban life in antiquity, there might be many clients working through many brokers to gain access to many patrons. But in the Fourth Gospel, there is only one patron (God) and one clientage (Israel, including the Johannine group), but competing brokers (Jesus vs. Moses, Abraham, Temple, synagogue) (Piper:. 295-97).

Jesus as Broker in John 14-17

Let us situate Jesus in relationship, first to the Patron-Father and then to the clients-disciples. It is generally agreed that a successful broker must be part of the two worlds that are joined. The author expresses Jesus' relation to the heavenly world in many ways. For example, Jesus was sent by God (17:3, 21), which social- science interpreters call his ascribed authority or honor. Moreover, in 17:5 and 24 Jesus speaks of glory that he had from his Patron before the world was made, which clearly describes Jesus as belonging to the heavenly world. Thus Jesus' relationship to the Patron is ancient, intimate, and enduring. In John 17, moreover, Jesus repeatedly tells us how loyally he has served the interests of his Patron:

17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished what you gave me to do

17:6 I manifested your name to whom you gave me

17:8 I have given them the words that you gave me

17:12 while I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you gave me

17:14 I have given them Your word

He accomplished what God gave him to do, which specifically means manifesting the Patron's name (also in 17:11, 12) and delivering the Patron's words. In addition, Jesus brokered the following for his earthly clients: (I) power (17:2), (2) protection (17:12), and (3) glory (17:22). Thus Jesus belongs to the Patron's world, shares in the riches of that world, and loyally serves the interests of his Patron.

Jesus the broker also belongs to the clients' world and serves their interests as well. For example, Jesus confesses to the Patron the many ways in which he has brokered the safety of the clients:

17:12 I kept them in your name, none is lost but ...

17:13 These things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in them

17:15 I do not say take them out of the world, but keep them from the evil one

17:19 For their sake I consecrate myself, that they may be consecrated in truth

He not only protected them, but seeks their continued safety. Moreover, he envisions a future brokerage, which includes: (1) keeping them from the evil one (17:15), and (2) being with Jesus where he is in glory (17:24). In an expression of limitless brokering, Jesus repeatedly declares that his clients are assured of his brokerage when they "ask in my name":

14:13 Whatsoever you ask for in my name, I will do it

14:14 If you ask anything in my name, I will do it

15:16 so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you

16:24 Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and you will receive 16:26 In that day you will ask in my name and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loves you.

Jesus is the unique broker, for "no one comes to the Father, but by me" (14:6).

Another Broker or a Sub-Broker?

In the Farewell Address, Jesus announces that a "Paraclete" will come (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7), whose chief function seems to be brokering, brokering either the Patron's or Jesus' benefactions. Since most discussions of the Paraclete begin with a history of the term, we do so likewise, but with reliance on Grayston's article especially as revised by Tricia Brown (Grayston: 67-82; Brown: 170-82). The first half of Grayston's study of "paraclete" attacked the univocal meaning of this role defined in classical dictionaries as legal advisor or assistant; as he points out, there was no role in ancient law courts that corresponds to a defense attorney. Supporter, yes, but defense attorney, no. The rare use of the term from Demosthenes to Diogenes Laertius prompts this conclusion: "parakletos was a word of general meaning which could appear in legal contexts, and when it did the parakletos was a supporter or sponsor" (Grayston: 75). In his conclusion, Grayston generalized that the Paraclete is, as it were, "an eminent person through whom the petitioner gains favourable access to the Father" (Grayston: 80). Tricia Brown read Grayston's data, but through the social-science lens of patron-broker-client relations, and in nearly every case, the parakletos can be said to function as mediator between two estranged parties (Philo, Jos. 238-40), as mediator of access to God (Philo, Vita Moses 2.134), as mediator between God and Israel (Philo, On Rewards and Punishments, 166), and as an intercessor with the emperor (Philo, In Flaccum, 22-23). Thus she concludes: "We submit that in most of the texts we have studied the word 'parakletos" would best be translated 'mediator' or 'broker'" (Brown: 181).

Regarding the Paraclete in terms of the patron-broker-client model, the following chart should help us grasp the Paraclete's position and function.

The Paraclete's functions remarkably parallel those of Jesus, a point argued in contemporary Johannine scholarship (Martyn: 143-46; Burge: 137-41). He has, moreover, the same role as Jesus, inasmuch as he is called "another Paraclete," Jesus being the first. Thus he functions in the same role as Jesus; or he serves Jesus, inasmuch as in all three references cited above he (I) brings to mind what Jesus said, (2) bears witness to him, and (3) glorifies him. Thus the Paraclete/Spirit is not an independent player, so to speak. If Jesus' role is that of broker between God/Patron and the disciples/clients, the Paraclete is Jesus' sub-broker. Observations such as these are steadily making their way into Johannine scholarship (Franck: 42, 48, 67-68, 84, 138).

What significance, then, does learning that the Paraclete functions in the role of broker or mediator have for understanding worship in John 14-17? As conveyor both of God's words to the clients and the clients' prayers to God, Jesus-the-broker plays the essential role of mediator or broker in the worship of God. The Paraclete, however, seems to function as a sub- or co-broker to Jesus. He makes intelligible to the clients Jesus' teaching and person; he continues Jesus' forensic judgment of the world. But nothing is said about his being the broker of the group's prayers, which are all made "in my [Jesus'] name." Thus the Paraclete functions as the mediator of God's and Jesus' words/teachings, which might in a worship service be evident in prophecy, preaching and teaching the Jesus story, and even in understanding the Scriptures.

Not on This Mountain Nor in Jerusalem. But Where?

As noted earlier, Jesus' declaration that his body would be the new, true Temple (2:19-22) is followed by a dispute with a Samaritan woman about where to worship, Mt. Gerizim or Mt. Zion (4:20), which Jesus de-classifies as sacred places of worship (Swanson: 248-51). Thus, the Johannine disciples have no fixed sacred space in contrast with Samaritan and Israelite temples. Nor does the local synagogue serve as the site of its worship, for public confession of Jesus as the Christ means expulsion from that assembly (9:22, 12:42-43 and 16:l-2).But if_not Mt. Gerizlm, not Jerusalem, not the synagogue, then where? One of the dominant themes discussed in John 14-17 is where worship will take place. We argue that parts of the answer will come from a fresh consideration of (1) "many rooms" (14:2), (2) "being in" and "dwelling in," and (3) physical closeness to Jesus. But first let us employ an anthropological model of space to appreciate Jesus' de-classification of Mts. Gerizim and Zion.

Fixed vs Fluid Sacred Space (4:21-24)

"Not on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem" negates fixed sacred space, that is temples and the elaborate systems that surround them: priests, offerings, tithes, revenues, the cultic building, its adornment and maintenance, and hosts of diverse persons to staff it, perform in it, and guard it. Ethnic temples are clear examples of fixed sacred space, which is often expressed by claiming that the temple is the "navel" or "center" of the world. Since discussion of fixed or fluid space depends on some social theory of space, let us briefly examine a model commonly used in the anthropology of space, namely, "territoriality." Robert Sack, a representative of modern research, defines it as follows:

Territoriality will be defined as the attempt to affect,
influence, or control people, phenomena, and relationships,
by delimiting and asserting control over a geographic
area ....Territories require constant effort to establish
and maintain [Sack: 19].
This means that groups typically engage in a three-step process: (1) classification of the space (mine/yours, sacred/ profane, etc.), (2) communication of the classification (fences, gates, walls), and (3) control of the space. Within this overarching model, let us examine "fluid" vs "fixed" sacred space. On this point we turn to Mary Douglas and one of her best interpreters, Bruce J. Malina. Of fixed sacred space, Malina writes:

Just as persons have their statuses by ascription and
perdure in that status indefinitely, the same holds true
for places. The topography of the main places where people
in this script live out their lives is rather permanent.
A palace location, a temple location, and a homestead stay
in the same place and with the same lineage through
generations [Malina 1986:31].
Thus fixed sacred space correlates with fixed roles and statuses. All of this is characterized by redundant aspects of stability, permanence and continuity. The temple-city of Jerusalem exemplifies this well. Of fluid sacred space, Malina writes:

This situation of porous boundaries and competing groups
stands in great contrast to the solid, hierarchical, pyramidal
shape of strong group/high grid [fixed space] ... as groups
form and re-form anew, permanence is no longer to be found
outside the group; and where the group is, there is stability.
Sacred space is located in the group, not in some impersonal
space like a temple. The group is the central location of
importance, whether the Body of Christ, the church, for Christians,
or the synagogue gathering for Jews, or the philosophical
"schools." ... Discourse within these groups, whether the
words of a portable Torah, the story of Jesus, or the exhortations
of the philosopher-teacher, becomes the mobile, portable,
exportable focus of sacred place, in fact more important than
the fixed and eternal sacred places [Malina 1986: 38].
Malina's classification is based on considerations of space and time, at which we must look more closely. The following chart should make explicit the contrasts on every level between fixed and fluid sacred space.

This model of fluid vs. fixed sacred space alerts us to certain aspects of worship as they may appear in John 1417. First, significant attention must be given to group, not place; second, the channel of the communication which is worship will not be sacrifice, performed by a priest whose competency rests on birth into the appropriate clan or family, but verbal worship, which is both verbal prayer to God and verbal listening to God's word as this is articulated by competent figures in the group. In short, where the group is, there is the place of worship.

In My Father's House There Are Many Rooms (14:2)

Beginnings are generally significant rhetorical places to establish a topic, and we read John 14:2 in this manner. This verse contains two phrases: (I) "in my Father's house there are many rooms" and (2) "I am going to prepare a place for you." A recent dissertation on these verses offers critical, inventive interpretation of it. McCaffrey notes that "my Father's house" has been variously explained as heaven, the heavenly temple, the messianic kingdom, even the universe (McCaffrey: 29-35). Since there is no longer any fixed sacred space or earthly temple made sacred by God's dwelling, we look to God's "realm" as the place for worshiping God--wherever that may be. McCaffrey, moreover, adds to the discussion an important consideration, namely, that "house" suggests relationships, such as a Father-Son or intimate kinship relationship (McCaffery: 49-64). In this house/household, then, are many relations, Father and son, God and disciples, and perhaps other Christians yet to be brought in--"many rooms" (see John 17:20-22; Swanson: 244-45, 257-60). And when Jesus states that "I go to prepare a place for you," he goes not as an architect but as a broker of relationships which will secure access to God through himself. Thus we are inclined to read 14:2, in terms of personal relationships and not in terms of buildings or space.

Jesus next states that he "goes away and comes back"--he goes "to prepare a place for you" and then says "I will come back and will take you to myself." His purpose is that "where I am you also may be." Having brokered his relationship with the Father, he returns to solidify his relationship with God's clients. He does not say that he will take the disciples to the "Father's house," but rather facilitates his brokerage by maintaining a favored relationship with the disciples. Thus, I would extend the sense of "relationship" to the "place" which Jesus prepares: Jesus functions, as we will shortly argue, as broker in a patron-client relationship first linked with his Father-Patron and then with his disciples-clients. As tortured as it may sound, Jesus is in two "places" at once: in heaven (in relationship with God, wherever God is) and on earth (in relationship with disciples, wherever they gather). Balancing his remark that he has access to God's presence, he also "takes the disciples to myself." Thus they too have access to God's house, but only in relation to Jesus. Poor Thomas, who does not know the way to the Father's house! Jesus tells him, "I am the way ..." (14:6), that is, the exclusive relationship with God and the unique broker to God: "No one comes to the Father, but by me." Jesus, then, is both relationship and access, but he is not "place."

Later Jesus amplifies the meanings we argue for "Father's house" and "place": "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (14:23). Once more, the key to this "geography" is relationship: (1) a disciple loving Jesus and keeping his word, (2) the Father loving this disciple, and (3)their coming to him and making a "home" ("room," as in 14:2) with him. Jesus again serves as the key link, the broker or mediator. The disciple-client, then, must maintain faithfulness with this mediator, which relationship will be honored by the Father-Patron. Thus a link between disciple and Father is forged in and through Jesus. The purpose or utility of this relationship comes from the benefaction the Patron then shows the client, namely, "we will make our home with him." Any disciple may fit this description, and any earthly place is suitable for this relationship to occur. The only exclusive thing that makes this place "sacred" is the fact that only a disciple in such a relationship with Jesus has a relationship with the Father.

Later Jesus petitions God for a benefaction related to the Johannine statement studied above, namely, that "place" = relationship: "Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory that you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world" (17:24). The related figures include "Father, ....I," "they whom you gave me," that is, the same persons described in terms of patron-broker-clients above. The Patron has already established the broker with his clients, but he is now petitioned to bestow on them a unique blessing: "to behold my glory that you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world." What can "be with me where I am" mean? Several times in John 17 Jesus recognizes the non-relatedness of the disciples to "the world" While they are "in the world" (17:11), they are not "of the world" (17:14). Nevertheless, Jesus does not ask that they be removed from the world: "I do not pray that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil one" (17:15). Thus "that they be with me where I am" is no heavenly ascent nor a spatial relocation. Rather, the directional and spatial patterns we have been observing suggest that such language is best understood in terms of relationships. The relationship of Jesus with the Father contains elements of obedience, love, and generosity. In John 17, we are told thirteen times that the Father "gave" Jesus something, such as "power over all flesh" (17:2), "those you gave me" (17:6, 9, 24), "everything" (17:7), "the words you gave me" (17:8, 14), "the name" (17:11-12), and "glory" (17:22, 24). And Jesus' numerous petitions suggest that God will continue giving and giving in Jesus' name. Similarly, the Jesus-broker and disciples-clients relationship contains strains of loyalty, generosity and faithfulness. For example, Jesus, gifted with the "name" of God, reveals it to his disciples (17:6, 11, 12, 26); he has given them God's "word" (17:14, 17) and "glory" (17:22, 24). It is not enough that God play patron to his disciples via a broker; the fullest benefaction will occur when the broker "takes" the disciples close to God--a relationship, not a geographical or fixed sacred place.

Thus we return to the phrase "to behold my glory which you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world" The "place" of Jesus' pre-creation glory must be in the presence of God--in the bosom of God (i:18; 17:5). Jesus' petition in 17:24 does not require that the disciples be taken to a new place or be transported heavenward. His prayer may be accomplished by some sort of christophany in which the disciples "behold my glory." That is, they who are still in the world will see into heaven, just as Nathanael and others in 1:51 were promised a vision, if not of heaven itself then certainly of heavenly persons (see Acts 7:55-56). Thus Jesus' declaration in 14:2 that there are "many rooms" in the Father's house and its repetition in 14:23 are best understood as descriptions of relationships, not places such as were de-classified in 4:21. No specific earthly place in the world is envisioned, but rather a relationship between the Father, Jesus, and the disciples, which we describe as a Patron-Broker-client relationship.

"Being In" and "Dwelling In"

We find in John 14 and 15 a number of remarks by Jesus describing his relationship with both the Father and disciples, which are seemingly expressed in spatial terms. He expresses his relationship with the Father in two ways: (1) "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" (14:10, 11, 20), and "the Father dwells in me" (14:10b). Similarly, Jesus' relationship with the disciples parallels that between him and God: "I am in my Father and you in me and I in you" (14:20). Although one might think of "in" as a spatial term ("in my Father's house there are many rooms"), as we have noted, the disciples do not travel to another place nor does "being in" necessarily imply spatial location.

Likewise with "dwell in." In terms of Jesus' relationship with God, we are told that "the Father dwells in me" (14:10b). The same verb is used 10 times in 15:4-10 to express the relationship of Jesus with the disciples. On the one hand, the disciple must "dwell" in or remain in or sustain loyalty to Jesus: "the branch cannot bear fruit unless it 'dwells' in the vine" (15:4). Conversely, if a branch "dwells" in the vine, the vine curiously will "dwell" in the branch: "dwell in me and I in you" (15:4, 5b). An alternate way of expressing this in 15:7 indicates a basis for this type of dwelling: "If you 'dwell' in me and my words 'dwell' in you ...." Finally, the Spirit will "dwell" in you and 'be' in you (14:17).

Although the metaphors are those of space, we best understand them in terms of relationships. Paul urges the Philippians to have the "mind of Christ," that is, his thoughts, values, relationships, etc. Such a person would then resemble Jesus; one might even say that Jesus dwells in that disciple. A useful image of this might be a coin, with Jesus' image on one side and that of the disciple on the other, only it also resembles Jesus. Often Jesus declares that he has God's powers, words, commands; and so we have another coin, with God on one side and Jesus on the other. Now let us fuse the two coins, with the two Jesus sides face-to-face. Then God dwells in Jesus as do the disciples; and through Jesus, God dwells in the disciples and the disciples dwell in God. What type of relationships do we envision? At least two categories are suitable here: (1) kinship relationships (father, son, household), and (2) patron-broker-client--both the Father and Jesus and Jesus and the disciples.

C. H. Dodd saw the same phenomenon, although he did not interpret it as the foundation of worship in the Fourth Gospel. His observations are worth noting (Dodd: 187).

Consideration of relationships reminds us of the Greek virtue of righteousness in which duties to God, family and polls are articulated. All these relationships demand faithfulness and loyalty. Occasionally one finds "love" cited as a way in which duty is shown. These expressions of relationship have a bearing on how we read parts of the Farewell Address. Juxtaposed to the exhortation to "dwell" in Jesus and to "love," we find a paragraph about "hate." The world hates the disciples (15:18-25), a hatred which is expressed in 16:1-2 where they are told of expulsion from the synagogue and death. Jesus' explains why he tells them this prediction: "to keep you from falling away." Later he predicts that they will not "remain" but will "be scattered, every man to his home" (16:32). In the face of "hate," "scandal," and "scattering," the exhortation to "dwell" in Jesus takes on special significance. Nevertheless, the discourse, while on the level of physical separation and distancing, expresses close relationship of the highest sort. Thus "being in" and "dwelling in" correspond to "love," but "scandal" and "scattering" are the converse. Loyal and faithful relationships, we argue, best explain these erstwhile spatial terms.

Therefore, as regards the place of worship for the Johannine group, we draw the following conclusions. Although the group meets in a particular place, this is not fixed sacred space. When the group finishes its worship, the place becomes secular again. This sort of arrangement suggests that little by way of funding is needed, certainly not the system of sacrifices, dress and adornment of the Temple. Nor do we hear of or expect notice of a leader of worship; there certainly is no system of priestly ministers as found in the Temple. The focus of worship is "text," both the Scriptures but also the words of Jesus. His words are a portable shrine.

Summary, Conclusions, Further Questions

Summary

This study began by providing a current descriptive inventory of worship. In addition, we developed a social science model of worship based on communication theory which adequately explains how both prayer and other types of worship (prophecy, homily, etc.) all belong together as diverse aspects of worship. The communications model identifies and interprets the two directions of communication: (1) worshipers sending a message to the deity for a specific purpose and (2) the deity sending a message to the worshipers for various purposes. The model identifies both the medium of the communication and the channel along which it is sent, as well as a wide variety of purposes for the communication.

In regard to a full interpretation of prayer, the communication model, which led to the typology of prayer, advances our understanding by a detailed and nuanced articulation of various effects that prayer seeks to have on the deity. While we are all familiar with the purpose of petitionary prayer, we found the typology of prayer particularly helpful in identifying self-focused, heuristic and informational prayers.

Moreover, the model allowed for a nuanced reading and understanding of other forms of worship, which in the model describe the communication of the deity with worshipers. But the complete model of communication describes worship, not just that of mortals to God but also of God to mortals. Thus we were able both to surface data according to the forms of group-speech known from early Christianity and to appreciate how they link together as God's speech to the group. If the sub-forms were studied individually, we would not know their relationship to other parts of John 1417. The model gives insight into the parts and the whole.

In examining the issue of "where" the Johannine group worshiped, we were greatly aided by employing the model of fixed vs fluid sacred space. Fluid sacred space, unlike fixed space as found in temples, does not embody the system of temple personnel such as we find in Jerusalem's temple. Thus we can go further than the standard rejections of Mts. Gerizim and Zion and the traditional affirmations of "spirit and truth." The model of fluid sacred space urges us to examine how both the person of Jesus and the persons of the group become the sacred space. Jesus does not take his disciples out of the world, even though he has prepared a place for them. The key element in understanding the "where" of worship for the Johannine group is our appreciation of how Jesus as the ascended Lord continues to offer christophanies to the group, especially by revealing the sacred name "I AM" to them. In short, God draws near to the group through Jesus, especially through the shrine of the sacred name; and the disciples are drawn near through Jesus, especially as the heavenly figure who maintains his presence on earth. Thus we look to relationships as the "where" of worship.

We addressed the issue of the roles that constitute the relationship just described. The model of patron-broker-client, known from both ancient authors and modern anthropologists, seems particularly applicable to worship as we find it described in John 14-17. Broker is the preferred role in which the author of the Fourth Gospel as well as other New Testament authors understand how Jesus relates to God and to the disciples. In particular, it provides a full and apt interpretation of Jesus' communication in John 14-17: all of the client's petitions to the heavenly Patron are made "in my name," just as the Patron's "words" and "commands" all come through Jesus to the disciples. Whether "broker," "mediator," or "priest," we have both a social and functional understanding of Jesus' role in the verbal worship of the Johannine group.

Astute commentators tend to identify one or other of the topics listed above. But interpretation is painfully incomplete unless these data are properly classified as elements of worship. Unless one knows the whole, how can s/he properly recognize the parts? Knowledge of the model of worship surfaces data that are oftentimes overlooked, and then provides the appropriate scenario for understanding their relationship. A very useful tool, this model.

Finally, John 14-17 is normally labeled a "Farewell Address," and with good reason because it contains materials one easily identifies as elements of such an address. But these Johannine chapters are surprisingly found to contain materials obviously related to worship and prayer which do not comfortably fit the model of a farewell address. When one adds to discussions of worship both a communications model and the notion of fluid vs sacred space, then most of the material in John 14-17 can be seen to be part of a large discourse on worship in the Fourth Gospel. A familiar text is thus freshly interpreted precisely because new models of reading and interpretation suggest new data. Are the two models in opposition? No, each can explain data not covered by the other. Both seem to be productive ways of reading.

Further Questions

Because we have focused on John 14-17, our investigation of worship may suffer in two ways. First, how are we to interpret pilgrimage feasts to Jerusalem? How do we understand baptism (3:22-26) and eating the bread of life (6:32-56)? As Aune earlier stated (973), worship consists of "various types of rituals experiencing., a Christians gathered to eat together, to baptize new members, to experience healing." The very presence of the foot washing in 13:12-17 suggests a ceremonial welcome of group members by its officials. Is this part of group worship? The details of a purificatory ritual described in 20.'23 are absent, although Jesus authorizes those on whom he breathed to "forgive" and "retain" sins. What, then, still needs to identified and interpreted? Second, the more forms of worship that are identified, the more need we have of a consideration of roles and statuses within the group. How might the patron-broker-client model assist us in interpreting other rituals and other forms of worship? Third, if we have focused only on John 14-17, then are there other data in the Gospel about various forms worship and various aspects of it (time, place, ritual)? We claimed to find most of the elements of worship described by those who make surveys of what constitutes early Christian worship. What, however, have we not found in John 14-177 Finally, the worship models exposed here can only benefit from their application to other worship materials in the New Testament.

Works Cited

Aune, David E. 1992. Worship, Early Christian. Pp. 973-89 in ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY, vol. 6.

Boissevain, Jeremy 1974. FRIENDS OF FRIENDS: NETWORKS, MANIPULATORS AND COALITIONS. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Borgen, Peder. 1986. God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel. Pp. 67-78 in THE INTERPRETATION OF JOHN (Issues in Religion and Theology, 9), edited by John Ashton, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press/London: SPCK: 67-78.

Brown, Tricia Gates. 2003. SPIRIT IN THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS:: JOHANNINE PNEUMATOLOGY IN SOCIAL-SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE. London, UK: T & T Clark International.

Burge, Gary M. 1987. THE ANOINTED COMMUNITY. THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE JOHANNINE TRADITON. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Danker, Frederick W. 1982. BENEFACTOR. EPIGRAPHICAL STUDY OF A GRAECO-ROMAN AND NEW TESTAMENT SEMANTIC FIELD. St. Louis MO: Clayton Publishing House.

Dodd, C. H. 1968. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elliott, John H. 1996 Patronage and Clientage. Pp. 144-58 in THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION. edited by Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Franck, Eskil. 1985. REVELATION TAUGHT. THE PARACLETE IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Lund, Sweden: Wallin & Dahlohm.

Grayston, Kenneth 1981. The Meaning of PARAKLEITOS, JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 13: 67-82.

Malina, Bruce J. 1988. Patron and Client: The Analogy Behind Synoptic Theology. Pp. 143-75 in his THE SOCIAL WORLD OF JESUS AND THE GOSPELS. London, UK: Routledge.

1986. CHRISTIAN ORIGINS AND CULTRAL ANTHROPOLOGY. PRCTICAL MODELS FOR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. Atlanta, GA: John Knox.

Malina Bruce J., & Richard L. Rohrbaugh. 1998. SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Martyn, J. Louis 1979. HISTORY AND THEOLOGY 1N THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Revised ed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

McCaffery, James 1988. THE HOUSE WITH MANY ROOMS. THE TEMPLE THEME OF JN. 14,2-3. Rome, Italy: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Mott, Stephen Charles 1975. The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence. Pp. (30-72 in CURRENT ISSUES IN BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION. edited by Gerald Hawthorne. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Oepke, A. 1967. Mesites. THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 4. 598-624.

Piper, Ronald A. 2001. Glory, Honor and Patronage in the Fourth Gospel: Understanding the Doxa Given to the Disciples in John 17. Pp. 281-309 in SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC MODELS FOR INTERPRETING THE BIBLE. ESSAYS BY THE CONTEXT GROUP IN HONOR OF BRUCE J. MALINA, edited by John J. Pilch. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Sack, RoBert D. 1986. HUMAN TERRITORIALITY. ITS THEORY AND HISTORY. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Saller, Richard P. 1982. PERSONAL PATRONAGE UNDER THE EARLY EMPIRE. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Swanson, Tod D. 1994. To Prepare a Place. Johannine Christianity and the Collapse of Ethnic Territory. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION 62:248--51.

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew (ed.). 1989. PATRONAGE IN ANCIENT SOCIETY. London, UK: Routledge.

Jerome H. Neyrey, Ph.D. (Yale University) is professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Notre Dame (neyrey.1@nd.edu). His most recent book is a study on God: Render to God by Fortress. He is the author of sixteen articles on the Fourth Gospel and one book; and he has authored a socio-rhetorical commentary on John for the Cambridge University Press which will appear shortly. He is currently finishing a manuscript on prayer and worship for Eerdmans. He is also a member of The Context Group, which studies the Scripture in its social and cultural context.

Category 14:26 15:26

Title or Name 1. Paraclete 1. Paraclete

2. Holy Spirit 2. Spirit of Truth

Source & Relationship whom the Father will whom I shall send to
to Father and Jesus send in my name you from the Father
... who proceeds
from the Father

Functions 1. he will teach you 1. --
all things

2. bring to your 2. he will bear
remembrance all witness to me
that I have said
to you

Category 16:7-10, 12

Title or Name 1. 16:7 Paraclete

2. 16.12 Spirit of Truth

Source & Relationship 16:7 I will send him to you
to Father and Jesus

Functions 1. he will guide you into all
the truth ... he will declare
to you the things that are
to come.

2. he does not speak on
his own authority ... he will
glorify me, for he will take
what is mine and declare it
to you.

3. he will convince the world
of sin: righteousness, and
judgment

FIXED: Temple FLUID: Group

1. topological, actual space 1. place where the group meets

2. place perduring over time 2. space of opportunistic,
occasional group meetings

3. major mode of worship: 3. major mode of worship: verbal
sacrifice forms

4. focus on altar 4. focus on sacred writings

5. hierarchical arrangement of 5. significant individuals whose
persons by birth competency is based on spirit
giftedness or closeness to the
group's hero

The Father knows the Son The Son is in the Father
(x.15) (xiv.10-11I 29, xvii.21)

The Son knows the Father (x.15) The Father is in the Son
(xiv.10-11; xvii.21, 23)

The Son knows men (x.14) Men are in the Son (xiv.20;
xvii.21)

Men know the Son (x. 14) The Son is in the men (xiv.20;
xvii.23, 26)

Men know (see) Father and Son Men are in the Father and the
(xiv.7-8) Son (xvii.21)
COPYRIGHT 2006 Biblical Theology Bulletin, Inc
COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale Group

An overlooked message: the critique of kings and affirmation of equality in the primeval history

An overlooked message: the critique of kings and affirmation of equality in the primeval history

Robert K. Gnuse
Abstract

The Primeval History in Genesis 2-11 contains symbolic polyvalent narratives with diverse levels of interpretive possibility. One meaningful level of interpretation is to see how the accounts contain a strident critique of kingship, especially the social economic abuses perpetrated by kings. Kings who receive the strident barbs of the author include not only Mesopotamian rulers, but also, by implication, the rulers of Israel and Judah, who likewise abused their powers. This exilic critique of kings is also, in turn, part of the great biblical message affirming human equality and dignity, and it speaks a powerful egalitarian word to any age.

**********

World history textbooks often allude to John Ball as one of the key leaders in the famous English Peasants' Revolt of 1381, but too often the rest of the rather dramatic story is not told. John Ball had been trained in Hebrew at Oxford University; so as he read the sacred text in the original tongue, he observed meanings and messages in the Bible that other preachers, theologians, and great leaders of the church did not see or ignored. In Genesis I he discerned that God had made "man" in his image, and then made "man" into male and female, which implied for him that men and women were equal, for both were made equally in the image of God. What further impressed him was that this "image of God" elsewhere was attributed to kings. If the man and the woman were portrayed as royal personages in this biblical text, and they were the ancestors of all humanity, perhaps that meant all people were equal and should have equal economic opportunity in a society in which there were no kings or nobility. For twenty years John Ball proclaimed his message in rural villages of northern England, and he eventually went to London to preach. A historian or chronicler of this age reported that he said the following:

My good friends, things cannot go well in England, nor ever
will until everything shall be in common; when there shall be
neither vassal nor Lord and all distinctions leveled, when the
lords shall be no more masters than ourselves. How ill have
they used us? And for what reason do they thus hold us in
bondage? Are we not all descended from the same parents,
Adam and Eve? And what can they show or what reasons
give, why they should be more masters than ourselves? ... But
it is from us and our labor that everything comes with which
they maintain their pomp [Bobrick: 60; N. Cohn: 199].
Eventually the country priest inspired the peasants to a revolution against his oppressive government. The peasants followed political leaders like Jack Straw and Wat Tyler, who forced king Richard II to negotiate with them. The king promised to end serfdom and the oppressive taxes which inspired many to revolt. But when the peasants, satisfied that their demands were met, dispersed to their homes, the king reneged on his promises and declared, "serfs you were, and serfs you will remain." The leaders of the uprising, including the young priest, were executed eventually, and the revolution failed (Bobrick: 59-62; Dunn: 59-62, 140). Had Ball lived four hundred years later and a continent away, he would be remembered as one of our great founding fathers, for his message was no different than that of the spokespersons for the American Revolution.

John Ball in 1381 read and perceived the implications of Genesis 1 concerning the man and the woman being made in the image of God. Why did not more clergy discover this message in the Bible, and why did it take almost two thousand years for democracy to emerge in a Christian culture that supposedly used the Bible as its primary source for theology, ethics, worship, and Christian faith? Why do not all Christians today see this message of universal human equality and the concomitant concept of the equality of men and women? Is it because we quote the Bible, but do not really read it? Though scholars comment upon it in learned commentaries and scholarly articles, this message has not yet infiltrated half of the churches in Christendom.

Throughout the Bible one can find an overall message of human dignity and equality before God. Though there be passages which admit the existence of the institutions of slavery and kingship, that acknowledge that in life there are distinctions between people on the basis of class, wealth, and sex, one senses that the texts speak of these matters in a mode of discourse which is concessive, that is, they are part of a world order that may someday be no more. For too long the institutional Church has allowed the concessive mode of discourse to become the normative mode of discourse for human society, and social realities which were to be changed by the people of God were ironically reinforced by the institutional churches.

We could review the entire biblical tradition to explicate those passages which speak of human dignity and equality or the imperative to move in such directions, but that would be an expansive work, hopefully to be undertaken by this author in the future. This brief essay seeks to focus upon the Primeval History in Genesis I-11, for seldom do biblical scholars and theologians turn to these texts for inspiration for social reform. These contain passages that too often have been used consciously and unconsciously over the years to legitimate oppression and subordination of certain people, especially women. I would maintain that within these passages there are clarion statements of human equality and that a subtle critique of the institution of kingship pervades many of the themes in these narrative accounts. Biblical scholars have focused upon these themes in scholarly discussion, though often in a tangential way, as they sought to elucidate other topics. Feminist scholars have been especially adroit at unveiling the egalitarian images as they pertain to women. But I believe there are more pervasive egalitarian themes, and anti-royal themes, which by implication are also egalitarian, to be found within these texts.

Kings and the Bible

In his rather thorough and recent analysis of the ideology and social world of kingship in Amorite Babylon, Homeric Greece (whenever that really existed), and ancient Israel, Dale Launderville demonstrates rather well that the institution of kingship was a cultural, social, economic, political, and religious symbol by which societies were unified. Kings held their world together, in part, because of the rhetoric they generated and the economic and political success they could accomplish. They portrayed their rule as sanctioned by the king of the gods, and they helped to mediate the will of the gods to their people, as well as direct the economy, administer the law, and defend the country or city from foreign enemies. Nonetheless, critique of kingship would occur when kings failed to bring order, basic justice, and prosperity to their society (Launderville). The critique of kings, especially by the prophets and the Deuteronomistic Historians in ancient Israel, was the most strident we can find in the ancient world, and modern biblical scholars and theologians would recognize that. What we might not sense is how pervasive that critique could be throughout the biblical text. Even the portrayal of the ideal king or messiah who would come someday is still a criticism of the existing institution of kingship in that age. For it bespeaks a king who will accomplish what living kings do not chose to achieve or simply cannot achieve. Ultimately, Christians connect the image of the messiah with Jesus, who clearly stands in opposition to the institutional kings of this world. The Bible as a whole contains much anti-kingship rhetoric and is concomitantly egalitarian in its overall message. It is from this biblical text, in part, that democratic ideals arose. And, it is no coincidence that when the English cut off the head of a ruling monarch in the 17th century, they did so while quoting biblical texts (Bobrick: 278-84).

