The Two Ways of the Didache
Chapter Six The Two Ways of the Didache In the next few chapters we will attempt to survey the actual contents of the Didache, but as we begin it is also necessary to mention one more matter of controversy and academic debate. It has to do with what source(s), if any, that the Didachist utilized in the writing of chapters 1-6, or at least chapters 1-5. I mentioned in the introduction that issues of source and redaction criticism have dominated Didache research for over fifty years and that such issues will not dominate my own treatment of the book. I am concerned that the overall message of the book has often been lost amid the endless discussion of sources and editors that have been proposed in discussions of its compositional history. Thus it is necessary that we mention why these issues will not control our presentation.
Scholars for years have noticed that Didache 1-5 develops the theme of the "two ways." 1:1 opens with: "There are two ways: one of life and one of death!
And there is a great difference between the two ways." Later he concludes the first part of this section with the summary statement, "This is the way of life!"
(4:14b). He then launches the second section this way: "The way of death, on the other hand, is this" (5:1, 2). There have been a number of efforts to claim that the Didachist adapted an existing Jewish "two ways" ethical treatise to his
"Jewish Christian" purposes." There has even been an ingenious effort to actually reconstruct the content of such a proposed Greek "Two Ways" treatise by utilizing the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum as the key to this supposed source. "1 deeply respect the scholarship of those involved in this re-construction, but I also am deeply concerned that it rests far too much on conjecture than solid evidence. With the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there have also been efforts to find parallels to the thought in the Didache. This is particularly true because the early chapters of Didache exhibit some reflections of such an ethical treatise in the Community Rule of that sect.""
The Two Ways of the Didache However, after initially being quite positive about the possibility of the Didachist's adaptation of a Jewish document to his purpose, I have become convinced that the relationship has been greatly overdrawn. Such an effort, in my opinion, suffers from what has come to be called "parallelomania"—the unjustified effort to see parallels and borrowings from one body of literature to another based on either anachronistic or very slim analogies between the two.
The simple fact of the matter is that no clear example of a Jewish "two ways" document from the period antedating the Didache has ever been found!
It is easy to postulate the existence of such a document's existence, but it has been hard to find such a thing. A careful Didache scholar recognized this when he wrote about attempts to make the Qumran material a source for the Didache.
One must not lose the unique perspective that the comparison between the Manual of Discipline from Qumran and the different forms of the Christian duae viae brings concerning the dualistic framework (which is absent in the Didache!) and concerning the general literary genre of instruction which places side by side a list of virtue and a list of vices; but in the detail of content and vocabulary, resemblances are missing."
It is interesting to note that just three years after Didache's publication, the great scholar, Benjamin Warfield warned against any effort to argue for a Jewish
"two ways" vorlage, in light of the meager evidence of such ever existing."* I challenge any interested readers to actually read "The Community Rule" (1QS
3:13-4:26) and find there anything that would make one think of Didache 1-5 if they had not been preconditioned to do so. In my opinion, the only similarity in the two documents is the word "two." The Scroll speaks of "two" angels — one of darkness and one of light and how men are ruled by one of "two" spirits.
This is parallel to the much later rabbinic concept of the two inclinations in man
—the yetzer hara and the yetzer hatov."" However, it bears very little resemblance to the Didache description of the two ways—except again in the word
"two." Such language about "two" angels or inclinations also characterizes the similar chapters in Barnabas 18-20 and in the Doctrina Apostolorum. In my opinion, this elaboration of the simplicity expressed in the Didache's rehearsal of the "two ways" points to the secondary character of these documents. I realize that I am going against a large scholarly guild in questioning this postulating of a Jewish ethical "two ways" treatise. But there are scholars later than Warfield who have voiced similar doubts. Among them is the German scholar Michaelis in his article in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.'®
Not only do we not have a copy of this hypothetical Jewish "two ways" document for Gentile proselytes, we have no written source describing or referring to such a document. We certainly acknowledge that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Because of this, there may very well have actually existed a pre-Christian Jewish ethical treatise in something like a "two ways" format. Perhaps, however, there is another possibility that should also be considered. Many scholars have suggested that the Didache may have been
The Two Ways of the Didache
composed in two stages. The first would be a version written in the early days of the initial influx of Gentile believers into the Antioch church, witnessed to in Acts 11:19 ff—probably not much later than 40 C.E. That could have been the document that some feel is represented by the Doctrina Apostolorum—a document lacking the evangelical section in chapter one and the "Gospel" references later in the book. Then, when the Greek "Gospel of the Lord" emerged between 45-55 C.E., the Didachist could have added those "gospel" references and thus we would have the "finished" Didache by the 60's. If this be the case, we do have solid ovidence of a prior "two ways"document — within the text of the Didache itself! I realize that I have not proved my case for this proposal, but it has as much plausibility as proposing the existence of a source document for which we have no clear evidence.
Until there is more concrete evidence of its existence—apart from a Medieval Latin document—it is safer to look for the antecedents of the "two ways" genre in other Jewish sources and patterns of teaching. And such examples can be found in abundance. It should be noted that the "two ways" ethical pattern is very Jewish and has deep roots in Jewish Scripture.
Consider Deut. 30:19: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death." Psalm 1 graphically describes the two ways with their contrasting results. The wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible is replete with this comparison and contrast.
Consider Proverbs 1-9 with its comparison of the "Way of Wisdom" with the "Way of Folly." Jeremiah was sent by the Lord to say to the people: "Behold I set before you the way of life and the way of death" (21:8). In a roughly contemporary text, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the author states that the Lord said to the people, "Behold I have set before you life and death" (19:1).
But it is not necessary that suggest that the Didache actually quoted any of these
Jewish documents. He may only have been following in a very long train of thought and expression. And, in my opinion, it is even more risky to propose that he Christianized a hypothetical document which we do not have!
It seems much more reasonable to see both the Didache and the Hebrew scriptures as employing a literary pattern ingrained in pre-Christian Jewish thinking and expression. The evidence for that pattern in pre-Christian sources is very evident, as has been seen.
That same ethical and literary pattern then served as a paradigm for the Didachist to employ, expand and develop in his
Jewish Christian ethical treatise. If there was dependence on a specific source, it makes much more sense to see it as inspiration derived from another Jewish teacher who was also thoroughly versed in the Hebrew "two ways" thinking.
Since his teaching inspired so much else in the Didache, could not his words, like the following, inspired the Didachist? "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt. 7:13, 14). Sometimes things may be much simpler than we try to make them.
The Two Ways of the Didache The Development of the Two Ways Teaching (ch. 1-6) One of the most prolific authors on the Didache has been Aaron Milavec.
After contributing a number of articles on subjects related to the Didache, in 2003 he published his magnum opus, a nearly thousand page commentary which treated the text and many issues related to it.' In the same year a much shorter work by Milavec also appeared that summarized his larger commentary." Milavec argues that the Didache is independent of the canonical Gospels and dates from 50-70 A.D. More creatively, he offers an origination hypothesis for the writing of the Didache that is unique among the many authors who have written on it. Milavec affirms strongly the unity of the Didache over against the hypotheses of its many sources and its original orality prior to its written function.
He then traces through the book what he believes is the consistent development of a systematic training program embodied in its contents. Its purpose was to mold and to shape the life of a convert from paganism into the new faith taught by Jesus and experienced by his followers.
Milavec has thought long and hard about this book, and his penchant for unique interpretations should not cause his readers to be put off and thus overlook the keen insights that he brings to the meaning of so many debated passages. But it is not his interpretation of individual texts that makes Milavec an engaging discussion partner. It is his effort to stress the overall unity of the book that should be welcomed by those of us who are weary of what the source critics have done to this little book. Personally, I do not think that Milavec has sealed
_ his case for the original oral character of the document. Nor do I think he has proven that it embodies a training program conducted by one mentor and his disciple. I do believe, however, that he has uncovered the book's overall unity — something that has been missing in the authors who have often engaged in atomistic analyses of this and that section — and have often missed the proverbial forest by examining so closely the trees.
Until someone offers a better approach to the book as a whole, Milavec's massive treatment will be, if not the last word, at least the standard which others must emulate. You may disagree with him, but you cannot ignore him. From the perspective of my own origination hypothesis—that the Didache was intended to be a catechetical book and was used that way from its emergence—I find much that is welcome in his work. In the chapters to come, he will be a welcome dialogue partner in exploring "the way of the Didache," especially in its early chapters. Therefore, with Milavec often at my elbow, I offer the following summary of the way that the Didachist outlines for the new life of a believer in God's servant, Jesus.
An Overall Analysis of the Didache The Didache itself indicates that it is not simply a pastiche of similar but disjointed elements. The discourse markers that the Didachist employs indicate that his work is divided into two main sections. The first is marked off by the expression "way of life" in 1:2 and the expression "way of death" in 5:1-2. Fur-
The Two Ways of the Didache
ther markers are the expressions, "This is the teaching" in 1:3a and "this is the way of life" in 4:14b. These expressions serve an inclusio function in framing the first part of the book. Thus, chapters 1-5 are intended to embody as a selfcontained literary unit the teaching that was to be given to new believer before his or her baptism. This is clear from 7:1, "After you have said all these things beforehand, immerse in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit in flowing water." "These things" can only refer to the teaching embodied previously in chapters 1-5.
The second main section of the book (chapters 6-16) consists of instructions about how the young believer is to relate to life in the public worship and ministry of the church. The similar expression "you will be perfect" in 6:2 and "unless you are perfected" in 16:2 again serve as an inclusio to frame the second section.
Thus, the last chapter is not simply an eschatological appendix but is deliberately crafted to advance the overall plan of the Didachist. Within that frame in the second section, the Didachist employs the discourse marker "and concerning" (περὶ δὲ) a total of five times, each time to introduce a new topic for the catechumen to learn about and in which to participate. These are: 1) Food to eat and to avoid (6:3); 2) Baptism and how it is administered (7:1); 3) The eucharist
(9:1) of cup and bread (9:3); and 4) The role of apostles and prophets (11:3).
This discourse marker function of the περὶ δε can be seen also in First Corinthians 7:1, 25; 8:1, 12:1; 16:1, 12 and in First Thessalonians 4:9 and 5:1. It is probably too much to conclude on the basis of this usage a Pauline influence, since the Didachist does not indicate knowledge of Paul's writings in any other way. One possible thought, however, should be considered. Paul used the occurences of περὶ δὲ to enumerate his successive answers to the questions that the Corinthians had asked him about in a previous letter (7:1). Could its use by the Didachist also imply that the subjects he addresses were ones that local congregations had asked him about in previous communications? Thus, chapters 6-11 ff. could be providing guidance by answering queries that had arisen in the churches within the circle of the Didachist's influence.
Chapter 6:3, therefore, with its mitigated command regarding kosher eating thus would be separate from chapters 1:1-6:2. It also serves, however, as a bridge to the following material due to its being the first example in the περὶ δὲ schematic. The Didachist desired that this point of guidance about eating food should be included in the teaching to be given to young believers. The material in 7:1ff, as important as it was to the corporate life of the body, was not part of the individual instruction that was given in ch. 1-6. The final chapter contains an earnest exhortation, therefore, to "seek what is appropriate for your souls" in light of the coming of the Lord. That which is appropriate would primarily be the pre-baptismal instruction of chapters 1-6 but also include the "church" teaching in chapters 7-15 that would cover post-baptismal experiences. See, for example, the exhortation in 9:5, "And let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal except those baptized in the name of the Lord."
The Two Ways of the Didache An Overview of Didache 1-6 Returning now to our focus on Didache 1-6, the order of the topics 15 as follows, with my own modifications to Milavec's outline:
Two Ways of Life (1:1, 2); Two Rules of Giving (1:3-6); Six New Commandments (2:1-2); Five Speech Infractions (2:3-5); Five Forbidden Dispositions (2:6-7); Five "Fences" (3:1-6); :
Five Positive Virtues (3:7-10); Five Congregational Precepts (4:1-4); Four Guidelines for Giving (4:5-8); $0109: at ON Cee a a 10. Three Household Rules (4:9-11); 11. Three Solemn Admonitions (4:12-14); 12. Forty Foul Actions (5:1, 2).
13. Warning Against Innovators (6:1, Oye The Title(s) of the Didache It is difficult to affirm with confidence that either of the two titles was part of the first century work. The short one, "The Teaching of the Apostles" (Διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων), Was written with red ink in the Jerusalem manuscript.
The longer one, "The Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles" (Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) opens the first line of the manuscript. Apart from these titles, however, the expression "twelve apostles" does not appear elsewhere in the body of the book. When "apostles" are mentioned in the book, as in 11:3-6, the term refers to wandering charismatics, for it would be difficult to see how any of the Twelve would be limited to two days in their stay (11:5), or would be asking wrongly for money (11:6). The Didachist simply refers to the "teaching" (1:3) as being given by "the Lord"
(9:3). Milavec cncludes, "The distinct possibility remains, therefore, that 'twelve apostles' was introduced only at the point when apostolic authorship was recognized as an absolute necessity for any work seeking inclusion in the canon of approved books."*?
The Two-Fold Command While the responsibilities of loving God and loving your fellow man can certainly be found in Judaism, the joining of the two texts, Deut. 6:5 and Lev.
19:18, as they are joined in 1:2, is not found in non-Christian Jewish texts before this time. The synoptic Gospels assign such coupling to Jesus (Mat. 22:37-39;
Mark 12:30, 31; Luke 10:27). The way that the Didachist employs Deut. 6:5, however, is not in the form familiarly known as the Shema. It mentions "God", not "Lord" (see LXX) and the description of Him is as "the one who made you," not the covenantal language of Deut. 6. This expression, however, would be
The Two Ways of the Didache
appropriate for Gentiles, who were not in any covenant relationship to the "Lord" but were still created by "God."
This uniquely "Christian " language right at the beginning of the two ways section points up another of the reasons it is difficult to see chapters 1-5 as some pre-Christian Jewish "two ways treatise." Not only here but in many other places expressions are used that are more familiar in a (Jewish) Christian context than in a Jewish context. Consider 2:7: "Don't hate anyone, reprove some, pray for some, love some more than your soul." Can that sentiment be found in preChristian Judaism? The accepting of whatever happens to you as "good" (3:10), although similar to Sirach 2:4, differs greatly in the language used. Providence was taught in Judaism, but the accepting of things as "good" is a Christian expression rather than a Jewish one (cf. Rom. 8:28). The following verses in the Didache also seem more suited to Christian than to Jewish "talk." "My child, remember the one who preaches to you the words of God, for where Lordship is proclaimed, there is the Lord" (4:1). "Seek out the presence of the saints, to find support in their words" (4.2).
"You are sharers in imperishable things, how much more in the perishable?" (4.8b). "Confess your sins in the éxkAnat«"—not in the ovvaywyn! (4.14). Also, the description of the Holy Spirit preparing people simply sounds more like a Christian than a Jewish expression (4:10). This is not intended to imply that the morality of Christianity is different than that of Judaism. The difference is in the manner of expression, not in the superiority or inferiority of one to the other.
Before we return to the actual content of the Didache, I do think it is also appropriate to note some important matters that are not discussed in Didache 15. The absence of these things in a Jewish text intended for Gentile converts simply appears very odd to me. While plenty of commands and rules are issued, there is no explicit mention of the first four commandments. There is no mention of Sabbath observance, circumcision, or the dietary laws. The absence of the first five commandments and those three prominent badges of Jewish identity would be unthinkable in a Jewish manual intended to introduce Judaism to Gentile proselytes. Someone may respond that the above Christian verses were added and the prominent Jewish badges were omitted when the text was adopted by the Didachist. My response is that if all problems with a theory are explained as redactions then it may be time to take another hard look at the theory.
Much has been written about the so-called "negative" Golden Rule that finds expression in 1:2b, "As many things as you wish not to happen to you, likewise, do not do to another." Antecedents can be found in Tobit 4:15 and also in the famous story of Hillel, Shammai, and the Gentile (Shabbat 31a). Although it does not appear in the NT in this form, a variant reading adds it to the "apostolic decree in Acts 15:29. While Jesus' famous saying in Matt. 7:12 and Luke
7:31 is expressed positively, Jesus could also have used the other form at times.
Possibly it appeared that way in "The Gospel of the Lord," which the Didachist used elsewhere and thus he cites it in that form here.
The Two Ways of the Didache Two Rules of Giving (1:3, 4; 4:5-8) The following paragraph (1:3-2:1) is often referred to as the "evangelical section" since it is very similar to Jesus' teaching in Matthew's "Sermon on the Mount" (ch. 5-7) and in Luke's "Sermon on the Plain" (ch. 6). The initial stress on praying for enemies and turning the cheek may have had reference to the new spiritual "enemies" that had developed in the young convert's life because of his new faith. The advice was very helpful in maintaining a non-violent reaction to an abusive family situation.*!
The issue of giving is taken up near the beginning and near the end of the intial section of chapters 1-4. The first instruction on giving (1:4)* is in the present imperative mode in the Greek. The second command (4:5-8) is presented in the future tense, called an "imperatival future."*' Since this use of the imperative is largely confined in the NT to the quotation of OT commands, grammarians tend to thnk that the imperatival future may be more emphatic rather than general. In the Didache the context of the second command on giving is the church fellowship and the importance of sharing with brothers and sisters in the Lord.
Thus the future would express the time when the new convert would be fully accepted in the congregation after his baptism. The first rule for giving expressed in the imperative, however, was intended for immediate implementation.
Developing the giving habit of mind in chapter one could then better lead to the more emphatic command in chapter four.
Six New Commandments (2:1, 2) In this section of firm and straightforward commands, the Didachist omits the first five commandments. Some are implied in other commands (1:2; 2:3), while others, like the Sabbath command, had been superseded by the command to gather on the Lord's Day (14:1). Milavec thinks that the omission of the fifth command to honor parents may reflect the familial situation of pagan converts experiencing conflict from parents for their new faith. They were to honor God as their true Father (1:5; 9:2-3; 10:2).*4
The latter five commands of the Decalogue are reiterated in 2:2, expressed in the familiar negative particle (ov in Greek) plus the future imperative of the prohibited verb. The Didachist also adds six new ones that appear to be in some ways elaborations of the five. They come in three pairs. The first two condemn pedophilia and illicit sex: "you will not corrupt children; you will not have illicit sex." Pedophilia was so foreign to Jewish practice that it is not even mentioned in the Torah. Yet it was common in the Gentile world from which these converts came. "Illicit sex" is the verb form of the noun πορνεία, a general word for just that, "illicit sex." In addition to the obvious act of adultery, all forms of prohibited sexual relations are here proscribed, such as incest and prostitution (Lev.
18:6-16; 21:9). The second pair prohibits magic and the making of potions (dap μακεύειν), an activity that must have been linked with magic. The last pair pertain to abortion and infanticide: "you will not murder a child by means of abortion, nor you will kill one that has been born." These practices were widely regarded in the pagan world as normal means of family limitation.®° This firm
The Two Ways of the Didache
opposition to accepted practices in the Roman world came to be regarded as one of the chef differences that people noticed in the early Christians. This is the earliest reference in Christian literature that explicitly forbids what was implicit in scripture.
Five Speech Sins, Five Evil Dispositions and Five Fences (2:3-3:6) In 2:3-5, the Didachist warns against five "sins of the tongue" which echo many of the warnings about the tongue in both the testaments. This is followed by the forbidding of five "sins of the attitude" in 2:6, 7. The command not to hate anyone is followed immediately by some positive counsel that balances the command against hatred: "but some you will reprove, and for others you will pray, and some you will love more than your soul" (2:70).
This is standard Christian paranesis that can be found in many Christian works, both within and without the canon. What follows in chapter three, however, is framed in a way that was familiar to Jews of the Second temple Period.
There are five warninmgs against certain behaviors that are then followed by actuions that the forbidden acts will lead to if they are not forsaken. This is so striking that I quote the entire passage of 3:1-6 in analytical form which will help the reader see the point being made more clearly.
3:1 My child, flee from every evil and from everything like it.
3:2 [1] Do not become angry, for anger leads to murder; nor be envious, nor be contentious, nor be hot-headed, for, from all these, murders are born.
3:3 [2] My child, do not become lustful, for lust leads to illicit sex; nor use foul speech, nor be one who lifts up the eyes, for, from all these, adulteries are born.
3:4 [3] My child, do not practice divination, since this leads to idolatry; nor be an enchanter, nor be an astrologer, nor be a magician, nor even wish to see nor hear these things, for, from all these, idolatry is born.
3:5 [4] My child, do not become false,
The Two Ways of the Didache since falsehood leads to theft; nor be a lover of money, nor be a seeker of glory, for, from all these, thefts are born.
3:6 [5] My child, do not become a grumbler, since this leads to blasphemy; nor be a self-pleaser, nor be evil-minded, for, from all these, blasphemies are born.*°
The structure of this passage is fraught with features that would be familiar to Jewish readers. It has already been noted that the repeated addresses to "my child" (τεκνον pov) echoes wisdom literature such as Proverbs, where a similar expression appears fifteen times and also Sirach, where the exactly same expression appears nineteen times.
The second characteristic in this passage that finds abundant parallels in Jewish literature is the practice of constructing a fence around the Torah to keep one from coming too close to the commands and break them. For example, in Avot de Rabbi Nathan \7a, the rabbis taught that Adam was the first to construct a fence around God's command not to eat from the tree by telling Eve that "we should not touch it" (see Gen. 3:3). In a later manual for training rabbinic disciples, Derek Erez Zuta, a number of additional "fences" strikingly similar to Didache 3:1-6 are offered (DEZ 2:7; 3:6). Recent scholarship has warned us to be careful of anachronistic citing of later works of rabbinic literature as if they were legitimate background for first century texts.*' There are other examples, however, of this fence building in the Second Temple Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, especially T. Judah 14:1 and 19:1. There the author employs the same verb, "leads to" (ὁδηγεῖ), that is used five times in Didache 3:26.
But we do not need to travel outside the boundaries of Jewish Christian literature to find similar examples of "building a fence" around the Torah commandments to keep people from breaking them. One could conclude that a very similar approach was taken by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Following his statement that his followers' righteousness should exceed that of the Pharisees
(Matt. 5:17, 18), Jesus mentions a number of specific Torah prohibitions, especially those directed against murder and adultery. Jesus warns that these outward sins really are no worse than the corresponding attitudes of anger and lust (Matt.
5:21-30). It is possible that his warnings also could be framed in the following ways.
My child, do not become angry, for anger leads to murder.
My child, do not become lustful, for lust leads to illicit sex.
(Didache 3:2, 3)
The Two Ways of the Didache
Five Positive Virtues (3:7-10) The Didachist follows these firm admonitions against destructive deeds with a positive affirmation of good practices to follow. In this way, he follows a time honored method of showing what behaviors need to be "put off' and then what needs to be "put on" in their place (cf. Eph. 4:22-24),
The qualities of meekness, long-suffering, mercy, and gentleness seem to echo Christian language as that enunciated by Jesus in a number of places. The quotation in 3:8, "But be meek, since the meek will inherit the earth" is one of the beatitudes in Matt. 5:5. The wording, however, may reflect Ps. 37:11. Because no dominical citation formula is used as in the later section of Didache
(9:5, €.g.), we cannot be sure which source is being used. The quotation is slightly closer to the beatitude since the article τὴν is included in both, so this may be evidence that the Didachist is referring to the "Gospel of the Lord" and simply cites it without a formula since that seems to be his practice in this first part of the Didache (cf. 1:3-5).
The words that conclude the verse: "and one who trembles always at the words that you have heard," most probably are an allusion to Isa. 66:2. The qualities of meekness and humility that are to replace the "fenced" behavior forbidden in 3:1-6 must be indicated by a humble attitude toward the one who speaks the word, anticipating the clear command in 4:1. Here is a reflection of the advice in James 1:21: "Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." This is not the only parallel with James that has been noticed by commentators.*?
The positive advice in this paragraph culminates in the dramatic affirmation of God's good providential ways in 3:10: "You will accept (προσδέχομαι) the experiences that happen to you as good things, knowing that nothing happens apart from God." One thinks of the Pauline affirmation in Rom. 8:28, but since the Didachist nowhere clearly refers to Pauline statements in any positive way, it is best to see this as echoing such passages as Sirach 2:4: "Accept (δέχομαι) whatever befalls you, and in times of humiliation be patient."
Five Congregational Precepts (4:1-4) Much of the teaching up to this point for the convert from paganism has been of an individual focus — the shedding of the convert's old life and the putting on of new attitudes and behavior patterns. But the convert is joining a family in this new life—a family with brother and sisters and familial love—and also a family with potential quarrels and strife. So the life of the new believer in the body is stressed over the first few verses of chapter four.
First, his attitude toward the teacher of the word of God should be one of attention and respect (4:1). Taking the book as a whole, this probably has most immediate reference to the "overseers" (or "bishops") who have the spiritual oversight of individual congregations (15:1). Milavec views this teacher as the personal mentor of the new convert who takes him through the program described in chapters 1-5. While this is possible, in my opinion Milavec has not
The Two Ways of the Didache made a case for this individualism in training. The very next verse stresses the role of the saints as a group that provides the words on which he is to find rest and support. I believe it is best to see a combination of a teacher/overseer plus the congregation who all participate in his training. This seems more like the situation that prevailed before formal catechetical schools under the oversight of a bishop trained new converts (late second century). Milavec's view imports a bit too much of the modern mentoring under a spiritual director into the first century scene. While that may be a good idea for training young believers, it is reading too much into the text to see it here.
With his characteristic realism, the Didachist then reminds the young believer that all may not be sweetness and light in his new family. The Jerusalem manuscript states that "You will not desire (ποθήσεις) division." Many commentators suggest an emendation here as: "You will not cause (ποιήσεις) division" — the difference is only one letter. And the difference does not alter the tone of the command that much. Rather than a "division-maker," he is to be a "peacemaker" (4:3), again echoing a beatitude (Matt. 5:9). While this may appear to be a big responsibility for a novice, the command is not that he should serve on an ecclesiastical court, but simply as a brother that contributes to the unity, not to the fracturing of his new family. I personally have seen the effects that a new believer has had on the unity of the sometimes jaded older members of a congregation who ought to know better. The simplicity and love of new believers can be an example to us all.
Three Household Rules (4:9-11) After dealing with the sharing of resources (4:5-8), the Didachist sets forth three household rules—a simple discussion of the Haustafel, or household code that appears often in the NT (Eph. 5:22-6:9; Col. 3:18-4:1; 1 Peter 2:18-3:7; 1
Tim. 2:8-15; Titus 2:1-10).%° Taken together, the rules imply that there were at least some adult converts who had children and slaves. Milavec has a good summary of this passage and I cite it at length.
In the case of children, they were trained from their earliest years "in the fear of God" (4:9). The Didache does not give nay guidelines as to when and how such children were to be introduced into the community. No provisions, for example, are made for infant baptisms.
. Since the choice (to join) the community was an adult decision prompted by the Spirit (4:10b), parents were expected to train their underage children in appropriate ways until such time as they came forward, in early adulthood, and asked for admittance. In any case, parents were not to withdraw their guiding and protecting hand from their children."
This passage also provides evidence of the significant social leveling that membership in the Christian family entailed. Here we see both masters and slaves who still maintain that relationship but in an entirely new and different context than was possible in society at large. And it was the Spirit's work that made this possible (4:10) by preparing both master and slave for their roles in
The Two Ways of the Didache
the assembly. This is the first reference to the divine Spirit in the book, but not the last. "Holy Spirit" appears in the baptismal formula of 7:1 and 11:7-12 mentions a prophet speaking in the Spirit. The theology implied in these and other such statements of the book will be examined further in chapter nine.
Solemn Final Admonitions (4:12-14) The new believer is told to hate the things that are not pleasing to the Lord
(4:12). This prepares the reader for a list of those very things in the "Way of Death" in chapter 5. The instruction that has been given is to be carefully guarded and should neither be added to nor detracted from (4:13). This echoes
Torah commands such as Deut. 4:2 and 12:32 and points out how serious this "Way of Life" was to be viewed in the community.
The final admonition points to the future when the trained convert will assume his full role as a baptized member of the church. "In church (ἐκκλησία) you will confess your wrongdoings, and you will not go to your place of prayer with an evil conscience" (4:14). The details of the weekly Eucharist have not yet been given (14:1-3). It will be in the context of that service where this admonition will find its specific focus. For the time being, however, we should know that a guilty conscience is not consistent with participation in his public "place of prayer" (npocebynv—see its use in Acts 16:16).
Summary of the Way of Life As has been mentioned, chapter 5 consists of a litany of at least forty attitudes and actions that comprise the "Way of Death." We will not say much about these morbid practices presented in a stark list marked by asyndeton (no conjunctions). This least attractive of the sections in the Didache always brings to my mind the complaints of students as we translate this chapter. They hate it because they have to look up so many unfamiliar words! I am sure the Didachist would want us to hate the sinful practices more than we hate the unfamiliar
Greek lexemes!
Didache 1-5 is devoted to a teaching program that served in the church as a catechetical manual at least through the fourth century and maybe beyond. With the influx of converts from paganism in that century it must have served other catechetical schools as well as it did in Alexandria. Its contents were not to be changed or watered down (4:13, also 6:1 and 11:2). Some of the matters may have been more relevant to its original Jewish Christian concerns—for example, the next chapter. But the training program as a whole seems to have served a vital purpose as pre-baptismal catechesis for pagan converts to this newer form of Jewish faith.