The fact that Greek philosophy and Christian theology have at least intermingled is beyond dispute. In my opinion, the reality is much more severe than "intermingling." Christianity has been co-opted and corrupted, and the first explicit, irrefutable indications of the process at work are very early - about 150AD (Justin Martyr). However, I believe the process was already an issue during the lifetime of the apostles. There were "Christians" denying the resurrection of the dead (I Cor 15:12). There were "Christians" who were denying that Jesus had "come in the flesh", i.e. that he was human (2 John 7). It is my opinion that these are indicators of the corrupting influence of the Greek philosophical paradigm at work. The co-opting of Christian theology by Greek philosophy is a long and complicated history. To really understand it requires much study. One has to be familiar with the Greek philosophers, especially Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and Xenocrates, as well as some important figures in what's called Middle-Platonism - Numenius, and most notably Philo of Alexandria.

 

Additionally, one must be familiar with the writings and teachings of the Church Fathers, as well as the issues and writings concerning the Council of Nicea, the Council of Chalcedon, and so on.

 

Below is a VERY simplistic history as it relates to the Trinitarian concept of the logos of John 1. If you are not familiar with the men that are mentioned, you can google their names. Their biographies and translations of their writings are easily obtained. This abbreviated history is copy-and-pasted from my correspondence and includes some plagiarized text from the link given in the introduction (is it plagiarism if I credit the source?):

 

(Quote) In Greek philosophies such as Stoicism and Platonism, "logos" was considered divine. To a Platonist, logos means "the divine principle of life." It's a technical term that is basically a definition of God. I think you agree with this because you say that you believe that John used "logos" in the Greek philosophical sense. In pre-Christian Gnosticism "Logos" was the actual name of one of the intermediary gods. Repeat: it was the proper name of a divine being.

 

In studying the cross-fertilization of Platonism with Christianity one must recognize Philo of Alexandria. He was a Jewish theologian and philosopher (20BC - 50AD) of great significance whose writings have been preserved largely due to their influence on early Christian thought, especially the theologies of Clement and Origen, both Alexandrians. Philo was a significant figure in the development of Middle Platonism, a philosophy that included elements of Stoicism in a matrix largely derived from Plato. His principle contribution was his allegorical interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures within this philosophical context, which was one of the first, if not THE first, attempts to reconcile Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures. He was convinced that Judaism and Greek culture could be successfully welded into a coherent view of the world, a view that was endorsed by the hidden, Gnostic meanings of the Hebrew Scriptures. Though not a Christian, he is sometimes referred to as the father of Logos Christology, which came out of Alexandria Egypt, in the second and third centuries. Philo laid the foundations for it when he substituted the logos, or "divine word," for the Demiurge of Plato's Timaeus. Philo has the Logos as the actual creator (God) AND as the intermediary between God and man. This concept is very Gnostic. It is also exactly how the second person of the Trinity (the logos) is thought of in the later writings of Origen, Tertullian and the other Logos Christology theologians who shaped the theology of what later came to be known as orthodoxy. The logos in Trinitarian Christianity is thought to be God himself, but is also the mediator between God and man. Philo's writings became a source of inspiration and study in early Christian Egypt. He is HUGELY influential.

Notice Philo's life span. He is the same era as Jesus and the apostles. He was probably about the same age as John, maybe a little older. Philo is the guy that, as far as we know, first equated "logos" from the Hebrew Scriptures with Plato's Demiurge. The concept of Plato's Demiurge and the Hebrew's "logos" being the same thing could not have happened more than a few years before John wrote his Gospel. I find it to be highly unlikely that John was familiar enough with the idea to consciously use the same vocabulary, even if he'd actually heard of it at that time. I do believe that at the time John wrote his Epistles, he was at least nominally aware of what I would call proto-Gnostic misuse of his Gospel. Tradition has it that John wrote his Gospel as late as 95AD. There are rather compelling arguments that John's gospel was written BEFORE 70AD. I subscribe to an earlier date; pre-70AD.

 

The first Church Father that goes explicitly FROM Jesus TO the Logos, as opposed to FROM the logos TO Jesus, as John does, is Justin Martyr. Justin was a Platonist philosopher before he was a Christian, and he retained significant aspects of his Platonism after his conversion. He praises Plato and says that Plato is perfected in Christianity. In my opinion, Justin eisegeted his Platonic presuppositions concerning the Logos of Greek Stoic and Gnostic Philosophy into John's Gospel. Pantaenus (late second century AD) is the founder of the famous catechetical school at Alexandria. He attempted to link Christian principles with Greek philosophy, a task which continued to develop in his most famous pupil-Clement of Alexandria. Pantaenus believed that religious knowledge, or gnosis, prepares one for the stage of ecstasy in which perfect identity with God can be achieved. He held that only true gnosis, however, was to be found in the Christian faith. Pantaenus was an outright Christian Gnostic. He linked Christianity with Greek philosophy. Clement succeeded Pantaenus as the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria. This catechetical school was the mixing bowl of Christianity and Greek philosophy. Pantaenus was STRONGLY influenced by Philo's writings. Pantaenus in turn taught Clement of Alexandria, who in turn taught Origen of Alexandria.

