So, what do you know about the politics in the Roman Near East from say 53 BCE through 64 CE? Lots of interesting things occurred in this time frame. There were wars (one arguably lasting for 17 years with Rome on the losing side, another lasting 8 or 9 years with no clear victor) , political assassinations, attempted regime changes by outside authorities, switching back and forth between sides and lots of high-level negotiations. But clearly none of this could possibly be relevant even as people mentioned in scripture were involved.
Gentile Christians in Synagogues? Where? When?
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
From what I have learned.
Jewish synagogues existed throughout the Roman Empire.
Not just Israel.
Jews lived throughout the Roman Empire.
Gentiles were free to attend Jewish services.
Sometimes referred to as God-fearing Gentiles.
So, you believe this is an acknowledgment of some sort for a command for Gentiles to learn the Law in local Synagogues? Why? Please quote the text and show to us the grammar that would seem to indicate such, coupled with an analysis as to where you think that's stated or implied in the grammar of those passages?
What I see is James, an apostle to Israel, not to Gentiles, was simply saying that the Law of Moses is indeed taught in every province. So what? Notice also in that context that only four of the commands in the Law were handed over to Paul for him to uphold among his Gentile and Jewish converts, with not one statement I can find that said Gentiles were to attend local Synagogues to learn the Law; especially given that they who believed in Christ Jesus as Messiah were not welcome in Jewish Synagogues given that the vast majority of Synagogue leadership disbelieved Messiah had yet come.
For backing to what I'm saying here, let's go on to another exchange between James and Paul:
Acts 21:21
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Given that chapter 21 is at a time long after that meeting in chapter 15 of Acts, thus laying down the death blow to any idea that Gentile believers were expected to learn the Mosaic Law. After all, dare we read the above verse for what it says, Paul was teaching even the Jews under his ministry to "forsake Moses," not to follow him and the Law he was inspired to write down for Israel and Israel alone.
So, you're in a Synagogue that teaches Orthodox Judaism? As an Israeli I was raised with Torah, and have long since walked away from it given that we are not dead to the Law. Like Paul, I too teach my fellow Jews who are believers to forsake the Mosaic Law.
MM
Services? Are you saying they had "services" such as what we see in modern churchianity? Just wondering.
MM
Yes, they had set times when the people would gather similar to how churches meet today.
You haven’t answered my question. What makes you think we can’t agree with Hengel’s view of the basket episode?
The fighting between Judea and Nabatea was intermittent, not constant. There were long periods when they managed to maintain a peaceful coexistence, despite their mutual claims to bits and pieces of one another’s territory, though quite a few of the locations can’t now be identified with any degree of certainty because of discrepancies in the spelling of place names in the surviving manuscripts of Book 18 of the Antiquities.
Antipas’ marriage to Aretas’ daughter obviously made a substantial contribution to the peacekeeping effort. When she found out that Herodias had agreed to marry Antipas only on the condition that he should immediately divorce her, and that he had agreed to comply with her wish, naturally she passed that information on to her father as soon as she had the opportunity.
At that time Nabatea was a bigger and more prosperous country than Judea. From Aretas’ viewpoint, that meant that he was doing Antipas a favor simply by allowing his daughter to remain married to him. The prospect of an imminent divorce, initiated by Antipas, was an insult to Aretas’ family that he had no reason to leave unavenged. Hence the invasion in 35-36 that would surely have led to a crushing defeat for Antipas had not Rome intervened to enforce a ceasefire.
In my post #70 it had been my intention to pass all this information on to you as succinctly as possible. I now have the impression that I overdid the succinctness and that it would have been more helpful to write it at greater length, giving more details of the historical background. However, I am confident that I have now, with this post, filled in enough of the gaps to give you a satisfactory explanation of why I find Hengel’s account convincing.
Do you take the position that the four things lists in Acts 15:19-21 contain exhaustive list of everything that is required of mature believers or do you take the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow? It is contradictory to treat it as being an exhaustive list for mature believers in order to limit which ways Gentiles should follow Christ while also treating it as being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other ways that Gentiles should follow Christ. It was not given as an exhaustive list for mature believers but as a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers coming to faith, which they justified in verse 21 with the expectation that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to Christ's example of practicing Judaism by hearing Moses taught every Sabbath in the synagogues. Jews attend synagogues every Sabbath in part to continue to learn about how to practice Judaism, so this would have been the most natural way for Gentiles to continue to learn about how to do that. A Gentile would be extremely confused if they wanted to become a follower of Christ's example of practicing Judaism while wanting nothing to do with following over 99% (609/613) of what he taught.
In Acts 15:21, it starts with the word "For", so there is a grammatical connection between point that Peter was making in that verse and what he said in verses 19-20. I don't see what other point Peter could have been making in verse 21 that is relevant to verses 19-20 if not that Peter was giving Gentiles a starting point and expecting them to continue to learn about how to follow Christ's example of practicing Judaism. Gentiles who convert to Judaism are not expected to have all 613 laws memorized on day one, but rather there is a starting point and a process of continuing to learn over time. How do you think the point that Peter was making in verse 21 is relevant to verses 19-20?
Again, Jewish believers in Jesus were able to form their own synagogues where they were the leaders and where Gentiles would be welcome to continue to learn about how to practice Judaism.
Acts 6:13-14 and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”
It directly states that false witnesses accused Stephen as speaking against this holy plan and the Torah and of speaking about changing the customs of Moses that had been delivered to them, which means that Stephen had not actually been doing that. Similarly, in Acts 21:20-24, they planned to take steps to disprove false rumors that Paul had been teaching to forsake the Torah. They were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith in Jesus who were all zealous for the Torah, which is in accordance with Titus 2:14, where Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so Jews coming to faith in Jesus were not ceasing to practice Judaism but were becoming zealous for it. This means that there was a period between the resurrection of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimate to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews who practiced Judaism, that Christianity at its origin was the sect of Judaism that recognized Jesus as the Messiah, and that Gentiles who were joining this religion were converting to Judaism. In Acts 24:14, Paul testified that according to The Way, which they called a sect, he continue to worship the God of their fathers, believing everything laid down by the Torah and written in the Prophets, and the religion of which The Way is a sect is Judaism.
In Ephesians 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated from Christ, alienated from Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in this world, which is in accordance with Gentiles at one time not being doers of the Torah, but through faith in Christ all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens but are fellow citizens of Israel along the saints in the household of God, which is in accordance with Gentiles becoming doers of the Torah. So Gentiles who were joining this religion were also becoming joined to Israel and the Torah being for Israel means that it is also for Gentiles.
Indeed. In Romans 7:21-8:7, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God in contrast with the law of sin that held him captive, he said that he served the Law of God with his mind in contrast with serving the law of sin with his flesh, he said that the Law of the Spirit has freed us from the law of sin and death, and he contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God, so it should at least be word considering whether we need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God or whether we need to die to the Law of God in order to be free to obey the law of sin.
In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His children to determine that someone is a false prophet is if they speak against obeying the Torah, so if you agree that Paul was a servant of God, then you should be opposed to you interpreting as teaching to forsake the Torah, and if you think that Paul should be interpreted as teaching to forsake the Torah, then you should be opposed to you considering him to be a servant of God, but either way followers of Christ should follow the example of how to walk in obedience to the Torah that he set for his followers to follow (1 Peter 2:21-22).
Might I make a minor correction to your observations about the marriage? According to multiple sources, the marriage was dictated to both sides by Rome. In other words, if you want to make your case you need to prove that both parties wanted to be married to each other as opposed to being told that they would marry each other and stay married. Antipas had to travel to Rome to obtain permission to get a divorce.
Between 25 BCE and 37 CE the only time the two countries cooperated was in 25 BCE when Rome forced them to, and then they cooperated against Rome, though not openly (they guided a Roman army via the "best" route to attack Felix Arabia, costing Rome both supplies and naval support, taking four months to get there, the return after a defeat took less than 4 weeks). Other than that Nabataea attacked Judah in the mid-teens BCE and got punished, around 5 BCE Nabataea helped another client kingdom that had been attacked by Herod and Herod got punished, Nabataea joined Rome in putting down a rebellion in Judah in 1 CE and got rewarded and Antipas attacked Nabataea in the early to mid -30's (the same time frame as Paul's incident in Damascus, which was under Nabataean authority) and got punished, pardoned and then had his pardon revoked and was sent into exile. And this is just the back and forth between these two client kingdoms. There was a lot more going on in the region.
I think your larger point is well taken: we should be careful about assuming cooperation, friendship, or shared goals simply because a marriage existed.
Given the broader historical backdrop you've described, the relationship appears considerably more complicated than that.
My only caution would be that historical tension between Nabataea and the Herodian territories does not automatically tell us the precise motive behind every individual action.
It certainly provides important context, but context and proof are not always identical.
True, it is impossible to be certain about motive, but these actions along with other actions can all strengthen a conclusion. In this case, Herodians were building fortresses, building a grand temple. utilizing a star on coins, suggestive of the "star prophesy" and attacking regions that had reportedly been part of the Davidic kingdom. The combination, along with the then currently accepted belief that the "Day of the Lord" was eminent would all seem to point in the same direction, very pro-Israel and anti-Roman. Then add in coinage from 33-4 minted by Antipas that potentially has pro-Christian signs on it, as I have noted elsewhere these might be an artifact, it cannot be proven one way or the other without Israeli Antiquities cooperation, certainly suggests that Herod and Antipas, if not the majority of Jews including the official priesthood would have been pro-Jesus. But it would also suggest that the Romans had good reason to crucify Jesus, and given some questionable activity in the early church, reason to consider both Christians and Jews to be trouble. The logical response to that would be to deny, deny, deny, and rework things to avoid the implications. Mark and John, arguably the earliest gospels, both appear to have been rewritten. Some comments in Paul, including the issue of women's hair in Corinth and the exact wording of 2 Timothy 3:16, avoiding "enthousiamos" also fit with an anti-Roman attitude. Ephesians fits best in a very narrow window when Rome appeared to be in grave danger, and Clement of Rome indicates that Paul made it to Spain, which would fit with an exile while a pardon for Paul by either Galba or Otho would fit with a supposed change in Roman attitudes designed to encourage support during a dangerous time for Rome.
Brother, you've assembled an interesting historical reconstruction, and I agree that individual pieces of evidence can strengthen a case when they consistently point in the same direction.
The challenge is determining when a cumulative case becomes a historical probability and when it moves into speculation.
For example, I can see how the fortresses, temple expansion, Davidic imagery, territorial ambitions, messianic expectations, and political tensions with Rome could be viewed as evidence of strong pro-Israel sentiment among parts of the Herodian world.
That's a reasonable historical observation.
Where I become more cautious is when the argument moves from: "These factors may suggest a pro-Israel or anti-Roman atmosphere"
to: "Therefore Herod, Antipas, the priesthood, and perhaps the majority of Jews were probably pro-Jesus."
That seems like a much larger step.
The Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters all show a far more divided response to Jesus among rulers, priests, and the population.
Likewise, theories about gospel revisions, deliberate anti-Roman editing, political rehabilitation of Christianity, or reinterpretations of Paul's writings become increasingly dependent on reconstruction rather than explicit evidence.
That's not to say such reconstructions are impossible.
Only that the further we move from direct evidence, the more tentative our conclusions should become.
So I think your strongest point is methodological: historical context matters, and motives are often better understood when many data points are viewed together.
My caution would simply be that cumulative evidence can suggest possibilities, but it doesn't automatically establish the more ambitious conclusions that are built upon it.
The distinction between a plausible historical model and a demonstrated historical fact remains important.
So a set time for the Synagogues being open for Torah reading to the audience makes them akin to the modern, programmatic show and all its content, which defines our model of churchianity today, THAT makes them like modern churchianity; just them having a set time of day for when the readings took place? That alone justifies the comparison? I'm just trying to wrap my head around what you're saying.
MM
I can assure you that there is more evidence than I have already referenced and some fits most easily with the High Priest acting to support Jesus against Pilate. Just think, the quantity of myrrh and aloe reportedly brought to the tomb, given the likely size of Jerusalem at the time, the most likely source would have been the temple's stockpiles, and to access those would need the permission of the high priest, and there is even more than just that.
Not at all do I believe those four things were an exhaustive comparison. However, my question to you is where are we today, as the body of Christ, commanded to try living Torah? I've tried, and it simply doesn't work. Do you not believe what Paul said, in that we're dead to the Law? Why would anyone ever think to try and live something to which they are dead? Are YOU not dead to the Law in Christ Jesus? Do you actually thing YOU can live the Law?
Exhaustive is the key word here that you don't seem to be keying upon. Why are we filled with Holy Spirit at the point of our salvation if not to be led by the Spirit, who is the Author of that Law? They did not in times past have Holy Spirit indwelling them. They had no such, contrary to us today. Why would you WANT to try and live something to which you SHOULD be dead. Are YOU not filled with Holy Spirit? Does not Holy Spirit guide and direct us? Otherwise, why are we indwelt by the Spirit if not that the Author being within us is our guide to righteous living and moral foundations? How can words on paper or carved in stone ever compare?
That Peter made the point that Moses is preached in every city, and trying to force that into his allegedly giving instruction that Gentiles followers of Christ attend Synagogue where they were not welcome, and at the exclusion of what Paul had to say about Law-keeping among the body of Christ, your position begs the question: Do you not see the dichotomy you've created in your stance do assume upon those verses what they are not saying? Peter didn't say one word about believing Gentiles attending those Synagogues, only that the Law is read and taught in this places. So what? Why superimpose upon the grammar what is nowhere stated?
Again, why eisegetically force something into the scriptures what isn't there? Nowhere does the Bible state to us that Jewish followers of Christ formed Synagogues and sought after adherence to the Law. Did you not read what is written as stated by James in Acts 21? He revealed that the Jews under the ministry of the twelve there in Jerusalem were aware of Paul teaching other Jews, who were under his own ministry, teaching those other Jews to forsake Moses. Why do you not take that into your considerations? Why would believing Jews hear Paul talk about forsaking the Mosaic Law to form Synagogues to try and live the very thing to which he taught them they were dead to and that they were to forsake?
Let's get to the real core question that your statements beg: Do you believe Paul was a rogue apostle, and therefore a false one? If not, then why are you not believing what he said? If otherwise, then how can anyone be saved today through that other gospel that is indeed OTHER than that of which Paul taught?
Yes. Stephen was clearly opposed to the Othrodox Judaism mentality where it was in rejection of Christ Jesus as Messiah up to this very day. Stephen, in reality, never spoke against the Law itself. Remember that those were false accusers, not true and genuine.
Can you show me anywhere in that text that Paul or anyone else ever denied Paul teaching the Jews under his ministry to forsake the Law? Why do you reject what Paul clearly taught here:
Romans 7:4, 6
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. ...
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
See that? Nobody, through the Law, can live unto God, so why try? It is a dead and vain endeavor!
Please, explain to us all how you are living unto God through the Law.
MM
Biblical history was a part of my studies while still a Messianic Jew, and never, from any source, have I ever found anything concerning the ancient Synagogues whereby they were allegedly, at all, similar to the programmatic pageantry and show of the modern "church service," other than reading from the scriptures and expounding upon them. Quite a number of ignorant "pastors" who have written books and articles draw their contrived parallels, but with no historic backing that I can find.
If you believe otherwise, I'd be interested in looking over any references you may have.
Thanks for your comment. If there's something I've missed, I'll look into it.
MM
All I intended to make known was this...
I grew up in a Jewish home.
We referred to it as services at the synagogue.
Where you are going with it I do not follow.
Well, the fact that Paul goes along with the plan, to me, demonstates that he agreed the accusations against him were false.
Paul taught people relying on the law for relationship with God were wrong; but he didnt forbid the observance of the law and customs, let alone command people to forsake them. They were making him out to be trying to destroy the culture.
Nothing hard to understand. The Jews had gatherings, like on Saturday their sabbath day where they believed they were ministering to the Lord and were doing His will teaching the people of His ways of being and doing right.
In the New Testament we see Christians having gathering as well, like on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Acts 2:14-36) where they believed they were ministering to the Lord and were doing His will teaching the people of His ways of being and doing right.
The Jews under the old covenant once were right with the Lord walking in agreement until the enemy was allowed to move in and deceive them in to departing from the Lord to not walk in obedience to Him
Then the Christians under the new covenant once were right with the Lord walking in agreement until the enemy was allowed to move in and deceive them in to departing from the Lord to not walk in obedience to Him
Acts 20:29 - For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
This is how the church was corrupted with catholicism and later the reformers.