The Mystery of Metanoia

Nathan Johnson 1 The Mystery of Metanoia: The Apostle Paul’s Scarce Discussion of Repentance in His Epistles Abstract Bible scholars across the theological spectrum have noted the Apostle Paul’s scarce use of the word metanoia and related repentance words in his Epistles. Given the prevalence of metanoia in Judaism and the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus, the lack of this concept in Paul is puzzling. Many scholars have taken this to be indicative of Paul’s diversion from the teaching of Christ or his establishment of a new understanding of salvation that ignores repentance altogether. However, the historical context of Paul’s day hints at an alternate explanation. It seems clear that many Jews in the 1st century had essentially equated metanoia with justification and a work that merits the acceptance of God. Because of this, Paul prefers to use the pistis concept when discussing justification and uses metanoia only when pistis would not precisely refer to the aspect of conversion or the Christian life that Paul was addressing. Key Words: Epistrepho, faith, justification, New Perspective on Paul, metanoia, pistis, repentance, 2nd Temple Judaism. Introduction Given that metanoia—and related repentance concept words, such as epistrepho—finds significant emphasis in the teaching and preaching of John the Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles, its scarce reference in the epistles of Paul is quite astounding.1 While repentance marks the 1 In the Gospels, the noun form of metanoia is used 8 times and the verb form is used 16 times. In Acts, the noun form is used 6 times and the verb form 5 times. Metanoia and epistrepho (and their cognates) are used a combined 7 times in his letters, while the faith concept is found 154 times in his letters and the Spirit concept 128 times. Mary E. Andrews, “Paul and Repentance,” Journal of Biblical Literature 54, no. 2 (1935), 125. 1 Nathan Johnson 2 definitive response to the coming judgment proclaimed by John the Baptist (Matt 3:2)2 and is a key feature of Christ’s invitation toward sinners to join His kingdom (Matt 4:17; Luke 5:32, 13:3-5),3 Paul seems to purposefully avoid using the term,4 especially in discussion of questions of salvation and justification, preferring the concept of pistis instead.5 This lack becomes just as puzzling given the immense emphasis on repentance in the Old Testament and in Jewish writings of his day.6 While scholars across the theological spectrum note the scarcity of the repentance concept in Paul, they differ as to the significance of this fact. Consequently, the conclusions drawn in the debate can have radical implications for how one reads Paul and how one regards the nature of salvation and justification as a whole. This author contends that Paul uses the repentance concept when it most precisely addresses an aspect of conversion or the Christian life that pistis would not affectively relate to, and he refrains from repentance language when it could have been confused with works-based justification or with a skewed Jewish concept of metanoia, preferring to emphasize pistis as the means of salvation and the defining characteristic of the Christian life (Gal 2:20). The Field of Interpretation 2 George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 37. 3 Ladd, Theology, 82. See Ladd’s discussion on the difference between Jesus’ call to repentance as an invitation in response to the gift of the Kingdom and the contemporary Jewish understanding of repentance as another work of the law, as well as in contrast to John the Baptist’s call to repentance in response to God’s coming judgment (82). The contrast, according to Ladd, is seen most clearly in his pursuit of and fellowship with sinners, to the disgust of the religious leaders (82). While Ladd’s perspective is valid, it must be noted that the similarities between Jesus’ message and John the Baptist’s (see the almost identical wording of Matt 3:2 and 4:7) mark greater similarities than differences. Although, it should be noted that Jesus’ emphasis on judgment is directed more at the Pharisees (Matt 23; Luke 6:24-26) than at sinners marginalized by Jewish society (John 8:11). 4 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 327. 5 Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 375. 6 Ladd, Theology, 35-36. 2 Nathan Johnson 3 In the shadow of Wrede, Knox regards Paul’s emphasis on expiation, rather than repentance, for securing forgiveness as antithetical to the message of repentance and acceptance espoused by Jesus.7 He furthermore notes that as a consequence, Paul provides no foundation for ethical living or the removal of guilt for the sinful Christian, but rather merely urges Christians to obedience and reminds them that when they fail, they can rest in knowing that the law has no power anymore.8 Montefiore regards the scarcity of metanoia as an example of Paul’s utter lack of rabbinical training, given its prevalence in Jewish writings.9 Mary Andrews, in Schweitzer’s footsteps, reasons that Paul must be asserting that mystical union and the mystical work of the Holy Spirit replace the concept of repentance as a more effective mechanism for reconciliation and transformation.10 While not as radical as the others, Bultmann takes this paucity of repentance language as evidence that Paul was not concerned with how one is released from the guilt of past sins, but rather how one can be freed from the power of sin.11 By replacing repentance with the faith-concept, justification for Paul was grounded in the acceptance of the 7 John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (London: Adam and Charles, 1950), 149-53. According to Knox, the familial language used by Christ in his teaching and parables (especially the Parable of the Prodigal Son) in reference to God’s forgiveness of our sins out of His love and in response to our repentance illustrates the extent of Christ’s conception of salvation (148-49). Thus, Paul’s interpretation of Christ’s death in legal terms, necessarily expiatory, is in contrast to Jesus’ Gospel and an adequate understanding of God’s forgiveness (149-53). 8 Knox, Chapters, 153-54. It must be noted that paragraphs later, Knox affirms that Paul is not in direct opposition to Jesus because he implants the concepts of forgiveness and repentance in his concept of “grace” (15455). Yet Knox is unclear as to whether he merely thinks Paul was a poor communicator and thus presents a seemingly different conception of salvation as Jesus, or whether Paul’s conception was in certain aspects actually incorrect. Given his criticisms of Paul’s emphasis on penal substitution as necessary for reconciliation, the later seems more plausible. 9 Knox, Chapters, 143. Andrews, “Paul and Repentance,” 125. 10 11 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. Kenrick Grobel; Waco: Baylor, 2007), 287. 3 Nathan Johnson 4 message of Christ and our surrender as self-saviors to embrace the salvific function of Christ on the cross, and in this surrender, find the power of sin broken.12 Those in the New Perspective school of thought approach the issue differently. Sanders interprets this scarcity as indicative of Paul’s theology of reconciliation and salvation. According to Sanders, repentance was not necessary for reconciliation with God, for repentance was received upon God’s initiation (Rom 5:11).13 Sanders interprets Paul’s understanding of salvation as a transfer of lordship from Sin to Christ.14 He reasons that because repentance cannot foster a change of lordship, “salvation” is found in believing the Gospel message that Christ is raised—and thus we are raise—and by submitting to His lordship (Rom 10:9)—and therefore one can theoretically “become a Christian” without ever being convicted of sin.15 Dunn does not go as far as Sanders, but rather avoids making a definitive conclusion. He offers the possibility that Paul may be attempting to emphasize what God has already done apart from the action of the sinner, rather than what the believer did to make himself right with God.16 He notes that Paul might also have wanted to emphasize more of what the Christian should be committed to rather than what he must turn away from.17 Wright refrains from addressing the issue at 12 Bultmann, Theology, 315-317. 13 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977), 470. 14 Sanders, Paul, 498-99. In Sanders’ perspective, Paul didn’t start with the notion of man’s sin to reach the conclusion that all men are under the lordship of sin. If he did that, then the obvious remedy is found within Judaism: repentance for sins committed. Rather, since Christ’s death is for Jews and Gentiles to establish and provide lordship for those “in Christ” sin must necessarily function as the competing lordship. 15 Sanders, Paul, 500. “All of this can take place without reference to Christians’ becoming convinced of their transgressions, repenting of them and being forgiven for them.” Granted, Sanders admits that repentance will soon follow (500). 16 Dunn, Theology, 328. He also notes that since Paul is writing to Christians who have already been converted, he need not focus on it. 17 Dunn, Theology, 327-28. 