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.

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/

Paul the Apostle vs. the Megiddo Mosaic: Rethinking the Divinity of Jesus

Some time ago I wrote about the Megiddo Mosaic, which was somewhat recently unearthed in Israel and has sparked a crucial debate on how we understand early Christian theological theory. Dating to 230 AD, nearly a century before the Council of Nicea, this artifact describes “Jesus Christ” as “God.” While this discovery provides evidence of early grassroots veneration of Jesus as divine, it raises profound philosophical questions: How could Jesus be regarded as “God” when foundational Christian texts, particularly those of Paul, seem to deny this notion?

Jesus as Mediator, Not God

Paul’s writings in the New Testament often isolate Jesus from "God." For instance, in 1 Timothy 2:5, he states:
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

This verse explicitly describes Paul’s Jesus as a human (and not divine) mediator—a bridge between humanity and God—rather than God himself. Paul’s language emphasizes Jesus’ humanity, situating him as subordinate to the divine, a view further echoed in Colossians 2:2:
“…to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ.”

Here Paul, keeping to Hellenistic Judaism (the source of his mythology), where there exists only 2 (two) main Jewish deities (God the Father and God the Logos), distinguishes between God (the Logos), God the Father, and Christ, treating them as distinct entities. These verses challenge any narrative that conflates Jesus with God, suggesting that Paul’s understanding of Jesus did not align with later Christian declarations of his divinity.

The Philosophical Dilemma of Divine Mediation

The idea of Jesus as both God and mediator presents a philosophical paradox. If Jesus is fully divine, how can he mediate between God and humanity? A mediator by definition stands apart from the parties they mediate between, necessitating a degree of separation. This duality complicates theological coherence:

1. If Jesus is God, then his role as a mediator collapses, for how can God mediate with himself?

2. If Jesus is distinct from God, then his divinity requires further justification, particularly in light of texts that portray him as subordinate to the Father.

The Pauline view seems to lean toward the latter, presenting Jesus as a human man chosen by “God” for a specific mission, not as an equal part of the divine essence.

The Megiddo Mosaic: Grassroots Theology or Pagan Influence?

The Megiddo Mosaic forces us to reconsider the origins of “Jesus' divinity.” Its proclamation of Jesus as “God” could reflect the then environment of early Christian communities, where pagan, Jewish, and Roman influences converged. Unlike Paul, who addressed theological questions within a Hellenistic Jewish framework, the creators of the mosaic might have been more influenced by the Roman tendency to deify exceptional figures, blending “Jesus” into the mold of a usable pagan deity.

This raises the question: Was the belief in Jesus’ divinity an organic evolution within Christianity, or was it a theological innovation shaped by cultural expediency?

Revisiting Early Christian Diversity

The mosaic also highlights the diversity of early Christian thought. Paul’s writings show that the early church was not monolithic. Different communities held varying beliefs about Jesus’ nature. For some, Jesus was a divinely inspired human. For others, as the Megiddo Mosaic indicates, he had already become a divine figure.

This theological diversity underscores the tension between grassroots belief and institutional dogma. The Council of Nicea sought to unify these divergent perspectives under a single creed, but the mosaic reveals that belief in Jesus as divine predated these efforts. Yet, it also forces us to ask whether this belief was consistent with the intentions of the earliest Christian leaders like Paul.

Reconciling the Contradictions

The divide between Paul’s depiction of Jesus and later declarations of his divinity invites us to reconsider the theological evolution of Christianity. Was Jesus ever meant to be seen as God, or was this a later reinterpretation of his role?

Philosophically, the idea of Jesus as God may have been a response to existential questions posed by early believers. If Jesus was merely a man, could he truly embody the transformative power attributed to him? By elevating him to divine status, early Christians might have sought to resolve this tension, creating a figure who could bridge the finite and the infinite.

The Mystery of Jesus: Man, Mediator, or Myth?

Ultimately, the Megiddo Mosaic challenges the Christian theory to confront the nature of Jesus’ identity. If even Paul—the earliest and most influential Christian theorist—did not see his Jesus as God, then how should we interpret the theological innovations that emerged after his time?

What Did Paul Really Teach? or watch below