In this article I’ll discuss how the Jews of Jesus’ time had a slightly different application of the word “repent” and how this difference can affect our modern interpretation of passages like Acts chapter 2.
The word “repent” is found in the NT quite a few times used by several different authors. Here are some examples:
Mat 3:2 Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near (John the Baptist)
Mat 4:17 Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near (Jesus)
Luke 13:3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. (Jesus)
Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized (Peter)
Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord (Peter)
Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. (Paul)
Rev 2:5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. (Jesus through John)
Including these verses, “repent” appears 27 times as the English word translated from the same Greek word in all but one of the places. This word is μετανοέω (meta-nah-eh-oh) [verb] or μετάνοια (meta-noi-ah) [noun].
Strong’s dictionary defines repent as: to change any or all of the elements composing one’s life, attitude, thoughts, and behaviors concerning the demands of God for right living. Wikipedia (yeah I know, weird, right?) has a great article on ‘repent’ here (the article even mentions a great book that I read years ago, by Edward J.Anton Repentance: Cosmic Shift of Mind and Heart, which is a must-read for learning about repentance).
Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia article:
After a thorough examination of Hellenistic Jewish writings, the study found that for Jews living at the time of Jesus, “repentance” meant “a fundamental change in thinking and living.”
This is great because it articulates so well one of the primary purposes of this blog which is that it seeks to understand how the Jews of Jesus’ time would have understood him—not as we would understand him now with our modern culture. I think all the studies of metanoia on the Wikipedia site can be summarized by:
- It was an important word, not to be treated lightly.
- For people both in historic and in modern times seeking to repent, it’s not just about a behavioral change but a change in the very heart and mind of the individual.
Besides understanding the word itself, one must also know what to repent of. This often has to be obtained from context since the thing that the speaker is demanding repentance for is not given. For instance it would be unfair if I came home and told my son, “You need to change!” Change what, everything? However if I had been talking to him about keeping his room clean and then said the same thing, he would understand that he needs to change his attitude about his room and start cleaning it.
When John the Baptist and Jesus preached in Mat 3:2 and 4:17, “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near”, what were they saying the people should change? There’s really no context given. Rather than being something specific, it seems this was a synopsis of their message. If this is the case, what type of a message or sermon can be summarized by “Repent for the kingdom is near”?
For the Jew there was only one thing to repent or recommit oneself back to: the Law. Whatever it was that was getting in the way of the individual observing all the laws needed to be removed or fixed. In the Old Testament, we see all kinds of examples of folks breaking laws. A common one is idolatry, and others are adultery, tithing, dietary laws, and Sabbath laws. As is the case today, there were people who struggled consistently with certain sins, and if what I am saying is correct, Jesus wanted them to get back to following the full Law.
By why would He want that? Wasn’t the Law a bad thing? Why would Jesus preach that people needed to recommit themselves to the very thing that His death was to undo? The whole book of Romans discusses this, but chapter 7 of Romans is a great synopsis of the relationship between mankind and the Law of God. Take a minute to read the chapter now. It’s probably most famous for how difficult it is to read aloud due to all of its “to do’s” and “not to do’s”. Rom 7:17 says: “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.” Therefore the Law itself is not bad–it comes from God and codifies part of the overall good. What is bad is mankind under the Law. We were not created to be in this position. See Not Equipped for the Law
So Law is good, but still, why would Jesus preach that people needed to recommit themselves to the very thing that his death was undo?
One reason is because the Law had a purpose: it was to break a person due to their inability to follow it and drive them to God and his mercy. You can hear this brokenness in Paul’s tone and words in Romans 7. Only by truly and wholeheartedly trying to follow the entire Law as if your life and the lives of your fellow Jews depended on it, can one receive the desired effects of the Law. Some people feel like we should follow certain laws of the Old Covenant today, like worshiping on the Sabbath, tithing, or perhaps some of the dietary laws. But the Law was not designed to be partially followed and it wasn’t designed to be followed as some sort of life-philosophy. What we may be ignorant of today, the Jews of Jesus’ time understood clearly for they were the ones who had been exiled and were living under the sword of the Romans (Exile and oppression are curses for disobedience. Deut 28:25,32).
When I hear of someone saying that Christians must not work on Sunday for instance, it irritates me (not because the Sabbath was on Saturday) because this will do nothing for them. They need to fully commit themselves to the Law and then they will begin to understand how impossible it is as well as how it doesn’t bring them closer to God. In fact, it drives them way from God as they fully comprehend how utterly disappointed God is in them. Even if they succeed (or think they have succeeded) for a while, it still doesn’t bring closeness to God but instead brings piety and self righteousness. It’s at one’s lowest point where they are ready for the Gospel. It is here they will realize how much love and mercy they need from God.
This is why I believe the Apostle Paul, of all people, understood the Gospel the best. Paul mentions several times in his writings, like In Phil 3:4-5, how he was a “Hebrew of Hebrews”. Doesn’t it seem unlikely that he would not only convert to Christianity but become its champion?
While the apostles in Jerusalem were still trying to figure if Gentiles could even become Christians, Paul was out among the Gentiles making churches with them. Look at what lengths God had to go through to teach the disciples that Gentiles could become Christians without first converting to Judaism, which underscores the end of the Law: he miraculously appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9), he worked the miracle of Peter’s dream in conjunction with the angel appearing to Cornelius and him sending men to get Peter (Acts 10), and then once Peter began to preach to them, he poured the Spirit on them in a way similar to how he had done to them in Acts 2 (Acts 11:15).
Another reason I believe Jesus commanded the Jews to repent and return to the Law was because Jesus himself was the fulfillment of the Law. He fulfilled the Law in that he, unlike all humanity before him, was able to follow all the laws and he also fulfilled the Law because the Law points to the Messiah. As Hebrews 10:1 says, “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves.” The passage goes on to speak about the sacrificial system. The sacrificial system prophesied the Messiah because every time one had to make a sacrifice they were reminded of how their sins required a sacrifice. But the sacrifice of animals was not sufficient. They were innocent, which is part of what’s necessary, but they did not have a will. Therefore each sacrifice, especially the annual one (the Scape Goat) reminded them that they needed the perfect sacrifice of the Messiah.
Therefore John the Baptist and Jesus were both giving messages to the Jews that they should repent and recommit themselves to the Law, but what about Peter in Acts 2? Here Peter gives what has been called “the first Christian sermon” to Jews from all nations who had returned to Jerusalem to worship Pentecost. After the sermon, many of the Jews listening were “cut to the heart”. So much so that they asked, “brothers, what shall we do?”
It’s every pastor’s dream to have God use their sermon to open people’s hearts and have them wanting to know what to do. God’s Spirit was clearly present here, not in the miracles which initially caused the crowd to gather and in giving Peter the words to say here. Therefore the words of Peter’s response to this great and wonderful question, “brothers, what shall we do?” ought to be thought through carefully. Read his response in Acts 2:38.
At the beginning of the verse we find the word we’re studying, “repent” followed by, “and be baptized”. The modern interpretation of this use of repent is “stop doing the obvious bad stuff you’re doing and be immersed in water.” Remember though that at this time the apostles still thought one had to become a Jew before they could become a Christian. He’s speaking to Jews here, so they wouldn’t have to do this, right? Not necessarily, since John the Baptist and Jesus both taught Jews to repent and both groups baptized Jews. I believe “repent and be baptized” both related to Jews recommitting themselves. Calls to repentance were not new to the Jews. For example, many Jewish leaders and priests are recorded in the Old Testament exhorting their followers to stop worshiping idols and return to following the Yahweh. A lot could be said about baptism (and will be in future blogs) but suffice it to say here that ceremonial washings (called Mikveh) were not new to the Jews and were used often to renew and cleanse their souls.
But this blog is about repentance, so I will end by saying that I do not think Peter had in mind that the thousands of Jews gathered around him should stop sinning before the could become a Christian. I’ve seen my own church use it in this way basically as a way to test one’s seriousness before allowing them to become a Christian. Say you’re living with your girlfriend in sin but now heard the Gospel and want to be a Christian. It is a good idea to move out of your girlfriend’s place, but should this be an immediate barrier such that one cannot become a Christian before repenting and moving out? I don’t believe this scripture teaches this. After all, how could the thousands of Jews gathered here have left, repented of all the things they needed to, and then returned? Obviously they couldn’t have and Acts doesn’t record them as doing this. Therefore given that Peter and the apostles still thought the Gospel was for the Jews, I believe the repentance spoken of here was the same as what Jesus and John the Baptist spoke of, namely, a recommitment to the Mosaic Law.
Then how should we look at this passage from a modern perspective? As discussed earlier, metanoia is a change that occurs first in the mind, it is an awakening and a stalwart decision. For the Jews in Acts 2 they were awakening to the fact that they not only had they missed the coming of the Messiah but that they had killed him! We can have a similar experience when we truly believe and accept that Jesus was the promised Messiah and he died for our individual sins.
P.S. As for what the church’s responsibility in “allowing” someone to become a Christian, I believe this passage demonstrates that the dire need for the lost to be saved outweighs any encumbrance that an abundance of baby Christians and even false disciples can have on the church. The idea of “building one’s church smartly or strategically” clearly did not enter the minds of the apostles here as they accepted 3000+ completely unknown souls to join their tiny church of 120; furthermore I believe these are modern, humanistic concepts that deny the power of God’s Spirit. Don’t people need to know the cost of becoming a Christian, as Jesus discussed in Luke 14? Absolutely, but this was apparently accomplished in Peter’s short sermon, so it must not be a long, drawn out, formal process.