The Didache

What is the Didache?

Those who are only familiar with the Bible may be wondering; “what is the Didache?”.

The Didache (which is Greek meaning “Teaching”) is a document which claims to reiterate the core teachings of the Anointed One as passed down by the 12 Apostles, and is seen as one of if not possibly the first document that attempts to explain the Christian faith in a formulaic manner, an attempt at establishment of systematic doctrine.

The exact date of its authorship is unknown and is often debated by scholars, some stating it is older than stated, whilst others saying much younger, the dates suggested ranges from 60-150 A.D. The author(s) are anonymous.

For the most part it reiterates the writings of the New Testament, however, it also contains additions which are not at all seen in the New Testament.

Dissertation

In this article I’m not going to be writing a commentary on the whole document, or things that are merely reiterations of the Gospels, but only the differentiations from the New Testament which stand out to me. So if you wish to read the entire book of Didache, it can be found in the links below, along with an interlinear of the original Greek:

https://biblehub.com/library/richardson/early_christian_fathers/the_teaching_of_the_twelve.htm
https://www.psalm11918.org/References/Apocrypha/The-Interlinear-Didache.html

Below I am going to list all the things that stand out to me in the Didache which either appear to differ from the New Testament, or are not found in it.

GREEN will indicate something that is new but not in contradiction of anything written in the holy writings, BLUE will indicate uncertainty over whether the statement is new, a reiteration or contradiction of the holy writings, RED will indicate a contradiction of the holy writings.

• Abortion is murder
• Commandment not to fast on the same days as the Pharisees
• Baptism must be performed preferably in a cold flowing body of water (river, lake, etc) but can be performed in a still or warm body of water (pool, tub, etc)
• Baptism can be performed via pouring water three times on the head in a cup
• Baptism must be done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
• Commandment that fasting is required for two days before baptism on part of the baptiser and baptism candidate
• Command to confess sin at congregation gatherings and at the Lord’s Supper
• Commandment to pour and partake of the wine before the bread during the Lord’s Supper
• Commandment to not let non-Christians partake of the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper
• Commandments to pray in ritualistic repetitive and rote fashion
• Prophets do not need to abide by the same commands as everyone else and are to be considered high priests who are to be given tithes and take priority over the poor and needy
• Commandment to declare a travelling Apostle or prophet as false if they stay for over three days, or if they ask for money, or anything other than food for travel, unless they wish to settle down and live with them
• Commandment to not help Christian travellers in need for more than three days unless he chooses to live with you, skilled tradesmen must work and not rely on others for help
• Commandment that a prophet is not to be examined or put to the test and doing so is an unforgivable sin
• Giving to the poor pays the ransom of one’s sins
• Commandment to reject and disfellowship all Christians who do not heed the commands of the Didache

As we can see there are quite a few things that do not appear in the New Testament and outright contradict those writings, along with many verses also which may or may not contradict the New Testament.

So now that we’ve had a surface glance, we’re going look into the details of these above passages.

Abortion

• “…do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant” – Didache 2:2

The Didache appears to have a unique addition to the command of not killing, which includes the act of abortion. Though this does not appear in the New Testament word for word, it would line up with general Christian and ancient Jewish principles on murder of an unborn child on the basis of Old Testament texts where harming an unborn child in a mother’s womb incurred the death penalty (Exodus 21:22-25).

It is likely that the writers of this document had such a verse in mind, as they do often make mention of Old Testament texts, and from the general consensus, it appears they may have been possibly Jewish converts, given their leaning toward physical laws and formulaic worship (as we will see in further verses).

Not fasting on the same days as the Pharisees

• “Your fasts must not be identical with those of the hypocrites. They fast on Mondays and Thursdays; but you should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays”. – Didache 8:1

Considering the sometimes very literal nature of this document, I find it a little difficult what to make of this verse. It may appear that this is a literal command that Christians were not to fast on specific days, in which case would completely contradict Paul’s writings on individual conscience of holy days (Romans 14:5).

However, on the other hand, it may be a reference to Yeshua’s words on not fasting in the manner of Pharisees, in that they did it during days and times when they could be noticed by others.

