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.

Was Paul the Apostle Influenced by Platonism? Reviewing Acts 17

The relationship between Paul the Apostle and Platonism has long been a subject of theological and philosophical intrigue. While Paul is traditionally seen as a Jewish thinker rooted in Hebraic traditions, his engagement with Greco-Roman intellectual currents, particularly in Acts 17, suggests a more complex philosophical landscape. Could it be that Paul was, in some way, influenced by Platonic thought? If so, what does this mean for our understanding of his theology and the early Christian movement?

Paul at the Areopagus

Paul’s speech at the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-31) is one of the most explicitly philosophical moments in the New Testament. Here, he engages with Stoics and Epicureans, quoting Greek poets and invoking the concept of an "unknown god." There is an academic debate of whether Paul’s speech aligns with Middle Platonic thought, particularly its interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus 28c, where the philosopher posits that the "maker and father" of the world is difficult to find and even harder to speak about.

Paul’s language in Acts 17 closely parallels Platonic discourse. The way he describes “God” as "maker" and "father" echoes later Middle Platonic exegesis of Timaeus 28c, which emphasized the dual role of the “Divine” as both creator and progenitor. Paul’s rhetoric places him within a Greco-Roman tradition of theological dialogue, where Platonic themes were commonly employed to discuss supposedly divine transcendence and human access to the supposedly divine.

Further evidence of Platonic influence in Paul’s address can be found in his reference to “God” as the one in whom "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). This concept bears resemblance to the Middle Platonic interpretation of “divine” or supernatural immanence, where all existence derives from and participates in a transcendent source. Origen of Alexandria later expounded upon this idea, emphasizing the Platonic distinction between the material world and the higher, intelligible reality.

Additionally, Paul’s engagement with Greek philosophy at the Areopagus reflects a broader strategy used by early Christian apologists, a strategy that he no doubt had a hand in encouraging. Second-century Christian thinkers, including Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, appropriated Platonic terminology to articulate Christian doctrine. Paul’s speech, therefore, may represent an early example of this approach, demonstrating a willingness to frame Christian theology in categories familiar to his Hellenistic audience.

Paul’s engagement with the intellectual currents of his time does not suggest he was a Platonist in a strict sense. Yet his discourse at the Areopagus reveals an awareness of and engagement with Greek metaphysical thought. Similar to Origen’s later exegetical methods, Paul strategically employed philosophical language to communicate “theological truths,” making Christian theory intellectually accessible to a broader audience.

Platonism, Early Christian Thought, and Origen

The broader influence of Platonism on early Christian apologetics is well-documented. Early Christian thinkers like Justin Martyr were deeply influenced by Middle Platonic ideas. Philo of Alexandria had already synthesized Jewish theology with Platonic metaphysics, portraying “God” as the transcendent One and employing the concept of the Logos as an intermediary between the “divine” and the material world.

A particularly important figure in this discussion is Origen of Alexandria, who engaged deeply with Platonic and Neoplatonic ideas while maintaining a critical distance. Origen saw philosophy as a preparatory tool for understanding Scripture. He drew upon Plato’s concept of likeness to God (from Theaetetus 176b) to explain humanity’s journey toward divine transformation. However, Origen did not adopt Platonism wholesale; instead, he selectively integrated ideas that aligned with Christian theology, rejecting those that were incompatible.

Origen’s approach to biblical exegesis was influenced by Platonic structures of interpretation. He, like Paul, utilized allegorical methods similar to those found in Middle Platonism, seeing multiple layers of meaning in Scripture. This mirrors Plato’s theory of reality, where the visible world is a shadow of the higher, intelligible realm. Origen applied this framework to biblical texts, interpreting them in ways that transcended their literal meanings to uncover deeper spiritual truths.

Furthermore, Origen’s doctrine of the Logos has clear Platonic resonances. Drawing from both Timaeus and the Gospel of John, he identified the Logos as the divine mediator between God and creation, akin to the role of the Demiurge in Platonic cosmology. His views influenced later Christian theology, particularly in articulating the relationship between “God the Father” and “Christ the Logos.” While Origen’s theological system was ultimately distinct from Neoplatonism, elements of its hierarchical structure and emphasis on supernatural transcendence reflect an engagement with Platonic thought.

Origen’s synthesis of Christian doctrine with Platonic principles paved the way for later theological developments. His influence extended to figures like Augustine of Hippo who, while critical of some Platonic concepts, nevertheless integrated aspects of Neoplatonic metaphysics into his Christian theology. This enduring dialogue between Platonism and Christianity highlights the philosophical complexity of early Christian thought and Paul’s own exposure to such ideas.

Paul’s Relationship to Platonism: Imitation or Convergence?

Does this mean Paul was a Platonist? Not necessarily. Paul’s theological framework remains fundamentally Jewish, centered on a Hellenistic revelation of “God” through Paul’s Christ rather than philosophical speculation. However, his engagement with Greek philosophy suggests a degree of intellectual convergence. Like Philo and Origen, Paul may have drawn on Platonic themes as a means of articulating theological truths to a Hellenistic audience.

Moreover, Paul’s opposition to idolatry and his emphasis on a personal, knowable Deity distinguish his message from Platonic abstraction. Whereas Platonism often emphasized the ineffability of “the One,” Paul presents a Deity who, though transcendent, has made himself known through “Jesus Christ.”

A Philosophical Hybrid?

Ultimately, Paul’s engagement with Platonism reflects a broader pattern in early Christian theory, where Jewish monotheism intersected with Greco-Roman philosophy. While the character Paul was not a Platonist in the strict sense, his speech in Acts 17 suggests he was conversant with Platonic themes and used them strategically in dialogue with Greek or Hellenistic Jewish thinkers.

Rather than being a mere borrower of Greek philosophy, Paul can be seen as a sophisticated thinker who navigated multiple intellectual traditions to advance his theological vision. His interaction with Platonism is not one of wholesale adoption but of selective engagement—a philosophical hybridization that helped shape the trajectory of early Christian theory. The influence of thinkers like Origen further solidifies the notion that Christian theology was enriched not by the philosophy within the Hebrew scriptures, but by its dialogue with Greek philosophy.

 

 References

Artemi, E. (2023). The Platonism and Neo-Platonism influence on Origen’s exegesis of the Bible. Mirabilia: Electronic Journal of Antiquity, Middle & Modern Ages, (36), 9.

Gaston, T. E. (2009). The influence of Platonism on the early Apologists. The Heythrop Journal, 50(4), 573-580.

Hubbard, J. M. (2022). Paul the Middle Platonist? Exegetical Traditions on Timaeus 28c and the Characterization of Paul in Acts 17: 16–31. Harvard theological review, 115(4), 477-495.

Paul Vs. Christianity

“Paul of Tarsus” stands as one of the pivotal architects of early Christian thought, yet his portrayal of Jesus starkly contrasts with the later developments in Christian theology. Paul’s Jesus, as depicted in texts like 1 Timothy 2:5 (“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”), emerges as a unique fusion of humanity with the Greek Logos, distinct from the more complex Trinitarian framework that later defined Christianity.

This post looks into how Paul’s vision diverges from the Christianity that followed, reflecting a profound philosophical and theological shift.

Paul’s Christology: The Logos-Infused Mediator

In Pauline theology, his Jesus is first and foremost a man infused with the Greek concept of the Logos. The Logos, understood as the divine rational principle underlying the cosmos, inhabits his Jesus through the Spirit, rendering him an adopted vessel of “divine” purpose. This perspective resonates with Colossians 2:2, where Paul speaks of “…the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ”—highlighting a distinction between God the Father and his Logos-imprinted Christ.

Paul’s Jesus bridges the supposedly divine and the mortal, not by innate divinity but by the transformative power of “the Spirit.” The emphasis lies on Jesus’ mediating role, as seen in 1 Timothy 2:5. This underscores a functional Christology—Jesus as the intermediary who reconciles humanity with God through his Spirit-infused humanity. This perspective preserves the monotheistic framework of Judaism while introducing a Hellenistic philosophical nuance.

Post-Pauline Christianity: The Emergence of a Divine Christ

As Christian theory evolved, so did its understanding of the Jesus charcter. By the time of the Nicene Creed (325 CE), the notion of Jesus as co-eternal and consubstantial with God the Father had crystallized. This Trinitarian doctrine presented Jesus not merely as a mediator, but as an inherent part of the Godhead (God the Logos and God the Father). Such a transformation marked a significant departure from Paul’s portrayal.

This evolution can be traced back to Christianity’s engagement with Greco-Roman philosophical traditions and its need to assert theological supremacy amidst competing religious systems. Early Christianity inevitably absorbed elements from its religious milieu, reinterpreting the Logos concept not as an infusion but as an eternal aspect of Jesus’ divine nature, thereby creating an entirely new Jesus from the one invented by Paul.

Key Differences Between Paul's Theology and Later Christianity

1.     Humanity vs. Divinity:

o   Paul: Jesus is a human mediator, adopted and empowered by the Logos.

o   Later Christianity: Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with God.

2.     The Role of the Logos:

o   Paul: The Logos transforms Jesus (when an adult man) into the mediator.

o   Later Christianity: The Logos is fully embodied in Jesus (since birth) as a pre-existing divine entity.

3.     Focus on Functionality:

o   Paul: Emphasizes Jesus’ role as a bridge between God and humanity.

o   Later Christianity: Focuses on Jesus’ ontological nature as part of the Trinity.

Philosophical Implications of the Divide

Paul’s theology roots itself in the “mystery of God”—a dynamic interaction between the Greek Logos and the human. By contrast, later Christian orthodoxy emphasizes ontological sameness within the Trinity, reducing the functional distinction Paul highlights. This shift from a relational to a metaphysical understanding of Jesus reflects broader philosophical trends in late antiquity, where abstract metaphysics often overshadowed the experiential and existential.

Paul’s Jesus operates within a framework of “divine” adoption, reminiscent of the Stoic idea of living in harmony with the Logos. The later Christian Jesus, however, embodies the Platonic ideal—an unchanging and eternal “divine essence.” These differing Christologies reflect the theological and cultural priorities of their respective eras: Paul’s immediate and pragmatic vision versus the later church’s quest for universal doctrinal coherence and supremacy.

The Mystery

Paul’s emphasis on the “mystery” (“mysterion”) of Christ points to an experiential faith, one that invites believers into the personal unfolding of revelation and wisdom. The later institutionalization of Christianity moved away from this participatory “mystery” towards fixed dogmas. Paul’s vision is ultimately a reminder of a faith that sought to transcend rigid religious systems, inviting continuous dialogue with what was believed to be divine.

Case, S. J. (1914). Christianity and the mystery religions. The Biblical World, 43(1), 3-16.