|
The Analogy of a Frontier
It is but reasonable to expect that any system of doctrine or interpretation that differs from or challenges orthodoxy, will be subjected to a fair amount of criticism, and this should be welcomed,
for if our pursuit be the TRUTH, the faults discovered even by an enemy should be acknowledged and the quest continued. We believe that many whose interest has been quickened, but who have
received a setback by some of the specious arguments advanced against us, would value a careful and constructive presentation of the reasons why Acts 28 should be considered a dispensational
boundary. This we hope to provide in the following pages.
Supposing Acts 28 to be a "frontier," what should we reasonably expect to justify the claim? The word "frontier" is a geographical term denoting the extreme limits and
boundary of a country. Up to that limit the laws and customs, language and currency of one country will obtain, and immediately beyond that frontier other laws customs, languages and currency
will obtain, and if we are justified in the use of the term in speaking of Acts 28, it will be incumbent upon us to show that certain features that are characteristic of the dispensation covering
Acts 1-28 run from one end of the book to the other, and that immediately beyond the confines of this chapter a new set of features are in force. However, before we demonstrate these essential
characteristics it will be necessary to deal with a related objection and to show that it has no bearing upon the question as to whether Acts 28 be the dispensational frontier or not. The
objection we have in mind runs something like this:
"Whether we are in the 'Acts' or the 'Prison Epistles,' there is but One Saviour, One Redeemer, One God and Father. We read the same Bible, and resurrection is the constant
factor in our hope whatever differences there may be in the way in which that hope is described. These features are fundamental and are of much more importance than the differences so often
enlarged upon, and their due recognition reveals that we are all one family of faith, on whichever side of Acts 28 we may find ourselves."
It is difficult to be fair when attempting to summarize the many objections made by others, but we believe the spirit of these objections will be evident from this presentation. Let us rewrite
this objection in geographical and racial terms and see how far we can then endorse the argument contained in them.
"Whether we live in 'England' or in 'France' all have one Creator, and whether we be English or French, we must eat and drink in order to preserve life, and however our customs
and laws may differ, we are all mortal and can only hope to live again if there be a resurrection of the dead. The due recognition of these essential features that are common to both, reveals
that we are all human beings on whichever side of the channel we may live."
Sin and death, redemption and hope, eating, sleeping and working belong to neither Englishmen nor Frenchmen exclusively, but these basic likenesses do not in any sense nullify the most evident
differences in laws, customs, languages and currency. Any reader who maintained that the idea was absurd that there were any dispensational differences on either side of the channel, would soon be
made to recognize his mistake. If he drove a car, he would be obliged to change over from the left hand side of the road to the right, and if he persisted in disbelieving "this
dispensational nonsense," he would probably end up in disaster. However much he may maintain that "money" was all one needed, whether on this side of the channel or the other, he
would be compelled to resort to the exchanges and convert English money into French currency in order to live. Dispensational truth is not concerned with fundamentals like sin and death, but
with differences in calling, in sphere of blessing, and in the outworking of the purpose of the ages. The objection which we have summarized is not valid. We do not say that those who
live on the other side of a frontier are not human beings, we only say that they are different nations. The fundamental facts of sin and redemption are as true on the Ephesian side of the Acts of the
Apostles as they were before, and the national demands for food and raiment belong to the French people on one side of the frontier as they belong to the Belgian and the Spanish on the other.
The differences between the calling of the Acts period and the Ephesian period are differences of dispensation, sphere of glory, constitution, and the like. If our analogy of a frontier be
valid, then we shall find that certain features which are true in the opening chapters of the Acts persist and are actively present in the closing chapters. These features being consistently
maintained throughout the whole period and then ceasing will justify our use of the figure of a land or people with a frontier drawn at Acts 28. If upon crossing that frontier we discover
radical changes, outstanding omissions, and the introduction of entirely new features, then the analogy will be maintained, and a new law, country and people will be a fit figure of the new state of
affairs and Acts 28 will be most evidently the dividing line and a dispensational frontier.
Among the many features that are so marked with these distinctions are the following taken from the Pentecostal section of the book of the Acts.
(1) The appeal to the law and the prophets.
(2) The restoration of the kingdom again to Israel.
(3) The gifts of the Spirit.
(4) The place given to Israel, "Unto you first."
We have not only to demonstrate that these four items persist to the end of the Acts, we have to demonstrate that at Acts 28 these items cease, and are replaced by other
new and hitherto unrevealed teachings. To these matters therefore we now address ourselves, seeking to substantiate every assertion by a positive declaration from the Word of Truth, a position
which leaves no room for mere human speculation, and which must disarm all true criticism.
|
The Dispensational Frontier of Acts 28:23-31