• “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.… When you fast, do not be somber like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward“. – Matthew 6:1, 16

In such a case, this Didache verse may be advising Christians in the manner of Yeshua, perhaps to fast on days when it would be less likely that they’d be noticed by others, and not in the company of Pharisees so that they not be associated with their kind (in the manner that Paul recommended Christians not to openly associate with unrepentant sinners in the Congregation in order not to encourage or promote the behaviour in his letter to the Corinthians).

However, further examination of verses in the Didache in this section of passage when it gets onto the topic of “not praying like the Pharisees” may show that this is not the case and that indeed, this passage is being literal and may be applying an arbitrary rule on when a Christian may choose to fast (which we will get to a little later).

Baptism

• “Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then “baptize” in running water, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand”. – Didache 7:1-4

Though the details are not given in the New Testament on the specifics of baptism, other than it being done in a body of water, this specific verse may appear to grant insight into the general practice of the day where the Bible is silent on the matter. It is of course odd that it specifies certain types of water taking priority. Being that cold water is better than hot, and flowing better than still water. I feel if such was an important detail, it would have been noted by the Apostles or Yeshua himself.

However, it should be noted that there appears to be nothing inherently wrong with advising a baptism that was in the likeness of what was mentioned in the Gospels, the important aspect being that there was a body of water available for the submersion.

However, as opposed to the verses which state any body of water is acceptable, I find the verses on “cup pouring” being a substitute for baptism more troublesome and in fact it may be in direct disobedience to the Anointed One.

Yeshua taught that Christians are told to be “baptised” not “poured on”. The ancient term “baptism” originates from the Greek term “baptizó (βαπτίζω)”, which literally means to “submerge”.

907 baptízō – properly, “submerge” (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, “dip under“). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion (“immersion”), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai (“sprinkle”) – HELPs-Word Studies

In today’s language, “baptise” refers to the “ritual” or “ceremony” where one is submerged in the Anointed, however, the ancient term is not at all a reference to a specific ritual “called baptism”, but by definition means to be put into a body of water. Therefore, understanding Yeshua’s words “go and baptise” literally means “go and submerge people in water”. Thus, I personally find the pouring of water to not be considered a suitable replacement for baptism (submersion) in the Anointed. We do not see any references to cup pouring in the New Testament, rather we see people actively seeking open bodies of water in order to be immersed fully (John 3:23, Matthew 3:6, 13, 28:19, Acts 2:41, 8:38). In every instance the word “baptizo” is used, and whenever water is mentioned, it is always a body of water, not a pouring from a cup.

The invalidity of cup pouring is in fact revealed in the text of the Didache itself, for it does not say “if one cannot be baptised in water be baptised with a cup”, but it says “if one can’t be baptised, pour water from a cup”. So the Didache itself is saying that cup pouring is not an alternative form “of” baptism, but an alternative “to” baptism. The original document was written in ancient Greek, thus when it says “baptism” it likewise is using the word “baptizo”, and is why it doesn’t call cup pouring “baptism”.

Another consideration is that the cup pouring is done “three times”. Though it may be a minor detail to some, we are told to be “baptised once” in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We do not submerge people three times for each name, hence I think likewise that ‘if’ pouring was suitable, that only one pour be done in the singular phrase of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, pouring water is not a command of Yeshua, nor would I, in my opinion, believe it to be a substitute for submersion.

Another thing that stands out as odd here is that this passage doesn’t merely “recommend”, but “commands” more than one day of fasting for people about to be baptised as well as for the baptiser.

This would appear to me a plain contradiction of scripture and a needless additional command inserted into doctrine. This is in fact in conflict of the Gospels, where many baptisms went underway with no mention of fasting. We see with the example of the journeying Ethiopian who was baptised by Phillip, he stated “here is water, what is to stop me being baptised right now?” and was then baptised by the Apostle Phillip, with no command nor need of fasting (Acts 8:36-38). According to the Didache, Phillip and the Ethiopian broke the “commands of the Apostles” (as expressed by the Didache that is) and would therefore be worthy of being disfellowshipped or excommunicated (Didache 11:1-2).

The final note on the topic of baptism is the commandment to baptise in the name of the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.

Though this phrase is Biblical we do see many examples throughout the Bible where baptisms were performed only in the name of Yeshua (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38). Some believe that the original Bible manuscripts did not contain the words “Father” or”Holy Spirit” based upon the ancient writings of Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea’, who quoted the verse as stating Yeshua saying “in my name”, which matches the other Biblical verses on baptism where they baptised “in the name of Yeshua”. However, there is no actual manuscript evidence to support the assertion that Matthew 28 is a corruption.

One could theorise that it’s possible that the phrase from Yeshua isn’t a “baptismal formula”, but rather a statement of authority, as was common in the ancient language and manner of speaking and is why it wasn’t always said in a “triune manner”. If so, this may also explain Eusebius of Caesarea’s words also, if the “formula” for baptism was indeed not a “ritualised” practice. However it’s worth noting that Eusebius was a historian, of whom usually pride themselves on scholarship and acute accuracy. He himself wrote a document named “On Discrepancies between the Gospels”, and so it’s not impossible to assert the theory that there was an ‘addition’ of a triune-like statement to this verse, but on the other hand, it’s not strong enough evidence alone to rely on one man’s quotes.

However, it is possible that the Didache was the first document (known to us) in Christian history to make an attempt to make an unquestionable doctrinal “formula” for baptism (in light of the evidence seen in the New Testament) in the fact that they placed much emphasis on “pouring the cup” three times in each name as mentioned earlier.

(For more information on this topic, feel free to read my article):

Baptism in the Name of Who?

Due to this uncertainty and seeming differentiation between the Gospels and the Didache (one placing emphasis on the three names being spoken and recognised in baptism, the other not seeming to make as much as a fuss of it), this also may lend credence to the arguments that it is not as old as some believe it to be, but perhaps was written more toward the era of the 2nd century where the components of “Trinitarian-like”, and Modalist statements begin to emerge in Christian writings.

Confession

• “At the congregation meeting you must confess your sins, and not approach prayer with a bad conscience. That is the way of life“. – Didache 4:14
• “On every Lord’s Day – his special day, come together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure”. – Didache 14:1

Though the Bible advises confessing sins to “one another” and praying for one another in a communal manner in order to strengthen and encourage one another (James 5:16), it does not teach “confessionals”, that is, the practice that a Christian must confess before men in order to be forgiven, for it is only by the Anointed and his Father do we receive forgiveness sin (1 John 1:9, 1 John 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:5).

It is unclear however whether these verses in Didache teach a form of confessional, communal confession, or private confession to God in prayer before he partakes in gatherings and the Lord’s Supper. Therefore there is not much to comment on here on whether it is against the Bible or harmonious with it. As the authors have proven themselves to be quite literalist at some points but not so literal at others, the matter is hard to determine.

The Lord’s Supper

• “Now about the Thanksgiving (Lord’s supper): This is how to give thanks. First in connection with the cup: “We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your child, which you have revealed through Yeshua, your child. To you be glory forever. Then in connection with the piece [broken off the loaf]: “We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have revealed through Yeshua, your child. To you be glory forever. “As this piece [of bread] was scattered over the hills and then was brought together and made one, so let your Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into your Kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Yeshua the Anointed forever”. You must not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the Lord’s name. For in reference to this the Lord said, “Do not give what is sacred to dogs”. – Didache 9:1-5

The first thing I noticed about this passage was that the wine is out before the bread. This may seem a minor detail, but the command of Yeshua was to break the bread and pray over it and then pour the wine and pray over it. The Apostle Paul makes a note of this when he reminds Christians of this very tradition (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

Another thing that stands out is the command to prevent non-Christians in partaking of the Lord’s Supper, seemingly by force.

Whilst this command finds no origin explicit in scripture, it holds a logical consistency in that those partaking are to “discern the body of the Anointed” and be sure they have repented of their sins before they do. Thus, it stands to reason that one must be Christian to partake of the emblems. In addition, Apostle Paul also recomends, when seemingly speaking in context of the Lord’s Supper or “Passover”, “not to eat” with unrepentant sinners or those cast out of the Congregation (1 Corinthians 5:11).

However, whilst it is a given that the Lord’s Supper is for baptised Christians only, it seems this verse is commanding Christians to take action upon other individuals and to physically refuse non-Christians their own independent choice over whether to partake or not. No scripture instructs that other Christians are to prevent another man or woman from partaking of their own free will, but rather each individual is told to make their own choice of their own volition based upon informed “self-examination” (1 Corinthians 11:27-28).

The Didache would appear to be misapplying the phrase of Yeshua where he said “Do not give what is holy to dogs” (Matthew 7:6), of which most agree was instruction akin to Matthew 10:14,15 and Proverbs 23:9 on not wasting our time with people who do not appreciate or resist holy things, just as pigs do not appreciate pearls but instead walk all over them.

At best, based on the New Testament, I feel the most a Christian could do is inform someone that they should not partake unworthily, for the bread and wine represent the body of the Anointed and is for Christians who have repented of their sins by means of the New Covenant by means of being baptised in the Anointed One, and that as individuals, we should not be having communion with those unworthy of the emblems of the Suppper.

But anything further, such as physically taking the bread and wine out of someone’s hands or preventing them from reaching out for them, I feel would be taking too much upon oneself as no Christian has been given the authority to do such a thing in the holy scriptures, but we have explicit instruction from the Apostles that such a decision is an informed ‘independent’ choice of an individual.

A final point on this passage is the mention of “bread being scattered over the hills” with the attempt to liken this bread (which represents the body of the Anointed) with the body of worshippers coming together for the Supper.

Whilst on the surface it seems to be a pretty analogy, the Bible makes no mention of the bread or Yeshua’s body being “scattered about over the hills”, the Anointed One was nailed to a piece of wood, not chopped into pieces or blown up with a grenade to then be stitched back together by God at his resurrection… At best perhaps it may refer to the fact that wheat has to be gathered from fields into order to make a loaf of bread, either that or to Yeshua being the “true manna” from Heaven, of which in the book of Exodus, manna was gathered together to make bread and cakes (Exodus 16:4, John 6:31), but beyond that I find this verse a bit of an oddity and holds no parallel to anything in the Gospels to my knowledge.

Formulaic Prayer

• “This is how we give thanks… We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your child, which you have revealed through Yeshua, your child. To you be glory forever… We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have revealed through Yeshua, your child. To you be glory forever”. – Didache 9:1-32
• “You must not pray like the hypocrites, but pray as follows as the Lord bid us in his gospel: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name; your Kingdom come; your will be done on earth as it is in heaven; give us today our bread for the morrow; and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but save us from the evil one, for yours is the power and the glory forever.” You should pray in this way three times a day”. – Didache 8:1-3
• “After you have finished your meal, say grace in this way: “We thank you, holy Father, for your sacred name which you have lodged in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have revealed through Yeshua, your child. To you be glory forever. Almighty Master, ‘you have created everything’ for the sake of your name, and have given men food and drink to enjoy that they may thank you. But to us you have given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Yeshua, your child. Above all, we thank you that you are mighty. To you be glory forever. Remember, Lord, your Church, to save it from all evil and to make it perfect by your love. Make it holy, ‘and gather’ it ‘together from the four winds’ into your Kingdom which you have made ready for it. For yours is the power and the glory forever. Let Grace come and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David! If anyone is holy, let him come. If not, let him repent. Our Lord, come! Amen.” In the case of prophets, however, you should let them give thanks in their own way”. – Didache 10:1-7

The Didache has many laid out prayers and commands to say these specific prayers several times a day and at specific events.

Such ritualised prayer goes against what Yeshua said at Matthew 6:7-13 on “not praying in vain repetitions like the pagans do”, the pagans believed in ritualised prayer and special words, and still to this day do, but according to the Anointed One it means nothing.

The Anointed gave us his model prayer as an example of what real prayer looks like. However, the Didache at an extreme level of deep irony, takes this verse and transforms the Lord’s prayer, as well as many other prayers into a form of repetitive ritual, taking the Anointed’s words literally to “pray this way” when the point of the passage was against the very notion of rote or ritualised prayer.

One could reason that the writers of the Didache had the same meaning as Yeshua, in that they were writing down examples of prayers as principles, this is in fact what I had assumed at first when I was reading the passage… However, the literalness of their words are revealed when some verses down they declare that “prophets may pray how they like”, showing that they indeed were making a formulaic and ritualised doctrine of prayer, going against the words of Yeshua the Anointed.

Identifying False Teachers

“Now about the apostles and prophets: Act in line with the gospel precept. Welcome every apostle on arriving, as if he were the Lord. But he must not stay beyond one day. In case of necessity, however, the next day too. If he stays three days, he is a false prophet. On departing, an apostle must not accept anything save sufficient food to carry him till his next lodging. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet… However, not everybody making ecstatic utterances is a prophet, but only if he behaves like the Lord. It is by their conduct that the false prophet and the [true] prophet can be distinguished. For instance, if a prophet marks out a table in the Spirit, he must not eat from it. If he does, he is a false prophet. Again, every prophet who teaches the truth but fails to practice what he preaches is a false prophet. But every attested and genuine prophet who acts with a view to symbolizing the mystery of the Congregation, and does not teach you to do all he does, must not be judged by you. His judgment rests with God. For the ancient prophets too acted in this way. But if someone says in the Spirit, “Give me money, or something else,” you must not heed him. However, if he tells you to give for others in need, no one must condemn him”. – Didache 11:3-6, 8-12

These passages are unclear on whether they are making arbitrary commands on how long a visiting prophet or Apostle can stay in a person’s home and that they cannot collect contributions for the work such as in 1 Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 28:30 (if so, it would go against the scriptures), or if that they merely are echoing the words of the Apostles who warn that Christians should not be preaching merely to gain money and that anyone who asks for money as part of his preaching should be considered a false teacher (Acts 28:30, Matthew 10:8-10).

On the one hand, this could be seen to be a resistance against the likes of Apostle Paul who wrote about men who were complaining that they were being given donations in order to aid their travels and ministry, in that Paul was being “told to work for his money”, though he in fact never did demand money during his travels (1 Corinthians 9:1-14,18-19, Acts 20:33-35). The writers of the Didache for all we know just may have been these very Christians who Paul was talking about.

However, considering that the Didache seems to promote giving tithes to Elders (Didache 13:3-7), it likely is warning Christians to be wary of those who would take advantage of others under the guise of being Christian Elders or Apostles, who were over-staying their welcome and abusing the charity of their brothers by means of “travelling back and forth” over a period of days merely to scrounge off their brothers.

Lording of Apostles, Prophets and Elders

• “In the case of prophets, however, you should let them give thanks in their own way” – Didache 10:7
• “Hence take all the first fruits of vintage and harvest, and of cattle and sheep, and give these first fruits to the prophets. For they are your high priests. If, however, you have no prophet, give them to the poor. If you make bread, take the first fruits and give in accordance with the precept. Similarly, when you open a jar of wine or oil, take the first fruits and give them to the prophets. Indeed, of money, clothes, and of all your possessions, take such first fruits as you think right, and give in accordance with the precept”. – Didache 13:3-7

The Didache here claims that prophets and Elders do not need to follow all the commands of the Didache (and by extension in its own claim, the commands of the Apostles), but are above certain commands that all other Christians are told to follow in its passages, such as the commands of rote prayers which according to these passages are the commands of Yeshua.

The Didache in its claims of being Biblical, lays out its commands and claims they are of the same authority as the Bible’s, thus following this line of reasoning to logical conclusion, it states that not all Christians are equal, but that “higher ranking” Christians need not follow the commands that “lower ranked” Christians do. However, the Bible never teaches one law for one and another law for another. All Christians are considered brothers on equal footing who must all obey the same commands.

A second point to make is that the Didache calls Elders and prophets “high priests”. This may be the origin of why some churches today call their Elders priests, but the scriptures call Elders “servants” and their roles are not at all compared with priestly or ritualistic duties in the New Testament.

On the contrary, the Bible says we now have “one” high priest, and that is Yeshua, who has replaced the high priest role of the Old Covenant (Hebrews 4:14-16). Therefore, calling any prophet or Elder man of the congregation a “high priest” could be considered blasphemy and worship of men, to be adopting the mindset of Korah who attempted to fulfil the role of Moses (in which today, the greater Moses is Yeshua).

This borderline Pharisaical mindset may have laid the foundations of church clergy-laity distinction some time after the Apostles died, which is another line of reason which may show that this document may be more toward the second century, where certain men began to take upon themselves roles of “unquestionable leadership” and sectarianism (such as the Gnostics and others), as opposed to being humble shepherds who merely are meant to teach and remind the flock in the ways of the Anointed, not lead them or assume infallible authority.

“A distinction between clergy and laity developed in the 2nd century, although the clerical ministry traces its beginnings to the commission of the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy for service. Over the centuries, the distinction between clergy and laity was emphasized by special privileges granted to the clergy, including those granted by the Roman emperor Constantine the Great”. – Encyclopaedia Britannica

In tandem with viewing prophets and Elders as high priests, the Didache commands that all Christians are required to give their best belongings and earning to these ones, which almost comes off as a form of tithing. What is more strange about this is that they are to be given priority over the poor and needy in these verses, which would appear to fly in the face of Biblical principles and adopts more of a Pharisaical attitude, who “made God’s house a den of robbers” (Matthew 21:13). There is no indication that these Elder men are “in need” of anything, but they merely take priority over others simply because they are seen as leaders (1 John 3:17). Paul tells us that no man should “give under compulsion” (2 Corinthians 9:7), but the Didache is seemingly making a command out of tithing to Elders and prophets, even to the detriment of the poor and needy when it should be the other way around.

In the Biblical writings we see that Elders are to be seen as equal if not lower than their brothers, Yeshua when washing the feet of his disciples said “you should wash the feet of one another for no servant is great than his master”. In a sense, the Didache is telling Christians to wash the feet of their leaders, but encourages that turn those leaders do not return the favour (John 13:14-16, Galatians 3:28, Matthew 23:8-11).

But this isn’t the only oddity when it comes to the subject of how to treat prophets and Elders.

• “While a prophet is making ecstatic utterances, you must not test or examine him. For every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven.” – Didache 11:7

Though the Didache does give us descriptions of how to identify false prophets by pointing out that a prophet who does not practice what he preaches is a false prophet, and a prophet that makes a claim that does not come true is false, it also tells us that we cannot “test” prophets by seeing if their words line up with the true of the Gospel.

As opposed to the claims of the Didache, the inspired holy scriptures tell us that we must test prophets and teachers by careful consideration of their words. Yeshua through his angel even commended such a thing when he spoke to John (1 Corinthians 14:29, 1 John 4:1, Revelation 2:2).

The only unforgivable sin according to scripture is sinning against the spirit. This sin is not putting to the test men who claim to have the spirit or prophecy, but according to the letter of Hebrews is denying the Anointed and refusing repentance by living in wilful sin and taking up direct opposition against the holy spirit (Hebrews 10:26, 27, Matthew 12:31-32).

By claiming a prophet is unquestionable and can only be seen to be a false prophet by means of false prediction or hypocrisy as opposed to upholding the Biblical instruction that we are to compare their words and teachings to the Gospels, it appears to again promote the borderline attitude of clergy distinction.

So long as a prophet either speaks true, or does not go against his own words, the Didache claims they are above question and that to test them according to the word of God is sin. This is a teaching that contradicts not only the New Testament, but the Old Testament instructions on identifying false prophets as seen at Deuteronomy 13:2, 18:22.

Laziness and Charity

• “Everyone who comes to you in the name of the Lord must be welcomed. Afterward, when you have tested him, you will find out about him, for you have insight into right and wrong. If it is a traveller who arrives, help him all you can. But he must not stay with you more than two days, or, if necessary, three. If he wants to settle with you and is an artisan, he must work for his living. If, however, he has no trade, use your judgment in taking steps for him to live with you as a Christian without being idle. If he refuses to do this, he is trading on the Anointed. You must be on your guard against such people”. – Didache 12:1-5

In similar stead to identifying false teachers who only wish to take advantage, the Didache speaks of Christians in general who are travelling, that they should not overstay their welcome unless they made their intent clear that they wish to settle down with them, and that if they do settle down that they should work for their living if capable, which would seem to me to echo Paul’s sentiments on not putting up with brothers who are being lazy on purpose (1 Thessalonians 5:14).

However, it is unclear on whether again it is attempting to place an arbitrary limit on how long a visitor can stay or ask for help when in need. By placing limits on charity it may be guilty of going against the attitude the Anointed taught at Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles”.

Of course, it may simply be stating a principle based upon the context of the time it was written, as it appears the authors seem to be very wary, if not paranoid of false teachers and brothers who would take advantage of them.

Charity pays for one’s sins

• “Do not be one who holds his hand out to take, but shuts it when it comes to giving. If your labor has brought you earnings, pay a ransom for your sins”. – Didache 4:5-6

This verse would appear to be a contradiction with surface reading only, as the Bible says only the blood of the Anointed pays the ransom of sin (1 Timothy 2:6). Thus, if the writers believed that giving to the poor absolves sin, then it would be a false teaching out right.

Some believe that this may be a reference to the book of Tobit:

“For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life”. – Tobit 12:9

Now the authenticity of Tobit has been debated, with this verse also being one of the things many Christians criticise. If the book of Tobit means this literally, then likewise that book would be false also (though that is a topic for another article), and then by association or reference, it makes the Didache fallacious.

However, some have interpreted this in a non-literal manner, that it refers to placing faith in Yeshua by obeying the commands of the Anointed (something I do agree with), and thus is instructing Christians not to be greedy with their money in obedience to the Anointed.

However, I personally feel this may be a bit of a stretch on the interpretation on the text, if not plain excuse making. We clearly do see the book of Tobit say word for word “giving alms purges sin and leads to everlasting life”, as opposed to “giving alms is a reflection of one’s faith in that he is saved from sin”. This was a statement that is not only in conflict with the Gospel, but even the Old Testament, as animal sacrifices were required to pay for sin (Leviticus 4, Hebrews 9:22).

Paul made a comment on this mindset when he wrote “faith not works is saving you” (Ephesians 2:9), not that a Christian is saved through mere intellectual belief in Yeshua’s sacrifice and therefore can do what he wants, but a Christian should recognise that the Anointed’s blood ransom’s our sin, not our own works (of which we merely must do in ‘tandem’ with our faith, for it means obeying the Anointed One).

As such, I strongly feel the evidence is far more heavily weighed against this statement, in both the Didache and the book of Tobit by extension.

Rejecting the Didache is Heresy

• “Now, you should welcome anyone who comes your way and teaches you all we have been saying. But if the teacher proves himself a renegade and by teaching otherwise contradicts all this, pay no attention to him. But if his teaching furthers the Lord’s righteousness and knowledge, welcome him as the Lord”. – Didache 11:1-2

As the Didache outlines commands that are not found in the New Testament, and in turn also adds commands that are outright in conflict with it at times, I can only state that the command to disfellowship Christians who do not follow the text of Didache is in itself a false teaching seemingly asserted in order to give the author(s) some sense of control over their audience, and expresses the presumptuous attitude of the writers as they not only “go beyond” but against what was written in inspiration of holy spirit.

In this very statement it labels many Apostles as false Christians for they did many of the very things the Didache commanded its audience not to do, such as baptising without fasting, not using the names of the Father and Holy Spirit, and even testing prophets. According to the Didache the 12 Apostles are all apostates, based (apparently) on their own teachings.

Conclusion

Overall, in my personal opinion, whilst this document has some historical value, and does give us some insight to the time period and what was happening amongst the Congregations, I would not regard this document to be authentic Christian canon or doctrine.

It holds far too many misunderstandings of the Gospels, extremely carnal thinking, and outright contradictions with the scriptures. At best I would regard this document to be written by someone who meant well but was very much mistaken on many things (just as it is with many modern day Christian writers, I myself am not above this), possibly a Jewish convert still stuck on the physical law of Moses (an issue Paul often had to contend with in his letters), or at worst, it was written by a heretic or false teacher who wished to start his own sect with his own laws.

Which one it is, I couldn’t say, but it is curious that this document never tells us who is responsible for its authorship, as opposed to most if not all other Christian letters, which tells me these individuals were not recognised figures of authority in the Christian community, but instead wished to use the names of the Apostles as their claim to authority (a very common practice in the early Christian world by apostates who wanted to delude people into following them).