On Platonic Assumptions

We’ve been chasing this down since my ministry began decades ago: Western minds are trapped in a collection of assumptions that derived from a distinctly non-biblical worldview. A primary example is the presumption of human intellect to grasp the nature of reality. The biblical viewpoint is making no pretense to understand such things, and refusing to address some of the questions that come with striving to grasp the nature of reality.

In the Bible, a basic philosophical assumption is that the best we can do is come up with parables, functional references that cover some applications. The underlying question is not, “What is this?” Rather, the question is, “What can we do with this?” It may not seem like much expressed in English language, but there is a profound difference between those two.

A great many terms in the Bible are not meant to be taken as defining elements of reality. Rather, they are flexible concepts based on the fundamental question of what we should do. This, in turn, rests on the single greatest concern of any human: What will keep me in God’s favor? Nothing else matters. There is a distinct Hebrew habit of mind here that calls for a halt to exploration once that question is answered.

In more practical terms, the question works out to: What brings peace with my convictions? There is an unquestioned assumption that convictions are the only way you have any hope of knowing what God requires. Once you’ve examined the record (Scripture) and heard the testimony of others (when available), you turn to your convictions to filter out things you don’t need to worry about, and cling to what drives you through life.

So, for example, we read the word “soul” in our English translations of Scripture. Don’t try to nail down what it means beyond a functional definition. If you bring to the Scripture your western assumptions, influence heavily by Plato and Aristotle, you will associate that term in your mind with something that is eternal by its very nature. That’s a bad assumption. In the Bible, the word “soul” can be associated with animals, for example, and we know that Scripture says nothing about them going to Heaven or Hell. Whatever the word “soul” should mean, it has nothing to do with your eternal identity.

It would be far more useful to consider that the only thing making you eternal is not something about you, but that God remembers you. Whatever it is that makes you able to live again on the Day of Resurrection is not something inherent in yourself, but simply that you continue to exist as a person in the mind of God. He will want to see you again in some real form in Eternity.

Thus, the question is not what you are, nor what you’ve done, but who you are in God’s mind. Thus, you get this Old Testament cry from the saints for God to remember them. It’s why Jesus talked about His disciples as His brethren before His Father. If God remembers His own Son, then anyone Jesus remembers is included. It’s not a question of “making an impression” in that sense, but of making your company pleasant for Him. Rest assured, He is in our world searching for people who will turn to Him.

Thus, Plato’s emphasis on the assessment of real things as inherently evil and ideals as inherently good is all wrong. In the Bible, the difference between the real and the eternal is whether it’s trustworthy. You cannot trust the real; it is inherently deceptive. But it’s not therefore evil. There is good and evil in both this realm and in the Spirit Realm. Satan did evil in Eternity.

And as we’ve noted in previous posts here, even the concept of “good” and “evil” in the West are loaded with evaluations that make no sense in the Bible. The Hebrew concept is whether a thing is useful or not. More to the point, it’s whether a thing is useful to God. Does it serve His priorities?

I’m not saying I agree with everything stated, but I believe this chapter of a webbook is worth your time. It may help you address the fundamental differences between western and Hebrew thinking.