The Influence of the Synagogue upon the New Testament Ekklesia/Churches
I’ll never forget the day in 1998
when a fellow named Daniel visited the house church I was part of. I wasn’t sold on the house church model at
the time. I was waking up early on
Sunday mornings to begin my “Christian Sabbath” (if you’ll pardon the phrase)
with meaty expositional and exegetical teaching from S. Lewis Johnson over the
FM radio. I then would spend a couple
hours at a megachurch which I had family ties to but which had definitely lost
the personal touch. After megachurch
services were over, I would travel to the other side of town to have lunch with
my brothers and sisters in Christ at a house church. It was at one such housechurch meeting that
Daniel joined us. Daniel expressed his
excitement to me. He was Jewish and had
grown up attending synagogue all his childhood life. At some point he became a believer in Yeshua
as his Messiah, Savior, and Lord, but he ended up at a conventional church
rather than a messianic fellowship. What
excited him so much about our life in the house church meeting was how much it
reminded him of his days in synagogue where, as he remembered it, the adult men
would argue passionately all Sabbath long over the Scriptures. It’s
not that we were arguing. It’s just that
we had the freedom in our home assembly to do something reminiscent of 1
Cor. 14:26-33 where, “When you come together, everyone has a
hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.” I knew there was something profound in what Daniel said. Over ten years later I have become
thoroughly disillusioned with the church models that quench the Spirit and am
thankful for the clue Daniel gave me.
Now as I try to see what the New
Testament Church/Churches were and try to imagine what Church/Churches could be
today, I find myself inescapably drawn to the synagogue for shedding of light
on the earliest church. I’m not arguing
that the churches we start today need to look like synagogues. But perhaps there are some lessons to be
learned? I’m not trying to bring the
Church back towards a Temple-based model—quite the opposite!
There is little doubt in my mind that
most of the first churches were heavily influenced by the synagogue. It seems like it must have been
unavoidable. Paul did most of his
evangelism in synagogues and most of his converts were probably the gentile
“God fearers” who were part of those synagogues.
This rethink is here to help me
slowly rethink these questions:
Is the influence of the synagogue
upon the church a good thing that the Apostles fostered? Relative to the Temple liturgos, probably
so. Compared to Ignatius model, probably
so. But was this the way it was meant to
be? And to what degree? Should we who are interested in returning to
a model that more closely resembles the New Testament church also in some ways
aim towards synagogue patterns? To what
degree? What should be adopted? What should be avoided? Is this study valuable just for shedding
light on things? What can we learn and
what should we learn by positive example and what should we learn by negative
example? How are they similar? How are
they different? Why does the ekklesia
only seem to have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, elders,
deacons, and saints/brothers while they synagogue has more offices? Explore the idea of clergyism… is the
synagogue an antidote to western ecclesiology’s clergyism? The synagogue was invented in part to
replace the Temple after the first temple was destroyed. Later the Synagogue functioned as a
para-Temple ministry that augmented the Temple ministry. Is it possible that synagogue model lessons
can help clean the Western churches of their Temple complex? Are the Jewish synagogue and Christian synerxomai
supposed to be alike in type or just in degree?
The following are quotes from Samuel Safrai, William Barclay, Ron Moseley, and Oskar
Skarsaune.
Author:
Barclay, William.
Book
Title: MEDITATIONS ON COMMUNICATING THE GOSPEL.
Published: Stirling, Scotland, 1968.
pp.33-37:
Before
we look at the general content of the apostolic message there are two points of
method which we must notice. We are well supplied with material from
which we can reconstruct both the content and the method of the apostolic
preaching. We have Peter’s sermon in Jerusalem in Acts 2; we have Paul’s
three sermons, the first in Antioch in Pisidia in Acts 13, the second in Lystra
in Acts 14, and the third in Athens in Acts 17. The interesting and
important fact is that, when we look at all the three Pauline sermons, they are
totally different. And they are different because each of them is
specially and particularly designed for the audience to which it was
addressed. As a preacher Paul had an amazing gift for starting from where
his audience was. His basic message is the same, but he had an astonishing
gift of technique which enabled him to adapt that message to the audience which
he was addressing.
In
Antioch in Pisidia he was addressing Jews in a Jewish Synagogue, and the only
Gentiles present would be either full proselytes or at least God-fearers who
were interested in Judaism. When Paul spoke to this audience, he began in
the Old Testament; he continued in the Old Testament; and he ended in the life
of Jesus as fulfillment of the Old Testament. He knew that to his
audience the Old Testament was sacred and holy Scripture, and he knew that they
both knew it and accepted its authority; so he therefore made it the basis of
what he had to say.
In
Athens, Paul’s method was quite different. There he was not speaking to a
Jewish Synagogue but in the open air. He was not speaking to a Jewish
audience, but to a Greek audience. He therefore began with quotations
from the Greek poets and philosophers. Paul was well aware that there is
no good in saying, “The Bible says,” to a man who neither knows nor accepts the
Bible. The wise preacher begins where his audience is and with what they
know to lead them on to where he wants them to be and what he wants them to
learn. So, as Paul was a Jew to the Jews, so he became a Greek to the
Greek.
In
Lystra once again Paul’s method was quite different. In Lystra he was out in
the wilds. There was no Synagogue there and there was no Greek culture
there. It would have been futile to quote the Old Testament, and it would
have been equally pointless to quote the Greek poets and philosophers; so there
Paul starts from the sun and the wind and the rain and from growing
things—things which all men know... The true preacher starts where the people
are—even if he has to learn things he never in his life heard about
before. The sermon which is above a congregation’s heads is not a good
sermon; it is a bad sermon. It is simply the sign of a marksman who
cannot hit the target. Be it noted that the preacher does not wish to
leave his people where they are—far from that. But he begins from where
they are to lead them to where he would wish them to be.
The second notable thing was something
which emerged from the pattern of the Synagogue service.
The brief outline of the Synagogue service was this:
i.
It began
with the Shema, which is the basic Jewish creed. Shema is the imperative
of the Hebrew verb “to hear”, and means “Hear!” It is the first
word of that verse which is the fundamental creed of Judaism, “Hear, O Israel;
the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Before the Shema there
came one set prayer and after it one or two prayers. Following the Shema
there came the Eighteen Benedictions, eighteen prayers which bless God for his
goodness and his graciousness. Inset into this there is the time for free
and topical prayers which bring the need of the immediate moment to God.
This first worship part of the service finishes with the blessing, “The Lord
bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be
gracious to you: the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace”
(Numbers 6:25-26).
ii.
The
second part of the service consisted of the reading of the Scripture: one lesson from the Law,
and one from the Prophets. The Law was read from a lectionary, in which it was read completely
through in three years; the prophetic lesson was chosen by the reader.
The lesson from the Law was read one verse at a time, and, since by New
Testament times the Jews had forgotten their classical Hebrew, it was
translated by an official called the Targumist, also one verse at a time.
The lesson from the prophets was read and translated in the same way, but three
verses at a time.
iii.
Lastly,
there came the preaching [teaching rather], which was always in the nature of
the exposition of
Scripture.
Such
was the outline of the service, but simply to state the outline is to omit the
most significant thing about the whole service. The most significant thing is that there was no
one officially to do any of these things, with the single exception of the
blessing which was always pronounced by a priest, if there was a priest
present. There was no professional ministry at all. There
was an official known as the Ruler, or the Head, of the Synagogue, but he was
purely and administrative official. He had to do with the finance and the
organization of the care of the buildings; and he had to do with the service to
the extent that a chairman or president has to do with a meeting.
He did not himself do any of the items; he saw that they were correctly
done. What then happened?
Everything in the service was done by
members of the congregation. A man called the Ambassador of the
Congregation was detailed to take the prayer part of the service; seven people,
a priest, a Levite, (if present), and five ordinary members of the
congregation, from the congregation were called up to read the passage from the
Law, so many verses each; one man was told to choose and read the lesson from
the prophets. Anyone
who felt he had an address to give could give it. It was precisely here
that in the early days the Christian preachers got their chance; it was here
that Paul got his chance. Under modern conditions they would never have
been allowed to utter a word. But in the Synagogue, when it came time for
the sermon, anyone who had a message to give could, subject to the approval of
the Head of the Synagogue, give it. And until the breach between
the Church and the Synagogue was final, here was a magnificent chance which the
Christian preachers seized with both hands.
But we have still not come to the most
important feature of the service for the communication of the Christian
message. The sermon was always followed by general discussion, and it was
exactly here that the Christian preacher got the greatest chance of all to
communicate the Christian message. The word that we come on
again and again in regard to the preaching of the Christian preachers in the
Synagogue is the word “dispute” or “argue.” The Jews disputed with
Stephen but could not meet his arguments (Acts 6:9-10). Paul argued in
the Synagogue at Thessalonica (Acts 17:2); he argued in the Synagogue at
Corinth (Acts 18:2); he argued in the Synagogue at Ephesus (Acts 18:19). Here
is the great basic fact of early preaching: Early preaching was not a monologue
but a dialogue. It was not a question of one man telling a
crowd of men; it was a case of a group of people talking it over together. Of course, there
should be services of worship and certainty in which the atmosphere of debate
would be out of place; but there ought also be a place for the contact of mind
with mind. For, if there is not, how is the preacher to know that he is
asking and answering the right questions at all? If he does not
give to those to whom he speaks an opportunity to speak to him, then he may be
completely missing their problems, and he may be quite unaware of their doubts
and difficulties. We shall always need the monologue, but the rediscovery of the dialogue
within the Church is long overdue. It was just that dialogue which
gave the apostolic preachers their supreme opportunity. It could still be
so today.
After reading
Barclay’s insights, do these two New Testament passages take on new meaning?
Paul and his
companions. . . entered the synagogue and sat down. After the reading from the
Law and the Prophets, the synagogue rulers sent word to them, saying, "Brothers, if you have a message of
encouragement for the people, please speak." Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and
said: "Men of Israel and you
Gentiles who worship God, listen to me! ... We tell you the good news...” As
Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak
further about these things on the next Sabbath. When the congregation was
dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and
Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of
God. (Acts
13)
“When you
come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a
tongue or an interpretation… for the strengthening of the church… Two or three
prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.” (Paul
to the Corinthians Church)
When they had passed through Amphipolis and
Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As his custom was, Paul went into
the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining
and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead.
"This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said. Some of
the Jews were persuaded
and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not
a few prominent women… As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and
Silas away to Berea. On
arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were
of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and
examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts
17)
The Influence of the Synagogue on the Organizational Structure of the
Church
From: Moseley, Ron. Yeshua; A Guide to the Real Jesus and the
Original Church. Messianic Jewish
Publishers. 1996
The structure of the local synagogues
was carried over directly in to the structure of the early Church. A president, deacons, a precentor (song
leader), and teachers can all be found in both the synagogue and the early
Church. We know from early sources that
there were between 394 and 480 synagogues in Jerusalem during the first
century, one being located within the precincts of the Temple itself. This is undoubtedly why the pattern of the
Church had its origins in the Jewish synagogue.
Note the following similarities between the ancient synagogue and the
early Church.
The principle leader of a synagogue
was the nasi or president. In the Christian congregation, the leaders
were still called president rather than pastor, as late as A.D. 150, by such
non-Jewish writers as Justin Martyr. (9) In the synagogue structure, three of these
leaders would join together to form a tribunal for judging cases concerning
money, theft, immorality, admission of proselytes, laying on of hands, and a
host of other things mentioned in the Sanhedrin section of the Mishnah.
These men were know as the “rulers of
the synagogue” because they took on the chief care of things, a title mentioned
several times in the teachings of Jesus (Mark 5:3 and Luke 8:41). This practice was still in use among the
Gentile congregations at Corinth under the apostleship of Paul, where he spoke
of the court within the congregation (1 Corinthians 6:1-2). [CTH note:
perhaps it would be better to say that 1 Cor 6 speaks of the need for
such a court to exist there. But also note that Paul’s recommendation suggests
that even “the least among you” could judge this particular case. This could suggest that no “ruler” needed to
be appointed?]
The nasi was the administrator of the
synagogue, and we know that James, the half-brother of Jesus, was the nasi of
the early church at Jerusalem. Early
documents such as the Didache suggest that the churches in Asia Minor and
Greece treated the Church at Jerusalem with much the same authority as the
synagogues did the Sanhedrin. (10, 11)
There also was a public minister of
the synagogue called a chazen who
prayed, preached behind a wooden pulpit, and took care of the general oversight
of the reading of the Law and other congregational duties. He did not read the Law, but stood by the one
who did, to correct and oversee, ensuring that it was done properly. He selected seven readers each week who were
well-educated in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The group consisted of one priest, one Levite, and five regular
Israelites (Luke 4:16). The terms overseer of the congregation, angel of the church, and minister of the synagogue all referred
to this position. (12)
There were also three men known as almoners or parnasin who cared for the poor and distributed alms and were
expected to be scholars of the Scriptures.
Since they were also known as gabbay
tzedikah, it may be from this function that we get the modern term deacon. Some scholars
hold that it was from these seven, the president, the rule, the overseer, the
chazen, and the three parnas, that the idea of selecting “seven good men of
honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom” came about (Acts 6:3). These men were appointed over the business
affairs of the Church so the apostles would not have to be distracted from their
study of the Scriptures and prayer.
In
Jewish literature the question is asked, “Who is a scholar worthy of being
appointed Parnas?” The answer is: “He who is asked about a law from any source,
and is able to give an answer.” (13) In
modern times the Jews use this term to refer to a lay person, who is also
called an elder.
Another function in the ancient
synagogue was the shaliach, or
announcer. From this position we get the
term apostle, meaning one who is sent
fourth to announce the gospel, a role equivalent to that of our modern
missionaries.
There was also the maggid, a migratory evangelist of the first century who spoke to
various congregations, and the batlanim,
a scholarly teacher who was either independently wealthy or on some type of
support so he would be available to provide the congregation with accurate
academics and answers. There had to be
at least ten batlanim in every
congregation of one hundred and twenty members.
There was even a tradition that a synagogue service could not commence
without ten men present. (14) Jesus may have been referring to this
tradition when He said, “Where two or three are gathered together in My name,
there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20).
Next, there was the zakin, a word meaning “old,” more in the
sense of maturity than age. This person
provided counsel to the people and was similar to a modern-day pastor or
elder. In Judaism, those who had reached
the age of forty were considered to have attained understanding, and those who
were over fifty were considered worthy to counsel the younger people. (15)
The rabbi was a prophet after the manner of the post-exilic prophets of
Judaism. He carried the responsibility
of reading and preaching the Word and exhorting and edifying the people (1 Corinthians
14:3).
There was also the interpreter, known
as the meturganim. This was a person skilled in languages who
stood by the one reading the Law or teaching in a Bet Midrash (a house of study) to interpret into the lingua franca of that day the Hebrew
that was being spoken. The use of an
interpreter goes back to the time of Ezra, when the interpreter was said to
have added the meaning. The Talmud gives many details of the
interpreter’s duties in the synagogue.
(16) It is from this concept that
we understand Jesus’ words, “What you hear in the ear, preach on the
housetops” (Matthew 10:27). This phrase was easily understood by those
who were familiar with the system of study in the Bet Midrash, where the
teacher would literally speak the message in the interpreter’s ear, who would
then shout it out to others, both inside the classroom and out.
The following excerpt is from a
fascinating essay by Samuel Safrai entitled The Place of Women in First-century
Synagogues
(Link:
http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/Default.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=1464)
Paul felt it necessary to issue
his corrective because in early Christian congregations, following Jewish practice, it
was permissible and customary to interrupt the preacher to ask questions. In
first-century synagogues, a sermon followed the reading of Scripture. This
exposition of Scripture was more a lesson than a sermon, and congregants were
encouraged to ask questions. In fact, the asking of questions was so central to
the rabbinic teaching method that often the preacher-teacher began his sermon
by just seating himself and waiting until someone from the audience asked a
question. There is a whole category of Jewish literature called yelamDEnu
(May [our teacher] instruct us). It is similar to what we now call
"Questions and Answers." Today public speakers often employ a
Question-and-Answer period, especially as a means of clarification at the end
of a lecture. In first-century
Jewish society this approach was usually the main method of instruction.
Someday I’ll get around to adding
this…
Skarsaune, Oskar. In The Shadow
of the Temple; Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. IVPress.com.
2002.
p.123-126 Judaism Apart from the
Temple: The Synagogue