From New Testament Synagogue to Home Assembly
It can be confusing. After the birth of the assembly of Christ; seemingly, Christians just start meeting without any planning or protocol. They just start “doing church.” Unfortunately, the fact that the New Testament assembly was essentially Jewish for a number of years was a shocking revelation to me. Folks can say all they want about Baptists correcting Reformation anti-Semitism—it just isn’t so. Baptists have done nothing to preserve the Jewish roots of the church, and more than likely, the overall ignorance concerning our Jewish roots is foundational to most of the problems we see today within the Evangelical church. A proper understanding of the New Testament assembly model is critical to our philosophy of ministry.
Acts 10 and 11will give you a good perspective on how Jewish the church was—the Gentiles were recognized as part of the same body with much controversy and ado. Once you understand this, it is assumed that New Testament believers simply followed the form of worship that they were already accustomed to. Let’s not forget; for many Jews, the birth of Christ’s assembly was a major event, but not a conversion for them. Many were already born again before the cross (see John 3). So, what you see in New Testament assemblies was pretty much what was going on in the Jewish synagogues prior to Pentecost.
Therefore, it is no surprise to see the apostolic church ministering at the temple, in synagogues, and in homes. It was a natural transition, and a reflection of what had been happening at Jewish synagogues.
The synagogue is a concept that began sometime prior to the exodus. An Old Testament word search of “elder” makes it abundantly clear that elders led groups of people within Israel. During the exodus, the tabernacle was the primary focus for ritual, and God’s people were divided into small groups of learning overseen by elders. Again, a simple word search and observance of how the word is used in the Old Testament makes this abundantly clear. Though these small groups served many critical functions, the primary focus was that of learning. Traditionally, the synagogue is known as Bet Midrash (house of study), Bet Tefillah (house of prayer), and Bet Knesset (house of assembly).* Today, many synagogues have floor plans that accommodate these major ideas; a room for assembly, a room for prayer, and a room for study.
This is a longstanding tradition, and consequently, we see the same pattern in the book of Acts. Certainly, the concept of synagogue was institutionalized, and the first century was no exception. The first century synagogue, numbering around 400 in Jerusalem alone, was a combination of politically well-connected and highly structured centers and less formal home assemblies that were strictly that of the laity.** Along with being well connected with state politics, many of the institutionalized synagogues integrated Greek and Roman paganism into Judaism. † Due to the traditional Jewish mentality in regard to synagogues; i.e., the term “small sanctuary” was used interchangeably between the assembly and the family, ** the assemblies were unaffected by these unfortunate integrations if they chose to be, and many were.
Note: Christ’s assembly grows from 120 to 3000 in one day according to Acts 2:41, and in the following verse we read, “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” Where to put all of these people and what to do with them was of no issue, they merely returned to their existing assemblies, primarily in homes, and continued in the synagogue tradition. Acts 2:46 makes it clear that they met at the temple and had fellowship meals in their homes which would have also included teaching, prayer, the remembrance, and a departure with the singing of a hymn. The so-called last supper would have been very indicative of what went on during these assembly/synagogue meetings.
But also remember, the Jews that made up the apostolic assembly were VERY aware that the temple was temporary. In fact, after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD,
Following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E., the rabbis decided the home would be the mikdash m’at—”small sanctuary”—a holy place responsible for fostering the family’s spiritual life.††
In addition, Christ’s ministry probably produced many solid synagogues prior to Pentecost.
This model continued predominately for the next 200 years, and there is no reason to think that Christ prescribed any alternatives.
Paul
Notes:
*George Robinson: Essential Judaism; Pocket Books 2000, p. 46.
**Louis H. Feldman and Meyer Reinhold: Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans; Augsburg Fortress 1996, p. 68.
†Louis H. Feldman and Meyer Reinhold: Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans; Augsburg Fortress 1996, p. 73.
†† Jewish Home & Community: My Jewish Learning.com; Online source | http://goo.gl/N6Udu6
The Institutional Church and Wedding versus Marriage
I am presently reading Houses That Change the World by Wolfgang Simson. First, let me say that those whom I disagree with on theological issues while still recommending them in regard to important contributions of thought is a very short list as far as I am concerned. It’s maybe one hand, in regard to fingers. At this point, I am not ready to add Wolfgang Simson to the list, but I still feel that this book is must reading for every Christian living today.
A revised version, by what means unclear, titled The House Church Book, completely rewrites chapter two (according to my Kindle version) and edits out Simpson’s historical account of persecution suffered by house churches via the Reformers. I have ordered a hardcopy to confirm this interesting edit. According to Simpson on pages 67 and 68, the Reformers were responsible for civil laws banning home fellowships (especially in regard to the Anabaptists) and were directly and indirectly responsible for at least 30,000 Anabaptist deaths.
We must remember that the Western institutional church is a product of the Reformation, and the level of denial regarding its bad fruit never ceases to amaze. How can those who put people to death for disagreeing with them on theological issues be our heroes? The Fox Book of Martyrs, considered a classic among Evangelicals, shamelessly excludes the historical Protestant inquisition.
So far, and from everything I have seen from a cursory perusal through the rest of the book, it is a profound form of thinking out of the box in regard to Western tradition. I pause here as I work through the book to add thoughts to his idea of a wedding ceremony versus married life (p. 19).
A wedding is a formal ceremony that marks a commitment to sharing a life together. It is a formal public confession. It takes much planning and proper execution. Married couples do not repeat the ceremony on a weekly basis. Married life is much different from the ceremony—it moves on from symbolism to substance. It moves on to The Way (the initial term for Christianity) from the what.
Is church a weekly ceremony? A weekly celebration? Is life imparted by the living out of life, or something symbolic of that life? Do marriages grow by the initial ceremony? Do we have a marriage ceremony every week in order to grow in our marriage? Listen to Protestant pastors (especially those of the Neo-Reformed bent) carefully; in essence, life does come by celebrating our initial conversion. “Grace” is imparted by coming to the “worship service.” They openly admit that church is all about “the gospel.” One pastor told me that they cancelled children’s church so that the children would be in adult church and therefore, “under the gospel.”
Rather than a less formal, less structured fellowship that equips and encourages, life is imparted by a ceremony. Consider the following statement by Neo-Calvinist Michael Horton:
God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ. The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama. Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching the people once again are simply receivers – recipients of grace. Similarly, in baptism, they do not baptize themselves; they are baptized. In the Lord’s Supper, they do not prepare and cook the meal; they do not contribute to the fare; but they are guests who simply enjoy the bread of heaven. As this gospel creates, deepens, and inflames faith, a profound sense of praise and thanksgiving fills hearts, leading to good works among the saints and in the world throughout the week. Having been served by God in the public assembly, the people are then servants of each other and their neighbors in the world.
It’s like trying to obtain a deeper marriage by revisiting the original ceremony, instead of sharing the experience of obeying God’s word in real life:
The image of much contemporary Christianity could be summarized as holy people coming regularly to a holy place on a holy day at a holy hour to participate in a holy ritual led by a holy man dressed in holy cloths for a holy fee (Preface p.11).
paul
1 comment