Transcript
Our subject matter for tonight and the next two nights is repentance. Considering the difficulty of the subject, I am tempted to announce that I’ve decided to attend the 4-H meeting. Actually, I’m going to begin the evening with a confession. What I’m about to do is a little bit unusual, because in this session, at least, I’m going to undertake to refute a view of repentance that I myself once held.
Now that may sound strange to you. But perhaps the best way to say this is that I have repented of my view of repentance. As I was growing up, I grew up inside the grace movement. And the standard view of repentance among grace people was that repentance referred to a change of mind. And in connection with eternal salvation, it referred to a change of mind from unbelief to faith, or from reliance upon works to reliance upon Christ for salvation.
And for a very long time right into my teaching career, I held that view. In fact, when I put out the first edition of the book Grace in Eclipse, there was a footnote, really an endnote, in the back of the book giving that view. And it also cited the doctoral dissertation of Dr. Bob Wilkin, whom I think you already know as the director of Grace Evangelical Society.
But in the interim between the first and second edition of Grace in Eclipse, I was entertaining doubts about my position. So when we put the second edition out, I removed the footnote, except for the reference to Dr. Wilkin’s dissertation. So that was all that was left. And I maintained, at least for that focus, stony silence on the subject of repentance.
As I approached the writing of Absolutely Free, I was by this time developing a very distinct view of repentance. And one of my friends, a man who is in the pastorate, read my first draft of the book Absolutely Free. Chapter 12 is my chapter on repentance. And his advice to me was, “Leave this out.”
And I said to him, “How can I address the Lordship Salvation movement and be silent about repentance? It’s impossible. They will think, correctly, that I’m dodging an issue which is a major consideration in the Lordship position.” I would like to say to you that I’m very comfortable with the position that I now hold on the doctrine of repentance. But your pastor may very well have heard me expostulate on the other view.
And so he may be as surprised as anybody as I proceed through the discussions tonight, tomorrow, and Wednesday. Tonight I want to address the issue of repentance. Does it mean a change of mind? And as you will notice, I already am suggesting at the top of the overhead that my answer to this is no. That this is not what the word repentance means in the New Testament.
Why not? Why does it not mean this? Well there are a number of reasons. And the first reason that I want to suggest to you is what I would call the linguistic argument. That is the argument from the Greek language, the argument from the lexicography of the Greek language. And I am referring in particular to the Greek verb metanoeo and also to the cognate noun metanoia.
These are the prominent verb and noun in the New Testament that are customarily translated repentance. Now I want to suggest first and foremost that those who hold that the verb metanoeo means a change of mind are guilty of what the linguistic community calls the root fallacy. By the root fallacy we mean the effort to determine the meaning of a word from its root derivation rather than to determine the meaning of a word by its usage at any particular time in the history of the language.
Let me repeat that. Then I’m going to give you some illustrations of that. It often happens that a word means something when it first starts out. And over a period of time the meaning changes and develops. And after a passage of quite a number of years it no longer means what it originally meant. And its meaning has changed.
It has moved away from its root derivation therefore. And in the usage of native speakers of the language it means something else. We have many, many, many examples of this in English. The most obvious one, the one that will probably hit us in the face most emphatically, is the English word gay.
When I was growing up the word gay meant happy, carefree, joyous. And that’s the way it was used. Nobody in recent years has been using it that way, as I’m sure you’re very much aware. And you are running a dangerous risk if you say I am gay in the sense that I am happy. There was a comic book character that I used to read about when I was a kid called The Gay Goat.
You couldn’t get away with that today. And very happily this comic book character has faded completely from the scene. So we don’t need to worry about it. But obviously what has happened in the usage of this word is that the word has come to mean something in ordinary usage that is quite a bit different from what it originally meant.
Another word that has been undergoing change is the word spin. So you will hear it said the White House engaged in a spin operation today. Now in my growing-up days that would have suggested the White House was playing with tops. But obviously that is not what the White House is doing these days.
And we even hear the term spin doctors. And that doesn’t refer to physicians who treat a disease called spin. You all know that the expressions now have meaning in current usage which really determine how we understand them. And people using them in the old sense will probably be misunderstood.
Another word to which this is happening, and there are many, many examples and I won’t bore you with any more but this one, is the word deconstruction. Deconstruction just simply means to dismantle something or to tear it down. But now the word deconstruction is increasingly coming to mean examining an attack, exposing its inconsistencies, its biases, its prejudices, and revealing it for what it really is. Maybe a paternalistic text or an anti-feminist text or something like that.
What has been very interesting to me is this. That this term deconstruction started out in the scholarly community. And I think there was a period of time where it was not in any kind of current use except among scholars. But now it’s filtering into the media. And you will meet it occasionally in the media in the sense that I just described.
Now here’s a case where the word deconstruction probably means both things depending upon the context in which it occurs today. But a new meaning is coming in. And you will probably see it more often in this new academic meaning than you will see it in the old meaning of tearing something down. This is the way that language works. This is not a surprise.
And all people who study language understand that this is the way that language works. So now this brings us very basically to the question of what does the verb metanoeo or the noun metanoia mean in the period of the New Testament? That is the issue. Now if you consult the standard lexicon, the Greek-to-English standard lexicon that is used in all of the classrooms, you will find that the first definition that it gives is to change the mind.
And it has a few Greek references where it does in fact mean this. But none of them are in the New Testament. And if you survey the entries that are under this particular word in the standard lexicon, you will find that the lexicographers do not believe that the idea of change the mind is an appropriate translation anywhere in the New Testament. The same thing can probably be said for metanoia the noun.
What then does the word mean? We suggest here that the standard lexicon gives the meaning change the mind but doesn’t give a New Testament example. Now I haven’t put the meanings up here which are in the lexicon. But there are three basic ones that are given for the verb: to feel remorse, to repent, and this one strikes me as rather interpretive, be converted. But that’s what the lexicon gives: to feel remorse, to repent, and to be converted.
I am satisfied to say this. That it appears to me that the Greek verb can be consistently translated by the English word repent in an English version. And that it means essentially what the English word repent means in normal usage. Okay? And in normal usage I think we understand that that means a little bit more than simply to change the mind.
So I am really saying that the translation that occurs for this verb in our English versions is very acceptable. The translation that occurs for the noun is very acceptable. I’m not changing our translation at all. I’m just going back to what the translators since the Authorized Version was created even before that and down through the whole period of English translation, I’m simply going back to the meaning that they attach to both the verb and the noun.
And it does seem to me that these meanings that I’ve just mentioned here, this is me, that these meanings are suitable in all the New Testament passages. And that there are passages where the other meaning change of mind doesn’t really fit. Let me invite your attention to a couple of these places.
Let’s start with Luke chapter 17, verses 3 and 4.
Take heed to yourselves, says the Lord Jesus Christ. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you saying, “I repent,” you shall forgive him.
Now let me read this with the translation of change the mind. “Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him. And if he changes his mind, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you saying, ‘I changed my mind,’ you should forgive him.” I think it is fairly evident that that doesn’t fit as well as the English word repent. Wouldn’t you agree? It doesn’t quite fit.
Now we understand of course that the English word repent suggests a change of mind. But it suggests more than this. I would like to suggest that the way we would say this in English today, particularly verse four, “and if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you saying, ‘I’m sorry,’ you shall forgive him.” That it seems to me is the clear meaning of the text. Something like our English word I’m sorry. This is the seventh time. But I’m sorry the seventh time too.
All right. Let’s look at Matthew 11:21. Jesus speaking to cities that had rejected Him in Matthew 11:21,
Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
Now let’s try on the meaning change the mind. “For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have changed their mind a long time ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Not quite there. Right? Awkward, unusual. To put that in vernacular, it don’t fit real good. Right?
Revelation 9:20 and 21,
But the rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons and idols of gold, silver, brass, stone, and wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk. And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.
I submit the same thing is true here. Verse 21, “And they didn’t change their mind about their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.” In all of these places I would submit to you that the English word repent is superior to the translation change of mind. And this is why the lexicographers who are responsible for the major Greek-to-English lexicon do not offer the word change of mind as a translation for any New Testament usage of metanoeo.
Now we could say that the Pope did not write the lexicon. And no lexicon is infallible. But I remember something that a Greek teacher of mine said quite a few years ago. He was talking about A. T. Robertson. And he used to call him the Pope of Greek Grammar. And he says you can disagree with A. T. Robertson. But it’s risky. You’re rarely right.
And you can disagree with the lexicons if you’ve got good solid reasons for doing so. But the chances of you being right against the lexicons are relatively small. And it is not for nothing that the lexicons do not offer us the translation change of mind anywhere in the New Testament for metanoeo. And I would go further to say that there is no New Testament passage which requires this meaning either for the verb or for the noun. That’s a very important consideration.
If someone wants to argue, okay there are some passages where change of mind doesn’t work. But there are other passages where change of mind is necessary. If they could establish that, then they could say both meanings are possible. And we must go context to context to find out which it is. I want to submit to you that there are no New Testament texts that I’m aware of at any rate where the meaning change of mind is required either for the verb or the noun.
And I say not even in Hebrews 12:17. Because Hebrews 12:17 is the best possibility as far as I’m concerned. Let’s look at it. Hebrews 12:16 and 17,
lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. For you know that afterward when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears.
Now almost everyone agrees that the word repentance is not to Esau himself but refers to his father. And it is not an inconceivable translation for us to read it this way, “For you know that afterward when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for a change of mind on the part of his father, though he sought it diligently with tears.” And I’m happy to admit that that’s a possible rendering here.
But the question is, is it a necessary rendering? My answer to that would be no. If you look back at the passage in question in the Old Testament, you will find that when Esau comes in, Isaac says to him something like this. That he’s already blessed somebody. And he says and indeed he shall be blessed.
And then Esau lifts up his voice with a loud and bitter cry. And what’s amazing here is that even though Esau is the favorite son of Isaac, there is no evidence of remorse on Isaac’s part, much less a change of mind. He doesn’t appear to be sorry that he has blessed Jacob even though he obviously, Isaac I should have been saying, Isaac doesn’t appear to be sorry that he blessed Jacob even though Jacob did it by deceit.
So I think it is entirely possible that the thought here is that even though Esau cried in the presence of his father, he didn’t touch his father’s feelings. His father didn’t feel sorry about it at all. And He of course refused to give him the same blessing that He had given to Jacob. And He gives him a secondary and less significant blessing.
But even if we decided that change of mind is appropriate here, this is in my opinion the best place and just about the only place where that will really work well. And therefore in my judgment there’s a very strong linguistic argument against the position that in the New Testament metanoeo basically means to change the mind.
And I think for the most part we can say the argument that it does is based on the so-called root fallacy. The error of seeking the meaning of a word in its root meaning rather than in the actual usage of the language during the period to which the material applies. Now there is also a second argument it seems to me against this view. I call this the theological argument.
Those who hold the view that repentance means change of mind and who also hold the view that in connection with soteriology and connection with salvation it means to change the mind from unbelief to faith say, they usually say that repentance is necessary to salvation. But they also say, and this is what has been true down through the years of the grace movement, they also say it is an inevitable and unavoidable concomitant of believing.
That is you cannot believe in Christ without changing your mind. And therefore they believe that when they read the Gospel of John that repentance or change of mind is implicit in the Gospel of John. I want to discuss that for a little bit. Let’s look at John 20:30 and 31. Many of you could probably quote it by heart. But it’s always good to read it.
Truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
This is the purpose of the book. And according to John the purpose of the book is to bring its readers to faith so that they may have eternal life.
If John believed that repentance was necessary to obtaining eternal life, I still find it very surprising that he didn’t mention it. Keep your finger here. And turn to Luke chapter 24, verses 46 and 47,
Then He said to them, “Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations beginning at Jerusalem.”
Will you notice here that Jesus says in this passage that repentance and remission of sins are to be preached. They’re to be proclaimed among all the Gentile nations. Now when we move to the book of Acts, which is volume 2 of Luke’s material, do the preachers in the book of Acts preach repentance? Absolutely. Absolutely.
Acts 2:38, whatever it means, we’re not going to get into Acts 2:38 tonight, but “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Paul says later on in the book that he preaches repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. On Mars Hill he says, “Now God commands all men everywhere to repent.”
In chapter 3 Peter preaches repentance. Nobody, nobody, nobody could possibly say that the preachers of Acts did not preach repentance. But the writer of the Gospel of John did not preach it. You follow me? You don’t preach a doctrine if you never mention it. What I’m trying to show you is the very striking contrast between the book of Acts and the Gospel of John.
I hope we understand that the book of Acts has as its purpose not so much evangelization as instruction of Theophilus who apparently was already a believer. But the Gospel of John has as its stated purpose, and is the only book in the New Testament that does have as its stated purpose, to bring men to faith and eternal life.
If repentance must happen before a man can get eternal life or as a man is getting eternal life or when he believes, I have to say it is inconceivable that John didn’t say so. In the face of the explicit preaching of repentance in the book of Acts, in the face of the explicit command of Luke 24 to preach repentance, John did not preach it in his gospel.
Now that was one of the points that dislodged me from my former view. When I really got to thinking about it, I could not explain that. It’s all perfectly well if those who hold that view say, well it’s implicit. But it doesn’t wash against the passages where the apostles are commanded to proclaim it. There’s no way you can conjure twenty chapters of silence into a proclamation of repentance.
May I repeat that? There’s no way you can magically transform twenty chapters of complete silence about repentance into the preaching of repentance. It ain’t preached folks in the Gospel of John. It simply is not. Now let me ask you to turn back to chapter 1 of the Gospel of John. Let’s start with verse 25 again.
John 1:25,
And they asked him saying, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ nor Elijah nor the Prophet?” John answered them saying, “I baptize with water. But there stands One among you whom you do not know. It is He who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose.”
“Why do you baptize?” say the delegation from Jerusalem. Now the John who speaks in the synoptic Gospels would have said, “I baptize with a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Wouldn’t He? That’s what He does say in the synoptics, but not in the Gospel of John. In the Gospel of John He says I just baptize with water.
That’s nothing compared to untying the sandals on the One who comes after me. Here was golden opportunity number one to preach repentance in the Gospel of John. And John, oop, whoop, around it. John’s silence on repentance is not an accident. And anyone who thinks it’s an accident is not giving John credit.
John knew He had been commanded to preach repentance like the rest of the apostles. John knew that repentance was preached in the book of Acts. But when John writes a book to bring men to saving faith, He does not even mention it one time. Not once. The conclusion in my opinion is unavoidable. Repentance is not, in any sense, a condition for eternal life.
Now that’s the main point I want to establish for tonight. In just a few minutes I’m gonna open it for questions. But I’m going to pursue obviously the subject of repentance tomorrow night and Wednesday night. And I’m going to try to show you what the purpose of repentance is and how it relates to the forgiveness of sin. But I want this point to be as clear as possible.
Repentance is not a condition for salvation. I don’t care if a dozen people line up in your pulpit and say it is. They cannot sustain this in the face of the Gospel of John. I couldn’t sustain it after I really got to face the implication of John’s silence, which leads to a final question and a final observation.
Those who hold that repentance is an inevitable accompaniment of saving faith implicitly say, or explicitly say, that it’s impossible to believe without changing your mind. I would like to raise a question about that. Is that really true? I’m thinking of a little five-year-old kid who has never before understood much of anything about Jesus Christ.
And the first thing he hears from his parents is that Jesus died for him. And all he needs to do is to trust Him and he’ll go to heaven. He has no previous conception of anything. And he hears that with comprehension. He believes it. Has He changed His mind? I don’t think so. I think that’s a stretch to say that a kid like that has changed his mind in some way.
If we’re that desperate to figure out a change of mind, we really are in serious trouble there. Furthermore I can imagine an adult who basically has never really focused on these issues. He’s heard a lot of different things. But He has no opinion particularly. And He hears the message for the first time clearly. And He believes it for the first time clearly.
I don’t think He’s changed His mind. He didn’t have a mind to change. He’s got a mind. But you know there’s no opinion there for him to change. I think therefore that the proposition that repentance in the sense of change of mind is an inevitable accompaniment of saving faith is a false proposition.
I fully, please understand what I’m saying. I think a lot of people change their mind radically before they believe. But we’re talking about whether a change of mind is essential to saving faith. And I’m saying no, no. I can easily conceive of cases where no change of mind occurs and where the truth is believed the first time it is clearly heard in a vacuum of knowledge.
So I think that those who are trying to read repentance into the Gospel of John, and please count me as one who did it for a long time and I stand before you repenting in dust and ashes for doing it, I think they are reading trouble into their presentation of the gospel. I think they are raising questions that need not be raised.
I think it would be much better to just face the fact that if repentance had been necessary to eternal life, John would have told us so. Since he didn’t tell us so, it’s not necessary. That’s my proposition. Therefore conclusion, repentance does not relate to eternal salvation.
Now I would like you to turn for our final passage to the book of Jonah. And you remember, do you not, that the Lord said that the people of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah? So we all agree that repentance occurs in Jonah, right? Book of Jonah chapter 3,
Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent.
And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them.
Then word came to the king of Nineveh. And he arose from his throne, and laid aside his robe, and covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles saying,
“Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Do not let them eat or drink water. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth and cry mightily to God. Yes, let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who can tell if God will turn and relent and turn away from His fierce anger so that we may not perish?”
Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way. And God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
Nineveh repented of its wickedness. That’s what happened. It didn’t get wiped out. Did anybody get to heaven? Not as far as the text is concerned. It wouldn’t surprise me that Jonah said some things that are not recorded in the book here. And it wouldn’t surprise me if there were Ninevites that got saved. But as far as this book is concerned it’s not about going to heaven. It’s about the temporal judgment of God.
And repentance averted the temporal judgment of God. And that’s the theme we will be pursuing in the next couple of nights. Repentance is about man’s earthly dealings with God. And the writer of the Gospel of John knew that. And He wasn’t writing about that. And so He doesn’t mention it.
Okay we’ve got some time for questions here. Please understand that I might give you a partial answer to a question. Or I might say come back on Tuesday or Wednesday night. It’s bad for a speaker to tell everything they know on the first night. Then nobody will come back. So but hopefully I can be helpful on all your questions even though I may not be very full and explicit on some that we intend to take up.
An audience member asked a question. Well what I would say here is that this is of course the gospel of the kingdom of God and is a broader message than just the message of salvation. Though I feel very confident that the message of salvation was in there. But basically he’s proclaiming the kingdom of God is at hand for the nation of Israel.
And it is a condition for the advent of the kingdom of God that the nation of Israel repent. But they also have to believe. And one of the things I want to discuss in the nights ahead is that an unsaved person can repent before he believes in Christ. He can. But doesn’t have to. Saved people can repent after they’ve believed in Christ.
But the thing that settles a person’s eternal destiny is their faith in Christ. But other factors are connected with the matter of repentance. And in the case of Israel the advent of the kingdom. The acceptance of the King and His kingdom are part of the total message. The gospel of Mark is here compressing what was undoubtedly explained in considerable detail by the Lord.
And so we’re not just talking about eternal salvation. We’re also talking about the condition for receiving the kingdom to this very day. Let me say this. As the book of Acts makes clear the kingdom will not be brought to Israel until they repent. And so in Acts chapter 3 the apostle Peter calls upon the people to repent. And God will send Jesus whom the heavens must receive until the time of the restitution of all things.
If you will repent I consider that an offer of the kingdom in the book of Acts. But if you’ll repent God will send Jesus back. And as we know from the prophetic Scriptures Israel will repent at the end of the tribulation. And they will be ready to receive the King back. So more factors are involved in this than simply the issue of eternal salvation.
And so repentance is very appropriate here as it is also in a number of other places in the gospel.
An audience member asked a question. Absolutely. You remember what John said. He says bring forth the fruits that are appropriate to repentance. He didn’t just say change your mind and believe. He says I want results from the repentance.
And then you remember the tax collectors come to him and the soldiers come to him and say what shall we do? What shall we do? And he tells them what to do. Repentance is related to our works. And people who repent are repenting of their failures to do works or of their bad deeds. And they are supposed to bring forth the fruits that are appropriate to repentance.
If I’ve changed my mind about this then I should do differently. And that’s very clear through the gospel presentations of the idea of repentance. The interesting thing here is that there isn’t any place that I can think of in the New Testament where repent just simply means change from unbelief to belief. The New Testament doesn’t present repentance in that perspective.
Repentance is I’ve been doing the wrong thing. And now I need to do the right thing. Remember the prodigal son? We will deal with the prodigal son probably tomorrow night. His repentance occurs in the far country. And what does he do? He says how many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough to spare? And here I’m perishing from hunger.
So what am I gonna do about it? I’m gonna go arise and go back to my father. And I’m gonna say to him I’ve sinned against heaven in your sight and am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me one of your hired servants. I’ll work for you from now on. So this is repentance.
He decided his lifestyle in the far country was for the pig farm. And he wanted to go back and resume his lifestyle with his father. And that had everything to do with how he was conducting himself. But we’ll go into that in more detail tomorrow night the Lord willing. Yes Raleigh.
Raleigh: How many people in the Bible go to heaven because they repent? Zero. Just want to clarify that point. Yeah. If repentance is not a condition for salvation, God never gives salvation on the basis of repentance. Nobody ever got to heaven by repenting. People get to heaven by believing. Any other questions?
Well I’ve either puzzled you completely, dumbfounded you, and confused you and you’ll need a night to think this over. But thank you for coming out. We’ll pursue this. I think what we will do tomorrow night is we’re going to look at Luke 15 which is the classic passage on repentance in the New Testament, the entire New Testament. We’re gonna look at all three of the parables. And I think we will know more about repentance after we look at these parables than almost any other passage can teach us.
Let’s close in prayer. Shall we? Father we want to thank You first of all for Your Word. What a challenge it is to us. How important it is for us to dig into it and to search it out and to wait on the ministry of Your Spirit to give us clarity and understanding.
And we want to just pause tonight to thank You Father for the wonderful and marvelous fact that all I need to do to be saved is to believe. And we’re just grateful that You haven’t complicated this. Men have complicated it. Preachers have complicated it. But You haven’t. And we thank You for the free gift of life which is given to all who believe.
And at the same time Father we know that there isn’t a one of us who doesn’t need to repent frequently of the things that we do wrong. And we want to make repentance in a true biblical sense a part of our lives, a part of our experience, a part of our relationship to You.
And so we pray that in the evenings that are still to come that You will help us to grasp this and to incorporate it into our experience with Jesus Christ our Lord. And we pray this in Christ’s name. Amen.