“If a
man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five
oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.
If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies,
there will be no blood guiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will
blood guiltiness on his account. He
shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for
his theft. If what he stole is actually
found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall
pay double. If a man lets a field or
vineyard be grazed bare and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in another
man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the
best of his own vineyard.”
Exodus chapter 22 begins with laws on how
those that are involved in various types of theft are to be treated. To begin
with, contrary to what liberal minds may think, stealing is not a God-given
right regardless of one’s circumstances.
Responding in forgiveness may well be encouraged, but the activity that
initiates the need for forgiveness, is not.
The Bible calls for some restitution or repayment for theft.
We note in verse 1, that God calls for different amounts
being paid as restitution for a stolen (and killed or sold) ox versus the
amount paid for a stolen sheep.
Expositor John Gill (who preached
in the same church as C. H. Spurgeon over one hundred years earlier) says this
about the reason for the difference:
“ . . . because the one
was more valuable than the other, as well as more useful, and also more easily
stolen, and therefore the greater mulct or fine was laid upon the theft of it,
to deter from it: the Targum of Jonathan expresses the reason of the law thus;
five for oxen, because the theft of them hindered from ploughing, or made to
cease from it; and for sheep but four, because there was trouble in the theft
of them, and there was no tillage or agriculture by them: and Saadiah Gaon
observes, that the damage that comes to the owner of the ox is more than that
by a lamb, because with it, the ox, he ploughs, which is a creature that was
used in those countries to be employed in that service, as well as in treading
out the corn: Maimonides accounts for it thus:
“The restitution of the theft of
oxen is increased by one, because the theft of them is easy; sheep are fed in
flocks, and are easily kept and watched, and can scarcely be taken away by
theft but in the night; but oxen are fed scattered here and there, and
therefore cannot be so easily kept by the herdsmen; hence also their theft used
to be more common:”
“Fourfold restitution was in use with the ancient Persians,
with whom it was a rule,
“Whoever took any substance of another, in retaliation they
took fourfold from him, and if he restored it, he gave fourfold of the same.''”
The text then turns to a matter of great debate of
late. What happens when the owner of the
property kills the thief during his attempt to steal? Or put another way, “do I as a guardian of my
home and family, have the right to attack and perhaps kill an intruder in my
home or on my property who is clearly stealing?” I do not venture to answer the question from
a legal standpoint – as I not a lawyer.
I will leave that to my friends.
But the Bible clearly states that in such a case, “there will be no
blood guiltiness on his (the dead thief’s) account”. John Gill explains it this way:
“There shall no
blood be shed for him: as for a man that is murdered; for to kill a man when
breaking into a house, and, by all appearance, with an intention to commit
murder, if resisted, in defense of a man's self, his life and property, was not
to be reckoned murder, and so not punishable with death: or, "no
blood" shall be "unto him"; shall be imputed to him, the man
that kills the thief shall not be chargeable with his blood, or suffer for
shedding it; because his own life was risked, and it being at such a time,
could call none to his assistance, nor easily discern the person, nor could
know well where and whom he struck.”
This interpretation of the verse goes far into outlining
some of the key considerations one must look at today in such cases, including:
What would have been the intention of the thief if and when his/her action was
resisted? Was anyone’s life at risk? Was other help available? Did the one that
kill the thief know what he was doing? Etc.
(I am reminded of the case of Oscar Pistorius, the famous “Blade Runner”
who is charged with killing his girlfriend in the bathroom because he thought
the person in there was an intruder. He went to prison for five years at the
end of 2014.)
Matthew Henry on the other hand, suggests the following on
the interpretation of verse 2:
“He that does
an unlawful act bears the blame of the mischief that follows to others, so
likewise of that which follows to himself. A man's house is his castle, and
God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so
at his peril.”
But
God’s rules on this now add another dimension – that of time of day. If the attempt to steal took place during the
day, the “blood guiltiness” referred to above would be paid by him (supposedly
the owner of the property, or perhaps a servant) who killed him. The idea is that we must be considerate of
all life, even of those who we know or believe to be evil. Our reparation must not come from our
vengeance, but from the legal system, and especially for Christians, from our
God. When we take the law into our hands
beyond that, we start to stand on shaky ground.
So,
where possible, we are to “catch the thief” but not kill him. And then in that case, as he is still alive,
he must make restitution for all he has stolen.
And if he can’t afford it, he then is to be sold (one assumes into
slavery) and the money goes to the owner of the property he stole.
And
still more twists to the law: if he stole animals and they are found alive,
that is the thief is caught red-handed with the goods, he shall pay double the
amounts he otherwise would have paid.
Interesting, but why? Matthew Henry explains it like this:
“Thus he must
both satisfy for the wrong and suffer for the crime. But it was afterwards
provided that if the thief were touched in conscience, and voluntarily
confessed it, before it was discovered or enquired into by any other, then he
should only make restitution of what he had stolen, and add to it a fifth part,
Leviticus 6:4,5.”
So,
there is clearly an advantage to admitting and pleading guilty if indeed it is
a true confession, rather than a forced confession.
Finally,
we are told that if one simply uses things that are not his to use, without
permission (a form of stealing one might say), then he repays from the best of
his own possession or equivalent. I live
with two of my granddaughters. They
borrow each other’s stuff (clothes, accessories, etc.) without each other’s
permission. Needless to say that the
volume of discourse rises greatly depending on whether the owner wanted to use
it that day herself, if the borrower misplaced it, or if the borrower damaged
it or worse still, lost it. Whereas my
solution would be to ban all so-called “borrowing”, God’s approach seems to
indicate that the ‘owner’ could then help herself to the best of the
‘borrower’s’ goods. But then again, my
ways are not necessarily His ways.
For us, the facts remain: we are not to steal, we are to know
how to deal with those that do, and in all cases, we are to make restitution
for things we have taken or misused or lost that belong to others.
- - 30 - -
