the Fourth Week after Easter
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Dictionaries
Clement of Rome, Epistle of
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or 1. Occasion.-The Epistle of Clement itself supplies complete information as to the circumstances under which it was written. Dissension had arisen within the Christian community at Corinth, and the Church was torn asunder. The original ground of contention is not mentioned, but the course of the strife is clearly indicated. A small but powerful party of malcontents (i. 1, xlvii. 6) had used their influence to secure the deposition of certain presbyters, men duly appointed according to apostolic regulations, who were, moreover, of blameless reputation and unfailing zeal in the performance of their duties (xliv. 3). A fierce controversy was raging, and the Corinthian Church, hitherto renowned for its virtues, especially such as are the outcome of brotherly love (i. 2-ii.), had become a stumbling-block instead of an example to the world (xlvii. 7). Once before, the Church of Corinth had shown the same spirit of faction (1 Corinthians 1:10; 1 Corinthians 1:12). History was now repeating itself, but the latter case was much worse than the former. Then, the contending parties had at least claimed to be following the lead of apostolic men, but now the main body of the Church was following ‘one or two’ contumacious persons in rebellion against their lawful rulers (xlvii.).
The news of this state of things was brought to Rome. How it came it is impossible to say. Ill news travels apace, and Rome is within easy reach of Corinth. It seems clear that no direct appeal was made to Rome by either contesting party. Yet in the ordinary course of things the Roman Church would soon hear of the Corinthian trouble, for communication seems to have been fairly frequent between the principal Christian communities in the early days (note the stress laid on the duty of hospitality, i, x, xi, xii, xxxv.). At any rate the Christians at Rome heard of the Corinthian dissension while it was still at its height (xlvi. 9). When the tidings first came, they themselves were suffering under the stress of external persecution (i. 1, vii. 1), but as soon as the storm had abated, a letter was written in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth, expressing the sorrow which the Corinthian feud had caused to the Christians at Rome, and admonishing the Corinthians to remember the primary duty of φιλαδελφία and bring their strife to an end. That Epistle has survived to the present day. It is known as ‘the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.’
2. Date and authorship
(1) Date.-The terminus a quo for the dating of the Epistle is fixed by its reference to the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul (v. 4, 6), and its use of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xxxvi, xliii.). Even if we accept the earliest possible dates for the death of the apostles and for the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Clement cannot have been written before a.d. 70. The terminus ad quem is also fixed by the fact that Clement’s Epistle was indubitably used by Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians (Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. [Apostol. Fathers, pt. i., 1890] vol. i. p. 149ff.). If Lightfoot be correct-as seems most probable-in dating Polycarp’s letter c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 110 (St. Ign. and St. Polyc. 2 [Apostol. Fathers, pt. ii., 1889], vol. i. p. 428ff.), the date of Clement’s Epistle must fall between the years a.d. 70 and a.d. 110.
Fortunately it is possible to reduce these limits very considerably. The Epistle contains distinct allusions to two serious persecutions already suffered by the Church at Rome. During the former of these, we are told, ‘women suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae,’ and ‘a vast multitude of the elect’ endured ‘many indignities and tortures’ before ‘they reached the goal in the race of faith and received a noble reward’ (vi. 1, 2). When the Epistle was written this persecution was a matter of past history, but its victims are still spoken of as ‘those champions who lived very near to our own time’ and ‘the noble examples which belong to our generation’ (τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς … τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγματα, v. 1). The second persecution was still in progress when the news of the Corinthian schism was brought to Rome. The Epistle opens with an apology for the delay in writing which has been caused by ‘the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which have befallen us’ (τὰς αἰφνιδίους καὶ ἐπαλλήλους γενομένας ἡμῖν συμφορὰς καὶ περιπτώσεις, i. 1). The writer’s words suggest that the method of attack adopted in the later persecution was different from that of the earlier one. That the two are not to be identified is made plain in vii. 1, where a clear distinction is drawn between the martyrs of an earlier date and ‘us’ who ‘are in the same lists,’ whom ‘the same contest awaits.’
Now it is a well-established fact that during the 1st cent. a.d. the Roman Church suffered two, and only two, serious persecutions. The first was that of Nero (circa, about a.d. 64), in the course of which, according to an ancient tradition, St. Paul lost his life. The second was that of Domitian. Nero’s persecution was a savage onslaught on all Christians indiscriminately; that of Domitian took the form of sharp intermittent attacks aimed at individuals. In fact, the difference between the two was precisely the difference between the two persecutions mentioned in the Epistle of Clement. It seems, therefore, a safe conclusion that the references of the Epistle are to the persecutions of Nero and Domitian, and that the Epistle was written either just before or just after the termination of the latter of the two, i.e. c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 95-96. This date suits admirably the other indications of time contained in the Epistle, all of which point towards the close of the 1st cent. a.d. An earlier date is precluded by the following facts: (a) the Church of Corinth is already called ἀρχαία (xlvii. 6); (b) presbyters are mentioned who have succeeded successors of the apostles (xliv. 3); (c) the language used of the Roman envoys ‘who have walked among us from youth unto old age unblameably’ (lxiii. 3) seems to imply that a generation has almost passed since the Church of Rome was founded. On the other hand, the Epistle cannot have been written later than the end of the century, because (a) St. Peter and St. Paul are included amongst the ‘examples of our own generation’ (v. 1); (b) ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are still regarded as interchangeable terms (xliv. 4, 5), whereas very early in the 2nd cent. they were used to denote distinct offices (Ign. Epp., passim). Finally, external evidence of an early and reliable kind (a) connects the Epistle with the episcopate of Clement, third bishop of Rome, and (b) places his episcopate in the last decade of the 1st cent. a.d. (Hegesippus, ap. Eus. HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iv. 22; Dion. Cor. ap. Eus. HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iv. 23; Iren. adv. Haer. III. iii. 3). In view of this accumulation of evidence, it is impossible to doubt that the Epistle of Clement was written about a.d. 95-96.
(2) Authorship.-The Epistle itself claims to be the letter not of an individual but of a community. The author’s name is nowhere mentioned. Nor indeed do we find in the statements of Hegesippus, Dionysius of Corinth, and Irenaeus, the three earliest writers who connect the Epistle with the name of Clement, any definite assertion that Clement was the author. Eusebius, to whom we owe our knowledge of Hegesippus, does indeed declare that that writer ‘makes some remarks concerning the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians’ (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iv. 22), but the title here given to the letter is due to the historian and not to Hegesippus, whose own words have unfortunately not been preserved. Dionysius of Corinth, c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 170 (ap. Eus. HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iv. 23), speaks of τὴν πρότεραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν (sc. ἐπιστολήν), but his statement is ambiguous. διὰ Κλήμεντος might mean that Clement was the author, the amanuensis, or even the bearer of the Epistle. Similarly the language of Irenaeus (circa, about a.d. 180) is indefinite as to the actual authorship of the letter: ἐπὶ τούτου οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος … ἐπέστειλεν ἡ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐκκλησία ἱκανωτάτην γραφὴν τοῖς Κορινθίοιν (adv. Haer. III. iii. 3). Yet it must be admitted that there is nothing in the language of any of these three writers to exclude the possibility of believing that they regarded Clement as the author of the Epistle. The absence of more explicit statement on the subject is probably due to the fact that they looked upon the letter as the utterance of the whole Roman Church rather than of one man. The Epistle is first definitely ascribed to Clement of Rome in the writings of his namesake of Alexandria (circa, about a.d. 200), who, though his usage is not quite uniform, on at least four occasions speaks of Clement as the author (Strom. i. 7, iv. 17-19, v. 12, vi. 8). All later writers are unanimous in accepting this opinion (Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. vol. i. p. 160ff.).
It is unreasonable to doubt that they are justified in doing so. That Clement was head of the Roman community at the time of the Corinthian schism is as well attested as any fact of early Church history, and as such he would be the natural mouthpiece of the Church of Rome in its communications with a sister community. At any rate, this function is attributed to him by the writer of ‘Hermas’ (πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις, ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται, Vis. II. iv. 3), and ‘Hermas’ may have been written as early as a.d. 110-125 (V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, pt. i. pp. 34-41). Again, however worthless as historical documents the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies may be, they at least bear witness to the fact that, by the middle of the 2nd cent. a.d., Clement was regarded as an author. It is difficult to understand what could have given rise to that opinion except the belief that he was the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians. Certainly at that date no other writings of importance were attributed to him. But the real value of the Epistle depends not so much on its authorship as on its date, which is sufficiently indicated by purely internal evidence.
3. Contents
Introductory.-(a) Opening salutation from ‘the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth.’ (b) Apology for apparent lack of interest in the Corinthian trouble. The Romans’ previous silence due to the ‘sudden and repeated calamities’ which have befallen them.
(1) The Corinthian trouble-its cause and the remedy.-Now at last we have an opportunity of speaking our mind about ‘the detestable and unholy sedition which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled’ till the once honoured name of the Church of Corinth is now greatly reviled (i. 1). For indeed the Church of Corinth has hitherto been a model of Christian virtues, especially of sobriety in all things, of self-sacrifice and moderation (i. 2-ii.). But, like Israel of old, you have been spoiled by your good progress. Excellence has given way to jealousy and envy (iii.). Envy and ill-will always result in suffering. So much we may learn from the stories of Cain, of Jacob, of Moses, Aaron and Miriam, of Dathan and Abiram, and of David (iv.). Or think of those who suffered martyrdom ‘nearest our own time’-of Peter and Paul and the multitude of others (v, vi.). These examples ought to warn us who have to face the same expression of the world’s envy to be free from envy ourselves. If we have not kept ourselves free from it, then let us use the ‘grace of repentance’ which Christ’s death won for man (vii.), even as the men of old repented at the preaching of Noah and of Jonah (vii. 5ff.).
The Holy Spirit Himself, through the prophets, calls men to repentance (viii.). Let us be obedient to His call, following the example of Enoch and Noah (ix.). Obedience to God brought blessings upon Abraham (x.); faith and care for others saved Lot from the fate of Sodom (xi.), and Rahab from the fate of Jericho (xii.). ‘Arrogance and conceit and folly and anger’ must be laid aside. The promises of the Scriptures and of the Lord Jesus are for the humble-minded (xiii, xiv.), who are genuinely so (xv.). What an example of humility was set by Christ Himself (xvi.) and by the saints of old-Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Abraham, Job, Moses (xvii.), and David (xviii.)! Self-seeking and discord are contrary to the will of the Creator (xix.); the harmony of the natural world proves His own long-suffering and love of settled order (xx.). Let us therefore act as befits the servants of such a Master, for He reads the secrets of all hearts. Let us reverence rulers, honour elders, and train our families to do the same (xxi.); for Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and the Father both commend the single-hearted and condemn such as are double-minded (xxii, xxiii.). The Lord will come quickly (xxiii.).
(2) The resurrection of the body. Faith and works the means by which the elect obtain this and the other blessings of God.-Let us have no doubt about the resurrection of the dead. Life out of death is the very law of Nature. Day grows out of night, the plant from the death of the seed (xxiv.), the phœnix from its parent’s ashes (xxv.). In the Scriptures God has promised a resurrection. His promise and His power are alike sufficient, for He is almighty and cannot lie. Therefore let our souls be bound to Him with this hope (xxvi-xxviii.).
We must approach Him in holiness of soul, for we are His ‘elect,’ His ‘special portion’ (xxix.); as such we must put away all lust, strife, contention, and pride. ‘Boldness and arrogance and daring are for them that are accursed of God; but forbearance and humility and gentleness are with them that are blessed of God’ (xxx.). This, then, is how the blessing of God is obtained. We see it in the case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (xxxi.). They were blessed ‘not through themselves, in their own works or righteous doing,’ but because they accepted the will of God, i.e. through faith. So we are justified by faith (xxxii.).
Yet we must never be slack in works. Does not the Creator rejoice to work unceasingly? We must follow His example, for we are made in His image (xxxiii.). We must imitate the diligence of the angels, if we would win the promises of God (xxxiv.). How blessed and marvellous are the gifts which God prepares for them that patiently await Him! If we would enjoy them, we must first have done with all bitterness and strife, vainglory and inhospitality, which are hateful to Him (xxxv.). Jesus Christ, ‘the Guardian and Helper of our weakness,’ will aid us in our efforts, and He is mightier than any angel (xxxvi.).
(3) Discipline is indispensable in a corporate society: provision made for this in the Mosaic Law and in the Divinely appointed ministry of the Church.-We are Christ’s soldiers (στρατευσώμεθα, xxxvii. 1): soldiers must be under discipline, each in his own rank. Look at the soldiers in the Roman army; think of the limbs in a human body; ‘all the members conspire and unite in subjection, that the whole body may be saved’ (xxxvii.). So the members of the Christian body must perform each his own function for the common weal (xxxviii.). Only ‘senseless and stupid and foolish and ignorant men ‘seek power and exaltation, forgetting the utter nothingness of man, and the condemnation of the Scriptures for such as themselves (xxxix.).
Regard for order and decency is Divinely taught in the Mosaic Law, which expressly prescribes how, when, and by whom each of its rites shall be performed, every man having his own appointed place, whether high priest, priest, Levite, or layman (xl.). So we, who are under the Christian Law, must be content to perform the function which is appointed for us (xli.).
The Christian ministry is a Divinely appointed order. Jesus Christ was sent forth from God, and Himself sent forth the apostles. They, in turn, when they had preached in town and country, appointed such of their converts as were approved by the Spirit, to be ‘bishops and deacons unto them that should believe’ (xlii.). In this they followed the example of Moses, who appointed a succession of priests, and to prevent all future dispute, confirmed the appointment of Aaron’s line by the miracle of the budding rod (xliii.). The apostles, too, were Divinely warned that strife would arise over the bishop’s office. They therefore provided for a regular succession of the ministry from generation to generation (xliv. 1, 2).
(4) The Corinthians have disobeyed not only a specific ordinance of God, but also the fundamental Christian law of love. May they speedily repent.-You have sinned grievously in thrusting from their office men who were duly appointed according to the apostles’ directions, and have faithfully discharged the duties of a bishop (xliv. 3-6). It is monstrous that God’s officers should be persecuted by those who profess to be God’s servants. Read your Bible, and you will learn that when righteous men have suffered persecution-e.g. Daniel and the three Holy Children-they have suffered at the hands of the ungodly (xlv.). Surely you ought to be found on the side of the righteous rather than of the persecutors. We worship one God. We are one body in Christ, we have one spirit of grace. How can you bear such strife if you remember that we are members one of another? Remember what Jesus our Lord said concerning those who cause offence as you have done (xlvi.). St. Paul rebuked you for the same fault, but things are worse now. Then at least you professed to follow apostles or apostolic men, but now ‘the steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters’ (xlvii.). Let us have done with such feuds, and in penitence pray God to restore our former harmony (xlviii.).
Love is all-powerful: love, His own attribute, is acceptable to God: seek love, and you shall be saved (xlix. 1). Love is the only ground on which we can hope for God’s forgiveness. Let us therefore-and especially those who have caused strife-confess our offences and not harden our hearts as Pharaoh did, lest like Pharaoh we perish (li.).
God asks nothing of man but contrition, prayer, and praise (lii.). Remember how Moses fasted and prayed forty days on the mountain, offering his life for the life of his people (liii.). Let those of you who are the occasion of strife, copy his self-effacement (liv.), and follow the examples of those noble heathens-rulers and citizens, even women-who over and over again in the course of history have been willing to give up all for the good of their nation (lv.).
Let us intercede for one another. Let us be ready to give and to receive admonition. In God’s hands, chastisement is an instrument of mercy (lvi.). You especially, who first stirred up the strife, be first to repent-‘submit yourselves unto the presbyters, and receive chastisement unto repentance.’ The Scriptures contain many threats against the stubborn and impenitent (lvii.). Let us by obedience escape them, for they who obey God’s will shall be saved (lviii.). ‘But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us … they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin’ (lix.).
(5) Prayer for all mankind: final admonition and benediction.-We pray that God will keep His elect intact. We pray for inward light, for all who need, for the Gentiles’ conversion, for pardon and cleansing, for peace and concord, for deliverance from those who hate us wrongfully, for the grace of obedience to temporal authority, for earthly rulers, that they may govern in accordance with God’s will in peace and gentleness. We offer our praises to the Almighty Father ‘through the High Priest and Guardian of our souls, Jesus Christ’ (lix-lxi.).
We have said enough about the Christian life; about faith, repentance, love, temperance, sobriety, patience, righteousness, truth, longsuffering. We have spoken gladly, knowing that we spoke to men who have studied the oracles of God (lxii.). Follow the example of the Fathers; submit yourselves to authority. You will give us great joy if you cease from strife. With the letter we have sent faithful and prudent men who shall be witnesses between us (lxiii.).
May God endue with all virtues those who call on His name through Jesus Christ our High Priest and Guardian (lxiv.). We commend Claudius Ephebus, and Valerius Bito, who, with Fortunatus also, are the bearers of this letter. Send them back speedily with good news.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and all men.
4. Teaching.-The object of the Epistle was strictly practical. It is therefore unreasonable to expect to find in it precise definitions of Christian doctrine. Yet, in enforcing his practical lesson, the writer alludes to the main articles of the faith as he had learned it, and these incidental allusions are historically the more valuable, because they represent not the belief of one man but the tradition of a community.
The tradition, which lies behind the Epistle, is above all things catholic, in its recognition of the many-sidedness of Christian truth. It embraces almost every type of apostolic teaching which is expressed in the Epistles of the NT-the type of St. James no less than of St. Paul, of St. Peter as well as of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The one element which is lacking is the mysticism of St. John, probably because the Johannine writings were not yet in existence (Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. vol. i. p. 95ff.).
At the same time it must be admitted that the Epistle betrays a certain failure to grasp the full meaning of the more profound doctrines of the NT. This is especially evident in its treatment of the Pauline idea of justification by faith. To St. Paul faith is the mainspring of the Christian life, the source of all Christian virtues. To the writer of the Epistle, faith is nothing more than one amongst many virtues. He is conscious of no incongruity in placing ‘faith’ and ‘hospitality’ side by side as equal conditions of salvation (xii. 1; cf. Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. vol. i. p. 397).
(1) Doctrine of God.-The terms in which the Epistle speaks of God are unmistakably borrowed from the language of the OT and the Jewish synagogue. God is ‘the Almighty,’ ‘the all-seeing Master’ (Leviticus 6), ‘the Creator and Master of the universe’ (xxxiii. 2), ‘the Father of the ages, the All-holy One’ (xxxv. 3); ‘the Father and Maker of the whole world’ (xix. 2; cf. Ix. and lxii.); ‘the King of the ages’ (lxi. 2); ‘He that embraceth the whole universe’ (xxviii. 4). His unceasing activity in the natural world displays both His beneficence and His love of harmony (xx, xxxii.). Amongst men He is made known as ‘the Creator and Overseer … the Benefactor of all spirits and the God of all flesh’ (lix. 3). To the elect He is revealed as a ‘gentle and compassionate Father’ (xxix. 1), ‘the champion and protector of them that in a pure conscience serve His excellent Name’ (xlv. 7).
So much might have been said by a conscientious Jew; but in two passages at least, the language of the Epistle passes beyond the mere monotheism of Judaism: ‘Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us?’ (xlvi. 6); ‘as God liveth and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect …’ (lviii. 2). The simple and natural way in which the Son and the Holy Spirit are here linked with the Father as equal objects of Christian faith and hope is quite inexplicable unless the writer was convinced of their essential Divinity and essential equality with the Father.
(2) Christology.-A clear allusion to the pre-existence of Christ is contained in the statement that He speaks through the Holy Spirit in the OT Scriptures (xxii. 1). A similar reference is probably to be found in the words ‘Jesus Christ was sent forth from God’ (xlii. 1). He is never actually called God,* [Note: The one possible exception is the passage ii. 1 which ends καὶ τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ ἦν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν. The question turns on a doubtful reading. As the antecedent of αὐτοῦ Cod. A reads τοῦ θεοῦ. If this be correct, the statement made above is not quite true. But the weight of MS authority (C and all three versions) is in favour of the reading τοῦ Χριστοῦ.] but His Divinity is implied when He is described as ‘the sceptre of the majesty of God’ (xvi. 2), who showed us ‘as in a mirror’ the very ‘face’ of God (xxxvi. 2).
But most frequently the Epistle speaks of Christ in His relation to mankind. He came to earth ‘to instruct, to sanctify, to honour us’ (lix. 3), to be our pattern of lowliness (xvi.). Yet He was no mere example to men. He shed His blood for our salvation (vii. 4, xii. 7, xxi. 6), and ‘gave His flesh for our flesh and His life for our lives’ (xlix. 6). By His death He ‘won for the whole world the grace of repentance’ (vii. 3). God raised Him from the dead, and we shall one day share His resurrection (xxiv. 1). Meanwhile He is ‘the High Priest of our offerings, the Guardian and Helper of our weakness’ (xxxvi. 1; cf. lxi. 3, lxiv.). ‘Through Him we taste the immortal knowledge’ (xxxvi. 2), ‘the full knowledge of the glory of God’s Name’ (lix. 2). Through Him we have our access to the Father (xx. 11, lxi. 3, lxiv.).
(3) The Holy Spirit.-In times past the Holy Spirit inspired the message of the prophets (viii. 1, xlv. 1). In the present He is a living power poured out upon the Church (xlvi. 6). His indwelling was the source of the manifold virtues which had formerly distinguished the Church of Corinth (ii. 3). The writer of the Epistle claims that his own words were written ‘through the Holy Spirit’ (τοῖς ὑφʼ ἠμῶν γεγραμμένοις διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, lxiii. 2).
