The reader who has used Parts 1 and 2 of this Alphabetical Analysis,

needs no introduction here as to its theme, or the method adopted, but it may

be an opportunity to put on permanent record how this aspect of truth came

The insistence of Dr. E. W. Bullinger upon the need `Rightly to divide

the Word of truth' and to `Try the things that differ' especially with regard

to the several callings made known in the Scriptures, prepared our minds to

consider Acts 28 as a `Dispensational Frontier'.  Perhaps the present

writer's contribution to the opening up of the Scriptures, dispensationally,

could be expressed as follows.  While other students of the Word saw that the

rejection of Israel at Acts 28 was a crisis, few if any looked upon it as of

vital importance.  They seem to have come up to the closing chapter of the

Acts, and then turned back to epistles like 1 Corinthians as the basis of

their assembly and their hope, whereas, when we came to Acts 28 and realized

that it was a frontier and that another sphere of blessing lay beyond, we

simply said:

`let  us  cross  over,  and  see  this  good  land'.

This we did and were delighted to realize that here was a sphere of

blessing unrelated to Israel's New Covenant,or to the promises made unto the

`Fathers'.  Here was a purpose that went back to `before the foundation of

the world' for its inception, that went `far above all' for its seat of

blessing and citizenship, but when we brought back our bunch of the `grapes

of Eshcol' the treatment meted out to us by Christian brethren approximated

to that which was received by Caleb and Joshua when they too re-crossed the

frontier in days gone by.

The following extract from the writings of B. W. Newton and others will

show that he and they saw that Acts 28 was a dispensational frontier, but

alas, both he and his followers and other leaders turned back to Matthew 24

and to 1 Thessalonians 4 for their hope, in spite of the fact that `the hope

of Israel' was suspended when Israel became `Lo -ammi' `Not My People'.  We

quote from `Watching and Waiting' of March - April 1953:

in

I observed also, that the history of Israel during the time of their

punishment and subjection to the Gentiles is distributed into three distinct

divisions: the first extending from Nebuchadnezzar to their dispersion by

Romans, the second being the present period of their dispersion, the third,

the yet future period of their national re -establishment in unbelief; so,

the prophetic visions of Daniel are to be divided into three parts,

corresponding to these three periods.  But I observed this likewise, that

when the first of these periods terminated, historic detail terminated.  As

soon as the dispersion of Israel was effected and they ceased to have a

recognized national existence in their land, there is a pause in the historic

detail of Daniel; no person, no place, no date is mentioned during the

present period of dispersion.  But when the third period of their unbelieving

history commences, when they again have returned in unbelief to their own

land, then the historic detail of Daniel re -commences, and is given even

with greater emphasis than before.  So entirely is Gentile history made in

the Scripture to revolve around Jerusalem as its centre.  Whilst Jerusalem

nationally exists, the history of the nations that are brought into