God’s Love is Not Platonic

John the Apostle, a Hebrew from a remote province in the Roman Empire, lived a long life, unlike the other apostles who died premature deaths. John, a typical Hebrew, was elevated out of his provincial Jewish world by the God who created it. His writing, as much as any of the New Testament authors, has a strong philosophical theme, but that philosophical theme is no abstract intellectual construct.

John obviously became familiar with the greater Greco-Roman world by which the Palestinian province of his birth was governed and influenced. That familiarity is reflected in the Gospel that bears his name.

His gospel begins with the philosophical statement, “In the beginning was the Word”, the Logos.  (John 1:1)  The word, logos, had very strong philosophical meaning in the Greco-Roman world. John’s use of that word to open his account of the life and message of Jesus shows that John, the provincial Hebrew, familiarized himself with that world and its thought.

This is in keeping with the instruction from Jesus to his followers to go into all the world explaining the message he left with them. To go into the world, we have to become familiar with it and conversant with the thought that predominates in the world to which we go.

Though John used this loaded word, logos, he didn’t have the abstract notions of philosophy in mind. John’s use of that word pointed outside and transcended the Greco-Roman box.

John had an intimate, close and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. When John referred to Jesus as the Word, the Logos, he meant something very different than what a Greek or Roman might suppose. He wasn’t describing an abstraction, a Platonic ideal – but a Person. We see this in the opening progression:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1-2)

And then, John focuses in even further:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us….” (John 1:14)

The abstract just became personal!

John is also the apostle who wrote that “God is love”. (1 John 4:16) Notice that John didn’t write that love is God. John is describing God as an abstract, a platonic ideal. John is not saying that the abstract notion of love is God. He is saying that God is love. God is the embodiment of love. God is in his very nature love. God, the Person, is Love.

While the Greeks were wrestling with abstract ideas, like love, John walked the Earth with Love personified, the Person who embodied and personified in His very nature love. (The “fullness” of God “dwelt” in Jesus (Col. 1:19); and in Christ all the fullness of God “dwells in bodily form”. (Col.2:9) This is a radical departure from Greco-roman thought.

Philosophers wrestle with the idea of God from a philosophical view. One particular philosophical view is posited by the Euthyphro dilemma made famous by Plato. “The Euthyphro dilemma rests on a modernised version of the question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro: ‘Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?’” (See philosophyofreligion.info)

The dilemma is posed in contrast to the “divine command theory”, which is that God is the source of all ethics, like love. The great Greek philosophers posited the issues as abstract, philosophical questions, but (in doing so) they misconstrued the character and nature of God. They didn’t conceive of an alternate solution to the problems they posed because their philosophy was rooted in the abstract. The dilemma goes something like this:

If morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will. God, then, subject to what is morally good, and we don’t need God to be morally good. This is similar to Plato’s idea that perfect ideals exist in the abstract, like mathematics. The ideal is superior to all attempts to express the ideal (even the attempt of God). God is subservient to the abstract ideal.

On the other hand, if morally good acts are morally good because God wills them, then God’s moral goodness is inconsequential – it doesn’t matter whether God is good. What is good, is whatever God commands. Any such command is, however, arbitrary because it isn’t intrinsically good. It’s only good because God wills it to be good. God might have willed good to be something else.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is the kind of abstract reasoning in which philosophers at the time of John engaged. The dilemma leaves unresolved issues with both of the alternative constructs, but only because the premises are supposed to be the only alternatives.

John transcends these abstract arguments by equating the Word, Logos, with the person of Jesus Christ. The Word, the Logos, became flesh and dwelt among us. John gives us another alternative suggesting that the Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dichotomoy.

When John says that God is love, he is not saying that God wills love because love is morally good, and neither is he saying that love is morally good because God wills it. John is saying that God, by His very nature, is love. If we want to see an example of what love is, we just have to observe God.

Jesus said, “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” (John 15:13) And, Jesus demonstrated just that by laying down his own life for all of us.

When Paul describes love, he is describing God:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (I Corinthians 13:4-7)

Paul might as well have said:

God is patient, God is kind. God does not envy, God does not boast, God is not proud. God does not dishonor others, God is not self-seeking, God is not easily angered, God keeps no record of wrongs. God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. God always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

(It would take some time to unpack that. I haven’t thought through all of it at this point. For instance, we read in the Old Testament about God being jealous or envious. That will have to be a subject for another day.)

John’s statements about the Word (Logos) and God is love demonstrates John’s understanding of the Greco-roman world, speaking in the language of the Greco-Roman philosophers. Those philosophers dealt in logic and abstracts, but John introduces the idea of a transcendent Supreme Being – God, who embodies those realities in His very nature and Person – a different reality. The Word, God and love are not just abstracts; they are reality, and the ultimate reality is in the Person of God.

God doesn’t impose abstract standards upon us. He calls us to Himself, the source of all that is good. All that is good resides in His very Being. God calls us into relationship with Himself by which (as a product of that relationship) we may become good – as children become the product of their parents’ ancestral DNA. God calls us to be His children.

The important reality in this process is not that we become good, but that we become as God is because we are, in effect, images of God. Our very purpose is in this image-bearing relationship.

Jesus called the process being born again. We are born again into this relationship with God by which we become his children, bearing His image. We are born into Christ by our response to His prompting. We enter into this relationship by our response to Him:

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

This is not a platonic love, an abstract love that is grasped intellectually like a moral philosophy. The love that God offers is relational, intimate and personal. We are meant for this relationship. We are meant to be completed in our relationship with God, and, until we find our place in Him, we are forever unfulfilled, incomplete and lacking in the most essential need and desire of our being.

While the idea of God’s love may still seem abstract to us, it becomes our reality when we reach out and receive what He offers. Though Jesus no longer dwells with men in the flesh, He “left” the Holy Spirit, allowing access to everyone. The Holy Spirit is, in some sense, a deposit on the ultimate relationship we will have with God. The Spirit is a present “taste” of the ultimate reality we will have in God:

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:9-12)

Explore posts in the same categories: Christian, Jesus, Love, Philosophy

Tags: , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

6 Comments on “God’s Love is Not Platonic”

  1. Salvageable Says:

    This is an excellent post. I would add two thoughts: God is love outside of creation, outside of space and time. This truth is Trinitarian: the Father loves the Son and the Spirit; the Son loves the Father and the Spirit; the Spirit loves the Father and the Son. Therefore, when God created Adam and Eve in his image, he created them to love–to love God and to love each other. J.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Excellent point. God is love even without us. God has relationship within God’s very being.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It’s also worth noting that the idea of one God being somehow plural shows up all the way back in Genesis 1:26, where the Hebrew is translated appropriately, ” Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.'” (NASB)

        Liked by 1 person

        • Salvageable Says:

          Exactly so! The Trinity is revealed in the books of Moses as the Lord, the Angel of the Lord, and the Spirit of the Lord. In readings such as Genesis 22 and Exodus 3, the Angel of the Lord speaks of God as both “he” and “I”. So clearly this is Jesus, the Son of God, speaking with Abraham and with Moses. J.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. […] of His nature. Not that good is good just because God wills it to be good (that would pose the Euthyphro Dilemma); rather, good is good because it reflects God’s character, which is maximally […]


  3. […] by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God? (See God’s Love is Not Platonic)) There is no way out of the construct, but the construct, itself, is […]


Comments are welcomed

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: