μετα-νοέω, -@; fut. μετανοήσω ; 1 aor. μετενόησα; fr. [Antipho], Xen. down; Sept. several times for 003; to change one’s mind, i. e. to repent (to feel sorry that one has done this or that, Jon. iii. 9), of having offended some one, Lk. xvii. 3 sq.; with ἐπί τινε added (dat. of the wrong, Hebr. Sy, Am. vii. 3; Joel ii. 13; Jon. iii. 10; iv. 2), of (on account of) something (so Lat. me paenitet alicuius rei), 2 Co. xii. 21; used esp. of those who, conscious οὗ their sins and with manifest tokens of sorrow, are intent on obtaining God’s pardon; to repent (Lat. paenitentiam agere): petavo® ἐν σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ, clothed in sackcloth and besprinkled with ashes, Mt. xi. 21; Lk. x. 13. to change one’s mind for the better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins: Mt. iii. 2; iv. 17; Mk. i. 15, (ef. Mt. iii. 6 ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν : ib. 8 and Lk. iii. 8 καρποὺς ἀξίους τῆς μετανοίας, i. 6. conduct worthy of a heart changed and abhorring sin); [Mt. xi. 20; Mk. vi. 12]; Lk. xiii. 8,5; xv. 7,10; xvi. 30; Acts ii. 38; iii. 19; xvii. 30; Rev. ii. 5, 16; iii. 3,19; on the phrase μετανοεῖν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμά τινος, Mt. xii. 41 and Lk. xi. 32, see εἰς, B. II. 2 d.; [W. 397 (371)]. Since τὸ μετανοεῖν expresses mental direction, the termini from which and to which may be specified: ἀπὸ τῆς κακίας, to withdraw or turn one’s soul from, ete. [οἵ W. 622 (577); esp. B. 322 (277)], Acts viii. 22; ἔκ τινος, Rev. ii. 21 sq.; ix. 20 sq.; xvi. 11 (see ἐκ, I. 6; [ef. B. 327 (281), and W. u. s.]); μετανοεῖν x. ἐπιστρέφειν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, Acts xxvi. 20; foll. by an inf. indicating purpose [W. 318 (298)], Rev. xvi. 9. [Syn. see μεταμέλομαι.]

μετανοέω metanoeō 34x

to undergo a change in frame of mind and feeling, to repent, Lk. 17:3, 4; to make a change of principle and practice, to reform, Mt. 3:2

μετα-νοέω, -ῶ,

[in LXX for נחם ni., I Ki 15:29, Je 4:28, al.;]

to change one's mind or purpose, hence, to repent; in NT (exc. Lk 17:3, 4), of repentance from sin, involving amendment: seq. ἀπό, Ac 8:22; ἔκ, Re 2:21, 22 9:20, 21 16:11 (מִן שׁוּב); ἐπί, II Co 12:21; absol., Mt 3:2 4:17 11:20 12:41, Mk 1:15 6:12, Lk 11:32 13:3, 5 15:7, 10 16:30 17:3, 4, Ac 2:38 3:19 17:30 26:20 Re 2:5, 16, 21 3:3, 19; c. inf., Re 16:9; ἐν σάκκῳ κ. σποδῷ, Mt 11:21, Lk 10:13.†

SYN.: μεταμέλομαι, q.v.

Ir is often stated by theologians of the Reformation period that μετάνοια and μεταμέλεια, with their several verbs, μετανοεῖν and μεταμέλεσθαι, are so far distinct, that where it is intended to express the mere desire that the done might be undone, accompanied with regrets or even with remorse, but with no effective change of heart, there the latter words are employed; but where a true change of heart toward God, there the former. It was Beza, I believe, who first strongly urged this. He was followed by many; thus see Spanheim, Dub. Hvang. vol. iii. dub. 9; and Chillingworth (Sermons before Charles I. p. 11): ‘To this purpose it is worth the observing, that when the Scripture speaks of that kind of repentance, which is only sorrow for something done, and wishing it undone, it constantly useth the word μεταμέλεια, to which forgiveness of sins is nowhere promised. So it is written of Judas the son of perdition (Matt. xxvii. 3), μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπέστρεψε, he repented and went and hanged himself; and so constantly in other places. But that repentance to which remission of sins and salvation is promised, is perpetually expressed by the word μετάνοια, which signifieth a thorough change of the heart and soul, of the life and actions.’ Let me, before proceeding further, correct a slight inaccuracy in this statement. Μεταμέλεια nowhere occurs in the N. T.; only once in the Old (Hos. xi. 8). So far as we are dealing with N. T. synonyms, it is properly between the verbs alone that the comparison can be instituted, and a distinction drawn; though, indeed, what stands good of them will stand good of their conjugates as well. But δ χιχ. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 257 even after this correction made, the statement will itself need a certain qualification. Jeremy Taylor allows as much; whose words—they occur in his great treatise, On the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, ch. ii. 1, 2—areas follows: ‘The Greeks use two words to express this duty, μεταμέλεια and μετάνοια. Μεταμέλεια is from μεταμελεῖσθαι, post factum angi et cruciari, to be afflicted in mind, to be troubled for our former folly; it is δυσαρέστησις ἐπὶ πεπραγμένοις, Saith Phavorinus, a being displeased for what we have done, and it is generally used for all sorts of repentance; but more properly to signify either the beginning of a good, or the whole state of an ineffective, repentance. In the first sense we find it in St. Matthew, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰδόντες ov μετεμελήθητε ὕστερον τοῦ πιστεῦσαι αὐτῷ, ‘and ye, seeing, did not repent that ye might believe Him.’ Of the second sense we have an example inJudas, μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπέστρεψε, he “repented” too, but the end of it was he died with anguish and despair... . There is in this repentance a sorrow for what is done, a disliking of the thing with its consequents and effect, and so far also it is a change of mind. But it goes no further than so far to change the mind that it brings trouble and sorrow, and such things as are the natural events of it... . When there was a difference made, μετάνοια was the better word, which does not properly signify the sorrow for having done amiss, but something that is nobler than it, but brought in at the gate of sorrow. For ἡ κατὰ Θεὸν λύπη, a godly sorrow, that is μεταμέλεια, or the first beginning of repentance, μετάνοιαν κατεργάξεται, worketh this better repentance, μετάνοιαν ἀμεταμέλητον and εἰς σωτηρίαν.᾽ Thus far Jeremy Taylor. Presently, however, he admits that ‘ however the grammarians may distinguish them, yet the words are used promiscuously,’ and that no rigid line of discrimination can be drawn between them as some have attempted to draw. ‘This in its measure is true, yet not so true but that a predominant use of one and of the other can very 258 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, § τχιχ. clearly be traced. There was, as is well known, a conflict between the early Reformers and the Roman Catholic divines whether ‘ peenitentia,’ as the latter affirmed, or ‘resipiscentia,’ as Beza and the others, was the better Latin rendering of μετάνοια. There was much to be said on both sides; but it is clear that if the standing word had been μεταμέλεια, and not μετάνοια, this would have told to a certain degree in favour of the Roman Catholic view. ‘ Ponitentia,’ says Augustine (De Ver. et Fals. Pan. 6. viii.), ‘est queedam dolentis vindicta, semper puniens in se quod dolet commisisse.’ Μετανοεῖν is properly to know after, as προνοεῖν to know before, and μετάνοια afterknowledge, as πρόνοια foreknowledge; which is well brought out by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. 6): εἰ ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥμαρτεν μετενόησεν, εἰ σύνεσιν ἔλαβεν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἔπταισεν, καὶ μετέγνω, ὅπερ ἐστὶ, μετὰ ταῦτα ἔγνω" βραδεῖα γὰρ γνῶσις, μετάνοια. Soin {πΠ6 Florilegium of Stobzeus, i. 14: οὐ μετανοεῖν ἀλλὰ προνοεῖν χρὴ τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν σοφόν. At its next step μετάνοια signifies the change of mind consequent on this after-knowledge; thus Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. ii. 24): ‘In Greco sermone pcenitentize nomen non ex delicti confessione, sed ex animi demutatione, compositum est.’ At its third, it is regret for the course pursued; resulting from the change of mind consequent on this after-knowledge; with a δυσαρέστησι, or displeasure with oneself thereupon; ‘ passio quedam animi quee veniat de offens4 sententie prioris,’ which, as Tertullian (De Ponit, 1) affirms, was all that the heathen understood by it. At this stage of its meaning it is found associated with δηγμός (Plutarch, Quom. Am. ab Adul. 12); with αἰσχύνη (De Virt. Mor. 12); with πόθος (Pericles, 10; οἵ. Lucian, De Saltat. 84). Last of all it signifies change of conduct for the future, springing from all this. At the same time this change of mind, and of action upon this following, may be quite as well a change for the worse as for the better; there is no need that it should be a §rxix. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 259 ‘resipiscentia’ as well; this is quite a Christian superaddition to the word. Thus A. Gellius (xvii. 1.6): “Ῥαnitere tum dicere solemus, cum que ipsi fecimus, aut que de nostra voluntate nostroque consilio facta sunt, ea nobis post incipiunt displicere, sententiamque in iis nostram demutamus.’ In like manner Plutarch (Sept. Sap. Conv. 21) tells us of two murderers, who, having spared a child, afterwards ‘ repented’ (μετενόησαν), and sought to slay it (cf. his Timoleon, ὃ 6) ; μεταμέλεια is used by him in the same sense of a repenting of good (De Ser. Num. Vind. 11); so that here also Tertullian had right in his complaint (De Penit. 1): ‘Quam autem in penitentie actu irrationaliter deversentur [ethnici], vel uno isto satis erit expedire, cum illam etiam in bonis actis suis adhibent. Pcenitet fidei, amoris, simplicitatis, patientiz, misericordiz, prout quid in ingratiam cecidit.’ The regret may be, and often is, quite unconnected with the sense of any wrong done, of the violation of any moral law, may be simply what our fathers were wont to call ‘hadiwist’ (had-I-wist better, I should have acted otherwise) ; thus see Plutarch, De Lib. Ed. 14; Sept. Sap. Conv. 12; De Soler. Anim. 3: λύπη δι’ ἀλγηδόνος, ἣν μετάνοιαν ὀνομάζομεν, “ displeasure with oneself, proceeding from pain, which we call repentance’ ‘Holland). That it had sometimes, though rarely, an ethical meaning, none would deny, in which sense Plutarch (De Ser. Num. Vind. 6) has a passage in wonderful harmony with Rom. ii. 4; and another (De Trang. Animi, 19), in which μεταμέλεια and μετάνοια are interchangeably used. It is only after μετάνοια has been taken up into the uses of Scripture, or of writers dependent on Scripture, that it comes predominantly to mean a change of mind, taking a wiser view of the past, συναίσθησις ψυχῆς ἐφ᾽ ols ἔπραξεν ἀτόποις (Phavorinus), a regret for the ill done in that past, and out of all this a change of life for the better ; ἐπιστροφὴ τοῦ βίου (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. ii. 245 a), or as Plato already had, in part at least, described it, 260 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § xxix. μεταστροφὴ ἀπὸ τῶν σκιῶν ἐπὶ TO φῶς (Rep. vii. 532 δ) περιστροφή, Ψυχῆς περιαγωγή (ibid. 521 c). This is all imported into, does not etymologically nor yet by primary usage lie in, the word. Not very frequent in the Septuagint or the Apocrypha (yet see Ecclus. xliv. 16; Wisd. xi. 23; xii. 10, 19; and for the verb, Jer. viii. 6), it is common in Philo, who joins μετάνοια with βελτίωσις (De Abrah. 3), explaining it as πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον ἡ μεταβολή (ibid. ; οἵ. De Ponit. 3); while in the N. T. μετανοεῖν and μετάνοια, Whenever they are used in the N. T., and it is singular how rarely this in the writings of St. Paul is the case, μετανοεῖν but once (2 Cor. xii. 21), and μετάνοια only four times (Rom. 11. 4; 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10; 2 Tim. ii. 25), are never employed in other than an ethical sense; ‘die unter Schmerz der Reue sich im Personleben des Menschen vollziehende radicale Umstimmung,’ Delitzsch has finely described it. But while thus μετανοεῖν and μετάνοια gradually advanced in depth and fulness of meaning, till they became the fixed and recognized words to express that mighty change in mind, heart, and life wrought by the Spirit of God (‘such a virtuous alteration of the mind and purpose as begets a like virtuous change in the iife and practice,’ Kettlewell), which we call repentance; the like honour was very partially vouchsafed to μεταμέλεια and μεταμέλεσθαι. The first, styled by Plutarch σώτειρα δαίμων, and by him explained as ἡ ἐπὶ ταῖς ἡδοναῖς, ὅσαι παράνομοι Kal ἀκρατεῖς, αἰσχύνη (De Gen. Socr. 22), associated by him with βαρυθυμία (An Vit. ad Inf. 2), by Plato with ταραχή (Rep. ix. 577 e; cf. Plutarch, De Cohib. Ird, 16), has been noted as never occurring in the N. T.; the second only five times ; and designating on one of these the sorrow of this world which worketh death, of Judas Iscariot (Matt. xxvii. 3), and on another expressing, not the repentance of men, but the change of mind of God (Heb. vii. 21) ; and this while μετάνοια occurs some five and twenty, and μετανοεῖν some five and thirty §uxix. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 261 times. Those who deny that either in profane or sacred Greek any traceable difference existed between the words are able, in the former, to point to passages where μεταμέλεια is used in all those senses which have been here claimed for μετάνοια, to others where the two are employed as convertible terms, and both to express remorse (Plutarch, De Trang. Anim. 19); in the latter, to passages in the N. T. where μεταμέλεσθαι implies all that μετανοεῖν would have implied (Matt. xxi. 29, 32). But all this freely admitted, there does remain, both in sacred and profane use, a very distinct preference for μετάνοια as the expression of the nobler repentance. This we might, indeed, have expected beforehand, from the relative etymological force of the words. He who has changed his mind about the past is in the way to change everything; he who has an afler care may have little or nothing more than a selfish dread of the consequences of what he has done (Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. ix. 4. 10: μεταμελείας of φαῦλοι γέμουσιν) ; so that the long dispute on the relation of these words with one another may be suinmed up in the statement of Bengel, which seems to me to express the exact truth of the matter; allowing a difference, but not urging it too far (Gnomon N.T.; 2 Cor. vii. 10) : Vi etymi μετάνοια proprie est mentis, μεταμέλεια voluntatis; quod illa sententiam, hee solicitudinem vel potius studium mutatum dicat... . Utrumque ergo dicitur de eo, quem facti consiliive peenitet, sive peenitentia bona sit sive mala, sive malz rei sive bone, sive cum mutatione actionum in posterum, sive citra eam. Veruntamen si usum spectes, μεταμέλεια plerunque est μέσον vocabulum, et refertur potissimum ad actiones singulares : μετάνοια vero, in N.T. preesertim, in bonam partem sumitur, quo notatur pcenitentia totius vitz ipsorumque nostri quoddammodo: sive tota illa beata mentis post errorem et peccata reminiscentia, cum omnibus affectibus eam ingredientibus, quam fructus digni sequuntur. Hine fit ut μετανοεῖν seepe inimperativo ponatur, μεταμελεῖσθαι 262 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § .xx nunquam: ceteris autem locis, ubicunque μετάνοια legitur, μεταμέλειαν possis substituere: sed non coutra.’ Compare Witsius, De (σου. Feed. Dei, iii. 12. 