The most important passage in the entire Bible is the Shema Yisrael—the essence of Judaism. The portion of the Shema that we are concerned with is called the “V’ahavta.” It contains the command “You shall love…” Jesus and the teachers of the law agreed that the V’ahavta was the greatest commandment. The V’ahavta is recorded in the Hebrew, in the Greek Septuagint, and in all three Synoptic Gospels (in three different forms).

Here is the original in the Hebrew:

Here is the original in the Septuagint:

Now, here are the three versions that Jesus and the teachers of the Law agreed upon:

Let’s summarize what we’ve found:

Heart: Greek kardia = Hebrew lebab
Soul: Greek psuché = Hebrew nephesh
Strength: Greek dynamai and ischus = Hebrew meod
Mind: Greek diánoia

First, this is from the Shema, the most memorized and most recited of all the Hebrew scriptures. Everyone knew this passage. It was more common than the Evangelical Christian memorization of John 3:16 or Psalm 23.

Second, the heart, soul, and strength all find Hebrew and Greek counterparts. But in the Hebrew and Greek originals, there is no mention of the mind. Considering that this was the most memorized verse of all time, it cannot be a mistake that a fourth element was added to the original three. It had to be intentional. Greek-speaking Jews of the diaspora would have cried foul at such an approach.

We have two facts: (1) this four-way formulation is not found in the Hebrew or the Greek Septuagint; and (2) Jesus and the teachers of the law identified the command as this four-way formulation. The logical conclusion is that the four-way formulation was the one commonly used at the time of Jesus (i.e. an oral tradition).

Third, Jesus considered the four-way formulation to be authoritative, calling it “the greatest commandment.”

Fourth, even more unusual than modifying the most attested and memorized verse in scripture is that this modification added word ‘mind.’ Here is the commentary on the word for ‘mind’ used here:

Don’t be tempted to think that this includes the connotations of the English word for ‘heart’: uses of the mind other than reasoning, such as emotions, instinct, or (spiritual) intuition. The language makes it clear that this isn’t just any kind of using the mind, as might be implied by ‘heart.’ It is thinking about both sides of an issue and weighing—or reasoning—through it. It is critical thinking. It is dialectical, of rational debate.

Let’s now consider this question:

If we say that the original Hebrew words did not include the mind, then we are saying that Jesus and the Jews added to scripture. While this would support Hurst’s claim that the ancient Hebrews believed in separate faculties for the heart and mind, it would also mean that Jesus was explicitly approving of introducing Greek reason-centric thought to the key passage of scripture. Obviously, this would be self-refuting.

We can safely conclude that the word for ‘soul’—the breath of life; emotion—does not include the concept of intellect or reason, expressed or implied. If it did include the mind, it would certainly not be describing it as a separate facility from the heart.

So let’s presume, for sake of argument, that the Hebrew word for ‘heart’ did not include the mind. This means that the Hebrew word for ‘strength’ (greatness; force; abundance; ability) includes both physical and intellectual ability. The problem with this assumption is that the Greek word for ‘heart’ does include the mind, reasoning, and seat of intellect. There would be no need—when translating from Hebrew to Greek—to add the word ‘mind’ separately in the translation if the destination Greek word ‘heart’ already implied it additionally. The approach of the Septuagint (‘power’) or the New Testament (‘strength’) would have been sufficient to include physical power if one didn’t want to include active mental thinking power. All this does is beg the question.

But it’s worse than that. If the Hebrew words for ‘heart’ and ‘strength’ only partially or obliquely—if even at all—included the mind, using two Greek words for the mind—’heart’ and ‘mind’—would indicate a significant change in emphasis towards the mind. If you were trying to find a better translation into Greek for the Hebrew ‘heart’ that did not carry the additional foreign connotation of the ‘mind’, it would make no sense to add a second word that unambiguously refers to reasoning and critical thinking.

If only ‘strength’ implied the mind, then the translation of Jesus constitutes an explicit introduction of Greek reason-centric thought to the key passage of scripture. As above, this is self-refuting. Thus, we must conclude that:

The Hebrew word for ‘heart’ did not exclude the conscious, reasoning mind.

We also find no evidence to support the notion that Hebrew ‘strength’ implied the mind (or at least, to the exclusion of the heart). If you were heart-led, it would be silly to say that one’s core being or power excluded the spiritual-focused heart but included the rational mind. This too would be a self-refuting assertion.

So even if the Hebrew words for ‘heart’ or ‘strength’ included the mind—and it is not at all clear that ‘strength’ even includes the mind—there is no indication at all that the heart and mind are a separate faculties: one word is describing both heart and mind together as one whole. The most likely explanation is that the Hebrew word for ‘heart’ included both ‘heart’ and ‘mind.’

The Hebrews did not separate the ‘heart’ and ‘mind’ into separate faculties.

But, if this is the case, then there would be no need to include ‘mind’ as a separate word because it was already implied by the Greek word for ‘heart’. The logical flaw with this idea is rooted in the fact that the Greek word for ‘heart’ is treated by the Hebrew translators (and everyone else…) as a proper translation of the Hebrew word for ‘heart.’ Since the Greek word for ‘heart’ includes both the heart and the mind, contrasting the Greek ‘heart’ with the Greek ‘mind’ wouldn’t accomplish the goal of describing separate faculties for the heart and mind.

In short, the only sensible explanation is that the Hebrew word for ‘heart’ included both the heart and mind and that Jesus was emphasizing the role of the mind—of reasoning and critical thinking.

Yes, you heard that right. Jesus was emphasizing the mind in the Law of Love.

We discussed the reason for this in “Reviewing ‘Hellenism is From Hell’ (Part 1)” and “The Path of the Heart.” Jesus was “inverting the Jewish world view and turning it back on them” to make them jealous and angry. Later Paul would learn this from Jesus directly, and he would build his ministry around it. That’s why so much of “Pauline Christianity” is so deeply rooted in rational expression. It’s not that he was corrupted by Greek philosophy, it’s merely what he learned from the Messiah.

We also confirmed—in “Reason Is A Tool“—that the our mind and reason are part of our creation just as much as our heart. God created them all to be used to their fullest. God would not have created a tool to be used whose use would inherently diminish another more important faculty. Above we showed that Hurst’s claim is irrational when tested against scripture, but this shows that Hurst’s claim is metaphysically incoherent.

The argument that the Hebrew language authoritatively described separate faculties of the heart and mind—with the former being dogmatically superior to the latter—simply falls apart once you recognize that Jesus and the Apostles authoritatively quoted the Greek translations that double emphasized the “faculty” of the mind. There is no other way to view it. When Jesus and the Apostles were faced with the choice of which competing version to confirm, they confirmed the Greek version!

Fundamentally, we don’t “recognize the Ancient Near Eastern notion that heart is a separate faculty from the conscious mind” because Jesus and Paul did not recognize this. And, neither did the Shema quoting Hebrews.

Radix Fidem theology requires that there be a great divide between the heart and mind in scripture and within the Hebrew persons. But there simply isn’t one. Both heart and mind are treated as a single part of one’s who being and this is either fallen or redeemed as one being relative to one’s relationship with God.

The heart and mind are not physically or spiritually defined, they are relationally defined. Those who read Bruce Charlton’s notions are aware that he promotes a ‘mystical’ relational theology (e.g. see here). That’s what this is.

We have talked about how Jesus viewed the Law of Love as qualitatively different from the Law of Moses. It was a paradigm shift away from the old Hebrew categories and towards relationship, not so-called “Western modes of thinking.”

To Jesus, the greatest commandments are primarily about relationship, both with God and with fellow men. There can be no true relationship with God without one’s entire heart, mind, soul, and strength (without division for the mental, physical, and spiritual).

When one is redeemed by Christ, paid for by his blood, their whole self is joined with him in a newly altered relationship. That includes the renewed (or changed) heart and mind.

The mind is required for relationship with God. All of it. Fully. If one rejects the tool that God has given, their relationship with God will be stunted.