Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 2
Bercot argues the Didache is very early because it shows (a) traveling prophets/teachers still overseeing churches, (b) only bishops and deacons, (c) baptism encouraged in “living water,” and (d) brief communion prayers with freedom for prophets to pray spontaneously. What picture of church life and spiritual authority does that evidence paint, and which parts most challenge how your church assumes worship and leadership “should” work?
Another way to ask: Bercot says the Didache seems very early because of things like traveling prophets, only bishops and deacons, “living water” baptism, and simple communion prayers. What kind of church life and leadership does that sound like, and what parts would most challenge how your church thinks worship and leadership should work?

Direct Answer The evidence paints a picture of simple, transitional church life where spiritual authority is still tied to traveling prophets and teachers, and local leadership (bishops and deacons) is only beginning to take shape. It challenges assumptions that fixed liturgy, a strong clergy/laity system, and tightly restricted communion leadership were always the “normal” apostolic pattern.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot says the Didache shows churches “still overseen by traveling teachers and prophets,” yet “in a transition stage” selecting local “bishops and deacons… in place of these traveling prophets and teachers.”
  • He emphasizes it names “only two classes of ministers, bishops and deacons,” unlike later “threefold ministry” by AD 160–170.
  • On baptism: leaders are encouraged to baptize in “living water, meaning running water,” implying less built-in church infrastructure than later.
  • On communion: the recommended service is “fairly brief,” and “the prophets can pray any way they want,” showing flexibility and charismatic participation.
  • He contrasts later practice: “by the year 200… only ones who presided over communion were bishops and elders, not prophets,” and services were longer.
Discussion Follow-ups Which feels more threatening to modern instincts: prophets having real authority, or the looseness of the service? If the early pattern was transitional, what should we imitate—simplicity, flexibility, or the push toward stable local leadership?