130-1363; Girdlestone, Old Testament Synonyms, p. 153 sqq. δ xx. μορφή, σχῆμα, ἰδέα. THESE words are none of them of frequent recurrence in the N. T., μορφή occurring there only thrice (Mark xvi. 12; Phil. ii. 6, 7) ; but compare μόρφωσις (Rom. ii. 20; 2 Tim. 111. 5): σχῆμα twice (1 Cor. vii. 31; Phil. ii. 8); and ἐδέα only once (Matt. xxviii. 3). Mopdy is ‘form,’ ‘ forma,’ ‘gestalt’; σχῆμα is ‘fashion,’ ‘ habitus,’ ‘figur’; ἰδέα, ‘appearance,’ ‘species, ‘erscheinung.’ The first two, which occur not unfrequently together (Plutarch, Symp. Viii. 2. 3), are objective; for the ‘form’ and the ‘fashion ἢ of a thing would exist, were it alone in the universe, and whether there were any to behold it or no. The other (ἐδέα = εἶδος, John vy. 37) is subjective, the appearance of a thing implying some to whom this appearance is made; there must needs be a seer before there can be a seen. We may best study the distinction between μορφή and σχῆμα, ἀπ at the same time estimate its importance, by aid of that great doctrinal passage (Phil. ii. 6-8), in which St. Paul speaks of the Eternal Word before his Incarnation as subsisting “in the form of God” (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων), as assuming at his Incarnation “the form of a servant” ( μορφὴν δούλου λαβών), and after his Incarnation and during his walk upon earth as “being found in fashion as a man” (σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὧς ἄνθρωπος). The Fathers were wont to urge the first phrase, ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, against the Arians (thus Hilary, De Trin. viii. 45; Ambrose, Hp. 46; Gregory of Nyssa, Con. Lunom. 4); and the Lutherans did the same against the Socinians, as a ‘dictum probans’ of the absolute divinity δΊΧΧ. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 263 of the Son of God; that is, μορφή for them was here equivalent to οὐσία or φύσις. This cannot, however, as is now generally acknowledged, be maintained. Doubtless there does lie in the words a proof of the divinity of Christ, but this implicitly and not explicitly. Μορφή is not=ovcia: at the same time none could be ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ who was not God; as is well put by Bengel: “ Forma Dei non est natura divina, sed tamen is qui in forma Dei extabat, Deus est;’ and this because μορφή, like the Latin ‘forma,’ the German ‘ gestalt,’ signifies the form as it is the utterance of the inner life; not ‘being,’ but ‘mode of being,’ or better, ‘mode of existence’; and only God could have the mode of existence of God. But He who had thus been from eternity ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ (John xvii. 5), took at his Incarnation μορφὴν δούλου. The verity of his Incarnation is herein implied; there was nothing docetic, nothing phantastic about it. His manner of existence was now that of a δοῦλος, that is, of a δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ : for in the midst of all our Lord’s humiliations He was never a δοῦλος ἀνθρώπων. Their διάκονος He may have been, and from time to time eminently was (John xiii. 4, 5; Matt. xx. 28); this was part of his ταπείνωσις mentioned in the next verse; but their δοῦλος never; they, on the contrary, his. It was with respect of God He so emptied Himself of his glory, that, from that manner of existence in which He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, He became his servant. The next clause, “ and being found in fashion (σχήματι) as a man,” is very instructive for the distinguishing of σχῆμα from μορφή. The verity of the Son’s Incarnation was expressed, as we have seen, in the μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. These words which follow do but declare the outward facts which came under the knowledge of his fellow-men, with therefore an emphasis on εὑρεθείς : He was by men found in fashion as a man, the σχῆμα here signifying. his whole outward presentation, as Bengel puts 264 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, § vxx. it well: “σχῆμα, habitus, cultus, vestitus, victus, gestus, ᾿ sermones et actiones.? In none of these did there appear any difference between Him and the other children of men. This superficial character of σχῆμα appears in its association with such words as χρῶμα (Plato, Gorg. 465 ὃ: Theetet. 163 b) and ὑπογραφή (Legg. v. 737 d) ; as in the definition of it which Plutarch gives (De Plac. Phil. 14): ἐστὶν ἐπιφάνεια καὶ περιγραφὴ καὶ πέρας σώματος. The two words are used in an instructive antithesis by Justin Martyr (1 Apol. 9). The distinction between them comes out very clearly in the compound verbs μετασχηματίζειν and μεταμορφοῦν. Thus if I were to change a Dutch garden into an Italian, this would be μετασχηματισμός : but if I were to transform a garden into something wholly different, as into a city,’ this would be μεταμόρφωσις. It is possible for Satan μετασχηματίζειν himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. xi. 14); he can take the whole outward semblance of such. But to any such change of his it would be impossible to apply the μεταμορφοῦσθαι : for this would imply a change not external but internal, not of accidents but of essence, which lies quite beyond his power. How fine and subtle is the variation of words at Rom. xii. 2; though ‘ conJSormed’ and ‘ transformed’ in our Translation have failed adequately to represent it. ‘Do not fall in,’ says the Apostle, ‘ with the fleeting fashions of this world, nor be yourselves fashioned to them (μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε), but undergo a deep abiding change (ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθεὶ) by the renewing of your mind, such as the Spirit of God alone can work in you’ (cf. 2 Cor. iii. 18). Theodoret, commenting on this verse, calls particular attention to this variation of the word used, a variation which it would 1 The Authorized Version is the first which uses ‘ transformed’ here ; Wiclif and the Rheims, both following closely the Vulgate, ‘ transfigured,’ and the intermediate Reformed Versions, ‘changed into the fashion of.’ If the distinctions here drawn are correct, and if they stand good in English as well as Greek, ‘ transformed ’ is not the word. task the highest skill of the English scholar adequately to reproduce in his own language. Among much else which is interesting, he says: ἐδίδασκεν ὅσον πρὸς Ta παρόντα τῆς ἀρετῆς τὸ διάφορον: ταῦτα yap ἐκάλεσε σχῆμα, τὴν ἀρετὴν δὲ μορφήν" ἡ μορφὴ δὲ ἀληθῶν πραγμάτων σημαντική, τὸ δὲ σχῆμα εὐδιάλυτον χρῆμα. Meyer perversely enough rejects all this, and has this note: ‘ Beide Worte stehen im Gegensatze nur durch die Prapositionen, ohne Sinnverschiedenheit der Stamm-Verba ;’ with whom Fritzsche agrees (in loc.). One can understand a commentator overlooking, but scarcely one denying, the significance of this change. For the very different uses of one word and the other, see Plutarch, Quom. Adul. ab Amic. 7, where both occur. At the resurrection Christ shall transfigure (μετασχηματίσει) the bodies of his saints (Phil. 111. 21; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 53); on which statement Calov remarks, ‘ Ille μετασχηματισμός non substantialem mutationem, sed accidentalem, non ratione quidditatis corporis nostri, sed ratione qualitatum, salv&é quidditate, importat:’ but the changes of heathen deities into wholly other shapes were μεταμορdoces. Inthe μετασχηματισμός there is transition, but no absolute solution of continuity. The butterfly, prophetic type of man’s resurrection, is immeasurably more beautiful than the grub, yet has been duly unfolded from it; but when Proteus transforms himself into a flame, a wild beast, a running stream (Virgil, Georg. iv. 442), each of these disconnected with all that went before, there is here a change not of the σχῆμα merely, but of the μορφή (cf. Euripides, Hec. 1266; Plato, Locr. 104 e). When the Evangelist records that after the resurrection Christ appeared to his disciples ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ (Mark xvi. 12), the words intimate to us how vast the mysterious change to which his body had been submitted, even as they are in keeping with the μετεμορφώθη of Matt. xvii. 2; Mark ix. 2; the transformation upon the Mount being a prophetic anticipation of that which hereafter should be; compare 266 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § xx. Dan. iv. 33, where Nebuchadnezzar says of himself, ἡ μορφή μου ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς ἐμέ. The μορφή then, it may be assumed, is of the essence of a thing.! We cannot conceive the thing as apart from this its formality, to use ‘formality’ in the old logical sense; the σχῆμα is its accident, having to do, not with the ‘ quidditas,’ but the ‘ qualitas,’ and, whatever changes it may undergo, leaving the ‘quidditas’ untouched, the thing itself essentially, or formally, the same as it was before; as one has said, μορφὴ φύσεως σχῆμα ἕξεως. Thus σχῆμα βασιλικόν (Lucian, Pisc. 35; cf. Sophocles, Antig. 1148) is the whole outward array and adornment of a monarch—diadem, tiara, sceptre, robe (cf. Lucian, Hermot. 86)—all which he might lay aside, and remain king notwithstanding. It in no sort belongs or adheres to the man as a part of himself. Thus Menander (Meineke, Fragm. Com. Gir. p. 985) : πρᾶον κακοῦργος σχῆμ᾽ ὑπεισελθὼν ἀνὴρ κεκρυμμένη κεῖται παγὶς τοῖς πλησίον. Thus, too, the σχῆμα τοῦ κοσμοῦ passes away (1 Cor. vii. 31), the image being here probably drawn from the shifting scenes of a theatre, but the κόσμος itself abides ; there is no τέλος τοῦ κοσμοῦ, but only τοῦ αἰῶνος, or τῶν αἰώνων. For some valuable remarks on the distinction between μορφή and σχῆμα see The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, No. 7, pp. 113, 116, 121; and the same drawn out more fully by Bishop Lightfoot, their author, in his Commentary on the Philippians, pp. 125-131. The use in Latin of ‘forma’ and ‘ figura’ so far corresponds with those severally of μορφή and σχῆμα, that while ‘ figura forme’ occurs not rarely (‘ veterem forme servare figuram’; cf. Cicero, Nat. Deor. i. 32), ‘forma figure’ never (see Déderlein, Latein. Syn. vol. iii. p. 87). 1 ὁ 7α forme est nécessairement en rapport avec la matiére ou avec le fond. La figure au contrairé est plus indépendante des objets ; se congoit ἃ part’ (Lafaye, Syn. Fran. p. 617). διχχ. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 267 Contrast too in English ‘deformed’ and ‘ disfigured.’ A hunchback is ‘deformed,’ a man that has been beaten about the face may be ‘disfigured’; the deformity is bound up in the very existence of the one; the disfigurement of the other may in a few days have quite passed away. In ‘transformed’ and ‘ transfigured’ it is easy to recognize the same distinction. ᾿Ιδέα on the one occasion of its use in the N. T. (Matt. XXvill. 3) is rendered ‘ countenance,’ as at 2 Mace. iii. 16 ‘face.” It is nota happy translation ; ‘appearance’ would be better; ‘species sub oculos cadens,’ not the thing itself, but the thing as beholden; thus Plato (Rep. ix. 588 ὁ), πλάττε ἰδέαν θηρίου ποικίλου, “ Fashion to thyself the image of a manifold beast’; so ἰδέα τοῦ προσώπου, the look of the countenance (Plutarch, Pyrrh. 3, and often); ἐδέᾳ καλός, fair to look on (Pindar, Olymp. x. 122) ; χιόνος ἰδέα, the appearance of snow (Philo, Quod Det. Pot. Ins. 48). Plutarch defines it, the last clause of his definition alone concerning us here (De Plac. Phil. i. 9): ἰδέα ἐστὶν οὐσία ἀσώματος, αὐτὴ μὲν μὴ ὑφεστῶσα καθ᾽ αὑτήν, εἰκονίζουσα δὲ τὰς ἀμόρφους tras, καὶ αἰτία γινομένη τῆς τούτων δείξεως. The word is constant to this definition, and to the ἐδεῖν lying at its own base ; oftentimes it is manifestly so, as in the following quotation from Philo, which is further instructive as showing how fundamentally his doctrine of the Logos differed from St. John’s, was in fact a denial of it in its most important element: ὁ δὲ ὑπεράνω τούτων [τῶν χερουβίμ] Λόγος θεῖος eis ὁρατὴν οὐκ ἦλθεν ἰδέαν (De Prof. 19).—On the distinction between εἶδος and ἰδέα, and how far the Platonic philosophy admits a distinction between them at all, see Stallbaum’s note on Plato’s Republic, x. 596 ὃ ; Donaldson’s Cratylus, 3rd ed. p- 105; and Thompson’s note on Archer Butler’s Lectures, vol, li. p. 127. 268 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ὃτχχι.

μετανοέω (metanoeō) — to repent. μετανο-έω, perceive afterwards or too late, opposed to προνοέω, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; opposed to προβουλεύομαι, [Refs 3rd c.AD+]; concur subsequently, τισι [Refs 2nd c.AD+]

2. change one's mind or purpose, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; μ. μὴ οὔτε.. τῶν χαλεπῶν ἔργων ᾖ τὸ.. ἄρχειν change one's opinion and think that it is not.., [Refs 5th c.BC+]

3. repent, [NT+5th c.BC+]; ἐπί τινι [Refs 1st c.AD+]: with participle, μ. γενόμενος Ἕλλην [Refs 2nd c.AD+]

4. with accusative, repent of, τὴν ἄφιξιν [Refs 1st c.AD+]