Ever wonder how “The Synagogue” came to be? We read about synagogues all the time in the Gospels and in Acts, but where did they come from? We don’t read about them in the Hebrew Scriptures. There’s no command, example, inference, or precedent authorizing the Jewish people to form these small communities focused on prayer and the reading of Scripture. Yet by the first third of the first century AD, the synagogue is playing an important role in Jewish spiritual formation.
According to Harper’s Bible Dictionary, “The origin of the synagogue remains unknown, but the question has produced a number of theories. Many have suggested that the synagogue arose in the Babylonian exile as a response to the loss of the Temple as the center of Jewish religious life. Though the suggestion is reasonable, no direct evidence exists for its presence and the biblical passages cited (Ezek. 11:16; 14:1) are far from convincing. . . .Some scholars suggest that the Hellenistic crisis during the second century b.c., in which there was a conflict among Jews over acculturation and fidelity to tradition, produced the synagogue as a mode of resistance to Hellenism, i.e., Greek culture and custom. Since the synagogue existed in developed form in the first century a.d., it is likely that it came into being in the two centuries preceding, but no direct evidence for it then exists. ”
Even if we can’t be sure how the synagogue came into being, I think we can safely assume that it arose as a response to a specific cultural situation not directly addressed by the Hebrew Bible. The synagogue was an extra-biblical innovation motivated by a cultural circumstance.
I come from a tradition that has championed the slogan, “Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.” My tribe is not typically known for its innovative spirit, in part I think, because this slogan hard-wired us to shun anything even remotely resembling creativity. Forget about innovation in response to culture. Our mission has been to slavishly implement what the New Testament tells us “church” is supposed to look like.
Apparently, “Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent” wasn’t one of the guiding phrases for Jesus’ ministry. Otherwise, I don’t think he would have made it his custom to participate in an innovation that wasn’t authorized by the Bible he read.
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
Amen, brother. Great post. Something that most people don’t realize…IMHO.
I was actually developing that thought process the other day… im glad we are on the same page!
Can a church change its “tradition” and stay intact. Many in our family would like to move past this, but many cannot move past this. How do we navigate and move on, can we move on or do we?
Wade….oh Wade! Brother, it doesn’t really matter and it can’t remotely have anything to say to us…….all that synagogue stuff happened UNDER THE OLD COVENANT! So if you can’t find it in the New Testament, no need to bring it up, dude. I thought you were more scholarly than that!
DU
That’s creative … an example from Scripture about how we don’t have to have an example from Scripture in order to be relevant.
—
Apparently, “Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent” wasn?t one of the guiding phrases for Jesus? ministry. Otherwise, I don?t think he would have made it his custom to participate in an innovation that wasn?t authorized by the Bible he read.
—
I’m not sure the example you cite is a decisive refutation of “speaking where the Bible speaks”. Certainly, it is an indication to me that he did not regard the innovation of the synagogue as a positive evil (otherwise he would not have participated). He also participated in the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22-23), an inter-testamental innovation. So I would regard it as safe to say that innovations are not necessarily wicked, per se, as many in our movement have maintained. This leaves unanswered whether they are optimal, desirable, endorsed by God, whether they could lead to poor outcomes in many cases, or whether God would have us replace the practices of the apostles with our own inventions.
In some cases, Jesus clearly objected to some of the innovations:
“‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.? For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition…making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do” (Mark 7)
In short, I don’t see the actions of Jesus as giving clear or unequivocal support to the innovationist school of thought now sweeping through many COCs.
Casey Perkins
That example only has merit if you are one who believes we do adapt to culture. What is interesting is that all church as we know it is an adaptation from a cultural point of time. So the question isn?t really about tradition versus innovation but really is the innovation I am used to versus innovation I am not used to.
To me the synagogue does seem to show that Jesus wasn?t worried about how they justified its use, authorized or unauthorized, but whether or not truth was being presented and God was receiving glory. But as has been clearly noted on this thread any number of arguments could be made against such a hypothesis which would keep out any “innovations.”
Hi Darin,
“What is interesting is that all church as we know it is an adaptation from a cultural point of time.”
What do you mean by this?
“To me the synagogue does seem to show that Jesus wasn?t worried about how they justified its use, authorized or unauthorized, but whether or not truth was being presented and God was receiving glory.”
I think this reads a fair amount into the text. We should always try to be sensitive to what the Scriptures and our arguments prove, and what they don’t prove.
Casey
Hi Darin,
I want to follow up on my previous message. You said:
“To me the synagogue does seem to show that Jesus wasn?t worried about how they justified its use, authorized or unauthorized, but whether or not truth was being presented and God was receiving glory.”
And, in reply, I said:
“I think this reads a fair amount into the text. We should always try to be sensitive to what the Scriptures and our arguments prove, and what they don?t prove.”
In this case, we only have Jesus actions to go on, since he left no comment about the synagogue and why he participated in it. Therefore, his motivations or justification of the matter can only be speculated on; they cannot be known.
Casey
Casey –
I’ll chime in to explain that church is always cultural – by asking questions.
Do you think that our current mode of worship service – several songs, a prayer somewhere in there, the LS (with or without singing), a few more songs, a lesson, an “invitation” song, an optional closing song, closing prayer – mirrors the first century church? Do you think that our church-building-centric way of “doing church” is like the first century church? Do you think that our small contributions are much at all like the first century church? Do you think that our tradition of dressing up on Sunday (not all of us do this, of course) is like the first century church?
If the answer to ANY of these is “no” then from where do you think they came?
Hi Michael,
You said,
“Do you think that our current mode of worship service – several songs, a prayer somewhere in there, the LS (with or without singing), a few more songs, a lesson, an “invitation” song, an optional closing song, closing prayer – mirrors the first century church? Do you think that our church-building-centric way of “doing church” is like the first century church? Do you think that our small contributions are much at all like the first century church? Do you think that our tradition of dressing up on Sunday (not all of us do this, of course) is like the first century church?”
The answer to all of these questions is “No”.
“If the answer to ANY of these is “no” then from where do you think they came?”
Undoubtedly from culture, inherited Protestant and Catholic tradition, etc. But all of this serves to illustrate something I’ve been thinking about a while, namely that the Churches of Christ have never done more than wade ankle-deep into restorationism – which is why it is comedic to me (in a tragic sort of way) that many in the COC are blaming restorationism for so many of their problems, and fleeing from it in a headlong fashion.
Incidentally, although I grew up in Churches of Christ, I am not now a member of one, but only an interested observer.
Casey
Casey,
I am new on this site and certainly do not want to take away from Wade?s comments. I have found them to be very interesting and provocative.
My point was all worship is culturally impacted. The most strident liturgical church has made nods to culture, even though they would deny such. I would move a step forward and say that the early church worship style was no more then a cultural copy of the synagogue done in part because the Gentile was copying their pagan forms of worship (1 Cor.) and that wasn?t good.
So they copied the synagogue. People in the CoC look at a copy of an unauthorized worship practice to get their authorization. I thnk that was Wades point.
To your other point of reading into Jesus. I don?t see anyway we can not read into Jesus. We do it all the time. The very question that came out in the 90?s WWJD forced everyone to make some assumptions as to what Jesus would really do in any given situation. Since we couldn?t get his exact words on everything. The very act of interpreting forces us to read into the Bible. None of us is without bias when this happens.
Doesn?t the fact that Jesus says nothing though have to at least challenge us to ask whether such things matter? He seemed to have no problem voicing concerns with other issues.
Casey,
Curious, Eastern Orthodox?
One may be wrong about many things, as all of us are, but if he is right about Jesus, the grace of God can be exercised in his behalf. On the other, one may be right about many things, but if he wrong about Jesus, nothing avails. In Him, Fred
Hi Darin,
“My point was all worship is culturally impacted. The most strident liturgical church has made nods to culture, even though they would deny such.”
I don’t deny this. It’s inevitable in a few matters (song styles, for instance). But the early church had some definite, universal practices (see examples such as 1 Cor 11:2, 14:33-34, 36-37), which argues against it all being about culture.
“So they copied the synagogue.”
This is an unwarranted assumption on your part. There were certainly some commonalities, but there were also many differences.
“I don?t see anyway we can not read into Jesus. We do it all the time.”
Precisely the problem. Responsible Bible study confines itself to what can be understood and reasonably inferred from the actual words of the text.
“Doesn?t the fact that Jesus says nothing though have to at least challenge us to ask whether such things matter? He seemed to have no problem voicing concerns with other issues.”
Since there are other possible explanations for his conduct, it is difficult to say. Lots of COC preachers object to instrumental music in the assembly, but many of them would preach the word in such a church if invited. But as I said in my first post, I think Jesus’ actions suggest that he does not find the synagogue objectionable as a moral evil (and quite possibly, not in any way). And perhaps he had bigger fish to fry anyhow; he wasn’t really sent to reform Judaism.
I look more to explicit doctrinal statements and instructions on this issue, rather than to examples that are susceptible to many varying explanations (and sometimes to _self-serving_ explanations). Do we have passages that speak of the need for innovationism/adaptionism? Do we have verses that speak of the need to follow carefully what was taught and practiced by the apostles? Such verses will be more instructive in this matter.
“Curious, Eastern Orthodox?”
No. I don’t belong to any institutional or denominational church. I’m trying to scrape together a house church (in Nashville, TN).
Casey
Casey,
Thank you for your response.
“I don?t deny this. It?s inevitable in a few matters (song styles, for instance). But the early church had some definite, universal practices (see examples such as 1 Cor 11:2, 14:33-34, 36-37), which argues against it all being about culture.”
You see IMO you have just read into the text based on what you think it should be about. Look at 1 Cor. 11:2. Your assumption seems to be that holding to the teachings has to do with style and form. Why could Paul not be referring to lifestyle instead of worship style?
Just so you know the statement they copied the synagogue is not my assumption but how liturgical churches explain their roots.
In the end Casey everyone always thinks they are making reasonable inferences from the text.
I will pray for your house church. God bless.
“Why could Paul not be referring to lifestyle instead of worship style?”
Because of the context (namely, what follows). We could have a more extended discussion about it, but I’m about to be out of town for 3 days.
“Just so you know the statement they copied the synagogue is not my assumption but how liturgical churches explain their roots.”
Perhaps both. If it is not substantiated by the inspired word, I can’t put much stock in it. You don’t seem to dispute that at least some of their practice was commanded by God (1 Cor 14:37).
“I will pray for your house church. God bless.”
Thanks.
Casey
Does the NT tell us what “what church is supposed to look like” or what “church” looked like for groups found within the early church. We forget sometimes that these folks lived with in a cultural context that, if were different, may have caused their “church” to look different.
I think we need to differentiate between the Church as the eternal organism established by Christ and our mission. Our mission is not to “do church” but to make disciples. Therefore, the way we “do church” will change from generation to generation and even geographical location to location because we are fishing for different kinds of fish, so to speak.
One of the problems with the creed, “speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent” is that it essentially thrusts the scriptures into the role of being the fourth member of the Trinity – a positon the scriptures were never meant to hold. Creeds like this also relieve us from the need to rely on God, or to be sensitive to the movings of the Spirit. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of knowing the scriptures and using them as a source of knowledge – as Wade will probably tell you. But to place the scriptures – letters and histories written by folks following God centeries ago in a completely different continent – in the place of final authority seems to me to be short sighted.
This, of course, puts us in a scary situation. How do we please God? How do we know what to do? I think that this is a road we need to walk down.
To me, the synagogue represents Israel’s best efforts at keeping God’s law as well as meeting the needs of the community in exile. It’s interesting to me that the church came out of the community-in-exile mindset of the synagogue. Like Israel, we are a people who are marginalized by society. And like Israel, I think we function best when we are on the outside looking in rather than the people in power. So what lessons do we learn from the synagogue? Was it wrong to innovate? Jeus never condemned it. In fact he seemed to confirm it as a place of worship and learning since he began his minitry there. What I learn from it is that God is interested in having himself known in the world. He wants to dwell with us. Whether He lives in a tent, temple or school, He wants to be with us. He also wants to be made known. That should be our guiding principle today. The church must make God known through the community in exile.
Re: #18
“One of the problems with the creed, “speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent” is that it essentially thrusts the scriptures into the role of being the fourth member of the Trinity – a positon the scriptures were never meant to hold. Creeds like this also relieve us from the need to rely on God, or to be sensitive to the movings of the Spirit.”
Well put, Chris. I used to joke that we only half believed this old slogan, for where the bible speaks we speak, but where it is silent we keep on talking. I think you raise a valid point; while we may not admit it, in practice we have often worshipped scripture. When we speak of “the Word,” we are usually talking about scripture rather than God Incarnate. This fosters the old “blueprint” or “handbook” view of scripture, by which the individual believer could “restore” New Testament Christianity. Questionable and dubious presuppositions all. And of course you are correct in that this also forces upon scripture a role it never claims for itself.
“This, of course, puts us in a scary situation. How do we please God? How do we know what to do? I think that this is a road we need to walk down.”
Indeed.
One of the great myths of COC doctrine is this idea that the early church was “one thing”, meaning that the church was unified, homogenous and practiced exactly the same thing from place to place. From my reading of scripture, the exact opposite is true. We see communal churches, Jewish churches, and Greek churches. There was also a wide variety of teaching. Paul outlines and addresses much of the false teaching that was going around. In fact James and Paul seem to have very diffreent views of what the church should become. I don’t see the early Christians using the “blueprint” model for church organization. It looks to me like they simply borrowed from the cultural experience of the synagogue and applied the new teaching of Christ to it. Perhaps we have more freedom than we thought we had.