Ephesians 4: 29 on rotten language

Segesta, Italy

Ephesians 4: 29

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

29 Let no [a]unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification [b]according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. 

Footnotes: Ephesians 4: 29 Lit rotten Ephesians 4: 29 Lit of the need

Ephesians 4: 29

English Standard Version (ESV)

29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Ephesians 4:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain

Reverend Courson takes a theological perspective on Ephesians 4: 29: He opines that one can always tell which kingdom a person is in from his/her speech. (1253). The language of the kingdom of darkness and death is that of complaining and murmuring, fault-finding, cynicism, cursing and corrupt communication. (1253). In contrast, speech within the kingdom of God speaks graciously, with kindness and thanksgiving. (1253).

Courson appears to place more emphasis on the dangers of ungodly spiritual speech as opposed to being mostly concerned with swearing and cursing. This is not to excuse swearing and cursing, but the state of the spirit/mind of the person, regenerated or not, will influence communication. A corrupted nature, not regenerated, opposed to God will lead to more negative spiritual language, not guided by the Holy Spirit.

The regenerated person may at times, in frustration and/or habit, for example, swear or curse and yet still be guided by the Holy Spirit. But, the Scripture is clear that the Christian should use clean speech. The process of obtaining clean speech can be an aspect of God sanctifying the Christian within salvation.

Foulkes reasons that the Apostle Paul is writing against that which is deceitful (143), but that one is to avoid bad language. (143). The Greek word σαπρός (Sapros) basically means 'rotten'. It is worthless and rotten language that can spread among people. (143). It spreads rottenness. (143).

From: Bible Hub

Strong's Concordance sapros: rotten, worthless
Original Word: σαπρός, ά, όν
Part of Speech: Adjective Transliteration: sapros
Phonetic Spelling: (sap-ros')
Short Definition: rotten, useless, corrupt
Definition: rotten, useless, corrupt, depraved.

George E. Harpur explains that Ephesians 4: 29 is writing against evil speech.

Additional: For context, Harpur explains that from 4: 25 to 5: 2, the text is contrasting the walk of the non-Christian to the Christian. Evil is compared to virtue. (1437).

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press. 

HARPUR, GEORGE (1986) Ephesians in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

Declared war?

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter One:The Fantacizers Cont.

In the section of the book 'A Mistake We Can't Afford' on pages 12-13, Mr. Wallace writes that Europe made a mistake when dealing with Hitler (12). This would be from 1933 until the beginning of World War II in 1939. This mistake would be appeasement and not realizing the reality of imminent war.

The author reasons that Islam declared war on the West fourteen hundred years ago and this needs to be acknowledged. (12). Mr. Wallace is very critical of then President Obama for not publicly acknowledging that Islam is indeed at war with the Western world. (12).

From  reviewing this book so far, I have reasoned that orthodox Islam, as does radical Islam, does hold to forms of Jihad and Holy War.

November 14 2017: Aggressive Martyrdom

I documented that although both orthodox and radical forms of Islam hold to Jihad/Holy War, the orthodox interpretation in many cases, with Islam in the Western world, is that Jihad is for defensive purposes.  I will take the Islamic Supreme Council of America at their word that Jihad is primarily defensive. In other words, that is their scholarly interpretation. I am going to attempt to not judge motives.

As cited in previous articles, in regard to Jihad/Holy War from World Religions textbooks.

Nigosian writes that this is 'combativeness'...or rather being engaged in combat against 'pagans' or opponents is called jihad, meaning holy war. (448). The goal is not primarily religious, as in conversion, but the goal is political control over societies. (448). In order to rule with the principles of Islam, in other words, Islamic law.

Nigosian's definition allows for defensive Jihad, but also a more aggressive form of Jihad could also be interpreted here. To rule other societies by Islamic law is certainly beyond defensive Jihad.

Lewis M. Hopfe admits that one of the most controversial aspects of Islam is 'Jihad' (Holy War). Hopfe (1987: 419). Pagans he writes may have been forced to convert but Jews and Christians and others were free to worship and they chose. Hopfe (1987: 419). It is admitted by Hopfe that there is a Muslim doctrine that one must do battle for God. Hopfe (1987: 419).

Hopfe's definition too could view Jihad as defensive, but also it aggressively protects the interests of the religion through military force. Force and coercion is beyond the scope of defensive Jihad.

I reason that because of this very faulty State/Religion government model, Jihad/Holy War can easily be at times interpreted and implemented with varied degrees of force and coercion. This has been done throughout the history of Islam.

Critics have pointed out that much of the Qur'an has open-ended verses in regard to Jihad meaning that they are not necessarily restrained to an historical context. Radical forms of Jihad and aggressive martyrdom could be conceivably reasonably interpreted within today's Islam, for today's world.

Mr. Wallace does have some reasonable concerns...

October 24 2017: Open-ended verses

Therefore, I can reason that any forms of Islam, Quranic Islam in context, and also those citing the Sunnah, that interpret Jihad/Holy War and martyrdom in a politically and theologically aggressive manner are indeed enemies of Western society.

This based on radical Islamic worldviews which are against Western democratic society, the Christian Church, and other opposing worldviews, including those within Islam that show some significant moderation. This type of Islam violently opposes any and all opposing worldviews.

HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company. 

NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press.

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The clash of universes?

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class
cls = Class
int= Interpretation

Primitive concepts, terms and relations, within symbolic logic are not explained, but are simply 'taken for granted'. (167). These meanings are provided by interpretation only in the context provided. (167). The symbols for houses and related is an example as these symbolic interpretations. (167).

For clarity, philosopher, Langer writes that there is a new context assumed. (167). In this context the formal context has elements which are certain classes. (168).

Let us note that Langer adds another symbol: cls, which is the usual symbol for class.

From page 168:

K= int (interpreted) as class of houses
B = int (interpreted) as class of brick houses
W = int (interpreted) as class of white houses
-B = int (interpreted) as class of  not-brick houses
-W = int (interpreted) as class of not-white houses
B x W =int (interpreted) as class of white brick houses
---
0 = int (interpreted) as class of no houses
I = int (interpreted) as class of all houses

On page 170, Langer states that a very important point is that there is a difference between:

K = The universe of discourse (Is this context established by Langer)

&

I = The universe class

Langer warns against identifying the universe of discourse with the greatest class that is within it. (170). Langer explains that the error of equating the universe of discourse with the universe of class, was made by John Venn is his Symbolic Logic of 1881. Langer instead reasons that I does not equate with K, but rather I is an element within K. (170).

My equations

˜ (I ⊨ K)

The universe class does not entail the universe of discourse.

˜ (I ⊃ K)

The universe class is not the same as the universe of discourse.

In other words the universe of discourse contains the universe class. The universe class does not contain the universe of discourse.

In Three Minutes: Birds of a Feather, Flock Together/Student versus Teacher

Brought to you by McDonalds



In regard to the engineer, that I stated should be teachable, but his theology, denied that God was infinite, reasoning that God had made promises is his Scripture, therefore making self-finite. Two friends have opined that I was right to admonish him for this theological error and his unwillingness to be taught.