Purpose of the Work
The Social Setting of the Ministry of Peter as canonical, as well as the concern of the author not to allow the Shepherd to be included "among the prophets," that is, the Old Testament This reflects a fourth-century, eastern concern over the canon more than it does a second century Roman one.21
Since it appears that the fragment is in part apologetic, the placement by the author of the Shepherd in the reign of Pius may be a polemical effort to argue that Hermas falls outside the apostolic era and therefore must be noncanonical
If this was a second-century writer's concern it is in opposition to the view of the majority of other second century and even early third-century writers.
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen cited the Shepherd as authoritative.22 Eusebius, writing in the early fourth century, places the Shepherd in the category of rejected writings (H.E. 3:25.4), but admits that its authority is disputed (H.H. 3:3.6-7).23 These features suggest that the anti-canonical references to the Shepherd in the Muratorian Canon are more consonant with a later than an earlier date. A later date and the writer's apologetic concern seriously impugn the accuracy of the Muratorian Canon composer's remark concerning the date of the Shepherd.
In this chapter, therefore, we will assume that the Shepherd was composed by a single author some time near the end of the first century. The manuscript differences which suggest a number of separate units need only mean that Hermas did not set out to write a tightly constructed treatise, but that he wrote on separate occasions, expanding certain units and perhaps connecting others together which had been apart. These bits may have become separated in the course of transmission or were perhaps united into a whole by a later editor. This makes better sense of the concern over the proper use of wealth and property which recurs consistently throughout the work. Additional support for this position may be seen in a statement Hippolytus makes in Ref 9:8, that in the third year of the emperor Trajan (A.D. 100) a new remission of sins was preached by Elchesai at Rome. Hippolytus argues that Callistus derives his laxism from this character. The similarity with the Shepherd may be significant as an indication of certain theological notions present in Rome c. A.D. 100. The reference to persecution in the work, either approaching or past (Vis. 2:2.7; 4:1.6-9; Sim 8:6.4;
8:8.2), raises the vexed problem of a persecution carried out by Domitian. It is not necessary to come by a solution of this problem here.24 The impact which even a locally defined persecution or threat of persecution would have had on this community, it will be argued, could have presented Hermas' community with the social problems he described.
Purpose of the Work As early as Tertullian, Hermas was understood as a Roman concerned with theological problems of penitence. Tertullian's reading of the Shepherd is not surprising: as a Montanist concerned with Christian purity, he found in the Shepherd the roots of the laxist practice for which he condemned his opponent
Zephyrinus. But modern scholars, too, have found in this document a preeminent concern with post-baptismal sin. By focusing on this aspect of the work in isolation from other problems which Hermas describes, investigators have over-
The Shepherd of Herrn as
looked the relationship within this writing between notions of repentance and difficulties which wealth and its misuse created for the Christian community.
"Sünde und Busse ist ja das Hauptthema" writes Höh-25 In a similar way, Vielhauser comments:
Hermas is set apart from the earlier Christian conceptions which knew only of a repentance at conversion The sins of Christians had not assumed the proportions of a theological problem — though the actual presence of sins in Christians made any theory of sinlessness impossible — and so neither had the repentance of Christians. This was a result of the eschatalogical expectation. With the weakening of this expectation which resulted from the continuing existence of the world, the sins and the repentance of Christians became a problem,26 It cannot, of course, be denied that the Shepherd concerns itself with repentance or that there are notions of penance in this writing. And it is also true that Hermas is concerned about the opinion of certain "teachers" who argue that there can be no second repentance after baptism (Mandate 4:3.1). But to make these ideas the focus of one's attempts to understand Hermas is to tear him from his social context and place him in a theology seminar or tutorial in the hope that as he sits across from us and reads his essay we will have sufficient insight to question him on the finer points of his composition. Riddle and Osiek are the only scholars to raise serious objections to this way of understanding the Shepherd 27 Riddle writes: fTjhat which vitiates the value of most of the discussion of the teaching of Hermas about these matters [i.e. ideas regarding repentance and penance] is that it is altogether doctrinaire, and Hermas is taken as the source for a highly theoretical teaching about abstract subjects. But his lessons are always practical. His problems came to him from an objective or even common sense observation of people, and the crux of the matter for him was by no means the nature of sin and repentance, but the actual difficulties occasioned the churches' by the behavior of their members, namely, the task of the exercise of discipline by the churches in the interest of control28
Rather than demonstrating a concern over post-baptismal sin, the frequent references to wealth and property and their misuse by members in Hermas' community suggest that the primary concern of this author is to maintain the purity of the Christian sect through proper attitudes toward and uses of wealth. For Hermas, problems in the community have arisen because of inappropriate social attitudes. The proclamation of repentance is presented primarily to exert a form of social control on the group, in order to stem a tide which Hermas regards as divisive and destructive.
Wealth and House Churches The passages in this writing which deal with wealth or related topics are so numerous that it is odd that scholars have not paid more attention to them.
Hermas' revelations repeatedly deal with the use and abuse of wealth.29 These passages deserve brief discussion because they help to establish the general social setting of this Christian community in Rome, and, as will be argued below, they
The Social Setting of the Ministry provide a plausible context within which to understand the problems surrounding what appears to be house-church leadership in this community.30
The references to wealth in the Shepherd occur where Hermas refers directly to members of the community who concern themselves with the pursuit of riches (πλούτος), or who glory in their wealth in a way which is damaging to community life. In other passages Hermas instructs wealthier members how to use their wealth properly (Vis. 1:1.8-9; 3:3.5-6; 3:9.2-10; Man. 6:2.5; 8:3,10;
10:1.4; 12:2.1-2; Sim. 1:1-11; 2:1-10; 5:2.9-11; 9:19.3; 9:20.1-4; 9:30.4-5; 9:31.2; 10:4.2). In several of these and in other passages (Sim. 4:5-7; 8:8.1-2),
Hermas uses the terms πράξις and πραγματεία, which have the general meaning "action" and "occupation" but are usually rendered as "business."31 This is a justifiable translation because in the majority of these passages Hermas is writing about riches or wealth. It seems likely, then, that the "activities" to which he is referring are of an economic nature. The translation of πραγματεία and πράξις as "business" in the two passages which do not provide an immediate context for references to wealth (viz., Sim. 4:5-7; 8:8.1-2) is justified both by the sense that the term usually bears in the rest of the writing and by other contemporary usage.32 As will be seen below, all these references have important implications for the church's relation to the world. But they also provide some important clues concerning the relation between wealth and power within this community, Hermas not only expects the wealthier members of the community to care for the poorer members through the contribution of alms (especially Man.
10:4.2-3; Vis. 3:9.4-6; Man. 2:4-6; 8:10; Sim. 1:8-11; 5:2.9-10; 5:3.7-8), but he also intends that the poor who are cared for pray for their benefactors (Sim.
2:1-10; 5:2.9-10). In Sim. 1:8, the shepherd commands the rich: instead of lands, purchase afflicted souls, as each is able, and look after widows and orphans, and do not despise them, and spend your wealth and all your establishments for such fields and houses as you have received from God. For, for this reason did the Master make you rich, that you should fulfil these services (διακονίας) for him.33
It is by this means that the wealthy gain salvation for themselves. Again, in a cleverly formulated analogy, Hermas compares the rich man to a living vine which rests upon an elm tree and bears more fruit because of the support which the elm provides for it. The elm tree is a type for the poor Christian. "The rich person has much wealth," states the shepherd in Sim. 2:5-6, but is poor in relation to things of the lord (tùl ôè πρός τόν κύριον πτωχεύει), being distracted by his riches, and his intercession and confession to the lord is very small, and what he does have is feeble, small and impotent.
Whenever, therefore, the rich person rests upon the poor person and gives to him the things he needs, he believes that what he does to the poor person shall be able to find reward with God; because the poor person is rich in intercession and confession and his intercession has great power with God.
The rich person, then, supplies all things without doubting to the poor person. But the poor person, because he is helped by the rich intercedes to God by giving thanks to him, on account of the one who gave to him; and the rich person is zealous all the more for the poor one, that his life be continuously
The Shepherd of Herrn as
sustained; for he knows that the intercession of the poor person is acceptable and rich toward the lord, (my translation)
By the adoption of this ethic of love patriarchalism Hermas shows that he does not regard wealth per se as wicked, but only its improper use. These passages show that there is an important place in the community for the rich
Christian as a member who makes his or her wealth available for the common good. That wealth can contribute positively to Hermas' church is also suggested by Sim. 4:5-7 where the shepherd states that while those who are involved with much business (τά πολλά πράσσοντες) sin much, the person who is involved in only one business (μία πράξις) is able to serve the Lord. Again in Sim.
9:30.4-5 the shepherd states that it is the Lord's will not to take all the wealth of the rich away from them so that they may be able to do some good in the community with what remains. The presence of wealth and the social inequalities which accompany it are not questioned by Hermas. He does not want to change the social structures that make some Christians wealthier than others, only to reform those structures so that they may contribute to the strength of the community. He is concerned with wealth and social inequalities only when they stand in the way of community cohesion. In Vis. 3:9.3, for example, Hermas chastises those who gorge themselves with luxurious food while poor members of the community starve.34 But the exhortation which follows to share their food with the poor does not mean an abandonment of wealth, only a recognition that with social position comes the responsibility of patronage. The economic structures in the community are in fact maintained intact as a means of community cohesion and as a result are legitimated by the potential good fruits they may bear.
In addition to relying upon the charitable good will of the relatively wealthy for alms, the community also relies upon the good will of wealthier members to open their homes to "the slaves of God," a phrase Hermas uses for the wider community (e.g. Sim. 1:1.1). In the parable of the sticks in Sim. 8:10.3, Hermas learns of those who "did the deeds of wickedness" — becoming too involved in worldly business (this is implied from the context established by Sim.
8:9.3)35 — but still "received into their homes the slaves of God."36 Again, in Man. 8:10 the shepherd gives a long exhortation to the well-to-do which includes an exhortation to be hospitable and not oppress poor debtors.37 While such exhortations may not refer exclusively to the well-to-do, the exhortation to be hospitable would have had its most pertinent reference to wealthy persons, who had an important role in providing meeting places for the worshipping community.38 The rich person not only makes material goods available to the community, but he is also expected to open the doors of his house to the members of the church and to practise hospitality,
The exhortations to care for the poor and to be hospitable suggest that the wealthy member is the person who has the greatest responsibility in creating an environment conducive to harmonious community life. Consonant with this general pattern is the evidence in the document which describes the leadership of the community.
Hermas' concerns about problems in his community become more sharply focused where he describes the abuses of certain leaders of the church. In Sim.
The Social Setting of the Ministry 9:31.6 the shepherd warns that wrath is in store for the shepherds (ποιμένες) who have fallen away from innocence. This passage occurs in the context of a more general description of members who are in need of reform because of "the vanities of their riches" (vanitates opum suarum — 9:31.2) and who have caused schisms within the community (9:31.4). Abuse of wealth and schism among leaders are problems which Hermas describes in several passages. In Si'm. 9:26.2 he describes ministers (διάκονοι) 3 9 who "ministered amiss"
(κακώς διακονήσαντες) by using the money which they received, presumably from alms, for the ministry of widows and orphans for their own gain. But it is not only common funds which they abuse; Hermas also chastises them for using their own wealth inappropriately. In Vis. 3:9.2-10 the ancient woman describes those who make themselves ill by overeating. She states in 3:9.4f.:
So this lack of sharing (άσυνκρασία) is harmful to you who are rich (τοις εχουσι — thus Lake), and do not share with the poor. Consider the judgment which is coming. Seek out you rich (υπερέχοντες) those who are hungry. ...
Take care, then, you who rejoice in your wealth, that those who are in want (ύστερου με VOL) may not groan, and their groans go up to the Lord and you be thrown with your goods outside the door of the tower. Now, therefore
(ούν), I am speaking to you who are leaders (προηγουμένοις; cf. Heb.
13:24) of the church and to the ones who hold the first seats (τοις πρωτοκαθεδρίταις).... You are hardened and you do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your pride together with a pure heart, so that you might find mercy coming from the great king, (my translation)
Hermas then goes on to warn the leaders and those in the first seats regarding their disagreements (vs. 9-10). In this passage the leaders of the community are spoken of as wealthy persons who, as those mentioned in the more general descriptions of abuse of riches, do not use their wealth in a way which benefits the community. While in Sim. 9:26.2 Hermas describes the misuse of alms given to leaders for distribution, in Vis. 3:9.4f. it appears to be their own wealth which they abuse, and so the greed of leaders does not imply the squandering of public funds alone. Private wealth as a criterion for the management of corporate wealth was normative in the ancient world. Analogies exist both in Judaism and in Graeco-Roman clubs. Financial patronage placed members of these groups in special positions of either leadership or honour.40 Again, Hands has shown how in both Greek and Roman clubs wealthier members donated sums of money in return for honour, and that where an official was elected to an administrative post in the club, such as the oversight of the common purse, his office would have involved him in some personal expenditure on behalf of the association.41 We find in ancient society, therefore, a pattern which suggests that those members who were most suited for the administration of funds, namely the well-to-do of the group, were chosen for this task. The evidence in the Shepherd points in the same direction.
But it is not only when Hermas chastises the leaders for their neglect that evidence of their wealth emerges. He also assumes a degree of wealth on the part of leaders when he presents an ideal picture of bishops as a foil for the negligent ones. In Sim. 9:27.2 the shepherd explains that one of the revelations Hermas saw represents,
The Shepherd of Herrn as
hospitable bishops (επίσκοποι φιλόξενοι),42 who at all times welcomed the servants of God into their homes (οίκους) without hypocrisy; and bishops who always and without ceasing sheltered the needy and the widows by their ministry (διακονία) and always behaved with holiness (my translation).
We have already seen how Hermas usually employs the phrase δούλοι του θεού to refer to the entire Christian community. The reference to widows, set alongside a reference to general hospitality offered to the wider community, refers to another duty of the bishops,43 and functions as a direct contrast to the squandering of public funds by leaders described in Sim. 9:26.2. If we read the phrasing of this passage in this way, we find evidence that it was not only the bishops' wealth but also their homes which were expected to be used on behalf of the wider community.44 Since the passage states that it is overseers who are welcoming members into their homes there is a case for arguing that this is a reference to various house churches and their patrons.45
The references to schism which we have noted in Hermas' statements about leaders support the assumption that a series of house cells met in wealthier members' homes. A possible setting for community division may be reconstructed from the general shape of leadership in this church. The plural επίσκοποι in 9:27.2 suggests that there were several bishops in this community. Other references also indicate a plurality of leaders. A plurality of leaders is also suggested by Vis. 2:2.6 and 3:9.7 (προηγούμενοι) and Vis. 2:4.2 and 3:1.8
(πρεσβύτεροι). Similarly, the plural πρεσβύτεροι προϊστάμενοι in Vis. 2:4.3 implies several leaders. Finally, if Clement's references to a plurality of leaders in Corinth, a church closely connected with Rome, is any indication of the structure of his own church, this also indicates a number of leaders.46
Πρεσβύτεροι and επίσκοποι are the primary terms used both by Hermas and the contemporary Christian literature to describe leadership in the church.
It is difficult to establish the relation between these two terms because Hermas is not concerned to defend a particular form of ministry. He assumes that his readers know what form of leadership they have. Any attempt, therefore, to reconstruct such a relationship is tentative. Given Clement's usage which treats έπ(σκοποί and πρεσβύτεροι as synonymous (e.g. 1 Clem. 44:4-5; 47:6), it is unlikely that these terms refer to two distinct orders within the church. But in Vis. 2:4.3 Hermas is exhorted to read his revelation "with the elders who are governing the church" (μετά των πρεσβυτέρων των προϊσταμένων της εκκλησίας).
Either this means that there are certain elders who are προϊστάμενοι or that all elders fulfil this function. While the text does not state directly which is the case, a clue is provided in Sim. 9:27.1-2 where έπίσκοποι φιλόξενοι 4 7 are described. If our view that these represent a series of bishops, each representing a house church, is correct, given the usage of the term to describe επίσκοποι in roughly contemporary N e w Testament literature (cf. 1
Tim. 3:1,5; cf. 5:1748), there is a case for arguing that these leaders may also be described as προϊστάμενοι.
We are warranted in speculating that the πρεσβύτεροι προϊστάμενοι, as distinct from πρεσβύτεροι (Vis. 3:1.8), are the same leaders as the έπίσκοποι. We suggest, therefore, that certain elders of a larger presbyteral body acted as bishops in the Roman church. There is not yet a full distinction between επίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι, nor are all πρεσβύτεροι
The Social Setting of the Ministry also επίσκοποι. In the Shepherd of Hermas we have to do with presbyter-bishops who are responsible for the superintendence of the church.
The other πρεσβύτεροι may be senior (cf. Man. 8:10) or honoured members of the community. The references in the Shepherd to elders who hold the first seats (Vis.
3:1.8; 3:9.7 — πρωτοκαθεδρίται 49) suggest that there are members who are honoured in the community by a special seating arrangement.
Hermas states that there are divisions among these members. In Sim. 8.7.4 the shepherd informs Hermas of members who "were always faithful and good, but they had some jealousy among themselves over the first position (περί πρωτείων)50 and some question of reputation." According to the shepherd these members have turned to schism. We have already seen that in Vis.
3:9.2,9-10 and Sim. 9:31.4 there is a description of divisions among leaders and prominent members of the community. Schism, either implied or stated directly, is a charge which is repeated against the community (Vis. 3:6.3; 3:12.3;
Sim. 8:7.2; 8:9.4; 8:10.1-2; 9:23.2-3).51 Many of these passages describe minor quarrels between members. But in a few instances the divisions appear to be more serious than small arguments between fellow believers. Vis. 3:9.9-10 and Sim. 9:31.6 describe divisions between leaders; in the latter passage "shepherds"
(probably a synonym for επίσκοποι) 5 2 are presented as the cause of the falling away of members. A picture of harmony among the leaders of the apostolic past is presented in Vis. 3:5.1 as a contrast to the divisions among the contemporary community's leaders. In Sim. 8:10.2 he states that after Hermas' revelation the majority of members repented of their schisms, but some made even a greater schism. Finally, in Sim. 9:23.2-3 the shepherd describes members "who are persistent in their evil-speaking, and are become malicious in their rage against one another."
A clue to the impact that quarrelling overseers could have had on the community is in Sim. 8:10.3 where, in the context of the description of schism, members are described who repent of their sins and welcome members of the community into their homes. In the instance of such contentious leaders, it is possible that they did not welcome members of other house cells into their homes. And where wealthier elders coveted the first position, one option open to them would have been to separate themselves from the house church which did. not accord them the honour they felt fitting, and invite sympathetic members to worship in their own households.53 In a society in which wealthier members offered patronage to groups with a view to receiving honours proportional to their gifts, it is not difficult to imagine wealthy members of the church feeling dissatisfied with honours given them as not befitting the financial services they were offering.34 We are not suggesting that this is the only possible interpretation of the evidence, but that the church meeting in the household of wealthy patrons provides a plausible explanation of the nature of the more serious schisms facing Hermas' community.
Summary Hermas' discussion of wealth assumes a degree of relative wealth on the part of some in the community, including especially its leaders. The references to inviting the members of the church into bishops' homes imply that Hermas' church