(5 votes, average: 4.40 out of 5)
Loading...I’ve indicated that the book of 1 Clement is rather long and seems a bit rambling in places to many of its readers, when its only real goal is to tell some usurpers in the church of Corinth to give the reins of power back to the duly appointed church leaders.
I read it differently. I think that it makes rather marvelous connections between things that one would normally think of as unrelated in an extended effort to show the wayward upstarts in Corinth that they have taken over the church illicitly.
Who woulda thought that the sun, moon, and stars, the seasons ,the boundaries of the sea, and the winds reveal that God wants the original leaders given their authority back?
Or that the Myth of the Phoenix (first discussed in the western tradition six centuries earlier by Herodotus) would have any relevance?
This author thinks so!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Learn More!
I understand that later rabbis, writing after Jerusalem’s destruction, often spoke of the Temple and its rituals nostalgically or described them in the present tense. But isn’t it strange that the author of 1 Clement would insist that daily sacrifices are offered, not just anywhere, but only in Jerusalem, to emphasize the importance of maintaining God’s order, if the city were already in ruins? Wouldn’t the destruction of Jerusalem undermine the very point he’s trying to make?
No, that’s how later authors talk about it. They are basing their views on what Scripture says, not on what was happening. (As my professor in grad school used to say about the letter to the Hebrews, the author’s understanding of Judaism “is all book-learning.”)
Dr Ehrman, are there any other works of Church Fathers that discuss death and the resting place of the dead? Also, in researching Sheol, it seems that some Bible scholars maintain that Sheol is divided into two different areas. One area is for the righteous, the other for the unrighteous. Is there any Biblical or writing of early Church Father that would support this view?
In my book Heaven and Hell I discuss the views of afterlife in the church fathers, who yes, do address it over time. The idea of “sheol” being divided depends on what one means by sheol; if it’s the place of the dead then already in Luke 16 there are two locations (the rich man and Lazarus). The early Apocalypse of Peter and most other books that contain accounts of Jesus going to Hades assume that everyone is in the same place, pretty much like in Homer (rather than two places as in Plato)
Off topic question:
You claim plausibly that Luke’s Christ forgives via the death and Resurrection, but Paul’s Christ pays a debt via the same. Just heard a podcast counter claim that yes Christ takes on the debt but cancels it (as God) rather than paying it (like a billionaire buying up student loans and simply forgiving them). One example: 2 Cor 5:21: “Christ became sin” actually means “Christ became a sin offering” because either the koine Greek can mean both (when using Septuagint Greek as an etymological source) or that Paul is making a play on words that ultimately still means “sin offering.” Taken this way, does Paul’s Christology sync more with Luke’s? Is this a plausible counter argument to yours?
Even subtler claim on same podcast: Christ dies because of human sin not because he took on human sin (more Septuagint Greek etymological comparisons again).
There are many theories of atonement, and many ways to try to understand Paul. But what is clear is that he thinks that Jesus had to die “for sins” and that his death is what brought restoration of a right standing with God. That’s not forgiveness in the way Jesus talks about it, which requires no sacrifice of any kind, no penalty, no payment. The economic metaphor is a metaphor more than a firm explanation of what atonement has to mean…
Interesting that Clement imagined that the resurrected Phoenix doesn’t incorporate the bones of his predecessor into his new body. He grows new bones and the predecessor’s bones are discarded. I wonder if Clement thought the same happens with human resurrection.
It’s a very intriguing passage.