I have been faithful with my Lenten reading plan. I started my reading at Sundown on Sunday, February 18 by reading the Didache. If I had been an early Church Father, I think I would have argued that this book be included in biblical canon. It covers all the basics of Christianity: how to live now that you are saved, baptism, the Eucharist and how to identify a false prophet. Do you know that the early church preferred baptism to be done by immersion in living (running) cold water? I was baptized in a heated, indoor baptismal pool. I was glad that the Didache included a statement about warm water being okay too. In case you were wondering, pouring out water onto the head three times works too.
On days 2 and 3, I read the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus. Mathetes is not a proper name. The word simply means “disciple.” In Chapter XI of the letter, the writer claims to have been a “disciple of the Apostles.” The author of this letter remains a mystery. I did an Internet search and learned that there was a Diognetus who was a tutor to Emperor Marcus Aurelius, but it is not clear that the letter was written to this tutor. If it were written to the Diognetus connected with Marcus Aurelius, the letter would have originated sometime in the second century. However, within the body of the letter, Mathetes talks about the Jewish sacrificial system as if it were still occurring. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Jewish sacrifices wouldn’t have been occurring in the 2nd-century. I would guess that this letter pre-dates the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. What is clear is that, whomever Diognetus was, he was a pagan who “declared and deemed to be gods” man-made idols. The letter was written because Diognetus wanted to learn about Christianity.
Reading early Christian writings is often a good way to understand the history, customs and traditions of the early church. I was surprised to find so much anti-Semitism in this letter. The author either didn’t understand or purposely misrepresents the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. These sacrifices are pictures of Christ. Having rejected Christ’s fulfillment of the sin offering, trespass offering, burnt offering, meal offering and peace offering, the Jews continued to sacrifice in what they truly felt was obedience to God. Mathetes’ attitude toward the law and to the Jews themselves seems to contradict his representation of himself as a disciple of the Apostles.
Additionally, I found Mathetes discussion on the soul and the body reflective on Gnostic thinking about the dual nature of man. This may sound petty, but I was surprised when Mathetes stated that his purpose in writing the letter was to answer Diognetus’ questions so that he would be edified. Is moral, intellectual and spiritual encouragement the same as salvation? It seems to me that salvation was reduced to acquiring knowledge. Christianity reduced to a set of ethical and moral standards that a Christian follows because of his or her special understanding of the nature of God.
I am looking forward to reading Polycarp tonight. If memory serves, his view of Christianity is much more orthodox.
3 responses so far ↓
DebD // 22 February 2007 at 11:54 am |
I agree I didn’t like the Epistle of Mathetes either for very the very same reasons. I was curious why it was even included, because prior to this list I had never heard of it. All the others are quite notourious. I’m not sure this person is/was a “Church Father” – at least he isn’t in the Orthodox church.
DebD // 22 February 2007 at 12:11 pm |
Oh, I wanted to say that one thing that caught my eye in the Didache was the Lord’s prayer too. In Chapter 8 in the Lord’s prayer the line goes: “Let us partake of our heavenly fare”
Last year I listened to a lecture on tape on the Lord’s Prayer. The lecturer said that the Greek word for “daily” in “daily bread” is epi-oo-sios (sorry for the phonetics) and it is the only place it is ever found (no other Greek lit. has this word). They have no idea what that word means. He said that the Church Father’s were divided about whether it meant “daily” or “spiritual/heavenly” (ie the Eucharistic) bread. This priest’s personal opinion was that it meant both – dealing with our bodily needs and our need for spiritual bread.
Gotta run and get ready for my day – I’ll have to catch up on your blog and Polycarp later.
Julie // 22 February 2007 at 2:07 pm |
Deb, I have thought a lot about the Lord’s Prayer in relationship with my bread study and could hardly wait to study it in light of a better understanding of scriptural bread. But I am still only in the five books of the law. I started right after Christmas so I am studying at a snails pace.
(
Jesus taught us to pray:
[Our Father, who art in heaven] By recognizing God as our Creator and a recognition of His place of authority in our life.
[Hallowed be thy Name.] By recognizing God’s holiness.
[Thy kingdom come.] God certainly has a kingdom now: the body of believers. But this too has a double meaning. I am not sure what the Orthodox Church teaches, but my church believes in the literal return of Christ and his establishing a kingdom here on Earth.
[Thy will be done,] Not my will be done.
[Give us this day our daily bread.] I too think this has a double meaning. It speaks of asking God to fulfill our physical needs. It also asks that He be our Spiritual bread. I truly believe that this understanding is bigger than the Eucharist. Perhaps that is because of our church’s different understanding of the ordination. We do not teach a transubstantiation; therefore the bread and wine are symbols and not Christ really, truly and substantially present.
[And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.] A reminder about who we are (fallen, frail human saved by grace) and how we should then respond to others.
[And lead us not into temptation;
But deliver us from evil:] A plea to help us walk uprightly. Perhaps saying this three times a day is a reminder to us to allow the Holy Spirit to give us victory over sin: a reminder that we are not slaves to sin, but overcomers by the power of God in us.
[For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever. Amen.] The prayer ends by worshiping a praising God.
So, if this is what Jesus taught, how come American Christians spent millions of dollars learning how to pray from Jabez? The Prayer of Jabez teaches that God answers prayers when I am honorable and not because He loves me. It teaches that I make God powerful by asking Him to do things in my life not that God is already powerful. It teaches that we selfishly ask for blessings from God rather than asking for God’s help in our spiritual journey. I don’t know this doesn’t sound a thing like what Jesus taught.
In the Lord’s prayer I don’t see us treating God like Santa Clause. With the possible exception of asking God meet our physical needs and our recognition of Him as our provider, I don’t see us asking for things at all. The rest of the prayer seems focused on worshiping and lifting up God. But… in most prayer meetings I have ever attended, I hear very little recognition that God is powerful, our Creator or sovereign. Instead I hear, “God can you work this out for our benefit, can you provide us a job, a van, nice weather for a youth event,” etc.
Do you ever think that God is annoyed with American Christianity?