Patrimōnium

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕𝐈: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐏𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐋𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐁𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐀𝐁𝐀𝐒

𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐃𝐔𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍


We now come unto the work called the Epistle of Barnabas, an anonymous early Christian writing which was likely composed sometime between 70-120 AD, placing it within that early period in which the destruction of the Temple and those who still stood considerably close to the Apostolic age.

Although later tradition attached the name of Barnabas unto this epistle, the writing itself never identifies its author by name, nor does the author present himself as an Apostle. In fact, he deliberately lowers himself before those to whom he writes, saying:

But I, not as though I were a teacher, but as one of yourselves, will show forth a few things…

This makes confusion of attributions in which later traditions may speak with greater certainty concerning the identity and authority of the author than the author ever speaks concerning himself. He does not introduce himself as Barnabas, as an Apostle, or even as a teacher.

Ad fontes.

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐂𝐋𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍


Having now come to the conclusion of Clement's first epistle, I find myself thinking less about the individual passages we have examined and more about the great distance which exists between the Christianity in which Clement lived and that which surrounds us today. Not merely a distance of centuries, language or custom, but a distance of remembrance, in which Clement could speak of the fathers as our fathers, of Israel as the inheritance of God, of Jacob as His portion, and of the generations from Adam unto his own day without feeling the need to explain why these things should matter to a Christian. It is almost foreign to us now. We have inherited a Christianity in which so much of what came before has become distant, abstract and impersonal; in which the fathers have become characters upon the pages of a Bible rather than men whose lives remain within our remembrance; in which inheritance has become little more than a theological expression, and the ancient people, tribes, covenants and generations are too often treated as the preface to Christianity rather than the history through which Christianity itself came unto us.

Yet when I read Clement, I do not find this cold separation. I find a man speaking with love and reverence concerning those who came before him, in which Adam is still our father, Abraham is still our father, Jacob is still our father, and in which their lives are worthy of being remembered because something of ourselves is understood through remembering them. Clement reaches backward because he has not forgotten, and he tells those before him to do the same because remembrance itself carries an obligation: “Therefore let us also” act in accordance to them.

Perhaps this is what has moved me the most throughout this series. There is something profoundly human within knowing that we did not simply appear here; that there were fathers before us who struggled, suffered, wandered, sinned, repented, endured and hoped, in which the faith we now possess came through generations of people who carried these things before we ever breathed. There is something beautiful within belonging to a history greater than ourselves, in which we are not the beginning, and God willing, we shall not be the end.

And this is where I believe the modern Church has lost something which cannot simply be replaced with another sermon, another program, or another theological system. We have become remarkably good at speaking about ourselves while forgetting those who came before us. We speak endlessly of identity while severing ourselves from remembrance; of inheritance while forgetting those through whom anything was inherited at all. Clement knew better. For him remembrance demanded something from the living. The fathers were not remembered so that their names might merely decorate a page. Their faithfulness was to be imitated, their failures remembered, their suffering carried forward as strength for those who would themselves suffer, and their hope received by another generation, in which one generation takes into its hands what another carried and is then charged with carrying it further.

And this is why I have grown to love these writings so deeply. Because beneath the Greek, beneath the manuscripts, beneath every word we have stopped to examine, there is our people and an inheritance in which men lived and died believing that what God had entrusted unto them was worth preserving for those who would come after them. And now we are those who came after them. One day, God willing, we shall ourselves be those who came before. So perhaps the greatest thing Clement has reminded me of is simply this: remember.

God bless everyone, the next series will continue Clement in his second epistle or I will move to Barnabas; if you wish to know the direction for the next series; you can read about it at this post here.

Ad fontes.
Beginning of Series V

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕.𝟏𝟏: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐖𝐄𝐋𝐕𝐄-𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐁𝐄𝐃 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄


I have been examining the Codex Alexandrinus alongside Lightfoot's translation of Clement, and one important nuance I noticed when examining passage 55:6, which we looked over in V.10, is that Lightfoot smooths over Clement's wording in a way that can obscure what Clement is actually saying. Clement was one of the earliest witnesses we have to the apostolic generation, and his account is important when examining the historical setting of the Persian diaspora. Yet because of the way this passage is commonly translated, people such as William Finck, Scot McKnight and others have dismissed Clement's testimony without first examining the earliest textual witness to his writing. The account of Esther must first be understood within the setting of the Persian diaspora. Israel was not gathered together in one place in the land during this account. The Judeans were dispersed throughout the Persian Empire. Haman describes them as “a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom.” Esther 8:9 likewise describes the provinces “from India unto Ethiopia, an hundred twenty and seven provinces.”

Being scattered throughout the Persian provinces did not erase their identity. Esther itself gives us a specific tribal identification when Mordecai is introduced as “a Judean, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite.” The book therefore preserves an actual tribal lineage while describing a people living throughout the Persian Empire. Esther herself was a Judean woman raised by Mordecai, her cousin, who had taken her as his own daughter after her parents died. Mordecai belonged to the family of those who had been carried away from Jerusalem in the exile and is explicitly identified as a Benjamite. Esther's own tribal designation is not given, but her family and people are clearly situated within this Judean diaspora under Persian rule.

This is why Clement's wording in 55:6 matters. Esther was not acting to save a people gathered together in one place away from the Holy Land. The decree concerned the remnant of Judeans which resided in Judah scattered throughout the Persian dominion, it was not only the tribe of Judah who was apart of the Judean population. Their location was the Persian diaspora, while their identity remained Israel. The twelve-tribed designation therefore describes who the people were. It also does not mean that all twelve tribes were physically present in every province, but that the dispersed people were still understood as the twelve-tribed people of Israel. Clement therefore writes that Esther exposed herself to peril “that she might deliver the twelve-tribed [people] of Israel.” The Persian dispersion describes where they were; Clement's twelve-tribed language describes who they were.

The reading preserved in Codex Alexandrinus is particular and completely different than most English interpretations of the same passage.

ἵνα τὸ δωδεκάφυλον Ἰσραὴλ μέλλον ἀπολέσθαι ῥύσηται

The word δωδεκάφυλον is formed from δώδεκα, “twelve,” and φυλή, “tribe.” It means “twelve-tribed,” functioning here as a substantive description of the people. Clement is therefore describing Israel according to its twelve-tribed identity. This is different from simply writing δώδεκα φυλαί, “twelve tribes.” The Codex Alexandrinus reading shows δωδεκάφυλον as a description of the people themselves: the twelve-tribed Israel.When we examine the historical account, Esther is acting during the Persian dispersion, when Israelites from the various tribes remained scattered throughout the empire. Clement's language follows that setting rather than adding all tribes of Israel to it. He presents Esther as risking herself for the preservation of the Israelite people, and then takes her conduct as an example for his own readers.

Ad fontes.
V.10

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕.𝟏𝟎: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐎𝐰𝐧


Having now examined Clement’s appeal to the fathers and his application of their examples to the Corinthian Church, we now come to a passage where Clement distinguishes two different peoples and eventually brings the comparison inward: “We know that many among ourselves have delivered themselves to bondage, that they might ransom others.” From there Clement continues through examples of self-sacrifice, including women who, through the grace of God, performed “many manly deeds.” He then gives two examples by name: Judith and Esther. Judith exposed herself to danger for the sake of her country and her people, and the Lord delivered Holophernes into her hand. Esther likewise exposed herself to peril, acting “that she might deliver the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Clement doesn't leave these examples as distant accounts of ancient heroes. He brings the exhortation directly back upon his readers: “Therefore let us also make intercession for them that are in any transgression.” These examples are meant to be imitations for them. Clement moves from the examples of Gentiles, to those “among ourselves,” and then to the Corinthian readers themselves. The progression is important because Judith and Esther are not merely introduced as examples of personal courage; they are examples of women who acted for the sake of their people, with Esther explicitly acting to deliver “the twelve tribes of Israel.” Clement then takes that example of intercession and applies it directly to the conduct expected of his own readers.

Clement writes:

But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions. We know that many among ourselves have delivered themselves to bondage, that they might ransom others. Many have sold themselves to slavery, and receiving the price paid for themselves have fed others. Many women being strengthened through the grace of God have performed many manly deeds. The blessed Judith, when the city was beleaguered, asked of the elders that she might be suffered to go forth into the camp of the aliens. So she exposed herself to peril and went forth for love of her country and of her people which were beleaguered; and the Lord delivered Holophernes into the hand of a woman. To no less peril did Esther also, who was perfect in faith, expose herself, that she might deliver the twelve tribes of Israel, when they were on the point to perish. For through her fasting and her humiliation she entreated the all seeing Master, the God of the ages; and He, seeing the humility of her soul, delivered the people for whose sake she encountered the peril. Therefore let us also make intercession for them that are in any transgression, that forbearance and humility may be given them, to the end that they may yield not unto us, but unto the will of God.

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 55.1-6; 56.1, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

He distinguishes “Gentiles” from “among ourselves,” showing that Israelite heritage is present with the people of Corinth. He presents Judith and Esther before turning to “let us also,” carrying the examples forward until they reach his own readers. The sequence is therefore not simply a collection of examples, but a movement from what others have done, to what their own people have done, and finally to what they themselves ought now to do. Clement places the conduct of the present community within the example of those who came before them, making the deeds of their ancestors a pattern for how they themselves are to act according to their ancestors; not comparing coming out of Egypt metaphors of deliverance from evil spirits like the modern church preaches to validate their spiritual Israel.

Ad fontes.
V.9

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕.𝟗: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤


Having examined Clement’s language concerning Adam, Abraham, Jacob, and Israel, connecting the old preisthood in no new fashion with the apostolic ministry, we now come to the manner in which Clement applies the history of the fathers to the people of Corinth once again; Clement admonishes them by speaking of their ancestors examples. Clement does not merely recall Adam and Moses as figures belonging to a distant past. He brings their history forward into his exhortation to the present congregation, placing the Corinthians within the same historical framework through which he has already spoken of our fathers.

Clement writes:

Who is sufficient to be found therein, save those to whom God shall vouchsafe it? Let us therefore entreat and ask of His mercy, that we may be found blameless in love, standing apart from the factiousness of men. All the generations from Adam unto this day have passed away: but they that by God's grace were perfected in love dwell in the abode of the pious; and they shall be made manifest in the visitation of the Kingdom of God.

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 50.2, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

Clement’s language is significant: “from Adam unto this day.” He takes the history beginning with Adam and carries it through the generations into the present. The fathers are therefore not merely historical examples separated from Clement’s audience; their history forms the very framework by which Clement now instructs those before him.

Clement then turns to Moses:

When Moses went up into the mountain and had spent forty days and forty nights in fasting and humiliation, God said unto him;

Moses, Moses, come down , quickly hence, for My people whom thou leadest forth from the land of Egypt have wrought iniquity: they have transgressed quickly out of the way which thou didst command unto them: they have made for themselves molten images.

.

— 1 Clement 53.2, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

Again, the language is direct: “my people.” Clement does not say merely that Moses was an example to the people of his own generation. He brings Moses forward as an example for those whom he is addressing in Corinth. The history of Moses therefore remains applicable to the present congregation.

Clement then brings this exhortation directly back to the Church:

Let him say; If by reason of me there be faction and strife and divisions, I retire, I depart, whither ye will, and I do that which is ordered by the people: only let the

flock of Christ

be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters.

— 1 Clement 54.2, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

Here the connection becomes particularly astounding. Clement has moved from the generations beginning with Adam, to Moses, and then directly to the flock of Christ at Corinth. The history of the fathers is not being presented as a detached history belonging to another people; Clement uses that history to instruct the present Church. This continues the same language Clement has already established throughout the letter. He has called Adam “our father,” Abraham “our father,” and spoken of Jacob, Israel, and the fathers in terms of inheritance and lineage. Now, when he exhorts Corinth, he reaches backward into that same history once more and tells them to learn from those who came before them. The movement is therefore not from one people to an entirely unrelated people, but from the fathers to their present descendants in the faith and congregation before Clement. Adam begins the generations; Moses provides the example; and Clement brings that history forward to the flock of Christ at Corinth. The fathers therefore remain relevant to the people Clement is addressing. Their history is not laid waste nor is it as the universalist put it, but it's the very history Clement uses to instruct the present generation which our fathers hail.

Ad fontes.
V.8

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕.𝟖: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐧𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐅𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐨𝐧


Having examined Clement’s language concerning Adam, Abraham, Jacob, and the language of “according to the flesh,” we now come to his description of the apostolic ministry and its continuity with the order established before it. Clement presents this within the language of a continuing covenant—yet one established by God as new for this generation, the covenant of which Jeremiah spoke, wherein God would write His law upon the hearts of His people. It is within this covenant that we now stand; the breath of life proceeding through us and not merely through our fathers, that we may become priests and judges over the Kingdom which is to come. Yet Clement is right to distinguish what is new in covenantal establishment from what would be new as an invention or departure from the order God had already established.

Clement writes:

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits, having proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons many years before.”

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 42.4–5, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

The Greek reads:

καὶ οὐ καινῶς τοῦτο ποιήσαντες

“and doing this not newly.”

The word καινῶς (kainōs), from καινός (kainos), denotes what is new or novel. Clement’s point is therefore that the Apostles were not introducing a new fashion when they appointed ministers. The appointment was not an invention detached from what God had already established. What is particularly important is what Clement does immediately afterward. He appeals to Moses, and the priesthood—our fathers who preceded Clement and shows the pattern God established.

Clement writes:

“For when Moses had received commandment, and the tribes contended, who should be glorified, and who should be called to the priesthood, he commanded the twelve chiefs of the tribes to bring him their rods…”

— 1 Clement 43.2, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

Clement then recounts how Levi’s rod blossomed, demonstrating whom God had chosen for priestly ministry, significantly that Clement does not merely mention the priesthood as an example of religious leadership. He brings forward the divinely established order given through Moses and Aaron immediately after declaring that the Apostles’ appointment of ministers was “not in any new fashion.” The earlier priesthood therefore becomes the pattern Clement uses to explain the order established in his own generation.

Clement then returns to the Apostles:

“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention over the name of the bishopric. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterward they provided a continuance, that if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”

— 1 Clement 44.1–2, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

Clement places the apostolic appointment and succession of ministers alongside the earlier divinely ordered priesthood. The point is not that Clement establishes the later Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, whereby the episcopal office itself is understood to descend in an unbroken succession from the Apostles through episcopal ordination. Rather, Clement appeals to the Apostles’ appointment and succession of ministers as an example of the priestly order; the Apostles did not establish something foreign to what came before—Clement has just told us they did this “not in any new fashion.” This is where the universalist reading loses its footing. If the former order were obsolete, forgotten, or discarded, there would be little reason for Clement to explain the apostolic ministry by appealing to the priesthood. He does the opposite, reaching backward to the order God established among our fathers to explain the order now seen among the Apostles.

Ad fontes.
V.7

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕.𝟕: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐡


Having examined Clement’s use of “our father” in the previous study, we now encounter another important expression in his discussion of ancestral descent: τὸ κατὰ σάρκα — “according to the flesh.” Which I originally quote in Our Father Jacob


To recap the exact quote:

For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who in minister unto the altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh; of him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea and the rest of his tribes are held in no small honor, seeing that God promised saying, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.

— 1 Clement 32.2, trans. J.B. Lightfoot

The referent is Jacob. Clement is describing what proceeds from Jacob and then identifies The Lord Joshua as being “from him according to the flesh.”


The passage then concludes with the promise concerning σπέρμα:

Ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

“Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.”

Next, I will examine a quote from the Apostle Paul which uses the same langague regarding his kinsman, who Christ pertains to.


The apostolic parallel in Paul:

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came…

— Romans 9:3-5



Paul writes:

τοὺς ἀδελφούς μου τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου κατὰ σάρκα

“my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh”

The parallel is concrete because both writers connect Christ and our fathers according to the flesh with ancestral language.


Clement writes:

ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα

“from him the Lord Jesus according to the flesh.”

Paul writes:

ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα

“from whom is the Christ according to the flesh.”

In both passages, ἐκ + genitive expresses origin — “from him/from whom” — while κατὰ σάρκα specifies the mode of relationship being described.


The same language also appears alongside fatherhood which we just examined in the V.6:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father , as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

— Romans 4:1


The Textus Receptus reads:

Ἀβραὰμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν … κατὰ σάρκα

“Abraham our father according to the flesh.”

The critical text reads:

Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα

“Abraham our forefather according to the flesh.”

Whether πατέρα or προπάτορα is read, the expression connects Abraham’s ancestral relationship with κατὰ σάρκα.


The apostolic vocabulary therefore contains several distinctly related ways of describing identity in which Clement’s statement in 1 Clement 32:2 belongs naturally within this vocabulary of lineage and no other. His statement that “of Jacob is the Lord Jesus according to the flesh” is made while discussing Jacob’s descendants, Judah, the tribes, and the promised seed.

The phrase κατὰ σάρκα inherently deserves to be read in its immediate genealogical contexts rather than detached from the surrounding language of our fathers and to which we descend from. As the modern church has institutionalized the phraseology of "flesh vs spirit" to not live by the flesh, but the spirit; which I deny not, they erroneously also group this understanding among them to promote their spiritual Israel allowing non-adamic individuals to believe that they pertain to the adoption and have inherited the covenant of Abraham as if God went back on his promise and lied to our fathers solely on the basis of the men of Judah rejecting Christ.

Ad fontes.
V.6

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕.𝟔: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲

Covering the topics of: V.3 V.4 V.5

Having now examined Clement’s references to Adam, Abraham, and Jacob, we can turn to the language itself. Rather than assuming what Clement means when he calls these figures “our father,” we should examine the Greek construction he uses and compare it with the same familial language found throughout the New Testament. Clement repeatedly employs the expression:

ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν – “our father.”

The construction is simply put when diagnosing the script which the epistle was original written. πατήρ (patēr) means “father,” while ἡμῶν (hēmōn) is the first-person plural possessive pronoun, “our.” Together, the expression literally carries the sense of “the father of us” or “our father.”

Clement applies this designation to multiple figures within the biblical ancestral history as we discussed previously:

By reason of jealousy our father Jacob ran away from the face of Esau his brother.

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 4.8, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

The Greek reads:

ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰακὼβ
ὁ — the
πατήρ — father
ἡμῶν — of us / our
Ἰακώβ — Jacob

Later

Wherefore was

our father Abraham

blessed? was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 31.2, trans. J. B. Lightfoot


Again, the Greek construction is:

ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ

ὁ — the

πατήρ — father
ἡμῶν — of us / our
Ἀβραάμ — Abraham

And earlier

Jealousy hath estranged wives from their husbands and changed the saying of

our father Adam

, This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 6.3, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἀδάμ

the father of us — Adam.

The pattern is therefore not limited to one patriarch. Clement applies the same familial designation to Adam, Abraham, and Jacob.

The lexical is consequently more precise than simply asking whether πατήρ can mean “father.” In a spiritual sense as the universalists declare; that the anthropoids are grafted into the covenant as they so heretically proclaim. The Greek word possesses a broader semantic range and can refer not only to a literal parent but also to an ancestor or forefather. When Clement applies it to Adam, Abraham, and Jacob, we must therefore examine the relationship being expressed rather than automatically reducing the designation to a spiritual metaphor.

The possessive ἡμῶν — “our” is equally important. Clement does not merely speak of “father Jacob” or “father Abraham.” He says “our father.” The relationship is being expressed collectively: he is father in relation to “us.” And Clement’s surrounding material tells us what these fathers represent. Abraham is followed by Isaac and Jacob; Jacob is connected to the twelve tribes of Israel; and Adam is explicitly identified as the father whose descendants constitute the ancestral beginning of the biblical narrative; Clement is using Adamic language to the people of Corinth because they are Adamic.

Therefore, before examining other terminology such as σπέρμα, γένος, φυλή, within his epistle; we first have to establish what Clement is doing with this repeated familial formula.

This becomes important when we compare Clement with the New Testament within the future discussions, where the patriarchs are described using familial language. Such as Paul, Stephen, James and Peter use similar familial language to express the descent from which those authors and audience come themselves. The same linguistic formation therefore appears across the apostolic writings: a biblical patriarch is identified as “our father” in relation to a collective group—who pertain the adoption, service of the Most High and for why Joshua the Anointed came who is blessed forever. Amen.

Ad fontes.

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕.𝟓: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐉𝐚𝐜𝐨𝐛

In this examination, which will be a little longer since there is many connections to be made within the same sort of langague thought his epistle. Therefore, Clement’s treatment of Jacob gives us another important piece of the picture. Here, Jacob is not mentioned in isolation. Clement places him within the history of God’s people, connecting him to his brother Esau, to the blessing of God, and ultimately to the twelve tribes of Israel. Most importantly for our present study, Clement explicitly calls him “our father Jacob.”

By reason of jealousy our father Jacob ran away from the face of Esau his brother. And it was written concerning him: ‘And Jacob fled into the country of Syria, and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep.’ And ‘Jacob saw Rachel, and loved her, and served for her.’

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 4.8, trans. J. B. Lightfoot


Clement later returns to Jacob when discussing the fathers of the faith:

Jacob with humility departed from his land because of his brother, and went unto Laban and served; and

the twelve tribes of Israel were given unto him

.

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 31.4, trans. J. B. Lightfoot


But Clement’s statement comes afterward:

For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as

concerning the flesh

; of him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea and the rest of his tribes are held in no small honour, forasmuch as God had promised saying, ‘Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.’

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 32.2, trans. J. B. Lightfoot


There is another passage which must be considered alongside:

Let us therefore draw near to Him in holiness of soul, lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him, loving our gracious and merciful Father,

who made us a portion of His elect

. For so it is written, ‘When the Most High divided the nations, when

He scattered the sons of Adam

, He fixed the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. And

His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the measurement of His inheritance

.’ And in another place He saith, ‘Behold,

the Lord taketh unto Himself a people out of the midst of the nations

, as a man taketh the firstfruits of his threshing-floor; and from that people shall come forth the Holy of holies.’

Since then we are a holy portion

, we should do everything that pertains to holiness.

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 29.1-3, trans. J. B. Lightfoot


We can see the common theme attached to the elect of who does the will of God and such as in V.1 and IV.3 that the language of Gods word being written in the hearts is therefore consistent with those who descend from the Israelite race. This gives us an important contextual connection for the study. Clement is using the language of portion, inheritance, Jacob, Israel, and election within the same broader theological idea which seems to echo the same within adjacent texts circulating during the time period. Clement identifies the twelve tribes as proceeding from him, and identifies Israel as God’s inheritance; attaching this identity not only to the people of Corinth but to the Church of Rome as well.

There is without a doubt that Clement’s familial and genealogical language is covenantal identification and actual ancestral continuity. When coupling these three last examinations of Clement it's clear that he is not only attaching Adamic and Abrahamic descent to the people of Corinth but also exalting them as the heirs of the promise concerning Israel. In the next parts of these series before we go back into examining more of Clement's epistle; I will be diving into the language he uses broken down in his original Greek manuscript along with the adjacent language which we can connect to our biblical authors as well.

Ad fontes.
V.4

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕.𝟒: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐦

First, we showed how Clement attaches familial possession to Adam toward the Corinthians, next we are going to examine Clement’s discussion of Abraham which opens another important window into how he and early Christian civilization understands the people of God. Rather than simply citing Abraham as a distant example of faith, Clement refers to him personally as “our father.” He then proceeds through Isaac and Jacob, eventually arriving at the twelve tribes of Israel and Christ’s descent “according to the flesh.”

Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed? was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with confidence of the knowledge of things to come, willingly yielded himself as a sacrifice. Jacob with humility departed from his land because of his brother, and went unto Laban and served; and the twelve tribes of Israel were given unto him.

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 31.2-4, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

Clement then continues:

For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the altar of God; of him is the Lord I Jesus as concerning the flesh; of him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea and the rest of his tribes…

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 32.2, trans. J. B. Lightfoot


The progression of the passage is purposeful. Clement begins with “our father Abraham,” moves through Isaac and Jacob, and then explicitly identifies Jacob as the source of the twelve tribes of Israel. He even describes Christ as being “of him … according to the flesh.”

Thus, Clement is not merely appealing to Abraham for a moral lesson. He places Abraham within a continuing ancestral succession and at the same time, Abraham’s righteousness through faith is precisely what Clement wants his readers to imitate. The passage therefore brings together ancestry and conduct: Abraham is called “our father,” while his faith and righteousness provide the example for those who follow him.

When placed beside Clement’s earlier “our father Adam.” We are now seeing the same familial designation applied to figures occupying successive places within the Adamic ancestral line and attaching it to the people of Corinth, the identification is undeniably striking and clearly shows the nonexistence of universalism within the earliest form of the Christian church, we shall continue our examination of Clement for many more sections within this series as he speaks heavily on succession of the covenant to the church and who it pertains.

Ad fontes.
V.3

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕.𝟑: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦

Here, I present a passage within the 6th chapter of Clement’s letter to the Corinthian Church. Here, Clement is speaking swiftly about how jealousy can corrupt many individuals and how it has even brought division between husbands and wives. In the midst of this exhortation, Clement makes a remarkably simple statement in 6.3 of this quotation below:

By reason of jealousy women being persecuted, after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae, safely reached the goal in the race of faith, and received a noble reward, weak though they were in body. Jealousy hath estranged wives from their husbands and changed the saying of our father Adam, This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Jealousy and strife have overthrown great cities and uprooted great nations. These things, dearly beloved, we write, not only as admonishing you, but also as putting ourselves in remembrance. For we are in the same lists, and the same contest awaiteth us. For this cause let us cleave to those who live in holiness and righteousness: for these are the elect of God.

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 6.2–6.5, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

Though Adam is mentioned as “our father” within Clement’s immediate context, Clement does not end the passage merely by appealing to ancestry. He immediately turns toward conduct and obedience, identifying those who do the Father’s will with the elect. Christ even made this designation to his own country men when his mother and brothers were seeking him out.

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

— Jesus Christ, Gospel according to Matthew 12:50, c. AD 30

Clement therefore holds two ideas together, “our father Adam” and the necessity of walking in holiness and righteousness. The familial designation isn't without significance because Clement places the community within the relationship of “our father,” yet he simultaneously makes clear that being counted among the elect is demonstrated through obedience; those who belong to the Father must do the Father’s will. In other words, the familial relationship establishes who can be numbered within the Father's elect, while obedience identifies those who are numbered among His elect.

Ad fontes.
V.2

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕.𝟐: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐁𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 • 𝐀𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬 • 𝐀𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐢

In our examination of Irenaeus, we established that the language of ἀδελφοί (adelphoi), “brethren,” belongs to the vocabulary of familial relationship. Clement gives us another form of this same lexical family when he speaks of “the whole brotherhood.” Clement uses an accumulated 31 times of the same various vocabulary.

Greek noun

ἀδελφότης
adelphotēs
“brotherhood

Related noun

ἀδελφός    
adelphos
“brother”

Plural

ἀδελφοί
adelphoi
“brothers / brethren”

Clement writes

πάσης τῆς ἀδελφότητος
pasēs tēs adelphotētos
“the whole brotherhood”

An important word to note is πάσης (pasēs), “whole/all,” which modifies ἀδελφότητος (adelphotēs), “brotherhood.” Clement therefore does not simply say “all mankind.” As many biblical interpretations place the whole of every race under the sun. He says the whole brotherhood.

This distinction matters when placed beside our Irenaeus examination. The early Christian writers repeatedly employ adelphos / adelphoi / adelphotēs to describe a familial community not a spiritual connection shared by the holy spirit. The English word “brethren” can conceal that underlying vocabulary.

Thus, when Clement says they were anxious “for the whole brotherhood,” we should not immediately expand “all” beyond the noun Clement actually attaches it to.

ALL = THE WHOLE BROTHERHOOD

And Clement then continues:
“that the number of His elect might be saved.”

The language moves from the whole brotherhood, who are His elect—not to an undefined nor unified humanity as the modern churches have institutionalized.

Ad fontes.
V.1

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐕.𝟏: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐀𝐆𝐄 — 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭

Clement’s description of the Christian community is strikingly expansive. In this passage, he speaks of all being humble-minded, God’s commandments being written upon their hearts, the Holy Spirit being poured out upon all, and the Church’s concern extending to the whole brotherhood and the salvation of God’s people. At first glance, the passage carries an almost universal scope. Yet Clement concludes this movement inwardly with a distinctly scriptural qualification: “the number of His elect might be saved.” This tension is precisely what makes the passage significant. Clement’s language of salvation seems broad and communal but when read in its context it’s clear that Clement is saying “within the brethren,” so, it goes that his exact message remains the language of Israel’s Scriptures where we also can look at his reference concerning election. Therefore, is not whether Clement sounds universal in his concern; he plainly does but the context which we shall examine will prove otherwise.

Ye were all humble-minded… attending diligently unto His words, and receiving them into your hearts, and His commandments were written upon the breadth of your hearts. Thus a profound and rich peace was given to all… and a full outpouring of the Holy Spirit fell upon all… Day and night ye were anxious for the whole brotherhood, that the number of His elect might be saved with mercy and a good conscience…

— Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 2.6–9, trans. J. B. Lightfoot

Clement does not merely say that the Corinthians possess Christian doctrine or put them outside of the genealogical scope. He describes them using covenantal imagery: words received into the heart, commandments written upon the heart, a brotherhood, and an elect people. This is the same language in series IV.3 we explored when exploring the Didache and the new covenant language regarded within it.

The phrase “written upon the breadth of your hearts” immediately recalls the language of the New Covenant. Clement is therefore is standing within an already-established scriptural vocabulary. The commandments written upon the heart are covenant language, and the covenant passage Clement’s wording most naturally recalls is Jeremiah’s promise concerning the house of Israel which is later affirmed in the letter written to the Hebrews.

The phrase “His elect” is equally important; as Clement’s language is broad: “all,” “the whole brotherhood,” and the Holy Spirit falling “upon all.” Yet when he speaks specifically of salvation, he says that they prayed that “the number of His elect might be saved.” This prevents us from simply reading Clement as though he were teaching universal salvation. His language is expansive in scope and universal in concern, but his stated object of salvation remains the elect who is the reason which Christ came.

Ad fontes.
V

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

SERIES V: THE LANGUAGE OF LINEAGE — CLEMENT OF ROME

Clement • Rome • Apostolic Age

INTRODUCTION

Having examined the Didache, we now turn to Clement of Rome, one of the earliest Christian writers outside the New Testament. His letter, commonly called 1 Clement, was written from Rome to Corinth toward the end of the first century.

Clement is valuable for this study because he stands close to the apostolic generation. His letter repeatedly appeals to the Apostles, Scriptures, Abraham, Jacob, Israel, kindred, and God’s promises. Clement continually reasons through the language and examples of Scripture.

His importance to our people was recognized by later Christians. Irenaeus knew and cited Clement’s letter. There is also a connection with the Shepherd of Hermas. In Vision 2.4, Hermas is instructed to give a writing to Clement, who is to send it to cities abroad, Paul also refers to clement in Philippians 4:3 showing that he was direct contact with the Apostles.

Ad fontes.

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

SERIES IV.5: THE LANGUAGE OF LINEAGE — DIDACHE

Assembly • Called Out • Church

Before closing our examination of the Didache, we should pause over one of its most important words: “Church.” A word that has been chopped and screwed by modern institutional traditions finding it's heretical definition from the foundations of Catholicism. The English word conceals the Greek term ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), which lexically refers to an assembly, congregation, or gathered community. The word is formed from ἐκ (ek, “out of/from”) and καλέω (kaleō, “to call”), giving the familiar expression “called out.” While “called out” should not be treated as the complete lexical definition of ekklesia, the biblical concept of God calling a people out is explicit throughout Scripture. This distinction is important because the Didache has repeatedly described its ekklesia through the language of David, the vine, scattering, gathering, the heart, “us,” and the Kingdom. Before we carry the word Church into our examination of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, we must first understand the biblical vocabulary behind the word itself.


Greek noun

ἐκκλησίαr
ekklesia
“assembly / congregation / gathered community”

Prefix

ἐκ
ek
“out of / from”

Verb

καλέω
kaleō
“to call”

Etymological formation

ἐκκλησία
ekklesia
“assembly / called-out gathering”

The New Testament itself gives us an important example:

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina…

— Acts 7:38


The ekklesia in this passage is Israel in the wilderness and any attempt to mold it into modern church doctrine is blasphemy at best. The word therefore was not inherently restricted to a later institutional Christian body we see today of "all nations" and "all races".


The New Testament also explicitly describes God’s people as those who have been called out:

But ye are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

— 1 Peter 2:9


Peter does not merely echo the covenant language of Sinai; he quotes its defining phrase directly:

a royal priesthood, and an holy nation.

— Exodus 19:6 LXX

a royal priesthood, an holy nation…

— 1 Peter 2:9


The Greek phrase "βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον" is shared directly between the two passages. Peter then immediately describes this people as those whom God has "called out of darkness into his marvellous light." Thus, the biblical picture is not merely of people who believe something individually, but of a people called, separated, and assembled by God. This brings us back to the Didache 9.4 where the writer explains the church is scattered aboard like bread and gathered from the ends of the earth.


And again in another place:

Remember, Lord, your Church… and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for your kingdom…

— Didache 10.5


The Didache therefore describes its ἐκκλησία through the language of a people scattered, gathered, made one, and brought into the Kingdom as we spoke of earlier. We should therefore establish this vocabulary before examining how the later Fathers speak of the Church. “Church” is not and never mean to be defined as a modern institutional label placed upon the text; its underlying language is that of an assembly, and Scripture itself gives us a people who are called out, assembled, scattered, and gathered by God whom only the chosen people of God, the great race of Israel, called out, set apart and holy among all nations of the world. The Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands.

Ad fontes.
IV.4
Beginning of Series IV

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

SERIES IV.4: THE LANGUAGE OF LINEAGE — DIDACHE

Brother • Kinship • Adelphos

The Didache gives us another small phrase that becomes much more significant when read within the language of Scripture. In its instructions concerning generosity, the writer does not merely speak of helping another Christian or foreign body. He calls that person “your brother.”

You shall not turn away from him that is in want, but shall share all things with your brother, and shall not say that they are your own.

— Didache 4.8


The Greek word is ἀδελφός (adelphos), literally “brother.” It is the ordinary Greek word for a brother, but throughout the Scriptures it can also carry the broader sense of kinsman, fellow member of a people, or one belonging to the same household. Not of a member of the same community or faith as our modern church has adapted from their Catholic counterparts. You can read about the word broken down in series I.4. This is especially important in the biblical language concerning Israel, no other nation, tribe or race.

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart…

— Leviticus 19:17

And again:

If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him…

— Leviticus 25:35


The language of the “brother” is therefore not merely sentimental. It only describes obligation between members of the same covenantal people, but yet our modern interpretations deny the very origin of the word our apostolic fathers wrote it in; creating a new definition to fit their heretical interpretation of universalism.


The Didache’s instruction follows the the opposite pattern. The brother is not described merely as an alien who happens to share the same religion. He is addressed through kinship language, and that kinship creates an obligation to share what one possesses. This becomes even more profound when we remember the Didache’s surrounding language.

The same work speaks

the holy vine of David    
the Church scattered upon the mountains
the Church gathered from the ends of the earth
“us” receiving spiritual food and eternal life

The writer never pauses to explain why the members of this community are called brothers. The relationship is already assumed and the clues are scattered throughout the work as presented in this study. That is precisely what makes the work worth examining. The Didache is not presenting its readers with a completely undefined religious population. It speaks to them as members of an already-existing household, using the same familial vocabulary found throughout the Scriptures.


And when the apostles themselves describe the covenant people as brethren, while simultaneously speaking of Israel as scattered among the nations, the Didache’s language becomes part of a much larger pattern.
This particular community is already being addressed as brothers, while the same document speaks of David, dispersion, gathering, and the kingdom without explaining the identity of the people being gathered. The Didache already assumes that its readers already understand the story of our ancestors.

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

— Paul the Apostle, 1 Timothy 5:8

Ad fontes.
IV.3

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

SERIES IV.3: THE LANGUAGE OF LINEAGE — DIDACHE

The Name • The Heart • The Covenant

The prayer in Didache 10.2 gives us another phrase worth slowing down over. The writer does not simply thank God for teaching them. He says that God’s holy name has been caused to dwell in their hearts.

We thank you, holy Father, for your holy name which you caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you made known to us through Jesus your Child.

— Didache 10.2


Jeremiah’s covenant promise is expressed through the law being placed within our ancestors and extending to us. God’s law would no longer be spoken of merely as something external, but as something written in our hearts, as an instinct for us to follow.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a covenant with the house of Israel… I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

— Jeremiah 31:31-33


Paul uses the language in Romans

For when the gentiles [Diaspora], which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law… Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness…

— Romans 2:14-15


Paul is therefore speaking of the work of the law being written in the heart and as it's written in the scripture; the only distinction we can make thereof is that Israel and Judah would be made to have the law dwell in their hearts, as the diaspora became alienated from the law of the Most High and was made to forget. This shows the discussion of those who are described as not having the law in its physical form as Judah did. Then we return to the Didache: “your holy name which you caused to dwell in our hearts.”


The language is undeniable when these passages are read together. Jeremiah speaks of the law being written in the hearts of God’s people. Paul speaks of the work of the law being written in the heart. The Didache speaks of God’s holy name dwelling in the hearts of us and it’s clear that all these passages point to our ancestors and the covenant people. The Didache goes directly into the language of lineage, first speaking of the sons of men, and then distinguishing them from “us” in its prayer.

You, Almighty Master, created all things for the sake of your name; you gave food and drink to the sons of men for enjoyment, so that they might give thanks to you; but to us you freely gave spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your Child.

— Didache 10.3

The wording is undeniable when placed beside the language of 4 Ezra, where Ezra questions God concerning His choosing of Israel from among the nations descended from Adam.

And of him come we all, and the people also whom thou hast chosen… the other races, which also come of Adam… But we thy people, whom thou hast called thy firstborn…

— 4 Ezra 6:54–58


What makes the Didache’s language worthy of examination is that it does not speak of nons and the covenant people as though they are interchangeable, it does not proclaim nons within the equation or equality of them to the children of Israel. It speaks of the sons of men, and then turns to “us.” As a separate ethnic group within the sons of Adam. When this is read beside 4 Ezra’s distinction between the peoples descended from Adam and “we thy people,” the language begins to carry a distinctly biblical lineage. The Didache does not spell out the genealogy in the complete sense for its reader; it speaks as though the identity of the “us” is already understood. The apostles already revealed to them that they are the lost sheep of the tribes of Israel who are scattered abroad.

Ad fontes.
IV.2

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

SERIES IV.2: THE LANGUAGE OF LINEAGE — DIDACHE

Holiness • The Children • The Dogs

The final statement of the Didache’s Eucharistic instruction introduces another expression that deserves to be read through the language of Christ Himself. The Didache does not merely establish a baptismal requirement; it appeals directly to a saying of the Lord concerning what is holy and those to whom it may be given. For we have been set apart from the world, a holy race and as Peter quotes so adequately well: “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” To understand why this saying is invoked here, we must examine the distinction Christ Himself makes between the children of the household and the dogs outside it.

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, ‘Do not give what is holy to dogs.’

— Didache 9.5

The concept of dogs, used in the New Testament of Christ rings a similar bell to this passage in the Didache; Christ tells us not to give what is holy unto the dogs nor cast your pearls to swine (Matthew 7:5), but who are the dogs? The implication is significant for understanding the language: “dogs” functions here as a designation for those outside the Israelite household and lineage, while the “children” are identified with the house of Israel. Christ’s statement about what is holy must therefore be read that distinguishes between the covenant household and those outside of it. Why would we cast our pearls to non-white races but withhold the truth of the Gospel to our own people? We would not.

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel… …It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs…

— Matthew 15:24;26

The Didache then uses Christ’s saying to explain why participation in its Eucharist is restricted to those baptized into the Lord’s name nor those not set apart, but those of the covenant. Thus, rather than assuming that “dogs” is a generic insult as we call lascivious men dogs in the modern age, Matthew gives us a concrete example in which the terminology corresponds to those outside the house of Israel; this distinction is important when reading the passages in the Didache.

Ad fontes.
IV.1

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

SERIES IV.1: THE LANGUAGE OF LINEAGE — DIDACHE

The Vineyard • Scattered • Gathered

The Eucharistic prayer of the Didache in chapter 9 opens with a phrase that deserves to be read within its full scriptural context: “the holy vine of David.” This is not simply poetic language about a vine, though our forefathers spoke much in symbolism, nor does the Didache explain the expression as though its meaning were unfamiliar to its audience. The imagery already belongs to the vocabulary of Israel’s Scriptures, where God’s people are repeatedly portrayed as His planted vine or vineyard. More importantly, the Didache does not leave the vine undefined and directly tied to the Church.

We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you made known to us through Joshua your servant.

— Didache 9.2

The significance of the vine begins with the fact that Scripture does not use vines or vineyards in a universal sense, but strictly associated with Israel. This being something that our New Testament and early church authors knew indefinitely; The vine therefore carries a defined covenantal and racial identity referent within the scriptures. When the Didache subsequently speaks of the “holy vine of David,” it is using language whose scriptural background already concerns a particular people, and then further qualifying that vine through Davidic lineage.

For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel.

— Isaiah 5:7

In another place,

Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed…

— Jeremiah 2:21

The metaphor is therefore not merely agricultural but of race and descent. Scripture explicitly identifies Israel as God’s vineyard and directly ties in that vineyard with the seed which the Most High planted. That Davidic qualification is significant. The Eucharistic prayer places its community’s worship within the vocabulary of Israel, David, and the promises associated with them.

The prayer then moves immediately from the vine to the image of scattered bread being gathered:

As this broken bread was once scattered upon the mountains, and after it had been gathered together became one, so may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.

— Didache 9.4

The imagery is strikingly consistent with the language used throughout the Scriptures concerning the scattering and evident gathering of Israel after the time of our Lord was to come. Jeremiah describes the same gathering (also see Deuteronomy 30:3-4, Isaiah 11:12, Jeremiah 31:10, Ezekiel 36:24, and Ezekiel 37:21-22):

He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.

— Jeremiah 31:10

The broken bread is scattered, then gathered, then becomes one. The prayer consequently asks that the Church likewise be gathered “from the ends of the earth” into the Kingdom. The geographical extent of the gathering is expansive, but the underlying imagery is not without precedent: Scripture repeatedly describes God’s own scattered people who are among the nations and only they are being gathered together and made one just as they were during the ancient times of our forefathers.

Ad fontes.
IV

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌Ō𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐌 — 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄-𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐒

SERIES IV: THE LANGUAGE OF LINEAGE — THE DIDACHE

INTRODUCTION

The Didache is among the earliest surviving Christian writings outside the New Testament, preserving instructions concerning baptism, fasting, prayer, the Eucharist, traveling prophets, church order, and the coming Kingdom. The primary surviving language of the Didache is Koine Greek, and with partial text surviving in Georgian, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Syriac.

What makes the Didache especially valuable for this study is not merely what it says, but the language assumes its audience already understands. Throughout the work are small but important hints concerning who this audience is—language pointing toward Israel, lineage, covenant, and ultimately their being of the same stock of Issac. The Didache gives us a window into a community that presents its faith through continuity, not as the universal doctrine which plague our faith and blind our people today.

Ad fontes.