On the Reformationist Misunderstanding of Justification in Clement of Rome

    When pressed to find a historical witness for their Scriptural interpretation of sola fide, Reformers' go-to source has long been Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians, penned in circa 96. Here is an example from a Reformed patristic scholar, Philip Schaff, in 1858:

    “Clement is the only one of the apostolic fathers, except perhaps Polycarp, who shows some conception of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. ‘All (the saints of the Old Testament),’ says he, ‘became great and glorious, not through themselves, nor by their works, nor by their righteousness, but by the will of God. Thus we also, who are called by the will of God in Christ Jesus, are righteous not of ourselves, neither through our wisdom, nor through our understanding, nor through our piety, nor through our works, which we have wrought in purity of heart, but by faith, by which the almighty God justified all these from the beginning; to whom be glory to all eternity.’ [1 Clement 32] And then Clement, precisely like Paul in Romans 6, derives sanctification from justification, and continues: ‘What, then, should we do, beloved brethren? Should we be slothful in good works and neglect love? By no means! But with zeal and courage we will hasten to fulfil every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all things himself rejoices in his works.’ [1 Clement 33]”1

    Notice how Schaff cites not only chapter 32, but also 33, the latter of which has become largely forgotten by modern proponents of the Reformed position, as has chapter 34 as well. Let us consider a fuller treatment of this context:

    “What, then, shall we do, [cf. Romans 6:1] brothers? Shall we slacken from doing good and abandon charity? May the Lord never allow this to happen to us, but let us be diligent to accomplish every good work [Titus 3:1] with earnestness and zeal. For the Creator and Lord of the universe Himself takes joy in His works. . . . Let us consider that all the saints have been adorned with good works; and the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with good works, rejoiced. Holding this pattern, then, let us follow out His will without hesitation; let us do the work of justice with all our strength.

    “The good laborer receives the bread of his labor with confidence; the lazy and careless one does not look his employer in the face. We must, therefore, be zealous in doing good; for all things are from Him. He warns us: [Isaiah 40:10; 62:11; Proverbs 24:12; Revelation 22:12] ‘Behold the Lord comes, and his reward is before his face, to pay each man according to his work.’ He therefore urges us who believe in Him with all our heart not to be lazy or careless in any good work. [Titus 3:1]”2

    Also neglected is the treatment of justification from only two chapters earlier:

    “let us with humble minds put on the livery of concord, be self-restrained, keep ourselves free from all backbiting and slanderous talk; and let us seek justification by actions, and not just words.”3

    And hence Schaff went on to say the following:

    “But notwithstanding its prevailing Pauline character, this epistle lowers somewhat the free evangelical tone of the Gentile apostle’s theology, softens its anti-Judaistic sternness, and blends it with the Jewish-Christian counterpart of St. James, showing that the conflict between the Pauline and Petrine views was substantially settled at the end of the first century in the Roman church, and also in that of Corinth.”4

    Later, in 1920, another Reformed patristic scholar, Rudolf Knopf, would go on to identify Clement's blending of Paul and James as nothing less than synergism, as opposed to sola fide. We see this in a critique of his work, by a Catholic patristic scholar:

    “Knopf takes this occasion to contrast the Apostle's ‘Solafidismus’ with Clement's ‘Synergismus’; with what right, the reader may judge for himself.”5

    Indeed, if one attempts to superimpose a monergistic understanding of justification as a singular event onto Clement's statement in chapter 32, they will unavoidably run into conflict with the immediate context of the surrounding chapters which cast justification as a process with not only a current application, but furthermore as something which transpires in the future as well. Therefore, synergism is the only cohesive understanding of Clement's letter as a whole, given Clement's clear declaration of mankind's involvement in their later justification. This is certainly how the successors of Clement would have understood his teaching on the matter. Let us consider the following example of Origen in the 3rd century:

    “while the salvation of believers depends upon two things, their understanding of the faith and the perfection of their works, it is the element of faith . . . that is taken as the first step in salvation, whereas second place is given to perfection of works”6

    And specifically on justification:

