The understanding of Heart and Mind during Apostolic times.

[Twilight]

This is a study into what the bible teaches the Heart and Mind are.

How did they people of that period understand the usage of words that have been translated into "Heart" and "Mind"?

Most specifically, what understanding did Jesus present?

And how does this relate to two specific points:

Gods Law being written on the Heart.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

We do not want to transfer 20th century mindsets back into the 1st Century, we want to understand how they considered these points.

Mark :-)

Rules for the discussion:

1. No direct challenging of individuals, only their argument may be challenged.

2. Bible as the Sole Ultimate Authority.

3. Jesus understanding as the Starting Point.

4. Cultural understandings of the time with sources are permitted.

5. No SOP - Pure Bible discussion so the topic can stay simple.

6. No reference to modern psychology or science - we are trying to find out what exactly the early church understood from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

7. No "drive by shooting", if you want to be involved in the discussion, please respond to questions when asked on your points - if you do not want to spend time studying this out, or backing up your points - then please leave the thread to develop as a discussion.

[Twilight]

I will start with a simple point.

When Jesus quoted this commandment:

Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

He changed it to:

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.

Now notice what happened here.

In the original commandment no mention of "mind" was made.

Just "heart", which we would all understand as the inner workings of the individual, ie. thoughts and feelings.

But Jesus makes a distinction now.

Now we have "heart and mind", where we used to have just "heart".

Why does Jesus make this destinction?

[pnattmbtc]

Jesus spoke in Aramaic, whereas what He was quoting from was originally in Hebrew. That might have been a factor. Also, the Scriptures were commonly quoted from the Septuagint, which was in Greek, so we have three different languages involved. Hence I don't think it's surprising that there are some variants.

Here are some similar commands:

Quote:

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (Deuteronomy 6:5)

Quote:

for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.(Deut. 13:3)

Quote:

... to love the LORD your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cleave unto him, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul.(Joshua 22:5)

Quote:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.(Matt. 22:37)

Quote:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (Mark 12:30)

I think these are all saying the same thing, that we should love God will all our being. I don't think Jesus was changing anything. I think it was just another form of expression. Notice that even in the OT, there were variants ("heart and soul" vs. "heart and soul and might"). I don't think, for example, that Joshua was saying it wasn't necessary to love God only with one's heart and soul; including one's strength wasn't necessary.

I'm trying to think of what the idiom would be in English, and the following comes to mind: "with your entire being," "with all that's in you," "as much as you can." So in vernacular English, we would say:

"Love the Lord your God with your entire being."

"Love the Lord your God with all that's in you."

"Love the Lord your God as much as you can."

I'm sure there are other possibilities, but this is what comes to mind. This is what I think the command means.

[Twilight]

But why make this particular distinction that is not made in the Old Testament Pnat?

Why choose to now use the word mind specifically.

It is clear to me that Jesus is making a distinction between "heart" and "mind" in this verse.

[Twilight]

The question is:

Why make that distinction?

[teresaq]

....

I'm trying to think of what the idiom would be in English, and the following comes to mind: "with your entire being," "with all that's in you," "as much as you can." So in vernacular English, we would say:

"Love the Lord your God with your entire being."

"Love the Lord your God with all that's in you."

"Love the Lord your God as much as you can."

I'm sure there are other possibilities, but this is what comes to mind. This is what I think the command means.

that is basically the way it reads to me...

it may need to be pointed out also, that we have Jesus "very own words" as remembered and understood by others.

matthew heard/understood,

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

mark,

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

luke,

Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

it seems to me, also, that the other words used need to be studied.

heart

mind

strength

soul

[teresaq]

in other words, we dont know what Jesus exact words were in anything that is recorded.

[Woody]

in other words, we dont know what Jesus exact words were in anything that is recorded.

Interesting teresa.

[Twilight]

in other words, we dont know what Jesus exact words were in anything that is recorded.

That argument means we cannot rely on anything the gospels said then as Jesus' exact words?

The point though is moot, when we consider that every witness recorded it as including the distinction of heart and mind.

Whereas in the original, it was always heart and soul.

For this point to stand, the words heart and mind would have to be missing in some way from the original texts in one of the gospels.

As the distinction is made in every gospel account, it is clear that Jesus stated the distinction.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

But why make this particular distinction that is not made in the Old Testament Pnat?

Because a different language was used, and idioms are different in different languages.

Quote:

Why choose to now use the word mind specifically.

It is clear to me that Jesus is making a distinction between "heart" and "mind" in this verse.

This isn't a distinction that didn't exist in the OT. There's always been a distinction between "mind" and "heart."

[Twilight]

Quote:

But why make this particular distinction that is not made in the Old Testament Pnat?

Because a different language was used, and idioms are different in different languages.

[teresaq]

Quote:

Why choose to now use the word mind specifically.

It is clear to me that Jesus is making a distinction between "heart" and "mind" in this verse.

This isn't a distinction that didn't exist in the OT. There's always been a distinction between "mind" and "heart."

but if those recording this incident are making any distinction between heart and mind, arent they also making a distinction in the other words used? or are they basically, as well as moses, just trying to get a thought across?

heart

mind

strength

soul

[Twilight]

So let us examine the arguments against this being a distinction so far:

1. We have no way of knowing Jesus' exact words.

2. It is an idiom.

Both of these arguments could be used to undermine any text in the bible.

We need more than this if we are to state it is not a distinction Jesus was making.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

This isn't a distinction that didn't exist in the OT. There's always been a distinction between "mind" and "heart."

but if those recording this incident are making any distinction between heart and mind, arent they also making a distinction in the other words used? or are they basically, as well as moses, just trying to get a thought across?

heart

mind

strength

soul

Each of those are distinct words.

Each appear in the gospels.

So each should be examined to see what exactly Jesus meant.

We could just dismiss them as figures of speech, but again, we could do that with any truth in the bible and we would soon have nothing left on which to stand our faith...

[Twilight]

Update:

So let us examine the arguments against this being a distinction so far:

1. We have no way of knowing Jesus' exact words.

2. It is an idiom.

3. It is a figure of speech.

All of these arguments could be used to undermine any text in the bible.

We need more than this if we are to state it is not a distinction Jesus was making.

[Twilight]

Teresa and Pnat, do you allow the possibility that Jesus used these words very deliberately and that they mean something specifically?

Or do you totally dismiss this as a possibility?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

in other words, we dont know what Jesus exact words were in anything that is recorded.

That argument means we cannot rely on anything the gospels said then as Jesus' exact words?

[Twilight]

if this is indeed important, then why is it not important to see the distinction in the other words used?

Of course those are important as well.

But we are specifically discussing heart and mind and its usage in the NT.

Soul should not need defining, as everyone here, as an Adventist should pretty much agree that this means the entire sum of man.

Strength, should not need defining, as everyone here, should be able to equate that with "effort and determination".

But I would ask that we keep it on topic, unless you feel that a point about these specifically relates to our understanding of the distinction between "heart and mind" of course.

Then please feel free to expand it.

[Twilight]

no, it just means that we have no idea of what Jesus exact words nor what He meant except as it is understood by those who recorded the incidents--by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

But we do know that Jesus made those distinctions, because those distinctions are made in every account.

[teresaq]

Update:

So let us examine the arguments against this being a distinction so far:

1. We have no way of knowing Jesus' exact words.

2. It is an idiom.

3. It is a figure of speech.

All of these arguments could be used to undermine any text in the bible.

We need more than this if we are to state it is not a distinction Jesus was making.

except that we arent discussing anything other than this particular point at the moment...and we cant do anything about what others may do.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Update:

So let us examine the arguments against this being a distinction so far:

1. We have no way of knowing Jesus' exact words.

2. It is an idiom.

3. It is a figure of speech.

All of these arguments could be used to undermine any text in the bible.

We need more than this if we are to state it is not a distinction Jesus was making.

except that we arent discussing anything other than this particular point at the moment...and we cant do anything about what others may do.

I do not understand your point here Teresa.

I understood this:

"except that we arent discussing anything other than this particular point at the moment..."

But I did not understand this:

"and we cant do anything about what others may do."

Please expand.

[pnattmbtc]

p:Because a different language was used, and idioms are different in different languages.

T:That argument only works if you can show this idiom being used for this verse in those languages?

Where is this idiom displayed before this, if it is just an idiom in a different language?

This is the first time this distinction is made about this verse in any language that I am aware of.

[Twilight]

Even in the same language, Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic, there were differences in the expressions.

[pnattmbtc]

Here's an explanation I came across as to why "mind" was used in Matt. 22:37:

And He said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” Matthew 22:37

Mind – If you remember (and I hope you do), the word in the Hebrew passage is not “mind.” It is me’od – greatness, very, much, exceedingly. Somehow the Matthew version of Yeshua’s quotation from Deuteronomy 6:5 shifts me’od to the Greek word dianoia and the Greek dianoia seems to have very little to do with an adverb about lots of stuff. What are we to make of this? Did Yeshua forget what the Hebrew text says?

Forgetting the Shema is like forgetting your name. Unless Yeshua had a total collapse of mental faculties, it is simply impossible that He would have used some other word except me’od. Therefore, the problem has to be in the translation from Hebrew to Greek, not in the actual words Yeshua spoke. We can see more evidence of a translation problem when we look at this same event recorded in Mark and Luke. Mark’s version is “with all your mind and with all your strength.” Apparently, the translator of Mark realized that me’od had a connection to “strength” so he added this, but he still left in the surprising Greek word dianoia. Luke keeps both of Mark’s phrases, but reverses their order (“with all your strength, and with all your mind”). How are we to understand this linguistic sleight-of-hand?

It’s very clear that Yeshua recited the Deuteronomy passage as it is written in Hebrew. It’s also very clear that the Greek gospels have a great deal of trouble trying to capture the Hebrew meaning of me’od. All three authors use dianoia, but two of them realize there is more to this Hebrew word than mental activity, so they attempt to include some idea of strength in the context. If any passages demonstrate that the Gospels are translations of Hebrew into Greek, this is one of those. It’s apparent that the various authors stumble around trying to capture a word that has no direct Greek equivalent.

Why did they choose dianoia? First, we should contrast dianoia with nous. Dianoia is the mind at work. It includes thinking, feeling and understanding, but it is the active function of the mind, not simply the mental storage compartment. At least this approaches a Hebrew point of view. Whatever the translators thought, they knew that the Hebrew expression was about action and purpose, not a state of being. But why use any expression that seems to divide man into component parts? The answer requires a deeper reflection on translation issues. If I attempt to capture a foreign concept in another language, I am often stuck with thought forms that don’t quite fit. I have two choices. I can choose the closest compatible expression or I can try to make up a new one. Paul often chooses the latter. Matthew, Mark and Luke seem to have chosen the former. Dianoia is as close as they could get to me’od, but at least Mark and Luke realized that me’od needed the additional support of ischus (strength – mental, moral and physical).

What we have in the Gospels is a translation of concept, not a transfer of exact words. http://skipmoen.com/tag/matthew-2237/

[pnattmbtc]

Of particular note, from the post I just posted, is the following:

Quote:

If I attempt to capture a foreign concept in another language, I am often stuck with thought forms that don’t quite fit. I have two choices. I can choose the closest compatible expression or I can try to make up a new one. Paul often chooses the latter. Matthew, Mark and Luke seem to have chosen the former.

This is essentially the point that I've been making, which is that the difference in expression may be due to the fact that different languages were involved.