What About the Didache?

[sheep wrecked]

According to many sources, the Didache was supposedly written by the twelve apostles around 60 AD. It is a writing that includes some doctrines and practices that are said to be introduced by them.

It is also promoted that these doctrines and practices do not conflict with Scripture. Now that was a shocker for me! I started reading the Didache and got to the second verse of chapter one and went

So, my conclusion after surfing the web and finding all kinds of nonsense regarding the Didache is that it is another Gospel. What amazes me is that Christians, Catholics, and Messianics all say that it has value even though it contradicts Scripture in places

I thought it would be "educational" to go through it and compare the texts with Scripture and see just how accurate it is There are 16 chapters - some of them very short. I will post chapter 1 here and if you want to join in and take a verse or two and prove it wrong - that would be cool!

I am going to take verse 2 of chapter one for starters but verse one has some interesting history to it as well, which I will address at some point

The Didache

Chapter 1

1:1 There are two paths, one of life and one of death, and the difference is great between the two paths.

1:2 Now the path of life is this -- first, thou shalt love the God who made thee, thy neighbour as thyself, and all things that thou wouldest not should be done unto thee, do not thou unto another.

1:3 And the doctrine of these maxims is as follows. Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies. Fast on behalf of those that persecute you; for what thank is there if ye love them that love you? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? But do ye love them that hate you, and ye will not have an enemy.

1:4 Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If any one give thee a blow on thy right cheek, turn unto him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect; if any one compel thee to go a mile, go with him two; if a man take away thy cloak, give him thy coat also; if a man take from thee what is thine, ask not for it again, for neither art thou able to do so.

1:5 Give to every one that asketh of thee, and ask not again; for the Father wishes that from his own gifts there should be given to all. Blessed is he who giveth according to the commandment, for he is free from guilt; but woe unto him that receiveth. For if a man receive being in need, he shall be free from guilt; but he who receiveth when not in need, shall pay a penalty as to why he received and for what purpose; and when he is in tribulation he shall be examined concerning the things that he has done, and shall not depart thence until he has paid the last farthing.

1:6 For of a truth it has been said on these matters, let thy almsgiving abide in thy hands until thou knowest to whom thou hast given.

************************************

verse 2: ... and all things that thou wouldest not should be done unto thee, do not thou unto another.

This is the opposite of what Jesus said: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What the didache has is the negative rule which is attributed to Hillel:


That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn. ”
— Talmud, Shabbat 31a, the "Great Principle"

[pastor_chris]

Ok,

This is my first post in the forum so here it goes! I have no problem with the teaching in verse two because I believe that this verse is consistent with the teaching of Jesus. Jesus says, " do unto others as you would them do unto you" the didache just offers the verse as a negative instead of a positive. Ofcourse on some level it means something different but it is not a contradiction as much as it is a different angle.

The book has some value because it gives us a nice glimpse into some of the basic beliefs of the earliest church. It is believed it was used as a tool to disciple new converts. Later in the book there is also a mini apocalypse which sounds very similar to portions of Matt 24. Because of the ancient nature of the document and its content it provides value in both being able to look backward as well as providing an understanding of early church doctrine and practice. For instance the Didache tells us that Believers worshipped on Sunday. This is a pretty big deal because so many sabbatarians claim there is no reason the church shouldnt keep the sabbath.

Anyways,

I like it although it is not scripture, it is still useful.

[sheep wrecked]

(07-20-2009 11:30 PM)pastor_chris Wrote:  Ok,

This is my first post in the forum so here it goes! I have no problem with the teaching in verse two because I believe that this verse is consistent with the teaching of Jesus. Jesus says, " do unto others as you would them do unto you" the didache just offers the verse as a negative instead of a positive. Ofcourse on some level it means something different but it is not a contradiction as much as it is a different angle.

The book has some value because it gives us a nice glimpse into some of the basic beliefs of the earliest church. It is believed it was used as a tool to disciple new converts. Later in the book there is also a mini apocalypse which sounds very similar to portions of Matt 24. Because of the ancient nature of the document and its content it provides value in both being able to look backward as well as providing an understanding of early church doctrine and practice. For instance the Didache tells us that Believers worshipped on Sunday. This is a pretty big deal because so many sabbatarians claim there is no reason the church shouldnt keep the sabbath.

Anyways,

I like it although it is not scripture, it is still useful.

If the disciples wrote the NT under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, actually hearing the very words of Christ while walking with Him, and accurately putting those words to pen which God has preserved all these 2000 years - then why would they rewrite what Jesus said in another document that contradicts and adds to His Word? Something is very wrong with this picture

As far as the value of it, I am not sure of the point. What I see when I read the Didache is whole lot of legalism and mysticism that are embraced by the RCC and Messianics. That should raise some red flags methinks

I am reminded of what Paul said:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So my question is - what do you find useful in the Didache if the Word of God is perfect?

