How did the early Christians interact with the world around them? We have the book of Acts, which gives us a brief history from Luke’s perspective but beyond that do we have any record of how they viewed their world and how they interacted with it? Actually we do. There is a brief letter called The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus which many scholars believe was written about 130 AD.[1] This is actually a rather brief letter, the entirety of which you can read here. In it a Christian named Mathetes tries to describe who Christians are and how they live to a non-Christian friend named Diognetus. Of particular interest to me is a sentence in Chapter V which I believe shows the Early Churches aversion to Greek philosophy.
The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. I’d like to make a number of observations about this quote which I believe can help us understand how our early brothers thought and how therefore they can be of service to us to get us back on track to what the Church was originally designed to be.
Observation 1: Mathetes is focused on conduct, not speculative thinking. To the early Christians how we lived was much more important that doctrinal speculation. How we lived showed who we were. This was not done by merely reciting doctrinal statements.
Observation 2: Mathetes is responding to the Greek world around him and contrasting Christianity from it. The Greek world around him, at that time, was fascinated with philosophical speculation. Of particular interest was Platonic thought which placed much emphasis on concepts and ideas (called ideals) and placed little or no importance on how we live.
Observation 3: Mathetes is concerned more specifically with following “speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men” and “mere human doctrines.” He is taking a swipe at the humanism of the day, the idea that men can figure things out and determine what truth is. Mathetes’ world was humanistic and so is ours. In fact, the humanism of our day is based philosophically on the humanistic philosophy of Mathetes’ day.
In Diognetus’ world people were obsessed with their own ideas and interpretations. They lived in a world of ideas and doctrine, not the world of life defined by concrete action. Christians of Mathetes’ world were different. They, in essence, said, look at how we live then you will know who we are.
Modern day Christianity has more in common with Diognetus’ world than it does with Mathetes’ world. We argue about doctrine, which, let’s face it, is the speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men.” Many have become “advocates” of “merely human doctrines.” Some are followers of Luther, others are followers of John Calvin, some are Pentecostals while others hold to the doctrine of cessationism. Some hold firmly to Postmillenialism while others are willing to stake their lives on a pre-tribulation rapture. We are behaving exactly like the realities that the early Christians such as Mathetes spoke against. I discuss these issues more in my book Viral Jesus: Recovering the Contagious Power of the Gospel.
Am I against doctrine? No. Am I against getting wrapped up in arguments about doctrinal ideas rather than living a Spirit controlled life? Absolutely. Our faith should be most easily be defined not by details of our doctrine but by the unique beauty of our lives…which will show what we believe, which, if necessary, could be written down as doctrines. There is a significant difference between those two views; one is deep experiential spirituality, the other is mere Christian humanism. Many people nowadays long for deep experiential spirituality. Almost nobody is searching for Christian humanism. Mathetes understood this, so he chose the first option in Chapter V of his letter, which he called displaying a “wonderful and confessedly striking method of life.” You can read Chapter V, which is just a couple of paragraphs, then think through the following questions.
- Do you think the average Christian today lives a wonderful and confessedly striking method of life? Why or why not?
- Is Christian behavior today so markedly different that it shows up statistically such as in divorce rates?
- In some ways Mathetes said the Christians were just like those around them, in other ways they were markedly different. How would you characterize the ways they were the same and the ways they were different (see below)?
- How do Christians today try to distinguish themselves from non-Christians?
[1] This is probably an accurate dating. Another theory is that it was written in the early 3rd century. But that seems to be based on evidence from the last two chapters who most believe was a later addition from Hippolytus of Rome.


Order Today!
That’s really interesting, Ross. I haven’t read Mathetes before and I’m grateful to you for drawing attention to it.
Loving behaviour comes from being filled with and by the Spirit of Christ. Galatians 5:22 makes this very clear. If we know and follow Jesus, his Spirit will make a home in us and our behaviour will change.
I’m impressed at the way Jesus followers in those days lived like everyone else. They were ‘at home’ in whatever society they were a part of. But in love and gentleness and caring they went way beyond the standards of the rest of society. You are so right – we should be like that too. Sometimes we are, but often not.
We need a new vision of Christ. We need to get closer and closer to him so he looms larger in our lives, so we can feel his touch. We need to experience his love and gentleness and purity, as we experience him we will become more like him.
Isn’t it striking that Mathetes writes in Chapter 6, ‘What the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world’? I’ve never thought of it in quite that way. We are a ‘life force’ in the world. And that speaks again about how we behave in society. We are salt, we are light – if not we have no value!
Thanks again, Ross
PS – Here are two posts from my blog that seem relevant…
– http://jesus.scilla.org.uk/2010/05/eaton-ford-salt-and-light.html
– http://jesus.scilla.org.uk/2011/03/thought-blessing-or-curse.html
Ross, I’ve just published an item with a ‘statement of intention’ on it, a sort of ‘creed’ about how we behave. – http://jesus.scilla.org.uk/2011/11/about-us.html
I’d be interested to have your feedback on it, particularly in light of your article here on ‘Early Christian Behaviour’.
If we don’t include doctrinal concepts in our uniqueness from the world, how to we demonstrate ourselves to be different from a Mormon who has a very circumspect life in most key moral and relational areas of life, or other humanists who live exemplary lives in work and home?
Hi Tim,
It is a good question, one I would have asked not long ago. I think the answer to that question is found in 1 Pet. 3:13-16:
Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Here is how it works. We squanderously love others. That’s what Peter would call being “eager to do good.” When we do that someone might “ask us to give the reason for the hope that we have.” At that point we talk about Jesus, not doctrine. He is the hope that we have. We very seldom need to demonstrate ourselves as different than Mormons or Buddhists for that matter. We need to show people Jesus.
Every once in a great while they will still ask for clarification, “What makes you different from the X (you can fill in the blank). That is a tricky moment. Our tendency is to answer with doctrine. Nine hundred and ninety five times out of a thousand, that is the wrong answer. They are testing us to see if we fit into the stereotype of being self righteous, doctrinaire prigs. Listen very carefully to the Spirit when these rare occasions come up, but usually it is a matter of getting back to Jesus, not showing how we are better than the (fill in the blanks). We are witnessing about Jesus, not our moral or doctrinal superiority. We don’t need to prove we are better doctrinally than anybody. We need people to see Jesus. His Spirit can change their hearts and lives. Doctrine won’t and I can assure you, proving we have better doctrine and “we are right” won’t change anyone’s life and guide them to a relationship with Jesus. And finally, it won’t convince Mormons or Buddhists, etc. that we are better either. Almost always this type of discussion offends people and drives them farther away from Jesus. In other words, it is counter productive.
Warmly in Jesus,
Ross
Chris,
That was beautiful, it points to Jesus and speaks of loving others and our brothers. It doesn’t divide us from them but rather speaks of how we intend to live so as to honour HIM. Well done brother.
Warmly in Jesus,
Ross
Ross,
Diggin’ your focus on Jesus my brother. Press the love!
Chuck
I am missing your updates
Hope you are well.