Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bruce, thank you. That was incredibly helpful. I never thought of seeing synagogue worship as an extention of temple worship.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.
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.
But obviously Christ's use of the synagogue puts Divine sanction upon it. This is the ultimate authorisation.
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.
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.I can see a problem here because there is no evidence of the regular reading of or preaching the word in the temple.
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 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.