Both Catholics and Protestants
agree with the argumentation. The author of the epistle should be read in light
of the consensus of early Christian writers, in which case the forensic reality
of justification is always simultaneous and effectual with the ontological sanctification
and renewal of the inner man. (Erick Ybarra, He Bore Our Punishment: Penal
Substitution in the Church Fathers and Beyond [Classical Christian Thought
Publishing Co., 2026], 129 n. 1)
The following is taken from Mishnah Erubin:
4:1 A He whom gentiles took forth [beyond
the Sabbath limit],
B or an evil spirit,
C has only four cubits [in which to move
about].
D [If] they brought him back, it is as
if he never went out.
E [If] they carried him to another town,
F or put him into a cattle pen or a
cattlefold,
G Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eleazar b.
Azariah say, “He may walk about the entire area.”
H R. Joshua and R. Aqiba say, “He has
only four cubits [in which to move about].” (Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah : A New Translation [New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1988], 214)
Deuteronomy 6:4: שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד. Three constructions are possible:
a. Yahweh our God is one Yahweh. Thus
already in the LXX (= Mark 12:29), only that instead of “Yahweh” it is said אדני = κύριος: κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστί. ‖ Also Tg. Onk. belongs here: יְיָ אֱלָהַנָא יְיָ חָד. ‖ Surely this construction is based on
the following passages. Babylonian Talmud Ḥagigah 3A: (R. Eleazar b. Azariah
[ca. 100]) publicly stated, “Today you have chosen Yahweh, and Yahweh has
chosen you today” (Deut 26:17 according to Tg. Yer. I). God said to Israel,
“You have made me the only one chosen in the world; see ‘Hear, Israel, Yahweh
our God is the only Yahweh.’ And I will make you the only one chosen in the
world; see ‘With whom can your people, Israel, be compared? The only people on
earth that God went to buy as a people’ (1 Chr 17:21).”—The same was
anonymously said in b. Ber. 6A. ‖ Deuteronomy Rabbah 2 (199B): God opened all
(seven) heavens before the Israelites (at Sinai) to make them realize that
there is no other God but him. Then the congregation of Israel said before God,
“Lord of the world, whom have I in heaven except your glory? Since I only have
you in heaven, I demand no other on earth” (Ps 73:25). Since I do not associate
any other Godhead with you in heaven (read בשמים
instead of בשמך), I do not associate you with any other
Godhead on earth. But I go into the synagogues daily and bear witness for you
that there is no other God but you and say, “Hear, Israel, Yahweh our God is
the only Yahweh.” ‖ Deuteronomy Rabbah 2 (199B): The rabbis (contemporaries of
R. Phineas b. Hama [ca. 360]) said, “God spoke to the Israelites and said, ‘My
children, everything I have created I have created in pairs. Heaven and earth
are a pair, sun and moon are a pair, Adam and Eve are a pair, this and the future
world are a pair, but my glory is unique and is the only of its kind in the
world.’ From where is this proven? Because we read in the passage Deut 6:4,
‘Hear, Israel, Yahweh our God is the only Yahweh.’ ” ‖ Deuteronomy Rabbah
2 (199C): (R. Aha [ca. 320], said,) “There is only one and no other, he has
neither son nor brother,” and in Eccl 4:8 it says, “neither brother nor son,
but, ‘Hear, Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh.’ ” ‖ Targum Yerušalmi I
Deuteronomy 6:4: “It happened when our father Jacob’s time came to be gathered
out of the world, he worried that there might be among his sons one who was
unfit (rejected). He called them and asked, ‘Is there any treachery in your
heart?’ They all answered unanimously and said, ‘Hear, Israel (= Jacob) our
father, “Yahweh, our God is one Yahweh.” ’ And Jacob answered, ‘Blessed be
his glorious name forever!’ ”—This paraphrase goes back to SDeut 6:4 § 31
(72B): When our father Jacob departed from the world, he called his sons and
admonished each one of them. Then, he called them together and said, “Perhaps
you have divided opinions in your hearts about the one who spoke and in so
doing created the world!” They replied, “Listen to us. Just as there are no
divided opinions in your heart, so also are there none in our hearts about the
one who spoke and thereby created the world. Yahweh, our God, is one Yahweh!”
In connection with this, it says, “Then Israel prostrated himself upon the
headboard of the bed” (Gen 47:31). How could he have prostrated himself upon
the headboard of the bed? Instead, the expression means that he praised God
gratefully that nothing unfit (reprehensible) had come out of him. (The Midrash
interprets the words על ראש המטה
in Gen 47:31 = he prostrated himself in adoration, “because of the virtue of
his marriage bed,” i.e., because of his irreproachable offspring.) … A
different explanation is as follows: (Those words of Gen 47:31 mean) that Jacob
said, “Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom forever!”—Parallels can be
found in b. Pesaḥ. 56A and Gen. Rab. 98 (61C). (Two further parallels are Deut.
Rab. 2 and TanḥB ויחי
§ 9 see at n. b.)—In all these
passages, the emphasis is not on the fact that Yahweh is the God of Israel, but
on the fact that Yahweh, the God of Israel, is one Yahweh.
b. Yahweh is our God, Yahweh the one. Or,
Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one. Jerusalem Talmud Berakot 1.3C.9: Why are the
sections (of the Shema) recited daily?… R. Levi (ca. 100) said, “Because the
Ten Commandments are contained in them. I am Yahweh your God (1st
commandment), which corresponds to, ‘Hear, Israel, Yahweh is our God.’—You
shall not have other gods besides me (2nd commandment according to
the Jewish enumeration), which corresponds to ‘Yahweh is one.’—You shall not
pronounce the name of Yahweh your God in vain (3rd commandment),
which corresponds to Deut 6:5, ‘Love Yahweh.…’ ” ‖ Deuteronomy Rabbah 2
(199C): R. Isaac opened his lecture with, “Yahweh is my portion, says my soul,
therefore I hope in him” (Lam 3:24). R. Isaac said, “With what can this be
compared? With a king who came into a province and with him came leaders of an
army, prefects, and commanders-in-chief. Some of the inhabitants of the
providence chose an army commander to be placed above them, others chose a
prefect. Then, said one who was a clever man, ‘I mention only the king, for all
the others change (are replaced), but the king does not change.’ Likewise, when
God descended on Sinai, many associates of angels descended with him, Michael
and his associate, Gabriel and his associate. Some of the peoples of the world
chose Michael, others Gabriel, but the Israelites chose the Holy One, praise be
to him! They said, ‘Yahweh is my portion, says my soul.’ Behold, ‘Hear, Israel,
Yahweh is our God, Yahweh the one!’ ”—A different explanation is as follows:
“Hear, Israel.” Since when did the Israelites obtain the recitation of the
Shema? Since the hour when Jacob laid down to die. Then he called all the
patriarchs and said, “Perhaps when I depart from the world, you will worship
another god! For thus it is written in Gen 49:2, “Gather around and hear, you
sons of Jacob.” What do the following words mean: ושמעו אל ישראל אביכם (and listen to Israel, your father)? He said to them, “The God
of Israel (= Jacob), who is our father!” (The Midrash reads אל as אֵל.)
They said, “Hear, Israel (= Jacob), Yahweh is our God, Yahweh the one.” And he
(Jacob) said with a whisper, “Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom
forever and ever!” ‖ TanḥumaB ויחי
§ 9 (109A): (When Jacob had gathered his sons around him,) he immediately began
to say to them, “I beg you, honor God as my fathers have honored him”; see Gen
48:15, “The God before whom my fathers walked.…” Then, they said to him, “Hear,
Israel (= Jacob), Yahweh is our God, Yahweh the one!” ‖ Deuteronomy Rabbah 2
(199B): Since when did the Israelites obtain the recitation of the Shema? R.
Phineas b. Hama (ca. 360) said, “The Israelites obtained the recitation of the
Shema when they received the law. On what basis do we know this? You find that
on Sinai God first lifted up this word which he said to them, ‘Hear, Israel, I
am Yahweh your God.’ Then, they all replied and said, ‘Yahweh is our God,
Yahweh the one,’ and Moses said, ‘Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom
forever and ever!’ ” (Then follows the saying of the contemporaries of R.
Phineas b. Hama, see at n. a.)
c. Yahweh, our God, Yahweh is one.—This
construction is presupposed in the sentence in the Mishnah in m. Pesaḥ. 4.8:
The people of Jericho … made a connection with the Shema (see the entire
passage at § Luke 10:30).—Instead of taking the second יהוה as the subject of a second clause (construction at n. b) and separating it from אלהינו, the scholars of Jericho would have
thought it a mere repetition of the first יהוה
and therefore, when speaking, would have closely connected it with אלהינו, “Yahweh, our God, Yahweh | One.” A
remnant of this way of speaking is the Paseq between the second יהוה and אחד.—The
traditional interpretation is found in t. Pesaḥ. 2.19 (160): How did they make
a connection with the Shema? They said, “Hear, Israel, Yahweh our God Yahweh
One” without pausing. R. Judah (ca. 150) said, “They probably paused, but they
did not say, “Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom forever and
ever!’ ” (according to Deut 6:4, but connected this verse immediately with
the following verse). Jerusalem Talmud Pesaḥim 4.31B.22: R. Aha (ca. 320) said
that R. Zeira (ca. 300) said that R. La (= Hela [ca. 310]) said, “(They said,)
Hear, Israel, Yahweh our God Yahweh one,” without pausing between individual
words. So also R. Meir (ca. 150). R. Judah (ca. 150) said, “They may have
paused, but they did not say, ‘Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom
forever and ever!’ ” R. Yose (ca. 350) said that R. Zeira said that R. La
said, “(They said,) ‘Hear, Israel, Yahweh …’ without pausing between אחד and ‘praise be the name.…’ ” Thus
also R. Meir. R. Judah said, “They probably paused, but they did not say,
‘Praise be.…’ ” ‖ Babylonian Talmud Pesaḥim 56A: They made a connection
with the Shema. How did they do it? Rab Judah († 299) said, “They said, ‘Hear,
Israel …’ without pausing.” Raba († 352) said, “They probably paused, but they
said (in v. 6), ‘Let these words be close to your heart today,’ which means,
today these words should be close to your heart and not tomorrow.” (So instead
they connected היום with the following instead of the previous
verse.) A baraita according to R. Meir teaches, “How did they make a connection
with the Shema? They said, ‘Hear, Israel …’ without pausing.” R. Judah said,
“They probably paused, but they did not say, ‘Blessed be the name of his
glorious kingdom forever and ever!’ ” (Hermann L. Strack and
Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and
Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph
Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 2:32-35)
Source: St. Remigius, Bishop of Lyons, Council of Valence III (855), Canon 5 (taken from Mansi 15:5-6):
Item firmissime tenendum
credimus, quod omnis multitudo fidelium ex aqua & Spiritu sancto
regenerata, ac per hoc veraciter ecclesiæ incorporata, & juxta doctrinam
apostolicam in morte Christi baptizata, in ejus sanguine sit a peccatis suis
abluta: quia nec in eis potuit esse vera regeneratio, nisi fieret & vera
redemptio: cum in ecclesiæ sacramentis nihil sit cassum, nihil ludificatorium,
sed prorsus totum verum, & ipsa sui veritate ac sinceritate subnixum. Ex
ipsa tamen multitudine fidelium & redemptorum, alios salvari æterna salute,
quia per gratiam Dei in redemptione sua fideliter permanent, ipsius Domini sui
vocem in corde ferentes: Qui perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit:
alios, quia noluerunt permanere in salute fidei, quam initio acceperunt,
redemptionisque gratiam potius irritam facere prava doctrina, vel vita, quam
servare, elegerunt, ad plenitudinem salutis, & ad perceptionem æternæ
beatitudinis nullo modo pervenire. In utroque quidem doctrinam pii doctoris
habemus: Quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Jesu, in morte ipsius
baptizati sumus. &: Omnes qui in Christo baptizati estis, Christum
induistis. & iterum: Accedamus
cum vero corde in plenitudine fidei, aspersi corda a conscientia mala, &
abluti corpus aqua munda teneamus spem nostræ confessionem indeclinabilem.
& iterum: Voluntarie peccantibus nobis post acceptam notitiam veritatis,
jam non relinquitur pro peccatis hostia. & iterum: Irritam quis
faciens legem Moysi, sine ulla miseratione duobus aut tribus testibus moritur.
Quanto magis putatis deteriore mereri supplicio, qui Filium Dei
conculcaverit, & sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerit, in quo
sanctificatus est, & Spiritui gratiæ contumeliam fecerit?
We firmly believe that the whole multitude of the
faithful, regenerated from water and the Holy Spirit, and thereby truly
incorporated into the Church, and baptized according to apostolic teaching into
the death of Christ, has been washed from its sins in his blood; for in them
there could not have been true regeneration unless there were also true
redemption. For in the sacraments of the Church there is nothing empty, nothing
deceptive, but everything is wholly true and supported by its own truth and sincerity.
Yet from that same multitude of the faithful and redeemed, some are saved to
eternal salvation, because by God’s grace they faithfully remain in their
redemption, carrying in their heart the voice of the Lord himself: “He who
perseveres to the end, he shall be saved”; others, because they did not wish to
remain in the salvation of faith which they first received, but chose rather,
by wicked doctrine or by their manner of life, to render the grace of
redemption void instead of preserving it, in no way attain the fullness of
salvation or the reception of eternal blessedness. In both cases, in fact, we
have the teaching of the holy teacher: “All of us who were baptized in Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death”; and: “All of you who were baptized in Christ
have put on Christ.” And again: “Let us draw near with a true heart in fullness
of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our
bodies washed with pure water; let us hold fast the hope of our confession
without wavering.” And again: “For those of us who sin willfully after
receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for
sins.” And again: “Anyone who sets aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on
the testimony of two or three witnesses.” How much worse punishment do you
think will be deserved by the one who has trampled the Son of God, and has
regarded the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified as profane, and
has insulted the Spirit of grace?
I *might* be able to get into an experimental treatment program beginning in the summer (around June). I used to work in medical/hospital accounts for a few years, so been using my contacts to try to find the best private treatment one can get (unless I have to, I will not go down the public route—lengthy waiting lists, hit-and-miss treatment—downsides of a socialized medicine system).
17. But whoever is joined to the
Lord becomes one spirit (with him). Lit. “is one spirit” (hen pneuma), in contrast to “one body”
or “one flesh” of v. 16. One would have expected Paul to say “becomes one body”
with the Lord, but instead he shifts because of his often-used contrast of
“flesh” and “spirit.” The union of Christians with the Lord is real, but on a
different level; it has nothing to do with “flesh,” for it is of a spiritual
nature, being an intimate union with the risen Lord. As such, it precludes all
free and casual use of the body (or flesh) in sexual intercourse. “Being joined
to the Lord” means that a Christian cannot be “joined to a prostitute,” even in
a casual act. The quotation of Gen 2:24, which per se refers to the union of
man and women in the marital act, now suggests that the spiritual union of the
Christian with “the Lord” has a marital connotation (recall 6:13e: the body is
“meant for the Lord”). Whoever thus joins himself to the Lord transcends human
bodily existence and acquires a new identity, as one becomes “one spirit” with
Christ (see Baldanza, “L’Uso”). (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary [AYB 32; New Haven; London: Yale University
Press, 2008], 268)
Micah Is Saved by Jeremiah
Deuteronomy 18:14-22 describes
what a prophet is supposed to be able to do: The criteria for distinguishing
between a false prophet and an authentic one is the prophet’s ability to
accurately predict the future. In other words, if what a prophet says will
happen comes true, then they’re legit.
There are some practical problems
with this criteria. The main one is that if a prophet foretells doom, then
having to wait until after the doom arrives (or doesn’t) to know whether or not
they’re legitimate is a bit of a bummer. In practical terms, a prophet’s
legitimacy becomes something that future generations, not the prophet’s
contemporaries, get to decide. The book of Micah offers an important biblical
example of this.
Writing in the latter part of the
eighth century BCE, when the Neo-Assyrian Empire is coming to destroy
Jerusalem, Micah prophecies that the city will be destroyed, saying, “Zion will
be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble, the temple hill
a mound overgrown with thickets” (3:12). He is foretelling that Jerusalem will
be destroyed, just like the capital of northern Israel, Samaria, was destroyed
a short time before.
It turns out, though, that
Jerusalem is not destroyed in Micah’s lifetime or any time in the next century.
Anyone living in Micah’s time would have believed him to be a false prophet according
to the criteria set down in Deuteronomy 18.
But the story has an interesting
twist. More than a hundred years later, at the beginning of the sixth century
BCE, the prophet Jeremiah found himself about to be executed for prophesying
the destruction Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians—a message that was
considered by King Zedekiah’s officials to be treasonous. However, Jeremiah 26:16-18
says that the prophet’s execution is halted when some gathered elders recall
that Micah prophesied the same thing.
In this way, a later generation
retroactively legitimized Micah’s prophetic career by finding a new way to interpret
his words. Micah had been speaking about the crisis of the Neo-Assyrian empire,
but Jeremiah’s audience found it more helpful to apply his words to the
Babylonian crisis of a different period. And lo and behold, the Babylonians do
in fact destroy Jerusalem in Jeremiah’s lifetime. (Jennifer Garcia Bashaw and
Aaron Higashi, Serving Up Scripture: How to Interpret the Bible for Yourself
and Others [Minneapolis: Broadleaf Books, 2026], 144-45)
What a difference when one joins himself to the Lord! He becomes one
spirit with the Lord. For while our union with Christ involves also our bodies
as a part of our person it is really a union of the spirit and only as such
includes our bodies. Christ and the Christian become “one spirit,” he in us,
and we in him in a wondrous mystical union. This is the very highest plane that
by what is highest in our being, namely the spirit, lifts us into a union that
is completely spiritual, blessed, and heavenly. This is the unio mystica which is so abundantly
attested in the Scriptures. With no absorption of our spirit into Christ, with
no mingling or fusion of the two, with no loss of the identity of either, our
spirit is joined to Christ’s so that one thought, one desire, one will animate
and control both, namely his thought, desire, and will. This mystical union is
adumbrated in the marital union of husband and wife, Eph. 5:28–33, yet only
adumbrated, for no human relation is capable of doing more. (R. C.
H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to the
Corinthians [Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963], 265-66)
1 Corinthians 6:17
The expression ο
δε κολλωμενος τω κυριω ἕν πνευμα εστιν (“but the one joining himself to the Lord
is one spirit”) is generally understood to indicate spiritual union between the
believer and Christ. As two bodies join to become one in sexual union, two
spirits join to become one in spiritual union. It is a union of the divine
Spirit with the human spirit; as such “spirit” should not be capitalized—for it
is not just the divine Spirit. The scribes of 𝔓11 and 𝔓46 showed this interpretation by not writing
πνευμα as a nomen sacrum
(a divine title = the Spirit); rather, they wrote out the word in plene. (Philip W. Comfort, New
Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings
of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major
English Translations [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.,
2008], 495-96)
Reviewing the Audience Questions Portion of the Jabob Hansen/Joe Heschmeyer Debate
BTW: thanks to everyone for the prayers, well-wishes, and donations to my gofundme. You guys are the best!
7:33 B: After he spat, he touched his tongue.
1. Human saliva as a remedy.
Babylonian Talmud Baba Batra 126B: It is a traditional doctrine that
the saliva רוֹק of the father’s firstborn heals (eye
diseases). On the other hand, the saliva of the mother’s firstborn does not
heal. ‖ Jerusalem Talmud Šabbot 14.14D.18: Samuel († 254) said, “Tasteless
saliva must not be put on the eye on the Sabbath (because that means a
forbidden healing takes place on the Sabbath).” From this, you can infer with
respect to the area of the skin (that also its treatment with saliva on a
Sabbath is forbidden). The same is said in y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2.40D.19 and b. Šabb.
108B. ‖ Mishnah Niddah 9.7: What is tasteless saliva? Salvia when one has not
yet (previously on the same day beforehand) eaten.
2. Spitting on a diseased part of the body was particularly common in
incantations (לְחִישָׁה, Aram. לְחָשָׁא).
Mishnah Sanhedrin 10.1: The following are those who have no portion in
the world to come.… R. Aqiba († ca. 135) said, “Also … whoever whispers over a
wound הַלּוֹחֵשׁ
עַל הִמַּכִהּ
and says, ‘I will not place upon you all the suffering that I have placed on
the Egyptians (for I am Yahweh, your physician)’ (Exod 15:26).”—By
“whispering,” what is meant is the whispering of a spell, as it was customary
in incantations when used in connection with a biblical passage. The words in
parentheses are missing in the text of the Mishnah, but were certainly recited
during the incantation, since the ensuing discussion (see the discussion)
revolves around them.—More precisely, it is said in t. Sanh. 12.10 (433) that
Abba Saul (ca. 150) said in the name of R. Aqiba, “Also whoever whispers over a
wound, it is written in Exod 15:26, ‘I will not place upon you all the diseases
that I have placed on the Egyptians,’ and (thus) he who spits out וְרוֹקָק has no place in the future world.”—Thus it
is not the discussion of a wound in itself, nor the use of a scriptural verse
that is forbidden, but what excludes participation in the future world is
merely the recitation of the biblical text in connection with spitting out.
This is confirmed by b. Sanh. 101A: “He who whispers over a wound.…” R. Yohanan
(† 279) said, “This applies to someone who spits, because the name of God
(which appears at the end of Exod 15:26) must not be mentioned when
spitting.”—Here, we hear that the prohibition to recite a biblical passage in
connection with spitting out had its basis in the concern that the divine name
would be desecrated by its mention in connection with human saliva.
Accordingly, Rashi’s comments at b. Sanh. 101A confirms this: “Those who
whisper the spell usually spit before whispering, and it is forbidden to
mention a verse of Scripture when whispering (discussing). However, there are
also whisperers who spit afterward and speak a verse of Scripture in a foreign
(not the holy) language and also mention the name of God in a foreign language.
Then my teacher told me that this was permitted, for it was only forbidden to
whisper after spitting because it seemed as if the name of God was mentioned
when spitting. Furthermore, it was only forbidden in the holy language, but not
in a foreign language.”—What is said in the above passages about the name of
God has been extended by others to scriptural texts that do not contain God’s
name. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 101A: Rab († 247) said, “Even (when he says
during the incantation) ‘in case a plague of leprosy befalls a human being’
(Lev 13:9)”; R. Hanina (ca. 225) said, “Even (when he says,) ‘And God called
Moses’ (Lev 1:1) (this one has no part in the future world).” Of course, it is
also meant here that the recitation of verses of Scripture is only forbidden
within an incantation, if (and indeed before) one spits. In the parallel
passage in y. Sanh. 10.28B.2, therefore, Joshua b. Levi (ca. 250) says, “Even
if one has said, ‘When damage due to leprosy arises upon one’s body’ (Lev 13:9)
and (then) spits. He has no share in the world to come.”
The following details should be noted with respect to spitting out
during the incantation:
a. The individual did not spit on the ground, but rather on the
diseased part of the body. Abot de Rabbi Nathan 36: R. Yohanan b. Nuri (ca.
110) said, “… whoever whispers (an incantation formula) over a wound and spits
on the wound וְרוֹקֵק
עַל הַמַּכָּה,
and says, ‘all suffering …’ (Exod 25:26) has no part in the coming world.” ‖
Furthermore, see the story of a woman who is said to have whispered a spell
against eye pain and then spit into the allegedly ill eyes of R. Meir in y. Soṭah
1.16D.37 at § Matt 5:9, #1, second third.
b. The reason for spitting during the incantations is not given
anywhere, but it is easy to extrapolate. Babylonian Talmud Pesaḥim 111A: Resh
Laqish (ca. 250) said, “Whoever does four things will have his blood upon his
head, and he will be in debt for his life. These things are as follows: whoever
urinates between a palm tree and a wall; whoever passes between two palm trees;
whoever drinks borrowed water; and whoever walks over poured water, even if it
is his wife who has poured it out.” (These four things are harmful because of
the evil spirits that dwell in them, according to Rashi.) … “The one who walks
over poured out water: that is said only in the instance that one does not
remove it by the dust of the earth or spit upon it; if it has been removed (by
the dust of the earth) or if it has been spit upon, then nothing comes of it
(the poured out water is thereby freed from the evil spirits and rendered
harmless).” Other passages consider the emission from a human to be among those
things that are disgusting. The same sense of disgust for human saliva was
assumed for demons and was seen as a means to drive them out of their
dwellings. Similarly, a woman who is followed by a snake is advised by b. Šabb.
110A to throw some of her hair and nails at the snake and then it will leave
her alone. Here, too, disgust serves to expel an annoying adversary. Since,
according to widespread opinion, human illnesses came from the sinister work of
demons who took possession of the diseased part of the body, the superstitious
believed spitting on the affected area of the body (and the incantation) was an
effective means of driving the evil spirits away.
Comment: In an essay, Guttmann expressed the opinion that Aqiba’s
above-mentioned judgment about whispering over a wound in m. Sanh. 10.1 was
directed particularly against Jewish Christians. But in R. Aqiba’s statement
there is nothing which would have been characteristic of the Jewish Christians.
Instead, everything fits exactly into the Jewish practice of that time.
a. The incantation for diseases was common practice among Jews at that
time and was also permitted. Only formulations referring to demons were not
permitted by R. Yose (ca. 150). Apart from the above-mentioned passages, see
for example Jos. Ant. 8.2.5:
“(Solomon) had established the use of incantations in order to alleviate
diseases, and he also left behind exorcisms by which demons are driven away in
such a manner that they never return. And this healing procedure has been the
most valid and is used by us even now (καὶ αὕτη μέχρι νῦν παρʼ ἡμῖν ἡ θεραπεία πλεῖστον ἰσχύει).” Tosefta Šabbot 7.23 (119): One is
permitted (on a Sabbath) to whisper an incantation formula against the evil
eye, a snake, or a scorpion. On the Sabbath, one is permitted to lead something
over a (diseased) eye (for cooling or for pressure). Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel
(ca. 140) said, “Something one can carry on the Sabbath. One is not permitted
to discuss something that refers to demons (on the Sabbath).” R. Yose said,
“Even on a weekday one is not permitted to discuss something that refers to
demons.” ‖ On incantations and formulations, see in particular b. Šabb. 67A;
110B; b. Giṭ. 69A; b. Pesaḥ. 116A; see also the excursus “Ancient Jewish
Demonology,” #1, n. f. and e.
b. The custom of reciting written words to ward off danger was also
widespread among the Jews, see b. Ber. 55B; 56B; b. Šabb. 67A; b. Pesaḥ. 111A;
112A. Other than the Shema, the 3rd and 91st Psalms were
spoken especially against the mazziqin
(a harmful plague of spirits). The latter was therefore almost called the “Song
against the Plague of Spirits”; see b. Ber. 5A; y. Ber. 1.2D.43; y. Šabb.
6.8B.17; y. ʿErub. 10.26C.25; b. Šebu. 15B; Num. Rab. 12 (165A); TanḥB נשא § 27 (20A); Midr. Ps. 91 § 1 (198B); see
also the excursus “Ancient Jewish Demonology,” #1, n. c. and e.
In light of these Jewish habits, R. Aqiba’s saying can be fully
understood. Conversely, in a few rabbinic passages that deal with the healing
of the sick by Christians (cf. § Matt 10:1 B), the recitation of an OT
scriptural word is never mentioned, whereas it is regularly noticed that the
healings happened in the name of Jesus. How then can Aqiba’s comment about
whispering an Old Testament passage of Scripture have Jewish Christians in
mind!
3. When Jesus wets the tongue of the deaf and mute man with salvia, it
has nothing at all to do with the use of salvia, as was customary with
incantations, because the healing does not take place by means of an
incantation but instead by Jesus’ almighty word. Nevertheless, it must
presuppose that the patient knew about the custom of using salvia (see #1).
Jesus links what he is doing to this practice: by touching the tongue of the
deaf and mute man with his salvia, Jesus is letting him know that he should expect
healing from the one who stands before him. Only the awakening of this belief
is the work of Jesus, which precedes the actual healing; the healing itself
happens through Jesus’ word. (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck,
A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob
N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham,
Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 2:17-20)
Recently, I read one of the worst books I have read on the topic of “Mormonism” (and that says a lot). It was poorly researched and argued (largely web pages in the bibliography, resulting in a lack of nuance of writers referenced, such as my friend Blake Ostler), Dustin McNab, Why Do You Believe? A Case Study in Faith, Spiritual Experiences and Truth. Of course, as a Protestant, he (desperately) tries to defend Sola Scriptura. For example, consider the following on 2 Tim 2:14-17, under the heading, “The Sole Authority of Scripture”:
Since Jesus and the apostles don’t
appear to have taught anything similar about using prayer, spiritual experiences,
or personal discernment for correction or avoiding myths, then it looks like scripture
is the primary tool we have to fill that role. In that sense, Sola Scriptura is
not a presupposition or based on some creed. It is the logical conclusion of
the epistemology the apostles taught. (Dustin McNab, Why Do You Believe? A
Cast Study in Faith, Spiritual Experiences and Truth [2026], 9-10)
Elsewhere, we read that:
Many Protestant apologists make
valid points about verses like Jude 3 and Hebrews 1:1-2 supporting the idea of
a closed canon . . . (Dustin McNab, Why Do You Believe? A Cast Study in
Faith, Spiritual Experiences and Truth [2026], 11)
To see why he is wrong on these texts and related topics,
see:
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
Though his attempt to defend Sola Scriptura in his short book is pathetic, at least McNab does not believe Rev 22:18-19 is a good proof-text to use for the cessation of public revelation (though there is no "likely" about it; the text is speaking of the book of revelation singulalry):
. . . I don’t like citing Revelation
22:18-19 because it is likely talking about the book of Revelation itself, not
the whole book. (Dustin McNab, Why Do You Believe? A Cast Study in Faith,
Spiritual Experiences and Truth [2026], 11)
Oil as a valued means of remedy.
Mishnah Šabbot 14.4: Those who suffer from hip pains may not rub
themselves (on the Sabbath) with wine and vinegar (literally: anoint, for wine
and vinegar were usually not used for anointing, but for healing, and healing
was forbidden on the Sabbath when there was no imminent danger to life). But
they may rub themselves with oil (because even the healthy may anoint
themselves with oil on the Sabbath), only not with rose oil (because this is
especially used for healing). Princes may spread rose oil on their wounds
because they use it to anoint themselves on weekdays as well. R. Simeon (ca.
150) said, “All Israelites are royal children.” ‖ Jerusalem Talmud Maʿaśerot
2.53B.42: Whoever has pain in his throat may not (on the Sabbath, cf. above
quote) gargle with oil (that would be a healing process). But he may pour out a
lot of oil into a wine broth and slur it (now it functions as a means of
enjoyment). He may not rub himself with wine and vinegar, but with oil. Anyone
who has a headache or who suffers from skin rashes may rub himself (on the
Sabbath) with oil, but not with wine and vinegar.—The same is said in t. Šabb.
12.10f. (127), partly also as a baraita in b. Ber. 36A. ‖ Tosefta Šabbot 12.12
(127): A person may spread oil on his wound (on the Sabbath because this can be
understood as anointing), only he may not use a cloth or a rag and lay it on
his wound (because that would be the application of a remedy).—Similarly, in t.
Ter. 9.13 (42). ‖ Jerusalem Talmud Berakot 1.3A.9: One may rub a mixture of oil
and wine אֲלוּנְתִּית (ἔλαιον οἰνάνθινον) on a sick
person on the Sabbath. In a baraita, it is taught that R. Simeon b. Eleazar
(ca. 190) said, “R. Meir (ca. 150) allowed wine and oil to be applied on the
Sabbath and rubbed into the sick. When he fell ill once, we wanted to do the
same for him. But he would not allow us to do it. We said to him, ‘Rabbi, will
you keep your words for the rest of your life?’ He said to us, ‘Even though I
have decided for others in a more lenient sense, I decide for myself according
to the stricter sense. For my companions were of a different opinion than I in
this regard.’ ”—Parallel passages include t. Šabb. 12.12 (127); y. Šabb.
14.14C.57.—See also Midr. Eccl. 1:8 at § James 5:14 B. (Hermann L.
Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the
Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and
Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 2:13-14)
The following is from an anonymous 5th-century work. I decided to track it down as it was referenced as a patristic witness to a form of penal substitution. The Greek text comes from:
“Anonymous Church History: A reply by another philosopher,
named Phaedo, who also makes arguments in support of the God-fighting Arius and
the blasphemy invented by him” II 24,23-2 in Günther Christian Hansen, Anonyme
Kirchengeschichte (Gelasius Cyzicenus, CPG 6034) (Die Griechischen
Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 9; Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 2002), 81-82
|
ἦλθε καὶ εἰς τοῦτο σαρκὶ ὁ τῇ
θεότητι αὐτοῦ διδοὺς τροφὴν πάσῃ σαρκί. γινόμεθα εἰς προκοπὴν καὶ αὔξησιν ἡλικίας,
οὐκ ἀπηξίωσε γενέσθαι καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦτο σωματικῶς, καθώς γέγραπται ὅτι “Ἰησοῦς
προέκοπτε σοφίᾳ καὶ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ χάριτι παρὰ θεῷ καὶ ἀνθρώποις”, καὶ ἕως
τριακοστοετοῦς χρόνου διανύσας, ἵνα πᾶσαν ἡλικίαν εὐλογήσῃ, τότε ἐπὶ τὸ
βάπτισμα ἔρχεται κηρύσσοντος Ἰωάννου υἱοῦ Ζαχαρίου τῷ λαῷ “βάπτισμα
μετανοίας”, οὐκ ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν οὔτε υιοθεσίας δῶρον διδόντος· οὐ γὰρ ἦν Ἰωάννου
ταῦτα δοῦναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ἀγγέλου, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ σαρκωθέντος καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντος
θεοῦ λόγου. καὶ ἀνέχεται τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν βάπτισμα καὶ θεὸς ὢν ἀναμάρτητος ἐβαπτίσθη
σωματικῶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, οὐκ αὐτὸς δεόμενος βαπτίσματος, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα τὸ ἡμέτερον
βάπτισμα δοξάσῃ, ἵνα πιστεύσωμεν, ὅτι, ὥσπερ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν κατῆλθε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον,
οὕτως καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς τοὺς εἰς αὐτὸν βαπτιζομένους. εἶτα συναναστραφεὶς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις
τάς τε τῶν θείων αὐτοῦ ἐντολῶν παραδοὺς ἐκδόσεις τάς τε τῶν σημείων ἐργαζόμενος
θαυματουργίας ἐπὶ τριετῆ χρόνον καὶ τετάρτου ἀρξάμενος οὕτως ἐπὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν
ἑκούσιον αὐτοῦ σωματικὸν ἔρχεται πάθος· ἡμῖν γὰρ κεχρέωσται τὸ τιμωρία σταυροῦ,
ἀλλ᾽ εἰ πάντες ἐσταυρώθημεν, οὔτε ἑαυτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου ἁρπάσαι ἰσχύσαμεν. ἐβασίλευσεν
γὰρ ὁ θάνατος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι Μωσέως καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας· πολλοὶ ἅγιοι,
πολλοὶ προφῆται, πολλοὶ δίκαιοι, καὶ οὐδείς αὐτῶν τῆς τοῦ θανάτου ἐξουσίας ἑαυτὸν
ἠδυνήθη λυτρώσασθαι, ἀλλὰ ἦλθεν αὐτὸς ὁ τῶν πάντων σωτὴρ καὶ τὰς ἡμῖν
χρεωστομένας τιμωρίας εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἡμῶν ἀνθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀναμάρτητον αὐτοῦ ὑπεδέξατο
σάρκα. καταφερόμεθα μετὰ τὸν θάνατον εἰς τὸν ᾅδην, ἀνεδέξατο καὶ τοῦτο καὶ
κατῆλθεν ἑκουσίως εἰς αὐτόν. οὐ κατηνέχθη καθάπερ ἡμεῖς, ἀλλὰ κατῆλθεν· οὐ γὰρ
ἦν ὑποκείμενος τῷ θανάτῳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξουσιαστὴς τοῦ θανάτου, καὶ μόνος κατελθὼν
μετὰ πλήθους ἀνελήλυθεν. |
He came in the flesh also for
this purpose: he who, by his divinity, gives nourishment to all flesh. Since
we are subject to growth and the increase of age, he did not disdain to
become this also bodily, as it is written: “Jesus advanced in wisdom and age
and grace before God and human beings.” And after he had passed through even
the thirtieth year, in order to bless every age, then he comes to baptism,
with John son of Zechariah proclaiming to the people “a baptism of
repentance,” not giving a gift of the remission of sins or of adoption; for
these things belonged not to John to give, nor even to an angel, but to the
very Word of God who was made flesh and became human. And he accepts the
baptism for our sake; and though he is God and without sin, he was baptized
bodily as a human being, not because he himself needed baptism, but in order
to glorify our baptism, so that we might believe that, just as the Holy
Spirit descended upon him, so also it descends upon us who are baptized into
him. Then, living among human beings and handing down the prescriptions of
his divine commandments and performing miraculous signs and wonders, after a
period of three years and beginning the fourth, he thus comes to the
voluntary bodily passion on our behalf. For the penalty of the cross was owed
by us; and even if we had all been crucified, we would not have been able to
snatch ourselves from death. For death ruled from Adam to Moses, and even
over those who had not sinned: many saints, many prophets, many righteous
men, and none of them was able to free himself from the power of death. But
the Savior of all came and took upon himself, in exchange for us and on our
behalf, the flesh that was without sin, receiving the punishments that were
owed to us, from us, for us. We are carried after death into Hades; he
accepted this too and descended into it willingly. He was not carried down
like we are, but descended; for he was not subject to death, but master of
death, and having descended alone, he ascended again with a multitude. |
Mark 6:3
TR WH NU ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας
“the carpenter, the son of Mary”
א
A B C D L W Δ
Θ f syr,p copsa
Celsusaccording to Origen
all
variant 1 του
τεκτονος υιος και της Μαριας
“son of the carpenter and of Mary”
f13 33vid (565) 700 Origen
nrsvmg nebmg rebmg nltmg netmg
variant 2 υιος του
τεκτονος, ο υιος της Μαριας
“the carpenter’s son, the son of Mary”
𝔓45
Netmg
Both NA27 and UBS4 cite 𝔓45 as supporting the first variant, but they place it in parentheses to
show that it does not exactly read this way. In fact, the extant portion of 𝔓 shows [τεκτον]ος ο υ̅[̅ς̅]̅
(see Text of Earliest MSS, 166). This
reading could perhaps support the first variant if ο υιος is attached to του τεκτονος = “the son of the carpenter.” However,
since 𝔓45 appears to show υιος as a nomen sacrum (there is an overbar
showing over the first letter of υιος), it seems just as likely that the scribe wrote what is indicated in
the second variant—inasmuch as Jesus’ divine status was attached to his virgin
birth through Mary.
