Did Clement of Rome Teach Justification By Faith And Works?

by on February 11, 2026 | Comment

Introduction

Buried at Sea: The Martyrdom of St. Clement of Rome

Legend has it that because so many converted to Christianity under the preaching of Clement of Rome, even among the Roman elite, Emperor Trajan exiled him to the marble quarries in Cherson, a colony in modern-day Ukraine. There, under the hot sun, alongside thousands of fellow Christians all parched from their labor, Clement performed a miracle. He caused a fountain to open and pour forth an abundance of sweet water that quenched the thirst of the many laborers. This miracle caused many to believe the gospel that day. Trajan heard word of this and ordered the governor to put a stop to Clement’s actions. In order that no relic of him remain for the Christians to venerate, the governor ordered that Clement have an iron anchor tied around his neck and be thrown into the Black Sea.1

This account dates at least three hundred years after its purported events and is fictional through and through.2 Nonetheless, this hagiographical account of Clement’s martyrdom serves as an apt metaphor for how many scholars have previously treated his doctrines of grace and justification. Just as the governor buried Clement beneath the sea and out of reach of those who might reclaim him, certain influential scholars have relegated his only extant work as a turn to legalism and an abandonment of a purely gracious gospel.3

Pax Corinthia: Peace, Piety, and Paradox

The letter known as 1 Clement is one of the oldest Christian documents extant outside the New Testament. It was addressed from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth.4 Quarrelsome divisions and false apostles had plagued the Corinthian church, and less than fifty years after the apostle Paul had addressed these threats, their divisive spirit remained.5 Between AD 70 and the turn of the century, a rebellious faction had risen up and overthrown the elders appointed by the apostles.6 The letter does not name its author, but tradition has attributed it to the aforementioned Clement of Rome.7

In his letter he called the Corinthians to repent of the strife and schism they had caused in the church by their jealousy and arrogance. He exhorted them to follow the examples of the Old Testament saints, creation order, and Jesus Christ by living harmoniously and peaceably with one another. They were to achieve this by pursuing humble obedience in conformity to the will of God, who had already called and sanctified them by his will through Jesus Christ.8 He sought to produce godly obedience and concord above all.

Despite his central concern for good works, amid his exhortations he also articulated a form of justification apart from works. After considering how Abraham “attained righteousness and truth through faith,”9 he wrote, “We, having been called through [God’s] will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety, or works that we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the Almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning.”10 One can hardly miss the Pauline phrasing of Clement’s claim. Those who identified this as genuine Pauline theology point out its similarities to Paul’s letter to the Romans.11 Those who denied Pauline influence admitted that Clement attempted to use Paul’s language but failed to understand its original meaning.12 As evidence of his radical misunderstanding, they point to a seemingly contradictory charge: “Let us clothe ourselves in concord . . . being justified by works, not by words.”13 It would seem that Clement taught both a justification by faith apart from works and a justification by works.

The Sea of Scholarship

According to nineteenth-century higher-critical scholarship, the gracious theology taught by Paul had been eclipsed by Gnosticism and neglected by the proto-orthodox in the second century. This neglect included the loss of any distinctly Pauline notion of justification. For a century, this understanding held significant sway in the scholarship.14 Rudolf Bultmann taught that the early church had replaced the New Testament’s radical doctrine of grace with a form of legalism that taught “by obedience to God’s demands a man can successfully exert himself to fulfil the condition for attaining future salvation.”15 This throwing man back on his own strength, Bultmann said, showed itself most clearly in 1 Clement.16 T. F. Torrance agreed and said that in 1 Clement, “grace is given to those who perform the commandments of God, and who are worthy.”17 He pointed to Clement’s statement that one is “justified by works, not words” as clear evidence that he taught justification by faith plus godliness, love, and truth, which for Torrance indicated that “Clement is well on the way to the legalism of later times.”18

Others, however, have questioned these claims and have identified a clear distinction between Clement’s two justifications.19 While maintaining their distinction, Brian J. Arnold more recently sought to reconcile the two by showing that Clement, like Paul, grounded his exhortations (imperatives) in what was already true of the Corinthians (indicatives).20 Arnold argued that therefore, Clement understood good works in a Pauline way—that is, as “the appropriate response to the work of God in salvation, not the foundation of their justification” and that “salvation, though by faith alone, must be accompanied by works as evidence.”21

Although I agree with Arnold’s conclusion, instead of appealing to Paul, I have attempted to rely only on the categories and internal logic of 1 Clement itself.22 I have sought to reconcile its two types of justification by demonstrating that God justifies man by faith alone and that man vindicates himself by works as evidence of his justification by faith. To this end, I will (1) distinguish between two aspects of God’s will, (2) situate justification by faith in the sovereign will of God, (3) show that justification by faith leads to conformity to the moral will of God, and (4) clarify justification by works to mean vindication by works before God and man.

Reconciling the Two Types of Justification in 1 Clement

Discerning the Will of God: Two Aspects of the Divine Will

When describing justification by faith, Clement situated the efficacy of man’s justification in the will of God.23 Throughout his letter, however, he distinguished between two different expressions of the divine will: one resistible and the other irresistible. For example, he remarked that “those who are wicked . . . resist [God’s] will,” and he implored the Corinthians that “we should not be deserters from his will.”24 Man can either obey or disobey this expression of God’s will. In this case, it is identical to God’s moral law, by which he defines right and wrong and commands what is good. Because of this, one may refer to God’s resistible will simply as his moral will.

On the other hand, Clement described an irresistible will of God. He grounded his reassurance of the future resurrection in God’s irresistible will when he wrote, “By his majestic word he established the universe, and by a word he can destroy it. ‘Who will say to him, “What have you done?” Or who will resist the might of his strength?’ He will do all things when he wills and as he wills, and none of those things decreed by him will fail. All things are in his sight, and nothing escapes his will.”25 God created all things, sustains all things, and may just as easily destroy them. Clement’s citation from the Wisdom of Solomon implies a negative answer: None can resist God. His will encompasses all things, and all things succumb to it, which means all things come to pass exactly when he wills and how he wills it. God sovereignly accomplishes all he intends. Therefore, one may refer to his irresistible will as his sovereign will.

Sovereignly Justified: Justification Apart from Righteous Actions, Piety, and Holiness of Heart

If God’s moral will is that through which man is justified, justification depends, to some degree, on man’s obedience. In this case, God might initiate, but man’s will must cooperate to receive justification. Clement, however, did not allow for this option. He disqualified every good work. Whether one’s “own works or the righteous actions they did . . . [or] wisdom or understanding or piety, or works that we have done in holiness of heart,” nothing done “through ourselves” can contribute to justification.26 Likewise, this exclusion of “righteous actions . . . or piety . . . done in holiness of heart” precludes any cooperation with grace toward justification. His comprehensive disqualification of all righteous and holy efforts produced in and by man amounts to a denial of any possibility that man can contribute anything to his justification before God. Therefore, rather than a justification conditioned on conformity to God’s moral will, he attributed man’s justification solely to God’s sovereign will.

For those same reasons, whatever the exact role of faith in man’s justification, it is not a good work. Clement simply taught that justification by faith has as its object Jesus Christ’s sacrifice and as its source God’s sovereign will.27 God’s sovereign influence in man’s salvation is further evidenced by Clement’s prayer that God would “keep intact the specified number of his elect.”28 God has specified those whom he will save and sovereignly maintains their number by blessing them each with a righteousness received through faith.

Rightly Ordered Wills: God’s Sovereign Action and Man’s Moral Response

Additionally, Clement provided insight into the relationship between the two justifications by establishing a universal pattern in which sovereign action always precedes moral response. Before issuing his commands to “do all the things that pertain to holiness” and to “clothe ourselves in concord,” he already described the Corinthians’ position before God when he said, “We are the portion of the Holy One.”29 The call to “approach him in holiness of soul” is preceded by the reminder that God has already “made us his own chosen portion.”30 Clement consciously based his commands on what was already true of the Corinthians. They did not become God’s chosen portion by obeying him, but because they were already his portion, he required their obedience. As a pattern in 1 Clement, God’s sovereign action in making something what it is precedes its moral conformity.

He illustrated this with God’s creation order. According to his sovereign will, God created and upholds all things,31 and in accordance with his divine purposes, “The heavens move at his direction and obey him in peace.”32 The celestial bodies follow their assigned courses; the earth bears fruit in “fulfilment of his will”; the “boundless sea . . . behaves just as he ordered it”; and beasts live peaceably, according to God’s design.33 He wrote, “All these things the great Creator and Master of the universe ordered to exist in peace and harmony.”34 The created world does what it was made to do. For Clement, what something is (according to God’s sovereign will) determines what it was made to do (according to God’s moral will). Creation does what it does because it is what it is.

He used the image of God to further illustrate this point. Among his good works in creation, God “formed humankind as a representation of his own image.”35 Therefore, because God “adorned himself with good works,” he serves as a “pattern” for man to imitate.36 Because man was created in the image of God, he was designed to imitate him by doing good works.

Although Clement pointed to the image of God as a reason for man to imitate him,37 he also seems to have had a specific type of man in view—namely, one both created in God’s image and justified by faith. He referred to the blessing that Abraham received from God as “righteousness and truth through faith.”38 When comparing God and man, he said, “We have seen that all the righteous [ones] have been adorned with good works. Indeed, the Lord himself, having adorned himself with good works, rejoiced. So, since we have this pattern, let us unhesitatingly conform ourselves to his will; let us with all our strength do the work of righteousness.”39 The “righteous ones” likely refer to all those whom God has justified in the previous passage.40 Those who are already righteous by faith then do the work of righteousness as a result. Clement’s parallel of man and God illustrates this: God, who is already righteous, adorns himself with righteous works, and the justified man, who is now righteous, does the same. Therefore, God unilaterally justifies man through faith as an irresistible act of his sovereign will, and the justified man, having attained righteousness as a blessing from God, then produces works of righteousness. The justified man is not righteous because he works righteousness; he works righteousness because God already made him righteous. God’s justifying act precedes man’s righteous response.

Vindicating Clement: Distinguishing Between His Two Uses of “Justification”

Still, Clement’s so-called justification by works requires special attention. First, the word “justify” (δικαιόω) has more than one possible meaning. For example, he mentioned God’s desire “to justify one who is just”—namely Jesus, the sinless one.41 He also quoted the psalmist saying, “I have done evil . . . so that you [God] may be justified in your words.”42 Neither God nor Jesus need a justification that grants them righteousness they do not have or increases the righteousness they already possess. In both cases, a clearer translation than “justify” is “vindicate.”43 One might distinguish the two in 1 Clement this way: Justification is when one receives a righteousness that he did not once possess, and vindication is when someone’s righteousness is demonstrated and acknowledged. In the first example above, the Father vindicated the Son before the world because of his humble sacrifice. In the second, God’s words vindicated him as being right.

Second, the context of Clement’s justification by works lends itself to this alternative translation. He wrote,

Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self-controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not words. For it says: “The one who speaks much shall hear much in reply. Or does the talkative person think that he is righteous? Blessed is the one born of woman who has a short life. Do not be overly talkative.” Let our praise be with God, and not from ourselves, for God hates those who praise themselves. Let the testimony to our good deeds be given by others, as it was given to our fathers who were righteous.44

Words alone do not please God, nor do they produce peace in the church, especially if they boast in men rather than in God.45 Instead of exalting oneself with words, Clement advocated for living righteously in such a way that would garner recognition from both God and man. Here, he is not primarily concerned with how one receives righteousness (justification). His primary concern is how one receives praise from God and recognition from others (vindication). The righteous do not receive praise by exalting themselves, but they receive praise before both God and man by producing good works. Therefore, the immediate context demonstrates that a better rendering for that controversial phrase is this: “Let us clothe ourselves in concord . . . being [vindicated] by works, not words.”46

Conclusion

The Ebbing Tide

As legend would have it, the governor failed to consign Clement’s body to the sea forever. The prayers of Clement’s disciples were answered when, on the anniversary of his martyrdom, the sea receded over two miles, revealing the dry seafloor and a stone shrine under which his body lay. On that day every year thereafter, the tide would recede, and Christians would make pilgrimages to the tomb of this beloved saint.47

Likewise, despite the supposed legalism to which scholarship had consigned 1 Clement, the tide has begun to recede. Rather than throwing man back on his own strength to attain righteousness, as Bultmann alleged, Clement demonstrated man’s sole dependence on God’s will to grant him righteousness by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Only on this basis does man then live a righteous life worthy of praise. Therefore, the two justifications in 1 Clement are reconciled when justification by faith is identified as God’s sovereign act and justification by works is identified as vindication of those who produce works of righteousness.

As the tide ebbs, let us take the opportunity to recover these sweet gospel waters that Clement still offers to weary laborers like you and me. Rather than striving to contribute anything to our own justification, Clement would have us direct our eyes to he who justifies us by faith alone and gives us the grace to forsake sin and live righteous lives for him: “Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how precious it is to his Father, because, being poured out for our salvation, it won for the whole world the grace of repentance.”48

Notes

  1. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, ed., The Apostolic Fathers, part 1, S. Clement of Rome, 2nd ed. (MacMillan, 1890), 1:85.
  2. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1.1.85–86.
  3. The sermon known as 2 Clement was not written by Clement of Rome. It came to bear his name because, among the manuscripts in which it was preserved, 1 Clement immediately preceded it. The true author of 2 Clement is unknown. See Michael W. Holmes, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed. (Baker Academic, 2007), 132–35.
  4. 1 Clem., salutation.
  5. 1 Cor 1:11–17; 3:1–9; 2 Cor 7:5–16; 10:12; 11:1–15; 12:11–13.
  6. 1 Clem. 1.1; 3.2–4; 44.1–6; 47.1–7; and Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 35–36.
  7. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.15–16; 4.22–23; and Irenaeus, Haer. 3.3.3.
  8. 1 Clem., salutation; 1.2–2.8; 5.1–6.4; 16.1–18.17; 51.1–53.5; 62.1–63.4.
  9. 1 Clem. 31.2. All citations from 1 Clement are based on the translation by Holmes in Apostolic Fathers.
  10. 1 Clem. 32.4.
  11. Cf. Romans 4–6 and 1 Clem. 31.2–33.1. See Brian J. Arnold, Justification in the Second Century (Baylor University Press, 2017), 18–35; and David J. Downs, “Justification, Good Works, and Creation in Clement of Rome’s Appropriation of Romans 5–6,” New Testament Studies 59, no. 3 (2013): 415–32.
  12. See Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, Scribner Studies in Contemporary Theology (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955), 2:200; W. K. Lowther Clarke, ed., The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Translation of Early Documents (MacMillan, 1937), 27; Thomas F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers, The Torrance Collection (Wipf and Stock, 1948), 50.
  13. 1 Clem. 30.3.
  14. Arnold, Justification, 6–7.
  15. Bultmann, New Testament, 2:200.
  16. Bultmann, New Testament, 2:200–201; and Downs, “Appropriation of Romans,” 420.
  17. Torrance, Doctrine of Grace, 54.
  18. 1 Clem. 30.3; Torrance, Doctrine of Grace, 49. According to Torrance, by redefining faith as self-abasement before God, Clement had equated justification by works (that exclude self-exaltation) with justification by faith (redefined as a disposition of humble obedience). See Torrance, Doctrine of Grace, 49–50; and Arnold, Justification, 29–30.
  19. Arnold, Justification, 30; and Charles Merritt Nielsen, “Clement of Rome and Moralism,” Church History 31 (1962): 131–35, EBSCOhost.
  20. Arnold, Justification, 32. E.g., “If then you have been raised with Christ [indicative], seek the things that are above [imperative]” (Col. 3:1 ESV).
  21. Arnold, Justification, 33.
  22. Any appeal to Paul as the source of Clement’s theology, as Arnold and others do, is consonant with my thesis and only strengthens my conclusion. Though Clement received his theology from Paul, he wielded his Pauline theology in a way that was both internally consistent and creatively his own.
  23. 1 Clem. 32.3–4.
  24. 1 Clem. 21.4; 36.5–6; cf. 34.5; 35.5; 36.6; 40.3; 61.1.
  25. 1 Clem. 27.4–6; cf. Wis 12:12.
  26. 1 Clem. 32.3–4.
  27. 1 Clem. 7.4; 36.1–2.
  28. 1 Clem. 59.2.
  29. 1 Clem. 30.1, 3.
  30. 1 Clem. 29.1.
  31. 1 Clem. 19.2; 27.4; 33.2–3.
  32. 1 Clem. 20.1.
  33. 1 Clem. 20.2–6, 9–10.
  34. 1 Clem. 20.11.
  35. 1 Clem. 33.4.
  36. 1 Clem. 33.7–8.
  37. 1 Clem. 33.1–8.
  38. 1 Clem. 31.1–2.
  39. 1 Clem. 33.7–8; emphasis added.
  40. 1 Clem. 32.4.
  41. 1 Clem. 16.10, 12; cf. Isa. 53:1–12.
  42. 1 Clem. 18.4; cf. Ps 51:1–17 (LXX 50:3–19).
  43. BDAG, under “δικαιόω,” 2a.
  44. 1 Clem. 30.3–7; cf. Job 11:2–3a LXX.
  45. 1 Clem. 13.1; 21.5.
  46. 1 Clem. 30.3.
  47. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1.1.85–86.
  48. 1 Clem. 7.4.

©Grant Sims. All Rights Reserved.

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • Grant Sims
    Author Image

    Grant Sims is an MDiv student at Westminster Seminary California. He and his wife Stephanie were both raised in Orange County, California, and together with their daughter are members of Christ Reformed Church (URCNA) in Anaheim.

    More by Grant Sims ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.