Clement of Alexandrias Gnostic Exposition of the Decalogue, forthcoming in the

Journal of Early Christian Studies 23, no. 4 (2015).

ABSTRACT
Clement of Alexandrias only explicitly stated gnostic exposition of the Bible occurs in
Stromateis 6.16, the subject of which is the Decalogue. This paper examines what is
particularly gnostic about this gnostic exposition by examining Clements extensive
use of the , along with the more explicitly (truly) gnostic aspects of
the interpretation. Through these examinations of the gnostic exposition, it is concluded
that Clements interpretation is delivered to the true Gnostic, and that Clement is teaching
through a veil by way of hints in order to show the Gnostic his/her role as the
teacher of the Church.

In Stromateis 6.16, Clement puts forward an interpretation of the Ten Commandments as

his only explicit gnostic exposition. This interpretation of the Decalogue is indicative
of his larger project of the true Gnostics1 spiritual progress, where one is led by
from faith to knowledge; it also provides an example of the way in which Clement would
have the Gnostic put traditional Greek pedagogy into the service of . As in the rest
of Clements extant biblical interpretation, the Gnostic is the primary focus, while, at the
1I would like to thank the two anonymous JECS reviewers for their at once incisive and
encouraging comments. Special thanks are due especially to Professor Terry Donaldson, under
whose supervision an earlier draft of this paper was included as a chapter in my Master of Arts
thesis (University of St. Michaels College, 2014). All references simply to the Gnostic
continue to refer to Clements true Gnostic, since Clement himself uses both of these terms
interchangeably.

same time, Clement is constantly challenging the claims of his opponents most often
the Valentinians. That is, while Clement is in constant polemic against the Gnostics socalled, the true Gnostic remains at the centre of his biblical interpretation. This sole
example of gnostic exposition is presented within the context of two larger discussions
that take place throughout the Stromateis: symbolic interpretation, and the true Gnostic.
Throughout the Stromateis Clement understands the Scriptures to be veiled, and the
Gnostic is the only one who is able to see the form (the meaning) behind the veil. There
is no place where this is more evident than in Stromateis 6.15 and 6.16: the gnostic
exposition of the Decalogue and its preface.
Seen within Clements trilogy and on its own,2 the Stromateis has a pedagogical
shape to it. Books four through seven of the Stromateis (and even the three books before
that) reflect mainly on the highest spiritual achievement: . One of the primary
concerns of the Gnostic is proper biblical interpretation. Thus Judith Kovacs has pointed
out that each of these last four books of the Stromateis includes one extended example of
2 Whether Clements trilogy as it has been received is a trilogy in the proper sense has been a
continuous subject of debate, and will likely continue to be. Walter Wagner, Another Look at the
Literary Problem in Clement of Alexandrias Major Writings, CH 37:3 (1968): 251-60, offers a
good summary of opinions up to the date of the articles publication; Wagner himself deems it not
to be a trilogy instead they represent ethical treatises, all of which build one up to .
Recent defenders of the coherence of Clements thought and literary project, are the late Eric
Osborn, in his Clement of Alexandria (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 5-15;
Andrew Itter, Esoteric Teaching in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria (Leiden: Brill,
2009), 15-32; Bogdan G. Bucur, The Place of the Hypotyposeis in the Clementine Corpus: An
Apology for The Other Clement of Alexandria, JECS 17:3 (2009): 313-35. On the other hand,
for a recent argument against his works being a trilogy, see Marco Rizzi, The Literary Problem
in Clement of Alexandria: A Reconsideration, Adamantius 17 (2011): 154-63, in which he argues
that the Protrepticus and Paedagogus are intended for a general audience, but the Stromateis, for
a more advanced one. Wagner is likely in the minority in seeing them as separate ethical
treatises; even Rizzi acknowledges that the one (Stromateis) is more advanced than the others. In
the past, but less so recently, scholars have often misjudged Clements intentionality in his
compositions. Mhats seminal work on the structure of the Stromateis, showing clearly that it is a
coherent literary work, counters this ably; Andr Mhat, tude Sur les Stromates de Clment
dAlexandrie (Paris: ditions du Seuil, 1966). Thus my argument does not rest on this; instead it
rests on the idea that the Stromateis in itself is intentionally and explicitly arranged pedagogically,
according to the aims of Clements own stated pedagogical project.

biblical interpretation.3 Although the exposition of the Decalogue is the only passage of
the four that Clement refers to explicitly as a gnostic exposition (and I think this is
important), we can infer that that other three are indicative of the same sort of exposition.
While the examples in books four and seven interpret New Testament passages, those in
five and six interpret passages from the Old Testament. In chapter five, we have
Clements interpretation of the Tabernacle and its furnishings;4 in six, we have the focus
of this paper: the Decalogue. The analogy between these two interpretations is important,
because both are notably influenced by the context in which Clement places them. The
fifth book is primarily taken up with the symbolic interpretation of, among other things,
the Scriptures; thus Clements interpretation of the Tabernacle is concerned with the
same. The sixth book is taken up with the importance of training for through the
Greek encyclical studies; thus Clements interpretation is concerned with the use of these
same educational disciplines. What we will find is that the general education
( ) is instrumental in Clements implementation of his biblical
interpretation in the light of his theology of the veiled nature of Scripture; further, this use
of the disciplines of the points to Clements concern for, and
understanding of, the true Gnostic as the one who is truly able see through the veil of the
Scriptures, due to the level that s/he has attained by means of the spiritual progress.
Joel Kalvesmaki has been the one most recently to comment directly on this

3 Judith L. Kovacs, Clement of Alexandria and Valentinian Exegesis in the Excerpts from
Theodotus, SP 41 (2006): 199-200.
4 Str. 5.6 (GCS 15:346-54). Because in her article Concealment and Gnostic Exegesis: Clement
of Alexandrias Interpretation of the Tabernacle, SP 31 (1997): 414-37, Judith Kovacs has
offered an excellent paper on the interpretation of the Tabernacle, and especially how it relates to
the gnostic progress, I will go some way in putting forward an explanation of his interpretation of
the Decalogue. Also see S. R. C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism
and Gnosticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 173-81.

passage of Clements interpretation of the Decalogue.5 Following the insights of Kovacs

as well as those of Le Boulluec,6 he finds in Clements interpretation of the Ten
Commandments a serious anti-Valentinian polemic. Much of the chapter in his
dissertation, and the monograph that followed, is taken up with finding direct links
between Valentinian works and those of Clement. Annewies van den Hoek has also made
some use of this passage in her monograph on Clements use of Philo in the Stromateis.7
While it is clear that Clement in some respect does follow Philo in his arithmology, I
want (like Kovacs in her paper on the Tabernacle) to provide a more constructive view of
Clements theology, and especially his interpretation of this passage. Thus where
Kalvesmaki and van den Hoek have focused more on the influences the pressures, both
positive and negative exerted on Clements interpretation of the passage, I will focus on
his constructive theological interpretation of the Decalogue: what is properly gnostic in
his gnostic exposition. This includes the polemical aspects of Clements interpretation,
and perhaps more importantly the way in which the spiritual progress, epitomized by
the , comes to bear upon Clements ideal gnostic biblical interpretation.
In order to demonstrate this, two sections will comprise this paper: the first is on the topic
of Clements use of interpretive , or the encyclical
education; the second is more explicitly concerned with what is particularly gnostic
5 Joel Kalvesmaki, The Theology of Arithmetic: Number Symbolism in Platonism and Early
Christianity, Hellenic Studies 59 (Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013), 125-52;
and Joel Kalvesmaki, Formation of the Early Christian Theology of Arithmetic: Number
Symbolism in the Late Second and Early Third Centuries (PhD diss., Catholic University of
America, 2006), 182-224.
6 Alain Le Boulluec, Le notion dhrsie dans la littrature grecque, IIe-IIIe sicles. Vol. 2:
Clment dAlexandrie et Origne (Paris: tudes augustiniennes, 1985); Alain Le Boulluec,
Exgse et polmique antignostique chez Irne et Clment dAlexandrie: lexample du centon,
SP 17:2 (1982): 707-13.
7 Annewies van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis: An
Early Christian Reshaping of a Jewish Model (New York: E.J. Brill, 1988), 201-5.

about his interpretation of the Decalogue.

One further note: except for Kalvesmakis recent contribution, past scholarship on
Clements interpretation of the Decalogue has been cursory at best. Most scholars who
touch on the subject of ancient interpretation of the Decalogue often simply mention it in
passing. There are a few, however, who have noted some of its more significant
characteristics. Bourgeaults analysis of early Christian use of the Ten Commandments
from the years 60 to 220 C.E. briefly discusses Clements interpretation of them. He
manages to see how important is to Clements interpretation, because he analyses
the Ten Commandments in each of Clements works separately: the Protrepticus, the
Paedagogus and the Stromateis.8 Doing this, it is hard not to notice the movement that I
understand to be central to Clement and his trilogy: the divine pedagogy. Clement
interprets the Ten Commandments differently in each work, according to the various
stages of pedagogy which the individual works represent.9 Robert Grant, in an article
dedicated to early interpretation of the Decalogue,10 and Alison Salvesen, in her paper
covering early Latin, Greek, and Syriac interpretations of the Decalogue (all in 19
pages!), also note that this movement is evident through the progression of the three
8 Guy Bourgeault, Dcalogue et morale chrtienne: Enqute patristique sur lutilisation et
linterprtation chrtiennes du Dcalogue de c. 60 c. 220 (Montreal: Bellarmin, 1971), 257-64,
397-403.
9 As I will discuss below in some more detail, whereas the commandments as they are
interpreted in this section of the Stromateis are allegorized, in the Paedagogus and the
Protrepticus, Clement interprets the Decalogue differently. They often stand as individual
commands, which are addressed straightforwardly to the Christian. Bourgeault rightly takes this
to be indicative of the spiritual progress in which one progresses from the stage of simple faith
( ) to knowledge (). There are a significant number of occasions whereupon
Clement employs the Ten Commandments straightforwardly in the first two works, among which
are prot. 4.62.2-3 (GCS 12:47); prot. 10.108.5 (GCS 12:77); paed. 2.6.51.2 (GCS 12:188); paed.
3.11.78.4-79.1 (GCS 12:279); paed. 3.12.89.1 (GCS 12:285). The critical editions used
throughout are Otto Sthlin, Clemens Alexandrinus (Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 12,
15 and 17; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905-1909).
10 Robert M. Grant, The Decalogue in Early Christianity, HTR 40:1 (1947): 1-17.

works.11 Further, each of these authors mentions something of Clements methods (i.e. the
) in this passage of the Stromateis, but neglect to discuss how the
journey to is related to the disciplines that Clement uses in his interpretation. My
hope it to provide some explanation for this connection within the context of this gnostic
exposition of the Decalogue.
THE DISCIPLINES OF THE GNOSTIC
That Clement is concerned with and the true Gnostic in Stromateis 6.16 is not
only evident from the brief introduction to his exposition of the Decalogue: Let the
Decalogue be put forward cursorily, as an example of gnostic exposition.12 It is also seen
in his discussion of true knowledge and the veiled nature of the Scriptures in Stromateis
6.15, which serves as something of a preface to the interpretation of the Decalogue. The
line that is perhaps most telling with respect to the link between the true Gnostic and
his/her interpretation of the Scriptures is this: The Gnostic alone is able to comprehend
and make clear the things spoken by the Spirit obscurely.13 Clement elucidates what
precisely the things spoken by the Spirit are in the latter part of the section directly
before his gnostic exposition: they are the Scriptures. In contrast to the true Gnostic, the
11 Alison G. Salvesen, Early Syriac, Greek, and Latin Views of the Decalogue, in The
Decalogue through the Centuries: From the Hebrew Scriptures to Benedict XVI, ed. Jeffrey P.
Greenman and Timothy Larsen (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 47-66, esp. 5456. Also see Fred Ledegang, The Interpretation of the Decalogue by Philo, Clement of
Alexandria and Origen, in Origeniana Nona, ed. G. Heidl and R. Somos (Leuven: Peeters,
2009), 245-53, who devotes all of two pages to Clements interpretation of the Decalogue.
12 Str. 6.16.133.1 (GCS 14:499). Most frequently the English translations are my own; on
occasion I have adapted the translations from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, AnteNicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1908), to accord more closely with Sthlins critical edition.
13 Str. 6.15.115.5-6 (GCS 15:490). Throughout the paper I continue to use his/her s/he with
respect to Clements true Gnostic. My reasoning for this is twofold: first, Clement most regularly
speaks of the true Gnostic in the singular; second, we see on multiple occasions, Clements
insistence that male and female alike are able to be holy. On this, see paed. 1.4 (GCS 12:95-96);
str. 4.8 (GCS 15:274-79); 4.19 (GCS 15:300-3).

liars do not quote or deliver the Scriptures in a manner worthy of God and of the
Lord.14 These liars are apparently the (most frequently gnostic) heretics. Though
Christians of simple faith are not liars, they still do not have access to understanding of
the things spoken by the Spirit obscurely. Here we learn where the authoritative biblical
interpretation of the Gnostic comes from.15 The Gnostic is able to explain the obscure
things not because s/he has some special directly-inspired spiritual insight, but rather
because, It is for the Gnostic to know how to make use of speech, and when, and how,
and to whom.16 This ability of the Gnostic is paired with his/her ecclesial function as
teacher (under the umbrella of which is necessarily included biblical interpretation), and
is especially seen throughout the seventh book of the Stromateis.17 Further, in Clements
explanation of the pauline idea of engrafting (though here he is decidedly not referring
only to Gentiles, but to all of those without faith), he also speaks of those who are
fruitful by skill () in farming and gnostic knowledge ( ).18
That the pedagogy from to involves certain skills () is clear in this
section as well as in others, not least the beginning of the second book of the Stromateis.
There he writes that, Whatever explication should be necessary in its prescribed place
will be embraced, and especially what is concealed of the barbarian philosophy, the style
of symbol and enigma.19 Later in this same section in the second stromateus, he goes on
14 Str. 6.15.124.3 (GCS 15:494).
15 For the authority of the true gnostic interpreter over and against the Valentinian gnostic
interpreter, see my forthcoming article, Clement of Alexandrias Anti-Valentinian Interpretation
of Gen 1:26-27, Zeitschrift fr antikes Christentum 18:3 (2014).
16 Str. 6.15.116.3 (GCS 15:490).
17 See str. 7.1.3.4 (GCS 17:4); 7.3.13.2 (GCS 17:10); 7.9.52.3 (GCS 17:39). For an in depth
study on the pedagogical function of the true Gnostic see Judith L. Kovacs, Divine Pedagogy
and the Gnostic Teacher according to Clement of Alexandria, JECS 9:1 (2001): 3-25.
18 Str. 6.15.118.2 (GCS 15:491).
19 Str. 2.1.1.2 (GCS 15:113). For Clements use of terms enigma see Andrew C. Dinan,
and in the Works of Clement of Alexandria, SP 46 (2010): 175-80. Because

to say this: By consequence we must also treat what is called the curriculum of study
( ) as much as it is useful of astrology, and mathematics, and magic
of sorcerers.20 These are the same skills to which he refers in the sixth book when he
speaks of the disciplines () of the Gnostic. However, it should also be noted
that in this same introduction to the second book Clement is reluctant in his use of
everything that is Greek. In fact, he writes, We have said already that we have neither
practiced, nor do we study, expressing ourselves in pure Greek; for this suits those who
seduce the multitude from the truth.21 Nevertheless, there is a concrete connection
between the cultivation of these and the true Gnostics ability to interpret the
Scriptures authoritatively.
Though in the fifth book of the Stromateis Clement discusses the veiled nature of
the Scriptures is much more detail,22 in the sixth, a discussion of this same subject
precedes the gnostic exposition of the Ten Commandments. Whereas in the fifth book
Clement is concerned to show how widespread veiled meaning and allegory are, in the
of my understanding of Clements work as pedagogically progressive, it does not appear to be
inappropriate here to recall a passage from earlier on in the work. What is more, Louis Roberts
has highlighted the anamnetic (i.e. recollective) literary function of the Sromateis: Louis Roberts,
The Literary Form of the Stromateis, SCe 1:4 (1981): 211-22.
20 Str. 2.1.2.3-4 (GCS 15:114). Though it is apparent in other passages that Clement that is
serious about astronomy and mathematics, he is likely being ironic in his use of the magical
[discipline] of sorcerers, since he goes on directly after this to discuss the boastful or puffed
up reputation of all the Greeks.
21 Str. 2.1.3.1 (GCS 15:114).
22 In str. 5.4-10 (GCS 15:338-70), Clement provides several explanations for this. The first
reason is that the Scriptures wish us to require an interpreter and guide (str. 5.9.56.4 [GCS
15:364]). These guides are the true Gnostics who have drawn near and have given [the
Scriptures] scrutiny by faith and in their life (str. 5.9.56.3 [GCS 15:364]), and who will be able
to see the things and not be particular about words (str. 2.1.3.2-3 [GCS 15:114]). Next, he
believes that if the Scriptures were to be said plainly, that plain speech could not provide a precise
picture of anything, least of all the divine nature (see str. 5.9.56.5-57.1 [GCS 15:364]). The
plenitude of interpretations of Scripture when it is veiled is a manifestly positive thing. Finally, he
sees the veiled meaning as protection of the Scriptures from the heretics: he writes, Since we
may draw several meanings the ignorant and unlearned man fails, but the Gnostic apprehends
(str. 5.9.57.1-2 [GCS 15:364]; also see str. 5.9.57.2-3 [GCS 15:364]).

sixth he shows how applicable they are to the Christian faith. He states that, The
Scriptures hide the sense that we may become inquisitive and be ever on the watch for
the discovery of the words of salvation.23 However, this idea of veiledness is much
bigger than simply reading the Scriptures. It is in reading the entire economy of God that
one must be aware of the veiled nature of things:
The Lord also, who was not of the world, came to men as one who was of the
world. For he was clothed with all virtue; and it was his aim to lead humanity, the
foster-child of the world, up to the intellectual things, and to the most essential
truths by knowledge, from one world to another. And now the whole economy
which prophesied about the Lord is a parable, as truly it appears to those who do
not perceive the truth, when someone says that the Son of God the one who
made all things took on flesh, and was conceived in the virgins womb and
subsequently suffered and rose again, being to the Jews a stumbling block, and
to the Greeks foolishness, as the Apostle says.24
The very incarnation is apparently veiled, in that the Logos allows himself to be veiled in
flesh. And again Clement reinforces that unlike Greek literature that uses figurative
language for the sake of beauty of diction the veiled nature of Scripture is because
truth does not appertain to all people, [but] only on those who are initiated in knowledge
(), who seek the truth through love.25
These are the reasons enumerated in Stromateis 6.15 that Clement puts forward for
Gods apparent veiling of the Scriptures. On the other hand, throughout these passages he
makes no mention of how one (i.e. the true Gnostic) might go about interpreting the
23 Str. 6.15.126.1 (GCS 15:495).
24 Str. 6.15.126.3-127.2 (GCS 15:495-96).
25 Str. 6.15.129.4 (GCS 15:497).
9

veiled Scriptures correctly. Instead the question that Clement is answering is who is the
one who may truly interpret Scripture. This is the true Gnostic, who, because s/he has
sought and found true , is able to read what is otherwise beyond the understanding
of all other people. Nevertheless, we will see below that the one section of gnostic
exposition that Clement puts forward in the following chapter (Stromateis 6.16) is in
fact an example (albeit cursory) of the technique that he would have the Gnostic use for
interpreting the Scriptures. Further, the themselves, as acquired through the
, are central to Clements truly gnostic unveiling of the Scriptures.
Thus Clement puts various (disciplines) into the service of his gnostic
exposition. Specifically, the disciplines with which Clement is concerned are those that
fall under the umbrella of the traditional . The
general education is of primary importance in this chapter of the Stromateis. Marrou,
in his monumental work Histoire de lducation dans lantiquit, enumerates the
disciplines of the second stage (other than literature and grammar) as arithmetic,
geometry, music, astronomy, and other lesser scientific studies.26 It is the combination of
all of these disciplines in the second stage that we can conceive of as the
26 Henri-Irne Marrou, in his monumental work Histoire de lducation dans lantiquit, was
the first to offer a systematic treatment of ancient Greek and Roman education (H.-I. Marrou, A
History of Education in Antiquity, trans. George Lamb [Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
1982]). Marrou presents a picture of a three-stage pedagogy. The first stage under a
was occupied with learning how to read and how to count. The second stage (under a
) is the stage with which we are here concerned. After these first two stages, one had
several options for study: for example, medicine, rhetoric, or philosophy. (This advancement from
the to philosophy can especially be seen below in Clements quotation of
Philo.) While this fixed tripartite system has been revised somewhat since the publication of
Marrous monograph, his scheme basically holds up. Teresa Morgan has argued that Greek and
Roman pedagogies were synonymous since the Romans were entirely reliant on Greek pedagogy
in Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1998), 24. For a more adequate discussion of this, as well as a survey of
criticisms of Marrou, see Karl Olav Sandnes, The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets and
Early Christianity (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 26-28, 124-40.

10

 an all-encompassing education. Clements references to the

are largely restricted to the first few books of the Stromateis, though there is also one
mention in the seventh.27 In all of these, the general education is preparatory
(propaideutic; Clement uses synonymously with ), paving
the way for greater acquisition of knowledge. Clement adopts the idea of a pedagogical
development in a few of his frames of reference. In his understanding of the divine
economy, he sees the Law as being pedagogue for the Jews (reminiscent of Paul; Gal
3:24), and philosophy as pedagogue for the Gentiles.28 He also envisions the spiritual
progress as a kind of pedagogy. In this case, he sees the as occupying a
primary place in the education of the one who would be trained up to true Gnosticism.
Though he admits that it is not necessary for a Christian to have this education, it is
certainly beneficial; further, it is necessary if one should desire to progress to .29 In
the very first chapter of the Stromateis, when Clement lays out the foundation for the
entire work, he writes, Our notes [the Stromateis] will not shrink from making use of
what is best in philosophy and other preparatory instruction (). [] The
subtlety of speculation also suits the sketch presented in my commentaries. In this respect
the resources of learning () are like a relish mixed with the food of an
athlete, who is not indulging in luxury, but entertains a noble desire for distinction.30 In
his excellent (and enduring) article on the literary form of the Stromateis, Roberts
demonstrates just how intentionally Clement sets out his work, so that the reader would
27 In addition to those mentioned below, str. 1.23.153 (GCS 15:95-96); 2.1.2 (GCS 15:111-12);
3.2.5 (GCS 15:197); 7.3.19 (GCS 17:14).
28 See especially str. 1.5 (GCS 15:17-21).
29 Str. 1.6.35.2-3 (GCS 15:23). However, in this same passage Clement argues that it is
necessary for one to have, if they are to advance from faith to knowledge.
30 Str. 1.1.15.3-16.1 (GCS 15:11-12).

11

not simply read mimetically (indeed, this was not Clements intention), but instead that
s/he would find the symbolical value within each of the work, thus
progressing gradually to the truth in Clements case, .31 The work is meant to be
read anamnetically, with each new chapter reminding the reader of the content of
previous related chapters. Further, Clement sees philosophy and the other preparatory
instruction (the resources of learning) to be helpful, with some exception. The good is
mixed with the bad, and so one must be discerning. In quoting Philo, Clement makes the
progression by way of the the clearest: As the encyclical branches of study
contribute to philosophy, which is their mistress; so also philosophy itself cooperates
towards the acquisition of wisdom.32 Clement then comments on this, saying, Wisdom
is therefore queen of philosophy, as philosophy is of the encyclical disciplines (
).33 And below we will see that for Clement wisdom is synonymous with
. Further, in agreement with Plato, Clement writes, [Plato] does not allow that the
curriculum of training ( ) suffices for good, but cooperates in
rousing and training the soul.34 And while these comprise his explicit references to the
, in other places he outlines its content, that is, the
themselves:
We must lop, dig, bind, and perform other operations. I think that the pruning
knife, the pickaxe, and other agricultural implements, are necessary for the culture
of the vine, so that it may produce edible fruit for us. [] So also then, I call him
31 Louis Roberts, Literary Form of the Stromateis.
32 Str. 1.5.30.1 (GCS 15:19); Philo, De congressu eruditionis gratia 14.79 (F. H. Colson and G.
H. Whitaker, Philo: Volume II, Loeb Classical Library 261 [Cambridge MA: Harvard University
Press, 1932], 496).
33 Str. 1.5.30.1 (GCS 15:19).
34 Str. 1.19.93.5 (GCS 15:60).

12

truly learned who brings everything to bear on the truth; so that, from geometry,
and music, and grammar, and philosophy itself, culling what is useful, he guards
the faith.35
Not only does this description agree with what we see in Marrous well-known
examination of the various ancient sources, but it also agrees with Clements discussion
in the sixth stromateus, which is also where we find the gnostic exposition of the
Decalogue. Just a few chapters before this gnostic exposition, he writes,
For [the Gnostic] knowledge () is the principal thing. Consequently,
therefore, he is dedicated to training for knowledge (), taking from each of
the subjects what is useful for truth. Pursuing, then, the proportion of harmonies
in music; and in arithmetic noting the increasing and decreasing of numbers and
their relations to one another, and how most things fall under some proportion of
numbers; and studying geometry, which is being itself, he perceives a continuous
distance, and an unchanging being which is different from these bodies. And by
astronomy, again, being raised from the earth in his mind, he is elevated along
with heaven, and will revolve with its revolution; studying divine things, and their
harmony with each other from which Abraham also started, ascending to
knowledge of Him who created them. Further, the Gnostic will avail himself of

35 Str. 1.9.43.2-4 (GCS 15:29). Clement hints elsewhere at the accepted disciplines included in
. In addition to those below in the sixth stromateus, see str. 1.19.93.4 (GCS
15:60), quoting Plato: geometry, with its postulates and hypotheses, music, which is
conjectural, astronomy, crammed full of physical, fluid, and probable causes; str. 1.20.97.4
(GCS 15:62); str. 1.23.153.2-3 (GCS 15:95), on the (apparently Hellenistic!) Egyptian education
of Moses: arithmetic, geometry, poetry, harmony medicine, and music, philosophy which is
conveyed in symbols literature, knowledge of the heavenly bodies [astronomy].

13

dialectics, singling out distinction of genera into species, and will master the
differentiation of beings, until he should come to what is primary and simple.36
He further enumerates these same in the eleventh chapter. This chapter is vital
for our understanding of the gnostic exposition of the Decalogue itself, since it provides
examples of ways in which one is able to use these for interpretation. He
mentions arithmetic,37 geometry,38 music,39 astronomy,40 and philosophy.41 These are
above all the disciplines that Clement puts into practice in this example of gnostic
exposition.
I hope that this section has so far served to show just how important the
is to Clements project of the spiritual journey from faith to knowledge of God.
The remainder of it should serve to show just how central these were also to
his project of biblical interpretation. Undoubtedly, as we will see, the
is, for Clement, continually brought into the service of through his gnostic
exposition of the Decalogue.
Probably the that Clement most frequently brings to bear on the Decalogue
is arithmetic (). Clement defines this as the increasing and decreasing of
numbers and their relations to one another.42 This idea of the is clearly
derived from Pythagoreanism,43 and in his erudition, Clement may have been familiar
36 Str. 6.9.79.2-10.80.5 (GCS 15:471).
37 Str. 6.11.84.2 (GCS 15:473).
38 Str. 6.11.85.4-86.3 (GCS 15:474-75).
39 Str. 6.11.88.1-90.2 (GCS 15:475-76).
40 Str. 6.11.90.3 (GCS 15:477).
41 Str. 6.11.91.1-94.3 (GCS 15:477-79).
42 Str. 6.9.80.2 (GCS 15:471).
43 For the widespread use of Pythagorean arithmology outside of Pythagorean circles, see Frank
E. Robbins, The Tradition of Greek Arithmology, CP 16 (1921): 97-123. I do not mean to say
that Clements use of numbers is Pythagorean as such; however his symbolical understanding of
numbers is appropriated from generally Pythagorean use of numbers, and so derivative of it.

14

enough with the symbolism of numbers to make his own way, or he may have learned
this from Philo the Pythagorean.44 Because of the Pythagorean nature of Clements
, we note that any use of his use of it is less scientific than it is
representative of divine realities.45
It is through his symbolic understanding of numbers that Clement is able to put into
practice his doctrine of the plenitude of interpretations that the veiled meaning of
Scripture allows. Thus the number ten in the Ten Commandments refers variously to the
cosmos, the parts of the body, and the composite parts of the soul. The Decalogue is at
once the image of heaven (comprising sun, moon, stars, clouds, light, wind, water, air,
darkness, and fire), and the image of the earth (comprising humans, cattle, reptiles,
wild beasts, fish, whales, carnivorous birds, herbivorous birds, fruit-bearing plants, and
barren plants).46 He then enumerates the ten in man himself (the five senses, the
power of speech, the power of reproduction, the spiritual principle, the ruling faculty,
and the distinctive characteristic of the Holy Spirit).47 This is then followed by the ten

44 As he is called in str. 1.15.72.4 (GCS 15:46); 2.19.100.3 (GCS 15:168, line 3); see Frank E.
Robbins, Arithmetic in Philo Judaeus, CP 26 (1931): 345-61; see also David T. Runia, Why
Does Clement of Alexandria Call Philo the Pythagorean? VC 49 (1995): 1-22. I simply do not
have space to discuss Philos influence on Clements interpretation of the Old Testament. For
some conservative suggestions (with which I largely agree) of where Clement follows Philo
throughout this section, see van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and his Use of Philo, 201-5. In
the footnotes in this section I will make some suggestions of where Clement may be indebted to
Philo.
45 Thus many have spoken of arithmology to delineate modern notions of arithmetic from
ancient ones. Throughout the article, I attempt to use the ancient category of arithmetic instead.
46 Str. 6.16.133.3-4 (GCS 15:499).
47 Str. 6.16.134.2-3 (GCS 15:500). This is one of the passages where Clements borrowing from
Philo is the most obvious though we see serious theological adaptations. For Philo, seven is the
number of human body parts (Opificio mundi 40.118; F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Philo:
Volume I, Loeb Classical Library 226 [Cambridge, MA: Harvard Unversity Press, 1929], 94),
which comprises the five senses, the power of speech, and the power of reproduction (Opificio
mundi 40.117; LCL 226:94). Numbers 8-10 are additions for Clement. Also see Legum allegoriae
1.4.11-13 (LCL 226:152 Colson & Whitaker), for other sevens of body parts.

15

human organs,48 which are much the same as the ten in man himself. How the ten in
man himself is different than the ten organs of the human is hard to discern. At least the
list of the ten human organs is relevant to the Decalogue inasmuch as the law appears to
give its injunctions to [them].49
From this brief summary of Clements use of the number ten, it appears that there is
much in the introductory section to the commandments that is extraneous to what we
might consider any actual interpretation of the Decalogue. And a close reading of this
section of Clement confirms that he neglects to explain himself fully. There are two
reasons for this. The first is that, in his interpretation, he is providing an example of how
one should use numbers in interpreting the Old Testament that is, he is explaining their
symbolic significance. The second is that in his Stromateis he writes in a veiled manner,
which is analogous to the way in which he understands Scriptures to be written; thus he
will often only hint at the spiritual significance of the numbers.50 In keeping with both of
these, Clement does not speak directly to how the scriptural Decalogue the Ten
48 Str. 6.16.134.3 (GCS 15:500).
49 Str. 6.16.134.3 (GCS 15:500). While the cosmic decalogues appear to be adapted from
Philo, De congressu 19.104-5 (LCL 261:508-10), the anthropological ones are of Clements
own creation. As will be seen in the footnotes throughout this section, Clement is rather
inconsistent in his borrowing from Philo. Though sometimes he borrows, other times he utterly
disregards material to which we know, from elsewhere in his works, that he had access. Because
at times he deals with the same passages namely the Sabbath (which is the subject of Clements
main excursus in this passage) and the Decalogue we are able closely to compare the two. With
respect to the Sabbath, Horst Moehring, in Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in the Writings of
Philo of Alexandria, in School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, ed. John
Peter Kenney (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), gives a list of what the number seven is
symbolic of. Though a few of these do match up, the majority of them do not; at the same time
Clement mentions many symbols that Philo does not. Thus it is difficult to judge how dependent
he is on Philo in this case.
50 See str. 1.1.15.1-2 (GCS 15:11). On Clements form of teaching, I have already drawn
attention to Roberts, Literary Form of the Stromateis. For more in keeping with this
understanding of Clements teaching as not just recollective/anamnetic, but also by way of subtle
hints, see EricF.Osborn,TeachingandWritingintheFirstChaptersoftheStromateisof
ClementofAlexandria,JTS(n.s.)10(1959):33543;andDanielRidings,Clementof
AlexandriaandtheIntendedAudienceoftheStromateis,SP31(1997):51721.

16

Commandments relates to these other symbolic groupings of ten.51 The only direct link
from his arithmology back to the text that he provides, I already quoted above: The law
appears to give its injunctions to [the human organs].52 In this introductory section of his
exposition of the Decalogue we get an indication of the significance that Clement places
on the numbers themselves, and also how the Gnostic might use them in his/her
interpretation of the Scriptures. But, more than this, Clement is hinting at spiritual
realities by way of the numbers. The number ten at this point is indicative of the
multiplicity of creation, as opposed to Gods own unity.53
For this same reason, it is not surprising that the greater part of the gnostic
exposition of the Decalogue is taken up with the treatment of the numbers six, seven, and
eight, in the context of his interpretation of the commandment to keep the Sabbath. He
writes, The third word is the one that discloses that the world is from God, and that he
gives rest to us on the seventh day on account of lifes misery.54 After briefly discussing
the nature of the rest that God provides (which I will discuss below) Clement lands upon
that subject which is so important to him in the sixth book of the Stromateis, and also to
the Gnostic: he writes, Therefore, we must also remember these things, having come to
them secondarily, since the word [i.e. commandment] makes an introduction to the
numbers seven and eight.55 It is in this exposition that he makes much more extensive

51 Kalvesmaki sheds some light on this in his chapter on Clements use of numbers in his
Theology of Arithmetic. Because Kalvesmaki is looking at the theological symbolism of numbers,
rather than biblical interpretation, he does not touch on this point. Still, he shows successfully that
Clement is appropriating Stoic and Valentinian numerical/arithmetical conventions, especially
with respect to anthropology, into his own proto-orthodox theology (133-36). Clement uses the
number ten on other occasions to refer to the human person; str. 2.10.50 (GCS 15:139-40).
52 Str. 6.16.134.3 (GCS 15:500).
53 As opposed to the oneness of God. See Kalvesmaki, Theology of Arithmetic, 128.
54 Str. 6.16.137.4 (GCS 15:501).
55 Str. 6.16.138.5 (GCS 15:502).

17

use of Greek philosophy, citing variously Aristotle the philosopher and Polybus the
doctor,56 the Pythagoreans,57 the Chaldeans,58 Seleucus the mathematician,59 and
Solon.60 In Clements discussion of these numbers, his indebtedness to these various
schools not least the Pythagoreans becomes evident.61
He is able to discuss not just seven, but also the numbers six and eight for this
reason: The eighth may very well be properly the seventh, and the seventh by
appearance may be the sixth; the former is properly the Sabbath, the latter is a day of
work.62 He extends his discussion of the number seven to the other two numbers by
making use of the Greek, literally-based, numbering system (a technique sometimes
wrongly-labeled gematria); this appears to have been popular very early on in the
history of Christian literature, for example in the so-called Epistle of Barnabas.63 Much of
the discussion surrounds the letter that signifies the number six ( [later ]; digamma),
which by this point in history had been missing from the Greek alphabet for quite some
time. Clement seems to be arguing that if this letter were to be discounted from the
56 Str. 6.16.139.1-2 (GCS 15:502).
57 Str. 6.16.139-140 (GCS 15:502-3).
58 Str. 6.16.143.1 (GCS 15:504).
59 Str. 6.16.143.3 (GCS 15:505).
60 Str. 6.16.144.3 (GCS 15:505).
61 It is hard to say precisely where Clements knowledge of arithmology, and especially the
citations in this section of his work, come from. Clearly some is from Philo, as already noted.
There is no doubt while that some of this may have come from handbooks or florilegia, as well as
common intellectual knowledge of arithmology, Clement is himself familiar (and not only
superficially) with various of these philosophical schools. On Clements use of anthologies,
epitomes and handbooks, see Annewies van den Hoek, Techniques of Quotation in Clement of
Alexandria. A View of Ancient Literary Working Methods, VC 50:3 (1996): 223-43, especially
224.
62 Str. 6.16.138.5-6 (GCS 15:502).
63 See Barnabas 9:7-9. Over the last few decades it seems less and less that we can refer to this
as true gematria; still, we do find gematria proper in the Christian Sibylline Oracles. See Reidar
Hvalvik, Barnabas 9.7-9 and the Authors Supposed Use of Gematria, NTS 33:2 (1987): 27682. Further in Shmuel Sambursky, On the Origin and Significance of the Term Gematria, JJS
29:1 (1978): 35-38, we see the relationship between the Jewish arithmology (gematria properly
so-called) and the widespread Greek (loosely Pythagorean and Neoplatonic) arithmology.

18

numerical system also, then it would cause the letters that signify the numbers to shift by
one that is, what used to signify seven () now would signify six, and what used to
signify eight () now would signify seven. This is how Clement is able to say that one
number may become another. Apart from this transposition of the literary symbols, there
would have been no reason for him to go into detail on the numbers six and eight, which
he is very happy to do. And as Kalvesmaki has noted, this in itself is an allusion meant
for the careful gnostic reader, where the move from seven to eight signifies the spiritual
progress from to .64 Though this is not directly stated, we know that Clement
communicates to the Gnostic by way of hints and allusions. The fact that the rest of the
exposition of the Decalogue is explicitly concerned with confirms that his use of
the numbers allude to the same thing. Clement further discusses the Pythagorean
theology of arithmetic65 in some detail, appropriating it to his own use for biblical
interpretation:
I think, then, that the Pythagoreans hold the number six as complete, from the
genesis of the world according to the prophet, and call this the Even-Middle
() and Marriage (), on account of the fact that it is the middle of
the even numbers that is, between ten and two. For it appears that it is an equal
distance from both. And when a marriage of male and female procreates, the
number six is begotten out of the odd number three (which is called a male
number) and the even number two (which is considered female). For, twice three
is six. Again, such are the principal motions, according to which every beginning
takes place: up and down, right and left, forwards and backwards. Therefore
64 Kalvesmaki, Formation of Early Christian Theology of Arithmetic, 202.
65 The title of a treatise (probably) falsely attributed to Iamblichus. Kalvesmaki also gives this
title to the monograph based on his dissertation.

19

fittingly, the number seven is called motherless and unbegotten, interpreting the
Sabbath, and interpreting allegorically the image of the rest, in which, they are
neither given nor taken in marriage.66
Here Clement is able to appropriate Pythagorean arithmology, which in its very nature is
symbolic of divine things.67 At the same time, what he is doing here can hardly be
considered straightforwardly to be interpretation of the commandment to observe the
Sabbath. However, he is aware of this, and sets out on this self-confessed tangent only
secondarily, in order to indicate the divine significance of the numbers, which Pythagoras
and his followers had previously developed so comprehensively. Here we also see that
Clement is truly using the discipline of as he described it in the eleventh
chapter (seen above): he is looking to the sequence and intervals of the numbers
themselves for some explanation of their significance. These interpretations of the
numbers are all in keeping with those who came before him, not least Philo.68

66 Str. 6.16.139.2-140.1 (GCS 15:502-3). The idea of the motherless and often virgin
number seven was apparently very common (often in reference to Athena). Clement could here be
taking from Philo, Opificio mundi 33.100 (LCL 226:100-2); Legum allegoriae 1.5.15 (LCL
226:154); De decalogo 11.102 (F. H. Colson, Philo: Volume VII, Loeb Classical Library 320
[Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press, 1937], 58). However, it was well-known enough that
Clement in his erudition could have been familiar with it. With respect to the up, down, etc.,
Philo has these same things, but in two of his works uses them differently: once for six (Opificio
mundi 41.122; LCL 226:96), and once for seven (Legum allegoriae 1.2.4 (LCL 226:148)).
67 Clements explanations of these numbers are rather different than what we know of
Pythagorean number symbolism from other sources. Burkert, taking from a testimony of
Aristotle, notes that the Pythagoreans have it that three and four are male and female respectively,
and that the number five is marriage; this is in reference to the triangle whose sides comprise
these three integers and thus is the perfect example of the Pythagorean theorem; Walter
Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, trans. Edwin L. Minar (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1972), 429. Still, it is consistent with Pythagoreanism to have the odd
(male) number combined with the even (female) number whether added or multiplied
resulting in a number called marriage (Burkert, Lore and Science, 433). (The idea of the adding
of two and three is earlier Pythagorean, and the multiplication is later; see Burkert, Lore and
Science, 467, note 8.) Also see Kalvesmaki, Formation of the Early Christian Theology of
Arithmetic, 296-305; 321-24.
68 Robbins, Arithmetic in Philo Judaeus.

20

He further makes use of the other disciplines that were included in the
. Astronomy is another discipline which appears frequently in this passage. He
writes this on the significance of the number seven:
And now all the cosmos all that has been made alive and brought forth is
encircled in sevens: seven are the firstborns who have the greatest power, who
rule the angels; and the mathematicians say that there are seven planets, the lights
that accomplish the administration of the earth. By these, the Chaldeans believe
that everything that pertains to mortal life happens according to sympathy, and by
them they also endeavor to say things about the future. And of the fixed stars, the
Pleiades are seven. And the Bears, by which farmers and sailors accomplish their
work, are also made up of seven stars. And the moon undergoes changes in
position every seven days: thus in the first seven, it becomes a half-moon, and in
the second a full moon; and in the third, waning, it again becomes a half-moon,
and on the fourth it disappears. And also, as Seleucus the mathematician hands
down, the moon changes form seven times. For it comes from nearly a crescent
shape, to a half-moon, then to a gibbous, then to a full moon; and after to a
gibbous, a half, and again back to a crescent.69
We see here that Clement takes from more than just Pythagorean philosophy, which is not
surprising given his self-confessed eclecticism. He is learned in the
and here makes use of it. He cites Seleucus and demonstrates how important seven
appears to be based on the observations of astronomers.70 He further compares the six
69 Str. 6.16.142.4-143.3 (GCS 15:504-5). See Opificio mundi 39.115 (LCL 226:92) for parallel
with respect to the Bears and Pleiades.
70 Again we have Philo commenting on the same thing. The one most reminiscent of Clement is
from Opificio mundi 34.101 (LCL 226:80-82); it is also seen in De specialibus legibus 1.24.177
(LCL 320:166 Colson); and Legum allegoriae 1.4.8 (LCL 226:150). Still, at this point Clement

21

days in which the world was created to the fact that the movement of the sun from
solstice to solstice is completed in six months; at the end of one, the leaves fall, and at the
other the leaves bud, and seeds comes about to maturity.71 We continue to see that
Clement makes no direct attempt at moving this symbolism back to the biblical text. That
is, he hints at these numbers for the reasons stated above: that the meaning of the
Scriptures may be hidden from the simple, and made known to the true Gnostic alone,
that s/he may teach those of simple faith.
Clement also makes use of the other that we have identified as belonging
properly to the . In passing he mentions geometry and music. With
respect to the former, he writes, They call eight a cube, with seven spheres wandering
around the fixed one, by which the great anniversary happens, a sort of period of
repayment for what was promised.72 In his short allusion to music he writes, On a
seven-stringed harp we will pluck new hymns, writes a not insignificant poet, teaching
that the ancient lyre was seven-toned.73
refers explicitly to a different source (Seleucus) and so not only does this appear to be common
knowledge of the educated person (so Philo is aware of it), but Clement is well-read enough to
have heard from a more authoritative source than Philo.
71 Str. 6.16.138.6 (GCS 15:502). Interestingly, unlike Clement, Philo has the equinox occur
every seven months, not every six: Opificio mundi 39.116 (LCL 226:92-94); De specialibus
legibus 1.182 (LCL 320:202). Here we see if Clement is taking from Philo at all, which I
believe he is Clement seriously adapting the material that he has to work with. While it is true
that the difference in the numbers could be the result of different counting systems (i.e. inclusive
vs. exclusive), it is not the counting itself that is important there, but it is the number along with
what the number represents. Since Clement has the option to employ a different counting system,
we must understand his choice of seven as of symbolic importance.
72 Str. 6.16.140.2-3 (GCS 15:503). See Dorothea Forstner, Der Welt der Symbole (Innsbruck;
Vienna: Tyrolia, 1967), 56, who mentions that the cube was associated with the number eight (a
cube having eight sides, and also the cube of two being eight), which was also representative of
the seven planetary spheres, along with the eighth which is where the deity lives; Forstner takes
this from Platos Republic 10.616b-617b; James Adam, ed. The Republic of Plato (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1921), 2:440-53.
73 Str. 6.16.144.1-2 (GCS 15:505). Here the connection between number and music is again
reminiscent of Pythagorean ideas of numbers and harmony. See Burkert, Lore and Science,
356, for an older example wherein the ancient lyre is said to have had not seven, but four, strings,

22

Though these four are the which Clement properly ascribes to the
, he also mentions medicine on occasion. In fact, he makes use of the
medical (biological) significance of the numbers six, seven, and eight much more than
he does with geometry or music. For example, he cites Polybus and Aristotle, saying,
They even say that the infant is matured exactly at the sixth month, that is in one
hundred and eighty days, in addition to two and a half months, as Polybus the physician
recounts in his Concerning the eighth month, and Aristotle the philosopher in his
Physics.74 Further and predictably given what we saw in Clements discussion of the
number ten he writes, The organs of the senses fitted about our face are also seven:
two of the eyes, two of the means of hearing, two of the nostrils, and the seventh is the
mouth.75 And again he makes another comment that is perhaps even more explicitly
medical, after he quoted Solon on the seven stages on growth from a boy to a man:76 he
writes that the seventh and fourteenth days are the important numbers when it comes to
treating critical illness.77
which in turn are representative of seasons and elements. Also see Philo, Opificio mundi 42.126
(LCL 226:98), and Legum allegoriae 1.5.14 (LCL 226:154), for a seven-stringed lyre (though not
of old).
74 Str. 6.16.139.1-2 (GCS 15:502). Though elsewhere throughout this we see Clement
borrowing freely from Philo and here he could again he instead goes with Polybus the doctor.
It is unclear why he does, except that perhaps he understands Polybuss medical assessment to be
more accurate: where Polybus gives six months, Philo, following Hippocrates, gives seven
months, in two different works: Opificio mundi 41.124 (LCL 226:96); Legum allegoriae 1.4.9
(LCL 226:150-52).
75 Str. 6.16.144.2-3 (GCS 15:505).
76 Str. 6.16.144.3-6 (GCS 15:503). Clement here is most likely taking from Philo, as his quote is
identical (even in the length of what he reproduces of Solons) to his in Opificio mundi 35.104
(LCL 226:84). Still, there are significant differences in Clements and Philos accounts: where
Philo goes on to cite Hippocrates also (Opificio mundi 36.105 (LCL 226:84-86)), never once does
Clement quote Hippocrates, instead referring to Polybus the physician (str. 6.16.139.1 [GCS
15:502]).
77 Str. 6.16.145.1-2 (GCS 15:506). See Philo, Opificio mundi 41.125 (LCL 226:98), also:
Severe bodily sicknesses too, especially persistent attacks of fever due to internal disorder,
generally reach the crisis on the seventh day; for this day decides the struggle for life, bringing to
some recovery, to others death.

23

Though in other places throughout Clements works a discussion of the

may seem to be superfluous to understanding Clements biblical interpretation, I belabor
the discussion of these encyclopedic disciplines for the simple fact that Clement himself
belabors it in his exposition of the Decalogue. And he discusses it at length for good
reason: he is enigmatically teaching the Gnostic how his use of the relate to the
project of gnostic exposition. Further, what we have seen is implicit in Clements use of
the numbers in his section, we will see is explicit throughout the rest of his gnostic
exposition of the Decalogue.
And though, to be sure, Clements appreciation for numbers and the significance of
his use of the are intentionally obscure in this passage, there is something to be
gleaned from them. In this section we see that the was not something
someone simply left behind after becoming a true Gnostic. As noted above, the
is in fact necessary if one is to become a true Gnostic in Clements estimation.
This is further connected to the Gnostics pedagogical function: the greater part of his/her
teaching is biblical interpretation, in which s/he is to make use of the .
However, there is something even deeper going on in this passage of Clement with
respect to his use of the . They are not employed by Clement simply because
they are at the true Gnostics pedagogical disposal; they are also used because they serve
to elucidate the symbolic and multi-faceted meaning of the biblical text. It is through the
use of the that the gnostic interpreter is able to see through the veil
that has been placed over the Scriptures, and whereby s/he is able to come to these
multiple meanings. As we have seen, the number ten is allowed to have as its referent
multiple symbolic realities. In the same way, the numbers six, seven, and eight are

24

indicative of one another: seven, in a veiled way, points to the numbers six and eight.
These numbers refer to many and various realities, which are in turn interpreted by the
encyclical disciplines. Thus, for Clement, using the is the way in which the
true Gnostic can appreciate the full gamut of symbolical interpretation, while being
beholden to their previous education. And consequently, s/he is able to use them in
his/her interpretation for the Church.
THE DIDACTIC SIDE OF GNOSTIC INTERPRETATION
This last section should serve to prove just how intentionally gnostic is Clements
interpretation of the Decalogue. Apart from the importance of the for
Clements gnostic project, there are two aspects to this gnostic character that come
through especially in the exposition. The first is Clements direct application of the
Decalogue to the true Gnostic. The second, which confirms that this teaching is directed
at the Gnostic, is the didactic side of Clements interpretation of the Decalogue. Both of
these, as we will see, are connected, and so will also be connected throughout my
discussion.
To begin with, the latter aspect mentioned the didactic side of the interpretation
requires some explanation. Because Clements interpretation is gnostic in character, in
many cases he does not read the commandments as commands at all. Instead Clement
translates the commandments from the imperative mood into the indicative. This latter
point the lack of the imperative is essential for our understanding of this passage as
applying to the true Gnostic. As I mentioned above, in the first two books of what I
(along with others) understand to be a trilogy (i.e. the Protrepticus and the Paedagogus),
the Ten Commandments are interpreted very differently. In these two works they are

25

simple commands, completely without allegory, which are addressed directly to the
Christian of simple faith. However, in keeping with the change in audience from these
first two books to the Stromateis (from the Christian of simple faith, to the true Gnostic),
the mode of interpretation is also changed. Though the commandments continue to be
addressed to the Christian, they cease to be voiced in the imperative mood, but instead
are spoken in the indicative. The Christian who is at the stage of faith receives the
imperative, whereas the true Gnostic receives the indicative. This subtle grammatical
shift is related to one of the central claims that Clement makes about the Gnostic
throughout the Stromateis: while the Christian of simple faith follows God and chooses
what is good out of fear, the true Gnostic follows God, choosing what is good for its own
sake.78 Commands are only needed for those who choose what is good (i.e. good actions)
out of fear; these are the Christians of simple faith, who do not yet know God. The
Gnostic, on the other hand, does not need to be ordered to do anything, since s/he
consistently chooses what is good out of love for what is good; in fact, the Gnostic
appears not even to be in need to repentance since s/he constantly abides in the habit of
what is good. Thus where Clement commands those of simple faith, for the Gnostic he
simply indicates what is good, knowing that s/he will choose it out of habit since s/he
already is acquainted with what is good. Thus these non-commands by being translated
from the imperative into indicative or didactic instructions are hidden from the one of
simple faith, and are revealed only to the true Gnostic. This form of teaching is also

78 This idea is present throughout the Stromateis. Str. 4.22 (GCS 15:308-13) especially speaks to
its importance. This is further linked to the impassible state of the true Gnostic (str. 5.11.67.4
[GCS 15:371]; 7.3.13.3 [GCS 17:10]); also see Eric F. Osborn, Clement of Alexandria
(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 236-42; and Paul E. Murphy, The
Impassible State of Deification in Clement of Alexandria, Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa 3:1
(1979): 29-35.

26

deeply consonant with Clements understanding of the veiled nature of the Scriptures:
because God has put a veil over Scripture, so he veils his own teaching so that only the
true Gnostic can have access to it.79
From the outset of Clements interpretation of the Decalogue this focus on the true
Gnostic is apparent. By way of introduction to the passage of interpretation, he writes,
Let the Decalogue be put forward cursorily, as an example of gnostic exposition.80 In
his introductory discussion of the biblical narratives circumstances of the delivery of the
Ten Commandments, Clement mentions the Ark of the Covenant that holds the tablets
upon which the commandments were written. He writes that, The ark which holds these
is the knowledge () of things divine and human even wisdom.81 In this we
already see Clements tendency to highlight what is gnostic. Further his interpretation of
the number ten (mentioned above) becomes something of a tangent not even related to
the number ten on the nature of the ruling and subject faculties of the soul.82 This relates
to the Gnostic inasmuch as it is the ruling faculty ( ) that is responsible for
knowledge ().83 This ruling faculty is (after Paul the apostle, and probably also
after Plato) set up in opposition to the fleshly spirit, which is apparently designed to be
that which is subject to the ruling faculty. While the fleshly spirit can rule over the
ruling faculty, this is contrary to nature. In support of this, Clement quotes, The flesh
lusts against the spirit, and the spirit after the flesh (Gal 5:17). Within this context,
Clement argues that it is the Gnostic who lives according to the ruling faculty that is, by
79 This is a demonstration of what is noted above with respect to Clements own pedagogical
project, and the context in which I have already referred to Robertss Literary Form of the
Stromateis.
80 Str. 6.16.133.1 (GCS 15:499).
81 Str. 6.16.133.5 (GCS 15:499).
82 Str. 6.16.135-137 (GCS 15:500-1).
83 Str. 6.16.135.4 (GCS 15:500).

27

the rational faculty ( ).84

Following this introduction, the commandments continue to be interpreted
gnostically. Clement understands the first commandment to communicate this: That one
only is God Almighty, who led the people out from Egypt, through the desert, to the
ancestral land, so that they might comprehend his power by [his] divine actions, as much
as they were able, and that they might desert the idolatry of created things, having all
hope in God according to truth.85 This is hardly an unreasonable interpretation of the
plain sense of the first commandment. On the other hand, it does not deal at all with the
imperative of the first word. What we understand to be the first two commandments
concerning having no other gods and making no idols Clement conflates into one.
There are thus two imperatives that Clement has had opportunity to interpret literally
that is as applying to the Christian directly and straightforwardly. Instead he highlights
the doctrine of the oneness of God and his purposes. These purposes are evidently that
when the Christian sees Gods delivering power, s/he might hope in God according to
truth. This hope is characteristic of the true Gnostic, and is related to the veiled character
of this chapter, in that the true Gnostics hope in God is related to his/her in which
s/he chooses what is good for its own sake rather than out of fear. But this commandment,
for Clement, does not apply to the Gnostic simpliciter. Instead it also recognizes also the
spiritual progress the journey which the true Gnostic up to this point has already
undertaken. In Clements description of the way in which the commandment leads one
from the idolatry of created things (which, according to Clement, the commandment
enjoins one desert) to hope in God. In many ways this is a summary of the spiritual
84 Str. 6.16.136.3-4 (GCS 15:500-1).
85 Str. 6.16.137.2-3 (GCS 15:501).
28

progress to knowledge of God. Again, this is indicated to the Gnostic, rather than
commanded of him/her.
The gnostic character of Clements interpretation comes out even more clearly in
his interpretation of the other commandments. For the most part, these commandments
disclose () the nature of God. The second and third words pertaining to
taking Gods name in vain and observing the Sabbath both highlight the theological
distinction between begotten/created ( ) and unbegotten/uncreated ( )
things. Clement explains that the power of God is synonymous with the Name of
God.86 And though human craftsmen have borne the invocation of the Name upon
created and vain things, this is not appropriate since, the one who is [i.e. the Name] is
not ranked among the things that humans have made.87 With respect to the Sabbath,
Clement compares humanity to God: For God is untiring and impassible and unlacking,
but we who bear the flesh need a rest.88 Furthermore, though I described at length
Clements use of the number seven in his discussion on this commandment, I also noted
that Clement recognizes that the discussion of the numbers is only secondary ()
to an interpretation of the third word.89 The primary interpretation of the Sabbath is that
it exists as a preparation for the primal day which is truly our rest that is, the day of
restoration ().90 In no way is the seventh day commanded to be a day of
rest, but it is heralded or proclaimed (), as if it were news of the primal day

86 Str. 6.16.137.3 (GCS 15:501).

87 Str. 6.16.137.3-4 (GCS 15:501).
88 Str. 6.16.137.4 (GCS 15:501).
89 Str. 6.16.138.5 (GCS 15:502).
90 Str. 6.16.138.1 (GCS 15:501-2). On Clements eschatological understanding, see Andrew
Itter, The Restoration of the Elect: Clement of Alexandrias Doctrine of Apokatastasis, SP 41
(2006): 169-74.

29

itself.91 It is further from this primal day that the first [i.e. foremost] wisdom and
knowledge () shine upon us.92 He refers to this wisdom and knowledge as the
light of truth, which by following it through all of life, we are brought into a state free
from suffering, and there is rest.93 In his interpretation of the Sabbath he quotes David
the Psalmist: This is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it (Ps
118:24); he interprets this in such a way that it means, According to the divine
knowledge () imparted by [God], may we rejoice in feasting.94 All of this speaks
of the Last Day when full knowledge of God will be disclosed to all persons. However,
we further learn from the seventh stromateus that the Gnostic, in opposition to the rest of
humanity, already enjoys this same rest. So this passage applies both to the true Gnostic
who is perfectly at rest in the present age, and secondarily to the non-Gnostic is yet to
experience this same rest.95 Thus for Clement this commandment at once has
explicitly as its subject, while also indicating to the Gnostic how to understand the nature
of the Sabbath.
I further want to emphasize just how clearly Clement is teaching the reader of the
gnostic exposition what the life of the true Gnostic is like. Before arriving at his
discussion of the numbers at the end of his exposition of the Sabbath commandment, he
writes this: Participation [in wisdom] manifestly teaches () one to know
divine and human things.96 This demonstrates the didactic function of the Stromateis for
the Gnostic, especially at this late point in the work.
91 Str. 6.16.138.1 (GCS 15:501-2).
92 Str. 6.16.138.2 (GCS 15:502).
93 Str. 6.16.138.2-4 (GCS 15:502).
94 Str. 6.16.145.5 (GCS 15:506).
95 Str. 7.10 (GCS 17:40-43).
96 Str. 6.16.138.4-5 (GCS 15:502).
30

The next word, which he calls the fifth in sequence (even though in the manuscript
tradition he appears to have called the previous one the third word), is about honoring
father and mother. Father and mother are not literally ones own biological or legal
parents, but are instead the Lord God and wisdom respectively. He writes,
Clearly [the commandment] calls father also the Lord God. Thus, he also
calls those who acknowledge him sons and gods. So the Lord and father is creator
of all; and the mother is not, as some have it, the being from which we are
begotten, nor, as other teach, the church, but it is divine knowledge and wisdom
as Solomon said, the mother of the righteous, referring to wisdom.97
Clements interpretation of this commandment is one that is deeply anti-Valentinian (or
perhaps even generically Gnostic). Here he equates the mother of the commandment
with Sophia, a well-known character in Valentinian cosmology. However, not
surprisingly, Clement takes it in a different direction, not understanding this
Sophia/mother to be one of the emanations (Aions); instead, wisdom (Sophia) is
equated with gnosis. Clement thus appropriates generically gnostic vocabulary into his
proto-orthodox theology. Here he also demonstrates how a true Gnostic as opposed to
a false one might interpret such an expression that otherwise might be loaded with
seemingly gnostic terminology, and so ripe for a heretical interpretation.
This anti-heretical aspect is, of course, not all there is to his interpretation of the
command. We see that Christians, since they are called sons and gods, may rightfully
call God father. Still, Clement patently disregards those who say that the mother is
the one who begets us, as well as those who say that she is the church (here we see
Clement at odds with later orthodox teachings); instead, since he somewhere finds that
97 Str. 6.16.146.2 (GCS 15:507).
31

Solomon calls wisdom the mother of the just, the mother whom the Christian is to
honor is in fact wisdom herself, otherwise known as divine knowledge ( ).
Following this Clement goes on to write that, [Wisdom] is chosen () for its own
sake. And all that is good and holy is made known by God through the Son.98 In this
quote we see how deeply ingrained is Clements understanding of the gnostic life. That
wisdom is chosen for its own sake (and not that one is simply ordered to honor the
mother as the commandment plainly says) is Clements view of the Gnostic: that he or
she will choose what is desirable because it is good in itself.99 The Gnostic is so far
assimilated to God that s/he does not need to be commanded to choose what is good, but
does so of his/her own accord.
The next three commandments, which Clement ceases to number, are concerned
with adultery, murder, and theft. They are, like those before them, allegorized in that
adultery for example ceases to refer to any sort of sexual act. The same goes for the two
that follow. With respect to the first, Clement writes, It is adultery if one leaving
behind the ecclesiastical and true knowledge (), and the persuasion concerning
God should come upon unseemly and false opinion (either making something which is
created into God, or even making an idol of something that does not exist) towards
overstepping, or rather stepping out of, knowledge.100 One can see that in Clements
gnostic exposition he continues to teach the Gnostic. To commit adultery, which is in fact
idolatry (which he gets to later explicitly in citing Paul and the prophets101), is to step out
of knowledge. It is not simply to transgress (what I have translated as overstep;
98 Str. 6.16.146.2 (GCS 15:507).
99 See especially str. 4.22 (GCS 15:308-13). This is found all throughout the Stromateis. It is
one of the primary criteria that differentiates the one of simple faith from the Gnostic.
100 Str. 6.16.146.3 (GCS 15:507).
101 Str. 6.16.147.1 (GCS 15:507).

32

), but it is in some respect to commit apostasy () from true knowledge.

As opposed to this apostasy, Clement gives a positive example of the one who is faithful
to his/her spouse: False opinion is foreign to the Gnostic, just as the truth is both
[his/her] kin and syzygy.102 Again Clement is very clearly using Valentinian language to
demonstrate just how closely the Gnostic is related to Truth () another of the
Aions. Thus first we see that Sophia (wisdom) is the mother, and that is the
procreative partner (i.e. the syzygy). Clement continues to demonstrate how the true
Gnostic ought to interpret the Scriptures.
The word about murder is likewise interpreted in an allegorical way. As he did
with adultery, Clement gives a new definition to murder. He calls it forcible [or
violent] removal [or destruction].103 Though there is a lacuna in the text at this
point,104 it is clear enough that the real murderer is the one who desires to destroy the
true word concerning God.105 It is very closely connected with the following
commandment concerning theft: in the commandment on murder we see that destroying
the true word about God involves the forceful removal of what rightly belongs to God
(e.g. as creator or provider), and attributing it to something or someone else. This is
precisely what the thief is also guilty of. In this word about theft, Clement uses a
..., clause; he writes, Just as the thief does great wrong to the things of
others, so the one who usurps the divine things through skill of either moulding or
drawing also says that he himself is the maker of animals and plants.106 Further the thief,

102 Str. 6.16.147.1 (GCS 15:507).

103 Str. 6.16.147.2 (GCS 15:507).
104 See Sthlin, Clemens Alexandrinus, GCS 15:507.
105 Str. 6.16.147.2 (GCS 15:507).
106 Str. 6.16.147.3 (GCS 15:507).
33

who Clement says will suitably fall upon his deserved evils,107 is like the one who
usurps the divine things, since immediately he will suffer for the impious enterprise.108
Thus we see that these commandments of murder and of theft apply not at all physical
theft or murder, but that they are applied in a symbolic way, directly to worship of God:
they are truly allegorical. What is more, these imperatives continue not to be interpreted
as commands, but instead are interpreted spiritually for the true Gnostic.
CONCLUSION
There is no doubt that the translated mood of the gnostic exposition of the Ten
Commandments reinforces the idea, already apparent in the interpretation, that Clement
is addressing the true Gnostic. Whereas when Clement addresses Christians of simple
faith he continues to use the Commandments as moral directives, in this interpretation of
the Decalogue he is in conversation with the Gnostic who is already acquainted with
God, and follows God out of love for what is good. Further, though it has been
established in the latter section of this paper that Clement is certainly addressing the true
Gnostic, what he is saying to the Gnostic is even more significant.
Above all in this section of the Stromateis, within its context in the sixth book, Clement is
relating to his true Gnostic just how s/he ought to go about using all at his/her disposal in
order to interpret the Scriptures. As I noted at some length, the which are
representative of all of the Gnostics higher learning up to this point continue to be vital
in the true Gnostics ecclesial role as teacher and biblical interpreter. That is, as the
Gnostic interprets the Bible for the Church, s/he is to make use of what s/he has gained
through his/her own spiritual attainment. Furthermore, what this spiritual progress (in
107 Str. 6.16.147.3 (GCS 15:507).
108 Str. 6.16.148.3 (GCS 15:507).
34

part by way of the encyclical disciplines) has brought about for the Gnostic is his/her
ability to interpret the veiled Scriptures according to their multi-faceted and shifting
meaning. The , along with the entirety of the spiritual attainments of the true
Gnostic (the being simply a hint or example of the Gnostics learning and the
tools at his/her disposal), allow him/her to see through the veiled Scriptures and interpret
them for the people of God.
This conclusion takes into account Clements rather unusual non-mimetic
pedagogy. Because he works by way of hints and allusions, so the reader must work to
decipher them. Further, because Clements works are as shown by Roberts anamnetic,
it is necessary to make use of, as many parts of the Stromateis (as well as the other two
works in the apparent trilogy) as are recalled by the subject matter at hand. Thus
Clements earlier discussions of the veiled nature of the Scriptures and the
, among others, inform how we read these later chapters. Clement is indeed
hinting at these earlier discussions. Thus as we read Clements (brief) exposition of the
Decalogue we are reminded of the many things which have gone before in his works; so
also the Gnostic, who has made it thus far along Clements pedagogical program for the
spiritual progress, is reminded of the many earlier stages of his/her journey. And it is in
light of this journey, culminating in , that Clement would have the true Gnostic
interpreting the Scriptures for the Church.
In sum, our analysis of this gnostic exposition of Clements has demonstrated
just how linked are Clements project of the spiritual progress culminating in and
his biblical interpretation. Not only is the true Gnostic the one who is meant to teach for
the Church; s/he also does so in a way that is honoring of his/her spiritual progress.

35

Through the divine pedagogy the veil has been pulled away from the Scriptures, and the
Gnostic is able to see their divine multiplicity of meaning. It is at this point, Clement is
teaching, in this passage of his Stromateis, that the Gnostic is to share this vision with
those of simple faith.

36