THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (Late 1st - Mid 2nd cent.) Question on Divine vs. Non-Divine Spirits

[rakovskii]

The Shepherd of Hermas presents itself as an account by Hermas of Rome’s visions from Christ in the form of a Shepherd. The Muratorian Fragment says: “But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome” (ie. in 140-155 AD). The text was widespread among early Christians and included in the Codex Sinaiticus. The books can be found online here: The Shepherd of Hermas (Roberts-Donaldson translation)

Referring to the Shepherd’s instructions in the narrative that his teachings should be sent abroad by Clement because it’s his duty, the Catholic Encylopedia suggests: “Perhaps the most probable view is that the historical data in the book are fictitious; the author was really the brother of Pope Pius, and wrote during his brother’s pontificate… The writer wished to be thought to belong to the preceding generation — hence the name of Clement, the most famous of earlier popes". While Clement of Alexandria used it respectfully, he noted that in his time, many “despise” it. Eusebius listed it among the writings that were “notha” (false or spurious).

Another sign that the narrator could be knowingly inventing his story of visions is because he confesses to the Shepherd that he has had a problem with habitual dishonesty:

When he saw me weeping, he said to me, “Why do you weep?” And I said, “Because, sir, I know not if I can be saved.” “Why?” said he. And I said, "Because, sir, I never spake a true word in my life, but have ever spoken cunningly to all, and have affirmed a lie for the truth to all; and no one ever contradicted me, but credit was given to my word…

I discussed the question of whether the Shepherd of Hermas is a record of real visions or an allegory in another thread: https://forums.catholic-questions.o...ry-questions-on-its-authenticity-and-doubting
The broader point that I’d like to make is that the Church does not consider it to be in the Biblical canon and that over the centuries, theologians have raised doubts about its passages and teachings. The Question is in the next message.

 

[rakovskii]

(Question A) Does the passage below mean that there are spirit beings that go into a person and the divine ones speak freely but the nondivine one only speaks when it is asked?
The passage appears in a discussion on non-heathen false prophets in Book II, Commandment 11:

LAKE’S TRANSLATION
For he who asks a false prophet concerning any act is an idolator, and empty of the truth and foolish. 5. For every spirit which is given from God is not asked questions, but has the power of the Godhead and speaks all things of itself, because it is from above, from the power of the Divine spirit. 6. But the spirit which is questioned and speaks according to the lusts of man is earthly and light, and has no power, and it does not speak at all unless it be questioned."
…
Test the man who has the Divine Spirit by his life. 8… he who has the spirit which is from above… gives no answers to anyone when he is consulted, nor does he speak by himself (for the Holy Spirit does not speak when a man wishes to speak), but he speaks at that time when God wishes him to speak. 9. Therefore, when the man who has the Divine Spirit comes into a meeting of righteous men who have the faith of the Divine Spirit, and intercession is made to God from the assembly of those men, then the angel of the prophetic spirit rests on him and fills the man, and the man, being filled with the Holy Spirit, speaks to the congregation as the Lord wills. 10. Thus, then, the Spirit of the Godhead will be plain.

ROBERTS’ AND DONALDSON’S TRANSLATION:
…no spirit given by God requires to be asked; but such a spirit having the power of Divinity speaks all things of itself, for it proceeds from above from the power of the Divine Spirit. But the spirit which is asked and speaks according to the desires of men is earthly, light, and powerless, and it is altogether silent if it is not questioned."

[Regarding a true prophet:] when asked[, the true prophet] makes no reply; nor does he speak privately, nor when man wishes the spirit to speak does the Holy Spirit speak, but it speaks only when God wishes it to speak. When, then, a man having the Divine Spirit comes into an assembly of righteous men who have faith in the Divine Spirit, and this assembly of men offers up prayer to God, then the angel of the prophetic Spirit, who is destined for him, fills the man; and the man being filled with the Holy Spirit, speaks to the multitude as the Lord wishes. Thus, then, will the Spirit of Divinity become manifest.

(Question B) Does this description of the difference between prophets with non-Divine spirits and those with Divine spirits sound correct?

 

[Genesis315]

I think “spirit” is being used in a general sense a lot–like we would say “spirit of the world.” The Divine Spirit is of course the Holy Spirit.

With regard to when each spirit speaks, I think the meaning is the Holy Spirit speaks of himself, whereas the spirit of the world is a reflection of the false prophet. The Holy Spirit speaks through the true prophet, whereas false prophets bring forth a false spirit (the order is reversed).

The author then tells us how to know which is which:

First, he who has the Divine Spirit proceeding from above is meek, and peaceable, and humble, and refrains from, all iniquity and the vain desire of this world, and contents himself with fewer wants than those of other men, and when asked he makes no reply; nor does he speak privately, nor when man wishes the spirit to speak does the Holy Spirit speak, but it speaks only when God wishes it to speak. When, then, a man having the Divine Spirit comes into an assembly of righteous men who have faith in the Divine Spirit, and this assembly of men offers up prayer to God, then the angel of the prophetic Spirit, who is destined for him, fills the man; and the man being filled with the Holy Spirit, speaks to the multitude as the Lord wishes. Thus, then, will the Spirit of Divinity become manifest.
…
Hear, then," says he, "in regard to the spirit which is earthly, and empty, and powerless, and foolish. First, the man who seems to have the Spirit exalts himself, and wishes to have the first seat, and is bold, and impudent, and talkative, and lives in the midst of many luxuries and many other delusions, and takes rewards for his prophecy; and if he does not receive rewards, he does not prophesy. Can, then, the Divine Spirit take rewards and prophesy? It is not possible that the prophet of God should do this, but prophets of this character are possessed by an earthly spirit. Then it never approaches an assembly of righteous men, but shuns them. And it associates with doubters and the vain, and prophesies to them in a comer, and deceives them, speaking to them, according to their desires, mere empty words: for they are empty to whom it gives its answers.

 

[rakovskii]

Genesis,
I understand the idea that

the Holy Spirit speaks of himself, whereas the spirit of the world is a reflection of the false prophet. The Holy Spirit speaks through the true prophet, whereas false prophets bring forth a false spirit (the order is reversed).

But look please at the passage’s statements more closely.
A) He says “every spirit which is given from God is not asked questions… he who has the spirit which is from above… gives no answers to anyone when he is consulted”.
Lots of times in the Old Testament and in the gospels, people asked the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles questions, and the prophets and Jesus gave holy answers. Didn’t the spiritual answers ever come from God or the Holy Spirit?

B) He says that “the spirit which is questioned and speaks according to the lusts of man is earthly and light, and has no power, and it does not speak at all unless it be questioned.” But aren’t there times when people have earthly spirits that speak according to people’s lusts without being questioned? There are plenty of times in the New Testament, like the stories of Jesus exorcising demons, where people make statements or actions due to evil spirits without being questioned.
In Isaiah 19, Isaiah talks about Zoan and Egypt, saying: “The Lord hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit.” It seems that if God gave them a “perverse spirit” that the Spirit could cause them to speak things.
On the other hand, someone could counterargue that the Spirits in the Bible who talk without being questioned are not “earthly” Spirits that speak according to “lusts” or evil “desires” of men. But in that case, it doesn’t really make sense why if in the Bible there are lots of times that evil spirits speak without being questioned that evil spirits who speak according to earthly lusts/desires would only do so when questioned, since those same kind of Spirits could make people do other bad actions without being provoked (eg. commit adultery).

 

[rakovskii]

Kirsopp Lake’s translation of the Shepherd of Hermas can be found here:
in text format: Full text of "L 025 Apostolic Fathers II"
In PDF format: The Apostolic fathers : Lake, Kirsopp, 1872-1946 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[rakovskii]

Maybe the author is really referring to situations where Spirits, using people as their vessels, talk directly? That is, the author proposes that in one case (A), a Divine Spirit effectively uses someone to talk directly and give a message in the First person. In this theory, the Divine Spirit on Pentecost came onto the apostles and they began speaking prophetic words in languages that they didn’t know, as if the Divine Spirit was directly playing them like on a flute. But the author proposes that bystanders couldn’t approach the apostles or others through whom the Spirit was directly speaking, give the Spirit questions and get answers. Further, the author proposes that in another case (B), there are charlatans or others with false Spirits who present themselves and allow other people to have whole dialogues with them, like in the stories of Jesus questioning demon-possessed people. Charlatans, who present themselves as having real Spirits, when questioned think up answers to the questions. So they don’t have a Divine Spirit that gives messages to people of its own will.

But even if that were what the author meant and were a real phenomenon, it seems like in (A), people really could approach someone while the Divine Spirit was speaking through them (eg. the apostles at Pentecost or the Corinthians with glossolalia whom Paul’s epistle mentions) and hope to get questions answered by that Spirit. And as for case (B), why couldn’t charlatans or others with false, lustful Spirits come into a group of people and give false messages without being asked? It seems like Charlatans and others really could do that.

 

[rakovskii]

I think that this is a tough one. Maybe the writer is thinking of times when (A) the Biblical prophets announced prophecies to Israel, and contrasting this with times when (B) pagans had a custom of going to oracles and asking questions.

But as for (A), certainly in the Old Testament, people asked the prophets questions. In Luke 1, John the Baptist’s father questioned Gabriel. As for (B), certainly there have been charlatans filled with an earthly spirit who went into Christian assemblies to proclaim false statements without being questioned first, since Paul warned against false prophets.

 

[rakovskii]

Situation (B), wherein false spirits in false prophets never speak unless first questioned directly appears illogical. If the false spirit had not made any declarations, then people would question the false spirit, since they would not even guess that the spirit existed in the false prophet. In order to know that the false prophet has a spirit at all, the spirit would have to make some declaration to people first. If the false prophet announced that he had a spirit, then he would be making his announcement based on previous experiences with the spirit when the spirit had made declarations. So in order for the false prophet or his audience to sense that he had a spirit, the spirit must have had to make previous announcements.

It’s conceivable that a false prophet could be a charlatan pretending to have a spirit, but that it turned out that he had a real dishonest spirit, and that people only interacted with this real spirit by questioning it. But that does not seem realistic. It doesn’t make sense why a false spirit could only speak when questioned, since it is capable of speaking at all.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Shepherd of Hermas is my favorite early Christian writing outside of the New Testament. I actually think one could make an argument it is a case of private revelation.

 

[rakovskii]

Thanks for writing in, Thomas. I agree that it’s an important text, and invite you to reply to the thread question.
Regards.