I was recently given the task to lecture on the "New Perspective" for an undergraduate class on the Pauline Epistles. The class was made up of Bible College students who were, for the most part, completely unfamiliar with the debate. Thankfully, they were already initiated through an assigned reading of James Dunn and Alan Suggate's short but helpful book, The Justice of God: A Fresh Look at the Old Doctrine of Justification by Faith
. The basic thesis of the book is that justification, when read from the perspective of Paul and Second Temple Judaism rather than Luther, has profound social dimensions and cannot be limited to individuals' salvation from hell. Most students enjoyed Dunn and Suggate even if there were not totally convinced.
I spent a lot of time introducing students to Sanders' articulation of "Covenantal Nomism" which he defines as:
The view that one's place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression [. . .] Obedience maintains one's position in the covenant, but it does not earn God's grace as such [. . .]. Righteousness in Judaism is the term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect. (Paul and Palestinian Judaism
, 75, 420, 544) – Dunn pieces together this definition in Jesus, Paul and the Law
186.
None of this is new or surprising to anyone reading in Pauline scholarship for the last forty years. Sanders' argument, though not without its detractors, has basically won the majority of scholars. It is now widely accepted that first century Jews, for the most part, did not consider their salvation to be dependent on "earning," but were firmly convinced that their salvation was a result of God's gracious election in the covenant. However, their obedience, or rather disobedience, could place them outside of that covenant.
I suggest that 1 Clement displays precisely the same thought pattern. In the midst of his argument for unity and reestablishment of the displaced Corinthian leadership, Clement makes an argument for election leading to obedience/good works and disobedience leading to a judgment that places the elect Corinthians outside of God's covenantal grace.
Clement encourages the Corinthians to worship boldly since God the Father has "made us his chosen portion [ἐκλογῆς μέρος]" (1 Clem 29.1). "Portion" is the word used in the LXX to describe the land Israel was promised to inherit (Num 18.20; Deut 12.12; 14.27). "Chosen" is an obvious word for election and is likewise used in the LXX to refer to the specific choosing of a group within the already chosen people of Israel (Num 16.5, 7; 17.20; cf. 1 Sam 17.8). Clement then cites a series of passages from Deuteronomy proclaiming God's election of Israel (1 Clem. 29.2-3; Deut 32.8-9; 4.34; 14.2; Num 18.27). Drawing from OT theology of election, then, Clement describes the elect status of the Corinthian churches.
Having firmly established his election theology based on God's grace – a grace he will clearly describe coming through Jesus (1 Clem 32.4) – Clement argues for obedience. "Since then we are a holy portion, we should do everything that pertains to holiness" (30.1). Clement exhorts the Corinthians to cling to their election by their obedience. Not surprisingly, Clement draws from the example of Abraham and Isaac (31.2‒3). God's gracious election leads to obedience, but this obedience does not earn grace. Rather, obedience is the proper response to God's previous elective action.
In a rhetorical aside, similar to Romans 6.1, Clement wonders if God's work in believers prompts laziness. "Shall we grow idle and not do what is good? Shall we abandon our acts of love?" (33.1). The obvious answer, like Paul's μὴ γένοιτο, is "of course not." Instead, God's work in believers ought to stimulate them to "hasten with fervor and zeal to complete every good work" (33.1). According to Clement, believers ought to reflect the image of God (33.4‒7), which means his good creative action, and so "with all our strength we should engage in righteous work" (33.8). Clement is then explicit that believers will be judged according to their "works" (34.3; cf. Rev 22.12). Since eschatological glory is beyond comparison (34.8 citing 1 Cor 2.9; 1 Clem. 35.1‒3) believers ought to "strive to be counted among those who wait" for that promised glory (35.4). How do believers wait? Clement is explicit that believers must "seek after what is pleasing and acceptable" to God and by "casting off from ourselves all injustice and lawlessness, greed, strife, malice and deceit, gossip and slander, hatred of God, haughtiness and arrogance, vanity and inhospitality" (35.5). The Corinthians to whom Clement writes are in the gracious covenant through Jesus. Their failure to adhere to the covenant obligations, however, will result in their judgment.
Clement, not unlike Paul and Second Temple Judaism as a whole, is clear that human effort is part of salvation. This does not equate to "earning" salvation, but it is articulated as placement in the covenant people of God. Clement, then, fits in the pattern of Second Temple Jewish "covenantal nomism."
Clement's exhortation to unity to the Corinthians is argued from God's character and eschatology as portrayed in the OT.
Clement thoroughly addresses the division taking place at Corinth and points to numerous OT examples, Jesus and the apostles to correct the problem. Next, Clement moves to arguing from the character of God. Drawing from a rich OT creation theology, Clement portrays God as the gracious creator of the peaceful earth. So he writes, "The great Creator and Master of all appointed all these things to be in peace and harmony, bringing great benefits to all things, but most especially to us, who flee to his compassion through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Clem 20.11). Implicit in this creation theology is a critique of the dissention that had engulfed the Corinthian church.
Not only is God's glory on display in creation, but God is an all-powerful judge (1 Clement 21.1‒9). Clement uses a form of Proverbs 20.27. The LXX reads, "The light of the Lord is the breath of man, which searches the inner belly" whereas Clement writes, "the Spirit of the Lord is a lamp searching the deepest parts of the stomach." Obviously, the "deep parts of the stomach" or "belly" is a euphemism for "inner self" or hidden things‒a euphemism that Clement feels no need to translate. While Clement's passage makes less sense, it communicates the same point. In the LXX (and MT) the breath of man is from God and searches the inner parts of a man. In Clement the spirit/breath (pnema) of God searches the depths of each person. His point in citing this text is to remind the Corinthians that their division is not hidden from God. "For he is the one who explores our understandings and desires. His breath is in us, and when he wishes, he will remove it" (21.9).
According to Clement, however, God's role as judge does not overshadow his grace. "Faith in Christ" (ἡ ἐν Χριστῳ πίστις) is the guarantee of grace. Christ speaks Psalm 34.11-17, 19 and Ps 32.10 through the Holy Spirit. Here obviously, deliverance is offered to those who repent. The gifts of this repentance are ready to be dispensed as quickly as his judgment. Clement even betrays an imminent eschatology citing Isa 13.22LXX, "Quickly he will come and not delay" (23.5). The LXX reads "[referring to the day of the Lord in Isa 13.19] it is coming quickly and it will not delay." The context of Isaiah 13 is a judgment oracle against prideful Babylon. Clement uses this as a judgment oracle against the prideful who would divide the Corinthian church.
The imminent eschatology spills over into 1 Clement 24 as well. Clement reminds the Corinthians of "the future resurrection that is about to occur" (τὴν μέλλοθσαν ἀνάστασιν ἒσεσθαι 24.1). Clement illustrates the resurrection with Greek imagery of the rising sun, cycle of crops (24.2‒5) and the Phoenix bird (25.1‒5) along with classic rabbinic "how much more" logic arguing that these things images pale in comparison to the promise of the resurrection (26.1‒3).
Clement exhorts, "Let our souls, therefore, be bound by this hope in to the one who is faithful in his promises and upright in his judgments" (27.1). Clement prays that "his [God's] faithfulness would be rekindled in us" (27.3). Here is a beautiful image of salvation- God's faithfulness at work in us!
Clement rebuked the Corinthian church for the subversive division that was stoked by a few loud voices and then he called for the repentance and subsequent obedience of the Corinthian church. Next he points to godly examples of the OT and to Jesus as the focus of redemptive obedience. He then launches into a discourse on the importance of humble words. His purpose is twofold. On the one hand, he is still speaking against the small minority that is dividing the church. On the other hand, however, Clement hopes to bring unity by calling this minority to submit to the leadership of the church. So, those who Clement is "siding with" must not capitulate to the strategy of the divisive and ostracize the divisive minority.
Clement describes the Holy Spirit "speaking" Jer 9.23-24 which is cited in both of Paul's Corinthian letters (13.1; 1 Cor 1.31; 2 Cor 10.17). Interestingly, in the context of 1 Corinthians 1.31, Paul is writing about the wisdom that comes from the Spirit (1 Cor 2.10-13). In both Jer 9.23-24 and 1 Cor 1.31 these words serve as a sharp rebuke against the arrogant confidence in human power. Clement quotes Jeremiah, as the Holy Spirit, in much the same way. Once again Clement allows the Holy Spirit to speak to the church through the OT, in this case the prophet Jeremiah.
Clement also quotes the words of Jesus to support his point. He writes, "We should especially remember the words the Lord Jesus spoke when teaching about gentleness and patience. For he said, "Show mercy in order that you will be shown mercy; forgive in order that you will be forgiven; As you do, in the same way it will be done to you; as you give, in the same way it will be given to you; as you judge, in the same way you will be judged; as you show kindness, so will kindness be shown to you; the amount you dispense will be the amount you receive" (13.2). Clement's quotation from Jesus does not exactly match any of Jesus' sayings recorded in the gospels. Rather, it seems that Clement has compiled a number of texts and elaborated on them (Mt 5.7; 6.14-15; 7.1-2, 12; Lk 6.31, 36-38). He could be referring to a saying tradition not recorded in the gospels, but the former option is, I think, more likely. So, Clement treats words of Jesus in a similar way to the OT scriptures. They are authoritative but he is not committed to repeat them exactly but is free to "put them to good use."
Clement again turns to the OT, described as "the holy word" which speaks, and cites a string of OT passages which speak of the humble and just as receiving God's blessing (14.1-5; citing Isa 66.2; Prov 2.21‒22; Ps 37.9, 38; Ps 37.35-37). In chapter 15 Clement undoubtedly engages in a form of rabbinic exegesis called Binyan al mikathub 'ehad or "building up a family from a single text." This is one of Hillel's seven rules and it is clearly at work in 1 Clement 15. Clement exhorts the Corinthians to "make peace with piety" (15.1). He then cites a string of OT texts that refer to hypocrisy of the mouth. Each text emphasizes something to do with the mouth, lips or tongue betraying (Isa 29.13; Ps 62.4; Ps 78.36-37; 31.18; 12.4-6). It is not at all dissimilar to Paul's catena in Romans 3.10-18, except that Clement focuses on the mouth whereas Paul refers to the deceitfulness of different parts of the body. Clement wants to emphasize the importance of humble words and the danger of verbal spats.
In chapter 16 Clement does more Christological exegesis to encourage humility. First, Clement quotes all of Isa 53.1-12 with the introduction, "just as the Holy Spirit spoke concerning" Jesus (16.2). The description of Isaiah 53 is of "the scepter of God's majesty, the Lord Jesus Christ" who exemplified humility. It would be quite interesting to evaluate the textual similarities between Clement's Isa 53 and the LXX, MT and DSS manuscripts. Unfortunately, there is not space here. Second, Clement puts Psalm 22.6-8 on the lips of Jesus as though it was spoken by Jesus exclusively. The gospels record Ps 22.1 on the lips of Jesus as he cries out in anguish on the cross (Mt 27.46; Mk 15.34) and it is alluded to in all of the passion narratives (Mt 27.35, 39, 43; Mk 15.24, 29; Lk 23.34-36; Jn 19.24, 28). Clement took this Psalm, clearly significant for Christian understanding of Jesus' death, and put other parts of the passage in the mouth of Jesus to exemplify his humility. Clement uses the OT as a prophetic description of Jesus in the case of Isaiah 53 and as the very words of Jesus in the case of Psalm 22.
Clement encourages the Corinthians to imitate the humble example of Jesus as well as the prophets Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Abraham, Job and Moses (in that order 17.1‒6). Then, he gives another example in David and quotes all of Psalm 51.1-17 to describe David's humility. Here, David exhibits profound humility and is elsewhere described as a "man after God's own heart" (1 Sam 13.14; Acts 13.22). Clement concludes his argument for humble unity with the words, "The humility and obedient lowliness of so many people with such a strong reputation have improved not only us, but also the generations that came before us [. . .] we should forge ahead to the goal of peace which has been delivered to us from the beginning" (19.1-2).
What would it look like for churches today to take Clement's exhortations seriously? What are some of the theological and Christological implications of Clement's arguments?
Having observed the problem of division and its devastating effects in the history of God's people Clement gives a call to repentance and obedience. He uses the OT not just to make his point, but to speak directly into the Corinthian situation. For Clement, the OT scriptures were God's voice to the church.
In chapters 7 and 8 Clement focuses on repentance. Clement includes the Roman church in the call to repent for "we are in the same arena and the same contest is set before us" (7.1). Then Clement looks at past examples of repentance. First, he points to Noah who "preached repentance" (7.6). Clement's second example consists of recounting Jonah's message of destruction on Nineveh which was stayed by the repentance of the Ninevites (7.7). These examples show both the one calling for repentance and the repentant.
Not only have the saints of the past preached repentance but God himself commands it (8.1‒5). Here Clement argues that "the master of all things himself spoke about repentance" and then cites something similar to Ezekiel 33.11. Clement's text reads, "For as I live, says the Lord, I do no want the sinner to die but to repent." The citation does not cohere exactly with the LXX. The characteristic "Thus says the Lord" (τάδε λέγει κύριος) is substituted for "says the Lord" (λέγει κύριος) and the LXX's "ungodly" is changed to "sinners." Also the word for "repent" is more specific in Clement than the LXX's "turn back." Immediately after using the Ezekiel text Clement writes, "and to this he added a good pronouncement," which would suggest Clement is continuing a citation. The "pronouncement," however does not quite fit any specific verses from Ezekiel 33 but rather forms a composite of the main concepts and vocabulary. Clement's use of the OT, then, is not slavishly devoted to the wording of the text of the LXX. After the Ezekiel composite pronouncement Clement describes God as "speaking" Isaiah 1.16-20. The introductions to God's calls to repent in the past show that Clement is using these passages as God's authoritative voice to "speak" directly to the Corinthian division.
How similar are these texts to the Corinthian discord? Ezekiel 33 occurs describes the prophet as Israel's "watchman" (Ezek 33.2, 7) charged with warning the people of God's impending judgment (Ezek 33.5). If Ezekiel does not sound the trumpet of warning then Israel's blood is on his hands (Ezek 33.6, 8). The rest of the oracle calls for repentance especially as it relates to justice (Ezek 33.10‒20). The Isaiah passage is a prophetic denouncement of Israel's hypocrisy. Though filled with injustice, Jerusalem continues to burn offerings and observe feasts (Isa 1.12-14) so God refuses to hear the prayers of his people (Isa 1.15). Isaiah then issues a call to repentance wherein God provides atonement (Isa 1.16‒20). Clearly, Clement is allowing his rebuke of the Corinthians to be "God's rebuke." He is also suggesting that if Corinth refuses to repent then the church will be judged. Consider the examples he offers, Noah's preaching leads to very little repentance and much judgment, Jonah's preaching of destruction leads to repentance but Ezekiel's announcement of coming judgment results in the fall of Jerusalem (Ezek 33.21‒33) and Isaiah's prophecy is one of condemnation.
Since God has called the Corinthians to repent, through Clement's message, it is time to obey. Clement points to the obedient examples of Enoch (9.3) and Noah (9.4) as well as Abraham. The use of Abraham is interesting because father Ab is the picture of obedience par excellence in Second Temple Judaism (esp. Sir 44.19-21; 1 Macc 1.51-2; James 2.18-26) but is portrayed by Paul as the example of faith (Rom 4.1-25; Gal 3.7-9). Clement recounts the highlights of the Abraham narrative especially in regard to obedience (10.1‒7; explicitly citing Isa 41.8; Gen 12.1-3; 13.14-16; 15.5-6; 18.21; 22.1ff.). Clement's interpretation matches Second Temple Judaism more closely than Paul's arguments to the church in Rome.
After spending a significant amount of time on Abraham, reminiscent of Jewish retellings of the story, Clement continues his examples of obedience. Lot too becomes an example and his wife is contrasted as a negative example (11.1‒2; cf. Gen 19.1ff.). Rahab's hospitality is highlighted as an example of obedience and retold with a Christological-redemptive focus (12.1‒8; cf. Josh 2.1ff.; Heb 11.31; James 2.25). The OT stories are retold as moral tales with a Christological and ecclesiological focus. According to Clement, then, these are texts about Jesus, even if the references are vague, and they are for the formation of the church.
Clement opens his letter by addressing the Corinthian church, explaining the purpose for writing and then praising the Corinthians for their former exemplary faith which has now been distorted. The description of the distortion is centered upon the word "jealousy" from numerous OT stories as well as the more recent sufferings of martyrs.
Clement begins his letter addressing the Corinthian church as "the church of God that temporarily resides in Corinth." One would assume that the modifier "temporarily" signifies the pilgrim existence of the early Christians who do not identify with a location on earth but rather God in heaven. This reminder of otherworldly identity engenders solidarity between the two churches as well as forms the basis for exhortation.
After giving a customary opening benediction Clement launches into his address of the Corinthian problem—a jealous division. The factions are "alien and foreign to the elect of God" (1.1). Because of " faction stoked by a few reckless and headstrong persons" the reputation of the Corinthian church is being "blasphemed" (1.1).
After observing the problem of division rife in the Corinthian church, Clement recounts the former glory of the Corinthian church. He describes the Corinthians as having a "virtuous and stable faith," hospitable (1.2), as well as impartial and submissive (1.3). Clement goes on to describe the Corinthians as humble (2.1), filled with the Spirit (2.2), pursuing godliness (2.3), struggling together and avoiding schism (2.4-5). Summarily, the Corinthians displayed the commands and righteous demands of the Lord written on their hearts (2.8; cf. Deut 6.6; Prov 3.3; 7.3; Jer 31.33; Rom 2.15). In the loftiest of terms, then, Clement praises the former activity of the Corinthian church.
Clement's praise turns on an OT quotation into rebuke. He introduces his quotation with the phrase, "and what was written was fulfilled" and then cites Deuteronomy 32.15 LXX (1 Clement 3.1). It is undeniable that Clement is not only aware of but also intentionally and utalizing the context of the passage. Deuteronomy 32 is the "Song of Moses" found near the end of the book. After recounting the Torah, Moses describes the blessings or curses and that come as a result of either obedience or disobedience (blessings Deut 28.1-14 then curses Deut 28.15-68). Moses frames up the options as the choice between obedient "life" or disobedient "death" (Deut 30.11-20) then appoints Joshua to lead Israel into the land of promise (Deut 31). Then in his song (Deut 32) Moses recounts God's identity as the creator who chose Israel (Deut 32.9) and rescued him and providing abundantly for him (Deut 32.10-14). Then, the song turns in Deut 32.15 to the disobedience of a once blessed people. Clement uses the verse that turns the Song of Moses from praise to rebuke of Israel in speaking to Corinth.
The result of Israel's disobedience was disastrous (1 Clement 3.2-4). As if the history of Israel were not enough to make this point, Clement retells the jealous murder of Abel by his brother Cain (4.1-6; Gen 4.3-8), the jealousy of Jacob (4.8; Gen 27.41ff.), the jealousy of Joseph's brothers (4.9; Gen 37), jealousy leading to Moses departure from Egypt (4.10; Exod 2.14), jealousy of Aaron and Miriam (4.11; Num 12), Dathan and Abiram (4.12; Num 16.13) and even Saul's jealousy of David (4.13; 1 Sam 18ff.). Here again, Clement makes use of the OT, but rather than quoting it he simply refers to stories by mentioning the names of characters. This argument implies that the Corinthian readers would have been well aware of these stories. It also implies that the Corinthians read these scriptures as belonging to them. These were not stories about someone else, but the Church's scripture.
After citing numerous examples of how jealousy hindered God's people in the past Clement shifts to contemporary example. He refers to these examples as "athletes" (5.1). First, he looks at the athlete Peter who suffered multiple hardships because of jealousy before entering glory (5.2-4). Interestingly, Clement does not cite any examples of Peter's hardships, perhaps assuming the Corinthians were already aware of them. Clement's second athlete is Paul who bore chains, endured exile and stoning and traveled widely (5.5‒6). Paul's suffering is described as "the greatest example of endurance" (5.7). After citing the example of Peter and Paul Clement describes the profane torments of women caused by jealousy (6.1-3). "Jealousy" becomes the source of suffering and hardship even to the point of persecution.
The division of the Corinthian church is portrayed as a recent development that has soiled its reputation. Clement argues from the OT and from apostolic examples of suffering (here he includes women) that the factional problems facing the Corinthians are being caused by "jealousy." It is so interesting to see how the early church wrestled with issues of division and dissention before there was a hierarchical structure of leadership that could anathematize.
First Clement is an early Christian letter written from a church leader in Rome (later tradition ascribes it to Clement) to the church in Corinth. Apparently there was an issue of leadership in the Corinthian church and 1 Clement was written to address the problem. According to 1 Clement, the situation in Corinth was a new group of leaders who had ousted the former leadership in a "heinous grab for power by a group of jealous upstarts" (Ehrman, 18).
The author of 1 Clement does not appeal to his own authority to exhort the Corinthians but consistently relies on the Greek translation of the OT (LXX) as his authority. The author is so far removed from the picture that he never mentions himself in the letter. Origen thought 1 Clement was composed by one of Paul's companions mentioned in Philippians 4.3 (Eccl. Hist 3.4.15; Comm. Jn. 6.36). Some traditions describe Clement as the second bishop of Rome (Tertullian, Prescription 32) while others place him as the third bishop (Irenaeus, Agst. Heresies 3.3.1; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.4.21). The author of Shepherd of Hermes mentions a Clement charged with distributing Shepherd to other churches (8.2). Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 170 AD) regarded Clement as the author of the letter which was still read in his day during church gatherings. Dionysius's mention of the book also helps guide the discussion regarding the date of composition. Eusebius ascribes it's authorship to the reign of Domitian (81‒96 AD). Since the letter claims that the deaths of Peter and Paul were "within our own generation" (chap. 5) as well as demonstrate a general lack of hierarchical structure a date near the end of the first century is probable. It is likely, then, that the book was composed from Rome, in the mid 90s, by a Clement who held a leadership position there but did not wield widespread authority.
If the 90s date is correct, and it probably is, then this book was composed around the same time as the canonical book of Revelation. It will be interesting to contrast perspectives of a letter written from Rome with a prophetic-apocalyptic letter in Asia Minor. Furthermore, Ehrman points out two significant issues raised by the content of 1 Clement. First, the use of scripture is fascinating. Though Clement was likely not Jewish he is thoroughly conversant in the LXX. It will be interesting to see how he utilizes the OT in comparison with Paul and the other NT writers. Furthermore, it will also be interesting to see how Clement uses the NT before it is recognized as canonical. The NT manuscripts occasionally include 1 Clement in the canon (most significantly 5th century Alexandrinus). The development and use of "scripture" is a significant issue in relation to 1 Clement.
Second, the influence of the Roman church is crucial to the letter. Clement does not exercise authority as a bishop nor as a leader in the Roman church. "To be sure, there is no indication of the hierarchical structure and efficient organization that would become characteristic of the church in Rome" (Ehrman, 27). In light of the later development of Roman authority it is interesting to see a bishop in Rome writing to influence another church based on the authority of mutually recognized scripture rather than a developed structure.
