Exodus · Chapter 22

V. 1. Five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep-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.

Verse 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 (rwv shor) or a sheep, (hc seh,) and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen (rqb bakar) for an ox, (rwv shor,) and four sheep (ˆax tson) for a sheep (hc 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 ˆax tson seems frequently to signify the flock, composed of either of these lesser cattle, or both sorts conjoined.

As rwv 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 ˆax is used for a flock either of sheep or goats, and seh hv 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.

Verse 1. Five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep — More for an ox than for a sheep, because the owner, besides all the other profit, lost the daily labour of his ox. If he were not able to make restitution, he was to be sold for a slave: the court of judgment was to do it, and it is likely the person robbed received the money.

1. If a man shall steal — Moses knew full well that prohibition would not prohibit crimes of any sort without a rigid administration. The eighth commandment (Exodus 20:15) required for the good of society such further enactments as here follow. Five oxen… four sheep — These varying penalties are apportioned according to a relative magnitude of the loss. While the crime of theft is in itself essentially the same, whether more or less be stolen, considerations of value and loss naturally enter into all wise legislation touching the measure of penal fines to be prescribed. Hence it was provided, further, that if the stolen animal were found alive, the fine would only be double instead of fourfold or fivefold. The killing or selling of the stolen animal would also, generally, imply a more determined purpose to do wrong than when the animal was kept alive.

V. 2. If a thief broke a house in the night, and was killed in the doing it, his blood was upon his own head. But if it were in the day-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.

Verse 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 offence 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.

Verse 2. If a thief broke into a house in the night, and was killed in the doing it, his blood was upon his own head; but if it were in the day-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.

Verse 2. Breaking up, by forcible entrance into a house, there shall no blood be shed for him, though he be killed by another in his own defence. In that case the thief might be presumed to have a worse design, and the owner of the house could neither expect, nor have the help of others to secure him from the intended violence, nor guide his blows with that discretion and moderation which in the daytime he might wish to do.

2. No blood… for him — The thief who breaks into a house in the nighttime is commonly none too good to commit the foulest deeds. There would be no telling all his purposes; and, if slain in the act of such a crime the slayer was not to be looked upon as guilty of murder.

V. 3. For he should make full restitution-This the law determined: not that he should die.

Verses 3, 4. For he should make full restitution — This the law determined: not that he should die. In his hand alive — Not killed, nor sold, as verse 1, so that the owner recover it with less charge and trouble.

Ver. 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.—He shall be sold, for the ordinary term of six years.

3. If the sun be risen upon him — If he commits his crime in the daylight, his movements and purposes are generally so apparent that an attempt upon his life would be utterly unjustifiable, and punishable as wilful manslaughter. He should make full restitution — This, of course, supposes his apprehension and conviction. The satisfactory restitution might often require more than the mere return of stolen goods. These goods might be damaged by the seizure, and the affright and trouble occasioned by the crime ought not to go unnoticed. So if the thief had not wherewith to make full recompense he was to be sold for his theft, and so, by bondservice, make due compensation.

V. 4. In his hand alive-Not killed, nor sold, as Exodus 22:1, so that the owner recover it with less charge and trouble.

Verse 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; Exodus 22:2. If he had stolen and sold the property, then he was to restore four or fivefold, Exodus 22:1; but if the animal was found alive in his possession, he was to restore double.

Verses 3, 4. For he should make full restitution — This the law determined: not that he should die. In his hand alive — Not killed, nor sold, as verse 1, so that the owner recover it with less charge and trouble.

V. 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.

Verse 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.

V. 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.

Verse 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, &c.

Verse 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.

V. 7. 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 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.

Verse 7. Deliver unto his neighbour] 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 intrusted to his neighbour, 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 neighbours, 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, &c.-Digest., lib. xvi., tit. 3, 1. 1.

Verses 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 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.

Verse 8. Unto the judges] See Clarke’s note on “Exodus 21:6”.

Verses 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 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.

Ver. 8. To swear whether he have put his hand to his neighbour’s goods. The verb to see is quite a mistake.

8. Whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods — The magistrates would carefully examine if there were any evidence of fraudulent appropriation of the goods, and if none were found, such an oath as is mentioned in verse 11 would be taken as a release for the suspected party. The loss in that case would fall upon the owner.

Verse 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 neighbour.

Verses 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 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.

Verses 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 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.

Verse 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 neighbour’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.

Verses 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 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.

Verses 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 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.

Ver. 12. If it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution. If he be not able to purge himself by oath, and it appear to be stolen from him with his knowledge and consent. That this must be understood is plain from the foregoing words, where the sense is, that upon his taking an oath to prove his innocence he must be acquitted.

12. If it be stolen from him — Hebrew, from with him, that is, from a place where his immediate oversight would naturally prevent such seizure. In this case the loss would be regarded as due to his carelessness. Comp. Genesis 31:39.

Verse 13. If it be torn in pieces-let him bring it for witness] Rather, Let him bring d[ hprch ed hatterephah, a testimony or evidence of the torn thing, such as the horns, hoofs, &c. This is still a law in some countries among graziers: if a horse, cow, sheep, or goat, intrusted to them, be lost, and the keeper asserts it was devoured by dogs, &c., 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 Amos 3:12.

Verses 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 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.

V. 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.

Verses 14, 15. 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 befell 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. We may 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 choose to lose ourselves, than that any should sustain loss by their kindness to us.

Ver. 14. He shall surely make it good. Because in doubtful cases, where 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.

Verses 14, 15. 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 befell 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. We may 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 choose to lose ourselves, than that any should sustain loss by their kindness to us.

Ver. 15. It came for his hire. The benefit was the lender’s, and not the borrower’s, and therefore the former reason ceaseth.

15. If it be a hired thing — If the owner let it out for money in advance or to be paid, that payment was to be taken as the sole compensation in the case.

Verse 16. If a man entice a maid] 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 give her a dowry, if her parents consented; and if they did not consent that their daughter should wed her seducer, in this case he was obliged to give her the full dowry which could have been demanded had she been still a virgin. According to the Targumist here, and to Deuteronomy 22:29, the dowry was fifty shekels of silver, which the seducer was to pay to her father, and he was obliged to take her to wife; nor had he authority, according to the Jewish canons, ever to put her away by a bill of divorce. This one consideration was a powerful curb on disorderly passions, and must tend greatly to render marriages respectable, and prevent all crimes of this nature.

Ver. 16. If a man entice a maid. The patriarchs knew little of bastardy; the brothers of a damsel would not suffer their sister to be treated with dishonour. If the maid was already betrothed, the divine law condemned the seducer to death. Deuteronomy 22:24. Prof. Ostervald states, that in the Swiss cantons when a young woman proves pregnant, they summon both the parties before the elders of the church, and enquire how far the engagement preseded the rash act; and whether the name of God was used in the promise of marriage. In such engagements they are cautious of freeing the offender for money. Our magistrates, on this head, are too relax: by excusing the culprit for paltry pay, innocence is unprotected, and the parishes are burdened. But the loss of morals is the worst of all calamities. A seducer in Saxon times, must unsheath his sword, and prepare for battle.

V. 17. If the father refused, he shall pay money-This shews how ill a thing it is, and by no means to be allowed, that children should marry without their parents consent: even here where the divine law appointed the marriage, both as a punishment to him that had done wrong, and a recompence to her that had suffered wrong, yet there was an express reservation for the father’s power; if he denied his consent, it must be no marriage.

Verse 17. If the father refuse, he shall pay money — This shows how ill a thing it is, and by no means to be allowed, that children should marry without their parents’ consent: even here, where the divine law appointed the marriage, both as a punishment to him that had done wrong, and a recompense to her that had suffered wrong, yet there was an express reservation for the father’s power; if he denied his consent, it must be no marriage.

Ver. 17. According to the dowry of virgins. In such proportion as the virgin’s quality requires. Dowries were essential where divorces might occur. In such cases the woman was not robbed: and if the husband proved honest, the dowry belonged to the children.

V. 18. Witchcraft not only gives that honour to the devil which is due to God alone, but bids defiance to the divine providence, wages war with God’s government, puts his work into the devil’s hand expecting him to do good and evil. By our law, consulting, covenanting with, invocating or employing any evil spirit to any intent whatever, and exercising any enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to any person, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, is an iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death. This was the case in former times. But we are wiser than our fore-fathers. We believe, no witch ever did live! At least, not for these thousand years.

Verse 18. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.] If there had been no witches, such a law as this had never been made. The existence of the law, given under the direction of the Spirit of God, proves the existence of the thing. It has been doubted whether hpvkm mecash-shephah, which we translate witch, really means a person who practised divination or sorcery by spiritual or infernal agency. Whether the persons thus denominated only pretended to have an art which had no existence, or whether they really possessed the power commonly attributed to them, are questions which it would be improper to discuss at length in a work of this kind; but that witches, wizards, those who dealt with familiar spirits, &c., are represented in the sacred writings as actually possessing a power to evoke the dead, to perform, supernatural operations, and to discover hidden or secret things by spells, charms, incantations, &c., is evident to every unprejudiced reader of the Bible. Of Manasseh it is said: He caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times [ועונן, veonen, he used divination by clouds] and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, [ãvkw vechishsheph,] and dealt with a familiar spirit, [bwa hc[w veasah ob, performed a variety of operations by means of what was afterwards called the pneuma puqwnov, the spirit of Python,] and with wizards, [ידעוני yiddeoni, the wise or knowing ones;] and he wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord; 2 Chronicles 33:6. It is very likely that the Hebrew ãvk cashaph, and the Arabic [Arabic] cashafa, had originally the same meaning, to uncover, to remove a veil, to manifest, reveal, make bare or naked; and [Arabic] mecashefat is used to signify commerce with God. See Wilmet and Giggeius. The mecashshephah or witch, therefore, was probably a person who professed to reveal hidden mysteries, by commerce with God, or the invisible world. From the severity of this law against witches, &c., we may see in what light these were viewed by Divine justice. They were seducers of the people from their allegiance to God, on whose judgment alone they should depend; and by impiously prying into futurity, assumed an attribute of God, the foretelling of future events, which implied in itself the grossest blasphemy, and tended to corrupt the minds of the people, by leading them away from God and the revelation he had made of himself. Many of the Israelites had, no doubt, learned these curious arts from their long residence with the Egyptians; and so much were the Israelites attached to them, that we find such arts in repute among them, and various practices of this kind prevailed through the whole of the Jewish history, notwithstanding the offence was capital, and in all cases punished with death.

Verse 18. Witchcraft not only gives that honour to the devil which is due to God alone, but bids defiance to the divine providence, wages war with God’s government, puts his work into the devil’s hand, expecting him to do good and evil. By our law, consulting, covenanting with, invocating, or employing any evil spirit to any intent whatever, and exercising any enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to any person, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, is an iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death.

Ver. 18. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. hpvkm mechashaipah, a female juggler, a deceiver, a fabricatris of all mischief. It appears from the VOLUSPA, a northern poem by Vola the prophetess, that all ancient nations believed in witchcraft. Of Heith she speaks thus:—

Stanza 23.

To her the god

Of battles gave

Both costly rings

And shining gold;

The art of wealth,

And witchcraft wise,

By which she saw

Through every world.

Stanza 24.

Heith she was named;

Where’er she came,

The pythoness

Of cunning arts.

She knew right well

Bad luck to seethe,

And mischief was

Her only sport.

She murder saw,

The first that e’er

Was in the world,

When Gulveigo

Was placed o’th’ spear,

When in Har’s hall

They did her burn,

Oft, not seldom,

And yet she lives.

Dr. Henderson’s Iceland.

In a copy of the Voluspa printed at Stockholm, 1750, with a Swedish version, there is an omission of two lines.

Ok i holl Hars,

Hana brendo.

Thrisvar brendo,

Thrisvar borna,

Opt, osialdan,

Tho hon enn lifir.

When in Har’s hall

They did her burn;

Thrice she was burnt,

Thrice she was born;

Oft, not seldom,

Though yet she lives.

Certainly Moses did not mean that either witch or wizard, or any culprit, should be put to death till the crime was first proved before the judges. It is feared that during the dark ages many were burned for witchcraft who were innocent.

18. Not suffer a witch to live — Those who practised the magical arts were regarded as usurping the realm of Deity, and, by some mysterious league with wicked spirits, opposing themselves to the fundamental principles of true religion. Hence they were, in logical accord with the Israelitish faith, to be treated as capital offenders. Comp. Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10, 11.

Verse 19. Lieth with a beast] If this most abominable crime had not been common, it never would have been mentioned in a sacred code of laws. It is very likely that it was an Egyptian practice; and it is certain, from an account in Sonnini’s Travels, that it is practised in Egypt to the present day.

