Exoduschapter 22
31 verses · Moses, by tradition · 15th or 13th century BC · The Law
“If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters or sells it, he must repay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep.
Introduction
Moses, by tradition, The Law, Exodus Overview.
The case law of Sinai continues in this chapter, and it moves from the injured body to property and then to people with no one to defend them. Moses received it for a people who would soon own fields, flocks and harvests of their own. Listen for how often the ruling is repayment. Listen also for the point where God speaks of His own anger on behalf of the weak. The chapter reminds Israel where they had lived before, and why that memory mattered.
Context
- Who
- Israel in the wilderness, told to remember that they had been foreigners in Egypt
- What
- Case law on theft, damage, goods left in trust and loans, with the treatment of the foreigner, the widow and the orphan.
- Where
- The camp at the foot of Mount Sinai, with laws shaped for the farms and villages of Canaan.
- When
- The third month after the exodus, about 1446 BC on the early date this site follows, with a thirteenth century date held by others.
- Why
- To bind property and mercy to the covenant, so that Israel's courts protected the weak as well as the owner.
Historical context
The chapter belongs to the law Exodus says Moses wrote at God's command, recorded at 17:14, at 24:4 and at 34:27, while he was going up and down the mountain between God and the people. The critical reading takes the legal sections for a later compilation from several sources, a position argued by Julius Wellhausen and the tradition following him, and the site states no verdict on it.
Show the rest of the historical context, 8 more paragraphs
The chapter continues the case law under the title at 21:1, and it moves from property to persons.
A first hearer knew how other codes punished theft, and this one runs on restitution, double or four and five times, with a thief who cannot pay sold to work off the debt.
Neighbouring codes in the Pritchard collection reach more readily for death over property.
A hearer knew the economy the cases assume, goods left with a neighbour, a borrowed animal injured, a fire running into standing grain, and a field grazed bare by another man's stock.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown note that the parched herbage and long droughts of that country made kindling a fire dangerous.
Where the evidence failed the case went before the judges and an oath before the LORD settled it, and Adam Clarke names the law behind those cases the law of bailments.
The last third of the chapter turns to the foreign resident, the widow, the orphan and the debtor, whose cloak is returned by sunset because it is his only covering at night.
The sanction attached there is God's own hearing rather than a fine.
Significance
The reason given for the law about foreigners was the hearers' own history. You were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
Show the rest of the significance, 1 more paragraph
A poor man's coat outranked a lender's security, which tells a reader what the whole code was weighted towards.
This chapter in Jewish lifeWhat this chapter is in Jewish life and reading.
How it is read
The chapter runs through theft, damage, bailment and the treatment of the weak. Rashi reads it as a working court would. The housebreaker of the first verse is liable only while he is in the act, "when he was breaking in into the house" (Rashi on Exodus 22:1:1). The sun that shines upon him is a figure for certainty about the man's intent. A father who breaks in to take his son's money plainly means no killing (Rashi on Exodus 22:2:1, citing Sanhedrin 72a). The middle of the chapter is read as four kinds of keeper, separated by what each one answers for. The keeper who holds goods for nothing is freed from liability for theft and swears to it. The borrower answers for loss from any cause at all, "even from accident" (Rashi on Exodus 22:6:1 and 22:13:1). The oath of the ninth verse covers two things at once. It covers the accident happening as the keeper says, and his making no use of the animal for himself (Rashi on Exodus 22:10:1, citing Bava Metzia 94b). On the law of the widow and the fatherless, Rashi reads the wording as a threat that breaks off before it names the punishment. He compares the wording about Cain at Genesis 4:15 (Rashi on Exodus 22:22:1). He holds that the law covers every person. It names these two because they are "feeble in defensive power" and are commonly afflicted (Rashi on Exodus 22:21:1). On the loan of the twenty fourth verse he reports Rabbi Yishmael, who taught that the word if carries a duty here rather than a choice (Rashi on Exodus 22:24:1). Rashi is quoted from the Rosenbaum and Silbermann edition of 1929 to 1934, public domain. Malbim comments at Exodus 22:11:1 with no English version in the corpus, and stands as a citation.
