Meaning/interpretation of 'repent' in the Old Testament

[Jordan Henderson]

There are several places in the Old Testament Scriptures which speak of God "repenting" in our English translations. For example,

"The LORD repented for this..." (Amos 7:6)

"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." (Jonah 3:10)

I am interested to know what the Patristic interpretation of "repent" is when it is used in reference to God, as in the above citations.

Actually, since I have virtually no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, I suppose a first question to ask would be whether the word translated into English above as "repent" is the same word used in relation to men and women "repenting" throughout the Scriptures.

I would appreciate any expertise anyone has to offer on the subject.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Jordan

I know you asked for patristics which I don't have, but I heard you also say you knew nothing of the Greek or Hebrew and I thought you might be interested in that, particularly as addressed by a Jewish commentary.

The Hebrew word in Amos 7:3 is the same as in Gen 6:6 (7): "nacham" "to be penitent, comforted, eased". In contrast 1 (3) Kgs. 8:47 is "shoob" "to turn back."

In the LXX (3rd Cent. BC Alexandrian Jewish translation of the OT the Fathers used) the words are translated with the appropriate form of "metanoia" (= "change mind") in Amos but "enethumethe" (= "laid to heart" in Brenton's English translation of the LXX, with "heart" for the "thumia" (feeling) part of the word). Note that this can translate the "comfort" idea in "nacham." I took this to Genesis because I have the 11th Century AD French Jewish rabbi Rashi's commentary on Genesis but not Amos, and I wanted to see what he would say to the idea of God's repenting. He says, "It was a consolation to [God] that he made man," the idea of "comfort. He then gives as another meaning to nacham "the mind of God was reversed." He says that every instance of nacham in the Bible has the meaning of reconsidering what to do. Thus it would seem "metanoia" is the proper Gk translation of it.

Next it says in the Hebrew of the Genesis passage "and it grieved him (and in Greek: "dienoethe" = "he pondered it deeply").

Richard

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard and Jordan,

I do not have a Septuagint to hand, but I might point out that it is certainly with metanoia that the LXX translates 'repent' from the Hebrew in the book of Jonas, as elsewhere. There is no hesitation to use such language of God who, in the LXX, also is sorry for His intentions; grows angry at His creation; changes His mind about various courses of action; ponders different possibilities; etc.

This ought remind us first of all of Hebrew personifications and anthropomorphisms, which have ever after been an integral part of Orthodox language of God -- despite our theological insistence that such things are impossible of the divine essence.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

Yes, Matthew,

Of the 42 times nacham appears in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT)for "repent," (& once for "repenting" and once in the plural for that word) it is translated by metanoia 14 times.

Once it appears in Is. 46:8 where there is nothing for it to translate in the MT. And where nacham appears in Jer. 15:6 it is "dropped" from the LXX. Metanoia apparently is not used to translate shoob which means "return." It is only translated "repent" three times in KJV,3(1) Kgs 8:47; and Ezekial 14:6, & 18:30.

Richard

P.s., but as I said before, Rashi himself, the most famous Jewish comentator ever, teaches that in means nacham means metanoia anyway. --R.

[Justin]

Jordan,

I'm curious (and it's merely curiosity, I don't have any other motives, like looking to get into a debate), why did you ask the question? Was it just something you ran across and were curious about? Was it the paradoxical nature of Orthodox thought (and therefore patristic thought) that Matthew described? Or did it have to do with the view becoming popular in some (mostly evangelical and fundamentalist protestant) groups, Open Theism (or the Open View)? I've had a lot of contact with the latter (and I know that Open Theists have had some contact with the Orthodox on at least one of their message boards, which is why I ask. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Jordan Henderson]

Thank you for your responses!

Matthew and Richard:


There is no hesitation to use such language of God who, in the LXX, also is sorry for His intentions; grows angry at His creation; changes His mind about various courses of action; ponders different possibilities; etc.

This ought remind us first of all of Hebrew personifications and anthropomorphisms, which have ever after been an integral part of Orthodox language of God -- despite our theological insistence that such things are impossible of the divine essence.

This is where I'd be interested in the patristic interpretation of these verses. As Orthodox Christians, how do we reconcile God "changing His mind" with our belief that God is eternal and unchanging?

Justin,

I'm not familiar with Open Theism, although I've seen the term used a lot on evangelical websites. What is meant by Open Theism?

[Justin]

Open Theism (and there may be variations to this) states that God does not know all of the future as it will happen, but only makes "really good guesses" as to what will happen. Therefore, God interacts with his creation based not on a certain and infallible knowledge, but on a 99.99% assured guess as to what will happen. However, God apparently guesses wrong .001% of the time (I'm just throwing figures out for illustrative purposes, these aren't necessarily the numbers open theists would use), and so sometimes is "suprised" and sometimes even "changes his mind". This belief goes very well with various forms of dispensationalism as it sort of validates a "change" in the minds of some people, and helps certain theological constructs to make more sense (e.g., Mid Acts Dispensationalists believe that God wanted to reach the world through Israel and the 12 Apostles, but when Israel wouldn't repent God essentially changed his mind and handed the responsibility to Paul and the Gentiles).

I believe that there was a similar belief--one condemned as a heresy--among some (Egyptian?) monastics in about the 5th century. They too took the anthropomorphic language (especially of the Old Testament) and crafted a human doctrine about God based on it. There are many Open Theists over at TheologyOnline (http://www.theologyonline.com) if you're interested in hearing more.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Therefore, God interacts with his creation based not on a certain and infallible knowledge, but on a 99.99% assured guess as to what will happen. However, God apparently guesses wrong .001% of the time."

Can we at least presume that it is an educated guess? :>)

john