Metanoia Read online

  Metanoia

  Clarity Series

  By Andre Rabe

  ©

  2011 Andre Rabe. All rights reserved.

  ISBN: 978-0-9563346-5-7

  Published by Andre Rabe Publishing.

  Contents

  Introduction

  1. Context

  2. Historic Background

  3. Metanoia Word Study

  4. Freedom from destructive thoughts and habits

  5. Confession

  6. Conclusion

  I

  ntroduction

  I love questions.

  Good questions are worth infinitely more than the best answers to worthless questions.

  Mary-Anne and I travel extensively, conversing with people about this beautiful gospel and we are constantly asked questions. Some questions are asked with predictable regularity - no matter what topic we speak on or what location we find ourselves in, these questions keep popping up.

  This booklet is inspired by one of those questions and the joy we witnessed in discovering the answers together.

  C

  ontext

  The good news of how God reconciled the world to Himself in Jesus Christ has always been radically and fundamentally different from the world’s way of thinking. In fact, measured by human standards of logic, it is pure foolishness. [1] I mean, how wise is it to give abundant life to those who deserve death? How wise is it to forgive, even before a person realises how wrong they have been ... even before forgiveness is sought [2] ... to love those who are at enmity against you? [3]

  It is in the light of this radical declaration of the gospel that questions are stirred, so before I get to the question, let me set the scene ... the context in which this question is asked.

  Good News Summary:

  Man began in God. No matter how far man has fallen from his original place of innocence, God has never been confused about the true identity of man.

  Jesus Christ is the place, the event and the person in which God and man meet once again. In Christ Jesus, God has taken the initiative to reconcile man back to Himself - to restore man to blameless innocence. [4] Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, and as such does not only represent God’s initiative, He also represents man’s perfect response of faith to God’s initiative.

  2 Cor 5:19 says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

  While we were at our ugliest, incapable of offering God anything worthwhile ... while we were dead in our sins, He raised us up together with Christ! [5]

  He dealt with sin, guilt, every offence that stood between Himself and man, so completely that He could remove sin from His own memory. [6] Nothing in His thoughts towards man, remind Him of sin.

  In God’s reality, Jesus Christ represents man more fully and completely than any other man. He was handed over to death because of our sins, and He was raised because of our justification! [7] Jesus, raised and ascended to the right hand of God, represents humanity’s justification.

  We have our beginning and our present being in him. He is the force of the universe, sustaining everything that exists by his eternal utterance! Jesus is the radiant and flawless expression of the person of God. He makes the glory (intent) of God visible and exemplifies the character and every attribute of God in human form. (Gen.1:26, 27) This powerful final utterance of God (the incarnation) is the vehicle that carries the weight of the universe. He is the central theme of everything that exists. The content of his message celebrates the fact that God took it upon himself to successfully cleanse and acquit mankind. Jesus is now his right hand of power, seated in the boundless measure of his majesty. He occupies the highest seat of authority, in which our innocence is represented. (“Having accomplished purification of sins, he sat down...”)

  Hebrews 1:3 Mirror Translation

  Jesus is what God believes concerning you! This is not only potentially true, or only legally valid - what God achieved is reality ... it is true with or without your agreement. [8] He is the lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. [9]

  [ 1 ]1 Cor 1:21

  [ 2 ] 2 Cor 5:19

  [ 3 ] Rom 5:10

  [ 4 ] Col 1:19,20

  [ 5 ] Eph 2:5

  [ 6 ] Heb 10:17

  [ 7 ] Rom 4:25

  [ 8 ] Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 13:8

  [ 9 ] John 1:29

  H

  istoric Background

  When the goodness of God is revealed to a person, the most natural response is agreement and gratitude.

  However, men seem to always want to add some conditions, methods, steps and processes as prerequisites to God’s goodness. One such condition, has been the doctrine of repentance.

  In this booklet we will look at how various doctrines of repentance were developed, including some of the most popular and current mindsets. Then we’ll look at how the greek word metanoia was used, in both classical Greek and also in the context of the New Testament.

  The purpose is to show that faith and repentance are not separate processes or events, but different descriptions of the same event. We’ll also see that neither faith nor repentance persuades God to forgive, but rather, they are the natural responses to the revelation of what God has done already.

  Paul was constantly plagued by people who wanted to introduce at least a few of the old ways, a few reasonable conditions, to the good news he proclaimed. In Gal 4 & 5, Paul gives this conclusion: if you mix any law, any conditions, to the message of Jesus, He will be of NO benefit to you! [1]

  It did not take long for distortions to take root. In fact the first generation after the Apostles started making some additions. Instead of acknowledging that all sin was dealt with in the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ, the emphasis was placed on something man had to do.

  On the theology of the early church fathers, Torrance notes:

  Salvation is wrought, they thought, certainly by divine pardon but on the ground of repentance [self-amendment before God], not apparently on the ground of the death of Christ alone. There is no doubt about the fact that the early Church felt it was willing to go all the way to martyrdom, but it felt that it was in that way that the Christian made saving appropriation of the Cross, rather than by faith … It was not seen that the whole of salvation is centered in the person and the death of Christ .... Failure to apprehend the meaning of the Cross and to make it a saving article of faith is surely the clearest indication that a genuine doctrine of grace is absent. [2]

  Following are the views that were held prior to the Reformation.

  Only sins prior to baptism were forgiven:

  This view basically placed the emphasis on the event of baptism. At this point a new believer began with a clean slate. The view was that all sins prior to this event were forgiven, but certainly not any new sins. [3] The thinking behind this was: if the consequences of sin are as grave as possible, then the likelihood of people sinning would be less. However, such an approach has never worked!

  The expected, but problematic response was that people put off baptism for as long as possible, thereby ensuring that more sin would be forgiven.

  These early Christian leaders dealt with this problem by developing the concept of ‘doing penance’ or repentance, as a way to solve the problem of sin after conversion. It was meant to make forgiveness possible, but difficult, so that people would not take advantage of it. But this got complicated very quickly . Which sins qualified? How many times could you be forgiven? Some suggested that there could only be one additional opportunity to repent! However, most felt that there could be multiple opportunities to repent. But how many times could a person ‘do penance’? How exactly could repentance be implemented in a way that would discouraged people to sin again?

  This lead to a very complicated system of categorising s
in and an equally complicated process of repentance, involving the depth and sincerity of a person’s feelings of regret, together with various ‘acts of penance’, as prescribed by a priest. These acts of penance in effect became one’s own atonement for one’s sins.

  By the time the scriptures were translated into Latin, these doctrines, rather than the actual text, influenced the translation more. And so metanoia was translated as ‘acts of penance’ and later as repentance. Penance implies a payment ... and many cathedrals were financed by this concept of paying for your sins. Many religious organisations are still financed by the same concepts of guilt and payment.

  This translation of metanoia has caused so much misunderstanding. In fact, the common understanding of the word repentance does not even occur in the original text!

  The word repentance still carries the same flavour as penance. Re-penance ... a repetition of penance. Augustine, who had an enormous influence on the western christian mindset, used the vulgate as his preferred translation and built his doctrine of repentance upon this erroneous translation.

  The vulgate has been reviewed often and many errors have been corrected. Often it was pointed out that the concepts of repentance and penance are not present in the Greek word metanous. Lorenzo Valla, a theologian, again pointed out this error in translation in 1430. However, because these concepts were so ingrained within the religious mindset, the corrections were overruled and the error of penance was retained.

  From this understanding of penance, came the doctrines of indulgences, whereby people literally used money to buy forgiveness. Now many of you might scoff at this idea as pre-reformation ludicracy ... not realising how much of it has been retained in protestant theology.

  Although the idea of monetary payment was rejected by protestants, the idea of repentance being a type of payment, remained. The currency simply changed to ‘sorrow’ and ‘confession’. In other words, repentance was measured by the depth of sorrow a person felt for what they did and who they were. Further weight was added by the sincerity of their sin confession. This idea says that what Jesus did is only potentially yours; that the payment of repentance - the weight of your sorrow and the sincerity of your confession - is what actually pays for your forgiveness!

  Such an understanding of repentance gave birth to so much preaching, aimed at evoking regret and sorrow through making people conscious of their sin and undeserving nature. This is not the gospel! As we’ll see later, true repentance might include regret, but it is not synonymous with regret.

  [ 1 ] Gal 5:2

  [ 2 ]Thomas F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers page 138,139

  [ 3 ]Justin Martyr, The First Apology, 15-16; Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, 2.11; Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 1.17-18; and Anselm, De Concordia III: Grace and Free Choice, 8

  M

  etanoia - Word Study

  The Greek word metanoia (μετάνοια) is made up of two words, namely:

  1. meta (μετά). A primary preposition properly denoting accompaniment; amid, together, with, to, when.

  2. nous (νοῦς) the intellect, that is, mind (divine or human; in thought, feeling, or will); by implication meaning: - mind, understanding.

  Metanoia literally means to come to your senses; to come into your right mind; to intelligently understand.

  Use of ‘metanoia’ in classical Greek:

  In 198 A.D. Tertullian wrote the following: “In Greek, metanoia is not a confession of sins, but a change of mind.”

  The common use of metanoia simply meant to change one’s mind. People or individuals thought in a certain way and made certain decisions, but when they were presented with different or further information, they changed their minds.

  Polybius (ca. 208-126 B.C.) used metanoia to refer to the Dardani people, who were on their way to attack Macedonia while Philip, the Ruler of Macedonia, was away with his army. However, Philip heard of it and returned quickly. Even though the Dardani were close to Macedonia, when they heard that Philip was coming, they changed their minds. They broke off the attack before it even began. [1]

  Similarly, Plutarch, who lived in the late first and early second century A.D., wrote:

  Cypselus, the father of Periander . . . when he was a new-born babe, smiled at the men who had been sent to make away with him, and they turned away. And when again they changed their minds, they sought for him and found him not, for he had been put away in a chest by his mother.

  In Classical Greek metanoia meant changing one’s mind about someone or something. For example, Thucydides used the term when writing about the response of the Athenian council to a revolt. The council decided that all of the men of the city of Mytilene were to be put to death--not merely those who participated in the revolt. However, on “the next day a change of heart came over them.” The Athenian council changed its mind. It decided that only those who participated in the rebellion should be put to death. [2]

  These and numerous other examples show that metanoia was used when referring to a change of mind. In specific cases a person or group might realise that what they believed before was wrong and caused them to take wrong action. In these cases a change of mind would also imply regret, however, metanoia by itself simply meant a change of mind.

  An example from the new testament that demonstrates that metanoia was used in the same sense, is Heb 12:17 which reads: “For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit a blessing, he [Esau] was rejected, for he found no place for metanoia, though he sought it diligently with tears.”

  I’ve heard it preached that Esau desperately wanted to repent from his sinful behavior, but could not find a way of doing it! But what is it that Esau could not find? He could not find a way of changing his father’s mind. Isaac blessed Jacob instead of Esau and there was no way he was withdrawing that blessing or changing his mind, no matter how Esau pleaded.

  New Testament Metanoia:

  And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:20 NKJV)

  The truth about God and man is revealed in Christ. The good news presents man with a whole new way of understanding God and himself. Metanoia, in the context of the gospel, is to come to our senses, to change our thinking in accordance with this revelation. And it is not only the truth about God ... but the truth about man. The true God does not reveal Himself in isolation from man, but as God in whom man finds his true existence.

  Luke 15 from verse 11 onwards is a story that so accurately portrays this event of coming to one’s senses.

  And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything. “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

  But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and
kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate. (Luke 15:11-24 ESV)

  Here we have a guy, who comes from a good family. However, he makes some very unwise decisions, starting with abandoning his family and choosing a lifestyle contrary to his true identity. It is described as a journey into a far country and a lifestyle of reckless living. Eventually he ends up in a very difficult position.

  The moment in which he comes to his senses, is described as ‘he came to himself’. It was his memory of his father, his memory of his original identity, that provided the reference and basis upon which he could come to himself. If the pigs den was where he began, he would have no reference to a better life. However, remembering who he really was, was in stark contrast to his experience in the pigs den. This jolted him into action. He could either continue his existence in this false, yet very tangible identity, or he could embrace what he remembered as the truth about himself.

  James 1:23 says that whenever a man hears this word, he is like a man that sees the face of his birth as in a mirror.

  It actually uses the word ‘genesis’ (γένεσις) - the face of his genesis, his beginning, his origin. The good news declares God’s original thought and unveils our beginning in Him. It is the reality of our beginning in Him, that reminds us of who we really are.

  Yes, this might be in great contrast to what we currently experience, but it does not change the truth of our genesis in Him. In fact, it is the very reality of the good news that creates a crisis: do I embrace God’s truth about me, or do I continue to live in my own illusions. The ‘pigs den’ might be a very real experience, but it is based on a false identity. The truth of your origin, the character of your Father, are greater realities - realities that can overcome and completely alter your current experience.