(4) Justification by faith and works.-Salvation was won for man by the blood of Christ (vii. 4, xii. 7, etc.). On man’s part the necessary condition of salvation is ‘faith’ (xxxii. 4). Faith must find expression in good works (xxxiii.), for ‘we are justified by works and not by words’ (xxx. 3). By ‘faith and hospitality’ Rahab was saved (xii. 1). Abraham was blessed ‘because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith’ (xxxi. 2). ‘So we, having been called through His (sc. the Father’s) will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works … but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning’ (xxxii. 4). Yet we must ‘hasten with instancy and zeal to accomplish every good work’ (xxxiii. 1), even as the Creator maintains without ceasing His beneficent activity. In this way the writer of the Epistle co-ordinates the divergent language of St. Paul and St. James on the question of faith and works. Yet he certainly fails to rise to the full meaning of faith as it was understood by St. Paul.
(5) The resurrection of the dead.-The truth of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is dwelt upon at considerable length (xxiv-xxvi.). In proof of it, analogies are quoted from the natural world. The sequence of night and day, the growth of the plant from the death of the seed, and the story of the phœnix are all pressed into service. But the final argument is the promise of God in the Scripture, and the precedent of the Resurrection of Christ who is ‘the first-fruits’ of the harvest of the dead. The passage dealing with the Resurrection interrupts the argument of the Epistle, and it is not quite evident why the subject is introduced at all. It does not seem to have had any connexion with the Corinthian disagreement. Possibly it may have been suggested to the writer by a recent perusal of 1 Corinthians 15 (see xlvii. 1).
(6) The Christian ministry.-The Epistle gives a full account of the origin of the Christian ministry. ‘The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ.… So then Christ is from God and the apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge … they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe’ (xlii.). ‘And our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office. For this cause, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance,* [Note: The reading is doubtful. Cod. A has ἐπινομήν; C, ἐπιδομήν; Lat lex; Syr. ܥܠ ܟܘܩܝܬ i.e. ἐπὶ δοκιμῇ; the Coptic paraphrases. None of these provides tolerable sense, and most editors adopt the conjectural emendation ἐπιμονήν first suggested by Peter Turner in the 17th century.] that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration’ (xliv.). Clearly the writer has no doubt concerning the Divine origin of the ministry or the necessity of preserving the apostolic succession. To thrust from their office men thus Divinely appointed is ‘no light sin’ (xliv. 4).
But the most striking feature in his statements concerning the ministry is that he uses ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος as interchangeable terms, denoting different aspects of the same office. Twice he speaks of ‘bishops and deacons’ as a summary description of the Christian ministry, where it is inconceivable that the ‘presbyters’ should not be mentioned if they were recognized as a separate order (xlii. 4, 5); and once at least he applies both of the terms ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος to men of the same rank (xliv. 1, 4, 5). In this he follows the usage of the Apostolic Age (Acts 20:17, 1 Peter 5:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-7), according to which the words indicate different functions of the same person (cf. Lightfoot, Phil. 4, 1878, p. 97ff.; for a defence of the view that separate orders are meant cf. J. H. Bernard, Pastoral Epistles [Camb. Gr. Test., 1899], p. lxii ff.).
5. Permanent value.-The history of the first beginnings of the Christian Church can easily be reconstructed from the data supplied by the NT writings. The stage of growth which it had reached towards the end of the 2nd cent. is amply illustrated by the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. But for the intermediate period, the sub-apostolic age, the available sources of first-hand evidence are very slight. The primary value of the Epistle of Clement arises from the fact that it is one of them and the earliest. It helps us to characterize the sub-apostolic age, and hints at the reason why its literary remains are not more extensive. It suggests a period not of keen or original thought, but rather of scrupulous fidelity in preserving intact Christian doctrine and Christian practice as they had been handed down by the apostles, a time of combining and co-ordinating different types of apostolic teaching rather than of assimilating their deepest meaning. The evidence supplied by such an Epistle is quite sufficient to dispose of the idea that the Church of the 2nd cent. was the product of a compromise between a Jewish and a Pauline party, who in the 1st cent. were wholly antagonistic.
Secondly, the Epistle throws important light upon the position occupied in the early Church by the See of Rome. The whole tone of the letter makes it quite clear that as yet no Roman supremacy de iure was recognized, even by the Church of Rome. But already it is possible to see the beginning of the process by which Rome ultimately gained a not unmerited supremacy de facto. Apostolic institutions were being disregarded at Corinth and the peace of the Church was threatened. No appeal was made by the contending parties either to Rome or elsewhere. Yet, as a matter of principle, it was the business of any Christian community to step in and try to heal the breach, and as a matter of tact it was the Church of Rome which actually did so. Such an act was characteristic of the early Roman Church, and it was a succession of such acts, combined with its central position, its own undoubted orthodoxy, and the prestige of the Imperial city, which in the early Church gave the Roman See its position as ‘primus inter pares.’
