The Didache

User avatar
_Priestly1
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA

The Teaching of the Lord by the 12 Apostles i.e. Didache

Post by _Priestly1 » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:59 pm

Peace in Christ to all.
In my Church (Here, and in Portugal) we use the Didache as our Catechism and Community Rule. It was originally written around the time of the Jerusalem Council (54 CE?), and was included in many ancient Bible Canons as an appendix. It was thought lost until the late 19th Century, when an ancient Greek Copy was found in the East.
Originally it was meant and understood to be the Community Rule for Gentile Nazaraeans (i.e. Christians). Some still hold it to be the remnant of the Letter from the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) sent throughout the Empire in order to correct the falsehoods of the "Judaizing" sect of the "False Brethren" among the Nazaraeans, which later (76 CE) became the Ebionites.

It does hold that only baptized believers can partake of the Qurbana (Eucharist). It does Teach Historic Premillenialism as well as the rules for testing Charismatists (i.e. Prophets), Apostles (i.e. Missionaries) and those seeking to join the local community. It does continue a form of Tithing, which is a percentage of farm products etc. But this is for paying the Community Mebaqqar (i.e. Bishop/ Chief Elder), who teaches and spends his time shepherding the Flock. For the Laborer is worthy of his pay, so it says. It also gives tithes to the Charismatist of the Community (i.e. ha'Navi = The Prophet), if they should have such a proven and spiritually gifted individual.

We follow this Text, even in our Qurbana Liturgy and Fasting. Notice it gives rules on Personal Morality, Community Discipline and Religious Observances. We hold it dear to our hearts and follow it. I myself have translated it into idiomatic English for our Community.

You will notice that even in Apostolic times they had to deal with False Teachers, Preachers and Prophets. They only permitted new members to join their community so long as they were self supporting and self disciplined. Their Mebqaar'im (GK: Episcopoi), Zeqan'im (Gk: Prebyterio) and Shamash'im (Gk: Diakonoi) were nominated by the Community, as are all Nazaraean Synogogue leaders (i.e. Christian Church Clergy) to this day.

This Book is very close to the Pre-Nazaraean Community Rule Book used by some Jewry in Second Temple Judaism, and it shows clearly that Nazaraeans (i.e. Christians) considered themselves New Covenant members of the People of Israel and held to a common Synagogue Community structure, culture and religious life almost identical to their estranged and non believing Jewish brethren, whom they declare in this Book, to be lead by the "Hypocrites" Parush'im (i.e Pharasee Rabbinate).

It is a wonderful book and is the original Community Rule of the Gentile Nazaraean Communities of the Diaspora. It is the first Writing which describes basics of the Nazaraean Community which we can see partially in the Book of Acts and in the Letters of the Apostles. The later writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Papias and Irenaeus etc reflect "The Way" and "Teachings" of this Book.

The First Part is a short moral Catechism of Life and Death: The Two Paths.
The Second Part is a short Community Rule on Baptism, Communion, Fast days, Community Structure, Offices and discernment of Apostles, Prophets, Teachers and potential members.
The Third Part is a short Eschatological outline of what is to be expected before Messiah returns, so everyone can maintain a state of preparedness.

In Messiah,
+Kenat'el :D
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Super Sola Scriptura
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
Location: NC

Post by _Super Sola Scriptura » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:07 pm

It is clear the Didache teaches futurism! A time of great world trial and the Man of Sin performing signs and wonders, and deceiving people. OSAS refuted with clear teaching that we must endure to the end. And a reference to the resurrection of the dead at Christ's return, yet not all the dead. When will the "rest of the dead" be raised??? Hmnn, I wonder, perhpas after the 1000 years?

Its all there. A Dispensationalist can read the Diodache and have no problems understanding what is explicitly or implicitly stated.

This also shows what we all already know---the eschatology of the apostolic and ante-nicene period was futurist/Dispensational, until Origen and his buddies from Alexandria stepped up to the plate.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Priestly1
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA

Didache is not Darbyist Document

Post by _Priestly1 » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:52 pm

The correct reading of the last section of the Didache is "Historic Premillenialist" in it's perspective...not Pre-Trib Rapture Darbyism. It clearly shows that the Church will be saved out of (i.e after passing through) the tribulational curse that the world will be thrown into (i.e the fiery furnace etc.).

The Didache is Greek and Syriac is a Judeo-Nazaraean community document adapted for their Gentile Communities in the Diaspora. It's language and style show it to be Semitic in origin and of a date close to the time of the Gospels. It mentions the Gospel of Christ as a single Book...so it clearly is refering to what was known as the Gospel of the Nazaraeans a.k.a. the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic, as attested to by the Patristics. Some think it is refering to Taitian's Diatessarion Gospel Harmony in Syriac. So it can be stated that this work comes immediatly after the Fall of the Second Temple to as late as the Diatessarion.

But this book in no way, shape or form supports Protestant Dispensational PreMillenialism which was never taught until after the Reformers were long dead and moldering in their tombs.

In Christ,
+Ken
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:37 pm

Quote:
"And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet."
What in the world does that mean?
Prophet Proethus: Thus says the Lord, "Rae, you shall go to your house and prepare a meal, and bring it to Proethus."

