The Didache, a few notes or concerns

[amorphous_constellation]

It's an interesting document that might come from the first century, giving rules for an extremely early Christian community, and there are a couple things in it that a modern person might find controversial or curious

"Thou shalt not lay commands in thy bitterness on thy bondman or maid-servant, who hope in the same God, lest perchance they shall not fear the God who is over both; for He cometh not to call according to appearance, but unto those whom the Spirit hath prepared. And ye, the slaves, shall, in modesty and fear, be subject to your masters as to a type of God." (1)

Slavery is of course, an atrocious thing, but I was confused by this verse before thinking about it a bit, since it has a weird logical paradox. It claims that the slave should fear the master, as a type of 'God' nonetheless, but the first part of the verse decries the master for inducing fear, which would apparently provoke faithlessness and rebellion. Modern views, where labor organizes, would tend to allow some scrutiny of work conditions

"But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but those that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs" (2)

In my opinion, this order of operations does not seem very inclusive. If someone would partake of a Christian rite, then that seems like it would indicate a probable interest in joining their faith, more likely than not. When Jesus interacted with a variety of people, he seemed like he had a variety of ways of acting toward them, as opposed to sticking to some rigid order of operations in order to include them.

"And with reference to the apostles and prophets in accordance with the ordinance of the gospel, act thus. And let every apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord; but he shall remain, not one day, but, if there be need, the next also; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. And let the apostle, when he goeth forth, take nothing except bread to suffice until he lodge; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. And no prophet that speaketh in the Spirit, shall ye try or judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven." (3)

This whole section on wandering prophets is kind of interesting, and the whole section raises different questions.

Are you to treat him as 'God,' like in my previously cited verse on how slaves should relate to masters? How do you get to know the prophet well enough in one day, so that you actually know that he is not a false prophet? The passage put down people who ask for money - is that at odds with modern interpretations of Christianity that involve prosperity?

And so, if this wandering person is truthful, then you cannot judge him or it is something like blasphemy? But again, how would you know what he is doing, or who he really is, if you only know him for one or two days?

And also there is the primary question on what they mean by the word prophet. To me, the idea of a prophet would mean someone who can speak and write canon proper, without disputation. But that is problematic, as religion often seems to want to make what theology it has into a sort of immutable concrete.

-----------------

(1) Harris, M.A., J., et al. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: Text and Translation Together with Critical and Illustrative Papers by Eminent Scholars Reproduced from the Journal of Christian Philosophy. Edited by J.A. Paine, Translated by S. Stanhope Orris, Phd., New York: J.A. Paine; London: International News, 1884, p. 7.

(2) Harris, M.A., J., et al. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: Text and Translation Together with Critical and Illustrative Papers by Eminent Scholars Reproduced from the Journal of Christian Philosophy. Edited by J.A. Paine, Translated by S. Stanhope Orris, Phd., New York: J.A. Paine; London: International News, 1884, p. 13.

(3) Harris, M.A., J., et al. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: Text and Translation Together with Critical and Illustrative Papers by Eminent Scholars Reproduced from the Journal of Christian Philosophy. Edited by J.A. Paine, Translated by S. Stanhope Orris, Phd., New York: J.A. Paine; London: International News, 1884, pp. 13–15.

 

[Rival]

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but those that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs" (2)

In my opinion, this order of operations does not seem very inclusive. If someone would partake of a Christian rite, then that seems like it would indicate a probable interest in joining their faith, more likely than not. When Jesus interacted with a variety of people, he seemed like he had a variety of ways of acting toward them, as opposed to sticking to some rigid order of operations in order to include them.

All of the biggest Churches (Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox) still require baptism before being able to take the Eucharist. Theoretically no-one checks but it is the case. I've not found it an issue it's just the way it is. Paul goes on about not eating the Eucharist to one's damnation and examining one's conscience before eating it etc. Regular taking of it is very modern.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Slavery is of course, an atrocious thing, but I was confused by this verse before thinking about it a bit, since it has a weird logical paradox. It claims that the slave should fear the master, as a type of 'God' nonetheless, but the first part of the verse decries the master for inducing fear, which would apparently provoke faithlessness and rebellion. Modern views, where labor organizes, would tend to allow some scrutiny of work conditions

I cannot explain their view on this.

