logos theology

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 Journal50(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 review115(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.

 

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 Travaux26, 537-546.

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