Rae does so, and Proethus eats the meal. He has proven that he is a false prophet, since he wanted a free meal, and pretended that the Lord spoke through him, ordering Rae to bring it.

However, if, after receiving the meal, Proethus takes it out and gives it to a hungry neighbour, then possibly, it really was the Lord who spoke.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

_
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

fasting and prayer

Post by _ » Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:55 pm

Having said all that, I think it would benefit many people spiritually to adopt such regular patterns, if the Holy Spirit leads them to do so.

However, when such things are institutionalized, there is a very great tendency for them to become a deadening legalism. Therefore, those who adopt such habits must always (or periodically) be discerning whether the practice has become mere religion, or whether it is producing true humility, faith and love for God and others. When it is not, it may sometimes be more helpful to modify or scrap the discipline. Such things can become old wineskins retained after all the wine is gone.
I appreciate your well-balanced comments, here, Steve. However, at least from my vantage point, I think Protestant evangelicals of the current generation are much more in need of regular spiritual disciplines than they are in danger of slavishly adhering to legalistic traditions.

In fact, I think that there is a specific tendency among evangelicals to blame traditions instead of our short-attention span when we start feeling like "we're not getting anything out of" some formalized spiritual disicpline like fasting or prayer.

Our church is one of many churches that has chosen to re-adopt and encourage the ancient practice of Lent... though on a voluntary and pretty free-form basis (left up to individual consciences how and if they observe it). I do read the New Testament as assuming that fasting (as well as other disciplines) will be a part of our normal Christian experience.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Christopher
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
Location: Gladstone, Oregon

Post by _Christopher » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:37 am

Hi Josh,

Do you see praying and fasting as a spiritual "discipline" or as spiritual response related to walking in the Spirit?

In other words, do you think we should discipline ourselves to pray and fast (like at certain times, frequencies, etc.) or respond to the leading of the Spirit to do it whenever He bids us to? Or both?

I tend to lean towards the latter. As an example, Jesus was "led" or "sent" by the Spirit into the wildnerness to fast after His baptism.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32

User avatar
_TK
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio

Post by _TK » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:57 pm

That's a good question, C.

One thing i cnan honestly say is that I do not think that I have ever been "led" to fast. However, it seems from scripture that we are to fast now and again. Therefore, i tend to think that perhaps we should fast sometimes if we feel led to or not. But I can definitely see your way of looking at it as well.

TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)

_
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by _ » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:25 pm

Do you see praying and fasting as a spiritual "discipline" or as spiritual response related to walking in the Spirit?

In other words, do you think we should discipline ourselves to pray and fast (like at certain times, frequencies, etc.) or respond to the leading of the Spirit to do it whenever He bids us to? Or both?
If you are living in such a way that prayer (and fasting to a lesser extent) are your natural response, that is great. I view "walking in the Spirit" sort of like a good workout- after a good workout the body craves calories. To the extent that we are "walking in the Spirit" we can probably measure our need for more prayer and other disciplines.

But when I use the word discipline think "training" not "punishment". That's how the early christians saw it. Frankly, most of us in our culture are very incosistant in our approach at walking daily with the Spirit/ taking up our cross/ dying to self/ living as a "new creation". Those things don't just happen automatically- they result in concrete decisions throughout the day- decisions that are made more regular by the habit of spritiual 'disciplines'.

I don't think everyone needs to follow the same exact pattern, although it can be powerful when a community of believers freely chooses to fast together or pray together in an organized fashion. But I know myself too well to just rely on how I feel at the present- that's the benefit of planning ahead and sticking to it.

These things ring true in almost every area of our lives- from eating well to being "disciplined" on the job or being a good father, etc..

I know you aren't suggesting that people "do what they feel" when you mention doing "what the spirit bids us to do" But, still, I'd like to emphasize that I think it would be dangerous for any of us to automatically equate doing "what the spirit bids" with "being spontaneous". Why can't the Spirit bid us to set prescribed periods of fasting and prayer for ourselves? In fact, I think He's done just that in almost every epoch of church history but perhaps our own. And the laissez-faire attitude regarding the actions that are required to be spritually healthy has really weakened the witness of the modern
Western Church IMO (among other things).
Therefore, i tend to think that perhaps we should fast sometimes if we feel led to or not.
Much agreed. I decide to fast because I think Scripture and the witness of the experience of most christians throughout history indicates that it should be a part of normative Christian life
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_2643
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_2643 » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:02 pm

Steve wrote: The Didache also teaches that a person should be required to fast for a couple of days before being baptized. In the New Testament, the converts were baptized immediately.
I read a suggestion that this was a Jewish group that was facing difficulties assimilating gentiles, and that the fasting grew out of the (unnecessary) desire to have the gentiles purge their bodies of unclean meats before partaking of the communion following the baptism. It does seem even in Acts that Paul did on occasion take time out to teach potential converts. Yet the Philippian jailor was baptised straight away. I suppose the writers of the Didache wanted to make sure the gentiles knew what they were signing up for doctrinally and practically.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Teachers, Authors, and Movements”