Metanoia Part I
”Now in those days, John the Immerser came proclaiming in the Judean wilderness, saying, “Metanoia! For the kingdom of heaven has come near!”“ -Matthew 3:1-2
”And do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, so that you may approve what is the good and well-pleasing and perfect will of God.“ -Romans 12:2 LEB
Over the next few weeks, I will be presenting a series entitled Reframing the Abortion Argument in the Context of the Kingdom. As with all that is done here at My Choice is Life, this series will be aimed toward a Christian audience: those who consider themselves to be part of the Kingdom of God. However, I certainly encourage any who are interested in the kingdom-oriented view of this issue to read it as well. The series will consist of 11 articles. By way of introduction, I will address the term μετάνοια (metanoia) in two parts, as to gain a firm grasp of its meaning. The rest of this article will be considered Part 1 of said introduction.
3:2 μετανοεῖτε ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡβασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν “Metanoia! (change your mind!) For the kingdom of heaven approaches!”
The word metanoia, chronologically, is first used in the New Testament by John the “Baptist” (the use of quotations will be explained later) in Matthew 3:2, though it is used prior to this in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. While most English translations rendered metanoia as repentance: “to be penitent” or “sorry for wrongdoing”, this is neither an accurate definition nor translation of the term.
In order to ascertain the fullness of the meaning of metanoia, not only should there be an examination of the word itself, but also the individuals who used it. The first of which is John the “Baptist”.
Throughout the course of this examination, I will be drawing on Treadwell Walden’s The Great Meaning of Metanoia: An Underdeveloped Chapter in the Life and Teaching of Christ, Henry P. Stapp’s Quantum Theory and Freewill: How Mental Intentions Translate into Bodily Actions, Dr. Michael Heiser’s The Unseen Realm: Rediscovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, and Otto Betz Was John the Baptist an Essene? Biblical Archeology Society Library Dec. 1990 in no particular order.
Metanoia was a call to a radical shift in paradigm; a revolution of thought—a new mind. But to whom and by whom was the inaugural call made? Who was John the “Baptist” really? There is much more to this enigmatic figure than a wild appearance, an unusual diet, and a brazzen message. Recent scholarship has shown this to be true.
“Paradoxically, our sources in some ways portray John the Baptist more clearly than Jesus. It is certainly easier to place John in relationship to the contemporaneous Jewish community. Moreover, for John, we have an additional, non-biblical witness—the first-century Jewish historian Josephus. Even among hypercritical exegetes, there is little doubt about who John was and what he stood for.”
–Otto Betz Was John the Baptist an Essene? Biblical Archeology Society Library Dec. 1990
If we are to fairly examine the evidence regarding the life and message of John the “Baptist”, an etsi doctrina non daretur (as if doctrine is not given) approach must be taken. Otherwise, we run the risk of reading into it what is already known—or, at least presumed to be known. There is a great deal more to John than what any pre-Qumran Christian tradition was aware of.
Who was John?
The New Testament opens (if we start with the book of Matthew) with a genealogy and somewhat of a bullet-point version of the events surrounding the birth of Jesus. After that, we’re transported years into the future and are introduced to three things: (1) a man known as John the “Baptist”, (2) the term metanoia, and (3) the arrival of the kingdom of heaven. Each of these provokes a number of questions. Fortunately, the book of Luke provides a more detailed account of John.
John: BIblical Context
Because of the efforts of Luke, the beloved physician who wrote the accounts we know as the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, we are given to know a number of pertinent events and details surrounding the births of John the “Baptist” and Jesus. When these two events are viewed etsi doctrina non darteur (as if doctrine is not given), the similarities that exist between them are striking (read Luke chapters 1 and 2 to compare). In the case of John, the story begins with his father Zechariah. Zechairah was a priest. One day, while serving in the temple, the angel Gabriel appears to him and prophesies to him regarding the birth of his son.
“11 And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And Zechariah was terrified when he* saw the angel,* and fear fell upon him. 13 But the angel said to him,
“Do not be afraid, Zechariah,
because your prayer has been heard,
and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son,
and you will call his name John.
14 And ⌊you will experience joy and exultation⌋,
and many will rejoice at his birth.
15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord,
and he must never drink wine or beer,
and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit
while he is* still in his mother’s womb.
16 And he will turn many of the sons of Israel
to the Lord their God.
17 And he will go on before him
in the spirit and power of Elijah,
to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,
and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous,
to prepare for the Lord a people made ready.” –Luke 1:11–17 LEB
After hearing this, Zechariah questions the angel as to how it could be possible, since he was an older man. Upon first glance, this seems a fair question. However, Gabriel’s response indicates that Zechariah’s question was not genuine but a doubt-filled challenge to the words of the messenger. For this, Gabriel informs Zechariah that he will be unable to speak until the birth of his son John. On the day John is born, Zechariah’s tongue is loosed and he himself prophesies regarding his son.
67 And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying,
68 “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has visited to help and ⌊has redeemed⌋ his people,
69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David,
70 just as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from earliest times—
71 salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all those who hate us,
72 to show mercy to our fathers
and to remember his holy covenant,
73 the oath that he swore to Abraham our father,
to grant us 74 that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,
could serve him without fear 75 in holiness and righteousness
before him all our days.
76 And so you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High,
for you will go on before the Lord to prepare his ways,
77 to give knowledge of salvation to his people
by the forgiveness of their sins,
78 because of the merciful compassion of our God
by which the dawn will visit to help us from on high,
79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
to direct our feet into the way of peace.” –Luke 1:76–79 LEB
As it pertains to our examination of metanoia, there are three Greek words that in the above scripture, specifically verse 77, that I would like to hone in on:
Luke 1:77 τοῦ δοῦναι γνῶσιν σωτηρίας τῷλαῷ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀφέσει ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν
- σωτηρίας sōtēria: deliverance
[The noun σωτηρια (soteria), meaning safety, deliverance, preservation, security, salvation: that which the soter provides: practical safety, security and sufficiency.]
- ἀφέσει aphesis: release from bondage; freedom or liberation; cancellation of debt
- ἁμαρτιῶν hamartia: error
[the verb αμαρτανω (hamartano) describes the difference between aim and impact, purpose and application, or intent and realization. In the classics this verb originally described the failure of some ballistic weapon to hit where it was aimed. In the Iliad, Homer describes how Pandarus hurls his spear at Diomedes, penetrating his shield. Pandarus starts to boast but Diomedes calmly informs him that he missed and not hit (Il.5.287). Athenaeus (3rd c AD) quoted Aeschylus (6th c BC) who complained that at a banquet someone hurled a foul smelling vessel at his head, which “missed me not” but shattered on impact and stank up the room something awful (Deip.1.30).]
When the entirety of Zechariah’s prophecy is considered, it provides the interpretive context for the three terms listed above. Rather than salvation, forgiveness, and sin, the terms translated as deliverance, liberty, and error(s) align more accurately with the theme the prophecy follows (i.e. Yahweh as deliverer). While the Israelte of John’s day, regardless of the sect or denomination they ascribed to, expected all of these things from the Messiah (deliverance from enemies; freedom and cancellation of debt; correction of errors), they are important to note in regards to John’s proclamation of metanoia and our examination.
Statements made about John and his ministry
The angel Gabriel and John’s father Zechariah were not the only noteworthy individuals to make statements about John. Anyone familiar with the New Testament narrative is aware of two more: Isaiah the prophet and Jesus himself.
In each of the synoptic accounts, Isaiah 40:3 is quoted by John or about him. He was the voice calling in the wilderness—the prophesied forerunner who would clear the way for Yahweh.
“A voice is calling in the wilderness, “Clear the way of Yahweh!
Make a highway smooth in the desert for our God!” –Isaiah 40:3 LEB
Could it have been, as in the case of Balaam son of Beor, that Isaiah saw John but far off? Impossible to say for certain. But what can be said for certain is that, though John fit the profile outlined by Isaiah, he was not at all what the majority of Israel nor her leadership was expecting. We learn this from the statement made by the second but most noteworthy individual to speak of John, Jesus of Nazareth.
7 Now as* these were going away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 8 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in the houses of kings. 9 But why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and even more than a prophet! 10 It is this man about whom it is written:
‘Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way before you.’
11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen one greater than John the Baptist. But the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 But from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven is treated violently, and the violent claim it. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to accept it,* he is Elijah, the one who is going to come. 15 The one who has ears, let him hear! 16 “But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces who call out to one another, 17 saying,
‘We played the flute for you and you did not dance;
we sang a lament and you did not mourn.’
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a man who is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is vindicated by her deeds. –Matthew 11:7–19 LEB
Not only does Jesus quote the prophet Malachi (Mal. 3:1) but one of Aesop’s fables. How could that be possible?
The fabulist Aesop lived during the time of King Croesus of Lydia, in what is now modern day Turkey. Aesop is said to have lived during the sixth century BC. While scholars have narrowed down a few possible options for his birthplace, no one can say for certain. He was born a slave and served under two different masters before his emancipation. His masters were named Xanthus and Iadmon. Iadmon gave him his freedom as a reward for his wit and intelligence. Once liberated, he supposedly became involved in public affairs and began to travel—telling his fables wherever he went. King Croesus of Lydia was so impressed with the fabulist that he offered him a residency and a position on his court.
“The popularity of Aesop is also shown by the fact that Plato records that Socrates decided to versify some of his fables while he was in jail awaiting execution.” —Robert Temple
Among the more famous of his tales, there is a lesser-known fable that tells of a fisherman who went down to the seashore. There he began to play a melodious tune on his flute, hoping the fish would jump out of the sea and on to the shore. When the fish wouldn’t respond, he became angry. He then went and got his net. He threw the net into the water and caught a plethora of fish. He then threw them on the shore, where they began to flop and die. He said to the fish, “I played a tune for you and you did not dance, but now all you can do is dance.”
While the fishermen, along with many of Aesop’s characters, had a rather ridiculous expectation, the moral of the fable perhaps could best summarized as: “I gave you plenty of opportunities to listen and respond willingly, but you didn’t take advantage of my offer.”
It is important to note that this short story, because of the proximity of Aesop and his popularity throughout that region of the world, would have, more than likely, been familiar to people living in the first century. Otherwise, without some contemporary comparative, Jesus’ quotation would have been completely lost on his audience. In the passage from Matthew given above, Jesus compared the generation he lived in to children in the marketplace reciting fables but not understanding their meaning. Essentially, he was telling the crowd, “John and I have been piping and singing, giving you the choice to willingly follow, but you don’t get it—you aren’t listening!”
Jesus then goes on to address their inconsistent reasoning. When it came to John, who neither “ate nor drank” (a reference to the instruction given by Gabriel, that he must never drink wine or beer, as well as his well-known simplistic diet of locust and honey) for this asceticism, they claimed he had a demon. Yet when it came to Jesus “eating and drinking”, they accused him of gluttony, alcoholism, and association with what was considered degenerates. What could have been behind such inconsistent accusations? Remember the similarities mentioned regarding the birth narratives of John and Jesus? That isn’t the only place we find such similarities between the two.
Consider the passages below:
“Offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore produce fruit worthy of metanoia! And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones! And even now the ax is positioned at the root of the trees; therefore every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
And the crowds were asking him, saying, “What then should we do?” And he answered and* said to them, “The one who has two tunics must share with the one who does not have one,* and the one who has food must do likewise.” And tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what should we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than ⌊what you are ordered to⌋.” And those who served in the army were also asking him, saying, “What should we also do?” And he said to them, “Extort from no one, and do not blackmail anyone,* and be content with your pay.”
Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How will you escape from the condemnation to Gehenna?”
