Synagogue
The Jews developed the synagogue sometime after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Temple and carried the Jews into Babylonian Captivity. No one knows whether it was then or after the return from exile that the synagogue was invented. In all likelihood, it was an idea that began outside Israel and became standardized over time as the people and the rabbis saw the advantages of the practice.
You see, even after the Jews were allowed to return to Palestine to rebuild the temple under Ezra and Nehemiah, most Jews lived elsewhere and so could not travel to Jerusalem. It was hard to live as a Jew outside of Palestine.
The synagogue was thus developed to serve as a place of study and prayer. It was not referred to as a house of “worship,” likely to avoid any sense that the synagogue could replace the Temple. And the focus of the synagogue was study of Torah and the training of children. You see, one purpose of the synagogue was to pass their faith down to their children. And it worked.
Thus, the synagogue served as a school for children, a place of study, a community center, a house of prayer, and even a place of judgment. The rulers of the synagogue had the authority to expel or otherwise punish wayward Jews.
And the Sabbath thus became a day to gather in the synagogue, to read the Torah, to hear a lesson, to pray, to chant, and even to sing. The singing was not nearly as central to the service as Torah study, but they did sing. You see, a copy of the first five books of the Bible was incredibly expensive, and so the community shared resources to buy a Torah scroll, which was shared on the Sabbath with public readings, lessons, and discussions.
Everett Ferguson, an early church scholar at Abilene Christian who advocates for a cappella singing in Christian worship, has concluded that the First Century synagogues used no instruments — although there may have been exceptions as practices were not entirely uniform across the Roman Empire. The reason given was that instruments were a part of the Temple service and so the synagogues could not attempt to duplicate what was uniquely a part of the Temple.
Ironically enough, one could argue that the Jews refused to use instruments because to do so would have been to “worship,” and true worship was exclusive to the Temple.
Jesus himself said,
(John 4:20-22) Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
The implication is clear that until the time comes, worship is indeed only in Jerusalem — Jesus using “worship” in this technical, Old Testament sense.
The early church
The early church was Jewish — not only in Jerusalem, but throughout the Empire. Paul generally preached first to Jews and to “God fearers” — Gentiles who served God. For centuries, the early church had a very Jewish flavor. After all, the apostles were all Jews, and Jesus was a Jew. They taught from the Jewish scriptures, and they worshiped the God of the Jews.
Later on, the church authorities tried to remove Judaic influences from Christianity — so much so that to “Judaize” was considered heresy. Much of this resulted from the Jewish revolt that led to the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 and the second Jewish revolt of AD 116-117 against the Emperor Trajan, which led to Jewish persecution across the Empire the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews.
After these rebellions, it became quite dangerous to be known as a Jew. But even then, the Jewish flavor of early Christianity persisted, despite the desire of many Christian leaders to escape any association with Judaism. But their effort ultimately succeeded, so much so that even today most Christian paintings of Jesus don’t look remotely Jewish, and we treat the Old Testament as a dead letter.
But early on, the early church was openly Jewish and later was still much more defined by its Jewish roots than it is today. But even so, the early church had no synagogues. For a while, they met in synagogues, and Christian rabbis, such as Paul, were allowed to teach in the synagogues, but soon enough, the Jewish authorities refused to allow the Christians to meet in the synagogues. The Romans weren’t about to give an outlaw group access to public buildings. And so they met in private homes, with no more than 30 in a single house — that’s all a First Century dwelling would hold.
But even though there were no buildings that duplicated the synagogue, the early church had elders, which followed synagogue practice. And the elders had the authority to discipline members, to teach, etc. Sunday became the day for Christian assembly, and the assemblies involved singing, study of the scriptures (originally the Old Testament, as the New Testament wouldn’t be written for decades and not assembled from across the Empire until much later), prayer, singing, and a common meal called the love feast.
And they met to take the Lord’s Supper — sometimes with a common meal, but not always. And this was very different from Jewish practice. The Jews did not eat in the synagogue, whereas the Christians met in homes, and just as our small groups typically do together, they ate together. It’s what people who love each other do when they meet in a home.
It’s pretty clear that the early church followed the synagogue practice of having no instruments. No reason is given in the New Testament, and the writings of the early Christians give several different reasons — including refusing to use instruments so as to not “Judaize.”
My own thinking is that due to Jewish sensibilities, it just made sense to remain a cappella. The gatherings were small, skilled players would have been rare among the Christians, and the gatherings weren’t centered on the singing as much as own the Lord’s Supper, the love feast, and the scriptures.
In an earlier post, I summarized the reasons given by the early church to reject the instrument in worship —
There is a clear desire to be unlike the Jews — but in such ignorance of Jewish practice that the Christians actually worshipped on Sundays much as the Jews worshipped on Saturdays!
There’s a desire to flee any association with the military or with the licentiousness of pagan society. And there’s some Platonic thought, associating instruments with the corruption of the flesh and the voice with the purity of the human spirit.
None of this is biblical. The early Christians don’t use a single argument used by the conservative Churches of Christ today. Rather, they continued Jewish practice and built their arguments either on prejudice against the Jews, cultural considerations, or Greek attitudes toward material things.
Jay
Thank you for your research. This is all very interesting.
The Church service today with all of it's trimmings is quite different . especially in the Catholic and Orthodox faiths with all of their pomp, dressing and liturgy.
I am concerned that we in the Christian Church and Church of Christ have made our worship times complicated.. We have in many places a staff of paid clergy that does everything leaving, the laity out to merely observe the entertainment. We no longer participate in the service. The Christian Church is a one man shoe, the pastor does it all. We have created the Clergy/Laity system of the denominational world that we are so critical of. We have created a system of /church work that has nothing to do with outreach or evangelism.
No our worship/church thing is a nightmare of rules, does and don'ts, programs that don't work and many church cliqes that are or exclusive in nature.We are not a community any longer.
Bob
If memory serves, the word Jesus used for worship in John 4 is never used to describe Christian worship. The closest is a reference in Revelation.
Paul used it to describe what he did when he went to the temple in Jerusalem. All of that seems to emphasize your point: for Jews, worship was done in the temple and there alone. Early Christians seemed to follow this, at least in their language.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I don't agree with your interpretation, Jay. I would not feel respected, if I use a number of biblical texts (as the ECF do) and then hearing such interpretations that clearly miss my point.
There is no prejudice agains Jews in the patristics but a clear understanding that the OT-worship of types and shadows is gone and has been replaced by a worship in spirit and truth. No longer Jerusalem or Mount Garizim; no longer sacrifices of blood; no longer the rituals and liturgies of the temple; and no longer the use of instruments.
Can't you see this constitency in their writings?
There is no ignorance about the Jewish system. Eusebius (one you accused of ignorance in the other thread) lived in the Middle East and came around a good bit. If they summed up synagogue and temple worship in one argument it is not because of ignorance, but because they summed up the whole OT-system in this.
But something elso is interesting, and here's something to bite on for my conservative brothers:
Yes, they wanted to avoid any association with the military – so why are those opping IM going themselves sending their Kids to the US-Army?
Yes, they wanted to separate from the licentiousness of Pagan society – so why are those arguing for a-cappella watching TV?
I think, waht disturbs people looking at us from the outside, is our double standard. We point to the ECF when they agree with us, and we add "of course they are not inspired", when they contradict us. This is making US the standard for truth, and this must not be.
I see the ECF in harmony with the Scriptures, when it comes to
a) Baptism
b) Faith and Works
c) Lords Supper as Full Meal
d) House churches
e) Separation from the world
f) modest dress and headcovering
g) nonresistance
h) a-cappella worship
i) simple living (not striving for riches)
k) male leadership in church and home
and many more things …
And in all these things they can point to a tradition handed down from the apostles and being practiced in churches led by elders who were appointed by the apostles or apostolic men.
In short: These were men, faithful to every word of the Bible … in comparison, we have lost an awful lot of the apostolic teachings; far more than just a-cappella worship is at stake. We are churches, the apostles would hardly recognize as such.
And now for the progressives:
That's something, the progressives have to consider as well, because (as I see it) they thend to throw over board true Apostolic traditions (such as male leadership, a-cappella-worship, faith-and-works-salvation), while pointing to other one we have lost (such as fellowship, love-feast, mutual edification).
I've been in this Blog for three or four weeks now. And It is of great concern to me, that there is this constant debate on Instrumental worship, seeking to point out the weeknesses of our arguments. But, as someone else said, I also have the impression that it is about more than that. I noticed that many churches of Christ adopted an egalitarian view of church leadership and an Evangelical interpretation of Gospel, alongside with a heavy influence of liberal theology in order to support these new doctrines. I am deeply concerned about this. I feel debating about IM vs a-cappella is not really honest, I feel there is something behind it I don't even want to see or hear about, something I wish that would not come up even in our most wicked dreams …
Alexander
Jay,
I have a slightly different question than the other comments but I wondered (given what you wrote in this post) if you think that a local church today is basically a Christian Synagogue?
If so, it would seem that a Christian could decide whether to attend one or not because the Synagogue is a man-made organization. Even Jesus is said to have gone to the synagogue as a "custom" and I don't see how He would be fulfilling any of the Sabbath laws by going (and you don't seem to either). I bring this up because there are many Christians today advocating for a churchless type of Christianity and I was wondering what you thought about it. With all of the benefits of "going to church" in mind (and all its struggles) and the fact that your are an elder of one, I wondered what you would think about this "new" type of Christian.
Tim, what's even more ironic about your statement is that, even though we're now mobile Temples, I've been taught over and over that we "Enter to Worship, Leave to Serve." Even though we're mobile Tabernacles – that anywhere we are, worship can and should be happening – our gut-level understanding is that we worship at a particular place. We miss both one of the greatest continuities between Judaism and Christianity (worship occurs at God's Temple) and one of the great discontinuities ("whose temple we are")
(emphasis mine)
Alexander, that is a huge accusation to make without evidence. I've been participating here for quite a while now, and while this is a haven of progressive thought, I have yet to spot a whiff of "Liberal theology" from the author or from 99% of the participants.
Like I said, that is a huge accusation to make without evidence. Some might deem it slanderous (or, well, libelous, since it is in print rather than spoken). Either way, I hope that you will either present your evidence or retract your accusation. Such statements, especially made on the Internet, very easily take on a life of their own and stain everyone around them.
Alexander,
I agree with Nick that this is terrible thing you have said.
If there is some point you have to make regarding the IM issue, please make it.
However, to instead insinuate that there is some unnamed wickedness in the progressive Churches of Christ that you have not even seen or heard about is really uncalled for.
Tim and Nick are on to something significant above.
Worship can mean one of several things in the New Testament.
There was the worship in the Temple. This is fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus. See Hebrews.
There was the honoring of God, symbolized by bowing down. This is the worship that Peter refused to allow Cornelius to offer him and that the angel refused to allow John to offer as well. This is given to God alone.
There is the Christian liturgy today where we offer our bodies as living sacrifices with service given to others. The preaching of the gospel is included in this worship, as is the "sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips that praise his name" (Hebrews 13:15-16).
The assembly of Christians, as such, is not spoken of as a worship service.
I explore these ideas more extensively in my blog on Acceptable Worship, especially in numbers 11, 13, & 14.
Jerry Starling CommittedToTruth.wordpress.com
In response to Matt — you raise an interesting point, Matt. It's interesting to note that the Greek word, ekklesia, is essentially a synonym for the Hebrew, synagogue.
Both refer to the gathering of people, not the physical place.
It's also interesting to note that early Jewish Christians continued to gather at synagogues, if I understand history correctly. But in addition, they gathered in homes. It was much later, after Constantine apparently, before the modern pattern of gathering at a chapel or cathedral because common.
It's interesting to me that we often seem to ignore the passages which speak of this variety in assembly settings when discussing our current patterns for worship. The apostles seemed to be quite comfortable with all of this variety, since they rarely spoke of it, unless someone got carried away, as the Corinthians apparently did.
Acts reports that the disciples met together daily to break bread. So, that would suggest that the Roman Catholic Church may be the most compliant with examples from the Text.
But, in spite of all of this, Col 2 clearly denigrates all forms of regulations — those of the Scriptures (the Law of Moses) and those made up by humans. Thus, in my view, we are left with our freedom in Christ, seeking to worship in Spirit and in truth, seeking to love one another as Jesus loved us, seeking to draw everyone closer to Jesus and to God.
Those are not clear lines, but they are overwhelming tasks, which require us to be attentive and thoughtful in everything we do, which is much harder than following a set of rules or regulations.
And God told us it would not be easy to follow him. Following principles is more difficult than following rules.
Jay Guin quotes from an earlier post: "There is a clear desire to be unlike the Jews — but in such ignorance of Jewish practice that the Christians actually worshipped on Sundays much as the Jews worshipped on Saturdays!"
I find this to be an amazing claim. The Christians followed the synagogue in terms of its worship and even its organization, but they were ignorant of the similarity? Is there any patristic evidence for this supposed ignorance on their part?
