Who was Claudia in the Bible?

The First Planting of the Cross in Britain

Far back in the early days of apostolic simplicity, the cross of Christ, we believe, was planted in our island. There is fair historical evidence for believing that "Claudia," mentioned by Paul in his Second Epistle to Timothy, was the daughter of a British king, who married a distinguished Roman named "Pudens." This circumstance will not seem unlikely if we bear in mind that, during the whole period of the Roman dominion in this country, there must have been many opportunities for the spread of Christianity, and that these would be readily embraced by those who loved the Lord Jesus and the souls of men. Besides, it was the custom at that time for the British kings and nobles to send their sons to Rome for education; and this practice, it is said, prevailed to such an extent, that a mansion was established expressly for them, and a tax of one penny was levied on every house in England for its support.*

You will remember we have spoken of Jonathan, who was not willing to share David's rejection. Onesiphorus is a name that will live to all eternity, as one who not only was willing to share the rejection and reproach of Christ, but who very diligently sought out Paul, and found him, when he was the prisoner of Nero, chained in a Roman dungeon. From that dungeon he writes: "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me." (2 Tim. 1:15). Ephesus was the capital of Asia Minor, and Paul had laboured there for three years. Read the latter part of the 20th of Acts, telling of that most touching parting between Paul and the elders of Ephesus. You remember they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed him. But now Paul was a prisoner in a Roman dungeon, and they were ashamed of him, and also it was dangerous to be known as one of his friends: so all in Asia forsook him, and that included those elders at Ephesus. This does not mean they turned away from Christ, and later on the Apostle John writes a letter to the assembly at Ephesus, with much good to say of them: but they were a fallen assembly, though outwardly so fair, for they had left their first love. (Rev. 2:4). I think that fall began when they turned away from Paul. And it was not only those of Asia who forsook that scorned, rejected man at this time. At his first answer before Nero, no man stood with him, "but all forsook me", the Apostle writes. Only Luke was with him of all his beloved fellow-labourers. They were dark days indeed. There are a few other names of those who were not ashamed of the rejected servant: his beloved "Prisca and Aquila", who had so long been true to him, were still unchanged. Then there is Trophimus left sick at Miletum; and from the assembly in Rome there were Eubulus, Pudens and Linus and Claudia (the last, probably, a blue-eyed, fair-haired British maiden; only a little later we hear of a "Pudens and Claudia" in Rome as husband and wife.)

Some of our readers will, perhaps, be surprised to hear that besides Christianity being thus established very early in Britain, some of the British Christians are even named in the New Testament. Yet this has been asserted. The story is this. A poet named Martial mentions a lady of the name of Claudia, born of British parents, and who lived at Rome. The apostle Paul also speaks of a Claudia in his second Epistle to Timothy. These two are supposed to have been the same person. What adds to the probability, is that the same poet mentions a Pudens along with Claudia, and this name is also given by Paul: "Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren." (2 Tim. 4:21.)

When and under what circumstances the gospel was first introduced to the country is not certainly known; but it is probable that even in the apostles' day the light had penetrated; and there are reasons for believing that the "Claudia," of Paul's second epistle to Timothy, was the daughter of a British king. Be that as it may, it is beyond question, that the gospel had been preached in all the British Islands long before Augustine and his monks arrived. The following facts will prove this.

Now the date given to the Epistle to the Romans is A.D. 58, which proves that there was a church at Rome at that time, and many years earlier, according to Romans 15:23; and some of the British hostages may have been converted and added to that assembly before the second Epistle to Timothy was written (A.D. 63, or 68 by others), and thus the Claudia of Paul may have been the British lady named by the poet; this is as much as can be said on the subject.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, in the second century, both speak of Christianity being spread over the whole of the Roman empire, and, if so, it would have spread to Britain; and Tertullian, in the same century, speaks of the parts of Britain, inaccessible to the Romans, being subject to Christ. Gildas, called "the father of British history," represents the Sun of Righteousness as shining on these remote islands, ice-bound in paganism, in the earliest ages of the earth and before the conflict of the Romans with Boadicea (A.D. 61).

While therefore there cannot be a doubt that Christianity was introduced into Britain thus early, little is known of its history.

As to those whose salutations appear in verse 21, their names were too common then to build on personally. One thing is sure, that they were Christians; those of whom Martial writes, were heathen, who never, as far as we know, submitted to the righteousness of God. Martial came a young man to Rome only about two years before the apostle's death, and did not at first take up letters. His epigrams, as far as is known, were after, most of them long after, when his Pudens and Linus and Claudia were still heathen.

Perhaps the husband of Claudia mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:21. These two, with Linus, are supposed to have been British subjects at Rome. The Latin poet Martial wrote some epigrams about the same date, in which he mentions three friends, whose names agree with the above. This has led to the supposition.

The apostle was careful to promote love, and he sends the salutations of several by name, not of men only, but of a woman, as well as of the brethren generally. If a woman was put first; and with good reason, in verse 19, a woman is, with no less wisdom, put last of those personally named in verse 21.

The fabulists have spared the first-named. The second it has been sought to identify with the vile friend of the vile epigrammatist Martial, in order to build up the romance of his subsequent conversion to Christianity, and marriage with Claudia, a supposed royal maiden of Britain, here assumed to be the Christian companion of the apostle! One admits the ingenuity of the mosaic formed out of small pieces of Martial 1:32; 4:13; 5:48; 6:58; 11:53; and of Tacitus Agric. 14, Ann. xii. 32, as well as of the dubious but possible inscription found at Chichester in 1723 (Horsley's Brit. Rom. p. 192, No. 76). But it will be noticed that in our verse they are not classed together as a pair: Linus separates them; and there is a Linus in the Spaniard's epigrams, as well as a Pudens, and a Claudia, and a Claudia Rufina whether identical or not. That Romanists should seize on the Linus here mentioned as bishop of Rome in apostolic times is natural. But it is certain that the earliest extant record of this is a sentence of Irenaeus which is palpably unfounded on a point far more important than the identity of Linus. Speaking of Peter and Paul, he says, θεμελιώσαντες οὖν καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Λίνῳ τὴν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν. Now it is demonstrable from scripture that the church in Rome cannot boast like Corinth of an apostolic foundation. There were converts thence from the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10). The apostle Paul wrote to them an elaborate Epistle, wholly ignoring Peter's ministry there, much more his episcopate there for 25 years! according to the Chronicle of Eusebius. Paul himself is only known as a prisoner in Rome, though he may have edified them after his discharge, before he was a second time in bonds and his martyrdom that followed. As for Peter, the apostolate of the circumcision was his allotted province (Gal. 2:7); and though we do hear of his unhappy visit to Antioch (Gal. 2:11), not a word is said of Rome. We only know of his labours outside Judaea in the east (1 Peter 5:13), not in the west. His Epistles are both addressed to the Christian Jews far east of Rome; whereunto if he went at all, it was to die for Christ, not to found the church there, still less to join Paul in ordaining Linus to its episcopate. Even the Benedictine editors confess and do not pretend to solve "difficultates quibus primorum Petri (!) successorum tum chronologia, tum successio, …" Eusebius and Theodoret make Linus to succeed after Peter's death; and so Baronius and de Tillemont. The Apostolical Constitutions (vii. 46), and Ruffinus (Praef. Clem. Recog.) hold that Linus was appointed bishop at an earlier date, while the apostles lived and moved elsewhere to the regions beyond; with which the words of Irenaeus are quite consistent; and so Bp. Pearson and Fleury the historian. Epiphanius adds to the confusion by the assertion that it was Clement who was ordained by Peter (!) for the Roman see, while he and Paul pursued their apostolic labours, as Tertullian had affirmed before him. All the differences of the ancients are far from being here stated. The only thing certain, when we leave scripture, is the uncertainty of human tradition.

I suppose this verse is not very frequently selected as a text. In the course of a fairly long life I have heard hundreds of sermons (some of the best by lips never more to be heard on earth), but never from Matt. 27:19: "Have thou nothing to do with that just man." Nay, but with Him we must all have to do. Claudia Procula, and her husband the Roman Governor, and all mankind — as Saviour or as Judge. Of course, we know what she meant. She did not wish Pilate to take upon himself the responsibility of condemning an innocent man. Somehow she know He was innocent; nay, just, for she does not use a merely negative term. Truly, if she knew little, and was still far from the kingdom of God, the Governor was much farther off. He certainly thought the lowly prisoner at the bar at whose claims to kingship he had half-contemptuously, half-pityingly marvelled, had to do with him, Pontius Pilate, the representative of the mighty Empire of Rome. "Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee" (John 19:10). We all know with what divine dignity and calm the blessed Lord replied. No wonder the Governor was more and more perplexed. Yes, all of us must have to do with "that just man." Blessed are they who have to do with Him now, who bow to Him now, and prove the value of His precious blood that cleanseth from every sin. Is it not striking how unconsciously Pilate's wife deprecates what is imperative for all of us, if we would be saved? Of course, she was right from her limited point of view. But, how terrible to have no link with Him This poor woman little knew how far it was from being merely a question of common rectitude in a ruler; little knew that the terrible thing would be, if Christ let her alone! if God said, as once of old, "Ephraim is joined unto idols; let him alone." Nay, that were the most dreadful thing of all — to be let alone now, to be judged in a future day! For "all things are naked and opened before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" (Heb. 4:13). Let us have to do with Him now.

Christian at Rome whose greetings were sent to Timothy by Paul. 2 Tim. 4:21.