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also. And the one who wants to go to court with you and take your tunic, ⌊let him have⌋ your outer garment also. And whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
Without chapter and verse, it’s difficult to differentiate which quotes are attributed to John and which to Jesus. They have a shared impetus—the same spirit, if you will. It isn’t a wonder then, as to why John and his message of metanoia, as briefly as we have examined it thus far, were both unexpected and unpopular. Like denizen of the sea being summoned to the shore by a flute-playing angler, John’s call to metanoia was an invitation for his hearers to become fish-out-of-water, so to speak. (No, the irony is not lost on me that one so inclined would have to actually be immersed in water to do so.) What’s more, the messages of John and Jesus were nearly identical in regards to their scathing rebukes directed towards the religious leaders of their day.
John: Extra-Biblical Context
If we know anything about John, we know his name. Very few familiar with the New Testament have not heard of John the “Baptist” (below is where the use of quotations is explained). A common practice among Bible translators over the centuries has been that of transliteration. The definition of transliteration is as follows:
The process of transferring a word from the alphabet of one language to another or a type of conversion of a text from one script to another that involves swapping letters.
To put it frankly, “Baptist” is a transliteration of the Greek word βαπτιστής baptistēs, it is not a translation.
The term βαπτιστής baptistēs, “one who baptizes” comes from the Greek verb βαπτίζω baptizo which is defined below as:
- to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
- to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
- to overwhelm
If we take the term at face value, and remain true to the examinatorial approach of etsi doctrina non darteur, then John the “Baptist” becomes John the Immerser, John the Cleanser/Washer, or John the Overwhelmer. This causes his “baptism of metanoia” to be retranslated as well to an immersion, cleansing/washing, or overwhelming of metanoia.
A number of questions arise. Why immersion in water? Where is the context for that? And why out in the wilderness? To answer those questions, I will call on the help and expertise of Otto Betz via a citation from his Dec.1990 article in the Biblical Archeology Society Library Was John the Baptist an Essene? The citations used are quite substantial but integral to understanding John’s “baptism” of metanoia.
[For the full article follow the link <insert link>]
“Luke’s account of John’s birth ends with the astonishing remark: “And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to Israel” (Luke 1:80). How could this little child, the only son of aged parents, grow up in the wilderness? Well, the Essenes lived there, leading a kind of monastic life. According to Josephus, they would receive the children of other people when they were “still young and capable of instruction” and would care for these children as their own and raise them according to their way of life (The Jewish War 2:120). It would seem that John the Baptist was raised at Qumran—or at a place very much like it—until he became the voice of one crying in the wilderness, calling for repentance.
The Dead Sea Scroll known as the Manual of Discipline, also called the Rule of the Community (designated by the scholarly siglum IQS, which stands for “Qumran Cave 1, Serekh ha-Yahad,” the Hebrew name given to the scroll text), appears to be the main organizational document of the Qumran community. There we read that the people of the community must separate themselves:
“from the dwelling-place of the men of perversion [the Jerusalem authorities] in order to go to the wilderness to prepare there the way of HIM, as it is written [quoting Isaiah 40:3]: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of …. [the divine name is marked in this scroll by four dots], make straight in the desert a road for our God!’—this (way) is the search of the Law” (Manual of Discipline 8:13–15)
The Essenes were thus led to the wilderness by the same scriptural directions that motivated the life and ministry of John. The early Christians understood John as “ ‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight’ ” (Mark 1:3). This passage from Mark quotes the same words from Isaiah 40:3 that are quoted in the Qumran Manual of Discipline.”
–Otto Betz Was John the Baptist an Essene? Biblical Archeology Society Library Dec. 1990
What recent scholarship has revealed is that John the “Baptist” was more than likely an Essene who lived at Qumran. The Essenes broke radically from the Jerusalem authorities and priesthood. They left Jerusalem in protest of the Temple’s management and to avoid moral and spiritual contamination. They separated themselves from Jewish political and ritual society, and the temple at Jerusalem, because they believed the priests were following a pagan calendar (the Essenes followed a solar calendar), purity rules, and officiating improperly. They also objected to the mixing of secular and religious control of the temple, and did not believe the Hasmonean dynasty had the necessary connections to King David or the priests of Solomon. Many of their traditions and rituals were unique to their community, including the importance of ritual baths as a form of spiritual cleansing.
