In the Didache, we read the following:
For it thou canst
bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect, but if thou canst not,
do what thou canst. (Didache 6:2 | Kirsopp Lake)
The Greek reads:
εἰ μὲν γὰρ δύνασαι
βαστάσαι ὅλον τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ κυρίου, τέλειος ἔσῃ· εἰ δ᾽ οὐ δύνασαι, ὃ δύνῃ, τοῦτο
ποίει
Notice that being "perfect"
(τελειος) is contingent upon one bearing the whole yoke of the Lord.
Commenting on this verse, Kurt Niederwimmer wrote:
It
is true that the expressions themselves are immediately intelligible: Ζυγὸν βαστάζειν is to be taken metaphorically, and here has the
special meaning “to bear, endure, and keep a divine command; to be in a
position to execute it” (hence δύνασθαι βαστάσαι). There is a parallel (although only a formal one)
in Acts 15:10, where the text reads: ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγὸν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον τῶν μαθητῶν ὃν οὔτε οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν οὔτε ἡμεῖς ἰσχύσαμεν βαστάσαι (“by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke
that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear”). Here ζυγός is the divine command
or instruction, as we occasionally find in Jewish usage. Thus, for example,
Wisdom calls people to accept her yoke (Sir 51:26; Matt 11:29–30); the rabbis
speak of the “yoke of the Torah,” or the “yoke of the commandments,” and so on,
as well as of a “yoke” in the absolute sense, by which they mean the yoke of
God. A characteristic expression is “to take up the yoke of the kingdom of
heaven.” But (as Büchsel has pointed out), ζυγὸν βαστάζειν does not correspond to the rabbinic קבל עול מלכות השׁמים (which would be ζυγὸν δέχεσθαι). Ζυγὸν βαστάζειν does not mean “take the yoke upon oneself,” but
“bear or endure the yoke.” Thus it is clear that in this passage it is a
question of whether the individual Christian is in a position to bear the
divine ordinances in their entirety (ὅλον τὸν ζυγόν). If so, such a one will be τέλειος, that is, one who fulfills the divine commands to
the full; if not, it is conceded that the person should concentrate on the part
of the commandments that he or she is able to fulfill (ὃ δύνῃ, τοῦτο ποίει).
With these reflections we have already sketched the
general framework that defines this section. It remains unclear, for the
moment, what exactly is meant by the expression ὅλος ὁ ζυγός (“the entire yoke”) and what its content may be.
Various answers have been given by scholars over the years. It has been
proposed that ὅλος ὁ ζυγός refers especially to the rigoristic requirements
of an encratitic morality, including sexual asceticism in particular. In that
case, the τέλειος would be the ascetic
who renounces marriage, although this is not demanded of everyone. Average
Christians are simply asked to do what they can; that is, they need not
renounce marriage (like the τέλειος) if they are not able to do it. In favor of this
interpretation of the passage is that in the early period certain rigorists
(heretics, to be sure) sometimes combined baptism and the renunciation of
marriage. In addition, one could call on the context in support of this
interpretation of the passage: in 6.2–3 the Didachist would be discussing two
special ethical questions, namely, in 6.2 whether baptism implies renunciation
of marriage (which he would deny), and in 6.3 the question of asceticism with
regard to food.
Alfred Stuiber has presented a different idea.
According to him, 6.2–3 concerns a “Jewish supplement to the Jewish teaching
about the two ways.” The Sitz im Leben would be the diaspora
synagogue and its propaganda. “Because the Law was given only to Israel, it is
only the people of Israel who are obligated to observe it. For the God-fearing
Gentiles the moral law is sufficient. But it is still highly welcome when these
Gentiles also observe the ritual laws insofar as that is possible, because that
can prepare for complete conversion.” Stuiber must then suppose that Doctrina never had this addition, or
that it was eliminated by the Christian redactor of Doctrina; to explain the fact that the Jewish supplement (6.2–3)
was allowed to remain in the Christian Didache
he must then suggest “carelessness on the part of the Christian compiler,”
although this seems rather a last-ditch solution.
The correct interpretation is probably to be found
by following the suggestion of Rordorf and Tuilier, according to whom ὅλος ὁ ζυγὸς τοῦ κυρίου now means the law of Christ, as the Didachist had
revealed at the beginning in the sectio
christiana sive evangelica. The phrase τέλειος ἔσῃ, in any case, reveals the pen of the Didachist
(cf. 1.4). Thus the Didachist now (after concluding the Two Ways teaching)
recalls once again, and in a special way, the commandments of the Lord he
quoted in 1.3b–2.1. They are for him the “yoke of the Lord” (for which he takes
up a traditional Jewish way of speaking), and so the “new law of Christ,” even
when the term is not spoken. He has no illusions about the radical nature of
the Lord’s commandments; those who are not able to fulfill these commandments
completely should at least do what they can. If this interpretation is correct,
it seems consistent to me to attribute 6.2 (as well as the next verse, 6.3) to
the body of the didachistic redaction. (Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A
Commentary [Hermenia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible;
trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1998], 121-23)