Verse 20. Utterly destroyed.] The word חרם cherem denotes a thing utterly and finally separated from God and devoted to destruction, without the possibility of redemption.

V. 21. A stranger must not be abused, not wronged in judgment by the magistrates, not imposed upon in contracts, nor any advantage taken of his ignorance or necessity, no, nor must he be taunted, or upbraided with his being a stranger; for all these were vexations. For ye were strangers in Egypt-And knew what it was to be vexed and oppressed there. Those that have themselves been in poverty and distress, if Providence enrich and enlarge them, ought to shew a particular tenderness towards those that are now in such circumstances as they were in formerly, now doing to them as they then wished to be done by.

Verse 21. Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him] This was not only a very humane law, but it was also the offspring of a sound policy: “Do not vex a stranger; remember ye were strangers. Do not oppress a stranger; remember ye were oppressed. Therefore do unto all men as ye would they should do to you.” It was the produce of a sound policy: “Let strangers be well treated among you, and many will come to take refuge among you, and thus the strength of your country will be increased. If refugees of this kind be treated well, they will become proselytes to your religion, and thus their souls may be saved.” In every point of view, therefore, justice, humanity, sound policy, and religion, say. Neither vex nor oppress a stranger.

Verse 21. A stranger must not be abused, not wronged in judgment by the magistrates, not imposed upon in contracts, nor any advantage taken of his ignorance or necessity, no, nor must he be taunted, or upbraided with his being a stranger; for all these were vexatious. For ye were strangers in Egypt — And knew what it was to be vexed and oppressed there. Those that have themselves been in poverty and distress, if Providence enrich and enlarge them, ought to show a particular tenderness toward those that are now in such circumstances as they were in formerly, now doing to them as they then wished to be done to.

V. 22. Ye shall not afflict the widow or fatherless child-That is, ye shall comfort and assist them, and be ready upon all occasions to shew them kindness. In making just demands from them, their condition must be considered who have lost those that should protect them: they are supposed to be unversed in business, destitute of advice, timorous, and of a tender spirit; and therefore must be treated with kindness and compassion, and no advantage taken against them, nor any hardship put upon them, which a husband or a father would have sheltered them from.

Verse 22. Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.] It is remarkable that offences against this law are not left to the discretion of the judges to be punished; God reserves the punishment to himself, and by this he strongly shows his abhorrence of the crime. It is no common crime, and shall not be punished in a common way; the wrath of God shall wax hot against him who in any wise afflicts or wrongs a widow or a fatherless child: and we may rest assured that he who helps either does a service highly acceptable in the sight of God.

Verse 22. Ye shall not afflict the widow, or fatherless child — That is, ye shall comfort and assist them, and be ready upon all occasions to show them kindness. In making just demands from them, their condition must be considered who have lost those that should protect them; and no advantage must be taken against them, nor any hardship put upon them, which a husband or a father would have sheltered them from.

24. I will kill you with the sword — Observe here that Jehovah is the governor and judge over all, and will, sooner or later, punish all evildoers and them that forget mercy. The magistrate bears not the sword in vain if he maintain justice and defend the weak; but if he fail in these high responsibilities, God’s own hand will interpose and bring deserved retribution.

V. 25. If thou lend-(1.) They must not receive use for money from any that borrowed for necessity. And such provision the law made for the preserving estates to their families by the year of Jubilee, that a people who had little concern in trade could not be supposed to borrow money but for necessity; therefore it was generally forbidden among themselves; but to a stranger they were allowed to lend upon usury. This law therefore in the strictness of it seems to have been peculiar to the Jewish state; but in the equity of it, it obligeth us to shew mercy to those we have advantage against, and to be content to share with those we lend to in loss as well as profit, if Providence cross them: and upon this condition it seems as lawful to receive interest for my money, which another takes pains with, and improves, as it is to receive rent for my land, which another takes pains with, and improves, for his own use. (2.) They must not take a poor man’s bed-clothes in pawn; but if they did, must restore them by bed-time.

Verse 25. Neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.] Ëvn neshech, from nashach, to bite, cut, or pierce with the teeth; biting usury. So the Latins call it usura vorax, devouring usury. “The increase of usury is called Ëvn neshech, because it resembles the biting of a serpent; for as this is so small as scarcely to be perceptible at first, but the venom soon spreads and diffuses itself till it reaches the vitals, so the increase of usury, which at first is not perceived nor felt, at length grows so much as by degrees to devour another’s substance.”-Leigh.

It is evident that what is here said must be understood of accumulated usury, or what we call compound interest only; and accordingly Ëvn neshech is mentioned with and distinguished from hybrt tarbith and hybrm marbith, interest or simple interest, Leviticus 25:36, 37; Pr 28:8; Ezekiel 18:8, 13, 17, and Exodus 22:12. -Parkhurst. Perhaps usury may be more properly defined unlawful interest, receiving more for the loan of money than it is really worth, and more than the law allows. It is a wise regulation in the laws of England, that if a man be convicted of usury-taking unlawful interest, the bond or security is rendered void, and he forfeits treble the sum borrowed. Against such an oppressive practice the wisdom of God saw it essentially necessary to make a law to prevent a people, who were naturally what our Lord calls the Pharisees, filarguroi, lovers of money, (Luke 16:14,) from oppressing each other; and who, notwithstanding the law in the text, practise usury in all places of their dispersion to the present day.

Verse 25. If thou lend — 1st, They must not receive use for money from any Israelite that borrowed for necessity. And such provision the law made for the preserving estates to their families by the years of jubilee, that a people who had little concern in trade could not be supposed to borrow money but for necessity; therefore it was generally forbidden among themselves; but to a stranger they were allowed to lend upon usury. 2d, They must not take a poor man’s bed-clothes in pawn; but if they did, must restore them by bed-time.

Ver. 25. Any of my people, any Israelite; for it was permitted to take usury of the gentiles. Deuteronomy 23:20.

25. A usurer — Or, a creditor, here regarded as a rigid exacter of interest. The tenderness enjoined in regard to loans to the poor was adapted to cultivate compassion and brotherly feeling. But it was not designed to favour the indolent and vicious.

Verse 26. If thou-take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge] It seems strange that any pledge should be taken which must be so speedily restored; but it is very likely that the pledge was restored by night only, and that he who pledged it brought it back to his creditor next morning. The opinion of the rabbins is, that whatever a man needed for the support of life, he had the use of it when absolutely necessary, though it was pledged. Thus he had the use of his working tools by day, but he brought them to his creditor in the evening. His hyke, which serves an Arab as a plaid does a Highlander, (See Clarke note “Exodus 12:34”,) was probably the raiment here referred to: it is a sort of coarse blanket, about six yards long, and five or six feet broad, which an Arab always carries with him, and on which he sleeps at night, it being his only substitute for a bed. As the fashions in the east scarcely ever change, it is very likely that the raiment of the Israelites was precisely the same with that of the modern Arabs, who live in the very same desert in which the Hebrews were when this law was given. How necessary it was to restore the hyke to a poor man before the going down of the sun, that he might have something to repose on, will appear evident from the above considerations. At the same time, the returning it daily to the creditor was a continual acknowledgment of the debt, and served instead of a written acknowledgment or bond; as we may rest assured that writing, if practised at all before the giving of the law, was not common: but it is most likely that it did not exist.

Ver. 26. Thy neighbour’s, one that is poor, as appears by comparing this with the next verse.—By that the sun goeth down. Because he speaks of such raiment or covering, in which he used to sleep.

27. Wherein shall he sleep — The outer garment was used by the poorer classes of the East as their sole covering by night. Hence the kind consideration of the law.

V. 28. Thou shalt not revile the gods-That is, the judges and magistrates. Princes and magistrates are our fathers, whom the fifth commandment obligeth us to honour, and forbids us to revile. St. Paul applies this law to himself, and owns that he ought not to speak evil of the ruler of his people, no, not though he was then his most unrighteous persecutor, Acts 23:5.

Verse 28. Thou shalt not revile the gods] Most commentators believe that the word gods here means magistrates. The original is אלהים Elohim, and should be understood of the true God only: Thou shalt not blaspheme or make light of [llqt tekallel] God, the fountain of justice and power, nor curse the ruler of thy people, who derives his authority from God. We shall ever find that he who despises a good civil government, and is disaffected to that under which he lives, is one who has little fear of God before his eyes. The spirit of disaffection and sedition is ever opposed to the religion of the Bible. When those who have been pious get under the spirit of misrule, they infallibly get shorn of their spiritual strength, and become like salt that has lost its savour. He who can indulge himself in speaking evil of the civil ruler, will soon learn to blaspheme God. The highest authority says, Fear God: honour the king.

Verse 28. Thou shalt not revile the gods — That is, the judges and magistrates. Princes and magistrates are our fathers, whom the fifth commandment obligeth us to honour, and forbids us to revile. St. Paul applies this law to himself, and owns that he ought not to speak evil of the ruler of his people, no, not though he was then his most unrighteous persecutor, Acts 23:5.

Ver. 28. The gods. Magistrates and governors, whether civil or ecclesiastical, as is evident from the following words, which explain the former according to the common use of scripture, and from the title of gods commonly given to such.

28. Thou shalt not revile the gods — Rather, God. Our version follows the Sept., Vulg., and other versions, and conveys the idea that even the gods of the heathen are not to be reviled. Others understand the reference to be to judges, but this seems sufficiently comprehended in the words ruler of thy people, which immediately follow. This verse associated God and the civil ruler in a very noticeable way. The latter is, according to Romans 12:4, God’s minister, and a becoming respect and reverence for the civil magistrate is one way of honouring God himself.

V. 29. The first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me-And much more reason have we to give ourselves and all we have to God, who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. The first ripe of their corn they must not delay to offer; there is danger if we delay our duty, lest we wholly omit it; and by slipping the first opportunity in expectation of another, we suffer Satan to cheat us of all our time.

Verse 29. The first of thy ripe fruits] This offering was a public acknowledgment of the bounty and goodness of God, who had given them their proper seed time, the first and the latter rain, and the appointed weeks of harvest.

From the practice of the people of God the heathens borrowed a similar one, founded on the same reason. The following passage from Censorinus, Deuteronomy Die Natali, is beautiful, and worthy of the deepest attention:—

Illi enim (majores nostri) qui alimenta, patriam, lucem, se denique ipsos deorum dono habebant, ex omnibus aliquid diis sacrabant, magis adeo, ut se gratos approbarent, quam quod deos

arbitrarentur hoc indigere. Itaque cum perceperant fruges, antequam vescerentur, Diis libare instituerunt: et cum agros atque urbes, deorum munera, possiderent, partem quandam templis sacellisque, ubi eos colerent, dicavere.

“Our ancestors, who held their food, their country, the light, and all that they possessed, from the bounty of the gods, consecrated to them a part of all their property, rather as a token of their gratitude, than from a conviction that the gods needed any thing. Therefore as soon as the harvest was got in, before they had tasted of the fruits, they appointed libations to be made to the gods. And as they held their fields and cities as gifts from their gods, they consecrated a certain part for temples and shrines, where they might worship them.”

Pliny is express on the same point, who attests that the Romans never tasted either their new corn or wine, till the priests had offered the FIRST-FRUITS to the gods. Ac ne degustabant quidem, novas fruges aut vina, antequam sacerdotes PRIMITIAS LIBASSENT. Hist. Nat., lib. xviii., c. 2. Horace bears the same testimony, and shows that his countrymen offered, not only their first-fruits, but the choicest of all their fruits, to the Lares or household gods; and he shows also the wickedness of those who sent these as presents to the rich, before the gods had been thus honoured:— ——Dulcia poma,

Et quoscumque feret cultus tibi fundus honores,

Ante Larem gustet venerabilior Lare dives.

Sat., lib. ii., s. v., ver. 12.

——”What your garden yields,

The choicest honours of your cultured fields,

To him be sacrificed, and let him taste,

Before your gods, the vegetable feast.”

DUNKIN.

And to the same purpose Tibullus, in one of the most beautiful of his elegies:—

Et quodcumque mihi pomum novus educat annus,

Libatum agricolæ ponitur ante deo.

Flava Ceres, tibi sit nostro de rure corona

Spicea, quæ templi pendeat ante fores.

Eleg., lib. i., eleg. i. ver. 13.

“My grateful fruits, the earliest of the year,

Before the rural god shall daily wait.

From Ceres’ gifts I’ll cull each browner ear,

And hang a wheaten wreath before her gate.”

GRAINGER.

The same subject he touches again in the fifth elegy of the same book, where he specifies the different offerings made for the produce of the fields, of the flocks, and of the vine, ver. 27:—

Illa deo sciet agricolæ pro vitibus uvam,

Pro segete spicas, pro grege ferre dapem.

“With pious care will load each rural shrine,

For ripen’d crops a golden sheaf assign,

Cates for my fold, rich clusters for my wine.

Id.-See Calmet.

These quotations will naturally recall to our memory the offerings of Cain and Abel, mentioned Genesis 4:3, 4.

The rejoicings at our harvest-home are distorted remains of that gratitude which our ancestors, with all the primitive inhabitants of the earth, expressed to God with appropriate signs and ceremonies. Is it not possible to restore, in some goodly form, a custom so pure, so edifying, and so becoming? There is a laudable custom, observed by some pious people, of dedicating a new house to God by prayer, &c., which cannot be too highly commended.

Verse 29. The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me — And much more reason have we to give ourselves and all we have to God, who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. The first ripe of their corn they must not delay to offer; there is danger if we delay our duty, lest we wholly omit it; and by slipping the first opportunity in expectation of another, we suffer Satan to cheat us of all our time.

Ver. 29. The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Not in kind, but by a price of redemption to be paid to me in their stead. The law of the Lord knows nothing of particular redemption, nothing of reprobation.

29. First of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors — Literally, thy fulness and thy tear thou shalt not delay. The first full or ripe produce, and the droppings of oil and wine as pressed from the fruit, are intended. The offering to God of firstfruits and firstlings was a custom of most remote antiquity, (comp. Genesis 4:3, 4,) and a most appropriate exhibition of gratitude and of a sense of dependence. The firstborn of thy sons — See notes on Exodus 13:2.

Verse 30. Seven days it shall be with his dam] For the mother’s health it was necessary that the young one should suck so long; and prior to this time the process of nutrition in a young animal can scarcely be considered as completely formed. Among the Romans lambs were not considered as pure or clean before the eighth day; nor calves before the thirtieth: Pecoris fætus die octavo purus est, bovis trigesimo.-Plin. Hist. Nat., lib. viii.

Ver. 30. On the eighth day. Not sooner, because it was till then tender and imperfect. But it was not tied to that day, for it might be offered afterwards, as appears from Leviticus 22:27, even till it was a year old. Cain and Abel did this. Cyrus always gave the tenth of his spoils to the temples. In English, the firstborn of oxen is inaccurate; the Hebrew signifies bullocks or large cattle.

30. Seven days — Comp. also Leviticus 22:27.

V. 31. Ye shall be holy unto me-And one mark of that honourable distinction is appointed in their diet, which was, that they should not eat any flesh that was torn of beasts-Both because the blood was not duly taken out of it, and because the clean beast was ceremonially defiled, by the touch of the unclean.

Verse 31. Neither shall ye eat-flesh-torn of beasts in the field] This has been supposed to be an ordinance against eating flesh cut off the animal while alive, and so the Syriac seems to have understood it. If we can credit Mr. Bruce, this is a frequent custom in Abyssinia; but human nature revolts from it. The reason of the prohibition against eating the flesh of animals that had been torn, or as we term it worried in the field, appears to have been simply this: That the people might not eat the blood, which in this case must be coagulated in the flesh; and the blood, being the life of the beast, and emblematical of the blood of the covenant, was ever to be held sacred, and was prohibited from the days of Noah. See Clarke note on “Genesis 9:4”.

IN the conclusion of this chapter we see the grand reason of all the ordinances and laws which it contains. No command was issued merely from the sovereignty of God. He gave them to the people as restraints on disorderly passions, and incentives to holiness; and hence he says, Ye shall be holy men unto me. Mere outward services could neither please him nor profit them; for from the very beginning of the world the end of the commandment was love out of a pure heart and good conscience, and faith unfeigned, 1 Timothy 1:5. And without these accompaniments no set of religious duties, however punctually performed, could be pleasing in the sight of that God who seeks truth in the inward parts, and in whose eyes the faith that worketh by love is alone valuable. A holy heart and a holy, useful life God invariably requires in all his worshippers. Reader, how standest thou in his sight?

EXODUS

Verse 31. Ye shall be holy unto me — And one mark of that honourable distinction is appointed in their diet, which was, that they should not eat any flesh that was torn of beasts — Both because the blood was not duly taken out of it, and because the clean beast was ceremonially defiled by the touch of the unclean.

31. Torn of beasts — Such meat was likely to be left unfit for eating by the violent death of the animal, and the failure to pour out its blood. It exposed to the liability of eating flesh with the blood, which was most imperatively forbidden. See Leviticus 17:10-15.