The Use of Military Imagery as an Exhortation for Ecclesial Unity in 1 Clement 37 and 2 Timothy 2:3–4

Abstract

The problem of schism is one of the major issues in 1 Clement. To resolve this problem, the author of 1 Clement exhorts the Corinthian believers to submit to their leaders by using military imagery. While the use of military imagery is often understood in reference to the author’s emphasis on peace and concord, what remains to be explored is the way in which the militaristic imagery in 1 Clement 37 can be read alongside 2 Timothy 2:3–4. Although there is no clear evidence of whether Clement draws on 2 Timothy or vice versa, I suggest that the militaristic imagery in 2 Timothy 2:3–4 offers a helpful analog for understanding the meaning of the use of military imagery in 1 Clement 37.

1. Introduction

The problem of schism is one of the major issues in 1 Clement. In response to schism among the members of the Corinthian church, the author of 1 Clement seeks to promote peace and concord.1 For instance, the author of 1 Clement articulates voluntary exile as the solution to schism in the letter (e.g., 31:4; 54:2; cf. Welborn 2013, pp. 6–21). In particular, the author uses militaristic imagery in 1 Clement 37 to promote peace and concord in the church at Corinth. On this view, just as soldiers obey their commanders to maintain order and harmony, the Corinthians must obey their church leaders to facilitate peace and concord among them. This study aims to add to that with some additional arguments. While the use of military imagery is generally understood in reference to Clement’s emphasis on peace and concord, as far as I know, little has been written on Clement’s use of military imagery in conjunction with the military imagery in 2 Timothy. Although there is no clear evidence that 1 Clement draws on 2 Timothy or vice versa, both authors use military imagery to articulate harmony among believers. I suggest that the militaristic imagery in 2 Timothy 2:3–4 offers a helpful analog for understanding the meaning of the use of military imagery in 1 Clement 37. Accordingly, this study argues that 2 Timothy 2:3–4 strengthens the claim that the use of military imagery in 1 Clement 37 should be read as an exhortation for ecclesial unity through caring for others.

In what follows, I begin by discussing the context of 1 Clement to help us understand the author’s use of military imagery. I then consider the nature of military imagery (i.e., Jewish? Roman?) in 1 Clement 37 that may be relevant to the author’s emphasis on peace and concord. Then, I show how other exempla in the letter shed further light on militarization in 1 Clement 37, especially with respect to hierarchy and mutual dependence for the sake of harmony. Building on these observations, I examine how the militaristic imagery in 2 Timothy 2:3–4 strengthens the idea that Clement uses military imagery as an exhortation for peace and harmony among the members of the Corinthian church.

2. The Context of 1 Clement

Traditionally dated to the end of the first century, 1 Clement is a letter sent from the Roman church to the Corinthian church to respond to the problem of schism.2 John S. Kloppenborg observes that 1 Clement is “concerned with στάσις and its consequences, and offers its advice to the Corinthian Christian group from within the framework of widespread civic discourse of ‘concord and peace’” (Kloppenborg 2015, p. 81). In his opening chapter, Clement writes that schism is “detestable and unholy”, contradicting the quality of God’s chosen people (1:1).3 The issue of discord in the Corinthian church recurs in the letter (e.g., 2:6; 3:1–4; 46:1–9; 47:1–6; 54:1–4).4 With regard to the schism in the church at Corinth, 1 Clement 44 and 47 show that the Corinthians rebel against church leaders because of one or two people (cf. 47:6), and they have removed certain leaders from ministry. On the schisms in the Corinthian church, scholars such as Alistair Stewart-Sykes suggest that the conflict occurs between teachers, who are the recipients of patronage, and householders/patron–bishops (Stewart-Sykes 2005, pp. 182–89). Larry L. Welborn suggests that the conflict occurs between the young and the old (3:3; Welborn 2018). Kenneth J. Howell observes, “In Paul’s letters, the problem was schism, divisions among the members of the church. In Clement’s time, schism seems to have resulted from sedition, the overt rebellion of church members against established authority” (Howell 2012, p. 18). The intense schism in the church at Corinth leads Clement to ask: “Why is there strife and angry outbursts and dissension and schisms and conflict among you?” (46:5). Clement goes on to say that this schism “has perverted many (πολλοὺς διέστρεψεν) […] and caused all of us to sorrow” (46:9). For Clement, the Corinthians wrongly remove their church leaders because the deposed church leaders had carried out their ministry faultlessly (cf. 44:3–6). Consequently, the ultimate concern of the author is to promote peace, concord, and order within the divided community. That is, the Corinthians must restore the deposed leaders, accompanied by submission to authority, such as presbyters and bishops (e.g., 1:3; 37:1–5; 47:6; 57:1; 63:1–2).5 In this context, the author emphasizes submission to authority by drawing on images like military metaphors.

