Houses on Rock and Sand Parable

How to cite this article:
Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Houses on Rock and Sand parable,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/27877/].

(Matt. 7:21, 24-27; Luke 6:46-49)

(Huck 42, 43, 77, 78; Aland 74, 75, 83; Crook 57, 58, 87, 88)^[184]

Updated: 13 September 2024

וְלָמָה אַתֶּם קֹרְאִים לִי אֲדוֹנִי אֲדוֹנִי וְאֵינְכֶם עֹשִׂים מַה שֶּׁאֲנִי אֹמֵר כָּל הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ אֶת דְּבָרַי וְעֹשֶׂה אֹתָם לְמַה הוּא דּוֹמֶה לְאָדָם שֶׁבָּנָה בַּיִת עַל הַסֶּלַע וְיָרְדוּ הַגְּשָׁמִים וְהָלְכוּ הַנְּחָלִים וְנָשְׁבוּ הָרוּחוֹת בְּאוֹתוֹ הַבַּיִת וְלֹא נָפַל שֶׁהָיָה בָּנוּי עַל הַסֶּלַע וְכָל הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ אֶת דְּבָרַי וְאֵינוֹ עֹשֶׂה אֹתָם לְמַה הוּא דּוֹמֶה לְאָדָם שֶׁבָּנָה בַּיִת עַל הַחוֹל וְיָרְדוּ הַגְּשָׁמִים וְהָלְכוּ הַנְּחָלִים וְנָשְׁבוּ הָרוּחוֹת בְּאוֹתוֹ הַבַּיִת וְנָפַל וְהָיְתָה נְפִילָתוֹ גְדוֹלָה

“How ironic that you call out to me, ‘My lord! My lord!’ when you want something from me, but when what I say demands something from you, you don’t feel obliged to do it!

“To what shall I compare the one who hears my interpretation of the Torah and acts accordingly? I’ll compare him to someone who built a house on bedrock. The rains fell, the wadis streamed, and the winds blew against that house, but it did not fall because it was built on bedrock.

“And to what shall I compare the one who hears my interpretation of the Torah but does not act accordingly? I’ll compare him to someone who built a house on sand. The rains fell, the wadis streamed, and the winds blew against that house, and it fell with a mighty crash. He needn’t have bothered to build that house at all!”^[185]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of the Houses on Rock and Sand parable click on the link below:

Conclusion

Too much and, simultaneously, too little has been made of Jesus’ claims in Houses on Rock and Sand. Jesus did not arrogate titles of divinity to himself only to claim that flattering him with such titles will not ensure salvation. Jesus did not claim that obeying the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount will deliver Christians on the Judgment Day. Jesus did wryly observe that those who called out to him, “My Lord!” in the hope of being healed ought to think about what they are saying. If Jesus truly is their Lord, then they will not only seek his miraculous powers, they will follow his teachings. Jesus did not claim that only by following his teachings could a person be saved from condemnation at the final judgment, but he did claim that his interpretations brought the Torah’s true intentions to light, and Jesus, in agreement with the rest of Judaism, regarded the Torah as the source of life both in this world and in the world to come. Jesus certainly did claim that doing what he taught was the only point of listening to him. He certainly would have been repulsed by the thought that simply believing in Jesus as one’s personal savior was the point of the Gospel. “What’s the point of believing in me,” Jesus would ask, “if you don’t do what I say?”

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] See Young, JHJP, 255. While the Hebrew reconstruction is Young’s, the translation of his reconstruction is our own. A few critical remarks on Young’s reconstruction are in order. First, we find the lack of a pronominal suffix attached to אדון to be infelicitous. Either אדוני or אדוננו would seem preferable to אדון. Second, we would have thought את was necessary before רצון אבי שבשמים. Even better would be את רצונו שלאבי שבשמים. We also wonder why את was not attached to דברי or ביתו. Third, we do not see how Young can omit דברי yet include אותם. There is no antecedent for אותם without דברי. Fourth, Young’s reconstruction with לפקח and not לאיש פקח or לאדם פקח is surprising, as is his reconstruction of לטפש rather than לאיש טפש or לאדם טפש. Fifth, we are surprised that Young wrote ופגעו בבית and not ופגעו בבית ההוא or ופגעו באותו הבית. Sixth, we are at a loss to comprehend the variation between בונה in the first part of the parable and בנה in the second part. In his defense, we note that Young referred to his reconstruction as “tentative” (JHJP, 254). ↩
• ^[2] Cf. Creed, 98; Davies-Allison, 1:712; Bovon, 1:254. ↩
• ^[3] See Allen, 72; Bultmann, 116; Jeremias, Parables, 96; David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (JOC, 552-560), esp. 554-555; idem, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1981), 98-99. ↩
• ^[4] Cf. Catchpole, 40. ↩
• ^[5] Cf. Kloppenborg, 185-186; Betz, 545. See also C. H. Dodd, “The ‘Primitive Catechism’ and the Sayings of Jesus,” in his More New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968), 11-29, esp. 18. ↩
• ^[6] See Lord’s Prayer, under the “Story Placement” subheading. ↩
• ^[7] See the introduction to the “Torah and the Kingdom of Heaven” complex. ↩
• ^[8] Cf. Vincent Taylor, “The Original Order of Q,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), 246-269, esp. 253; Christopher M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 189-194; Fleddermann, 676, 694-695. ↩
• ^[9] See Luz, 1:389. ↩
• ^[10] See Sermon’s End, Comment to L5-7. ↩
• ^[11] See Teaching in Kefar Nahum, under the “Story Placement” subheading. ↩
• ^[12] We found that the author of Matthew acted analogously in his version of the eschatological discourse. Although based on the version he found in Mark, the author of Matthew wove a block of Anth.’s Son of Man sayings into it, which in Luke was preserved as a unit outside Luke’s eschatological discourse. See the introduction to the “Destruction and Redemption” complex. ↩
• ^[13] On the author of Matthew’s use of interpolation as redactional method, see Sermon’s End, Comment to L5-7. ↩
• ^[14] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 176; Bundy, 123 §49; Beare, 68 §42; Fitzmyer, 1:644; Kloppenborg, 185; Young, JHJP, 252; Catchpole, 40, 98; Vermes, Authentic, 319. ↩
• ^[15] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 60; Bundy, 196 §104; Fitzmyer, 1:643; Gundry, Matt., 130; Kloppenborg, 185; Davies-Allison, 1:712 n. 29; Catchpole, 98; Bovon, 1:253. ↩
• ^[16] Flusser (Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 100) suggested that Houses on Rock and Sand originally belonged to a discourse in which Jesus opposed the incipient cult of personality that idolized Jesus’ charismatic persona but that disregarded Jesus’ teachings. Parts of this discourse were later attached to Jesus’ sermon on the Torah. ↩
• ^[17] For this understanding of Matt. 5:17, see Heaven And Earth Pass Away, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[18] See Creed, 98; Bundy, 123 §49; Davies-Allison, 1:712; Luz, 1:375. ↩
• ^[19] See Manson, Teaching, 121. ↩
• ^[20] See Taylor, “The Original Order of Q,” 253; Beare, Earliest, 69 §43; idem, Matt., 199; Betz, 559. ↩
• ^[21] See LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae, under the subheading “Causes of Verbal Disparity in DT Pericopae.” ↩
• ^[22] See Sermon’s End, under “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[23] Cf., e.g., McNeile, 96; Beare, 68 §42; Fitzmyer, 1:644. ↩
• ^[24] See Catchpole, 98. ↩
• ^[25] Cf. Schweizer, 188. ↩
• ^[26] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 176; Bultmann, 116; Bundy, 123 §49; Gundry, Matt., 130; Catchpole, 97; Bovon, 1:253. ↩
• ^[27] Pace Harnack (70), Flusser (Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 99) and Young (JHJP, 252), who thought that Matthew’s wording in L1 was more original. ↩
• ^[28] Somewhat idiosyncratically, Marshall (274) and Nolland (Luke, 1:309), despite preferring Luke’s interrogative form of the saying, thought that Matthew’s use of the verb λέγειν (legein, “to say”) was original. Their preference is due to reliance on Black’s opinion (276) that “Matthew’s expression recalls the use of Semitic אמר in the meaning ‘to designate, name,’” whereas “Luke...gives the more idiomatic Greek phrase.” It should be noted, however, that קָרָא (qārā’, “call”), the Hebrew equivalent of Luke’s καλεῖν (kalein, “call”), can also be used in the sense of “designate” or “name.” ↩
• ^[29] It is also possible that the author of Matthew’s choice of ὁ λέγων (ho legōn, “the one saying”) was influenced by Anth.’s use of ἃ λέγω (ha legō, “the things I say”) in L3. ↩
• ^[30] We accept Flusser’s view that the author of Matthew belonged to a Law-keeping Gentile sect that rejected the notion that Gentiles could be saved apart from the Law. For this reason the author of Matthew polemicized against the “lawless” Christians (Matt. 7:23) who followed Jesus but who did not keep the Torah’s commandments. ↩
• ^[31] Manson, Sayings, 60. ↩
• ^[32] On the ties between the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew, see Huub van de Sandt, “The Didache and its Relevance for Understanding the Gospel of Matthew.” ↩
• ^[33] Cf. Marshall, 274; Bovon, 1:253 n. 57. Both scholars rest their opinion on Strack-Billerbeck, 1:943; 2:258. ↩
• ^[34] See Betz, 542 n. 198; Luz, 1:379 n. 48; Muraoka, Syntax, 193. Examples of double vocatives occur, for instance, in the Classical Greek playwright Aeschylus (5th cent. B.C.E.), where we read:

