Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
    • Podcast Archives
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Greek Tutorials
  • Blog
  • Calendar
    • Events
  • Sandbox

A Scene of Judgment

6/14/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
6/14/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 10 “Purifying Fire, Selective Resurrection, and God’s Coming” pp. 619-690, part 1.

Milavec recalls that in Didache 11:7 the speech of a prophet was to go without judgment (Milavec 2003, 622). Prophetic speech can be misinterpreted. Milavec uses as an example statements which emphasize the imminent return of God and could discourage the community from a work ethic. Without judging the prophets there could be unwanted outcomes. As he often does, Milavec speaks of the situation in terms of ways the community could exercise authority and control over the prophets. In his analysis, Milavec will use Didache 16 and the end-time scenario to probe into the relationship betwen the community and the prophets.

Understanding of prophetic writing should be informed by the genre of the writing. Milavec observes that in Jewish and Christian texts, a reference to the “last days” generally indicates the time of God’s new order beginning rather than the end of the world. According to Milavec, prophetic eschatology “understood the failure of Israel to resist her enemies as due to the fact that God had ceased to protect Israel as a result of her faithlessness” (Milavec 2003, 623). The hope is that God would begin to rescue Israel as he had in the past. By the third century B.C., however, a more apocalyptic eschatology was emerging. Now God would not only rescue his people, but he would bring utter destruction upon the world in doing so. Milavec notes tand illustrates scholarly work which views the events of the last days as more severe or less severe (Milavec 2003, 624).

Didache 16 provides us with a synopsis of the time of God’s coming. In this symopsis, Milavec finds multiple purposes. First, God’s coming is soon but not necessarily immediate (Milavec 2003, 624). Second, people should not expect to be engaged in heroic acts of spirituality. Rather, they would have an ordinary sort of holiness (Milavec 2003, 625). They were not superheroes, but regular Christians. Third, the community should be wary of false prophets who would lead them astray. There was no call to be swayed by deceivers.

Milavec notes that in 1 Thessalonians the apostle Paul told people to expect  the Lord’s coming. However, in 2 Thessalonians, some had decided the Lord’s coming was already under way. Their expectation was more urgent than reality would require (Milavec 2003, 625). It was wrong to say the Day of the Lord was already present. It was merely coming (Milavec 2003, 626). Milavec theorizes that in the earliest time after the resurrection the expectation was that the Lord would come at any moment. However, as some years passed, the idea of signs of his coming developed as the urgent expectation decreased (Milavec 2003, 628). The text of Didache 161-3 suggests this slightly later expectation of the Lord’s coming.

To evaluate the idea of an immediate expectation of the Lord’s return, Milavec turns his attention to William Miller. In the 1840s Miller calculated that the Lord would return on March 21, 1843 (Milavec 2003, 628). When it didn’t happen, he fixed a date later in the year. Tnthusiasm grew as did anxiety about facing God’s judgment (Milavec 2003, 629). Since that time there have been numerous movements focused on the imminent coming of the Lord. Some have resulted in suicide/murder pacts. In contrast to this radicalism, Milavec finds in Didache 16 a commitment to doing good for the rest of one’s life, but fully expecting the Lord could interrupt it all by ushering in the end of time (Milavec 2003, 632).

​
0 Comments

Bishops, Deacons, Prophets, and . . . empowerment?

6/7/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
6/7/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 9, “Community Organization in a Companionship of Empowerment” pp. 579-617.

Milavec opens this chapter by asserting that because there is no assigned role of authority in the Didache it was a radically egalitarian group. “At no time did the community exclude, in principle, potential presiders on the basis of gender, race, economic status, marital status, or social status” (Milavec 2003, 582). He sees this radical egalitarian community in terms of empowerment. However, his assumptions are shaken by 15:1, which speaks of appointing elders and deacons. This is problematic to Milavec’s conception because it asserts a heirarchy. However, he notes that these leaders are under the control of the people in general (Milavec 2003, 583). Apparently this would prevent the whole problem of powerful elders acting contrary to the desires of the community.

Milavec thinks the comparative lack of explanation of the selection of overseers would indicate that the community already had the habit (Milavec 2003, 583). He takes the word episkopos to be already a secular term and not to imply having power or presiding over anything. His view is that the appointed overseers needed support in the face of opposition from the more charismatic prophets (Milavec 2003, 584). There is no sign that the elders were appointed by an apostle or other authority figure.

Milavec observes that the word episkopos is rarely used in the New Testament, and that in the Septuagint it may refer to any person. The word is often used interchangeably with presbuteros. Though the words have some overlap in meaning they are often used as synonyms (Milavec 2003, 585).

Milavec briefly conflates references to bishops, deacons, and the pastoral office with other roles of service. He notes that Acts 6:1-6 shows election by the congregation and classifies those people selected as pastors, not as other servants (Milavec 2003, 585). He then immediately discusses the term diakonon, which normally refers to someone who manages primarily physical care issues in the church. Because Philip and Stephen apparently engage in preaching, and because the apostles are sometimes mentioned in a role of “a deacon” the term must refer to pastors.

Milavec finds a conflict between bishops and prophets in Didache 15:2 (Milavec 2003, 588). He considers the conflict to be rooted in three differences between the groups. He finds the bishops to be liturgists who followed predictable formulas. In contrast, the prophets “were the charismatic zealots for the kingdom” (Milavec 2003, 587). Milavec considers the prophets to be very like charismatic evangelists of our own age. In this view, the bishops may have urged rather mundane lives of holiness, while the charismatics “were given to extraordinary feats of holiness” (Milavec 2003, 587), thus urging more charismatic lives. Milavec also sees the bishops making plans for the long run but the prophets as living in the daily expectation of Christ’s coming.

Didache 15:1 calls for worthy elders to be chosen. Milavec finds that four requirements are made. They were to be gentle, not coveting money (Milavec 2003, 588), truthful, and tested as to their reliability (Milavec 2003, 589). Milavec notes that the biblical qualifications from 1 Timothy 3:1-18, Titus 1:5-11, and 1 Peter 5:1-4 were from a later period, when he considers there to be more distinction between elders and deacons (Milavec 2003, 589). He clearly indicates the epistles as coming from the second century, and the teaching role of a bishop as a later development, with the role as a chief preacher, teacher, and celebrant to be a third century development.

Building on the idea of the deacon as a servant, Milavec theorizes that the work of the deacons would have been to prepare and serve the fellowship meals while the bishops would act as the overseers and managers. This would contribute to the role of the bishop as one who offers prayers. However, Milavec also considers that the text could describe “bishops who are deacons” to indicate people in both offices at once (Milavec 2003, 590).

Milavec notes that in the early 20th century, starting from Adolph Harnack, some scholars have shown the Didache as drawing a distinction between the (positively viewed) charismatic leadership and the later more institutional (negatively viewed) leadership. This was used by Protestants to describe themselves as the true and spiritual Christians (Milavec 2003, 591). By the end of the 20th century we find agreement that Didache 10:7 and 13:3 show worship led by prophets and teachers, not people in an apostolic heirarchy (Milavec 2003, 592). Milavec finds the argument convincing if three assumptions are so. First, he considers that bishops were supported by the community. Second, he finds it likely that prophets would decline numerically. Third, bishops presided at the eucharist. If these three situations are true, it is possible to see a gradual movement toward the less charismatic leadership of the bishops. However, Milavec thinks the earlier scholarship is too forceful about drawing distinctions and applying them to a Protestant versus Catholic context (Milavec 2003, 593).

The issue of continuity or discontinuity in theology is a common matter of discussion. We often ask how closely related New Testament theology and practice are to the Old Testament. Milavec asks a related question. To what extent is the organization of the Didache community related to that of a synagogue (Milavec 2003, 594)? Following James Tunstead Burtchaell’s 1992 work, From Synagogue to Church, Milavec draws two conclusions he considers crucial. First, both organizations were led by elders, but in Christianity the term “bishop” was preferred. Second, the organization of the synagogue still existed, but was referred to as “church.” Milavec sees the functionality as continuing without significant interruption (Milavec 2003, 595).

As to support from the community, Milavec finds that the prophets needed this financial support. However, bishops or elders had no such need. They would have been engaged in their livelihood so would be in the position of supporting, not receiving support. The work of leadership would be considered one’s leitourgia - civic service, not a sort of ecclesiastical worshp activity until the third century (Milavec 2003, 596). Milavec is very clear that he considers this a purely administrative role. He emphasizes that in his view, it is unpaid work which is civil and not spiritual in nature (Milavec 2003, 596-597).

The civic nature of the work of bishops, says Milavec, may be further seen in that the leader of liturgy in a synagogue was not an elder, but someone under the guidance of the elders (Milavec 2003, 598. The title was not taken over into Christianity. However, the actual function appears possibly with James in Jerusalem and in the hands of bishops as early as about 110 as described by Ignatius (Milavec 2003, 599). Milavec does admit that the Didache does not spell out the specific duties of elders. It also shows a council of elders who seem to act as a group.

These elders or bishops did clearly have some duties. Milavec, again following Burtchaell, finds financial control as well as making warnings and critiques to those causing disunity (Milavec 2003, 599). He does, however, admit to this being an “educated guess” (Milavec 2003, 600).

The synagogue also had an office which we would call “deacon.” Burtchaell finds the deacon in charge of many of the hands-on, concrete needs of the community. In a large community he may have been the basic essential person in the municipal government (Milavec 2003, 600). This role was brought over into Christianity as the “deacon” (Milavec 2003, 601). Again, Milavec, basing his assertion on Didache 15:1, considers the deacons to be volunteers. Philo suggests that this would be the role of young men in a household, acting in their place as free men (Milavec 2003, 601). Again, Milavec sees the service of the deacons as that of civic functionaries, working to facilitate business and the needs of the assembled community for worship. He takes a collectivist view in everything (Milavec 2003, 602).

Milavec questions whether women served as bishops and deacons in the Didache communities. He concludes since the term used is uniformly the strongly gendered “men” rather than the less gendered “people” he has to allow this as a role solely for men (Milavec 2003, 602). He emphasizes again that he finds women included in the mentors, people baptizing, and leading prayer. Milavec considers that there would have been social barriers to men and women serving together on a council (Milavec 2003, 603). This may have been moderated by the family atmosphere of the community. However, the civic structure could have created considerable tension. However, Milavec’s assertions do not take into account the different relationships often described in other early Christian documents. He does note that it would be more normal for men to care for men and women to care for women (Milavec 2003, 604).

Because bishops and deacons would be selected by the community and have distinct responsibilities, they could certainly face criticism. Milavec considers how the bishops and deacons could function, especially since everyone was to confess failings (Milavec 2003, 605). However, when there is robust local accountability, there tends to be strong and ethical leadership. Milavec makes much of the practice of censure which could lead an erring bishop to return and be readmitted (Milavec 2003, 606).

Milavec notes that the Didache does not specify who might serve as the celebrant in the eucharist. However, most Christian communities have maintained strict specifications (Milavec 2003, 608). Milavec goes on to explain that in the Roman church there is a presupposition that everything has been done the same way since institution in the apostolic age (Milavec 2003, 609). His opinion is that people have relied on this presupposition even when it is contradicted by facts. A central problem in this regard is whether only bishops would consecrate the eucharist and whether the bishops were in a direct descent from the apostles (Milavec 2003, 610). Milavec notes that the consecration of the eucharist and the office of bishop do not seem inextricably linked in the New Testament. In the time of Tertullian, moving into the third century, it seems that although the norm was for a leader of the community to perform the consecration, it was not always required (Milavec 2003, 611). Milavec concludes that the head of the household where the Christian group met would likely be the celebrant. This person may well have been a bishop but it is nowhere required. The Didache does not make any indication of ordination (Milavec 2003, 613). The development of a clearly ordained and heirarchical priesthood can be traced to the third century but not clearly before that. Milavec cautions against imposing views on the community when they may be anachronisms (Milavec 2003, 614).

Clayton Jefferd, in 1989, suggested “that the Didache was a training manual designed specifically for the training of new elders (Milavec 2003, 615). Milavec considers the claims briefly. If this claim of Jefferds is true, the Didache would rightly be understood as building on the model of the organization of a synagogue. A significant problem with Jefferds’ thesis is that the word “elder” is absent from the Didache (Milavec 2003, 616). However, there are many second person plural statements which could well be addressed to elders. These statements give guidance in many areas which would seem the realm of elders. Counter to this, the instructions to treat prophets as high priests and to give them offerings seems to conflict with the idea of an elder-led organizational structure (Milavec 2003, 616). Milavec also observes that the novices are told to participate in the same disciplines as the elders or bishops. This, in Milavec’s opinion, is in conflict with the theory that the Didache is intended to train elders. He therefore rejects Jefferds’ analysis (Milavec 2003, 617).

​
0 Comments

Receiving Correction

5/31/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
5/31/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.Chapter 8 “The Confession of Failings and Eucharistic Sacrifice” pp. 527-577 (continued)

In Milavec’s view, correction is very important to the ordered society. One of the ways to love one’s neighbor (Leviticus 19) is through fair and just treatment, including correction (Milavec 2003, 550). The correction we receive comes ultimately from God and is for our good. Caring reproof and prayers thus contributed to the good of the community and to the joy and well-being of each individual (Milavec 2003, 552).

If reproof were not effective in the Didache community, they would move to what Milavec sees as “shunning” (Milavec 2003, 553). He persists in considering that passages such as Didache 15:3 refer not only to what many would consider sin but also to social infractions such as caring poorly for tools. If matters went far enough, the community might separate members until reconciliation was completed. This reconciliation would take place through the time of confession (Milavec 2003, 554).

The Didache makes a citation of Malachi 1:11. This is, in fact, the one place where the text refers specifically to something written. The passage in Malachi says that God’s name is glorified in the nations but profaned by the priests. For this reason, God has no pleasure in the priests. Milavec notes the difficulty in interpreting the way the gentiles glorify God’s name (Milavec 2003, 555). His conclusion is that this, as allegedly one of very few passages welcoming gentiles, would be of great interest to the Didache’s authors, who “were quick to bend it to suit their particular purposes” (Milavec 2003, 555). Other passages, because they assumed acceptance of gentiles who converted, would possibly not be as compelling. In Malachi, the gentiles, apart from God’s commands, are honoring God purely. Of course, we have no other evidence that the people in Malachi were not acting in obedience to God’s commands. This reader thinks Milavec is placing his presupposition of hostility to and discontinuity from Judaism in charge of the interpretation. He finds in the slight paraphrase a deliberate attempt to reject Judaism centered around the temple (Milavec 2003, 556).

