Reclaiming One's Heart: How Christology Lost Its Devotional Core

“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” — Psalm 51:10

This cry, manifesting in the poetic layers of the psalmist’s soul, is the revelation of the Bible’s underlying philosophy. At its core, the Hebrew Scriptures call for inward transformation through a sincere acquaintance with its words: “Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace... lay up his words in thine heart” (Job 22:21–22). Knowledge, to the Bible’s mind, is not propositional or metaphysical. It is personal, reflective, and intimate: “...through knowledge shall the just be delivered” (Proverbs 11:9).

But what became of this simple, yet meaningful devotional experience, in early Christianity?

Paul and the Early Shift Toward Metaphysics

According to Marshall (1967), Paul's writings represent a critical theological shift. While Paul's letters include moral exhortations and personal struggles, his Christology primarily conceptualizes the Jesus character as a supramundane figure (p. 78), a being of divine essence who stands in metaphysical proximity to his God. In Galatians 4:4, Paul refers to his Christ as being sent from God, implying a preexistent, divine being rather than a prophetic teacher rooted in human history.

Marshall shows that by the time Paul writes, within only two decades of the Jesus character’s supposed crucifixion, a Hellenistic ontology begins to dominate, even an abstract framework emphasizing this figure’s divinity in cosmic, rather than existential, terms (pp. 86–88). This early Christian turn was not accidental; it was fueled by contact with Greek ideas of the “divine man” and Gnostic notions of a descending redeemer. Jesus was no longer merely to be thought of a real and living man, one who taught his hearers to be clean-minded before God, but a metaphysical solution to “sin”— a celestial ransom.

From Jesus’ Simplicity to Council Complexity

Zachhuber (2021) highlights how this metaphysical focus deepened as Christianity moved into the fourth and fifth centuries. The Church councils, particularly Chalcedon (451 CE), did not just define who the Jesus character was—they codified him into philosophical categories derived from Greek metaphysics, such as physis, ousia, and hypostasis (Zachhuber, 2021, pp. 209–211).

As Zachhuber (2021) laments, Christology became so scholastic and technical that it lost the organic vitality of earlier Jewish spirituality. What once was a moral and relational appeal for a “renewed spirit” became a debate over whether “Jesus” had one nature or two, or whether his hypostasis aligned with divine or human substance. The devotional conversation had been colonized by the conceptual tools of Stoicism and Middle Platonism, not by the philosophy within the Psalms or the Proverbs.

Hellenistic Philosophy and the Loss of Hebrew Intimacy

The shift wasn't merely theological; it was philosophical. Zachhuber (2021) notes how later theologians like Gregory of Nyssa or Cyril of Alexandria absorbed and restructured Christian thought to mirror Platonic and Neoplatonic metaphysics (pp. 212–214). In doing so, the Jesus character was no longer primarily a teacher of the inward way but became the cosmic Logos—the rational principle of the universe.

This is a far cry from the personal yearning of the Hebrew Bible, where true knowledge is internalized in the heart and mind. As Psalm 51 indicates, devotion was never about metaphysical comprehension, but ethical devotional sincerity and inner transformation.

The False Images: Paul's Cosmic Christ and the Gospel Jesus

Both Marshall and Zachhuber help us see that the Christ of Paul—and even the progressively mythologized Jesus of the Gospels—represent a theological departure. As the church absorbed Greek categories, it replaced the Hebrew notion of “acquaintance with God” with allegiance to a doctrinal system.

Jesus becomes functionally divine in Paul’s letters, but that functionality is tied to sacrificial substitution rather than the transformation of character. In the Gospels, Jesus is slowly mythologized as a miracle-working demigod, drawing from Hellenistic Jewish and pagan traditions. The result: the devotional emphasis on the heart and spirit gives way to belief in personhood and doctrine.

Marshall (1967) warns us not to overlook this subtle but powerful transition. He writes, “It would be most curious if the early church had proceeded to use this title [Son of God] in a purely functional manner,” and yet this is precisely what occurred in both Pauline and post-Pauline theology (Marshall, 1967, p. 84).

The Way Back: Knowledge That Delivers

The Bible’s spirituality, as Proverbs teaches, rests on the deliverance brought through knowledge, not metaphysical speculation, but knowing in the Hebrew sense: encountering, internalizing, and embodying. “Acquaint now thyself with Him…” (Job 22:21) is not a call to creeds, but to presence.

Christian theology has spent centuries drifting from this central point. Zachhuber is keenly aware of this when he observes that the technical debates of the fourth century often "exact a real loss of religious meaning as the price for doctrinal sophistication" (Zachhuber, 2021, p. 216). The church may have constructed cathedrals of logic, but it did so on the ruins of Hebrew philosophical devotion.

To reclaim one’s clean heart, the devotional conversation must step away from the illusion of Christological precision and return to the raw, honest prayer of the psalmist’s soul. Not a metaphysical Jesus, nor a politicized Gospel Jesus—but a conversation with the living God, the one whose words renews and delivers.

Let the Heart Speak Again

Christians must reckon with the fact that what has been handed down to them (in their religious theory) is a compromised inheritance—one shaped more by Plato and Philo than by Moses and the Prophets. Paul's Jesus, and also the Gospel Jesus, have been so layered with foreign philosophy that one’s original devotional experience and conscience has been obscured.

But the Psalms still call. The Proverbs still promise deliverance through knowledge. Nothing has changed. And Job still reminds us that peace comes not through theology, but through acquaintance with the Bible’s words. The time has come to let our devotional heart speak again—unmediated, unencumbered, and undistracted by the philosophical scaffolding of a church that forgot how to pray, learn, and reflect.

References

Marshall, I. H. (1967). The Development of Christology in the Early Church. Tyndale Bulletin, 18(1), 77-93.

Zachhuber, J. (2021). Christology in the fourth century: a response.

Shu and the Logos: Ancient Egypt's Influence on Christianity

The idea of a divine mediator—a figure who bridges the gap between God and humanity or between cosmic elements like the sky and earth—has been a cornerstone of spirituality across cultures. From the ancient Egyptian god Shu to the Greek Logos and finally to Jesus Christ in Christianity, this archetype evolves but retains its essence. In this post, we explore how Shu and the Logos fulfill similar roles as divine mediators, tracing their philosophical and theological connections and uncovering Egypt's ultimate influence on Christianity.

What is the Logos?

In Greek philosophy, the Logos (“Word” or “Reason”) is the rational principle that orders the cosmos and connects divine thought to the material world. First introduced by Heraclitus, the Logos was later refined by Stoic philosophers and the Hellenistic tradition. It represents harmony and mediation between extremes, such as unity and multiplicity. Early Christians adopted this concept, most notably in the Gospel of John, where Jesus is described as the Logos: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

As the Logos, Jesus is scripted as being more than a teacher or prophet. He embodies divine wisdom and serves as the ultimate bridge between “God” and “humanity,” revealing the spiritual “truth” that underlie the universe.

Shu: The Firstborn Son and Cosmic Mediator of Ancient Egypt

Long before the Logos entered philosophical discourse, the ancient Egyptian god Shu held a strikingly similar role. Shu, the firstborn son of the creator god Atum, is the mediator who separates Nut (the sky) from Geb (the earth). This act of separation creates space for life to flourish, making Shu essential to cosmic order.

According to the Pyramid Texts, Shu embodies the essence (kA) of Atum. He is both the divine extension of his father and the force that sustains harmony in creation. Shu’s creation is steeped in symbolic language; Atum “sneezed” Shu into existence, imbuing him with divine life. This imagery underscores Shu’s intimate connection to his father’s creative power, much like the Logos emanates directly from God.

How Shu and the Logos Compare: The Role of the Divine Son

Both Shu and the Logos fulfill the archetype of the divine mediator, sharing remarkable parallels:

• Sonship: Shu is the firstborn of Atum, while the Logos is described as the “only begotten Son” of God in Christian theology.

• Mediation: Shu separates and connects the sky and earth, maintaining cosmic balance. The Logos mediates between God and humanity, bringing divine order to the world.

• Essence: Shu embodies the kA, or essence, of Atum. Similarly, the Logos is the “Word” of God, embodying divine wisdom and will.

• Creation and Sustenance: Both figures are integral to the act of creation and its ongoing maintenance. Shu sustains the physical cosmos, while the Logos sustains the spiritual and moral order.

From Shu to the Logos to Jesus: The Origins of the Divine Mediator

The transition from Shu to the Logos highlights how ancient Egyptian theology influenced Greek and early Christian thought. Hellenistic Alexandria, a cultural melting pot, facilitated the synthesis of Egyptian cosmogonies with Greek metaphysical ideas. The result was a more abstract concept of divine mediation that early Christians incorporated into their theology.

Jesus’ identification as the Logos in the Gospel of John echoes Shu’s role in Egyptian mythology. Just as Shu’s essence (kA) flows from Atum, Jesus, as the Logos, proceeds from the Father. Both figures symbolize a “divine” presence that connects heaven and earth, ensuring harmony and balance.

Egypt’s Influence on Christianity and the Logos Concept

The influence of Egyptian thought on Christianity is often overlooked, but its significance is undeniable. Heliopolitan cosmology, with its emphasis on divine mediation, provided a framework that later informed Greek philosophy and, ultimately, Christian theology. The parallels between Shu and the Logos suggest a shared archetype that transcends cultural boundaries, reflecting humanity’s universal quest to understand the supposedly divine.

In adopting the Logos concept, early Christians drew upon an already existing heritage of philosophical and theological ideas. The Logos—as scripted within Jesus Christ—represents a culmination of these traditions, uniting Egyptian, Greek, and Jewish influences into a single, transformative character.

A Universal Archetype of Divine Mediation

Shu and the Logos reveal a shared vision of the divine mediator across cultures. From Shu’s cosmic embrace to Jesus’ incarnation as the Logos, these characters embody humanity’s desire to bridge the gap between the earthly and what is thought to be divine. Their stories remind us that the quest for connection and harmony is as old as civilization itself, or is as the Preacher says, “There’s nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

 References

Popielska-Grzybowska, J. (2013). Atum and Son: Some Remarks on Egyptian Concept of Eternity. Études et Travaux, 26, 537-546.

Fideler, D. (1993). Jesus Christ, Sun of God: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism. Quest Books.

Paul and Philo: The Hellenistic Foundations of Christian Theology

Early Christian theology stands at the crossroads of Jewish monotheism and Hellenistic philosophy. The writings of Paul, particularly in his epistles, reflect the influence of Hellenistic Judaism as articulated by Philo of Alexandria. Central to this synthesis is the concept of the Logos—the divine Word or Reason that acts as an intermediary between God and creation. Philo identifies the Logos as the Son of God, and Paul’s writings not only echo this understanding but also expand it through his Christology, assimilating the Logos into the person of Jesus Christ.

We will explore how Philo’s Logos theology informs Paul’s view of Jesus as a mediator, particularly in Colossians 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:5, and Philippians 2:5-7. By examining these parallels, we will see the philosophical framework behind Paul’s theology and its Hellenistic roots.

Philo’s Theology: The Logos as the Son of God

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE), a prominent Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, viewed the Logos as the divine intermediary that bridges the infinite God and finite creation. In his writings, Philo plainly and clearly identifies the Logos as the Son of God:

“To his Word, his chief messenger, highest in age and honor, the Father of the universe has given the special prerogative, to stand on the border and separate the creature from the Creator. This same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery...” (Who is the Heir of Divine Things, Philo)

Here, Philo portrays the Logos as the Son of God, tasked with mediating between the transcendent Father and humanity. The Logos embodies divine wisdom, reason, and order, acting as the instrument of creation and the sustainer of all things.

Another statement reads: “To explain this definition, Philo specifies that God’s logos is the supreme genus of everything that was born. From a philosophical point of view, if somebody remains in the world of immanence, he can refer to the universal logos, and only to him. But to see the logos as the ultimate expression of the absolute is for Philo an absolute impiety. In fact, the logos is only God’s shadow, His image, the instrument by which He created the world, or in a more anthropomorphic way, His ‘first-born son’ or His deputy (Agr. 51). In Fug. 109, the logos is said to be ‘the Son of God and Sophia’. The Pythagorean-Platonic model of Creation acting on undefined matter is thus both preserved and richly transformed.”

If the reader still needs more evidence concerning the identity of the Logos: “The Logos is the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father: ‘For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he [Moses] calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns’ (Conf. 63).” 

Jesus was never that “Son” from time immemorial and that stood as “Creator” with the “Father.” Paul doesn’t teach that. The founding theology of Paul doesn’t step away from Hellenistic Judaism. “Logos” is Son and Mediator to the world and to humanity, in both Greek philosophy and Hellenistic Judaism. Paul perverts this ancient religious theory by erroneously amalgamating the “Logos” character into his Jesus.

Paul’s Theology: Jesus as the Logos in Human Form

Paul’s writings demonstrate a profound alignment with Philo’s Logos theology, particularly in passages such as Colossians 2:2:

"...to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ."

Paul separates God, the Father, and his Christ, much like Philo distinguishes between the transcendent Deity of Israel and the Logos. Paul’s triadic structure underscores the intermediary role of his Christ, akin to the Logos, as a distinct yet connected entity within the divine framework.

In 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul reinforces this mediator role:

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Here, Paul highlights Jesus’ humanity while preserving his role as the Logos manifested in human form. This mirrors Philo’s depiction of the Logos as a bridge between God and creation, emphasizing the Logos’ function rather than its nature.

Philippians 2:5-7: The Mind of the Logos

Paul’s Christology reaches its philosophical pinnacle in Philippians 2:5-7:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."

This passage provides critical insight into Paul’s understanding of Jesus. It was not the person of Jesus who descended into humanity but the mind—the divine Logos—that took on the form of a servant. In Hellenistic terms, this "mind" represents the rational principle of “God,” the Son or Logos, which humbly manifests within human limitations.

Philo similarly describes the Logos as the divine mind or wisdom that brings order to creation:

“For the Logos is the image of God, through which the whole universe was created.” (On the Creation, Philo)

By identifying this "mind" as the Logos, Paul harmonizes the philosophical concept of divine mediation with the figure of Jesus, presenting him as the embodiment of the Logos’ humility and purpose.

Logos Theology: The Bridge Between God and Humanity

Philo’s Logos serves as a cosmic intermediary, a divine force that connects the infinite and finite:

1. Mediator Role: Philo’s Logos is a suppliant on behalf of humanity, standing between God and creation. Paul mirrors this in 1 Timothy 2:5, presenting Christ as the mediator.

2. Divine Wisdom: For Philo, the Logos embodies divine wisdom and reason. Paul reflects this in Philippians 2:5-7, emphasizing the divine "mind" that condescends to human form.

3. Instrument of Creation: Philo describes the Logos as the agent of creation, which aligns with Paul’s depiction of Jesus as central to God’s creative and redemptive work.

Paul’s Expansion of Philo’s Logos

While Philo’s Logos remains an abstract principle, Paul personalizes it within his Jesus. This innovation makes the concept accessible to both Jewish and Gentile audiences, blending the metaphysical with the tangible. Paul retains the Hellenistic Jewish framework of the Logos as a mediator but forcefully extends its scope to emphasize the transformative potential of the Logos’ embodiment in Jesus.

Bridging Philosophy and Faith

Paul’s Christology reveals a forced theological framework rooted in Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism. By aligning Jesus with the Logos, Paul preserves Jewish monotheism while embracing the philosophical depth of the Logos as the Son of God. Philippians 2:5-7 epitomizes this synthesis, showing how the "mind"—the divine Logos—manifested in the human Jesus, which allowed him to be that mediator between “God” and humanity. Paul’s machination of integrating Greek philosophy and Hellenistic Jewish faith shaped Christian theory, bridging the gap between a then world that stood divided between the Jews and the Romans.

References:

Philo. (1993). The works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Hendrickson Publishers.

Philo of Alexandria | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). https://iep.utm.edu/philo/

Philo of Alexandria (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (2022, August 16). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philo/