Clement of Rome - Romans 9:5

Steven Avery

Administrator
Important because of the early date, 1st century, maybe before 70 AD, thus the earliest reference to Romans 9:5 extant out of the NT.

Notice the simplicity of the writing, no need to go into wild Christological theories.
God and Christ Jesus are distinct in addressing, as in the New Testament.

A Translation of the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius, and of the First Apology of Justin Martyr: With an Introduction and Brief Notes Illustrative of the Ecclesiastical History of the First Two Centuries (1846)
The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians - 32
Translated by Temple Chevallier (1794-1873) astronomer and mathematician
https://books.google.com/books?id=dK8W3LcXK4kC&pg=PA19

1636696474595.png


Also in
Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828-1889)
The Apostolic Fathers: A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations, Volume 2, Part 1 (1890)
https://books.google.com/books?id=n60QAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA287
1636697973728.png

1636698005105.png


Mentions in Murray Harris p. 148 and Benjamin Hall Kennedy, and Abbot. Omitted by Burgon.
Whitby, Bartsch and Hagner get mention below. Dwight has a quote.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Compare to
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Romans 9:5
https://books.google.com/books?id=fyUMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA13
https://books.google.com/books?id=yxVpRwnH7OUC&pg=PA29

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
We are Justified Not by Our Own Works, But by Faith.
Chapter XXXII

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will . in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
The qualification (τὸ) κατὰ σάρκα "according to the flesh" as concerning the descent of Christ is not only found in Romans 9:5, but also in Acts 2:30 and Romans 1:3, 4. In other words, it was a qualification to distinguish Christ as an Israelite according to the flesh, but the Son of God in truth.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
See Burkitt above.

and similarly we have been called in Christ Jesus and justified by faith, ‘by which alone all the saints from of old were justified by Almighty God, to whom adds Clement,‘ be glory for ever and ever, Amen

This strengthens the allusion and puts Clement in the non-apposition camp.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
See Burkitt above.

and similarly we have been called in Christ Jesus and justified by faith, ‘by which alone all the saints from of old were justified by Almighty God, to whom adds Clement,‘ be glory for ever and ever, Amen

This strengthens the allusion and puts Clement in the non-apposition camp.
I did, but the inference is a stretch. We are not looking at actual evidence or a quotation with commentary. The qualification (τὸ) κατὰ σάρκα "according to the flesh" as concerning the descent of Christ is not only found in Romans 9:5, but also in Acts 2:30 and Romans 1:3, 4. "To whom be glory for ever and ever" is the same construction we find in Galatians 1:5, 2 Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 13:21 and a variation in Romans 11:36, not Romans 9:5. There's nothing in the passage that warrants the conclusion that the allusion here is to Romans 9:5, much less that it "strengthens the allusion and puts Clement in the non-apposition camp."
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Look at Burkitt.

The context of Clement of Rome is in line with Israel and the fathers of Romans 9.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are referenced in Romans 9 and by Clement.

You think too atomistically.
 

Brianrw

Member
The context of Clement of Rome is in line with Israel and the fathers of Romans 9.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are referenced in Romans 9 and by Clement.

You think too atomistically.
Your assertion is extraordinary for the data presented. "According to the flesh," found in multiple places of scripture, is always in connection which Christ's ancestry and "be glory forever (and ever)," also found in multiple passages of scriptures, is a typical Hebrew doxology (similar forms are in Psalm 72:19, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Peter 5:11, 2 Peter 3:18, Rev. 1:6); such forms are used sometimes of the Father and sometime of the Son. The immediate context is of Abraham, specifically, and the lineal ancestry of Christ according to the flesh is a common thread in the New Testament.

Usually allusions to verses take a much more recognizable form, and you need to have enough information to distinguish a particular passage of scripture. Here, you require that Clement refers to the construction of Romans 9:5 by using words found in other passages of scripture ("according to the flesh" and "be glory for ever and ever.") In addition, the proximity of the doxology occurs at the end of the paragraph, two or three sentences later. Burkitt's argument is that Clement sees here a doxology to the Father, if I'm following correctly, and nothing here truly warrants that.

I could accept, with stated reservation, that "according to the flesh" in context may be a reference to this place in Romans 9:5, but nothing warrants a further inference as to how he reads the passage after that. The doxology follows after a thought speaking of our justification in Christ Jesus, not a statement about Christ Himself.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
I showed you va
Your assertion is extraordinary for the data presented. "According to the flesh," found in multiple places of scripture, is always in connection which Christ's ancestry and "be glory forever (and ever)," also found in multiple passages of scriptures, is a typical Hebrew doxology (similar forms are in Psalm 72:19, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Peter 5:11, 2 Peter 3:18, Rev. 1:6); such forms are used sometimes of the Father and sometime of the Son. The immediate context is of Abraham, specifically, and the lineal ancestry of Christ according to the flesh is a common thread in the New Testament.

Checked one.
1 Peter 5:11 has nothing about “according to the flesh” and nothing about Abraham, it does have a doxology.

Why give me off-topic verses?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 5&version=KJV

Burkitt understands this far better than you obviously.
 

Brianrw

Member
Checked one.
1 Peter 5:11 has nothing about “according to the flesh” and nothing about Abraham, it does have a doxology.

Why give me off-topic verses?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 5&version=KJV

Burkitt understands this far better than you obviously.
Burkitt takes a passage that is divided into two subjects and truncates it in such a way as to give the impression that the doxology closely follows the statement about Christ's lineage in the flesh. In fact, after speaking of Christ's lineage, he changes the subject to us and goes on to speak about our justification, and having commented on our justification, delivers a doxology to God. So as I say again, your assertion here is extraordinary.

Regarding the "off-topic verse," the key words in that list are "similar forms," which is in the quote you provide, supporting the fact that doxologies are not uncommon, take various forms, and are not all tied to a single passage of scripture. I will refer you back to my earlier comment, where the material examples were already listed:
The qualification (τὸ) κατὰ σάρκα "according to the flesh" as concerning the descent of Christ is not only found in Romans 9:5, but also in Acts 2:30 and Romans 1:3, 4. "To whom be glory for ever and ever" is the same construction we find in Galatians 1:5, 2 Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 13:21 and a variation in Romans 11:36, not Romans 9:5. There's nothing in the passage that warrants the conclusion that the allusion here is to Romans 9:5, much less that it "strengthens the allusion and puts Clement in the non-apposition camp."
I bolded what you have avoided altogether. I went on to offer "similar forms" of the Hebrew doxology, so it seems you are avoiding the material examples altogether and going straight to the "similar forms" where you pretend to find fault. Here is the Greek:
1. Ὃ ἐάν τις καθ’ ἓν ἕκαστον εἰλικρινῶς κατανοήσῃ, ἐπιγνώσεται μεγαλεῖα τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ δεδομένων δωρεῶν.​
2. Ἐξ αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἱερεῖς καὶ λευῗται πάντες οἱ λειτουργοῦντες τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ τοῦ θεοῦ· ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· ἐξ αὐτοῦ βασιλεῖς καὶ ἄρχοντες καὶ ἡγούμενοι κατὰ τὸν Ἰούδαν· τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ σκῆπτρα αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐν μικρᾷ δόξῃ ὑπάρχουσιν, ὡς ἐπαγγειλαμένου τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι· «Ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.»​
3. Πάντες οὖν ἐδοξάσθησαν καὶ ἐμεγαλύνθησαν οὐ δι’ αὐτῶν ἢ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν ἢ τῆς δικαιοπραγίας ἧς κατειργάσαντο, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ.​
4. Καὶ ἡμεῖς οὖν, διὰ θελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κληθέντες, οὐ δι’ ἑαυτῶν δικαιούμεθα οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας σοφίας ἢ συνέσεως ἢ εὐσεβείας ἢ ἔργων ὧν κατειργασάμεθα ἐν ὁσιότητι καρδίας, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς πίστεως, δι’ ἧς πάντας τοὺς ἀπ’ αἰῶνος ὁ παντοκράτωρ θεὸς ἐδικαίωσεν· ᾧ ἔστω ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.

Therefore, you insist that:

ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ...(skip several sentences and a subject change)... δι’ ἧς πάντας τοὺς ἀπ’ αἰῶνος ὁ παντοκράτωρ θεὸς ἐδικαίωσεν· ᾧ ἔστω ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.​

Is "strong evidence" that Clement read:
ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων. θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν​
Again, this is an extraordinary assumption.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
It's far too thinly supported for any critical endeavor, and one I feel is absolutely unwarranted regarding the present inquiry. However, I fixed the comment above to reflect your previous post.

Your main sources themselves stop far shy of "strong evidence of usage."

Burkitt notes there "appears to be a reminiscence of Rom. ix 5," which does not warrant the conclusion that it presents "strong evidence." Your other source, Benjamin Hall Kennedy (p. 22), is also far more reserved on the matter, that it is "affording some presumption (I do not say 'proof') that he found a pause in St Paul's thought here." Note that some presumption is not "strong evidence" at all and pause in thought does not certainly indicate a doxology to the Father followed since a pause in thought already accompanies, "who is over all, God blessed for ever." The purpose seems to be more about superseding the testimony of Irenaeus, where he notes, "Clement wrote nearly a century before Irenaeus, who, for the first time"--note that this is actually the first known quotation of Romans 9:5--"cited Rom. ix. 5 in proof of Christ's divine nature."
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Graham Harter might help you here.
He shows that Clement definitely uses Romans.
Something I both know already and never disputed. I said that the place you say he refers to Romans 9:5 does not include anything specific to Romans 9:5, and the context does not allow the assertion that he saw in it a doxology to the Father. The reason it's popping up on people's radars is that Philip Schaff left a "compare" footnote in the English edition. Otherwise, I doubt it would have at all. Two words certainly is not a sure hit on Romans 9:5.

There should be virtually no doubt that according to the flesh comes from one of the two Romans verses. While I believe 9 fits better, it does not really matter, Clement had Romans in front of him, all chapters.
You don't have enough certain information on Clement to form the assertion that he read here a doxology to the Father. You need to dial that claim back. I'm not interested in further discussion, the rationale is already laid out above.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Two words certainly is not a sure hit on Romans 9:5.

Graham Harter says it is a sure hit on Romans 1:3 or 9:5. (Acts is extremely unlikely.)
I tend to agree.

The Israelite, Abrahamic context fits the ninth chapter.

It must be included in any good survey or ECW and Romans 9:5.
 

Brianrw

Member
Graham Harter says it is a sure hit on Romans 1:3 or 9:5. (Acts is extremely unlikely.)
I tend to agree.

The Israelite, Abrahamic context fits the ninth chapter.

It must be included in any good survey or ECW and Romans 9:5.
I would draw a comparative reference here to Romans 9:5, but I would not abuse it to assert what some of these authors are doing here nor would I state with any certainty he had this passage in mind while writing. The fact remains that there is nothing in Clement's passage that warrants the assertion that he reads Romans 9:5 as a doxology to the Father. At all. Rather, Clement goes on to change the subject to us (and no longer Christ) and comments on our justification. And having commented on our justification, he offers up a doxology of praise to Almighty God.
 
Top