Religion or Righteousness

and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”  Mark 1:15 NASB

Repent – The Greek term for repent literally means “change your mind” (metanoéō)[1] but Yeshua wasn’t speaking Greek and in this case, knowing that the word he used was Hebrew makes a significant difference.  By the time the Gentile Church of the 2^nd Century adopted a Greek perspective, repentance literally became “change your mind,” a cognitiveconversion.  As a result, sin became error and redemption meant correcting faulty thinking.

“Hamartia, ‘sin’—a turning from God—accordingly implies error, since no one would ever knowingly turn from truth or willingly make a mistake.  Ignorance impedes right choices; knowledge occasions and sustains them.  In brief, ‘sin’ as moral error has an inescapably intellectual dimension: one chooses according to what one knows.”[2]

“Sin occurs when someone does something ‘contrary to right reason’ (Trypho 141): intellectual error precedes moral error.”[3]

We need to recognize this transformation since it has affected the theology of the West ever since.  Fredriksen notes:

“ . . . all forms of second-century Christianity differ from any form of the first-century movement, not least of all because of the necessary adjustments to eschatology called forth by the simple passage of time.”[4]

So what did Yeshua really mean when he called for his audience to “repent”?  Interestingly, it doesn’t seem that he was calling for any particular mental, physical, or spiritual action.  We can start with this important insight:

Although the OT has no special terms for repentance, the concept is present in cultic and prophetic forms. The cultic forms develop out of national emergencies, which are traced to the wrath of God even when no specific offenses are perceived.^[5]

“Repentance” as a specific religious act is a rabbinic concept.  In fact, Lambert has shown that “repentance” in the sense of deliberate remorse, confession, and forgiveness doesn’t appear until religious communities begin, and for most of Israel’s history, up to the Exile, religion was not a characteristic of the followers of YHVH.  What mattered was obedience, including sacrifice, but always within the context of Israel’s national/tribal identity within the cult.  When Yeshua preaches repentance, he is speaking to an audience influenced by rabbinic concepts.  Does that mean he is calling for repentance according to the thinking of the rabbis?  It’s hard to imagine that his audience would think differently—but, Yeshua is a reformer, a prophet in the same tradition as the pre-exilic prophets, and it is possible that what he is demanding is to be understood from the perspective of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, and the rest.  Not rabbinic.  Apostolic prophetic.  A return to the cult, to worshipping and honoring YHVH in the ways of Moses.  The rabbis established a religion.  Yeshua asked for reformation.

Now where do you think we are?

Topical Index: repent, sin, Mark 1:15

[1] 1. metanoéō. (1) This word, which is fairly rare, has first the sense “to note after or late” (often with the sense “too late”). (2) It then means “to change one’s noús,” i.e., opinion, feelings, or purpose. (3) If it is perceived that the former noús was wrong, it then takes on the sense “to regret,” “to rue,” in various constructions, and often with an ethical nuance.

2. metánoia. (1) The noun, too, can mean “later knowledge” or “subsequent emendation.” (2) More commonly it denotes “change of noús,” whether in feelings, will, or thought. (3) It then means “remorse” or “regret” if there is dissatisfaction with the previous noús and the pain etc. it might have caused.
3. Historical Significance of the Date. At first the two words bear a purely intellectual sense. When the idea of change of noús establishes itself, emotional and volitional elements come in, but the change is not necessarily ethical; it may be from good to bad. Only when the idea of regret is present is a moral component plainly included, and even now there is no total change in life’s direction, for the regret is only for a specific act or attitude, not for a whole way of life. Philosophers use the terms mainly in the intellectual sense, though not without a moral nuance. Fools become wise when they reconsider, but the wise are above metánoia, since it would pillory them as the victims of error and show them to be lacking in inner harmony. The Greek world offers no true linguistic or material basis for the NT understanding of metanoéō and metánoia as conversion. [J. Behm, TDNT, IV, 948–80]

[2] Paula Fredriksen, Sin: The Early History of an Idea, p. 104.

[3] Ibid., p. 80.

[4] Ibid., p. 68.

^[5] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 640). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.