Who is the Synagogue of Satan?

Revelation 2:9 ”I know your affliction and poverty, yet you are rich. I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not but are a synagogue of Satan.”

Revelation 3:9 “Take note! I will make those from the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews and are not, but are lying—note this—I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and they will know that I have loved you.”

The Anti-Torah side of the aisle often uses these verses to accuse those who practice Torah of doing wrong in that endeavor. The supposed Implication is that The Torah is only for the community of Israel and that practicing the Torah while not being Jewish is a false claim to “Being Jewish.” The Irony is that this couldn’t be further from the truth. The Torah observant community, by and large, not only doesn’t claim to be Jewish but distinguishes themselves from Jews either because of latent anti-Jewish sentiments they learned from Christianity or because they respect Jews as a spiritual big brother and, as such, choose to avoid any such presumption which would be so disrespectful.

While these two reasons for distinguishing oneself from being Jewish may be as polar opposite as could be imagined, they nonetheless totally invalidate the claim made by those attempting to invalidate Torah observance outright utilizing these verses from Revelation.

Furthermore, the rest of the New Testament doesn’t support this accusation as we will soon see.

In Exodus 12:38, the Gentiles went up out of Egypt with the sons of Israel. They were not separated until Numbers 13:3. This indicates that this mixed multitude was present at and for the covenant of Sinai both times to receive this Torah and covenant along with the sons of Israel. This establishes that, from the beginning, one didn’t need to be a direct descendant of Israel to be included in the community of Israel whereupon the Torah applies to you.

In Exodus and Numbers, we once again see evidence of this:

Exodus 12:49 ”The same law will apply to both the native and the foreigner who resides among you.”

Numbers 15:29 ”You are to have the same law for the person who acts in error, whether he is an Israelite or a foreigner who lives among you.”

Judaism teaches that this mixed multitude of “strangers” bound by the Torah are all converts to Judaism. We will address this momentarily.

Genesis 18:19 ”For I have known him because he commands his sons and his household after him, that they should keep the way of the Lord to perform righteousness and justice, so that the Lord bring upon Abraham that which He spoke concerning him.”

Genesis 26:5 ”Because Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My instructions.”

Galatians 3:7 “then understand that those who have faith are Abraham’s sons.”

It’s noteworthy that this title “sons of Abraham” is something Paul is applying to people who were most certainly not direct descendants of Abraham, it follows that the meaning of this title is more symbolic in nature. Furthermore, Paul didn’t make this title up.

He used language that was already familiar to his audience and other Jews. He is speaking in terms that were commonplace in his day. So what did this title, “Sons of Abraham” mean to them?

Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 129:20- ”In the divorce of a convert he writes `so-and-so the son of our father Abraham.`"

Apart from this, The Talmud also closely associates the person of Abraham with converts-

Chagigah 3a:13-”With regard to the aforementioned verse, Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “How beautiful are your feet in sandals, daughter of the prince [nadiv]”? How pleasant are the feet [raglehen] of the Jewish people when they ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival [regel]. “Daughter of the prince”: this is referring to the daughter of Abraham our father who is called a prince, as it is stated: “The princes of the peoples are gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham” (Psalms 47:10). The Gemara asks: Is God only “the God of Abraham,” and not the God of Isaac and Jacob? Rather, the verse mentions “the God of Abraham,” as he was the first of the converts. Abraham was the first prince, as all converts who follow in his path are called “the princes of the peoples.”

This same association of Abraham with Converts is also exhibited in Sukkah 49b:6

And throughout Judaic literature, converts are almost exclusively referred to as “Ben/bat Avraham”.

So the title “son of Abraham” directly connotes conversion to Judaism, and Paul is clearly preaching that Faith in the G-d of Abraham, while paired with Baptism, was sufficient to render a person a valid convert to Judaism and thus included in the community of Israel.

Upon reading this, many may find themselves wondering, "Didn't Paul also speak harshly against Circumcision for the sake of conversion. So he can’t have been promoting conversion to Judaism, right?"

Well. Not exactly. Rather Paul might have been disputing a method of conversion rather than necessity. Likely, Paul was arguing in favor of one method of conversion over another. The two contrasting methods are Mikveh (baptism) and Brit Milah (circumcision). This dispute between conversion methods appears to have been a disagreement that existed even between ruling rabbis who lived within the same time frame.

In Yevamot 46a:20-46b:2 and forward, We find a discussion between 3 of the leading Tannaim of the late 1st century and early 2nd century. Understand. These men would have been contemporaries of the apostles. This discussion between Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Akiva concerns the requirements for conversion. The disagreement is whether Mikveh (baptism) is solely necessary for a valid conversion or whether Circumcision is solely necessary for a valid conversion (which sounds like Paul’s approach). Ultimately the final ruling was that both are required, but this came later. Understand that at the time this debate was raging within Judaism, both methods were considered valid.

From this can be derived a fairly strong argument that the gentiles that Paul baptized and then called sons of Abraham were themselves Jewish converts, hence why Paul calls them “Sons of Abraham”. Thus, they would be included in and considered among the community of Israel.

Moreover, Paul references this inclusion into the community of Israel more than once.

Ephesians 2:11-13 ”So then, remember that at one time you were Gentiles in the flesh—called “the uncircumcised” by those called “the circumcised,” which is done in the flesh by human hands. At that time, you were without the Messiah, excluded from the citizenship of Israel, and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, you who were far away have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah.”

Note that Paul states, “You were Gentiles,” as though this is a past condition that does not apply to the present time as he is writing. Paul seems to indicate that this status of Gentile does not apply to those he is writing to any longer. Not that it’s irrelevant. But rather that their status has changed from being gentiles.

He explains that such a status separated them from the community of Israel and the covenant and its promises but that now a change has affected this status which has then included them into the community of Israel and the covenant whereby its promises become applicable to them.

In Romans 11, Paul Speaks of the community of Israel as an olive tree and states that these new believers are grafted into this tree of Israel.

Romans 11:17-18 ”Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, though a wild olive branch, were grafted in among them and have come to share in the rich root[k] of the cultivated olive tree, do not brag that you are better than those branches. But if you do brag—you do not sustain the root, but the root sustains you.”

In this, Paul also writes warning these new gentile converts not to become prideful and think they have replaced the native branches, Some of which were cut off.

It’s noteworthy here also that only SOME were cut off. Not all. This warning of Paul against the total replacement of the native branches is directly relevant to the passage in Revelation regarding the synagogue of Satan.

In Conclusion, it’s rather a stretch to attempt to apply Revelation 2:9/3:9 to modern Believers who have left mainstream Christendom for the pursuit of Torah, given that the precedence of New Testament theology would, in fact, include them among the community of Israel as Baptized Sons of Abraham (converts). Rather, if we take heavy consideration for Paul's warning against boasting to have replaced the native branches of Israel, it would be much more appropriate to apply these verses to those who subscribe to such doctrines as Supersessionism, which presumes the Christian church to have replaced the Jews as G-ds people or any other doctrinal position that would submit a notion of a “spiritual Israel” to the exclusion of Israel proper. Such doctrines often form the very basis for rejection of Torah, and as such, I’d encourage any who believes Torah is non-applicable to them to ask yourselves. “Why do I believe the Torah doesn’t apply to me.” If the root of that presupposition brings you to such a conclusion, I’d carefully consider the words of Revelation 2:9/3:9.