MIND (no exact equivalent in Heb.; closest parallels to Eng are לֵב, H4213, or לֵבָב, H4222, meaning heart or יֵ֫צֶר֒, H3671, by implication meaning imagination, device or purpose; LXX and NT use a wide range of terms but primarily νοῦς, G3808, and related cognates).

1. Problem of terminology. Biblical conceptions of psychology lack analytical and technical precision. Both OT and NT focus attention on man’s concrete and total relationship to God, and where psychological terms do appear their intention seems to be emphasis rather than a concern to divide or compartmentalize man’s activity. For this reason, no consistent pattern of terminology can be determined in either Testament. In some cases, our Eng. trs. idiomatically render the Heb. text with the word “mind” even in passages where no Heb. equivalent is found. (Cf. Gen 37:11; Exod 10:10.) The KJV uses “mind” to render six different Heb. terms: יֵ֫צֶר֒, H3671, (Isa 26:3); לֵב, H4213, (Num 16:28); לֵבָב, H4222, (Ezek 38:10); נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, (Gen 23:8); פֶּה, H7023, (Lev 24:12); רוּחַ, H8120, (Gen 26:35). In the LXX besides לֵב, H4213, and לֵבָב, H4222, νοέω, G3783, and its cognates are used to tr. several different Heb. terms: בִּין, H1067, (2 Kings 12:19); חָשַׁב, H3108, (2 Kings 20:15); עָשָׂה֒, H6913, (Isa 32:6); שִׂים, H8492, (Isa 47:7); שֶׂ֫כֶל, H8507, (Prov 1:3); and שִׂים, H8492, (1 Kings 4:20). In the NT, much the same situation prevails. The faculty of cognition or thought is variously tr. by such terms as heart (καρδία, G2840, Matt 13:15), soul (ψυχή, G6034, Phil 1:27); understanding or reflection (διάνοια, G1379, 2 Pet 3:1); opinion or knowledge (γνώμη, G1191, Rev 17:13); inner mind or purpose (ἔννοια, G1936, 1 Pet 4:1); and inclination (φρόνημα, G5859, Rom 8:7). What is obvious as one surveys the complexity of Biblical terminology is that no one term occupies an exclusive meaning, nor is one term alone used to indicate the faculty of reflection or cognition. It is equally clear because of this constellation of terms that man’s being defies precise definition. All these terms call attention to man’s inner being as over against his objective, physical manifestation. This is not meant to imply a depreciation of the body in Biblical theology but there is an antithesis between “flesh” (σάρξ, G4922) and that inner self or the mind that controls the self. “So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin” (Rom 7:25).

2. Cognitive concreteness. Although the Heb. mentality was strikingly different from the Gr., it should be emphasized that NT terminology and concepts are more closely related to the OT in connotation. To the Heb. mind, the process of thought was more existential than abstract. This fact is illustrated by the Heb. word for “meditate,” הָגוּת, H2050, which literally means “to murmur.” (Cf. Josh 1:8; Pss 1:2; 63:6; Isa 33:18.) Even the Heb. term שִׂיחַ֙, H8490, which is tr. both as “complaint” and “meditation” portrays action rather than passive contemplation. (Cf. Gen 24:63; Ps 119:15, 23, 48, 78, 148; and 1 Sam 1:16; Job 7:13; Pss 55:2; 142:2.) This cognitive concreteness often is obscured by our Eng. trs. For instance, the RSV trs. Genesis 31:20 as “Jacob outwitted Laban” (the KJV completely misses the sense of the text by tr. the Heb. as “Jacob stole away...”); whereas, a literal rendering of the text would read, “Jacob stole the mind or heart (leḇ) of Laban.” But it is in the area of ethics that we see the distinction between abstraction and concreteness. The high ideal, ethically speaking, is not mere contemplation of the good or the beautiful, but it is rather “to do justice or righteousness.” (Cf. Gen 18:19; 1 Kings 10:9; Ps 10:18; Isa 56:1; Jer 5:1; Ezek 45:9; Mic 6:8.) When man “meditates,” his lips move; when he “thinks” of righteousness, he does justice. (Cf. the onomatopoetic expressions such as the Heb. for “to be silent,” דָּמַמ֒, H1957, and its literal equivalent in Eng. “dumb.”) There is little or no evidence for a philosophical idealism that identifies thinking with being in the Platonic sense; however, there is a realism, particularly about the OT, that does imply that thought and being are identical. (Cf. Prov 4:23; 23:16, 17.) Although the Heb. text of Proverbs 23:7 is obscure, the KJV captures this Heb. nuance, “As he thinketh in his heart (mind), so is he.”

3. The mind and the nature of man. It has been indicated that neither the OT nor the NT is concerned about dissecting man into constituent parts, elements or faculties. The being of man is a united whole and his reflective or cognitive faculties are never isolated from his total being. On the one hand, the Bible locates the center of man’s being in those physical organs where man existentially grasps the reality of God and the world. In the OT, the bowels, liver, heart and even the womb are identified with this psychosomatic center of man. (Cf. Gen 43:30; 1 Kings 3:26; Ps 109:18; Lam 1:20; 2:11; 2 Cor 6:12; Phil 1:8; 2:1; Col 3:12; Philem 7, 12, 20.) At the same time, the Bible does specifically call attention to man as a thinking being. In the OT, the heart functions emotionally, volitionally as well as cognitively. The NT, however, provides a wider spectrum from which to view man as a thinking being. The term νοῦς, G3808, is primarily a Pauline term, and Behm suggests that “there is no connection with the philosophical or mysticoreligious use. Νοῦς is not the divine or the divinely related element in man” (TDNT, IV, 958). (For non-Pauline examples cf. Luke 24:45; Rev 13:18; 17:9.) For Paul the nous can become “senseless” when turned away from God (Rom 1:28). Or it can be the means by which the Christian community expresses its oneness in Christ. So Paul exhorts the Church to be of one nous (1 Cor 1:10). A less frequently used term is νόημα, G3784. And except for Philippians 4:7, the term usually has a negative connotation. (Cf. 2 Cor 3:14; 4:4.) Διάνοια occurs rather infrequently in the NT but is common to most of the NT writers. It usually conveys the idea of “understanding.” (Cf. Mark 12:30; Luke 1:51; Eph 4:18; 1 Pet 1:13; 1 John 5:20.) At the heart of the NT understanding of conversion and repentance is the term closely related to the concept of the mind, μετάνοια, G3567. Literally this term means “change of mind” but it also connotes an emotive element. (Cf. Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 7:9, 10.) Generally speaking, the Bible knows the mind only in its actuality as being controlled by Christ expressed in the unity of the Christian community or as alienated from the “knowledge of God” and under the power of the devil or sin. (Cf. Rom 8:6, 7; 12:1, 2; 1 Cor 2:14-16; 15:34; 2 Cor 4:4.)

Bibliography H. W. Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man (1926); D. R. G. Owen, Body and Soul (1956); A. B. Come, Human Spirit and Holy Spirit (1959); G. C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God (1962); W. N. Pittenger, The Christian Understanding of Human Nature (1964); J. Behm, “νοέω, G3783,” TDNT, IV (1967); D. W. Mork, The Biblical Meaning of Man (1967); L. Verduin, Somewhat Less than God (1970).