3. The Nature of Military Imagery in 1 Clement 37

With this context in mind, it is worth considering the nature of military imagery in 1 Clement 37 that may be relevant to the author’s emphasis on peace and concord in the letter. To begin, Janet Martin Soskice’s definition of metaphor will be relevant to this study: “metaphor is that figure of speech whereby we speak about one thing in terms which are seen to be suggestive of another” (Soskice 1985, p. 15). Thus, the speaker uses a metaphor to shed light on a particular topic. Clement, for instance, uses the body metaphor to speak of the collective members of the church (e.g., 37:5). In the same way, Clement uses the military metaphor to shed light on the theme of unity. In articulating the militaristic imagery, it appears that Clement alludes to Jewish or Roman army images to promote unity among the Corinthian members.6 Yet, a close look at the larger literary context of the letter also suggests that the military metaphor cannot be neatly understood as either Jewish or Roman.

3.1. Jewish Army Imagery

In the history of interpretation, 1 Clement is well known for its Jewish character because of “the author’s knowledge of non-biblical Jewish traditions, apocryphal Jewish texts […] Levitical/cultic traditions”, Israel’s history (e.g., 29:2–30:1; 55:1–6), and Jacob as the father of the Christians (4:8; 31:4–32:2) (Paget 2017, p. 222).7 Given Clement’s knowledge of Jewish texts and history, it would be natural to assume that the author employs Jewish elements in articulating militaristic imagery in 1 Clement 37. The rank “leaders of fifty” (πεντηκόνταρχοι) in 37:3, for instance, appears in several Jewish texts. The leaders of fifty appear in Deuteronomy 1:15 (NRSVUE), “So I took the leaders of your tribes, wise and reputable individuals, and installed them as leaders over you, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, commanders of fifties, commanders of tens, and officials, throughout your tribes” (cf. Exod 18:21; Josephus, A.J. 3.4.1; 1QS 2.21–23). In a similar fashion, 1 Maccabees 3:55 runs as follows, “After this Judas appointed leaders of the people in charge of thousands and hundreds and fifties and tens” (NRSVUE). Annie Jaubert is correct in pointing out that the division into leaders of a thousand, heads of a hundred, and leaders of fifty is typical of the distribution of functions in the people of God according to the Bible and some Jewish writings: “Cette répartition hiérarchique est attribuée à Moïse lui-même. En Ex 18, 21.25, Moïse institue comme juges du peuple des chefs de mille, de cent, de cinquante et de dix; Dt 1, 15 répète que Moïse a pris ‘des hommes sages et instruits’ et les a établis comme chefs de mille, de cent, de cinquante et de dix” (Jaubert 1964, p. 81). Barbara Ellen Bowe is also correct in pointing out that the military imagery in 1 Clement 37 corresponds to the “sacral and priestly connection of the people of the desert” where Israel’s army is divided under leaders of thousand, hundred, fifty, and ten (Bowe 1988, p. 128). With regard to militarization, Tassilo Schmitt’s observation is apt—militarization itself is self-evident for God’s chosen people in responding to the problem of the community, that is, schism in the Corinthian church (Schmitt 2002, pp. 30, 33). Elsewhere in the letter, Clement draws on the history of Israel (e.g., Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah) at times to restore peace and concord in Corinth. The author identifies the cause of schism in Corinth as “jealousy” (ζῆλος). In the case of Abel, for instance, the author writes that jealousy leads to the murder of a brother (4:7). Due to jealousy, Jacob has to escape from Esau (4:8), and Joseph is sold into slavery (4:9). The author reports further that “a vast multitude of the elect who, having suffered many torments and tortures because of jealousy, set an illustrious example among us” (6:1; emphasis mine). The author uses these historical examples to address the ongoing problem (i.e., schism) in Corinth through which the author wishes to restore peace and concord in Corinth (Breytenbach 2013, p. 32). Considering this context, the author might think of the Jewish army in mind.

