Skip to content

Christian Plato

Introduction

Plato is not a man most people would think of as a godly man. However, despite his immoral lifestyle, Plato shared many beliefs with the Christian faith. He believed in a God who could have been the Christian God in most areas, emphasized knowledge and wisdom, and believed in the immortal soul. Paul based several of his major analogies on those which Plato used in describing the ideal city. These examples leave one marvelling at how God can interweave His own story with those of secular philosophers.

Plato’s Idea of God

Plato believes in a God, who he calls Demiurge, meaning Constructor. Though this Demiurge is not the Christian God, he does share many of the same qualities. According to Plato, he is the creator figure, who “creates the visible entities composing the cosmos out of a pre-existing indeterminate matter.”1 Demiurge is also considered a personal god, not just a distant being who created the universe and left it to run on its own. He is the “father of all things”2, a very intimate title. The actions of Demiurge in the present world are not without rhyme or reason; they follow the course which will result in the most good for the entire universe. Another significant aspect of Demiurge’s character is that he is the one who completed man by supplying him with a rational soul. This rational soul means that Demiurge cannot simply direct the lives of his creatures. Instead he must influence them in a loving way. “Men are moved to live according to the light of the ideal through an allurement generated by those who have attained such a vision; not through commands invoking fear of penalties for disobedience.”3 Demiurge operates by motivating people to follow him, not by threatening them with punishment.

Plato also attempts to philosophically demonstrate the existence of God, defined as a “divine mind [who is] architect and providential ruler of the world.”4 He shares three separate proofs, which are as follows. First, he points out the prevalence of gods in every culture. Though not definitive by any means, this would imply that there are spiritual, mystic beings, for the belief in them to be so widespread. Plato’s second, and most important argument is based on the observation of motion in our physical world. He argues that there must be a substance or being which is capable of self-propelling. If this is not the case, we would find ourselves in an endless cycle where an ant is moved by a leaf, which in turn is moved by the tree it is attached to. The tree is moved by the wind, etc. Eventually, we must have some object which can cause motion, which Plato argues is the soul. Only beings with souls can provoke motion, with the ultimate mover being the divine soul, also known as God. Plato’s final, and most specific argument for the existence of Demiurge relates to the paths of the planets. Their perfect, orderly orbits prompt Plato to reject a purely physical explanation, as well as the possibility of random motion. The only satisfactory explanation in his opinion was that the motion was caused by soul, and the perfection by a perfect being, leading to the only perfect soul: God. This last proof is mostly irrelevant in the present times because we now understand how the planets orbit around one another. However, the case Plato constructs for God’s existence is an example of beautiful reasoning, using the knowledge that was available to him. His first two proofs are still valid, and the second one particularly makes a strong case for the existence of God.5

Demiurge is very similar to the God which is described in the Bible. He is a personal, fatherly God who created the universe and rules over it. People are not forced to follow him, but instead are allowed free will to choose whether to follow and obey Demiurge or not.

Plato’s View of Knowledge

Plato placed a huge emphasis on knowledge gained by men. His view was that knowledge, and the reason used to determine knowledge are what separates men from all other members of the animal kingdom. “According … to Plato … , there is implanted in all men a natural appetite for knowledge.”6 It is this appetite which inspires all people to explore the world around them, and develop as accurate a picture possible of the way things are. However, man does have a very limited intellect, and can come to wrong conclusions, though the intentions may have been correct. There are some who would argue that due to this restriction, we should refrain from reasoning altogether. Plato could not disagree more, as this somewhat lengthy but brilliant quote shows. “I think, Socrates, as perhaps you do yourself, that it is either impossible or very difficult to acquire clear knowledge about these matters in this life. And yet he is a weakling who does not test in every way what is said about them and persevere until he is worn out by studying them on every side. For he must do one of two things; either he must learn or discover the truth about these matters, or if that is impossible, he must take whatever human doctrine is best and hardest to disprove and, embarking upon it as upon a raft, sail upon it through life in the midst of dangers, unless he can sail upon some stronger vessel, some divine revelation, and make his voyage more safely and securely.”7 Plato believed that objective moral and religious standards can be determined through ration and thorough thought processes. All other belief is considered opinion, but these objective conclusions are what is called knowledge.8

Plato’s Immortal Soul

The idea that the soul can never be destroyed, even when the body is dead is called the immortality of the soul. This is a belief that Plato held very strongly. He supports this with a very rational, deductive argument. Life and death are opposites. Life is the key element of the soul, since we say a body moves from life to death when the soul leaves it. Since the soul is linked to life, it must be opposed to that which is opposed to life, in this case death. By definition, something which is the opposite of death is immortal.9 Plato and most Greek philosophers held to the duality of man, that soul and body were very separate, though they interacted with each other. The soul is the stage for rational thought and belief, a substance which exists only in the world of becoming, a place where no physical matter exists. The body is the substance which we perceive in the world we can see, feel, hear, touch and taste. It is strictly physical, residing in the world of being, the realm which we would consider reality. Plato considered the soul as not only different from the body, but also superior to it. This is due to his emphasis on knowledge, and rational thought of any kind. This is only accomplished by the mind, and if anything, the body restricts that ability. Socrates, whose views are only found when referenced by Plato, goes so far as to suggest that death is in fact, a more desirable state than life, since the soul will be freed from its earthly confines, and can philosophize without restraint.

Plato and Paul

It’s quite surprising how many parallels one can find between the philosophies of Plato and Paul, if you compare their views on several issues. First off, they both have similar ideals of community. Plato was the first to use the human body as an analogy for how a group of people work together. In his specific discussion, the community in question was a city. In this dialog, Socrates states that the ideal city is one “whose state is most like that of an individual man. For example, if the finger of one of us is wounded, the entire community of bodily connections stretching to the soul for ‘integration’ with the dominant part is made aware, and all of it feels the pain as a whole. …”10 This is a brilliant comparison, and one which Paul picked up on to use when describing how the Christian church should function. In I Corinthians 12 he says “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. … If one part suffers, every part suffers with it.” (I Corinthians 12:12, 26) This description from both Plato and Paul makes a good model for community easy to grasp, and memorable.

The second area where these two philosophers converge is in talking about the head as the most important part of the body. Plato discusses our spherically shaped head as divinely inspired by the shape of the universe. He says that what “we now term the head, being the most divine part of us and the lord of all that is in us; to this the gods, when they put together the body, gave all the other members to be servants.”11 Plato viewed the physical head as the leader of the body, as well as the seat of the gods, the centre of our spiritual being. The other parts of the body, though still important to its overall function, cannot compare to the critical importance of the head. Paul takes these ideas and expands on them, stating that “[Christ] the head of the body, the church.”(I Corinthians 1:18) In Paul’s commentary, the head becomes more than just the leader of the human body; it now represents Jesus Christ as the head of the church body.

Continuing with the city setting, Plato held the view that each man should be put to use in the area where his strengths lie. He would never want to see someone forced to serve in a setting that did not suite them. In his own words, “we shall find the cobbler a cobbler and not a pilot in addition to his cobbling, and the farmer a farmer and not a judge added to his farming, and the soldier a soldier and not a money-maker in addition to his soldiery, and so all the rest.”12 Paul agrees with Plato, that each of us should emphasize our talents, or gifts, as he calls them. Romans 12 addresses this issue with wording eerily similar to Plato, “If [a man's gift] is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage…” ( Romans 12:7-8a) Paul also ties that concept back to the imagery of the body, describing how each part of the body has a specific, unique role to play.

A very interesting and unexpected correlation appears in the issue of communicating with God. Plato believed that the gods communicated in a language incomprehensible to human beings. However, if they were so inclined, the gods could allow a person to speak there language, rambling on in apparent nonsense to any observers. Speaking nonsensically was considered one of the blessings from above. Plato, describing the effects of this madness says, “But, while [the enthralled one] continues demented, he cannot judge of the visions which he sees or the words which he utters; … And for this reason it is customary to appoint interpreters to be judges of the true inspiration.”13 This philosophy is echoed in the phenomenon of speaking in tongues which Paul introduced, and which is common in the more charismatic modern churches. Paul’s opinion on this can be found in his letter to the Corinthian church, where he tells them that “anyone who speaks in a tongue … utters mysteries with his spirit. … [He] should pray that he may interpret what he says.” (I Corinthians 14:2, 13)

Both Plato and Paul are very fond of using an analogy of throwing off and donning clothes. Plato uses this illustration when discussing the role of women in the city he is proposing, “The women of the guardians, then, must strip, since they will be clothed with virtue as a garment.”14 He also speaks in his Symposium of putting on immortality like a piece of clothing. Paul speaks to the church in this manner as well, exhorting them to “lay aside that old human nature … and put on the new nature of God’s creating,” (Colossians 3:9-10, emphasis mine) and telling them that “what is mortal must be clothed with immortality.”(I Corinthians 15:54, emphasis mine)

These substantial correlations between the Apostle Paul and Plato the philosopher provide an interesting dilemma. Did Paul plagiarize the ideas of Plato? I would venture that instead of twisting Jesus’ message to fit Plato’s philosophy, as some would suggest15, Paul’s writings are instead a work of genius. His many references to Plato would have made his messages very relevant to the groups he was addressing, fitting with the culture. It is impressive to see how Paul weaves the gospel message throughout the framework of Plato’s philosophy, both conserving its meaning and making it easy to grasp for his audience.

Conclusion

Plato’s philosophy has several substantial points which correlate to Christian philosophical ideals. The parallels to Paul are quite outstanding, with agreement on community, the use of people’s talents, communication with God, and the theme of clothes as values. Most of these comparisons relate to the functions of a city and a church, the institutions which both men were addressing. Plato’s idea of God is also very similar to the Christian God, YHWH. Both are relational, personal Gods who created the universe and have an active interest in humankind and the universe. Christians also place a high view on knowledge and rational thought, though not to the extent that Plato does. The Christian God is a rational one, and the Bible calls us to seek after wisdom (Proverbs 4:5). Finally, the immortality of the soul is central to the Christian faith. The existence of heaven and hell depend on this assertion. Though hell is considered spiritual death, the soul does continue to exist in whichever destination it arrives in for eternity.

The question which enters my mind is why there are so many similarities between Platonic and Christian philosophy. Some of it may be explained by Plato being familiar with the Jewish beliefs of the time, and being influenced. I also believe, though, that God used Plato, as he has used countless figures throughout history, to prepare the world for His message. Plato’s philosophies laid a great foundation for the Gospel, and especially Paul’s teaching in general.

  1. Edwin A. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), 49 [↩]
  2. Plato, Timaeus, 28c., quoted in Edwin A. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), 49 [↩]
  3. Edwin A. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), 53 [↩]
  4. Edwin A. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), 49 [↩]
  5. Edwin A. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), 50 [↩]
  6. Ed L. Miller, God and Reason (New York: Macmillan, 1972), 122 [↩]
  7. Plato, Phaedo, 85c, tr. Harold North Fowler (London: Heinemann, 1914), quoted in Miller, God and Reason (New York: Macmillan, 1972), 233 [↩]
  8. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), 44-45 [↩]
  9. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), 52 [↩]
  10. Plato, Republic5.462C, D, quoted in F. F. Powell, “Saint Paul’s Homage to Plato,” The World and I. [online] (www.WorldandIHomeschool.com: The Interdisciplinary Resource), [cited March 24, 2007], (www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/April/mtpub2.asp). Article referece found in Proquest. [↩]
  11. Plato, Timaeus, quoted in F. F. Powell, “Saint Paul’s Homage to Plato.” [↩]
  12. Plato, Republic, quoted in F. F. Powell, “Saint Paul’s Homage to Plato.” [↩]
  13. Plato, Timaeus, quoted in F. F. Powell, “Saint Paul’s Homage to Plato.” [↩]
  14. Plato, , quoted in F. F. Powell, “Saint Paul’s Homage to Plato.” [↩]
  15. F. F. Powell, “Saint Paul’s Homage to Plato.” [↩]