Clement and Eternal Conscious Torment

Chris Date (CD) has a video in which he claims that Clement of Rome held to "conditional immortality" (link - if you're interested to hear what he has to say about Clement of Rome, you can jump forward to timestamp 26:00 and listen to 44:09).  

First, note that we refer to the book we refer to as 1 Clement, a letter from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, is traditionally identified as having been written by Clement of Rome, even though Clement may not have written the letter or may not have done so in an individual capacity.   The author of the book avoids using the first person to refer to himself, does not identify himself as Clement in the text of the work, and the letter begins, "The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth...."  Likewise, the postscript of the letter asks that the messengers (who presumably carried the letter) be speedily returned to "us."  Although the author of 1 Clement is traditionally identified as Clement of Rome, I will refer to the author as "the author of 1 Clement." 

At least one other letter has been attributed to Clement of Rome (it's referred to as 2 Clement), but it is by another author.  The mid-second century author of that work does refer to "eternal punishment" (2 Clement 6:7), affirms that the dead will be judged (2 Clement 1:1), uses "death" to refer to something like spiritual death ("our whole life was nothing else but death" 2 Clement 1:6), suggests that the fire of the afterlife will have a hardening effect like fire has on clay with the effect of repentance being impossible there (2 Clement 8:1-3), and identifies the punishment of the damned with "grievous torments in unquenchable fire" (2 Clement 17:7) after quoting from Isaiah 66:24 (2 Clement 17:5).  Naturally, CD does not provide his detailed comments on this work, and he does not need to, since it is not the work of Clement of Rome.  I merely mention it as a minor aside against the false and ridiculous notion that the doctrine of eternal conscious torment should be associated with Augustine, centuries later despite being the understanding of Christians before then.

Returning to 1 Clement, the full text of the epistle in the original Greek and parallel English can be found at the following link (link to full text of 1 Clement).  

While Hell is not the central focus of the letter, the author of 1 Clement, does touch on the subject a little.

XI. Διὰ φιλοξενίαν καὶ εὐσέβειαν Λὼτ ἐσώθη ἐκ Σοδόμων, τῆς περιχώρου πάσης κριθείσης διὰ πυρὸς καὶ θείου, πρόδηλον ποιήσας ὁ δεσπότης ὅτι τοὺς ἐλπίζοντας ἐπ’ αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπει, τοὺς δὲ ἑτεροκλινεῖς ὑπάρχοντας εἰς κόλασιν καὶ αἰκισμὸν τίθησιν. 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.

11. For his hospitality and godliness Lot was saved from Sodom, when all the country round about was judged by fire and brimstone; the Master having thus fore shown that He forsaketh not them which set their hope on Him, but appointeth unto punishment and torment them which swerve aside. [2.] For when his wife had gone forth with him, being otherwise minded and not in accord, she was appointed for a sign hereunto, so that she became a pillar of salt unto this day, that it might be known unto all men that they which are double-minded and they which doubt concerning the power of God are set for a judgment and for a token unto all the generations.

The author of 1 Clement argues that God has appointed unbelievers to "κόλασιν καὶ αἰκισμὸν" (punishment and torture).  Even if we were to accept annihilationist claims that kolasin can refer to a death penalty, as such (and that seems to be a stretch at best), aikismon is not similarly ambiguous: it means torture not death.  Moreover, the author of 1 Clement links these punishments and tortures with the fire and brimstone (πυρὸς καὶ θείου) that was put on Sodom.  

Furthermore, the author of 1 Clement suggests a perpetuity to the judgment by saying that the judgment will be "unto all generations" like Lot's wife who "unto this day" is a pillar of salt. 

Because CD has convinced himself to reduce the punishment of Sodom to annihilation, he fails to account for the "torment" aspect of the comment.  Indeed, eternal conscious torment fits much better both with "punishment" and "torment."  Likewise, while one can certainly appreciate that the memory of a death can serve as a reminder, the ongoing existence of Lot's wife as a pillar of salt suggests an emphasis on the damned continuing to exist in some form so that they serve a similar memorial function. 

What remains to be said?  The author of 1 Clement does not explicitly say that the torment will last forever.  So, if someone wants to claim that 1 Clement does not rule out the idea that the torment might end some day, I think it's fair to acknowledge that 1 Clement does not directly address this topic.

That said, because the author of 1 Clement focuses on the punishments and torture of the wicked, 1 Clement is not consistent with the annihilationist focus on cessation of being as the reward of the wicked.

CD argues from 1 Clement 9 that capital punishment (a term the author of 1 Clement never uses) awaits the wicked.  That section reads as follows:

IX. Διὸ ὑπακούσωμεν τῇ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ καὶ ἐνδόξῳ βουλήσει αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἱκέται γενόμενοι τοῦ ἐλέους καὶ τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ προσπέσωμεν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς οἰκτιρμοὺς αὐτοῦ, ἀπολιπόντες τὴν ματαιοπονίαν τήν τε ἔριν καὶ τὸ εἰς θάνατον ἄγον ζῆλος. 2. Ἀτενίσωμεν εἰς τοὺς τελείως λειτουργήσαντας τῇ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ. 3. Λάβωμεν Ἐνώχ, ὃς ἐν ὑπακοῇ δίκαιος εὑρεθεὶς μετετέθη, καὶ οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῦ θάνατος. 4. Νῶε πιστὸς εὑρεθεὶς διὰ τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ παλιγγενεσίαν κόσμῳ ἐκήρυξεν, καὶ διέσωσεν δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ δεσπότης τὰ εἰσελθόντα ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ ζῷα εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν.

9. Wherefore let us be obedient unto His excellent and glorious will; and presenting ourselves as suppliants of His mercy and goodness, let us fall down before Him and betake ourselves unto His compassions, forsaking the vain toil and the strife and the jealousy which leadeth unto death. [2.] Let us fix our eyes on them that ministered perfectly unto His excellent glory. [3.] Let us set before us Enoch, who being found righteous in obedience was translated, and his death was not found. [4.] Noah, being found faithful, by his ministration preached regeneration unto the world, and through him the Master saved the living creatures that entered into the ark in concord.

CD is not wrong that the author of 1 Clement has in mind death as a consequence of sin.  However, the death that the author of 1 Clement uses as an illustration is the ordinary death that we all eventually face, and that even Noah himself eventually faced.  Thus, "capital punishment" as a description is a spin too far.

CD argues that the author of 1 Clement uses "death" in simply the ordinary way.  This is inaccurate.  First, the author of 1 Clement uses "death" in a way that also seems to refer to spiritual death in his quotation of "death into the world" (1 Clement 3).  Moreover, this usage is particularly relevant, because it links jealousy with death: "seeing that they have conceived an unrighteous and ungodly jealousy, through which also death entered into the world" (ζῆλον ἄδικον καὶ ἀσεβῆ ἀνειληφότας, δι’ οὗ καὶ «θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον».  1 Clement 3)  This word for jealousy is, of course, the same Greek word used in 1 Clement 9.

Moreover, jealousy is what the author of 1 Clement identifies as a critical problem in Corinth.  Thus, jealousy is discussed in 1 Clement 3, and then repeatedly in 1 Clement 4, 5, and 6.  The author of 1 Clement comes back to jealousy in 1 Clement 9, 14, 43 and 45.  Finally, the author of 1 Clement brings up jealousy one last time in the conclusion at 1 Clement 63.

Perhaps even more significantly than the jealousy-death connection in general, the author of 1 Clement states at 1 Clement 4: "Jealousy caused Joseph to be persecuted even unto death, and to come even unto bondage." (Ζῆλος ἐποίησεν Ἰωσὴφ μέχρι θανάτου διωχθῆναι καὶ μέχρι δουλείας εἰσελθεῖν.)  

We know, and it seems fair to assume the author of 1 Clement knew, that Joseph was not literally persecuted to physical death, but instead to an imprisonment.  In case you are wondering, it's not because a different Greek word for death is used: it's the same Greek word for death.  

CD presents six other examples of this word use in the text, which falsely suggests that the author of 1 Clement only uses the word in one particular way. 

Moreover, the translation CD provided for 1 Clement 51 seems inaccurate and misleading in the context of our discussion.

LI. Ὅσα οὖν παρεπέσαμεν καὶ ἐποιήσαμεν διά τινας παρεμπτώσεις τοῦ ἀντικειμένου, ἀξιώσωμεν ἀφεθῆναι ἡμῖν· καὶ ἐκεῖνοι δέ, οἵτινες ἀρχηγοὶ στάσεως καὶ διχοστασίας ἐγενήθησαν, ὀφείλουσιν τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ἐλπίδος σκοπεῖν. 2. Οἱ γὰρ μετὰ φόβου καὶ ἀγάπης πολιτευόμενοι ἑαυτοὺς θέλουσιν μᾶλλον αἰκίαις περιπίπτειν ἢ τοὺς πλησίον· μᾶλλον δὲ ἑαυτῶν κατάγνωσιν φέρουσιν ἢ τῆς παραδεδομένης ἡμῖν καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ὁμοφωνίας. 3. Καλὸν γὰρ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι περὶ τῶν παραπτωμάτων ἢ σκληρῦναι τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, καθὼς ἐσκληρύνθη ἡ καρδία τῶν στασιασάντων πρὸς τὸν θεράποντα τοῦ Θεοῦ Μωϋσῆν, ὧν τὸ κρίμα πρόδηλον ἐγενήθη. 4. «Κατέβησαν γὰρ εἰς ᾅδου ζῶντες», καὶ «θάνατος ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς». 5. Φαραὼ καὶ ἡ στρατιὰ αὐτοῦ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἡγούμενοι Αἰγύπτου, «τά τε ἅρματα καὶ οἱ ἀναβάται» αὐτῶν οὐ δι’ ἄλλην τινὰ αἰτίαν ἐβυθίσθησαν εἰς θάλασσαν ἐρυθρὰν καὶ ἀπώλοντο, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ σκληρυνθῆναι αὐτῶν τὰς ἀσυνέτους καρδίας μετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι τὰ σημεῖα καὶ τὰ τέρατα ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ διὰ τοῦ θεράποντος τοῦ Θεοῦ Μωϋσέως.

51. For all our transgressions which we have committed through any of the wiles of the adversary, let us entreat that we may obtain forgiveness. Yea and they also, who set themselves up as leaders of faction and division, ought to look to the common ground of hope. [2.] For such as walk in fear and love desire that they themselves should fall into suffering rather than their neighbors; and they pronounce condemnation against themselves rather than against the harmony which hath been handed down to us nobly and righteously. [3.] For it is good for a man to make confession of his trespasses rather than to harden his heart, as the heart of those was hardened who made sedition against Moses the servant of God; [4.] whose condemnation was clearly manifest, for they went down to hades alive, and Death shall be their shepherd. [5.] Pharaoh and his host and all the rulers of Egypt, their chariots and their horsemen, were overwhelmed in the depths of the Red Sea, and perished for none other reason but because their foolish hearts were hardened after that the signs and the wonders had been wrought in the land of Egypt by the hand of Moses the servant of God.

Rather than "death shall be their shepherd," CD provides "and death swallowed them up," and omits "alive" from "into hell."  When he mentions this same section a few minutes later, to claim that "alive" has a uniform meaning in 1 Clement, he asserts that they go there to die, which is not what the text says.  

The author of 1 Clement is referring the rebellion of Korah described in Numbers 16, and particularly quoting from Numbers 16:30, which says that "they go down quick (i.e. alive) into the pit (i.e. hell)" (LXX: καταβήσονται ζῶντες εἰς ᾅδου), and from Psalm 49:14 (LXX Psalm 48:15, θάνατος ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς - [NETS] death shall be their shepherd ), which is about the sons of Korah.

If anything, the judgment of Korah is suggestive of the eternal conscious torment view.  The shepherding of those in Hades by the personification of Death is one that treats the dead as, in some sense, alive.

I will point out that "Death shall feed upon them" is another interpretation of the underlying Psalm.  The difference is similar to the difference between feeding someone and feeding upon someone.  Nevertheless, I agree with Lightfoot's translation of 1 Clement, which agrees with the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) translation of Psalm 48:15. 

Regarding 1 Clement 11, CD argues that "torture" is not a good translation of aikismos, because aikismos can also just refer to "bad treatment." Even if aikismos can more broadly include other kinds of bad treatment, the context is the reason it gets translated as "torture" or the like.  Moreover, if the meaning is even softer than "torture," this would only further undermine, not support, the denial that the author of 1 Clement held the eternal conscious torment view.  In any event, I disagree with CD's criticism of the translation.

I don't know of anyone who has translated it merely "bad treatment." Instead, here are some of the translations in addition to Lightfoot's translation (1869).

• William Burton (1647) translated: "punishment and plagues" (link at XIV in Burton's sectioning of the text)
• William Wake (1719) translated: "punishment and correction" (link) 
• Temple Chevallier (1833) translated: "punishment and correction" (link)
• John Keith (1897) included in Schaff's edition: "punishment and torture" (link)
• Kevin Edgecomb (2006) translated: "punishment and torments" (link)
• Adolf von Harnack (English ed. and trans. Jacob Cerone) (2021) translated: "punishment and torment" (p. 15)

Incidentally, I criticize the translation 1 Clement 51 that CD provided, but I don't know what translation CD is using.  I think the original language text of the epistle does not support his reading, though, regardless of his translation choice.

CD makes an argument that because the author of 1 Clement sees immortality and life as a gift from God for the righteous, that this implies that he does not think that the wicked will live forever in hell.  This is one of what I would refer to as the fundamental errors of CD's method of argumentation.  He provides a reductionist interpretation of life and death, and then imposes that interpretation onto certain texts.

CD argues that the author of 1 Clement takes the position that only believers will be resurrected.  On the other hand, this would not make a 1 Clement a holder of the conditional immortality position for which CD usually advocates, since that position affirms a general resurrection.  More bluntly, this reductionism misses the fact that for 1 Clement the resurrection that matters is the resurrection to life, not the resurrection to torment.

Moreover, 1 Clement's way of considering life, death, and resurrection does not follow CD's reductionism, as evidenced by 1 Clement 24, where the resurrection is compared to our daily sleeping and waking and to the growth cycle of plants.  Further evidence is provided in 1 Clement 25 where the author relates the myth of the Phoenix.  In the case of 1 Clement 24, the author of 1 Clement is following gospel metaphors for death, but - of course - these are metaphors.

I further criticism I have is that CD tends to spin 1 Clement and then treat the spin as though it was what 1 Clement says.  For example, around 39:00 to 39:15, CD repeatedly emphatically says that the author says "only ..." when, at most, CD would be justified in saying that the author of 1 Clement "only says" or "implies that only ...."  There are about 17 uses of "only" in the English of 1 Clement, the majority of those are "not only" and none of them is in the context of any of the above-discussed issues, except that the Phoenix is the "only one of its kind," despite its unusual 500 year cycle of life. 

According to CD, if Clement (and Ignatius) denied the general resurrection, they would still be "conditionalists" because of their denial of continued union of body and soul of the wicked.  This is because the "conditionalist" movement is being defined negatively, as a rejection of the eternal conscious torment position.

CD suggests to his listeners to claim that Clement and Ignatius are "indisputably conditionalists," which is a dramatic oversell of his conclusion.  We will address Ignatius in another post.  For now, suffice to say that there is no strong reason to deny that Clement held to the same view as the author of 2 Clement or other early Christian writers, who believed that what awaits the lost is an eternity of torment.

Polycarp and Eternal Torment

Chris Date has a video arguing for the idea that Polycarp of Smyrna held to conditional immortality (link to video).

CD's arguments hang on several points:

1) Ignatius writes to Polycarp that Polycarp views immortality and eternal life as being the prize set before him (Ignatius' Epistle to Polycarp, Chapter 2).  However, this would only be relevant to CD's contentions if eternal torment is rightly said to be immortality and eternal life.  CD tends to argue that eternal torment is (or at least would be if it happened) immortality and eternal life.

As a minor aside of interest probably only to me, I point out that the Epistle to Polycarp exists in a long recension and a short recension.  The wording that CD relies on includes a variant.  I don't think the variant directly or meaningfully affects his argument.  One recension describes immortality and eternal life as a prize and the other describes it as the will of God. 

2) The Martyrdom of Polycarp reports Polycarp as having said that resurrection, incorruption, and immortality will be his reward (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14, 17, and 19)

While this is the case, the author of the Martyrdom of Polycarp argues that the martyrs did not flinch before the torments they were faced with, because they were set in contrast to eternal torments.  CD tries to argue that duration was not the contrast that the author of MoP had in mind, but the contrast between "eternal" and "single hour" is fairly straightforward.  Moreover, the contrast is between two different torments.  See Martyrdom of Polycarp, 2.

Moreover, CD's own position has to affirm that the damned are resurrected and that Polycarp believes that they will be.  After all Polycarp avers that Christ will come to judge not just the living but the dead:

Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 2, (translation in Schaff) "He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead. [Acts 17:31] His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him."

Lightfoot translation (link to translation): "who cometh as judge of quick and dead; whose blood God will require of them that are disobedient unto Him."

Now, "his blood God will require" seems to be a usage of the Hebraism originating at least as early as Genesis 9:5 (see also, Genesis 42:22, 2 Samuel 4:11, Ezekiel 3:17, 18, and 20, 33:6&8, Luke 11:50-51).  Contrary to CD's gloss, to "require his blood" does not necessarily mean to die a violent, bloody death.  It means to be held accountable for the blood that was shed.  It is interesting that Polycarp's letter uses this wording, as it relates to the doctrine of the atonement, but that's not a subject for this particular post.

I would echo CD's comments about the potential unreliability of the work, the Martyrdom of Polycarp.  Candida Moss's "The Myth of Persecution," mentions some of the issues associated with the work. 

3) Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians implies that only the righteous will be raised and live:

Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 2, (translation in Schaff) "But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved," 

Lightfoot translation (link to translation): "Now He that raised Him from the dead will raise us also; if we do His will and walk in His commandments and love the things which He loved," 

Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 8, (translation in Schaff) "Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, who bore our sins in His own body on the tree, [1 Peter 2:24] who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, [1 Peter 2:22] but endured all things for us, that we might live in Him."

Lightfoot translation (link to translation): "Let us therefore without ceasing hold fast by our hope and by the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ who took up our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things, that we might live in Him."

Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 1, (translation in Schaff) "our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave."

Lightfoot translation (link to translation): "our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured to face even death for our sins, whom God raised, having loosed the pangs of Hades;"

While this is certainly the case, the solution is not to insist that Polycarp means "it will be as if they hadn't been resurrected," but instead that Polycarp considers eternal punishment to be something other than the promised eternal life.

Just as Polycarp doesn't count the resurrection of damnation as the resurrection, so also Polycarp doesn't count eternal punishment as eternal life. The only people who seem to count it that way are opponents of eternal conscious torment.