Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen

zum Neuen Testament

Herausgeber / Editor
Jörg Frey (Zürich)
Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors
Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala)
Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)
J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

342

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

Early Christian Communities
between Ideal and Reality

Edited by
Mark Grundeken and
Joseph Verheyden

Mohr Siebeck

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

Mark Grundeken, born 1984, Ph. D. 2013 (KU Leuven), 2013–2014 Wissenschaftlicher
Mitarbeiter of Professor Cilliers Breytenbach at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, is
Akademischer Rat of Professor Ferdinand R. Prostmeier at the Albert-Ludwigs-Univer-
sität Freiburg.

Joseph Verheyden, born 1957, Ph. D. 1987 (KU Leuven), is Professor of New Testament
at the KU Leuven.

ISBN 978-3-16-152670-1
ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament)
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio-
graphie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2015 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted
by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to
reproduction, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was typeset by epline in Kirchheim/Teck, printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen
on non-aging paper and bound by Großbuchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier.
Printed in Germany

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Pneumatic Democracy and the Conflict in 1 Clement

John S. Kloppenborg

A dominant and still-influential representation of the late first and early second
century ce is that it witnessed a dramatic shift, between charismatic, office-less
ekklesiae, and structures modeled on secular forms of government in which the
spirit was made subject to emerging ecclesial structures. This paradigm is exem-
plified in the classic works of Rudolf Sohm and Adolf von Harnack, and in more
recent works by Von Campenhausen and many others. The point of transition
between one model and the other is most commonly seen as 1 Clement.
As this paper will argue, this paradigm is seriously flawed as a historical de-
scription of governance practices. This defect has consequences for the under-
standing of 1 Clement, since the dominant paradigm is routinely used as a foil
against which to judge 1 Clement’s perspective on ecclesial organization. Hence,
it is necessary to devote some time to the problems with the dominant paradigm
before re-assessing 1 Clement.

I. Office-less ekklesiae

The most extreme example of the dominant paradigm is found in Rudolf Sohm,
who insisted that the apostolic church had a uniform and purely charismatic
organization, lacking a legal constitution. In fact, Sohm declared, ecclesial law
stood in contradiction to the essence of the church:1
Das Wesen der Ekklesia als des Leibes Christi schließt jede menschliche Rechtsordnung,
jede Verfassung nach Art sonstiger Vereinsfassung, jede Gesetzgebung und Verwaltung
nach Art sonstiger Gesetzgebung und Verwaltung aus.2

1  R. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Systematisches Handbuch der deutschen Rechtswissenschaft

8/1–2 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1892–1923), 1:1: “Das Kirchenrecht steht mit dem Wesen
der Kirche in Widerspruch.” On the uniformity of ecclesial structure see Kirchenrecht, 1:105.
2  Sohm, Kirchenrecht, 1:160. See also R. Sohm and C. W. Rishell, Outlines of Church His-
tory (trans. M. Sinclair; London: Macmillan, 1909), 34: “The Church has no absolute need of
any class of officials. They are all born ministers of the Word and ministers they ought to be.
They all, by the Holy Spirit living within them, are bearers of the keys of heaven, and of the
royal power which in the House of God is given to the Word of God.”

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

62 John S. Kloppenborg

For Sohm all of the ‘offices’ of the earliest ekklesiae were derived from the
Spirit; no office or function was legally constituted; all depended on the Spirit,
even presiding at the Eucharist, where one functionary might preside one day as
the Spirit moved, and then give place to another.3 A decisive turning point was
marked by 1 Clement, which articulated a theory of divine order grounded in the
authority of the bishop and not in the Spirit.4 Charismatic governance modulat-
ed into governance through a human institution. This transition (or descent) to
“Katholizis­mus,” Sohm explains, was the outcome of growing numbers coupled
with the ‘natural instincts’ of people to desire order:
The larger the assembly became, the more was felt the need of some fixed outward order.
The natural man desires some legal surety that the Word and the Sacraments are admin-
istered to him aright.5

With Clement’s innovation, the charismatic nature of the church ended.6

What Sohm failed to explain is why charisma, which had been so fundamen-
tal a feature in the organization and governance of the primitive church, had
worked as long as it had given the propensity of humans to seek to escape the
demands of living in the Spirit,7 or why charisma failed as an organizing prin-
ciple only in the late first century.8 His account of the pristine purity of ecclesial
governance in the first century, and its swift descent into ‘Catholicism,’ not only
seems an overly idealized (and unrealistic) view of the earliest Christ cults,9

3  R. Sohm, Wesen und Ursprung des Katholizismus, ASGW.PH 27/10 (Leipzig: Teubner,
1912), 62.
4  Sohm, Kirchenrecht, 1:159: “nach dem Clemensbrief haben die ‘bestellten Ältesten’
ein auf göttlicher Ordnung beruhendes Recht auf das Bischofsamt, d. h. auf Verwaltung der
Eucharistie und des Kirchenguts, und zwar ein lebenslängliches Recht …, mit der Wirkung,
daß sie jeden andern von dem gleichen Amte ausschließen.”
5  Sohm and Rishell, Outlines of Church History, 38.
6  “Das berühmte römische Gemeindeschreiben (der ‘erste Clemensbrief’) macht Epoche
in der Kirchenverfassungsgeschichte. Dasselbe was bestimmt, der urchristlichen Versamm­
lung in der Kirche ein Ende zu machen” (Sohm, Kirchenrecht, 1:158).
7  Sohm and Rishell, Outlines of Church History, 334–5, account for the transition to ‘Ca-
tholicism’ in purely theological terms: “And yet there has arisen such a thing as Church law.
How was that possible? The reason is not far to seek: Because the natural man is a born enemy
of Christianity. There is in our nature a longing for salvation through Christ, the Immanuel,
the Prince of Peace; and yet we strive against Him. Our heart opens itself to every word of
Him who is the sunshine of the soul, and yet it sets itself against complete surrender, in its
despair, its misery, and weariness of the world. The natural man desires to remain under law.
He strives against the freedom of the Gospel, and he longs with all his strength for a religion
of law and statute. He longs for some legally appointed service, in the performance of which he
may exhaust his duty towards God, and so for the rest of his time be free for the service of the
world, free from that ‘reasonable service’, the presenting of his whole life as a sacrifice to God.”
8  I owe this point to B. Zapata, ‘A Brief History of the Spirit in the Institutionalization of
the Early Christian Church: Tracking the Charismatic Model Through the History of Scholar-
ship’ (M. A. thesis, University of Toronto, 2011), 33.
9 See the analysis of Sohm’s model by B. Holmberg, ‘Sociological versus Theological

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Pneumatic Democracy and the Conflict in 1 Clement 63

but an account infected by the polemics of the Reformation.10 Despite various

criticisms, however, Sohm’s narrative has controlled much of the subsequent
discussion of the structure of the earliest Christ groups and, by implication, the
significance of 1 Clement.
A contemporary of Sohm, Adolf von Harnack had been favorably impressed
by Edwin Hatch’s 1880 Bampton Lectures, The Organization of the Early Christian
Churches.11 Hatch had argued that the organizational structure of Christ groups
derived from three sources. The ἐπίσκοπος was originally a financial officer akin
to the ἐπιμεληταί that appear so frequently in Graeco-Roman cultic associations
in the role of supervisors.12 Since the earliest Christ groups were involved in
various charitable endeavors, it was appropriate to have supervisors (ἐπίσκοποι)
to manage the affairs of the group. The πρεσβύτεροι had a dual origin: on the
one hand, for Jewish Christian groups the choice of this term was “natural and
simple” since synagogues had been governed by elders; on the other hand, since
the governance of Greek cities was often in the hands of the γερουσία, and since,
Hatch argued, members of the γερουσία were likely called πρεσβύτεροι, there
would likely have been no resistance among Gentile Christ groups to employ the
term πρεσβύτερος.
[W]hen, in the course of the second century, the distinction between the Christian com-
munities which had once been Jewish and those which were originally Gentile tended
to pass away, the Jewish conception of the nature of the governing council undoubtedly
became dominant.13

While in 1 Clement there is no evidence of a mono-episcopate, sometime in

the second century the ἐπίσκοπος came to serve as the head of a council of
πρεσβύτεροι as their permanent president and this set the course for later devel-
opments.14