    “we must keep in mind that we are judged at the divine tribunal not on our faith alone as if we did not have to answer for our conduct (cf. James 2.24), nor on our conduct alone as if our faith were not subject to examination. It is from the correctness of both that we are justified; it is from the noncorrectness of both that we are punished for both. But there are some who will not be punished for both but for one of the two; some will be punished for defective faith, but not for an incorrect life, while others will not be punished for their faith but will be punished for a life lived contrary to right reason. . . . If then we wish to be saved, let us not, in our commitment to the faith, be negligent of our practical conduct, nor, conversely, be overconfident of our conduct. It is from both that we know, understand, believe, and will have our reward and beatitude, or their opposite.”7

    This process of justification is thus recognized by modern patristic scholars:

    “Justification begins here on earth and is interior but will have its fulfillment only in Heaven, after the resurrection, which will see the destruction also of ‘the last enemy . . . death’ (1 Cor 15:26). For we have been saved (Tit 3:5), but ‘in hope’ (Rom 8:24); adopted (Gal 4:5), but we are waiting for adoption (Rom 8:23); renewed (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:5; Eph 4:23), but we must renew ourselves day by day (2 Cor 4:15); regenerated (Tit 3:5), but we are waiting for the regeneration (Mt 19:28).

    “Justification, therefore, is a large and complex notion which includes the present and the future”8

    Origen himself appealed to Clement's letter on numerous occasions, and identified him as the same Clement who was a fellow-worker with the Apostle Paul (cf. Commentary on John 6:36; Philippians 4:3). Such was the celebration of Clement's letter among all of the early Christians. The brevity of this article will not allow for an exhaustive treatment of this point, suffice it to return to Schaff; you will recall his earlier statement that, “Clement is the only one of the apostolic fathers, except perhaps Polycarp, who shows some conception of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith,” which thought he would elsewhere elucidate in the same work:

    “If any one expects to find in this [pre-Nicene] period, or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, as the ’articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae,’ [article by which the church stands and falls] he will be greatly disappointed. . . . Paul's doctrine of justification, except perhaps in Clement of Rome, who joins it with the doctrine of James, is left very much out of view, and awaits the age of the Reformation to be more thoroughly established and understood. The fathers lay chief stress on sanctification and good works”9

    Remember this, reader, the next time a Calvinist appeals to Clement.

Footnotes

1 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 2:644

2 Clement of Rome, ca. 96, To the Corinthians 33:1-2,7-8; 34:1-4, in Fathers of the Church 1:35-36

3 Clement of Rome, ca. 96, First Clement 30:3, in Ancient Christian Writers 1:27

4 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 2:645-646

5 James A. Kliest, Ancient Christian Writers 1:110

6 Origen, ca. 240, Commentary on The Song of Songs 3:12, in Ancient Christian Writers 26:228

7 Origen, ca. 246, Dialogue with Heraclides 8-9, in Ancient Christian Writers 54:64

8 Agostino Trapè, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 2:490-491, ellipsis in original

9 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, pp. 588-589

Chronological New Testament & Dating of the Apostolic Fathers

    Knowing when a given early Christian writing was composed can notably impact one’s study of the text. Which events and teachings precipitated others? What does comparison of relatively contemporary writings tell us about the Church at that period, and how might this contrast with subsequent generations? Etc. This shall be the first of several blogs in which I share what I’ve found on this subject in my reading of patristic scholarship. I shall begin with the sub-Apostolic generation (most frequently referred to as the “Apostolic Fathers”), but before reviewing the earliest extra-biblical writings I’ll first review the chronology of the New Testament itself. This I compiled some time ago when I became interested in seeing if my next reading of the New Testament might be given added perspective by reading it in the chronological order of the events relayed, and indeed has become my favorite way to read the Apostolic witnesses. This was largely derived from the dates given in The Orthodox Study Bible, which are as follows:

    Matthew: "could have been written as early as AD 50, but is more likely that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (pg. 125)

    Mark: "the exact date of the writing is uncertain. . . . may be dated before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (pg. 1328)

    Luke: "probably wrote his gospel either from Greece or from Asia Minor in AD 70-80." (pg. 1359)

    John: "written about AD 96." (pg. 1418)

    Acts: "was written about AD 75-85, some time after the composition of Luke." (pg. 1468)

    Romans: "was probably written in AD 55-57" (pg. 1519)

    1 Corinthians: "was probably written from Ephesus around AD 55" (pg. 1550)

    2 Corinthians: "written the same year as 1 Corinthians (c. AD 55)" (pg. 1573)

    Ephesians: "Paul probably wrote Ephesians from Rome during his imprisonment in AD 61-63" (pg. 1597)

    Philippians: “Paul probably wrote Philippians while he was under house arrest in Rome in about AD 61-63” (pg. 1611)

    Colossians: "was written at the same time as Ephesians and Philemon." (pg. 1617)

    1 Thessalonians: "was written in Corinth in AD 50-51" (pg. 1623)

    2 Thessalonians: "was written in AD 51" (pg. 1629)

    1 Timothy: "Probably AD 64-65." (pg. 1632)

    2 Timothy: "AD 65-67." (pg. 1640)

    Titus: "AD 63-65." (pg. 1645)

    Philemon: "AD 61-63." (pg. 1650)

    Hebrews: "The content of the epistle and the witness of the early Church argue for some time near AD 70." (pg. 1652)

    James: "AD 55-60." (pg. 1673)

    1 Peter: "sometime in AD 50-67." (pg. 1682)

    2 Peter: "the date is likely AD 63-67" (pg. 1690)

    1 John: "a time late in John's life, about the same time as he wrote his gospel (AD 90-95)." (pg. 1696)

    2 John: "AD 90-95" (pg. 1704)

    3 John: "AD 90-95" (pg. 1706)

    Jude: "sometime in the period of AD 60-80" (pg. 1708)

    Revelation: "AD 81-96" (pg. 1711)

    And from thence the following reading schedule (note that the order of the Gospels, given that the events attested to parallel one another, is instead given in the order of my personal preference in which to read them):

Circa 1-33: Mark, Matthew, John, Luke.

Circa 33-50: Acts 1:1–15:35, James.

Circa 50-51: Acts 15:36–18:11, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians.

Circa 51-55: Acts 18:12–19:20, 1 Corinthians.

Circa 55-57: Acts 19:21–20:3, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans.

Circa 57-61: Acts 20:4–Acts 28:31.

Circa 61-63: Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Hebrews.

Circa 63-67: Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 2 Peter.

Circa 67-96: Jude, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation.

    The sub-Apostolic writings

    The Didache

    “The question of date is difficult to answer. Besides reckoning with possible later modifications in transmission, one must consider the evidences of compilation in the Didache. What is the date of the components? When were these compiled into a document? What is the date of later revisions or insertions? Dates from before A.D. 70 to a century later or some time between the late first or early second century have been proposed for the compilation.”1

    “Since the Didache is a compilation from various sources, the question of its date in fact becomes the question of the age of the traditions of which it is composed and the question of the terminus ante quem of the final redaction of the work. For the latter, we align ourselves with A. Adam and J.-P. Audet, who maintain that the whole of the work goes back to the 1st c. With this, we rule out the late dating of the work to the 2nd c. or later, on account of a supposed use by the Didache of the NT writings and, eventually, of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas; it also seems to us difficult to maintain the thesis that would spread the history of the redaction of the Didache over the first two centuries.”2

    Those are the most current scholarly sources which I have at my disposal, 1999 and 2013, respectively. If we go back to 1947, we have the following:

    “The earlier studies tended to place it between A.D. 70 and 90”3

    Glimm goes on to advocate a later dating, and thus we see that Rordorf advocates a return to the conclusions of the earlier studies. But it should be noted that the earlier views never really went out of vogue. Only a year after the publication of Glimm's work, in 1948, we read the following:

    “since the Didache offers a somewhat modified form of the Apostolic decree (see 6.2 and 3), some time must have elapsed between the year 50 and the date of composition. If we allow the space of a whole decade to have intervened between the two events, we reach the year 60, and it is impossible to disprove the statement of some scholars that the Didache was written, if not in whole, at least in part, between 60 and 70. Others prefer the period between 70 and 80, while still others cling to the following decade, 80-90. It should, therefore, be admitted that we have a thoroughly conservative, and altogether reliable, estimate in the statement of many leading scholars that the Didache was written ‘before the end of the first century.’”4

    When I cite The Didache, I give the full range of Kleist's references, i.e., circa 60-90, in accordance with Rordorf's example of the most current, peer-reviewed, patristic scholarship.

    The Shepherd of Hermas

    In short: “The Shepherd of Hermas is a complex Christian apocalypse written in Greek in stages from ca. A.D. 90 to 150.”5

    To expound on this: “As it appears today, this book contains three great parts: the Visions, the Mandates and the Similitudes (or Parables): it is the work of a compiler who brought together and retouched two pre-2nd-c. books, of which one (corresponding to Visions I-IV) was the work of a certain Hermas and the other (Vision V, Mandates and Similitudes) anonymous. Both works seem to have had Hebrew sources.”6

    This hearkens back to an old scholarly theory which I have long found intriguing despite being unverifiable and outmoded:

    “It would not be a very bold conjecture, that Hermas and his brother were elderly grandchildren of the original Hermas, the friend of St. Paul. The Shepherd, then, might be based upon personal recollections, and upon the traditions of a family which the spirit of prophecy had reproved, and who were monuments of its power.”7

    This notion favoring an emphasis on earlier material aside, I tentatively appeal to the broader scholarly spectrum of circa 90-150.

    Clement of Rome’s epistle To the Corinthians

    “If the incidents mentioned in 1 Clement 1.1 refer to a persecution, then the most likely date for composition would be at Rome during the time of Domitian and the leadership of Clement (ca. 96).”8

    And again:

    “Composed probably ca. AD 96-98, just after Domitian’s persecution”9

    I therefore use the date among the majority of scholars of circa 96 for Clement of Rome’s letter To the Corinthians. It's worth noting that some scholars have attempted to make a case for an earlier dating, and perhaps I'll revisit the subject in the future should this view gain more traction.

    The Epistle of Barnabas

    In short: “The Epistle of Barnabas is usually dated 132-135, although an earlier date in the late 70s has had its champions, and 96-98 is a possibility. The internal evidence is inconclusive.”10

    To expound on this: “Chronology rules out the traditional attribution to the Barnabas of Acts: the epistle postdates the destruction of the temple in 70 (see Barn. 16,3-4). If the foreseen reconstruction of the temple is that of the temple of Capitoline Jove, built by Hadrian on the ruins of the temple of Jerusalem in 131, the epistle must postdate this; the interpretation of the passage is controversial, however, and could refer to either an eventual rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem or to the building of the temple in the hearts of the faithful. The epistle is ordinarily dated in the first three decades of the 2nd c.; Carleton Paget, however, indicates a probable date of composition between 96-98, under Nerva, hinted at in the obscure reference of Barn. 4,4-5 to the succession of kingdoms symbolized by the horn of the beast of Dan 7:7-8, 19-24.”11

    When I cite The Epistle of Barnabas I give the midrange, at circa 97.

    Ignatius’ various letters

    The conventional dating: “Toward the end of the reign of Trajan (98-117), Ignatius was arrested and, like Paul (Acts 25:11), taken to Rome for judgement. . . . En route to Rome, Ignatius wrote seven letters.”12

    Doubts regarding such dating: “The Chronicle of Eusebius mentions both the martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch and the letter of Pliny to Trajan around the tenth year of his reign (AD 107), but one can see in HE (3,33,36) that Eusebius did not have precise chronological information either for Ignatius of Antioch or Pliny. Eusebius merely wished to situate the two events approximately: he placed the letter of Pliny under Trajan and hypothesized that Ignatius of Antioch had been arrested during the persecution which the letter of Pliny speaks of. Therefore, we cannot take this date as certain.”13

