No small dissension and disputation.—The first of the two words was that which had been used by classical writers, like Thucydides (iii. 82) and Aristotle (Polit. v. 2), to express the greatest evil of all political societies—the spirit of party and of faction. In Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19, it is used of the “insurrection” in which Barabbas had been the ringleader. That element of evil was now beginning to show itself in the Christian Church.

They determined that Paul and Barnabas.—These were naturally chosen as the representatives of the cause of which they had been the chief advocates. The “certain others” are not named, but the prophets of Acts 13:1, and the men of Cyprus and Cyrene of Acts 11:20, were likely enough to have been chosen, and Titus was apparently taken up as an example of the fruits of St. Paul’s labours (Galatians 1:3). Looking to the Roman name which this disciple bore, it is not unlikely that he may have been among the first to whom the term Christian was applied. (See Note on Acts 11:26.) The fulness with which the history of the Council is given, suggests the possibility that St. Luke himself may have been present at it. If not, he must have based his report on materials supplied by St. Paul or one of the other delegates from Antioch, possibly Manaen (Acts 13:1).

Should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders.—The circumstances of the journey make it all but certain that we may identify it with that of which St. Paul speaks in Galatians 2:1. The only other visits that can dispute its claim are those of Acts 11:30; Acts 18:22; but though the latter view has been taken by some able writers (e.g., Lewin’s St. Paul, i., p. 302), there are, it is believed, decisive grounds for rejecting both. Against the first there are the facts, (1) that it is not easy to place fourteen years between the visit of Acts 9:27, and that of Acts 11:30; (2) the visit of Acts 11:30 appears in the history as confined to the single object of carrying relief to the suffering poor of the Church at Jerusalem; (3) the question as to enforcing circumcision had not then been raised, after its apparent settlement in the case of Cornelius; (4) had the agreement referred to in Galatians 2:9 preceded the Council, it would assuredly have been appealed to in the course of the debate at the Council. Against the second there are the facts (1) that the interval would, in that case, have been more than fourteen years; and (2) that it was not likely that the question should have been raised again after the decision of the Council. The only arguments of any weight on the other side are, (1) that the narrative of Acts 15 makes no mention of Titus; and (2) that that of Galatians 2 makes no mention of the Council; but these arguments from omission tell equally against both the other visits. These points will be dealt with as we proceed, and are, in any case, not sufficient to outweigh the evidence in the other scale. The reference of the question to the “Apostles and elders” is in many ways important. (1) As against the dogmatic system of the Church of Rome. On her theory, in its latest forms, the reference should have been to Peter, and to Peter alone, as the unerring guide of the Church into all truth. (2) As a recognition of the authority of the mother-Church of Jerusalem by the daughter-Church of Antioch; and as a precedent for referring local disputes to the decision of a central authority. (3) As showing the confidence which Paul and Barnabas felt that the decision would be in their favour. They could not believe that St. Peter would be false to the lesson which the history of Cornelius had taught him, nor that St. James would recall the definition which he had so recently given of “pure and undefiled religion” (James 1:27). (4) We note that St. Paul ascribes the journey to a “revelation” (Galatians 2:1). The thought came into his mind as by an inspiration that this, and not prolonged wranglings at Antioch, was the right solution of the problem.

They determined - There was no prospect that the controversy would be settled by contention and argument. It would seem, from this statement, that those who came down from Judea were also willing that the whole matter should be referred to the apostles at Jerusalem. The reason for this may have been:

(1) That Jerusalem would be regarded by them as the source of authority in the Christian church, as it had been among the Jews.

(2) most of the apostles and the most experienced Christians were there. They had listened to the instructions of Christ himself; had been long in the church; and were supposed to be better acquainted with its design and its laws.

(3) those who came from Judea would not be likely to acknowledge the authority of Paul as an apostle: the authority of those at Jerusalem they would recognize.

(4) they might have had a very confident expectation that the decision there would be in their favor. The question had not been agitated there. They had all been Jews, and it is certain that they continued as yet to attend in the temple service, and to conform to the Jewish customs. They might have expected, therefore, with great confidence, that the decision would be in their favor, and they were willing to refer it to those who resided at Jerusalem.

Certain other of them - Of the brethren; probably of each party. They did not go to debate, or to give their opinion, or to vote in the ease themselves, but to lay the question fairly before the apostles and elders.

Unto the apostles - The authority of the apostles in such a case would be acknowledged by all. They had been immediately instructed by the Saviour, and had the promise of infallible guidance in the organization of the church. See the notes on Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18.

And elders - See the note at Acts 11:30. Greek: presbyters. See the notes on Acts 14:23. Who these were, or what was their office and authority, is not easy now to determine. It may refer either to the aged men in the church at Jerusalem, or to those who were appointed to rule and to preach in connection with the apostles. As in the synagogue it was customary to determine questions by the advice of a bench of elders, there is no improbability in the supposition that the apostles would imitate that custom, and appoint a similar arrangement in the Christian church (Grotius). It is generally agreed that this is the journey to which Paul refers in Galatians 2:1-10. If so, it happened fourteen years after his conversion, Galatians 2:1. It was done in accordance with the divine command, "by revelation," Galatians 2:2. Among those who went with him was Titus, who was afterward so much distinguished as his companion, Galatians 2:3.

About this question - The question whether the ceremonial laws of Moses were binding on Christian converts. In regard to the nature and design of this council at Jerusalem, see the notes on Acts 15:30-31.

had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined—that is, the church did.

that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them—Titus was one (Ga 2:1); probably as an uncircumcised Gentile convert endowed with the gifts of the Spirit. He is not mentioned in the Acts, but only in Second Corinthians, Galatians, Second Timothy, and the Epistle addressed to him [Alford].

should go up to Jerusalem … about this question—That such a deputation should be formally despatched by the Church of Antioch was natural, as it might be called the mother church of Gentile Christianity.

and had no small dissension and disputation with them; which was attended with much heat and sharpness, and continued some time, and occasioned much disturbance and uneasiness; nor could the affair be decided and issued: wherefore

they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them; that is, the members of the church at Antioch, taking this matter into consideration, and finding that the difference could not be composed, for the peace of the church, wisely came to a resolution, and made an order, that Paul and Barnabas, with others, as Titus, who went with Paul at this time, as appears from Galatians 2:1 and some others of the brethren, and it may be also certain, on, the other side of the question; that these

should go up to Jerusalem, unto the apostles and elders, about this question; concerning circumcision, and the necessity of it to salvation, that they might have the sense of James, and Peter, and John, who particularly were at Jerusalem at this time, as appears from Acts 15:7 and other apostles that might be there; and also of other ministers of the word, who are called elders. And the church of Jerusalem being the most ancient church, and several of the apostles residing here, who had seen Christ in the flesh, and had received their mission and commission from him, and had been extraordinarily endowed with the Holy Ghost; and here being many other preachers of the Gospel, and there being in a multitude of counsellors safety, the church at Antioch judged it advisable to send to them for counsel and direction; and it becomes churches to assist each other in this way.

(2) Meetings of congregations were instituted to suppress heresies, to which certain were sent by common consent on behalf of all.