A serious and reverent examination of the teaching that Acts 28:28 is

the Dispensational Boundary, has included in its objections two terms, used

in Acts 28:30 and 31, which it is incumbent upon us to examine.

`The direct evidence of Scripture indicates that Paul was neither in

prison nor in bonds during the time covered by Acts 28:30,31'.

`The first objection is based upon the words "his own hired house", the

second on the words, "no man forbidding him"`.

There is `direct evidence' that Paul was a prisoner when he reached

Rome.  `I was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans

... I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar ... for the hope of Israel I am

bound with this chain' (Acts 28:17 -20).  While Paul was in this condition,

he received a deputation of Jews to his `lodging'.

What difference we may well ask is there between a `lodging' and `an

hired house'?  Is it outside the realm of possibility that Acts 28:23 and 30

are two ways of speaking of the same place?

How is it possible to argue that Paul could be a prisoner and bound

with a chain in his `lodging', but that he must, of necessity be conceived of

as being free, if he receives visitors in his own `hired house'?  The lodging

xenia, means a place for the accommodation of strangers, and xenizo is used

in Acts 28:7 where we read that Paul was `lodged' for three days courteously.

If an `hired house' makes prison impossible then most certainly Paul was

never a prisoner in Rome at all!  But if a Roman prisoner could have a

`lodging' then he could also have an `hired house', the two passages stand or

fall together.  It will be observed in Acts 28:16 that:

`Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him',

`which' Lewin comments `indicates a private residence; and accordingly after

this, mention is made of the xenia (verse 23), and again of idion misthoma,

which express only what had before been less precisely expressed'.  Further

there is no `house' mentioned, but merely a suite of apartments, see Wetstein

on Acts 28:30.  It will be seen that the attempt to `prove' from the words,

`in his own hired house' that Paul was no longer a prisoner is invalid; it

proves too much, for it would exclude the `lodging' and the dwelling by

himself (Acts 28:16,23) as well.

The second ground of objection is the word translated `no man

forbidding him', the Greek akolutos.  It is amazing that a writer, who in the

examination of the Greek terms used, shows much acumen and industry, should

have passed over the way in which this term `unhindered' is used.

The following extract from Acts 28, Dispensational Boundary1, will show

that `unhindered' has no bearing upon whether Paul was or was not a prisoner

at the time, but that it indicates that with the dismissal of Israel, the

hindrance offered by that people to the preaching to the Gentiles had ceased.

`Acts 28 ends with the apostle dwelling for two years in his own hired

house preaching and teaching, "no man forbidding him"`.