The Didache: Church of God International and Armstrongism

The Didache According to CGI

As we have pointed out numerous times over the last decade plus, the Armstrongist historical and Scriptural narrative about how the vast majority of Christians came to observe Sunday as their day of worship does NOT fit the evidence available to us. Generally speaking, Herbert Armstrong and his followers have completely ignored this evidence; because it so clearly contradicts the narrative which they have created. Hence, imagine my surprise when the Church of God International (CGI) recently published an article by one of their ministers addressing the existence of an early Church document known as The Didache.

In an article for the latest edition of CGI's The International News, Horane Smith asked, "Does the Didache Support the Eucharist and the Sunday ‘Lord’s Day’?" The author began with a brief background of the document itself. He acknowledged that the writing belongs to the First or Second Century but went on to point out that it was eventually excluded from inclusion in the Christian canon of the Bible. Next, Pastor Smith shifted his attention to placing the document within the context of the Armstrongist view of early Christianity.

He wrote: Historians and Bible scholars generally agree that the primitive church of the first century was Hebraic in nature regarding its doctrines and practices. If the Didache was written in the first century, then in all probability, much of what it was conveying would be from a Hebraic perspective. The document has a lot of biblical quotations. And even if it was written in the second century, chances were some of those Hebraic practices would be followed as Christianity and Judaism didn’t part ways until after the Bar Kochba Revolt in 135 CE under the Roman Emperor Hadrian.

To those of us who are familiar with the history of the early Church, a number of problems with this paragraph will be immediately apparent. First, historians and scholars are generally agreed that the first decade of the Church's existence was decidedly Jewish in character. After all, the original disciples of Christ were ALL Jewish! Even so, the book of Acts informs us that the Church eventually began to expand into Gentile lands beyond Judaea. Then, about the middle of the First Century, the early Church was forced to confront the issue of whether or not Gentiles would be required to observe the tenets of God's covenant with Israel (Torah). According to the book of Acts, a great council of the Church was held at Jerusalem to settle the matter. The fifteenth chapter of that book informs us that the council decided NOT to require Gentile Christians to follow the commandments of Torah.

Moreover, Pastor Smith's statement that "Christianity and Judaism didn’t part ways until after the Bar Kochba Revolt in 135 CE under the Roman Emperor Hadrian" is blatantly inaccurate! For some reason(s), Horane Smith completely ignored the events of the year 70 CE (when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple). In other words, to suggest that the great council at Jerusalem and the Roman war of annihilation against the Jews didn't constitute a parting of the ways for Jews and Christians seems naive at best or downright deceptive at worst! Hence, the more prudent conclusion about the role of the Bar Kochba Revolt in 135 CE would be to say that this event reinforced a parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity that had happened many decades before it.

Indeed, concerning the lasting legacy of 70 CE, a History Tools article titled The Destruction of Jerusalem: Inside the Brutal Roman Siege of 70 AD offered this assessment of that event:


The fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD marked a decisive turning point in Jewish history with profound and lasting consequences:

End of the Second Temple Period: The destruction of the Temple permanently ended the system of priestly rule and ritual sacrifice that had defined Judaism for a millennium. Rabbinical Judaism emerged to fill the void, emphasizing synagogues, scripture study and religious law.

Rise of the Diaspora: The Great Revolt accelerated the growth of the Jewish Diaspora across the Mediterranean and beyond. Millions of Jews would face centuries of persecution, massacres and oppression as a stateless minority, prefiguring later calamities like the expulsions and pogroms of the Middle Ages.

Reshaping of Judea: The Romans annexed Judea as an imperial province and initiated a crackdown on Jewish institutions. Much Jewish-owned land was confiscated, the Sanhedrin was abolished, and the Temple tax was diverted to rebuilding a pagan shrine in Rome. The very name Judea was erased when the Emperor Hadrian crushed another Jewish revolt and renamed the region Syria Palaestina in 135 AD.

Anti-Semitic Propaganda: Roman propaganda used the Jewish defeat to promote negative stereotypes of Jews as treacherous, fanatical and misanthropic. The Arch of Titus, still standing in Rome, depicts the sacking of Jerusalem and Jews as vanquished slaves paraded in a triumphal procession. These images would feed anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish subversion and greed that persisted for centuries.

Jewish-Christian Schism: The flight of the Judeo-Christian community before the siege, along with the elevation of Gentile converts and the repudiation of the Mosaic Law, marked a decisive break between Judaism and Christianity. The New Testament authors‘ vilification of Pharisees and blame of Jews for killing Christ inflamed theological hatred. Jews came to view Christians as heretical traitors; Christians came to see Jews as accursed Christ-killers.

Moreover, a number of other early Christian writings affirm this history. In The Epistle of Barnabas (80-120 CE), we read: He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens. Likewise, in his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius of Antioch (35-108 CE) wrote: Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour you shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believes might be gathered together to God.

In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, Ignatius had this to say about the Eucharist: Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to the will of God. Likewise, in his First Apology , Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) had this to say about the Eucharist: And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Interestingly, Justin's First Apology also establishes that Sunday observance was a well-established tradition among Christians by the middle of the Second Century. He wrote: And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons...But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Thus, we have established that Christianity's estrangement from Judaism was a fact of the latter half of the First Century, not the Second. As a consequence of this historic fact, we know that the scholarly window for the authorship of The Didache (50-120 CE) did NOT correspond to a period of Christian history which could be characterized as "Hebraic in nature." This is critical in refuting Horane Smith's interpretation of The Didache's mention of the Eucharist and Lord's Day.

Hence, the statement which has been translated into English as, But on the Lord's day, after that you have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure, must be understood in this historical context. Moreover, its context within the sentence makes it analogous to other mentions of the "Lord's Day" (including the one in Revelation 1:10).

Likewise, The Didache's statement about the Eucharist is subject to the same considerations. We read there: But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give you thanks. First, concerning the cup. We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine, David your Son, which you have made known unto us through Jesus Christ your Son; to you be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread. We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known unto us through Jesus your Son; to you be the glory for ever. As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto your kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever. And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. Moreover, while this characterization of the Eucharist is different from that which is portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels and Paul's letter to the saints at Corinth, it is certainly consistent with John's characterization of those symbols (see John 6:22-58 and 15:1-8).

Thus, our exploration of the available sources stands in stark contrast to the conclusions which Pastor Smith reached in his article. He wrote: How should we see the Didache then as it relates to these two modern-day teachings—the Lord’s Day and the Eucharist? The evidence is clear that it cannot be taken for granted that it’s an all-clear-cut proposition that the Didache indicates that the concept of the Lord’s Day being Sunday came as early as the first century. First, no one can say for certain that the Didache is a first-century document, and second, the insertion of the word “day” to read Lord’s Day robs the phrase of authenticity or accurate translation, because “On the Lords of the Lords,” the literal translation of the phrase, seems to have no link with a day, or a day of worship for that matter. For this researcher, the evidence suggest that The Didache provides clear evidence that the traditional view of the Lord's Day (Sunday observance) and the Eucharist began in the First Century, NOT later! What do you think?

 Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix