Posted on 07/22/2012 12:14:15 PM PDT by wmfights
Much attention in recent years has been devoted to the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian doctrine. This has been especially true in regard to the nature and attributes of God. Some have also contended that Christian eschatology has been negatively influenced by Greek Platonic assumptions and ideas. Randy Alcorn’s book, Heaven, for instance, asserts that biblical eschatology has been largely replaced by Christoplatonism which is a merger of Christianity and the ideas of Plato.1 According to Alcorn, common conceptions of heaven are often influenced more by Platonic ideas than they are the Bible. In an interview with Time, N. T. Wright blamed Platonic influence on Christianity for a distortion of the doctrine of Heaven. “Greek-speaking Christians influenced by Plato saw our cosmos as shabby and misshapen and full of lies, and the idea was not to make it right, but to escape it and leave behind our material bodies,” 2 says Wright. In this article we will summarize what Platonism is and survey the impact of Platonism on Christian eschatology. This paper will end with a summary of observations concerning how Christians should view the relationship between Platonism and eschatology.
PLATONISM AND NEO-PLATONISM
Platonism is rooted in the ideas of the great ancient Greek philosopher, Plato (427–347 B.C.). Plato was one of the first philosophers to argue that reality is primarily ideal or abstract. With his ‘theory of forms,’ he asserted that ultimate reality is not found in objects and concepts that we experience on earth. Instead, reality is found in ‘forms’ or ‘ideas’ that transcend our physical world. These forms operate as perfect universal templates for everything we experience in the world. For example, all horses on earth are imperfect replicas of the universal ‘horseness’ that exists in another dimension. One result of Platonism was the belief that matter is inferior to the spiritual. Thus, there is a dualism between matter and the immaterial.3 This perspective naturally leads to negative
1 See Randy A. Alcorn, Heaven (Sandy, OR: Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2004). Alcorn devotes an Appendix to the topic, “Christoplatonism’s False Assumptions,” 475–82. 2 David Van Biema, “Christians Wrong about Heaven, Says Bishop,” Time [Online] February 7, 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html; accessed March 23, 2009. See also N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008). 3 Diogenes Allen calls for balance on this point when he states, “Plato’s view is by no means that of Genesis, but it is not the total rejection of the world by the Gnostics and Manichaeans. We should not confuse Plato’s attitude to the physical universe, however much he stresses the need to transcend it and the body, with views which totally reject it, as superficial Christian writers so often do.” Diogenes Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 9.
perceptions concerning the nature of the physical world and even our human bodies. Plato’s account of Socrates in Phaedo is one such example. When sentenced to death, Socrates rebuked his friends for mourning over him by declaring that he longed for death so he could escape his carnal body and focus on higher spiritual values in a spiritual realm.4 For Plato (and Socrates), the human body is like a tomb for the soul. Plato’s ideas have had an enormous impact. Gary Habermas observes that Plato’s concept of forms, along with his cosmology and his views on the immortality of the soul, “probably has the greatest influence in the philosophy of religion.”5
This exaltation of the spiritual over the physical in Platonism carried over to Judaism as evidenced in the writings of the Jew, Philo (20 B.C.–A.D. 50).6 Philo, in an attempt to make the Old Testament more attractive to the Greeks influenced by the Platonic ideal, allegorized many Old Testament passages that appeared too crass and unworthy of God. For Philo, statements in the Old Testament that discussed the wrath of God or God changing his mind needed to be allegorized.
Platonism also influenced its more religious counterpart, Neo-Platonism. Neo- Platonism was a complex system for understanding reality that was founded by the Roman philosopher Plotinus (A.D. 204–270). The Egyptian-born Plotinus carried on some of the main ideas of Plato such as (1) there is an immaterial reality that exists apart from the physical world; (2) a strong distinction exists between an immaterial soul and the physical body; and (3) the immortal soul finds its ultimate fulfillment as it becomes one with an eternal, transcendent realm. According to Plotinus, the lowest level of reality is matter.7 Thus, matter is viewed very negatively in Neo-Platonism. Plotinus himself held such disgust for physical things that he even despised his own body. To be consistent with his philosophy, Plotinus did not take care of his physical health or hygiene, much to the chagrin of his students with whom he was sometimes affectionate.
PLATONISM’S INFLUENCE ON EARLY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS
Many of the early Christians were not suspicious of or threatened by Plato. According to Diogenes Allen, Plato “astounded the Apologists and the early Church Fathers.”8 For instance, when early Christians encountered Plato’s creation story in his
4 See, “Phaedo,” in Classics of Western Philosophy, ed. Steven M Cahn (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2002), 49–81. 5 Gary R. Habermas, “Plato, Platonism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 859. 6 Ibid., 859-60. 7 See Christopher Kirwan, “Plotinus,” in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995), 689–90. According to Plotinus, the basis of all reality is an immaterial and indescribable reality called the One or the Good. There are several levels of reality that emanate from the One, much like ripples in a pond emanate from a dropped stone. The second level of reality is Mind or Intellect (nous). Mind results from the One’s reflection upon itself. The level below Mind is Soul. Soul operates in time and space and is actually the creator of time and space. Soul looks in two directions—upward to Mind and downward to Nature, which created the physical world. 8 Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, 15.
Timaeus, some believed he had read Moses or received his insights from divine revelation.9 The similarity of some of Plato’s ideas with Christianity was seen as evidence why pagans should be open to Christianity.10
Platonic thinking influenced significant theologians of the early church. This was true for the Christians of the Eastern church, particularly those in the Alexandrian tradition such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen. As Jeffrey Burton Russell states, “The great Greek fathers of Alexandria, Clement and Origen, firmly grounded in Scripture, were also influenced by Platonism and Stoicism.”11
Theologians of the Alexandrian tradition carried a high view of Greek philosophy and attempted to show that Christianity was consistent with the best of Greek philosophy. Viviano points out that Clement of Alexandria (150–215) followed in the footsteps of his predecessor Philo by adopting a “preference for an allegorical meaning of history which turns out, upon closer acquaintance, to transform much biblical history into general moral truths of a philosophical cast.”12 For Clement, God used philosophy to prepare the Greeks for Christ just like He used the law of Moses to prepare the Hebrew people for Christ. Clement held Socrates and Plato in high regard. He even believed that Plato served a role that was similar to that of Moses. In line with Greek philosophy, Clement viewed the body and matter as lesser in nature than the spirit (although he did not view the body as evil).
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254) was important in bringing Platonism into Christianity. As McGrath has observed, Origen “was a highly creative theologian with a strongly Platonist bent.”13 Viviano also points out that Origen “wrought some bold changes in Christian eschatology.”14 Origen “dissolved the Christian expectation of the resurrection of the body into the immortality of the soul, since Christian perfection consists, on this Platonizing view, in a progressive dematerialization.”15 He even went further than most of the early Christian theologians by asserting that “the resurrection body was purely spiritual.”16 Origen also understood kingdom texts in the Bible “in a purely spiritual, interior, private and realized sense.”17
9 See Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, 15. Christians denied Plato’s view of the use of preexisting materials for creation. Christians asserted ‘creation out of nothing.’ 10 Ibid. 11 Jeffrey Burton Russell, A History of Heaven: The Singing Silence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), 69. 12 Benedict T. Viviano, O.P. The Kingdom of God in History (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1988), 39. 13 Alister E. McGrath, A Brief History of Heaven (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003), 33. 14 Viviano, The Kingdom of God in History, 39. 15 Ibid., 39-40. 16 McGrath, A Brief History of Heaven, 34. 17 Viviano, The Kingdom of God in History, 41.
The influence of Platonic thinking was not just on theologians of the eastern tradition. Alister McGrath observes that Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–97) “drew upon the ideas of the Jewish Platonist writer, Philo of Alexandria” in promoting “a Platonic world of ideas and values, rather than a physical or geographical entity.”18Ambrose’s pupil, Augustine of Hippo, too, was influenced by Platonic thinking. Allen refers to Augustine as “one of the great Christian Platonists.”19 According to Gary Habermas, “Christian thought also came under the influence of Platonism, as scholars of the third century such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen mixed this Greek philosophy with their theology. In particular, Augustine’s interpretation of Plato dominated Christian thought for the next thousand years after his death in the fifth century.”20 In his Confessions, Augustine openly describes the help he received from the Platonists. Augustine was also influenced by neo-platonism as well. As Viviano states, “we need only note that Augustine was strongly influenced by neo-Platonic philosophy and has even read Plotinus and Prophyry . . . . This philosophy was highly spiritual and other-worldly, centered on the one and the eternal, treating the material and the historically contingent as inferior stages in the ascent of the soul to union with the one.”21 Viviano summarizes the impact of Augustine’s Platonic thinking on the kingdom of God:
Thus Augustine was attracted to the spiritual interpretation of the kingdom we have already seen in Origen. Indeed, ultimately for Augustine, the kingdom of God consists in eternal life with God in heaven. That is the civitas dei, the city of God, as opposed to the civitas terrena.22
Augustine’s spiritual view of the kingdom contributed to his belief that the period of the church on earth is the thousand year reign of Christ. According to Viviano, “Augustine’s view would dominate and become the normal Roman Catholic view down to our own times.”23 It is difficult to deny the importance of Platonic thinking. As Habermas points out, “Plato has exercised an enormous influence on Western thought and must therefore be dealt with by those of all philosophical persuasions.”24 This influence also applies to the area of Christian eschatology.
18 McGrath, A Brief History of Heaven, 51. 19 Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, 82. 20 Habermas, “Plato, Platonism,” 860. Allen states, “The Greek Fathers and Augustine drew most extensively on the philosophy of Plato and the Platonists.” 91. 21 Viviano, The Kingdom of God in History, 52. 22 Ibid., 52-53. 23 Ibid., 54. Daley points out that near the turn of the sixth century Aeneas of Gaza wrote the “first Christian work to challenge long-accepted Platonic assumptions. . .” Brian E. Daley, S. J. The Hope of the Early Church (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 191. The Platonist doctrines that were challenged included reincarnation, the eternity of creation, and the preexistence of souls before their bodily existence. Daley points out that these views were “considered favorably as possibilities by Origen and Evagrius.” 24 Habermas, “Plato, Platonism,” 860.
TWO MODELS OF ESCHATOLOGY
SPIRITUAL VISION MODEL
At this point, we shift specifically to the topic of Platonism and Christian eschatology. According to Craig Blaising, there have been two broad models of eternal life that have held by Christians since the time of the early church. The first he calls, the “spiritual vision model.”25 This model is influenced by Platonism.26 With this model, heaven is viewed primarily as a spiritual entity. Heaven is the highest level of ontological reality—the realm of spirit as opposed to base matter. “This is the destiny of the saved, who will exist in that nonearthly, spiritual place as spiritual beings engaged eternally in spiritual activity.”27 The spiritual vision model, Blaising argues, is a combination of biblical themes and cultural ideas that were common to the classical philosophical tradition. The biblical themes the spiritual vision model draws upon include:
1. the promise that believers will see God.
2. the promise that believers will receive full knowledge.
3. the description of heaven as the dwelling place of God.
4. the description of heaven as the destiny of the believing dead prior to the resurrection.28
In addition to the biblical themes, the spiritual vision model also drew upon cultural (Greek) ideas that were common to the classical philosophical tradition:
1. a basic contrast between spirit and matter.
2. an identification of spirit with mind or intellect.
3. a belief that eternal perfection entails the absence of change.29
According to Blaising, “Central to all three of these is the classical tradition’s notion of an ontological hierarchy in which spirit is located at the top of a descending order of being. Elemental matter occupies the lowest place.”30 Heaven is realm of spirit as opposed to matter. Heaven is a nonearthly spiritual place for spiritual beings who are engaged only in spiritual activity. This heaven is also free from all change. Eternal life,
25 Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 161. 26 Ibid., 162. Snyder calls this approach “the kingdom as inner spiritual experience model.” “As a distinct model it may be traced to the influence of Platonist and Neoplatonist ideas on Christian thinking and especially to Origen” Howard A. Snyder, Models of the Kingdom (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1991), 42. 27 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 161. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid.
therefore, is viewed primarily as “cognitive, meditative, or contemplative.”31 The spiritual vision model has led many Christians to view eternal life “as the beatific vision of God—an unbroken, unchanging contemplation of the infinite reality of God.”32
In his book, Models of the Kingdom, Howard A. Snyder points out that a purely spiritual view of the kingdom, which he calls “the kingdom as inner spiritual experience model,” “may be traced to the influence of Platonist and Neoplatonist ideas on Christian thinking. . . .”33 According to Snyder this model “draws to some degree on Greek philosophical roots.”34 He also states that “One can sense the Platonism lying behind this model.”35 Snyder says: “Historically this model has often been tainted with a sort of Platonic disdain for things material, perhaps seeing the body or matter as evil or at least imperfect and imperfectible. It is thus dualistic, viewing the ‘higher’ spiritual world as essentially separate from the material world.”36
The spiritual vision model was inherently linked to allegorical and spiritual methods of interpretation that were opposed to literal interpretation based on historicalgrammatical contexts. Blaising also notes that the spiritual vision model “was intimately connected with practices of ‘spiritual interpretation’ that were openly acknowledged to be contrary to the literal meaning of the words being interpreted.”37 “The long term practice of reading Scripture in this way so conditioned the Christian mind that by the late Middle Ages, the spiritual vision model had become an accepted fact of the Christian worldview.”38
NEW CREATION MODEL
In contrast to the spiritual vision model, the second model Blaising discusses is the “new creation model.” This model is contrary to Platonism and the spiritual vision model and emphasizes the physical, social, political, and geographical aspects of eternal life. It emphasizes a coming new earth, the renewal of life on this new earth, bodily resurrection, and social and political interactions among the redeemed.39 As he states, “The new creation model expects that the ontological order and scope of eternal life is essentially continuous with that of present earthly life except for the absence of sin and death.”40 Thus, eternal life is embodied life on earth. This approach “does not reject
31 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 162. 32 Ibid. 33 Snyder, Models of the Kingdom, 42. 34 Ibid., 52. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid., 54. 37 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 165. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid., 162. 40 Ibid.
physicality or materiality, but affirms them as essential both to a holistic anthropology and to the biblical idea of a redeemed creation.”41 This approach, according to Blaising, follows the language of passages like Isaiah 25, 65, 66; Revelation 21; and Romans 8 which speak of a regenerated earth. A new creation model emphasizes the future relevance of matters such as renewal of the world and universe, nations, kings, economics, agriculture, and social-political issues. In sum, a new creation model operates on the belief that life in the future kingdom of God is largely similar to God’s purposes for the creation before the fall of Adam, which certainly involved more than just a spiritual element. Thus, the final Heaven is not an ethereal spiritual presence in the sky. As Russell D. Moore points out, “The point of the gospel is not that we would go to heaven when we die. Instead, it is that heaven will come down, transforming and renewing the earth and the entire universe.”42 Far from being only a spiritual entity, the eternal destiny of the redeemed includes a holistic renewal of human existence and our environment:
The picture then is not of an eschatological flight from creation but the restoration and redemption of creation with all that entails: table fellowship, community, culture, economics, agriculture and animal husbandry, art, architecture, worship— in short, life and that abundantly.43
The new creation model appears to have been the primary approach of the church of the late first and early second centuries A.D. It was found in apocalyptic and rabbinic Judaism and in second century Christian writers such as Irenaeus of Lyons.44 But, as Blaising asserts, the spiritual vision model would take over and become “the dominant view of eternal life from roughly the third century to the early modern period.”45
41 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 162. 42 Russell D. Moore, “Personal and Cosmic Eschatology,” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 912. 43 Ibid., 859. 44 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 164. 45 Ibid.
It is my habit to respond to all those referenced.
So what was his point in creating material creatures with a plan of promoting them to Heaven? If that was indeed his intention.
That is a good question. It's my personal belief that it isn't that man will be "promoted" into Heaven. Rather that he will be welcomed back to Eden from where he was cast out. Eden is just a small extension of Heaven.
I can understand how you arrive at such a conclusion. This is Platonism's influence. It isn't Jewish thought-at least not the Jews of the Old Testament.
And you know this how? Because you dogmatically assert that the "Jews of the Old Testament" were really ancient Southern Baptists who went around singing hymns and passing out gospel tracts?
And the created material universe just what . . . disappears, having fulfilled its purpose?
Also, if nobody died and everybody obeyed the command to be fruitful and multiply, where you gonna put ‘em?
Lol! I can see your point. But I've heard that the Qodesh HaQodashim (Holy of Holies) was sort of like the TARDIS, bigger on the inside than the outside. At least that's what I understood one person to say.
It is simple logic. Every misunderstanding of God and every erroneous doctrinal belief that seems to spring up, occurs from this one idea-that man has "free will". You stated that we are capable of obeying the commandments of God. I fully agree with your conclusion if, in fact, man had the free will. The question then is, if a person is freely capable of choosing right or wrong, then WHY don't they choose to obey God's commands. If, as you say, "Every commandment we obey unleashes unseen spiritual forces in the world" then why unleash anything if you can freely choose what to obey and not obey?
And, yes. Half the Southern Baptists don't understand this simple issue.
I’m not sure I’m exactly following the argument, but I’ll say this:
Everyone has a number of jobs to do in ‘redeeming sparks’. For one it may be resisting the urge to break the window of a jewelry store, for another it may be avoiding a bit of food that might not be kosher.
In each case, the correct choice makes one a better person and the world a better place. That we don’t understand how this can be is irrelevant.
Choosing incorrectly is a setback for us and for the world.
I'll ask around and get back to you.
24 “O my God,” I say, “take me not hence in the midst of my days, thou whose years endure throughout all generations!”
25 Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
26 They will perish, but thou dost endure; they will all wear out like a garment. Thou changest them like raiment, and they pass away;
27 but thou art the same, and thy years have no end.
28 The children of thy servants shall dwell secure; their posterity shall be established before thee.
(RSV)
A person can't "choose incorrectly" if they have "free will". They can only choose what God wants or what He doesn't want. They are, after all, "free" to make choices. If they can resist the urge to break a window or avoid food, then surely they should be able to resist everything. Therein lies the problem.
This, of course, is utter nonsense. Man is by nature sinful. All one has to do is look into their own heart. One may resist breaking a window but they certainly won't tell Aunt Gertrude what they actually think of her latest hat. An honest examination of one's soul makes it painfully evident that we are by nature sinful creatures incapable of doing the things of God.
Thank you for sharing.
But not entirely contrary, which explains why Plato's thoughts remain attractive to Christians. Overall, Plato's writings are a beneficial antidote to the contemporary materialism and sophistic spirit of the age. Plato and Aristotle were not atheist. A real distinction in Christianity is the historical plan of redemption and new creation. But even though Socrates' understanding of history appears empty in comparison, he was adamant that there would be a final reckoning and accountability for human actions after death. So the body/soul dualism so enmeshed in the New Testament makes Plato especially attractive reading for Christians. Like Plato, Christianity admits such a body/soul dualism, considering the body as dead and the soul alive to God. St. Paul, especially, emphasizes the redemption of the body, something not found in Plato, and definitely not in Plotinus.
There are so many other ideas in Plato's writing that are so supportive of Christian thought that it has led some to suggest that the source for these ideas are Judaic. Compare some of the passages in the Timaeus and Socrates' defense in the Apology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.