Final Conclusions About the Heart

I wrote Part 1 and Part 2 of the Biblical applications/conceptions of the word “heart.”  Below are excerpts from my (first draft) class evaluation essay, which includes the conclusions I have come to embrace for the time being.  I wrote as follows:

There were classroom discussions and dialogues with regard to the meaning(s) of the “heart” in non-physical terms.  For example, we examined the word “lēb” which, according to the professor, signifies “man's spiritual and intellectual life” (2).  The definitions seem to form propositions for what could be labeled as the inner nature of man.  The professor claims the following about the heart: (a) it is at the “seat of emotions” and (b) it is also at the “seat of understanding and knowledge, of rational forces and powers” (2).  These two claims are vital in understanding what the heart really is, because the right and left parts of the brain are actually attributed with those specific characteristics.[1]  Emotions and logical thinking are mental abilities, and that means these abilities are controlled by the brain and what we also call mind.  Further, it is also important to note “lēb” and “lēbāb” could mean “heart, understanding, [and] mind” (Harris et al. 466).

In the Old Testament and New Testament the heart denotes a person's thoughts, which is a trait of the mind. The following entry on “Mind” encapsulates the discussion of heart, mind, spirit, and soul argument:

Since in the OT there was no separate word that could be used for the human mind, translators of the English versions have supplied other words (“soul,” “spirit,” or “heart”), as the context dictates. Thus, precise distinctions among these terms are hard to define. A person is a soul, having a spirit and a heart. Any of these terms may represent the mind. This means that the widely held distinction between the mind as the seat of thinking and the heart as the seat of feeling is alien to the meanings these terms carry in the OT.

It goes without saying there are linguistic challenges when translating the Hebrew Scriptures into English.  To make matters worse those who would like to differentiate between the heart and the mind have a major hurdle to overcome since soul, spirit, and heart can represent the mind.  It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to use precision in distinguishing between the heart and mind, because they are used interchangeably.  In addition, the presumptions of attributing the heart as the originator of emotions and the mind as the instigator of logical thinking are not only absent from the biblical model, but they are distinctions that render ad hoc explanations of sorts—when taking science and the Bible into account.  Moreover, as one studies the Bible one sees progression and expansion in the meaning(s) of “heart,” which includes allusions to or descriptions of what is now known to be the mind.[2]

Let’s take Deuteronomy 6:5 as a great example of what I am talking about in the paragraph above.  Deuteronomy 6:5 states, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (NASB 95).  There are several things about this verse that I would like to draw attention to.  When one reads, “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might,” “the pairing of לבב, “heart,” and נפשׁ, “being, soul-life,” suggests that a distinction of some sort is being made between mental and emotional energy and activity.  In terms of modern depth psychology, we would say that our love for God is to embrace the whole of our mind, both conscious and unconscious.  Self-discipline is required, in that we are to love God with all our might (מאד) as well” (Christensen 143).  Yet, when we look at the New Testament (i.e. Matthew 22:37 and Mark 12:30) the formula in Deuteronomy 6:5 has been changed.  It is as Keil and Delitzsch note,

In quoting this commandment, Matthew (Matthew 22:37) has substituted δαίνοια, “thy mind,” for “thy strength,” as being of especial importance to spiritual love, whereas in the LXX the mind (διάνοια) is substituted for the heart. Mark (Mark 12:30) gives the triad of Deuteronomy (heart, soul, and strength); but he has inserted “mind” (διάνοια) before strength (ἰσχύς), whilst in v. 33 the understanding (σύνεσις) is mentioned between the heart and the soul. Lastly, Luke has given the three ideas of the original passage quite correctly, but has added at the end, “and with all thy mind” (διάνοια). Although the term διάνοια (mind) originated with the Septuagint, not one of the Evangelists has adhered strictly to this version. (Dt. 6:5) 

It seems to me the writers of the Bible present conceptual ideas of what will later define and/or form what is purported when one uses the term mind.

My personal opinion regarding the tradition of how the word “heart” is used in the Bible is that it is used to illustrate the mind where it represents the inner-self, but also, the word is used metaphorically, presenting spiritual imageries.  For example, the Bible introduces the ideas of hardness or softness relative to the heart.  If a heart is “hard,” the individual rejects the things of God and remains locked in stubbornness.  If the heart is “soft,” that means God softens or is present in the person’s life to where the individual’s negative nature does not impede on the self, and he or she is able to “act” within the scope of a “soft” heart.[3]  Further metaphors and allegories are erected by way of the allusions to pureness or darkness of the heart.[4]  Interestingly, we also read in Scripture about renewing your mind (Romans 12:2).  Perhaps, this renewal means cleanliness and purity (soft heart), whereas depravity leads to a hardening of the heart (Romans 1:18-32).  As we can see then, the Bible also paints spiritual illustrations with the word “heart,” and in these “illustrations” we see a depiction of the status of man’s inner being.

So, what did I learn about the heart?  The “heart” in the Holy Scriptures is used as abstract concepts, which gives us a descriptive picture of the condition of the human mind.  The heart signifies the predisposed state of a person’s inner being.  Therefore, the heart is not only the collective wisdom and experience of who you have been and are now, but also at life’s end.

  

__________________________________

[1] There have been studies on the functions and development of the brain that show the different roles of the right and left parts of the brain.  See Thompson 33-36.

[2] Theological richness in the biblical model expands from the time of the Old Testament to the New Testament.  We see a clearer picture of who God is and an ethical leap in the New Testament from that of the Old Testament.  While the Old Testament brings a sort of foundational basis to the New Testament—the New Testament provides growth on the thoughts of the Old Testament.

[3] Ezekiel 36:26 provides a great inference point with regard to hardness and softness in the heart, as well as alluding to God’s intervention in a person’s heart.

[4] The ideas about pureness and darkness can be found in Matthew 5:8 and Ephesians 4:18, respectively.

Biographic Notes

Thompson, Curt. Anatomy of the Soul. Carrollton, TX: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2010. Print.

Bibliography

Christensen, Duane L. Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002. Print.

Course Syllabus. VA, 2011. Print.

Harris, R. Laird, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Electronic ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999. Print.

Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Print.

“Mind.” Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Tyndale Reference Library. 2001. Print.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995. Print.

Studying The Meaning Of Heart In The Bible (Part 2)

I contend here that the heart is to be distinguished from the soul and mind, but I also argue for the premise(s) which alludes that the word "heart" is used interchangeably with mental faculties.  The question I have before me is, "How does the heart differ from mind and soul?"  Here are several things I would like to consider:

• The heart is an actual physical organ.  As a physical organ the heart is important to the continual living of a person, because the heart provides the power needed for life.  Without a physical heart a person would not be able to survive.  Thus, the heart as a physical organ is vital to the very life of a person.

• The heart is an immaterial part of man.  As an immaterial form the heart is at the center of man's spiritual life.  What comes from the heart flows to the passions, desires, thoughts, affections, purposes, and endeavors of men.  Consequently, the heart as an immaterial part of man is at the core of man's self, and thus, the heart is the controlling factor of what represents that specific individual in his or her inner being ([as in person-hood] 1 Peter 3:4).

For an example of this dual (physical and immaterial) idea of the heart I offer the Greek word καρδία, which proposes that the heart "denotes the seat and centre of all physical and spiritual life."[1]  The Greek word captures the essence of what I am trying to communicate on how the Bible (2 Corinthians 5:12) depicts the meaning(s) of heart.

As I try to differentiate between "heart" and "mind", I would like to consider different versions of the Old Testament (OT) and how each one uses "heart" and "mind."  Psalms 38:10-11 states the following:

• My heart pants, my strength fails me; as for the light of my eyes, it also has gone from me.  My loved ones and my friends stand aloof from my plague, and my relatives stand afar off. [New King James Version] 

• O Lord, You are aware of all my entreaties; my groaning is not hidden from You.  My mind reels; my strength fails me; my eyes too have lost their luster. [Tanakh]

Notice how the Tanakh utilizes "mind" instead of "heart," but most if not all Protestant interpretations of the verse use the word heart.  The difference in the usage of the two different words could come from The Tanakh drawing from Masoretic Texts as its main source, and the Protestant version of the OT using The Septuagint as its main source.  It could be the linguistic differences between Hebrew and Greek that encapsulate the nuances of the word "heart."  With regards to a verse like Deuteronomy 6:5 the Tanakh is similar to the Protestant versions of the verse.  However, I would like to consider the following:

בכל לבבך ובכל נפשׁך ובכל מאדך, “with all your heart and with all your being and with all your might.” The pairing of לבב, “heart,” and נפשׁ, “being, soul-life,” suggests that a distinction of some sort is being made between mental and emotional energy and activity. In terms of modern depth psychology, we would say that our love for God is to embrace the whole of our mind, both conscious and unconscious. Self-discipline is required, in that we are to love God with all our might (מאד) as well.[2]

as well as,

In Old Testament anthropology, the seat of the intellect, equivalent to the mind or rational part of humankind.  The “soul” (better, “being” or “essential person” in line with commonly accepted understanding of Heb. nepeš) refers to the invisible part of the individual, the person qua person including the will and sensibilities.[3]

and finally,

The heart is mentioned first, as the seat of the emotions generally and of love in particular; then follows the soul (nephesh) as the centre of personality in man, to depict the love as pervading the entire self-consciousness; and to this is added, “with all the strength,” sc., of body and soul.

(In quoting this commandment, Matthew (Matt. 22:37) has substituted δαίνοια, “thy mind,” for “thy strength,” as being of especial importance to spiritual love, whereas in the LXX the mind (διάνοια) is substituted for the heart. Mark (Mark 12:30) gives the triad of Deuteronomy (heart, soul, and strength); but he has inserted “mind” (διάνοια) before strength (ἰσχύς), whilst in v. 33 the understanding (σύνεσις) is mentioned between the heart and the soul. Lastly, Luke has given the three ideas of the original passage quite correctly, but has added at the end, “and with all thy mind” (διάνοια). Although the term διάνοια (mind) originated with the Septuagint, not one of the Evangelists has adhered strictly to this version.)[4] [5]

Therefore, the idea the heart is interchangeably used with mental abilities, and the heart is also seen as the controlling feature to man's soul appears to be true.  Furthermore, it seems as if in the LXX (Septuagint) the word mind is "substituted" for heart on certain instances.  I find it interesting that the formula used in Deuteronomy 6:5 is also employed in the New Testament (NT) (i.e. Mark 12:30), but we find the NT writers expand on the concepts of the formula.  For example, Mark 12:33 alludes to the heart first and then it goes onto understanding.  Recall I explained lēb can mean heart, understanding, and mind, which in this instance could be interpreted as:  the heart controls [the action of loving] the soul (person-hood) of man—man will gain understanding, and thus be strengthened.
        

cont.

______________________________
[1] Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1889). 325.
[2] Duane L. Christensen, Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy 1-21:9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002). 143.
[3] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001). 164.
[4] Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002). Dt 6:5.
[5] The paragraph I put in parenthesis is from the Commentary on the Old Testament from footnote 10, which comes as a later part of the quoted material from footnote 4 above.

Studying The Meaning Of Heart In The Bible (Part 1)

So, I am taking a class where we explore the meaning of heart in the Old Testament and the New Testament.  The class has caused me to pause and question my assumptions about what the word means.  I would like to note in passing that I think the heart is interwoven and/or part of this thing that I label as the mind.  In the class I am currently taking the professor alluded that the "heart" is to be distinguished from the mind and soul (i.e. Deuteronomy 6:5; 26:16; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30, 33; Luke 10:25-27).  I am going to attempt to flesh out certain ideas about the word "heart" in order to assess the essence of the word.  

One has to ask, “How is the word 'heart' used in the Bible?”  Perhaps I can propose the following in order to distinguish the definitions for the word heart: 

(lēb), לֵבָב (lēbāb). Heart, understanding, mind (also used in idioms such as “to set the heart upon” meaning “to think about” or “to want”).

Concrete meanings of lēb referred to the internal organ and to analogous physical locations. However, in its abstract meanings, “heart” became the richest biblical term for the totality of man’s inner or immaterial nature. In biblical literature it is the most frequently used term for man’s immaterial personality functions as well as the most inclusive term for them since, in the Bible, virtually every immaterial function of man is attributed to the “heart.”[1]

There are several things to consider here: (1) "heart" is used to describe an internal organ, and (2) "heart" is also used to describe something that lies within man.  It also must be noted that inner nature of man is categorized as immaterial.  Furthermore, the heart appears to cover every immaterial function from the nature of man.[2]  Thus, the "heart" is the center of the internal nature of man (Exodus 36:2; Deuteronomy 28:47; Jeremiah 4:14; 4:19; Proverbs 10:20; 14:30; 1 Kings 3:12; 4:29; 8:17).  However, I would also like to recognize the word "heart often refers to the mental faculties,"[3] which is important to establish, because it shows the heart is used interchangeably, metaphorically, and allegorically with the mind.  Which begs the question:  in what way is the heart different from the mind and soul of man?

cont.

______________________________
[1] R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999). 466.
[2] There are different conceptions of what the nature of man really is.  Some Christians hold to a tripartite nature of man, and others support a dualistic nature of man, and finally there are those who maintain a materialistic nature of man.
[3] NET Notes.

Blog Changes

Well, since cl from TWIM queried about my blog I have changed some things, added links that interest me, and made some of my older posts a little bit more presentable.  It’s not much but hey…

Entertainment

There is this thing that tends to grab the attention of people. The thing I am thinking about is entertainment. By observing other people and myself it appears to me we spend part of our time searching for something to entertain us; whether it be a movie, card games, video games, or what-have-you. I like being entertained for some reason or another. The experiences of being in a different world whether it be movie(s), book(s), or video game(s) take me out of my reality.  In these "experiences" I am not physically in them, rather, my mind through my imagination takes me to a specific place.  I might even be able to travel to a different place on a whim, but I am not physically in these places.

Why do I like being entertained? Could it be that I am trying to escape my daily life, because it's too hectic and/or am I searching for something more?  For those of us who are insecure and/or tend to be loners, are we looking to fill the void of something?  What are we missing from our lives?  Or, perhaps we are not missing anything but we just like experiencing the process of going through being entertained.  What is it about these experiences that we like?  Is it because it takes us to a world we would like to be in but we cannot be a part of?  I am not entirely sure, but I know there have been times where I have watched a specific movie that made me feel this emotional anguish, which came over me as if I were missing something in my life.

...

Could it be that I miss God?

The Meaning of Prophet?

I did a search on the word "prophet(s)" on my Logos Bible Software and it gave me 2,455 results in 2,265 verses. These results included: prophet, prophets, prophetic, prophetically, and prophetess.  Here are the definitions of prophet: man of God (2 Kings 4:9) and seer (1 Samuel 9:9 and 2 Samuel 24:11). The word prophet contains the idea that the individual has been called (Jeremiah 1: 4-5) by God. Thus, you have "man of God" literary meaning God’s man. Keeping the suggestion of a prophet being God’s man we must remember the proposal that a prophet is also a "seer." The meaning of seer assumes the prophet has some sort of new power. Let us consider the following:

In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb "to see" is used also of understanding ("I see what you mean") and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things ("He sees things very clearly"). In the case of the prophets, their powers of "perception" were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.[1]

Let us consider Matthew 3:3.  The word prophet in Greek is (προφήτης) and it means: "An interpreter or forth-teller of the divine will."[2]  Let me even go further and quote what my digital commentary states:

A fixed feature of the early Christian tradition, Isa 40:3 is quoted in all four Gospels (John lacks the last line) to describe the function of John the Baptist. All four Gospels identify the words as those of Isaiah the prophet. The use of the quotation by Matthew is consonant with his stress on fulfillment; although he does not here employ a characteristic fulfillment formula, he does make use of a pesher-type formula ("this is that"), which points to fulfillment (cf. Acts 2:16). Of the Synoptics, however, Matthew most emphatically calls attention to the identity of John as the one spoken of by Isaiah with οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν, "this is the one."[3]

John the Baptist was considered the prophet which Isaiah wrote about. And, John the Baptist also brought forth the "good news" (see Isaiah 52:7 & 61:1). Therefore, John’s role as a prophet was composed of prophecy and the proclamation of God’s good news.

As I stated in class I believe the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Moreover, the church believes Jesus holds three offices (prophet, priest, and king) as we can read about these different offices throughout Scripture. Further, Christ is the pinnacle of each office which includes prophecy (Ephesians 2:20). Since Christ is the fulfillment of the message of the prophets, and because the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament; I have no reason to suppose there is or will be some sort of prophet who "prophesied" or will "prophesy" to the point where he or she would add anything new to the Bible. The canonization of the books of Bible assumes God’s revelation is "closed." Else, why canonize and close the canon of Scripture?

Now, I am certainly not going against the New Testament when it claims that some bear the fruit of prophecy. Indeed, God gave/gives the gift of prophecy to some, but this prophecy cannot add to what has already been revealed, rather, it confirms what has already been revealed. In fact, in thinking about what an office of prophecy might entail now we should consider Ephesians 3: 5-7:

Now this secret was not disclosed to people in former generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, namely, that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus. I became a servant of this gospel according to the gift of God’s grace that was given to me by the exercise of his power.[4]

Please note that verse 5 claims the "secret" has been revealed revealed here means to "uncover." Meaning, the revelation has already happened or has been fulfilled. So, while I might be able accept there are people who [currently] hold the office of a prophet; I would be wise to question anything that is or seems outside of Scripture. For further references I point to 1 Corinthians 14:29, 32, 37-40. Is it possible the role of the prophet [now] is mainly to proclaim the good news that has already been revealed?

_______________________________
[1] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort. Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, 2001), p. 1085.
[2] Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries: Updated Edition (Anaheim, 1998).
[3] Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, 2002). 48.
[4] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2006; 2006). Eph 3:5–7

On Purpose

*If* we are here by accident or for reasons other than being brought about without the intent of usefulness, do we really have a purpose? 

For example, if I make a robot for a specific function (i.e. cleaning my house) the sole purpose of the robot is to clean my house.  Now, I suppose I can use the robot to hang my wet clothes on, thus, one can say the robot has another purpose because I used it for such.  However, when I made the robot I specifically made it for the sole purpose of cleaning my house.  It seems apparently clear to me that when I originally made the robot my original plan was for it to clean my house, but along the way (as time passed) the robot was additionally used with a different purpose from the one initially intended.  So then, the robot's purpose was and still is to clean my house.  The very fact that the robot's purpose changes or broadens to something bigger does not overthrow the fact that the robot has a purpose.  I already acknowledged the fact that my purpose for the robot changed from my initial concept when I made the robot.  If I had foreknowledge[1] of the fact that I would also end up adopting an additional purpose for the robot; the robot would have been built for the purposes of cleaning my house and hanging my clothes.  One then could and should conclude that the robot serves a purpose because it was made for a specific reason.  However, one cannot conclude the robot gave itself purpose, because it served an additional purpose to what it was otherwise intended for.     

Now, suppose the robot had made itself (at face value such an idea seems absurd) or somehow through time the robot came to be (again, such an idea seems absurd) it cannot just decide that it was made with intention, because it was not made for a specific purpose.  Rather, the robot has/had the ability to not be and be at the same time or came about as an accident of nature, but it certainly was not made for a specific purpose.  Should the robot assume to itself it can give meaning or purpose to whatever it wants?  I guess the robot can give meaning to different things, but let us keep in mind the robot itself was not made with intention.  So how can the robot assume it serves some sort of purpose?  I do not think the robot can conclude that it was made with a purpose since it seems it came about accidentally/absurdly.  Therefore, anything the robot gives meaning to is just as absurd as its existence.


_____________________________
[1] While I as the maker of the robot am limited in terms of knowledge God is not.  Therefore, God has facts that allow Him to make non-arbitrary decisions as He has the broadest of information available.

Tortured Soul

The darkness surrounds me,
it grabs me,
it has a grip on me.

I have no where to go,
I have no where to run.

I am a tortured soul...