THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1st - mid 2nd century) Question on Repeated Repentance

Started by rako, June 18, 2019, 07:15:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

rako

Michael, your earlier quote from Trent is not explicit about combinations of sinning and forgiving, but I think that the implication of Trent's quote is that Yes, it would be included, since frequent confession was the practice of the time, and the quote uses the phrase "as often as".

rako

Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 22, 2019, 06:05:55 PM
I also liked how you picked up the parallel of the 490 times vs Daniel's 490 years; I hadn't seen this connection before:
Quote "Seventy weeks are shortened upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, that transgression may be finished, and sin may have an end, and iniquity may be abolished; and everlasting justice may be brought; and vision and prophecy may be fulfilled; and the saint of saints may be anointed."
[Daniel 9:24]
With reference to "Transgression may be finishes and sin may have an end"; Maybe Our Lord Himself was making a veiled reference to Daniel.
You too. Yes, I'm sure that He gave this chapter in Daniel special attention. In another place he warned that those who see the Abomination of Desolation where it shouldn't be should flee the City, a reference to the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel.

I read a theory that the 70 X 7 years in Daniel had to do with the 7 year planting cycle that God ordained in the Torah, and that the Israelites failed to keep the cycle and leave the fields fallow 1 in 7 years. Under this theory, the number of years for Jerusalem's destruction or exile in Jeremiah's prophecy was based on the Israelites' failure to observe the cycle, and that when they still didn't observe it after the end of the Babylonian Exile, it became the basis for the the 70 x 7 years in Daniel's prediction. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find more about this theory.

rako

Let me try to answer the questions in the OP based on what we've found. I invite your thoughts.
Does the Shepherd of Hermas teach in Commandment IV, Chapter 3 that baptized Christians cannot more than once successfully perform the combination of sinning followed by repentance?
It says that the sinner has only one repentance after the baptism, and that further repentance will be of no "avail" (Lightfoot) or won't be "profitable" (Lake). This implies a potential contradiction between (A) there being no repentance after the first one, and (B) repentance beyond that being unprofitable/to no avail, since statement (B) implies that futher repentance exists, but is unprofitable. The resolution in terminology must be that there are two definitions of repentance (A) "profitable" repentance, and (B) repentance that may or may not be profitable.
The Shepherd's evidence for this is that after their first post-baptismal repentance they will have difficulty living.
This is in Book II, Commandment IV, Chapter 3. I previously quoted Lightfoot's passage. Lake's translation says:
Quote"I will yet, sir," said I, "continue to ask."
" Say on," said he.
"I have heard, sir," said I, " from some teachers that there is no second repentance beyond the one given when we went down into the water and received remission of our former sins."
2. He said to me, " You have heard correctly, for that is so. For he who has received remission of sin ought never to sin again, but to live in purity.
3. But since you ask accurately concerning all things, I will explain this also to you without giving an excuse to those who in the future shall believe or to those who have already believed on the Lord. For those who have already believed or shall believe in the future, have no repentance of sins, but have remission of their former sin. 4. For those, then, who were called before these days, did the Lord appoint repentance, for the Lord knows the heart, and knowing all things beforehand he knew the weakness of man and the subtlety of the devil, that he will do some evil to the servants of God, and will do them mischief. 5. The Lord, therefore, being merciful, had mercy on his creation, and established this repentance, and to me was the control of this repentance given. 6. But I tell you," said he, "after that great and holy calling, if a man be tempted by the devil and sin, he has one repentance, but if he sin and repent repeatedly it is unprofitable for such a man, for scarcely shall he live."
7. I said to him, " I attained life when I heard these things thus accurately from you, for I know that if I do not again add to my sins I shall be saved." "You shall be saved," said he, "and all who do these things."
Lake's footnote says that this passage might refer to Hebrews 6:4-6. But the passage in Hebrews is specifically referring to the difficulty in repenting for those who "fall away", ie. apostasize.
You brought up an interesting issue, Michael, when you said:
QuoteHowever, the last part: "for with difficulty will he live". Does leave some room for doubt.
But I think that this sub-issue is not clearly resolved in our discussion.
How can the Shepherd both say that the person won't be availed of the repentance, and then state that such a repentant person still lives in connection with this (albeit with difficulty)? Could it mean that the recidivist's repentance would not be of the saving kind of profit/avail, ie. that the person still lives on earth, but he lost his eternal salvation? If that is what he means, then it looks like his quote doesn't leave room for doubt as to whether the repeat penitent can get real salvation.
Maybe his phrase "for he will scarcely leave" is meant as proof that the penitent hasn't been forgiven. But you can say that the author has admitted, unwittingly perhaps, that there is room for doubt- since the penitent's status is better than had he never repented in his life.

Is the teaching heretical?

In his essay <<"Second Repentance" in the Early Church:  The Influence of The Shepherd of Hermas>>, R.A. Baker suggests that this was a common view in the early Church. He says that Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian held to a position that was similar, and they rejected the efficacy of repenting again for mortal sins committed more than once after baptism. (http://www.churchhistory101.com/docs/Hermas-2ndRepentance.pdf) Tertullian did not even accept the efficacy of repenting again for a single adultery committed after baptism.
But on the contrary, you made a good point, Michael, by pointing to Lapide's commentary on Augustine, Origen, and Matthew 18, as well as to the quote from Trent.

How does the rule compare with the instructions to Maximus to deny the faith?
I think you are right that it was normally considered sinful in the early Church to deny Christ even under persecution. I can't think of an explicit example where the Church taught this, can you? But I know that there was a big debate in the 3rd century over whether those who lapsed under persecution could be brought in again, which implies that both sides in that debate for the most part probably thought that it was a sin.

Regarding the early Christians delaying baptism until near death,
I found a few passages that I cited claiming that this was a common practice, and I would be interested if you knew more about this.

For Commandment 11 about the prophets' frequent repentance, I assume that the author's real problem is with the post-baptismal sinning part that it implies, and not with the frequent repentance in particular.

I feel like we answered the questions enough, even if there are a few loose ends.