    An alternative: “Conventionally Ignatius has been dated, following Eusebius, to the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan. This dating has often been disputed, and there are numerous attempts to assign his work to a later period in the second century, and to claim that the work of Ignatius is a forgery from that period, as well as numerous defenses of the conventional date. However, there is something of a false dichotomy between an authentic Trajanic Ignatius and the later creation of a pseudepigrapher. On this basis, and on the basis of a web of other evidence, I have argued elsewhere that Ignatius is writing in the summer of 134, and that he is travelling in the entourage of the emperor Hadrian, who at the time was returning from Syria to Rome overland, having been engaged in fighting in the Bar Kosiba revolt in Palestine. As such, I suggest, the letters are indeed authentic, but that they date from a later period in the second century than is generally reckoned, though not as late as some modern critics would suggest.”14

    Pending additional peer review of Stewart’s theory, I tentatively date Ignatius’ letters to the conventional circa 107.

    Polycarp’s letter To the Philipians

    The modern patristic scholarship which I have at my disposal does not venture to date Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians. For this I have to refer back to the scholarship of the 1940s:

    “A recent study has made it appear probable that what the manuscripts have handed down as the single letter of St. Polycarp to the Philippians is really composed of two letters to the same persons. The letter earlier in time would comprise chapters 13 and 14 of the traditional text. This would have been a short note to the Philippians, written while St. Ignatius was still on his way to Rome for trial or, at least, before St. Polycarp had received any news of his death (ca. 110). . . .

    “Chapters 1 to 12 form the second letter supposed by the recent analysis of our text. This letter would be surely of later date since, in chapter 9, St. Ignatius is now considered as dead. . . . a date around 135 could be fairly conjectured.”15

    “This two-letter theory separates Ch. 13 (with, or without, the postscript in 14)—’the Covering Note’ which accompanied the batch of Ignatian letters sent by Polycarp to the Philippians—from the rest of the letter, ‘the Crisis Letter,’ that is, Chapters 1-12, which were written at some later time in answer to a wish of the Philippians for an exhortation on Christian life in general and, no doubt, a word of counsel in a crisis that had come upon their community. . . .

    “Since Ignatius visited Smyrna late in August, it follows that Polycarp’s note probably was penned some time in September of the same year.

    “Twenty years or so later (about A.D. 135), the Philippians informed Polycarp of the joy they had experienced in welcoming Ignatius and his fellow prisoners during their stay in the city. Polycarp seizes upon this expression of joy as a fitting starting point for his admonitions.”16

    As for the Martyrdom of Polycarp, these older sources gave various theories as to its dating, which persisted into late 20th century patristic scholarship:

    “The date of Polycarp’s martyrdom is much controverted: between 155 and 159, in 166/7, or in 177.”17

    My most current scholarly source, however, gives the following:

    “Polycarp died a martyr’s death on 23 February 167. . . .
    “Composed shortly after the death of the bishop of Smyrna in the form of a letter sent to the church of Philomelium, the Martyrdom of Polycarp was the first work entirely dedicated to describing the suffering of a martyr and, moreover, the first to use the title ‘martyr’ to refer to a Christian who had died for the faith.”18

    Thus I date the epistle to circa 135, save for the last couple chapters at circa 107, and the account of his martyrdom to circa 167.

    Second Clement

    “difficult to date later than the mid-2nd c.”19

Footnotes

1 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 328

2 W. Rordorf, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, 1:709

3 Francis X. Glimm, Fathers of the Church 1:168

4 James A. Kleist, Ancient Christian Writers 6:5-6

5 David E. Aune, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 521

6 Pierre Nautin, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 2:220

7 Arthur Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:4

8 Graydon F. Snyder, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 264

9 Pier Franco Beatrice, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 1:549

10 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 168

11 Francesco Scorza Barcellona, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 1:333

12 Graydon F. Snyder, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 559

13 Pierre Nautin, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 2:317

14 Alistair Stewart, Popular Patristics 49:15-16

15 Francis X. Glimm, Fathers of the Church 1:131-132

16 James A. Kleist, Ancient Christian Writers 6:71-72

17 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 729

18 Pierre Nautin, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 3:248

19 Pier F. Beatrice, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 1:550