In the citation below, Otto Betz further elaborates on the Essenic overtones of John’s ministry as it is described in the biblical account. (While Betz uses the common mistranslation of “repentance” for metanoia, I have not altered these in the citation.)
“John’s baptism, as we learn from the Gospels, is but the outward sign of the reality of repentance and the assurance of God’s forgiveness (Mark 1:14). After the penitent people had confessed their sins, John baptized them. This probably consisted of immersion in the waters of the Jordan River. However, without the “fruit worthy of repentance” (Matthew 3:8), this rite of purification was useless; as Josephus puts it: “The soul must be already thoroughly cleansed by righteousness” (Antiquities of the Jews 18:117). In the Manual of Discipline (3:3–8) we read that cleansing of the body must be accompanied by purification of the soul. Someone who is still guided by the stubbornness of his heart, who does not want to be disciplined in the community of God, cannot become holy, but instead remains unclean, even if he should wash himself in the sea or in rivers; for he must be cleansed by the holy spirit and by the truth of God.
According to the Gospels, John the Baptist announced the coming of a “Stronger One” who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mark 1:7–8). The Qumran community had a similar expectation: They anticipated that their ritual washings would be superseded with a purification by the Holy Spirit at the end of time; then God himself would pour his spirit like water from heaven and remove the spirit of perversion from the hearts of his chosen people. Then they would receive the “knowledge of the Most High and all the glory of Adam” (Manual of Discipline 4:20–22).
In Matthew 21:32, we read that Jesus himself said that “John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him … [E]ven when you saw it, you did not afterwards repent and believe him.” Similarly with the high priests and elders in Jerusalem who did not accept John (Matthew 21:23–27). John may be compared with the most influential man in the Qumran movement, the Teacher of Righteousness. This great anonymous figure announced the events that would come upon the last generation, but the people who “do violence to the covenant” did “not believe” his words (Commentary on Habakkuk 2:2–9).
The Teacher of Righteousness was the priest ordained by God to lead the repentant to the way of His heart (Commentary on Habakkuk 2:8; Cairo Damascus Document 1:11). His teaching was like that of a prophet, inspired by the holy spirit. John too was a priest, the son of the priest Zacharias (Luke 1:5). Like the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness, John separated himself from the priesthood in Jerusalem and from the service in the Temple. And, like the Teacher of Righteousness, he was also a prophet.
Both the Teacher of Righteousness and John the Baptist remained faithful to the laws of purity; they both practiced them in a radical, even ascetic, way. Both the Teacher of Righteousness and John the Baptist believed that the messianic age and the final judgment were soon to come. That is why both practiced the purification of body and soul in such a strict way. The prophetic call for repentance and the apocalyptic expectation of the end of history led to the radicalization and generalization of the priestly laws of purity.
We are told that John the Baptist “did not eat nor drink” (Matthew 11:18), which means that he lived an ascetic life, eating locusts and wild honey (Mark 1:6), foods found in the desert. John wanted to be independent, unpolluted by civilization, which he considered unclean. In this he was not unlike the Essenes living at Qumran. John’s cloak was made of camel’s hair, and the girdle around his waist was leather, well suited to his aim of strict purity.
In ancient Israel the spirit of prophecy often opposed the theology of the priests (see, for example, Amos 5:22; Isaiah 1:11–13; Jeremiah 7:21–26). The prophets warned the people not to rely too heavily on the Temple and on the atoning effect of sacrifice. Both the Essenes and John the Baptist, however, succeeded in combining the prophetic and the priestly ideals in a holy life, ritually pure but characterized by repentance and the expectancy of the final judgment. John’s disciples were known to fast (Mark 2:18) and to recite their special prayers (Luke 11:1). These two acts of piety also appear in the Qumran texts. Infraction of even minor rules was punished by a reduction in the food ration, which meant severe fasting (Manual of Discipline 7:2–15). And there are several special prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among them are the beautiful Thanksgiving Hymns from the scroll found in Cave 1. Cave 11 also produced a scroll of psalms in which new prayer were inserted into a series of Psalms of David.
The Qumran Essenes separated themselves from the Jerusalem Temple and its sacrificial cult. The Temple’s offerings of animals were replaced by the “offerings of the lips” (that is, prayers) and by works of the Law. Man must render himself to God as a pleasing sacrifice; he must bring his spirit and body, his mental and physical capacities, together with his material goods and property, into the community of God. In this community all these gifts will be cleansed of the pollution of selfish ambition through humble obedience to the commandments of God (Manual of Discipline 1:11–13).
The Qumran community was intended to be a living sanctuary. They believed this living temple, consisting of faithful people, rendered a better service to God than the Jerusalem sanctuary made of stones. The chosen “stones” of the community were witnesses to the truth of God and made atonement for the land (Manual of Discipline 8:6–10); in this way, the community protects the land and its people from the consuming wrath of God and the catastrophe of his judgment. The Jerusalem Temple could not do this as long as disobedient priests served in it.
John the Baptist, the son of a priest, also had a conflict with the Jerusalem hierarchy, similar to the conflict of the Essenes with the Jerusalem hierarchy. He must have shared the Essenes’ belief in the superior quality of the spiritual temple of God. He warned the people not to rely on the fact that Abraham was their father, for “God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham [that is, a truly repentant community]” (Matthew 3:9). This famous saying contains a marvelous play on words in Hebrew. “Children” is banim; “stones” is abanim. The saying thus presupposes the idea of a living temple “of men.” John is saying that God can create genuine children of Abraham “from these stones” and build them into the sanctuary of His community.”
–Otto Betz Was John the Baptist an Essene? Biblical Archeology Society Library Dec. 1990
To answer the questions previously posed above, what John was doing by immersion in water was in keeping with Essene “Orthodoxy”. Though John’s public ministry to a greater Judean/Israelite audience was divergent from the typical Essene monastic mentality, the message he proclaimed of an immersion of metanoia was not. In fact, the article by Betz lends to the notion that other New Testament concepts may have Essenic origins. Here are somet the article alluded to:
-
Living stones
“As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” –1 Peter 2:4-5
- Believers as the temple
“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and the Spirit of God dwells in you?” –1 Cor. 3:16
- Offering of the lips
“Therefore through him let us offer up a sacrifice of praise ⌊continually⌋ to God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name.” –Hebrews 13:15
- Royal Priesthood
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s possession, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” –1 Peter 2:9
It is also noteworthy that immersion in water, as a physical representation of a spiritual reality, was, by early Christians, considered in the same way as, if not taken further than, the Essenic tradition. The New Testament describes immersion in water as an outward sign of being buried with Christ and rising a new creation—of being transformed—and connects it to the flood narrative of Genesis 6-9. It was common practice by the early believers, before immersion in water, to make a verbal renunciation of the world system and the evil spiritual powers behind it. For the early Christians, immersion in water was, as the Essenes considered it, of no value if it was simply an outward washing—an empty ritual. The Essenes and early Christians knew there were spiritual implications that went well beyond turning from sin, although a change of behavior toward righteousness was, of course, an expected consequence. This consideration was shared because of another similarity: the believed participation in heavenly realities and affairs of each movement. We see this belief exemplified in the life and ministry of John.
“Of all the communities and movements within Second Temple Judaism, arguably it is Qumran that exhibits the most profound similarities and resonances with the early Church, and therefore study of the Scrolls pays dividends for patristics and the broader study of Christian theology and spirituality. For example, the Qumran “monks” believed they ascended into the heavenly worship through their liturgies, becoming like angelic priests.”
—John S. Bergsma/Luke Iyengar Patristic Spirituality
John’s Heavenly Commission
Every prophet described in the scriptures was called by Yahweh. John the Immerser was no exception. He was commissioned for a specific purpose. This would explain his deviation from the typical Essene monastic isolationism. He was one sent. John 1:32-34 makes this clear:
32 And John testified, saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and remaining upon him. 33 And I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water, that one said to me, ‘The one upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him—this one is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and testify that this one is the Chosen One of God.”
