The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians

Compiled by Jonathan Perreault, 

with notes & commentary by the Editor, 

including new translations of Erasmus, Luther, & others.

* * * 

What is Repentance?

“True repentance is an inward act of the soul, ‘a change of mind,’ as in later writings Luther so often reminded his adversaries, as he from time to time led them back to the meaning of the Greek word.”[1]

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to Dr. Charlie Bing of GraceLife Ministries for giving me the idea to write this article, and for his thoughts and insights to make it better. I think the following statement from my correspondence with him sums up my thoughts the best: “Doing this research, I kind of feel like I'm going through the Reformation in real-time, or a second Reformation. I think a lot of these statements [on repentance] have been lost to time and forgotten. I feel like I'm going through another Renaissance! I believe that God is blessing this work. Thank you for suggesting it to me. It has been a wonderful study.”

Special thanks also to Dr. Richard Seymour of Clarity Ministries International for graciously sending me a photocopy of Roger Post’s Master’s thesis on repentance titled “The Meanings of the Words Translated ‘Repent’ and ‘Repentance’ in the New Testament”.

FROM THE EDITOR'S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

The vast amount of information contained in this article has taken me literally hundreds of hours of intense research to compile (and it stands on its own merits based on whether it is truth or error). For example, Erasmus’ Annotation on Matthew 3:2 was originally only in Latin; there were no English translations to be found! It took me over two-hundred hours to translate it word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase from the Latin into English. (For more information on that research, see my blog post titled “THE ANNOTATIONS OF ERASMUS ON MATTHEW 3:2”.) In addition to translating the statement by Erasmus, I also more recently found a statement by Luther on metanoia that was also only in Latin. To my knowledge it has never before been translated into English. Translating this statement by Luther from Latin into English was also very time-consuming. All this to say that compiling the many quotes contained in this article has taken hundreds of hours of intense research! I tediously sifted through information and meticulously poured over old books page-by-page and word-by-word. I painstakingly collated and typed out my findings, constantly editing and re-editing, slowly putting it all together into chronological order and distilling it down into a 70-page paper [which has now expanded to approximately 100 pages] of quotations spanning some 2,000 years of church history! I could not have done this (or at least it would have taken me much, much longer) without the aid of modern technology, as the Bible says, “in the last days knowledge will increase”. I thank the Lord for giving me the time and ability to do this important research. Ultimately, a biblical understanding of repentance is based upon what the Bible says, and that is why in the following quotes from Bible scholars, they set forth the meaning of the New Testament word for repentance, which is the Greek word metanoia. It is the meaning of this word with which we are concerned, and with which these quotes have to do.

EDITOR'S PREFACE

The quotes presented in this article describe and explain repentance in its true Scriptural signification & meaning, as a change of mind or heart. This is the testimony of both the Old and New Testaments, and of Jesus and the apostles (Matt. 4:17; Mk. 1:15; Lu. 13:3, 15:7, 24:47; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 17:30, 20:21, 26:20, etc.). In the context in which Jesus and the apostles used the word repentance (Gr. metanoia) in the New Testament, it signifies a change of mind about sin, salvation, and the Savior (as Robert Lightner has said in his book by that title). It is not sorrow, although sorrow may, and oftentimes does, lead to and accompany biblical repentance (cf. 2 Cor. 7:9-10).

I need to say a few words in regards to English grammar. Some of the quotes in this article use King James English that is over four-hundred years old. I have endeavored to retain as much as possible the spelling and punctuation of the original statements. In some of the older quotes from the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, the words are often archaic (e.g. bade, betokeneth, doth, ye, etc.) and the spelling can be somewhat different from the way that we spell those same words today (e.g. “hart” for heart, “minde” for mind, “agayn” for again, “beleeve” for believe, “eternall” for eternal, etc.). Please take this into consideration when reading the quotes. These words are probably not misspelled; it’s just old English.

As you read this article, I hope you enjoy this trip through time in regards to The Meaning of Repentance!  

—J. PERREAULT.                    

 

QUOTES FROM THE ANCIENTS: 

Septuagint / LXX (c. 250 B.C. – c. 50 B.C.): 

How are the words “repent” (metanoeō) and “repentance” (metanoia) used in the Greek Septuagint? Do they signify a change of mind, or perhaps something else? J. Vernon McGee (an advocate of traditional Free Grace theology) makes the following statement that helps to answer this question. Commenting on Jonah 3:9-10, McGee says: “The word repentance as it is used in both the Old and New Testaments primarily means ‘a change of mind.’ In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the word is metanoesen, meaning ‘to change your mind.’”[2] Even Bill Mounce (a Calvinist) says in his Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words that metanoeō in the LXX has the meaning “to change one’s mind”. Mounce writes: “the verb metanoeō…is mostly used in the LXX to mean ‘to change one’s mind’ (e.g., Prov. 20:25; Jer. 4:28; the noun is only used once, in Prov. 14:15).”[3] 

Notice the following examples of how the verb metanoeō and the noun metanoia are used in the Septuagint to signify “a change of mind”:

Proverbs 14:15:

“A man without guile, believeth every thing: but a prudent man cometh for a change of mind [metanoian].”[4] 

“The innocent believes every word, but the smart comes to a change of mind [metanoian].”[5] 

Proverbs 20:25:

“The hasty dedication of his property is a snare to a man for after the vow a change of mind [metanoein] happeneth.”[6] 

“Quickly to consecrate something of his own is a snare to a man, for after making a vow a change of mind can happen [metanoein].”[7] 

Proverbs 24:32:

“Afterwards I reflected [metenoēsa], I looked that I might receive instruction.”[8]

Jeremiah 4:28:

“For these things let the land mourn; and the heaven above be covered with darkness; for I have spoken and I will not change my mind [metanoēsō], I have made an assault and will not withdraw from it.”[9]

Jeremiah 18:10:

“If they do evil in my sight so as not to hearken to my voice, I indeed will alter my mind [metanoēsō] in respect to the good things which I spoke of doing for them.”[10]

“and let them do evil before me so as not to hear my voice, and I will change my mind [metanoēsō] about the good things that I had spoken to do to them.”[11]

Jonah 3:10:

“And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil ways; and God repented [metenoēsen] of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did it not.”[12]

Flavius Josephus (37 - 100 A.D.):

Antiquities of the Jews, book 2, chapter 15, section 3 (Thackeray translation):

Commenting on Exodus 14:5, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus writes: “But the Egyptians repented [metenooun / metanooun] of having let the Hebrews go and, their king being mortified at the thought that it was the jugglery [trickery] of Moses that had brought this about, they resolved to set out after them. So with arms and full equipment they started in pursuit, determined to bring them back could they overtake them; for no longer (they deemed) were they accountable to God, now that these people had had their exodus, and they looked for an easy victory over unarmed folk, exhausted by their march. Inquiring, therefore, on all hands which route the fugitives had taken, they vigorously pushed the pursuit albeit the ground was difficult to traverse not only for great armies but even for a solitary traveler. Now Moses had led the Hebrews out by this route in order that, if the Egyptians changed their minds [metanoēsantes] and wished to pursue them, they should be punished....”[13] 

Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5, section 2 (various translations):

“Herod decided therefore that it would be much better to strike first and be rid of him [John the Baptist] before his work led to an uprising, than to wait for an upheaval, get involved in a difficult situation and see his mistake [metanoein].”[14] 

“Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise rebellion: (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise:) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause; and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent [metanoein] of it when it would be too late.”[15] 

The Life of Flavius Josephus, section 4 (Whiston translation):

“And now I perceived innovations were already begun, and that there were a great many very much elevated in hopes of a revolt from the Romans. I therefore endeavored to put a stop to these tumultuous persons, and persuaded them to change their minds [metanoein]; and laid before their eyes against whom it was that they were going to fight….But I could not persuade them….”[16] 

Wars of the Jews, book 3, chapter 6, section 3 (Whiston translation):

“And thus did Vespasian march with his army, and came to the bounds of Galilee, where he pitched his camp and restrained his soldiers, who were eager for war; he also showed his army to the enemy, in order to affright them, and to afford them a season for repentance [metanoias], to see whether they would change their minds [metabalointo; cf. Acts 28:6] before it came to a battle, and at the same time he got things ready for besieging their strong holds. And indeed this sight of the general brought many to repent [metanoian] of their revolt….”[17] 

Against Apion, book 1, chapter 10, section 274 (various translations):

“For they could not foresee that the King would run away from them. On the contrary he saith himself, that ‘Amenophis’s son had three hundred thousand men with him; and met them at Pelusium.’ Now to be sure those that came could not be ignorant of this: but for the King’s repentance [metanoian] and flight, how could they possibly guess at it?”[18] 

“For of course they did not foresee that the king would take flight. On the contrary, the author himself has told us that the son of Amenophis marched to Pelusium to meet them at the head of 300,000 men. Of his approach the advancing enemy would undoubtedly be aware; how could they possibly conjecture that he would change his mind [metanoian] and flee?”[19] 

“Surely they could not foresee that the king would flee from them. Quite the contrary, he says himself that Amenophis’s son had three hundred thousand men with him and met them at Pelusium. Those who were coming could not fail to know this; but how could they possibly guess that he would change his mind [metanoian] and flee?”[20] 

Plutarch (46 - 119 A.D.):

“The Dinner of the Seven Wise Men” (F. C. Babbitt translation):

R. C. Trench in his book Synonyms of the New Testament (p. 259) notes that “Plutarch (Sept. Sap. Conv. 21) tells us of two murderers, who, having spared a child, afterward ‘repented’ (metenoēsan), and sought to slay it”. The work by Plutarch to which Trench refers is titled “Septem Sapientium Convivium” or “The Dinner of the Seven Wise Men”. In section 21 of Septem Sapientium Convivium, Plutarch writes: 

“Thereupon the poet Chersias cited, among the cases of persons who had been saved when their plight seemed hopeless, the case of Cypselus, the father of Periander, who, when he was a new-born babe, smiled at the men who had been sent to make away with him, and they turned away. And when again they changed their minds [metanoēsantes], they sought for him and found him not, for he had been put away in a chest by his mother. It was because of this that Cypselus constructed the building at Delphi, firmly believing that the god had at that time stopped his crying so that he might escape the notice of those who were searching for him.”[21] 

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (c. 70 - 135 A.D.):

The Testament of Gad, section 5, verse 7 (Robert Sinker translation):

“For true repentance [metanoia] after a godly sort destroyeth unbelief, and driveth away the darkness, and enlighteneth the eyes, and giveth knowledge to the soul, and guideth the mind to salvation; and those things which it hath not learnt from man, it knoweth through repentance.”[22] 

The Testament of Gad, section 5, verse 7 (R. H. Charles translation):

“For true repentance [metanoia] after a godly sort destroyeth ignorance, and driveth away the darkness, and enlighteneth the eyes, and giveth knowledge to the soul, and leadeth the mind to salvation. And those things which it hath not learnt from man, it knoweth through repentance.”[23] 

* * *

When was The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs written? The original text of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was written in Hebrew, most likely around 109 – 105 B.C. Later revisions were written in Greek during the early Christian era. The primary Greek revision of the Hebrew was possibly the work of a Jewish convert to Christianity in the 1st – 2nd century A.D., most likely after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but before the Bar-Kochba revolt in 135 A.D.[24] 

What is the significance of this text? Commenting on the significance of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Arthur Cleveland Coxe (the editor of the American edition of The Ante-Nicene Fathers) says, “I must acknowledge that it seems to me a valuable relic of antiquity, and an interesting specimen of the feelings and convictions of those believers over whom St. James presided in Jerusalem (Acts 21.18-26): ‘Israelites indeed,’ but ‘zealous for the law.’” Coxe goes on to write: “‘The author [of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs],’ says Lardner, ‘in an indirect manner...bears a large testimony to the Christian religion, to the facts, principles, and books of the New Testament. He speaks of the nativity of Christ, the meekness and unblameableness of His life, His crucifixion at the instigation of the Jewish priests, the wonderful concomitants of His death, His resurrection, and ascension. He represents the character of the Messiah as God and man: the Most High God with men, eating and drinking with them; the Son of God; the Saviour of the world, of the Gentiles and Israel; as Eternal High Priest and King. He likewise speaks of the effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the Messiah, attended with a voice from heaven; His unrighteous treatment by the Jews; their desolations and the destruction of the Temple upon that account; the call of the Gentiles; the illuminating them generally with new light; the effusion of the Spirit upon believers, but especially, and in a more abundant measure, upon the Gentiles....There are allusions to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke and St. John, the Acts of the Apostles, and of the Epistles to Ephesians, First Thessalonians, First Timothy, Hebrews, and First St. John, also to the Revelation. So far as consistent with the assumed character of his work, the author declares the canonical authority of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul.’ Of which of the minor writers among the Ante-Nicene Fathers can so much be said?” Coxe concludes by saying, “this book [The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs] is interesting, and represents, no doubt, the convictions of thousands of Jewish converts of the first age. It is, in short, worthy of more attention than it has yet received.”[25]

Shepherd of Hermas (c. 140 - 150 A.D.):

Vision 3, Chapter 7 (Lightfoot translation):

“But the others, which are near the waters and yet cannot roll into the water, wouldest thou know who are they? These are they that heard the word, and would be baptized unto the name of the Lord. Then, when they call to their remembrance the purity of the truth, they change their minds [metanoeō], and go back again after their evil desires.”[26] 

Vision 3, Chapter 7 (Crombie translation):

“Do you wish to know who are the others which fell near the waters, but could not be rolled into them? These are they who have heard the word, and wish to be baptized in the name of the Lord; but when the chastity demanded by the truth comes into their recollection, they draw back [metanoeō], and again walk after their own wicked desires.”[27] 

Mandate 11 (Lightfoot translation):

“So many therefore as are strong in the faith of the Lord, clothed with the truth, cleave not to such spirits, but hold aloof from them; but as many as are doubters and frequently change their minds [metanoeō], practice soothsaying like the Gentiles, and bring upon themselves greater sin by their idolatries. For he that consulteth a false prophet on any matter is an idolater and emptied of the truth, and senseless.”[28]

* * *

Why are these quotations from The Shepherd of Hermas important in regards to understanding the meaning of repentance in the New Testament? One reason these statements are important is because The Shepherd of Hermas is not secular literature, nor is it pre-Christian. Instead, The Shepherd of Hermas is Christian literature! Is it early or late Christian literature? It was written in the mid second century (around 140 A.D.). In fact, one author dates it to have been written “about 90–110 A.D.”[29] Related to this, it was the opinion of Origen (186–253 A.D.) that The Shepherd of Hermas was written by the “Hermas” to whom the apostle Paul sends his greetings in his letter to the Romans, chapter 16, verse 14. If the Gospel of John was written between 90-100 A.D. as many Bible scholars believe, then The Shepherd of Hermas was written very close to the same time. So The Shepherd of Hermas is not just Christian literature; it’s early Christian literature written at about the same time as (or at most only about 50 years after) when parts of the New Testament were written. The Shepherd of Hermas is nearly contemporary with the New Testament and was widely read by many of the early Christians. What's more, some of the early Christians such as “Clement of Alexandria (193–217 A.D.) evidently considered the book to have been inspired.”[30] I’m not arguing that The Shepherd of Hermas is inspired nor am I saying that it should be included in the New Testament. My point is simply that The Shepherd of Hermas is early Christian literature written close to the same time as when the New Testament was written and thus it is very important because, as one author puts it, “it carries us back into the very earliest period of Christian antiquity, and dealing with religious subjects in a more familiar way than is found in the works of the other ecclesiastical writers of the Apostolic period, it is most valuable as supplying a specimen of the ordinary tone of thought and feeling in the early Church.”[31] The Shepherd of Hermas is important in helping us today to understand the meaning of metanoeō (the verb repent) and metanoia (the noun repentance) because it shows how the Greek-speaking Christians of the early church were using these words. It shows that the early Christians were using the word metanoeō in a religious context and in the sense of “a change of mind”! 

Polycarp (69 - 155 A.D.):

Letter of the Church at Smyrna, Concerning the Martyrdom of Polycarp (various translations):

“The Proconsul said unto him [Polycarp], ‘I have wild beasts ready; to those I will cast thee, unless thou repent [metanoēsēis].’ He answered, ‘Call for them, then: for we Christians are fixed in our minds, not to change [i.e. not to repent] from good to evil. But it will be good for me to be changed from my grievous (sufferings) to their just reward. The Proconsul added, ‘Seeing thou despises the wild beasts, I will cause thee to be devoured with fire, unless thou shalt repent [metanoēsēis].’ Polycarp answered, ‘Thou threatenest me with fire, which burns for an hour, and in a little while is extinguished: for thou knowest not the fire of the future judgment, and of that eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly. But why tarriest thou? Bring forth what thou wilt.”[32] 

“The proconsul said, ‘I have wild beasts at hand, I will cast you to these unless you change your mind [metanoēsēis].’ He answered, ‘Call them. For we have no reason to repent [metanoia] from the better to the worse, but it is good to change from wickedness to virtue.’ He again urged him. ‘I will cause you to be consumed by fire, should you despise the beasts, and not change your mind [metanoēsēis]. Polycarp answered, ‘You threaten fire that burns for a moment and is soon extinguished, for you know nothing of the judgment to come, and the fire of eternal punishment reserved for the wicked. But why do you delay? Bring what you wish.’”[33] 

“Whereupon the proconsul said [to Polycarp]; ‘I have wild beasts here and I will throw thee to them, except thou repent [metanoēsēis].’ But he said, ‘Call for them: for the repentance [metanoia] from better to worse is a change not permitted to us; but it is a noble thing to change from untowardness to righteousness.’ Then he said to him again, ‘I will cause thee to be consumed by fire, if thou despisest the wild beasts, unless thou repent [metanoēsēis].’ But Polycarp said; ‘Thou threatenest that fire which burneth for a season and after a little while is quenched: for thou art ignorant of the fire of the future judgment and eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly. But why delayest thou? Come, do what thou wilt.’”[34] 

“The Proconsul said, ‘I have wild beasts; if thou wilt not change thy mind [metanoēsēis] I will throw thee to them.’ Then he said, ‘Bid them be brought: change of mind [metanoia] from better to worse is not a change that we are allowed; but to change from wrong to right is good.’ Then again said the Proconsul to him, ‘As thou despisest the beasts, unless thou change thy mind [metanoēsēis], I make thee to be destroyed by fire.’ Then Polycarp: ‘Thou threatenest the fire that burns for a season, and after a little while is quenched; for thou art ignorant of the fire of the judgment to come, and of everlasting punishment reserved for the ungodly. But for what art thou waiting? Bring what thou wilt.’”[35] 

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 A.D.):

Stromata, book 1, chapter 17, section 83, 2 (William Wilson translation):

“Now the devil, being possessed of free-will, was able both to repent [metanoēsai] and to steal; and it was he who was the author of the theft, not the Lord, who did not prevent him.”[36] 

Stromateis, book 1, chapter 17, section 83, 2 (John Ferguson translation):

“The devil is responsible for his actions. He was capable of changing his mind [metanoēsai] or of committing the theft. It is he who bears responsibility for the theft, not the Lord who did not prevent him.”[37] 

Commenting on “metanoeō/metanoia in the Ecclesiastical Writings of the Post-Apostolic and Early Catholic Period,” Kittel affirms: “We frequently find the meanings ‘to come to be of another mind,’ ‘change of mind’ … Cl. Al. Strom., I, 83, 2”.[38] 

Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220 A.D.):

Against Marcion, book 2, chapter 24 (Peter Holmes translation):

“Now in Greek the word for repentance (metanoia) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind, which in God we have shown to be regulated by the occurrence of  varying circumstances.”[39] 

Tertullian affirms that the meaning of metanoia is “a change of mind” and what that change of mind is about, or what it is in reference to, can vary depending on the circumstances given in the context of the passage. Furthermore, Tertullian points out that in the Bible even God repents! Thus it is obvious that the meaning of the word repentance does not inherently convey being sorry for sin, because of course God has no sin to be sorry for! The word repentance (metanoia) simply means a change of mind, and what that change of mind is about must be determined by the context.

Lactantius (c. 240 – c. 320 A.D.):

Divine Institutes, book 6, chapter 24 (William Fletcher translation):

“For he who repents of that which he has done, understands his former error; and on this account the Greeks better and more significantly speak of ‘metanoia,’ which we may speak of in Latin as a return to a right understanding.”[40] 

Athanasius (4th – 5th century A.D.):

De Parables, Question 133 / De Penitent, Question 162

“the author of the questions ascribed to Athanasius, explains metanoein, by tou metatithesthai ton noun apo tou kakou pros to agathon; ‘the changing of the mind from bad to good.’”[41] 

“Athanasius says, ‘Dia touto legetai, metanoia hoti metatithēsi ton noun apo tou kakou pros to agathon’—for this cause it is called metanoia, because it transfers the mind from evil to good.”[42] 

“Athanasius explains the word [repentance] by metatithesthai ton noun apo tou kakou pros to agathon, a change of the mind from evil to good”.[43] 

FROM THE LEXICONS:

The lexicons declare with an all but “unanimous voice” that metanoia signifies a change of mind.[44] Notice the following examples:

Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (1857):

“Metanoeō, ō, (meta, noeō) like metagignōskō, to perceive or come to a conviction afterwards, opp. to pronoein, Epich. p. 82.—2. to change one’s mind or purpose, Plat. Euthyd. 279 C; m[etanoeō] mē ou…ē, to change one’s opinion and think that it is not…, Xen. Cyr. 1, 1, 3; cf. metagignōskō.—3. to repent, Antipho 120, 28.”[45]

“Metanoia, as, ē, after-thought: a change of mind on reflection: hence repentance, Thuc. 3, 36, Polyb. 4, 66, 7, N.T., etc.”[46] 

Cremer’s Lexicon (1892):

The Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek by the German Protestant theologian Hermann Cremer (1834-1903) gives the following definitions for metanoeō and metanoia. 

Concerning the verb metanoeō, Cremer writes: “Μετανοέω, the opposite of προνοείν [to consider in advance, i.e. to perceive beforehand], a word not often occurring in profane Greek, combines two meanings of the preposition, to think differently after....But usually to change one's mind, or opinion....In the N.T., especially by St. Luke and in the Revelation, it denotes a change of moral thought and reflection....without addition [i.e. without any prepositions modifying it] = to repent in a moral and religious sense”.[47]

Concerning the noun metanoia, Cremer gives this definition: “μετάνοια, ἡ, change of mind, repentance....In the N.T., and especially in Luke, corresponding with μετανοεῖν [to repent], it is = repentance, with reference to νους [mind, intellect, thought] as the faculty of moral reflection”.[48]

 

George Ricker Berry’s Lexicon (1897):

“Metanoeō, ō, ēso, to change one’s views and purpose, to repent, as Mat. iii. 2; Ac. viii. 22.”[49]

“Metanoia, as, ē, change of mind, repentance, as Mat. iii. 8, 11.”[50] 

 

Souter’s Lexicon (1917):

The Scottish Bible scholar Alexander Souter (1873-1949) gives the following definitions for metanoeō (repent) and metanoia (repentance) in his reference work A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Souter writes: “metanoeō, I change my mind, I change the inner man (particularly with reference to acceptance of the will of God by the nous (mind) instead of rejection)”. Concerning the noun repentance, Souter writes: “metanoia, a change of mind, a change in the inner man”.[51]

 

Abbot-Smith’s Lexicon (1922):

George Abbot-Smith (1864-1947), formerly professor of Hellenistic Greek at McGill University, gives the following definitions for metanoeō and metanoia in his reference work A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Abbot-Smith writes: “metanoeō...to change one's mind or purpose, hence, to repent; in NT (exc. Lk 17^{3, 4}), of repentance from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9], involving amendment [i.e. a change of heart for the better]”. Concerning the noun metanoia, Abbot-Smith writes: “metanoia...after-thought, change of mind, repentance”.[52]

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (1940):

“1. METANOEO (metanoeō), lit. to perceive afterwards (meta, after, implying change, noeō, to perceive; nous, the mind, the seat of moral reflection), in contrast to pronoeō, to perceive beforehand, hence signifies to change one’s mind or purpose, always, in the N.T., involving a change for the better, an amendment [i.e. a change of heart for the better], and always, except in Luke 17:3, 4, of repentance from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9].”[53] 

“METANOIA (metanoia), after-thought, change of mind, repentance, corresponds in meaning to A, No. 1 [METANOEO], and is used of repentance from sin or evil [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9], except in Heb. 12:17, where the word ‘repentance’ seems to mean, not simply a change of Isaac’s mind, but such a change as would reverse the effects of his own previous state of mind. Esau’s birthright bargain could not be recalled, it involved an irretrievable loss.”[54]

Some advocates of Lordship Salvation have a problem with Vine’s definition of the word “REPENT”. For example, in the book Greek for the Rest of Us (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), and under the heading “Etymological Fallacy” (p. 58), the author William D. Mounce bemoans the definition of “repent” (metanoeō) listed in W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, saying that it is a “misuse of Greek”! The statement Mounce is criticizing is when W. E. Vine says that the word metanoeō in the NT “signifies ‘to change one’s mind or purpose’”. Mounce goes on to say: “Besides, I am not convinced that meta can actually mean ‘change.’” But Bruce Metzger, the famous textual critic from Princeton Theological Seminary, affirms that meta does in fact mean change! For example, in his book Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), Metzger writes the following under the heading “PREPOSITIONS IN COMPOSITION WITH VERBS”: “In the following list each preposition is analyzed as to its principal meanings when in composition with verbs” (p. 79). For the preposition “meta” with the meaning “change, alteration”, Metzger lists the verb metanoeō as an example word: “metanoeō, I change my mind or purpose, repent” (p. 83). My point in quoting Metzger is not to infer that he agrees with the traditional Free Grace view of repentance, but rather to show that the traditional Free Grace view of repentance (as signifying “a change of mind”) is not a “misuse of Greek”![55] 

Bauer’s Lexicon (2000):

Bauer in his lexicon affirms that metanoeō in the two examples cited above from The Shepherd of Hermas (which Bauer abbreviates as “Hv 3 7 3; m 11:4”) means “change one’s mind” (see page 640 in Bauer’s lexicon under definition 1 for μετανοεω).

