1 Clement 34:3 Ἰδοὺ ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ μισθὸς (Rev.
22:12; Isa. 40:10) αὐτοῦ πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ (Isa.
62:11) ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ (Rev. 22:12) κατὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ (Isa. 40:10; Rev. 22:12)
"Behold, the Lord comes,
and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his
work.”
Ἰδού,
ἔρχομαι ταχύ, καὶ ὁ μισθός μου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ἀποδοῦναι
ἑκάστῳ ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἔσται αὐτοῦ (Rev. 22:12 NA28)
ἰδοὺ
κύριος μετὰ ἰσχύος ἔρχεται
καὶ ὁ βραχίων μετὰ κυριείας ἰδοὺ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ
μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ἔργον ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ
(Isa. 40:10 LXX)
ἰδοὺ γὰρ
κύριος ἐποίησεν ἀκουστὸν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ
Σιων ἰδού σοι ὁ σωτὴρ παραγίνεται ἔχων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ μισθὸν καὶ τὸ ἔργον πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ (Isa. 62:11 LXX)
Agreement: The wording of
1 Clement 34:3 resists attribution to any single biblical source, and the
textual comparisons make clear that Clement is intentionally weaving together
multiple scriptural traditions. The phraseology draws simultaneously from
Isaiah 40:10, Isaiah 62:11, and Revelation 22:12 in a manner that cannot be
explained by coincidence or by dependence on only one of these texts.
From Revelation 22:12, Clement
shares the distinctive eschatological formulation of the Lord’s coming with
recompense, particularly the clauses concerning reward (ὁ μισθός) and the
rendering to each person according to works (ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ… κατὰ τὸ ἔργον).
These elements are especially striking because the syntactical construction and
eschatological framing align more closely with Revelation than with Isaiah
alone.
At the same time, Clement
preserves Isaianic language that Revelation itself adapts. The expression
“before his face” (πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ) reflects Isaiah 62:11 rather than
Revelation’s μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, while the broader conceptual framework of divine
recompense coming visibly and authoritatively belongs to Isaiah 40:10.
Clement’s wording therefore reflects not merely Isaiah independently, nor
Revelation independently, but a convergence of both streams.
This is significant because
Revelation 22:12 itself represents an adaption of Isaianic eschatological
language. Clement’s citation appears to stand at the intersection of these
traditions, suggesting either familiarity with Revelation’s formulation or access
to a shared eschatological tradition already shaped by Revelation’s language.
The alignment of multiple distinctive phrases across these texts makes
accidental overlap implausible.
Equally important is Clement’s
eschatological posture. He clearly presents the Lord’s coming and judgment as
future events rather than realities already fulfilled. This observation
directly challenges Preterist reconstructions that locate the composition and
fulfillment of Revelation prior to 70 AD. If 1 Clement is rightly dated to the
late first century, as is widely held, and if Clement is drawing upon
Revelation-like language while still anticipating future fulfillment, then
Revelation must either be contemporaneous with Clement or earlier but not
understood as fulfilled.
Finally, the historical context
strengthens this conclusion. Rome’s central position within the Christian
network and its established lines of communication with the churches of Asia
Minor make it entirely plausible that an early form of Revelation could have
reached Clement within a short period after its circulation. Clement’s
composite citation thus provides indirect but meaningful evidence for the early
reception and authoritative use of Revelation in the Roman church.
In sum, the textual data support
the conclusion that 1 Clement 34:3 is a deliberate conflation of Isaiah and
Revelation, reflecting both continuity with prophetic tradition and engagement
with emerging New Testament apocalyptic theology. (Stephen Boyce, “The
Use of Scripture in Early Christian Writings: A Textual Analysis of 1 Clement,
Polycarp, the Didache, and Ignatius” [PhD Dissertation; Louisiana Baptist
University and Seminary, 2021], 65-68)