4 Nathan Johnson 5 length, but notes that Paul never focuses on the concept, regarding it as the “starting point” for a lifelong journey of conversion as one moves into a deeper knowledge of Jesus (Phil 3:8).18 Conservative evangelical scholars spend far less space discussing the issue. Behm posits that Paul may have seen the concept of repentance being abused by Jews who applied it to penitence and outward form.19 Harris notes that repentance was a key aspect of pistis, which explains why Paul rarely discusses it in isolation. Additionally, metanoia may have had negative connotations with Jewish legalism that Paul wanted to avoid being associated with.20 Ridderbos pays little attention to its paucity in Paul, merely noting his little use of it and its function as a total turning of the man from sin to God.21 Overall, conservative scholars regard metanoia as a key characteristic of pistis and thus its absence is of little note. Paul’s Use of Metanoia and Epistrepho General Definitions 18 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 1396. Wright spends the majority of his discussion redefining the conception of conversion in Paul’s theology altogether (as transitioning communities and embracing a call), rejecting the notion that Paul’s conversion on the Damascus road was his model. According to Wright, Paul’s discussion of the Damascus road experience was meant not to be an individual existential model for everyone, but rather to explain what happens to all Christians eschatologically because of Christ’s work—emphasizing the work of the Messiah first and foremost as “effective signals” of the transformation of all believers (1425). He states, “What happened to Paul, personally and convulsively, was what through the Messiah’s death and resurrection had happened to the world as a whole, as he says in Galatians 6.14, and more specifically to Israel as a whole, resulting in the mission to the nations” (1426). Wright might take things too far with his interpretation of the Galatian account. Its purpose was mainly to validate his apostolic authority, not necessarily to be an object-lesson for the radical work of Christ as discussed later in the letter. Polhill notes that Paul does not go into any of the details of his conversion: his main point is to validate his ministry and authority as coming from Christ alone. Wright might respond by saying that Paul recounts his conversion both to validate his authority and his gospel message, transitioning in vs. 18 from himself to the content of the rest of his letter—there is no separation for him (1424). Nonetheless, Wright doesn’t fully explain such a connection. John B. Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville: B&H, 1999), 51. 19 Johannes Behm, “Metanoia,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. IV, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 1005. 20 Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan, 2005), 536. 21 Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (trans. John Richard De Witt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 118-19. 5 Nathan Johnson 6 While there are various nuances in the meaning of metanoia in Hellenistic writings, the concept generally indicated a sense of remorse for one’s actions in response to a whole-body (mind and will) recognition of one’s moral or behavioral failing.22 The Scriptural understanding of repentance carries with it a stronger connotation, indicating a holistic moral attitude that produces lasting internal change.23 In the Old Testament, the words carry the concept of whole person conversion.24 Jesus takes it a step further, making it a “fundamental requirement” for entering into the new kingdom: a once-for-all turning away from sin toward God that marks the beginning of new life.25 Similarly, Paul regards repentance as a radical break from sin to obedience of God’s will, as seen in his epistles.26 Romans 2:4 Paul begins his brilliant defense of the Gospel (Rom 1:16-17) by discussing the wrath of God poured out on sinners. As he transitions into chapter 2, he turns his attention to those who, because they are Jews, suppose they are not in the category of the terrible sinners discussed in the first chapter.27 The Jews believed that because they were God’s chosen people and separate from Gentile sinners, His forbearance was proof of His acceptance of their sin.28 They “despised 22 Behm, “Metanoia,” 977-98. 23 Behm, “Metanoia,” 979. 24 John the Baptist uses the word to mean a complete turning from sin toward God, throwing off of sin and embracing a whole new life; it was an internal change that resulted in a radical new life of love and righteousness. Behm, “Metanoia,” 1000-01. 25 Behm, “Metanoia.” 1000-02. 26 Behm, “Metanoia.” 1005. As will be noted below, this radical break discussed by Paul can either refer to an aspect of saving faith or a significant returning to God in the Christian life after being severely overcome by sin or rebellion. 27 John Calvin, Romans (trans. John Owen; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 83-84. 28 C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1949), 32. 