[heb13-13]

Hmmm, I don't like verse 5.

Will post my reasons later.

[sheep wrecked]

Verse 6 bugs me

1:6 For of a truth it has been said on these matters, let thy almsgiving abide in thy hands until thou knowest to whom thou hast given.

It reminded me that Jesus said the complete opposite:

Mat 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Mat 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
Mat 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.


I wonder who said: " For of a truth it has been said on these matters,"? It sure wasn't Jesus

[pastor_chris]

I dont know.....maybe its junk? My use for it is as an apologetic for Sabbatarians. But maybe thats not a great Idea. Sheep its just that I get so frustrated because HR folks twist scripture into knots (and my stomach). I have researched many early church sources to try and convince them the early church taught the same doctrines that we hold fast to today. I just want to show them the truth!! Maybe the Didache isnt the best way. But then again I have only referenced it a few times.....and they could care less anyways.

[Strefanash]

The differing perspective, "dont do to others as you would not have done to you" might be seen to logically complement the more famous utterance of Jesus. But it is also rather common. I have seen it before, I think it appears in the text of other religions. Memory seems to indictate that it appears in Buddhist or Hindu texts also

But the practical thrust of the Golden Rule is more active. And there is the rub:
WE might think that by biting down on our evil impulses we are refraining from doing to others as we would not have done to us but to obey the rule as put by Jesus requires something we simply do not have, an active love I have never seen outside of the Godhead.


Put the way Jesus put it it says love your neighbour as yourself, something i have never done, therefore I huave never love GOd either, as the logic of I John makes crystal clear. Thus Jesus Christ restates the Law in its full majesty.

For all my disapproval of the so called Church Fathers, they were wise enough to recognize inspired scripture even if they were not spiritual enough to obey it (after all Augustine advocateds state torture of heretics appealing to the verse "compel them to come in"). So if it is not in the canon of scriupture i am no longer interested in it

Pastor Chris, if HR twist you in knots i suggest you simply walk away. I know it took me years to walk away from my nemesis, but I have largely done it now. The battle is God's not mine, and if i am twisted up by them, whoever they may be, then I or anyone in such a situation, do not have peace thus do not have the faith or love to help them out

[heb13-13]

(07-21-2009 08:17 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote:  Verse 6 bugs me

1:6 For of a truth it has been said on these matters, let thy almsgiving abide in thy hands until thou knowest to whom thou hast given.

It reminded me that Jesus said the complete opposite:

Mat 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Mat 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
Mat 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.


I wonder who said: " For of a truth it has been said on these matters,"? It sure wasn't Jesus

Yes, I thought the same thing of v6. "Of a truth it has been said". Who exactly said that?????

Verse 5.

1:5 Give to every one that asketh of thee, and ask not again; for the Father wishes that from his own gifts there should be given to all.

The Father (assuming he is talking about God, here) is not identified. In most Epistles, the writer identifies himself and magnifies God and/or Jesus Christ. Verse 1 just starts off postulating without any identification of who is writing or magnification of who is being written about.

James says that every good gift comes down from above, so I wonder if not from his own gifts then from whom?

Blessed is he who giveth according to the commandment, for he is free from guilt; but woe unto him that receiveth. For if a man receive being in need, he shall be free from guilt; but he who receiveth when not in need, shall pay a penalty as to why he received and for what purpose;

So, if you receive and are not in need, then you will be held guilty and pay a penalty. If God gives to all liberally (rich and poor) that means that he is not prejudiced towards the poor or towards the rich. God sees the heart and does not regard "need" the way man does.

Job 34:19 How much less to him that accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor? for they all are the work of his hands.

Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


Does God only give when you are needy?
Luk 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Who determines the level of need? According to the Didache if you "receive" when not "in need", then you will be penalized. Who did the giving? Obviously not God, for then He would be guilty of penalizing who He gave to.

Of course, if the Didache is true, then God would know who was not "needy" and would not give to them. How would the man who follows the Didache react if he saw a "rich" man being given something that he decides was wrong to be given to him? Would he say God made a mistake? No, he would say that the man who is not needy has feigned want, and snuck into the place of the needy person and stolen.

He may then carry out that penalty upon the rich man himself, thinking he is doing God a service. Seems that this verse leaves open to man to judge people left and right regarding whether they are "worthy" (needy) enough to have received something. And then to carry out the penalty.


"and when he is in tribulation he shall be examined concerning the things that he has done, and shall not depart thence until he has paid the last farthing."

What is this tribulation that he is in and who examines him?

This smells of Socialism, works vs grace, flesh vs Spirit. Spy on your neighbor and snitch if they are getting too rich.

I am not comfortable that the Didache opens up with commands yet does not commend God or extol His Son, Jesus Christ. Interesting, that the Didache starts off by talking about GIVING and RECEIVING, yet does not talk about the GREATEST GIFT ever given. It starts talking about temporal things not spiritual. This is not the way an Apostle would open a letter. An Apostle would not start his letter off by talking about those who are worthy to receive and those who are not and how you can judge whether they are worthy or not.




Gee, maybe the RCC did begin in the 1st century, the Didache sounds like them.

Very interesting... Keep on posting more of the Didache.

[sheep wrecked]

(07-22-2009 03:19 AM)pastor_chris Wrote:  I dont know.....maybe its junk? My use for it is as an apologetic for Sabbatarians. But maybe thats not a great Idea. Sheep its just that I get so frustrated because HR folks twist scripture into knots (and my stomach). I have researched many early church sources to try and convince them the early church taught the same doctrines that we hold fast to today. I just want to show them the truth!! Maybe the Didache isnt the best way. But then again I have only referenced it a few times.....and they could care less anyways.

Hey, Chris!

It's cool that you are questioning the validity of the Didache. That encourages me! I think when you approach it from comparing it to Scripture, you will see how the falseness of it jumps outta the page at cha

You don't need a writing to "apologize" for keeping Sunday as day of worship. Sunday never replaced the Sabbath

Let me explain

Historically, Christians began gathering on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. It was not a replacement of the Sabbath, but rather something *different*. The 7th day Sabbath was given to Israel as *sign* of the covenant between God and them. They were to stay at "home" and do no work. It was not a day of fellowship, studying Torah [not everyone had a scroll - and the two stones in the ark would have bit a bit difficult to drag around ], or traveling to "fellowship". It was a day "set apart" for God to prove to the nations that they belonged to God and to remember their deliverance from Egypt and that God had created the world. The key is "old covenant".

After time, that all changed "formally" with the implementation of the synagogues and the Pharisaen sect - all traditions of men. The reading of the scrolls on the Sabbath was tradition as well. The reason that Jesus went to Sabbath [according to His custom] was to heal, teach, and forgive sin - as we see recorded. Paul and the other disciples also went to the synagogue to witness the Gospel. Once the gentiles and Jews were saved [the Gentiles went also to hear Paul in the synagogues], they did not return to the synagogues but worshiped in homes and formed their own congregations as we see from Paul's letters to the Corinthians, for example. Acts 15 clearly shows that attending a day to worship was not required, especially "Shabbat". My question is - why would new believers go to the synagogues when Christ was not preached there? Paul eventually stopped going to the synagogues and went to the Gentiles as Christ had instructed him.

In Hebrews, it explains that Jesus is our sabbath Rest. He is Lord of the Sabbath. The sabbath was a day of rest. But now [New Covenant], it is not about a day or a commandment of the old covenant. The New Covenant is who we are *in* Christ and when one is "in" Him, we are in that Rest 24/7. He is Lord of the Sabbath

Going to church on Sunday is a choice, a tradition that has been implemented over the centuries. It is not a command. It is not a "sin" for those who choose not to attend. Paul said do not forsake the gathering together" - he did not say that meant attending church services on a specific day. The disciples gathered every day of the week to break bread, to fellowship, to study, to be equipped, and then they went out and witnessed the Gospel - every day!

Jesus said, where two or more are gathered, He is the midst of them. "Gathering with the saints" can be fulfilled a million different ways. I have found that God never runs out of ideas as to how to do that!

One has the choice to go to church on Sunday and many have been blessed in doing that. But to insist on Sunday worship for believers is no less legalistic and bondage than those who say that God still requires worship on the 7th day.

So, to summarize. The best way to break down the old "Sunday" is pagan canard, is to show that:

* Sunday did not replace the Sabbath - it was a day to commemorate the resurrection of Christ.

* The Sabbath was given to "ISRAEL" not to the gentiles, and that the "Council of Jerusalem" [Acts 15] does not even hint at keeping the Sabbath. The verse that they throw up to deflect it is that Moses is preached on the Sabbath[Acts 15:21]. I see it as a statement, not a command. It's like DUH. How many times does it say in that passage "FOUR" commandments, not 5!!!! This is why they have to prove that Jesus arose on the Sabbath, not on Sunday - talk about twist and shout!

Messianics are not keeping Sabbath according to the Law either, but according to the traditions of man. It's like calling the kettle, black


Sorry - I got wayyy off topic [my bad ]

Please see the sabbath/sunday thread for further info:

http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=65

[heb13-13]

Excellent, Sheep!! Thanks.


The Council of Jerusalem really shoots down today's Sabbath keeping "requirement".