The Didache: deacons and bishops

One of the most contentious issues, and important issues, surrounding early church history, is regarding how the church is organized. Some of the Pauline writings and the Didache both seem to lump the offices of elder/presbyter and overseer/bishop together. Yet by the time of Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd C.) we have a very clear differentiation between the offices of the elder/presbyter and the overseer/bishop.

The main question then, as far as I can see, is this: when the Didache talks of "apostles" is it referring to the actual Twelve and Paul? If this is the case then it would be reasonable to view them as the main authorities in the church. On the other hand if it using the word apostle in the way we today use the word missionary (as in Ephesians 6), then we have what appears to be a non-monarchial form of government. These questions are also related to dating the Didache.

Chapter 15.—Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof

1. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, 1 Timothy 3:4 and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. 2. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers. 3. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel; Matthew 18:15-17 but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repent. 4. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

Are the Didache's 'Prophets' the same as Ignatius' 'Bishops'?

As long-time readers may know, one of my favorite documents from the early church is the Didache, on which I have posted from time to time.

And now we have this treat, the blog Energetic Procession, which is Orthodox, has a decent post arguing that the Didache is in harmony with Ignatius' monarchial episcopate. Check it out and decide for yourself for successful the argument is.

Apostolic Succession in the Didache

High Priests and the early church

One hears from time to time how after Constantine everything went down hill and the leaders of the church came to be equated with priests who, as in the Old Covenant, offered sacrifices on behalf of the people and were, in some way, the mediators of God's grace. It is true that this understanding of the priesthood increased in the Western church, especially in the medieval period. But like it or not we find in as early a document as the Didache, on which I have commented extensively, a clear indication that sacerdotal language for ministers is very early.

But like it or not, we find this brazen statement regarding the early church's prophets being not just priests, but high priests:

But every true prophet that wills to abide among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests.

Didache 13

Eusebius on the NT Canon

We often don't realize how tenuous the formation of the NT Canon was. The topic is relevant because of several recent posts on this blog about the Didache and 1 Clement, both of which were in wide use and respected. Also, the authorship of Hebrews was in dispute (as it us now). Here is an important section from Eusebius, and notice that he classifies Revelation as spurious (!):

It will be well, at this point, to classify the New Testament writings already referred to. We must, of course, put first the holy quartet of gospels, followed by the Acts of the Apostles. The next place in the list goes to Paul's epistles, and after them we must recognize the epistle called I John; likewise I Peter. To these may be added, if it is thought proper, the Revelation of John, the arguments about which I shall set out when the time comes. These are classed as Recognized Books. Those that are disputed, yet familiar to most, include the epistles known as James, Jude, and II Peter, and those called II and III John, the work either of the evangelist or of someone else with the same name.

Among Spurious Books must be placed the `Acts' of Paul, the `Shepherd', and the `Revelation of Peter'; also the alleged `Epistle of Barnabas', and the `Teaching of the Apostles' [Didache], together with the Revelation of John, if this seems the right place for it; as I said before, some reject it, others included it among the Recognized Books. Moreover, some have found a place in the list for the `Gospel of Hebrews', a book which has a special appeal for those Hebrews who have accepted Christ. These would all be classed with the Disputed Books, but I have been obliged to list the latter separately, distinguishing those writings which according to the teaching of the Church are true, genuine, and recognized, from those in a different category, not canonical but disputed, yet familiar to most churchmen; for we must not confuse these with the writings published by heretics under the name of the apostles, as containing either Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and several others besides these, or Acts of Andrew, John, and other apostles. To none of these has any churchman of any generation ever seen fit to refer to his writings. Again, nothing could be farther from apostolic usage than the type of phraseology employed, while the ideas and implications of their contents are so irreconcilable with true orthodoxy that they stand revealed as forgeries of heretics. It follows that so far from being classed even among Spurious Books, they must be thrown out as impious and beyond the pale.

Note that in the last paragraph the teaching of the church (orthodoxy) helps to determine the canonicity of the disputed books! So much for sola scriptura :-)

Didache: say the Our Father thrice daily

This shows that by the end of the 1st C. or early in the 2nd C. Christians were being taught to RECITE the Our Father. This is important because evangelicals generally speaking do not like to recite anything, even the Lord's Prayer. (This chapter also teaches Christians to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays of every week, by the way.)

Didache 8:2, 3:

2. Neither pray as the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. 3. Thrice in the day thus pray.

The Didache and the Jerusalem Council

Here is an argument that proposes that part of the Didache is in fact the Apostolic Decree from the Jerusalem Council (!)

The 'Apostolic Decree' commonly describes the letter reputedly composed by James and the Jerusalem apostles in c. AD 49 and sent to Gentile converts in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. The meeting that gave rise to this document (described in Acts 15.1-22) discussed the question of whether circumcision should be required of Gentiles wishing to convert to the (Jewish) Jesus movement. Luke's record of this 'decree' (Acts 15:23-29) emphasises that the requirements laid on these Gentile converts did not include circumcision.

Paul, in Galatians 2.1-10, appears to refer to the same meeting. Crucially, however, Paul omits mention of any 'decree'. This is surprising if Luke's account is accurate, since an appeal to the apostles' authoritative ruling should have silenced Paul's critics; those demanding the circumcision of Gentile converts. Scholars have generally explained this anomoly by suggesting that, although a Jerusalem meeting took place, no 'decree' was ever issued. Rather, Luke came across some rules for Gentile admission without circumcision, devised elsewhere, and imported them into his account of the Jerusalem meeting to give them added authority.

Another option, not previously considered, is that the Jerusalem meeting did produce a decree but that its contents were sufficiently ambiguous to support both pro- and anti-circumcision interpretations. This would explain Luke's reading of events as well as Paul's unwillingness to quote a document whose contents might have been turned to opposite effect. [...]

Baptism in the Didache

The Didache is a very early Christian document. It is dated early 2nd C. by most scholars, though some date it as early as 70 AD:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism

1. And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. 2. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. 3. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

The Early Church called the Eucharist a sacrifice

It is hard to argue with such a clear statement as that which we find in the Didache (written c. 100):

And when coming together on the Lord's own day, break bread and give thanks after confessing your transgressions. In that manner, your sacrifice will be pure. And do not let anyone coming with a quarrel against a brother join you until they get reconciled, in order that your sacrifice is not impure. For this has been spoken of by the Lord, "in every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King," says the Lord, "and My name is wonderful among the nations." (Didache 14:1-3)

There is no interstice between 100 AD and the Apostolic period. The Gospel of John was probably taking its present form at the time and, according to some scholars, 2 Peter had not yet been written.

The Apostolic Church called the eucharist a sacrifice and had no problem with that sort of language.

Didache 9: a liturgical church

Here we see that very early in the Christian church (possibly before the some books of the NT came into their final forms--as we have them today) it was customary for pre-composed formulae to be used during various parts of the worship. We see here that the eucharist (thanksgiving) was celebrated weekly, unlike the practice of many evangelical and charismatic churches today.

Also notice: here the wine is taken first, and then the bread. Also: the 'words of institution' are not included. I am speaking about the narrative from Matthew where we read about the Last Supper. Finally: communion, as then and is now, must only be for those who have been baptized.

Very interesting material:

Didache Chapter 9.—The Thanksgiving (Eucharist)

1. Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. 2. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. 3. And concerning the broken bread : We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. 4. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. 5. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.