Unpacking #2: The Synagogue of Satan

A phrase meant to expose accusation—too often repurposed to justify contempt

Jan 15, 2026

Article voiceover

0:00

-15:51

“Synagogue of Satan” was written to expose a local machine of accusation. But in Christian hands, it’s often been turned into a permission slip for contempt. That isn’t a small interpretive mistake — it’s a moral one, with a real historical wake behind it.

John wasn’t handing Gentile believers a slogan to spit at Jews. He was warning pressured saints about a coordinated assembly working by slander and lies (Revelation 2:9; 3:9).

Before we start swinging this phrase at villains, let’s remember what this article is: a slow walk back into the Jewish soil of Revelation, a refusal to let “Synagogue of Satan” be used as a slur, and a mirror held up to any assembly—especially ours. So here’s the question we’ll carry through the whole piece:

Are we reading Revelation to refine our witness… or to become accusers—disciples of men’s ideologies instead of disciples of Messiah?

The Jewish frame we keep forgetting

A lot of believers read the New Testament like it dropped out of a modern church staff meeting. It didn’t. These writings come out of a Jewish world, with Israel’s Scriptures and categories as the native vocabulary. A serious stream of scholarship has been saying this plainly for years: you don’t understand these texts if you rip them out of Jewish life and replant them inside later Gentile institutional assumptions.

Revelation makes that unavoidable at the end of the story. The New Jerusalem bears the names of Israel’s tribes and Messiah’s apostles (Revelation 21:12–14). And Messiah returns in prophetic, covenant-saturated imagery (Revelation 19:11–16). This book doesn’t end in “modern church branding.” It ends in covenant fulfillment.

When we ignore that Jewish frame, we start forcing later church assumptions onto earlier Jewish texts. And once that happens, loaded phrases get detached from context and turned into slogans.

Why human logic keeps misreading the phrase

Human logic loves shortcuts. Scripture requires definitions.

Here’s the shortcut chain:

synagogue → Jewish → “the Jews” → satanic → therefore my enemies today are “the synagogue of Satan.”

That chain is fast. It’s also how Scripture becomes a club.

The faithful way is slower:

word → context → authorial intent → covenant storyline → careful application

If we refuse definitions, we’ll always end up doing projection.

What is a synagogue in contextual terms?

The Greek word is synagōgē. At root it means a gathering / an assembly—and by extension it can refer to the Jewish synagogue community or meeting place.

If you wanted to hear that through Masoretic-Hebrew categories, you’d reach for assembly language:

קָהָל (qāhāl) — “assembly / convocation”
עֵדָה (‘ēdāh) — “congregation / community”
מִקְרָא (miqrā’) — “convocation,” an appointed gathering

And the later Hebrew phrase בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת (beit ha-knesset)—“house of assembly”—captures the same continuity: synagogue = assembly.

Not “the building.” Not “the ethnicity.” The gathered body.

So Revelation isn’t condemning bricks and mortar. It’s describing a community acting in concert—using shared identity and shared authority toward a particular end.

Which end? Revelation tells you: accusation.

What is the adversary, really?

Revelation defines the adversary by function, not folklore.

Revelation 12:10 calls Satan “the accuser”—courtroom language, prosecutor language.

So adversary-work looks disturbingly normal in religious life:

slander marketed as “discernment”
reputation destruction treated as “protecting holiness”
coordinated pressure campaigns
spiritualized coercion
assemblies that feel like courtrooms where someone is always on trial

That brings us back to Smyrna. Revelation 2:9 uses blasphēmia, which can carry the sense of slander/detraction in context—speech intended to damage someone’s name.

This isn’t abstract theology. It’s accusation warfare.

“Satan” is not a pronoun — stop reading it like one

Modern Christian speech often treats “Satan” like a personal pronoun, as if it automatically functions as a proper name in every verse.

But biblically, satan functions as a role-word: adversary / opponent / accuser—and Revelation leans into that role-definition (Revelation 12:10).

So “Synagogue of Satan” is not mainly saying, “this belongs to a horned being.”

It’s saying: this assembly is operating in the adversarial role—accusing, slandering, prosecuting.

That shift is the difference between faithful reading and weaponized reading.

What Revelation is actually doing in 2:9 and 3:9

Read the whole blocks, not the catchphrase:

Smyrna: Revelation 2:8–11
Philadelphia: Revelation 3:7–13

John’s emphasis is endurance under pressure. Whatever we make of the phrase “those who say they are Jews and are not,” the passage itself spotlights what’s happening on the ground: slander, social pressure, coordinated opposition (Revelation 2:9; 3:9).

In plain terms: covenant identity has ethical content. God vindicates the faithful. And an assembly can claim legitimacy while functioning like the Accuser.

That’s the warning.

Three common misconstructions—and why they go toxic

“Synagogue of Satan = Jews/Judaism.”

That collapses a local conflict into a timeless ethnic verdict. It ignores the passage’s anchor: slander and lies.

“It proves Jews are a satanic cabal.”

That’s conspiracy ideology wearing Bible vocabulary. It turns Revelation’s courtroom category (“the accuser”) into dehumanization.

“It means Jews aren’t really Jews anymore; the Church is the only Israel.”

This often wears a suit and calls itself “theology,” but when it turns punitive—“rejected, cursed, spiritually illegitimate”—it becomes contempt with footnotes.

This is where replacement logic matters. “Replacement theology,” also called supersessionism, is commonly defined as the doctrine that Christians have replaced the Jewish people as heirs of the covenant. Whether someone embraces that view softly or harshly, the danger is obvious: once your system needs Jewish rejection to stay coherent, it will tend to form contempt.

The Luther → Reform Logic → Covenant Pipeline

How contempt gets normalized and then hidden behind “doctrine”

If “synagogue” started sounding like an enemy-word in parts of Christian culture, it didn’t come from nowhere.

