The Teaching of the Apostles
The Didache (teaching or instruction) or, to give the full title, The Lord's Instruction to the Gentiles Through the Twelve Apostles, is one of the most precious documents of the Church in the period following the preaching of the Apostles. While most other early texts are primarily concerned with reaffirming Christian teachings or rebutting heresies, the Didache tells us a great deal about how Christians lived their lives and practiced their faith in the early IInd century.
I should preface this discussion with an apology for my prolonged absence. My column writing was interrupted first by intense preparation leading up to our Summer School, then by the Summer School itself, then by a lightning trip to Athens and several islands in the Ionian Sea where I conferred with Chronicles' newest columnist on all the serious issues of our time.
I'll make only the briefest initial comment in order to give you time to read the Didache . The first five chapters are devoted to moral questions. Christians are to abstain from fornication and sodomy, and a long list of sins enumerated in chapter 5, where they are listed as attributes of the "way of death": cursing, murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, charms, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, a double heart, fraud, pride, malice, stubbornness, covetousness, foul speech, jealousy, impudence, haughtiness, boastfulness. On the positive note, Christians are enjoined to give alms. Parents are to teach and discipline their children, while slaves are to obey their masters--two teachings which are derived from the writings of Paul and Peter. Where Christians ever got the notion that slavery was incompatible with the faith and sodomy compatible, I do not know, but there is no excuse for such ignorance. More to come....
II. The moral teachings of the Didache offer no innovation on the the Gospels and the Epistles, but they do shed light on how Christian morality was taught in the early Church. In addition to condemning murder and sodomy--described as the corruption of boys--the text also preaches against killing unborn and born children, coveting, bad-mouthing, malice, hypocrisy and pride. This is a bit much for most of us, but the Didache is amazingly practical: We are to hate no one but that does not mean we are to be non-judgmental since we also have to reprove some. Particular emphasis is laid on anything supernatural including the use of magic potions.
Rather than simply offering a list of "Don'ts," the Didache (Ch. III) explains that desire leads to adultery, superstition (like observing omens or performing magic) to idolatry, lying and money-grubbing to theft, grumbling, stubbornness, and thinking wicked thoughts to blasphemy. Accept what life hands you as good because nothing happens except with God. This is neither fatalism nor Stoicism, because the point is that the Creator of the universe, though he may not intend us to be victims of slander or robbery, has designed a universe in which such things may happen, and all may be turned to good use.
As in other early texts, schism--which arises from self-assertion--is condemned (IV). We are to give alms to needy strangers but we also need to take care of business at home: "Do not keep your hands off your sons and daughters!"
On the Way of Evil, by contrast, bad people oppress the meek, corrupt the young, and kill children. Anyone like to guess which Way is the American Way of Life?
The pragmatism of the Didache comes out very clearly in Chapter VI: On the one hand, we are not to permit anyone to cause us to stray from the Way of Truth, but, on the other, those who cannot be perfect should do what they can. If you cannot bring yourself to fast, at least abstain from meat offered to idols "For it is the worship of dead gods."
Entries(RSS)
"Where Christians ever got the notion that slavery was incompatible with the faith and sodomy incompatible..."
I think you mean sodomy compatible. Feel free to erase this post once corrected.
Thanks, Doc, for the edit. My mind is obviously still on Paxoi.
I think that the idea that slavery is incompatible with, at least, Catholic teaching comes from the idea that Man is created in the image and likeness of God and that, therefore, the starting point of all morality is respect for the essential dignity of every human being. At that point, it is hard to defend the idea that a human being can be the object of ownership or can be disposed of in the same way as a horse or a cow (with all due respect to horses and cows!).
Unless the Catholic Church has set itself against the teachings of the Apostles and the traditions of the early Church, it cannot say any such thing. It is up to Catholics, beginning with the Pope and the hierarchy, to preserve, transmit, and understand what has been handed down and not, on the basis of speculative philosophy, to repudiate that tradition.
Analogies are precarious. We wash cows. Does that mean we should not wash our children because to do so would be to treat them as animals? The Apostles enjoin us to treat slaves with respect and love as our fellow men, but slaves are told to obey their masters. Period. If exploitation of humans as a source of labor is wrong, then--as Southerners were quick to point out--the exploitation of workers in mines and factories is far more wrong, because the conditions were less humane. I do not advocate slavery and would not, generally speaking, wish to own slaves, but every society has positions of superiority and inferiority in which there is a temptation to exploit the inferior. Slavery is only one such institution and not always, as George Fitzhugh pointed out in another universe,, the worst. By the way, Belloc's argument in The Servile State is quite wrong, historically. Slavery not only persisted into the Christian Empire but well into the Middle Ages, where it coexisted with serfdom.
I am relieved tobacco, gambling, and drinking are not listed.
Taki, on the other hand, probably has a thing or two to be worried about, but Camels, scotch, and sports wagering need not concern him.
Dr. Fleming,
Is there a particular translation you recommend?
I found editions ranging in price from $10 to $70. I'd assume that the Loeb Classical Library edition is safe enough, and it includes several other books along with the Didache.
Dr. Fleming, this is slightly off-topic, but could you suggest any classic texts on instructions for or lifestyles of the newly baptised? Specifically, I'm wondering to what extent they were permitted and/or bound to maintain previous ties with family and friends (it would seem logical that the former would have been more difficult). I understand that throughout most of history Catholics were forbidden from having contact with apostates although the conditions of modern society have forced mitigation of that rule.
Back to the Didache, the sections on admonitions vis-à-vis requesting material aid from or receiving fellow Christians are interesting, and naturally more sensible than free-for-all social welfare. Would you happen to know, though, what was expected of them vis-à-vis reception and material charity toward infidels?
There were some saints and holy people who were married to non-Christians. I'm thinking of the wife (can't remember her name...) of King Clovis (who of course later converted). If there were rules then they seem to have been tempered by certain dispensations, if that is the right word.
Dr. Flemming, good to see you back in action! I am very thankful for having attended Summer School. God willing I will be returning next year. Thank you for the above topic and discussion, it is truly relevant to our present world. Already it is very interesting.
Dr. Fleming, Mr. Ezzo @ 8, and Woodcutter,
Dr. Fleming:
I was asked as part of discipleship training in our church to teach, among other things, the Didache in a twelve-week course this past spring and early summer. I had read and studied it in college and had referred to it from time to time during the forty plus years since. I wish that this study under your leadership had come before I did mine; I nevertheless look forward to the learned discussions on this forum. I am sure that I have much to learn.
Mr. Ezzo:
I suppose that "dispensations" you might be referring to other Christian communities such as the one to which I belong - Southern Baptist. If not, I hope that my following comments will not be in vain.
.
I, of course, cannot speak for all Southern Baptists. I can speak to my own training and understanding. The pastor of my first nineteen years of life would emphatically not marry persons if one or both were proclaimed atheist, agnostic and a member of a non-Christian group - Jew or Muslim, for example. He also included Unitarians, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in that grouping. While he would not marry Trinitarian Christians of different dispensations, he refused to do so not so much on theological grounds as on practical groups: marriage in faith and love is difficult enough without man and wife having different faiths and confusing the children. I know this because he advised an older friend of mine who was contemplating marrying a Catholic girl in our community. Our pastor's position was that either she, in good conscience, would become a Baptist, which of course, was his preference, or that my friend, in good conscience, would become a Catholic. He counseled that if neither could make that decision in good conscience, they should not get married.
Consider this a sidebar. I certainly do not intend for this to distract from the study of the Didache. If I misunderstood your intent with "dispensations," please enlighten me.
Woodcutter,
Nice to have met you face to face for the brief day at the summer school.
There are several decent translations. I posted a link to a site with both Lightfoot and Kirsopp Lake (which is in the Loeb). The two volume Loeb edition of the Apostolic Fathers is very useful.
As for relations with nonChristian friends and family, they must have been strained but I think rarely broken. St. Paul says that a converted spouse should continue living with a pagan, so long as the pagan does not object. Many pagan rulers were converted by their wives, as Clovis was by Clothilde. St. Monica was married to a pagan who occasionally got fed up with her preaching and abused her, but in the end he, like their son Augustine, converted. It is an inspiring story, far more inspiring to me than all those suspiciously edifying tales of Christian virgins who were tortured to death because they refused to get married. If their parents approved of the marriage, they should have done their duty. I recall reading the letters of a wise French saint who was appealed to by a young pious virgin who wanted to enter the religious life contrary to her parents' wishes. He told her to be a good girl and obey here parents. (Somebody please refresh my faltering memory and give me the name of this very famous priest.)
If one's friends and family are involved in evil activities, naturally, one should not join them but Christians were supposed to be good neighbors to everyone, not just Christians. Visit, sometime, the House of SS. John and Paul in Rome, and you will see pretty good evidence of a mixed household with intermingled Christian and pagan images.
In the old days, Catholics were not supposed to attend Protestant services, though it was, I believe, permitted to attend a wedding. However, one could not be "in" the wedding as bridesmaid or groomsman.
This should be a very informative and worthwhile study.
“…listed as attributes of the "way of death": cursing, murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, charms, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, a double heart, fraud, pride, malice, stubbornness, covetousness, foul speech, jealousy, impudence, haughtiness, boastfulness.”
Since the voice of man has usurped the voice of God, many of these are commonplace in our sad, sick state. In my limited studies I like the works of Marion Montgomery. He really comes to terms with this whole pathetic problem and its disastrous consequences.
“Where Christians ever got the notion that slavery was incompatible with the faith and sodomy compatible, I do not know, but there is no excuse for such ignorance.”
AMEN! I’m always amazed at how much we accept without considering the underlying foundation. I find this occasionally true even of my Southern Baptist pastor. Our education and media influence us far more than we are made aware.
- so true.
- I look forward to following this discussion. Thanks for hosting it.
It's important to view the first six chapters in light of their purpose: a manual of moral instruction for catechumens. My, what a rigorous program—lasting as long as two years before baptism. Exceptions were made for those who were sick or who demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the moral teachings presented. Then, "Having first recited all these things, baptize . . . " (7:2).
This reveals a higher moral standard—both for those who are to be baptized and, as implied, for those who are already baptized—than what many of us are accustomed to today. For example, "Thou shalt not command thy bondservant or thine handmaid in thy bitterness, who trust in the same God as thyself, lest haply they should cease to fear the God who is over both of you; for He cometh, not to call men with respect of persons, but He cometh to those whom the Spirit hath prepared. But ye, servants, shall be subject unto your masters, as to a type of God, in shame and fear."
Here, as with the other commandments, the City of God penetrates the City of Man, transforming it. It doesn't eliminate the natural distinction between servant and master, but alters the behavior of both, as Philemon has already demonstrated.
This moral catechesis takes on the form of the Ten Commandments—loosely, and as summarized (the Two Great Commandments) and interpreted (Sermon on the Mount) by Christ. Thus, the commands go beyond mere external obedience ("you have heard it said, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' . . . ") and cut to the heart. In my Lutheran tradition, we have a similar moral catechesis in the First Chief Part of the Small Catechism, whereby the commandment is memorized as well as a moral explanation ("What does this mean?").
In recent years, one evangelical praised the first section of the Didache for its moral rigor, contrasting it with today's preparation for the baptism of new converts. But then he went on to suggest that this section is instructive as regards what is missing from it: doctrinal instruction. The implication he drew was that catechumens should not be instructed in doctrine, as that should be saved for the faithful. This false dichotomy rests on the assumption that the Didache was all-inclusive, not a supplement to oral teaching at the feet of the presbyter/bishop. Indeed, we have the summary of Christian doctrine as taught to neophytes alongside the Didache: It is the Apostles' Creed.
These things all seem to speak to knowledge of right and wrong, sinful and not sinful, a concept that has been so watered down that people no longer think in these terms. This a good exercise in the battle against the secular relativist that depends on and relishes the week and cowardly minds of today.
I am interested in two comments. The first is from Dr. Fleming in an earlier post on nationalism / patriotism but it pertains to the discussion:
"Believe me, things are going to get much much worse, and all we can do is to do what the early Christians did: lead the best lives we can, form little communities of faith and civility, and spread the word."
The second is from post #14 here by Aaron D. Wolf:
"Here, as with the other commandments, the City of God penetrates the City of Man, transforming it."
My question concerns the fact that it seems to me that the "little communities of faith and civility", even behaving as proposed in the Didache, as long as they are commingled in the City of Man, do need some shared theology / spirituality (whether or not that is embodied in a single institutional church that unifies all of the little communities) in order to thrive. As Babbit noted in his commentary on Burke, Burke seriously underestimated the power of the French Revolutionary ideology when he thought that English tradition would withstand it. Paul spent a great deal of time strengthening local churches on doctrine, in addition to giving advice on matters of discipline.
I am interested in Aaron Wolf's quote because, as a supplement to the Gospel itself, I believe Augustine's City of God provides the most coherent unifying framework and the only truly fully developed intellectual antidote to all other ideologies that would weaken the 'morality of everyday life'. It does this because it proposes a unifying bond that does not weaken but rather is composed by local attachments, and yet does not vainly go to war with the City of Man but rather encourages mutual temporal peace (Book 19, Chapter 26).
The question is what is the balance of emphasis between doctrine (like the City of God) and discipline (the Didache, Sermon on the Mount, etc.)? How far in, let's say, our families, our bible study groups, etc. - the legitimate locus of our "little communities of faith and civility" - do we push for doctrinal integrity? At what point do we change them (change our church, change our friends) over doctrinal matters?
Dr. Peters, thank you for your comments. By "dispensation" I meant "an exemption from a law or from an impediment, vow, or oath." For example, royalty were sometimes allowed to marry people of near consanguinity. I'm thinking of Felipe II, who married his niece, Anna, I believe, which the pope allowed; while a man such as Robert the Pious was excommunicated for marrying a cousin. I'm sure there was a reason why Felipe got the dispensation while Robert didn't. But this is what I meant. And I'm sorry I can't give more specific examples because I am so poorly read in history (and almost everything else).
Mr. Ezzo @ 17
I am sorry that I strayed from the pack in my misunderstanding of your intent. I suppose that this puppy went off chasing the March Hare rather than keeping his eyes on the White Rabbit. I now fully understand your original question to Dr. Fleming. Thanks for your kind response.
Dr. Wolf:
Your words:
"This reveals a higher moral standard—both for those who are to be baptized and, as implied, for those who are already baptized—than what many of us are accustomed to today."
In addition, to manifesting a higher moral standard, which was obviously paramount, did not the rigor and duration of these moral instructions - up to two years before baptism - also weed out the disingenuous and even spies? Is there any historical reference to such intent or to such outcomes?
19. Mr. Peters, according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry on catechumen, the answer is yes. The entry cites various writings of the Church Fathers.
Mr. Chan @ 20
Thank you very much for the response and for the reference.
CCH:
Changing church and friends is very, very difficult. I was raised Baptist, so you can imagine that I've experienced some of that difficulty. Doctrinally speaking, there are such things as fundamental dogmas and those of secondary importance—not to minimize, of course. I do not agree with the LCMS on a few issues of doctrine (though I wouldn't say the same of the Book of Concord), but I will commune at most—well, many—LCMS altars. I could not share in the Eucharist at a Baptist church, however, as my Baptist friends do not confess the Real Presence, which, over time, I came to believe in. "Can I, in good conscience, take Communion here" is a good litmus test. Friendship has more to do with me (or you) than with the friends in question, I think. "Can I maintain my witness for Christ without falling into sin?" is often the relevant question. There are some friends who represent an occasion for sin, and they have to be avoided. On the other hand, the Fathers counseled that Christians should not draw attention to themselves if possible when refusing meat offered to idols at a pagan friend's house. This excludes both hyperseperatism and self-righteousness, but it also allows the believer to refrain from "causing offense" in the presence of a confused unbeliever or neophyte, who might not yet realize that the idol is dumb and, to use the Didache's word, "dead." Whereas, as St. Paul instructs, you can fry that same steak at home, no problem.
The Faith cannot be viewed as or serve as an ideology. It is Revelation and stands extra nos. (Faith is something else.) To quote a man I once knew, who is now deceased, in reference to the Apostles' Creed: "I did not make it—no, it is making me."
rmp, T. Chan:
Nothing much to add, except my delight at the way in which the early Church treasured the Our Father. This pertains to the treatment of catechumens and spies. The catechumen learned the commandments and the Creed, but the Our Father was a treasure presented only to the baptized. In today's syncretistic West, we often hear God referred to as "the Father of all"—or "Parent," if feminists are involved. However, the early Church knew that only those who have access to Him through His only-begotten Son, through the "adoption of sons" (sealed in Baptism), could rightly say "Our Father which art in Heaven." (Yes, objectively, He is God the Father, whether one believes it or not, as Christ is "eternally begotten of His Father before all worlds, . . . " But it's quite another thing to say "Our Father" or cry "Abba.") All of this underscores the beauty and true confession made by our Orthodox friends and Chrysostom, when they say "The doors, the doors. In wisdom let us attend . . . "
Posted above in the original:
II. The moral teachings of the Didache offer no innovation on the the Gospels and the Epistles, but they do shed light on how Christian morality was taught in the early Church. In addition to condemning murder and sodomy–described as the corruption of boys–the text also preaches against killing unborn and born children, coveting, bad-mouthing, malice, hypocrisy and pride. This is a bit much for most of us, but the Didache is amazingly practical: We are to hate no one but that does not mean we are to be non-judgmental since we also have to reprove some. Particular emphasis is laid on anything supernatural including the use of magic potions.
Rather than simply offering a list of "Don’ts," the Didache (Ch. III) explains that desire leads to adultery, superstition (like observing omens or performing magic) to idolatry, lying and money-grubbing to theft, grumbling, stubbornness, and thinking wicked thoughts to blasphemy. Accept what life hands you as good because nothing happens except with God. This is neither fatalism nor Stoicism, because the point is that the Creator of the universe, though he may not intend us to be victims of slander or robbery, has designed a universe in which such things may happen, and all may be turned to good use.
As in other early texts, schism–which arises from self-assertion–is condemned (IV). We are to give alms to needy strangers but we also need to take care of business at home: "Do not keep your hands off your sons and daughters!"
On the Way of Evil, by contrast, bad people oppress the meek, corrupt the young, and kill children. Anyone like to guess which Way is the American Way of Life?
The pragmatism of the Didache comes out very clearly in Chapter VI: On the one hand, we are not to permit anyone to cause us to stray from the Way of Truth, but, on the other, those who cannot be perfect should do what they can. If you cannot bring yourself to fast, at least abstain from meat offered to idols "For it is the worship of dead gods."
I am a little bit surprised that nobody here has mentioned Thomas F. Torrance's volume on *The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers*, which is a learned and harsh indictment of what he sees as the near-total misunderstanding of St Paul among the writers called the Apostolic Fathers. He is easiest on Polycarp and Ignatius, but finds throughout a largely innovative, un-Hebraic, and un-NT understanding of 'charis' and accordingly of justification and so on.
Perhaps this book is dated at this point; it was written as Torrance's Basel doctoral dissertation under Karl Barth. In any case, I think that especially the Protestants checking in here would find the book interesting.
¿Por qué iba a querer leer lo que un calvinista escribió sobre el Padres de la Iglesia?