In the Primeval History of Genesis 1-11 there are hints of anti-royal fervor and the radical equality of people. Biblical scholars have noted these passages, and theologians have observed some of these themes in theologies of liberation and related theologies, but I believe we have not given these themes the prominence they deserve, especially in light of how often these texts have been used in the history of Christendom to justify the oppression of people and to legitimate the structures of society.

The Yahwist and the Priestly Editors

Genesis 1-11 exemplifies dramatically the symbolic and theological mode by which the biblical authors express themselves. A majority of the narratives in Genesis 2-11 have been isolated and characterized as the "Primeval History" of the First Testament by biblical scholars, where they are perceived as a cycle of tales which arose in either oral or written form from an anonymous author called the Yahwist. However, some recent critical scholars prefer to limit the so-called "Primeval History" to Genesis 1-9, while maintaining that Genesis 10-11 more properly belongs to the Patriarchal Narratives as a pre-history (Batto: 69; Hiebert: 80-82; Loning & Zenger: 100). For the past two centuries these so-called Yahwistic accounts have been isolated from the larger narrative context in Genesis 1-11 by differences in vocabulary, narrative style, and theology. These Yahwistic narratives include the following accounts: the creation of the Adam (generic man), the man and the woman in the garden, Cain and Abel, the flood, Noah and his sons, and the tower of Babel. The non-Yahwistic traditions (usually ascribed to Priestly authors or editors) include accounts of the cosmic creation (Gen 1:1-2:4a), the genealogy of Seth (Gen 5:1-32), portions of the flood narrative that envision the flood as a cosmic event (parts of Gen 6-8), the covenant with Noah (Gen 9:1-15), and minor genealogical information.

The priority of the Yahwist tradition (or J) is generally assumed by critical scholars, who subsequently propose that the Priestly Tradition (or P) was either a supplemental addition to J by a post-exilic Priestly editor or perhaps a once separate oral or written tradition ("Die Priesterschrift") woven into J by an editor or author sometimes called R (the redactor or the "Rabbenu" "our master," as some Jewish scholars prefer it). R may be yet another priestly author or editor, and he has been identified on occasion with Ezra. However, in the past generation, some scholars have suggested the priority of P, and they seek to demonstrate how J material was woven into P (Blenkinsopp).

Other recent scholars have cast doubt upon the existence of the entire J tradition as a unified source that arose in the pre-exilic era (Van Seters 1975; Schmid; Rendtorff; Rose; Whybray: 43-131). They attribute it to an exilic historian whose efforts later became the prologue to the pre-existing Deuteronomistic History. John Van Seters and Martin Rose still suggest J arose prior to the work of P Editors (Van Seters 1983, 1992, 1994, 1998: 3-49; Rose), but Joseph Blenkinsopp locates this J history after the P redaction (Blenkinsopp), and Erhard Blum believes that J arose in a complex relationship with Deuteronomic material (1984, 1990). But when all is said and done, most contemporary authors and biblical theologians still tend to refer to these texts as J (Hiebert), or at least they call these texts "non-P." Thus, David Carr (1996) believes that the "non-P" author wove loose Yahwistic and Elohistic oral fragments together into a unified work, and no separate organized Yahwist or Elohist existed in a self-contained form.

Most biblical theologians distinguish the theology of these respective J and P texts, and they see value in comparing the two theological traditions. A few have argued, however, that the material eventually arose as a unity, even though the author might have used various pre-existing fragments. They say it is best for us to stress the unity of the final text before us when doing biblical theology, rather than the hypothetical sources reconstructed by scholars (Lira). Ultimately, no consensus has emerged about the division or the dating of the J and P materials. Commentators still treat the J texts as related texts which function as the core narrative, and P texts are viewed in a dialectical relationship. For an overall theological assessment, however, it may be best to consider Genesis 1-11 as a unity when possible in order to capture the message that the final redactor wished to communicate.

Patterns in the Primeval History

Once commentators move beyond the intense discussion of the source and tradition history of the texts, they often provide us with excellent theological interpretations. Commentators have observed the powerful interplay between human sin and divine forgiveness.

Two generations ago some scholars delineated a pattern of divine grace, human sin, punishment, intended or received, and divine forgiveness. The pattern would be: Grace--creation of the man and woman and their placement in the garden (Gen 2:4b-24), the birth of sons (Gen 4:1-2), increase of population prior to the flood (Gen 6:1), land fertility after the flood (Gen 9:20-21), and increase of population after the flood (Gen 11:1-2); Sin--rebellion and desire to be like God or the gods (Gen 3:1-19), envy and murder by Cain (Gen 4:3-8), intermarriage with gods and social violence on the earth (Gen 6:2-4), Ham "sees" his father (Gen 9:22), and rebellion and pride of the builders of the tower of Babel (Gen 11:3-4); Punishment--expulsion from the garden (Gen 3:22-24), exile from farmable land (Gen 4:9-14), flood (Gen 6:5-8:19), curse on Canaan (Gen 9:24-25), and dispersal over the earth (Gen 11:5-9); and Forgiveness--clothing, names, and children for the man and the woman (Gen 3:20-21, 4:1-2), mark of Cain (Gen 4:15-16), survival of one family during the flood (Gen 8:1-9:17), blessings for Shem and Japhet (Gen 9:26-27), and the call of Abram after the Babel incident (Gen 12:1-3) (von Rad: 1:!36-65; Fretheim; Gros Louis: 51). Though perhaps not all would agree with this breakdown of the text, most would recognize the dialectical relation of human sin and divine forgiveness in the narratives.

More recently in the past generation a number of authors have highlighted the literary and theological parallels between various stories within Genesis 2-11. Often such scholars see the numerous similarities between the narratives about Adam and his descendants over against Noah and his descendants. Some have seen three-way parallels between Adam, Cain, and Noah and their respective descendants. Such motifs include the following.

* Both Adam and Noah were primeval ancestors of humanity (Gen 2:7, 9:20).

* Adam was created from the ground (Gen 2:7-8), Cain worked the ground (Gen 4:2), and Noah brought relief from the curse on the ground (Gen 5:29) and was removed from the ground by flood.

* Animals were in Eden and in the ark "according to their kind."

* Animals and people were safe first in a garden and later in an ark.

* Adam lived with the animals, Noah was permitted to eat them (Gen 9:2).

* Adam ate fruit in the garden (Gen 2:17), Cain produced grain (Gen 4:2), and Noah drank wine from his vineyard (Gen 9:20-21).

* Consumption of fruit by Adam and wine by Noah led to trouble for both.

* "Eyes were opened" for both Adam and Noah (Gen 3:7, 9:22) and nakedness seen (Gen 3:7, 9:22).

* Adam and Eve gained knowledge (Gen 3:7), Cain denied knowledge of his brother (Gen 4:9), and Noah lost knowledge while drunk (Gen 9:21).

* After the human sin, God "came down" in Eden and at Babel (Gen 3:8, 11:5).

* In Eden (Gen 3:14-19), with the first brothers (Gen 4:11-12), and at Babel there came curses (Gen 9:25-27).

* Although Adam and Cain were cursed by God, Canaan was cursed by a human, Noah, which implies the rise of human autonomy and the withdrawal of God.

* Adam and Noah were told to increase in population as they respectively left the garden and the ark.

* Both ancestors had eponymous children (Gen 4:1-2, 9:18).

* Both ancestors had three children, one of whom was cursed.

* Their children farmed. (Gen 4:3, 9:20).

* Children were divided or fought each other (Gen 4:4-8, 9:21-23).

* A curse fell upon one child, a brother (Gen 4:11-12, 9:25-26).

* The one cursed was expelled (Gen 4:16, 9:27).

* Adam's family gave rise to city culture (through Cain) (Gen 4:17-24), and Noah's family gave rise to national groups (Gen 10).

* The first world was destroyed by a flood, the second world was permitted to exist after Babel's sin because God saw that people were naturally sinful (Gen 8:21-22). And finally,

* God feared the distinction between human and divine would be blurred (Gen 3:22-24, 11:6).

In fact, this divine concern arose three times: God feared "they will be like us" in knowledge and immortality (Gen 3:22), God feared the semi-divine beings (Gen 6:1-4), and God feared "nothing will be impossible for them" (Gen 11:6). So God exiled people from the garden (setting a boundary) (Gen 3:23-24), limited their age to 120 years (setting a temporal limit) (Gen 6:3), and confused their tongues (preventing a united uprising) (Gen 11:7-9). Whereas the second time God destroyed them all with a flood, the third time God tolerated them and allowed them to build separate civilizations. Throughout these accounts God appears to become more distant and people become morally autonomous. Adam and Eve denied their sin before God, Cain accepted that he sinned, and finally Noah took the place of God in the confrontation with Ham and Canaan and uttered the curse in God's place (Gros Louis: 37-52; Sasson: 211-19; R. Cohn: 4-6; Niditch: 11-69; Carr: 234-40). Devora Steinmetz sees a tri-partite division of Adam, Cain, and Noah (Steinmetz), while Richard Elliott Friedman sees the theme of the gradual disappearance of God from these narratives throughout the Pentateuch (7-140).

A third approach to understanding the progression of narrative in Genesis 2-11 has been to compare it with the narrative material in the Babylonian account, the Atrahasis Myth, for the plot sequence is quite similar and divergences appear to be an attempt on the part of the biblical author to critique Mesopotamian understandings from the perspective of the biblical worldview. In general, the Atrahasis Myth and Genesis 2-11 share a number of common features, including the following motifs.

* People are created from the ground (Gen 2:7).

* People are created to till the ground (Gen 2:7-8).

* A chance exists for human immortality (Gen 2:9, 3:22-24).

* Sexuality and marriage are created (Gen 2:24).

* A goddess for a woman is named "mother of life" (Gen 3:20).

* People reproduce rapidly.

* People rebel against the god(s).

* People are killed in Atrahasis or exiled eastward in the Bible (Gen 2:24, 4:10-16).

* A flood kills most of humanity.

* A hero and his family survives.

* Sacrifice pleases the god(s) (Gen 8:20-22). (12) The god(s) accepts the nature of humanity (Gen 8:21). And finally,

* People repopulate the world (Gen 9:18-27, 10:1-11:19) (Frymer-Kensky: 147-55, Oden: 210-15; Batto: 51-52).

All of these are fine ways to assess the Primeval History, but there are other modes of analysis which may interpret the text in an equally meaningful fashion, for these particular biblical texts are rich with meaning. I would propose that a theme that permeates the narratives is one which critiques the assumptions of kingship and affirms the basic equality of human beings before God and in society.

Genesis 1-2

The most significant text that speaks of human equality, especially in reaction to the so-called superior status of kings is found in Genesis 1:26-28. In this text God is said to have made both the man and the woman (not just the man, as some people seem to think) in the divine "image" and "likeness" and given them the power to "rule" and have "dominion" over the world.

26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image,
according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over
the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created
humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them, and
God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth
and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and
over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves
upon the earth."
In the ancient Near East terminology such as the "image" of the god or the "likeness" of the god were metaphors used to characterize the king, especially in Mesopotamia, where the king was the representative of the gods upon the earth. Literally, the terms meant statues, and the implication was that the king was the visible "likeness" of the deity upon the earth. Likewise, the king was said to "rule" or have "dominion" over both the world and his people, as it was given to him by the gods or by the leader of the gods. The powerful implication of this biblical language is that now the man and the woman, who symbolize all of humanity, are said to be kings (and queens). The old concepts are radically democratized by the biblical text, for now all human beings are said to be in the image of God. This is a major shift in ideology, for it moves away from old traditional royal ideologies to a new egalitarian one in which the common people are elevated to the status of the king and given not only royal status but perhaps even the old mythic semi-divine status once accorded to kings. (Such appears to be the implication of Psalm 8, a text related to Genesis 1, which speaks of people being only a little less than God or the gods.) Perhaps such a new reconfiguration became possible in the exilic and post-exilic era for Jewish intellectuals, particularly the priests, once their own institution of kingship had disappeared (Smith 2001: 169-71). This gives tremendous dignity and responsibility to all human beings regardless of social distinction. Their responsibilities entail protection of the land. They are not to struggle with the created order, but they are to struggle to protect the created order. Previously, such was seen to be the task of kings. Now such dignity and responsibility are attributed to all human beings (Vawter: 55-60; Westermann: 151-61; Loning & Zenger: 108-11). Accordingly, the special position of power and privilege held by kings is undercut.

This theme is furthered in Genesis 2, where the man and the woman are placed into the garden. The creation of garden was another prerogative of Mesopotamian kings who brought plants and animals from all over their empires and placed them into special royal gardens. The metaphor of the king's garden is applied also to the king's rule over his empire, for the king turns the entire land into his garden by wise rule. In Genesis 2 Yahweh is clearly the king who creates such a garden for divine pleasure, but then Genesis 2 also attributes some ruling function to the man and the woman as representatives of all humanity (Brueggemann; Wyatt: 10-21).

The man names the animals and thus engages in an important creative function, even though scholars debate as to the degree to which this makes the man a co-creator with God (Vawter:. 74). His naming of the animals, however, at least signifies his importance in ordering the garden, which makes him appear to perform a function similar to the role of kings as gardeners for the gods. If we take the image from Mesopotamian political mythology, we may metaphor Yahweh as the king, or we may view Yahweh as the high god and the man (and woman) as representing the king on earth.

Critical scholarship assumes that the account in Genesis 2 is older than that of Genesis 1. In its original form Genesis 2 may have had the idea of portraying the man, not as a king, but rather as a being who lives in harmonious relationship to Yahweh and works with Yahweh. However, when the later text in Genesis 1 was added by Priestly writers in the Babylonian Exile or beyond, the democratizing of royal epithets in Genesis 1 makes the reader more likely to see the image of the garden in Genesis 2 as a royal park, Yahweh as the king who creates the garden, and the man (and woman) as sharing in those royal attributes of creation and rule, especially in the animal naming process. If the suggestion in the previous paragraph is correct, then Genesis I may lead the reader to view the Scene in Genesis 2 as follows: Eden is the royal garden or the world, Yahweh represents the pantheon of Mesopotamian gods, and the man and the women rule the garden on Yahweh's behalf, functioning like the Mesopotamian king.

These are all powerful statements to make in the ancient world where the assumption of the great cultures is that the king (or pharaoh) is either divine, as in Egypt where pharaoh was Horus and the son of Osiris, or a representative of the gods who could be adopted as divine, as in Mesopotamia. Now the biblical text declares that everyman and everywoman are equal to the king, and obviously equal to each other.

Genesis 4-11

In Genesis 4 Cain goes to the land of Nod, in the east, after killing his brother and receives the mark of protection from God. Often commentators assume that Cain went to the east, that is, the land of the Transjordan, which is east of Israel. But the biblical author may be pointing even further east, to the land of Mesopotamia, where the ancients lived (including those who built the tower of Babel). Mesopotamia would be a good candidate, because there were indeed cities there in the river valley, and the text later speaks of how Cain founded a city. Our biblical author elsewhere hints that the earliest cities were in Mesopotamia or Shinar.

If the reference to the east does hint at Mesopotamia and the land of cities, we may observe the sarcasm of the biblical author. The first murderer goes to Mesopotamia, the land that sent forth murderous armies from Assyria and Chaldean Babylon to destroy the people of Israel. Cain "invents" cities, cities which are the source of human pride, greed, and oppression. Perhaps we also sense the biblical author's antipathy toward cities, with their kings and their priests, who rule people in tyrannical fashion. The tyranny of the cities in Mesopotamia is a theme that will return in the story about the tower of Babel.

In the ancient Sumerian King List there are a number of heroes who lived before the flood, who lived for thousands of years, and who functioned as kings over the ante-diluvian peoples (Oppenheim: 265-66). The biblical text responds with its own list and ante-diluvian figures, the two lists of the descendents of Cain (Gen 4:17-25) and Seth (Gen 5:1-32). (Interestingly enough both lists contain the same names, perhaps implying that we are the descendents of both the bad Cainites and the good Sethites, which means we are a combination of good and evil.) But for our purposes it should be noted that none of the biblical personages lived more than a 1000 years; only Methuselah came close with 969 years. The point of the biblical author is that these personages died "young" because they were not divine or semi-divine kings, as the Mesopotamians claimed. The youngest of the Mesopotamian heroes died at 36,000 years. Mesopotamian heroes, who were kings, lived so long because they were semi-divine. The subtle undercurrent in the text is that later Mesopotamian kings shared at least in the semi-divine status, even if the longevity were lost. In response, the biblical text declares that the ante-diluvian personages were mortal and died "young." Furthermore, the biblical personages were not kings, but apparently pastoralists. From this perspective the biblical text is undermining the ideology of kingship by denying the royal and semi-divine status of the so-called earliest kings.

It appears that the biblical author is making a political and religious statement over against Mesopotamian traditions about the ante-diluvian kings. The Mesopotamians claim that these great personages were kings of semi-divine origin. The ancients often claimed their kings were semi-divine or sons of the high god. This, of course, gave added authority to the power of the king. The biblical author responds by calling this nonsense. Instead, the biblical author maintains that the pre-flood personages were not kings, but simple shepherds. Furthermore, the biblical author gives life spans to these people to show that they were not divine or semi-divine; they were simply humans who lived a long time. None of the biblical figures lived more than 1000 years; Methuselah tried his best, but even he fell short of the magic number. That means none of them were divine. So the biblical author gives the biblical personages "short" life spans to deny their divinity and thereby attacks the concept of divine or semi-divine kings. Hence, when modern readers of the Bible ask why did these people live so long, the answer is that they really lived "short" lives because they were simply mortal, not divine.

A person of interest in the list is Enoch, the seventh patriarchal figure, who was said to have walked with God and was taken by God, or translated to heaven. This reminds us of Elijah, who also was taken to heaven alive in a fiery chariot. The usual interpretation is that Enoch was taken alive into the heavenly realm without dying, though there are some references to his death. This assumption into heaven, of course, gave rise to great speculation in the later Jewish tradition, so that by the 2nd century BCE Enoch was envisioned as a great seer and wise sage who was drawn up into the heavenly realm and permitted to see the future. His visions of the future emerge in several writings most of which were drawn together in the book of Enoch (we call it 1 Enoch). Other literature that bears his name also has developed out of a complex set of traditions about this heavenly seer. Enoch is mentioned in documents from Qumran from the 2nd century BCE, including some fragments of 1 Enoch. In the Apocryphal or Deutero-canonical book of Sirach, Enoch's perfection is mentioned (Sir 44:16), and in the Apocryphal or Deutero-canonical Wisdom of Solomon, Enoch is the example of a righteous man in whom the wisdom of the age came to fruition during his youth (even though he died). In the Second Testament Enoch is seen as a man of faith who did not die (Heb 11:5-6).

Enoch lived for 365 years before God took him according to Genesis 5:22-24, and that is the number of days in a year. This has prompted modern scholars to compare him to Enmeduranna or Enmeduranki who was listed above in the Sumerian King List. Both personages were seventh in their succession of ante-diluvian heroes. Enmeduranna, the Sumerian, taught divinatory rites by the sun god, and his adviser, Utuabzu (who was seventh on a list of antediluvian sages) was said to have ascended to heaven (Hess: 2:508). This is too much similarity to be a coincidence. Enoch seems to combine characteristics of both Mesopotamia figures.

The figure of Enoch spoofs the Mesopotamian king Enmeduranna somehow and for some specific reason. Enmeduranna was a sage king with great wisdom obtained from the sun God; Enoch was a wise sage (at least according to later Jewish literature), who had a prominent place in heaven (also according to later Jewish tradition), but he was not a king. Perhaps this is another critique of kingship. It is likely that there is more biblical critique of Mesopotamian belief involved here, but we have to guess at what it is. (Perhaps, because Israelites had been prone to worship the sun as a deity, and both Israelites and even later Judeans were tempted to equate Yahweh with the sun [Smith, 1990: 115-34; Taylor], this story is meant to criticize sun veneration in some way.)

The ending to the biblical account of the flood contains critiques of Mesopotamian kingship. This is true of both the Yahwist ending in Gen 8:21-22, which promises that Yahweh will never destroy the world again, and the Priestly conclusion to the expanded flood narrative in Gen 9:1-17, which reiterates intensely God's promise not to flood the world. The entire biblical account of the flood appears to be a parody on Mesopotamian beliefs in many ways, especially the narratives about Ziusudra, Atrahasis, and Utnapishtim--the various Babylonian Noahs. But these endings critique Mesopotamian kingship in particular ways.

First, Mesopotamians engaged in complex religious rites at the New Year Akiti or Akitu festival, led by their priests and the king, to avoid another flood. By these rituals they gave strength to Marduk, the god of Babylon, to defeat the power of chaos, the evil goddess of water, Tiamat, every year and thus avert the destruction of Babylon by floods. The possible re-enactment of this drama, which may have featured the king annually in the role of Marduk, gave tremendous psychological legitimation to the king as the representative of the divine realm. When the biblical narrative declares that a flood will never happen again, it makes the Babylonians and their king look foolish with this superfluous ritual.

In the second place, the hero of the flood in one account, Ziusudra, is a king. His reception of the gift of immortality for surviving the flood further adds credibility to the divine status of the king. (Atrahasis and Utnapishtim also receive immortality in their versions of the account.) In the biblical account, however, Noah is not a king, and he receives no immortality after the flood; rather, the blessing of God is for all people--the curse on the ground is removed (Gen 8:21) and people are enabled to eat meat (Gen 9:2-4), as well as promised no more flood. This further debunks the status of primordial heroes who could be seen as ancient kings.

The symbolic story of the building of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11 is another anti-royal account. The sin of the tower builders is their desire to storm the heavens and make a name for themselves, which symbolically means that they seek to invade the divine realm and become immortal like the gods. Thus, they would avert the destruction of another flood sent by the gods, or they can avoid being scattered by Yahweh, as the text declares in v 4. Put in other terms, the sin of the builders is tremendous pride, the desire to be like the gods, which in the opinion of biblical authors is the sin of the Mesopotamian kings.

Mesopotamian kings considered it one of their chief duties to build temple ziggurats in their cities. Especially great ziggurats were built by Ur-Nammu in Ur (2000 BCE), Hammurabi in Babylon (1750 BCE), and Nebuchadrezzar I in Babylon (1100 BCE). Nabonidns engaged in numerous temple and shrine rebuilding projects in Ur, Babylon, and Harran (550 BCE). Of special interest is the temple ziggurat, the Entemenanki, in Babylon, which was built by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon in the mid-7th century BCE, rebuilt by the Chaldean Babylonian king Nabopollasar in the late 7th century BCE, and refurbished by two Chaldean Babylonian kings, Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus, in the early and mid-6th century BCE. Mesopotamian ziggurats were cosmic mountains that reached to the heavens, and the worshipping individuals--the king and priests--who could build and ascend such mountains--had their authority on this world legitimated by such activity. Of special interest is the activity of Nebuchadnezzar in building a great temple in Babylon, the Etemenanki, for in his royal inscriptions he bragged of how he brought people from all over his empire to work on that building construction (Van Seters 1994: 182-84; Smith-Christopher: 67). Those peoples obviously would have included Judeans exiled after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE.

In response to such Mesopotamian imagery and obvious architectural propaganda, the biblical author painted a story of human pride and divine punishment to ridicule such Babylonian pretensions to power and self-proclaimed divinity. Yahweh comes down to the tower, the ziggurat, the cosmic mountain, and scatters the builders by confusing their language. Yahweh comes down to view the tower, not because he lost his bifocals, but because the tower was too small to be seen from the heavens. This is humorous satire by the biblical author on how truly insignificant the so-called great works of the Babylonian kings really were. Nabonidus, in particular, may have been the target of criticism, because at the end of his reign Jews returned home. In later years Nabonidus would be the inspiration for the insane king (Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon) in Daniel 4. In Genesis 11 people scatter to the ends of the earth. In general, the Genesis 11 motif may symbolize the release of captive peoples after the collapse of empires and the end of forced labor at building projects.

Thus, the Primeval History contains powerful symbolic narratives that function with many levels of meaning. One of the several important motifs, which run through the narratives, is the critique of kings, and especially the arrogant claims of kings in Mesopotamia.

Conclusions

I do not seek to reject other interpretations and approaches to Genesis 1-11, but I do believe these texts are polyvalent; that is, they carry many levels of meaning and religious truth. We have plumbed the depths of these texts for years, and we still may find poignant meanings within them. I believe we have not focused sufficiently upon the egalitarian themes: the proclamation of human equality and the repudiation of kingship with all the ideational and social values connection to that institution in the ancient world.

The consistent critique of kings throughout these stories may have emerged from the hands of a Yahwist author and/ or Priestly Editor during the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BCE, when Jews found themselves under the heel of imperial Babylonian rule. John Ball saw that message clearly over 600 years ago; may we see it so clearly today.

Works Cited

Bat-to, Bernard. 1992. SLAYING THE DRAGON. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1992. THE PENTATEUCH. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Blum, Erhard. 1984. DIE KOMPOSITION DER VATERGESCHICHTE. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neuldrchener Verlag. 1990. STUDIEN ZUR KOMPOSITION DES PENTATEUCH. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Bobrick, Benson. 2001. WIDE AS THE WATERS: THE STORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE AND THE REVOLUTION IT INSPIRED. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Brueggemann, Walter. 1981. From Dust to Kingship. ZEIT-SCHRIFT FUR DIE ALTTESTAMENTLICHE WISSENSCHAFT 84:1-18.

Carr, David. 1996. READING THE FRACTURES OF GENESIS. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Cohn, Norman. 1961. THE PURSUIT OF THE MILLENNIUM. Rev. ed. New York, NY: Oxford University.

Cohn, Robert. 1983. Narrative Structure and Canonical Perspective in Genesis. JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 25:3-16.

Dunn, Alastair. 2002. THE GREAT RISING OF 1381. Charleston, SC: Tempus.

Fretheim, Terence. 1969. CREATION, FALL, AND FLOOD. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

Friedman, Richard Elliott. 1995. THE DISAPPEARANCE OF GOD. New York, NY: Little, Brown, and Co.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. 1977. The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance For Our Understanding of Genesis 1-9. BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 40:147-55.

Gros Louis, Kenneth. 1982. Genesis 3-11. Pp. 37-52 in LITERARY INTERPRETATIONS OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVES, vol. 2. Edited by Kenneth Gros Louis & James Ackerman. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Hess, Richard. 1992. Enoch. P. 508 in THE ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONIARY, vol. 2. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Hiebert, Theodore. 1996. THE YAHWIST'S LANDSCAPE: NATURE AND RELIGION IN EARLY ISRAEL. New York, NY: Oxford University.

Launderville, Dale. 2003. PIETY AND POLITICS: THE DYNAMICS OF ROYAL AUTHORITY IN HOMERIC GREECE, BIBLICAL ISRAEL, AND OLD BABYLONIAN MESOPOTAMIA. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Lim, Johnson. 2002. GRACE IN THE MIDST OF JUDGMENT: GRAPPLING WITH GENESIS 1-11. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 314. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

Loning, Karl, & Zenger, Erich. 2000. To BEGIN WITH, GOD CREATED ... BIBLICAL THEOLOGIES OF CREATION. Transated by Omar Kaste. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press/Glazier Press.

Niditch, Susan. 1985. CHAOS TO COSMOS. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

Oden, Robert. 1981. Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1-11. ZEITSCHRIFT FOR DIE ALTTESTAMENTLICHE WISSENSCHAFT 93:210-15.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. 1970. Sumerian King List. Pp. 265-66 in ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TEXTS RELATING TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. 3rd ed. Ed. James Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

von Rad, Gerhard. 1962, 1965. OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. 2 vols. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Rendtorff, Roll. 1977. DAS UBERLIEFERUNGSGESCHICHTLICHE PROBLEM DES PENTATEUCH. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 147. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Rose, Martin. 1981. DEUTERONOMIST AND JAHWIST. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 67. Zurich, Switzerland: Theologisches Verlag.

Sasson, Jack. 1980. The 'Tower of Babel' as a Clue to the Redactional Structuring of the Primeval History (Gen. 1-11). Pp. 211-19 in THE BIBLE WORLD. Edited by Gary Rendsburg. New York, NY: KTAV.

Schmid, Hans Heinrich. 1976. DER SOGENANNTE JAHWIST. Zurich, Switzerland: Theologische Verlag.

Smith, Mark. 2001. THE ORIGINS OF BIBLICAL MONOTHEISM: ISRAEL'S POLYTHEISTIC BACKGROUND AND THE UGARITIC TEXTS. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

1990. THE EARLY HISTORY OF GOD: YAHWEH AND THE OTHER DEITIES IN ANCIENT ISRAEL. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Smith-Christopher, Daniel. 2002. A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF EXILE. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Steinmetz, Devora. 1994. Vineyard, Farm and Garden. JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 113:193-207.

Taylor, Glen. 1993. YAHWEH AND THE SUN. Journal for the Study Of the Old Testament Supplement Series 111. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield.

Van Seters, John. 1998. The Pentateuch. Pp. 3-49 in THE HEBREW BIBLE TODAY. Edited by Steven McKenzie and Patrick Graham. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

1994. THE LIVE OF MOSES. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

1992. PROLOGUE TO HISTORY. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

1983. ABRAHAM IN SEARCH OF HISTORY. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

1975. ABRAHAM IN HISTORY AND TRADITION. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Vawter, Bruce. 1970. ON GENESIS. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Westermann, Claus. 1984. GENESIS 1-11. Translated by John Scullion. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

Whybray, Norman. 1987. THE MAKING OF THE PENTATEUCH. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 53. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Wyatt, Nicolas. 1981. Interpreting the Creation and Fall Story in Genesis 2-3. ZEITSCHRIFT FOR DIE ALTTESTAMENTLICHE WISSENSCHAFT 93:10-21.

Robert K. Gnuse, Ph.D. (Vanderbilt) is the Chase Bank/James C. Carter, S.J., Distinguished Professor of the Humanities at Loyola University in New Orleans, 6363 St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118 (rkgnuse@loyno.edu). He is the author of twelve books, the most recent of which is THE OLD TESTAMENT AND PROCESS THEOLOGY (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2001). He has published several articles previously in BTB.

COPYRIGHT 2006 Biblical Theology Bulletin, Inc
COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale Group

Your, ours, and mine: Jesus' use of the prophetic possessive in the Gospel of Matthew

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.

**********

In 1988 Robert L. Mowery produced an important study of the various terminology used for God in the book of Matthew. 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 disciples 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 Father repeatedly remind the reader of the unique relationship between the Father and the Son" (1997: 655). Yet it is important 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 occasion, 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 Isaiah 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 Jesus' 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 Father-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 rhetorical 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 rhetorical 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 disciples in the story, so that the demands upon the disciples become 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 other 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 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 individual 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 regular 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 inferior 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 superior 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 perception 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 terminology here to emphasize the connection to the earlier acclamation of Jesus as God's "Son"). The good works of the disciples 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 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 presents 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 Father, 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 relationship to YHWH. Jesus' use of the prophetic possessive presumes 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 intensifies 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 determination 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--Jesus (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 sections (vv 15, 22; 1989:439 notes the bracketing of poieo in vv 15-20 and 22; Davies & Allison 1988:693-94 list 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 use of the prophetic possessive here reinforces the possibility of charismatic leaders' infiltrating the Jesus-community and leading the disciples astray. These false prophets, 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). Logically, 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 danger 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 authorized representative of the Father). The challenge Jesus gives to the disciples is not to let themselves fall under the charismatic 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 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 before 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 persecutors 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 challenge 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 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 possessive: 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 prophetic 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 between the disciples and crowds if we link this to the preceding 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 entering 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 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 appropriate 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 explicitly 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 possessives 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 Jesus 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 heavens, promising to build his church upon this petra (16:1718). It appears that this instance of the possessive language is similar to the use in 11:27, given that Jesus begins his address to Peter with "Blessed are you" (Nolland: 666, notes the link between 11:27 and 16:17 in the shared use of revelation 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 understood 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 contradiction 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 revelation/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 discourse 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 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 discourse of chapter 18, which has to do with life in the ekklesia, 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 prophetic 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 millstone 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 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 despising 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 unimaginable 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 experience 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 forgives extravagantly. The Jesus-community emphasizes forgiveness, not only of my sin, but especially of those who sin against me. Living an unforgiving life once again puts one in 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 nature 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' understanding 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 greatest 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 picture 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 Perspective, 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 support through careful investigation of the Father-language in Matthew (29-34). This proves of especial interest considering that Brown's work focuses on the narrative between 16:21 and 20:28, while six of the nine occurrences of the prophetic 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 cases 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 possessive 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 giving 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' challenges, including the last one given in 28:18-20. Significantly, the commission Jesus gives the disciples includes the instruction: "teaching them to keep all of whatever I commanded you" (28:19). This presumably would include instructions for life in the Jesus-community, which previously the disciples misunderstood.

At the level of discourse, the use of the prophetic possessive gives us a fairly clear picture of at least some of the struggles 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 Jesus (10:32-33). The Pharisees pose their own threat to the implied reader, who may be tempted to (re-)turn to following 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 Gospel including misunderstanding the nature of Jesus as Messiah (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 careful 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 formative 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 reminded 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 heaven 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: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids, MI: William 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 Zeitsehrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissensehaft 58. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Chatman, Seymour. 1978. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Davies, W. D., & Dale C. Allison. 1991. A Critical and Exegetical 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." Evangelical Quarterly 19: 7-20.

Foster, Robert. 2002. "Why on Earth Use 'Kingdom of Heaven'? Matthew's Terminology Revisited." New Testament Studies 48: 487-99.

Harrington, Daniel J. 199 I. Gospel of Matthew. Sacra Pagina. Coilegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Johnson, Luke Timothy, with the assistance of T. C. Penner. 1999. The Writings of the New Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Fortness.

Keener, Craig S. 1999 Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Keesmaat, Sylvia C. 2000. "Strange Neighbors and Risky 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. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Mason, Rex L. 1973. Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah IX-XIV. PhD Dissertation, University of London.

Meier, Samuel A. 1992. Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible. Vetus Testamentum, Supplement 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 Testament, Supplement 38. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic.

Robert L. Foster is a PhD candidate at Southern Methodist University. 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.

COPYRIGHT 2007 Biblical Theology Bulletin, Inc
COPYRIGHT 2007 Gale Group