The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Didache

I've been reading through some of the early church documents recently and am now reading through the Didache. Many of the verses seem similar or almost identical to those in the Bible, but there are equally many verses that are clearly not Biblical. Also, except for the sections on Communion, Christ is not really mentioned, and even in the sections on Communion it is questionable to me whether the writer(s) of the Didache had a proper belief about who Christ is and what he accomplished.

Although an open-ended question, I would be curious to hear others' thoughts about the Didache, e.g., is it truly characteristic of the early church, how useful is it for us to study today, does it handle Christ appropriately, was it influenced by the various heresies that were common in the 1st century, etc.

To me it seems like a very legalistic document that contains only glimpses of the Gospel, although a person I was discussing it with said that the document was written with the Gospel as an assumed starting point and was intended to be more practical for daily life (an argument I can't really agree with).

Thanks,
John

John,

The Didache, in my opinion, is a bit of a mixed bag. Much of the first section about the Two Ways is simply quoting or paraphrasing Scripture, but some of it can make you scratch your head. It is evidently a Jewish-Christian text on the whole, and the understanding of Communion is less than adequate. Interestingly the document does provide support the Lord's Day Sabbath & for the twofold offices of deacon & bishop/elder. Curiously it appears to support immersion in running water as the preferred mode of baptism, but it also provides for affusion (pouring). How representative this is of the early church seems difficult, at best, to determine.

Kyle,

I appreciate your comments. I've been in a discussion with some people about the usefulness of using the Didache as a study tool for Christian growth and have been trying to clarify my on thoughts on the subject. As you say, it does contain a lot of head-scratching material.

John

I would not look to the Didache or indeed any of the Church Fathers for help with Bible doctrines. They don't agree with each other, and, more importantly, they don't agree with the Bible.

The Didache is interesting, however, when it reveals how First Century Greek-speaking Christians understood the word 'baptizo.'
Notice here that you can baptize in running water; you can baptize in cold water or warm water, but you cannot baptize by pouring, because that would be a non sequitur. Baptizo means 'dipping' or 'immersion.' It doesn't mean 'pouring' or 'sprinkling.' Pouring is allowed by the Didache, but it doesn't call it 'baptism.'

Steve

Really I am getting tired of this Steve. Let's quote the entire section on baptism from the Didache shall we?

As you can plainly see when the entire section is quoted affusion is a method that was employed if the other methods were not available. You know Steve picking and choosing the text is the method of someone with poor hermeneutic skills. Or as Pilgrim is want to say: "A text without context is just a pretext" Please don't embarrass the Baptists on this board.

Yes, but he does not say, "If you do not have both, baptize by pouring." He couldn't, because baptism is dipping. I fully agree that when sufficient water was not available, pouring (affusion) was regarded by the Didache as acceptable. That, however, is not the point I was making.

FWIW, in my church, we will accept into membership folk who have been 'christened' as infants and do not feel it right to be 'baptized' again. My point is solely concerning the Greek.

Steve

See here: The Mode of Baptism, by John Murray.

I am aware of the arguments of Prof. Murray. Suffice it to say that I don't find them convincing.

However,in the light of other comments, I have now taken a Trappist vow on the subject of baptism unless my views are specificaly solicited.

Steve

Steve,

Clearly pouring is considered a mode of Christian baptism in the Didache. This is simply beyond dispute. That it elides the term "baptize" in 7:3 has to do with word economy, not with baptizo supposedly meaning "dip."