Dr. Michael Heiser highlights this often overlooked aspect of John’s explanation of his ministry and endorsement of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah:
“It is this verse that constitutes John the Baptist’s answer to the priests and the Levites. In Isaiah 40:3, the council member who responds is not identified. Earlier, in Isaiah 6:8, when Yahweh asks, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Isaiah the prophet answers, “I am here! Send me!” But that was centuries earlier. The exchange in Isaiah 40 also brings to mind the divine council scene of 1 Kings 22, where a council member steps forward with a plan to finish Ahab. With the arrival of the messiah, the apostle John casts John the Baptist in Isaiah’s role. Like the prophet of old, John the Baptist has “stood in the council” (Jer 23:16–22) and answered the call. To a Jew familiar with the Old Testament, the pattern would not be lost. As had been the case at the time of Isaiah, Yahweh’s council had met in regard to the fate of an apostate Israel. Isaiah had been sent to a spiritually blind and deaf nation. The calling of John the Baptist tells the reader that Yahweh’s divine council is in session again, only this time the aim is to launch the kingdom of God with the second Yahweh, now incarnate, as its point man.”
—Dr. Michael Heiser The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible
John had been commissioned by Yahweh and His council to prepare the hearts and minds of the people for the advent of the Anointed One. He was the messianic forerunner. A prophetic voice announcing the impending arrival of Heaven’s champion. It was not an immersion of repentance that he proclaimed but one of metamorphosis. An immersion into a new way of thinking—a new mind: the epicenter of transformation.
John: the Immerser into Metanoia
If we consider Isaiah 40:3, the mission statement of John, with Romans 12:1-2, we begin to see the contextual framework for the call to metanoia. Notice the Essenic tones of Paul’s exhortation.
“1 Therefore I exhort you, brothers, through the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, so that you may approve what is the good and well-pleasing and perfect will of God.” –Romans 12:1-2
Treadwell Walden comments on this:
“The office of the intellect in the apprehension of divine truth is not given its due consequence. “The noëtic faculty, or the faculty of shaping and conceiving things under their true relations,” to use De Quincey’s expression, is foremost in all human action—it is first. The fact of the dependence of our whole nature upon it is almost too palpable to dwell upon, and yet the instantaneous flash with which outward things sometimes pass through it into the heart often leads us to ignore the office of the medium by which they entered. Take a common instance of this unconsciousness. The hymn which, as it is sung, suffuses the soul with religious emotion has gone, in less than the twinkling of an eye, through a full and varied intellectual process of which the soul has taken no notice. First, the perception of its meaning; next, the perception of its beauty as an expression of the meaning to the degree that sensibility is excited; next, the susceptibility to its musical rendering, which intensifies the sensibility; next, the throng of associations which comes, partly from the memory, partly from the imagination, and, like the legendary angel of Bethesda, stirs the waters of feeling welling up beneath—these are purely intellectual. We are hardly aware, unless we watch the mechanism of our nature, how much and how continually the Noūs, in its primary sense, is occupied in conveying inspiration to the heart. Memory is forever pouring its store into this realm; knowledge of every kind is daily streaming in by the portals of the senses, passing through the strangest transmutations as it touched by the reason or the fancy, still it reaches the sanctuary and mounts into something which takes hold of the entire nature.”
—Treadwell Walden The Great Meaning of Metanoia
While most scholars, Betz included, have not noticed the inadequacy of “repentance” to encompass the fullness of metanoia’s meaning, nevertheless, it is clear that John’s immersion of metanoia was bent on achieving much more than sorrow over sin. It was to bring about a change of mind—an inner transformation that affected the individual’s entire life. A cleansing, a washing, a full immersion into a different way of thinking. It was an external act denoting an internal shift. A reorientation of mind which made one ready to receive the immersion of the One to come. The One who immersed with the Holy Spirit and with fire. It was not simply “change your behavior.” To conceive things under their true relations.
Any such presupposition towards translating metanoia as repentance aimed at behavioral modification negates the words of Isaiah, “This people draw near with its mouth and with its lips it honors me, but its heart is far from me and their fear of me is a commandment of men that has been taught.” External behavior meant nothing, only faithfulness motivated by genuine love.
Metanoia, if it is to be considered a calling, it is not as much a calling back as it is a calling out. To see beyond the temporal and begin to live with the spiritual, the invisible—the Eternal—in mind. But only those with an awareness of the Eternal, even if only conceptually, could be reoriented to it. Thus, metanoia is a call to reconsider, but on a much grander scale than before—beyond what was previously conceived. Bear in mind, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Priests, Levites, Scribes, Lawyers, and faithful temple-going Israelites would not have presumed themselves in need of immersion into metanoia—an overwhelming change of mind. Nor a baptism of repentance for that matter, seeing as the temple’s sacrificial system was still in operation, although altered. They did not consider their understanding of the true relations of things to misshapen and misconceived.
Metanoia, as Thomas De Quincey put it, is, “To wheel into a new center your moral system; geocentric has that system been up to this hour, that is, having earth and the earthly for its starting-point; henceforth make it heliocentric, that is, with the sun, or the heavenly, for the principle of motion.” While the geocentric paradigm was considered correct until the time of Copernicus, the revelation of the heliocentricity of the solar system, while a correction in the technical sense, was more of an expansion. It was a paradigm shift not a paradigm switch. That is, it shifted the focal point of the system from geo to helio—from earthly to heavenly. If such a shift was what John meant by his message of metanoia (and it was), the spiritual authorities of Israel would have rejected it outright (and they did), as acceptance of it would have also been admittance to serious cosmological and theological error on their part.
John’s message of metanoia was a clarion call to reorientation and transformation. A call to “repentance” does not, and indeed cannot, produce transformation any more than taking a bath can cleanse the soul. It does not awaken the inner man. This point is made clear by Walden:
“[In regard to repentance] The Metanoia is not here. The profound ethical sense has not been awakened at all. Fear has no genuine ethical power. Sorrow has no sure ethical consequence. Excitement of any kind can bear, of itself, no ethical fruit. None of these can have respect with God. The only thing that can be regarded by Him is that which He has arranged everything to bring about in us: that spiritual perception of the right and the true which grows within and around a Mind that is being gradually educated up to the divine standard; the nature wide open in front, not only looking behind, and receiving the whole counsel of God, not a part of it; every faculty enlightened, every feeling inspired; the entire man engaged; conviction, not excitement; earnestness, not impulse, habitude, not paroxysm; the heart tempered by the understanding, the understanding warmed by the heart; this, the consummate and yet attainable condition, this the Metanoia, lived alike by Master and disciple, this, the “Mind” of Christ, and made possible to all by the Spirit of God – this is not conveyed in the “Repent ye!” of our gospels, nor does it come within the range of much of the teaching which falls on the world’s ear. The all-encompassing grandeur of an announcement which takes in the whole of life, and calls upon man to enlarge his consciousness with the eternal and the spiritual, to live on the scale of another life, to let his character grow under this great knowledge, to let his conduct fall into the lines of the revealed divine will—all this is lost.”
—Treadwell Walden The Great Meaning of Metanoia
The reality of John’s day was that the people of Yahweh, the post-exilic remnant that had returned from Babylon and survived the events that took place during the Maccabean revolts, had shifted their focus solely toward the reestablishment of the “kingdom” of Israel. They had lost sight of their role as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation—Heaven’s representation on earth. Rather than serving the interests of Yahweh, they expected Yahweh to serve their interests. To establish them via the Messiah as the ruling nation of the natural world. A very shortsighted desire in light of the revelation of Yahweh with which they had been entrusted. One that spoke to the majority’s priority of spiritual realities. Thus, it was to this shortsighted desire, among others, and perspective that John the Immerser was sent to proclaim “Metanoia! For the kingdom of heaven approaches! Change your minds and reorient your lives!”
Metanoia was reorientation—a change of mind. And a radical one at that. It was, and still is, a reconsideration of the shape and conception of things under their true relations. But what are the true relations of things?
I’ll elaborate upon that in Part II.