If a man steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep.
This law deals with the thief who steals an ox or a sheep and then kills or sells it. The animal can never be returned. The penalty is not prison but repayment several times over. Why did God set the price so high? And can anyone repay what he has taken from God Himself?
These laws are not a new subject. They apply one of the Ten Commandments to daily life, and they ask for repayment, not just punishment.
Exodus 21 gives us judgments that extend "You shall not murder." Exodus 22 gives us judgments that extend "You shall not steal." People may defraud each other in many ways, and this theme continues to the end of verse 17... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, the offender must pay damages. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.
The previous chapter guarded life and person. This one guards property, and it makes the thief answerable to God, not only to his neighbour.
Exodus 22:1-15 brings restitution to our notice. It is a very necessary principle. No one who has to do with "the righteous LORD who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility. Here God shows His care not only for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.
These penalties differ in weight, and that is the point. God favours no one and ignores no claim.
On God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice... He provided for everything, maintained every interest, and met every claim. There was no partiality — no distinction between the rich and the poor. He weighed each man's claim in a balance set with divine accuracy, so that no one could rightly complain of a decision.
The rule itself is clear. But why five for one animal and four for the other? Scripture does not say.
Verse 1 is plain, though we are not told why stealing an ox needed five oxen in return, while a sheep needed only four sheep.
The heavy rate falls on the thief who destroyed or sold what he took.
If one had stolen an animal and had it in his possession, he must restore double — a much lesser penalty than verse 1.
This law thinks about the victim, not only the criminal. That sets it apart from most systems of punishment.
Human laws only punish, brutalise and perpetuate offenders; they pay nothing back. A man cheats people out of their life savings; he is jailed, and the victims get nothing back. But by God's law a thief was not only punished, but compelled to work for wages to pay back the theft to his victims (Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:4). He was not jailed and kept at the expense of the taxpayers, nor did his victims suffer and starve.
Centuries later, a tax collector named Zacchaeus used the words of this law when he met Jesus. His promise raises a harder question about a debt no one can repay.
Zacchaeus refers, without doubt, to this provision of the law (v. 1) when he said to the Lord, "If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold" (Luke 19:8)... But the question for our souls is this: if robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible. Left to ourselves, we must have remained under the consequences of our trespasses for ever.
The answer offered is not that the debt is waived, but that Another paid it in full.
It is utterly impossible for bankrupt sinners to make restitution to God. But Another has done so. He was the sin offering and the burnt offering, and also the true trespass offering (Leviticus 5)... The Lord Jesus is the true trespass offering in Isaiah 53:10-12 and also in Psalm 69, where He says in prophetic language, "What I did not steal must I now restore?"
Older translations read that line as a statement: "then I restored that which I took not away."
- Restitution defined. The law asks first for repayment. Only when repayment is impossible does it turn to damages — the fairest penalty anyone could devise.
- Restitution measured. God weighs each penalty exactly: five oxen for an ox killed or sold, but only double when the thief still has the animal alive.
- Restitution to the victim. Human courts jail a thief and leave his victim with nothing. God's law puts the thief to work until his victim gets paid back.
- Restitution owed to God. A thief must repay his neighbour. So what about the greater theft, robbing God? Bankrupt sinners have nothing to pay with.
- Restitution made for us. Christ is the true trespass offering. He restored what He never took away, and He meets every claim against the believer.
If the thief be encountered breaking in, and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him.
Exodus 22 begins a set of laws about property, and this verse takes the hardest case: a break-in that ends with the thief dead. One detail decides it — whether the killing happened in the dark.
These laws apply one of the ten commandments to daily life. One writer ties the whole chapter to the command against stealing.
In Exodus 21 we get judgments that extend "You shall not kill." In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in many ways… The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.
The verse draws a line at daybreak.
If someone caught a thief breaking in and killed him, this was not murder if it happened in the dark of night. If it happened in daylight, the one who killed him was guilty of bloodshed (vv. 2-3).
The difference between night and day is deliberate.
It is a mark of righteousness under the law that a man breaking in at night might be killed, but not a man breaking in by day.
The verse speaks of "bloodguilt" because God has put the strongest protection around human life. He gave it long before Moses, and no human law can cancel it.
God alone knows the heart of man, and He has called it "deceitful above all things and incurably wicked." When He gave Noah the government of the earth, He provided for the preservation of man's life in the most solemn terms, which no human laws can set aside: "at the hand of Man, at the hand of each (the blood) of his brother, will I require the life of Man. Whoever sheds Man's blood, by Man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He made Man."
Against that background the exception stands out. The man who breaks into a house at night forfeits that protection.
God guards what people own as well as their lives. A thief answers to Him, not only to the neighbour he robbed.
Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution to our notice. It is a very necessary principle, since no one who deals with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can evade responsibility. Here God shows not only His concern for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.
One writer sets this beside modern justice.
Human laws only punish. They brutalise offenders and keep them offending, and they make no repayment. A man cheats people out of their life savings; he is jailed, and the victims get nothing back. But by God's law a thief was not only punished, but made to work for wages to pay back the theft to his victims (Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:4). He was not jailed and kept at the taxpayers' expense, nor did his victims suffer and starve.
The thief of this passage had to restore what he took. That points to a debt none of us can settle.
But the question for our souls is this. If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible… But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away." He was the trespass offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. He has therefore made full and adequate restitution for all our trespasses — we can say so, if we believe. In His wonderful grace and mercy, He has repaired every breach that could be charged against us.
(In the ESV, Psalm 69:4 reads as a question: "What I did not steal must I now restore?")
- Guarded life. God put His own protection around human life in Noah's day and never took it back. That is why any killing raises the question of bloodguilt.
- Guarded home. The night intruder is the exception. Killing him carries no guilt, and writers call that a mark of the law's righteousness.
- Guarded goods. The same law that shields people shields their property. The thief answers to God, not just to his neighbour.
- Restitution, not just punishment. Human justice punishes and leaves the victim empty. God's law made the thief work to repay the one he robbed.
- The greater theft. Every one of us has robbed God and can restore nothing. Christ, the trespass offering, repaid what He never took.
If the sun be risen on him, there shall be blood-guiltiness for him; he should have made full restitution if he had nothing, he would have been sold for his theft.
In this verse the time of day decides the case. A thief killed at night leaves no bloodguilt; after sunrise the same killing counts as bloodshed, and the thief who lives must repay in full or be sold to cover what he stole.
Chapter 21 applies the command against murder. Chapter 22 applies the command against stealing, and it puts repayment before punishment.
Exodus 21 gives judgments that extend "You shall not murder." Exodus 22 gives judgments that extend "You shall not steal." People can cheat each other in many ways, and this theme runs to the end of verse 17... The first demand is for restitution. If that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty.
The same act gets two verdicts, and the hour of the day decides which.
If someone caught a thief breaking in and killed him, this was not murder if it happened in the dark of night. If it happened in daylight, the killer was guilty of bloodshed (vv. 2-3).
Repayment is not only about neighbours settling accounts. The offender answers to God Himself.
Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle, for no one who deals with "the righteous LORD, who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility... Here God shows His concern not only for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.
The verse ends by selling the thief. That sounds harsh today, yet one writer holds it up against the modern prison.
Human laws only punish offenders, harden them and keep them offending; they repay nothing. A man cheats people out of their life savings; he goes to jail, and the victims get nothing back. But by God's law a thief was not only punished, but compelled to work for wages to pay back the theft to his victims (Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:4). He did not sit in jail at the taxpayers' expense, and his victims did not suffer and starve.
What the thief entered was real servitude. The law did not leave it to the owner's will.
The words usually translated "servant" mean bondmen or slaves. Some were bought with money and some were taken in war: compare also Exodus 22:3... The law of Moses recognised this form of servitude, though it was a result of sin, and gave rules about it and for the protection of the slaves.
The words "if he has nothing" describe a thief who owes more than he owns. One writer puts the sinner before God in the same place.
If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible; and if left to ourselves we must for ever have remained under the consequences of our trespasses. But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4)... In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. If there had been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God what He had not taken away, but which we had taken away — we must for ever have been answerable to His claims: for ever answerable, but with nothing to pay.
(The ESV puts Psalm 69:4 as a question: "What I did not steal must I now restore?" The older wording above reads it as a statement.)
The law could make a thief hand back what he took. One writer asks what becomes of the thief after that.
The thief is to become a labourer and even a giver, for grace transforms. The law required the thief to make restitution, but grace makes him actively generous.
- Repay, first. The chapter asks first for repayment, not punishment. Damages come only where repayment is impossible.
- Repay, because God is watching. Stealing is more than a quarrel between neighbours. The thief answers to the LORD who loves righteousness.
- Repay, even with your labour. A thief with nothing left worked off his debt to his victim. The penalty repaid the wronged party instead of feeding a prison.
- Repay — but you cannot. The sinner who has robbed God stands where verse 3 leaves the penniless thief: for ever answerable, with nothing to pay.
- Repaid, by Another. One came who restored what He never took away, and grace turns the former thief into a giver.
If the stolen thing be actually found alive in his hand, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep, he shall restore double.
Exodus 22 turns "You shall not steal" into working law, and verse 4 takes the mildest case: the stolen animal is alive and still in the thief's hands. The penalty drops to double — so why does God grade theft by degrees, and why does His justice repair the victim instead of only punishing the thief?
Each of these chapters takes one short command and spells it out.
In Exodus 21 we get judgments that extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may cheat each other in many ways, and this theme continues to the end of verse 17... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, then damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.
Verse 1 charges a man five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. Verse 4 charges only double, because the thief has not killed or sold the animal.
If one had stolen an animal and had it in his possession, he must restore double — a much lesser penalty than verse 1.
The commentators do not claim to know the reason behind every figure:
Verse 1 is plain, though we are not told why stealing an ox called for five oxen in return, while stealing a sheep called for only four sheep.
The animal here is not just livestock. It is somebody's ox, somebody's sheep — and God takes that ownership seriously.
Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle. Anyone who has to do with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" cannot dodge responsibility. Here God shows not only His concern to guard the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also His concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him for his dealings with others.
The same principle stands behind the command against stealing, and it holds in the New Testament too.
The eighth commandment enforces the rights of personal property. For a short time many Christians in Jerusalem sold property and shared everything. But even then the rights of private property were not set aside, for Peter said to Ananias, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" (Acts 5:4). Yes, it belonged to Ananias, and no one had the right to grab it away from him.
Doubling the value costs the thief and leaves the owner better off than before. Most legal systems do not work that way.
Human laws merely punish, brutalise, and perpetuate offenders; they make no reparations. A man cheats people out of their life-savings; he goes to jail, and the victims get nothing back. But God's law did more than punish a thief. It made him work for wages and pay back to his victims what he had stolen (Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:4). He did not sit in jail at the taxpayers' expense, and his victims did not suffer and starve.
The law assumes the thief still has something to give back. Turn the rule toward God, and that assumption collapses.
The question for our souls is this: if robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4). He has therefore made full and adequate restitution for all our trespasses (we can say this, if we believe). In His wondrous grace and mercy He has repaired every breach that could be charged against us... In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. Had there been no substitute for us — no one to give back to God what He had never taken, but we had — we would have been answerable to His claims for ever, with nothing to pay.
(The ESV renders Psalm 69:4 as a question: "What I did not steal must I now restore?")
Under this law, the best a thief could do was hand back double. Grace goes further.
The thief is to become a labourer and even a giver, for grace transforms. The law required the thief to make restitution, but grace makes him truly generous.
- Restore, not just punish. God answers theft with restitution first and damages second — the fairest penalty anyone could design.
- Restore in proportion. A living animal still in the thief's hand costs double. An animal killed or sold cost five for one. Why those exact figures? The commentators do not claim to know.
- Restore what God guards. Behind the ox and the donkey stands an owner God protects. Behind that owner stands God, who holds the thief accountable.
- Restore what you cannot. Turn the rule toward God and it exposes a debt no sinner can pay — for ever answerable, with nothing to hand over.
- Restored by Another. One restored what He never took away, and grace goes beyond the law: the thief becomes a worker and a giver.
If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and put in his cattle, and pasture in another man's field, of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard shall he make [it] good.
When a man's animal strays into a neighbour's field and eats its fill, the law calls that a debt, repaid from the best the offender owns. Why does God make laws about grazing animals, and what does paying back "the best" say about sin against God?
This case belongs to a run of judgments that unpack one of the Ten Commandments into everyday situations.
In Exodus 21 we get judgments which extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 we find judgments which extend "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in many ways... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, then the offender must pay damages. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.
Theft, then, is wider than picking a pocket. A man who lets his ox strip someone else's field has taken what was not his, even if he never touched it with his own hands.
Owning something brings a duty: keep it where it belongs.
Verse 5 shows that an owner had to keep his animal on his own property, or he suffered the consequences. If someone started a fire and it spread to a neighbour's property, that person had to make full restoration.
The neighbour suffers the loss, but the one who demands payment is God Himself.
Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle. Nobody escapes responsibility when dealing with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness." Here God shows not only His concern to guard the life and persons of His people, but also His concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.
Centuries later the same rare word for "eat" turns up in Isaiah.
Isaiah 3:14, "You have eaten up the vineyard," is an allusion to Exodus 22:5... The Hebrew word for "eat" is unusual, and the same in both places, so as to leave no doubt of the allusion.
The ESV renders that line, "It is you who have devoured the vineyard."
Commentators press the law past cattle and crops. If God condemns wrongs against a neighbour, what about wrongs against Himself?
But the question for our souls is, if robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. Suppose there had been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God what He no longer had, because we had taken it away. Then we must have been for ever answerable to His claims: for ever answerable, but with nothing to pay.
The offender pays not an equal amount but the best of what he has — and commentators see the same excess in the cross.
Now, Christ is He who restores: "I restored that which I took not away" is what prophecy says of Him. He is the One who has overpaid God (if I may say so) for all the wrong that sin has done Him. He is the One also who has, to man — to as many as receive Him — more than restored all that sin had taken away.
That line comes from Psalm 69:4 in an older translation. The ESV puts it as a question: "What I did not steal must I now restore?"
None of this cancels the practical duty. Forgiveness received produces repayment given.
There are sins both towards God and man which cannot be regarded as truly repented of by the wrongdoer unless restitution is made... The forgiveness of God produces practical fruits in our everyday life. Our first duty to our fellow men, as forgiven of God, is to make them honourable restitution for any specific wrong we may have caused them.
Dennett notes that Zacchaeus, the tax collector who met Jesus, was reaching back to this chapter when he said, "I restore it fourfold" (Luke 19:8).
- Damage — letting your animal eat a neighbour's field counts as stealing. This chapter extends "You shall not steal" into everyday life.
- Debt — the offender repays the loss out of his best, because God stands behind the neighbour's claim.
- Deadlock — set that standard against our robbing of God, and no sinner can meet it: for ever answerable, with nothing to pay.
- Deliverance — commentators point to Christ, who restored what He never took away and has overpaid God for all that sin has done.
- Discharge — forgiveness does not cancel the duty. Those God forgives still make honourable restitution, as Zacchaeus did.
-- If fire break out, and seize the thorns, and the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field be consumed, he that kindled the fire shall fully make it good.
A man lights a fire on his own ground. It catches in the thorn hedge, jumps the boundary, and burns up a neighbour's harvest. The law hands the whole loss to the man who struck the light. This case sits among laws about property, and it asks how far a person answers for damage he never meant to cause.
These laws follow God's earlier concern for life and limb. Now He turns to what people own.
Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle, because no one can escape responsibility when he deals with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness." Here God has shown His concern for guarding the life and persons of His people, as we already noted. But He has also shown a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.
Burning a neighbour's grain is not theft in the ordinary sense. Yet commentators place this case under the commandment against stealing. A man can be robbed in more ways than one.
In Exodus 21 we get judgments that extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may cheat each other in many ways... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, then damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.
