The word, repentance, is perhaps the most controversial word in the New Testament to define. The three basic opinions are that repentance is a change of works that is necessary for eternal life, a change of mind that is necessary for eternal life, or a change of works that is not necessary for eternal life (this article defends the third definition). Each of these three have several nuances and subversions, and each of them is able to comply with the notion of the kingdom offer and postponement. Regardless of the compatibility of the views with the main contention of the kingdom postponement, a study of repentance is in order as the kingdom offer itself is Μετανοεῖτε, ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Part of the controversy exists due to disputes concerning the terms of the Gospel. Lordship Salvationists, John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, propose that:
For a sinner to have a saving interest in Christ, he must respond to these facts [of the gospel] by turning from sin and trusting in Christ for righteousness. Therefore, a second essential element of the external call is the preacher’s earnest call for the sinner to repent and believe. The Lord Jesus himself modeled this kind of gospel preaching; Mark says that he came “proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel’” (Mark 1:14–15).[1]
That unbelievers must turn from sin to be saved is a mandate that stands in clear violation of the biblical message of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. The only book of the Bible written with the expressed purpose of bringing unbelievers to faith in Christ for eternal life is the Gospel of John (John 20:30–31), so if repentance was necessary for salvation, then surely John would have mentioned it, yet he does not. The quote above also happens to be example of the soteriological impact of the kingdom postponement, as the proof text that MacArthur and Mayhue provide is from the kingdom offer misapplied as a call to eternal life.
Cocoris agrees with the Lordship Salvationists that repentance is part of saving faith, but maintains a valid gospel of faith alone when he writes, “Repentance, which means a change of mind or attitude, not tears or turning from sin, is inseparable from faith in salvation.”[2] Zane Hodges, who agrees with the Lordship Salvationists that repentance is a change of action, also maintains a faith alone gospel by saying, “biblical repentance is not a condition for eternal salvation. Instead it addresses the need that sinners have (whether saved or unsaved) to repair their relationship to God in order to prevent, or to terminate, His temporal judgment on their sins.”[3]
To complicate matters further, there have been centuries of confusion over the Latin translation, which has been influential in the Roman Catholic Church as well as the English translations that have been developed to this day, as Girdleston writes:
The objections to the Latin word pœnitentia as a rendering of μετάνοια were more forcibly expressed by Erasmus in his Annotations. But he wrote without at all taking into consideration the Hebrew and Judæo-Greek usage, whence we derive the word μετάνοια. Because in his days the Roman sacrament of penance, i.e. satisfaction for sins committed after baptism, was called by the same name as penitence, or sorrow for sins committed either before or after baptism, he thought that some other word should be adopted. He called pœnitentia a barbarism and a solecism, and to him must be given the credit of pressing upon his contemporaries the word resipiscentia, which had previously been adopted by Lactantius, as the better of the two. Lucas Brugensis, however, well replies that pœnitentia had a far wider meaning amongst Latin ecclesiastical writers than was usually supposed; it implied not only sorrow, but also a change for the better. Whilst, on the other hand, μετάνοια had a wider meaning than change; for it included sorrow, and compunction of heart.[4]
Of the views mentioned above, the one that is most important to reject is that of Lordship Salvation. The doctrinal statement of Tyndale Theological Seminary rightly declares:
We reject what is called Lordship Salvation. This teaching seems to go against the clear biblical teaching that salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing can be added to His work on the cross, or to the proclamation of one’s personal faith and trust in His finished work of eternal life.[5]
While both Hodges and Cocoris proclaim the Gospel without works, pointing the unbeliever to faith in Christ rather than self, it seems that Hodges’ understanding of repentance is more closely aligned with the biblical usage, with perhaps some nuances related to emphasis. Regardless of which English-speaking theologian arrives to which definition of “repent,” a proper word study must begin with the Greek word, μετανοέω, and its implications in light of the Hebrew revelation before it.
Etymology
The view that repentance is only a change of mind is often defended from etymology. The argument would be that the μετα prefix means “after” and the νοέω root means “think,” which is tied to the nominal form, νοῦς, which Strong defines as, “mind, understanding, reason,”[6] such that μετανοέω means “to have an afterthought” or rather “to change one’s mind.” This is often the extent of the argument, which should raise a red flag that perhaps a root fallacy is involved, but in the case of μετανοέω, the etymology itself is not so simple.
As a prefix, μετα can carry a similar range of meanings as the prepositional form. While the prefix can mean “after,” it predominately means “with” such as in μεταδίδωμι “to impart”, μεταλαμβάνω “to receive”, and μετέχω “to share.”[7] A.T. Robertson compares the prefix to συν:
Μετά is less frequent in composition than σύν, though far more common as a preposition. Simcox thinks that it is useless to elaborate any distinction in meaning between μετά and σύν. The older grammars held that σύν expressed a more intimate fellowship than μετά.[8]
An example of the συν prefix can be seen in the verb, συσταυρόω, “to crucify together with.” Thus, in Gal 2:19, Paul writes Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι, “I have been crucified together with Christ.” The “intimate fellowship” of σύν indicates that the same action, crucifixion in this case, happened to both parties. Other examples include συστενάζω “to groan together” and συστοιχέω “to correspond with.” The μετα prefix is more nuanced. It seems to indicate a verbal involvement of the verb’s noun form in an instrumental sense. In the example of μεταλαμβάνω “to partake of,” the root verb is λαμβάνω “to receive.” The noun form of “receive” is “reception,” so μεταλαμβάνω could be thought of as having to do “with reception,” such that the reception itself is not being received, but something else. The verb, μετέχω means “to share.” The root verb is ἔχω, “to have, hold, possess,” so attaching an instrumental “with” to the noun form, “possession,” renders the idea of sharing by way of “with possession.” Similarly, μεταδίδωμι “to impart, bestow” has the root verb δίδωμι “to give,” such that μεταδίδωμι can be viewed with the instrumental sense of giving something else “as a gift.”
The μετα prefix in the word, μετανοέω, means neither “after,” nor the intimate “together with.” Instead, the μετα prefix as applied to μετανοέω likely comes with this less intimate instrumental nuance. The verb μετανοέω has the root verb, νοέω, which is tied to the nominal form, νοῦς “mind, understanding, reason,”[9] so the μετα prefix puts νοῦς into an instrumental position, such that there is an implication of something that is done “with the understanding or reason” or perhaps even “as a result of understanding.” This plays well into the hand of the “change of action” view of repentance, as the change only begins in the mind, but fully carries out into a consistent change of action.
Septuagint, Peshitta, and Targumim
The noun, μετάνοια, only occurs once in the LXX in Prov 14:15:
פֶּ֭תִי יַאֲמִ֣ין לְכָל־דָּבָ֑ר וְ֝עָר֗וּם יָבִ֥ין לַאֲשֻׁרֽוֹ׃
The simple believes every word, But the prudent considers well his steps. (NKJV)
ἄκακος πιστεύει παντὶ λόγῳ, πανοῦργος δὲ ἔρχεται εἰς μετάνοιαν. (LXX)
A harmless person believes every word, but a trickster comes into metanoia. (English translation from LXX)
There is not a strict equivalent of μετάνοια in the Hebrew text of Prov 14:15. The translation is dynamic, but captures the harsher flavor of the Hebrew than the New King James.[10] To understand μετάνοια in its only LXX occurrence, one simply has to discern the difference between a harmless person and a trickster. This is not a question of “changing minds,” for the harmless one changes his mind every time he hears a new word and believes it. The difference is that the trickster is constantly taking wicked actions, which he modifies with opportunity.[11] It seems that from this passage, μετάνοια includes the idea of a change of action.
The verb, μετανοέω, occurs 19 times in the LXX.[12] Since μετανοέω is typically rendered “repent” in English Bibles, many assume that it is the Greek word for שׁוּב and carries the idea of turning from sin. This assumption usually comes from a more deeply rooted assumption that turning from sins is necessary for salvation and the call, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” is a gospel message unto eternal life. When Lordship Salvationists ascribe a works-based repentance to the Gospel, they might undermine their own credibility with a statement such as:
The most common Old Testament Hebrew word for “repentance” is shub, whose most basic meaning is “to turn” or “to return.” Hebrew scholars say that “better than any other verb it combines in itself the two requisites of repentance: to turn from evil and to turn to the good.”[13]
The problem with the above claim is that of the 1,339 occurrences in the Old Testament, שׁוּב is translated as “repent” only thrice in the King James Version (1 Kings 8:47; Ezek 14:6; 18:30), leaving it far from “the most common.” For precisions sake, it is worth noting that the LXX never uses μετανοέω as the translation of שׁוּב. Instead, the Hebrew word being translated into μετανοέω is usually נָחַם. In fact, there are even occasions in the Septuagint when the Hebrew authors used both שׁוּב and נָחַם, and the Greek translators used μετανοέω for נָחַם, and a word with στρέφω “to rotate” as a root to designate the turning of שׁוּב. However, this does not necessarily invalidate the relation between שׁוּב and נָחַם, it only necessitates a reevaluation in light of the text to see if there are other linguistic or contextual reasons to derive a connection.
The word, נָחַם, is generally considered to be an onomatopoeia related to sighing. Young’s Concordance offers “to be sighed with, comforted” as an explanation of נָחַם in Isaiah 57:6.[14] Names related to נָחַם include Noah, whom Lamech named in Gen 5:29, saying, “This one will comfort us” ( זֶה יְנַחֲמֵנוּ ), Nehemiah ( נְחֶמְיָה ), whose name means “Yahweh comforts,” and Nahum ( נַחוּם ), whose name means, “comforter.” The piel form of נָחַם can carry the positive connotation of comforting another, such that in Ruth 2:13, כִּ֣י נִֽחַמְתָּנִי “for you have comforted me” is rendered in the LXX as ὅτι παρεκάλεσάς με. The connotation of נָחַם is not strictly negative and the range of meaning is wide enough such that opposite translations can occur from the niphal in Gen 6:6 וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה כִּי־עָשָׂה אֶת־הָאָדָם (And the Lord was sorry that He had made man) καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός ἀπαλείψω τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὃν ἐποίησα ἀπὸ προσώπου τῆς γῆς and Gen 24:67 וַיִּנָּחֵם יִצְחָק אַחֲרֵי אִמּֽוֹ (So Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death) καὶ παρεκλήθη Ισαακ περὶ Σαρρας τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ. Eveline van Staalduin-Sulman defines µετανοέω as, “to change one’s mind or purpose,” but her analysis of the Septuagint’s translation of נָחַם is noteworthy:
The translations of the Septuagint can be divided into three categories. The largest category contains verbs indicating feelings, such as παρακαλέω, “to comfort, excite” (e.g. Gen. 24:67), µεταµέλοµαι, “to feel repentance, regret” (e.g. Exod. 13:17), ἐνθυµέοµαι, “to take to heart, be hurt” (e.g. Gen. 6:6), and ὀργίζω, “to provoke, irritate” (e.g. Isa. 57:6). The second category mainly refers to deeds with verbs such as ἀποστρέφω, “to turn away, divert” (e.g. Jon. 3:9), ἵλαος, “[to be] gracious, gentle” (e.g. Exod. 32:12), and παύω, “to bring to an end, make to rest” (e.g. Jer. 33[26]:3). The last category is the smallest, although the first verb occurs regularly, and consists of verbs referring to thought or will, such as µετανοέω, “to change one’s mind or purpose” (e.g. Amos 7:3), and ἡγέοµαι, “to believe, hold” (e.g. Job 42:6).[15]
It seems that נָחַם contains the idea of a deeply moving experience or situation,[16] but none of the examples above occur in the LXX as μετανοέω, which is the least popular translation of the word. The proposed reasoning for this is that נָחַם is broad enough to cover several changes, but those rendered μετανοέω are not simply a change of mind, but also typically include a turn of action. Perhaps even van Staalduin-Sulman’s definition of “to change one’s mind or purpose” is best read, not as a change of mind in the sense of thinking differently, but rather a change of mind in the sense of changing purpose, which naturally results in the action’s change of direction.
The discussion thus far has centered around the Greek Septuagint, but the Syraic Peshitta is a translation that that is closer to the authorship of the New Testament by a few centuries, so it is more likely to be alert of any shifts in meaning. It also translates the New Testament text into a dialect of Aramaic, which could be helpful to approaching the Central Semitic understanding of words. The Peshitta’s age and language group also should lend it priority over the Latin Vulgate, which is the center of much debate, as noted earlier with Girdleston’s critic of the Roman Catholic connotations behind the word, pœnitentia.
In Matthew 4:17 of the BFBS/UBS Peshitta, the imperative, μετανοειτε, is translated in the with the Syriac word, ܬܘܒܘ. Since Syriac is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic,[17] this word is cognate to the Aramaic word, תּוּב, which itself is historically related to the Hebrew שׁוּב. Frederick Greenspahn offers an explanation for the similarity between these two words:
Words that look different in Hebrew and Aramaic may, therefore, actually be historically related.
An example of this involves the letter שׁ, which Hebrew uses for what were originally two different sounds – sh and th (as in English “thin”) … However, Aramaic uses שׁ only for words which originally included sh, representing the th sound with the letter ת, which it also uses for the sound t, as does Hebrew.[18]
Likewise, in the Targumim, it is common to find a translation of נָחַם that resembles the turning connotation of תּוּב/שׁוּב, for example, Amos 7:3:
נִחַם יְהוָה עַל־זֹאת לֹא תִהְיֶה אָמַר יְהוָֽה
μετανόησον, κύριε, ἐπὶ τούτῳ. Καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔσται, λέγει κύριος.
אָתִיב יְיָ רוּגְזֵיהּ עַל דָא לָא תִתְקַיֵים אֲמַר יְיָ
(Targum Jonathan)So the Lord relented concerning this.
“It shall not be,” said the Lord. (NKJV)
Two things are particularly noteworthy of Amos 7:3. First, נִחַם is translated into Greek as μετανόησον, but into Aramaic as אָתִיב. This supports the position that μετανοέω can mean something of a שׁוּב even when directly translated from a נָחַם. Second, the “repentance” is actually defined as saying “it shall not be,” in other words, God turned and delivered Israel from the locus (and likewise the fire in vv. 4–6). This was not only a change of heart, but a change of action. In light of the Aramaic texts, it seems that the “turning” connotation of μετανοέω (and even נחם) may have a degree of truth to it apart from the weak support that it has received in recent years from the Lordship Salvation school of thought.
Old Testament Hebrew usage
While the words, שׁוּב and נָחַם, have distinctions in their strictest definitions, they are often inseparable in context.[19] Jeremiah has the most occurrences (92) of the word, שׁוּב, in the Bible. The first 11 are used to describe Israel turning (or not turning) back to God, but then in Jer 4:28, God uses שׁוּב in reference to Himself:
עַל־זֹאת֙ תֶּאֱבַ֣ל הָאָ֔רֶץ וְקָדְר֥וּ הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם מִמָּ֑עַל עַ֤ל כִּי־דִבַּ֙רְתִּי֙ זַמֹּ֔תִי וְלֹ֥א נִחַ֖מְתִּי וְלֹא־אָשׁ֥וּב מִמֶּֽנָּה׃
Because of this, the earth will mourn; the skies above will grow dark. I have spoken; I have planned, and I will not relent or turn back from it. (HCSB)[20]
The perfect tense זַמֹּתִי (I have purposed), is followed by waw-conjunctives with the negated perfect וְלֹא נִחַ֖מְתִּי (and I have not repented) and with the imperfect וְלֹא־אָשׁוּב (and I do not turn). The two negatives are equated with a tense shift for emphasis on the eternality and certainty of His decree. Rashi connects the ideas of turning and repenting when he comments on the phrase, ולא אשוב, by paraphrasing ולא אנחם לחשוב מחשבות טובות עליהם “and I will not repent to thinking [לחשוב from verb חשב] good thoughts about them,”[21] Because God has purposed, He has not repented and does not turn. The three verbs of purposing, repenting, and turning can be combined into one idea that describes what God expects out of His people.
Another passage in Jeremiah that links שׁוּב and נָחַם is Jeremiah 8:4–6:
“Moreover you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord:
“Will they fall and not rise?
Will one turn away and not return? ( אִם־יָשׁ֖וּב וְלֹ֥א יָשֽׁוּב )
Why has this people slidden back, ( מַדּ֨וּעַ שׁוֹבְבָ֜ה הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֛ה )
Jerusalem, in a perpetual backsliding? ( מְשׁוּבָה from שׁוּב )
They hold fast to deceit,
They refuse to return. ( מֵאֲנ֖וּ לָשֽׁוּב )
I listened and heard,
But they do not speak aright.
No man repented of his wickedness, ( אֵ֣ין אִ֗ישׁ נִחָם֙ עַל־רָ֣עָת֔וֹ )
Saying, ‘What have I done?’
Everyone turned to his own course, ( כֻּלֹּ֗ה שָׁ֚ב ׳בִּמְרֻצוֹתָם׳ )
As the horse rushes into the battle.[22]
After God says, “I listened and heard,” He indicts Israel because “they do not speak aright” (lit. “they incorrectly speak” לוֹא־כֵ֣ן יְדַבֵּ֔רוּ), and then He elaborates with two details in apposition, first clarifying how they are speaking incorrectly that “No man repented of his wickedness, Saying, ‘What have I done?’” and second, equivalent the first is that “Everyone turned to his own course.” Israel’s sinful state is described מְשֻׁבָ֣ה נִצַּ֑חַת “perpetual backsliding” and מֵאֲנ֖וּ לָשֽׁוּב “They refuse to return.” It seems from this passage that שׁוּב and נָחַם are so closely intertwined that one cannot occur without the other in the context of Israel’s apostasy in the days of Jeremiah.
New Testament references to Old Testament usage
An important kingdom-offer reference to Old Testament repentance is Jesus’ use of μετανοέω in reference to what Nineveh did at Jonah’s preaching (Matt 12:41; Luke 11:32). Matthew 12 is a key text for understanding the postponement; it is at this point in the life of Christ that the Jewish leadership ascribe the works of the Holy Spirit to Beelzebub and Jesus announces His postponement of the kingdom. Referring to the Pharisees, He declares:
The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah (μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ); and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. (Matt 12:41)
Jesus contrasts the repentance of wicked Nineveh with Israel’s failure to repent in accordance with the kingdom offer. In light of Jesus’ words, the μετανοέω required for the kingdom to be established can be described in terms of what Nineveh did. Interestingly, in Jonah 3:10, the Bible uses שׁוּב to describe what Nineveh did and נָחַם to describe what God did:
Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way (כִּי־שָׁ֖בוּ מִדַּרְכָּ֣ם הָרָעָ֑ה); and God relented from the disaster (וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם הָאֱלֹהִ֗ים עַל־הָרָעָ֛ה) that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
This demonstrates that the change of action, the שׁוּב, is what Jesus had in mind when He used μετανοέω when offering the kingdom. Nineveh did indeed experience a deep sorrow, and for this reason they donned the sackcloth and ashes, but it was their works that God saw, defined as כִּי־שָׁבוּ מִדַּרְכָּם הָרָעָה in Hebrew and μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ in Greek. As noted earlier, it should come as no surprise when the Peshitta renders μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ as ܬܒܘ ܒܟܪܘܙܘܬܗ ܕܝܘܢܢ and Targum Jonathan renders the Hebrew כִּי־שָׁ֖בוּ מִדַּרְכָּ֣ם הָרָעָ֑ה into Aramaic as אֲרֵי תָבוּ מֵאוֹרְחַתְהוֹן בִּישְׁתָא.
Another New Testament repentance text that reflects on the Old Testament is Matt 11:20–24. Jesus says, “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” (vs. 21). The reason that God lays waste to Tyre is “because Tyre has said against Jerusalem, ‘Aha! She is broken who was the gateway of the peoples…’” (Ezek 26:2). God’s covenant with Israel obligates Him to protect her and to drive out her enemies. Jesus says that if Tyre had seen His miracles, then they would have repented. Assuming a “change of mind” view, repentance would have been insufficient. Tyre needs a change of action; she needs to vacate the land. In the same passage, Jesus indicates that Sodom would have repented (Matt 11:23). Sodom’s crime is declared in Ezek 16:49–50:
Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.
Sodom and Gomorah do not need a change of mind, but a change of action. They need repentance.
Talmudic gleanings
As a final note, the Babylonian Talmud indicates that Jews understood the necessity of repentance for the kingdom to come, as is evident in a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, who were prominent in the early 2nd century A.D.[23] These Rabbis agree that Messiah will come when Israel is in a state of doing teshuva;[24] Rabbi Eliezer understood that it is possible for Israel to never meet this requirement on its own and Rabbi Yehoshua pointed to a coming Haman-like figure (whom Christians commonly refer to as the Antichrist) who will drive Israel to teshuva during the final half of the tribulation. Even after the destruction of Jerusalem, Rabbis who reject the New Testament entirely are able to derive the necessity of teshuva for the kingdom to be established.
Conclusion
Christ offered the kingdom to Israel when He said, “Μετανοεῖτε, ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν” beginning after John the Baptist’s arrest (Matt 4:12–17) and continuing until the eventual blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matt 12), when the kingdom is no longer spoken of as being “at hand.” The terms of the kingdom offer included a change of action on Israel’s part, that is, national repentance. The word, repent, has become synonymous with the conversion experience in many Christian circles, so confusion abounds over what repentance is and how it relates to Christ’s preaching. Repentance is distinct from faith, though they hopefully coexist regularly in the believer’s life.[25] Repentance, and by extension, the kingdom offer and the Gospel itself, have suffered at the hands of tradition and redefinition. The plainest understanding of Christ’s call to repentance is a call to a change of action.
By way of disclaimer, it is worth mentioning again that while this research advocates for a kingdom offer of works-repentance, the doctrine of kingdom postponement still stands even if the definition of μετανοέω is to be understood as a change of mind. Even if Christ’s call to repentance was only a call to faith, Israel still failed to meet this basic requirement as she rejects her Messiah in unbelief.
[1] John MacArthur, Richard Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine, 573.
[2] G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance, 20.
[3] Zane C. Hodges, Harmony with God, 49.
[4] Robert Baker Girdleston, Synonyms of the Old Testament, 90.
[5] Point XII of the doctrinal statement is available online at tyndale.edu/about/doctrine (accessed March 20, 2019).
[6] James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, νοῦς.
[7] A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 609.
[8] Ibid., 609–610.
[9] James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, νοῦς.
[10] עָרוּם is descriptive of the Serpent in Gen 3:1 and πανοῦργος is descriptive in 2 Cor 12:16 of a scoundrel. It is fitting for πανοῦργος to be in contrast to ἄκακος, such that there is a bad, κακός, connotation.
[11] This discussion is over the Greek usage of μετάνοια, but even if one accepts the NKJV translation from Hebrew, a “prudent” man is also prudent because he constantly takes prudent actions.
[12] 1 Sam 15:29; Prov 20:25; 24:32; 30:1; Isa 46:8; Jer 4:28; 8:6; 18:8, 10; 38:19; Joel 2:13, 14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9, 10; 4:2; Zech 8:14.
[13] John MacArthur, Richard Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine, 591. They cite Victor P. Hamilton, “šub,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2:909.
[14] Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Comfort, to receive.
[15] Eveline van Staalduin-Sulman, “The Niphal of the Hebrew Verb נחם and Its Reception in Early Jewish Sources” Judaica Ukrainica 4 (2015), 11.
[16] Perhaps the emotional implications of נָחַם and μετάνοια are captured well in the Coptic word, ⲟⲩⲱⲙ, which serves as a translation for μετάνοια as well as the phrase ἐπάταξε καρδία Δαυὶδ αὐτὸν in 2 Sam 24:10, while still maintaining the distinct word, ⲕⲧⲟ, for connotations of rotation. W. E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, ⲕⲧⲟ, ⲟⲩⲱⲙ.
[17] “Aramaic forms a widespread linguistic group that could be classified also as North or East Semitic. Its earliest written attestations go back to the 9th century B.C. and some of its dialects survive until the present day. Several historical stages and contemporaneous dialects have to be distinguished.” Edward Lipiński, Semitic Languages, 64.
[18] Frederick E. Greenspahn, An Introduction to Aramaic, 13.
[19] See, for example, the phrase ישׁוב ונחם as it occurs in Jonah 3:19 and Joel 2:14.
[20] The LXX translates as: ἐπὶ τούτοις πενθείτω ἡ γῆ, καὶ συσκοτασάτω ὁ οὐρανὸς ἄνωθεν, διότι ἐλάλησα καὶ οὐ μετανοήσω, ὥρμησα καὶ οὐκ ἀποστρέψω ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς.
[21] Rashi on Jeremiah 4:28.
[22] The LXX uses a range of Greek words to translate שׁוּב but maintains μετανοέω for נָחַם ῞Οτι τάδε λέγει κύριος Μὴ ὁ πίπτων οὐκ ἀνίσταται; ἢ ὁ ἀποστρέφων οὐκ ἐπιστρέφει; διὰ τί ἀπέστρεψεν ὁ λαός μου οὗτος ἀποστροφὴν ἀναιδῆ καὶ κατεκρατήθησαν ἐν τῇ προαιρέσει αὐτῶν καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησαν τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι; ἐνωτίσασθε δὴ καὶ ἀκούσατε· οὐχ οὕτως λαλήσουσιν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος μετανοῶν ἀπὸ τῆς κακίας αὐτοῦ λέγων Τί ἐποίησα; διέλιπεν ὁ τρέχων ἀπὸ τοῦ δρόμου αὐτοῦ ὡς ἵππος κάθιδρος ἐν χρεμετισμῷ αὐτοῦ.
[23] Emil Shürer lists these two rabbis as being from the “older group” of the “Second Generarion, from about A.D. 100 to A.D. 130” who are the “best known and most eminent” disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai and cited a combined 470 times throughout the Mishna. Emil Shürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, I.i.126; II.i.366–367.
[24] Sanhedrin, 97b-98a.
[25] Earl Radmacher, Salvation, 133–135.