NC Worship: Temple or Synagogue?

What model is New Covenant worship to be based on?

  • Total voters
    16
Status
Not open for further replies.
zsmcd

zsmcd

Puritan Board Freshman
I have done a good bit of searching the Board for discussions on this topic but was not satisfied with the amount I found. I think it would be helpful to take a vote. I tend to think that our worship should be based on both but have heard good argument either way and have not done enough research myself. What is the general consensus? Does it matter?
 
I would say the form comes from Synagogue (what is actually done). Yet, I might say that a lot of the meaning and what is actually happening spiritually comes from the foreshadowing of the temple (and made clear in Hebrews) [E.g. we are in the very presence of the Lord before His throne in glory; Jesus is the worship leader, etc.]. If that makes any sense. I'll have to think more on it though.
 
Last edited:
Christian worship is basically a continuation of synagogue worship. However, our argument should never be, "we should do it because they did it in their synagogues." Synagogue worship was an administration of the lasting and ordinary means of grace as prescribed by God, without the temporary elements tied to the ceremonial system. Our worship is to be the same thing.

Temple worship, by contrast, was tied to the Levitical system, with its priesthood, sacrifices, etc. That has all been fulfilled in Christ. The things which were done in the temple which remain were things that were also practiced in the synagogue, such as the reading of the Scriptures.
 
I would argue: synagogue--or the local weekly convocation of Israel, Lev.23:3--should be understood as the public, regulated worship of God minus any/all elements of said worship that were confined by regulation to the central shrine.

This translated to a repetitive, weekly form of "virtual" attendance at the Tabernacle/Temple; to which was added annual general assemblies at the special feasts by large numbers bodily in person.

I am voting "synagogue," not because the NT church simply preferred the diffuse synagogue gatherings to the Temple which was soon to vanish; or merely modelled the NT worship convocation on a convenient tradition. In my mind, the two were never conceptually distinct. But not so identified, that it is correct to say "both." The apostles made good use of the Jerusalem Temple early in Acts, but not to affirm the rituals of the place any longer.

The business of the earthly Temple is now the business of Heaven's Temple, where is our High Priest. We do as we do in our local convocations, minus all such divinely approved worship as is confined to Heaven, where the once-for-all Sacrifice is ever-present before the Mercy Seat.

We exercise ourselves in those services of Word and Sacrament by which we receive a foretaste of our full-presence in heaven. There is something in our worship that is more than merely "virtual" translation to the One Temple. There is, by virtue of the Spirit (we worship in Spirit and in Truth, Jn.4:24), a mysterious intersection of earth and Heaven brought about by the will of God. So that it may be said, Heb.12:22, when we worship "Ye are come unto... the heavenly Jerusalem."
 
Not all temple activity was tied to the Levitical system. Teaching, for example, wasn't and we still do that today.
 
How should the idea of the dwelling place of God affect our view of NC worship? Because God was said to dwell in the Temple in the OT, how did the OT Church outside of the Temple - particularly in their weekly convocation - view their worship with regard to the "dwelling place" of God? Did this affect their understanding of what they could and could not do (RPW) in Synagogue, family, individual worship? Does this affect our understanding of the RPW in the NC where the Church itself is said to be the Temple? I don't know if I am digging too deep here or even making any sense.

Edited to be more clear.
 
Surely Israel knew they were not free to do anything they pleased in their local convocations. They were in a "graded" environment. The priests were to spread out and teach the people, Dt.24:8. So, the appointed Tabernacle ministers were not found only in the vicinity of the shrine, nor were they to sacrifice all over. But they were among the people to minister the Word, as well as living in several cities in their midst. "Teaching priests," see also 2Ki.17:27; 2Chr.15:3; Mic.3:11. Their presence and duty carried (in a sense) the Temple service out unto and into the people.

The central shrine was an emblem of the whole people. In the wilderness, the Tabernacle was literally at the core of the people's tents. The whole land of Israel was meant to function just as the camp of the saints did; and alongside that illustration were the feasts that brought the people together again, physically to replicate the one wilderness assembly.

The nation was eventually expelled from the land, as the lepers and other unclean were sent out of the camp, Num.5:3, "Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell." The nation as a whole was unclean, and not simply barred from Jerusalem; because the LORD refused to dwell with them any longer.

The promise of restoration was also a promise to dwell with them again. Ezk.43:7, "And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places."

In this text, God indicates a new, idealized Temple will replace the former one. This is not fulfilled in the exile's effort, nor in Herod's famous edifice; nor is it destined to be rebuilt upon the old geography still future to now. But it is a prophecy of the Messiah's age and work.

Zech.8:3,8 speak to the same notion; the LORD says he will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, and the people will all dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. It is a picture of the old desert camp superimposed on a rebuilt Jerusalem, a city expanded so that it may include every Israelite and even other nations. Zech.2:11, "And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee."

The point is: the concentration of the LORD's presence in Jerusalem, and further still in the Temple, did not eliminate the conception of God dwelling with Israel, in her midst. If the "whole earth is full of his glory," Is.6:3, then it was also true that Israel dwelt in the midst of God. God was not to be minded as a local deity, or only stabilized in a Temple. Is.57:15, "For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones."

Rev.21:3 brings the heavenly Tabernacle and the people of God physically together once more, but permanently. "And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." But now we are not in heaven yet.

The church and the individual believer is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. But we are not therefore authorized to do any more sacrifices; it is done. Let our High Priest do his eternal work where it is perfected. He comes to us by his Spirit to share the effect of his Mediation, as the priest came out to bless the people: at the Temple, e.g. Lk.1:22; and also when out among the whole people, Num.6:23-27.
 
TylerRay said:
What elements of temple worship remain that weren't also practiced in the synagogue?
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, I don't know. I was just addressing the common claim that the temple service was typical of Christ, hence it is abolished. If we take "Temple Service" as a set, then that statement is not true, as there are aspects of it that are practiced today.
 
It seems pretty evident that the worship we see in the NT is much more like the synagogue.

Romish worship is more like the Temple with its sacrificing priests, holy places and things, etc.
 
I voted "synagogue" because I can't vote "both". "Both", to me, would imply a buffet-line approach where maybe the synagogue-pattern is perhaps the most heavily used, but certain things from temple worship can be dusted off and used, too. No, better to answer "synagogue" since, as Mr. Ray pointed out, whatever elements connected with temple service that continue to today were incubated in the synagogue.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Do we have an example in the OT of God specifically regulating synagogue worship like he does Temple worship?
Click to expand...

I believe this was already discussed somewhere on the board.

It is a good question and I would like to see some discussion. This is what I was trying to get at with the distinction between the temple being the dwelling place of God, and therefore (correct me if I am wrong) the centerpiece for sacrifices, ceremonies, rites, etc. and the Synagogue as being, as I understand it, primarily a place for teaching and social life.

I think Rev. Buchanon's observations were helpful, but I am still struggling with the distinction between OT temple and synagogue worship and how that carries over into the NC. Many of our worship services today, whether they are high or low church, non-denominational or Lutheran, seem to carry over this element of temple worship that views the worship service as being set apart from and more important than any other ordinary time of the church gathered to be taught the Word, sing songs, eat, drink, fellowship, etc. This is especially the case when we start to speak of the sacraments, call to worship, benediction, etc., regardless of the 'flavor' of worship (Luthernan, Anglican, Reformed, etc.) there is always this element of "ceremony" - if that is the right word. Is there any indication, besides perhaps the identification of the convocation as being "holy," that synagogue worship was to be an extension of temple worship with a set time of worship ritual, ceremony, etc. rather than a hub of church life, school, learning, city affairs, etc.? Not that there need to be a necessary strict dichotomy between these things.

Not sure if that makes sense. Perhaps it would be helpful to define the term worship?
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Do we have an example in the OT of God specifically regulating synagogue worship like he does Temple worship?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, but Christ still honors these services with his presence. Steve Schlissel makes a big deal about this and says it means the RPW was only given for temple worship. Brian Schwertley pretty well crushes that argument in this article, and makes some important observations about the RPW being for the synagogue as well as the temple.

Second, Schlissel’s argument ignores the fact that tabernacle/temple worship contained ceremonial and non-ceremonial ordinances. The sacrificing of animals, the burning of incense and the priestly and Levitical use of instruments during the sacrifice were ceremonial. But the reading of Scripture, prayer and the singing of praise were not ceremonial. Schlissel exaggerates the antithesis between temple and synagogue worship when he says that the regulative principle applied solely to the temple. We do not deny that the ceremonies of the temple typified Christ and His work. However, the temple was also a place of worship. Jesus said to the Samaritan woman: “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father” (Jn. 4:21). He also said, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer’” (Mt. 21:13). If the regulative principle applied to the temple worship, then it also regulated the non-ceremonial worship that occurred there. Thus, the regulative principle cannot be restricted to ceremonial ordinances.
Click to expand...
 
Parakaleo said:
I don't think so, but Christ still honors these services with his presence. Steve Schlissel makes a big deal about this and says it means the RPW was only given for temple worship. Brian Schwertley pretty well crushes that argument in this article, and makes some important observations about the RPW being for the synagogue as well as the temple.
Click to expand...

