Resurrection in 1 Clement
(avg. read time: 8–16 mins.)
As we continue through the Apostolic Fathers in our survey of resurrection belief in the Early Church, today we address 1 Clement. This work is often dated to the first century (though some might push it to the early second century), and I regard it as being roughly contemporaneous with the NT. It was written by Clement of Rome, who was consecrated by Peter, and he is traditionally identified as the Clement of Phil 4:3, who was a coworker of Paul. Indeed, one commonality he has with the latter apostle is that this text was addressed to the assembly of Christians in Corinth.
It is interesting that, as with 2 Corinthians, if there remained any obdurate deniers of the resurrection among the Corinthians, they are not directly addressed in this letter. We do not have enough information to determine why exactly this is the case. But it is noteworthy that for as significant a problem as it was for Paul in 1 Cor 15, it is not addressed here or in Paul’s later letter to the Corinthians. The letter as a whole addresses problems of schisms like in 1 Corinthians (including rebellion against leaders appointed by the apostles themselves; 44:2–6), but this particular problem is not identified as a cause.
Clement addresses the problems of schisms and what leads to them in a rather holistic way by addressing numerous issues connected with schism including rivalry, jealousy, humility, respecting authority (ultimately rooted in considerations of the character and power of God), obedience/faithfulness, repentance, examples of the revered leaders of the past, the nature of the Church, and eschatological motivation for actions in the present. The influence of the works that constitute the NT are especially apparent in 13:1–3; 34:7–8; 36.1–2; and 46.8–9, but it is by no means restricted to those texts. He also refers to the OT numerous times, including texts that we will survey here.
In fact, the first pertinent reference to resurrection combines elements of NT influence and the appeals to examples from nature that Clement uses in his arguments (20; 23:3–4; 33). In a way that is somewhat similar to how Paul uses the principles of creation in 1 Cor 15:36–41, he directs his readers to how the Master continually points to the fact that there will be a future resurrection (ἀνάστασις; 24:1). The first demonstration is the Lord Jesus Christ himself, who he made the first fruits (ἀπαρχή) of that resurrection by “raising him from the dead” (ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστήσας; 24:1). We have here not only an example of resurrection phrases using ἐκ νεκρῶν, but also the use of the imagery of the “first fruits” of resurrection that links this text with 1 Cor 15:20 and 23.1 The subsequent demonstrations he points to are from nature. He speaks of the figurative resurrection (ἀνάστασις) that happens at seasons (24:2) as well as of how day and night show the same (24:3). He also points to the examples of crops (24:4–5), as the sower casts his seed, they fall into the ground dry and bare/naked and decay, but the providence (πρόνοια) of the Master resurrects (ἀνίστημι) them (24:5), so that they increase and bear fruit.