If the Epistle of Clement already displays something of the Imperial mind of the later Roman Church, it also foreshadows the bent of later western theology. For the writer’s regard for theology is not for its own sake, but for its bearing on life and conduct. The questions which interest him most are practical and moral. Perhaps it is not merely fanciful to suggest that the writings of Clement and Ignatius mark the point of divergence of the two great streams of Christian thought, the eastern primarily philosophical and speculative, and the western mainly ethical and practical.
Thirdly, the Epistle is a valuable witness on certain biblical questions. It contains the earliest known reference to the Book of Judith (lv.). Its frequent quotations from the OT, which in the main are taken from the Septuagint , present some interesting problems to the student of the Greek versions of the OT.
‘(a) Clement’s test of the Septuagint inclines in places to that which appears in the NT, and yet presents sufficient evidence of independence; (b) as between the texts of the Septuagint represented by B and A, white often supporting A, it is less constantly opposed to B than is the NT; and (c) it displays an occasional tendency to agree with Theodotion and even with Aquila against the Septuagint ’ (Swete, Introd. to the OT in Greek2, 1902, p. 410).
To the student of the growth of the NT Canon, Clement’s Epistle has both a positive and a negative value. Negatively, it shows that as yet the NT writings were not definitely counted amongst the Scriptures. Sayings of our Lord are indeed quoted as of equal weight with the writings of the OT, and in a form which resembles passages in the Synoptic Gospels (xiii. 2, xlvi. 8), but their authority is that of the speaker, not of the written word. (On the form of Clement’s quotations see Sanday, Inspiration3, 1896, p. 299ff.; Stanton, op. cit. pt. i. p. 5ff.)
Positively, the Epistle provides clear evidence that by the end of the 1st cent. many of the apostolic writings were known and studied in the Church of Rome, For it contains an express reference to St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians (xlvii. 1ff.), indubitable traces of the influence of Romans (xxxiii-xxxvi, xlvii. 1.) and Hebrews (xxxvi, xliii.; cf. xvii. 1), and possible reminiscences of the phraseology of Acts (2:1), the Pastoral Epistles (2:7, 61:2), 1 Peter and James (30:2, 49:5).
An apocryphal work is quoted in xxiii. 3 with the formula ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη. The same quotation occurs in an amplified form in the so-called Second Epistle of Clement (xi.). Possibly, as Lightfoot suggests (Clem. Rom. vol. ii. p. 80), it may have been taken from the lost pseudepigraphic book of Eldad and Medad, which was certainly known to the primitive Roman Church (see Hermas, Vis. ii. 3). Whatever the source may have been, it is the only book quoted by Clement which is outside the Canon of the Greek Bible.
Fourthly, the Epistle of Clement contains historical allusions which are of great interest. Not only does it provide contemporary evidence for the persecutions of Nero and Domitian, both of which occurred during the writer’s lifetime, but it also adds fresh detail to our knowledge of the life-story of St. Paul. For the statement that the Apostle ‘taught righteousness to the whole world’ and ‘reached the furthest bounds of the west’ (ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών, v. 7), occurring in an Epistle written from Rome, seems most naturally to mean that before his death St. Paul fulfilled his intention, expressed in Romans 15:24, of making a missionary journey to Spain. An allusion is made to the same journey by an anonymous writer two generations later (Muratorian Fragm. ap. Westcott, Hist. of NT Canon5, 1881, p. 521ff.).
Finally, the long prayer with which the Epistle concludes (lix-lxiv.) is full of interest to the liturgiologist. Lightfoot has pointed out the strong Jewish colouring which it has in common with the rest of the Epistle, and especially its marked affinity with the ‘eighteen benedictions’ of the synagogue service (Clem. Rom. vol. i. p. 393ff.). Furthermore, as the same writer observes, ‘it is impossible not to be struck with the resemblances in this passage to portions of the earliest known liturgies. Not only is there a general coincidence in the objects of the several petitions, but it has also individual phrases, and in one instance [lix. 4] a whole cluster of petitions, in common with one or other of these’ (op. cit. p. 384f.). Yet it would be straining the evidence too far to conclude that Clement is quoting an actual form of prayer already in use in the Roman Church. The utmost that can be said is that the passage in question is ‘an excellent example of the style of solemn prayer in which the ecclesiastical leaders of that time were accustomed to express themselves at meetings for worship’ (Duchesne, Christian Worship, Eng. translation from 3rd Fr. ed., 1903, p. 50).
6. Manuscripts and versions.-Two early Greek Manuscripts and three ancient versions of the Epistle are known.
(1) Manuscripts
(a) Cod. A.-The oldest Greek manuscript which contains the Epistle is the famous 5th cent. uncial, generally known as Codex Alexandrinus. Cod. A originally included the whole of the Old and New Testaments. The Epistle of Clement stands at the end of the NT, immediately after the close of the Apocalypse and before the spurious ‘Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.’ One whole leaf of Clement’s Epistle is missing (i.e. from lvii. 7 to the end of lxiii.), and the edges of the remaining leaves are considerably mutilated. Many editions of the Epistles of Clement based on the text of Cod. A have appeared since the ‘editio princeps’ of Patrick Young, published in 1633. It is still the chief authority for the text.
(b) Cod. C.-The second Greek manuscript , which, amongst other patristic writings, contains the Epistles of Clement, was made known to the world in 1875, when Bryennios, then Metropolitan of Serrae, published the first complete text of 1 and 2 Clement. This manuscript , which bears the date a.d. 1056, was found at Constantinople, in the library of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Its chief value is that it enables us to fill in the gaps in Cod. A, but on the whole its text is distinctly inferior to that of the earlier manuscript .
(2) Versions
(a) Syriac.-Almost simultaneously with the discovery of Bryennios, the first ancient version of Clement’s Epistle came to light. A manuscript of the Harklean (Syriac) Version of the NT, then acquired by Cambridge University, was found to include Clement’s Epistles, placed after the Catholic and before the Pauline Epistles. The date of the manuscript is a.d. 1170. As an authority for the text of Clement it is superior to Cod. C, but inferior to Cod. A. An edition of this Syriac text of 1 and 2 Clem. was published in 1899.
(b) Latin.-Much more remarkable, in view of the lack of any real acquaintance with Clement’s Epistle on the part of the early Latin Church, was the discovery by G. Morin in 1894 of an ancient Latin version. The manuscript which contains it was written in the 11th cent., but the available evidence clearly shows that the translation is at least as old as the 4th cent., and perhaps as old as the 2nd. The Greek text which it represents is independent of that of all the other authorities, and probably ranks second only to that of Cod. A. The Latin text was published by Morin in 1894. (For an estimate of its value see R. Knopf, Texte and Untersuchungen xx. 1 [1901]; also CQR [Note: QR Church Quarterly Review.] xxxix. [1894] 190-195, and Journal of Theological Studies ii. [1900] 154).
(c) Coptic.-More recently still a Coptic version of Clement has been discovered in a papyrus book ascribed to the end of the 4th century. The text was published by Carl Schmidt in 1908 (Texte and Untersuchungen xxxii. 1). The most interesting feature of this version is its omission of the name of Clement from the title, which runs ‘Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians.’ Owing to the loss of five leaves from the middle of the book, the text is defective from xxxiv. 6 to xlii. 2. The underlying Greek text, though good, is inferior to that of Cod. A or of the Latin version (C. H. Turner, Studies in Early Church Hist. p. 257).
Literature.-Editions of the Epistle of Clement: O. v. Gebhardt and A. Harnack (1875); F. X. Funk (1878-81): J. B. Lightfoot (Apostol. Fathers, pt. i., 1890); R. Knopf (1901). articles on Clement of Rome: ‘Clemens Romanus,’ by G. Salmon, in DCB [Note: CB Dict. of Christian Biography.] i. [1877] ‘Clement i.,’ by John Chapman, in Catholic Encyclopedia iv. [1908]; ‘Clemens von Rom,’ by G. Uhlhorn, in Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 3 iv. [1898] and ‘Clement of Rome,’ in Schaff-Herzog [Note: chaff-Herzog The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia (Eng. tr. of PRE).] , iii. [1909]. General works: A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristl. Litt. i. [1893], Chronologie, ii. [1891]; C. H. Turner, Studies in Early Church History, 1912; V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, pt. i. [1903]. Versions: Syriac, ed. Bensley (1899); Latin, ed. Morin (1894); Coptic, ed. Schmidt (1908).
F. S. Marsh.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Clement of Rome, Epistle of'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/c/clement-of-rome-epistle-of.html. 1906-1918.
