Ultra Dispensationalism A criticism examined. The place of Acts 28

 By Charles H Welch

The intelligent reader will not need informing that a movement which stands for such a provoking course of teaching as does this Analysis must always be under the fire of criticism. How can the charge ‘ultra dispensationalism’ be dealt with? Is any useful purpose served by dealing with the false charge that we have ‘no use’ for the epistle to the Romans? (See book Just and the Justifier). Yet if any criticism sends us back to ‘The Book’ we are thankful. What we are still awaiting is a Scriptural exposure of our attitude to Acts 28, which will take full account of all that is implied in Hosea 1:9 and chapter 3 of this prophecy.

Recently some notes written in a good spirit have been passed on to us, and as some readers may be desirous of having the points raised dealt with, we will endeavour to do so here, praying that the cause of truth will be furthered thereby. We will refer to the writer who has criticized our position as ‘B’. He writes:

 It is often said that Luther discovered the great doctrine of justification by faith, but what is nearer the truth is what Luther brought forward gave that doctrine prominence. The need of the time called forth, under God, the man, and the Reformation followed.

 We have certainly made Acts 28 the keynote of our ministry, seeing in it a dispensational boundary that influences the whole course of the outworking of the revealed purpose of the ages, and bringing into the light that position which had hitherto been hid in God.

 While others have seen that Acts 28 is a dispensational frontier none seem to have had the grace to cross that frontier and see what good land might be found beyond. When our eyes were opened to its significance our response was ‘Let us cross over and see what the Lord has prepared for those who trust Him’ and when we returned with our bunch of ‘The Grapes of Eshcol’ our treatment was in much the same spirit as the treatment of Caleb and Joshua was at the hands of Israel.

 The following extracts from the writings of B. W. Newton and others are commended to the conscience of the reader.

 B. W. Newton gives a clear and uncompromising testimony to the failure of the Preterite system of Prophecy, in which so much that is really future is interpreted of the past, and with this, we are in complete agreement, but his conviction now to be cited, that there is a threefold division of time in Israel’s history, pointed so clearly to the present dispensation of the Mystery, that one is still left amazed and distressed that eyes so touched by the spirit of grace should not have seen the open door, and have entered into all the blessings that are revealed in the great Epistle of the Mystery, Ephesians. We quote from his writings:

 Three periods in Israel’s History

  Look at the words ‘no person, no place, no date is mentioned during the present period of dispersion’. These words cry aloud that Dispensational Truth demands during the period of Israel’s blindness which commenced at Acts 28:23 -31, that no Old Testament Prophecy is being fulfilled. Matthew 24 also must belong, not to the present calling of the Mystery, but to the ‘third period’ when the ‘historic detail of Daniel recommences’; that a new revelation, with a new sphere, constitution and hope must be given by God if any Gentile is to be saved and blessed during the setting aside of the hitherto exclusive channel of blessing -- Israel. Accepting B. W. Newton’s view and taking it to its logical conclusion, we have the following threefold division of Israel’s history:  

 To the making known of the unique calling of this ‘Second Division’ wherein Israel is ‘dispersed’ the writer has devoted the bulk of his life and energies, yet those who advocate the teaching of B. W. Newton as set out in the above quotation, can, at the selfsame time, see nothing incongruous in seeing in Matthew 24 with its incisive reference to Daniel 9, characteristics of the hope of the church today. Is it too much to believe that a few, after pondering these things may be led, Berean like, to ‘search and see’?

 The May issue for 1952, Questions and Answers, edited by the late Dr.Harold P. Morgan, Riverton, New Jersey, U.S.A. opens with the following headline:  

 Quotations are made in answer to this question from two teachers among the early Brethren, namely C. H. Macintosh, and Richard Holden. 

 How strange to find C.H.M. and C.H.W. saying the same things, yet how strange to note the way in which ‘The Brethren’ have honoured the one, and repudiated the other! In 1870 Richard Holden wrote a work entitled:  

‘The Mystery, The Special Mission of the Apostle Paul, The Key to the Present Dispensation’. 