 

You can see where this is going. The Trinitarian faction at Nicea was from Alexandria. It's the Alexandrians who developed Trinitarian doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity could not have happened without the integration of Greek philosophy with Christianity. And the impetus for that was Philo. Philo is the fountainhead of Trinitarian theology. If you keep going - following the history - you will arrive at Augustine. Augustine was Bishop of Hippo - North Africa - and the theology and teachings of the Alexandrian School were very strong indeed, very strong to this very day. If you've read Augustine's Confessions you will know that Augustine could not accept Christianity because of the seeming bloodthirstiness of the God of the Jews. It was not until Ambrose of Milan - who rejoiced that Augustine was familiar with Plato - presented Augustine with an allegorical interpretation of troublesome Old Testament passages that Augustine was able to convert to Christianity. Ambrose's "allegorical interpretation" came ultimately from Philo. No doubt you know of Augustine's significance to Luther and Calvin. It is said that Reform theology is merely a revival of Augustinianism. I consider that to be a true statement. Reform theology is mightily influenced by Greek philosophy. It's easy to see why once you get into the history: Luther/Calvin > Augustine > Origen > Clement of Alexandria> Pantaenus > Philo.

 

The language of Logos Christology IS the language of Greek philosophy. But such is NOT the apostle John's use of 'logos.' Even in John's lifetime, the Stoics and Gnostics were misusing his language - I believe that's why he wrote his epistles, in part to deal with the misuse of his Gospel. In speaking of false prophets and teachers he insists: 'By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God...'

 

"Come in the flesh" is an idiom that means, "A human being." This is diametrically opposed to Jesus Christ as the Logos in the Gnostic sense, which is the Greek philosophical sense. He also says, "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God."

 

"The Son of God" is a Hebraism that means, "The Messiah." It does NOT mean, "God the Son."

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."

"The Christ" means, "the anointed one" and is a synonym for "the Messiah."

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist...If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greetings; for he who greets him shares his wicked work." (2 John 7ff).

Again, "the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh" means "Jesus Christ is a human being" as opposed to, "Jesus Christ was a divine being incarnated - the Logos."

John is not concerned with showing the deity of Christ. It's the exact opposite. He is countering those Gnostic teachings that were already misusing his Gospel to say that Christ was not really human, that he only appeared to be human, i.e. he was really a deity - the incarnation of the Logos. You must also remember that John's reason for writing his Gospel is NOT to show the deity of Christ but was "...written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."

"The Christ" and "the Son of God" are two different ways to say the same thing - MESSIAH. There is NO implication of DEITY in these two titles. John is not writing to convince us that Jesus was God, he is writing to convince us that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah.

There are those who believe that Greek philosophy intermingling with Christianity is a good thing, indeed Providential. My Greek friend says,

 

"...our argument deals with Greek texts written for Greek speakers and thinkers. I have previously pointed out to you that John wrote in Greek, not Hebrew. And his writing and thinking is closer to Greek thought than to Hebraic...Now, the word "logos" in relation to God, Creation, and especially PRE-creation is unique to John. I will be surprised if you disagreed, and would ask you to show me where Scripture uses the same term for God or the time before He made the world...As I mentioned, since the word is not used elsewhere, and since John seems to be rewriting Genesis under a new light not previously taught or even known to the Hebraic mind, we must conclude that John's usage of "logos" is unique, specialized, and theological if not philosophical. To seek therefore some common sense from everyday Hebraic/Aramaic language is in vain and can yield no answer. The term can only be examined as a technical term, since we can draw from no human experience and everyday language to understand this use of "logos."...Even your own argumentation is dependant on Greek philosophical elements of understanding. For who but the Greeks could argue about the logic of God as an entity with a space and time of existence? As you say the Jews had no words for such concepts." 

 

The above understanding is why I spent the first section arguing from the New Testament only. The second section expanded to the Old Testament and extra-Biblical Hebraic (not Greek) writings. My strategy was motivated by the basic position stated above that John's use of "logos" is unique to John among Biblical writers. Indeed, one would have to argue that the first 18 verses of John's gospel is a unique use of "logos" as compared to the rest of John itself. You'd think that John would use the word consistently within the same letter, wouldn't you? But he doesn't - if the Trinitarian understanding of John 1 is correct, that is.

 

My position is that John's use of "logos" in chapter one is NOT unique, the Jews DID have words for such concepts, but their language for such concepts was not technical, it was everyday language used in symbolic, metaphorical, and figurative senses.

 

Example from Proverbs 8:

 

The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep...etc...I was beside him, like a master workman and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men...Happy is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. FOR HE WHO FINDS ME FINDS LIFE and obtains favor from the LORD...

 

Here is a Hebrew personification of an attribute of God - Wisdom. Here is a Hebrew text that speaks of the wisdom of God as an entity with a space and time of existence. Proverbs 8 is an illustration of the same kind of thinking that produced John 1. You could interchange "logos" with "wisdom" in either of these passages and not change the meaning of either one an iota. The Jews in fact had a highly developed language for such concepts. The language the Jews had for this was allegory, personification, and the like. It was speaking of what we would call abstractions but using concrete language. The text from Proverbs given above speaks of wisdom AS IF it LITERALLY exists as a person. The language is concrete terminology. JUST LIKE the language we find in John 1. The Greeks had specialized terminology for these concepts, the Jews did not. The Jews used non-technical everyday language - but in a non-literal sense. When a Greek-type thinker gets hold of one of these texts he tends to read it literally, as Trinitarians do John 1. 

 

The argument that John's use of "logos" in the prologue is unique in relation to everywhere else in the Bible, even in relation to the rest of John (which doesn't make sense to begin with), troubles me for several reasons.

 

1) "By two or three witnesses shall a thing be established." This principle is affirmed by both Jesus and Paul. John 8:17, 18: "In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." If Trinitarians argue that the meaning of "logos" in John 1 is unique, they ignore something that Jesus himself affirmed. They have to go outside of scripture (Greek philosophy) to get their witnesses. Contrast that to the plethora of scriptural witnesses for the understanding of John 1 that I espouse.

 

2) I do not doubt that Paul was familiar with Greek philosophy. By the time of Jesus Plato had been dead 350 years. His philosophy, as well as Aristotle's, had been long formalized. Based on the fact that Paul was highly educated, it would be reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about when he made the following anti-philosophy statements:

 

a) Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: (Col 2:8)

 

b) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nought. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe. Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (I Cor 1:17ff)

 

Notice that Paul characterizes Greeks as seekers of wisdom. But Paul does not affirm Greek wisdom. He says the world (the Greeks) through its wisdom KNEW NOT GOD. 

 

c) Less explicit is: "Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith." (I Tim 6:20) 
 

While the idea that this refers specifically to Greek philosophy is only an inference (some would say a weak inference) we can definitely point out that one of the hallmarks of false knowledge - whether Greek or not - is that it contains "contradictions". AVOID contradictions - so says the apostle Paul. 

 

With this respect for the law of contradiction in mind consider:

 

              1) But prove all things: hold fast that which is good. (I Thess 5:21)
              2) Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding (Prov. 4:7)

 

d) Paul's quotation of Aratus - "In him we live and move and have our being" - (it is also found in the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter or the Supreme Being) as well as the subsequent quote, "For we are indeed his offspring..." is used to support the idea that Paul approves the claim that Greek philosophy has something to offer Christian theology. I disagree. The only thing Paul's quotation proves is that Paul accepted THIS quote as true. Furthermore, this quote is not from Greek philosophy per se, it is from Greek poetry. Paul did not say, "As even some of your philosophers have said...." but rather, "As even some of your poets have said..." There IS a distinction between formalized Greek philosophy and Greek poetry, though some might deny it. At any rate, Paul was using this quote to support his previous statement that God was NEAR to us since He has given us life and breath and everything. The "nearness" of God is not the remote, impassible God of the Greeks - and to project from how Paul is using the quote from Aratus to Greek philosophy in general, and therefore to John's "logos" specifically, is faulty. It's easy to see that he was using it to establish a common ground from which he could present the immediate creator-God of the Jews and THAT God's approval of Jesus - demonstrated by Jesus' resurrection - which was foolishness to the Greek philosophical mindset. When Paul engaged the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens, he didn't argue philosophy with them, he preached the resurrection of Jesus. He said to them,

 

"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead."

 

What do you suppose Paul is alluding to when he says, "times of ignorance"? I would say, based on Col 2:8, philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, and rudiments of the world. According to I Cor 1:17ff it would allude to the wise, the scribe, and the disputer of this world. According to I Timothy 6:20 it would be godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. All this is exactly what and who Paul was addressing in Athens. The idea that God would incarnate himself as a human being was something that the Greeks could believe. They had many stories of gods coming to earth as men. They would have been receptive to the idea. But Paul gives no hint, no suggestion, no implication, nothing, that this is what happened. He explicitly states the opposite; Jesus is the MAN whom God has appointed.

 

3) Jesus upheld the Jewish mindset of God when he affirmed the foremost commandment that God is one, and to be loved with heart, soul, mind, and strength and so on. He quoted extensively from the Law and the Prophets, thereby affirming that JEWISH body of work as authentic.

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Mathew 5:17)

 

Jesus was "Rabbi". So was Paul. To divorce the New Testament from the paradigm of the Old Testament is chauvinistic and self-defeating. It completely disregards the culture, the mindset, the background, and the paradigm from which Jesus and the apostles - all Jews - were coming from. Jesus affirmed his Jewish heritage over and over and over. Paul explains in Romans that the Church is grafted onto the root of Abraham. Then we have practically the whole book of Hebrews. The paradigm of Jesus and the Apostles was OBVIOUSLY HEBREW-CENTRIC.

 

In my opinion, there is no indication anywhere in scripture that Paul, or Jesus, or any of the apostles, had ANY regard for Greek philosophy. To the contrary: in Athens, Paul preached a God that he said was "unknown" to the Greeks.

 

It is argued that the Greeks got some things right - of course they did. EVERYONE got some things right. But I notice that the only begotten Son of God was born as a Jew, not a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Greek. Is that significant? I say it is, especially in light of Jesus' affirmation of his Jewish heritage and paradigm, and his affirmative citation of the Shema: "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one God..."

 

In light of all this, I find it incredulous to think that John goes outside the Jewish paradigm. I find it ill advised and dangerous to go beyond - indeed, to oppose - the Hebraic matrix; the world-view, the presuppositions, and the categories of thought, that it appears that God has provided, and that Jesus and the apostles affirm. This is what Trinitarians propose to do when they say that John's use of "logos" is unique and specialized and can only be understood as a technical term, and no human experience and everyday language can suffice in understanding it.

 

Why read the Logos of Greek philosophy into John? Simply because of the word, "logos"? Does it not make more sense to read John relative to HIS background and paradigm rather than importing another one with no explicit reason from John himself to do so?

 

Conclusion to Section IV

 

It is my position that Greek philosophy is nowhere to be found in Jesus, or the apostles, or the disciples of the apostles. Paul's statement that the world through wisdom knew not God still stands. Imposing a Greek paradigm onto Hebrew scripture results in - well, the results that we see in history. Nobody knows what the Bible actually says. There are all kinds of whacked-out interpretations. It appears to be a mass of contradictions. Here are just a few of the contradictions generated by the doctrine of the Trinity:

 

Jesus was fully God / Jesus was fully human - at the same time!
No one has seen God / if you've seen me you've seen the Father.
God is immortal - Jesus is God / Jesus died.
God is omniscient - Jesus is God / Jesus said, "No one knows but the Father."
God cannot be tempted - Jesus is God / Jesus was tempted.
Jesus is God / Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
God is not a man or a son of man / Jesus is God and Jesus is a man.
Jesus is God / Jesus said, "...that they would know you [Yahweh] the ONLY true God..."
There is ONE God / Jesus is God / Jesus had a God

 

Apparent contradictions are also generated by other doctrines. For example:

Saved by faith apart from works / faith without works is dead.
Man has free will / God predestines everything.
(Psalms 6:5-6)"...among the dead no one remembers you [God]" / absent from the body, present with the Lord.

 

And on and on. These "contradictions" are the result of imposing paradigms and categories of thought onto text that was written from completely DIFFERENT paradigms and categories of thought. What the Bible means is what the original authors intended it to mean. What was THEIR paradigm and categories of thought? It is my position that if the true meaning of what the Bible says is ever to be restored, all Greek philosophy must be jettisoned. It's easier said than done. I committed myself to that very thing in the late 1970's, and I'm still working on it. At the time, I did have an idea of just how pervasive the Greek philosophical influence actually is. I was a Philosophy major in college, I specialized in Aristotle's Metaphysics. What I didn't realize was how independent of Greek philosophy the Bible itself really is. But through the years, I have been nothing but confirmed in my resolution, over and over. In my own thinking as I disentangle Greek philosophy from Biblical texts I am arriving at some understandings which, I have sincere hope, are closer to the intent of the original authors. THAT is the meaning I am interested in and I trust that's your interest as well.

 

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.  (John 17:3)

 

Back to Arguments Index