My interpretation of Matthew 7:24-27

““In Calvin's theological system the Bible was the primary and indisputable source and authority.”1 Like Calvin I rely on what the scriptures say first and foremost. I certainly believe that there is something to be said for outside sources. I also lean heavily on the many bright scholars before me. If it is not in the bible though, or at least alluded to in the bible, I find a hard time believing it. There are many good arguments on this parable for believing that it say numerous things. The last thing I want to do is limit Jesus and what he was saying. So rather me say what the whole point of the parable is, I am simply going to state what I think Jesus main point was.
In Isaiah chapter twenty eight, we see scripture alluding to a house falling because it was not built right. This house falls because he had not listened to what God had told them. In Isaiah it is without fail that many theologians wee say that Isaiah is not talking about a literal house, or a particular person, but rather he is talking about the house of Israel. The point to the Sermon on the Mount is not about morality. Though it does contain that, it is more about being counter cultural. The message was about Jesus ushering in his kingdom. The kingdom of God that was promised in the Old Testament. Israel had been told before that it's house was going to fall, and here they are being told again. I think the whole sermon on the mount is presented with eschatological thoughts in mind. Since this is the case I have no doubt that ends the sermon with that in mind. This parable is all about Jesus and the counter cultural movement that he needs Israel to set it mind too. He has already called them to repent and believe earlier in his ministry. Also John the Baptist had been preaching 'Repent and believe for the kingdom of God is near. In the Greek language the word for repent is metanoeo which means to ,change your mind. Jesus and John were calling on Israel to change its mind, to turn and head on a new coarse, and to forget what they had been doing but look towards the kingdom to come.
This parable is not the first or the last time Jesus or the New testament writers wrote about keeping Jesus' commandments. (1 Corinthians 7:19, Hebrews 5:9, John 15: 13-14, 1 John 2:3-4) It is this parable though that he likens something serious to not following his commandments. Most scholars will agree that this parable is about obeying Jesus commandments or not obeying them. The disagreement usually comes on who this is too. I am going to set up my camp, in that this is directed to the true Israel. I believe that Jesus is writing here telling his listeners that houses that are built on something other then what is now being preached through him are destined to fall. These houses I liken to every aspect of true Israel's life. That means their individual lives, their nation, and even their temple. I believe that the first century Jew would of heard this parable and many of them would of began talking about the temple. I think this might be one of the first things that Jesus wanted them to think about. He very much likened the New temple to being built on solid rock when he was discussing this subject later on with his disciples.
First off on dealing with their lives. I believe that throughout the Sermon on the Mount we see clear instruction for the individual believer. It is now put upon the believer to believe and to repent. A believer that chooses to build his house upon the rock will survive the coming eschatological judgment. The question then becomes; what was Jesus saying? While we do not have the space to go into specifics here, we can take the jest. Jesus was out lining what the kingdom was going to look like. This is different then what they had heard before. It is not only the strong and rich that will survive, but the poor and weak are going to thrive in the Kingdom of God. They had been giving rules before, but in the new kingdom they were to be asked to take those rules even further. It was no longer murder if you killed someone, but also if you hated them. The kingdom was by no means easier, but it was expanded upon what the listener had previously known. The kingdom begin to put people above laws, and first and for most put the love of God above everything. As we saw constantly in Jesus ministry, people and love, came above any written law. When Jesus ask the believer to build on what he has said, I believe he also means what he will say. When we look at Jesus life, he lives out the sermon. He becomes a chining example of what it means to live in the Kingdom of God. “The message of Jesus thus becomes the occasion for making a choice between two kinds of life and between two kinds of houses that we can build and occupy. The two houses under discussion in these verses point to two ways of living, for in both the Scriptures and in psychoanalytical theory, the houses we dream about and construct are to be identified with ourselves.”2 The listener has a choice to make. There are only two options given and is these two options there is a right and a wrong. Unfortunately it does not appear that the one who builds his house on the sand gets a second chance after the storm comes. You also see that Jesus doesn't force the listener to choose one way or another, but just gives the reasons for. It is up to the listener to choose which foundation.
Not only does the parable include the individual, but it also includes the nation of Israel and the temple. I include them both here because I think they are very much intertwined. Before Jesus the nation of Israel consisted of the Jews. The temple was where God came down and interacted with the Jewish nation. Jesus came back and redefined what the nation of Israel was, and where the temple was located. The two most likely meanings of the word Israel is God struggles or God rules. Israel has been and still is attributed to the nation of Israel. When Jesus cam back though he redefined who the true Israel was. It was anybody who built their house on the rock. It was no longer just the Jewish race but all of God's believers. The true Israel has been commanded to live as members as the Kingdom of God. To do otherwise was to succumb the the future eschatological judgment. Jesus also moved the temple from a physical structure into the lives of the believers. The new church is not the true Israel. You find the temple now located among believers. He now comes in and dwells within the believer. God's house and temple now belongs in the heart of the believer. This, like mentioned, goes back to the individual. Make no mistake about it though, the church is more then an individual, it is made up of the community of believers.

Definition of a parable

Definition of a Parable
Parables are a widely used tool implemented by Jesus when it comes to teaching. “In light of the fact that Jesus put none of his teaching into writing but counted on the impressions they made upon the minds of those who heard them, his selection of parable form was a fortunate one.”1 He was not a wordy theologian that would spout out knowledge to impress people. Rather, he spoke pictorially in order to illustrate the point he was trying to get across. In the cathedral Constantine had built over Paul's burial ground, he had twenty six paintings or murals of his life painted up on the ceilings. This was so the illiterate could see what Paul's life was all about. Jesus was speaking to humans who have a hard time understanding heavenly things, and this may be a central reason that he speaks in pictorial language. Through the pictures that are formed in our head, we can begin to realize what Jesus was talking about. There is a problem here though. We are so far removed from Jesus, that we have a hard time understanding the pictures that Jesus uses. “Most of us, for example, are not familiar with the disastrous effect of putting new wine into old wine skins, or with the dangers of the Jericho road described in the parable of the good Samaritan, nor with the political and religious background to the story of the nobleman going to get a kingdom.”2
Being that Jesus' teachings were carried around as oral traditions, the form of a parable made it easier to remember and pass it along. I like the definition given by John Carter; “ A parable is an illustrative comparison, with or without narrative, used to teach or imply religious truth, in which something that is well known is placed beside something that one desires to make known or to clarify.”3 There are a couple of rules that Carter lays and they are as follows:
1.Be careful to understand the language of the parable it's self. Know its references to Palestinian life and customs.
2.Determine what subject it is intended to illustrate.
3.Then see how the parable illustrates that subject. Look at the parable as a whole.
4.Finally one might determine what extent separate details are significant.4
The parable itself has come under much scrutinizing because of the sometimes vague nature of them. They tend to leave a lot to be interpreted and have many scholars arguing over their intentional meaning. Many do not believe that they were originally intended to be so complex to the original audience, thought some were. The problem has come trying to be the original audience and figuring out what the meaning is. It is clear that he sometimes speaks on matters that are hard to understand but the effort of Christ to make them know is appreciated. Clement of Alexandria would agree. “Clement came under the influence of Gnosticism and this may be reflected in his understanding of Jesus; intention in speaking in parables. He speaks in mystery and the hidden wisdom of God-which is in Christ-which he makes known in parables.”5 The mystery of God, and even God himself, has always been hard to understand. So any attempt to interpret what Jesus is saying about Godly things will eventually come up short. That is why it is wise to simply shoot for the ballpark. Before this section on the definition of parable is finished, it must be made clear that it is possible to interpret what Jesus is saying, but one should not expect to understand all the complexities of God from the interpretations.
It is both a blessing and a curse that Jesus uses parables to get his point across. With them we form pictures in our heard and grasp a better understanding of what is being said. With them though, we are left a little short on trying to narrow down the meaning that they originally intended to the listener at the time. While we appreciate the pictorial imaging, we can not simply take the picture for what's there. We must dig back and find out, historically, what the picture is talking about and alluding too.

Exegisis of Matthew 7:24-27

Exegesis

Greek Definitions for key words:
1)Everyone:(pas) all, any, every, the whole1
2)hears:(akouo) to hear2
3)on them may be compared: (homoioo) to be made like, similar3
4)wise: (phronimos) thoughtful4
5)built: (oikodomeo) to be a house builder5
6)house: (oikia) residence, or abode6
7)on this rock: (petra) rock7
8)descended: (katabaino) to descend, come down8
9)blew: (pneo) to breathe9
10)fall: (pipto) to fall, fall down10
11)burst against (proskopto) to strike, surge against, beat upon, dash, stumble11

For the purpose of the exegesis, it will be mainly focused on Matthew 7:24-27. While it acknowledges the parallel in Luke 6:46-49, there is little difference to necessitate a exegesis, of this kind, to be carried out on both. The main point in which this paper will deal with is presented in both accounts of the parable. However, there are few textual differences. In Luke, he likens the wise man to someone who digs through the dirt. This is useful because he paints the picture of someone having to dig through all the false hood in the world to get down to the real foundation. Also in Luke, the foolish man is likened to someone who builds his house with no foundation as opposed to someone who builds his house on the sand.
“Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them...”12 Jesus, at the end of the sermon on the mount, proclaims this as his conclusion to one of the greatest teachings ever. Like so many of his other teachings, he uses a parable to teach a point and concludes with it here.( The defining of the parable will come later on.) First off we need to understand that according to the words he speaks here, there will be two kind of people in the great multitudes listening to him speak. There will be the ones who listen to God's words and act upon them, and ones who hear them and fail to act upon them. He likens the former “to a wise man who built his house upon the rock.”13 In Adam Clark's commentary he notes that “..true wisdom consists in getting the building of our salvation completed.”14 Jesus is stating that a wise man, as opposed to a fool, would listen to what he has to say and follow his words. He is not saying that one must be wise in order to listen and to put into action, but rather it would be wise to listen and put into action. In other words, it is a wise action to take but not a action that only a wise man would take. Wisdom from God is something that he does not keep for only the smart or the elite, but it something that he openly gives to all. It is interesting to note that in James 1:5, it is said that “... if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”15
The high level interpretation is that a rock is more stable then the sand. When the natural elements come after the house it will be able to stand because of the wise action taken by the wise man who built the house. The rock also signifies Jesus and his word. As it is stated in John chapter one, Jesus has always existed and he is the word. So for Jesus to put stock in his words, it is something that should be expected. He is more then someone who is speaking truth, he is something that is truth. He is not telling us about some wise saying that was once said by someone else, but he the wise one giving us the building blocks of life. This, I believe, is the reason for the listeners response after the parable is over. (Matthew 7:28-29) He taught differently than anyone they had ever listened to.
“Everyone who hears the words of mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand.” The contrast of the wise man is not a foreign contrast in the bible; with it occurring in, but definitely not limited to; Ecclesiastes 10:2, Proverbs 14:16, Ecclesiastes 10:12, Proverbs 10:14, and many more. The general consensus between the comparisons usually revolves around one that follows after God and listens to him, and one who does not. The fool here, according to Jesus, will see his house fall when natural elements come and beat upon the house. According to John Sailhamer, “Jesus calls for absolute trust in the heavenly Father and commitment to his Kingdom.”16 The comparison leaves the listener with something to think about. You are either going listen to his words, do something about it and survive Jesus' new kingdom, or you are not and are going to fail.
When Jesus says “...will be like...”17 he is stating that this is something that will happen in the future. This may represent an eschatological view point here. That in the future Jesus will liken the fool and the wise man to these builders. There is a coming judgment that will be placed on the entire earth. Since Jesus, in the future, is going to liken the fool and the wise man, this may be referring to the end Judgment. Jesus believed that the eschatological judgment was coming and it was coming soon. This belief was not something the he held secondary to other beliefs, but this was something that played a central role in Jesus' ministry. He came with the belief that he was preparing people for the judgment. Jesus was on a mission here on earth, and he wanted everyone to be ready. He was not someone who would simply be content preaching from one place; instead he went everywhere proclaiming his eschatological message.
To get his message across, Jesus would eat and drink with whom ever he came across. The message of the parable, if we are aligning with the rest of his ministry, did not care who the listener was, be it a Jew or Samaritan, rich or poor, male or female, young or old, sinner or religious. “He ate with 'sinners', and kept company with people normally on or beyond the borders of respectable society.”18 The new kingdom is inclusive of everyone on the condition though that they keep Jesus commandments. The parable sermon on the mount encourages people to go above and beyond what had been previously asked upon them. The kingdom was bigger and better then a people, a temple, or a nation.

Did the temple need to be destroyed in order for Jesus to be vindicated?

N.T. Wright claims that the temple along with Jesus actions in the temple and about the temple, have direct messianic implications. It here at the temple that he proceeded to proclaim his authority over the temple. With his over turning of the tables it was shown that Jesus was bigger then any temple. Also the fact that Jesus would forgive the sins of people, which was something that was supposed to be carried out at and through the temple, showed that Jesus was doing away with the old temple ideas. One of the things that Jesus did was say that temple was going to be destroyed. N.T. Wright claims that when the temple eventually was destroyed, it validated Jesus as messiah and something bigger then the temple it's self. I for one do not know if the temple being destroyed was needed to validate the fact that Jesus was messiah. In fact I think the temple could still be standing today and Jesus, still very much be validated as the messiah. We would simply say that the physical temple did not fall but the purpose of the temple did. Just like Jesus did not physically overthrow any kingdoms, it could have been said that he never meant the temple physically falling but rather he was speaking symbolicly about the destruction of the temple.

Internal and external evidence for the Authorship of John

1.Describe some of the seven.
The internal evidence revolves around the beloved disciple. The context in which the term “beloved disciple” is used, leave mainly one disciple as the option, which is John. It does however not rule out the presence of someone else at the event that was not a part of the original twelve. The external evidence is reliant on many of the early church fathers and other authors who assume it was John that wrote the Gospel. Through tradition is appeared that it was passed down that he was the author and was to many of the fathers, fact. Others used logic to deduce that John was the author, going from the author was a jew, to eyewitness, to apostle, and concluding at because of those and a couple of others the author has to be John. Also similarities between the Gospel of John and the Revelation( which is also attributed to John), point to John being the Author.
2.Why seven signs?
One of John's main target audiences was the Jews. In the Jewish culture there was a big emphasis on the number seven. John chooses these seven miracles so that his reader may believe. It is clear that a Jewish reader would understand that John was signify the completeness of the ministry of Jesus through these seven signs. Seven being the number that represented complete or perfect not lacking anything. To John, a Jew himself, it isn't that he is lacking in of the other miracles it is that he has the perfect amount. The signs wee re meant to point from a non-perfect world to a perfect heaven. The point isn't to astound the reader with something that outside of the realm of humanity but to show the reader something that occurs in the reality of God. The seven signs also occur in the first half of the book, with maybe the intent of John being, to establish Christ as the perfect servant of God, before the story of the cross is even told. All seven signs point to the crucifixion, especially the last one being Lazarus being raised from the dead.

Why did Jesus include Judgment and vindication stories?

Jesus came as an eschatological prophet. As such, and like many before him, he came bearing bad news. Because of the great inflection that the present kingdom had on the Kingdom that God wanted to set up, it was going to fall. Even before Jesus' coming there were prophets telling the Israelites that because they were living contrary to the way God had intended them to live, that their kingdom would fall. Jesus also tells them that if they follow him and repent from their ways, that they will escape or be delivered from the coming Judgment. The Judgment would take place, politically, socially, and even through nature. This was not anything radical because any of the above had already taken place previously. The radical part was this time, instead of in the past with other prophets, Jesus was not only the one voicing the problem, but he was also the solution. If you wanted to escape the Judgment, then you would follow the prophet. If you didn't you would surely crumble as well. This was also a testament to Jesus believing that he was in fact the messiah.

Why was the kingdom announcement so important to the Jewish culture?

1)Why was the kingdom announcement so important to the Jewish culture?
From the time of Abraham, the Jewish culture was waiting for the time when God would take his rightful place as ruler of the earth. They believed that God was going to overthrow the kingdoms of earth and set up a new kingdom, in which the Jews believe they would thrive. Many believed it would happen right in their back yard. Their promise land. So they waited generation after generation, for God to step down out of heaven and set up his earthly kingdom. To this day, those who practice Judaism, are still waiting for God to set up his kingdom. So for any Jew to believe that someone was the messiah they would need to set up this kingdom. Jesus drove the home the fact that he was coming to set up a kingdom and wasn't goint to happen or it hadn't happened but was happening. To Jesus the kingdom was just as important. It is the very thing that God has been trying to do since the beginning. He started with the Israelites and through Jesus made it a global effort. The kingdom was never about setting up a government, as seen when God hesitated providing a king. It was about a way of life. To the Jews that believed Jesus this was paramount. They understood that any kingdom set up by God would be more then just here on earth. A God kingdom would be straight from heaven. The announcement that Jesus brought signified what was promised to them through Abraham, and it meant to the Jew that God was still keeping his promise.
2)What was Jesus Kingdom's purpose?
Jesus was calling out a renewed people. He wanted the followers to become 'kingdom people.” The true followers of Jesus' kingdom would be the true redeemed people of God. This is very important to point out because it moves past the call of the Israelites to a worldly call. His call to repent and believe was more then a call to give up their sin, but a call to give up their agenda. It was a call to give up what they felt the kingdom was going to be. A call to give up the idea that God was taking the world back by sword and fist and take on Jesus call to take the world back by love and service. Jesus told many parables to back up this kingdom thinking. The parable of the prodigal son is one that is to be talking directly about the new kingdom coming. The way the Jewish man thought the prodigal son should be treated was different then the Jesus kingdom way of thinking would handle it. The other brother in the story represents what the typical Jewish mindset was in regards to the kingdom. The dad represented how the Kingdom of God really was.