Exodus 22:1 Komentář

The laws of this chapter relate, I. To the eighth commandment, concerning theft (Exo 22:1-4), trespass by cattle (Exo 22:5), damage by fire (Exo 22:6), trusts (Exo 22:7-13), borrowing cattle (Exo 22:14, Exo 22:15), or money (Exo 22:25-27). II. To the seventh commandment. Against fornication (Exo 22:16, Exo 22:17), bestiality (Exo 22:19). III. To the first table, forbidding witchcraft (Exo 22:18), idolatry (Exo 22:20). Commanding to offer the firstfruits (Exo 22:29, Exo 22:30). IV. To the poor (Exo 22:21-24). V. To the civil government (Exo 22:28). VI. To the peculiarity of the Jewish nation (Exo 22:31).

Here are the laws, I. Concerning theft, which are these: - 1. If a man steal any cattle (in which the wealth of those times chiefly consisted), and they be found in his custody, he must restore double, Exo 22:4. Thus he must both satisfy for the wrong and suffer for the crime. But it was afterwards provided that if the thief were touched in conscience, and voluntarily confessed it, before it was discovered or enquired into by any other, then he should only make restitution of what he had stolen, and add to it a fifth part, Lev 6:4, Lev 6:5. 2. If he had killed or sold the sheep or ox he had stolen, and thereby persisted in his crime, he must restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep (Exo 22:1), more for an ox than for a sheep because the owner, besides all the other profit, lost the daily labour of his ox. This law teaches us that fraud and injustice, so far from enriching men, will impoverish them: if we unjustly get and keep that which is another's, it will not only waste itself, but it will consume that which is our own. 3. If he was not able to make restitution, he must be sold for a slave, Exo 22:3. The court of judgment was to do it, and it is probable that the person robbed had the money. Thus with us, in some cases, felons are transported into plantations where alone Englishmen know what slavery is. 4. If a thief broke a house in the night, and was killed in the doing of it, his blood was upon his own head, and should not be required at the hand of him that shed it, Exo 22:2. As he that does an unlawful act bears the blame of the mischief that follows to others, so likewise of that which follows to himself. A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril. Yet, if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it (Exo 22:3), unless it was in the necessary defence of his own life. Note, We ought to be tender of the lives even of bad men; the magistrate must afford us redress, and we must not avenge ourselves. II. Concerning trespass, Exo 22:5. He that wilfully put his cattle into his neighbour's field must make restitution of the best of his own. Our law makes a much greater difference between this and other thefts than the law of Moses did. The Jews hence observed it as a general rule that restitution must always be made of the best, and that no man should keep any cattle that were likely to trespass upon his neighbours or do them any damage. We should be more careful not to do wrong than not to suffer wrong, because to suffer wrong is only an affliction, but to do wrong is a sin, and sin is always worse than affliction. III. Concerning damage done by fire, Exo 22:6. He that designed only the burning of thorns might become accessory to the burning of corn, and should not be held guiltless. Men of hot and eager spirits should take heed, lest, while they pretend only to pluck up the tares, they root out the wheat also. If the fire did mischief, he that kindled it must answer for it, though it could not be proved that he designed the mischief. Men must suffer for their carelessness, as well as for their malice. We must take heed of beginning strife; for, though it seem but little, we know not how great a matter it may kindle, the blame of which we must bear, if, with the madman, we cast fire-brands, arrows, and death, and pretend we mean no harm. It will make us very careful of ourselves, if we consider that we are accountable, not only for the hurt we do, but for the hurt we occasion through inadvertency.

INTRODUCTION TO EXODUS 22 This chapter contains various laws concerning theft, Exo 22:1, concerning damage done to fields and vineyards by beasts, and to corn in stacks or standing, by fire, Exo 22:5, concerning anything or creature deposited in the hands of a neighbour, and they be stolen or lost by one means or another, Exo 22:7, concerning anything borrowed, and it comes to any damage, Exo 22:14, concerning fornication, Exo 22:16 concerning witchcraft, bestiality, and idolatry, Exo 22:18 concerning oppression, and affliction of the stranger, fatherless, and widow, Exo 22:21 concerning taking usury and pledges, Exo 22:25, concerning irreverence to magistrates, Exo 22:28, concerning the offering of firstfruits to God, Exo 22:29 and the chapter is concluded with a prohibition of eating anything torn by beasts, Exo 22:31

If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep,.... In which the substance of men chiefly lay in those times, and particularly the people of Israel, who were now come out of Egypt, with their flocks and herds, and these lying near together, were the more liable to be stolen; and hence also the laws in the preceding chapter concerning oxen and damages done by them, and oxen and sheep are only mentioned; perhaps chiefly because used in sacrifice, as well as serviceable for other things; not but that stealing other cattle and other things were criminal and forbidden, and to be punished in proportion: and kill it, or sell it; either of which cases would plainly show that he took it away with an intention to deprive the owner of it, and to convert it to his own use: he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep; the reason of this difference, five being obliged to be given for the one, and but four for the other, is, because the one was more valuable than the other, as well as more useful, and also more easily stolen, and therefore the greater mulct or fine was laid upon the theft of it, to deter from it: the Targum of Jonathan expresses the reason of the law thus; five for oxen, because the theft of them hindered from ploughing, or made to cease from it; and for sheep but four, because there was trouble in the theft of them, and there was no tillage or agriculture by them: and Saadiah Gaon observes, that the damage that comes to the owner of the ox is more than that by a lamb, because with it, the ox, he ploughs, which is a creature that was used in those countries to be employed in that service, as well as in treading out the corn: Maimonides (u) accounts for it thus,"the restitution of the theft of oxen is increased by one, because the theft of them is easy; sheep are fed in flocks, and are easily kept and watched, and can scarcely be taken away by theft but in the night; but oxen are fed scattered here and there, and therefore cannot be so easily kept by the herdsmen; hence also their theft used to be more common:''four fold restitution was in use with the ancient Persians, with whom it was a rule,"whoever took any substance of another, in retaliation they took fourfold from him, and if he restored it, he gave fourfold of the same (w).'' (u) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 41. (w) Lib. Shed-dar, apud Hyde Relig. Vet. Pers. p. 472.

Therefore the thief being taken pays fourfold, but he that spoils by violence is worse than if he steals. And if this last ought to give fourfold what he stole, the extortioner should give tenfold and much more. Even so he can make atonement for his justice. For of almsgiving not even then will he receive the reward. Therefore says Zaccheus, “I will restore what I have taken by false accusation fourfold, and the half of my goods I will give to the poor.” And if under the law one ought to give fourfold, much more under grace. And if this is so for one who steals, much more it is so for one who spoils by violence.

Some think that the precepts of the Old Testament are stricter than those of the New; but these are certainly deceived by careless consideration. For in the Old Testament, not avarice but robbery is punished. There, property unjustly taken is punished by fourfold restitution. But here this rich man is not blamed for taking what belonged to others, but for not giving what was his own. Nor is it said that he oppressed anyone by violence, but that he exalted himself in the things he had received. From this, therefore, we must especially conclude with what punishment he should be punished who seizes what belongs to others, if he is struck with the condemnation of hell who does not share his own possessions. Therefore let no one consider himself safe, saying: "Behold, I do not seize what belongs to others, but I enjoy things lawfully granted to me," because this rich man was not punished for taking what belonged to others, but because he wrongly abandoned himself to the things he had received.

Laws concerning theft, Exo 22:1-4; concerning trespass, Exo 22:5; concerning casualties, Exo 22:6. Laws concerning deposits, or goods left in custody of others, which may have been lost, stolen, or damaged, Exo 22:7-13. Laws concerning things borrowed or let out on hire, Exo 22:14, Exo 22:15. Laws concerning seduction, Exo 22:16, Exo 22:17. Laws concerning witchcraft, Exo 22:18; bestiality, Exo 22:19; idolatry, Exo 22:20. Laws concerning strangers, Exo 22:21; concerning widows, Exo 22:22-24; lending money to the poor, Exo 22:25; concerning pledges, Exo 22:26; concerning respect to magistrates, Exo 22:28; concerning the first ripe fruits, and the first-born of man and beast, Exo 22:29, Exo 22:30. Directions concerning carcasses found torn in the field, Exo 22:31.

If a man shall steal - This chapter consists chiefly of judicial laws, as the preceding chapter does of political; and in it the same good sense, and well-marked attention to the welfare of the community and the moral improvement of each individual, are equally evident. In our translation of this verse, by rendering different Hebrew words by the same term in English, we have greatly obscured the sense. I shall produce the verse with the original words which I think improperly translated, because one English term is used for two Hebrew words, which in this place certainly do not mean the same thing. If a man shall steal an ox (שור shor) or a sheep, (שה seh), and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen (בקר bakar) for an ox, (שור shor), and four sheep (צאן tson) for a sheep (שה seh). I think it must appear evident that the sacred writer did not intend that these words should be understood as above. A shor certainly is different from a bakar, and a seh from a tson. Where the difference in every case lies, wherever these words occur, it is difficult to say. The shor and the bakar are doubtless creatures of the beeve kind, and are used in different parts of the sacred writings to signify the bull, the ox, the heifer, the steer, and the calf. The seh and the tson are used to signify the ram, the wether, the ewe, the lamb, the he-goat, the she-goat, and the kid. And the latter word צאן tson seems frequently to signify the flock, composed of either of these lesser cattle, or both sorts conjoined. As שור shor is used, Job 21:10, for a bull probably it may mean so here. If a man steal a Bull he shall give five Oxen for him, which we may presume was no more than his real value, as very few bulls could be kept in a country destitute of horses, where oxen were so necessary to till the ground. For though some have imagined that there were no castrated cattle among the Jews, yet this cannot be admitted on the above reason; for as they had no horses, and bulls would have been unmanageable and dangerous, they must have had oxen for the purposes of agriculture. Tson צאן is used for a flock either of sheep or goats, and seh שה for an individual of either species. For every seh, four, taken indifferently from the tson or flock must be given; i.e., a sheep stolen might be recompensed with four out of the flock, whether of sheep or goats: so that a goat might be compensated with four sheep, or a sheep with four goats.

LAWS CONCERNING THEFT. (Exo. 22:1-31) If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep--The law respects the theft of cattle which constituted the chief part of their property. The penalty for the theft of a sheep which was slain or sold, was fourfold; for an ox fivefold, because of its greater utility in labor; but, should the stolen animal have been recovered alive, a double compensation was all that was required, because it was presumable he (the thief) was not a practised adept in dishonesty. A robber breaking into a house at midnight might, in self-defense, be slain with impunity; but if he was slain after sunrise, it would be considered murder, for it was not thought likely an assault would then be made upon the lives of the occupants. In every case where a thief could not make restitution, he was sold as a slave for the usual term.

With regard to cattle-stealing, the law makes a distinction between what had been killed or sold, and what was still alive and in the thief's hand (or possession). In the latter case, the thief was to restore piece for piece twofold (Exo 22:4); in the former, he was to restore an ox fivefold and a small animal (a sheep or a goat) fourfold (Exo 22:1). The difference between the compensation for an ox and a small animal is to be accounted for from the comparative worth of the cattle to the possessor, which determined the magnitude of the theft and the amount of the compensation. But the other distinctions of twofold, fourfold, and fivefold restitution cannot be accounted for, either by supposing "that the animal slain or sold was lost to its master, and might have been of peculiar value to him" (Knobel), for such a consideration of personal feelings would have been quite foreign to the law-not to mention the fact that an animal that had been sold might be recovered by purchase; or from the fact that "the thief in this case had carried his crime still further" (Baumgarten), for the main thing was still the theft, not the consumption or sale of the animal stolen. The reason can only have lain in the educational purpose of the law: viz., in the intention to lead the thief to repent of his crime, to acknowledge his guilt, and to restore what he had stolen. Now, as long as he still retained the stolen animal in his own possession, having neither consumed nor parted with it, this was always in his power; but the possibility was gone as soon as it had either been consumed or sold (see by Archologie, 154, Note 3). (Note: Calvin gives the same explanation: Major in scelere obstinatio se prodit, ubi res furtiva in quaestum conversa est, nec spes est ulla resipiscentiae, atque ita continuo progressu duplicatur malae fidei crimen. Fieri potest ut fur statim post delictum contremiscat: qui vero animal occidere ausus est, aut vendere, prorsus in maleficio obduruit.) Exo 22:2-4 Into the midst of the laws relating to theft, we have one introduced here, prescribing what was to be done with the thief. "If the thief be found breaking in (i.e., by night according to Exo 22:3), and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood to him (the person smiting him); if the sun has risen upon him (the thief breaking in), there is blood to him:" i.e., in the latter case the person killing him drew upon himself blood-guiltiness (דּמים lit., drops of blood, blood shed), in the former case he did not. "The reason for this disparity between a thief by night and one in the day is, that the power and intention of a nightly thief are uncertain, and whether he may not have come for the purpose of committing murder; and that by night, if thieves are resisted, they often proceed to murder in their rage; and also that they can neither be recognised, nor resisted and apprehended with safety" (Calovius). In the latter case the slayer contracted blood-guiltiness, because even the life of a thief was to be spared, as he could be punished for his crime, and what was stolen be restored according to the regulations laid down in Exo 22:1 and Exo 22:4. But if he had not sufficient to make retribution, he was to be sold "for his stolen," i.e., for the value of what he had stolen, that he might earn by his labour the compensation to be paid.