Analy­sis of the Question Concerning a Pauline Church Order’, in S. Pedersen (ed.), Die pauli-
nische Literatur und Theologie, TeolSt 7 (Århus: Forlaget Aros, 1980), 187–200.
10  The anti-catholic polemical tendency of Protestant patristic scholarship has been out-
lined in greater detail by E. A. Clark, ‘Contested Bodies: Early Christian Asceticism and Nine-
teenth-Century Polemics’, in JECS 17/2 (2009), 281–307.
11  E. Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches: Eight Lectures (Bampton
Lectures, 1880; London: Rivingtons, 1881). Harnack had these translated into German as Die
Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirchen im Alterthum: acht Vorlesungen gehalten an
der Universität Oxford im Jahre 1880 (trans. A. von Harnack; Giessen: J. Ricker’sche Buch-
handlung, 1883).
12  Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, 36–55.
13  Ibid., 67.
14  Ibid., 90–1.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

64 John S. Kloppenborg

Between the publication of Hatch’s monograph and Harnack’s several works

on church order,15 the Didache had been published in 1883 by Bryennios.16 Its
references to wandering apostles and prophets (11.3), encouraged Harnack to
modify Hatch’s model. As with Hatch’s model, bishops and deacons supervised
financial matters and organized congregational gatherings. But the account of
the apostles and prophets in the Didache led Harnack to posit a second sphere
of ministry in the earliest (Pauline groups) – the “apostles, prophets and teach-
ers” who were not “congregational office bearers” but who were “chosen by the
Holy Spirit,” unconnected with any particular congregation, and serving in the
“ministry of the Word.”17 Thus in disagreement with Sohm, Harnack argued
that the Spirit and established order were not irreconcilable, but co-existent. Yet
as with Sohm, Harnack averred that the basic organization of the church was
“pneumatical.” Later Harnack would further divide the system of governance in
Christ groups, adding a third category, the elders, absent from Pauline groups
but attested in other early Christ groups. This triadic organization of pneumatic
agents, elders, and elected administrative officials had distinct functions:
The first belong to the religious sphere in the strict sense, the second have their function
in the field of moral education and discipline, the third in service and administration,
and at the very early period also in public worship.18

All owed their roles to the Spirit but “in the proper sense …, only the preachers
of the word are borne by the Spirit.”19
For Harnack, 1 Clement also marked a transition, although not one quite as
dramatic as that announced by Sohm. Harnack argued that the respective or-
ganizations of the Corinthian ekklesia and that in Rome did not differ from one
another, and that in both cases πρεσβύτεροι was functionally synonymous with
ἐπίσκοποι. Moreover, 1 Clement still displayed elements of what Harnack termed
a “pneumatic democracy”:

15  A. von Harnack, Die Quellen der sogenannten Apostolischen Kirchenordnung, TU 2

(Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1886); Idem, Die Apostellehre und die jüdischen beiden Wege (Leipzig: Hin-
richs, 1886 [18962]); Idem, ‘On the Origin of the Christian Ministry’, in Exp. 5 (1887), 321–43;
Idem, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts in den zwei
ersten Jahrhunderten. Urchristentum und Katholizismus (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910); Idem, The
Constitution & Law of the Church in the First Two Centuries, CrTL 31 (trans. F. Pogson; London:
Williams & Norgate, 1910); Idem, Einführung in die Alte Kirchengeschichte. Das Schreiben der
römischen Kirche an die korinthische aus der Zeit Domitians (I. Clemensbrief) (Leipzig: Hin-
richs, 1929).
16  P. Bryennios, Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροσολυμιτικοῦ χειρογράφου νῦν
πρῶτον ἐκδιδομένη μετὰ προλεγομένων καὶ σημειώσεων ἐν οἷς καὶ τῆς συνόψεως τῆς Π.Δ., τῆς
ὑπὸ  Ἰωάνν. τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου, σύγκρισις καὶ μέρος ἀνέκδοτον ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ χειρογράφου (Con-
stantinople, 1883).
17  Harnack, ‘On the Origin of the Christian Ministry’, 327, 331.
18  Harnack, Constitution & Law, 43.
19  Ibid., 43.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Pneumatic Democracy and the Conflict in 1 Clement 65

Weil die Lokalgemeinde Erscheinung der Gesamtgemeinde, der Kirche Gottes, ist, in der
alle gleichmäßig Berufene und Erwählte sind und die vom heiligen Geiste erfüllt ist, stellt
sie eine pneumatische Demokratie dar, in der nichts ohne den Willen der Gesamtheit
geschehen darf.20

1 Clement did not signal break or demise, as it did for Sohm, because elements of
the pneumatic democracy existed alongside elements of formal organization. But
the letter betrayed a movement in favor of the latter:
Die Gemeinde ist diesen Presbytern (= Bischöfen [und Diakonen]) nicht nur Ehrerbie-
tung wie den “Alten”, sondern auch Gehorsam schuldig; das wird rund vom Briefschrei-
ber verlangt bzw. vorausgesetzt (1,3; 21,6; 47,5), und damit ist die pneumatische Demo-
kratie durchbrochen und heruntergedrückt. Bei konsequenter Anwendung dieses Gebots
wird die beifällige Willensäußerung der Gemeinde zu einer bloßen Dekoration, und eine
abweichende darf es nicht mehr geben. Wie weit die Entwicklung in dieser Hinsicht in
Korinth damals vorgeschritten war, wissen wir nicht; aber in Rom hatte das Amt schon
Bresche in die Demokratie geschlagen.21

The narrative described by Sohm and his successors, of an office-free, Spir-

it-guided ecclesial setting that was, by the time of 1 Clement, reduced to a catho-
lic institutionalized arrangement, achieved almost canonical status after Sohm
and Harnack.22
Von Campenhausen asserted that Paul developed the idea of the “Spirit as
the organizing principle of the congregation,” lacking any concept of formal au-
thority, but rather a “unitary, living cosmos of free, spiritual gifts which serve
and complement one another.” Although Pauline groups lacked elders – because
Paul had adopted the practices of the Antiochene church, which (supposedly)
also lacked elders –,23 other Christ groups had πρεσβύτεροι and this Jewish and
Jewish-Christian institution, conceived as a permanent office, eventually became
widespread.24
As for Sohm, 1 Clement (and Hermas) evidenced a new stage, although
Von Campenhausen thought that 1 Clement was likely not the innovator here,

20  Harnack, Einführung in die Alte Kirchengeschichte, 89, repr. as ‘Das Schreiben der
römischen Kirche an die korinthische aus der Zeit Domitians (I. Clemensbrief)’, in C. Brey-
tenbach and L. L. Welborn (eds.), Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of
Clement, AGJU 53 (Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2004), 73 (I cite from the reprint). Harnack refers to
1 Clem. 44.3 συνευδοκησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάσης, “with the entire assembly approving” and
54.2, ποιῶ τὰ προστασσόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους, “do what is commanded by the whole group.”
21  Harnack, ‘Das Schreiben der römischen Kirche’, 74.
22  For a fuller survey of the legacy of Sohm, see especially J. Fuellenbach, Ecclesiastical
Office and the Primacy of Rome: An Evaluation of Recent Theological Discussion of First Clem-
ent, SCA 20 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1980), 25–71.
23  H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of
the First Three Centuries (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969), 70.
24  Ibid., 58, 64, 70, 76–83: “There had for a long time been elders at the head of every Jewish
congregation, especially in Palestine” (77).

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

66 John S. Kloppenborg

but simply reflected a transition that had already occurred in Rome.25 While
still admitting of some fluidity, the “patriarchal” (i. e., presbyterial) system of
governance had merged with the episcopal system to produce a set of leaders
variously called ἐπίσκοποι, πρεσβύτεροι, (προ)ἡγούμενοι (1 Clem. 1.3; 21.6) or
πρωτοκαθεδρῖται (Hermas, Vis. 3.9.7). The net result of this transformation was
that, unlike the putative primitive (Pauline) ekklesia, “the patriarchal element
has taken precedence over the pneumatic.”26 Clement promoted the presbyte-
rial system as an institution established by the apostles.27 Therefore, whereas in
earlier times it was a matter of individuals chosen on an ad hoc basis to address
particular tasks, the elders now enjoyed lifetime tenure. With this,
the system of elders takes on, more than it has done hitherto, the quality of a definite,
fixed ‘constitution’, and that senior patriarchal figures within the community are now
regarded as invested with a clearly defined office. They are officers of the congregation,
and by virtue of their office can expect obedience from it, and exercise authority over it.28

The apogee of a theologically-laden description of ministry is found in Ernst

Käsemann, who privileged the Pauline ekklesia as normative and who described
the practices of the early ekklesiae as caught between the opposing tensions of
“Judaism” and “enthusiasm.”29 In the earliest Pauline groups all were endowed
with the Spirit and, hence, authority was transiently exercised: there was no
sense of permanent offices or even a distinction between spiritual and technical
ministries, as there had been for Harnack.30 With the fading of primitive escha-
tology and especially with threats from the outside, in particular enthusiasts, the
presbytery was institutionalized, a development already visible in the Pastorals:
… the bestowal of the Spirit … empowers those who receive it to administer the depositum
fidei of 1 Tim. 6,20, which we are to understand, more exactly defined, as the tradition of
Pauline teaching. But the significance of this is that an office which stands over against the
rest of the community is now the real bearer of the Spirit; and the primitive Christian view,
that every Christian receives the Spirit in his baptism, recedes into the background and in-
deed, for all practical purposes, disappears. … The Jewish heritage expels the Pauline … .31

25 
Ibid., 84 n. 40.
26 
Ibid., 85.
27  1 Clem. 42.4: κατὰ χώρας οὖν καὶ πόλεις κηρύσσοντες [οἱ ἀπόστολοι] καθίστανον τὰς
ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους τῶν μελλόντων
πιστεύειν.
28  Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 92.
29  E. Käsemann, ‘Unity and Diversity in New Testament Ecclesiology’, in NT 6 (1963), 292.
30  E. Käsemann, ‘Ministry and Community in the New Testament’, in Idem, Essays on
New Testament Themes, SBT 41 (trans. W. Montague; London: SCM Press, 1964), 83.
31  Ibid., 87 (emphasis added).

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Pneumatic Democracy and the Conflict in 1 Clement 67

Käsemann’s view comes close to that of Sohm: “[Paul’s] conception of the essence
and order of the Church cannot possibly be reconciled with that which comes to
prevail in early Catholicism. It is in the starkest contradiction to it.”32
Although indebted to some elements of the standard model, Elizabeth
Schüssler Fiorenza has complicated the picture by including in her analysis both
gender and wealth. With Sohm and others, she argues that the earliest ekklesiae
exhibited “organizational equality” with “shifting and alternating authority and
leadership” based on the claim that all were endowed with the Spirit/Sophia.33
Rejecting counterclaims by Countryman to the effect that recognition of an offi-
cial hierarchy already existed in the first century,34 Fiorenza pointed out that in
assessing the conflicts about leadership in the earliest period, it is necessary to
distinguish between translocal authorities – prophets and apostles such as Paul
and his rivals – and the local authorities whose authority
seems to have developed by analogy to the administrative offices of Greco-Roman private
associations and Jewish synagogue organizations, and were dependent on the commu-
nity.35

Fiorenza’s acknowledged debt to Hatch helps her to nuance the transition from
local leadership patterns which were “charismatic and communal” – where
wealthier individuals, including wealthy women, assumed leadership, on a ro-
tating basis and with the approval or election of members – to the emergence
of patriarchal leadership, which entailed the transfer of authority from wealthy
benefactors to permanent administrative officials. The result was the reduction
of the influence of the wealthy (including especially women), the development
of a clerical class, and the vesting of financial control in the hands of the bish-
op. This development had important consequences: it converted the rich from
patron-leaders to the rich whose role it was simply to give; it represented a ‘patri-
archalization’ of leadership and correspondingly restricted the sphere of activity

32  Ibid., 92. See also J. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry
into the Character of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 114, who
argues that the Pauline conception of ministry differs not only from that of Jesus and his dis-
ciples, but also from the Jerusalem church. The Pauline conception is “essentially a concept
of charismatic community and nothing else, of free fellowship, developing through the living
interplay of spiritual gifts and ministries, without benefit of official authority or responsible
‘elders’ …. For Paul the Spirit had surmounted the old Jewish distinction between priest and
people and left it behind – all have ministry and any member may be called upon to exercise
any ministry” (emphasis original). In Christianity in the Making, II: Beginning from Jerusalem
(Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009), 639, Dunn reiterates the lack of mention of lead-
ership titles in Corinth, Galatia and Thessalonike.
33  E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of
Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 296.
34  L. W. Countryman, ‘Christian Equality and the Early Catholic Episcopate’, in
AThR 63/2 (1979), 115–38.
35  Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 286.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

68 John S. Kloppenborg

of women; and it resulted in the merger of prophetic and teaching roles with the
role of the bishop.36
Fiorenza sees this transition beginning to occur in the Pastorals, which deny
to women eligibility to the episcopate but which probably still reflect a pattern
of male and female household heads, that is, male and female πρεσβύτεροι.37 A
propos of 1 Clement, Fiorenza recognizes (with Harnack) that the letter betrays
the author’s knowledge of a system at Corinth where leadership was charismatic
and communal in the sense that it depended on the approval of the congregation,
but surmises that such wealthy women leaders may have been instrumental in
removing the Corinthian elders from their office, having disagreed with them
over how their funds were to be used.38

II. Evaluating the Paradigm

Several initial comments are in order at this point.

1. First, in the works of Sohm, Von Campenhausen and Käsemann, there is
a strong tendency to speak as if Paul were the author of the organization of the
ekklesiae in which he was active. Hence, the tendency to take Paul’s discourse on
the Spirit in 1 Corinthians as though it were a description of ecclesial practices.
Such an approach tacitly assumes that the Corinthians and Thessalonians were
incapable of organizing themselves and that Paul, therefore, had to instruct them
how to do this.
Stated in this way, it should be obvious that the assumption is absurd. Rich
epigraphic and other data makes clear that Greeks in cities and towns had been
organizing themselves into θίασοι, ὀργεῶνες, κοινά, συναγωγαί, συνεργασίαι,
and συνκλίται for several centuries.39 It is unreasonable to suppose that Paul
was required to orchestrate the organization of the group. In fact, nothing in
the Pauline letters indicates this sort of instruction. Paul has many things to say
about conduct and beliefs, but nothing on the mechanics of organization.40 On
the contrary, 1 Thess 5:12 merely recognizes various persons who already served

36  Ibid., 286–8.

37  Ibid., 290.
38  Ibid., 293.
39 See J. S. Kloppenborg and R. S. Ascough, Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Transla-
tions, and Commentary, I: Attica, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, BZNW 181 (Berlin / New
York: de Gruyter, 2011) and R. S. Ascough, Ph. A. Harland and J. S. Kloppenborg, Associa-
tions in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook (Waco: Baylor, 2012).
40  Even the comments in 1 Cor 16:1–4 on the organization of the collection are best under-
stood not as instructions on how to organize a collection, but rather why the Corinthians should
be collecting funds for another group and how the funds should be transferred to that group
(i. e., in order to avoid fraud, always a concern in associations). Hence, Paul’s assurances in 16:3,
οὓς ἐὰν δοκιμάσητε, δι’ ἐπιστολῶν τούτους πέμψω ἀπενεγκεῖν τὴν χάριν ὑμῶν εἰς  Ἰερουσαλήμ.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Pneumatic Democracy and the Conflict in 1 Clement 69

as leaders of some sort (τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν

κυρίῳ καὶ νουθετοῦντας ὑμᾶς) and 1 Corinthians seems to recognize various
household heads that were already in place (1 Cor 16:15).41 In this respect,
Fiorenza’s approach, which takes seriously indigenous patterns of organization
and governance, is a more credible model than one that assumes that Paul ‘in-
vented’ the structure of each community.
2. Second, the claim that the earliest ekklesiae, as ‘charismatic’ groups, were
office-less and that forms of governance were transitory and functions of the
movements of the Spirit rests on an idealization, even romanticizing, of com-
munity structures. More seriously, it reflects a basic misreading of Pauline dis-
course, confusing Paul’s rhetorical intervention in a situation of conflict with a
description of ecclesial organization. As attractive as the models of an office-free
early church might be, Bengt Holmberg is correct in arguing that they confuse
Paul’s theology of charisma with social description. Paul’s talk of the χαρίσματα
is an interpretive category (“ein Interpretament”), a theologically grounded interpreta-
tion of an already existing and rather heterogeneous reality, intended to correct a devel-
opment in the Corinthian church life that had gone wrong. The conclusion is that Paul’s
theology of charisma is not the normative basis for the interaction structure of the typical
Pauline church, but an interpreting, correcting commentary on a special and untypical
interaction structure in the church of Corinth.42

In fact Holmberg’s analysis of the named figures in Pauline circles indicates that
they are “not very charismatic in the sociological sense of the term”:
None of the leaders mentioned in the short description above of the interaction struc-
ture of Pauline churches exhibits the characteristics of a genuinely charismatic leader:
a personal calling direct from God; superhuman powers; being his group’s “saviour”; an
extraordinary way of life with no family, property, regular work or respect for traditional
custom and belief; a radical, destructive and innovative message and mission from God;
a following devoted uniquely to himself and living in a communistic fellowship together
with him. Even the prophets, who were after all considered to transmit divine revelation,
are firmly placed under the authority of the apostle, as is evidenced by 1 Cor. 14,29–32
and 37–40, where Paul limits their freedom to talk and to teach. And both Paul and the
local prophets and teachers are bound to the normative doctrinal tradition which he calls
“the Gospel.”43
41  Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 639–40, points out that Paul’s description of Ste­pha­
nas’s household in 1 Cor 16:15, εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς, indicates that they ap-
pointed themselves to ministry. One should note the obfuscating nature of many translations:
RSV; NRSV; NAB; NJB: “they have devoted themselves”; ASV: “they have set themselves.” The
Vulgate renders this (correctly), in ministerium sanctorum ordinaverunt seipsos.
42  Holmberg, ‘Sociological Versus Theological Analysis’, 195. Similarly, 199: “in so far the
Pauline churches have a church order it is not “Pauline” in the meaning defined at the outset
(both distinctive for these churches, and planned and given by Paul himself). And in so far we
find anything Pauline here, it is not the church order as such, but a paraenetical interpretation
of an existing order, which is still developing.”
43  Ibid., 198.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

70 John S. Kloppenborg

If this is correct, several important consequences follow. First, Paul’s state-

ment in 1 Cor 12:28, that “in the ekklesia, God has established first apostles,
second prophets, third teachers, then (workers of) power, then gifts of healing,
assistance, governance, and types of tongues,” is not a matter of Paul laying down
a church order, but rather part of a rhetorical strategy that aims at reducing ri-
valry and factionalism. “Spirit” is not a descriptive category but a rhetorical one.
The second implication is that one cannot use Paul or the putative early charis-
matic ekklesia as a foil for discussing 1 Clement and whatever transformations in
ecclesial structure might have occurred there.
3. The fact that the authentic Pauline letters, excepting Philippians and Ro-
mans 16 do not mention titles of officers should hardly be taken as an indication
that there were no offices or governance structures. Von Campenhausen ven-
tured that “the Church is not a human natural entity, but a sheerly miraculous
transcendent phenomenon,”44 pointing to relative silence of Paul on offices as
evidence of a lack of offices. He dismissed διάκονος in Rom 16:1 as meaning only
“servant,” and he dealt with the ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι of Phil 1:1 by arguing that
it reflects “a later stage of church development” – we are apparently to suppose
that he means a movement away from the “Pauline” conception.45 In any case, he
insists that “there is … no question of offices in the strict sense, and absolutely
none of sacral offices on the lines of the later ‘hierarchy’.”46
This is a deeply naive reading of Paul. The lack of mention of explicit offices
is more likely a function of Paul’s purposes in writing, not a reflection of the
organi­zation of the group. Typically, inscriptions from associations mention of-
ficers explicitly only when there is reason to do so. For example, in honorific de-
crees when the honoree served as an officer and when that service is the basis of
the recognition, the office is expressly noted. In other cases, such as IG II2 1275
(Piraeus; 325–275 bce),47 a list of obligations imposed on association members,
no titles are mentioned. This is simply because titles are not relevant to the pur-
pose at hand. But this is no reason to suppose that the association represented
by IG II2 1275 did not have an organizational structure with officers. Associa-
tions collected dues, organized banquets, sometimes made loans, and required
basic organizations. For these functions officers were required and to the extent
that collection of funds was involved (as it normally was), officers who were
responsible to the membership and could render their accounts.48 The same
44 
Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 64.
45 
Ibid., 68–9.
46  Ibid., 69.
47 = GRA I no. 8.
48 The requirement that officers render yearly accounts of income and expenses is a
standard part of many inscriptions: Agora 16:161.9–10, 16–17 (early III bce); IG II2 1263.9–12
(300/299 bce); IG II2 1277.16–17 (278/7 bce); IG II2 1284.26–7 (241/0 bce); IG II2 1292.7–8
(215/4 bce); IRhamnous II 59.33–4 (after 216/5 bce); SEG 2:9.5–6, 11 (243/2 bce); SEG 31:122.30,
40 (early II ce).

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Pneumatic Democracy and the Conflict in 1 Clement 71

considerations apply to early Christ groups. We even have a list of members of

an association who were honored with crowns which lacks any mention of their
titles even though the grounds for the honors, ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ δικαιοσύνης τῆς
εἰς τὸ κοινόν, strongly suggests that those honored were ἐπιμεληταί, ταμίαι or
γραμματεῖς.49 The lack of explicit mention of the offices is hardly an indication
that the association lacked offices; on the contrary, the omission is likely due to
the fact that anyone reading the decree would either know the offices held by
the honorees, or deduce from the stated grounds that at least some were officers.
Neither Paul’s generic comments in 1 Thess 5:12 nor his references to Stephanas
in 1 Cor 16:15 requires that he refer to a specific title. He does, however, have
good reason to mention the status of Phoebe as a διάκονος and προστάτις in
Rom 16:1 since in a letter of recommendation it is critical to impress the recip-
ient with the letter bearer’s credentials, and there is scarcely a better way to do
this than to note her status as an officer, her role as a benefactor, and her personal
relationship with Paul. Given the stubbornly vertical nature of Mediterranean
society, it is reasonable to assume that all clubs and associations had officers. To
suppose otherwise is to posit a socially and culturally anomalous situation.
This does not mean, however, that we need to suppose that officers in early
Christ groups were either permanent or appointed by superiors. On the contrary,
a study of associations in the Graeco-Roman period suggests that most associ-
ations had rotating officers or, if we may use the term, a “flat hierarchy.”50 The
fact that many honorific decrees refer to officials as “those who were supervisors
(epimelētai) of the sanctuary during the year that x was archon” indicates that a
rotating hierarchy was typical and that new supervisors were chosen yearly.51
The same conclusion can be drawn from inscriptions which mandate some fu-
ture action on the part of the supervisors without naming them – because the
actual names of the supervisors were not known at the time of the decree.
This should perhaps cause us to think differently about Phil 1:1, the reference
to ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι. While Von Campenhausen was convinced that there
was not a rapid turnover of ministries and that they were enjoyed “on a perma-
nent basis, or at any rate for a fairly long time,”52 the analogy of the rich data
we have from associations suggests that Paul does not name the ἐπίσκοποι καὶ
διάκονοι because they were elected or chosen on a rotating basis. Paul did know
Epaphroditos, Syntyche, Euodia, and Clement and names them. But because

49  IG II2 2347 (Salamis, ca. 300 bce) = GRA I no. 12.
50  In organizational studies, “flat hierarchy” refers to organizational patterns in which or-
ganization is wider than deep, i. e., units or persons are under a single level of supervision. “Flat
hierarchy” in the sense in which I and Andreas Bendlin use the term refers to an organizational
pattern in which organization is shallow and wide, but also that governance is impermanent
and rotating.
51 See Kloppenborg and Ascough, GRA I, passim.
52  Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 68.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

72 John S. Kloppenborg

Paul, in prison, did not know the names of the current ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι,
he simply refers to them with a generic phrase. A similar argument can be made
a propos of 1Thess 5:12: Paul uses the generic term οἱ προϊστάμενοι because he
does not know the names of the current officers. By his own admission, he had
been away from Thessalonike for some time and until the arrival of Timothy did
not know the state of the group at all. We might also note that sometime later, the
Didache (15.3) uses the verb χειροτονέω to describe the selection of ἐπίσκοποι
and διάκονοι,53 a verb whose basic meaning is “to elect by a show of hands,”
a verb normally used in connection with the election of yearly supervisors in
Greek associations.54 If χειροτονέω retains this basic meaning, it would imply a
quasi-democratic principle of leadership selection.
There were, of course, some officers in associations who enjoyed longer, even
permanent tenures of office. An honorific inscriptions from Athens (IG II2 1323;
194/3 bce) honors two officers, one, Theon, who had served as treasurer for at
least seven years.55 Another inscription, IG II2 1328 (Piraeus, 183/2 bce; 175/4
bce), contains two decrees of the orgeōnes of the Mother of the Gods, the second
awarding the title of attendant (ζάκορος) for life (διὰ [βίου]) to a certain Met-
rodora. This would not be so striking were it not for the first decree, inscribed

53 
Didache 15.1: Χειροτονήσατε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους ἀξίους τοῦ κυρίου,
ἄνδρας πραεῖς καὶ ἀφιλαργύρους καὶ ἀληθεῖς καὶ δεδοκιμασμένους· ὑμῖν γὰρ λειτουργοῦσι καὶ
αὐτοὶ τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων. See also 2 Cor 8:18–19: (Titus) … οὐ
μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ χειροτονηθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν συνέκδημος ἡμῶν σὺν τῇ χάριτι ταύτῃ
τῇ διακονουμένῃ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν πρὸς τὴν [αὐτοῦ] τοῦ κυρίου δόξαν καὶ προθυμίαν ἡμῶν. In Acts
14:23 χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς κατ’ ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους the verb is usually translated
“select,” but may yet have in view a process that presupposes a ratification by the assembly.
54  The term is especially frequent in inscriptions from Attica, the Aegean Islands, and Asia
to denote the election of officials by the dēmos. It also appears in association inscriptions such
as IRhamnous II 59.2–4 (Rhamnous, after 216/5 bce): [ἐπει]δὴ Ἀπολ.[λόδωρος χειροτονηθεὶς
στρατηγὸς] | [δια]τε­τέλεκ[εν εὔνους ὢν καὶ ἰδίαι καὶ κοι]|[νε]ῖ τῶι δήμωι ἐ.[ν παντὶ καιρῶι  ….,
“Whereas Apollodoros, who was elected as stratēgos, has continued to be well-intentioned to-
wards the People (dēmos) – both to individuals and collectively – at all times ….” In Ignatius,
the verb refers only to the election or selection of ambassadors, presumably a temporary role:
Phld. 10.1: πρέπον ἐστὶν ὑμῖν, ὡς ἐκκλησίᾳ θεοῦ, χειροτονῆσαι διάκονον εἰς τὸ πρεσβεῦσαι
ἐκεῖ θεοῦ πρεσβείαν, “it is fitting for you, as an assembly of God, to elect a diakonos to be an
ambassador of God there [in Antioch]”; Smyrn. 11.2: πρέπει εἰς τιμὴν θεοῦ χειροτονῆσαι τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν ὑμῶν θεοπρεσβεύτην …, “it is fitting for the honor of God that your assembly elect
a divine ambassador ….”; Pol. 7.2: πρέπει, Πολύκαρπε θεομακαριστότατε, συμβούλιον ἀγαγεῖν
θεοπρεπέστατον καὶ χειροτονῆσαί τινα, ὃν ἀγαπητὸν λίαν ἔχετε καὶ ἄοκνον, ὃς δυνήσεται
θεο­δρόμος καλεῖσθαι· τοῦτον καταξιῶσαι, “it is fitting Polycarp, most blessed by God, to hold
a most divine council and to elect someone whom you love greatly and who is resolute, who
will be able to be designated as godly and to honor this one.” The subscriptions to Timothy and
Titus in minuscule 1739 and M also use the verb: Πρὸς Τιμόθεον β’ τῆς Ἐφεσιων ἐκκλησίας
ἐπίσκοπον πρῶτον χειροτονήθεντα ἐγράφη ἀπὸ  Ῥώμης. … and Παύλου ἀποστόλου πρὸς Τίτον
τῆς Κρήτων ἐκκλησίας πρῶτον ἐπίσκοπον χειροτονή­θεντα. …, where it has come to mean
“select” or even “appoint.” This latter development is documented by C. Turner, ‘Χειροτονία,
χειροθεσία, ἐπίθεσις χειρῶν’, in JThS 24 (1923), 496–504.
55  See the discussion in Kloppenborg and Ascough, GRA I, 156–8.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Pneumatic Democracy and the Conflict in 1 Clement 73

eight years earlier, recording the decision that the priestess chosen each year be
permitted to choose a former priestess as an attendant (ζάκορος), but that no
one be given this honour twice before all former priestesses had been given their
turn. Certainly in the case of Metrodora, but perhaps also in the case of Theon, it
is likely that status and influence played a key role in securing an office for a long
period or even on a permanent basis.56
Closer to the common era, the Iobakchoi inscription (IG II2 1368; Athens,
164/5 ce) records the decision of the assembly to award the priesthood to
Herodes Atticus, evidently for life. This is a noteworthy decision, since in order
to make this appointment, the former priest, Aurelius Nikomachos, who had
served at priest for twenty-three years, had to resign “while living” and re-as-
sume the position of vice-priest, an office he had earlier held for seventeen years.
The phrase in l. 7 παραχωρήσαντος ζῶντος likely implies that Nikomachos had
been awarded a lifetime priesthood which he now had to relinquish. He had been
persuaded to resign in favor of the millionaire philanthropist Herodes, either be-
cause that was the price of Herodes’ patronage of the Iobakchoi, or because that
was the inducement that the Iobakchoi were prepared to offer Herodes in order
to attract so wealthy and influential a patron.
These instances of the status and influence of members or patrons of asso-
ciations precipitating an adjustment in normal governance practices are hardly
surprising, and are entirely coherent with Fiorenza’s suspicion that wealth – and
we must add, status – likely played a significant role in the governance of Christ
groups, even if the ‘normal’ practice, as suggested by Phil 1:1 and Did. 15.3, was
the election of rotating leaders in a system of flat hierarchy. Thus, there is a grain
of truth in Von Campenhausen’s view that “ministries,” as he calls them (or “of-
fices”) were at least sometimes enjoyed on a more or less permanent basis, but
this would especially be the case when the office-holder had wealth, influence,
and status which allowed him or her to insist on a permanent office, or which
made it advantageous for the group to prevail on the office-holder to assume a
permanent role.
4. Fiorenza’s suggestion that indigenous practices affected the complexion of
Christ groups is also no doubt correct.57 Rather than, with Von Campenhausen,
considering the ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι of Phil 1:1 as a symptom of a late devel-
opment, it is more likely that it simply reflects indigenous practices in Macedo-
56  The phrase διὰ βίου appears in a number of association inscriptions in connection with
officers: e. g., IG II2 1326.36 (176/5 bce) (priesthood); IG II2 1328 (183/2, 175/4 bce) (atten-
dant); IG II2 1368.7 (164/5 ce) (priest); IG II2 2361.10, 68 (200–211 ce) (priest; priestess); A.-F.
J­ accottet, Choisir Dionysos: les associations dionysiaques ou la face cachée du dionysisme
(Zürich: Akanthus, 2003), 2: no. 7 (141 ce).
57 Similarly, J. Reumann, ‘Church Office in Paul, especially in Philippians’, in B. McLean
(ed.), Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity: Essays
in Honour of John C. Hurd, JSNTS 86 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 82–91, who argues that the
ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι of Phil 1:1 were indigenous officers drawn from Hellenistic models.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

74 John S. Kloppenborg

nia, and the high degree of variability in organizational practices attested among
associations from one locale to another.58
Sometimes the governance structure of associations mimicked the political
structures of the city in which they were found. Thus in Athens many associa-
tions had a trio of ἐπιμεληταί, ταμίας and γραμματεύς, imitating the titles of civic
officials. Associations that had cultic functions of course often had ἱερεῖς, ἱέρειαι
or ἱεροποιοί. At times the name of the association and the name of the chief
officer were coordinated, as in the case of an ἀρχισυνάγωγος serving as the pres-
ident of assemblies (συναγωγή) of Judaeans or of barbers59 or the ἀρχίβακχος
of a Dionysiac association.60 But this was not always the case: for example, were
ἀρχισυνάγωγοι were the chief officers of two guilds devoted to heroes.61
Titles and functions varied from one locale to another, as Arnaoutoglou has
observed a propos of one title attested in some associations:
Associations were not monolithic groupings, but groups which would adapt to new
developments by transforming their structure, or more often, their nomenclature; the
semantic variety of the term ἀρχερανιστής reveals that what is true for one region of the
Greek world it is not necessarily valid for another.62

Even in the same type of associations there could be differing titles depending on
the locale. Dionysiac associations in Athens and Central Greece attest a ἱερεύς as
the senior officer,63 while on Thera and Delos, ἐπίσκοποι appear to be the officers
in charge.64 It is not even clear that the ἐπίσκοποι in Thera, who seem to have
functioned as financial managers like a ταμίας in Athens, had the same suite of
functions as the ἐπίσκοποι on Delos, whose function it was to announce honors,
akin to the ἐπιμεληταί in Athens. It should not surprise us, then, if ἐπίσκοπος
and διάκονος appear in Macedonia, at Philippi, but not in Thessalonike or in
Corinth. And we should not automatically suppose that the ἐπίσκοποι attested at
Philippi or in the Pastorals had the same function.
In sum: the model of an office-free, Spirit-guided system of governance in
the Christ groups of the first century rests on a confusion of Pauline rhetorical
intervention in a situation of conflict at Corinth with a description of the system

58 See R. S. Ascough, ‘Voluntary Associations and the Formation of Pauline Christian
communities: Overcoming the Objections’, in A. Gutsfeld and D.-A. Koch (eds.), Vereine,
Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien, STAC 25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2006), esp. 162–9.
59  IPerinthos 49.A8–9 (= GRA I no. 86) (I ce).
60  IG II2 1368.12–13, 67, 93, 117–18, 123, 140 (= GRA I no. 51) (164/5 ce).
61 P. Petsas, ‘ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑ’, in Ἀρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 24B2 (1969), 300–2 (Thessalonike,
59/60 ce); CIG II 2007f (Hagios Mamas; II ce = GRA I no. 66).
62  I. Arnaoutoglou, ‘ΑΡΧΕΡΑΝΙΣΤΗΣ and Its Meaning in Inscriptions’, in ZPE  104
(1994), 110.
63  IG II2 1368 (Athens, 164/5 ce) = GRA I no. 51; Jaccottet, Dionysos, 2: no. 7 (Megara,
141 ce) = GRA I no. 60.
64  IG XII/3 329/1295 (Thera, II bce); I.Delos 1522 (Delos, time of Trajan).

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Pneumatic Democracy and the Conflict in 1 Clement 75

of governance there, or elsewhere; and implausibly constructs both Paul as the

author of a charismatic system of governance and his ekklesiae as incapable of
creating systems of governance on their own. Comparative data suggests, on the
contrary, that indigenous and highly varied systems of governance existed in
every city and town in the Mediterranean world. There is little reason to suppose
that early Christ groups, anomalously, had an office-free regime, and good reason
to suppose that they mimicked both the flat-hierarchical practices widely attest-
ed elsewhere, and that patronage and wealth function to install some leaders as
permanent officers. This being the case, a reassessment of 1 Clement is in order.

III. 1 Clement in the Context of Associations

It is usual to argue that the principal concern of 1 Clement is to respond to con-

flicts over leadership (“Amt”). Lona puts the problem of the Corinthian Christ
group thus:
As the concern over appropriate leadership in the Pastorals shows, one can recognize
in Pauline communities at the end of the first century the unmistakable tendency to
define the functions of ecclesial leadership and the preconditions for the appointment
of leaders. The sources do not provide evidence of the extent to which this development
was accompanied by tensions and disputes in the churches, but it would be remarkable
if such a change in the Corinthian community could have been effected in an entirely
unproblematic way. The charismatic-enthusiastic voice which is so clearly attested in
1 Corinthians speaks against a smooth transition from a community that was once so
charismatically oriented to a communal structure characterized by a growing institu-
tionalization of leadership.65

This diagnosis of the issue in Corinth requires some adjustment. Almost all
agree that the occasion of the letter is the report that former leaders at Corinth
have been removed and replaced by others:
Τοὺς οὖν κατασταθέντας ὑπ’ ἐκείνων ἢ μεταξὺ ὑφ’ ἑτέρων ἐλλογίμων ἀνδρῶν συνευδο-
κησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάσης, καὶ λειτουργήσαντας ἀμέμπτως τῷ ποιμνίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ
μετὰ ταπεινοφροσύνης, ἡσύχως καὶ ἀβαναύσως, μεμαρτυρημένους τε πολλοῖς χρόνοις
ὑπὸ πάντων, τούτους οὐ δικαίως νομίζομεν ἀποβάλλεσθαι τῆς λειτουργίας. (44.3)
Those who were appointed by them [the apostles] or afterwards, by other men of reputa-
tion, and with the entire ekklesia approving, and having served the flock of Christ blame-
lessly and in humbleness of mind, quietly and with all modesty, and have been reputed
for a long time by all – these we consider to have been unjustly thrust from their ministry.

65  H. E. Lona, Der erste Clemensbrief, KAV 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998),
81. This view is earlier espoused by W. Wrede, Untersuchungen zum ersten Klemensbrief
­(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1891), 25–8.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

76 John S. Kloppenborg

However, if the letter were designed simply to address an alteration in the system
of governance – from a Spirit-guided practice to an institu­tionalized one – it is
singularly strange that Clement does not raise the issue during the first forty-two
chapters. The first two-thirds of the letter would be orphaned as unrelated mus-
ings about jealousy, repentance, obedience, hospitality, humility, and the gifts of
God.
An alternate understanding of the letter, proposed by almost simultaneously
by W. C. van Unnik and Paul Mikat,66 and more recently endorsed by Barbara
Bowe and Odd Magne Bakke, argues that the issue for the letter writer is στάσις,
and that the letter itself is a defense of ὁμόνοια καὶ εἰρήνη.67 As Van Unnik argues,
when 1 Clement is read from the perspective of a symbouleutikon on concord and
peace, its various exhortations and admonitions fit within that framework.
In Corinth, certain things were in dispute, cf. 1,1 …, thus a sumbolê was in order. In keeping
with the dogmatic framework of the Christian Clement, naturally the decisive question for
him lies, not in terms of what is “beneficial or harmful” but in terms of the commandments
of God and God’s judgment. … Clement is conscious of the fact that he does not write on
his own authority, but he appeals to the knowledge of the Holy Scripture which his readers
possess, as he says in praise of them, and which he repeatedly calls to remembrance: the
word of God shows where the ways of obedience and disobedience lead. When the order
established by God is destroyed through discord, salvation is put at risk.68

Van Unnik pointed out that Clement’s appeal for ὁμόνοια καὶ εἰρήνη echoes a
trope in political discourse widespread from the mid-first century ce onwards,
promoting concord and peace as a precondition to prosperity. This trope, attest-
ed in Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, Cassius Dio, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata and
others is connected in particular with idealizations of the polis or the state: when
the polis exhibits ὁμόνοια καὶ εἰρήνη its citizens will prosper and are saved from
various disasters. Dio treats ὁμόνοια καὶ εἰρήνη as the condition of a city founded
by the gods (Or. 39.2)69 and promotes it as the ideal state of a city that is governed
by philosophers (Or. 49.6).70

66  P. Mikat, Die Bedeutung der Begriffe Stasis und Aponoia für das Verständnis des 1. Cle-
mensbriefes, VAFLNW.G 155 (Köln: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1969); W. C. van Unnik, ‘Studies
on the So-called First Epistle of Clement: The Literary Genre’, in Breytenbach and W ­ elborn,
Encounters with Hellenism, 115–81.
67  B. E. Bowe, A Church in Crisis: Ecclesiology and Paraenesis in Clement of Rome, HDR 23
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988); O. M. Bakke, “Concord and Peace”: A Rhetorical Analysis of the
First Letter of Clement with an Emphasis on the Language of Unity and Sedition, WUNT 2.141
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001).
68  Van Unnik, ‘Studies’, 159–60.
69 Dio, Or. 39.2: πρέπει δὲ τοῖς ὑπὸ θεῶν ᾠκισμένοις εἰρήνη καὶ ὁμόνοια καὶ φιλία πρὸς
αὑτούς …. θεοὶ γὰρ οἰκισταὶ καὶ συγγενεῖς καὶ προπάτορες οὐδὲν οὕτως ἐθέλουσι τοὺς αὑτῶν
ἔχειν, οὔτε χώρας κάλλος οὔτε καρπῶν ἀφθονίαν οὔτε πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων, ὡς σωφροσύνην
καὶ ἀρετὴν καὶ πολιτείαν νόμιμον καὶ τῶν μὲν ἀγαθῶν πολιτῶν τιμήν, τῶν δὲ κακῶν ἀτιμίαν,
“Now peace and concord and friendship are appropriate for those (whose city) is founded by the
gods …. For the gods as founders and kinsmen and forefathers desire for them nothing – neither

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Pneumatic Democracy and the Conflict in 1 Clement 77

For his part, Clement retells various biblical stories, inserting ὁμόνοια into
the account. For example, Noah is said to have “proclaimed the renewal of the
cosmos and the Lord saved through him the animals that had entered the arc
in concord ”71 and the fate of Lot’s wife is said to have resulted from her having
“a different opinion and being out of concord.”72 Like Dio, Clement represents
concord as the basic condition established by God in creation (20.3, 10, 11), and
as the condition to be sought as a divine gift for the ekklesia (21.1; 30.3; 34.7, 49.5;
50.5) and for earthly rulers (60.4; 61.1). It is this concern – for concord and peace
instead of στάσις – that is the overwhelming rhetorical concern for Clement.73
The cause of the στάσις is still a matter of speculation. As indicated above, the
most commonly ventured suggestion is that pneumatics at Corinth – represent-
atives of the original style of governance – had resisted creeping institutionaliza-
tion and had displaced a few of the leaders.74 There are numerous problems with
this view, not least of which is the fact that the evidence for an original pneu-
matic charter of the Corinthian ekklesia is lacking. Moreover, as noted above, the
rhetorical construction of 1 Clement does not support the thesis that Clement
sees the problem as one of charismatics opposing other forms of leadership.
Some have suggested that the issue is intergenerational, and that younger
members had displaced older ones.75 Countryman adopts a version of this, sug-

beautiful countryside nor an abundance of crops nor a huge population – so much as moder-
ation, virtue, lawful government, and honor for good citizens and dishonor for the wicked.”
70 Dio, Or. 49.6: εὕροι δ’ ἄν τις σπανίως μὲν φιλοσόφους ἄρξαντας ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, λέγω
δὲ τὰς ὠνομασμένας ἀρχάς, στρατηγοὺς ἢ σατράπας ἢ βασιλέας καθισταμένους· πλεῖστα δὲ καὶ
μέγιστα ἀπολαύσαντας αὐτῶν ἀγαθὰ τοὺς ἀρχομένους· … τοσοῦτον χρόνον εὐδαιμονήσαντας
καὶ μετὰ πλείστης ὁμονοίας καὶ εἰρήνης πολιτευσαμένους, ὅσον ἐκεῖνοι χρόνον τὰς πόλεις
διεῖπον, “Now while only rarely one might find philosophers governing among people – I mean
appointed to designated offices, or as generals, satraps, or kings –, those ruled by them enjoying
the greatest of benefits … for they were happy and conducted themselves with the greatest
concord and peace as long as the [the philosophers] managed the cities.”
71  1 Clem. 9.4: Νῶε … παλιγγενεσίαν κόσμῳ ἐκήρυξεν, καὶ διέσωσεν δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ δεσπότης
τὰ εἰσελθόντα ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ ζῶα εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν.
72  1 Clem. 11.2: συνεξελθούσης γὰρ αὐτῷ τῆς γυναικὸς ἑτερογνώμονος ὑπαρχούσης καὶ
οὐκ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ, εἰς τοῦτο σημεῖον ἐτέθη, ὥστε γενέσθαι αὐτὴν στήλην ἁλὸς ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας
ταύτης, εἰς τὸ γνωστὸν εἶναι πᾶσιν, ὅτι οἱ δίψυχοι καὶ οἱ διστάζοντες περὶ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ
δυνάμεως εἰς κρίμα καὶ εἰς σημείωσιν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς γίνονται.
73  Mikat, Die Begriffe Stasis und Aponoia, 24–34, concurs that the concern of Clement is
for concord and peace, but puts this in a juridical context: Clement understands that στάσις
has a legal meaning and would in some circumstances evoke the power of the state to suppress
sedition by force, execution or exile. Thus Clement urges the Corinthians to return to the state
of concord by having the leaders of the στάσις accept self-exile (51.1–4).
74  See, with varying nuances, Wrede, Untersuchungen zum ersten Klemensbrief, 34, 37;
P. Meinhold, ‘Geschehen und Deutung im ersten Klemensbrief’, in ZKG 58 (1939), 99–100;
Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 86, and others. K. Beyschlag, Clemens Romanus
und der Frühkatholizismus. Untersuchungen zu I Clemens 1–7, BHTh 35 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1966), 4 n. 2: “Diese Vermutung erscheint in fast alle Clemensdarstellungen in mono-
toner Wiederkehr.”
75  H. Lietzmann, Geschichte der alten Kirche (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1953–1961), 1:201–2.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

78 John S. Kloppenborg

gesting that the “insurgents” were neoi not in the sense of youth, but in terms
of experience within the ekklesia.76 Fiorenza thinks that the young had joined
forces with wealthy women to resist the imposition of patriarchal power by some
elders.77 This rendering of the conflict depends largely on interpreting 1 Clem.
3.3, οἱ νέοι ἐπὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους, as more than a rhetorical cliché adapted from
Isa 3:5,78 a conclusion that Bowe and others reject.79
Bakke urges that 1 Clem. 3.3 points to conflict over socio-economic sta-
tus, continuing the conflict between the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ evidenced, on
­Theissen’s reading, in 1 Corinthians.80 Bakke thus argues
The circumstance makes it reasonable to assume that the presbyters who were removed
from their office in Corinth were relatively wealthy house-hosts who functioned as
patrons for the members of their respective house-churches. The suggestion that the
presbyters were wealthy is, furthermore, consistent with our interpretation of 3,3. The
instigators of the sedition belonged according to this interpretation to the lower strata of
the church.81

The fault of the instigators is that they failed to observe the basic rule of patrona-
lia – the loyalty of clients to their patron.
This view assigns a good deal of weight to 1 Clem. 3.3 as a description of the
situation. While 1 Clem 3.1–4 should be regarded as the narratio,82 it is also
replete with hyperbole and biblical allusions which defy a simple translation into
the current social situation in Corinth, and hence it is not clear that οἱ ἄτιμοι,
οἱ ἄδοξοι, οἱ ἄφρονες, and οἱ νέοι – the first and final members cribbed from
Isaiah – should taken as sober social description. Moreover, when ­Clement
later suggests self-exile for the instigators of the στάσις, he appeals to their
­civic-mindedness and nobility (γενναῖος), willingness to sacrifice for the entire
group, and assures them that should they do this, ἑαυτῷ μέγα κλέος ἐν Χριστῷ
περιποιήσεται, καὶ πᾶς τόπος δέξεται αὐτόν (54.3), an assurance that is hardly
credible if directed at non-elite who had demonstrated ingratitude towards their
social betters.

76  L. W. Countryman, The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Contradic-
tions and Accommodations (Lewiston / Queenstown: Mellen, 1980), 156.
77  Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 293.
78  1 Clem. 3.3: οὕτως ἐπηγέρθησαν οἱ ἄτιμοι ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐντίμους, οἱ ἄδοξοι ἐπὶ τοὺς
ἐνδόξους, οἱ ἄφρονες ἐπὶ τοὺς φρονίμους, οἱ νέοι ἐπὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους, alluding to Isa 3:5:
καὶ συμπεσεῖται ὁ λαός, ἄνθρωπος πρὸς ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἄνθρωπος πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ·
προσκόψει τὸ παιδίον πρὸς τὸν πρεσβύτην, ὁ ἄτιμος πρὸς τὸν ἔντιμον, “and the people col-
lapse, man against man, and man against his neighbor; the child will strike the elder and the
worthless the noble.”
79  Bowe, A Church in Crisis, 18–19.
80  G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (trans. J. H.
Schütz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982).
81  Bakke, Concord and Peace, 289–316, here 314.
82  Ibid., 224–6.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Pneumatic Democracy and the Conflict in 1 Clement 79

A more credible scenario is the suggestion of Maier, that the dispute is be-
tween patrons of house churches, and that conflict over governance (44.1: περὶ
τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς) led to
a division within one or two of the Corinthian house churches which had resulted in
the creation of an alternative meeting place, the exodus of members who are sympathet-
ic with these persons and, presumably, the exclusion of members who are opposed to
them.83

