Continuing a chronological Bible study:
(Exodus 22:1) “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep."
Chapter 22 continues with God giving more moral laws or judgments following His giving of the Ten Commandments. Verse 1 concerns the theft of an ox or a sheep. If a man killed or sold an animal that he stole, he was required to give five oxen for the one he stole, or four sheep for the sheep he stole. Evidently, the oxen were considered more valuable than the sheep.
(2) “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood shed for him. (3) If the sun has risen on him, there shall be blood shed for him, for he should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. (4) If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double."
If the thief was caught while breaking in to steal, and he was struck so that he died, there was to be no guilt placed on the man who struck him. This apparently only applied if the theft was at night, because if the thief was caught by the light of day, there would be blood required for blood. This may be because by the light of day, the thief could be identified and more easily apprehended. Someone breaking in by the light of day was not likely intending to murder, but more likely was hungry or in need, and the master of the house could call for assistance. If the thief was caught by the light of day, he was expected to make full restitution. If he was caught in the act, and no harm was yet done to the animal he may have been trying to steal, he was to restore double as punishment for trying to steal in the first place, but was not required to pay four or five times as was the case if the animal was killed or sold. If he was stealing by light of day because he was hungry, then chances were pretty good that he would not be able to pay restitution. If he had nothing, and had restitution to pay and could not, then he was sold into servitude for his theft.
(5) “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and puts in his animal, and feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard."
If a man allowed his animal or animals to feed in another man's field, then he was required to make restitution for the damage or loss by giving the best of his own field and vineyard, even though it may be better than what was damaged. In this way, he would be more careful in the future about letting his animals roam free. Worth noting is that it was not acceptable to keep another's animal because it had wondered into your field.
(6) “If fire breaks out and catches in thorns, so that the stacks of corn or standing corn or the field be consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution."
Possibly the point is that while trying to burn thorns, a fire might spread beyond the thorns and do damage to another man's crops. If that was the case, the man who started the fire was responsible for negligence and had to make restitution.
(7) “If a man delivers to his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. (8) If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor’s goods."
If a man delivered to his neighbor money or articles to keep for him, whether as a pledge (a deposit of goods by a debtor to his creditor to be kept until the debt was paid), or perhaps as to a carrier to be conveyed or to a warehouse to be kept, or perhaps he delivered his cattle to graze in a neighbor's field by mutual agreement--for whatever reason his property was in the hands of his neighbor, that neighbor was responsible for it as if it was his own. As in verse 4, if the thief was found with the stolen article, then the thief had to pay double. However, we may assume that, as in verse 1, if the article was not found, but the thief was, he had to pay four or five times, and I would imagine these restitutions would have been made to the original owner. If the thief was not found, the owner of the house in whose care the articles had been entrusted would have to go before the judges to determine if he had anything to do with the loss of the goods. In the words of Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "this teaches us that we ought to be very careful of every thing we are entrusted with, as careful of it, though it be another's, as if it were our own. It is unjust and base, and that which all the world cries shame on, to betray a trust."
(9) “For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any manner of lost thing, which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor."
In all manners of disputes concerning property of any kind, as it was a case of "he said, she said", both parties would have to go before the judges to have the ownership determined, and the guilty party would be required to pay double to the injured party.
(10) “If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any
animal to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven away, no one seeing it, (11) Then an oath of the LORD shall be between them both, that he has not put his hand into his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept that, and he shall not make it good."
If a man had under his care a neighbor's animal, and that animal was lost and there was no witness to what may have happened to it, then an oath, swearing by the name of the Lord, would be made between them both. The owner would have to swear that he brought the animal to his neighbor for safe-keeping, and the neighbor would have to swear that he had nothing to do with the loss. In Biblical times, an oath to the Lord was a serious thing, and one was to accept it as truth. In such a case, restitution was not required. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, put it this way: "So solemn and awful were all appeals to God considered in those ancient times, that it was taken for granted that the man was innocent who could by an oath appeal to the omniscient God that he had not put his hand to his neighbor’s goods. Since oaths have become multiplied, and since they have been administered on the most trifling occasions, their solemnity is gone, and their importance little regarded. Should the oath ever reacquire its weight and importance, it must be when administered only in cases of peculiar delicacy and difficulty, and as sparingly as in the days of Moses."
(12) "And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. (13) If it is torn to pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn."
However, if the animal was stolen from the caretaker, then he was required to make restitution to the owner. If he was able to find the thief, then the thief would have paid him restitution that could in turn be passed on to the owner, but if the thief was not found, then I assume it was considered negligence that he allowed the animal to be stolen without having seen the thief. Then again, if the animal was torn to pieces by a wild animal, he was not required to pay restitution if he could provide evidence that the animal was indeed torn to pieces by a wild beast.
(14) “And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good. (15) But if its owner was with it, he shall not make it good; if it was a hired thing, it came for its hire."
If a man borrowed from his neighbor, again he must give it the care he would his own, and if it was injured under his care, he was required to make it good. However, if the owner was with the borrowed thing (presumably an animal), as when he might be doing work for his neighbor, it was assumed that he would take responsibility and care for his own animal. If it was a hired thing, then the cost of hire covered the risk of accident.
(16) “And if a man entices a maiden who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife."
If a man took advantage of a young woman, he must marry her and give her a dowry. This law spoke of a young woman who was not betrothed, because being betrothed was like being married, and that fell under a different law.
(17) “If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."
However, it had to be by the young woman's father's consent that the man who took advantage of her was allowed to marry her. If the father refused, then the man had to pay the sum of money as would be a handsome
dowry for the injured female, and would allow her to enter with proper
dignity and respect the house of whatever man might later become her husband.
(18) “You shall not permit a witch to live."
Witchcraft was to be a capital crime. Witches and wizards called on other spirits other than the Holy Spirit of God to perform spells, so was the very definition of idol worship, which had already been forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments. The fact that God made a point to call out witches, I believe proves that witchcraft and sorcery is real and probably has some power. There are other scriptures in the Bible that confirm that one could communicate with other spirits (Isaiah 8:19, 1 Samuel 28:12). The fact that the witch in 1 Samuel 28:12 was so surprised that she actually conjured up the spirit of Samuel proves that many witches were probably just fakes and deceivers, but the fact that they sought these dead spirits was evident of their desire to interact with them and was forbidden by God.
(19) “Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death."
Obviously, this meant to lie with in the same way one would lie with a person of the opposite sex in a sexual sense. The fact that this law had to be made proves that the practice of bestiality existed, but it was so abominable and detested by God, that it was to be a crime punishable by death.
(20) “He who sacrifices to any god, except to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."
Sacrificing to any god other than the one true God was obviously false idol worship and was considered a capital crime punishable by death.
(21) “You shall neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
The original word for "vex" was "yanah" and it meant "to rage or be violent, to suppress, to mistreat". The people were not to mistreat or oppress strangers in their land. The Lord reminded them that they were once strangers, and they should treat others the way they would want to be treated in that situation.
(22) “You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. (23) If you afflict them in any way, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry; (24) And My wrath will become hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless."
The word translated as "afflict" was "anah", very similar to "yanah" above, but more completely meant "to look down on, browbeat, humiliate, mishandle, deal hardly with, defile, hurt, ravish, weaken". No one was to look down on or mistreat in any way a widow or fatherless children. I find it interesting that God put it the way He did. Obviously, he would know what anyone did to anyone else. He would not need to hear the cries of the victims to know that they had been mistreated. I believe the point is to show that as widows and fatherless children, they had no husbands or fathers to protect them from unfair dealings, but God would act as their Father and Protector, and if He heard of any mistreatment, His anger would be kindled and He would take swift action against the one who mistreated them. I like the way Adam Clarke wrote about this, "It is remarkable that offenses against this law are not left to the discretion of the judges to be punished; God reserves the punishment to himself, and by this he strongly shows his abhorrence of the crime. It is no common crime, and shall not be punished in a common way; the wrath of God shall wax hot against him who in any wise afflicts or wrongs a widow or a fatherless child: and we may rest assured that he who helps either does a service highly acceptable in the sight of God."
(25) “If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a usurer, neither shall you charge him interest."
If one lent money to a poor person, he was not to loan as a creditor charging interest, and dealing harshly with the borrower if he was not punctual in his repayment. If a poor person had to borrow, it generally meant he had to just to survive, and it was forbidden to add extra hardship on him.
(26) “If you ever take your neighbor’s garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. (27) For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin; what will he sleep in? And it will come to pass, when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious."
It seems a little odd that the law wasn't stated that one must not take clothing as security for a loan, but perhaps the situation didn't fall under the law forbidding extortion in lending to a poor man. Perhaps a neighbor asked to borrow something short-term, as for a few hours, and left his clothing or bed clothes as collateral. The lender must not keep the borrower's clothing overnight even if the borrower failed to keep up his end of the bargain. To do so would be cruel as his clothing was a necessity. Once again, our gracious God as Provider of our needs, would protect the borrower against such cruelty.
(28) “You shall not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of your people."
I had to take this one almost one word at a time to fully understand it. "Revile" or "qalal" meant "to make light, trifle, bring into contempt, despise". The gods, plural...this is a harder one to understand. The original word is "elohim", is plural, and is the same name given to the one true God of Genesis, understood to be the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The word was also used in scripture to mean generic gods. However, when you consider that God had already forbidden the worship of any other gods than Him, it makes no sense that God would now be forbidding the reviling of those false gods. The word occasionally was used to mean a judge (Exodus 21:6, 1 Samuel 2:25), or godly or divine (Malachi 2:15). Since it can't possibly mean false gods, the word would have to refer to either God Himself, godly or divine things, or judges. God went on to say that you should not curse the ruler of your people. God often reiterated a point, so it is reasonable to believe He meant not to despise, make light of, or curse your judges or rulers, either one, but it is also quite possible He meant not to make light of or despise godly or divine things of God Himself. This would hearken back to the filial laws of the Ten Commandments that commanded our respect for all authority--parents, government, and God. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul took this commandment to heart even though the ruler of his people was his unrighteous persecutor:
"And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, 'God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?' And those who stood by said, 'Do you revile God’s high priest?' Then Paul said, 'I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people."'" - Acts 23:2-5
Wow! This one really hits home when I think of my lack of respect for President Obama (I had to force myself to even use his title) and other seemingly godless liberals in authority. But God said to respect them and not dishonor them. Imagine if everyone prayed for seemingly godless rulers every time they thought to curse them! I am speaking mainly to myself! If we worked out of love wanting the best for the rulers of our people, might it be that we and they and all of us would better benefit? Wow, real food for thought...and action!
(29) “You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe fruits and your liquors; the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. (30) Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother, on the eighth day you shall give it to Me."
The people were not to delay in their offerings to God. In postponing their duties, they were in danger of omitting them altogether. Matthew Henry in his Commentary on the Whole Bible explained it beautifully this way, "There is danger, if we delay our duty, lest we wholly omit it; and by slipping the first opportunity, in expectation of another, we suffer Satan to cheat us of all our time. Let not young people delay to offer to God the first-fruits of their time and strength, lest their delays come, at last, to be denials, through the deceitfulness of sin, and the more convenient season they promise themselves never arrive."
The people were to offer the first of their ripened produce to God, and the first of their liquors, which was probably the wine of their grapes. The giving of their firstborn sons was a repeat of the law initially given by God in Exodus 13:2: " Sanctify to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast; it is Mine.” The firstborn of their oxen and sheep was to be offered to the Lord, but these were to stay with their mothers for seven days, and be offered on the eighth day.
(31) “And you shall be holy men to Me: you shall not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs."
The Israelites were to be God's holy people, set apart by Him. One mark of that distinction was that they were not to eat the flesh of any animal torn by beasts in the field. This may have been for the reason Matthew Henry explained, "not only because it was unwholesome, but because it was paltry, and base, and covetous, and a thing below those who were holy men unto God, to eat the leavings of the beasts of prey." However, I believe Adam Clarke more fully grasped the point, "The reason of the prohibition against eating the flesh of animals that had been torn, or as we term it worried in the field, appears to have been simply this: That the people might not eat the blood, which in this case must be coagulated in the flesh; and the blood, being the life of the beast, and emblematical of the blood of the covenant, was ever to be held sacred, and was prohibited from the days of Noah." Probably both points were true. The holy man of God was not to be as a savage, but eating and drinking deliberately and conscientiously, giving glory to God.
Verse 31 at the conclusion of this chapter summarizes the reason for all the laws contained in the chapter. God's laws were given to His people that they might be His holy people, set apart from the rest of the world. His laws were given to His people as restraints on disorderly passions and as incentives to holiness.
