A Help for the Understanding of the Holy Scriptures, Exodus · Chapter 22
CHAP. XXII.
Verſ. 1. IF a man ſhall ſteal an ox, or a ſheep, and kill it, or ſell it, &c.]
For the underſtanding of this law, we muſt know firſt, that what is here ſaid concerning the ſtealing of ox or ſheep, muſt alſo by the rule of proportion be underſtood concerning any other cattel, the ox and ſheep being onelyonly mentioned, becauſe they were the chief, and therefore verſ. 4. the aſſe is alſo mentioned; ſecondly, that upon the thief that ſtole cattel a greater fine was ſet, then upon him that ſtole other things: for thoſe that ſtole other things were onelyonly allotted to pay double. verſ. 7. but thoſe that ſtole cattel were to reſtore fourefold, or fivefold; and the reaſon was, becauſe mens cattel being left abroad were moſt in danger; and therefore ſuch theft was to be reſtrained with the greater ſeverity; thirdly, that the reaſon why fourefold or fivefold reſtitution was enjoyned in caſe the cattel ſtollen were killed, or fold, whereas if they were found in the hands of him that ſtole them, he was onelyonly to reſtore double, verſ. 4. was, becauſe in him that had the cattel ſtill with him there might ſeem to be ſome remorſe, or ſimplicity, but in him that killed or ſold it there ſeemed to be more cunning and boldneſſe; and beſides, the owner was put to the greater charge or trouble in finding it out, and therefore his penalty was the greater; and fourthly, that the thief was to reſtore five oxen for an ox, and but foure ſheep for a ſheep, becauſe the loſſe of an ox was the greater loſſe, and beſides the owner loſt the labour of his ox, and therefore was this theft to be reſtrained with ſomewhat the greater ſeverity.
Verſ. 4. He ſhall restore double.]
That is, in caſe he hath not made away the ox or ſheep, &c. he ſhall reſtore that which was ſtollen, and another as good, or the full value of it. And indeed double reſtitution was the ordinary penalty of theft, unleſſe in the caſe before mentioned, when they ſtole cattel, and afterwards killed or ſold them: for ſo it is expreſſely ſaid concerning thoſe that ſtole other things, in the ſeventh verſe of this chapter, If the thief be found, let him pay double. And though it be ſaid Prov. 6. 30, 31. Men do not deſpiſe a thief if he ſteal to ſatisfie his ſoul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he ſhall restore ſevenfold; yet I do not thence conclude, that in the dayes of Solomon theft was more ſeverely puniſhed then God by his law had appointed, but rather conceive that by thoſe words, he ſhall restore ſevenfold, is onelyonly meant that he ſhould abundantly ſatisfie him, as the phraſe is elſewhere uſed, not for a ſet quantity, but for the abundant doing of any thing, as Pſal. 79. 12. Render unto our neighbours ſevenfold into their boſome their reproch wherewith they have reproched thee, O Lord.
Verſ. 5. If a man ſhall cauſe a field or a vineyard to be eaten, and ſhall put in his beast, &c.]
Under this particular expreſſed, all kind of hurting another mans ground is here forbidden, as with trampling of cattel, &c. yet it is not puniſhed as theft, becauſe it might be do…e unwillingly.
Verſ. 7. If a man ſhall deliver unto his neighbour money, or ſtuff, and it be stollen, &c.]
To wit, of truſt, and for no reward but of friendſhip.
Verſ. 8. If the thief be not found, then the Maſter of the houſe ſhall be brought unto the Judges, &c.]
To wit, to have it cleared either by witneſſes, or the oath of the party, as ver. 11. (whoſe oath it was fit ſhould be taken, ſince the owner had truſted him with his goods) whether the goods left with him were indeed, as he pretended, ſtollen from him, or whether he had himſelf made them away.
Verſ. 9. For all manner of treſpaſſe, whether it be for ox, for aſſe, for ſheep, for raiment, &c.]
This is a generall law inſerted concerning the power of the magiſtrate in deciding controverſies of this kind, that ſo it might not be repeated in every ſeverall law: As he had before ordered concerning dead things, as money or ſtuff committed to the truſt of any man, if any difference did grow betwixt the owner and the party entruſted, the magiſtrate muſt decide it; ſo here he ſhews that in the ſame manner in other treſpaſſes, as if cattel were committed to a friends truſt, and were loſt, or if any thing loſt by the owner were denyed by the party that found it, or in any other treſpaſſe, the magiſtrate muſt ſtill award how it ſhall be: So that this Law doth not as the former and following Laws ſhew how the Judge ſhould determine, in what caſes he ſhould condemne men to pay double, and in what caſes he ſhould abſolve them; but onelyonly takes order that the Judge ſhould determine ſuch differences, and as he did abſolve or condemne any man to pay double, ſo it ſhould be, he ſhall pay double unto his neighbour, that is, the party accuſed, if found guilty; and happely the party falſely accuſing, by virtue of that Law, Deut. 19. 16, 19. If a falſe witneſſe riſe up againſt any man, to teſtifie againſt him that which is wrong; Then ſhall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother.
Verſ. 10. If a man deliver unto his neighbour an aſſe, or an ox, or a ſheep, or any beaſt to keep, and it die, &c.]
As before concerning dead goods, ſo here concerning cattel committed to the keeping of a friend, the Law appoints how the judges muſt determine, to wit, that in caſe ſuch cattel die, or be hurt, or by force driven, not ſtollen away, no man ſeeing it, but the keepers; becauſe thoſe loſſes are not to be prevented by the keepers care, therefore the owner moſt bear them.
Verſ. 12. And if it be ſtollen from him, he ſhall make restitution unto the owner thereof.]
Dead goods ſtollen from the keeper were not to be made good to the owner, ver. 8. yet cattel muſt be reſtored: the reaſon is, firſt, becauſe there might be ſome neglect in keeping cattel abroad, which cannot be ſo likely of things laid up in a mans dwelling houſe: ſecondly, it is moſt likely they were paid for keeping cattel (becauſe it required watching and charge) and then it was juſt they ſhould make it good, through whoſe neglect it was ſtollen away. Whence is that of Jacob, Gen. 31. 39. Of my hand didſt thou require it, whether ſtollen by day, or ſtollen by night.
Verſ. 14. And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour and it be hurt or die, &c.]
The Law here concerning things borrowed that are loſt or hurt whileſt they were with the borrower is this, That if the owner were by when the thing borrowed did miſcarry the borrower ſhould not make it good, becauſe the owners preſence made it manifeſt that the miſchief could not be prevented; But if the owner were not by, then the borrower was to make it good. Nor was the ſeverity of this branch of the Law unequall. For however it might miſcarry without any neglect of the borrower though the owner was not by, yet it was fit that ſuch a penalty ſhould by Law be impoſed to prevent all fraudulent dealing in the borrower, and to make him the more circumſpectly carefull of the thing he borrows; and ſo likewiſe by this means men had the more encouragement to lend freely.
Verſ. 15. If it be an hired thing it came for his hire.]
That is, if it were not borrowed gratis, but hired, then though it miſcarry and the owner be not by, he that hired it ſhall not make it good.
Verſ. 16. If a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, &c.]
If a maid were betrothed, it was death to lie with her, Deut. 22. 23, 24. If a damſel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; ye ſhall ſtone them with ſtones that they die: but this Law is concerning the defiling of a maid that is not betrothed, in which caſe it is here provided that if a man entice a maid, either by promiſe of marriage, or otherwiſe, and lie with her, he was to endow her, and marry her; and in caſe her father refuſed to let him marrie her, he was then to pay her a ſumme of money, according to the dowry of virgins, that is, according to her eſtate and condition, as dowries uſed to be given with maids of like parentage and eſtate. There is another Law much like this, Deut. 22. 28, 29. to wit, that if a man did find a damſel, a virgin not betrothed, and did lay hold on her and lie with her, and they were found, he was then to marry her, and might never aſterwards put her away, and was withall to pay unto the maids father fifty ſhekels of ſilver. To ſhew the diſference betwixt theſe two Laws, ſome ſay that this here is meant of ſuch as by enticing maids did perſwade them to conſent and ſo lie with them; but that the Law in Deuteronomie is meant of ſuch as did defile maids without their conſent, & that therefore a greater penalty is allotted to thoſe there, then to theſe here that had the conſent of the maids they defiled. But becauſe it is moſt probable that violent rapes, where the maid no way conſented, were alwayes amongſt this people puniſhed with death, therefore I cannot think that that Law in Deuteronomie is meant of thoſe that raviſhed maids: Rather the difference betwixt theſe Laws conſiſts in this, That in that place of Deuteronomie the Law ſpeaks of defiling maids▪ that being occaſionally laid hold on, yielded preſently to the luſt of him that defiled them, not being beforehand allured and perſwaded by degrees; and that this ſpeaks of ſuch as did entice maids with promiſe of marriage, and ſo defiled them; and in this caſe the Law is not ſo ſevere. Indeed here nor there is there any puniſhment at all appointed for the woman, though her ſinne was great; and that becauſe beſides that the loſſe of her virginitie was a brand of ignominy to her, and the hope of marriage might chiefly deceive her, being under her fathers power, and having nothing of her own, ſhe could not be chargeable with paying any mulct of money.
Verſ. 18. Thou ſhalt not ſuffer a witch to live.]
The word here uſed in the originall is in the feminine gender, a woman-witch, to intimate that women in this caſe were not to be pittied: But elſewhere the ſame is decreed both concerning men and women, and withall it is expreſſed by what kind of death they were to die, to wit, that they were to be ſtoned: Lev. 20. 27. A man or a woman that hath a familiar ſpirit, or that is a wizard, ſhall ſurely be put to death, they ſhall stone them with ſtones. And ſome adde that this Law againſt witches is ſet next after thoſe againſt fornication, becauſe it was uſuall in thoſe times with men by witchcraft to winne the hearts of maids to them.
Verſ. 20. He that ſacrificeth unto any God, ſave unto the Lord onelyonly, he ſhall be utterly deſtroyed.]
Or, Anathematized, that is, put to death without merciemercy, deſtroyed as an execrable and curſed thing.
Verſ. 25. If thou lend money to any of my people that is poore by thee, thou ſhalt not be to him as an uſurer, &c.]
To ſuch as theſe we are bound to lend, not expecting ſo much as the principall, if they be not able to pay, much leſſe the uſe: Luke 6. 34, 35. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? &c. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again, &c.
Verſ. 26. If thou at all take thy neighbours raiment to pledge thou ſhalt deliver it unto him by that the ſunne goeth down.]
That is, which he lieth in by night, as is evident in the next verſe, for that is his covering onelyonly; yet under this is comprehended all other garments and other things whereof he hath preſent uſe, as tools to work with, &c. which muſt be reſtored againſt the time he ſhould need them; and therefore alſo ſuch things as were of continuall uſe, they might not at all take for pawns, whereof an inſtance is given, Deut. 24. 6. No man ſhall take the nether or upper milſtone to pledge. And indeed this which is here enjoyned, that they ſhould at the going down of the ſunne deliver back their neighbours bedclothes, which they had taken for a pledge, it was all one in effect as if they had been enjoyned not to take any ſuch neceſſaries of them to pledge: for doubtleſſe it is meant of an abſolute reſtoring them without any expectation of receiving them again, there being nothing fonder then that which ſome would have to be the meaning of theſe words, that every night the lender was to reſtore them theſe pledges for their uſe, and then in the morning to take them back again, which would have been a continuall trouble to the lender without any the leaſt advantage to him; and if they muſt abſolutely reſtore them at ſunne-ſetting, it was to no purpoſe to take them at all. But however all this muſt be underſtood of the pawns of poore people, that had not variety, and ſo were forced to pawn thoſe things which they could not be well without when the time came that they were to uſe them; and not of rich men that had variety, as is evident, Deut. 24. 12. If the man be poore thou ſhalt not ſleep with his pledge; where alſo another Law is given concerning pawns, ver. 10, 11. to wit, that the lender might not go into his brothers houſe, and take what pawn he pleaſed, but muſt ſtand abroad, and take that pledge which ſhould be brought out to him.
Verſ. 28. Thou ſhalt not revile the Gods, &c.]
That is, thoſe that ſit in the place of judgement, the judges, as it is in the margin of our Bibles; for ſo it is explained in the following clauſe, nor curſe the ruler of thy people: for theſe in the Scripture are called Gods, as Pſal. 82. I have ſaid, Ye are Gods, &c. to wit, becauſe they are Gods Vicegerents upon earth, and they have as it were an impreſſion of Gods majeſty upon them, in whoſe ſtead they are, and whoſe name they bear. And hence I conceive it is evident that S. Paul ſpake that ironically, Act. 23. 5. I wiſt not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou ſhalt not ſpeak evil of the Ruler of the people: for could we conceive that S. Paul knew not the high prieſt, which is altogether unlikely, yet he knew that he was one of the judges, for ſo much his own words diſcover, Sittest thou to judge me after the Law, and commandeſt me to be ſmitten contrary to the Law? So that it was no excuſe for him to ſay he knew not that he was the high prieſt, becauſe however being one of the judges it was againſt this Law to revile him: And therefore I ſay, though perhaps thoſe that heard him ſpeak thoſe words underſtood that he ſpake them by way of excuſing himſelf, yet he ſpake them ironically, by way of deriſion and ſcorn, as diſdaining that he ſhould be accounted Gods high prieſt, or ſhould ſit in the ſeat of juſtice, that would ſo unjuſtly command his officers to ſmite him on the mouth: which will yet ſeem the more probable, if we conſider how farre that Ananias was, of whom he ſpake, from having any true right to that place and power, to which he pretended, when Chriſt had aboliſhed the Legall prieſthood.
Verſ. 29. The firſt-born of thy ſonnes ſhalt thou give unto me.]
See the notes upon Exod. 13. 1, 2, and 13.
Verſ. 30. Seven dayes ſhall it be with his damme, on the eighth day thou ſhalt give it me.]
To wit, becauſe till the eighth day it was not fit for the prieſts uſe, for whom the firſt-born of their cattel were intended, yet doubtleſſe when they ſaw cauſe they might keep them a while longer, ſo they did not delay the bringing of them, as being unwilling to give them to the Lord, nor were bound preciſely to the eighth day, onelyonly they might not bring them ſooner: for ſo we find it was in the like caſe of bringing their ſacrifices, Lev. 22. 27. It ſhall be ſeven dayes under the damme, and from the eighth day and thenceforth it ſhall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
Verſ. 38. Neither ſhall ye eat any fleſh that is torn of beaſts in the field, &c.]
This reſtraint of the Iſraelites from eating that which was torn of beaſts was, 1. becauſe all fleſh of beaſts that was not rightly purified from the bloud was unclean by the Law; 2. becauſe the bodies of clean cattel became legally unclean by being torn by wild beaſts of prey which were all unclean; and 3. to teach the Iſraelites by abhorring the fleſh of beaſts thus killed, to abhorre all rapine and cruelty, as ſinnes moſt odious in the ſight of God.