things tolerated by the customs of men; many modes of getting the property of others into our own posses- sion practised even by those professing to be Christians, are in the light of the divine law only different forms of theft, and will be revealed as such in the judgment of the last day. The spirit of the apostle’s command no doubt includes all the forms of dishonesty. Still it may be questioned if this principle gives the true ex- planation of the passage. Others say, that as in the Corinthian church fornication and even incest was tolerated, See 1 Cor. 6, 1-6,—it is not incredible that theft should be disregarded in the church of Ephesus, or at least not visited with discipline. It is however probable that our version, which agrees with the Vul- gate and with Luther’s translation, expresses the true sense. Not that ὁ κλέπτων means the same with ὁ κλέψας, but as “ murderer” der, however penitent, so “thief” may mean one
means one guilty of mur-
guilty of theft. Certain inmates of the prisons are called thieves because of their past, and not because of their present conduct.
The positive part of the apostle’s injunction is, in- stead of sustaining himself unjustly on the labour of others, let him labour, working with his hands the thing that is good. As he used his hands to steal, let him use them in doing what is right—i. e. in honest labour. Paul elsewhere lays down the general principle, “if any would not work neither should he eat.” 2 Thess. 3, 10. No one is entitled to be supported by others, who is able to support himself. This is one great principle
— —_
CHAP. Iv. vs. 29, 80. 273
of scriptural economics. Another, however, no less im- portant is, that those who cannot work are entitled to aid—and therefore the apostle adds as a motive why the strong should labour—that they may have to con tribute to him that hath need. No man liveth for him- self; and no man should labour for himself alone, but with the definite object to be able to assist others. Christian principles, if fairly carried out, would speedily banish pauperism and other cognate evils from our modern civilization.
Vs. 29, 30—Forbid ‘corrupt communication—en- join profitable discourse, assign as a motive the good of others and reverence for the Holy Spirit.
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth. Πᾶς λόγος σαπρός, any foul word. The word campos means literally putrid, and then figuratively offensive and injurious. But that which is good to the use of edifying, ἀγαθὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομήν, adapted to edifi- cation. The words οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας, edification of the necessity, means the edification the necessity calls for— or which is suited to the occasion. This is the common and satisfactory interpretation. Our version “to the use of edifying” —transposes the words. That it may gwe grace to the hearers. The phrase χάριν διδόναι, to gwe grace, is one of frequent occurrence, and always means—to confer a favour—i.e. to give pleasure or profit. There is no necessity for departing from this sense here. The meaning is, ‘that it may benefit the hearers.’ And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, i. e. by such corrupt language. Under the head of πᾶς
18