Philip Yancey and his confession

General Faith
22

Repentance Defined
You see then, sinful man stands as a rebel against God’s government and authority. This is why our Lord Jesus came on the scene preaching, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat 4:17). He commands every sinner to lay down his arms of rebellion and hoist the white flag of surrender to enter the Kingdom of God. In other words, a sinner has to change his mind about sin.

This is exactly what it means to repent: a change of mind about sin and about God, which results in turning from sin to God.

The Biblical vocabulary for repentance is truly rich. The theme of repentance is found throughout the en-tire Bible and its idea is expressed even when the word itself is not used. In the Old Testament, two Hebrew words, the verbs nacham and shub, are often translated as repent. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament by Koehler, Baumgartner, Richardson, and Stamm says nacham means “to be sorry, come to regret something, to repent” as in Job 42:6, “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” In their Commentary on the Old Testament, Keil and Delitzsch remark, “Nacham is the exact expression for metanoeo, the godly sorrow of repentance not to be repented of. He repents (sitting) on dust and ashes after the manner of those in deep grief.” Regarding shub, which means “to turn,” the Theological Wordbook of the OT says, “The Bible is rich in idioms describing man’s responsibility in the process of repentance. Such phrases would in-clude the following: ‘incline your heart unto the Lord your God’ (Josh 24:23): ‘circumcise yourselves to the Lord’ (Jer 4:4); ‘wash your heart from wickedness’ (Jer 4:14); ‘break up your fallow ground’ (Hos 10:12) and so forth. All these expressions of man’s penitential activity, however, are subsumed and summarized by this one verb shub. For better than any other verb it combines in itself the two requisites of repentance: to turn from evil and to turn to the good.” They conclude by saying, “To be sure, there is no systematic spelling out of the doctrine of repentance in the OT. It is illustrated (Ps 51) more than anything else. Yet the fact that people are called “to turn” either “to” or “away from” implies that sin is not an ineradicable stain, but by turning, a God-given power, a sinner can redirect his destiny. There are two sides in understanding conversion, the free sover-eign act of God’s mercy and man’s going beyond contrition and sorrow to a conscious decision of turning to God. The latter includes repudiation of all sin and affirmation of God’s total will for one’s life.”

In the New Testament, three Greek words express repentance: the verbs metanoeo, metamelomai, and the noun metanoia. 1) According to the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, metanoeo is used “predominately of a religious and ethical change in the way one thinks about acts: repent, change one’s mind, be converted (Mat 3:2).” It can also express an emotional element: “as feeling re-morse regret, feel sorry (Luk 17:3, 4).” 2) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testamen and Other Early Christian Literature by Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, and Bauer says that metamelomai means to “feel regret, re-pent.” The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains by J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida says of metamelomai “to change one’s mind about something, with the probable implication of regret—‘to change one’s mind, to think differently.’” 3) “Metanoia means “a change of mind that leads to a change of behavior.” Louw and Nida say of metanoeo and metanoia, “To change one’s way of life as the result of a com-plete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness—‘to repent, to change one’s way, repentance.’ metanoeo: ‘And they went out, and preached that men should repent’ (Mar 6:12). metanoia: ‘not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?’ (Rom 2:4). Though in English a focal compo-nent of repent is the sorrow or contrition that a person experiences because of sin, the emphasis in metanoeo and metanoia seems to be more specifically the total change, both in thought and behavior, with respect to how one should both think and act.” The importance of these definitions is that while the primary emphasis in re-pentance is on the change of mind that leads to a change of behavior, one cannot rule out the emotional element of regret or remorse.
Biblical Repentance/The Meaning of Repentance - Gospel Translations.

Why do you have such a strong aversion on HOW I study the Scriptures @bdavidc ?

J.

23

The issue is not that you study Scripture. The issue is where you place authority.

You say repentance is not left undefined in Scripture. I agree. Scripture defines repentance by how God uses the word in context, not by importing layers of lexicons, commentaries, and theological synthesis. When you stack external sources to explain what God already explains, you quietly shift authority away from Scripture itself ~1 Corinthians 4:6.

When Jesus preached, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel” ~Mark 1:15, He did not explain repentance as a reform program or a two sided process of repudiation and affirmation. He tied repentance directly to believing the gospel. Scripture consistently presents repentance as a change of mind that turns a sinner to Christ, not a prerequisite work added alongside faith. God commands repentance, and God grants repentance ~Acts 11:18, ~2 Timothy 2:25. Scripture does not present repentance as man redirecting his destiny by his own power.

You repeatedly define repentance as “turning from sin to God” in a way that makes behavioral change part of the condition for entering the kingdom. Scripture never does that. It says forgiveness comes through repentance unto life ~Acts 11:18, and justification comes by faith apart from works ~Romans 4:5. Obedience follows salvation. It never precedes it ~Colossians 2:6.

So my concern is simple and biblical. When your explanation requires lexicons to clarify what Scripture already demonstrates plainly through usage and context, that is not deeper study. That is unnecessary scaffolding. God chose words ordinary people could understand when read as written ~Deuteronomy 30:11–14.

This has nothing to do with preference or style. It is about staying within the bounds of what is written and refusing to let extra biblical tools redefine gospel terms. Scripture is sufficient. Anything that muddies repentance into a quasi work should be corrected for the sake of clarity and the gospel.

24

Thank you for clarifying. I understand your point better now, and it deserves a careful, biblical response.

You are absolutely right that Peter was humbled by his denial. Scripture shows that plainly. His confidence in himself was shattered, and that humbling was necessary. But notice where Scripture places the weight. Peter’s restoration did not come from the failure itself. It came from Christ’s intervention and Peter’s repentance.

Jesus did not say Peter’s denial would make him useful. He said, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not” ~Luke 22:32. The preserving power was Christ, not the fall. And when Peter fell, the repentance was immediate. “And Peter remembered the word of the Lord… and Peter went out, and wept bitterly” ~Luke 22:61–62. There was no prolonged season of secrecy. No continuation in ministry while living a double life. Light came quickly, and repentance followed quickly.

When Jesus restored Peter on the shore, it was not to affirm that failure qualifies a man for ministry. It was to confirm repentance and reorient obedience. Three times Jesus asked, “Lovest thou me?” and each time He followed with “Feed my sheep” ~John 21:15–17. Restoration followed confession and humility. Scripture never presents sin as the instrument of growth. God uses repentance and grace after sin, but He never credits the sin itself.

That distinction matters deeply in the Yancey discussion. Peter’s denial was exposed within hours and crushed him. Yancey’s sin was concealed for 8 years while ministry continued. Scripture treats those situations very differently. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy” ~Proverbs 28:13. The issue is not whether God can restore. He can. The issue is whether we normalize prolonged hidden sin as a pathway to usefulness. Scripture never does.

Peter himself later warned against this mindset. “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” ~1 Peter 5:8. That warning comes from a humbled man who learned dependence, not from a man who believed failure was formative.

So yes, Peter was humbled, and yes, that humility made him a better servant. But it was humility born of repentance under the light, not humility earned by prolonged darkness. Scripture keeps that line clear for our protection and for the sake of Christ’s name.

25

Something you need to learn, and learn fast…

First, exegesis in Scripture, meaning drawing meaning out of the text.

The clearest biblical example is Nehemiah 8:8.
“They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.”

Neh 8:8 So they read from the Sefer Torat HaElohim distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

The Hebrew verb behind “gave the sense” is שׂוּם שֶׂכֶל (śûm śekel).
שׂוּם means “to set, place, assign.”
שֶׂכֶל means “insight, understanding, comprehension.”

The reminder here is brutal and simple: the Levites did not invent meaning, they set the understanding before the people by explaining what was already written. That is textbook exegesis, centuries before the word existed.

Second, exegesis in the ministry of Jesus.

Luke 24:27 says,
“Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures.”

The Greek verb is διερμήνευεν (diermēneuen), from διερμηνεύω.
Root: ἑρμηνεύω (hermēneuō), “to explain, interpret, make clear.”
Prefix δια- intensifies the action: to explain thoroughly, fully.

Jesus does not dismiss interpretation as unnecessary because “Scripture is clear.” He performs detailed, connected, text-driven explanation. That is exegesis grounded in Scripture interpreting Scripture.

Third, apostolic exegesis.

Acts 17:2–3 describes Paul in the synagogue:
“Reasoning with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead.”

“Explaining” here is διανοίγων (dianoigōn), from διανοίγω, “to open fully.”
Paul is not adding philosophy. He is opening the text so its meaning becomes accessible. The text contains the meaning; the teacher opens it. Again, exegesis.

Now, hermeneutics in Scripture, meaning reflection on how interpretation works.

The very word “hermeneutics” comes from ἑρμηνεύω, and Scripture reflects on interpretation explicitly.

In 2 Peter 1:20,
“No prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation.”

The noun is ἐπίλυσις (epilysis), from ἐπιλύω, “to untie, explain, resolve.”

Peter is not denying interpretation. He is denying private, self-generated interpretation. The verse presupposes a correct way to interpret prophecy, which is exactly what hermeneutics asks: by what rules is interpretation governed?

Another explicit hermeneutical text is 1 Corinthians 2:13.
“We impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to spiritual people.”

“Interpreting” here is συγκρίνοντες (synkrinontes), meaning “to compare, to evaluate together.”
This is Scripture-interprets-Scripture logic in action. Meaning emerges by comparing spiritual truths with spiritual words, not by isolated impressions. Here I agree with you.

Now, Old Testament hermeneutics, which people often miss.

In Hosea 12:10, God says,
“I spoke to the prophets; it was I who multiplied visions, and through the prophets gave parables.”

The verb “gave parables” comes from דָּמָה (dāmāh), meaning “to liken, compare.”
God himself uses comparison, analogy, and symbolic communication. Hermeneutics is required because God chose to communicate this way.

Finally, a decisive example.

Ezra 7:10:
“Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel.”

“Study” is דָּרַשׁ (dāraš), meaning “to seek, inquire, investigate.”
This is not casual reading. It is disciplined inquiry into meaning, followed by obedience and teaching. That is the full exegetical and hermeneutical cycle.

So to summarize this for you, biblically, not academically:

Exegesis is modeled when Scripture is read, opened, explained, and set before the people using verbs like שׂוּם שֶׂכֶל, διανοίγω, and διερμηνεύω.
Hermeneutics is assumed whenever Scripture reflects on how interpretation should be done, using terms like ἐπίλυσις, συγκρίνω, and דָּרַשׁ.

Scripture does not oppose interpretation.
Scripture demands right interpretation.

Rejecting exegesis and hermeneutics is not fidelity to Scripture. It is pretending the Bible did not teach people how to read it, which, inconveniently, it very clearly did.

You are accusing me of overstepping the Scriprural boundaries, pride, preaching “another gospel” and “false prophet”

How does this reasoning bear out in practice?

Did you even know “hermeneutics” is in Scripture till now? Clearly not. Guess you are going to throw Utley under the proverbial “bus” -correct?

J.