The law does not ask whether the man meant the fire to spread. It traces the damage back to the hand that lit it.
Verse 5 shows that an owner had to keep his animal on his own property, or he suffered the consequences. If someone lit a fire and it spread to other people's property, then the one who lit the fire was responsible to make full restoration.
The neighbour is the one repaid. But God counts the wrong as done to Himself, and He asks for a guilt offering as well as repayment. One commentator sees grace in that:
What grace on Jehovah's part to regard wrongs against a neighbour as wrongs against Himself also, and to require a reparation and a like guilt offering!
If God asks payment for damage done to a neighbour, a harder question follows. What about damage done to God? Here the law's remedy runs out.
If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can we deal with the sin of robbing God? How can people who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away." He was the trespass offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. So He has made full and adequate restitution... In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. If there had been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God what He had not taken away, but we had — we would have been answerable to His claims forever. Forever answerable, with nothing to pay.
(That line is Psalm 69:4 in an older translation. The ESV puts it as a question: "What I did not steal must I now restore?")
The image of a small fire with a wide burn returns in the New Testament. There the fire is the tongue.
The tongue is a little part of the body. Yet it is an instrument of very great things, either for good or for evil... Small as it is, it boasts great things. It may be like a little spark of fire, but how many a ruinous blaze a little spark has started!
- Spark — The man lights a fire on his own ground for his own reasons. Nothing suggests he meant harm.
- Spread — Damage travels. It starts at the thorn hedge and ends in a neighbour's standing grain.
- Liability — The one who lit it makes full restoration. No penalty is fairer, and no one escapes responsibility before "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness."
- Bankruptcy — Press the principle upward and it breaks us. If robbing a neighbour must be repaid, what can sinners bring to repay God? Nothing. One commentator puts it plainly: forever answerable, with nothing to pay.
- Restitution — What the offender owed and could not pay, Another paid. Christ is the true trespass offering, and the words of the Psalm are His: He restored what He never took away.
-- If a man deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him restore double;
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
if the thief be not found, the master of the house shall be brought before the judges, [to see] if he has not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.
A man leaves money or goods with his neighbour for safe keeping, and they disappear. No thief can be found, and no one saw anything. So the man who kept them must come before God, to settle whether his own hand took them.
This chapter shows that God's law covers more than harm to people. It also covers what they own.
Exodus 22:1-15 brings restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle. No one who has to do with "the righteous Lord who loves righteous deeds" can escape responsibility. Here God has shown His concern for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted. He has also shown a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in their dealings with one another.
One commandment stands behind this chapter, and the penalty it sets aims at repayment.
In Exodus 21 we get judgments which extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 we find judgments which extend "You shall not steal." Men may cheat each other in many ways... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, then damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.
The keeper of the goods is not liable by default. He is not cleared by default either.
Suppose someone was trusted with his neighbor's goods, and they were stolen from him. He would not be held responsible — unless the inquiry found that he had stolen them himself. Judges would decide such matters. In all such cases the guilty party would have to pay double (vv. 7-9).
The case now goes to the Elohim. That word means God, and Israel's judges bear the same name.
In the Pentateuch the parties are often directed to be brought to the Elohim (as in Ex. 21:6, 23; Ex. 22:8-9, twice), so called because in judging they were to act in God's place.
They did not take that name for themselves.
In Scripture the judges of Israel are sometimes given the name of God. This points more closely and strongly to the source of their authority as the guides and directors of His people. The word of God came to them. They sat to administer justice in the name of Jehovah, and according to His declared mind. The verdict they pronounced was not their own but His.
The judges stand in God's place. So swearing an oath before them is a good thing, not a compromise.
But we must carefully remember that our Lord in no way forbids an oath before the magistrate or judge. This is not evil, but good, being of divine authority. For men swear by a greater, and the oath ends all dispute by making matters sure. To refuse it is to deny God's authority in those who represent Him in earthly matters. That is why they are called by His name, which is translated "judges," as in Ex. 21:6, Ex. 22:8-9, 28.
Where a man has wronged his neighbour, the law asks for more than a court verdict.
One more thing marked these trespass offerings, where a man's rights had been violated. The trespasser not only had to bring his offering to God; he had to make amends to the one he had trespassed against... The original loss had to be repaid, with a fifth part added to it. Nothing more just than this can be found. Many a robber would not mind a bit of imprisonment if he were allowed to keep the gain he has made. But losing all he made plus a fifth beyond it takes all the glamour out of the wrongdoing.
The whole system rests on a man being able to pay back what he took. That is where every sinner is stuck.
If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "What I did not steal must I now restore?"... In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. Suppose there had been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God what He Himself had never taken away, but which we had taken away. Then we must have been answerable to His claims for ever.
Dennett quotes Psalm 69:4 from an older translation, where the words are a statement, not a question: "Then I restored that which I took not away."
- Property — God's law guards lives and possessions alike. This chapter works out "You shall not steal" in everyday disputes.
- Investigation — a keeper is not liable for a theft he did not commit. But he must face inquiry, and whoever is guilty pays double.
- Authority — "God" here means the judges. They are called by His name because they act in His place, and the verdict they give is His, not theirs.
- Oath — the judges represent God, so answering under oath before them honours Him.
- Restitution — putting a wrong right meant paying back the loss plus a fifth. Sinners could never pay God what they owe. Another restored what He never took.
As to all manner of fraud, -- as to ox, as to ass, as to sheep, as to clothing, as to everything lost, of which [a man] saith, It is this -- the cause of both parties shall come before the judges he whom the judges shall condemn shall restore double to his neighbour.
Two men claim the same lost animal or garment, and each says it is his. Why does God call such a quarrel into His own presence, and why does the loser pay double?
Chapter 21 guarded life and person. Chapter 22 turns to what a man owns, and works out one of the ten commandments in test cases.
Exodus 21 gives us judgments that extend "You shall not murder." Exodus 22 gives judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in many ways, and this theme runs to the end of verse 17... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.
A "breach of trust" here covers goods left in another man's care (verses 7-9). When they vanish, suspicion falls on the keeper, and only an inquiry can clear him.
Suppose a man was entrusted with his neighbour's goods, and they were stolen from him. He did not have to answer for them — unless an inquiry showed that he himself had stolen them. Judges would decide such matters. In all such cases, the guilty party would have to pay double (vv. 7-9).
The Hebrew word here is the word for God. Older translations render it "the judges." Both fit, because judges in Israel bore God's own name.
Scripture sometimes gives the judges of Israel the name of God. This points more closely and strongly to the source of their authority as the guides and directors of His people (see Ex. 22:8-9, 28, in the original). The word of God came to them (John 10:35). They sat to administer justice in the name, and according to the declared mind, of Jehovah. The award they pronounced was not their own but His.
That is why an oath sworn before a judge is not a wrong thing. One writer explains where the line falls:
But we must remember that our Lord in no way forbids an oath before the magistrate or judge. This is not evil but good, since it carries divine authority. Men swear by a greater, and the oath ends all dispute by making matters sure. To refuse it is to deny God's authority in those who represent Him in earthly matters. That is why they are called by His name and translated "judges," as in Ex. 21:6, Ex. 22:8-9, 28.
Double payment does more than cover the loss. The guilty man ends poorer than he began, because the wrong was never only against his neighbour.
Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution to our notice. It is a very necessary principle. No one who has to do with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility. Here God shows not only His concern for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him for his dealings with others.
One writer follows this law into the Gospels, and then to a debt no court could ever settle.
Zacchaeus refers, without doubt, to this provision of the law when he said to the Lord, "If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." (Luke 19:8.)... But here is the question for our souls. If God condemns robbing a fellow-man like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "What I did not steal must I now restore?" (Psalm 69:4.) He was the trespass-offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. He has therefore made full and adequate restitution for all our trespasses... In the chapter the offender had himself to make restitution. We could not do this.
Older translations read that line from Psalm 69 as a statement: "Then I restored that which I took not away."
- Extension. Exodus 22 works out "You shall not steal" in real cases. The first demand is restitution; where that is impossible, damages.
- Investigation. A man trusted with goods is not guilty by default. The judges examine the case, and only the guilty man pays.
- Representation. Coming "before God" meant coming before judges who bore His name — the verdict they gave was His, not theirs.
- Restitution. Double payment shows that God guards property as well as people. Every offender answers to Him.
- Substitution. No sinner can repay what he has robbed from God. Only One could ask, "What I did not steal must I now restore?" — and He made the restitution for us.
If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any cattle, to keep, and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, and no man see [it],
Exodus 21 and 22 set out case law for everyday life in Israel. Here an animal left with a neighbour dies or vanishes unseen — so who carries the loss, and how is the keeper's honesty tested?
Commentators read this chapter as one commandment worked out in daily life.
In Exodus 21 the judgments extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 they extend "You shall not steal." Men can cheat each other in many ways, and this theme runs to the end of verse 17... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, the offender pays damages. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.
The animal is gone and nobody saw it happen. The law does not guess. It hands the matter to God by an oath, and the outcome depends on how the animal went missing.
Verses 10-13 deal with a different case: an animal left in a neighbour's care. If the animal died, was hurt, or had wandered away, the owner and the caretaker were to swear "an oath by the LORD." The caretaker swore he had not taken the animal for himself. But if the animal was stolen from him, then he would have to pay the owner for the animal (v. 12). Yet if the animal was mauled and killed by a beast, the owner would bear the loss.
The word "keep" in this verse is not passive storage. Under this same commandment, another writer draws out what a person owes to anything of his neighbour's that comes into his hands.
The tenderness of the opening words shows how much more than the bare letter these commandments hold. To fulfil the commandment not to steal, you must not consent to the loss or destruction of anything that is your neighbour's. You must care for it, guard it, and keep it for him.
Two neighbours, an animal, a handshake — no contract, no onlooker. Yet God treats this small private matter as something He personally guarantees, and Leviticus calls its violation a trespass needing a sacrifice.
The first form of the guilt denounced here appears to be a failure in private trust. It might be any valuable item or document left with a friend. It might be only an animal, a borrowed book or axe, or money handed over, however small the sum. But Jehovah took notice, and bound up the trusting Israelite's rights with His own name.
This is why an oath in God's name settles the dispute. The property belongs to the neighbour, but the offence reaches higher than the neighbour.
What grace on Jehovah's part! He treats wrongs against a neighbour as wrongs against Himself, and He asks for both repayment and a Guilt offering, like the other case.
One writer sets this chapter beside the one before it.
In Exodus 22:1-15 God has shown not only His concern to guard the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in their dealings with one another.
If God weighs the loss of one entrusted animal, the question turns back on the reader. One writer takes restitution to its limit and finds a debt no offender could pay.
If God condemns robbing a fellow man like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But the Psalms speak of One who said that He restored what He never took away. He was the trespass offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. So He has made full and adequate restitution for all our trespasses — we can say this, if we believe. In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this.
- Entrusted — it begins with one neighbour handing an animal to another. God takes notice of this small private trust.
- Guarded — keeping means active care. You must not consent to the loss of anything your neighbour owns.
- Unseen — no one saw the loss. That is where honesty is tested and human courts run out of evidence.
- Sworn — an oath in God's name settles what no eye saw. A wrong against a neighbour is a wrong against God Himself.
- Restored — the law makes the offender repay. Only Another could pay the sinner's debt to God, restoring what He never took away.
an oath of Jehovah shall be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept it, and he shall not make [it] good.
An animal left in a neighbour's care is dead, injured or missing, and nobody saw what happened. With no evidence either way, the law does not guess. It brings God's name into the dispute and lets an oath close the case.
The verse belongs to a short group of rulings about animals placed in someone else's hands, and the outcome depends on how the loss happened.
Verses 10-13 treat differently the case of an animal left in a neighbour's care. If the animal died, was hurt, or had wandered away, there was to be "an oath by the LORD" between the owner and the caretaker. The oath declared that the caretaker had not taken it for himself. But if the animal was stolen from him, then he would have to pay the owner for the animal.
These rulings sit in a long run of laws about property, and the reason God gives them is that He counts what His people own as worth His attention.
Exodus 22:1-15 brings restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle, because no one who has to do with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility. In this God has shown His concern not only for guarding the life and persons of His people, but also for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.
So the case turns on an oath. That word means more than a promise, because of who it calls on.
A solemn statement with an appeal to God that what is said is true. The apostle said that among people an oath given as confirmation is the "end of all strife" or dispute. And God, wanting to show "the unchangeable character of His purpose, guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things [His word and His oath], in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong encouragement."
Swearing here is not a lapse in reverence but something the law itself called for, and it named which name was to be used.
On several occasions the law called for an oath, and in such cases God required His people to swear by His name (Deuteronomy 6:13; compare Exodus 22:11; Leviticus 5:1; Numbers 5:19-21). The oath then did more than confirm the truth. It was also a solemn vow made in the knowledge that Jehovah was present — and He had Himself once taken an oath before Abraham.
The same case reappears in the law of the trespass offering. There it shows how far down God's interest reaches — to the smallest thing one friend leaves with another.
The first form of the guilt condemned here appears to be a failure in private trust. It might be any valuable item or useful document left in the keeping of a friend. It might be only an animal, a book lent, an axe borrowed, or money entrusted, however small. But Jehovah took notice, and bound up the trusting Israelite's rights with His own name.
The oath closes the case for the court. It does not close it for the man who swore falsely, because the wrong runs past his neighbour to God.
Though this trespass directly involves another person, it is still "against the Lord," for He is Creator and He cares how people treat His creatures. Someone may have lied to his neighbour about something entrusted to him to keep, or about a pledge he had made. He may also have cheated his neighbour outright. Or he may have found what was lost and, instead of returning it to its owner, sworn falsely about it. This was no sin of ignorance… Yet he must not cover the matter over. He must confess his sin and restore in full anything the neighbour had lost, adding one-fifth to its value.
Restitution runs through this whole chapter. It raises a question the chapter cannot answer.
If the law condemns robbing a fellow man like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible… But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4). He was the trespass offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. He has therefore made full and adequate restitution — we can say so, if we believe — for all our trespasses.
(The ESV renders that line as a question: "What I did not steal must I now restore?")
- Trust. An animal handed over for safekeeping is a small thing, yet God bound the owner's rights up with His own name.
- Loss. When the animal dies, is hurt or wanders off with no one watching, human evidence runs out.
- Oath. God gives the remedy He once used with Abraham himself: a sworn appeal that ends the argument.
- Conscience. The oath satisfies the neighbour. A false one leaves a debt to God, cleared only by confession and full repayment plus a fifth.
- Restitution. The debt we owe God we cannot repay, and Christ as the trespass offering restored what He never took away.
But if it have been stolen from him, he shall make [it] good unto its owner.
Exodus 22:12 sits in a run of case laws about animals left in a neighbour's care. The rule looks small, yet it asks who carries a loss, and what it means to answer to God for what belongs to someone else.
One writer sets the whole chapter under a single heading, and points out how fair its penalty is.
In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may cheat each other in many ways, and this theme runs to the end of verse 17. The first demand is for "restitution," and if that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty.
Verse 12 only makes sense beside the verses on either side of it.
Verses 10-13 take up a different case: an animal left in the care of a neighbour. If the animal died, was hurt, or had wandered away, the owner and the caretaker settled it with "an oath of the Lord." The oath declared that the caretaker had not taken the animal for himself. But if the animal was stolen from him, then he would have to pay the owner for the animal (v. 12). Yet if the animal was mauled and killed by a beast, the owner would bear the loss.
A wild beast was beyond the keeper's power. A thief was not, so the law puts the theft on him.
An owner's cattle may seem too small a matter for God's law. One writer explains what these rules show about God.
Here God shows His care not only for guarding the life and persons of His people, as we have already seen, but also for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with his neighbour.
The keeper does not just owe his neighbour a cow. He answers to God for how he handled it.
Notice what the law asks of a man who never stole anything. Keeping this commandment is an active job, not just keeping your hands off.
