Introduction
“1st Clement” was authored by its namesake, Clement of Rome, before the close of the first century AD. Most scholars date it to around 96 or 97 AD, as it seems to fit well within the context of the Christian persecution that occurred under the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian. Others, however, date it as early as the late 60’s AD, citing chapter 39, which seems to have been written before the fall of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the epistle is a very early Christian document, having been authored at the same time as the New Testament itself.
Clement was, as his formal title gives away, the Bishop of Rome and direct successor of the Apostle Peter. Needless to say, he was a respected and influential figure in the early Christian church. His letter to the Corinthians (the same Corinthians who received numerous letters from Paul) is the only work that is known to be written by Clement’s hand, although others have been attributed to him, like “2nd Clement.”
Why Read “1st Clement”
I found it worthy to read “1st Clement” for a number of reasons. First, sheer curiosity had overtaken me, and I found myself unable to satisfy that itch until I had actively engaged with this text. Second, I believe that a careful study of church history is absolutely necessary for anyone who wishes to engage with “The Faith” in the way that I aspire to, and there seemed no better place to begin than with this epistle.
I think all Christians will find “1st Clement” both instructional and encouraging, as it spurs the reader on to obedience, love, and a greater appreciation for Jesus Christ—which is our chief end. Further, although “1st Clement” is by no means a theological treatise, it is quite an interesting exercise to parse Clement’s theology out of the body of this epistle. And, although “1st Clement” is not Scripture, due to its immediate proximity to the Apostles, I think we can expect its teachings to be historic, accurate, and true.
Observations from “1st Clement”
The Purpose of the Epistle / Apostolic Succession?
“1st Clement” is addressed, as previously discussed, to the church in Corinth. Or, more accurately, to the churches in Corinth.1 The issue at hand: divisions in the church. Specifically, it appears that the laity in Corinth had risen up against the presbyters (or bishops, elders; today understood as ‘pastors’) and attempted to do away with them [see chapters 40 - 45]. This, of course, was not acceptable, and Clement strives to persuade the Corinthians away from continuing in their rebellion.
In the process, Clement makes this claim:
“Our Apostles, knowing through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be disputes over the bishop’s office, appointed the aforementioned individuals with complete foreknowledge. They also provided for continuity, so that if these appointed individuals should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them.” [Clement, 42:1 - 2]
This, clearly, is a form of Apostolic succession. The Apostles chose successors to continue the ministry of church leadership after they had passed into glory. However, it appears to me that this statement from Clement does not go far enough to establish the Papal claims of Apostolic succession.
First, note that Clement makes a general statement about succession, how numerous individuals were selected as successors—notice the plural “individuals” and “men.” Clement seems to believe that the leaders of the Corinthian church (the presbyters) were themselves chosen as successors to the Apostles who appointed them. Absent from “1st Clement” is the assertion that Clement is a unique successor or that he holds a particular rank within the hierarchy of the church. Were we to believe that he was the second Pope—after Peter—then we would expect for him to establish his unique position of authority, as the Apostles themselves did in the pages of Scripture [1st Corinthians 15; Galatians 1]... but he does not.
Second, the purpose of the Apostles picking successors—according to Clement—seems to be prudential, not a matter of maintaining Apostolic authority. He notes that the Apostles selected successors because they knew that if they didn’t then there would be endless infighting, which would hinder the cause of the church. So, by picking and making known their successors, the Apostles could be more sure that the transition—caused by their impending deaths—would be smooth. So, while Clement does emphasize the importance of Apostolic succession, it would be entirely inappropriate to read in the Papacy.
Clement’s Use of Scripture
There is a popular myth in the secular world, as well as, bafflingly, the evangelical church, that the early church did not have a Bible, nor did they know what should be included in the Bible. According to some—who are, in no unclear terms, either ignorant of the truth or deceitful—the earliest Christians were left to fend for themselves with no earthly idea what the Scriptures said. Apparently, it wasn’t until 325 AD that Christians finally got their act together and said, “We will read this book.” Even more preposterous, some have claimed that at the Council of Nicea—a council which had nothing to do with the biblical canon—Christians decided which books to include or exclude from the Bible… as if the text of Scripture derives its authority from men and not God.2
However, “1st Clement” ought to quickly dispel that myth. Clement makes constant references to Scripture throughout this letter, including allusion or direct references to Genesis, Exodus, 2nd Samuel, Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Luke, 1st Corinthians, Hebrews, and possibly more. Clement’s use of these books demonstrated two things. First, Clement never feels the need to explain what he is referencing. He often does not even introduce the book by name, but just makes his reference or quotes it straight-off. Apparently, Clement expects his audience to already be familiar with the texts that he is utilizing, clearly demonstrating that multiple church bodies had established collections of Scripture. Second, he quotes these books as if they carry authority and objective truth. He doesn’t argue for them, but he appeals to them as the end of his argument—‘the Lord has spoken; the case is closed’—and he expects his readers to respond with, ‘Welp, I guess Isaiah did say that; you’re right.’ Clearly there was an established understanding that A) God had spoken through written Scripture, and B) Christians know what those Scriptures are and have access to them.
Clement’s most impressive use of Scripture is found in chapter 14. First, he introduces his quotes of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 by saying, “The Holy Spirit spoke.” Of course, this is what we would expect in light of how the New Testament describes the origin of Scripture [2nd Timothy 3:16; 2nd Peter 1:21], but it goes to show that—while skeptics would love for it to be the case—the early church did not believe these books to be merely human. Rather, they believed that these books were given via supernatural revelation.3 Second, his quotation goes on for hundreds of words, strongly suggesting that Clement was drawing from a written copy of at least Isaiah. Third, and most interesting to me, Clement takes Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and applies them to Jesus. If you are familiar with Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, then you know that the figures described there seem to be perfect matches of Jesus. These books, however, were written hundreds of years before the birth of Christ,4 which makes them a dazzling display of messianic prophecy—that is, if you interpret them to be about Jesus. But, what we find in “1st Clement” is, yes, Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are about Jesus, and though they were written ages before the coming of Christ, they speak clearly and descriptively about Him.
Overall, “1st Clement” gives us great insight into how the early church viewed the Scriptures, and it’s no different than any Bible-believing church would view them today. Clement believed that the Scriptures were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, true and authoritative, and prophetic about the person and work of Jesus Christ. He also believed (or rather, knew) that Christians in the early church were familiar with these books and likely had written copies of them, from which they would read regularly. And, while Clement does not give us a list of canonical books, he does quote from both Old and New Testament texts and appeals to them as though they have the same authority—which they, of course, do.
Clement On “The Elect”
“1st Clement” occupies a unique space in regards to theology. It doesn’t make an explicit effort to teach specific theological doctrines, but it doesn’t shy away from theological language either. Instead, Clement seems to assume that his audience is comfortably familiar with the concepts that he makes passing reference to. In light of this, we can know that the language and ideas that Clement utilizes was common to the early Christians.
Throughout “1st Clement”—much to my surprise and delight—Clement makes numerous passing references to “the elect.” Being Reformed, this immediately caught my attention, and I noted the most illuminating instances where the term appeared. Analyzing those instances, and other key passages of “1st Clement,” it becomes apparent that Clement (and seemingly the early church as a whole) had a rather robust understanding of predestination and election.
Choice quotes include:
“[You are the] chosen people of God” (1:1).
“You struggled day and night for the whole brotherhood, that the number of His chosen might be saved” (2:4).
“Unto [the Apostles] was gathered a vast multitude of the elect” (6:1).
“Therefore, let us approach Him… who has made us His chosen portion” (27:1).
“Since we are the special portion of a Holy God, let us do all things related to holiness” (28:1).
“Let us, therefore, cleave to the guiltless and righteous, for these are the elect of God” (44:4).
“Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: He said, ‘Woe to that man; it would be better for him if he had not been born rather than offend one of My elect. It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be cast into the sea than to pervert one of My elect” (44:8).
“In love were all the elect of God made perfect” (47:5).
“The declaration of blessedness [the forgiveness of sins] was pronounced upon those elected by God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (48:6).
“For as God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and hope of the elect…” (56:2).
“We will earnestly pray and plead that the Creator of the universe may preserve the number of His elect throughout the world until the end, through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light” (57:2).
Note again, Clement doesn’t feel the need to explain who “the elect” are or what it means to be the “chosen people of God,” he just uses the term, expects his readers to know what he’s talking about, and moves forward. This suggests a mountain of theology was simply understood and agreed upon in the early church—as it ought to have been, since the Apostles wrote rather extensively on this point. Now, do these quotes definitively prove that Reformed soteriology is correct? No. Sadly, because we only have one genuine work from Clement, and because this work is not dealing with the topic of election, we can only discern so much of what he believed. However, given a plain reading of Clement’s words, he appears to be much more Calvinistic than Arminian, especially when put next to his discussion of the depravity of man (chapter 37), God’s initiating role in salvation (chapter 30), and God’s exhaustive sovereignty (chapter 25).
Λοιπόν - Finally
I found “1st Clement” to be deeply insightful and edifying. His constant exhortations to love and brotherhood are a reminder that all believers need to hear, and his propensity to break out into praise is deeply encouraging. Aside from any doctrinal debates, “1st Clement” should be familiar to any Christian who wants to start reading church history. However, “1st Clement” also provides numerous helpful insights into the early church’s beliefs about Scripture and election. And, as it appears to me, Clement would be just at home in a Reformed Baptist church.
.jpg)
.jpg)