Furthermore, in the lexical entry for the cognate noun metanoia, Bauer includes the verb metanoeō together with the noun and classifies them both as having the meaning of “primarily a change of mind”! Here is the actual statement in Bauer’s lexicon (I transcribed the Greek letters into English): 

“metanoia, as, ē (metanoeō) prim. ‘a change of mind’ (Thu. 3, 36, 4; Polyb. 4, 66, 7;…[etc.]),…repentance, turning about, conversion; as a turning away metanoia apo nekrōn ergōn turning away from dead works Hb 6:1. Mostly of the positive side of repentance, as the beginning of a new relationship with God: ē eis theou m[etanoian]. repentance that leads to God Ac 20:21. axia tēs metanoias erga deeds that are consistent with repentance 26:20. Also karton axion tēs m[etanoias]. [fruit worthy of repentance] Mt 3:8; cp. Lk 3:8.” etc.[56] 

Proponents of Lordship Salvation sometimes misrepresent Bauer’s statement here concerning the meaning of metanoia. For example, in the book Greek for the Rest of Us (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), and in a section titled “Etymological Fallacy” (pp. 58-59), William D. Mounce says that “BDAG [i.e. Bauer’s lexicon] lists a meaning of metanoeō as, ‘change one’s mind,’ but wisely does not list any biblical examples.” What Mounce fails to mention is that in Bauer's lexicon the verb metanoeō is also listed in parenthesis after the noun metanoia, and here Bauer does in fact list biblical examples pertaining to both words! Mounce goes on to say, “The noun metanoia also has a meaning, ‘a change of mind,’ but all biblical references are under the gloss, ‘with the nuance of ‘remorse,’” (Ibid., p. 59). What Mounce fails to mention here is that if you look closely at Bauer’s lexicon on page 640 regarding the various gloss explanations for the word metanoia, there are absolutely no biblical references listed directly under the gloss that says “‘a change of mind’…with the nuance of ‘remorse’ (as regret for shortcomings and errors...)”! Instead, all the biblical references appear under the next gloss explanation, and the two gloss explanations are separated with a semi-colon! So rather than being under the gloss explanation that says “‘a change of mind’…with nuance of ‘remorse’” – all the biblical references actually appear under the following gloss explanation: “primarily ‘a change of mind’…in our literature with focus on the need of change in view of responsibility to deity...repentance, turning about, conversion” (see p. 640). Under this gloss, Bauer lists many biblical examples, such as: “Hb 6:1…Ac 20:21…26:20…Mt 3:8; cp. Lk. 3:8…Mt 3:11…Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; cp. Ac 13:24; 19:4…Lk 15:7…24:47…Hb 12:17…Ac 5:31; 11:18; 2 Ti 2:25…Lk 5:32…Mt 9:13…Mk 2:17…Ro 2:4…Hb 6:6…2 Pt 3:9…2 Cor 7:9,…10” (see pp. 640-641 in Bauer’s lexicon). So Mounce’s entire argument that Bauer doesn’t list any New Testament passages under the “change one’s mind” definition of metanoeō falls flat and doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny because Bauer lists many New Testament references under the cognate noun metanoia, (together with the verb metanoeō immediately following in parenthesis) where both together are given the meaning of “primarily ‘a change of mind’”! 

Wayne Grudem is another proponent of Lordship Salvation who has misrepresented Bauer’s lexicon regarding metanoia and the meaning of repentance. I have already written about it in some detail in my blog post titled “‘Free Grace’ Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance” (posted December 14, 2019). See that article for more information.

All in all, the lexicons clearly support the traditional Free Grace view of repentance as meaning primarily “a change of mind”. Commenting on the meaning of metanoeō and metanoia in the New Testament, Joseph Dillow (a Free Grace author) affirms: “The problem for Experimental Predestinarians [proponents of Lordship Salvation] is that, even though usage and the standard lexicons admit that the words are primarily mental acts and not volitional surrender, they must be made to mean volitional surrender in order to square them with the Reformed [Lordship] doctrine of perseverance and with the notion that discipleship is a condition for becoming a Christian.”[57] Norman Geisler makes the same point in regards to the lexicons when he says: “Virtually all the Greek lexicons agree that to metanoeo is ‘to reconsider’ or ‘to change one's mind.’”[58] Charles Bing of GraceLife Ministries similarly concludes: “The basic meaning of the Greek word metanoeō is ‘to change the mind.’ This is the uniform opinion of lexicographers and Lordship proponents alike.”[59] 

 

FROM THEOLOGIANS:

 

Desiderus Erasmus (1466 - 1536):

Erasmus’ Annotation on Matthew 3:2:

“Metanoeite [in Greek]. Which is usually translated [in the Latin Vulgate], Do penance. I imagine that Poenitete [Repent], or Poenitemini [Be repentant], seemed insufficient Latin [to Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate]: although it changes elsewhere. But our common people consider do penance to be a prescribed punishment which somehow atones for faults that have been committed, because concerning Christians, those who had sinned publicly, having been cast out of the fellowship, they were openly afflicted. And that satisfaction, or punishment, began to be called penance. Indeed with reference to these circumstances, [there was] a not small error by some theologians, because of something Augustine said about repentance, that is, public satisfaction, he wrote [in City of God, book 21, chapter 9], spiritual pain, which they call contrition, they distort [this]. In any case metanoia is derived from metanoein, that is, from perceiving afterwards: when someone having made a mistake, finally after the fact, recognizes his error. Which according to a proverb of Homer, The wisdom of fools. Also look at another proverb [Hippolytus, 436], Second thoughts are better. And hence we read, I repent having made man, Augustine, City of God, book 15, chapter 24, instead of repented read reflected upon [or thought over], according to the reliable oldest codex. It is similarly called metameleia [in Greek]: when we are heedless in taking action, we become aware too late, now admonished by our own suffering. Of the Greek word [for repentance] Tertullian elegantly commented in Against Marcion book II: Now in Greek, he says, the word for repentance (metanoia) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind. In my judgment it [Metanoeite] can be properly translated Recover your senses, or Return to a right mind. For indeed he comes to his senses, whose former life is displeasing to him. But [the Latin Vulgate says] to do penance, instead of to be led to repentance, I refuse to pronounce a barbarous solecism, and not remember to read the writings of good authors. Act of repentance, instead of touched by repentance, [occurs only] once in Suetonius. And Pliny [the Younger] in his Letters [7.10], repent of its former repentance, is found, not to mention an additional case from his uncle [Pliny the Elder]. Thus to say, to do penance, instead of to repent: [is similar to] how we say, to conduct your life a certain way, instead of [simply] to live. Valerius Maximus put it perfectly in the chapter Wise Words and Deeds: [Socrates] responded, whichever you choose, you will repent, and from these statements which immediately precede, it is easily seen, what repentance is. Just as when we say, I have married the woman, but repent. Fabius [Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory], book 9 [chapter 3.12], indicates that Sallust wrote, not intending to repent, for not intending to do penance. Moreover, I am not very favorable to periphrasis [such as], Repent of your former life, or Repent of your failings. And yet erring men both pious and erudite, prefer rather to twist [things], indeed they falsely accuse, as these are now the customs and times [in which we live], [they command] penance by which the Gospel has been ruined. Although it was not this way at the very outset and thus [by this custom of doing penance] the wholesome satisfaction is destroyed, which accompanies a return to a right understanding, and puts an end to pious tears [and] ceremonial duties, & which [it is thought] somehow pay for the offense, but if the Greek word, [is] not derived from punishment, as it seems to some, [who translate it] penance, whereas more likely it would be derived from comprehending afterwards, and indeed by coming to one’s senses, it is described as a change of mind.”[60] 

 

Martin Luther (1483 - 1546):

From Luther’s letter to John von Staupitz, May 30, 1518, accompanying Luther’s Resolutions to his Ninety-Five Theses (quoted by Dr. Barnas Sears):

“Formerly there was in all the Bible scarcely a more bitter word to me; now none sounds more sweetly or agreeably to my ears than the word repentance [poenitentia]. At a later time, I learned, by the aid of those scholars who made us acquainted with the Greek and Hebrew, that the Greek word for repentance signified ‘thinking of a fault after it was done,’ . . . and, as I proceeded further in the knowledge of the Greek tongue, I perceived that it also signified ‘a change of mind.’”[61] 

From Luther’s letter to John von Staupitz, May 30, 1518, accompanying Luther’s Resolutions to his Ninety-Five Theses (Henry E. Jacobs translation):

“Afterwards, by the favor of the learned, who are so zealously transmitting to us the Greek and Hebrew, I learned that the same word [poenitentia] in Greek is metanoia, so that repentance or metanoia is ‘a change of mind.’ This corresponded so aptly with the Pauline Theology, that, in my judgment, scarcely anything can more aptly illustrate Paul.”[62] 

From Luther’s letter to John von Staupitz, May 30, 1518, accompanying Luther’s Resolutions to his Ninety-Five Theses (Gottfried G. Krodel translation):

“I learned — thanks to the work and talent of the most learned men who teach us Greek and Hebrew with such great devotion — that the word poenitentia means metanoia in Greek; it is derived from meta and noun, that is, from ‘afterward’ and ‘mind.’ Poenitentia or metanoia, therefore, means coming to one's right mind and a comprehension of one's own evil after one has accepted the damage and recognized the error....Such transition of the mind, that is, the most true poenitentia, is found very frequently in Holy Scripture: the old Passover foreshadowed it, and Christ made it a reality; it was also long before that time prefigured in Abraham, when (according to the learned exegesis of Paul of Burgos) he began to be called ‘he who passes over,’ that is, a ‘Hebrew,’ evidently because he had come across into Mesopotamia.”[63]

From Luther’s letter to John von Staupitz, May 30, 1518, accompanying Luther’s Resolutions to his Ninety-Five Theses (C. M. Jacobs translation):

“After this it came about that, by the grace of the learned men who dutifully teach us Greek and Hebrew, I learned that this word [poenitentia] is in Greek metanoia and is derived from meta and noun, i.e., [in Latin] post and mentem, so that poenitentia or metanoia is a ‘coming to one’s senses,’ and is a knowledge of one’s own evil, gained after punishment has been accepted and error acknowledged….All this answers so aptly to the theology of Paul, that nothing, at least in my judgment, can so aptly illustrate St. Paul.”

“Then I went on and saw that metanoia can be derived…not only from post and mentem, but also from trans and mentem, so that metanoia signifies a changing of the mind and heart, because it seemed to indicate not only a change of the heart, but also a manner of changing it, i.e., the grace of God. For that ‘passing over of the mind,’ which is true repentance, is of very frequent mention in the Scriptures. Christ has displayed the true significance of that old word ‘Passover’; and long before the Passover, Abraham was a type of it, when he was called a ‘pilgrim,’ i.e., a ‘Hebrew,’ that is to say, one who ‘passed over’ into Mesopotamia, as the Doctor of Bourgos learnedly explains….”[64] 

From Luther’s letter to Pope Leo X, May 30, 1518, accompanying Luther’s Resolutions to his Ninety-Five Theses (Henry E. Jacobs translation):

“I prove this, first, from the Greek word, metanoeite, which can be translated most literally by transmentamini, i.e. ‘assume another mind and disposition,’ ‘make a change of mind and a passover of spirit,’ so as to be wise now in heavenly, as you formerly were in earthly things, as Paul says, Rom. 12:2: ‘Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.’”[65] 

From Ruard Tapper’s “Response to Luther’s Arguments” (English translation):

“From Luther. ‘Metanoia, which the old interpreter [i.e. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate] expresses as poenitentiam [repentance], it is called resipiscentia [‘a coming to one’s senses’] or transmentatio [‘a change of mind’]: just as also Erasmus notes concerning chapter 3 of the gospel according to Matthew. Metanoeite, it is transmentamini [in Latin], that is, assume a different mind and perception, recover your senses, make a transition of mind and a Passover of spirit, so as to now be wise in heavenly things, instead of thus far you have been wise in earthly things [cf. Jn. 3:12-17]. Also Lactantius [in] book 6 of his Institutes informs, that poenitentia [repentance] in Greek is called Metanoia, that is resipiscentia. By no means therefore from use in sacred Scripture is repentance called sorrow, but a change of mind and [of one’s own] judgment, and to repent is to be wise after an error, and to install a mind for right living.’”[66] 

 

John Calvin (1509 - 1564):

The Institution of Christian Religion, Book III, Chap. III (1582 Thomas Norton translation):

“The name of repentaunce in Hebrewe is dirived of converting or returning, in Greeke of changing of the minde or purpose, and the thing itselfe doeth not ill agree with eyther derivations, where of the summe is, that we departing from our selves shoulde turne unto God, and putting off our olde minde, shoulde put on a newe.”[67] 

The Institution of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chap. III (1762 Thomas Norton translation):

“The name of repentance in Hebrew is derived of converting or returning, in Greek of changing of the mind or purpose, and the thing itself doth not ill agree with either derivations, whereof the sum is, that we departing from ourselves should turn unto God, and putting off our old mind, should put on a new.”[68] 

Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 3, “On Repentance” (1844 John Allen translation):

“The Hebrew word for repentance, denotes conversion or return. The Greek word signifies change of mind or intention.”[69] 

A Harmonie Upon the Three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke (1584 Eusebius Paget translation):

“Bring forth therefore fruits....It is to be noted that good works are called the fruits of repentance: for repentance is inward, which is placed in the heart and the minde: but then in the chaung of the life it bringeth forth the fruites of the same. And because that in popery all this poynt of doctrine was filthily corrupted, this difference is to be holden, that repentance is an inward renewing of a man, which springeth forth in outward life, as the tree bringeth forth fruit out of it.”[70] 

Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (1845 William Pringle translation):

“Yield therefore fruits worthy of repentance….It ought to be observed, that good works (Tit. iii. 8) are here called fruits of repentance: for repentance is an inward matter, which has its seat in the heart and soul, but afterwards yields its fruits in a change of life. But as the whole of this part of doctrine has been grievously corrupted by Popery, we must attend to this distinction, that repentance is an inward renewal of the man, which manifests itself in the outward life, as a tree produces its fruit.”[71] 

Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel (1852 Thomas Myers translation):

Calvin explains that “repentance is voluntary, and those only are said to repent who willingly return by a change of mind to the God from whom they had revolted”.[72] 

The Protestant Reformers (16^th century):

The Protestant theologian and church historian Philip Schaff writes: “The Reformers went back to the original idea of repentance as ‘a transmutation of the mind and affections’ (transmutation mentis et affectus ― Luther)….Calvin did not differ from Luther, although he failed to emphasize the pangs for sin committed as much as he.”[73] 

In an article titled “Repentance and Salvation, Part 1: The Doctrine of Repentance in Church History,” and under the heading “Repentance (Metanoia) Defined as a Change of Mind,” Robert Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) similarly affirms:

“In contrast to the Church's definition of metanoia as involving contrition, confession, and the performance of acts of penance, Calvin and Luther concluded that it retained its classical sense of ‘a change of mind.’ Salvific repentance according to Calvin and Luther was a change of mind whereby one recognized his own sinfulness and need of forgiveness and then turned in faith to God to provide that forgiveness in Christ. In essence, then, Luther and Calvin viewed salvific repentance as an essential part of saving faith.”[74] 

 

William Tyndale (1494 - 1536):

From Tyndale’s New Testament, “W. T. unto the Reader” (1534):

“Concernynge this worde repentaunce, or (as they used) penaunce, the Hebrew hath in the olde testament generally (sub) turne or be converted. For which the translation that we take for saynt Jeromes hath most parte (converti) to turne or be converted, & some tyme yet (agere penitentiam) and the greke in the new testament hath perpetually (Metanoeo) to turne in the hart & mynde, & to come to the ryght knowledge, & to a mannes right wit agayn. For which (Metanoeo) S. Jeromes translation hath: some tyme (ago penitentiam) I do repent: sometyme (peniteo) I repent, sometyme (peniteor) I am repentant: sometyme (habeo penitentiam) I have repentaunce: some tyme (penitet me) it repenteth me. And Erasmus useth muche this worde (resipisco) I come to my selfe or to my ryght mynde agayne.”[75] 

From Tyndale’s New Testament, “W. T. unto the Reader” (in Modern-day English):

“Concerning this word repentance or (as they used) penance, the Hebrew hath in the Old Testament generally Sub [shub] turn or be converted. For which the translation that we take for saint Jerome’s hath most part converti to turn or be converted, and sometime yet agere penitentiam. And the Greek in the New Testament hath perpetually metanoeo to turn in the heart and mind, and to come to the right knowledge, and to a man’s right wit again. For which metanoeo S. Jerome’s translation hath: sometime ago penetentiam I do repent: sometime peniteo I repent: sometime peniteor I am repentant: sometime habeo penitentiam I have repentance: sometime penitent me it repenteth me. And Erasmus useth much this word resipisco I come to myself or to my right mind again.”[76] 

 

Geneva Bible (1576, 1599):

Marginal note for the word “Repent” in Matthew 3:2:

“The word in the Greek tongue signifieth a changing of our minds and hearts from evil to better.”[77] 

Unfortunately, earlier editions of the Geneva Bible are not so clear on the meaning of repentance. They do not go back to the Greek to define the word repent. For example, in the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible, the marginal note for the word “Repent” in Matthew 3:2 says “Or, be sorry for your past faults, and amend.”

 

John King, Bishop of London (1594):

“And who was ever a better expounder of repentance than he who went before the face of the Lord, and both preached the doctrine with his lips, and with his hands administered the baptism of repentance? Albeit the text that he used unto them were Metanoeite, which signifieth a change of the mind and the inward powers thereof, yet he added by way of explication, Mat. iii., ‘Bring forth fruits worthy of amendment of life.’”[78] 

George Downame (1604):

“Let the unrighteous, saith the Prophet, forsake his owne imaginations, and returne unto the Lord: For therefore is repentance called metanoia, because it is a changing of the mind.”[79] 

Lucas Brugensis (1548 - 1619):

“The word rendered repent, is to change one’s mind and to lay aside false opinions, which they had drunken in, whether from the Pharisees, concerning the righteousness of works, tradition, worship, &c or from the Sadducess, concerning the resurrection, &c.”[80] 

 

Holy Bible, Authorized Version (1611):

Marginal note for “place of repentance” in Hebrews 12:17:

In the 1611 King James Version, the marginal note on Hebrews 12:17 for “place of repentance” (topon metanoias) reads: “Or, way to change his minde.” 

 

Andrew Willet (1562 - 1621):

“That this word (metanoia) used in the new Testament, is more fitly translated repentance, to signifie a change of the minde, then by them [the Roman Catholics], penance, to betoken some outward penal satisfactorie act, thus it is proved.”

“Arg. 1. The Greek word every where used, is metanoia, which signifieth as Laurentius Valla noteth, emendationem mentis, the change or amendment of the minde; and no such outward satisfactorie Penance as they [the Roman Catholics] pretend.”

“…The ancient writers of the Greeke Church take repentance for a change of the minde, not for any externall penal worke: as Justinus Martyr saith (in his Second Apology), that God will rather have repentance, than punishment, that is penance: And again (in Dialog with Trypho), speaking of the repentance of the Ninivites, he calleth it, true repentance from the heart. So also Tertullian defineth, Poenitentiam animi passionem, repentance to be a passion of the mind….Athanasius saith (in Libr. De penitent, question 162), therefore penance is called repentance, Quod mentem a malo ad bonum transferat, because it turneth the minde from evil to good.”[81] 

Solomon Glassius (1593 - 1656):

Sacred Philology, book 3: Sacred Grammar (English translation):

“Hebrews 12:17....metanoian, or change of mind (as the Greek word is properly expressed)....”[82]

Some advocates of Lordship Salvation say that defining repentance (metanoia) as a change of mind is an “etymological fallacy” and a “misuse of Greek”. But Hebrews 12:17 indicates otherwise. The “repentance” (metanoia) sought by Esau was clearly a change of mind in his father Isaac! (See Genesis 27:33-38.) In the margin of the 1611 King James Version, the marginal note on Hebrews 12:17 for “place of repentance” says, “Or, way to change his minde.” The very literal 1901 American Standard Version (the ASV) translates it similarly.  Hebrews 12:17 in the ASV reads: “For ye know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for a change of mind in his father, though he sought it diligently with tears” (Heb. 12:17, ASV).

Even Wayne Grudem (a Reformed theologian and a critic of the traditional Free Grace “change of mind” view of repentance) acknowledges that the basic meaning of metanoia in Hebrews 12:17 is “simply a change of mind”. Commenting on the Greek word metanoia and the fact that it is not always used in a salvation context, Grudem writes: “First, we must realize that ‘repentance’ (Gk. metanoia) does not need to refer to inward heart repentance unto salvation. For example, Hebrews 12:17 uses this word to speak of a change of mind that Esau sought concerning the sale of his birthright, and refers to it as ‘repentance’ (metanoia). This would not have been a repentance for salvation, but simply a change of mind and an undoing of the transaction regarding his birthright.”[83] This much is true, but strangely Grudem has a completely different definition of “repentance” (metanoia) when the word is used in the context of salvation! In contrast to Bauer’s lexicon (which lists Hebrews 12:17 in the very same gloss definition with Bible verses that have a salvation context, such as: Lu. 24:47; Acts 20:21, 26:20; Rom. 2:4; Heb. 6:1; 2 Pet. 3:9; Bauer assigns them all as having the meaning of “primarily a change of mind”), notice that Grudem now has a completely different definition of repentance (metanoia) when the word is used in relation to salvation. As opposed to “simply a change of mind” (which is Grudem’s definition of metanoia in Hebrews 12:17), Grudem says that in the context of salvation: “Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ.”[84] But Grudem’s theologically-driven definition of repentance is based more on the English meaning of the word than it is on the Greek. Amazingly, Grudem actually admits this! Notice what he says in his book “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel [of Lordship Salvation]. In chapter 2, Grudem explains his view of repentance by saying: “the English word repent does not mean merely ‘change your mind’ but has the following meanings: ‘1. To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite. 2. To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one’s mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior. 3. To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one’s sins.’” In a footnote after this quote, Grudem cites as his source: “American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), s.v. ‘repent.’”[85] Grudem then immediately goes on to say, “Those are three related but slightly distinct meanings for repent. Of those three senses, the meaning that would most naturally come to mind for English-speaking readers of the New Testament would be the one connected to ‘sins,’ or meaning (3), or perhaps a combined sense of (2) and (3), including making a change for the better, or resolving to make a change for the better, ‘as a result of remorse or contrition for one’s sins.’ That is the sense that is best suited to the New Testament contexts where English translators have used this word, and that is naturally the sense in which they expected it to be understood.”[86] But are we honestly expected to base our understanding of biblical repentance on The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ?! The battle cry of the Reformation was “Ad fontes!” (Latin for “To the sources!”), which in this case would be the NT Greek, not the English translations. Roger Post correctly points out that “modern English dictionaries are not reliable sources for theological definitions. This is especially true of the word ‘repentance.’ Comparing the original terms with the English definitions of ‘repentance’ in his day, John A. Broadus called ‘repentance’ the ‘worst translation in the New Testament.’” (Roger Post, “The Meanings of the Words Translated ‘Repent’ and ‘Repentance’ in the New Testament,” Master’s Thesis, Wheaton College, June 1972, p. 4.) Richard A. Seymour similarly affirms that “it is not really too important what the current [English] dictionary meaning of repentance might be. What we need to know and stand upon is what repentance meant 2,000 years ago when the Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples used that word. As we have already seen, the major New Testament word (the one that is always used in connection with salvation) means to change your mind.” (Richard A. Seymour, All About Repentance [Hollywood, FL: Harvest House Publishers, 1974], p. 63.) Besides the fact that Grudem is basing his definition of repentance on the English meaning of the word rather than on the biblical Greek, there is another problem with Grudem’s line of reasoning. Grudem is simply incorrect to say (referring to The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of the English word repent), “that is naturally the sense in which they [the English Bible translators] expected it to be understood.” Even Louis Berkhof has said: “In the English Bible the word [metanoia] is translated ‘repentance,’ but this rendering hardly does justice to the original, since it gives undue prominence to the emotional element.”[87] The truth is, the English translators of the Bible knew that the English word repentance “hardly does justice to the original” Greek word metanoia! William Walden Howard affirms: “It is evident that repentance is a mistranslation of metanoia. This fact was never more apparent than during the English and American revisions of the King James version of our Bible. Frequent debate centered around this word and it was the opinion of many that a suitable English equivalent should be sought for the Greek expression. It was agreed, however, that no one English word was sufficient to convey all that lay in the Greek. And, although it was admitted that the translation was poor, it was felt that the common term [repentance] should be retained in the hope that it would come to convey all that its Greek derivative expressed.”[88] 

Commenting on the tendency of Reformed/Calvinist theologians to invest the Greek words metanoeō and metanoia with their own preconceived theological ideas and then read them into the usages of these words throughout the New Testament, Joseph Dillow is correct to say: “This pregnant meaning of ‘repentance’ is far removed from its semantic value, ‘change of mind.’ This new sense, now ‘great with child,’ has given birth to a theology of faith and salvation which is far removed from the simple gospel offer.”[89] It is telling that Grudem must change the meaning of “repentance” (metanoia) in order to conform it to his dogmatic theology, rather than conforming his dogmatic theology to God’s Word!

Commenting on the “Meaning of Metanoia in the NT,” (and under the sub-heading “Basic Sense: Change of Mind”), Robert Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society adeptly points out: “The pre-Christian meaning of metanoia as a change of mind is its basic NT sense as well. This can readily be seen in Heb 12:17 which reads: ‘For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit a blessing, he [Esau] was rejected, for he found no place for metanoia, though he sought it diligently with tears.’ What was it that Esau could not find? It was not a turning from sinful behavior. It was not penance. What he could not find was a way to change his father’s mind. The matter was settled. No matter how much he pleaded, he couldn’t change Isaac’s mind.”[90] 

William Douglas Chamberlain makes the same point in his book The Meaning of Repentance. Referring to the “repentance” (metanoia) in Hebrews 12:17 as “a change of mind,” Chamberlain affirms that regardless of whether the “change of mind” refers to Esau or to his father Isaac, “this passage still bears out the New Testament meaning of repentance, metanoia.”[91] 

The point being that “change of mind” is how “the Greek word [metanoia] is properly expressed” (as Solomon Glassius noted). The context will determine what the change of mind is about.

English Annotations, done by English scholars (1645):

Commentary on Matthew 3:2:

“V. 2. Repent ye ]  So our Saviour begins his preaching, Chap. 4. 17. and confirms Johns doctrine. John taught other things also, Luke 3. But this he begun withall, and this was the main scope of his doctrine. The word in the originall signifies, the change of our mindes from false wayes to the right, and of our hearts, from evil to good. He shews them, what they should do, not what they could do of themselves.”[92] 

 

The Marrow of Modern Divinity (1646):

“Nom. [Nomista, a Legalist.] But sir, as I conceive the Scripture holds forth, that the Lord hath appointed repentance to go before faith, for is it not said, Mark. 1.15. Repent, and Believe the Gospel?”

“Evan. [Evangelista, a Minister of the Gospel]. To the intent that you may have a true and satisfactory answer, to this your objection, I would pray you to consider two things.”

“First, that the word repent, in the original, signifies a change of our minds from false waies to the right, and of our hearts from evil to good; as that son in the Gospel, said he would not go work in his father’s vineyard, yet afterwards saith the Teacher, he repented and went (Mat. 21. 29), that is, he changed his mind and went.”

“Secondly, that in those days when John the Baptist, and our Saviour preached, the hearers were most of them erroneous in their minds and judgements, for they believed in the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadduces, of the which our Saviour bade the Disciples to take heed and beware (Mat. 16.6, 12); The most of them were of opinion, that the Messiah whom they looked for, should bee some great & mighty Monarch who should deliver them from their temporall bondage, as I shewed before, and many of them were of the opinion of the Pharisees, who held that as an outward conformity to the letter of the Law was sufficient to gaine favor and estimation from men, so was it sufficient for their justification, and acceptation before God, and so consequently to bring them to heaven and eternall happiness; And therefore for these ends they were very diligent in fasting and prayer (Mat. 23.14), And were very careful to pay Tythes of Mint, and Annise, and Cummen (Luk. 18.12, Mat. 23.23), and yet did omit the weightier matter of the law; as judgment, mercy, faith and the love of God (Luk. 11.42), and so as our Saviour told them, they made cleane the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they were full of extortion and excesse (Mat. 23.25). And divers of them were of the opinion of the Sadduces (Act. 23.8), who held that there was no resurrection, neither Angell nor Spirit, and so had all their hopes and comfort in the things of this life, not believing any other. Now our Saviour preaching to these people said, the time is fulfilled and the Kingdome of God is at hand, repent ye and believe the Gospel; As if he had said, the time set by the prophets for the manifestation of the Messiah is fully come, and his kingdome which is a spiritual and heavenly kingdom is at hand therefore change your minds from false ways to right, and your hearts from evill to good, and do not any longer imagine that the Messiah you looke for, shall bee one that shall save and deliver you from your temporall enimies but from your spirituall, that is from your sins and from the wrath of God, and from eternal damnation; and therefore put your confidence no longer in your own righteousnesse, though you walke never so exactly according to the letter of the Law, but believe the glad tidings that is now brought unto you, to wit, that this Messiah shall save you from sinne, wrath, death, the devil, and hell, and bring you to eternall life and glory: neither let any of you any longer imagine that there is to be no Resurrection of the dead, and so have your hopes only in this life; but believe these glad tidings that are now brought unto you concerning the Messiah, and he shall raise you up at the last day, and give you an eternall life. Now with submission to better judgements, I do conceive that if there bee in the booke of God any repentance exhorted unto, before faith in Christ, or if any repentance go either in order of nature or time, before faith in Christ, it is only such a like Repentance as this.”[93] 

John Lightfoot (1602 - 1675):

Commenting on the words of Jesus in Matthew 4:17 and Mark 1:15, Lightfoot writes the following:

“worth our consideration in this our Saviours doctrine, is the word by which he calleth for repentance. What Syriack word he used speaking that language it is uncertain (the Syriack translator useth Return or be converted) but the word which the Holy Ghost hath left us in the Original Greek metanoeite is exceeding significant and pertinent to that doctrine and occasion. The word is frequently used in the Septuagint, concerning God, when he is said to repent or not repent, as 1 Sam. 15.29. Jer. 3.9. Amos 7.3.6. &c. but the use of it applied to man is not so frequent in them, as of the word epistraphēte [be converted], & epistrepsate apo kakias [turn from evil] as Ezek. 18.30. because that word doth most Grammatically and verbatim translate the word shub, which is the word most commonly used in the Hebrew, for Repenting, and yet do the Septuagint sometimes use metanoein for mans repentance, as Jer. 8.6. &c.”

“The word doth first signifie a reviewing or considering of a mans own self and condition, as Lam. 3.40. and so Brucioli doth render it in the Italian, Ravedete vi [Repent ye], view your selves, or take yourselves into consideration. Secondly, it betokeneth a growing wise, or coming to ones self again, as Luk. 15.17. and thereupon it is well rendered by our Protestant Divines, Resipicite, Be wise again, for so the word were to be construed in its strict propriety. And thirdly it signifieth a change of mind, from one temper to another.”

“Now the Holy Ghost by a word of this significancy, doth give the proper and true character of repentance, both against the misprisions [distortions] that were taken up concerning it, by their traditions in those times, and those also that have been taken up since.”[94] 

Obadiah Grew (1607 - 1689):

Commenting on the words of Jesus concerning the prodigal son, “And when he came to himself—” (Luke 15:17), Obadiah Grew writes: “the Greek word for Repentance, metanoia, signifies a change of the mind, a mans returning to his right mind. The Prodigal first returns to himself, and then to God….a natural man must come to himself, before he can come to God. Here it is said the Prodigal came to himself; and in the 18. v. he resolved to go to his Father. And in the 20. v. he did so. He came to himself, he returned to his right mind; so the Greek word for repentance signifies, He returned to his heart. Remember this, bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. (Isa. 46.8.) The Hebrew word signifies, to heart.”[95] 

 Thomas Watson (1620 - 1686):

“The Greek Word for Repentance, metanoia, signifies After-Wisdom. When, having seen how deformed and damnable a thing Sin is, we change our Mind.”[96] 

John Bunyan (1628 - 1688): 

“‘And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.’ Repentance is in us, a Change of the Mind; but in God, a Change of his Dispensations [i.e. a Change of his Methods]; for otherwise he repenteth not; neither can he; because it standeth not with the Perfection of his Nature: in him is no variableness, nor shadow of turning. [Ja. 1.17.]”[97] 

“Repentance is a turning the heart to God in Christ: a turning of it from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9], and the devil, and darkness; to the goodness, and grace, and holiness that is in him.”[98] 

 

William Beveridge (1637 - 1708):

“In the first place, to consider the word [in Mark 1:15] which our blessed Saviour expresses this duty [to ‘repent’] by, which…in the Greek, wherein his sayings are infallibly conveyed to us, it is metanoeite, which word, according to its proper etymology and notation, as well as the common use of it in both sacred and profane writers, doth properly signify the change of the mind, and that usually from worse to better; and thus the author of the questions ascribed to Athanasius, explains  to metanoein, by metatithesthai ton noun apo tou kakou pros to agathon, ‘the changing of the mind from bad to good.’ And therefore Lactantius, and others after him, do rightly expound the Greek metanoia, by the Latin resipiscentia; which properly signifies, the recovering one’s self from some error which we were overtaken with: for he that repenteth of his error, resipiscit, is of another mind; that is, as the aforesaid father interprets it, Mentem suam quaque ab insania recipit, ‘he recovers his mind, as it were out of his former madness.’”

“Thus our Saviour expresses the repentance of the prodigal son by coming to himself (Luke 15.17), implying, that before that he had been besides himself, not in his right mind; but now he came to himself, and to the right use of his sense and reason, so as to be quite another thing, and of another and better mind that he was before.”[99]

 

Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714):

“John Baptist’s business was to call men to repent of their sins; metanoeite, bethink yourselves, admit a second thought to correct the errors of the first, an after thought: consider your ways, change your minds; you have thought amiss, think again, and think aright.”[100] 

Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687 - 1752):

“It is only by true repentance, which is a change of the mind, it is only by sincere and heartfelt conversion, that ‘so great salvation’ can be mine and yours.”[101]

Philip Doddridge (1702 - 1751):

Doddridge expresses the right view of 2 Corinthians 7:9, “Ye sorrowed to repentance,” he paraphrases, “ye grieved to such a happy purpose, and were by that means brought to true repentance, to a change of mind.”[102] 

 

Jonathan Edwards (1703 - 1758):

“The word in the New Testament which is most frequently translated repentance, most properly signifies a change of mind.”[103] 

 John Brown of Haddington (1722 - 1787):

“in that expression, Repent and believe the gospel, the sense may be Change your carnal notions of the Messiah and his kingdom, and believe the truths and offers of the gospel, Mark 1.15.”[104] 

Richard Elliot, formerly of Bennet College, Cambridge (1727 - 1788):

“By Penance the Romish Church understands Satisfaction for Sin, made by the Sinner unto the Justice of God by Means of the good Works which himself does, such as Fastings, Prayers, Tears, Suffering Corporal Punishment, &c. which she requires as previously necessary to the Pardon of Sin.---Mr. Dodd by Penitence (if his Words express his Thoughts) means barely Grief or Sorrow; for the Word properly denotes any Kind of Sorrow, arising from a Sense of Pain, or Fear of Punishment. But the true Repentance spoken of in Scripture widely differs from both; it neither means Satisfaction for Sin, nor Sorrow of Heart. You cannot, Sir, be ignorant that Penitence, from the Latin, Penitentia, is far from expressing the Sense of the Greek metanoia, which strictly means, a Change of Mind or Heart....Upon the whole, then, we may safely conclude, that metanoia, which the Protestants translate Repentance, and the Papists Penance, does by no means signifie, nor give the Reader any Idea of Confession of Sin, or Sorrow for it; but is designed to express that Change of the Mind which is wrought in a Man by the Spirit of God, when he turneth him from Self-righteousness, legal, and carnal Hopes and Dependencies, which is the Trust and Support of every Man by Nature; that being changed from trusting in the Flesh, in himself and his own Righteousness, he may believe in, and rest upon, Jesus Christ for Righteousness and Life, as he is revealed and preached unto him in the Gospel; and when the Mind is so changed, as to be turned from trusting in Morality, Duties, and Self, to trust alone in Christ for Salvation, this is what the Scripture calls Repentance unto Life.” 

Elliot goes on to emphasize the distinction between repentance and the fruits of repentance:

“The Distinction which we have already noticed between Repentance, or a Change of the Mind; and its Fruits or Effects; is not contrary to Scripture, but according to it: John the Baptist has declared it in these Words, bring forth therefore Fruits meet for Repentance [Mat. 3.8]: And Paul, also, in his Doctrine maintains the same Distinction, who went every where preaching that Men should repent and turn to God, and do Works meet for Repentance [Acts 26:20]: In both these Scriptures ‘tis sufficiently clear, that Repentance means a Change of the Mind, and no more, which Change was to be discovered, and made manifest by the Fruits which it brought forth in the Life and Conversation.”[105]

 

Archibald Mclean (1733 – 1812):

“I can admit that when faith first takes place in the mind, it imports repentance, or a change of mind, as the word metanoia signifies. It is a change from darkness to light; from blindness, prejudice and unbelief, to a spiritual perception and conviction of the truth; and it is by convincing men of the truth concerning Jesus, that the Spirit convinceth them of sin, because they believe not in him. See John 16. 9 compared with Acts 2. 36, 37.”[106] 

 

Thomas Scott (1747 - 1821):

“The word rendered ‘repentance,’ implies a total revolution in the mind, a change in the judgment, dispositions, and affections, another and better bias to the soul.”[107] 

“Repent ye.] Metanoeite. Post factum sapere; quasi resapere. Beza. Mutare mentem in melius. ‘After a thing has been done, to understand, and notice the error, and then at length to be wise.’ ‘To return to a sound mind.’”[108] 

Commenting on the words of Jesus in Mark 1:15,“Repent ye, and believe the gospel,” Scott writes: “Repentance would prepare the heart, for a believing reception of the gospel, the glad tidings of Messiah’s salvation, and this faith would certainly attend, or spring out of, true repentance.”[109]

 

Adam Clarke (1762 - 1832):

“As the word metanoia which we translate repentance signifies literally a change of mind, it may here be referred to a change of religious views, &c.”[110] 

 

Christian Gottlieb Kuinoel (1768 - 1841):

Comment on Matthew 3:2:

“Metanoia properly signifies a change of judgment, and metanoein to change a decision, Hebr. 12:17. cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 1, 3.”[111] 

 

John Campbell of London (1795 - 1867):

“What is the general import of the term ‘repentance’ in the Scriptures? It’s general import is, that entire change of mind which takes place on a sinner's conversion to God.”[112]  

 

Hermann Olshausen (1796 - 1839):

“Metanoia, repentance, change of mind, denotes here [in Matthew 3:2] the result of the law in its effect on the mind. By its form of inflexible requirement, it rouses to a sense of weakness, and to a longing for a power sufficient to satisfy it. It is therefore, in fact, a change of mind (nous) in its deepest vital principle. Considered in itself, indeed, it is something merely negative, which stands in need of a positive element to complete it; and this is the Spirit, whom Christ obtained, and whom men receive by faith. This is conveyed in the additional clause in Luke iii. 3, and Mark i. 4, eis aphesin hamartiōn, for the remission of sins. John’s preaching was not itself to effect the remission, but to prepare for that remission, which was to be accomplished by Christ.”[113] 

 

Charles Hodge (1797 - 1878):

“The primary and simple meaning of the word commonly used in the New Testament to express the idea of repentance, is a change of mind, as the result of reflection.”[114] 

 

John Peter Lange (1802 - 1884):

“The expression, ‘Repent ye,’ [in Matthew 3:2] is not equivalent with ‘Do penance.’ The original means, Change your minds, your mode of thinking and of viewing things,—not in order that the kingdom of heaven may come, but because it is coming or approaching (for the kingdom of heaven is at hand). This change of mind could only spring from a sense of the free mercy of God in manifesting the kingdom of heaven, and from the revelation of Christ in His grace and truth. Nor can it ever be otherwise; for without repentance, change of mind, conversion, regeneration (John iii.), it is impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven.”[115] 

Commenting on the words of Jesus in  Mark 1:15, “Repent and believe the gospel,” Lange writes: “The preaching of Christ: 1. It appears as the announcement of salvation in the place of danger and ruin. 2. What it announces: that the time is fulfilled, and that the kingdom of God is come. 3. What it requires: repentance (as change of mind, metanoia) and faith. 4. What it signifies: the saving presence of Christ Himself.”[116] 

Commenting on the words of Jesus in Mark 2:17, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,” Lange writes: “The calling to repentance (that is, to change of mind) the essence of the work of Christ.”[117] 

 

Gustav Billroth (1808 - 1836):

“Metanoia is not exactly equivalent to our penitence, or the Latin poenitentia, but rather presents the notion of a change, or renewal of mind.”[118] 

“Godly sorrow produces a change of mind to a salvation, of which no one repents”.[119] 

 

Arthur Penrhyn Stanley (1815 - 1881):

Commenting on 2 Corinthians 7:9, Dean Stanley writes, “eis metanoian [unto repentance]. This passage shows how inadequate is our word ‘repentance.’ Metanoia. ‘Ye were grieved so as to change your mind.’ ‘Your repentance amounted to a revolution of mind.’”[120] 

 

Alfred Edersheim (1825 - 1889):

“[John the Baptist] called them to repentance—a ‘change of mind’—with all that this implied; and, on the other, pointed them to the Christ, in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Or rather, the two combined might be summed up in the call: ‘Change your mind’—repent, which implies, not only a turning from the past, but a turning to the Christ in newness of mind.”[121] 

 

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (1883):

“Repent—The word denotes change of mind, and here includes the reception of the Gospel as the proper issue of that revolution of mind which they were then undergoing.”[122] 

 

Horatius Bonar (1808 - 1889):

“The word repentance signifies in the Greek, ‘change of mind;’ and this change the Holy Spirit produces in connection with the gospel, not the law. ‘Repent and believe the gospel’ (Mark i. 15), does not mean ‘get repentance by the law, and then believe the gospel;’ but ‘let this good news about the kingdom which I am preaching, lead you to change your views and receive the gospel.’ Repentance being put before faith here, simply implies, that there must be a turning from what is false in order to the reception of what is true. If I would turn my face to the north, I must turn it from the south; yet I should not think of calling the one of these preparatory to the other. They must, in the nature of things, go together. Repentance, then, is not, in any sense, a preliminary qualification for faith,—least of all in the sense of sorrow for sin.”[123] 

 

J. Oswald Jackson (1820 - 1901):

The Reverend J. Oswald Jackson, in his critical dissertation on the Greek word metanoia titled REPENTANCE: OR THE CHANGE OF MIND NECESSARY FOR SALVATION CONSIDERED, clearly demonstrates that this understanding of metanoia as being “a change of mind” does not stand on questionable or even new ground, but is instead the Scriptural doctrine and correct understanding of the word repentance as well as the testimony of biblical critics and scholars alike, so much so that the author can confidently say: “I may remark that all the critics and commentators that I have been able to examine, give the same signification to μετάνοια, metanoia, rendered repentance, with unanimous voice declaring that it signifies change of mind.”[124] 

 

Henry Alford (1810 - 1871):

Commenting on Acts 2:38, Dean Alford writes: “Well then, what was the answer which the Apostle Peter gave to them? ‘Change your mind’—‘Repent’. It is well, sometimes, to express words with their simple derivative force. ‘Change your minds’—not, do penance: there is no outward act implied in the word further than the inward state of mind will necessarily and naturally bring about.”[125] 

Commenting on Romans 2:4-5, Dean Alford writes: “impenitent]  i.e. not admitting that repentance, that change of mind (for this is the meaning of the word) to which God is leading thee.”[126] 

 

Philip Schaff (1819 - 1893):

“The Greek term metanoia, which is uniformly translated repentance in the English Bible, signifies properly a change of mind or of heart, and corresponds to what we generally mean by conversion.”[127] 

 

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901):

Commenting on “The work of [John] the Baptist” in the gospel of St. Matthew, Westcott writes: “Repentance,—the complete change of mind which was the fitting preparation for the kingdom of heaven”.[128] 

Commenting on Hebrews 6:1, Westcott writes, “‘Repentance from dead works’ expresses that complete change of mind—of spiritual attitude—which leads the believer to abandon these works [as a way of salvation] and seek some other support for life.”[129] 

Commenting on Hebrews 12:17, Westcott says, “‘A place of repentance’ is an opportunity for changing a former decision so that the consequences which would have followed from it if persisted in follow no longer.”[130] 

Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892):

“He was delivering, Paul taught, one common message to mankind, that all everywhere repent, change the direction of their mind; as He in like manner had fixed beforehand a day in which He was about to judge the world in righteousness...and this in the person of a man whom He had signified by a token wherein He provided assurance for all men, by raising Him from the dead.”[131] 

 

Dwight L. Moody (1837 - 1899):

“Repentance is a change of mind.”[132] 

“Repentance, a change of mind, a new mind about God.”[133] 

“A changed mind. Repentance.”[134] 

“Repentance: a change of mind; a new opinion about God.”[135] 

“Because he [Moody] spoke of repentance as a ‘change of mind,’ this suggests that he knew that the Greek word for that phrase, metanoia, was the term used in the New Testament to designate repentance.”[136] 

 

H. C. G. Moule (1893):

“repentance is no mere preliminary to faith; it is the whole complex ‘change of mind’ which includes faith.”[137] 

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (1897):

“It cannot be too strongly insisted upon that the Greek word translated repentance (penaunce, Wiclif and the Rhemish Version) contains neither the idea of sorrow nor of penitential discipline. The word means change of mind or purpose. Sorrow may or may not accompany it.”[138]  

William Pettingill (1903):

“What place has repentance in salvation? Should we tell people to repent of their sins to be saved?  The Gospel of John is the Holy Spirit's Gospel Tract, written that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing they might have life through His name (20:31).  And it does not mention the word ‘repentance’.  But that is only because repentance is a necessary part of saving faith.  Strictly speaking, the word repentance means a ‘change of mind’.  It is by no means the same thing as sorrow (II Corinthians 7:10).  Since it is not possible to an unbeliever to become a believer without changing his mind, it is therefore unnecessary to say anything about it.  The only thing for a man to do in order to be saved is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ: and to believe on Him is the same thing as receiving Him (John 1:11-13).”[139]

Weymouth New Testament (1903):

The Weymouth New Testament with notes has a footnote for the word “Repent” in Matthew 3:2 that supports the traditional (or classic) Free Grace view of repentance as a change of mind or heart. The footnote for the word “Repent” in Matthew 3:2 reads as follows: “repent] Or ‘change your minds.’” This understanding of repentance as a change of mind is borne out in the text of the Weymouth NT in several places. For instance, Matthew 3:8 (“Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance:” 1885 Revised Version) in the Weymouth NT reads: “Therefore let your lives prove your change of heart”. The parallel passage in Luke 3:8 reads similarly: “Live lives which shall prove your change of heart” (Lk. 3:8). This is the proper order, first change your minds and hearts (repent), and then as a result of your repentance, “let your lives prove your change of heart”.[140]

C. I. Scofield (1909):

In The Scofield Reference Bible, Dr. Scofield gives the following summaries for repentance in the Old and New Testaments.

In a footnote for the word “repented” in Zechariah 8:14, Scofield writes:

“Repentance (O.T.), Summary: In the O.T., repentance is the English word used to translate the Heb. nacham, to be ‘eased’ or ‘comforted.’ It is used of both God and man. Notwithstanding the literal meaning of nacham, it is evident, from a study of all the passages, that the sacred writers use it in the sense of metanoia in the N.T.—a change of mind. See Mt. 3. 2; Acts 17. 30, note. As in the N.T., such change of mind is often accompanied by contrition and self-judgment. When applied to God the word is used phenomenally according to O.T. custom. God seems to change His mind. The phenomena are such as, in the case of a man, would indicate a change of mind.”[141] 

In a footnote for the word “repent” in Acts 17:30, Scofield writes:

“Repentance is the trans. of a Gr. word (metanoia―metanoeo) meaning ‘to have another mind,’ ‘to change the mind,’ and is used in the N.T. to indicate a change of mind in respect of sin, of God, and of self. This change of mind may, especially in the case of Christians who have fallen into sin, be preceded by sorrow (2 Cor. 7. 8-11), but sorrow for sin, though it may ‘work’ repentance, is not repentance. The son in Mt. 21. 28, 29 illustrates true repentance. Saving faith…includes and implies that change of mind which is called repentance.”[142] 

B. H. Carroll (1913):

“metamelomai does not express the full idea of New Testament repentance. For example, Judas repented and went and hanged himself [Matt. 27:3-5], but ‘repentance is unto life,’ and it is worldly sorrow that worketh death. Second, because there is another term always employed in expressing New Testament repentance. That other term is the noun, metanoia, from the verb, metanoeo. I cite for the benefit of the reader every New Testament use of the verb, and ask him to look at each reference and note its application to our doctrine. Matthew uses the term five times, as follows: 3:2; 4:17; 11:20-21; 12:41. Mark twice: 1:15; 6:12. Luke ten times in his Gospel: 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 17:3-4, 30. In Acts five times more: 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 26:20. Paul once: 2 Corinthians 12:21. John eleven times: Revelation 2:5, 16, 21-22; 3:3, 19; 9: 20-21; 16:9, 11. Thirty-four times in all. Matthew uses the noun three times: 3:8, 11; 9:13. Mark twice: 1:14; 2:17. Luke five times in his Gospel: 3:3, 8; 5:32; 15:7; 24:47. Six times in Acts: 5:31; 11:18; 13:24; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20. Paul seven times: Romans 11:4; 2 Corinthians 7:9-10; 2 Timothy 2:25; Hebrews 6:1, 6; 12:17. Peter once: 2 Peter 3:9. In all, twenty-four. We thus observe that this term, as a noun or verb, is employed fifty-eight times in the New Testament, occurring in books by Matthew eight times; Mark four times; Luke twenty-six times; John eleven times; Peter one time; Paul eight times; and in every instance refers unmistakably to the New Testament doctrine of repentance, and to nothing else. It should be noted also carefully that repentance is declared to be the product of godly sorrow, lupe kata theon; and that it always ends in salvation, eternal life (Acts 11:18; 2 Cor. 7:7-10). Hence it follows that repentance is always ametameletos, ‘not regrettable.’ This adjective is compounded from the verb melein and the preposition, meta, and the privative particle a. We advance in our knowledge of metanoeo, to repent, and metanoia, repentance, by considering that there is a Greek noun, nous, the mind. There is also a Greek verb which tells what the mind does – noeo, to think, perceive, understand. Then there is the preposition, meta, which, in composition with noeo, expresses the idea of change, transition, sequence. Therefore, we may say that metanoeo always means ‘to think back, to change the mind,’ while the noun, metanoia, always means afterthought, as opposed to forethought, change of mind. We may, therefore, give as the one invariable definition of New Testament repentance that it is a change of mind, from which it is evident that its domain is limited. It is necessarily internal, not external.”[143] 

 

James M. Gray (1913, 1915):

“Repentance means a ‘change of mind,’ and the moment one takes Jesus by faith to be his personal Savior, that moment he has experienced and manifested that change of mind. I am now speaking, of course, of the initial act of salvation.”[144] 

Commenting on Acts 2:37-40, Dr. Gray makes it a point to say, “observe that ‘repent’ means ‘change your mind,’ i.e., about Jesus Christ and your sin in regards to Him, and let that change of mind exhibit itself in being baptized in His name.”[145] 

G. Campbell Morgan (1915):

“I want to speak about the simplest meaning of the word ‘repent,’ for as we know what this word really means, we shall understand the message of our Lord [when He said, ‘Repent ye, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand’].”

“In the New Testament there are two Greek words translated ‘repent.’ They have quite different meanings. One of these words [metamelomai] means to sorrow for or regret a deed. The other word [metanoia] means very simply and very literally to change the mind.”

“Around these two words a great conflict was waged between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic theologians. The Reformers maintained that the second word, which means a change of mind, was used of the change which is necessary to salvation; while the former word, which indicates sorrow after an event, was in some cases indicative of a change of mind, and in other cases it was not so. Such was the contention, in brief, of the Reformers. On the other hand, the Roman theologians maintained that the words were used interchangeably, that the elements of each were present in both, and they taught that the prevailing value was that of sorrow. The whole battle was waged around two Latin words, poenitentia, which means the sense of sorrow, and recipiscentia, which means the recovery of the senses. The Reformers maintained that the essential repentance demanded by Christ and His Apostles, as well as by prophets, was a change of the senses, or a change of mind. The Roman theologians, on the other hand, maintained that the prime elements indicated by the word ‘repent’ was sorrow, and from that Roman theology we have gained our word ‘repent’ and the associated idea that sorrow is the prime element in repentance.”

“I have the profoundest conviction that the Reformers were right, and that the Roman theologians were wrong. A careful examination of the New Testament use of these two words will show that the essential quality that Christ called for was not sorrow, but a change of mind. Now do not understand me to say that the change of mind will not be followed by sorrow. My experience is that the sorrow grows with the Christian life, and is not part of its initiation....The repentance that Christ preached, and His Apostles preached, the repentance which is demanded of every man is always indicated by the use of the word that means a change of mind.”

“When Christ used that word, and when, as I have no doubt in the hearing of the men who listened to Him, it had exactly that meaning of change of mind, He had passed beyond the outer circumference of things into the inner center of a man’s life. He began by declaring to men that their thought was wrong, that their conception of life was wrong. Now we say to a man, alas, too often, Change your conduct. Jesus never begins by telling a man to change his conduct. That is to begin in the externalities of human life. He comes to a man, and says, Change your mind, and by that word He means that men hold wrong views at the very center of their being. The word ‘repent’ passes into the fundamental realm, the thought of a man’s life. We are not accustomed to think about this deepest fact, and even in preaching we are too often more occupied with conduct than with creed. I use the word ‘creed’ very carefully; I am not referring to the creed prepared for us to recite, I am referring to the creed of our life, to the deepest conception of it, to the underlying and overmastering thing that we absolutely believe.”

