Use of metanoia in
the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sirach. For a first century Jew, repentance
would include both the idea of moral action and ritualistic behavior. The
Semitic term, teshubah, signified a “complete change of practice” in
light of eschatological assurance. The Qumran community placed an emphasis on
repentance. Throughout their writings, evidence pointed to both ideas being
represented.
a. 1QS5:1-14; 10:20: In 1QS (Rules for
the Community Conduct) the rules for a living in the community were given. The
meh of Yahad (“unity”) were addressed as “volunteers of repentance from
perverse men, gathering for learning the Law, and placing themselves under the
authority of the sons of Zadok (5:2). As repentant ones, they were to practice truth
with “humility, charity, justice, lovingkindness, and modesty” (5:3-4). The
necessity for repentance was demanded before they entered the purifying waters
(5:14). The same idea was expressed in 1QS10:20 with the prayer for righteousness
to be established by not being “angry at those repenting of sins.” The
incentive to repent was achieved by meditating on God’s deeds and power
(10:16). An interesting parallel is found with Jesus’ warning to the unrepentant
cities in Matthew 11:20-24.
b. CD 4:2; 6:5;
19:16; 20:17: The Damascus Document emphasized repentance as a characteristic of the
priests who were the key leaders of the Qumran community (4:2). The metaphor of
the well was used of the Law, with the “diggers” being the “repentant of Israel”
(6:5). The implication was that in order to understand and teach Torah, one
must demonstrate the characteristic of repentance. In CD 19:16, ideas of
mourning and lamenting were characteristic of “the poor of the flock.” There were
the ones who gave heed to God and turned away from the common people
(19:13-16). Finally, in CD 20:17 the ones who kept God’s covenant and repented
of their sins were protected from God’s anger.
c. Sirach: For Sirach,
repentance was a needed condition in forsaking sins and returning to God (17:14,
26; 18:21; 48:15). He also combined the act of reproof with the result of
repentance (20:3; 21:6). Sirach was pointing to “conversion in the full sense.”
What was significant at the time of Sirach, was the Jewish understanding that
repentance involved a turning away from sin, a return to God and his covenant,
resulting in a changed life.
Summary of metanoia
in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sirach. In the passages examined, two central
ideas emerge in the use of metanoia: a point of departure from a
perceived, harmful state of affairs, and the return to God and the covenant as
a new way of living juxtaposed to the former way of life. In the DSS, the
imagery of sinners coming back to God was prominent. For the Qumran community, repentance
was the key characteristic of its members, departing from Israel in forming a
new, restored community. There was no entrance into the community unless there
was evidence of repentance. Repentance was the defining moment, leading to the
beginning of righteousness in the community.
Use of metanoia the
Gospel of Matthew. The idea of repentance used by Matthew was a return to God, not simply
a change of mind. This repentance began as an internal change. Through an
examination of the texts, a pattern will emerge, reflecting metanoia as
a key prerequisite for understanding Jesus’ pronouncements.
a. Matthew 3:2, 8,
11; 4:17: The preaching of both the John the Baptist and Jesus was characterized
by the motif of repentance. For both, the call to repentance was grounded in
kingdom awareness. This involved both a national wake-up call and individual
invitation. For Hagner, the understanding of the kingdom’s proximity was more
important than the call to repent. Luz disagrees by noting the call to
repent was an emphasis at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry to the orientation
of life characterized by kingdom presence, and that emphasis continued to have
a vital role in Jesus’ ministry.
Throughout the
prophets, repentance was a return to YHWH resulting in a restoration (cf. Is
44:22; Jer 3:10-23; 18:8; Ezek 14:6; 18:30; Hos 3:5; 6:1; 14:1; Joel 2:12; Zech
1:3-6). Both John and Jesus were adopting the theology of Isaiah (56:1), who
saw repentance as a prerequisite of the kingdom of God. The demand by John the
Baptist for repentance was evidenced by its “fruit” (Matt 3:11).
In the context, John
warned the Jewish leaders that ancestral blessing would not produce the “fruit”
of the kingdom (Matt 3:8-9). It was simple for John, the “fruit” of repentance
was obedience, evidenced in the baptism ritual (cf. 1QS5:1-14). For Jesus to be
baptized by John, the importance of repentance was accentuated. Jesus, too,
took up the same message. This act was a specific once-for-all turn toward the
kingdom seen in the act of baptism. Although Matthew identified Jesus’
preaching with John’s, the Gospel composition will be further developed in
light of responding to Jesus himself. Ultimately, repentance was the new way of
thinking about “the better righteousness” that was realized in Jesus.
b. Matthew 9:13: Some MSS have added
eis metanoian (“to repentance”) to this verse (C,L,Q, and Majority Text).
It does parallel Luke 5:32 with the note of repentance. The emphasis by Matthew
was that Jesus’ message of repentance was understood by those who associated
with Jesus. As noted by Hagerland, Jesus did not create an alternative rite of
repentance, but, rather, asked for those associating with him to accept his
preaching and teaching. Thus, Jesus’ call to discipleship was a call to follow
him out of their self-righteousness into the healthy righteousness he provided.
c. Matthew 11:20-21: Matthew equated the
lack of repentance to unbelief in this pericope. Repentance was seen as the
proper response to the ministry of Jesus. By pointing to the practice of “sackcloth
and ashes”, Matthew characterized the repentant act was ritualistic sorrow.
Recognizing the need for change was the first act of change.
d. Matthew 12:41: By comparing the response of
those who heard Jonah as compared to those who heard Jesus, Matthew
demonstrated that the “one greater” expected an equal or greater response of repentance
as well. Ultimately, the resurrection of Jesus would prove to be the greater
opportunity for repentance.
e. Matthew 21:29, 32: Matthew associated repentance
with righteousness and belief. The stress in this passage was placed upon
obedience that resulted in repentance. In addition, the juxtaposition of belief
with repentance brings clarity to how the early community understood metanoia.
It must be noted that in the Gospel of Matthew, the refusal of repentance was
placed upon the Jewish leadership, while “sinners” were associated and believing
in Jesus; ministry. (Timothy D. Howell, The Matthean Beatitudes in their Jewish Origins:
A Literary and Speech Act Analysis [Studies in Biblical Literature 144; New
York: Peter Lang, 2011], 94-97)