Text -- Exodus 22:1-15 (NET)

Laws about Property

22:1 “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and kills it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox, and four sheep for the one sheep. 22:2 “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guilt for him. 22:3 If the sun has risen on him, then there is blood guilt for him. A thief must surely make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he will be sold for his theft. 22:4 If the stolen item should in fact be found alive in his possession, whether it be an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he must pay back double. 22:5 “If a man grazes his livestock in a field or a vineyard, and he lets the livestock loose and they graze in the field of another man, he must make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard. 22:6 “If a fire breaks out and spreads to thorn bushes, so that stacked grain or standing grain or the whole field is consumed, the one who started the fire must surely make restitution. 22:7 “If a man gives his neighbor money or articles for safekeeping, and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is caught, he must repay double. 22:8 If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house will be brought before the judges to see whether he has laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods. 22:9 In all cases of illegal possessions, whether for an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any kind of lost item, about which someone says ‘This belongs to me,’ the matter of the two of them will come before the judges, and the one whom the judges declare guilty must repay double to his neighbor. 22:10 If a man gives his neighbor a donkey or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep, and it dies or is hurt or is carried away without anyone seeing it, 22:11 then there will be an oath to the Lord between the two of them, that he has not laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods, and its owner will accept this, and he will not have to pay. 22:12 But if it was stolen from him, he will pay its owner. 22:13 If it is torn in pieces, then he will bring it for evidence, and he will not have to pay for what was torn. 22:14 “If a man borrows an animal from his neighbor, and it is hurt or dies when its owner was not with it, the man who borrowed it will surely pay. 22:15 If its owner was with it, he will not have to pay; if it was hired, what was paid for the hire covers it.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: 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. If we were not able to make restitution, he must be sold for a slave: the court of judgment was to do it, and it is likely the person robbed received the money. Thus with us in some cases, felons are transported to the Plantations, where only, Englishmen know what slavery is. But let it be observed, the sentence is not slavery, but banishment: nor can any Englishman be sold, unless he first indent himself to the captain that carries him over.

Wesley: Exo 22:2

If a thief broke a house in the night, and was killed in the doing it, his blood was upon his own head.

Wesley: Exo 22:2

time that the thief was killed, he that killed him was accountable for it, unless it were in the necessary defence of his own life.

Wesley: Exo 22:3

This the law determined: not that he should die.

Wesley: Exo 22:4

Not killed, nor sold, as Exo 22:1, so that the owner recover it with less charge and trouble.

Wesley: Exo 22:5

He that wilfully put his cattle into his neighbour's field, must make restitution of the best of his own. 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 neighbour, or do him any damage.

Wesley: Exo 22:6

He that designed only the burning of thorns might become accessary to the burning of corn, and should not be held guiltless. 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. 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.

Wesley: Exo 22:7

keeper to be preserved, or cattle to a farmer to be fed upon a valuable consideration, and a special confidence reposed in the person they are lodged with; in case these goods be stolen or lost, perish or be damaged, if it appear that it was not by any fault of the trustee, the owner must stand to the loss, otherwise he that has been false to his trust must be compelled to make satisfaction.

Wesley: Exo 22:14

If a man (suppose) lent his team to his neighbour, if the owner were with it, or were to receive profit for the loan of it, whatever harm befel the cattle the owner must stand to the loss of it: but if the owner were so kind to the borrower as to lend it him gratis, and put such a confidence in him as to trust it from under his own eye, then, if any harm happened, the borrower must make it good. Learn hence to be very careful not to abuse any thing that is lent to us; it is not only unjust but base and disingenuous, we should much rather chuse to lose ourselves, than that any should sustain loss by their kindness to us.

JFB: Exo 22:1-4

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.

JFB: Exo 22:6

This refers to the common practice in the East of setting fire to the dry grass before the fall of the autumnal rains, which prevents the ravages of vermin, and is considered a good preparation of the ground for the next crop. The very parched state of the herbage and the long droughts of summer, make the kindling of a fire an operation often dangerous, and always requiring caution from its liability to spread rapidly.

JFB: Exo 22:6

Or as it is rendered "shocks" (Jdg 15:5; Job 5:26), means simply a bundle of loose sheaves.

Clarke: Exo 22:1

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.

Clarke: Exo 22:2

If a thief be found - If a thief was found breaking into a house in the night season, he might be killed; but not if the sun had risen, for then he might be known and taken, and the restitution made which is mentioned in the succeeding verse. So by the law of England it is a burglary to break and enter a house by night; and "anciently the day was accounted to begin only from sunrising, and to end immediately upon sunset: but it is now generally agreed that if there be daylight enough begun or left, either by the light of the sun or twilight, whereby the countenance of a person may reasonably be discerned, it is no burglary; but that this does not extend to moonlight, for then many midnight burglaries would go unpunished. And besides, the malignity of the offense does not so properly arise, as Mr. Justice Blackstone observes, from its being done in the dark, as at the dead of night when all the creation except beasts of prey are at rest; when sleep has disarmed the owner, and rendered his castle defenceless."- East’ s Pleas of the Crown, vol. ii., p. 509.

Clarke: Exo 22:4

He shall restore double - In no case of theft was the life of the offender taken away; the utmost that the law says on this point is, that, if when found breaking into a house, he should be smitten so as to die, no blood should be shed for him; Exo 22:2. If he had stolen and sold the property, then he was to restore four or fivefold, Exo 22:1; but if the animal was found alive in his possession, he was to restore double.

Clarke: Exo 22:6

If fire break out - Mr. Harmer observes that it is a common custom in the east to set the dry herbage on fire before the autumnal rains, which fires, for want of care, often do great damage: and in countries where great drought prevails, and the herbage is generally parched, great caution was peculiarly necessary; and a law to guard against such evils, and to punish inattention and neglect, was highly expedient. See Harmer’ s Observat., vol. iii., p. 310, etc.

Clarke: Exo 22:7

Deliver unto his neighbor - This is called pledging in the law of bailments; it is a deposit of goods by a debtor to his creditor, to be kept till the debt be discharged. Whatever goods were thus left in the hands of another person, that person, according to the Mosaic law, became responsible for them; if they were stolen, and the thief was found, he was to pay double; if he could not be found, the oath of the person who had them in keeping, made before the magistrates, that he knew nothing of them, was considered a full acquittance. Among the Romans, if goods were lost which a man had entrusted to his neighbor, the depositary was obliged to pay their full value. But if a man had been driven by necessity, as in case of fire, to lodge his goods with one of his neighbors, and the goods were lost, the depositary was obliged to pay double their value, because of his unfaithfulness in a case of such distress, where his dishonesty, connected with the destruction by the fire, had completed the ruin of the sufferer. To this case the following law is applicable: Cum quis fidem elegit, nec depositum redditur, contentus esse debet simplo: cum vero extante necessitate deponat, crescit perfidia crimen , etc. - Digest., lib. xvi., tit. 3, 1. 1.

Clarke: Exo 22:8

Unto the judges - See Clarke’ s note on Exo 21:6.

Clarke: Exo 22:9

Challengeth to be his - It was necessary that such a matter should come before the judges, because the person in whose possession the goods were found might have had them by a fair and honest purchase; and, by sifting the business, the thief might be found out, and if found, be obliged to pay double to his neighbor.

Clarke: Exo 22:11

An oath of the Lord be between them - 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.

Clarke: Exo 22:13

If it be torn in pieces - let him bring it for witness - Rather, Let him bring עד הטרפה ed hatterephah , a testimony or evidence of the torn thing, such as the horns, hoofs, etc. This is still a law in some countries among graziers: if a horse, cow, sheep, or goat, entrusted to them, be lost, and the keeper asserts it was devoured by dogs, etc., the law obliges him to produce the horns and hoofs, because on these the owner’ s mark is generally found. If these can be produced, the keeper is acquitted by the law. The ear is often the place marked, but this is not absolutely required, because a ravenous beast may eat the ear as well as any other part, but he cannot eat the horns or the hoofs. It seems however that in after times two of the legs and the ear were required as evidences to acquit the shepherd of all guilt. See Amo 3:12.

Calvin: Exo 22:1

Thus far God has proclaimed Himself the avenger of iniquities, and, citing thieves before His tribunal, has threatened them with eternal death. Now follow the civil laws, the principle of which is not so exact and perfect; since in their enactment God has relaxed His just severity in consideration of the people’s hardness of heart.

What God formerly delivered to His people the heathen legislators afterwards borrowed. Draco, indeed, was more severe, but his extreme rigor became obsolete by the silent consent of the people of Athens; and the Decemvirs borrowed from Solon part of their law, which they published in the ten tables, although there were some variations in the distinction of the double or quadruple restitution, and in process of time other alterations were afterwards made. But if all things be duly considered, it will be found that both Solon and the Decemvirs have made a change for the worse, wherever they have varied from the law of God. First of all, no distinction ¹³² is here made, such as the Roman laws decree, between manifest thieves and those that are not manifest; for by them the thief not manifest is condemned to a double amend, and the manifest to quadruple; and he is called a manifest thief who is caught before he has carried what he has stolen to the place of its destination. I suppose that the awarders of the punishment had this point in view, that the wickedness of that person was the more egregious who was so greedily and anxiously set on his prey as not to be afraid of disgrace; and undoubtedly he who has no fear of shame is more audacious ill sin. But, on the contrary, God condemns to a double amend those upon whom the stolen goods were found; and to quadruple, those who had killed or sold it; and deservedly so, because greater obstinacy in crime betrays itself where the theft is turned to profit, nor is there any hope of repentance; and thus by this further process the crime of dishonesty is doubled. It might be that, immediately after the offense, the thief should be alarmed; but he who had dared to kill the stolen animal or to sell it, is altogether hardened in his sin. Besides, the more difficult its investigation is, the greater is the punishment which a misdemeanor deserves. Meanwhile, it is to be remembered, that the pecuniary fine imposed upon thieves did not free them from guilt; for, as Marcellus says, ¹³³ not even the president of a province can bring it to pass, that infamy should not pursue a man condemned of theft; and there was no need of establishing by law that in which all by nature are agreed. Thus, when God punished thieves by a fine, He left them still marked by infamy. I know not whether they ¹³⁴ assign the true cause why he who had stolen an ox is fined to a larger amount than he who had stolen a goat, or sheep, or other cattle, who say that the loss of the owner is taken into account to whom the labor of the ox is especially useful in agriculture; for what is said as to an ox I extend to cows and the whole herd. Those seem to come nearer to the truth who say the audacity of the thief is punished who, when he stole the larger animal, did not fear being observed by witnesses; yet it seems to me more likely that the different sentence depended on the price of the article; for assuredly it is more reasonable that he who has done the most harm should be exposed to the greater punishment.

Calvin: Exo 22:2

2.If a thief be found breaking up. This clause is to be taken separately, and is inserted by way of parenthesis; for, after having decreed the punishment, God adds in connection, “he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he should be sold for his theft;” and this exception as to the thief in the night is introduced parenthetically. But although the details are not expressed with sufficient distinctness, still the intention of God is by no means ambiguous, viz., that if a thief should be killed in the dark, his slayer should be unpunished; for he can then hardly be distinguished from a robber, especially when he proceeds with violence; because he cannot enter another man’s house by night without either digging through a wall or breaking down a door. The Twelve Tables ¹³⁵ differ slightly from this; for they permit the killing of a thief by night, and also by day if he should defend himself with a weapon. But, since God had sufficiently repressed by other laws murders and violent assaults, He is silent here respecting robbers who use the sword in their attempts at plunder. He therefore justly condemns to death those who have avenged by murder a theft in open day.

Calvin: Exo 22:3

3.He should make full restitution. These words, as I have said, are connected with the first verse, since here the execution of the punishment is only enjoined; as if God forbade thieves to be spared, but that they should pay either twofold or quadruple, or even quintuple, according to the measure of their crime. But, if they were unable to pay, He commands them to be sold as slaves, which also was the custom at Rome. Whence the saying of Cato, ¹³⁶ “that private thieves lived in bonds and fetters, but public ones in gold and purple.” And since this condition was a harsh one, a caution is expressly given, that they were not to be absolved on the score of their poverty. If any one should ask whether it was lawful for the owner of the thing stolen to recover double or quadruple its value, I answer, that what God awards, a man has the best of rights to; meanwhile, in equity men were bound to take care that they did not grow rich at the expense of others, but rather were they to apply whatever they gained to pious and holy uses.

Calvin: Exo 22:5

5.If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten. This kind of fraud is justly ranked among thefts; viz., if any man shall have put in his beast to feed in another’s field or vineyard. For if a person have made improper use of his servant to steal by him, he himself is deemed guilty of the offense, even although he may have touched nothing with his own hand; nor does he less do wrong who has given occasion of injury by means of a brute. Still, God restricts the punishment to a compensation of double the amount, because it cannot be certainly established that the master of the animal desired to effect the damage fraudulently and designedly; yet He requires the loss to be made up at the highest estimate of its value; ¹³⁸ for thus I interpret “the goodness of his field and his vineyard,” that the place having been examined, a liberal restitution shall be awarded to its owner, according to the utmost it would have probably produced in its greatest state of fertility.

Calvin: Exo 22:6

6.If fire break out and catch in thorns. This injury is somewhat different from the foregoing, for he who kindles the fire is commanded to make good the damage done by him, although there may have been no willful intention to do harm. For the incendiary who had maliciously destroyed either a cornfield or a vineyard was to be far more severely punished; here, however, mere carelessness is punished. Although no mention is made either of house or barn, still the law includes all similar cases requiring compensation from him who had kindled a fire even in an open field. But it seems that such a person would be blameless, because he could not. foresee that the fire would ignite the thorns; yet, in order that every one should take as much care of the property of another as of his own, God commands him to suffer the penalty of his heedless or stupid negligence.

Calvin: Exo 22:7

7.If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money. It is here determined under what circumstances an action for theft would lie in case of a deposit, viz., if an inanimate thing, as a garment or furniture, be given ill charge, and the person with whom it is deposited should allege that it is stolen, God commands that, if the thief be discovered, he should pay double; but, if not, that an oath should be required of the man who declares that the thing has been stolen from him. But, if it be an animal that was given in charge, a somewhat different provision is made, viz., that if it have been violently carried away, or torn by beasts, the person with whom it was deposited should be free; but if it had been stolen, that he should make restitution. In order to understand the principle of this law, we must observe that depositaries are not to be compelled to do more than faith. fully preserve the thing entrusted to them; just as a prudent and careful father of a family is attentive to the preservation of his property. When they have acquitted themselves diligently in this respect, it would be unjust to require more, of them; otherwise, when they undertake the burden of this gratuitous office, their generosity would be an injury to themselves. But, since it is not so easy to steal an animal from the stall, or from the hands of the shepherd, the negligence of the shepherd betrays itself in the loss of the beast, ¹³⁹ supposing no violence to have been used. Justice, then, is done in both cases, i e. , that the depository shall not make good a vessel, or money, or a garment, because this would be in a manner to put him in the place of the thief; but that if the animal be stolen he shall pay its price, unless he can cleat’ himself of carelessness. If any should think that too great indulgence is shown to the depositary, when God would have the dispute terminated by his oath; the reply is easy, that we do not entrust anything to be kept by another, unless we are persuaded of his honesty. Whoever, then, has chosen a guardian for his property, has borne witness to his own prejudice that he is a good and trustworthy man; and consequently, it would be absurd that he should soon afterwards be involved in all accusation of theft without proof. Wherefore it was reasonable that God would have the owner of the lost goods acquiesce in the oath of him. whom he has considered to be his faithful friend. Besides, a man is altogether acquitted who clears himself by calling God to witness his innocence, unless any sinister suspicion is alleged against him, and provided he excuses himself on probable evidence.

Calvin: Exo 22:9

9.For all manner of trespass. An action for theft is here permitted, but with a fine attached if any should rashly accuse his neighbor; for else it might be doubted when or for what reasons the restitution of double or quadruple was to be required. He therefore permits that if any one suspects another of theft, he should summon that person to plead his cause; and if he should prove his case, that he should recover double the thing lost; but if the judges should pronounce that he had brought his action groundlessly, that he, on the contrary, should pay the penalty of his false accusation. For such an action as this is not altogether a civil one, but carries with it the stain of infamy, and thus it would be unjust that a man should be injured by false suspicions whom the judges acquit of crime. The word used here for judges is אלהים , elohim, which properly means gods, as being of the plural number; it is, however often used for God. ¹³⁷ It is transferred to judges for the purpose of dignifying their office; because in it they represent the person of God, in whose hand alone is all dominion and power. Therefore Christ says they were called gods, because to them “the word of God came,” ( Joh 10:34,) i.e., that they should preside in His name, and be set over others, on which subject we treated under the Fifth Commandment.