  Ζεῦ Ζεῦ, θεωρὸς τῶνδε πραγμάτων γενοῦ

  O Zeus, O Zeus [Ζεῦ Ζεῦ], look upon our cause! (Libation Bearers [Choephoroe] §246; Loeb)

  παῖ παῖ, θύρας ἄκουσον ἑρκείασ κτύπον

  Porter! Porter! [παῖ παῖ] Hear the knocking at the door! (Libation Bearers [Choephoroe] §653; Loeb)

  In the Hellenistic Jewish novella Joseph and Aseneth (1st-2nd cent. C.E.?) we read:

  καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὴν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ δευτέρου καὶ εἶπεν Ἀσενέθ Ἀσενέθ

  And the man called her a second time and said, “Aseneth! Aseneth! [Ἀσενέθ Ἀσενέθ].” (Joseph and Aseneth 14:6)

  Likewise, in the thirteenth book of the Sibylline Oracles (ca. 265 C.E.) we read:

  ὦ Λύκιοι, Λύκιοι, λύκος ἔρχεται αἷμα λιχμῆσαι

  O Lycians! Lycians! [Λύκιοι, Λύκιοι] A wolf comes to lick blood! (Sib. Or. 13:139)

  ↩

• ^[35] On reconstructing κύριος (kūrios, “lord,” “master”) with אָדוֹן (’ādōn, “lord,” “master”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[36] See David N. Bivin, “Was Jesus a Rabbi?” ↩
• ^[37] Cf. Bultmann, 116 n. 2; Schweizer, 188; Gundry, Matt., 131; Kloppenborg, 186; Betz, 545, 636 n. 3. ↩
• ^[38] See Dalman, 327; Strecker, 166; Davies-Allison, 1:712; Flusser, Jesus, 32. ↩
• ^[39] Cf., e.g., Lord’s Prayer, L5; Return of the Twelve, L9; Quieting a Storm, L34. ↩
• ^[40] Cf., e.g., Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, L19, L30. ↩
• ^[41] Cf. T. Abraham [A] 9:4 (ed. Stone, 20): Τάδε λέγει Ἁβραὰμ ὁ οἰκέτης σου ὅτι Κύριε, κύριε... (“Thus says Abraham, your slave, ‘Lord! Lord!...’”). ↩
• ^[42] Cf. Bovon, 1:253. ↩
• ^[43] Pace Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 115 n. 104. ↩
• ^[44] Cf. Marshall, 275. ↩
• ^[45] For additional instances of the author of Matthew’s sloppy redaction, see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L24. ↩
• ^[46] Cf. Hagner, 1:186; Nolland, Matt., 340. ↩
• ^[47] See LOY Excursus: The Kingdom of Heaven in the Life of Yeshua, under the subheading “The Kingdom of Heaven in the Teachings of Jesus: Jesus’ Band of Itinerating Disciples.” ↩
• ^[48] Cf. Harnack, 70; Bundy, 123 §50; Vermes, Authentic, 319. ↩
• ^[49] See the introduction to the “Torah and the Kingdom of Heaven” complex, where we suggest that the author of Matthew knew that in Anth. Houses on Rock and Sand and the Two Sons parable were connected. ↩
• ^[50] See Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, Comment to L49-50. ↩
• ^[51] The table below shows all the instances in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke where Jesus refers to God as “my Father” and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 7:21 DT (cf. Luke 6:46) Matt. 10:32 DT (cf. Luke 12:8) Matt. 10:33 DT (cf. Luke 12:9) Matt. 11:27 DT = Luke 10:22 Matt. 12:50 TT (cf. Mark 3:35; Luke 8:21) Matt. 15:13 U Matt. 16:17 U Matt. 18:10 U Matt. 18:19 U Matt. 18:35 U Matt. 20:23 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 10:40) Matt. 25:34 U Matt. 26:29 TT (cf. Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18) Matt. 26:39 TT (cf. Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) Matt. 26:42 TT (cf. Mark 14:39; Luke 22:[--]) Matt. 26:53 TT (cf. Mark 14:47; Luke 22:51) Luke 2:49 U Luke 10:22 DT = Matt. 11:27 Luke 22:29 DT (cf. Matt. 19:28) Luke 24:49 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding verse

  The author of Luke’s willingness to have Jesus refer to God as “my Father” 4xx in his Gospel suggests that the author of Luke probably did not avoid such references when they occurred in his sources. The reason for the prevalence of Jesus’ references to God as “my Father” in the Gospel of Matthew is most likely due to Matthean redaction. ↩

• ^[52] Cf. Schweizer, 177; Strecker, 165; Nolland, Luke, 1:309; Catchpole, 97. ↩
• ^[53] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 121. ↩
• ^[54] See Knox, 2:32. ↩
• ^[55] Cf. Bultmann, 117. ↩
• ^[56] Some scholars assert that those who are excluded in Luke’s version of Closed Door are the Jews (cf., e.g., Bultmann, 117; Strecker, 165), but such an identification is merely speculative. ↩
• ^[57] Cf. Fredriksen, From Jesus, 39, 190. ↩
• ^[58] Pace Strecker, 165. See Betz, 546, for criticism of Strecker’s view. ↩
• ^[59] Cf. A. B. Bruce, 134; Bultmann, 117; Manson, Sayings, 176; Knox, 2:32; Luz, 1:376. ↩
• ^[60] See Betz, 542-543, 549. ↩
• ^[61] Cf. Creed, 185; Knox, 2:79-80. Sometimes the conclusion of the Waiting Maidens parable is regarded as a doublet of the Closed Door pericope, which we believe is not far from the truth. We think Jesus repeated some of the language that appears in Closed Door at the end of the Waiting Maidens parable because this parable was intended to illustrate the point Jesus was making in Closed Door and associated sayings. ↩
• ^[62] See Davies-Allison, 1:714. ↩
• ^[63] Cf. Fleddermann, 683. ↩
• ^[64] Cf. Betz, 542. ↩
• ^[65] See Lesson of Lot’s Wife, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[66] Luke’s parallel to Matt. 7:22 (Luke 13:25) lacks ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. Likewise, the Lukan and Markan parallels to Matt. 22:23 (Luke 20:27; Mark 12:18) lack ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. ↩
• ^[67] See Quieting a Storm, Comment to L34. ↩
• ^[68] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 131; Kloppenborg, 225 n. 219. ↩
• ^[69] Betz (541) denied that the rejected petitioners in Matt. 7:22-23 are to be identified with the false prophets of Matt. 7:15, maintaining that those in Matt. 7:22-23 are rather “the ones who have been deluded by the false prophets.” But Betz’s distinction can hardly be maintained when the main activity of the rejected petitioners was false prophesy. However, we do concede that equating the rejected petitioners with the false prophets may be misleading. The rejected petitioners are a broader group of false Christians that includes, but is not limited to, false prophets. ↩
• ^[70] See Schweizer, 178; Gundry, Matt., 132; Davies-Allison, 1:693, 715; Luz, 1:375-376. ↩
• ^[71] Cf. Gundry, Use, 135. ↩
• ^[72] See Gundry, Matt., 132; Davies-Allison, 1:717. ↩
• ^[73] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 132; Davies-Allison, 1:714. ↩
• ^[74] Pace Gundry, Matt., 132. ↩
• ^[75] See Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, L48. ↩
• ^[76] Cf. Kilpatrick, 24; Nolland, Luke, 2:734. ↩
• ^[77] See Gundry, Matt., 132; Nolland, Matt., 341. ↩
• ^[78] See Betz, 542-544, 549, 551, 554-556. ↩
• ^[79] See Lindsey, GCSG, 3:42-43. ↩
• ^[80] See Lindsey, LHNC, 725. ↩
• ^[81] There is a Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark’s use of οὐδέποτε in Bedridden Man. Cf. Matt. 9:8; Luke 5:26. ↩
• ^[82] Matthew’s Gospel has two versions of The Finger of God. The first (Matt. 9:32-34) is a truncated version where Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ accusation is omitted. The second (Matt. 12:22-32) is a complete version that includes Jesus’ response to the accusation. ↩
• ^[83] Cf. Kilpatrick, 24; Gundry, Matt., 132; Davies-Allison, 1:717 n. 40; Fleddermann, 684. ↩
• ^[84] Kilpatrick (24) suggested that in the source behind Matt. 7:23 and Luke 13:27 the quotation originally ran ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἐργάται ἀδικίας (“depart from me, workers of unrighteousness”) and that the authors of Matthew and Luke each took independent measures to bring the quotation more in line with LXX. Cf. Luz, 1:376. But as we shall see, this suggestion does not fully take into account the author of Matthew’s redactional tendencies. ↩
• ^[85] The verb χωρεῖν occurs 4xx in Matthew (Matt. 15:17; 19:11, 12 [2xx]), compared to a single instance in Mark (Mark 2:2) and zero instances in Luke. The first instance of χωρεῖν occurs in a Markan-Matthean pericope, where the presumption is that the author of Matthew redacted Mark. The remaining instances occur in a pericope unique to Matthew, Eunuchs for the Kingdom, which has every appearance of being a Matthean composition. ↩
• ^[86] On ἀναχωρεῖν as a marker of Matthean redaction, see Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[87] Cf. Fleddermann, 685. ↩
• ^[88] Ibid. ↩
• ^[89] Gundry offered two reasons why the author of Matthew omitted “all” from the quotation of Ps. 6:9, neither of which are convincing. The first suggestion was that the author of Matthew translated from a Hebrew text of Ps. 6:9 in which כָּל was missing (Gundry, Use, 76). But it is hardly credible that the author of Matthew would have achieved 85.71% verbal identity with LXX’s translation of Ps. 6:9 if he had been translating directly from Hebrew, neither are there any textual witnesses to support Gundry’s theory. Gundry’s second suggestion was that the author of Matthew omitted πάντες from the quotation because he had already written πᾶς in Matt. 7:21 (Gundry, Matt., 132). But it is difficult to see why having written πᾶς a few verses earlier should have prevented him from quoting the Psalm accurately. ↩
• ^[90] On ἀνομία as a Matthean redactional term, see Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L60. ↩
• ^[91] According to Matt. 28:20, Jesus commissioned the disciples to teach all the Gentiles to do everything he had commanded them. Thus, even the Torah precepts discussed in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel were to be binding upon non-Jewish believers. ↩
• ^[92] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 176-177. ↩
• ^[93] Does Paul’s insistence that circumcised believers were obliged to keep the entire Torah suggest that the Judaizing Gentile believers thought that certain parts of the Torah were “fulfilled” through Jesus’ coming and were therefore no longer incumbent upon Christians? Cf. Gal. 6:13, where Paul states that even those who are circumcised do not obey the (entire) Torah. ↩
• ^[94] See Gundry, Matt., 132. ↩
• ^[95] See A. B. Bruce, 135; McNeile, 98; Betz, 560. ↩
• ^[96] Cf. Strecker, 169; Luz, 1:385. ↩
• ^[97] Cf. our reconstruction in Demands of Discipleship, L8. ↩
• ^[98] See Manson, Sayings, 61. ↩
• ^[99] Thus we do not agree with Bovon (1:254), who regarded ἐρχόμενος πρός με in Luke 6:47 as “a theologically significant addition.” ↩
• ^[100] We are unconvinced by Gundry’s suggestion that the author of Matthew omitted “who comes to me” because for him ὁ ἐρχόμενος was “a sacrosanct title for the Messiah” (Gundry, Matt., 133; Davies-Allison, 1:720). It is clear that ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Luke 6:47 is non-titular, so the author of Matthew did not need to omit it in order to avoid confusion. Moreover, the author of Matthew did not, in fact, use the title ὁ ἐρχόμενος any more frequently than the other synoptic evangelists. The table below shows all of the instances of ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Matthew and the parallels in the Gospels of Mark and Luke (if any):

  Matt. 11:3 DT = Luke 7:19 Yohanan the Immerser’s Question Matt. 21:9 TT = Mark 11:9; Luke 19:38 Yeshua Enters Yerushalayim Matt. 23:39 DT = Luke 13:35

  Thus we see that the author of Matthew inherited every instance of the title ὁ ἐρχόμενος from his sources. Note, too, that the latter two instances of ὁ ἐρχόμενος are not strictly messianic titles but quotations of Ps. 118:26. At most we can say that the author of Matthew adapted John the Baptist’s words in Yohanan the Immerser’s Eschatological Discourse (Matt. 3:11) in order to anticipate the title ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Yohanan the Immerser’s Question (Matt. 11:3). See Yohanan the Immerser’s Eschatological Discourse, Comment to L11. A single adaptation for the sake of literary continuity does not a sacrosanct title make. Cf. Snodgrass, 693 n. 6. ↩

• ^[101] Cf. Fitzmyer, 1:644; Strecker, 169; Luz, 1:385; Nolland, Luke, 1:309; Wolter, 1:289. ↩
• ^[102] Cf. Bundy, 124 §50. ↩
• ^[103] See Bundy, 124 §50. ↩
• ^[104] Cf. Hagner, 1:190-191; Bovon, 1:254, 255; Luz, 1:386. ↩
• ^[105] See Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 99-100. Snodgrass (694 n. 22) claimed that Flusser’s suggestion had no justification, but that does not do justice to Flusser’s argument. Flusser noted that toward the conclusion of the eschatological discourse we find a saying in which Jesus claims that “my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). It was Flusser’s opinion (and ours also) that this is not an authentic saying of Jesus but a reworking of Jesus’ claim that “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a yod or a qotz from the Torah to be deleted” (≈ Matt. 5:18; see our reconstruction of Heaven and Earth Pass Away). Flusser argued that since toward the end of the eschatological discourse we find a saying about Jesus’ words that originally referred to the Torah, the saying about Jesus’ words at the end of the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain might originally have referred to the Torah. Flusser’s justification, therefore, was analogy. Nevertheless, we concur with Luz (1:385 n. 6), who concluded that Flusser’s opinion owed more to his desire for Jesus to agree with the rabbinic worldview than to his philological analysis. According to Young (JHJP, 278 n. 82), Flusser modified his opinion by suggesting that originally Jesus referred neither to his own words nor to the words of the Law/words of God. Rather, in the original saying the object of hearing and doing was unstated, as it is in Luke 6:49. According to Flusser’s revised opinion, “my words” in L24 was supplied by a pre-synoptic redactor, and the author of Matthew supplied “my words” in L49. ↩
• ^[106] Cf. Smith, 155-156. ↩
• ^[107] Cf. Snodgrass, 334-335. ↩
• ^[108] See McNeile, 98; Bundy, 124 §50; Schweizer, 190; Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 99; Beare, Matt., 199; Gundry, Matt., 134; Davies-Allison, 1:720; Strecker, 169; Young, JHJP, 253, 278 n. 82; Betz, 561, 638; Luz, 1:385, 386; Nolland, Luke, 1:309. ↩
• ^[109] Cf. Luz, 1:385 n. 2. ↩
• ^[110] Cf. Harnack, 72; Nolland, Luke, 1:309; Betz, 638; Luz, 1:385. ↩
• ^[111] Cf. Young, JHJP, 253; Nolland, Luke, 1:309. Pace Gundry, Matt., 134. ↩
• ^[112] See Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 101-102. ↩
• ^[113] See Four Soils interpretation, Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, and A Woman’s Misplaced Blessing. ↩
• ^[114] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:720; Luz, 1:386. ↩
• ^[115] Cf. Strecker, 169; Luz, 1:385. ↩
• ^[116] Cf. Schweizer, 190-191; Gundry, Matt., 134; Davies-Allison, 1:720; Snodgrass, 331. ↩
• ^[117] On the author of Matthew’s redactional use of passive forms of the verb ὁμοιοῦν (homoioun, “to be like”), see Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L2. ↩
• ^[118] Cf. Harnack, 73-74; Manson, Sayings, 61; Bundy, 196 §106; Marshall, 275; Davies-Allison, 1:721; Strecker, 169; Luz, 1:385. See also Georg Bertram, “φρήν κτλ.,” TDNT, 9:220-235, esp. 234. Pace Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 98; Young, JHJP, 253; Snodgrass, 330. ↩
• ^[119] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 134; Catchpole, 95. ↩
• ^[120] The table below shows all the instances of φρόνιμος in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 7:24 DT (cf. Luke 6:48) Matt. 10:16 U Matt. 24:45 DT = Luke 12:42 Matt. 25:2 U Matt. 25:4 U Matt. 25:8 U Matt. 25:9 U Luke 12:42 DT = Matt. 24:45 Luke 16:8 [φρονιμώτερος] U Key: DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  ↩

