Loading...In my previous post on the Shepherd of Hermas (in a nutshell) I talked about some of its major themes and characteristics. It’s a long book with lots of parables and moral injunctions; one of its major themes has to do with charitable giving, how important it is that those in the church with resources should share with those in need.
Jesus himself told his followers to “sell everything and give to the poor.” A century or so later, Hermas had a different view — related, but much softened from Jesus’s radical demand. Here’s how I talk about it in my book Love Thy Stranger (coming out soon: pre-orders available on Amazon or wherever).
*******************************
The idea that Christians should give of their resources generously is one of the major themes of the second-century apocalypse known as the Shepherd of Hermas, a book sometimes considered canonical Scripture in the first four centuries.[i] Hermas instructs his Christian readers to give “simply to all those in need, not wavering about to whom you should give or to whom not. For God wishes everyone to be given something from his own gifts” (Shepherd, 27.4). Those who fail to do so should consider the harsh condemnations to come on the day of judgment: “Consider the judgment that is coming. You who have an abundance should therefore seek out the hungry.” If they delay it may be too late and then “you will long to do good but there will be no opportunity.” On that day, if “those in need” complain that the wealthy have ignored their plight, these rich Christians “will be shut out” of salvation (Shepherd 17.5-6).
Hermas argues that wealthy Christians blessed with abundant resources are not to wallow in their wealth but give to charity:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I’m developing what I’m calling an “Ascent Theology” thesis, exploring whether a recurring vertical pattern (descent through corruption/ascent through divine-mediation) functions as a unifying grammar across the Bible.
Beginning with Eden as a mountain-sanctuary where a mismatch emerges between divine-spiritual-knowledge and embodied-human-frailty. This tension, echoed in Romans 7 (the law is spiritual, I am flesh) reveals not merely moral failure but ontological dissonance between spirit/flesh. Humanity’s attempts at ascent (e.g., Babel) exacerbate the rupture, while divinely structured ascents (Sinai, Zion, Temple) create provisional/mediated access to God.
Within this, I’m proposing that justification by faith isn’t primarily about abstract imputation, but about clinging to the hope of resurrection before it’s realized. God’s declaration of who “belongs” is grounded in allegiance to future resurrection promise, not Abrahamic lineage. The resurrection is Christ’s decisive saving act, and glorification the finality of human restoration.
Participation in Christ (more than faith considered narrowly) becomes the primary saving movement. Through participation, the Spirit begins an ontological transformation (in properties, not essence) that resolves the flesh/spirit mismatch. Final resurrection completes what participation inaugurates.
I’d value your thoughts on whether this reads as a coherent macro-theological pattern and if it faithfully captures Paul’s views (especially in Romans).
I’d say all those are theological views that could probably be based on and make sense of the biblical texts. (Most interpreters today agree that justificatoin in Paul is not about imputatoin and many — including Albert Schweitzer and E. P. Sanders — have argued that “participatoin/union with X” is the key to understanding his views of salvation)
I’d also say that I don’t think it is possible to come up with a unified theology of the New Testament let alone the Bible as a whole. (A lot of experts don’t think it’s possible to get a unified theology of Paul alone — e.g. Raisanen’s book on Paul and the law)
Been a bit since I commented here so not sure if the rules have changed. I know you’ve started answering questions in posts but I don’t know how that works, exactly, but I have a question unrelated to this post.
I often see it debated whether some particular Christian author ‘used’ some earlier text but I don’t often see discussed the possibility that they *knew* of a text without actually having *access* to it. This seems like it wouldn’t be an especially uncommon occurrence early on, since texts probably weren’t copied very widely and someone privileged enough to be literate may well have traveled and heard texts *read* without actually being able to read them themselves. Like, it seems quite possible to me that the author of Acts may have heard some of Paul’s letters read aloud but did not actually have access to the text of them. This would both make the contradictions a product of fallible memory while also technically meaning Acts is not independent of Paul. Do scholars ever argue this possibility, and if so why have I never encountered it? (Admittedly I am only a layperson.) If not, why not?
Ah, I’ve been answering questions since we started in April 2012! And I’ve tried to answer each and every one of them. Feel free to ask questions unrelated to any particular post.
Yes, this is a view that is widely held, for the reasons you cite. It’s possible that later authors have read and mastered earlier writings, read and not mastered, read and misinterpreted; read and forgotten; not read but heard about; confused several things they’ve read with one another; and … it’s a pretty long list when you think of the options.
My view is that it is WAY to easy (and common!) to say that if two ancient author have a similar view of something one of them must have gotten it from another. Actually, I think it’s a bit bonkers to say that. But world-class scholars say it all the time!
Hello Mr Erhman in one of your older lectures you stated some revelation manuscripts gave 613 intead of 666 could you verify that I remember correctly and let me know where I can find these? Also did they predate the 666 manuscript? Or vice versa? I wanna try and match the number with the commandments in the law. Is that a possible interpretation? I’m aware of nero interpretation. I’d like to match it to the commandments. I think it parrellels Jeremiah when God writes his law on the elect.
Close. It is 616. (If you spell “Caesar Nero” in Hebrew letters it adds up to 666 or 616, depending on whether you put the option “nun” [our letter n] [which had the numerical value of 50] at the end. 666 is found in the vast majority of manuscripts, but 616 is found in our oldest to be discovered so far and in one other that’s ancient.
I’m sure many christians have probably struggled with Jesus’s teachings concerning wealth throughout the centuries. I’m no expert on Hermas, but I’d imagine he, like many, would rather have the cake and eat it, too. That said, I’m reminded of the story of the rich ruler who Jesus instructs to sell all his belongings and follow him, and I’m surprised more people don’t lean on Mark’s version of this story a little more. In Mark, Jesus makes an interesting statement not found in Matthew and Luke. He says how hardly rich people will enter into God’s kingdom (found in all 3 gospels), but in Mark 24, after the disciples are shocked by his words, he goes on to say “Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!” (KJV) To me, that about sums up the modern christian view concerning riches; maybe don’t sell all your stuff, but also don’t count on riches to save you. It kind of gives the reader an “out”. However, I find it odd that this little verse wasn’t included in Matthew and Luke (assuming they were indeed written later).
In our times the “Rich Young Ruler” would now be congratulated by Jesus for being so rich! I remember sermons growing up where what we were supposed to get out of Matthew 19:26 was that, “It’s ok, rich people can be saved!” What a relief!
Writings or traditions aren’t necessarily representative or correlated with the actual behavior, values or practices of society overall.
Absolutely right. (And not frequently enough recognized or acknowledged, even by scholars!)
Dr. Bart,
1. Clearly it is rational for one to use Google Maps exclusively in traveling through the country. Do you consider it equally rational to navigate by gospel jesus only, thru life, the man that comes off the page and his teachings in Matthew Mark Luke and john? To the exclusion of everything else associated with christianity?
2. Please explain your answer?
3. You know anyone that by their words and any objective measure of their life, has attempted this, every breath? Gospel Jesus only? If you know several, please let me know?
Thank you, Apprentice James
I’m afraid I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. My view is that each Gospel portrays Jesus in different ways; and that the historical Jesus is different from all of them, collectively and individually. I thing it is most “rational” to understand how Mathew portrays what Jesus said and did; and Mark; and Luke; and John — all separately from each other. And to use them to reconstruct what Jesus really said and did if that’s something you are also interested in. (As I am)