APOLOGIZE OR NOT APOLOGIZE, THAT'S THE PROBLEM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Also note that Jesus left the house in Matthew 13:1 and went by the sea, to speak in parables. After speaking to them, 13:36 says He left the crowds and went back into the house. No footnote. I guess the house subsequently lost typological significance. In defense of the Recovery footnotes, the charge to go to the house of Israel and not the Gentiles is in chapter 10. The "leaving the house" is in chapter 13. I suppose there's a sort of chronological narrative, here.
|
After aron pointed out my mistake I promptly apologized. Now I would like to consider what happened in chapter 15. But before we do that let's recap.
1. The Lord Jesus charged the disciples to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. “Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans:
Mat 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
2. In chapter 13 Jesus went out of the house, “ Mat 13:1 On that day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.” Let me quote again the footnote on this verse,
Footnote 13:1.1 "At the end of ch. 12 the heavenly King, having been fully rejected by the leaders of the Jewish religion, made a break with them. On that day He went out of the house and sat beside the sea. This is very significant. The house signifies the house of Israel (10:6), and the sea signifies the Gentile world (Dan. 7:3, 17; Rev. 17:15). The King's going out of the house to sit beside the sea signifies that after His break with the Jews, He forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. It was after this, while on the seashore, that He gave the parables concerning the mysteries of the kingdom. This signifies that the mysteries of the kingdom were revealed in the church. Hence, all the parables in this chapter were spoken to His disciples, not to the Jews."
Here W. Lee is saying that The King left the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. So we cannot claim Mat. 10:5-6 to disprove the allegorical interpretation of 13:1.
Now, let's suppose for a moment, an instant, a fraction of a second, that this interpretation is sound, we find 2 chapters later this words spoken by the Lord, confirming what He said in chapter 10, “Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The footnote on this verse is interesting.
24.1*“The Lord was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. However, at this time He came to a Gentile region, thus affording the Gentiles an opportunity to participate in His grace. This bears dispensational significance, showing that Christ came to the Jews first and that because of their unbelief, His salvation turned to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; Rom. 11:11).”
Finally, we have some verses! But what has Acts 13:46 to do with the Lord turning to the Gentile, in the Gospel of Matthew? (By the way I have proved that Paul, after he spoke those word, few verses later went (again!) into the synagogue of the Jews . Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium that they entered together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake that a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks believed.”)
I have come to the conclusion that W. Lee's footnotes on this subject contradict each other.
Is it so?
_______________________
Notes:
the verses are from the KJV