it is stated by Peter in Acts 11:15, etc., 15:9, And He put no

difference between them, the Gentiles, and us'.

We have compared Acts 28:28 with Acts 13:46,47, and we find in Acts 28,

`The salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles', and in Acts 13, `Lo, we turn

to the Gentiles'.  If our brother's intention is to suggest that both

passages teach the same thing, a reference to Acts 14:1 will show that the

apostles themselves had no such thought.  Paul did not set aside the Jew in

Acts 13; he merely set aside that one synagogue.  As far on as Acts 17:1,2 we

read that, `as his manner was', he went to the synagogue of the Jews.  It is

strange that we may even compare Scripture with Scripture, and yet miss the

meaning of the comparison.

Acts 13 and Acts 28 answer to one another as type does to antitype or

prophecy to fulfilment.  In Acts 13 Paul brings about the blindness of one

Jew (verse 11); in Acts 28 he pronounces the same doom on the nation.  In

Acts 13 one Gentile and his house are saved, as a consequence of the judgment

upon the Jew, and both the saved Gentile and the apostle are of the same

name, Paulus.  In Acts 28, consequent upon the judgment of the Jews, the

salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles.  In Acts 13 Paul says, `Beware lest

that come upon you' (verse 40); in Acts 28 we see the threatened judgment

fall.  How could the apostle say that he was bound for the hope of Israel in

Acts 28, if he had set aside Israel in Acts 13?

Acts 18:6 is said to be `absolutely identical' with Acts 28.  The term

`absolutely' is not to be taken seriously.  We find, however, that Paul took

the earliest opportunity of `entering a synagogue and reasoning with the

Jews' (Acts 17:17; 18:19), which shows that he at least had no idea that his

words in 18:6 were `identical' with those of Acts 28:28.  Still further, he

was anxious to keep the feast that was due at Jerusalem (18:21), and spoke

boldly in the synagogue

at Ephesus (Acts 19:8).  Paul had no scruples against associating himself in

the temple at Jerusalem with men who had a vow, and there is no suggestion

that he was wrong in so doing.  So that we cannot accept the statement of

`identity' in these two passages, much less that of `absolute identity'.

Exception is taken to our statement that at Acts 28 an equality never

known before is introduced; and we are told that this same equality is stated

in Acts 11:15.  We must remember that Peter called himself a Jew under law,

and did not hesitate to tell Cornelius that but for the vision of the sheet

he would have regarded him as `common and unclean' (Acts 10:28).  His words

in 11:15 refer to the fact that the Spirit came upon Cornelius as it did at

Pentecost upon the Jewish believers.  We have never taught that the

`equality' of Ephesians had anything to do with Pentecost or Pentecostal

gifts.  And we cannot see how the equality of the Gentile by Pentecostal

baptism can be the same thing as equality of membership in a unity then

unknown and unrevealed.  That no such conception was in the mind of Peter and

those with him is evident from Acts 11:19 where the Word was still preached

to `Jews only'.

Moreover, the question comes up again in Acts 15, the result being that

a distinct difference is perpetuated between the Gentiles who believed and

the believers of the circumcision (Acts 15:19 -21).  This difference

constituted a `middle wall of partition' (Eph. 2:14), the `ordinances' of

Ephesians 2:15 being the `decrees' of Acts 16:4.