the uncertainty in the margin, but it is not a matter of any vital importance. The point is that the demand emanated

from these men and it was the settlement of this question that was uppermost.

The structure (page 165) emphasizes two speakers: Peter, who, to the chagrin of the sect of the Pharisees, will

have no compromise over the matter of circumcision and law-keeping in relation to salvation; and James, who first

whole-heartedly endorses and confirms this attitude, and then introduces the entirely new question conciliating the

susceptibilities of the Jewish believer. Two questions, therefore, are before us, and `right division' is as necessary

here as in the vaster issues of dispensational truth.

C 15:6-12.

Apostles and Elders. f

Apostles and Elders consider the matter.

g Much disputing.

h Peter rose up.

i  Gentiles by my mouth should

`Why ... put a

hear gospel.

j  Among us.

k God knoweth.

of the disciples?'

l  Them and us.

m PUT NO DIFFERENCE.

k God. Why tempt?

I  Neither our fathers nor we.

f  All multitude kept silence.

g Gave audience.

h Barnabas and Paul.

i  Gentiles. Miracles wrought.

j  Among them.

There is no suggestion in verse 7 that the assembly at Jerusalem was dominated by either Peter or James, for

there is `much disputing' before Peter stands up to speak. It should be noted that when Peter refers to Pentecost he

speaks of `us' and `them', the latter referring, not to some hypothetical Gentiles on the day of Pentecost, but to the

first Gentiles to be addressed by Peter as recorded in Acts 10. It is true that Paul may have preached to Gentiles

before Peter went to Cornelius, but even so, this would not invalidate Peter's words, for he says explicitly `God

made choice among us'.

The incident recorded in Acts 10 has already been considered in these pages, and Peter's summary needs no

exposition. He stresses the following points :

(1) God knows the heart, the inference being that the Pharisees were more concerned with externals.

(2) God gave the holy spirit to these believing Gentiles, and it is therefore impossible to teach that such cannot

be saved except they be circumcised.

(3) God put no difference between us and them. How can we dare to question God?

(4) God purified their hearts by faith. What place in salvation, therefore, can rites and ceremonies have?

(5) These legal obligations had been a yoke too heavy for Israel. Was it wise, then, to put the same yoke upon

the Gentiles?

(6) `We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they'.

Peter's argument was unanswerable. The law as a means of salvation was obsolete. The Jews themselves, who

had the law by nature, were saved by grace, through faith. The emphasis on there being `no difference' - the central

feature of the structure - must have rejoiced the heart of the apostle of the Gentiles (see Rom. 3:22; 10:12).

This noble testimony to salvation by grace coming from the leading apostle of the Circumcision, silenced the

disputants and prepared an audience for Barnabas and Paul. It should be noticed that the order in naming these

apostles changes in the narrative. While they are at Antioch it is `Paul and Barnabas', but when they arrive at

Jerusalem, the order is reversed. This reversed order is maintained in the actual letter drafted by the Council, but it