I would like to look at bit more at some of the passages from the Church Fathers that shook my theology and made me think deeply about what I believed and why I believed it.
The Didache is one of the earliest (if not the earliest) Christian writings extant. It was probably written somewhere ca. 80-100 A.D, well within the lifetime of many of the earliest followers of Jesus. Some of the early Christians actually used this book as Scripture. If nothing else, we are given a very good picture of the beliefs of the Early church and of some of their practices.
I understand that some people will already be gnashing their teeth and saying, “But it’s not inspired.” I am not saying it was and I am not aware of anyone that is contending such. What I am maintaining is that a document written at this point in history should be accorded a great significance. With so many devoted “true” followers of Christ still living, it is not likely that this book would have been around long had it not been considered true and useful.
Besides, it is repulsively arrogant for a 21st Century Christian to stand and pass judgment on this 1st Century document because it is unlike what he/she has heard before. Let us consider, who would have had the best chance of getting things right—the one living in the First Century or the Twenty-First? That is not a hard question.
Oh well, off the soapbox and into the text.
The Didache Chapter 7: 1 ">But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water; 7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water; 7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before
The first surprise was that this early document commanded baptism in the Triune Name and not in the name of Jesus only as some modern Apostolic (Sabellian) believers hold. I do not and have never held to Jesus’ Name baptism but I was certainly glad to see someone from this era saying the same thing. The Neo-Sabellians try to convince everyone that the single-name baptism was all that was used up until the church apostasized. If they are correct, it must have fallen away very fast and very precipitously.
A second surprising element was that there was an allowance made for pouring if water was not available. This definitely did not fit into my preconceived “dunk’em-or-it’s-not-real-baptism” mold. While this is not blanket permission to pour (notice it doesn’t say “sprinkle”), it at least blows away the absolute requirement for immersion.
A third shocker was the command to fast prior to baptism. This command was for both the one doing the baptism and the one being baptized. Why would this be omitted by the later Christians? Is it too much against our way of living? Actually, I think to many it just sounds too “Catholic.” Heaven forbid! We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
There may be nothing earth shattering about all this. It is, however, interesting to see how far we have veered from what was SOP (standard operating procedure) in the early days.
