Apostolic Fathers
After mulling over the range of possible topics, all of them good, I have decided to go back to an earlier idea: the Apostolic Fathers, that is, the earliest accepted testimonies of the Church written after the first apostles. We shall begin with the first epistle of Clement and move on to Ignatius and the so-called Mathetes or Disciple. I made this choice because this Spring and Summer I am very overworked and the only texts that I can justifiably divert my attention to are the Scriptures and the early Church. Since I do not wish to pose as an expert Scriptural exegete or invite sectarian arguments, I shall only use Scriptural texts when they are useful in explaining the texts of the Fathers.
There are many available editions. I shall be using the Loeb text, primarily, with references to J.B. Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers. However, the most convenient source is probably Philip Schaff's volume in the Christian Classics series that can be found in various places, including the very useful online edition in Calvin College's Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Let us look at the first chapter, first for the general points in Lightfoot's English:
1Clem prologue:1
The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which
sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the
will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace
from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.
1Clem 1:1
By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which
are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat
tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among
you, dearly beloved, and to the detestable and unholy sedition, so
alien and strange to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and
self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your
name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men,
hath been greatly reviled.
1Clem 1:2
For who that had sojourned among you did not approve your most
virtuous and steadfast faith? Who did not admire your sober and
forbearing piety in Christ? Who did not publish abroad your
magnificent disposition of hospitality? Who did not congratulate you
on your perfect and sound knowledge?
1Clem 1:3
For ye did all things without respect of persons, and ye walked after
the ordinances of God, submitting yourselves to your rulers and
rendering to the older men among you the honor which is their due.
On the young too ye enjoined modest and seemly thoughts: and the
women ye charged to perform all their duties in a blameless and
seemly and pure conscience, cherishing their own husbands, as is
meet; and ye taught them to keep in the rule of obedience, and to
manage the affairs of their household in seemliness, with all
discretion.
Clement addresses, in the name of the Roman Church, the Church in Corinth, where sedition has broken out at just the worst of times, when the Church in Rome at least is beset by calamities. In general Clement complains of detestable and unholy sedition led by a few troublesome men whose behavior stands in contrast with the good old recent days when the Corinthians were praised for 1) keeping the ordinances of God, submitting themselves to the rulers, honoring the older men, keeping their women pure and submissive. In other words, they had learned from Paul's admonitions to be humble, obedient, and chaste. I do not think it is much of a stretch to say that Clement would have told hot-heads today, whether modernists or traditionalists, to mind their elders, respect authority, and keep their women in line--out of the pulpit and off the TV screen.
Chapter Two praises the former humility and peace of the Corinthians: "Ye had conflict day and night for all the brotherhood, that the number of His elect might be saved with fearfulness and intentness of mind. Ye were sincere and simple and free from malice one towards another.
Every sedition and every schism was abominable to you. Ye mourned over the transgressions of your neighbors: ye judged their shortcomings to be your own." The Greek agon , translated "conflict," here would be better rendered today by "competition" or "contest." An agon is an athletic competition.
"Being adorned with a most virtuous and honorable life, ye performed all your duties in the fear of Him. The commandments and the ordinances of the Lord were written on the tablets of your hearts. " Lightfoot translates as "life" politeia, a word that ordinarily meant commonwealth or constitution or citizenship and its rights. Clement might have meant they behaved well as imperial subjects but, as I rather think, he probably meant they managed their Christian community properly.
Their very success, however, encouraged envy and disorder, he observes in the third chapter. This is the familiar Greek paradigm of koros, hybris, ate, namely, that getting enough or being successful encourages pride and ambition that lead to one's downfall. "For this cause righteousness and peace stand aloof, while each man hath forsaken the fear of the Lord and become purblind in the faith of Him, neither walketh in the ordinances of His commandments
nor liveth according to that which becometh Christ, but each goeth after the lusts of his evil heart, seeing that they have conceived an unrighteous and ungodly jealousy, through which also death entered into the world." Again, Lightfoot overtranslates politeuesthai, which means to act as a citizen in a commonwealth, in this case the community.
Let us now take a close look at what Clement has to say about the order and organization of the Church, roughly chapters 40-44. In 37-39 Clement held up mutual help and cooperation as the model and censured the Corinthians for departing from it. In 40 he turns to one of the disorders in Corinth, the conduct of their services (a subject of Paul's complaints). Celebrations were commanded to be done at specific days and times, and he distinguishes (using Judaism as the model) between priests and laity--obviously anticipating his defense of the presbyters. Propert order in the Church (41) is based on diversity of functions, and Christians, who have been trusted with deeper knowledge, are even more bound to do things the right way than Jews, who incurred the death penalty for ritual failures.
In 42 we get to the nub: Christ is from God, the apostles from Christs, and bishops and presbyters derive their authority from the apostles either proximately or ultimately:
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had 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 from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, <i>I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.</i>
So here is the model of church organization in the apostolic age. It is neither the Quakerish "as the spirit moves us" nor congregationalist. The Church is universal; central authorities are recognized in Rome (and other major Churches), and the bishop and presbyters (the distinction is unclear) hold their authority from Christ by way of the apostles. This is not the Church of Boniface VIII, but it is not the Church of Calvin either.
Let us begin to wrap up our discussion and then move on to Ignatius to the Ephesians. From Clement we learn that in the Christian Church some decades before the end of the 1st Century, respect for the authority of presbyters and bishops was being insisted upon, that the bishop or presiding elder of a major apostolic Church could give instructions to another Church, that the authority of presbyters and bishops derives from Christ by way of the apostles. Within a church, the ceremonies were to be conducted at certain time and in a set manner, thus free-wheeling innovation was discourage. Life within the Church made a kind of commonwealth in which respect for authority, order, and tradition were preserved in a spirit of humility and charity. What have I left out?
Entries(RSS)
Is Clement requesting the repentance of those to whom he writing? Or he is warning faithful Corinthians not to follow the sedition of other Corinthians?
"Several people have also suggested I do either my Socialism book or my previous book. It seems a little self-centered, but I could spend a day on each chapter, answering questions, if that were desired."
If you are speaking of 'The Morality of Everyday Life' then I certainly would hope you would.
Edward @51:
Both, sir.
56:1—"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."
And 57:1—"Ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves unto the presbyters and receive chastisement unto repentance, bending the knees of your heart."
St. Clement words and tone are certainly papal and absolutely unmatched by other of his contemporary prelates in their authoritativeness, as are those of all who held the Roman See. A pope by any other name is still a pope.
Same old; same old...
Let the West get rid of the Augustinian theology and then we can begin a REAL Christian (Orthodox) discussion.
Until then, Western christianity is more dangerous to us than Islam.
BP
TJF @49
Asked about "his use of the Scriptures, especially the OT Scriptures. What is his approach to the OT, overall, and what lessons does he take from it? What does he not, apparently, take from it?"
Aaron Wolf @50 explains "
The reason so many in the ancient church thought that Clement wrote Hebrews has to do with the last point that Dr. Fleming raised—his treatment of the Old Testament. Clement stands out among the early fathers in his emphasis on the continuity between the Testaments. This extends beyond Chapter 3 into 7 and 10. For there is one sojourning people of God—not two or more, as the Montanists and dispensationalists would have it."
Which might indicate why it seems plausible what others have said about Clement. Such as ...
"The continual use of the Old Testament in his Epistle has suggested to Lightfoot, Funk, Nestle, and others that he was of Jewish origin." And perhaps he was here addressing certain problems associated with the Corinthians that arose from this early clash between the followers of the Old testament and those bearing witness to the Gospel and New Testament.
Galvin @54 "A pope by any other name is still a pope."
Yes, I have heard the Italians have a saying about Popes.
"If he is a wise man, let him teach us. If he is a strong man, let him lead us. If he is a holy man, let him pray for us." I don't know how they handle the" problem " Popes of history , probably something along the lines of " wait for better days and commend him to the Holy Ghost ..." but your point is well taken and I did not intend to seperate authentic authority from the idea of legitimate"office" itself. But it remains true even for those who believe in the divine protection of certain offices, that the person occupying it can at times enoble or detract from its authority. How this happens is something more than words and conduct, not just a good acting job, or public relations job --- it is --- well, it is a spiritual thing. There, I said it, and believe it is a real aspect of authority. Augustinian ? Maybe . Christian ? Orthodox ? True ? I am no theologian.
"This is a relevant question. The simple answer would seem to be that a) Clement would probably not have regarded a church that routinely put women into the pulpit or allowed them to run wild as a genuine Church and if you follow his lead, neither will you, and b) the way to debate such matters is with respect for those in authority...
"Clement does not, let me note, tell us to obey or conform to wicked people who might hold positions in Church. This is a possibility he does not consider, at least in the epistle. What he is describing is a haughtiness of spirit that sets itself in contention against authorities that were established by the Apostles themselves on some grounds other than wickedness or heresy."
Very important and very overlooked points, particularly in American circles. I would only add that lacking of respect for authority does not even cut along lines of various factions WITHIN Catholic traditionalism. I can recall stories of equally uncharitable remarks about Archbishops and the Pope both from Diocesean dissenters and adherents. (Catholics know which two factions I'm talking about.)
With regards to bad or inadequate authority, it is clear that we are not admonished to obey them if we are ordered to do evil or if they attempt to restrain us from positive good. Further questions arise from this. If an authority figure--and this applies not merely to an ecclesiastical authority, but even, say, a parent--makes an openly heretical statement or admits without remorse to some blatant mortal sin, to what extent should the Christian avoid association with said figure? If a priest sees his bishop proclaiming something latently false he obviously must avoid injurious words against the bishop himself, but must he wait for a denunciation by a higher tribunal to admonish his flock of any correction? That would seem rather lackadaisical and risky, particularly given the present state of the Catholic Church.
One last question, and it's off topic a bit, but would Dr. Fleming know of a way to get ahold of a copy of Cochin's original works (as opposed to the Polin English translation), or must I haul my lazy bottom to the Bibliotheque Nationale?
If we are to be skeptical, then we know nothing about Clement except what he has read, and in an epistle to the Corinthians he would certainly borrow from Paul. Tradition makes him the bishop of Rome, and in the absence of contradictory testimony, that is all we need to know. The Greek plural here, I repeat, may mean something, but what that is is merely speculation. It might also mean very little, a polite convention.
I imagine that Paul is an Orthodox convert,who accepts, without questioning or examining, the anti-Augustine tradition that developed in the East after the schism and, like their hostility to Thomas Aquinas, is now an article of faith among our less-educated brethren in the East. In fact, Photios--a magisterial figure in the Eastern Church and quite an anti-Latin polemicist--stoutly defends Augustine from the slurs against him that originated in the misuse made of him by much later Western writers. One might also point out that the other bugbear in the East, St. Thomas, was admired by Gennadius, the very anti-Latin first patriarch after the Fall of Constantinople. The East has much to reproach us with--the Fourth Crusade, the failure to join them in the struggle with the Turks, and even Western arrogance in imposing the filioque without a Council. We in the West have a few complaints we might make against the East--Byzantine arrogance in seizing ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Balkans, the extreme mystical tendencies that have sometimes subverted reason, etc. But far more is to be gained from an honest attempt to learn from the other side. St. Gregory the Great is a great saint in the East, and St. John Damascene is honored in the West. Let us have no more of this foolishness and head Clement's call to humility and charity.
As to Clement's origins, it is not unlikely that he was a Jew, but in the absence of any external evidence or tradition nothing can be gained from that speculative point. Although many early writers are less well-versed in the OT, we hardly need to seek far for a reason for Clement to take such an interest at so early a date.
A few things occur to me, generally, about the early Christian citations of the OT: 1) It is hardly ever treated as important historically per se but as a set of texts that look forward to the future. That is virtually the only use to which Our Lord puts it, except when he is correcting it. Neither Paul nor Clement are interested in Judaism and they do not wish to study, much less perpetuate its peculiarities. 2) ALthough the textual tradition is not always sound and there are some doubts, Clement seems to be relying mostly on the Septuagint translation rather than providing his own version of the Hebrew. Aaron W and I have been talking lately about the mistake of putting aside the Septuagint. I note that he also cites, more than once, the book of Wisdom, which many Protestants regard as either subcanonical or non-canonical.
More importantly perhaps is Clement's apparent assumption that the Church, as well as the Jews, is referred to in the OT prophecies of Abraham's progeny and their success. This seems to me entirely consistent with the early Christian treatment of OT as primarily significant for what it looks forward to.
A note: In looking ahead, let us next take up, after suitable discussion of this point, Clement's use of the New Testament, and then his remarkable account of the apostolic tradition. Aaron Wolf has also promised a discussion of Clement's comprehensive view of a reality created in the beginning and revealed in stages by Scriptures and lived by Christians. No thoughts on Wisdom?
This is certainly an interesting text. Note Clement targets quickly jealousy and envy as the root of the sedition occurring after they have achieved success - which being recognized probably was a door for spiritual pride. He sets Peter and Paul as good examples 5:4 - 6:1 who suffered because of jealousy, envy and strife but overcame to God's glory, and interestingly lauds Rahab and women 12:8. "not only faith, but prophecy, is found in the woman".
Excellent point.
Is this an opportunity to talk more generally about how various Christian groups today look at the OT Scriptures?
I appreciate Dr. Fleming's remarks about the East-West relations. I am a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy and one of my major complaints is the assumption by many Orthodox that anything Western is a heresy. To claim that the entire history of Christianity in the West is a lie is, I think, to destroy the validity of Orthodoxy as well. But enough of that. As for our text, it makes painfully aware of my own tendancy for self-absorbtion. Whether I like it or not, individualism has permeated my conscience and behavior. Clement echoes St. Paul's metaphor of the Church as a human body: "the head is nothing without the feet, nor are the feet anything without the head...In Christ Jesus, then, let this corporate body of ours be likewise maintained intact, with each of us giving way to his neighbor in proportion to our spiritual gifts"(Ch 37-38). As Fr. Alexander Schmemann would say, the meeting place for divided Christians is in Christ. Perhaps Dr. Fleming and Dr. Wolf (or others) would like to comment on the communal nature of Christianity as reflected in the Fathers. This seems to be a tough obstacle in our age that worships individualism.
Dr. Fleming I thank for his answers to my questions in my previous message. To ask more questions might be to ask too much.
1. Without accepting or rejecting Rudolf Bultmann’s succession of Christian communities, I would still ask: Did Clement’s community, at the end of the first century, consist largely of Koine speaking Gentiles, though granted with a few Jewish Christians among them. This community seems still to have considered what is now called The Old Testament to be Scripture, and it would seem – to judge from Clement’s usage, the only Scripture. Marcion’s rejection of this Scripture, as well as all the non-Pauline New Testament, lay some years awayAnd the decision of the the rabbis at the Council of Council of Jamnia as to what books were Scripture I would surmise had little influence on Christians until Luther.
2. And this leads to my next question. With respect to the New Testament, I have yet to find in the Letter of Clemens any reference to it or quotation from it at all. Only in 1Clem 13:2 do I find the suggestion of a quotation from the NT. Yet even here I wonder if this might be quoting from of list of the sayings of Jesus rather than from a Canonical Gospel. Such a list of Sayings seems to be available to Matthew and Luke, and modern German scholars call this material “Q” – though I hasten to say that I am not claiming all for “Q” that some scholars have. So could it be that the New Testament in Clement’s day was not established yet as Canon? Or even as Scripture? Or is it true that until the Marcion controversy no agreement was found about what the Canon – Old or New – should contain?
3. As for Clement’s use of the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew, the practice always the New Testament, it is my understanding that no one in the first century AD spoke Hebrew as a mother tongue, and that only a few highly literate Rabbis knew Hebrew. Even in synagogue services, especially in the Diaspora, the LXX was used – or so I have read. “Synagogue” itself is a Greek word. So Clement’s use of the Septuagint would have been even what most rabbis would have done.
4. Clemens use of the Old Testament seems typological. Is the hermeneutics of St. Augustine – the four senses of “literal, typological, moral, and anagogic” – already adumbrated by practice of the First Century AD?
5. Are there suggestions of Stoic teaching in Chapter 20 of Clement’s letter? I have read that the Stoa had some influence on Matthew and Luke.
6. And now for a question in which I wish in no way to be inflammatory. That “Canon” and “Scripture” became “hot button topics” during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation I know. If the New Testament was not established in Clement’s time, and thus the Church chose the Canon measuring a text against the Apostolic tradition, and not vice versa, what then for sola scriptura?
I'll make a feeble stab at a few of these. 1) It is difficult to know the identity and background of early Christians in Rome. Both groups must have existed, but the tendency of Clement's thought is Pauline and therefore away from the Judaizing tendency that was steadily eliminated in the next generation or two. 2) Yes, there cannot have been a NT Canon. Clement quotes from or refers to epistles of Paul and Peter but his references to Christ are either the result of a bad memory or oral tradition or some written source we do not have. I believe Aaron W would like to comment further on this, and we have planned to have this conversation.
3) Yes, indeed, though there are Israeli historians who dispute the disappearance of Hebrew. A question that has never been answered, so far as I know, is how much if any Greek Jesus knew and did he read the Septuagint.
4) I don't think those categories are yet explicit.
5) I think Stoic and Epicurean ideas were in the air, and one did not have to have read them to have picked them up, any more than a dumb college kid has read Marx or Simone de Beauvoir.
6) The Canon of the NT could not have been established in Clement's time. Let us say that he was writing roughly in the period 75-95, the period in which Matthew"s & John's & Luke's Gospel were either being written or becoming known. Thus Clement is a younger contemporary of Luke and probably of Matthew. Besides, we know that many people became Christians in the time of Christ, when, naturally, there were no written Gospels. I will leave it to my Protestant friends to tell us what sola scriptura means, but one thing seems certain: That the Church or the apostolic tradition made the New Testament and not vice versa. There is certainly a broad range of opinion that is possible, once we have taken this position, but I do not see how we can honestly declare that the tradition, including the writings of Clement and Ignatius, is of no significance.
The link provided at top gives us both the text of St. Clement's Epistle and many references and quotations to the New Testament. Right at the start are some to I Peter, Ephesians, Acts, Titus, and Hebrews.
Thence I conclude that the New Testament was accepted by Christians when each book was written. The unchanging gospel was written by the apostles under inspiration of the Holy Ghost for a church that may be arguably (using Clement's words) be organized by bishops and priests/presbyters/elders, but without a changing ordo seclorum to claim precedence above it.
Clement's Epistle is very beautiful and as it appears to me, well-crafted. Reading it was devotional and I appreciate how historically it was basic reading for Christians. I think it is clear that all scripture, both the Old Testament and the brand new New was treated with enormous respect. The saints of the Old were the people of God and so are the saints of the New. Clement often reminds us of the exemplars of the Old Testament saints; for example of David's humility, he writes:
Then he straightway applies that to us:
So it is clear that there is one tradition, one people of God. In the past, that people were saved by looking forward to Christ's coming and now we are saved by his having already come.
I find in this a beautiful expression, of what Clement elsewhere develops, of God's one will. Since the Fall, God has always kept his eye on us, and offered his grace which came like an explosion of light from the empty tomb. So in Chapter XXXII Clement joyfully remarks:
The gospel is ever unchanging.
"If a priest sees his bishop proclaiming something latently false he obviously must avoid injurious words against the bishop himself, but must he wait for a denunciation by a higher tribunal to admonish his flock of any correction? That would seem rather lackadaisical and risky, particularly given the present state of the Catholic Church."
As an Ordained Permanent Deacon I would suggest that when we publicly say yes to obedience to the Bishop and the Church this is a very serious matter and the criticism of Bishops is not taken lightly. The politics of ordained life move very slowly and it is up to God to inspire any criticism.
Obviously tradition, and well as the authority of the early fathers must be accepted regarding the canon of scripture. Of course, the fathers were not perfect, and it is possible that perhaps one or two books were left out which shouldn't have been, but I dont think any were put into the canon which shouldn't be there, at least not regarding what Protestants accept as scripture. Also, I have always wondered whether Protestants should have rejected those books in the Catholic bible which they consider apocryphal.
Determining the canon was a long and difficult process, involving much investigation. We must not forget that in their time, even the doctrine of the Holy Trinity wasn't fully articulated in a coherent manner, even though it was certainly understood. Everything believed and accepted by Christians was still in the process of being set down as doctrine, and often there was debate. Since we are no wiser than the early fathers who were closer in time to the writers of scripture, I would run as if from the plague, far away from anyone who proclaims, ' I've found a new book of the Bible!'.
Regarding Sola Scriptura (and going out on a limb here, into things I'm not really knowledgeable of), I dont believe Luther or Clavin actually rejected tradition completely, rather, they put scripture above tradition and reason. It seems that many later protestants increasingly rejected tradition, and in some ways this seems to have been unwise. Having said this, I leave the issue to more knowledgeable Protestants.
"ALthough the textual tradition is not always sound and there are some doubts, Clement seems to be relying mostly on the Septuagint translation rather than providing his own version of the Hebrew."
This brings out another point: the Septuagint, Vulgate et. al. may be translations, but their translators doubtlessly had access to older and more continuously accepted manuscripts than our contemporary translators claiming to offer transcriptions that are closer to "original" texts.
It is always dangerous to attempt to "reconstruct" anything about a world far removed from our own; in fact, from a conservative historicist viewpoint we are not "reconstructing" but "constructing" whenever we attempt to piece such things together. Anglo-American Protestant fundamentalists in particular, since at least the 19th century, have attempted to "reconstruct" some sort of primitive Church shorn of the context in which Christianity has evolved, but the irony is that in so doing they have created a cult that is more or less unthinkable apart from its Anglo-industrial cultural cradle, and far less universally applicable than Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, even Lutheranism and Calvinism.
"Regarding Sola Scriptura ..., I dont believe Luther ... actually rejected tradition completely, rather, they put scripture above tradition and reason. It seems that many later protestants increasingly rejected tradition, and in some ways this seems to have been unwise. Having said this, I leave the issue to more knowledgeable Protestants."
This is true. I'm not near my books at the moment, so I'll have to leave proof until later. But I believe Heiko Obermann and/or Alister McGrath have laid out various levels of acceptance of Holy Tradition between Rome, Reformation, and later Protestantism. Neither Luther, nor Martin Chemnitz, nor any orthodox Lutherans saw Sola Scriptura as seperated from the tradition of the church. The "me and my bible" thinking detached from the church was unthinkable for Lutheran Reformers. I'll leave Calvin to others more knowledgable.
The “me and my bible” thinking detached from the church was unthinkable for Lutheran Reformers. I’ll leave Calvin to others more knowledgable.
My understanding of the original intetntions of 'Sola Scriptura' was that qualified scholars would be the main interpreters of the Bible. If my memory serves corret, this was a remark from a Protestant theolgian who was well versed in the Calivinist tradition. Moreover, he suggested that John Calvin himself was a devoted reader of the Early Fathers. I've only a superfical knowledge of the issue, however.
A question for those of you who know how this history unfolded. Did the seditious small group who had cast out the presbyters repent as Clement so strongly urged?
I should like to come back to the topic of envy, which another sommenter talked about. The first significant sin after the Fall was Cain's murderous envy of Abel.
Clement makes an interesting statement:
We know about the chivalrous virtue of the strong defending the weak, but we never hear about the weak respecting the strong. Should we?
Reading the calibre of thought here on Chronicles, I am pretty sure that many of us have met with envy in the workforce, often. Academia, for example, keeps the best and brightest out of the house, which is all that is meant when one says academics are "conservative." In any institution, everyone eats from the same pot, and everyone eyes the bigger piece of meat floating on top. The untalented band together to keep the talented from the table. Lives hang on paychecks and the less talented seem to hate the more talented as a threat to their livelihoods. Imagine how much better life would be if the weak respected the strong. Imagine a world where jobs were won by ability rather than connections.
The funny thing about the jealousy that Clement discusses is the desire to destroy the other person; and befriending the jealous usually makes him angrier.
I like that Clement says to go on following God and go on in godly living, not just because there will be a reward later in heaven, but because obeying God is glorious.
Now, I would be interested to see what the answer to C. Edwards's question is...
As for Clement’s use of the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew, . . .
We're working hard on the June issue, so it may take some time before I can write something more thoughtful on Creation and tradition in Clement. What follows is what was on the tip of my brain.
This issue of the Septuagint fascinates me. Textual scholars tell us that Clement, indeed, relies most heavily on the Septuagint. It was, after all, the most widely available text at the time in the Hellenized world. Even so, "Septuagint" means a number of things—a number of manuscript traditions. Clement is said to draw the most from the "A" tradition (that is, the text represented by Codex Alexandrius, c. fifth century A.D., which now resides at the British Library). But Clement (remember, 1 Clement was written in Greek, not Latin) was not bound by any Greek textual tradition as we know it. At times, his translations mirror those of Theodotion, a Jew who came along in the mid second century and produced a translation of the Old Testament that was increasingly favored by Christians. Jerome, in producing the Vulgate, highly esteemed Theodotion's work, and relied on it heavily in his translation of Daniel into Latin. Interestingly, Jerome also loved the Hebrew Old Testament, and especially preferred it when translating the Psalms. All of which is to say that the Early Church did not have as static a view of this or that manuscript tradition as we might now assume. (Nor were they frightened by a manuscript tradition that was, as is said today, "Jewish.") They were eager to find the best manuscripts for each portion of Holy Scripture.
Regarding Sola Scriptura, . . . Without flying away (again) from the text of 1 Clement, I'll just say that the Lutheran view is summed up in the Latin (yes, we like Latin!) phrase norma normans.
One of the striking features of St. Clement's letter, that is so obvious it can be overlooked, is his respect for Tradition. In the sense that tradition is a permanent and sacred thing. What he is teaching, he says, is not novelty but what has been given from the beginning.
Twice in 1 Corinthians, Saint Paul says, "That which I have received I have handed on to you." The leaders of the churches understood themselves as teachers who had received something from those who had preceded. This is in contrast to the way we think as Americans.
Clement asks his listeners
1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. Let us look backwards to the past. Or again "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. Let us conform
to the glorious and venerable rule which hath been handed down to us;
Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn how from
generation to generation the Master hath given a place for repentance."
And even when he looks for examples from the present it is only in their relation to the past :
"But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles."
And then goes on to demonstrate how their conduct was consistent with the TRADITION he previously recounted.
Or again here in his peroration he appeals to their memory :
Let us study the records of the things that
have happened from the beginning.
Ye see, brethren, in proportion as greater knowledge hath been
vouchsafed unto us, so much the more are we exposed to danger.
1Clem 42:1
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.
1Clem 42:2
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order....
For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved,
and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things
therefore to put you in remembrance.
It always raises a flag in my mind when Catholic writers and semi-theologians, such as the now popular Mr. Weigel and others, always boast of their immunity to nostalgia, to the past, to the ancient, or the natural yearning for one's own home --an idea as old as Homer and as fresh as any Christian community gathered in prayer. .
woodcutter @ 67 wrote: "As an Ordained Permanent Deacon I would suggest that when we publicly say yes to obedience to the Bishop and the Church this is a very serious matter and the criticism of Bishops is not taken lightly. The politics of ordained life move very slowly and it is up to God to inspire any criticism."
So your answer is that it is sometimes forbidden to speak the truth? There should be a respect of persons in the Church, even though the Scriptures clearly forbid it?
(I'm asking, not attacking. It's unclear to me what you're claiming, since the original question wasn't about criticizing the Bishop, but about correcting him. These are not the same thing.)
Isn't there a prior question, here, and that is how do we know that we we believe is the truth? If by truth, we mean only "that which is taught be revelation and tradition" and accepted across the centuries, then a good Christian is required to assert that truth in the face of hierarchical opposition. Nonetheless, a layman would be ill advised to do so in a manner that questioned the authority of the bishop. Which is more important, a temporary victory in a war of words or the unity of the Church?
"So your answer is that it is sometimes forbidden to speak the truth? There should be a respect of persons in the Church, even though the Scriptures clearly forbid it?"
This is a slippery question, illustrating the problem of certain approaches to the Scriptures. It is true that we are told more than once that God "is no respecter of persons," in the sense that the rich and powerful are equally subject to judgement as the poor and weak, but I do not see that this principle, even if applied to men, excludes particular respect toward those who hold authority. Wives are told to obey their husbands, slaves their masters, and subjects told to honor the king (or emperor). So particular respect to particular classes of people is enjoined, not forbidden. This is a hard principle for Americans to accept.
Dr. Fleming raises the question of respect for office. Certainly there are, from time to time, scoundrels occupying positions of authority. Most college professors no longer wear a coat and tie for lectures, probably hold their students in contempt, police officers do the damndest things, Bishops are being cursed and shouted at in public, sometimes by clergy and enemies alike, Presidents of " indispensible nations " stammer and become profound in searching for the meaning of words such as, IS, and yet no one in their right mind would say --educators and professors , the police, the Presidency of the United States are not offices worthy of common respect. There is a time and place for everything and common decency and good manners are indespensible in knowing when and where.
Luther was steeped in Tradition via his family background and theological training. His position(s) as an Augustinian monk, priest, and doctor of theology in the Roman Catholic church meant Tradition was the context in which he studied and practiced his faith. Even through his controversies with Rome he rarely wrote or preached without mention of the Fathers and Councils. (And by mention, I mean affirming.) One of Luther's great concerns was that the currently reigning "solo scriptura" practice would overwhelm learning and faith within the catholic church.
Calvin was reared at least nominally Roman Catholic. However, his career as a theologian begins in rebellion to not only the Roman Church, but also to many of the intellectual and hermeneutical principles which the Lutheran reformers promoted. This is perhaps most clearly seen in the Reformed views of the sacraments and their regulative principle of liturgy. Calvin regularly (and positively) cites the Fathers, but he has little practical use for the tradition those Fathers delineated outside of proof texting for his specific arguments. I suppose one could do worse than citing the Fathers for support, but (in my opinion) Calvin does this at the expense of context. The cost of such an approach is significant loss of meaning and clarity.
aAnother question for those more inciteful than myself. In Clement's discussion of the evidences of the resurrection he mentions the story of the Phoenix 25:1 thru 25:5 this seemed odd to me but maybe is akin to a childhood story all the readers would be familiar with?
The tale of the Phoenix was told as historical truth by respected authorities such as Herodotus and Pliny. Christians believed there was Scriptural warrant for it in the Septuagint version of Psalm 92, where the reference is actually to the palm tree, the same word in Greek.
There should be a respect of persons in the Church, even though the Scriptures clearly forbid it?
This phrase "respecter of persons" (as in "God is not a . . . ") comes out of the mouth of Peter in relation to Cornelius. It has to do with the false view that the Gospel should only be extended to the Jews.
Then again James rebukes anyone who would give a place on honor in the assembly (church) to a rich man decked out in fine clothes. "if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors."
Recognizing (with respect) the natural order in and out of the assembly cannot be the sin of "respect of persons" because the holy angels are offended whenever a wife/woman prays with her head uncovered, as if walking into the assembly means she's no longer subject to her husband's authority. Recognizing the authority of the presbyter/bishop is never mentioned in Scripture in relation to the danger of "respect of persons." There is nothing ambiguous about "obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves."
That said, there may be false teachers. And the faithful of the assembly (church) is capable of recognizing them, because they search the Scriptures. Paul praised the Bereans for doing so. And Clement, in 53:1-2, is certain that even those who have erred (and/or those who are standing by) have done so. "For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance."
In offering a sort of natural history of (God's) order, beginning with Creation, Clement mentions the distinctions between high priest, priests, and the "laity." This is the first time in Christian writing that the word "laity" is employed ("the people"), but Clement is referring to the Jews under the Old Testament. In reference to the assembly at Corinth, he repeatedly says "brethren." This is not some sort of Quaker disregard for the distinction between clergy and laity. Rather, it underscores the sort of servant-leadership that characterizes all presbyter/bishops of the entire assembly (the Church catholic). For they rule in humility, more eager to pay respect than to demand it of others, and do not seek to claw their way to some position over others. (Take St. Augustine's ordination as a wonderful example.) After all, Our Lord said that the servant is not better than his Master, and Christ Jesus, Lord of Heaven and Earth, washed His disciples' feet and fed them His Body and Blood. He also said, "You are my friends."
Thank you Dr. Fleming - I see the reference to Palm Tree in verse 12 of Psalm 92 and through the end of chapter is encouragement for those " planted in the house of the Lord" flourishing and bearing fruit even in old age - "to declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock and there is no unrighteousness him Him".
I may be mistaken, but by "respect" aren't we really confusing two different words, favoritism with esteem (proswpolhptew with Hhgeomai)? If so, then the problem may simply be an example of the semantic drift that often arises from loan-words.
Clement uses Christ (XVI), the saints and Job (XVII), and David (XVIII) as examples of humility in the sense of being faithful, just, and a servant to others. It seems as if the respect and honor for the authority of those above us is just an extension of this Christian humility. Isn't respect for Tradition also just an extension of this same humility? Tradition is just as personal as the authority of which we are speaking, just in a different way; tradition carries more weight. In the modern West, much of the opposition to this humility and obedience resides in an ingrained egalitarianism.
"It is the only thing in which the superior cannot be superior; in the sense of supercilious." -G.K. Chesterton 'Why I Am A Catholic"
The question of obedience and respect seems to boil down to sincerity. There are times when a priest may be sincere but mistaken on some particular issue. I would not see this as reason for disrespect or necessarily for leaving the congregation unless there is another close by where the mistake is not made, and even then, only if the issue is important. Then there is the case of willful heresy on the part of authorities within the church. Even here, they may be sincere but blinded. In this case, we may wish to leave the congregation, but not necessarily demand a formal break of communion with it, unless there is danger that the heresy will spread to other congregations and create a movement that would be dangerous either in a spiritual or temporal sense.
Only in the case of truly subversive activity on the part of church authorities would I consider it imperative that a direct challenge be made. Even here, the church has weathered such things before, so we should consider it likely that it will weather this one as well. Only in extreme cases should we challenge such a subversive in authority, and if we do, we should speak to them not as an office holder, but as a person who has willfully refused to do what they were supposed to do as a holder of the office with which they were entrusted.
Obviously, none of these cases are true of the situation being addressed by Clement in his letter. Clement addresses the spiritual reasons for the rebellion, but it would be interesting to know a little about the temporal situation in the church in Corinth.
A little side note to this is that the approach taken by Clement is not disrespectful of the rebellious brethren. It demands repentance and submission to proper church authorities, but no one seems to consider the possibility of violent suppression.
I hate so say it, but all this contrasts mightily with the histories of some local congregations all over America who broke away from an older congregation nearby, and then told the members remaining in the older one that they were going to burn in hell, all over some tiny issue like playing music in church whether or not people should dance at barn dances.
re: James Newland at 76. criticism - a serious examination and judgment of something; "constructive criticism is always appreciated"
Discernment in these matters in regards to questioning the ones you serve is very necessary. A good Bishop will ask for the opinion of his people in order to make informed decisions about his flock. If it is a matter of theology or orthodoxy he may teach us what the Church believes is true.
The Church in those days was an illegal institution subject to persecution. I wonder, had he lived 300 years later, if he might not have been tempted to crack down a little harder.
In addition to his non-canonical references to the teachings of Christ and his citations of OT Scriptures, Clement more than once makes references to pagan examples, which he treats with respect, e.g., in 55, where he cites examples from the ethne, that is, the "nations", of kings and rulers who willingly died on behalf of their people or went into exile to end sedition or went as hostages or sold themselves into slavery. In 61, after his series of prayers for help, mercy, and peace, he prays on behalf of the rulers--meaning the emperor, his colleagues, and assistants (either the wicked Domitian or the good Nerva and Trajan "that piously in peace and gentleness they may administer the power" given them by God and "find mercy" in his eyes. It is almost astonishing, the lack of resentment against the pagan empire that has recently persecuted God's Church, his respect for the secular authority, which for all its faults and sins performs a divinely appointed mission. It is reminiscent of Paul's admonitions in Romans, but even kinder and sweeter.
I was going to post a comment on perhaps the most significant contribution Clement makes, namely, his full-throated articulation of apostolic succession, but perhaps we might pause for a day on this topic of Clement's respectful approach both to the Empire and to Greco-Roman civilization. We are a long way from the sneering reproaches of Tertullian or the more measured antagonism of Jerome. Our Clement anticipates Clement of Alexandria, who, when he was not criticizing the Greeks was learning from them. This is a far cry from some obscurantist Evangelicals I have met, who do not want their children so much as to have heard the story of the Phoenix and rail against all classical learning.
TJF @ 88
"Our Clement anticipates Clement of Alexandria, who, when he was not criticizing the Greeks was learning from them. This is a far cry from some obscurantist Evangelicals I have met, who do not want their children so much as to have heard the story of the Phoenix and rail against all classical learning."
Yes, I have encountered the same fear with some Catholics and homeschoolers. It is almost as if B.F. Skinner won the cultural fight and replaced the old Christian notions of edcuaction and God's grace with his own ideas about " training." Reading the confessions of St. Augustine one is reminded that being a parent is not a scientific enterprise. Of course there have always been places to avoid, bad parts of town , a barricks language not spoken in the presence of youngsters and children etc. But this enthusiastic desire on behalf of parents for perfection is a damnable and inhuman burden for children. Thaks God some of them take the path of the proverbial preacher's daughter or prodigal son before they steady themselves for the real Christian vocation of penance, mercy for the destitute, the opressed and justice and charity towards ordinary sinners (like ourselves) and neighbors
I am leaving for a three day TRI board meeting. Before going and in great haste, I have begun on the main article a discussion of Church organization. I'll try to monitor it once or twice while I am away and leave my dictatorial control in the hands of Aaron Wolf.
Let us now take a close look at what Clement has to say about the order and organization of the Church, roughly chapters 40-44. In 37-39 Clement held up mutual help and cooperation as the model and censured the Corinthians for departing from it. In 40 he turns to one of the disorders in Corinth, the conduct of their services (a subject of Paul's complaints). Celebrations were commanded to be done at specific days and times, and he distinguishes (using Judaism as the model) between priests and laity--obviously anticipating his defense of the presbyters. Propert order in the Church (41) is based on diversity of functions, and Christians, who have been trusted with deeper knowledge, are even more bound to do things the right way than Jews, who incurred the death penalty for ritual failures.
In 42 we get to the nub: Christ is from God, the apostles from Christs, and bishops and presbyters derive their authority from the apostles either proximately or ultimately:
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had 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 from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.
So here is the model of church organization in the apostolic age. It is neither the Quakerish "as the spirit moves us" nor congregationalist. The Church is universal; central authorities are recognized in Rome (and other major Churches), and the bishop and presbyters (the distinction is unclear) hold their authority from Christ by way of the apostles. This is not the Church of Boniface VIII, but it is not the Church of Calvin either.
It seems that much of the specifics of continuance are captured in 44:2. Would a congregationalist take the phrase " with the consent of the whole Church" as a support for their view?
Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that “we are members one of another?”
I would suggest that Clements understood that a Christian would live his faith. Making the Church a domestic church. Unlike today when we go to "Church" on Sunday and then lead secular lives. One realization I have had as a Permanent Deacon is that I bring the experience of my daily married, fatherly, working life to the Church and the Church is part of my married, fatherly and working life (neither being dependent on four walls and a roof ie: a church building). I believed every lay person is called to this way of thinking.
Woodcutter @ 95
Our pastor, just this past Sunday, again reminded us that the Church is indeed the Body of Christ, an organism and not an organization. We, as members of the Body of Christ, have no "secular" life; we are His life, not merely "belonging to Him," but He through the power of the Holy Spirit is the very life in us. We live Him, first as sons and daughters, honoring thereby our mothers and fathers, and then as husbands and wives and as parents, and beyond - in the local community and in the work place. To claim His Name and then, outside the Lord's Day, Sunday, to live a "secular" life is to take His Name in vain.
Pursuant to Clement's words which you cite, I would note that we Baptists, particularly in the context of our congregationalist polity, are all too adept at "raising up strife against our own body." I suppose that this is true in episcopal and presbyterian settings as well but might be less obvious with the mitigating hand of a bishop or council of elders. However, the congregation with and through which I currently have communion with the Christ is an exception. The authority and the love of Christ are quite evident there. A group of us laymen have secessions together in which we can confide with one another and be blutly honest with one another In one of those secessions, a very influential laymen said that if this were his Church, speaking of the local congregation, he would make certain reforms and changes; he then added that the Church was, however, not his but Christ's and that Christ's will must prevail and not his. Our particular congregation has all three of the cross currents which can cause discord and strife in a Baptist congregation: Arminians (Free Will Baptists), Calvinists (Primitive Baptists) and Apostolics (Landmark Baptists). When one adds that there are within the congregation a minority of us non-dispensationalist/anti-rapture folks, one sees what a work the Holy Spirit is doing and that the members, for the most part, are focused on the finished work of Christ and not on their own theological and doctrinal whims. Of course, such seasons can pass as apparently happened at Corinth, the passing of that season having prompted Clement to right his epistle.
Baptists and other non-demonational congregationalists have bishops, but instead they call them "sponsors" or some such. For example, one very large Baptist church near my home sponsors new church plants, staffs them, and supervises (ie, oversees) them until they are well established and self-supporting. This is what bishops have always done. The only thing missing is someone to appeal to during a church dispute.
Also, it is a little known fact that Calvin wrote to Abp. Thomas Cranmer requesting ordination as a bishop. The letter was intercepted and Cranmer was soon after burned at the stake. This request should not after all be that surprising, since there is a good deal of literature now current about Calvin's liturgies, including his lengthy Genevan liturgy, which would be high church today by anyone's standards.
So Calvin's expository system of ruling elders and teaching elders, etc. became de facto polity when Calvin was unable to be traditionally ordained. That, and the influence of Zwingli assured that Calvinism took on its distinctive political form somewhere between diocesan and congregational.
On another tack, each of our big traditions of church polity gets something right: Baptists carry-out a Biblical understanding of the Levite-like role of deacons, Presbyterians have presbyteries in session, Anglicans, Lutherans, Rome, etc. have bishops, and the Eastern churches have a confederacy of confederacies.
Let us begin to wrap up our discussion and then move on to Ignatius to the Ephesians. From Clement we learn that in the Christian Church some decades before the end of the 1st Century, respect for the authority of presbyters and bishops was being insisted upon, that the bishop or presiding elder of a major apostolic Church could give instructions to another Church, that the authority of presbyters and bishops derives from Christ by way of the apostles. Within a church, the ceremonies were to be conducted at certain time and in a set manner, thus free-wheeling innovation was discourage. Life within the Church made a kind of commonwealth in which respect for authority, order, and tradition were preserved in a spirit of humility and charity. What have I left out?
I have posted this summary at the end of the original post.
I have enjoyed this discussion a great deal.
Ignatius in his letters clearly distinguishes between THE bishop and a plurality of presbyters. The bishop represents God and the presbyters the apostles or so it appears to me. I am not a student of Greek but it has been my understanding that in the New Testament bishop, presbyter and elder all stem from the same word and are interchangeable, or the same position. My questions are:
What Greek word is Ignatius using for bishop?
What Greek word is Ignatius using for presbyter/s, presbytery?
Could I receive both the Latin and Greek spellings as I am using Loeb and would like to identify the word in the Greek text.
What was the role of the presbytery in the church of Ignatius' day?
What has been the evolution of this presbytery and does it exist in the Catholic hierarchy today and if so in what form?
Mark,
I agree with the thrust of your first paragraph. The NT uses episkopos (bishop, overseer) and presbyteros (presbyter, elder) interchangeably in reference to the same office, as do the Didache and 1 Clement. This is a natural development, as episkopos came from the Greek world, while presbyteros was a Greek translation of the Aramaic word for "elder" that was used in the Jewish world.
Hence, St. Luke, in talking about Jesus' trial, writes: "And as soon as it was day, the elders (presbyterion, council of Jewish elders) of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council..."
St. Paul refers to Timothy's ordination as the "laying on of hands of the presbytery (presbyterion, council of Christian elders)."
The writings of Ignatius (even if we stick to the best/shorter Greek manuscripts) mark a clear development or departure from this. In Ignatius, the bishop and the presbytery are distinct. The bishop "presid[es] in the place of God, and the presbyters in the place of the college of the apostles." He makes this connection several times (bishop/Christ, presbyters/apostles).
One interesting facet of Ignatius' connection mentioned above is that, in his understanding, each bishop stands before his congregation as Vicar of Christ, whereas it is the presbyters who are the successors of the apostles (both being in contrast to later developments). In Ignatius, the bishop presides over the Christians assembled in a particular town, who would have met in smaller subsets (at the larger homes of wealthier members, at graves and other secret places). Hence, each sub-assembly would have had one or more of the presbyters presiding at the Divine Service. The presbyters preached, led the liturgy, etc., and, in Ignatius' view, offered a valid Eucharist only with the bishop's blessing. That last point is not in reference to a special charism possessed by the bishop alone, but is Ignatius' attempt to emphasize the unity of all Christians, which should mirror the unity of Christ and the apostles. Unity is very important to Ignatius; this may, in part, explain the fact that he is the first to record the phrase "catholic church" ("universal assembly"). Uncoincidentally, Ignatius' teacher, St. John, recorded Our Lord's prayer in the Garden, "that they may be one."
Nonetheless, the synonymous use of "presbyter" and "bishop" did not simply vanish. In Irenaeus (born in the second century and appearing at least two generations after Clement and Ignatius), we find the synonymous use still in place. In Against Heresies (III.2.2), for example, we find:
"But, again, when we refer [the Gnostics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth."
In today's Roman Catholic church, the Greek word presbyteros is translated as the Latin sacerdos (priest). In the New Testament, the Greek word for priest, hierus, is applied not to bishops and presbyters specifically but to Christ as High Priest and to all believers ("ye are an holy priesthood").
I really enjoyed the discussion of the presbytery and how it came from the Judean council of elders. I also like your reminder that we are all priests to God.
American ecclesiastical traditions are a bit unique, ultimately owing to Anabaptist influences. The short version of the view held by the most of the church in the rest of the world historically is that all bishops are priests, but not all priests are bishops. I have trouble seeing where bishop and priest are used synonymously. (Knowing that Greek presbuteros gives us both English words "priest" and "presbyter"; I decided to use "priest" without sacerdotal implication since it is older and "presbyter" is associated with just one particular Christian group.)
Clement writes:
Clement is drawing an analogy (in XLIII) with Moses' similar appointment to the Aaronic priesthood. These priests were attended by the Levitical order, just as we know from history that bishops were attended by deacons, which is exactly what Clement says in XLII: "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith" (Old Greek LXX Hesaias 9:7). Note, too, that the strife is over the appointment, i.e., the "oversight" of priests (not of congregations), which seems to be a valid alternate rendering of "episcopate" here. Bishops are priests, but I cannot see where the two are the same order here.
St. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy also uses both words; it is organized in a series of topical pairs: Christ & the ordained, man & woman, bishops & deacons, the old & the young, priest & all, master & servant. Bishops and priests are clearly treated as separate orders, separated by a third of the epistle. Paul directs Timothy to chose priests to "lay hands on," not the congregation, indicating that Timothy has oversight over priests But the interesting thing is that Paul here pairs together bishops and deacons, just as Clement XLIII does and Didache XV, too. Historically, deacons, being literally servants were attached to the bishop much as Levites were attached to the high priest of the temple in Jerusalem. In other words, house churches weren't big enough to need them, but a bishop's home church was.
As I understand it:
The office of the high priest of Jerusalem led to that of the bishops in regional cities in the nations;
The Levitical order of the temple led to the diaconate of the church;
The Judean eldership led to the ecclesiastical priesthood, which met in sessions;
The people of God who believed in His Son to come are the people of God who believe in His Son who came and shall come again.
If this discussion is to continue, can it be brought back to the first page?