Didaktikos [1317]
didaktikovV
[1317]
In the NT it is found in 1
Tm. 3:2; 2 Tm. 2:24 in the sense of “able to teach.” This is one
of the requirements for a bishop. It belongs to a period when
for the sake of spiritual order the free
didavskaloV
is merging with the leader of the community. One of the reasons
for this development was that the
didavskaloi, or men
who claimed to be such (®
yeudodidavskaloV,
160), were creating difficulties which were threatening the
inner and outer life of the Church and which had thus to be
overcome.
yeudodidavskaloV
This is never found outside
Christian usage.
In the NT it occurs only in
2 Pt. 2:1, where it is used with
yeudoprofh`tai for
false teachers. The
yeudo<
suggests both that the claim of the men concerned is false and
also that their teaching is erroneous, so that in every respect
they are a perversion of the Christian
didavskaloV,
since they reject the claim of Jesus to dominion over their
whole lives (®
despovthV,
47).
Didaktos [1318]
didaktovV
In the NT we find it in Jn.
6:45 quoting Is. 54:13 LXX, as also in 1 C. 2:13:
a} kai; lalou`men oujk ejn didaktoi`" ajnqrwpivnh" sofiva"
lovgoi", ajllÆ ejn didaktoi`" pneuvmato".
Here the repeated
didaktov"
(in sense b.) shows
that Paul is not insisting on the way in which he has received
what he says in contrast to others, but that he knows that he is
different from them in virtue of its origin. It is to be noted
that the essential point is not that he is
didaktov"; it is
that he has received his instruction from the right place. Thus
the verse finds a natural role in Paul’s polemic against the
sofiva tou` aijw`no" touvtou.
Didaskalia [1319]
didaskaliva [1319]
in the NT.
1. In Mt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7 it
occurs in the plur. in a quotation from Is. 29:13 which Jesus
uses against the
Farisai`oi and
grammatei`". In
allusion to the same OT verse, it is also used in Col. 2:22 in
the formula:
ejntavlmata kai; didaskalivai tw`n ajnqrwvpwn.
The only other occurrence in the plur. is in 1 Tm. 4:1, when
those led astray are described as
prosevconte" pneuvmasin plavnoi" kai; didaskalivai" daimonivwn.
We have here a repetition of the LXX use of
didaskalivai rather
than
didaskaliva for
teachings other than the divine.
2. Along the same lines,
the singular is always used in the NT when the will of God lies
behind
didaskaliva. This is
so in R. 12:7, where Paul admonishes the one who teaches to see
ejn th`/ didaskaliva/
a service to the community and to exercise it in relation to the
totality. If we have here the active sense of “instructing,” in
R. 15:4, where in the formula
eij" th;n hJmetevran didaskalivan
Paul speaks of the significance of Ps. 69:9 for the community
when christologically interpreted, we have the sense of the
“instruction” which comes from Scripture.
Finally, Eph. 4:14 should
be noted in this connexion:
i{na mhkevti w\men …
periferovmenoi panti; ajnevmw/ th`" didaskaliva" ejn th`
kubeiva/ tw`n ajnqrwvpwn.
The character of the epistle makes it plain that this cannot
refer to special errors against which the author is warning his
readers. This is shown also by the fact that
pa`" is added to
a[nemo" rather than
didaskaliva, for
this means that the author is thinking of a single
didaskaliva, and
this can only be the
didaskaliva pursued
in the community. Hence the formula is to be interpreted as
follows. In relation to what the community possesses in the
historically guaranteed witness concerning Jesus (4:1–11), Paul
is warning them against being swayed by each variable wind which
comes with the claim of being doctrine and of bringing the will
of God as such. This interpretation is in full accord with the
use of
didaskaliva as
expounded above. The only difference is that it is given a
strongly objective colouring in relation to a historical
content, whether this consists in a single OT saying as in R.
15:4, or in the general revelation of the will of God in the OT,
i.e., in this revelation as seen with the eyes of Jesus and
according to His interpretation, as in R. 12:7.
3. The final point is of
great significance for an understanding of
didaskaliva in the
Past., where the term is very common, 15 of the 21 NT
occurrences being found here. The connexion with the historical
revelation of God as attested by Scripture and fulfilled in
Jesus is often plain from the context, as in 1 Tm. 4:13, where
there is exhortation to
didaskaliva as well
as to
ajnavgnwsi" and
paravklhsi", in 2
Tm. 3:16, where it is said of
pa`sa grafhv that it
is
wjfevlimo" eij" didaskalivan,
and perhaps in Tt. 2:10:
i{na th;n didaskalivan th;n tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n qeou` kosmw`sin
ejn pa`sin (cf. also
1 Tm. 6:3). The formula
uJgiaivnousa didaskaliva
should also be understood in the light of the historical
character of
didaskaliva,
recognising as it does that this
didaskaliva is sound
and therefore leads to salvation because it comes from God. If
didaskaliva is here
used rather than
khvrugma or some
similar word, one reason is that
didaskaliva is
particularly well adapted (®
161) to emphasise the binding character of the historical
proclamation, and a second is that it can denote the essential
difference between Christian proclamation and the various
movements which threaten the community. Hence the use of
hJ kalh; didaskaliva,
which lays greater stress on the content and practical effect of
the
didaskaliva (1 Tm.
4:6), does not denote any real change in usage as compared with
hJ uJgiaivnousa didaskaliva,
which emphasises its nature; nor is there any such change in the
other passages (1 Tm. 4:16; 5:17; 6:1; 2 Tm. 3:10; Tt. 2:7).
If
didaskaliva plays so
small a role in Judaism and in the NT apart from the Past., and
yet is so important in the latter, this is due to the fact that
its basic reference is to the
didavskalo" and his
authority. In Judaism and the NT, however, the
didavskalo" is not
the independent bearer of a
didaskaliva as in
the Greek world and Philo. He is the one who transmits and
mediates a
didaskaliva. This
makes the word unsuitable for Judaism and the greater part of
the NT. On the other hand, it is very much in place in the Past.
For here the author is very conscious of his office as a
didavskalo", since
his readers have a tendency, not to reject the
didaskaliva which he
represents, but to separate themselves from his own person,
oblivious of the fact that there can be no dividing the
didavskalo" and the
didaskaliva, because
the commissioned
didavskalo" alone
guarantees the
uJgiaivnousa didaskaliva
as does the commissioned
ajpovstolo" the
eujaggevlion tou` Cristou`
(Gl. 1:6 ff.;
®
eJterodidaskalevw).
The word thus offers an instructive example of the way in which
new situations in the community created a new use of terms even
in the early days, a fluidity of thought and expression being
thereby manifested.
4. The usage of the early
Church corresponds to the change which the word
didavskalo" had
undergone prior to its acceptance into the Church’s vocabulary.
didaskaliva now
meant the “sum of teaching,” and especially of that which had
come down from the lips of the apostles. Instead of pastors and
advisers of their congregations the apostles had now become
teachers of the Church, which was permanently grounded in their
teaching, i.e., in their way of proclaiming Jesus (e.g., Cl. Al.
Strom., VII, 17, 108:
miva hJ pavntwn gevgone tw`n ajpostovlwn w{sper didaskaliva
ou{tw" de; kai; hJ paravdosi").
The surprising element which now emerges in the history of the
usage is no less than the transformation of the apostolic
message into traditional teaching, and therefore the incipient
ossification of the early Christian kerygma into the dogma of
the early Church.
Didaskalos [1320]
didavskaloV
[1320]
Usage in the NT.