Milavec does consider rabbinic interpretations of Malachi 1:11. The passage gained significance after the destruction of the temple when it seemed clear the sacrificial system was in crisis (Milavec 2003, 557). Since Malachi was written during a time of exile, many rabbis concluded that the pure sacrifices would consist of holding to at least an evening prayer (Milavec 2003, 558). This same tactic could say that “the nations” were any place where the Jews were living, rather than being a specific reference to Gentiles.

By the second century, Milavec observes, Malachi 1:11 was used by Justin Martyr to say that Christian dedication was superior to Jewish sacrifice (Milavec 2003, 559). In Justin (Dialogue 41) the Christian sacrifice is the eucharist. Milavec notes that Justin specifically rejects the argument that Jewish prayers in all nations are the referent in Malachi 1:11. Yet his argument has its weaknesses. It is better seen as a sign that he knew the rabbinic position (Milavec 2003, 560).

Irenaeus also uses Malachi 1:11, now to demonstrate that material sacrifices are not accepted by God. He allows for an offering of first fruits but not of a sacrifice (Milavec 2003, 561). Milavec does not, however, consider negative statements about Judaism as an anti-Jewish bias. The Old Testament prophets frequently lodge complaints against the priests, temple, and others. However, at issue to Milavec, is the fact that here Christians were critiquing Jews and vice versa. Milavec sees this as the start of oppressive behavior which he sees as dominating history. “Only in the last forty years has there been a concerted effort on the part of Christian pastors and theologians to reverse this smear campaign and to enter into dialogue with Jews” (Milavec 2003, 561). In contrast, Milavec sees in the Didache a Christianity which does not exemplify “anti-Judaism” (Milavec 2003, 562) so is helpful in our time.

Milavec further considers the relationship of Malachi 1:11 to the confession of failings. He assumes that this was done either due to resistence from within or challenge from without. He takes it to be a polemic, not merely a descriptive illustration (Milavec 2003, 562). In his opinion, this confession was an innovation which cannot be found elsewhere in the first century. Furthermore, because the confession and reconciliation of the Didache roughly parallels the text in Matthew 5:23f, which also speaks of reconciliation, Milavec concludes that the framers of the Didache could not have known of such a statement of Jesus or they would not have spoken of the idea (Milavec 2003, 563). In arguing this way, Milavec says both that there were and were not traditions of confession and reconciliation in the first century.

In relation to Malachi 1:11 in the Didache, Milavec again makes a clear distinction between what he calls “the Lord God” and “the Lord Jesus.” He asserts that references to “the Lord” have not been to Jesus and that the Didache communities would consider Malachi 1:11 as coming only from “the Lord God.” He views recognition of Jesus as “Lord” to be a departure from monotheism (Milavec 2003, 564).

The confession of failings in Didache 4:14 and 14:1 has a fairly close parallel in Apostolic Constitutions, from the late 4th century. Milavec notes that the confession seems absent from Apostolic Constitutions (Milavec 2003, 564). He views that text as a free and wholesale revision of Didache with an emphasis on the late 4th century needs (Milavec 2003, 564). By that time there is a clear custom that reconciliation needs to be complete before communion (Milavec 2003, 565).

In addition to any removal of those refusing reconciliation, the unbaptized were removed from the assembly before the eucharist in the Didache. Again, Milavec is focused on whether “the Lord” refers to Jesus or not. He concludes it refers to “the Lord God” (Milavec 2003, 566). He also concludes that those who would be removed were considered unclean, as “dogs.”

As Milavec has been speaking of the eucharist in terms of a sacrifice which must be kept pure, he continues to consider sacrifices, now in the Qumran community (Milavec 2003, 566). Here, the only way of making an acceptable sacrifice is through righteous living. This, according to Milavec, is the “equivalent to offering atoning sacrifices” (Milavec 2003, 567). The Qumran Manual of Discipline states how to live a holy life as well as the offenses which could result in exclusion. In the Didache communities, moral purity of the baptized may have been associated with participation in community life, especially in the meals (Milavec 2003, 569). Milavec considers the required training before baptism to be very brief, so he expects many times when people would fail to keep the laws. The only remedy he finds in the Didache is moral reform or exclusion from the community. The sacrifice must be pure (Milavec 2003, 570).

Milavec notes that in female-dominated religions, food rituals are common and generally involve large amounts of food. On the contrary, in male dominated religions, a sacrifice and a small symbolic portion of food is more typical (Milavec 2003, 571). Milavec’s conclusion is that there is a world of difference between the theology of Hebrews and that of the Didache. In Hebrews, Jesus ascends to the Father and offers himself. In the Didache the scrifice is nearly absent but God provides food which is received together (Milavec 2003, 573). This could indicate an emphasis on the women in the community, rather than men.

The timing of the eucharist is an ongoing question. Acts 20:7f records a gathering on the first day of the week and at night. Because of the Jewish influence, many will conclude the day begins at sundown. Therefore, the evening of the first day of the week would be a Saturday evening (Milavec 2003, 573). The Didache also relates an observance on the first day.

Didache 14 resumes discussion of the confession of failings although there is a description of the eucharist earlier in chapters 9-10. Milavec considers whether chapter 14 was misplaced or may have been an afterthought (Milavec 2003, 574). He concludes that the confession is placed where it is due to the fact that the earlier passage brings the newly baptized to the eucharist. In their baptism they are confessing their sins. It is only later that they have the opportunity to confess (Milavec 2003, 575). The sequence of teachings, then, may reflect reality. It would be normal for the penitent to be baptized and then enter into a community life of repentance (Milavec 2003, 576).

​
0 Comments

Confession and Payback??

5/24/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
5/24/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 8 “The Confession of Failings and Eucharistic Sacrifice” pp. 527-577

Didache chapter 14 returns to the idea of eucharist. Milavec notes that earlier chapters speak of a eucharist celebrated right after baptism but that chapter 14 has a time of confession and reconciliation (Milavec 2003, 530). Additionally, here we find the eucharist as a sacrifice celebrated weekly and that the confession and reconciliation necessarily accompany it.

In Didache 4 the novice was told that confession would be typical. Chapter 14 gives a more full description of the process, to be carried out “in the church” on the Lord’s day (Milavec 2003, 531). The practice promised reconciliation and therefore a pure sacrifice.

Milavec notes three phrases or words which are problematic in terms of translation. In 14:2, the term amphibolia seems to refer to an attack or dispute. The passage seems to assume one party as guilty, and that the guilty party will be excluded (Milavec 2003, 533). 14:2 also allows the possibility that the offended party is an outsider and that the community would side with the outsider against the community member. Thirdly, the identification of the “day” is not altogether clear. 14:1 does not state the word “day” but most commentators assume it to be the intent, as there is strong evidence of Christians habitually gathering on the Lord’s (day) (Milavec 2003, 533). However, some suggest the missing word is “rule” so that the practices of the Christians are according to the Lord’s prescribed practice (Milavec 2003, 534).

Milavec notes the distinction made both in Judaism and in Roman or Greek paganism between a sacrifice and a burnt offering. The Didache consistently uses the terminology of a sacrifice. Even though no animal is killed, the eucharist is a sacrificial offering meal, not simply a doing away with things to give them to God (Milavec 2003, 535).

Key to the idea of sacrifice in the Didache is purification. Milavec sees the idea of confession and absolution to be a late development, not until the sixth century (Milavec 2003, 536). He sees an idea of shunning and excommunication prior to this time. Forgiveness is not mediated by an elder. Rather, offerings may be seen (4:6) as a means of paying a ransom for sins (Milavec 2003, 537). Likewise, Milavec maintains that the idea of Jesus as the only acceptable offering to God is a medieval idea, not present in early Christianity. Because of this presupposition, Milavec sees only that the pure sacrifices are offered by pure people. He finds no fall into sin. Therefore, the offering of the eucharistic sacrifice would show that the one offering it was seeking perfection so would be received as pure (Milavec 2003, 537).

Milavec notes that people in antiquity generally had a cultural understanding of sacrifice. Across cultural boundaries there was a concept of a gift presented according to ritual to a superior. The presentation of the appropriate gift in the right way would create some sort of purity (Milavec 2003, 538). The worshipers would be ushered into friendly relations with one another as well. This may be what the Didache is referring to when it discusses reconciliation (Milavec 2003, 539).

The confession prior to the eucharist is important. Just what kind of failings (paraptomatos 4:14, 14:1) were to be confessed? Milavec mentions three: those against the Way of Life, those against one another, and those which would result in being shunned by the community (Milavec 2003, 541). Milavec questions whether the prayers were individual or communal in nature. He concludes that it is not clear but that most likely is “an audible and individual confession of specific failings when assembling prior to celebrating the eucharist” (Milavec 2003, 543).

Having stated that confession would not lead to forgiveness, but merely to making a pure sacrifice, Milavec seeks to demonstrate that the sacrifice was understood more as a spiritual act than as an act of physical obedience (Milavec 2003, 544). He does this through quotations of Isaiah and Philo, along with an assertion that Moses never considered the purity of spirit in those making offerings (Milavec 2003, 545). Milavec draws a dichotomy between the material and the spiritual. He then pursues the idea of communal spirituality as that devised by the framers of the Didache to subvert the idea of a temple sacrifice (Milavec 2003, 546).

The practice of confession may have been seen as a sign that the community member was serious about a pursuit of holiness (Milavec 2003, 547). According to Didache 4 the Holy Spirit would draw people to pursue the Way of Life. Those people in turn would submit themselves to training and disciplines, including confession. If the mention of specific failings continued and the person confessing didn’t seem to make progress, Milavec concludes it would lead to departure from the community (Milavec 2003, 548). The exclusion of those in conflict would futher purify the gathering (14:23). In cases where someone did not acknowledge his fault, the exclusion from the community would be used (15:3). Milavec considers this shunning as an important element of discipline (Milavec 2003, 549).

​
0 Comments

Learning Gratitude by Giving

5/17/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
5/17/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 7 “Learning Gratitude by Offering First Fruits” pp. 491-525.

While the New Testament does not prescribe an offering of first fruits in a specific manner, the Didache does. Milavec does say that the New Testament references are “purely metaphorical” (Milavec 2003, 494). Whether this is accurate or not, Milavec is clear that the gift is to be made, and that it funds the prophets (13:3). The Didache speaks more broadly than the Old Testament. While Leviticus 23 assumes the gifts are made from agricultural products from Palestine, the Didache does not have a geographic element. It also allows processed products among first fruits (Milavec 2003, 495). The actual donation of an animal may not have been of use to someone who moved about like a prophet (Milavec 2003, 496). In fact, the Didache does not discuss the “first born” specifically, but only “first.” The Levitical rules for redemption of humans and unclean animals would also conflict with the Didache, as silver was not to be given to the prophets. Milavec is clear that the offering of first fruits was not a tithe. It was a token offering, not a precise amount based on a whole harvest (Milavec 2003, 498). Milavec does observe that the terms used in Didache are slightly vague, possibly by design. The reader, whether from a Jewish or Genitle background, would understand the directions in the  context of his own culture (Milavec 2003, 500).

Didache gives no motive for the offering of first fruits. However, the Jewish tradition shows this as an expression of gratitude to God (Milavec 2003, 500). These offerings were regularly for consecration to God, not for the support of the priests. The prophets of the Didache, further, were residing with families where they would receive food (Milavec 2003, 501).

For greater insight into the custom of offering first fruits, Milavec turns to the Talmud. Because the earth belongs to the Lord, all which comes from the earth is from the Lord. Therefore, all reception of the things of the earth is accompanied by thanksgiving (Milavec 2003, 503). Within the Didache communities, it would seem a natural move of piety to make an offering of the first gain, both to Gentiles and Jews. The custom was common in a variety of traditions (Milavec 2003, 504).

In the Didache offerings are given “to the prophets for they themselves are your high priests” (13:3). During the period of the Jewish temple, the priests of the temple received offerings. Milavec finds in Didache a systematic move to replace the temple cult (Milavec 2003, 505). He finds this specifically at 8:1, 8:2, 14:1-3, 1;3, and 16:3-8. The result, in using the oppressed and dispossessed prophets as the recipients of gifts (rather than presumably privileged and oppressing priests?) could work toward social goods such as gratitude, humility, confidence, honor, and charitable care (Milavec 2003, 506-507). Milavec draws a sentimental picture of people bringing gifts to the prophets who would again learn to trust God and man and in turn would offer kind and meaningful prayers (Milavec 2003, 508). Milavec is clear that this is all in the realm of imaginative conjecture.

The offering of first fruits is specifically extended from harvest to bread, wine, oil, and increases of possessions (13:5-7) (Milavec 2003, 509). The Old Testament and other Jewish tradition makes comments about offerings of bread. It would seem appropriate to view all sorts of gain as a gift of God which would inspire an offering (Milavec 2003, 510).

While discussing the offerings for the prophets, Milavec deals with two critiques made against the authors. First, some observe that offerings are prescribed both at harvest and at the point of consumption (Milavec 2003, 511). However, within Jewish custom it was common to make offerings at various stages of the harvest to consumption process. Philo also uses the concept of a first fruits offering at various stages (Milavec 2003, 512). Milavec is clear that these were not the tithes, used to support priests, but were other offerings (Milavec 2003, 513). A second critique is the apparent equating of the prophets with “high priests.” However, no such objection seems to have come from Jewish converts to Christianity. Possibly the semantic range of the term was sufficient to allow the language without issue. There is no record in the Didache of just how people brought their offerings to the prophets or what kind of thanksgiving or subsequent offering might have been made by the prophets (Milavec 2003, 514).

The Old Testament spells out a number of economic protections for the Israelites, which are absent in Roman soeity. In Jewish thought the land and its increase belong to the Lord. Because of God’s care for the poor, they have a right to some provision (Milavec 2003, 516). Milavec finds, however, that under Roman occupation the poor did not receive such assistance. This was possible in large part due to transfer of land to Romans, thus making the Jubilee invalid (Milavec 2003, 517). Because the Didache communities were under Roman law, any limits to slavery or other care for the poor was purely voluntary. The first fruits would have proven of assistance to the poor (Milavec 2003, 518).

Milavec concludes (somehow) that outside of the Didache communities, early Christians had no means or process for dedicating gifts in honor of the Lord (Milavec 2003, 518). He explains that offerings were given to prophets because of a hostility to the custom of the Jewish temple (Milavec 2003, 519). In the absence of prophets, gifts were given to indigent people, who might give thanks as well (4:5-6). This giving, Milavec says, “had absolutely nothing to do with charity. Rather it is what ‘the Father wishes’ and was a proleptic foretaste of that new order that would prevail when his ‘will is born on earth as [it is now already operative] in heaven’ (8:2)” (Milavec 2003, 519). Milavec’s philosophy further shows when he asserts, “The huge gap between rich and poor sanctioned by society stands as ample proof that God is not in charge” (Milavec 2003, 519-520). The social demands of the Didache indicate a people getting ready for a time when God will rule.

Milavec asks whether the first fruits rules in the Didache reveal a date or time setting (Milavec 2003, 520). Following E.P. Sanders, Milavec expects first fruits customs to apply only to products from Palestine. However, the specific requirements of Judaism may not have been applied to the converts of a Didache community (Milavec 2003, 521). Again, the Jewish offerings were brought to the temple, which was destroyed in 70. However, Milavec alleges an anti-temple bias, so dating the Didache based on this offering and the date of the destruction of the temple is not conclusive.

It is unclear whether Christians continued offerings of first fruits in the second or third centuries. The matter is not widely discussed among the Fathers (Milavec 2003, 522). It is clear that charity toward the poor was practiced. By the fourth century and the Apostolic Constitutions some form of first fruits giving was expected. This practice has continued in some communities (Milavec 2003, 523). By the fourth century, the offerings are brought to designated priests, not to the prophets of the Didache (Milavec 2003, 524).

​
0 Comments

Welcoming and Governing Prophets

5/10/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
5/10/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

The Didache is unusual in that it directs a warm welcome to apostle-prophets (11:4) but that it limits the amount of hospitality to be given. The limitation may be related to an assumption that apostles are engaged in a mission to a variety of places, so should not remain in one place (Milavec 2003, 455).

When the apostle-prophet would leave a community he would not be given money but likely some food. Milavec notes this as the biblical and cultural norm for itinerant workers (Milavec 2003, 456). Milavec again asserts that the apostles had not renounced anything but became prophets due to anger at oppression. Their poverty was a way in which they maintained dependence on God. This dependence also set them apart from the pagan priests and prophets who regularly made a profit (Milavec 2003, 457).

According to Didache 11:7-8, the apostle-prophets engaged in some speech under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. Milavec takes this not as anything paranormal or as a type of glossolalia. He asserts it to be “inspired” or “inspiring” (Milavec 2003, 458). This would imply that the apostle-prophet would have a message which was difficult to reject. The speakers were passionate in such a way that to ignore the message would be sinful. However, 11:8 says, “not everyone speaking in Spirit is a true prophet” (Milavec 2003, 459). Judgment was to be made not based on the message or the fervency, but on “the habits of the Lord” (11:8).

Some interpreters assert that “the habits of the Lord” (11:8) are a description of poverty and homelessness (Milavec 2003, 459). However, a voluntary giving of all to the poor so as to be like Jesus would not be verifiable, nor was it a typical standard until a later time. Further, the prophets were presented with offerings (13:7). Additionally, a wanderer who settled would eventually have a home (Milavec 2003, 460). To resolve this problem, Milavec asserts the passage “refers to the ‘habits of the Lord God’ rather than to ‘habits of the Lord Jesus’” (Milavec 2003, 461). He takes these to be characteristics such as love and forbearance, as opposed to whatever habits he assumes of Jesus. Again, Milavec clearly asserts that the Didache community would not have considered Jesus as God the Son. Milavec does make it clear that the Bible never assumes all itinerant preachers, including Jesus, were completely homeless or poverty-stricken. The idea of voluntary poverty to emulate Jesus is not easily defended (Milavec 2003, 462).

The Shepherd of Hermas gives some guidance in identifying true and false prophets (Milavec 2003, 463). The prophet is judged based on his character, which is to be meek, peaceable, humble, content, and not full of vain desires (Shepherd 11:8). Milavec considers the same characteristics to apply in the Didache communities. The people were to live out the Way of Life (Milavec 2003, 464).

The Didache does not give prophets a pass to do anything and everything. Milavec lists four limitations. First, a prophet as not allowed to “order a table” (11:9). The table would presumably be for the benefit of the needy, among whom the prophet may well be (Milavec 2003, 465). Possibly it was not provision of food for the needy but a eucharistic meal. If this were the case, the Didache was preventing the prophets from presiding over the eucharist. The role of the prophets was distinct from the role of the congregation. Though prophets are honored and may be teachers, they are not the mentors who consecrate the eucharist (Milavec 2003, 466). The language in this passage is somewhat obscured, apparently pointing obliquely toward a well known condition.

There is further discussion in Didache 11 of a “worldly mystery of the church” (Milavec 2003, 466). This mystery is not clearly described. Some scholars speculate that this refers to women who may or may not have been prophets, but who would travel with the prophets as if married (Milavec 2003, 467). Milavec recognizes that the language used is vague enough that we really cannot know the implications. The Coptic fragment of this passage appears to misconstrue the Greek, leaving us with no help (Milavec 2003, 468).

Prophets are prohibited in Didache 11;12 from pursuit of personal financial gain (Milavec 2003, 469). This stood in stark contrast to the actions of the pagan prophets who specifically worked for profit. Prophets could make needs of others known. They were not to make these needs a priority of the whole congregation, but they could certainly introduce the need and seek to supply it (Milavec 2003, 470).

The Didache refers to caring for prophets. In the absence of prophets, contributions are made to the poor. Milavec observes no attempt to train or send prophets. “On the face of it, the Didache community appears to attract, absorb, and, in the end, dissolve the prophetic spirit itself” (Milavec 2003, 471). Milavec questions why this would be. He leans on Crosson’s explanation, that prophetic activity is created by adversity (Milavec 2003, 472). The Didache would not, then, advocate people’s move into adversity, then abandonment of their families. The hope given in a Didache community would bring strength and confidence, not hopelessness. Milavec’s comments show a sympathy rooted in God’s love, but willing to step in and help before God would do so (Milavec 2003, 473). The picture Milavec draws is one of a liberation theology in which prophets receive healing after being driven to prophecy by tyrannical oppression. As they receive care from the community they become well adjusted and no longer engage in prophecy (Milavec 2003, 474).

Milavec goes on to emphasize that prophets are nurtured in their gifts over a long time in a community that takes the eucharist seriously (Milavec 2003, 476). Prophets, as he sees them, are people who wish to use action to relieve suffering and alienation, including an alienation from God. Because the Didache communities apparently had a well developed liturgy, they would attract prophets (Milavec 2003, 477). Yet again Milavec asserts that unless someone suffered profoundly, he could never become a prophet.

Because prophets received the first fruits, some scholars have put them in the place of high priests, the celebrants of the eucharist (Milavec 2003, 477). Milavec does not think this can be concluded from the text (Milavec 2003, 478). The role of prophet could be replaced by beggars, who would receive gifts. The Eucharist has a developed outline, which does not require prophetic gifts. Milavec doesn’t find a leader of the Eucharist referred to as a priest until the late second century. It appears, rather, that local officials served as liturgists.

Prophets who wished to settle in the Didache community received some special treatment. According to 13:1 they were exempt from the normal work requirements. Milavec asks why this would be the case (Milavec 2003, 480). It seems likely that they are considered to be working as prophets, so are to be cared for. This is consistent with New Testament injunctions about apostles and elders (Milavec 2003, 481). It also treats prophets much like the mentors who would not be able to engage in a trade to the same extent as someone less engaged in teaching (Milavec 2003, 482).

A pertinent question is whether the prophets of the Didache were involved in ecstatic prayers (Milavec 2003, 483). Milavec notes that scholars are sharply divided over the role of ecstasy in Christian prophecy. He then goes on to describe ecstasy as practiced in Hellenic and Roman paganism. Jewish sources, such as Philo, assert that prophets retain control of their faculties while delivering prophecies. The apostle Paul encourages prophecy which is understood by all (Milavec 2003, 485). The situation is a little different in the Didache. “In the Didache, prophetic speech is preeminently giving thanks to God within the context of the community eucharist (10:7)” (Milavec 2003, 486). This is not speech from God but to God. In the Didache the speech seems controlled by the prophet and readily understood. Therefore, it does not appear ecstatic in nature (Milavec 2003, 487). This may be distinguished from the later Montanist movement. This movement, as distinct from theDidache community, attempted to usher in something strikingly new (Milavec 2003, 488). While the Didache may have been used to promote the excesses of montanism, Milavec does not consider that a natural outgrowth of the Didache. Rather, the ideas, which were fairly neutral as regards prophecy, were apporpriated for use by the radical movement. Milavec goes so far as to suggest the Didache would have been in the recognized canon if it had not seemed open to  prophetic activity (Milavec 2003, 489).

​
0 Comments

Defining a Prophet

5/3/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
5/3/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 6, “Meddling Prophets” pp. 425-483.

The Didache recognizes prophets as living and active at the time of composition. Milavec notes that prophets were not the leaders of the Christian community but that they did have an important role in the Eucharist (Milavec 2003, 426). People are generally cautioned to be wary of prophets and their work.

To analyze the work of prophets, Milavec ties those works to Gerd Thiessen’s analysis of the work done by the Twelve and Seventy, sent out by Jesus (Milavec 2003, 426). The general idea is that the established congregation came later than the time of the wandering minister. Some of the characteristics described in the Synoptic Gospels apply more clearly to itinerant ministers than to the average person. Milavec mentions homelessness, lack of family and possessions, and lack of protection among others (Milavec 2003, 427-428).

In Didache 10:7, the congregation is instructed to turn its attention to the prophets who will give thanks (eucharistein) (Milavec 2003, 429). The prophets here seem to be responsible for the free prayer and its content, not depending on a prescriptive outline. Milavec considers the prophetic speech to be caused by an urgent impulse of the Holy Spirit (Milavec 2003, 430). These impulses seem more common where God’s people are assembled together. The prayers of the community spur the prophetic work on (Milavec 2003, 431). Milavec quotes extensively from Hermas to describe true and false prophets and their work. The Didache does not seem to know of prophets who scheduled private consultations. However, in 11:6 and 12 it is clear that some prophets sought favor (Milavec 2003, 433). In general, though, the role of the prophet was to pray in the assembly when moved by the Holy Spirit (Milavec 2003, 434). Milavec considers that the prophets may well have been dispossessed people who would have special compassion on others (Milavec 2003, 434).

Milavec does discuss the caution given in Didache 11 about false prophets (Milavec 2003, 436). Though prophets could be a blessing of God, false prophets were not a positive force. The work of a prophet may well have been seen as training. If the teaching was consistent with “the tradition” it should be received. But if it was different, it should be rejected (11:2) (Milavec 2003, 437). Novices and masters alike were exposed to the teaching of the prophets. They both needed to consider and evaluate the teaching.

Didache 11:3 speaks “about the apostles and prophets.” Milavec observes that most scholars consider this to refer to two groups of people. Noting the lack of an article before “prophets” Milavec thinks the passage speaks about people who are apostles and prophets at one and the same time (Milavec 2003, 438). In 11:5-6 apostles may be regarded as false prophets (Milavec 2003, 439). Those who asked for money were to be ignored and sent away. The judgment could be based on their actions rather than solely on the content of their teaching (Milavec 2003, 439). Again, Milavec sees the apostle functioning as a prophet. Further, he thinks the term “apostle” is not limited to the Twelve (Milavec 2003, 441).

Milavec asks where these itinerant apostles could have come from. The Didache speaks of them as people who were in common circulation but may not have known much about the tenets of the Didache communities (Milavec 2003, 442).

It is possible that the Apostle-Prophets of the Didache were sent out as missionaries by local congregations or other Christian leaders. There is a notable example of this in Acts 13:1-4 (Milavec 2003, 442). The difficulty with this view is that the apostles were to be received only for a day or two (11:5). Also, while apostles would be sent away, prophets were to be encouraged to stay (13:1). This would conflict with a mission in which the person was to return home to the senders (Milavec 2003, 444).

it is possible, according to a theory of John Dominic Crosson, that the itinerant apostle-prophets were some sort of dispossessed peasants (Milavec 2003, 444). These people would not have been impoverished by choice but as  a result of their mission (Milavec 2003, 445). Crosson sees the dislocation coming primarily from economic factors which would both remove the poor from society and lead them to identify with the hope of a Christian community (Milavec 2003, 445).

Milavec concludes that the itinerant prophets from the Didache would have been moved to hostility by their change of economic fortunes. They would then find healing through the role as a prophet, which gave them honor and dignity (Milavec 2003, 446). Meanwhile, their message helped others resist oppression.

The question remains in this theory, how does the prophet who is invited for two or three days gain an invitation to stay indefinitely? Milavec notes the Didache communities with an emphasis on shared resources did not suffer indigence which would drive people to become prophets (Milavec 2003, 447). The prophets didn’t have a home to return to. upon discovering a safety net in the community they may have been motivated to stay. The lack of a time limit on their presence indicates to Milavec that the prophets were recovering from grief, so would be free from responsibility (Milavec 2003, 448). By giving thanks for the community’s offerings, the prophets would become accustomed to seeing success. Milavec sees this as having a calming effect which would eventually take their prophetic fervor away (Milavec 2003, 448). Once a person was no longer a prophet, gifts could be given to the poor (Milavec 2003, 449). Prophets, then, were considered as a kind of beggars. Milavec makes it clear that he considers Crosson’s theory superior to all others (Milavec 2003, 449).

A third interpretation of the prophets is proposed by Stephen J. Patterson. Patterson sees the prophets as radicalized workers who became troublesom then lost their base of support. This resulted in their admittance as refugees (Milavec 2003, 451). Milavec notes that Patterson’s interpretation is based on Didache 12:2b-13:7 as a later addition which represents condition at a time period after that of 11:1-12:2a (Milavec 2003, 451). The theory seems to be based on the prophets’ identity as wartime refugees. However, the Didache doesn’t make provisions on the scale which would be needed for refugees from a war. More resources would have been needed. There is also no system for identifying true and false teachers on the scale of a refugee migration (Milavec 2003, 452).

Milavec considers Crossan’s view of the Didache prophets as requiring some expansion. Crossan focuses on poor peasants. Milavec thinks small-scale artisans and merchants were also subject to the same economic factors (Milavec 2003, 453). Milavec describes how a small pottery business could be made to suffer by a larger operation which gained the more lucrative commercial contracts. The displaced workers would have turned to being “apostle-prophets” in the same way.

​
0 Comments

The Lord's Supper as a Table of Equality

4/26/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
4/26/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

The issue of the eucharistic meal and its participants urges Milavec to comment on the social setting, especially as it relates to presence of women, children, and slaves. Milavec notes that in some family settings men and women would dine together, but slaves were never included (Milavec 2003, 407). We might, of course, ask whether there were non-slave but lower class settings which were excepted. However, Milavec notes that in the Eucharist everyone was seen to be equally “a ‘servant’ of the Lord (as were Jesus and David)” (Milavec 2003, 407). Therefore, the humility and care for one another would remove the social distinctions normally observed during a regular meal. Milavec compares this to the funeral societies, in which people of different ranks would have some level of equality (Milavec 2003, 408). The levelling of the relationship did not apply outside of the eucharist. Slaves were still slaves (Didache 4:11). In a community of skilled manual trade, slaves may have been valued for their artistry. This would tend to level the social playing field as well. Milavec concludes that this would have been responsible for the lack of emancipation movements, as an accepted level of social regard could exist (Milavec 2003, 409).

Milavec considers treatment of women to be analogous to that of slaves (Milavec 2003, 410). In some instances wives were highly valued and respected. In the lower classes the wife was economically important. Milavec takes this as an indication that the relatively high regard for women shown in the Didache would not have been completely foreign to the communities. Milavec frequently uses Petronius’ Trimalchio to illustrate the relationships of slaves and women. It appears at times that he does not observe it is a satirical comedy. Spotts questions the validity of Milavec’s examples as they may well have been depictions of an aberrant household.

The Didache, in the end, shows no social heirarchy. There are distinctions of roles and abilities, but they are not based on a social rank (Milavec 2003, 411). Milavec notes that the biblical record makes numerous statements about abuses of the equality in the eucharist. He assume there to be instances, though not recorded, in the Didache communities (Milavec 2003, 412).

In his conclusion to the chapter on baptism and eucharist, Milavec describes the convert being brought into something very vivid, presided over by mentors who are deeply convinced of the reality of an eschatological hope (Milavec 2003, 414). Here he pictures people, alienated from all they knew of life and society, embracing the fellowship and prayers as a unifying message (Milavec 2003, 415).

As an appendix to his chapter on baptism and eucharist, Milavec spends several pages considering the origin of the eucharistic prayers. Most modern scholars see the eucharistic prayers as a variant on the after dinner table prayer (Milavec 2003, 416).

As an appendix to his chapter on baptism and eucharist, Milavec spends several pages considering the origin of the eucharistic prayers. Most modern scholars see the eucharistic prayers as a variant on the after dinner table prayer (Milavec 2003, 416). This opinion stems from 20th century research in which Louis Finkelstein was a prominent character. Milavec admits a possibility that the eucharistic prayers were adapted from either rabbinic or household prayers. They may not have had an agreed-upon source text (Milavec 2003, 417). Milavec’s opinion is that the prayers as written in any Jewish context, and thus in any early Christian context, were merely examples, not fixed liturgical works (Milavec 2003, 418). Milavec considers it impossible that there were fixed liturgical statements. His stated reason is that this would be anachronistic due to the strong oral tradition of the period (Milavec 2003, 418). Spotts considers that a genuine oral tradition tends to preserve, rather than modify, theological statements. On pages 419-420 Milavec discusses five reasons he would disagree with Finkelstein. He concludes that he does not consider Finkelstein a credible source, though some years earlier he would have used him with caution (Milavec 2003, 221).

​
0 Comments

Practicalities in the Eucharist

4/19/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
4/19/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

If God the Father is present in the eucharist, where is he? Didache 10:2 speaks of God’s name in the Christian’s heart. Milavec notes that the Hebrew Scriptures use similar terminology for God dwelling in the tabernacle or temple, but not in individuals. In this way the Didache is set apart radically (Milavec 2003, 385). Because God’s holiness dwells where His name is found, seeing the individual as the dwelling place of God is very significant. In some New Testament scholarship “the Name” is taken as a reference to the Trinitarian formula or to Jesus. Milavec considers this to be not the case in the Didache, as he sees “the Name” referring to the Father, while the Son is referred to as the Servant (Milavec 2003, 387).

The eucharistic prayers give thanks for “knowledge, faith, and immortality” (10:2). Milavec considers these three terms in turn. He reaches an interpretation that the partaker is receiving these gifts from Jesus in the eucharist. Milavec seems to expect that knowledge, faith, and immortality will somehow be deepened or intensified through the eucharist. The eucharist is also seen as special in the use of the word “master” in 10:3 as opposed to “Father,” “Lord,” or other appellations (Milavec 2003, 388).

It was very common in Jewish tradition to return thanks after a meal. This formal giving of thanks, called “anamnesis,” appears from the earliest records (Milavec 2003, 389). In the Didache 10:3 there is a formal returning of thanks to God as well.

Considering the institution of the eucharist, Milavec observes that the Didache does not maintain an emphasis on the events of Jesus and the disciples the evening leading to his arrest. Milavec concludes that this would lead to an understood focus on the giving of thanks and eating together, rather than making a doctrinal statement about Jesus (Milavec 2003, 391). Possibly the pattern of table fellowship was Jesus’ real point at the Last Supper, rather than a prescription of a rite surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection. This would result in the participants rejoicing because they realize they are part of God’s kingdom, as the people gathered aroudn His table (Milavec 2003, 393). Milavec continues with another assertion which can make Jesus unnecessary o the Christian message. “Today almost all scholars recognize that Jesus focused all his energies on the message of the kingdom, while, with the passage of time, the church gradually focused its energies on the messenger (Milavec 2003, 393). Milavec’s conclusion remains that the Didache community would have neglected to look for God the Son but would have looked only for the Father in the last day.

The prayers around the eucharist in Didache 10 look both to the past and to the future (Milavec 2003, 395). In the future, we look to God in hope that He will gather His kingdom from around the world. In the last day, the prayer is that God would save, perfect, and gather His church (Milavec 2003, 396). The clebrant and the participants look for a coming time of God’s grace, which will be received wholeheartedly and enthusiastically.

Milavec notes that in addition to the one Greek manuscript of the Didache, there is a Coptic version of Didache 10:3b-12:2a. The text of 10:6 has a variant which may be significant (Milavec 2003, 398). Rather than making a call of praise to the “God of David” it sings praise to the “house of David.” This suggests again to Milavec that the text didn’t look for God the Son but for God the Father, avoiding any Messianic worship.

Milavec questions the conventional wisdom that Didache 10:6 commands non-communicants to depart from the assembly prior to communion. Since he finds a consecration of sorts at 9:2-4 but people are not told to “turn” or “convert” until later, the turning may be repentance rather than a literal turning to leave the assembly (Milavec 2003, 401).

The eschatological expectation of the Didache communities may be foreign to our generation. After all, the second coming has not happened as yet. We are accustomed to the idea it may not be immediate. However, the sense of social instability found in the first century may well have urged Christians to look forward to a coming of Christ and a new social order (Milavec 2003, 402).

Milavec notes a strong Jewish character in the eucharistic prayers. Although we do not have adequate samples from the period for comparison, there are strong similarities to prayers in rabbinic traditions from various times. It seems a reasonable conclusion (Milavec 2003, 403).

The frequency and timing of the eucharist is a mystery. Milavec asserts that it was a full meal. The conclusion of Didache 14:1 is that the celebration was weekly. The full meal would suggest evening rather than morning, thus pointing to Saturday evening (Milavec 2003, 404).

Milavec questions whether the first century Christians had definitive patterns to identify those celebrating the eucharist. It is clear that Jesus was not part of the priestly class. Jesus’ appointment of the Twelve was not an elevation of them to a special rank. Acts also does not seem to recognize a special role (Milavec 2003, 405). Didache does not indicate an important role of mentors, but it is unclear how far this authority extended.

​
0 Comments

What's in the Eucharistic Meal?

4/12/2019

0 Comments

 
4/12/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.


Chapter 5, “Kingdom Expectation Celebrated in the Eucharistic Meals” pp. 351-421.

The Didache speaks in detail about two rites. In baptism the convert enters the community. The eucharist follows. Milavec notes that this is a full meal and that the unbaptized are excluded (Milavec 2003, 354). The Didache does not speak of the institution nor of the theology of the body and blood of Christ. Milavec considers this as a fundamental difference in Christian communities, asserting that the Synoptic communities emphasized Jesus but the Didache communities were more interested in what God did. Milavec also draws a distinction here between the Synoptic communities and the Johannine or Pauline groups (Milavec 2003, 355). As seems frequently the case in Milavec, he sees very different types of Christianity arising in different places, rather than one faith with various emphases in expression.

The eucharistic prayers are found in Didache chapters 9-10. Before and after the meal are three prayers according to set patterns, ending with affirmation of God’s glory (Milavec 2003, 355). Because singing was a very common custom in Judaism and early Christianity, Milavec considers whether the Eucharist would have been sung (Milavec 2003, 356). He concludes that it is likely that the Didache communities would have engaged in singing, especially when celebrating important and repeated events such as the Eucharist (Milavec 2003, 357).

Didache 9 identifies a singular cup and loaf. Milavec notes two possibilities. Either the table, set for a meal, had one cup and loaf identified by the celebrant, or the table was initially prepared with just one loaf and cup until after the consecration and sharing (Milavec 2003, 357). Because the meal was identified as not only a meal but one which broke a fast, it is clear that there would be more than one loaf before everybody left. The prayers, in 10:3, seem to suggest some food and drink provided for the people in general and some as spiritual food and drink (Milavec 2003, 358). However, Milavec asserts that the participants would not have had any concern about care of the elements, nor would they have distinguished between the parts of the meal. He gives no reason for his opinion (Milavec 2003, 358). The blessing may well have been understood to transform the bread and wine or the entirety of the meal (Milavec 2003, 359) although 10:3 seems to indicate some form of distinction.

Milavec describes the eucharistic meal in detail as he imagines it. Based on Jeremias’ work, he asserts that wine was used only on festive occasions, while people generally would have used water with meals (Milavec 2003, 361). There would be a benediction over a cup. The symbolism inherent in the idea of a cup of wine was that God tended His vineyard, Israel, and called his people out as a chosen people. He again emphasizes the nature of prayer as a non-rote practice, in which the leader would go beyond the prayers given in the Didache (Milavec 2003, 363). The shared cup would make a strong statement of all the communicants sharing in God’s presence (Milavec 2003, 364). Milavec’s argument for the spontaneous nature of the prayers is based on two elements. First, aside from the records of reciting Deuteronomy 6:4, he finds no record of word-for-word recitation in Israel. Second, Justin Martyr in 1 Apol 65 and 67 describes “the presider” as altering prayers as he is able (Milavec 2003, 364). There was certainly leeway given for a bishop to pray according to his sense of the current situation.

The Eucharistic prayers in the Didache refer to Jesus as the Father’s “servant.” The role of a leader as the servant of God was prominent in Jewish thought (Milavec 2003, 365). David the king was regularly referred to as the servant of God. Likewise, among the prophets, Moses was seen as God’s servant. In the Didache, Jesus is also considered the servant of God (Milavec 2003, 366). Citing John A.T. Robinson, Milavec sees the Christology of the New Testament developing during the Book of Acts. Early on Jesus is seen as one who is yet to become the real Messiah. The idea of Jesus as the “son” rather than a “servant” or “child” may develop during the time period recorded in Acts (Milavec 2003, 367). If this is the case, Milavec assigns Didache 9 to a very early apostolic period with a relatively primitive Christology (Milavec 2003, 36). Milavec’s practice of making a sharp distinction between roles of God (the father) and Jesus remains consistent as he speaks of roles in the eucharist as well as the idea of the final judgment (Milavec 2003, 369). Some parts of Didache refer to an eschatological hope. However, it is only near the end that this hope is specifically to be realized in Jesus, rather than the more generic “in God” (Milavec 2003, 369). In the eucharistic feast, after the cup, the celebrant takes and breaks the loaf. The custom of breaking bread and asking God’s blessing was common in Judaism. Milavec note that some had a custom of bread before a cup and some of the cup before bread. He suggests the difference in ordering in Mark may simply reflect a local custom (Milavec 2003, 372). The Didache presents the cup, then the loaf broken and consecrated. A meal with a master and disciples is common Jewish practice to this day. It involves sharing one or more cups, bread which is broken and given with prayers, and spiritual teachings (Milavec 2003, 373). The Christian eucharist may easily be seen as a similar gathering. In the Didache, the eating of the loaf is a participation in the future restoration of all things in Christ (Milavec 2003, 374). The bread is seen as nourishment provided by God, scattering the fragments to plant life and knowledge of God’s kingdom in people all over the earth (Milavec 2003, 375).

Milavec notes in the eucharistic prayers that the tem “your church” is used twice, in 9:4 and 10:5 (Milavec 2003, 376). It is singular, not plural. The term for “church” means “that called out.” This can well indicate God’s gathering of one people from many nations. The word is used elsewhere as a universal gathering or a local assembly.

Based on the nature of the eucharist, it is not surprising that unbaptized people would not be included. Milavec notes that in the paganism of the time, meals celebrating deities or other influential figures would be open to all. Therefore, the Didache would make the restriction very clear (Milavec 2003, 377). Again, he distinguishes between Jesus and “the Lord-God,” indicating that the consecration is not referring to Jesus.

There is some debate whether Didache 9-10 describs communion or not. Many scholars, noting the absence of statements concerning Jesus’ body and blood, absence of words of institution, and no mention of Jesus’ death view this simply as a community meal (Milavec 2003, 379). Milavec asserts that the Didache community has no concept of Paul and that there was no common practice before the Synoptic Gospels were written. Because the text uses the word “eucharist” to describe the meal, and because of the restrictions on participation, Milavec sees this as a feast which, in essence, is the Lord’s Supper (Milavec 2003, 380).

The eucharist in the Didache is apparently a full meal. 10:1 says participants are “filled” (Milavec 2003, 380). This implies that the social dynamics common to shared meals would apply. They specifically imply formation and maintenance of close fellowship (Milavec 2003, 381). It affirmed their identity as a group with a number of reciprocal obligations.

Milavec notes that regardless of the place or time of the Eucharist, God the Father was considered the host. Though unseen, He was understood to be present (Milavec 2003, 382). However, Milavec asserts that “the Didache community would have been inclined to speak of the ‘real absence’ of Jesus” (Milavec 2003, 383). He asserts that Jesus would be considered as absent until a future restoration. As typical, Milavec does not furnish an argument for his position.

Milavec asks whether children were present at or even received communion. The Didache speaks only to baptized people receiving communion, and the pattern described is that of baptizing adult converts. However, it is very likely that at the very least nursing babies would have been present (Milavec 2003, 383). Children would normally be present for family meals in a Roman culture, whether at their own table, with adults, or serving tables as a chore (Milavec 2003, 384). The more formal evening meal would be less likely to have a wife or children present. Milavec concludes that since the eucharist was seen as a special meal and was celebrated at the home of a prominent person, slaves and children would be occupied with preparation and serving, not in participation of the eucharist itself (Milavec 2003, 385).

​
0 Comments

Prayers of Early Christians

4/5/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
4/5/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.


“Section III: Analysis of the Act of Praying” p. 333

The Lord’s Prayer, using plurals such as “our Father,” is clearly meant to be used in group settings. However, Milavec observes that many rabbinic prayers traditionally used in groups are also used when alone (Milavec 2003, 333). Group recitation was not a norm in antiquity. In all likelihood only the brief ending doxology or the “amen” would have been said by the group (Milavec 2003, 334). The closing refrain, a doxology, appears in Didache not only at the end of the Lord’s Prayer but also before and after meals in 9: and 10:5. This suggests to Milavec that it was a refrain which the whole group would say together (Milavec 2003, 334).

The Lord’s Prayer is commonly used as part of a eucharistic ceremony today. However, Milavec observes that the prayer is not included in the Didache’s version of the eucharist. The text appears to stand alone, though the themes of the eucharistic prayers are related to the Lord’s Prayer and vice versa (Milavec 2003, 3335). The use of the Lord’s Prayer in communion is clearly documented by the later part of the fourth century.

Another significant question surrounding the Lord’s Prayer is whether it was to be prayed as presented or would be modified on different occasions (Milavec 2003, 335). The rabbinic pattern was to treat memorized prayers as a framework for further, improvised, prayer. For this reason, Milavec thinks it highly likely that the Lord’s Prayer was used as a model for prayers surrounding the concepts of the different petitions. The pattern could also explain the variety in the prayer between Matthew and Luke (Milavec 2003, 336).

A variety of postures and orientations are found for prayer in the Bible. Standing, bowing, prostration, facing either east or Jerusalem are all customs which can be defended. The Didache does not comment on posture or direction (Milavec 2003, 337).

We may gain some insight into prayer in early Christianity by looking at Tertullian, who tells us about practices in North Africa late in the second century (Milavec 2003, 340). In general, he reports Christians praying at sunrise and sunset, as well as three times in between. The prayers often seem to be in small gatherings, though sometimes they are alone (Milavec 2003, 341). The Lord’s Prayer seems to be used, though with variations. Tertullian also mentions a variety of postures.

Milavec finds no clear prescription in Didache for the times to pray the Lord’s Prayer. He supposes two of the three times would naturally be upon awaking and going to bed. It also seems likely that on fast days there may have been more of an effort to bring the community together for prayers (Milavec 2003, 342).

The members of the community are to pray “as the Lord commanded” (8:2). Milavec builds a brief argument that the Didache community would consider God the Father as “Lord” but not Jesus, God the Son. Milavec’s argument seems here to assume an almost bi-theist view on the part of the community (Milavec 2003, 343). Milavec makes some further observations about the content of prayers. He assumes there would be no consideration of Israel or Jerusalem as special. There would also be no condemnation of gentiles. Milavec does not give reasons for his view. He does, however, seem to connect the Lord’s Prayer with the six petitions that he recognizes to the rabbinic Eighteen Blessings (Milavec 2003, 344). Because the content is different, Milavec concludes that the Didache communities would not have been Jewish in their background (Milavec 2003, 345).

Milavec’s conclusion, based on the Lord’s Prayer, is telling. He says of the community, “They were the discontents who did not trust in the lords of this world and the lords of the pagan pantheon to give them a fair shake. As a result, they took as their own the prayer delivered over to them by a discontent Jew who, for his efforts, was crucified as a Roman insurrectionist. With him, they daily relied on God’s promise to come himself and to bring justice and peace and a measure of prosperity” (Milavec 2003, 346). Milavec sees the community as a revolutionary group, though not one which itself would act to overthrow the culture (Milavec 2003, 347). Following E.P. Sanders, Milavec sees the destruction of the gentiles as absent from the New Testament (Milavec 2003, 348). The similarity of  Jew and Gentile as people in need of repentance seems largely lost on Milavec. He describes all of faith and practice in terms of the creativity of a particular community. That creativity seems driven by political and cultural motivations and a desire to oppress or to escape oppression. All is some sort of strategy.

​
0 Comments

The Lord's Prayer: History, Structure, and Petitions

3/29/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
3/29/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.


One of the distinctive features of the Didache community was the use of the prayer we know as “The Lord’s Prayer.” People would gather as they were able, three times a day, and pray together (Milavec 2003, 308). Milavec’s assumption that children would not be baptized releases them from the obligation to pray. However, he recognizes that they would have been allowed to participate in the prayers.

Daily prayers were likely taken over from the practices of the Pharisees, who arose with a decentralizing role especially in the second century B.C. Though temple worship continued, the synagogue and customs of prayers in homes with family had developed over time (Milavec 2003, 309). When the synagogue leaders made requirements of a prayer and recitation liturgy, this was a radical change in Judaism. The custom of morning, noon, and evening prayers became established prior to about 200 A.D. (Milavec 2003, 310). The content of the prayers seems fairly static. This would suggest a similar pattern as Christianity developoed.

Milavec observes the Lord’s prayer exists in three basic versions: that of Matthew 6, that of Luke 11,  and that of the Didache (Milavec 2003, 311). The version found in Luke in much briefer than those of Matthew and of Didache, which two are nearly identical (Milavec 2003, 312). Milavec notes that this similarity does not require dependence. The prayer may well have been firmly established in oral tradition. This says to Milavec that no community using Matthew would have written the Didache (Milavec 2003, 313).

Many have considered that the Lord’s Prayer is derived or adapted from a Jewish example. However, during the 20th century scholars have been increasingly convinced that the Jewish prayers, which are not attested by specific manuscripts until the 9th century, were not entirely uniform and monolithic (Milavec 2003, 314). Therefore they can no longer assume specific content with any degree of certainty.

The Lord’s Prayer as found in the Didache is carefully structured. The six petitions are gathered into two groups of three. The first and third have passive verbs, softening the idea of prayer actually commanding God (Milavec 2003, 315). Milavec notes the passive imperative is common in Jewish prayers. The fourth through sixth petitions all use active imperatives. They also are longer, with subordinate clauses (Milavec 2003, 316).

Milavec considers that the idea of God’s name being made holy by the presence of his kingdom is not a very common New Testament motif. However, it is present in the New Testament and relatively common i n the Old Testament (Milavec 2003, 317). The coming of God’s kingdom and rule seems central to both the New Testament and the Didache (Milavec 2003, 318). Although it is not clearly defined in the New Testament or the Didache, it is still a critical idea (Milavec 2003, 319).

The idea of God’s name being holy and his kingdom coming is tied up with his will being done. Milavec finds these three petitions inseparable (Milavec 2003, 320). As in all the previous petitions, the expectation is that God would be the primary actor. The prayer is addressed to God, not to the disciples.

Discussions of the Lord’s Prayer often begin with comments about the word “father.” Milavec considers Joachim Jeremias and his view that the Aramaic “abba” and the Greek “pater” would be an expression of special intimacy (Milavec 2003, 321). Reference to God as the father who loves his children is common in Jewish piety. It is further not so that Jesus “always addressed God as father” (Milavec 2003, 322). The sentimentalism which finds the prayer as an address to a doting father figure is unwarranted. The prayers in the Didache addressed to the Father always refer to God as the powerful and benevolent Master (Milavec 2003, 323).

The plea in the Lord’s prayer that God’s kingdom would come is a difficult statement. Milavec notes that many interpreters consider it fulfilled already in the age of the Church. However, it may also refer to the hope of a future second coming of Christ (Milavec 2003, 324). This view of a future kingdom may be troublesome to people on at least two levels. First, a cataclysmic coming of Christ challenges the presuppositions of slow progress advocated by an evolutionary viewpoint. Second, it has been expected “soon” for approximately two thousand years (Milavec 2003, 325). Milavec’s solution to the second problem is to cite  scholars who consider the statements of urgent expectation to be creations of the early Christians but not Jesus (Milavec 2003, 326). Aside from that, he dismisses objections as “fundamentalist” and “prescientific.” Milavec concludes, however, that there may well have been at least some level of eschatological expectation in the Didache’s prayer that God’s kingdom would come (Milavec 2003, 328).

The second half of the Lord’s Prayer, Milavec observes, is phrased in aorist imperatives. He considers, then, that the idea of God’s provision of bread, forgiveness, and protection  from temptation should be seen as single actions rather than ongoing, daily processes (Milavec 2003, 328). Milavec discusses the difficulty of the word “epiousios,” normally translated “daily.” It is  not used elsewhere in Christian writing and he does not find it in secular Greek from this time (Milavec 2003, 329). Milavec considers that the provision of bread is to be seen as of one idea with the eucharistic prayers, and that the bread will be that which gives life in some futuristic kingdom (Milavec 2003, 330).

In the Lord’s Prayer the idea of “debt” is evident. Milavec notes that the Hebrew term for “debt” would commonly refer to a sin, a term used in Luke 7:41 translated into Greek (Milavec 2003, 331). In the prayer recorded in Didache the term “debt” is simgular. The aorist “forgive” is followed by our forgiving in the present tense, possibly referring to an ongoing or daily habit (Milavec 2003, 331). Thus, in the last judgment we ask that God’s one time forgiveness would be based on our habit of forgiving others. Milavec, with many others, sees this as a potential challenge to the idea of salvation solely by grace, not based on our works, in this case, forgiveness (Milavec 2003, 332).

The final petition of the Lord’s prayer asks God not to lead his people into temptations. The Greek word used frequently refers to a trial brought by Satan. Milavec’s concern here is that the language could suggest that God would direct people into a time of Satanic attack (Milavec 2003, 332). However, since the term is often used of a test from which a positive outcome is expected, and since the idiom of asking God not to lead to a negative normally is used to ask God for a positive, the petition would seem simply to ask God for protection from difficult trials (Milavec 2003, 333).

​
0 Comments

Fasting in Early Christianity

3/22/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
3/22/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 4 “Rhythms of Fasting and Praying Until the Kingdom Comes” pp. 285-350.

Religious communities normally share together in a life of prayer. Milavec sees the Didache communities as unified in large part due to a rhythm of both fasting and prayer. The Didache (8:1) prescribes fasting on the fourth and sixth day, rather than the second and fifth day, as done by “the hypocrites” (Milavec 2003, 289). This wording presupposes that the community would use a Jewish calendar, with its seven day week. Converts would adopt a Jewish calendar for their worship but also retain the Roman calendar for much of civic life.

In 45 B.C., the Romans had adopted a Julian calendar, which began in January rather than March. It had months as we do now, as well as a leap day every fourth year. However, it had no structure of a week. That was adopted, partly due to Jewish influence, late in the first century (Milavec 2003, 291). The names of days in a week appear by the early third century. In the fourth century, Romans began the custom of closing the civil courts on “the day of the Sun,” which Christians could read with a double meaning as the day of resurrection (Milavec 2003, 292). By the sixth century Sunday became a fairly universal day of rest.

The fasting on the fourth and sixth days of the week is significant. Jewish fasts were typically on the second and fifth days of the week (Milavec 2003, 293). Milavec notes that the Apostolic Constitutions explain the fourth day as the day Judas agreed to betray Jesus and the sixth day as the day of Jesus’ death (Milavec 2003, 294). However, Milavec asserts that it is impossible that the Didache communities could have inherited or invented such customs. He gives no reason for his assertion. Regardless, we do not have a definitive reason for the selection of those fast days.

Milavec continues his discussion of fasting by considering the extent of the regular fast. There are many different ways in which one can humble himself by fasting. Although Milavec considers the Didache communities to be Gentile, they still have some roots in Judaism. So he considers the specific feature of Jewish fasts (Milavec 2003, 296). Normally fasting was an abstinence from food and drink. Sometimes it involved additional signs as well. The Didache, giving no specifics, would seem to expect discretion in the community as to the rigor and duration of the fast (Milavec 2003, 298).

Within Jewish thought, fasting and praying are inextricably linked (Milavec 2003, 299). Milavec considers that fasting is not a matter of self-mastery but of intensifying prayers so God will bring what is needed to the community. His example is praying for rain when it has been unusually dry (Milavec 2003, 300).

Milavec does note that the significance of the fast in antiquity was more closely tied to whether everyone participated than to the actual rigor of the fast (Milavec 2003, 300). He cites several instances which demonstrate widespread participation as the important factor but do not specify what was to be given up in the fast. The primary importance here was that everyone fasted. Secondary importance was assigned to fasting at different times from “the hypocrites.” No other specifications seemed necessary.

Who are these “hypocrites”? Milavec asks if they are the same as the Pharisees in Matthew (Milavec 2003, 301. Because Matthew calls the Pharisees “hypocrites” and because the Pharisee in Luke 18:12 mentions fasting twice a week, many equate the two. However, Milavec follows Rordorf who asserts a very different identity for the hypocrites (Milavec 2003, 302). Matthew’s account of the Pharisees calls them hypocrites because they make a show of fasting. The disciples of Jesus were to fast in secret. In the Didache the practice of the hypocrites is not specifically mentioned. The disciples are to fast twice a week, but publicly rather than in secret. The Gospels also do not say that the Pharisees were distinguished because of their fasting. The practice seems unrelated in Milavec’s mind. Matthew’s Gospel also has Jesus tell his disciples to make their appearance normal on fast days, rather than to choose different fast days (Matthew 6:16-17) (Milavec 2003, 303).

The term “hypocrite” itself is worthy of consideration. In the secular world it was a term used of an actor, neither with positive or negative connotations. Within Judaism and Christianity it took on a primary meaning of someone not involved in a theatrical production, but rather playing a role in life which was not true. As a result, we have retained the word with negative connotations (Milavec 2003, 304).

Milavec still desires to explain who the “hypocrites” in the Didache could be. Since he has concluded they cannot be Pharisees, he considers other possibilities (Milavec 2003, 304). They may be Jews but not specifically Pharisees. However, the Didache doesn’t seem hostile to Jews (Milavec 2003, 305). They may have been Jewish people who encouraged Gentile converts to make commitments to the temple. If this were the case, we could easily understand the fact that the Didache doesn’t seem to consider the temple important. Milavec sees this, as well as the statements in the synoptic Gospels downplaying the temple, as something coming from the time of the destruction of the temple. Only then could Christianity be safely distanced from Judaism (Milavec 2003, 306). Once the temple was destroyed it was safe to make positive statements about the temple.

Milavec asks whether the Didache is an anti-Jewish text at heart. Although some see an attack on Judaism in the discussions of baptism and fasting, Milavec sees the text as framed by  Jewish leaders who wanted to guide gentile converts (Milavec 2003, 307).

​
0 Comments

Baptism - Welcome to the Family

3/15/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
3/15/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Milavec questions a possible inconsistency in the Didache’s use of the divine name. Baptism is to be in the triune name. However, reference is made to people baptized “in the name of the Lord” (9:5) (Milavec 2003, 270). Milavec wishes to resist “harmonizing Didache usage with that of the Christian Scriptures” (Milavec 2003, 271). However, use of “the name of the Lord” would typically refer to God the Father. Milavec does not believe the concept of the Trinity would be indicated by the baptismal formula, nor would he say the concept was developed until the fourth century (Milavec 2003, 371). He therefore assumes that the formula in 7:1 may have been added later, as he suggests happening in Matthew 28:19. Another possible solution is that in the two strands of thought, Gentile and Hebraic, the terminology could have been used differently and that both are present in Didache (Milavec 2003, 272).

Baptism was not only a Christian rite in the first century. Milavec describes the process by which a gentile convert to Judaism would present himself, receive instruction, and be baptized (Milavec 2003, 273). He concludes that the actual setting and the manner of instruction would be similar in the Didache communities. The instructor and baptizer would be the same sex as the convert to tailor instruction and guard modesty.

Milavec shows a fundamental presupposition when he discusses the theology of baptism. “Theology grows out of graced experience. As such, therefore, the theology of baptism originates in the experience of baptism” (Milavec 2003, 274). While the theology will then influence preceptions of the act of baptism, Milavec sees the act itself as the mover of opinion. Baptism can serve to create a social bond with others who are baptized. This may well replace the old bonds to the pagan society, broken by conversion. Therefore, Milavec sees the corporate identity factors as the essential element in baptism (Milavec 2003, 275). The convert’s social identity was transformed in the training and would be affirmed by baptism (Milavec 2003, 276). The baptism, in turn, led to what Milavec considers the new right to pray and receive the eucharist with other baptized people (Milavec 2003, 276). Baptism, according to Milavec, was later considered unrepeatable and somthing which conferred a transformation upon the believer (Milavec 2003, 277).

Milavec concludes that baptism was not clearly tied to the historical Jesus, but was practiced in Acts and later was associated with Jesus’ command (Milavec 2003, 277). He takes Matthew 28:19 as a concept from a later time period. Milavec also takes the idea of baptism in Acts to be a continuation of John’s baptism and the preaching of repentance. The idea of a specific Christian and trinitarian baptism could have been read into the Gospels at a later time, after a theology of baptism was developed (Milavec 2003, 278).

Conversion and commitment, rather than an act of baptism, as seen by Milavec, lead to forgiveness. He ties this doctrine to the parable of the Prodigal, among other places in Scripture. In all that Milavec cites, there is confession and commitment to life change prior to baptism (Milavec 2003, 280). This is similar to the pattern of the Didache, where extensive training takes place first, then baptism and admission to the Eucharist (Milavec 2003, 281).

​
0 Comments

Early Baptismal Rites

3/8/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
3/8/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Fasting prior to baptism is a significant issue in the Didache. Milavec notes that it is never mentioned in Scripture as a preparation for baptism, nor is it mentioned elsewhere prior to Justin Martyr (Milavec 2003, 253). However, since the mention in Didache seems almost materr-of-fact, Milavec takes it to be a practice which was customary. He suggests that fasting may be seen as a way of intensifying prayer or conversion or as a natural response to a major life event (Milavec 2003, 253). A fast may also be a response to loss of identity in baptism (Milavec 2003, 254). A fast may also be a way of cleansing the unclean food sacrificed to idols from the system, or as a preparation for the more typical fast days to come (Milavec 2003, 255). Milavec does not make any conclusion about the actual  purpose of the fast.

Milavec explores the idea of fasting and sorrow further by considering a first century B.C. document telling a story of Joseph the patriarch and the conversion of his Egyptian bride, Asenath (Milavec 2003, 255). In the story, when Asenath is confronted by Joseph’s goodness, she is moved to weeping and repentance. She destroys her gods and spends a week mourning and fasting (Milavec 2003, 256). The wonder and significance of Asenath’s conversion move her to the signs of repentance, including fasting.

In Didache 7, the candidate for baptism along with the sponsor and others who are able, enter into a fast before the baptism. Milavec and others have attempted to identify reasons, but the text does not do so. Rather, it speaks only of the duration of the fast (Milavec 2003, 258). Because most people would find the fast days to be work days as well, the fast would have been a challenge.

Milavec next turns his attention to baptism itself, asking if the Didache communities would have baptized infants (Milavec 2003, 259). There is no explicit evidence prior to the late second or early third century. Milavec considers the teachings in the Didache and finds the references to baptism all indicate the individual being baptized has received training. This does not lead to a natural conclusion of infant baptism. This extends to the participation of all the baptized in communion and a requirement of confession of sins, something infants cannot do themselves (Milavec 2003, 260). In his argument, Milavec asserts that “the notion of ‘original sin’ was not developed prior to the third century, and one has to wait until Augustine (d. 430). to find a pastor threatening infants with eternal hellfire should they die without being baptized” (Milavec 2003, 260).

The use of flowing water was preferred in the Didache. Milavec notes this is consistent with the example of John the Baptist, Jewish tradition, and Hellenistic purification rituals (Milavec 2003, 261-262). He rightly observes that the verb “to baptize” does not require full immersion, though it may well have been preferred. Didache 7:2 makes reference to warm water, which could be used but was not preferable. There is debate whether the use of warm water would be for the sic, for infants, or possibly as a provision for cold climates (Milavec 2003, 263). Since the text doesn’t explain the logic, Milavec leaves the question largely unanswered. The trinitarian formula is specifically to be present. There also seems to be an understanding that enough water would be used, even in pouring, that the person would become quite wet (Milavec 2003, 264).

During the second century it became common to anoint a person with oil before baptism. By the third century a blessing of the oil was also considered normal (Milavec 2003, 264). An anointing after the water was also the norm, at least in Syria (Milavec 2003, 265). There is some question in Milavec’s mind whether the Didache migh have recognized a clergy-laity distinction and omitted the anointing as a feature of clerical practice. However, the Didache does not seem to recognize a distinction between clergy and laity. The mentions of anointings come from a time later than that of the Didache so it is reasonable to assume it was not a matter of widespread practice in the Didache communities (Milavec 2003, 266).

What of the words used in a baptism? Milavec notes that Didache 7:1 gives the triune name of God. However, he denies that the trinitarian formula was necessarily used. He adduces Scripture passages in which the early Christians did many things “in the name of Jesus” rather than self-consciously stating that they were using the name of the Trinity (Milavec 2003, 266). The question at hand is not the doctrine but the liturgical rite. Milavec theorizes that the first six chapters of the Didache would berecited before baptism (Milavec 2003, 267). The text could easily be imagined in this way, as a corporate recapitulation of the teaching and a repudiation of the way of death (Milavec 2003, 268). Milavec assumes that some very striking liturgy would be used. If it were not the Didache text, he does not have another suggestion.

Milavec does question whether baptism would be practiced unclothed and in mixed company. Jews and Gentiles alike would make use of Roman baths and participate in athletic competitions, which regularly involved nudity. Ritual purifications also typically involved removal of all clothes and ornaments. However, the Didache does not specify this. It seems the pouring of water would allow for missing some parts of the body. The baptisms in open air would have been a very public setting. Milavec suggests use of clothes and a reception of the newly baptized person by others with towels and a white garment. Modesty would likely be protected (Milavec 2003, 269).

After the baptism, the newly baptized people would join the community in the Lord’s Prayer and a shared meal, which may or may not have been the Eucharist (Milavec 2003, 270).

​
0 Comments

Baptism, Circumcision, and Fasting

3/1/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
3/1/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Didache introduces regular fasting after baptism and before discussion of prayer. It is possible that the topic is a continuation of the pre-baptismal fast (Milavec 2003, 243). Milavec understands the fast before baptism to arise, possibly, from a “revulsion to eating occasioned by the intense grief suffered by t he candidates” (Milavec 2003, 244). An ongoing practice of fasting could be inspired by the same grief, presumably grief at leaving old family and friends.

Some substantial debate has been conducted about variations in the Didache’s use of the singular and plural. Against some scholarship that alleges the work of a clumsy editor, Milavec observes the singulars are addressed to the novice or instructor and the plurals to a group (Milavec 2003, 245). The changes, though sometimes abrupt, are sensible.

Baptism and circumcision are often closely related in our minds. Why, then, Milavec asks, did circumcision not become controversial for years, until the 50s? The entrance of gentiles into Christianity was not immediate. Even when gentiles began converting, they were received through baptism without circumcision (Milavec 2003, 246). Milavec, relying on the work of James D.G. Dunn, finds a series of cultural and religious power struggles between 40 and 66. These may have led to a movement to accentuate similarities and differences. Thus, the issue of circumcision could become more significant (Milavec 2003, 247). The church at Jerusalem affirmed that gentiles did not need to be circumcised or keep the dietary laws.

Milavec lists of a number of instances of converts to Judaism who were not required to be circumcised. The Didache shows “no interest in circumcision” (Milavec 2003, 248). Those who are baptized are considered full participants in the covenants of God.

Though participants in the Didache community w ere not subject to Jewish dietary laws, they did face a prohibition of eating food sacrificed to idols (6.3). Not only were the people to avoid making sarifices, but they were also to avoid eating the food which had been sacrificed (Milavec 2003, 250). Milavec takes us from a starting point that the Homeric epic describes some sacrifices which are followed by festive occasions to the idea that all festive occasions were centered around sacrifices (Milavec 2003, 250). He then assumes that the members of the Didache community would be invited to parties which similarly sprang from sacrifices. Although the Didache considers the gods as “dead” the participant in a meal may have been understood as agreeing with the sacrificial views in the household. The active participation was off limits. Other situations may have been up to the individual’s discretion (Milavec 2003, 251).

The issue of meat offered to idols comes up in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 as well as Acts 15. Milavec notes that Paul’s attitude in both situations is that Christians can eat food without question but should never participate in any sort of cultic banquet (Milavec 2003, 251).

The prohibition of foods found in Acts 15 is not limited to meat sacrificed to idols. It extends to consuming meat with blood as well. Milavec notes this was a common cultural prohibition. Gentiles living in Jewish territory would be required to change their diets (Milavec 2003, 252). Milavec finds no clear reason fro the omission of this cautionary command.

​
0 Comments

Baptism and Eucharist

2/22/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
2/22/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

The Didache has two clearly recurring rites, baptism and eucharist. Milavec sees these as practices designed to unify the community (Milavec 2003, 232). Although some other practices are mentioned in passing, baptism and eucharist are the only rituals bearing substantial teachingBaptism was the transformation of an outsider to an insider. That is the subject of this third chapter of Milavec’s book.

Milavec notes the structure of the discussion of eating, baptism, fasting, praying, and eucharist does not fillow a strong linear and logical sequence (Milavec 2003, 234). He goes on to discuss the common scholarly view of the text “as a kind of literary collage that was composed by cutting and pasting together literary units that were already at hand and which served purposes foreign to the Didache” (Milavec 2003, 235). However, Milavec thinks there is a more deliberate progression here. It follows the steps which a “candidate” would take from the start of training until becoming a communicant (Milavec 2003, 235). This change of practice and allegiance in Judaism and Christianity constituted a rejection of all other religious allegiances. This stood in contrast to the Roman and Greek religions, which were less a process of conversion than of adopting an additional deity among others. Milavec notes this as a tragic form of intolerance (Milavec 2003, 237).

The statements in Didache 6.3 about permitted foods makes it clear that foods dedicated to idols were not to be used. Milavec finds this as rightly after baptism because, “prior to baptism, the candidate could not presume to share the table, much less the echarist, of the community he/she intended to join” (Milavec 2003, 237). Milavec sees fasting prior to baptism as the way to expel food sacrificed to idols and thus purify the person.

The timing of baptism has been different in various ages and locations. The Didache speaks of a two day fast before baptism. It also considers Wednesday and Friday as typical fast days (8.1). For this reason, Milavec suggests that baptism might most normally have been on a Saturday evening (Milavec 2003, 238). The baptism would have been followed by eucharist in a setting when many people could attend (Milavec 2003, 239).

Baptism and other activities of the assembled Christians did receive comment from second century authors. By 150, Justin Martyr identified Sunday as the day Christians would assemble. They would engage in baptism and eucharist on that day (Milavec 2003, 239). The gatherings were originally in the evening but over time moved to the mornings. Milavec notes that the gatherings were before sunrise, as the day was normally a work day (Milavec 2003, 240). By the late second century, as described in Apostolic Traditions and in Tertullian’sOn Baptism, baptism was no longer typically held in a river. It was typically done on Pentecost or Passover (Milavec 2003, 241). It was normal to schedule catechism so as to end at the Easter Vigil. Overall, the rituals became increasingly complex and regimented (Milavec 2003, 242).

The use of the Lord’s Prayer is expected in the Didache (8.2f). Milavec considers that the novices would learn it but  not pray it until after baptism (Milavec 2003, 242). It is after baptism that he sees the converts identifying with God.

​
0 Comments

Aid Societies in Early Christianity

2/15/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
2/15/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Milavec sees the Didache’s teaching about sharing of resources as a protective measure against the larger cultural realities. Members of the community agreed to help one another (Milavec 2003, 217). For this reason, it is possible that Romans who became aware of Christians saw the groups more as a mutual aid society than as a religious order (Milavec 2003, 217).

As an example of an aid society, Milavec considers a funeral society in honor of the goddess Diana. He looks at this organization because its bylaws were inscribed on a public monument, so they can still be analyzed (Milavec 2003, 218). Members paid an entry fee, monthly dues, and participated in a monthly gathering. They attended the funerals of members, which were paid for from the dues. The meetings provided community and attendance at funerals guaranteed there would be mourners (Milavec 2003, 219).

Romans may have considered Christian congregations in similar terms. They had a defined membership and engaged in mutual support activities together (Milavec 2003, 219). Both Pliny and Justin Martyr describe elements of Christianity which resemble the funeral society described above (Milavec 2003, 220). Tertullian also described financial aid as one of the functions of a Christian community (Milavec 2003, 221). While in Tertullian and Justin the collections are administered by the bishops and deacons, the Didache makes no mention of administration. The emphasis is on the giving and sharing (Milavec 2003, 221). The patronage system had the potential to provide a steady and even a large market for products created by artisans (Milavec 2003, 222). However, design and product standards could be altered by the desire of a patron. Milavec also notes that a patron could require religious or moral acts which might violate a person’s standards (Milavec 2003, 223). Didache 3.9 speaks against making alliances with “the lofty.” Milavec sees this as a ban on commercial advancement. He questions the consistency of this and the comment that a novice will find rest in the community (4.2). However, 3.10 asserts that divine providence will guard the members of the community. milavec concludes that the community would see their opportunities coming from God rather than from their own business acumen (Milavec 2003, 224). With God as the patron, the members of the community could do business in an ethical way without the exploitation Milavec finds in the greater society (Milavec 2003, 225).

​
0 Comments

Lending, Giving, and Governmental Assistance

2/8/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
2/8/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Milavec does recognize a certain level of continuity between Didache and the Old Testament. For instance, he points out the prophetic charges against those who would abuse the poor (Milavec 2003, 204). In rabbinic literature we also begin to see almsgiving as an alternative to making sacrifice. This is especially the case after the destruction of the temple (Milavec 2003, 205). The teaching cited, though, quickly approaches a karmic view, rather than a deeply biblical view of grace and mercy (Milavec 2003, 206). Regardless of the extrapolations made, the consensus seems clear. Charitable giving, by the start of the Middle Ages, was considered by many Jews as a means of making sacrifice and receiving forgiveness. This concept may have existed as early as the third century B.C. (Milavec 2003, 207).

The idea of giving is often associated with reception of a reward. Milavec draws Luke 12:35-48 into his argument. Here, the servant who is ready for his master’s return receives a reward, while the unprepared servant is punished (Milavec 2003, 209).

Didache 4:8 does require the member of the community to share in an unlimited way with other members of the community. Those who have been initiated into the communion are to care for one another regardless (Milavec 2003, 210). The term used, koinonia, implies a sharing in all its particulars. The relationship described is that of a very generous and dedicated family, not a more casual business arrangement (Milavec 2003, 211). Milavec distinguishes the relationship both from charity and from communism. It was a collective economic community, but did make distinctions among different abilities.

Acts 2:32 and following speaks of the group financial culture of the earliest Christians in Jerusalem. Milavec considers whether this is a literal and complete sharing. He does not think it is an arrangement in which people lose control of their property until they actually give it away voluntarily (Milavec 2003, 213).

Milavec observes that opportunities for upward mobility in antiquity were limited. With no governmental loan assistance or the kind of help programs he associates with modern life, financing projects was dependent on personal relationships and the relation of a patron to a client (Milavec 2003, 214). Debt slavery was a real threat to people of limited means.

The business of lending money was generally considered only marginally acceptable at best, often criminal (Milavec 2003, 214). There were some protections against high interest rates for citizens, but not for non citizens.  Jewish law also carried some protections for Jews, but fewer in case of lending to foreigners (Milavec 2003, 215). In the Old and New Testaments alike, indebtedness is seen as both a failure and an entry into bondage. The slavery of debt is contrasted with the forgiving nature of God (Milavec 2003, 216).

​
0 Comments

An Economic View of Forgiveness

2/1/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
2/1/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Milavec continues to suggest reasons for the Didache’s teaching about giving. Because of cultural norms it would have been an expectation for novices to give money to their teachers. However, 13:2 shows the masters were already supported. milavec notes admonitions in the New Testament and in rabbinic teaching against charging for godly instruction. The novice was likely being taught not to try to pay for righteousness in teaching or in receiving forgiveness (Milavec 2003, 194). Giving would be focused in other directions, such as providing some token relief to the poor in society while waiting for Christ’s coming (Milavec 2003, 195). Giving generously to the poor may also have served to provoke questioning. The cultural norm was not generosity. When care shown to others was noticed, an explanation of Christian motivation could be a natural response. milavec also notes that such generosity could serve to separate the novices from their families, who would not want wealth squandered. This would bind the novice to the Christian community (Milavec 2003, 196).

Milavec does ask whether the unrestrained giving would decapitalize novices driving them into poverty. He notes there are no restrictions placed on the number of novices or the frequency of admitting new members to the community. Was there “a natural limit to the unrestrained giving” taught in 1:5 (Milavec 2003, 197)? Milavec does assume that giving by a person in a household would be limited by the head of the household. That person would still provide a home, a trade, and food, but would curtail the generosity. The novices would not become impoverished (Milavec 2003, 198). If the novice was a head of a household, Milavec assumes the mentor would intervene so as to prevent poverty.

Milavec notes that Didache 4:5-8 points to a revised ethic. After baptism and admission to communion, there will be a sort of communal economy in which people will share within the community for the good of all (Milavec 2003, 201).

One of the Qumran documents, the Manual of Discipline, provides a comprehensive discussion of community organization and training which leads to admission into the community (Milavec 2003, 202). After admission into the community, property control passed to the community (Milavec 2003, 203). There may have been some remaining personal property rights, but they seemed quite limited. Milavec suggests that the Didache communities were similar in this regard. The emphasis was on protecting the community as a whole against economic decay.

There were some elements of self-interest in the giving described in the Didache. Milavec notes 4:6 “ransoming your sins” and 4:7 to receive “an excellent recompense” (Milavec 2003, 203) at the Lord’s coming. However, the self-interest was to be subordinate to God’s kingdom. Gain through an occupation was a gift of God. The giving would be seen as payment of a ransom of sorts.

​
0 Comments

Generosity and Economic Safety Nets

1/25/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
1/25/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 2 “The Economic Safety Net in the Roman World of Systematic Exploitation” pp. 173-227

Milavec views the economic aspects of the Didache as an attempt to counteract the rampant exploitation which he finds in the Roman world. In the Christian communities he finds a somewhat voluntary form of collectivism which would prevent the participants from entering into servitude (Milavec 2003, 176). Milavec finds the Roman Empire as a society where a very small part of the population controlled the majority of the wealth in such a way as to live a life of leisure while being supported by the work of the poor and enslaved people (Milavec 2003, 177). he asserts that there were rigid social heirarchies based on income. The only way anybody could earn a comfortable living was by exploiting and oppressing others. This condition, he says, became worse through the first three centuries of the Christian period (Milavec 2003, 179).

Milavec believes the Didache describes a community made of those working in the trades. He adduces 1:5 and 4:6 to demonstrate that giving would be related to manual labor (Milavec 2003, 180). Likewise, in 13:3-7 people would show gratitude to the Lord by bringing offerings, which Milaec sees as very simple items (Milavec 2003, 180). He also notes that entertaining of guests was to be only for a short time (12:2-4). This would indicate a life of work and modest resources (Milavec 2003, 180).

Milavec cites Celsus and his late second century objections to Christianity. Celsus’ chief objection to Christianity was based on the fact that some Christian teachers rose from the ranks of relatively uneducated manual laborers (Milavec 2003, 182). His assumption that only philosophers could guide others into the truth was countered by Origen. Origen contended that people of ordinary intelligence could be wise and godly. They would be able to guide others.

The cultural distinctions in antiquity were clear, though. Yet Milavec concedes that many slaves, especially in urban areas, were well educated and could expect opportunity and, eventually, independence (Milavec 2003, 183). It was not unusual for slaves and masters to work side by side in both urban and rural settings.

Because of the economic realities, Milavec concludes, the novices would be instructed to give freely (1:5). This was a way of giving what belongs to God so as to care for those in need (Milavec 2003, 184). Jewish culture would call for examining some appeals for help. But the Didache speaks of no such examination. Milavec understands this to assert that the need was to be accepted and cared for (Milavec 2003, 186).

If the standard in Didache is to give to all who ask, one may ask about 1:6, which says to find one worthy of a gift. Milavec suggests that there may simply be a variety of situations requiring generosity. The novices are to give to those who ask but also to seek out those to receive (Milavec 2003, 187). Milavec goes on to describe a number of possible solutions to the apparent contradiction, especially those which take a higher critical approach to reconciliation of 1:5 and 1:6.

It seems clear that the text pursues a priority of sharing as a way of service and imitation of God, whether one is taken advantage of or not (Milavec 2003, 190). Members of the community were not to live life in order to become wealthy but to care for others. In the Didache, acts of giving specifically distribute things which belong to God the Father. Milavec states that this is “the oldest known Christian document to make the principle clear (Milavec 2003, 191). The idea continues to arise in other, later documents.

Underlying the idea of generosity, then, is the concept of Christians acting as God’s agents for good in the world. Milavec wonders at this. “When it came to the response demanded by the poor . . . the church fathers embraced a Jewish perspective alien to their culture” (Milavec 2003, 193). This, of course, presupposes that there was not a distinct departure from the Roman or Hellenistic culture found within Christianity. If Christians routinely took on the humanitarian ethic of Judaism, this would have become the culture of the Christian Fathers. Regardless, we do find that Christians typically practiced charity very freely. This would be countercultural in the paganism of the Roman Empire, but probably not within Christianity or Judaism.

​
0 Comments

Household, Children, and Slavery

1/18/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
1/18/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Didache 4 lays out three rules for households. This suggests to Milavec “that the typical candidate had children and slaves” (Milavec 2003, 163). He explains that this does not necessarily imply great wealth or high social standing. Ownership of slaves may have been very widespread. According to 4:9, children were to be trained to fear God. Milavec says this could not have been an introduction to the Christian community, which would always be an adult decision. Slaves, however, would be expected to take on the same allegiance as their masters (Milavec 2003, 163). Masters may not be harsh to their slaves, as the slaves would hope to be called into the Christian faith at some point (Milavec 2003, 164). Milavec sees the mentorship as necessarily springing from an adult decision to become a Christian, then always to be performed by someone who would seem to be essentially a professional mentor. The relationship of those who have been mentored and baptized and are now partakers of the Eucharist is one of peers, not of masters and slaves (Milavec 2003, 165).

Milavec does note that slaves in antiquity were not necessariily considered inferior in education or other skills. People were often enslaved as a result of military or political conflicts (Milavec 2003, 165). Though slaves were personal property and lacking in freedom, their abilities were often recognized.

After being told to care for children and to avoid anger with slaves, novices are told to reject hypocrisy and to guard their training as from the Lord (4:12). The training received, which Milavec sees as the precise program laid out in Didache, is to be guarded exactly. Nothing may be added or taken away (Milavec 2003, 167). The novice is warned that confession of sin will be expected. Milavec ties this directly to reception of the Eucharist.

Milavec concludes that the first four chapters of the Didache are a prelude to a training program used for people who wish to be baptized nd received as communicants. The program was intended to provide mentorship and admission to the very particular ommunity (Milavec 2003, 168).


Milavec considers whether the Didache community was aware of Acts 15. His conclusion seems very firm. “Since the Didache  takes its own unique stand on this issue without any knowledge and without any reference to the Jerusalem agreement, it must be surmised that the Didache was formed either prior to or in ignorance of the food laws” (Milavec 2003, 169). Milavec asserts that the Didache is completely ignorant of the details of the decree in Acts 15:28ff. His assertion is based on the fact that the prohibitions in Acts 15 are based on well recognized principles within Judaism. Though Acts 15 has four specific prohibitions, the Didache is only specific about two of them (Milavec 2003, 170). Because Milavec sees Paul as not accepting the decree, he is also free to suggest that the narrative from Acts is later than Paul’s work and would also be unknown to the Didache community.

​
0 Comments

Training and Correction

1/11/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
1/11/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

The Didache prohibits five types of speech. Swearing falsely, bringing false witness, speaking badly, holding grudges, and being double-minded are all condemned (Milavec 2003, 145). These are summed up by a positive command, to have actions in agreement with words (Milavec 2003, 146).

Didache 2:6 also speaks against covetousness, greed, hypocrisy, bad manners, and arrogance. Milavec suggests a chiastic structure here with a pair of related attributes at the beginning and end, with one in the middle which links the two pairs (Milavec 2003, 146).

The training of the Didache strongly suggests an idea of spiritual parenthood. Once the text enters the body of training the novice is referred to as “my child” (Milavec 2003, 147). Milavec considers the wording to be appropriate for both males and females. He does not see a biological relationship of parent/child but one of discipleship. The training pattern is closely related to the spiritual fatherhood seen in rabbinic traditions (Milavec 2003, 148).

Milavec finds in Didache 3:1-6 a group of five ways to guard against “infractions” (Milavec 2003, 149). Each of the different infractions can lead down a path to grave sin. Anger is fairly self-explanatory. Looking up” into the face of a woman could lead to lust and adultery (Milavec 2003, 150). Divination can lead to false worship. This path into idolatry draws considerable comment. Though astrology and fortune telling could seem relatively innocent, it seeks to tie history and life to the forces or harmony of the stars and planets (Milavec 2003, 152). Some rabbis accepted astrology, but rarely for telling Israel’s destiny (Milavec 2003, 153). A fourth guard is that against falsehood. Falsehood can lead to theft (Milavec 2003, 154). Fifth is grumbling, which can lead to blasphemy. Counter to the ways which can lead to infractions, the Didache encourages an appreciation of God’s providence (Milavec 2003, 155). Milavec asserts that the purpose of the commands is to create a fence which protects from violation of divine commands by keeping our disobedience farther from boundaries established by God (Milavec 2003, 156). Milavec wonders that the New Testament does not endorse or provide a fence around God’s Word. Rather, the New Testament assesses what Milavec would call “infractions” as sins which condemn (Milavec 2003, 157).

Didache 4:1-4 rephrases themes from 3:8-10. Milavec finds here the importance of being gentle. There are six dispositions listed. Milavec does not find a strong significance in the terms so much as in the theme of gentleness (Milavec 2003, 1570. He does think that the novices likely ate with their masters, based on 4;2. Counter to common wisdom, novices were to seek out the humble and lowly, rather than those in positions of authority (Milavec 2003, 158). Milavec finds in this reason to believe the Christians were cast out of their families and society, based on 1:3. They would then find rest and comfort with their new Christian community (Milavec 2003, 159). The idea of rest is one of the few references to an internal attitude found in Didache. The rest described is a time of receiving strength from the teaching of the leaders, rather than a cessation of work, which Milavec does not find (Milavec 2003, 159). Milavec ties this idea of “rest” to a cessation of social or cultural demands for change. To do so, he describes a same-sex couple who found welcome of their lifestyle in a local church (Milavec 2003, 160). He then uses statements from Ben Sira, Jesus, and Philo of Alexandria about the superiority of finding rest in true wisdom which comes from God. Milavec does not seem concerned that the “wisdom” in his first example was based on an internal impression which is contradicted by any biblical ethic.

In contrast to the rest found in the community, 4:3 acknowledges an atmosphere of dissension. Milavec delays discussion of this topic, anticipating a detailed commentary in a later chapter. Rather, he goes on to discuss 4:4 and statements about being double-minded (Milavec 2003, 162). Based on statements in other early documents, Milavec concludes that the double-mindedness probably refers to a future event such as the Lord’s second coming (Milavec 2003, 162).

​
0 Comments

An Early Christian View of Various Commands

1/4/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
1/4/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Milavec discusses the Didache’s lack of teaching about Sabbath or Jewish food regulations. Christians did not create a revolution as regards the calendar. They allowed work on the Sabbath and on the Lord’s Day according to the cultural norms of the greater society (Milavec 2003, 124. Milavec sees this as a disregard for God’s command in Exodus 20:8. He does not deal with the idea that a Sabbath was fulfilled in Jesus and therefore not binding on the Christian. Rather, he sees the Sabbath as a strong part of Jewish culture which would be fought for by all Jews. Gentile Christians, however, were not encouraged to observe the Sabbath (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16) (Milavec 2003, 125). The Didache does prescribe two fast days weekly, but different from those of the Jews. It also gives evidence of weekly Eucharist, which appears to be Sunday evening (Milavec 2003, 125). Milavec finds credible the idea that gentiles would be accepted as Christians with less requirement of cultural change than if they wished to be Jews. Therefore, at least for a time, they were not required to observe the Sabbath and the dietary laws (Milavec 2003, 126). Milavec judges that the demands for Sabbath observance and kosher diet did not arise until about the year 50 (Milavec 2003, 127). The fasts, eucharist, and offerings, Milavec says, “were unique to the Didache and not found in Paul or anywhere else in the Christian Scriptures” (Milavec 2003, 127). He sees this as a way to make Christian communities more acceptable to Jewish communities.

The fifth commandment, to honor parents, is absent from the Didache. Milavec sees a reason for this in the departure of converts from their parents (Milavec 2003, 128). He finds the same radical departure from a life honoring parents in the Synoptic Gospels, where people are called to allegiance to God rather than parents (Milavec 2003, 128).

As he considers the Didache’s prohibition of adultery, he notes that different cultures may have very different views of what adultery is. He cites various Asian cultures with different types of sexual morality (Milavec 2003, 1290. Milavec asserts that in Jewish and early Christian communities there was a double standard as regards sexuality. A wife was considered the property of her husband. However, men could engage in intercourse with unmarried women or prostitutes freely with no allegation of adultery (Milavec 2003, 130). Milavec does conflate Roman and modern Islamic customs with those of Jews and Christians. He reads this view into the Didache’s statements about adultery as well (Milavec 2003, 131).

In listing commands of God, Milavec has noted that some of the earlier commands from Exodus 20 are omitted. He also finds six “new commandments.” First is a pair condemning “pedophilia and illicit sex” (Milavec 2003, 131). Milavec observes that in the Greek world some level of pederasty was not uncommon in the initiation of young men into adult society (Milavec 2003, 132). The sexual prohibitions are consistent with Jewish values. This would set the community apart from the larger gentile world (Milavec 2003, 133). The broader prohibition of porneia could be taken to refer to the many different types of sexual activity prohibited in the Old Testament (Milavec 2003, 134).

In the context of a sexual morality, Milavec considers prostitution. He finds a double standard as regards prostitution. While cultic prostitution was clearly ruled out in the Old Testament, he does not find a prohibition against males using prostitutes. Milavec’s case does appear to be built on secular sources rather than Jewish or Christian sources (Milavec 2003, 135). The exceptions are the case of Abraham, whose relationship with his wife’s maid began as a plan to father an heir, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:16, who discouraged sexual relations outside of marriage (Milavec 2003, 136). Milavec dos see that Christianity would discourage extramarital relations. However, he quotes Chrysostom as an example of a pastor having to combat such relationships. From this he concludes that pastors may have had a different moral standard from congregants. He then decides the double standard would have been acceptable (Milavec 2003, 137). Milavec further says that there is no suggestion in the Didache of a norm of celibacy.

A second pair of “additional” commandments is against magic and the use of drugs such as magic potions (Milavec 2003, 138). There is abundant evidence of magic in the Greek world, as well as in the Jewish world, where it was prohibited. As with the commands about sexuality, in the commands about magic, the Didache does not labor with a philosophical argument. It simply make an authoritative statement (Milavec 2003, 138).

A third pair of commands prohibits both abortion and infanticide (Milavec 2003, 139). Milavec observes that abortion and infanticide were not seen as acceptable in Jewish culture but that they were widely practiced in the Hellenistic world. As with the other commands in the Didache, these commands promote the Christian community as clearly set apart from the gentile world (Milavec 2003, 140).

Milavec provides a brief survey of abortion and infanticide practices in antiquity. Because of abortion and infanticide, ]in the Roman population men outnumbered women by 40 percent” (Milavec 2003, 140). Christians, however, showed a higher fertility rate and much greater survival of women. Around the start of the first century a series of legal incentives was developed to encourage Romans to have children. Pagan women, who often married at age 13 or younger, were likely to have fertility problems due to conception at a young age. marriage among Christians tended to be later and less often resulted in infertility (Milavec 2003, 1410. Further, while pagans felt free to abandon unwanted children, Jews and Christians almost never did so.

Milavec does identify a decalog of sorts in four early church manuals, including the Didache. The lists are very similar in their tenets, but not invariable (Milavec 2003, 143). The text of Exodus 20 does not seem to be in play. Milavec asserts that an oral tradition tends to solidify text over time. The differences in the command lists suggests that they did not come from one simple source (Milavec 2003, 144).

​
0 Comments

Friday is Didache day.

12/28/2018

0 Comments

 
12/28/18

Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.


In Didache 2:2-6 Milavec finds a form of a “decalogue adapted to gentiles” (Milavec 2003, 117). There are prohibitions of five types of speech and five dispositions The structure of the list of ten is similar to the language of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. It does not take the form of a rebuke. The person converting would not have known the expectation of the community, so would not be rebuked for failure. Milavec compares the commands of Didache 2:2 to Exodus 20:1-7. Most of the commands are different. He does not find a compelling reason for these differences (Milavec 2003, 118).

A discussion of commandments in the context of an oral discipleship community rather naturally evokes questions. Here the question of the recitation of the Decalogue in Christian communities. Milavec brings up a rabbinic tradition which says Christians had adopted the Decalogue as the entirety of Torah. At that time, Jews may have stopped their regular recitation. Did the first century Christians have a tradition of reciting the Decalogue? Milavec notes that Paul never refers to the Decalogue but that he does refer to the Golden Rule from Leviticus 19:18b. Milavec also seems to divide the commandments into five and five. He notes that Paul, in Romans 13, and the Didache as well, only ever uses some of the last five commandments (Milavec 2003, 120). jesus also does not give the commandments in the way Milavec would have expected, for instance, in Mark 10:17. Milavec concludes from this that first century Jewish communities felt free to select and rearrange the commandments at will (Milavec 2003, 121).

Milavec does ask specifically about the Didache’s apparent purposeful omission of the first five commandments (Milavec 2003, 121). He questions whether it shows anything about a social situation. He then goes on to show that the Didache is clear that the convert must be positively associated only with the true God (Milavec 2003, 121).  Possibly a direct quote of the first commandment would be omitted because a gentile community was not rescued from Egypt. Gentiles were generally not held responsible for their former life of idolatry, committed in ignorance (Milavec 2003, 122). For this reason, the Way of Life is focused on creation, not on Exodus. Milavec concludes the novices were from Gentile families and were not admitted to meals with Christians prior to baptism. Therefore, they would also have been surrounded by polytheism and food sacrificed to idols during their training. He extrapolates that having multiple gods would have been acceptable prior to baptism (Milavec 2003, 123).

As regards the second commandment, Milavec says it would be impossible  to avoid having and using “graven images” (Milavec 2003, 123). The gentile world is full of such images. My observation is that Milavec does not adequately consider that the prohibition is against making images for worship. Merely using money with a pagan deity engraved on it did not necessarily violate the command.

The third commandment, that of swearing an oath while calling on God, is dealt with in the Didache. The novices are taught not to swear falsely (2:3). Milavec sees this as a statement in agreement with Exodus 20 (Milavec 2003, 123).

We do notice that Milavec is pursuing a Protestant numbering of the commands. The fourth is therefore that of the Sabbath. Again, Milavec says this would have been impossible for gentiles due to the structure of the Roman calendar (Milavec 2003, 123). For this reason, the author of the Didache would not have cited the command.

0 Comments
<<Previous

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

    All the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry, including this blog, is supported by the generosity of people like you. Please consider joining our team of prayer and financial supporters. Read more here!
    Please Note: The opinions presented in blog posts are not necessarily those of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Frequently we report on contrary views, often without comment. Please chime in on the discussion.

    About Throwing Inkwells

    When Martin Luther was dealing with struggles in his life he once saw what appeared to be an angelic being. Not trusting that he was going to be informed by someone other than the God revealed in Scripture, he took the appearance to be untrustworthy and hurled his inkwell at it. The chipped place in the plaster wall is still visible at the Wartburg Castle, though apparently the ink stain on the wall has been refreshed periodically by the caretaker.

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

    Want to keep up with what's happening at Wittenberg Door? Subscribe to our mailing list!

    Categories

    All
    1 Corinthians
    1 John
    1 Kings
    1 Peter
    1 Thessalonians
    1-timothy
    2019 02 Feb
    2 Corinthians
    2 John
    2 Kings
    2 Peter
    2 Samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2-timothy
    3 John
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent-1-a
    Advent 1B
    Advent 1C
    Advent-2-a
    Advent 2B
    Advent 2C
    Advent-3-a
    Advent 3B
    Advent 3C
    Advent-4-a
    Advent 4B
    Advent 4C
    Allitt-2010
    Amos
    Aristotle
    Augustine
    Baptism-of-christ
    Baptism Of The Lord B
    Belonging
    Bruce 1988
    Bruce-1988
    Canonicity
    Carson 1991
    Carson & Moo 2005
    Catholicism
    Christmas 1B
    Christmas 1C
    Christmas-day
    Chronicles
    Circumcision-and-naming-of-christ
    Colossians
    Confessions
    Daniel
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter 2C
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter 3C
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter 4C
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter 6C
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter 7C
    Easter-b
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter Sunday C
    Ecclesiastes
    Ephesians
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Flew-2007
    Forde-2007
    Galatians
    Genesis
    Gonzalez-2010
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hebrews
    Henderson-1992
    History
    Hosea
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    James
    Jeremiah
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Justin-martyr
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Kolb 2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last Sunday Of The Church Year B
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-c
    Lectionary
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent 1C
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent 2C
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent 3C
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent 4C
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent 5C
    Lessing-2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Long-2009
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Malachi
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Milavec 2003
    Mitch-2010
    Morris-1992
    Motyer 1993
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Old Testament
    Old-testament
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne 2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm Sunday C
    Passionb
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost 10B
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost 11B
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost 12B
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost 13B
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost 14B
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost 15B
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost 16B
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost 17B
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost 18B
    Pentecost-18-c
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost 19B
    Pentecost-19-c
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost 20B
    Pentecost-20-c
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost 21B
    Pentecost-21-c
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost 22B
    Pentecost-22-c
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost 23B
    Pentecost-23-c
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost 24B
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost 25B
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost 26B
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost 2B
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost 3B
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost 4B
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost 5B
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost 6B
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost 7B
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost 8B
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost 9B
    Pentecost B
    Pentecost C
    Peterson2010
    Peterson-2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Pieper1924
    Pieper-1924
    Preaching
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Quintilian
    Receptivity
    Reformation
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Romans
    Rueger 2016
    Ruth
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Sermon
    Smith-2009
    Sommerville 2006
    Songofsongs
    Teaching
    Thielman-2010
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity C
    Veith-1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith & Sutton 2017
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly