Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 22:16
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
16. a marriage-price ] Heb. mhar, Arab, mahr; i.e. not a ‘dowry,’ but the price paid for the wife to her parents or family, according to ancient Hebrew custom (cf. Gen 34:12, 1Sa 18:25). The same custom prevailed anciently, and prevails still, in many other parts of the world (see Post, Familienrecht, pp. 157 ff., 173 ff.): cf., for instance, the Homeric or , Il. xvi. 178; Od. xvi. 391 f., xxi. 160 162, &c.; and, for Arabia, W. R. Smith, Marriage and Kinship in Ancient Arabia, p. 78 f. The mhar was paid at the time of betrothal; and its payment ratified the engagement. The amount varied naturally with the relative circumstances of the two parties; and was a subject of mutual agreement between the suitor and the girl’s family (cf. Gen 34:12).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
16, 17. Compensation for the seduction of an unbetrothed maiden The unmarried and unbetrothed daughter counts as part of her father’s property; by the loss of her virginity her value is diminished; her father consequently has a claim for compensation; and the seducer must pay the price sufficient to make the girl his wife. Comp. Deu 22:28-29 (where, however, the case contemplated is one not of seduction, but of rape). The seduction of a betrothed maiden is regarded as virtually the same thing as adultery: this is dealt with in Deu 22:23-27.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See the marginal references.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Exo 22:16-17
If a man entice a maid.
Lessons
1. Providence may suffer men through strength of lust to entice and defile virgins.
2. Such enticing and polluting is grievous sin against God and man abhorred of the Lord.
3. In case of such sin God hath judged recompense to men, as He executeth vengeance for Himself. (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Want of wariness
Flamingoes are very shy and timid birds, and shun all attempts of man to approach them; the vicinity of animals, however, they disregard. Any one who is acquainted with this fact can take advantage of it so as to effect the slaughter of these beautiful animals by dressing himself up in the skin of a horse or an ox. Thus disguised, the sportsman may get close to them and shoot them down at his ease. So long as their enemy is invisible they still remain immovable, the noise of the gun only stupefying them, so that they refuse to leave, although their companions are dropping down dead around them. They are taken in by appearances; and so long as the man is disguised they accept him as the creature which he pretends to be, even though his actions clearly indicate that he is something else. Shy, beautiful, and harmless, the unfortunate bird meets destruction simply for want of wariness. Many a lovely human being with the like qualities has met her doom for want of that same trait. (Scientific Illustrations.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 16. If a man entice a maid] This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take the advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented; and if they did not consent that their daughter should wed her seducer, in this case he was obliged to give her the full dowry which could have been demanded had she been still a virgin. According to the Targumist here, and to De 22:29, the dowry was fifty shekels of silver, which the seducer was to pay to her father, and he was obliged to take her to wife; nor had he authority, according to the Jewish canons, ever to put her away by a bill of divorce. This one consideration was a powerful curb on disorderly passions, and must tend greatly to render marriages respectable, and prevent all crimes of this nature.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
If a man entice a maid, by persuasions, promise of marriage, allurements, or rewards. But if she were betrothed, it was punished with death, Deu 22:23,24.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And if a man entice a maid, that is not betrothed,…. For one might be betrothed according to the custom of those times, and not be married, or the nuptials consummated, and so be yet a maid or virgin; but being betrothed, it made the case different, because such an one was as a wife to a man: but the case here supposed is of a maid not betrothed, and also not forced, but yielding to the solicitations of a man, as is implied by her being enticed; which signifies his gaining upon her affections, and obtaining her consent by expressing strong affection for her, and making large promises to her, and so both by words and gestures prevailing with her to yield to his desire:
and lie with her; in a way of carnal copulation; and such an action between two single persons, by consent, is what is called simple fornication: if this was done in a field, the maid was supposed to be forced, since there she might cry out, and not be heard; but if in a city, she is supposed to be enticed, and consent, since if she cried out she might be heard; this the Jewish writers gather from
De 22:23, though the law there respects a betrothed damsel:
he shall surely endow her to be his wife; give her a dowry in order to be his wife, or, however, such an one as he would or must give if she became his wife, even one suitable to her rank and dignity, whether he married her or not; for he was not obliged to it whether he would or not, and in some cases could not if he would, as follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The seduction of a girl, who belonged to her father as long as she was not betrothed (cf. Exo 21:7), was also to be regarded as an attack upon the family possession. Whoever persuaded a girl to let him lie with her, was to obtain her for a wife by the payment of a dowry ( see Gen 34:12); and if her father refused to give her to him, he was to weigh (pay) money equivalent to the dowry of maidens, i.e., to pay the father just as much for the disgrace brought upon him by the seduction of his daughter, as maidens would receive for a dowry upon their marriage. The seduction of a girl who was betrothed, was punished much more severely (see Deu 22:23-24).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow 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 witch to live. 19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. 20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. 21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. 22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. 23 If thou afflict them in any wise, 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.
Here is, I. A law that he who debauched a young woman should be obliged to marry her, Exo 22:16; Exo 22:17. If she was betrothed to another, it was death to debauch her (Deu 22:23; Deu 22:24); but the law here mentioned respects her as single. But, if the father refused her to him, he was to give satisfaction in money for the injury and disgrace he had done her. This law puts an honour upon marriage and shows likewise how improper a thing it is that children should marry without their parents’ consent: even here, where the divine law appointed the marriage, both as a punishment to him that had done wrong and a recompence to her that had suffered wrong, yet there was an express reservation for the father’s power; if he denied his consent, it must be no marriage.
II. A law which makes witchcraft a capital crime, v. 18. Witchcraft not only gives that honour to the devil which is due to God alone, but bids defiance to the divine Providence, wages war with God’s government, and puts his work into the devil’s hand, expecting him to do good and evil, and so making him indeed the god of this world; justly therefore was it punished with death, especially among a people that were blessed with a divine revelation, and cared for by divine Providence above any people under the sun. By our law, consulting, covenanting with, invocating, or employing, any evil spirit, to any intent whatsoever, and exercising any enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to any person whatsoever, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is an iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death. The justice of our law herein is supported by the law of God recorded here.
III. Unnatural abominations are here made capital; such beasts in the shape of men as are guilty of them are unfit to live (v. 19): Whosoever lies with a beast shall die.
IV. Idolatry is also made capital, v. 20. God having declared himself jealous in this matter, the civil powers must be jealous in it too, and utterly destroy those persons, families, and places of Israel, that worshipped any god, save the Lord: this law might have prevented the woeful apostasies of the Jewish nation in after times, if those that should have executed it had not been ringleaders in the breach of it.
V. A caution against oppression. Because those who were empowered to punish other crimes were themselves most in danger of this, God takes the punishing of it into his own hands.
1. Strangers must not be abused (v. 21), not wronged in judgment by the magistrates, not imposed upon in contracts, nor must any advantage be taken of their ignorance or necessity; no, nor must they be taunted, trampled upon, treated with contempt, or upbraided with being strangers; for all these were vexations, and would discourage strangers from coming to live among them, or would strengthen their prejudices against their religion, to which, by all kind and gentle methods, they should endeavour to proselyte them. The reason given why they should be kind to strangers is, “You were strangers in Egypt, and knew what it was to be vexed and oppressed there,” Note, (1.) Humanity is one of the laws of religion, and obliges us particularly to be tender of those that lie most under disadvantages and discouragements, and to extend our compassionate concern to strangers, and those to whom we are not under the obligations of alliance or acquaintance. Those that are strangers to us are known to God, and he preserves them, Ps. cxlvi. 9. (2.) Those that profess religion should study to oblige strangers, that they may thereby recommend religion to their good opinion, and take heed of doing any thing that may tempt them to think ill of it or its professors, 1 Pet. ii. 12. (3.) Those that have themselves been in poverty and distress, if Providence enrich and enlarge them, ought to show a particular tenderness towards those that are now in such circumstances as they were in formerly, doing now by them as they then wished to be done by.
2. Widows and fatherless must not be abused (v. 22): You shall not afflict them, that is, “You shall comfort and assist them, and be ready upon all occasions to show them kindness.” In making just demands from them, their condition must be considered, who have lost those that should deal for them, and protect them; they are supposed to be unversed in business, destitute of advice, timorous, and of a tender spirit, and therefore must be treated with kindness and compassion; no advantage must be taken against them, nor any hardship put upon them, from which a husband or a father would have sheltered them. For, (1.) God takes particular cognizance of their case, v. 23. Having no one else to complain and appeal to, they will cry unto God, and he will be sure to hear them; for his law and his providence are guardians to the widows and fatherless, and if men do not pity them, and will not hear them, he will. Note, It is a great comfort to those who are injured and oppressed by men that they have a God to go to who will do more than give them the hearing; and it ought to be a terror to those who are oppressive that they have the cry of the poor against them, which God will hear. Nay, (2.) He will severely reckon with those that do oppress them. Though they escape punishments from men, God’s righteous judgments will pursue and overtake them, v. 24. Men that have a sense of justice and honour will espouse the injured cause of the weak and helpless; and shall not the righteous God do it? Observe the equity of the sentence here passed upon those that oppress the widows and fatherless: their wives shall become widows, and their children fatherless; and the Lord is known by these judgments, which he sometimes executes still.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 16, 17:
If a man seduced a woman who was not engaged to be married, he must first pay her father a fine of fifty shekels, then marry her, and must never divorce her, see De 22: 28, 29.
If the father of the girl refused to allow the marriage, the man must then pay a suitable dowry for her, and enable her to enter with dignity into marriage with any man who might be selected.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Hence, also, it is manifest that, although God remits the judicial penalty, fornication is displeasing to Him. As to the spiritual judgment of the conscience, there were expiations to propitiate Him; He here only has consideration for young females, lest, being deceived, and having lost their virginity, they should become prostitutes; and thus the land should be defiled by whoredom. The remedy is, that lie who has corrupted girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give tie a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless. But, if the marriage should not please her father, the penalty imposed on her seducer is, that he should assign her a wedding portion.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(16) If a man entice a maid.The seduction of a maiden is regarded more seriously in primitive than in more advanced communities. The father looked to receive a handsome sum () from the man to whom he consented to betroth his virgin daughter; and required compensation if his daughters eligibility as a wife was diminished. If the seducer were a person to whom he felt it a degradation to marry his daughter, he might exact from him such a sum as would be likely to induce another to wed her; if he was one whom he could accept as a son-in-law, he might compel him to re-establish his daughters status by marriage. It might be well if modern societies would imitate the Mosaic code on this point by some similar proviso.
He shall surely endow heri.e., pay the customary sum to the father. See Deu. 22:29, where the sum is fixed at fifty shekels of silver.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
MISCELLANEOUS LAWS.
(16-31) The remainder of the chapter contains laws which it is impossible to bring under any general head or heads, and which can, therefore, only be regarded as miscellaneous. Moses may have recorded them in the order in which they were delivered to him; or have committed them to writing as they afterwards occurred to his memory.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Regarding Various Social Relations
v. 16. And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, v. 17. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay, v. 18. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live; v. 19. Whosoever lieth with a beast, v. 20. He that sacriftceth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. v. 21. Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him, v. 22. Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. v. 23. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear their cry; v. 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. v. 25. If thou lend money to any of My people that is poor by thee, v. 26. If thou at all take thy neighbor’s raiment to pledge, take his garment as security, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down; v. 27. for that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin, v. 28. Thou shalt not revile the gods, v. 29. Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors, v. 30. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it Me v. 31. And ye shall be holy men unto Me,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
MISCELLANEOUS LAWS (Exo 22:16-31)
Exo 22:16, Exo 22:17
Laws against seduction. It has been already observed that in the remainder of the Book of the Covenant there is a want of method, or logical sequence. Seduction, witchcraft, bestiality, worship of false gods, oppression, are sins as different from each other as can well be named, and seem to have no connecting link. Possibly, Moses simply follows the order in which God actually delivered the laws to him. Possibly, he wrote them down as they occurred to his memory. It is remarkable in his “law of seduction,” that he makes the penalty fall with most weight on the man, who must either marry the damsel whom he has seduced, or provide her with a dowry, or, if she is a betrothed maiden, suffer with her the penalty of death (Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24).
Exo 22:16
If a man entice. Rather “seduce.” He shall surely endow her to be his wife. In the East a man commonly pays money, or money’s worth, to the parents in order to obtain a wife. The seducer was to comply with this custom, and make over to the damsel’s father the sum of fifty shekels of silver (Deu 22:29), for his sanction of the marriage. If the father consented, he was compelled to marry the girl, and he was forbidden to repudiate her afterwards (ibid.).
Exo 22:17
If her father utterly refuse, etc. There might be such a disparity between the parties, or such an ineligibility of the man for a son-in-law, that the father might refuse to reestablish his daughter’s status by the alliance. In that case the offender was to pay such a sum as would form a handsome dowry for the injured female, and enable her to enter with proper dignity the house of whatever man might be selected for her husband.
Exo 22:18
Law against witchcraft. Witchcraft was professedly a league with powers in rebellion against God. How far it was delusion, how far imposture, how far a real conspiracy with the powers of evil, cannot now be known. Let the most rationalistic view be taken, and still there was in the practice an absolute renunciation of religion, and of the authority of Jehovah. Wizards (Le 19:31) and witches were, therefore, under the Jewish theocracy, like idolaters and blasphemers, to be put to death.
Exo 22:19
Law against unnatural crime. The abomination here mentioned is said to have prevailed in Egypt, and even to have formed part of the Egyptian religion. Though regarded by the Greeks and Romans as disgusting and contemptible, it does not seem to have been made a crime by any of their legislators. It was, however, condemned by the Gentoo laws and by the laws of Menu (11.17).
Exo 22:20
Law against sacrificing to false gods. Sacrifice was the chief act of worship; and to sacrifice to a false god was to renounce the true God. Under a theocracy this was rebellion, and rightly punished with temporal death. In ordinary states it would be no civil offence, and would be left to the final judgment of the Almighty. Utterly destroyed. Literally, “devoted;” but with the meaning of “devoted to destruction.”
Exo 22:21
Law against oppression of foreigners. It may be doubted whether such a law as this was ever made in any other country. Foreigners are generally looked upon as “fair game,” whom the natives of a country may ridicule and annoy at their pleasure. Native politeness gives them an exceptional position in France; but elsewhere it is the general rule to “vex” them. The Mosaic legislation protested strongly against this practice (Exo 23:9; Le 19:33), and even required the Israelites to “love the stranger who dwelt with them as themselves” (Le 19:34). For ye were strangers. Compare Le 19:34, and Deu 10:19. In Exo 23:9 the addition is made”For ye know the heart of a stranger”ye know; i.e; the feelings which strangers have when they are vexed and oppressedye know this by your own sad experience, and should therefore have a tenderness for strangers.
Exo 22:22-24
Law against oppressing widows and orphans. With the stranger are naturally placed the widow and orphan; like him, weak and defenceless; like him, special objects of God’s care. The negative precept here given was followed up by numerous positive enactments in favour of the widow and the orphan, which much ameliorated their sad lot. (See Exo 23:11; Le Exo 19:9, Exo 19:10; Deu 14:29; Deu 16:11, Deu 16:14; Deu 24:19-21; Deu 26:12, Deu 26:13.) On the whole, these laws appear to have been fairly well observed by the Israelites; but there were times when, in spite of them, poor widows suffered much oppression. (See Psa 94:6; Isa 1:23; Isa 10:2; Jer 7:3-6; Jer 22:3; Zec 7:10; Mal 3:5; Mat 23:14.) The prophets denounce this backsliding in the strongest terms.
Exo 22:22
Ye shall not afflict. The word translated “afflict” is of wide signification. including ill-usage of all kinds. “Oppress,” and even “vex,” are stronger terms.
Exo 22:23
And they cry at all unto me Rather, “Surely, if they cry unto me.” Compare Gen 31:42.
Exo 22:24
I will kill you with the sword. It was, in large measure, on account of the neglect of this precept, that the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and destruction of its inhabitants, was allowed to take place (Jer 22:3-5). Your wives shall be widows, etc. A quasi-retaliation. They shall be exposed to the same sort of ill-usage as you have dealt out to other widows.
Exo 22:25-27
The law of lending money and borrowing. It is peculiar to the Jewish law to forbid the lending of money at interest by citizen to citizen. In the present passage, and in some others (Le Exo 25:35; Deu 15:7), it might seem that interest was only forbidden in the case of a loan to one who was poor; but the general execration of usury (Job 24:9; Pro 28:8; Eze 18:13; Eze 22:12), and the description of the righteous man as “he that hath not given his money upon usury” (Psa 15:5; Eze 18:8), seem rather to imply that the practice, so far as Israelites were concerned, was forbidden altogether. On the other hand, it was distinctly declared (Deu 23:20) that interest might be taken from strangers. There does not seem to have been any rate of interest which was regarded as excessive, and “usurious,” in the modern sense. In Scripture usury means simply interest.
Exo 22:26
If thou take at all thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge. Lending upon pledge, the business of our modern pawnbrokers, was not forbidden by the Jewish law; only certain articles of primary necessity were forbidden to be taken, as the handmill for grinding flour, or either of its mill-stones (Deu 24:6). Borrowing upon pledge was practised largely in the time of Nehemiah, and led to very ill results. See Neh 5:1-19. Thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down. The reason is given in the next verse. As it could not have been worth while to take the pledge at all, if it was immediately to have been given back for good, we must suppose a practice of depositing the garment during the day, and being allowed to have it out at night.
Exo 22:27
Wherein shall he sleep? The outer garment worn by the ancient Hebrews was like that of the modern Bedouinsa sort of large woollen shawl or blanket, in which they enveloped the greater part of their persons. It serves the Bedouins, to the present time, as robe by day, and as coverlet by night. When he crieth unto me. Compare verse 23. If the law is broken, and the man cry unto the Lord, he will hear, and avenge him.
Exo 22:28
Law against reviling God, or rulers. It has been proposed to render Elohim here either
1. “God;” or
2. “The gods;” or
3. “Judges.”
The last of these renderings is impossible, since Elohim in the sense of “judges” always has the article. The second, which is adopted by the Septuagint and the Authorised Version, seems precluded by the constant practice of the most religious Jews, prophets and others, to speak with contempt and contumely of the false gods of the heathen. The passage must therefore be understood as forbidding men to speak evil of God. (Compare Le 24:15, 16.) Nor curse the ruler of thy people. Rather, “one exalted among thy people.” The term is generally used of the heads of families (Num 3:24, Num 3:30, Num 3:35, etc.) and tribes (Num 7:10, Num 7:18, Num 7:24,, etc.) in the Pentateuch. Later, it is applied to kings (1Ki 11:34; Eze 12:10; Eze 45:7, etc.). Our translators generally render it by “prince.”
Exo 22:29, Exo 22:30
Law concerning first-fruits. God required as first-fruits from his people,
1. The first-born of their children;
2. The firstborn of all their cattle; and
3. The first of all the produce of their lands,
whether wet or dry; wine, oil, grain of all kinds, and fruits. The first-born of their children were to be redeemed by a money payment (Exo 13:13; Num 3:46-48); but the rest was to be offered in sacrifice. The phrase, “thou shalt not delay,” implies that there would be reluctance to comply with this obligation, and that the offering would be continually put off. In Nehemiah’s time the entire custom had at one period fallen into disuse. (Neh 10:35, Neh 10:36.) The first of thy ripe fruits. Literally, “thy fulness.” The paraphrase of the A. V. no doubt gives the true meaning. The first-born of thy sons, Compare above, Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12.
Exo 22:30
Seven days it shall be with its dam. See Le Exo 22:27. The main object is that the darn may have during that time the natural relief derivable from suckling its off-spring. On the eighth day thou shalt give it me. Some analogy may be traced between this proviso and the law of circumcision. Birth was viewed as an unclean process, and nothing was fit for presentation to God excepting after an interval.
Exo 22:31
And ye shall be holy men unto me. Ye shall not be as other men, but “an holy nation, a peculiar people;” and therefore your separateness shall be marked by all manner of laws and regulations with respect to meats and drinks, designed to keep you free from every uncleanness. One such law then follows
Law against eating the flesh of an animal killed by another. The blood of such an animal would not be properly drained from it. Some would remain in the tissues, and thence the antrum would be unclean; again, the carnivorous beast which “tore” it would also be unclean, and by contact would impart of its uncleanness to the other. Ye shall cast it to the dogs, is probably not intended to exclude the giving or selling of it to an Mien, if one were at hand, according to the permission accorded in Deu 14:21; but points simply to the mode whereby the flesh was to be got rid of, if aliens were not at hand, or if they declined to eat the animals. Dogs were so unclean that they might be fed on anything. Their chief use was to be scavengers (2Ki 9:35, 2Ki 9:36).
HOMILETICS
Exo 22:16-28
The severity and the tenderness of God.
The miscellaneous laws thrown together, without any clear logical sequence or indeed any manifest connection, in the latter part of this chapter, may, generally speaking, be grouped under the two heads of instances of the Divine severity, and instances of the Divine tenderness. Here, as in so many places, “mercy and truth meet togetherrighteousness and peace kiss each other.” God is as merciful to the weak and helpless as severe towards the bold and stubborn evil-doer. If his justice is an inalienable attribute, so is his kindness and compassion. The twofold aspect of the Divine Nature is steadily kept before us by an arrangement in which its opposite sides are presented to our contemplation alternately.
I. INSTANCES OF THE DIVINE SEVERITY.
1. “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (Exo 22:18).
2. “Whoso lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death” (Exo 22:19).
3. “He that sacrifices to any god, save unto the Lord on]y, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exo 22:20).
4. “Thou shalt not revile the gods (God) nor curse the ruler of thy people” (Exo 22:28). In these utterances it is Justice that makes itself heard, wrath that manifests itself, severity that gives strict rules for human conduct, and threatens tremendous penalties in case of their infringement.
(1) Witchcraft is made a capital offence. Moderns constantly speak of witchcraft as founded on mere illusion, and regard witches and wizards as unfortunate persons, labouring under a certain amount of self-deception, and hounded to their death by persecutors far more to blame than their victims. It is generally assumed at the present day that to hold actual communication with evil spirits, and thus obtain supernatural power, is impossible. We are told that “it is absolutely impossible to acknowledge sorcerers or witches,” and that “those who pretend to be such must be considered as impious and nefarious impostors” (Kalisch). The whole round of natural phenomena is presumed to be known, and no mystery to remain anywhere. Witches and wizards are tricksters; demonology and magic, delusions; evil spirits themselves either non-existent, or relegated to another sphere, and so entirely beyond human cognisance. But the language and ideas of Scripture are different. There evil spirits are regarded as really existing, and the witch is considered to have access to them. Death would scarcely be assigned as the penalty for mere trickery and imposture. It is well deserved by those who renounce God, and place their trust in spirits of darkness altogether. While the subject must be allowed to be one about which much obscurity still lingers, it would seem necessary for those who accept Scripture as an infallible guide, to put aside the shallow theories of modern sciolists, and hold, with the wisest of all ages, that “there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in our philosophy.”
(2) Unnatural crime is made capital. All that is contrary to nature, all that tends to produce “confusion” in his universe, is absolutely hateful to God. Human legislators cared little about a sin which a natural repulsion caused to be rare, and which had no very obvious ill effects upon society. Some religions consecrated it and made it a portion of their ceremonial. Some, and they were the greater number, viewed it with complete indifference. The Mosaic legislation, differing from almost all others, placed upon the offence the brand of heinous guilt, and required that both the man and the beast should die (Le Exo 20:15, Exo 20:16).
(3) The acknowledgment of false gods in an open and public way is forbidden under the same penalty. Thought is left freeno inquisitorship is establishedbut if men parade their misbelief by offering sacrifices to the gods of other nations, the insult to Jehovah is to be punished capitally. It was flagrant rebellion against God, and a transgression of the fundamental law on which the community was built (Exo 20:3). It was a pollution to the land, and might draw down Divine judgment on the nation. It was offensive to the consciences of all God-fearing men in the community. No punishment under the death-penalty could be adequate for a crime, which was against God, against the State, and against society. The severity was, however, without parallel in other codes.
(4) Reviling God, and reviling rulers are both sternly forbidden; but the penalty is not as yet affixed. Reviling God was, like sacrificing to false gods, an overt act of insult, challenging notice, and if allowed, destructive of the theocracy. The penalty afterwards affixed to it was death (Le Exo 24:16). In the Book of the Covenant it was thought enough to forbid it, the temptation to such an act not being great. Reviling rulers seems to have been coupled with reviling God in order to introduce the idea that “the powers that be are ordained of God,” and consequently that those who resist them “resist the ordinance of God.” The death-penalty, though not positively enacted in this case, is the natural consequence of resisting one who “beareth not the sword in vain.” Thus far, therefore, the legislation here placed before us is severealmost Draconic. Expressly or impliedly the death-penalty is threatened in every case. God is shown forth as an inexorable judge, who “will by no means absolve the wicked”and man can but tremble before him. On the other hand, in the remainder of the passage we have
II. INSTANCES OF THE DIVINE TENDERNESS.
1. “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him” (Exo 22:21).
2. “Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child” (Exo 22:22).
3. “Thou shalt not lend thy money unto any of my people that is poor upon usury” (Exo 22:25).
4. “Thou shalt not take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge” (Exo 22:26). The Divine protection is extended especially over four classes of persons.
(1) The strangerthe sojourner in a foreign landalien in blood, in language, in religion probablycut off from the protection of his own government, or kinsfolk, or fellow-tribesmen, and therefore all the more appealing for protection to the pity anti the providence of God. To him the Sabbath rest had been already extended by a special provision (Exo 20:10); if he would be circumcised, he might eat the passover (Exo 12:48, Exo 12:49); he might make his offerings at the door of the tabernacle (Le Exo 17:8, Exo 17:9); he was to have access to the cities of refuge (Leviticus 35:15). It was now enjoined that he should not be oppressed in any way; that he should not even be “vexed.” Kindness, consideration, courtesy, were made the stranger’s due. In the final summary of the law (Deu 10:18, Deu 10:19) it was declared that God “loved” him, and the general command was given to all Israelites”Love ye the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
(2) The widow. His widowed mother was especially dear to our Lord; and it is perhaps with secret reference to the boundless tenderness called forth in him by her condition that throughout Scripture there is so deep a sympathy with the widow’s lot. From the sad Naomi, with her piteous outbreak”Call me not Naomi, but Mara”to the blessed Anna and the pious Dorcas, the widows of the Revealed Word have the testimony of the Spirit in their favour. For the widow of Sarepta the great law of there being no return from the grave is first broken through, and the mother is comforted by receiving back her dead child (1Ki 17:9-24). For the widow of Nain Christ wrought one of his three similar miracles. In the early Church special care was taken of widows (Act 6:1; 1Ti 5:3-9 and 1Ti 5:16); and St. James was inspired to declare to the Church of all ages that “Pure religion and undefiled before God is thisto visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (Jas 1:27).
