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.