  It seems almost unbelievable that a movement that could produce such a testimony, could nevertheless, perpetuate that ‘inexpressible jumble’ namely of confusing the New Covenant or Testament, made only ‘with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah’ (Jer. 31:31), and make it the very centre of that worship and assembly, thereby ‘confounding Judaism’ with the truth of the Church of the Mystery, the present dispensation and calling, in which no covenant new or old finds a place, but a choice and a promise made ‘before the foundation of the world’.

 The Lord, however, Who knows the hearts of all men, will not allow any of His servants an exclusive claim in knowledge, lest pride and boasting spoil the testimony. We gratefully acknowledge the pioneer work done by others before us, who in their turn were quickened and directed by other witnesses. In the end, we all shall appear in a twofold capacity, viz., sowers and reapers -- sowers of seed garnered from the harvest prepared before by others. 

This matter, however, is scarcely a point in the criticism, although in a part, which we do not quote, there is the thought that the exposition of the Scriptures along the lines of this Analysis is somewhat of a presumption, seeing that for nineteen centuries the church as a whole has taught on other lines! There is, however, but one test for all truth -- not its antiquity, nor its popularity, but whether it is in harmony with all that God has written. And this we claim for dispensational truth. We can well imagine that ‘B’ will interject here: ‘But surely you will give me credit for believing all that God has written too?’ Our answer must be qualified. Yes, in all sincerity you believe that you do accept without alteration all that God has written, but unless you divide rightly the Word of truth, you will discover this to be impossible. Let an example suffice. 

We believe that in promising, in the Sermon on the Mount, that ‘The meek shall inherit the earth’, the Lord meant what He said. We also believe that Abraham -- and those blessed with faithful Abraham -- will be blessed in the heavenly Jerusalem. We believe, further, that the church of the Mystery will be blessed ‘in heavenly places far above all’. 

If ‘B’ believes that the church in the Gospel according to Matthew is not to be distinguished from the church in Ephesians (and he has practically said so, as will appear), then he cannot, even though he would, accept each of these three distinct spheres of blessing as written. We, on our part, would say, that realizing there are three spheres of blessing (1) The earth, (2) The heavenly Jerusalem, and (3) Heavenly places far above all, we leave each company where God has placed them without confusion and without alteration. 

The chief item, however, in this criticism is found in the statement that the word ‘dispensation’ is not used in Acts 28, and that neither is there any clear indication of this most important fact.

 First of all we acknowledge that the word is not found in Acts 28, but we certainly believe that there is a ‘clear indication’ that a dispensational change had come, and this from two sources, viz. (1) the last chapter of Acts itself, and (2) from the epistles written during the two years of imprisonment with which Acts closes. 

A dispensation is marked by certain characteristics, and if these be set aside, we have negative evidence of a change. If, further, this be supplemented by positive testimony, as we find in Ephesians 3 and Colossians 1, then we have all that can be reasonably asked for. 

We open the last chapter of Acts, and observe that the miraculous gifts of Mark 16 are still in force. We are certain that ‘B’ is no quibbler, and the fact that after Paul in Acts 28:3 -6 fulfilled the reference to ‘taking up serpents’, he did not supplement it by drinking something ‘poisonous’, will not be used by him to invalidate our claim that Mark 16:17 -20 was in force. The deadly disease of dysentery was healed by Paul, and then other diseased persons in the island were healed in the same way. Here, then, is one feature, characteristic of the Pentecostal dispensation. We believe the ‘shall follow’ of Mark 16:17 to be as true as the ‘shall be saved’ of Mark 16:16. We have never had ‘these signs’ following, yet we are not perturbed. 

On the other hand, he who claims the Gospel of Mark as true for himself, has no evidence of salvation unless he has these specified Pentecostal gifts. 

The next dispensational feature is found in the fact that while Paul had expressed his longing to see the believers of the church at Rome, there is no record in the Acts that he visited them; on the contrary, the close of the Acts gives prominence to his calling together the chief of the Jews. 

‘The Jew first’, means just what it says -- ‘First in time, and first in all things’. To limit the word ‘first’ to time, and deny any reason or meaning to it, is to allow little credit to the apostle’s perspicacity, quite apart from the question of inspiration. We can, however, best consider this feature later. 

A third feature of dispensational importance is his saying in Acts 28:20:  

 The hope of Israel is expressed in Acts 1:6, it is repeated in Acts 26:6,7, and it is still prominent in Acts 28. Can this hope of Israel, the fulfilment of the promises made unto the fathers, the fulfilment of Isaiah 11 (see Rom. 15:12,13), can it be at the same time the hope of the church called under new terms, into a new sphere, and entirely dissociated from the ‘covenants’, ‘the commonwealth of Israel’, the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? When the apostle met the chief of the Jews, he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning ‘Jesus’, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the Prophets, from morning till evening, but after the setting aside of Israel, he preached the kingdom of God, but taught those things which concern ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ (not ‘Jesus’ now), with all confidence, no man forbidding him; no longer ‘expounding’ and no longer drawing from Moses and the Prophets, for the simple reason that the ‘secret’ was never disclosed in Moses or the Prophets, but had been ‘revealed’ to him as the prisoner of Jesus Christ. (See Eph. 3:1 -13).

 Moreover, the quotation of Isaiah 6:9,10 affected Israel of the dispersion in the same way as the quotation of the same passage in Matthew 13 affected Israel in the land. Matthew 11 and 12 reveal the rejection of Christ and the failure of Israel to repent, even though they had seen so many miracles. This first rejection is followed by ‘mystery’, the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. In Acts 28 Israel again reject their Messiah, and the rejection this time being complete, miraculous gifts cease, the hope of Israel is deferred, and for the first time since the call of Abraham in Genesis 12 the salvation of God is ‘sent’ to the Gentiles independently of Israel, a feature unique in the testimony of Scripture, and not appreciated as it should be. We submit that there are abundant signs of a change of dispensation consequent upon Israel entering into their ‘lo - ammi’ state. 

 Here we must pause. Further items of importance come before us in our next criticism. We believe that no one can ponder the teaching of the Word as written in Acts 28, Ephesians 3 and Colossians 1, without realizing that a great and drastic dispensational change took place. We believe that the 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:  

 ‘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:  

 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:  

 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 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 administration. 

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:  

 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.

Two passages of Scripture suffice to indicate the hope that was before the Corinthian Church, and all the churches of that period. One is in the Acts itself, and one is in the epistle to the Romans. The Acts of the Apostles gives clear testimony that but one hope runs throughout the period covered, namely, ‘the hope of Israel’. The apostles’ question in Acts 1:6 arising, let it be noted, out of our Lord’s opening up of the Old Testament Scriptures and their enlightened understanding, makes that clear at the beginning. Paul’s reference in Acts 26:6,7 to ‘the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers’ is equally clear, while his statement in Acts 28:20, that he was bound ‘for the hope of Israel’ needs no explanation. This is most certainly the one hope of the Acts. 

What of the epistles of that period? We propose taking the testimony of Romans for two reasons:  

 In Romans 15:8 we learn that the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus was limited to ‘the circumcision’, and that He came to ‘confirm the promises made unto the fathers’, while in Romans 15:12,13 the hope is that: ‘ 

 Our brother will not need proof that ‘trust’ (elpizo) and ‘hope’ (elpis) must both be translated ‘hope’, as we have done, or that the article before elpis marks it out as ‘that’ hope which is in view. The hope, at that time, before the Church was associated with the reign of Christ over the Gentiles, the passage quoted being from Isaiah 11, where the reference to the lion and the lamb makes it clear that the Millennium is the subject. The hope before the Church during the Acts was the Second Coming of Christ in connection with the thousand year reign -- Israel’s great day. This hope is entirely foreign to the Mystery which looks ‘far above all’ for the realization of its hope and is in no way related to Jerusalem, earthly or heavenly. The hope that is expressed in 1 Thessalonians 4 must never be read without the consciousness that 2 Thessalonians 2 with its reference to the ‘Man of Sin’, was written to correct false ideas about the time of the Second Coming. If 1 Thessalonians 4 is my hope, then 2 Thessalonians reveals that it will not be realized until the Day of the Lord. Moreover, the reference to the archangel links 1 Thessalonians 4 with Daniel’s prophecy and with the hope of Israel (Daniel 10 and 12). The words used throughout Acts and its epistles, together with the epistles of Peter and James, are parousia, apokalupto and apokalupsis. These are not used by Paul when speaking of the blessed hope of the Mystery. The one hope of the calling of the dispensation of the Mystery has nothing to do with ‘reigning’ over the Gentiles, or the state of peace in God’s ‘holy mountain’. It belongs to heavenly places and the right hand of God, and refers to a phase of the Lord’s coming unknown and unrevealed before Acts 28. 

In answer to the question therefore, ‘To whom do the words "Till He come" refer?’ we say, that they referred to the Church of Jew and Gentile that had been called into being during the Acts while the longsuffering of God waited on Israel’s repentance: that they who thus waited were marked off from the present time by the possession of miraculous gifts, which, together with Israel and its hope, have been set aside until the Church of the One Body is complete. Continuing the criticism which we have partly examined, ‘B’ passes from the question of the dispensational boundary of Acts 28 to the equally important question of the written testimony concerning this new dispensation:  

 B’ makes it clear in the above criticism that he is not very well acquainted with what we actually teach. He seems to think that we have confined ourselves to but ‘four’ epistles, and that it is an act inconsistent with our position to refer, for example, to Romans. The opening paragraph of our studies in Romans runs like this:  

 Romans is ‘undoubtedly authoritative’ where doctrine is concerned, but where we see a difference between Romans and the epistles of the Mystery is in their dispensational teaching. Both Romans and Ephesians teach the same truth concerning sin, salvation, redemption and life, but they are diametrically opposed when it is a question of the constitution of the Church. This aspect of truth will come before us again, as ‘B’ has raised the question of the meaning of the phrase ‘the Jew first’; so we pass on to the matter of the four Prison Epistles. To be exact there are five epistles marked as from ‘prison’, but as Philemon is so personal, we usually leave it out when speaking of the revelation of the Mystery. 

The four Prison Epistles are the only source of instruction we have on the distinctive character of the Church of the Mystery. No other company was chosen before the foundation of the world. No other company is seated together at the right hand of God. So while we believe all Scripture is for us, we do not believe that all of it is about us. We recognize that in the epistle to the Romans there is that which is permanent, e.g., the doctrine of redemption, and also that which is passing, e.g., the teaching concerning the wild olive graft. We believe that unless the Church of the Mystery had had beneath it the solid rock of Romans, it would have needed a special revelation concerning these basic things. These things are accepted and assumed in Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians and the time is occupied in making all men see what is the dispensation of the Mystery (Eph. 3:9 R.V.), with its own peculiar constitution, hope and sphere:  

 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. 

The equality of Ephesians 2 is that ‘the both are created one new man’, but one looks in vain for such a creation in Acts 11 or 15. The equality of Ephesians 3:6 is unique. Never before was there a unity which, while containing Jewish and Gentile believers, could be described as sussoma, a ‘joint -body’. 

We are afraid that ‘B’ will have to revise his statements, both as to the absolute identity of Acts 18:6 with Acts 28:28, and as to the connection between Peter’s reference to Pentecostal baptism and Paul’s revelation of the newly-created new man. If these things can be called identical, it is vain to ‘try the things that differ’. Positive teaching, under these conditions, would be impossible, for no weight could be given to any word of Scripture, and truth would sink under a mass of generalities. 

Passing from the distinctive epistles of the Mystery, and the peculiar features of the new dispensation, we come to the question of the relative place of Jew and Gentile before Acts 28:  

 Even if we agree that ‘first in order’ is what the apostle means when, in Romans 1:16 he says ‘To the Jew first’, the question as to why this should be stated still requires an answer. If we were to write, ‘The power of God unto salvation, to the Corinthians first, and also to the Chinese’, our readers would naturally want to know why such a statement was written. It certainly would not satisfy them to say, ‘Well, wasn’t that the historical order?’ Further, does Romans 2:9,10 mean that the Jew will be judged ‘first’ in time? Are we to understand that in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ (Rom. 2:16), the Jew will be judged some time before the Gentile? To take another passage, is there no special significance, beyond that of mere historic sequence, behind Peter’s words when he said:  

 If we read the previous verse, we shall see that there was a definite reason for this priority:  

 The fact that the Saviour came to the Jew first (Rom. 15:8), and the fact that the gospel was preached to the Jew first, was because Israel was the appointed channel of blessing to the nations of the earth. A saved Israel is necessary for the functioning of the promise made to Abraham. A saved remnant of Israel enabled the fulfilment of the promise to commence, but with the setting aside of the channel, the blessing of the nations was also postponed and awaits the day of Israel’s restoration. 

The teaching of Romans 11:17 -25 shows that Israel were ‘first’ as to position, being the ‘natural branches’. The believing Gentiles were reminded that they were but a wild graft, and grafted into the olive tree to ‘provoke to jealousy’ the favoured nation. 

With reference to Romans 3:9,10, we remind our readers that we have many times taken this passage to demonstrate the difference between the doctrinal teaching of Romans that remains, and the dispensational teaching that has ceased to be true for the present time:

 We are next referred to our Lord’s attitude to the Samaritan woman. 

Our Lord said several things on this occasion and our brother leaves us to guess as to which of these he has in mind. If we are to include John 4:21,23 in our consideration, we would remind him that the day had not then come when the Father should be worshipped ‘neither in this mountain nor yet in Jerusalem’, and that that time did not come until the book of the Acts was finished and Jerusalem destroyed. Further, the Lord told the woman that ‘salvation is of the Jews’, and that remained true until, with the setting aside of the Jew, the salvation of God was sent to the Gentiles. We see nothing in John 4 that contradicts our teaching, but much that supports it. 

The statement concerning ‘the other sheep’ in John 10:16 and that concerning unity in John 17:20,21 while they were uttered by Christ during His earthly ministry, were not committed to writing until after Paul’s ministry had ceased (John outlived the rest of the apostles, and the consistent testimony of antiquity is that he wrote his Gospel last of all). 

The Gospel of John, unlike the Synoptic Gospels, starts with the assumption that Christ has been rejected. It explains the meaning of Jewish observances and interprets Jewish words (John 1:38,41, 42). It is intended for the world, and is the message for the great outer circle today, while Paul’s testimony is running its elective course. Its theme is ‘life through His name’. Its address, to ‘whosoever believeth’. 

Wherever Israel appear in Scripture, recognized as the chosen people of God, they must be first. There can be no equality among believers until ‘the twain’ are created one new man, and that does not occur before Acts 28:  

 Our brother’s first statement is a very wide one; but we can only assume that he means what he says. Among the ‘Scriptural promises and allusions’, then, to which he refers we may include Ephesians 1:3,4. We challenge him to bring forward proofs from Scripture that the phrases, ‘all spiritual blessings’, ‘in heavenly places’ and ‘before the foundation of the world’ apply equally to the church before and after Acts 28. We could almost venture the whole argument upon one unique fact, namely that this church and no other throughout the whole range of Scripture is said to be ‘seated’ in the heavenly places, far above all where Christ sitteth. Nowhere else is there a ‘joint -body’; no other company is related to a position which is ‘far above all principality’. What, then, becomes of our brother’s sweeping statement? It is incorrect, and as criticism, it is valueless. 

We also repudiate the term ‘so -called dispensational church’; it is a meaningless phrase. Every church must be ‘dispensational’. It may be the church of the Acts period, or the Mystery, or the churches of the Revelation. 

‘So -called’ suggests that this is our own term. We hope no one will think that we have been careless enough to use so meaningless an expression. 

Our brother, moreover, speaks of the ‘Body’ and the ‘Bride’ as synonymous titles of the one company. But this is not the case. The Bride is clearly associated with the New Jerusalem, with its gates of pearl and the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. The church of the Mystery is far above even this sphere of blessing. We read that the standard of the church of the Mystery is the ‘perfect man’ (Eph. 4:13), and our brother will know that aner (the word for ‘man’ here) is never used except of a male. It is translated in Ephesians five times by the word ‘husband’. And we suppose our brother would not attempt to teach that the perfect ‘Husband’ can be the ‘Bride’! Ephesians 5 with its instructions to husbands and wives is not the place in which to seek to establish a doctrine, for husbands and wives need instruction whatever their calling. 

We are also referred to Romans 12:5 and 1 Corinthians 10:17, but these passages speak of a church where every ‘member’ has a ‘spiritual gift’ (1 Cor. 12:18,28), whereas spiritual gifts are absent from the dispensation of the Mystery. 

The reference to Stephen, the first martyr, is an appeal to our sentiments. Why not John the Baptist, or David or Moses? For all were saved by the same Christ. What we teach, is that while salvation is common to all the Lord’s people, the spheres of blessing differ. As the church of the One Body was a secret, hid in God, when Stephen died, we cannot believe that he was a member of that church. We believe that it can be proved from Scripture that Stephen will be amongst that company designated ‘the Bride’, and as these dispositions of grace are at the sovereign disposal of the Lord, we cannot discuss them. They make no difference to our teaching and are outside our province:  

 Yet the booklet under criticism, viz. Things most surely believed itself contains, in chapter 3, the following passage directly bearing on the point:  

 It would, surely, be difficult for a reader of the criticism to believe that the booklet criticized contained the passage we have just quoted. We can only add that, as the criticism contains no point wherein it is considered we have erred, we but restate, as above, what we have already taught. 

 Here we find ourselves echoing our brother’s words, ‘Well let us see what Paul himself says (Acts 26:17,18 and 22:21)’ only we suggest that a commencement be made, not at verse 17, but at verse 16 of Acts 26, particularly noticing the word ‘both’, which indicates Paul’s twofold ministry, and the words ‘in the which I will appear unto thee’, which make clear the fact that when Paul received the commission on the road to Damascus he also received intimation of another commission which would be given when it should please the Lord to reveal it. 

In Acts 20 this new commission is associated with ‘bonds and afflictions’. It indicated that Paul’s earlier ministry had come to an end, and that the Ephesians should see his face no more. He looks forward to ‘finishing his course’ (Acts 20:24), and, as recorded in 2 Timothy 4:7, he does finish that course. 

No careful reader of Acts 20:17 -38 could fail to see that Paul is summing up one ministry and looking forward to another, but this new ministry is directly associated with ‘bonds’, in other words, it is ‘a prison ministry’, with its new revelation and dispensation. Acts 22:21, like Acts 20 and 26, makes known for the first time what the Lord said to Paul. The words of Acts 26:16 -18 were kept secret until Paul was a prisoner. In face of these Scriptures then, our brother’s suggestion: ‘Was it not rather God’s revelation to Paul from his first calling on the road to Damascus?’ is flatly negatived. It was not revealed at his first calling. Paul himself says so, and the very passages to which our brother refers us entirely overthrow his contention. 

We believe that those of our readers who have followed this criticism will feel that if that is all that can be brought forward against our position, those responsible are justified in the general pursuit of their policy of expounding positive truth, for very occasionally only would the devotion of precious space and time to the type of criticism here dealt with be to edification. Every reader should take each of our critic’s points as though they were personal to themselves, and then, as true Bereans, ‘search and see’. We should then have no fears as to the result.