Category: Prayer

Psalm 41: David’s Lament of Betrayal

On By Jovan PayesIn 2004, College Work, Freed-Hardeman University, Johannine Literature, Old Testament, Prayer, Psalms, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth, Theology, Wisdom Literature

According to the Gospel of John, during the final hours before his betrayal and crucifixion, Jesus spent the final night with his disciples. This begins the “hour” in which Jesus would be glorified (John 12:27–28). The first “teaching act” Jesus provides his disciples is to wash their feet, illustrating that leadership must be service-oriented among them whether Master and Teacher or servant and disciple (John 13:1–20).

Both Jesus and the narrator of the Fourth Gospel introduce a significant feature here: Jesus served all of his disciples by washing their feet, especially Judas whom Jesus already knew would betray him (John 13:11). This general fact Jesus makes a topic of conversation (John 13:17–20, 21–30). Jesus said:

I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ (John 13:18 English Standard Version)[1]

In Christian interpretation, the “Scripture” reference is to Psalm 41:9 as a prophecy of Judas. As with many New Testament quotations of the Old Testament, the use of this passage in reference to Judas’s betrayal of Jesus generates considerable questions. For example, if this scripture applies to Judas, was Psalm 41:9 void of meaning for centuries until the first century AD emergence of Jesus? This seems unlikely. Additionally, in what sense does Judas fulfill (plēroō) this passage? Is it in a typological, duel-fulfillment (telescopic), or primary/secondary fulfillment sense? These types of questions are important, but they are not the primary concern in this paper.[2]

The present brief study was prompted by the connection between Psalm 41:9 and John 13:18. Nevertheless, the most important concern in this paper is to seek to understand Psalm 41 as a unit.

Thus, the primary focus presently is on understanding Psalm 41 from its historical and biblical context (i.e., Hebrew Bible), its structural features (literary genre, organizational form), and its linguistic features. With these items in place, it will help to consider its theology and application. Finally, a consideration on how to best see how Judas’s betrayal of Jesus “fulfills” Psalm 41:9.

Historical Context

C. Hassell Bullock mentions the great dilemma of studying the historical context of any given psalm and stresses that to obtain a solid footing for explaining the context one must examine the superscriptions and content of the psalm.[3]

Edward Tesh and Walter Zorn observe that perhaps no other psalm rivals Psalm 41 in terms of providing the original setting and significance.[4] They evaluate six possible explanations and conclude that the psalm was probably borne out of a dire situation and was consequently a lament, in which the psalmist appeals for healing. From this dire circumstance, the psalm eventually was incorporated into the liturgy of the temple worship.[5] Other scholars also recognize the “lament” nature of the psalm as informative to understanding the original historical context (Carroll Stuhlmeuller, Peter C. Craigie, Robert G. Bratcher and William D. Reyburn).[6] The internal evidence, then, points to a historical context that generated a lament.

Peter Craigie represents those who argue that the Psalm must be understood in its liturgical use for the sick of Israel, instead of a personal historical context.[7] Likewise, Charles A. Briggs argued that the psalm is national in scope, not individual, because of an emphasis upon God blessing those in the land during post-exilic times (Psa 41:2).[8] The psalm proper begins: 

"Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the Lord delivers him; the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies." (Psalm 41:1–2).

Canonically, the psalm is a communal outcry, and this then speaks to its shaping context. This conclusion seems to be weakened by the fact that there is still an earlier setting that precedes its Hebrew liturgical use. This amounts to a debate between the later canonical use of Psalm 41 with its initial authorial intent.

The tradition contained in the subscription may provide help in understanding the original historical context. The subscription is ancient but it is not likely to be as old as the psalm. It minimally points to what the ancients believed about this psalm. It may help understand the initial authorial intent of Psalm 41 by providing an assumption about the personal emphases throughout the psalm and the psalmist’s dependence upon God. The subscription of Psalm 41 reads: “To the Choirmaster. A psalm of David.” The psalm is Davidic by tradition. Internally, there is nothing inherent in the psalm that would dismiss it as being Davidic.

Unfortunately, some have noted that the translation of the ascription “of David” (le dwd) could be regarded as a dedication “to David.”[9] In addition to versional evidence offered to support the translation for the phrase as “of David,” similar wording can be demonstrated from the Hebrew canon to express authorship.[10] To illustrate, consider one example from Habakkuk:

A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, according to Shigionoth. 

O Lord, I have heard the report of you, and your work, O Lord, do I fear. In the midst of the years revive it; in the midst of the years make it known; in wrath remember mercy. (Hab 3:1–2)

This is not a prayer dedicated to Habakkuk, but a prayer of the prophet, as in by the prophet. Despite later reconstructions of redaction and editorial work theories in the canonical shaping of Psalter, it seems reasonable that “to David” in the subscription is a claim of authorship. If there is no need to question Davidic authorship, then the traditional attributions may be considered accurate, and therefore be a line of argumentation against Briggs’ post-exilic interpretation of Psalm 41:2.[11]

The internal evidence, then, is supportive of a time in King David’s lifetime in which he experienced betrayal and treachery by someone close to him, and the presence and faithfulness of his God to vindicate him. This is assumed here to be during his reign in the 10th century BC. Psalm 41 may have been collated afresh in later editions of the Psalter for liturgical or national use, but these developments are secondary contexts.

Literary Form

Psalm 41 is generally regarded as a lament. Its historical context makes it more likely it was an individual lament. Laments are not simply mere prayers of pain. Laments often contours such as an outcry of pain or distress, a declaration of faith based upon some past action of God, lessons learned about God, and a statement of praise. In that sense, a lament can offer insight into a past tragedy in which the lamenter cries out to God and then contains a record of the Lord’s vindication.

For reasons like this, an alternative form for Psalm 41 is what Willem A. Van Germeren calls a “thanksgiving of the individual.”[12] If it is to be considered as a thanksgiving work, then there should be words of praise, some description of God’s gracious action, lessons learned about God, and some form of a conclusion extolling God. It is true the psalm begins with what may be read as thanksgiving for the one who considers the poor for the Lord will deliver him. But while there is certainly an undertow of gratitude throughout the psalm, there is the consistent plea for assistance, deliverance, and an appeal to God’s grace that saturates the psalm. The evidence for lament is stronger than the theme of thanksgiving.

It has also been suggested that Psalm 41 could overlap with the wisdom psalm literary form. Instead of the distressing opening lines of Psalm 22:1 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) or Psalm 51:1 (“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love”s 51:1”), Psalm 41 begins with a proverbial statement.[13] observe: 

“Blessed is the one who considers the poor, in the day of trouble the Lord delivers him.” (Psalm 41:1)

However, the phrase “blessed” is used throughout the Psalms and does not require proverbial emphases. While it could be argued that Psalm 41 does not begin with the type of traditional outcry associated with lament, the wisdom genre does not carry the burden of how the psalmist describes his enemies as conspiring against him:

My enemies say of me in malice, “When will he die, and his name perish?” And when one comes to see me, he utters empty words, while his heart gathers iniquity; when he goes out, he tells it abroad. All who hate me whisper together about me; they imagine the worst for me. They say, “A deadly thing is poured out on him; he will not rise again from where he lies.” Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me. But you, O Lord, be gracious to me, and raise me up, that I may repay them! (Psalm 41:5-10)

Wisdom provides the “how to” knowledge or the “beware” knowledge, the psalmist is decrying his situation.

The psalm begins with a focus on the individual and the Lord’s care of “he who considers the poor.” In a Spanish translation, the Hebrew word dal is translated as “el debil” (Santa Biblia: Nueva Version Internacional), meaning those who are weak. It seems essential to the lament of the psalm that the weak is the psalmist and not necessarily someone about whom the psalmist is reflecting about.

Structure

While this paper will not address the complexities of the original Hebrew text,[14] it is clear that the psalm may be given a variety of outlines depending on how the parallelism is viewed. Not all scholars seem to agree on the arrangement even if they have the same number of structural divisions. For example, the late Hugo McCord (1911–2004) sets the psalm into four stichs in his translation of the Psalms: 41:1–3, 4–6, 7–9, 10–12, and 13.[15] Tesh and Zorn divide the psalm into four different stichs: 1–4, 5–9, 10–12, and 13.[16]

I offer a personal outline for the psalm suggested: 1–3, 4–8, 9–12, and 13. 

Psalm 41:1–3: Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the Lord delivers him; the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies. The LORD sustains him on his sickbed; in his illness you restore him to full health.

Psalm 41:4–8: As for me, I said, “O LORD, be gracious to me heal me, for I have sinned against you!” My enemies say of me in malice, “When will he die, and his name perish?” And when one comes to see me, he utters empty words, while his heart gathers iniquity; when he goes out, he tells it abroad. All who hate me whisper together about me; they imagine the worst for me. They say, “A deadly thing is poured out on him; he will not rise again from where he lies.” 

Psalm 9–12: Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me. But you, O Lord, be gracious to me, and raise me up, that I may repay them! By this I know that you delight in me: my enemy will not shout in triumph over me. But you have upheld me because of my integrity, and set me in your presence forever.

Psalm 13: Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting! Amen and Amen.

The groupings seem to fit a thematic development. In verses 1–3, David demonstrates a balancing of the blessed environment of the one who considers the poor with the strength and sustaining power of God. Then, in verses 4–8, David describes the plight he finds himself in. While David seems to be in poor health and under spiritual duress and therefore vulnerable, his enemies reveal themselves as ambitious traitors to the crown. In verses 9–12, the case intensifies as David laments the fact that he has become so isolated that “even” his close friend betrays him. Admit the tension the Lord is appealed to for help so that the psalmist’s suffering may be avenged by the Lord. This would be all the vindication he would need.

Interestingly, the doxology of verse 13 is typically set to stand by itself perhaps as an inclusio. George Knight observes that the psalm begins with “blessed be the man” it ends with “blessed be the Lord.”[17] There is certainly an understood purpose behind this inclusio. Some speculate this verse was added by a later editor or compiler.[18] On Hebrew parallelism, it has been argued that verse 13 does not seem to formally echo or balance with verse 12.[19] Additionally, the language in Psalm 41:13 is remarkably similar to Psalm 106:48 and functions similarly as a formal doxological break between the two books. Psalm 41 closes Book I and Psalm 106 closes Book IV with the same doxology, with an expanded doxology in Psalm 106. However one accounts for verse 13, it is structurally integral to the Psalter.

Imagery

Imagery is an important aspect of Hebrew poetry. Imagery conveys messages and nuances and sometimes brings our emotions. In the Hebrew poetry of the Psalms, the poet expresses truths with images being the channel. Consider a minor sample of some of the imagery concerning God, the psalmist, and the psalmist’s enemy.

Psalm 41:3 refers to the parallel concept of the Lord who strengthens the sick man “on his bed of illness” and “sustain him on his sickbed.” The picture is graphic and is one of physical restoration, which may refer both to spiritual or real renewal.

Psalm 41:6 discusses, from the vantage point of the psalmist, his enemy. His enemy’s “heart gathers iniquity to itself; when he goes out, he tells it.” The psalmist personifies the mind of an evil man and depicts it in the act of gathering iniquity as a person may gather fruits or clothing. Man’s heart is given to iniquity, so much that he self-references is own sinfulness. The enemy of the psalmist is consequently even more devious and methodical.

In Psalm 41:9 the description of the kind of enemy the Psalmist endures is one that is a close associate, one whom he trusted. Trust and eating bread are synonymous phrases in this context, demonstrating the use of parallelism. But the synonym moves on to climatic, where the enemy goes from trusted friend to outright betrayer.

Biblical Context

As previously mentioned in the introduction, from a Christian reading of the Bible, Psalm 41 is associated with Judas Iscariot since John narrates that Jesus declared Judas’ betrayal as a fulfillment of Psalm 41:9. Sometimes the Christ-Judas relationship overshadows David’s own reason for writing the Psalm, his Sitz en Leiben (life’s setting). On the assumption of Davidic authorship of Psalm 41, are there any points in the life of David that can corroborate with the details of the psalm?

According to Briggs, the traditional Sitz en Leiben of the betrayal and sheer disadvantage displayed in Psalm 41 is that of David’s encounters with Ahithophel of Gilo, his former counselor on the side of his usurping son Absalom (2 Sam 15:1–17:29).[20] It is important to recall that one of the difficulties aligning the setting of the Psalms with the life of David is that not everything was recorded for posterity. Additionally, the narrative language may not always align with the emotional nature of poetry. So, despite the traditional election of Ahithophel (Psa 41:9), it is merely a traditional reading. Consequently, the betrayal by Absalom and Ahithophel may not be what David had intended.

Nevertheless, it is worth considering the relationship between Ahithophel and David. Ahithophel was once a trusted counselor of David (2 Sam 15:31, 34). Ahithophel’s legacy is summed up in 2 Samuel 23:34 as one of David’s mighty men, and in two verses in 1 Chronicles 27:33–34, he “was the king’s counselor… [and] was succeeded by Jehoiada the son of Benaiah, and Abiathar.” He was a man in David’s inner inner circle.

Ahithophel was “David’s counselor” who was successfully courted by David’s embittered son Absalom to overthrow his father as king of Israel in a coup d’é·tat (2 Sam 15:1–12). The tragedy is that his counsel was esteemed “as if one consulted the word of God” (2 Sam 16:23), so his complicity in the conspiracy to overthrow David cut deep (2 Sam 15:31). David, now living on the run and vulnerable, prays to the Lord for the undoing of Ahithophel. Although there is no explicit claim that the Lord rose up Hushai the Archite, this “friend” of David serves as a counter-intelligence spy and undermines confidence in Ahithophel’s military plans against David (2 Sam 15:32–37; 16:15–17:22).

Without explanation, the end of Ahithophel is revealed: 

When Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his donkey and went off home to his own city. He set his house in order and hanged himself, and he died and was buried in the tomb of his father. (2 Samuel 17:23)

Is this specifically what David meant when he lamented in faith?

Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me. But you, O Lord, be gracious to me, and raise me up, that I may repay them! By this I know that you delight in me: my enemy will not shout in triumph over me. But you have upheld me because of my integrity, and set me in your presence forever. (Psalm 41:9-12)

It is hard to dismiss it even if there is not a clear explicit connection.

Nine hundred years later in the New Testament, the Lord Jesus affirms that this is a reference to Judas (John 13:18). It seems that while David through the Spirit referred to his own situation–whatever it was, the Spirit hid within it a prophecy of betrayal concerning the coming Davidic Messiah likewise from deep within the inner circle. For this reason, Jesus could legitimately claim the Apostle Judas–trusted with the office of an Apostle and keeper of the group’s finances (Luke 6:12–16; John 12:6)–as the fulfillment of this Messianic prophecy. Just as in the case of Ahithophel, no clear motive is ever given for the betrayal of Jesus by Judas.

Theology

The theology of Psalm 41 is connected together by three internal figures: David, David’s God, and David’s enemies. David wrote a lament prayer to his God, who sees both his sinfulness and the injustice as he suffers at the hands of his own enemies, and repeatedly asks God for his gracious deliverance and vindication.

First, David’s lament calls on God’s people to learn the nerve-wracking truth that faithfulness to God will not always protect from the treachery and betrayal of those considered to be allies and members of one’s inner circle. David’s focus on the Lord provides a pathway for making the most important thing the priority: David knows his fellowship with God is unimpeded by his trials. David knows:

the Lord protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies (Psalm 41:2)

Second, the powerful king seems to have gone through an illness or some demonstration of weakness which emboldened his enemies to come into the light in anticipation of his collapse or death. David sees his inner court filled with two-faced loyalists, who secretly have grown disloyal to him waiting for the right moment to reveal themselves and exploit his weakness. If the story of David teaches one crucial theological truth it is that God’s anointed will suffer unjustly.

Third, God will vindicate the innocent and the compassionate. David’s ethical and moral life was turbulent. His moral lows are ethically grotesque while his spiritual highs show a deep conviction in aligning himself on the side of the Lord. David was fully aware of his sin but knew the God he served hated injustice and would help those who were poor, or of weak stature. There is comfort in knowing that even though a person may be so weak morally, spiritually, financially, or in health, God desires their protection and care. God will vindicate the taken advantage of.

Application

The message of Psalm 41 is a message for the ages. Many have had friends turn on them, and deliver a heart-piercing stab which only few can do. Intimate relationships can sometimes be vehicles for some to achieve what they want at the expense of those whom they hurt and abuse. We must have the confidence of the psalmist and take refuge in the Lord. The lament provides the language to speak to the Lord in prayer. The psalm calls on the saints to lean into the tragedies surrounding them in faith in the confidence that the Lord is not far from them.

Endnotes

  1. Unless otherwise noted all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
  2. While this sidesteps these important questions, prophecy and fulfillment are not the focus of this paper. In short, however, my conclusion is that while it is hard to determine the sense in which Jesus used plēroō, it seems likely he used it in a typological sense of fulfillment: as David the anointed king of Israel experienced betrayal in his kingdom, so too, the anticipated Davidic Messiah would be betrayed.
  3. C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetical Books, revised ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 125.
  4. S. Edward Tesh and Walter D. Zorn, Psalms (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1999), 1:306.
  5. Tesh and Zorn, Psalms, 1:309.
  6. Carroll Stuhlmeuller, Psalms (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1983), 1:221; Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 321; Robert G. Bratcher and William D. Reyburn, A Handbook on the Psalms (New York: United Bible Society, 1991), 391.
  7. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, 319.
  8. Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, ), 1:361.
  9. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 215–17.
  10. George A. F. Knight, Psalms (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 1:8; Dillard and Longman, III, An Introduction, 216.
  11. Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 274–75; Briggs and Briggs, Book of Psalms, 1:361.
  12. Willem A. Van Germeren, “Psalms” in Expository Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelien (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991): 5:325.
  13. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, 320.
  14. As this paper is primarily an examination of the English text, linguistic concerns as the following will not be explored: W. O. E. Oesterley discusses the abruptness that is characteristic of this psalm and the natural flow of poetic realism which “shows how very human the psalmists were,” he explains however, that the “text has undergone some corruption, and in one or two cases emendation is difficult and uncertain.” See, W. E. O. Oesterley, The Psalms: Translated with Text-Critical and Exegetical Notes, 4th ed. (London: SPCK, 1953), 1:238.
  15. Hugo McCord, The Everlasting Gospel: Plus Genesis, the Psalms, and the Proverbs, 4th ed. (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman UP, 2000). Granted, McCord did not provide a stylized rendering of the Hebrew poetry, but he did set them in connected paragraphs.
  16. Tesh and Zorn, Psalms, 1:308–13; Stuhlmeuller, Psalms, 1:220–21.
  17. Knight, Psalms, 199.
  18. Craigie, Psalms, 320; Tesh and Zorn, Psalms, 1:312.
  19. Stuhlmeuller, Psalms, 1:223; W. Oesterley, The Psalms, 1:240.
  20. Briggs and Briggs, Book of Psalms,1:361.

Works Cited

Bratcher, Robert G., and William D. Reyburn. A Handbook on the Psalms. New York: United Bible Society, 1991.

Briggs, Charles Augustus, and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. 1. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: Clark,

Bullock, C. Hassell. An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetical Books. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1988.

Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 19. Gen. eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word, .

Dillard, Raymond B, and Tremper Longman, III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Knight, George A.F. Psalms. Vol. 1. Daily Study Bible: Old Testament. Gen. ed. John C.L. Gibson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982.

McCord, Hugo. The Everlasting Gospel: Plus Genesis, the Psalms, and the Proverbs. 4th ed. Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman UP, 2000.

Oesterley, W. E. O. The Psalms: Translated with Text-Critical and Exegetical Notes. 4th ed. London: SPCK, 1953.

Stuhlmeuller, Carroll. Psalms. Vol. 1. Old Testament Message. Vol. 21. Eds. Carroll Stuhlmeuller and Martine McNamara. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1983.

Tesh, S. Edward, and Walter D. Zorn. Psalms. Vol. 1. College Press NIV Commentary. Eds. Terry Briley and Paul J. Kissling. Joplin, MO: College, 1999.

VanGermeren, Willem A. “Psalms.” Expository Bible Commentary. Vol. 5. Gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Q&A: Does God Hear the Prayer of a Non-Christian?

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Habakkuk, Prayer, Psalms, Questions

I received a question about prayer and the non-Christian. It asks whether God will or can hear the prayer of a non-Christian. I believe it is a question worth exploring. Here are a few of my thoughts on this blessing.

Prayer

In the Hebrew Bible, a common word translated “prayer” is tephillah (76x). It is found in various contexts of prayer, whether it be the act of prayer, a house of prayer, a prayer on behalf of someone else.[1] It is even used in several of the introductory superscriptions of the Psalms, identifying them specifically as the “prayer of…” David (17, 86, 142), Moses (90), of a certain afflicted (102), and of Habakkuk (3:1).

Prayer is certainly a form of communication lifted up to God, and if the psalms are any indication then prayer may be expressed a wide range of emotions and types. There may be laments expressing frustration and faith, the need for help in the middle of confusion and so forth. There is praise for God faithfulness employing God’s previous saving acts, or his creative powers seen in nature, and extol his wisdom and sovereignty. Prayer even channels our anger and sense of injustice, requesting God to avenge his people by bringing judgment upon their enemies.

That is a wide spectrum of human emotions and desires that may be offered to God. It seems to clear to me that prayer can express to God every part of the human experience —and for the Christian, the Holy Spirit communicates those “groanings” which are “too deep for words” (Romans 8:26, 27).

The question at hand, however, is not the extent of things which humans may pray about but whether God hears the prayer of a non-Christian.

What do We Mean by “Hear”?

I am of the opinion that we need to think of what we mean by God “hearing” our prayers. Hearing is a function of the ear, and an ear hears everything but may choose to focus on a specific sound; thus, some sounds are listened to while others are still heard. This limited analogy simply raises the point that “hearing” is a complex matter.

In Isaiah 59:1–2, the Lord’s distance from his rebellious people is made quite clear: 

Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear. (English Standard Version)

This clearly suggests that there may be contexts in which “hearing” is not about ability, but about choice. God can elect to forego answering his people’s requests of intervention when facing the consequences of their sins.

One’s lifestyle can affect whether God takes into consideration their prayer. For example, Christian husbands are warned that their behavior toward their wife may in fact “hinder” their prayers (1 Peter 3:7). The warning is significant: “live with your wives in an understanding way.” The sexual overtones are often unnoticed in English translations, but Scot McKnight highlights this:

The order for Christian husbands is one of being considerate—literally, of “living with one’s wife knowledgeably.” The verb synoikeo (“living together”) was especially used for sexual relations between husband and wife (Deut. 22:13; 24:1; 25:5), and that is no doubt the intended meaning here, though obviously not limited to that. The Christian man, Peter says, is neither demanding nor selfish in his sexual and marital relations; he is instead considerate, sensitive, and serving.

Scot McKnight, 1 Peter NIVAC (Zondervan, 1996)[2]

Many Christian husbands ought to pay attention to this verse, not merely because of its impact on “answered prayers.” It reinforces a biblical truth that how we treat others impacts our relationship with God. Here, Peter tells husbands that an authentic and healthy marital sex life (and more) affects our relationship with God.

Furthermore, it seems that God’s people are warned that mistreatment of the “sojourner” (Heb., gēr) will not go unnoticed. Mistreatment of “the pilgrim” will likewise affect their prayers. These were non-Israelites that were not members of the Mosaic covenant but lived in the land among the Israelites semi-assimilated. In Exodus 22:23–24, when the sojourner, widow, fatherless cries out to God due to their mistreatment by Israel, God will “surely hear their cry” and bring wrath upon his people. This suggests the non-Israelite’s prayers will be heard in response to injustice among God’s people.

This small sample seems to underscore that the behavior of God’s people does and will hinder His willingness to give attention to our prayers; and, it seems that God is concerned about the injustice perpetrated by his people and will hear the cries of those who suffer at their hands. The words of James are quite poignant:

You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. (Jas 4:2–3)

What about the Non-Christian?

It was the opinion of E. G. Sewell (1830–1924) that the

Bible teaches very plainly that neither alien prays nor prayers of members will be heard while the one that prays is willingly violating or refusing God’s requirements.[3]

Questions Answered by Lipscomb and Sewell

By “alien” Sewell means the non-Christian.

Sewell argues that God’s people cannot “expect” to be heard when they “turn” from “hearing” God’s word, but his “eyes” and “ears” are attentive to “the righteous” calls of prayer (Proverbs 28:9; cf. 1 Peter 3:12, Psalm 34:15).

The fundamental principle of prayer is found in 1 John 3:22, “whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.” The argument appears rather strong. After all, the lordship of Jesus, to whom we approach in prayer must be accompanied by “doing” the will of his father (Matthew 7:21).

Thus, Sewell concludes,

No man, in the church or out of it, need expect God to hear and answer his prayer unless he is devoting his heart and life to doing the will of God as revealed in the New Testament.[4]

Questions Answered by Lipscomb and Sewell

When the healed blind man says, “We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him” (John 9:31), he is affirming a general truth about those rebellious souls who are in covenant with God. This is not a statement about all non-Christians.

This perspective is quite sensible, but it does not exclude the non-Christian who is seeking the Lord.

The Case of Cornelius (Acts 10–11)

We need to be very careful to assume what the Bible teaches on prayer. God’s knowledge is infinite, he preemptively knows what we are going to ask of him (Matthew 6:8). But, the quality of our request along with the quality of our relationship with God seems to play into the reception of our prayer (James 4:3).

The case of Cornelius demonstrates that prayer by a devout person may be heard, however.

Luke portrays Cornelius as a “devout” person who “feared God” (Acts 10:2), who developed various expressions of his spiritual development (alms, prayer). On paper, we might say his character alone made his relationship with God impeachable. In fact, God took his prayers into consideration, for the angel said, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God” (10:4b).

David Lipscomb (1831–1917) once said,

When a man believes in God and realizes that he is lost, he cannot help praying. God hears such prayers. There is no sin in such prayers. The danger is in the man relying on such prayers and failing to obey God’s commands in other things. This is the point to be guarded against.[5]

Queries and Answers

I think he is right on point when it comes to evaluating the case of Cornelius. Prayer and devotion only brought Cornelius so far. What is telling from Luke’s account is that he portrays Cornelius as a Gentile who is as close to a Jew as possible, and his character is directly related to his prayers have been acknowledge by God.[6]

What is will no doubt be controversial for many followers of Jesus is the caution against reliance on prayers for conversion experiences as is common in many “Christian” circles. It goes by many names, such as “the Sinner’s prayer. But, as David Platt raises during a discussion on disciple making,

“Should it not concern us that there is no such superstitious prayer in the New Testament?”

David Platt, “Why ‘Accepting Jesus in Your Heart’ is Superstitious & Unbiblical,” VergeNetwork[7]

I believe it should concern us. Luke clearly points out Peter was summoned to Cornelius to tell him things he needed “to hear” (10:22), a “message” through which he would be saved (11:14). In response to the preaching of the gospel, Cornelius and his household were baptized (10:42–48; 11:18). It was this same Peter that affirmed the importance of repentance and baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

For our purpose, to answer if God hears the prayer of a non-Christian, it seems that there is precedent to see that a non-Christian drawing near to God may have his or her prayers heard. So God heard the prayer of Cornelius before his conversion to Christ, and I believe we should be mindful of the many “Corneliuses” that exist today.

Concluding Thoughts

It would seem then that the answer to the question above depends on what we mean by “hear.” In one sense, God hears everything; however, in another sense, God does appear to be selective. We cannot draw up a formula that “a + b = answered prayers,” but it does appear that a person’s character and covenantal relationship with God are major components to prayer.

Scripture more often than not speaks in terms of those who are in covenant with God, and the implications of whether or not God will hear their prayers. Yet, as demonstrated in the case of Cornelius, being an outsider of the covenant does not mean God will ignore the prayers of the “alien sinner” seeking God’s glory and his salvation. The God of the sparrow is faithful to his creation, and for this, we should be thankful (Matt 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7).

Endnotes

  1. Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 813.
  2. Scot McKnight, 1 Peter, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 186.
  3. David Lipscomb and E. G. Sewell, Questions Answered by Lipscomb and Sewell, ed. M. C. Kurfees (Nashville, TN: McQuiddy, 1921), 494.
  4. Lipscomb and Sewell, Questions Answered, 495.
  5. David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers, ed. J. W. Shepherd (Nashville, TN: McQuiddy, 1910), 341.
  6. C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 1:493.
  7. David Platt, “Why ‘Accepting Jesus In Your Heart’ Is Superstitious & Unbiblical,” VergeNetwork (April 11, 2012).

Prayer and Fasting in the Greek of Didache 8.1-3

On By Jovan PayesIn Didache, Early Christianity, Fasting, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greek Grammar, Greek Studies, Patristics, Prayer, Research Papers, Spiritual Formation

In 1873 a manuscript was discovered by Philotheus Bryennios at Constantinople dating from the mid-11th century (AD 1056), though its tradition is believed to be of much earlier origin.[1] Due to certain political problems it was not published for ten years; however, once it began to be studied the Didache became generally known as “being the most important literary discovery in patrology made in the nineteenth century.”[2]

In fact, “the Didache (‘The Teaching’), as it is usually known today, is a ‘handbook,’ or manual of Christian ethical instruction and church order.”[3] It is believed that such instruction was offered to each candidate for church membership prior to baptism.

Although the text maintains a basic “literary unity,” the divergent interests and approaches of the materials strongly suggest, “more than one writer is at work here.”[4] One the one hand, the vocabulary and grammar is not extremely difficult; on the other hand, the theological insights from this early Christian document can become complex, particularly when a reconstructed community is conceptualized.

Exegesis of the Greek Text

8.1 (And) let your fasts not stand with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and on the fifth day of the week, but you fast during the fourth day and during the Sabbath preparation day.[5]

The instruction logically moves from the prior discussion of baptism and the new converts’ requirement of fasting, to a capsulated discussion of fasting and prayer. Draper disagrees, affirming that Didache 8.1-3 is an “interruption to the logical progression of the liturgical section of Didache, in which baptism is followed by the Eucharist.”[6] However, Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν begins with the post-positive δὲ, connecting the logical flow between 7.1-4 and 8.1-3, and should not be viewed as adversative nor as an interruption.[7] Instead, it is a necessary discussion in connection with prospective converts.

The fasts (Αἱ + νηστεῖαι) are the first concern of this chapter, and they are particular fasts – they belong to the readers (ὑμῶν) who are preparing for baptism (Did. 7.4). This is the genitive of possession. The fasts that they are to perform must be expressly free from hypocrisy; moreover, this conclusion is drawn from μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, where the author(s) of the Didache prohibit fasting (thus, an imperatival prohibition) that is μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. This prepositional phrase is very descriptive, for it describes “the company in which an activity or experience takes place”; hence, the readers must refrain from joining the group of “hypocrites” (whoever they may be) when they fast.[8]

The prohibition against joining the hypocrites is given specificity by the post-positive γὰρ where it functions as a guide to understanding how to refrain from joining the company of hypocrites when fasting and praying. There seems to be more to the usage of γὰρ than at first glance. If it were simply a matter of explaining that the hypocrites fast on certain days of the week then this conjunction is unnecessary; however, it makes more sense that it takes on a “guide-to-an-ethical-methodology” based upon a cause for the instruction, even if it is too focused upon externals (i.e. specific days of the week).[9] It leads the potential converts to a methodology that allows them to avoid fasting which “coincides with those of the hypocrites” – μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν (Did. 8.1).[10] In order to express this ethical instruction, Robert Kraft renders the section, “do not let your fasts fall on the same day as ‘the hypocrites.’”[11]

The teacher(s) explain how these prospective converts can avert fasting in the same company as the hypocrites, by explaining that the hypocrites in question fast (νηστεύουσι; present of fact) on δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ.[12] There is considerable discussion regarding who these hypocrites are. On the one hand, most see this as a reference to Pharisees because of the parallel instruction of Jesus in Matt 6:16-18; meanwhile, on the other hand, it is viewed as a reference to Christian Jews who are still partial to the pharisaical traditions.[13]

Aaron Milavec spends considerable time evaluating the evidence for the former, and argues heavily that Matthew and the Didache use the term hypocrisy differently and there is no solid evidence within rabbinic sources that the Pharisees distinguished themselves by fasting.[14] Furthermore, “when Did. 8.1 is compared with Matthew, one quickly detects that the Didache has an agenda and an internal logic quite distinct from that of Matthew’s Gospel.”[15] Be that as it may, from a grammatical and linguistic approach it is inconsequential. The fact of the matter is, the hypocrites fast on δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ, and it is these days that are to be avoided by the soon-to-be-baptized-reader. These days are the second (δεύτερος)[16] and the fifth (πέμπτος)[17] days of the week (σάββατον[18]).

The reader learning which days to avoid is then given a glance into the future (cf. future tense of νηστεύσατε), where they see the days of the week they are going to designate for fasting (τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν). This idiom for days of the week has been also clarified by Kraft as “Wednesday and Friday,”[19] but such is unnecessary. Consequently, Milavec’s translation is preferred. The post-positive δὲ is adversative, moving away from the days “the hypocrites” occupy for fasting, the δὲ functions to enhance the reader’s understanding that they are to take on the new ethic imposed by the future, but imperative in force, νηστεύσατε (you will fast).

8.2a (And) do not pray as the hypocrites but as the Lord ordered in his good news.

As is characteristic of the imperative, the verb assumes its own subject, being the person(s) who are either to do the express action of the verb, or if negated avoid the action of the verb. Here, there is another negated imperative (μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε) “you are not to pray […]”; however, the idea is incomplete because syntactically it is connected to ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί “just as the hypocrites.” The idea of “praying” is supplemented by the phrase “just as the hypocrites”; hence, it can be argued that οἱ ὑποκριταί is functioning in an adverbial capacity to μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε. It goes without saying that praying is not what is being denied; instead, and more to the point, it is the type of praying characteristic of the hypocrites which is being denied.

“The hypocrites” almost serve as a biblical caricature of examples of how not to commune with God as a public servant of God (Matt 6:5-7). “The hypocrites” almost serve as a biblical caricature of examples of how not to commune with God as a public servant of God (Matt 6:5-7). Little wonder, that the author(s) contrast this how the prospective converts are not to pray, with a citation to the Gospel of the Lord (ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ).

This is perhaps the strongest argument that the Pharisees are seen as being equivalent to “the hypocrites”; however, there is no need to be literal since even the name Pharisee can be used figuratively for hypocrites. Be that as it may, the context of the Lord’s admonitions regarding prayer, as particular in Matthew, which has the high verbal agreement with Did. 8.2, has made Pharisee and hypocrite equivalent terms. The main rationale for the Lord’s condemnation is that they make public displays of religious devotion “to be seen by men” (Matt 6:5).

The contrasting ἀλλ’ emphasizes the transition from what not to do, towards the recommended orthodoxy, which is based upon an authoritative tradition. The ground for the moral instruction on prayer is what the Lord commands: ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ. This translates, “as the Lord commanded in his Gospel [or gospel message, good news]”; commanded, ἐκέλευσεν (+ dative), stresses the fact that Jesus himself required the fundamental aspects of proper prayer in his teaching ministry.[20] It is not just theoretical, the instruction may be found in the Lord’s Gospel (or gospel message, good news).

