Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 13, “Whether Final Perfection Requires Observance of the Torah” pp. 769-782.
Jonathan Draper, in 1991, held a position that the Didache pushes proselytes to become fully Jewish and obedient to Torah in order to attain salvation (Milavec 2003, 771). Milavec examines this position in some detail.
Draper recognizes a significant connection between the Didache and Matthew’s Gospel, finding similarities even in theology and structure (Milavec 2003, 771). Milavec maintains that no dependence in either direction can be demonstrated, while Draper considers Matthew and the Didache to come from the same community, with the Didache coming after the composition of Matthew (Milavec 2003, 772).
The key to Draper’s understanding is an interrelationship among Didache 16, 6:2, and 11:1 (Milavec 2003, 772). Particularly, 6:2, which calls for careful attention to the Way of Life and prohibits food sacrificed to idols is seen by Draper as the minimal requirement “for baptism and table fellowship” (Milavec 2003, 773). Beyond this, for full perfection, Draper considers “the Torah as maintained and interpreted in the Chistian community” to be necessary (Milavec 2003, 773). This is a quote from Draper 1991:365. Draper sees a parallel between the way God-fearing gentiles could be received into synagogues and the way converts would be received into the Didache community. Draper’s conception is that the community was “within the ambit of faithful Torah-observant Jewish Christianity” (1991:367) (Milavec 2003, 773). Milavec then finds Draper to expect a fuller form of perfection in Didache 16 (Milavec 2003, 774). Draper further identifies the apostle who would tear down the body in 11:1-6 as Paul, because he affirmed gentiles were saved apart from Torah (1991:370) (Milavec 2003, 774).
The heart of Draper’s argument is whether the “yoke” of Didache 6:2 is the Torah. This argument depends on a recognition in Matthew of Draper’s understanding of the yoke of the Lord (Milavec 2003, 774). Milavec doubts the agreement because of his assumption that Didache refers to God (the Father) but that Matthew 11:29-30 has Jesus referring to himself (Milavec 2003, 775). Further, Jesus refers to his yoke as “light” compared to the Didache’s apparent view of the yoke as being a challenge.
Milavec considers the rhetorical and logical implications of Didache 6:2 in some detail so as to evaluate Draper’s thesis. First, 6:2 is the close of the section on the Two Ways. Milavec finds this as an indication that the “whole yoke of the Lord” is in fact the Way of Life, not the Torah (Milavec 2003, 776). Second, the Way of Life is presented as a whole Law, even though it differs in some details from the Torah. Third, one would expect if 6:2 were adding rules, this would be disclosed at earlier points, saying that a more perfect way would be explained later. This, however, is absent (Milavec 2003, 777). Fourth, Didache 4:13-14 and 6:1-2 make it clear that the stated rules are adequate. We should not, then, expect a greater burden (Milavec 2003, 778). Fifth, Didache 11:1-2 speaks to the value of holding to the earlier teaching in the Didache. While someone who kept the Torah zealously might be admired, it would not be acceptable to make requirements beyond those stated in Didache (Milavec 2003, 779). Sixth, Draper both calls for the mark of perfection in Didache 16:2 to be Torah and to be the basic teaching of the Way of Life. This is an internal contradiction (Milavec 2003, 780). Finally, Draper, referring to Didache 16:5, asserts the curse we are saved from is the Torah, but also that it perfects us (Milavec 2003, 781).