# Jesus and Synagogue (RPW)



## Romans922 (Mar 13, 2007)

Frame says, "[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Jesus attended the synagogue regularly and taught there (Lk 4:15-16), so there can be no question as to God’s approval of the institution."

I believe this is an obvious assumption, it never says that Jesus/God approves of synagogue worship. 

I was wondering are there any places where Jesus does something or is somewhere where others are doing things wrong and He does not address the problem?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 13, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> Frame says, "[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Jesus attended the synagogue regularly and taught there (Lk 4:15-16), so there can be no question as to God’s approval of the institution."
> 
> I believe this is an obvious assumption, it never says that Jesus/God approves of synagogue worship.
> 
> I was wondering are there any places where Jesus does something or is somewhere where others are doing things wrong and He does not address the problem?



I wouldn't just go to NT passages to support the idea that God's people are commanded to assemble together regularly but it is established in the Word itself. Here's a good article on synagogue worship: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/synagogue.htm. It appears that Lev 23:3 would establish the practice of regular convocation.

Bottom line is that if Synagogue worship is not commanded then it is unlawful. If Christ participated in something unlawful then He did not keep the law.

Christ participated in things that _other people_ believed were unlawful but never did something that was in violation of God's law


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 13, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I wouldn't just go to NT passages to support the idea that God's people are commanded to assemble together regularly but it is established in the Word itself. Here's a good article on synagogue worship: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/synagogue.htm. It appears that Lev 23:3 would establish the practice of regular convocation.
> 
> Bottom line is that if Synagogue worship is not commanded then it is unlawful. If Christ participated in something unlawful then He did not keep the law.
> 
> Christ participated in things that _other people_ believed were unlawful but never did something that was in violation of God's law



I don't see anywhere where someone could prove that Lev. 23:3 is the start of the synagogue (James Jordan attempts to prove this). Even if Synagogue worship was not commanded, doesn't mean it is necessarily against the law. In fact some suggest that Christ went because He felt like it (not because He was obligated (because it isn't in the law that one must attend synagogue worship), and there is nothing contrary to the law occuring).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 13, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> I don't see anywhere where someone could prove that Lev. 23:3 is the start of the synagogue (James Jordan attempts to prove this). Even if Synagogue worship was not commanded, doesn't mean it is necessarily against the law. In fact some suggest that Christ went because He felt like it (not because He was obligated (because it isn't in the law that one must attend synagogue worship), and there is nothing contrary to the law occuring).



Do you believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship or not?


----------



## bookslover (Mar 13, 2007)

Wouldn't the fact that Christ - God incarnate - attended synagogue worship constitute tacit approval on His part? If so, then the synagogue must have been considered within the bounds of the Law by Him.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 14, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Do you believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship or not?



I do, I am trying to process things. What I am saying is that God's command was to worship at Temple. When this was not a possibility in exile, Jews developed a more laid back synagogue (which still had some elements of Temple). This idea has been posed by many also. So, I don't think Jesus is necessarily breaking the law if he goes to synagogue on most Sabbaths, but it doesn't seem to be necessarily commanded either (that is specifically -- Synagogue).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 14, 2007)

Psa 74:8 They said in their heart, Let us make havoc of them altogether: They have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land. (ASV)

Psa 74:8 They said to themselves, "We will utterly subdue them"; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land. (ESV)

This is a pre-exilic Psalm. What is being refered to?

Personally, it doesn't much matter to me if some opponent of the RPW tells me "Oh, passages like that or Leviticus or Jesus don't prove anything. There's no place that lays down the form of synagogue worship like there is for the Temple, so just because there is synagogue worship doesn't prove it was authorized."

I think Calvin would just say "That's a _perverse_ opinion," and it's held according to the contrary axiom.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 14, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> I do, I am trying to process things. What I am saying is that God's command was to worship at Temple. When this was not a possibility in exile, Jews developed a more laid back synagogue (which still had some elements of Temple). This idea has been posed by many also. So, I don't think Jesus is necessarily breaking the law if he goes to synagogue on most Sabbaths, but it doesn't seem to be necessarily commanded either (that is specifically -- Synagogue).



[bible]Leviticus 23:3[/bible]

How were the people of Israel supposed to obey the command for a holy convocation every 7 days?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 14, 2007)

The argument that Christ took part in synagogue worship, contended as something of merely human institution, has been used against the Puritan view of worship since Richard Hooker, and more recently by Schlissel and Gore. T. David Gordon's reply to Gore is that the synagogue was "study" and not "worship." I'm not satisfied but would like to see more written on that. Here is a snippet from the 2005 _Confessional Presbyterian_ journal from the review by David Lachman of R. J. Gore's dissertation, "The Pursuit of Plainness: Rethinking the Regulative Principle of Worship" (Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. and David C. Lachman, Ph.D., "Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore," CPJ 1, 137-138):

[FONT=&quot]Worship Practices of the Lord[/FONT]​ [FONT=&quot]His second section, “Dominical Practices and the Regulative Principle”, addresses the question: “…what light do the practices of the Lord shed on the issue of the proper interpretation of the _regulative principle_?” After a quotation from John Murray, asserting that “any tradition which is not based upon and derived from divine prescription is of human origin and sanction and incurs the condemnation so patent in our Lord’s teaching on this subject” of worship, he seeks to find “another interpretation … of the texts at hand” (“Pursuit,” 231).[/FONT]​ [FONT=&quot]The Synagogue[/FONT]​ [FONT=&quot]To do this, he first broaches the question of synagogue worship, accusing the proponents of the _regulative principle_ of casually skirting the issue (“Pursuit,” 231-232). Gore asserts that synagogue worship falls “into the category the traditional view would describe as ‘will-worship’.” That “the origin of the synagogue is that of human contrivance and not of divine command” is the basis of this assertion and he demonstrates that this is the modern consensus opinion. He acknowledges that “Rabbinical tradition locates the [synagogue’s] origin during the time of Moses” and recognizes that James Jordan concurs, finding the origin of the synagogue in Leviticus 23:3. But Gore dismisses this on the basis of what he terms the overwhelming evidence that the synagogue was exilic or post-exilic in origin (“Pursuit,” 233). He then references George Gillespie, saying that he addressed the question, being “familiar with all the previous arguments and writing with the express intent of removing this obstacle to the Puritan view."28[/FONT][FONT=&quot] But, though Gillespie does assert that synagogues were built after the tribes first settled in the land and that this was done by the warrant of the authority of the prophets,29[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Gillespie is not arguing this point here, as Gore implies, but just mentions it in passing, devoting only ten lines of text to it (Gillespie, _English-Popish Ceremonies, _3.5.10, 253). If Gore had seriously wanted to understand and critique the Puritan position on the subject, he might have bothered at least to look at a few Puritan commentaries on Psalm 74 or at the controversy William Ames had with Bishop Thomas Morton. As he has not done this, his effort here to demonstrate the Puritan _regulative principle_ erroneous on the basis of the participation of Jesus in the worship of the synagogue, a worship purely of human institution,30[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is itself a casual skirting of Puritan treatments of the subject and is therefore worthless.31[/FONT]​[FONT=&quot]28. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]What Gore means by “previous arguments” is unclear: he certainly cannot mean the late 20th century works he cites and it is unlikely that he has 16th or 17th century works in mind, as they generally take the position that synagogues were prevalent throughout the land of Israel prior to the exile. See, for example, David Dickson on Psalm 74—could it be that Gore’s failure to reference such works stems from a complete want of familiarity with them?[/FONT]​[FONT=&quot]29. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Editor’s note: A case for the early founding of the synagogue as a commanded institution of worship, is presented in: Richard E. Bacon, _A Pattern in the Heavens, Part One: Ecclesiology_ (Blue Banner Ebooks, 2001) 83-93. See free ebooks at www.fpcr.org. “So then, in conclusion, we maintain that while it is difficult to trace the synagogue through every book and time of the Mosaic institutions, there is a train that extends from Leviticus through Nehemiah, which is to say from Moses’ generation through the generation in which the Old Testament canon came to a close. There was a _miqra’-qodesh_ in the days of Moses, in the days of Elisha, in the days of Ezekiel, and in the days of Christ. That synagogue was an institution of God …” (_Pattern,_ 92-93).[/FONT]​[FONT=&quot]30. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Editor’s note: This is the argument against prescribed worship used by Richard Hooker in his _Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, _which Gore notes in his book where he repeats this same argument from the synagogue. R. J. Gore, Jr., _Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle_ (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2002). T. David Gordon commends Dr. Gore for raising the issue, and his answer is that the “synagogue was not worship but study” (T. David Gordon, “Review Article: The Westminster Assembly’s Unworkable and Unscriptural View of Worship,” _WTJ_ 65 [2003] 346-347. Hereafter “Review of Gore.”). While he only mentions it in passing, Gillespie on the other hand clearly believed it was an institution for public worship. It may be that this issue is one that holders of the regulative principle may need to treat more thoroughly, particularly since we fear Dr. Gordon’s answer to this objection may raise more problems than it actually solves.[/FONT]​[FONT=&quot]31. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The criticism here is that Gore’s critique of Gillespie is based on modern “scholarship” and is correspondingly completely uninformed as to 16th and 17th century views on the subject. He has taken a brief digression by Gillespie and, without looking at any other Reformed or Puritan work on the subject, has critiqued it as if it were the definitive statement and defense of the position. That he has failed to do any real research is an indication that it is he who is begging the question, not Gillespie. Mr. Gore is supposedly doing a dissertation on the Puritan view of worship, but could not be bothered to look into what the Puritans (a broad sample as opposed to the very few works he did bother himself to consult) actually had to say? [/FONT]​


----------