(3) The fatherless. The orphan is generally coupled with the widow in Scripture, and God’s protection is equally extended over both. In the present passage the oppression of both is alike forbidden; and in other parts of the law both are secured certain advantages (Deu 14:29; Deu 24:17, Deu 24:19, Deu 24:21; Deu 26:12, Deu 26:13, etc.). God proclaims himself in an especial sense “the father of the fatherless” (Psa 68:5), and “the helper of the fatherless” (Psa 10:14); in him the fatherless “find mercy” (Hos 14:2). That tender compassion of the Most High, wherewith he looks on affliction generally, is poured without stint upon those who have so much need of his support and guidance, being left without their natural earthly protector.
(4) The poor. Poverty is a far milder affliction than bereavement, since by nature all are poor, no man bringing with him into the world any property. Still, in states where there has been an accumulation of wealth, it is a disadvantage to be born poor, and a still greater disadvantage to have known riches and to have lost them. Poverty will ever be the lot of large numbers; of the greater portion through their own fault, but of many without fault of their own. “The poor shall never cease out of the land,” We are told (Deu 15:11); and, again, “The poor ye have always with you” (Joh 12:8). God’s pity embraces this large class also; and he seeks to attract to them the regards of their more fortunate brethren. Not only were the Israelites forbidden to lend money to them upon usury; but they were expressly commanded to be ready to lend to them without (Deu 15:7-10). Such as fell into servitude for debt, and completed their time, were not to be cast adrift or sent away empty, but to be furnished liberally out of their master’s flock and granary and winepress (Deu 15:13, Deu 15:14), that they might begin the world again with a little capital, and be saved from destitution. In modern times, owing to change of circumstances, laws such as this do not admit of a literal obedience; but we may act in the spirit of them, by never pressing hard on the poor, by sharing with them our superfluity, by pleading for them with others, and “seeing that such as are in need and necessity have right.” There is still much oppression of poor men even in Christian countriesmuch need of improvement in their cottages, in the sanitary condition of their surroundings, in the medical provision made for them, and in the administration of the laws for their relief when old and infirm. A wide field is open for those who would obtain the blessing promised to such as “consider the poor” (Psa 41:1).
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Exo 22:16-21
Abominations.
This series of precepts deals with seduction, witchcraft, bestiality, and the sin of sacrificing to other gods than Jehovah. The case of the seducer might have been brought under the laws embodying the principle of restitution. It forms a transition to the others, in which we pass from the sphere of judicial right to what is negatively and positively due from Israel as “an holy people” to Jehovah.
1. Seduction. Lewdness in every form is sternly reprobated by the law of Moses (of. Deu 22:13-30). The man who seduced an unbetrothed maid was to be compelled to marry her; or, if her parents refused, was to pay her a dowry.
2. Witchcraft. With equal strictness was forbidden all trafficking, whether in pretence or in reality, with unholy powers. The crimea violation of the first principles of the theocracywas to be punished with death. There cannot be perfect love to God, and communion with him, and trafficking with the devil at the same time. The witchcraft condemned by the law was evil in itself, and was connected with foolish and wicked rites (cf. Deu 18:9-15).
3. Bestiality. This, as an inversion of the order of nature, and in itself an act of the grossest abominableness, was “surely” to be punished with death.
4. Sacrificing to other gods. Possibly this crime is mentioned here as, in a sense, the spiritual counterpart of the vices above noted, i.e; as involving
(1) Spiritual adultery,
(2) The worshipping of “devils” (Le Exo 18:7; Deu 32:17),
(3) Filthy and impure rites (cf. Deu 23:17, Deu 23:18).J.O.
Exo 22:21-29
Jehovah’s proteges and representatives.
I. JEHOVAH‘S PROTEGES (Exo 22:21-28). These are the stranger, the fatherless, the widow, and the poor generallyall of whom the Israelites are forbidden to “afflict.” The ground of Jehovah’s interest in them is his own character”for I am gracious” (Exo 22:27). In him, however little they may sometimes think of it or feel it, they have a constant Friend, a great invisible Protector. They are (in the sense of Roman law) Jehovah’s “clients.” He is their great Patron; he identifies himself with their interests; he will uphold their cause. Injuries done to them he will resent as if done to himself, and will call the wrong-doer to strict account. If earthly law fails, let them cry to him, and he will put the jus talionis in operation with his own hands (Exo 22:23, Exo 22:24, Exo 22:27). Exo 22:25-28 specially forbid exacting treatment of the poor. Liberal help is to be afforded them. A neighbour is not to be harshly dealt with when driven to a strait. His garment, if given as a pledge, is not to be kept beyond nightfall, which is practically equivalent to saying that it is not to be taken from him at all (Exo 22:27). What kindness breathes in these precepts! How justly does the law which embodies them claim to be a law of love! And how far, even yet, is our Christian society from having risen to the height of the standard they set up! Let us seek ourselves to translate them more uniformly into practice. Learn also, from these precepts, inculcating love to the stronger, how little ground there is for accusing the religion of Moses of fanatical hatred of foreign peoples.
II. JEHOVAH‘S REPRESENTATIVES (Exo 22:28). Magistrates and rulers are to be treated with respect. They are invested with a portion of God’s authority (Rom 14:1).J.O.
Exo 22:29-31
Jehovah’s dues.
These, as part of the law’s righteousness, are to be faithfully rendered. Let us not forget, when reflecting on what is due from man to man, to reflect also on what is due from man to God. When inwardly boasting of conscientiousness in rendering to every man his own, let us ask if we have been equally scrupulous in the discharge of our obligations to our Maker. In all spheres of life God claims of our first and best (see on Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12). God’s highest due is that we be “holy.” The precept in Exo 22:31 is connected with the prohibition to eat flesh with the blood in it.J.O.
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG
Exo 22:21
The treatment of the stranger.
I. NOTE THE FACT THAT STRANGERS WOULD COME INTO SUCH CONTACT WITH ISRAEL AS TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS TREATMENT. Jehovah had done a great deal in Israel to make them a separated peopleseparated in many ways as by the land of their dwelling, their national institutions, their worship, their personal rite of circumcision; but separation, with all its rigours and all the penalties for neglecting it, could never become isolation. Solemnly indeed were the people enjoined to drive out the Canaanites, and trample down all idolatry; but there still remained the fact, that by a certain Divine and glorious necessity, strangers were to come into considerable intercourse with them. That strangers should have been drawn to them when they settled in their fertile home was only likely; but this must nave happened to some extent even before. We may be perfectly certain, considering the analogies of after generations and what we read of proselytism in the New Testament, that from the very first there must have been some with the proselyte disposition in them. Few perhaps of this sort were to be found in the mixed multitude coming out of Egyptbut still there were some. The Lord knoweth them that are his. If there are those of whom John might say, “They went out from us because they were not of us,” so there are those of whom the Church may ever say, “They come to us because they are of us.” For such God lovingly and amply provided from the first, even when they came with all the disadvantages and difficulties of strangers to contend against. There is in this very injunction, a foreshadowing of the power and attractiveness to which Israel in due time would rise, though as yet it was but a fugitive people without discipline and without coherence. Strangers in their need were even now drawn to Israel and would be drawn still more, just as years ago their needy ancestor and his children were drawn to Egypt because of the corn that was there.
II. THE STRONG TEMPTATION TO TREAT THESE FOREIGNERS BADLY. There is a very melancholy picture of human inconsistency here presented. Liberated slaves, forgetting the horrors of their own servitude, treat with like cruelty those exposed to the opportunity of that cruelty. Men soon forget their past condition. Israel, we see, forgot the horror of their own Egyptian experiences in two ways.
1. They lusted after the flesh-pots of Egypt.
2. They failed in sympathy for the foreigners among themselves.
When we have possessions and power and thus get the chance of domination, we are only too ready to treat foreigners either as interlopers wishing to spoil us, or tools fitted to increase our possessions. The world, alas! is always abounding in a great number of the feeble and unfortunate, of whom it is only too easy to take advantage. More than one class of these are mentioned in this chapter, and among them we see that the foreigner occupies a conspicuous place. The stranger is the man without friends; he comes into a place where the very things that profit the knowing are traps and snares for the ignorant. Consider the difficulties of a foreigner planted down in the midst of a huge city like London, a place of dangers and difficulties even for an Englishman who is thrown into it for the first time, and how much more for one whom ignorance of the language makes doubly strange! Blanco White, who it will be remembered was an exile from his native land of Spain, gives as an instance of Shakespeare’s surprising knowledge of the human mind and heart “the passage in which he describes the magnitude of the loss which a man banished from his country has to endure by living among those who do not understand his native language.” The words are those put into the mouth of Mowbray Duke of Norfolk, on his banishment by Richard II.
“The language I have learn’ d these forty years,
My native English, now I must forego.
And now my tongue’s use is to me no more
Than an unstringed viol or a harp,
Or like a cunning instrument cased up
Or, being open, put into his hands
That knows no touch to tune the harmony:
Within my mouth you have engaoled my tongue,
Doubly portcullis’ d with my teeth and lips;
And dull unfeeling barren ignorance
Is made my gaoler to attend on me.”
If this be so, the stranger’s feelings are some index to the temptations of those among whom he is cast. There may not be downright robbery, but there are tricks of trade, extortionate charges on pretence of making hay while the sun shines; in short there are all sorts of human foxes ever on the watch to catch the ignorant, the innocent, and the confiding. But are God’s people amenable to charges of this kind? It is evident that the Israelites were, from this warning to them. It was so easy to turn Jehovah’s denunciations of the idolater into excuses for maltreating the stranger because he had the look of an idolater. Nay more, how easy it was both to yield to the idolatry and maltreat the stranger!
III. THE GREAT CONSIDERATION WHICH IS TO LEAD TO PROPER TREATMENT OF THE STRANGER. “Ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Great as the temptation was to treat strangers badly, such treatment if only looked at in a certain light would be scarcely excusable at all This possible treatment of the stranger is to be looked at in the clear light of our Lord’s parable concerning the forgiven yet unforgiving debtor. Israel had been strangers in Egypt, not only foreigners among the Egyptians, but to some extent exiles from God, who had put on the appearance of having forgotten them. But now he had brought them to himself, they were to be his people, a holy nation; and it was want of loyalty to God, it was behaviour unworthy of a holy nation for them to treat strangers as the Egyptians had treated Israel. God hates the oppressor everywhere and pities the oppressed. The people of God never dishonour their name more than when they trample on the alien from the commonwealth of Israel and the stranger from the covenant of promise. The alien may become as the home-born. The stranger may become familiar with Divine covenants and promises as if he were an Israelite from the womb. Even already the Israelites were being warned against counting too much on outward signs and natural descent. We should ever be looking for the minimum of living faith rather than the maximum of formal orthodoxy. A tiny seed is more to be cherished than a huge log of timber; for the one has whole living forests in it, and the other is dead and dead it must remain. We must labour to get the insight whereby we may penetrate through strange outward aspects and discern the spiritual life and sympathies underneath. God will give us the eye to discover, the honest and good eye, whether the stranger who comes is a wandering sheep seeking the true flock or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. To mistake the sheep for the wolf is equally lamentable with mistaking the wolf for the sheep. The Pharisaic spirit so easily finds entrance, welcome and dominion in our breasts. It is so natural to play the censor towards those who sin the tins which we have no temptation to fall into. He without mercy for him that seems a stranger to God, may suspect that he is still a stranger himself. Many even of the Israelites at Mount Sinai had not been brought to God in the full sense of the term. Theirs was but a local contiguity to the awful demonstrations, not an attachment of the whole heart to the pure and glorious God who was behind the demonstrations.Y.
Exo 22:22-24
The treatment of the widow and the fatherless.
This injunction is even more humiliating to receive than the preceding one. It was bad enough to find those who had been foreigners in Egypt oppressing foreigners among themselves, and forgetting their own sufferings and deliverances. Still the slight excuse was available that as God’s mercy to Israel receded into the past, and became a mercy to a former generation rather than a present one (at least, so it might be plausibly put), it was only too likely to be forgotten. Men are unable to make the past stand with any power against the influences of the present. But here are those, the widow and the fatherless, whom Nature in her ever fresh and living power, marks out herself as irresistible objects for pity and succour. What a disgrace to human nature that an injunction not to afflict the widow and fatherless should be necessary! And yet common observation only too often and sadly tells us that the widow and fatherless children may easily become the victims of an inconsiderate and unscrupulous self-seeking, which in its practical results is as afflicting as the most deliberate cruelty. It is a very beautiful element of God‘s revelation of himself in the Scriptures, that he is so often set before us as caring for the fatherless and the widow, and denouncing those who do not care for them. Widows in their needs, and his supply for their needs, appear in some of the most prominent scenes of the sacred page. Observe the provision that was made for the fatherless and the widow, along with the Levite and the stranger, to eat of the tithe of the yearly produce (Deu 14:29), and also to get their share in the rejoicings at the feast of weeks and the feast of tabernacles (Deu 16:11-14). The neighbour’s raiment might be taken to pledge under certain conditions, but a widow’s raiment was not to be taken in pledge at all (Deu 24:17). The forgotten sheaf in the field, and the gleanings of the olive boughs and of the vineyards, were to be left for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow (Deu 24:19-21); and cursed was he to be who perverted the judgment of the same (Deu 27:19). When God sustained Elijah, at the time of judicial drought and famine in the land, he sustained the widow and the fatherless at the same time; and who knows how many widows and fatherless besides? It is part of the praise which is due to God in song, that he relieves the fatherless and the widow. A Father of the fatherless, and a Judge of the widows is God, in his holy habitation (Psa 68:5; Psa 146:9). There can thus be no mistake about God’s interest in those who are left without their natural provider and protector. But then on the other hand, these very same Scriptures which assure us of God‘s concern, remind us of man‘s cruelty, unrighteousness, and oppression. Job tells us of those who drive away the ass of the fatherless, and take the widow’s ox for a pledge (Exo 24:3); and it was part of memory’s brightening, as he thought upon his happier past, that he had delivered the fatherless and caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy. God sent Isaiah to the hypocrites, the formal religionists who satiated God with ceremonial observances, to bid them turn to the realities of righteousness; and one of the foremost things among these was to judge the fatherless and plead for the widow. The faithful city had fallen, until those whose duty it was to judge the fatherless, and have the cause of the widow come to them, had sunk into companions of thieves and seekers of bribes. In the parable of the judge who feared not God, neither regarded man, we may be sure there is great significance beyond the purpose for which it was spoken. While first of all it teaches the need of importunity in prayer, it reminds us also how hard it is for the feeble woman, whose sphere has been the seclusion of home, to come out in the world and make her way against the oppressor and against the judge, who would be quick enough to listen to her if she was only rich, and could bribe him. By sheer carelessness and thoughtlessness, by the sin of omission even more than the sin of commission, we may fall into the wickedness of afflicting the widow and the fatherless; and to be on the alert to succour them is the only way in which we can effectually guard against this wickedness. We see that even in the Church of Christ, and in those first days when all that believed were together, and had all filings in commonwhen all seemed so beautiful and promising, heaven fairly begun on eartheven then, and only too soon, the widows began to complain that they were neglected in the daily ministrations. Some of this perhaps was mere mendicant grumbling, but much of it would have a real cause. The only way we can keep the oppressor’s heart out of us is to have the heart living and acting under the power of a Divinely-inspired love. It is a first principle of Christian ethics that if we are not doing good, we are doing ill; and we may be parties to the worst oppression, even when we are not thinking of oppression at all. In what a light does this Mosaic injunction bring out the teaching of James as to that practical element in pure religion of visiting the fatherless and the widow. If the Christianhis opportunities, his motives, his consolations, his resources to help and advise being what they aredoes not visit the fatherless and the widow, depend upon it others will with very different designs. The greatest promptitude and decision are needed to anticipate the action of the rapacious and selfish.Y.
Exo 22:25-27
The treatment of the poor.
Here are two regulations, commanding not to be usurious in the lending of money to the poor, and not to retain the pledged garment over night. How forcibly they bring out the one crowning ill connected with poverty in the eyes of the world! The poor man is the man without money; and lack of money bars his way in only too many directions. Let him be ever so noble in character, ever so heroic, wise, and self-denying in action, it avails nothing. The poor wise man delivered the little city that was besieged by a great king; yet no man remembered that same poor man. These Israelites had gone out of Egypt with immense wealth, but probably even then it was very unequally distributed; and the tendency would be, as the tendency always is, for the inequality to become greater still. Hence in this regulation God was addressing those who from the inordinate feeling of desire which wealth inspires, would be peculiarly tempted to take advantage of the poor. God never shows any mercy to the rich man so far as his riches are concerned. Those riches are full of peril, and fuller of peril to their owner than to any one else. He who counselled, by his Son, to pluck out the right eye and cut off the right hand, is not likely to pay respect to a thing like wealth, even more external still. The chief matter in these regulations is how the poor and needy may be most advantaged, and whatever will do that most effectually is the thing to be done. Whether mere money be lost or gained is a matter of no consequence whatever.
I. THESE PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO LENDING OBVIOUSLY DO NOT EXCLUDE GIVING. “If thou lend money,” etc. But God, in many instances, would be better pleased with giving than with lending. If only men were seeking with all their hearts to do his will, all these minute regulations would be unnecessary. The advantage of the poor, as we have just seen, was the main thing to be considered here. And it might be for the advantage of the receiver, and still more for the advantage of the giver in the highest sense of the word advantage, to give, hoping to receive nothing again. Just as money does untold harm when foolishly and wickedly spent, so when wisely spent it may do untold good. Lending may serve well, but giving may serve much better; and that is the wisest course which is judged to do the most good. Some would find it easier to give than to lend, being naturally generous, disposed to lavishness, shrinking from the risk of being thought stingy. And yet sometimes in giving they would be doing a very hurtful thing, for lending would be better.
II. Nor is there anything like A FORBIDDING OF THE LOAN OF MONEY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. If one man lends to another a certain sum of money with which to trade, it is plain that he acts lawfully in getting interest for the use of it. For if he were not lending money to another, he would be using it himself, and the interest represents his profit, which is the same whoever uses the money. The trade of the world, and therefore the good of the world would be greatly limited and hampered but for the use of borrowed capital. It may be that the man who has the capital has neither the disposition nor ability to use it. Let him then, upon a fair consideration, lend the capital to the man who can use it.
III. Chiefly we must strive to avoid THE TAKING SELFISH ADVANTAGE OF OUR NEIGHBOUR‘S NECESSITIES. Rather we should rejoice to take advantage of these necessities to show beyond all dispute, that the love of God is indeed the ruling principle of our hearts. Man’s extremity, it has often been said, is God’s opportunity, and so it should be the Christian’s opportunity. By timely aid, if we have it to bestow, let us strive to deliver the poor from the clutches of the usurer, and especially let us give our aid to what may be devised for the curing of poverty’s disease altogether. Every alteration either in laws or customs which will tend to diminish Povertylet it have our strenuous support. Bear in mind that whatever each man has beyond a certain moderate share of this world’s goods can only come to him because others have less than reasonable comfort demands. We should ever be aiming by all methods that are reasonable, just, and practicable, to secure to each one neither poverty nor riches, but just that food which is convenient for him. God wishes every man to have his daily bread; and it is an awful thing that we by our selfishness do so much to make the question of daily bread the only one that many of our fellow-creatures have time or inclination to ask. It seems to take every hour and every energy to keep the wolf from the door.Y.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Deu 22:25-26 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Ver. 16. Entice a maid. ] Heb., persuade with her by fair words, which make fools fain.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
a man entice: Gen 34:2-4, Deu 22:28, Deu 22:29
Reciprocal: Gen 29:18 – I will serve Gen 34:12 – dowry 1Sa 18:25 – dowry Pro 30:19 – and the
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Crimes against society 22:16-31
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Next we have a case of seduction. Here the girl is viewed as the property of her father. If a young couple had premarital sex, the young man had to marry the young woman and give his father-in-law the customary payment (i.e., a dowry) to do so. The girl’s father could refuse this offer, however, in which case the boy would not get the girl but would still have to pay the dowry. This law pertained to situations in which seduction (persuasion), not rape, had resulted in intercourse. Other Torah passages that indicate that premarital sex is sinful include Gen 2:24 and Deu 22:13-29. Moses did not comment on other similar situations here. Israel was evidently to function in harmony with previously existing law in these cases. [Note: Cassuto, pp. 288-89.]
"As many scholars recognize, the second half of the Book of the Covenant begins at Exo 22:18 and the stipulations undergo a change in content to match what is clearly a change in form. The first half (Exo 20:22 to Exo 22:17) is fundamentally casuistic, whereas the latter half is not. [Note: Childs, p. 477.] That is, the stipulations now are expressed as prescriptions or prohibitions with little or no reference to the penalty attached to violation in each case." [Note: Merrill, "A Theology . . .," p. 44.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER XXII.
THE LESSER LAW (continued).
PART IV.
Exo 22:16 – Exo 23:19.
The Fourth section of this law within the law consists of enactments, curiously disconnected, many of them without a penalty, varying greatly in importance, but all of a moral nature, and connected with the well-being of the state. It is hard to conceive how the systematic revision of which we hear so much could have left them in the condition in which they stand.
It is enacted that a seducer must marry the woman he has betrayed, and if her father refuse to give her to him, then he must pay the same dower as a bridegroom would have done (Exo 22:16-17). And presently the sentence of death is launched against a blacker sensual crime (Exo 22:19). But between the two is interposed the celebrated mandate which doomed the sorceress to death, remarkable as the first mention of witchcraft in Scripture, and the only passage in all the Bible where the word is in the feminine form–a witch, or sorceress; remarkable also for a far graver reason, which makes it necessary to linger over the subject at some length.
SORCERY.
“Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.”– Exo 22:18.
The world knows only too well what sad and shameful inferences have been drawn from these words. Unspeakable terrors, estrangement of natural sympathy, tortures and cruel deaths, have been inflicted on many thousands of the most forlorn creatures upon earth (creatures who were sustained in their sufferings by no high ardour of conviction or fanaticism, not being martyrs but simply victims), because it was held that Moses, in declaring that witches should not live, affirmed the reality of witchcraft. No sooner did the argument cease to be dangerous to old women than it became formidable to religion; for now it was urged that, since Moses was in error about the reality of witchcraft, his legislation could not have been inspired.
What are we to say to this?
In the first place it must be observed that the existence of a sorcerer is one thing, and the reality of his powers is quite another. What was most sad and shameful in the mediaeval frenzy was the burning to ashes of multitudes who made no pretensions to traffic with the invisible world, who frequently held fast their innocence while enduring the agonies of torture, who were only aged and ugly and alone. Upon any theory, the prohibition of sorcery by the Pentateuch was no more answerable for these iniquities than its other prohibitions for the lynch law of the backwoods.
On the other hand, there were real professors of the black art: men did pretend to hold intercourse with spirits, and extorted great sums from their dupes in return for bringing them also into communion with superhuman beings. These it is reasonable to call sorcerers, whether we accept their professions or not, just as we speak of thought-readers and of mediums without being understood to commit ourselves to the pretensions of either one or other. In point of fact, the existence, in this nineteenth century after Christ, of sorcerers calling themselves mediums, is much more surprising than the existence of other sorcerers in the time of Moses or of Saul; and it bears startling witness to the depth in human nature of that craving for traffic with invisible powers which the law prohibited so sternly, but the roots of which neither religion nor education nor scepticism has been able wholly to pluck up.
Again, from the point of view which Moses occupied, it is plain that such professors should be punished. They are virtually punished still, whenever they obtain money under pretence of granting interviews with the departed. If we now rely chiefly upon educated public opinion to stamp out such impositions, that is because we have decided that a struggle between truth and falsehood upon equal terms will be advantageous to the former. It is a subdivision of the debate between intolerance and free thought. Our theory works well, but not universally well, even under modern conditions and in Christian lands. And assuredly Moses could not proclaim freedom of opinion, among uneducated slaves, amid the pressure of splendid and of seductive idolatries, and before the Holy Ghost was given. To complain of Moses for proscribing false religions would be to denounce the use of glass for seedlings because the full-grown plant flourishes in the open air.
Now, it would have been preposterous to proscribe false religions and yet to tolerate the sorcerer and the sorceress. For these were the active practitioners of another worship than that of God. They might not profess idolatry; but they offered help and guidance from sources which Jehovah frowned upon, rival sources of defence or knowledge.
The holy people was meant to grow up under the most elevating of all influences, reliance upon a protecting God, Who had bidden His children to subdue the world as well as to replenish it, and of Whom one of their own poets sang that He had put all things under the feet of man. Their true heritage was not bounded by the strip of land which Joshua and his followers slowly conquered; to them belonged all the resources of nature which science, ever since, has wrested from the Philistine hands of barbarism and ignorance. And this nobler conquest depended upon the depth and sincerity of man’s feeling that the world is well-ordered and stable and the heritage of man, not a chaos of various and capricious powers, where Pallas inspires Diomed to hunt Venus bleeding off the field, or where the incantations of Canidia may disturb the orderly movements of the skies. Who could hope to discover by inductive science the secrets of such a world as this?
The devices of magic cut the links between cause and effect, between studious labour and the fruits which sorcery bade men to steal rather than to cultivate. What gambling was to commerce, that was witchcraft to philosophy, and the mischief no more depended on the validity of its methods than upon the soundness of the last device for breaking the bank at Monte Carlo.
If one could actually extort their secrets from the dead, or win for luxury and sloth a longer life than is bestowed upon temperance and labour, he would succeed in his revolt against the God of nature. But the revolt was the endeavour; and the sorcerer, however falsely, professed to have succeeded; and preached the same revolt to others. In religion he was therefore an apostate, and in the theocracy a traitor against the King, one whose life was forfeited if it was prudent to exact the penalty.
And when we consider the fascination wielded by such pretensions, even in ages when the stability of nature is an axiom, the dread which false religions all around and their terrible rituals must have inspired, the superstitious tendencies of the people and their readiness to be misled, we shall see ample reasons for treading out the first sparks of so dangerous a fire.
Beyond this it is vain to pretend that the law of Moses goes. It was right in declaring the sorcerer and the sorceress to be real and dangerous phenomena. It never declared their pretensions to be valid though illegitimate. And in one noteworthy passage it proclaims that a real sign or a wonder could only proceed from God, and when it accompanied false teaching was still a sign, though an ominous one, implying that the Lord would prove them (Deu 13:1-3). This does not look very like an admission of the existence of rival powers, inferior though they might be, who could interfere with the order of His world.
Sorcery in all its forms will die when men realise indeed that the world is His, that there is no short or crooked way to the prizes which He offers to wisdom and to labour, that these rewards are infinitely richer and more splendid than the wildest dreams of magic, and that it is literally true that all power, in earth as well as heaven, is committed into the Hands which were pierced for us. In such a conception of the universe, incantations give place to prayers, and prayer does not seek to disturb, but to carry forward and to consummate, the orderly rule of Love.
The denunciation of witchcraft is quite naturally followed, as we now perceive, by the reiteration of the command that no sacrifice may be offered to any god except Jehovah (Exo 22:20). Strange and hateful offerings were an integral part of witchcraft, long before the hags of Macbeth brewed their charm, or the child in Horace famished to yield a spell.