Exodus
22
THE BOOK OF THE
COVENANT (Con’t)
LAWS
CONNECTED WITH RIGHTS OF PROPERTY – (Con’t)
The
first section — vs. 1-6 — is 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 neighbor’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 (v. 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 more — fourfold in the case
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 (v. 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 (v. 2); but, if the house were
entered by day, the proviso did not hold (v. 3).
vs. 1-4 – “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. If a thief be found
breaking up” – rather “breaking in” – that
is, making forcible entry into a house –
“and be smitten
that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.” – The
principle 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.
“If the sun be risen upon him, there shall
be blood shed for him; for he should
make full restitution” - The
punishment of the housebreaker, who enters a house by
day, shall be like that of other thieves — to
restore double - “if he have nothing,
then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand
alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.”
The
Mosaic Law, with greater refinement and greater propriety, graduated the
punishment according to the special character of the
offense. 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 heavier — fourfold for a sheep or goat,
fivefold for an ox. There was
especial audacity in stealing an ox — an 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;
·
BECAUSE THE SAME OUTWARD OFFENCE INVOLVES
VARIOUS DEGREES OF INWARD
WICKEDNESS; e.g., homicide
varies between
absolute blamelessness (v. 2) and the highest degree of
culpability
(ch. 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.
·
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.
LAW OF
TRESPASS
Next
to theft, and not much behind it, is the wanton damage of what belongs to
another —
as when a person injures his neighbor’s
crops, either by turning beasts into his field,
or by causing a conflagration in it. To turn
beasts in was the more determinedly
malicious act, and therefore the damage done was to
be compensated by making over
to the injured party a like quantity of
produce out of the best that a
man was possessed
of; whereas simple restitution, was
sufficient when fire had spread accidentally from a
man’s own land to his neighbor’s. We may
conclude that if the trespass of the cattle
were accidental, simple restitution sufficed;
and if the fire were kindled of set
purpose, the heavier rate of penalty was exacted.
vs. 5-6 – “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.” This
means that,
without reference to the quality of the crop
damaged, the injurer should forfeit an
equal amount of his own best produce. “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.” - The law punished such
carelessness, by requiring the man who had kindled the
fire to make restitution.
The Law
of Love forbids all injury to a neighbor. There are many who would scorn
to steal the property of a neighbor, who yet make
light of injuring it in other ways, as
by trespass, or by negligence. But if we
love our neighbor we shall be anxious not to
injure him in any way. “Love
worketh no ill to his neighbor.” (Romans 13:10) –
He that
allows his cattle to pasture in a neighbor’s field, or his hares and
rabbits to
spoil a neighbor’s crops, or his poultry to break bounds
and damage a neighbor’s
garden, cannot feel towards him as a Christian should
feel. Love would
hinder any
injuries, nay, even any intrusive or obnoxious act. Love would also be a strong
check upon neglect and carelessness. Men are
careful enough not to damage their own
property; did they really love them, they would be as
careful not to damage the
property of their neighbors. And what is true of property is
true of other things also.
We are bound:
·
NOT TO INJURE OUR NEIGHBOUR’S CHARACTER, either by
direct
attacks upon it, or by carelessly suffering it to be maligned by others.
·
NOT TO INJURE HIS DOMESTIC PEACE.
ü By
impertinent intrusion;
ü By spying
and tale-bearing;
ü By
scattering suspicions.
·
NOT TO INJURE HIS INTERESTS.
ü By
divulging without necessity what may hurt him;
ü By pushing
our own interests at his expense;
ü By
knowingly advising him ill;
ü By setting
pitfalls that he may fall into them.
If we offend in any of these
respects, it is our duty, so far as possible, to
“make restitution” —
ü By
compensating to him any loss he may have sustained;
ü By
disabusing those whose minds we may have poisoned;
ü By ample
and humble apology.
Too often this last will be all that
is in our power; for “the tongue is a fire”
(James 3:6), which scatters its
brands far and wide, and creates
conflagrations
that it is impossible to extinguish. Let each and all seek to
control
that “unruly member” which “setteth on fire the
course of nature,”
and is itself “set
on fire of hell.”
LAW
OF DEPOSITS
Deposition
of property in the hands of a friend, to keep and guard, was a marked
feature in the life of primitive societies, where
investments were difficult, and bankers
unknown. Persons about to travel, especially merchants,
were wont to make such a
disposition of the greater part of their movable property,
which required some one to
guard it in their absence. Refusals to return such
deposits were rare; since ancient morality
regarded such refusal as a crime of deep dye (Herod.
7:86). Sometimes, however, they
took place; and at
cases called parakataqh>khv di>kh. The
penalty, if a man were east in the suit, was
simple restitution, which is less satisfactory than
the Mosaic enactment - “He shall pay
double” (v. 9)
vs. 7-13 – “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 be found, let him pay double.
If the thief be not found, then the master
of the house shall be brought unto the
judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his
neighbor’s goods. For all
manner of trespass, 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; and whom the
judges shall condemn, he
shall pay double unto his neighbor. 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:
Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he
hath not put his hand unto his neighbor’s
goods; and the owner of it shall accept
thereof, and he shall not make it good. And if it be stolen from him, he shall
make restitution unto the owner thereof. If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring
it for witness, and he shall not make good
that which was torn.” The main
teaching
of this third paragraph of ch 22 is
the sacred character of human
trusts. Men are taught that
they must carefully guard the property of others when committed to their
charge,
and religiously restore it upon demand to its rightful owner. No conversion of such
property
to the use of
the trustee, under any circumstances whatever, is to be tolerated.
The
principle laid down with respect to ancient, will apply equally to modern,
trusts:
Ø If the
thing entrusted be stolen, without the trustee being justly chargeable
with having contributed to the theft by negligence, the loss
must fall on the
owner.
Ø If it be
lost by. non-preventible accident, as when a lion
carries off a
lamb, or
when a ship goes down at sea, the case is the same — the trustee
is not
liable.
Ø If, on the other
hand, the trustee neglect to take sufficient care, and
damage
occurs, he is bound to make good the injury caused by his own
laches.
Ø If he
actually embezzle the trust, simple restitution will not meet the
full claims
of justice. He ought to be made to refund, and to be punished
besides.
Ø In doubtful
cases the oath, or solemn assurance, of the trustee, that he
has
conveyed no part of the trust to his own use, ought to be accepted.
Trusts are among the most important
of the contracts and obligations,
whereby
human society is carried on. Strict honesty and much thought and
care are
requisite on the one hand, confidence, gratitude and tender
consideration
on the other. Trustees, it is to be remembered, do, for the
most part,
unpaid work. No one can be compelled to be a trustee.
unless a
generous confidence is put in them, and their good intentions are
presumed,
alike by the law and by those for whom they act, trusteeship will
be declined
by prudent men, and great inconveniences will follow.
LAW
OF BORROWING
The
act of borrowing is connected with that of depositing, since in both cases, the
property
of one man is committed to the hands of
another; only, in the one case, it is
at the instance and for the benefit of the
man into whose hands the property passes;
in the other case, it is at the instance and
for the benefit of the other party. This
difference causes a difference of obligation. The
borrower, having borrowed solely
for his own advantage, must take all the
risks, and in any case return the thing
borrowed, or its value, unless the owner was still,
in some sort, in charge of his own
property. Things
hired are not, however, to be regarded as borrowed. If harm come to
them, the owner must suffer the loss.
vs. 14-15 – “And if a man borrow ought of his
neighbor, and it be hurt, or die,
the owner thereof being not with it, he shall
surely make it good. But if the
owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it
good: if it be an hired thing, it
came for his hire.” The duty of borrowers is very simple. It is to
take care that that
which they borrow
suffers as little hurt as possible while it remains in their possession,
and to return it unhurt, or else make compensation to the
lender. People will not often
be found to question the propriety of these rules; but in
action there are not very many
who conform to them. It is a common thing to take but little care
of what we have
borrowed; to keep it an unconscionable time; to
neglect returning it until the lender
has asked for it repeatedly; to keep it without
scruple, if he does not happen to ask for it.
Curiously
enough, there are particular things — e.g., umbrellas and books, which
it is
supposed not to be necessary to return, and which
borrowers are in the habit of
withholding. Many go further, and feel under no obligation
to repay even money which
they have borrowed. All such conduct is, however,
culpable, since it is tainted with
dishonesty. Borrowers
should remember:
DO NOT RESTORE
WHAT THEY HAVE BORROWED. Self-respect
should
prevent them from a line of conduct which assimilates them to
thieves,
and is wanting in the boldness and straightforwardness that
characterize
ordinary thieves.
LENDER, who has put them under a special
obligation to him.
since they
do their best to deter men from ever lending, and so place
difficulties
in the way of borrowers. We all need to borrow at times.
His word, that it is “the wicked” who “borroweth and payeth not again”
(Psalm 37:21).
MISCELLANEOUS
LAWS (vs. 16-31)
Abominations (vs. 16-21)
vs. 16-20 – “And if a man entice a maid that
is not betrothed, and lie with her,
he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her
unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of virgins.” 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 (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). Lewdness in every form is sternly
reprobated by the law of Moses (of. <052201>Deuteronomy 22:13-30). 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
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Witchcraft. – (The
word “witchcraft” in
Galatians
5:20 is from the Greek word farmakei>a, — far-mak-i’-ah; the use
of
drugs, whether simple or potent, and was generally
accompanied by incantations
and appeals to occult powers) With equal
strictness was forbidden all trafficking,
whether in pretence
or in reality, with unholy powers. The crime — a violation of
the first principles of the theocracy — was 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 (see - Deuteronomy
18:9-15). 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 (Leviticus
19:31)
and witches were, therefore, under the
Jewish theocracy, like idolaters and blasphemers,
to be put to death. “Whosoever
lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.” –
This is a law against unnatural crime. The
abomination here mentioned is said to have
prevailed in
Strab. 17. p. 802; Clem. A1. Cohort.
ad Gentes, p. 9; etc.).
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). Bestiality was an inversion of the order of
nature,
and in itself an act of the grossest
abominableness, was “surely” to be
punished with death.
“He that sacrificeth
unto any God, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly
destroyed.” - 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.”
Possibly this crime is mentioned here as, in a
sense, the spiritual counterpart of the vices above
noted, i.e., as involving:
Ø Spiritual
adultery,
Ø The
worshipping of “devils” (Deuteronomy
32:17),
Ø Filthy
and impure rites (Deuteronomy 23. 17-18).
LAW
AGAINST OPPRESSION OF FOREIGNERS - (v. 21)
v. 21 - “Thou shalt
neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers
in the
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. The Mosaic legislation
protested strongly against this practice
(ch. 23:9; Leviticus 19:33), and
even required the Israelites to “love the
stranger who dwelt
with them as themselves” (Leviticus 19:34). “for ye were
strangers” - Compare Leviticus 19:34, and Deuteronomy 10:19. In ch. 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 oppressed — ye know this
by your own
sad experience, and should therefore have a tenderness for strangers.
LAW
AGAINST OPPRESSING WIDOWS AND ORPHANS – (vs. 22-24)
With the stranger are
naturally placed the widow and orphan; like him, weak and
defenseless; like him, special
objects of God’s care. The negative precept
here given was followed up by numerous positive
enactments in favor of
the widow and the orphan, which much ameliorated their sad lot.
(See ch. 23. 11;
Leviticus
19:9-10; Deuteronomy 14:29; 16:11,14; 24:19-21; 26:12-13.)
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 Psalm
94:6; Isaiah 1:23; 10:2; Jeremiah 7:3-6; 22:3; Zechariah 7:10;
Malachi 3:5; Matthew 23. 14.) The prophets denounce this backsliding in the
strongest terms.
vs. 22-24 – “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 – “any widow, or fatherless child. If
thou afflict them in any
wise, and they cry at all unto me” Rather, “Surely, if they cry unto me.” Compare
Genesis
31:42 - “I will
surely hear their cry. And my wrath shall wax hot, and
I will kill you with the sword” - It was,
in large measure, on account of the neglect
of this precept, that the capture of
its inhabitants, was allowed to take place. (Jeremiah
22:3-5) - “and your
wives
shall be widows, and your children fatherless. A quasi-retaliation
- They shall be
exposed to the same sort of ill-usage as you have dealt
out to other widows.
LAW
OF LENDING BORROWING AND LENDING MONEY – (vs. 25-27)
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
(Leviticus 25:35; Deuteronomy
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;
Proverbs 28:8; Ezekiel 18:13;
22:12), and
the description of the righteous man as “he that hath not given his money
upon usury” (Psalm
15:5; Ezekiel 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 (Deuteronomy 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.
vs. 25-27 – “If thou lend money to any of my
people that is poor by thee, thou
shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. If thou
at all take thy neighbor’s raiment to pledge,
thou shalt deliver it unto him by
that the sun goeth
down: For that is his covering only, 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.” Compare v. 23. If the law
is broken, and the
man cry unto the Lord, He will hear,
and avenge him.
LAW
AGAINST REVILING GOD OR RULERS – (v. 28)
v. 28 – “Thou shalt
not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.”
It has been
proposed to render Elohim here either
Ø “God;” or
Ø “The gods;”
or
Ø “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 Leviticus 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 (Numbers 3:24,30,35) and tribes
(Numbers 7:10,18,24) in the
Pentateuch. Later, it is applied to kings (I Kings 11:34;
Ezekiel 12:10; 45:7). Our
translators generally render it by “prince.”
JEHOVAH’S
PROTÉGÉ’S AND REPRESENTATIVES (vs. 21-28)
and the poor generally — all of whom the Israelites are
forbidden to “afflict.”
The ground
of Jehovah’s interest in them is His own character — “for I am
gracious” - (v. 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 (vs. 23, 24, 27). Vs. 25-28 specially
forbid exacting treatment of the
poor. Liberal help is to be afforded them. A
neighbor 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 (v. 27). What
kindness breathes in these precepts! How justly does the law
which embodies
them claim to be a law of love! How far, even yet, is our Christian society
from having
risen to the height of the standard And they set up! Let us
seek
ourselves
to translate them more uniformly into practice. Learn also, from
these
precepts, inculcating love to the stranger, how little ground there is
for
accusing the religion of Moses of fanatical hatred of foreign peoples.
are to be
treated with respect. They are invested with a portion of God’s
authority (Romans
13:1).
THE LAW OF THE FIRST-FRUITS
(vs. 29-31)
God required
as first-fruits from His people:
Ø The
first-born of their children;
Ø The
firstborn of all their cattle; and
Ø 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 (ch. 13:13;
Numbers
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. (Nehemiah
10:35-36.)
vs. 29-31 – “Thou
shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy
liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.
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.” - 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. “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: “neither
shall ye eat any flesh that is torn
of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to
the dogs.”
JEHOVAH’S DUES –
(vs. 29-31)
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 ch.13:2,12). God’s highest due is that we
be “holy.” The precept
in
v.31 is connected
with the prohibition to eat flesh with the blood in it.
"Excerpted
text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials
are reproduced by permission."
This
material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com