Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
    • Podcast Archives
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Greek Tutorials
  • Blog
  • Calendar
    • Events
  • Sandbox

Didache and Temple Observance

8/9/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
8/9/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 14 “Whether the ‘Hypocrites’ Were Promoters of Temple Sacrifice” pp. 783-808.

Milavec, citing several statements in the Didache where members of the community were told not to be like the “hypocrites,” asks why fasts and prayers of these people were so objectionable. Milavec’s specific problem in identifying the hypocrites is that the Didache does not seem particularly hostile to the most likely suspects, such as Jews in general or Pharisees in particular (Milavec 2003, 785). However, Milavec does find a purposeful move away from the temple cult and toward the eucharist. Although the idea of sacrifices in temples was common to Jews and Gentiles, Milavec finds five passages in the Didache which seem to pull away from the temple. He discusses 4:6, 8:2, 14:1-3, 13:3, and 16:3-8 in brief (Milavec 2003, 786). He also finds that there may have been a move during the two centuries before Christ toward spiritualization of the temple. This would set the stage of at least ambivalence and possibly some level of hostility toward the temple (Milavec 2003, 787). Milavec adduces practices of the Pharisees, including recited prayers, home observance of holidays, and extensive discussion of the Torah, which together reshaped Jewish life. All these practices tended to move the religious life away from the temple and into the home and community (Milavec 2003, 788).

In addition to the theological reasons, Milavec finds some social and political motivations for people in the first century to distance themselves from the temple cult (Milavec 2003, 790). An increasing sense of heavy-handed political control of Jerusalem and the temple could effectively increase the sense of oppression felt by Jews. Political tensions tended to run high. Violence broke out increasingly as the first century progressed (Milavec 2003, 791).

In contrast, Milavec finds Jesus as resistant to the customs of the temple cult (Milavec 2003, 791). Specifically, Milavec, following E.P. Sanders, sees the allegations that Jesus would destroy the temple to be compelling. Jesus also does not appear to participate in sacrifices. His appearance regularly disrupts the operation of the temple (Milavec 2003, 792). Some scholars see Jesus as setting up an alternative to the temple, especially with his teaching about pursuing justice rather than making sacrifice. Miilavec also notes “Jesus’ intention to create a provisional substitute to the temple cult at his last supper” (Milavec 2003, 793). This i to last until the Lord comes again to rebuild His temple and establish a kingdom.

Milavec traces the possible controversy about the temple to the book of Acts. Following the work of James D.G. Dunn (1991), he finds a disagreement between “Peter Christians” (Milavec 2003, 794), who seemed accepting of worship in and around the temple, and those more like Stephen, who spoke against the temple in Acts 6:11 and 14. Milavec does, however, note “that Luke-Acts fails to distinguish between the Peter Christians, who routinely prayed and preached in the temple, and those, like Stephen, with anti-temple perspectives, who were singled out for persecution” (Milavec 2003, 794). Milavec concludes that those who were more open to the traditions around the temple would be in the minority and would be called “hypocrites” in the Didache (Milavec 2003, 795).

Milavec does find some expectation of a restored temple or temple area in Jewish thought. However, he finds little expectation of a specially restored or consecrated temple (Milavec 2003, 796). On the contrary, there is an expectation of a return and ingathering of Jews. The Didache does not speak of ideas such as the Sabbath or circumcision. Milavec considers it significatn that the idea of the temple does appear (Milavec 2003, 797). Sinc ethe temple had great importance after the mid second century B.C., and since the temple and its area were renovated in the late first century B.C., one would have expected Judaism to be very enthusiastic about the temple (Milavec 2003, 798). Philo particularly tells details of conflicts over the possible desecration of the temple (Milavec 2003, 800).

The opposition in the Didache, regardless of other identification, is referred to as “the hypocrites” (Milavec 2003, 800). Milavec asks how this word is understood. He does not think the identification found in Matthew’s Gospel can hold true. The Didache gives different days for fasting and different prayers. Milavec finds it highly significant that the Lord’s Prayer makes no mention of the temple (Milavec 2003, 800). Milavec does admit that we hae no record of daily prayers from the first century, so the actual content is a matter of speculation. Possibly they included mention of the temple, possibly not. However, Milavec  thinks Didache 2:6 and 5:1 may be of value. They both shed light on the kind of behaviors and attitudes which might be found in the hypocrites (Milavec 2003, 801). Milavec immediately ties the character qualities which he mentions to an arrogant trust in the security of the temple. From this standpoint, Milavec asserts that the hypocrisy would consist in a high opinion of the temple and the priesthood, since these are not in the focus of the Didache and its prayers (Milavec 2003, 802).

In conclusion, Milavec finds that the Didache does not emphasize the religious aspects of Judaism which hee would expect. It does not have a focus on the priesthood, temple, sacrifices, or festivals (Milavec 2003, 802). Rather, it sets up an alternative mode of prayer. Milavec finds this to be a very significant move.

Milavec does contrast the Didache’s view of the temple with the view found in Hebrews (Milavec 2003, 803). Milavec denies any sort of Pauline influence on the theology of Hebrews (Milavec 2003, 804). He also notes the unique language of “priest” being applied to Jesus. Milavec finds in Hebrews a Jesus who, by his choices, becomes the acceptable sacrifice. He does not consider this a natural given, but a result of Jesus’ choices (Milavec 2003, 804). Milavec further rejects any claim that Hebrews considers the Last Supper as a sacrifice or as part of the work of a priesthood of Jesus (Milavec 2003, 805). He finds that an idea of a consummation of history involving the temple is absent from Hebrews (Milavec 2003, 806). If Hebrews dates from after the destruction of the temple in 68-70, it makes perfect sense. However, Milavec sees the issue as more important to the writers of the Didache, since the temple was still functioning. It would have been necessary to avoid faith in the temple so as to keep faith in Jesus.

Nevertheless, the temple was instrumental as the unifying force of Judaism during the mid first century. Milavec sees this as the reason that Jesus’ disruption of the temple operation would hve resulted in his condemnation (Milavec 2003, 807). In short, the crucifixion of Christ was the attempt on the part of the priests to protect the status quo, not simply in terms of religion, but in economic and political terms as well (Milavec 2003, 808).

​
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

    All the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry, including this blog, is supported by the generosity of people like you. Please consider joining our team of prayer and financial supporters. Read more here!
    Please Note: The opinions presented in blog posts are not necessarily those of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Frequently we report on contrary views, often without comment. Please chime in on the discussion.

    About Throwing Inkwells

    When Martin Luther was dealing with struggles in his life he once saw what appeared to be an angelic being. Not trusting that he was going to be informed by someone other than the God revealed in Scripture, he took the appearance to be untrustworthy and hurled his inkwell at it. The chipped place in the plaster wall is still visible at the Wartburg Castle, though apparently the ink stain on the wall has been refreshed periodically by the caretaker.

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

    Want to keep up with what's happening at Wittenberg Door? Subscribe to our mailing list!

    Categories

    All
    1 Corinthians
    1-john
    1-kings
    1-peter
    1-thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2-corinthians
    2-john
    2-kings
    2-peter
    2-samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent 1
    Advent-1-a
    Advent-1b
    Advent-1c
    Advent 2
    Advent-2-a
    Advent-2b
    Advent-2c
    Advent 3
    Advent-3-a
    Advent-3b
    Advent-3c
    Advent-4-a
    Advent-4b
    Advent-4c
    Alesso-2009
    Allitt-2010
    Amos
    Aristotle
    Augustine
    Baptism-of-christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Belonging
    Boehme-2010
    Braaten 2007
    Bruce1988
    Bruce-1988
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catholicism
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas-day
    Chronicles
    Circumcision-and-naming-of-christ
    Colossians
    Confessions
    Constanza-2013
    Daniel
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Draper
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria-2014
    Ephesians
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Flew-2007
    Forde-2007
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Genesis
    Gonzalez-2010
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hebrews
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson-1992
    History
    Hoffman 1986
    Hosea
    Hutchens-2013
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    James
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Justin-martyr
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Koch-2010
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last Sunday Of The Church Year C
    Lectionary
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Long-2009
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Malachi
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec-2012
    Mitch-2010
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Passionb
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost-14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost-15c
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost-16b
    Pentecost 16C
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost-17b
    Pentecost 17C
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost-18b
    Pentecost 18 C
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost-19b
    Pentecost 19 C
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost-20b
    Pentecost 20 C
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost-21b
    Pentecost 21 C
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost-22b
    Pentecost 22 C
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost-23b
    Pentecost 23 C
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost-24b
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost-25b
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost-26b
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost-2b
    Pentecost-2c
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost-3b
    Pentecost-3c
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost-4b
    Pentecost-4c
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost-5b
    Pentecost-5c
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost-6b
    Pentecost-6c
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost-7b
    Pentecost-7c
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost-8b
    Pentecost-8c
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost-9b
    Pentecost-9c
    Pentecost-b
    Pentecost-c
    Peterson2010
    Peterson-2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Pieper1924
    Pieper-1924
    Preaching
    Proper-19c
    Proper-20c
    Proper 21C
    Proper 22C
    Proper 23C
    Proper 24C
    Proper 25C
    Proper 26C
    Proper 27C
    Proper 28C
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Quintilian
    Receptivity
    Reformation
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Romans
    Rosenfeld-levene-2012
    Rueger-2016
    Ruth
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Schollgen
    Sermon
    Smith-2009
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    Teaching
    Thielman-2010
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Tuckett
    Van-de-sandt-2010
    Van-de-sandt-2011
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly