Thoughts on the Didache/ Teachings of the Twelve Apostles?

[daveleau]

What are your thoughts on the Didache/ The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles?

I know these were not written byt he Apostles, yet could have been written by those recording their teachings. The common dating is AD 120, yet could have been written as early as AD 80. The theology within does not contradict Scripture, so do you think it is profitable for reading as a commentary of Scripture/ study of the early church?

In Him,
Dave

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Yes, it is definitely a good picture on early church practice and belief. Its short, takes only about 5 minutes to read and is chock full of allusions/quotes of Scripture (especially to the gospel of Matthew). It gives a glimpse of how some of the early Christians sought to practice or work out their beliefs.

 

[albertmc]

What are your thoughts on the Didache/ The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles?

I know these were not written byt he Apostles, yet could have been written by those recording their teachings. The common dating is AD 120, yet could have been written as early as AD 80. The theology within does not contradict Scripture, so do you think it is profitable for reading as a commentary of Scripture/ study of the early church?

In Him,
Dave

It does give a good picture of early Church practice and a better understanding of what is meant in Acts by "the teaching of the Apostles, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers". Given it's relatively primative form, it might be reflecting early traditions of a Jewsish-Christian nature. The early "two ways" section does seem to reflect more a Semitic approach to morality than a Hellenistic one. Jews worshipped liturgically although not necessarily as formally as what would come later in Christian practice. It is clear that the main focus of the early Christian worship was the celebration of the Eucharist (the Greek word "eucharist" is even used here although in your translation it might be rendered "thanksgiving" which is its literal meaning in English). Definitely indicative of early Church practice.

 

[mark53]

Any of the writings of the early Church gives us an understanding of what various groups believed, Some are good some not so, some easy to understand, some not so easy!

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

It's extremely moralistic which is not to say proto-pelagian, but it says nothing of grace.

It is well that it was excluded from the canon.

 

[daveleau]

Doesn't it just repeat the aspects of Scripture (in the first part) that discuss how a Christian should act?

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Doesn't it just repeat the aspects of Scripture (in the first part) that discuss how a Christian should act?

Right. It's morality isn't wrong...but it is a little legalistic at least inasmuch as it doesn't bother balancing all the do this don't do that with grace.

 

[lmnop9876]

Right. It's morality isn't wrong...but it is a little legalistic at least inasmuch as it doesn't bother balancing all the do this don't do that with grace.

i disagree.

1. But after ye are filled, thus give thanks: 2. We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which Thou didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. 3. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; Thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. 4. Before all things we thank Thee that Thou art mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. 5. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. 6. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen.

 

[Dmckay]

What are your thoughts on the Didache/ The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles?

I know these were not written byt he Apostles, yet could have been written by those recording their teachings. The common dating is AD 120, yet could have been written as early as AD 80. The theology within does not contradict Scripture, so do you think it is profitable for reading as a commentary of Scripture/ study of the early church?

In Him,
Dave

Dave,
Other than having read the Didache several times over the years, I haven't really put much time into trying to dig up information on the source. I believe that, what you have noted above, "could have been written by those recording their teachings" is actually what we have here. This document doesn't really try to present itself as being the direct writiing of the Apostles. I believe that what it actually was intended to be is a type of early catechism to be used in teaching young believers some of the basic teachings of the Apostles. As you noted the dating can possible be as early as 80 AD. Given the time frame, and the conditions of the early church at this time, undergoing some of the early persecutions, the Didache due to its brevity could have easily been more readily available for distribution as an early curriculum.

In His grip,
Don M

 

[Floodnut]

What are your thoughts on the Didache/ The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles?

I know these were not written byt he Apostles, yet could have been written by those recording their teachings. The common dating is AD 120, yet could have been written as early as AD 80. The theology within does not contradict Scripture, so do you think it is profitable for reading as a commentary of Scripture/ study of the early church?

In Him,
Dave

The Didache is certainly in a category with other writings of the orthodox early church, and not among the rejected pseudipigraphic works of the gnostics. It reflects the unified Christian message of those who were followers of the true Apostles, and quotes the canonical books as SCRIPTURE. It is an excellent attestation to the authentic books. Even the works of gnostic heretics also attest to the true canonical documents, long before they were supposedly "voted on" in some later council.
The Didache is certainly profitable reading, in the same way that reading is profitable when it comes to the works of Andrew Murray, Calvin, Strong, the Hodges, Allis, Ryrie, Schaeffer, Moody, Spurgeon, Bunyan, and Ironsides.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Here is an excerpt from the Didache:


But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

Here the writer talks about our sacrfice being pure. That is very intertesting. According to most Protestants, there are no more sacrifices, and yet here this author wrote about confessing our sins so that our "sacrifice may be pure" and to reconcile ourselves to others that our "sacrifice may not be profaned".

Also in the context, there can be a good argument that this "sacrifice" is the Eucharist.

First of all, the author is talking about the "breaking of the bread", which is a term used by early Christians for the partaking of the Lord's supper.

Second, the author quotes from Malachi 1:11. Here is the exact verse:

For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations," says the LORD of hosts.

Here the Lord predicts that there will be a time when the Gentiles (nations - Goyim) will be offering a pure offering (sacfrice) to God. This sacrifice will not be a sacrifice of animals, but of bread (grain offering). This prophesy could not have possible been fullfilled under the Old Testament. Under Old Testament, sacrifices can only be offered by Jews in the Temple. So this fullfillment can only be by the Gentile Catholics throughout the world when they offered the Eucharist to God in union with Christ's one-time sacrifice on the cross. Only by there being a sacrificial aspect to the Lord's Supper could this be fullfilled.

Justin Martyr (about AD 150) also quoted this passage in Malachi and linked this sacrifice being offered by Gentiles throughout the world as Christians offering the Eucharist to God.

This shows that the earliest non-Biblical evidence points to the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

 

[JVAC]

I have read some scholars date it pre 70AD, that is before the temple destruction. Dating these things are very sticky because all you have to go with is the clues the author leaves about his own context, clues that are often misinterpreted. It is good to give it a blanket date of 60-100. It is probably first century authorship, at least it reads as one.

There is much evidence to assume it was an early catechism, most explicitly because of it's didactical nature on the sacraments and brief reference of Christian cult and faith. It's title would have given it authority in the Churches it was used, in the like manner of "Acts of the Apostles" and "The Apostolic Tradition" neither of which were apostolic authorship, but maintained that they were true witnesses of what the Apostle's handed on. Yet Acts is more easily thought of as a history while the Tradition is easily thought of as a Church handbook. The Didache is unique in that the information it offers is obvious and any one in the community would know it. This observation supports a "new commers guide" hence: "catechism".

Not only was this probably widely recieved, but it shared in canonical status for many years in many locations of the Church. The authority of this document was widely held, and Bishop Athanasius, while not including it in his canon, suggested it be read as a truly "beneficial" work. The reason for it not being canonized is debatable, but I think that the Church didn't want a catechism in it's liturgical book. Brief introductions didn't belong in the canon, that was for "catechism classes".

This catechism gives greatly to the Church and ought to be greatly cherished, now especially as people seek to return to the ancient ways. (I notice that a lot of what I say is not new, but I hope it helps bolster some of your excellent points.)

-James

 

[ApostolicFaith]

What are your thoughts on the Didache/ The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles?

I know these were not written byt he Apostles, yet could have been written by those recording their teachings. The common dating is AD 120, yet could have been written as early as AD 80. The theology within does not contradict Scripture, so do you think it is profitable for reading as a commentary of Scripture/ study of the early church?

In Him,
Dave

what do people make of the command in the Didache to 'appoint for yourself bishops [i.e. elders] and deacons'? Doesn't this destroy episcopacy, which says that bishops, and not the congregation, appoints bishops/elders and deacons? Does this mean the early church was not episcopal?

 

[JVAC]

what do people make of the command in the Didache to 'appoint for yourself bishops [i.e. elders] and deacons'? Doesn't this destroy episcopacy, which says that bishops, and not the congregation, appoints bishops/elders and deacons? Does this mean the early church was not episcopal?

No, it doesn't. The congregations have always had a say in the election of bishops. Pope Felix was made pope by the people pulling him off the streets.

Apostolic succession relies on the Bishop being rightly called by the Church, (and this call varies from denomination to denomination) however, the Bishop is always ratified, by either the presbyterate or other bishops. Expressly in the later synods it was required that at least three other bishops ought to be present when a new bishop is ordained.

However, the theology behind it is that this person is called and installed by the Church, which recognizes this person in keeping with the tradition he has recieved. This tradition is a chain from one bishop to the next that anchors in Christ.

-James

p.s.

The "Presbyter" (elder) and the "Bishop" (overseer) were interchangeable titles in the first century and wasn't until the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch that we have a clear distinction of the two. However, also note, that as St Paul went about he "chose" people to head up churches. It is clear that in the first century ordination happened a number of ways, but always necessitated, congregational assent and recognition from other congregations.

 

[lmnop9876]

But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

Here the writer talks about our sacrfice being pure. That is very intertesting. According to most Protestants, there are no more sacrifices, and yet here this author wrote about confessing our sins so that our "sacrifice may be pure" and to reconcile ourselves to others that our "sacrifice may not be profaned".

Also in the context, there can be a good argument that this "sacrifice" is the Eucharist.

First of all, the author is talking about the "breaking of the bread", which is a term used by early Christians for the partaking of the Lord's supper.

Second, the author quotes from Malachi 1:11. Here is the exact verse:

For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations," says the LORD of hosts.

Here the Lord predicts that there will be a time when the Gentiles (nations - Goyim) will be offering a pure offering (sacfrice) to God. This sacrifice will not be a sacrifice of animals, but of bread (grain offering). This prophesy could not have possible been fullfilled under the Old Testament. Under Old Testament, sacrifices can only be offered by Jews in the Temple. So this fullfillment can only be by the Gentile Catholics throughout the world when they offered the Eucharist to God in union with Christ's one-time sacrifice on the cross. Only by there being a sacrificial aspect to the Lord's Supper could this be fullfilled.

Justin Martyr (about AD 150) also quoted this passage in Malachi and linked this sacrifice being offered by Gentiles throughout the world as Christians offering the Eucharist to God.

This shows that the earliest non-Biblical evidence points to the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

i don't know how you say that Protestants don't believe in the sacrifice of the Eucharist...

2. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same: so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.

westminster confession of faith.

 

[cobweb]

The Didache was the catalyst for my inquiry into the Orthodox Church. I am very glad I read it.

 

[JVAC]

i don't know how you say that Protestants don't believe in the sacrifice of the Eucharist...

westminster confession of faith.

It is also extensively discussed in the Lutheran "Book of Concord" most expressly in the "Apology of the Augsburg Convession".

-James

 

[Nazaroo]

In case you missed it, I have put up complete copy of the Didache, both Greek and English, with a good introductory commentary on my website here:

Didache Greek/English with Commentary <-- Click Here!


Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Kristos]

What are your thoughts on the Didache/ The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles?

I know these were not written byt he Apostles, yet could have been written by those recording their teachings. The common dating is AD 120, yet could have been written as early as AD 80. The theology within does not contradict Scripture, so do you think it is profitable for reading as a commentary of Scripture/ study of the early church?

In Him,
Dave

I think it's useful.

 

[E.C.]

What are your thoughts on the Didache/ The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles?

I know these were not written byt he Apostles, yet could have been written by those recording their teachings. The common dating is AD 120, yet could have been written as early as AD 80. The theology within does not contradict Scripture, so do you think it is profitable for reading as a commentary of Scripture/ study of the early church?

In Him,
Dave

Thought on Didache: very useful.