# Where is Synagogue Worship Regulated?



## Justified (Apr 24, 2016)

I see that in Lev. 23 Israel is commanded to hold a holy convocation to the Lord, but where is scriptural regulation given for the synagogue? If there isn't, how does this affect our understanding of the RPW?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 24, 2016)

My answer would be: that synagogue worship was regulated by the Temple, or in relation to the regulated worship that was present at the Temple.

It is not the case that the Temple was regulated, and the synagogue was not. This is an incoherent position. If some manner of presentable worship authorized at the Temple was performable elsewhere (without violation to its form or content), then ipso facto it was authorized. And, in the nature of the case, regulated.

What could be done in synagogue, being done in the Temple? Prayer. Scripture, read and taught. Psalms sung. Alms. Circumcision?

The case of singing would be most instructive. In the Temple, due to its successive barriers the singers had to be ministers, Levites. Hence, the principle of a choir was introduced by David. The people had songs, even inspired song, but not for worship until David. However, because of the dispersion of priests and Levites through the land, song-ministry was utterly impractical in the synagogue, unless the singing was democratized. The Psalms are not, as a rule, solo pieces; therefore, if they ought to be sung in synagogue the congregation must have assumed the duties of the choir.

What could not be done? Sacrifices. Washings. Incense. Candles. Showbread. Basically, the Temple furniture was unique, and anything to do with it.

In other words, the synagogue was an extension of the Temple's service. Not to include those things that could only be rightly done only at the central shrine; but the priest could teach the people (Lev.10:11) the Law; and self-consciously connect folks in distant towns with the rituals being conducted on their behalf at Jerusalem. The Temple regulated the synagogue.


----------



## Justified (Apr 25, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> My answer would be: that synagogue worship was regulated by the Temple, or in relation to the regulated worship that was present at the Temple.
> 
> It is not the case that the Temple was regulated, and the synagogue was not. This is an incoherent position. If some manner of presentable worship authorized at the Temple was performable elsewhere (without violation to its form or content), then ipso facto it was authorized. And, in the nature of the case, regulated.
> 
> ...


Bruce, thank you. That was incredibly helpful. I never thought of seeing synagogue worship as an extention of temple worship.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 25, 2016)

An interesting question would be: where is the synagogue authorized in Scripture?


----------



## Cymro (Apr 25, 2016)

Edersheim has a detailed section on the service of the Synagogue and its order. It is interesting to note that the sermon was delivered from a seated position, and the speaker subjected to questions when he finished. Also the Jewish creed or Shema was recited during the service. He maintains that whoever read the scriptures had to lead the devotions ie,prayers, and that Christ would have done so.


----------



## Cymro (Apr 25, 2016)

As to authorisation he writes,"the OT contains no allusion to their existence." They developed as a result of the Babylonish captivity and the Dispersion. Thus in providence the synagogue established in various nations became the cradle of the church. So its origin was out of necessity to cater for the exiles and to keep religion alive. There was says Edersheim ," a general desire to conform to Temple arrangements", particularly in its structure positionally as prayers to the east were condemned. But obviously Christ's use of the synagogue puts Divine sanction upon it. This is the ultimate authorisation.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 25, 2016)

Ps.74:8 They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.

If you must meet in holy convocation, Lev.23:3, does this not necessitate a meeting and a place?

Also, the connection between the synagogue dispersed in the land with the Temple centered, is precisely the connection between our dispersed church and Christ's heaven, and regulated by the same rule.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 25, 2016)

I think some disagree with Edersheim on this basis and that the synagogue had an early institution. 


Contra_Mundum said:


> Ps.74:8 They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.
> 
> If you must meet in holy convocation, Lev.23:3, does this not necessitate a meeting and a place?
> 
> Also, the connection between the synagogue dispersed in the land with the Temple centered, is precisely the connection between our dispersed church and Christ's heaven, and regulated by the same rule.


----------



## Cymro (Apr 25, 2016)

Endersheim gives a footnote of Ps74:8 concerning no allusion to the synagogues.(page 431). Anyway the solution lies in the Hebrew useage which is beyond my abilities.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 25, 2016)

Edersheim is a wealth of information, worthy of much consultation. I think, in this thing, he is over-cautious.

He is right to deprecate the notion that the patriarchs conducted formal synagogue-worship. This is nonsense akin to Romanist belief that the Apostles conducted mass and venerated Mary; unless the idea is that there was some form of true worship in those times continguous with the true worship of latter days and forms.

My proposal that there was some formal worship-assembly--minus sacrifices and other Temple-exclusive ritual--on the Sabbath from the origin of the nation is based on those Scriptures already adduced. I am comfortable with the idea that the basic outline of such true, pre-exilic worship apart from the central shrine is simple enough that it could leave few traces behind. The people's worship was supposed to be oriented to the Tabernacle/Temple, even when they were some distance away. How much more when they were in Babylon? I don't believe the exiles "invented" all their synagogue habits once they were settled by the River Chebar. But they obviously grew in significance in those days.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 26, 2016)

Cymro said:


> But obviously Christ's use of the synagogue puts Divine sanction upon it. This is the ultimate authorisation.



Yes, good point. Although there is not OT sanction for the synagogue, it's important that Jesus never condemned its existence - and participated and led synagogue worship Himself. So, in a sense, the synagogue is a "circumstance" of worship.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 26, 2016)

I disagree with the notion that there is no OT sanction for Synagogue worship and agree with Bruce's points.

Remember, we're not the IFB board asking: "Where is the proof text for Synagogue worship?"

Jesus silenced the Saducees by good and necessary consequence.

Are we really to believe that the _only_ time that worship occured in the Old Covenant was three times a year and that God had ordained that only men were required to worship?

The GNC for synagogue worship is the 4th Commandment itself.

I think we also need to remember that we sometimes look upon the emergence of things as if there is always going to be a clear Biblical outline for something. Some things are just so part and parcel of the worshipping community that it is almost as if there is no need to write about such things.

Man is a worshipping creature. That is not so much stated outright as pervasive.

Doesn't it seem interesting to everyone that everyone understands that a week is 7 days and that we all live by that pattern. We don't have to prove that it's the case. Attempts have been made to go to a metrical week and they didn't work.

There are certain things like 1 in 7 that we have "caught" from creation. The question is not whether there is sanction for worshipping God on the day of rest but what kind of worship it will be.


----------



## richardnz (Apr 27, 2016)

I can agree that “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy” is enough to start the process of prescribing worship because at least the day of the week is prescribed. Beyond this I cannot see how anyone can be definite as to how synagogue worship was prescribed in its possible elements. We do not even know what they did in the synagogue except that in Jesus' day they at least read the law. Was singing psalms part of their services? Some say yes, some say no. If we were in Israel in those days how would we reason from the limited word of God at our disposal in order to be sure of the necessary elements of our synagogue worship?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2016)

That's why you must begin with the Tabernacle/Temple service, and see that what is found there is the absolute limit of possibility--we have explicit prescription or evidence of allowance; and what was not commanded was forbidden.

But more, there were things permissible at the Temple that were categorically forbidden or impossible elsewhere. So Temple-exclusivity also imposed further limits on what might be done in any synagogue. This order and principle would teach a very conservative approach to synagogue liturgy. The same order and principle should teach the church a conservative approach to its liturgy also.

Besides these observations, we don't have to agonize over the question of what OT Israelites were directed to do or forbidden. We can trust they knew and obeyed (when they were not actively turning away from God). It isn't necessary, however interesting, for a NT Christian to have a catalogue of synagogue activity; it isn't our burden. We can only infer certain basic outlines.

And furthermore, it is not the case that OT Israel had the same limits on the availability of the Word of God that we are left with. We have all we need in written form; as they had all they needed (less): with the addition of living prophets. In those days they could actually inquire of the Lord by a living prophet or the priest with the ephod containing the urrim and thummim, if they were unsure if what they were contemplating doing was permissible. They had to infer nothing; and they could rely generally on an historic pattern of inheritance once it had been approved.


----------



## richardnz (May 3, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> That's why you must begin with the Tabernacle/Temple service, and see that what is found there is the absolute limit of possibility--we have explicit prescription or evidence of allowance; and what was not commanded was forbidden.



_I can see a problem here because there is no evidence of the regular reading of or preaching the word in the temple. If we reason this way we would have to conclude that preaching was forbidden in the synagogue. I am sure that there was teaching in the temple because of Calvin's explanation on the necessity of word and sign being together, but I cannot find anything in Leviticus etc that says that it must be so._




> But more, there were things permissible at the Temple that were categorically forbidden or impossible elsewhere. So Temple-exclusivity also imposed further limits on what might be done in any synagogue. This order and principle would teach a very conservative approach to synagogue liturgy. The same order and principle should teach the church a conservative approach to its liturgy also.



_This must be true. I would think those aspects of the construction of the temple and services which were designed to speak of the coming of the Messiah and His work in the heavenly temple were not designed for use outside the temple, and so would be wrong to use in the synagogue._



> Besides these observations, we don't have to agonize over the question of what OT Israelites were directed to do or forbidden. We can trust they knew and obeyed (when they were not actively turning away from God). It isn't necessary, however interesting, for a NT Christian to have a catalogue of synagogue activity; it isn't our burden. We can only infer certain basic outlines.



_I do believe that God gave them enough guidance and the will to obey. I also believe that although we might not agonise over their concerns, it would be profitable to at least give earnest attention to how they handled their concerns because it sheds light upon how we should understand and apply the RPW, which is what the original post referred to. My question is how did they go about inferring certain basic outlines, and what were those outlines?_



> And furthermore, it is not the case that OT Israel had the same limits on the availability of the Word of God that we are left with. We have all we need in written form; as they had all they needed (less): with the addition of living prophets. In those days they could actually inquire of the Lord by a living prophet or the priest with the ephod containing the urrim and thummim, if they were unsure if what they were contemplating doing was permissible. They had to infer nothing; and they could rely generally on an historic pattern of inheritance once it had been approved.



_There is some speculation here. The Urim and Thummim seemed to be restricted to giving yes/no answers, so would not be of much help on such a complicated issue. Consulting the prophets could be a more promising avenue for finding God's will for worship, but we do not know that they were consulted, or that they were given revelation for the purpose of prescribing synagogue worship, or whether it was even necessary. In addition, if they were given such revelation it would need to be preserved for generations in order to keep the worship pure. It would need to be written down. Hence we would expect to find it in the scriptures. 
_
_Some writers display a surprising confidence in claiming knowledge of synagogue practices. For example Girardeau claims that there were no musical instruments in the synagogue, and that there was preaching, almsgiving etc without providing any biblical evidence. He talks of probabilities, reasonable presumptions and historians, but certainty eludes him as it eludes many others. _
_I find the institution of the synagogues as well as synagogue practices something of a mystery, but perhaps there is enough information in the Law to deduce in broad terms what would be pleasing to God. This would mean that the concept of regulated worship is a looser kind of regulation than many would be comfortable with. _


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 3, 2016)

richardnz said:


> I can see a problem here because there is no evidence of the regular reading of or preaching the word in the temple.


Help me out here, Richard. What constitutes "evidence" to your mind? That is to say: there is abundant evidence that the priests had an office of teaching. Where was this teaching to take place? Dt.31:11 definitely implies that the _place_ of national gathering was to be the central focus of the law-reading (and hence, the teaching accompanying, instanced Neh.8:8). Then there are signs that such instruction was also dispersed, 2Chr.17:8-9; Mal.2:7; 1Chr.15:3; Mic.3:11.

Lev.10:11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

Dt.33:8-10 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah; Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant. They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.​
In that one text alone is combined the service of sacrifice and instruction.

What might be helpful would be an explanation for why all the Scripture references to priests who teach fail whatever criteria you have determined. What are those criteria, and why should we use them?




richardnz said:


> There is some speculation here. The Urim and Thummim seemed to be restricted to giving yes/no answers, so would not be of much help on such a complicated issue.


No, its not speculative at all. "May we do X in a worship setting?" is a yes-or-no question. That's not complicated. If a more thorough answer was needed to some inquiry, the prophet could be consulted. We have examples of both forms of inquiry in the OT, on a variety of subjects. Why not worship, given its importance?

There seems to be an assumption that the _sola scriptura_ principle we operate with today suffices to condition the experience of ancient Israel as we observe it from our distant vantage. This is not only unrealistic; it is overthrown by the description (in our possession) of those facts-on-the-ground which was the experience of the people of God in those days. We are given to know _that_ of certain realities, without being informed fully _whereof_ those same realities.

We do not have exhaustive possession of every inspired utterance of the past. We have that which was _necessary _for preservation; which also comprises a vital record of the history of revelatory progress _through_ the process of preservation.

We have 1) the correct principle of worship (I'm stipulating this, rather than seeking to prove it once again). What hard evidence from Scripture might be produced, showing that God in any way approved of his people worshipping in any manner not carefully regulated?

We have 2) the reality of present and immediate special revelation. It's false to assert that: if a specific question was raised, it must have then and therefore been written down for preservation, that it could not have been asked repeatedly. There is absolutely no necessity of this, unless God supplies the definitive answer and ensures it is circulated. We are shut up to what is written when there is no more active answering from heaven, not before.

I don't propose that from the earliest moment of national life, there was an organized and systematized dispersed-manner of worship that is fully comparable to the developed synagogue that came to prominence through the exile. But the rudiments for that system are as organic to Israelite religion as her charter.

Israel was a nation "under age." Children, especially the younger they are, require repeated reiteration of the same lessons, over and over again. Mom and Dad give the immediate answer over and over, waiting for it to "sink in." Children must be taught to read instructions, so that in time they can reacquaint themselves with the family standards, rather than needing immediate answers from parental authority. Israel was treated in exactly this manner, for purposes of instructing us, "on whom the end of the ages has come."

Perhaps there are some writers who offer insufficient (for some readers) justification for their claims. They might still be correct, and have valid grounds for their contentions. People write books for different purposes and audiences. Perhaps Girardeau is not the author who will do the most good for one person's need. But he's simply describing the past based ONLY on the information available to him in the present. And it is NOT the case that _in the past_ MORE information wasn't available. We know additional information WAS available, even if we don't know the _content_ of it.

Which explains why we most likely do have to make some guesses as to what constituted the whole of ancient, approved worship practice. That we must make that kind of best-guess for our uses *in no wise* compels the conclusion that THEY required a "best-guess" for THEIR uses! It does not follow at all. I agree that when we don't know a thing for certain, we should acknowledge the mystery.

I'm afraid, what leads to a "loose-regulation" judgment of synagogue-worship is an assumption that our late NT experience (relying on _sola scriptura_) is a mirror of the experience of ancient Israel, who lived the experience of ongoing-revelation.

God bless your studies.


----------



## richardnz (May 7, 2016)

Thank you, Bruce, for a thoughtful response. Your question regarding “evidence” points to the issue I am trying to make sense of. It is about what constitutes a “good and necessary consequence”. I think that the passages you have quoted with regards to the teaching role of the priests are most relevant. Here is my attempt at arriving at the necessity of synagogue and temple preaching from what has been written in the Law:-

The priests knew they had to teach the Law. They knew that the Law was to be talked about when people rose up and sat down, it was to be meditated upon day and night. The Law is about the work of God, it glorifies God. The law is tied to the presence of God in such a way that it would be unthinkable that in the place of His presence on earth, the temple, that there would be no teaching of the law because there was no specific command to do so. In fact, if anything there should be more teaching and preaching in the temple than anywhere else because of God's special presence there.
Similarly with the synagogue. If the day is holy to the Lord, if special attention is to be given to God, then by implication there must be teaching and preaching in order to focus the attention of the faithful on God in congregational worship. It would also follow that in order to provide the best quality teaching you would make use of a trained Levite if available. If you were away from town in a nomadic situation you would make use of the person amongst your entourage who had the most Levite-like abilities, some kind of elder figure. The existence of a synagogue may not require much deduction to provide its justification in that it is just an assembly of people trying to perform their Sabbath obligations as a group instead of individually, following other biblical examples of group worship.
So in summary the Law “prescribes”, in a sense, the necessity of preaching in both temple and synagogue, but we are expected to work out some basic things without specific commands, and preaching is one of them. Certain aspects of temple worship did require specific commands, and so those detailed commands were given.
I think that is what Semper Fidelis (Rich) was referring to when he said in an earlier post, 

“I think we also need to remember that we sometimes look upon the emergence of things as if there is always going to be a clear Biblical outline for something. Some things are just so part and parcel of the worshipping community that it is almost as if there is no need to write about such things.”

I have not had a try at this but probably the same kind of deduction could be made for the necessity of prayer in the synagogue.
Once you have the preaching of the word and prayer you have arrived at most of the essentials of synagogue and church worship services. In other words, it is just obvious.
We can see that the Lord expects a basic degree of deductive ability on our part. In the case of Nadab and Abihu it should have been obvious that when dealing with a holy God who has laid down particulars for worship that it is not a good idea to consume alcohol such that it impairs your judgment. It is obvious. However if the Lord thinks that our deductive abilities are found wanting, he fills the gap by issuing a command, “You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the tent of meeting, or you will die...so that you can distinguish between the holy and the common”. Similarly, if there was not enough information for Israel to work out the necessary for Sabbath day congregational worship, surely He would have stepped in and provided the necessary correction 
My initial thought that synagogue worship is a mystery may be a reflection on my lack of deductive abilities.
If what I have outlined above is something close to the way we should be thinking about synagogue regulation then it is not necessary to postulate the existence of unrecorded special revelation. We can proceed with the assumption that we are fully equipped for all good work with the scripture we have been given.


----------

