Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Sacraments


by 1 Comment

Notes on the Didache (Part 3)

Read Part 1 here.

Read Part 2 here.

Hospitality is a central Christian virtue, but it is mixed with reason: “Welcome anyone coming in the name of the Lord. Receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, but then, test them and use your discretion.” Then the following instructions are given: (1) Assist a traveler as you are able, but do not let them stay longer than two or three days. (2) If the person stays longer, that person must use their craft to earn a living. (3) If it happens that a person has no trade, then the host must use their own common sense to determine what to do. (4) If the person complains with the arrangement, be suspect, this person is “Christ-Peddler” or “Christ-Monger” (χριστέμπρός, 12:1-5).

Prophets were addressed earlier, but the subject arises again in 13:1-7. This section seems to address local prophets, rather than itinerate prophets. There is a sense that these prophets should be supported–a “tithe” if you will. If there are no prophets to support, the same items–first fruits, first loaves of bread, first portions of wine–should be given to the poor.

“The Lord’s Day” consist of confessing sins to one another, breaking bread, giving thanks (εὐχαριστήσατε, 14:1). If a person is contentious being at odds with another “brother” in the church, that person cannot participate. It appears that this is a early argument for the Eucharist event being one that promotes unity or “communion” of the saints (14:2).

Bishops are to be appointed, seemingly by the community. In other words, a Bishop is chosen from within the local assembly, rather than by an outside governing hierarchy. The same is true of deacons. Qualifications include being “worthy of the Lord” (a echo of Colossians 1:10?), meek, unattached to money, truthful, and proven (15:1). Bishops are categorized alongside Teachers and Prophets (15:2). Contention in the community is to be addressed. People should be reproved, though not in anger. If the reproved doesn’t change, s/he is to be isolated until this attitude changes (15:3).

The document begins to end with a series of warnings/edifications: Do not let your lamps be quenched (witness?); do not let your loins be loosed (sexuality?); be prepared for the imminent return of Christ; gather together often. The eschatology of the author(s) is as follows: you can fall away if not perfected in life; there will be false prophets/teachers in the last days (ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις); sinfulness and lawlessness will increase; a world-deceiver will come as the Son of God (ὁ κοσμοπλανὴς ὡς υἱὸσ θεοῦ); there will be a time of trial for humanity; then the “signs of truth” appear (τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας): Sign 1: the heavens open. Sign 2: a trumpet sound. Sign 3: the resurrection of the dead. Then the appearance of the Lord with his saints. Then there will be judgment.

About these ads


by 19 Comments

Baptism as washing of the body; baptism not as washing of the body

I have been reading Joan E. Taylor’s The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. In “Chapter Two: Immersion and Purity” she juxtaposes John’s baptism with ritual cleansing at Qumran (e.g., 1QS). She quotes Josephus’ comments about John Antiquities 18.116-117:

(116) Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; (117) for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.[1]

There are similarities between John’s baptism and ritual cleansing in 1QS, namely that both understand baptism to be something that follows the cleansing of the soul, and cleansing of the soul happens through righteous actions: in the case of 1QS obedience to the Law as interpreted by the Teacher; in the case of John as exemplified through virtue, righteousness toward others, and piety toward God. For both John and 1QS the body could be contaminated through unrighteousness, but the soul cannot be cleansed through baptism. So one must first cleanse one’s soul through righteous action, then, and only then, the washing ritual would make one pure in body.[2]

This brought to mind 1 Peter 3:21 where the author states explicitly of baptism that saves that it is “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus”. If most ritual cleansings were for the express purpose of making the body ritually clean so that the body could “catch up” with the soul (if you will), then is 1 Peter aiming to imply a direct contrast? If so, what does this mean for Christian baptism?

[1] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).

[2] For an analogous ritual remember various placed in the Gospels where Jesus and the Pharisees argue over rituals like washing one’s hands before a meal.


by 2 Comments

Notes on the Didache (Part 2)

Read Part 1 here.

The Eucharist is central to worship in early Christianity. Over the last month or so I have read the writings of personalities like Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin Martyr. Each one of them speak of the Eucharist as something that is indispensable. The name “Eucharist” (εὐχαριστίας) means “Thanksgiving”, and the author(s) of the Didache use this word thematically says, “Now, concerning the Thanksgiving (εὐχαριστίας), thus give thanks (εὐχαριστήσατε).” Then God the Father is given thanks (Εὐχαριστοῦμεν) for the wine. Then for the bread God the Father is given thanks (Εὐχαριστοῦμέν).

The meaning of the elements are as follows. The wine is traditionally symbolic of the blood of Jesus. It is a reminder that Jesus is part of the same “holy vine” of King David in the Didache. The bread is traditionally symbolic of the broken body of Jesus. It is a reminder that “life and knowledge” (ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως) come through Jesus in the Didache. The prayer of thanksgiving is directed toward God the Father and Jesus is called “your servant”. The author(s) emphasize that glory belongs to God the Father because of the death of Jesus (9:1-3).

The author writes, “Even as the broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.” This language may echo the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, or something similar, and it contains exile language familiar in the prophets where the diaspora people of God wait for the day when God will collect them from around the world (9:4).

The final words on the Eucharist are important: one who has not been baptized is not to partake, because Jesus said the “the dogs” should not have the “holy things” (interestingly, the Gentile women to whom this was said retorted that dogs do receive crumbs from the table providing a touché moment leading Jesus to answer her request). This statement does not mention the authority of a Bishop like some of the others that I have read recently. It does critique those who would allow the non-baptized to participate (9:5).

The Didache provides instruction for the prayer following the reception of the Eucharist (“when you are filled, give thanks this way”, 10:1). It is a prayer of thanksgiving to God the Father (once again, notably God the Father receives all the direct addresses as concerns the Eucharist) because of the “name enshrined in our hearts” as well as knowledge, faith, and immortality received. God is given thanksgiving for his creation of all things, including food and drink, and now “spiritual” (πνευματικὴν) food and drink. The prayer emphasizes God’s worthiness. Then it transitions to a petition for God to remember his Church (ἐκκλησίας). Some words echo the Lord’s Prayer: “Deliver us from evil” and “For yours is the power and glory forever”. Some of the words are unique, like the petitions to make the Church perfect in love and a restated prayer to gather the Church from around the world.

The final eschatological statement, “Let grace come, and let this world pass away” has interesting eschatological implications. Does παρελθέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος mean that the author of the Didache foresaw a day when the time-space continumm would come to an end? What does it mean to ask Jesus to return (μαρὰν ἀθά) if the cosmos are destined for destruction? Or does the author have an eschatological vision more like that of the end of the Book of Revelation where the old cosmos gives way to a new emerging cosmos (explained in Romans 8 as Creation being set free) (10:1-6).

Itinerate teachers are discussed. The instructions given are as follows: First, one should receive a teacher. Second, if the teaching doesn’t fit the tradition received the teacher should be ignored. If the teaching does fit the tradition received then he should be received. Third, the criteria is “the precepts of the gospel concerning all Apostles and Prophets”. Fourth, the author says to accept all Apostles, which is a unique statement because most of the writers I have read from the early church discuss Bishops as if Bishops have replaced Apostles. Either this document is early enough to be speaking of Apostles who exist still, or it is written to portray itself as older than it is, or the author affirmed the continuation of the apostolic office (11:1-4).

Apostles can stay for a few days at a time, lest it appear that these Apostles are mooching from the community, proving the falsity of their Apostleship. This is quite contrary to Paul’s words to the Corinthians that he could receive pay for his work. This must be a situational response to a trend in the early church for people to drain the resources of local communities by pretending to be an Apostle. So the author(s) claim that if an Apostle asks for money, or if an Apostle stays for three days, then this person is not an Apostle at all! All the Apostle can receive is bread and lodging (11:4-6).

There is criteria for true and false Prophets as well. If a prophet speaks in the Spirit (λαλοῦντα ἐν πνεύματι) he shouldn’t be critiqued or judged. Whatever it means to “speak in the Spirit”, this isn’t a pure qualification for being a Prophet. Someone could “speak in the Spirit” and not be a Prophet. The Prophet must accompany his/her speech with “the ways of the Lord” (τοὺς τρόπους κυρίου). This is likely the Way of Life described earlier in the document. In other words, true prophets are the most upright morally. Finally, true prophets do not eat a meal “ordered in the Spirit” (), whatever this means?! False prophets are known by their actions. False prophets do not “practice what they preach”. False prophets may eat of this meal “ordered in the Spirit”. The true Prophet does what he does, doesn’t teach how he does it, and doesn’t act for money while false prophets are the opposite (11:7-12).

In my next post on the Didache I will post noted on the rest of the document.

Read the Didache in English or Greek.


by 14 Comments

Notes on the Didache (Part 1)

These are some notes on the Didache:

holyapostles_icon

The Meeting of the Apostles

The Didache presents two “ways” or “paths” (δύο ὁδῶν) from which one can choose. The early Christian movement called itself “the Way” at the beginning, so this appears to be juxtaposing Christianity with non-Christianity. In other words, there is not a third, fourth, or fifth option for the author. The first way is “Life” and the second way is “Death” (1:1).

The Way of Life is based on Jesus’ teaching that to love God is the greatest commandment and to love neighbor is the second greatest commandment (1:3-4).

Jesus’ teachings about loving one’s enemy is the first thing the author discusses as relates to loving one’s neighbor. Christians are to engage in the positive actions of praying and fasting for enemies, turning the other cheek, going the “second miles”, giving away one’s coat, and refusing to require interest on loans (1:7-17).

The Way of Life exalts the one who gives and humbles the one who takes. This shouldn’t be interpreted as humbling the one who takes in need, but the one who seeks to amass possessions for one’s self (1:18-23).

To love one’s neighbor means to avoid things like murder, adultery, corrupting youth, fornication, stealing, magic, sorcery, abortion, infanticide, coveting, false witness, speaking evil, holding a grudge, being double-minded, being double-tongued, using empty word not supported by subsequent action, plundering, hypocrisy, having an ill-temper, being proud, planning evil things against another, and even hating a single person (οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρώπον). One can reprove their neighbor, pray for their neighbor, and one must love their neighbor more than one loves one’s self/life (οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου) (2:1-7).

The Johannine-like address “my child” appears (τέκνον μου) on several occasions. Christians (or, those on the Way of Life) must avoid every evil and everything that resembles evil including anger, murder, jealousy, wrath, lust, fornication, foul-speaking, pride, omens, idolatry, enchanting, astrology, magic, lying, theft, vainglory, murmuring, blasphemy, selfishness, or thinking evil thoughts. All of these actions are categorized under things that produce murder, adultery, idolatry, theft, and blasphemy. Christians must be meek, long-suffering, full of pity toward others, guileless, quiet, kind, cautious with words, free of self-exaltation, righteous, humble, and able to receive all things as good from God, even negative things (3:1-16).

Christians must honor those who speak the words of the Lord. The other saints must be honored as well. Schism and schismatics must be avoided. Righteous and equal judgment must be administrated. There must be a posture of giving rather than receiving. There must be a willingness to share one’s possessions. This willingness to give must be shown to all people. There should be no respect of persons because Christ will return not for people of a particular social standing, but for those “whom the Spirit has prepared” (ἐφ’ οὓς τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν). Nevertheless, servants are to be subject to Masters as to God (as stated in the canonical epistles). There is this sense in which the Gospel transcends the social structures, yet the Church does not attack the social structures directly, aiming to address those of lower classes with dignity, directing them to do their work as to God (4:1-16).

Christians cannot ignore the Lord’s commandments, or live as hypocrites, passing along the received teachings without addition or subtraction. Christians should confess transgressions to each other, praying without evil on their conscious (4:17-19).

These things mentioned above are the Way of Life (4:20). The Way of Death includes evil, murder, adultery, lust, fornication, theft, idolatry, magic, witchcraft, plundering, false witness, hypocrisy, double heartedness, treachery, pride, malice, stubbornness, coveting, foul-speaking, jealousy, and bold and boastful attitude, self-exaltation, persecuting good people, hating truth, loving lies, not understanding the rewards of righteousness, not “cleaving” to the good, not judging righteously, and attentiveness to evil rather than good. Those who walk in this way are not gentle or forbearing, but love vain things, pursue recompense, show no pity to the poor person, avoid helping those who have hard tasks before them, ignore the Creator of humanity, murder children, corrupt “creatures of God” or “things formed by God” (φθορεῖς πλάσματος θεοῦ), advocate for the wealthy, mistreat the poor, sinful (5:1-5).

This list of do’s and don’ts can be overwhelming. The author says that if one can do these things, one will be perfect. If not, “do what you are able.” One can eat what one wishes to eat, but meat offered to idols should be avoided. Idols are “dead gods” (θεῶν νεκρῶν) (6:2-6).

Baptism begins with a recital of all the things to which the baptized is committed to doing and not doing (those things listed above). Then the one being baptized should be baptized “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in running (“living”, ζῶν) water. The water should be cold as well. If there is no running water, other bodies of water will work, and if there is no cold water, warm water is permitted. If there is nothing like this available then water can be poured on the head of the person being baptized three times “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. Candidates for baptism and the one to do the baptizing should fast prior to the event. If others can join, then others should fast as well. This should be done a day or two prior to the event (7:1-7).

Fasting (prior to baptism, but likely for other occasions as well) should not be done “like the hypocrites”. Whoever might be the “hypocrites” they are described as fasting on the second and fifth day of the week. Maybe this is a day when people expected religious folk to fast, and those who appear to be fasting are easily noticed because they look and act a certain way on a given day. Christians should fast on other days to avoid this association, namely the fourth and sixth days of the week (8:1-2).

Prayer ought to follow the pattern of the “Lord’s Prayer”: Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name, your Kingdom come, your will be done, as in heaven, so as on earth. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us of our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For your’s is the power, and the glory, forever and ever, amen.” This is to be prayed three times, daily (8:3-11). This version of the Lord’s Prayer alongside the baptismal formula would seem to indicate reliance on the Gospel of Matthew.


by 6 Comments

Re-baptism for former Oneness Pentecostals?

Although I have been away from Oneness Pentecostal circles for about seven years I continue to receive emails from people on this movement on occasion. Usually they come from people who have recently departed from Oneness Pentecostalism who seek to understand their new identity outside the sect. Sometimes they remain within the movement, but they are entertaining doubts about its teachings and practices. I do not reveal the identity of people who contact me because I know for many their decision to leave will have/has had a major impact on their family relations, their friendships, and even their identity as Christians. It can be a turbulent time when you leave a group that shares such an “us-against-the-world” identity. If you leave you are part of “the world.”

One of the most common questions I receive is “Should I be rebaptized?” There are two common reasons given: (1) Oneness Pentecostals baptize “in Jesus name” according to Acts 2.38 as a polemic against the Trinitarian baptism of Matthew 28.19. The sectarian motivation of this baptism concerns some when they begin to embrace the catholic church. (2) Some sense that they were coerced into being baptized. Maybe they were told that if they died that night without having been baptized ‘in Jesus name’ (and sometimes if they have not yet ‘spoke in tongues’)  they would go to hell, so they got their ‘fire insurance’ and submitted to baptism without fully understanding its meaning. For others this previous reason may have applied as well, but they add the nuance that they were baptized very young without a full understanding of what was happening.

For some “high-church” types this second concern may not make sense, but you have to remember that Oneness Pentecostals affirm “believer’s baptism” so technically this is the paradigm many former Oneness Pentecostals embrace. The idea of being baptized as a child and confirmed later in life is foreign to them. Since “believer’s baptism” emphasizes individual commitment and an understanding of that commitment you can see why someone who was baptized out of fear or ignorance may sense that their baptism is invalid.

When I am asked whether someone should be rebaptized you must remember that I am an evangelical answering this question. I imagine my Catholic co-blogger JohnDave Medina may have a different answer. I tell people “no” you do not need to be rebaptized, but I can see value in doing so.

I don’t affirm the dichotomy between baptism “in Jesus name” and baptism “in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit” since the “name” has to do with authority and identity and I think Acts 2.38 and Matthew 28.19 are speaking of the same source of authority: the God revealed through Christ. It is apparent from Acts and the Pauline Epistles that being baptized “into Christ” was an early and important idea. Likewise, Matthew and documents like the Didache show that baptism into “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” was important as well. Obviously the nature of doctrinal conflict in the church influenced the emphasis on “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” but I don’t think that nullifies baptism “in Jesus’ name.”

When I received an email on this subject yesterday I replied as such:

I was baptized in Jesus name as a pre-teen for many of the same reasons as you. I have had friends who share our experience who decided to get rebaptized, but I chose not to do it for a few reasons.

First, I think God is bigger than our constructs of time. He doesn’t have an order of salvation like we do. I believe someone could be baptized for all kinds of wrong reasons, come to more real and mature faith later, and God is not worried about which came first. God sees our whole life, not isolated events.

Second, faith doesn’t have to be pure and well-informed to be genuine faith. You may have had an immature ‘I don’t want to go to hell’ faith, but it was in Christ, and it was innocent even if ignorant.

Third, several years from now you will have matured even more in Christ. Will your baptism now need replacement then? Of course not.

That said, if you sense that being rebaptized now would allow you to confess some things (eg, the Trinity, the catholicity of your faith over against Oneness sectarianism) by all means do it, but do it for the present benefits, not because your first baptism was imperfect.

And that about sums up my views on the matter. I have not been rebaptized because I think that my baptism was biblical, it had orthodox meaning (even if it lacked orthodox intent), and God is not limited in time to the moment I was baptized nor to my spiritual maturity or lack thereof. Yet I do understand why being baptized with a fuller understanding could be an experience worth pursuing. I have friends who have done it and being baptized was a refreshing and enlivening event.


by 3 Comments

Jesus was recognized in the breaking of the bread.

He Qi, Supper at Emmaus

In the Gospel of Luke 24.13-35 we are given a story wherein two downtrodden disciples make their way from Jerusalem to Emmaus after the crucifixion of Jesus. The Evangelist preserves the name of one: Cleopas. The other figure remains anonymous. Jesus had been crucified a few days ago. This event weighed heavily on the hearts and minds of these two disciples. As they would state later (v. 21), “…we were hoping that it was he who was going to redeem Israel.” Their Messiah had died seemingly proving that he was no Messiah at all.

The Evangelist had told a story earlier in his narrative (22.14-22) wherein Jesus and his disciples gathered for their final meal. I don’t know if he intended to depict these particular disciples as present at that meal, but he does emphasize that as Jesus established what we call “the Eucharist meal” one of his central actions was the breaking and giving of bread. He told them that this symbolized his body which would be “broken” as well.

As we move back to the “road to Emmaus” story we find that these two disciples are met by the risen Jesus. They do not recognize Jesus as he appears to them  incognito. In fact, the Evangelist says (v. 16), “…their eyes were prevented from recognizing him.” They were not given the ability to see or recognize the risen Jesus. Jesus engages them in a conversation and they rebuke him for being unaware of the recent events concerning himself. Ironic! In response Jesus rebukes them before proclaiming the necessity of all these events from Scripture (a dialogue that I would have liked to have heard).

As they reach their destination Jesus acts as if he will continue his journey. This seems to prompt them to invite him to dinner. Amazingly enough, it isn’t until Jesus has taken bread, blessed it, broken it, and handed it to them that they recognize who it is that sits with them. Jesus disappears.

There is something beautifully sacramental about this passage, both as a story that invites us to know the risen Lord and the imagery of the bread being connected to Jesus’ revealing. There is something very much like the Eucharist happening here. Jesus has proclaimed himself in the bread and he is recognized in that very element.

On this Holy Thursday we remember that Jesus gave us a meal and that in that meal we meet him, together. There is something precious about this. The meal being a place of invitation and fellowship. Jesus inviting us into that meal. In Johannine language he is that very meal. We meet, he is present, he feeds us the “Bread of Life.” We may not recognize his presence though he is there all the time, yet the meal invites us to regain our “eyes of faith” so we can see him.