In my opinion, this order of operations does not seem very inclusive. If someone would partake of a Christian rite, then that seems like it would indicate a probable interest in joining their faith, more likely than not. When Jesus interacted with a variety of people, he seemed like he had a variety of ways of acting toward them, as opposed to sticking to some rigid order of operations in order to include them.

The Didache comes from a particular group. This one appears tainted by anti christ thought. They don't believe in the power of the cross, so they are applying many rules. Their gates are closed. In my imagination I think that not all the early groups are like this, but I think over time they increasingly become more closed and brittle and begin to bicker and exclude one another's bishops for that reason. Not long into the history of the churches there are bishops claiming dominance, and there is political wrangling among bishops. To me the didache is evidence of several things, one of them being that the church is already turning towards bitter infighting and exclusion. It is giving up on its lofty catholic ideals. But I toss in a grain of salt, because that is just how I see things and is not something I can explain in detail with bibliography.

Rivalry among early bishops is what gives strength to stories about the bishops actually being pagan bishops from temples who have been ordered by Rome to create a new religion. We had a member come onto RF once claiming that and posting youtube videos about it. They thought Christianity was wholly fabricated by Rome for some reason or other.

In my opinion, this order of operations does not seem very inclusive. If someone would partake of a Christian rite, then that seems like it would indicate a probable interest in joining their faith, more likely than not. When Jesus interacted with a variety of people, he seemed like he had a variety of ways of acting toward them, as opposed to sticking to some rigid order of operations in order to include them.

I think you'd be well advised to stop taking the gospels literally, as they were probably not intended to be read literally. Even so, the Jesus in the gospels is as you say very accepting of little children. Its just that this is such a difficult lesson. Its hard to sit next to a person who smells like **** or wants to sell you things or has some other repugnant problem. People, exactly opposite of Jesus example, always pick our friends carefully. He picks friends with wild abandon.

This whole section on wandering prophets is kind of interesting, and the whole section raises different questions.

It may seem like wise advice, but its actually useless (or perhaps incomplete) advice. You can't tell someone is false so easily. People are smart. First thing a "False prophet" is going to do, if they want to take over a place, is they are going to research you. They are going to find out what your false-prophet-tests are. Its like studying for the GRE or the ACT.

These rules in the didache seem to me more like rules that have been put into place by an already inside false prophet. These rules assure everyone that there is no false prophet currently in control. It is a false assurance, and they are probably already asleep.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

All of the biggest Churches (Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox) still require baptism before being able to take the Eucharist. Theoretically no-one checks but it is the case. I've not found it an issue it's just the way it is. Paul goes on about not eating the Eucharist to one's damnation and examining one's conscience before eating it etc. Regular taking of it is very modern.

Here in midwestern america, my mother took me to a sort of stadium church every sunday for a long time. In that one is was really impersonal, because it was so big, and there was never a eucharist. The only time I got that, was the couple times I went to my grandma's church, where I ate it unbaptized (no drink though, or maybe that was optional?) In that one there was also more crowd connection, with a lot of bowing, kneeling, and standing at different times, which all caught me off guard because I don't know what to do.

I guess I was interested in this passage, because I was somewhat stunned that in early christianity, there would be a strict regulatory gate to taking the eucharist, and also that the activity would be so formalized.

 

[Rival]

Here in midwestern america, my mother took me to a sort of stadium church every sunday for a long time. In that one is was really impersonal, because it was so big, and there was never a eucharist. The only time I got that, was the couple times I went to my grandma's church, where I ate it unbaptized (no drink though, or maybe that was optional?) In that one there was also more crowd connection, with a lot of bowing, kneeling, and standing at different times, which all caught me off guard because I don't know what to do.

I guess I was interested in this passage, because I was somewhat stunned that in early christianity, there would be a strict regulatory gate to taking the eucharist, and also that the activity would be so formalized.

