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.

Did Adam’s Sin Bring Death? Rethinking Paul’s Theology vs. the Hebrew Bible

The Bible presents a deep and complex dialogue about sin, consequences, and spiritual death. Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death..." while Genesis 2:17 declares, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." A glaring philosophical issue emerges when we compare these verses: Adam and Eve did not physically die upon eating the fruit, challenging the straightforward notion that “sin” results in immediate physical death or “eternal death.” Instead, their "death" appears to be a death of understanding, aligning with Isaiah 44:18, "...he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand." The “opening of their eyes” was in fact the “closing of their eyes.”

The Nature of Death in Eden

If Adam and Eve’s death was not a physical cessation of life, then what kind of death did they suffer? The text suggests an intellectual and spiritual demise—a blindness of mind and heart. Their eyes were opened (Genesis 3:7), but rather than gaining enlightenment, they perceived their own nakedness (figurative) and felt shame (philosophical). This aligns with Isaiah 44:18, which describes a condition where people are rendered incapable of understanding due to their spiritual impairment.

This interpretation raises a significant challenge to Paul’s assertion in Romans 6:23. If the wages of sin were strictly death, and especially the death of some aspect of self in some weird extraterrestrial “afterlife,” as Paul asserts, then the immediate consequence in Eden should have been death to all aspects of the pair in Eden, which “death” the text does not mention because that is not the mindset behind it. Yet, Adam lived for 930 years (Genesis 5:5). The logical dissonance between Paul’s assertion and the Bible’s narrative suggests that Paul was propagating a prospective theological theory that diverges from the Bible’s original philosophy and account.

Paul’s Theological Deviation from the Hebrew Bible

Ezekiel 18:20 states, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." This passage directly refutes the concept of inherited sin and collective guilt. If Adam and Eve's transgression resulted in spiritual blindness rather than immediate death, then Paul's doctrine of sin leading to universal death appears to be a theological extrapolation rather than a point stating or continuing the Bible’s philosophy.

Paul’s framing of sin and death seems to pivot towards a transactional model of atonement rather than the Hebrew Bible’s focus on personal accountability. Ezekiel makes it clear that one person’s sin does not transfer to another, yet Paul argues for a universal condemnation through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12). This universal condemnation is nowhere found within the text from Genesis to Malachi. This raises the question: Was Paul redefining biblical justice to fit his theological framework?

The Implications of Paul’s Perspective

Paul’s teaching in Romans shapes much of Christian theory, particularly regarding its perspective on salvation and the necessity of its Christ’s sacrifice. However, if the Bible itself does not establish death as an automatic consequence of sin (whether immediately occurring in the here and now or occurring later beyond the here and now) in the way Paul presents it, then his argument may be built on a theological innovation rather than biblical continuity.

If sin led to intellectual death (and it only did) in Eden rather than physical death, Paul’s statement in Romans 6:23 must be understood either metaphorically or theoretically rather than actually or literally. This perspective fundamentally alters the way the Bible philosophically defines atonement and devotional justice. If the fate of Adam and Eve was a loss of spiritual clarity rather than biological termination (and it was), then Paul’s doctrine of inherited sin and universal condemnation, because it is contrary to the Bible’s narrative and philosophical scope, requires re-examination.

A Divergence

The juxtaposition of Genesis 2:17, Isaiah 44:18, and Ezekiel 18 with Paul’s Romans 6:23 highlights a significant philosophical divergence. While Genesis and Ezekiel emphasize personal responsibility and the consequences of error as a loss of understanding, Paul constructs a universalized doctrine of sin and death that deviates from the Hebrew Bible’s narrative. This raises serious questions: Was Paul reshaping theology to fit a new religious framework? And if so, what are the implications for contemporary Christian thought?

A logical inquiry into Paul’s belief shows that his theology presents a deviation from the biblical text rather than a direct continuation of its teachings. The philosophical issue, then, is whether modern Christian theology should align with Paul’s doctrine, or return to the original biblical perspective on sin and its consequences.

How Platonism Led Christianity Away from the Hebrew Scriptures

Christian theology underwent profound changes as it encountered Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism. While this philosophical framework offered early theologians tools to articulate their faith within the intellectual climate of the Greco-Roman world, it also caused Christianity to diverge significantly from the character and philosophy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Key biblical passages such as Psalm 51:10 (“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me”), Proverbs 4:7 (“Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding”), and Proverbs 1:23 (“I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you”) highlight a deeply personal and inward communion with the Bible, rooted in practical, devotional growth.

This blog examines how Christian theory’s reliance on Platonic thought reshaped its doctrines about “God,” the soul, and morality, moving away from the personal, practical philosophy of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Platonism and the Nature of God

The Hebrew Scriptures depict its God as being consciously relational and involved in the daily lives of its people. Passages like Psalm 51:10 reveal a God who works directly within the human heart and mind, creating renewal and fostering a deeply personal transformation. This reflects a God who is not distant but intimately connected to the inner lives of individuals, guiding them through their struggles and joys.

However, Platonism introduced a more abstract concept of God. Plato’s idea of the Forms—eternal, unchangeable ideals—reshaped Christian theology, presenting God as a distant, immaterial entity. Early Christian thinkers like Augustine embraced this framework, equating God with the ultimate Form of the Good, emphasizing God’s transcendence over God’s immanence.

This philosophical shift marked a departure from the Hebrew Scriptures’ portrayal of a God who walks with his people, interacts personally, and responds to their cries for renewal. Instead of the practical and relational connection seen in Psalm 51:10, “God” became an abstract object of contemplation. This shift minimized the personal, inward aspect of faith, replacing it with an intellectual pursuit of understanding God’s nature.

Platonism and the Soul

The Hebrew Scriptures offer a holistic view of being human. The soul, or nephesh, is not a separate, immaterial entity but a unified representation of the person, encompassing and influencing their mind, body, and personality. Passages like Proverbs 1:23 emphasize this integrated approach, where “God’s Spirit” is poured out onto the mind to bring wisdom, understanding, and regeneration to the individual’s entire being. The focus is on a personal communion with the Bible’s words through the character of “God’s Mind” within those words, leading to practical, inward transformation.

Platonism, however, introduced a dualistic understanding of human nature, where the soul is distinct from and superior to the body. Plato described the soul as eternal and pure, trapped within the corrupt material world. This perspective heavily influenced early Christian theology, particularly through Augustine, who viewed salvation as the liberation of the soul from the physical body.

This dualistic framework diverged from the Hebrew Scriptures’ holistic philosophy, where renewal and wisdom are experienced in both the spiritual and physical realms. The Platonized emphasis on the soul’s escape from the material world shifted the focus of Christianity, leading to an undervaluation of the physical body and earthly existence, both of which are celebrated in the Hebrew worldview.

Platonism and Morality

Morality in the Hebrew Scriptures is deeply practical, rooted in personal resurrection and the pursuit of wisdom through the Bible’s words. Proverbs 4:7 states, “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding,” emphasizing the importance of actionable wisdom that shapes daily life. Similarly, Proverbs 1:23 highlights the inward communion that the devotional conversation’s conscience is to have with the Bible’s words, where the character of those words is to be digested for practical and devotional growth.

Platonism, however, shifted morality toward the pursuit of abstract ideals. Plato’s concept of the Good—an eternal, unchanging standard of virtue—redefined Christian ethics, aligning it with intellectual contemplation rather than practical, lived wisdom. Early theologians equated the Platonic Good with God, turning morality into a rational endeavor focused on aligning with philosophical ideals rather than engaging in personal, transformative communion with the Bible’s words.

This departure minimized the relational and practical approach seen in the Hebrew Scriptures. Where the Bible calls for a personal relationship with its words to guide moral decisions, Platonism encouraged Christians to seek virtue through intellectual abstraction, often disconnecting morality from the lived realities of daily life.

How Platonism Departed from the Hebrew Scriptures’ Philosophy

The Hebrew Scriptures, beneath its allegory, emphasize a life of practical mental and philosophical devotion and inward renewal, as seen in passages like Psalm 51:10 and Proverbs 4:7. These verses reveal an experience of words working within the hearts of individuals, providing wisdom and guidance for real-life joys and challenges. The philosophy of the Hebrew Scriptures is deeply relational, focused on personal growth and the maturity of the whole person.

Platonism, however, introduced a framework that prioritized the immaterial over the material, the intellectual over the practical, and the abstract over the relational. By adopting Platonic ideals, Christian theory distanced itself from the Bible’s worldview, which values inward communion with its words for practical wisdom as the foundation for personal and communal life.

Early Christian theologians, influenced by Platonism, sought to make their faith intellectually respectable in the Greco-Roman world. However, this intellectual synthesis often came at the expense of the deeply personal and practical philosophy of the Hebrew Scriptures. The result was a religion (Christianity) that emphasized philosophical abstraction over the actionable wisdom and renewal found in the Bible’s words.

The Lasting Impact of Platonism on Christianity

The integration of Platonism into Christian theology fundamentally altered its trajectory, leading to doctrines that were often at odds with the Hebrew Scriptures. While Platonism provided a framework for engaging with the intellectual culture of the Greco-Roman world, it also caused Christianity to lose touch with its supposed biblical roots.

The Hebrew Scriptures call its student to seek wisdom, pursue inward renewal, and commune with the living God through the Bible’s words. These practical and relational principles stand in stark contrast to the abstract, intellectualized morality and theology introduced by Platonism.

Recognizing this departure is essential for understanding how Christianity evolved and for reclaiming the Bible’s emphasis on personal, devotional growth. By returning to the underlying wisdom of the Hebrew Scriptures, we can reconnect with an experience that is practical, transformative, and deeply relational.

 

References:

Boone, M. J. (2015). The Role of Platonism in Augustine's 386 Conversion to Christianity. Religion compass9(5), 151-161.

Mosheim, J. L. (1852). Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern. Edward Howell.