Of course this sounds terrible because it is terrible. The "huge" dose of liberal theology of course doesn't affect all areas of teaching, but it comes to the fore when coming to specifc teachings. And – if you read carefully – I did not speak of this Blog in particular, but of progressivism in general, also among the churches of Christ. I have made a lot of observations, and I would not be surprized if some here have adopted this thought patterns without being aware of this. But let me give you some examples, so you better understand what I mean:
I was shocked by an essay by Doug Foster (ACU) about "reconciliation", where he argued for an egalitarian view on women in church based on the liberation of slaves and a (supposed) inferior understanding of God's will in the ancient churches. He never replied to my response (although I forwarded my mail three times). We were pointed to his essay by a brother in Germany who said he agrees with him.
I have listened to the explainantions of a church of Christ in Germany that allows women to preach, and I was shocked. We have a brother in our midst who tried to explain away 1 Tim 2:9-15 by claiming this rule was given because of the limited access to education for women back then – he was at a CoC preacher's school.
All of this is liberal theology. And the way Jay interprets the ECF falls into the same category. Just to sum up the basic assumptions of this theology that the fewest are aware of:
a) The church's teaching is largely influenced by the culture they lived in
b) this includes supersitious beliefs and prejudices
c) The Apostles and even Jesus were limited in their teachings because they were part of this society, which can mean two things:
c-1) A they themselves did'nt know better (radical view)
c-2) They knew better but the listeners were unable to grasp that so they stuck largely to the views of society and culture in order to be no hindrance for the Gospel. (moderate view)
d) The Gospels were written (or compiled) according to specific needs of the church, which shaped the words they (!) put into the mouth of Jesus
That's just a very short list, and I am very serious about it. For one thing it sounds so logical. But the end result is, that the interpreters can do with the scriptures whatever they want. They just have to make claims about superstitious beliefs in the ancient world, then say: "But we know better", and then explain a certain passage away.
Examples: Demons. The world back then had a superstitious belief about sicknesses and mental illness and attributed this to demons. Of course Jesus did not expel literal demons, since there are no such creatures (we know better) … And, yes, that's from a teacher on a CoC-University.
The ECF who lived among Jews and have had several discussions with them, who lived in the same culture pretty close to the time of the temple, who knew how 1st and 2nd century synagogues worked were "ignorant" and full of "prejudice". "Of course" we today know better, because we have universities and studied scholars and all means of science to discern the truth. We are so enlightened.
I writing with passion, brothers. This is poison for the churches!
The same brother of ours I mentioned above once preached on Zachaeus from Luke. In our church. He asked the question: What was the special need in the churches back then that made Luke chose this story and the wording to it? You see, that's the same theology. The church writes its own Bible. He studied somewhere in Colorado. When I addressed this he was surprized that anybody noticed. Well, maybe I am like a dog who feels an earthquake coming long before the earth starts to tremble …
I strongly and firmly believe that the Bible is verbally inspired and inerrant, that what the apostles wrote for the churches back then is as binding today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. They had no inferior world view, were not superstitious and had no prejudice against anyone (also not against women). They knew better than we (not the other way round!).
A former theologian, Eta Linnemann, who turned bible-believing and orderd her theological publications to be destroyed once said: "The graetest danger for the church dies not come from the radical liberals but from pious ones who m,ake it appear that this kind of theology could profit us somehow." She was an insider and wrote a number of books revealing the way of thinking behind the scenes …
Please, brothers, think about it and be more critical towards our own universities.
Alexander
Alexander,
I was part of a conversation with some folks from a free evangelical church, they where relating a lesson on women's roles in the church and in the lesson sighted some of the same things you mentioned, about education and cultural differences, but in the end even they at the end reaffirm that the woman is not to hold authority.
Well, that sounds like they pulled the emergency break 😉
But serioulsy, the whole reasoning itself is wrong – it is not even based on facts, but on a view of ancient society through our "modern glasses". The main problem is, that Paul stated clearly, why women shall not teach in church: It is based on Gen 2 and 3, not on ancient standards of culture and society. In the end they say: "What Paul said is not accurate; he was a prisoner of cultural prejudice against women and clothed that in biblical language. We know it better." That's a wrong attitude towards scripture, and actually a straight denial of the inspiration.
And worse: It makes us prisoners of our culture and society, when we start bending God's word so it will fit our cultural views on life. This means: The philsosphers who shaped our "Zeitgeist" are superior to the Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures. This brings us back under the influence of darkness and the evil one.
But since the Apostles taught speration and not conformity to the world, we must do the same, if we want to be found among the faithful ones.
Alexander
Why don't we trust God to determine who will be "found among the faithful ones"? I don't have to list all of the verses here (it's been done and done and done) that clearly teach that faithful ones are all of those who submit to Jesus as Lord.
Alexander, I have no wish to fight with you, and I do appreciate the civil tone that you use in your posts, but when you say things like what I've quoted above, you are effectively taking the same position as the CFTF and other hyper-conservative, legalist hard-liners (that is, adding requirements beyond faith in Jesus in order to be "acceptable" children of God). You've made statements about "liberal theology" coming from "our own universities," but haven't supported those accusations with evidence beyond one anecdote. Your insinuation that theologians are somehow non-biblical (you did so by claiming that Linnemann "turned bible-believing" only as a "former" theologian) is also insulting to me (and I can only assume many others who read and post here) who take our theological studies (and our faith in the Jesus of the Bible) very seriously.
How do you know the apostles (or at the very least the ECFs), weren't superstitious, or at least influenced by the superstitions of the world around them? Superstition is alive and well in the 21st century, what makes you so sure that it wasn't a factor in the 1st as well?
You seem to glorify the 1st century as some sort of "golden age" of uniformity of church practice. This just doesn't track from reading Acts and the Pauline letters. The 1st century churches were vastly different in terms of their makeup, personality, and problems. They weren't uniform, but they were united. Even the Corinthian church, who we would all almost certainly write off as "apostate" for all of their problems, are called "brothers" by Paul. Why can't we do the same? Instead we insist on finding more and more lines to draw so that we can point to the people outside the lines and say, "look! They're not faithful!"
I don't expect to change your mind, but please, PLEASE consider the implications of things you're saying about those of us with whom you disagree. I can assure you that we love Jesus very much. Imperfectly, to be sure, but just as wholeheartedly as you.
In Christ,
Aaron
Dear Aaron
I don't know much about the CFTF, but what I learned about the "hyperconservative" wing of the CoC is not convincing for me. What I found out is that my approach sometimes sounds even more progressive that prpgressivism and sometimes even stricter than the CFTF. And that's what I find in the Lord Jesus as well: On one hand he ate and drank with the sinners and showed great freedom in interpreting the Law of the Sabbath, on the other hand he urges us to become by far more righteous and faithful than the hyperconservative Scribes and Pharisees.
You said:
Of course it is God who will judge. But the same God says to us: "Strive to enter through the narrow gate". The fact that God judges does not mean that we just relax and wait for His judgment, but that we strive to pass His test with all diligency.
It has become a nice religious phrase "to submit to Jesus as Lord", but what does that mean? At least twice the Lord said confessing Him as Lord alone is not enough, but He wants to see obedience and fruit.
Separation from this world is one of the core-teachings in the New Testament (found in the writings of almost every author in the NT); and it is the New covenant application of OT-Laws concerning purity and being different than the surrounding nations.
If we do the same as Paul (which we indeed MUST!), then we also have to rebuke and to admonish when the church is not in line with the rest of the churches. Paul several times speaks up to uniform practices and beliefs among all churches especially in the the letter to Corinth. Just a list:
a) The letter is addressed to all Christians everywhere (1:2)
b) He spoke of the same life style in all churches exemplified by Timothy (4:16)
c) He spoke ofthe same standards of divorce and remarriage (a command of the Lord)(ch 7)
d) He spoke of traditions we have to hold fast to that he received from the Lodr and handed down to all churches (ch 11 & 15)
e) He said, that in all churches women pray veiled (11:13+16)
f) He said that in all churches women are to be silent (also a command of the Lord (14:34-38)
g) He spoke about the collection for needy churches in a way he teaches inother churches also (ch 16)
That's just from the letter in Corinth. But all leters of Paul circulated in all churches (see 2Peter 3)!
You can also point to Acts 15 and read the letter that was being read in all churches. There is no hint anywhere in the scriptures that this was meant to be a temporary arrangement (see James in Acts 21, some 10-15 years after Acts 15). Even Jesus rebuked the churches in Asia sharply for eating meat sacrificed to idols (Rev 2-3).
