unbiased reader will be most ready to acknowledge that closer acquaintance

with Acts 28 does give `a clear indication' of a dispensational crisis, a

dispensational `secret', a dispensational hope.

After a consideration of the question of Acts 28 as a dispensational

boundary, our brother continues:

`One other prima facie difficulty in accepting it is this.  St. Luke

was the intimate friend and companion of St. Paul: he must have known

of this great Dispensational Church.  Surely he might have put in a

clear warning as he describes the growth of the Church in Acts, that

this was not "the Church" of the epistle to the Ephesians.  Surely also

St. Matthew might have quoted in 16:18 that Christ is not referring to

the Church according to Paul, but to the Church according to Peter, and

surely he should have told us whether our Lord's words in 18:17 (words

that I think have been sadly neglected in our Church life) refer to the

Pentecostal or to the Dispensational Church'.

`B' has used the word `surely' three times.  This, of course, merely

expresses opinion, and is entirely outside the realm of valid argument.  The

above criticism can be reduced to the three following statements:

Luke must have known of the dispensational change which we see in

Acts 28, because he was an intimate friend of Paul.

He ought therefore to have warned the Church in the Acts period

of its dispensational position.

Matthew also should have told us, when he was writing 16:18,

whether this Church refers to Paul or to Peter, and whether the

words of 18:17 refer to a Pentecostal Church or the Church of the

We must not forget that Luke's confessed object in writing the Acts was

to continue the treatise begun in the Gospel of all that Jesus began to do

and teach, by a supplemental account of what the risen Lord did and taught

through His apostles.  When Paul was commissioned on the road to Damascus,

Luke knew that Paul was a chosen vessel to bear the name of the Lord `before

the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel', and he plainly states

it.  What he did not know (or if he knew was not permitted to record) was

that at the same time that Paul received this commission, the Lord promised

that He would appear to him once more, and give him a second commission.

This is made known to us for the first time in Acts 26:16 -18, when Paul's

evangelizing is at an end, and the prison is his sphere.  We must go into the

question of Paul's twofold ministry later.  But we have seen enough to

realize that Luke does indicate the coming change, although he is held back

until near the end of the narrative before making it known.  The reason for

this is obvious; and finds a parallel in the Lord's own attitude.  In Acts

1:6 the disciples asked:

`Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel?'

Had the Lord told them that in spite of Pentecost, Israel would still

continue in their state of unrepentance until they had filled up the measure

of their iniquity and had been set aside, such knowledge would have paralysed

their witness, and might have been taken by Israel as an excuse for failure

to repent.  Had Peter known that Israel would not repent, he could not