Luther’s 1543 treatise On the Jews and Their Lies contains harsh recommendations against Jews and their synagogues—language many later Christians (including many Lutherans) have publicly condemned. [r] Historical treatments also document the later reuse of Luther’s anti-Jewish material in Nazi-era antisemitic contexts. [r]

That matters because it trained reflexes. Once a culture learns to hear “synagogue” as an enemy label, Revelation 2:9 becomes easy to weaponize.

To stay beyond reproach: I’m not saying “Reformed theology equals hatred.” That’s lazy and false. There are internal brakes and counter-witnesses. For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism explicitly includes praying that “the Jews [be] called” (Q191). [r]

So the issue isn’t a denominational label. It’s a formation test:

Does your theology require Jewish rejection to stay coherent?

If yes, it will eventually train contempt—even if it never admits it out loud.

The anti-Jewish logic ladder

How an assembly becomes a courtroom without noticing

Watch the steps:

a local warning becomes a global label
“synagogue” becomes “the Jews”
“accuser” becomes “ethnic verdict”
covenant storyline becomes permanent curse
“discernment” becomes prosecution
the community becomes the courtroom

And then the tragedy becomes irony:

You think you’re fighting the Accuser… while you’ve adopted his job description.

Logic ladder case study

When “atonement as crime-payment” becomes the only gospel you have

Courtroom imagery exists in Scripture. But when a church reduces the cross to only this—

humans committed crimes, God is Judge, Jesus pays the penalty, case closed—

covenant collapses into contract.

Then the story deforms:

Israel becomes “the failed system.”

Torah becomes “the doomed attempt.”

Judaism becomes “rejected works.”

That story is common. It’s also incomplete.

Because covenant isn’t merely acquittal. Covenant is relationship restored—God redeeming a people into faithful belonging:

blood of the covenant (Exodus 24:8)
new covenant with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31–34)
new heart, new spirit, empowered obedience (Ezekiel 36:26–27)
atonement as cleansing/covering (Leviticus 16)
Messiah’s priestly atonement and cleansing logic (Hebrews 9)

Here’s the pastoral punchline:

When you reduce atonement to courtroom only, you start training believers to think like prosecutors—always scanning for guilt, always sorting insiders from outsiders, always looking for who must be exposed.

That is not the fruit of covenant life.

The subtle diversion believers must watch for

Organizations that rebrand accusation as righteousness

Not every diversion calls itself evil. Most call themselves truth.

The tactic is simple:

quote a loaded phrase
skip definitions
detach it from context
use it to mark enemies and energize suspicion
call the hostility “faithfulness”

It doesn’t have to be a church. It can be a media platform, a polemics brand, a reform movement, a “discernment” ecosystem—anything that builds identity through accusation.

Once accusation becomes culture, you don’t need demonic manifestations. You’ve normalized the adversary’s work.

If you really love the Lord, let’s be honest: what is your church actually teaching?

Does it teach covenant relationship — or does it teach something else?

This isn’t about hunting buzzwords. It’s about what your church quietly forms in you.

Does it imply “Old Testament God vs. New Testament Jesus”—as if the Father is harsh and Messiah is the nice one?
Does it teach obedience from the heart—covenant faithfulness and God’s instructions—or reduce faith to a vibe where Jesus mainly exists to make you healthy and comfortable?
Does it train believers to live and share the faith—repentance, hospitality, service—or does it train exclusivity where people are welcome until they sin visibly?
When failure happens, what’s the reflex? Restoration and repair—or accusation and distancing dressed up as holiness?
Does it obey Paul’s warning against boasting—or smuggle arrogance and call it “sound doctrine” (Romans 11:17–22)?
Are shepherds servants among the sheep—accountable and accessible—or elevated above the flock and insulated from correction?

If that’s what your church forms in you, stop defending it. Ask the hard question: which synagogue are you actually part of—an assembly shaped by Scripture and covenant faithfulness, or an assembly trained in the adversary’s accusing posture?

Choose honestly.

A quick word on sources and doing your own digging

If you want to verify this without turning the post into a bibliography, follow three lanes:

Text lane: read the passages in full context (Rev 2:8–11; 3:7–13; 12:10; 19:11–16; 21:12–14; Romans 11; Isaiah 63).
Word lane: check lexical definitions for synagōgē, blasphēmia, and katēgoros, and how Revelation 2:9 is discussed in major lexicons. [r]
History lane: read responsible historical material on Luther’s 1543 treatise and its later reception, and read a careful definition of supersessionism so you can spot replacement logic when it’s dressed up as “sound doctrine.” [r]

Do your own digging. That’s part of staying honest—and staying beyond reproach.

May the shalom of our Abba guard you —

shalom v’shalvah.

Your brother in The Way,

Sergio.

This is original, protected work. Pastors and teachers: please do not lift or republish this content as your own. If you share or preach from it, simply credit the source and author. Integrity begins in the pulpit.

References (for the [r] notes above)

[r] Key reference lane for claims and definitions: (1) Revelation 2:8–11; 3:7–13; 12:10; 19:11–16; 21:12–14; Romans 11; Isaiah 63; (2) major Greek lexicons on synagōgē (assembly/gathering), katēgoros (accuser), and blasphēmia(including slander/defamation sense in contexts like Rev 2:9); (3) “within Judaism” New Testament scholarship emphasizing Second Temple Jewish context; (4) responsible historical summaries of Luther’s 1543 On the Jews and Their Lies and later repudiations; (5) historical documentation on later Nazi-era reuse of Luther’s anti-Jewish material; (6) Westminster Larger Catechism Q191 (prayer that “the Jews be called”) and standard definitions/discussions of supersessionism/replacement theology.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?