Shortly before the rebuilding of the temple, the Jews constructed huts, later called synagogues, for prayer while facing Jerusalem and reading the Scriptures. Even when the temple was rebuilt, some Jews disagreed with the reconstruction of the new temple, thinking that the temple should never be rebuilt. These “synagogues” began to be built 30 to 40 years before Cyrus, who later decreed a law granting the Jews permission to return to their homeland. After their captivity and upon returning to Jerusalem they began building bigger synagogues.
The synagogues were oriented toward the Temple. It is not surprising, then, that the synagogue’s liturgy was influenced by the temple’s forms of prayer. As the scrolls were unrolled to read, prayers were said that are believed to have been read from the ritual prayers in the temple. Eventually, the synagogue tradition was a highly structured rote service of prayer recitals and scripture recitations. For example, the first of two prayers is said at the recitation of the Kiddush (includes the hymn of the seraphim in Isaiah 6 and the hymn of the cherubim in Ezekiel 3). Bouyer makes this comment: “But the truth must be that the association of men with these heavenly canticles, in the worship of the Temple, had probably been a central figure of the offering of the sacrifice of incense morning and evening of every day” (p. 22).
It is believed by some traditions of today that the obvious change from animal sacrifices to worship services marks both the difference and the continuity in moving from the Old Testament into the New Testament. This explanation is offered as the reason some traditions have Jewish forms in worship. While there were Jewish communities that thrived after the temple’s destruction, Christians saw the law fulfilled and themselves as the rightful heirs of Old Testament prophecy. However, some Christian converts never broke out of the Jewish mold. Some either desired to maintain certain elements of the law or were tempted to fully return to their former religion. The Hebrew writer’s purpose was to show the superior covenant of Christ over the Law of Moses to discourage Jewish Christians from returning to Judaism. Similar teaching was given by Paul (Galatians 5:1-12). Along with various forms of Gnosticism and other philosophies, many Jews formed just another variant form of Christianity. To admit these variant forms does not mean that they follow the tradition of the apostles of Jesus Christ. Many passages in the New Testament were warnings against both Gnostic and Jewish teaching. The Law of Moses was done away in Christ, having served the purpose for which it was given (Col. 2:14; Gal. 3:23-25; Heb. 8:7-13, 9:1 – 10:9). From the content of the New Testament letters warning of the influence of Judaism and the presence of Jewish forms of worship in some of the older traditions of Christianity, it would appear that such warnings were warranted. Despite the strong resistance of Paul, those Jewish influences were very prominent in forming religious patterns among some early Christians like the Ebionim, a small Syrian group.
Therefore, to argue in favor of an historical continuity between Judaism and the disciples of Christ is untenable, seeing that the Old system with its sacred priests, buildings, and rituals were fulfilled and replaced by a nonphysical, nonhierarchical, nonritualistic, and nonliturgical organism called the ekklesia. We cannot deny that many Jewish Christians created a version of their own making. We are not only saying that they did, we are suggesting that many different views and/or distinct movements were formed that did not follow any pattern of Apostolic teaching. The New Testament is silent about such things because the ekklesia is a spiritual relationship of people in whom is the Spirit of God. His people become the holy temple where God indwells. Since the ekklesia is the new creation not made with hands, any deviation from its spiritual nature to ritualistic or ceremonial forms of worship is the addition made with hands. Christianity is the result because it combines the biblical patterns of kingdom living with the creation of human preferences carried over from the influences of their particular tradition. For this reason, the term “Christianity” should be distinguished from the “ekklesia” of this study. Christianity is a packaged religion that began an evolutionary chain before the close of the first century with the combined influence of Hellenistic Jews and pagan temple worship in the early years, and ending with the influence of Roman imperialism around the start of the fourth century. It was not completed then, but its institutional nature was already adopted by the influence of the Jews with their synagogues and others with their temples of worship to the gods. Contantine’s final touches of this creation of an official religion for his kingdom included touches of imperialism – earthly power, grandeur, pomp, and processional ceremony. Thus, Judaism, paganism, and imperialism were all earthly forms of human influence that played a large role in forming the ideas of Christianity that ultimately gave birth to the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox Christian churches. The propensity of the Catholics to tie their faith to the Old Testament that demonstrates continuity of the divine plan, therefore, shows a complete disregard of the nature of the church, and the fulfillment of the law. It shows that they are the product of man’s creation, part of which includes the creation of an institution that was then fused with the ekklesia.
Regarding Jewish influence on the ekklesia, there is no proof that Christians met in the Synagogue as a part of their devotion to Christ. Again, the fact that professing Christians attended the synagogues cannot be denied. The example of Paul, an apostle of Christ, illustrates a purpose for Christians attending a religious service, but not as devotees but as teachers. Such public meetings provided a huge opportunity for Paul and his fellow-workers to preach Christ not only to Jews but many Gentiles, also. Another reason for their attending the synagogues harmonizes with their interest in the reading of the Law of Moses. Why wouldn’t Christians desire to be in the presence of people reading the law? So, while the physical forms and the iconography that form the traditions of Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy have some similarity to the synagogue worship, this does not tie the New Testament church (ekklesia) to the influence of a Jewish Synagogue. It only ties Christianity to the influence of Jewish synagogues.
Both focused on physical forms of worship and service that are full of ceremonial performances, hierarichal authority, and doctrines born out of mysticism. By the way, no one who recognizes the forms of religion made by hands would make the argument that church buildings are acceptable expedients, which historically started as Synagogues and led to the creation of church buildings. The cries in support of our church buildings aligns us with a form of religion that is earthly and physical.
Where is the passage(s) that ties the disciples of Christ to the synagogue? The emphasis on the spiritual rather than the physical, the lack of evidence of Christians meeting in synagogues in honor to Christ, the evidence of daily meetings in homes, and the warnings of apostacies and departures from the tradition of the apostles, leads to one conclusion – many had made shipwreck of the faith and had seduced many to follow their error.
Some disciples of Greek Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism mock the ideas presented by Protestants that represent Catholocism as the product of apostacies that remained for hundreds of years during which time the church was dormant. It is laughable to them that the church would be non-existent until the Reformation or Restoration era, when someone finally figured it all out. We would agree that it is ridiculous, but it is only ridiculous if you define church as a majority of Catholics and Protestants do. But, if it does not exist in the Bible as an institution/organization, then it would never have lay dormant for someone to come along years later and restore. What was dormant was a proper understanding of “ekkesia.” The very idea of the “ekklesia” being “dormant” represents a misuse of its nature, that is, thinking in terms of the visible institutional church. Since the ekklesia is a relationship of saved individuals that met in homes, they wouldn’t have public notices of “churches” being built, “church functions,” or “church services” offered by “church officials.” They wouldn’t be visibly recognized by a sign outside their building with their meeting times posted in the “church yard.” In the absence of these along with church creeds and doctrines that affiliate each person to to a denomination, you are left with the ekklesia (saved individuals). Such individuals would continue down through the anals of time, even though their existence would not be information that would draw public notices or make it in our history books. Besides, Catholics are known to have controlled by force what could be read and/or believed. They simply burned any writing (or person) that did not support their practices. Given the power of Roman Catholicism and their control, who do you suppose influenced the history as we have it? Neither Roman Catholicism, nor Protestantism fits the description of the “ekklesia” (called out).