You went to a Catholic Church. They don't usually give the wine due to old Mediaeval traditions that grew up over time. The formalised (liturgical) services are what all masses ('services') were like prior to the Reformation and have been like since at least the 500s or so (from old liturgical writings we can know this). Unbaptised persons were for a long time considered uninitiated and would have to leave when the Canon of the Mass began (Eucharist etc.) This practice survived well into the Mediaeval Period. Baptism is a huge facet of becoming a Christian that many have forgotten, but it was arguably the most important practice in early Christianity. Only after being formally received into the Church after baptism and confirmation would people be allowed to take the Eucharist, and that is still the case today in the RCC and others.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

They don't believe in the power of the cross, so they are applying many rules. Their gates are closed. In my imagination I think that not all the early groups are like this, but I think over time they increasingly become more closed and brittle and begin to bicker and exclude one another's bishops for that reason.

I don't know how you imagine it to have been, but I've read a small pile of early Christian works from the 1st century this past month, and I still have only a very abstract idea of how these people actually lived day to day. But the way I think of it, it seems like it would have been the opposite of what you say, because it seems like they would have needed close-knit communities to begin with, before any expansion. And I suspect that sociologically, that always means an increase in the density of rules.

Rivalry among early bishops is what gives strength to stories about the bishops actually being pagan bishops from temples who have been ordered by Rome to create a new religion. We had a member come onto RF once claiming that and posting youtube videos about it. They thought Christianity was wholly fabricated by Rome for some reason or other.

I haven't read far enough to get a reasonable sense of the bishop rivalry. That Rome might have had a hand in the 'creation' of Christianity can't be a novel idea, for authors or historians to think about. I have three threads myself where I compare the saying of three stoic philosophers to sayings from the NT. Did you know that seneca randomly wrote something that was strikingly similar to the parable of the building foundations?

I think you'd be well advised to stop taking the gospels literally, as they were probably not intended to be read literally.

I was? Do you agree though that there might also be a historical way (I guess a more literal way) to read all of this material?

 

[Rival]

Mass of the Catechumens - Wikipedia

This is the part of the Mass the unbaptised would attend.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Mass of the Catechumens - Wikipedia

This is the part of the Mass the unbaptised would attend.

Hm.. well as I said, I just remember eating it as some point. Though I don't think was baptized.

 

[Rival]

Hm.. well as I said, I just remember eating it as some point. Though I don't think was baptized.

As I said, they don't really check these days; there's a kind of honour system.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't know how you imagine it to have been, but I've read a small pile of early Christian works from the 1st century this past month, and I still have only a very abstract idea of how these people actually lived day to day. But the way I think of it, it seems like it would have been the opposite of what you say, because it seems like they would have needed close-knit communities to begin with, before any expansion. And I suspect that sociologically, that always means an increase in the density of rules.

What works remain from the purges and the burning of the Great Library? We are fortunate to have the Didache, but maybe its not representative. I would call the story of Jesus twelve disciples a story not about a close knit group but a story about a group which barely gets along and learns to tolerate others. Each disciple has an unlikable quirk, and few of them if any share a common background. They fight all the time, but rather than settling their arguments Jesus in the stories tells them not to argue.

I haven't read far enough to get a reasonable sense of the bishop rivalry. That Rome might have had a hand in the 'creation' of Christianity can't be a novel idea, for authors or historians to think about. I have three threads myself where I compare the saying of three stoic philosophers to sayings from the NT. Did you know that seneca randomly wrote something that was strikingly similar to the parable of the building foundations?

I am not speaking first hand. The great volume of information is too daunting for me, so I'm relying upon what other people have summarized. I have read some things though such as the Didache.

I was? Do you agree though that there might also be a historical way (I guess a more literal way) to read all of this material?

You said "When Jesus interacted with people." No, I do not think there is, except if you believe in mystical Judaism. In other words if you believe that reality is flexible then there is. We in the third millennium tend to think of history as solid, unchanging, particular, tedious and deterministic. The details matter. This is a newish view likely considered debatable and presumptuous in earlier times. In ancient times the details are temporary before they are wiped out by a new cycle.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I would call the story of Jesus twelve disciples a story not about a close knit group but a story about a group which barely gets along and learns to tolerate others. Each disciple has an unlikable quirk, and few of them if any share a common background. They fight all the time, but rather than settling their arguments Jesus in the stories tells them not to argue.

I don't know that they fight all the time exactly, but they are confused much of the time, which probably led to disagreements. Maybe witnessing many miracles started to have a knock-on effect of general disorientation, whereby they all steadily started questioning what was real, which would cause arguments. But the guy I remember having the most issues in terms of disagreeableness was paul, and I kind of wonder how he would have acted if he was one of the twelve.

I don't know that they fought all the time before coming aboard with Jesus. It kind of seemed like they were living simple lives, fishing in the boats, doing carpentry etc. And then one day, Jesus came along and made them to think about all this other stuff

In other words if you believe that reality is flexible then there is. We in the third millennium tend to think of history as solid, unchanging, particular, tedious and deterministic. The details matter. This is a newish view likely considered debatable and presumptuous in earlier times. In ancient times the details are temporary before they are wiped out by a new cycle.

I have created several threads on trying to figure out why there were 4 gospels, and haven't come up with good explanations. It is just one of those 'general mystery' things. But why should there be 4 gospels, if, in stark contrast, the community would set up strict and non-negotiable rules to take the eucharist? There are not four ways of taking the Eucharist, or regulating how it should be taken. Do you understand?

 

[Glaurung]

"Thou shalt not lay commands in thy bitterness on thy bondman or maid-servant, who hope in the same God, lest perchance they shall not fear the God who is over both; for He cometh not to call according to appearance, but unto those whom the Spirit hath prepared. And ye, the slaves, shall, in modesty and fear, be subject to your masters as to a type of God." (1)

Slavery is of course, an atrocious thing, but I was confused by this verse before thinking about it a bit, since it has a weird logical paradox. It claims that the slave should fear the master, as a type of 'God' nonetheless, but the first part of the verse decries the master for inducing fear, which would apparently provoke faithlessness and rebellion. Modern views, where labor organizes, would tend to allow some scrutiny of work conditions

Christianity was never a call for a classless utopia but a promise of a salvific relationship with God. Further the Didache is a late first century text so it should be of neither surprise or scandal that it takes slavery as an institution for granted. Christianity insisted that God's promise of a salvific relationship was open to all regardless of class, race or sex and as such even the slave possessed an irreducible dignity as a person in the image of God. Consequently, just as the Christian slave had an obligation to respect the authority over them the Christian master had an obligation to treat those under them with kindness and humanity.

"But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but those that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs" (2)

In my opinion, this order of operations does not seem very inclusive. If someone would partake of a Christian rite, then that seems like it would indicate a probable interest in joining their faith, more likely than not. When Jesus interacted with a variety of people, he seemed like he had a variety of ways of acting toward them, as opposed to sticking to some rigid order of operations in order to include them.

The Church has never permitted those outside of communion with it to partake of the Eucharist. You cannot partake of Christ if you are not in Christ. Nonetheless, membership in the Church is open to anyone who will affirm what the Church affirms and seeks baptism.

The Eucharist is spiritual death for those not properly disposed to receive it. That is, baptized and not conscious of mortal sin, as Saint Paul clearly writes:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1 Corinthians 11:27-30
​

"And with reference to the apostles and prophets in accordance with the ordinance of the gospel, act thus. And let every apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord; but he shall remain, not one day, but, if there be need, the next also; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. And let the apostle, when he goeth forth, take nothing except bread to suffice until he lodge; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. And no prophet that speaketh in the Spirit, shall ye try or judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven." (3)

This whole section on wandering prophets is kind of interesting, and the whole section raises different questions.

Are you to treat him as 'God,' like in my previously cited verse on how slaves should relate to masters? How do you get to know the prophet well enough in one day, so that you actually know that he is not a false prophet? The passage put down people who ask for money - is that at odds with modern interpretations of Christianity that involve prosperity?

And so, if this wandering person is truthful, then you cannot judge him or it is something like blasphemy? But again, how would you know what he is doing, or who he really is, if you only know him for one or two days?

And also there is the primary question on what they mean by the word prophet. To me, the idea of a prophet would mean someone who can speak and write canon proper, without disputation. But that is problematic, as religion often seems to want to make what theology it has into a sort of immutable concrete.

Obviously the specific advice given here has long ceased to be applicable. The take home nonetheless remains. Beware of false teachers who would take advantage of the faith of others to enrich or otherwise advantage themselves.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Christianity was never a call for a classless utopia but a promise of a salvific relationship with God.

I guess I was trying to think of what the meta-narrative here was, or the 'modern-take home,' minus the slavery, was, that could be imparted to a modern reader of the passage. And that seems be, that material conditions, or social conditions, are supposed to preclude one's will to 'proper individuality,' which in the Christian case or Catholic case, would mean choosing some kind of adherence to God. That the improvement of all material, social conditions cannot also increase faith, might be the conclusion of the passage's reasoning

 

[Glaurung]

I guess I was trying to think of what the meta-narrative here was, or the 'modern-take home,' minus the slavery, was, that could be imparted to a modern reader of the passage. And that seems be, that material conditions, or social conditions, are supposed to preclude one's will to 'proper individuality,' which in the Christian case or Catholic case, would mean choosing some kind of adherence to God. That the improvement of all material, social conditions cannot also increase faith, might be the conclusion of the passage's reasoning

The take home seems obvious to me. Christians have an obligation to respect legitimate authority and those in authority have an obligation to act justly. It goes without saying that respect for authority is not absolute. You have no duty to obey a sinful order as obedience to God trumps obedience to any human power. But nonetheless human authority in so far as it obeys reason is ordained by God.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Romans 13:1-2​

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have created several threads on trying to figure out why there were 4 gospels, and haven't come up with good explanations. It is just one of those 'general mystery' things. But why should there be 4 gospels, if, in stark contrast, the community would set up strict and non-negotiable rules to take the eucharist? There are not four ways of taking the Eucharist, or regulating how it should be taken. Do you understand?

If there are 4 gospels and not 12, then I don't know why. There should be twelve, right? Twelve apostles --> Twelve gospels. Maybe its exactly as the common model suggests. Perhaps one day Matthew and Luke got together with Mark and said "Hey that's good. May we use part of that?" but standing nearby John was like: "That's Ok, Mark; but I can do it better."

I have not ever pursued (through the normal channels) an understanding of how the gospels came about. It is a very technical pursuit and sounds to me like ultimate suffering. I think you have to spend twenty years as an apprentice. Anything written about it is lengthy, but there are common models. One that is often mentioned in the forum suggests Matthew and Luke are copied from Mark, that Luke is written by a different author who is likely a doctor and that John is written centuries later. But. In the end a model is merely a way to organize all the little pieces of information collected about archeological things. These models shouldn't be taken as established fact. They are platforms for studying the facts. They are useful to somebody, obviously; but they are too complicated for me to comment upon.

I don't know that they fight all the time exactly, but they are confused much of the time, which probably led to disagreements. Maybe witnessing many miracles started to have a knock-on effect of general disorientation, whereby they all steadily started questioning what was real, which would cause arguments. But the guy I remember having the most issues in terms of disagreeableness was paul, and I kind of wonder how he would have acted if he was one of the twelve.

I don't know that they fought all the time before coming aboard with Jesus. It kind of seemed like they were living simple lives, fishing in the boats, doing carpentry etc. And then one day, Jesus came along and made them to think about all this other stuff

1 fisher, 1 evil tax collector, 1 assassin (Judas), 1 holy joe, 2 argumentative brothers, 2 cooperative brothers, 1 Thomas, 3 extras I don't remember at the moment. All of them were faithless in times of trouble, but they thought themselves to be very dedicated. Jesus would send them out in six teams of pairs, and each pair would announce that the kingdom from heaven had arrived. They would go to towns and along the roads, probably shouting like heralds. Someone would always get stuck on Judas team.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

f there are 4 gospels and not 12, then I don't know why. There should be twelve, right? Twelve apostles --> Twelve gospels. Maybe its exactly as the common model suggests. Perhaps one day Matthew and Luke got together with Mark and said "Hey that's good. May we use part of that?" but standing nearby John was like: "That's Ok, Mark; but I can do it better."

1 fisher, 1 evil tax collector, 1 assassin (Judas), 1 holy joe, 2 argumentative brothers, 2 cooperative brothers, 1 Thomas, 3 extras I don't remember at the moment. All of them were faithless in times of trouble, but they thought themselves to be very dedicated. Jesus would send them out in six teams of pairs, and each pair would announce that the kingdom from heaven had arrived.

And this is kind of how I aspire to perceive Christianity, is as a sort of underlying narrative beneath a kind of ancient, western mystical geometric system. Four is sort of a perfect number, in that it contains, but is not limited by, the 1, the 2, and the 3. Though I don't yet understand why this is, the most interesting thing about the 4 gospels is in fact, that you can line up the individual stories, and it almost like there is pattern to the inconsistency. I don't know, I should find out if there's a book on that.

But what if they are meant to intentionally be 4 different realities? So in other words, the conclusion is that reality was bent in 4 different ways. That there is a reason that there were several donkeys being ridden this way there, or one here, or another variation there. Etc.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And this is kind of how I aspire to perceive Christianity, is as a sort of underlying narrative beneath a kind of ancient, western mystical geometric system. Four is sort of a perfect number, in that it contains, but is not limited by, the 1, the 2, and the 3. Though I don't yet understand why this is, the most interesting thing about the 4 gospels is in fact, that you can line up the individual stories, and it almost like there is pattern to the inconsistency. I don't know, I should find out if there's a book on that.

But what if they are meant to intentionally be 4 different realities? So in other words, the conclusion is that reality was bent in 4 different ways. That there is a reason that there were several donkeys being ridden this way there, or one here, or another variation there. Etc.

They could correspond to the four types of sons (wise, rebellious, simple, unknowing) in a Haggadah. Probably not, but its remotely possible. If the number 4 interests you, then that might be a connection to consider.
Passover: Four Sons - Five Characters.

 

[pearl]

Only after being formally received into the Church after baptism and confirmation would people be allowed to take the Eucharist, and that is still the case today in the RCC and others.

In the Roman rite the sacrament of Confirmation is not required for reception of the Eucharist.
As for the Didache (teaching of the 12 Apostles from the beginning of the 2nd century. It was discovered in 1873 by an oriental bishop, Philotheos Bryennios. In the ninth and tenth chapters of the Didache are found the well-known eucharistic prayers, but the precise and meaning of these prayers is not very clear. It may be likely that the prayers preserved in the ninth and tenth chapters of the Didache (written about the year 100) we find remnants of such a domestic celebration. These particular prayers almost certainly refer to a material meal and not to the Eucharist. For instance, the chalice is put first. All other accounts in the NT place the bread first. And the phrase in chapter 10 "after having had your fill' seems possible only if a meal properly so-called has preceded.

As for 'rules' concerning early practice regarding prayer and baptism a good source is Hippolytus of Rome and his 'Apostolic Tradition', around 215,

 

[Left Coast]

"Thou shalt not lay commands in thy bitterness on thy bondman or maid-servant, who hope in the same God, lest perchance they shall not fear the God who is over both; for He cometh not to call according to appearance, but unto those whom the Spirit hath prepared. And ye, the slaves, shall, in modesty and fear, be subject to your masters as to a type of God." (1)

Slavery is of course, an atrocious thing, but I was confused by this verse before thinking about it a bit, since it has a weird logical paradox. It claims that the slave should fear the master, as a type of 'God' nonetheless, but the first part of the verse decries the master for inducing fear, which would apparently provoke faithlessness and rebellion. Modern views, where labor organizes, would tend to allow some scrutiny of work conditions

Very similar to what we find in the New Testament canon:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;" Ephesians 6:5

 

[1213]

....
"And with reference to the apostles and prophets in accordance with the ordinance of the gospel, act thus. And let every apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord; but he shall remain, not one day, but, if there be need, the next also; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. And let the apostle, when he goeth forth, take nothing except bread to suffice until he lodge; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. And no prophet that speaketh in the Spirit, shall ye try or judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven." (3)

This whole section on wandering prophets is kind of interesting, and the whole section raises different questions.

Are you to treat him as 'God,' ...

It says you are to received as. And it is based on this:

Most assuredly I tell you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me.”
John 13:20

Receiving someone like that, does not mean that you must treat him as God. And it doesn't mean that you should think he is sent by Jesus, if he doesn't speak the words of Jesus, or God.