To keep the commandment not to steal, you must not agree to the destruction or loss of anything that belongs to your neighbour. It must be cared for, guarded, and kept for him.
If a man must repay an animal he was only minding, a heavier question follows. Restitution assumes the offender has something to pay with.
Here is the question for our souls. If God condemns robbing a fellow man in this way, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But Christ was the trespass offering, as well as the sin offering and the burnt offering. So He has made full and complete restitution for all our trespasses, and if we believe, we can say so. In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. Suppose there had been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God what He did not have, because we had taken it away. Then we would have been answerable to His claims for ever: for ever answerable, with nothing to pay.
The principle did not end with these old cases. Where God has forgiven, one writer argues, accounts with people still get settled.
Some sins against God and against man cannot count as truly repented of unless the wrongdoer makes restitution. Take a man who robs God, or robs his neighbour. If he has genuine faith in the value of Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of that sin, restitution will follow. It is man's part alongside God's forgiveness... The forgiveness of God produces practical fruits in our everyday life. God has forgiven us, so our first duty to other people is to make honourable restitution for any specific wrong we have caused them.
- Trust. An animal placed in a neighbour's hands creates a duty. Verse 12 assumes the keeper could have guarded it against a thief.
- Limit. Theft falls on the keeper. An animal killed by a wild beast falls on the owner. The law splits losses by what a man could prevent.
- Guard. Not stealing means more than clean hands. Care for your neighbour's property, guard it, and keep it for him.
- Account. The offender repays his neighbour, and he answers to God, who guards His people's possessions as well as their lives.
- Ransom. No sinner can repay what he took from God. Christ made that restitution, and the forgiven show it by repaying those they have wronged.
If it have been torn in pieces, let him bring it [as] witness he shall not make good what was torn.
A man leaves an animal in a neighbour's care, and a wild beast kills it. Someone has to carry the loss. This verse settles the case with evidence, not payment. It sits inside a long run of rules about property and honest dealing.
The rules in this chapter take one of the Ten Commandments and work it out in everyday dealings.
If in Exodus 21 we get judgments which extend "You shall not kill," in Exodus 22 we find judgments extending "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in a variety of ways… The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty.
Verses 10 to 15 deal with animals and goods placed in someone else's hands, and they do not all end the same way. Everything turns on how the loss happened.
Verses 10-13 show a difference in the case of an animal being left in the care of a neighbour. If the animal died or was hurt or had wandered away, there was to be "an oath of the Lord" between the owner and the caretaker that the caretaker had not taken it for himself. But if the animal was stolen from him, then he would have to pay the owner for the animal (v. 12). Yet if the animal was mauled and killed by a beast, the owner would bear the loss. If something was borrowed, then died or was injured in the hands of the borrower, the borrower must reimburse the lender for it (v. 15).
So the torn carcass is not a formality. Where nothing could be shown, an oath closed the case. Here the keeper shows the body itself, and the claim against him ends.
The law works this hard to fix the fault for a reason. Every dealing between neighbours was also a dealing with God.
Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle, because no one who deals with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility. Here God has shown not only His concern to guard the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also His concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, since each man is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.
The demand falls on the offender. Where there is no offender — only a wild beast — there is nothing to restore.
A rule about a mauled sheep can look too small a matter for the great God of heaven and earth. Commentators see the opposite.
The study of this section of our book is well suited to impress the heart with a sense of God's unsearchable wisdom and infinite goodness… Here, too, we may see the amazing condescension of Him who is the great God of heaven and earth. He can still stoop to judge between man and man about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth… He governs the universe, and yet He can occupy Himself with providing a covering for one of His creatures.
The same care shapes the whole chapter.
The keeper in this verse goes free because he took nothing. That raises a sharper question for every reader.
If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible… But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away." He was the trespass offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. He has therefore made full and adequate restitution — we can say so, if we believe — for all our trespasses. No one can charge us with a single breach that He, in His wonderful grace and mercy, has not repaired.
That line is from an older rendering of Psalm 69:4. The ESV reads, "What I did not steal must I now restore?"
- Command. The chapter takes "You shall not steal" into daily life. Its first demand is restitution, and damages follow only where restitution is impossible.
- Proof. A keeper does not pay for what he did not take. He brings the torn animal as evidence, and the claim against him ends.
- Fault. Loss follows fault. A keeper pays for an animal stolen from him. The owner bears the loss when a wild beast kills it. The borrower carries the risk of what he borrows.
- Care. The God who governs the universe stoops to settle a quarrel over one dead ox. The same care runs through every rule in the chapter.
- Substitute. No sinner can restore what he has robbed from God. Christ, the trespass offering, restored what He never took away.
-- And if a man borrow anything of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, its owner not being with it, he shall fully make it good;
Exodus 22:14 belongs to a set of case laws about property. A man borrows his neighbour's animal or tool, and it is damaged or dies while he has it. This verse settles who pays for the loss. Behind that small question stands a larger one: how much God cares about what belongs to another man.
These rules run from chapter 21 through chapter 23. Partway through, the subject shifts from persons to possessions.
In chapter 22 we go on with the "judgments" that begin at chapter 21 and run to chapter 23. But God's judgments have a different character from Exodus 21:33 onwards, for these deal mainly with the possessions or property of the children of Israel.
The borrower carries the risk. If the owner was there with it, the loss stays with him. The verses just before draw a different line for an animal left in a neighbour's care.
Verses 10-13 show a difference in the case of an animal being left in the care of a neighbor. If the animal died or was hurt or had wandered away, there was to be "an oath of the Lord" between the owner and the caretaker that the caretaker had not taken it for himself… If someone borrowed something, and it died or was injured while in his hands, he must pay the lender back for it (v. 15). If however the owner was with the animal or other article, the owner must bear the loss of any damage.
(Some Bibles number these verses one apart; the borrowing case is verse 14 in the ESV.)
The command not to steal does more than forbid taking. Something borrowed is still someone else's, and while it is in your hands you owe it active care.
The tenderness of the opening words makes it plain how much more than the bare letter we should read in the commandments. To fulfill the commandment not to steal, you must not consent to the destruction or loss of anything that is your neighbor's. It must be cared for, guarded, and kept for him.
The borrower cannot plead accident. Paying in full is God's way of teaching that a man remains answerable for what passed through his hands.
Exodus 22:1-15 puts the thought of restitution before us. The principle is very necessary, for no one who deals with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility. Here God shows not only His concern to guard the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.
Settling with the man you wronged does not close the account. The law added a sacrifice to the repayment, because guilt before God had to be admitted too.
The law demanded repayment, which showed that the rights of the person sinned against were not to be ignored. It also required a sacrifice, which showed that a trespass against your neighbour could not be hushed up or settled by compromise, with no admission of guilt before God… So the Lord would teach His people to see their acts of sin in the light of their responsibility to Him, and not only as those acts affected the person they had wronged on earth.
Here the law turns into a mirror. A man can replace a borrowed ox. No man can replace what he has taken from God. Older Bibles read the words quoted below from Psalm 69:4 as a statement: "Then I restored that which I took not away."
In the previous chapter we saw how God guarded the life and the persons of His people. In this chapter we see how He protected their property, and made everyone who ignored His law answerable to Himself. But here is the question for our souls. If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible… But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "What I did not steal must I now restore?" (Psalm 69:4)… There is not a single breach that could be charged against us which He, in His wonderful grace and mercy, has not repaired. In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this.
- Borrowed — what you hold on loan is still your neighbour's; care for it, guard it, keep it for him.
- Broken — if it dies or is damaged in your hands, you pay; the exception is when the owner was present with it.
- Binding — restitution leaves no room for excuses, because the case is with the righteous Lord, not only with the man next door.
- Beyond you — wronging a neighbour is also a matter with God, and no repayment on earth closes that account.
- Borne — we could never make restitution to God; the One spoken of in the Psalms repaired every breach charged against us.
if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make [it] good; if it be a hired [thing], it came for its hire.
A borrowed animal has died, and the law asks one question: was the owner standing there or not? Verse 15 ends a short run of laws about borrowed and hired property, and it decides who takes the loss.
One writer reads chapter 22 as "You shall not steal" worked out in everyday cases:
In Exodus 21 we get judgments that extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in many ways, and this theme continues to the end of verse 17. The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, the offender pays damages. No one could devise a fairer penalty.
These cases sort out who pays. Verse 15 turns on whether the owner was there:
If a borrower took something, and it died or was hurt in his hands, he must repay the lender for it (v. 15). But if the owner was with the animal or other article, the owner must bear the loss of any damage.
These small disputes reach the law book because God ties them to His own character:
Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution to our notice. It is a very necessary principle. No one who has to do with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can evade responsibility. In this God has shown His concern not only for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.
The same writer notes that the chapter demanding exact payment also shields the people least able to pay:
These "judgments" reveal the true character of the law: inflexible righteousness, with its inescapable demands of restitution and penalty. No one could evade responsibility. Yet the spirit in which the children of Israel dealt with each other, following these divine instructions, expressed the beautiful features of grace and compassion. They were not to mistreat a stranger, or afflict the widow and the fatherless. They were to charge no interest to a poor man who borrowed money. They were not to keep a neighbour's pledged garment overnight. To this last God adds this beautiful expression, "for I am gracious."
One writer applies the same duty to debt today. He puts the weight not on whether you may borrow, but on whether you repay:
"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law." The first sentence does not mean that it is wrong to borrow money. The question is about paying. If a debt is due, pay it right on time. Borrowing money in a reckless way, with no prospect of paying it back, is sinful. It has often brought great dishonour on the name of our Lord.
Push the demand for restitution one step further, and it exposes a debt no sinner can settle:
If robbing a fellow-man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible. Left to ourselves, we must have remained for ever under the consequences of our trespasses. But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away." He has therefore made full and adequate restitution — we can say it, if we believe — for all our trespasses. In His wonderful grace and mercy, He has repaired every breach that could be charged against us. In this chapter the offender himself had to make restitution. We could not do this.
(The ESV renders that line, "What I did not steal must I now restore?")
- Restore. The whole section runs on one demand: make good what you damaged or took. Where that is impossible, pay damages.
- Restore — unless the owner was there. If the owner stood with his own property, he carries the loss. The borrower pays nothing for damage under the owner's eye.
- Restore, because God is watching. These are not just neighbourly customs. God guards possessions, because people answer to a righteous Lord.
- Restore with a gracious spirit. The same chapter that fixes exact payments also forbids mistreating strangers, widows, the fatherless and the poor. God's own reason: "I am gracious."
- Restore what you cannot restore. Sin against God leaves a debt no sinner can pay. Christ restored what He never took away, and repaired every breach charged against us.