How μετάνοια and μεταμέλεια differ.
How μετάνοια and μεταμέλεια differ.
§ 7. Bucanus (locus 30, p. 287) argues that in Holy Scripture μετάνοια is always used in a good sense and signifies a “salutary correction,” but that μεταμέλεια is also used in a situation of fault. He follows Beza and Hemmingius, who assign μεταμέλεια to the Law and μετάνοια to the Gospel, saying that the former denotes “repentance to be regretted,” namely, grief without the moderation of faith, but that the latter denotes a “repentance without regret” [ἀμεταμέλητον], namely, grief along with a return to a healthier mind through faith and the emendation of life.
** Danaeus (Isag. Christ., part 4, bk. 4, De fide, ch. 52) claims the same thing. Beza (Annot. on Matthew 3) writes: “When μετανοεῑν is an absolute verb,6 it properly means ‘to know after the fact and to grieve over an admitted error so that one corrects it.’ It is never used except in a good sense, for wisdom is always connected with μετάνοια. But μεταμέλεσθαι asserts that one is concerned and anxious after something has been done. The Latins say poenitere for this, and it can also be used in a situation of fault, for it does not properly include a change of life and intent for the better but simply a concern and displeasure.” (He repeats the same thing in Oper. theol., vol. 1, p. 328). Abbot Rupert (on Hosea 5) writes: “To do penance [poenitentiam agere] and to turn to the Lord are not the same thing in Holy Scripture. If these were the same, we would confess that wicked King Ahab turned back to the Lord because he did penance concerning the blood of Naboth, whom he killed, etc. He did penance not to attain the eternal kingdom of God, but rather not to lose the temporal kingdom of Samaria.” **
But even though μετάνοια is frequently used to refer to salutary contrition with which faith and the correction of life are united, and even though μεταμέλεια is used in reference to hypocritical contrition which is separated from faith and the hope of pardon, nevertheless examples from Scripture show that this distinction is not always observed. Thus the Septuagint translators indiscriminately render נָחַם with μεταμέλομαι (Ezek. 14:22) and μετανοέω (in Jer. 8:6). It is said of Esau (Heb. 12:17) that he did not find a place for μετάνοια [“repentance”]. Yet we do not believe that he performed salutary repentance, though this can be understood passively as a reference to the repentance of his father or to a change of his father’s intent. Thus when Chrysostom describes the repentance of both Esau and Judas, he uses the word μετανοῆσαι. “The clever man goes into repentance [μετάνοια]” (Prov. 14:15 [LXX]). Concerning the wicked who repent in vain in the final judgment, it is said that “they will speak to each other, repenting [μετανοοῦντες]” (Wisdom 5:3). It is clear that the word μεταμέλεια is used to refer to salutary repentance: “Afterward, having repented [μεταμεληθεὶς], he went away” (Matt. 21:29). “Even when you saw it, you did not repent [μετεμελήθητε]” (v. 32).
** It is clear from Epiphanius (Adv. Catharos) that the fathers used this word indiscriminately: “If anyone falls, the holy church of God does not destroy him; for it gives and provides him repentance [μετάνοιαν], regret [μεταμέλειαν].” Chrysostom (on Hebrews): “And Judas repented [μετανόησε], but poorly, for he hanged himself.” This truth forced even Ursinus himself to confess (Catech., part 4, p. 16): “The distinction between these two words is either none or very little, except that μετάνοια properly signifies a change of the part that understands while μεταμέλεια signifies a change of the part that wills.” **
What must be stated concerning the distinction between legal and evangelical contrition shall be taught in its own place [§ 69].