The synagogue is not the Temple - kind of a big deal

The New Testament speaks often of Jesus and the Apostles visiting various synagogues, but the synagogue is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Isn't that strange that a major facet of Jewish life in the New Testament doesn't get any (clear) mention in the Old Testament? This got me thinking about the origins and meaning of the Synagogue.

The various encyclopedias that I've come across say the synagogue originated around the time of the Babylonian Exile (600BC). Thus, while the term "synagogue" (and "church") literally means a gathering or assembly, the term synagogue referring to a "house of worship" (as we now think of it) didn't come around until 800 years after the Israelites left Egypt (1400BC). The Catholic Encyclopedia says on Synagogue:

It was probably during the Babylonian captivity that the synagogue became a national feature of Hebrew worship. Afar from their Temple, the exiled Jews gathered into local meeting-houses for public worship. Sacrifice was denied them; prayer in common was not. The longer their exile from the national altar of sacrifice, the greater became their need of houses of prayer; this need was met by an ever-increasing number of synagogues, scattered throughout the land of exile. From Babylonia this national system of synagogue worship was brought to Jerusalem. That the synagogue dates many generations earlier than Apostolic times, is clear from the authority of St. James: "For Moses [the Torah] has been proclaimed in every city since ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:21).

The consensus of most sources is that since the Israelites were removed from the Promise Land and their Temple destroyed during the Babylonian exile (600-530BC), they obviously could no longer worship as they once did, and thus they needed to improvise. During the Babylonian exile, they were allowed to gather somewhat, read Scripture somewhat, have sermons, pray, etc, and so this became a new standard feature of Jewish life. Since many Israelites/Jews were scattered abroad and never returned home, the synagogue system became especially necessary to carry on their faith. 

The Mosaic Law foresaw the Israelites worshiping through a Sacrificial Priesthood, which after arriving in the Promise Land became centered in Jerusalem at the Temple (Jn 4:19-21; Jn 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Rev 11:1). Sacrifices are a prominent theme from the earliest pages of Genesis, and sacrificing to God was a central theme in letting the Israelites go free from Egypt (Ex 8:25-29 - 1400BC). Even coming back from the Babylonian Exile (530BC) had prioritized getting the Temple back up and running as soon as possible, and the Feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah) was about re-consecrating the Temple just 150 years prior to Jesus. So to just stop sacrificing is not really optional, and in fact it is a serious deformation of the Israelite religion to not have sacrifices going on (e.g. the book of Leviticus is dedicated to priestly sacrifices). Since the synagogue system was never about sacrifices this would strongly suggest it is not an actual (nor approved) replacement of sorts for the Temple sacrifices. The fact that during the ministry of Jesus the Temple sacrifices were going on at the same time as synagogue attendance even more strongly indicates they are not the same in the (ancient) Jewish mind (John 18:20; Acts 24:12). This realization, namely the the Synagogue is clearly distinct from the Temple, has serious ramifications for how we as Catholics (and Orthodox) view both the Jews and Protestants. 

For the Jews, to not have the Temple and active priesthood means they cannot practice the core part of their religion, just as if the Catholics entirely lost the priesthood and Mass then the Christian religion would effectively cease. It is one thing to be in a Babylonian Exile punishment for 70 years, but it is quite another for the Temple to have been destroyed after Jesus came and never have it rebuilt for 2,000 years now. The Temple being destroyed in 600BC by the Babylonians was a blatant sign of God's displeasure of their behavior (as nobody disagrees), which logically means the Temple being destroyed in 70AD and never rebuilt would suggest a far more severe displeasure (as Christianity explains the situation). The Jews who lived after the Apostles don't really have an explanation for why the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, since they deny Jesus had predicted it in 33AD, and so they can only speculate. Their 'official' speculation in the Talmud, from what I've heard, says it was because the Jews secretly harbored hatred of their brothers in their heart, even though they were outwardly living righteously and very careful to follow God's commands. This is kind of strange because the Bible is very clear that bad behavior in the heart naturally spills out to bad behavior outwardly. So it is inconsistent that God would bring down such a severe punishment for a relatively invisible sin, and that no prophets had even come to warn them (compared to 40% of the OT dedicated to prophets warning the Israelites to behave). For the Jews to be content with the synagogue system as a worthy substitute for not having a Temple this long is simply not reasonable, and should at least have one looking into Christianity.

For Protestants, to throw out the Sacrifice of the Mass is to effectively reduce their Sunday "worship" to that of the format of the synagogue, wherein the primary focus for them at church gatherings has been Scripture study and lecture. The traditional form of Christian worship was the Sacrifice of the Mass, as I've shown many times elsewhere (e.g. here), so Scripture study is both distinct from this and no substitute for Sacrifice. You could almost say that Protestantism is a form of Judaizing, in so far as by throwing out certain Catholic elements of Christianity, the Protestant religion drifted back to how the Jews did things that traditionally Christians did not embrace. (Consider also how the Rabbinic Jews after the time of Christ 'formally' removed seven books of the Old Testament, and Protestants generally followed the Rabbinic example rather than the Christian example.) Some Catholics have more generally said "all heresy is a form of Judaizing," and that certainly seems to have merit when you think about it (e.g. the Arian heresy was about stripping away the divinity of Jesus, to reduce Jesus to a mere human).

Remember, I'm not saying the synagogue was bad, just that it wasn't a substitute for the Temple. The fact the synagogue and Temple coexisted in Jerusalem for centuries shows these weren't competing institutions nor were they mutually exclusive. If they were competing, then the synagogue system would not have existed in peace in Jerusalem alongside the Temple (e.g. we'd likely see synagogues criticized in the NT). This would even suggest the synagogue did not necessarily come about due to the Israelites having to 'improvise' due to Babylonian captivity, but rather that the synagogue naturally arose for more noble reasons, such as genuine Israelite evangelism. This would also fit with why the Gentiles were more welcomed to attend, foreshadowing a Jew-Gentile Church, whereas if the synagogue were an improvised Temple the Gentiles would likely be less welcomed as this would be seen as the 'safe space' for Israelites to live out their faith.

As with many developments in Salvation History, one clear Providential positive aspect of the emergence of the synagogue was that it helped the Old Testament spread across the world as the Israelites were scattered abroad. This allowed the Gentiles to be somewhat evangelized prior to the coming of Christ, as it allowed them to be exposed to the concept of a coming Messiah and salvation from sin and broken world. Just as it is far easier for Catholics to evangelize Protestants due to the shared love of the teachings of Scripture, so also it was easier for the Apostles to evangelize the Gentiles who were already familiar with Scripture, as opposed to the much harder task of evangelizing those with no religious common ground. The 'organic' mysterious arising of the synagogue into world history also parallels the 'technological' and other developments which have arisen and become widely accepted, and allowed Christianity to better spread the Gospel in later generations (e.g. the printing press allowing more people to own and read the Bible). But no matter the positive developments, none of these ever take the place of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

That's about all I have to say for now, but this is actually a very big deal to keep in mind for how we view and understanding Judaism as it transitioned into Christianity, and how things significantly diverged as the Gospel spread across the Roman Empire. I hope to put out more apologetics articles and reflections relating to this.

Solomon's Temple 957BC-587BC

Link to larger image HERE