The Breakdown Of A Reformation Friendship: John Oecolampadius And Philip Melanchthon

By Jeff Fisher

[Jeff Fisher is Assistant Professor of Theological Studies at Kuyper College in Grand Rapids, MI, and an ordained minister in the Christian Reformed Church in North America.]

In October 1529, the Reformation took a significant turn following the events of the Marburg Colloquy. At that meeting, the Swiss Reformed and the Lutherans came together and agreed upon fourteen articles of faith, but could not reach agreement on the final article—the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The colloquy is famous for the boisterous exchanges between the two main figures, Luther and Zwingli. However, two other men played critical roles, not only at the colloquy, but also in the entire discussion over the Lord’s Supper and the broadening gap between the Lutherans and the Reformed. These two men were Luther’s main associate, Philip Melanchthon, and Zwingli’s colleague, Johannes Oecolampadius. Oecolampadius was the one who first debated with Luther at the colloquy, and it was his particular views on the Eucharist that received the greater attention and engagement from the Lutheran side. Although Oecolampadius and Melanchthon may best be known together for participating on opposite sides at the Marburg Colloquy, their relationship actually extended back far earlier and went far deeper than simply being on opposite sides of an important debate.

This article focuses on the development and breakdown of the relationship between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon in connection with events at the time of the Reformation. Despite the significance of both these figures, and the uniqueness of their friendship, there has been little exploration of this topic.[1] This may be partly due to the inherent difficulties in labeling any two historical figures as friends, particularly when seeking to substantiate that friendship from letters of the Renaissance era. One must be careful not to allow the politeness of Renaissance letter-writing etiquette to skew the perception of a relationship to appear more favorable than it was.[2] With these cautions in mind, our analysis of the contexts in which the lives of these two men intersected and the correspondence they exchanged demonstrates that there was a genuine friendship between them. As we explore the extent of affection and appreciation these two Reformers held for each other, it will become apparent that their friendship was at first close, became complex, and eventually crumbled. In part, this examination challenges the claim of Wilhelm Maurer that Melanchthon ended their friendship in 1525 because Oecolampadius had forsaken their common humanist and theological interests.[3] More broadly, it identifies significant ways in which the friendship between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius mirrored the relationship between those associated with Luther and those associated with the Swiss Reformed. The complicated friendship between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon serves as a reminder that the divisions over theological issues significantly affected real people’s lives, feelings, and relationships. To see how the contours of their relationship fluctuated, this study is arranged into six chronological segments.

I. The Beginning Of A Genuine Friendship (1513–1518)

The lives of Oecolampadius and Melanchthon first intertwined because both men were deeply involved in the Renaissance humanist movement. The very names by which we know them remind us of this fact. The man later known as Oecolampadius was born Johann Hussgen (or Husschyn, Heusssgen) in the south German village of Weinsberg in 1482.[4] Fifteen years later, the man later known as Melanchthon was born Philipp Schwartzerdt in February 1497.[5] Both of these men changed their names to a Latinized Greek version of their German names. Oecolampadius (Οικολαμπαδ) was derived from Hausschein (“house lamp”) and Melanchthon (Μελαγχθων) from Schwarzerd (“black earth”). While still under the name Johannes Huszgen, Oecolampadius enrolled at the University of Heidelberg in 1499 where he earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in theology in May 1501 and October 1503.[6] Sometime prior to April 1510, he was ordained as a priest and became the preacher at St. John’s Church in his home town of Weinsberg. This post lasted less than three years, before he left to pursue further theological studies. He matriculated as an older student at the University of Tübingen on April 9, 1513.[7] Only a few months earlier, Philip Melanchthon had also matriculated at Tübingen—as a fifteen-year-old—on September 17, 1512.[8] Like Oecolampadius, he too had previously attended the University of Heidelberg, a decade after Oecolampadius had been there.[9]

Despite the age difference, the two quickly became friends at Tübingen as fellow participants in the circle of Johann Reuchlin, one of the leading humanists of the time.[10] Reuchlin regularly welcomed guests that Melanchthon, his great-nephew, brought to his home.[11] While at Tübingen, these two worked together at Thomas Anshelm’s printshop.[12] As a younger student, Melanchthon looked up to his older friends. Maurer remarks, “Of these [friends], Oecolampadius exerted the most profound and lasting influence on Melanchthon.”[13] They not only had an educational friendship, but Melanchthon also honored Oecolampadius like a father.[14] Around this time, Oecolampadius gave Melanchthon a new edition of Rudolf Agricola’s Dialectic as a gift.[15] This book was a gift that Melanchthon treasured deeply for a long time, as it would be crucially important in shaping his theological method.[16]

Oecolampadius apparently left Tübingen around the summer of 1514 to teach at Heidelberg, to study the biblical languages at Stuttgart, and to begin writing a Greek grammar in his quest for the humanist ideal of “homo trilinguis” (skilled in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin).[17] By the fall of 1515, he had finally settled in Basel to assist Erasmus on his Novum Instrumentum and to enroll at the University of Basel.[18] While the time that Melanchthon and Oecolampadius were together at Tübingen was only a little more than a year, Manschreck affirms that “no one did more for him in his youth than Oecolampadius.”[19] Similarly, Scheible maintains that meeting with Oecolampadius was “more fruitful for his scholarly career than anything that the University offered him.”[20] Their short time together at Tübingen formed a strong foundation for their friendship.

Melanchthon remained at Tübingen until the summer of 1518 while Oecolampadius was traveling to different places. From 1516 to 1518 Oecolampadius traveled back and forth for various lengths of time between Basel and Weinsberg, preaching regularly, lecturing on Lombard’s Sentences, fulfilling his priestly duties, but apparently failing to fulfill his annotating duties for Erasmus’s second edition of the Greek NT.[21] Oecolampadius informed Erasmus in March 1517 that he would provide the work that he owed so that “Erasmus does not frivolously honor Oecolampadius.”[22] Notably, he also mentioned to Erasmus that “Philip Melanchthon sends me numerous letters,” and “always remembers you, always admires, always asks to be commended to you.”[23] Oecolampadius even suggested Melanchthon as a possible candidate for the work. He wrote, “If any of the Germans will surpass Erasmus, he will.… I did not hesitate to have put his name before you.”[24] When Erasmus responded, he agreed with the idea: “About Melanchthon I also feel very clearly and I hope so magnificently that Christ wants that young man to be present with us for a while. He will utterly obscure Erasmus.”[25] Though the desire was never attained, this correspondence reveals the great respect Oecolampadius had for Melanchthon.

Similarly, Melanchthon’s respect for Oecolampadius is evident from his exchanges with Pirckheimer near the beginning of 1518 about a poem in which Melanchthon had praised Oecolampadius among others. Pirckheimer admonished Melanchthon, “Cease to praise out of duty,” and complained that Melanchthon’s lavish praise was too much in general, and his view of Oecolampadius in particular was only accurate “unless you wish to consider the desire rather than what is accomplished.”[26] This admonition does not seem to have affected either Melanchthon’s letter writing etiquette or his perspective on Oecolampadius’s worthiness of praise.

II. The Development Of A Reformation Friendship (1518–1520)

While Melanchthon was finishing his studies at Tübingen, Oecolampadius was offered two significant opportunities to move from Weinsberg to a new location. On March 13, 1518, Erasmus invited Oecolampadius to return to Basel to assist him more closely with the second edition of his Greek NT. A few weeks later, on March 30, Reuchlin was asked to make recommendations for the Greek and Hebrew chairs at the University of Wittenberg. He replied on May 7 with the suggestions of Melanchthon for Greek and Oecolampadius for Hebrew.[27] Melanchthon accepted the position to become a professor at the University of Wittenberg, and arrived on August 25, 1518.[28] Oecolampadius, however, chose to return to Basel. Gordon Rupp perceptively notes that the story of the Reformation would be much different if Oecolampadius had “been drawn into the orbit of Luther, rather than of Zwingli.”[29] A similar statement could be made about the friendship between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon had Oecolampadius gone to Wittenberg rather than Basel.

There seems to be four major reasons Oecolampadius decided to return to Basel in 1518 rather than go to Wittenberg. First, he had been invited there to assist Erasmus again, although it seems that he did not contribute to the work on the second edition of the Greek NT. Second, he came back to the University of Basel to complete the requirements for the Doctorate of Divinity, which he would ultimately earn in December 1518.[30] Third, he wanted his translations of several church fathers and his Handbook of Greek Grammar to be published in Basel.[31] Interestingly, both he and Melanchthon published Greek grammars that same year—Melanchthon’s in May and Oecolampadius’s in September.[32] In the afterword of Melanchthon’s grammar, he announced plans of a project with other scholars, including Oecolampadius, to restore the Aristotelica.[33] While this goal was never achieved on this project, Melanchthon’s respect for Oecolampadius’s work is evident from his use of Oecolampadius’s Greek grammar in revising his own grammar for its second edition in 1520.[34] Finally, it seems that Oecolampadius was not quite ready yet to align himself so closely with the theology—and the controversy—related to Luther. When Oecolampadius returned to Basel, he was appointed as the confessor priest (poenitentiarius) at the Basel Cathedral, indicating at least some alignment still with the traditional church.[35]

Though we do not have any direct correspondence between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius from this time, it is quite apparent that they trusted and respected each other as friends and fellow scholars. Despite moving in different directions, Oecolampadius and Melanchthon intended to remain aware of one another’s work and maintain their friendship. Oecolampadius expressed this desire to Reuchlin in September 1518 when he wrote, “I wish to know where our Philipp Melanchthon is spending his time—whether he resides with you or has gone to Saxony. Though I am not able to follow him in body, I will follow him in spirit and with letters.”[36]

Both men also sought to facilitate mutual relationships with other like-minded men. Oecolampadius had encouraged Melanchthon to contact Wolfgang Capito in Basel because of their common theological interests, and Melanchthon sought out Capito.[37] Near the end of 1518, when Oecolampadius had completed his doctorate, he left Basel again to become the cathedral preacher in Augsburg.[38] While there, Melanchthon encouraged Christoph Scheurl, a professor of jurisprudence at Wittenberg, to write to Oecolampadius. Scheurl relayed to Oecolampadius that Melanchthon, “our common friend, the delight of the Wittenburgers, directed me to have his letter delivered to you. He promised no little about your virtue, integrity, humanity.”[39] Scheurl offered himself to Oecolampadius in whatever way could be useful and stated, “if in no way I am able to be useful to you, use at least the service of a friend in transmitting letters to Wittenberg … where there are very many good, learned friends to me, and among them Philipp, who commonly sends and receives letters by me.”[40]

Sometime around the summer of 1519, Oecolampadius had his “breakthrough to the Reformation understanding,” when he began expressing views that were more evangelical than traditional.[41] Oecolampadius does not seem to have had a dramatic conversion experience, but rather his involvement in the humanist movement—and his friendship with Melanchthon in particular—played a significant role in his shift toward Reformation views. Melanchthon had praised Oecolampadius in the preface he wrote for the first part of Luther’s Lectures on the Psalms, published in March 1519.[42] More significantly, the earliest extant correspondence between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon is a published report in the form of a letter to Oecolampadius dated July 21, 1519, about the Leipzig Disputation between Johann Eck and Martin Luther.[43]

In this letter, Melanchthon not only gave a report about the disputation, but he specifically appealed to his friendship with Oecolampadius. Melanchthon acknowledged the reality of letter-writing etiquette that often was “approached with friendship then with enmity, then with such frivolous flatteries.”[44] He quoted an adage of Clericus and cited the way Aristotle expressed kindness that was not always proper. But he desired that their friendship not be like that, but grounded in the spirit of Christ with their souls united out of genuine love, so that their friendship could not be shaken. Melanchthon wrote that he wanted to be able to discern when kind words were expressed that they were genuinely from friends.[45] He specifically assured Oecolampadius, “There is clearly indeed no one among mortals whose kindness was shown more to me, already from the time of boyhood until now, than yours, and it was truly generous.”[46] He pledged continuing friendship to Oecolampadius while requesting that he consider the questionable views spoken at the disputation. It is worth noting that Oecolampadius was the first person to whom Melanchthon sent his report. In a letter to Spalatin a week after his letter to Oecolampadius, Melanchthon apologized tha[t he had not previously written about the disputation and explained to him that he had written the letter to Oecolampadius.[47] A few days later Melanchthon sent Spalatin a copy of the letter he had written to Oecolampadius, along with a transcript of the disputation.[48] Melanchthon did the same with John Lang in Erfurt.[49]

The exchange of writings over the Leipzig Disputation significantly drew Oecolampadius into the Reformation movement. Eck responded to Melanchthon’s publication within a few days, and then Melanchthon responded again with his “Defense against Johann Eck” in August 1519.[50] In his response, Melanchthon wrote, “Oecolampadius is, in my view, more pious than to ever want to abuse his name and misrepresent him in any way.”51 In fact, it is likely that Oecolampadius was the editor and author of the foreword to the collection of writings by Melanchthon and Eck about the Leipzig Disputation published later that year.[52] Additionally, near the beginning of 1520, a satire against Eck entitled “The Unlearned Lutheran Canons” was published anonymously.53 Eck complained that it hurt him more than any other publication, and Luther praised it because it “eloquently and loftily attacked the sophist.”[54] When the work was translated into German, Oecolampadius wrote the afterword.[55] He is assumed to have been the original author as well. Apparently, Luther said that Oecolampadius had confessed to Melanchthon that he was the author of the writing.[56] In an event as crucial to the Reformation as the Leipzig Disputation, the relationship between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius was a featured component, as each of them grew in their connection to the movement and in their relationship with one another.

III. The Silence Of A Complicated Friendship (1520–1522)

Within a few months after the Leipzig Disputation, Oecolampadius began to express discontent with his work as the priest in Augsburg. He grumbled that he did not have a proper outlet for his gifts or a place for his desire to study.[57] So in April 1520, without consulting any of his friends, he entered the Brigittine monastery in Altomünster with the condition that he could leave when he wanted. It seems that Oecolampadius felt the need to retreat from his work to find clarity in his thinking about all that was happening around him, and that he desired to read and translate more of the church fathers.[58] A month after the move, Wolfgang Capito expressed his disapproval to Melanchthon that Oecolampadius had ill-advisedly made the decision by himself to withdraw to the monastic life.[59]

During his time at the monastery, Oecolampadius published several translations of patristic writings, as well as treatises on the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, and auricular confession. In each of these works he used traditional language, but was clearly moving towards evangelical ideas.[60] His work That Confession Ought Not Be Burdensome to Christians (1521) particularly caused a great deal of unrest among the monastic community and eventually forced him to flee from Altomünster in February 1522.[61] While Luther was hidden away in Wartburg, he became aware of Oecolampadius’s treatise on confession and wrote to Melanchthon about it.[62] A few months later he asked Melanchthon to provide him with a copy.[63] It is apparent that Melanchthon remained informed about what Oecolampadius was doing, even though Oecolampadius was strangely silent toward Melanchthon.

While at the monastery, Oecolampadius remained in correspondence with Reuchlin, Pirckheimer, Erasmus, Hedio, and Adelmann, but not Melanchthon. In September 1521 Melanchthon wrote to Pirckheimer, “I wrote, I believe, three times to Oecolampadius about a certain necessary matter, which, because he does not respond, I supposed I should actually communicate with you.… Further, with him being silent, I ask that you be willing to prove your kindness to me in this matter.”[64] Melanchthon was specifically seeking to ask Oecolampadius to provide him with writings of Greek fathers he wanted to translate. When Pirckheimer wrote back a few weeks later, he indicated that Oecolampadius did have those books, but that Pirckheimer was unable to obtain them for Melanchthon.[65]

Although Oecolampadius did not communicate with Melanchthon during this time, he had some awareness of what his friend was doing. During his time at the monastery, Oecolampadius also wrote the pamphlet “Judgment about Doctor Martin Luther,” in which he expressed some favorable opinions.[66] In the very last line of this work Oecolampadius commented, “We have those other novelties from these ones who returned from the wedding of Philip Melanchthon: you will read [about it] on the posted schedule.”[67] This is the only reference we have from Oecolampadius about the monumental occasion of Melanchthon’s marriage to Katharina Krapp in November 1520.

Oecolampadius’s friends had been imploring him to leave the monastic life from the time he arrived. He later would report that he had become ill at times from the rigors of fasts and night-watches. However, it seems that the biggest reason he left the monastery was because he could not avoid engaging in the theological quarrels outside the monastery walls.[68] For several months, Oecolampadius journeyed around again before he returned to Basel in November 1522. Soon after his arrival, on December 10, Oecolampadius wrote to Zwingli for the first time to seek his friendship.[69] This began the development of a strong friendship that would ultimately have significant implications for the relationship between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon.

IV. The Fluctuation Of A Distant Friendship (1523–1524)

Despite the silence from Oecolampadius during his time in the monastery, Melanchthon expressed the desire for a renewed friendship. After Oecolampadius had established himself as a key figure in Basel, in May 1523 Melanchthon offered Oecolampadius the opportunity to come to Wittenberg if the situation in Basel became unbearable because of the difficulties that resulted from promoting Reformation ideas. He wrote:

If so far I wrote nothing to you, my brother, I prefer you ascribe any evil whatsoever rather than to suppose any unchanged love. My mind remains toward you as long as we are going to be the same in Christ.… O how often I desire to actually speak in person. Whatever your situation in Basel is, I would prefer you to be with us; my home, my dwellings are yours. So, consider what your plans may bring. If there is nothing else that may dissuade, nowhere else than here will you be more beloved by all the good men. Let this be more than enough for now. If only you would answer shortly![70]

But once again Oecolampadius did not pursue the opportunity to go to Wittenberg, but instead remained in Basel.

Earlier that spring, Oecolampadius had begun teaching his first biblical lectures at the university, on the book of Isaiah. Because of his success with these lectures, he was soon appointed as a professor at the University of Basel in June 1523.[71] The audience at Oecolampadius’s lectures often included about four hundred people, including pastors and students from the university.72 Luther was informed about Oecolampadius’s lectures on Isaiah, and wrote to Nicholas Grebel that same month, “I am glad indeed that John Oecolampadius is lecturing on Isaiah, though I hear that many are not pleased, but that is the fortune of Christian teaching.”[73] Since it would be six more years before Basel would officially institute the Reformation ordinances, there were indeed many people who did not approve of Oecolampadius’s teaching. Among those who were not pleased was Erasmus.

The friendship between Oecolampadius and Erasmus had begun to break down already by the end of 1522 as Oecolampadius pushed harder for reform.[74] Erasmus would later express his displeasure when he bemoaned that “Oecolampadius is reigning among us.”[75] With knowledge of Erasmus’s discontent, Luther wrote to Oecolampadius himself on June 20, 1523, to encourage him in his teaching on Isaiah.

Certainly we have exceedingly approved your spirit and this excellent deed. And Philip does not cease to make you more distinguished to me every day; with unique joy, he takes pleasure in remembering you. May the Lord strengthen your intention in lecturing on Isaiah, though it was written to me that Erasmus is displeased. Do not let his displeasure trouble you.… You ought rather to be glad if what you think about the Scriptures displeases him, for he is a man who neither can nor will have a right judgment about them, as almost all the world is now beginning to perceive.[76]

In March 1525 Oecolampadius’s lectures were published as the first Protestant commentary on Isaiah.[77] Two months earlier, Erasmus had expressed his displeasure with Oecolampadius again when he discovered that in the dedication of the Isaiah commentary, it would read, “our great Erasmus,” implying association with Oecolampadius’s teaching.[78] In contrast, when Luther published his Isaiah commentary in 1532 he wrote, “Oecolampadius has quite satisfactorily translated Isaiah,” and “Oecolampadius has sufficiently done good work in the grammar, although occasionally he may differ from us.”[79]

Maurer states that the relationship between Oecolampadius and Erasmus fell apart because Melanchthon sought to pull Oecolampadius to Luther’s side on the issues related to the freedom of the will.[80] Near the end of 1524, there was an exchange between Erasmus and Melanchthon that included their evaluations of Oecolampadius. Erasmus had listed Oecolampadius among those who offended him, with the qualification that “Oecolampadius is a little more modest, and yet with him, too, I would desire gospel integrity.”[81] In Melanchthon’s response to Erasmus, of all the people he had listed, Melanchthon asks, “As you construct your list where you assemble the most wicked of all bipeds, I ask why is it that you also associate Oecolampadius with the like, I ask what is proper?”[82] Erasmus explained that he had not included Oecolampadius in the list in the same way as the others:

So far I have praised no one with regard to magnificence or thought more than Oecolampadius; yet also this professed ‘most candid friend’ spoke of me unfavorably not only with words in some colloquies and sermons, but truly also in his books several times he obliquely mentions it more than necessary.[83]

Erasmus did specifically identify that he was displeased with Oecolampadius’s views on the will, but also that he was offended by Oecolampadius’s allegation that he had copied Oecolampadius’s work on confession. As the relationship between Erasmus and Oecolampadius declined, it seems that Melanchthon was especially eager to defend and support his friend Oecolampadius.

The strength of the relationship between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius can also be seen in that they once again facilitated mutual relationships with other like-minded men. When people traveled from Wittenberg to Basel, Melanchthon frequently encouraged them to meet with, or even stay with, Oecolampadius. For example, in September 1523 Melanchthon wrote to Oecolampadius that Hieronymus Schurf was visiting Basel and requested, “I want you to welcome him just as you would me.”[84] Similarly, in April 1524 Luther wrote to Oecolampadius that Joachim Camerarius, the close friend of Melanchthon, would be visiting Basel, and that Melanchthon might be coming with him.[85] While Melanchthon did not travel to Basel at that time, Camerarius did visit Oecolampadius and reported it to Melanchthon. Melanchthon then wrote to Oecolampadius:

Joachim made known to me your courtesy with the greatest words. Although I had no doubt that you were going to receive him in the way that the erudition and honesty of the young man deserved and were going to readily pursue every kind of duty, still I rejoice that even his soul was satisfied.[86]

In that same letter, Melanchthon commended to Oecolampadius another friend who had decided to travel to Basel.

When Melanchthon wrote to Oecolampadius about another young man traveling to Basel carrying letters, he voiced his complaint that Oecolampadius was not writing to him. Melanchthon lamented that when he sent his letter, “I did not do it with the motive of such pleasure, but out of duty.… I did not send [the carrier] off without my letter to you, even though you seem to hold back from this kind of duty to me.”[87] This complaint by Melanchthon was not uncommon. Melanchthon conveyed this same sentiment in letters he wrote in February and September of 1524. Melanchthon entreated Oecolampadius, “If only you would write, my Oecolampadius, that you would write constantly so that you may teach the genuine gospel.… If only sometime it may be allowed for us to meet!”[88] Several months later, Melanchthon complained, “You may hardly believe how annoying your silence is to me, my Oecolampadius, especially with regard to the disturbances in your region.”[89] In these letters, Melanchthon frequently shared with Oecolampadius some of the things that were happening in Wittenberg and asked that Oecolampadius would tell him what was happening in Basel. He also expressed concern about the effect that the debates between Luther and Karlstadt on the Lord’s Supper would have for the evangelical cause, and emphasized the influence Oecolampadius could have, particularly with regard to the iconoclasm occurring in Zurich.[90]

The silence on the part of Oecolampadius may indicate his lack of interest in cultivating a close friendship with Melanchthon. However, it may also be that Oecolampadius was so engrossed in the very affairs about which Melanchthon wanted more information that he did not have opportunity to write. Northway surmises that the silence may have been because Oecolampadius was changing his position on the Eucharist and did not know how to communicate that to his friend.[91] Whatever the reasons were, Melanchthon’s desire for more correspondence from Oecolampadius would eventually be fulfilled as a result of this growing disagreement over the Eucharist.

V. The Challenges Of A Devoted Friendship (1525–1528)

The friendship between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius faced its greatest challenge in the controversies about the Lord’s Supper. Already at the beginning of 1525, Melanchthon was aware of Oecolampadius’s changing views on the Lord’s Supper. On January 12, he wrote to Oecolampadius that he had been reflecting on the questions concerning the Eucharist about whether the word “is” was a trope and where Christ’s body was after he ascended.[92] Melanchthon stated that he saw no reason to depart from the actual words in the Gospels and Paul, and sided with Luther on the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist.[93] In a letter to Thomas Blarer, Melanchthon referred to the letter he had written to Oecolampadius and explicitly affirmed his view on the real presence of Christ.[94]

This is the point at which Maurer claims that the friendship between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius was over. He asserts that with the letter on January 12, 1525, Melanchthon cut off the bond of friendship from Oecolampadius in the same month that Erasmus had rescinded his friendship with Oecolampadius as well.[95] He states, “On the basis of Christian humanism, [their friendship] was closed; in the name of Reformation theology, they had been separated.”[96] Maurer argues that this break in friendship was the fault of Oecolampadius, because he had already abandoned their mutual foundation of humanism with his treatise on confession from 1521. As evidence for this evaluation, Maurer cites a letter between Alciato and Amberbach from July 13, 1521, which shows praise for Melanchthon’s courage and blame for Oecolampadius’s effort.[97] While perhaps it could be argued that the trajectory of a breakdown was already set back then or in 1525, there are still many examples from each of them after this point that they were devoted to their longstanding friendship.

A possible indication of the fracture between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon is the lack of evidence that either Melanchthon or Luther expressed interest in Oecolampadius’s commentary on Romans first published in August 1525.[98] Since Luther and Melanchthon had previously been very interested in Oecolampadius’s treatise on confession, his sermons on 1 John, and his commentary on Isaiah, it seems that their silence on such an important biblical and theological work is significant. Their silence is particularly notable given all that they would have agreed with in Oecolampadius’s Romans commentary.[99] While this indicates the increasing rift between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon, it still cannot be maintained that their friendship was over at this point.

During the summer of 1525 Oecolampadius published his important treatise “On the Genuine Words of the Lord,” in which he publically expressed his spiritual view of the Lord’s Supper.[100] Oecolampadius’s view on the Lord’s Supper was similar to that of Zwingli, but differed from Zwingli’s affirmation that Jesus’ words, “This is my body” should be understood, “This signifies my body.” Rather, Oecolampadius located the metaphor in “my body,” so that the saying of Jesus should be understood as, “This is a figure of my body.”[101] This treatise was published in Strasbourg rather than Basel because it was so controversial. It was condemned by the Sorbonne in Paris, refuted by Erasmus, banned in Basel, and Oecolampadius was threatened with expulsion or arrest. He wrote to Zwingli in October 1525 that he was in trouble with the city council more than ever.[102]

The majority of the correspondence between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius for the next few years revolved around disagreements about the Lord’s Supper. But even with these disagreements, each of them expressed a genuine devotion to maintain their friendship. Of course, there is no doubt that each would have preferred the other to come into agreement on the matters regarding the Lord’s Supper.[103] However, as Amy Nelson Burnett points out, when Melanchthon’s correspondence with others in Basel diminished after 1525 over the Lord’s Supper controversy, Oecolampadius remained his only friend in Basel.[104] In fact, the two regularly appealed to the importance of their long friendship with one another, even while contending for their own theological position. While one might argue that this was merely epistolary rhetoric to obtain theological advantage over the other, in the case of these two, it seems that their previously established friendship and expressed desires to maintain that friendship indicate that they had some intention to remain friends.

We do not have Oecolampadius’s original response to Melanchthon’s letter from January 1525, but in a follow-up letter dated November 25, 1525, he reiterated his feelings, which Bruce Gordon calls “a moving testament to his friendship with Melanchthon.”[105] Oecolampadius began the letter:

My Philip, what I testified to you in my last letter, I anxiously will be remembering, certainly let the most sacred bond of our friendship not be violated by me, no matter what we may disagree about doctrines in the meantime. Even if you might seem toward me more severely rude—that I suspect to be less so in the future.[106]

Oecolampadius explained that he had not written earlier because he heard a rumor that Melanchthon had died. This rumor had given Oecolampadius intense sorrow that was only comforted by knowing that for Melanchthon to depart was to be with Christ, which was preferable by far.[107] Oecolampadius described the destructive events in his hometown, the misery of his parents, the rage of the princes and bishops, the exile and death of many friends and supporters, and how Erasmus had written about him. He also appealed to Melanchthon about the Lord’s Supper.

Moreover, that which refers to my publication [De genuina verborum], I very much want you to persuade the most watchful Martin [Luther] and Pomeranius that nothing be written with a hostile mind and with depraved dispositions! Where anything was provided with faith, declare such things. May the lovers of disputes not loosen the indestructible love with belittlings! Many attack us, but we are not ignorant of who the instigator is, some are more devoted [dicatiores] than learned [doctiores].… It is reported that you will be writing against Zwingli, which will also be against me, specifically on the subject of the Eucharist. Do not look down on us as ignorant ones, nor treat friends as enemies![108]

Oecolampadius declared that they were dedicated to Christ and would rather perish eternally than preach anything against Christ. At the end of the letter, he again appealed to Melanchthon’s love so that he would try to soothe the fierceness of the others associated with him.[109]

We do not have any indication of a response from Melanchthon to this letter. His response may have been lost, he may have intentionally remained silent, or he may simply not have provided a written response. However, this does not mean that we can say nothing about how Melanchthon responded to Oecolampadius’s appeal to their friendship. In letters to other people during this time period, both Melanchthon and Oecolampadius mention one another.[110] Most of the time Melanchthon referred to the teaching or writings of Oecolampadius on the Lord’s Supper, such as in the letter he wrote to Luther and Bugenhagen in September 1527.[111] In these letters, Melanchthon sometimes mentions his friendship with Oecolampadius, but more frequently he distinguishes the attitude of Zwingli and Oecolampadius. For example, in a letter to Spalatin, Melanchthon observed that almost nothing new was being said about the Lord’s Supper despite all the works being published. But he specifically noted that Zwingli had written a threatening letter to Luther.[112] It seems that already at this point, Melanchthon identified Zwingli as more the cause of dispute than Oecolampadius.

We also see other people, such as Theobald Billikan, in the middle of the action between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius. Billikan had written to Oecolampadius in January 1526 to understand more about his figurative interpretation of the Lord’s Supper and to get the letter that “Philip Melanchthon promised you would give to me.”[113] Oecolampadius responded with a public letter in February, published as the “Apologetica Joannis Oecolampadii.”[114] Melanchthon and Billikan then exchanged letters, in which Billikan reported that he was not displeased with all things “Oecolampadian.” One of the letters Melanchthon had written to Billikan, he asked him later to burn. Billikan obeyed the request, and stated that he had done so not because there was something unworthy in Melanchthon’s letter, but out of friendship.[115]

After a long silence Oecolampadius wrote again to Melanchthon in May 1528. He appealed again to their friendship in the midst of their theological disagreements, “I will still rightly enjoy our old friendship, even as ‘the scum of the earth’ in your holy radiance, I delight writing to you without regard to elaborate prefaces.”[116] He complained that the new term Schwärmer was not appropriate to be used against them, because they too loved Christ and were moved by piety. He commented in this letter that some of what Luther had written in his confession about the Lord’s Supper did not differ much from his own view.[117] He also reported on a few personal matters, including the fact that he had gotten married.[118]

Once again, Melanchthon remained silent. We know that Melanchthon had not responded by December based on a letter that Oecolampadius wrote to Konrad Sam where he commented, “Besides I did not hear even a word from Melanchthon, although … through my letter I admonished him that he urge those with him to consider our people better. I modestly did what I could.”[119] These comments reflect Oecolampadius’s consistent view that while others had abandoned all courtesy toward them, he still had hope that Melanchthon could be reasoned with. Though their friendship was deteriorating, it had not yet completely dissolved.

VI. The Decline Of A Divided Friendship (1529–1531)

Near the end of 1528, the Elector Philip of Hesse recognized the need for a thorough discussion on the Lord’s Supper. He proclaimed, “Lord willing, I will make Oecolampadius with his people and Luther with his people come together at my employ and expense, even if I have to spend six thousand florins!”[120] Much of the correspondence by Melanchthon and Oecolampadius at this time was about organizing and preparing for the colloquy that would be held at Marburg.[121] The focus of a letter from Oecolampadius in March 1529, for example, was on their differences over the Lord’s Supper, particularly christological views. In that letter, though, Oecolampadius again expressed that he “certainly desired to keep their friendship,” and lamented that Melanchthon had been silent.[122] He specifically asked for the courtesy that their former friendship be honored, and pleaded that unless some bad misfortune had happened to Melanchthon, rather than perpetual silence, “I at least deserve the grace to know if you have rejected our friendship.”[123]

Melanchthon responded to Oecolampadius only a few weeks later:

To the most learned man Doctor Johannes Oecolampadius, his friend, Philip Melanchthon. I have received a few of your letters, which were greatly pleasing to me because there exists in them many unambiguous indications of your old kindness towards me and desire for a most constant friendship. For my spirit is the same toward you—as it always has been. Moreover, I always cherished with admiration your uncommon learning and virtues, and I loved you greatly and with a certain singular loyalty. If only these were the times that we might be able to delight in this our friendship. But this terrible dissension about the Lord’s Supper falls upon [us], which hindered our old practice of kindness [and] has the habit of bringing contention between us. However, it did not shake my favor towards you. And so, if you are missing any kindness from me, I want you to blame the times more than my faith.[124]

Melanchthon clearly did not perceive their friendship as over. He explained his silence toward Oecolampadius by contending that he had been a spectator of the drama more than an actor in this affair. He even professed, “So if your opinion about the Lord’s Supper was satisfying to me, I would openly declare it.”[125] However, he reaffirmed that he would not depart from his conscience on the meaning of the words and could not agree that the body of Christ is absent from the elements. He urged Oecolampadius to consider the dangers of using clever interpretations of what the church fathers taught about the Lord’s Supper and warned him about holding to a doctrine that did not teach the real presence. Despite the majority of the content of the letter, Melanchthon stated, “But this is not to set up a disputation; I only wrote these things so that you might recognize my perpetual kindness towards you. And yet I did not want to hide what I think.”[126] He concluded the letter with the request that Oecolampadius “consider well that I wrote my letter with the noblest and friendliest spirit.”[127]

The response from Oecolampadius did not occur until at least July. Before Melanchthon had heard back from Oecolampadius, he wrote to Johann Lachmann to warn him about the Zwinglians. In that letter he included the comment, “You know that I have an old friendship with Oecolampadius. But I wished he had not fallen into their alliance.”[128] This statement appropriately summarizes Melanchthon’s feelings about Oecolampadius. The good friendship they had formed had been sabotaged by Oecolampadius’s being drawn into Zwingli’s camp.

The final letter between these two was from Oecolampadius to Melanchthon in August 1529. Although he had written to Zwingli at the end of July that he did not want to write anything before the scheduled colloquy, when Melanchthon’s previous letter was published, Oecolampadius decided to write to Melanchthon again.[129] This letter to Melanchthon was later reworked after the Marburg Colloquy and published in the spring of 1530 as part of “Dialogue on What the Ancients Understood about the Eucharist.”[130] The bulk of the letter is a concise summary of Oecolampadius’s views on the correct interpretation of Scripture, the teaching of the church fathers, the connection between the Supper and the resurrection, a critique of the notions of ubiquity and the real presence, and the two natures of Christ. Only in the opening of the letter do we get an insight into Oecolampadius’s thoughts about his relationship with Melanchthon:

So, my Philip, if it absolutely cannot happen that we may dispute between us with the customary duty—which would be most pleasing—then it is good that we deliberate so our old friendship remains unharmed and not shaken in these troubled and dangerous times of ours.[131]

Like Melanchthon earlier, Oecolampadius blamed the troubled times. He reiterated his desire that harmful words not be written, and he affirmed their mutual desire for a colloquy in which they could discuss the matters face-to-face.

Though this is the last piece of correspondence between the two of them, they would soon meet together at the Marburg Colloquy in October 1529. Melanchthon’s proclivity for writing letters is clearly evident from the number of letters he wrote around the time of the colloquy and while he was at the colloquy itself.[132] In a letter to Christian Beyer on September 30, 1529, he described the experiences of their arrival, which included his assessment, “Oecolampadius, Hedio, and Bucer greeted us with enough friendliness that they seemed to me so moved that if the occasion were not troublesome, they would gladly be at peace.”[133] Scheible describes the impression that these three men were still happy to see each other before the debate began.[134] Gordon likewise maintains, “Thus, at least from the perspectives of the two friends, Melanchthon and Oecolampadius, the road to Marburg was paved with good intentions.”[135]

When the colloquy began, Philip of Hesse did not immediately let the two heads debate with one another. Rather Zwingli spoke with Melanchthon and Luther with Oecolampadius.[136] Only in the plenary did Luther debate with both Zwingli and Oecolampadius. Scheible recounts that Melanchthon described himself and others present as mutes, who only spoke a few words.[137] Unfortunately there are no other accounts that describe the interaction between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius at the colloquy itself. At the conclusion of the colloquy, the two sides agreed on fourteen articles, but could not reach agreement on the Eucharist. The division between the Swiss Reformed and the Lutherans had been solidified. And it seems that the same was true for the friendship of Melanchthon and Oecolampadius.

There is no extant correspondence between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon after the Marburg Colloquy. Both men comment in other writings that they have read letters written by the other, but these are most likely public letters that had been circulated rather than personal letters sent directly to them.[138] The relationship between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon at this point seems to have been exclusively limited to their respective stances on the Lord’s Supper. After the Marburg Colloquy both of them published works on the Lord’s Supper. Melanchthon published a treatise on select “Sentences” from church fathers about the Lord’s Supper.[139] In response, Oecolampadius published a work that included a fictitious dialogue between himself and a character named Nathaniel who followed Melanchthon’s view on the Lord’s Supper.[140] This work also included the entire treatise by Melanchthon to which Oecolampadius was responding, and two letters previously written between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon. In July 1530, Melanchthon wrote to Luther, “Oecolampadius wrote the ‘Dialogue’ against me, which seems to me to be more accurate than otherwise he is in the habit of writing.”[141] He noted that once again the issue was primarily about the tradition in the church fathers, but said nothing about their friendship.

In an attempt to reach some kind of agreement between Luther and the Swiss Reformed, Martin Bucer interacted frequently with Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, and many others.[142] Before the Marburg Colloquy, Oecolampadius expressed his eagerness for news about negotiations between Bucer and Melanchthon at Augsburg in September.[143] Bucer had already begun mediating between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius as early as 1527, and continued after the colloquy.[144] However, no resolution could be met on the differences over the Lord’s Supper. Burnett aptly states, “Oecolampadius’s death in November 1531 prevented any re-kindling of their friendship that might have occurred in the wake of Bucer’s mediating activities.”[145]

The final crumbling of the relationship between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon can be observed from a letter that Oecolampadius wrote to Capito in September 1531—only two months before he died. He specifically wrote about true friendship to affirm his friendship with Capito, and asked Capito not to compare him to Luther, Erasmus, and Melanchthon who “indeed were loved by you … but when God honored you with remarkable talents to be cultivated, they again did not recognize it—in the same way they did not with others.”[146] Oecolampadius likely includes himself among those from whom Erasmus, Luther, and even Melanchthon had rescinded their friendship. It seems that at this point, Oecolampadius had conceded that his friendship with Melanchthon was not what it used to be—and that his own companions could never have the kind of friendship Oecolampadius once enjoyed with Melanchthon.

After Oecolampadius died in November 1531, Melanchthon wrote to his good friend Camerarius, “Bucer wrote to us about the death of Oecolampadius, but I suspect him to have been killed with suffering of the soul. Indeed he was not a man able to endure so great and so sudden a thing [as Zwingli’s death].”[147] Despite their differences, Melanchthon seems to have retained respect for Oecolampadius. In contrast, Luther attributed the sudden death of Oecolampadius to the devil’s attack.[148] Mattox identifies the contrasting responses to Oecolampadius’s death by Luther and Bullinger as an illustration of “all the pathos, and much of the tension, intrinsic to an age of bitter religious controversy, apocalyptic angst, and deepening Christian division.”[149] It was this pathos that both Oecolampadius and Melanchthon blamed as the culprit for the breakdown of their friendship.

Ten years later, Melanchthon reflected on his time with Oecolampadius at Tübingen and the gift of Agricola’s Dialectic he had received from Oecolampadius. He referred to Oecolampadius as “excellent in learning, prudence, and piety” whom he “honored as a father.”[150] Northway maintains that Oecolampadius and Melanchthon had remained “tentative ‘friends.’”[151] Likewise, Gordon asserts, “Oecolampadius was the type of man with whom Melanchthon most enjoyed contact: irenic, scholarly and moderate in temperament.”[152] Any further references to Oecolampadius by Melanchthon are generally about something written on the Lord’s Supper with no commenting about their former friendship.[153] However, the impact of their relationship may have led to Melanchthon changing his position on the Lord’s Supper. Scheible comments that “the scholarly exchange of letters about the Lord’s Supper” between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon “gradually dissuaded him from his strict Lutheran position.”[154] Similarly, Kusukawa follows the suggestion of Quere when he notes, “Although the precise extent to which Oecolampadius’ criticism affected Melanchthon is still unclear, Melanchthon’s statements became more nuanced thereafter.… [These] may well have been a response to Oecolampadius’ criticisms.”[155] It would certainly be difficult to argue that it was the friendship with Oecolampadius that influenced Melanchthon to shift in his views on the Lord’s Supper more than the actual teaching of Oecolampadius. However, it seems that it was indeed their friendship that made it even feasible for Melanchthon to be open to listening to Oecolampadius at a time when many others were quickly dismissing and belittling those with differing views.

VII. Conclusion

The relationship between Johannes Oecolampadius and Philipp Melanchthon was certainly complicated. Even taking into account the politeness of Renaissance letter-writing etiquette, there is no doubt that a true friendship existed between Oecolampadius and Melanchthon from 1513 when they first met in school all the way until the decisive events at the Marburg Colloquy in late 1529. Oecolampadius made a tremendous impact on his younger colleague’s formation as a humanist and a theologian. Likewise, Melanchthon played a significant role in Oecolampadius’s embracing Reformation teaching. While the depth of their friendship vacillated throughout the years, they both repeatedly expressed their desire to maintain their long friendship—even after 1525 when it was obvious that they did not agree on the Lord’s Supper. They each lamented the silence from the other at different points in their lives, and communicated that they expected much from each other because of their friendship. But their friendship crumbled as they stood on opposite sides of the divide over the Lord’s Supper and as they were seen in relation to their more vociferous colleagues. Melanchthon wished that Oecolampadius had not followed Zwingli, and Oecolampadius wished that Melanchthon would have done more to calm Luther. Their friendship, unfortunately, mirrored the relationship between the Lutherans and the Swiss. There was great hope and expectation at the beginning, with efforts to grow together over the years, but disagreements about the Lord’s Supper inevitably split them apart, never to be reconciled again.

Notes

1. See, e.g., Melanchthons Briefwechsel: Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe, ed. Heinz Scheible and Christine Mundhenk (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, forthcoming 2017), vol. 13, Personen L–Q. This volume will include a description of the relationship between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius, but these entries are intentionally short and intended primarily for increased understanding of the correspondence with Melanchthon.
2. See, e.g., Timothy J. Wengert, “‘We Will Feast Together in Heaven Forever’: The Epistolary Friendship of John Calvin and Philip Melanchthon,” and Bruce Gordon, “Wary Allies: Melanchthon and the Swiss Reformers,” in Melanchthon in Europe: His Work and Influence beyond Wittenberg, ed. Karin Maag (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 22, 46. Wengert, in particular, demonstrates how Renaissance letter-writing etiquette made the relationship between Melanchthon and Calvin sound more friendly than it actually was.
3. Wilhelm Maurer, Der junge Melanchthon zwischen Humanismus und Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 1:68-69.
4. The definitive biography of Oecolampadius is still Ernst Staehelin, Das theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 21 (New York: Johnson, 1939). The best English biography is E. Gordon Rupp, Patterns of Reformation (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1969; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009). A more recent biography is Diane Poythress, Reformer of Basel: The Life, Thought, and Influence of Johannes Oecolampadius (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2011).
5. The most comprehensive biography of Melanchthon is Heinz Scheible, Melanchthon: Eine Biographie (Munich: Beck, 1997). For an evaluation of other Melanchthon biographies, see Timothy J. Wengert, “Beyond Stereotypes: The Real Philip Melanchthon,” in Philip Melanchthon: Then and Now (1497-1997), ed. Scott Hendrix and Timothy J. Wengert (Columbia, SC: Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, 1999).
6. See Ernst Staehelin, Briefe und Akten zum Leben Oekolampads, 2 vols., Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 10, 19 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1927, 1934; repr., New York: Johnson, 1971), 1:1-3 [Nos. 1, 3-4]; hereafter abbreviated BuA with volume and page number cited and entry in brackets.
7. Ibid., 1:23 [No. 15].
8. Scheible, Melanchthon, 20.
9. Melanchthon was at Heidelberg from October 1509 to September 1512.
10. See, e.g., Maurer, Der junge Melanchthon, 1:11, 65-67. Maurer asserts that in order to understand the friendship between Melanchthon and Oecolampadius, we must also understand the relationship between Reuchlin and Oecolampadius. See also Staehelin, Das theologische Lebenswerk, 58-59.
11. See Rupp, Patterns of Reformation, 5.
12. Timothy J. Wengert, “Biblical Interpretation in the Works of Philip Melanchthon,” in A History of Biblical Interpretation, ed. Alan Hauser and Duane F. Watson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 2:324. See also BuA 1:37-38 [No. 30]; and Philipp Melanchthon, Melanchthons Briefwechsel: Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe, ed. Heinz Scheible and Walter Thüringer, 10 vols. (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1977–), 1: No. 13 (hereafter abbreviated MBW followed by volume and entry number). MBW includes helpful summaries of letters and documents with dating and background information. The full text of many of these entries can be found in Melanchthons Briefwechsel Texte, ed. Richard Wetzel et al., 17 vols. (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1995–) (hereafter MBW.T followed by volume and entry number), which is a critical edition of Melanchthon’s letters and documents. For all the references the entry number is identical, with only the volume numbers sometimes differing for MBW and MBW.T (e.g., MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No. 820). The reference for the present n. 12 is MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 13.
13. Maurer, Der junge Melanchthon, 1:65.
14. For Melanchthon’s reflections on his time in school with Oecolampadius, see Philippi Melanchthonis opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. Carolus Gottlieb Bretschneider, Corpus Reformatorum 1-28 (New York: Johnson, 1963), 4:720-21 [No. 2418] (hereafter abbreviated CR followed by volume and page number): Oecolampadius … patrem colebam.
15. CR 4:716 [No. 2418]; BuA 1:23n1 [No. 15]. Agricola’s “De inventione dialectica libri tres” was first published in Leuven in 1515. It cannot be determined whether Oecolampadius was in Heidelberg, Basel, Weinsberg, or Tübingen when he gave the book to Melanchthon. Cf. Maurer, Der junge Melanchthon, 1:67; Wengert, “Biblical Interpretation of Melanchthon,” 324.
16. See Scheible, Melanchthon, 22; Wengert, “Biblical Interpretation of Melanchthon,” 324-25.
17. Staehelin, Das theologische Lebenswerk, 59-61; Maurer, Der junge Melanchthon, 1:66-67; Scheible, Melanchthon, 22. Staehelin explains that the order in which he did these things cannot be definitively determined.
18. See BuA 1:24-31 [Nos. 17-25]; Staehelin, Das theologische Lebenswerk, 61-68. Oecolampadius received the Licentiate in Theology in October 1516.
19. Clyde L. Manschreck, Melanchthon, The Quiet Reformer (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1975), 39.
20. Scheible, Melanchthon, 22.
21. See Staehelin, Das theologische Lebenswerk, 68-87; Maurer, Der junge Melanchthon, 1:67.
22. Oecolampadius to Erasmus dated March 27, 1517 (BuA 1:32-33 [No. 27]): Dabo enim operam, annuat Deus, ne frivole Oecolampadium oranrit Erasmus.
23. BuA 1:32-33 [No. 27]: Crebras ad me dat literas Philippus Melanchthon.… Semper tui meminit, semper admiratur, semper commendari tibi rogitat: plane dignissimus Erasmi amore, qui alter futurus est Erasmus facundia, ingenio, eruditione, vita. None of these letters mentioned is extant.
24. BuA 1:32-33 [No. 27]: Si quisquam Germanorum, Erasmum praestabit. Id Beatuem nostrum beatius apud te eiusdem nomine egisse non dubitarim.
25. Erasmus to Oecolampadius from July 1517 (BuA 1:38 [No. 31]): De Melanchthon et sentio praeclare et spero magnifice, tantum ut eum iuvenem nobis Christus diu velit esse superstitem. Is prorsus obscurabit Erasmum. Erasmus had earlier praised Melanchthon in his Annotations published in 1516 (CR 10:470).
26. Willibald Pirckheimer to Melanchthon near the end of 1517 (CR 1:23; MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 13): Desine igitur ea tanquam officiosa laudare, quae nisi facerem, plane inhumanus videri possem.… Nam quod Oecolampadium et Capnionem, tanquam in illos benefices fuerim … nisi tu magis voluntatem quam rei effectum considerari velis. See also CR 1:26; BuA 1:23 [No. 15].
27. See BuA 1:65-66nn4-5 [No. 38] for the possible scenarios.
28. BuA 1:72-75, esp. n. 6 [No. 43]. It may be that Oecolampadius did not actually ever have the option of going to Wittenberg, because by the time Reuchlin’s recommendation was received, he may have already made the decision to go to Basel.
29. Rupp, Patterns of Reformation, 13.
30. BuA 1:77-78 [No. 46].
31. On these projects, see BuA 1:66-69, 75-77 [Nos. 39-40, 44-45].
32. Johannes Oecolampadius, Dragmata graecae literaturae (Basel: Cratander, 1518); and Philipp Melanchthon, Institutiones graecae grammaticae (Hagenau: Anshelm, 1518). Six more editions of Oecolampadius’s grammar were published from 1520 to 1546. Melanchthon had more than 40 editions of his grammar published from 1520 to 1590.
33. CR 1:26-27 [No. 13]: Accingimur enim non vano conatu ad instauranda Aristotelica.… Habemus ceu subsidiaries laboris huius nostri clarissimos Germaniae viros, Capnionem, decus nostrum, Bilibaldum Pyrchaimer, Georgium Simler, Wolfgangum Hagenoum, Ioannem Icolampadium, omnes externarum quoque literarum adsertores. These plans were restated in the 1522 edition of Melanchthon’s grammar as well. See also CR 1:275 [No. 97]; BuA 1:111n2 [No. 73].
34. See BuA 1:111n2 [No. 73]: alioqui, quod ad scholas meas attinet, uti potuissem vel Urbano vel Oecolampadio.
35. BuA 1:65-66 [No. 38].
36. Oecolampadius to Johann Reuchlin from September 1518 (BuA 1:71-72 [No. 42]): Philippus Melanchthon ille noster, ubi agat, scire velim, an apud te resideat an Saxoniam ingressus sit. Ego corpore eum sequi non possum, animo sequar et literis.
37. Melanchthon in Wittenberg to Capito in Basel dated May 17, 1519 (MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 57).
38. See BuA 1:72-75, 78-81 [Nos. 43, 47-50].
39. Scheurl in Nuremberg to Oecolampadius in Augsburg dated July 20, 1519 (BuA 1:97 [No. 62]): noster Melanchthon, communis amicus, delicie Wittenburgenses, iussit tibi epistolam suam reddi, nihil non pollicitus de tua virtute, integritate, humanitate.
40. BuA 1:97 [No. 62]. Me tibi offero, qualemcunque inter familiaris locum rogito: si in nullo tibi prodesse possum, utere saltim officio amici in transmittendis litteris Wittenbergam, ubi ex Italia rediens docendo discere potui, ubi amici mihi sunt plerique boni, docti, et inter hos Philippus, qui ad me quotidie epistolas mittunt accipiuntque.
41. See Staehelin, Das theologische Lebenswerk, 93-94, 100-113. For evidence of this shift beginning as early as May 1519, see BuA 1:85-90, 99-100, 108-9 [Nos. 55-58, 61-66, 70].
42. See the preface to Martin Luther, Psalmenvorlesung in D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe, 72 vols. (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1883-1993), 5:24 (hereafter WA with volume and page number); CR 1:70-73 [No. 36]. Melanchthon stated that after 400 years of the domination of scholastic theology, men like Erasmus, Reuchlin, Oecolampadius, and Capito had been raised up to bring true theology to light.
43. Melanchthon to Oecolampadius dated July 21, 1519, published as “Epistola de Lipsica disputation” (CR 1:87-96 [No. 43]; BuA 1:97-99 [No. 63]; MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 59). Gordon says that Melanchthon “wrote first in July 1519” to Oecolampadius, but as noted above in n. 23, there was prior correspondence that we do not have anymore (“Wary Allies,” 47). The Leipzig Disputation took place from June 27 to July 10, 1519. See also Scheible, Melanchthon, 58.
44. BuA 1:98 [No. 63]; MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 59: In utrumque spiritus incumbit pariter, ut inadita sit amicicia tum simultati, tum nugacibus istis blandiciis.
45. BuA 1:98 [No. 63]; MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 59: Nam eiusmodi auspiciis animos nostros optimus ille sincerae caritatis spiritus conciliavit, ut amiciciam nostram neque labefactari ullo casu in tam varia omnium rerum humanarum vicissitudine posse sperem, neque vulgaribus illis et per gratias pedaneis suffragiis id genus literarum, qualibus fere aluntur amicicie, altius acturam radices.… Atque utinam illius queam grato pectore beneficium agnoscere, qui talem non dico Thesea, sed Christiana fide amicum nobis iunxerit.… Neque enim rationes nostre sinebant equare beneficium beneficio, qua parte quandoquidem tu prestos, queso permitte vincere nos amando. Aristoteles eum, qui beneficio quempiam affecerit, ab illo tantum vult amari, quantum meretur beneficium aut certe beneficii gratia. Argute ille quidem, sed non omnino probe; neque enim nobis scopus est amoris nostril beneficium ullum tuum, sed ille auctor amicicie nostre Christi spiritus. Tu interim quidquid officii amico dedisti, communi charitatis iure debebas; vicissim in nominibus tuis nos quoque sumus non defuturi officio, si quando casus aliquis ferret.
46. BuA 1:97-99 [No. 63]; MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 59: Nemo enim plane mortalium est, cuius presentior in me iam inde a puero usque fuerit beneficentia, quam tua, eaque vere liberalis ac prorsusτό γυμνόν τῶν χαρίτωνreferns.
47. Melanchthon to Spalatin on July 29, 1519 (CR 1:103-5 [No. 45]; MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 60).
48. See the letters from Melanchthon to Spalatin in August 1519 (CR 1:107-8, 118-19 [Nos. 47, 49]; MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 61, 63).
49. Melanchthon to Johannes Lang dated August 11, 1519 (CR 1:105-7 [No. 46]; MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 62).
50. “Defensio Philippi Melanchthonis contra Johannem Eckium theologiae professorem” (CR 1:108-18). See also BuA 1:99n3 [No. 63].
51. CR 1:108-18 [No. 48]: sanctiore apud me loco Oecolampadius est, quam ut eius nomine ad calumniandum quemcumque abuti velim.
52. See BuA 1:99-100n1 [No. 64a]. This collection was published as Lypsicae disputationis epitome (Augsburg: Grimm & Wirsung, 1519).
53. Canonici indociti Lutherani appeared in Strasbourg, Wittenberg, and Erfurt.
54. Luther to Spalatin dated January 10, 1520 (Martin Luther, Luther’s Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, ed. Preserved Smith and Charles M. Jacobs, 2 vols. [Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1913-1918], 1:272-73 [No. 216]). Eck’s complaint is mentioned in the letter from Luther to Spalatin on February 27, 1520 (D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe: Briefwechsel, 18 vols. [Weimar: H. Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1930-1985], 2:56 [No. 261]; hereafter WA Br with volume and page number).
55. BuA 1:108-9 [No. 70]. Staehelin provides background on the events in n. 1.
56. See Luther’s Works, American Edition, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann, 55 vols. (Philadelphia: Muehlenberg and Fortress, and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-1986), 48:149n2 (hereafter AE with volume and page number); Luther, Luther’s Correspondence, 1:272-73n3; Rupp, Patterns of Reformation, 75; Ernst Staehelin, Oekolampad-Bibliographie, 2nd ed. (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1963), 15 [No. 15]; BuA 1:109n1 [No. 70].
57. Oecolampadius wrote years later, “But I myself was searching for quiet and rest so that I could be freed for both letters and prayers; for in these things I found a certain happiness” (BuA 2:27 [No. 465]). See Rupp, Patterns of Reformation, 15-16.
58. Some writers also note a mystical side that may have been sympathetic to monastic life. Others also speculate that he may have had doubts about his preaching ability because of his weak voice and lack of experience. See Bruce Gordon, The Swiss Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 109; Ed L. Miller, “Oecolampadius: The Unsung Hero of the Basel Reformation,” Iliff Review 39 (1982): 10; Rupp, Patterns of Reformation, 15-16.
59. Capito to Melanchthon from May 1520 (CR 1:163-64 [No. 73]; MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 92). See also the exchanges between Pirckheimer and Adelmman about Oecolampadius entering the monastery (BuA 1:116-17 [No. 78]).
60. E.g., Eric Northway observes that in Oecolampadius’s treatise on the Eucharist, Sermo de sacramento Eucharistiae (Augsburg: Grimm & Wirsung, 1521), he explained the Eucharistic presence in a way that moved towards “a dynamic significationist position” (“The Reception of the Fathers and Eucharistic Theology in Johannes Oecolampadius [1482-1531], with Special Reference to the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus of Lyons” [PhD diss., University of Durham, 2008], 107-18). See also Staehelin, Das theologische Lebenswerk, 142-46.
61. Johannes Oecolampadius, Quod non sit onerosa Christianis confessio paradoxon Ioannis Oecolampadii (Augsburg: Grimm, 1521). The work was first published in Augsburg on April 20, 1521, and again in Basel by Andreas Cratander in June 1521. See BuA 1:142-43, 145-47 [Nos. 98, 102].
62. Luther in Wartburg to Melanchthon in Wittenberg on May 26, 1521 (WA Br 2:346-52 [No. 413]). See also BuA 1:150n5 [No. 105].
63. Luther in Wartburg to Melanchthon in Wittenberg dated July 13, 1521 (WA Br 2:356-61 [No. 418]; MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 151).
64. Melanchthon in Wittenberg to Pirckheimer in Nuremberg from September 1521 (BuA 1:161 [No. 113]; MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 171): Scripsi, credo, ter ad Oikolampron et de re quidem necessaria, quam, quia ille non respondet, puto tecum quoque communicandam esse. Audacter autem; nam ita postea mihi mos erit tecum commentari. Scis profiteri Graeca me in Saxonibus iuventuti, si nihil aliud, certe studiose. Rogavi Oikolampron, ut meam adiuvet operam suppeditetque Graecos aliquos theologos. Nam hos cupio potissimum interpretari. Porro, cum ille taceat, idem te quaeso, in hac re velis experiri me benignitatem tuam.
65. Pirckheimer to Melanchthon from September 1521 (MBW 1; MBW.T 1: No. 171a).
66. Johannes Oecolampadius, Oecolampadii iudicium de doctore Martino Luthero (Leipzig: Schumann, 1520).
67. Oecolampadius, Iudicium Luthero, A-iii-b: Eas alias habemus novitates ex his qui redierunt e nuptiis Philippi Melanchtonis: in schedula leges posita.
68. See Rupp, Patterns of Reformation, 17.
69. Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, ed. Emil Egli et al.; Corpus Reformatorum 88-101 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1905-1959), 94:634-35 [No. 258] (hereafter CR followed by volume and page number); BuA 1:200 [No. 136]; [No. 258].
70. Melanchthon to Oecolampadius dated May 21, 1523 (CR 1:615 [No. 242]; BuA 1:221 [No. 154]): Si hactenus nihil ad te scripsi, mi frater, malo cuivis imputes potius, quam ut suspiceris aliquid de amore immutatum. Manet idem animus erga te, donec in Christo iidem futuri sumus.… O quoties cupio coram etiam colloqui! Quisquis est Basileae status tuus, mallem te nobiscum esse; mea domus, mei lares tui erunt. Propterea vide, quid ferant rationes tuae. Si nihil est, quod alio avocet, nusquam gentium quam hic carior eris bonis omnibus. Nunc plura non licuit. Utinam tu brevi respondeas!
71. For the background on these first lectures, see Staehelin, Das theologische Lebenswerk, 189-90; Rupp, Patterns of Reformation, 19. Though he had not been appointed as a professor when he began the lectures on Isaiah, he was permitted to teach as a doctor of theology.
72. See Rudolf Wackernagel, Humanismus und Reformation in Basel (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1924), 343, 346; Poythress, Reformer of Basel, 13. Northway refers to it as “a consistent crowd of about four hundred people” (“Fathers and Eucharistic Theology,” 55).
73. WA 12:56. For an English translation, see Luther, Luther’s Correspondence, 2:187 [No. 589].
74. See, e.g., the letter from Basilius Amerbach in Basel to his brother Bonifacius Amerbach in Avignon (BuA 1:200 [No. 137]).
75. See the letters from Erasmus to Zwingli in October 1523 and Zwingli to Oecolampadius on October 11, 1523 (CR 95:125 [No. 319]; BuA 1:259 [No. 178]). The year of this comment is incorrect in Rupp, Patterns of Reformation, 19.
76. Luther to Oecolampadius dated June 20, 1523 (BuA 1:222-23 [No. 157]): Certe vehementer nos probavimus hunc spiritum tuum et agregium facinus. Neque cessat Philippus te mihi quottidie maiorem facere, singulari gaudio in tui memoria delectatus. Dominus etiam roboret institutum tuum in legendo Isaia, quamquam ad me scriptum est, Erasmo displicere.… For an English translation of the letter, see Luther, Luther’s Correspondence, 2:190 [No. 591].
77. BuA 1:277, 360 [Nos. 193, 248]. The lectures were published as Johannes Oecolampadius, In Iesaiam prophetam hypomnematōn, hoc est, commentariorum, Ioannis Oecolampadii libri VI (Basel: Andreas Cratander, 1525).
78. Erasmus to Oecolampadius dated January 25, 1525 (BuA 1:353-55 [No. 242]): quid dicturi sunt, quum in tua praefatione legerint, ‘magnus Erasmus noster,’ presertim quum ipsa res nullam daret occasionem nominandi mei? Si scripsissem in Esaiam, aut sit tu de libero arb[itrio] erat, quur nostri faceres mentionem.
79. WA 31.2:2: Oecolampadius satis diligenter transtulit Esaiam. WA 25:88: In Grammatica autem satis bonam operam navavit Oecolampadius, quanquam alicubi a nobis discrepet. For examples where Luther specifies his disagreement with Oecolampadius, see WA 25:152, 160. Luther also praised Oecolampadius’s teaching on Isaiah in the preface to Melanchthon’s Annotations on John (WA 12:57.18-19). On the significance of Luther’s use of Oecolampadius’s Isaiah commentary, see Stephen G. Burnett, “Reassessing the ‘Basel-Wittenberg Conflict’: Dimensions of the Reformation-Era Discussion of Hebrew Scholarship,” in Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, ed. Allison P. Coudert and Jeffrey S. Shoulson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 188-90.
80. Maurer, Der junge Melanchthon, 1:67.
81. Erasmus to Melanchthon dated September 6, 1524 (CR 1:669 [No. 286]): Oecolampadius ceteris Paulo modestior est, et tame nest, ubi in illo quoque desiderem Evangelicam sinceritatem.
82. Melanchthon to Erasmus dated September 30, 1524 (CR 1:674-76 [No. 289]; MBW 1; MBW.T 2: No. 344).
83. Erasmus to Melanchthon dated December 10, 1524 (BuA 1:181-91 [No. 128]; CR 1:688-94 [No. 302]): Oecolampadium non annumero portentis illis nec huic similes, etiamsi permulta sint, quae merito de his queri possim. Hactenus de nemine magnificentius vel sensi vel praedicavi quam de Oecolampadio; tamen et hic professus amicum candidissimum non solum dictis aliquot in colloquiis et in concionibus me perstrinxit, verum etiam in libellis suis aliquocies attingit oblique idque adeo praeter causam.
84. Melanchthon to Oecolampadius dated September 8, 1523 (BuA 1:252-54 [No. 173]; MBW 1; MBW.T 2: No. 292): Caetera Hieronymus ipse, quem volo sicut alterum me complectare. Melanchthon greeted Oecolampadius with the phrase τῆς ἐκκλησίας λαμπάδι (of the church of ‘the Lamp’) indicating his respect for Oecolampadius as the leader of the church in Basel. He also specified that he suggested to Schurf to speak with Oecolampadius.
85. Luther to Oecolampadius around April 15, 1524 (BuA 1:275-76 [No. 191]).
86. Melanchthon to Oecolampadius dated June 11, 1524 (BuA 1:283-84 [No. 199]): Joachimus amplissimis verbis praedicavit mihi humanitatem tuam. Ego, quanquam non dubitabam, quin esses eum excepturus, quemadmodum meretur adulescentis erudition et probitas, comiter et prosecuturus omni genere officiorum, tamen gaudeo illius animo etaim satisfactum esse.
87. Melanchthon to Oecolampadius from 1524 (BuA 1:312-13 [No. 214]; MBW 1; MBW.T 2: No. 340): Id ego non illius tantum caussa perlibenter feci, sed officii etiam mei ratus sum esse, ne quem hinc dimitterem sine meis ad te literis, tametsi tu mihi nonnihil cessare videris in hoc genere officii. In his valediction, Melanchthon tells Oecolampadius to write back. Staehelin suggests July or October as possible dates for the letter (Das theologische Lebenswerk, 313n1). MBW dates it as the beginning of September.
88. Melanchthon to Oecolampadius dated February 14, 1524 (BuA 1:266-67 [No. 183]; CR 1:786 [No. 368]; MBW 1; MBW.T 2: No. 311): Utinam, quod facias, mi Oecolampadi, facias perpetuo, ut evangeliumἀκιβδήλωςdoceas et, quantum fieri potest, vulgi, hoc est porcorum, spurcitiem coherceas.… Utinam liceat aliquando nobis congredi!
89. Melanchthon to Oecolampadius dated September 30, 1524 (BuA 1:318-19 [No. 220]; MBW 1; MBW.T 2: No. 345): Vix credas, quam molestum mihi sit silentium tuum, mi Oecolampadi, praesertim in his motibus vestrae regionis.
90. See MBW 1; MBW.T 2: Nos. 292, 311, 326, 340, 345.
91. Northway, “Reception of the Fathers,” 60-61, 127-28. He cites the letter from Oecolampadius to Veit Bild from October 23, 1524, where Oecolampadius expresses that “to be fed by Christ is meant in a spiritual sense” (BuA 1:332 [No. 230]). Northway also raises the possibility that Oecolampadius wanted to “stay out of Luther’s crosshairs.” See also Thomas A. Fudge, “Icarus of Basel? Oecolampadius and the Early Swiss Reformation,” JRH 21 (1997): 274.
92. Melanchthon to Oecolampadius on January 12, 1525 (BuA 1:338-39 [No. 236]; MBW 1; MBW.T 2: No. 370): Me non nuper, optime Oecolampadi, exercet haec quaestioπερί εὐχαριστίαςvarieque reputanti omnia nihil tutius adhuc visum est, quam ne discederem a verbis tum historiae evangelicae tum Pauli. Namτρόποιverbi ‘est’ me nihil movent, nec dubito, quin in Christi coena naturale corpus Christi sumpserint discipuli. Dicas: quid post Christi a nobis discessum? Reditne corpus toties?Ἀτοπονprofecto et a communi sensu valde abhorrens; sed hic me Paulus cogit, ut sentiam, Christum voluisse hoc etiam modo in ecclesia versari.
93. Luther believed that Oecolampadius had taken a merely symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper, which may have influenced Melanchthon’s perception of what Oecolampadius was saying (AE 36:345).
94. MBW 1; MBW.T 2: No. 372. See the discussion in Northway, “Reception of the Fathers,” 120-27.
95. Maurer, Der junge Melanchthon, 1:68-69.
96. Ibid., 1:69.
97. Ibid. Note this is four years earlier than the supposed breach.
98. BuA 1:379-80 [No. 268]. Johannes Oecolampadius, In epistolam b. Pauli apost. ad Rhomanos adnotationes (Basel: Andreas Cratander, 1525, 1526); In epistolam b. Pauli apostoli ad Rhomanos annotationes: cum indice (Nuremberg: Petreius, 1526).
99. See Jeff Fisher, “The Doctrine of Justification in the Writings of John Oecolampadius (1482-1531),” in Since We Are Justified by Faith, ed. Michael Parsons (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2012), 51-57.
100. BuA 1:370-72 [No. 261]. The treatise was published as Johannes Oecolampadius, De genuina verborum Domini, ‘Hoc est corpus meum’ juxta vetustissimos auctores exposition (Strasbourg: Johann Knobloch, 1525). For the most significant aspects of this work, see Northway, “Reception of the Fathers,” 132-35.
101. Oecolampadius asserted that he was following Tertullian in identifying that the phrase hoc est corpus meum was equivalent to hoc est figura corporis mei. For helpful summaries of Oecolampadius’s developing views on the Lord’s Supper, see Northway, “Reception of the Fathers,” 64-65 and 135-43.
102. BuA 1:404 [No. 290]; CR 95:395-96 [No. 396].
103. Scheible comments that Melanchthon attempted to pull Oecolampadius to his side, because at that time he felt the differences with the Zwinglians were stronger than with the Catholics and he wanted to save the unity of the church (Melanchthon, 104).
104. Amy Nelson Burnett, “Melancthon’s Reception in Basel,” in Melanchthon in Europe: His Work and Influence beyond Wittenberg, ed. Karin Maag (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 71.
105. Gordon, “Wary Allies,” 48.
106. BuA 1:418-20 [No. 304]; MBW 1; MBW.T 2: No. 429: Mi Philippe, quod postremis ad te litteris testatus sum, anxie memor ero, nempe ne sacrosanctum amicitie nostre foedus per me violetur, utcunque interim de dogmatibus contravertamus, etiamsi erga me tu viderere severiusculus, id quod futurum suspicor minime.
107. BuA 1:418-20 [No. 304]; MBW 1; MBW.T 2: No. 429. Oecolampadius is clearly alluding to Phil 1:21.
108. BuA 1:418-20 [No. 304]; MBW 1; MBW.T 2: No. 429: Ceterum quod ad libellum meum attinet, maximopere velim observandissimo Martino ac Pomerano persuadeas nihil hostili animo et depravatis adfectibus scriptum! Qua quisque fide preditus sit, res ipsa declaret. Non obtrectationibus rixarum amatores indissolubilem charitatem solvant! Multi nos impugnant, sed quo impulsore non ignoramus, dicatiores quidam quam doctiores.… Fama est te scripturum adversus Zwinglium, id quod et contra me erit, presertim in materia de eucharista. Ne contempseris ignotos, et amicos ne excipias tanquam inimicos!
109. BuA 1:418-20 [No. 304]; MBW 1; MBW.T 2: No. 429: Haec non propter te solum scribo, quem suopte ingenio modestissimum veritatisque amantissimum scio, sed ut ferociorum, si qui isthic, animos demulceas. Habebis scio veritatis rationem, sed et charitatis non minorem.
110. For examples, see MBW 1: Nos. 445, 473, 478, 539, 662; MBW.T 2: Nos. 445, 473, 478; MBW.T 3: Nos. 539, 662; and BuA 1:450-51, 562; 2:176, 189 [Nos. 325, 410, 571, 578]. Oecolampadius particularly wrote to Zwingli about Melanchthon.
111. Melanchthon to Luther and Bugenhagen dated September 16, 1527 (MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No. 593; WA Br 4:249-51 [No. 1145]).
112. Melanchthon to Spalatin dated May 4, 1527 (MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No. 539; CR 1:865 [No. 440]).
113. Theobald Billikan to Oecolampadius dated January 16, 1526 (BuA 1:451-52 [No. 326]).
114. Johannes Oecolampadius, Apologetica Joannis Oecolampadii: de dignitate eucharistiae sermons duo; ad Theobaldum Billicanum, quinam in verbis coenae alienum sensum inferant; ad ecclesiastas Suevos antisyngramma (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1526). See BuA 1:459-62 [No. 329].
115. See MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No. 529 for Billikan’s description of these letters.
116. Oecolampadius to Melanchthon May 21, 1528 (BuA 2:189-90 [No. 579]; MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No. 686): Utar adhuc iure veteris amicitiae, etiam peripsema mundi, tuoque candore sancte fruar, citra praefationis apparatum tibi scribens.
117. BuA 2:189-90 [No. 579]; MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No. 686. Oecolampadius was referring to Luther’s “Vom abendmal Christi, bekendnis,” published in March 1528.
118. At age 45, Oecolampadius married the 26-year-old Wibrandis Rosenblatt, the widow of Reformer Ludwig Keller. Following Oecolampadius’s death, she would marry Capito, and then Bucer, giving birth to eleven children to four Reformers. Three of those children were Oecolampadius’s.
119. Oecolampadius to Konrad Sam December 21, 1528 (BuA 2:271-72 [No. 624]): Caeterum de Melanchthone ne verbum quidem audivi, quamvis in nundinis Francofordinis per epistoalm eum monuerim, ut cum suis ageret, nostra melius respicerent. Egi autem id quam potui modeste.
120. BuA 2:287 n. 5 [No. 639]: Deo volente faciam Oecolampadium cum suis et Lutherum cum suis meo conductu et sumptu convenire, etiamsi sex millia florenorum exponere deberem. Staehelin notes that already as early as March 30 it was being reported that “Doctor Martin and Philipp Melanchthon with Zwingli and Oecolampadius are supposed to come together at Nuremberg and talk about their division over the sacrament” (BuA 2:335-36 [No. 673]).
121. See BuA 2:337-43 [Nos. 674, 676, 677, 679]; and MBW 1; MBW.T 3: Nos. 777, 778, 784, 788, 802, 804, 805.
122. Oecolampadius to Melanchthon on March 31, 1529 (BuA 2:292-95 [No. 645]; MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No. 766): Magis absentem literis interpellare tuam humanitatem, Melanchthon ornatissime, hactenus non sum veritus, sed pristinae familiaritatis necessitudinem qualibuscunque tandem epistolarum, certe amicarum, si non eruditarum, officiis conservare studui.
123. BuA 2:292-95 [No. 645]; MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No. 766: Tum sane iucundum mihi foret ex hac vita migrare, id quod, opinor, ex variis meis ad te literis accepisti, nisi forte malo infortunio nullae ad te pervenerint, quod suspicari licet ex perpetuo silentio tuo. Nondum enim ausim insimulare, te, quem cuncti mansueto Christi spiritu praeditum testantur, ita surrexisisse supercilium, ut litas familiarium inauditas sine response dimittas. Itaque satis mirari non possum; optima quaeque de te mihi polliceor, et ne verbo quidem spes fovetur. Merear tandem id gratiae, ut sciam te amicitiae renunciasse.
124. Melanchthon to Oecolampadius dated April 1529 (BuA 2:308-10 [No. 652]; MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No.775). This letter was later published as Philipp Melanchthon, Epistola Philippi Melanchthonis ad Johannem Oecolampadium de coena Domini (Hagenau: Secorius, 1529).
125. BuA 2:309 [No. 652]; MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No.775: Itaque si mihi vestra sentencia de coena Domini placeret, simpliciter profiterer.
126. BuA 2:309 [No. 652]; MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No. 775: Sed non institui nunc disputationem; tantum haec scripsi, ut meam erga te benevolentiam perpetuam cognosceres. Neque tamen volui, quid senciam.
127. BuA 2:310 [No. 652]; MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No.775: Postremo te rogo, ut hanc meam epistolam optimo atque amicissimo scriptam animo boni consulas.
128. Melanchthon to Johann Lachmann dated June 3, 1529 (MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No. 790): Scis mihi veterem cum O amicitiam esse. Sed optarim eum non incidisse in hanc coniurationem.
129. Oecolampadius to Zwingli from July 1529 (BuA 2:342-43 [No. 679]).
130. Johannes Oecolampadius, Quid de eucharistia veteres tum Graeci, tum Latini senserint, dialogus (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1530); BuA 2:444-47 [No. 748]. See also the letters from Oecolampadius to Zwingli on April 26, May 4, and June 3, 1530 (BuA 2:436-37, 438-40, 447-48 [Nos. 740, 742, 749]).
131. Oecolampadius to Melanchthon around July/August 1529 (BuA 2:343-50 [No. 680]; MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No. 812): Igitur, mi Philippe, si fieri omnino nequit, ut solitis inter nos certemus officiis, id quod gratissimum esset, boni consulamus, vel amicitiam illam nostrum veterem in tantis temporum nostrorum difficultatibus ac periculis manere salvam et non labefactatam.
132. From September 30 to October 18 Melanchthon wrote at least 10 letters.
133. Melanchthon to Beyer on September 30, 1529 (MBW 1; MBW.T 3: No.820): Tantum salutarunt nos Oecolampadius, Hedio, Bucerus satis familiariter, qui mihi sic videntur affecti, ut, si causa non esset mota, libenter quiescerent.
134. Scheible, Melanchthon, 104-5.
135. Gordon, “Wary Allies,” 48.
136. See BuA 2:367-87 [Nos. 695-696, 698-700]; MBW 1; MBW.T 3: Nos. 825, 826, 829, 831, 832, 837, for reports about the opening of the Colloquy and later descriptions about the events that transpired. For an English translation of the debate between Oecolampadius and Luther, see Word and Sacrament 4, trans. Martin E. Lehman, vol. 38 of AE (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 3-89. See also Bard Thompson, Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance and Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 453.
137. Scheible, Melanchthon, 105.
138. E.g., Oecolampadius mentions a detail from Melanchthon’s letter in his letter to Zwingli dated September 30, 1531 (BuA 2:693-94 [No. 938]).
139. Philip Melanchthon, Sentenciae veterum aliquot scriptorium, de coena Domini, bona fide recitatae (Wittenburg: Joseph Clug, 1530).
140. Oecolampadius, Quid de eucharistia veteres tum Graeci, tum Latini senserint, dialogus.
141. Melanchthon to Luther dated July 21, 1530 (MBW 1; MBW.T 4: No. 982): Oecolampadius scripsit contra me Dialogum, ut mihi videtur accuratius, quam solet alioqui scribere. See also MBW 1; MBW.T 4: No. 1064, where Melanchthon wrote about the same thing to Camerarius.
142. See MBW 1; MBW.T 4: No. 1045; MBW 2; MBW.T 5: Nos. 1118, 1122, 1196; BuA 2:493, 498-99 [Nos. 781, 783].
143. Oecolampadius to Zwingli dated September 27, 1530 (BuA 2:498-99 [No. 783]; CR 98:158-59 [No. 1106]).
144. E.g., see Bucer to Oecolampadius dated May 11, 1527 (BuA 2:63-66 [No. 485]); and Bucer to Melanchthon from February 1531 (MBW 2; MBW.T 5: No. 1122).
145. Burnett, “Melanchthon’s Reception in Basel,” 72.
146. Oecolampadius to Capito dated September 17, 1531(BuA 2:681-83 [No. 932]): Utinam peius nemo de te sentiat quam ego! Neque ego amicitiae renunciabo, semel tam sancte in Christo vel vulgariter tum cognito coepte. Lutheris, Erasmis, ac Melancthonibus, non est, ut me compares. Nam illi quidem a te dilecti fuerunt … at illi, quum te Deus miris dotibus colendum honestarit, non ita vicissim observarunt, quemadmodum nec alios. Aliter te diligere cepi ego.
147. Melanchthon to Camerarius dated January 13, 1532 (MBW 2; MBW.T 5: No. 1210): De Oecolampadii morte scribit Bucerus nobis, sed ego suspicor eum animi dolore extinctum esse. Neque enim potuit rem tantam et tam subitam perferre homo, ut nosti, non satis paratus ad tantam inclintionem ac ruinam potius istam spectandam.
148. See BuA 2:753-54 [No. 974]; WA 38:204-5.
149. Mickey Mattox, Oecolampadius: An Exposition of Genesis (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2013), 16.
150. MBW 3; MBW.T 10: No. 2780; CR 4:715-22 [No. 2418]: Oecolampadius, quem doctrina, prudentia, et pietate excellentem non secus ac patrem colebam, donavit. See also BuA 23n1 [No. 15].
151. Northway, “Reception of the Fathers,” 73-74.
152. Gordon, “Wary Allies,” 48.
153. See, e.g., the letter from Melanchthon to Thomas Cranmer dated May 28, 1550 (MBW 6: No. 5810).
154. Scheible, Melanchthon, 104. Poythress more strongly claims that Oecolampadius’s Dialogue carried “such a weighty argumentation that Melanchthon never again gave whole-hearted consent to the Lutheran view and eventually moved quite close to the Reformed position” (Diane Poythress, “Johannes Oecolampadius’ Exposition of Isaiah, Chapters 36-37” [PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1992], 68). See also Northway, “Reception of the Fathers,” 73.
155. Sachiko Kusukawa, “Melanchthon,” in The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, ed. David Bagchi and David C. Steinmetz (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 60. Kusukawa also notes that changes to Melanchthon’s view found in the Apology of May 1531 were possibly the result of Oecolampadius (p. 64). See also Ralph Walter Quere, Melanchthon’s Christum Cognoscere: Christ’s Efficacious Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Melanchthon (Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf, 1977), 245-47, 310-11; and Wilhelm H. Neuser, Die Abendmahlslehre Melanchthons in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (1519-1530) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1968).

Like Father, Like Son: Unraveling The Proto-Trinitarian Approach Of 2 Clement

By Brandon D. Crowe

[Brandon D. Crowe is Associate Professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary. An earlier version of this article was presented at the SBL Annual Meeting in Chicago on November 19, 2012.]

I. Introduction

Second Clement is not generally considered to be a work of theological profundity. In the words of J. B. Lightfoot, 2 Clement “as a literary work is almost worthless” and the author is “confused in thought and slipshod in expression.”[1] Another has opined that “its thought is feeble, its theology peculiar.”[2] Nevertheless, in this article I will attempt to decipher the rationale underlying some of the apparently convoluted statements the author makes. Moreover, I will suggest that 2 Clement provides a window into one way that some second-century Christians can be plotted on an exegetical and interpretive trajectory that led later to full-flowered Trinitarian formulations. To this end, I will focus on the relationship of Jesus to his Father in 2 Clement, particularly in the way the author transposes traditional formulations referring to God the Father (especially as we find them today in the NT) and applies them to Jesus.[3] This stems from the author’s high Christology,[4] and although the author of 2 Clement is not always perceived to be a robust theologian, the first few verses of 2 Clement do reveal an interpretive logic. Put simply, the author views there to be what we might call an overlapping associative relationship between the Father and the Son, so that what can be predicated of the Father can also be predicated of the Son.[5] This christological conviction undergirds the main aim of the author, which is exhortation. In other words, although this second-century[6] sermon[7] was not composed to be a nuanced, theological treatise, by allowing the author’s own method as stated in 2 Clem. 1:1 to serve as a guide, we may be able to decipher a (mostly) consistent pattern that provides a theological substructure. In this article I will consider 2 Clement in relationship to the NT and some other early Christian writings from the mid-second century and earlier, but my primary interest is in the approach of 2 Clement itself.

II. “Jesus As The Father”—Implications Of 2 Clement 1:1

The key phrase for the author’s interpretive approach can be found in the first verse:[8] Ἀδελφοί, οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς φρονεῖν περὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὡς περὶ θεοῦ (1:1).[9] Indeed, these words appear to be programmatic for virtually all that follows. As important as ethical exhortation is in 2 Clement, this exhortation is grounded in the theology and Christology of the sermon, which is laid out particularly in chs. 1–2.[10] In this opening statement the author presses the necessity of thinking of Jesus as (ὡς) one thinks of God. Not surprisingly, this has led to a fair amount of discussion. Does the author intend to identify Jesus as God by this wording?[11] Or is this merely denoting an identity of function?[12] Perhaps the point of the author can be summarized rather simply: whatever we think of God, we must think of Jesus in the same way. This statement not only assumes the divinity of Jesus,[13] but also begins a pattern found throughout the sermon in which the relationship of Jesus to the Father is conveyed in enigmatic ways.[14]

In other words, it is not only in this first verse that the relationship of Jesus to God is described ambiguously, but this appears to be fundamental to the author’s christological outlook. To be sure, this does in large part relate to function; certainly Jesus’ actions are divine actions. But the necessity of understanding (φρονέω) Jesus as God in 1:1 urges against limiting this relationship to only a functional one. The author seems to be warning against thinking of Jesus in any way that is different from the way we think of God; Jesus is to be thought of in every way like God. This is what I refer to as an overlapping associative relationship.

We see this again in 1:4, where it is stated that Jesus “as a father called us sons” (ὡς πατὴρ υἱοὺς ἡμᾶς προσηγόρευσεν). What is interesting about this statement is that, with a couple of possible exceptions, nowhere in the NT does Jesus explicitly call his disciples sons or children.[15] Instead, fatherhood is attributed to God alone, whereas Jesus calls his disciples brothers and refers to their common Father (see, e.g., Matt 12:48–49; 25:40; 28:10; Mark 3:33–34; Luke 8:21; John 20:17). Elsewhere 2 Clement does follow this pattern that we see in the NT, and fatherhood is attributed to God in reference to believers (2 Clem. 3:1–2; 9:10[16]). Why would the author seemingly confuse matters (though he tempers his statement slightly with ὡς) by referring to Jesus as if he were a father in 1:4? I would suggest that we find here an instance in which the author transposes characteristics of God the Father and applies them to the Son precisely because we should think of Jesus in every way like we think of God. In other words, if we take 1:1 as a hermeneutical guide for 2 Clement, then perhaps we have the author intentionally blurring the lines between the Father and Son not because he confused the two,[17] but because he wanted to ensure that his audience thought about Jesus in the same way they thought about God. Thus, the author was explaining the work of the Son in such a way that it reflects his shared divine status with his Father.

This would fit well with the exhortatory aim of the author who, in the first verse, also emphasizes the need to understand Jesus properly because he is the Judge of the living and the dead.[18] As I will argue in what follows, Jesus’ role of Judge is not the only way Jesus is like the Father, but this statement underscores the weightiness of understanding Christ correctly; much is at stake. Thus, in 1:1 the author indicates not only that it is necessary (δεῖ) to think of Jesus as one thinks of God, but it is also necessary (δεῖ) for his audience not to give little thought to their salvation, lest they receive but little. Indeed, in 2 Clement the greatness of Christ underscores the greatness of his salvation. This understanding is expressed by Klaus Wengst:

In 2 Clement the statement of the divinity of Jesus is not a stand-alone theme. It serves [a purpose] from the start of the preparation of the paraenesis: the greatness of Christ underscores the greatness of the salvation accomplished by him, and that in turn demands something given in return from the recipient of salvation, which consists in a good way of life (1:1–3).[19]

Thus, these opening words set the stage for the exhortation that follows, warning the audience against the pull of the world.

This high christological perspective is also found in other writings from the same general period, perhaps most notably in Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius’s seven letters exhibit a striking number of passages in which the roles for God and Jesus are conflated or interchanged. For example, we find in Ignatius that both God (Magn. 3:1) and Jesus (Rom. 9:1) can be described as bishop of the church; prayers may be made to both God (Eph. 10:1; Rom. 1:1; Phld. 5:1) and Jesus (Eph. 20:1; Rom. 4:2); Ignatius desires to reach both God (Rom. 4:1) and Jesus (Rom. 5:3); and he seems to identify the Spirit as coming both from God (Phld. 7:1) and Jesus (Eph. 17:2). Additionally, Ignatius can use the same title for different persons in the same context. For example, in Eph. 1:1 Ignatius speaks of God, apparently as distinct from Christ Jesus, then in the next phrase mentions the blood of God, which must refer to the blood of Jesus.[20] It is clear that Ignatius is quite eager to identify Jesus as θεός.[21]

In light of these passages, it is interesting for the present argument that 2 Clement features a number of other texts in which Jesus is not only described in overlapping terms with the Father, but texts in which θεός is apparently even used as an appellation for Jesus. I will discuss this phenomenon in more detail below, but at this point I will introduce a few relevant texts in anticipation of the following discussion: 2 Clem. 12:1b describes the Parousia as the appearing of God; 2 Clem. 13:4 identifies the words of Jesus as those of God; and 2 Clem. 4:4 may have Jesus in mind when it notes the necessity of fearing God.[22] Nevertheless, some have argued that even these (or some of these) references to θεός must refer to the Father.[23] Even Pratscher, who recognizes that 1:1 and 13:4 are important evidences for the understanding of Christ as God, sees the surrounding context of 11:7–12:1a to be determinative for taking 12:1b as a reference to the coming of God the Father. Similarly, the parallel passages to 2 Clem. 4:4 (Acts 5:29; 1 Clem. 14:1) lead Pratscher to conclude that fearing God the Father (not Jesus) is in view in 2 Clem. 4:4.[24] However, I would suggest that the author of 2 Clement intentionally conflates the categories pertaining to Jesus and God throughout his sermon in support of his statement in 1:1.[25] No example is more obvious in this regard than the focus on the will (θέλημα) of Jesus in 2 Clement.

III. The Will Of The Father And The Son

In 2 Clement the reader who knows the NT will find some familiar passages pertaining to the will of God. For example, Jesus’ statement in 9:11 that those who do the will of his Father are his brothers (ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου) reflects similar statements in Matt 12:50, Mark 3:35, and Luke 8:21.[26] This is consistent with the way the NT speaks of the will of God—the divine will in the NT refers almost always to that of God the Father. Of the forty-nine times in the NT that θέλημα is used in reference to God or Jesus, at least forty-seven refer to the Father,[27] and only one (Eph. 5:17), or possibly two (Acts 21:14), refer to Jesus.[28]

It is particularly interesting that 2 Clement focuses distinctly on doing (ποιέω) the divine will.[29] What is notable about this usage compared to the NT is the unique way the author refers not only to doing the will of the Father (8:4; 9:11; 10:1; 14:1a), but also to doing the will of Christ in 6:7. Additionally, the statement about doing the will of the one who called us (τὸ θέλημα τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς) in 5:1 most likely also refers to the will of Christ,[30] as does the mention of doing the will of the Lord (ποιήσωμεν τὸ θέλημα κυρίου) in 14:1b.[31] Thus, we have in 2 Clement four references to doing the will of God, and possibly three references to doing the will of Christ. Not surprisingly, given the paucity of references to the will of Christ in general in the NT, there are no NT texts that speak of doing the will of Christ. Moreover, one prominent feature of the relevant NT texts is that they speak of Christ doing the will of his Father, thus indicating a distinction between the roles of the Father and the Son—a distinction which is not clear in 2 Clement’s references to θέλημα.[32] In light of this, 2 Clement’s references to doing the will of Christ are striking for the apparent freedom they reveal on the part of the author to move beyond traditional language in order to communicate the close relationship between Jesus and his Father.[33]

I would suggest the reason for this interpretive move is the author’s conviction that if his audience is to appreciate the greatness of their salvation, they must think of Jesus as they think of God (1:1). Thus, what we see in these transpositions of Jesus and God reveals the author’s interpretive approach: since Jesus must be understood to be just like God, one is free to describe both Father and Son with overlapping terminology. This leads to some distinctive formulations, particularly when compared to what we find in the NT.

If this assessment is correct, then it is unnecessary to think of the author as naively equating the Father and the Son, as some have suggested.[34] Instead, the author is illustrating that to think of Jesus as one thinks of God the Father gives one the freedom—perhaps even the obligation—to understand Jesus as doing all the things that the Father does, even if it goes beyond scriptural or traditional precedents. Although this approach is certainly confusing at points, it is consistent with what we find in some other writings of this era. Again, Ignatius of Antioch is illuminating as a second-century author who freely transposes titles and roles of the Father and the Son, yet while also demonstrating his understanding that the Father and Son are different persons. This is perhaps clearest in the salutations that make a distinction between Jesus and his Father (Magn. inscr.; Rom. inscr.; Eph. inscr.; Phld. inscr.), though it is also evident in numerous other texts (Magn. 6:1; 7:1; Trall. 3:1; Smyrn. 8:1).[35] Thus we have corroboration that an early Christian author’s use of overlapping descriptions or titles need not entail a wholesale confusion of persons.

IV. Other Instances Of An Overlapping Associative Relationship

1. Overlapping Roles

In addition to the “Jesus as the Father” statements and the will of Christ statements in 2 Clement, we can identify a number of other texts in which we find an overlapping associative relationship. First, closely related to the will of Christ statements is the author’s approach to the divine commandments—to do the will of God or Christ is to follow the commandments. What is interesting in 2 Clement is that although we have statements that mention both doing the will of Christ and doing the will of the Father, the commandments seem to be Christ’s commandments alone (3:4; 8:4; 17:3).[36] Moreover, as I will discuss in greater detail below, in some of these statements it is not easy to determine whether the Father or Son is in view.

One of the most notable examples in this regard is 17:3, which twice mentions the commandments (ἔνταλμα, ἐντολή) of the Lord. Although one might expect the Lord to refer to Jesus, the next verse (17:4) attributes the words of Isa 66:18 to this (apparently) same Lord, which may give one pause for identifying the Lord of 17:3 as Jesus.[37] However, 17:4 also speaks of the appearing of the Lord, which almost certainly refers to the Parousia, and 17:6 is particularly relevant, as it speaks of the commandments (ἐντολάς) of Jesus Christ. Additionally, the redemption of each one according to his deeds (κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ) in 17:4 seems to refer in 2 Clement (as in the NT) to the work of Jesus.[38] Thus, although 17:3 might refer to the Father as Lord, it is more likely that κύριος here refers to Jesus.[39] In any case, the way the author describes the relationship between the Father and Son here is both remarkable and confusing.

Another example of the overlapping of roles is seen in the way that both Jesus calls (καλέω, 1:8; 2:4, 6–7; 5:1; cf. 1:4.) and the Father calls (10:1; 16:1) the disciples to salvation. However, while the author speaks of being saved in general on several occasions, it may be worth noting that only Jesus is explicitly identified as the one who saves (σῴζω) in 2 Clement (1:4; 2:7; 4:1–2; 9:5; probably 1:7; 3:3; 8:2), and to think of salvation is to think specifically of Jesus (1:1–2).[40]

2. Overlapping Titles

Although one can perhaps identify some sort of order or balance when looking at the overlapping of roles in the ways just mentioned (i.e., divinity of Jesus and the Father, doing the will of Christ and the Father, calling unto salvation), the task becomes more difficult when looking at the overlapping names or titles for both Jesus and the Father in 2 Clement.[41] Not surprisingly, the Father of Jesus is referred to as God throughout the sermon.[42] However, Jesus also seems to be referred to as God in texts such as 2 Clem. 12:1b; 13:3–4; and perhaps 4:4.[43] Although the explicit identification of Jesus as God is relatively rare, we do find examples of it in the NT (see John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet 1:1; 1 John 5:20),[44] Ignatius of Antioch (Smyrn. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; 7:2; 19:3; Rom. inscr. 3:3), and Clement of Rome (1 Clem. 16:2). It may also be significant that in two of the relevant texts in 2 Clement the identification of Jesus as God is bound very closely with references to Jesus’ Father. Thus, 2 Clem. 12:1b speaks of the appearing of God (most likely a reference to the Parousia of Jesus[45]), but in both 2 Clem. 12:1a and the previous verse (11:7) we find references to the Kingdom of God, which must refer to the Father of Jesus. Although this apparent vacillation could be an indication of the author’s theological dullness, given the proximity of these occurrences of θεός and the patterns heretofore suggested, perhaps we could say that this is an intentional alternation—one that is consistent with the overlapping associative relationship we find throughout the sermon. Similarly, in 2 Clem. 13:4 the words of Jesus, possibly from Matt 5 and/or Luke 6, are referred to as the words of God,[46] and the previous reference to the words of God (τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ) in 13:3, which seems to introduce the words of Jesus in 13:4, therefore also seems to refer to Jesus.[47]

A third possibility for the use of God in reference to Jesus comes in 2 Clem. 4:4. Here the exhortation to fear God is sandwiched between references to Jesus the Lord who has the authority to determine who is and is not saved (4:2, 5), rendering it quite likely that, even though different names are used, fearing θεός in 4:4 may also refer to Jesus.[48] However, the possible allusion to Matt 10:28 that stresses the need to fear God the Father renders this assessment tentative. Thus in at least two, and possibly three, instances (12:1b; 13:3–4, maybe 4:4), θεός seems to be used for Jesus.

This leads us to a consideration of how the author of 2 Clement utilizes the title κύριος. As one might expect, in association with general NT and early Christian usage, κύριος often clearly refers to Jesus in 2 Clement (4:1, 5; 5:2; 6:1; 8:2, 4–5; 9:5,[49] 11; 12:2; 14:1; 14:5), though some references are quite nebulous. Part of the difficulty in identifying κύριος in these instances relates to OT citations attributed to the Lord. As noted above, one of the most confusing passages in this regard is found in ch. 17. What makes this passage particularly challenging is the way that Lord is not only used to refer to Jesus (compare 17:3 with 17:6), but also to the Lord who speaks in Isa 66:18 (2 Clem. 17:4). Similarly, in 2 Clem. 13:2 we also find the words of Isa 52:5 (along with an unknown source) attributed to the Lord in a context that refers to Jesus as God in 13:3–4.[50] Both of these texts could lead to confusion, but it appears that in these two texts the author has taken statements spoken by the Lord in Isaiah and attributed these to Jesus the Lord. This conclusion seems to find further support in the citation of Isa 29:13 in 2 Clem. 3:5,[51] a text in which the speaker is identified in the next verse (4:1) as the Lord whose words echo Matt 7:21.[52] Thus, it seems that κύριος for the author always refers to Jesus. Although we do not always find this level of consistency with titles in other writings, this does accord with what we know of early Christian confessions (Acts 2:21, 36; 1 Cor 12:13; Rom 10:9). We may find a similar consistency in Barnabas, which exhibits a predilection for identifying the Son of God as κύριος, though even this title is also (rarely) used for the Father of Jesus in Barnabas (see apparently Barn. 6:12).

This leads us to a fourth ambiguous text in 2 Clement, and the one I find most vexing when searching for a consistent pattern: 2 Clem. 15:3–4. Although I argued for the previous three texts that the Lord speaking in Isaiah is identified with Jesus, in 15:3 the reference is to God who speaks in Isa 58:9. This seems to refer to the Father. However, the next verse (15:4), which apparently explains the Isaianic reference, seems to indicate that the Lord is the one who was speaking in Isaiah in 15:3. The question arises: in 2 Clem. 15:3–4, do God and Lord refer to the same person, or to different persons speaking in Isaiah? (Alternatively, does 15:4 simply refer to the words of Jesus the Lord that stand in agreement with Isa 58?)[53] This decision is difficult, but I think it is best to see two different persons—both God the Father and Jesus the Lord—as the speakers of Isaiah in this context, especially since 15:4b might also contain an Isaianic allusion (cf. Isa 65:1, 24[54]). Whether or not 15:4b is an additional (though subtle) Isaianic reference, it is best to take God in 2 Clem. 15:3 to refer to the Father of Jesus, and the Lord speaking in 2 Clem. 15:4 to refer to Jesus. I base this on two factors.

First, θεός most often refers to the Father throughout 2 Clement, and in every other instance κύριος seems to refer to Jesus. Second, although Jesus is often clearly seen to be the speaker of Isaiah, in at least two other instances God the Father seems to be in view as the speaker of Isaiah.[55] Thus, it would be consistent for the reference to the creator God in 15:2—which is likely a reference to God the Father—to be the God who speaks Isa 58:9 in 2 Clem. 15:3. If this assessment is correct, then perhaps we can detect a pattern in which Isaianic references attributed to κύριος refer to Jesus, whereas θεός speaking the words of Isaiah refers to the Father.[56]

It is not my intention to defend every interpretive move the author makes—we may indeed find some inconsistencies, or at the very least some imprecise formulations. However, I do think a pattern can be detected. We seem to have an author who has taken seriously his own advice in 1:1, which has led him to transpose freely the works and even the names of Jesus and God the Father given his conviction that they share the closest imaginable relationship (note especially 12:1; 13:2–4; 15:3–4).[57] One further point is worth noting: it appears that the author has used θεός for both Jesus and his Father, but κύριος seems to be used only for Jesus. Perhaps this further reflects the concern of 1:1, that the audience elevate their understanding of Jesus to the same plane as God, whose supremacy would have been assumed.

V. Spirit In 2 Clement

Hitherto we have considered the role of the Father and the Son in 2 Clement, but it will also be instructive to consider the Spirit in 2 Clement.[58] In 2 Clem. 9:5 the preexistent Christ is said to have first been spirit before he became flesh. A bit more reflection on the Spirit is found in ch. 14, which connects the preexistence of Jesus in the spiritual realm with the preexistence of the church in the spiritual realm (14:2). Indeed, the flesh is said to be the church, just as Christ is said to be the Spirit (14:4; cf. 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17).

The Spirit in 2 Clement is christological and ecclesiological, though the Spirit plays little role in the outworking of the Christian life.[59] For the present purposes, it is noteworthy that the Spirit is associated strongly with Jesus and is explicitly stated to be preexistent (cf. Barn. 6:14; 19:7; Herm. Sim. 5:6). Additionally, in distinction from later, standard articulations in Christian theology, it is possible that the author of 2 Clement views the Spirit as a mode of Christ—both before his incarnation and presently, Christ seems to be equated with the Spirit (9:5; 14:2, 4).[60] However, we must be cautious at this point since we find similar statements elsewhere in the NT and other early Christian writings, which may seem in places to conflate the Son and the Spirit (1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17; Ign., Magn. 15:1; Herm. Sim. 5:5; 9:1), but often these same writings do recognize distinctions between the two (1 Cor 12:4–6; 2 Cor 13:14; Ign., Magn. 13:1).[61]

Thus, although 2 Clement is ambiguous at this point, there does seem to be sufficient reason to doubt that a strict identification between the Spirit and Christ is intended since Christ does appear to be distinct from the (spiritual) church (2 Clem. 14:2, 4).[62] Nevertheless, the author’s ecclesiological comments are striking for the remarkably close relationship they posit between Christ and the church (14:2; cf. Rom 7:4; 1 Cor 10:16; 12:27; Eph. 1:22–23; 4:12; 5:23; Col 1:24).[63] The author also manifests a fluidity of thought that refers to the church as spiritual (πνευματική, 14:1–3) but also as flesh (σάρξ, 14:4). Thus, we should allow for the possibility that the author has utilized familiar, pneumatological terminology in an unreflective way.[64] If so, it may be that the author of 2 Clement has a more defined understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son than he has between the Spirit and the Son.

VI. Conclusion

Three reflections are in order for the proposed interpretive strategy of 2 Clement in the context of early Christian theology.

First, the author of 2 Clement demonstrates a fascinating christological-interpretive approach to scriptural traditions that posits an overlapping associative relationship between the Father and the Son. This is revealed in his opening statement, that we must think of Jesus as we think of God. What is immensely interesting about 2 Clement’s approach is that it leads the author to explain Jesus in ways that go beyond how the NT describes the Son’s relationship to the Father. Thus, whatever can be predicated of God can be predicated of Jesus. I would suggest that this approach explains why we find so many apparently ambiguous and imprecise statements about the Father and the Son in 2 Clement.

However, a significant factor that gives one pause from dismissing the author’s theological perspective is that in places he does recognize a distinction between the Father and the Son.[65] This is clear not only in 1:1 and in the other texts we have considered, but also in the doxology of 20:5: τῷ μόνῳ θεῷ ἀοράτῳ, πατρὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, τῷ ἐξαποστείλαντι ἡμῖν τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὴν ἐπουράνιον ζωήν, αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν. Even if one were to consider most of 2 Clement 19–20 to be secondary, there is still good reason to posit a common author for 20:5 and 1:1–18:2.[66] The inclusion of 20:5 as a doxological conclusion to the sermon of 1:1–18:2 lends further support to the view that the author did indeed recognize a distinction between the Father and the Son throughout the sermon, even if in places he describes them in overlapping (and confusing) ways.

Second, as noted at the outset, what we seem to find in 2 Clement is a window into one way that some second-century Christians can be plotted on an exegetical and interpretive trajectory that led later to full-flowered Trinitarian theology.[67] Not only does the Son (whom we can identify as θεός) share the closest imaginable relationship to God, but pneumatological language is also found in conjunction with the preexistence of Christ. The Son serves as a Janus figure, looking at once toward the Father and also toward the Spirit. Thus, we have the presence of all three Trinitarian persons, though we do not find a fully developed Trinitarian theology. The close relationship posited between the Father and the Son—which is primarily in view in 2 Clement—may have been particularly important in the early church as a catalyst to consider further the interrelationship between all three divine persons.

Third, a word on the context of these reflections is relevant: all of what the author of 2 Clement says about the need to think of Jesus as we think of God serves the purpose of exhortation. In other words, all of 2 Clement’s theological reflections on the Father and the Son (and on the Son and the Spirit to a lesser degree) serve a practical and ethical purpose—to think of Jesus as God is to appreciate the greatness of salvation (1:1–2). Thus, while we might not find an entirely coherent or fully Trinitarian theology in 2 Clement, we do find an early Christian preacher wrestling with the implications of a high Christology and its significance for the early Christian community. Perhaps, at least in this respect, 2 Clement is more profound than has often been recognized.

Notes

1. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp (London: MacMillan, 1889-1890; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 2:206-8. See similarly Robert M. Grant and Holt M. Graham, eds., First and Second Clement, vol. 2 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1965), 109. Cf. Paul Parvis, “2 Clement and the Meaning of the Christian Homily,” in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 32-41.
2. M. B. Riddle, “Introductory Notice to the Homily Known as the Second Epistle of Clement” (ANF 7:514).
3. For the sake of clarity, I will utilize and capitalize the names of divine persons in 2 Clement in accord with traditional theological terminology.
4. On high Christology in 2 Clement, see Grant and Graham, First and Second Clement, 112-13. Note also the suggestive comments of Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5.28.5), who mentions the writings of Clement and others who refer to Jesus as God. Could he have in mind 2 Clement? It is possible, but he more likely refers to 1 Clement (cf. 1 Clem. 16:2; 36; 42:1-3; 49), especially since Eusebius has his doubts that 2 Clement is to be associated with Clement of Rome (Hist. eccl. 3.38.4). Cf. Alois Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1979), 1:197-98; Adolf von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius I/1, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1958), 47-49 (§32).
5. “Overlapping associative relationship” is intentionally redundant (all relationships are associative) since it corresponds to the diffuseness of the author.
6. This date is virtually unanimously agreed upon. See variously Vernon Bartlet, “The Origin and Date of 2 Clement,” ZNW 7 (1906): 123-35; Parvis, “2 Clement,” 34-37; Wilhelm Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, KAV 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 4; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 2:240; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 2:203. Interestingly, Karl Paul Donfried (“The Theology of Second Clement,” HTR 66 [1973]: 487-51) thinks it may be as early as 98-100.
7. There has been debate about whether “homily” or “sermon” is more apt. “Homily” has often been used historically, but “sermon” is probably more widely used today. See Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 25; Christopher M. Tuckett, 2 Clement: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, Oxford Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 18-26; Andreas Lindemann, Die Clemensbriefe, HNT 17/AV 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 190; Alistair Stewart-Sykes, From Prophecy to Preaching: A Search for the Origins of the Christian Homily, VCSup 59 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 174-87; Ernst Baasland, “Der 2.Klemensbrief und frühchristliche Rhetorik: ‘Die erste christliche Predigt’ im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993): 78-157. Differences in terminology aside, the most important point to recognize is the exhortatory context of 2 Clement.
8. Lindemann (Clemensbriefe, 255-56) posits that 19:1-20:4 was originally the opening or overture to 2 Clement. Pratscher (Der zweite Clemensbrief, 18-21) suggests a different author for this final section based on differences in phrasing and theology. However, Tuckett (2 Clement, 31-33) is hesitant to dismiss this section as secondary. Whether or not chs. 1-18 and chs. 19-20 share a common author, 1:1 clearly begins the sermon itself.
9. This study will follow the Greek text found in Tuckett, 2 Clement. All translations are my own.
10. Donfried, “Theology,” 488; see similarly Klaus Wengst, Schriften des Urchristentums: Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet: Eingeleitet, herausgegeben, übertragen und erläutert (Munich: Kösel, 1984), 208.
11. See Christa Stegemann, “Herkunft und Enstehung des sogenannten zweiten Klemensbriefes” (ThD diss., University of Bonn, 1974), 87; Wengst, Schriften, 228. Pratscher (Der zweite Clemensbrief, 40 and n10, 66) does not see the appellation of God being used for Jesus here, though he does believe that 2 Clement shows a nearness (Nähe) of Jesus to God, and probably assumes his divinity in, for example, Jesus’ actions and in the directing of belief toward him. He does, however, recognize a christological tradition underlying this statement that led to Jesus being called God, noting that in later interpretive tradition it was unproblematic to see 1:1 as a “Gottesprädikat für Christus.” See Wilhelm Pratscher, “Soteriologie und Ethik im Kontext von Eschatologie und Schöpfungslehre in 2.Clem 1, ” in Eschatologie und Schöpfung: Festschrift für Erich Grasser zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, ed. Martin Evang, Helmut Merklein, and Michael Wolter, BZNW 89 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 263n14.
12. Karl Paul Donfried, The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity, NovTSup 38 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 99, sees it as an identity of function, not of persons. Similarly, Lindemann (Clemensbriefe, 200) states that Jesus here is almost identified with God, but more with God’s actions. Cf. Tuckett, 2 Clement, 128.
13. So Wengst, Schriften, 228; Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus, 1:162.
14. Hans Windisch, “Das Christentum des zweiten Clemensbriefes,” in Harnack-Ehrung: Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte, ihrem Lehrer A. v. Harnack zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstage (7. Mai 1921), dargebracht von einer Reihe seiner Schüler (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1921), 128, wonders if 2 Clem. 1 might be an interpolation because things normally ascribed to God are here ascribed to Jesus. However, this perspective is not limited to the first chapter, as the rest of my argument will attempt to show.
15. In Heb 2:13-14 the words of Isaiah are attributed to Jesus as he calls his brothers his children. However, even in Hebrews the focus is not so much on the fatherhood of Jesus as the solidarity between Jesus and his brothers (2:11-12). Cf. Geerhardus Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke,” PTR 14 (1916): 22-23. One could also make an argument that Rev 3:19 is a paternal reference to Jesus who disciplines, which is the role of a father. Nevertheless, even if we grant the paternal imagery for Jesus in these texts, their exceptional character would underscore the scarcity of such references in the NT. Thus Wilhelm Pratscher, “Gottesbild des Zweiten Klemensbriefes,” in Gottes Vorstellungen: Die Frage nach Gott in religiösen Bildungsprozessen: Gottfried Adam zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. U. Körtner and R. Schelander (Vienna: self-published, 1999), 374, rightly notes that this is an unusual christological formula.
16. Although there is some ambiguity at this point, the antecedent to the one referenced in 9:10 is the God who heals (9:7), which does seem to be a reference to God the Father. Moreover, a shift occurs in 9:11 where the words of the Lord (=Jesus) are mentioned. Cf. Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 70.
17. Cf. Donfried, Setting, 99; Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 239.
18. Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma 1: Translated from the Third German Edition, trans. N. Buchanan (New York: Dover, 1961), 186-87n5, suggests this phrase is the basis for thinking of Jesus ὡς περὶ θεοῦ in 2 Clem. 1:1. One could compare 2 Clem. 1:1 to Acts 10:42: in both texts Jesus is recognized as the Judge of the living and the dead, though it is noteworthy that in 2 Clement there is no mention of Jesus having been set apart by God (ὁ ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ) for this task.
19. Wengst, Schriften, 228: “Im 2. Klemensbrief ist die Aussage von der Gottheit Jesu kein eigenständiges Thema. Sie dient von vornherein der Vorbereitung der Paränese: Die Größe Christi unterstreicht die Größe des von ihm gewirkten Heils, und das wiederum verlangt eine Gegengabe der Heilsempfänger, die in einem guten Lebenswandel besteht (1, 1-3).” See also Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 70-71.
20. Note the possible readings for Acts 20:28.
21. See also Ignatius, Smyrn. 1:1; Eph. 7:2; 19:3; Rom. inscr. 3:3; Thomas G. Weinandy, “The Apostolic Christology of Ignatius of Antioch: The Road to Chalcedon,” in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 71-84.
22. So Wengst, Schriften, 228.
23. See, e.g., Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 200, 210, 235.
24. Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 40 and n10.
25. See similarly Stegemann, “Herkunft und Enstehung,” 87.
26. Cf. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett, “2 Clement and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 270-71.
27. Will of God: Mark 3:35; John 7:17; Acts 13:22; 22:14; Rom 1:10; 2:18; 12:2; 15:32; 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; 8:5; Gal 1:4(!); Eph 1:1, 5, 9, 11; 6.6; Col 1:1, 9; 4:12; 1 Thess 4:3; 5:18 (though in Jesus Christ); 2 Tim 1:1; Heb 10:7, 9, 10, 36; 13:21; 1 Pet 2:15; 3:17; 4:2, 19; 1 John 2:17; 5:14; Rev 4:11. Will of the Father: Matt 6:10; 7:21; 12:50; 18:14; 26:42; Luke 22:42. Will of the one who sent Jesus: John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38-40; 9:31.
28. Most agree that τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου in Eph 5:17 refers to Jesus (and most also agree that τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ in Col 1:9 is God’s will). Acts 21:14 is more ambiguous. The phrase τοῦ κυρίου τὸ θέλημα γινέσθω likely refers to the will of Jesus, but Lord here could refer to God. Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, AB 18c (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 690; Acts 18:21.
29. Donfried, “Theology,” 493. He lists only 5:1; 6:7; 8:4; 9:11; 10:1 in support of this view, though it is unclear why he includes 6:7, which explicitly refers to the will of Christ, in a discussion on doing the will of the Father.
30. This is due to the close association with the words of the Lord in 5:2, as well as the role of Jesus as one who, along with his Father, calls his people (1:8; 2:7). Cf. Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 99; Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 212.
31. This last point is by no means obvious. However, note the allusion here to Jer 7:13, which is attributed to Jesus in Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46. Given this explicit citation of Jer 7 by Jesus, and since κύριος most often refers to Jesus, it is best to understand κύριος in 14:1b to refer to Jesus, especially in line with the present thesis of an overlapping associative relationship. For the view that κύριος here refers to God, see Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 178.
32. Also note the references in Matthew, in particular, to the need for the disciples to do the will of Jesus’ Father (7:21; 12:50).
33. Among NT writings, the author seems to have at least known Matthew and Luke. So Gregory and Tuckett, “2 Clement and the Writings,” 270-71, 277, though they stop short of affirming that the author of 2 Clement used these gospels directly. Additionally, (though it is debated) the author seems to be acquainted in some way with Paul’s letters (and possibly Hebrews), though these are not explicitly cited (cf. 2 Clem. 14:2). It has also been suggested, based on 2 Clem. 12:2, that the author knows the Gospel according to the Egyptians and/or the Gospel of Thomas. It is by no means clear, however, that he is deriving his information from these sources. Cf. Tjitze Baarda, “2 Clement and the Sayings of Jesus,” in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus—The Sayings of Jesus, ed. Joël Delobel (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 529-56, who observes the differences in 2 Clem. 12:2 and these sources.
34. Rudolf Knopf, Das nachapostolische Zeitalter: Geschichte der christlichen Gemeinden vom Beginn der Flavierdynastie bis zum Ende Hadrians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1905), 377, sees in 2 Clement “die naïve heidenchristliche Anschauung … dass … Christus direkt mit Gott identifiziert.” Cf. Bartlet, “Origin and Date,” 133; Tuckett, 2 Clement, 231, 242n22.
35. So J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. (Hendrickson, MA: Prince, 2007), 93.
36. There is one generic reference to commandments in 19:3, though the term utilized is πρόσταγμα, and might come from a different author or context (so Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 19-21).
37. I will say more about OT citations below.
38. This phrase in the NT may also be used in association with Jesus’ Parousia. See Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 11:15; 2 Tim 4:14; Rev 2:23; 18:6; 20:12; cf. Matt 16:27. These may derive from Ps 62:12; Prov 24:12.
39. See the fuller discussion of κύριος below.
40. Pratscher (“Gottesbild,” 374) proposes that 10:1 implies that God also saves.
41. Pratscher (“Soteriologie und Ethik,” 263) rightly observes that it is hard to determine who is in view when God/Lord is used, though I will attempt to describe a pattern in usage in what follows.
42. 2:2-3; 6:1, 9; 9:4, 7; 11:1, 7; 12:1a, 6; 13:3; 14:1-2; 15:2-3 (ch. 15 is discussed below); 16:1; 17:1, 7; 18:1; 20:5; see also 19:1; 20:1-5. Given the ambiguity of portions of 2 Clement, some of these examples should be viewed as probable references to God (e.g., 15:2-3; 16:1; 17:1).
43. Of course, the programmatic statement in 1:1 should also not be forgotten.
44. See Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, SBT 2/17 (London: SCM, 1970), 136-41.
45. See also 2 Pet 3:12.
46. These words may reveal familiarity with Matt 5:44, 46 and/or Luke 6:32, 35. See Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 174-76; Gregory and Tuckett, “2 Clement and the Writings,” 271-73.
47. So also Tuckett, 2 Clement, 243.
48. Pace Tuckett, 2 Clement, 166n43.
49. 9:5 explicitly identifies Jesus as the Lord who saves.
50. Isaiah 52:5 is also cited in Rom 2:24, but there in reference to the name of God. Cf. Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 172.
51. Cf. Matt 15:8; Mark 7:6. Jesus may be portrayed in 2 Clement as the speaker of Isaiah even when the words are not found in the NT, though several of the quotations do have NT parallels.
52. Additionally, in this same context (3:3) the reference to the one through whom we were saved (δι᾽οὗ ἐσώθημεν) probably refers to Jesus.
53. Pratscher (Der zweite Clemensbrief, 194) prefers this option.
54. Although precise verbal correspondence is not present, this allusion is eminently possible given the significance of the latter chapters of Isaiah in 2 Clement.
55. Though, admittedly, these references are not certain. It is not clear who the speaker is in 2:1; 7:6. Second Clement 2:1 contains a citation of Isa 54, and although the speaker is not identified, a number of references to God are included in the explanatory comments. Similarly, 7:6 cites Isa 66:24 (cf. Mark 9:48), which could refer to either the Father or the Son (the text does not identify the speaker). Perhaps it is slightly more likely that this refers to Jesus given the correspondence with Mark 9:48. But if that is the case, then would we also need to attribute Isa 54:1 in 2:1 to Jesus, since this text is quoted in Gal 4:27 (though not on the lips of Jesus as in Mark 9)? These are difficult decisions, and a definitive answer to every question may not be within reach.
56. Recently Matthew W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and the Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); and Bates, The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012), has argued for the practice of prosopological exegesis, by which early Christian authors often identified distinct, divine persons speaking in specific OT texts. The use of Isaiah in 2 Clement might be an additional avenue to explore in light of this proposed reading strategy.
57. And yet this is a bit subtler than what we find in Ignatius of Antioch.
58. “Spirit” will be capitalized in this discussion in accord with my stated approach, though I will exercise some interpretive discretion since it is far from clear that the Holy Spirit is always in view where 2 Clement employs pneumatological language.
59. See Wilhelm Pratscher, “Das Geistverständnis des 2. Klemensbriefes im Verhältnis zu dem des Neuen Testaments,” Wiener Jahrbuch für Theologie 3 (2000): 38-51, esp. 48-49.
60. Tuckett, 2 Clement, 72-73.
61. On the Spirit’s relationship to Christ in the NT, see the classic study of Geerhardus Vos, “The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 91-125.
62. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 91.
63. A term often used to describe this relationship is “syzygy,” from the Greek σύζυγος (“yoked together”). See Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 184; Tuckett, 2 Clement, 73.
64. Tuckett, 2 Clement, 72-73.
65. So Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 239; Donfried, Setting, 99; Pratscher, “Geistverständnis,” 42n11; Tuckett, 2 Clement, 69.
66. Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 260; Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 20-21, 234. See also n. 8 above.
67. See also Pratscher, “Gottesbild,” 375.