3.2. Roman Army Imagery

Another possibility raised by scholars with regard to the military imagery in 1 Clement 37 is Roman army imagery. For instance, some scholars have argued that the phrase “peace and concord” is a well-known Hellenistic topos (Wengst 1987, p. 108; Bakke 2001, pp. 83–84).8 The concept, however, is familiar enough from elsewhere in the ancient world due to its use in the widespread civic discourse (Kloppenborg 2015, p. 81). Klaus Wengst claims that the phrase “peace and concord” (εἰρήνη καὶ ὁμόνοια) in 1 Clement is a concept that reflects “one of the fundamental values of Roman society” (Wengst 1987, p. 107). Yet, it does not follow that the concept is merely confined to Romans. In the letter, Clement links the concept of peace and concord with the harmonious order of the universe under Israel’s God the Creator (1 Clem 20; cf. Gen 1:9; Job 38:11).

The plausible case for the author’s use of the Roman image is when the author uses the three Greek terms ἔπαρχοι, χιλίαρχοι, and ἑκατόνταρχοι that have Latin equivalents. The term ἔπαρχοι is the equivalent of praefectus praetorio, “the highest office of the praetorian guard in Rome”, the terms χιλίαρχοι and ἑκατόνταρχοι are equivalents for tribunus militum, “officers of high rank (six in each legion)”, and the centurions, “leader of a division of hundred soldiers”, respectively (Bakke 2001, pp. 174–75). In a similar fashion, Werner Jaeger points out that the militarization in 1 Clement 37 parallels the hierarchic discipline and mutual cooperation of the Roman army, a discipline that derives from Greek philosophical idea (e.g., Sophocles’ Ajax): “the great ones cannot exist without the small, and the small cannot be without the great” (Jaeger 1961, p. 19). These elements—three Latin equivalents and the discipline of the Roman army—suggest the possibility that the author might have the Roman army in mind to promote peace and concord in Corinth.

3.3. Neither Jewish nor Roman Imagery

While it appears that the author of 1 Clement alludes to Jewish or Roman military images to restore peace and concord in Corinth, a close look at the larger literary context of the letter (e.g., 40:4–5) suggests that the military imagery cannot be neatly understood as either Jewish or Roman. The author may allude to Jewish or Roman images in some cases as the author lives between two worlds (i.e., Jewish and Roman worlds) and employs elements of both. That, however, is not always the case in the letter. Among scholars who argue for the Roman army imagery, for instance, Odd Magne Bakke claims that while the Jewish texts use the term δεκάδαρχος to refer to a leader who is in charge of ten soldiers, Clement does not include the term δεκάδαρχος in 1 Clement 37 (Bakke 2001, pp. 174–75). According to this view, if the author depends on the Jewish model, it is questionable why the author does not include the rank δεκάδαρχος in 1 Clement 37 (Ibid., p. 175). Bakke’s claim that Clement does not use δεκάδαρχος is not convincing, however, because it is difficult to build an argument on what is not said. In line with Bakke, Kimberly Fowler also claims, “This [the author’s use of Roman imagery] would seem especially likely given the reference to the divine appointment of Roman authorities in 60.4–61.3, where the author is clearly wanting to show that Roman rule (of which the army was an integral part) was something God-sanctioned, and to be respected by the Christian community” (Fowler 2022). In 60:4, however, the author prays for peace and concord for “rulers and governors on earth” (ἄρχοντες καὶ ἡγούμενοι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς) that are not specifically identified as Roman rulers. The expression “rulers and governors” (ἄρχοντες καὶ ἡγούμενοι) is followed by the phrase “on earth” (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς). This rather suggests that the expression “rulers and governors” refers to human leaders generally rather than specifically confined to Roman leaders. In 61:1, moreover, the author prays that God has given the power of sovereignty, health (ὑγίειαν), peace (εἰρήνην), concord (ὁμόνοιαν), and stability (εὐστάθειαν) to rulers and governors on earth (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς). Here, the wording seems to be too general to warrant the conclusion that Roman leaders are meant. In 61:2, the author prays further that God grants his glory, honor, and authority to “human beings” (ἄνθρωποι) on earth (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς) so that they can administer in peace. Again, the term ἄνθρωποι does not specifically indicate Romans or Jewish people but human beings in general. In this light, the expression “rulers and governors” refers to human leaders in general who administer the government on earth. Wengst claims that the author’s prayer for the health and stability of “rulers and governors” in 61:1 suggests that “rulers and governors” are referred to as Roman leaders because “the health of the ruler is the necessary presupposition for the general well-being of the [Roman] Empire” (Wengst 1987, p. 107). But that ἡγεμονία is used to refer to the Roman leaders is not consistent elsewhere in the letter. In 5:7, on the one hand, the author narrates that Paul gives his testimony before the rulers (ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων), namely, Roman rulers. On the other hand, Clement uses ἡγεμονία to narrate the story of Israel’s kings and rulers in the line of Judah (32:2). This irregular use indicates that the author might not have one particular military imagery in mind to promote peace and concord in Corinth.

4. The Discipline of the Soldier in 1 Clement 37 and 2 Timothy 2:3–4

4.1. Hierarchy and Mutual Dependence in 1 Clement 37

For this study’s purpose, it is worth observing whether other exempla in the letter shed further light on militarization in 1 Clement 37, especially with respect to hierarchy and mutual dependence for the sake of peace and concord. The author exhorts the Corinthians to submit to God’s faultless commands. Clement employs the image of soldiers in 1 Clement 37, which is concerned with the command structure of the army. The author first exhorts the Corinthian believers to “serve as soldiers (Στρατευσώμεθα) […] under his (αὐτοῦ) faultless (ἀμώμοις) orders” (37:1; cf. “ordinances of God”, 1:3). The possible Old Testament background of 37:1 is Psalm 18:8 LXX, where it says that “the law of the Lord is faultless” (ὁ νόμος τοῦ κυρίου ἄμωμος). The pronoun αὐτοῦ in 37:1 seems more likely to indicate God rather than to indicate Christ. While the author uses the same expression “his faultless …” (ἄμωμον […] αὐτοῦ) to refer to Christ in 36:2, there the noun “face” (ὄψις) is used in connection to ἄμωμον […] αὐτοῦ. Also, while the author uses αὐτοῦ to refer to Christ in 38:1, that verse is related to the body imagery in the previous passage, not so much to the military imagery. Thus, it is under God’s faultless orders that the Corinthian believers should serve as soldiers. Just as soldiers obey their commanders to promote order and peace, the Corinthians must obey their leaders to facilitate peace and concord among them.

The exhortation for submission to God’s faultless orders is extended to their leaders in 37:2: “Let us consider the soldiers who serve under our commanders (τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ἡμῶν)”. The pronoun ἡμῶν (“us”) in 37:2 indicates the Corinthian believers. The parallel between God and “our commanders” in 37:1–2 suggests that obedience to God goes hand in hand with obedience to their leaders, consistent with Clement’s portrayal of the connection between obedience to God and obedience to leaders elsewhere in the letter. For instance, the author vindicates the legitimacy of leaders in 1 Clement 42 and 44 in a way that they are given their positions by the apostles, who have their authority from God through Christ (Moriarty 2012, pp. 120–21). The fact that the leaders’ legitimacy is vindicated by the approval of the apostles, Christ, and God calls on the Corinthians to follow their leaders like the apostles, Christ, and God.

Clement twice uses the exhortation “Let us” (37:1–2) to summon the Corinthians to the battlefield. The author exhorts the Corinthian believers to strive as soldiers (“Let us consider the soldiers”, 37:2). The Corinthian believers are thus compared to soldiers, and their leaders are compared to the army commanders. Clement exhorts the Corinthian believers to execute the orders (τὰ ἐπιτασσόμενα) given by their leaders according to their own rank (ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι, 37:3). Elsewhere in the letter, the term τάγμα (37:3) is used to refer to the order or rank (τάγμα) in the Corinthian church, that is, presbyters and bishop (cf. 44:4; 47:6; 57:1; 63:1).9 The author’s use of τάγμα is supportive of an aspect of hierarchy. But it should also be noted that each soldier is called to execute the orders in harmony with each other, namely, in mutual dependence (37:5).

On the one hand, Clement articulates an aspect of hierarchy as the discipline of the soldier. That is, the members of the church are called to execute the orders given by their leaders according to their own rank (37:3). Clement states that not all have the same position but each has his own rank: “Not all (οὐ πάντες) are prefects (ἔπαρχοι) or tribunes (χιλίαρχοι) or centurions (ἑκατόνταρχοι) or captains of fifty (πεντηκόνταρχοι) and so forth, but each in his own rank (τάγματι) executes the orders given by the emperor and the commanders” (37:3). 1 Clement 37:3 shows the military with the four designated ranks. The hierarchical order in the army begins with ἔπαρχοι, followed by χιλίαρχοι, and ἑκατόνταρχοι. Similarly, in 40:5, Clement says that each group has its own assigned role: “To the high priest (τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ) the proper services (λειτουργίαι) have been given, and to the priests (τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν) the proper office has been assigned, and upon the Levites (λευΐταις) the proper ministries have been imposed”. The hierarchy starts from the Master (δεσπότης) in 40:4, which is followed by the high priest, the priests, the Levites, and the layperson (ὁ λαϊκὸς ἄνθρωπος, 40:5).10 Clement then exhorts the Corinthian believers to give thanks to God in his or her own rank (τάγμα) and not to overstep the designated rule but to act with reverence (41:1). Here, Clement uses the Old Testament offices of the high priest, priests, and the Levites. Katja Kujanpää observes that by drawing on Old Testament images and figures like Abraham and Jacob, “Clement ensures that he can draw from authority based on ancestral origin, a form of authority widely recognised in the ancient world” (Kujanpää 2020, p. 134).11

The aspect of hierarchy appears further in 34:1, where Clement describes the relationship between employer and employee. Here, the good worker receives the bread of his or her labor confidently, but the lazy person cannot look his or her employer in the face. The task of an employee is to work diligently to receive his or her portion confidently; otherwise, he or she might be put to shame and thus dares not look his or her employer in the face. What Clement wishes to recount is that just as the good worker submits to his or her employer’s will, so the Corinthian believers must submit themselves to God’s and leaders’ will (34:5). In the trope of household code, Clement also describes the hierarchy between leaders and followers and exhorts followers to submit themselves to leaders (1:3). Likewise, the young people should honor the older people (1:3). By listing various examples, Clement’s underlying point is that the Corinthian believers must submit to their given leaders and elders for the sake of harmony (57:1–2). Like the soldiers who follow their chain of command, the Corinthian believers should serve under commanders orderly (εὐτάκτως, 37:2).12 The term “orderly” (εὐτάκτως) also appears in 42:2, where the author describes the proper order from God to the apostles. Just as soldiers serve in an orderly fashion, Clement exhorts the Corinthian believers to follow God and their leaders in such a manner. In this way, the Corinthian believers can live in harmony. As Schmitt observes, “Die Ordnung hatte vielmehr einem Ziel zu dienen, nämlich dem, Frieden und Eintracht zu bewirken” (Schmitt 2002, p. 35).

On the other hand, for Clement, the aspect of mutual dependence should also be emphasized as the discipline of the members of the Corinthian church. Clement’s emphasis on military hierarchy thus moves toward the direction of mutual dependence in the following verses (37:4–38:2). The expression “certain blending in everything” (σύγκρασίς τίς ἐστιν ἐν πᾶσιν, 37:4) is viewed as the typical political idea in the Greco-Roman world of “the mixed constitution” (ἡ μικτὴ τολιτεία) which is concerned with the conception of concord. Clement then exhorts “all” (πάντα) the Corinthians to unite in mutual subjection (37:5). By using πάντα, the author emphasizes the mutuality of “different or unequal parts” as one body (37:5).13 The aspect of mutual dependence continues in 1 Clement 38, where the author exhorts the Corinthians to be subject to each other (ἕκαστος). In context, the strong must take care of the weak, and the poor in turn must respect the strong.14 To show respect to the strong also appears in 21:6, where the author exhorts the Corinthians to respect their leaders (προηγουμένους), whether ecclesiastical or political. Further, Clement exhorts the Corinthians to instruct the young with instruction that leads to the fear of God (21:6). The parallel between honoring the leaders and instructing the young in 21:6 implies that there is a practice of mutual support among the Corinthians.15