But it seems rather strange that the the primary template for worship today isn't regulated at all. Yes, Christ honored it. But that tells us nothing about what God requires, what the order of service is, what is forbidden, etc.
 
I voted “other” because I don’t see a need to use the Temple or synagogue worship as a template for NT worship.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BayouHuguenot said:
But it seems rather strange that the the primary template for worship today isn't regulated at all. Yes, Christ honored it. But that tells us nothing about what God requires, what the order of service is, what is forbidden, etc.
Click to expand...
Jacob,
This confuses me. By "primary template," I'm assuming you mean the holy convocation, eventually taking the fixed lines of the synagogue, which comparatively rose in regard on account of the exile (but still, the OT maintains a strong literary focus on the Temple during and after the exile). Are you saying, that absent the kind of detailed description of the cult found regulating the Tabernacle/Temple, there is no obvious regulation for the local exercises of religion?

The argument for that regulation is: 1) the RPW; and 2) in positive terms, elements of worship would be those part of service that were not confined to the T/T, that did not require the one altar and its dedicated attendant acts and furniture. Plus, the priests were to preside where possible, giving instruction in the Law, i.e. the Word.

I would argue, it is more of a failure of the duties of the priests when they were not in Jerusalem, that contributed to the downfall of the nation (looked at from the human standpoint, judged as a consequence of the neglect of ordinary means). Jeremiah condemns foolish trust in the ritual accuracy some believe is national salvation, 7:4. "Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these." The prophet and priest are condemned for false speech, 5:30-31; 8:10-11. Jeremiah is conspicuous by his faithful word, among a people who have lost their taste for it and given preference to smooth-talkers.

In basic terms, the activity of the convocation is left to Word and prayer, dialogic worship. This is the "conservative" conclusion. It engages the wills of those located at a distance (at home) with the religious acts done on behalf of the whole people at one altar (the shrine). It does so "conservatively," because everyone knows the seriousness with which God takes this whole business, Lev.10, and what is taking place in a far corner of the land is connected with the T/T.

We actually don't have an "order of service" for any given day or a Sabbath in the Temple. What we think it was like is extracted from and combined from all over Scripture. We know there was morning and evening sacrifice, for example, and the Sabbath held a convocation. We infer certain orders and activities from the historic books, from the Psalms, perhaps a little from the Prophets. But we still operate from the essential starting point of the RPW, i.e. a cautious beginning. Further, Presbyterians usually claim to follow the directory, rather than the legal liturgy.

It might benefit anyone interested a thorough acquaintance of Douglas Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church. https://archive.org/details/scripturedoctrin00bann
 
Contra_Mundum said:
In basic terms, the activity of the convocation is left to Word and prayer, dialogic worship. This is the "conservative" conclusion. It engages the wills of those located at a distance (at home) with the religious acts done on behalf of the whole people at one altar (the shrine). It does so "conservatively," because everyone knows the seriousness with which God takes this whole business, Lev.10, and what is taking place in a far corner of the land is connected with the T/T.
Click to expand...

This is helpful and this is pretty much why I answered "both." If the convocation was viewed as being connected with the temple, and if our convocations in the NC are meant to be an extension of the OT synagogue (convocation), then can't we naturally say that we can actually look to the OT temple in some way for how our worship should be structured? Does that make sense?

Another question, is there any indication that this holy convocation was viewed as a sort of covenant renewal?
 
BayouHuguenot said:
I meant the claim that people make today: we should follow the Synagogue rather than the Temple. Using the synagogue as a template.
Click to expand...

The way I understand this approach is that it's "simple" versus the complexity of the temple. I don't think anyone who says we should follow synagogue worship is looking or advocating for a specific liturgy.

The simplicity of synagogue worship should be the model for the church today: reading the scriptures, prayer, preaching, etc.
 
Andrew P.C. said:
The way I understand this approach is that it's "simple" versus the complexity of the temple. I don't think anyone who says we should follow synagogue worship is looking or advocating for a specific liturgy.

The simplicity of synagogue worship should be the model for the church today: reading the scriptures, prayer, preaching, etc.
Click to expand...

I agre with simplicity, but to use the synagogue for regulative principle, when the synagogue isn't divinely regulated, is counter-intuitive.
 
Andrew P.C. said:
The way I understand this approach is that it's "simple" versus the complexity of the temple. I don't think anyone who says we should follow synagogue worship is looking or advocating for a specific liturgy.

The simplicity of synagogue worship should be the model for the church today: reading the scriptures, prayer, preaching, etc.
Click to expand...

I agree with simplicity as a principle as well, but, to play "devils advocate" here, how do we know that the synagogue service was simple - especially if the synagogue worship was seen as being connected to the temple worship in some sort of way?
 
zsmcd said:
If the convocation was viewed as being connected with the temple, and if our convocations in the NC are meant to be an extension of the OT synagogue (convocation), then can't we naturally say that we can actually look to the OT temple in some way for how our worship should be structured? Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
I think you should make some specific proposal, and ask whether it seems reasonable.

The problem with borrowing directly from the T/T service is evidenced by Romish worship. They are "ritually reenacting"--if not a resacrifice of Christ in the mass (they do not always speak so crassly today as they once did)--a repetitive, earthly mirror image of the eternal presentation of Christ's death by himself in heaven. This is why their priest is considered alter Christus, (another Christ) because he is doing here on earth what they imagine Christ is doing in heaven. That's what the T/T was in the OT; that's not what the synagogue did; and that's not what we are to do.

That example is not the proper, worshipful engagement with heavenly activity. We are not to look to the types and shadows for our examples.

When we "reenact" the death of Christ in the Lord's Supper, it is not a "resacrifice." It is a repetition of the meal beforehand, when Jesus was sitting right there with his disciples. And he is still now sitting with us, only his work is DONE, Amen. He shares his body and blood with us in the exact same manner as he shared it with his disciples--not by extending his substance in space outside of his body (which they could see whole and entire right before them). But by spiritual union and communion, and by all of us eating the same substance together. "You are what you eat." There's some value, I think, in recognizing the meal after the "road to Emmaus" event as a kind of first post-resurrection "Lord's Supper moment." Why? because He served them, and "He was known to them in the breaking of the bread," Lk.24:30,35.

I'm not saying there's no reasonable connections, or observations, we can make connecting activity above with activity below. What I'm saying is that we need to observe the proper parallels. There are TWO parallels going on here, and we must be terribly cautious in crossing--X--parallel relationships.

Temple on earth ---> convocation/synagogue (on earth)
Temple in heaven --> congregational worship (on earth)

The Temple on earth in old time had at that time an analogic relation to the Temple in heaven. This made that old Temple a kind of intermediate step between the convocation/synagogue and the heavenly reality. That's because those times required type and shadow. The synagogue was not free to cross--X--their connection straight to the Temple in heaven. WE are not free (or wise) to cross--X--a connection to the Temple on earth. That's essentially returning to type and shadow.​

zsmcd said:
Another question, is there any indication that this holy convocation was viewed as a sort of covenant renewal?
Click to expand...
I would say that every time the people came together in worship, there was some kind of covenant renewal. A simple confessional statement is a covenant-renewal of sorts. The highest forms of renewal were the feasts; they were a reenactment of the exodus (salvation) and the wilderness journey. But all the rest of their religious activity was renewal, too.
 
One of Rev. Winzer's typical succinct statements: "Covenant renewal worship tries to introduce an element of the history of salvation into the order of salvation. On the basis of the same method Romanists teach the Mass as a sacrifice. And if anyone has studied covenant renewal in Scripture they will know that sacrifice is part and parcel of it. The Lord's supper is not a sacrifice, but a commemoration of a sacrifice. We do not renew covenant in worship but renew our commitment to the covenant of grace as ratified by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ." (from here. Also see here.)
 
Rev. Winzer can almost always touch the thing with a needle. I'll gladly qualify my comment above with appreciation for the linguistic precision he brings.
 
Afterthought said:
One of Rev. Winzer's typical succinct statements: "Covenant renewal worship tries to introduce an element of the history of salvation into the order of salvation. On the basis of the same method Romanists teach the Mass as a sacrifice. And if anyone has studied covenant renewal in Scripture they will know that sacrifice is part and parcel of it. The Lord's supper is not a sacrifice, but a commemoration of a sacrifice. We do not renew covenant in worship but renew our commitment to the covenant of grace as ratified by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ." (from here. Also see here.)
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here is arguing for Covenant Renewal. I'm just noting some difficulties in claiming 1) regulative principle and 2) synagogue worship where 3) synagogue worship isn't regulated in Scripture.
 
I read a series by Steve Schlissel several years ago that laid out a compelling case for NT worship to follow the synagogue model.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Synagogue Worship
Replies
2
Views
2K
yeutter
Y
A
  • Locked
The Synagogue and Worship
Replies
5
Views
2K
Arch2k
A
Justified
  • Locked
Where is Synagogue Worship Regulated?
Replies
16
Views
5K
richardnz
R
A
  • Locked
Pictures of Temple worship
Replies
0
Views
2K
AV1611
A
bradofshaw
  • Locked
Was Synagogue Worship Prescribed in Scripture?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
14K
Amazing Grace
Amazing Grace
Back
Top