(or “How to Avoid Falling Asleep in Church”)
————————————————
Note from 2019: This was originally published under the title “The Influence of the Synagogue upon the New Testament Ekklesia/Churches” back in 2008 or so by Christopher T. Haun on rethinker.net Republishing it now to cthaun.tech in 2019 with a few typo corrections, a few minor adjustments, and one addition. While I’m still interested in recovering the argumentation in church life, I no longer make a big deal over the benefits and malefits of conventional/impersonal church models versus unconventional/personal house-church models. Both models serve as legitimate matrixes for interpersonal relationships and both models allow for us to step on one another’s toes. This can be equally relevant to both models.
———————————————————–
I first got turned onto the idea of “arguing” (I’m using the word broadly here) as normal and healthy in the context of church meetings and synagogues in 1998 when a fellow named Daniel visited the house-church I was part of. I wasn’t sold on the house church model at the time. My habit back then, as a bachelor, was to wake up early on Sunday mornings to begin “the Lord’s day” with meaty expositional and exegetical teaching from S. Lewis Johnson over the FM radio as phase one of my church. Then, as phase two, I’d spend a couple hours at a large seeker-sensitive, conventional-model church. Their services seemed to hinder rather than promote interpersonal interaction. But that was okay for me because, after the megachurch services ended, I would travel to the other side for phase three—breaking bread (having lunch) with more of my brothers and sisters in Christ at a little unconventional house-church. It was at one such house-church meeting that Daniel joined us. As we started to wrap up whatever it was we were saying and doing, Daniel expressed his excitement to me. He explained that was Jewish and had grown up attending synagogue throughout his childhood. As an adult he had become a believer in Yeshua as his Messiah, Savior, and Lord, but he ended up at a conventional American church rather than a messianic fellowship. What excited him so much about our life in the house church meeting was how much it reminded him of his days in synagogue where, as he remembered it, the adult men would argue passionately all Sabbath long over the Scriptures.
It’s not that we were arguing. It’s just that we had the freedom in our home assembly to do something reminiscent of 1 Cor. 14:26-33 where, “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.” I knew there was something profound in what Daniel said. Ten years later I had become thoroughly disillusioned with the church models that “quench the Spirit” and am thankful for the clue Daniel gave me.
Now as I try to see what the New Testament Church/Churches were and try to imagine what Church/Churches could be today, I find myself inescapably drawn to the synagogue for shedding of light on the earliest church. I’m not arguing that the churches we start today need to look like synagogues. But perhaps there are some lessons to be learned? I’m not trying to bring the Church back towards a Temple-based model—quite the opposite!
There is little doubt in my mind that most of the first churches were heavily influenced by the synagogue. It seems like it must have been unavoidable. Paul did most of his evangelism in synagogues and most of his converts were probably the gentile “God fearers” who were part of those synagogues.
This rethink is here to help me slowly rethink these questions: Is the influence of the synagogue upon the church a good thing that the Apostles fostered? Relative to the Temple liturgos, probably so. Compared to Ignatius model, probably so. But was this the way it was meant to be? And to what degree? Should we who are interested in returning to a model that more closely resembles the New Testament church also in some ways aim towards synagogue patterns? To what degree? What should be adopted? What should be avoided? Is this study valuable just for shedding light on things? What can we learn and what should we learn by positive example and what should we learn by negative example? How are they similar? How are they different? Why does the ekklesia only seem to have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, elders, deacons, and saints/brothers while they synagogue has more offices? Explore the idea of clergyism… is the synagogue an antidote to western ecclesiology’s clergyism? The synagogue was invented in part to replace the Temple after the first temple was destroyed. Later the Synagogue functioned as a para-Temple ministry that augmented the Temple ministry. Is it possible that synagogue model lessons can help clean the Western churches of their Temple complex? Are the Jewish synagogue and Christian synerxomai supposed to be alike in type or just in degree?
————————————————
The following quotes from Samuel Safrai, William Barclay, Ron Moseley, and Oskar Skarsaune are reprinted here with “fair use” in mind.
————————————————
Barclay, William.
MEDITATIONS ON COMMUNICATING THE GOSPEL.
Stirling, Scotland, 1968.
pp.33-37:
Before we look at the general content of the apostolic message there are two points of method which we must notice. We are well supplied with material from which we can reconstruct both the content and the method of the apostolic preaching. We have Peter’s sermon in Jerusalem in Acts 2; we have Paul’s three sermons, the first in Antioch in Pisidia in Acts 13, the second in Lystra in Acts 14, and the third in Athens in Acts 17. The interesting and important fact is that, when we look at all the three Pauline sermons, they are totally different. And they are different because each of them is specially and particularly designed for the audience to which it was addressed. As a preacher Paul had an amazing gift for starting from where his audience was. His basic message is the same, but he had an astonishing gift of technique which enabled him to adapt that message to the audience which he was addressing.
In Antioch in Pisidia he was addressing Jews in a Jewish Synagogue, and the only Gentiles present would be either full proselytes or at least God-fearers who were interested in Judaism. When Paul spoke to this audience, he began in the Old Testament; he continued in the Old Testament; and he ended in the life of Jesus as fulfillment of the Old Testament. He knew that to his audience the Old Testament was sacred and holy Scripture, and he knew that they both knew it and accepted its authority; so he therefore made it the basis of what he had to say.
In Athens, Paul’s method was quite different. There he was not speaking to a Jewish Synagogue but in the open air. He was not speaking to a Jewish audience, but to a Greek audience. He therefore began with quotations from the Greek poets and philosophers. Paul was well aware that there is no good in saying, “The Bible says,” to a man who neither knows nor accepts the Bible. The wise preacher begins where his audience is and with what they know to lead them on to where he wants them to be and what he wants them to learn. So, as Paul was a Jew to the Jews, so he became a Greek to the Greek.
In Lystra once again Paul’s method was quite different. In Lystra he was out in the wilds. There was no Synagogue there and there was no Greek culture there. It would have been futile to quote the Old Testament, and it would have been equally pointless to quote the Greek poets and philosophers; so there Paul starts from the sun and the wind and the rain and from growing things—things which all men know… The true preacher starts where the people are—even if he has to learn things he never in his life heard about before. The sermon which is above a congregation’s heads is not a good sermon; it is a bad sermon. It is simply the sign of a marksman who cannot hit the target. Be it noted that the preacher does not wish to leave his people where they are—far from that. But he begins from where they are to lead them to where he would wish them to be.
The second notable thing was something which emerged from the pattern of the Synagogue service. The brief outline of the Synagogue service was this:
It began with the Shema, which is the basic Jewish creed. Shema is the imperative of the Hebrew verb “to hear”, and means “Hear!” It is the first word of that verse which is the fundamental creed of Judaism, “Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Before the Shema there came one set prayer and after it one or two prayers. Following the Shema there came the Eighteen Benedictions, eighteen prayers which bless God for his goodness and his graciousness. Inset into this there is the time for free and topical prayers which bring the need of the immediate moment to God. This first worship part of the service finishes with the blessing, “The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you: the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace” (Numbers 6:25-26).
The second part of the service consisted of the reading of the Scripture: one lesson from the Law, and one from the Prophets. The Law was read from a lectionary, in which it was read completely through in three years; the prophetic lesson was chosen by the reader. The lesson from the Law was read one verse at a time, and, since by New Testament times the Jews had forgotten their classical Hebrew, it was translated by an official called the Targumist, also one verse at a time. The lesson from the prophets was read and translated in the same way, but three verses at a time.
Lastly, there came the preaching [teaching rather], which was always in the nature of the exposition of Scripture.
Such was the outline of the service, but simply to state the outline is to omit the most significant thing about the whole service. The most significant thing is that there was no one officially to do any of these things, with the single exception of the blessing which was always pronounced by a priest, if there was a priest present. There was no professional ministry at all. There was an official known as the Ruler, or the Head, of the Synagogue, but he was purely and administrative official. He had to do with the finance and the organization of the care of the buildings; and he had to do with the service to the extent that a chairman or president has to do with a meeting. He did not himself do any of the items; he saw that they were correctly done. What then happened?
Everything in the service was done by members of the congregation. A man called the Ambassador of the Congregation was detailed to take the prayer part of the service; seven people, a priest, a Levite, (if present), and five ordinary members of the congregation, from the congregation were called up to read the passage from the Law, so many verses each; one man was told to choose and read the lesson from the prophets. Anyone who felt he had an address to give could give it. It was precisely here that in the early days the Christian preachers got their chance; it was here that Paul got his chance. Under modern conditions they would never have been allowed to utter a word. But in the Synagogue, when it came time for the sermon, anyone who had a message to give could, subject to the approval of the Head of the Synagogue, give it. And until the breach between the Church and the Synagogue was final, here was a magnificent chance which the Christian preachers seized with both hands.
But we have still not come to the most important feature of the service for the communication of the Christian message. The sermon was always followed by general discussion, and it was exactly here that the Christian preacher got the greatest chance of all to communicate the Christian message. The word that we come on again and again in regard to the preaching of the Christian preachers in the Synagogue is the word “dispute” or “argue.” The Jews disputed with Stephen but could not meet his arguments (Acts 6:9-10). Paul argued in the Synagogue at Thessalonica (Acts 17:2); he argued in the Synagogue at Corinth (Acts 18:2); he argued in the Synagogue at Ephesus (Acts 18:19). Here is the great basic fact of early preaching: Early preaching was not a monologue but a dialogue. It was not a question of one man telling a crowd of men; it was a case of a group of people talking it over together. Of course, there should be services of worship and certainty in which the atmosphere of debate would be out of place; but there ought also be a place for the contact of mind with mind. For, if there is not, how is the preacher to know that he is asking and answering the right questions at all? If he does not give to those to whom he speaks an opportunity to speak to him, then he may be completely missing their problems, and he may be quite unaware of their doubts and difficulties. We shall always need the monologue, but the rediscovery of the dialogue within the Church is long overdue. It was just that dialogue which gave the apostolic preachers their supreme opportunity. It could still be so today.
After reading Barclay’s insights, do these three New Testament passages below take on new meaning?
Paul and his companions. . . entered the synagogue and sat down. After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the synagogue rulers sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a message of encouragement for the people, please speak.” Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said: “Men of Israel and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me! … We tell you the good news…” As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath. When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God. (Acts 13)
“When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation… for the strengthening of the church… Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.” (Paul to the Corinthians Church)
When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days
he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,” he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women… As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17)
————————————————
Moseley, Ron. “The Influence of the Synagogue on the Organizational Structure of the Church.” Yeshua; A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church. Messianic Jewish Publishers. 1996
The structure of the local synagogues was carried over directly in to the structure of the early Church. A president, deacons, a precentor (song leader), and teachers can all be found in both the synagogue and the early Church. We know from early sources that there were between 394 and 480 synagogues in Jerusalem during the first century, one being located within the precincts of the Temple itself. This is undoubtedly why the pattern of the Church had its origins in the Jewish synagogue. Note the following similarities between the ancient synagogue and the early Church.
The principle leader of a synagogue was the nasi or president. In the Christian congregation, the leaders were still called president rather than pastor, as late as A.D. 150, by such non-Jewish writers as Justin Martyr. (9) In the synagogue structure, three of these leaders would join together to form a tribunal for judging cases concerning money, theft, immorality, admission of proselytes, laying on of hands, and a host of other things mentioned in the Sanhedrin section of the Mishnah.
These men were known as the “rulers of the synagogue” because they took on the chief care of things, a title mentioned several times in the teachings of Jesus (Mark 5:3 and Luke 8:41). This practice was still in use among the Gentile congregations at Corinth under the apostleship of Paul, where he spoke of the court within the congregation (1 Corinthians 6:1-2). [CTH note: perhaps it would be better to say that 1 Cor 6 speaks of the need for such a court to exist there. But also note that Paul’s recommendation suggests that even “the least among you” could judge this particular case. This could suggest that no “ruler” needed to be appointed?]
The nasi was the administrator of the synagogue, and we know that James, the half-brother of Jesus, was the nasi of the early church at Jerusalem. Early documents such as the Didache suggest that the churches in Asia Minor and Greece treated the Church at Jerusalem with much the same authority as the synagogues did the Sanhedrin. (10, 11)
There also was a public minister of the synagogue called a chazen who prayed, preached behind a wooden pulpit, and took care of the general oversight of the reading of the Law and other congregational duties. He did not read the Law, but stood by the one who did, to correct and oversee, ensuring that it was done properly. He selected seven readers each week who were well-educated in the Hebrew Scriptures. The group consisted of one priest, one Levite, and five regular Israelites (Luke 4:16). The terms overseer of the congregation, angel of the church, and minister of the synagogue all referred to this position. (12)
There were also three men known as almoners or parnasin who cared for the poor and distributed alms and were expected to be scholars of the Scriptures. Since they were also known as gabbay tzedikah, it may be from this function that we get the modern term deacon. Some scholars hold that it was from these seven, the president, the rule, the overseer, the chazen, and the three parnas, that the idea of selecting “seven good men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom” came about (Acts 6:3). These men were appointed over the business affairs of the Church so the apostles would not have to be distracted from their study of the Scriptures and prayer.
In Jewish literature the question is asked, “Who is a scholar worthy of being appointed Parnas?” The answer is:
“He who is asked about a law from any source, and is able to give an answer.” (13)
In modern times the Jews use this term to refer to a lay person, who is also called an elder.
Another function in the ancient synagogue was the shaliach, or announcer. From this position we get the term apostle, meaning one who is sent fourth to announce the gospel, a role equivalent to that of our modern missionaries.
There was also the maggid, a migratory evangelist of the first century who spoke to various congregations, and the batlanim, a scholarly teacher who was either independently wealthy or on some type of support so he would be available to provide the congregation with accurate academics and answers. There had to be at least ten batlanim in every congregation of one hundred and twenty members. There was even a tradition that a synagogue service could not commence without ten men present. (14) Jesus may have been referring to this tradition when He said, “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20).
Next, there was the zakin, a word meaning “old,” more in the sense of maturity than age. This person provided counsel to the people and was similar to a modern-day pastor or elder. In Judaism, those who had reached the age of forty were considered to have attained understanding, and those who were over fifty were considered worthy to counsel the younger people. (15)
The rabbi was a prophet after the manner of the post-exilic prophets of Judaism. He carried the responsibility of reading and preaching the Word and exhorting and edifying the people (1 Corinthians 14:3).
There was also the interpreter, known as the meturganim. This was a person skilled in languages who stood by the one reading the Law or teaching in a Bet Midrash (a house of study) to interpret into the lingua franca of that day the Hebrew that was being spoken. The use of an interpreter goes back to the time of Ezra, when the interpreter was said to have added the meaning. The Talmud gives many details of the interpreter’s duties in the synagogue. (16) It is from this concept that we understand Jesus’ words, “What you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops” (Matthew 10:27). This phrase was easily understood by those who were familiar with the system of study in the Bet Midrash, where the teacher would literally speak the message in the interpreter’s ear, who would then shout it out to others, both inside the classroom and out.
[I wonder if perhaps Ron was superimposing more continuity from synagogue to church than was actually there. Nevertheless, it is still interesting.]
———————————————-
The following excerpt is from a fascinating essay by Samuel Safrai entitled “The Place of Women in First-century Synagogues” (Formerly at http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/Default.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=1464)
Paul felt it necessary to issue his corrective because in early Christian congregations, following Jewish practice, it was permissible and customary to interrupt the preacher to ask questions. In first-century synagogues, a sermon followed the reading of Scripture. This exposition of Scripture was more a lesson than a sermon, and congregants were encouraged to ask questions. In fact, the asking of questions was so central to the rabbinic teaching method that often the preacher-teacher began his sermon by just seating himself and waiting until someone from the audience asked a question. There is a whole category of Jewish literature called yelamDEnu (May [our teacher] instruct us). It is similar to what we now call “Questions and Answers.” Today public speakers often employ a Question-and-Answer period, especially as a means of clarification at the end of a lecture. In first-century Jewish society this approach was usually the main method of instruction.
———————————————-
From Skarsaune, Oskar. In The Shadow of the Temple; Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. IVPress.com. 2002. p.123-126 “Judaism Apart from the Temple: The Synagogue”
The oldest sources speak of the reading and expounding of the Scriptures—some also of prayer—as the central feature of the synagogue service. It must be stressed that the synagogue was a laymen’s institution. Whereas in the temple everything was done by the priests, in the synagogue everything depended on the lay congregation itself. The central part of the service, the reading of the Scriptures, was carried out by the members of the congregations in turn. If a scribe was present, he would be asked to expound the text. But if none were available, everyone was free to speak, and guests would be asked to step forward and greed the congregation with a “word of exhortation” (Acts 13:15). If a priest happened to be there, his status was equal to that of the other members of the congregation. All these features clearly betray the synagogue’s Diaspora origins.
Apart from the reading and expounding of the Scriptures, the other main component of the synagogue service was prayer. Here again it was the congregation who prayed, not a priest or someone appointed to this task. [Footnote 34: The custom of having a priest say the Aaronic blessing in the synagogue service probably developed after the fall of the [second] temple.] Before the time of Jesus, fixed patterns had already developed for both these components of the synagogue service. The Scripture reading consisted of the Torah, read each Sabbath according to a three-year or one-year cycle, and the Prophets, read selectively so as to match the Torah passage. This reading of the Prophets was called the haftarah (“ending” or “completion”) of the Torah reading. …
The synagogue and its service were from the outset considered supplements, not substitutes, for the temple service. The latter revolved around sacrifices, while the former revolved around the reading of the Scriptures. Thus, while the synagogue was by no means opposed to the temple, it did not necessarily side with the priesthood. The lay scribes were close to its heart than the priests. … After the destruction of the [second] temple, the synagogue service became a real subsititued for the temple service…
————————————————
=====Addition in 2019=====
While writing an essay on the relationship between faith and reason, I became rather fascinated by the “argumentative theory of reason” because it seemed like social-cognitive scientists were starting to leave Rene Descartes behind and find their way back towards wisdom the Bible has been saying for thousands of years. Here is what I wrote in my first draft:
The Argumentative Theory of Reason
Several experiments conducted by in the last few decades have surprised many by showing that reason leads us away from true beliefs and better decisions. In an attempt to make sense of all the related data, socio-cognitive scientists Dan Sparber and Hugo Mercier have advanced the “argumentative theory of reasoning.” The first part of their argument agrees that our use of reason as individuals in isolation tends typically to misleading us. In this way, reason is rarely faithful or reasonable. Mercier summarizes:
When people reason alone, they are prone to all sorts of biases. For instance, because they only find arguments supporting what they already believe in, they will tend to become even more persuaded that they are right or will develop stronger, more polarized attitudes. … When reasoning is used to make decisions, it will do what it is supposed to do, namely, find arguments. As a result, instead of always pointing towards a better choice, reasoning will usually lead us to a decision that is easy to justify. Psychologists have shown that many a weird decision can be explained by this factor: people decide to do something because they can easily justify it rather than because it is right.
While the first part of their theory is quite pessimistic about the value of reason, the second part of their theory is rather optimistic about it. The difference is the use of reason, or reasonable argumentation, in communities of humans. Mercier explains:
If reasoning [was given to us] so that we can argue with others, then we should be reasonably good at arguing. Short answer: we are. When we have to make up or evaluate arguments in properly argumentative contexts—we truly have to convince someone, or someone truly has tried to convince us—we are good at it. This good performance stands in sharp contrast with the very poor performance observed in often much simpler reasoning tasks that are not set in argumentative contexts. If reasoning [was given to us] so we can argue with others, then reasoning should yield better results in groups than alone. Short answer: it does. When the performance of groups and lone individuals in reasoning tasks is compared, groups fare much better—sometimes dramatically so. Not only do groups have a better performance than the average individual, but they often perform as well, or even better, than the best group member (again, in reasoning tasks, this is not true across the board). If reasoning [was given to us] so we can argue with others, then we should be biased in our search for arguments. In a discussion, I have little use for arguments that support your point of view or that rebut mine. Accordingly, reasoning should display a confirmation bias: it should be more likely to find arguments that support our point of view or rebut those that we oppose. Short (but emphatic) answer: it does, and very much so. The confirmation bias is one of the most robust and prevalent biases in reasoning. This is a very puzzling trait of reasoning if reasoning had a classical, Cartesian function of bettering our beliefs—especially as the confirmation bias is responsible for all sorts of mischief… Interestingly, the confirmation bias needs not be a drag on a group’s ability to argue. To the extent that it is mostly the production, and not the evaluation of arguments that is biased—and that seems to be the case—then a group of people arguing should still be able to settle on the best answer, despite the confirmation bias (which they do…). As a matter of fact, the confirmation bias can then even be considered a form of division of cognitive labor: instead of all group members having to laboriously go through the pros and cons of each option, if each member is biased towards one option, she will find the pros of that options, and the cons of the others—which is much easier—and the others will do their own bit.
Since the argumentative theory seems to fit the facts, we humans appear to be designed to reason (argue, debate, convince) in community rather than in isolation. Human reason enables us to solve our disagreements and cooperate in groups because reasoning is for convincing others. Reason is not so reliable in the individual quest for truth but it is good for evaluating other people’s arguments and deciding which argument is stronger than another. We are not good at finding the flaws in our own reasoning and beliefs and, as a result, we need to get out of our echo chambers. Interestingly, their research also shows that reasoning works best when there are fewer than seven people are reasoning. Larger groups tend to hinder reason and lead towards “group think” and the not-so-rational herd mentality. Another encouraging insight they report is that reasoning does always tend to have some impact on the dynamic of faith and doubt, even if that impact is slight. Mercier says, “We [humans] are demanding in that we require the arguments to be strong before changing our minds—this makes obvious sense. But we are also objective: If we encounter a good argument that challenges our beliefs, we will take it into account. In most cases, we will change our mind—even if only by a little.”
Many of these insights from cognitive science seem to harmonize with insights of the biblical wisdom tradition. Consider these examples:
-
“Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed.” (Pr. 15:22)
-
“the one who states his case [presents a logical argument appealing to reason] first seems right, until the other comes and examines/questions him,” (Pr. 18:17)
-
“. . . in abundance of counselors there is victory” (Pr. 24:6)
-
“Come now, let us reason together…” (Is.1:18)
-
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer. 17:9)
-
“I planted [the idea], Apollos watered [it], and the Lord made it [germinate and bear fruit]…” (1 Cor. 3:6)
-
“Let two or three … speak, and let the others weigh what is said.” (1 Cor.14:29)
-
“Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (2 Cor. 13:1)
-
“… test everything; hold onto that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21)
The story of the esteemed rabbi Gamaliel turning the opinion of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin in Acts 5:33-42 is one of the many things in the book of Acts that shows the Judaism of the second-temple era had some of this argumentative theory of reason built into their proceedings. An even better example of these principles at work may be seen in Acts 15 where the apostles, elders, and other members of the Jerusalem church met in council (a little like a Christian Sanhedrin perhaps) to deliberate over the first big problem/question that the first-century Jewish-and-Gentile network of churches faced. They met to “consider this matter” (:6) and “after there was much debate” (:7), Peter spoke very persuasively, offering, among other things evidence from facts he and they had observed (:7-11). After Peter spoke, “all the assembly fell silent,” (:12) suggesting that they needed to think more than argue at that point. Next Barnabas and Paul spoke and offered additional evidences they had observed (:12). Seeing that the argument was mostly settled by reason, James then spoke, agreeing with Peter (:14), adding an argument of his own from a prophetic book they all agreed with (:16-17), and offering his final judgment (:19-21). “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church,” to act in accordance with the communal reasoning of Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and James (:22). Perhaps the argumentation theory of reason has good biblical support for it.
———————————————-
Notes to self…
- Considering the argument that the commands to reprove and rebuke found in the pastoral letters (and Jude) suggest that it wasn’t just the elders/overseers of the small house churches who were doing the talking and teaching. Perhaps the elder/overseer was there to ensure that the men had the freedom to question and argue freely and, when one of them started talking nonsense or heresy, give gentle corrections.
- Perhaps this shed light on and is strengthened by Paul’s command to the churches to not let a woman speak in the churches but instead to ask her husband at home. Women were allowed to prophecy in the assembly (a form of speaking) so long as their glorious hair/head was covered/veiled. But they were not allowed to teach or have authority over a man. Perhaps this fits into the idea that the men—all the men over the age of thirteen perhaps—were encouraged to “speak” and “ask questions” (perhaps including constructive argument, debate, etc.) while the women were not. Just a theory. I don’t think it can be proved. But it still might be a good theory—a theory that will never gain popular acceptance anywhere.
- To expand the idea that first-century Rabbis sat down to teach and teaching consisted of letting the audience ask questions, review several chapters in the gospels support this teaching paradigm with Jesus fielding questions. Teaching was not always a pre-made sermon. Then again, sometimes it was. Anyway, a truly good teacher can handle answering unexpected questions with wisdom.
