truthfully have quoted from Joel as he did in Acts 2:17 -21; for there is an

interval of 1,900 years between verses 18 and 19, but this was not known to

Peter at the time.  The Lord simply deals with the question of time, and

follows with the injunction: `But ye shall receive power ... ye shall be

witnesses' (Acts 1:8).  Had Luke made known in the early Acts that Israel

were to pass into their lo -ammi condition in about forty years, then,

humanly speaking, there would have been no `Acts' to record.  Paul

unhesitatingly links himself with the `hope' of the church at that time,

saying: `WE which are alive and remain' (1 Thess. 4:17).  There are some who

consider that Paul was deceiving the Church here, by saying, `we'.  There are

others who think he deceived himself.  We are in the happy position of

accepting his words as perfectly true, for at the time of writing 1

Thessalonians no revelation had been given concerning the secret

If what we have said above is true, there is no need to answer the

second item of the criticism.  We pass on therefore to the third.

Here we must confess that we are somewhat at a loss

to understand the objection.  We have always felt that Matthew did make plain

that Peter was addressed (`Simon Bar -jona') both in connection with the

Church then in view and with reference to the keys of `the Kingdom of Heaven'

(Matt. 16:16 -19).  Matthew could hardly be expected to say anything about

Paul who was at that time an unconverted Pharisee.  That Peter and Paul had

distinctive ministries is made clear in Galatians 2:6 -10.

While we might agree with our brother that the principle of Matthew

18:17 could be profitably employed today, we cannot see the slightest ground

for supposing that our Lord referred to a Church other than the Pentecostal

Church.  The rejected brother was to be regarded as `a heathen man', or as `a

Gentile' (see Gal. 2:14), which is added testimony to the Jewish constitution

of this Church spoken of in Matthew 18.  Once again we have `searched to see'

and we find nothing in the objections that is valid, or that in any sense

modifies our belief that the present dispensation was a `secret', unknown to

Luke or to Peter, or even to Paul himself until he became the prisoner of

Jesus Christ.  The very silence of all three on the matter is but added proof

of the rightness of our position which is implied in the next objection:

`What are we to make of that inspired word "Till He come", written to

the Corinthians, a Church of mixed Jews and Greeks till our Lord's

Second Coming: to whom do these words refer?'

We are to make no more or less of the words `Till He come' than the

hope revealed in the Acts and epistles of that period will allow.  If we

discover that the hope before the Church at that period is called `the hope

of Israel', and if we further discover that Israel were set aside, and still

further, if the new dispensation that came in consequent upon that setting

aside, speaks of the `one hope' of this calling, and uses a new set of terms

to speak of it, we shall have to conclude that `Till He come', and any

commandant connected with it, was binding until a change of dispensation came

in, just as the law of Moses carries statements to the effect that certain

ceremonies like Passover, etc., `were statutes for ever'.  The same reason

with our brother would rightly give, namely, a change of dispensation, to

exempt himself from any necessity to abide by these commands of the law, it

is the selfsame reason that we give for our exemption from anything that

belonged to the Pentecostal dispensation.