Maier himself is sympathetic to Harnack’s characterization of the dispute as one

of “persönliche Cliquenwirtschaft.”84
Consideration of data from associations can concretize the situation pro-
posed by Maier. Above I have mentioned two instances of the complexion of
an association being altered. In the cases of IG II2 1328 an explicit decree of an
association to allow only a flat hierarchy of assistants to the yearly priestess was
subsequently overridden to allow Metrodora to assume the role of ζάκορος for
life. In the second case, IG II2 1368, a longtime priest was persuaded to relinquish
his position as priest (and the honor that went with this) in favor of a more
powerful figure, Herodes Atticus.
Of course, the fact that we have these inscriptions is mute testimony to the
fact that all the members agreed – or were thought to agree – to these changes.85
The scenarios outlined in IG II2 1328 and 1368 both concern the persons of high
status and influence who were either able to persuade the association in question
to alter its long-standing practices of governance, or persons whose benefactions
the associations wished to attract and were thus willing to deviate from their
own practices. The Iobakchoi decree describes their consequential decision to
demote a former priest and install another one in the most enthusiastic of terms:
ἐπαινέσαντος τοῦ ἱερέως καὶ τοῦ ἀρ-
χιβάχχου καὶ τοῦ προστάτου ἐξ(εβόησαν)· «τούτοις
ἀεὶ χρώμεθα», «καλῶς ὁ ἱερεύς», «ἀνάκτησαι
15 [τ]ὰ δόγματα»· «σοὶ πρέπει», «εὐστάθειαν τῷ
Βακχείῳ καὶ εὐκοσμίαν», «ἐν στήλῃ τὰ δό-
γματα» «ἐπερώτα». (IG II2 1368.12–17)
… after the priest and archibakchos and the president had approved, they (all) shouted:
“We will use these forever!” “Bravo for the priest!” “Revive the statutes!” “It is fitting for

83  H. O. Maier, The Social Setting of the Ministry as Reflected in the Writings of Hermas,
Clement, and Ignatius, Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, Dissertations Series 1
(Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier, 1991), 93.
84  Harnack, ‘Das Schreiben der römischen Kirche’, 76.
85  Voting is expressly attested in IG II2 1343 (Athens, 37/6 or 36/5 bce) = GRA I no. 48
(on association decrees); SEG 21: 122.9 (Liopesi, early II ce) = GRA I no. 50 (vote to expel a
member); IG II2 1368.35–6, 53, 86–7, 146 (Athens, 164/5 ce) = GRA I no. 51 (vote to admit a new
member; vote to disciple members; vote to select a treasurer); also IG X/2.1 192 (Thessalonike,
III ce) (voting an honor).

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

80 John S. Kloppenborg

you (to do so)!” “Health and good order to the Bakcheion!” “(Inscribe) the statutes on a
stele!” “Put the question!”

Yet the rule of the Iobakchoi goes on to establish penalties for fighting and dis-
orderly conduct, for failing to attend a meeting, and even for the disciplinary
officer (eukosmos) failing to act on an instance of violence. Behind the seeming
unanimity at the beginning of the decree, it is clear that many types of agonistic
behavior lurk, most of them symptomatic of the struggle for honor and status
among peers that was typical of Mediterranean society.
It is far from unlikely that the changes to the complexion of these two as-
sociations (and others) resulted in opposition, grumbling, absenteeism from
meetings when honors were voted, and for some, departure from the group en-
tirely. A decree from late Ptolemaic Egypt anticipates such behavior and forbids
the establishing of factions and departure from “the brotherhood of the leader”
for another group (ἐξέστω{ι} … μη{ι}δὲ σχί{σ}ματα συνίστασ[θαι] | μηιδ’ ἀπ[ο]
χωρή{ι}σε[ιν ἐκ] τῆς τοῦ ἡγ[ου]μένου φράτρας εἰς ἑτέραν φράτραν).86 Many
honorific decrees add a codicil that threatens those charged with enacting and
announcing honors with fines should they fail to discharge the association’s
will.87 Such a measure is not enacted to deal with forgetfulness on the part of
the supervisors; it was needed because one year’s supervisors might be tempted
to deny the promulgation of honors to their predecessors out of rivalry or even
enmity. Associations were zones of conflict as well as zones of concord. Conflict
had to be managed, but φιλοτιμία in members was routinely commended and
encouraged, and such behavior is inherently agonistic.88
It would be naive to suppose that, in a culture so attuned to social status and
the gradients of honor, that the promotion of Herodes Atticus and Metrodora
was not attended by raised eyebrows at the very least, and perhaps by complaints
and open hostility. This kind of reaction, it should be recognized, is not an un-
usual one, but given the complexion of Mediterranean society, a perfectly usual
and even predictable reaction. Hence, the scenario dimly sketched by 1 Clement,
of long-time leaders being displace in favor of others is hardly a singular one,
and the accusations by Clement of manifestations of ζῆλος καὶ φθόνος, ἔρις καὶ
στάσις hardly unexpected.
On this scenario, the conflict is not, as Bakke would have it, between low and
high-statused persons, but probably a conflict provoked by an influential person
and potentially powerful patron managing to displace some long-time leaders –
the same situation of Herodes Atticus and Nikomachos, but with less happy
86 
P.Lond VII 2193.13–14; Philadelpheia (Arsinoites), 69–58 bce.
87 
ΑΜ 66 228 no. 4.18–20 (138/7 bce) (GRA I no. 39); IG II2 1263.43–5 (300/299 bce) (GRA
I no. 11); IG II2 1273AB.22–3 (265/4 bce) (GRA I no. 18); IG II2 1292.16–17 (215/4 bce) (GRA I
no. 26); IG II2 1297.17–18 (236/5 bce) (GRA I no. 24).
88 See D. Whitehead, ‘Competitive Outlay and Community Profit: φιλοτιμία in Demo-
cratic Athens’, in CM 34 (1983), 55–74.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Pneumatic Democracy and the Conflict in 1 Clement 81

consequences. It also resembles aspects of Fiorenza’s scenario: those with wealth

managing to unseat others, though not necessarily because there is a conflict
between a vision of an egalitarian community and ‘patriarchalizing’ tendencies.
Clement’s advice to the persons he sees as the instigators of the problem that
they should accept self-exile appeals to the same high-minded and civic respon-
sibility that is aptly expressed by Milo’s speech in Cicero’s Pro Milone 93
“valeant,” inquit “valeant cives mei; sint incolumes, sint florentes, sint beati; stet haec
urbs praeclara mihique patria carissima, quoquo modo erit merita de me; tranquilla re
publicamei cives, quoniam mihi cum illis non licet, sine me ipsi, sed propter me tamen
perfruantur. ego cedam atque abibo. si mihi bona re publica frui non licuerit, at carebo
mala, etquam primum tetigero bene moratam et liberam civitatem, in ea conquiescam.”
“May my fellow-citizens fare well,” he says, “may they fare well. May they be safe, and
prosperous, and happy; ever may this distinguished city and my dearest country, however
it may treat me, long endure; may my fellow-citizens, since I cannot be with them, enjoy
without me the republic in tranquillity, but still in consequence of my conduct. I will
submit and depart; if I am not allowed to enjoy good things of the republic, at least I shall
be at a distance from a bad one; and the first well regulated and free city that I arrive at
in that will I rest.”

This is not the sentiment of the non-elite, but of an optimus who puts the safety
and concord of the city above personal convenience; it is the same sense of civic
responsibility to which Clement appeals in chapter 54.

IV. Conclusion

The thesis of an office-free, pneumatically governed early community, as incorri-

gible as it has seemed, rests on some basic misunderstandings of Pauline rhetoric
and is unrealistic as a model of human organization, especially in the Mediter-
ranean world. Consequently, this picture cannot and should not be employed as
a foil against which to judge 1 Clement. Recent analysis of 1 Clement has shown
that, contrary to earlier views, it is not principally concerned to promote or de-
fend institutionalization, it is concerned with στάσις and its consequences, and
offers its advice to the Corinthian Christ group from within the framework of
widespread civic discourse of “concord and peace” as the ideals of civic interac-
tion. The cause of the discord in Corinth is hardly one of an original pneumatic
organization being displaced by institutionalization or ‘patriarchalization,’ but
rather conflict – of a relatively predictable sort – between common flat hierarchi-
cal practices among associations, and equally common interaction with persons
of high social status and influence who demanded, or were offered, more than
just fleeting prominence in associations with which they were connected.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission