Article Summary: In the greatest commandment, Jesus singled out and emphasized the explicit use of the mind and critical thinking as an act of loving God. He did not emphasize emotions and mentioned nothing of ethics, mysticism, metaphysics, philosophy, or epistemology.

Aristotelian Philosophy

Three of the “elements of persuasion”—Logos, Ethos, and Pathos—are Aristotelian. The so-called fourth category—Mythos—is just repackaged mysticism:

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher.

The Greek word muthos (mythos) is the Greek word for myths, fables, and tales. The Bible always refers to them as false tales or myths.^[1] It is related to the Greek word musterion (mystery)—which refers to sacred secrets of mysteries—and the word mueó—which refers to learning the secrets or being initiated into the sacred mysteries. In its historical use, mythos does indeed refer to the collective narrative mythology of a society or culture, incorporating their (usually false) assumptions about reality (i.e. metaphysics). It is also closely related to mysticism.

However, clever readers will note that something that “is strongly felt” is just pathos, the emotional conviction. The persuasive power of mysticism is fundamentally about the elevation of feelings—emotional appeals—over reason and ethics. Mystics will often use emotional language to describe mysticism and will also explicitly contrast (superior) mysticism against the (inferior) faculties of reason.^[2] The latter is explicitly minimized (or even outright rejected^[3]). When one suppresses reason, there is no longer a way to distinguish between mysticism and pathos. It is pathos, not logos, that is used to validate mystical experiences.^[4]

Mysticism, at least the non-metaphysical version described here which treats mysticism as a “way of knowing,” is fundamentally irrational and so inherently at odds with it. Rejecting reason—in full or in part—for mysticism leads to “an arrogant assumption [that] you do understand.”^[5] This kind of mysticism cannot truly coexist with rationality, and you’ll ultimately be forced to choose one (the emotional version) or the other (the intellectual version).

If there is an overriding principle that goes beyond the three elements of persuasion it is metaphysics, not pathos-driven mysticism. Even the dictionary agrees that mythos is about metaphysical assumptions, not persuasion:

The beliefs or assumptions about what is—or isn’t—is strongly dependent on the metaphysical assumptions from which one approaches reality. Assumptions, being assumptions or assertions about what is true, stand in opposition to persuasion.

Aristotle did not accidentally miss one of the modes of persuasion. Mythos, as metaphysics, is not a fourth mode. It is a different category altogether. And mythos, as mysticism, is mostly just pathos with anti-logos overtones:

What a great definition of mysticism!^[6] It is a perfect description of what mythos mytisicsm entails. The only thing I substantially changed in this definition from the Sigma Frame original is removing the part about the tactics being mostly in the past. The tactics of mysticism are alive, well, and unchanging. Mysticism has never been more popular in the West and it remains, as it always has been, a tactic of deception.

Where mysticism has changed from the past is that it now hides behind a thin veneer of intellectualism:

It takes very little effort to show that the vast majority of modern people have no interest in rationality, except, by paying lip service to it, as a utilitarian political tool.

To summarize, if something cannot be rationally defined, but is nevertheless “strongly felt” to be true, there are only two possible reasons:

The first possibility is that we may lack the knowledge or ability to define it rationally. The problem is with the inadequacy of the human experience, not a statement about that which we desire to understand. The state of inability to rationally define it is temporary or incidental. It is possible that with the further acquisition of knowledge or the increased application of logic and reason, this impediment can be rationally resolved.

The second possibility is that we can’t rationally define it because it is irrational (i.e. objectively false) and should be rejected. The state of inability to rationally define it is permanent or essential.

In both cases, there is no reason why logos and ethos should be set aside in favor of pathos or mythos. Personal inadequacies (the first possibility) do not mean we abandon reason, nor must we must accept the metaphysically incoherent (the second possibility).

But ultimately, Aristotelian philosophy does not replace the teachings of Jesus, which settle the issue for us.

The Teachings of Jesus

Where to begin?

First, why can’t science answer questions of meaning? This is a modern metaphysical assumption, but there is no rational reason to conclude that it is necessarily true. I’m not suggesting that science—as a discipline—can answer all questions to everyone’s satisfaction (a personal problem!),^[7] but science has raised and answered many questions regarding various fundamental realities of existence. This is why, for example, Paul testified to the witness of nature. It is why philosophers can speak of “natural law.” It is why the science of Semiotics leads to the conclusion that God exists. To wit:

That’s right. Not only is it false that science cannot answer questions of meaning, but there is an entire branch of science dedicated to the study of meaning. This is possible because, as the ancient Hebrews believed, all of nature is alive and reflects its creator. Science can and does reveal meaning and the divine. It is also absurd to think that God cannot use his own creation to convey meaning to us.

Second, consider this statement:

This is a strawman. Jesus didn’t quote the Shema to tell people how they must be saved. Rather, he quoted it to show the greatest commandment. Nor did Jesus say that the use of the mind was in any way philosophically insufficient. As we’ll see below, Jesus went out of his way to emphasize the use of the mind, as if the biggest problem of the time was the misuse of the rational faculties. It’s absurd to try to minimize the role of the mind when Jesus was trying to highlight it! Finding the purest truth involves the use of the mind. Truthseeking is an inherently loving act.

Third, in quoting the Shema, Jesus was not talking about epistemology or about ways of knowing or persuading. He was talking about ways of loving and worshiping God. While there are certainly overlaps between the two, Jesus was not engaging in Greek-style philosophical analysis in the Aristotelian mode. In fact, as I noted in “Heart and Mind, Redux,” the ancient Hebrews often made no distinction between what we call the “heart” (pathos? mythos?) and what we call the “mind” (logos? ethos?). The Aristotelian philosophical distinctions being made above were somewhat alien to the ancient Hebrews. I’ve written more about how Hellenist philosophy has infected Christianity here.

Fourth, Jesus did not incorporate “all four” of the so-called ‘elements of persuasion’ in his recitation of the Shema. Heart, soul, mind, and strength are by no means equivalent to the three (or four) elements of persuasion. Only two of the copies of the Shema (found in Luke and Mark) even mention four things. The others (in Hebrew OT, Septuagint OT, and Matthew) only mention three things. As we’ll see below, the one in Matthew arguably only includes two. To wit:

We’ll discuss this in more detail below, but I’ve already written extensively on this topic in “Heart and Mind,” “Emotion and Intellect,” and “Reason Is A Tool.”

The Mind

In English the term “heart” refers to the so-called “seat of emotions.” But, when the Bible speaks of the “seat of emotions” it references the kidneys or intestines (i.e. one’s “gut feelings”). When the Bible does reference the heart, it is with respect to the so-called “seat of intellect.”

Translators take the Greek and Hebrew words for “kidney” or “intestine” and translate it as the English ‘heart.’ They also take the Greek and Hebrew words for “heart” and translate it as the English ‘mind.’^[8]

So, when Jesus quotes the Shema with the word “heart” (Greek kardia = Hebrew lebab), he isn’t referring to pathos as such. If he were referring to anything in particular (rather than about the conscious, thinking self or being in general) he may well have been talking about logos, of understanding, intellect, and the rational mind.^[9][10][11]

In the Bible, translators treat the “heart” and the “mind” as if they are synonyms. If translators translated in a consistent way, you could translate the Shema this way:

But that’s not how it is translated in English, where to the modern reader it sounds more like this:

What a difference in emphasis!

But, by contrast, the New Testament never once uses the Greek word for feelings or emotions (or pathos) with respect to what a person should say or do, how they should act (or lead, or be led), how they should discern what is right, how they should understand what is the will of God, or how they should be saved.

Now, let’s review this quote again:

There is great irony here. Let’s unpack it.

The Shema is the most quoted and most important scripture in the entire Old Testament, and perhaps the New Testament as well. Jesus’ quotation of it is of critical importance and we would do pay to pay close attention to what he said.

The original Shema had three components: heart, soul, and strength. Of these, none refer explicitly to the concepts of ethos or mythos. The heart clearly and specifically includes logos, but only includes pathos by general implication of being part of the whole being.

The heart is the seat of one’s intellect,^[8] but it also represents the entirety of one’s mental faculties (including feelings). The soul is one’s breath of life, that which makes you living and not dead. As with heart representing the entirety of one’s mental being, the soul represents the entirety of one’s living (as opposed to dead) being. And of course strength is a physical attribute that stands figuratively as representative of the entirety of one’s physical being.

But Jesus did something extremely curious. He changed the Shema. He removed the word “strength” (in one gospel) and added a fourth word in all three gospel accounts. That word is diánoia, which means mind:

Why would Jesus add a second word for the mind? Well, the language Jesus added makes it clear that this isn’t just any kind of using the mind, as might be implied by the already included ‘heart’ (which many translators already translate as ‘mind’ elsewhere). This “mind” refers to thinking about both sides of an issue and weighing—or reasoning—through it. It is critical thinking. It is dialectical, of rational debate.

This reflects an extremely important shift. Jesus wanted to emphasize the role of the mind beyond that of the faculties of the mind already implied in the word ‘heart.’ Far from trying to assert the inherent weaknesses in critical thinking, Jesus went the opposite direction. If anything, he was pointing out that critical thinking had been lacking.

This should not be understated. Jesus went out of his way to tell his listeners to use critical thinking within the greatest of all commandments. There are many lesser commandments in scripture, but if you could only choose one of them, it would have to be the one where Jesus went out of his way to tell us to use our rational minds to show our love to God.

Paul confirmed Jesus’ teachings when he wrote that we are to renew our mind in order to test and approve what the will of God is! This is an astounding claim:

And it is why Paul applauded the intellectual approach of the Bereans. It is why the New Testament writers told us to test what is true:

If you find yourself veering into pathos and mythos while minimizing logos and ethos, then you’ve gone the wrong way. Minimizing the rational mind will inevitably lead to the inability to distinguish between what is and isn’t the will of God.

The minimization or abandonment of the mind leads to mysticism (and pathos). Thus, without the tools to test the spirits, one will fall away from Christ and towards the spirits of antichrist.

Notice the problem of moderns. Many have misused of the rational mind—failing to love the Lord your God with all your mind—and exchanged the rational for pathological pathos (i.e. emotions). But the solution to this is not to double down on pathos and “mythos” mysticism, but to make more ethical use of the mind. The solution to the heavy misuse of “reason” is by engaging in proper reasoning itself.

Of course it is simply not true that “we see a heavy emphasis on Logos.” Modern society is not typified by rationality, and rational views are most often attacked by those who heavily value emotion and mysticism (the latter of which make up the majority of society). Our churches do not refuse to condemn and eliminate sin because they are rational, they do so because of emotion: confrontations and division are mean. While the West may have (arguably) been built on reason, it has been a very long time since the West has been ruled by reason.

If you think otherwise, try reading “The Protestation of Dr Hugh Latimer” and then try comparing that form of debate with the ones that take place on social media. Many of the differences are like night and day.

Footnotes

^[1] The Bible never describes true teachings or traditions as mythos. Only those false things that should be rejected are deemed as mythos:

^[2] One mystic stated this bluntly: “God will scarcely bother with addressing Himself to human intellect.”

^[3] Here is what one mystic told me:

To “walk in the spirit” is to ‘walk in the new life.” This involves body, mind, and all of one’s life. Another mystic wrote:

This (false) distinction between “heart” and “mind” is not Hebrew in origin. Jesus never taught such a thing. In fact, the claim “reason must wait on the heart” is nonsensical because according to the Hebrew the “heart” is the mind. Saying “reason must wait on the mind” is a tautology.

As John Lennox points out, treating the mind (and consciousness) as equivalent to a physical fleshly brain is an atheistic evolutionary assumption, not a matter of biblical teaching. In Hebrew and Christian thought, the brain is not the mind.

^[4] I have never seen a mystic advocate testing the spirits using the instructions found in scripture or instituting rational examination as the final word on prophecy:

^[5] Mystics assert the exact opposite:

^[6] NOTE: I once called Christian revelation “mysticism,” but I do no longer. I’ve since concluded that it is best to keep a clear line of separation between divine revelation (which is good and true) and spiritual mysticism (which is deceptive falsehood). Similarly, Christians are not mystics who find secrets that only the initiated can know, rather they are revealers of revelation that has already long since been revealed.

^[7] As I discussed here, just because something isn’t perfectly clear does not make it useless. The same is true of the faculties of reason. Just because they fail to explain everything for everyone does not invalidate their role in explaining.

^[8] “The heart is the seat of understanding in biblical physiology, but it is also associated with feelings.” — Robert Alter, “The Hebrew Bible: The Five Books of Moses”, p. 641.

^[9] In Job 12:3, the NASB and NAB translate ‘heart’ as ‘intelligence.’

^[10] James Hastings’ commentary on the heart (from “The Great Texts of the Bible”) states “… But in Hebrew it also represented the seat of intelligence, …”

^[11] Abarim Publications, “The Hebrew Heart” calls the heart “The seat of intelligence and determination”