The First Synagogue
Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. Genesis 1:9 NASB
Place – In Hebrew, the word translated “place” is maqom. From a root meaning “to stand,” it is fairly straightforward as far as translations go. It means some space, a particular spot, a location. There’s nothing too significant about this Hebrew word. But when it comes to the LXX translation, then things get quite interesting. In the LXX, the Greek word used to translate maqom is synagoge. Yes, that’s right. A place to stand in Greek is a synagogue. It’s a particular spot, a gathering, an assembly. The first use of the Greek word synagoge in Scripture is not about a religious gathering. It is about God’s fashioning the oceans, collecting the waters into particular spots. The first “synagogue” in Scripture didn’t have a single human being in it. It was nothing more than the vast ocean all in its proper place.
While this tidbit of linguistic information may seem cute and clever, it has further implications. It implies that the term synagoge used in the New Testament is not restricted to a religious gathering. The term simply means assembly. It doesn’t matter if the assembly is for worship or for swimming fish. This explains why the New Testament authors do not use the word synagoge when they describe the gathering of Messianic believers. The word is too loose. It could mean a synagogue, a religious gathering, but it doesn’t specifically mean this kind of gathering, as the Genesis text demonstrates. In other words, the meaning of synagoge is determined by the context, not by its inherent distinctions.
But ekklesia has a similar problem. It never means “a religious assembly” in classical Greek. However, it does mean a gathering called for a specific purpose and that is the key to its use in the New Testament. The Hebrew comparable word is qehelah, a word used in the Tanakh for the assembly of human beings for a specific purpose. The New Testament authors shy away from the loose synagoge and adopt ekklesia, but they change the meaning of ekklesia from any called-out assembly to an assembly called for the purpose of worship. They avoid synagogue by creating a new, specialized meaning for the old term ekklesia. What they have in mind is not maqom but rather qehelah.
This tells us something important. First, it tells us that ekklesia has been given a new meaning, distinct from its classical Greek sense and distinguished from the possible substitute synagogue. Second, it tells us that the use of this term must have been deliberate since these distinctions are not inherent in the language itself. Whatever the New Testament authors had in mind, they specifically avoided prior understandings of the two Greek words synagoge and ekklesia. Finally, it tells us that wherever we find ekklesia in the New Testament Greek, we must translate it according to the distinctions these authors intended. The word is unique to New Testament usage. It has one and only one meaning. Therefore, there is absolutely no warrant for translating ekklesia as “church” in some places and as “congregation” in others. Stephen’s speech is not about the “congregation” in the wilderness. It is about the ekklesia, the called-out gathering, exactly the same called-out gathering in Ephesus or Corinth or Rome. The gathering of God’s people isn’t different in the Tanakh when compared to the Brit Hadasha. God’s “church” began at Sinai and continues today. If that’s true, don’t you suppose His instructions to His people are the same now as they were then?
Topical Index: synagogue, gathering place, maqom, ekklesia, synagoge, Genesis 1:9
–don’t you suppose His instructions to His people are the same now as they were then? —
Absolutely. Why? Because (as He said) “I AM YHWH- I change not.” Creator, Redeemer, Savior, LORD. (and yes, -there is so much more!)
“D.”)- All of the above. LORD of the Jew AND LORD of the Gentile. And as our never changing- ever present Christ once said to a very educated and elite individual, a ruler of the Jews, whose very name was “Superior” ~Do not be astonished at my telling you, ‘You must all be born anew.’ ~ (John 3.7)
This is our standard and this is the Rock upon which we stand. No confusion, but clarity- this is how we roll and this is our firm foundation- “What He said.” We listen, we obey, we the “gathered ones” (from many nations, kindreds, tribes and tongues), speckled, spotted, motley sheep know His voice and follow Him.
Who do we follow? We follow Him. The Bible is our “Him-Book.” ~ For (because) the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires. ~
Now, whose very Name (names are important in Hebrew) is “the Word of God?” It is Christ, the Word of God, Who lives and abides forever. ~ And He wore a garment soaked with blood, and His Name is called The Word of God~ (Revelation 19.13) And how does any man (Greek or Hebrew y’all) know this? How do you know it? Mr.? M’am? And you shall call His name what? And why? Why did He come? What was His mission? ~ To seek and to save that which was lost.~ Including the lost sheep of the house of Israel? (Matthew 15.24)
~ Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.~ (Romans 10.1) sōtēría (deliverance,salvation). Saved? What is this “saved” stuff? Who needs salvation? It is sinners, and sinners are us. And what is a saint, but a saved sinner?
And what was another heart-cry from Rabbi Sha’ul, -the apostle formerly known as Saul but with the new name of Paul. (All who are His -all, have a “new name!”). ~ Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? ~ (Romans 7.24) – Paul, what is your problem? You, too need a Savior? Now Who do we know whose very Name is “Salvation?” -If only there were a Savior…
The prayer God hears. Yes, let’s review. It is good for us to remember and to “not forget.” (in Greek “alethia”) ~ Alethia, the Greek word for “truth”, is a combination of two other words, a (not) and letho (forget). Alethia ADONAI, Amein! (and Aleluya!) ~ O send out Your light and Your truth, let them lead me; let them bring me to Your holy hill And to Your dwelling places ~ (Psalm 43.3) Add another Aleluya, “Light is that which reveals.”
~ For That One was The Light of Truth, which enlightens every person that comes into the world ~ (John 1.9)
~ But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ ~ (Luke 18.13)
And friends, when the lost son repented, and turned back towards his father’s house, did the father run to meet him? – He (according to what is written) – ran to meet him. (Luke 15.20)
~ Just so, I tell you, (Who is speaking here?) ~ there will be more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance ~ (Luke 15.7) Joy-Heaven-sinners-repentance?- I think I’ll read it again.. and let it bless my soul.
~ From then on, Jesus began to tell people, “Turn to God and change the way you think and act, because the kingdom of heaven is near!” ~ (Matthew 4.17)
Who is speaking? Should we “shema” the Savior? and will we (us) have “this Man” to reign over us?
Come, ye sinners, poor and needy,
Weak and wounded, sick and sore;
Jesus ready stands to save you,
Full of pity, love and power.
I will arise and go to Jesus,
He will embrace me in His arms;
In the arms of my dear Savior,
O there are ten thousand charms.
Come, ye thirsty, come, and welcome,
God’s free bounty glorify;
True belief and true repentance,
Every grace that brings you nigh.
Come, ye weary, heavy laden,
Lost and ruined by the fall;
If you tarry till you’re better,
You will never come at all.
View Him prostrate in the garden;
On the ground your Maker lies.
On the bloody tree behold Him;
Sinner, will this not suffice?
Lo! th’incarnate God ascended,
Pleads the merit of His blood:
Venture on Him, venture wholly,
Let no other trust intrude.
Let not conscience make you linger,
Not of fitness fondly dream;
All the fitness He requireth
Is to feel your need of Him.
I will arise and go to Jesus,
He will embrace me in His arms;
In the arms of my dear Savior,
O there are ten thousand charms.
~ Jesus replied, “If you only knew the gift God has for you and who you are speaking to, you would ask me, and I would give you living water.” ~ (John 4.10)
Water is the most abundant resource on the surface of the earth and water comprises about 70 percent of our bodies. We can live without food for many days; we can live without water very few. We must have water or we will die, and die soon! Thus Jesus first reveals himself as that most essential element that none can live without. In one short meeting Jesus reveals himself as the Messiah, the Christ, the water of life, and the God who reaches out to save all men, not just the Jews! And so, Jesus reveals himself as “I AM,” the very God of the Old Testament, at least twelve different ways in the Book of John.
“I AM YHWH- I change not.” (Malachi 3.6) ~
~Yeshua The Messiah; He is yesterday, today and forever. ~ (Hebrews 13.8)
He said, “I AM” My confession? (with multiplied millions) – “He is…”
from E. H. Swinstead:
LORD of every thought and action,
LORD to send and LORD to stay;
LORD in speaking, writing, giving,
LORD in all things to obey;
Now and evermore to be. (Amen!)
A place to put our feet, a firm, safe place to stand. Hmmmm.
I hope sometime you’ll write more about what “church” looked like back then. There was not just one pastor,… more like a group of elders with broad participation maybe? In Acts it seems like some things were done at the synagogue, but the church met in houses as well. I know our modern church doesn’t really resemble what happened back then, so it would be helpful.
If the house/dinner/group discussion meeting was a regular activity, it seems 1 Timothy 3:12 – would make even more sense:
“Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. ”
It would be difficult to hold a meeting in a tumultuous and unorganized home. Is the deacon like a small-group leader, of sorts, then?
Anyone study up on this before? What did a synagogue “service” look like? What was different about the home gatherings?
We did a video lesson on this during the 2009 trip to Israel – and a new one just a few months ago (which will eventually be available). It is well worth seeing and hearing, since seeing the site makes a huge difference in understanding the text.
Can’t wait.
BTW, listening to the Genesis lectures while I work. Good stuff, thanks for making it available.
Colin Brown, in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3 vols, indicates that the ekklesia referred to the governing body of a township which, in antiquity, met 30-40 times a year discussing changes to the law, civic appointments, peace, war and finance.
If the N.T. writers had something like this in mind when they used the word ekklesia then the local congregation (or church) was not what they had in mind at all. What they had in mind was the Messianic followers providing godly justice and leadership in the community, governing in terms of Torah, not Athens or Rome. After all, who better to take leadership than the followers of the Messiah, those who obeyed his commandments, providing the much needed righteousness to an often godless community (Deut. 4:8-9).
The narrowing of the meaning of ekklesia to mean “church” has achieved little more than make the followers of this view irrelevant to the folk around them, and therefore irrelevant to YHWH (Matt 7:21-23). A rather damning indictment of those whose relevance is limited to bumper stickers that say “Honk if you love Jesus.”
I disagree with the notion that the greek refers to profane action. The term ekklesia can and does seek to capture the hebraic notion of covenant more properly rendering the notion that the hebrew accusative direct object is intimately linked to a covenantal subject. This renders the text as one of impending and purposeful stewardship, hence the use of the term ekklesia to render the hebraic accusative subject of the intent to form covenant stewardship(s). Elohim creates and acts in a way that establishes the world and all it contains in covenant with Him. The first story establishes creation as the House of Elohim (Temple) where He enters into worship of Himself (day 7 Sheva) – a notion that later on forms the typology for the Tabernacle and the first Temple’s construction by Solomon. The interpretation of profane use is not supported just as the Tabernacle and Temple were not considered profane prior to Adonai entering them.
Huh? (again) English translation please. While there are more than several scholars and intellectuals on this site, the one thing that I enjoy about them (and mainly Skip) is that they are able to reach us whose heads don’t reach into the clouds or sit in lofty places. I would welcome your comments if I could only understand them. No offense, but, like my 3rd grade teacher used to tell me when caught eating candy in class: please bring enough to share with the rest of us. Thanks and welcome. Michael
Sorry! Please ignore my comments if they offend or seem confusing. I am merely seeking to draw a little more water from the well (of SkipMoen).
I don’t think anyone would be offended, but perplexed. There are few readers of this blog who have the same facility with Hebrew and consequently, they aren’t well equipped to treat the linguistic subtleties in this fashion. While I appreciate your points, perhaps (if you choose) you might “translate” into ordinary layman vocabulary (if possible) so that all can follow the discussion. It is certainly worth following. The point made about the connection between linguistic syntax and shift in thinking is a crucial one.
I don’t think that what you say here is actually in disagreement. The fact that ekklesia is used exclusively for profane assemblies is not in doubt. Every example in classical Greek fits this mold. It in never used of religious assemblies. But the fact that the writers of the New Testament documents used this word in a way that does not reflect its classical use is precisely the point. The eschew the usual definition and provide an alternative, one that embraces the Hebraic concept of covenant relationship found in the call and the unity of the body. Thus, they use a term which in ordinary Greek would not be considered religious as a religious summary of what in Hebrew would be qehelah and edah. The issue is not that they redone the term. The issue is why they didn’t just use synagogue.
This is a good point and one I am not the first to struggle with. In hebrew, as opposed to english, there is a nominative-accusative structure. In the Torah this syntax is deliberately used to establish parallelism following the syntax in which the nominative subject and accusative direct object are deliberately linked thematically as well as teleologically. How do we express this unity of thought? A good example is Acts, written by Luke in classical high Greek. A replacement for Judas Iscariot is authorized on the scriptural interpretation of Pslam 109:8 et al. Reading the Psalm shows a discrepancy in the interpretation due to contextual differences. English does not fully translate and the reader is left to their own resources to fathom and ferret out the differences. So, yes I believe we are in agreement – the discrepancy is an hebracism – a use of hebrew syntax in greek language to evoke the hebrew meaning of the source text.
HE ENTERS INTO WORSHIP OF HIMSELF???
“The first story establishes creation as the House of Elohim (Temple) where He enters into worship of Himself (day 7 Sheva).”
This is difficult to render into english: Just as Adonai swears by Himself in Gen 22 so Adonai worships Himself because He alone is Adonai. The sense is that Adonai is Covenant itself. “Bereishit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’aretz”: be (in/at) reish/rosh (first in order or first in importance, literally ‘head’ ), et (אֵת) accusative with direct object hashamayim (literally that which is pound down below and that which is spread forth above – a known metaphor for cosmos the creation) and bara – a verb meaning to fatten with Adonai as its subject. This creates a hebrew doublet where “In the beginning” and “at the head” refer to first in order and firstborn i.e. a deliberate covenant usage that can only be properly understood when referenced to toledot in chapter 2:4. The first story of creation becomes the counting of the 7 generations of Adonai’s covenant with creation. We know that Adonai worships Himself because Gen 5:2-3 testifies that Adonai is Covenant just as it testifies that covenant is one in Gen 2:23-24. This is why Solomon later describes the Wisdom of Adonai as the first born of Adonai because the covenant notion of reish/rosh is firstborn. The unity of both the first and second story is a chiastic doublet that typologically defines creation as the Temple of Adonai in the counting of generations and the Garden of Eden as the Holy of Holies where Adam receives the charge to keep/till and guard/protect using identical language as Aaron during his investiture of levitical highpriesthood. Adonai’s worship of Himself is his rest on day 7 (the covenant). Blessing and sanctification is the double blessing given by Adonai – a doublet just as image and likeness, as well as tohu/wabohu (with out shape or a waste, and with out inhabitant Gen 1:2) – to creation. The hebraic notion of covenant is one of unilateral proglumation and bilateral acceptance: we can not negotiate the terms, but rather we either accept or reject. Our acceptance becomes bilateral, “I shall be your God and you shall be my flesh – literally adom. There is an exchange of personhood that establishes kinship. The notion of Adonai worshipping Himself is to speak/generate His Name. The notion of firstborn in Bereitshit coveys the implication that Adonai is in covenant with His Name by sovereign nature. Every covenant must have three elements – a covenant giver (i.e. father/Adonai), the one who receives (the wife/HaShem) and the fruit of the union (child/Hesed). The argument is based on Kadash – i.e. Adonai is perfection itself (the object of holiness) and therefore must act perfectly. Every action of Adonai must be an act of worship because for Adonai there is no profane action. Every act of worship is an act of covenant therefore every act of Adonai must be an act of covenant. Since Adonai alone is God He must worship his own divinty – ergo Himself. Adonai is one because covenat is one. The Lord your God is one! That is why the Torah testifies in Gen 1:24 “Let us make man in our own image…” because Adonai is the unity and purpose and function of covenant. There is a synthesis of the supplementary hypothesis presented by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) that dominates the field of biblical hermeneutics called the documentary hypothesis that posits that the 4 elements (J Yawist, E Elohist, P Priestly, and D Deuteronomist) were written seperately and then redacted. I am seeking to correct the erroneous inference that these accounts were written seperately when contextually they express a unified thought that appears to have been redacted periodically to correct thematic mischaracterizations which I believe was performed by Aaron and his decendants as a function of their office.
Christopher, you wrote in summation: “I am seeking to correct the erroneous inference that these accounts were written seperately when contextually they express a unified thought that appears to have been redacted periodically to correct thematic mischaracterizations which I believe was performed by Aaron and his decendants as a function of their office”.
And what a fine job you are doing. I stand corrected… I think. I take back my “criticism/suggestion” of yesterday that you translate into English your posts. I realize you may not be able to do so or you may not be inclined to dumb down your ideas for a wider audience- and that’s OK. There are sufficient scholars here to make your efforts mutually profitable. Plus I would not want to be responsible for dicouraging you from sharing what has no doubt taken you years and much effort to garner or to be accountable for running you off from this site when others will benefit from your knowledge. I not sure if it was allowed in the Torah, but I will continue to reap of the bountiful harvest of Skip’s message and then glean from your fields of commentary whatever I am able to eat and digest. Shalom, Michael