And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with much discourse, and strengthened them.
Antioch had just heard the letter from Jerusalem, and the church rejoiced — but the two men who carried it did not hand it over and leave. Luke says they were prophets, and they stayed to speak; so what did a prophet do, and what does "strengthened" mean here?
The letter settled a bitter dispute over whether Gentile believers had to keep the law of Moses. Sending two men who had sat through that debate gave the letter a living voice.
It mattered to have men present who could speak as reliable witnesses of what Jerusalem had debated and decided. This was far more than coldly carrying a letter and nothing else. They knew what drove the opponents. They knew the spiritual interests at stake. They also knew how the apostles felt, and how the whole church felt.
The trouble had targeted Antioch itself, so the news landed there with special force.
Antioch was where Satan had tried to press Jewish law on the believers, using influence that came from Jerusalem… Antioch is the first Gentile assembly to hear that grace had won in the very circle the evil came from. The crowd gathered, they handed over the letter, and when they read it, "they rejoiced because of its encouragement."
The word covers two things: telling what is coming, and a ministry that speaks straight to the conscience. That second kind meets three needs at once.
Prophecy has two senses: (1) foretelling events, or (2) the kind of ministry that reaches the conscience and brings the soul into the presence of God… "the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation" (1 Cor. 14:3). That is a most blessed line of ministry. "Upbuilding" builds up. "Encouragement" stirs up. "Consolation" binds up.
Why did God give prophets then, and why not now? It turns on the state of the Scriptures.
At the very beginning, men of God appeared who were not apostles, and were not necessarily inspired writers of truth like Mark and Luke. They were prophets, like Judas and Silas. The Scriptures were not all written when the Church began, and the apostles could not be everywhere. So God raised up prophets, who in certain cases at least were the means of revelation. And why do we not have such channels now? Because revelation is complete: we have the word of God, and we need no more.
Older translations say "confirmed" here instead of "strengthened." That Greek word turns up only a few times, and every time it is in Acts.
Paul and Barnabas went to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, and urging them to continue in the faith. Judas and Silas, messengers from Jerusalem to Antioch, were prophets; they encouraged the brothers with many words and confirmed them… These passages, with Acts 18:23, where the word is translated "strengthen," are all the places where the Greek word epistērizō occurs. (There is no idea of any ceremony here, like what is now called "Confirmation.")
after_note: DELETE
Apostles were present at Antioch, and still these two visitors did the speaking.
We cannot help seeing the blessed liberty of ministry even where apostles were present. Claims of official position, and personal jealousies, had no place yet. So these full witnesses strengthened all the brothers, as you would expect, and their one desire for everyone was growth through the truth.
They could speak in a city not their own because of what they were. Scripture calls them prophets, never elders, and the two are not the same.
So in Acts 15:2, 32 we hear of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and of Judas and Silas as leading men among the brothers. But Scripture also describes these two as "prophets," and so they spoke freely at Antioch. It never views them as "elders." "Gift" belongs to the unity of the body of Christ, so a man could use it as freely in one place as in another. An elder held a local charge, exercised in the one assembly he was appointed to.
The result went further than a dispute closed on paper.
For the need all this implied, the testimony of Judas and Silas, prophets themselves, would be all-important. And so we do hear that they comforted the brothers and established them. Peace and unity were fully preserved, and so far the enemy had gained no advantage.
- Witnesses. Judas and Silas were more than couriers. They had been at the debate and could speak to what was at stake.
- Gift. They spoke as prophets. That ministry reaches the conscience, and it builds up, stirs up and binds up.
- Strengthening. "Confirmed" here means steadied in the faith. The word carries no hint of a ceremony.
- Liberty. Their gift, not a local office, gave them freedom to speak — and they used it with apostles sitting there.
- Fruit. Many words did what a letter alone could not. Joy settled into peace, and the enemy gained nothing.
And having passed some time [there], they were let go in peace from the brethren to those who sent them.
Paul and Barnabas had brought Antioch a letter from Jerusalem freeing Gentile believers from the law of Moses, and Judas and Silas came with them to confirm it. This verse sends those two men home, and the way they go shows how the early church settled a quarrel that could have split it.
The trouble had started when teachers from Judea unsettled the Gentile believers at Antioch. The ending is remarkably quiet. One writer notes that the two visitors were prophets themselves, and that they left nothing broken behind them:
All this created such a need, and the testimony of Judas and Silas, prophets themselves, would be all-important. So we do in fact hear how they comforted and strengthened the believers. Peace and unity were perfectly preserved, and so far the adversary had gained no advantage. It is noted that, after they had stayed a while, they are "let go in peace" to those who sent them. Meanwhile the word of the Lord keeps making progress in Antioch, and more and more people labour in it.
Paul and Barnabas could have carried the letter alone. Judas and Silas went so that Antioch would hear Jerusalem's verdict from Jerusalem's own men:
Judas and Silas were to go from Jerusalem as witnesses to the statement in the letter they carried. It said that those in authority in Judea rejected the teaching of the men who had disturbed the Gentile converts. Paul and Barnabas could and certainly would say that. But confirmation of it should also come from witnesses who would back up what the other two might state.
They went home in peace, and that peace is the seal on the errand.
Some older English versions say the two men went back "to the apostles." One writer follows the earliest manuscripts instead. He also notes how freely these visitors ministered, even with apostles present:
We cannot help seeing the blessed liberty of ministry even where apostles were present. Clerical rights and personal jealousies had no place yet… After some time Judas and Silas were dismissed in peace "to those that had sent them." The later copies and some early versions say only "to the apostles."
The difference matters. They answered to the whole company that sent them, not to the apostles alone.
The letter settled a question of doctrine. The visit did something warmer:
Judas and Silas remain for a time with the disciples at Antioch, encouraging them. They rejoice in this new fellowship — the love of the assembly at Jerusalem for the believers among the Gentiles. Then Judas leaves them, but Silas, drawn towards these new brothers, stays at Antioch. Paul and Barnabas also stay there, teaching the believers. Many others take an interest in them too, for the power of the Holy Spirit was working among them. Life was fresh in those days.
The manuscripts differ here, and so do the commentators. Some editions add a verse saying Silas chose to stay in Antioch. Others leave it out. Either way, Silas is back in Antioch a few verses later, travelling with Paul.
The historian seems to suggest that he went back with Judas. We read that after they had spent some time, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them — and that is the reading we should follow (Acts 15:33). So Silas must have returned to Antioch later. We find him there, ready to go with Paul on his second great missionary journey.
Another writer agrees that Silas came back, and suggests why:
That verse may have been added by copyists who thought this was the way to account for Silas being at Antioch in verse 40. But is it not quite possible that after returning to Jerusalem he decided to come back to Antioch? This would make good sense if his contact with Gentile believers had awakened a real concern in him for the blessing of Gentiles.
- Sent. Judas and Silas went to Antioch as living witnesses that Jerusalem stood behind its own letter.
- Stayed. As prophets, they spent the time encouraging and strengthening the believers. They ministered freely, even with apostles present.
- Settled. Peace and unity held, and the adversary gained nothing from the dispute.
- Sent back. They returned in peace to those who had sent them — to the whole company that commissioned them, not to the apostles alone.
- Sequel. The work at Antioch kept growing, and Silas was drawn to these Gentile believers. Commentators differ on whether he ever left them.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and announcing the glad tidings, with many others also, of the word of the Lord.
Jerusalem had settled the dispute about the law, and the news had reached Antioch. Paul and Barnabas did not move on — they stayed in the city to work, and the verse quietly adds that they were not the only ones working.
The verse names teaching and preaching side by side. Writers here treat them as two distinct lines of work: evangelising brings people in, and teaching grounds them in the truth.
The Word marks out the different gifts of ministry and the distinct lines of ministry. There was preaching and teaching, as there were evangelists, pastors, and teachers... At Antioch Paul and Barnabas continued teaching and preaching the word of the Lord. ...Evangelising increases the assembly, but some things are the subject of teaching and not of preaching. So if the work of God is to grow in a healthy way, both teaching and preaching are needed. Where people want simple evangelising and nothing more, believers will not be fully taught the truth. Where evangelising is undervalued or neglected, interest in the spread of God's work is in danger of fading.
The last clause of the verse is short, but it carries weight. Kelly reads it as proof of how wide the ministry of the word was:
Here again a plain scripture fully confirms how large and active the ministry of the word was in those early days. Someone may answer that such simplicity suited the days of testimony, before Christianity became an established institution here below. The reply is that this is exactly where the harm lies. Christianity should never be anything other than a pilgrimage of faith. It should never have become something settled in the earth, the way Judaism is.
Stanley reads the same clause against the practice of making one man the minister of a congregation. He points out that the Spirit sent two workers, not one:
Is it not incredible that men are in such darkness that they quote this scripture when they appoint one man to be the minister over a church? The Holy Spirit did not say, Set one of these teachers apart for this special work. He sends two, and we see this principle all through. And in the preachings it is Paul and Barnabas speaking boldly, though Paul was the chief speaker. (Acts 13:43-46; Acts 14:12; Acts 15:35.) "Preaching the word of the Lord with many others also."
The number of workers says something about Antioch itself. The assembly there had grown, and that drew servants of God to the city:
This last clause suggests that the assembly there had now become large and important. It drew the care and attention of many servants of God. It also explains why Peter was in the city not long after the conference at Jerusalem. From that time on, Acts says nothing more about Peter.
This season of work followed a victory. Jerusalem had backed Paul and Barnabas over the Gentile converts, and that left the two men free to plan their next move:
The work went on briskly at Antioch, we may well believe. Paul and Barnabas were working, teaching and preaching, but not alone, for many others were now busy in the work too. This city had become a great centre. Workers were plentiful. What is more, Paul and Barnabas had won their case at Jerusalem on behalf of converts from the Gentiles... The urgent need for their presence and work there had passed. So the two missionary apostles could plan a fresh journey to revisit the places of their recent work.
The stay was not free of conflict. Kelly dates one famous clash to this very window at Antioch:
Here is an incident of great but painful interest: the clash between Peter, the great apostle to the Jews, and Paul, the younger but still greater apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:11 and following). There seems no real reason to doubt that it happened at Antioch at about this time, after the council of Jerusalem and before Barnabas left... The real moral is how unwilling men are to bow to the truth. That is all the more striking when we give due weight to the time when it happened.
Darby reads the verse as a picture of service with nothing holding it back. The work at Antioch went on through Paul, Barnabas and many others. In it "we again see the full liberty of the Holy Spirit" (J. N. Darby).
- Settled — Jerusalem had backed Paul and Barnabas over the Gentile converts, so the work at Antioch could go on briskly.
- Twofold — teaching and preaching are two distinct lines of work. Drop either one and the work suffers.
- Shared — "many others also" points to a wide ministry of the word, not one appointed minister over a church.
- Free — Christianity is a pilgrimage of faith. It was never meant to settle down in the earth as an institution.
- Tested — even this fruitful season held an open clash, and the lesson is how slow men are to bow to the truth.