The phrase ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ, within itself does not demand that the command is dependent upon a written source especially since it has its divergences.[21] In fact, several scholars believe the following prayer is, though having strong parallels with Matthew 6:9-13,[22] an independent tradition and may have been relied upon by Matthew.[23]

8.2b Pray thus: Our Father, the one in heaven, your name be made holy, you kingdom come, your will be born upon earth as in heaven,

The phrase οὕτω προσεύχεσθε is the resulting imperative calling attention to the reader that they are to “offer prayers” in a certain fashion. The fashion is very closely paralleled with Matthew; however, as Lake discusses there are four divergences between Matthew and the Didache: τῷ οὐρανῷ, τὴν ὀφειλὴν, ἀφίεμεν, and the doxology ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.[24] It takes the totality of Did. 8.1-3 for Lake to affirm:

These three sections, on fasting, on prayer, on the Lord’s Prayer, cannot be separated from each other. They point at least to similar local conditions; but the two former rather weaken the probability that the Lord’s Prayer is a direct quotation from our Matthew.[25]

Kirsopp Lake, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (1905)

What these differences between Matthew and the Didache suggest is, according to Lake, is nothing too substantive, they simply point to a more complex study of dependency. On this issue Milavec’s investigation on this particularly complex issue led him to conclude that there is no necessary proof that one borrowed from the other.[26] Similarly, according to Lake, these differences between Matthew and the Didache point to a broader sense of dependency (i.e., oral, proverbial) since vocabulary similarities and divergences, and the omission of similar Matthean tensions are absent, and so “the proverbial character of the saying reduces the weight which must be attached to verbal similarity.”[27]

The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ functions as an adjective to ὁ “the one,” suggesting a prepositional phrase functioning in the attributive position; hence, just as ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ καλός translates “the good angel” or “the angel, namely the good one” the opening part of this prayer is attributive in structure: “Our Father [vocative Πάτερ], the one, namely in heaven.” The prayer Did. 8.2b.3 parallels the aorist imperative verbals of Matthew 6:9c-10:

Didache 8.2Matthew 6:9c-10Translation (AT)
ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σουἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σουyour name be sanctified
ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σουἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σουlet your kingdom arrive, 
γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σουγενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σουyour desire come to pass,
ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆςὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆςas in heaven so also on earth
Chart: Textual Parallels

The verbal parallels are striking. However, the usage of this tradition is different in its scope when compared to Matthew’s purpose of this prayer. The Didache has more of a liturgical and ceremonial baptismal preparations, emphasizing the specific wording of the prayer. Jesus, on the others hand, encouraged a well-balanced spiritual and personal prayer life anchored in intimacy with God rather than public fanfare (Matt 6:5-6).[28]

From the perspective of Matthew’s Gospel, the three sets of imperatival verbs are particularly interesting, each bearing a unique concept.[29] Following Jack P. Lewis’ observation, it is clear that the first is clearly a benediction of God greatness (ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου), the second, stresses a recognition of God’s sovereignty (ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου), and the third, accepts God’s will in any area it is to be accomplished (γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου). It is difficult, therefore, not to impose Matthew’s contextual message upon the Didache; however, because there is a liturgical purpose for this prayer, it does stand in contradistinction to Matthew’s use.

Principally, observe that while Matthew stresses a spiritually fresh prayer life and expression (Matt 6:5-8), as opposed to endless repetitions of words (6:7-8), the Didache actually encourages repetition (Did. 8.3). Draper argues extensively that the community responsible for the final form of the Didache emphasizes external matters of purity for the purpose of maintaining public purity. Draper writes, “the instructions provide for Christian behaviour [sic] in the crucial and public areas of fasting and prayer which would differentiate them from their opponents.”[30]

8.2c give us this day our loaf that is coming, and forgive us our debt at the final judgment as we likewise now forgive our debtors,

In the analysis of this particular section of the Didache prayer, it is noticeable that there are two changes from the Matthew prayer of the Lord. Following the research of Milavec, the theological scope and worldview changes possibly towards a more focused eschatological perspective.[31] It is significant that the verbs in the petitions of the Didache prayer are all aorist imperatives, even the ones paralleled to Matthew (paralleled: ἁγιασθήτω, ἐλθέτω, γενηθήτω, δὸς, ἄφες, ῥῦσαι, and one divergent form ἀφήκαμεν). Milavec makes an eschatological argument, and suggests that all the aorist imperatives suggesting a one-time future action on the part of God must be eschatological in scope.[32]

Consequently, images such as bread (τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν) and eating are metonymy for a banquet in the kingdom (Luke 6:21, 14:15, 22:29-30; Matt 8:11; Rev 7:16).[33] Forgiveness within and for the Christian community is, in the Didache prayer, a future promise rather than a present reality and will be judged as a single action.[34] The pressing matter, however, is not to prove or disprove if the Matthew prayer reflects similar nuances in its eschatology. It is enough to understand that the Didache community was firmly aware of their eschatological worldview. 

8.2d-3 and do not lead us into the trial of the last days but deliver us from that evil because your is power and the glory forever. [8.3] Three times within the day pray thus.

This is the final appeal in the aorist construction; however, in this case, the Didache prayer appears to digress from Milavec’s thesis regarding the aorist imperative stressing an eschatological outlook. Specifically, εἰσενέγκῃς is a subjunctive. The distinction within itself does not rule out the larger eschatological implications raised by Milavec, especially since ῥῦσαι, “you are to deliver,” is an aorist imperative verb. Milavec approaches the phrase, καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, and argues that since all the other Aorist Imperatives demand a one time eschatological fulfillment, then it follows this aorist subjunctive still finds resolution in the over arching argument.[35]

The contrastive ἀλλὰ blusters Milavec’s argument since what is really being pleaded for is deliverance from evil (ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ), not the pastoral hand of God shepherding his children from πειρασμόν (trials). However, what Milavec finds as evidence for a tribulation, can be potentially argued for as praying with an eschatological worldview, where these Aorist Imperatives – since they are timeless – may view the person’s life until the eschatological end.[36]

One of the unique parts of this section of the Didache 8.2 is the doxology, which is its major divergence from the Matthean prayer. As Kirsopp Lake stingingly remarks:

The peculiar form of the doxology does not agree exactly with any of the forms known to occur in the authorities for the text of Matthew.

Kirsopp Lake, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (1905)[37]

This has been the continued opinion of the editors of the eclectic Greek Testament texts that the Matthean prayer ends with πονηροῦ. Bruce Metzger observes that the major textual witnesses are late which include the doxology (9th century), the major textual witnesses which omit the doxology are early, and the witnesses which include it are not uniform and appear to be intentional expansion of the prayer when reappropriated for external liturgical use (as in The Didache, etc.).[38] Thus, the association of this doxology with Matthew’s prayer is ancient but it does not have the textual support to be included in the body of the prayer (contra the KJV and Received Text traditions for Matthew 6:13b).

At any rate, the shift given by ὅτι in a very practical sense closes the petitions offered by the potential convert, who acknowledges that “the power and glory belong” to the Father “into the depths of eternal.” The author(s) of the Didache return to their orthodox imperatival thrust: “You will pray like this three times a day.” The present imperative προσεύχεσθε returns the instructive balance to this section of the Didache which continues its “catechism” training for the one interested in joining the Christian community associated with this manual.

Conclusion

In summation, the Didache is a profound find in the field of Patristic Studies, providing insights into the community or communities to which it addressed. The syntax and vocabulary is not at all particularly difficult, it appears to be written at a very basic level.

The section examined demonstrated that there was a strong desire for the early Christians to visibly and practically be separate from any public association with hypocrites. Not even the days of the potential convert could or should coincide with the days which hypocrites fast upon. The references and citations of traditions found within the New Testament (quotations probable but not always necessary), coupled with the possible “new slant” contextualized by the author(s), brings a theological complexity that must be sifted and sorted out before a proper exegesis of the sections can be accomplished.

Endnotes

  1. Dates have ranged from AD 70, late second century, and even the third century; however, Kraft suggests that a secure date is the sometime within the fourth century somewhere near Egypt (Robert A. Kraft, “Didache” ABD 2:197).
  2. Francis X. Glimm, “The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” The Fathers of the Church, ed. R. Joseph Deferrari (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of American Press, 1969), 167-68.
  3. Michael W. Holmes, “Didache” DLNT 300.
  4. Clayton N. Jefford, Kenneth J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga, Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 35.
  5. The translation in the headings is taken from Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. (New York: Newman, 2003). Other translations will be noted. All uncredited translations are my own (AT).
  6. Jonathan A. Draper, “Christian Self-Definition Against the ‘Hypocrites’ in Didache 8,” Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992), 364.
  7. The primary Greek text used for this study is from Michael Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), and Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, LCL (London: Heinemann, 1919).
  8. BDAG 637.
  9. BDAG 189.
  10. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 259.
  11. Kraft, “Barnabas and the Didache,” 165.
  12. Kraft translates this expression as: “Monday and Thursday” (“Barnabas and the Didache,” 165), but we follow Milavec’s lead due to his literalness. Kraft’s translation does bring this idiom into modern parlance. It is preferable to leave it as is (Milavec), since it can be understood apart from accommodation to modern convention similarly done in the New Testament (Matt 28:1-2; Mark 16:1-3; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16.1-2).
  13. Glimm, “The Didache,” 177.
  14. Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 301-03.
  15. Milavec, 302.
  16. Did. 2.1 uses a similar expression, “the second commandment of the teaching is […]” (Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 252); that is, this is the second of a series of commandments.
  17. Moulton and Milligan provide an example of this sequential use: “showing the housing conditions of the time, we may cite P Fay 3115 (c. a.d. 129) where a woman applies to the keepers of the archives at Arsinoe for leave to alienate πέμπτον μέρος, “the fifth part” of certain house property belonging to her” (MM 502).
  18. BDAG lists both the singular and plural forms of σάββατον referring to a period of seven days, and any numeral connected to it represent that particular day of the week (910).
  19. Kraft, “Barnabas and the Didache,” 165.
  20. MM (340) lists the aorist active indicative κελεύω + the dative construction rare and list one New Testament example from the Received Greek Text and the King James Version of Matthew 15:35 (κελεύω + dative), whereas, the UBS4 reads παραγγείλας. The sense of urging to the point of a command is reasonable in such cases.
  21. Kirsopp Lake, “Didache,” in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1905), 28-29. As will be developed in this paper, Lake observes a noticeable dependence of Did. 8 on Matthew 6 along with variations.
  22. Glimm points out that Matthew 6:9-13 and the Did. 8.2 agree against the parallel passage in Luke 11:2-4 (“The Didache,” 178).
  23. Draper, “Christian Self-Definition,” 632. Milavec has argued convincingly that despite their similarities, they are not enough when considering the influence of orality within the early church; furthermore, the divergences of theological emphases between Matthew and Didache argue against dependence (The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 694-739).
  24. Lake, “Didache,” 29.
  25. Lake, “Didache,” 29.
  26. Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 695-739.
  27. Lake, “Didache,” 27.
  28. Jack P. Lewis, The Gospel According to Matthew (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 2:101.
  29. Lewis, Matthew, 2:101-02.
  30. Draper, “Christian Self-Definition,” 374.
  31. Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2003), 66.
  32. Milavec, The Didache: Text, 65.
  33. Milavec, 66.
  34. Milavec, 66.
  35. Milavec, 66.
  36. Milavec, 66.
  37. Lake, “Didache,” 29.
  38. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 13-14.

Selected Bibliography

(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, F. W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Draper, Jonathan A. “Christian Self-Definition Against the ‘Hypocrites’ in Didache 8.” Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers 31. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992.

Glimm, Francis X. Translator. “The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” Pages 165-84 in vol. 1 of The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Edited by R. Joseph Deferrari. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1969.

Holmes, Michael W. Editor. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004.

_____. “Didache, The.” Pages 300-02 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997.

Jefford, Clayton N., Kenneth J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga. Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.

Kraft, Robert A. “Barnabas and the Didache.” In vol. 3 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary. Edited by Robert M. Grant. New York: Nelson, 1965.

_____. “Didache.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 2. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Lake, Kirsopp. The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 1. LCL. Edited by E. Capps, T. E. Page, and W. H. D. Rouse. London: Heinemann, 1919.

_____. “Didache.” Pages 24-36 in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Oxford: Clarendon, 1905.

Lewis, Jack P. The Gospel According to Matthew. Vol. 1. LWCNT 2. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d edition. Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.

Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: Newman, 2003.

_____. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2003.

(MM) Moulton, James H., and George Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. 1930. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

(UBS4) Aland, Barbara, et al. Editors. Greek New Testament. 4th revised edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.