The scribes who created the first variant did so to harmonize Mark 6:3
with Matt 13:55 or to obfuscate what some might consider an offensive
statement—i.e., Jesus was here said to be not just the son of a carpenter but a
carpenter himself! For example, Origen countered Celsus, a second-century
antagonist of Christianity who attacked its founder as being nothing but “a
carpenter by trade.” Origen argued that “in none of the Gospels current in the
churches is Jesus himself ever described as a carpenter” (Cels. 6.34 and 36). Origen must have forgotten Mark 6:3, or the
text he knew of was like that found in the first variant.
There is nothing demeaning about Jesus being a carpenter. The Greek
term describes a person who works in wood or stone. According to a
second-century tradition (Justin, Dial.
88), Jesus constructed farm implements such as plows and yokes (cf. Jesus’
statement in Matt 11:29). But he could have been a stone mason or house builder
in nearby Sepphoris. Prior to beginning his ministry at the age of thirty, he
supported himself and his family by the trade he had learned from his father
(see Matt 13:55).
Some scholars have argued that the first variant is original because
the reading of the text represents a dogmatic correction in the interest of the
virgin birth. But the first variant is probably a scribal attempt to avoid
directly saying that Jesus was “the son of Mary,” which is an unusual way of
identifying Jesus. Some scholars say that this was a disparaging remark because
“it was contrary to Jewish usage to describe a man as the son of his mother,
even when she was a widow, except in insulting terms. Rumors to the effect that
Jesus was illegitimate appear to have circulated in his own lifetime and may
lie behind this reference as well” (Lane 1974, 202–203). But McArthur (1973,
55) argues that the expression “son of Mary” represents an “informal descriptive”
rather than a “formal genealogical” way of identifying Jesus by his well-known
mother. In other words, these words in the mouths of the Galileans were not
pejorative or theologically loaded. (Philip W. Comfort, New
Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings
of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major
English Translations [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.,
2008], 112-13)
I have shared this link before, but if you have not seen it and/or wish to share it (e.g., discord channels; "plug" on your blog/yt channel, etc), it would be appreciated. Been pretty bad, as those who know me personally, can attest (recently, lot of stomach/chest pains/cramps; low energy, often conking out, etc)
https://www.gofundme.com/f/medical-expenses-liverrelated-and-other-issues Alt. Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/irishlds/ Venmo: https://account.venmo.com/u/Robert-Boylan-16
Charles A. Wanamaker:
Paul employs the optative mood (κατευθύναι) in his prayer to
indicate his wish, as was common in the period (cf. 3:12; 5:23; 2 Thes. 2:17;
3:5, 16; Rom. 15:5, 13). Some have argued that the singular form of the verb
with the twin subjects God and Christ has important theological significance,
demonstrating that Paul held to the oneness of God and the Lord Jesus (Neil,
71) or the full deity of Jesus (Morris, 111). Hewett (“1 Thessalonians 3:13,”
54), following A. T. Robertson, has shown that compound subjects occur
regularly with singular verbs in the NT (see, e.g., Jas. 5:3; Mt. 5:18; Mk.
4:41) without this sort of implication. He quite correctly maintains that the
articles occurring with each of the subjects (ὁ θεός
… ὁ κύριος) indicate that God and the
Lord Jesus were viewed as two separate personalities by Paul. The singular
verb, however, reveals that Paul understood them as having a close relation.
Thus although 1 Thes. 3:11 does not constitute evidence for a trinitarian theology
in Paul, the basis for it was already being laid in the earliest Church through
the identification of Jesus as the son of God who ruled in the place of God
(see 1 Cor. 15:23–28; Phil. 2:6–11) and of the Spirit as the agent of God and
Christ (Rom. 8:9–11). (Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the
Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek
Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990], 141-42)
A. T. Robertson:
4. The Pindaric Construction. Another complication is possible when
several subjects are united. If the predicate follows this compound subject, it
is put in the plural nearly always. But the “Pindaric construction” (σχῆμα Πινδαρικόν) puts the verb in the
singular. Blass says German cannot do this, and he ignores the N. T.
examples. In Jas. 5:2 f. we have a striking example: Ὁ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπεν, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν σητόβρωτα γέγονεν, ὁ χρυσὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος κατίωται. Here κατίωται is natural like the English
translation, ‘is cankered’ (A.V.). Note also Mt. 6:19, ὅπου σὴς καὶ βρῶσις ἀφανίζει (‘where moth and rust doth
corrupt,’ A.V.). Other examples are Mk. 4:41, καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ; 1 Cor.
15:50, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομῆσαι οὐ δύναται. Here the principle of
anacoluthon suggested by Moulton2 will hardly apply. It is rather
the totality that is emphasized by the singular verb as in the English
examples. But when the predicate comes first and is followed by several
subjects, anacoluthon may very well be the explanation, as in the Shakespearean
examples given by Moulton. The simplest explanation (see under 5) is that the
first subject is alone in mind. Thus in 1 Cor. 13:13 νυνὶ δὲ μένει πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη, τὰ τρία ταῦτα (cf. English ‘and now abideth
faith, hope, love, these three,’ like the Greek). Cf. also 1 Tim. 6:4. However,
in Mt. 5:18, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, it seems
rather the totality that is emphasized as above. See Jo. 12:22. In Rev. 9:12, ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται ἔτι δύο οὐαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα, probably the neuter
conception of the interjection prevails, though just before we have ἡ οὐαὶ ἡ μία. In Lu. 2:33, ἦν ὁ τατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες, the copula follows one plan
and the participle another. So also ἦν καθήμεναι
(Mt. 27:61). Just so ὤφθη Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἠλείας συνλαλοῦντες
(Mt. 17:3). Cf. Eph. 4:17 f. In Rev. 21:16, τὸ μῆκος καὶ τὸ πλάτος καὶ τὸ ὕψος αὐτῆς ἴσα ἐστίν, the
neuter plural adjective and singular copula are regular. (A. T.
Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research
[Logos Bible Software, 2006], 404-5)
James A. Hewett:
In interpreting the phenomenon of a compound subject and a singular verb as an avowal of Christ's oneness with the Father and/or his deity, it may be suggested that these commentators have gone beyond the text itself. A. T. Robertson has listed a number of examples of a plural subject with a singular verb that cast doubt upon the above interpretations. Ja 53 has two masc. sing. nouns, each with the def. art .. joined by kai ('and') together with a sing. verb: ό χρυσός ύμων καί ό άργυρος κατίωται ('Your gold and silver has become corroded' [lit.]). In Μκ 441 one finds καί ό άνεμος καί ή θάλασσα ύπακούει αύτω ( ... even wind and sea obeys [lit.] him'). Mt 518 reads εως αν παρέλθη ό ούρανός καί ή γή (' ... till heaven and earth passes [lit.] away . . .'). Jn 1222 records έρχεται 'Ανδρέας καί Φίλιππος (' ... Andrew and Philip goes [lit.] . .. '). In Mt 619 one reads that σής καί βρώσις αφανίζει ( ... moth and rust corrupts [lit.] ... '). Paul writes (1 Cor 1550) σάρξ καί αίμα βασιλείαν θεού κληρονομήσαι ού δυνατι('. . . flesh and blood is not able [lit.] to inherit the kingdom of God ... '). In none of these examples would it be appropriate to suggest that, because the compound subjects occur with singular verbs, they are united in such a fashion as to be one entity in any respect. They are individual distinct entities, although they may in some instances be viewed jointly or they may be spatially co-mingled in their existence (e.g., 'flesh and blood').
In Ja 53. Mt 518 and Mk 441 the Greek structure of ο . . .και . . . ο(η) . . . further emphasizes the individuality of the compound subjects. The repetition of the definite article, Robertson states, occurs in order to express 'distinctness' and .... that they [that to which the cited passages may refer] are treated as separate'. The Thessalonian verse in question has this precise structure: ό θεός ··· καί ό κύριος ··· κατευθύναι.
In view of the above examples it is dubious that on the basis of grammar one should interpret .... God and our Lord ... ' as one. having essential equality, or mystically united. any more than one would so view 'moth and rust', 'wind and sea', 'heaven and earth', ' Andrew and Philip'. or 'flesh and blood'. Nevertheless, one must account for the compound subject with its twofold occurrence of the definite article in conjunction with a singular verb. Quite simply, the repeated definite article suggests that Paul viewed God the Father and Jesus his Lord as two individual entities, whereas the singular verb suggests that he held God and Jesus in some very close relationship. Paul's views on their interrelationship must be delineated from other texts, however suggestive one may feel this passage to be.
One may ask what would have been the significance if Paul had used the plural verb in this prayer. Most obviously a compound subject, each part of which had the definite article, used with a plural verb would have indicated that Paul was praying to two beings: (1) God his Father, and (2) Jesus his Lord. However, because of Paul's view of Jesus Christ as expressed elsewhere (e.g., Ro 95, Col 115-20, 29). a view which attributes deity to Christ, it is highly dubious that Paul would have addressed himself in prayer to God his Father and Jesus his Lord in a way which might have left his readers the option of interpreting him as saying that God the Father and Jesus his Lord were two different gods.
Consequently, in view of his beliefs which he has expressed elsewhere in Scripture and the demands of the construction in 1 Th 311, it may be suggested that Paul employed the unusual syntax of a compound subject, of which each element's distinctive nature is maintained by the ‘ο . . . και . . . ο . . . ‘ construction, together with a singular verb which maintained the intimacy of the two elements, in order to avoid either a complete separation or a complete merging of the two to whom he prayed: his God and his Lord. (James A. Hewett, “1 Thessalonians 311,” The Expository Times 82, no. 2 [November 1975]:54)
5. Didache
Bei der Didache handelt es sich
um die erste christliche Kirchenordnung. Überliefert wurde sie unter der
Autorität der (zwölf) Apostel. Sie enthält eine im Singular formulierte
ethische Belehrung (die sogenannte „Zweiwegelehre“, Kapitel 1-6), liturgische
Anweisungen zum Taufen, Fasten, Beten sowie zur Feier des Abendmahls (7-10),
solche zum Umgang mit Aposteln, Propheten und Lehrern (11-13) sowie Regelungen
für den Gottesdienst (14-15). Am Ende steht eine apokalyptische Belehrung über
die Ereignisse der letzten Tage (16).
Der vollständige griechische Text
der Didache wurde 1873 von Philothetos Bryennios in einer Handschrift aus dem
Jahr 1056 (dem sogenannten Codex Hierosolymitanus) entdeckt und 1883 erstmalig
herausgegeben. Die Schrift wird allerdings bereits bei verschiedenen
altkirchlichen Autoren wie Euseb, Athanasius und Didymus dem Blinden erwähnt.
Sie stammt vermutlich aus dem frühen 2. Jahrhundert, ist also etwa zeitgleich
mit den jüngeren Schriften des Neuen Testaments sowie den Briefen des Ignatius
entstanden.
In der Didache sind vielfach
ältere Überlieferungen verarbeitet, wie z.B. in der Zweiwegelehre, beim
Vaterunser und auch in den Mahlgebeten. Einige dieser Überlieferungen haben
Parallelen in neutestamentlichen Texten, wobei sich eine besondere Nähe zum Matthäusevangelium
feststellen lässt. Andere sind dagegen erst durch die Didache bekannt geworden.
Dazu gehören auch die uns hier interessierenden Mahlgebete. Insgesamt fällt
auf, dass die in der Didache versammelten Überlieferungen eine deutliche
jüdische Prägung aufweisen. Dies trifft auch für die Mahlgebete zu, wie gleich
näher zu zeigen ist. Ähnlich wie beim Matthäusevangelium haben wir es also mit
einem frühchristlichen Text zu tun, der für die Gestaltung christlichen Lebens
häufig auf jüdisch geprägte Überlieferungen zurückgreift.
Mit der Didache setzt im
Christentum die Fixierung liturgischer Gebete ein, die neben der Abgrenzung
verbindlicher Schriften – der Entstehung des Kanons – einen weiteren wichtigen
Bereich der Herausbildung des Christentums als einer eigenständigen Religionsgemeinschaft
darstellt. Die nächste derartige Ordnung ist die ca. 100 Jahre später
entstandene Traditio Apostolica. Die Didache ist dann ihrerseits in späteren
Kirchenordnungen, wie z.B. den Apostolischen Konstitutionen und der
Apostolischen Kirchenordnung, verarbeitet worden. Den komplizierten Fragen nach
den oft schwer zu rekonstruierenden Textgrundlagen und den Verbindungen der
Kirchenordnungen untereinander werden wir uns hier nicht widmen. Der hohe
Stellenwert, den bereits die Didache für die Rekonstruktion des
frühchristlichen Gemeindelebens – und damit auch für das Abendmahl – einnimmt,
wird sich jedoch in der Besprechung der dort begegnenden Eucharistietexte
zeigen. Auch wenn die Endgestalt der Schrift jüngeren Datums ist als die Briefe
des Paulus und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments, reichen die verarbeiteten
Überlieferungen häufig in frühere Zeit zurück. Dies ist auch bei den uns hier
interessierenden Mahlgebeten der Fall. Für die Entstehungsgeschichte des
Abendmahls ist die Didache deshalb von überaus großer Bedeutung. Dies ist nun
genauer zu zeigen.
Der erste zu besprechende
Abschnitt findet sich in den Kapiteln 9 und 10. Dort werden Gebete angeführt,
die über Kelch und Brot (in dieser Reihenfolge!) zu sprechen sind. Die Didache
zitiert, was angesichts der besprochenen neutestamentlichen Abendmahlstexte
auffällt, keine Einsetzungsworte und stellt auch keinen Bezug zum Tod Jesu her.
Es wird sich allerdings zeigen, dass dies nur deshalb merkwürdig erscheint,
weil den Einsetzungsworten im Laufe der Liturgiegeschichte des Christentums
eine konstitutive Bedeutung zugewachsen ist. Diese ist für die Zeit der Didache
dagegen noch nicht vorauszusetzen. In Kapitel 14, der zweiten für unseren
Zusammenhang wichtigen Stelle, geht es dagegen um die rechte Haltung beim
gemeinsamen Mahl: Nur wer zuvor seine Verfehlungen bekannt und sich mit seinem
Nächsten ausgesöhnt hat, soll das Mahl feiern. Lassen wir zunächst die Texte
selbst zu Wort kommen:
9,1 Betreffs der Danksagung
[Eucharistie] aber: Sagt folgendermaßen Dank:
9,2 Zuerst den Kelch betreffend: Wir danken dir, unser Vater, für den heiligen
Weinstock Davids, deines Knechts, den du uns kundgemacht hast durch Jesus,
deinen Knecht. Dir sei die Herrlichkeit in Ewigkeit! 9,3 Betreffs des
gebrochenen Brotes aber: Wir danken dir, unser Vater, für das Leben und die
Erkenntnis, die du uns kundgemacht hast durch Jesus, deinen Knecht. Dir sei die
Herrlichkeit bis in Ewigkeit. 9,4 Wie dieses gebrochene Brot zerstreut war auf
den Bergen, und zusammengebracht ist es eins geworden, so soll deine Kirche
zusammengebracht werden von den Enden der Erde in dein Reich. Denn dein ist die
Herrlichkeit und die Macht durch Jesus Christus bis in Ewigkeit.
9,5 Niemand aber soll essen und auch nicht trinken von eurer Eucharistie als
die, die getauft worden sind auf den Namen des Herrn. Denn auch darüber hat der
Herr gesprochen: Gebt nicht das Heilige den Hunden.
10,1 Nach der Sättigung aber sagt
folgendermaßen Dank:
10,2 Wir danken dir, heiliger Vater, für deinen heiligen Namen, den du hast
Wohnung nehmen lassen in unseren Herzen, und für die Erkenntnis und den Glauben
und die Unsterblichkeit, die du uns kundgemacht hast durch Jesus, deinen
Knecht. Dir ist die Herrlichkeit bis in Ewigkeit. 10,3 Du, Herr, Allmächtiger,
hast alles geschaffen um deines Namens willen; Speise und Trank hast du den
Menschen gegeben zum Genuss, damit sie dir Dank sagen; uns aber hast du geschenkt
geistliche Speise und Trank und ewiges Leben durch deinen Knecht. 10,4 Vor
allem sagen wir dir Dank, weil du mächtig bist. Dir sei die Herrlichkeit bis in
Ewigkeit. 10,5 Gedenke, Herr, deiner Kirche, sie zu bewahren vor allem Bösen
und sie zu vollenden in deiner Liebe, und führe sie zusammen von den vier
Winden – die geheiligte – in dein Reich, das du für sie bereitet hast. Denn
dein ist die Macht und die Herrlichkeit in Ewigkeit. 10,6 Es komme Gnade, und
es vergehe diese Welt. Hosianna
dem Gotte Davids. Wenn jemand heilig ist, komme er. Wenn er es nicht ist, tue
er Buße. Maran atha. Amen.
14,1 An jedem Herrentage, wenn
ihr zusammenkommt, brecht das Brot und sagt Dank, nachdem ihr zuvor eure
Verfehlungen bekannt habt, damit euer Opfer rein sei. 14,2 Jeder aber, der
Streit mit seinem Nächsten hat, soll nicht mit euch zusammenkommen, bis sie
sich ausgesöhnt haben, damit euer Opfer nicht entweiht werde. 14,3 Denn dies
ist das vom Herrn gesprochene Wort: „An jeder Stelle und zu jeder Zeit mir ein
reines Opfer darzubringen; denn ich bin ein großer König, spricht der Herr, und
mein Name ist wunderbar unter den Völkern.“
Wir besprechen zunächst die
Mahleingangsgebete in den Kapiteln 9 und 10. Dabei fallen folgende Merkmale ins
Auge: In Did 9,1 und 5 begegnet zum ersten Mal der Begriff „Eucharistie“, den
kurze Zeit später auch Ignatius verwenden wird. Dieser Ausdruck spielt in der
weiteren Geschichte des Abendmahls eine herausragende Rolle und stellt auch
gegenwärtig eine der wichtigsten Bezeichnungen für die christliche Mahlfeier
dar. In der Didache und bei Ignatius ist zu erkennen, wie es zur Anwendung
dieses Begriffes gekommen ist: Die wörtliche Bedeutung von „Eucharistie“ ist
„Danksagung“. Das Verb „danksagen“ war auch schon bei Paulus in 1 Kor 11,24
sowie in Lk 22,19 in Bezug auf das gebrochene Brot, in Mk 14,23 sowie in Mt
26,27 in Bezug auf den Kelch begegnet. Das Dankgebet sowie die Segnung (vgl. 1
Kor 10,16; Mk 14,22; Mt 26,26) waren also von Beginn an zentrale mit der
Mahlfeier verbundene Handlungen.
In Did 9,1 sind das Substantiv
„Danksagung“ und das Verb „danksagen“ unmittelbar aufeinander bezogen und
erklären sich gegenseitig: „Eucharistie“ bezeichnet hier speziell diejenige
Danksagung, die bei der sakramentalen Mahlfeier über den Mahlelementen gesprochen
werden soll. Konkret handelt es sich dabei um besondere Gebete, die der
besonderen Nahrung entsprechen, denn nicht jede Mahlfeier, bei der in jüdischer
Tradition stets Dankgebete gesprochen werden, heißt deshalb auch „Eucharistie“.
In 9,5 ist „Eucharistie“ dann Bezeichnung für das Mahl selbst („Niemand soll
essen und trinken von eurer Eucharistie …“). Die Bedeutung des Mahles leitet
sich also gleichermaßen von den Danksagungen über den Mahlelementen und dem
dadurch bewirkten besonderen Charakter der Mahlfeier her. Beides ist eng
aufeinander bezogen und zeigt, dass der Ausdruck „Eucharistie“ über die
allgemeine Bezeichnung für Dankgebete hinausreicht. Mit ihm wird
herausgestellt, dass es sich bei dem Mahl selbst um ein solches handelt, bei
dem sich die Gemeinde durch die an Gott gerichteten Dank- (und Bitt)gebete in
eine unmittelbare Beziehung zu ihm begibt und Anteil an den von ihm durch den
„Knecht Jesus“ gewährten Heilsgütern erlangt. Die weitere Interpretation wird
dies noch genauer zeigen.
In Did 14 wird die Mahlhandlung
als „Brotbrechen und Danksagen“ beschrieben. Damit werden diejenigen Aspekte
genannt, die für die von der Didache vorausgesetzte Mahlfeier offenbar in
besonderer Weise charakteristisch waren. Dass sie nebeneinander und als Verben,
also nicht als das Mahl selbst bezeichnende Spezialbegriffe begegnen, zeigt,
dass der Übergang zwischen der Beschreibung der Mahlvorgänge und den daraus
entstehenden Mahlbezeichnungen am Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts noch fließend war.
Des Weiteren liegt eine
interessante Analogie zu dem Befund in Lk 24 sowie in der Apostelgeschichte
vor. Auch dort hatte sich gezeigt, dass der Ausdruck „Brotbrechen“ zur
Beschreibung der Mahlhandlung insgesamt dient. Dies hat in Did 14 insofern eine
Entsprechung, als hier sehr wahrscheinlich – wie auch aus der Nennung von Kelch
und Brot in Kapitel 9 hervorgeht – mit „Brotbrechen“ die gesamte Mahlzeit
bezeichnet ist. Zudem zeigt sich deutlich, dass „Danksagen“ als ein für das
Mahl in gleicher Weise bedeutsamer – und zeitlich dem Brotbrechen zweifellos
vorangehender – Vorgang aufgefasst wird.
Ein weiterer in Did 14 für das
Mahl gebrauchter Begriff ist „Opfer“. Dieser Ausdruck wird ebenfalls in der
Didache zum ersten Mal auf das Abendmahl angewandt, auch er wird dann in der
weiteren Liturgiegeschichte bis in die Gegenwart hinein eine wichtige Rolle
spielen. Die Weise, in welcher der Opferbegriff später für das Abendmahl
Verwendung findet, ist allerdings von seinem Gebrauch in der Didache deutlich
unterschieden. Er bezieht sich in der Didache nicht auf den Tod Jesu als ein in
dem Mahl vergegenwärtigtes Ereignis, das als „Opfer“ verstanden würde. In
diesem Sinn wird erst über 100 Jahre später Cyprian, Bischof von Karthago, den
Opferbegriff für das Abendmahl verwenden.
Die Didache stellt dagegen keinen
Zusammenhang zwischen Eucharistie und dem Tod Jesu her. Mit dem Begriff „Opfer“
wird hier vielmehr – ganz im Sinne der Bezeichnung des Mahles als „Danksagung“
– die Mahlfeier als eine solche gekennzeichnet, in der die Menschen Gott für
die durch Jesus vermittelten Lebensgüter danken. Es handelt sich also um ein
übertragenes Verständnis von Opfer – denn bei dem Mahl wird ja nicht im
eigentlichen Sinn geopfert –, das sich auf die Mahlfeier und die dabei
gesprochenen Gebete bezieht. Das Mahl wird auf diese Weise als ein solches
gekennzeichnet, in dessen Zentrum der Dank der Gemeinde an Gott steht.
Die Didache zeigt somit, dass am
Beginn des 2. Jahrhunderts verschiedene Begriffe zur Bezeichnung des Abendmahls
in Gebrauch waren. Diese standen nicht in Konkurrenz zueinander, sondern
brachten jeweils einen bestimmten Aspekt zum Ausdruck. Deshalb können sie in
der Didache auch nebeneinander verwendet werden. Des Weiteren zeigt sich in der
Didache eine enge Beziehung zwischen Mahlhandlung und daraus abgeleiteter
Mahlbezeichnung.
Wichtig für das Verständnis des
Abendmahls in der Didache ist die in der Forschung heftig diskutierte Frage, ob
die hier überlieferten Gebete auf eine Form des Abendmahls ohne
Einsetzungsworte verweisen oder auf eine nicht-sakramentale Mahlfeier (Agape) im
frühen Christentum. Zunächst ist dabei zu beachten, dass die Regelung des
Mahlverlaufs für die Didache kein vordringliches Problem war. Dies konnte in
analoger Weise auch bei den neutestamentlichen Texten beobachtet werden. In der
Didache stehen die Mahlgebete innerhalb eines größeren Zusammenhangs, in dem
verschiedene Gebete angeführt werden: In Did 8,2 beginnt ein größerer Komplex,
der sich mit verschiedenen Arten von Gebeten befasst und durch die Anweisung,
nicht wie Heuchler zu beten, eingeführt wird. Zwar bezieht sich diese
Aufforderung auf das unmittelbar im Anschluss angeführte Vaterunser, doch wird
damit zugleich ein größerer Komplex eröffnet, zu dem auch die Mahlgebete
gehören. Diesen folgt eine Bemerkung über das freie Beten der Propheten sowie
im koptischen Text der Didache zusätzlich ein Dankgebet für das Salböl (10,8).
Diese Beobachtung zeigt zunächst,
dass die Intention der Didache nicht darin bestand, einen bestimmten
Mahlverlauf verbindlich festzulegen. Ein konkreter Ablauf des Mahles wird nicht
explizit thematisiert, sondern kommt nur ansatzweise in den Bemerkungen zum
Ausdruck, dass bei den Mahlgebeten „zuerst“ dasjenige über dem Kelch gesprochen
werden soll (9,2), dann dasjenige über dem gebrochenen Brot (9,3) sowie „nach
der Sättigung“ (10,1) das in Kapitel 10 genannte Gebet. Diese eher beiläufig
angebrachten Notizen erwecken den Eindruck, dass der Ablauf des Mahles als
bekannt vorausgesetzt wird und nicht umstritten war. Es geht der Didache
vielmehr darum, den Wortlaut der Gebete festzuhalten, da in diesen die
entscheidenden Inhalte des Mahles zum Ausdruck kommen.
Auffällig ist des Weiteren, dass
an zwei Stellen (9,5 und 10,6) Zulassungsbedingungen formuliert werden: Nur die
Getauften sollen am Mahl teilnehmen (9,5), nur die Heiligen sollen kommen
(10,6). Eine derartige Beschränkung der Zulassung zum Mahl war in den
neutestamentlichen Texten noch nicht anzutreffen. Die Didache weist damit ein
bereits fortgeschrittenes Stadium der Entwicklung frühchristlicher Gemeinden
auf, in dem die Frage nach den Voraussetzungen für die Teilnahme am
christlichen Mahl in den Blick trat. Die Mahlüberlieferung der Didache
unterscheidet sich weiterhin darin von den an den Einsetzungsworten
orientierten Mahlfeiern, dass kein letztes Mahl Jesu erwähnt wird und keine
Deutung seines Todes erfolgt. Stattdessen werden die entscheidenden Inhalte des
Mahles in Gebeten zur Sprache gebracht, die in vielfacher Weise jüdische
Vorstellungen und Begriffe aufnehmen. Darauf ist weiter unten näher einzugehen.