Elsewhere in the letter, the idea of mutual support appears in 1 Clement 20, where Clement narrates the harmonious cosmic order as a model that has to be imitated by the Corinthians. In context, God is depicted as the Creator and Master of the universe who orders the universe “in peace and harmony” (ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ ὁμονοίᾳ καὶ, 20:11). The heavens move at God’s direction (διοίκησις) and obey him in peace (ἐν εἰρήνῃ, 20:1). Day and night, the sun and the moon, the earth, and the sea behave just as God orders them to do (20:2–4, 6). The inscrutable depths of abysses, the ocean, and the worlds beyond it are governed by the same (τὸ αὐτό) decrees of God (20:5, 8). Even the smallest parts in the universe come together “in harmony and peace” (ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ καὶ εἰρήνῃ, 20:10). In the context of 1 Clement, the nature of this unity in creation is linked to ecclesial unity. Just as the universe operates in harmony and peace, so the Corinthian believers are called to promote peace and harmony among them (cf. 9:4; 34:1–8; 60:4; 63:2). David J. Downs aptly points out that cosmology and ecclesiology are joined together in 1 Clement: “What Clement sees in creation is … its ordered, peaceful, and harmonious witness to the character of God and to the kind of peaceful social relations that the author hopes his letter will produce among the Corinthian believers” (Downs 2013, pp. 431–32). A similar concern is reflected in Lindemann: “The author of 1 Clement stresses in different ways the need for ‘obedience and submission’. He draws examples from almost every sphere of life” (Lindemann 2005, p. 14).16 In line with the author’s description of cosmic harmony, it is through obedience to their leaders that the Corinthian believers can be united and build peace among them as one body (σῶμα, 37:5; cf. 1 Cor 12:12–31). As one unified body, each individual depends on one another and thus facilitates peace and concord among them.

4.2. Hierarchy and Mutual Dependence in 2 Timothy 2:3–4

Clement’s knowledge of Paul is obvious as Clement names Paul and describes his life in detail: “[H]e had been seven times in chains, had been driven into exile, had been stoned” (5:5–7; cf. 2 Cor 11:23–27). In this regard, Clement’s use of Pauline letters comes as no surprise, especially with respect to Romans and 1 Corinthians (Lindemann 2005, pp. 9–16; Downs 2013, pp. 417–23; Hagner 1973, pp. 195–220). While the relationship between 1 Clement 37 and 1 Corinthians has been recognized (e.g., 1 Clem 37:3 = 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Clem 37:5 = 1 Cor 12:14–16), what remains to be explored is Clement’s possible connection with other Pauline letters, such as 2 Timothy.17 This is not to say that Clement draws on 2 Timothy or vice versa, but it is to say that both can be connected through thematic parallels. Both 1 Clement 37 and 2 Timothy 2:3–4 use the verb στρατεύομαι as a way to exhort an ecclesial unity among the members of the church. Considering this literary connection, I suggest that 2 Timothy offers a helpful analog for understanding the implication of the use of military imagery in 1 Clement 37.

As in 1 Clement, 2 Timothy shows the aspects of hierarchy and mutual dependence. In 2 Timothy 2:3–4, Paul says, “Share in suffering (Συγκακοπάθησον) like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving in the army gets entangled in everyday affairs; the soldier’s aim is to please the enlisting officer” (NRSVUE). By exhorting Timothy to share in suffering, Paul calls for dedication and single-mindedness (cf. 2 Tim 1:8). It has been suggested that Paul seems to draw the military metaphor from the Roman army, for “[t]he sufferings of soldiers were legendary” in the imperial army (Collins 2002, p. 221; cf. Josephus, J.W. 3.7.28–29). The Roman soldiers are ready to “suffer together for the common good,” and the soldier who runs away and leaves his place from the line of battle is subject to “other soldiers’ throwing stones at him” (Ibid., p. 221). Yet, as in 1 Clement 37, it is difficult to warrant the conclusion that this is merely Roman. Paul exhorts Timothy to be a good soldier of Christ Jesus generally rather than indicating the specific order of the Roman soldier (2:3), though he might allude to some Greco-Roman elements (Johnson 2001, p. 367).18 The point is that military life involves total dedication, and thus, the soldier must be totally committed to their leader while cooperating with other fellow soldiers. Like the soldier who dedicates him- or herself to their leader and cooperates with other fellow comrades, Timothy is called to share in suffering with his fellow comrade Paul and be single-minded in serving Christ. Elsewhere in the Pauline letters, a similar concern is reflected in 1 Corinthians 7:20, where Paul exhorts, “Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called” (NRSVUE). The duty of a soldier, then, is to obey the command of those who recruit him or her.

4.3. An Exhortation for Ecclesial Unity in 2 Timothy 2:3–4 and 1 Clement 37

In the context of 2 Timothy 2, Paul urges Timothy to warn those who are wrangling over words (2:14). Paul names two figures, Hymenaeus and Philetus, who bring schisms with their words among the members of the church (2:17). They even upset the faith of some (2:18). Paul defines their words as “gangrene” (2:17): “Their talk will spread like gangrene” (NRSVUE). This strongly indicates that there has been ongoing discord and schism among the members of the church where Timothy is pastoring. In this context, Paul exhorts Timothy to share in suffering and serve as a soldier (στρατεύομαι) for the sake of ecclesial unity among the members of the church. The thematic parallels (i.e., schism and serving as a soldier) between 2 Timothy and 1 Clement are striking, however, not as an indication that 1 Clement is drawing on 2 Timothy with certainty, but as a witness to different authors writing in different contexts, both of whom are concerned about problems of discord and schisms among the members of the church.

For Paul, to serve as a solider is linked to sharing in suffering: “Share in suffering like a good soldier” (22:3). Moreover, sharing in suffering in part has to do with caring for others. Paul feels himself abandoned by all those in Asia (1:15). Paul says that no one came to his support, but all deserted him (4:16). He also names Demas, who deserted him and went to Thessalonica (4:10). He thus urges Timothy to visit him in prison (4:9). Paul mentions Onesiphorus, who often refreshed Paul and was not ashamed of his chain and eagerly searched for him, as an example to be imitated (1:16–17). Thus, sharing in suffering in part has to do with caring for others, specifically through taking risks and visiting Paul in prison. On the circumstance of Paul in 2 Timothy, Luke Timothy Johnson observes, “Paul does not express any hope of this-life deliverance, but sees his death as imminent (4:6). His mission is under serious assault, both from opponents like Alexander the coppersmith (4:14) and from rival teachers like Hymenaios and Philetos (2:17–18)” (Johnson 2001, p. 319). The theme of caring for others resonates with 1 Clement 37: “The great cannot exist without the small, nor the small without the great” (37:4). That is, each member of the church cannot exist without one another, such that each member must care for one another no matter what it will take. Otherwise, the whole body suffers from a lack of other parts: “Even the smallest parts of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body, yet all the members coalesce harmoniously and unite in mutual subjection, so that the whole body may be saved” (37:5; cf. 2 Tim 2:24–26).19 Clement goes on to say further, “The strong must not neglect the weak” (38:2). Thus, caring for others is an important element for harmony among the members of the church. In this light, 2 Timothy 2:3–4 strengthens the idea that 1 Clement 37 is to be read as a reference to an exhortation for ecclesial unity through caring for others.

5. Conclusions

In this article, I have argued that 2 Timothy 2:3–4 strengthens the idea that Clement uses military imagery to exhort ecclesial unity among the members of the church. For this purpose, I examined the context of 1 Clement, with particular attention to the problem of schism. I also considered the nature of the military imagery in 1 Clement, which may be relevant to the author’s emphasis on peace and concord. Although it appears that Clement alludes to Jewish or Roman images to promote peace and concord, I suggested that it can be neither Jewish nor Roman. That is, the author might not have one particular imagery in mind to restore peace and concord in Corinth. I then examined hierarchy and mutual submission in 1 Clement and 2 Timothy and suggested that 2 Timothy 2:3–4 can be a useful analog for understanding the implication of Clement’s use of military imagery. Both authors are concerned about problems of discord and schism and strive for ecclesial unity. Thus, Clement’s use of the militaristic imagery in 1 Clement 37 should be read as a reference to an exhortation for ecclesial unity through sharing in suffering.