Finding a solution to the mystery phrase coined by St. Paul, the discerning of spirits.
These three words written by Paul have often caught the attention of theologians, Church leaders, and Bible readers for almost two millennia.
What did Paul mean by it? How did later writers and leaders interpret it? And how does it apply to us today? Three questions that beg answers.
Paul wrote this small snippet in I Corinthians 12:10:
ἄλλῳ δὲ ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων, ἄλλῳ δὲ προφητεία, ἄλλῳ δὲ διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, ἑτέρῳ δὲ γένη γλωσσῶν, ἄλλῳ δὲ ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν1
To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:2
The critical word in all of this is the Greek noun, διάκρισις diakrisis. If this word is understood in its historical state, it may unlock all the needed clues.
The first place to go to for a definition of this word are the primary dictionaries.
Bauer Arndt Gingrich has διάκρισις as distinguishing, differentiation of good and evil… ability to distinguish betw. spirits… critical examination of the miraculous signs.3
Liddel and Scott believe it to have this range: separation, dissolution, opp. σύγκρισις in concrete sense, resolved form, decision, determination, judicial decision, interpretation of dreams or omens, examination or revision of accounts, decision by battle, quarrel, dispute, space between the eyes in dogs, secretion, a bandage.4
The big dictionary, Stephanus Lexicon, takes a departure from the Greek and shows its heavy Latin influence: secretio, discretio, discriminatio, dissoluto, opp. σύγκρισις Judicium, interstitium, perfectio, dictum de infante, qui perficitur in utero, dijudicatio, de interpretatione somniorum.7 In reference to Paul’s work, the emphasis is on judging, deciding, or interpreting dreams.
A common theme not mentioned by most modern translators or analysts is the function of interpreting dreams. This function is also found in Lidell and Scott above, and Sophocles Greek Dictionary8 One must never underestimate the role of mysticism in the historic Christian faith. Dreams and visions was encouraged and desired. Διάκρισις was one of the means for validating such an experience.
However, this only paints a partial picture of what Paul meant. More research must be done. Various Bibles ought to be looked at and see if the translations from the Greek provide any clues.
The Latin Vulgate offers no additional clues with their translation, alii discretio spirituum.
The Syriac Bible known as the Peshitta, may hold a clue:
ܠܐܚܪܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܦܪܘܫܘܬܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ
The English translators of the Syriac used the existing English translations of the Greek and Latin to come up with an English equivalent. John Etheridge has the discerning of spirits while James Murdoch has discerning of spirits and George Lamsa has the means to distinguish the true Spirit.
The word ܦܪܘܫܘܬܐ paruoshuta pointed to some potential clues here. The Syriac lexicons provided no additional information than the traditional translation traditions on this verse as discernment, but the word itself pointed to some history in its Hebrew or Rabbinic Aramaic form. This noun has a rich history in Jewish tradition. פָּרָשָׁה which is described by the Morfix online dictionary as, matter, affair, issue ; (Jewish ritual) section of the Torah read on Sabbath in the synagogue ; pericope.9
Marcus Jastrow’s ספר מלים Dictionary, continues the same theme as the Morfix, plus adds this one word definition: interpretation10. Now this is still not enough information to build a solid case of a Jewish liturgical background to the idea of discernment of spiritis. Another step required is to see if this idea has existed in other Jewish publications.
The best place to start is to do some online word searches. They would be both in Hebrew and Aramaic, פרשתה רוחות or in the Aramaic פרשתא רוחות. The search provided nothing of specific interest.
Another step is to look at Franz Deilitzch’ translation of the New Testament into Hebrew. He might have some insights. He translated discerning of spirits as:
ולְאַחֵר לְהַבְין בִּין הָרוּחות
for another to distinguish between the spirits.
The Hebrew Delitzsch utilized did not link a Jewish historical antecedent. Neither does his work provide any additional clues.
Paul was a Messianic Jew from an orthodox background. His writings are full of Jewish tradition and thought. There may be a correlation between the reading or interpretation of scripture here when he refers to discerning of spirits but it is not satisfying. The information thus far provided does not give enough Jewish background to make a strong case.
Perhaps a more thorough definition can be found through Aristotle or other classical Greek writers. Church authorities have been well known about adapting classical Greek philosophy to Christian principles. However, on this occasion, they are very silent.
The next logical step is to look in the historical christian interpretations of this thought, which leads one directly to a work by Joseph T. Linehart, called, On “Discernment of Spirits” in the Early Church. He documents the various interpretations on this subject throughout the centuries and starts with Origen:
“From this we learn to discern clearly when the soul is moved by the presence of a spirit of the better kind, namely, when it suffers no mental disturbance or aberration whatsoever as a result of the immediate inspiration and does not lose the free judgment of the will. Such, for example, were the prophets and apostles, who attended upon the divine oracles without any mental disturbance.”11
And later continues:
“I conclude from this that it is no small grace to recognize a mouth which the devil opens. It is not possible to discern a mouth and words of this sort without the grace of the Holy Spirit. Thus, in the divisions of spiritual graces, there is also added this: that to certain men is given discernment of spirits [“discretio spirituum”]. The grace, therefore, by which a spirit is discerned is spiritual, as the apostle says in another place: “test the spirits to see if they are from God.””12
This was one of the earliest attempts to make a theology out of this. The emphasis is on discerning the persons moral character in relation to what they are speaking about. It is a skill on trusting the person and legitimizing whatever words they spoke.
He also added this interesting definition to discernment:
In the Apophthegmata patrum, then, discernment is, in some sayings, one of the monk’s virtues or tools; in others it is the one virtue or ability which enables the others to flourish. But further, discernment is also a kind of superior insight, an ability to see beyond single rules and practices and comprehend the total effect of an action.13
Linehart strings together this complex weave of history and concludes:
In considering any passage on discernment of spirits, it is useful to ask three questions: Who has this gift, or should have it? What is meant by “spirits”? What criteria, if any, are proposed for the discerning or distinguishing.
On the first question: for the Antiochene exegetes, some Christians in Corinth in Paul’s time had discernment of spirits. For the Latin exegetes who follow the Ambrosiaster, it is the clergy who have it, and that ex officio. Origen leaves the question open. For Athanasius, there is a clear answer: Antony received the gift after thirty-five years of intense asceticism and of personal struggle with various kinds of demons; discernment, therefore, is a gift which an advanced ascetic may receive. After Antony, discernment of spirits is seen as more and more necessary for the monk. Gradually it ceases to be viewed as an exceptional gift or charism and is treated as a virtue, even a necessary virtue. As this change is taking place, the phrase is shortened from “discernment of spirits” to “discernment.”
On the second question, the identity of the “spirits”: the Antiochene exegetes thought primarily of the demons who were believed to inspire soothsayers, who had to be distinguished from prophets in the Church. Origen thinks of the good and evil spirits who inhabit the sublunary air. Athanasius is concerned with the highly individualistic, personal demons who plague the ascetic with all kinds of tricks and deceptions. After Athanasius, there is a quickly growing tendency to identify the demons with the passions, or even more specifically with the eight capital sins.
On the third question, the exegetes offer no criteria. For Origen, and all the ascetical writers who offer a specific criterion, that criterion is some form of mental or psychological experience: for Origen, calm and freedom; for Athanasius, joy and confidence; in the life of Pachomius, absence of doubt; for Diadochus, unmixed consolation which leads to love. Some of the works surveyed, however, have implicitly a very different criterion. For the Apophthegmata patrum, Cassian, and Benedict, discernment (not discernment of spirits) is a form of superior insight exercised in acting or deciding, which is then recognized and acknowledged by other persons, usually subjects or younger or less experienced monks.
. . .One final observation: the term “discernment of spirits” was in use as long as the spirits were understood to be personal; in this period, too, discernment of spirits was looked upon as a charism given only to some, not to all. Once attention was turned to the working of the psyche, particularly by Evagrius Ponticus, the phrase was shortened and discernment became a virtue or technique needed by every ascetic to prevent him from falling victim to excess or bad judgment. This distinction may well be worth preserving.14
His work is quite convincing on the definition.
Alex Poulos, a student at the Catholic University of America, has uncovered many pieces to the puzzle on this subject. One of them being the seventh century Church Father, Maximus the Confessor, which he translated from the Greek:
The “type of gift which requires another for interpretation,” according to this great teacher is prophecy, I think, and speaking in tongues. For prophecy requires the gift of distinguishing spirits, so that one may know the nature of the prophecy, where it comes from, what it carries, what spirit it belongs to, and for what reason it comes. Otherwise, it may simply be idle talk, proceeding only from an offense which the speaker has suffered (thus from his own mind), or it may be self-caused impulse from the one prophesying, which comes from wide experience and a natural shrewdness about the nature of things, or even from an evil and demonic spirit, like the “marvelous” sayings in Montanus and those like him, which, it is said, are in the form of prophecy, or someone may take the words of others and speak with great airs because of vanity, declaiming with great pomp learning which is not their own, lying so that others would marvel at them. For some shamelessly make themselves into the deadbeat fathers of orphaned words and ideas by espousing and then abandoning them so that others might think them wise. Thus the divine apostle says, “let two or three prophets speak, and the others judge.”15
John of Damascus wrote in his commentary on I Corinthians that The discerning of spirits is the ability to know what is a genuine spiritual substance and what is not of a spiritual substance. What is a matter of prophecy, and what is a matter of fraud.16 The Greek ἀπατεὼν for fraud, or as Donnegan’s Greek Dictionary declares, a deciever, seducer, imposter, cheat17 is an interesting word choice here. Perhaps charlatan is a better English equivalent.
A Ninth century work attributed to Oecumenius, Bishop of Trikka, quotes from an earlier writer on the subject and it says, “”Discretion of spirits” that is the ability to know who is classified as a prophet, who is a false prophet, who is spiritual and who is not of such things.”18
Thomas Aquinas found that there is a simple explanation of Paul’s words:
“Others discretion of spirits,” namely that a man has the ability to discern, anyone who should be moved by the spirit for the purpose of speaking or doing works, for instance whether by the spirit of love or by the spirit of hatred.19
According to Aquinas, it is a person with the ability to discover what the true motivation is behind people’s words.
As many facts have been put together as possible. Some eliminated, while others have added to the discussion. What does it all mean for a Christian today? It is somebody who has the knack to know when a person is being legitimate on what they are saying. It does not necessarily go into the bounds of good and evil. A person may have a dream, and inspired by good intentions to report on it, but it may be an expression of personal pain being expressed in the form of imagery. It may be a valid outlet for the person in the form of personal healing, but it is not a message from God to the congregation or people surrounding the person.
Even if one excludes the spiritual perspective altogether, the gift of discernment is actively used today. Most of us know of people who are not overly critical of others, but have a nose for quickly discerning whether a person’s motivation for saying or doing something is altruistic, or has alternative ambitions. Business leaders succeed in many respects because of their people acumen. Pro sports teams thrive by their leaders rightly judging the physical and mental characters of potential athletes.
Ministers and Church leaders use this skill extensively in the various Church paradigms that exist out there. However, it is a delicate balance. To be too conservative, or overly critical in assessing others can lead to a negative form of exclusiveism. A strong de-emphasis of discernment in order to be more inclusive can lead to disrespect of the leader and the message.
Discerning of spirits is especially reserved where a mystical event occurs. Whether someone has a dream, or heals somebody, or goes into a catatonic state, has a prophetic word imprinted on the mind for another person or groups of persons, or other supernatural events, the function of discerning of spirits is to weed out the true from the false. The type of person who is eligible for such a role must have conquered their own inner problems, be at peace, and have no ulterior motives, except for establishing the truth. This seems to be a person with a large portfolio of working with people over the years, if not decades. We all do it to varying degrees, but this person is exceptional in discerning or judging matters.
What would be a modern equivalent for discerning of spirits? One who is a good judge of character comes to mind, but this may be too shallow. It is usually reserved for first impressions. The discerning of spirits goes beyond first impressions.
The word judge or judging are strong words in contemporary English. It denotes a critical or specific process of examination. It usually infers an institutional, clinical, or professional evaluation. It may not be a good word choice for explaining a discerning of spirits. Paul’s referring to a positive character trait moreso than an office.
The main problem with discerning of spirits is translating it within its historical context. It is a term that cannot be updated to contemporary language because no modern English terms exist that fit this one. It has to be left as is, but readers must be aware of the purpose behind it.
Hopefully this short investigation into the subject clarifies the meaning behind discerning of spirits. Perhaps someone reading this has found an improved English equivalent. Your suggestions would greatly be appreciated.