“We all believe something, and it is the something which a man believes that makes his conduct and finally makes his character. ‘As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he,’ and when Jesus came and began His preaching, instead of starting a society to correct the conduct of men, He faced men, and He said: Change your mind, repent, get right at the center of things.”[146] 

 

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915):

Under the heading “NT Terms…Repent, ‘to Change the Mind’” the author writes: “The word μετάνοεω, metanoeō, expresses the true NT idea of the spiritual change implied in a sinner’s return to God. The term signifies ‘to have another mind,’ to change the opinion or purpose with regard to sin. It is equivalent to the OT word ‘turn.’ Thus it is employed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles (Mt 3 2; Mk 1 15; Acts 2 38).”[147] 

Alan Hugh McNeile (1915, 1923):

“St Paul in his epistles says so little about repentance. μετανοια was the change of mind and outlook, the alteration in the way of thinking about things, which took place when a non-Christian was led to become a Christian.”[148] 

In his commentary on The Gospel According to St. Matthew, McNeile points out concerning Matthew 3:8 that “the fruit is not the change of heart, but the acts which result from it. Cf. Ac. xxvi. 20, where both are spoken of.”[149] 

J. H. Moulton (1915):

Commenting on the Greek word metanoeō, Moulton affirms that it “indicates ‘change of mind’ beyond question.”[150] 

A. T. Robertson (1923, 1931):

In his book The Minister and His Greek New Testament, A. T. Robertson says: “Certainly the word for repentance [metanoia] is more than a mere ‘after-thought.’ It is a ‘change of mind’ that leads to and is shown by a change of life, ‘fruits worthy of repentance’ (Luke 3:8).”[151] Robertson's statement here is consistent with how classic Free Grace theology has traditionally understood the relationship between faith and works, justification and sanctification. For example, Charles Ryrie in his book So Great Salvation writes: “Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise the person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation.”[152]

From Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (comment on Matthew 3:2):

“Repent (μετανοειτε). Broadus used to say that this is the worst translation in the New Testament. The trouble is that the English word ‘repent’ means ‘to be sorry again’ from the Latin repoenitet (impersonal). John [the Baptist] did not call on the people to be sorry, but to change (think afterwards) their mental attitudes (μετανοειτε) and conduct. The Vulgate has it ‘do penance’ and Wycliff has followed that. The Old Syriac has it better: ‘Turn ye.’ The French (Geneva) has it ‘Amendez vous.’ This is John’s great word (Bruce) and it has been hopelessly mistranslated. The tragedy of it is that we have no one English word that reproduces exactly the meaning and atmosphere of the Greek word.”[153] 

From Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (comment on Matthew 3:8):

“Fruit worthy of repentance (Καρπον αξιον της μετανοιας). John demands proof from these men of the new life before he administers baptism to them. ‘The fruit is not the change of heart, but the acts which result from it’ (McNeile).”[154] 

From Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (comment on Romans 2:4):

“Leadeth thee to repentance (εις μετανοιαν σε αγε). The very kindness (το χρηστον, the kindly quality) of God is trying to lead (conative present αγε) thee to a right-about face, a change of mind and attitude (μετανοιαν) instead of a complacent self-satisfaction and pride of race and privilege.”[155] 

From Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (comment on 2 Corinthians 7:8):

“I do not regret it (ου μεταμελομα). This verb really means ‘repent’ (be sorry again) which meaning we have transferred to μετανοεω, to change one’s mind (not to be sorry at all).”[156] 

From Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (comment on 2 Corinthians 7:9):

“It is a linguistic and theological tragedy that we have to go on using ‘repentance’ for μετανοια. But observe that the ‘sorrow’ has led to ‘repentance’ and was not itself the repentance.”[157] 

From Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (comment on 2 Timothy 2:25):

“Repentance (μετανοιαν). ‘Change of mind’ (2 Corinthians 7:10; Romans 2:4).”[158] 

 William R. Newell (1935, 1947):

“Repentance is not mere sorrow (though godly sorrow works repentance—II Corinthians 7:10); but repentance is a changed state of soul. It is ‘the judgment we have passed, in God’s presence, under grace, upon ourselves and all we have done and have been.’”[159] 

“The very first gospel announcement to the Hebrews would be something entirely new—repentance, an entire change of mind, as to ‘works’ securing salvation—the announcement that such ‘works’ were ‘dead,’ as regards obtaining eternal life, and were no longer to be trusted in, but wholly left as a ground of hope. There was to be repentance from dead works. Their conscience was to be cleansed, by Christ’s blood, from dead works (Ch. 9.14).”[160] 

“‘Dead works’ present the essential character of the works in themselves: ‘works of law’—present them in relation to an ideal, unattainable, standard! It follows therefore that repentance from dead works expresses that complete change of mind—of spiritual attitude—which leads the believer to abandon these works and seek some other support for life.” –Westcott.”[161] 

H. A. Ironside (1937, 1950): 

“What then is repentance? So far as possible I desire to avoid the use of all abstruse or pedantic terms, for I am writing not simply for scholars, but for those Lincoln had in mind when he said, ‘God must have thought a lot of the common people, for He made so many of them.’ Therefore I wish, so far as possible, to avoid citing Greek or Hebrew words. But here it seems necessary to say that it is the Greek word, μετάνοια, metanoia, which is translated ‘repentance’ in our English Bibles, and literally means a change of mind. This is not simply the acceptance of new ideas in place of old notions. But it actually implies a complete reversal of one’s inward attitude....To repent is to change one’s attitude toward self, toward sin, toward God, toward Christ.”[162] 

“What then is meant by ‘repentance from dead works’ [Heb. 6:1]? It is a complete change of mind, whereby the convicted sinner gives up all thought of being able to propitiate God by effort of his own and acknowledges that he is as bad as the Word has declared him to be. He turns right about face. Instead of relying on his own fancied merits he turns to the Lord for deliverance and seeks for mercy through the Saviour God has provided.”[163] 

“Repentance. Some Gospel preachers seem to be afraid to stress the importance of repentance, evidently thinking of it as meritorious, and therefore contrary to the grace of God. Repentance is simply a change of mind which involves a changed attitude toward self, sin, and God. In other words, it is the sinner’s confessed recognition of his lost condition and his need of a Saviour. Apart from repentance there can be no saving faith.”[164] 

 

Lewis Sperry Chafer (1922, 1948):

“Repentance, which means ‘a change of mind,’ is never excluded from the terms of salvation; it is included as an essential part of believing. There is no Scriptural warrant for the grace-confusing practice of some who insist that repentance and believing are separate obligations to be imposed on the unsaved. It is impossible for a person to believe who does not repent. In believing, he will experience that change of mind which turns from all else unto Christ as the Object of trust. Measureless harm has been done to souls when it has been taught that a self-imposed repentance must precede faith in Christ. Such insistence ignores every vital aspect of saving grace.”[165] 

“The word metanoia is in every instance translated repentance. The word means a change of mind.  The common practice of reading into this word the thought of sorrow or heart anguish is responsible for much confusion in the field of Soteriology. There is no reason why sorrow should not accompany repentance or lead on to repentance, but the sorrow, whatever it may be, is not repentance. In 2 Corinthians 7:10, it is said that ‘godly sorrow worketh repentance,’ that is, it leads on to repentance; but the sorrow is not to be mistaken for the change of mind which it may serve to produce. The son cited by Christ as reported in Matthew 21:28-29 who first said ‘I will not go,’ and afterward repented and went, is a true example of the precise meaning of the word. The New Testament call to repentance is not an urge to self-condemnation, but is a call to a change of mind which promotes a change in the course being pursued. This definition of this word as it is used in the New Testament is fundamental.  Little or no progress can be made in a right induction of the Word of God on this theme, unless the true and accurate meaning of the word is discovered and defended throughout.”[166]  

“Too often, when it is asserted—as it is here—that repentance is not to be added to belief as a separate requirement for salvation, it is assumed that by so much the claim has been set up that repentance is not necessary to salvation. Therefore, it is as dogmatically stated as language can declare, that repentance is essential to salvation and that none could be saved apart from repentance, but it is included in believing and could not be separated from it.”[167] 

“To believe on Christ is one act, regardless of the manifold results which it secures. It is not turning from something to something; but rather turning to something from something. If this terminology seems a mere play on words, it will be discovered, by more careful investigation, that this is a vital distinction. To turn from evil may easily be a complete act in itself, since the action can be terminated at that point. To turn to Christ is a solitary act, also, and the joining of these two separate acts corresponds to the notion that two acts—repentance and faith—are required for salvation. On the other hand, turning to Christ from all other confidences is one act, and in that one act repentance, which is a change of mind, is included. The Apostle stresses this distinction in accurate terms when he says to the Thessalonians, ‘Ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God’ (1 Thess. 1:9). This text provides no comfort for those who contend that people must first, in real contrition, turn from idols—which might terminate at that point—and afterwards, as a second and separate act, turn to God. The text recognizes but one act—‘Ye turned to God from idols’—and that is an act of faith alone.”[168] 

“The true meaning of the word shows that it is a change of mind and although there may be nothing to preclude [or prevent] that change being accompanied by grief, the sorrow itself is not repentance.”[169] 

“It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind [repentance] is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for believing at times”. (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 7, p. 265, italics his.)

Roy Aldrich (1954):

“The Greek word metanoia means a change of mind….Because repentance is a change of mind it should not be concluded that the experience of salvation will be devoid of emotion. Psychologists say that every important decision of the mind is accompanied by emotion. Surely there will be emotion with the great change of mind that takes place when a sinner first believes in Christ. However, this emotional experience will vary with circumstances and temperament and it should not be demanded either as a condition or proof of salvation.”[170] 

John R. Rice (1955, 1963):

“the Greek word metanoeo, meaning change of mind or heart, used repeatedly in the New Testament for the repentance which brings salvation.”[171] 

“‘Then Peter said unto them, Repent….’ This is not a different plan of salvation from the plan to ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’ as the Philippian jailer was instructed and as otherwise given often in the Gospels (John 1:12; John 3:14-16; John 3:18; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:47; Acts 13:38, 39). The saving Gospel as to how men are to be saved is once described as ‘repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Acts 20:21). But usually where one is mentioned as the way of salvation, the other is implied, not mentioned. Actually saving repentance and saving faith are simply two ways of saying the same thing. The Greek word for repentance is metanoia, meaning literally a change of mind. That is, a change of heart attitude. But the change is from unbelief to faith. To repent means to turn from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9]. Saving faith means to turn to Christ, relying on Him for salvation.”[172] 

Donald Grey Barnhouse (1958, 1961):

“The basic meaning of the original word, repentance, is ‘to change one’s mind,’ and, since the idea of mental direction is involved, it is the equivalent to the military command ‘about face!’ Change of direction is involved in the process of becoming a Christian, but this must not be allowed to degenerate into the false idea of weeping for sin before salvation can be secured. (Soon after that, one would think that there must be further suffering for sins after death, and thus we would deny the finished work of Christ.) Biblical repentance may be described thus: the sinner has been trusting in himself for salvation, his back turned upon Christ, who is despised and rejected. Repent! About face! The sinner now despises and rejects himself, and places all confidence and trust in Christ. Sorrow for sin comes later, as the Christian grows in appreciation of the holiness of God, and the sinfulness of sin.”[173] 

“God ‘commands all men everywhere to repent’; He therefore commands you. Repentance simply means a change of mind. Too long have you had your own mind and done as you please. Now God commands you to change your mind about two things. First, you must give up the idea that you can get along by yourself, that you can satisfy the righteous demands of God, that you can attain a life that will measure up to God’s standard. Instead, accept the verdict of God that you are a spiritual bankrupt when measured by His righteousness. Second, you must turn away from your own self-sufficiency and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the end of the law for righteousness to every one who believes. Accept today God’s verdict that He is satisfied with the death of His Son as the propitiation for your sins. Then He will give you divine righteousness through this Savior, Jesus Christ our Lord.”[174] 

 

Julius R. Mantey (1962):

The Greek scholar Dr. Julius R. Mantey gives the following definition of repentance under the heading “Meaning of Repentance and Conversion in the New Testament.” Mantey writes: “Metanoeo (metanoia, noun) is regularly used to express the requisite state of mind necessary for the forgiveness of sin. It means to think differently or to have a different attitude toward sin and God, etc.”[175] 

J. I. Packer (1962):

“Repentance means a change of mind and heart towards God: faith means belief of His word and trust in His Christ; conversion covers both. Thus we find both repentance and faith linked with conversion, as the narrower and the wider concept (repentance and conversion, Acts iii. 19, xxvi. 20; faith and conversion, Acts xi. 21).”[176] 

John Murray (1962):

“In the New Testament the terms ‘repent’ (metanoeō) and ‘repentance’ (metanoia) refer basically to a change of mind. It is all-important to note this signification.”[177] 

J. N. D. Kelly (1963):

Commenting on 2 Timothy 2:25, Kelly writes, “in case God should grant them a change of attitude (Gk. metanoia: the same word as for ‘repentance’) enabling them to arrive at an acknowledgement of the truth (for this phrase, characteristic of the Pastorals, see on 1 Tim. ii. 4)....The next verse [v. 26] defines what is involved in this conversion; it is that they should return to their senses and escape from the devil's snare.”[178] 

 

Manford Gutzke (1964):

“When thinking of the word repent or repentance, there are at least two general ideas that are not repentance.  Repentance does not mean to be sorry for some wrong I have done....Some may think repentance is promising to do good.  I do not want to seem to be too harsh, but how much good is it going to do for anyone to promise to do good?....Repentance is primarily a judgment about myself.  The expression so often used, which has an awkward translation into English, is, ‘repenting of our sins.’  Actually this is not a sound idea.  The reason it is so awkward to say is that man does not ‘repent his sins’ nor does he ‘repent of his sins’; he repents himself.  Repentance is judgment upon myself whereby I admit that I am not good....Repentance is a very important matter.  Because it is not until I am willing to acknowledge before God that I am nothing in myself that I will believe the Gospel.”[179]  

 

J. Dwight Pentecost (1965):

“It is our purpose to discuss the Scriptural doctrine of repentance.  It is important because so many minds have been confused concerning the simplicity of salvation by the perversion of the Scriptural teaching of this important doctrine....The doctrine has suffered tremendously from an erroneous concept held by most men, for when the word ‘repent’ is used, it brings to mind of the average individual the thought of sorrow for sin....And this sorrow for sin is usually called ‘repentance.’  But there could be nothing further from the concept of the Word of God than the idea that repentance means sorrow for sins.  From the Word of God we discover that the word translated ‘repent’ means ‘a change of mind.’ It means, literally, ‘a turning about’; not so much a physical turning about as a mental turning around, a change of course, a change of direction, a change of attitude. This is the concept of the word. Now, such as change of mind as the Scripture enjoins when it speaks of repentance may produce a sorrow for sin, but it will be the result after one has seen his sin in the light of the holiness of God and has changed his attitude toward it.”[180]  

 

John F. Walvoord (1966, 1990):

“The second aspect of his exhortation [in Revelation 2:5] is embodied in the word repent (Gr., metanoeson, meaning ‘to change the mind’).”[181] 

Commenting on Revelation 3:15-18, Walvoord writes: “Though no clear exhortation for repentance was demanded in connection with the need of the Laodicean church, they are warned that they will be cast out unless they turn to riches that are recognized by God – which would be a repentance, a change of mind concerning their spiritual condition.”[182] 

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1967, 1985):

In Kittel’s entry for the words metanoeō and metanoia (under the heading “metanoeō and metanoia in the New Testament,” and under the sub-heading “The Linguistic Understanding”), the author Johannes Behm makes the following statement regarding the meanings of these words in the New Testament:

“The popular Gk. sense (A. [‘to note after,’ ‘to change one’s mind’]) is most likely at Lk. 17:3 f., where metanoein denotes regret for a fault against one’s brother, and 2 C. 7:9 f., where the combination with metamelomai, lupē and lupeō suggests remorse....Elsewhere [in the New Testament] the only possible meanings are ‘to change one’s mind,’ ‘change of mind,’ or ‘to convert,’ ‘conversion.’”[183] 

Also worth noting is that Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament makes a clear distinction between metanoeō (meaning “change of mind” or “change of heart”) and metamelamai (meaning “regret” or “remorse”). This distinction is clearly brought out in Kittel’s entry for the words metamelomai and ametamelētos. The entry in the abridged Kittel reads as follows:

“Unlike metanoein, which means ‘change of heart,’ metamelesthai means the ‘experiencing of remorse.’ The two may, of course, converge. ... In general, Judaism distinguishes the narrower metanoia from the more general metameleia. ... metanoein and metanoia take precedence in the NT. The only instances of metamelomai are in Mt. 21:29, 32; 27:3; 2 Cor. 7:8; Heb. 7:21 (quoting Ps. 110:4). In Mt. 21:28ff. the son who refuses to work changes his mind and goes, but the opponents of Jesus refuse to do so when they hear the call of the Baptist. In Mt. 27:3 Judas suffers remorse when he sees the result of his betrayal. His suicide shows that this is no true repentance. In 2 Cor. 7:8ff. Paul does not ‘regret’ sending a severe letter (although he had regretted it), because it has led to ‘repentance’ (metanoian) in the readers—a ‘repentance’ which brings ‘no regret’ (metanoia ametamelētos). In this passage ‘being sorry’ is plainly distinguished from repenting. Paul uses ametamelētos again in Rom. 11:29, where he says that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable. The same thought of God’s faithfulness occurs in Heb. 7:21: God has pledged with an oath that the institution of the eternal high priest is unchangeable, and he will not change his mind. The NT, then, has a clear sense of the distinction between the terms; it reserves metanoia for the divinely effected change of heart which leads to salvation.”[184] 

All things considered, either wording (“change of mind” or “change of heart”) is consistent with traditional Free Grace theology. For more information see the quotes below by Charles Bing.

 Charles Ryrie (1961, 1969, 1972, 1989):

“Change of mind is the meaning of the word repent. This is not mere sorrow for sin, though that may be involved; nor is it a mere mental assent to facts. It is the kind of basic change of mind that will result in a change of life [not necessarily a change of behavior] and is perhaps best conveyed by the phrase ‘change of heart’ (cf. Rom. 2:5, where lack of repentance is described as an ‘unrepentant heart’).” (Charles C. Ryrie, The Acts of the Apostles, Everyman's Bible Commentary [Chicago: Moody Press, 1961], p. 21.)

“The word repent means, of course, to change one’s mind about something. But what that something is, is all-important to the meaning of repentance in any given context….The content of repentance which brings eternal life, and that which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. Whereas the people who heard him on that day formerly thought of Jesus as a mere man, they were asked to accept Him as Lord (Deity) and Christ (promised Messiah). To do this would bring salvation.”[185] 

“Often the idea of believing is expressed by the word, repent (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20)….The word means to change one’s mind, and by its usage in the Book of Acts it means to change one’s mind about Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah.  This involves no longer thinking of Him as merely the carpenter’s son of Nazareth, an imposter, but now receiving Him as both Lord (Jehovah) and Messiah. Thus, repentance as preached by the apostles was not a prerequisite to nor a consequence of salvation, but was actually the act of faith in Jesus which brought salvation to the one who repented.”[186]  

“In both the New and Old Testaments, repentance means ‘to change one’s mind.’ But the question must be asked, about what do you change your mind? Answering that question will focus the basic meaning on the particular change involved….The change of mind, however, must be genuine and not superficial. Biblical repentance also involves changing one’s mind in a way that affects some change in the person. Repentance is not merely an intellectual assent to something; it also includes a resultant change, usually in actions.”[187] 

“Belief in Christ, as an expression of a change of mind, focuses on the new direction that change about God must take, namely, trusting in Christ, God's Son, as personal Savior. Jews needed to change their minds about Jesus and realize that He is their true Messiah”[188] 

“To repent is to change your mind. However, this only defines the word, not the concept, for you need to ask, Change your mind about what? Depending on how you answer that question, repentance might be a synonymous concept to believing in Christ or it might become an additional requirement for salvation. If repentance is understood to mean changing your mind about your sin—being sorry for your sin—this will not necessarily save….People can be sorry for their sins without wanting to accept the forgiveness of a Saviour. But if repentance means changing your mind about the particular sin of rejecting Christ, then that kind of repentance saves, and of course it is the same as faith in Christ. This is what Peter asked the crowd to do on the day of Pentecost [in Acts chapter 2]. They were to change their minds about Jesus of Nazareth. Formerly they had considered Him to be only a blasphemous human being claiming to be God; now they changed their minds and saw Him as the God-man Saviour whom they would trust for salvation. That kind of repentance saves, and everyone who is saved has repented in that sense.”[189]  

In regards to when Ryrie says that repentance “will result in a change of life”, some people may wonder how this is different from the Reformed teaching that salvation always results in works and good deeds? But why do we have to interpret Ryrie’s statement the way Lordship Salvationists do? Notice that Ryrie doesn’t say “an outward change of life”. So the way I understand Ryrie’s comment is in the sense of 2 Corinthians 5:17, but not the way that proponents of Lordship Salvation interpret it. In other words, as a result of salvation there is “a change of life” in the sense that the saved individual is “a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17). This is a spiritual change in the life of the person. In the words of Jesus to Nicodemus in John chapter 3, the person is “born again”/“born from above” (see John 3:3). Nicodemus didn’t understand. He thought Jesus was talking physically. But Jesus was talking spiritually. The new birth is an invisible reality, but a reality nonetheless. And how this change of life manifests itself is different for everyone. What’s more, the change may not be visible to everyone. Indeed, the change may not even be visible to the person who got saved! In other words, the newly saved person may look the same five minutes after he got saved as he did five minutes before he got saved! But there is a change: it is from the old to the new. God sees it, even if others don’t. The Bible says: “Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). But again, how this change manifests itself is different for everyone. There’s a very enlightening statement by Ryrie from his book So Great Salvation that helps to clarify what he means by “a change of life”. It’s when he says: “For another thing, our Lord said that when someone is converted there is joy in the presence of the angels of God (Luke 15:10). Would that not be fruit that a converted-on-his-death-bed-and-immediately-dying person bears? Not necessarily fruit to be seen by other people (unless there be some moments just before death where family and friends might see or even hear of the change). But fruit seen and appreciated by angels in heaven. The account of a deathbed conversion may bear fruit in the lives of others not so long or long after the person dies. Reports of this happening at funeral services are not uncommon. So likely it can truly be said that every believer will bear fruit somewhere (in earth and/or heaven), sometime (regularly and/or irregularly during life), somehow (publicly and/or privately). Fruit, then, furnishes evidence of saving faith. The evidence may be strong or weak, erratic or regular, visible or not. But a saving, living faith works.” (Ryrie, So Great Salvation [1989 edition], pp. 46-47.) In other words: saving faith will bear fruit somewhere, sometime, somehow; this is how faith works. For more information see my series of blog posts titled: “Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith” (Parts 1, 2, 3, & 4).  

Roger Post (1972):

“For the unregenerate man, repentance is the change of mind whereby he turns from unbelief to faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.”[190] 

“To preach that repentance is ‘turning from sins’ is ambiguous, for it presupposes people understand what is signified by ‘turning from.’ If ‘turning from sins’ means to stop sinning, and people can be saved only if they stop sinning, it is unlikely that anyone has ever been saved. Many people who resolved to stop sinning at an emotional part of a decision and a confused proclamation of ‘repentance’ are afterwards emotionally devastated to discover that they still sin.”

“If ‘turning from sins’ means to stop practicing sins, the problem is complicated because the necessity of sinless living, or better living, is made a prerequisite for regeneration, while this is a requirement that could, in reality, begin to be fulfilled only after one is regenerated.”

“If repentance involved desisting from sins, it could be defined as the eradication of the old nature. That a man may repent and be forgiven seven times in a day (Luke 17:3, 4) implies that in the word ‘repent’ itself a change of conduct or alteration of one’s lifestyle is not required.”[191] 

Richard A. Seymour (1974):

“the Greek words metanoia and metanoeo are the primary Greek words in the New Testament for repentance. Metanoia is the noun of metanoeo and means identically the same thing. The basic definition of these two words is ‘to think differently, to change one’s mind, or to reconsider’ something.”[192] 

“since the basic meaning of repentance in the New Testament is to change the mind or reconsider, it should become apparent that what the repentance or the change of mind is about must always be determined by the context.”[193]

“By the time one really understands the gospel and actually does trust Christ, he or she has already had a change of mind. That’s why the entire Gospel of John never mentions the word repentance, and yet it is the one Gospel that deals with salvation more than any other.”[194] 

 

Hal Lindsey (1974):

“Repentance, as it relates to Christ, means to change our minds about Him, who He is and what He’s done to provide forgiveness, and deliverance from our sins.  When we place faith in Jesus as having taken our place personally on the cross and borne the penalty due our sins, then we’re automatically repenting, because we couldn’t accept Him in this way without having had to change our minds in some way concerning Him.”[195]  

George Eldon Ladd (1974):

“‘Repentance’ suggests primarily sorrow for sin; metanoia suggests a change of mind”.[196] 

 

J. Vernon McGee (1975):

From McGee’s Thru the Bible Commentary on Joel 2:12: 

“Repent means primarily to change your mind. You indicate a change of mind by turning around. It is true there may be some shedding of tears along with the repentance, but that is only a by-product of repentance. Repentance really means to change your mind.”[197] 

From McGee’s Thru the Bible Commentary on Matthew 3:1-2: 

“‘Repent’ is an expression that always has been given to God’s people as a challenge to turn around. ‘Repent’ in the original Greek is metanoia, meaning ‘to change your mind.’ You are going in one direction; turn around and go in another direction. Repentance is primarily, I think, for saved people, that is, for God’s people in any age. They are the ones who, when they become cold and indifferent, are to turn. That was the message to the seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelation 2 and 3, and it was the message of the Lord Jesus Himself. Someone may ask whether the unsaved man is supposed to repent. The unsaved man is told that he is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That was the message of Paul to the jailer at Philippi (see Acts 16:31). That old rascal needed to do some repenting; but when an unsaved man believes in Jesus, he is repenting. Faith means to turn to Christ, and when you turn to Christ, you must also turn from something [i.e. from all false confidences and ‘dead works’ as a means to salvation]. If you don’t turn from something, then you aren’t really turning to Christ. So repentance is really a part of believing, but the primary message that should be given to the lost today is that they should believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. We like to see folk come forward in a service to receive Christ or sign a card signifying that they have made that decision, but the important thing is to trust Christ as your Savior, and if you really turn to Him, you turn from something else [i.e. from unbelief].”[198] 

From McGee’s Thru the Bible Commentary on 2 Corinthians 7:10: 

“Here we find God’s definition of repentance—real repentance. Repentance is a change of mind. As far as I can tell, the only repentance God asks of the lost is in the word believe. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ! What happens when one believes? There is a change of mind. There is a turning from something to Someone. Listen to what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: ‘…how ye turned to God from idols…’ (1 Thess. 1:9)—that was a change of mind. How did it come about? They first turned to Christ. When Paul had come to them, he hadn’t preached against idolatry, he had preached Christ to them. And they turned to Christ. But they were idolaters. So when they turned to Christ in faith, what else happened? They turned from the idols, and that turning from idols was repentance. That is the repentance of the unsaved; it is the repentance to salvation. I don’t know if God wants us to emphasize repentance to the unsaved; He does want us to emphasize Christ. When they respond to Christ, there will be a turning from their old unbelief to Christ.”[199] 

From McGee’s Thru the Bible Commentary on Revelation 2:16: 

“[The Lord Jesus says:] ‘Repent.’ In other words, the only cure was repentance (metanoēson, ‘a change of mind’).”[200] 

Millard J. Erickson (1983):

After discussing the New Testament Greek word metamelomai (meaning repent, regret, change of mind), Erickson writes the following in regards to metanoeō:

“The other major New Testament term for repentance is μετανοεω (metanoeō), which literally means ‘to think differently about something or to have a change of mind.’ The word was characteristic of John the Baptist’s preaching: ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near’ (Matt. 3:2). It was also a key term in the preaching of the early church.”[201] 

G. Michael Cocoris (1984, 1989, 2010):

“Repentance is basically a change of mind. Metanoia, the Greek word translated ‘repent,’ is a compound made up of two definite Greek words. The first is meta, ‘after,’ and the second is noēma, ‘mind.’ Thus, the two together mean ‘afterthought,’ or ‘change of mind.’ The word describes an inward change of thinking or attitude.”[202] 

“The word translated ‘repent’ that is used in soteriological passages simply describes an inward change of thinking or attitude. Mantey of Greek grammar fame said, ‘It means to think differently or to have a different attitude toward sin and God, etc.’ (Basic Christian Doctrine, p. 193). Westcott, the famous Greek scholar, said, ‘It follows, therefore, that ‘repentance from dead works’ expresses that complete change of mind—of spiritual attitudes—which leads the believer to abandon these works and seek other support for life’ (The Epistles to The Hebrews, Brooke Foss Westcott, p. 144). Plummer calls repentance a ‘change of mind’ (The Gospel According to St. Luke, Alfred Plummer, p. 86). Actually Geerhardus Vos, the author quoted by MacArthur, agrees on this particular point. He defines the one word translated ‘repent’ [metanoeō] in salvation verses as ‘reversal of the entire mental attitude’ (cf. p. 163 [in the first edition of MacArthur’s book The Gospel According To Jesus]). In my book on evangelism, I summed it up this way, ‘When someone changes his mind, there may be emotions—and there may not be. And when someone changes his mind, a change in the course of his action is expected, but both of these things are results of repentance and not the nature of repentance’ (Evangelism: A Biblical Approach, p. 66). Later in that chapter, I pointed out that Berkhof said, ‘According to Scripture, repentance is wholly an inward act and should not be confounded with a change of life that proceeds from it. Confession of sin and reparation of wrongs are fruits of repentance’ (Systematic Theology, p. 487). Berkhof is right. It is obvious that repentance is not a change in behavior because the Scripture says repent and bear fruit worthy of repentance (cf. Lk. 3:8, Acts 26:20). Therefore, a repentance by definition is not a change of behavior. Repentance is the root, change of behavior is the fruit. (For a more detailed discussion of the subject of repentance, see ‘What is Repentance’ in Evangelism: A Biblical Approach, p. 65-72).”[203] 

“Repentance is a change of mind—period. A change of mind should result in a change of behavior, but the word repent looks at the change of belief, not the change in behavior. Repentance is the root; change in behavior is the fruit.”[204] 

“In the New Testament, the Greek words ‘repent’ and ‘repentance mean, ‘to change one’s mind.’ The object of what people are changing their minds about is determined by the context. The message of repentance is preached to unbelievers and believers.”[205] 

R. T. Kendall (1985):

“As we said earlier, repentance is the translation of the Greek word metanoia, which means ‘change of mind.’...Repentance is a vital ingredient in saving faith....If one asks, which comes first, faith or repentance, it depends how one defines repentance. If one sticks with its biblical meaning—‘change of mind’―then one can only say that they come together. But if one defines repentance, as ‘turning from every known sin’ (as some Puritans were inclined to do), one can see the endless confusion that will emerge if such ‘repentance’ is demanded prior to faith. The result has been doom and gloom, being never quite sure they are saved, owing to a fear they have not repented enough.”[206] 

Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (1985):

“metanoia (μετάνοια): repentance, change of mind; e.g., Luke 15:7. The Protestant scholastics will frequently conjoin metanoia, defined as a change of mind, with metameleia (μεταμέλεια), defined as the feeling of regret or anguish over sin, in their definitions of repentance (resipiscentia, q.v.; ALSO poenitentia) and conversion (conversio activa sive actualis, q.v.).”[207] 

 

Curtis Hutson (1986):

“The problem is not preaching repentance; it is giving a wrong definition to the word. Down through the centuries ‘repent’ has come to mean a far different thing than when it was spoken by John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle John, and Jesus Christ Himself. If you look up ‘repent’ or ‘repentance’ in a modern dictionary, you will find such definitions as ‘to feel sorry or self-reproachful,’ ‘to be conscience-stricken,’ ‘to turn from sin.’”

“Using these definitions, some have preached reformation instead of repentance. If you look up the Greek word translated ‘repent’ in the King James Bible and used by Jesus, Paul, John and others in the New Testament, you will find that the word metanoeo means to think differently or afterwards, that is, to change the mind.”[208]

John MacArthur (1988, 1991):

Although a proponent of Lordship Salvation, John MacArthur actually admits that the New Testament Greek word metanoeō “expresses reversal of the entire mental attitude”! In context, MacArthur is quoting the Calvinist Reformed theologian Geerhardus Vos in an attempt to prove that saving repentance is not simply a change of mind; he says it also includes sorrow for sin and commitment to the Lordship of Christ. MacArthur (quoting Geerhardus Vos) states the following:

“Repentance is not simply a mental activity; genuine repentance involves the intellect, emotions, and will. Geerhardus Vos wrote: ‘Our Lord’s idea of repentance is as profound and comprehensive as his conception of righteousness. Of the three words that are used in the Greek Gospels to describe the process, one emphasizes the emotional element of regret, sorrow over the past evil course of life, metamelomai; Matt. 21:29-32; a second expresses reversal of the entire mental attitude, metanoeō, Matt. 12:41, Luke 11:32; 15:7, 10; the third denotes a change in the direction of life, one goal being substituted for another, epistrephomai [turn, return, be converted]; Matt. 13:15 (and parallels); Luke 17:4; 22:32. Repentance is not limited to any single faculty of the mind: it engages the entire man, intellect, will, and affections.’”[209] 

This statement by MacArthur is very misleading. First of all, the word metamelomai in Matthew 21:32 is used in the sense of a change of mind (not sorrow for sin), and thus the English Standard Version (the ESV) translates it, “you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.”  Furthermore, metamelomai is also used to describe the “regret” of Judas (Matt. 27:3), which is hardly saving repentance! Is MacArthur implying that Judas Iscariot was saved? I think not. Yet MacArthur has no problem lumping “sorrow over the past evil course of life” into his definition of saving repentance. So the example of Judas argues against MacArthur's view of repentance because although Judas had “regret” (metamelomai), it was not true saving repentance! But MacArthur wants metamelomai to mean “sorrow” in regards to saving repentance, so he conveniently overlooks any evidence to the contrary. In fact, in 2 Corinthians 7:10 the apostle Paul speaks of “a repentance WITHOUT REGRET, leading to salvation” (2 Cor. 7:10, NASB). This is saving repentance (metanoia eis sōtērian) without regret (metamelomai). Commenting on 2 Corinthians 7:8-10, William Douglas Chamberlain affirms: “Repentance, metanoia, is not only not regret, metameleia, but it is never regretted, ametamelēton. The failure to distinguish between these words has confused many Christians”.[210] Also notice that the word “sorrow” in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10 is a different Greek word, lupē, not metamelomai. What's more, the “godly sorrow” (kata theon lupē) in 2 Corinthians 7:10 is not equated with repentance, but rather it “works repentance without regret” or “produces repentance without regret”. In other words, the sorrow, lupē, is distinguished from the repentance. Charles Bing is correct to say that “the use of metamelomai to connect soteriological repentance with emotional sorrow for sins has no biblical or lexical foundation. Usually the connection is assumed without an attempt to explain any biblical or lexical relationship.”[211] 

Also misleading is the fact that MacArthur says that conversion (epistrephomai) is part of repentance, when in fact the opposite is true: repentance is part of conversion. (Even J. I. Packer and other proponents of Lordship Salvation affirm this to be true.) If what MacArthur says is true (and conversion is part of repentance), then people would have to be converted to be converted, which makes no sense! Yet MacArthur includes this word (epistrephomai) in his definition of repentance anyway. G. Michael Cocoris is correct to say: “The third word Geerhardus Vos mentioned [epistrephomai]...means ‘to turn or be converted.’ It is obviously different than repentance, because it is used in the same sentence with repentance (cf. Acts 3:19, 11:21 [26:20])....The error of Geerhardus Vos’s evaluation is that he ‘dumps’ the meaning of three words into one meaning. He then makes that meaning the definition of repent every time it occurs.”[212] This is not to say that there is no connection or relationship between repentance and conversion, but rather that each word has its own meaning that should not be confused by labeling both as “repentance”. The Presbyterian theologian J. Glentworth Butler gives the proper understanding when he writes: “The words Convert and Conversion in the Old Version, Gr., epistrepho, carry the simple meaning, Turning about or back, or Returning unto. They plainly express the effect of the metanoia or change of mind, the actual turning back to God.”[213] In other words, conversion is “the effect” or the result of repentance, not repentance itself.

But what is so telling in regards to the error of Lordship Salvation is that both Vos and MacArthur actually admit that the Greek word that is used for saving repentance in the New Testament “expresses reversal of the entire mental attitude, metanoeō, Matt. 12:41, Luke 11:32; 15:7, 10 [cf. Matt. 3:2, 4:17; Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 17:30, 26:20, etc.]”. This is the basic meaning of the word repent when it is used in the context of salvation in the New Testament (a “reversal of the entire mental attitude,” i.e. a complete change of mind), and when this repentance is combined with faith in Christ, it leads to salvation!

Commenting on Romans 2:4, John MacArthur even acknowledges: “Metanoia (repentance) has the basic meaning of changing one’s mind about something.”[214] Notice here that MacArthur is not talking about the classical Greek or pre-Christian meaning of metanoia, but rather he is explaining the meaning of metanoia in the New Testament, and specifically in a salvation context!

Ernest Pickering (1988):

“The word ‘repent’ in the New Testament means ‘to have another mind, to change the mind.’ True repentance is to have a change of mind regarding sin, God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance is not an act separate from saving faith but a part of it. When I believe on the Savior I am repenting of my sins. One cannot ‘believe’ in the New Testament sense of that word without also ‘repenting.’ To ‘believe’ does not mean ‘to be willing to give up all that is displeasing to God.’ It means to accept with all the heart what the Bible says about my sin and about Christ’s sacrifice for me.”[215] 

Roy B. Zuck (1989):

“Repentance is included in believing. Faith and repentance are like two sides of a coin. Genuine faith includes repentance, and genuine repentance includes faith. The Greek word for repentance (metanoia) means to change one's mind. But to change one's mind about what? About sin, about one's adequacy to save himself, about Christ as the only way of salvation, the only One who can make a person righteous.”[216] 

 

Robert Wilkin (1989):

“The pre-Christian meaning of metanoia as a change of mind is its basic NT sense as well....Metanoia is used in the NT in a number of different ways, all of which have the idea of a change of mind at the root. In a few contexts it is used via metonymy as a synonym for eternal salvation. When it is used in contexts dealing with temporal salvation from life’s difficulties, a change of mind about one’s sinful ways (i.e., repentance) is given as the condition. However, when used in contexts dealing with eternal salvation from hell, a change of mind about oneself and Christ (or, in one passage, regarding idols and God) is given as the condition. In such contexts metanoia is used as a synonym for faith.”[217]

Wilkin concludes by saying that “in the NT it [metanoia] retains its pre-Christian meaning of a change of mind. The English reader thus generally needs to read ‘change of mind’—not turn from sins—when he sees the word ‘repent’ in the NT. The context must be consulted to determine the object of a person’s change of mind.”[218]

 

Robert P. Lightner (1991):

“The word repentance means a change of mind….many make repentance a separate and additional condition for salvation. This is not true in the Word. There is no question about it: repentance is necessary for salvation. However, Scripture views repentance as included in believing and not as an additional and separate condition to faith. All who have trusted Christ as Savior have changed their minds regarding Him and their sin.”[219] 

“Repentance in Scripture has to do with a change of mind. Evangelicals [largely] agree no one can be saved who does not change his mind about himself and his need, his sin which separates him from God, and about Christ as the only Savior.”[220] 

“But someone may say, ‘What about repentance? Must not man repent of his sin to be born again?’ In the Bible the word ‘repent’ means to change the mind. It involves an about-face. No one believes in Christ alone as Saviour without repenting, for he has changed his mind from self-sufficiency to faith in Christ. And all who truly repent, who truly change their minds about themselves and the Saviour, do believe in Him alone for salvation. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same truth (Acts 20:21).”[221] 

 

Charles Bing (1991, 1997, 2010, 2015):

“The English word ‘repent’ is used to translate the Greek word metanoeō....The basic meaning of the Greek word metanoeō is ‘to change the mind.’...Thus it is concluded that the word metanoeō denotes basically a change of mind.”[222] 

“It is unfortunate that [the Greek word] metanoeō is translated ‘repent’ in the English Bible, for the English etymology denotes more the idea of penitence as sorrow, or worse, the [Roman] Catholic doctrine of penance, than it does the more accurate ‘change of mind.’”[223] 

“From the etymology as well as biblical evidence, it seems that repentance of any kind refers to an inner attitude. Most basically, it is a ‘change of mind,’ but as has been seen, ‘mind’ denotes the heart and soul of man along with the intellect and will. It is a careless error to make the outward fruit of repentance the same as inner repentance itself. The fruit must be distinguished from the root, the cause from the effect.”[224] 

“...it is also accurate to translate the word repentance as a change of heart.”[225] 

“Many or most Free Grace people believe that repentance means a change of heart or mind. Believing in Jesus Christ as Savior implies a change of heart or mind about something (e.g., one’s need, who Christ is, what Christ did, what Christ promised).”[226] 

Joseph Dillow (1992):

“Most would agree that the basic meaning of metanoeo is simply to ‘change the mind.’”[227] 

Dillow goes on to say, “if we understand repentance in its basic sense as ‘a change of mind’ or ‘change of perspective,’ then it is easy to see why the word was not included in John’s gospel. Anytime a man believes, a certain change of mind is involved. In fact, the change of mind demanded in the New Testament is to trust in Christ instead of institutional Judaism [or false gods]. That is why repentance can be used by itself, and when it is, it is virtually a synonym for faith.”[228] 

Norman Geisler (1995, 2004):

“Throughout the Bible it is faith and faith alone that is commanded as a condition for receiving God’s gift of salvation.” There is a footnote after the words “faith alone” (footnote 61) in which Geisler writes: “Repentance is sometimes mentioned (cf. Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30) but the two are one: there is no true faith without repentance (a change of mind) and there is no true repentance without faith (1 Thess. 1:8-9).”[229] 

“God desires that all unsaved people will change their mind (i.e., repent), for ‘he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance’ (2 Peter 3:9).”[230] 

“The root meaning of to repent (Gk: metanoeo) is ‘to think differently’ or ‘to reconsider.’ Virtually all the Greek lexicons agree that to metanoeo is ‘to reconsider’ or ‘to change one’s mind.’”[231] 

J. Hampton Keathley III (1996):

“Since our English word [repentance] is a translation of the Greek of the New Testament, we need to look at the original language. ‘There are two New Testament Greek words which are translated repentance in the modern English translations: metanoia (and its verbal counterpart metanoeo) and metamelomai. The former term is so translated fifty-eight times in the New Testament; the latter only six times.’ [Bob Wilkin, “Repentance and Salvation,” Part 3, The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Vol. 2, No. 2, Autumn 89, p. 13.] This study will be concerned primarily with metanoia.”

“Metamelomai means ‘to regret, change the mind’ and may connote the idea of sorrow, but not necessarily. It is translated by ‘regret, change the mind, and feel remorse’ in the NASB and NIV, and in all but one of the passages where it is used, the primary idea is a change of mind (cf. Matt. 21:29, 32; 27:3; 2 Cor. 7:8; Heb. 7:21).”

“Metanoia, the primary word, without question, means ‘a change of mind.’ It refers to the thinking of people who thought one thing or made one decision and then, based on further evidence or input, changed their minds. So, the basic sense is ‘a change of mind.’ This is its meaning and use outside the New Testament and in the New Testament. It is a change of mind that leads to a different course of action, but that course of action must be determined by the context. In a context that deals with forgiveness of sin or receiving eternal life as a gift from God, the course of action is a change of trust because one now sees Jesus as the only means of salvation from sin. Ryrie writes: ‘Sorrow may well be involved in a repentance, but the biblical meaning of repentance is to change one’s mind, not to be sorry. And yet that change of mind must not be superficial, but genuine. The presence or absence of sorrow does not necessarily prove or disprove the genuineness of the repentance.’ [Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Victor Books, Wheaton, 1989), p. 92.] That sorrow does not necessarily prove or disprove the genuineness of repentance is clear from 2 Corinthians 7:9-10. Sorrow may lead to a genuine change of mind, or as in the case of Judas, it may not. The point being that sorrow and repentance are not the same thing. But again, the nature of the change and what is changed must be determined by the context.”[232]

 

R. Larry Moyer (1997):

“From the above study of the concept of repentance in the Old and New Testaments….Repentance clearly means to change the mind….When used in a soteriological context, ‘repentance’ means to change your mind about whatever is keeping you from trusting Christ and trust Him alone to save you.”[233] 

 

The Theological Wordbook (2000):

“The primary New Testament word for repentance is metanoia, ‘to change one’s mind.’ The context determines the purpose for the change. One other word, metamelomai, ‘to regret, to be sorry’ (2 Cor. 7:8-10), adds little to the understanding of the doctrine of repentance. As stated above, the early occurrences of the term repentance pertained to the approaching kingdom (Matt. 3:2) and the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:3). ‘Forgiveness’ and ‘kingdom’ were well-known subjects to the Israelites, but with the coming of Christ some distinctions became apparent and the people needed to change their thinking about these issues.”

“The King James Version translates two Old Testament words by the word ‘repentance.’ Nāham, ‘to regret, to be sorry, to be comforted,’ reflects the emotions involved in change. Normally this Hebrew word was used when the Scriptures described God’s attitude about change (Exod. 32:14; Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:11). In each of these verses the New International Version translators selected different English words to express the meaning of the word. The primary Hebrew word that describes change, and which is translated ‘repentance’ in some instances, is, ‘to turn, return,’ used well over a thousand times. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) usually translated sub [shub] by the Greek word epistrephō, ‘to turn about.’ This means that the Greek term metanoia, normally rendered ‘repentance,’ was not identical with either of the two Hebrew words. Thus the use of metanoia in the New Testament signaled an emphasis not integral to the Hebrew words. In addition, the English word repentance derives from the Latin and does not express the exact meaning of metanoia. With the presence of Christ in the world people needed to understand who He was and why He had come and this demanded a change in their thinking. So the word metanoia accurately expresses how Israel was to respond to Christ and His message.”

“Jesus spoke about repentance in relation to several subjects: the kingdom (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15); judgment (Matt. 11:20-21; 12:41; Luke 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5); faith (Mark 1:15); forgiveness of sins by unbelievers (Luke 5:32; 24:47); and forgiveness of believers’ sins (17:3-4). The context of each of these verses shows why a change was necessary. In some cases the context mentions the consequences for those who do not repent (Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10). Repentance and faith are closely related concepts, as seen in Acts 20:21.  From the teachings of Christ in the above passages, in the Gospels, it appears that when the term repentance was used in relation to salvation it was almost an interchangeable synonym for faith, rather than an action distinct from faith.”

“In their preaching of the gospel the apostles often mentioned repentance (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). Peter related human repentance to God’s forgiveness of sins (2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22). In Paul’s defense before King Agrippa he declared that the message God gave him to preach included ‘repentance’ and ‘turning to God’ (implying faith in God). He also stated that the way believers lived should give evidence of their repentance (26:20).”

“...faith and repentance are not separate steps in the salvation process. Whereas repentance was used in the Gospels to represent the conversion experience, the term faith served that same function in the Book of Acts. In Acts 20:21 repentance and faith are used in such a way in the Greek that they are seen together like two sides of a coin.”[234] 

 

Ron Rhodes (2006):

“Is Repentance a Condition for Salvation? To be sure, a child of God is repentant, but the term must be carefully defined. The biblical word translated repent literally means ‘a change of mind toward something or someone.’”

“Repentance as it relates to Jesus Christ, for example, means to change our mind about Him—who He is and what He’s done to provide forgiveness and deliverance from our sins. Repentance in this sense refers to changing our mind about the particular sin of rejecting Christ.”

“In the book of Acts, Peter preaches to Jews who had rejected Jesus as the Messiah. So when he admonishes them to repent and believe in Jesus (Acts 2:38; 3:19), they were actually being admonished to change their minds about Jesus and believe in Him as the Messiah/Savior so their sins could be forgiven.”[235] 

 

Charles Stanley (2008):

“What does repentance mean for the unbeliever? Repentance for those outside Christ means a change of mind. The unbeliever is to change his mind about what he believes concerning Jesus Christ. He moves from unbelief to belief that Jesus Christ paid the penalty for his sin. An unsaved person admits that she cannot save herself. She trusts Christ instead of her goodness for eternal life. She changes her mind about God and His payment for our sin. It is important to understand repentance for the unbeliever is not referring to cleaning up his life. If he can earn forgiveness of sin and a home in heaven by changing his life through self-effort, there is no need for the cross.”

“Peter proclaimed the need for repentance: ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’ (Acts 2:38). Peter was compelling them to believe that Jesus was more than a man from Nazareth. He was [and is] the resurrected Lord and Christ. He was [and is] the Messiah they had longed for. They needed to change their minds from believing that Jesus was just a man to accepting His deity. Peter said the evidence pointing to His deity was miracles, wonders, and signs, but most of all, God raised Him from the dead. He challenged them to think of Jesus as more than a local person who was a good teacher. Peter was instructing the Jewish people to change their beliefs about Jesus (Acts 2:22-36).”

“Repentance and belief are so intertwined that they are almost synonymous. You cannot have one without the other. They are two sides of the same coin. Jesus used repentance as synonymous with belief when He said, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem’ (Luke 24:46-47). Someone may say, ‘But doesn’t Acts 20:21 teach that repentance and belief are not the same?’ The verse states, ‘I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus’ (NIV). I like the way Charles Ryrie explains this passage: ‘Summarizing his ministry in Ephesus, Paul said he testified to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. Does this not show that faith and repentance are not synonymous? Or at least that repentance is a precondition to faith? No, because the two words, repentance and faith, are joined by one article which indicates that the two are inseparable, though each focuses on a facet of the single requirement for salvation. Repentance focuses on changing one’s mind about his former conception of God and disbelief in God and Christ; while faith in Christ, of course, focuses on receiving Him as personal Savior.’ After you receive Christ, you will continue to repent as you grow in Christian faith and character. This repentance is a change of mind that leads to change of behavior.”[236] 

James A. Scudder (2009):

“Repent is ‘metanoeo’ in the Greek and it means to ‘think differently, or reconsider.’ If you don’t ‘think differently’ about salvation, that is, the means of salvation, then you won’t be saved. Before salvation, every person thinks they have to work their way to Heaven. All religions in the world have good works that [claim to] get people to Heaven. Only Christianity says salvation is not by works, but it is a gift.”[237] 

“Dr. Charles Ryrie says, ‘In both the Old and New Testaments, the word ‘repentance’ means to change your mind.’ Josephus, the great Roman historian, used the word the same way as the Bible uses it. In his writings, he said, ‘Herod thought the best course was to arrest John the Baptist rather than wait until a revolt broke out and they then had to repent [metanoein] of such trouble.’ [See Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5, section 2, where the context clearly indicates that metanoein means ‘to change his mind’.] This word ‘repent’ was used in the same way the Bible uses the word. Would it make sense to read the above statement if repent meant to turn from sin or feel sorry for sin? It makes perfect sense when you say it means to ‘change your mind.’”[238] 

“The word ‘repentance’ is not the best translation [of metanoia]. A better translation would have been ‘to change your mind.’”[239] 

 

Anthony Bottoms (2019):

Sir Anthony Bottoms of Cambridge University writes:

“A characterization of repentance as ‘turning around’ is certainly not the only interpretation available within the Christian tradition; but, equally, it is not an eccentric understanding within the tradition. To illustrate this point, consider the Greek words metanoeō (a verb) and metanoia (a noun), which in English versions of the New Testament are usually translated ‘to repent’ and ‘repentance’. There is a consensus in modern scholarship that the core meaning of metanoia is simply ‘a change of mind or purpose’. To take a prominent example of how the word is used, in the Gospel of Mark the first words attributed to Jesus at the beginning of his ministry are: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent [metanoeite], and believe the good news’. As the context suggests, the main action for which this statement calls is a change of mind or purpose in response to the radically new situation described.”[240] 

 

Chuck Swindoll (2020):

“The essence of genuine repentance is that the mind does a turnaround. The Greek word is metanoia, meaning, literally, ‘to change one’s mind.’”[241] 

 APPENDIX 1:

MOUNCE’S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY ON “REPENT, REPENTANCE”

“The word repentance as it is used in both the Old and New Testaments primarily means ‘a change of mind.’ In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the word is metanoesen, meaning ‘to change your mind.’” —J. Vernon McGee [242]

* * *

In Mounce’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Bill Mounce affirms that “the verb metanoeō…is mostly used in the LXX to mean ‘to change one’s mind’ (e.g., Prov. 20:25; Jer. 4:28; the noun is only used once, in Prov. 14:15).”[243] But Mounce’s theological bias is evident in that he changes the meaning of the word “repent” (metanoeō) in the New Testament from how it is used in the LXX. (This supposed change in meaning is not the result of any change in the language, because Mounce admits it is the same Koine Greek, or “biblical Greek,” that is used in both the Septuagint and in the New Testament.[244]) Concerning the meaning of metanoeō in the New Testament, notice how Mounce changes the meaning of the word to something other than “a change of mind”. Mounce writes: “the use of the verb metanoeō in the NT differs from that in the OT [Septuagint], where the word is mostly used in the LXX to mean ‘to change one’s mind’ (e.g., Prov. 20:25; Jer. 4:28; the noun is only used once, in Prov. 14:15).”[245] 

I don’t disagree with Mounce’s Greek, I disagree with his conclusions. Mounce is a Calvinist, and he takes the typical Lordship Salvation view of repentance (i.e. turning from sinful behavior and cleaning up one’s lifestyle). Mounce’s theological presuppositions sometimes lead to inaccurate conclusions, such as when he concludes that the meaning of metanoeō “differs” in the New Testament from how the word is used in the Septuagint (to mean “to change one’s mind”). In contrast to Mounce, the biblical Greek scholar J. H. Moulton concludes that in the New Testament, “metanoeō...indicates ‘change of mind’ beyond question.”[246] Furthermore, if we are to accept Mounce’s definition of the word “repent” (metanoeō) in the New Testament as meaning something different than “to change one’s mind,” then it would necessarily follow that almost the whole history of Protestantism has had an incorrect understanding of repentance (!), because the ancients, the lexicons, and even proponents of Lordship Salvation affirm that the word metanoeō is used in the New Testament (as it is used in the LXX) to signify a change of mind! This is the clear meaning of New Testament repentance (metanoia) in light of the biblical evidence. Martin Luther affirms this when he says: “I learned that…repentance or metanoia is ‘a change of mind.’ This corresponded so aptly with the Pauline Theology, that, in my judgment, scarcely anything can more aptly illustrate Paul.”[247] The truth is, throughout the history of the church (certainly since Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation) the Protestants, in distinction to the Roman Catholics, have understood New Testament repentance (metanoia) as basically “a change of mind”. The traditional Free Grace view (the historic Protestant view) is set forth by Robert Wilkin when he says: “The pre-Christian meaning of metanoia as a change of mind is its basic NT sense as well.”[248] Wilkin goes on to emphasize that “in the NT it [metanoia] retains its pre-Christian meaning of a change of mind….The context must be consulted to determine the object of a person’s change of mind.”[249] 

 

APPENDIX 2:

LOUW & NIDA’S LEXICON ON METANOEŌ AND METANOIA

Wayne Grudem cites Louw and Nida’s lexicon as disagreeing with the traditional Free Grace “change of mind” view of repentance.[250] But Grudem leaves out some important information. It will be helpful to take a closer look. In the Louw and Nida lexicon, the words metanoeō and metanoia are classified in Semantic Domain 41.50 – 41.54, under the heading “Change Behavior”. The entry for metanoeō and metanoia says: “to change one’s way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness—‘to repent, to change one’s way, repentance.’”[251] The same lexical entry goes on to say, “the emphasis in metanoeō 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. Whether the focus is upon attitude or behavior varies somewhat in different contexts. Compare, for example, Lk 3.8, He 6.1, and Ac 26.20.”[252] But in a footnote even the Louw and Nida lexicon admits: “it would be possible to classify metanoeō and metanoia in Domain 30, Think”.[253] This admission by Louw and Nida is revealing in that it appears to be at odds with the definition they assign to metanoeō and metanoia, which clearly emphasizes a change of behavior. The fact that Louw and Nida chose not to classify metanoeō and metanoia in “Domain 30, Think” in spite of their admission that “it would be possible” to do so, clearly shows a theological bias on the part of the lexicographers. Charles Bing affirms that “[in] the original language…repentance was an inner change. Any addition of outward conduct was imported by theological bias.”[254] Another example of theological bias in the Louw and Nida lexicon is that it lists the words noeō (think), katanoeō (think, consider), and dianoia (way of thinking, disposition, manner of thought, attitude) in Semantic Domain 30, “Think” (see vol. 1, pp. 349-350), while metanoeō and metanoia are listed in Semantic Domain 42, “Change Behavior” (see vol. 1, p. 510)! Why the discrepancy? According to the New Testament evidence, it would be more accurate to say that repentance results in a change of behavior, rather than to say that repentance includes a change of behavior (see Matt. 3:8; Lk. 3:8; Acts 26:20). Louw and Nida’s lexicon is confusing the fruit of repentance (a change of behavior) with repentance itself (a change of mind). A third example of theological bias related to Louw and Nida’s definition of metanoeō and metanoia is seen in their definition of the related word ametanoētos (meaning “unrepentant”). The apostle Paul uses this word in Romans 2:5 when he says, “but because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart (ametanoēton kardian) you are storing up wrath for yourselves on the day of wrath and righteous judgment of God”. In Romans 2:5 the apostle Paul clearly makes repentance a “heart” issue. But Louw and Nida need to make repentance mean more than this. According to their definition, repentance (or the lack of it) also entails a person’s “behavior, with respect to how one should…act.”[255] Thus, in regards to the word “unrepentant” in Romans 2:5, Louw and Nida attempt to redefine it as being something more than a “heart” issue. Notice what they say: “‘but you have a hard and unrepentant heart’ Ro 2.5. In a number of languages it is difficult to speak of ‘a hard and unrepentant heart.’ A more satisfactory equivalent of this expression in Ro. 2.5 may be ‘but you are stubborn and refuse to repent’ or ‘…refuse to turn to God.’”[256] Amazingly, Louw and Nida’s lexicon eliminates the word “heart” from their definition of the word “unrepentant”! Thus they can more easily focus on outward actions instead of on a change of heart. Several things can be said in conclusion. It needs to be emphasized that language tools such as Louw & Nida’s lexicon are helpful, but they are not inspired. Nor are they without bias. As one clergyman has correctly pointed out in regards to the popular lexicons of the NT, “In examining these and other writers of the same class, you will need to distinguish between what they say as Lexicographers, and what they often absurdly blend with it as Divines.”[257] 

In regards to the “Semantic Domain” of metanoeō and metanoia in the New Testament (and especially in light of Louw and Nida’s admission that “it would be possible to classify metanoeō and metanoia in Domain 30, Think”), G. Michael Cocoris well summarizes the New Testament evidence for understanding repentance to mean “a change of mind”. Cocoris writes: “As can be demonstrated, in the New Testament the words ‘repent’ and ‘repentance’ mean ‘a change of mind.’ Many passages contain indications in the context that repentance is a change of mind. These include Matthew 3:2 (cf. ‘do not think’ in verse 9 and ‘fruit worthy of repentance’ in verse 8)…Acts 8:22 (cf. ‘thought’ in verse 20, ‘heart’ in verse 21 and ‘the thought of your heart’ in verse 22), Acts 17:30 (cf. ‘not think’ in verse 29 and ‘ignorance’ in verse 30), Acts 26:20 (cf. ‘repent’ verses ‘do works befitting repentance’), 2 Tim. 2:25 (cf. ‘know’ in verse 25 and ‘come to their senses’ in verse 26), Revelation 2:25 (cf. ‘repent’ between ‘remember’ and ‘do’).”[258] More examples could be cited from the New Testament which clearly describe repentance as an inward change of mind or heart, viz. “But what do you think?” (Matt. 21:28, cf. “believe” in v. 32); “Think ye…?” (Lk. 13:2, cf. “repent” in vv. 4, 5); “Or do you suppose…?” (Lk. 13:4, cf. “repent” in vv. 4, 5); “Finally he came to his senses” (Lk. 15:17, cf. “repent” and “repentance” in the preceding context). This is a brief survey of the “semantic domain” of New Testament repentance (metanoia), and it clearly signifies an internal change of mind. This “change of mind” is properly distinguished from a change of behavior. After reviewing every use of the words “repent” and “repentance” in the New Testament, B. H. Carroll similarly concludes: “Therefore, we may say that metanoeo always means ‘to think back, to change the mind,’ while the noun, metanoia, always means afterthought, as opposed to forethought, change of mind. We may, therefore, give as the one invariable definition of New Testament repentance that it is a change of mind, from which it is evident that its domain is limited. It is necessarily internal, not external.”[259] Louis Berkhof likewise affirms: “According to Scripture repentance is wholly an inward act, and should not be confounded with the change of life that proceeds from it. Confession of sin and reparation of wrongs are fruits of repentance.”[260] 

Thus it becomes evident that the Louw and Nida lexicon has confounded and comingled biblical repentance (a change of mind) with the fruit of repentance (a change of behavior), and has “imported by theological bias” this additional meaning into the words metanoeō and metanoia, when in fact their true meaning according to Scripture is “wholly...inward” and “necessarily internal, not external.” 