Die Didache knüpft demnach nicht
an die Berichte vom letzten Mahl Jesu an, um Gestalt und Inhalt des Mahles der
christlichen Gemeinde zur Darstellung zu bringen. Stattdessen stehen Dankgebete
über Kelch und gebrochenem Brot am Anfang, das Mahl selbst schließt sich an,
gefolgt von einem weiteren, das Mahl beschließenden Dank- und Bittgebet sowie
einem Hosiannagesang. Dabei ist offenbar der Ablauf eines jüdischen Mahles
vorausgesetzt, das mit einem Segen über dem Kelch begann. Dieser Verlauf wird
nunmehr mit christlichen Gebeten, die deutlich erkennbar in der Tradition
jüdischer Segensgebete stehen, inhaltlich gefüllt. Im Blick auf das Abendmahl
lässt sich dies – ähnlich wie bereits in 1 Kor – insofern auswerten, als die
frühen Christen in Anlehnung an Mahlformen der Umwelt zu ihren eigenen
Mahlfeiern zusammenkamen, also auf eine Weise, in der sie dies auch zuvor
gewohnt waren. Eine solche an sich selbstverständlich anmutende Feststellung
verdient insofern Beachtung, als sie zeigt, dass es für die frühen Christen
nicht entscheidend war, einen eigenen Mahlverlauf zu entwickeln, sondern das
Mahl inhaltlich neu zu füllen und ihm eine Prägung als christliches
sakramentales Mahl zu geben. Die Mahlgebete der Didache sind hierfür ein eindrucksvolles
Zeugnis.
Für die Einordnung der
Mahlüberlieferung der Didache sind des Weiteren die Beziehungen zu 1 Kor 10
aufschlussreich. In Did 10,3 werden Speise und Trank – wie in 1 Kor 10,3f. –
als „geistlich“ bezeichnet. In 1 Kor 10,16 hatte Paulus den Segenskelch, über dem
ein Segensgebet gesprochen wird („der Segenskelch, den wir segnen“), genannt.
Dieser Vorgang wird in Did 10,2-5 ausführlich geschildert. Im Unterschied zu Paulus
wird dabei allerdings nicht von „Segnen“, sondern von „Danken“ gesprochen. Das
deutet darauf hin, dass der Begriff des Dankens in der christlichen
Überlieferung den jüdischen Begriff des Segnens zu ersetzen beginnt.
Schließlich besteht eine bemerkenswerte Analogie zwischen dem „einen Brot“, das
die Gemeinde bildet, in 1 Kor 10,17 und der Kirche als dem „einen Brot“, das
zerstreut war und jetzt versammelt wird, in Did 9,4.
Hinter 1 Kor 10 und den
Mahlgebeten der Didache könnte demnach eine alte Überlieferung liegen, auf die
sowohl Paulus als auch der Verfasser der Didache zurückgegriffen haben.40 In
dieser Überlieferung wird das christliche Abendmahl in einer mit den Einsetzungsworten
verwandten, jedoch eigenständigen Weise interpretiert. Die Einsetzungsworte
sind demnach nicht die einzige – und vielleicht auch nicht die vorherrschende –
Deutung des Abendmahls im frühen Christentum.
Dies führt zu der Frage, wie sich
die Mahlüberlieferung der Didache zu den oben genannten, am letzten Mahl und am
Leben und Sterben Jesu orientierten Texten verhält. Dabei stehen zugleich
Annahmen über den in der Didache vorausgesetzten Ablauf der Mahlfeier zur
Diskussion. Dazu wurden im Wesentlichen zwei Lösungen vorgeschlagen:
Nach dem einen Modell werden in der Didache nur einige der Regelung bedürftige
Aspekte des Mahles genannt, wogegen die unstrittigen Teile – wozu auch die
Einsetzungsworte gehörten – nicht eigens erwähnt würden. Es könnte sich
demzufolge bei den Gebeten in Did 9 und 10 um bei einer nicht-sakramentalen
Agapefeier gesprochene Gebete handeln, an die sich der sakramentale Teil der
Eucharistiefeier angeschlossen hätte, bei dem dann die Einsetzungsworte
gesprochen worden wären.
Für diese Lösung wird die Bemerkung in 10,6 in Anspruch genommen („Wenn jemand
heilig ist, komme er. Wenn er es nicht ist, tue er Buße. Maran atha. Amen.“),
die den Übergang zwischen beiden Teilen des Mahles gebildet hätte.
Nach der anderen Lösung ist in
der Didache dagegen ein sakramentales Sättigungsmahl vorausgesetzt, bei dem die
in den Kapiteln 9 und 10 angeführten Gebete gesprochen, jedoch keine
Einsetzungsworte zitiert wurden. Der Vers 10,6 wäre dann keine auf den Mahlverlauf
bezogene liturgische Anweisung, sondern eine zu 9,5 (nur die Getauften sollen
von der Eucharistie essen und trinken) parallele Bemerkung über die Bedingung
der Zulassung zum Mahl.
Gegen die erste Lösung spricht,
dass in 9,1 das im Folgenden vorausgesetzte Mahl als „Eucharistie“ bezeichnet
wird, wobei die Wendung „Betreffs der Eucharistie“ dem „Betreffs der Taufe“ in
7,1 korrespondiert, also zweifellos das sakramentale Mahl und keine hiervon
unterschiedene Agapefeier bezeichnet. Eine derartige Unterscheidung wäre am
Beginn des 2. Jahrhunderts auch in keiner Weise zu erwarten. Dem entspricht,
dass sowohl in 9,5, also zwischen den Gebeten über Kelch und Brot und dem
Nachtischgebet, sowie in 10,6 der Kreis der zum Mahl Zugelassenen auf die
Getauften beschränkt wird. Des Weiteren werden die Mahlelemente in 10,3
ausdrücklich als „geistlich“ bezeichnet. Die Gebete machen Speise und Trank
also zu besonderen, „geistlichen“ Elementen.
Ein weiteres Problem dieser
Lösung liegt darin, dass sie davon ausgeht, die Didache hande nur über den Teil
vor der Eucharistie, wogegen über die sakramentale Feier selbst nichts
verlautet. Es ist natürlich prinzipiell möglich, dass die Didache sich nur zu
einem ungeklärten Teil der Mahlfeier äußert, das Übrige dagegen als
unproblematisch vorausgesetzt wird. Es ist jedoch sehr unwahrscheinlich und
durch keinen Text belegt, dass ein an den Einsetzungsworten orientierter
Mahlverlauf am Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts als gängig vorauszusetzen sei und
deshalb nicht geregelt zu werden brauche. Die bisherigen Beobachtungen zu den
Einsetzungsworten haben vielmehr gezeigt, dass diese eine bestimmte Form der
Mahlüberlieferung darstellen, die das historische Ereignis der Einsetzung des
Mahles durch Jesus festhält. Dass sie einen Mahlverlauf in den urchristlichen
Gemeinden widerspiegeln und bei der Mahlfeier an den entsprechenden Stellen
regelmäßig rezitiert wurden, lässt sich dagegen nicht feststellen. Es gibt
vielmehr in den Texten der ersten beiden Jahrhunderte keinerlei Indizien dafür,
dass die Einsetzungsworte fester Bestandteil der christlichen Mahlfeiern waren.
Näher liegt deshalb die Annahme,
dass das in der Didache vorausgesetzte Mahl durch die angeführten Gebete
liturgisch gestaltet und gedeutet wurde. Dies passt sowohl zu der entstehenden
Bezeichnung „Eucharistie“ als auch zu dem Befund, dass die Gebete stets als das
für die Mahlfeier charakteristische Element betrachtet wurden und die
Einsetzungsworte erst später – nämlich in der Traditio Apostolica – zum
Bestandteil dieser Gebete wurden. In der Didache ist demnach ein Mahl
vorausgesetzt, das mit dem Dankgebet über dem Kelch begann, dem ein solches
über dem gebrochenen Brot folgte. Schließlich wurde das Mahl durch ein weiteres
Gebet abgeschlossen. Die Bedeutung der Didache für die Geschichte des
Abendmahls liegt deshalb zum einen darin, dass sie eine Gestalt der Mahlfeier
bezeugt, bei der über Kelch und Brot sowie nach dem gemeinsamen Mahl Gebete
gesprochen wurden, die das Mahl inhaltlich bestimmten und ihm zugleich seine
sakramentale Bedeutung gaben. Die Bedeutung der eucharistischen Abschnitte der
Didache liegt zum anderen in dem Inhalt der Gebete selbst, die das Verständnis
dieses Mahles zu erkennen geben. Darauf ist nun genauer einzugehen.
In den Mahlgebeten wird für das
Offenbarungshandeln Gottes in Jesus gedankt. Jedes der drei Gebete erwähnt
dabei das „Kundtun durch Jesus“, das dann jeweils näher beschrieben wird. Über
Kelch und Brot wird also für die Heilsgüter gedankt, die Gott durch Jesus
kundgetan hat. Dabei treten folgende Aspekte hervor: Der „heilige Weinstock
Davids“ bezeichnet das bereits Israel verheißene und jetzt in Jesus zur
Erfüllung gekommene Heil. Die altertümliche christologische Bezeichnung Jesu
als „Knecht“ stellt diesen in die Tradition Davids, der ebenfalls in dieser
Weise bezeichnet wird, und bringt zugleich zum Ausdruck, dass die an diesen
ergangenen Verheißungen jetzt zur Erfüllung gekommen sind.
Das Gebet über dem gebrochenen
Brot dankt ebenfalls für die Kundgabe von Heilsgütern durch Jesus und nennt als
solche Leben und Erkenntnis (9,3). Das gebrochene Brot wird sodann als Sinnbild
für die Kirche gedeutet (9,4): Wie das als einzelne Körner verstreute Brot
gesammelt wurde, wird auch die Kirche einst von den Enden der Erde in das Reich
Gottes versammelt werden. Hierin besteht, wie oben bereits vermerkt, eine
Analogie zu der Deutung des einen Brotes als Symbol für den einen Leib der
Gemeinde in 1 Kor 10,17. In der Didache wird das Bild umfassender gebraucht:
Das Gebet blickt bis zu den „Enden der Erde“, von denen die Kirche zum Reich
Gottes gesammelt werden soll. Damit wird ein jüdisches Motiv abgewandelt: Die
Sammlung Israels, die Gegenstand jüdischer Gebete sein konnte, wird auf die
weltweite Kirche bezogen. In dem Nachtischgebet (Did 10) wird für die
Einwohnung Gottes in den Herzen der Glaubenden gedankt. Hier wird also eine
unmittelbare Nähe zwischen Gott und den Betenden zum Ausdruck gebracht, die
wiederum durch das „Kundtun“ Gottes durch Jesus hergestellt wird. Als
Heilsgüter werden nunmehr ewiges Leben, Erkenntnis, Unsterblichkeit und Glaube
genannt. Gott wird als der Schöpfergott charakterisiert, der die gewöhnliche
Speise ebenso wie die „geistliche“ Speise für die Getauften geschaffen hat. Das
Gebet schließt mit einer Bitte um die Bewahrung, Vollendung und Zusammenführung
der Kirche.
Die Mahlüberlieferung der Didache
weist Berührungen sowohl mit dem Johannesevangelium als auch mit den noch zu
besprechenden Passagen aus den Ignatiusbriefen auf: Im Johannesevangelium
spielt, wenn auch primär als christologische Aussage, die Vermittlung des
ewigen Lebens eine Rolle (Joh 6,51.53.54.57f.). Dieses Heilsgut begegnet in der
Didache in dem Ausdruck „Unsterblichkeit“ und wird auch bei Ignatius wieder
anzutreffen sein. Dieser überaus wichtige Aspekt des Abendmahlsverständnisses
begegnet in der Didache also innerhalb der über Kelch und Brot zu sprechenden
Gebete.
Bemerkenswert ist des Weiteren,
dass in der Didache die Bitte um die Sammlung der verstreuten Kirche im Kontext
des sakramentalen Mahles begegnet, die in Joh 11,52 als Deutung des Todes Jesu
erscheint. Schließlich weist der Dank an den Schöpfer für die gewöhnliche und
die „geistliche“ Nahrung voraus auf analoge Formulierungen bei Justin und
Irenäus. Wichtig dabei ist, dass die besondere, in der Eucharistie genossene
Speise in Analogie zu der gewöhnlichen Speise gesehen wird: Wie die gewöhnliche
Speise die Menschen ernährt, so vermittelt ihnen die Speise der Eucharistie
eine über das irdische Leben hinausreichende Gabe, nämlich diejenige der
Unsterblichkeit bzw. Auferstehung. Damit ist die Speise der Eucharistie ein
Werk Gottes als des Schöpfers, als der er in Did 10,3 auch ausdrücklich benannt
wird.
Kennzeichnend für das Verständnis
der Eucharistie in der Didache ist insgesamt, dass in den Dankgebeten über
Kelch und gebrochenem Brot das mit diesen Elementen verbundene Heil Gottes
beschrieben wird. Damit wird zugleich deutlich, warum es sich bei diesen
Mahlelementen um geistliche Nahrung handelt, welche die durch den „Knecht
Jesus“ vermittelten Heilsgüter vergegenwärtigt und der Mahl feiernden Gemeinde
daran Anteil gibt. Das Nachtischgebet ist auf die Zukunft ausgerichtet und
bringt die Hoffnung auf vollständige Sammlung und Bewahrung der Kirche zur
Sprache, die bereits in der Gegenwart als partielle Teilhabe am endzeitlichen
Heil erfahrbar ist (Did 10,5). Die Didache überliefert dabei eine bestimmte
Gestalt der Gebete über Kelch und Brot, die diese Heilsgüter benennen. Es ist
durchaus wahrscheinlich, dass in anderen Gegenden, in denen die Didache z.B.
gar nicht bekannt war oder keinen verbindlichen Status besaß, anderslautende
Gebete über den Mahlelementen gesprochen wurden. Wahrscheinlich ist aber auch,
dass die in diesen Gebeten formulierten Inhalte das jeweilige Mahlverständnis
zum Ausdruck brachten und das Mahl in dem Bewusstsein gefeiert wurde, an diesen
Heilsgütern Anteil zu haben.
Das hier zum ersten Mal
auftauchende Verbot für Ungetaufte, an der Mahlfeier teilzunehmen, stellt ein
neues Element in der Entwicklung dar. Es begegnet etwas später wieder bei
Justin, dann in der Traditio Apostolica sowie in eigener Weise in den
Johannesakten. Diese Anweisung gibt den besonderen Charakter zu erkennen, den
das Mahl innerhalb der christlichen Versammlung erhält: Es ist ein Mahl, das
die im Namen Jesu versammelte Gemeinschaft zusammenschließt und das durch Jesus
vermittelte Heilsgut in besonderer Weise vergegenwärtigt. Deshalb darf dieses
Mahl nicht dadurch entweiht werden, dass Ungetaufte daran teilnehmen.
In Kapitel 14 erwähnt die Didache
das Zusammenkommen am Herrentag mit Brotbrechen und Danksagen (14,1). Vom
Zusammenkommen am Abend des ersten Tages der Woche war auch in Apg 20,7 die
Rede. Wie dort kann auch aus dem Befund der Didache nicht zwingend gefolgert
werden, dass die Eucharistie nur im Zusammenhang des sonntäglichen
Gottesdienstes gefeiert wurde. Ignatius wird kurze Zeit später sogar dazu
ermahnen, möglichst häufig zum Mahl zusammenzukommen (Eph 13,1). Wenn die
Didache Anweisungen für die Feier des Abendmahls am Herrentag erteilt, so muss
dies also nicht bedeuten, dass es nur an diesem Tag gefeiert wurde. Dass
allerdings die Feier des Mahles am Herrentag ausdrücklich gefordert wird, ist
ein Indiz für die Entstehung des Ritus der sonntäglichen Mahlfeier, die sich am
Beginn des 2. Jahrhunderts durchzusetzen beginnt. Hierauf wird an späterer
Stelle zurückzukommen sein.
In Did 14 geht es – in zu 1 Kor
11 analogerweise – um die rechte Haltung, in der das Mahl zu feiern ist. Die
Didache verwendet hierfür den Begriff des Opfers, um deutlich zu machen, dass
es sich um eine Feier handelt, bei der Gott gedankt wird. War der Begriff
„Eucharistie“ auf das Danksagen in den Gebeten bezogen, so bezeichnet derjenige
des Opfers die damit verbundene Haltung: Zum Opfern gehört das Bekennen der
Sünden und die Aussöhnung mit dem Nächsten. Der kultische Begriff wird also in
metaphorischer Weise gebraucht, um die zur Eucharistie gehörige ethische
Dimension herauszustellen. Damit weist er auf einen weiteren wichtigen Aspekt
des Eucharistieverständnisses hin, nämlich den Zusammenhang mit der Ethik der
Gemeinde. Dieser war in 1 Kor 11 bereits aufgetaucht, wo Paulus eine bestimmte
Gestalt des Herrenmahls eingefordert hatte. Ein mit Did 14 vergleichbarer
Zusammenhang von Opfer und dazugehöriger Haltung wird sich dann auch in der
Deutung der Eucharistie bei Justin und Irenäus feststellen lassen. (Jens
Schröter, Nehmt-esst und trinkt: Das Abendmahl verstehen und feiern
[Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2010], 59-70)
5. Didache
The Didache is the first Christian church order. It was
transmitted under the authority of the (twelve) apostles. It contains an
ethical instruction formulated in the singular (the so-called “Two Ways”
teaching, chapters 1–6), liturgical instructions for baptism, fasting, prayer,
and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (7–10), instructions for dealing with
apostles, prophets, and teachers (11–13), as well as regulations for worship
(14–15). At the end there is an apocalyptic instruction about the events of the
last days (16).
The complete Greek text of the Didache was discovered
in 1873 by Philothetos Bryennios in a manuscript from the year 1056 (the
so-called Codex Hierosolymitanus) and first published in 1883. However, the
writing is already mentioned by various early church authors such as Eusebius,
Athanasius, and Didymus the Blind. It probably dates from the early second
century, thus about contemporaneous with the younger writings of the New
Testament and the letters of Ignatius.
In the Didache, older traditions have been worked over
in many places, e.g. in the Two Ways teaching, in the Lord’s Prayer, and also
in the meal prayers. Some of these traditions have parallels in New Testament
texts, with a particular closeness to the Gospel of Matthew. Others, by
contrast, became known only through the Didache. These include the meal prayers
that concern us here. Overall, it is striking that the traditions gathered in
the Didache show a clear Jewish character. This is also true of the meal
prayers, as will soon be shown in more detail. So, like the Gospel of Matthew,
we are dealing with an early Christian text that often draws on Jewish-shaped
traditions for the formation of Christian life.
With the Didache, the fixing of liturgical prayers
begins in Christianity. Alongside the delimitation of authoritative
writings—the emergence of the canon—this represents another important area in
the formation of Christianity as an independent religious community. The next
such order is the Traditio Apostolica, which arose about 100 years later. The
Didache was then itself worked into later church orders, such as the Apostolic
Constitutions and the Apostolic Church Order. We will not here deal with the
complicated questions of the often difficult-to-reconstruct textual foundations
and the relationships among the church orders. The high significance that the
Didache already has for the reconstruction of early Christian communal life—and
thus also for the Lord’s Supper—will become apparent in the discussion of the
Eucharistic texts found there. Even though the final form of the writing is
later than the letters of Paul and the Gospels of the New Testament, the
traditions it incorporates often go back to an earlier time. This is also the
case with the meal prayers that concern us here. For the history of the origin
of the Lord’s Supper, the Didache is therefore of extraordinary importance.
This now needs to be shown more precisely.
The first section to be discussed is found in chapters
9 and 10. There prayers are given that are to be spoken over the cup and bread
(in that order!). In view of the New Testament Lord’s Supper texts discussed
above, the Didache, strikingly, does not quote the words of institution and
also does not refer to the death of Jesus. It will, however, become clear that
this only seems strange because the words of institution acquired constitutive
significance in the course of the liturgical history of Christianity. That
significance should not yet be assumed for the time of the Didache. In chapter
14, the second important passage for our context, the issue is rather the
proper attitude at the common meal: only someone who has first confessed his
offenses and been reconciled with his neighbor should celebrate the meal. Let
us first let the texts themselves speak:
9,1 Regarding the thanksgiving [Eucharist] however:
give thanks as follows:
9,2 First regarding the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of
David, your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus, your servant. To
you be the glory forever! 9,3 Regarding the broken bread: We thank you, our
Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus,
your servant. To you be the glory forever. 9,4 As this broken bread was
scattered upon the mountains and, having been gathered together, became one, so
may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your
kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.
9,5 But no one may eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been
baptized in the name of the Lord. For concerning this too the Lord has spoken:
Do not give what is holy to the dogs.
10,1 After being filled, give thanks as follows:
10,2 We thank you, holy Father, for your holy name, which you have caused to
dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you
made known to us through Jesus, your servant. Yours is the glory forever. 10,3
You, Lord Almighty, have created all things for the sake of your name; you have
given food and drink to human beings for enjoyment, so that they may give
thanks to you; but to us you have given spiritual food and drink and eternal
life through your servant. 10,4 Above all we give you thanks because you are
mighty. To you be the glory forever. 10,5 Remember, Lord, your church, to
preserve it from all evil and to perfect it in your love, and gather it
together from the four winds—the sanctified one—into your kingdom, which you
have prepared for it. For yours is the power and the glory forever. 10,6 Let
grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If
anyone is holy, let him come. If he is not, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen.
14,1 On every Lord’s Day, when you come together, break
bread and give thanks, after first confessing your offenses, so that your
sacrifice may be pure. 14,2 But anyone who has a dispute with his neighbor must
not come together with you until they have been reconciled, so that your
sacrifice may not be defiled. 14,3 For this is the word spoken by the Lord: “At
every place and at every time to offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great
king, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”
We will first discuss the opening meal prayers in
chapters 9 and 10. The following features stand out: in Did 9,1 and 5 the term
“Eucharist” appears for the first time, and shortly afterward Ignatius will
also use it. This expression plays an outstanding role in the later history of
the Lord’s Supper and is also today one of the most important designations for
the Christian meal celebration. In the Didache and in Ignatius one can see how
this term came to be used: the literal meaning of “Eucharist” is “thanksgiving.”
The verb “to give thanks” had already appeared in Paul in 1 Cor 11:24, and in
Lk 22:19 with reference to the broken bread, and in Mk 14:23 and Mt 26:27 with
reference to the cup. The prayer of thanksgiving as well as the blessing (cf. 1
Cor 10:16; Mk 14:22; Mt 26:26) were thus from the beginning central actions
connected with the meal celebration.
In Did 9,1 the noun “thanksgiving” and the verb “to
give thanks” are directly related to one another and explain each other:
“Eucharist” here specifically denotes that thanksgiving which is to be spoken
over the elements of the meal in the sacramental meal celebration. Concretely,
these are special prayers corresponding to the special food, for not every meal
celebration in which prayers of thanks are always spoken in Jewish tradition is
therefore called “Eucharist” as well. In 9,5, “Eucharist” is then the designation
for the meal itself (“No one should eat or drink of your Eucharist ...”). The
meaning of the meal is thus derived equally from the thanksgivings over the
meal elements and from the special character of the meal celebration thereby
brought about. The two are closely related and show that the term “Eucharist”
goes beyond the general designation for prayers of thanks. By means of it, it
is emphasized that the meal itself is such a meal in which the community,
through the prayers of thanks (and petition) addressed to God, enters into an
immediate relationship with him and gains a share in the salvific goods granted
by him through the “servant Jesus.” The further interpretation will show this
more precisely.
In Did 14 the meal action is described as “breaking
bread and giving thanks.” This names those aspects that were apparently
characteristic in a special way of the meal celebration presupposed by the
Didache. That they appear side by side and as verbs, and thus not as special
terms designating the meal itself, shows that the transition between the
description of meal actions and the meal designations arising from them was
still fluid at the beginning of the second century.
There is also an interesting analogy to the findings in
Lk 24 and in Acts. There too it had become clear that the expression “breaking
bread” serves to describe the meal action as a whole. Did 14 corresponds to
this insofar as here very probably—as also follows from the mention of cup and
bread in chapter 9—“breaking bread” denotes the entire meal. It also becomes
clear that “giving thanks” is understood as a process equally significant for
the meal—and one unquestionably preceding the breaking of bread in time.
Another term used for the meal in Did 14 is
“sacrifice.” This expression is likewise applied for the first time in the
Didache to the Lord’s Supper, and it too will then play an important role in
the later history of liturgy down to the present. The way in which the concept
of sacrifice later comes to be used for the Lord’s Supper is, however, clearly
different from its use in the Didache. In the Didache it does not refer to the
death of Jesus as an event made present in the meal and understood as a “sacrifice.”
In this sense it is only more than 100 years later that Cyprian, bishop of
Carthage, will use the concept of sacrifice for the Lord’s Supper.
By contrast, the Didache does not establish any
connection between Eucharist and the death of Jesus. Rather, with the term
“sacrifice” it characterizes the meal celebration—fully in keeping with the
designation of the meal as “thanksgiving”—as one in which human beings thank
God for the gifts of life mediated through Jesus. It is therefore a figurative
understanding of sacrifice—for at the meal nothing is in fact sacrificed in the
proper sense—which refers to the meal celebration and the prayers spoken there.
In this way the meal is characterized as one in whose center stands the
thanksgiving of the community to God.
The Didache thus shows that at the beginning of the
second century various terms were in use for designating the Lord’s Supper.
These were not in competition with one another, but each expressed a particular
aspect. That is why they can also be used side by side in the Didache.
Furthermore, the Didache shows a close relationship between meal action and the
meal designation derived from it.
Important for understanding the Lord’s Supper in the
Didache is the question much debated in scholarship of whether the prayers
transmitted here point to a form of the Lord’s Supper without words of
institution or to a non-sacramental meal celebration (Agape) in early
Christianity. First, it should be noted that regulating the sequence of the
meal was not an urgent problem for the Didache. The same could also be observed
analogously in the New Testament texts. In the Didache the meal prayers stand
within a larger context in which various prayers are introduced: in Did 8,2 a
larger complex begins that deals with different kinds of prayers and is
introduced by the instruction not to pray like hypocrites. This exhortation
does indeed refer to the Lord’s Prayer immediately following it, but at the
same time it opens a larger complex to which the meal prayers also belong. This
is followed by a remark about the free prayer of the prophets, and in the
Coptic text of the Didache additionally a thanksgiving prayer for the anointing
oil (10,8).
This observation first shows that the intention of the
Didache was not to establish a specific sequence of the meal in binding
fashion. A concrete sequence of the meal is not explicitly discussed, but
appears only in passing in the remarks that in the meal prayers that over the
cup should be spoken “first” (9,2), then that over the broken bread (9,3), and
“after being filled” (10,1) the prayer mentioned in chapter 10. These rather
incidental notes give the impression that the sequence of the meal is presupposed
as known and was not controversial. Rather, the Didache is concerned with
preserving the wording of the prayers, since the decisive contents of the meal
are expressed in them.
It is also striking that at two points (9,5 and 10,6)
conditions for admission are formulated: only the baptized are to participate
in the meal (9,5), only the holy are to come (10,6). Such a restriction of
admission to the meal is not yet found in the New Testament texts. The Didache
thus shows a stage in the development of early Christian communities that has
already advanced, in which the question of the prerequisites for participation
in the Christian meal came into view. The meal tradition of the Didache further
differs from meal celebrations oriented toward the words of institution in that
no last meal of Jesus is mentioned and no interpretation of his death takes
place. Instead, the decisive contents of the meal are articulated in prayers
that in many ways take up Jewish ideas and terms. This will need to be examined
more closely below.
Accordingly, the Didache does not attach itself to the
accounts of Jesus’ last meal in order to present the form and content of the
meal of the Christian community. Instead, thanksgiving prayers over the cup and
broken bread stand at the beginning; the meal itself follows; then comes
another thanksgiving and petition prayer concluding the meal, as well as a
Hosanna chant. Here the sequence of a Jewish meal is apparently presupposed,
one that began with a blessing over the cup. This sequence is now filled with
Christian prayers that clearly stand in the tradition of Jewish blessing
prayers. In view of the Lord’s Supper, this can be evaluated—similar to what is
already the case in 1 Cor—in that the early Christians came together for their
own meal celebrations in adaptation to the meal forms of their environment,
thus in a way they were already accustomed to. Such a seemingly self-evident
observation deserves attention insofar as it shows that for the early
Christians it was not decisive to develop a meal sequence of their own, but
rather to fill the meal with new content and give it a character as a Christian
sacramental meal. The meal prayers of the Didache are an impressive witness to
this.
For the classification of the meal tradition of the
Didache, the relationships to 1 Cor 10 are also illuminating. In Did 10,3 food
and drink—like in 1 Cor 10,3f.—are described as “spiritual.” In 1 Cor 10,16
Paul had mentioned the cup of blessing, over which a blessing prayer is spoken
(“the cup of blessing which we bless”). This process is described in detail in
Did 10,2–5. In contrast to Paul, however, is speaking not of “blessing” but of
“giving thanks.” This suggests that, in Christian tradition, the concept of
thanksgiving is beginning to replace the Jewish concept of blessing. Finally,
there is a striking analogy between the “one bread” that the community forms in
1 Cor 10:17 and the church as the “one bread” that was scattered and is now
gathered together in Did 9:4.
Behind 1 Cor 10 and the meal prayers of the Didache
there may therefore lie an ancient tradition on which both Paul and the author
of the Didache drew. In this tradition, the Christian Lord’s Supper is
interpreted in a way related to, but independent from, the words of
institution. The words of institution are therefore not the only—and perhaps
not even the dominant—interpretation of the Lord’s Supper in early
Christianity.
This raises the question of how the meal tradition of
the Didache relates to the texts mentioned above, which are oriented toward the
last meal and the life and death of Jesus. At the same time, assumptions about
the sequence of the meal celebration presupposed in the Didache are also under
discussion. Two basic solutions have been proposed:
According to one model, the Didache mentions only some
aspects of the meal that need regulation, whereas the uncontested
parts—including the words of institution—would not be mentioned explicitly. On
this view, the prayers in Did 9 and 10 could be prayers spoken in the context
of a non-sacramental Agape meal, to which the sacramental part of the
Eucharistic celebration would then have been attached, with the words of
institution being spoken there.
The statement in 10,6 (“If anyone is holy, let him
come. If he is not, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen.”) is then taken to have
formed the transition between the two parts of the meal.
According to the other solution, the Didache
presupposes a sacramental meal of satiety, in which the prayers given in
chapters 9 and 10 were spoken, but no words of institution were quoted. Verse
10,6 would then be not a liturgical instruction concerning the sequence of the
meal, but a remark parallel to 9,5 (only the baptized may eat and drink of the
Eucharist) concerning the condition for admission to the meal.
Against the first solution is the fact that in 9,1 the
meal presupposed in what follows is called “Eucharist,” and the wording
“Concerning the Eucharist” corresponds to “Concerning baptism” in 7,1, thus
clearly designating the sacramental meal and not some Agape meal distinguished
from it. Such a distinction would not be expected in any case at the beginning
of the second century. Correspondingly, both in 9,5—i.e. between the prayers
over cup and bread and the after-meal prayer—and in 10,6, the circle of those
admitted to the meal is restricted to the baptized. In addition, the meal
elements in 10,3 are explicitly described as “spiritual.” The prayers therefore
make food and drink into special, “spiritual” elements.
Another problem with this solution is that it assumes
that the Didache deals only with the part before the Eucharist, whereas nothing
is said about the sacramental celebration itself. It is of course possible in
principle that the Didache speaks only about one unresolved part of the meal
celebration, while the rest is presupposed as unproblematic. But it is very
unlikely, and supported by no text, that a meal sequence oriented toward the
words of institution should be assumed to have been common at the beginning of
the second century and therefore not in need of regulation. The previous
observations concerning the words of institution have rather shown that they
represent a particular form of meal tradition that preserves the historical
event of Jesus’ institution of the meal. But it cannot be established that they
reflected a meal sequence in the earliest Christian communities and were
regularly recited in the corresponding places during the meal celebration. On
the contrary, there are no indications in the texts of the first two centuries
that the words of institution were a fixed component of Christian meal
celebrations.
It is therefore more plausible to assume that the meal
presupposed in the Didache was liturgically shaped and interpreted by the
prayers cited. This fits both the emerging designation “Eucharist” and the
finding that the prayers were always considered the characteristic element of
the meal celebration, and that the words of institution were only later—namely
in the Traditio Apostolica—made part of these prayers. In the Didache, then, a
meal is presupposed that began with the prayer of thanksgiving over the cup,
followed by such a prayer over the broken bread. Finally, the meal was
concluded by another prayer. The significance of the Didache for the history of
the Lord’s Supper lies therefore, on the one hand, in the fact that it attests
a form of meal celebration in which prayers were spoken over cup and bread and after
the common meal, prayers that determined the meal in content and at the same
time gave it its sacramental meaning. The significance of the eucharistic
sections of the Didache lies, on the other hand, in the content of the prayers
themselves, which reveal the understanding of this meal. This now needs to be
examined more closely.
In the meal prayers, thanks is given for God’s
revelatory action in Jesus. Each of the three prayers mentions the “making
known through Jesus,” which is then described more precisely in each case. Over
cup and bread, thanks is given for the saving gifts that God made known through
Jesus. The following aspects stand out: the “holy vine of David” refers to the
salvation already promised to Israel and now fulfilled in Jesus. The ancient
Christological designation of Jesus as “servant” places him in the tradition of
David, who is also designated in this way, and at the same time expresses that
the promises given to him have now been fulfilled.
The prayer over the broken bread also gives thanks for
the revelation of saving gifts through Jesus and names as such life and
knowledge (9,3). The broken bread is then interpreted as a symbol of the church
(9,4): as the bread scattered as individual grains was gathered together, so
too will the church one day be gathered from the ends of the earth into the
kingdom of God. Here there is, as already noted above, an analogy to the
interpretation of the one bread as a symbol of the one body of the community in
1 Cor 10:17. In the Didache the image is used more comprehensively: the prayer
looks as far as the “ends of the earth,” from which the church is to be
gathered into the kingdom of God. In this way a Jewish motif is transformed:
the gathering of Israel, which could be the subject of Jewish prayers, is now
applied to the worldwide church. In the after-meal prayer (Did 10), thanks is
given for God’s dwelling in the hearts of the believers. Here, then, an
immediate closeness between God and the praying community is expressed, a
closeness that is in turn brought about by God’s “making known” through Jesus.
The saving gifts now named are eternal life, knowledge, immortality, and faith.
God is characterized as the Creator God, who created ordinary food as well as
the “spiritual” food for the baptized. The prayer concludes with a petition for
the preservation, completion, and gathering together of the church.
The meal tradition of the Didache shows points of
contact both with the Gospel of John and with the passages from the Ignatian
letters that will still be discussed: in the Gospel of John, the imparting of
eternal life plays a role, even if primarily as a Christological statement
(John 6:51, 53, 54, 57f.). This saving gift appears in the Didache in the
expression “immortality” and will also be encountered in Ignatius. This highly
important aspect of Eucharistic understanding thus appears in the Didache
within the prayers to be spoken over cup and bread.
It is also noteworthy that in the Didache the petition
for the gathering of the scattered church appears in the context of the
sacramental meal, a petition that in John 11:52 appears as an interpretation of
Jesus’ death. Finally, thanksgiving to the Creator for ordinary and “spiritual”
nourishment anticipates analogous formulations in Justin and Irenaeus. It is
important here that the special food enjoyed in the Eucharist is seen in
analogy to ordinary food: just as ordinary food nourishes human beings, so the
food of the Eucharist conveys a gift that reaches beyond earthly life, namely
immortality or resurrection. The food of the Eucharist is thus a work of God as
Creator, as whom he is also explicitly named in Did 10,3.
What characterizes the understanding of the Eucharist
in the Didache overall is that in the prayers of thanksgiving over cup and
broken bread, the salvation of God connected with these elements is described.
At the same time, this makes clear why these meal elements are spiritual food:
they make present the saving gifts mediated through the “servant Jesus” and
give the meal-celebrating community a share in them. The after-meal prayer is
directed toward the future and expresses the hope for the complete gathering
and preservation of the church, which is already experienced in the present as
a partial share in the eschatological salvation (Did 10,5). The Didache thus
preserves a certain form of prayers over cup and bread that name these saving
gifts. It is quite possible that in other regions, where the Didache was not
known at all or had no binding status, different prayers over the meal elements
were spoken. It is also likely, however, that the contents formulated in these
prayers expressed the respective understanding of the meal, and that the meal
was celebrated in the awareness of sharing in these saving gifts.
The prohibition, appearing here for the first time,
against the unbaptized taking part in the meal celebration represents a new
element in the development. It appears somewhat later in Justin, then in the
Traditio Apostolica and in a distinct way in the Johannine Acts. This
instruction reveals the special character that the meal acquires within the
Christian assembly: it is a meal that unites the community gathered in the name
of Jesus and makes present in a special way the saving gift mediated through
Jesus. For that reason, this meal must not be profaned by the participation of
the unbaptized.
In chapter 14, the Didache mentions gathering on the
Lord’s Day with breaking of bread and thanksgiving (14,1). Gathering on the
evening of the first day of the week was also mentioned in Acts 20,7. As there,
the evidence of the Didache does not allow one to conclude with certainty that
the Eucharist was celebrated only in connection with the Sunday service.
Ignatius, shortly afterward, will even urge believers to come together for the
meal as often as possible (Eph 13,1). If the Didache gives instructions for the
celebration of the Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Day, that does not therefore
mean that it was celebrated only on that day. The fact, however, that the
celebration of the meal on the Lord’s Day is explicitly required is an
indication of the emergence of the rite of the Sunday meal celebration, which
begins to establish itself at the beginning of the second century. This will
have to be returned to later.
In Did 14 the issue is, in analogy to 1 Cor 11, the
proper attitude in which the meal is to be celebrated. The Didache uses the
term sacrifice for this purpose, in order to make clear that this is a
celebration in which God is thanked. If the term “Eucharist” referred to the
giving of thanks in the prayers, then the term sacrifice designates the
attitude connected with it: sacrifice includes the confession of sins and
reconciliation with one’s neighbor. The cultic term is thus used in a
metaphorical way in order to highlight the ethical dimension belonging to the
Eucharist. It thereby points to another important aspect of Eucharistic
understanding, namely the connection with the ethics of the community. This had
already appeared in 1 Cor 11, where Paul demanded a certain form of the Lord’s
Supper. A connection between sacrifice and the corresponding attitude
comparable to Did 14 will also be found in the interpretation of the Eucharist
in Justin and Irenaeus.