We often look to the church in Acts as an example of a vibrant and unified church.  But when we look at it more closely we can see they had many of the same problems that we do.  The Jerusalem Council convened in Acts 15 provides a detailed look at the decision making process by the NT leaders.  We can we learn much from their example.

In the NT, nearly all the initial Christians were Jewish.  It would be quite natural for them to continue many of the cultural and religious practices of their ethnicity.  Eventually, as Gentiles were converted, it seems inevitable that questions would arise as to which practices were REALLY necessary to the Christian faith and which were optional.  In particular, were Gentile believers required to be circumcised in order to be accepted as Christians?

The Jerusalem Council

Paul and Barnabas, along with some other leaders, were sent to Jerusalem to engage the issue with the apostles and elders (Acts 15:2-3).  After reporting on God’s work among the Gentiles they presented the issues.  The passage says there was “much debate” (v. 7), so it seems that they had a very robust dialogue.  As part of the dialogue, Peter, one of the key leaders, “stood up” and shared how God had used him to first bring the Gospel to the Gentiles (see Acts 10-11:18).  He was referring to his experience with Cornelius in which God gave him a vision that it was acceptable to have fellowship with non-Jews.  Peter concluded by reminding them that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by God’s grace alone (Acts 15:11).

Then it sounds like Paul and Barnabas spoke at the council meetings as well, after which James, thought to be the senior leader, brought the dialogue to a close with his verdict (Acts 15:13-21).  He cited Scriptural support for bringing the gospel to the Gentiles and then concluded by saying:

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood”  –Acts 15:18-20

After this the council members composed a letter summarizing their decision and sent it back with Paul and Barnabas along with some representatives from the elders in Jerusalem.

What Was the Decision Making Process?

1. Robust dialogue was perfectly acceptable.  There was a range of opinions represented in this meeting and they openly dialogued about them for quite some time.  This should be an encouragement to us when we have different opinions, because even the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem did not always see eye to eye.  We must assume it was humble and respectful dialogue – in keeping with the rest of the NT imperatives.
2. Respected servant leaders summarized the issues.  After a period of open dialogue the two most respected (and senior) leaders summarized the issues.  Peter was a leader among the apostles, and ministered mostly to the Jews (Gal. 2:7-8).  His word would have carried a lot of weight among the Christians with a Jewish background.[1]
3. James apparently made the final decision.  James seems to have been the chairman of the council.  After there had been a thorough dialogue, he addressed the larger group with his conclusion.  Notice that he said “Therefore, it is my judgment…” (Acts 15:19, emphasis added).  Apparently he had the final authority to speak for the group.  Having said that, it doesn’t appear that James made a unilateral decision, but that they had created a prayerful consensus building culture.  James listened to all sides and then made the final decision.  There is no record of any vote.

The decision represented a wise compromise

The final decision represented a wise and respectful compromise based on the concerns of both parties.  They could not require Gentile believers to be circumcised because that would endanger salvation by grace alone.  Yet they did admonish the Gentile believers to refrain from certain practices that were particularly offensive to the Jews.  So, the more culturally Jewish group did receive respect and recognition in the decision.

All agreed to support the decision

Even at this point it is certainly possible that not everyone was 100% happy with the decision, but nevertheless they all gave their support to the outcome.  The letter that they composed came from “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” (v. 22), not just from James alone.

What principles guided their decision making process?

1. They stood firm on the core truths of the faith (salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone).
2. They were sensitive to important cultural issues, especially those issues that would make it difficult for Jewish believers to have authentic fellowship with non-Jewish believers.
3. Clarity resulted in unity.  Most of the restrictions in the letter had to do with food and because most churches have a lot of meals together, this was an important decision — on at least two levels.
4. They were respectful in their response.  The Jerusalem leaders sent additional representatives out of respect:

“Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, ²⁵ it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul…” (Acts 15:24-25).

[1] The James mentioned was not James the Apostle, because he was martyred earlier in Acts 12:2.  It was James the half-brother of Jesus, who became the leader of the church in Jerusalem.  Paul was there, but he was not yet recognized as a key servant leader at this point.

Adapted from an article by Ken Carlson.

Jeremy Lanphier had hoped for more. But six people were six people. And did not scripture say, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of you”? So on this day, September 23, 1857, at lunchtime, he did not moan about the small number who turned out in response to his advertisement. Instead, he knelt with the others in the rented hall in Fulton Street, New York.

America sure needed prayer. The United States was in spiritual, political, and economic decline. Many people were disillusioned with spiritual things because of preachers who had repeatedly predicted the end of the world in the 1840’s. Agitation over slavery was breeding political unrest, and civil war seemed near. Just this year, financial panic had hit. Banks failed, railroads went bankrupt, factories closed, unemployment increased.

In lower Manhattan, a Dutch Reformed church had been steadily losing members, largely because of population changes owing to immigration; they hired the layman Jeremy to reverse the trend with an active visitation program. Despite his visits, church members were listless. So he rented the hall on Fulton street and advertised prayer meetings. He himself enjoyed close fellowship with the Lord and thought others might, too. Conditions in the United States got worse; maybe that was a good thing. Sometimes trouble makes people turn to God. The Bank of Philadelphia failed. The third week of Jeremy’s program, his prayer meeting had forty participants and they asked for daily meetings.

On October 10, the stock market crashed. Suddenly people were flocking to the prayer meetings. Within six months 10,000 people were gathering daily for prayer in New York City alone.

Other cities experienced a renewed interest in prayer, too. In Chicago, the Metropolitan Theater was filled every day with 2,000 praying people. In Louisville, several thousand came to the Masonic Temple for prayer each morning. 2,000 assembled for daily prayer in Cleveland, and St. Louis churches were filled for months at a time. In many places tents were set up for prayer. The newly formed YMCA also played an important role in holding prayer meetings and spreading the revival throughout the country.

In February, 1858, Gordon Bennett of the New York Herald gave extensive coverage to the prayer revival. Not to be outdone, the New York Tribune devoted an entire issue in April, 1858 to news of the revival. News of the revival traveled west by telegraph. This was the first revival which the media played an important role in spreading.

Lay people, not church leaders led. Prayer, rather than preaching, was the main focus. The meetings themselves were informal — any person might pray, speak, lead in a song, or give a word of testimony, with a five minute limit placed on each speaker. In spite of loose organization, the prayer meetings avoided the emotionalism displayed in earlier revivals.

Thus the small prayer meeting of Jeremy Lanphier on this day led to the Third Great Awakening. This was the first revival beginning in America with a worldwide impact. The revival spread to Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, Europe, South Africa, India, Australia, and the Pacific islands.

All classes became interested in salvation, backsliders returned, conversions increased, and Christians desired a deeper instruction in spiritual truths. Families established daily devotions, and entire communities underwent a noticeable change in morals. Preaching, which in many places had become intellectual and lifeless, now concentrated on the truths of the gospel of Christ and His cross. As James Buchanan of Scotland summarized, it was a time when “new spiritual life was imparted to the dead, and new spiritual health imparted to the living.”

Bibliography:

1. Adapted from “When Revival Ran Epidemic.” Glimpses #41. Worcester, Pennsylvania: Christian History Institute.
2. Cairns, Earle E. An Endless Line of Splendor; revivals and their leaders from the Great Awakening to the present. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House, 1986.
3. Chambers, Talbot W. The Noon Prayer Meeting of the North Dutch Church, Fulton Street, New York: its origin, character and progress, with some of its results. New York : Board of Publication of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, 1858, available in microform.
4. Moyer, Elgin S. Great Leaders of the Christian Church. Chicago: Moody Press, 1951, p. 457f.
5. Orr, J. Edwin. The Second Evangelical Awakening. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1949.
6. Smith, Wilbur M. “The Fulton Street Prayer Meeting and the Great Revival.” The Sunday School Times June 1, 1957.

The New Testament traces the full history of the church in Ephesus from it’s founding in Acts 18 to facing the rebuke of Jesus in Revelation 2:1-7.

The word Ephesus means desirable, and in many ways it was certainly a desirable place to live. In the ancient world, Ephesus was a center of travel and commerce. Situated on the Aegean Sea at the mouth of the Cayster River, the city was one of the greatest seaports of the ancient world. Three major roads led from the seaport:

• One road went east towards Babylon via Laodicea
• Another to the north via Smyrna
• A third south to the Meander Valley

On Paul’s second missionary journey (A.D. 52), he visited Ephesus after leaving Corinth, and evidently planted the church there (Acts 18:19).

On Paul’s third missionary journey (A.D. 54-56), Paul spent between two and three years teaching in the city (Acts 19:8-10). He spent his time addressing false doctrines and pagan practices. Paul’s teaching in the rented school of Tyrannus was so successful that those who practiced magic brought their books and burned them as an act of repentance (Acts 19:18-20). As the sale of silver idolatrous images began to fall off, the silversmiths caused uproar (Acts 19:26-41). Shortly after this dust-up was settled Paul left for Macedonia. It was during this stay that he wrote 1 Corinthians.

Several months later (A.D. 57) Paul met with the Ephesian elders on the nearby island of Miletus and made his farewell address (Acts 20). Their mutual love is evident as these tenderhearted men weep over what God has done – and they know they will not see Paul again. As Dr. Luke[1] records their conversation and prayer it is evident there is increasing maturity in the faith. The picture now is of a church that has been carefully nurtured to the point of vitality.

About a decade after the church had been started, Paul wrote the letter to the Ephesians commending their faith and love (A.D. 62). A careful reading of this epistle shows that they had done well. They appeared to be devout in their faith, well organized, and busy in the gospel. During these early years they had been growing, expanding and doing the will of God. Jews and Gentiles, from several ethnicities and nationalities, had come together to form “one new man,” (2:15), “one body” (2:16). They were multiethnic as well as diverse in their socioeconomic make-up. Paul commends their sincerity in the final sentence of his letter: “Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with incorruptible love” (Ephesians 6:24).

In Paul’s first epistle to Timothy (mid-60’s) we begin to see some evidence of doctrinal drift: “As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, ⁴ nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith” (1 Timothy 1:3-4).

Tradition says that Ephesus became the home of the Apostle John (mid-late 60’s). This may or may not be true, but circumstances make it very possible, if not probable. He was supposed to have taken Mary, the mother of Jesus, there to live (cf. John 19:26-27). John wrote three letters (1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd John), probably no later than the early A.D. 90s. He wrote from Ephesus and probably to the churches mentioned in Revelation 2:8–3:22. The church by that time had some difficult problems and had apparently undergone a church split. False teachers had arisen in the church who claimed to have deeper knowledge of the things of God. They claimed to have the “secret” to knowing Christ, but in reality, they denied His bodily incarnation and His deity. They taught many other heretical concepts. Their motive may have been to take some elements of pagan religion and blend them with Christianity, in order to make it more acceptable to the pagan culture.[2]

It was probably during the reign of Domitian (81-96 A.D.) that John was banished to Patmos. He was released and died during the reign of Trajan according to Iraneus (an early church historian). Tradition relates that at a very old age John, too feeble to walk, would be carried into this church’s assembly and would admonish the members, as little children, to love one another. During this period the Lord gives His assessment of the Ephesian church through the apostle John (Revelation 2:1-7). He compliments them on their good works, but rebukes them for leaving their first love (Revelation 2:4). He commands immediate action – repent, remember, and repeat (the first works) (Revelation 2:5).

We have no way of knowing whether they corrected their problem for a season, but, sadly, the church died sometime during the second century. In later centuries Ephesus was a leading city for the councils of the early Roman church.

[1] Dr. Luke (a physician) is the author of Luke’s Gospel as well as the book of Acts.

[2] Glenn Barker. Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. by Frank Gaebelein, Zondervan Vol. 12:296.