APPENDIX 3:

CAN THE GREEK PREPOSITION META ACTUALLY MEAN “CHANGE”?

“I am not convinced that meta can actually mean ‘change.’” —William D. Mounce [261] 

“Lactantius of old in the Seventh Book and First Chapter of his Institutions, said that they will not believe our Doctrine (Nec si Solem quidem ipsum gestemus in manibus), No not though we carry before them even the Sun itself in our hands; that is, though we bring them the clearest evidence imaginable....” —William Lorimer [262] 

* * *

Bruce Metzger, the famous New Testament scholar from Princeton Theological Seminary, says in his book Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek that the Greek preposition meta when used in composition with verbs, can indeed signify “Change, alteration”.[263] Metzger gives the following example: “metanoeō, I change my mind or purpose, repent”.[264] 

Metzger is not alone in his understanding of the Greek preposition meta having as one of “its principle meanings when in composition with verbs,” the meaning: “Change, alteration”.[265] The signification of meta as “change” rests on a solid foundation of New Testament scholarship. For example, in order to provide some historical perspective, I quote the following statements from a letter to the Editor of the Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (1834), under the heading: “CATHOLIC TESTAMENT. EXTRACTS. REFUTATIONS. NUMBER 1”:

“Mr. EDITOR—Having accidentally met with the Rhemish Testament, I take the liberty to make some extracts from the same, and beg the privilege to present them, together with a few remarks, through the column of your widely circulated paper. I begin with the translation of, and the annotations upon the Greek word metanoia, translated by them, ‘do penance.’ 1. Matt. xi: 21, ‘They would have done penance in hair-cloth and ashes.’ Note [in the Rhemish Testament]: ‘By hair-cloth and ashes, added here and in other places, we see evidently that penance is not only the leaving of former sins, and change or amendment of the past: no, nor bare sorrowfulness or recounting of our offences already committed; but requireth the punishment and chastisement of our persons, by these and such other means as the scripture does elsewhere set forth.’ 2. In Matt. iii: 2, ‘And saying do penance.’ The annotation [in the Rhemish Testament] declares the Greek METANOIA means not only sorrow for offence, but PAINFUL SATISFACTION.”

“The Greek language is celebrated for the fewness of its primitives, like the modern German. Hence the necessity arose of compounding primitives, in order to express the different shades of meaning. The Greek metanoia is compounded of the preposition meta, and the noun nous. By the authority of Schrevellius, meta, in compositive words, signifies sometimes ‘abundance,’ but more frequently CHANGE. Grove says, META in composition signifies CHANGE, as metanoia, a change of mind. Dr. Donnegan says, meta in composition marks CHANGE, or combination. The word metanoia occurs in Zenophon’s Cyropedia, Book I., and is thus commented on by the learned Leunclavius, Stephanus, Æaidius Portus, and Muretus: “Metanoein properly signifies—‘to change one’s opinion, or to think otherwise than before.’” The well known Port Royal Greek Grammar, says, ‘there is one preposition which changes or diminishes, viz. meta as metabouleuein, to [change design or counsel], and metanoein, to repent, (i.e. to change one’s opinion.)’ The Greek Grammar of Valpy, (enlarged by Charles Anthon, of Columbia College, New York city) says, ‘meta in composition denotes change: as metatithemi, to transpose, and metadokein, to change one’s opinion.’ Jacob Gretzer, one of the society of Jesuits, in his Grammatical Exercises on St. John’s Gospel, p. 165, has metaballo, signifying a change, compounded of meta and ballo, and also, p. 139, he quotes pronoia, compounded of pro, (before), preposition, and noos, the mind—having the signification of ‘forethought’—also, eunoia, of eu, well, and noos, the mind. Hence, benevolence, together with many others showing the meaning of noos—the mind, is changed, by the preposition with which it may be compounded; but, probably, taking care as a Jesuit, not to quote metanoia, because it would not agree with his former rule, to translate it in [the] meaning of penance. This plainly unmasks their absurd sophistry, in their willingness to translate metanoia in its proper signification in all places, except where, as in the Bible, it interferes with the principles laid down by their church—such as penance or painful satisfaction, by means of which, they enrich themselves, and impoverish their proselytes, who regard the Jesuits with a certain superstitious dread, their dogma as the infallible decrees of Heaven, and the Pope as the sole master of the universe.”[266] 

There is a general consensus among New Testament scholars that the Greek preposition meta can in fact mean “change”. At the risk of sounding redundant, I cite the following additional statements for those who may still be unconvinced:

SCHREVELIUS says that “in composition” the word meta means: “with, after, beyond, among, over; sometimes pleonastic; oftener expressing change, alteration, transferring, removing: as metaginōskein, to change one’s opinion….”[267] 

PARKHURST writes the following in regards to the Greek word meta, and under the heading “In Composition”: “3. It denotes change of place or condition”.[268] Furthermore, concerning the word metanoeō, Parkhurst writes: “Metanoeō, from meta after, or denoting a change of condition, and noeō to think.”[269] 

J. H. BASS writes the following concerning the Greek word meta: “In composition it denotes connection or agreement—after—change.”[270] 

H. P. V. NUNN writes: “meta is found in the word ‘metaphysics’ that science which is above or beyond the science of physics. It is also found in the words ‘metaphor,’ ‘metamorphosis,’ but there it has the sense of change, of transference from one state to another, which it commonly has when compounded with a verb etc. in Greek.”[271] A few pages later in his book, Nunn similarly states: “meta in composition generally has the sense of change or alteration. metabainō I pass from one place to another, I remove, I depart. metanoeō I change my mind, I repent.”[272] 

HERBERT WEIR SMYTH says that meta in composition can denote “change and reversal”. Smyth writes: “meta…[In] Composition.—Among (metadidōmi give a share), after, in quest of (metapempomai send for); change and reversal (metagraphō rewrite, metamelō repent i.e. care for something else).”[273] 

J. H. MOULTON writes the following concerning the Greek preposition “Meta”: “The common sense of change is assigned by Brugmann-Thumb Gr. 509….Meta forms 21 verb compounds in NT. Of these 16 have the idea of change, answering often to Latin compounds with trans-, which supports the explanation of this force of meta given above from Brugmann. I include metamelomai here, though Grimm finds the sense of ‘afterthought’: there seems no reason for placing it and metanoeō in different classes, and the latter indicates ‘change of mind’ beyond question.”[274] 

A. T. ROBERTSON also affirms that the idea of “change” is signified by the Greek preposition meta. In his book The Minister and His Greek New Testament, A. T. Robertson writes: “The doctrine of repentance is set forth by meta. The word literally means ‘midst.’ We see this idea in Luke 12:29: ‘Neither be of doubtful mind,’ where ‘being in mid-air,’ tossed about in the air like a balloon, is the conception….In repentance the notion of ‘midst’ has passed to that of ‘after’ possibly by ‘passing through the midst’ of an experience and then looking back on it. It is thus the ‘change’ due to reflection. Certainly the word for repentance is more than a mere ‘after-thought.’ It is a ‘change of mind’ that leads to and is shown by a change of life, ‘fruits worthy of repentance’ (Luke 3:8). We see the notion of change in the Transfiguration (Metamorphosis) of Jesus (Mark 9:2). It is the word employed by Paul in Rom. 12:2 for non-conformity to the fashion of the world.”[275] Other New Testament examples could be cited where A. T. Robertson affirms that meta means “change”. Commenting on Acts 20:17 and the Greek word metekalesato (from metakaleō), translated “called to him” (RV, ASV, NASB, etc.), Robertson writes: “Called to him (μετεκαλεσατο). Aorist middle (indirect) indicative of μετακαλεω, old verb to call from one place to another (μετα for ‘change’), middle to call to oneself, only in Acts in the N.T. (Acts 7:14; Acts 10:32; Acts 20:17; Acts 24:25).”[276] 

DANA-MANTEY write the following in regards to the Greek preposition “Meta”: “In composition….It is frequently used to express the idea of change or difference; as metanoeō, think differently; metamorphousthe, transform yourselves; metatithēmi, translate.”[277]  

WILLIAM DOUGLAS CHAMBERLAIN also affirms that the Greek preposition meta can signify change. In his Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Chamberlain writes: “meta….There are twenty-one verb compounds [with meta] in the New Testament. a. The idea of change, the Latin, ‘trans,’ is expressed by sixteen compounds: metanoeō (Mt. 3:2), ‘I change my mind….’”[278] 

WILLIAM SANFORD LaSOR writes the following in regards to the Greek compound verb with the preposition meta. Commenting on Acts 3:19 and the Greek word metanoēsate (“repent”), LaSor affirms: “metanoēsate…(1) Compound with meta-, suggesting substitution, change, association, hence ‘change of thought/mind.’”[279] 

DAVID ALAN BLACK, commenting on Greek “proper prepositions—‘proper’ in that they may be used both independently and in composition with verbs”[280], writes the following concerning the Greek preposition meta: “meta = with (metechō); often denotes change (metanoeō)”.[281] 

APPENDIX 4:
LUTHER ON METANOIA

A Newly Translated Extract of Luther

From Ruard Tapper’s “Responsio Ad Argumenta Lutheri” (in Latin):

“Lutherus. Metanoia, inquit, quam vetus interpres reddit poenitentiam, dicitur resipiscentia sive transmentatio: quemadmodum etiam annotate Erasmus circa 3. cap. euangelii secundum Matth. Metanoeitae, hoc est transmentamini, id est, mente & sensum alium induite, resipiscite transitum mentis & phase spiritus facite, ut scilicet nunc caelestia sapiatis, qui hucusque terrena sapuistis. Et Lactantius lib. 6. Institutionum docet, quod poenitentia graece dicitur Metanoia, hoc est resipiscentia. Non ergo in usu Scripturae sacrae poenitentia dolor dicitur, sed mutatio mentis & consilii, ac poenitere est sapere post erratum, animumque ad recte vivendum instituere.” 

From Ruard Tapper’s “Response to Luther’s Arguments” (English translation):

“From Luther. ‘Metanoia, which the old interpreter [i.e. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate] expresses as poenitentiam [repentance], it is called resipiscentia [‘a coming to one’s senses’] or transmentatio [‘a change of mind’]: just as also Erasmus notes concerning chapter 3 of the gospel according to Matthew. Metanoeite, it is transmentamini [in Latin], that is, assume a different mind and perception, recover your senses, make a transition of mind and a Passover of spirit, so as to now be wise in heavenly things, instead of thus far you have been wise in earthly things [cf. Jn. 3:12-17]. Also Lactantius [in] book 6 of his Institutes informs, that poenitentia [repentance] in Greek is called Metanoia, that is resipiscentia. By no means therefore from use in sacred Scripture is repentance called sorrow, but a change of mind and [of one’s own] judgment, and to repent is to be wise after an error, and to install a mind for right living.’”[282]

A LINE-BY-LINE TRANSLATION WITH NOTES 

Metanoia, inquit, quam vetus interpres reddit poenitentiam,

Metanoia, which the old interpreter [i.e. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate] expresses as repentance,

NOTES:

Metanoia: This is the Greek word in the New Testament that is commonly translated “repentance,” although more literally it means a change of mind.

inquit: he/it says,

quam: how, how much, than, which, as, and

vetus: old, former, previous, ancient, long-standing

interpres: translator, interpreter

reddit: renders, expresses

poenitentiam: repentance

 

dicitur resipiscentia sive transmentatio: quemadmodum etiam annotate Erasmus circa 3. cap. evangelii secundum Matth.

it is called resipiscentia or transmentatio: just as also Erasmus notes concerning chapter 3 of the gospel according to Matthew.

NOTES:

resipiscentia: “from resipisco, a translation of [the Greek word] μετάνοια, a change of mind, reformation, repentance, Lactantius 6, 24, 6.” (A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin dictionary. Revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879. See the entry for “resipiscentia”.) The Lexico online dictionary gives this helpful information on the Latin word resipiscentia: “post-classical Latin resipiscentia repentance from classical Latin resipīscent-, resipīscēns, present participle of resipīscere to regain consciousness, to become sane again, to recover one's reason, to come to one's senses again, to see reason”. Compare the following translation of Lactantius: “For he who repents of that which he has done, understands his former error; and on this account the Greeks better and more significantly speak of metanoia, which we may speak of in Latin as a return to a right understanding [resipiscentiam].” (The Works of Lactantius, translated by William Fletcher [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1871], 2 Vols., Vol. 1, p. 416.)

sive: or

transmentatio: Under the heading “Transmentatio” in his lexicon, Goclenius writes: “Mutatio mentis, metanoia”. (Rodolphi Goclenii [Rudolph Goclenius], Lexicon Philosophicum Graecum [1615], p. 340.) The statement by Goclenius can be translated: “Change of mind, metanoia”. Note: The Latin word mentis (genitive of mens) signifies: the mind, disposition; the heart, soul, understanding, intellect, reason, judgment, thought, etc. See the entry for the word “mens” in A Latin Dictionary, founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin dictionary. Revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879.

quemadmodum: how, as, just as, in what way, as for instance

etiam: and, and also, also, indeed, even, even so, yes, likewise

annotate: notes, comments, remarks, writes, “to put a note to something, to write down something, to note down, remark, comment on”. (A Latin Dictionary, Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879.)

circa: about, around, near, concerning, regarding

evangelii: (genitive singular of evangelium), evangelii can be translated “of the gospel”

secundum: according to

 

Metanoeitae, hoc est transmentamini, id est, mente & sensum alium induite, resipiscite,

Metanoeite, it is transmentamini [in Latin], that is, put on a different mind & perception, recover your senses,

NOTES:

In the book Elements of Religion, Henry E. Jacobs translates Luther’s statement as follows: “…the Greek word, metanoeite, which can be translated most literally by transmentamini, i.e., ‘assume another mind and disposition,’ ‘make a change of mind and a Passover of spirit,’ so as to be wise now in heavenly, as you formerly were in earthly things, as Paul says, Rom. 12:2: ‘Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.’” (Jacobs, Elements of Religion [Philadelphia: The Board of Publication of the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America, 1913], pp. 281-282.)

hoc est: that is

id est: it is, that is, that is (to say), that means, which means, namely

mente: mind

sensum: sense, perception, thought, opinion, view, notion, habit of mind, mode of thinking, feeling, i.e. “Mental feeling, sense, disposition, sentiment, manner of thinking or feeling.” (Peter Bullions, A Copius and Critical Latin-English Dictionary [New York: 1882], p. 862. See entry for the word “sensus”. Cf. Charton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary [New York: 1890], p. 769. See entry for the word “sensus”.)

induite: from the word induo, “to put on (like an article of dress or an ornament), assume”

alium: “another, other, different” (Charton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary, p. 48. See entry for “alius”.), alter, alternate, else

resipiscite: “to recover one’s senses, come to one’s self again” (A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin dictionary. Revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879. See the entry “resipisco”.)

 

transitum mentis & phase spiritus facite, ut scilicet nunc caelestia sapiatis, qui hucusque terrena sapuistis.

make a transition of mind & a Passover of spirit, so as to now be wise in heavenly things, instead of thus far you have been wise in earthly things [cf. Jn. 3:12-17].

NOTES: 

transitum: from transeo (I traverse, go across, go over, pass over), meaning traverse, go across, go over, pass over, “transeo … to go over or across, to cross over, pass over, pass by, pass (synonym transgredior).” (Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary)

mentis: genitive singular of mens, meaning mind, intellect, reason, reasoning, heart, conscience, disposition

phase: “Phase, n. indecl., 1. the Passover, a Jewish feast commemorative of the rescue of the first-born among the Jews from the destruction which visited the Egyptians: ‘est enim Phase (id est transitus) Domini,’ Vulg. Exod. 12, 11: ‘factum est Phase,’ id. 4 Reg. 23, 22.” (Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary. See entry for “Phase”.)

spiritus: genitive singular

facite: (second-person plural, present, active, imperative of facio), the Latin word facite means “make”

ut: as, when

scilicet: Properly, “you may understand or know”, and serving to imply that a statement is in itself obviously true, and is not overlooked by the speaker. Literally, “it is permitted to know”. The word scilicet can mean: that is to say, surely, of course, naturally, namely, to wit, evidently, certainly, undoubtedly, it is evident, clear, plain, or manifest. In the post-Augustinian period, sometimes it is used as an explanatory particle, namely, to wit, that is to say.

nunc: now, today, at present

caelestia: celestial, of or in the heavens, heavenly, figuratively divine 

sapiatis: (verb, second-person plural present active subjunctive of sapiō), you should be wise, have sense, be knowledgeable or understanding of things, be discerning, have good taste

qui: relative or indefinite pronoun. As a relative pronoun it means: who, that, which, what. As an indefinite pronoun it means: anyone, anything, any, someone, something. It can also mean: in order that, to, instead of, to, as, because seeing that, since

hucusque: thus far, to this point, up to this time, up to now, so far, to such an extent, to such a degree, until now, until then

terrena: earthly

sapuistis: intelligence, good sense,

 

Et Lactantius lib. 6. Institutionum docet, quod poenitentia graece dicitur Metanoia, hoc est resipiscentia.

Also Lactantius [in] book 6 of his Institutes informs, that poenitentia [repentance] in Greek is called Metanoia, that is resipiscentia.

NOTES:

Et: and, also, even

lib. is an abbreviation for the Latin word liber, meaning book.

docet: he/she/it teaches, informs, instructs

quod: which, that, because,

poenitentia: This is the Latin word which in English is translated repentance.

graece: in Greek

dicitur: it is named, it is called, it means, it refers to

Metanoia: This is the Greek word which in English is translated repentance.

hoc: that

est: is

resipiscentia: “Latin resipiscentia, from resipiscere to recover one's senses, from Latin sapere to know” (Collins English Dictionary, under the entry for “resipiscence”). This is the Latin word which Lactantius (and others such as Luther and Beza) say is a better translation for the Greek word metanoia. Since some readers may be unaware that Luther preferred the word resipiscentia to poenitentia, following are several affirmations of this fact. A nineteenth-century clergyman of the Church of England affirms: “at the same time it [the phrase ‘to repent’ from the Latin word poenitentiam] is not sufficient to express the value of the Greek metanoein. Lactantius (l. vi. c. 24), Beza, and Luther prefer resipiscere”. (The Circulation of Roman Catholic Versions of the Bible by the British and Foreign Bible Society [London: 1868], p. 25.) Another author, writing under the name “CLERICUS,” similarly states that Luther “by his diligent study of the Hebrew and Greek originals, points out the errors of the [Latin] Vulgate, and the true meaning of metanoia to be not poenitentia, but resipiscentia”. (“CLERICUS,” The Supremacy of Truth: Reasons and Suggestions for Providing Each Nation with a Version of The Holy Scriptures, Faithfully Translated from the Hebrew and Greek Originals [London: 1851], p. 19, emphasis his.) Likewise, John Hales writes: “Luther declared that ‘poenitentia’ and ‘poenitentiam agere’ conveyed, in his day, a totally incorrect idea of the true sense of ‘meta-noia’ and ‘meta-noein,’ and suggests ‘resipiscentia’ and ‘resipiscere’ as more faithfully representing the force of the original Greek.” (J. D. Hales, Romish Versions of the Bible: Facts and Arguments for the Consideration of Bible Societies [London: 1856], p. 19.)

 

Non ergo in usu Scripturae sacrae poenitentia dolor dicitur, sed mutatio mentis & consilii,

By no means therefore from use in sacred Scripture is repentance called sorrow, but a change of mind and opinion/decision/judgment,

NOTES:

Several Roman Catholic theologians quote this statement by Luther. In addition to Ruard Tapper, this statement by Luther is also quoted by another Roman Catholic apologist named Francis Farvacques. In his book Apologia Pro Xenio Dilectionis, and under the heading “Variations between us, and Luther’s different view” (pp. 3-8), Farvacques writes the following: “And then around the conclusion of the first resolution he [Luther] writes again: by no means therefore from use in sacred Scripture is repentance called SORROW, but a change of mind & judgment.” (Francois Farvacques, Apologia Pro Xenio Dilectionis [Lovanii: 1669], p. 7, translated from the Latin by Jonathan Perreault.) Another Roman Catholic also references this statement by Luther. See: Melchior Cano, R. D. Melchioris Cani, Ordinis Praedicatorum, Episcopi Canariensis [1605], p. 806.

non: by no means, not

ergo: therefore, then

in usu: from use in, use, of, from, away from, concerning, by, to, with

Scripturae: Scriptures

sacrae: sacred, holy

dolor: pain, anguish, grief, sorrow, suffering

dicitur: it is said, it is called, it is named

sed: but, but in fact

mutatio: change, alteration

mentis: (genitive singular of mens) “of mind”, intellect, reason, heart, disposition 

consilii: (genitive singular of consilium, a synonym of the Latin word sentential—a decided opinion), “As a mental quality, understanding, judgment, wisdom, sense” (Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary). Cf. The following statement by Cicero: “Nemo doctus unquam mutationem consilii inconstantiam dixit esse.” That is to say, “No well-informed person has ever said changing one's opinion was fickleness.” (Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum. Bk. XVI. 8.)

 

ac poenitere est sapere post erratum, animumque ad recte vivendum instituere.

and to repent is to be wise after an error, and a mind for right living to install.

NOTES:

Another Latin translation reads slightly different. Instead of “animumque ad recte vivendum instituere” (“and a mind for right living to install”), it reads: “instituereque animum ad vivendum recte” (“and to install a mind for living right”). See: Melchior Cano, Melchioris Cani Episcopi Canariensis (Matriti: 1774), Vol. 2, p. 446, in the section titled De Definitione Poenitentiae; cf. Melchioris Cani Opera, Melchioris Cani Episcopi Canariensis (Matriti: 1760), p. 530, in the section titled De Definitione Poenitentiae. (Melchor Cano was a Roman Catholic bishop and theologian who lived from 1509-1560.)

ac: and, and also, and even

poenitere: (present, active, infinitive of poeniteo) “to repent”

est: it is, is

sapere: (present, active, infinitive of sapio) “to be wise”, knowledgeable, sensible, discerning

post: after

erratum: error, mistake

animumque: “the mind as thinking, feeling, willing, the intellect, the sensibility, and the will,” heart, soul (the -que postscript adds the word “and” to the beginning of the word, e.g. “and a mind”) 

ad: to, unto, leading to, towards, for (ad is the antithesis, or direct opposite, of ab which means: by, from, after); thus Luther is saying, “...and to install a mind for right living.” It could be translated in various ways, such as: “towards right living”, “to right living”, “unto right living”, “leading to right living”, “for right living”. It is significant that Luther does not say to put on a new mind “by right living”. But rather he says to put on a new mind “for right living.” The apostle Paul says something similar in Ephesians 2:8-10, particularly verse 10 where he says, “for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” The fact that Luther says “for right living” and not “by right living” nor “from right living” indicates that he saw a distinction between repentance and right living. To Luther, “right living” is the natural outflow of repentance; the fruit, not the root (cf. Acts 26:20; Rom. 12:2). This relationship between repentance and right living is consistent with traditional Free Grace theology. For example, Roy B. Zuck affirms: “Deeds are the natural, expected product of genuine repentance.” (Zuck, A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, p. 131.)

recte: right, correct, true

vivendum: “living” or “live”

instituere: to put or place, to institute, to install, to establish, to found, to set up

APPENDIX 5: 

BIBLICAL REPENTANCE: LOST IN TRANSLATION?

Years ago, a non Free Grace pastor warned me that I would be disciplined by the church if I tried to explain the right and wrong definitions of repentance to people in the congregation. He didn't want me to clarify the word repentance because he thought it might offend someone. Maybe I should have told him: “Then you need to repent!” The Bible says, “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth” (2 Tim. 4:2-4).  

I'm convinced that a great need exists in the church today to clearly explain exactly what biblical repentance is (from the Greek) and also clearly explain what it's not. This need exists because the word “repentance” in our English New Testament is really not the best translation of the original Greek word metanoia.

Many critics, commentators, and New Testament scholars agree that our English word repentance is really not the best translation of the Greek word metanoia. For example, notice the following statements:

• Thomas De Quincey (1785-1859) writes: “In my opinion, the Greek word metanoia concealed a most profound meaning—a meaning of prodigious compass—which bore no allusion to any ideas whatever of repentance.”[283] 

• Commenting on the “method” of Jesus (which was first of all to have the heart and thoughts in order, and to watch attentively to what passes within you, e.g. Matt. 15:18-19, 23:26; Mk. 7:15, 20-23; Jn. 7:24), Matthew Arnold states: “To it [in regards to the “method” of Jesus] belongs His use of that important word which in the Greek is ‘metanoia.’ We translate it repentance, a groaning and lamenting over one’s sins; and we translate it wrong.”[284] 

• “[The phrase] ‘to repent’ [from the Latin word poenitentiam]…is not sufficient to express the value of the Greek metanoein. Lactantius (l. vi. c. 24), Beza, and Luther prefer resipiscere [‘to recover one’s senses,’ i.e. to change one’s mind or heart]”.[285] 

• Alexander Roberts, a member of the English New Testament Company of the Revisers of the Authorized Version, writes: “The expression ‘repentance,’ though plainly inadequate as a translation of it [metanoia], has so rooted itself in our language that it seems almost impossible to get rid of it.”[286] 

• Treadwell Walden (1830-1918) writes: “Here, now, we come to the practical and all-important  point of this inquiry. For, putting these words, ‘Metanoia’ and ‘repentance,’ side by side, what a radical divergency there is between them! ... How did such an extraordinary mistranslation get into our New Testament?”[287] 

• Writing on the topic of repentance, the Presbyterian theologian James Glentworth Butler (1821-1916) affirms: “the common N.T. word [translated repentance], used more than fifty times, is METANOIA or METANOEO. This is one of the most significant and vital words of Inspiration; one of immense breadth in its meaning and in its relations. In its true significance there is absolutely no trace of sorrow or regret, no single element contained in the word Repentance. Hence its translation by that word has been, from the first until now, an utter mistranslation. For the perpetuation of this grave error the sole excuse of the Revisers is that no other single word can fully or rightly interpret Metanoia. Literally, the word signifies Change of Mind....”[288] 

• Commenting on Mark 1:15, Giovanni Papini writes: “In fact Jesus adds: ‘Repent ye!’ Here again the true and splendid meaning of the word has been distorted. The word Mark uses, Metanoeite, is badly rendered by poenitemini or repent ye. Its true meaning is mutatio mentis, which signifies the changing of the heart, the transformation of the soul. Metamorphosis means a change of form—metanoia, a change of spirit.”[289] 

• Commenting on Matthew 3:2, A. T. Robertson writes: “Repent (metanoeite). Broadus used to say that this is the worst translation in the New Testament. The trouble is that the English word ‘repent’ means ‘to be sorry again’ from the Latin repoenitet (impersonal). John [the Baptist] did not call on the people to be sorry, but to change (think afterwards) their mental attitudes (metanoeite) and conduct. The Vulgate has it ‘do penance’ and Wycliff has followed that. The Old Syriac has it better: ‘Turn ye.’ The French (Geneva) has it “Amendez vous.” This is John’s great word (Bruce) and it has been hopelessly mistranslated. The tragedy of it is that we have no one English word that reproduces exactly the meaning and atmosphere of the Greek word.”[290] 

• Commenting on 2 Corinthians 7:9, Robertson similarly says: “It is a linguistic and theological tragedy that we have to go on using ‘repentance’ for metanoia. But observe that the ‘sorrow’ has led to ‘repentance’ and was not itself the repentance.”[291] 

• Louis Berkhof writes: “In the English Bible the word [metanoia] is translated ‘repentance,’ but this rendering hardly does justice to the original, since it gives undue prominence to the emotional element.”[292] 

• William Walden Howard writes: “It is evident that repentance is a mistranslation of metanoia. This fact was never more apparent than during the English and American revisions of the King James version of our Bible. Frequent debate centered around this word and it was the opinion of many that a suitable English equivalent should be sought for the Greek expression. It was agreed, however, that no one English word was sufficient to convey all that lay in the Greek. And, although it was admitted that the translation was poor, it was felt that the common term should be retained in the hope that it would come to convey all that its Greek derivative expressed.”[293] 

• William Hendriksen admits: “the rendering found in many of our [Bible] translations, namely, ‘Repent’ - thus A.V., A.R.V., R.S.V., etc. - is probably not the best.”[294] 

• George Eldon Ladd says: “[The word] ‘Repentance’ suggests primarily sorrow for sin; metanoia suggests a change of mind”.[295] 

• Robert Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society writes: “Modern [Bible] translators…generally translate metanoia as repentance. While this is an improvement over the Latin translation ‘penance,’ it is in most cases, as we shall now see, a poor reflection of its meaning in the NT.”[296] 

• Curtis Hutson explains: “The problem is not preaching repentance; it is giving a wrong definition to the word. Down through the centuries ‘repent’ has come to mean a far different thing than when it was spoken by John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle John, and Jesus Christ Himself.…If you look up the Greek word translated ‘repent’ in the King James Bible and used by Jesus, Paul, John and others in the New Testament, you will find that the [Greek] word metanoeo means to think differently or afterwards, that is, to change the mind.”[297] 

• Wendell G. Johnston writes: “the English word repentance derives from the Latin and does not express the exact meaning of  [the Greek word] metanoia.”[298] 

• James A. Scudder, founder of Victory in Grace Ministries, affirms: “The word ‘repentance’ is not the best translation [of metanoia]. A better translation would have been ‘to change your mind.’”[299] 

• Charles Bing of GraceLife Ministries writes: “It is unfortunate that [the Greek word] metanoeo is translated ‘repent’ in the English Bible, for the English etymology denotes more the idea of penitence as sorrow, or worse, the [Roman] Catholic doctrine of penance, than it does the more accurate ‘change of mind.’”[300] 

• William Douglas Chamberlain concludes by saying: “Able scholars have long been protesting against the inadequate meaning given to metanoia, but their voices have been lonely cries in the wilderness of preconceived ideas. The mass of Christendom has passed by unheeding, continuing to think of repentance in terms of regret, sorrow, introspection, and man-made satisfaction for sin, instead of a transformation of mind in preparation for fellowship in the Kingdom of God.”[301] 

---

ENDNOTES:

[1] David H. Bauslin, The Lutheran Movement of the Sixteenth Century (Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society, 1919), p. 101.

[2] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary Series: The Prophets: Jonah and Micah (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc.), comment on Jonah 3:9-10.

[3] See the entry for “REPENT, REPENTANCE” in Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), pp. 580-581. For a discussion of Mounce’s theological bias regarding the meaning of “repentance” (metanoia), see Appendix 1 above: MOUNCE’S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY ON “REPENT, REPENTANCE”.

[4] Proverbs 14:15, The Septuagint, translated by Charles Thomson (Philadelphia: 1808), 3 Vols., Vol. III, no page number.

[5] Proverbs 14:15, A New English Translation of the Septuagint (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 634.

[6] Proverbs 20:25, The Septuagint, translated by Charles Thomson, Vol. III, no page number.

[7] Proverbs 20:25, A New English Translation of the Septuagint, p. 638.

[8] Proverbs 24:32, Brenton’s Septuagint Translation (London: 1844), 2 Vols., Vol. II, p. 665.

[9] Jeremiah 4:28, The Septuagint, translated by Charles Thomson, Vol. III, no page number. 

[10] Jeremiah 18:10, The Septuagint, translated by Charles Thomson, Vol. III, no page number.

[11] Jeremiah 18:10, A New English Translation of the Septuagint, p. 897.

[12] Jonah 3:10, Brenton’s Septuagint Translation, Vol. II, p. 896.

[13] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book 2, chapter 15, section 3 (320-322). Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. See The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), Josephus, 9 vols., vol. 4, pp. 304-307.

[14] Josephus, translated by Louis H. Feldman, Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5, section 2. The Loeb Classical Library, Josephus, 9 vols., vol. 9, p. 83. Other translations say “repent”. Either way, the context clearly indicates that metanoein means “to have a change of mind”. In context, Josephus is saying that King Herod would have thought differently afterwards about his decision if he didn’t immediately put a stop to the preaching of John the Baptist.

[15] Josephus, translated by William Whiston, Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5, section 2. Here again, the context clearly shows that metanoein means “to think differently afterwards” or “to change his mind”.

[16] Josephus, translated by William Whiston, Life of Flavius Josephus, section 4 (17).

[17] Josephus, translated by William Whiston, The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, book 3, chapter 6, section 3.

[18] Josephus, translated by William Whiston, Against Apion (London: 1737), book 1, section 29 (274).

[19] Josephus, translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, Against Apion (London: 1926), book 1, chapter 10, section 274.

[20] Josephus, translated by Patrick Rogers, Against Apion, book 1, chapter 10, section 274.

[21] See Plutarch, Septem Sapientium Convivium, section 21. (This work appears in pp. 345-449 of vol. 2 of the Loeb Classical Library’s edition of the Moralia, first published in 1928. The English translation is by F. C. Babbitt.) For more information see: Richard A. Seymour, All About Repentance (Hollywood, FL: Harvest House Publishers, 1974), pp. 63-64; G. Michael Cocoris, Evangelism: A Biblical Approach (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), p. 69; Robert N. Wilkin, “Repentance and Salvation, Part 3: New Testament Repentance: Lexical Considerations,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, vol. 2, no. 2 (Autumn 1989): p. 14; Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), p. 93; G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2010), p. 15.

[22] Excerpted from The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. See The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by Robert Sinker (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906), American Edition, vol. 8, p. 29. Cf. Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by Robert Sinker (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871), vol. 22, p. 60. Note: See after The Works of Lactantius. The page numbers reset after The Works of Lactantius.

[23] R. H. Charles, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (London: 1925), p. 85.

[24] See the “Introductory Notice” to The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906), American Edition, vol. 8, p. 5. Cf. Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871), vol. 22, pp. 7-8. Note: See after The Works of Lactantius. The page numbers reset after The Works of Lactantius.

[25] See the “Introductory Notice” to The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906), American Edition, vol. 8, p. 4.

[26] Shepherd of Hermas, vision 3, chapter 7, translated by J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London: 1898), p. 415.

[27] Excerpted from The Shepherd of Hermas, vision 3, chapter 7. See the Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson. Translated by Rev. F. Crombie (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1870), vol. 1, pp. 338-339. In a footnote (Ibid., p. 339, footnote 1) after the words “draw back,” the translator writes: “The words ‘draw back’ are represented in Greek by the word elsewhere translated ‘repent;’ metanoein is thus used for a change of mind, either from evil to good, or good to evil.” (Ibid., p. 339.)

[28] Shepherd of Hermas, mandate 11, translated by J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London: MacMillan and Co., 1912), p. 434.

[29] See Charles H. Hoole, The Shepherd of Hermas (London: Rivingtons, 1870), Introduction, p. x.

[30] Ibid., pp. xi-xii.

[31] Ibid., pp. x-xi.

[32] Temple Chevallier, A Translation of the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius (Cambridge: 1833), pp. 156-157. In the Greek text of The Martyrdom of Polycarp, see chapter 11, sections 1-2.

[33] Eusebius, translated by C. F. Cruse, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus (Philadelphia: 1833), p. 146. See chapter 15: “The martyrdom of Polycarp, with others at Smyrna.” Cf. 4.15.23 - 4.15.24 (book 4, chap. 15, sections 23-24) in the Greek text of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.

[34] J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London: 1889), 3 vols., vol. 3, p. 481. In the Greek text of The Martyrdom of Polycarp, see chapter 11, sections 1-2.

[35] Blomfield Jackson, St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1898), pp. 61-62. In the Greek text of The Martyrdom of Polycarp, see chapter 11, sections 1-2.

[36] Clement of Alexandria, The Miscellanies; or Stromata, book 1, chapter 17, section 83, 2. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by William Wilson (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1867), vol. 4, Clement of Alexandria, vol. 1, p. 407. Note: The Greek text of Clement’s Stromata that I referenced is reprinted in a 1906 German book edited by Dr. Otto Stahlin titled: Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Drei Jahrhunderte [The Greek Christian Writers of the First Three Centuries], Clemens Alexandrinus, vol. 2 (Leipzig: 1906), p. 54.

[37] Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, book 1, chapter 17, section 83, 2. Translated by John Ferguson, The Fathers of the Church, Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, Books 1-3 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991, 2005), p. 86.

[38] J. Behm, “metanoeō, metanoia,” Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967), vol. 4, p. 1007. 

[39] “CHAP. XXIV.--Instances of God's repentance, and notably in the case of the Ninevites, accounted for and ably vindicated by Tertullian.” Tertullian Against Marcion, ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY: TRANSLATIONS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS DOWN TO A.D. 325., 25 volumes, vol. 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by Peter Holmes (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1868), p. 107.

[40] Lactantius, Divine Institutes, book 6, chapter 24: “Of Repentance, of Pardon, and the Commands of God”. See The Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, translated by William Fletcher (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871), 25 vols., vol. 21, The Works of Lactantius, in 2 volumes, vol. 1, p. 416.

[41] William Beveridge, The Works of the Right Rev. William Beveridge, Edited by Thomas Hartwell Horne (London: 1824), 9 vols., vol. 4, p. 507. Note: I transcribed the Greek letters into English.

[42] Joseph Browne, Ten Lectures on Ward’s Errata of the Protestant Authorised Translation of the Bible (Dublin: 1859), p. 311. Note: I transcribed the Greek letters into English.

[43] David Clarkson, The Practical Works of David Clarkson (Edinburgh: 1865), vol. 2, p. 388. Note: I transcribed the Greek letters into English.

[44] Wayne Grudem cites Louw and Nida’s lexicon as disagreeing with the traditional Free Grace “change of mind” view of repentance. For more information see Appendix 2: LOUW & NIDA’S LEXICON ON METANOEŌ AND METANOIA.

[45] H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, American Edition, Henry Drisler, Editor (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1857), p. 918, ellipsis his. Cf. Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Fourth Edition (Oxford: University Press, 1855), p. 871. Note: I  transcribed the Greek letters into English.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, translated from the German by D. W. Simon, and William Urwick (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1892), pp. 440-441. 

[48] Ibid., p. 441.

[49] George Ricker Berry, A New Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (New York: 1897), pp. 139-40, italics his. Note: I transcribed the Greek letters into English.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Alexander Souter, A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 157.

[52] George Abbot-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (London: T. & T. Clark, 1922), p. 287.

[53] W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1981), pp. 279-280. See under the entry for “REPENT, REPENTANCE”.

[54] Ibid., pp. 279-280.

[55] For more information and further discussion see Appendix 3: CAN THE GREEK PREPOSITION META ACTUALLY MEAN “CHANGE”?

[56] Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, Editor, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), Third Edition (BDAG), p. 640. Note: The following link is to page 640 in Bauer's Lexicon: https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Greek_English_Lexicon_of_the_New_Testa/4gyfDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PA640&printsec=frontcover

[57] Joseph Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992), p. 35.

[58] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2004), vol. 3, p. 2374. Note: The page number is keyed to the 4 volumes in one, available on archive.org.

[59] Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, 2nd GraceLife Edition (Xulon Press, 2010), p. 67.

[60] Desiderius Erasmus, Annotations on the New Testament, pp. 17-18. See his comments on Matthew chapter 3, for “Poenitentiam agite”. Translated from the Latin by J. Perreault. Note: Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament was printed in various editions: 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, and the final Latin edition in 1535. For more information see my blog post titled: “THE ANNOTATIONS OF ERASMUS ON MATTHEW 3:2” (Free Grace Free Speech blog, July 12, 2020).

[61] Martin Luther, quoted by Barnas Sears in his book Luther: His Mental and Spiritual History, with Special Reference to Its Earlier Periods and the Opening Scenes of the Reformation (London: 1857), pp. 185-186, ellipsis his.

[62] Martin Luther, quoted by Henry Eyster Jacobs, Elements of Religion (Philadelphia: The Board of Publication of the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran church in North America, 1913), p. 281.

[63] Martin Luther, “To John von Staupitz, Wittenberg, May 30, 1518,” Edited and Translated by Gottfried G. Krodel, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 55 volumes, vol. 48., pp. 66-67.

[64] Martin Luther, “Letter to John Staupitz Accompanying the ‘Resolutions’ to the XCV Theses” (1518), excerpted from Works of Martin Luther, Henry Eyster Jacobs, Editor (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), vol. 1, pp. 40-41.

[65] Martin Luther, quoted by Henry Eyster Jacobs, Elements of Religion (Philadelphia: The Board of Publication of the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran church in North America, 1913), pp. 281-282.

[66] Martin Luther, quoted by Ruard Tapper in his book Explicationis Articulorum Venerandae Facultatis Sacrae Theologiae (Lovanii: 1555), 2 vols., vol. 1, pp. 181-182 [pp. 185-186 in some editions]. Translated from the Latin by Jonathan Perreault. Note: This quote appears in a section of Tapper’s book titled “Responsio Ad Argumenta Lutheri” which translated means “Response to Luther’s Arguments”. This statement by Luther is also cited by Melchor Cano (1509-1560) in his book Melchioris Cani Episcopi Canariensis (Matriti: 1774), vol. 2, p. 446, in the section titled De Definitione Poenitentiae. Cf. Melchioris Cani Opera, Melchioris Cani Episcopi Canariensis (Matriti: 1760), p. 530, in the section titled De Definitione Poenitentiae. For more information see Appendix 4: LUTHER ON METANOIA.

[67] John Calvin, translated by Thomas Norton, The Institution of Christian Religion (London: 1582), book III, chap. III: “That we are regenerate by faith. Wherein is entreated of Repentance.” p. 194.

[68] John Calvin, translated by Thomas Norton, The Institution of the Christian Religion (Glasgow: 1762), book III, chap. III: “That we are regenerate by faith. Wherein is treated of repentance.” p. 277.

[69] John Calvin, translated by John Allen, Institutes of Christian Religion (London: 1844), 2 vols., vol. 1, book 3, p. 476.

[70] John Calvin, translated by Eusebius Paget, A Harmonie Upon the Three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke (London: 1584), pp. 115-116, ellipsis added, comment on Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8.

[71] John Calvin, translated by Rev. William Pringle, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Edinburgh: 1845), vol. 1, pp. 189-190, ellipsis added, comment on Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8.

[72] John Calvin, translated by Thomas Myers, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1852), vol. 1, p. 255, comment on Daniel 4:9.

[73] Philip Schaff, Editor, A Religious Encyclopedia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1884), vol. 3, p. 2031, see entry for “REPENTANCE”.

[74] Robert Wilkin, “Repentance and Salvation, Part 1: The Doctrine of Repentance in Church History,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1988, Vol. 1:1.

[75] William Tyndale, The Newe Testament dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke (1534), spelling and italics his. See under the heading “Repentaunce.”

[76] William Tyndale, “W. T. unto the Reader,” Tyndale’s New Testament: Translated by William Tyndale, Translated from the Greek by William Tyndale in 1534, In a modern-spelling edition and with an introduction by David Daniell (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), p. 9. See under the heading “Repentance”.

[77] See the Geneva Bible (1599 Edition) marginal note for the word “Repent” in Matthew 3:2. For more information see my blog post titled: “The Geneva Bible definition of ‘Repent’ in Matthew 3:2” (posted May 29, 2020).

[78] John King, Lectures Upon Jonah. Delivered at York, In the Year of Our Lord 1594, LECTURE XXXVII (Edinburgh: 1864), pp. 237-238. Note: John King is probably quoting from the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible. Matthew 3:8 in the 1560 Geneva Bible says: “Bring forthe therefore frutes worthie [of] amendment of life.”

[79] George Downame, Lectures on the XV Psalme (London: 1604), p. 119. Note: George Downame is quoting Isaiah 55:7, “Let the wicked man forsake his own way [of salvation], and the unrighteous man his own thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that He may have compassion, and to our God, for He will freely pardon” (cf. Prov. 14:12, 16:25; Jn. 14:6).

[80] Lucas Brugensis, quoted in The Marrow of Modern Divinity, chapter 2, section 3. Cf. Lucas Brugensis, In sacrosancta quatuor Jesu Christi Evangelia commentarii (1606), commentary on Matthew 3:2.

[81] Andrew Willet, Synopsis Papismi (London: 1614), p. 712, spelling and emphasis his, ellipsis added.

[82] The original statement by Glassius is written in Latin: “Hebr. 12, 17....metanoian, seu mutatio mentis (uti vox Graeca proprie sonat)....” (Solomon Glassius, Philologiae Sacrae [1686], 5 vols., vol. 3: Sacred Grammar, p. 515, comment on Hebrews 12:17, translated from the Latin by Jonathan Perreault. The 5-volume Philologia Sacra was first published between the years 1623-1636.) Note: Dr. Roy B. Zuck recognized Solomon Glassius as a noted Bible scholar. See: Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1991), pp. 174-176.  

[83] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 799. Note: Charles Ryrie similarly affirms that the repentance sought by Esau was indeed a change of mind, but not in regards to eternal salvation. See: Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), p. 94. It is also worth noting that in the same paragraph as quoted above from Philologiae Sacrae, Glassius quotes a statement by Martin Luther concerning the account of Esau in Genesis 27. Glassius writes: “Luth[er]. in Gen. 27. fol. 376. Non quod non sit salvatus, sed quod nullus lacrymis benedictionem semel amissam consequi potuerit.” (Phil. Sac., vol. 3, p. 515.) In English this can be translated: “Luther on Genesis 27, pg. 376. This does not mean that he could not be saved, but that his tears will not be able to obtain the blessing once it has been lost.”

[84] Ibid., p. 713, emphasis his. Note: Grudem defines repentance the same way in his book “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 2016), p. 42.

[85] Wayne Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 2016), p. 64, footnote 38.

[86] Ibid., p. 64.

[87] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 480.

[88] William Walden Howard, “Is Faith Enough to Save? Part 3,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 99 (January 1942): p. 96. Cf. William Douglas Chamberlain, The Meaning of Repentance (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943), p. 44; Larry Moyer, Free and Clear (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1997), p. 86. For more information see Appendix 5: “BIBLICAL REPENTANCE: LOST IN TRANSLATION?” (above).

[89] Joseph Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, p. 36.

[90] Robert Wilkin, “Repentance and Salvation, Part 3: New Testament Repentance: Lexical Considerations,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1989, Vol. 2:2; cf. Robert Wilkin, “Repentance as a Condition for Salvation in the New Testament,” An Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1985. A condensed version of the dissertation appears in the first six issues of the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. Note: Wilkin has since renounced this view of repentance.

[91] William Douglas Chamberlain, The Meaning of Repentance (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943), pp. 164, 167.

[92] John Downame, Editor, Annotations Upon All The Books of the Old And New Testament (London: 1645), 2 volumes, vol. 2, n.p., spelling and emphasis original.

[93] Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (London: 1647), fifth Edition, pp. 135-138, spelling and italics his. Note: I modernized some of the spelling, such as “goe” to “go”, “Beleeve” to “Believe”, and “onely” to “only”. The 1647 edition of the book can be read online using the following link:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Marrow_of_Modern_Divinity_The_Fifth/hyJbmBkZAxEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq&pg=PP9&printsec=frontcover

[94] John Lightfoot, The Works of the Reverend and Learned John Lightfoot, George Bright, Editor (London: 1684), 2 vols., vol. 1, p. 629, spelling and italics his. Note: I transcribed the Hebrew and Greek letters from the original statement into English.

[95] Obadiah Grew, Meditations Upon the Parable of the Prodigal Son, The Second Part (London: 1684), pp. 7, 16, emphasis his, ellipsis added. Note: The phrase “bring it again to mind” in Isaiah 46:8 is metanoēsate in the Greek Septuagint.

[96] Thomas Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity (London: 1692), p. 402.

[97] John Bunyan, “Ten First Chapters of GENESIS.” The Works Of that Eminent Servant of Christ, Mr. John Bunyan (London: 1692), vol. 1, p. 41, commentary on Genesis 6:6. Note: Augustine has well said: “when God repents He is not changed but He brings about change.”

[98] John Bunyan “Of Repentance.” George Offor, Editor, The Whole Works of John Bunyan (London: 1862), vol. 2, p. 600.

[99] William Beveridge, “Repentance and Faith, the Two Great Branches of the Evangelical Covenant.” SERMON LXXXVIII. Mark 1:15. The Theological Works of William Beveridge (Oxford: 1844), vol. 4, p. 189.

[100] Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (Edinburgh, 1791), 6 vols., vol. 5, p. 28, comment on Matthew 3:2. 

[101] Bengel, The Life and Writings of John Albert Bengel: Compiled Principally from Original Manuscripts Never Before Published. By the Rev. John Christian Frederic Burk. Translated from the German by Robert Francis Walker (London: 1837), p. 110, comment on Acts 3:19. Excerpted from Bengel’s sermon on Acts 2:40, preached at Tübingen in his 24th year, 1711.

[102] Doddridge, The Family Expositor, The Works of the Rev. P. Doddridge, D.D. (Leeds: 1805), vol. 9, p. 178. Cited by John Bowes in the Preface of his book, The New Testament: Translated from the Purest Greek (Dundee, 1870).

[103] Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Boston: 1854), 2 vols., vol. 2, p. 396.

[104] John Brown, Dictionary of the Holy Bible (London: 1813), p. 572. See under the entry for the word “REPENT”.

[105] Richard Elliot, St. Paul no Antinomian: or, A Vindication of that Apostle’s Doctrine from the Gross Charge of Heresy, Fanatacism, and Licentiousness, in a Letter to the Rev. Mr. Dodd (1760), pp. 6-7, 11, 13.

[106] Archibald McLean, A Reply to Mr. Fuller’s Appendix to his Book on The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (Edinburgh: 1802), p. 38. Note: I transcribed the Greek letters from the original statement into English and updated the Roman numerals to the current format.

[107] Thomas Scott, The Old and New Testaments, According to the Authorized Version; with Explanatory Notes, Practical Observations, and Copious Marginal References (London: 1861), vol. 5, p. 8, comment on Matthew 3:2.

[108] Ibid., p. 8, comment on Matthew 3:2.

[109] Ibid., n.p., comment on Mark 1:15. 

[110] Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the New Testament (New York: 1835), p. 378, comment on Acts 11:18.  

[111] The original statement by Kuinoel is written in Latin: “Metanoia proprie significat consilii mutationem, et metanoein consilium mutare, Hebr. 12, 17. ubi v. nos, Xen. Cyr. 1, 1, 3.” (Christinus Theophilus Kuinoel, Euangelium Matthaei [Lipsiae, 1837], p. 52, comment on Matthew 3:2. Translated from the Latin by Jonathan Perreault.) In addition to referencing Hebrews 12:17, Kuinoel also cites Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, book 1, chapter 1, section 3, which reads as follows: “Thus, as we meditated on this analogy, we were inclined to conclude that for man, as he is constituted, it is easier to rule over any and all other creatures than to rule over men. But when we reflected that there was one Cyrus, the Persian, who reduced to obedience a vast number of men and cities and nations, we were then compelled to change our opinion [metanoein] and decide that to rule men might be a task neither impossible nor even difficult, if one should only go about it in an intelligent manner.”

[112] John Campbell, Theology for Youth, part 3, section 6. Cited by John Bowes in the Preface to his New Testament: Translated from the Purest Greek (Dundee: 1870). Cf. William O’Neill, Biblical and Theological Gleanings (London: Ward and Co., 1854), p. 742. 

[113] Hermann Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on the New Testament (New York: 1857), vol. 1, p. 260, emphasis his.

[114] Charles Hodge, The Way of Life (Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, 1841), p. 219.

[115] John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, Editor, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (New York: 1865), vol. 1, p. 73, emphasis his.

[116] John Peter Lange, Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, from the German of J. P. Lange (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863), vol. 3, p. 183, comment on Mark 1:15. See Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, Third Series, Vol. XVI, Lange on the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, Vol. III (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863), p. 183.

[117] John Peter Lange, Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, from the German of J. P. Lange (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863), vol. 3, p. 204, comment on Mark 2:17 [cf. Luke 5:32], quoting Schleiermacher. See Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, Third Series, Vol. XVI, Lange on the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, Vol. III (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863), p. 204.

[118] Gustav Billroth, The Biblical Cabinet (Edinburgh: 1838), p. 265, comment on 2 Corinthians 7:9.

[119] Ibid., p. 267, comment on 2 Corinthians 7:10.

[120] Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians (London: 1865), p. 457, emphasis his.

[121] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London: 1883), 2 vols., vol. 1, p. 270. In a footnote (n. 7, p. 270), Edersheim writes: “The term ‘repentance’ includes faith in Christ, as in St. Luke xxiv. 47; Acts v. 31.”

[122] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary: Critical, Practical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Vol. 2, New Testament (New York: S. S. Scranton and Company, 1875), p. 176, comment on Acts 2:38.

[123] Horatius Bonar, God’s Way of Peace (New York: 1878), p. 162, emphasis his.

[124] J. Oswald Jackson, REPENTANCE: OR THE CHANGE OF MIND NECESSARY FOR SALVATION CONSIDERED (London: Houlston & Stoneman, 1845), pp. 22-23.

[125] Henry Alford, Homilies on the Former Part of the Acts of the Apostles, Chap. 1–10 (London: 1858), p. 107.

[126] Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (London: 1865), 2 vols., vol. 2, p. 165.

[127] Philip Schaff, A Catechism for Sunday Schools and Families (New York: Evangelical Knowledge Society, 1871), p. 120, emphasis his.

[128] B. F. Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1863), p. 314.

[129] B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: MacMillan and Co., 1903), p. 146.

[130] Ibid., p. 411.

[131] F. J. A. Hort, The Way, the Truth, the Life: The Hulsean Lectures for 1871 (Cambridge and London: MacMillan and Co., 1893), p. 65, comment on Acts 17:30-31.

[132] D. L. Moody, The Gospel Awakening (Chicago: F. H. Revell, 1883), p. 315.

[133] D. L. Moody, Pleasure and Profit in Bible Study (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1895), p. 100.

[134] D. L. Moody, Notes From My Bible (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, 1895), p. 230.

[135] T. J. Shanks, D. L. Moody at Home (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, 1886), p. 188.

[136] James F. Findlay, Jr., Dwight L. Moody: American Evangelist (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2007), p. 240. Note: Previously published by The University of Chicago Press, 1969.

[137] Handley Carr Glyn Moule, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, The Epistle to the Ephesians (Cambridge: The University Press, 1893), p. 73, comment on Ephesians 2:8. Note: G. Michael Cocoris affirms: “When repentance occurs alone [as the requirement for salvation] it includes faith and when faith occurs alone it implies repentance.” (Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible [Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2010], p. 33.) Cocoris summarizes the idea well when he says: “From a Biblical point of view, the repentance that is required for salvation includes faith and the faith that is required includes repentance.” (Ibid., p. 79.) 

[138] J. J. Lias, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: The University Press, 1897), p. 84, comment on 2 Corinthians 7:9.

[139] William Pettingill, Bible Questions Answered, pp. 215-216. Note: This book was first published in 1903.

[140] Richard Francis Weymouth, Weymouth New Testament (London: 1915), p. 7, see note 5 on “Repent” in Matthew 3:2. Note: The Weymouth New Testament was first published in 1903.

[141] C. I. Scofield, Editor, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), p. 972, note 2.

[142] Ibid., p. 1174, note 2.

[143] Excerpted from B. H. Carroll’s 17-volume commentary An Interpretation of the English Bible. See volume 10: “The Four Gospels, Part 1” chapter 13: “The Nature, Necessity, Importance and Definition of Repentance”. (B. H. Carroll, The Four Gospels, Volume 1, in The Interpretation of the English Bible, Edited by J. B. Cranfill [New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1916], pp. 184-185.)

[144] James M. Gray, Bible Problems Explained (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1913), pp. 61.

[145] James M. Gray, “The First Christian Sermon,” The Christian Workers Magazine (Sept. 1915, Vol. 16, No. 1), p. 381.

[146] G. Campbell Morgan, The Westminster Pulpit (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011), 10 vols., vol. 6, pp. 158-160, ellipsis added. Excerpted from Chapter 12, “The First Message of Jesus”. Note: The Westminster Pulpit was first published in 1915.

[147] Byron H. DeMent, James Orr, Editor, “REPENTANCE” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 5 vols, vol. 4, p. 2558.

[148] A. H. McNeile, New Testament Teaching in the Light of St Paul's (Cambridge: The University Press, 1923), pp. 131-132. Note: McNeile is specifically talking about repentance in Paul's epistles. Whereas in the book of Acts, repentance is a vital theme of Paul's preaching (e.g. Acts 17:30, 20:21, 26:20).

[149] A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: MacMillan and Co., Limited, 1915), p. 27. Note: A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures in the New Testament quotes this statement by McNeile. See Robertson’s Word Pictures on Matthew 3:8.

[150] J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929), vol. 2, p. 318 (archive.org/details/grammarofnewtest02mouluoft/page/n6/mode/1up).

[151] A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923), p. 54. 

[152] Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), p. 45.

[153] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1931), 6 vols., vol. 1, comment on Matthew 3:2.

[154] Robertson, Word Pictures, comment on Matthew 3:8.

[155] Robertson, Word Pictures, comment on Romans 2:4.

[156] Robertson, Word Pictures, comment on 2 Corinthians 7:8.

[157] Robertson, Word Pictures, comment on 2 Corinthians 7:9.

[158] Robertson, Word Pictures, comment on 2 Timothy 2:25.

[159] William R. Newell, The Book of Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1935), p. 39, commentary on Revelation 2:5.

[160] William R. Newell, Hebrews Verse-By-Verse, p. 179, commentary on Hebrews 6:1. Note: Originally published in 1947 by Moody Press.

[161] Ibid., p. 179, commentary on Hebrews 6:1. 

[162] H. A. Ironside, Except Ye Repent (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1937), pp. 14-15.

[163] Ibid., p. 83.

[164] H. A. Ironside, “PAUL, WORLD EVANGELIST”. The Sunday School Times, September 9, 1950, Volume 92, Number 36, p. 9, comment on Acts 26:9-20 (archive.org/details/sim_sunday-school-times_1950-09-09_92_36/page/8/mode/2up).

[165] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Grace: The Glorious Theme (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1950), p. 18, emphasis his. Note: Originally published in 1922.

[166] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976), 8 vols., vol. 3, p. 372-373. Originally published: Dallas, TX.: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-1948.

[167] Ibid., vol. 3, p. 373. 

[168] Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 374-375. 

[169] Ibid., vol. 7, p. 265. 

[170] Roy Aldrich, “Some Simple Difficulties of Salvation,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 111, No. 442 (April 1954), pp. 158-160.

[171] John R. Rice, The King of the Jews, A Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1955), p. 462.

[172] John R. Rice, Acts: Filled With the Spirit, A Verse-by-Verse Commentary on Acts of the Apostles (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1963), pp. 93-94, commentary on Acts 2:37-40.

[173] Donald Grey Barnhouse, God’s River: Exposition of Bible Doctrines, Taking the Epistle to the Romans as a Point of Departure (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), 4 vols., vol. 4, pp. 201-202. Cited by G. Michael Cocoris in his book Evangelism: A Biblical Approach (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), p. 72.

[174] Donald Grey Barnhouse, The Cross Through the Open Tomb (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961), pp. 121-122, comment on Acts 17:29-31.

[175] Julius R. Mantey, “Repentance and Conversion,” Christianity Today, March 2, 1962, italics his. 

[176] J. I. Packer, see the entry for the word “CONVERSION” in The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962), p. 251. J. D. Douglas, Organizing Editor. F. F. Bruce, R. V. G. Tasker, J. I. Packer, D. J. Wiseman, Consulting Editors.

[177] John Murray, see the entry for the word “REPENTANCE” in The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962), p. 1084. 

[178] J. N. D. Kelly, Black’s New Testament Commentaries, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (London: A & C Black, 1963), pp. 190-191, ellipsis added.

[179] Manford Gutzke, Plain Talk About Christian Words, pp. 122-123. This statement by Gutzke is quoted by Dr. Hank Lindstrom in his article titled “The Incompatibility of False Teaching on Repentance with the Gospel of Grace”.

[180] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things Which Become Sound Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1965), pp. 61-62. Originally published: Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965.

[181] John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1966), p. 57.

[182] John F. Walvoord, Every Prophecy of the Bible (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1999), pp. 537-538. Note: Previously published by Victor Books under the title Prophecy Knowledge Handbook © 1990 John F. Walvoord.

[183] J. Behm, “metanoia,” Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967), vol. 4, p. 999, ellipsis added. See the full entry, pp. 975-1008.

[184] O. Michel, “metamelomai,” Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Editors, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), pp. 589-590, ellipsis added.

[185] Charles Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), pp. 175-176.

[186] Charles Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 116-117. This statement by Ryrie is quoted by Dr. Hank Lindstrom in his article titled “REPENTANCE”.

[187] Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1989), p. 92.

[188] Ibid., p. 98

[189] Charles Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1972), p. 139.

[190] Roger Post, “The Meanings of the Words Translated ‘Repent’ and ‘Repentance’ in the New Testament,” Master’s Thesis, Wheaton College, June 1972, p. 80. This statement by Roger Post is quoted by Dr. Hank Lindstrom in his article titled “The Incompatibility of the Lordship Gospel with the Gospel of Grace”.

[191] Roger Post, “The Meanings of the Words Translated ‘Repent’ and ‘Repentance’ in the New Testament,” Master’s Thesis, Wheaton College, June 1972, pp. 66-67. Note: This statement by Roger Post is quoted by Richard A. Seymour in his book All About Repentance (Hollywood, FL: Harvest House Publishers, 1974), pp. 47-48.

[192] Richard A. Seymour, All About Repentance (Hollywood, FL: Harvest House Publishers, 1974), p. 61, italics his.

[193]  Ibid., p. 62.

[194] Ibid., p. 115.

[195] Hal Lindsey, The Liberation of Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), p. 137.

[196] George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), pp. 38-39. Cf. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), p. 36.

[197] J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible Commentary Series, Second Corinthians (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991), p. 94, comment on Joel 2:12.

[198] J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible Commentary Series, Matthew: Chapters 1-13 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991), p. 47, commentary on Matthew 3:1-2. Originally published: 1975.

[199] J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible Commentary Series, Second Corinthians (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991), p. 94, commentary on 2 Corinthians 7:10. Originally published: 1975.

[200] J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible Commentary Series, Revelation: Chapters 1-5 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991), p. 83, commentary on Revelation 2:16. Originally published: 1975.

[201] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), p. 937. Note: Millard’s Christian Theology was first published in 1983.

[202] G. Michael Cocoris, Evangelism: A Biblical Approach (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), p. 66.

[203] G. Michael Cocoris, JOHN MacARTHUR, JR’S SYSTEM OF SALVATION: An Evaluation of the Book, The Gospel According to Jesus (n.p., 1989), p. 18.

[204] G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2010), p. 20. This quote appears in a book review by Dr. Roy B. Zuck titled “Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible” (DTS Voice, October 1, 2011).

[205] G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2010), p. 77.

[206] R. T. Kendall, One Saved, Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), pp. 193-194, ellipsis added.

[207] Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1985), p. 192, emphasis his.

[208] Curtis Hutson, Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach? (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1986), pp. 3-4. Cf. Curtis Hutson, Salvation Crystal Clear (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1987), pp. 319-320.

[209] John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), p. 179. Cf. MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), pp. 163-164.

[210] William Douglas Chamberlain, The Meaning of Repentance (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943), p. 34.

[211] Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, 2nd GraceLife Edition (Xulon: 2010), p. 66. 

[212] G. Michael Cocoris, John MacArthur, Jr's System of Salvation, p. 18.

[213] J. Glentworth Butler, Topical Analysis of the Bible (New York: Butler Bible Work Company, 1897), p. 445, emphasis his. William Douglas Chamberlain similarly affirms: “Conversion is the turning of man to God….Repentance is the change in man, brought about by the Holy Spirit, which results in his turning to God.” (Chamberlain, The Meaning of Repentance [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943], p. 223, ellipsis and emphasis added.) Eugene A. Nida also affirms: “Repentance precedes conversion as the conditioning of the soul for the transforming power of God.” (Nida, God’s Word in Man’s Language [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952], p. 137.)

[214] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Romans 1-8 (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1991), p. 120.

[215] Ernest Pickering, Lordship Salvation: An Examination of John MacArthur’s Book, The Gospel According to Jesus, pp. 2-3.

[216] Roy B. Zuck, Kindred Spirit, a quarterly publication of Dallas Seminary (Summer 1989), p. 5. Cited by J. Hampton Keathley III in his book ABCs for Christian Growth (Biblical Studies Press, www.bible.org, 1996-2002), p. 450. Also cited by the bible.org website in the article: “Is repentance necessary for salvation?” (January 1, 2001).

[217] Robert Wilkin, “Repentance and Salvation, Part 3: New Testament Repentance: Lexical Considerations” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Vol. 2:2 (Autumn 1989); cf. Robert Wilkin, “Repentance as a Condition for Salvation in the New Testament,” An Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary (May 1985). A condensed version of the dissertation appears in the first six issues of the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. Note: Wilkin has since renounced this view of repentance.

[218] Ibid.

[219] Robert P. Lightner, Sin, The Savior, and Salvation (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1991), p. 167.

[220] Ibid., p. 212.

[221] Robert P. Lightner, Truth for the Good Life in the Postmodern World (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2005), p. 108. Previously published with the title Truth for the Good Life by Accent Books, 1978.

[222] Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation, A Biblical Evaluation and Response, 2nd GraceLife edition (Xulon Press, 2010), pp. 67, 69. Note: In the Author’s Preface to the 2nd GraceLife Edition, Charles Bing writes: “This book was originally presented as a Ph.D. doctoral dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary [1991].” (Ibid., p. iii.) Bing’s doctoral dissertation was first published in book form in 1997. The 2nd GraceLife edition of the book was published in 2010. 

[223] Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, 2nd GraceLife edition (Xulon Press, 2010), p. 69.

[224] Ibid, p. 89.

[225] Charles Bing, Grace, Salvation, and Discipleship (Grace Theology Press, 2015), p. 51, emphasis his. Cited by Wayne Grudem in his book “‘Free Grace’ Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the [Lordship] Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 2016), p. 56, see footnote 13.

[226] Charles Bing, GraceNotes, Number 90, “Answering Common Objections to Free Grace, Part 1”. See under Objection #3. Cf. Charles Bing, Grace, Salvation, and Discipleship: How To Understand Some Difficult Bible Passages (Grace Theology Press, 2015), p. 280.

[227] Joseph Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992, 1993, 2001), p. 30. In regards to the meaning of repentance, Dillow says in his book The Reign of the Servant Kings (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992, 1993, 2001, Third Edition, p. 36) that his view is “similar” to the view of Charles Ryrie as set forth in Ryrie’s book So Great Salvation, on pages 91-100 of that book (which is the chapter in Ryrie’s book titled “REPENT! ABOUT WHAT?”). Furthermore, Dillow agrees that the word “repent” (Gr. metanoeo) in the NT and in the LXX means: “1. A change of mind (Heb. 12:17; Jon. 3:9-10; 4:2; Amos 7:3, 6; Joel 2:13-14; Acts 2:38).” And also that it is used: “2. As a virtual synonym for reliant trust or faith (Acts 20:21).” (At least in the aforementioned passages Dillow agrees that the word metanoeo has those meanings.) The only difference is that Dillow also says that the word metanoeo in some contexts can mean: “3. A turning from sin as a preparatory stage prior to saving faith (Mt. 4:17; Lk. 3:3), or possibly, a challenge to ‘get right with God’ (Mt. 12:41).” (See Dillow’s comments in the third edition of his book The Reign of the Servant Kings, p. 32.) But Dillow’s third usage of metanoeo could fit into his first two usages listed above. In other words, if by “turning from sin” one defines it as a turning from the sin of unbelief (as in John 16:8-9), then that could be called “a preparatory stage prior to saving faith”. And similarly, couldn’t metanoeo as “a change of mind” be explained as “a challenge to ‘get right with God’”? Thus, “get right with God” is simply another way of saying “change your mind about Him”, in other words “repent”! So Dillow’s understanding of biblical repentance is not that different from the traditional Free Grace view of repentance, and maybe it is not really any different at all!

[228] Joseph Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992, 1993, 2001), p. 35.

[229] Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Disagreements (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), p. 260.

[230] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2004), vol. 3, italics his. See chapter 5, “The Effects of Sin”.

[231] Ibid., vol. 3, italics his. See chapter 16: “The Conditions for Salvation”.

[232] J. Hampton Keathley III, ABCs for Christian Growth (Biblical Studies Press, 1996-2002), Fifth Edition, p. 449, italics and bold his, brackets added. Editor’s Note: The three brackets in the Keathley quote are added by me. The bibliographic information in the second and third brackets are the sources that Mr. Keathley cited in footnotes in those places where I have the brackets (see Ibid., p. 449, footnotes 5 and 6) .

[233] Larry Moyer, Free and Clear (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1997), pp. 92, 95, italics his, ellipsis added.

[234] Wendell G. Johnston, Charles R. Swindoll, General Editor, Roy B. Zuck, Managing Editor, The Theological Wordbook (Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000), pp. 297-298, emphasis his, ellipsis added.

[235] Ron Rhodes, Christianity According to the Bible (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2006), p. 137. Cf. Ron Rhodes, The Heart of Christianity, p. 93.

[236] Charles Stanley, Handbook for Christian Living: Biblical Answers to Life’s Tough Questions (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008), pp. 226-227, italics his.

[237] James A. Scudder, Forever With God (Lake Zurich: Victory in Grace Ministries, 2009), pp. 38-39.

[238] Ibid., p. 39.

[239] Ibid., p. 40.

[240] Anthony E. Bottoms, “REPENTANCE AS ‘TURNING AROUND’,” Antje du Bois-Pedain, and Anthony E. Bottoms, Editors, Penal Censure (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2019), p. 126, bold added, italics his. Note: The British English spelling of the word “characterisation” has been updated to the American English spelling (“characterization”).

[241] Charles Swindoll, “A Quick Turnaround,” June 11, 2020. Insight for Today, A Daily Devotional by Pastor Chuck Swindoll.

[242] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary Series: The Prophets: Jonah and Micah (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc.), comment on Jonah 3:9-10.

[243] See the entry for “REPENT, REPENTANCE” in Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), pp. 580-581.

[244] Mounce writes: “As the Greek language spread across the world and met other languages, it was altered (which is true of any language). The dialects also interacted with each other. Eventually this adaptation resulted in what today we call Koine Greek (or more inexactly, ‘biblical Greek’). ‘Koine’ means ‘common’ (from the phrase koinē dialektos, the ‘common language’) and describes the common, everyday form of the language used by everyday people….It is this common Koine Greek that is used in the Septuagint, the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, the New Testament Apocrypha, Josephus, Plutarch, and to some degree Philo.” (William D. Mounce, The Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019], p. 2, ellipsis added.)

[245] William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), pp. 580-581.

[246] J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929), vol. 2, p. 318 (archive.org/details/grammarofnewtest02mouluoft/page/n6/mode/1up).

[247] Martin Luther, quoted by Henry Eyster Jacobs, Elements of Religion (Philadelphia: The Board of Publication of the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran church in North America, 1913), p. 281.

[248] Robert Wilkin, “Repentance and Salvation—Part 3: New Testament Repentance: Lexical Considerations,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, vol. 2, no. 2 (Autumn 1989), p. 17. Note: Wilkin has since renounced this view of repentance.

[249] Ibid., p. 20.

[250] Wayne Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, p. 63.

[251] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 2 vols., vol. 1, p. 510.

[252] Ibid., vol. 1, p. 510.

[253] Ibid., vol. 1, p. 510, footnote 5.

[254] Charlie Bing, GraceNotes, Number 92: “Quotes on Repentance as a Change of Mind, Part 1”.

[255] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols., vol. 1, p. 510.

[256] Louw & Nida, vol. 1, p. 511, ellipsis in original.

[257] John Walker, Essays and Correspondence, Chiefly on Scriptural Subjects, Edited by William Burton (London: 1838), vol. 1, p. 132.

[258] G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2010), p. 84. Commenting on Acts 17:30, Charles Bing makes a similar point when he says, “In this passage, the juxtaposition of ‘repent’ with ‘we ought not to think’ (v. 29) and ‘ignorance’ (v. 30) denotes the internal nature of repentance rather than the Lordship characterization of turning from sins.” (Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, 2nd GraceLife Edition [Xulon Press, 2010], p. 78.)

[259] B. H. Carroll, The Four Gospels (Volume 1), in An Interpretation of the English Bible, Edited by J. B. Cranfill (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1916), p. 185. 

[260] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 487. Note: G. Michael Cocoris and Charles Bing both quote this statement by Berkhof. See G. Michael Cocoris, Evangelism: A Biblical Approach (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), p. 68; Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible (Milwaukee: 2010), p. 17; Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response (Xulon Press: 2010), pp. 69, 82.

[261] William D. Mounce, Greek for the Rest of Us (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), p. 58.

[262] William Lorimer, Remarks on the Rev. Mr. Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel (London: 1696), p. 58.

[263] Bruce Metzger, Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1997), p. 79.

[264] Ibid., p. 83.

[265] Ibid, pp. 79, 83.

[266] E.R.M., “CATHOLIC TESTAMENT. EXTRACTS. REFUTATIONS. NUMBER 1,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate, vol. 5 (1834), pp. 226-227, 243.

[267] Cornelius Schrevelius, Schrevelius’ Greek Lexicon, Edited by J. R. Major (London: 1831), p. 393.

[268] John Parkhurst, A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament (London: 1817), p. 429. 

[269] Ibid., p. 430.

[270] J. H. Bass, A Greek and English Manual Lexicon to the New Testament (London: 1829), p. 140.

[271] H. P. V. Nunn, The Elements of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: The University Press, 1914), p. 158.

[272] Ibid., p. 160.

[273] Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar (New York: American Book Company, 1916), p. 262.

[274] J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929), vol. 2, p. 318 (archive.org/details/grammarofnewtest02mouluoft/page/n6/mode/1up). 

[275] A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923), pp. 53-54.

[276] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, comment on Acts 20:17. Also see Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, under the New Testament entry for the word “CALL,” number 4, metakaleo, Vine writes: “meta, implying ‘change,’ and No. 1 [kaleo], ‘to call from one place to another, to summon’ (cf. the Septuagint of Hosea 11:1), is used in the middle voice only, ‘to call for oneself, to send for, call hither,’ Acts 7:14; 10:32; 20:17; 24:25.” (W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words [Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1981], p. 164.)

[277] H. E. Dana, Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (The MacMillan Company, 1927, 1955, 1957), pp. 107-108.

[278] William Douglas Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 141. Note: Originally published in 1941 by The Macmillan Company.

[279] William Sanford LaSor, Handbook of New Testament Greek: An Inductive Approach Based on the Greek Text of Acts (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), vol. 1, pp. A-104-105.

[280] David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek to Me (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 84.

[281] Ibid., p. 84. Note: I transcribed the Greek letters into English.

[282] Martin Luther, quoted by Ruard Tapper in his book Explicationis Articulorum Venerandae Facultatis Sacrae Theologiae (Lovanii: 1555), 2 Vols., Vol. 1, pp. 181-182 (pp. 185-186 in some editions). Translated from the Latin by Jonathan Perreault. Note: This statement by Luther appears in a section of Tapper’s book titled “Responsio Ad Argumenta Lutheri” which translated means “Response to Luther’s Arguments”. The original statement by Luther was apparently written in 1518, because Tapper says the quote is from Luther’s Resolutions to (Explanations of) his Ninety-Five Theses, “circa primam conclusionem resolutionum,” that is, “around the conclusion of the first resolution”. Ruard Tapper (1487-1559) was a Dutch 16th century Roman Catholic theologian who argued against Luther’s “change of mind” view of repentance.

[283] Thomas De Quincey, The Collected Writings of Thomas De Quincey. Edited by David Masson (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889), 14 vols., vol. 1, p. 369.

[284] Matthew Arnold, The Works of Matthew Arnold (London: MacMillan and Co., 1903), 15 vols., vol. 7: Literature and Dogma, p. 196.

[285] A clergyman from the Church of England, The Circulation of Roman Catholic Versions of the Bible by the British and Foreign Bible Society (London: 1868), p. 25.

[286] Alexander Roberts, quoted by Treadwell Walden in his book The Great Meaning of Metanoia (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1896), p. 154.

[287] Treadwell Walden, The Great Meaning of Metanoia (New York: Whittaker, 1896), pp. 14, 24. Cf. Treadwell Walden, “THE GREAT MEANING OF THE WORD METANOIA: LOST IN THE OLD VERSION, UNRECOVERED IN THE NEW,” The American Church Review, Vol. 35 (July 1881): pp. 148, 153.

[288] J. Glentworth Butler, Topical Analysis of the Bible (New York: Butler Bible Work Company, 1897), p. 443, emphasis his, ellipsis added. See under the heading “REPENTANCE”.

[289] Giovanni Papini, The Story of Christ (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923), p. 60.

[290] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament, commentary on Matthew 3:2.

[291] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, commentary on 2 Corinthians 7:9.

[292] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), p. 480. Note: Berkhof’s Systematic Theology was previously published in 1938.

[293] William Walden Howard, “Is Faith Enough to Save? Part 3,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 99 (January 1942): p. 96. Cf. Larry Moyer, Free and Clear (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1997), p. 86.

[294] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), p. 196.

[295] George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), p. 36. Note: Ladd’s Theology of the New Testament was originally published in 1974.

[296] Robert Wilkin, “Repentance and Salvation, Part 3: New Testament Repentance: Lexical Considerations,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 1989), vol. 2:2; cf. Robert Wilkin, “Repentance as a Condition for Salvation in the New Testament”, An Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary (May 1985). A condensed version of the dissertation appears in the first six issues of the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. Wilkin has since renounced this view of repentance.

[297] Curtis Hutson, Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach? (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1986), pp. 3-4. 

[298] Wendell G. Johnston, “Repentance,” Don Campbell, Wendell Johnston, John Walvoord, John Witmer, The Theological Wordbook (Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000), p. 296.

[299] James A. Scudder, Forever With God (Lake Zurich: Victory in Grace Ministries, 2009), p. 40.

[300] Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response (Xulon Press, 2010), p. 69.

[301] William Douglas Chamberlain, The Meaning of Repentance (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943), pp. 47. Note: See all of chapter 1: “THE NEED FOR A RESTUDY OF REPENTANCE” (pp. 15-47). Commenting on chapter 1 of Chamberlain’s book, Charles Bing affirms: “Chamberlain shows how metanoeō has been misunderstood or mistranslated since Tertullian’s day (late second century) up to the present time. He shows how Tertullian et al have argued for the meaning ‘change of mind.’” (Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response [Xulon Press, 2010], p. 69, footnote 41.)