What the rabbis say
The corpus records forty places where the Midrash and the Talmud draw on this chapter, cited here by reference. The damage and bailment laws are read in Bava Kamma at 4b:12, 10b:16, 14a:12, 22b:10 and 55b:12. The same tractate carries them at 63b:20, 87a:13, 93a:4, 106a:10 and 106b:7. It carries them again at 106b:17, 107b:3, 107b:4 and 114b:35. Bava Metzia reads them at 41b:6, 57b:15, 71a:3 and 94b:13. The Jerusalem Talmud takes up the same body of law at Bava Kamma 1:1:4 and Bava Metzia 3:1:2. It reads it again at Ketubot 4:4:6, Berakhot 3:4:9 and Yevamot 8:1:2. The laws on the stranger, the widow and the pledge are drawn into Avot DeRabbi Natan at 16:4, 25:3 and 38:3. Bamidbar Rabbah carries them at 5:2, 8:2, 10:1, 12:14 and 14:10. The Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Ben Yochai reads the pledge at 22:26. Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 11:1 reads the thirty first verse, and Bereshit Rabbah 93:6 reads the second.
Sources: Rashi, Rashi on Exodus 22:1 to 22:24, the Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann, 1929 to 1934, public domain, 1040 to 1105; Malbim, Malbim on Exodus 22:11:1, cited by reference, no English version in the corpus; Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kamma 114b:35, Bava Metzia 94b:13 and Avodah Zarah 51a:13, cited by reference; Jerusalem Talmud, Bava Kamma 1:1:4, Bava Metzia 3:1:2 and Ketubot 4:4:6, cited by reference; Avot DeRabbi Natan, 16:4, 25:3 and 38:3, cited by reference; The Sefaria corpus, scripts/data/sources/sefaria/exodus/22.json, fetched 2026-09-19, 2026; MannaFest, the commentators and their dates, src/app/featured/the-jewish-writings/page.tsx, 2026.
The heads below are this chapter's scenes. The numbered points under each are its verses.
Restitution for Theft and Damage
The penalty is a multiple of the thing taken, five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep, and it is paid to the man who lost it rather than to a court. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown put the higher figure on the ox's greater use in labour, since a working animal carries a man's living away with it. Zacchaeus reaches for this rule at Luke 19:8 and restores fourfold, which is the one place in the New Testament where a man applies the restitution law to himself.
Exodus 22:1
“The penalty for the theft of a sheep which was slain or sold, was fourfold; for an ox fivefold, because of its greater utility in labor; but, should the stolen animal have been recovered alive, a double compensation was all that was required, because it was presumable he (the thief) was not a practised adept in dishonesty.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
A burglar killed in the dark leaves the householder clear, and the same blow after sunrise makes him answerable, because daylight lets the man be recognised and taken to court instead. Adam Clarke reads the sunrise clause exactly so. A thief who cannot pay is sold for his theft, and an animal recovered alive costs double rather than four or five, so the scale is set by what the thief has already done with it.
Exodus 22:2
“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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Exodus 22:4
“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; Exo 22:2. If he had stolen and sold the property, then he was to restore four or fivefold, Exo 22:1; but if the animal was found alive in his possession, he was to restore double.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Exodus 22:4
“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, Lev. vi.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Two cases of damage done without stealing anything, a beast let into a neighbour's crop and a fire that runs from thorns into standing corn. Restitution comes out of the best of the offender's own field, so carelessness costs him better produce than the produce he ruined. Matthew Henry draws the principle plainly, that a man answers for the harm he occasions and not only for the harm he means.
Exodus 22:5
“Shall put in his beast, and shall feed - Rather, shall let his beast go loose, and it shall feed.”
1 more voice on this verse
Exodus 22:5
“We should be more careful not to do wrong than not to suffer wrong, because to suffer wrong is only an affliction, but to do wrong is a sin, and sin is always worse than affliction.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Exodus 22:6
“The very parched state of the herbage and the long droughts of summer, make the kindling of a fire an operation often dangerous, and always requiring caution from its liability to spread rapidly. stacks--or as it is rendered "shocks" (Jud 15:5; Job 5:26), means simply a bundle of loose sheaves.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
1 more voice on this verse
Exodus 22:6
“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, etc.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Goods left with a neighbour for safekeeping go missing and no thief can be found, so the keeper himself is brought before the judges. Those judges exist because of chapter 18, where Jethro told Moses the work was too heavy and able men were set over thousands and hundreds and tens. The double penalty falls on whichever party the court condemns, which puts a false claim at the same price as a theft.
Exodus 22:7
“Deliver unto his neighbor - 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Exodus 22:7
“It is unjust and base, and that which all the world cries shame on, to betray a trust. That there is such a general failing of truth and justice upon earth as gives too much occasion to suspect men's honesty whenever it is their interest to be dishonest.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Exodus 22:8
“It would appear that if the master of the house would clear himself of imputation, the loss of the pledged article fell upon its owner.”
1 more voice on this verse
Exodus 22:8
“Unto the judges - See Clarke’s note on Exo 21:6.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Exodus 22:9
“All manner of trespass - He who was accused, and he who had lost the stolen property, were both to appear before the judges Exo 18:25-26.”
An animal in a herdsman's care dies or is hurt or is driven off with no man seeing it, which leaves a case that no evidence can decide. The law closes it with an oath of the LORD, and the owner is required to accept it and take no payment. Hebrews 6:16 states the same working rule, that an oath for confirmation is to men an end of all strife, and Adam Clarke notes how much weight an appeal to God carried before oaths became common.
Exodus 22:10
“This law appears to relate chiefly to herdsmen employed by the owners of cattle. When an animal was stolen Exo 22:12, it was presumed either that the herdsman might have prevented it, or that he could find the thief and bring him to justice (see Exo 22:4). When an animal was killed by a wild beast, the keeper had to produce the mangled carcass, not only in proof of the fact, but to show that he had, by his vigilance and courage, deprived the wild beast of its prey.”
Exodus 22:11
“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 neighbor’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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Theft the keeper pays for, since watching was the job he took, and a kill by a wild beast he does not, provided he brings the carcass as evidence. Adam Clarke says graziers were still required to produce horns and hoofs in his own day, because the owner's mark was on them. Amos 3:12 shows the rule in operation with the shepherd taking two legs or a piece of an ear out of the mouth of the lion, and Jacob at Genesis 31:39 held himself above it, bearing the loss of what was torn rather than bringing proof to Laban.
Exodus 22:13
“If it be torn in pieces - let him bring it for witness - Rather, Let him bring עד הטרפה ed hatterephah, a testimony or evidence of the torn thing, such as the horns, hoofs, etc. This is still a law in some countries among graziers: if a horse, cow, sheep, or goat, entrusted to them, be lost, and the keeper asserts it was devoured by dogs, etc., 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
A borrower carries the whole loss, where a paid keeper in the verses above could clear himself by an oath. The reason is in the two exceptions, since the owner standing by can see what happened and a hired thing has already had the risk priced into its hire. The sons of the prophets at 2 Kings 6:5 cry out over an axe head precisely because it was borrowed, and Psalm 37:21 makes failure to repay a mark of the wicked.
Exodus 22:14
“Let us learn hence to be very careful not to abuse any thing that is lent us; it is not only unjust, but base and disingenuous, inasmuch as it is rendering evil for good; we should much rather choose to lose ourselves than that any should sustain loss by their kindness to us.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Exodus 22:15
“It came for his hire - The sum paid for hiring was regarded as covering the risk of accident.”
Seduction, Sorcery, and the Defenseless
The seducer owes marriage and a dowry, and if the father refuses to give her he owes the dowry of virgins anyway, so the woman is provided for whichever way the family decides. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 sets the sum at fifty shekels and bars him from ever putting her away. Adam Clarke reckoned the law worked chiefly by warning the man in advance what the night would cost him.
Exodus 22:16
“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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Exodus 22:16
“If she was betrothed to another, it was death to debauch her ( Deut. xxii. 23, 24 ); but the law here mentioned respects her as single. But, if the father refused her to him, he was to give satisfaction in money for the injury and disgrace he had done her.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Three death sentences interrupt a long run of property law, against sorcery, against lying with a beast, and against sacrificing to any god but the LORD. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 names the practices behind the first and says the nations of Canaan did them, and Israel had watched Egypt's own sorcerers fail in chapters 7 to 9. The word behind utterly destroyed in verse 20 is cherem, which Adam Clarke takes as a thing devoted to destruction with no possibility of redemption. The chapter has been pricing oxen and here the price is a life.
Exodus 22:18
“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 מכשפה mecash-shephah, which we translate witch, really means a person who practiced divination or sorcery by spiritual or infernal agency.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Exodus 22:19
“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 practiced in Egypt to the present day.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Exodus 22:20
“Utterly destroyed - The word חרם cherem denotes a thing utterly and finally separated from God and devoted to destruction, without the possibility of redemption.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Exodus 22:20
“Some people give no thought to the question of demons, that is to say, to the fact that these demons, in order to be able to exist in the heavy atmosphere that encircles the earth, must have the nourishment of exhalations and consequently are always on the lookout for the savor of burnt sacrifices, blood and incense. Since they attach no importance to the matter of sacrifice, we would express ourselves also on this subject.”
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · EXHORTATION TO MARTYRDOM 45patristic
The reason attached to the command is the reader's own memory, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt, which ties the law back to the story the book has just finished telling. The same ground is given again at Exodus 23:9, at Leviticus 19:34 where the stranger is to be loved as thyself, and at Deuteronomy 10:19. Israel is asked to legislate out of what it felt under Pharaoh rather than out of a principle stated in the abstract.
Exodus 22:21
“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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Exodus 22:21
“Those that are strangers to us are known to God, and he preserves them, Ps. cxlvi. (2.) Those that profess religion should study to oblige strangers, that they may thereby recommend religion to their good opinion, and take heed of doing any thing that may tempt them to think ill of it or its professors, 1 Pet. ii.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
No judge is named here and no restitution is set, because God says he will hear the cry himself. The words are the words of Exodus 2:23-25 and 3:7, where the cry of Israel came up unto God and he said I have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters, so the nation delivered by a heard cry is told the same ear is now turned toward the weakest people among it. Adam Clarke observed that God reserves the punishment to himself, and the sentence is measured back exactly, that your wives shall be widows and your children fatherless.
Exodus 22:22
“Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child - It is remarkable that offenses 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Exodus 22:23
“Note, It is a great comfort to those who are injured and oppressed by men that they have a God to go to who will do more than give them the hearing; and it ought to be a terror to those who are oppressive that they have the cry of the poor against them, which God will hear.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Exodus 22:24
“Men that have a sense of justice and honour will espouse the injured cause of the weak and helpless; and shall not the righteous God do it? Observe the equity of the sentence here passed upon those that oppress the widows and fatherless: their wives shall become widows, and their children fatherless; and the Lord is known by these judgments, which he sometimes executes still.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Lending, Pledges, and Holy Living
The Hebrew word for usury here is neshech, from a root meaning to bite, which Adam Clarke traces to the way a small charge spreads until it consumes a man's substance. The rule as written covers lending to one of my people that is poor, and Deuteronomy 23:20 allows interest from a stranger, so the two verses have to be read together. How far the prohibition reaches has been argued for centuries, with Clement of Alexandria in the Stromata reading it as free giving with open hands and John Calvin reading it as aimed at the oppression of the poor rather than at every commercial loan. Nehemiah 5 is the one place in the Old Testament where the law is enforced in public.
Exodus 22:25
“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.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
2 more voices on this verse
Exodus 22:25
“There is a great deal about sharing and exchanging, but it is enough to say that the law forbids lending at interest to a brother. By brother it means not merely one born of the same parents but a member of the same tribe or one of the same faith, who shares in the same Logos. The law does not deem it right to collect interest on the capital. It seeks to enable free giving to those in need, with hands and minds wide open. God is the creator of this free gift.”
Clement of Alexandria · written before 215 · The Stromata Book 2patristic
Exodus 22:25
“Neither shalt thou lay upon him usury - נשך 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 נשך 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
A cloak taken as security has to go back before nightfall, which leaves the lender holding a pledge only in daylight and makes the loan nearly a gift. The reason given is God's own character, set out in three clauses, wherein shall he sleep, and I will hear, for I am gracious. Amos 2:8 reports the law broken, with men laying themselves down upon clothes laid to pledge beside every altar, and Deuteronomy 24:12-13 repeats the rule and calls its keeping righteousness.
Exodus 22:26
“If thou - take thy neighbor’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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Exodus 22:27
“It appears also that one who does not give back his pledge to a poor man stands condemned with God, for the following threat is directed against such a one: "He who does not receive back his pledge will cry to me," says the Lord, "and I will hear him because I am compassionate."[Of old] it was wicked and unlawful to gather the sheaves left after the harvest, or to glean the vines after the vintage or to gather up the olives that remain after the trees were picked, because these things were to be left for the poor.”
Basil of Caesarea · written before 379 · Commentary (church-history corpus)patristic
The word rendered gods is elohim, the same word used of the judges at verses 8 and 9, and readers have long divided over which is meant here. Most commentators take it as the magistrates, which the second half of the verse about the ruler of thy people supports, while Adam Clarke argues it should be understood of the true God only. Paul settles nothing about the word and simply obeys the verse at Acts 23:5, withdrawing his words against the high priest by quoting it.
Exodus 22:28
“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 [תקלל 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Exodus 22:28
“Princes and magistrates are our fathers, whom the fifth commandment obliges 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 the ruler was then his most unrighteous persecutor, Acts xxiii.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Cross references
Exodus 22:28
- Quoted inActs 23:5“Brothers,” Paul replied, “I was not aware that he was the high priest, for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’”
'Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people' ('for it is written')
The firstborn thread returns, and it runs back to Exodus 13:2, where the word sanctify occurs for the first time in Scripture and lands on the firstborn spared in Egypt, and to 13:13, where a son is redeemed by another life. The claim is stated bare here, the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me, with the buying back assumed from the earlier chapter. The eighth day set for the ox and the sheep is the day of circumcision at Genesis 17:12 and the day Leviticus 22:27 fixes for the same animals, and Adam Clarke notes that Roman practice reckoned a lamb clean on the eighth day too.
Exodus 22:29
“The offering of firstfruits appears to have been a custom of primitive antiquity and was connected with the earliest acts of sacrifice. See Gen 4:3-4. The references to it here and in Exo 23:19 had probably been handed down from patriarchal times. The specific law relating to the firstborn of living creatures was brought out in a strong light in connection with the deliverance from Egypt Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12-13; compare Exo 23:19; Lev 22:27; Deu 26:2-11; Neh 10:35. The first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors - See the margin.”
Exodus 22:30
“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 faetus die octavo purus est, bovis trigesimo - Plin. Hist. Nat., lib. viii.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Exodus 22:30
“Scripture says, "At least grant the offspring to its mother for its first seven days." For if nothing comes to be without reason and milk flows in the mothers for the nourishment of the offspring, then in taking the offspring away from the providential endowment of milk, a person is doing violence to nature. So Greeks and anyone else who runs the law down ought to blush for shame if the law is generous over irrational beasts, whereas they actually expose human offspring to die.”
Clement of Alexandria · written before 215 · The Stromata Book 2patristic
A chapter of oxen, fires, pledges and dowries ends on holiness, and the mark given for it is what a man will and will not eat. Flesh torn by beasts is refused for the same reason verse 13 accepted it as evidence, since the blood was never drawn off and the carcass had lain with an unclean animal, and Leviticus 17:15 and 22:8 repeat the rule. The summons itself returns at Leviticus 19:2 and Peter quotes it to scattered believers at 1 Peter 1:16.
Exodus 22:31
“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.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
How this psalm is built
The form: Case law on property and on the community, the second stretch of the ordinances titled at 21:1, as Wesley classes it.
The patterns in this chapter
| Device | What it does | Where to see it |
|---|---|---|
| Restitution counted out in multiples | The chapter fixes a number to each theft. Five oxen for an ox, four sheep for a sheep, double where the animal is found alive, and double again where a deposit is stolen and the thief is caught. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown read the higher figure for the ox as set by its greater use in labour, and the double payment as the penalty for a thief who was probably no practised hand.Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871, on Exodus 22:1. | Exodus 22:1, Exodus 22:4, Exodus 22:7, Exodus 22:9 |
| Because you were foreigners in Egypt | The reason given for the law on the foreign resident at verse 21 is the hearers' own past. Chapter 23 says it again at verse 9, and adds that they know how it feels. Adam Clarke reads the second of the two as an appeal to what the hearers had themselves suffered, the fears and the forebodings a stranger carries.Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible, 1832, on Exodus 23:9. | Exodus 22:21, Exodus 23:9 |
| God speaking in the first person, inside a list of rulings | The rulings are stated in the third person until verse 23. There God speaks as the one who will hear the cry and answer it, saying that His anger will be kindled and that the oppressor's own wife will become a widow. Matthew Henry reads the sentence as an equity, the oppressor's household made into what he made of another man's.Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1710, on Exodus 22:24. | Exodus 22:23, Exodus 22:24, Exodus 22:27 |
The chapter stands inside the Book of the Covenant, between the persons and injuries of chapter 21 and the courts and feasts of chapter 23. Its own argument is that the covenant reaches the cases a court cannot reach. A thief who is caught pays a multiple. A man who mistreats a widow is answered by God directly, and Adam Clarke notes that offences against the law of verse 22 are left to no judge's discretion at all.
10 more paragraphs on the patterns
The historical value
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown read the fire law of verse 6 against the summer of that country. The parched herbage and the long droughts make kindling a fire dangerous, and a thing to be done with caution. Adam Clarke reads the seven days of verse 30 as a matter of the animal's own health. He sets beside it the Roman practice recorded by Pliny, where a lamb was counted clean on the eighth day and a calf on the thirtieth. Adam Clarke also holds that the offence of verse 19 was an Egyptian practice, and cites Sonnini's travels for its continuing in Egypt in his own day. Each of those is the commentator's claim and is given here as his.
The New Testament's use
Verse 28 is quoted at Acts 23:5. Paul, having spoken sharply to the high priest, answers that he did not know the man's office, and quotes the line, do not speak evil about the ruler of your people. Albert Barnes points to that verse for the second half of the command, and Matthew Henry notes that Paul owned the law while the ruler was his own unrighteous persecutor.
The law of verse 25 on lending without interest to a poor Israelite has no New Testament citation, and the estate carries it as an owed feature page raised by the Psalm 15 lane.
The debated reading
What the word translated God at verse 28 means is the chapter's contested point. The Berean text reads, you must not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people. Albert Barnes records that the Hebrew is elohim, and notes the same word at 21:6, where the Berean has judges. He says that many take it as the name of God, and holds that this seems best to represent the Hebrew and to suit the context. The reading that takes it of judges follows from the use at 21:6 and 22:8 and 22:9, where the same word stands for the men who decide the case. Matthew Henry takes the verse of both together, since princes and magistrates are fathers under the fifth commandment.
What verse 18 forbids is a second question. Adam Clarke doubts whether the Hebrew word translated witch means a person who practised divination by spiritual agency, and states plainly that the existence of the law proves the existence of the thing. He argues from the law to the practice, which is his own argument and is given here as his.
Where to go deeper
The protected classes of verses 21 to 24 stand at the widow, orphan and stranger. The devoting of verse 20 stands at the fear of the LORD, and the firstborn of verse 29 at the firstborn. The procedure of verses 7 to 9 stands at discipline and lawsuits. The codes this law is compared with stand at the Bible and the ancient Near East. The holy people of verse 31 stands at royal priesthood.
Keep studying
Studies5
Places1
Sources for this chapter
The summary
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory; John Calvin, Commentaries; John Wesley, Notes on the Old Testament and Matthew Henry, Complete Commentary.
The form and classifications
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible, 1832, on Exodus 22:7; Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments, 1832 to 1869, on Exodus 22:20 and John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, 1765, on Exodus 21:1.
The exposition
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible; Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments; Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; John Calvin, Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony; John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament; Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch and Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible.