The Ministers of the Didache
Chapter Eight The Ministers of the Didache Overseers and Deacons (15) A unique picture of the church emerges from the Didache. We are given an invaluable glimpse of a community that is making or has just made the transition from a regime of prophets and teachers to one of overseers and deacons (15:1,
2). The author has to reassure his readers that the order of the eucharist celebrated by these new officials is just as good as that of the prophets and teachers.
But it is still regarded as normal and desirable that each local church should have its prophet and teacher. Any authentic prophet or teacher who is willing to stay should be welcomed and supported by the church, "for they are your high priests" (13:1-3).
But we have started at the end, and perhaps it would be best to retrace the steps that brought the Didachist to this point. It will also be necessary to compare what we read in the Didache with some statements from the NT and also from the Shepherd of Hermas so we may get a better picture of the "ministers" who served the churches during this formative period.'"
Teachers (11-13) One reason why prophets and teachers are so welcome in the churches at this period of time is that this is a church that has not yet developed more than the most basic doctrines about Christian belief and practice. While we shall see in a later chapter that while there exists a theological substructure underlying the Didache, it is just that—a structure that lies beneath the many admonitions, mostly out of the reader's view. Even with that recognition, all must agree that we are reading about churches that were still in their infancy in the area of a developed theology. Therefore, anyone who can "add to its righteousness and knowledge of the Lord is to be received 'as the Lord' " (11:2).
This dependence on "charismatic leaders," however, posed several problems. First of all, there was the great difficulty, widely encountered in the early
Christian centuries, when the hospitality which Christians were expected to
The Ministers of the Didache practice towards visitors could easily be exploited. This was so well known that the pagan writer, Lucian, was able to make a story of it.''° The Didachist, therefore, gives some rules to help the community to deal with visitors. "Everyone who comes in the name of the Lord is to be welcomed," but after the initial welcome, the church should adopt a more stringent attitude. A traveler is to be helped as much as possible, but he must not stay for more than three days at the most. If he wants to remain, he must earn his keep by doing some work. The Didachist leaves it to the good sense of the community to decide what to do with someone who has no crafts or skills, but, in any case, no Christian is to be allowed to live in idleness. Any visitor who refuses to abide by these terms is to be shunned as a "Christ-peddler" (χριστέμπορος). This word was probably coined by the Didachist since it is the first known reference to it in Greek literature.''® One should not miss the vivid contrast that the author has deftly made by using this word immediately after his only use of the word "Christian" in the previous verse. There the word describes a worthy vistor who settles down in the community (12:1-5), unlike the fraud who is a "Christ-peddler."
Genuine prophets and teachers, on the other hand, deserve to be supported without having to do any other work. They should be given the first fruits of all the produce and income of the community (13:1-7). But how are genuine teachers to be recognized? The primary criterion is a doctrinal one. Referring back to the ethical and liturgical instructions which occupy the first ten chapters of the Didache, the author says, "Therefore, whoever teaches you all these things said previously, receive him. If, on the other hand, the one teaching, if he has been turned, and should teach another doctrine for the destroying [of those things], do not listen to him" (11:1, 2a). Any teaching which undermines the "apostolic tradition" which our compiler has presented to us is automatically regarded as disqualifying the would-be teacher. As was mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, this same passage states that new teaching, by contrast, which proposes some development in the understanding of Christian faith and practice, is acceptable, provided it is compatible with what has already been received. One wonders if the Didachist himself is one of those teachers. This is a "teaching"
(διδαχη), and teaching requires a teacher (διδάσκαλος).
Since we have referred to the Didachist a number of times anonymously, it is appropriate at this point to raise the question of his identity. Obviously, he did not intend to tell us his name. No patristic reference to the Didache ever assigns an author but simply mentions the "apostles" in connection with its title. While I hesitate in trembling to be dogmatic, I am reminded of some authors today who confidently will attribute the letter "To the Hebrews" to Paul or to Apollos or even to Priscilla! If they can do that with an anonymous book, perhaps I will be allowed to express at least an opinion and leave it at that.
I refer to one of the greatest writers on the book—the church historian, Philip Schaff. Schaff summarized the evidence as follows.''' The author was undoubtedly a Jewish Christian who emphasized the legal and moral in Christianity. He showed no influence from Paul. It could be said he was ante-Pauline, but not anti-Pauline. Schaff makes the telling point that if the Didachist was
The Ministers of the Didache
opposed to Paul, the book would never have been recommended by Athanasius and other fathers for catechetical instruction.''* And yet, his style and phraseology are Hebraic. Except for his criticism of the "hypocrites" (the Pharisees), he abstains from polemics against the Jewish people and their religion, and this differs from the so-called Letter of Barnabas. While he commends the morality of the Torah, he knows the love, meekness and generosity of the Gospel. And yet, his message was primarily for the Gentiles and he placed no other yoke on them but that of the "Lord." While concluding that his identity will probably never be known, Schaff refers approvingly to the opinion of Canon Spence that the best conjecture is that the author was Simeon of Jerusalem, son of Cleopas, nephew of Joseph and cousin of the Lord. According to Hegessipus and Eusebius, Simeon succeeded James the Lord's brother as leader of the Jerusalem congregation. He also led that church during its removal to Pella beyond the Jordan, where that entirely Jewish church began to grow in non-Jewish soil (the Decapolis) for the first time. He fits the character of the writing and is in the time period of the Didache's writing—from the mid-60's. His relocation with the Jerusalem congregation to Pella fits its rural setting in an area that is known for its Jewish-Christian congregations in Gentile areas — the trans-Jordan region as part of Southern Syria, near Damascus and within the orbit of Antiochene influence.
It was first said by Origen about the work, "To the Hebrews" that only God knows its author for sure. Even Origen, however, conjectured that the book's author was Paul. So the same appeal must also be made to divine knowledge about the authorship of Didache. But that doesn't mean that we are forbidden to conjecture, like Origen did, about who might have been its author.
Whoever the teacher was who authored the Didache, he was familiar not only with the role of plain teachers, he was aware of two special kinds of itinerant teachers. These two called for more specific treatment, though they were all naturally still subject to the basic doctrinal criterion. These were apostles and prophets.
Apostles (11) The fourth appearance of the discourse marker περι δὲ is in 11:3: "And concerning (περι δε) the apostles and prophets in accord with the decree of the gospel, act thus." Thus chapters 11-14 are primarily concened with these two
"ministers"- the apostles and the prophets. While we cannot prove the Didachist's dependence on Paul, one is reminded of the similarity between the Didachist and the Pauline statements that list the "ministers" who were gifts to the church. "And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28a). "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). How were they different and how were they similar?
"Apostles" were expected to conform to a rather stricter version of the rules governing all Christian travelers that we have mentioned above. They were allowed to stay for only one day, or two if necessary. If they stayed for a third day, that was enough to reveal them as "false prophets." At their departure they were
The Ministers of the Didache to be given only enough bread to last them until their next destination. If they asked for money, once again they were exposed as phony (1 1:4-6).
These "apostles" are evidently not to be identified with the Twelve. They are rather the successors of the seventy two itinerant preachers sent out by Jesus
(cf. Luke 10:1-11). They are also an important link in the development of the itinerant monasticism characteristic of the Syrian church. The hardening of itinerancy into a rule making it compulsory to move on nearly every day was presumably the result of a combination of apostolic urgency and the need to protect the hosts of the wandering preachers from having their hospitality unfairly exploited or overburdened.'""
What precisely was the role of these apostles is not clear. No liturgical office is ascribed to them. It is only prophets and teachers who are described in 15:1: "they likewise conduct among you the ministry" (λειτουργοῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν λειτουργίαν). Nor is there any suggestion that the content of their teaching differed from that of other teachers. The fact of their constant wandering might imply that their task was to provide basic instruction in the Christian faith, which could then be elaborated by more settled teachers. Against this interpretation, however, is the initial statement which welcomes teachers of any kind that can add to the church's knowledge and righteousness of the Lord (11:2). Furthermore, teachers other than apostles seemed not to settle down any more than apostles do (13:1, 2). It is unlikely that there is any rigorous distinction between apostles and other teachers; any more than there is between today's pastoral clergy and visiting preachers. The essential distinction was that apostles were not allowed to settle down, whereas other teachers were free to stay or to move on as they pleased or in response to the need of the churches.
Prophets in Spirit (11) "Prophets" were distinguished from other teachers in that they "spoke in spirit." Although it is not clear exactly what speaking in spirit means, it was evidently a phenomenon that could be recognized at once. Presumably the Didachist is referring to the same phenomenon that Paul referred to in 1 Cor. 12:3, and, like Paul, it shows an awareness that the spirit spoken of is not the "Holy
Spirit." Notice the initially odd statement, "Not everyone who speaks in spirit is a prophet" (11:8). We may presume that, however it was manifested, speaking in spirit involved making utterances purporting to come from God and so claiming the authority of divine revelation. It was therefore crucial to have some criteria by which to judge whether the revelation was genuine or not, particularly in a church as ill-equipped in doctrine like that of the Didache. Paul proposes a very simple test. If someone speaking in spirit was able to say, "Jesus is Lord," the inspiration comes from the Holy Spirit. If instead the person curses Jesus, then another spirit is at work. Since speaking in spirit is not something that operates beyond the control of the speaker (1 Cor. 14:32), the Pauline test can presumably be applied by requiring the speaker to confess "Jesus is Lord" and then to see what happens. Paul had no qualms about subjecting both the behavior and the words of the prophets to the critical judgment of the church (1 Cor. 14:29-
The Ministers of the Didache
33). The Didachist does not share his confidence. He knows that sins against the Holy Sprit cannot be forgiven, and he identifies this kind of sin with presuming to question or discriminate between prophetic utterances (11:7).
No doubt a prophet who infringed on the basic doctrinal principles governing all kinds of teachers would thereby be disqualified.
The Didachist himself in fact notes other things which someone speaking in spirit might say, which would reveal him to be a false prophet. In this context appears the strange dscription in 11:9,
"And every prophet ordering a table in the Spirit will not eat from it, and if he does, he is a false prophet." Many interpreters view the "table" here as the eucharistic table, in the sense of "convening a eucharistic assembly.'"° It is best, however, to view this table (τραπέζα) as a metonymy for a meal, as it is so used in Acts 6:2; 16:34, and Diognetus 5:7.'"' If a prophet claims to be in the spirit when he requests food, he should indicate that the request finds its origin in the spirit and demonstrate that fact by not partaking of the meal himself.
That this "table" is a common and not a liturgical one also seems more consistent with the following restriction in 11:12, "If anyone says, 'Give me money' or anything else, do not listen to him." But, for the Didachist, the supreme test is how the prophet behaves. What has to be discovered is whether one who claims to speak in spirit is a genuine prophet or not. It is only the words of genuine prophets that cannot be criticized without sinning against the Holy
Spirit. Although it may sometimes be possible to convict a false prophet on the basis of what he says, what is looked for primarily is that the prophet should have "the manners of the Lord" and that he should practice what he preaches. If he asks for money or other gifts, it must be for the benefit of the poor. Thus, as was previously noted, if he orders a meal "in spirit," it must be for others, and he must not eat it himself (11:7-12).
A speaker in spirit who passes the test and is recognized as a "true, tested prophet" (11:10) is exempt from critical assessment. His words must be accepted simply as coming from God. In the church of the Didache there can be no question of revelation being already closed or completed. Further revelation was both needed and expected. And if the prophet did strange things, like the prophets of the Old Testament, it was for God to judge him, provided that he did not try to incite his hearers to behave likewise. This is probably the best approach to handling that controversial description in 11:11: "And every prophet who has been put to the test and is genuine, and who acts for the earthly mystery of the church, but not teaching to do what he himself does, he shall not be judged by you; for he has his judgment from God, for also the ancient prophets so acted."
Prophets in the Apostolic Fathers There are 62 references to the words "prophet" or "prophets" in the Apostolic Fathers. Clement, Ignatius, Barnabas, Diognetus, and Papias use the word
28 times to designate only the Old Testament prophets.
Apart from the Didache, only the Shepherd of Hermas uses the word (13 times) to apply to the "New Testament prophets" in his own day. He also uses the word "prophetic" once, again of the prophets during his time (43:1-16). Didache uses the word in
The Ministers of the Didache singular and plural 21 times. Therefore, only Didache and Hermas speak of prophets during their times. The only other author who may use the word in a similar fashion is the author of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, who speaks of the martyr twice as "prophetic." This commonality of discussion between the two books raises the question of the possible influence of one on the other. While there are not many scholars who would affirm it, the more elaborate discussion in Hermas indicates, in my opinion, that he is the most probable one to be influenced by the Didache, and not vice-versa. An additional issue is that his description of church leaders as "presbyters" without any reference to monepiscopacy in Hermas may point to a first century date of that book, which is often assigned to the mid-second century.
In Hermas 43 there is a similar discussion to that in Didache 11-13. There it is emphasized also that one can know a true prophet by his life. As in the Didache, prophets are to be tested on the basis of their lives (43.7), but Hermas also indicates a simple criterion by which the true can be distinguished from the false on the basis of their respective ways of operating. The false prophet identifies himself as "bearing the Spirit" (43.16) and positively attracts customers from whom he expects payment (43.12). He functions just like a pagan oracle, answering people's questions but otherwise having nothing to say (43. 2, 6). His services are strictly private and if he is in the assembly of the righteous who are full of faith and are praying to God, he finds himself struck dumb (43. 13-14).
His clients are typically people full of doubts and dilemmas, staggering from one crisis to the next, needing authoritative guidance about what they are to do
(43. 2, 4). The false prophet assures them with a mixture of truth and falsehood, but the spirit at work in him comes from the devil (43.3), and is earthly, powerless and foolish (43.11) deserving of no confidence whatsoever (43.17).
A true prophet, by contrast, never answers questions and never operates in private. In the Christian assembly, when prayer is made, the "angel of the prophetic spirit" fills him, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, he speaks as "the Lord wills" (43.9). The Spirit at work in him is from God and is therefore powerful and should be trusted (43.17). He would be quite incapable of accepting any remuneration for his services (43.12).
One of the moral qualities looked for in a true prophet is that "he makes himself needier than anyone" (43.8). At first sight, this suggests an ascetic renunciation of possessions. However, a very similar expression appears in a list of qualities in connection with which no one should practice self control. So it is most unlikely that Hermas, who is elsewhere so indulgent toward rich Christians, is recommending voluntary poverty to everyone. Such an interpretation would make sense of some of the other good things in the list which could only be practiced by people with money (38.10). So what Hermas is calling for in the attitude of the true prophet is proper for all Christians to adopt — one of radical humility and dependence.
In conclusion, while there are a number of parallels with Didache, the Her_ mas discussion of prophets is more nuanced and contains more alternative possibilities and alternatives than the simpler situation presented in Didache.
The Ministers of the Didache
Overseers and Deacons Again (15) In our discussion of the ministers of the Didache, we must now return to where we began the chapter. Much has been written about the commands issued in 15:1: "Appoint, then, for yourselves, overseers and deacons worthy of the Lord, gentle men and not money lovers and truthful and tested; for they likewise conduct among you the ministry of the prophets and teachers." I have adopted the translation "overseers" rather than the traditional "bishops" for the Greek word οἰκονομοὶ. The word "bishop" bears too much the idea of the later monarchical bishop and is a bit anachronistic for the first century church.
Most scholars believe that the early Jewish-Christian churches followed the organizational pattern of the Jewish synagogue. Indeed the word "synagogue" is used once in the NT for the place of Jewish Christian worship (James 2:2). If this be the case, it should be noted that one group of synagogue leaders were the elders (πρεσβύτεροι). Indeed that title seems to be synonymous and interchangeable with the οἰκόνομοι in passages that discuss the leaders of early churches in the New Testament (1 Tim. 3:1, 2; 5:19; Titus 1:5, 7; Acts 20:17, 28; / Peter
5:1). These same two titles in 15:1 are used by Paul in the greeting to the church in Philippi (Phil. 1:1).
One may inquire why the Didachist chose the word "overseer" instead of "elder." As a matter of fact, the last word does not even appear in his book. This choice was probably due to the fact that congregations with a significant Gentile membership were in view. The word οἰκόνομοι would have a more familiar ring to Gentile readers in describing what basically was the function of this person
(oversight) rather than referring to the maturity of the person in view (elder).
Didache 15:1, 2 is clear on one matter. These overseers and deacons did not derive their authority from the apostles and prophets, but through the medium of the local churches themselves. It was the churches that were to appoint for themselves these leaders. The chapter continues that these leaders were to be worthy of the Lord, meek and unselfish, truthful and of good report and were to be honored like the prophets and teachers (15:1, 2). Many of these character traits are quite similar to the similar lists in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1.
This is all we learn of the two classes of permanent congregational officers.
We assume that the overseers were the regular teachers who had spiritual oversight of the flock. This is based on the fact that the only discernible difference for the overseer from the deacon in / Tim. 3 is that the overseer must be "able to teach" (/ Tim. 3:2). The deacons were the helpers who attend to the tempral needs of the congregation, especially the care of the poor and the sick. While we cannot be dogmatic beyond those assumptions, the definite impression is that this book is being written during the passing of a wandering charismatic leadership and the permanent arrival of a local and settled leadership. This is not meant it imply that the overseers and deacons were some new means of leading the flock. It is just that soon they would be the sole leaders on the local scene and the congregations need to recognize the importance of their permanent leadership roles. In the earlier section of the "two ways," the catechumen was ex-
The Ministers of the Didache horted to give close attention to the one who teaches the word of God and to honor him as he would the Lord (4:1). Now this same command is re-issued because the overseers and deacons are their "honored ones" (15:2).
In later years, the deaconate became a steppingstone to the presbyterate, or priesthood. There is no hint of that situation here—another indiocation of the archaic character of the book. Thus, no evidence can be found here.of a threefold ministry (bishop/presbyter/deacon) that began to emerge in the second century. The Apostolic Constitutions, which takes over almost all of the Didache in its chapter 7, adds "presbyters" at this point in its text, thus indicating the threefold ministry of the fourth century and later (Apostolic Consititutions 7.31).
There is no mention of deaconesses in this chapter, although they undoubtedly existed from apostolic times (Rom. 16:1; 1 Tim. 3:117?).
As has been mentioned, the overseers in the NT and in the Didache are identical with the presbyters. There were always several presbyter-overseers in one congregation and constituted what is called today the "presbytery." In addition to Phil. 1:1, consider Acts 14:23: "And when they had appointed (same word as in 15:1) elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed."
The identity of overseers and presbyters that we find in the Didache is further found in the so-called First Epistle of Clement to Rome, universally located also in the first century. He mentions "overseers and deacons," commends obedience to presbyters without mentioning "overseers," and calls the office of the Corinthian presbyters the "episcopate" (42, 44, 57). Hermas also refers to overseers and deacons, but does not mention a threefold division of a single overseer along with presbyters and deacons below him (Hermas 13. 1). The situation that prevails in /gnatius is the authority of a single ἐπίσκοπος over a church, although not yet diocesan, but simply as the head of a single church along with its presbyters and deacons. This arrangement is simply not evident in the NT and the other douments from the first century.
By and by as the Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists disappeared, the Bishops absorbed all the higher offices and functions, and became in the estimation of the Church the successors of the Apostles; while the Presbyters became the fs end the Deacons became the Levites in the new Christian Catholic hierarchy.