Wow! Wonderful explanation!! Everybody should read this for understanding...even if it needs tweeked
So let's tweek...
(So I don't forget: I am trichotomous...spirit, soul body. I just take issue with the soul being described as "
mind, will and emotions.")
However, let me put a little bit more context to that verse. That verse is a quote from the Old Testament, and the Old Testament does not use the word mind here, rather it uses the word might:
4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
-Deuteronomy 6:4-5
This word comes from the Hebrew meh'ode Strongs number H3966, and according to Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon means strength.
Excellent. This was my next pathway...
To be fair, in the account in Matthews gospel, the word mind is used, and it is the Greek word for mind also, according to the Lexicon. this makes one wonder why the word was used by Jesus when quoting the Old Testament verse. In most cases, I would probably lean toward Jesus quote as being a more accurate explanation of the original intent, for obvious reasons. However, in this case, I lean the opposite way, and I will do my best to explain why.
The Greek for mind (you go into a little later but perhaps not deep enough) is
dianoia. Yes, it comes from
dia, which denotes the "channel of an act"; it is the "because of"; it is the "by reason of"; it is the "through" or "with." And it comes from
nous, which means intellect. Curiously this is not simply "the mind," and especially not "the mind" as we define mind in the West. The word
nous -- which derives from
ginōskō, meaning "to know," "to be aware," "perceive," and "understand" -- meaning "intellect" and "mind." But the inference here is on meaning, understanding. The thought, not the thing (mind) -- the action not the noun.
In charismatic circles this is taught as if the soul is the brain. This is not so.
When you look at dianoia in light of Deuteronomy and it's base meanings, it would be more accurate to take Jesus' words as saying "...and with all your resolve." That is an intellectual activity and function. It is not your mind or ABILITY to think, but rather the process that goes through it and comes out of it: understanding, awareness, perception, and decision or resolve. But these things with a strength and a determination. Strong resolve.
There are three levels of interpretive review, IMHO, starting with the lowest form to the highest:
- obvious english meaning of the words used
- scholarly definitions of the original language words
- contextual definitions from the scripture itself, led by the Holy Spirit
I see 1 and 2 as the same, although perhaps 2 not stated directly enough. The scholarly definitions pick our english words. More to the point would be the scholarly translations: when a word has multiple meaning or nuance, what the scholar picks can influence the meaning...
Add to this that many times translators bring their own theological bias into the translation process, inadvertantly and unconsciously allowing it color the accuracy of their sholastic work and interpretive process, and we see that sometimes we need to do some contextual digging of our own. Some of the greatest revelations that I have gotten from the Word have come this way.
...which you covered here. I had a short email conversation with Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary a few years back about Greek grammar (he being a scholar of such, and me being nothing) and ambiguity solutions. He admitted that grammar is not always cut and dry and that translation stems from "the ubiquitous understanding of how we relate to God in the Bible." By choosing to side with an "ubiquitous understanding" then certainly you have leaned toward your theological bias. For certainly such "ubiquitous understanding" is going to be different between theologies, between religions. And by falling as such, we fall to the safe side of historic theology -- even if said theology took a wrong turn at an earlier time.
So leaving that aside, note that here an extra statement is added, and instead of it just saying, "all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind", it says, "all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy strength, and all thy mind".
So how do we interpret that? Jesus is basically interpreting the word might in the Old Testment passage to mean the mind and the strength of the flesh. Or, as I would put it, the mind of the flesh.
Here I can't follow you down the path you chose. You are shoehorning the current concept of "mind" into a palpable solution, albeit not what scripture intended, IMHO. Why? Because just as
soul and
mind are distinct in Jesus words,
mind and
flesh are just as distinct throughout the bible. In other words, I wouldn't mix the soul and the spirit, although they are tightly coupled, and I wouldn't mix the soul and the flesh.
Of course, the flesh itself doesn't really have a mind, does it? Well, not so fast. If someone is brain dead, or in a coma, often their body continues to function. Something is directing the bodily functions. While it is not the "mind" in the sense that we often tend to think of it, it is a sort of direction of will, based upon instinct, and habit. For me, this brings up a verse in Hebrews:
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:14
This verse seems to imply that one can trian the flesh itself to discern both good and evil. This is a kind of "mind of the flesh", so to speak, and is what I believe Jesus was alluding to here. My conclusion from this contextual journey is that the Greek word mind that Jesus employed here has a greater more versatile meaning than just the intellect, and furthermore, a meaning that is not fully contained or explored in the Lexicons that I have looked at.
No. Don't couple it with flesh. Let the soul have control of the senses -- or at the very least the input of the senses. It is the thinker and the processor, not the flesh.
My view is bolstered by the fact that the Greek word used for mind here is not the normal Greek word for mind. Rather it is a compound word with the prefix dia added to it, which means to see through to, implying an ability to judge rightly or discern. That sounds alot like Hebrews 5:14.
I covered this earlier....but yes, the soul judges and discerns. (And it doesn't need flesh to do this...do you think that when we leave this earth and our flesh turns to dust that we will stop judging and discerning?)
This takes us back to what exactly a soul is. The Bible tells us that God formed man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breathe, (ru-ach) of life, or spirit, and man became a living soul.
I can't describe all the parameters of the essence of that soul, but it appears to me to occur where and when the flesh of man and the spirit of man meet. The soul is kinda a co-joining of the two, or a meshing of the two, that brings about our cognitive functions, emotions, and where the seat of our will is. Please don't be too critical of my description here, it may not be technically correct, but I am just trying to give a feeling or picture of what I see happening.
The soul sits between the two. The spirit of man does not command man, rather the soul does. The soul receives information from both the flesh and the spirit, then makes a decision of will, and commands the mind and the body/flesh to obey. If we are walking in the spirit, then our soul is in agreement with our spirit, and following its lead, but it is still the choice of the will that makes this decision. If it was up to the spirit to make the choice, then obviously everyone that was born again would thereafter walk a perfect walk in the flesh because we have a perfected spirit. We don't however, because even though we are saved, it is the soul of man, which is not completely renewed, that has the seat of command.
Yes. Our reborn spirit is righteous. The soul sits between. Our flesh is carnal. The spirit and the flesh influence the soul, input to it so that it can judge, discern, decide, perceive, understand, know or gain knowledge.
I like how you (did you know you did it??) say that the sould receives info from spirit and flesh, makes a decision and "commands the mind..." (as if, rightly, the mind is outside the soul) "...and the body/flesh to obey." Your soul is helping you write with understanding even as your tradition tries to keep it wrapped up with historical twine.
It appears to me that what Jesus was doing here was emphasizing the role of the mind in directing the flesh, not trying to state that the soul and the mind are two different things.
I disagree. Jesus said exactly what he meant, using the Greek words He intended. Modern scholars (what? 100 years ago??) took that word and translated it to comfortable terms. But if comfortable terms conflict with but one verse in God's Holy Word, then they are inaccurate.
In conclusion, let me say that this view of man being a spirit, that has a soul, and lives in a body is the default view of the WOF movement, to the best of my understanding. Kenneth Hagin taught this, and so does Kenneth Copeland. However, your statement seems to lean toward the dichotomous view of man, rather than the trichotomous view. Is that so? I'm just curious.
Yes, this is a catch phrase not only for WoF, but for most of charismatic teaching. Yes, Hagin and Copeland both sing song that phrase. It is tradition. And it isn't heretically wrong; it is simply misplaced if one is getting technical on the issue. (I'm a language lawyer, so I'm technical on such issues.)
My view is that man is a spirit, he has a soul, and he lives in a body. Both the spirit and the body have senses that receive information from the world around them. The spirit receives information from the spiritual senses about the spiritual world, and the body receives information from the physical senses about the physical world. The soul doesn't have senses of its own, it is simply the clearinghouse for the information sent to it from the spirit and the body. The soul contains the mind, the will, and the emotions. It colates all the information and makes decisions about what do do with it.
My view is so close to this that normally I wouldn't contend it. I don't know if I would say the soul has no senses itself, it is much more complex. And I do not include the mind in the soul (nor does scripture). It's inclusion stems from trichotomous beleivers wanting to SIMPLIFY the picture: Our spirit man, Our flesh/carnal man, Everything else!
Finally, I would like to add, that just because the word 'and' is used, doesn't always make it a separate item, and one can use a word that describes a whole to refer to only a part, even though the word means the whole normally. For instance, if I were to say that I washed my body and my hands and my feet, you would understand what I mean. Even though technichally my body includes my legs arms hands and feet, I could also use the word in a more limited fashion, referring to just the trunk of my body. That doesn't make the statement false, and is I was to interpret from that the may hands and feet are not part of my body, I would be incorrect. In the same way, just because Jesus said soul, and mind, doesn't mean that the mind could not be part of the soul also.
Understood, although I think your stretching to apply it here. You simply cannot find instance in scripture where the mind is shown to be in the soul. But I can show verses that divide the two.
I would say that in order to believe that the mind is not a part of the soul, which is a pretty well established doctrine, you would have to provide more than one verse as evidence, particularly one that can be seen in a very different light.
Think about this statement, Dan. Can you find in scripture any other topic we believe in that stems from a single verse explicitly, but supported only implicitly elsewhere? Can you find any doctrine that are not even explicitly mentioned directly and only are supportable implicitly? I'm sure you can find examples for both.
Btw, yes, it is a well established doctrine in most charismatic churches and is not a defining point of separation for WoF -- we are simply charismatic on this point.
Which single verse of scripture can we throw out because it is fallible and not the Word of God? Perhaps this one?
Jesus said what He said because it was truth. Now we need to form our doctrines and theologies around that truth. And if even one verse chips or contradicts our ideas, then our ideas are wrong, not the Word -- regardless of pretty well established....
Be blessed, my friend!!
