What Is the Didache?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

Absolutely Not: What This Document Is

• The question posed: an ancient document includes baptism among its subjects, and directs: baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. Is it an authoritative text? And does it support the three-fold baptismal formula?
• Absolutely not. So let me give you the background. And if you're interested in a full discussion, I have it in my book, Oneness and Trinity, AD 100 to 300. The document — or, the English title is 'The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles' — at one time was thought to be very early, as its title might indicate. But more recent scholarship has said it's definitely a product of the second century. So maybe the earliest, AD 120, perhaps even later. So it certainly wasn't even known to the apostles; it wasn't written by them; it did not come with their authority. The authoritative writings are the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, for our purposes: that's our authority.

Nine Hundred Years of Hand Copies

• When you study history, there are a lot of considerations. One thing is: history is written by the victors. So, in other words, the people who won various debates preserved their writings, and destroyed other writings. And since ancient writings were copied by hand, there's every likelihood that, over the centuries, some marginal writings — or writings that had an improper statement, or lacked what a later scribe thought would be a valuable statement — could be changed. Especially when you're not talking about scripture, where there is at least some reverence: we've got to protect the word of God. But with other historical documents, there was not really that kind of reverence. So a scribe could very easily make a modification, that he thought was in the best interest of all concerned. So, in the case of this document: although I said it's an ancient document, it's not as ancient as some people have thought. It's definitely a second-century document; it's definitely not scripture; it's definitely not from the apostles. But also significant, for our purposes: there is only one Greek copy in existence, and it was discovered in, I think, 1873, and it's dated to 1056. So even if it does come from AD 120 or 150, the oldest copy is from AD 1056. So you have 900 years of copy, after copy, after copy — and there's every probability that some mistakes, or even deliberate insertions, could be made.

Two Formulas in One Document — and the Acts Consensus

• And what makes us think this is definitely the case — and other scholars have actually pointed this out, not just me — but yes, it does reference, in its chapter 7, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But in chapter 9, which talks about taking the Lord's Supper, it says: don't let anyone partake, unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. And then identifies the name of the Lord as Jesus. So if you're going to look for a baptismal formula here, you actually have two. And if they're in conflict, then you have every likelihood that maybe one has been inserted. In that case, when you study the rest of the early history of the baptismal formula: there is no other example, from the early to mid second century, of the invocation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You do have Matthew 28:19: that's another discussion. We Apostolic believers think that it harmonizes with the book of Acts. And I will say: generally, overall, New Testament scholars, and church historians, agree that the earliest formula is found in the book of Acts — that is, it includes the name of Jesus, the Lord Jesus, or Jesus Christ. And that's, again, not just my conclusion, but that's the consensus of modern scholars. You can read about that in a book by Lars Hartman, Into the Name of the Lord Jesus. So, from that context, this statement is suspect: it would be later, and it's very possible that it's a later insertion, or what scholars call interpolations.

Scriptures: Matthew 28:19; Acts (book-only)

Its Other Baptism Teaching Is Not Biblical Either

• Another thing that makes you think that is, when you read the other things about baptism, in that same chapter, chapter 7: it talks about, well, use living water — in other words, running water. So it's discouraging the use of a pool. And then it also says: you know, if you don't have enough water, just sprinkle, just pour. It says pour. And then it has some other prescriptions, about fasting a certain time. Well, obviously, these are not biblical. For example, in the Bible, all the baptisms were by immersion. In the Bible, Acts 16: the Philippian jailer was baptized in the middle of the night; he didn't take two or three days of fasting. Likewise, in Acts chapter 8, when the Ethiopian was baptized, they didn't take a couple of days of fasting. So we already know that this passage is not representing the biblical teaching. So there's no reason why we should put extraordinary value on it. And in fact, when scholars try to trace the origin of the three-fold baptismal formula, or decide, you know, what was the earliest formula, they don't really look at this document.

Scriptures: Acts 16; Acts 8

Go to the Bible for Doctrine

• So, to summarize: the document does have interest, as a historical document. It's an old document, but it represents, really, people's ideas and practices, about AD 120, or later — maybe AD 150 or 60. Nobody knows for sure. And given the history that I've just shared with you, it's highly likely that that one phrase that you mentioned was inserted, somewhere in the 900 years of transmission history. So we don't really know what it reflects: it could be something from the fifth century, the sixth century, the ninth century. And so, that's a good example of where, you know, you can search for your doctrinal views, among various writings, among various ancient writings — but really, if you want to establish true doctrine, and true biblical practice, you have to go to the Bible. In the case of the church, you have to go to the New Testament.

Scripture index: Matthew 28:19; Acts (book-only); Acts 16; Acts 8.