6 Nathan Johnson 7 God’s goodness” by presuming that His mercy toward them gave them license to sin.29 Given their presumption, Paul explicitly condemns them of the same rebellion as the Gentiles and explains that God’s forbearance is meant to drive them to turn from their sins and turn to God, the merciful One who, by His goodness, gives them hope for forgiveness.30 Here, Paul uses the concept of metanoia as a part of the conversion sought by God for His people, and thus an aspect of saving faith.31 This whole passage is part of Paul’s overall thesis that all bear the guilt of sin and thus are in danger of the wrath of God unless someone, namely Christ, takes the penalty for their sins.32 N.T. Wright holds an opposing view, positing that in Romans 1-4, Paul asserts that the problem with humans is not fundamentally that they bear guilt for their individual sins, but that they bear guilt for rejecting God’s lordship in idolatrous rebellion. But lest the Jews think that only the Gentiles are these rebellious idolaters, Paul emphasizes in chapter 2 that they are also part of the problem and have been sent into exile for failing their responsibility of restoring the broken order.33 According to Wright, Paul is not primarily saying in chapter 2 that the Jews are just like the Gentiles in that they are all sinners in need of a Savior to deal with their moral guilt. But rather, the Jews were idolaters like the nations because they viewed their mission as lights of 29 Charles Hodge, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), 48. 30 Hodge, Romans, 48. Dodd notes that Paul may have even been appealing to well-known Jewish literature, citing The Wisdom of Solomon 11:23-24: “But you have mercy on all men, because you have power to do all things, and you overlook the sins of men to the end that they may repent.” Dodd, Romans, 32. 31 Calvin, Romans, 87. 32 It is important to note here, in response to those critics who like to pit Jesus against Paul, that Paul uses metanoia in this passage in the same way as Jesus and John the Baptist: repent, for the wrath of God is coming. 33 N.T. Wright, Paul (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 29. 7 Nathan Johnson 8 the world and as creation restorers as a special privilege that separated them from the nations, and thereby became idolaters like everyone else.34 This argument is the crux of many of Wright’s assertions, and a proper refutation would exceed the scope of this paper.35 But a simple exegesis of the passage supports the historical interpretation. Paul must be speaking in terms of individual sins bringing judgment in Romans 2, for he states that God will judge each according to their works (vs. 6) and that He will punish everyone according to their practice—a practice of sin that even Jews find themselves in (vs. 2).36 Paul is responding to Jewish legalism that assumed that their general good works outweighed their sins37 and that their special place as God’s chosen people rendered them free from His judgment.38 One cannot deny that Paul asserts in Romans 1-3 that one’s sins (both original sin and personal sin) merits the wrath of God and must be dealt with in order for salvation to be attained and mercy received.39 This distinction becomes significant when addressing Paul’s use of metanoia in the passage. Paul regards this conversion as a significant aspect of the saving faith he discusses in Romans 5, but he doesn’t equate this metanoia with 34 Wright, Paul, 36-37. 35 For a compelling conservative response to Wright’s concept of justification see: Richard B. Gaffin, “Paul the Theologian,” Westminster Theological Journal 62, no. 1 (2000): 121-41. 36 It can also be noted that Paul discusses obedience and disobedience to the law in terms of justification, continuing the emphasis on one’s failure to reach the standard as meritorious of judgment (Rom 2:13). 37 Ridderbos, Paul, 135-36. This is in contrast to many scholars’ (including Wright) objections that the Jews were not legalistic proto-Pelagians, but rather had a deep concept of God’s grace and of their inability to save themselves through works of the law. 38 Dodd, Romans, 32. 39 Lest we go too far and take Paul’s discussion of repentance as the basis or means of salvation, we must note that what Paul is speaking of is not a typical 1st century Jewish understanding of repentance that keeps them in the covenant, but rather a deep heart (kardia) and mind (nous) understanding of their equal guilt before God precisely for their presumption that the law or their special status made them righteous. In the proceeding chapters, he then expounds on the answer to the problem, which isn’t Jewish repentance but is faith in Christ. Thus repentance isn’t the full solution to the problem, but a necessary aspect of the Jews’ coming to faith in Christ as savior of all men. Thus, Romans 2 can be seen as a prime example of metanoia as part of Paul’s pregnant pistis concept. 8 Nathan Johnson 9 salvation or with a Jewish return to the old covenant; instead, by his use of metanoia, Paul emphasizes the necessity to recognize one’s moral guilt before God and one’s need for a savior as the beginning of saving faith that is necessary for Jews and Gentiles alike. 2 Corinthians 7:9-10; 12:21 While Paul’s use of metanoia in Romans is in reference to unbelievers needing to be converted through pistis, his use of the word in 2 Corinthians and 2 Timothy may refer to repentance by believers who have significantly erred. In 2 Corinthians 7, Paul addresses the Corinthian church’s reaction to his previous letter written most likely in response to their rebellion against his authority as an apostle either by failing to stand by him when his authority was being undermined by another (2:5-8) 40 or by initially refusing to rectify the immorality he addressed in his first letter to them (1 Cor 5).41 In verse 9, Paul discusses their repentance as they turned from their rebellion toward reconciliation and obedience. This was not merely a change of mind, but a change of the whole soul from sin to God.42 This sorrow unto repentance was approved by God and led to their spiritual good.43 By referencing metanoia, Paul harkens back to the deeply rooted biblical word for turning to God from sin, reminiscent of the great prophets and Jesus.44 Yet Paul directs this repentance toward himself rather than God, not because he is placing himself in opposition to God, but because it underscores the close connection and relationship between God and His 40 John MacArthur, 2 Corinthians (Chicago: Moody, 2003), 5. 41 Barnett, 2 Corinthians, 372. Hodge also takes this latter perspective. Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 173. 42 Hodge, 2 Corinthians, 182. 43 Hodge, 2 Corinthians, 182. 44 Barnett, 2 Corinthians, 375. 9 Nathan Johnson 10 apostle—they cannot repent and reconcile with God without repenting and reconciling with Paul.45 Paul continues his argument in verse 10, distinguishing mere human sorrow from godly repentance that leads to life. This godly sorrow, grounded in a right understanding of God and the sinner’s standing before Him, produces true repentance of the inner man that leads to salvation.46 Some are confused by Paul’s use of salvation in this context, assuming that he means conversion-regeneration.47 But it is clear that Paul is not equating this repentance with initial salvation or regeneration, given that he already regards them as saints in both letters (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1) and that he assumes their regeneration throughout his whole discussion of ethics in both letters. Rather, given Paul’s eschatological emphasis in the already/not yet structure of salvation, he must be referring to a repentance that confirms their salvation because it is indicative that they are walking in salvation, similar to Philippians 2:12-13.48 Their repentance did not regenerate them, but was a mark of their genuine faith.49 Paul maintains this understanding of repentance in 12:21 in his address to those few who have not repented of the sins for which the majority has.50 It is clear through these passages that Paul is not concerned with soteriology, but with the Christian response to sin.51 45 Barnett, 2 Corinthians, 375. Barnett notes that this cannot have direct application to pastors today, however. So no matter how great a temptation, preachers shouldn’t preach from this passage to try to validate their ministry by giving a one-to-one correspondence between fidelity to them and fidelity to God. 46 Hodge, 2 Corinthians, 182. 47 Harris, 2 Corinthians, 538-39. 48 Barnett, 2 Corinthians, 377-78. 49 MacArthur, 2 Corinthians, 266. 50 Hodge, 2 Corinthians, 297-98. 51 Sanders, Paul, 503. 10 Nathan Johnson 11 2 Timothy 2:25 While there is debate over whether Paul is referring to regenerative repentance or restorative repentance in 2 Timothy 2, this passage most clearly distinguishes his use of metanoia from the contemporary rabbinical understanding of repentance, and is thus key to understanding Paul’s use of the word in his epistles. Paul calls Timothy to flee from controversy, but when correction is appropriate, to correct enemies with gentleness, for this might lead his opponents to repent of their sin and turn to the Gospel. This opposition may be from ignorant or disobedient believers who need to be corrected so that God might work in them repentance that helps them “come to their spiritual senses” and embrace a full knowledge of God’s truth.52 If so, Paul is using metanoia in a similar way to 2 Corinthians, emphasizing that even believers can became entangled in the snares of Satan (2 Tim 2:26) and fall into grievous error to a severe degree.53 It is also plausible that these opponents are not actually regenerate but are simply members of the professing church, and Timothy’s conduct toward them will lead them to genuine conversion.54 In either case, Paul is discussing a repentance that reaches the heart level so that the whole person can be receptive to all the truth, not just a partial or surface level truth that leaves the heart untouched, and therefore allows room for sin and the snare of the devil.55 In either interpretation, it is clear that this conception of repentance is a gift from God (vs. 25) and leads to a full-orbed pistis-based reception of the Gospel truth.56 Thus, it distinguishes itself from 52 John MacArthur, 2 Timothy (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 101-02. 53 This interpretation is supported also by Paul’s qualifications for elders in 1 Tim. 3, stating that if the elder is a recent convert he may “fall into the condemnation of the devil” and fall “into a snare of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:6-7). Thus, Paul seems to regard it as possible for true converts to be under the influence or power of Satan and may be referring to the same thing in 2 Tim. 2:25. 54 55 56 Patrick Fairbairn, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956), 358. Fairbairn, Pastoral Epistles, 359. William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 536-37. 11 Nathan Johnson 12 the contemporary rabbinic understanding that regarded repentance merely as a turning toward the law in keeping with obedience57 and a work in and of itself worthy of earning favor with God.58 1 Thessalonians 1:9 In exploring the repentance concept in Paul, one must also take into account his use of epistrepho and its cognates.59 While he uses the word three times in his epistles, his use in his letter to the Thessalonians establishes a template for its use elsewhere, and is even quoted by many in an attempt to explain a general conception of metanoia—turning from idols to the living God. In this passage, Paul rejoices in the church’s conversion from being Gentile pagans to faithful Christians, noting how they fully turned from their idolatry in order to submit themselves to God’s lordship. Because Paul rarely uses this term60 many scholars posit that this concept isn’t original to Paul, but is borrowed from a previous construction not unique to the Christian mission to the Gentiles.61 Wanamaker rejects this assertion, noting the clunky Greek construction unrepresentative of most Greek sayings, but he nevertheless affirms that the concept finds allusion to the Hellenistic Jewish mission to the Gentiles.62 Whatever the source of the saying, it 57 Ladd, Theology, 36. 58 Ladd, Theology, 82. 59 In the Old Testament, this word generally meant to turn to or from, return, or convert—many times related specifically to the covenant, either turning/returning to the covenant, or turning away from the covenant. It is used frequently in the LXX for the repentance or conversion concept. Georg Bertram, “Epistrepho,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. VII, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoferry W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 723-24. 60 He also uses it in 2 Cor. 3:16 as an allusion to Ex. 34:34, describing the conversion of the Jews to Christ through a deep realization of grace and a turning to God in faith and repentance. Harris, 2 Corinthians, 307-09. He uses epistrepho in Gal. 4:9 to refer to a turning from God back to sin. 61 F. F. Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians (Waco: Word Books, 1982), 17-18. Bruce makes note that it could have first applied to Gentile proselytes, which gives rationale to Paul’s explicit discussion of Christ in the following verse to distinguish the application of the saying. 62 Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 85. 12 Nathan Johnson 13 is clear that epistrepho was generally used as an appropriate allusion to Gentile conversion.63 Plausible Reasons for Scarcity A Response to the Liberal Schools and the New Perspective It is clear from Paul’s use (and lack of use) of the repentance concept that unless necessary for explicit emphasis on one’s response to sin or idolatry, he preferred to use the pistis concept to discuss a more holistic response to the Gospel message. Thus the conclusion by Knox that Paul runs in opposition to Jesus finds little merit or basis. Jesus came not to give a fullyorbed message of justification by faith, but rather came to awaken people from their slumber to a recognition of their sin and, most significantly, to die to make justification possible. Thus we would expect Paul to emphasize different things than Jesus, focusing more on the nature of justification by faith and the concept of salvific grace, which, noted even by Knox, includes the repentance-concept. 64 While Mary Andrews’ observations are fascinating and plausible, she makes an unmerited dichotomy between mystical union and repentance. The work of the Spirit produces repentance and salvation is impossible without repentance (Acts 11:15-18). However, she rightly observes that mystical union is far more emphasized by Paul than mere repentance from sin.65 While Bultmann correctly notes that Paul may want to emphasize an embracing of Christ rather than a turning from sin, his other arguments from Paul’s lack of use of metanoia run very thin. By concluding that Paul is not concerned with salvation from the guilt of past sins, but 63 Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 17. Paul also uses a similar concept of renewing one’s mind—pulling in the nous aspect of metanoia—and of metamorphosis (metamorphe)—pulling in the idea of holistic change in metanoia—a few times in his epistles (cf. Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:16-18). This further solidifies the repentance/conversion concept as having specific application for both the believer (Rom. 12) and unbeliever (2 Cor. 3) alike. 64 Knox, Chapters, 154. 65 Andrews, “Paul and Repentance,” 125. This provides a partial explanation for why Paul prefers the pistis-concept (154 times) and the Spirit-concept (128 times) rather than repentance. 13 Nathan Johnson 14 rather a faith that produces a “reversal of the direction his will had previously had,” 66 Bultmann undermines his thesis, for repentance is just this type of reversal Paul refers to—a turning from heart idolatry (which includes the will) to genuine conversion (which concerns the mind and the will).67 The New Perspective scholars fall into a similar trap as the liberal schools, assuming too much from Paul’s lack of use of metanoia and making conclusions about Paul’s little interest in repentance for personal sin and guilt which run contrary to his concept of pistis and his explicit teaching. One cannot embrace the Gospel message without recognizing and repenting of one’s sins. The Gospel message is not just that God has raised Christ and, in turn, His people, as Sanders asserts. Rather, while the Gospel does celebrate Christ’s victory over the power of sin (1 Cor 15:57) and His lordship over all creation (Col 1; Rom 10:9), it also asserts that Christ has expiated our sins, paying the penalty for our sin (Rom 3:24), and calls us to repent of our former lordship and come to God for forgiveness knowing that Christ was the sufficient sacrifice (1 Thess 1:9-10). This is integral to the Gospel message and integral to Paul’s conception of pistis. Alternative Explanations It seems apparent that Paul distanced himself from the concept of repentance in and of itself not because he rejected its importance in the conversion process or in the life of the believer, but rather to distance his concept of justification by faith from the Jewish misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of repentance. The Jewish misconception of repentance was multi-faceted. Many Jews regarded it as a work of the law that allowed one to 66 Bultmann, Theology, 317. 67 Behm, “Metanoia,” 1005. 14 Nathan Johnson 15 enter and remain in the covenant.68 Many thus saw “salvation” and forgiveness as a response of God to the sinner’s self-produced repentance.69 The Qumran community joined repentance with radical separation from the unclean and radical dedication to purity and law-obedience.70 Given the Jew’s overemphasis on the law as a national distinctive that separated them from the Gentiles—and, thus, the concept of repentance as well—metanoia was most likely tied too intimately with Jewish law-sentiments; thus Paul may have wanted to distance himself from the repentance concept to emphasize an all-people-encompassing concept of pistis that had repentance as an aspect, but was not a work of the law (Eph 2:8), that was in response to God’s initiatory grace, that was a gift of God in and of itself (2 Tim 2:25), and that would be the guiding principle for life and godliness (2 Cor 5:7). Thus, when Paul does use the repentance concept, he seeks to emphasize something particular that the broad concept of saving faith would not have precisely addressed—such as sorrow over opposing his authority, recognition of guilt before God, a turning from error to the truth, and turning from idols to God.71 It is clear, though, that even when not addressing justification principles, Paul preferred to encourage faith, rather than mere repentance for sin, as the guiding principle of the believer’s life. Paul did this not in opposition to the Old Testament (despite the hundreds of references to repentance in the Old Testament), but with specific reference to Abraham as the father of the 68 Ladd, Theology, 82. 69 Ladd, Theology, 82. 70 Ladd, Theology, 36. Lest we overemphasize the legalism of many of the Jewish sects, however, we must recognize that many Jews had a robust theology of God’s mercy and a recognition that some aspects of repentance were not regarded as a work of the law to earn justification. Robert J. Cara, “Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul,” Westminster Theological Journal 70, no. 2 (2008), 391. 71 This observation should be connected with the general fact that Paul’s primary audience in his letters were already considered Christians and part of the Church, thus when speaking of the justification formula, he speaks of pistis, while when speaking of Christian life principles, he speaks of metanoia. 15 Nathan Johnson 16 community of faith who was justified not by works of the law—or repentance—but by faith (Rom 4:1-12). So while Paul did recognize the importance of repentance for the unbeliever and believer alike—given his sermons in Acts as a call for repentance (Acts 20:21; 26:18-20), and the passages above—he focused on faith as the means of salvation based on God’s grace, rather than repentance or turning from sin. By doing so, Paul’s theology was far more Christological in character than Jewish repentance theology and encouraged the Christian that his trust is not in his own faithfulness to repent, but in the One who died so that his repentance would be accepted by God.72 Significance for the Contemporary Church Paul’s use (and lack of use) of metanoia and epistrepho can instruct the contemporary Church in our evangelism and our discipleship. We must be as balanced as Paul is balanced (and, more accurately, as balanced as the Bible is balanced) in an emphasis on the importance of repentance from individual sin in one’s conversion, while maintaining the centrality of a holistic faith in Christ that leans not on one’s remorse for sin but on Christ’s death and resurrection. Unlike Paul, the contemporary church in the West finds the battle lines drawn not against legalistic Jews, but against antinomian relativists, and as such, perhaps we should take his discussion of metanoia twice as seriously when evangelizing, emphasizing the importance of repenting of sin. Yet we must also speak against the human tendency to rely on one’s works— even one’s genuine repentance—to merit a right relationship with God, communicating that saving faith is far more than mere repentance. Likewise, as Paul uses metanoia in the context of 72 Secondarily, Paul’s concept of repentance also finds voice in his concept of “putting off” and “putting on” and the “old man” and “new man” (Eph 4:22-24). As Ridderbos observes, Paul calls for this to be a continual practice of the believer. Ridderbos, Paul, 224. The conversion/repentance stage of the Christian life emphasizes only the initial turning that must be renewed daily by these other concepts. And by using these innovative concepts, as opposed to the confusing repentance idea, Paul emphasizes the holistic and inner-being change that goes beyond external penitence of which repentance might be construed. 16 Nathan Johnson 17 the Christian life, we must disciple Christians in repentance as a normal Christian practice. While we are released from the yoke of the law, we nonetheless sin and nonetheless must make a habit of repentance from our sin to obedience and faith in God. Yet, we must be balanced, emphasizing the Pauline principle that we do not merely walk by repentance, but we walk by faith (Gal 2:20), leaning not on our repentance but on our right standing before God in Christ as the comfort for our souls. 17 Nathan Johnson 18 Bibliography Andrews, Mary E. “Paul and Repentance.” Journal of Biblical Literature 54, no. 2 (1935): 125126. Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1997. Behm, Johannes. “Metanoia.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. IV. Ed. Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1983. Bertram, Georg. “Epistrepho.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. VII. Ed. Gerhard Friedrich. Trans. Geoferry W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.1983. Bruce, F. F. 1&2 Thessalonians. Waco: Word Books. 1982. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Trans. Kenrick Grobel. Waco: Baylor. 2007. Calvin, John. Romans. Trans. John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1947. Cara, Robert J. “Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul.” Westminster Theological Journal 70, no. 2 (2008): 388-392. Dodd, C. H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. London: Hodder and Stoughton. 1949. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998. Fairbairn, Patrick. Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1956. Gaffin, Richard B. “Paul the Theologian.” Westminster Theological Journal 62, no. 1 (2000): 121-41. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Michigan. 2005. Hodge, Charles. The Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. 1989. Knox, John. Chapters in a Life of Paul. London: Adam and Charles.1950. Ladd, George E. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1993. MacArthur, John. 2 Corinthians. Chicago: Moody. 2003. ---. 2 Timothy. Chicago: Moody. 1995. 18 Nathan Johnson 19 Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 2000. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Trans. John Richard De Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1975. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1977. Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1990. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2013. ---. Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2005. 19