Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 4:28 - 4:28
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_4:28. The stealer is no more to steal. The present participle does not stand pro praeterito (Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, and most of the older expositors, following the Vulgate), but: he who occupies himself with stealing. The right view is already taken by Zanchius; see also Winer, p. 316 [E. T. 444]. As there were in the apostolic church fornicators (1Co_5:1), so were there also stealers,[248] and the attempts to tone down the notion are just as arbitrary as they are superfluous.[249] The question why Paul does not mention restitution (Luk_19:8; Exodus 22; Leviticus 6; Isa_58:6; Eze_33:15; Plato, Legg. ix. p. 864 D f.) is not, with Estius, to be answered to the effect, that it is contained in μηκέτι κλεπτέτω ;[250] but to the effect, that Paul’s design was not to give any complete instruction on the point of stealing, but only to inculcate the prohibition of the same and the obligation of the opposite (which, moreover, has restitution for its self-evident moral presupposition). The whole exhortation in this form has, indeed, been regarded as inappropriate, because not in keeping with the apostolic strictness (see de Wette), but we have to observe, on the other hand, that Paul elsewhere too contents himself with simple prohibitions and commands (see e.g. Rom_13:13 f.), and that the apostolic strictness follows in the sequel (Eph_5:5).
μᾶλλον δέ ] rather on the other hand, imo vero, enhancing in a corrective sense the merely negative μηκέτι κλεπτ . See on Gal_4:9.
κοπίατω κ . τ . λ .] let him labour, in that he works with his hands that which is good; in that, by the activity of his hands (instead of his thievish practices), he brings about that which belongs to the category of the morally good. Bengel well says: “ τὸ ἀγαθόν antitheton ad furtum prius manu piceata male commissum.”
ἵνα ἔχῃ κ . τ . λ .] The view of Schoettgen, that this applies to the Jewish opinion of the allowableness of theft serving for the support of the poor (Jalk. Rubeni, f. 110, 4; Vajikra rabba, f. 147, 1), is indeed repeated by Koppe (comp. Stolz) and Holzhausen, but is—considering the general nature of the ὁ κλέπτ . μηκέτι κλεπτ ., addressed, moreover, to readers mostly Gentile-Christian—not expressed in the words, which rather quite simply oppose to the forbidden taking the giving according to duty.
τῷ χρείαν ἔχοντι ] to the one having need, namely, that there may be imparted to him. Comp. 1Co_12:24; Mar_2:25; 1Jn_3:17; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 783 C, xii. p. 965 B.
[248] In connection with which the appeal to the permission of stealing among various heathen nations, as among the Egyptians and Lacedaemonians (see Wolf, Cur.; Müller, Dorier, II. p. 310 f.), is entirely unsuitable in an apostolic epistle with its high moral earnestness. Against such a prejudice Paul would have written otherwise.
[249] See, e.g., Jerome: “furtum nominans omne, quod alterius damno quaeritur.” He approves, moreover, the interpreting it of the furtum spirituale of the false prophets. Estius: “generaliter positum videtur pro fraudare, subtrahere, etc.” Comp. Calvin and many, as also still Holzhausen.
[250] “Nam qui non restituit cum possit, is adhuc in furto … perseverat.” This is in itself true, but no reader could light upon such a pregnant meaning of the μηκέτι κλεπτέτω .