Tags
Metanoia is a Greek word from which we often get the English translation, “repent” or “repentance.” Meta actually means after, beyond, a change, like a metamorphosis. Metanoia means a “change of mind” or beyond your mind.
I’m a bit annoyed with our Latin fathers because they began to refocus on shame, guilt, regret, and sorrow. Acts of penance. So to “repent” today has come to mean to admit wrong doing and make amends. To say you’re sorry. We’ve strayed a long way from the original biblical idea of, “beyond your mind.” It is to change your mindset in a supernatural way.
First off, regret, guilt, and being sorry are all valid things that can serve a vital purpose here. If you run over your neighbors cat, it would be good to feel regret, say you’re sorry and make amends. I don’t wish to completely dismiss the value of that in the world, it is just that this mis-translation of “repentance” as something exclusively about shame and penance has done a great deal of harm in the world.
I tend to say sorry a lot, especially to hubby, and often he does the same. Sorry the traffic so awful, sorry you have a headache, sorry you’re working so hard, sorry that tragedy in the world happened. I can even have some regret, sorrow, and occasional guilt, but that “I’m sorry,” those are just words of comfort and affection,compassion. I am not actually repenting for anything. I’m not responsible for any of those things, they aren’t things I can change. The “sorry” is genuine enough, it just isn’t repentance at all.
Anybody ever dealt with an alcoholic? They repent a lot and swear never to drink again. Or in the case of abuse, I’m sorry, and perhaps people genuinely are….but only until the next time. Neither one of these people can ever get “beyond the mind,” no matter how much penance they do. In fact, shame and penance will probably just fuel the next episode.
Because of this perception of repentance as having something to do with admitting wrong doing, taking the blame, and doing penance for your crimes, victims and those who have suffered things through no fault of their own, can have a hard time with repentance. Repentance means to change your mind, and perhaps change your heart too, your perceptions, your attitude, how you see the world. It is to go beyond your mind. Sometimes repentance is to admit wrong doing, but most of the time it is actually to take you beyond the mind, to free you of captivity, to release you from bondage, to change and transform you.
Romans 12:2 tells us, And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
We should repent often and early, yes even those who have engaged in no wrong doing. Perhaps them even more so, because healing, redemption, repairing what has been stolen, lives right on the other side of repentance. To repent is to go beyond your mind, to be transformed by the renewing of your mind. You let go of the old and put on the new man.
Repentance is an ongoing process, a never-ending one I hope, because it is the renewing of your mind, it is to be washed and cleansed of whatever muck the world has thrown at you, and it is to be transformed, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
You know, I really wish I COULD go beyond my mind; I need renewing. Badly.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Amen! Don’t we all need renewing? Perhaps to get beyond our own minds? The only way I know to do that is to get into The word, repent early and often, and let God change us. Those thoughts and attitudes that give us so much grief must be driven out and replaced with something better. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
“When our Lord Jesus said “repent,” he intended that the entire life of the Christian be one of repentance.” Martin Luther, first of the 95 Theses. Luther, thanks to his studies in Greek, grasped the very same point you are making. Jesus does not demand penance; he wants us to have–and gives to us–a new heart and a new mind. J.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yes! Thank you for adding some history and theology to the discussion. 🙂
LikeLike
We become a new creature – not just the old one saying “I’m sorry.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, how I wish this would be in all the pastor’s mouths on Sunday – every Sunday. You have said this so very articulately, so beautifully, so…correctly! And so in line with Jesus. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Susan Irene Fox and commented:
For those who still associate repentance with hellfire, guilt and shame, this is a stunningly Jesus-like post that tells the truth about real repentance.
LikeLike
Amen. Perfectly stated. Unfortunately, Jerome translated the word as “repentance” (or re-penance) in the Vulgate from his fourth century biblical perspective. But, as you correctly pointed out, it actually means to change your mind. Being sorry doesn’t change anything (although godly sorrow can LEAD to repentance – 2 Cor.7:10). A better word is how Young’s Literal Translation renders it as “reform.” (See Mark 1:15 YLT). We are to be re-formed, reshaped, or have our minds renewed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again and again, I applaud your wonderful way with words and godly anointing to express in the simplest terms the most profound spiritual truth. Praise God!
Your statement – “It is to change your mindset in a supernatural way” – is point on. What is often missed by so many sincere, well-meaning believers is THAT emphasis on the SUPERNATURAL way in which the human thought process CAN and MUST be changed.
Prior to a righteous encounter with God, it is easy (because it is actually impossible NOT) to think that we must do ‘something’ to ‘atone’ for our sins. We don’t know any better, having not met the Savior – who completely accomplished atonement for us – by GRACE.
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor has entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” – 1Cor.2:9-14.
Forgetting the all-important emphasis on the supernatural – what God has done for us – discounts the true meaning of ‘repentance’, focusing on man’s penance rather than God’s intervention. Apart from His indwelling Spirit, we are NOT truly born again – the ONLY way to change your mindset eternally.
No amount of penance can earn this, nor deeds of recompense. That is why He who knew no sin became sin for us. How we miss the point and devalue His sacrifice by thinking we must likewise suffer in our flesh that which He did so we would not. That is ‘ propitiation’ – the ONLY acceptable sacrifice to God. That which is impossible for us to accomplish, He did for us.
All that man CAN do is surrender and accept this free gift from God in sincere, awestruck appreciation. You must be born again – THAT is ‘metanoia’. The renewing of our minds is indeed a life-long process that should be contemplated frequently. But just as each of us was born into THIS world once, so also our spiritual birth (becoming born again) is a one-time event that unless it has become a personal reality, no true spiritual renewal CAN occur.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Definitely a different perspective, but it makes sense. Helps to explain why Apostle Paul had to chide some people who thought believing in Jesus was a get out jail card that allows us to sin freely.
Did a little research and found this link. =>http://www.timothyministry.com/2012/07/the-great-meaning-of-metanoia.html
If you have not seen it, you may find it interesting.
Many of the references I checked defined metanoia as repentance, but some observed that repentance is just one form of metanoia, which strikes me as the most correct position.
It is stuff like this that makes me want to learn Greek and Hebrew and ready the Bible in the language it was originally written.
Thanks for sharing your discovery.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting, Tom!
From your linked article, “This incorrect order and definition has caused the strange unapostolic juggling of sola fide and repentance within Protestantism, a juggling we have has seen for the last 500 years, and which is still just as prevelant today.”
LOL! Yes, I’ve been noticing that. A timely article, indeed. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
yw
LikeLike
Good post. I believe once we understand what is true repentance, we would cry out more for God’s grace to be truly repentant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, someone who understands the Biblical meaning of repentance. Oh, and that word “confess” or “confession”? It means to “agree with”, “to be of the same mind”, and that is why Paul wrote so much about the transforming of our minds into the mind of Christ. And thanks to grace, God does for us what we cannot do for ourselves–to agree with Him! Thanks IB! Made my day!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for your kind words, they are much appreciated. 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: Penance, Repentance or Metanoia | Susan Irene Fox
Couple points:
First, were Simon Stylites or Paul the Hermit Latin? Any emphasis on the necessity of penance was hardly restricted to Rome.
Second, while granting that it is possible to excessively emphasize penance, granting that it is possible for scrupulosity and similar errors to lead to despair, I’m far from convinced that the early Fathers, Latin or otherwise, did so. Keep in mind that the folks allegedly mistranslating a Greek term often lived in times and places where Koine Greek was still spoken. Keep also in mind that these folks lived much closer to the Apostles whose teachings they were handing on and whose practices they were imitating. And we moderns, separated from the Apostles by centuries, are supposed to be able to better understand their writings than the folks who did things like, oh, I dunno, compile the very Scriptures that we are now using to accuse them? Its possible, I suppose, but that’s one heavy burden of proof to carry.
Third, is there anyone besides the Blessed Virgin and her Divine Son who has walked the earth in human vesture and NOT been engaged in any wrongdoing? Even supposing you are right on the translation issue, contrition and repentance, that is, sorrow for sin, penance for the same, and an amended life, is not only needful for everybody, and but also a prerequisite to any worthwhile transformation of the mind. There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, and you aren’t going to be transformed and perfected without blood and sweat and tears.
Sure, even as fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, even as the Cross is the prelude of Glory, so penance and sorrow for sin are only the beginning of virtue. And whether you’re right on the translation of this particular word or not, there is certainly more to path of virtue and the love of Christ than simply sorrow and penance. But I’m more inclined to believe that we don’t place enough emphasis on penance than that they place too much.
LikeLike
“There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, and you aren’t going to be transformed and perfected without blood and sweat and tears.”
Whose blood, sweat, and tears are going to transform me? My own? Of course not. Only the blood of Christ has the power to transform and redeem us.
Pope Benedict XVI actually called metanoia the “fundamental datum of Christian existence.”
LikeLike
Matt 10:38 – “And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.”
Of course your own efforts are, taken in isolation, totally insufficient to win salvation: “Blood of Christ, without which there is no forgiveness, save us.” But we must mortify the desires of the flesh; and further, we are to imitate Christ. Christ fasted 40 days in the wilderness, and will you not fast? Christ, who had no sin, took on him of his own will sufferings and pain and penances and thankless toil, as did his two most illustrious servants the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist, and as have all his saints.
It is also worth noting that Christ, as recorded by St. Matthew, says not “he who not is hung on a cross” or some such similar thing, which might imply mere acceptance, but says “he that takes not up his cross,” implying that the cross is to be sought, as in the prayer St. Andrew is supposed by some to have uttered when led to his own cross: “O good Cross, made beautiful by the body of the Lord: long have I desired you, ardently have I loved you, unceasingly have I sought you out; and now you are ready for my eager soul…” But in the likely even that we will not be honored with the crown of martyrdom, we must take up such crosses as we can, as we daily strive to die to self.
Of course there is more to repentance than merely penance: contrition, an amended life, etc. are all important, too. And repentance is itself, as I said, only the beginning of virtue, it is also, well, the beginning; this would tend to make it pretty fundamental.
Perhaps metanoia does include more than those things, but at a minimum it certainly does include them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Language can get very confusing in these discussions, Hrodgar. So absolutely we are to take up our cross and engage in dying to self….that we may have life and life abundant. We are also called to “rejoice, and again rejoice,” in case we missed it the first time. So life is not intended to be an endless vale of tears and suffering. At some point we must get to the part where we recognize we already had a martyr, a Savior, and He is not us.
Many people get stuck in false doctrine and I am not even disputing the doctrine itself here, simply the misapplication of it. So if one falsely believes immaculate conception has something to do with Christ’s birth, it sends one down the wrong path. If one has no idea that metanoia is about renewing your mind, being transformed, one can get stuck at nothing but repentance. “Repentance” is simply regret or remorse and if we never take it beyond that definition, then we just walk around in regret and perpetual shame with no awareness that transformation is even possible.
There are some Catholic leaders, including a couple of popes, who have spoken of the importance of metanoia too, so I don’t believe the definition is really in dispute. In the modern world however, few people even know the word and it has been replaced by the word repentance, which is a very narrow definition that does not capture the whole concept very well.
LikeLike
I’ll take your olive branch and raise you one dove.
Okay, in all seriousness, yeah, semantic stuff can get pretty shifty; for instance, I would take the position that repentance is a much broader concept than a lot of folks think rather than repentance is a narrowing of metanoia, but we end up in more or less the same ballpark, I suppose. It was the perceived implication that penance was not an integral part of the concept (whatever we call it) that caused me to comment.
Both the neglect of penance and the exaltation of modern scholars over ancient without (what seems to me) good reason are two of my pet peeves, and the least appearance of either is frequently enough to set me off. I apologize if I jumped the gun a bit here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hroggar – “were Simon Stylites or Paul the Hermit Latin?” – Not necessarily, but both were 3rd century men (over 400 years AFTER the last apostles died), venerated by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholic Churches of Eastern and Latin Rites. The importance of their association with Latin is that the Latin Vulgate became the endorsed translation of scripture by Catholics, replacing centuries earlier Greek texts as primarily authoritive.
Your concern over scriptural accuracy (“…compile the very Scriptures that we are now using to accuse them?”) implies a naivety to modern scholarly systematic theology that reveals concrete evidence that such ‘finagling’ of textual facts is NOT the case here.
Regarding your question – “anyone besides the Blessed Virgin and her Divine Son who has walked the earth in human vesture and NOT been engaged in any wrongdoing?” The ONLY doctrine that claims that the mother of Christ was SINLESS is exclusively Roman Catholic – NOT scriptural.
As for – “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch” – regarding Salvation, actually there is – it is God’s FREE gift by GRACE. Although it definitely ‘cost’ Jesus, His sacrificial death was a ‘propitiation’ offered on our (humanity’s) behalf. The concept of penance is moot, voided by Christ’s COMPLETE substitutionary works for us. Catholics do not accept this, wanting to ‘re-sacrifice’ Christ again each time their ‘Mass’ is ‘offered’. Repeating what God did ONCE for all time, necessitates their concept of the perpetuation of penance. They teach no one can be assured of eternal life, adding to penance time in Purgatory, absolution of sins only through confession to their priests, and baptism into the Catholic Church (supported only in Apocryphal texts).
The ‘self-righteous mindset’ is the basis for your comment – “penance and sorrow for sin are only the beginning of virtue”. The unregenerate man (not born again and Spirit-filled) has no recourse than to hope that through some action of his own ‘good-will’ he might appease God. But scripture clearly teaches the direct opposite – NOT my will but Yours. The entire issue of righteousness pertains to God GIVING His righteousness to every true believer, removing forever ANY notion that man can somehow achieve righteousness on his own by his efforts to repent.
That which is impossible for man, Christ accomplished for us. THAT is the WHOLE of scripture’s teaching on GRACE, which has remedied the problem of sin (separation from God), removing the need for penance as declared in Catholic dogma.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Simon Stylites died around 350 years after John the Evangelist, true. Paul of Thebes, though, was doing his thing in, well, the 3rd century, which makes him active only about 150 years after St. John’s death; he was a rough contemporary of St. Anthony the Great, himself another Egyptian ascetic.
And the earlier Greek texts were never superceded as regards authority, only common use, as well as liturgical use in the West. The Septuagint, for instance, is roughly as authoritative (not like we quantify these things) as the Vulgate, and still sees liturgical use in the East, including among the Uniates who reentered communion with Rome. In any case, the point stands that is was the Church which compiled and selected and even wrote the Scriptures (yes, of course, all by God’s grace), not the reverse. So far as I know, the only instance we have on record of Christ writing anything at all is when he scribbled in the dirt a bit, and we have, also so far as I know, no idea what he wrote, or even if he was just doodling.
I was not accusing anyone of finagling. I was speculating that perhaps men who actually spoke the language were more familiar with the meanings of words then men centuries after. There are, after all, some words in Koine that we can only guess at (educated guesses, generally, but guesses all the same) and there are words in every language that do not mean what they would seem to if one were to look only at their etymological components. If there is a disagreement on the meaning of the word between ancient writers and modern, the ancients seem to me a better bet.
As far as the sinlessness of the Mother of God, it is true that most Protestants reject it (it is difficult to find anything that ALL of them do). But Protestants also mangled the Old Testament (rejecting the universal use of the East as well as West in favor of a canon that was selected largely at the behest of Rabbi Akiba Ben Joseph around 90 AD, of whom even the modern Jewish Encyclopedia admits “underlying his antagonism to the Apocrypha, namely, the desire to disarm Christians—especially Jewish Christians— who drew their “proofs” from the Apocrypha”) and make an unscriptural addition to the Lord’s Prayer (perfectly theologically sound addition – in fact Catholics say it a minute or two after the Lord’s prayer in the Mass – but unscriptural nonetheless). And then there’s the whole Trinity bit. So I’m inclined to take claims that “It’s not explicitly in scripture so it can’t be true” with a spoonful of salt.
At any rate, it is not exclusively Catholic, as many in the East have also accepted the teaching, though even if it were that would be no mark against it. It follows quite naturally from the fact that God made her his Mother. This is a bit of a side discussion here, so going into much detail would probably be unproductive, but surely you are not saying that God COULD NOT have by prevenient grace preserved Mary from all stain of sin? And if the Patriarchs owe their salvation to a sacrifice that happened only after their death, surely Mary could likewise be preserved from sin at conception by a sacrifice that happened after her birth? And surely the God who commands us to honor our own mothers would, being perfect himself, perfectly honor his, and what higher honor could there be than to give her the grace of being from conception perfectly willing to do his will, as manifested most perfectly in her fiat? After all, “blessed is she who hears the will of God and does it.”
Regarding the whole matter of grace, while TANSTAAFL was probably overstating my case (the grace to practice any virtue at all, particularly that of contrition, is indeed a grace), still, “faith without works is dead” and “if you love me, keep my commandments” and “mortify the desires of the flesh.” Obviously man cannot achieve righteousness on his own – Pelagianism is still a heresy – but that means less than you might think: man cannot even exist on his own. However, man assisted by God’s grace, particularly that grace whose ordinary means or reception lie in the sacraments, most especially Baptism, can avoid sin, as was taught in, among other places, the canons of the Council of Trent. Christ does not merely impute his righteousness to us as a legal fiction or, as Luther said, cover us like snow on a turd, but actually gives it to us so that we can be righteous; this involves, as I alluded to in my reply to our hostess above, giving us a share in his Cross, his passion and death.
Consider also that “when the bridegroom is taken from them, then they will fast.” The most obvious interpretation is that this refers to his disciples after his Ascension, and in fact we have regulations on fasting in the Didache, a document so old that some think it was written by the Apostles themselves. And Paul in Romans, I think 14, saying that it is good for the weak to do things like abstain from meat, and which of us would claim to be strong? But if you do think yourself strong, then I say in the first place “take care, lest you fall,” and in the second, take to heart Paul’s instructions in the same passage just mentioned.
LikeLike
Occurred to me that you might take my reference to “the whole Trinity bit” as implying that Catholics disagreed with Protestants on the matter. Well, I suppose we disagree with some of them: Unitarians, neo-Arians (I’ve run into one or two here and there), those kinds of folks. But all I meant was the doctrine is not explicitly in Scripture; in fact, I can’t think even of a verse that clearly states the Holy Spirit is God, let alone a clear statement that God is three in persons yet one in essence.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Blind Man and Men Walking as Trees – Path of the Gnostic