I see a clear standard in the Apostolic teachings, not in the practice of churches that fall short of obedience and attitude (maybe that's a difference that people don't see clearly when we speak of NT-churches). And these teachings contain a number of patterns and commandments we have to conform to in oder to be unified with the church that is founded on the apostles and prophets where Jesus is the corner stone (Eph 2:20). Everything we differ in from them therefore has to be corrected. So, we MUST NOT conform to the syles, patterns and fads of the world, but we MUST seperate and go out from amongst them (in respect of the heart and divine love, in the way we treat our enemies, the way we think, speak and look at things, the way we worship God, the way we spend our time, what kind of entertainment we enjoy in and up to the way we dress and adorn ourselves – this might sound like Anabtist teachings, and frankly, I imagine many Anabaptists will enter the Kindom ahead of the churches of Christ).
Only if we are willing to do this, we can be called true disciples. When we willfully (!) mingle worldy thought patterns and styles that are against the clear statements of the NT into our belief and practice, we are like the ones in Israel who used two differrent kinds of thread for their garments. And we all know that God was very serious about that.
Alexander
P.S.: Again: God will judge who is faithful and who is not. But we have to strive to be found among them. Both statements are equally true. As for myself: "I don't think I am already where I ought to be, but I move on and focus on on Christ."
Matt,
I don't think the apostles intended to bind synagogue practices in their entirety on the early church. I think they took a convenient feature of Jewish culture — designed to help them remain separate from the world — and adapted it. That's what good missionaries do.
First, the synagogue is not a scriptural invention. It's a human innovation.
Second, the synagogue was primarily a place of study. The Christian assembly certainly involved study, but I don't see that study was the central focus. The synagogue was all about Torah. The assembly was all about Jesus.
Third, synagogue practices weren't uniform. Archaeologists have found synagogues with mosaics of humans — which most First Century Jews would have considered a violation of the command against graven images (people are made in God's image).
In reality, there's an awful lot we don't know about the early synagogues. Much of what we do know is from the NT and from archaeology.
And the NT never says that the early church was organized into Christian synagogues. Rather, some commentators have noticed that there were similarities. This is far, far from a command to be the same as a synagogue.
But the synagogue was an evolved, cultural manifestation of First Century Judaism that had been very effective in preserving Judaism for generations. It only makes sense that early church leaders would find elements that should be retained in Christian practice and elements that should not be.
Matt,
You ask a great question —
I am solidly opposed to any form of Christianity that rejects membership in a local congregation where members are held accountable to spiritual leadership and work together in God's mission.
We are saved by being added to the body. We are saved into the saved community. The scriptures are replete with references to the importance of loving one another. And what kind of love fails to lead to being together?
I'll have some posts popping up in a few days on the NT concept of church as a "colony." We are a holy nation, not holy people without connection to each other.
And I'm equally opposed to congregations that are so autonomous that they are separate from other congregations — even competing with them. That would be like having a hand that's disconnected from the body — a very ugly thing and not at all healthy for the hand.
No, we need to be more joined together than we've been in the past. Unity is only a mark of the church if people outside can see it.
Nick and Tim,
If you compare translations, you'll notice that in many places the translators don't agree whether to translate a word as "serve" or "worship." The Greek word most commonly used to mean "worship" by Christians — latreuo — also means "serve." Interesting?
Clark,
Everett Ferguson has found that the synagogues were a cappella. The Temple was destroyed in AD 70. But the Patristics sometimes say that the church rejects instruments so as to not "Judaize."
The following quotation is from the Christian Courier and by Wayne Jackson — likely the most popular website among the conservative Churches —
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1328-wha…
When Aquinas wrote, the Jews hadn't worshiped with an instrument in over 1,000 years.
Contrary to McClintock and Strong, the Jews only used instruments at the Temple — ending when the Jewish revolution began, which led to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.
The fact that synagogue worship was a cappella is not controversial among scholars today, and that fact makes these theories and claims quite untenable. If the Christians adopted a cappella practices to be unlike the Jews, they were sadly ignorant of Jewish practices.
A more likely scenario is that they followed Jewish practice — as for many years the church was culturally Jewish. Later church authorities tried to drive the Jewishness out of the church, likely in part due to the continuing rebellions by the Jews against Rome and the persecution of Jews that followed — and the later refusal of the Jews to convert when Christianity became the state religion of Rome.
Therefore, when early church leaders and scholars from ages past say the church rejected instruments to be unlike the Jews, they are really reflecting an anti-Jewish prejudice that came to typify the church centuries after the apostles.
http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~bstevens/JewishOther…
Jay,
You said —
"I am solidly opposed to any form of Christianity that rejects membership in a local congregation where members are held accountable to spiritual leadership and work together in God’s mission."
I guess I just don't really understand this. I don't see the first Christians as thinking of themselves members of their congregations. Its common knowledge that believers met primarily in homes but we don't see people claiming to be members of one "house church" and not another within the same community. Meeting in homes for worship and fellowship and being a "house church" are very different things. The early Christians appear to see themselves as members of the body of Christ universal and the body in their city. I don't really see a smaller membership than this. Am I missing something?
Also, the idea of "members are held accountable to spiritual leadership" doesn't quite seem right to me (but it could just be me of course). I was always taught that we were to be accountable to God but I am not aware of a verse of Scripture that says we are to be accountable to each other. Is there one?
True spiritual leaders are very valuable but it is very difficult to see the connection between these leaders and the believers in the Scriptures. I don't see how they were organizationally related. I can see a relational connection but if there is an organizational idea implied than I must not be seeing it. In the church of Christ we have argued for the "multiple elders per congregation" idea but the Scriptures seem to indicate multiple elders per city.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Matt,
You make some good points and some I don't quite agree with. But we aren't far apart.
You are right that the early church saw themselves as members of the church universal and of the church in their city. I think they also saw themselves as members of their house churches.
The scriptures use "church" in all three senses — and we've lost the use of "church" as the church in one town, because we've taken the church in our town and divided it against itself in countless ways.
I work through the details and the texts at /2008/07/31/a-question-abou…
Regarding house churches, consider such passages as —
Romans 16:5 NIV Greet also the church that meets at their house.
1 Corinthians 16:19 NIV The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.
It's hard to imagine that they'd call the house church a "church" and yet not feel as much as member of that church as the church of the city or the church universal. In fact, people would likely feel the most sense of membership in their house church.
Regarding accountability, you have to first consider the several church discipline passages, such as 1 Cor 5 and 2 Thes 3:14-15.
Now, I concede that these passages speak of the congregation imposing discipline, not the leadership per se. But we also see in 1 Cor 5 that Paul directed the church in their discipline. There's a role for leaders.
In Acts 15, the apostles and elders considered how to deal with the inclusion of Gentiles into the church.
In Acts 20, Paul addresses the Ephesian elders, and he says,
28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.
The emphasis is on the role of elders as shepherds — a terms that has roots not only in Jesus as the Good Shepherd but in Ezekiel's condemnation of Israel's bad shepherds — the leaders. And the synagogues had elders.
Sheep are accountable to a shepherd. If they stray, the shepherd is tasked with recovering them. If they are hungry or thirsty, the shepherd must provide food and water. The shepherd must protect them from wolves — which means the shepherd must keep them in the sheepfold.
There's no doubt but in that culture the sheep followed the shepherds. Their lives depended on it.
1 Tim 5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.
Elders are also referred to as "overseers," meaning literally "supervisor." It's a term used of middle management.
Now I think you are right that the elders presided as a body over the entire church in the city — which often would have met in several houses. Houses in those days would rarely hold more than 30 people, and so a large church would have met in several house churches — rather as we do small groups today.
As a result, it's likely the elders visited the house churches and moved among them. I can imagine no other way for them to exercise their duties.
The members were certainly accountable to them and to each other, and it may be that the house-churches sought out opportunities to gather as a body — when there was no persecution or just in a spacious area on a pretty day.
And the members may well have moved around a bit from house to house as a way of instilling a sense of community larger than the house-church.
We don't know the details, but the church clearly thought of all Christians in a single city as a single body, accountable to each other and the elders.
Jay,
Thanks for taking the time to make clarification. I will seriously consider what you have said and try to study this further. I would love to hear more about how you think this works in today's world when we have so many denominations (and I do include cofc in this list) all with their own leaders. Are we accountable to all of them? Have some just made themselves church leaders and don't have any real right to this title?
I know I am asking about ideals, but how are we supposed to know what to work for without them. Thanks for the discussion. It has been very helpful.
Matt,
Consider these posts —
/2009/01/15/a-lovers-quarre…
/2007/06/17/imagine-a-world…
/2008/07/31/a-question-abou…
I would add that I'm not a patternist and so don't see that we are required to have a single eldership over a single city. It's not practical in most towns because churches that are too large will have elders that are too far removed from the members they are to shepherd.
Cities today are by and large just a whole lot bigger than cities in Rome — and much more spread apart.
On the other hand, unity and a common mission mean that all churches in a community should work together with a singleness of purpose.
