Chapter 22

1 Of theft. 5 Of damage. 7 Of trespasses. 14 Of borrowing. 16 Of fornication. 18 Of witchcraft. 19 Of beastiality. 20 Of idolatry. 21 Of strangers, widows, and fatherless. 25 Of usury. 26 Of pledges. 28 Of reverence to magistrates. 29 Of the firstfruits.

1. Steal an ox. Verses 1–15 continue the laws relating to the rights of property. The first section, vs. 1–5, has to do with theft. The general principle is set forth that theft is to be punished, if possible, by a fine. In the wilderness the chief property the Israelites possessed was cattle. Since it took more boldness for a thief to carry off an ox than a sheep, the crime bore a heavier penalty.

And kill it. This was considered worse than ordinary stealing, which carried the penalty of a double restoration (see v. 4), for it indicated persistence in wrongdoing. Therefore the offender was to pay more as shown here.

2. Breaking up. Rather, “breaking in,” that is, forcible entry into a house. Because the ordinary way of “breaking in” to a house seems to have been through a breach in the wall, the literal meaning of the verb is “digging in.”

No blood. Margin, “bloodguiltiness,” meaning that the avenger of blood was not permitted to pursue the slayer (Num. 35:27). This principle, which later had the sanction of Solon, the lawgiver of Athens, the Roman law, and the law of England, rests upon the assumption that anyone forcibly entering a house at night has a murderous intent, or at least the intent to commit murder if occasion should arise.

3. Sun be risen. If this entry be attempted after daybreak, it is charitably assumed that the thief did not intend murder. Therefore the slayer of the thief is held guilty of “blood” and may be slain by the next of kin. All the requirements of justice were thought to be served by the thief’s being compelled to make restitution. Blood was not to be shed needlessly; so the law punished the theft but protected the thief’s life.

Full restitution. The thief who enters a house by day shall be punished like other thieves, by being compelled to “restore double.” If he has “nothing,” or rather “not enough” to make the restitution demanded, he is then to be “sold” for his theft, that is, pay for it by labor. This double restitution served as a sort of retaliation, for it caused the thief to lose the very amount he had expected to gain.

5. To be eaten. Wantonly damaging what belongs to another is almost as bad as stealing. Therefore if a man caused a field “to be eaten” or browsed upon, he was to pay to the offended an equal amount from his own best produce.

6. If fire break out. It is customary in the East, as elsewhere, to burn the grass or weeds on a farm at certain seasons of the year. Through carelessness the fire might spread and either damage or destroy a neighbor’s crops. Of course, restitution was to be made, but not double, for the damage was not due to a deliberate act such as permitting one’s cattle to graze in another man’s field.

7. Stuff. That is, “goods,” or any movable article. Verses 7–13 record the law concerning deposits. Leaving property to the care of another was not unusual in ancient times, where investments were difficult and bankers were few. Those about to travel, especially merchants, did so. This required guarding the goods during the period of absence.

8. Unto the judges. Literally, “unto God.” The LXX rendering clarifies the meaning thus: “But if the thief be not found, the master of the house shall come forward before God, and shall swear that surely he has not wrought wickedly in regard of any part of his neighbour’s deposit.”

9. All manner of trespass. More accurately, “for every breach of trust” (RSV). For any object the caretaker could not account for, he was to appear, literally, “before God” (see on ch. 21:6), together with his accuser, and clear himself if he could (see ch. 18:21, 22).

Which another challengeth. Meaning, “which the depositor declares to be his.”

10. No man seeing it. The deposited animal might “die” naturally, be hurt by a wild beast or by a fall, or be “driven away” by thieves, without anyone’s knowing it at the time. If the caretaker declared on oath his ignorance of the loss, no compensation was allowed the owner.

12. If it be stolen. Restitution was in this case to be paid, on the presumption that with proper care the theft could have been avoided.

13. Torn in pieces. The trustee was required to produce evidence that this was actually so if he was to be relieved of blame.

14. If a man borrow. Borrowing is appropriately classified with depositing, for in both cases the property of one man is committed to the hands of another. But because in the former case the borrower is benefited, whereas in the latter case the depositor receives the benefit, the obligation is different. The borrower must take all the risks unless the owner of the borrowed property is with the object borrowed. This must have put a strong check on borrowing.

15. Be with it. This implies that the owner was not merely present but in charge of it, or so near he could have prevented the damage. Borrowers should remember that if they fail to restore what they have borrowed: (1) They injure themselves, for reputation and self-respect both suffer. (2) They fail in their duty to the lender, since they are under special obligation to him. (3) They wrong mankind in general, since their carelessness restrains men from lending to others what may be urgently needed. (4) They fail in their duty to God, who regards as “wicked” those who borrow but restore not (Ps. 37:21).

An hired thing. Where an amount was paid for the privilege of using an animal or article, it was hired rather than borrowed. In that case the owner was considered to have reckoned on the risk of loss or damage in fixing the amount of the hire, and so was not entitled to any compensation.

16. If a man entice. The remainder of the “book of the covenant” is made up of miscellaneous laws. It will be noticed that some are severe and others tender, again illustrating the justice and mercy of God (see Ps. 85:10; 89:14). God is as merciful toward the weak and helpless saint as He is severe toward the bold and stubborn sinner. Verses 16 and 17 are concerned with seduction. In the East a man commonly pays money, a dowry, to the parents of the maiden he intends to marry. A seducer was required to comply with this custom. The dowry price was 50 shekels of silver (Deut. 22:29), or about $14.57.

18. Witch. More accurately, “sorceress” (KJV, margin). A sorcerer was one who claimed supernatural knowledge or power, which he used either to influence the gods or to cast magic spells. The fact that women are designated rather than men suggests that the female sex was more addicted to this crime.

20. He that sacrificeth. Inasmuch as the offering of a sacrifice was then the chief act of worship, to do so to a false god was to renounce the Lord. Under a secular government this act would not be an offense, but one left instead to the final judgment of God; under the theocracy of Israel it was treason, and thus punishable with death.

21. Neither vex a stranger. This precept against the oppression of foreigners is most significant, since it is unlikely that such a provision was ever made in the laws of other ancient countries. While elsewhere foreigners might be harassed, the Mosaic law forbade the Hebrews to treat strangers thus (Ex. 23:9; Lev. 19:33). Instead, they were to “love” strangers (Lev. 19:34). Their own experience as “strangers in the land of Egypt” was to be a constant reminder that they were to deal kindly with these foreigners (Deut. 10:19). This kindness to foreigners was also to be given in the hope that they might be made proselytes (see Acts 13:43). Although the Hebrews were to remain separate from other nations in matters of religion, they were not to isolate themselves to the extent that they would fail to show kindness to a stranger.

22. Not afflict any widow. As with the stranger it is natural to protect the widow and orphan. Like him, they are weak and defenseless, and thus special objects of divine care. The word “afflict” includes all kinds of mistreatment. Later enactments did much to ameliorate the sad lot of widows (Ex. 23:11; Lev. 19:9, 10; Deut. 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:19–21; 26:12, 13). Though in general the Israelites obeyed this injunction, there were times when widows and orphans suffered severe oppression (Ps. 94:6; Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Jer. 7:5–7; 22:3; Zech. 7:10; Mal. 3:5; Matt. 23:14). We are reminded of Jesus’ solicitude for His widowed mother (John 19:26, 27), of the care given widows in the early church (Acts 6:1; 1 Tim. 5:3-9, 16), and that James included interest in and the care of orphans and widows in “pure religion” (James 1:27). It is the first principle of Christian ethics that to neglect to do well is to do ill.

24. I will kill you. Neglect of the poor and the widows contributed to the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the destruction of its inhabitants (Jer. 22:3–5).

25. Usury. This word now generally implies an exorbitant rate of interest. In the days of Moses the word thus translated meant any amount of interest, great or small. The amount of interest a creditor might charge was not then regulated by law, and it was therefore to be expected that conscienceless creditors would deal heartlessly with men who found themselves in difficult circumstances. The Mosaic law prohibiting usury was concerned exclusively with the matter of taking advantage of a brother who was “waxen poor,” that is, in financial straits (see Lev. 25:25, 35, 39, 47; PP 533). Under such circumstances a “poor” man might pawn his property (Lev. 25:35–38), secure a loan if possible (Lev. 25:35–37), or sell himself to his creditor for a limited period of time (Lev. 25:39–41). Furthermore, if able to do so, the poor man’s “brother” was required to make the necessary loan, and that without interest (Deut. 15:7–11). He might under no circumstances take advantage of his poor “brother” by charging him any amount of interest whatever. Mosaic law scrupulously protected the rights of the poor and provided for their welfare.

In the time of Moses business was not transacted as it is today. Generally speaking, a man relied upon his own resources in the transaction of business, and there was little borrowing and lending as we know it today. For practical purposes, none but a “brother” who had “waxen poor” ever borrowed money. It would seem therefore that far from condemning ordinary business transactions involving the lending and borrowing of money, the laws of Moses are not even concerned with them. It appears that Christ approved the principle of profit, including interest on loans, in normal business transactions (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23).

The principle inherent in Moses’ law on “usury,” of not taking advantage of someone beset by adverse circumstances, remains valid in our day. One man should never exact more than is just from another, whether “poor” or wealthy. It is the spirit of avarice, extortion, sharp practice, and the passion for gain, even at the disadvantage of others, that is condemned (see PK 648-652). We are to be sympathetic to the needs of others, and never to turn a deaf ear to their cry or to take advantage of them when they are confronted with difficulties.

26. Take thy neighbour’s raiment. To lend on pledge, as do modern pawnbrokers, was not forbidden by Hebrew law. There were, however, certain articles of primary importance on which pledges could not be taken, such as a hand mill for grinding flour or either of its millstones (Deut. 24:6). In Nehemiah’s time we read of borrowing upon pledge being practiced with evil results (see Neh. 5).

By that the sun goeth down. That is, “before the sun goes down” (RSV). The reason is stated in the next verse. If the garment was to be given back immediately, and permanently, it would not have been desirable to take it in pledge at all. Perhaps the garment was deposited during the day and returned to the owner at night.

28. The gods. The word Хelohim is sometimes translated “judges” (chs. 21:6; 22:8, 9), often as “gods” (ch. 20:3, 23; etc.), but more commonly as “God” (ch. 20:1, 2, 5, 7; etc.). It is not certain whetherХelohim should be rendered “judges”—God’s representatives for administering justice—as in the KJV margin, or as “God.” The fact that the Jews held pagan gods, Хelohim, in contempt would seem to preclude the possibility that “gods” are meant here. The rendering, “You shall not revile God” (RSV), is therefore preferable (see Lev. 24:15, 16).

Nor curse the ruler. More accurately, “nor curse a ruler among thy people.” “Rulers” were generally heads of families (Num. 3:24, 30, 35) and tribes (Num. 7:10, 18, 24). Later the word was used of kings (1 Kings 11:34; Eze. 12:10; 45:7). It is in the divine order that we should respect the authority of those placed over us, in both church and state (Rom. 13:1–7; Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13–18).

29. The first. Literally, “the fullness.” The first-born of man and beast, and the first of all the produce of the land, whether wine, oil, grain, or fruit, were required of the people. The first-born son was to be redeemed by a money payment (Ex. 13:13; Num. 3:46–48), but the rest were to be offered in sacrifice. That there would be reluctance in obeying this law by putting off the offering is indicated in the charge, “Thou shalt not delay.”

30. Seven days. This period of time would give the dam the natural relief that came from suckling its young. There is some analogy between this provision and the law of circumcision (Gen. 17:9–12). Birth was regarded as bringing ceremonial uncleanness, and therefore it was not until after the days specified that the offering would be acceptable to God.

31. Holy men. To secure this consecration (Ex. 19:6; Lev. 11:44, 45) there were various laws designed to preserve the Israelites a spiritual people. They were not to eat the flesh of a “torn” animal because the blood, which is the “life” (Lev. 17:14), could not be properly drained from the animal, which was therefore unclean. Furthermore, the carnivorous beast that tore it was also unclean, and would by contact pass on its uncleanness to the other.

To the dogs. It is probable that this provision did not rule out the selling or giving of the rejected animal to an alien (see Deut. 14:21), but indicated another means whereby the flesh could be disposed of. Dogs were unclean and might therefore feed on anything. They were, in fact, scavengers (2 Kings 9:35, 36).

Ellen G. White comments

4    PP 311

10, 11  1T 203

12   3T 549

21-24WM 217

22   PP 310

22-24Te 31, 33, 41, 53

23, 24  PP 310

25   PK 647

25-28PP 311

26, 27  MH 188

29   CS 72; PP 526

31   DA 283; MB 75; PP 311