WAS HERMAS A TRINITARIAN

**WAS HERMAS A TRINITARIAN?**

The *Shepherd of Hermas* is a significant early Christian work, often grouped among the Apostolic Fathers. J.B. Lightfoot affirms its ancient pedigree, writing that *The Shepherd of Hermas* “is entitled in the most ancient notices.” The dating of the work is debated; some scholars place it as early as 80 AD, while others suggest it was written in the middle of the second century. Regardless of the exact date, the text represents a pre-creedal theology—one not influenced by later developments such as the doctrine of the Trinity.

While the terms “God,” “Lord,” and “Holy Spirit” appear frequently throughout the text, they are never arranged in a triadic formula nor portrayed as coequal persons of one divine essence. Indeed, it would take, as some might say, considerable *mischievousness* to find a Trinitarian framework in this work. The language and structure of *Hermas* consistently oppose the later Trinitarian theology articulated in the fourth-century councils.

Hermas begins his ethical instruction in *The First Mandate* with an unambiguous affirmation of monotheism:

> “First of all, believe that God is One, even He Who created all things and set them in order, and brought all things from non-existence into being.” (*Mandate 1.1*)

Here, God is singular. There is no mention of a triune nature, no coequal persons. God is identified clearly as *He*—not *They*—and as the sole Creator. Hermas does not write, “Believe God is Three,” or “Believe God is One, even They who created all things.” On the contrary, God is “One,” and He alone “brought all things from non-existence into being.” This language is more compatible with strict monotheism than Trinitarianism. Indeed, if all things were brought into existence by this One God, that would logically include the Son—suggesting that the Son is part of creation rather than coeternal with the Father.

In *Mandate Eleven*, Hermas offers insight into the nature of the Holy Spirit:

> “This then is the greatness of the power as touching the Pneuma of the deity of the Lord.” (*Mandate 11.5*)

He also refers to “the angel of the prophetic spirit,” indicating that the Pneuma is a messenger or a functional agent rather than a personal being. The Spirit is consistently described in terms of power, function, and inspiration, not as a distinct person within a triune godhead.

Another revealing passage comes from *Similitude 5.7*, as translated by Lightfoot (p. 207):

> “God ... created the people, and delivered them over to His Son ... (who) is Himself Lord of the people, having received all power from His Father. ... The Holy Pre-existent Spirit, Which created the whole creation, God made to dwell in flesh that He desired. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was subject unto the Spirit.”

In this passage, Hermas outlines a hierarchy: God the Father is the Creator, who gives authority to the Son. The Spirit, described as “Holy” and “Pre-existent,” is the power by which creation occurred—but not a person coequal with God. Rather, God *made* this Spirit “to dwell in flesh,” which is a direct reference to the incarnation of the Son. Notably, “this flesh ... was subject unto the Spirit,” indicating the subordination of the Son to the indwelling Pneuma. In Hermas’s framework, the Father gives power, the Spirit empowers, and the Son obeys. This is a functional hierarchy, not a triune equality.

Trinitarians often cite *Similitude 9.12* (Lightfoot, p. 229):

> “The Son of God is older than all His \[God’s] creation, so that He became the Father’s adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is ancient.”

At first glance, this might appear to affirm the Son’s eternality. But Hermas says the Son is “older than all His creation,” not uncreated. He calls the Son the “Father’s adviser,” not His equal. The term “adviser” evokes Proverbs 8:22–30, where Wisdom says:

> “The LORD created me at the beginning of His course, as the first of His works of old. ... I was with Him as a confidant.” (*Jewish Tanakh*)

Hermas appears to draw on this tradition, portraying the Son as preeminent within creation but still subordinate and derived. The use of “ancient” is not synonymous with “eternal.” The Son is portrayed as having a beginning—as being brought forth as a helper in God’s creative work, not as an uncaused cause or coeternal being.

Perhaps the most ambiguous—and potentially henotheistic—statement occurs in *Similitude 9.23* (Lightfoot, p. 236):

> “If God and our Lord, Who ruleth over all things and hath the authority over all His creation ... ”

The phrase “God and our Lord” can be interpreted in two ways. It may refer to two persons: God (the Father) and our Lord (the Son). Or, more controversially, it could be that Hermas applies the title “God” to the Son in this singular instance. If so, then Hermas has presented *two Gods*—one who delegates power, and another who receives it and rules. This is not the language of one being in three persons, but of two distinct beings with divine titles—supporting a henotheistic framework.

In conclusion, *The Shepherd of Hermas* does not support Trinitarianism. Its portrayal of God, the Son, and the Spirit is hierarchical and functional, not ontologically unified. God is One—the Creator of all things, including the Son. The Son is “ancient,” preeminent in creation, but not eternal or coequal. The Spirit is a divine power, not a person. At best, Hermas’s theology may be considered henotheistic, acknowledging the supremacy of one God while also granting divine status to the Son. But it is a far cry from the Trinity.