Thanks for the links and don't worry I never confused you for a patternist (I don't see myself as one either). I did wonder if we were starting to discuss patternism without intending to.
The links were very helpful. Thanks. Must leave this issue for now for more thought and study. Thanks for the discussion.
Jay:
Thanks for the reply. I have read the entire earlier post that you referenced. I guess the problem that I had was the implication that the "early" church worshiped in the manner of the synagogue but did not even realize it. You quoted Aquinas in your reply. Aquinas does not qualify as "early" to me, not by about 1000 years.
In your original article, only the quote by Justin Martyr seems to fit the point you are making. Justin Martyr is pretty early (3rd century) but far enough removed from the Jewish roots of Christianity so that he might have been unaware of the difference between temple and synagogue music.
Of course, by the time of Justin Martyr, the church had been worshiping without instruments for two centuries, and without any explanations that give evidence of their ignorance of the synagogue worship. They had a variety of spiritual and allegorical explanations, not all of them satisfactory to me, but I don't see ignorance of the synagogue.
I think that a fair summary of the early Christian writings (in the first four centuries) is that various writers devised explanations for the a capella practices already long established in the church. None of them had any direct apostolic teaching to quote, and they were obviously devising a posteriori reasoning for existing practice. As a result, they each devised different reasons, each writer taking a somewhat different approach from other writers.
The historical value is their writings is to confirm the historical practice. Their reasoning is not inspired or inerrant. But no one claims it to be such. Thus, if their reasoning differs from the reasoning that I use, or that famous Restoration leaders use, so what?
The early century Gentile church beliefs about the Jews and their attitude toward the Hebrew Scriptures have an enormous impact and are very telling about their teachings of God’s Word and their ideas about church. The early Gentile church misuse of God’s Word used their power to influence and control people.
Jewish believers kept the faith in its original Jewish form, as taught by Yeshua who was a Jew and preached by the apostles who were also very much Jews.
The early century Gentile church: Unfortunately the Gentile church did not seek to understand the Jewish roots of the faith but applied Greek philosophy to it. Because of the Greek outlook the official line became very Anti-Semitic. The church adopted Greek philosophy and ideas into its theology.
Justin Martyr 100-165 AD claimed God’s covenant with Israel was no longer valid and that Gentiles had replaced them.
Ignatus said that those who partook Passover were partakers with those who killed Jesus.
Tertullian160-220 AD blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus he argued that divine judgment is upon Israel, and Jews are destined to suffer for the crucifixion.
Origen 185-254 AD Origen and his school in Alexandria teachings were based on Greek philosophy. Although he was considered heretical at the time he was tolerated and influenced the church teaching profoundly. He was responsible for much Anti-Semitism and accused Jews of plotting to kill Christians creating the atmosphere in which Christian Anti-Semitism took root and spread. His later disciples consisted of Gregory, Dionysus, Hieracas, Pamphilus, Eusebius.
Council of Nicea in 325 AD and Council of Antioch in 341 AD Christians were forbidden to celebrate Passover with Jews.
Jerome 374-419 AD said Jews are incapable of understanding Scripture and should be severely punished until they confess the true faith.
Several Church councils from 341 AD to 626 AD prohibited Christians from celebrating the Sabbath, festivals, and even eating with the Jews.
John Chrysostom 344-407 AD preached that he hated the Jews and it is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews.
Augustine 354-430 AD wrote that the Jews were destined to wander the earth to witness the victory of church over synagogue.
Council of Laodicea 434-481 AD Christians were forbidden to worship on the Sabbath.
440 AD the state church enforced Anti-Semitism and Jews accepting their messiah had to renounce all Jewishness and become Gentile Christians.
More Jews have been killed in the name of Yeshua than by anyone else. Not only did the church forefathers hate the Jews and disengage themselves from them, they persecuted them throughout history.
Christians were never given any mandate by Jesus to punish the Jews, but the Church was responsible for unleashing the most awful persecution to happen.
bondservant: That is all very interesting, but we are talking about worship in this thread. Not every topic related to the church should be brought into every blog entry.
Clark,
I entirely agree that the Patristics' explanations seem very a posteriori. You might enjoy reading In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity.
While their reasoning isn't inspired, and no one in the Churches so argues, many do argue that they give clear evidence of apostolic intent — either of how to read the silences or else of an oral tradition that was to be preserved and honored. In my experience, most who are convinced on this subject say they were convinced by the Patristic evidence.