Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 22:1

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 22:1” utilice nuestra app.

If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

1. If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it (so as to make profit by it), he is to repay fivefold for the ox, and fourfold for the sheep. Cf. (with differences) amm. 8 (see p. 420). The ox is reckoned as of higher value than the sheep on account especially of its being useful in agricultural work. The case of the animal being still alive, and in the thief’s possession, is dealt with in v. 4. The fourfold restitution of a sheep is the penalty named by David in his reply to Nathan’s parable (2Sa 12:4): sevenfold restitution is mentioned only in the hyperbolical passage, Pro 6:31, but may be read rightly by the LXX. in 2Sa 12:4, ‘fourfold’ being here not improbably a correction made on the basis of the present law. Fourfold restitution was also the penalty, when the thief was caught in the act, by the later Roman law; and for the theft of an animal it is still usual among the modern Bedawin (Cook, p. 216). Multiple restitution (in varying ratios) the penalty prescribed by Hmmurabi for many cases of fraud ( DB. v. 596 b ): and it is still in many parts of the world a common penalty for theft (Post, Grundriss der ethnol. Jurispr. ii. 430 f.).

and kill it ] The word ( ba) is the one regularly used of slaughtering cattle for food (Gen 43:16, 1Sa 25:11 al.).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

1 4. Theft of ox or sheep; and burglary.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Chapters Exo 20:22 to Exo 23:33

The Book of the Covenant

The ‘Book of the Covenant’ (see Exo 24:7 in explanation of the name) is the oldest piece of Hebrew legislation that we possess. The laws contained in it are spoken of in Exo 24:3 as consisting of two elements, the words (or commands) and the judgements: the judgements (see on Exo 21:1) are the provisions relating to civil and criminal law, prescribing what is to be done when particular cases arise, and comprised in Exo 21:2 to Exo 22:17; the words are positive injunctions of moral, religious, and ceremonial law, introduced mostly by Thou shalt or shalt not, and comprised in Exo 20:23-26, Exo 22:18 to Exo 23:19: Exo 23:20-33 is a hortatory epilogue, consisting chiefly of promises intended to suggest motives for the observance of the preceding laws. The laws themselves were doubtless taken by E from some already existing source: the ‘judgements’ in Exo 21:2 to Exo 22:17 seem to have undergone no alteration of form: but the ‘words’ which follow can hardly be in their original order; moral, religious, and ceremonial injunctions being intermingled sometimes singly, sometimes in groups (see the following summary), without any apparent system (notice also Exo 23:4 f., evidently interrupting the connexion between vv. 1 3 and 6 8); and in parts (as Exo 22:21-22;Exo 22:24, Exo 23:9 b, Exo 23:23-25 a, Exo 23:31-33: see the notes) slight parenetic additions have probably been made by the compiler of J E.

The laws themselves may be grouped as follows:

i. Enactments relating to civil and criminal law:

1. Rights of Hebrew slaves (male and female), Exo 21:2-11.

2. Capital offences, viz. murder (in distinction from manslaughter), striking or cursing a parent, and man-stealing, Exo 21:12-17.

3. Penalties for bodily injuries, caused ( a) by human beings, Exo 21:18-27, ( b) by animals (a vicious ox, for instance), or neglect of reason able precautions (as leaving a pit open), Exo 21:28-36.

4. Theft of ox or sheep, and burglary, Exo 22:1-4.

5. Compensation for damage done by straying cattle [but see note], or fire spreading accidentally to another man’s field, Exo 22:5-6.

6. Compensation for loss or injury in various cases of deposit or loan, Exo 22:7-15.

7. Compensation for seduction, Exo 22:16-17.

ii ( a). Regulations relating to worship and religious observances:

1. Prohibition of images, and regulations for the construction of altars, Exo 20:23-26.

2. Sacrifice to ‘other gods’ to be punished with the ‘ban,’ Exo 22:20.

3. God not to be reviled, nor a ruler cursed, Exo 22:28.

4. Firstfruits, and firstborn males (of men, oxen, and sheep), to be given to Jehovah, Exo 22:29-30.

5. Flesh torn of beasts not to be eaten, Exo 22:31.

6 & 7. The seventh year to be a fallow year, and the seventh day a day of rest (in each case, for a humanitarian motive), Exo 23:10-12.

8. God’s commands to be honoured, and ‘other gods’ not to be invoked, Exo 23:13.

9. The three annual Pilgrimages to be observed (all males to appear before Jehovah at each), Exo Exo 23:14-17.

10. A festal sacrifice not to be offered with leavened bread, nor its fat to remain unburnt till the following morning, Exo 23:18.

11. Firstfruits to be brought to the house of Jehovah, Exo 23:19 a.

12. A kid not to be boiled in its mother’s milk, Exo 23:19 b.

ii ( b). Injunctions of a moral, and, especially, of a humanitarian character:

1. Sorcery and bestiality to be punished with death, Exo 22:18-19.

2. The ‘sojourner,’ the widow, and the orphan, not to be oppressed, Exo 22:21-24.

3. Interest not to be taken from the poor, Exo 22:25.

4. A garment taken in pledge to be returned before sun-down, Exo 22:26-27.

5. Veracity and impartiality, the duties of a witness, Exo 23:1-3.

6. An enemy’s beast to be preserved from harm, Exo 23:4-5.

7. Justice to be administered impartially, and no bribe to be taken, Exo 23:6-9.

These three groups of laws may have been taken originally from distinct collections. The terse form in which many of the laws in ii ( a) and ii ( b) are cast resembles that which prevails in Leviticus 19 (H). The regulations respecting worship contained in Exo 23:10-19, together with the allied ones embedded in Exo 13:3-7; Exo 13:11-13, are repeated in Exo 34:18-26, in the section (Exo 34:10-26) sometimes called the ‘Little Book of the Covenant,’ with slight verbal differences, and with the addition in Exo 34:11-17 of more specific injunctions against idolatry (see the synoptic table, pp. 370 2).

The laws contained in the ‘Book of the Covenant’ are, as has been already said, no doubt older than the narrative (E) in which they are incorporated: they represent, to use Cornill’s expression, the ‘consuetudinary law of the early monarchy,’ and include (cf. the notes on trh, p. 162, and mishp, Exo 22:1) the formulated decisions which, after having been begun by Moses (Exo 18:16; cf. p. 161), had gradually accumulated up to that age. The stage of society for which the Code was designed, and the characteristics of the Code itself, are well indicated by W. R. Smith ( OTJC. 2 [180] p. 340 ff). ‘The society contemplated in it is of very simple structure. The basis of life is agricultural. Cattle and agricultural produce are the main elements wealth; and the laws of property deal almost exclusively with them (see Exo 21:28 to Exo 22:10). The principles of criminal and civil justice are those still current among the Arabs of the desert, viz. retaliation and pecuniary compensation. Murder is dealt with by the law of blood-revenge; but the innocent man-slayer may seek asylum at God’s altar (cf. 1Ki 1:50; 1Ki 2:18; 1Ki 2:29).’ Man-stealing, offences against parents, and witchcraft are also punishable by death. Personal injuries fall mostly, like murder, under the law of retaliation (Exo Exo 21:24 f.). These are the only cases in which a punishment affecting the person is prescribed: in other cases the punishment takes as a rule the form of compensation. ‘Degrading punishments, as imprisonment or the bastinado, are unknown; and loss of liberty is inflicted only on a thief who cannot pay a fine (Exo 22:3 b). The slave retains definite rights. He recovers his freedom after 7 years, unless he prefers to remain a bondman, and to seal his determination by a solemn symbolical act (Exo 21:6).’ He cannot appeal to the lex talionis against his master: to beat one’s own slave to death is not a capital crime; but for minor injuries he can claim his liberty (Exo 21:20 f., 26 f.). ‘Women do not enjoy full social equality with men. The daughter was her father’s property, who received a price for surrendering her to her husband (Exo 21:7); and so a daughter’s dishonour is compensated by law as a pecuniary loss to her father (Exo 22:16 f.).’ A woman slave was a slave for life, except when she had been bought to be her master’s concubine, and he withheld the recognized rights which she thus acquired (Exo 21:11). Concubine-slaves had also other rights (Exo 21:8-10). Various cases of injury to property are specified: the penalty is usually simple compensation, though naturally it is greater, if deliberate purpose (as in the case of theft, Exo 22:1), or culpable negligence, can be proved. Cases of misappropriation of property are settled by a decision given at a sanctuary (Exo 22:9).

[180] W. R. Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church, ed. 2, 1892.

From the point of view of ethics and religion, the regard paid in the Code to the claims of humanity and justice is observable. An emphatic voice is raised against those crying vices of Oriental Government, the maladministration of justice, and the oppression of the poor. Even an enemy, in his need, is to receive consideration and help (Exo 23:4-5). ‘The gr, or foreigner living in Israel under the protection of a family or the community, though he has no legal status (cf. on Exo 22:21), is not to be oppressed. The Sabbath is enforced as an ordinance of humanity; and to the same end the produce of every field or vineyard must be left to the poor one year in seven. The precepts of religious worship are simple. He who sacrifices to any god but Jehovah falls under the ‘ban’ (Exo 22:20). The only ordinance of ceremonial sanctity is to abstain from the flesh of animals torn by wild beasts (Exo 22:31). Altar are to be of the simplest possible construction. The sacred dues are the firstlings and firstfruits; and the former must be presented at a sanctuary on the eighth day. This regulation presupposes a plurality of sanctuaries, which also agrees with the terms of Exo 20:24.’ The only sacrifices mentioned are burnt- and peace-offerings. The three pilgrimages, at which every male is to appear before Jehovah with a gift, celebrate three periods of the agricultural year, the beginning and close of harvest, and the end of the vintage. The only points of sacrificial ritual insisted on are the two rules that the blood of a festal sacrifice is not to be offered with leavened bread, and that the fat must be burnt before the next morning. The simplicity of the ceremonial regulations in this Code stands in striking contrast to the detailed and systematic development which they receive in the later legislation of P.

Some of the laws strike us as severe (Exo 21:15-16; Exo 21:21, Exo 22:18; Exo 22:20); but we must remember the stage of civilization for which they were designed: they were adapted, not for people in every stage of society, but for people living as the Israelites were circumstanced at the time when they were drawn up. They also, it is to be observed, are in many cases clearly intended to impose restrictions upon abuse of authority, or arbitrary violence. We may remember also that far severer punishments, such as mutilation and torture, were common not only in many other ancient nations, but even, till comparatively recent times, in Christian Europe; and in England, till 1835, death was the penalty for many trivial forms of theft. Of course some of the laws notably the one about witches have been terribly misapplied in times when the progressive character of revelation and the provisional character of Israel’s laws were not realized. But they were adapted on the whole to make Israel a just, humane, and God-fearing people, and to prepare the way, when the time was ripe, for something better.

The laws of J and E (except the section dealing with the compensations to be paid for various injuries, Exo 21:18 to Exo 22:15), expanded, and, in some cases, modified to suit the requirements of a later age, form a substantial element in the Deuteronomic legislation (Deuteronomy 5-28; see the synoptic table in LOT. p. 73 ff.): to some of the moral and religious injunctions there are also parallels (referred to in the notes) in the ‘Law of Holiness’ (Leviticus 17-26). The ceremonial laws appear in a partially developed form in Dt., and in a more fully developed form, with many minutely defined regulations, in the Priests’ Code (for an example in Exodus itself, contrast Exo 23:15 with Exo 12:14-20). A discussion of the differences between the laws of JE and the later codes belongs more to the commentaries on Lev., Numb., and Dt., than to one on Exodus; and they have been noticed here only in special cases. A detailed comparison of the different regulations will be found in McNeile, pp. xxxix xlvi, li lvi.

The promulgation of a new code of laws was often among ancient nations ascribed to the command of the national deity. Thus among he Cretans, Minos, the ‘companion of great Zeus’ ( , Od.19:179), was said to have held converse with Zeus, and to have received his laws from him in a cave of the Dictaean mountain (cf. [Plato], Minos, 319 b 320 b); his laws and those of Lycurgus are called ‘the laws of Zeus’ and ‘Apollo’ respectively (Plato, Legg. i. 632 D); and Numa’s laws were ascribed to the goddess Egeria (Dion. Hal. ii. 60 f.). The closest parallel is however afforded, on Semitic ground, by Hmmurabi, who expressly speaks of his code as consisting of ‘righteous laws’ delivered to him by Shamash, the sun-god (see below, p. 418 ff.).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The theft of an ox appears to have been regarded as a greater crime than the theft of a sheep, because it showed a stronger purpose in wickedness to take the larger and more powerful animal. It may have been on similar moral ground that the thief, when he had proved his persistency in crime by adding to his theft the slaughter, or sale, of the animal, was to restore four times its value in the case of a sheep (compare the marginal references), and five times its value in the case of an ox; but if the animal was still in his possession alive (see Exo 22:4) he had to make only twofold restitution.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Exo 22:1-5

If a man steal.

The law of robbery

God made provision not only for the acquisition of property, but for its security. Hence this law, which respects–

1. Theft.

2. Housebreaking.

I. Theft (Exo 22:1-4). As the wealth of an Israelite consisted mainly in flocks and herds, the depredations of the thief were directed for the most part against them.

II. Housebreaking (Exo 22:2-3). Learn–

1. That Gods providence extends to property as well as persons. Both are His gift.

2. That those who endeavour to thwart that providence play a losing game.

3. That the recognition of that providence is not inconsistent with, but demands the use of, means. It is an abuse and perversion of it to tamely submit to wrong when the legitimate prevention of wrong is within our reach.

4. That providence protects even the life of the wrong-doer, and no man must wantonly interfere with that protection. (J. W. Burn.)

Actual and virtual criminality

I. Men must suffer for crime.

II. Men must suffer, unavenged, the extreme consequences of criminal conduct.

III. Men must learn, by degrees of suffering, that there are degrees of criminality.

IV. Men must learn that property has rights.

V. Men must learn to consider the welfare of their neighbours. (W. Burrows, B. A.)

How to get at a thief

This is the only way of getting at a thief. You cannot reason with him. He dismissed his reason before he committed his felony. He had first to strangle his reason; he committed murder in the sanctuary of his soul before he committed theft in the fields of his neighbour. What, then, is to be done with him? He must be made to feel the folly of theft; he must be made to feel that theft is a bad investment; he must be made to feel that he has played the fool even in the excess of his cleverness. The thief would be made to know what dishonesty is, when for the one ox he must pay five in its place. He could have evaded an argument; he could have doubled upon a covenant, and have quibbled about the ambiguity of its terms; but he could not shuffle out of this four-square arithmetical arrangement. Five oxen for an ox, four sheep for a sheep; and by the time the thief had played at that game two or three days, he would have put on the garb, at least, of an honest man! (J. Parker, D. D.)

Substitutionary restitution

A coal merchant in one of our American cities was approached by a minister in regard to the salvation of his soul. The merchant declared it an impossibility for him ever to become a Christian. He gave as a reason his mode of business. For a long term of years, he had, according to a too general custom, given short weight. He had thus grown rich, and now felt the inconsistency of seeking religion without restitution. This was impossible: many of his customers were dead, others beyond his knowledge. The thought of the poor who had paid for coal they had never received rested heavily on him. He asked the minister if he thought the substitution of a gift to the poor would be acceptable to God. The minister advised him to try it. A large donation, more than equal in amount to his unjust gains, was made, and the merchant sought God in earnest. He was happily converted, and is to-day a prominent member of the church.

Tardy restitution

As a gentleman in London entered his house, he found a well-dressed female sitting on the stairs, who asked pardon for the liberty she had taken, saying that, hearing the alarm of a mad dog, she had taken refuge in his house. On hearing her story, he gave her some refreshment; and she left, thanking him for his civility. In the evening his lady missed her gold watch; and it was concluded the female was the thief. Fifteen years afterwards, the watch was returned, with a note from this woman, saying the gospel had changed her heart, and she desired to return the watch to its rightful owner.

Unrighteous restitution

What a shame then is this to Christians, who minding nothing less than restitution, make ex rapina holocaustum: out of a world of ill-gotten goods, they cull out some small fragments to erect some poor hospital; having cheated thousands, build alms-houses for some few, and then set a glorious inscription in front, whereas this one word, Aceldama, would be far more proper. (J. Spencer.)

Compensation for damage

A man in New Jersey told me the following circumstances respecting himself and one of his neighbours. I once owned a large flock of hens. I generally kept them shut up. But one spring I concluded to let them run in my yard, after I had clipped their wings so that they could not fly. One day, when I came home to dinner, I learned that one of my neighbours had been there full of wrath, to let me know that my hens had been in his garden, and that he had killed several of them, and thrown them over into my yard. I determined at once to be revenged. I sat down and ate my dinner as calmly as I could. By the time I had finished I thought that perhaps it was not best to fight with my neighbour about hens, and thereby make him my bitter enemy. I concluded to try another way, being sure that it would be better. After dinner, I went to my neighbours. He was in his garden. I went out and found him in pursuit of one of my hens with a club, trying to kill it. I accosted him. He turned upon me, his face inflamed with wrath, and broke out in a great fury, You have abused me. I will kill all your hens, if I can get them. I never was so abused. My garden is ruined. I am sorry for it, said I: I did not wish to injure you; and now see that I have made a great mistake in letting out my hens. I ask your forgiveness, and am willing to pay you six times the damage. The man seemed confounded. He did not know what to make of it. He looked up to the sky, then down at the earth, then at his neighbour, then at his club, then at the poor hen he had been pursuing, and said nothing. Tell me now, said I, what is the damage and I will pay you six-fold; and my hens shall trouble you no more. I will leave it entirely for you to say what I shall do. I cannot afford to lose the love and goodwill of my neighbours, and quarrel with them, for hens or anything else. I am a great fool! said my neighbour; the damage is not worth talking about; and I have more need to compensate you than you me, and to ask your forgiveness than you mine. (Mrs. Childs Letters from New York.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XXII

Laws concerning theft, 1-4;

concerning trespass, 5;

concerning casualties, 6.

Laws concerning deposits, or goods left in custody of others,

which may have been lost, stolen, or damaged, 7-13.

Laws concerning things borrowed or let out on hire, 14, 15.

Laws concerning seduction, 16, 17.

Laws concerning witchcraft, 18;

bestiality, 19;

idolatry, 20.

Laws concerning strangers, 21;

concerning widows, 22-24;

lending money to the poor, 25;

concerning pledges, 26;

concerning respect to magistrates, 28;

concerning the first ripe fruits, and the first-born of man

and beast, 29, 30.

Directions concerning carcasses found torn in the field, 31.

NOTES ON CHAP. XXII

Verse 1. If a man shall steal] This chapter consists chiefly of judicial laws, as the preceding chapter does of political; and in it the same good sense, and well-marked attention to the welfare of the community and the moral improvement of each individual, are equally evident.

In our translation of this verse, by rendering different Hebrew words by the same term in English, we have greatly obscured the sense. I shall produce the verse with the original words which I think improperly translated, because one English term is used for two Hebrew words, which in this place certainly do not mean the same thing. If a man shall steal an ox ( shor) or a sheep, ( seh), and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen ( bakar) for an ox, ( shor), and four sheep ( tson) for a sheep ( seh). I think it must appear evident that the sacred writer did not intend that these words should be understood as above. A shor certainly is different from a bakar, and a seh from a tson. Where the difference in every case lies, wherever these words occur, it is difficult to say. The shor and the bakar are doubtless creatures of the beeve kind, and are used in different parts of the sacred writings to signify the bull, the ox, the heifer, the steer, and the calf. The seh and the tson are used to signify the ram, the wether, the ewe, the lamb, the he-goat, the she-goat, and the kid. And the latter word tson seems frequently to signify the flock, composed of either of these lesser cattle, or both sorts conjoined.

As shor is used, Job 21:10, for a bull probably it may mean so here. If a man steal a BULL he shall give five OXEN for him, which we may presume was no more than his real value, as very few bulls could be kept in a country destitute of horses, where oxen were so necessary to till the ground. For though some have imagined that there were no castrated cattle among the Jews, yet this cannot be admitted on the above reason; for as they had no horses, and bulls would have been unmanageable and dangerous, they must have had oxen for the purposes of agriculture. Tson is used for a flock either of sheep or goats, and seh for an individual of either species. For every seh, four, taken indifferently from the tson or flock must be given; i.e., a sheep stolen might be recompensed with four out of the flock, whether of sheep or goats: so that a goat might be compensated with four sheep, or a sheep with four goats.

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

An ox, or a sheep; or, an ass, which is added Exo 22:4, and consequently any other living creature, to be valued according to its worth and use to man, proportionably to the rule here laid down. Only these are instanced in for their usefulness in the service both of God and men.

Or sell it, which was an aggravation of the crime, and a token of greater boldness, resolvedness, and expertness in the trade of thieving, than was in him who kept it at home, Exo 22:4.

Four sheep for a sheep.

Quest. 1. Why so much, seeing the stealer of other things was tied to restore but double?

Answ. 1. For terror, because these beasts being kept in the fields might more easily be stolen.

2. Because the loss of these was greater than of other things; for they did not only lose what the cattle might be sold for, but all the service, increase, and other benefits which a man might receive from them.

Quest. 2. Why more for oxen than for sheep?

Answ. 1. Because it argued greater boldness and customariness in the thief to steal that which might more easily be discovered.

2. Because besides the intrinsical worth of the ox, the labour of the ox was very considerable to his owner, Pro 14:4, and therefore the loss greater.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1-4. If a man shall steal an ox, ora sheepThe law respects the theft of cattle which constitutedthe chief part of their property. The penalty for the theft of asheep which was slain or sold, was fourfold; for an ox fivefold,because of its greater utility in labor; but, should the stolenanimal have been recovered alive, a double compensation wasall that was required, because it was presumable he (the thief) wasnot a practised adept in dishonesty. A robber breaking into a houseat midnight might, in self-defense, be slain with impunity;but if he was slain after sunrise, it would be consideredmurder, for it was not thought likely an assault would then be madeupon the lives of the occupants. In every case where a thief couldnot make restitution, he was sold as a slave for the usual term.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep,…. In which the substance of men chiefly lay in those times, and particularly the people of Israel, who were now come out of Egypt, with their flocks and herds, and these lying near together, were the more liable to be stolen; and hence also the laws in the preceding chapter concerning oxen and damages done by them, and oxen and sheep are only mentioned; perhaps chiefly because used in sacrifice, as well as serviceable for other things; not but that stealing other cattle and other things were criminal and forbidden, and to be punished in proportion:

and kill it, or sell it; either of which cases would plainly show that he took it away with an intention to deprive the owner of it, and to convert it to his own use:

he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep; the reason of this difference, five being obliged to be given for the one, and but four for the other, is, because the one was more valuable than the other, as well as more useful, and also more easily stolen, and therefore the greater mulct or fine was laid upon the theft of it, to deter from it: the Targum of Jonathan expresses the reason of the law thus; five for oxen, because the theft of them hindered from ploughing, or made to cease from it; and for sheep but four, because there was trouble in the theft of them, and there was no tillage or agriculture by them: and Saadiah Gaon observes, that the damage that comes to the owner of the ox is more than that by a lamb, because with it, the ox, he ploughs, which is a creature that was used in those countries to be employed in that service, as well as in treading out the corn: Maimonides u accounts for it thus,

“the restitution of the theft of oxen is increased by one, because the theft of them is easy; sheep are fed in flocks, and are easily kept and watched, and can scarcely be taken away by theft but in the night; but oxen are fed scattered here and there, and therefore cannot be so easily kept by the herdsmen; hence also their theft used to be more common:”

four fold restitution was in use with the ancient Persians, with whom it was a rule,

“whoever took any substance of another, in retaliation they took fourfold from him, and if he restored it, he gave fourfold of the same w.”

u Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 41. w Lib. Shed-dar, apud Hyde Relig. Vet. Pers. p. 472.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

With regard to cattle-stealing, the law makes a distinction between what had been killed or sold, and what was still alive and in the thief’s hand (or possession). In the latter case, the thief was to restore piece for piece twofold (Exo 22:4); in the former, he was to restore an ox fivefold and a small animal (a sheep or a goat) fourfold (Exo 22:1). The difference between the compensation for an ox and a small animal is to be accounted for from the comparative worth of the cattle to the possessor, which determined the magnitude of the theft and the amount of the compensation. But the other distinctions of twofold, fourfold, and fivefold restitution cannot be accounted for, either by supposing “that the animal slain or sold was lost to its master, and might have been of peculiar value to him” ( Knobel), for such a consideration of personal feelings would have been quite foreign to the law-not to mention the fact that an animal that had been sold might be recovered by purchase; or from the fact that “the thief in this case had carried his crime still further” ( Baumgarten), for the main thing was still the theft, not the consumption or sale of the animal stolen. The reason can only have lain in the educational purpose of the law: viz., in the intention to lead the thief to repent of his crime, to acknowledge his guilt, and to restore what he had stolen. Now, as long as he still retained the stolen animal in his own possession, having neither consumed nor parted with it, this was always in his power; but the possibility was gone as soon as it had either been consumed or sold (see by Archologie, 154, Note 3).

(Note: Calvin gives the same explanation: Major in scelere obstinatio se prodit, ubi res furtiva in quaestum conversa est, nec spes est ulla resipiscentiae, atque ita continuo progressu duplicatur malae fidei crimen. Fieri potest ut fur statim post delictum contremiscat: qui vero animal occidere ausus est, aut vendere, prorsus in maleficio obduruit .)

Exo 22:2-4

Into the midst of the laws relating to theft, we have one introduced here, prescribing what was to be done with the thief. “ If the thief be found breaking in (i.e., by night according to Exo 22:3), and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood to him (the person smiting him); if the sun has risen upon him (the thief breaking in), there is blood to him: ” i.e., in the latter case the person killing him drew upon himself blood-guiltiness ( lit., drops of blood, blood shed), in the former case he did not. “The reason for this disparity between a thief by night and one in the day is, that the power and intention of a nightly thief are uncertain, and whether he may not have come for the purpose of committing murder; and that by night, if thieves are resisted, they often proceed to murder in their rage; and also that they can neither be recognised, nor resisted and apprehended with safety” ( Calovius). In the latter case the slayer contracted blood-guiltiness, because even the life of a thief was to be spared, as he could be punished for his crime, and what was stolen be restored according to the regulations laid down in Exo 22:1 and Exo 22:4. But if he had not sufficient to make retribution, he was to be sold “ for his stolen, ” i.e., for the value of what he had stolen, that he might earn by his labour the compensation to be paid.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Judicial Laws.

B. C. 1491.

1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. 2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. 3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. 5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. 6 If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

Here are the laws,

I. Concerning theft, which are these:– 1. If a man steal any cattle (in which the wealth of those times chiefly consisted), and they be found in his custody, he must restore double, v. 4. Thus he must both satisfy for the wrong and suffer for the crime. But it was afterwards provided that if the thief were touched in conscience, and voluntarily confessed it, before it was discovered or enquired into by any other, then he should only make restitution of what he had stolen, and add to it a fifth part, Lev 6:4; Lev 6:5. 2. If he had killed or sold the sheep or ox he had stolen, and thereby persisted in his crime, he must restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep (v. 1), more for an ox than for a sheep because the owner, besides all the other profit, lost the daily labour of his ox. This law teaches us that fraud and injustice, so far from enriching men, will impoverish them: if we unjustly get and keep that which is another’s, it will not only waste itself, but it will consume that which is our own. 3. If he was not able to make restitution, he must be sold for a slave, v. 3. The court of judgment was to do it, and it is probable that the person robbed had the money. Thus with us, in some cases, felons are transported into plantations where alone Englishmen know what slavery is. 4. If a thief broke a house in the night, and was killed in the doing of it, his blood was upon his own head, and should not be required at the hand of him that shed it, v. 2. As he that does an unlawful act bears the blame of the mischief that follows to others, so likewise of that which follows to himself. A man’s house is his castle, and God’s law, as well as man’s, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril. Yet, if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it (v. 3), unless it was in the necessary defence of his own life. Note, We ought to be tender of the lives even of bad men; the magistrate must afford us redress, and we must not avenge ourselves.

II. Concerning trespass, v. 5. He that wilfully put his cattle into his neighbour’s field must make restitution of the best of his own. Our law makes a much greater difference between this and other thefts than the law of Moses did. The Jews hence observed it as a general rule that restitution must always be made of the best, and that no man should keep any cattle that were likely to trespass upon his neighbours or do them any damage. We should be more careful not to do wrong than not to suffer wrong, because to suffer wrong is only an affliction, but to do wrong is a sin, and sin is always worse than affliction.

III. Concerning damage done by fire, v. 6. He that designed only the burning of thorns might become accessory to the burning of corn, and should not be held guiltless. Men of hot and eager spirits should take heed, lest, while they pretend only to pluck up the tares, they root out the wheat also. If the fire did mischief, he that kindled it must answer for it, though it could not be proved that he designed the mischief. Men must suffer for their carelessness, as well as for their malice. We must take heed of beginning strife; for, though it seem but little, we know not how great a matter it may kindle, the blame of which we must bear, if, with the madman, we cast fire-brands, arrows, and death, and pretend we mean no harm. It will make us very careful of ourselves, if we consider that we are accountable, not only for the hurt we do, but for the hurt we occasion through inadvertency.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

EXODUS – TWENTY-TWO

Verses 1

Cattle and sheep constituted a major part of Israel’s wealth. Theft of either was punishable by restitution. In most cases, the thief must pay double the value of that which he stole (v. 4). But if he were a persistent felon, implied by either killing or selling the animal, the fine was much heavier. For one ox, five must be repaid; for one sheep four.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Thus far God has proclaimed Himself the avenger of iniquities, and, citing thieves before His tribunal, has threatened them with eternal death. Now follow the civil laws, the principle of which is not so exact and perfect; since in their enactment God has relaxed His just severity in consideration of the people’s hardness of heart.

What God formerly delivered to His people the heathen legislators afterwards borrowed. Draco, indeed, was more severe, but his extreme rigor became obsolete by the silent consent of the people of Athens; and the Decemvirs borrowed from Solon part of their law, which they published in the ten tables, although there were some variations in the distinction of the double or quadruple restitution, and in process of time other alterations were afterwards made. But if all things be duly considered, it will be found that both Solon and the Decemvirs have made a change for the worse, wherever they have varied from the law of God. First of all, no distinction (132) is here made, such as the Roman laws decree, between manifest thieves and those that are not manifest; for by them the thief not manifest is condemned to a double amend, and the manifest to quadruple; and he is called a manifest thief who is caught before he has carried what he has stolen to the place of its destination. I suppose that the awarders of the punishment had this point in view, that the wickedness of that person was the more egregious who was so greedily and anxiously set on his prey as not to be afraid of disgrace; and undoubtedly he who has no fear of shame is more audacious ill sin. But, on the contrary, God condemns to a double amend those upon whom the stolen goods were found; and to quadruple, those who had killed or sold it; and deservedly so, because greater obstinacy in crime betrays itself where the theft is turned to profit, nor is there any hope of repentance; and thus by this further process the crime of dishonesty is doubled. It might be that, immediately after the offense, the thief should be alarmed; but he who had dared to kill the stolen animal or to sell it, is altogether hardened in his sin. Besides, the more difficult its investigation is, the greater is the punishment which a misdemeanor deserves. Meanwhile, it is to be remembered, that the pecuniary fine imposed upon thieves did not free them from guilt; for, as Marcellus says, (133) not even the president of a province can bring it to pass, that infamy should not pursue a man condemned of theft; and there was no need of establishing by law that in which all by nature are agreed. Thus, when God punished thieves by a fine, He left them still marked by infamy. I know not whether they (134) assign the true cause why he who had stolen an ox is fined to a larger amount than he who had stolen a goat, or sheep, or other cattle, who say that the loss of the owner is taken into account to whom the labor of the ox is especially useful in agriculture; for what is said as to an ox I extend to cows and the whole herd. Those seem to come nearer to the truth who say the audacity of the thief is punished who, when he stole the larger animal, did not fear being observed by witnesses; yet it seems to me more likely that the different sentence depended on the price of the article; for assuredly it is more reasonable that he who has done the most harm should be exposed to the greater punishment.

(132) The negative added from Fr. See A. Gell. 11:18.

(133) “Il est dit en la loy;” it is said in the law. — Fr.

(134) This first opinion is “that (says Corn. a Lapide) of S. Thomas, 1:2. q. 105, art. 2. ad 9., after Strabo; God commands that a thief should restore five oxen for one, because the ox has five utilities; first, it is killed in sacrifice; secondly, its flesh is eaten; thirdly, it ploughs; fourthly, it gives milk; fifthly, it supplies leather; — whilst a sheep only has four advantages; for, first, it is slain in sacrifice; secondly, its flesh is eaten; thirdly, it gives milk; fourthly, it gives wool.” The second opinion is attributed to Junius by Willet, “oportet hunc furem audacem, et versutum esse.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES.

Exo. 22:2. No blood be shed for him.] This is a free translation, which, however, fairly gives the purport of the original words. The Hebrew phrase reads literally: There is of for him bloods (eyn lo dmim), the last wordin the pluralplainly standing for blood-gulitiness. There is, in his case, or, in reference to him, no blood-guiltiness resting on any one. No further blood is to be shed by way of avenging the death of one who had lost his life in the way described. We have here an instance of the underlying admission in the axiom, Blood for blood as the rule which calls for the caution of the text, as an exception.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 22:1-6

ACTUAL AND VIRTUAL CRIMINALITY

The Mosaic law is a schoolmaster. Not a mere pedagogue to guide mankind to the place or person where education may be obtained, but a veritable schoolmaster to educate mankindto lead men up out of a low into a high social condition, to develop humanity. We do not deny the fact that the Mosaic law, is a pedagogue, while we strive to bring into prominence the fact that it is itself also an educator. The educational power of the law is seen in this passage, as well as in others. Here men are taught to discriminate between crime and crime. While sin is one in its essence, yet there are degrees in criminality. Crime is variable, all sinners are not equally guilty.

I. Men must suffer for crime. The man who steals an ox or a sheep is not merely to make good the stolen animal, but must be mulcted in a penalty. The stolen ox must be replaced by another. But four oxen, or three sheep, is the price of the crime. And if the thief have nothing, then he is to be sold for his theft. The judges must thus determine. And out of the money thus obtained the loser of the animal must receive compensation. It is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. The evil-doer must ultimately be a sufferer. The man who suffers evil patiently must ultimately receive compensation. The great moral law of the universe cannot be thwarted. He who hopes to gain by wrongdoing will find that his hope is cut off by the sharp and sure stroke of the hand of retribution. Honest gains may be slow, but they are sure and blessed.

II. Men must suffer, unavenged, the extreme consequences of criminal conduct. If the thief is killed while in the act of pursuing his criminal course, then no one is to be held responsible for the slaughter. There shall no blood be shed for him. If a man meets with evil while doing evil, then the human consciousness declares that it serves him right. And here truly the voice of all peoples is the voice of God. But danger might arise if men took the law into their own hands, so that they are not permitted to pursue the thief, and slay him in revenge. In the night, and in self-defence, the thief may be unwittingly slain, then he reaps as he has sown. But when the sun has risen, when the time of danger is over, extreme measures can only be regarded, as dictated by revenge. Even evil-doers have rights which must be respected. It is better to suffer evil than to give way to a revengeful spirit. Avenge not yourselves.

III. Men must learn, by degrees of suffering, that there are degrees of criminality. The thief who kills or sells the stolen ox must restore fivefold; but if the theft be found in his hand alive, then he shall restore double. We may picture the thief arrested in his course by the voice of conscience. He does not proceed to extreme lengths. He seems to be on the verge of confession. The law has regard to moral states. A slight penalty is judged for a first offence. The man who has been repeatedly in prison receives a severe sentence. The great Lawgiver is wise and merciful. If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.

IV. Men must learn that property has rights. It seems likely that the case presented in verse five is that of the man who purposely causes his beast to feed in another mans field, or on the herbage growing between the vines; and of the best of his field and of the best of his vineyard shall he make restitution. Though, from our reading of the law, if this should happen as the result of carelessness, we should expect that restitution would have to be made. Communistic theories were not taught in the Old Testament. And the trial of communism was a short-lived and unsuccessful experiment in the early Church. The peculiar theory of some communistic advocates seems to be self-enrichment at the expense of others. The cattle of others must not be allowed to graze on my lands, while my cattle may trespass anywhere. When human selfishness is thoroughly destroyed, when men are as anxious for the welfare of their neighbours as for their own, then boundary lines may be obliterated, and courts of justice may be abolished.

V. Men must learn to consider the welfare of their neighbours. Love thy neighbour as thyself, is a law for all economies. The virtual incendiary must make restitution. The man may simply have been burning the weeds or stubble of his own ground, but he burned too near his neighbours standing corn. He may be sorry for the destruction; but sorrow of itself will not fill the granary. Sorrow must work repentance, and repentance must show itself in ample restitution. Be careful how you handle fire. There are fires that cause such awful destruction that compensation is impossible. Who can make restitution for the fires of lust, of sensuality, and of criminality, kindled in the souls of men? Evil. doers have much to answer for. What hand can stay their ever-burning fires?

W. Burrows, B.A.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

THE LAW OF ROBBERY.Exo. 22:1-4

God made provision not only for the acquisition of property, but for its security. Hence this law, which respects

1. Theft.
2. Housebreaking.

I. Theft, Exo. 22:1-4. As the wealth of an Israelite consisted mainly in flocks and herds, the depredations of the thief were directed for the most part against them.

1. If the stolen animal were destroyed or sold
(1) in the case of an ox, as the more valuable for food and service, and the owner losing its work as well as its literal value, the penalty was fivefold.

(2) In the case of a sheep, the penalty was fourfold (2Sa. 12:6). But

2. If the animal were not sold or destroyed, the penalty was only double, as the thief would probably be a novice in his art.

II. Housebreaking, Exo. 22:2-3. The public sentiment (which ever recognises that a mans house is his castle) against this act, it may be presumed, was so high, that the protection of a robber from sanguinary vengeance was necessary.

1. If his depredations occurred at midnight, and he lost his life in the attempt, the right of self-protection on the part of the householder was recognised.

2. If, however, they occurred during the day when he might be identified or apprehended, and he was slain, even the life of a thief was precious, and taking that life was murder (Exo. 21:12).

3. In the case of his success and detection, the penalty was double the value of the stolen property, or slavery.

4. In the case of non-success, he obtained the benefit of the doubt. (See also Lev. 6:4-5.)

Learn
i. That Gods providence extends to property as well as persons. Both are His gift. Neither must be interfered with except by the original donor.

ii That those who endeavour to thwart that providence play a losing game. The law of retribution imposes not only the loss of the apparent gain but of more. An act of injustice prevents enjoyment, entails the loss of self-respect, the approbation of conscience, the censure of good men, and the anger of God.

iii. That the recognition of that providence is not inconsistent with, but demands the use of, means. It is an abuse and perversion of it to tamely submit to wrong when the legitimate prevention of wrong is within our reach.

iv. That providence protects even the life of the wrong-doer, and no man must wantonly interfere with that protection. It is a terrible thing to send a man into eternity red-handed in his guilt. Milder measures, as all history testifies, may produce reformation.J. W. Burn.

THE PENALTY OF CARELESSNESS.Exo. 22:5-6

As in Exo. 21:28-36,the principle is laid down that a man must not only look on his own things, but also on the things of others.

1. If a man, negligent of doors or fences, shall let his beast go loose, and it shall feed (according to LXX. Vulg. Syr. followed by Luther) in anothers field; or
2. If a man, according to the custom of Eastern countries before the autumnal rains, to prevent the ravages of vermin and to prepare the soil for the next crop, shall burn the dry grass and stubble in his field, and neglect to keep the fire within safe and proper bounds; then,
3. Restitution must be made.

Learn
i. To be careful of your neighbours material, intellectual, and spiritual interest, and do not damage them by a careless word or action.
ii. In order that those interests may not be invaded, put a strong check on those loose and vagrant so-called interests of your own.
iii. In order to prevent any possibility of the transgression of those interests, see that those passions of avarice, envy, and revenge which cause so much mischief in the word, are quenched.
iv. If those interests are invaded, render a frank, manly, and ample restitution.

1. Confess your fault.
2. In the case of loss make it up.
3. In the case of injury to character, let the acknowledgment be co-extensive with the slander.
4. Let those who have been injured forgive as they hope to be forgiven.

J. W. Burn.

THINGS ENTRUSTED AND LOST

If the social compact is to rest on solid foundations, there must be a widespread feeling as to the sacredness of trusts. In societies one man is dependent upon another, and there will arise occasions when either goods or cattle must be entrusted to the keeping of others. Law must hold them responsible to whom goods have been entrusted. They must faithfully discharge the trust. They must render true accounts. Balance sheets must be submitted for inspection. The trustee occupies a responsible position. Every man, morally considered, is a trustee. Each man ought to consider himself as his brothers keeper. One day accounts will have to be rendered. How solemn is mans position as a moral trustee. Let there be a faithful discharge of duties, and there will be a wonderful display of Divine love and mercy.

I. The course to be pursued when the thief is found. If the goods have been stolen out of the trustees house, and the thief is discovered, then the case is clear. The trustee is free from all blame, and the thief must pay double for that which he has stolen. The thief might have taken the goods of the trustee as well as the goods entrusted to his keeping, and therefore it is not needful to suppose him guilty. If the trustee has taken the same precaution with that which is another mans as with his own, then he has proved his faithfulness. Law requires no more.

II. The course to be pursued when the thief is unknown. If the goods are stolen, and the thief is not discovered, then there may be a case of embezzlement. The master of the house is responsible. His innocence must be proved. It must be shown that there has been no evil connivance. This is to be done by

1. An appeal to the judges. It will be their difficult task to decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Evidence must be taken. The truth must be elicited by careful cross examination. And whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
2. An appeal to the Supreme Judge. The sacredness of a religious oath has been held by nations in rudest states. There is a religious instinct in men, which speaks of his Divine original. Low has that man fallen who can easily violate a religious oath. And yet how many in our day can trifle with this solemn engagement! If the owner accepts the oath, then the trustee is freed from blame. We certainly must take into consideration the character of him who swears. Happy the man whose character is above suspicion, whose simple yea is deemed conclusive.

III. The course to be pursued when cattle are stolen from the trustee. There is difficulty in comprehending the purport of Exo. 22:12 when taken in connection with the preceding verses. If they had not been present then we might fairly have supposed that the trustee is more responsible for the safety of cattle than for the safety of goods. Thus we may perceive that it is a more difficult matter to steal cattle than to steal money. Therefore the trustee to whom cattle is entrusted, and from whom they have been stolen, must make restitution unto the owner. But if the cattle be torn in pieces, and he be able to bring it for a witness, then he shall not make good that which was torn. Perhaps the trustee was present at the attack, and endeavoured to drive away the wild animal, and the torn pieces rescued from the jaws of the destroyer are the witnesses of his heroism.

IV. The course to be pursued when injury is done to borrowed things. If the borrower has sole charge, then he is to be held responsible for the damages that may happen. But if the owner be with it, he shall not make it good; if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire. It seems as if the borrower is supposed to be in the hired service of the owner. The piece of the dead beast must be subtracted from the pay. We must be careful of borrowed property. All that we have has been lent unto us by the Lord, and He will call us to account for injuries done to that with which we have been entrusted.

V. The course to be pursued when a maid is enticed to her undoing. Some suppose this to be a case of trust like all the rest. The maid has entrusted herselfher honour and virtueto the man, and he has betrayed the trust. He has violated her person, he has spoiled her virginity, and he must endow her to be his wife. He has no power of choice in the matter, but the father may for wise reasons utterly refuse to give the maid unto her betrayer, and he must pay money according to the dowry of virgins. The father ought to know what is for the good of his child. He is likely to have a knowledge of the world, and to know that his daughters happiness would not be safe in the keeping of such a man. It is always wise to take the counsel of parents. Let daughters especially not forsake the guide of their youths. Seducers ought to be compelled to marry the seduced if the parents are willing, or, if not, to make restitution. This would lessen the amount of the prostitution which is one of our national sins.W. Burrows, B.A.

ILLUSTRATIONS

BY
REV. WILLIAM ADAMSON

Divine Enactments! Exo. 22:1-31.

(1) There is a world of difference between a stained glass window and a kaleidoscope. Their relative values are very different, and so is their structure. The pieces of variegated glass are flung anyhow, for the prism to arrange; whereas, those employed in the window are all arranged to give a beautiful, effective, and abiding impression. These separate enactments are not strung together haphazard. On the contrary, they are chords divinely arranged to produce harmony in the world, and give forth strains of Divine adoration in their observance.
(2) If one side of a tree grows, and the other does not, the tree acquires a crooked form. It may be fruitful, but it cannot be beautiful. God would have humanities and nationalities, theocracies and individualities, both rich in the beauties of holiness and the fruits of righteousness. The unequal growth of the Christian graces is undesirable; hence the numerous Divine precautions to make them alike fair, fragrant, and fruitful.

Stern lawgiving! yet thou dost wear
The Godheads most benignant grace;
Flowers laugh before thee on their beds;
And fragrance in thy footing treads;
Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong.

Wordsworth.

Dishonesty! Exo. 22:1.

(1) Matthew Henry says, That which is won ill will never wear well, for there is a curse attends it, which will waste it. Many a fraudulent speculator on Change is none the richer for the gains dishonestly obtained from widows and old maids. Honesty is, after all, the best policy; for very frequently, the same corrupt dispositions which incline men to the sinful ways of getting will incline them to the like sinful ways of spending.
(2) In a recent Court of Queens Bench trial of some men of note, for dishonest building estate transactions, the judge passed sentence of imprisonment, adding that during the interval pecuniary restitution would have to be made; otherwise at the expiry of the term, they would again be brought up on other counts of the indictment. Restitution and retribution were here combined. The way of transgressors is hard.

The sun of justice may withdraw his beams
Awhile from earthly ken; but soon these clouds,
Seeming eclipse, will brighten into day.

Bally.

Full Restitution! Exo. 22:3. A youth having, in a moment of peculiar temptation, plundered his employer, was sentenced to several years penal servitude. His conduct in prison was so exemplary that he was soon released on parole. Filled with a deep sense of his sin before God, and his ingratitude to his employer, he resolved to make the utmost amends. By dint of diligence, energy, and industry, he raised sufficient to refund the monies, including interest in full. He then presented himself before his old master in the spirit of a sincere penitent, expressed his sorrow for the dishonest action, and presented the full amount with interest. Conscience and a desire to live before God combined to achieve this happy result of full restitution. Conscience

In leaves more durable than leaves of brass
Writes our whole history.

Young.

Trespass-Tribute! Exo. 22:5. Chandler in his Asiatic Travels, observes, that the tame cattle are very fond of vine-leaves, and are permitted to eat them in the autumn. He observed about Smyrna that the leaves were decayed, or stripped by the camels and herds of goats, which were permitted to browse after the vintage. If those animals were so fond of vine leaves, it is no wonder that Moses, in anticipation of possessing the vineyards and oliveyards of Canaan, forbade by an express law any selfish, wilful intrusion of one mans cattle into the property of another. The trespass would prove a serious injury, if it took place before the time of the vintage; and if it occurred afterwards, it would still be plundering the food of the neighbours own cattle. This law has its moral aspect, and applies to the spiritual vineyards of humanity.

Man spoils the tender beauty

That blossoms on the sod,

And blasts the loving heaven

Of the great, good world of God.

Household Words.

Law and Love! Exo. 22:5. Two small farmersthe one a Christian the other a worldlingowned adjoining lands. Frequently the pious farmer found his neighbours cow enjoying the rich grass of his meadow field, in spite of hedgerow and gateway. After driving back the animal, and closing the gate time after time, the humble Christian sent to the churlish, dishonest neighbour to say, that it grieved him more to witness his neighbours dishonesty than to lose the fodder for his cattle; and therefore, if his neighbour could not give up breaking the hedge and opening the gate for his cow to trespass, he would cheerfully feed the animal for nothing along with his own stock. This tenderness of heart for his conscience touched the neighbour, and he at once confessed his constant practice of dishonesty, and offered to make restitution in any way.

Conscience, what art thou? thou tremendous Power!
Who dost inhabit us without our leave;
And art within ourselves another self,
A master-self, that loves to dominate,
And treat the mighty frankly as the slave?

Honesty! Exo. 22:9.

(1) Entrusted! A writer in the Sunday at Home, alluding to the honesty of the Malays in the Dutch Indies, says that his business required frequent absences, during which he left his house in their care. Before setting out, he gave the key of his bureau to the mandoor, and told him to take care of the money it contained. He says he never found a single farthing amissingthat sometimes returning late, the servant would be found sleeping close to the bureau for its greater securityand that during all the time he passed in the island, he had no occasion to complain of the theft of any article.
(2) Lost! Not far from St. Petersburgh lived a poor woman, whose only livelihood arose from the visits of a few shipmasters on their way to the capital. One of these left behind a sealed bag of money; which the woman put away in her cupboard till it should be claimed. Years rolled on; and though often in great want, the bag of gold still remained sacredly intact. Seven years afterwards, some shipmasters were again staying at her house, when one of them remarked that he would never forget the town they were then visiting, for he had years before lost a sealed bag of 700 roubles. The poor woman overhearing the remark, said, Would you know it by the seal? The shipmaster pointed to a seal hanging by his watch-chain; and the bag was at once produced and restored to its rightful owner.

An honest man is still an unmoved rock,
Washed whiter, but not shaken with the shock.

Davenport.

Trust-Restitution! Exo. 22:9.

(1) Recently & lady went to parison on a visit, entrusting her house and furniture to a friend, on whose honesty she relied. Unfortunately the confidence was misplaced; and during her absence, articles of considerable value were removed. On her return, the discovery was made, and the person guilty of so contemptible a breach of trust arraigned. The judge ordered him to restore all the objects of vertu which he had purloined, and to suffer a term of imprisonment for his breach of trust.

(2) A poor widow entrusted the title-deeds of some properly, left by her husband, to a solicitor, in whom she had confidence. Her trust was, however, grossly abused, as he retained the deeds on the plea of some false debt due by the husband. After long and persistent endeavours to obtain recovery of the documents, but in vain, the defrauded widow was advised to apply to the Lord Chancellor. On inquiry, the judge decided that the dishonest lawyer must either deliver up the title-deeds and make restitution for their retention, or be struck off the roll of solicitors.

Justice has her laws,

That will not brook infringement; in all time,
All circumstances, all state, in every clime,
She holds aloft the same avenging sword.

Percival.

Conscience-Restitution! Exo. 22:12. Gray mentions that as a gentleman in London entered his house, he found a well-dressed female sitting on the stairs. She asked pardon for the liberty she had taken, saying that she had taken refuge for a few minutes in his house from a mad dog. On hearing her story, he gave her some refreshment before she left. In the evening, his wife missed her gold watchit having been purloined by the forenoon visitor. Fifteen years afterwards, the watch was returned, with a note from the. thief. It stated that the Gospel had recently changed her heart, and that in consequence she desired to return the watch to its rightful owner.

Conscience! It is a dangerous thing.

It made me once

Restore a purse of gold.

Shakespeare.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

THE TEXT OF EXODUS
TRANSLATION

22 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. (2) If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him. (3) If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be bloodguiltiness for him; he shall make restitution: if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. (4) If the theft be found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall pay double.

(5) If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall let his beast loose, and it feed in another mans field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.
(6) If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the shocks of grain, or the standing grain, or the field are consumed; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.
(7) If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the mans house; if the thief be found, he shall pay double. (8) If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto God, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbors goods. (9) For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor.

(10) If a man deliver unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: (11) the oath of Je-ho-vah shall be between them both, whether he hath not put his hand unto his neighbors goods; and the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution. (12) But if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. (13) If it be torn in pieces, let him bring it for witness; he shall not make good that which was torn.
(14) And if a man borrow aught of his neighbor, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof not being with it, he shall surely make restitution. (15) If the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be a hired thing, it came for its hire.
(16) And if a man entice a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife. (17) If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
(18) Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.
(19) Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
(20) He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto Je-ho-vah only, shall be utterly destroyed. (21) And a sojourner shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him: for ye were sojourners in the land of E-gypt. (22) Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. (23) If thou afflict them at all, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; (24) and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.
(25) If thou lend money to any of my people with thee that is poor, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest. (26) If thou at all take thy neighbors garment to pledge, thou shalt restore it unto him before the sun goeth down: (27) for that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.
(28) Thou shalt not revile God, nor curse a ruler of thy people. (29) Thou shalt not delay to offer of thy harvest, and of the outflow of thy presses. The first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. (30) Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me. (31) And ye shall be holy men unto me: therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.

EXPLORING EXODUS: CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
QUESTIONS ANSWERABLE FROM THE BIBLE

After careful reading propose a brief title or topic for the chapter.

What was the penalty (or required restitution) for stealing a sheep? An ox? Why the difference? (Exo. 22:1)

What distinction was made in the responsibility upon one who smote a thief in the night so that he died, from the responsibility upon who killed a thief in the daytime? Why? (Exo. 22:2-3)

What punishment was imposed upon a thief if a stolen animal was found in his possession? (Exo. 22:4)

What was the penalty for letting ones animal graze in anothers field? (Exo. 22:5)

What penalty was imposed for letting fire burn in a neighbors grain field? (Exo. 22:6)

Who decided what was to be done when goods entrusted to someone were stolen? (Exo. 22:7-9)

What was to be done if entrusted animals died while under the care of someone? (Exo. 22:10-11)

What were people to do about borrowed things that were damaged or hurt? (Exo. 22:14-15).

10.

What requirements were imposed upon those who seduced virgins? (Exo. 22:16-17)

11.

What was the law about sorceresses (witches)? (Exo. 22:18)

12.

What was the penalty for immorality with a beast? (Exo. 22:19)

13.

What punishment was given to those who sacrificed to other gods?

14.

What treatment was to be given to sojourners? Why? (Exo. 22:21)

15.

Who claimed the poor people as my people? (Exo. 22:25)

16.

What interest was to be charged to poor people? (Exo. 22:25)

17.

How long could garments held as security for a loan be kept? Why? (Exo. 22:26-27; Compare Lev. 25:35-37)

18.

What was the law about reviling rulers (and God)? (Exo. 22:28)

19.

Who quoted this law? (Act. 23:5)

20.

What was to be done with the firstborn? (Exo. 22:29-30)

21.

What sort of men were the people to be unto God? (Exo. 22:31)

22.

What rule was given about eating torn flesh? (Exo. 22:31)

EXODUS TWENTY-TWO: GODS COVENANT ORDINANCES
(CONTINUED)

Laws about theft; Exo. 22:1-4.

Laws about damaging others produce; Exo. 22:5-6.

Loss of thing entrusted to others; Exo. 22:7-15.

Seduction of a virgin; Exo. 22:16-17.

Capital crimes; Exo. 22:18-20.

Laws protecting the weak; Exo. 22:21-27.

The sojourner; Exo. 22:21.

The widow and orphan; Exo. 22:22-24.

The poor debtor; Exo. 22:25-27.

Duties to rulers and to God; Exo. 22:28-31.

EXODUS TWENTY-TWO: PROPERTY, PEOPLE, POTENTATES

Property.

Restitution for stolen goods; Exo. 22:1; Exo. 22:4.

Repayment for pasturing or burning fields; Exo. 22:5-6.

Responsibility for goods left in trust; Exo. 22:7-13.

II.

People.

A homeowner Right to self-protection; Exo. 22:2.

A thief His life is to be spared; Exo. 22:3.

A virgin Seduction brings consequences; Exo. 22:16-17.

A sorceress Execution; Exo. 22:18.

A sodomite Execution; Exo. 22:19.

An idolater Execution; Exo. 22:20.

A sojourner Kind treatment; Exo. 22:21.

A widow or orphan Not afflicted; Exo. 22:22-24.

A poor man Kind credit treatment; Exo. 22:25-27.

III.

Potentates.

Rulers Do not curse; Exo. 22:28.

God; Exo. 22:29-31.

Offer your produce.

Offer your firstborn.

Be holy; eat no torn flesh.

THE SACREDNESS OF HUMAN TRUSTS (Exo. 22:7-13)

God recognizes the owners possession of entrusted goods; Exo. 22:7.

God gives judgment in disputes over trusts; Exo. 22:8-9; Exo. 22:11.

God holds a trustee responsible for theft; Exo. 22:12.

God excuses the trustee in cases of violence; Exo. 22:13.

CRIMES THAT FORFEIT LIFE (Exo. 22:18-20)

Sorcery; Exo. 22:18.

Sodomy; Exo. 22:19.

Idolatry; Exo. 22:20.

WITCHCRAFT! (Exo. 22:18)

1. Dangerous;

2. Deceptive;

3. Doomed.

GODS EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MANS WORSHIP! (Exo. 22:20)

Based on Gods nature.

Based on non-reality of other gods.

Based on fact of Gods creating man.

TREATMENT OF THE WEAK AND THE MIGHTY (Exo. 22:21-31)

Treatment of the weak; Exo. 22:21-27.

The sojourner Not wronged or oppressed; (Exo. 22:21).

The widow and orphan Not afflicted; (Exo. 22:22-24).

The poor debtor Gentleness in lending; (Exo. 22:25-27).

II.

Treatment of the mighty; Exo. 22:28-31.

Treatment of rulers Curse not; (Exo. 22:28)

Treatment of God; (Exo. 22:28-31)

Do not revile; (Exo. 22:28)

Bring your offerings and firstfruits; (Exo. 22:29-30)

Be holy in diet; (Exo. 22:31)

EXPLORING EXODUS: NOTES ON CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

What is in Exodus 22?

Exodus twenty-two continues Gods covenant ordinances, which are given in Exodus 21-23. The chapter deals with punishment of thieves, damage to field produce, goods left in care of non-owners, etc. The chapter has a section of laws protecting the weak (Exo. 22:21-27), and closes with ordinances about duties to God (Exo. 22:28-31.)

It might be helpful to remember the contents of this chapter by saying that it has ordinances about property, people, and potentates (rulers and God).

What was the penalty for stealing an ox or sheep? (Exo. 22:1)

For stealing an ox and killing or selling it, a man had to restore or pay five oxen for the stolen one. The penalty for stealing and selling a sheep was four sheep. The word sheep (seh) may also refer to a goat. Killing or selling the animal would indicate that the theft was deliberate.

The difference in penalty for stealing an ox from that of stealing a sheep is probably due simply to the greater value of the ox. It took years to train an ox well.

The fourfold restitution for a stolen sheep is referred to in King Davids condemnation of the man who stole the little ewe lamb: He shall restore the lamb fourfold (2Sa. 12:6). Pro. 6:30-31 mentions a sevenfold restitution of stolen things. Perhaps that passage uses the larger number to emphasize the seriousness of theft, without meaning to be legally precise in defining the punishment.

People have always made harsh laws against thievery, because it hits them where it hurts, in the pocketbook. They may wink at immorality (if no one is physically injured), but theft is not so excusable among men. Hammurabis law (No. 8) reflects this common human feeling toward theft, and declared that if a man stole an ox or a sheep, or ass, or such, and it belonged to the church or state, he had to make a thirtyfold restitution. If it belonged to a private citizen, he had to make it good tenfold; and if he did not have enough to make restitution, he was put to death!

Possibly the law of Moses contained the law in Exo. 22:1 to oppose the extreme sentence of Hammurabi, which was probably a prevailing approach to punishing thieves. Certainly Gods law never allowed that a mans life be taken for offenses against property.

Exo. 22:4 gives a related law about stealing animals. See below.

How might the time of a theft affect its consequences? (Exo. 22:2-3)

If a thief was caught breaking in at night and was killed in the act, his slayer was not held accountable for the thiefs death. If the sun had risen and the thief was smitten and slain, his slayer had bloodguiltiness (Heb., blood) upon him. The dead thiefs relatives could attempt to take the life of the one killing the thief. Compare Exo. 21:12.

The proper punishment of a thief caught stealing in the daytime was that he had to make restitution (repay double; see Exo. 22:4; Exo. 22:7). If the thief could not repay, then he was sold for his theft. Compare Exo. 21:2.

The principle is that human life is greater than property. If the thief were breaking in at night, there was the possibility that he was going to harm or kill the householder or his family; thus the householder was not held accountable for striking and slaying the thief because this may have been necessary self-defense. But in the daytime the thiefs intentions (whether he was just stealing or seeking to harm people) would probably be visible by his actions. He was not to be smitten just to make certain that he did try to kill someone.

Admittedly Exo. 22:2 does not mention the night time, but the contrast of Exo. 22:2 and Exo. 22:3 indicates that Exo. 22:2 does refer to a nighttime break-in.

Breaking in (literally, digging in) presupposes the houses were made of mud brick or other easily removable materials.
The way Hammurabis law dealt with thieves breaking in makes us shudder. If a citizen made a breach in a house, they put him to death in front of that breach, and then walled him up in the breach! (Law No. 21). If a citizen committed robbery and was caught, he was put to death.

What was the penalty for a thief caught with the goods? (Exo. 22:4)

Whatever he was caught with (ox, or ass, or sheep), he had to pay double. (It seems that this was in addition to restoring the stolen animal.)
Possibly the reason for the lesser penalty (double instead of fourfold) was that if the stolen item was still with the thief, he yet might repent of his crime, acknowledge his guilt, and restore what he had stolen. He could not do this after the animal was disposed of.

The R.S.V. of the Bible places Exo. 22:3 b Exo. 22:4 right after Exo. 22:1. The reason for doing this is that verse four deals with the same subject as verse one. We do not feel that anyone has the right to rearrange the Biblical text. The Greek Bible gives the verses in the same order as the Hebrew Bible and most English versions. Furthermore, the laws in Exodus 21-23 are not set forth as a comprehensive and systematic presentation of all Israels laws. They are sort of a sampler of the fuller code of laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. It is an indication of misunderstanding of the section (chs. 2123) to assume that the section originally had all laws on the same topics grouped together in a polished and systematic legal and literary style.

What was the penalty for pasturing another mans field? (Exo. 22:5)

The one who pastured another mans field or vineyard was to make restitution out of the best part of his own field or vineyard.

It appears that the pasturing of the field was intentional. The text could be translated literally, If a man . . . shall send his cattle and cause them to eat in a field of another. . . . The Greek translates send as aphiemi, meaning to send away or let go. The law would be applicable, whether the pasturing was intentional or unintentional.

The words eat in Exo. 22:5 and consume in Exo. 22:6 are in Hebrew the same word (baar). This word usually (but not always) means to consume by fire. The New English Bible translates Exo. 22:5 as burn off.

Beast in Exo. 22:5 is a collective word referring to cattle.

The law of Moses set a stiff penalty for presumptuously grazing anothers field. Isa. 3:14 speaks of elders and princes in the land who ate up the vineyards of the poor. Probably some inconsiderate people thought they could profit more by pasturing another mans field than the law would possibly exact from them in punishment. Therefore God decreed that they had to make restitution from the best part of their fields.

No one pastures his neighbors field and still loves his neighbor as himself. Lev. 19:18.

What was the judgment for burning another mans field? (Exo. 22:6)

He that kindled the fire was surely to make restitution.

The fire referred to got away and went forth. Small fires started for cooking or burning off stubble might break out in a strong breeze (and such a breeze is customary in Palestine), and catch in thorns, and quickly spread to fields of standing grain. Burning off fields of grain was a sure way to arouse an agitated response! See Jdg. 15:4-6; 2Sa. 14:30-31.

Palestinian thorns are very flammable in the dry season and are used as fuel by the poor. The author has vivid memories of helping fight a fire in the thistles and thorns on Tell Gezer in Israel. The strong breeze had caused a fire set in a nearby wheat field to burn off stubble to break out into the adjoining uncultivated hillside. The thorns and thistles and sheep dung in the hot dry late June air were almost explosively flammable, and the flames could hardly be beaten out.

What was to be done if goods left in someones care were stolen? (Exo. 22:7)

If the thief were caught, he had to pay double. This refers back to Exo. 22:4, where a thief caught with the goods was sentenced to pay double to the owner.

What was to be done if goods left in someones care were stolen and the thief was not caught? (Exo. 22:8-9)

In such a case the keeper of the goods had to clear himself. The keeper of the goods would come unto God (K.J.V., Unto the judges) to determine whether he had stolen or embezzled the goods left in his care. The Greek and Latin translations add that the keeper was to swear that he had not taken the goods. God would reveal in some way who had transgressed, and whoever was condemned had to pay his neighbor double. Possibly this was done by the priests by their Urim and Thummim or other means of obtaining information from God (Exo. 28:30; Ezr. 2:63; Deu. 1:16-17).

We prefer the translation unto God rather than unto the judges in Exo. 22:8. Before God is the Greek rendering here. Compare Exo. 21:6 and Exo. 22:28 on the translation of elohim as God or as judges.

If an owner of goods had entrusted the goods to someone and the goods disappeared, and then the owner located his lost livestock (or clothing or whatever it was), he could declare, This is it! Thats mine! The Israelites did not follow the Anglo-Saxon practice of Finders-keepers. A lost object remained the possession of its original owner, who could claim it on sight.
The practice of settling disputes over property in the presence of God (or the gods) was common in the ancient Near East. Hammurabis law (No. 120) commanded that a dispute about grain that disappeared while in the care of someone was to be settled in the presence of god, that is at the local idol sanctuary, which doubled as the court of justice. Certainly there is no evidence here that Moses borrowed his law from Hammurabi. Hammurabi decreed that the owner of the grain should go to their gods for the truth. Moses had the accused keeper to go before God to clear himself. The Torah here protected the accused man.

How was a case involving uncertainty about the loss of livestock to be settled? (Exo. 22:10-13)

If livestock in the care of someone besides its owner died or was hurt or driven away (by enemy raiders or attacked by animals), and no one saw it happen, an oath in Jehovahs name was sworn out as to whether the keeper had stolen or slaughtered the animal for himself. In some way Jehovah would make known the truth of the matter. If the keeper was innocent, no restitution was made. Natural losses (from beasts or sickness, etc.) were not the responsibility of the keeper.

If wild beasts had killed a sheep or other animal, the keeper could bring the remaining pieces of the animal as evidence of what had happened. The keeper might rescue two legs or a piece of an ear. (Amo. 3:12).

If the animal(s) had been stolen from the one keeping them, the keeper had to make restitution to the owner. The keeper was responsible to protect against thievery.

Jacob spoke to his father-in-law, Laban, about animals stolen while under his care: Of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night (Gen. 31:39).

The Jewish Talmud applied Exo. 22:7 to an unpaid custodian and Exo. 22:10 to a paid keeper of goods.[323] This has no authority to us, but it was probably generally true, because objects (as in Exo. 22:7) would usually be cared for without pay, but livestock would probably be kept by a paid guardian.

[323] Cassuto, op. cit., p. 285.

10.

What was done about borrowed animals that died or were hurt? (Exo. 22:14-15)

If the owner was not present when they were hurt, the one who borrowed the animals had to make restitution. If the owner was there when it happened, the borrower was not held responsible for the damage. Presumably the owner could have done something in such a case to prevent the loss.
If the keeper had hired (or rented) the animal and it was hurt or died, the renter did not have to make it good. The owner assumed this risk in return for the hire given to him.

Borrow in Exo. 22:14 is from the same verb that is used in Exo. 3:22 with reference to asking (or borrowing) jewelry of the Egyptians. The verb itself leaves open the question as to whether the object was to be returned or not. But we feel that in this passage (Exo. 22:14-15) the return of the goods is certainly implied.

An alternate translation of Exo. 22:15 b has been suggested by Noth and others: If the man [through whom the damage came] is a hired man, the damage shall be charged to his hire. This reading suggests the carelessness of a hired man as opposed to the care of the owner (Joh. 10:12). The word translated hired thing does frequently mean a hired laborer or hireling (Job. 14:6; Lev. 25:53). But it does not always mean that. See Isa. 7:20 where is just means hired. We must agree with Keil and Delitzsch that this is not a good translation. The Hebrew simply reads, If [it is] a hired [thing], it came in (or with) its hire. The past tense of the verb came argues against the idea that the verse refers to a future repayment coming out of a hired mans wages.

11.

What were the consequences if a man seduced a virgin? (Exo. 22:16-17)

He had to pay her father the bride-money (dowry), and take the woman as his wife, and could never divorce her. See Deu. 22:28-29. The dowry was fifty shekels of silver. If her father absolutely refused (the absolutely is stressed) to give her to him, the man still had to pay the marriage price.

If the woman had been a betrothed virgin, then both the man and the woman were put to death. See Deu. 22:23-24. If the man forced the woman and she cried for help, only the man was slain. See Deu. 22:25-27.

It might seem strange to insert this section about seducing a virgin right after discussing the property laws. But a mans daughters were his property, although few men looked upon children as no more than property. In their culture a young woman who was not a virgin was generally rejected as a candidate for marriage. See Deu. 22:14 ff. Thus, to violate the woman meant a probable financial loss to the father, to say nothing of the feelings of the girl.

The laws in Exo. 22:16-17 and Deu. 22:23-27 partly explain the consternation of Joseph, husband of Mary, in Mat. 1:9. Would Mary be sentenced to die? Would she be compelled to marry the father of her child?

The law in Exo. 22:16-17 is not full and complete, as is the law on the same subject in Deu. 22:22-29. This points up again that the covenant ordinances in Exodus 21-23 are not designed to be an exhaustive law code but a sampler of the laws later to be given in full.

12.

What was to be done with a sorceress (witch)? (Exo. 22:18)

She was not to be allowed to live. (1Sa. 28:3; 1Sa. 28:9)

This verse does NOT give authority to Christians now to execute witches, whether real or unreal. We are not under the covenant of the law of Moses which commanded this. Furthermore, to force confessions out of witches (or anyone else) by torture was never part of the Jewish law, much less of Christian doctrine.

Other passages condemning witchcraft, sorcery, consulting with a familiar spirit, etc. include Lev. 19:31; Lev. 20:6; Lev. 20:27; Deu. 18:10-11; 1Ki. 21:6; 1Ch. 10:13; Isa. 8:19-20; Mic. 5:12. The New Testament condemns sorcery and witchcraft in Gal. 5:20; Rev. 21:8; Rev. 22:15. It is an abomination unto Jehovah.

Witchcraft has always been a forbidden practice for the people of God. It is an attempt to bypass the rule of God in nature and human life. It was a capital offense under the law. We must not be involved with it, even to learn about it. Many who have been involved with it testify that it is dangerous. But we should not avoid it just for that reason. Our reason for avoiding it is that God says it is sin.

Although specifically forbidden by Israelite law, sorcery continued through much of Israels history. It was also commonly practiced by other nations. See Exo. 7:11; Isa. 47:9; Isa. 47:12; Dan. 2:2; Num. 24:1.

The Hebrew word for witch in Exo. 22:18 is feminine, probably because many of those who practiced sorcery as a profession were woman. However, the law applied against men sorcerers as well.[324] See Lev. 20:2.

[324] The Greek translation of the Hebrew word for sorcerer is pharmakeus, one who deals in drugs and poison, a sorcerer, a poisoner. The Hebrew word for one having a familiar spirit is ob, meaning a hollow place, particularly a hollow space in the belly which was supposedly inhabitated by the spirit, and from which came the muttering and peeping sounds. The Greek translation of ob is eggastrimuthos, meaning one making utterance in the belly.

As an illustration of the character of witchcraft, we cite from an article in the Joplin (Mo.) Globe, Aug. 7, 1975, concerning a man and wife in Salem, Mo., who practice witchcraft. They declare that they are not satanists, and believe that Jesus Christ lived and was a great healer. But they object to Christian doctrine and the idea that humans have the ability to really know what God is. (This is a denial that God has ever revealed Himself through His prophets or in His word.) They tell of dancing nude under the full moon inside concentric circles of sulfur to gather power to heal or influence an event. Facing retirement, the couple said, We feel a little sorrow in retiring, but its not as bad as it used to be in the old days. In those days you didnt just retire. You were sacrificed in a ritual.

13.

What was the penalty for immorality with a beast? (Exo. 22:19)

Whoever lay with (that is, performed a sex act) a beast was surely to be put to death.
The verse begins in Hebrew with All (or Everyone who). So also do the parallel passages which condemn this sin. (Lev. 18:23; Lev. 20:16; Deu. 27:1). All must die who do this. But WE must now leave this judgment to God, although such acts should result in suspension from a church.

This unnatural act was partly legal among the Hittites. Those who did evil with a pig were to die. But those doing this with a horse or mule were free of penalty.[325]

[325] Hittite Laws No. 199200, in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, James B. Pritchard, ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1955), p. 197.

In Canaanite (Ugaritic) literature, there is a story of Baal (the god) coupling with a cow in order to be saved magically from death. Also in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh there are references to the relations of the goddess Ishtar with various animals.[326] The Hebrews were NOT to be like their pagan neighbor nations.

[326] Cassuto, op. cit., p. 290.

14.

What was the punishment for sacrificing to other gods? (Exo. 22:20)

Such people were to be utterly destroyed. Those who served other gods were to be stoned to death. Deu. 17:2-3; Deu. 17:5; Deu. 13:1-16.

The verb translated utterly destroyed comes from the verb haram, to utterly destroy. (The related noun is herem, an accursed thing, something devoted to destruction, something set apart for Gods use or for destruction at Gods orders.) The word haram has religious overtones absent in other words meaning kill or slaughter. Those who sacrificed to other gods were accursed, put under the ban, and devoted to destruction.[327]

[327] The herem may refer to something devoted to God in a good sense, as for sacrifice, as well as something devoted to destruction. See Lev. 27:21; Lev. 27:28; Eze. 44:29. But with both meanings the idea is present that the herem (devoted thing) is set apart for Gods disposal.

15.

What was not to be done to sojourners? (Exo. 22:21)

They were not to be wronged (cheated) or oppressed. The Israelites had once been sojourners in Egypt and knew the feeling of strangers in a foreign land. Shielding an alien from wrong is a basic act of Godliness. Compare Exo. 23:9.

The sojourners referred to were resident aliens living amongst the Israelites. See Exo. 20:10; Exo. 23:12.

Deu. 10:18-19 : Jehovah Ioveth the sojourner, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the sojourner;. . . . Compare Lev. 19:34; Mat. 25:35.

Note the singular thou and the plural ye in this verse. Right treatment of strangers is both an individual and a collective responsibility.

Love for aliens was not the practice in most ancient nations. The Egyptians hated strangers, and the Greeks called them barbarians.

16.

What was the penalty for afflicting widows and orphans? (Exo. 22:22-24)

God would hear the prayer and cry of these lonely people and His wrath would grow hot, and He would cause their afflicters to be slain with the sword. Killing with the sword refers to wars in which men and their families would perish.

All through the scriptures God reveals that He has a special protective love for the widows and fatherless. See Deu. 14:29; Deu. 16:11; Deu. 16:14; Deu. 24:19-21; Deu. 26:12-13; Psa. 94:6; Isa. 1:23; Isa. 10:2; Jer. 7:5-7; Zec. 7:10; Mal. 3:5. In the New Testament we have Jas. 1:27; Mar. 12:40. If there is an especially hot corner in hell, it is reserved for those who cheat and oppress any widow or orphan.

Gods wrath is often referred to in scripture. See Psa. 69:24; Rev. 14:10. We should fear the wrath of God.

The surely in Exo. 22:23 is emphatic.

Exo. 22:22 begins (in Hebrew) Every widow and orphan. . . . Placing the word every (or all) first stresses the fact that this command applies with reference to ALL. (Compare Exo. 22:19, which also starts with the word all.)

The punishment of making your wives widows and your children fatherless is a severe but strikingly appropriate punishment to those who afflict any widow or orphan.

17.

What were those who loaned money NOT to do? (Exo. 22:25).

They were not to speak and act roughly to their debtors. Neither were they to lay interest charges upon these people.
Note that the poor are called my people (GODS people).

The Israelites were not to act like the demanding creditors in 2Ki. 4:1 and Mat. 18:28, and seize a debtor or his family or land.

The law about not charging interest applied only to Israelite debtors. They could charge interest to foreigners. Deu. 23:19-21.

Note the switching between thou (singular) and ye (plural) in Exo. 22:25. The duty of not charging interest was both individual and collective.

Nehemiah (Exo. 5:3-10) condemned wealthy Jews for charging usury (interest) to their less fortunate brothers. Compare Psa. 15:5.

Christ told us to give not even expecting the principal back, much less any interest. (Luk. 6:34-35). Christians must be even more gracious and generous to their needy brethren than Exo. 22:25 requires.

In modern times money is usually loaned for commercial purposes, to increase a mans capital, increase his business, or enhance his comfort. It is proper that a reasonable interest or payment be collected for this help. Thus Exo. 22:25 does not mean we should demand that our banks stop charging interest. Jesus himself approved the taking of interest from a bank (Mat. 25:27; Luk. 19:23). But this is quite a different thing from making gain out of a neighbors need or being callous to the needs of a brother in the Lord.

18.

What restriction was made about taking security for loans? (Exo. 22:26-27)

Items that were necessary for a mans life were not to be taken as security (or pledge) for a loan. A creditor could not take a poor mans garment. It might be the only clothing he had. In the daytime it was his clothing. In the nighttime it was his bed covering, if he even had a bed.

Another item that could not be kept as security for a loan was a handmill or mill stone (Deu. 24:6). Without these items a poor man (or woman) could not grind grain for his daily bread.

If the poor mans garment was taken as loan security, it had to be returned to him before the sun went down the same day. Taking a pledge was legal, but barely so.

God said in Exo. 22:27, When he crieth unto me, I will hear! This verse seems to be set as a parallel passage to part of Exo. 22:23.

The backdrop of many of Gods laws about loving ones neighbor is the marvelous truth about God: I AM GRACIOUS (or compassionate).

19.

How were the Israelites NOT to speak about their rulers? (Exo. 22:28)

They were not to revile them nor curse them. This applied to rulers who were unreasonable, unjust, and harsh, as well as to the noble and respected ones.

The apostle Paul quoted this verse in Act. 23:5. Compare Rom. 13:1-7; Heb. 13:17; 1Pe. 2:13-17.

The King James version has Thou shalt not revile the gods. The marginal reading gives judges. The Greek O.T. also reads, Thou shalt not revile the gods. This is an abominable translation. The O.T. nowhere recognizes the existence of other gods. Much less does it command us to speak respectfully of them.

The word translated gods in King James version is elohim, the word which is usually translated God. The word is plural in form (though singular in meaning when referring to God), and is therefore used to refer to the gods of all nations. Furthermore, the word elohim basically means mighty ones. See Gen. 23:6. (Its singular form el means a mighty one, a powerful one.). Because of this meaning mighty ones, elohim sometimes refers to judges or other mighty rulers among men. See Exo. 21:6; Exo. 22:8. Also it refers to angels (Psa. 8:5), which are mighty.

We think that here in Exo. 22:28 elohim refers to judges or other dignitaries among men. The fact that it is made parallel with ruler of thy people supports this view. Whether the reviling and cursing is directed at God or earthly judges, it should not be done.

Revile is from the same Hebrew word translated curse in Exo. 21:17 (curseth father or mother). See notes on that verse for the meanings implied by curse.

Lev. 24:15-16 tells of one who blasphemed Gods name and was stoned to death for doing so. Gods name is holy.

Reviling the king is a bad act for Gods children. Ecc. 10:20 : Revile not the king, no not in thy thoughts,. . . . Compare 1Ki. 21:10. Jud. 1:8 speaks of evil men who set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities. (Jude even goes so far as to indicate that we would do well not to rail at the devil.)

If the apostles Paul and Peter could direct the early church to honor the emperor (Nero!), we need to shut our mouths when tempted to speak harsh things against our rulers. We may reprove wicked acts, but we should not condemn people.
Keil and Delitzsch[328] suggest that in Exo. 22:28 the reviling of God refers to disregarding His threats with reference to the poor (Exo. 22:22-23), and withholding offerings of the firstborn, etc. This interpretation ties the verse closely to its setting, but it seems to us to restrict the applications of revile too much.

[328] Op. cit., p. 143.

20.

What were people to do with the fruits they produced and their firstborn?

These were to be brought to the Lord (at least certain parts of their harvest were to be brought to the Lord). Compare Exo. 23:19.

Exo. 22:29 speaks (literally) of thy fulness and thy tear. Tear seems to refer to juice or liquid that could form drops, as from a wine press. Num. 18:27 speaks of the fulness of thy winepress.

Exo. 22:29 may refer to several (or all) types of offerings of grain and produce, and not just to the firstfruits, although it certainly includes the firstfruits, and may refer to them primarily. The Greek version renders it, Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits of thy threshing floor and [wine] press.

The Israelites were not to delay offering their first-fruits or any other offerings. This would sometimes be a temptation.

The law about giving firstfruits and firstborn (men and beasts) is given more fully in Lev. 19:23-25; Num. 15:17-21; Num. 18:12-17; Deu. 26:1-11; Deu. 15:19-20. The first produce of everything was the Lords.

The firstborn sons were given by giving to the LORD five shekels of silver as a redemption price for them. See Exo. 13:2; Exo. 13:11-15. Firstborn animals were all either brought to the LORD (to His priests), or slain. Compare Num. 3:46-48; Deu. 15:19. Part of the meat of firstborn animals went to the priests as part of their livelihood. (Num. 18:15; Num. 18:19).

The firstborn animal was left seven days with its dam (mother), and then on the eighth day was brought to the LORD as a sacrifice and offering. Apparently, in its first seven days the animal was not sufficiently developed to be regarded as a suitable sacrifice. Compare Lev. 22:27.

21.

What sort of men were the Israelites to be unto God? (Exo. 22:31)

They were to be holy men.

Among other ways, this holiness was to be shown by what they ate and did not eat. They were to eat no flesh of animals that had been killed and torn (chewed up) by beasts. Such flesh was to be cast to the dogs. They must not eat carrion.

All Israel was a holy nation. Exo. 19:6; Lev. 19:2. On the meaning of holy, see notes on Exo. 19:5-6.

Lev. 17:15 decreed that those eating an animal that died of itself or was torn by beasts were ceremonially unclean till the evening. Compare Eze. 4:14.

Presumably the rule forbidding the eating of animals torn in the field rested on the fact that such animals were not properly bled in slaughtering. The people who ate of them would eat blood. See Lev. 17:11-15.

What lesson or truth is there for Christians in the ancient rule about not eating torn beasts? Firstly, Christians should practice the same restriction, since we also are not to eat blood. Act. 15:20. Secondly, Israels atonement was provided by the blood offered on the altar. Blood was not to be thought of as applicable to other purposes. This points out to us the incomparable value and unique power of the blood of the Lord Jesus. His blood was a covering for our sins.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(1) If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep.The flocks and herds of the Israelites constituted their principal property, and hence cattle-stealing is taken as the representative of theft in general.

And kill it, or sell it.Plainly showing persistence and determination.

Five oxen . . . four sheep.The principle of the variation is not clear. Perhaps the theft of an ox was regarded as involving more audacity, and so more guilt, in the thief.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

XXII.

(1-4) Theft is here treated of with great brevity, only three kinds being distinguished(1) Housebreaking; (2) stealing without conversion of the property; (3) stealing with conversion. The main principle of punishment laid down is the exaction from the offender o! Double (Exo. 22:4). When, however, there has been conversion of the property, the penalty is heavier, the return of four-fold in the case of a sheep, of five-fold in that of an ox (Exo. 22:1). Incidentally it is enacted that the burglar may be resisted by force (Exo. 22:2), and that to kill him shall be justifiable homicide; and further, it is laid down that a thief unable to make the legal restitution shall become a slave in order to pay his debt (Exo. 22:3).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

1. If a man shall steal Moses knew full well that prohibition would not prohibit crimes of any sort without a rigid administration . The eighth commandment (Exo 20:15) required for the good of society such further enactments as here follow .

Five oxen four sheep These varying penalties are apportioned according to a relative magnitude of the loss . While the crime of theft is in itself essentially the same, whether more or less be stolen, considerations of value and loss naturally enter into all wise legislation touching the measure of penal fines to be prescribed .

Hence it was provided, further, that if the stolen animal were found alive, the fine would only be double instead of fourfold or fivefold. The killing or selling of the stolen animal would also, generally, imply a more determined purpose to do wrong than when the animal was kept alive.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT, Exo 20:22 to Exo 23:33.

Here follows a collection of sundry laws which were compiled by Moses, and doubtless represent the oldest written legislation of the Pentateuch. This compilation probably constituted “the book of the covenant” which is mentioned in Exo 24:7. Kalisch classifies the laws under three heads: (1 . ) Those touching the rights of persons, Exo 21:1-32; (2 . ) Those touching the rights of property, Exo 21:33 to Exo 23:14; and (3 . ) General moral laws . Exo 22:15 to Exo 23:19. These are followed by sundry exhortations. Exo 23:20-33. The various precepts, however, are scarcely susceptible of such a classification, or of any systematic arrangement . They take a wide range, and deal with some twenty-eight distinct subjects . Beginning with a prohibition of idolatrous images, (23,) we have laws touching the construction of altars, (24-26,) the relations of servants and masters, (Exo 21:1-11,) personal assaults and injuries, (12-27,) goring oxen, (28-32,) losses of cattle, (33-36,) cattle-stealing, (Exo 22:1-4,) cattle feeding in others’ fields, (5,) kindling destructive fires, (6,) stolen or damaged trusts, (7-15,) seduction, (16-17,) witchcraft, (18,) lying with beasts, (19,) idolatrous sacrifices, (20,) treatment of foreigners, (21,) treatment of widows and the fatherless, (22-24,) loaning money, (25,) pledges, (26-27,) reviling God and rulers, (28,) devotion of firstlings, (29, 30,) abstinence from torn flesh, (31,) perversions of honour and justice, (Exo 23:1-3,) favour toward enemies, (4-5,) judgment of the poor, (6,) maintaining justice, (7, 8,) oppression of strangers, (9,) sabbath laws, (10-12,) other gods, (13,) three annual feasts, (14-17,) sacrifice and offerings, (18, 19 . ) This body of legislation is followed in Exo 23:20-33, by a number of prophetic promises, designed to encourage and strengthen the hearts of the people . Many of the laws and precepts here collected together were doubtless older than the time of Moses, but as Israel was now becoming a body politic, and about to occupy a prominent place among the nations, such a body of laws as was contained in this book of the covenant required formal codification .

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Regulations Concerning Farming Theft and Damage ( Exo 22:1-13 ).

Here we have five main paragraphs which begin with ‘if (ci) a man’ or ‘if (ci) a fire’ (English text (verses) Exo 22:1; Exo 22:5-7; Exo 22:10), and a number of subparagraphs commencing with ‘if’ (’im), but in all cases there is no introductory ‘and’. Our analysis, however, includes the subparagraph commencing at verse 2 separately because of its distinctive nature.

a If a man steals beasts and kills or sells them he must heavily compensate for his theft up to five times (Exo 22:1).

b If a thief break in at night and be smitten and die there is no punishment. If a thief break in by day he must not be killed, rather double restitution may be demanded and if necessary he be sold to pay the debt (Exo 22:2-4).

c If a man’s beasts eat another’s fields by accident he shall make restitution (Exo 22:5).

c The commencer of an accidental fire shall compensate for corn burned (Exo 22:6).

b If a man is keeping his neighbour’s possessions and it is stolen the thief if found must pay double. If not found and there is suspicion of theft by the neighbour they may come before God for judgment and if found guilty he shall pay double (Exo 22:7-9).

a If a man is keeping his neighbour’s beasts and they be stolen from him he shall make restitution. If it just ‘disappears’ the owner will accept the oath of Yahweh that he has not stolen it and there will be no restitution. If it is torn by beasts, production of the torn beast will avoid the need for restitution (Exo 22:10-13).

It will be noted that in each case with its parallel ‘a’ refers to beasts stolen for which there must be compensation, ‘b’ refers to where a thief steals and must pay double, ‘c’ are two examples of accidental damage for which there must be restitution.

Exo 22:1-4

“If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox or four sheep for a sheep. If the thief be found breaking in and be smitten so that he dies there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him. If the sun be risen on him there shall be blood-guiltiness for him. He should make restitution. If he have nothing then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be found in his hand alive, whether it be ox or ass or sheep, he shall pay double.”

When a thief breaks in at night, whether to a tent, a house or an animal enclosure, any resulting harm to him is his own fault. The owner cannot know his intentions and cannot be held blood guilty for killing him. But if it is by daylight this does not apply, except of course in defence of himself or his family, as the owner is more aware of who it is and what is going on and knows what threat he is facing. The requirement then is that the thief make restitution.

In all cases a thief who is caught must make restitution. If he kills or sells a stolen animal the restitution is fivefold. If the animal is still alive it is twofold. If he cannot make adequate restitution pay then he can be sold to pay the debt.

There is a principle here that among other punishments a thief should pay recompense to his victim. There is also the clear distinction between killing a thief because he is a threat to life, and killing one in anger, the one being allowed the other being forbidden.

Exo 22:5

“If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall let his beast loose and it feed in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.”

This regulation clearly assumes fruitful fields and vineyards. However they would have had such in Egypt and would have the same again in the land flowing with milk and honey. The regulation was no doubt already a recognised custom and as such is included here as a promise of the certainty of what is to come as they anticipate their future. God is not just providing regulation for this ‘short’ wilderness journey. He wants them to think of the future that is in view and to look forward to it and have confidence in it, not to think only in the short term. It is an earnest of the promised land.

The word for vineyards (kerem) is used in Arabic to represent a field cultivated with particular care, and that may be the case here.

Note that restitution is made from the best of his own fields. There is to be no argument about the quality of the lost grain. We may not have fields or vineyards, but there are two principles here, responsibility for damage caused which is our fault, and the need for proper and full compensation.

Exo 22:6

“If fire break out and catch in thorns so that the shocks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field be consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”

Here a man who starts a fire is responsible for any damage it does. The ‘thorns’ are probably the thorn hedges that divide fields from each other. Thus, while burning in his own fields, he has been careless and allowed the hedges to catch on fire which in turn have spread the fire to the neighbouring fields. Alternately the brushwood in his field may have caught fire and spread it to the neighbouring fields. Full restitution is to be made, presumably again from the best in his fields. We are to take responsibility for our actions.

Exo 22:7-9

“If a man shall deliver to his neighbour silver or stuff to keep, and it be stolen from the man’s house, if the thief be found he shall pay double. If the thief is not found then the master of the house shall come near to God to see whether he has put his hand to his neighbour’s goods. For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for clothing, or for any kind of lost thing of which one says, “This is it,” the cause of both parties shall come before God. He whom God shall condemn shall pay double to his neighbour.”

The case here is where someone has entrusted silver, goods or livestock to his neighbour for one cause or another, and the neighbours claims it has been lost or stolen. If the thief is caught there is no problem. He has to pay back twice the value of what he stole.

But if no thief is caught then the question is as to whether the receiver of the goods is being honest. He may therefore be required to ‘come near to God’, through Moses or a deputy, or, later, the priests. This may involve his having to swear a solemn oath before God as to the truth of the situation (Exo 22:11).

However, if the other party points to something and say, “This is it,” but cannot prove it to everyone’s satisfaction, the only answer then is to let God resolve the issue. ‘Come before God.’ In this case both parties come before God, that is approach God through Moses or his deputies, or later through the priests. In this case both may be required to swear an oath of Yahweh (Exo 22:11), or the decision might be made by oracle from God (especially while Moses was alive), or by use of lots (compare 1Sa 14:41), probably through Urim and Thummim (Num 27:21; 1Sa 28:6). The aim is partly to frighten any guilty party into admitting the truth and to resolve the matter finally. The guilty person knows that Yahweh will know the truth. In this last case recompense is made to the innocent party of twice the value of what the guilty party sought to steal.

Exo 22:10-13

“If a man deliver to his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep or any beast to keep, and it die or is hurt or is driven away with no man seeing it, the oath of Yahweh shall be between them both as to whether he has not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods, and its owner will accept it and he shall not make restitution. But if it be stolen from him he shall make restitution to its owner. If it is torn in pieces let him bring it as a testimony; he shall not make good what is torn.”

The idea here would seem to be that the neighbour has taken responsibility for looking after the animal, presumably being rewarded for doing so. One difference between the case here and that in Exo 22:9 is that here the owner does not specifically claim ‘this is it’, pointing to another animal. Thus the oath before Yahweh is to be accepted.

There are three possible eventualities. 1) that the animal has been hurt, or has died naturally or has disappeared without anyone knowing how, and the neighbour denies that it is his fault 2) that it is known that it was stolen because there is evidence to that effect. In this case the neighbour should have kept better care of it and has been negligent, 3) that the animal has been torn to pieces by wild beasts. ‘If it be stolen’ must refer to where the theft is somehow testified to, as against the cases where it just ‘disappeared’ because driven away with no man seeing it. In the former case restitution must be paid, but in the latter no restitution is required. The suggestion would seem to be that he should have prevented it from being stolen. It was his job. But that he could not be blamed for something unwitnessed, because no one would really know what had happened. Where it is torn in pieces by a wild beast no restitution is required, but the evidence is required (compare Gen 31:39; Amo 3:12). This would prove that the keeper was on the alert.

“The oath of Yahweh.” An example where the use of God’s name is allowable in determining the just position before the court. Compare Heb 6:16.

In all these cases the background is that the neighbour is originally doing a good turn to the owner who has asked him to care for his property or is doing it for pay. Where the neighbour borrows the goods or beasts the situation is different.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Expansion of the Ten Words of the Covenant ( Exo 20:22 to Exo 23:33 ).

In this section, which is composed of elements put together mainly in chiastic form (see later), Yahweh expands on the Ten Words of the covenant. Notice that it begins with ‘and Yahweh said to Moses’. This proceeds as follows:

a Instructions concerning future worship in obedience to the commandments in Exo 20:3-5, for He will be with them and record His name in places where they go (Exo 20:22-26).

b Instructions concerning bondservants remembering the manservants and maidservants in mentioned in Exo 20:10 (Exo 21:1-11).

c Instructions concerning those who cause death or injury and those who dishonour their parents in obedience to Exo 20:12-13 (Exo 21:12-36).

d Instructions concerning a neighbour’s goods in obedience to Exo 20:15; Exo 20:17 (Exo 22:1-15).

d Instruction concerning the forcing of virgins, who belong to their families, which connects with Exo 20:14; Exo 20:17 (Exo 22:16-17).

c Instructions concerning wrong attitudes which connect with wider implications from the words of the covenant, which include some for which the penalty is death, and the need for avoidance of dishonourable conduct (Exo 22:18 to Exo 23:11).

b Instructions concerning the Sabbath (compareExo 20:8-9) and the regular feasts (Exo 23:12-19).

a Yahweh’s resulting promise that His Angel will go with them until the land is theirs, finishing with a warning against idolatry (Exo 23:20-23).

We should note here that in ‘a’ the approach to and worship of Yahweh is in mind, and His recording of His name in places as they go on their way, and they are warned against idolatry, and in the parallel the Angel of Yahweh is to go with them and they are warned against idolatry. In ‘b’ we are instructed concerning bondmen and bondwomen and in the parallel the Sabbath is dealt with which, in the announcing of the covenant, contained reference to the rights of menservants and maidservant (Exo 20:9). The bondmen also had a right to enjoy a seven year sabbath. It may be this connection which decided the positioning of this law prior to those concerning murder and theft. In ‘c’ we have reference to death and violence, while in the parallel death is the sentence for some of the crimes mentioned. In ‘d’ we have reference to misappropriation of people’s goods, and in the parallel misappropriation of their daughters.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Exo 22:1 Scripture Reference Note:

2Sa 12:6, “And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

Exo 22:3 “If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed” Comments – Exo 22:3 says that if the thief lives, then the thief will have to repay for his theft; but he is killed the following day, then it becomes murder. (see BBE, NAB, WEB)

BBE, “But if it is after dawn, he will be responsible.”

NAB, “[(1) If a thief is caught in the act of housebreaking and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt involved. (2) But if after sunrise he is thus beaten, there is bloodguilt.] He must make full restitution. If he has nothing, he shall be sold to pay for his theft.”

WEB, “If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt of bloodshed for him; he shall make restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”

Exo 22:20 Scripture References – Note:

Exo 32:27, “And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.”

Exo 22:22-24 Comments Penalty for Affliction of Widows and Orphans – If someone afflicts the orphans and widows, their own family will become the orphans and widows. They will become like those whom they oppress.

Exo 22:28 Illustrations:

Act 23:5, “Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.”

2Pe 2:10, “But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.”

Chapter 23

Exo 23:1 Comments – Note Isa 53:1, “Who hath believed our report”. God’s report is the only correct report. Man’s report is a lie (Rom 3:4).

Rom 3:4, “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar ; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.”

Exo 23:4-5 Scripture References – Note:

Mat 5:44, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you , and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”

Exo 23:10-11 Comments – The Sabbath Year – Comments – See Lev 25:1-55 for a full account of the Sabbath year.

Exo 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Covenant Code Exo 21:1 to Exo 23:12 can be called the “Covenant Code.” Sailhamer tells us that the laws listed in the “Covenant Codes” (Exo 21:1 to Exo 23:12) are 42 (7 x 6), which was in intentional multiple of seven. He also notes that there are 611 laws listed in the Pentateuch, which equals the numerical value of the Hebrew word “Torah” ( ). He notes that “the traditional number of laws in the Pentateuch (613) is obtained by treating both Deu 6:4 (the “Shema”) and Exo 20:2 (“I am the Lord your God”) as ‘laws.’” In addition, there are three hundred seventy-five (375) proverbs in Solomon’s First Collection (Exo 10:1 to Exo 22:16), which equals the numerical value of Solomon’s Hebrew name. He says there are His point is that such numerical coincidences reflect deliberate composition by the ancient Jewish scribes, and concludes that the laws, as well as the statutes, were not intended to be exhaustive. [87]
[87] See John H. Sailhammer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, c1995), 257.
Exo 21:10 Scripture References – Note
Isa 4:1, “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel : only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”
Exo 21:11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
Exo 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
Exo 21:12 Comments – The Mosaic Law considered murder as a capital offence punishable by death. This method of judgment against such a sin is a type and shadow of eternal judgment God will impart unto wicked men.
Exo 21:13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
Exo 21:13 Comments – This is killing a man accidentally.
Exo 21:14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
Exo 21:14 Illustrations:
Deu 19:11-12, “But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.”
1Ki 2:29-30, “And it was told king Solomon that Joab was fled unto the tabernacle of the LORD; and, behold, he is by the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, saying, Go, fall upon him. And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of the LORD, and said unto him, Thus saith the king, Come forth. And he said, Nay; but I will die here. And Benaiah brought the king word again, saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me.”
Exo 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exo 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exo 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Exo 21:17 Scripture References – Note:
Mat 15:4, “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”
Mar 7:10, “For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:”
Exo 21:18-19 Comments The Penalty for Smiting a Man – See Luk 10:25-37. The good Samaritan paid the penalty under the Law for those who beat the man. Likewise, Jesus paid our penalty.
Exo 21:21 “if he continue a day or two” – Comments – That is, “If the man live a few days before dying.”
Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Exo 21:22 “No mischief follow” Comments – That is, the woman is not hurt in any way. Note Exo 23:25-26.
Exo 23:25-26, “And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. There shall nothing cast their young , nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.”
Exo 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:24 Comments – The context of this passage is referring to compensation and not to retribution. It is not about getting even with someone, but about how we are to give a righteous compensation to those who are injured and wronged by others. It is to be an act of love and not an act of vengeance. Evidently, the first-century Jews used it to justify retribution (Mat 5:38).
Mat 5:38, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:”
Exo 21:32 “thirty shekels of silver” Comments – Scholars suggest that thirty shekels of silver was considered the price of a good, healthy slave (see Adam Clarke [88] , Keil [89] ).
[88] Adam Clarke, Exodus, in Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1996), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on Exodus 21:32.
[89] C. F. Keil, and F. Delitzsch, Pentateuch, vol. 2, in Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin, in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on Exodus 21:32.
Mat 26:15, “And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver .”
Exo 21:33 Comments – This pit would most commonly be a well. Short walls around a well were required to prevent a person or animal from falling into the pit.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Regarding Property
v. 1. If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep, and kill it or sell it, he shall restore five oxen, five head of cattle, for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. The Lord wanted complete restoration to be made, the indemnity being in proportion to the transgression.
v. 2. If a thief be found breaking up, breaking through a wall, breaking into a house, Mat 6:20, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him, his death cannot demand the vengeance which a murder would; for the owner of the house would have to guard against every contingency, including murder.
v. 3. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him, to kill a thief in broad daylight was to be considered murder. For he, the thief apprehended in the day, should make full restitution, most certainly pay back all that he stole. If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft, for the value of the goods stolen by him.
v. 4. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox or ass or sheep, he shall restore double, the four and fivefold restitution being required only in case the stolen animals had already been slaughtered or sold. Theft being a severe offense against one’s neighbor, severe measures were taken at once to keep men from this transgression.
v. 5. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, if a person injures his neighbor’s property by letting his cattle run loose, and shall feed in another man’s field, of the best of his own field and of the best of his own vineyard shall he make restitution; for carelessness of this kind is inexcusable, being almost equivalent to willful damage.
v. 6. If fire break out, said of any small fire which gets beyond the control of him that started it, and catch in thorns, in the thornhedge at the edge of the field, which it was intended to destroy, so that the stacks of corn, sheaves of grain stacked after harvest, or the standing corn or the field, no matter what it contains, be consumed therewith, he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution for his act of foolish carelessness.
v. 7. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, entrusts any valuables to him for safe-keeping, and It be stolen out of the man’s house; If the thief be found, let him pay double.
v. 8. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to the proper officials of the government, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods. The object of the investigation was to give the lord of the house an opportunity to clear himself of suspicion, as though he had been guilty of appropriating his neighbor’s property, which he was to guard as he did his own.
v. 9. For all manner of trespass, in the case of any accusation alleging a crime, whether It be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges, before the officials having the jurisdiction of the case; and whom the judges shall condemn, declare to be in the wrong, he shall pay double unto his neighbor. This is the general rule for all cases of contested property.
v. 10. If a man deliver unto his neighbor an ass or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep, and it die or be hurt or driven away, no man seeing it, the fact that no witnesses were near making the matter very complicated,
v. 11. then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, the one suspected being given an opportunity to declare his innocence under oath, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he, the man to whom the animals had been entrusted, shall not make it good.
v. 12. And If It be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. In the case of animals, unlike that of money and valuables, the guardian of the property was also expected to act as watchman, his failure in this respect costing him dearly.
v. 13. If It be torn In pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn, for the fact that he produced the torn animal proved that he had watched and even driven off the attacking predatory beast.
v. 14. And if a man borrow aught of his neighbor, some work animal, which he then uses, and it be hurt or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good; for in this case neglect might be assumed.
v. 15. But if the owner thereof be with it, be present when some accident befalls his animal, he, the borrower, shall not make it good; if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire, he paid for the use of the animal and cannot be held responsible for the accident. Fairness and justice was to govern all the relations of the children of Israel toward one another.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION
THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT, continued.
Laws connected with rights of property, continued (Exo 22:1-15). The fret sectionExo 22:1-6is upon theft. The general principle laid down is, that theft shall be punished if possible, by a fine. There is a moral fitness in this, since a man’s desire to get what was his neighbour’s would lead to the loss of what was his own. In ordinary cases the thief was to restore to the man robbed double of what he had stolen (Exo 22:4) but, if he had shewn persistence in wrong doing by selling the property, or (if it were an animal) killing it, he was to pay morefourfold in the ease of a sheep, fivefold in that of an ox. If the criminal could not pay the fine, then he was to be sold as a slave (Exo 22:3). Burglary, or breaking into a house at night, might be resisted by force, and if the burglar were killed, the man who killed him incurred no legal guilt (Exo 22:2); but, if the house were entered by day, the proviso did not hold (Exo 22:3).
Exo 22:1-4
Laws about theft.
Exo 22:1
If a man shall steal an ox. The principal property possessed by the Israelites in the wilderness was their cattle; whence this occurs to the legislator as the thing most likely to be stolen. It required more boldness in a thief to carry off an ox than a sheep or goat; and so the crime was visited with a heavier penalty.
Exo 22:2
If a thief be found breaking up. Rather, “Breaking in”i.e; making forcible entry into a house. The ordinary mode of “breaking in” seems to have been by a breach in the wall. Hence the word here used, which is derived from khathar, “to dig.” There shall no blood be shed for him. Rather, “the blood-feud shall not lie upon him”i.e; the avenger of blood shall not be entitled to proceed against his slayer. The principle here laid down has had the sanction of Solon, of the Roman law, and of the law of England. It rests upon the probability that those who break into a house by night bare a murderous intent, or at least have the design, if occasion arise, to commit murder.
Exo 22:3
If the sun be risen upon him. If the entry is attempted after daybreak. In this case it is charitably assumed that the thief does not contemplate murder. There shall be blood shed for him. Or, “the blood-feud shall hold good in his case”i.e; his slayer shall be liable to be put to death by the next of kin. For he should make full restitution. Rather, “He shall make full restitution.” The punishment of the housebreaker, who enters a house by day, shall be like that of other thievesto restore double. If he have nothing. Rather, “if he have not enough”i.e; if he cannot make the restitution required, then he shall be sold for his theft. It is somewhat fanciful to suppose, that this punishment aimed at enforcing labour on those who preferred stealing to working for their own living (Kalisch). Probably the idea was simply the compensation of the injured party, who no doubt received the proceeds of the man’s sale.
Exo 22:4
If the theft be certainly found in his hand. If he be caught in flagrante delicto, with the thing stolen in his possession, “whether it be ox, or ass, or small cattle,” he shall restore double. The law of theft in the Mosaic legislation is altogether of a mild character, as compared with the Roman, or even with the English law, until the present century. Double restitution was a sort of “retaliation”it involved a man losing the exact amount which he had expected to gain
HOMILETICS
Exo 22:1-4
Punishment, even for one and the same offence, should be graduated.
Some codes treat a crime which can be given a single definite name, e.g; theft, as if it were in all cases uniform, and prescribe a single penaltydeath, the bastinado, a month’s imprisomnent. The Mosaic Law, with greater refinement and greater propriety, graduated the punishment according to the special character of the offence. The worst form of theft proper is burglary. Burglary destroys the repose of the household, introduces a feeling of insecurity, trenches upon the sacredness of the hearth, endangers life, affrights tender women and children. By permitting the destruction of the burglar, the law pronounced him worthy of death. Other forms of thieving were punished in proportion to the audacity and persistence of the thief. A man who had stolen without converting the property, was to pay back double. If he had converted it to his own use, or sold it, the penalty was heavierfourfold for a sheep or goat, fivefold for an ox. There was especial audacity in stealing an oxan animal so large that it could not readily be converted; so powerful that it could not easily be carried off. The graduation of punishment for all crimes is desirable
I. BECAUSE THE SAME OUTWARD OFFENCE INVOLVES VARIOUS DEGREES OF INWARD WICKEDNESS; e.g; homicide varies between absolute blamelessness (Exo 22:2) and the highest degree of culpability (Exo 21:14). Assault may be the lightest possible matter, or approach closely to murder. False witness may arise from imperfect memory, or from a deliberate design to effect a man’s ruin. Lies may be “white,” or the blackest falsehoods which it is possible for the soul of man to invent. Punishment is, and ought to be, in the main retributive; and as the moral guilt varies, so should the penalty.
II. BECAUSE THE OUTWARD OFFENCE ITSELF IS MORE OR LESS INJURIOUS. By an act of stealing we may rob a man of a trifle, or reduce him to beggary. By a blow of a certain force we may inflict on him a slight pain, or render him a cripple for life. By a false statement in a court of justice we may do him no harm at all, or we may ruin his character. All crimes short of homicide vary in the extent to which they injure a man; and it is reasonable that the amount of injury received should be taken into consideration when punishment is apportioned. Therefore, a rigid unbending law, assigning to each head of crime a uniform penalty would be unsuitable to the conditions of human life and the varying motives of criminals. A wise legislator will leave a wide discretion to those who administer justice, trusting them to apportion to each offence the punishment which under the circumstances it deserves.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

EXPOSITION
II. LAWS CONNECTED WITH RIGHTS OF PROPERTY (verses 33-36). From the consideration of injuries to the person, the legislator proceeds to treat of injuries to property, and, as he has been speaking of cattle under the one head, places cattle in the fore-front of the other. In this chapter two enactments only are madeone providing compensation in the case of a man’ s cattle being killed by falling into the pit, or well, of a neighbour (verses 33, 34); and the other making provision for the case of one man’ s cattle killing the cattle of another (verses 35, 36)
Exo 21:33
If a man shall open a pit. Rather, “If a man shall uncover a cistern.” Cisterns, very necessary in Palestine, were usually closed by a flat-stone, or a number of planks. To obtain water from them, they had to be uncovered; but it was the duty of the man who uncovered them, to replace the covering when his wants were satisfied. Or dig a pit and not cover it. A man who was making a cistern might neglect to cover it while it was in course of construction, or even afterwards, if he thought his own cattle would take no hurt. But in the unfenced fields of Palestine it was always possible that a neighbour’ s cattle might go astray and suffer injury through such a piece of negligence. An ox, or an ass, falling into a cistern, would be unable to extricate itself, and might be drowned.
Exo 21:34
The owner of the pit shall make it goodi.e; “shall duly compensate the owner of the cattle for its loss.” And the dead beast shall be his. Having paid the full price of the slain beast, the owner of the cistern was entitled to its carcase.
Exo 21:35, Exo 21:36
If one man‘ s ox hurt another‘ s, etc. The hurt might be purely accidental, and imply no neglect. In that ease the two parties were to divide the value of the living, and also of the dead oxi.e; they were to share between them the loss caused by the accident equally. If, however, there was neglect, if the aggressive animal was known to be of a vicious disposition, then the man who had suffered the loss was to receive the full value of the slain animal, but to lose his share of the carcase. This explanation, which the words of the text not only admit, but invite, seems better than the Rabbinical one, “that the dead ox should also be the property of the injured party.”
HOMILETICS
Exo 21:33-36
The guilt of neglect.
Sins of omission are thought lightly of by most men; but God holds us answerable for them, as much as for sins of commission. The Psalmist defines the wicked man as one who neglects to “set himself in any good way.” The neglect of the Israelites to cover their wells, or keep their cattle from goring others was to be heavily punished. Neglect and carelessness are culpable
I. BECAUSE THEIR EFFECTS ARE AS RUINOUS AS THOSE OF MALICE AND EVIL INTENT. Carelessness and neglect of precautions may set a town on fire and burn hundreds in their beds. Or it may spread a loathsome and dangerous disease through a whole district. Or it may destroy the cattle of a whole county. Or it may allow moral evil to have free course, until an entire nation is sunk in corruption. Or, again, it may endanger our own lives, or destroy our souls. It is a question whether more evil does not actually result from carelessness than from deliberate intent. Youth is naturally careless. Desultory habits intensify carelessness. A deficient sense of the seriousness of life encourages and fosters it. Advanced civilisation, with its foppishness and superciliousness, developes its growth. The present age asks, “Is anything worth caring about?”and is deaf to the Prophet’ s words, “Tremble and be troubled, ye careless ones” (Isa 32:11).
II. BECAUSE GOD HAS IMPLANTED IN US FACULTIES OF PREVISION AND CALCULATION OF CONSEQUENCES, WHICH WERE INTENDED TO PREVENT OUR BEING CARELESS AND NEGLIGENT. Man differs from the lower animals chiefly in the possession of reason; and it is an essential part of human reason to look to the future, to forecast results, and calculate the balance of ultimate advantage and disadvantage. We know instinctively that our happiness depends on our actions; and it is therefore wholly unreasonable to be careless about how we act. If we have faculties which we might use and refuse to use them, God will be righteous to punish us for despising his gifts.
III. BECAUSE GOD HAS EXPRESSLY WARNED US AGAINST BEING CARELESS, AND EXHORTED US TO PRUDENCE AND FORETHOUGHT. “I will send a fire among them that dwell carelessly,” said the Lord by Ezekiel. “Rise up, ye women that are at ease; hear my voice, ye careless daughters; give ear unto my speech; many days and years shall ye be troubled, ye careless women,” are God’ s words by Isaiah. “Go to the ant, thou sluggard,” exclaims the wise man, “consider her ways and be wise.” And again “Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be establishedkeep thy heart with diligenceremove thy feet from evil.” A careful cautious walk through the dangers and difficulties of life is everywhere enjoined upon us in the Scriptures; and we are plainly disobedient if we are careless.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Exo 22:1. If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep, &c. If he killed or sold such stolen ox, sheep, or goat, and was legally convicted of the crime, he was to restore five oxen for an ox, &c. If they were found alive upon him, and there was no trouble of a legal process, he was to restore double, Exo 22:4. It is observable, that a smaller satisfaction is required for a sheep than for an ox; the reason for which seems evidently to be, the greater proportionate value of an ox than a sheep: it should be noted too, that while a double restitution is required for many other thefts, a four or five-fold restitution is required for cattle; which, feeding in the open fields, are more liable to be stolen than money, goods, and jewels, secured in a house. There was a law of Solon, ordaining, that if the owner recovered what had been stolen, the restitution should be double; if not, ten-fold. But, above all things, it is to be noted upon these laws respecting theft, that none of them make theft capital; and how far it may be justifiable for any laws to make it capital, seems a very disputable point. To take away life for a robbery of a few shillings, and to punish such an offender as severely as a murderer, appears inconsistent with the laws of equity and reason, as well as detrimental to the community, which it thus deprives of many lives that might doubtless be rendered very useful to it. Our Saxon ancestors were, in this particular, more equitable perhaps than we. Theft, among them, was not for a long time punished with death; and, even after it was made capital, it was redeemable with money. We refer the reader, desirous of further satisfaction on the subject, to the first dissertation on the government of the Anglo-Saxons in Rapin’s History of England.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

c.First form of the law of the political commonwealth
Exo 21:1 to Exo 23:33
a. Right of Personal Freedom (according to Bertheau, ten in number)
1Now these are the judgments [ordinances] which thou shalt set before them. 2If [when] thou buy [buyest] an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3If he came [come] in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were [be] married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master have given [give] him a wife, and she have borne [bear] him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her masters, and he shall go out by himself. 5And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6then his master shall bring him unto the judges [God]; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him foreExo Exo 21:7 And if [when] a man sell [selleth] his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. 8If she please not her master who hath betrothed her to himself,1 then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9And if he have betrothed [betroth] her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage [marriage due] shall he not diminish. 11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free [for nothing], without money.
b. On Murder and Bodily Injuries. Sins against the Life of ones Neighbor. (Ten in number, according to Bertheau.)
12He that smiteth a man, so that he die [dieth], shall be surely put to death. 13And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand [make it happen14to his hand2]; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. But [And] if [when] a man come [cometh] presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. 15And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. 17And he that curseth [revileth]3 his father, or his mother, shall surely be 18put to death. And if [when] men strive together, and one smite [smiteth] another [the other] with a stone, or with his fist, and he die [dieth] not, but keepeth his bed: 19If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be 20thoroughly healed. And if [when] a man smite [smiteth] his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die [dieth] under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he Isaiah 22 his money. If [And when] men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [depart], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished [fined], according as the womans husband will [shall] lay upon him: 23and he shall pay as the judges determine.4 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25, 26Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if [when] a man smite [smiteth] the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish 27[and destroyeth it]: he shall let him go free for his eyes sake. And if he smite out his man-servants tooth, or his maid-servants tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooths sake.
c. Injuries resulting from Relations of Property. Through Property and of Property. Acts of Carelessness and Theft. (Ten, according to Bertheau.)
28If [And when] an ox gore [goreth] a man or a woman, that they die, then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. 29But if the ox were [hath been] wont to push with his horn [to gore] in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in [keepeth him not in], but that he hath killed [and he killeth] a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. 30If there be laid on him a sum of money [ransom], then he shall give for the ransom [redemption] of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. 31Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. 32If the ox shall push [gore] a man-servant or maid-servant, he shall give unto their master 33thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. And if [when] a man shall open a pit, or if [when] a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; 34The owner of the pit shall make it good, and [good; he shall] give 35money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his. And if [when] one mans ox hurt [hurteth] anothers, that he die [dieth]; then they shall sell the live ox, 36and divide the money [price] of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide. Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push [hath been wont to gore] in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.
Chap. Exo 22:1 If [When] a man shall steal [stealeth] an ox, or a sheep, and kill [killeth] it, or sell [selleth] it; he shall restore [pay] fiveoxen for an ox, and four sheep 2for a sheep. If a [the] thief be found breaking up [in], and be smitten that he die 3[so that he dieth], there shall no blood be shed [no blood-guiltiness] for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed [blood-guiltiness] for him; for he [him; he] should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, 5or ass, or sheep; he shall restore [pay] double. If [When] a man shall cause [causeth] a field or vineyard to be eaten [fed upon], and shall put in his beast [letteth his beast loose], and shall feed [and it feedeth] in another mans field; of the best 6of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. If [When] fire break [breaketh] out, and catch [catcheth] in thorns, so that the stacks of corn [grain], or the standing corn [grain], or the field, be [is] consumed therewith; he [consumed; he] that kindled the fire shall surely make [make full] restitution.
d. Things Entrusted and Things Lost
7If [When] a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it be [is] stolen out of the mans house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. 8If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges [unto God], to see whether he have put [have not put] his hand unto his neighbors goods. 9For all manner of trespass [In every case of trespass], whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost [any lost] thing, which another challengeth to be his [of which one saith, This is it], the cause of both parties shall come before the judges [God]; and [he] whom the Judges 10[God] shall condemn, he [condemn] shall pay double unto his neighbor. If [When] a man deliver [delivereth] unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die [dieth], or be [is] hurt, or driven away, no man seeing 11it: Then shall an [the] oath of Jehovah be between them both, that [whether] he hath not put his hand unto his neighbors goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof [it], and he shall not make it good [make restitution]. 12And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. 13If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness; and [witness;] he shall not make good that which was 14torn. And if [when] a man borrow [borroweth] aught of his neighbor, and it be [is] hurt, or die [dieth], the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make 15it good [shall make full restitution]. But if [If] the owner thereof be with it, he 16shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his [its] hire. And if [when] a man entice [enticeth] a maid [virgin] that is not betrothed, and lie [lieth] with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
e. Unnatural Crimes. Religious and Inhumane Abominations. (Arranged according to Bertheau.)
(1) 18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (2) 19Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. (3) 20He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto Jehovah only, he [only,] shall be utterly destroyed [devoted to destruction]. (4) 21Thou shalt neither vex [wrong] a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. (5) 22Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. 23If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; 24And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (6) 25If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee [with thee that is poor], thou shalt not be to him as an usurer; neither shalt thou [shall ye] lay upon him usury [interest]. (7) 26If thou at all take thy neighbors raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver [restore] 27it unto him by that the sun goeth down: For that is his covering only [only covering], it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? And it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious. (8) 28Thou shalt not revile the gods [God], nor curse the [a] ruler of [among] thy people. (9) 29Thou shalt not delay to offer [not keep back] the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors [the first-fruits of thy threshing-floor and of thy press]:5 the first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. 30Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his [its] dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me. (10) 31And ye shall be holy men unto me; neither shall ye [and ye shall not] eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.
f. Judicial Proceedings
Exo 23:1(1) Thou shalt raise [carry] a false report: (2) put not thine [thy] hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. (3) 2Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline [turn aside] after many [a multitude] to wrest judgment: (4) 3Neither shalt thou countenance [be4partial to] a poor man in his cause. (5) If [When] thou meet [meetest] thine enemys ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again 5[to him]. (6) If [When] thou see [seest] the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him [thou shalt forbear to leavehim], thou shalt surely help [release it] with him.6 (7) 6Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. (8) 7Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay them not: for I will not justify the wicked. (9) 8And thou shalt take no gift [bribe]: for the gift [a bribe] blindeth the wise [theseeing], and perverteth the words of the righteous. (10) 9Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
g. Rules for Holidays and Festivals
(1) 10And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: 11But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still [fallow]; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy olive-yard. (2) 12Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed. 13And in [unto] all things that I have said unto you be circumspect [take heed]: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard [gods; let itnot be heard] out of thy mouth. (3) 14Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. (4) 15Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed [at the set time] of [in] the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty: (5) 16And the feast of harvest, the [of the] first fruits of thy labors, which thou hast sown [sowest] in the field: (6) and the feast of ingathering, which is in [ingathering, at] the end of the year, when thou hast gathered [thou gatherest] in thy labors out of the field. (7) 17Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God [Jehovah]. (8) 18Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the fat of my sacrifice [feast] remain until the morning. (9) 19The first of the first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of Jehovah, thy God. (10) Thou shalt not seethe [boil] a kid in his [its] mothers milk.
h. The Promises
(1) 20Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee, in [by] the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not: for he will not pardon your trangressions: for my name 22is in him. But [For] if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. (2) 23For mine angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off. 24Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. (3) 25And ye shall serve Jehovah your God, and he shall [will] bless thy bread and thy water; (4) and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. (5) 26There shall nothing [no one] cast their [her] young, nor be barren, in thy land; (6) the number of thy days I will fulfil. (7) 27I will send my fear [terror] before thee, and will destroy [discomfit] all the people to whom thou shalt come, 28and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. (8) And I will send [send the] hornets before thee, which [and they] shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. (9) 29I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. 30By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land. (10) 31And I will set thy bounds from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. 32Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. 33They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[Exo 21:8. The Hebrew here, according to the Kthibh, is , and if this were followed, we should have to translate with Geddes, Rosenmller and others: so that he hath not betrothed (or will not betroth) her. The Kri reads , unto him or unto himself. This yields much the easiest sense, and is especially confirmed by the consideration that of itself means, not betroth, but appoint, destine. Followed by the Dative, it may in the connection convey the notion of betrothal; but used absolutely, it cannot convey it.Tr.]
[Exo 21:13. cannot mean deliver, and no object is expressed. It is therefore unwarrantable to render, with A. V., deliver him, or even with Lange, let him accidentally fall into his hand. The object to be supplied is the indefinite one suggested by the preceding sentence, viz. homicide.Tr.]
[Exo 21:17. , though generally rendered curse in A. V., yet differs unmistakably from in being used not merely of cursing, but of evil speaking in general, e.g. Jdg 9:27 and 2Sa 16:9. The LXX. render it correctly by . And this word, where the passage is quoted in the New Testament, is rendered by the same Greek word, viz. Mat 15:4.Tr.]
[Exo 21:23. The Heb. reads , lit. with judges or among judges. Some render unto the judges; others before the judges; but the preposition does not naturally convey either of these senses. The A. V. probably expresses the true meaning: with judges, i.e. the line being judicially imposed.Tr.]
[Exo 22:29. Literally: thy fullness and thy tear. The phrase ripe fruits is objectionable as including too much; liquors as suggesting a wrong conception. The first refers to the crops generally, exclusive of the olive and the grape, from which oil and wine, the liquid products (tear), were derived. Cranmers Bible renders, not inaptly: thy fruits, whether they be dry or moist.Tr.]
[Exo 23:5. The rendering of A. V.: and wouldest forbear, is utterly untenable. Not less so is the rendering of by help. The simplest explanation assumes a double meaning of , viz. to loose, and to leave. We might borrow a vulgar phrase, and read: Thou shalt forbear to cut loose from him, thou shalt cut loose with him. De Wette and Murphy attempt to avoid the double meaning by emphasizing with. Thus: Thou shalt forbear to leave it to him: thou shalt leave it with him. But this is a nicety quite alien from the Hebrew.Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
This section is very clearly to be distinguished from the two preceding, so that after the purely religious and ethical legislation, and after the ritual, now the social and political legislation is instituted. The genuinely theocratic character of this legislation here at once appears. It is not a criminal law in the first instance, but a system of legal regulations for a people that is to be trained for freedom. Hence these ordinances begin at once very significantly with the regulating of the laws concerning emancipation; and indirectly all the main points of this law point to the rights of freedom. Just as the sacrificial usages were found already existing, and were thenceforth theocratically regulated, so now the relations of slavery, found as an existing fact, were regulated in the spirit of the typical people of God. So Keil entitles the section: The fundamental rights of the Israelites in their civil and social relations. Less satisfactorily Knobel: The further rights, i.e. laws, etc. But the parallels which he draws between the Jewish legislation and that of other ancient people, and of heathen people in general, as also of the modern Mohammedan Arabs, are excellent. We divide thus: (a) The law of personal freedom. That this may correspond with the first commandment of the decalogue, the duty of holding sacred the divine personality, is obvious. (b) The second division, on murder and bodily injuries, quite as unmistakably aims to secure the human form from abuse or disfigurement, as the second commandment to keep the divine image from being deformed; but it is also connected with the commandment: Thou shalt not kill, (c) The third division, on injuries which result from the relations of property, points to the commandment: Thou shalt not steal, (d) Akin to the foregoing, and yet different, are the regulations concerning goods put in anothers care, and goods lost, (e) The regulations concerning unnatural crimes, offences against religion and humanity are more specially connected with the first and with the fifth and tenth commandments. (f) The section on judicial processes reminds us of the prohibition of false witness. (g) The division relating to holidays and feast-days reminds us of the third commandment, but is more especially an unfolding of the law of the Sabbath. (h) Also the promises which are annexed to the fifth and second commandments are in the last division expanded into a fuller form.
Here must be noticed one more circumstance. When regulations of similar import are found in different sections of the law, this is not to be regarded as mere repetition, still less as confusion. The moral law of the Sabbath, e.g., comes here (Exo 23:12) under consideration again, from a social point of view; in Leviticus still again as connected with the ceremonial law. For the Sabbath, there are moral and ritual reasons, and likewise social or civil reasons, the latter uniting the two former. In like manner the great festivals of the Israelites are here regarded from a national, or civil, point of view: in Leviticus they are associated with the idea of worship. The occasional precepts concerning purification and sacrifice in the book of Numbers relate to the keeping pure of the social commonwealth of Jehovah, and are therefore not primarily ceremonial. The tabernacle is found in Exodus, not in Leviticus, because it is primarily the house of the theocratic lawgiver, and is the repository of the decalogue; only secondarily the place of worship, the place where the lawgiver meets his people.
a. Law of Personal Freedom
(1) The Hebrew man-servant, Exo 21:1-6; (2) The Hebrew maid-servant, Exo 21:7-11. The further development of, and reasons for, the law of emancipation, vid. in Deu 15:12-18. The Hebrew man-servant after six years of service is to receive his freedom gratis. According to Deu 15:12 this holds also of the Hebrew maidservant. The attributive designates the servant as an Israelite (comp. in Deut.) in distinction from the slaves derived from non-Israelitish foreign nations, to whom this law does not apply (Keil). The law evidently tends towards securing the universality of personal freedom. But it also knows that within the theocracy, in the servitude which is mitigated by it, there is an element susceptible of education. Therefore the servant is not compelled to become free in the seventh year. We are to consider that the sons of the household also then stood in the relation of strict subjection, so that a dutiful servant became more and more like them. Vid. Exo 23:12, Lev 25:6, etc. The servant might also be led by devotion to his wife, given to him by his master during his servitude, and to her children, to remain a servant. With reference to this the three cases in Exo 21:3-4 were to be distinguished. The fixing of the seventh year as the year of emancipation is connected with the sabbatical year, but does not coincide with it. How one could become a slave among the Israelites is told in Exo 22:3, Lev 25:39. But how the emancipation was to be beautified and enriched is seen in the parallel passage in Deuteronomy [Exo 15:12-15]. On the manner of emancipation vid. Keil p. 130. Unto God.Not to the priests, but to the court of the assembly, which passed judgment in the name of God, and whose sentence was a divine dispensation. Similar expressions vid. in Knobel, p. 214. There had therefore to be a public declaration that the servant voluntarily remained a servant. The boring of the ears was among the Orientals a sign of slavery (Knobel). The ear-rings among the Carthaginians from being a symbol of slavery came to be an ornament, like the cross among Christians. The case mentioned in Lev 25:39 is probably a modification, but according to Knobel is a contradiction, of the law before us.
Exo 21:7-11 : The Israelitish daughter as servant and concubine. Knobel makes no distinction between concubinage as it is found among the patriarchs, and the usual custom of the Jews. But in reply see the Commentary on Genesis, p. 80. She shall not go out as the men-servants do.It follows from the nature of her position that it is a benefit to her if she can remain in the house of her master, provided that the rights of the concubine are respected. It is therefore presupposed either that he takes her for himself, or gives her to his son, or maintains her honor by the side of his sons wife. In the first case, he must let her be redeemed; in the second case, he must accord to her the domestic rights of an associate wife. If he is not willing to give her this protection, he must let her go free for nothing. In this connection the precepts of Deu 15:12 are also to be considered. Exo 21:8-9. Who hath betrothed her to himself.The before belongs to the 15 passages designated by the Massorah in which stands for (Keil; compare Knobel). To sell her unto a strange people.Knobel: The Greek, too, did not sell a Greek slave to go beyond the boundary of the land. Seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.It would certainly create a difficulty to translate, on account of his infidelity towards her, as if this unfaithfulness were the only reason why an Israelitess might not be sold to heathen. Therefore the emphasis probably lies on the thought that his injustice would be doubly great if even in this case, in which he has gone so far as to send her away, he should also in his treachery to her violate the theocratic law. That the word has a specially important meaning, is seen from Psa 73:15. Comp. Deu 21:14, and the account of the Arabian customs in Knobel, p. 216. If he betroth her unto his son.Comp. Knobel also on a Persian or Arabian custom of a similar sort. As his sons concubine she is to be regarded by him as a daughter. Exo 21:9. If he take him another wife.That is, the father for his son. So Keil; but Knobel understands it to mean: If he takes another for himself. Keil well disposes of the views, according to which either the son is the subject, or the father takes for himself.7 Her food, etc.All of her domestic rights are to remain secure. , meat, as the chief article of food, because the lawgiver has men of wealth in mind. (Keil). To understand , which properly means lying, of cohabitation, yields no tolerable sense. How could the father in this thing control the son? Or how could the son be obliged to conduct himself towards several wives in the same way as towards one. Either, therefore, the expression has in it something figurative, meaning: She must not as wife be neglected; or it refers to a seat, a resting-place (see the meaning of ), which would well harmonize with the reference to food and raiment. It is therefore assumed that under the conditions imposed she has in the house of her servitude a much better position than if she should be dismissed, especially if she has borne children who belong to the permanent members of the household.
b. On Murder, Homicide, and Bodily Injuries
(1) Homicide proper, Exo 21:12-14. (a) Simple homicide in consequence of beating; (b) unintentional, resulting from misfortune and mistake; (c) murder proper. (2) Spiritual homicide, (a) Smiting of parents; (b) deprivation of freedom (as spiritual fratricide); (c) cursing of parents (spiritual suicide). (3) Bodily injuries, (a) Of uncertain, perhaps fatal result; (i) to a free man; (ii) a man-servant or maid-servant; (iii) a pregnant woman, in which connection is to be noticed that the jus talionis is laid down in close connection with an extremely humane law of protection, Exo 21:22-25; (b) local injuries to men-servants or maid-servants.
Exo 21:12. He that smiteth a man.Says Keil: Higher than personal freedom stands life. It may then be asked, why is capital punishment prescribed (Exo 21:16) for the violent taking away of freedom? The slavery treated of in the preceding section was no innovation, but as a traditional custom it was restricted, and moreover in great part was based on guilt or voluntary assent; it had besides an educational end. It is true, the law of retaliation, as instituted in Gen 9:6, underlies all this section; but it is noticeable that this law is expressly prescribed just where the protection of a pregnant woman is involved. It is repeated (Lev 24:17) in connection with the ordinance that the blasphemer shall be stoned. The reason for the repetition is the principle that in respect to these points perfect equality of rights should be accorded to the stranger and the Israelite; and it was occasioned by the fact that the blasphemer was a Jew on his mothers side, but an Egyptian on his fathers side. So that he dieth.Three cases are specified: first, the severe blow which in fact, but not in intention, proves mortal; secondly, the unfortunate killing through mistake, a providential homicide; thirdly, intentional, and hence criminal and guileful, murder.
Exo 21:13. And if a man lie not in wait.When, therefore not only the murderous blow, but any blow, was unintentional, so that the case is one of severe divine dispensation. I will appoint thee a place.A place of refuge, with reference to the avengers of blood who pursue him. A check, therefore, upon the custom, prevalent in the East, of avenging murder. It is worthy of notice, from a critical point of view, that no place is now fixed; this was done later, vid. Num 35:11; Deu 19:1-10. Here too the innocent homicide is expressly distinguished from the violent one, Num 35:22 sqq. Together with the prescribed place of refuge for the one who kills by mistake is found the stern provision that a real murderer, who has committed his murder with criminal and guileful intent, cannot be protected even by fleeing to the altar of the sanctuary, as it was customary in ancient times for those to do whom vengeance rightly or wrongly pursued, because, as some would say, the altar was a place of expiation. Even from the altar of God he is to be torn away. The expression is not adequately represented by behave viciously, or arrogantly. It denotes the act of breaking through, in ebullient rage, the sacred restraints which protect ones neighbor as Gods image. Particular cases, Num 35:16, Deu 19:11. Murder could be expiated only with death, Num 35:31. Examples of fleeing to the altar, 1Ki 1:50; 1Ki 2:28. This was also customary among the Greeks.
Exo 21:15. Smiteth his father.The simple act of smiting, committed on a father or mother, is made equivalent to man-slaughter committed on ones neighbor. Parricide, as not occurring and not conceivable, is not at all mentioned (Keil). Similar ordinances among the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians are mentioned by Knobel, p. 217. The two following provisions rest on the same ground. The parents are Gods vicegerents for the children; the neighbor is Gods image; hence a violent abuse of his person is equivalent to murder, vid. Deu 24:7. We explain the insertion of the prohibition of man-stealing between verses 15 and 17 by the fact that in cursing his parents the curser morally destroys himself, vid. Lev 20:9, Deu 27:16. The order is: undutifulness, man-stealing, self-destruction.8 See various views of Exo 21:16 in Keil, p. 133.
Exo 21:18 sq. And when men strive.The section concerning bodily injuries as such is distiuguished from the section beginning with Exo 21:12 in that there injuries are spoken of which result in death. The injuries here mentioned would accordingly also be punished with death if they resulted in death. This is shown especially by Exo 21:20. Here, then, an injury is contemplated which only confines the injured one to his bed. The penalty is twofold: First, the offender must make good his sitting still, i.e. what he might have earned during this time; secondly, he must pay the expenses of his cure, Exo 21:19. In the case of a man-servant or maidservant a different custom prevailed. If manslaughter took place, the manhood of the slain one is fully recognized, i.e. the penal retribution takes place. Probably sentence was to be rendered by the court, which was to decide according to the circumstances. According to Jewish interpretations capital punishment was to be inflicted with the sword; but vid. Knobel for a different view.9 On the one hand, the danger of a fatal blow was greater than in other relations, for it was lawful for a master to smite his slave (vid. Pro 10:13; the rod was also used on children); but on the other hand an intention to kill could not easily be assumed, because the slave had a pecuniary value. Furthermore, the owner is exempted from punishment, if the beaten one survives a day or two; and the punishment then consists in the fact that the slave was his money, i.e. that in injuring the slave he has lost his own money. The Rabbins hold that this applied only to slaves of a foreign race, according to Lev 25:44. This is not likely, if at the same time, in case of death, execution by the sword was to be prescribed; also according to this view there would have been a great gap in the law as regards Hebrew slaves. It is true, reference is here had only to injuries inflicted by the rod. When one was killed with an iron instrument, an intention to kill was assumed, and then capital punishment was inflicted unconditionally, Num 35:16, Lev 24:17; Lev 24:21, Deu 19:11 sqq. On the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman legislation, see Knobel, p. 219.10
Exo 21:22-25. Special legal protection of pregnant women. It might often happen that in quarrelling men would injure a pregnant woman, since wives on such occasions instinctively interpose, Deu 25:11. In the latter passage the rudenesses which the woman, protected by law, might indulge in are guarded against.So that her fruit depart. Literally: so that her children come out; i.e., so that abortion takes place. According to Keil, the expression designates only the case of her bearing real children, not a fetus imperfectly developed; i.e., a premature birth, not an abortion, is meant. The expression is used for the sake of indefiniteness, since possibly there might be more than one child in her body. Strange interpretation of the precept, according to which the plural in individual cases denotes indefiniteness! According to this view, the most, and perhaps the worst cases, would not be provided for, since women far advanced in pregnancy are most apt to guard against the danger of such injuries. The plural may also indicate that the capacity for bearing was injured. If no other injury results from the quarrel, reparation is to be made, according as the husband of the woman imposes it on the perpetrator, and the latter is to give it with judges, i.e., in company with, on application to them, in order that excessive demands may be suitably reduced. The amount of indemnity demanded doubtless was determined by the consideration, whether the injured man had many or few children, was poor or rich, etc. The law stands appropriately at the end of the cases which relate to life and the inviolability of the person. The unborn child is reckoned as belonging to, and, as it were, a part of, the mother (Knobel).
Exo 21:23. And if any mischief follow. It is to the credit of the legislation that the law of retaliation (vid. Lev 24:19, Deu 19:21) is here so particularly laid down. In its connection it reads: The injury of such a woman must be most sternly expiated according to the degree of it. But even this explication of the law of retaliation must be guarded from a lifeless literalism, as is shown by the provisions in Exo 21:26-27. It would surely have been contrary to nature to put out the eye of a master who had put out his servants eye, or to make him lose tooth for tooth. Keil says, The principle of retaliation, however, is good only for the free Israelite, not for the slave. In the latter case, he adds, emancipation takes place. Emancipation, even on account of a tooth knocked out, has nevertheless the force of retaliation, which, even in the relations of free Israelites, could not have been everywhere literally applied, e.g., in the case of burns. On the jus talionis in the ancient heathen world, and generally in the Orient, vid. Knobel, p. 220.
c. Injuries resulting from Property relations. Specially from acts of Carelessness. Chs. Exo 21:28 to Exo 22:6.
We follow in general Bertheaus classification, which makes property the determining thought. Keil and Knobel divide otherwise. Keil with the words, Also against danger from cattle is mans life secured. The conflict between life and property, and the subordination of property is here certainly everywhere observed. In a critical respect it may not be without significance that there is here no trace of horses; also the dog is not mentioned. At the time of Solomon and Ahab the case was quite different. First are to be considered the accidents occasioned by oxen that hook, Exo 21:28-32. But this list is connected with the following one, which treats of the misfortunes which men may suffer in respect to their oxen or asses through the fault of neighbors, in which case a distinction is made between the injuries resulting from carelessness and those resulting from theft, Exo 21:33 to Exo 22:4. Then follow injuries done to fields or estates through carelessness in the use of cattle or of fire, Exo 21:5-6. Then the criminal misuse of goods held in trust constitute a separate section, Exo 21:7-17, which we do not, like Bertheau, make a subdivision of the division (c), but must distinguish from it.
Exo 21:28. First case. And if an ox.The instinct of oxen to hook is so general that every accident of this sort could not be foreseen and prevented. Therefore when an ox has not been described to the owner as properly a goring ox, the owner is essentially innocent. Yet for a possible want of carefulness he is punished by the loss of his animal. But the ox is stoned to death. Legally it would involve physical un-cleanness to eat of the flesh. But the stoning of the ox does not mean that the ox is tainted with capital crime (Keil), but that he has become the symbol of a homicide, and so the victim of a curse (). It is therefore an application of Gen 9:6 in a symbolical sense, on account of the connection of cattle with men. Comp. also Lev 20:15. Similar provisions among the Persians and Greeks vid. in Knobel, p. 220.
Exo 21:29. Second case. The owner has been cautioned that his ox is given to hooking. In this case he himself is put to death as well as his ox. This is the rule. But as there may be mitigating considerations, especially in the case of the injured family; as in general the guilt was only that of carelessness, not of evil intention, the owner might save his life by means of a ransom imposed on him by the relatives of the man that had been killed. Probably with the mediation of the judges, as in Exo 21:22. Reference to the Salic law made by Knobel. Ransom., covering, expiation.
Exo 21:31. Third case. The son or the daughter of a freeman are treated in the same manner as, according to the foregoing, he himself is treated.
Exo 21:32. Fourth case. The ox gores a manservant or a maid-servant to death. The stoning of the ox is still enjoined, but the owner in this case is not doomed to death. He must pay the master of the slave 30 shekels of silver. Probably the usual market price of a slave, since the ransom money of a free Israelite amounted to 50 shekels, Lev 27:3. (Keil). On the value of the shekel ( ) vid. Winer, Realwrterbuch, p. 433 sqq.11 The result of the perplexing investigation is that its value Isaiah 25 or 26 silver groschen.12 The shekel afterwards used for the revenue of the temple and of the king was different from that used in common life. This legal inequality [between the slave and the freeman] is to be explained by the consideration that the capital punishment inflicted on the owner formed an offset, to the revenge to which otherwise the relatives of the murdered man might resort. But this revenge for bloodshed was in no danger of being exercised in the case of a murdered slave, since he was removed from the circle of his relations. The seemingly great difference in the penalty amounts finally to this, that the ransom money for a free man was 50 shekels, and that for a slave 30 shekels. On the estimate of the Attic slave, vid. Knobel; but the great difference in the period of time must be taken into account. In the legal codes of other ancient nations also are found laws concerning the punishment of beasts that have killed or injured a man. Coop. Clericus and Knobel on this passage. But no nation had a law which made the owner of such a beast responsible, because none of them had recognized the divine image in human life (Keil). The responsibility of the owner could certainly be grounded only on the mysterious solidarity of the Hebrew household (thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle), a unity which was not taken into account where a more atomistic view of liberty prevailed.
Exo 21:33-34. Fifth case. And when a man shall open a pit (cistern). This is connected with the foregoing cases as coming under the head of punishable carelessness. The ox or ass are named as examples of domestic animals in general. In this case only property is destroyed; and the careless man has to pay for it, but receives the dead beast, of which he could only use the skin and other such parts, since the flesh was unclean.
Exo 21:35. Sixth case. A specially fine provision. In the ox that has killed another ox there is nothing abominable, but yet a stain; the sight of him is obnoxious. He is therefore sold and comes into another place where his fault is not known. But the two owners share the price of sale and the dead animal. This is an alleviation of a misfortune that is common to both parties. Without doubt the dead ox also must have hooked.
Exo 21:36. Seventh case. But here too is to be considered the special circumstance that the ox may have been a notorious hooker. In this case the owner must make full compensation for the loss with a live ox, in return for which he receives the dead beast.
Exo 22:1-4. Eighth case. The cattle-thief. Five-fold indemnity for the stolen ox; four-fold for the stolen sheep or goat. In the case of the five-fold indemnity any kind of large animal may be delivered over. The difference of five-fold and four-fold points to the greater guilt of the greater theft. The four-fold restitution is also mentioned in 2Sa 12:6 : the seven-fold, Pro 6:31, is not to be understood literally, but only in a general way as manifold (Knobel). From the five-fold and four-fold restitution is distinguished the two-fold, which is prescribed in case the thief has not yet slaughtered or sold the animal, but is able to return it alive. The reasons for this distinction are differently given; vid. Keil; also his note, II. p. 137.13 In the latter case the thief had not carried out his purpose to the full extent, especially as he has not put the object of his theft out of the way. The case differed therefore materially from the other. Vid. Knobel on the Roman laws. Others indicating the value set on ploughing oxen, Knobel. p. 222.
Exo 22:2-3. If the thief be found breaking in.This is obviously an incidental interpolation, which properly belongs to the class (b). There shall be no blood to him; i.e. no blood-guiltiness is incurred by the homicide; vid. Num 35:27; Deu 19:10; Job 24:16. One might understand this chiefly of an attack on the fold, since the topic is the stealing of cattle; at all events a nocturnal irruption is meant, vid. Exo 22:3. Accordingly the watchman, or the one who is awaked, is in a condition of defense. He must protect his property, and therefore fight; and the thief is liable to become a robber and murderer. If the sun be risen upon him.It might be thought that this refers to the early dawn or early day, when he might recognize the thief, or frighten him away unrecognized, or with the help of others capture him. But inasmuch as further on it is assumed that the thief has really accomplished his theft, the expression probably means: If some time has elapsed. If in this case the owner kills the thief, he incurs blood-guiltiness; but on account of the great variety in the cases the sentence of death is not here immediately pronounced upon him. Since the life of the thief is under the protection of the law, the case comes before the criminal court, vid. Exo 21:20. For Calvin on the ratio disparitatis inter furem nocturnum et diurnum, vid. Keil, p. 137. The real punishment for the thief is determined by the law concerning restitution, Exo 22:1; Exo 22:3. But in case the thief can restore nothing, he is sold for the theft, for that which is stolen, i.e. for the value of it. This can mean only a sale for a period of time. The buyer reckoned the restitution which the thief was to render, and used the thief as a slave until the whole loss was made good (Knobel). Similar arrangements among the Romans vid. in Knobel, p. 223. Likewise laws concerning theft, p. 224. The thief could not be sold to a foreigner, according to Josephus, Ant. XVI. 1, 1.
Exo 22:5. Ninth case. A field or a vineyard to be fed upon.There are various views of this. (1) Si lserit quispiam agrum vel vineam, etc. (Vulg.). Luther: When any one injures a field or vineyard, so that he lets his cattle do damage. (2) Knobel: When one pastures a field or a vineyard by sending his cattle to it. (3) Keil: When any one pastures a field or a vineyard, and lets his cattle loose. bears either meaning, to send away, or to let go free; but according to the connection only the latter can be meant here. The sense given to it by the Vulgate might accordingly be accepted: he injures the field or vineyard of his neighbor so that, (in that) etc. But it is more obvious to assume an incidental carelessness to be meant. The beast feeds on his field (perhaps also on the grass between the grape-vines); from this pasture ground he lets him pass over so that he does damage to his neighbor. Knobel even affirms that an intentional damage is meant. And yet only a simple, though ample, indemnity is to be rendered from the best of his field and of his vineyard. Keil rightly contends against Knobels theory. Talmudic provisions on this point are found in Saalschtz, Mosaisches Recht, p. 875 sq.
Exo 22:6. Tenth case. This is about, a fire in a field, which might the more readily sweep over into the neighbors field, inasmuch as it was likely to be kindled at the edge of the field, in the thorn-hedge. Clearly an act of carelessness is meant; comp. Isa 5:5. He that hath kindled the fire.The carelessness is imputed to him as a virtual incendiary, because he did not guard the fire.
d. Things entrusted and lost.
Exo 22:7. First case. The money or articles or stuff (on see Deu 22:5) left for safe keeping are stolen from the keeper, but the thief is discovered. The affair is settled by the thief being required to pay back double, vid. Exo 22:4.
Exo 22:8. Second case. The thief is not discovered. In this case suspicion falls on the keeper; he may have embezzled the property entrusted to him. Therefore such a case must come before the court, which was esteemed a divine court, hence the expression, . The penalty is paid according to the decision of the case. The man under suspicion must approach unto God. Such an approach produced an excitement of conscience. The true high-priest is the one who may approach unto God. In case the keeper is adjudged guilty, he has to pay double.
Exo 22:9. The foregoing provision is designated as an example for a general rule. The cleansing of the suspected man was probably often effected by an oath of purification. The LXX. and Vulgate interpolate , et jurabit. In all cases in which the concealer made a confession, an oath was unnecessary. Also dishonesty respecting objects found is placed under this rule. On the oath among the Arabs and Egyptians, see Knobel, p. 225. Knobel seems to assume without reason that the plaintiff also is meant in the words, whom God shall condemn, etc.14
Exo 22:10-11. Third case. This is about beasts put in others care, which die in their possession, or are mutilated in the pasture, or injure themselves, or are driven away by robbers. Here the oath is positively required, in case the guardian alone has seen the thing; but it is also decisive. On a similar Indian law vid. Knobel.
Exo 22:12. Fourth case. Stolen from him.It is assumed that the thief is not found. Here, says Knobel, restitution is prescribed, but not in Exo 22:8, because he who has an animal in charge is the guardian of it, whereas he who has things in charge cannot be regarded as exactly a watchman. But according to Exo 22:9 the judges could even adjudge a double restitution, while here only simple restitution is spoken of. There a complication was referred to, in which the approach of the master of the household to God and the attitude of his conscience formed the main ground for the judicial sentence. In the case described in Exo 22:10-11 the oath determines the main decision; in the present case the simple restitution is prescribed upon the simple declaration: stolen.
Exo 22:13. Fifth case. The production of the animal torn by a beast of prey (not, or a part of it, as Keil says) proved not only the fact itself, but also that the guardian had watched, and had driven off the beast of prey by a violent exertion. From this we see the severity of Laban who, according to Gen 31:39, required his son-in-law in such cases to make the loss good. Comp. 1Sa 17:34, Amo 3:12. On the Indian law, vid. Knobel, p. 227.
Exo 22:14. Sixth case. A hired beast is injured, or dies, when the owner is not present. The sentence requires restitution, because neglect may be presumed.
Exo 22:15. Seventh case. The owner is present when the accident occurs. In that case it belonged especially to himself to prevent the accident, if prevention was possible.
Eighth case. The borrower is in the hired service of the owner of the beast. In this case he gets the dead beast instead of his pay; it is subtracted from his pay. For the owner as a hired laborer would have had to do only with himself; and a hired servant with a hired beast cannot be meant. It is therefore a day-laborer to whom the animal of the owner has been entrusted. can hardly (with Stier and Keil) be referred to the hired beast. Knobel has a forced explanation, in which the hired servant becomes the one who lets the beast.15
Exo 22:16. Ninth case. The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin (the case is different with the seduction of a betrothed one (Deu 22:23), who has entrusted to him the wealth of her virginity, valuable not only in a moral, but in a civil point of view, must make restitution to her by marrying her, and to her father by giving a dowry.
Exo 22:17. Tenth case. The seducer himself cannot refuse the settlement; but the father of the seduced maiden may have reasons for refusing it. In this case the seducer must pay him the dowry (vid. Gen 34:12), with which she is, in a sort, reinstated as a virgin, and as afterwards a legally divorced woman. The case is not differently provided for in Deu 22:28, as Knobel affirms. There only the price of sale is fixed, viz., at 50 shekels; the right of the father to refuse his daughter to the seducer is simply not repeated. The dowry was not properly a price of sale.
The precepts in Exo 22:18 and onwards, says Keil, differ in form and contents from the foregoing laws; in form, by the omission of [when], with which the foregoing are almost without exception introduced; in substance, by the fact that they impose on the Israelites, on the ground of their election to be the holy people of Jehovah, requirements which transcend the sphere of natural law. Yet the two divisions are not to be distinguished as natural and supernatural. But Keil has correctly found a new section here, whilst Knobel begins a new section, poorly defined, with Exo 22:16.
e. Unnatural Crimes. Abominations committed against Religion and Humanity.
Exo 22:18. First offence. The sorceress is condemned to death. This term is not to be made synonymous with witch, as Knobel makes it. The medival witch may practice, or wish to practice, sorcery; but she may also be a calumniated woman. She gets her name from the popular conception, whereas the sorceress gets her name from the real practice of a lying, dark art. She operates on the assumption that demoniacal powers co-operate with her, and so she promotes radical irreligion. She injures her neighbor in body and life, as being the instrument of hostile passions, which she nourishes; or, when she enters into the mood of the questioner, she nourishes ruinous hopes (Macbeth) or despair (the soothsayer of Endor), and often from being a mixer of herbs becomes a mixer of poisons (Gesina). The sorceress is named instead of the sorcerer, as Calovius says, not because the same thing is not punishable in men, but because the female sex is more addicted to this crime (Keil). According to Knobel the expression, not suffer to live, intimates that perhaps a foreign sorceress might be punished with banishment; but Keil supposes that she may have been allowed to live, if she gave up her occupation. Sorcery was connected not only with simple idolatry, but in many ways with the worship of demons, and the sorceress was regarded as seducing to such things.
Exo 22:19. Second offence. Sexual intercourse with a beast. Comp. Lev 18:23; Lev 20:15; Deu 27:21. This unnatural thing also was punished with death, like the kindred one of sodomy, a prominent vice of the Canaanites, Lev 20:13.
Exo 22:20. Third offence. Idolatry. Keils explanation, Israel must not sacrifice to foreign gods, but must not only tolerate foreigners in the midst of them, etc., almost seems intended to intimate that the heathen in Israel had an edict of tolerance for their offerings. Opposed to this conception is the Sabbath law, and the ordinance in Exo 23:24. In both cases, however, the explanation is that a public worship of strange gods was not tolerated in Israel; but an inquisition to ferret out such worship secretly carried on is not countenanced by the Mosaic law. The words are: whosoever sacrificeth unto any god. The addition, save unto Jehovah only (as likewise Exo 20:24), is a mild expression also as regards the theocratic offerings, and also secures a right understanding of the word Elohim.He is to be devoted, i.e., to the judgment of Jehovah sentencing him to death. Here the notion of (hherem, ban) comes out distinctly. Every capital punishment was essentially a hherem; but here is found the root of the notion: an idolater by his offering has withdrawn from Jehovah the offering due to Him alone; he has, so to speak, removed the offering away from the true divine idea, and perverted it into its opposite. He is to be devoted by death to the Lord, to whom in life he would not devote himself (Keil). It may be that a sort of irony lies in the notion of the hherem; as being consecration reversed, it secures to God the glory belonging to Him alone; but it does this also as being consecration to the judging God in His judgment. No living thing, says Knobel, devoted to Jehovah could be redeemed, but had to be destroyed. Lev 27:28 sq.; 1Sa 15:3. But only when it was a case of hherem, vid. Deu 13:12 sqq.
Exo 22:21. Fourth offence. A beautiful contrast to the foregoing is formed by the statement, of offences against humanity. Maltreatment of the foreigner is put first of all. He must not be wronged, for ye were strangers, etc. A moral principle which re-appears in the N. T. (Mat 7:12). as also in Kant. The particular rules concerning the treatment of aliens are given by Knobel. p. 228, who also gives the appropriate references to Michaelis and Saalschtz. Vid. Exo 3:9, Deu 26:7. Knobel says, The persons meant are the Canaanitish and non-Canaanitish strangers who staid as individuals among the Israelites; the Canaanites as a whole are, according to this lawgiver also, to be extirpated (vid. Exo 23:33). It belongs to the definition of the stranger, that he is dissociated from his own nationality, and has become subject to another, i.e. here, to the national laws of the Israelites. The failure to affix a penalty to this law implies that the noble emotion of gratitude was probably depended on to secure its fulfilment.
Exo 22:22-24. Fifth offence. Against widows and orphans. On this point see Knobels collection of the various passages, p. 229. God takes the place of the deceased fathers and husbands by His special protection; whence follows that they on their part when living are to exercise a divine protection in the house over wife and children. And because, through the selfishness of the strong, widows and orphans were so liable to be oppressed, being easily despoiled on account of their impotence, chief prominence is given to the significance of their crying. This need not always be a conscious prayer uttered in ones extremity, for crying, on the part of living things and before God, has a special meaning, even down to the crying of the young ravens. The threatened punishment, in the first place, is connected with the guilt, and in the second place corresponds with it. Despotism begins with the oppression of the weak (widows and orphans), and reaches its consummation in unrighteous wars and military catastrophes, out of which again widows and orphans are made. Vid. Isa 9:17.
Exo 22:25. Sixth offence. Prohibition of usury, by which the exigency of the poor is abused, Lev 25:36. Two grounds: the poor man belongs to the people of God as a free man, and has lost his freedom through his troubles. By usury he is burdened.
Exo 22:26-27. Seventh offence. Excessive taking of pawn. The lender may require a pledge of the creditor, but his covering (outer garment) he must return to him before sunset, lest he suffer from the nocturnal cold. The mantle marks the extreme of poverty in general, vid. Deu 24:6 sqq. The compassion which Jehovah here promises to the helpless ones that cry has an obverse side for the pitiless. The expression in Exo 22:27 becomes even a rhetorical plea for the poor. Mat 5:7, Jam 2:13. The indigent Oriental covers himself at night in his outer garment. Shaw, Travels, p. 224, Niebuhr, Arabien, p. 64 (Knobel). On the pawning of clothes, see Amo 2:8, Job 22:6, Pro 20:16; Pro 27:13.
Exo 22:28. Eighth offence. Contempt, of the Deity and of princely magistrates. Keil says, Elohim means neither the gods of the other nations, as Josephus (Ant. IV. 8, 10, contra Apionem II. 33), Philo (vita Mos. III. 864) and others explain the word in their dead and Pharisaic monotheism; nor the magistrates, as Onkelos, Jonathan, Aben Ezra and others think; but God, the Deity in general, whose majesty is despised in every transgression of Jehovahs commands, and should be honored in the person of the prince. Comp. Pro 24:21; 1Pe 2:17, etc. So Knobel. This explanation is certainly favored by the context, particularly the following; especially also by the fact that the prince (the exalted, the high one) is mentioned next to God. Yet this is to be observed in the line of Josephus and Philos opinion, that the theocracy does not reject the divine element in the religions themselves, but the false ideal images of the gods (Elilim), and the actual idols, and that even in this sphere there are reservations in reference to Satan (Epistle of Jude). There are two reasons for it: first, the element of truth which underlies the errors; secondly, the moral injury of the religious feelings of the neighbor who is in error. We prefer to render, the Deity; at all events the reviling of the Deity, which may have many degrees, is sharply distinguished from the positive reviling of Jehovah (Lev 24:15-16). The world of to-day would perhaps invert the order of guilt in this relation. Luthers translation transposes the meanings of the verbs [Den Gttern. nicht fluchen, und den Obersten nicht lstern, not curse the gods, and not revile the magistrates]. The princes are under God as His vicegerents. Passages relative to the defamation of princes are given by Knobel. The word comprehends all forms of evil-speaking of God.
Exo 22:29-30. Ninth offence. Holding back of the natural products due to the sanctuary. means the produce of grain (Deu 22:9), and the word , which occurs only here, properly tear, something flowing, liquor stillans, is a poetic designation of the produce of the wine-vat, the wine and the oil, comp. . Theoph.: arborum lacrym; Pliny XI. 6. (Keil.) Vid. Exo 23:19; Deu 26:2-11; Num 18:12. These gifts to the temple retained their festal character and their value only as they were freely and joyfully presented. The first-born of thy sons.Repetition of the precept to sanctify the first-born to Jehovah, Exo 13:2; Exo 13:12. In the passage before us, however, the precept is put under the point of view of the civil commonwealth. This needs religious institutions in order to its perpetuity. Knobel attempts in vain to make out a difference between this passage and others which prescribe the redemption of the first-born. A week of existence with the dam must also be secured to the sacrificial victims taken from the cattle and from the sheep or goats.
Exo 22:31. Tenth offence. Use of unclean meat. As men of holiness consecrated to the sanctuary, they must refrain from the use of unclean meat, especially of that which is torn of beasts. The carcass is to be given to the dogs, whose characteristic here appears. Comp. Exo 19:6; Lev 17:15.
f. Legal Proceedings
Exo 23:1. First precept. Against rashness in cherishing and uttering suspicions. Comp. Lev 19:16; Deu 22:13 sqq. Vid. the references to Michaelis and Saalschtz in Knobel.
Second precept. No one shall allow himself to be misled by wicked men into the utterance of false witness.
Exo 23:2. Third precept. Base compliance with the judgment of the multitude.
Exo 23:3. Fourth precept. Not to favor the poor man in his suit. Affectation in sympathy with the lowly. The error of many modern minds. Against Knobels conjecture, vid. Keil.16
Exo 23:4. Fifth precept. To keep even an enemy from suffering loss. Ones enemy is in this case a brother, according to Deu 22:1. Neglect of this duty is positive and culpable violation of law.
Exo 23:5. Sixth precept. It is still harder to labor in company with the enemy (the hater), in order to help him in his extremity. In this case the inclination to avoid the enemy must be overcome. On the pun see Gesenius under . Comp. Bertheau, p. 41. The neglect of this difficult self-denial also comes into the category of violation of law.
Exo 23:6. Seventh precept. Of thy poor.The poor must be the proteg of the rich. But the temptations to violate his rights, to pervert it this way and that, is strong, since he is defenceless. Hence Moses puts him specially under the protection of the law. Comp. Deu 27:19; 1Sa 8:3; Lam 3:35.
Exo 23:7. Eighth precept. This looks like the first. But there the subject is false testimonyhere, the false judge; because his conduct may possibly bring death to the innocent man. Here, therefore, judicial murder is specifically treated of, with the declaration that God will not acquit the wicked one, i.e., will judge him; and the wicked judge is probably meant. Bertheau, dividing this one precept into two, fails to make out the tenthwherefore Keil is led to pronounce his hypothesis of decades to be arbitrary throughout.
Exo 23:8. Ninth precept. Prohibition of the taking of presents in law-suits. Out of such presents corruption grows. They pervert the cause of the righteousmake right wrong.
Exo 23:9. Tenth precept. This is not identical with the general precept in Exo 22:21, since here the question is about law-suits. It should be considered especially in courts of law how a stranger feels. He is timid, faint-hearted, and readily surrenders a part or the whole of his just claim before the mighty judge. Israel is to learn this from his experience in Egypt. Vid. Deu 24:17; Deu 27:19.
g. Ordinances concerning Feast-days and Days of Rest
Exo 23:10-11. First ordinance. The land must rest the seventh year. It is the Sabbath of the years, the continuation of the Sabbath of the months, as of the Sabbath of the days, while they all look back to the Sabbath of Gods creation, and look forward to the Sabbath of the generation, the great year of jubilee, the type of the future foundation and completion of the Sabbath by Christ. The civil side of the religious ordinances here made should not be overlooked, as is done by Keil and Knobel. In Leviticus 25 the ordinance bears a predominantly religious aspect. What the land produces of itself, without culture, belongs to all as a common possession to be freely enjoyed; likewise to the stranger and to the cattle, and even to the wild beasts. Thus this festal year forms a reflex of Paradise. And if this festal year in point of fact, was poorly observed in Israel, critics may well infer that this law was written long before the time of the later national life of the Israelites. In its ideal significance, however, it belongs to all times: not only the field, but also the forest, the river, and the mine, may be spoiled by unintermittent labor.
Exo 23:12-13. Second ordinance. Man and beast must rest on the seventh day. The humane object of the Sabbath in its civil aspect comes out prominently in the text. Mention is first made even of the rest needed by the ox and the ass, then of the hand-maids son, i.e., the one born a slave, and the stranger; they must on the Sabbath have a breathing-spell, as the verb properly means. Exo 23:13 enjoins the proper celebration for this sacred list of feast-days, strictly excluding the names of all heathen deities, and containing a suggestion for the revision of the Christian calendar in view of the medieval deifications. Says Knobel: The most important point is the exclusive adoration of Jehovah. The Hebrew is not even to mentioni.e., utterthe name of another god; not to take it into his mouth, still less recognize or reverence such a god. So, too, the strict worshippers of Jehovah did (Psa 16:4; Hos 2:17; Zec 13:2). Accordingly the Hebrew was to swear only by Jehovah (Deu 6:13; Deu 10:20; Jer 12:16). So the Phenician could not swear (Josephus c. Apionem I. 22). But we must distinguish between the proper meaning of this command and the superstitious Jewish interpretation of it, which has even imposed a penalty on the utterance of the name of Jehovah. The so-called killing by silence [Todtschweigen], generally a sin, has therefore here, too, its moral side.
Exo 23:14. Third ordinance. Three annual festivals are to be celebrated in accordance with the wants of Gods people in their civil capacity. At the head stands the feast of unleavened bread, as the festival of freedom; then follow the two principal harvest festivals, of which the second at the same time marks the close of the year with reference to the notion of the civil year. Vid. Exo 34:23; Deu 16:16; 2Ch 8:13. Otherwise, says Knobel, the Elohist, on which point see Leviticus 23. But it must be observed that there the festivals are spoken of in their relation to religion and religious rites. Therefore, at that place special prominence is given to the Passover and the day of atonement. The arrangement of the three festivals, however, was, for the most part, prophetic, since in the wilderness there could be no harvesting, nor even sacrifices, vid. Lev 23:10.
Exo 23:15. Fourth ordinance. The feast of unleavened bread as the birth-day festival of the people and of their freedom; whereas the Passover stands at the head of their religious offerings, vid. Exo 12:40 sqq. On Hitzigs view in his Ostern und Pfingsten, vid. Knobel,17 p. 233; Bertheau, p. 57.Not empty, i.e., not with empty hands, but with sacrificial gifts. Even the general festival offerings had to come from the sacrificial gifts of the peoplea fact which Knobel seems to overlook; to these were added the peace-offerings made by individuals. So the Oriental never came before his king without presents; vid. the citations from lian and Paulsen in Keil. The offering is the surplus of the gain which God has blessed, and by the effort to secure this surplus a barrier is built against want in civil life. While the offerings serve to maintain the religious rites, they also serve indirectly to maintain the common weal. The same holds of the true church and of its wants.
Exo 23:16. Fifth ordinance. The feast of harvest.Here named for the first time, as also the third feast, vid. Lev 23:15 : Num 28:26. Also called the feast of weeks, because it was celebrated seven weeks after the feast of unleavened bread; or the feast of the first fruits of the wheat-harvest, because the loaves offered as first-fruits at that time were to be made of wheat flour, Exo 34:22. On the Pentecost, see the lexicons.
Sixth ordinance.The feast of ingathering.Gathering or plucking characterizes this harvest: the fruit-harvest and vintage. Further particulars, as that it is to be held on the 15th day of the 7th month, seven days like that of unleavened bread, a feast of rich abundance in contrast with that of great privation, see in Lev 23:34, Num 29:12, Winer, Realwrterbuch, Art. Laubhttenfest, [Smiths Bible Dictionary, Art. Tabernacles, Feast of]. In the end of the year.Knobel, on account of this passage, assumes that the Hebrews had two new-years, the one in autumn, when the agricultural season of the year ended with the harvesting of the fruits, and the following one, beginning with the ploughing and sowing of the fields. The former, he says, seems to have been the usual mode of reckoning in the East; and he cites many proofs, p. 235. His view that this is a contradiction of the Elohist, who puts the beginning of the year in the spring (Exo 12:2), is not perspicuous; neither, on the other hand, is Keilsthat reference is here made only to the agricultural year, by which he must mean the natural seasons, II. p. 148. We find here a new proof that the Mosaic law distinguishes the civil from the religious ordinances. But because the civil is subordinate to the religious, the determinative regulation proceeds from the feast of Passover, as is seen especially from Num 29:12. That in Lev 23:34 the date is religious, is self-evident.
Exo 23:17. Seventh ordinance. Three times in the year;i.e. of course at the three above mentioned feasts. The place where the Israelites are to appear before Jehovah, i.e. in the place where He reveals Himself, is not yet fixed, an omission explained by the fact that they were still wandering. That only the males are held obliged to do this, shows the civil side of this legislation. for , thy males. Probably, says Keil, from the twentieth year and upwards, those who were included in the census. Num 1:3. But this does not prohibit the admission of the women (comp. 1Sa 1:3 sqq.) and boys (Luk 2:41 sqq.). More exactly: by the side of the civil ordinance the religious custom was developed in a natural way. Knobel thinks he finds here another discrepancy, p. 235.
Exo 23:18. Eighth ordinance. Not offer with leavened bread.The duty of keeping sacred things pure is enjoined especially by references to the feast of the Passover. The connection of the feast of unleavened bread with the Passover is here assumed. Backwards and forwards the paschal feast is to be kept pure in view of the fact that the blood of the offering (i.e. of the offering emphatically so called, the Passover offering) belongs to Jehovah, that therefore the surrender must be unmixed. In reference to the past, therefore, everything leavened must be removed (Exo 12:15; Exo 12:20). In reference to the future, the fatty parts of the paschal offering, which also belong to Jehovah, must not remain over night, and so serve for ordinary food. They must therefore be burned in the night. That cannot mean, as Knobel understands it, that the fatty pieces are to be at the outset separated from the paschal lamb, as was done with other offerings, since the lamb was to remain whole; but it was natural that the fatty parts would be for the most part left over; and then they were to be burned with the other things left over. Thus these fatty remains, which, however, were not burnt on the altar, became a type of the fatty pieces which were from the first designed for the altar. So then this regulation is made to refer to the more detailed laws of the festivals as found in Lev 2:11, etc. As the Passover was to be contrasted with the ordinary mode of life, so also with the feast of unleavened bread. The three stages are: (1) the old life (leaven); (2) the offering of life (Passover); (3) the beginning of the new life (unleavened bread).
Exo 23:19. Ninth ordinance. Precept in reference chiefly to the feast of weeks, or the first feast of harvest, but with a more general significance. The pentecostal loaves (Lev 23:17) are meant, says Knobel. Keil with reason understands the precept of a bringing of firstlings in general, vid. Num 18:12, Deu 26:2 sqq. The sheaf of barley which was to be offered on the second day of the feast of unleavened bread (Lev 23:10) belongs to the same [Keil]. It may be asked how the expression is to be understood; whether, according to the LXX., followed by Keil, as the first of the first fruits, the first gathering of the first fruits; or, according to Aben Ezra and others, including Knobel (p. 236), as the best, the choicest, of the first fruits. Inasmuch as not the very first that came to hand was also the best, the latter explanation is to be taken as a more precise statement of the other: the first, provided it was the best, or the first-fruits, properly so called (for not even every first-born beast was a true firstling). The chronological element in the term first, however, takes precedence, and forbids every delay and sequestration, according to Exo 22:29. The meaning of these offerings is seen from the liturgical forms prescribed for them in Deu 26:3 sqq., 13 sqq. Everything is a gift from Jehovah; therefore the first fruits are brought back to Him, and their acceptance is effected by the priest, who, however, represents also the Levites, the widows and orphans, and the stranger. As in the N. T. Christ pictures Himself to His church as poor, in the person of the poor and the little ones, so Jehovah in the O. T. symbolically pictures Himself as in a human state of want, in the priests under whose protection all, especially all needy ones stand. So then the church ought continually to care for the poor, as a religious duty.
Exo 23:19. Tenth ordinance. Not boil a kid.This precept seems strange, probably for the reason that it may be in a high degree symbolical. First, we must pronounce incorrect Luthers translation: Not boil the kid while it is at its mothers milk (vid. 1Sa 7:9). Other incorrect interpretations see in Knobel: (1) not to cook and eat meat and milk together; (2) injunction not to use butter instead of the oil of trees; (3) prohibition of an odious barbarity and cruelty. According to Knobel there is a reference to a custom of heathen religions which is to be kept away from the worship of Jehovah. Vid. his commentary, p. 237, where are accounts of Jewish opinions and Arabian usages. Aben Ezra and Abarbanel, he says, mention, the boiling of the kid in milk by the Arabs of their time: and they are right. Up to the present day the Arabs generally boil the flesh of lambs in sour milk, thus giving to it a peculiar relish (Berggren, Reisen, etc.). Further on Knobel, following Spencer, professes to give proofs that a peculiar superstition underlay the custom. But the heathen element, if there was one in the practice, might have been excluded without prohibiting the practice itself. If we assume that the precept in Exo 23:18 referred to the first feast, and was designed to prevent the profanation of the offering, and that the one in Exo 23:19 referred to the second one, and was designed to prevent the neglect of the peace-offering and the priesthood with its family of Levites and of the poor, it is natural, with Abarbanel and others, to refer this precept especially to the third feast; and because this was in the highest degree the joyous feast of the Israelites, it is furthermore probable that this prohibition was designed to prevent a luxury which was inconsistent with simple comfort, and which moreover was hideous in a symbolical point of view, the kid here being, as it were, tortured even in death by the milk of the dam. The same precept condemns all the heathen refinements of festive gormandizing, such as are still practiced (e.g. roasting live animals). This epicurism might also pitch upon the eating of unclean animals or other haut got; vid. Deu 14:21, where the same prohibition is connected with the one before us. Keils explanation, that the practice marked a reversal of the divine order of things in regard to the relation between old and young, is less intelligible than that the kids were a very favorite article of food, according to Gen 27:9; Gen 27:14; Jdg 6:19; Jdg 13:15; 1Sa 16:20. To be sure, the usage considered in its symbolical aspect was a sort of unnature such as the keen sense of natural fitness which characterized the Mosaic laws rejected in every form, so that it even denounced the production of hybrid animals and grains, the mixing of different materials in cloth, as well as human misalliances, Lev 19:19-20.
h. The Promises. Exo 23:20-33
That this last division also of the religio-civil legislation relates to the political commonwealth, is seen from the whole contents of it, especially from Exo 23:22; Exo 23:24 sqq., 27, 33. Knobel calls them Some more promises; Keil, The conduct of Jehovah towards Israel. The promises here given are not some, but a whole; not, however, the whole of Jehovahs promises, but the sum of the civil and political blessings conditioned on good behavior. (1) Protection of angelic guidance, of the religion of revelation; and invincibility founded on religious obedience. (2) Victory over the Canaanites. Possession of the holy land on condition of their purifying the land from idolatry. (3) Abundance of food. (4) Blessing of health. (5) Fertility of man and beast, (6) Long life. (7) The respect and fear of all neighboring peoples. (8) Mysterious control of natural forces in favor of Israel, ver 28. (9) The subjected Canaanites themselves made to serve for the protection of the growth of Israel. (10) Wide extent of territory and sure possession of it on condition of not mingling with the Canaanites and their idolatry.
Exo 23:20-22. First promise. I send an angel.That which the people, as the religious congregation of God, afterwards have imposed upon them as a check on account of their misbehavior (chap. 33), is here promised to the civil congregation as a protection. This cannot well be an anticipation, and cannot, with Knobel, be accounted for on the theory of another narrator who calls this angel . For in Exo 33:2-3 two forms of revelation are clearly distinguished. In Exo 33:18-19 this distinction is between the glory of Jehovah and the goodness of Jehovah. Further on it is said that no one can see the glory in its full display, i.e. Jehovahs face, but can see its reflected splendor as it passes by in sacred obscurity (Exo 23:23). It is therefore a private relation between Jehovah and Moses, when Jehovah speaks with him face to face (Exo 33:11), and hence in Moses consciousness the two degrees of revelation go together. The prophet Moses stands as Abrahams son higher than Moses the lawgiver. So Paul (in Galatians 3) distinguishes positively between the form of revelation which Abraham received and the form of revelation by which the people of Israel received the law (Exo 23:16; Exo 23:19). This difference in degree is presented antithetically as early as in Jer 31:32-34. It harmonizes entirely with this distinction, when the angel of Jehovah first appears to Hagar, Gen 16:7; also in the circumstance that he directs her to return to the household to which she legitimately belonged. Comp. Gen 21:17. Later also the immediate revelations made by God to Abraham are distinguished from the appearance of the angel of Jehovah in a legal aspect, Gen 22:1; Gen 22:11. The difference resembles that between inspiration and manifestation, as these two through ecstatic vision are made to assume forms different in degree. The angel of Jehovah is therefore the revelation of Jehovah for the people of Israel in a predominantly legal relation; hence also the form of the political theocracy as it is instituted through the mediation of Moses and Aaron, chiefly of Moses. The salvation of the people will depend on their obedience to the theocratic religion, as shaped by the higher form of the ceremonial revelation. This angel prepares the way for the Israelites, and conducts them to their goal. His countenance in the theocratic legal institutions is turned towards Israel; Jehovahs name, the revelation of His essential being, is within him, under the cover of this angelic form. He requires awe; he can be easily offended; he punishes acts of disloyalty, for he is legal; hence he goes before Israel as the terror of God to intimidate the enemies. Knobel identifies this Angel of the Lord with the pillar of cloud and fire; and in fact this was a sign of the hidden presence of the angel, Exo 33:9.
Exo 23:23-24. Vid. Gen 15:18 sqq. Annihilation of the public heathen worship in Canaan after its conquest by Israel. That the system of worship was connected with the morals, which were horrible and criminal, is even thus early made prominent. Vid. the parallel passages in Knobel, p. 238.
Exo 23:25. The pure service of Jehovah is the condition of well-being and health; vid. Exo 15:26 : comp. Lev 26:16; Lev 26:25; Deu 28:20. Bread and water, the most important articles of nutrition, symbols of all kinds of welfare.
Exo 23:26. Prevention of miscarriages. Only one item in a whole category: diminution of the population through miscarriages, unchastity, conjugal sins against procreation, exposure of children, etc.; comp. Lev 26:9; Deu 28:11; Deu 30:9; vid. Isa 25:8; Isa 65:23. Respecting the blessing of long life, vid. chap, 20; Deuteronomy 5; 1Co 15:51.
Exo 23:27. My fear.This marks the sphere of intimidating influences exerted by the religious power of Israel on the heathen in general; whereas the hornets (Exo 23:28) represent the terrifying or destructive effects of this power in particular. Vid. Gen 35:5; Exo 15:14; Psa 18:41 (40); Exo 21:13 (12); Jos 7:8; Jos 7:12.
Exo 23:28. Hornets.Vid. Deu 7:20; Wisdom of Solomon Exo 12:8. Says Knobel: According to Joshua 24 the kings of the Amorites, Sihon and Og, were driven out not by Israels weapons, but by the . Elsewhere neither the word nor the thing occurs in the O. T. Different explanations: (1) The promise is literally meant. So Jarchi, Clericus, and others. (2) Plagues in general. So Saadias, Michaelis, and others. (3) The expression is figurative. So most modern interpreters. Yet the text evidently does not mean to identify the hornets with the great general terror of God, as Knobel holds, but distinguishes them from it as small, isolated, but very powerful evils, as Keil, following Augustine, has correctly observed. It is a question even whether the hornets are not meant to represent the same thing as the bees, Deu 1:44; Psa 118:12; Isa 7:18. The bee frightens by the multitude of the irresistible swarm; the hornets by the frightful attack and sting of the individual insect. In the petty religious and moral conflicts between Judaism and heathenism, civilized Christian nations and barbarians, Indians, and other savages, it is just these hornets, these thousand-fold particular sources of terror, moral thorns, and even physical stings, under which the enemies gradually succumb. The three Canaanitish nations which are here named denote the totality; perhaps, however, in the heathen trinity may be found a reference to the spiritual impotence of heathenism.
Exo 23:29. Not in one year.Comp. Deu 7:22; Lev 26:22; Eze 14:15; Eze 14:21; 2Ki 17:25; Jos 13:1-7. From this it appears that the destruction denounced by Jehovah on the Canaanites was intended primarily for them in their collective and public capacity, not for the individuals. The individuals, in so far as they submit, Jehovah will allow, as individuals, to live; and to live, in so far as they remain heathen and enemies, for the purpose of preventing the wild beasts from getting the upper hand and diminishing the number of the people of Israel, which as yet is far too small to subdue the wild beasts, and the wildness of nature in general. The higher races of mankind are still indebted for this service to the lowest races throughout the five continents. Even savages constitute still a sort of barrier against what is monstrous in nature, which without them would lapse into wildness. These Canaanites serve this purpose only as being incorrigible. In proportion as nature is reclaimed, they sink away. It was therefore not the fact that these individuals continued to live in Israel, but that the Israelites mingled with them, which led to ruinous consequences. Comp. Judges 1, 2.
Exo 23:31. Set thy bounds.Vid. Gen 15:18. The Red Sea on the souththe sea of the Philistines, or Mediterranean Sea, on the westthe Arabian desert on the east (Deu 11:24), the Euphrates on the north. These ideal boundaries are assured to the Israelites, in so far as they conduct themselves in relation to the heathen according to the ideal standard. Forming alliances with the heathen and recognizing their political existence would not of itself be actual apostasy, but it would be a snare to the Israelites through which they would be drawn into idolatry by way of false consistency in the policy of toleration. The lesson is to be applied even at the present day. The several precepts are given by Knobel, p. 241.
Footnotes:
[1][Exo 21:8. The Hebrew here, according to the Kthibh, is , and if this were followed, we should have to translate with Geddes, Rosenmller and others: so that he hath not betrothed (or will not betroth) her. The Kri reads , unto him or unto himself. This yields much the easiest sense, and is especially confirmed by the consideration that of itself means, not betroth, but appoint, destine. Followed by the Dative, it may in the connection convey the notion of betrothal; but used absolutely, it cannot convey it.Tr.]
[2][Exo 21:13. cannot mean deliver, and no object is expressed. It is therefore unwarrantable to render, with A. V., deliver him, or even with Lange, let him accidentally fall into his hand. The object to be supplied is the indefinite one suggested by the preceding sentence, viz. homicide.Tr.]
[3][Exo 21:17. , though generally rendered curse in A. V., yet differs unmistakably from in being used not merely of cursing, but of evil speaking in general, e.g. Jdg 9:27 and 2Sa 16:9. The LXX. render it correctly by . And this word, where the passage is quoted in the New Testament, is rendered by the same Greek word, viz. Mat 15:4.Tr.]
[4][Exo 21:23. The Heb. reads , lit. with judges or among judges. Some render unto the judges; others before the judges; but the preposition does not naturally convey either of these senses. The A. V. probably expresses the true meaning: with judges, i.e. the line being judicially imposed.Tr.]
[5][Exo 22:29. Literally: thy fullness and thy tear. The phrase ripe fruits is objectionable as including too much; liquors as suggesting a wrong conception. The first refers to the crops generally, exclusive of the olive and the grape, from which oil and wine, the liquid products (tear), were derived. Cranmers Bible renders, not inaptly: thy fruits, whether they be dry or moist.Tr.]
[6][Exo 23:5. The rendering of A. V.: and wouldest forbear, is utterly untenable. Not less so is the rendering of by help. The simplest explanation assumes a double meaning of , viz. to loose, and to leave. We might borrow a vulgar phrase, and read: Thou shalt forbear to cut loose from him, thou shalt cut loose with him. De Wette and Murphy attempt to avoid the double meaning by emphasizing with. Thus: Thou shalt forbear to leave it to him: thou shalt leave it with him. But this is a nicety quite alien from the Hebrew.Tr.]
[7][The reasons are thus stated by Keil: If the language in Exo 21:9 is referred to the son, so as to mean, when he takes to himself another wife, then there must be assumed a change of subject of which there is no indication; but if we understand the language to mean that the father (the purchaser) takes to himself another wife, then this precept ought to have been given before Exo 21:9.Tr.]
[8][This explanation of the order of the verses can hardly he regarded as satisfactory. In fact, any attempt to discover deep metaphysical or psychological reasons for the order and number of these laws is open to suspicion as implying a degree of subtlety and regard for logical order which was quite alien from the Hebrew spirit.Tr.]
[9][Viz. that the omission of the direction, he shall surely be put to death, implies that his punishment was something milder; as does also the spirit of the precept in Exo 21:21.Tr.]
[10][According to whom, the Egyptians punished all murders with death; the Greeks punished all murders, but punished the murder of a slave only by requiring certain expiatory rites; the Roman law, however, until the time of the emperors, allowed masters to treat their slaves as they pleased.Tr.]
[11][See also Smiths Bible Dictionary, Art. Weights and Measures.Tr.]
[12][I.e., about 60 or 62 cents. Mr. Poole, in the article above referred to, makes the silver shekel = 220 grains, i.e., about 53 cents, or 2 shillings and 2 pence.Tr.]
[13][The difference, says Keil, l. c., cannot be explained by the consideration that the animal slaughtered or sold was lost to its owner, while yet it may have had for him a special individual value (Knobel), for such regard for personal feelings is foreign to the law, to say nothing of the fact that an animal when sold might have been regained by purchase; nor by the consideration that the thief in that case has carried his crime to a higher point (Baumgarten), for the main thing was the stealing, not the disposition or consumption of the stolen object. The reason can have lain only in the educational aim of the law, viz., to induce the thief to think of himself, recognize his sin, and restore what he has stolen.Tr.]
[14][This is a mistake. Knobel translates: If God makes (one) a malefactor, (i.e. if the court decides that a misdemeanor has been committed), then he shall restore double to his neighbor. And in opposition to the translation. whichever one God condemns, he shall restore double, he says, How could the plaintiff be condemned to make restitution, if he, even though the complaint was ungrounded, had yet taken nothing from the other?Tr.]
[15][The majority of interpreters (like the A. V.) regard as referring to the beast, not the borrower. Knobel explains thus: If the beast was not merely lent out of kindness, but let for pay, the loss comes upon the hire by the receipt of which the owner is paid. In fixing the hire he had regard to the danger of the loss, and, when the loss takes place, must content himself with the hire. So Keil. The explanation of Knobels above referred to by Lange, is a second one, evidently not preferred by Knobel, but merely stated as possible, especially in view of the fact that everywhere else is used of men.Tr.]
[16][Knobels conjecture is that instead of (and a poor man) we should read (a great man)since in Lev 19:15 it is the mighty who is not to be honored, and partiality to the poor was not to be anticipated, and needed not to be forbidden. Keil replies that this is sufficiently answered by the fact that the same passage has a command not to respect the person of the poor.Tr.]
[17][Hitzig l. c. holds that means the new moon of the month of green earsto which Knobel replies that in that case the phrase time appointed would be superfluous; that the Hebrew expression, if means new moon, would have to be rendered new moon of the green earsa very improbable translation; and that according to Lev 23:6 the festival was to begin on the fifteenth day of the month, i.e., at the time of the full moon.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS
The same subject as in the former Chapter is pursued through this. Here is a further explanation of the social duties and obligations, as comprised in the second table of the law, given on Mount Sinai: of thefts, of trespasses, of borrowing, of fornication, of witchcrafts, and idolatry, and various other commandments.
Exo 22:1
Luk 19:8
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Minor Legislation

Exodus 21-22
We have just heard the ten words. They deafened us For a time we could not sufficiently discriminate between the accompaniments and the words themselves, for they were all blended in a most majestic and solemn music. Immediately following the ten words we find the almost endless details relating to human conduct and society which fill these chapters. The details are called “judgments,” and they were spoken by the Lord whose voice was heard in the great thunders of Sinai. It is the same Lord; but how different is the voice! What a quiet tone pervades the utterance of the judgments! Was it really so quiet? or quiet only by contrast? What voice would not seem to be quietness itself after the reverberations of the thunder that shook the mount of God? In the one case, we have what we may term a very agony of legislation; in the second, a tranquil conversation or a private instruction. The figure which suggests itself instantly to the mind upon reading the twentieth chapter of Exodus and those chapters immediately following, is the figure of a torrent succeeded by a river. In the commandments we have a cataract rushing with infinite force; in the judgments we have that same cataract softened and quieted down into deep fluent water. If in the commandments, distinctively so called, we see the Sovereignty and Majesty of God, in the judgments we see the Fatherhood and gentleness of the Lord. In the commandments he stands far away from us, and drops upon the staggering earth syllables of lightning that make men afraid, hence the people said unto Moses, “Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us lest we die.”
Some voices need to be accommodated to the hearing that is infirm. The great thunder cannot be borne seven days a week. To hear it now and again is a sacred and memorable event; but we were not made so frail are we constantly to be addressed by thunder and tempest. As if God had heard the request, he gave Moses the instruction which fills these two chapters. The tone of this minor legislation, if it may be so called, is full of Divine care for Divine work. The provisions of this code relate specifically to life. They are, as it were, commandments which God addresses to himself and which he then remits to the people. He will take care of everything he has made; nothing escapes his attention. He did not make the eye for nothing, or the ear as an exercise of his power for the gratification of his vanity. Every hair of the head is claimed by him who made it. “If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.” We can trust this legislator, he cares for the serving man, for the serving woman. What price does he put upon the smitten and perished eye? Liberty! In truth, he values his creatures highly. Not one day’s rest, not one week’s remission from labour, not one year’s holiday; but liberty! “And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.” What a singular balance! In the one scale a tooth, wickedly struck out, cruelly injured; in the other scale liberty! Surely, the injured man has in some sense the best of it. Yet only in a local and narrow way: for truly interpreted, nothing can compare in value with anything the Lord God has made. The Maker charges highly for all his works. You must not trifle with your own eye, with your own tooth, with your own fingers, they are God’s. “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?” Are you still under the narrow baptism that teaches that a man’s eye is his own, or his tooth, or his hand, or his ear? Into what baptism have you been baptised? Not into the baptism of Christ, if you are trusting to these base sophisms. “Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord.” We have nothing that we have not received. We are not our own; we are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, which is Christ’s. Whilst men are careless about the body, they cannot be careful about the soul. You cannot be careful about one part of God’s work and careless about another. A great argument sets in here. We must watch its majestic construction and prepare for its gracious and solemn application. In these two chapters everything goes down before manhood. The master has a writing by which he claims some property in the servant, but that covenant goes down before the manhood of the person who is held in temporary servitude. Man first, institutions next. “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Nothing you can build up around man is so precious as the man himself. This is the central truth of Divine revelation. In fact this explains everything which makes up the mystery and the singular characteristic of the Bible. Philosophers endeavour to render in some brief and memorable formula the result of all investigations, here is one which will serve our purpose in the meantime. The value which God sets upon man is the key-thought of the Scriptures. He begins now with some solicitude about the eye, and the tooth, and the limb, by-and-by, who can tell what he will say? These are but alphabetic signs, symbols, suggestions, who knows what literature he will work out of these few initial signs? We must watch critically and religiously the outgoing and whole issue of these, comparatively speaking, insignificant and trivial beginnings. There is nothing trivial in heaven. All little laws are ruled by laws greater than themselves. This also is a principle in the Biblical philosophy, if we neglect it we shall come speedily and hopelessly into great moral confusion. You may be narrowly right and broadly wrong. You may be operating by a little and temporary law at the expense of an eternal and irreversible statute or judgment Divine. Said the tempter to Christ, “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” It is right to have the “things”; there is nothing whatsoever wrong in the temporary proprietorship of the things of earth and time. The law quoted “All these things will I give thee” is right enough within given limits. What is the greater law that over-reaches this, swallows it up? That greater law is, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” All gifts, all possessions, all rights, interests, institutions, expedients, understandings, covenants, must be held in obedience to that sovereign and all-absorbing law.
The Divine care of the body is the beginning of a still wider and grander care. In the Old Testament the Lord could only begin with the body; any other speech would have been out of time, and, being out of season, would not have been understood. Its utterance would have created a perplexing mystery in the mind of man, and therefore would have led to all manner of misconception and misadventure. So the Lord begins by promising men land, and if the term land is not enough, he adds, the land is “flowing with milk and honey.” The ancient man heard these words and understood them. Had he been promised a new realm of thought, a new imagination, a higher universe of dreams, he would not have understood the appeal. God promised his ancient ones length of days, the only promise of the kind they could have understood. The world was not then prepared for the great word Immortality, Eternal Life. So the Lord must begin according to the infancy of his pupils. They were but children; they would be pleased with milk and honey, and broad lands, long long life. That was not the Divine meaning. The Lord could only rest for a moment in such a tabernacle as that. He never puts up a tabernacle without meaning a temple; he never offers land without meaning heaven, or length of days without meaning immortality. Blessed are they who have the inner eyes to see, in the little covenant written with ink, the beginning of a greater covenant which cannot be written, for no sea could hold ink enough nor would the firmament be broad enough to write the amazing stipulation.
If we could read these judgments regarding the body and society aright, we should feel that the Legislator must go farther into spiritual regions and into the most profoundly solemn religious issues. Reading along this line, given in these chapters, we become prepared for further communication. There is a spirit in man, and that spirit says we cannot rest in such judgments as these; we feel that these judgments must of necessity he but beginnings. The Atonement is in the very protoplasm of things; the Cross is in creation. We have too sharply and narrowly cut things into pieces as if they were not related to one another. Hear, oh Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord, and the law is one, and creation is one, and the ox, and the ass, and the bird, and the dog, and the wolf, and the worm, all these are parts of an infinite quantity. The Atonement is not an after-thought, an arrangement which the infinite Mind made to meet a temporary necessity. This is the meaning of “foreknowledge,” and “predestination,” and “election,” and all the words which to some minds have been so grim and terrible. The very first thing that God did contains in suggestion and possibility everything he can ever do. Could we seize that thought we should be at rest! God can do but one thing. Had we the eyes to see and the ears to hear things innermost and eternal, we should know that God’s first word was also his last. “I am Alpha and Omega.” When God said, “Let there be light,” he said all he has ever said or can ever say! The rest is detail; the rest is explanation given to infantile and backward minds. Constituted as we are, we require bulk as well as quality. God must not be too concise for our dense minds: he must put his word into a thousand shapes and utter it in a thousand tones before some of us can begin to understand that he has actually spoken at all. How lost we have become in the bulk, in the quantitive department of revelation, not knowing that when God said, in the first chapter of Genesis, “Let there be light,” he had no more to say. Everything is in light. It chases the darkness, it shows things as they are, it develops capacities and completes actions and uses; it is the revealer, it is as the Spirit of God amongst us. Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. When light comes and the darkness flees away, we shall be in God’s bright heaven.
There is an undoubted law of evolution in what may be called the Bible view of Providence. Find out that God cares for any one thing he has made, and all the rest of his Fatherhood is involved in that one act. Such is the argument of Jesus Christ; he said: “God cares for oxen.” That involves the whole evolution of the Fatherhood. Said Christ: “Not a sparrow falleth to the ground without your Father,” if so the Atonement is there; the whole mystery of the Cross is in that vigilance of God. Said the Saviour: “The very hairs of your head are all numbered,” if so, the Atonement is the culmination of that elementary principle, care, ministry on the part of God. Grand is the view of evolution from a scientific point. It is a noble and majestic thought. Say that God created molecule or germ, requiring the most powerful microscope which man can construct or detect; or say that it is too minute to be brought within the power of any microscope yet constructed; say that out of that all the rest came by persistence of force by what law you please it fills the mind with a nobler wonder, it constrains from the enlightened soul a higher yet profounder adoration. You but increase the mystery of the Godhead and the majesty of his government.
It is so with the great question of Providence, law, and care for man. Given, that God cares for the least thing he ever made that he asks for it, claims it and you have in that assumption all the sphering out of ministries of care, and watchfulness, and love; yea, in God’s claiming any leaf of the forest he ever made, any insect of the air he ever created, or brought into being by processes we cannot describe having assumed that, you have involved in that assumption Atonement, Providence, Resurrection all the mysteries of the gospel. God does not stop at points. The Lord’s system of things is not incoherent and unrelated. The mystery is beyond all words. Yet when we say “God over all, blessed for evermore,” we use a form of expression which relieves the heart which is burdened with holy gratitude. Man is puzzled by details yet man will persist in plunging into the very middle of the Bible as if he could read it in that way. Man seems but in rare instances to have the power of setting himself right back at a proper point of view and seeing the movement of God, so far as the human family is concerned, in its totality.
So we read the commandments one by one, and ask if we have obeyed this or that. We have just seen men priding themselves upon pet virtues and upon special commandments which have never been violated; we have endeavoured to expose that sophism. The commandments are one; if we have broken one, we have broken all. Thus condensed may all things be, yet out of that condensation may all things rise as universes out of molecules, constellations out of quantities too small for microscopic recognition. This is the abbreviation of the judgment; this is bringing things back to the single point by which everything must be criticised and determined. We cannot be profound scholars in this book if we are reading it verse by verse, if we are building our life upon chapters and verses. The very breaking up of the Bible into this form is only for preliminary and infantile purposes. The Bible is one, a line, a flash of light, a tone, a spirit; it is not to be quoted in the last result; it is to be breathed; it is to be lived. Oppose the Bible! They do so who do not know it. Revelation is the indestructible fact, could we but come into the sanctuary of things and weigh them with the golden balances of the Divine appointment. Follow not those who, having found isolated texts or curious discrepancies, suppose that they are in a position to assail the citadel of revelation and overthrow the temple of faith, blind leaders of the blind! “they will fall into the ditch”!
How bold a book is the Bible! What other book cares thus for man? God always looks after his child. He will have such arrangements made as never to allow the supreme value of man as a Divine creation to be ignored. Given that sublime conviction and acknowledgment, then you may have your temporary arrangements of high low, employer employed, master servant, and the like. But all these little laws, necessary for a society in a process of education, must submit themselves for periodical criticism and judgment to the supreme law. One is your Master, One is your Judge. What book, let us ask again and again, cares so much for man as the Bible does? Not one. Keep it in your families, it will keep the father in his place, and the child in his place, and give a blessing to each. Keep it in your politics, it will teach men to do unto others as they would have others to do unto them. Keep it in your business, it will burn your false measuring rod and destroy your unequal balances, and be just to persons on both sides of the commercial counter. Hold up the Bible; read it in the right tone; distribute the emphases with the inspiration wrought in the soul by the Holy Ghost; let the Bible itself in its own language, in its own way, in its own spirit, be heard, circulated, understood; and even yet we may rescue it from the hands of the conjuror, tear it away from the hands of the priest, and make it God’s own word to God’s own children.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

Bye-laws

Exodus 21-23
Amongst these bye-laws there are some sayings which may be considered hard, and on reading them we may ask in almost plaintive and despairing tones, “Who is sufficient for these things?” There are also some out-of-the-way responsibilities, which only Divine wisdom and justice could in the then state of society have imposed. We must not permit ourselves to lose the religious philosophy and the religious beneficence of the Mosaic legislation by going back upon it with our Christian instincts and culture. We must forget all we have ever learned in the Christian school, and think ourselves back into the comparative barbarism of the age. Then we shall see a light above the brightness of the sun, and feel round about us an influence which cannot be satisfactorily explained without taking into account the possibility of supernatural existence and Divine sovereignty. We shall lose the whole meaning of ancient writings, so far as their religious philosophy is concerned, if we compare them to their disadvantage with Christian standards and the advanced civilisation of the day in which we live. Critically examined, fibre by fibre as it were, this is not crude legislation; there is nothing rough and ready in this distribution of offices, duties, and obligations. This legislation is, on the contrary, highly spiritual in its assumptions, and full of sublime tribute to the nature which is addressed. The dignity of law pre-supposes the dignity of man. Little laws for little creatures, great laws for great beings that is the philosophy of the Bible system. Looked at, therefore, narrowly and critically, we shall find that, however crude in appearance may be some of these bye-laws, the substance under them, and of which they may be said to be the mere phenomena, is a holy quantity, a Divine substratum, nothing less than God, the Eternal Creator and Sovereign.
Without attempting to go through all the bye-laws, we can touch them here and there with sufficient distinctness and sympathy to understand the whole scheme of which some parts are here quoted.
“And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” ( Exo 21:18-19 ).

Are our little personal strifes noted in heaven? The answer is: Yes, every one of them. But can men strive together? Properly looked at, that would seem to be the harder question of the two. Coming suddenly upon a line of this kind, we should exclaim, in surprise, “The assumption is impossible. We must begin our criticism of a statement of this kind by rejecting its probability, and, that being done, there is no case left. How can men strive together? Men are brothers, men are rational creatures, men recognise one another’s rights, and interests, and welfare; society is not a competition, but a fraternal and sacred emulation; therefore, the assumption that men can strive together is a false one, and, the foundation being false, the whole edifice totters down.” That would be fine theory, that would be sweet poetry, it might almost be thrown into rhyme, but there are the facts staring us in the face. What are those facts? That all life is a strife, that every man in some way or degree, or at some time, begrudges the room which every other man takes up. The tragedy of Cain and Abel has never ceased, and can never cease until we become children of the Second Adam. Great degrees of modification may, of course, take effect. The vulgarity of smiting may be left to those who are in a low state of life who are, in fact, in barbarous conditions; but they who smite with the fist are not the cruellest of men. There is a refined smiting a daily, bitter, malignant opposition; there is a process of mutual undermining, or outreaching, or outrunning, in the very spirit of which is found the purpose of murder. But mark how beneficence enters into the arrangement here laid down. Not only is the man who smote his brother to pay for the loss of his brother’s time; that would be a mere cash transaction. There are men ready enough to buy themselves out of any obligation; a handful of gold is nothing. Their language is, “Take it, and let us be free.” That would be poor legislation in some cases, though heavy enough in others. To some men money has no meaning; they have outlived all its influences; they are so rich that they can bribe and pay, and secure silence or liberty by a mere outputting of the hand. But the beneficence is in the next clause, “and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.” The man must be made as good as he was before, therefore he must be inquired about; he must be taken an interest in; he must become a quantity in the life of the man who injured him, and, however impatient the man who inflicted the injury may become under such chafing, the impatience itself may be turned to good account. Some men can be taught philanthropy by only such rough and urgent schoolmasters.
“If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death” ( Exo 21:28-29 ).

In the one case provision is made against what we term an accident, and accidents are treated within their own narrow limits; but from accident we pass to purpose. The ox was “wont to push with his horn in time past,” the ox was known to the owner to be an unmanageable ox; notice had been given to the owner of the temper of the ox; the ox, in short, had won for itself a bad character and reputation. If the owner allowed such an ox to go where danger and injury were possible, the owner was not released on the plea that an accident had occurred: he was held guilty of manslaughter. Is that ox still living? Yes. Is it possible that there are men to day who have oxen “wont to push with their horns,” and who have killed ten thousand men, and are yet permitted to live and carry on this work of devastation? Do not fritter away the meaning of the injunction by fixing on the literal term, ox. The meaning is not to be confined within any one definition; the great solemn meaning is this: If your trade, occupation, method of life, is inflicting injury anywhere, and you have been made aware of it, you are responsible for the injury that has been done, and you cannot throw off that responsibility. It was not the ox that did it, it was the owner of the ox. Guilt comes home to man. How stands the case? Each must answer for himself. The case applies to ministers of the Gospel, and teachers of every kind of doctrine. If a man preach any doctrine that poisons the life of the hearer, that degrades his best ambition, that narrows and diminishes his life’s quantity, that fills him with discontent, peevishness, distrust, and jealousy; and if that preacher has been made aware of the effects of his doctrine, he is responsible for all the heart-ache, for all the up-breaking of life, for all the poisoning of health, and, at the last, hell will be too good a lot for so huge a murderer. The same applies to all men who lecture upon platforms, or who issue vicious books or other literature from the press. Whoever is guilty of the propagation of ideas that injure life, that impair its majesty, and that crush its best endeavours, is a murderer, and he must be held liable for the consequences of his deed. I fix the charge thus particularly upon those who are in the spiritual and intellectual function, that I may the more broadly and pungently suggest the lesson to every man in every other sphere and line of life that he may apply the doctrine to himself. This is the Divine doctrine: it is the rational doctrine, it is the right doctrine. There is nothing so supernatural about this as to cause us to resent it on the ground of its being supermundane, too lofty for us to realise. Reason is satisfied; conscience says “Amen”; the just heart rises up and says, “The judgment is true and righteous; let it stand.” But what a revolution would be created in all teaching, in all commerce, in all social relations, if this one bye-law, respecting the “ox wont to push with his horn,” were carried out this day!
“If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep” ( Exo 22:1 ).

That is the only way of getting at a thief. You cannot reason with him. He dismissed his reason before he committed his felony. He had first to strangle his reason; he committed murder in the sanctuary of his soul before he committed theft in the fields of his neighbour. What then is to be done with him? He must be made to feel the folly of theft; he must be made to feel that theft is a bad investment; he must be made to feel that he has played the fool even in the excess of his cleverness. The thief would be made to know what dishonesty is, when for the one ox he must pay five in its place. He could have evaded an argument; he could have doubled upon a covenant, and have quibbled about the ambiguity of its terms; but he could not shuffle out of this four-square arithmetical arrangement. Five oxen for an ox, four sheep for a sheep; and by the time the thief had played at that game two or three days, he would have put on the garb, at least, of an honest man!
“If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution” ( Exo 22:6 ).

This is right. The Bible really builds upon granite bases; there is nothing merely fanciful in this legislation. This is sound common-sense, and common-sense in the long run wins the esteem and confidence of the world. No man may trifle with bread. Bad enough to burn down any kind of property; but to consume stacks of corn is to commit murder with both hands; to light the standing corn when it waves in the fields is to thrust a knife, not into one heart, but into the very life of society. How can restitution be made? It cannot be made. You cannot replace corn; money bears no relation to corn; corn is not an arithmetical quantity. Destroyed bread is destroyed life. Who destroys bread? He who makes poison of it; he who turns it into a drink that takes away the reason and deposes the conscience of men. He who holds back the bread-stuff until the time of famine that he may increase his own riches by an enhanced market value is not a political economist, unless, under such circumstances, a political economist is a heartless murderer. And if it is wicked to set fire to corn, is it a light or frivolous matter to set fire to convictions, faiths the bread-stuff of the soul? Is he guiltless who takes away the bread of life, the bread sent down from heaven? Is he a pardonable incendiary who burns down the altar which was a stairway to the light, or reduces to ashes the Church which was a refuge in the day of storm?
“If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him” ( Exo 23:4-5 ).

Man never imposed that law. That is not a trick of human wisdom. It is too profound, too exacting, too full of implications of the noblest kind to have been invented by human nature. Who would not take vengeance upon his enemy’s ox? Who would not hamstring the bullock? Who would not be pleased to see his enemy’s ox going astray, running furiously mayhap along the wrong road? Who would not felicitate himself on such an occurrence, and think with cruel gladness about his enemy’s disappointment and loss? But the other picture is more vivid still: “If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden.”. The enemy himself would be present personally or representatively, because the ass is not unburdened but burdened; he is, therefore, upon an appointed road and journey. Who would not rather taunt his enemy with the petty disaster and tell him to send for his friends to help him, and not to his hated and hating ones? “Who is sufficient for these things?”
But this is Judaism? It is humanism. But this old law is abolished? No, never can be abolished. It is one of the very laws which Jesus Christ came to “fulfil.” Who can do it? To help the cause of a friend would be a pleasure, but to lift up the burden from the back of the ass of an enemy tears us in pieces: tests our quality. Nor can we do it in a mere law-keeping spirit. We know that to keep this law we must be above the law; grace must have begun its redeeming and inspiring ministry in our hearts before we can keep this law in the perfectness of its meaning. We have all opportunities of doing honour to this law. Our enemies need help to day. The man who spoke basely about us may need bread at our hand at this moment; his trade is in a bad way, though a good trade in itself. We could bring custom to his hand, and help him out of his embarrassments. If we hesitate to do so we must no longer bear the Christian name. Do release Jesus Christ from the responsibility involved in such reluctance, or in such disobedience. First let him go! We cannot love Christ and hate an enemy.
But is not sentiment now supplanting law? Have we not left the marble halls of justice, and entered a chamber decked with coverings of tapestry? Certainly not. Read on:
“Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause” ( Exo 23:3 ).

There is no mere sentiment in that. The meaning is: A man is not to be excused because he is poor. The effect of the law is, that a man is not to be treated with mere pity on the ground of his poverty; the judge is not to say “If you had been a rich man you would have been punished, but being a poor man we take pity upon you.” When a man stands before the law, he stands neither rich nor poor; he stands as one who appeals to the law of right; he is there as a criminal: let him prove his innocence. So the Bible is not softly sentimental. It has not one law for the great, and another for the small, one ordinance for the rich, and another for the poor; it is exceeding broad, it is impartial, it has in it the elements and the guarantees of complete security.
And is it all law hard, iron, pitiless law? Is all life reduced to a schedule of regulations an infinite placard of times, seasons, appointments of a merely hireling kind, so much equivalent for so much labour? Read on:
“Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou earnest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty): and the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in thy field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field” ( Exo 23:14-16 ).

There is to be feasting as well as law-keeping; there is to be a recognition of the Lawgiver as well as a continual attempt to obey the letter of the law. There was to be a feast of memory the liberation from Egypt there was to be a feast of firstfruits, and there was to be a feast of ingathering. When men put the sickle into the wheatfield there was to be a feast unto the Lord. Fifty days were supposed to elapse between the putting in of the sickle and the full ingathering of the harvest. At the end of the fifty days, there was to be a feast of ingathering, a looking up into heaven, a recognition of the Divine and supernatural element in life. They whose faces had been towards the earth, and whose hands had been put out in daily labour, were to look up to heaven and stretch out the hands to the skies, and to say by attitude and by voice, “We are not the hirelings of men: we are the servants of the living God.” We need these festivals; we need the holy day; we are better for touching one another in Christian companionship and worship. We ought to be the more righteous, the more lofty, for spending one hour in the house consecrated to Jehovah’s praise. We cannot keep the law in all the fulness of Christian obedience until we have been with Christ, and learned of him. It is not our enemy’s ox that is in distress, but our enemy himself. We are not called upon to study the mere framework of regulated society, and to attend to enactments and stipulations which will keep that society in skeleton-outline together; we have not come into a political society, but into a Christian brotherhood. We are not to be kept back from smiting only that we have outlived long ago but we have to come into the spirit of forgiveness, largest pardon, multiplied, heaped up, forgiveness and pardon yea, here we may resort to all tautology of expression, if in the infinite redundance of our speech we do but give some feeble hint of the passion of love that has been created in our hearts by the Spirit of the Cross of Christ.
Thus the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, and Christ came not to abolish the law, even about ox, and ass, and theft, and burning of standing corn, but to fulfil it, to glorify it, to carry it up to higher meaning, and thus to consolidate the New Society his Church and make it infinitely precious and secure.
We look with some curiosity upon all these endless laws and exactions, and think ourselves well quit of a mechanism so detailed and vexatious. Herein we rejoice before the time. We are not quit of one of them. Is not our life also set in a marvellous network of law? If all the laws which are continually operating upon us and impoverishing us by their taxation could be set down in a book, we should marvel with exceeding astonishment at the mechanism under which our own boasted liberty is breathing. We call ourselves free, and rejoice that all the exactions of the past are done away, and that now it lies very much with our own will to say when life’s work shall begin and end and of what it shall exactly consist. We enjoy no such liberty. We cannot put our foot down upon any point of the earth that is not throbbing with the energy of law. Not a hand can be put out that is not entangled in the meshes of never-ceasing ordinances of life and nature. Cause and effect proceed eternally. The seedtime and the harvest are still linked by bonds that cannot be sundered. The evil-doer finds a thorn in his pillow every night. The oppressor is made to feel that he himself is under domination. Every morning has its duty, every night its sacrifice; the whole year round is but one unceasing opportunity for self-expenditure and self-control. Our liberty consists in our being able to do all the law requires with a steadier hand and a loftier purpose. The law itself is not susponded. Not one moment less of time does God demand; not one penny less of gold, not one thought less of spiritual consecration and intensity of mind; only by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we have come to such complete devotion of soul that what aforetime was grievous is now pleasant, and what at the beginning was almost impossible has now become the chief delight of life. Never suppose that law has been lessened in its force or in its details; the effort is wholly on the other side, that we ourselves have been blessed with greater power and have been brought into sweet consent with the Divine purpose.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

Negative Commandments

Exodus 22-23
We cannot read the book of Exodus without being struck by the number of things which we are not to do. These detailed and emphatic prohibitions we may regard under the name of negative commandments. We are not left to ourselves in any instance to determine a case of doubt; from beginning to end the Divine voice is clear, and direct, and final in its tone. These negative commandments are interesting upon every ground; but perhaps especially so as revealing human nature to itself. When we hear a command to do, or not to do, we hear in that command a voice which startles us into a new consciousness of our own nature and quality. To be told not to do certain things is now considered equivalent to a kind of affront assuming it possible that we could do such things as are thus forbidden. We are annoyed, we are excited in a hostile way, at the very thought of it being supposed that we could have done these things which a high legislation attempts elaborately and penally to forbid. We must, however, think ourselves back to the time of day at which all these negative and positive commandments were given. We do not find them in the New Testament, because it is there assumed that we have attained that moral sensitiveness and that spiritual responsiveness which render it entirely unnecessary that we, with many centuries of civilisation culminating in our experience and history, should be forbidden to do certain things.
Take some instances, and use them especially as showing what human nature is apart from Divine direction and continual and gracious supervision.
Who, for example, would imagine that such a commandment as this could be given to any people who profess to know anything about the true God?
“Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him” ( Exo 22:21 ).

Is it possible to vex a stranger? Does not the very fact of his being a stranger entitle him to generous hospitality? to a kind construction of his mistakes? Ought we not to be ready to turn his ignorance into wisdom and his inexperience to certainty of knowledge? Yet is it not true that man can vex a brother man who is a stranger and oppress him? Is it not done every day? Is it not one of the tricks by which we live? Do we not pride ourselves upon being too quick for the stranger, or knowing more than he knows? and do we not turn our knowledge to our own advantage and to his personal loss? Why, in this command from Heaven, we have the beginning of the great Gospel of Christ. To God there are no strangers. And to ourselves there would have been no strangers had we been faithful to God. Why all this strangeness? Simply because we have become estranged from the Father of us all. The strangeness began between man and God, not between man and man, and not until we are right with God can we be right with one another. We may make arrangements for momentary convenience; we may consult public sentiment and study the bearing and influence of public doubts in relation to one another; but we cannot be as one heart, and one soul, until we are one with God through Jesus Christ his Son. You cannot permanently tinker the world; there is no rent in it that can be filled up with material at man’s command. The disease is desperate, vital, and only God, the Physician that is in Gilead, can find the healing for the disease infinite and unspeakable. But the command is a looking-glass. A man looking into it may see himself, see what he would do under given circumstances. The assumptions of the text are impeachments; put those impeachments into words, and how stands the great accusation? Thus: you would vex a stranger if you could; you would oppress a stranger if you could do so with impunity. You perhaps think you would not, but the deepest reading of human nature gives this as a result of the study of the human constitution that none can be so savage as man; there is not a beast in the field or in the forest that can equal man in cruelty. We talk about savage beasts and cruel and fierce creatures made to devour one another; but there is no cruelty so terrible, so unsparing, so pitiless, as the cruelty of the human heart. That is the accusation; we must leave the proof to human consciousness and to human history. We understand how men revolt from the suggestion, and how they cover up their passions by paying compliments to own their tenderness and sensibility; but the mischief is the subtle and tremendous mischief is that our very tenderness may be a calculation, our very tears may be shed as an investment for our own benefit. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.”
Akin to this commandment there is another. The tender words are these:
“Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child” ( Exo 22:22 ).

This is the Gospel of Christ in the book of Exodus. This is God the Father. There is a majestic solemnity in his voice that is full of ineffable tenderness. This is the Father of all. Would men afflict the widow, or the fatherless child? The answer must be frank and direct, and that answer will be in the affirmative. Who speaks for the widow? God; and the orphan? God. Then be cheerful, take heart again; the Orator who speaks for you is God. There are no fatherless children in the deepest sense of that term. As for the fathers we have had after the flesh, they themselves were children, as were their fathers and all their ancestors. There is only one Father. Let us take hold of hands and make a great ring round the family centre and say holding each tremulously, lusty manhood, thriving childhood timidly and lispingly, “Our Father which art in heaven.” Given the time when men shall say so with a sound heart, with an undivided mind, with a loyal and constant affection, and then find the angel who can tell where earth ends and heaven begins. Wondrous it is yea, more and more so that there should be found any friendless people, poor lonely destitute people, who do not love the Bible. Find me in it one text that does not warn the rich man to take care, for he is standing upon a very slippery place, and when he does slip he plunges a long way down. Find one text in all the glowing volume that rebukes the poor, that is hard with the struggling, that smites the penitent man in the face, that forbids a little child to trouble the Jehovah of the universe. Weakness, poverty, helplessness, homelessness, disease, pain, hunger, thirst these are thy clients, thou Servant of us all.
Changing the place altogether, you will find another commandment of a tone somewhat startling and surprising.
“Thou shalt not revile the gods… of thy people” ( Exo 22:28 ).

This is a passage difficult to understand and impossible fully to explain. In other places, we find idols broken, temples erected to forbidden names thrown down, as by great thunders, and lightnings, and strong winds blowing contempt from eternity upon the petty creations of the debased religious imagination. Yet consistently with all this there is to be no reviling of gods. This is a subtle lesson. Mock no man’s religion point out the inadequacy of it, show the vanity of the small idolatrous form, remark with pungency, if you please, upon its grotesqueness and its helplessness; but confine your remarks to the visible thing. That can be treated in this way with obvious reasonableness; but the religious instinct lies deeper than you have yet realised if you have been confining your attention to the mere forms of idol worship. The religion is beyond the idol, above it, below it, away from it. The idol itself is a mere symbol to typify the inexpressible infinite. You do not convert men by mocking their convictions, by reviling them on account of their mistakes. Do what you please with the opprobrious idol lift it up to prove how little it is in weight; set it down to show how helpless it is in your hand; throw it over to show that it cannot defend itself; but you have not treated the whole case in its entire scope and reality by thus treating the merely visible form of a religious conviction. Men may be mistaken in their convictions of a religious kind; show them the truth; live the truth; illustrate the possibility of living perfect, lofty, noble lives; create a religious wonder in the observer of your life as to the range of motive by which your conduct is mellowed and impelled; so live that you cannot be accounted for, except on the basis that you are living, moving, and having your being in God. Thus, and not by fluent mockery will men be drawn from their own mistakes to partake of the convictions which are as rational as they are beneficent. There is no poor suppliant crying to idols and praying to the empty and mocking wind that does not prove by that very act the mysterious, the Divine origin of the heart that can thus make such egregious mistakes. They are the mistakes of a Divine creation: they are not the petty mistakes of human ignorance. In the plunge of idolatry there is the apostacy of one almost God. It is a rush into a darkness from which any mere beast would flee in terror. Do not mock conviction; do not revile mistakenness of apprehension. Do what you please with the mere idol and with the transient ceremony; be even angry with these, yea, destructively angry, but find out in them an instinct, an emotion, a mystery to which you must address yourselves, not in the language of taunt, but in the language of sympathy, with a burning desire to redeem from prostitution an instinct which makes humanity.
“Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil” ( Exo 23:2 ).

Can a multitude do evil? One soul may stray, but can a whole multitude go away from the light and make itself houses in forbidden places? Can the majority be wrong? There is a sense in which the majority is at this moment against Christ. I would not count it so; rather would I see Christ in many disguises; but I should know it to be the very Christ, whatever the disguise which concealed the dignity. Christ has been with men when men did not know it; their eyes have been holden that they should not see him; he has revealed himself to men under many concealments of a strange kind. There is more Christ in the world than we possibly may suppose. God is infinite; God fills all space, and yet takes up no room; God mingles with thinking, civilisation, action, and yet the human factors in all the mysterious action may be unaware of the Divine presence and impulse; but there has been an unveiling, a sudden revelation of the reality of the case. We are waiting for that millennial disclosure. What if some day God shall look right in the face of the very people who have been doubting or denying any relation to him, and should thus convince them that all the time they have had nothing that they have not received from himself? and what if they should also be surprised by the recollection of a warmth of the heart, a glow of the soul, they had never felt before, and should find in that fire the presence of the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob? God may be working in you without your knowing his name, or without your being at present able to trace the Divine action, as distinctly separate from human thinking. We are waiting for the day of revelation, the morning of surprise, when we shall stand before God, saying, “Lo! thou wast with us and we knew it not. How solemn is every place which thou hast made!” But when the multitude does evil, we are not to follow it; we must stand still and protest against the evil; in other words, we must see the evil and not the multitude. Always put the emphasis upon the right word, in order to encourage yourself in good action and in straightforward conduct. The emphasis is not altogether upon the word multitude, it is upon the word evil; and we ought to ask God to be enabled so to pronounce the word evil as to feel revolt from everything which it implies and suggests.
Looking at these negative commandments, are we not surprised at the wonderful knowledge of human nature which they reveal? We cannot get away from them; we cannot plant ourselves right in front of them and say, “This is a misinterpretation of human nature.” We cannot return the dreadful look of the eyes that shine out of this revelation; we feel that we are in the hands of a Legislator who knows us altogether, and who speaks to us not according to transient and accidental phases of human nature but in the totality of our being. This is the strength of the Bible, this is the vindication of the commandments: that they root themselves in our constitution, that they know us, and that we can only escape their pressure by telling lies to our own souls. Herein is the inspiration of the Book. Its portraiture of man is a portraiture without a blemish or a flaw. He who drew man so completely in every lineament of his image, in every emotion and sensibility of his nature, must have made the man whose portrait he has delineated.
These commandments also show the true relation of God to the human race. He is the Ruler. He enjoins, he forbids; he never comes with apology from the skies, or palliation of sternness, but with the majesty of right. Yet there is one little word in the midst of all these commandments full of sweetest gospel a word that might have been found in one of the four Evangelists and that might have formed the text of every sermon preached by Apostolic wisdom and eloquence. The sentence you find in the twenty-second chapter and the twenty-seventh verse: “For I am gracious” a word we cannot do without We cannot explain it, yet we feel that it fills all space in human necessity and consciousness which no other word can fill. This is the defence of the commandments: that they are not arbitrary expressions of mere sovereignty of will and position in the universe, but that they, though commandments, are expressions of grace, mercy, pity, love. The very Spirit of the Cross is in the commandment. Sinai is but one phase of Calvary.
We try to evade many of these commandments on the plea that they were not addressed to us. It is a hollow plea; it is in fact a lie. We turn away from the commandments, saying, with an explanatory gesture, that we are not Jews. We are, if we are in Christ; if we have any love for Christ; if we feel that we must follow in some fashion the way and method of the Son of God. The Christian is a Jew plus. Christianity is the fruition of Judaism. The blood of the One Priest that abideth for ever and hath an unchangeable priesthood gathers up in its redness all the meaner blood which typified and prophesied its shedding. As well may the oak say “I am not an acorn” as Christianity say “I am not Judaism.” We cannot have the two Testaments torn asunder as though they had no relation one to the other. The New Testament would have been impossible but for the Old Testament. The song uttered in heaven is the song of Moses and the Lamb. “The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Yet Jesus Christ said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” If he did not recite these negative commandments, it was because he came to put within us a Spirit, a Paraclete, that should abide for ever, whose presence was a law, whose operation in the soul was a daily instruction in righteousness and wisdom, in love and pureness, in which he may stand above the commandments and treat them as an obsolete letter who has entered into the Spirit of Christ, and who is breathing in his daily life the obedience to which earlier men had to struggle through many an effort, and in struggling towards which they effected many a mournful failure. God never tells us to trust our moral instinct; God never assumed that the child could find its own way through a universe which it had darkened by its sin. He wrote down every line, made it complete; he wrote a detailed and complete specification of duty, service, action, and worship; if any of us have outlived the mere letter and need it no more, praised be God for a spiritual education which has delivered us from the bondage of the letter and led us into a nobler bondage of the heart, a sweet servitude of the soul, a glorious slavery, a glorious liberty.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XII
THE COVENANT AT SINAI ITS GENERAL FEATURES
Exo 19:1-24:11

The covenant at Sinai is the central part of the Old Testament. There is no more important part than the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, coupled with all of the transactions that took place while the children of Israel remained there. We first discuss, in catechetical form, the covenant in its general features.
1. Describe the place of the covenant.
Ans. The name of the place is sometimes called Sinai and sometimes Horeb. Moses himself calls it each one. Horeb is the range of mountains of which Sinai is the chief peak. So you speak truly when you say that the law was given at Horeb and at Sinai. But that there is a distinction between the two, you have only to see that at Rephidim, where the rock was smitten, it was a part of the high range, and is called, in Exo 17:6 , the rock in Horeb; and yet the succeeding chapters show that they had not yet gotten to Sinai. In describing the place, then, the first thing is to give its name, which is the range of mountains called Horeb, whose chief peak is Sinai. The second idea of the place is that this range of mountains, including Sinai, is situated in Southern Arabia between two arms of the sea, and the triangular district between those two arms of the sea is called the Sianitic peninsula. The third part of the answer in describing the place is this: The immediate place has a valley two and one half miles long by one and one-half miles wide, perfectly level and right under Sinai. Sinai goes up like a precipice for a considerable distance, then slopes toward the peak, and Overlooks a valley and a plain, for it is a long way above the level of the sea. This valley is the only place in all tin country where the people could be brought together in one body for such purposes as were transacted here. Modern re- search has made it perfectly clear that this valley right under Sinai is the place for the camp, and you can put three millions of people there, and then up the gorges on the mountain sides there is abundant range for their flocks and herds.
2. What are the historical associations of this place, before and since?
Ans. It was called the Mount of God before Moses ever saw it, and there was a good road into these mountains prepared by the Egyptians in order to get to certain mines which they had in the mountains of Horeb. Since that time we associate Horeb with Elijah when he got scared and ran a the way from Samaria to Mount Sinai a big run; he was very badly scared; and what he was scared at was more terrible than a man; a woman was after him. He was not afraid of Ahab, but he was afraid of Jezebel. Now, Sinai is associated with Elijah; and I believe that Jesus went to Sinai, an I am sure Paul did. He says when he was called to preach, “I did not go to Jerusalem for the people there to tell me now to preach, but I went into Arabia.” He stayed there three years, and, as I think, he came down to this place when the Law was given, in order to catch the spirit of the occasion of the giving of the Law from looking at the mountain itself and there received the revelations of the new covenant which was to supersede the covenant given upon Mount Sinai. Long after Paul’s time the historical associations of Sinai are abundant. Many of the books that teach about the Crusades have remarkable incidents in connection with the Sinaitic Peninsula and particularly this mountain. If you were there today, you would see buildings perpetuating Mosaic incidents, and on this mountain is a convent belonging to the Eastern, the Greek church, rather than to the Roman church; and in that convent Tischendorf found the famous Sinaitic manuscript of the New Testament, which is the oldest, the best and the most complete. There are associations in connection with Sinai which extend to the fifteenth century and even after.
3. What was the time of the arrival of these people at this mountain?
Ans. The record says, “In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the game day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.” In chapter 16 it says: “And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt.” They left Egypt on the fifteenth and were in the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth of the next month, one month’s time; but while it is only one month in time, it covered parts of two months. “Now in the third month”, but just where in it the record does not say they reached Sinai. Another question on that directly.
In discussing this subject, I shall have the following general heads: (1) The Preparation for the Covenant; (2) The Covenant Itself; (3) The Stipulations of the Covenant; (4) The Covenant Accepted; (5) The Covenant Ratified; (6) The Feast of the Covenant. That will be the order of this chapter.
4. What was the proposition and reply?
Ans. In chapter 19 the proposition for the covenant comes from God in these words: “And Moses went up unto God, and Jehovah called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel [here’s the proposition]: Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: For all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” On those terms God proposes a covenant. Now, let us see if the people agree to enter into covenant with God: “And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which Jehovah commanded him. And all the people answered together and said, All that Jehovah hath spoken we will do.” Moses then reported back to God what the people said here was a mutual agreement on the part of the people enter into a covenant (Exo 19:7-8 ).
5. What was the method of Jehovah’s approach in order enter the covenant?
Ans. The theophanv. “Theonhany” means an appearance of God. God says to Moses, in describing how he will come, that he will come in a cloud; that they won’t see him; but they will see the cloud and hear his voice; an appearance of God, some of it visible, a cloud that envelops God, and voice Heard.
6. What was the preparation for this covenant they se to enter into?
Ans. The first part of it was to sanctify the mountain “Sanctify” means to set apart, or to make holy; to sanctify a mountain is to set it apart. That mountain which was to be the scene and place of this great covenant between God and the people was set apart, things set upon it, fenced about’, with the prohibitions of God: “Don’t you come too close I it; don’t touch it.” Just as God fenced the burning bush when he said to Moses “Don’t, draw nigh; stop, you are enough; take the shoes off your feet; this is holy ground.” The next part of the preparation was to sanctify the people. This was done ceremonially. They were ceremonially purified, as is expressed in these words: “Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto Jehovah to gaze, and many of them perish. And let the priests also that come near to Jehovah, sanctify themselves, lest Jehovah break forth upon them.”
7. What was to be the signal which would bring the people close to that mountain and put them into the presence of God?
Ans. It was a trumpet sound, described on this occasion in such a way as to thrill the people hearing the sound. This sound was prolonged, and thus it waxed louder and louder and louder a fearful, unearthly sound. No human lips blew that trumpet earth never heard it before; the earth will hear it again only one more time, and that when Christ comes to judge the world; he will then come with the sound of a trumpet.
8. What was to be the time when God and the people, after this preparation, should come together?
Ans. On the third day.
9. Describe Jehovah’s coming on the third day and compare Deu 4:10-12 .
Ans. The record says, “And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; and all the people that were in the camp trembled. And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. And Mount Sinai) the whole of it, smoked, because Jehovah descended upon it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. And when the voice of the trumpet waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice” (Exo 19:16-19 ). In Deu 4:10-12 , Moses describes it again, referring to that great occasion, the theophany, and he uses this language: “The day that thou stoodest before Jehovah thy God in Horeb, when Jehovah said unto me, Assemble me the people, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the heart of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness. And Jehovah spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of words but ye saw no form; only ye heard a voice.” “Form” or similitude is a likeness; “you heard a voice, but saw no likeness or similitude of God.”
10. Who was the mediator of this covenant between God: and the people?
Ans. You will notice that the people and God do not come together directly. In the book of Job he says, “There is no daysman who shall stand between me and God, touching God, touching me.” If God had revealed himself visibly to the people and directly, the sight would have killed them, for they were a sinful people. In order to get to them, then, there was a necessity for a middleman, a mediator; one who should approach God for the people and approach the people for God. Now who was this mediator? Moses.
11. What part did the angels take, and how signified?
Ans. In the later books of the Bible we learn that this law was given by the disposition of angels and was signified by that trumpet, the trumpet served to summon the whole army of God’s angels.
12. When again will it sound, and why?
Ans. When the judgment day comes: “He shall come with the sound of the trumpet”; and when that trumpet sounds, its object is not to wake the dead, according to the Negro theology, but to marshal the angels, to bring them back with him.
13. What are the great lessons of this preparation?
Ans. Let us get these clearly in our minds:
(1) That this is to be a theocratic covenant. I want you to get the idea of this, viz.: The difference between a democratic covenant (made with all the people), an aristocratic covenant (made with the nobles, the best of the people) and a theocratic covenant, one in which God alone makes the stipulation. The people don’t prescribe anything. God tells everything that is to be done, either on his part or on their part. All the people have to do in a theocratic covenant is to say “yes” or “no”; to accept or reject.

(2) That it was a mediatorial covenant) not a covenant directly between God and the people, but a covenant in which a daysman goes between, a mediator to transmit from God to the people, and from the people to God.

(3) The third great lesson is that the people, in order to enter into a covenant with God, even through a mediator, must have the following requirements:

(a) They must make a great voluntary decision (Exo 24:8 ). You remember when Elijah summoned all the people to meet him on the mountain with the prophets of Baal, and had the test as to who was God, and the prophets of Baal were to try to bring proof that they represented God, and he was to prove that he represented God; that he proposed to them that day to make a great decision: “How long halt ye?” “Halt” does not mean to “linger,” but to “limp”; a halting man in the Bible is a “limping” man. “How long hobble ye as a limping man between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him; if Baal be God, follow him” (1Ki 18:21-40 ). This is the lesson: That what the people must do was to make this great decision. Moses could not make it for them. They were brought up there; they had plenty of ground on which to stand; that valley was two and a half miles long and one and a half miles wide; and God could speak loud enough for them to hear him, and anything they said he could hear. “Now, you people, will you make this decision?” And they said, “We will.”

(b) The people must have fear toward Jehovah. “You are not entering into a covenant with a dumb idol, but with the living God.”

(c) “And you must have reverence. Don’t get too close to the divine presence; don’t try to break through that fence; don’t touch the mountain; do not presume to be intimate with Jehovah. You must have reverence.”

(d) The next requirement was holiness; and that holiness is a sanctifying by the ceremonial purification. The last requirement

(e) is obedience. “Will you obey? Will you do it.?” Suppose now, to give you, the idea perfectly, I ask again: What are the great lesson from this preparation? Theocratic covenant; lessons of the mediatorial covenant; What the people must do: decide, fear God, have reverence, be purified, obey God. That discusses the first part of the preparation for the covenant. We will now discuss, in general terms, the covenant itself.
14. Give proofs that what we call the giving of the law of Mount Sinai is a covenant as well as a law.
Ans. The evidence of its being a covenant is presented by the meaning of the word “covenant,” viz.: agreement between two, under stipulations binding either party. That is a covenant; and the ratification takes place by the sacrifice of a victim. All the covenants of the Old Testament are of that kind. As a proof that this is a covenant, God, the party of the first part, makes the proposition to enter into the covenant; then the people agree to it; and next, God prescribes, what he will do, and what they must do. These are the stipulations of the covenant. Then the people must accept formally after they have heard all the stipulations, and then comes the ratification. In Exo 24:1-8 , we have an account of the ratification. In this chapter I shall speak of it more as a covenant than as a law.
15. What are its three constituent parts, binding the people?
Ans. Whatever mistakes you make, do not make a mistake in answering this question. It is just as clear as a sunbeam that this covenant entered into on Mount Sinai has three distinctive, constituent parts:
(1) The moral law (Exo 20:17 ), the Ten Commandments, the first part of the covenant.

(2) The altar, or law of approach to God (Exo 20:24-26 ; Exo 23:14-19 ). In case you cannot keep the moral law, the law of the altar comes in.

(3) The civil or national law, (Exodus 1-23:13). Now, what are the constituent parts of the covenant? Moral law, law of the altar, or way of approach to God, also the civil, or national law. The civil law of judgments covers several chapters: they are all a part of this covenant. Now, let us separate those ideas:

(1) Relates to the character of the person;

(2) to the way you can approach God, if you fail in character;

(3) to the civil, or national affairs. Israel was a nation. This is not Abraham making a covenant; it is not Moses making one; it is a nation entering into a covenant with God, to be his treasure, his peculiar people. And I venture to say that everything else in the Pentateuch, whether in the rest of the book of Exodus, in Leviticus, in Numbers, or in Deuteronomy, everything is developed from one or other of these three things. All Leviticus is developed from the law of the altar; it is just simply an elaboration of that part of this covenant they entered into with God, and was enacted when they were at Sinai. All that part of Numbers up to the time they left Sinai (first ten chapters) is a development of one or another of these three parts. Every new enactment which comes in Numbers, every restatement occurring in Deuteronomy must be collocated there with the moral law and with the altar law, or with the national law. I had the pleasure at Brownwood, Texas, at the request of the school, the churches, and the people there, to deliver a lecture on Leviticus, so as in one lecture to give those people an idea of the book. And the first thing I wrote on the blackboard was: “Everything in the book of Leviticus is developed from that part of the covenant given on Mount Sinai which relates to the law of the altar, or the way of approach to God.”
16. In what prophecy is it shown that this covenant given on Mount Sinai shall be superseded by a new covenant with different terms?
Ans. Jeremiah is the prophet. The passage commences: “In the last days, saith the Lord, I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, not like the covenant I made with them when I led them out of Egypt.” Jeremiah then shows how different the terms of the new covenant shall be from those of the covenant given at Sinai (Jer 31:31-34 ).
17. Where in the New Testament are the terms of the two covenants contrasted in this form: “Do and thou shalt live,” and “Live and (thou shalt) do”?
Ans. You are bound to see that there is a sharp contrast between the new and the old covenants. If this old covenant says, “Do in order to live,” and the new one says, “Live in order to do,” you must be alive before you can do; and they then start in different directions, keep going away from each other, one going up, the other going down. Where in the New Testament is that thought brought out? (Rom 10:5 ff.)
18. Where in the New Testament is the contrast between the two covenants expressed in allegory?
Ans. Gal 4:24 ff.
19. What three books of the New Testament best expound the covenants as contrasted?
Ans. Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews (in that order), particularly, Hebrews. And now comes a question of chronology.
20. What is the support for the Jewish tradition that this covenant was enacted the fiftieth day after the Passover sacrifice in Exo 12 ?
Ans. You know the Jews always have maintained that the law given on Mount Sinai was on the fiftieth day after the Passover was celebrated; just as in the New Testament the Holy Spirit was given on the fiftieth day after the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Alexander Campbell makes a great point of that: The giving of the new covenant law must be on the fiftieth day after Christ’s crucifixion. You could make it a proof this way: Exo 12 says that this month Abib, later called Nisan, i.e., after the captivity it was so called, shall be the beginning of the year to you, and on the fifteenth day of that month they left Egypt, not on the first day of the month, but on the fifteenth, which was the beginning of the new year. The Passover was slain on the night of the fourteenth, and hurriedly eaten. On the fifteenth they marched out. Chapter 16 tells us that on the fifteenth day of the next month, which would be about a month after they left Egypt, they were then in the wilderness of Sin, not very far from Mount Sinai, but only one month gone. Now, there are several stations at which they stopped before reaching Sinai, and they could be at Sinai and waiting three days, devoting the time to preparation, and making the giving of the law on the fiftieth day. The argument can be made out so that the time covered from the leaving of Rameses in Egypt to the arrival at Sinai would be less than two months, as fifty days does not equal two lunar months; there must be fifty-six days to get two lunar months, even.
21. The next question bears on the stipulations of the covenant. Where do we find the stipulations of what God would do for his part?
Ans. What God proposes to do is expressed in Exo 19:5 : “Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” Then in Exo 23:20 he enumerates what he will do. “I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. . . . Mine angel shall go before thee . . . and I will cut off the opposing nations . . . and ye shall serve Jehovah your God, and he will bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee . . . I will drive these nations out from before thee. . . . And I will set thy border from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness unto the river [i.e., Euphrates].” In other words, he will do what he promised to Abraham he would do, as to their boundary. That is what he proposes to do.
22. What must the people do?
Aug. Keep those three parts of that covenant, having fear and reverence toward God, and toward his angels and toward Moses, the mediator. That is their part of the covenant.
23. Cite the passage to prove that the people agreed to enter into the covenant when proposed, and cite the passage showing their acceptance of it when stated. Pause Key (Key: Enter!)
Ans. – The covenant having been stated in all of its parts, God propounds to the people the plain question: “Will you accept it?” thus: “Moses told the people all the words of the law,” i.e., the Decalogue, with the judgments, or the civil law, and the law of the altar, or the way of approach to God. And Moses wrote these words and said to the people, “Will you do them?” They said, “We will.” It is very plain that after they had heard they accepted. And the next thing is the ratification.
24. Describe the ratification.
Ans. – I quote it: “Moses rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto Jehovah. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant [wrote those in a book; what both parties had obligated themselves to observe] and read in the audience of the people; and they said, All that Jehovah hath spoken will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which Jehovah hath made with you concerning all these words” (Exo 24:4-8 ). That was the ratification.
25. What are the developments in the rest of the Pentateuch from each of the three parts of the covenant?
Ans. – The last chapter of Exodus, all of Leviticus, a large part of Numbers are devoted to the development of the Law of the Altar, Deuteronomy, to the Ten Commandments; a large part of Exodus and some of Deuteronomy, to the Civil Code.
26. In what part was the gospel germ?
Ans. – In the Altar, or Law of Approach to God.
27. What three books are specially commended?
Ans. – Boardman’s Lectures on the Ten Commandments; Butler’s Bible on the Giving of the Law at Sinai; and the) Presbyterian Catechism on the Ten Commandments.
28. What is the sign, or token of the covenant? Cite scripture.
Ans. — Circumcision. Gal 5:2 .
29. How long after the call of Abraham and the promise to him, was this?
Ans. – Paul says, “Four hundred and thirty years.” See Gal 3:17 .
XIII
THE COVENANT AT SINAI (Continued)

Scripture: Same as in preceding chapter
1. The first question is based on Exo 24:7 : “And he took the book of the covenant.” What is this book of the covenant?
Ans. All that part of Exodus 19-24-11. Moses wrote it then.
2. How may this book be regarded and what is its relation to all subsequent legislation in the Pentateuch?
Ans. You may regard the book of the covenant as a constitution and all subsequent legislation as statutes evolved from that constitution. The United States adopted a constitution of principles and the revised statutes of the United States are all evolved from the principles contained in that constitution. So that this book of the covenant may be regarded as a national constitution.
3. Why, then, is the whole of the Pentateuch called the law?
Ans. Because every part of the Pentateuch is essential to the understanding of the law. The historical part is just as necessary to the understanding of the law as any particular provision in the constitution, or any particular statute evolved from the constitution. The history must commence back at creation and go down to the passage over into the Promised Land. Very appropriately, then, do the Jews call the Pentateuch the torah, the law.
4. What other Pentateuchs?
Ans. The five books of the Psalter. When you come to study the psalms, I will show you just where each book of the psalms commences and where it ends. They are just as distinct as the five books of Moses. Another Pentateuch is the fivefold Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul; and as Moses’ Pentateuch is followed by Joshua the man of deeds, the Gospel Pentateuch is followed by Acts, which means deeds.
5. Where and when was a restatement and renewal of this covenant at Sinai?
Ans. In the book of Deuteronomy. There not only had been a breach of the covenant in the case of the golden calf, which was forgiven, but there came a more permanent breach at Kadesh-barnea when the people refused, after God brought them to the border, to go over into the Promised Land, and they wandered until all that generation died. Their children are brought where their fathers would have been brought, and it became necessary to renew that covenant. You find the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy just as you find them here.
6. State again exactly the three parts of the covenant.
Ans. (1) The Ten Commandments, or moral law (Exo 20:1-17 ); (2) the law of the altar, or the way of approach to God, in case the Ten Commandments were violated; (3) The judgments, or the civil law. Now from those three parts, the constituent elements of the covenant, are evolved everything, you might say, in all the rest of the books of the Bible. Leviticus is all evolved from the law of the altar; very much of Numbers and Deuteronomy is evolved from the civil law. Now before I consider Part I, that is, the Decalogue, I want to make a brief restatement of some things in the preceding chapter. The first is the covenant. A covenant is an agreement or compact between two or more parties with expressed stipulations showing what the two parties are to do. The parties to this Sinai covenant are: God upon the first part, and the people on the second part, with Moses as the daysman or mediator. In the preceding chapter we had the following outline:
A proposition upon God’s part for a covenant and the people’s acceptance of that proposition; A preparation for entering into that covenant; The covenant itself as expressed in three parts; The stipulations of the covenant as shown in the last chapter; The covenant ratified; The Feast of the Covenant.
Now we take up Part (1) the moral law; and we are to consider that moral law first, generally, then specifically. I can, in this chapter, get into only a part of the specifics of it.
7. What do we call Part I of this Covenant?
Ans. We call it the moral law; or, using a Greek word, the Decalogue.
8. What are the three scriptural names?
Ans. The Bible gives (1) “the ten words”; that is what “decalogue” means, “the ten words spoken.” God spake all these words. (2) “The tables” or “tablets,” whereon these words were written, and (3) “the tables of the testimony.” When this written form was deposited in the ark of the covenant, from that time on they are called “the tables of the testimony.”
9. Give the history of these tablets.
Ans. They were written on tables of stone by the finger of God; that was the original copy. Moses broke them when the people made a breach of the covenant in the matter of the golden calf. God called him up into the mountain again and rewrote these Ten Commandments; that was the second copy. Both of these God wrote. These two tables that God wrote on were deposited in the ark when it was constructed, and that, too, before they left this Mount Sinai. The last time they were seen, you learn from 1Ki 8 , was when Solomon moved that ark out of the tabernacle into the Temple which he had built. He had it opened and in there were the two tables of atone on which God had written. The probable fate of them is this, that when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, he may have taken the ark of the covenant with the things in it as memorials of his victory, just as when Titus destroyed the Temple he took away the sacred things of the Temple; the seven-branched golden candlestick was carried in triumph into the city of Rome.
10. Divide these ten words first into grand divisions, and then into subdivisions.
Ans. The grand divisions were two tables, one of them were the commandments relating to God, i.e., man’s duty to God, and the other were the commandments expressing man’s relation to his fellowman. The subdivisions are these: all that part of Exodus from Exo 20:2-17 is divided into ten parts. Those are the subdivisions of the two tables. We will note them precisely a little further on in the comments for Exo 20:1-6 .
11. What is the Romanist method of subdivision and what are the objections thereto?
Ans. The Romanists make one out of the first two commandments, and two out of the last. We say that the First Commandment is, “Thou shall have no other gods before me,” and they say the first command is: “I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, etc.,” to the end of the Second Commandment.
12. What other ten words and how do you compare them?
Ans. The ten words of creation and the ten Beatitudes spoken by our Lord. We compare them by a responsive reading.
13. How and where does Moses compress the ten into two?
Ans. I will give the compression. In one place Moses says, “Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” In another place Moses says, “Thou shalt love their neighbour as thyself,” compressing the first table into one and the second table into one (Deu 6:4 f; Lev 19:18 ).
14. What was the occasion of Christ’s quotation of Moses compression?
Ans. An inquirer came to him propounding this question: “Which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus, quoting Moses, says, “This is the great and first commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.”
15. What New Testament scripture shows the solidarity of the law?
Ans. The solidarity of a thing means the inability to touch any part without touching it all; and if you violate one commandment you violate all the Decalogue, and if you are guilty of one you are guilty of all. The place in the New Testament where it is said, “He that is guilty of one point in the law is guilty of all,” is Jas 2:10 . That passage expresses the solidarity of the law.
16. How does the New Testament compress the ten into one?
Ans. This passage is: “All the law is fulfilled in this one word, love,” (Gal 5:14 ).
17. Is this giving of the law, orally or in writing, the origin of the law? That is, was there no law before? Was it the origin of the law; and if not, what is it, and why is it?
Ans. This is not the origin of the law, but it is an addition. The Scriptures say, “The law was added because of trans-gression.”
18. Then, what is law?
Ans. Law is that intent or purpose in the mind of the Creator, concerning any being or thing that he causes to be. Now, the intent that he had in his mind, the purpose, when he made man, is the law of man. The intent or purpose that he had in mind when he created the tree is the law of the tree. That law may not be expressed. It inheres: it is there in the nature of the thing. It may be expressed in the spoken commandment or in the written one. But you do not have to wait until the word is spoken or till the spoken word is written in order to have law. For example, Paul says, “Death reigned from Adam to Moses.” But death is the penalty of the law, and “where there is no law there is no transgression.” Now, if law didn’t exist before given on Mount Sinai, why did those people die?
19. If the spoken or written law at Sinai was added because of transgression, show more particularly and illustrate its purpose, both negatively and positively. Now, if a law exists in God’s mind and in the nature of the things that he creates, why did he afterward speak that law and have it written?
Ans. (1) Because of transgression. We now show the mean ing of that, and illustrate it. We have the answer in this form: The purpose of speaking this law and of having it written negatively, was not to save men by it. They were lost when it was developed. But first it was to discover sin. Sin is hidden and there was a law, but it was not written or spoken. Now, God put that law in writing so that it could be held up by the side of a man, and his life, and his deeds to discover sin in him. Paul says, “I had not known sin except by the law.” (2) This sin by the law is discovered to the man in order to convict him of this sin. Paul says, ” I was alive without the law once [that is, before I knew it I felt like I was all right], but when the commandment came sin revived and I died. I saw myself to be a dead man.” In the next place, (3) it was to make the sin, which looked like something else before the man had the law, appear to be sin, as Paul says in his letter to the Romans, and also, to make it appear to be “exceedingly sinful.” Now to illustrate: Suppose on a blackboard we were to trace a zigzag turning line. That is the path a man walks; he is in the woods and thinks he is going straight, and he feels all right. Now you put a rule there, which is exactly straight, and just watch how that zigzag walk of his is sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other. The rule discovers the variations; it makes it known. Now here is (4) another purpose of the, Law: To incite to sin in order that the heinousness of the exceeding sinfulness of sin may be made manifest. Now, maybe you don’t believe that. Paul says it is so, and I can give you an illustration that will enable you to see just how it is so. I never saw one of the Baylor University boys put his foot on top of the mail box at the street corner, but if the faculty should pass a law that no boy should put his foot on that mail box, some boy’s foot would go on top of it, certainly. Now, that boy may have imagined all along that he was law abiding. But put a standard there and he wants to test it right away. I illustrate again: A little boy once saw a baldheaded man going along up the side of a hill, and the boy said, “Go up, thou bald head! Now trot out your bears.” He had been told that if he was irreverent toward an old, baldheaded man, as the boys were toward Elisha, the bears would tear him to pieces.
20. Explain carefully the Christian’s relation to this law.
Ans. It is a part of the old covenant, you say, and we have a new covenant now. Then is a Christian under obligations to keep this law? Is the law binding on you not to kill, not to lie, not to steal, not to commit adultery? We certainly would be extreme antinomians if we were to say that as an obligation that does not rest on us. It does rest on us, but it does not rest on us as a way to eternal life. You see the distinction? The time never will come when it will be right for a man to kill, to steal, to commit adultery, to covet, and no matter who does any one of these things, whether saint or sinner, it is sin. But the keeping of the Decalogue is an obligation upon the Christian because it is in the nature of his being, as when it was spoken at Sinai, yet that is not the Christian’s way to obtain eternal life.
21. What is the form of the statement of the ten words?
Ans. Negative and positive. For some of them: “Thou shalt not”; for others, positive: “Honour thy father,” etc.; but whether the form be positive or negative if it is negative, it has a positive idea attached, and if it is positive it has a negative idea. If it is an affirmation, it is also a prohibition. No matter what the form, it does prescribe certain things and it does proscribe certain things.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

XXIV
GOD AND THE STATE, THE STATE AND THE CITIZEN, THE PROMISES, AND THE RATIFICATION OF THE COVENANT Exo 21:1-24:8

1. What are the lesson and the themes?
Ans. Lesson: Exo 21:1-24:8 . Themes: (1) God and the state; and the state and the citizen, 21:1-23:19.
(2) The promises of the covenant, Exo 23:20-33 .
(3) The ratification of the covenant, Exo 24:1-8 . Having considered Part I of the covenant, the Decalogue, or God and the normal man, and Part II, the altar, or God and the sinner, we now consider Part III, the judgments, or God and the state, and the state and the citizen. This lesson is contained in Exodus 21-23.
2. What is the name of section Exo 21:1-23:19 ?
Ans. This section is called the judgments, or decrees.
3. What is the book of the covenant, and what may it be called?
Ans. The whole book of the covenant, i.e., from Exo 19:1-24:8 , in its three parts and in its ratification, may well be called the constitution of the nation of Israel; and all subsequent legislation in the Pentateuch is but statutes developed from this constitution. The United States has a written Constitution; all the legislation of Congress must be simply enlargements or developments of the fundamental principles contained in that Constitution.
4. How is God recognized in this section?
Ans. He is the author of the state, as he is the author of its antecedents, the family and the tribe.
5. What results from this origin of the state?
Ans. God’s providential government over the nations, counted as units, and their responsibility to him.
6. How does Paul put it?
Ans. In Rom 13:1-7 , he says: “The powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For for this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God’s service, attending continually upon this very thing. Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
In I Timothy Paul puts it this way: “I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings and all that are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.” The powers, then, must be respected and honoured, and must be prayed for by those having the good of society at heart (1Ti 2:1-4 ).
7. What is extent of God’s government over the nations and the proof from Paul and Daniel?
Ans. It is absolute in authority and universal in scope; so that the ruler or state must perish that despises God, as Paul says in Act 17:24-31 : “God hath determined . . . the bounds of their habitation and decreed that they should seek after him.” Daniel puts it more strongly in Dan 4:10-37 , especially Dan 4:17 ; Dan 4:25 ; Dan 4:34-35 ; Dan 4:37 , where it is affirmed that God holds a nation responsible just as he holds an individual responsible, and that the ruler who does not know God puts himself on a level with the beast, and that he must be disciplined until he does know that the Most High ruleth over the nations of the world, and that the inhabitants of the earth are but as grasshoppers in his sight.
8. From what additional source arises the state’s jurisdiction over the citizen?
Ans. We have just discussed the authority of God over the state. Now the authority of the state over the citizen, apart from God’s having ordained it, arises also from the social nature of man. He is not independent of other men but codependent with them. The ties which bind him to his fellow men are natural, inherent, indissoluble, and cannot be despised with impunity; so that he cannot be self-centered and apart.
9. What was the particular form of state government organized at Sinai and its subsequent changes?
Ans. This particular Jewish state was theocratic in form, God himself was the king of the nation, and in visible symbol dwelt among them. But keep the etymology of certain words in your mind, viz.: theocracy, aristocracy, democracy. That form of government established over the Jewish nation at Sinai was theocratic, i.e., God was the ruler. There were changes in the form of this national government in subsequent ages. The first change took place in the days of Samuel, when the people rejected God as governor and selected, after the manner of the nations, a man to be their ruler (1Sa 8:4-22 Joshua was priest, and the heads of the tribes were the rulers.). This was the establishment of a monarchial form of government, not theocratic; it was thus changed from a theocracy to a monarchy. Subsequently it perished (2Ki 25 ) and the form of government became in the days of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zechariah, a mixture of democratic, aristocratic, and the priestly. That is to say, Zerubbabel was governor, Joshua was priest, and the heads of the tribes were the rulers. This mixture continued until under Herod the Great it again became a kingdom, a monarchy, and from that time, it passed into a provincial government under Roman procurators. Those were the changes in the government; then upon the destruction of Jerusalem they were a scattered people without a king, without an ephod, without a priest, without a temple, without sacrifices, and with no national government; and they continue so until this day.
10. Our present section (Exo 21:1-22:10 ) establishes the general principles on which the state shall deal with what matters?
Ans. – (1) With property in slaves, Exo 21:1-11 ; (2) The sanctity of human life, or criminal law, Exo 21:12-36 ; (3) With other kinds of property, Exo 22:1-15 ; (4) With the stranger, the widow, the orphan, and the poor, Exo 22:21-27 ; Exo 23:5 ; Exo 23:11 ; (5) With cases of seduction, Exo 22:16-17 ; (6) With sins against nature, Exo 22:19 , that mate man with the brute, disregarding the distinction between man and beast; (7) With the rights of neighbor or enemy in the matter of his domestic animals going astray, or found in suffering, Exo 23:4-5 ; (8) With false testimony and bribery, Exo 23:1-3 ; Exo 23:7-9 ; (9) With sins against the first commandments, i.e., making sacrifices to others than Jehovah, Exo 22:20 ; Exo 23:13 ; (10) Sins of necromancy, Exo 22:18 , i.e., wizards or witches ‘that seek to find out the future from the dead or from other sources, and not depending on God for revelation; (II) Sins against rulers, Exo 22:28 : “Thou shalt not curse the rulers of the people,” Exo 23:10-11 , and of the weekly sabbaths, Exo 23:12 ; (12) With God’s rights to his firstfruits of the family, the harvest, the herd, and the flock, Exo 22:29-31 ; (13) The three annual festivals, Exo 23:14-19 ; (14) With cases of eating blood, Exo 22:31 . Man was not allowed to eat meat with blood in it, for the blood is the life thereof. He could eat no meat from which the blood had not first been drained; if an animal died and the blood was still in him, he must not eat of that animal; if a wild beast had killed an animal and the blood remained in it he could not eat that which was slain of the beasts. This section shows that God gives the state power to deal with these fourteen questions; it is not God but the state dealing with them. If one violated the sabbath law, the state could put him to death; if he made a sacrifice to another god, the state could put him to death; if he stole a man and put him into slavery, the state could put him to death.
11. What is evident from the scope and variety of these’ cases?
Ans. From the scope and variety of these judgments it is evident that a theocratic state is a union of church and state, the state having jurisdiction over religious matters, as well &a civil, its magistrates and courts being charged with the responsibility of enforcing under penalties duties toward God as well as duties toward man and beast.
12. What are the conditions of success in a theocratic government?
Ans. These are evident as follows: (1) God alone must legislate; (2) God must be present as an oracle to settle vexing questions; as an interpreter of law; as omniscient to read the heart back of the overt act; as omnipotent to enforce the law; and as infinitely holy, just, and merciful to insure the right legislation and right administration of the legislation; (3) The people must have the heart and will to obey every requirement of his law. If you take away these conditions, a theocratic government is a failure.
13. What are the hazards under present conditions?
Ans. The priest may assume the functions of deity, the legislator to define religion, the oracle to interpret it and then call on the state to enforce it. Since he has not the holiness, justice, and mercy of God, nor his wisdom and omniscience, the state may thus become the slave of superstition, priestcraft and irreligion, and the people the victims of its tyranny. These conditions are when the people’s heart are not right toward God and when they are not disposed to obey him.
14. Cite instances where these hazards have been realized.
Ans. History records many instances of just such priestly usurpation of powers with ruinous results to the people. The whole Romanist hierarchy from its establishment down to the present time is an illustration. The Pope claims to be God’s vicar, in the place of the Holy Spirit; he claims the power to interpret the law; to change the law; he claims to have the two keys and two swords; to keep you out of the church on earth and out of heaven hereafter; to inflict upon you ecclesiastical and state punishment. Those are the instruments, the swords and the keys; the result is that they have determined what is religion, and what they have defined to be religion is not God’s religion. They claim to be the oracles of God; to have sole power to interpret that law, and if you vary a hair’s breadth from what they have said is religion, off goes your head; and in their search for evidence they have established the Inquisition that makes domiciliary visits, investigating family life, putting spies over the most thoughtless expressions, and they claim to arrest and try them, and when they have tried them to call upon the state to execute. The bloodiest pages of history are those of the Romanist usurpation in Spain, in France, in Italy, in Bohemia, in the low countries, in the days of Alva, in all the South American states and in Mexico. Not only is that true, but there ‘were other denominations expressing a union of church and state and with the same powers somewhat modified. When the Puritans came over in the May flower they established a theocracy; their preachers prescribed everything they should do; and according to a statements which has been current, a man was punishable by a fine and by imprisonment if he was found kissing his wife on Sunday. And they pushed their jurisdiction to such an extent that they destroyed the liberty of conscience, whipped Baptist preachers, banished Roger Williams, sold out under forced sale or hasty auction the choice acres of Baptist farms and property in order to get money to build meetinghouses for another denomination, and when that Baptist father, Isaac Backus, went to John Adams, President of the United States Continental Congress, and asked him to use his influence to force Massachusetts to allow liberty of conscience, he said, “You might as well expect rivers to run upstream, and the ocean to dry up and the sun to quit shining as to expect to repeal Massachusetts’ law on that subject.”
15. How does the New Testament hedge against these hazards?
Ans. In two ways: (1) By clearly distinguishing between what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar, rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God those that are his; (2) Especially by its form of church government. There was to be no provincial church government, no district, county, state, national church government; no hierarchy, but each particular congregation was the church of Jesus Christ and having final jurisdiction over its own matters. While there might be district associations, conventions, state or national, for voluntary co-operation, they were not appellate courts over the churches, and hence it would be impossible for the union of church and state with the Baptist church involved. But this New Testament hedging was evaded: (1) By establishing a papal form of government, an autocracy; (2) A prelatical form; as, the Church of England; (3) A federal form of government, like the Presbyterian.
16. What offenses in this section called for capital punishments?
Ans. They say that you may determine the civilization of a people by its code as to blood. If they put people to death for every kind of offense it is a bloody code; if only for a few great offenses, it is not a bloody code. Note in this lesson that there are six causes for which capital punishment would be administered:
(1) For sacrificing to another God; as long as the theocratic government was in vogue a man must be put to death for sacrificing to other gods than Jehovah, because it was treason treason against the state because it belongs to somebody else;
(2) Necromancy; that is a sin against God, in that it seeks to get at the secrets of the future from another source than God’s revelation: “Thou shalt not suffer a wizard or a witch to live”;
(3) Bestial crimes; sins against nature, where the man would mate with a brute;
(4) Stealing a man for slavery; stealing a man’s very life away from him that he may make a slave of him. Now, there are ways discussed in this section by which you could be enslaved. I have not space to go into their details; but they could not steal a man and make a slave of him. The death penalty would always be administered in the case of what is called “slave-stealing,” so largely carried on by the New England States, where as many as 250 ships from a New England town were engaged in the slave trade, and the wealth of a great many of those people up there today was derived from stealing slaves from Africa and selling them to the West Indies and to the United States.
(5) Murder or homicide that resulted from criminal negligence;
(6) In Exo 21:17 , it says, “He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.” So here is another offense calling for capital punishment; and a very remarkable piece of legislation comes into development of that principle. I remember once telling it to Judge Harrison in Waco, my father-in-law. It provides that if a father or mother shall bring a child to the magistrate and say that he is incorrigible; that they cannot do anything with him; he has no respect for them; does not obey them; that he is going to be a terror; he will be awful to the state; they thus bringing him before the magistrate, making that affidavit, that child must be stoned to death by the state. I read that to General Harrison and he said, “Dr. Carroll, you know you would never take your boy there.” While I do not think I would, I certainly have seen some specimens in my time that would have been brought up with great advantage by the state.
(7) Later on we will come to another which is not in this section. A man went out on a sabbath day to get sticks to make a fire to cook some breakfast, and he was put to death. “Thou shalt do no labour on the sabbath day.” “You must make provision for that day beforehand.” There are no exceptions but those of mercy, or necessity, and of worship.
17. In what judgments do the elements of mercy and love to man and beast appear?
Ans. Consideration shown (1) to a stranger; (2) to a widow; (3) to an orphan; (4) to the poor; (5) to animals. They might charge interest for money lent to any Hebrew brother that was well-to-do, but if he was poor they could not charge interest lending him money. Then this reference to the poor in connection with the land, which was to lie every seventh year idle, and, of course, where land was devoted to the culture of cereals like wheat and barley there would be a voluntary crop that year. They were not allowed to harvest that crop at all, but the poor people had the right under this law to enter that field and use that seventh-year voluntary crop. It also applies to the poor in this, viz.: that if he had pawned his cloak, or outer garment, which constituted his bed by night, the pawnbroker was not allowed to keep that garments in pawn overnight, or that man would not have a bed to sleep on; it must be restored to him when night came.
18. What are the promises of the covenant?
Ans. In Exo 23:20-33 are three: (1) That the angel of God’s presence should be with them, and would be their guide to show them how to go and to be their guard to preserve them and to discomfit their enemies on the way to and in the land where they were going. That was one of the great promises of the covenant. The presence of the angel of the Lord was manifest in the pillar of cloud by day and the fire by night, and by his speaking as an oracle when any trouble was brought up to him, and a solution asked.
(2) That God would bless their bread and drink, that is he would give them food and he would give them life: “You shall not be exposed to hunger nor to sickness.” This angel would see to it that a table was set before them; that in the wilderness their shoes should not wear out; that their clothes should not wax old; that there should be no sick people in the camp. What a tremendous blessing that was!
(3) That he would give them all the territory set forth in the original promises to Abraham, extending from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, and from Gilead on the left bank of the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Those are the three elements of the great promises of the covenant. He had to drive their enemies the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jehusites, and the others that held the land all out, but not all at once, for they would not be able to occupy the land, but, mark you, just as they were able to develop the resources of the country.
19. Describe step by step the ratification of the covenant.
Ans. In Exo 24:1-8 , it is treated. Here are the statutes: (1) All the words of the book of the covenant, that is, the moral law, the altar law, and the state law, were repeated very carefully to the people. (2) Then a copy of them was reduced to writing (3) An altar and pillars were erected according to the requirements given in the twentieth chapter. (4) Two kinds of offerings were offered on the altar, (a) burnt offerings, expiatory’, of blood and fire, and (b) the peace offerings, or the eucharist, thank offerings thus were made. (5) The disposition of the blood, one half of the blood flowing from these victims sacrificed was put into basing and set aside; the other half was to be sprinkled upon that altar, and thus the blood of the covenant was put upon the altar. (6) This covenant which has been spoken and written is now carefully read by Moses, item by item, all of them in the hearing of all the people, and they again solemnly agree to make every obligation prescribed for them in that covenant. (7) The sprinkling of the blood on the people. That half that had been set aside in basins, the priests and the Levites took charge of, and with bunches of hyssop moved among the people in every direction (all the Levites engaged in it, as they were afterward established) , and sprinkled that blood on all the people. That was the ratification of the covenant.
I have tried to make the reader see clearly this book of the covenant, beginning at Exo 29 , where was the introduction, the proposition made to have a covenant, and the people’s agreement to go into it, then the preparation for entering it by ratification; next the three parts of the covenant: (a) The Decalogue, or ten words, God’s relation to the normal man; (b) the law of the altar, or approach to God on the part of the sinner; (c) The state and God, and then the state and the citizen. I have tried to make you see these points very clearly. Then the promises bound up in that covenant, and Just exactly with what solemnity step by step that covenant was ratified; and that this was peculiarly a covenant made with the nation regarded as a unit.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Exo 22:1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
Ver. 1. If a man shall steal, &c. ] The Persians at this day punish theft and manslaughter so severely, that in an age a man shall hardly hear either of the one or the other. The Turk’s justice will rather cut off two innocent men than let one thief escape. a
a The Preacher’s Travels, by J. Cartwright.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

a man. Hebrew. ‘ish (App-14).
four sheep. So David Jdg 2Sa 12:6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 22
If a man shall steal an ox, and kill it, [The rustlers] and sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, four sheep for a sheep ( Exo 22:1 ).
You see in those days they were interested in taking care of the innocent party, now something’s gone wrong in our judgments today. We’re interested in the rights of the criminal; we’re no longer interested in the rights of the person who has been victimized by the crime. You’re out of luck. “But let’s guard and protect the rights of this criminal.” Oh, things are getting so bad that I’m afraid that vigilante groups and the KKK are going to arise. Something better happen.
Watching on the news this past week in the Los Angeles area, a woman was walking along the beach and two men started talking with her. Foolishly she went to their apartment, or they forced her, I guess into their van. According to the story, took her to their apartment, and there viciously abused her, raped her, broke her jaw. The neighbors heard the woman screaming and called the police. The police responded to the call. When they came to the door the guy wouldn’t let them in, so they broke the door down, found the woman bound and gagged in a closet beaten up horribly, broken jaw and all.
But now this man is out on parole for raping women. He’s been charged seven times, and is actually out on bond pending charges of rape. But now this whole case is about to be thrown out because the officers really had no right to break his door down, to find out why the woman was screaming and crying inside. They violated his rights, and so all of the evidence, the woman beaten up, her story and everything is no good, because they didn’t say, “Please may I come in and look around inside?” Well they said that, but he said, “No.”
Oh, I’ll tell you talk about rights; what about the woman’s rights? Something’s gone horribly wrong in our whole system. We really shouldn’t call our system of justice anymore, because really there is so little real justice. You say, “How come you’re so much-” Well, we’re into what’s really just. And what God is talking about justice, and not the perversion that we find created by-I better not say it, we’re on the radio.
Now if a thief is caught breaking up, and is smitten that he dies, there shall no blood be shed for him. But if it is daylight, and you catch him; then you should cause him to make full restitution; and if he has nothing, then he is sold for his theft. And if the theft is certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be an ox, or an ass, or a sheep; he shall restore double. If a man shall cause a field or a vineyard to be eaten, and he shall put his animals, and shall feed them in another man’s field; then the best of his own field, and the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution ( Exo 22:2-5 ).
In other words, if we’re neighboring farmers, and you set your sheep over in my field to graze and they’re eating up my field, then I get the best of yours. I can go in and just help myself to the best that you’ve got.
If fire breaks out, and catches in the thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, is consumed; he that kindled the fire shall make restitution. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief is found, let him pay double. If the thief is not found, then let the master be brought to the judges, [The Elohim] to see whether he has put his own hand to his neighbour’s goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, ass, sheep, or raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challenges to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; [or the gods] and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double to his neighbor. Now if a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep it; and it dies, or is hurt, or driven away, and no man sees it: Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he has not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and shall not make it good ( Exo 22:6-11 ).
In other words, if you ask me to keep your ox, and somehow it is stolen or it strays away, then I come to you and I say, “I swear by God, I didn’t touch it. I don’t know what happened to it.” Then you have to accept the fact of my oath that I really didn’t touch it, that I didn’t go ahead and butcher the thing and put it in my locker. So, “Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he did not put his hand to it.”
And if it is stolen from him, then he shall make restitution to the owner thereof. If it be torn in pieces, then I bring you the torn pieces, then I will not have to make good that which was torn. Now if a man borrow out of his neighbour, and is hurt, or dies, the owner thereof being not with it, you shall surely make it good. [If I borrow your horse, and I over work the thing in the heat, then I’ve gotta pay you for your horse.] But if you come with it, and it dies, then I don’t have to pay you anything: because I’ve hired you and your horse, it came for hire. Now if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely endow her, give her the dowry in order to be his wife. And if her father utterly refuses to give her unto him, then he shall pay the money according to the dowry of virgins. Thou shalt not [Now we get a lot of little rules here again with capital punishment, “Thou shalt not”] allow a witch to live. Bestiality is condemned with capital punishment. He that sacrifices unto any god, save to Jehovah only, shall be destroyed. Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry unto me, I will surely hear their cry ( Exo 22:12-23 ).
Now the next couple of cases here God tells how that He will stand up in defense of the weak and of the poor. So be careful. Don’t take advantage, or seek to take advantage of persons that are already disadvantaged.
The tragic thing to me is that so many of the charlatans prey upon people who are already in sad condition. They’re already sort of broke. Here you know, they have ads in the paper, “Earn money in your own home.” They get you signed up on, where you get all kinds of contracts, “Now all you have to do is buy this five hundred dollar machine and so forth, and you can start making all these things, and you’ll have all these contracts. You’ll make so much money.” What you do is you end up five hundred bucks further in the hole than you were, and you’re already in trouble looking for a way to get out. There are people that prey on the people that are already disadvantaged.
I got a letter this week and perhaps if you’re on his mailing list, you got one too. The letter said, “Dear Charles, I’ve been thinking about you lately. While I was here on my knees before God, I was holding your name up before the Lord in prayer. Somehow I feel there might be something wrong. Is there any problem Charles? Write me and tell me about it. Please also enclose a gift, because I’m facing one of the greatest crises of my whole life.” He went on for four pages telling me of the great crisis, and the sacrifices he’s gonna have to make in order to do the great things that God has called him to do.
I wrote him back. I wrote, “Dear”, and I won’t tell you his name, cause you probably got a letter too, and you thought he was just writing to you personally. “Isn’t that neat. I wish I could come and visit you in your home, and sit down and explain to you personally what my problems are.”
I wrote back and I said, “It might be a good idea that you would start teaching the Bible on television, but maybe you ought to read it first. And read second Peter, where he talks about false prophets who through feigned words would make merchandise of you.” I said, “I don’t like your computer letter. I’m insulted by it. You insult my intelligence. They are just feigned words by which you’re trying to get some bucks from me.”
I said, “You say you’re willing to make sacrifices? I was told recently by a Presbyterian pastor in Palm Springs, that you paid seven hundred”, well didn’t tell him how much he paid, but I know, “you paid several hundred thousand dollars for a new home in one of the exclusive areas of Palm Springs, and your son also bought a home of almost equal value in the same area. Are you willing to sacrifice that? If you are, then maybe I’ll be willing to give you twenty-five dollars of my meager salary, but not so that you can live lavishly.”
Oh, I was angry with that letter. I was angry not because he deceived me, because I could see right through the thing. I was angry for all these poor little widows out there on Social Security. It said, “If you don’t have twenty-five dollars, why don’t you see if you can get it someplace, because I’m really desperate.” For all of these poor little widows that are gonna get that, “Dear Mabel, I’ve been thinking about you this week, and as I was in prayer, I had your name here before God. Oh Mabel, I’d love to come to your home and sit down with you right there in your house, and tell you the problems that I have.” Dear little old Mabel is out borrowing twenty-five dollars so she can send it to him, because she doesn’t know any better. That’s the thing that upsets me.
Now when Mabel is hungry and is crying out unto God because she doesn’t have any food, because she sent her food money in response to this plea, God is gonna hear Mabel’s cry. This guy’s in big trouble because God said He hears the cry of the oppressed, and He will respond to it. So God deals now with those that are oppressed, and ooh-this kind of stuff, oh it upsets me. I get taken off their mailing lists in a hurry, because I usually respond to them. I can’t stand it.
David said, “I’ve never seen the righteous forsaken, or God’s children begging bread” ( Psa 37:25 ). What does that make you? They take me off their mailing lists in a hurry. “Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child, if you afflict them in anywise and they cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear their cry.”
And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. And if you lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury ( Exo 22:24-25 ).
These people that are going around and taking away people’s houses, saying, “Well, we’ll loan you money, sign all of these contracts”, and you find that you’ve signed your house away and they sell it out from underneath you. Boy, are these people gonna have to answer before God. It’s horrible the things that are done.
If thou at all take thy neighbor’s raiment for a pledge, deliver it back to him by the time the sun goes down ( Exo 22:26 ):
If you come to me and borrow money because you’re really desperate, and I tell you, “Well what are you gonna give me for a pledge?” “I’ll give you my coat.” Before the sun goes down, I’ll have to give you that coat back, because you see in those days they didn’t have blankets; they used their clothing to wrap themselves up in their coat. That was their covering.
For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: whereby when he’s trying to sleep? and if it comes to pass, he’s cold, and he cries unto me, I’m gonna hear; [For God declares,] I am gracious ( Exo 22:27 ).
The Lord is very gracious towards the poor, towards the oppressed. His ear is open to their cry. Man, if you’re oppressing them, you’re the one guilty of oppressing them, and they’re crying to the Lord because of your oppression, look out. You’re trampling on dangerous ground. I love God for His desire and concern, and care for the poor. I love God because He is gracious, and that He does take care of those who are oppressed, cast down. Oh, how I appreciate God’s graciousness.
Thou shalt not revile the judges, nor curse the ruler of thy people ( Exo 22:28 ).
I’m glad He didn’t say you’re gonna be put to death if you do. But “thou shalt not”, nonetheless. Actually what the New Testament teaches, “Pray for those who are in authority over us”( 1Ti 2:1-2 ). That’s really our obligation and responsibility, pray. I wouldn’t want to be a judge, but neither would I want to be a president. In fact, I wouldn’t want to be in legislation. I wouldn’t want to have to answer for, you know, the stuff that goes on anywhere in government. I’m glad I’m a bondslave of the Lord, and not a-they used to call it what, civic servant? Boy, how we change.
Now thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shall thou give to me ( Exo 22:29 ).
You’re not to delay; you’re not to put off paying your dues to God, the tithes, the firstfruits. You’re not to hold back or delay on that. “Well, if we have enough then we’ll give it to God.” But actually you’re not to delay to offer the firstfruits and the firstborn. Now, God-remember the firstborn in Egypt were killed. So from that time on God claimed the firstborn. Your firstborn son belonged to God. Now if you wanted to keep him, you had to buy him from God. You could redeem him, you could keep him, but you’d have to buy him from God. The firstborn son belongs to God.
That was true of your animals, the firstborn animal always belonged to God. If your cow got old enough to begin to have calves, the first calf belonged to God. From then on they were yours. If you wanted to keep it, actually then you’d have to buy it from God, but your-the firstborn.
Likewise shalt thou do with thy oxen, with thy sheep: seven days it will be with his dam; and on the eighth day thou shalt give it to me. [So let the mother keep it for seven days, the eighth day it belongs to God.] Ye shall be holy unto me: neither shall you eat any flesh that is torn of the beasts in the field; but cast it to the dogs ( Exo 22:30-31 ). “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

The laws of property follow. The section really begins with verse Exo 21:33 of the previous chapter. These laws also began by laying emphasis on the guilt of carelessness. The truth emphasized is that no man must live his life on the basis of selfishness or wholly alone and that wrong inflicted on neighbor by neighbor in the material realm becomes sin against God in the moral realm.
Specific instructions were given on the responsibility of trustees. Within clearly defined limitations, a man is to be held responsible for goods deposited with him.
A group of laws seemingly having no direct sequence or connection follows. Two of them deal with sins of unchastity. Between these occurs a blunt and stem word, “Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.” Humanity has ever had a craving after what sometimes is termed the occult. Invariably such traffic is injurious to life.
A law characterized by great tenderness was enunciated for the protection of the stranger, showing that God hears the cry and avenges the sorrows of any oppressed people.
While the rights of property had been carefully safeguarded in previous words, now the inherent rights of life were shown to be superior. Usury was not to be practiced, and necessary things held in pledge must be restored for necessary use.
Closely following on these laws which make serious demands on men, we have words demanding reverence for God expressed in fidelity to Him in the matter of offerings.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Exo 22:6
In the twenty-second chapter of Exodus the rights of property are defended, and the text before us may be considered as the law of fire insurance under the Mosaic dispensation. The law was a constant lesson to the people on their vast responsibility for the consequences of their conduct. God’s law thus showed that Omnipotence identified itself with every just claim, and would insist on compensation for every wrong inflicted.
I. This ancient law brings into view the general doctrine of liability for the consequences of our actions and neglect. Nothing is more difficult than to raise in most men’s minds a vivid sense of the wide-spreading results of their own character and conduct. They readily acknowledge the responsibility of others, but not their own. Men never take so modest a view of their own individuality as when the object is to set forth the insignificance of their own contribution to the “evil that is in the world.” But such calculations are founded on a gross delusion. The most commonplace sinner has a power of mischief in him which might sadden the blessed as they look at it.
II. The dormant sense of liability for the consequences of our conduct ought surely to be awakened by considering how we hold other men responsible in common life. Society is pervaded by the law of personal responsibility; the weight rests on every head, on every heart. It is the burden of life which every man must bear. Every man’s sphere of action is much wider than he imagines. The punishment of sin always seems to a habitual transgressor disproportionate to the offence. There is not a sinner who will not be astounded when God “sets in order before him” the facts of his case.
III. The right conception of judgment to come is the bringing to the consciousness of the finite the knowledge of the Infinite in this regard. “This hast thou done.” He who subverts the faith or the conscience of one soul subverts in effect the faith and conscience of all souls, and “their blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.”
IV. These considerations should impress the mind with a new sense of the infinite bearings of our thoughts, words, and actions, and should make us “swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.” Let to-day be the day of salvation by becoming the day of judgment, for “if we would judge ourselves, we should not be condemned with the world.”
E. White, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxv., p. 392.
References: Exo 22:6.-Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 239. Exo 22:24.-S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 93. Exo 22:26.-Expositor, 3rd series, vol. v., p. 166. Exo 23:6.-J. W. Burgon, Ninety-one Short Sermons, No. 77. Exo 23:9.-Parker, Christian Chronicle, May 10th, 1883. Exo 23:12.-S. Martin, Westminster Chapel Pulpit, 1st series, No. 4.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible

CHAPTER 22 Further judgments
1. Concerning theft (Exo 22:1-5)
2. Concerning neglect in case of fire (Exo 22:6)
3. Concerning dishonesty (Exo 22:7-15)
4. Concerning immoralities and forbidden things (Exo 22:16-20)
5. Concerning oppression (Exo 22:21-28)
6. Concerning offerings to God (Exo 22:29-31)
These laws need no further comment; they are good and just. The wisdom of them is the wisdom from above. We call attention to Exo 22:18 : Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. The nations with which Israel came in contact were given to the most satanic cults and the powers of Satan were manifested among them. Demoniacal possessions abounded, and witchcraft, sorceries, asking the dead, and other abominations were practised. Witchcraft and sorceries, communicating with the wicked spirits is therefore more than a possibility. It can be traced throughout the history of the human race and whenever nations ripened for judgment this form of evil became prominent. The female sex was then, as it is still the case, principally addicted to this sin. In our day it flourishes in spiritualism, Christian Science, theosophy, and other cults.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

sheep: or, goat
he shall: There is a smaller compensation required in other things – Exo 22:9, and also a disproportion between an ox and a sheep. The reason of the former is, as Maimonides explains it, because money, goods, etc., are better guarded in houses and cities, than cattle in a field; which consequently can be more easily stolen. The reason of the latter seems to be, as it is explained by Bishop Patrick, that an ox was of greater value, and more useful for the purposes of husbandry. Lev 6:1-6, Num 5:7, 2Sa 12:6, Pro 6:31, Luk 19:8
five oxen: Pro 14:4
Reciprocal: Exo 22:4 – he shall restore double Lev 5:16 – make Lev 6:5 – restore Lev 19:11 – shall not Deu 24:7 – then that Job 20:10 – his hands Eze 33:15 – give
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Exo 22:1. Five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep More for an ox than for a sheep, because the owner, besides all the other profit, lost the daily labour of his ox. If he were not able to make restitution, he was to be sold for a slave: the court of judgment was to do it, and it is likely the person robbed received the money.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Exo 22:2. Breaking up, by forcible entrance into a house, there shall no blood be shed for him, though he be killed by another in his own defence. In that case the thief might be presumed to have a worse design, and the owner of the house could neither expect, nor have the help of others to secure him from the intended violence, nor guide his blows with that discretion and moderation which in the daytime he might wish to do.
Exo 22:3. There shall be blood shed for him. He that kills him shall be put to death, because he punished him more than his crime deserved, and might have been otherwise either secured or righted; and in that case, it is probable, the thief designed not murder, but theft only.He shall be sold, for the ordinary term of six years.
Exo 22:8. To swear whether he have put his hand to his neighbours goods. The verb to see is quite a mistake.
Exo 22:12. If it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution. If he be not able to purge himself by oath, and it appear to be stolen from him with his knowledge and consent. That this must be understood is plain from the foregoing words, where the sense is, that upon his taking an oath to prove his innocence he must be acquitted.
Exo 22:14. He shall surely make it good. Because in doubtful cases, where it is not evident whether the borrower was faulty or not, as it is here, it ought to be interpreted in favour of the lender, rather than of the borrower.
Exo 22:15. It came for his hire. The benefit was the lenders, and not the borrowers, and therefore the former reason ceaseth.
Exo 22:16. If a man entice a maid. The patriarchs knew little of bastardy; the brothers of a damsel would not suffer their sister to be treated with dishonour. If the maid was already betrothed, the divine law condemned the seducer to death. Deu 22:24. Prof. Ostervald states, that in the Swiss cantons when a young woman proves pregnant, they summon both the parties before the elders of the church, and enquire how far the engagement preseded the rash act; and whether the name of God was used in the promise of marriage. In such engagements they are cautious of freeing the offender for money. Our magistrates, on this head, are too relax: by excusing the culprit for paltry pay, innocence is unprotected, and the parishes are burdened. But the loss of morals is the worst of all calamities. A seducer in Saxon times, must unsheath his sword, and prepare for battle.
Exo 22:17. According to the dowry of virgins. In such proportion as the virgins quality requires. Dowries were essential where divorces might occur. In such cases the woman was not robbed: and if the husband proved honest, the dowry belonged to the children.
Exo 22:18. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. mechashaipah, a female juggler, a deceiver, a fabricatris of all mischief. It appears from the VOLUSPA, a northern poem by Vola the prophetess, that all ancient nations believed in witchcraft. Of Heith she speaks thus:
Stanza 23. To her the god Of battles gave Both costly rings And shining gold; The art of wealth, And witchcraft wise, By which she saw Through every world.
Stanza 24. Heith she was named; Whereer she came, The pythoness Of cunning arts. She knew right well Bad luck to seethe, And mischief was Her only sport. She murder saw, The first that eer Was in the world, When Gulveigo Was placed oth spear, When in Hars hall They did her burn, Oft, not seldom, And yet she lives. Dr. Hendersons Iceland.
In a copy of the Voluspa printed at Stockholm, 1750, with a Swedish version, there is an omission of two lines. Ok i holl Hars, Hana brendo. Thrisvar brendo, Thrisvar borna, Opt, osialdan, Tho hon enn lifir.
When in Hars hall They did her burn; Thrice she was burnt, Thrice she was born; Oft, not seldom, Though yet she lives.
Certainly Moses did not mean that either witch or wizard, or any culprit, should be put to death till the crime was first proved before the judges. It is feared that during the dark ages many were burned for witchcraft who were innocent.
Exo 22:25. Any of my people, any Israelite; for it was permitted to take usury of the gentiles. Deu 23:20.
Exo 22:26. Thy neighbours, one that is poor, as appears by comparing this with the next verse.By that the sun goeth down. Because he speaks of such raiment or covering, in which he used to sleep.
Exo 22:28. The gods. Magistrates and governors, whether civil or ecclesiastical, as is evident from the following words, which explain the former according to the common use of scripture, and from the title of gods commonly given to such.
Exo 22:29. The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Not in kind, but by a price of redemption to be paid to me in their stead. The law of the Lord knows nothing of particular redemption, nothing of reprobation.
Exo 22:30. On the eighth day. Not sooner, because it was till then tender and imperfect. But it was not tied to that day, for it might be offered afterwards, as appears from Lev 22:27, even till it was a year old. Cain and Abel did this. Cyrus always gave the tenth of his spoils to the temples. In English, the firstborn of oxen is inaccurate; the Hebrew signifies bullocks or large cattle.
REFLECTIONS.
This chapter affords us various instructions; and the first of these is one that has been oft repeated, that they who have wronged their neighbour in any manner, either by theft, cheating, or even unwittingly and imprudently, are obliged to make restitution; and that things that have been entrusted, or lent to any one, should be faithfully returned.
We see likewise here that an oath may be taken to put an end to disputes, that oaths should be had in reverence, that the sin of uncleanness should as much as possible be remedied by marriage, and that God would have idolaters put to death, as well as witches and enchanters, and other persons who used unlawful arts.
God declares in the most express manner, that it is a great crime to oppress the fatherless, the widows and the strangers, and rigorously to exact the payment of a debt from the poor and needy; that these are sins which cry to God for vengeance, and provoke his wrath.
Here likewise we learn always to speak of magistrates with reverence and respect. The obligation laid upon the Jews to offer their firstfruits to God shows, that religion requires us at all times to devote some part of those good things which God hath given us, to works of piety and charity.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Exodus 21 – 23
The study of this section of our book is eminently calculated to impress the heart with a sense d God’s unsearchable wisdom and infinite goodness. It enables one to form some idea of the character of a kingdom governed by laws of divine appointment. Here, too, we may see the amazing condescension of Him who, though He is the great God of heaven and earth, can, nevertheless, stoop to adjudicate between man and man in reference to the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant’s tooth. “Who is like unto the Lord our God, who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven and on earth?” He governs the universe, and yet He can occupy Himself with the provision of a covering for one of His creatures. He guides the angel’s flight and takes notice of a crawling worm. He humbles Himself to regulate the movements of those countless orbs that roll through infinite space and to record the fall of a sparrow.
As to the character of the judgement set forth in the chapters before us, we may learn a double lesson. These judgements and ordinances bear a twofold witness: they convey to the ear a twofold message, and present to the eye two sides of a picture. They tell of God and they tell of man.
In the first place, on God’s part, we find Him enacting laws which exhibit strict, even-handed, perfect justice. “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Such was the character of the laws, the statutes, and the judgements by which God governed His earthly kingdom of Israel. Everything was provided for, every interest was maintained, and every claim was met. There was no partiality – no distinction made between the rich and the poor. The balance in which each man’s claim was weighed was adjusted with divine accuracy, so that no one could justly complain of a decision. The pure robe of justice was not to be tarnished with the foul stains of bribery, corruption and partiality. The eye and the hand of a divine Legislator provided for everything; and a divine Executive inflexibly dealt with every defaulter. The stroke of justice fell only on the head of the guilty, while every obedient soul was protected in the enjoyment of all his rights and privileges.
Then, as regards man, it is impossible to read over these laws and not be struck with the disclosure which they indirectly, but really, make of his desperate depravity. The fact of Jehovah’s having to enact laws against certain crimes, proves the capability, on man’s part, of committing those crimes. Were the capability and the tendency not there, there would be no need of the enactments. Now, there are many who, if the gross Abominations forbidden in these chapters were named to them, might feel disposed to adopt the language of Hazael and say, “Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?” Such persons have not yet travelled down into the deep abyss of their own hearts. For albeit there are crimes here forbidden which would seem to place man, as regards his habits and tendencies, below the level of a “dog,” yet do those very statutes prove, beyond all question, that the most refined and cultivated member of the human family carries above, in his bosom, the seeds of the very darkest and most horrifying abominations. For whom were those statutes enacted? For man. Were they needful? Unquestionably. But they would have been quite superfluous if man were incapable of committing the sins referred to. But man is capable; and hence we see that man is sunk to the very lowest possible level – that his nature is wholly corrupt – that, from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot, there is not so much as a speck of moral soundness.
How can such a being ever stand, without an emotion of fear, in the full blaze of the throne of God? How can he stand within the holiest? How can he stand on the sea of glass? How can he enter in by the pearly gates and tread the golden streets? The reply to these inquiries unfolds the amazing depths of redeeming love and the eternal efficacy of the blood of the Lamb. Deep as is man’s ruin, the love of God is deeper still. Black as is his guilt, the blood of Jesus can wash it all away. Wide as is the chasm separating man from God, the cross has bridged it. God has come down to the very lowest point of the sinner’s condition, in order that He might lift him up into a position of infinite favour, in eternal association with His own Son. Well may we exclaim, “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God.” (1 John 3: l) Nothing could fathom man’s ruin but God’s love, and nothing could equal man’s guilt but the blood of Christ. But now the very depth of the ruin only magnifies the love that has fathomed it, and the intensity of the guilt only celebrates the efficacy of the blood that can cleanse it. The very vilest sinner who believes in Jesus can rejoice in the assurance that God sees him and pronounces him “clean every whit.”
Such, then, is the double character of instruction to be gleaned from the laws and ordinances in this section, looked at as a whole; and the more minutely we look at them, in detail, the more impressed we shall be with a sense of their fullness and beauty. Take, for instance, the very first ordinance that presents itself, namely, that of the Hebrew Servant.
“Now these are the judgements which thou shalt set before them. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall he her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.” (Ex. 21: 1-6) The servant was perfectly free to go out, so far as he was personally concerned. He had discharged every claim, and could, therefore, walk abroad in unquestioned freedom; but because of his love to his master, his wife, and his children, he voluntarily bound himself to perpetual servitude; and not only so, but he was also willing to bear, in his own person, the marks of that servitude.
The application of this to the Lord Jesus Christ will be obvious to the intelligent reader. In Him we behold the One who dwelt in the bosom of the Father before all worlds – the object of His eternal delight – who might have occupied, throughout eternity, this His personal and entirely peculiar place, inasmuch as there lay upon Him no obligation (save that which ineffable love created and ineffable love incurred) to abandon that place. Such, however, was His love to the Father whose counsels were involved, and for the Church collectively, and each individual member thereof, whose salvation was involved, that He, voluntarily, came down to earth, emptied Himself, and made Himself of no reputation, took upon Him the form of a servant and the marks of perpetual service. To these marks we probably have a striking allusion in the Psalms. “Mine ears hast thou digged.” (Ps. 40: 6, marg.) This psalm is the expression of Christ’s devotedness to God. “Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea thy law is within my heart.” He came to do the will of God, whatever that will might be. He never once did His own will, not even in the reception and salvation of sinners, though surely His loving heart, with all its affections, was most fully in that glorious work. Still He receives and saves only as the servant of the Father’s counsels. “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” (John 6: 37-39)
Here we have a most interesting view of the servant character of the Lord Jesus Christ. He, in perfect grace, holds Himself responsible to receive all who come within the range of the divine counsels; and not only to receive them, but to preserve them through all the difficulties and trials of their devious path down here, yea, in the article of death itself, should it come, and to raise them all up in the last day. Oh! how secure is the very feeblest member of the Church of God! He is the subject of God’s eternal counsels, which counsels the Lord Jesus Christ is pledged to carry out. Jesus loves the Father, and, in proportion to the intensity of that love, is the security of each member of the redeemed family. The salvation of any sinner who believes on the name of the Son of God is, in one aspect of it, but the expression of Christ’s love to the Father. If one such could perish, through any cause whatsoever, it would argue that the Lord Jesus Christ was unable to carry out the will of God, which were nothing short of positive blasphemy against His sacred name, to whom be all honour and majesty throughout the everlasting ages.
Thus we have, in the Hebrew servant, a type of Christ in His pure devotedness to the Father. But there is more than this: “I love my wife and my children.” “Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (Eph. 5: 25-27) There are various other passages of Scripture presenting Christ as the antitype of the Hebrew servant, both in His love for the Church, as a body, and for all believers personally. In Matthew 13, John 10 and 13, and Hebrews 2, my reader will find special teaching on the point.
The apprehension of this love of the heart of Jesus cannot fail to produce a spirit of fervent devotedness to the One who could exhibit such pure, such perfect, such disinterested love. How could the wife and children of the Hebrew servant fail to love one who had voluntarily surrendered his liberty in order that he and they might be together? And what is the love presented in the type, when compared with that which shines in the antitype? It is as nothing. “The love of Christ passeth knowledge.” It led Him to think of us before all worlds – to visit us in the fullness of time – to walk deliberately to the door post – to suffer for us on the cross, in order that He might raise us to companionship with himself, in His everlasting kingdom and glory.
Were I to enter into a full exposition of the remaining statutes and judgements of this portion of the Book of Exodus, it would carry me much further than I feel, at present, led to go.* I will merely observe, in conclusion, that it is impossible to read the section and not have the heart drawn out in adoration of the profound wisdom, well-balanced justice, and yet tender considerateness which breathe throughout the whole. We rise up from the study of it with this conviction deeply wrought into the soul, that the One who speaks here is “the only true,” “the only wise,” and the infinitely gracious God.
{*I would here observe, once for all, that the feasts referred to in Ex. 23: 14-19 and the offerings in Ex. 29 being brought out in all their fullness and detail, in the book of Leviticus, I shall reserve them until we come to dwell upon the contents of that singularly rich and interesting book.}
May all our meditations on His eternal word have the effect of prostrating our souls in worship before Him whose perfect ways and glorious attributes shine there, in all their blessedness and brightness, for the refreshment, the delight, and the edification of His blood-bought people.
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch

Exo 22:1-6 E. Theft and Damage.Fourfold restitution was due (Exo 22:1), as in Roman law and Bedawin custom, for theft of a sheep (though fivefold for the doubly useful ox), reduced to twofold (Exo 22:4) if returned alive (i.e. the stolen animal and another). A similar principle is found in Bab., Gr., Roman, and Indian law Probably Exo 22:3 b links Exo 22:4 directly to Exo 22:1, providing that a pauper thief shall be sold to provide restitution money. Then, Budde suggests, Exo 22:2-3 a will be a wrongly placed supplement, giving immunity if a robber be killed in the act, unless it be in daylight. The next case is clearer if, with slight changes of letters, we read, if a man cause a field . . . to be burnt, and let the burning spread, and it burn in another mans field, etc. In that case, if his bonfire kindled a thorn hedge and burnt up good cropsan easy matter in the heat of summerhe must replace with the best of his own crops (Exo 22:5); but an accidental fire called for bare compensation only (Exo 22:6).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

LAWS AS REGARDS PROPERTY
(vs.1-15)
While one rightly was control over his own property, yet he is also responsible as to how he uses it. If one were to dig a pit, even on his own property, and leave it uncovered, he would he responsible for an animal falling into it. If the animal died, the owner of the pit must pay the value of the animal, and could therefore keep the dead beast (v.34).
In the case of one man’s ox killing one belonging to another person, then half the value of the live ox should belong to each owner, and also they should divide the dead ox. On the other hand, if an owner had been warned that his ox was dangerous and had not kept him in, then he should trade his live ox to the other owner, for the dead ox.
This chapter continues the subject begun in chapter 21:33. Verse 1 is plain, though we are not told why the stealing of an ox would require five oxen in return, while for a sheep only four sheep were required.
If a thief was caught breaking in and was killed, this would not be considered murder if it took place in the darkness of night. If in daylight, the one who killed him was guilty of bloodshed (vs.2-3). If one had stolen an animal and had it in his possession, he must restore double, — a much lesser penalty than verse 1. Verse 5 shows that an owner’s animal was to be kept on his own property or the owner suffered the consequences. If one kindled a fire and it spread to the property of others, then the one who had kindled the fire was responsible to make full restoration.
If one was entrusted with his neighbor’s goods and they were stolen from him, he would not be held responsible unless on investigation it was found that he himself had stolen them. Judges would decide such matters. In all such cases, the guilty party would have to pay double (vs.7-9).
Verses 10-13 show a difference in the case of an animal being left in the care of a neighbor. If the animal died or was hurt or had wandered away, there was to be “an oath of the Lord” between the owner and the caretaker that the caretaker had not been guilty of misappropriation. But if the animal was stolen from him, then he would have to pay the owner for the animal (v.12). Yet if the animal was mauled and killed by a beast, the owner would bear the loss. If something was borrowed, then died or was injured in the hands of the borrower, the borrower must reimburse the lender for it (v.15). If however the owner was with the animal or other article, the owner must bear the loss of any damage.
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
(vs.10-31)
A man seducing a woman who was not engaged or married, was responsible to marry her. If the father of the girl refused this, the guilty man must pay money to the father (v.17). A witch must be put to death, whether she called herself a black witch or a white witch. Death was the penalty also for one who dared to abuse himself with a beast, and the same for one who sacrificed to idols (vs.18-20).
No precise penalty was prescribed for mistreating or oppressing a stranger or widow of fatherless child, though this was strongly forbidden (vs.21-24); but God warns that if those who were oppressed cried to Him, He would Himself intervene to kill the oppressor through the instrumentality of an enemy with a sword, leaving their wives as widows and their children fatherless.
If one loaned money to another Israelite who was poor, no interest was to be charged (v.25). If there were no question of poverty involved, the situation would be different, of course, for one may borrow money in order to promote a business venture, though he himself is not in need at all.
If a borrower were to give his garment as security, the lender must not keep it even overnight. My righteous demands must in no way take precedence over proper compassion (vs.26-27).
No words of disrespect toward God were to be permitted to pass one’s lips, nor any such words against rulers (v.28). In contrast to such words, there was to be no delay in offering to God the firstfruits of their produce, and also their firstborn sons, as well as the firstborn of their oxen and sheep (vs.29-30). The sons would of course be redeemed by the sacrifice of a lamb (Exo 13:13). But such recognition of God’s rights is just as important today as it was under law. The chapter closes with the prohibition of eating meat from animals killed by other animals. For the killing of an animal for food was to be under the holy eye of God.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

22:1 If a man shall steal an {a} ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
(a) Either a great beast of the herd, or a small beast of the flock.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

According to the Code of Hammurabi a thief should die if he could not repay what he had stolen [Note: Code of Hammurabi, section 8.] or if he stole by breaking in. [Note: Ibid., section 21.] The Torah modified this law by annulling the death penalty and substituting the penalty of being sold into slavery, in the first case. In the second case, it annulled the death penalty and protected the life of the victim. Exo 22:1; Exo 22:4 of chapter 22 go together and deal with theft generally. The reason for the fivefold and fourfold penalties appears to be that the thief was taking the means of another person’s livelihood. [Note: Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 436.] Exo 22:2-3, which deal with breaking and entering, address a special type of theft. Perhaps the law assumed that the thief’s intent was murder as well as theft if he broke in at night but only theft if he broke in in daylight. If so, we might assume that if his intentions turned out to have been otherwise, the law would deal with him accordingly. The text gives only the typical case. Perhaps the logic was that at night the victim’s life was in greater danger so the law allowed him to use more force in resisting his assailant than in the daytime.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

6
PART III.–RIGHTS OF PROPERTY.
Exo 21:33 – Exo 22:15.
The vital and quickening principle in this section is the stress it lays upon man’s responsibility for negligence, and the indirect consequences of his deed. All sin is selfish, and all selfishness ignores the right of others. Am I my brother’s keeper? Let him guard his own property or pay the forfeit. But this sentiment would quickly prove a disintegrating force in the community, able to overthrow a state. It is the ignoble negative of public spirit; patriotism, all by which nations prosper. And this early legislation is well devised to check it in detail. If an ox fall into a pit or cistern, from which I have removed the cover, I must pay the value of the beast, and take the carcase for what it may be worth. I ought to have considered the public interest (Exo 21:33). If I let my cattle stray into my neighbour’s field or vineyard, there must be no wrangling about the quality of what he has consumed: I must forfeit an equal quantity of the best of my own field or vineyard (Exo 22:5). If a fire of my kindling burn his grain, standing or piled, I must make restitution: I had no right to kindle it where he was brought into hazard (Exo 22:6). This is the same principle which had already pronounced it murder to let a vicious ox go loose. And it has to do with graver things than oxen and fires,–with the teachers of principles rightly called incendiary, the ingenious theorists who let loose abstract speculations pernicious when put into practice, the well-behaved questioners of morality, and the law-abiding assailants of the foundations which uphold law.
It is quite in the same spirit that I am accountable for what I borrow or hire, and even for its accidental death (since for the time being it was mine, and so should the loss be); but if I hired the owner with his beast, it clearly continued to be in his charge (Exo 22:14-15). But again, my responsibility may not be pressed too far. If I have not borrowed property, but consented to keep it for the owner, the risk is fairly his, and if it be stolen, the presumption is not against my integrity, although I may be required to clear myself on oath before the judges (Exo 22:7-8). But I am accountable in such a case for cattle, because it was certainly understood that I should watch them; and if a wild beast have torn any, I must prove my courage and vigilance by rescuing the carcase and producing it (Exo 22:10-13).
But I must not be plunged into litigation without a compensating hazard on the other side: he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbour (Exo 22:9).
It only remains to be observed, with regard to theft, that when cattle was recovered yet alive, the thief restored double, but when his act was consummated by slaughtering what he had taken, then he restored a sheep fourfold, and for an ox five oxen, because his villainy was more high-handed. And we still retain the law which allows the blood of a robber at night to be shed, but forbids it in the day, when help can more easily be had.
All this is reasonable and enlightened law; founded, like all good legislation, upon clear and satisfactory principles, and well calculated to elevate the tone of the public feeling, to be not only so many specific enactments, but also the germinant seeds of good.
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles