NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp rean:

rwp@1Corinthians:12:24 @{Tempered the body together} (\sunekerasen to sma\). First aorist active indicative of \sunkerannumi\, to mix together, old word, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:4:2|. Plato used this very word of the way God compounded (\sunekerasato\) the various elements of the body in creating soul and body. Paul rejects the idea of the later Gnostics that matter is evil and the physical organs degrading. He gives a noble picture of the body with its wonderful organs planned to be the temple of God's Spirit (6:19|) in opposition to the Epicurean sensualists in Corinth. {To that part which lacked} (\ti husteroumeni\). It is a true instinct that gives superior honour to the unseen organs of life.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:19 @{We have hoped} (\lpikotes esmen\). Periphrastic perfect active indicative. Hope limited to this life even if "in Christ." {Only} (\monon\) qualifies the whole clause. {Most pitiable} (\eleeinoteroi\). Comparative form, not superlative, of old adjective \eleeinos\, to be pitied, pitiable. If our hope is limited to this life, we have denied ourselves what people call pleasures and have no happiness beyond. The Epicureans have the argument on us. Paul makes morality turn on the hope of immortality. Is he not right? Witness the breaking of moral ties today when people take a merely animal view of life.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:8 @{For nought} (\drean\). Adverbial accusative, as a gift, gift-wise (\drea\, gift, from \didmi\). Same claim made to the Corinthians (2Corinthians:11:7|), old word, in LXX, and papyri. He lodged with Jason, but did not receive his meals _gratis_, for he paid for them. Apparently he received no invitations to meals. Paul had to make his financial independence clear to avoid false charges which were made in spite of all his efforts. To eat bread is merely a Hebraism for eat (verse 10|). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| for labour and travail, and night and day (\nuktos kai hmeras\, genitive of time, by night and by day). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| for rest of the verse in precisely the same words.

rwp@Acts:2:38 @{Repent ye} (\metanosate\). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You _crucified_ this Jesus. Now _crown_ him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. {And be baptized every one of you} (\kai baptistht hekastos hmn\). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (\en ti onomati Isou Christou\). In accordance with the command of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| (\eis to onoma\). No distinction is to be insisted on between \eis to onoma\ and \en ti onomati\ with \baptiz\ since \eis\ and \en\ are really the same word in origin. In strkjv@Acts:10:48| \en ti onomati Isou Christou\ occurs, but \eis\ to \onoma\ in strkjv@8:16; strkjv@19:5|. The use of \onoma\ means in the name or with the authority of one as \eis onoma prophtou\ (Matthew:10:41|) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in strkjv@Matthew:28:19|, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on ¯Matthew:28:19| for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). {Unto the remission of your sins} (\eis aphesin tn hamartin hmn\). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of \eis\ does exist as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:7| \eis doxan hmn\ (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of \eis\ for aim or purpose. It is seen in strkjv@Matthew:10:41| in three examples \eis onoma prophtou, dikaiou, mathtou\ where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in strkjv@Matthew:12:41| about the preaching of Jonah (\eis to krugma Ina\). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the _Koin_ generally (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. Songs:I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. {The gift of the Holy Ghost} (\tn drean tou hagiou pneumatos\). The gift consists (Acts:8:17|) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai tn Epikourin kai Stikn philosophn suneballon auti\). Imperfect active of \sunball\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gnthi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zenn daimonin dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei Skrats, kaina daimonia eisphern\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Isoun kai tn anastasin euggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

rwp@Acts:17:32 @{The resurrection of the dead} (\anastasin nekrn\). Rather, "a resurrection of dead men." No article with either word. The Greeks believed that the souls of men lived on, but they had no conception of resurrection of the body. They had listened with respect till Paul spoke of the actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead as a fact, when they did not care to hear more. {Some mocked} (\hoi men echleuazon\). Imperfect active of \chleuaz\, a common verb (from \chleu\, jesting, mockery). Only here in the N.T. though late MSS. have it in strkjv@2:13| (best MSS. \diachleuaz\). Probably inchoative here, began to mock. In contempt at Paul's statement they declined to listen further to "this babbler" (verse 18|) who had now lost what he had gained with this group of hearers (probably the light and flippant Epicureans). {But others} (\hoi de\). A more polite group like those who had invited him to speak (verse 19|). They were unconvinced, but had better manners and so were in favour of an adjournment. This was done, though it is not clear whether it was a serious postponement or a courteous refusal to hear Paul further (probably this). It was a virtual dismissal of the matter. " It is a sad story--the noblest of ancient cities and the noblest man of history--and he never cared to look on it again" (Furneaux).

rwp@Galatians:2:21 @{I do not make void the grace of God} (\ouk athet tn charin tou theou\). Common word in LXX and Polybius and on, to make ineffective (\a\ privative and \tithmi\, to place or put). Some critic would charge him with that after his claim to such a close mystic union with Christ. {Then Christ died for nought} (\ara Christos drean apethanen\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. If one man apart from grace can win his own righteousness, any man can and should. Hence (\ara\, accordingly) Christ died gratuitously (\drean\), unnecessarily. Adverbial accusative of \drea\, a gift. This verse is a complete answer to those who say that the heathen (or any mere moralist) are saved by doing the best that they know and can. No one, apart from Jesus, ever did the best that he knew or could. To be saved by law (\dia nomou\) one has to keep all the law that he knows. That no one ever did.

rwp@Galatians:4:25 @{This Hagar} (\to Hagar\). Neuter article and so referring to the word Hagar (not to the woman, \h\ Hagar) as applied to the mountain. There is great variety in the MSS. here. The Arabians are descendants of Abraham and Hagar (her name meaning wanderer or fugitive). {Answereth to} (\suntoichei\). Late word in Polybius for keeping step in line (military term) and in papyri in figurative sense as here. Lightfoot refers to the Pythagorean parallels of opposing principles (\sunstoichiai\) as shown here by Paul (Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, the old covenant and the new covenant, the earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem). That is true, and there is a correlative correspondence as the line is carried on.

rwp@Hebrews:6:1 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). Because of the argument already made about the difficulty of the subject and the dulness of the readers. {Let us cease to speak} (\aphentes ton logon\). Second aorist active participle of \aphimi\, to leave off or behind. {Of the first principles of Christ} (\ts archs tou Christou\). Objective genitive \Christou\ (about Christ). "Leaving behind the discussion of the beginning about Christ," another way of saying again \ta stoicheia ts archs tn login tou theou\ of strkjv@5:12|. {And press on} (\kai phermetha\). Volitive present subjunctive passive, "Let us be borne on" (both the writer and the readers). The Pythagorean Schools use \phermetha\ in precisely this sense of being borne on to a higher stage of instruction. Bleek quotes several instances of Greek writers using together as here of \aphentes phermetha\ (Eurip., _Androm_. 393, for instance). {Unto perfection} (\epi tn teleiotta\). Old word from \teleios\ mature, adults as in strkjv@5:14|. Only twice in N.T. (here and strkjv@Colossians:3:14|). Let us go on to the stage of adults, not babes, able to masticate solid spiritual food. The writer will assume that the readers are adults in his discussion of the topic. {Not laying again the foundation} (\m palin themelion kataballomenoi\). The regular idiom for laying down the foundation of a building (\themelion\, strkjv@Luke:6:48f.|). The metaphor is common (1Corinthians:3:11|) and the foundation is important, but one cannot be laying the foundation always if he is to build the house. There are six items mentioned here as part of the "foundation," though the accusative \didachn\ in apposition with \themelion\ may mean that there are only four included in the \themelion\. Two are qualitative genitives after \themelion\ (\metanoias\ and \pistes\). What is meant by "dead works" (\apo nekrn ergn\) is not clear (9:14|), though the reference may be to touching a corpse (Numbers:19:1f.; strkjv@31:19|). There are frequent allusions to the deadening power of sin (James:2:17,26; strkjv@John:7:25; Rom strkjv@6:1,11; strkjv@7:8; strkjv@Colossians:2:13; strkjv@Ephesians:2:1,5|). The use of repentance and faith together occurs also elsewhere (Mark:1:15; strkjv@Acts:20:21; strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:9|).

rwp@James:3:6 @{The tongue is a fire} (\h glssa pur\). Songs:necessarily since there is no article with \pur\ (apparently same word as German _feuer_, Latin _purus_, English _pure, fire_). This metaphor of fire is applied to the tongue in strkjv@Proverbs:16:27; strkjv@26:18-22|; Sirach strkjv@28:22. {The world of iniquity} (\ho kosmos ts adikias\). A difficult phrase, impossible to understand according to Ropes as it stands. If the comma is put after \pur\ instead of after \adikias\, then the phrase may be the predicate with \kathistatai\ (present passive indicative of \kathistmi\, "is constituted," or the present middle "presents itself"). Even so, \kosmos\ remains a difficulty, whether it means the "ornament" (1Peter:3:3|) or "evil world" (James:1:27|) or just "world" in the sense of widespread power for evil. The genitive \adikias\ is probably descriptive (or qualitative). Clearly James means to say that the tongue can play havoc in the members of the human body. {Which defileth the whole body} (\h spilousa holon to sma\). Present active participle of \spilo\ late _Koin_, verb, to stain from \spilos\ (spot, also late word, in N.T. only in strkjv@Ephesians:5:27; strkjv@2Peter:2:13|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Judges:1:23|. Cf. strkjv@1:27| \aspilon\ (unspotted). {Setteth on fire} (\phlogizousa\). Present active participle of \phlogiz\, old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from \phlox\ (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See \anaptei\ (verse 5|). {The wheel of nature} (\ton trochon geneses\). Old word for wheel (from \trech\, to run), only here in N.T. "One of the hardest passages in the Bible" (Hort). To what does \trochon\ refer? For \geneses\ see strkjv@1:23| apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests "the wheel of birth" (cf. strkjv@Matthew:1:1,18|). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or \kuklos\, cycle, in place of \trochos\), but either in a physiological or a philosophical sense. James may have caught the metaphor from the current use, but certainly he has no such Orphic or Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls, "the unending round of death and rebirth" (Ropes). The wheel of life may be considered either in motion or standing still, though setting on fire implies motion. There is no reference to the zodiac. {And is set on fire by hell} (\kai phlogizomen hupo gehenns\). Present passive participle of \phlogiz\, giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with \gehenna\ see strkjv@Matthew:5:22|.

rwp@John:4:10 @{Answered and said} (\apekrith kai eipen\). As often (redundant) in John. The first aorist passive (\apekrith\) is deponent, no longer passive in sense. {If thou knewest} (\ei ideis\). Condition of second class, determined as unfulfilled, \ei\ and past perfect \ideis\ (used as imperfect) in condition and \an\ and aorist active indicative in conclusion (\an itsas kai an edken\, note repetition of \an\, not always done). {The gift of God} (\tn drean tou theou\). Naturally the gift mentioned in strkjv@3:16| (Westcott), the inexpressible gift (2Corinthians:9:15|). Some take it to refer to the living water below, but that is another allusion (metaphor) to strkjv@3:16|. See strkjv@Ephesians:4:7| for Paul's use of both \charis\ and \drea\ (from \didmi\, to give). {Who it is} (\tis estin\). She only knew that he was a Jew. This Messianic self-consciousness of Jesus is plain in John, but it is early in the Synoptics also. {Living water} (\hudr zn\). Running water like a spring or well supplied by springs. This Jacob's Well was filled by water from rains percolating through, a sort of cistern, good water, but not equal to a real spring which was always preferred (Genesis:26:19; strkjv@Leviticus:14:5; strkjv@Numbers:19:17|). Jesus, of course, is symbolically referring to himself as the Living Water though he does not say it in plain words as he does about the Living Bread (6:51|). The phrase "the fountain of life" occurs in strkjv@Proverbs:13:14|. Jesus supplies the water of life (John:7:39|). Cf. strkjv@Revelation:7:17; strkjv@22:1|.

rwp@John:10:40 @{Again} (\palin\). Referring to strkjv@1:28| (Bethany beyond Jordan). \Palin\ does not mean that the other visit was a recent one. {At the first} (\to prton\). Adverbial accusative (extent of time). Same idiom in strkjv@12:16; strkjv@19:39|. Here the identical language of strkjv@1:28| is used with the mere addition of \to prton\ (\hopou n Ians baptizn\, "where John was baptizing"). {And there he abode} (\kai emenen ekei\). Imperfect (continued) active of \men\, though some MSS. have the constative aorist active \emeinen\. Probably from here Jesus carried on the first part of the later Perean Ministry (Luke:13:22-16:10|) before the visit to Bethany at the raising of Lazarus (John:11:1-44|).

rwp@John:15:25 @{But this cometh to pass} (\all'\). Ellipsis in the Greek (no verb), as in strkjv@9:3; strkjv@13:18|. {In their law} (\en ti nomi autn\). Cf. strkjv@8:17; strkjv@10:34| for this standpoint. "Law" (\nomos\) here is for the whole of Scripture as in strkjv@12:34|. The allusion is to strkjv@Psalms:69:4| (or strkjv@Psalms:35:19|). The hatred of the Jews toward Jesus the promised Messiah (1:11|) is "part of the mysterious purpose of God" (Bernard) as shown by \hina plrthi\ (first aorist passive subjunctive of \plro\, to fulfil). {Without a cause} (\drean\). Adverbial accusative of \drea\ from \didmi\, gratuitously, then unnecessarily or _gratis_ (in two _Koin_ tablets, Nageli) as here and strkjv@Galatians:2:21|.

rwp@Luke:12:19 @{Laid up for many years} (\keimena eis et polla\). Not in D and some other Latin MSS. The man's apostrophe to his "soul" (\psuch\) is thoroughly Epicurean, for his soul feeds on his goods. The asyndeton here (take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry) shows his eagerness. Note difference in tenses (\anapauou\, keep on resting, \phage\, eat at once, \pie\, drink thy fill, \euphrainou\, keep on being merry), first and last presents, the other two aorists.

rwp@Luke:16:17 @{One tittle} (\mian kerean\). See on ¯Matthew:5:18|.

rwp@Luke:19:4 @{Ran on before} (\prodramn eis to emprosthen\). Second aorist active participle of \protrech\ (defective verb). "Before" occurs twice (\pro-\ and \eis to emprosthen\). {Into a sycamore tree} (\epi sukomorean\). From \sukon\, fig, and \moron\, mulberry. The fig-mulberry and quite a different tree from the sycamine tree in strkjv@17:6|, which see. It bore a poor fruit which poor people ate (Amos:7:14|). It was a wide open tree with low branches so that Zacchaeus could easily climb into it. {That way} (\ekeins\). Feminine for \hodos\ (way) is understood. Genitive case with \di\ in composition (\dierchesthai\) or as an adverbial use.

rwp@Matthew:19:1 @{He departed} (\metren\). Literally, to lift up, change something to another place. Transitive in the LXX and in a Cilician rock inscription. Intransitive in strkjv@13:53| and here, the only N.T. instances. Absence of \hoti\ or \kai\ after \kai egeneto\, one of the clear Hebraisms in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1042f.). This verse is a sort of formula in Matthew at the close of important groups of \logia\ as in strkjv@7:28; strkjv@11:1; strkjv@13:53|. {The borders of Judea beyond Jordan} (\eis ta horia ts Ioudaias peran tou Iordanou\). This is a curious expression. It apparently means that Jesus left Galilee to go to Judea by way of Perea as the Galileans often did to avoid Samaria. Luke (Luke:17:11|) expressly says that he passed through Samaria and Galilee when he left Ephraim in Northern Judea (John:11:54|). He was not afraid to pass through the edge of Galilee and down the Jordan Valley in Perea on this last journey to Jerusalem. McNeile is needlessly opposed to the trans-Jordanic or Perean aspect of this phase of Christ's work.

rwp@Matthew:19:28 @{In the regeneration} (\en ti palingenesii\). The new birth of the world is to be fulfilled when Jesus sits on his throne of glory. This word was used by the Stoics and the Pythagoreans. It is common also in the mystery religions (Angus, _Mystery Religions and Christianity_, pp. 95ff.). It is in the papyri also. We must put no fantastic ideas into the mouth of Jesus. But he did look for the final consummation of his kingdom. What is meant by the disciples also sitting on twelve thrones is not clear.

rwp@Revelation:21:6 @{They are come to pass} (\Gegonan\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\ with \-an\ for \-asi\. See strkjv@16:17| for a like use of \gegonen\, "They have come to pass." Here again it is the voice of God because, as in strkjv@1:8|, He says: {I am the Alpha and the Omega} (\Eg to Alpha kai to O\) with the addition "the beginning and the end" (\h arch kai to telos\), the whole used in strkjv@22:13| of Christ. In strkjv@Isaiah:44:6| there is something like the addition, and in strkjv@Colossians:1:18; strkjv@Revelation:3:14| \h arch\ is applied to Christ, while here God is the First Cause (\arch\) and the Finality (\telos\) as in strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Ephesians:4:6|. But God works through Christ (John:1:3; strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f.; strkjv@Colossians:1:12-20|). God is the bountiful Giver (James:1:5,17|) of the Water of Life. See strkjv@7:17; strkjv@22:1,17| for this metaphor, which is based on strkjv@Isaiah:55:1|. It is God's own promise (\Eg ds\), "I will give." {Of the fountain} (\ek ts pgs\). For this partitive use of \ek\ see strkjv@Matthew:25:8|, without \ek\ strkjv@Revelation:2:17|. {Freely} (\drean\). See strkjv@Matthew:10:8; strkjv@John:4:10; strkjv@Romans:3:24; strkjv@Acts:8:20; strkjv@Revelation:22:17|.

rwp@Romans:3:24 @{Being justified} (\dikaioumenoi\). Present passive participle of \dikaio\, to set right, repeated action in each case, each being set right. {Freely} (\drean\). As in strkjv@Galatians:2:21|. {By his grace} (\ti autou chariti\). Instrumental case of this wonderful word \charis\ which so richly expresses Paul's idea of salvation as God's free gift. {Through the redemption} (\dia ts apolutrses\). A releasing by ransom (\apo, lutrsis\ from \lutro\ and that from \lutron\, ransom). God did not set men right out of hand with nothing done about men's sins. We have the words of Jesus that he came to give his life a ransom (\lutron\) for many (Mark:10:45; strkjv@Matthew:20:28|). \Lutron\ is common in the papyri as the purchase-money in freeing slaves (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 327f.). {That is in Christ Jesus} (\ti en Christi Isou\). There can be no mistake about this redemption. It is like strkjv@John:3:16|.