I loved how you framed this: “We've fragmented the gospel from the didache and Christ's plan in a way that is unnatural, defining the gospel as a set of logical, theological concepts, rather than as the hinge-point of God's story”.
Action is such an important part of Christianity (just today my Bible reading took me to 3 John 1:11). The book of James is a great example of this. And in these matters I try not to let anything Paul said overshadow anything Jesus said… despite a long tradition that tends to favor categories derived from Paul’s writings. Something that makes my head spin a little in this is Matthew 5:17-20, with a statement that seems to bring back the rules of old, even if they are being fulfilled in Jesus. Hence things like dietary restrictions seemed to continue to matter to the early church.
Again, thanks for this call to go beyond the debate on faith v. works.
I would argue that the long tradition you mentioned doesn’t actually use Paul’s categories, but overlays the categories of a theology that was mostly developed in the Middle Ages to address specific issues of that time, and then went into overdrive during the enlightenment, similar to how the OT Jews created all these rules that they lived by.
In my understanding from Luke and Paul and Jesus words in the gospels, His Spirit used the apostles teaching, mostly through the unique role that Paul had, to continue the teaching of Jesus. So in my mind, there’s no distinction. The things Paul delivered are the teachings of Christ, but they are very different from our systematic theology categories and the traditions we’ve shaped around them.
Thanks for this thoughtful response, Scott. Your point about medieval theology overlaying different categories onto Paul's original meaning is captivating—it helps explain some of the disconnect between how we read these texts today versus their original context. I appreciate how you frame Paul's role in continuing Jesus's teaching through the Spirit. Your perspective gives me a fresh way to think about how the apostolic teaching and Jesus's words work together. At the same time, I have to admit that I enter different universes when I read the Gospels versus Paul's letters. Perhaps we've grown more accustomed to the shape that letters have given to Christianity than to the enduringly raw appeal and challenge of Jesus's words in the Gospels.
P.S. Do you recommend any translation of the Didache? (Ideally, as part of a scholarly volume with commentary.) (I've been considering "The Early Christians: In Their Own Words," a Plough publication, but you probably have better suggestions.)
I’d say read a few of them. The one I’m most familiar with is the one translated by Maxwell Staniforth. Also, Justo Gonzalez has a chapter on the Didache in A History of Christian Thought, vol 1. I also like C.H. Dodd’s work on the kerygma/didache.
The other thing I would mention is that there is the Didache (capital D), which is the document written by the early church fathers describing the new way of life in specific terms, and then there is the didache (lower case D), the body of apostolic teaching that identifies Christ’s grand strategy to multiply simple gatherings of believers (who are family together) as a global family movement of networked clusters and hubs… and the patterns, principles and processes that provide the framework for how to continue that movement across all times and cultures.
Thank you for all these wonderful resources. I just got NT Wright and Michael Bird's book about the New Testament world in the mail today, and they probably cover the Didache as well.
I want to thank you for clarifying the distinction between lowercase-d didache and uppercase-d Didache.
I love things that help me dial down my ignorance, so thank you for your very useful reply.
I loved how you framed this: “We've fragmented the gospel from the didache and Christ's plan in a way that is unnatural, defining the gospel as a set of logical, theological concepts, rather than as the hinge-point of God's story”.
Action is such an important part of Christianity (just today my Bible reading took me to 3 John 1:11). The book of James is a great example of this. And in these matters I try not to let anything Paul said overshadow anything Jesus said… despite a long tradition that tends to favor categories derived from Paul’s writings. Something that makes my head spin a little in this is Matthew 5:17-20, with a statement that seems to bring back the rules of old, even if they are being fulfilled in Jesus. Hence things like dietary restrictions seemed to continue to matter to the early church.
Again, thanks for this call to go beyond the debate on faith v. works.
I would argue that the long tradition you mentioned doesn’t actually use Paul’s categories, but overlays the categories of a theology that was mostly developed in the Middle Ages to address specific issues of that time, and then went into overdrive during the enlightenment, similar to how the OT Jews created all these rules that they lived by.
In my understanding from Luke and Paul and Jesus words in the gospels, His Spirit used the apostles teaching, mostly through the unique role that Paul had, to continue the teaching of Jesus. So in my mind, there’s no distinction. The things Paul delivered are the teachings of Christ, but they are very different from our systematic theology categories and the traditions we’ve shaped around them.
Thanks for this thoughtful response, Scott. Your point about medieval theology overlaying different categories onto Paul's original meaning is captivating—it helps explain some of the disconnect between how we read these texts today versus their original context. I appreciate how you frame Paul's role in continuing Jesus's teaching through the Spirit. Your perspective gives me a fresh way to think about how the apostolic teaching and Jesus's words work together. At the same time, I have to admit that I enter different universes when I read the Gospels versus Paul's letters. Perhaps we've grown more accustomed to the shape that letters have given to Christianity than to the enduringly raw appeal and challenge of Jesus's words in the Gospels.
P.S. Do you recommend any translation of the Didache? (Ideally, as part of a scholarly volume with commentary.) (I've been considering "The Early Christians: In Their Own Words," a Plough publication, but you probably have better suggestions.)
I’d say read a few of them. The one I’m most familiar with is the one translated by Maxwell Staniforth. Also, Justo Gonzalez has a chapter on the Didache in A History of Christian Thought, vol 1. I also like C.H. Dodd’s work on the kerygma/didache.
The other thing I would mention is that there is the Didache (capital D), which is the document written by the early church fathers describing the new way of life in specific terms, and then there is the didache (lower case D), the body of apostolic teaching that identifies Christ’s grand strategy to multiply simple gatherings of believers (who are family together) as a global family movement of networked clusters and hubs… and the patterns, principles and processes that provide the framework for how to continue that movement across all times and cultures.
Thank you for all these wonderful resources. I just got NT Wright and Michael Bird's book about the New Testament world in the mail today, and they probably cover the Didache as well.
I want to thank you for clarifying the distinction between lowercase-d didache and uppercase-d Didache.
I love things that help me dial down my ignorance, so thank you for your very useful reply.
That’s a great NT intro. Was fortunate enough to attend a talk by Wright and have him sign my copy.