Calvin: Exo 22:10

10.If a man deliver unto his neighbor an ass. Since in the passage from whence I have taken these four verses, mention is made of a deposit, and Moses is professedly providing against frauds, and robberies, and thefts, I have thought it well to place them under this head. It has indeed some relation to the Third Commandment, because it shows the lawful use of an oath, viz., that in matters of concealment men should have recourse to the witness of God, and that, by the interposition of His sacred name, an end should be put to their strife. But, while the authority attributed to oaths depends on the reverence due to God, at the same time faith and piety are enforced in them, ¹⁴⁰ so that all things should correspond. I have, however, considered the main point, i e. , how controversies as to things concealed should be brought to an end for the advancement of peace and equity. He would therefore have the depositary acquitted, if he swears that the animal entrusted to him is lost (either by death or violence, ¹⁴¹) although lie should produce no witness of the matter, since it would be unjust that he should bear the blame, unless fraud, or some more palpable offense, have been committed by him. At the conclusion, then, it is said, “the owner of it shall accept” the oath, which is equivalent to saying, that lie shall be compelled to acquiesce, and shall give no more trouble about it. The expression, “an oath of the Lord shall be between them both,” is a remarkable one, whereby the obligation and sanctity of an oath are enforced, whilst Moses reminds us that God is the author of this sacred mode of attestation, and presides over it as its judge and avenger.

Moses now lays down the law as to a borrowed animal, if it die, or be mutilated, or injured. There is, however, a wide distinction between a thing borrowed and a thing deposited, for he who lends confers a favor; and therefore, when a man borrows a thing, he binds himself to restore it in safety, as far as in him lies. A distinction, however, is made, if the owner himself of the animal be an eye-witness of the death or fracture, he shall bear the loss; but if the animal should die or be injured in his absence, its value is awarded to him. His presence is tantamount to this, as if it were said, if he shall have seen with his own eyes that the injury did not occur by the fault of him to whom he lent it, then he shall give him no trouble about it. For instance, if you have lent me a horse, and take the journey with me, although anything untoward should happen — supposing you are assured that it did not occur by my temerity, or negligence, or bad management, I am free, and exempt from loss.

What is here laid down as to a borrowed animal must be applied also to all other things borrowed.

Defender: Exo 22:8

The word "judges," here and in Exo 22:9, is elohim, the Hebrew word for "God." It is a plural noun, and is sometimes rendered "gods" (Psa 82:1). These judges were authorized to enforce God's law and thus were considered, when sitting in judgment, as representing Him. See the reference by the Lord Jesus in Joh 10:34, Joh 10:35."

TSK: Exo 22:1

sheep : or, goat

he shall : There is a smaller compensation required in other things (Exo 22:9), and also a disproportion between an ox and a sheep. The reason of the former is, as Maimonides explains it, because money, goods, etc., are better guarded in houses and cities, than cattle in a field; which consequently can be more easily stolen. The reason of the latter seems to be, as it is explained by Bishop Patrick, that an ox was of greater value, and more useful for the purposes of husbandry. Lev 6:1-6; Num 5:7; 2Sa 12:6; Pro 6:31; Luk 19:8

five oxen : Pro 14:4

TSK: Exo 22:2

breaking : Job 24:14, Job 30:5; Hos 7:1; Joe 2:9; Mat 6:19, Mat 6:20, Mat 24:43; 1Th 5:2

no blood : Num 35:27

TSK: Exo 22:3

then he shall : Exo 21:2; Jdg 2:14, Jdg 10:7; Isa 50:1

TSK: Exo 22:4

found : Exo 21:16

he shall restore double : Exo 22:1, Exo 22:7, Exo 22:9; Pro 6:31; Isa 40:2; Jer 16:18; Rev 18:6

TSK: Exo 22:5

shall he make restitution : Exo 22:3, Exo 22:12, Exo 21:34; Job 20:18

TSK: Exo 22:6

If fire break out : Mr. Harmer observes, that it is a common custom in the East to set the dry herbage on fire; which fires, from want of care, often produce great damage. Hence a law to guard against such evils was highly expedient.

so that the stacks of corn : Jdg 15:4, Jdg 15:5; 2Sa 14:30, 2Sa 14:31

he that kindled the fire : Exo 22:9, Exo 22:12, Exo 21:33, Exo 21:34

TSK: Exo 22:7

if the thief be found : Pro 6:30, Pro 6:31; Jer 2:26; Joh 12:6; 1Co 6:10

let him pay double : Exo 22:4

TSK: Exo 22:8

the judges : Exo 22:28 *marg. Exo 21:6; Deu 16:18, Deu 19:17, Deu 19:18; 1Ch 23:4; Psa 82:1

TSK: Exo 22:9

for all manner of trespass : Num 5:6, Num 5:7; 1Ki 8:31; Mat 6:14, Mat 6:15, Mat 18:15, Mat 18:35; Luk 17:3, Luk 17:4

the cause of both parties : Exo 18:21, Exo 18:22, Exo 23:6-8; Deu 16:18, Deu 16:19, Deu 25:1; 2Ch 19:10

pay double unto his : Exo 22:4, Exo 22:7

TSK: Exo 22:10

Gen 39:8; Luk 12:48, Luk 16:11; 2Ti 1:12

TSK: Exo 22:11

an oath of the Lord : Lev 5:1, Lev 6:3; 1Ki 2:42, 1Ki 2:43; Pro 30:9; Heb 6:16

that he hath not : Exo 22:8, Exo 23:1

TSK: Exo 22:12

stolen from him : Exo 22:7; Gen 31:39

TSK: Exo 22:13

torn in pieces : Eze 4:14; Amo 3:12; Mic 5:8; Nah 2:12

let him bring it for witness : Or, rather, ""Let him bring""aid hatteraiphah , an evidence of the thing torn, such as the horns, hoofs, etc.

TSK: Exo 22:14

borrow : Deu 15:2, Deu 23:19, Deu 23:20; Neh 5:4; Psa 37:21; Mat 5:42; Luk 6:35

make it good : Exo 22:11, Exo 21:34; Lev 24:18

TSK: Exo 22:15

it came for his hire : Zec 8:10

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Exo 22:1

The theft of an ox appears to have been regarded as a greater crime than the theft of a sheep, because it showed a stronger purpose in wickedness to take the larger and more powerful animal. It may have been on similar moral ground that the thief, when he had proved his persistency in crime by adding to his theft the slaughter, or sale, of the animal, was to restore four times its value in the case of a sheep (compare the marginal references), and five times its value in the case of an ox; but if the animal was still in his possession alive (see Exo 22:4) he had to make only twofold restitution.

Barnes: Exo 22:2-4

If a thief, in breaking into a dwelling in the night, was slain, the person who slew him did not incur the guilt of blood; but if the same occurred in daylight, the slayer was guilty in accordance with Exo 21:12. The distinction may have been based on the fact that in the light of day there was a fair chance of identifying and apprehending the thief.

Barnes: Exo 22:5

Shall put in his beast, and shall feed - Rather, shall let his beast go loose, and it shall feed.

Barnes: Exo 22:8

It would appear that if the master of the house would clear himself of imputation, the loss of the pledged article fell upon its owner.

Barnes: Exo 22:9

All manner of trespass - He who was accused, and he who had lost the stolen property, were both to appear before the judges Exo 18:25-26.

Barnes: Exo 22:10-13

This law appears to relate chiefly to herdsmen employed by the owners of cattle. When an animal was stolen Exo 22:12, it was presumed either that the herdsman might have prevented it, or that he could find the thief and bring him to justice (see Exo 22:4). When an animal was killed by a wild beast, the keeper had to produce the mangled carcass, not only in proof of the fact, but to show that he had, by his vigilance and courage, deprived the wild beast of its prey.

Barnes: Exo 22:15

It came for his hire - The sum paid for hiring was regarded as covering the risk of accident.

Poole: Exo 22:1

An ox, or a sheep or, an ass , which is added Exo 22:4 , and consequently any other living creature, to be valued according to its worth and use to man, proportionably to the rule here laid down. Only these are instanced in for their usefulness in the service both of God and men.

Or sell it which was an aggravation of the crime, and a token of greater boldness, resolvedness, and expertness in the trade of thieving, than was in him who kept it at home, Exo 22:4 .

Four sheep for a sheep

Quest. 1. Why so much, seeing the stealer of other things was tied to restore but double?

Answ 1. For terror, because these beasts being kept in the fields might more easily be stolen.

2. Because the loss of these was greater than of other things; for they did not only lose what the cattle might be sold for, but all the service, increase, and other benefits which a man might receive from them.

Quest. 2. Why more for oxen than for sheep?

Answ 1. Because it argued greater boldness and customariness in the thief to steal that which might more easily be discovered.

2. Because besides the intrinsical worth of the ox, the labour of the ox was very considerable to his owner, Pro 14:4 , and therefore the loss greater.

Poole: Exo 22:2

Ver. 2: Breaking up to wit, an house , which the Chaldee here adds, and by night , as appears from the next verse.

For him i.e. for the thief, though he be killed by a man in his own defence. Because in that case the thief might be presumed to have a worse design, and the owner of the house could neither expect or have the help of others to secure him from the intended violence, nor guide his blows with that discretion and moderation which in the day-time he might use.

Poole: Exo 22:3

There shall be blood shed for him he that kills him shall be put to death, because he punished him more than his crime deserved, and might have been otherwise either secured or righted; and in that case, it is probable, the thief designed not murder, but theft only. But if it were evident that the housebreaker designed murder, he might doubtless kill him in his own defence.

He shall be sold either so long till his service was worth the thing stolen, or rather for the ordinary time of six years, because this was not a simple thief, but a housebreaker, which was much worse.

Quest. How can he be sold, who is supposed to be killed?

Answ 1. The Hebrew word may be better rendered should be sold , as the foregoing word of the same future time is rendered, should make restitution, to wit, if he were not killed; and therefore the killer of him being sufficiently secured against this injury, was more culpable in killing him without necessity.

Poole: Exo 22:4

Alive ; not killed, nor sold, as Exo 22:1 .

Double ; not more,

1. Because in that case it was presumed, either that he intended to restore it, or at least that he was but raw and unexercised in the trade of stealing, and so should be more gently punished.

2. Because the right owner recovered his goods with less charge and trouble. Or,

3. Because it was but a single crime, whereas the other, Exo 22:1 , was an aggravated and complicated crime, where one sin and injury was added to another.

Object . It is said, he shall restore sevenfold , Pro 6:31 .

Answ . 1.

Sevenfold is put for abundantly, as that word is oft used, as Gen 4:24 Psa 12:6 79:12 ; and a learned man observes, it is never used for that definite number.

Answ . 2. This sevenfold, or seven times, may relate not to the proportion of his restitution, but to the number of his thefts, or rather of his detections; and the sense is this, Though he be found guilty of theft seven times, all his punishment is, that he shall restore as the law prescribes. Whereas adultery, of which he there speaks in the following verses, is a crime of that nature, that if a man be once found guilty of it, restitution cannot be made, nor will it serve his turn, but he falls into all the mischiefs there reckoned up.

Poole: Exo 22:5

A field or vineyard or orchard, or other things of like nature; which is generally to be observed in laws.

Poole: Exo 22:6

He that kindled the five whether wilfully for such a purpose, or carelessly in such a time or place as was dangerous.

He shall surely make restitution which if he were not able to do, it is probable he was to be sold for it, as in like cases was provided.

Poole: Exo 22:7

Stuff Heb. vessels , garments, utensils, or any kind of household stuff.

Poole: Exo 22:8

That they may examine all circumstances, and use all means to find out the truth, by offering him his oath, or otherwise.

Unto his neighbour’ s goods either to take and reserve them for his own use, or to dispose of them to another for his own advantage.

Poole: Exo 22:9

All manner of trespass to wit, about matters deposited upon trust, and lost, of which alone this place speaks.

Which another challengeth to be his or, when , or concerning which he shall say, This is it, viz. the thing that I have lost; or rather, This is he, to whom I committed it, and whom I suspect and charge as guilty.

Whom the judges shall condemn whether the person with whom the things were deposited, if they judged him guilty of theft, or the depositor, if he were convicted of a false accusation.

Poole: Exo 22:10

To keep as his servant, not freely, but for wages.

Poole: Exo 22:11

An oath of the Lord so called here, as also 1Ki 2:43 , because it is taken by his authority and appointment, and for his honour, and in his name alone, God being made both witness, and judge, and avenger thereby. Shall be between them both, i.e. shall end the difference between them both; the one shall give his oath, and the other shall accept of it: or be taken by them both; by the one, that he did deliver them to him upon agreement and for hire; by the other, that he put not his hand to them.

Poole: Exo 22:12

From him Heb. from with him , which is an emphatical expression, and notes that this was taken away, either,

1. From those things which were with him, or which were his, i.e. from the midst of his own goods, which supposeth fraud in him. Or,

2. From under his eye, when he either did know of it, or with common care and diligence it might have been known and prevented, and this argues gross neglect in him. And this is one reason why this man is bound to make restitution, when the other, Exo 22:7 , is not: another reason of the difference is, because those things, Exo 22:7 , were only or principally dead things, and such things as required no great care; or if they did, (for in that case also were included oxen, asses, &c., Exo 22:9 ) yet he with whom they were left received no recompence for them, and therefore was not obliged to any singular care about them; but here the things were such as needed great care and diligence, which also this man was obliged to perform by the hire which he received upon that account, which was Jacob’ s case, Gen 31:39 .

Poole: Exo 22:13

Let him bring it it, i.e. some part of the torn creature, which the wild beast haply had left, Amo 3:11,12 .

Quest. What if the whole creature were carried away, as a sheep or lamb is sometimes by the wolf?

Answ 1. I suppose this was not frequent, and that those ravenous creatures did speedily fall to their meal, and that something was left not far from the place, which the shepherd might easily procure.

2. The words may Be otherwise rendered, he shall bring a witness, as the Chaldee and Samaritan render it; or a testimony, i.e. some evidence whereby the judge might be satisfied; as for instance, that some wolf or lion, &c. was seen in those parts, &c., or some witness of his diligence and Faithfulness in all other things, which therefore might well be presumed in this.

Poole: Exo 22:14

Ought i.e. any living thing, which may be

hurt or

die as it follows.

He shall surely make it good: this may seem hard, but all things considered is reasonable; because in doubtful cases, wherein it is not evident whether the borrower was faulty or not, as it is here, it ought to be interpreted in favour of the lender, rather than of the borrower; partly, to oblige the borrower to the greater fidelity and care in such things, which being not his own, men are commonly more careless about; partly, because the benefit being wholly the borrower’ s, the loss also in all reason ought to be his, and the lender ought not to suffer for his kindness, lest he should be discouraged from such actions for the future.

Poole: Exo 22:15

If the owner thereof be with it: the law reasonably presumes, both that the borrower would not abuse it in the sight of its owner, and that the lender might and would take due care about it.

He shall not make it good except there be some manifest fault in the borrower, as if he should kill or wound the beast in the lender’ s presence; which exception is easily to be understood from divers other laws of God.

It came for his hire i.e. the benefit was the lender’ s, and not the borrower’ s, and therefore the former reason ceaseth; and whether the master were present or absent, he that receives the gain or hire shall bear the loss, except when it came through the borrower’ s gross and wilful default.

Haydock: Exo 22:1

Five oxen; because they are of greater value than sheep. (Theodoret) ---

As these things may easily be stolen, a heavier fine is imposed than on those who steal money. The Scythians punish theft with the utmost severity. (Grotius) ---

All these punishments, till the 25th chapter, were inflicted by the judge. (Tirinus)

Haydock: Exo 22:2

Blood. The reason is, because it could not easily be known whether the thief had not a design upon the life of the people in the house; and therefore, the law gave them authority to defend themselves. But they were not authorized to kill the thief designedly. the laws of Athens and of Rome, permitted nocturnal robbers to be slain, at least when they came armed. (Plato, de leg. ix. &c.) To defend our goods or honour, by killing the aggressor, is contrary to justice and reason. (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 22:4

Double. This is an exception from the general law, ver. 1, (Calmet) because he can more easily make restitution, as he has not sold or destroyed the thing. (Du Hamel)

Haydock: Exo 22:8

Gods. "In the presence of the Lord," Septuagint.

Haydock: Exo 22:9

Damage. Hebrew, "thing lost, which another challengeth.…and whom the judges condemn, he," &c. If the person who had deposited a thing, pretended that the one produced was not the same, or not equally good, and failed in proving the charge, he was liable to pay double its value. (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 22:12

Stealth, of the person to whom it was entrusted, or by his connivance, as the Hebrew mamu, ( de cum eo ) "from with him," intimates. (Menochius)

Haydock: Exo 22:13

Slain. Or any part of its mangled remains, in proof of his assertion. (Syriac)

Haydock: Exo 22:14

Restitution. It is to be presumed he was guilty of some negligence. (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 22:15

Especially, &c. This is a third case, in which the person who lends, suffers all the loss, in consideration of the money which he had received. Others explain, "If he be a hired servant, he shall pay out of his wages," Syriac. (Grotius)

Gill: Exo 22:1

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.''

Gill: Exo 22:2

If a thief be found breaking up,.... An house, in order to steal money, jewels, household goods, &c. or breaking through any fence, hedge, or wall of any enclosure, where oxen, or sheep, or any other creatures are, in order to take them away: the Targum of Jonathan is,"if in the hole of a wall (or window of it) a thief be found;''that is, in the night, as appears from the following verse, "if the sun", &c. to which this is opposed, as Aben Ezra observes; some render it, with a digging instrument ^x; and it is a Jewish canon ^y, that"if anyone enter with a digging instrument: he is condemned on account of his end;''his design, which is apparent by the instrument found upon him; for, as Maimonides ^z observes,"it is well known, that if anyone enters with a digging instrument, that he intends, if the master of the house opposes him to deliver his goods out of his power, that he will kill him, and therefore it is lawful to kill him; but it does not signify whether he enters with a digging instrument, either by the way of the court, or roof;"

and be smitten that he die be knocked down with a club, by the master of the house, or any of his servants, or be run through with a sword, or be struck with any other weapon, to hinder him from entrance and carrying off any of the goods of the house, and the blow be mortal: there shall no blood be shed for him: as for a man that is murdered; for to kill a man when breaking into a house, and, by all appearance, with an intention to commit murder, if resisted, in defence of a man's self, his life and property, was not to be reckoned murder, and so not punishable with death: or, "no blood" shall be "unto him" ^a; shall be imputed to him, the man that kills the thief shall not be chargeable with his blood, or suffer for shedding it; because his own life was risked, and it being at such a time, could call none to his assistance, nor easily discern the person, nor could know well where and whom he struck.

Gill: Exo 22:3

If the sun be risen upon him,.... Either upon the thief, or upon the master of the house, or the person that finds the thief and smites him that he dies; it matters not which it is interpreted, it is true of both, for when it is risen on the one, it is on the other:

there shall be blood shed for him; the person that kills him shall die for it: the Targum of Jonathan is,"if it is as clear as the sun (and so Jarchi), that not to kill any he entered, and he should kill him, there is guilt of shedding innocent blood:''because coming at broad daylight, and when the sun was up, it was a plain case he came not with a design to murder, but only to steal; besides, being at such a time, the master of the house could call for help and assistance, and take him; which is what is suggested he should do, and not take away his life, but oblige him, if he had got any of his goods, to restore them, as follows:

for he should makes full restitution; by returning them and as much more, as the following verse shows:

if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft, by the sanhedrim, or court, of judicature: as the Targum of Jonathan, before whom he should be brought, and the theft proved upon him, and unto the year of the remission or release, as the same Targum; nor were such to be sold to strangers, or to serve forever, for they were to be dismissed after six years, as Josephus ^b observes: and it is a canon with the Jews ^c, that,"an Hebrew servant whom the sanhedrim sell, they do not sell him but to an Israelite, or to a proselyte of righteousness;''according to the Targum of Jonathan, it seems as if he was to be sold to the person from whom he stole, since it is,"he shall he sold to him;''but if not, however, the price he was sold at was to be given to him for a recompence of his loss; so says Maimonides ^d,"if he have not goods, neither movable nor immovable the sanhedrim sell him, and give the price to him that is injured, as it is said: "if he have nothing", &c. and adds, a man is sold for his theft but not a woman ^e:''from hence it appears that theft was not a capital crime by the law of Moses: Draco is said to be the first who made it so; but his law being thought by the Athenians to be too severe, was annulled by them ^f: the law of the twelve tables, with the Romans greatly agrees with the Mosaic laws about theft; these permitted to kill a thief who should be taken in open theft, if either when he committed the theft it was night or if in the daytime, and he defended himself with weapons when about to be taken ^g or, as elsewhere expressed ^h, an open thief was delivered to servitude to him who was robbed, but nocturnal thief it was lawful to kill by the law of the twelve tables.

Gill: Exo 22:4

If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive,.... Or, "in finding be found" ⁱ, be plainly and evidently found upon him, before witnesses, as the Targum of Jonathan; so that there is no doubt of the theft; and it is a clear case that he had neither as yet killed nor sold the creature he had stolen, and to could be had again directly, and without any damage well as it would appear by this that he was not an old expert thief, and used to such practices, since he would soon have made away with this theft in some way or another:

whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep, or any other creature; and even, as Jarchi thinks, anything else, as raiment, goods, &c.

he shall restore double; two oxen for an ox, two asses for an ass, and two sheep for a sheep: and, as the same commentator observes, two living ones, and not dead ones, or the price of two living ones: so Solon made theft, by his law, punishable with death, but with a double restitution ^k; and the reason why here only a double restitution and not fourfold is insisted on, as in Exo 22:1 is, because there the theft is persisted in, here not; but either the thief being convicted in his own conscience of his evil, makes confession, or, however, the creatures are found with alive, and so more useful being restored, and, being had again sooner, the loss is not quite so great.

Gill: Exo 22:5

If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten,.... Which is not his own, by putting cattle into it to feed upon it, as it is explained in the next clause:

and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; do damage in one or both those two ways, either by his feet treading down the grass and fruits of the earth, which the Rabbins, as Jarchi says, think, is meant by putting in his beast; or with his beast eating up the same, which is intended by the latter phrase:

of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution for what damage is done by his beast in his neighbour's field or vineyard; and this held good of any garden or orchard injured in like manner; and it is a general rule with the Jews, that when any damage is sustained, he that does the damage is obliged to pay with the best the earth produces ^l, even though better than was the man's that suffered the loss, that for the future he might be more careful of doing injury to another ^m.

Gill: Exo 22:6

If fire break out,.... Even though of itself, as Jarchi interprets it:

and catch in thorns a thorn hedge or fence, with which cornfields might be en closed:

so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; whether it be corn cut down, bound up in sheaves, and laid up in heaps or stacks, or whether it be yet growing, and not fully ripe, at least not cut down, or any other fruits of the field; if the fire that takes the thorns which are near them should reach to those, and kindle upon them and destroy them:

he that kindleth the fire, shall surely make restitution: that is, though he kindles the fire upon his own ground, yet being careless of it, it breaks out without his intention and design, and catches hold on a thorn hedge between him and his neighbour's field, and so spreads itself to the corn there, whether standing or in stacks, or to other fruits either lying or growing there; now, though he did not kindle the fire in the corn, and among the stacks or heaps of fruit in his neighbours field, yet, for his carelessness in not looking after the fire he had kindled in his own field, he was to make good all the damages his neighbour sustained hereby: the Jewish canons relating to this affair are these;"if a man kindles a fire by the hands of a deaf man, or a fool, or a child, he is free by human judgment, but he is bound by the judgment of heaven (that is, to make restitution); if he kindles it by the hand of a knowing and understanding man, he is bound; one brings fire and another "afterwards" brings wood, he that brings the wood is bound; one brings wood and another "afterwards" brings fire, he that brings the fire is bound; "after that", another comes and blows the flame (or fire), he is bound; "but if" the wind blows it they are all free; he that kindles fire and it consumes wood or stones, or dust, he is bound, as it is said, Exo 22:6 "if fire break out", &c. if the fire passes over a fence four cubits high, or a public road, or a river, he is free ⁿ;''those two things last mentioned, feeding on another man's field and fire, with the ox and the pit, observed in the preceding chapter, are with the Misnic doctors ^o, the four fathers' fountains, or sources of damages.

Gill: Exo 22:7

If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stock to keep,.... Without any reward for keeping it, as the Targum of Jonathan; and so other Jewish writers ^p understand this passage of such as keep a deposit freely, having nothing for it; whether it be money or goods, gold, silver, jewels, raiment, household stuff or any kind of vessels or instruments used in the house, or in trade; and also cattle, as appears from Exo 22:9.

and if it be stolen out of the man's house; into whose custody it was delivered:

if the thief be found, let him pay double: the worth of what is stolen, agreeably to the law in Exo 22:4 that is, if it was found in his hands; but if he had disposed of it, then he was to pay five fold or four fold, as in Exo 22:1, and so runs the Jewish canon ^q,"if anyone delivers to his neighbour a beast or vessels, and they are stolen or lost, he shall make restitution; but if he will not swear, for they say, one that keeps for nothing, may swear and be free; then if the thief should be found he shall pay double; if he has killed or sold, he shall pay four fold or five fold: to whom shall he pay? to him with whom the depositum is: if he swears, and will not pay, and the thief is found, he shall pay double; if he has killed or sold he shall pay four fold and five fold: to whom shall he pay? to the owner of the depositum.''

Gill: Exo 22:8

If the thief be not found,.... And so no account can be given of the goods deposited, what is become of them, and it becomes a doubtful case whether they have been stolen or embezzled, and there is suspicion of the latter:

then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges: here called Elohim, gods, because they were God's vicegerents, and represented him, and acted under his power and authority; and who at this present were Moses, and those that judged the people under him, and afterwards the seventy elders, and all such who in succeeding times were judges in Israel, and bore the office of civil magistrates; before these the master of the house, or the person who had any goods committed to his care, and they were lost, was to be brought and put to his oath, and upon it examined, in order to find out what was become of the goods committed to him: to see whether he has put his hand to his neighbour's goods: took them to himself, made use of them, or disposed of them to his own advantage, and which was no other than a kind of theft.

Gill: Exo 22:9

For all manner of trespass,.... With respect to what is committed to a man's trust, and it is lost to the owner of it, there must be somewhere or other a trespass committed, either by the person into whose hands it was put, or by a thief that has stolen it from him:

whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing by which it appears that either of these, or any other cattle not named, as well as money and vessels, or household goods, or goods in trade, were sometimes, or might be lodged in the hands of another as a depositum for safety or convenience; and for which, or any other so deposited, and lost:

which another challengeth to be his, or affirms that he put into the hands of his neighbour, to be kept by him for him; "or who shall say this is he", or "he is" the person into whose hands I put it, or this is "it" ^r; such and such were the thing or things I delivered to him:

the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; who were to hear what each party had to say, and to examine the witnesses each of them brought, and consider the nature of the evidence given, and to judge and determine:

and whom the judges shall condemn; or "pronounce wicked" ^s, as having done a wicked thing; either the one as having brought a false accusation against his neighbour, charging him with a depositum he never had, or the other as having converted it to his own use:

he shall pay double unto his neighbour; either the depositor, who pretended to be so and was not, but brought a false charge against his neighbour, or a false witness, as Jarchi, such as one was to pay double to the person charged wrongfully; or, on the other hand, the person with whom the depositum was put, if it appeared that he had acted a fraudulent part, and abused his trust, then he was to pay double to the depositor.

Gill: Exo 22:10

If a man deliver to his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast to keep,.... And he keeps it without a reward, as the Targum of Jonathan; but Jarchi and Aben Ezra more rightly interpret this of one that keeps for hire, as herdsmen, shepherds, &c. The Jews say ^t there are"four sorts of keepers; he that keeps for nought (or freely), he that borrows, he that takes hire, and he that hires; he that keeps for nought swears in all cases (and is free), he that borrows pays for all (that is lost or stolen, &c.) he that takes hire, and he that hires, swear on account of that which is torn, or carried away, or dies, and they pay for that which is lost or stolen,''which are the cases after supposed:

and it die; either of the above, or any other under the care of another; that is, dies of itself, not being killed by any, and its death sudden, and not easily accounted for:

or be hurt; receive any damage in any part, though it die not; or "be broken" ^u; have any of its limbs or bones broken; or be torn by a wild beast, as the Targum of Jonathan adds:

or driven away; from the flock or herd by thieves or robbers, or rather carried captive by an enemy in an hostile way, see Exo 22:12,

no man seeing it; die, or be hurt, or carried off; and so, as the above Targum paraphrases it, there is no witness that sees and can bear witness, that is, to any of the said things which have happened to it.

Gill: Exo 22:11

Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both,.... Either by the one, the keeper, for the satisfaction of the owner, or by them both; by the owner, that he delivered such and such cattle to the keeper; and by the keeper, that he was no ways concerned in the death, hurt, or carrying off of the same: and this is called "the oath of the Lord", not only because in this law required by him, but because sworn by him, or in his name, and made before him, in his presence, who is hereby appealed unto; and who is called upon to take vengeance on the person that takes the oath of perjury; and such an oath only is a lawful one, men are to swear only by the Lord. But this oath was not tendered to anyone:"if a man was suspected of an oath (i.e. of perjury) they might not give him his oath, neither the oath of the law, nor the oath from their words (the scribes), nor the oath of imposition (imposed by the wise wen); and even though he that brought the action would have it, they might not hearken unto him: if a man has swore falsely a rash oath, or an oath of testimony, or an oath concerning anything deposited, or a vain oath, lo, he is suspected of an oath, and so everyone that is rejected for witness on account of any transgression ^w.''The oath to be taken by the keeper, and who indeed seems to be the only person that was to take one, was, "that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods"; so as either to kill or maim, or drive away, or suffer to be driven away, any of the cattle committed to his care, or that he had not disposed of them to his own use and profit:

and the owner of it shall accept thereof; of the oath, as the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi, and so be satisfied, and give no further trouble, such an oath being for the confirmation of the thing, and to put an end to strife; or he shall take the ass, ox, or sheep, as it was, and be content; but then, though he might take the dead or maimed one, he could not take that which was driven or carried away, wherefore the first sense, is best:

and he shall not make it good; or pay for it to the owner what it was worth.

Gill: Exo 22:12

And if it be stolen from him,.... Or "but if" ^x it was taken away by theft; and that "from with him" ^y, as it may be literally rendered, from among his own cattle, and they not taken; and he being present, pretending to have an eye upon them and keep them, but was careless and negligent, at least, if he did not connive at the theft:

he shall make restitution to the owner thereof; for in such a case there was ground for suspicion of fraud; however, there was apparent carelessness, and it was but just he should make restitution, since he had hire or wages for keeping it; which is the reason Aben Ezra gives for it, and is suggested by the Targum of Jonathan; which adds to the former clause, by way of explanation,"that which was with him to be kept for a reward.''

Gill: Exo 22:13

If it be torn in pieces,.... By some wild beast, at least as pretended:

then let him bring it for witness; part of that which is torn, that it may be witness for him that it was torn, as in Amo 3:12 as Aben Ezra observes; and so the Jerusalem Targurn,"let him bring of the members of it a witness,''which would make it a clear case that it had been so used; but it is possible that the whole carcass might be carried off, and nothing remain to be brought as a proof of it; wherefore the Targum of Jonathan is,"let him bring witnesses;''and so some versions render it ^z; and to this agrees Jarchi, whose note is,"let him bring witnesses of its being torn by violence, and he is free,''such who saw it done; but it is before supposed, that such cattle may be hurt, broken, or maimed, no man seeing it, Exo 22:10 and therefore in such a case no witnesses could be brought, wherefore the first sense seems best:

and he shall not make good that which was torn; or shall not pay for it, pay the price of it, as much as it is worth. Here Jarchi distinguishes,"there is that which is torn, for which a man pays, and there is that which is torn, for which he does not pay; that which is torn by a cat, or a fox, or a marten (a kind of weasel), he pays for, but that which is torn by a wolf, a lion, or a bear, he does not pay for:''the reason of which is, because it is thought the keeper might have preserved and delivered from the former, and therefore was culpable, when it was not in his power to save from the latter; and the Misnic doctors observe, that one wolf is not violence, but two are; so that what is torn by one, the keeper is bound to pay for, but not what is torn by more. But two dogs are not violence, unless they come from two different quarters, and then they are: a single thief is violence, and so is a lion, a bear, a leopard, a basilisk, and a serpent, and this only when they come willingly, and of themselves; but if they (the cattle) are brought to places where there are troops of wild beasts, and thieves, it is no violence ^a, and in such a case the keepers are liable to pay; and so unless he makes use of staves, and calls in other shepherds to his assistance, as Maimonides ^b observes, when it is in his power to do it; and so at least might make an attempt to save or rescue the cattle.

Gill: Exo 22:14

And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour,.... Any beast, as it should seem, as an ox to plough with, an ass, horse, or camel to ride on, though the Jewish writers carry it also to any kind of household stuff:

and if he be hurt or die; if any damage comes to it, or it dies while it is in the borrower's hands, and when employed in that work for which he borrowed it; the Targum of Jonathan is,"and the vessel should be broke, or the beast die:''and the owner thereof being not with it; at the time of its being hurt, or of its death, and so could not be so well satisfied whether used well or not, nor how the damage and death came to it:

he shall surely make it good; pay the full price for it it is worth; which, though it may seem hard, was necessary, in order to make men careful of things they borrowed, and that lenders may not be losers for their kindness.

Gill: Exo 22:15

But if the owner thereof be with it,.... When it is hurt or dies; for in some cases the owner might go along with his beast, being borrowed or hired to do work with it; or, however, being upon the spot, must be satisfied that it was not ill used; and it may be reasonably presumed he would do all he could to preserve it: and this being the case:

he shall not make it good; that is, the borrower, but the loss would lie upon the lender; seeing this might have been the case if it had been at home, and not borrowed or lent. The Jewish writers understand all this in a different manner, that if the owner is not with it in the time of borrowing, though he is with it in the time of its being hurt, or of its death, the borrower must pay; but if he was with it in the time of borrowing, though not in the time of its receiving damage, or of its death, the borrower was free ^c; for, as Jarchi says, whether it be in that work (for which he was borrowed), or in another work (it matters not), if he was with it at the time of borrowing, there was no necessity of his being with it at the time of its hurt or death. The reason of which, I must confess, I do not understand; unless the meaning is, that it was necessary that the owner, and the beast, should be both borrowed or hired together; and which indeed seems to be the sense of the Misnah, or tradition ^d, which runs thus,"if a man borrows a cow, and borrows or hires its owner with it; or if he hires or borrows the owner, and after that borrows the cow, and it dies, he is free, as it is said, Exo 22:15 but if he borrows the cow, and afterwards borrows or hires the owner, and it dies, he is bound to pay, as it is said, Exo 22:13 if his owner is not with it, &c.''If it be an hired thing, it came for its hire; that is, if the beast which was come to some damage, or was dead, was hired, and not borrowed, then, whether the owner was with it or not at that time, he could demand no more than hire, and the person that hired it was obliged to pay that and no more; or if the owner himself was hired along with his beast, and so was present when it received its damage, or its death, nothing more could come to him than what he agreed for.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Exo 22:1

¹ sn The next section of laws concerns property rights. These laws protected property from thieves and oppressors, but also set limits to retribution. The message could be: God’s laws demand that the guilty make restitution for their crimes against property and that the innocent be exonerated.

² sn Beginning with 22:1, the verse numbers through 22:31 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 22:1 ET = 21:37 HT, 22:2 ET = 22:1 HT, etc., through 22:31 ET = 22:30 HT. Thus in the English Bible ch. 22 has 31 verses, while in the Hebrew Bible it has 30 verses, with the one extra verse attached to ch. 21 in the Hebrew Bible.

³ tn The imperfect tense here has the nuance of obligatory imperfect – he must pay back.

⁴ tn בָּקַר (baqar) and צֹאן (tso’n) are the categories to which the ox and the sheep belonged, so that the criminal had some latitude in paying back animals.

NET Notes: Exo 22:2

¹ tn Heb “found” (so KJV, ASV, NRSV).

² tn The word בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת (bammakhteret) means “digging through” the walls of a house (usually made of mud bricks). The verb is used only a few times and has the meaning of dig in (as into houses) or row hard (as in Jonah 1:13).

³ tn The text has “there is not to him bloods.” When the word “blood” is put in the plural, it refers to bloodshed, or the price of blood that is shed, i.e., blood guiltiness.

sn This law focuses on what is reasonable defense against burglary. If someone killed a thief who was breaking in during the night, he was not charged because he would not have known it was just a thief, but if it happened during the day, he was guilty of a crime, on the assumption that in daylight the thief posed no threat to the homeowner’s life and could be stopped and made to pay restitution.

NET Notes: Exo 22:3

¹ tn The words “a thief” have been added for clarification. S. R. Driver (Exodus, 224) thinks that these lines are out of order, since some of them deal with killing the thief and then others with the thief making restitution, but rearranging the clauses is not a necessary way to bring clarity to the paragraph. The idea here would be that any thief caught alive would pay restitution.

NET Notes: Exo 22:4

¹ tn The construction uses a Niphal infinitive absolute and a Niphal imperfect: if it should indeed be found. Gesenius says that in such conditional clauses the infinitive absolute has less emphasis, but instead emphasizes the condition on which some consequence depends (see GKC 342-43 §113.o).

² tn Heb “in his hand.”

³ sn He must pay back one for what he took, and then one for the penalty – his loss as he was inflicting a loss on someone else.

NET Notes: Exo 22:5

¹ tn The verb בָּעַר (ba’ar, “graze”) as a denominative from the word “livestock” is not well attested. So some have suggested that with slight changes this verse could be read: “If a man cause a field or a vineyard to be burnt, and let the burning spread, and it burnt in another man’s field” (see S. R. Driver, Exodus, 225).

² tn The phrase “his livestock” is supplied from the next clause.

NET Notes: Exo 22:6

¹ tn Heb “if a fire goes out and finds”; NLT “if a fire gets out of control.”

² sn Thorn bushes were used for hedges between fields, but thorn bushes also burned easily, making the fire spread rapidly.

³ tn This is a Hiphil participle of the verb “to burn, kindle” used substantivally. This is the one who caused the fire, whether by accident or not.

NET Notes: Exo 22:7

¹ tn The word usually means “vessels” but can have the sense of household goods and articles. It could be anything from jewels and ornaments to weapons or pottery.

² tn Heb “to keep.” Here “safekeeping,” that is, to keep something secure on behalf of a third party, is intended.

³ tn Heb “found.”

NET Notes: Exo 22:8

¹ tn Heb “found.”

² tn Here again the word used is “the gods,” meaning the judges who made the assessments and decisions. In addition to other works, see J. R. Vannoy, “The Use of the Word ha’elohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7,8,” The Law and the Prophets, 225-41.

³ tn The phrase “to see” has been supplied.

⁴ tn The line says “if he has not stretched out his hand.” This could be the oath formula, but the construction here would be unusual, or it could be taken as “whether” (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:438). U. Cassuto (Exodus, 286) does not think the wording can possibly fit an oath; nevertheless, an oath would be involved before God (as he takes it instead of “judges”) – if the man swore, his word would be accepted, but if he would not swear, he would be guilty.

NET Notes: Exo 22:9

¹ tn Heb “concerning every kind [thing] of trespass.”

² tn The text simply has “this is it” (הוּא זֶה, hu’ zeh).

³ tn Again, or “God.”

⁴ tn This kind of clause Gesenius calls an independent relative clause – it does not depend on a governing substantive but itself expresses a substantival idea (GKC 445-46 §138.e).

⁵ tn The verb means “to be guilty” in Qal; in Hiphil it would have a declarative sense, because a causative sense would not possibly fit.

NET Notes: Exo 22:10

¹ tn The form is a Niphal participle from the verb “to break” – “is broken,” which means harmed, maimed, or hurt in any way.

² tn This verb is frequently used with the meaning “to take captive.” The idea here then is that raiders or robbers have carried off the animal.

³ tn Heb “there is no one seeing.”

NET Notes: Exo 22:11

¹ tn The construct relationship שְׁבֻעַת יְהוָה (shÿvu’at yÿhvah, “the oath of Yahweh”) would require a genitive of indirect object, “an oath [to] Yahweh.” U. Cassuto suggests that it means “an oath by Yahweh” (Exodus, 287). The person to whom the animal was entrusted would take a solemn oath to Yahweh that he did not appropriate the animal for himself, and then his word would be accepted.

NET Notes: Exo 22:12

¹ tn Both with this verb “stolen” and in the next clauses with “torn in pieces,” the text uses the infinitive absolute construction with less than normal emphasis; as Gesenius says, in conditional clauses, an infinitive absolute stresses the importance of the condition on which some consequence depends (GKC 342-43 §113.o).

² sn The point is that the man should have taken better care of the animal.

NET Notes: Exo 22:13

¹ tn The word עֵד (’ed) actually means “witness,” but the dead animal that is returned is a silent witness, i.e., evidence. The word is an adverbial accusative.

NET Notes: Exo 22:14

¹ tn Heb “if a man asks [an animal] from his neighbor” (see also Exod 12:36). The ruling here implies an animal is borrowed, and if harm comes to it when the owner is not with it, the borrower is liable. The word “animal” is supplied in the translation for clarity.

² tn Heb “he”; the referent (the man who borrowed the animal) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Exo 22:15

¹ tn Literally “it came with/for its hire,” this expression implies that the owner who hired it out and was present was prepared to take the risk, so there would be no compensation.

Geneva Bible: Exo 22:1

If a man shall steal an ^{( a )} ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

^{( a )} Either a great beast of the herd, or a small beast of the flock.

Geneva Bible: Exo 22:2

If a thief be found ^{( b )} breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him.

^{( b )} Breaking a house to enter in, or undermining.

Geneva Bible: Exo 22:3

If the sun be risen upon him, [there shall be] ^{( c )} blood [shed] for him; [for] he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

^{( c )} He shall be put to death that kills him.

Geneva Bible: Exo 22:8

If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, [to see] whether he have ^{( d )} put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.

^{( d )} That is, whether he has stolen.

Geneva Bible: Exo 22:11

^{( e )} [Then] shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept [thereof], and he shall not make [it] good.

^{( e )} They should swear by the name of the Lord.

Geneva Bible: Exo 22:13

If it be torn in pieces, [then] let him bring ^{( f )} it [for] witness, [and] he shall not make good that which was torn.

^{( f )} He shall show some part of the beast or bring in witnesses.

Geneva Bible: Exo 22:15

[But] if the owner thereof [be] with it, he shall not make [it] good: if it [be] an hired [thing], it ^{( g )} came for his hire.

^{( g )} He that hired it shall be free by paying the hire.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Exo 22:1-31

1 Of theft.

5 Of damage.

7 Of trespasses.

14 Of borrowing.

16 Of fornication.

18 Of witchcraft.

19 Of bestiality.

20 Of idolatry.

21 Of strangers, widows, and fatherless.

25 Of usury.

26 Of pledges.

28 Of reverence to magistrates.

29 Of the first fruits.

31 Of torn flesh.

MHCC: Exo 22:1-31

The people of God should ever be ready to show mildness and mercy, according to the spirit of these laws. We must answer to God, not only for what we do maliciously, but for what we do heedlessly. Therefore, when we have done harm to our neighbour, we should make restitution, though not compelled by law. Let these scriptures lead our souls to remember, that if the grace of God has indeed appeared to us, then it has taught us, and enabled us so to conduct ourselves by its holy power, that denying ungodliness and wordly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, Tit 2:12. And the grace of God teaches us, that as the Lord is our portion, there is enough in him to satisfy all the desires of our souls.

Matthew Henry: Exo 22:1-6

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.

Matthew Henry: Exo 22:7-15

These laws are,

I. Concerning trusts, Exo 22:7-13. If a man deliver goods, suppose to a carrier to be conveyed, or to a warehouse-keeper to be preserved, or cattle to a farmer to be fed, upon a valuable consideration, and if a special confidence be reposed in the person they are lodged with, in case these goods be stolen or lost, perish or be damaged, if it appear that it was not by any fault of the trustee, the owner must stand to the loss, otherwise he that has been false to this trust must be compelled to make satisfaction. The trustee must aver his innocence upon oath before the judges, if the case was such as afforded no other proof, and they were to determine the matter according as it appeared. This teaches us, 1. 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. 2. That there is such a general failing of truth and justice upon earth as gives too much occasion to suspect men's honesty whenever it is their interest to be dishonest. 3. That an oath for confirmation is an end of strife, Heb 6:16. It is called an oath for the Lord (Exo 22:11), because to him the appeal is made, not only as to a witness of truth, but as to an avenger of wrong and falsehood. Those that had offered injury to their neighbour by doing any unjust thing, yet, it might be hoped, had not so far debauched their consciences as to profane an oath of the Lord, and call the God of truth to be witness to a lie: perjury is a sin which natural conscience startles at as much as any other. The religion of an oath is very ancient, and a plain indication of the universal belief of a God, and a providence, and a judgment to come. 4. That magistracy is an ordinance of God, designed, among other intentions, to assist men both in discovering rights disputed and recovering rights denied; and great respect ought to be paid to the determination of the judges. 5. That there is no reason why a man should suffer for that which he could not help: masters should consider this, in dealing with their servants, and not rebuke that as a fault which was a mischance, and which they themselves, had they been in their servants' places, could not have prevented.

II. Concerning loans, Exo 22:14, Exo 22:15. If a man (suppose) lent his team to his neighbour, if the owner was with it, or was to receive profit for the loan of it, whatever harm befel the cattle the owner must stand to the loss of: but if the owner was so kind to the borrower as to lend it to him gratis, and put such a confidence in him as to trust it from under his own eye, then, if any harm happened, the borrower must make it good. Let us learn hence to be very careful not to abuse any thing that is lent us; it is not only unjust, but base and disingenuous, inasmuch as it is rendering evil for good; we should much rather choose to lose ourselves than that any should sustain loss by their kindness to us. Alas, master! for it was borrowed, 2Ki 6:5.

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 22:1-4

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 Archäologie , §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.

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 22:5-6

Injury done to another man's field or corn was also to be made good by compensation for the injury done. If any one should consume a field or a vineyard, and let loose his beast, so that it fed in another man's field, he was to give the best of his field and vineyard as restitution. These words do not refer to wilful injury, for שׁלּח does not mean to drive in, but simply to let loose, set at liberty; they refer to injury done from carelessness, when any one neglected to take proper care of a beast that was feeding in his field, and it strayed in consequence, and began grazing in another man's. Hence simple compensation was all that was demanded; though this was to be made "from the best of his field,"i.e., quicquid optimum habebit in agro vel vinea ( Jerome ).

(Note: The lxx have expanded this law by interpolating ἀποτίσει ἐκ τοῦ ἀγροῦ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὸ γέννημα αὐτοῦ ἐὰν δὲ πάντα τὸν ἀγρὸν καταβοσκήσῃ before מיטב. And the Samaritan does the same. But this expansion is proved to be an arbitrary interpolation, by the simple fact that πάντα τὸν ἀγρόν forms no logical antithesis to ἀγρὸν ἕτερον .)

Exo 22:6

Exo 22:6 also relates to unintentional injury, arising from want of proper care: " If fire break out and catch thorns (thorn-hedges surrounding a corn-field, Isa 5:5; Sir. 28:24), and sheaves, or the standing seed ( הקּמה the corn standing in the straw), or the field be consumed, he that kindleth the fire shall make compensation (for the damage done)."

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 22:7-9

In cases of dishonesty, or the loss of property entrusted, the following was to be the recognised right: If money or articles ( כּלים , not merely tools and furniture, but clothes and ornaments, cf. Deu 22:5; Isa 61:10) given to a neighbour to keep should be stolen out of his house, the thief was to restore double if he could be found; but if he could not be discovered, the master of the house was to go before the judicial court ( האלהים אל , see Exo 21:6; אל נקרב to draw near to), to see "whether he has not stretched out his hand to his neighbour's goods." מלאכה : lit., employment, then something earned by employment, a possession. Before the judicial court he was to cleanse himself of the suspicion of having fraudulently appropriated what had been entrusted to him; and in most cases this could probably be only done by an oath of purification. The Sept. and Vulg. both point to this by interpolating καὶ ὀμεῖται , et jurabit ("and he shall swear"), though we are not warranted in supplying ויּשּׁבע in consequence. For, apart from the fact that אם־לא is not to be regarded as a particle of adjuration here, as Rosenmüller supposes, since this particle signifies "truly"when employed in an oath, and therefore would make the declaration affirmative, whereas the oath was unquestionably to be taken as a release from the suspicion of fraudulent appropriation, and in case of confession an oath was not requisite at all; - apart from all this, if the lawgiver had intended to prescribe an oath for such a case, he would have introduced it here, just as he has done in Exo 22:11. If the man could free himself before the court from the suspicion of unfaithfulness, he would of course not have to make compensation for what was lost, but the owner would have to bear the damage. This legal process is still further extended in Exo 22:9 : על־כּל־דּבר־פּשׁע , " upon every matter of trespass "(by which we are to understand, according to the context, unfaithfulness with regard to, or unjust appropriation of, the property of another man, not only when it had been entrusted, but also if it had been found), " for ox, for ass, etc., or for any manner of lost thing, of which one says that it is this ("this," viz., the matter of trespass), the cause of both (the parties contending about the right of possession) shall come to the judicial court; and he whom the court ( Elohim ) shall pronounce guilty (of unjust appropriation) shall give double compensation to his neighbour: only double as in Exo 22:4 and Exo 22:7, not four or fivefold as in Exo 22:1, because the object in dispute had not been consumed.

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 22:10-13

If an animal entrusted to a neighbour to take care of had either died or hurt itself ( נשׁבּר , broken a limb), or been driven away by robbers when out at grass (1Ch 5:21; 2Ch 14:14, cf. Job 1:15, Job 1:17), without any one (else) seeing it, an oath was to be taken before Jehovah between both (the owner and the keeper of it), "whether he had not stretched out his hand to his neighbour's property,"i.e., either killed, or mutilated, or disposed of the animal. This case differs from the previous one, not only in the fact that the animal had either become useless to the owner or was altogether lost, but also in the fact that the keeper, if his statement were true, had not been at all to blame in the matter. The only way in which this could be decided, if there was ראה אין , i.e., no other eye-witness present than the keeper himself at the time when the fact occurred, was by the keeper taking an oath before Jehovah, that is to say, before the judicial court. And if he took the oath, the master (owner) of it (the animal that had perished, or been lost or injured) was to accept (sc., the oath), and he (the accused) was not to make reparation. "But if it had been stolen מעמּו from with him (i.e., from his house or stable), he was to make it good,"because he might have prevented this with proper care (cf. Gen 31:39). On the other hand, if it had been torn in pieces (viz., by a beast of prey, while it was out at grass), he was not to make any compensation, but only to furnish a proof that he had not been wanting in proper care. עד יבאהוּ " let him bring it as a witness, "viz., the animal that had been torn in pieces, or a portion of it, from which it might be seen that he had chased the wild beast to recover its prey (cf. 1Sa 17:34-35; Amo 3:12).

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 22:14-15

If any one borrowed an animal of his neighbour (to use it for some kind of work), and it got injured and died, he was to make compensation to the owner, unless the latter were present at the time; but not if he were. "For either he would see that it could not have been averted by any human care; or if it could, seeing that he, the owner himself, was present, and did not avert it, it would only be right that he should suffer the consequence of his own neglect to afford assistance"( Calovius ). The words which follow, וגו שׂכיר אם , cannot have any other meaning than this, " if it was hired, it has come upon his hire, "i.e., he has to bear the injury or loss for the money which he got for letting out the animal. The suggestion which Knobel makes with a "perhaps,"that שׂכיר refers to a hired labourer, to whom the word is applied in other places, and that the meaning is this, "if it is a labourer for hire, he goes into his hire, - i.e., if the hirer is a daily labourer who has nothing with which to make compensation, he is to enter into the service of the person who let him the animal, for a sufficiently long time to make up for the loss,"- is not only opposed to the grammar (the perfect בּא for which יבא should be used), but is also at variance with the context, "not make it good."

Constable: Exo 15:22--Lev 1:1

II. THE ADOPTION OF ISRAEL 15:22--40:38

The second major section of Exodus records the events associated with God's adoption of Israel as His chosen people. Having redeemed Israel out of slavery in Egypt He now made the nation His privileged son. Redemption is the end of one journey but the beginning of another.

Constable: Exo 19:1--24:12

B. The establishment of the Mosaic Covenant 19:1-24:11

The Lord had liberated Israel from bondage in Egypt, but now He adopted the nation into a special relationship with Himself.

"Now begins the most sublime section in the whole Book. The theme of this section is supremely significant, playing a role of decisive importance in the history of Israel and of humanity as a whole."³⁰⁶

At Sinai, Israel received the law and the tabernacle. The law expressed the obedience of God's redeemed people, and the tabernacle expressed their worship. Thus the law and the tabernacle deal with the two major expressions of the faith of the people redeemed by the grace and power of God.

The Mosaic Covenant is an outgrowth of the Abrahamic Covenant in the sense that it was a significant intimate agreement between God and Abraham's descendants. By observing it they could achieve their purpose as a nation. This purpose was to experience God's blessing and to be a blessing to all nations of the earth (Gen. 12:2). In contrast to the Abrahamic Covenant Israel had responsibilities to fulfill to obtain God's promised blessings (v. 5). It was, therefore, a conditional covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant--as well as the Davidic and New Covenants that contain expansions of the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant--was unconditional.

A further contrast is this.

"Whereas the Sinaitic covenant was based on an already accomplished act of grace and issued in stringent stipulations, the patriarchal covenant rested only on the divine promise and demanded of the worshipper only his trust (e.g., ch. 15:6)."³⁰⁷

"The covenant with Israel at Sinai is to bring Israel into a position of mediatorial service."³⁰⁸

"The major difference between the Mosaic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant is that the former was conditional and also was ad interim, that is, it was a covenant for a limited period, beginning with Moses and ending with Christ. . . .

"In contrast to the other covenants, the Mosaic covenant, though it had provisions for grace and forgiveness, nevertheless builds on the idea that obedience to God is necessary for blessing. While this to some extent is true in every dispensation, the Mosaic covenant was basically a works covenant rather than a grace covenant. The works principle, however, was limited to the matter of blessing in this life and was not related at all to the question of salvation for eternity."³⁰⁹

The Mosaic Covenant is the heart of the Pentateuch.

"First, it should be pointed out that the most prominent event and the most far-reaching theme in the Pentateuch, viewed entirely on its own, is the covenant between Yahweh and Israel established at Mount Sinai. . . .

"1) The author of the Pentateuch wants to draw a connecting link between God's original plan of blessing for mankind and his establishment of the covenant with Israel at Sinai. Put simply, the author sees the covenant at Sinai as God's plan to restore his blessing to mankind through the descendants of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; Exod 2:24).

"2) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show that the Covenant at Sinai failed to restore God's blessing to mankind because Israel failed to trust God and obey his will.

"3) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show that God's promise to restore the blessing would ultimately succeed because God himself would one day give to Israel a heart to trust and obey God (Deut 30:1-10)."³¹⁰

The writer interrupted the narrative with blocks of other explanatory, qualifying, and cultic material in the chapters that follow.³¹¹

Narrative19:1-3a

Other19:3b-9

Narrative19:10-19a

Other19:19b-25

Narrative20:1-21

Other20:22-23:33

Narrative24:1-18

Other25-31

Narrative32-34

Constable: Exo 20:22--24:1

4. The stipulations of the Book of the Covenant 20:22-23:33

Israel's "Bill of Rights" begins here.

"It is worth noting that the stipulations are enfolded within matching frames that stress the exclusivity of Yahweh (Ex. 20:22-23; cf. 23:24-25, 32-33), His presence in specified places (20:24; cf. 23:14-17, 20, 28-31), and a proper protocol and ritual by which He may be approached by His servant people (20:24-26; cf. 23:18-19). It is within the context of a vertical covenant relationship, then, that the horizontal, societal, and interpersonal relationships of the Book of the Covenant take on their ultimate meaning."³⁴⁸

"The section before us has something to say about each of the ten commandments, even if only incidentally."³⁴⁹

Constable: Exo 21:1--23:13

The fundamental rights of the Israelites 21:1-23:12

It is very important to note that various law codes already existed in the ancient Near East before the giving of the Mosaic Covenant. These included laws in the Akkadian civilization located in Mesopotamia in the twentieth century B.C. (e.g., the Laws of Esnunna).³⁵⁴ There were also the laws in the Sumerian civilization, which replaced that of Akkad in the nineteenth century (e.g., the Code of Lipit-Istar).³⁵⁵ Moreover laws in the Babylonian civilization that followed the Sumerian in the eighteenth century (e.g., the Code of Hammurabi)³⁵⁶ existed, as did others. People living in the Near East at the time of the Exodus (fifteenth century) knew these laws and lived by them. The Mosaic Covenant presupposes this body of legal literature. It was not given as a comprehensive legal system to a people living without any laws. Rather it was a series of instructions God gave as Israel's king for His people to govern their behavior in certain specific matters. This fact explains why the Torah (Law of Moses, lit. instruction) does not contain fundamental instruction in many basic areas of law such as monogamy, for example. The instructions in the Law of Moses confirmed certain existing laws, cancelled other laws, and changed still others for the Israelites as the will of God for them.³⁵⁷

Moses revealed the laws that follow analogically (i.e., on the basis of the association of ideas). Analogical thinking has been more characteristic of eastern cultures and rational thinking more typical of western cultures throughout history generally speaking.

Constable: Exo 21:33--22:16

Property damage 21:33-22:15

21:33-34 The pit represents a typical case of damage caused by an inanimate object or natural phenomenon. These specific cases doubtless served as precedents for other similar cases.

21:35-36 The law concerning a cattle fight is the same as one in the Laws of Esnunna, a twentieth century B.C. Akkadian law code.³⁸¹ However the Torah differentiated between an ox that gored habitually and one that did not in the case of one ox goring another. Thus the Torah showed higher regard for the rights and responsibilities of individuals.

22:1-4 According to the Code of Hammurabi a thief should die if he could not repay what he had stolen³⁸² or if he stole by breaking in.³⁸³ The Torah modified this law by annulling the death penalty and substituting the penalty of being sold into slavery in the first case. In the second case it annulled the death penalty and protected the life of the victim. Verses 1 and 4 of chapter 22 go together and deal with theft generally. The reason for the fivefold and fourfold penalties appears to be that the thief was taking the means of another person's livelihood.³⁸⁴ Verses 2 and 3, which deal with breaking and entering, address a special type of theft. Perhaps the law assumed that the thief's intent was murder as well as theft if he broke in at night but only theft if he broke in in daylight. If so, we might assume that if his intentions turned out to have been otherwise, the law would deal with him accordingly. The text gives only the typical case. Perhaps the logic was that at night the victim's life was in greater danger so the law allowed him to use more force in resisting his assailant than in the daytime.

22:5-6 The fourth case involves damage due to grazing or burning. In the first case (v. 5) the Torah required restitution from "the best" of the offender whereas the Code of Hammurabi required only restitution.³⁸⁵ These two cases further illustrate God's respect for the rights of others.

22:7-15 Next we have four cases involving property held in custody. In the Hammurabi Code the penalty for losing or allowing a thief to steal what someone else had committed to one's trust was death³⁸⁶ as was falsely accusing someone of this crime.³⁸⁷ The Torah required only twofold payment in both situations (v. 9).

Second, if what someone entrusted to his neighbor for safe keeping perished by accident (vv. 10-13) the neighbor was not responsible to make restitution. This was the law under the Code of Hammurabi too.³⁸⁸

Third, if someone borrowed something and it then suffered damage or it died (v. 14-15a) the borrower was responsible to make restitution. This was the case unless the owner (lender) was present when the damage or death took place. In that case the lender was responsible for his own property.

Fourth, if someone rented something and then damaged it or it died (v. 15b) the borrower was not responsible to make restitution since the fee he had paid covered his liability. The Code of Hammurabi specified no liability in either of these last two cases.³⁸⁹

Guzik: Exo 22:1-31

Exodus 22 - More Laws to Direct Judges

A. Laws regarding personal property and restitution.

1. (1-4) Restitution required in cases of theft.

"If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double.

a. He shall restore: The Mosaic Law did not send a person to jail because of theft. Instead, the thief was simply required to restore what he stole, plus an additional penalty.

i. In this passage, the penalty could be anywhere from 500% (he shall restore five oxen for an ox) to 200% (he shall restore double).

ii. This can be regarded as a positive vision for the punishment of criminals, putting them to productive restitution and compensating the victims of their theft. These principles are often ignored in modern judicial systems.

b. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft: If the person was unable to pay back what he stole, the thief was sold as an indentured laborer, with the money from the sale going to the victim.

c. If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed: A property owner had the right to protect his property with force - but only with reasonable force. The assumption was that if it was daylight, the property owner had the ability to defend himself short of lethal force.

2. (5-8) Further application of the principle of restitution.

"If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed, and lets loose his animal, and it 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 fire breaks out and catches in thorns, so that stacked grain, standing grain, or the field is consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man's house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. 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.

a. If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed, and lets loose his animal, and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution: The owner of an animal was responsible for the grazing of his animals. He was obliged to respect his neighbor's property (the grazing land).

b. He who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution: Restitution was also required in cases of vandalism or foolish negligence, even if one kept the property of another. In the Mosaic legal system, a great premium was put on personal responsibility, even with the property of others.

i. This translates into a proper concern for the property of others today. A Christian, if he backs into someone else's car, will certainly leave a note and make good the damage. A Christian will have proper insurance, guaranteeing they can compensate for someone else's loss.

ii. If someone gives you something to hold for them you are responsible for it as a faithful steward or manager. This includes what God gives us to manage or steward for Him.

c. Shall surely make restitution . . . he shall pay double: Restitution was paid according to a pre-determined amount or percentage; it was not left to the whims of the victims or the judges.

3. (9-13) More application of the principle of restitution.

"For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind 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. 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, "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. But if, in fact, it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. If it is torn to pieces by a beast, then he shall bring it as evidence, and he shall not make good what was torn.

a. The cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double: When testimony was given, a man's word was taken as true unless proven otherwise. This is basis of the legal principle of the accused being innocent unless proven guilty.

b. 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: The New Testament makes it clear that believers should avoid taking legal disputes among themselves to secular judges. They should allow the matter to be judged by the church (1 Corinthians 6:1-8).

4. (14-15) Restitution principles applied to borrowing and lending.

"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. If its owner was with it, he shall not make it good; if it was hired, it came for its hire.

a. If a man borrows anything from his neighbor: The principles of responsibility and restitution also applied to borrowing and lending.

b. He shall surely make it good: This was the simple principle meant to guide the judges. The guilty party had to make it good.

B. Moral and ceremonial laws.

1. (16-17) The remedy for pre-marital sex.

"If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.

a. If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed: Some claim this passage does not prohibit pre-marital sex; but it does in practice, because it requires a man to either marry or provide for a woman he has pre-marital sex with.

b. He shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife: This law emphasizes the principle that there is no such thing as "casual" sex. Both Old and New Testaments state that sexual relations carry lasting consequences (1 Corinthians 6:15-16).

i. "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 giver her a dowry." (Clarke).

ii. This law is only effective when virginity is prized among women; here, a woman's virginity is her guarantee that she cannot be treated "cheaply".

iii. Far too many people - especially women - sell themselves cheaply by easily giving away their virginity. A man illustrated this with a true story about a friend who owned an antique store and had a table for sale. The table was worth $600, but was marked down to $300. A man tried to bargain her down to $200, and not only did she refuse, but she realized the true value of the table, and upped the price to its true worth - even when offered $300. The man finally bought the table for $600, and certainly treated it like a $600 table - because it's worth had been fought for. Many women who know men treat them shabbily have contributed to the problem by selling themselves cheaply.

2. (18-20) Three capital crimes.

"You shall not permit a sorceress to live. Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death. He who sacrifices to any god, except to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

a. A sorceress: The practice of sorcery was almost always associated with "medicinal arts" (the taking of drugs) in the ancient world, and was therefore a connection between drug taking and occultist practices.

b. You shall not permit a sorceress to live: This was considered a severe enough threat that sorcery was considered a capital crime. The link between drugs and the occult was rightly seen as deadly.

c. Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death: Bestiality was practiced in the ancient world, and God's Word specifically prohibits it. However, if someone will not allow God's Word to guide his or her sexual morality, there is no rational reason why this should be considered wrong.

i. If we reject God's Word when it comes to other areas of sexual morality, there is no other place to draw the line. We cannot say that sex with animals, children, or the dead is wrong if the ethic is "if it feels good, do it."

ii. Recently, in response to their university's sponsorship of GLAD (Gay/Lesbian Awareness Days), a university group answered with BAD (Bestiality Awareness Days) - but they were not allowed to have their own "celebration." There was no rational reason to reject this apart from a Biblical foundation for morality.

3. (21-27) Compassion for the poor and weak.

"You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict them in any way, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry; and My wrath will become hot, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor's garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What will he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious.

a. You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him: A good measure of our moral character is found in how we treat a stranger. People often find it easy to treat their own flesh and blood right, but God commands us to have a concern for others - including the stranger.

i. The hatred and strife between ethnic and national groups shows just how little humanity has progressed.

ii. It is fair to examine how accommodating are we to the strangers among us. If we stay with our own safe group and enjoy all the blessings, and fail to be outreaching and out-looking as a blessing to others, we mistreat a stranger.

b. You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child: The widow and fatherless child were the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. Therefore God commanded a special care and concern for them, and God promised to protect them.

c. If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him: Interest was prohibited on loans made to the poor and the taking of collateral had to be reasonable.

i. This did not prohibit the taking of interest on loans that were not for relief of the poor. "It is evident that what is here said must be understood of accumulated usury, or what we call compound interest only; and accordingly neshech is mentioned with and distinguished from tarbith and marbith, interest or simple interest, Leviticus 25:36,37; Proverbs 28:8; Ezekiel 18:8, 13, 17, and 22:12." (Clarke)

d. And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear: God promises to hear the prayer of the poor man when he cries out to the Lord. God's general sympathy for the poor is reflected in the fact that Jesus came from a poor family. When He was dedicated in the temple, shortly after His birth, the sacrifice was that of a poor family: two birds (Luke 2:24).

4. (28-31) Laws regarding holiness and separation unto God.

"You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people. You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep. It shall be with its mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me. And you shall be holy men to Me: you shall not eat meat torn by beasts in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs.

a. You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people: The most basic arena for holiness is always the tongue. God cares how we talk about Him and those He has put us into submission to.

b. You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices: We also respect God by giving Him His due. If we are commanded to give something to God, it is a sin to not give it.

c. And you shall be holy men to Me: you shall not eat meat torn by beasts in the field: We are commanded to act differently than the animals. We are called to be holy men, not scavengers who tear at carcasses as animals do. This reinforces the basic idea of holiness: that we are set apart, different.

© 2004 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Exodus (Book Introduction)

EXODUS, a "going forth," derives its name from its being occupied principally with a relation of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, and the incidents that immediately preceded as well as followed that memorable migration. Its authorship by Moses is distinctly asserted by himself (Exo 24:4), as well as by our Lord (Mar 12:26; Luk 20:37). Besides, the thorough knowledge it exhibits of the institutions and usages of the ancient Egyptians and the minute geographical details of the journey to Sinai, establish in the clearest manner the authenticity of this book.

JFB: Exodus (Outline)

• INCREASE OF THE ISRAELITES. (Exo. 1:1-22)
• BIRTH AND PRESERVATION OF MOSES. (Exo 2:1-10) there went a man of the house of Levi, &c. Amram was the husband and Jochebed the wife (compare Exo 6:20; Num 26:59). The marriage took place, and two children, Miriam and Aaron, were born some years before the infanticidal edict.
• HIS SYMPATHY WITH THE HEBREWS. (Exo 2:11-25)
• DIVINE APPEARANCE AND COMMISSION TO MOSES. (Exo. 3:1-22)
• MIRACULOUS CHANGE OF THE ROD, &c. (Exo. 4:1-31)
• FIRST INTERVIEW WITH PHARAOH. (Exo. 5:1-23)
• RENEWAL OF THE PROMISE. (Exo 6:1-13)
• THE GENEALOGY OF MOSES. (Exo. 6:14-30)
• SECOND INTERVIEW WITH PHARAOH. (Exo. 7:1-25)
• PLAGUE OF FROGS. (Exo 8:1-15)
• PLAGUE OF LICE. (Exo 8:16-19)
• PLAGUE OF FLIES. (Exo 8:20-32)
• MURRAIN OF BEASTS. (Exo 9:1-7)
• PLAGUE OF BOILS. (Exo 9:8-17)
• PLAGUE OF HAIL. (Exo. 9:18-35)
• PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS. (Exo. 10:1-20)
• PLAGUE OF DARKNESS. (Exo 10:21-29)
• DEATH OF THE FIRST-BORN THREATENED. (Exo 11:1-10)
• THE PASSOVER INSTITUTED. (Exo 12:1-10)
• THE RITE OF THE PASSOVER. (Exo 12:11-14)
• UNLEAVENED BREAD. (Exo. 12:15-51)
• THE FIRST-BORN SANCTIFIED. (Exo 13:1-2)
• MEMORIAL OF THE PASSOVER. (Exo 13:3-10)
• FIRSTLINGS OF BEASTS. (Exo 13:11-16)
• JOURNEY FROM EGYPT. (Exo 13:17-21)
• GOD INSTRUCTS THE ISRAELITES AS TO THEIR JOURNEY. (Exo. 14:1-31)
• SONG OF MOSES. (Exo. 15:1-27)
• MURMURS FOR WANT OF BREAD. (Exo. 16:1-36)
• THE PEOPLE MURMUR FOR WATER. (Exo 17:1-7)
• ATTACK OF AMALEK. (Exo 17:8-16)
• VISIT OF JETHRO. (Exo. 18:1-27)
• ARRIVAL AT SINAI. (Exo. 19:1-25)
• THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. (Exo. 20:1-26)
• LAWS FOR MENSERVANTS. (Exo 21:1-6)
• LAWS FOR MAIDSERVANTS. (Exo. 21:7-36)
• LAWS CONCERNING THEFT. (Exo. 22:1-31)
• LAWS CONCERNING SLANDER, &c. (Exo. 23:1-33)
• DELIVERY OF THE LAW AND COVENANT. (Exo. 24:1-18)
• CONCERNING AN OFFERING. (Exo. 25:1-40)
• TEN CURTAINS. (Exo. 26:1-37)
• ALTAR FOR BURNT OFFERING. (Exo. 27:1-21)
• APPOINTMENT TO THE PRIESTHOOD. (Exo. 28:1-43)
• CONSECRATING THE PRIESTS AND THE ALTAR. (Exo. 29:1-35)
• CONSECRATION OF THE ALTAR. (Exo 29:36-37)
• INSTITUTION OF DAILY SERVICE. (Exo 29:38-46)
• THE ALTAR OF INCENSE. (Exo. 30:1-38)
• BEZALEEL AND AHOLIAB. (Exo. 31:1-18)
• THE GOLDEN CALF. (Exo. 32:1-35)
• THE LORD REFUSES TO GO WITH THE PEOPLE. (Exo. 33:1-23)
• THE TABLES ARE RENEWED. (Exo. 34:1-35)
• CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TABERNACLE. (Exo. 35:1-35)
• OFFERINGS DELIVERED TO THE WORKMEN. (Exo. 36:1-38)
• FURNITURE OF THE TABERNACLE. (Exo. 37:1-29)
• FURNITURE OF THE TABERNACLE. (Exo. 38:1-31)
• GARMENTS OF THE PRIESTS. (Exo. 39:1-43)
• THE TABERNACLE REARED AND ANOINTED. (Exo. 40:1-38)

TSK: Exodus (Book Introduction)

The title of this Book is derived from the Septuagint; in which it is called ΕΞΟΔΟΣ , " Exodus;" or, as it is in the Codex Alexandrinus, ΕΞΟΔΟΣ Αιγυπτου , " the Exodus or departure from Egypt;" but it is called in Hebrew Bibles ואלה שׁמות , Weelleh Shemoth , " these are the names," or merely, שׁמות , Shemoth , " names," from the words with which it commences.

Moses was undoubtedly the author of this Book, which forms a continuation of the preceding, and was evidently written after the promulgation of the law. it embraces the history of about 145 years. Moses, having in the Book of Genesis described the creation of the world, the origin of nations, and the peopling of the earth, details in the Book of Exodus the commencement and nature of the Jewish Church and Polity, which has very properly been termed a Theocracy (Θεοκρατια , from Θεος [Strong’s 2316], God, and κρατεω [Strong’s 2902], to rule), in which Jehovah appears not merely as their Creator and God, but as their King. Hence this and the following books of Moses are not purely historical; but contain not only laws for the regulation of their moral conduct and the rites and ceremonies of their religious worship, but judicial and political laws relating to government and civil life. The stupendous facts connected with these events, may be clearly perceived by consulting the marginal references; and many of the circumstances are confirmed by the testimony of heathen writers. Numenius, a Pythagorean philosopher, mentioned by Eusebius, speaks of the opposition of the magicians, whom he calls Jannes and Jambres, to the miracles of Moses. Though the names of these magicians are not preserved in the Sacred Text, yet tradition had preserved them in the Jewish records, from which St. Paul (2Ti 3:8) undoubtedly quotes. Add to this that many of the notions of the heathen respecting the appearance of the Deity, and their religious institutions and laws, were borrowed from this book; and many of their fables were nothing more than distorted traditions of those events which are here plainly related by Moses.

TSK: Exodus 22 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Exo 22:1, Of theft; Exo 22:5, Of damage; Exo 22:7, Of trespasses; Exo 22:14, Of borrowing; Exo 22:16, Of fornication; Exo 22:18, Of witchcraft; Exo 22:19, Of bestiality; Exo 22:20, Of idolatry; Exo 22:21, Of strangers, widows, and fatherless; Exo 22:25, Of usury; Exo 22:26, Of pledges; Exo 22:28, Of reverence to magistrates; Exo 22:29, Of the first fruits; Exo 22:31, Of torn flesh.

Poole: Exodus (Book Introduction)

SECOND BOOK OF MOSES CALLED EXODUS.

THE ARGUMENT.

AFTER the death of Joseph, who had sent for his father’ s house into Egypt, the children of Israel exceedingly multiplied, notwithstanding Pharaoh’ s cruel oppressing of them; from under which God, hearing their cry, brought them with a strong hand. Wherefore this book is called by the Greeks EXODUS, i.e. a going forth; containing an historical account of passages for about one hundred and forty years; with the wonderful raising up of Moses, who, together with Aaron, were to be instruments of their deliverance; and accordingly, after the inflicting ten dreadful plagues upon Pharaoh, brought them into the wilderness through the Red Sea, wherein Pharaoh (his heart being hardened under all these plagues) and all his host pursuing of them were drowned; God having first instituted the passover, as an abiding sacrament to bring to their remembrance in after-times this great deliverance.

In their conduct through the wilderness, God gave them the signal mark of his presence in the pillar of a cloud, and the pillar of fire; who, notwithstanding their great and reiterated murmurings, gave them food, both bread and flesh from heaven, and drink out of the rock; and when they were come to Mount Sinai, he there gave them the moral law, beside other both politic and ecclesiastical ordinances. Afterwards, the breaking of the tables being occasioned by the idolatry of the golden calf, God graciously renewed his covenant with them. There being also a tabernacle, and ark, and other things to be made by God’ s command, the bounty of the people, in order to the making and furnishing thereof, is here set down; which, being finished, the tabernacle is anointed, and filled with the glory of God.

Poole: Exodus 22 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 22

Of theft, Exo 22:1-4 . Of eating another man’ s vineyard, Exo 2:5 Of hurt coming by fire, Exo 22:6 . Of hurt coming to goods committed to one’ s trust, Exo 22:7-13 . Of hurt befalling things borrowed, Exo 22:14,15 . Of committing adultery, Exo 22:16,17 . Of witchcraft, Exo 22:18 . Of uncleanness with beasts, Exo 22:19 . Of idolatry, Exo 22:20 . That none shall hurt strangers or widows, Exo 22:21-24. Of unsury, Exo 22:25. Of pawning clothes, Exo 22:26,27 . Of honouring magistrates, Exo 22:28 . Of the first-fruits, Exo 22:29 . Of eating flesh torn by beasts, Exo 22:31 .

MHCC: Exodus (Book Introduction)

The Book of Exodus relates the forming of the children of Israel into a church and a nation. We have hitherto seen true religion shown in domestic life, now, we begin to trace its effects upon the concerns of kingdoms and nations. Exodus signifies " the departure;" the chief event therein recorded is the departure of Israel from Egypt and Egyptian bondage; it plainly points out the fulfilling of several promises and prophecies to Abraham respecting his seed, and shadows forth the state of the church, in the wilderness of this world, until her arrival at the heavenly Canaan, an eternal rest.

MHCC: Exodus 22 (Chapter Introduction)

Judicial laws.

Matthew Henry: Exodus (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Second Book of Moses, Called Exodus

Moses (the servant of the Lord in writing for him as well as in acting for him - with the pen of God as well as with the rod of God in his hand) having, in the first book of his history, preserved and transmitted the records of the church, while it existed in private families, comes, in this second book, to give us an account of its growth into a great nation; and, as the former furnishes us with the best economics, so this with the best politics. The beginning of the former book shows us how God formed the world for himself; the beginning of this shows us how he formed Israel for himself, and both show forth his praise, Isa 43:21. There we have the creation of the world in history, here the redemption of the world in type. The Greek translators called this book Exodus (which signifies a departure or going out ) because it begins with the story of the going out of the children of Israel from Egypt. Some allude to the names of this and the foregoing book, and observe that immediately after Genesis, which signifies the beginning or original, follows Exodus, which signifies a departure; for a time to be born is immediately succeeded by a time to die. No sooner have we made our entrance into the world than we must think of making our exit, and going out of the world. When we begin to live we begin to die. The forming of Israel into a people was a new creation. As the earth was, in the beginning, first fetched from under water, and then beautified and replenished, so Israel was first by an almighty power made to emerge out of Egyptian slavery, and then enriched with God's law and tabernacle. This book gives us, I. The accomplishment of the promises made before to Abraham (ch. 1-19), and then, II. The establishment of the ordinances which were afterwards observed by Israel (ch. 20-40). Moses, in this book, begins, like Caesar, to write his own Commentaries; nay, a greater, a far greater, than Caesar is here. But henceforward the penman is himself the hero, and gives us the history of those things of which he was himself an eye and ear-witness, et quorum pars magna fuit - and in which he bore a conspicuous part. There are more types of Christ in this book than perhaps in any other book of the Old Testament; for Moses wrote of him, Joh 5:46. The way of man's reconciliation to God, and coming into covenant and communion with him by a Mediator, is here variously represented; and it is of great use to us for the illustration of the New Testament, now that we have that to assist us in the explication of the Old.

Matthew Henry: Exodus 22 (Chapter Introduction)

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).

Constable: Exodus (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

The Hebrew title of this book (we'elleh shemot) originated from the ancient practice of naming a Bible book after its first word or words. "Now these are the names of" is the translation of the first two Hebrew words.

"The Hebrew title of the Book of Exodus, therefore, was to remind us that Exodus is the sequel to Genesis and that one of its purposes is to continue the history of God's people as well as elaborate further on the great themes so nobly introduced in Genesis."¹

Exodus cannot stand alone. It would not make much sense without Genesis. The very first word of the book, translated "now," is a conjunction that means "and."

The English title "Exodus" is a transliteration of the Greek word exodos from the Septuagint translation meaning "exit," "way out," or "departure." The Septuagint translators gave the book this title because of the major event in it, namely, the Israelites' departure from Egypt.

"The exodus is the most significant historical and theological event of the Old Testament . . ."²

Date and Writer

Moses, who lived from about 1525 to 1405 B.C., wrote Exodus. He could have written it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit any time after the events recorded (after about 1444 B.C.). He may have written it during the year the Israelites camped at the base of Mt. Sinai. He may have done so during the 38-year period of wandering in the wilderness following the Israelites' failure to enter the land from Kadesh Barnea (cf. Num. 13-14; ca. 1443-1405 B.C.). On the other hand he may have written it on the plains of Moab just before his death (cf. 16:35).³

Scope

Exodus embraces about 431 years of history, from the arrival of Jacob and his family in Egypt (ca. 1876 B.C.) to the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness of Sinai (ca. 1445 B.C.). However 1:1-7 is a review of Jacob's family. If we eliminate this section, the narrative resumes the story of the Israelites where Genesis ends, after the death of Joseph. About 364 years elapsed between the death of Joseph and the building of the tabernacle. The bulk of the book (chs. 3-40) deals with only two of these years, the year before and the year after the Exodus from Egypt. The Exodus event is clearly the focus of this book.

The Israelites lived in Egypt 430 years (12:40). Genesis 15:13 has the round number 400 years as the time of Israel's oppression in Egypt.⁴

Purpose

"The purpose of the Book of Exodus is to celebrate God's gracious deliverance of His chosen people Israel from Egyptian slavery to the freedom of covenant relationship and fellowship with Him."⁵

Importance

"No other biblical book surfaces elsewhere in the OT as frequently as the Book of Exodus does; in the NT only the Books of Psalms and Isaiah are cited more, and that for the fairly obvious reasons of liturgy and messianism."⁶

Message⁷

The great contribution of this book is the revelation that Yahweh is the sovereign God who provides deliverance for man from the slavery in which he finds himself.

The major teaching of Exodus is primarily threefold.

1. The sovereignty of God.

2. The salvation of man.

3. The methods by which the sovereign God affects man's salvation.

First, Exodus teaches the sovereignty of God.

In Genesis we learned that the only way we can realize the purpose for which God created us is through faith in a trustworthy God that expresses itself in obedience.

In Exodus we learn that the God with whom we can have a relationship is not only trustworthy but sovereign. This realization should produce within us the double effect of worship and obedience.

Sovereignty is the attribute of God that expresses the fact that Yahweh is the ultimate ruler of the universe. There is no one higher in authority than He. As sovereign, He has all power. Sovereignty does not refer to how God rules, the method by which He governs. In particular, it does not imply that God controls every detail of life immediately (directly). God exercises His sovereignty by allowing human beings certain freedoms. He does not control us like puppets on strings but as a father controls his children. We have limited freedom.

We can see God's sovereignty clearly in His superiority over all the so-called gods of Egypt. He displayed His great power in all of His activity that resulted in the liberation of the Israelites and His adoption of them as His people. Scripture teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. No one has been able to explain this mystery adequately (cf. Job).

Second, Exodus teaches the salvation of man.

In Genesis we saw the need for salvation (i.e., the Fall and the repeated failures of man).

In Exodus, God revealed the method of salvation and explained the consequences of salvation initially.

Exodus teaches that God provides salvation for man. Man does not provide it for himself. It also reveals that man appropriates what God has provided by faith.

Two activities become prominent as major expressions of faith in Exodus: worship and obedience. Worship and obedience are the Godward and the manward expressions of faith respectively.

Worship consists of putting God at the center of life (cf. Rom. 12:1-2). Worship was to characterize the Israelites nationally and personally. God illustrated the importance of placing Him at the center of life by locating the ark of the covenant in the center of the tabernacle. He further did so by placing the tabernacle in the center of the Israelite camp.

Obedience consists of arranging all the parts of life in proper relation to God who is at the center. If something in life does not orient toward God properly, there is disobedience. In this way Exodus deepens the revelation concerning obedience that God has given us in Genesis.

Third, Exodus teaches the methods by which the sovereign God affects man's salvation.

God's method of dealing with the human race generally (outside Israel) was by creating a pattern, namely, the nation of Israel. God created the nation of Israel so that He could demonstrate through Israel for all other nations and peoples to see how glorious it can be to live under God's government. God's election of Israel was not the selection of a pet that God would favor at the expense of all others. It was the construction of a pattern. Israel was to be a demonstration to all the world of how wonderful life can be under the rule of Yahweh (cf. 19:5-6).

God's method of dealing with Israel was by revealing a person, namely, Himself. In many revelations to the Israelites, God sought to deepen their understanding of and appreciation for Himself and His will. The special privilege of receiving the revelation was a blessing to them and should have resulted in their being a blessing to the whole world. Israel was to do this by demonstrating how good it is to live under God's kingship. Some of the most important revelations occur in the following passages: 3:4-16; 6:2-8; 19:3-6; 20:1-7; 24:1, 9-11; 34:5-8; and 40:34-35. They are not all different, but God intended them to have the cumulative effect of deepening the Israelites' concept of God. They came to the people like waves beating on the shore. All the details of the Mosaic Code, which begins in Exodus and continues through Numbers, reinforce the main point of this revelation, which is the character of God.

God's method of dealing with individuals was by providing opportunities, choices.

We can see this most easily in God's dealing with the two major characters in Exodus, Moses and Pharaoh. God's method of dealing with both men was the same, but their responses were different and consequently so were their fates.

Pharaoh was a strong, wise leader who acted wholly by sight rather than by faith in Yahweh. He is typical of people of the world. God's method of dealing with him was to give him opportunities to make the right choices and so experience the blessing of God. Pharaoh chose not to trust God, and his disobedience resulted in personal tragedy for himself and national tragedy for Egypt.

Moses on the other hand was also a strong, wise leader, but he acted by faith rather than by sight (Heb. 11:27). God's method of dealing with him in Exodus was the same. He gave him opportunities to make the right choices and so experience God's blessing. Moses chose to trust and obey God, and his life is a story of personal triumph and national triumph for Israel.

In both cases God patiently worked with these representative individuals and gently encouraged them to do His will. Moses developed into a noble character because he chose to submit to God's government even though he was faulty, failing, and fearful. Pharaoh was a more admirable person in many respects, but he sank into destruction because he chose to refuse to submit to God's government (authoritative rule).

Exodus teaches that individuals are personally responsible under God, and their choices determine their destinies. There is ample New Testament evidence for this in John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; 20:31; et al. Divine sovereignty does not negate human responsibility.

If we look at the record of God's activity in Exodus, we see progress. The unbelief of His enemies does not frustrate Him. His ultimate purposes for Israel came to fruition.

However if we look at the record of man's activity in this book, we see failure. Even Moses, Aaron, and the Israelites who trusted God constantly failed. We observed this in the lives of the characters in Genesis as well.

While man constantly falls short of what God requires, human failure does not frustrate God's ultimate purposes. This proves that God is indeed sovereign.

Constable: Exodus (Outline)

Outline

I. The liberation of Israel 1:1-15:21

A. God's preparation of Israel and Moses chs. 1-4

1. The growth of Jacob's family 1:1-7

2. The Israelites' bondage in Egypt 1:8-22

3. Moses' birth and education 2:1-10

4. Moses' flight from Egypt to Midian 2:11-15

5. Moses' life in Midian 2:16-25

6. Moses' call 3:1-4:18

7. Moses' return to Egypt 4:19-31

B. God's demonstrations of His sovereignty chs. 5-11

1. Pharaoh's response to Moses and Aaron's initial request 5:1-6:1

2. Moses and Aaron's equipment as God's messengers 6:2-7:7

3. The attestation of Moses and Aaron's divine mission 7:8-13

4. The first three plagues 7:14-8:19

5. The fourth, fifth, and sixth plagues 8:20-9:12

6. The seventh, eight, and ninth plagues 9:13-10:29

7. The proclamation of the tenth plague ch. 11

C. God's redemption of His people 12:1-13:16

1. The consecration of Israel as the covenant nation 12:1-28

2. The death of the first-born and the release of Israel 12:29-36

3. The exodus of Israel out of Egypt 12:37-42

4. Regulations concerning the Passover 12:43-51

5. The sanctification of the first-born 13:1-16

D. God's completion of Israel's liberation 13:17-15:21

1. The journey from Succoth to Etham 13:17-22

2. Israel's passage through the Red Sea ch. 14

3. Israel's song of deliverance 15:1-21

II. The adoption of Israel 15:22-40:38

A. God's preparatory instruction of Israel 15:22-18:27

1. Events in the wilderness of Shur 15:22-27

2. Quails and manna in the wilderness of Sin ch. 16

3. The lack of water at Rephidim 17:1-7

4. The hostility of the Amalekites 17:18-36

5. The friendliness of Jethro the Midianite ch. 18

B. The establishment of the Mosaic Covenant 19:1-24:11

1. Preparation for the Covenant ch. 19

2. The Ten Commandments 20:1-17

3. The response of the Israelites 20:18-21

4. The stipulations of the Book of the Covenant 20:22-23:33

5. The ratification of the Covenant 24:1-11

C. Directions regarding God's dwelling among His people 24:12-31:18

1. The revelation of these directions 24:12-18

2. Contributions for the construction of the sanctuary 25:1-9

3. The tabernacle furnishings 25:10-41

4. The tabernacle structure ch. 26

5. The tabernacle courtyard 27:1-19

6. The investiture of the priests 27:20-28:43

7. The consecration of the priests 29:1-37

8. The service of the priests 29:38-30:38

9. The builders of the tabernacle 31:1-11

10. The sign of the Sabbath 31:12-18

D. The breaking and renewing of the covenant chs. 32-34

1. The failure of Israel ch. 32

2. The re-establishment of fellowship ch. 33

3. The renewal of the covenant ch. 34

E. The construction and dedication of the objects used in Israel's worship chs. 35-40

1. Preparations for construction 35:1-36:7

2. Execution of the work 36:8-39:43

3. The erection and consecration of the tabernacle ch. 40

In an interesting and original chart of Exodus, Ted Grove suggested the following structural outline of Exodus.⁸

I. Israel's liberation chs. 1-18

A. Israel's affliction (Israel is Egypt's possession) 1:1-2:14

B. Deliverance 2:15-18:27

Ted saw the following chiastic structure in this section.

A Midian: Moses' commission 2:15-4:28

B Enemy: Egypt defeated 4:29-15:21

C Water: bitter to sweet and 12 springs 15:22-27

D Food: manna and quail ch. 16

C' Water: out of rock 17:1-7

B' Enemy: Amalek defeated 17:8-16

A' Midian: Moses accepts wisdom ch. 18

II. Israel's adoption chs. 19-40

A. Covenant delivered 19:1-24:11

B. Sanctuary planned 24:12-31:18

C. Covenant broken ch. 32

D. Covenant renewed chs. 33-34

E. Sanctuary's construction 35:1-40:33

F. Covenant sealed (Israel is God's possession) 40:34-38

Ted also saw a chiasm in this part of the book.

A Covenant delivered 19:1-24:11

B Tabernacle planned 24:12-27:21

C Priestly instructions chs. 28-30

D Craftsmen's direction 31:1-11

E Sabbath instructions 31:12-18

F Covenant broken ch. 32

F' Covenant renewed chs. 33-34

E' Sabbath reminded 35:1-3

D' Craftsmen and construction 35:4-38:31

C' Priests prepared ch. 39

B' Tabernacle completed 40:1-33

A' Covenant sealed 40:34-38

The center of the first chiasm is the manna. The center of the second chiasm is the tablets of the Law. These were the two items God instructed Moses to preserve in the ark of the covenant.

Ted saw the key verse of the book as 34:9.

Constable: Exodus

Exodus

Bibliography

Adams, Dwayne H. "The Building Program that Works (Exodus 25:4--36:7 [31:1-11])." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):82-92.

Aharoni, Yohanan. "Kadesh-Barnea and Mount Sinai." In God's Wilderness: Discoveries in Sinai, pp. 115-70. Edited by B. Rothenberg, Y. Aharoni, and A Hashimshoni. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1962.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Albright, William Foxwell. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. "Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C." Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954):222-33.

Aldrich, Roy L. "The Mosaic Ten Commandments Compared to Their Restatements in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 118:471 (July-September 1961):251-58.

Alexander, John F. "Sabbath Rest." The Other Side 146 (November 1983):8-9.

Aling, Charles F. "The Biblical City of Ramses." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25:2 (June 1982):129-37.

Allen, Ronald B. "The Bloody Bridegroom' in Exodus 4:24-26." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):259-69.

_____. "The Pillar of the Cloud." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):387-95.

Anati, Emmanuel. "Has Mt. Sinai Been Found?" Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August 1985):42-57.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Abraham to Moses." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):3-25.

_____ "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Moses to David." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:506 (April-June 1970):99-115.

_____ A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. "Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption." Journal for the Study of Judaism 17:2 (December 1986):153-76.

Baldwin, Joyce G. "The Role of the Ten Commandments." Vox Evangelica 13 (1983):7-18.

Barlow, Robert Andres. "The Passover Seder." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):63-68.

Batto, Bernard F. "Red Sea or Reed Sea?" Biblical Archaeology Review 10:4 (July-August 1984):57-63.

Beale, G. K. "An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9." Trinity Journal 5NS:2 (Autumn 1984):129-54.

Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq. "Fifteen Years in Sinai." Biblical Archaeology Review 10:4 (July-August 1984):28-54.

Berghuis, Kent D. "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.

Bimson, John J. "Redating the Exodus." Biblical Archaeology Review 13:5 (September-October 1986):40-53, 66-68.

_____. Redating the Exodus and the Conquest. JSOT supplement series. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1978.

Blosser, Oliver R. "Did the Pharaoh of the Exodus Drown in the Red Sea?" It's About Time (July 1987), pp. 8-12.

_____ "The Impact of the Ten Plagues and Mosaic Monotheism on the Religion of Akenaton: Part I." It's About Time (July 1987), pp. 3-7.

Bodenheimer, F. S. "The Manna of Sinai." Biblical Archaeologist 10:1 (February 1947):2-6.

Booij, Thijs. "Mountain and Theophany in the Sinai Narrative." Biblica 65:1 (1984):1-26.

Brichto, Herbert Chanan. "The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable on Idolatry." Hebrew Union College Annual 54 (1983):1-44.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Budge, E. A. W. The Gods of the Egyptians. New York: Dover Press, 1969.

Bunn, John T. "The Ark of the Covenant." Biblical Illustrator 9:4 (Summer 1983):50-53.

Burden, Jasper J. "A Stylistic Analysis of Exodus 15:1-21: Theory and Practice." OTWSA 29 (1986):34-70.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cools; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. Reprinted. Cambridge: University Press, 1928.

Bush, George. Notes on Exodus. 2 vols. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: James and Klock, 1976.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Reprinted. English ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. The Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974.

Chirichigno, G. C. "The Narrative Structure of Exod 19-24." Biblia 68:4 (1987):457-79.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Divine Hardening in the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):410-34.

_____. "Does God Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):387-99.

_____. "The Polemic against Baalism in Israel's Early History and Literature." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):267-83.

Chismar, Douglas E. and David A Raush. "Regarding Theonomy: An Essay of Concern." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:3 (September 1984):315-23.

Clapham, Phillip. "In Search of the Exodus." Catastrophism and Ancient History 8:2 (July 1986):97-133.

Clapp, Rodney. "Democracy as Heresy." Christianity Today 31:3 (February 20, 1987):17-23.

Cole, R. Alan. Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973.

Congdon, Robert N. "Exodus 21:22-25 and the Abortion Debate." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):132-47.

Constable, Thomas L. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Craigie, Peter C. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

_____ Ugarit and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. "The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth." In God and Christ: Existence and Province, pp. 1-25. Edited by Robert W. Funk. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

_____ "The Tabernacle." Biblical Archaeologist 10:3 (September 1947):45-68.

Curtis, Edward M. "The Theological Basis for the Prohibition of Images in the Old Testament." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28:3 (September 1985):277-87.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Davis, John J. Moses and the Gods of Egypt. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971.

Deere, Jack S. "Deuteronomy." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 259-324. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

DeHaan, Martin Ralph. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1943.

Deist, F. E. "Who is to blame: the Pharaoh, Yahweh or circumstance? On human responsibility, and divine ordinance in Exodus 1-14." OTWSA 29(1986):91-110.

Dennett, Edward. Typical Teachings of Genesis. London: G. Morrish, n.d.

Dennison, James T., Jr. "The Exodus: Historical Narrative, Prophetic Hope, Gospel Fulfillment." Covenant Seminary Review 8:2 (Fall 1982):1-12.

Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by James Hastings, 1909 ed. S.v. "Tabernacle," by A. R. S. Kennedy.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Dunnam, Maxie D. Exodus. The Communicator's Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Dunnett, Dolores E. "Evangelicals and Abortion." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33:2 (June 1990):215-25.

Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Dyer, Charles H. "The Date of the Exodus Reexamined." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:559 (July-September 1983):225-43.

Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001.

Ellison, H. L. Exodus. Daily Study Bible series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982.

Encyclopaedia Judica. S.v. "Cuneiform Law," by J. Finkelstein, 16:1505i.

Exum, J. Cheryl. "You Shall Let Every Daughter Live': A Study of Exodus 1:8-2:10." Semeia 28 (1983):63-82.

Fass, David E. "The Molten Calf: Judgment, Motive, and Meaning." Judaism 39:2 (Spring 1990):171-83.

Fawver, Jay D., and R. Larry Overstreet. "Moses and Preventive Medicine." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September):270-85.

Fensham, F. C. "Extra-Biblical Material and the Hermeneutics of the Old Testament with Special Reference to the Legal Material of the Covenant Code." OTWSA 20 & 21 (1977 & 78):53-65.

Finegan, Jack. Let My People Go. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1963.

Finkelstein, Israel. "Raider of the Lost Mountain--An Israeli Archaeologist Looks at the Most Recent Attempt to Locate Mt. Sinai." Biblical Archaeology Review 15:4 (July-August 1988):46-50.

Frankfort, Henri. Ancient Egyptian Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948; reprint ed., New York: Harper and Row; Harper Torchbooks, 1961.

Franz, Gordon. "Mt. Sinai Is Not Jebel El-Lawz in Saudi Arabia." A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 15, 2001, Colorado Springs, Colo.

Free, Joseph P. Archaeology and Bible History. 5th ed. revised. Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1956.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

_____. "The Sabbath Controversy." Biblical Research Monthly 49:4 (July-August 1984):14-16.

Gardner, Joseph L., ed. Reader's Digest Atlas of the Bible. Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader's Digest Association, 1985.

Gevirtz, Stanley. "Heret, in the Manufacture of the Golden Calf." Biblica 65 (1984):377-81.

Gianotti, Charles R. "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):38-51.

Gispen, William H. Exodus. Translated by Ed van der Maas. Bible Student's Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Gnuse, Robert. "Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel's Vision of Social Reform." Biblical Theology Bulletin 15:2 (April 1985):43-48.

Goldberg, Michael. "Expository Articles: Exodus 1:13-14." Interpretation 37:4 (October 1983):389-91.

Gunn, David M. "The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart': Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1-14." In Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, pp. 72-96. Edited by David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan J. Hauser. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 19. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1982.

Gurney, O. R. The Hittites. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964.

Habel, N. "The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1965):316-23.

Hagin, Kenneth E. Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness, and Death. Tulsa: Faith Library Publications, 1983.

Hannah, John D. "Exodus." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 103-62. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

Hasel, Gerhard F. "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch." In The Sabbath in Scripture and History, pp. 21-43. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982.

Hengstenberg, Ernst W. Egypt and the Books of Moses. Translated by R. D. C. Robbins. New York: M. H. Newman, 1843.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, Hearthstone Book, 1987.

Hilber, John W. "Theology of Worship in Exodus 24." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:2 (June 1996):177-89.

Hindson, Edward E. The Philistines and the Old Testament. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Hoehner, Harold W. "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.

Holmgren, Fredrick. "Before the Temple, the Thornbush: An Exposition of Exodus 2:11-3:12." Reformed Journal 33:3 (March 1983):9-11.

Hopkins, Ezekiel. "Understanding the Ten Commandments." In Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 41-58. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Hoppe, Leslie J. "Elders and Deuteronomy." Eglise et Theologie 14 (1983):259-72.

Horn, Siegfried H. Biblical Archaeology: A Generation of Discovery. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1985.

Hort, Greta. "The Plagues of Egypt." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1957):84-103; 70 (1958):48-59.

Houtman, C. "A Note on the LXX Version of Exodus 4, 6." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97:2 (1983):253-54.

_____ "On the Meaning of Uba'esim Uba'abanim in Exodus VII 19." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (1986):347-52.

Hughes, R. Kent. Living on the Cutting Edge. Westchester, Il.: Good News Publishers, Crossway Books, 1987.

Hyatt, J. Philip. Exodus. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1971; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Isser, Stanley. "Two Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisited." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):30-45.

Jacob, B. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Hoboken: KTAV, 1992.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnston, Gordon H. "I Will Multiply Your Seed." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):19-32.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "Exodus." In Genesis--Numbers. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.

_____. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

Kalland, Lloyd. "Fetal Life." Eternity, February 1971, pp. 18-21, 24.

Keil, C. F., and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kempinski, Aharon. "Jacob in History." Biblical Archaeology Review 14:1 (January-February 1988):42-47.

Kennedy, James M. "The Social Background of Early Israel's Rejection of Cultic Images: A Proposal." Biblical Theology Bulletin 17:4 (October 1987);138-44.

Kiene, Paul F. The Tabernacle of God in the Wilderness. Translated by John S. Crandall. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

King, Geoffrey R. "Where Is the Ark of the Covenant?" Prophetic Witness 8:2 (February 1984):9-10.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

_____ The Bible In Its World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

_____ "Labour Conditions in the Egypt of the Exodus." Buried History 20:3 (September 1984):43-49.

_____ "The Old Testament in its Context: 2 From Egypt to the Jordan." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 60 (1971):3-11.

Kline, Meredith G. "Comments on an Old-New Error." Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978):172-89.

_____. "Deuteronomy." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 155-204. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

_____. "The Feast of Cover-over." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):497-510.

_____ "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus." Simon Greenleaf Law Review 5 (1985-86):75-89.

_____ The Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963.

Kubo, Sakae. "Why then the law?" Ministry (March 1980), pp. 12-14.

Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1966.

Laney, J. Carl. "God's Self-Revelation in Exodus 34:6-8." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):36-51.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus, by John Peter Lange and Frederic Gardiner. Translated by Tayler Lewis, A. Gosman, and Charles M. Mead.

Lev, Mordecai J., ed. Sepher Mitzvoth. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1990.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.

Lightner, Robert P. "Theological Perspectives on Theonomy." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):26-36; 570 (April-June 1986):134-45; 571 (July-September 1986):228-45.

Livingston, G. Herbert. "A Case Study of the Call of Moses." Asbury Theological Journal 42:2 (Fall 1987):89-113.

_____.The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Loewenstamm, Samuel E. "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf." Biblica 48 (1967):481-90.

_____ "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf--a Rejoinder." Biblica 56 (1975):330-43.

Lubarsky, Sandra B. "Judaism and the Justification of Abortion for Non-Medical Reasons." Journal of Reform Judaism 31:4 (Fall 1984):1-13.

M[ackintosh], C. H. Notes on the Book of Exodus. American ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1879.

MacLurg, Jeffrey E. "An Ode to Joy: The Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1-21)." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):43-54.

Magonet, Jonathan. "The Rhetoric of God: Exodus 6.2-8." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27 (1983):56-67.

Marcus, David. "Juvenile Delinquency in the Bible and the Ancient Near East." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 13 (1981):31-52.

Mazar, Amihai. "Bronze Bull Found in Israelite High Place' from the Time of the Judges." Biblical Archaeology Review 9:5 (September-October 1983):34-40.

Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Presbyterian Board of Colportage of Western Pennsylvania, 1955.

Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

_____. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "The Mosaic Covenant: A Proposal for Its Theological Significance." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):25-33.

_____. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Meyer, Frederick Brotherton. Devotional Commentary on Exodus. London: Purnell, n.d.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1981.

Milgrom, Jacob. "Thou Shalt Not Boil a Kid in It's Mother's Milk.'" Bible Review 1:3 (Fall 1985):48-55.

Mills, Watson E. "Childbearing in Ancient Times." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):54-56.

Minter, Steve. "Ten Timeless Words (Exodus 20:1-17)." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):67-80.

Mitchell, Bill. "Leviticus 24.6: The Bread of the Presence--Rows or Piles?" Bible Translator 33:4 (October 1982):447-48.

Mitchell, T. C. "The Meaning of the Noun HTN in the Old Testament." Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969):93-112.

Montet, Pierre. Eternal Egypt. Translated by Doreen Weightman. New York: New American Library, 1964.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morgan, J. P. "The Morality of Suicide: Issues and Options." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):214-30.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. "The Name of the God of Moses." Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):121-33.

Mowvley, Henry. "John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35." Expository Times 95:5 (February 1984):135-37.

Munro, John "Prayer to a Sovereign God." Interest 56:2 (February 1990):20-21.

Myers, John V. "What Was Brimstone?" Kronos 9:1 (Fall 1983):57-60.

Naville, Edouard. The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1885.

New Bible Dictionary. 1962. S.v. "Plagues of Egypt," by Kenneth A. Kitchen.

Nichol, Francis David, ed. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. 7 vols. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1953-57.

Nicholson, E. W. "The Decalogue As the Direct Address of God." Vetus Testamentum 27 (October 1977):422-33.

Nowell, Irene. "Sabbath: Sign of the Covenant." The Bible Today 24:6 (November 1986):376-80.

Oosthuizen, M. J. "Some thoughts on the interpretation of Exodus 4:24-26." OTWSA 29(1986):1-30.

Patterson, Richard D. "Wonders in the Heavens and on the Earth: Apolcalyptic Imagery in the Old Testament." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):385-403.

Paul, Shalom. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. A Faith That Endures: The Book of Hebrews Applied to the Real Issues of Life. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1992.

_____. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):227-33.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Perevolotsky, Aviram, and Israel Finkelstein. "The Southern Sinai Exodus Route in Ecological Perspective." Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August 1985):26-41.

Petrie, Flinders. Egypt and Israel. New York: E. S. Gorham, 1911.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. Ras Shamra and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962.

Phillips, Anthony. Ancient Israel's Criminal Law. New York: Schocken, 1970.

_____ "A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope." Vetus Testamentum 34 (January 1984): 39-52; 34 (July 1984):282-94.

_____ The Laws of Slavery: Exodus 21:2-11." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30 (October 1984):51-66.

_____ "Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel." Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973):349-61.

Pollock, Algernon J. The Tabernacle's Typical Teaching. London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Proffitt, T. D., III. "Moses and Anthropology: A New View of the Exodus." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:1 (March 1984):19-25.

Radday, Yehuda T. "The Spoils of Egypt." Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 12 (1983):127-47.

Ramey, William D. "The Great Escape (Exodus 14)." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):33-42.

Ramm, Bernard L. His Way Out. Glendale: Gospel Light Publications; Regal Books, 1974.

Reviv, Hanoch. "The Traditions Concerning the Inception of the Legal System in Israel: Significance and Dating." Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94:4 (1982):566-75.

Ridout, Samuel. Lectures on the Tabernacle. Bible Truth Library series. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, n.d.

Robinson, Bernard P. "Symbolism in Exod. 15:22-27 (Marah and Elim)." Revue Biblique 94:3 (July 1987):376-88.

_____. "Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus IV 24-6." Vetus Testamentum 36:4 (October 1986):447-61.

Rodriguez, Angel Manuel. "Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus." Andrews University Seminary Studies 24:2 (Summer 1986):127-45.

Rooker, Mark F. Leviticus. The New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.

Ross, Allen P. "When God Gives His People Bitter Water." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):55-66.

Rowley, Harold H. "Moses and the Decalogue." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester 34:1 (September 1951);81-118.

Ryrie, Charles C. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

Sailhamer, John H. "Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1-2:4a." Trinity Journal 5 NS (Spring 1984):73-82.

_____. "The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch." Westminster Theological Journal 53 (Fall 1991):241-61.

_____. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Sarles, Ken L. "An Appraisal of the Signs and Wonders Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):57-82.

_____ "A Theological Evaluation of the Prosperity Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):329-52.

Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.

_____. "Exploring Exodus--The Oppression." Biblical Archaeologist 49:2 (June 1986):68-79.

Sasson, J. M. "Circumcision in the Ancient Near East." Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966):473-76.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Shafer, B. E., ed. Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice. Ithica: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Sheriffs, Deryck. "Moving on with God: Key motifs in Exodus 13-20." Themelios 15:2 (January-February 1990):49-60.

Siker-Gieseler, Jeffrey. "The Theology of the Sabbath in the Old Testament: A Canonical Approach." Studia Biblica et Theologica 11:1 (April 1981):5-20.

Soltau, Henry W. The Tabernacle, the Priesthood and the Offerings. London: Morgan and Scott, n.d.

Speiser, E. A. "An Angelic Curse': Exodus 14:20." Journal of the American Oriental Society 80 (1960):198-200.

Spurgeon, Graham. "Is Abortion Murder?" In The Religious Case for Abortion, pp. 15-27. Edited by Hamilton Gregory. Asheville: Madison and Polk, 1983.

Steuer, Axel D. "The Freedom of God and Human Freedom." Scottish Journal of Theology 36:2:163-80.

Stiebing, William H., Jr. "Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement in Canaan Be Redated?" Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August 1985):58-69.

Strange, James F. "The Jewish Calendar." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):28-32.

Strauss, Lehman. The Eleven Commandments. 2nd ed. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1975.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Sring, Margit L. "The Horn-Motifs of the Bible and the Ancient Near East." Andrews University Seminary Studies 22:3 (Autumn 1984):327-40.

Tan, Paul Lee. Principles of Literal Interpretation of the Bible. By the Author, 1967.

Tolhurst, A. H. "Whatever Happened to the Ark?" Ministry, June 1984, pp. 13-15.

Unger, Merrill F. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954.

_____ Biblical Demonology. 7th ed. Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1967.

_____ Demons in the World Today. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1974.

_____ "The Significance of the Sabbath." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:489 (January-March 1966):53-59.

Unger's Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. S.v. "Cherub," by Merrill F. Unger.

_____ S.v. "Metrology," by E. McChesney, revised by Merrill F. Unger.

van der Meulen, Henry E. Faber. "One or two veils in front of the holy of holies?" Theologia Evangelica 18:1 (March 1985):22-27.

Van Seters, John. The Hyksos. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.

Voss, Robert J. "Who Am I That I Should Go? Exodus 3:11 (Ex. 2:25--4:18)." Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 80:4 (Fall 1983):243-47.

Wagner, Maurice E. "How to Honor Your Parents When They've Hurt You." Psychology for Living 28:6 (June 1986):12-14.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

_____ "Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early Date of the Exodus." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:513 (January-March 1972):33-47.

_____ "Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:1 (Winter 1976):3-13.

Walvoord, John F. "The New Covenant." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 186-200. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Ward, William A. The Spirit of Ancient Egypt. Beirut: Khayats, 1965.

Watson, Thomas. The Ten Commandments. 1692. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.

Wenham, John W. The Goodness of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1974.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Whybray, R. Norman. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Williams, Gary R. "The Purpose of Penology in the Mosaic Law and Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:529 (January-March 1976):42-55.

Wilson, Robert Dick. "Yahweh (Jehovah) and Exodus 6:3." In Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 29-40. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Wilson, Robert R. "The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41:1 (1979):18-36.

Winter, Ralph D. "The Growth of Israel in Egypt (The Phenomenon of Exponential Growth)." Paper published by the Institute of International Studies, Pasadena, Ca., 14 April 1993.

Wolinski, Arelene. "Egyptian Masks: The Priest and His Role." Archaeology 40:1 (January-February 1987):22-29.

Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Woudstra, Marten H. The Book of Joshua. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981.

Wright, G. Ernest. "The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East." Biblical Archaeologist 7:4 (December 1944):65-77.

Wyatt, N. "The Significance of the Burning Bush." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):361-65.

Wyrick, Stephen Von. "Israel's Golden Calves." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):3-12.

Youngblood, Ronald F. Exodus. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

_____ "A New Look at an Old Problem: The Date of the Exodus." Christianity Today 26:20 (December 17, 1982):58, 60.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Practice of Witchcraft in the Scriptures." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:512 (October-December 1971):352-60.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Exodus (Book Introduction)

THE BOOK OF EXODUS.

INTRODUCTION.

The second Book of Moses is called Exodus from the Greek word Exodos, which signifies going out; because it contains the history of the going out of the children of Israel out of Egypt. The Hebrews, from the words with which it begins, call it Veelle Shemoth : These are the names. (Challoner) --- It contains the space of 143 years, till the beginning of the second year after the liberation of the Israelites. (Tirinus) --- Their slavery is described in the first chapters; and is supposed to have continued ninety years. (Du Hamel) --- The laws prescribed by God to his people, the sacrifices, tabernacle, &c., were all intended to prefigure the Christian dispensation. (St. Augustine, City of God vii. 31.) --- Moses himself was a type of Jesus Christ, who was rejected by the synagogue, and received by the Gentiles, as the Jewish Legislator was abandoned by his mother, and educated by the Egyptian princess. She delivers him back to his mother; and thus the Jews will, at last, acknowledge our Saviour. (Du Hamel) --- God deigns to address his people in the character of a powerful Eastern monarch, and requires the like attention. He appoints his ministers, like guards, to attend before his tabernacle, &c. The laws which he enacts, are such as suited the Jewish people: they were not to rise all at once to perfection; but these laws guide them, as it were, on the road. They are infinitely more perfect than those of the surrounding nations. (Calmet)

Gill: Exodus (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO EXODUS

This book is called by the Jews Veelleh Shemoth, from the first words with which it begins, and sometimes Sepher Shemoth, and sometimes only Shemoth. It is by the Septuagint called Exodus, from whom we have the name of Exodus, which signifies "a going out"; see Luk 9:31, because it treats of the going of the children of Israel out of Egypt; and hence in the Alexandrian copy it is called the Exodus of Egypt; and so the Syriac version entitles it the second book of the law, called "the going out"; and to the same purpose the Arabic version. The Jews sometimes give it the name of Nezikin, as Buxtorf ^a observes out of the Masora on Gen 24:8 because in it some account is given of losses, and the restitution of them. That this book is of divine inspiration, and to be reckoned in the canon of the sacred writings, is sufficiently evident to all that believe the New Testament; since there are so many quotations out of it there by Christ, and his apostles; particularly see Mar 12:26 and that it was wrote by Moses is not to be doubted, but when is not certain; it must be after the setting up of the tabernacle in the wilderness; the greatest part of what is contained in it, he was an eye and ear witness of; it plainly points out the accomplishment of the promises and prophecies delivered to Abraham, that his posterity would be very numerous, that they would be afflicted in a land not theirs, and in the fourth generation come out of it with great substance. It treats of the afflictions of the Israelites in Egypt, after the death of Joseph, until their deliverance by Moses; of his birth, calling, and mission to Pharaoh, to demand of him to let the children of Israel go; of the ten plagues upon him and his people, for refusing to dismiss them; of the departure of Israel from Egypt, and the institution of the passover on that account; of their passage through the Red sea into the wilderness, and of the various exercises and afflictions, supplies and supports they met with there; of the giving of a body of laws unto them, moral, ceremonial, and judicial; and of the building of the tabernacle, and all things appertaining to it; and throughout the whole, as there is a figure and representation of the passage of the people of God out of spiritual Egypt, through the wilderness of this world, to the heavenly Canaan, and of various things they must meet with in their passage, so there are many types of Christ, his person, office, and grace, and of his church, his word, and ordinances, which are very edifying and instructing. The book contains a history of about one hundred and forty years, from the death of Joseph, to the erection of the tabernacle.

Gill: Exodus 22 (Chapter Introduction)

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