1. The Usage.
a.
didavskalo" occurs
58 times in the NT, and 48 times in the Gospels (not counting Jn.
8:4). In the Gospels it is used 41 times of Jesus, in 29
instances in the direct address
didavskale, with
kuvrie the most
common form of direct address. On 7 occasions it is used of
others, twice in Mt. (10:24f.), 4 times in Lk. (2:46; 3:12; 6:40
twice) and once in Jn. (3:10). In Lk. 3:12 it is used of John
the Baptist calling the people to repentance on the banks of the
Jordan; in Jn. 3:10 Jesus calls Nicodemus a
didavskalo" tou` ÆIsrahvl;
in Lk. 2:46 it is said of the boy Jesus that He sat
ejn tw`/ iJerw`/ ejn mevsw/ tw`n didaskavlwn,
listening to them and asking them questions; finally in Mt.
10:24 f.; Lk. 6:40 there is a radical declaration concerning the
relationship of the
maqhthv" to his
didavskalo".
To these instances from the
Gospels should be added a smaller number from Ac. and the
epistles. They are all consistent with one another. The most
prominent are those which refer to the
didavskaloi as a
leading group in the early Christian community (Ac. 13:1; 1 C.
12:28 f.; Eph. 4:11; cf. also Jm. 3:1). In 1 Tm. 2:7; 2 Tm. 1:11
the author calls himself a
didavskalo" ejqnw`n
or simply a
didavskalo". In the
three other passages the term acquires a particular meaning from
the context (R. 2:20; 2 Tm. 4:3; Hb. 5:12).
b. The first point to
emerge clearly from this review of the use of
didavskalo" in the
NT is that the term, and therefore the addressing of Jesus as
didavskale, does not
imply any attribution of dignity, like
kuvrio". The
application to John (Lk. 3:12), or to the
didavskaloi sitting
in the temple (Lk. 2:46), or even to a group of false teachers
(2 Tm. 4:3), shows beyond any shadow of doubt that even when
used of Jesus
didavskalo" can
denote only an obvious fact; for we naturally cannot suppose
that Lk. uses the term in a different sense when it refers to
John on the one side and Jesus on the other. What this fact is
may be seen quite easily from the passages in the Gospels in
which
didavskalo" is used,
and best of all from those in which it is used of others. Jesus
Himself (Mt. 10:24 f. and par.) contrasts the
maqhthv" and the
didavskalo"; the
former is to learn both his goal and his limitations by
comparison with the latter. To Jewish listeners this statement
was crystal clear, for they could see the relationship
concretely before them in that of the Rabbinic pupil to his
teacher. Jn. 3:10 is no less plain. When Jesus calls Nicodemus a
didavskalo" tou` ÆIsrahvl,
the context makes it evident that He does not have in view
particular philosophical capacities; He is honouring him as one
to whom the people look as a prominent expositor of the divine
will as laid down in the Law and the prophets. Finally, when the
publicans in Lk. 3:12 are so shaken by the Baptist’s call for
repentance that they wish to be baptised, and thus ask John:
didavskale, tiv poihvswmen,
both the address and the question indicate that on the basis of
his knowledge of the will of God he can tell them what they must
do to find favour with God. The vaguest reference is to the
didavskaloi in Lk.
2:46, though from the nature of Jesus’ dealings with them we may
infer that they were scribes occupied in answering questions
which arose out of the Law.
The four or five passages
in the Gospels where
didavskalo" is used
of others than Jesus thus display a consistency of usage. The
word is directly related to the
didavskein of the
LXX and the NT, which derives its content from
dMeli In other
words, the
didavskalo" is “one
who indicates the way of God from the Torah.” This raises two
questions, or groups of questions, to which we must now address
ourselves. First, we must consider how far the same usage
applies when Jesus is described as
didavskalo", and
therefore what are the theological implications of the term in
relation to Him. Then we must ask whether the other NT passages
use the word in the same sense as the Gospels.
2. Jesus as
didavskalo".
a. That Jesus is addressed
as
didavskale
presupposes the fact that He outwardly conforms to the Jewish
picture of the
didavskalo". This is
indeed the case. Our investigation of the use of
didavskein in the
Gospels (®
139) has already shown us that Jesus may be basically associated
with the scribes as regards both the form and content of His
teaching. To be a
didavskalo" and not
merely an occasional
didavskwn, however,
there was needed the further feature of the presence of
disciples gathering around the
didavskalo" (®
maqhthv"). The fact
that in the case of both Jesus and John (Jn. 1:35 ff.) certain
men had been so gripped by their words that they set themselves
in the position of pupils and disciples meant that in the eyes
of their contemporaries the final presupposition had been
externally fulfilled for granting them the title of
didavskalo", for
addressing them as
didavskale, and for
reckoning them among the teachers of the people.
That the address
didavskale actually
has this significance is proved by Jn. 1:38, where Jesus is
addressed as
rJabbiv by the
disciples of Jn., and this is rendered
didavskale for
readers not familiar with this form of address (cf. also
®
rJabbouniv in Jn.
20:16). Jesus is also addressed as
rJabbiv by His
disciples in Mt. 26:25; Mk. 9:5; 11:21; Jn. 4:31; 9:2; 11:8; by
Nicodemus in Jn. 3:2; by the disciples of John in Jn. 1:49; by
the enthusiastic crowd in Jn. 6:25; and by Judas at the arrest
in Mt. 26:49; Mk. 14:45. Yet too much significance should not be
attached to this, since
yBir' might be
applied to any exalted personage,, whereas
didavskale is
reserved unequivocally for the teacher.
The Gospels make it clear
point by point that the relation between Jesus and the disciples
corresponds to that of Rabbinic pupils to their masters and that
the crowd treated Him with the respect accorded to teachers. The
description of the disciples as
maqhtaiv (µydiymil]T'
) and the use of
®
ajkolouqei`n for
their attachment to Him both follow later Jewish terminology.
Even the way in which they serve Him is in keeping with current
practice. The pupil brings the rabbi’s sandals (T. Neg., 8, 2),
supports him when needed (b.Jeb., 42b), prepares the way before
him (b.Ket., 63a), and drives his donkey (T. Chag., 2, 1). A
rather later reference (b.Ket., 96a; R. Joshua b. Levi, c.
250 a.d.) obliges
the pupil to do for his teacher all the things a slave would do
for his master apart from taking off his sandals. We do not know
whether this included washing his feet, since there is no
specific reference to this. On the other hand, Jesus included it
among the things the disciples owed one another, and He gave
them an example by performing this service (Jn. 13:1 ff.),
meeting the same kind of opposition from them (13:8) as great
rabbis encountered in similar cases (e.g., S. Dt., 38 on 12:30).
The disciples of Jesus acted as His boatmen (Mk. 4:35 ff. and
par.) and also as distributors of food at the feeding of the
multitudes (Mk. 5:37 ff. and par.; 8:6 and par.). They procured
the donkey for the entry into Jerusalem (Mk. 11:1 ff.) and also
made preparations for the passover (Mt. 26:17 ff.), which
included the slaying of the lamb often left to slaves (cf. Pes.,
8, 2). All this shows that the position of Jesus among His
disciples was really that of the contemporary
didavskalo", of the
rabbi among his pupils.
Nor is it only by the
disciples that He is treated as such, for the crowds also honour
Him in this way. In virtue of his handling of the Word of God
the people set the teacher even above their own parents unless
these also (i.e., the fathers) are teachers. Not only does the
teacher precede his own father (BM, 2, 11), but the father
stands up in the presence of his son if he is a teacher (b.Qid.,
33b). We know that when Akiba came from the school as a famous
man, his father-inlaw and his wife reverently kissed his feet (b.Ket.,
63a). We also read that the mother of R. Ishmael (d. c.
135) sought permission from the rabbis to wash the feet of her
son when he came from the assemblies, and then to drink the
water which she had used; he himself forbade this on the ground
of breaking the Fifth Commandment, but she argued that his
prohibition was the real breach, since she saw in the action an
honouring of herself through her son (jPea 15c, 41ff.). In the
same category we should place the service rendered to Jesus by
the mother-in-law of Peter after she was healed (Mt. 8:15), or
by the women who followed Him and ministered to Him of their
substance (Lk. 8:3; cf. Mt. 27:55 and par.), or by Martha when
she
periespa`to peri; pollh;n diakonivan
(Lk. 10:40). This does not refer only to service at table,
though this is naturally prominent (®
diakoniva, 87).
Mention should also be made of the honouring of the mother of
Jesus, for which there are Rabbinic parallels in the case of
great rabbis. Along these lines, too, the picture of Jesus the
didavskalo" conforms
to the practice of His day, and the word
didavskalo" as
applied to Jesus in the NT is undeniably linked with the later
Jewish
yBir'This is to some
extent confirmed by Josephus. His use of the term is important
because it presupposes what we have to deduce from the Gospels
for want of evidence in the LXX or other writings. Now Joseph.
uses
didavskalo" for the
elementary teacher (®
n. 10), but he also uses it for the one who studies the Law, who
leads others to study it and who takes from it rules of conduct.
This is so in Vit., 274 where Pharisaic emissaries from
Jerusalem boast that they are not merely his fellow-citizens but
also his
didavskaloi. Cf.
also Ant., 18, 16, in relation to the Sadducees; when he says of
them:
pro;" ga;r tou;" didaskavlou" sofiva", h}n metivasin,
ajmfilogei`n ajreth;n ajriqmou`sin,
and thus distinguishes them from the Pharisees, who preserve the
tradition which the rabbi embodies and guarantees, he is
following the same usage.
b. If we are to grasp the
meaning of the title
didavskalo" as
applied to Jesus, it is essential to realise that He was not in
any sense a new phenomenon as
didavskalo"yBir'
. On the contrary,
the way which He took was a common one when He finally opened
the ears and eyes of His people once again to the will of God
and its binding power. Nor did He lack recognition, Even in
scribal circles it had to be recognised that He was
ajlhqhv" and pointed
out the
oJdo;" tou` qeou` ejn ajlhqeiva/
(Mt. 22:16 and par.; cf. Mk. 12:32; Jn. 3:2). If there was any
objection to His activity as a teacher, it arose from the fact
that He had not gone through the prescribed course of
instruction or received authorisation from any teaching body (Jn.
7:15; cf. Mt. 13:54 and par.). In itself, then, the teaching of
Jesus could not have led to the conflict which brought about His
destruction. He might have founded a school like Hillel and
Shammai. He might have discussed His differences with the
scribes by the usual way of disputation. He might have tried to
establish His view along these lines. If so, He would have given
offence to some, but could still have been tolerated and
recognised. Jesus, however, could not take this path. For He had
made His own the cause which God entrusted to Him. In the last
resort, therefore, He had made it a human cause in a sense which
could never be true of the opinions of Hillel and Shammai.
Jesus neither could nor
would dispute because in so doing He would have surrendered the
claim to absoluteness which He raised and which inevitably
impressed all who heard and encountered Him. This claim was
essential. It could not be separated from His teaching. It
emerged in it. This took place at the point where Jesus as
didavskalo" took up
again the line of the OT prophet who goes beyond traditional
formulations and proclaims the will of God afresh and directly.
Yet He was more than a prophet, for in opposition to the
ossified religion and anthropocentric morality of His
contemporaries He did not set the
h/;hyÒ rm'a; hKo
or
h/;hyÒ µaunÒ of
the prophets, but His own
ejgw; de; levgw uJmi`n,
which made it plain to His listeners that He was associating
Himself directly with God, not as a mouthpiece, but as the
responsible Bearer of His will who is one with Him. In this
sense He may describe Himself as the One who fulfils the first
direct revelation of God’s will in the
novmo" both by
bringing out the full extent of its claims and also by
transcending it to the degree that He offers Himself as the way
to the fulfilment of the will of God (Mt. 5:17, 20). Because He
is the Son, as John would say, His teaching is different from
that of the
grammatei`" and
others, from what theirs could ever be, even though there is a
similarity of form and matter.
c. Thus, when the word
didavskalo" is used
of Jesus, His person gives it a tremendous weight which it can
never have elsewhere. We might almost dare to say that it stamps
Jesus as the new Moses who frees the law from national
limitation and offers it to all men. It thus indicates both His
authority and His dignity. We may thus understand why the
formula
oJ didavskalo" levgei,
with no more precise indication who the
didavskalo" is, is
sufficient in the Synoptics to procure the room needed for the
Last Supper (Mt. 26:18 and par.). We may also understand why the
disciples did not appropriate the name
didavskalo" after
the death of Jesus, although it must have seemed strange that
the new leader of a Jewish group so occupied with the study of
Scripture as the early Christians should not have been called
yBir' /didavskalo".
Yet the term is never used even of James, the Lord’s brother;
and if Polycarp later uses
didavskalo" with a
religious accent (Mart.Pol., 12, 2; 16, 2; 19, 1), there is an
obvious difference between the teachers of his day and those of
the first period. For the latter the unabridged rule of Mt. 23:8
applied. Nor was it merely the letter of the saying which
prevented them acknowledging any religious authority alongside
or under Jesus; it was the realisation that there is salvation
only in Him. For this reason it is a mistake in the NT even to
be
tou` Mwu>sevw" maqhthv"
when the will of God is learned from Him (Jn. 9:28). For Jesus
is the absolute
didavskalo". He is
the One in whom Moses sees himself to be fulfilled (Jn. 5:45
f.). Hence the only possibility for the man who seeks salvation
is to become a hearer and
maqhthv" of the
didavskalo" Jesus.
In the early Christian
proclamation of Jesus as we have it in the NT apart from the
Gospels, this designation seems to have played no part. This is
in keeping with the fact that the crucifixion rather than a
collection of sayings stands at the basis of the Christian
message. Only with the developing intellectualisation of
Christianity do we hear again of Jesus the
didavskalo", and the
term is not now used in the sense of the
yBir' which it
bore for the first disciples, but in the sense of the founder of
a philosophical school, though still with the claim to
absoluteness. This may be seen already in the post-apostolic
fathers, e.g., when it is said in Barn., 2, 6 that Jesus has
brought the
kaino;" novmo", or
in 2 Cl. 3, 1 that He is the Mediator of a true knowledge of
God. The actual term
didavskalo",
however, is found only in Ign.Eph., 15, 1, if this applies to
Jesus and not to God., Only in the Apologists is He given the
place of the
didavskalo" (cf.
Just.Apol., I, 4, 7; 12, 9; 13, 3 etc.). As such He can be
compared with Hermes as the
pavntwn didavskalo"
(Just.Apol., I, 21,
1 f.), and set at the head of all the “teachers” of syncretism,
whether the men concerned (Apollonius of Tyana etc.) bore the
term or not. By this time, of course, there is little connexion
with the usage of the Gospels, which for its part rests on that
of Judaism.
3. The
didavskaloi of the
Early Christian Community.
When we read of Christian
didavskaloi in Ac.
(13:1) and the epistles (1 C. 12:28 f.; Eph. 4:11; cf. Jm. 3:1),
it is not necessary for our understanding of the term to go
outside the early Christian and later Jewish usage, or to seek
enlightenment from the Greek world.
a. The situation is
clearest in Jm. 3:1 if we can be sure that the epistle is early,
or that it derives from the circle of Rabbinic Judaism, for on
one or other of these assumptions the word obviously denotes the
expositor of the Law who makes possible a right fulfilment. The
difficulty lies in the assumptions. On the other hand, there is
nothing in the epistle to suggest Greek usage, for the
®
sofiva of James is
practical rather than theoretical, and has thus a distinctively
Rabbinic rather than a Greek character.
b. In 1 C. 12:28 f. the
didavskaloi come
after the
ajpovstoloi and
profh`tai in a list
of those who discharge specific functions in the community; in
Eph. 4:11 they come fourth in a similar list after the
ajpovstoloi, profh`tai
and
eujaggelistaiv,
being classified with the
poimevne" (tou;"
de; poimevna" kai; didaskavlou");
in Ac. 13:1 they are mentioned together with the
profh`tai. It should
be noted that the men mentioned in Ac. 13:1 are all of Jewish
origin, and are thus closely connected with the Law. Since the
profh`tai and the
didavskaloi are
obviously not identical, and since the
profh`tai are
“pneumatics” (1 C. 14:29 ff.), it is likely that the
didavskaloi are
“non-pneumatics” who edify the congregation by means of their
own clearer understanding. This leaves us with the same Jewish
and early Christian usage as we have also in the
didavskein of the
epistles. The same is true as regards 1 C. 12:28 f. And if in
Eph. 4:11 the common article makes it plain that the
didavskaloi are
identical with the
poimevne", this lies
in the nature of the case; for the
®
poimhvn is the one
who is responsible for the life of the community, and therefore
didavskein in the
widest sense is part of his office. This is in agreement with
Did., 15, 1, where the congregation is summoned to appoint
ejpiskovpou" kai; diakovnou" ajxivou" tou` kurivou
that these may discharge the
leitourgiva tw`n profhtw`n kai; didaskavlwn;
the function of the
didavskalo" is here,
too, a function of divine service. It is self-evident,
therefore, that in the first instance the
didavskalo" does
what he teaches (Did., 11, 10; cf. R. 2:21).
We must be on our watch
against the idea that there is an order of rank in the lists in
1 C. 12:28 f. and Eph. 4:11. The order is purely material. The
activity of the
didavskalo" is
needed only when that of the
ajpovstolo" and
profhvth" has laid
the foundation for the construction of a Christian outlook and
manner of life. The
didavskalo" of the
first community is thus linked with the
µk;j; or
sofov" of later
Judaism, whose work lies within the sphere of the community.
Thus in Eph. 4:11, at a time when the
ajpovstoloi and the
whole first generation are beginning to disappear from the life
of the Church, the
poimevne" and
didavskaloi are
similarly preceded by the
eujaggelistaiv, the
new bearers of missionary responsibility. Basically, the
situation is much the same as in the first Gospel, where Jesus
first appears as the
eujaggelisthv"
awakening faith (4:12ff., 23ff.) and only then emerges as the
didavskalo"
(5:1ff.). It is a mark of the insight of the early Church, and
especially of Paul, that in the question of edification they did
not break free from the example of Jesus at this point.
Once we understand 1 C. 12
and Eph. 4 in this way, 1 Tm. 2:7 and 2 Tm. 1:11 become plain.
kh`rux takes the
place of
eujaggelisthv" and
with
didavskalo"
describes the twofold function of the
ajpovstolo". We have
here a high sense of mission and an equally strong sense of
service typical of Paul. There can be no question either of the
Rabbinic claim to rule on the one side or of the Greek claim to
knowledge on the other. It is only to show the extent of his
ministry that the author calls himself a
didavskalo" ejqnw`n
in 1 Tm. 2:7.
c. The usage of the early
Church must be sharply distinguished from the early Christian
use in relation to men also. We are not thinking now of the
passages in the Did., but of the usage in the Egyptian Church
where the free
didavskalo"
persisted longest. For the Egyptian
didavskalo" is very
different from the teacher of 1 C. 12:28 f. The Church is now
invaded by Alexandrian wisdom, and with this it adopts the use
of
didavskalo" for the
one who represents and teaches this wisdom, as in Philo. The
Alexandrian School is not a continuation of the work of the
first Christian teachers, but the introduction of a Greek
institution into the Church in Christianised form. Along the
same lines the task of the early Apologists and teachers was to
“give an orderly presentation and defence of Christianity.” It
is only natural that among these teachers the
intellectualisation of Christianity and faith should reintroduce
the very thing against which Jesus and Paul and the early
teachers strove with might and main for the sake of God and His
undiluted lordship over man.
Didasko [1321]
didavskw [1321] in
the NT.
Of
some 95 occurrences in the NT, roughly two thirds are in the
Gospels and the first part of Acts. On the other hand, there are
only 10 instances in Paul (including Eph.). We can thus see that
the emphatic use of the term is among the first followers and in
the early Church rather than in the Gentile congregations of
Asia Minor or Greece.
As concerns meaning, the
term has the unambiguous sense of “to teach,” “to instruct.” We
need hardly discuss the nuances, since these are plain from the
various contexts. Thus in Mt. 28:15 the context excludes a
religious usage, and in accordance with the history of the word
in the LXX the reference is simply to the presence and
observance of a direction. On the other hand, it is quite
essential to investigate the inner structure of
didavskein in the
NT.
1. The
didavskein of Jesus
according to the Synoptists.
a. According to the
unanimous witness of the Gospels
didavskein was one
of the most prominent functions of Jesus in His public ministry.
Thus in Mt. 4:23, in a comprehensive reference to His wandering
ministry in Galilee, we first read that He taught in the
synagogues, and only then do we read that He proclaimed the glad
tidings of the
basileiva and healed
the sick. Cf. also Mt. 9:35; 11:1. The synagogues are
continually mentioned as the places of instruction (Mt. 9:35;
12:9 ff.; 13:54 and par.; Mk. 1:21; Lk. 4:15; Jn. 18:20 etc.),
or the temple in Jerusalem (Mk. 12:35; Lk. 21:37; Mt. 26:55 and
par., though cf. Jn. 7:14 ff.; 8:20), where there was a special
synagogue to which there might well be attached the house of
instruction mentioned in T. Sukka, 4, 5, since most synagogues
provided facilities for instructional purposes (jMeg., 73d, 23).
In any case, orderly teaching could be given in the temple. The
Evangelists are certainly agreed that a great deal of what has
been handed down concerning Jesus consists in teaching material.
b. The form in which Jesus
teaches is that of a Jewish teacher of the period. It is true
that we are not always told concerning the externalities of the
teaching of Jesus. This was hardly necessary, since one part of
the Church for which the Gospels were written already knew the
customs followed from their own observation, and the other part
was not interested in the form but in the all-important content.
We do at least have information about what happened in the
synagogue at Nazareth (Lk. 4:16 ff.). After the reading of the
Scripture portion (Is. 61:1 f.), which took place standing,
Jesus seated Himself like other expositors of the time and based
His address on the passage just read (Lk. 4:21 ff.). This
handling of a text is “teaching” for later Judaism. Hence it is
quite apposite that in the brief reference to the incident at
Nazareth in Mt. 13:53 ff. and par. the absolute
didavskein should be
used, though it can be omitted in Lk. 4:16 ff. because the
matter is plain enough without it (Mt. 13:54; Mk. 6:2). The same
practice of sitting to teach is mentioned by Mt. in 5:1 at the
beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, by Mk. in 9:35 when Jesus
gave instruction to the Twelve on the occasion of their
quarreling for supremacy, and by Lk. in 5:3 at the beginning of
the discourse by the lake. It is thus with good reason that
Jewish tradition concerning the teaching of Jesus also speaks in
terms of
dMeli (b.AZ, 17a).
c. If the external form of
the teaching of Jesus is within the framework of later Judaism,
the same is true of the matter. At Nazareth (Lk. 4:16 ff.) He
uses a saying of Isaiah as a basis or starting-point. In other
cases we have exposition of the Torah (Mt. 5:21 ff.; 15:3 ff.;
22:37 ff. and par.; cf. also 22:23ff.). On the other hand, He
does not restrict His teaching to exposition of the Law. For one
thing, He is against estimation of the Law merely for its own
sake. For another, He stands in irreconcilable opposition to the
lifeless casuistry which does not start with the situation of
the one who needs the counsel of experts in the religious sphere
but, irrespective of his own questions, subjects him to its own
principle and system, bringing about religious separation from
those who for practical reasons or for conscience sake cannot
allow themselves to be bound by it. The whole teaching of Jesus
is with a view to the ordering of life with reference to God and
one’s neighbour (Mt. 22:37 ff. and par.; cf. 19:16ff. and par.).
Thus His teaching constantly appeals to the will, calling for a
practical decision either for the will of God or against it. He
finds a common basis with the Rabbis and the Pharisaic community
in the fact that He sees a revelation of the will of God in
Scripture and especially in the Law (®
novmo"), so that it
is quite impossible for Him to surrender even a single letter
(Mt. 5:17 f.). On the other hand, He is distinguished from these
groups by the fact that for Him the Law and the whole of
Scripture cannot be so restricted in meaning as to be the only
way to enter into and to remain in contact with God. For Him the
Law and Scripture are rather a confirmation of His own
relationship to the Father. Thus the gap between Jesus and the
Rabbis in respect of the subject of teaching is to be found, not
in the matter itself, but in His own person, i.e., in the fact
of His self-awareness as the Son. This is why His teaching,
whether in the form of exposition or otherwise, causes
astonishment among His hearers (Mt. 7:28; 13:53 and par. etc.):
h\n ga;r didavskwn aujtou;" wJ" ejxousivan e[cwn, kai; oujc wJ"
oiJ grammatei`" aujtw`n
(Mt. 7:29; Mk. 1:22).
Yet this is also the point
which gives final meaning to the absolute use of
didavskein in
relation to His teaching, even though Jesus rejects the
absolutising of the Law historically presupposed by the word in
view of its Semitic equivalent
dMeli . This
rejection is to be viewed simply as the repudiation of an
aberration. In opposition to it, Jesus resumes the true line of
dMeli in the
didavskein
attributed to Him. For He is again advancing the claim of God to
the whole man in a way which does not allow either contradiction
or theoretical reflection. This is a total claim which is not
bound to any intermediary authority and which is completely
independent of the perception of the one who is claimed. This
claim, which has as its goal the education and reformation of
man according to the will of God (cf. Mt. 5:48), becomes a
reality in the teaching of Jesus. For this reason He is the end
of the Law as the Rabbis conceived it, i.e., as the basis and
theme of scribal instruction and the way by which man may
painfully attain to God (R. 10:4). These are the historico-linguistic
reasons why early Christianity spoke of teaching in the absolute
when in its tradition it referred to the teaching activity of
Jesus among His people. His teaching was for it teaching in the
absolute because with every word He brought His hearers into
direct confrontation with the will of God as it is revealed in
His Word and as it is constantly revealed in history.
It is relevant to the
matter that the absol. use of
didavskein in this
sense dominates not merely the more Palestinian Mt. but all the
four Gospels, including Jn., in their statements concerning the
teaching of Jesus. We have in Josephus an unimpeachable witness
for the fact that an absolute
didavskein on the
pattern of
dMeli would sound
strange to Gk. ears. Thus, when Joseph. used the word in this
sense, he always added information concerning the subject of the
didavskein, either
in the acc. or in a
o[ti clause. Yet it
is to be noted that even Lk. uses
didavskein in the
absol. for the teaching of Jesus, even though he is writing for
readers outside the Jewish world of thought. This is explicable
only on the assumption that the term had acquired for him an
absol. sense through its connexion with the person of Jesus, in
relation to whom he uses it. The new thing is that Jesus is
teaching, not that He is teaching in a particular way.
d. A novel feature in this
use by the Evangelists is the complete supersession of the
intellectual element present in non-biblical usage. The basis of
the distinction from the Rabbinic
dMeli is also to
be sought here. These points have both been referred to earlier
(®
137, 140), but now demand fuller discussion. Our investigation
of Gk. usage showed that there was always an intellectual side
to
didavskein (®
135). Nor is this limited to the class., the post-class., or
even the Gk. Hellenistic writers; it applies no less to the Jew
Philo than to Epictetus. A strongly intellectualised use is
found in Epictetus. A good example is in Diss., III, 5, 17,
where
didavskein is set
alongside
eijdevnai as its
lawful consequence:
tau`ta h\n, a} h[/dei oJ Swkravth", kai; o{mw" oujdevpote
ei\pen, o{ti oi\devn ti h] didavskei.
And elsewhere
didavskein mediates
instruction which by way of perception exercises a formative
influence on the man concerned (Diss., 1, 26, 5). For this
reason
didavskein is for
him an essential mark of the philosopher (cf. Diss., I, 29, 9),
esp. when it is a matter of attaining to a right understanding
of things (cf. Diss., I, 28, 27; IV, 7, 34 f.). The usage of
Philo is very much the same. There is in him no trace of the
influence of
dMeli ; everything
lies in the sphere of the intellect. Sufficient proof of this
may be found in two passages which speak of either Scripture or
Moses teaching something, where a more profound usage might be
expected. In Rer. Div. Her., 243 Scripture is the subject:
eijshgei`tai de; gnwvmhn ajlhqestavthn didavskwn, o{ti
dikaiosuvnh me;n kai; pa`sa ajreth; yuch`", ajdikiva de; kai;
pa`sa kakiva swvmato" ejrw`si,
in Rer. Div. Her., 291 Moses:
filosofw`n kai; didavskwn hJma`", tiv" oJ pro;" ajlhvqeian
eujghvrw" ejstivn.
In both cases the context shows that
didavskein is a
function of the thinker in which he addresses himself primarily
to the thinking powers of his fellows. This is the exact
opposite of the
didavskein of Jesus
with its demands on the will. On the other hand, astonishing
though this may seem, it is closely related to the Rabbinic
method of teaching.
Linguistically, the usage
of Philo and Epictetus resembles that of the Sophists, for whom
didavskein and its
derivatives are almost slogans in the sense of the intellectual
and rational mediation of knowledge and insight. In virtue of
this basic attitude, the Sophists are on the one side pioneers
in so far as for the first time they make the whole complex of
didavskein the theme
of systematic investigation. But in raising a total claim for
their
didavskein they also
come into collision with Socrates, who cannot allow that
ajrethv can be
taught like other capacities, or in any sense mediated along
rational lines;
®
150.
Scribal learning was a
reaction by conservative Judaism to the disintegrating force of
Hellenism. Its aim was to maintain the faith of the fathers
through every peril. It was thus constrained from the very
outset to use the methods of its opponents. A closed philosophy
and a detailed order of life were needed if, as the Rabbis saw
it, Judaism was to be effectively protected against the danger
of absorption. This meant that the main emphasis of Rabbinic
scholarship came to be put on exegesis, not in the practical
religious or ethical sense, but rather in the theoretical. Thus
it is understandable that the Rabbis were increasingly
characterised by learning as the continually necessary
presupposition of teaching, and not so much by exemplary action
(®
manqavnw). The
upshot of this imposed development, which is reflected in the
attacks of Jesus on the Rabbis in the NT (Lk. 11:46 ff. and
par.; 20:46 and par.), is to be found in a resolution proposed
by Aqiba, and adopted by the authoritative Rabbis in Lydda
during Hadrian’s persecution, to the effect that a higher rank
is to be conceded to studying the Law than to doing it (S. Dt.,
41 on 11:13; b.Qid., 40b). It can thus be said: “Whosoever is in
the Scripture, the Mishnah and the (required) manner of life,
will not easily sin, for it is stated: The threefold cord is not
so quickly broken (Qoh. 4:12); whosoever is not in the
Scripture, the Mishnah and the (required) manner of life, does
not belong to that which abides” (Qid., 1, 10). The theological
attitude has obviously triumphed in this statement. Basically,
however, this is a Greek or Hellenistic attitude rather than a
Jewish, since in it the intellectual becomes the predominant
principle and there is a falling short of the whole man. For
this reason, the Rabbis are finally on the side of Philo and
even Epictetus, even though their teaching stands in a different
relation to Scripture than that of Philo and finally acquires
its meaning only from Scripture. For this reason, too, the
figure towards which earlier Jewish history really moves is
Jesus, who in contrast to Hellenistic and Rabbinic Judaism gives
absolute content to
dMeli /didavskein
in His teaching.
2.
didavskein in the
Johannine Writings.
a. We are concerned only
with a limited number of passages (Jn. 6:59; 7:14, 28, 35; 8:20,
28; 9:34; 14:26; 18:20; 1 Jn. 2:27; Rev. 2:14, 20). Some of
these at least deserve brief treatment on their own, namely,
those which speak more emphatically of teaching by God or by the
Spirit. The rest fall essentially under the category of what we
have already said concerning the
didavskein of Jesus,
irrespective of the special content of the teaching of Jesus in
them (Jn. 6:59; 7:14, 28, 35; 8:20; 18:20). A special place is
occupied by Jn. 9:34, where
didavskein is used
of the man born blind who, when he was healed, became a witness
of Jesus. Indeed, it is used in relation to the opponents of
Jesus, who would not accept instruction from him. Also to be
numbered apart are the two passages in Rev. which speak of the
teaching of Balaam and Jezebel in a way which has its model and
presupposition in the OT use of
dMeli /didavskein
(®
136). This leaves us with Jn. 8:28; 14:26 and 1 Jn. 2:27.
b. A characteristic of the
use of
didavskein in Jn.
8:28; 14:26; 1 Jn. 2:27 is that it suggests in the first
instance the presence of a direct inspiration or revelation. In
Jn. 8:28 Jesus says with reference to His statements concerning
Himself:
ajlla; kaqw;" ejdivdaxevn me oJ pathvr, tau`ta lalw`.
In Jn. 14:26 Jesus holds out to the disciples the prospect of
the
paravklhto", to; pneu`ma to; a{gion,
and promises:
ejkei`no" uJma`" didavxei pavnta kai; uJpomnhvsei uJma`" pavnta
a} ei\pon uJmi`n ejgwv.
In 1 Jn. 2:27 the writer denies that his readers should need
anyone to instruct them, because the
cri`sma which they
have received
didavskei them …
peri; pavntwn kai; ajlhqev" ejstin kai; oujk e[stin yeu`do",
kai; kaqw;" ejdivdaxen uJma`", mevnete ejn aujtw`/.
The
®
cri`sma here is
undoubtedly the Holy Spirit, so that this passage should be
linked with Jn. 14:26. In any case it denotes the endowment with
didachv from another
world. This is a use of
didavskein which we
seek in vain in the Synoptists. Hence the question arises
whether this is a Hellenistic usage, or one which derives from
Hellenistic conceptions, so that it is not to be explained in
terms of the usage elsewhere in the Gospel. Thus far, however,
no parallel has been adduced which would justify the assumption
of borrowing from the outside world.
It is sometimes recalled
that Apollonius of Tyana maintains that he is doing only what
the gods inspire him to do. But when he calls the gods his
counsellors, this is rather different from what Jesus says of
Himself, namely, that the Father has taught Him. There is
lacking in Apollonius the authoritative element which is so
obvious in the context of Jn. 8:28, quite apart from
didavskein. Nor does
this authoritative element point to Hellenism as the place where
an explanation of the striking
didavskein is to be
found; it points to
dMeli , which is
marked, as we have seen, by the unconditional and total claiming
of the one who is taught by the one who teaches (®
137).
We thus do well to explain
the
didavskein of Jn.
8:28 in the light of
dMeli or
didavskein as used
of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. If to the Jewish ear
didavskein suggests
the successful and total moulding of the will of another by
one’s own,
didavskein expresses
the same thought elsewhere stated by John in the phrase
oJ pevmya" me pathvr,
i.e., the thought of the unity of will between Father and Son (®
I, 405). If here
didavskein rather
than
pevmpein is used for
the participation of God in the work of Jesus, this is because
the reference is not to the being of Jesus as the Son, but to
His speaking in the name of God.
The position is basically
the same in Jn. 14:26 and 1 Jn. 2:27, except that the reference
is now to the participation of Jesus in the status of His
people. In Jn. 14:26 this is emphasised with reference to the
continuation of the work of Jesus by them; in 1 Jn. 2:27 it is
asserted in relation to false teachers who raise totalitarian
claims on the community and must be radically resisted (ouj
creivan e[cete,
etc.) if the link with Jesus is not to be broken. One of the
reasons why
didavskein is chosen
is because clear goals are set on both sides which cannot be
overlooked and which demand the commitment of the whole man.
It cannot be denied that
there still remains an ambivalence in the Johannine
didavskein; nor does
this apply only to these three passages, but to all its
occurrences. We can only say, however, that if in Jn.—with the
natural exception of Rev. 2:14, 20—the word continually verges
on the sense of “to reveal,” this is not due to any special
usage but is simply because the subject of
didavskein in Jn.
and 1 Jn. (including Jn. 9:34) is always Jesus Himself. This
distinguishes Johannine from Synoptic usage, but it also shows
how in Jn. even sayings which in themselves seem to have no
outstanding significance are influenced in content by the
central position of Jesus.
This is perhaps the point
to append a note on Lk. 11:1. The disciples’ request to Jesus:
divdaxon hJma`" proseuvcesqai kaqw;" kai; ÆIwavnnh" ejdivdaxen
tou;" maqhta;" aujtou`,
cannot be explained simply in the light of Synoptic usage. It is
readily understandable, however, if from the standpoint of
Johannine usage we see in the
divdaxon a
willingness and readiness of the disciples for unconditional
subjection to the direction of Jesus which is affirmed and
accepted in the giving of a form of prayer specially designed
for them. Understood in this way, the scene loses the episodic
character which it first seems to have. The request of the
unnamed disciple in Lk. is to be set alongside the confession of
the Messiahship of Jesus in Mt. 16:13 ff. and par.; Jn. 6:60
ff., and is thus of central importance in the history of the
Church.
3. The
didavskein of Early
Christianity.
The material presented in
Acts and the Epistles may be grouped in three sections. To the
first belong the passages which use
didavskein after the
model of
dMeli ; to the
second those which refer to
didavskein about
Jesus; to the third those which speak of teaching as a function
of the Church. No sharp distinction is possible between the
groups, especially in view of the fact that the word is mostly
used in the absolute.
a. Already during the life
of Jesus and at His command the disciples began to teach (Mk.
6:30), thus making it their own concern to declare the claim of
Jesus. In Mt. 28:20 the Risen Lord made the continuation of this
task the life work of His people.
didavskein is here
either a presupposition of
baptivzein, which
for its part implies the
maqhthv", or of
maqhteuvein, if the
phrase
baptivzonte" …
pneuvmato" (28:19)
is regarded as an ancient interpolation. The content of
didavskein is
pavnta o{sa ejneteilavmhn uJmi`n,
and therefore the proclamation of Jesus, His
®
didachv, rather than
proclamation concerning Him. This line is pursued in the early
Church: the
didavskein of the
disciples, naturally
ejpi; tw`/ ojnovmati tou` ÆIhsou`
(Ac. 4:18; cf. 5:28,
®
ajpovstolo", I, 430
ff.) and their
®
kataggevllein (®
I, 71) of the resurrection of Jesus accompany one another (Ac.
4:2; cf. 5:42:
oujk ejpauvonto didavskonte" kai; eujaggelizovmenoi to;n
Cristo;n ÆIhsou`n;
cf. also 15:35) and are not just identical. This does not mean
that
didavskein is
restricted to exegesis of the OT or to instruction in the new
interpretation given by Jesus to the Law. Here again the whole
complex of Scripture is only a starting-point and background. In
the light of it the teaching of the early Church culminates in
the call to repentance which is accompanied in the
kerygma about
Jesus by the offer of
a[fesi" aJmartiw`n
(cf. Ac. 5:31, but also 20:21). It is thus understandable why
offence was given not merely to the Sadducees, who disliked
particularly the witness to the resurrection and who included
the most prominent priestly families (®
ajrciereuv"; Ac. 4:1
ff.; 5:17 f.), but also to more popular religious circles (Ac.
5:34 ff.). This was a call to repentance which demanded
justification before it could be accepted. From the standpoint
of the history of early Christian proclamation, therefore, there
takes place in the
didavskein of the
early community the unconscious transmission and sifting of
traditional sayings, while in the
kerygma we have
the beginning of a collection of the narrative material, both
under the comprehensive challenge which stands at the head of
the Christian message generally:
metanoei`te kai; pisteuvete ejn tw`/ eujaggelivw/
(Mk. 1:15).
There can be no doubt that
the teaching of the early Church followed the external forms of
Jewish teaching, since we read of the apostles in Ac. 5:25:
eijsi;n ejn tw`/ iJerw`/ eJstw`te" kai; didavskonte" to;n laovn.
Nor is this any the less important in their case than in that of
Jesus, since acceptance of the form denotes similarity of
content. That is to say, the teaching consisted primarily in
exegesis and exhortation rather than factual instruction in the
work of salvation.
There are indeed some
passages where
didavskein is
narrowed down to instruction in the Law, e.g., R. 2:21 and Ac.
15:1, where we are told of the attempt to induce Gentile
Christians to accept circumcision by the adducing of Scripture
(cf. Gl. 4:21, though
didavskein is not
used here). Hb. 5:12 should also be mentioned in this connexion:
the introduction of Jewish boys to Scripture begins with the
didavskein of the
alphabet, and a new beginning must now be made, since the
learned readers of the epistle are obviously no longer able to
“read.”
b. Since one of the marks
of
didavskein is the
constant reference to Scripture, it includes proving from
Scripture that Jesus is the promised Messiah. This is the bridge
to the use of
didavskein in the
formula
didavskein ta; peri; tou` ÆIhsou`
(Ac. 18:25) or
didavskein ta; peri; tou` kurivou ÆIhsou` Cristou`
(Ac. 28:31). There is here an unmistakeable limitation of the
content of
didavskein. In Ac.
18:25 it takes place in the synagogue, which naturally
determines the method (proof from Scripture). In Ac. 28:31 it is
expressly mentioned with
khruvssein th;n basileivan tou` qeou`,
with which it is combined to give a comprehensive definition of
Paul’s preaching in Rome, i.e., to characterise its two aspects
(®
145). Here again one cannot assume that it denotes the
impartetlon of facts; it rather presents these facts in such a
way that the only possibility is to accept them or to be
betrayed into opposition to Scripture. In this light it is only
natural that the attempts in this direction should be described
by opponents as a
didavskein kata; tou` novmou
(Ac. 21:28) and a
didavskein of
ajpostasiva ajpo; Mwu>sevw"
(Ac. 21:21).
The only difficulty is
caused by the account in Ac. 18:11 that Paul taught (didavskwn)
the
lovgo" tou` qeou`.
Though there is here a definiteness never found elsewhere with
the possible exception of Ac. 20:20, we are probably right to
interpret
lovgo" tou` qeou`,
not as the word of NT proclamation of salvation in general, but
as the proclamation of salvation on the basis of and in the
light of Scripture. It is, of course, possible to see in
lovgo" tou` qeou` a
fixed formula of the early Church; but we should then have to
give to
didavskein a sense
which it does not have elsewhere.
c. The most astonishing
aspect of the NT use of
didavskein is at a
first glance its comparative paucity in Paul. Yet this is easily
explained when we realise how closely it is bound to Scripture
even in the NT. In a setting where Scripture was not known,
didavskein ta; peri; tou` ÆIhsou`
would be out of place, just as it was very much in place in the
early community and in dealings with Jews. Thus Paul speaks of
didavskein only with
reference to his own instruction of the communities at the time
of their foundation (2 Th. 2:15; Col. 2:7; Eph. 4:21) and in the
sense of an internal function of Christianity. Even for Gentile
congregations proof from Scripture was an indispensable weapon
against the attacks of Jews, as shown by the history of the
Gelatian Church; and it had thus to be given by the apostles. On
the other hand, it seems to have had no part in the churches
themselves. When Paul in R. 12:7 summons the
didavskwn to serve
ejn th`/ didaskaliva/
of the community, he is not thinking of men who apply the
Scriptures to Jesus, but of those who give from Scripture
directions for Christian living, and he admonishes them to place
their better knowledge wholly in the service of the
congregation. This is the same kind of
didavskein with a
view to the distinction between good and evil as we have learned
to know from the synagogue and the usage of the Gospels.
In Colossians we find
didavskein mentioned
with
nouqetei`n (1:28;
3:16) in a pastoral and ethical sense as a function of
Christians in their mutual dealings. This usage recurs in the
Pastorals. In 1 Tm. 4:11 it is linked with
paraggevllein, and
in 1 Tm. 6:2 with
parakalei`n, on both
occasions as the privilege and responsibility of Timothy; in 2
Tm. 2:2 it is the task of those who have the necessary personal
qualifications, though according to 1 Tm. 2:12 it is forbidden
to women. In Tt. 1:11 there is a rejection of those
ejk th`" peritomh`", didavskonte" a} mh; dei` aijscrou` kevrdou"
cavrin. The last
passage shows that the historical connexion between Scripture
and
didavskein is still
intact, and also (cf. the
a} mh; dei`) that it
is primarily concerned with ethical directions, or in this case
with ethically contestable directions. We thus do well to
interpret the other occurrences in the Past. in the light of
this reference. The distinction between the Past. and Col. is
that what was applied to all Christians in the latter can now be
ascribed only to selected Christians, especially the leaders of
the congregation. This tallies with the external development of
the Church noticeable in a comparison between the Past. and Col.
If this sketch is correct,
it confirms the thesis of Harnack that Paul did not give the OT
to his congregations as the classical book of edification, at
least from the standpoint of moral instruction. In the older
epistles R. 12:7 is our only witness that the OT as such was the
starting-point for the reconstruction of ethics, and Paul is
probably thinking here of Jewish Christians. Of a piece with
this is the paucity of
didavskalo", didaskaliva
etc. in the older epistles. Only in Col. do we find a reversal,
and in the Past.
didavskein and other
didask< words become
prominent again. Should we conclude from this that the OT was
now emerging, especially in its legal sections, as the norm of
Christian ethics which it became in the ancient Catholic Church?
There is perhaps a hint of this in the reminder in 2 Tm. 3:15
that Timothy from a child knew the
iJera; gravmmata,
ta; dunavmenav se sofivsai eij" swthrivan dia; pivstew" th`" ejn
Cristw`/ ÆIhsou`.
Cf. also 1 Tm. 4:13 with its admonition:
provsece th`/ ajnagnwvsei, th`/ paraklhvsei, th`/ didaskaliva/,
and 2 Tm. 3:16:
pa`sa grafh; …
wjfevlimo" …
pro;" paideivan th;n ejn dikaiosuvnh/.
This does not mean, of
course, that the OT was not of great importance for Paul, or
that he could dispense with it. Such a thesis is disproved at
once by the way in which he uses the OT in his epistles. This
applies also to morality, the final basis and goal of which Paul
finds in the OT, in the
novmo" (cf. R.
3:31). On the other hand, Paul is careful not to make the Law a
pitiless taskmaster (cf. Gl. 4:25) for Christianity too. He thus
rests his own
didavskein on the
didavskein of Jesus
(cf. Gl. 5:14). Hence, although he speaks highly of the Law (R.
7:12), he builds the new morality on the cross of Jesus, on His
ajgavph (cf. Phil.
2:1 ff.). In so doing, he prevents early Christianity from
breaking up into different sects which are simply linked with
Jesus through a particular
®
didavskalo". He thus
honours and fulfils the saying of Jesus:
uJmei`" de; mh; klhqh`te rJabbiv: ei|" gavr ejstin uJmw`n oJ
didavskalo", pavnte" de; uJmei`" ajdelfoiv ejste
(Mt. 23:8).
Didache [1322]
didachv.
[1322]
Among the Gks. this is used
in the sense of “teaching,” “instruction” (Thuc., IV, 126:
didach;n poiei`sqai,
“to instruct”; Hdt., III, 134, 4:
ejk didach`" levgein,
“to speak on the basis of instruction”), with a strong tendency
to restrict it to the fact, so that
didavskein or
didavskesqai can
normally be used as an alternative. Philo has the same usage in
the one place in which it occurs in his work, namely, Spec.
Leg., II, 3: …
uJpe;r wjfeleiva" tw`n e[peita kai; didach`" ajnagkaiva", i{na
tou;" gonei`" o}n crh; trovpon timw`si
…
In the LXX it occurs only
in the title of
y 59 in the formula
eij" didachvn (“to
instruction”), thus corresponding to the Gk. usage and to the
original
dMel'l] . The same
usage is found in Joseph., as in Ant., 5, 198:
oujde;n ejpi; didach`/ tou` kreivttono" ejlavmbanon tw`n
protevrwn hjtuchmevnwn,
or Ant., 17, 159, which speaks of the
novmoi, ou}" Mwsh`" uJpagoreuvsei kai; didach`/ tou` qeou`
grayavmeno" katevlipe. didachv
is thus synon. with the Rabbinic
dWml]T' , which
signifies “teaching” in the sense that it might denote according
to context either “teaching” or “being taught”; cf. Ab., 6, 2:
hr'/T dWml]t'B] qs'[;v, ymi aL;a, ÷yri/jA÷b, òl] ÷yae
, “there is none who is
truly free except he who is engaged in the study of the Torah,”
or the common formula
rm'/l dWml]T'Ahm'
(==
rm'/l bWtK;h' dMel'm] hm'The
NT follows this usage fairly closely. When the Synoptists speak
of the
didachv of Jesus,
whether with or without mention of its shattering and radical
effects upon His hearers (Mt. 7:28; 22:33; Mk. 1:22 and par.;
1:27; 4:2; 11:18; 12:38), they do not mean a particular
dogmatics or ethics, but His whole
didavskein, His
proclamation of the will of God as regards both form and
content. In Jn., too,
didachv comprehends
the whole
didavskein of Jesus
and does not merely denote a compendium of His individual
statements (cf. Jn. 7:16 f.; 18:19). Similarly, Mt. 16:12:
hJ didach; tw`n Farisaivwn kai; Saddoukaivwn,
has in view the whole of what the Pharisees or Sadducees
didavskousin, or Ac.
2:42 the whole of what the apostles
ejdivdaskon (cf. Ac.
5:28; 17:19). Paul follows the same usage when he employs
didachv both for the
totality of his
didavskein (R. 6:17;
16:17) and for the
didavskein that
might be necessary in individual cases (1 C. 14:6, 26). The same
is true of the Johannine literature, both when it is referring
to the
didach; tou` Cristou`,
to the traditional and familiar way of speaking of Christ (2 Jn.
9 f.), and when it is referring to the
didach; Balaavm
(Rev. 2:14), the
didach; tw`n Nikolai>tw`n
(Rev. 2:15) and the
didachv of Jezebel
(Rev. 2:24). The Pastorals (2 Tm. 4:2 ==
didavskein; Tt. 1:9
didavskesqai) keep
to the same pattern.
The only exceptions are to
be found in Hb. 6:2 and 13:9. In the former:
baptismw`n didach;n ejpiqevsewv" te ceirw`n, didachv
means an established and formulated doctrine rather than
didavskein. In the
latter:
didacai; poikivlai kai; xevnai,
the reference is again to definite errors which cause concern to
the author and against which he wishes to warn his readers. Here
is a usage which is developed further in the post-apostolic
fathers (Did., 2, 1; 6, 1; 11, 2 and the title; Barn., 9, 9
etc.), the link with NT usage being dissolved and an
approximation made to
didaskaliva.
This review of the use of
didachv leads to an
important conclusion. Especially when it is linked with the name
of Jesus, the term enables us to see to what extent the NT or
its authors recognised that it is finally God who speaks in the
teaching of Jesus and the apostles. This means that there is on
the one side both a formal and a material distinction from the
Greek concept of teaching, and on the other that the formal
similarity to the Rabbinic view brings out all the more sharply
the material difference, since the whole consciousness of those
who teach in the NT is a consciousness of mission. From the
structure of this consciousness it may be seen that Jesus,
unlike His messengers, is primarily the One who gives rather
than receives (®
ajpostevllw, I,
404).
[13]Kittel,
Gerhard; Friedrich, Gerhard, The Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company) 2000, c1964.
[14]Kittel,
Gerhard; Friedrich, Gerhard, The Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company) 2000, c1964.
[15]Kittel,
Gerhard; Friedrich, Gerhard, The Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company) 2000, c1964.
[16]Kittel,
Gerhard; Friedrich, Gerhard, The Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company) 2000, c1964.
[17]Kittel,
Gerhard; Friedrich, Gerhard, The Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company) 2000, c1964.
[18]Kittel,
Gerhard; Friedrich, Gerhard, The Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company) 2000, c1964.
[19]Kittel,
Gerhard; Friedrich, Gerhard, The Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company) 2000, c1964.
|
