Exodus Chapter 22
More Laws to Direct Judges
A. Laws Regarding Personal Property and Restitution
(Exodus 22:1-4)
“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double.”
This passage continues the civil laws given to Israel, providing judges with specific instructions on how to apply the Eighth Commandment, “You shall not steal,” in daily judicial practice. The laws here concern theft, restitution, and the boundaries of personal defense.
If a man steals livestock, such as an ox or a sheep, and sells or kills it, he is to repay a significant multiple—five oxen for one ox and four sheep for one sheep. This higher penalty reflects deliberate intent and accounts for the loss of livelihood, since an ox was vital for plowing and work. The Lord emphasized restitution over incarceration, requiring offenders to compensate victims and make amends directly. The Mosaic Law saw imprisonment as unproductive; rather, the goal was restoration of the victim’s loss and moral correction of the offender.
If a thief was caught in the act at night and killed in self-defense, the property owner was innocent of bloodshed. However, if this occurred in daylight, when the threat could be assessed more clearly, the defender was accountable for unnecessary lethal force. This distinction upheld both the sanctity of life and the right to protect one’s household. Even a thief retained limited rights under God’s merciful law.
If the thief could not make restitution, he was to be sold as an indentured servant, the proceeds of which went to repay the victim. Theft that did not result in destruction of property—where the stolen item was recovered—required double restitution. These laws established a balanced principle: the guilty must restore what they took and compensate for harm caused, but justice must remain proportional. The law emphasized responsibility, fairness, and moral accountability, values often lost in modern systems of punishment that focus on imprisonment rather than restitution.
(Exodus 22:5-8)
“If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed, and lets loose his animal, and it feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard. If fire breaks out and catches in thorns, so that stacked grain, standing grain, or the field is consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor’s goods.”
This passage extends the principle of restitution to include damages caused by negligence or carelessness. The owner of an animal was responsible if it grazed in another man’s field, and he was required to restore what was lost using the best of his own produce. The text teaches that responsibility extends beyond deliberate wrongdoing—it includes careless oversight. Men are accountable not only for harm they intentionally cause, but also for the damage they permit through negligence.
Similarly, if a fire spreads and destroys another’s property, the one who started it must make full restitution. The law demanded that every person live conscientiously, with regard for his neighbor’s welfare and possessions. This principle reflects God’s moral order, where the physical and moral realms are connected: material damage inflicted by carelessness is considered sin against both man and God.
When money or goods were entrusted to someone for safekeeping, that person became a steward responsible for their security. If the property was stolen and the thief was caught, double restitution was paid. If no thief was found, the caretaker was examined by the judges to ensure honesty. This system upheld integrity and accountability in all transactions.
These statutes reinforced respect for personal property, honesty in stewardship, and diligence in daily conduct. They reflected a society built on trust, moral integrity, and the understanding that every man answers to God for how he treats the possessions and welfare of his neighbor.
More Laws to Direct Judges
B. Continued Laws Regarding Restitution and Responsibility
(Exodus 22:9-13)
“For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor. If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven away, no one seeing it, then an oath of the LORD shall be between them both, that he has not put his hand into his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept that, and he shall not make it good. But if, in fact, it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. If it is torn to pieces by a beast, then he shall bring it as evidence, and he shall not make good what was torn.”
This passage presents further applications of the principle of restitution, focusing on cases of property disputes, entrusted goods, and situations in which loss or damage occurs without clear witnesses. God’s intent was to establish justice based on truth, fairness, and personal integrity, rather than assumption or revenge.
When a dispute arose concerning property—whether livestock, clothing, or any possession—the case was to be brought before the judges for evaluation. Israel’s judicial system rested on the presumption that ownership did not lapse simply because something was lost. The finder was not entitled to keep what did not belong to him. As Exodus declares, “Any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his” remained the rightful property of its original owner, even if found by another. Unlike the modern phrase “finders keepers,” the Mosaic system demanded that ownership be proven and respected.
Both parties were to appear before the judges, who would hear testimony and decide the matter impartially. The one found guilty—whether for theft, deceit, or false accusation—was required to pay double restitution. This ensured that both theft and slander were taken seriously. A false accusation that harmed another’s reputation or property rights carried financial consequence. Justice, therefore, extended beyond punishing theft to correcting dishonesty and manipulation.
When property was entrusted to another for safekeeping and something happened without witnesses—such as an animal dying or being driven away—the case depended on an oath before the Lord. The accused swore innocence, declaring before God that he had not mishandled or stolen the property. The owner was required to accept this oath, even if left uncompensated. This upheld the sacredness of an oath and reinforced the idea that truth was ultimately accountable to God.
However, if it could be proven that the item was stolen, restitution was owed to the rightful owner. On the other hand, if an animal was attacked and killed by a wild beast, the caretaker could provide the remains as evidence and be excused from repayment. This demonstrated both vigilance and honesty. The Lord’s design emphasized moral responsibility, not rigid legalism. The goal was to cultivate righteousness in dealings between neighbors and to preserve trust within the covenant community.
The broader principle applies to believers today: integrity before God must govern all business and personal interactions. As the Apostle Paul later wrote, Christians should avoid taking disputes among themselves to secular courts, seeking rather to resolve matters within the body of believers. “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?” (1 Corinthians 6:1). The Mosaic model of fairness, accountability, and integrity remains foundational for godly conduct.
(Exodus 22:14-15)
“And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good. If its owner was with it, he shall not make it good; if it was hired, it came for its hire.”
These verses address the principles of responsibility in borrowing and lending. When a person borrowed something—whether an animal, a tool, or another valuable item—he was to treat it with care and return it in the same condition. If damage or death occurred while the owner was absent, the borrower bore full responsibility and had to make restitution. However, if the owner was present at the time of loss, the borrower was not held liable, since the owner shared responsibility for its use.
This distinction reflects the Lord’s concern for justice and reasonableness. God’s law did not allow one to profit from another’s misfortune, but neither did it hold someone guilty for events beyond his control. When something was hired, such as an ox for plowing or a tool for labor, its cost already included a degree of assumed risk, as “it came for its hire.” Therefore, no additional restitution was required.
The underlying principle is one of fairness and moral responsibility. Borrowing implies trust, and with trust comes duty. The borrower must act with integrity, ensuring the welfare of what he has received, while the lender must act with discernment, understanding that risk accompanies every act of trust. God’s justice system, therefore, balanced mercy with accountability, teaching that righteousness governs even the most ordinary aspects of daily life.
Summary:
Exodus 22:9–15 demonstrates how God’s law upheld honesty, stewardship, and responsibility among His people. It recognized both the rights of property owners and the obligations of caretakers, borrowers, and judges. Justice was not based on emotion but on evidence, character, and truth before the Lord. Through these commands, Israel was taught to live in a society where trust, integrity, and fairness reflected the holy nature of their God.
More Laws to Direct Judges
B. Moral and Ceremonial Laws
(Exodus 22:16–17)
“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.”
This law addressed the moral responsibility of a man who seduced a young, unmarried woman. The Hebrew word translated virgin (betulah) refers to an unmarried girl who was presumed to be sexually pure. The act of seduction or enticement (Hebrew: pathah) implied persuasion through flattery or emotional manipulation. In such a case, the law required the man to pay the full bride-price—essentially the dowry paid to the woman’s father—as if he were marrying her. This established a serious, tangible consequence for pre-marital sexual relations and made clear that such acts were never considered casual or without obligation.
In practice, this law strongly discouraged fornication. It required the man either to marry the woman he seduced or to compensate her family for the loss of her value in the marriage market. By tying physical intimacy to marriage or its financial equivalent, the law upheld sexual purity and social responsibility. There was no concept of “casual sex” in God’s moral order; sexual relations were reserved for the covenant of marriage, and violating that covenant incurred a debt that could not be ignored.
This principle is echoed in the New Testament, where the Apostle Paul wrote, “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For ‘The two,’ He says, ‘shall become one flesh.’” (1 Corinthians 6:15–16, NKJV). Scripture makes it clear that sexual union creates a spiritual and physical bond designed by God for marriage.
If the father of the woman refused to give her to the man, the seducer was still required to pay the bride-price as compensation for dishonoring his daughter. This preserved the father’s authority and upheld family honor. The law placed responsibility squarely on the man, not the woman, recognizing that she was the one enticed or taken advantage of. This both protected women and reinforced the sacredness of sexual purity before marriage.
The moral implications extend beyond the ancient context. A society that devalues chastity, modesty, and the sanctity of marriage invites moral decay. As the passage teaches, the worth of virginity should not be measured by cultural trends but by God’s design. When purity is treated cheaply, relationships lose meaning, and families lose stability. By contrast, when sexual integrity is guarded and honored, it strengthens the moral foundation of the community.
(Exodus 22:18–20)
“You shall not permit a sorceress to live. Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death. He who sacrifices to any god, except to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”
These verses identify three capital crimes—sorcery, bestiality, and idolatry—each representing a direct affront to God’s holiness and the moral order He established for His people.
The first, sorcery, refers to attempts to contact or control supernatural powers apart from God. In ancient cultures, such practices involved invoking demonic forces, using enchantments, or employing drugs and potions to alter perception—a connection preserved in the Greek term pharmakos, meaning “poisoner” or “user of drugs.” God’s command to execute sorcerers underscored the spiritual and social danger of occult activity. It was not superstition but divine justice, for sorcery invited demonic influence and corruption into the covenant community. As Scripture later affirms, “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry” (1 Samuel 15:23, NKJV).
The King James Version translates sorceress as witch. Both men and women could be guilty of this sin, but women were more frequently mentioned due to their involvement in ancient forms of enchantment and fertility cults. God’s law was direct and uncompromising: “You shall not permit a sorceress to live.” The severity of the punishment demonstrated that such practices were not merely forbidden—they were spiritually lethal to Israel’s covenant purity.
The second crime, bestiality, represented one of the most grotesque forms of sexual perversion. It was practiced among Canaanite fertility cults, often in connection with pagan rituals celebrating the gods of nature. God’s command—“Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death”—reflected His absolute rejection of such defilement. This sin dehumanized the individual and desecrated God’s created order. The Apostle Paul later described such degeneration as the result of rejecting the knowledge of God: “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves” (Romans 1:24, NKJV). When man turns from worshiping the Creator to worshiping creation, moral collapse follows.
The third crime, idolatry, struck at the heart of Israel’s covenant relationship with the Lord. “He who sacrifices to any god, except to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” The Hebrew word translated utterly destroyed (herem) denotes something placed under divine ban—set apart for destruction as an act of judgment. To worship or sacrifice to other gods was treason against the King of Heaven. Though this command was often disobeyed in Israel’s later history, its principle never changed: God alone is worthy of worship. When Elijah executed the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18:40, he enacted this very judgment upon those who led Israel into spiritual adultery.
Together, these laws reveal God’s zeal for holiness and the preservation of His people from corruption. Sorcery perverted the spiritual realm, bestiality perverted the moral realm, and idolatry perverted the divine order of worship. All three were capital offenses because they threatened the foundation of Israel’s covenant identity as a holy nation set apart for God’s glory.
In our own age, though the civil penalties no longer apply under grace, the moral truths remain. Scripture warns that “the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery... of which I tell you beforehand... that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19–21, NKJV). God still calls His people to reject the occult, to uphold sexual purity, and to worship Him alone.
(Exodus 22:21)
“You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
This verse issues a plain moral imperative, it measures a people’s righteousness by how they treat those who are weak and alien among them, and it grounds that ethic in memory, reminding Israel of its own exile in Egypt. The command is not an abstract humanitarianism, it is covenantal and pedagogical, it shapes national character by forcing remembrance of God’s saving acts and by translating that memory into concrete mercy. The text does not deny that civil authorities have a responsibility to secure borders and preserve order, rather it insists that private persons and communities must not exploit, mistreat, or grind down a stranger who lives among them. The obligation flows from empathy informed by history, and it resists the natural tendency to close ranks and care only for one’s kin. The broader Torah repeats and sharpens this teaching, as when the LORD commands, “And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him, The stranger who dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt, I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:33–34, NKJV). Likewise the historical rationale is restated, “He executes the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:18–19, NKJV). Practically then, Christian charity here is not naive permissiveness, it is disciplined kindness that recognizes lawful civic responsibilities while forbidding private oppression, it preserves human dignity, and it keeps the covenant community honest before God.
(Exodus 22:22–24)
“You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict them in any way, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry; and My wrath will become hot, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.”
These verses place the widow and the fatherless under God’s special protection, they single out the most vulnerable as objects of divine concern and threaten severe judgment against those who exploit them. The language is stark because the social consequences of neglecting widows and orphans are catastrophic, and God will not be mocked by a people who abuse those He commands them to shelter. The Lord hears their cry, He acts on their behalf, and He promises corporate justice against oppressors, the warning equally deters individual cruelty and communal callousness. The New Testament echoes this priority, teaching that true religion is practical toward the vulnerable, “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27, NKJV). The Mosaic economy required practical networks of care, family and community obligations, and judicial enforcement where necessary. For the Christian teacher and elder, these verses demand that the church maintain structures of relief and discipline, that leaders ensure widows and orphans are not preyed upon, and that believers remember God’s fierce defense of the helpless as a corrective to private self-interest and civic indifference.
(Exodus 22:25–27)
“If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor’s garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What will he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious.”
These verses reveal the compassionate nature of God’s law in protecting the poor and restraining greed. Lending to the needy was to be an act of mercy, not an opportunity for profit. God explicitly forbade charging interest on loans made to fellow Israelites who were poor, reminding His people that generosity is a moral obligation, not a business transaction.
To charge interest on a relief loan was seen as exploiting another’s hardship. The Hebrew word translated interest (neshech) literally means “a bite,” portraying the practice as something that wounded or consumed another. Such “biting usury” was condemned as an unholy means of profit. In the ancient world, the poor borrowed out of necessity, not for business ventures. Therefore, these loans were acts of benevolence meant to restore dignity and provide stability, not mechanisms for enrichment.
This principle is repeated throughout Scripture. In Leviticus 25:35–37 (NKJV), the Lord commands, “If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you. You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit.” Likewise, Deuteronomy 15:7–8 (NKJV) reinforces the same ethic: “If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs.”
The text then turns to collateral, illustrating the principle of humane lending. If a man gave his garment as security for a loan, it was to be returned by nightfall because that cloak often served as his only covering. God viewed compassion as greater than commerce. To hold a poor man’s garment overnight was to strip him of warmth, dignity, and rest. Thus, mercy overruled procedure. The LORD’s warning—“And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious”—reveals His personal concern for justice. God identifies with the oppressed, and His grace ensures that the cries of the poor reach His ear.
In the New Testament, this same moral concern is mirrored in Christ’s compassion toward the poor and His command to give without expecting in return (Luke 6:34–36). True holiness involves reflecting the heart of God toward those who cannot repay.
(Exodus 22:28–31)
“You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people. You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep. It shall be with its mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me. And you shall be holy men to Me: you shall not eat meat torn by beasts in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs.”
This section summarizes the call to holiness and separation unto God, emphasizing respect for authority, obedience in giving, and moral purity. Each command reflects an aspect of covenant loyalty.
“You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.” The measure of a holy man begins with speech. Reverence for God is expressed not only through worship but also through how one speaks of divine and civil authority. The Hebrew word elohim used here can mean “God” or “judges.” In context, it likely refers to human rulers or judges, as seen earlier in Exodus 22:9 and echoed in Psalm 82:6 (NKJV): “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.’” The principle applies broadly: to revile or curse rightful authority is to show contempt for the order God has established. Paul affirmed this principle in Acts 23:5 (NKJV) when he said, “You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.”
Next, God commanded Israel to offer the firstfruits promptly: “You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices.” Giving to God was not to be postponed or neglected. Delaying one’s offering reflected spiritual indifference. As Trapp aptly notes, “True obedience is prompt and present, ready and speedy, without demurs and consults.” The act of giving the first and best of one’s labor acknowledged God as Provider and demonstrated faith that He would supply what remained.
“The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me” was a sacred reminder that everything belongs to God. The firstborn was redeemed with a monetary substitute as explained in Exodus 34:19–20 (NKJV): “All that open the womb are Mine… all the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem.” This practice reminded Israel of three truths: God deserves the best, Israel was His firstborn nation (Exodus 4:22), and their redemption from Egypt came through the death of Egypt’s firstborn.
“You shall be holy men to Me: you shall not eat meat torn by beasts in the field.” Holiness separated Israel from both pagan nations and animal-like behavior. To eat meat from a carcass torn by beasts blurred that distinction and defiled the person through contact with blood and unclean death. As Kaiser observes, the animal was unclean for two reasons—it had been killed by an unclean beast, and its blood remained within it. The command to “throw it to the dogs” symbolically affirmed that what was unfit for God’s people belonged to the lowest order of creatures.
In sum, holiness encompasses reverence for God, respect for authority, gratitude in giving, and purity in conduct. “And you shall be holy men to Me” stands as the theological climax of this chapter, capturing the intent of every preceding law. As Clarke noted, “No command was issued merely from the sovereignty of God. He gave them to the people as restraints on disorderly passions, and incentives to holiness; and hence He says, Ye shall be holy men unto Me.”