These examples from nature show that God’s action in raising Jesus from the dead and his future work of raising others are consistent with his creative providence in other ways, just as his work as Creator is linked with his work as Lord/King, Judge, and Savior. As noted above, this is similar to what we can find in 1 Cor 15:36–38, as well as John 12:24. While each of those texts use seed imagery for how God brings new life out of death (specifically Jesus’s death in John), the resurrection connection is not explicit in Jesus’s saying, as his saying is focused on fruitfulness from death rather than the particular seed being “made alive,” as in Paul, although this latter aspect does seem to have influence on Clement’s expression here and later. Furthermore, Paul’s statement is part of a larger point that he proceeds to articulate in vv. 37–38 about sowing, reaping, the body produced, and how the entirety is subject to the creative purpose of God, which exerts a more extensive influence on Clement’s argumentation.2
With how Clement’s argument is structured, he is working backward from belief in resurrection. Note that his first demonstration is Jesus’s own resurrection as a first fruits guarantee of the general resurrection. As in Paul’s argument, such terminology would be readily comprehensible for the audience, given the general religious significance of offering the first/best part of something to a deity for the purpose of dedication and consecration.3 It also had particular significance for Paul’s Jewish background in the Jewish cult (Exod 23:16, 19a; Lev 23:10–15; Num 18:11–18; Deut 18:4; 26:2, 10; 2 Chr 31:5; Prov 3:9), including in its renewal after the Babylonian exile (Neh 10:35–37; Tob 1:6–7; Jdt 11:13; Sir 7:31; 35:10; 45:20; Josephus, A.J. 12.50; 16.172–173) and in eschatological hopes (Ezek 44:30; 11QTa XVIII–XIX), which comports with Clement’s proclivity for citing the OT elsewhere, including what we will see shortly. Scholars have often noted the suggestiveness of this imagery of first fruits, the significance of which Anthony Thiselton has summarized well as involving, “(1) prior temporality; (2) representation of the same quality or character; and (3) promise or pledge of more of the same kind to come.”4 One may add to this list the sense of a priority of “rank” (combined with the use of τάγμα in v. 23): the first fruits represents the first, choice, and best parts of the harvest as a whole (cf. Exod 34:26; Jer 2:3; Hos 9:10). Paul thus explains—and Clement takes up—the unprecedented division of the eschatological resurrection into two parts while still maintaining the connection between Jesus’s resurrection with the resurrection of the faithful as one event through the use of this image of Jesus as the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep (once again illustrating the temporariness of the state in light of the resurrection). Jesus is the first part of the resurrection in both time and rank, the representative of what is yet to come, and the pledge that the rest of the harvest of resurrection of those who sleep will indeed come.
Paul is thus extending—and Clement is taking up—the logic of 1 Cor 15:12–19, so that one sees here a portrayal of the reasoning for the inextricable link of Jesus’s resurrection with the general resurrection. There is no harvest without first fruits, a promise of more to come. Conversely, there is no first fruits without the harvest, for in such a case the first fruits would be a lie, a false promise. But since Christ has in fact risen, he is the promise of more to come, for a hope beyond this life and even this age.
Indeed, outside of this text that influences 1 Clement, one can see how Clement is consistent with how the rest of the NT. After all, the NT often declares that Jesus’s resurrection was the first piece of the eschatological reality, that the new creation and the new human family—consisting of both Jews and gentiles—began with Jesus (Acts 3:15–21; 26:23; Rom 8:11, 23, 28–29; 2 Cor 1:22; 4:13–5:5; Eph 1:14, 19–20; Phil 3:19–21; Col 1:18; 1 Thess 4:14–15; 5:9–10; Heb 2:14–15; Rev 1:5).5 The imagery in these other texts differ, but the different expressions still articulate some dimension of this common belief. Jesus has inaugurated this eschatological reality by virtue of his becoming the new progenitor in his resurrection.
In Clement’s particular argument, which, as we have noted, is similar to Paul’s appeal to the principles of creation, the resurrection of Jesus illuminates how God works in the created order, which in turn points back to the resurrection as the consummate work of God in creation. Of course, the examples are limited in that they illustrate a cyclical “return to life” and not resurrection in the most literal sense or in its particularly eschatological sense in its sense of transformation for the reception of everlasting life and the complete conquest of death. He does cite something closer to a literal cyclical resurrection with the sign he cites of the phoenix in ch. 25, although he does not use any of the terminology of resurrection there.
After citing such examples, Clement again suggests that it is consistent and not especially surprising if the Creator of all things should perform resurrection (ἀνάστασις) for those devoutly subjected to him in the assurance of good faith when he uses a bird to illustrate the greatness/majesty of his promise (26:1). In addition to driving his point home about resurrection being in line with his “ordinary” providence, Clement cites three scriptures in 26:2–3 in support of the promise of resurrection. The first—“And you shall raise me up [ἐξανίστημι], and I will praise/confess you”—is not directly drawn from any known Greek version of the OT and thus cannot be precisely linked with any specific text. The closest appears to be Ps 28:7 (27:7 LXX). It is possible that he is paraphrasing a text that refers to the revival of the subject’s (David’s) flesh, or he may have had access to a translation that is no longer extant. The key term is not used specifically for resurrection in the NT, but it is used in contexts where it works for a wordplay in a resurrection context (Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28; cf. Matt 22:24). And it obviously could be used for resurrection as a compounded form of ἀνίστημι. The second text—“I laid down and slept, I rose/woke up [ἐξεγείρω] because you are with me”—is drawn, with some possible paraphrasing modification of the last part, from Ps 3:5 (3:6 LXX). Given the aorist tense of the verbs in both the source and the quote of it here, it is possible that Clement means to present this as speech from Jesus or a case where David was speaking prophetically in the persona of Christ. Alternatively, the aorists could be used for a future expressed with confidence of its happening. The key term is used in the NT in reference to resurrection once in 1 Cor 6:14 while the non-compounded verb is the most common way of referring to resurrection in the NT. As sleep in Jewish and Christian texts could refer to death, it is only natural that a term used for waking up and getting up would be used for resurrection (see here and here). The third text, which is explicitly cited from Job—“And you will raise [ἀνίστημι] this flesh of mine, which has patiently borne all these things”—is none other than Job 19:26. While this is not precisely the earliest use of the phrase “resurrection of the flesh” or “raise the flesh” in Christian literature, it is a roundabout use of the phrasing that is drawn directly from the OT to indicate this expectation, and this is the earliest evidence available of this text being used as a reference for resurrection.
As with ch. 24, ch. 26 thus brings together both Clement’s argument from nature and his argument from Scripture. The former involved an allusive use of Paul’s argumentation from 1 Cor 15 while the latter involved explicit quotations of the OT. In modern categories, this could be described as an appeal to both general revelation and special revelation (or in Thomas Aquinas’s case, the order of nature and the order of grace). This particular chapter also exemplifies how some of the earliest Christians, even beyond the scope of the NT, were reading the OT in light of the resurrection of Jesus and the eschatological expectation of their own resurrection, including by looking for key terms that had a sense of resurrection to them.
It should also be noted that chs. 24–26 have a role in the larger theological-ethical instruction of Clement. This is shown by 27:1: “Therefore, in/with this hope let our lives be bound to the one who is faithful in promises and to the one who is just/righteous in judgments.” Clement thereby envelops this exposition on resurrection with ethical exhortations before and after as a motivation to follow said exhortations. There is an expectation of resurrection and final judgment because of God’s promises and because of what he has done already in Jesus Christ. The expectation is that the faithful and holy ones will be raised up and vindicated like Jesus himself was because of their union with him.
While chs. 24–26 are the main resurrection section in the work, there are other references to consider. The first is from 42:3. There, Clement speaks of how the apostles received their orders, being fully convinced by the resurrection (ἀνάστασις) of our Lord Jesus Christ and confident in God’s word. Thus, they went out in the full conviction of the Holy Spirt to proclaim the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.
The reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit gives this statement a Trinitarian character. This also upholds what we see in the NT of the connection between Jesus’s resurrection and the commissioning of the apostles through his appearances to them. The word of God is probably meant to encapsulate multiple levels of significance, such as the gospel they were to proclaim, the promise of what was to come, Scripture as a whole, and so on (see here for more). The work of the Holy Spirit is, of course, reminiscent of Acts. As we have gone over elsewhere (especially here), there is in 1 Clement as in various parts of the NT a clear link between the resurrection of Jesus, as well as the general resurrection, and the coming of the kingdom of God (also see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here; cf. here). The resurrection to everlasting life is an eschatological event, and it is thus linked with the coming of the kingdom of God, and Jesus’s own resurrection was the first fruits of that resurrection. Moreover, the context of his resurrection involved God vindicating his claims, which were focused on the kingdom of God, and the resurrection itself was the climactic visible and concrete occurrence of its inbreaking reality, after which Jesus ascended into heaven to sit on his throne at the right hand of the Father. Thus, the apostles had plenty of reason to proclaim with confidence the gospel of the kingdom through proclaiming the crucified, risen, and exalted King Jesus. Clement shows that he is consistent with these NT themes and teachings.
The second reference to note outside of the main block is 50:3–4. This is another case intertwined with ethical exhortation as he calls on his audience to implore God to grant them love and perfect/complete them in it (50:1–2). He then says, “All the generations from Adam until this day have passed on, but the ones who were completed in love according to the grace of God have a place among the godly, the ones who will appear in the visitation of the kingdom of God” (50:3). The motivation given here for holy, loving living is to be counted among those who will be with Christ when his kingdom comes. If they have already died, the obvious implication is that they appear with him because they have been resurrected (as we already saw with the Didache and its use of Zech 14:5). This is made clearer by the quote in 50:4 introduced with “For it is written,” which is a combination of Isa 26:20 and Ezek 37:12. Both come from resurrection texts of the OT (the translation of the latter using ἀνίστημι), though the former is directly after an explicit resurrection reference in 26:19.
A final explicit reference is part of a brief text in 59:3. Among a list of acts that the Lord is acknowledged as doing that identify him as the one who is the foundation of hope, he is said to be the one who kills and the one who makes alive (τὸν ἀποκτείνοντα καὶ ζῆν ποιοῦντα). This is drawn, with grammatical modification for the context (to make the verbs participles), from Deut 32:39.
Additionally, there is an implicit reference we should note from ch. 35. Clement writes of the gifts of God, including splendor with righteousness, truth with boldness, faith with assurance/trust, and self-control with holiness. But at the head of this list is “life with immortality” (35:2). This life is the life of the age to come, the life associated with the eschatological resurrection of the righteous, the divine life that utterly conquers every trace of death (1 Cor 15:53–54), the sole possession of God (1 Tim 6:16) that he will share with others in the age to come. That is the inheritance of all the faithful at the eschaton, though for those who die before the Second Coming, resurrection will be necessary to the fulfillment of the promise of immortality (i.e., everlasting life). Believers currently have the surety of this life in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The context of this declaration also shows the theological-ethical function of these gifts in Clement’s argument. It supports what Clement has said in ch. 34 about being eager in doing what is good (another way of expressing the idea of being vigilant in one’s conduct) in expectation of the coming of the Lord. And as with other references like chs. 24–26 and 50, the gifts and the promises are motivation for conduct, as seen with 35:4: “Therefore, let us strive to be found in the number of those who persevere for him, so that we may have a share in the promised gifts.”
More distantly, 1 Clem 37:3 and 41:1 have sometimes been identified as allusions to v. 23, with their references to “each in his own rank.”
For more on the comparison and contrast of the texts from Paul and John, see David R. Kirk, “Seeds and Bodies: Cosmology, Anthropology and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15:35–49” (PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 2015), 115–16.
Joost Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15, NovTSup 84 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 49–50; Gerhard Delling, “ἀπαρχή,” TDNT 1:484–85.
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 1224 (emphases original). Cf. Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, SP 7 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 548; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, AB 32 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 674–75; Terri Moore, The Mysteries, Resurrection, and 1 Corinthians 15: Comparative Methodology and Contextual Exegesis (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books; Fortress Academic, 2018), 110–11; Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor. 15,1-16,24), EKKNT 7/4 (Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001), 160–61. On the last point of significance, see particularly Tertullian, Res. 51.
On Rom 8:23 specifically, Joel White argues that the phrase τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος is an allusion to Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 15:20. Joel R. White, “Christ’s Resurrection Is the Spirit’s Firstfruits (Romans 8,23),” Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue, ed. Geert Van Oyen and Tom Shepherd, BETL 249 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 300–302.