Clement of Rome: Interview with the Bibliovore!

Happy Thanksgiving! Because this month's blog focus is on holiday-related reading, and November 24 is the commemoration of Clement of Rome, I realized I wanted to learn more about him. When I was a child, I read a lot of biographies, specifically of Christians in the 1800s and 1900s. These days, thanks to the influence of C. S. Lewis, I'm trying to read about slightly older people (100s-1600s). Today, due to the proximal commemoration of St. Clement, I interviewed Husband to whet your appetite about Clement of Rome. The bulk of the post is the transcript. Outside links for your additional reference:

• This site has a translation of 1 Clement
• Ligonier Ministries had a brief podcast discussing justification by faith present in this epistle.
• Downs 2013 engages in a more focused, scholarly way on how Clement uses Romans 5-6 in connecting themes of creation, justification, and good works.
• Oxford Bibliographies draws together various sources that provide summaries and orientation to the book

Who Was Clement?

"Clement of Rome lived a couple generations before Clement of Alexandria; the latter flourished toward the end turn of the 3rd century, whereas Clement of Rome flourished at the turn of the 2nd century. Clement of Alexandria’s thought was heavily influenced influenced by Platonism and laced with philosophical reflection, whereas Clement of Rome’s is much more down to earth and practical (for the most part; there’s a section of phoenixes that gets a little odd, but for the most part he’s quite straightforward). . .

"One point that’s frequently dismissed in critical scholarship in Eusebius’s 4th century report that Clement of Rome is the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3, “…help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers…” Whether this identification was made solely on the basis of the name or wherever there was a tradition behind it isn’t known. Even if Eusebius was just taking a stab at finding Clement of Rome in scripture because the names matched, it still wouldn’t necessarily rule out that this is the same person. True, Clement was a fairly common name, but it is probable that Clement of Rome did in fact personally know Paul as well as Peter. His letter has noticeably Pauline theology, albeit, not as refined as that of Paul himself. The identification of Clement of Rome with the Clement in Philippians 4:3, while not indubitable, is also not improbable.

Clement of Rome was almost certainly a contemporary of Luke, Timothy, Titus, and Mark. His letter was produced in the same period of church history as New Testament books like the Gospels, Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation. When approaching the study of the early church from a historical vantage point, his letter is a source on par with such books of the New Testament, even though it is not itself scripture. (Eusebius and Jerome have helpful discussions as to why it was excluded from the New Testament canon.)"

Why is Clement (of Rome) Important?

"Roman Catholics claim him as an early pope, though early listings of the bishops of Rome differ as to whether he was the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th bishop of Rome. Anglicans, Lutherans, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox also hold in extremely high regard—though Lutherans and most Anglicans don’t venerate saints in the same manner that Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans arguably have the better claim to stick to his theology, which will be apparent in the quote I’ll share. . .

"A) Ch. 5, on Peter and Paul:

“(1) But to pass from the examples of ancient times, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our own generation. (2) Because of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted, and fought to the death. (3) Let us set before our eyes the good apostles. (4) There was Peter, who, because of unrighteous jealousy, endured not one or two but many trials, and thus having given his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. (5) Because of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the way to the prize for patient endurance. (6) After he had been seven times in chains, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, and had preached in the East and in the West, he won the genuine glory for his faith, (7) having taught righteousness to the whole world and having reached the farthest limits of the West. Finally, when he had given his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and went to the holy place, having become an outstanding example of patient endurance.”

(Though I already mentioned that this is our earliest source attesting the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, there are several other things worth noting about this quote. First, Clement’s Greek term parallels one of Paul’s from Galatians 2 when Clement refers to both Peter and Paul as ‘pillars’, just as Paul said of Peter, James, and John in Galatians 2:9. This strongly suggests that Clement knows of no lasting rift between Peter and Paul as a result of the Galatians 2 incident. Second, in literature of this period, “farthest limits of the West” frequently refers to the Strait of Gibraltar separating Spain/the Iberian Peninsula from Africa and the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean. This seems to be a roundabout way of saying that Paul went on a missionary trip to Spain after his (initial) imprisonment in Rome before a second imprisonment and his execution. Indeed, in Romans 15:24, Paul does overtly state his intent to travel to Spain. Acts certainly doesn’t mention any such voyage, but its absence from Acts certainly doesn’t preclude its occurrence, particularly when we take into account that Acts and 1 Clement belong to the same period of church history, Acts having been produced in the 70s or 80s, and 1 Clement in the 90s. When we consider that Luke was very likely nearing the very end of the scroll he was writing on at the end of Acts, it would be quite understandable if he omitted later details of what happened after Paul’s arrival in Rome (particularly if he’d intended to write a third volume on an additional scroll, but never got the chance—we just don’t know). Lastly, this quotation demonstrates that Clement doesn’t believe that Peter and Paul ceased to exist after their deaths until the future resurrection—he mentions that they “went to the holy place.” He also believed in the resurrection of the body, but he does also demonstrate a belief in an intermediate state of continued existence between bodily death and final resurrection, a “place of glory.” It is not necessarily wrong to call this place heaven—it’s important, but it’s not the end of the world.) B) Chapter 32.3-33.1, On Justification

“(32.3) All, therefore, were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous actions which they did, but through his will. (32.4) And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. (33.1) What then shall we do, brothers? Shall we idly abstain from doing good, and forsake love? May the Master never allow this to happen, at least to us; but let us hasten with earnestness and zeal to accomplish every good work.”

(This quotation largely speaks for itself, but it is worth noting that it largely is set within a salvation-historical context relating to God’s covenant with Abraham, which he sets up in chapter 31 and continues in the opening verses of 32, in a manner paralleling the argument of Galatians 3. Clement displays a vast knowledge of the Old Testament as well as the books of the New Testament—part of why this work is dated to around the same time that John was written is the absence of references to that Gospels, as the Synoptic tradition is richly interwoven throughout the letter.) C) Chapter 44, On Bishops and Presbyters

“(1) Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop's office. (2) For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the officials mentioned earlier and after. wards they gave the offices a permanent character, to that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. (3) Those, therefore, who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and for a long time have been well spoken of by all—these men we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry. (4) For it will be no small sin for us, if we depose from the bishop's office those who have offered the gifts blamelessly and in holiness. (5) Blessed are those presbyters who have gone on ahead, who took their departure at a mature and fruitful age, for they need no longer fear that someone might remove them from their established place. (6) For we see that you have removed certain people, their good conduct notwithstanding, from the ministry which had been held in honor by them blamelessly.

(There’s a lot going on in the Greek here with the terms used, in addition to overall ecclesiology. Note that the context of 1 Clement is that the Corinthian church had overthrown its bishops/presbyters, and the entire letter is an appeal by Clement for the Corinthians to restore their bishops/presbyters to their rightful office. When he writes, “Those, therefore, who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church,” it doesn’t appear that this indicates that he’s referring to early congregationalism, because if that were so, it would not have been wrong for them to have expelled their bishops/presbyters—that would have been within their authority. The “consent of the whole church” appears to refer to the approval of the leadership of the whole church to consent to or veto the appointment of new bishops/presbyters. Note, also, the lack of distinction between bishop and presbyter/priest.)

Where can you Access Clement's Writings?

"His Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians, written about the same time as the Gospel of John, is his only authentic surviving work. It is also called 1 Clement to distinguish it from 2 Clement, a work attributed to Clement by some in the early church, but which Eusebius plainly states was not actually written by Clement (it is worth noting that Origen notes traditions attributing Hebrews to either Clement or Luke; both of these are likely untrue, given the stylistic differences. It is our earliest source attesting that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, and also the earliest source attesting that the apostles established some sort of official succession from them. Interestingly, he appears to equivocate between bishops and priests, a point seized upon in the German Reformation, which noted the same equivocation of terms in Acts 20 and Titus 1, and similar phenomena in 1 Peter 5 and Philippians 1 and leading to the thesis that the establishment of mono-episcopacy was a peaceful/non-controversial development of very early 2nd century Christianity (as evidenced in the letters of Ignatius ~15 years later). I.e., the reason the early lists of the bishops of Rome disagree over whether Clement was the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th such bishop may well be because three men were all simultaneously priest-bishops in Rome at the same time, and thus only in retrospect, once mono-episcopacy had established itself, would the need to work out a precise order of the single officeholders arise, leading to confused lists."