Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 15:2

"And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, [the brethren] appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." — Acts 15:2 (ASV)

Had no small dissension and disputation. The word rendered "dissension" (stasewv) sometimes denotes sedition or internal war, and sometimes earnest and violent disputation or controversy (Acts 23:7, 10). In this place, it clearly denotes that there was earnest and warm discussion, but it is not implied that there was any improper heat or temper on the part of Paul and Barnabas.

Important principles were to be settled regarding the organization of the church. Doctrines were advanced by the Judaizing teachers that were false and tended to cause great strife and disorder in the church. These doctrines were urged with great zeal, declared to be essential to salvation, and would therefore tend greatly to distract the minds of Christians and produce great anxiety.

It therefore became necessary to meet them with a determined purpose and to establish the truth on an immovable basis. And the case shows that it is right to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 1:3). When similar cases occur, it is proper to resist the approach of error with all the arguments at our command and with all the weapons that truth can provide.

It is further implied here that it is the duty of the ministers of the gospel to defend the truth and oppose error. Paul and Barnabas regarded themselves as set for this purpose (compare to Philippians 1:17, Knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel; ). Christian ministers should be qualified to defend the truth and should be willing, with a proper spirit and great earnestness, to maintain the doctrines revealed.

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 still continued to attend the temple service and to conform to Jewish customs. They might therefore have expected, with great confidence, that the decision would be in their favor, and they were willing to refer it to those at Jerusalem.

Certain other of them. Of the brethren, probably from each party. They did not go to debate, or to give their opinion, or to vote in the case 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 Savior and had the promise of infallible guidance in the organization of the church (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18).

And elders. .

Greek, Presbyters. .

Who these were, or what their office and authority were, is not easy now to determine. It may refer 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). And among those who went with him was Titus, who was afterwards so much distinguished as his companion (Galatians 2:3).

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