Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 22:11

[Then] shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept [thereof], and he shall not make [it] good.

11. the oath of Yahweh ] 2Sa 21:7, 1Ki 2:43. The person is whom the animal had been entrusted must swear solemnly that he has not appropriated it himself.

shall accept it ] viz. the oath. Both Burckhardt ( Bedouins, i. 126 9) and Doughty ( Arab. Deserta, i. 267), state that among the Arabs now, if a person suspected of theft is willing to take certain specially solemn oaths, he is considered to be acquitted.

not make restitution ] no reasonable precaution having been neglected. In primitive and semi-primitive societies an accused or suspected person is often allowed to clear himself by taking a solemn oath of purgation; there are several examples in the Code of Hmmurabi (see p. 423; cf. also Exo 1Ki 8:31 f.). The practice was also common in the Middle Ages (see E. B. Tylor’s arts. Oath and Ordeal in the Encycl. Brit. and ‘Ordeals and Oaths’ in Macmillan’s Magazine, May, 1876). The oath might be followed by an ordeal (see Manu viii. 109 116, cited by Gray, Numbers, p. 45); or it might involve such curses upon the person taking it, if he did not speak the truth, that the act of taking it constituted itself the ordeal.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Verse 11. An oath of the Lord be between them] So solemn and awful were all appeals to God considered in those ancient times, that it was taken for granted that the man was innocent who could by an oath appeal to the omniscient God that he had not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods. Since oaths have become multiplied, and since they have been administered on the most trifling occasions, their solemnity is gone, and their importance little regarded. Should the oath ever reacquire its weight and importance, it must be when administered only in cases of peculiar delicacy and difficulty, and as sparingly as in the days of Moses.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

An oath of the Lord; so called here, as also 1Ki 2:43, because it is taken by his authority and appointment, and for his honour, and in his name alone, God being made both witness, and judge, and avenger thereby. Shall be between them both, i.e. shall end the difference between them both; the one shall give his oath, and the other shall accept of it: or be taken by them both; by the one, that he did deliver them to him upon agreement and for hire; by the other, that he put not his hand to them.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both,…. Either by the one, the keeper, for the satisfaction of the owner, or by them both; by the owner, that he delivered such and such cattle to the keeper; and by the keeper, that he was no ways concerned in the death, hurt, or carrying off of the same: and this is called “the oath of the Lord”, not only because in this law required by him, but because sworn by him, or in his name, and made before him, in his presence, who is hereby appealed unto; and who is called upon to take vengeance on the person that takes the oath of perjury; and such an oath only is a lawful one, men are to swear only by the Lord. But this oath was not tendered to anyone:

“if a man was suspected of an oath (i.e. of perjury) they might not give him his oath, neither the oath of the law, nor the oath from their words (the scribes), nor the oath of imposition (imposed by the wise wen); and even though he that brought the action would have it, they might not hearken unto him: if a man has swore falsely a rash oath, or an oath of testimony, or an oath concerning anything deposited, or a vain oath, lo, he is suspected of an oath, and so everyone that is rejected for witness on account of any transgression w.”

The oath to be taken by the keeper, and who indeed seems to be the only person that was to take one, was, “that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods”; so as either to kill or maim, or drive away, or suffer to be driven away, any of the cattle committed to his care, or that he had not disposed of them to his own use and profit:

and the owner of it shall accept thereof; of the oath, as the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi, and so be satisfied, and give no further trouble, such an oath being for the confirmation of the thing, and to put an end to strife; or he shall take the ass, ox, or sheep, as it was, and be content; but then, though he might take the dead or maimed one, he could not take that which was driven or carried away, wherefore the first sense, is best:

and he shall not make [it] good; or pay for it to the owner what it was worth.

w Maimon. Hilchot Toan Venitan, c. 2. sect. 1, 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Exo 22:11 [Then] shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept [thereof], and he shall not make [it] good.

Ver. 11. An oath of the Lord. ] Who is called in as a witness and as an avenger. How hateful, then, is that Popish proverb and practice, Mercatorum est, non regum, stare iuramentis.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)