• ^[121] Pace Harnack, 73-74. ↩
• ^[122] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:720. ↩
• ^[123] On the author of Luke’s redactional preference for ἀνήρ, see Generations That Repented Long Ago, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[124] Flusser (Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 98) preferred Luke’s “a house” to Matthew’s “his house.” ↩
• ^[125] Harnack (72) thought Matthew’s αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν was original because Luke’s οἰκίαν is better Greek, but his assertion is not self-evident. In any case, Matthew’s αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν certainly is not Hebraic. ↩
• ^[126] Cf. Harnack, 73; Manson, Sayings, 61; Catchpole, 95; Wolter, 1:290. ↩
• ^[127] Cf. Harnack, 73; Creed, 99; Manson, Sayings, 61; Knox, 2:32; Fitzmyer, 1:644; Davies-Allison, 1:721; Young, JHJP, 253; Luz, 1:385. Pace Gundry, Matt., 134. ↩
• ^[128] Cf. Harnack, 72; Davies-Allison, 1:721. ↩
• ^[129] Note, however, that each of the three instances of σκάπτειν in Luke occurs in parables. ↩
• ^[130] See Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L5-6. ↩
• ^[131] See Gundry, Matt., 134; Davies-Allison, 1:721 n. 47. ↩
• ^[132] According to Safrai (“Home and Family,” Safrai-Stern, 2:728-792, esp. 733-743), most private first-century Jewish dwellings had floors of packed earth. If a house had a dirt floor, then there can be no question of a stone cellar. It does seem as though the author of Luke is describing a more luxurious building than what is envisioned in Matthew’s version of the parable. ↩
• ^[133] Cf. Knox, 2:32; Jeremias, Parables, 27 n. 9; Fitzmyer, 1:644; Nolland, Luke, 1:310; Hagner, 1:190. ↩
• ^[134] Cf. Young, JHJP, 253; Bovon, 1:255. On genitives absolute in the Gospel of Luke as indicative of redactional activity, see LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “The Genitive Absolute in Luke.” ↩
• ^[135] See LSJ, 331. ↩
• ^[136] See Dos Santos, 39. ↩
• ^[137] Cf. Fitzmyer, 1:644. ↩
• ^[138] Cf. Cadbury, Making, 244; Hagner, 1:191; Bovon, 1:255; Snodgrass, 330; Wolter, 1:290. ↩
• ^[139] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:548-553. ↩
• ^[140] In LXX ἔρχεσθαι occurs as the translation of הָלַךְ in Gen. 18:22; 22:3; 32:7; 50:18; Exod. 2:8; 3:16; 8:21; Num. 22:16, 37; Deut. 16:7 [Vaticanus]; 17:3; Josh. 9:4, 6; Judg. 2:6 [Vaticanus]; 18:19; 3 Kgdms. 1:49 [Vaticanus]; 10:13; 1 Chr. 19:5; 2 Chr. 8:3; 10:1; 2 Esd. 8:31; Ps. 79[80]:3; Prov. 1:11; Song 2:13; 7:12. ↩
• ^[141] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1196-1197. ↩
• ^[142] See Dos Santos, 129. ↩
• ^[143] In LXX ποταμός occurs as the translation of נַחַל in 2 Chr. 20:16; 32:4; Prov. 18:4; Ezek. 47:6, 7, 9 (2xx), 12. The LXX translators more often rendered נַחַל as χείμαρρος (cheimarros, “stream”) or φάραγξ (faranx, “ravine,” “gully”). See Dos Santos, 131. ↩
• ^[144] See Lindsey, GCSG, 1:38. ↩
• ^[145] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1151. ↩
• ^[146] That in supplying his own words in L42 and L67 the author of Matthew ruined the parable’s symmetry may be put down to the sloppiness that can often be detected in Matthean redaction. On the author of Matthew’s redactional sloppiness, see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L24. ↩
• ^[147] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 135; Davies-Allison, 1:722. ↩
• ^[148] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:722. Pace Catchpole, 95. ↩
• ^[149] On ἰσχύειν as indicative of the First Reconstructor’s redactional activity, see Tower Builder and King Going to War similes, Comment to L6. Cf. Plummer (Luke, 193) and Luz (1:385), who regard ἰσχύειν as Lukan. ↩
• ^[150] Cf. Metzger, 142. ↩
• ^[151] We accepted a διὰ τό + infinitive from Luke in Friend in Need, L17 (Luke 11:8). ↩
• ^[152] See Moulton-Geden, 521. ↩
• ^[153] Cf. LHNC, 521. ↩
• ^[154] Cf. Young, JHJP, 254; Luz, 1:385. ↩
• ^[155] See Manson, Sayings, 61. ↩
• ^[156] However, the comedy group Monty Python imagined the hilarious confusion resulting from not being able to properly hear Jesus delivering the Sermon on the Mount in this clip from the movie Life of Brian (1979): ↩
• ^[157] Pace Davies-Allison, 1:721. ↩
• ^[158] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:629-630. ↩
• ^[159] See Dos Santos, 82. ↩
• ^[160] Pace Davies-Allison, 1:722. ↩
• ^[161] Pace Davies-Allison, 1:732. ↩
• ^[162] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 61. ↩
• ^[163] Pace Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 99; Davies-Allison, 1:732; Young, JHJP, 278 n. 82. ↩
• ^[164] Cf. Harnack, 73; Davies-Allison, 1:732. ↩
• ^[165] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 135. ↩
• ^[166] Pace Gundry, Matt., 135. ↩
• ^[167] The table below shows every instance of χωρίς in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 13:34 Mk-Mt = Mark 4:34 Matt. 14:21 TT (cf. Mark 6:44; Luke 9:14) Matt. 15:38 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 8:9) Mark 4:34 Mk-Mt = Matt. 13:34 Luke 6:49 DT (cf. Matt. 7:26) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope

  ↩

• ^[168] Cf. A. B. Bruce (509) and Davies-Allison (1:723), who likewise regarded “without a foundation” as redactional. ↩
• ^[169] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:66. ↩
• ^[170] See Dos Santos, 60. ↩
• ^[171] See Betz, 567 n. 79. ↩
• ^[172] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 136. ↩
• ^[173] See Bovon, 1:255. ↩
• ^[174] Cf. Harnack, 73; Marshall, 275; Young, JHJP, 254; Davies-Allison, 1:723; Bovon, 1:255. ↩
• ^[175] Cf. Marshall, 275, who thought that εὐθύς in Luke 6:49 was “pre-Lucan.” ↩
• ^[176] So Bovon (1:255). ↩
• ^[177] See Plummer, Luke, 193; A. B. Bruce, 509; Marshall, 275; Bovon, 1:255. ↩
• ^[178] See Harnack, 73. ↩
• ^[179] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1239. ↩
• ^[180]

  Houses on Rock and Sand
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  τί δέ με καλεῖτε κύριε κύριε καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω πᾶς ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρός με καὶ ἀκούων μου τῶν λόγων καὶ ποιῶν αὐτούς ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τίνι ἐστὶν ὅμοιος ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδομοῦντι οἰκίαν ὃς ἔσκαψεν καὶ ἐβάθυνεν καὶ ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν πλημμύρης δὲ γενομένης προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταμὸς τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν σαλεῦσαι αὐτὴν διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομῆσθαι αὐτήν ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας καὶ μὴ ποιήσας ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδομήσαντι οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν χωρὶς θεμελίου ᾗ προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταμός καὶ εὐθὺς συνέπεσεν καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγμα τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης μέγα		τί δέ με καλεῖτε κύριε κύριε καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων μου τοὺς λόγους καὶ ποιῶν αὐτούς τίνι ἐστὶν ὅμοιος ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ καὶ οὐκ ἔπεσεν τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων μου τοὺς λόγους καὶ μὴ ποιῶν αὐτοὺς τίνι ἐστὶν ὅμοιος ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ καὶ ἔπεσεν καὶ ἐγένετο ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλη
  Total Words:	94	Total Words:	101
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	45	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	45
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	47.87%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	44.55%

  ↩

• ^[181]

  Houses on Rock and Sand
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων μοι κύριε κύριε εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς πολλοὶ ἐροῦσίν μοι ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ κύριε κύριε οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐπροφητεύσαμεν καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δαιμόνια ἐξεβάλομεν καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δυνάμεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαμεν καὶ τότε ὁμολογήσω αὐτοῖς ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς ὁμοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ φρονίμῳ ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθαν οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέπεσαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ καὶ οὐκ ἔπεσεν τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ μὴ ποιῶν αὐτοὺς ὁμοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ μωρῷ ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ οἰκείᾳ ἐκείνῃ καὶ ἔπεσεν καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλη		τί δέ με καλεῖτε κύριε κύριε καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων μου τοὺς λόγους καὶ ποιῶν αὐτούς τίνι ἐστὶν ὅμοιος ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ καὶ οὐκ ἔπεσεν τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων μου τοὺς λόγους καὶ μὴ ποιῶν αὐτοὺς τίνι ἐστὶν ὅμοιος ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ καὶ ἔπεσεν καὶ ἐγένετο ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλη
  Total Words:	162	Total Words:	101
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	75	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	75
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	46.30%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	74.26%

  ↩

• ^[182] Cf. A. B. Bruce, 136; Strecker, 170; Snodgrass, 335. Unfortunately, after stating that “The parable is not to be allegorized,” that is just what Snodgrass went on to do, claiming that “most modern commentators rightly conclude that the reference is to the final judgment.” Snodgrass has been misled by the author of Matthew’s redactional activity, as have Nolland (Luke, 1:310), Hagner (1:189-190) and Luz (1:386). ↩
• ^[183] Cf. Schweizer, 190-191; Gundry, Matt., 132. ↩
• ^[184] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[185] This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