Show Bible Commentary For A Bible Verse

Click here to show/hide instructions.

Selected Verse: Exodus 22:1 - Strong Concordance

Verse	Translation	Text
Ex 22:1	Strong Concordance	If a man [0376] shall steal [01589] an ox [07794], or a sheep [07716], and kill [02873] it, or sell [04376] it; he shall restore [07999] five [02568] oxen [01241] for an ox [07794], and four [0702] sheep [06629] for a sheep [07716].
	King James	If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

Summary Of Commentaries Associated With The Selected Verse

Open All | Close All Open All | Close All

A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [1882]
LAWS CONCERNING THEFT. (Exo. 22:1-31) If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep--The law respects the theft of cattle which constituted the chief part of their property. 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. A robber breaking into a house at midnight might, in self-defense, be slain with impunity; but if he was slain after sunrise, it would be considered murder, for it was not thought likely an assault would then be made upon the lives of the occupants. In every case where a thief could not make restitution, he was sold as a slave for the usual term.

A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [1882]

LAWS CONCERNING THEFT. (Exo. 22:1-31)

If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep--The law respects the theft of cattle which constituted the chief part of their property. 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. A robber breaking into a house at midnight might, in self-defense, be slain with impunity; but if he was slain after sunrise, it would be considered murder, for it was not thought likely an assault would then be made upon the lives of the occupants. In every case where a thief could not make restitution, he was sold as a slave for the usual term.

Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, [1834]
The theft of an ox appears to have been regarded as a greater crime than the theft of a sheep, because it showed a stronger purpose in wickedness to take the larger and more powerful animal. It may have been on similar moral ground that the thief, when he had proved his persistency in crime by adding to his theft the slaughter, or sale, of the animal, was to restore four times its value in the case of a sheep (compare the marginal references), and five times its value in the case of an ox; but if the animal was still in his possession alive (see Exo 22:4) he had to make only twofold restitution.

Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, [1834]

The theft of an ox appears to have been regarded as a greater crime than the theft of a sheep, because it showed a stronger purpose in wickedness to take the larger and more powerful animal. It may have been on similar moral ground that the thief, when he had proved his persistency in crime by adding to his theft the slaughter, or sale, of the animal, was to restore four times its value in the case of a sheep (compare the marginal references), and five times its value in the case of an ox; but if the animal was still in his possession alive (see Exo 22:4) he had to make only twofold restitution.

Commentary on the Old Testament, by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch [1857-78]
With regard to cattle-stealing, the law makes a distinction between what had been killed or sold, and what was still alive and in the thief's hand (or possession). In the latter case, the thief was to restore piece for piece twofold (Exo 22:4); in the former, he was to restore an ox fivefold and a small animal (a sheep or a goat) fourfold (Exo 22:1). The difference between the compensation for an ox and a small animal is to be accounted for from the comparative worth of the cattle to the possessor, which determined the magnitude of the theft and the amount of the compensation. But the other distinctions of twofold, fourfold, and fivefold restitution cannot be accounted for, either by supposing "that the animal slain or sold was lost to its master, and might have been of peculiar value to him" (Knobel), for such a consideration of personal feelings would have been quite foreign to the law-not to mention the fact that an animal that had been sold might be recovered by purchase; or from the fact that "the thief in this case had carried his crime still further" (Baumgarten), for the main thing was still the theft, not the consumption or sale of the animal stolen. The reason can only have lain in the educational purpose of the law: viz., in the intention to lead the thief to repent of his crime, to acknowledge his guilt, and to restore what he had stolen. Now, as long as he still retained the stolen animal in his own possession, having neither consumed nor parted with it, this was always in his power; but the possibility was gone as soon as it had either been consumed or sold (see by Archologie, 154, Note 3). (Note: Calvin gives the same explanation: Major in scelere obstinatio se prodit, ubi res furtiva in quaestum conversa est, nec spes est ulla resipiscentiae, atque ita continuo progressu duplicatur malae fidei crimen. Fieri potest ut fur statim post delictum contremiscat: qui vero animal occidere ausus est, aut vendere, prorsus in maleficio obduruit.) Exo 22:2-4 Into the midst of the laws relating to theft, we have one introduced here, prescribing what was to be done with the thief. "If the thief be found breaking in (i.e., by night according to Exo 22:3), and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood to him (the person smiting him); if the sun has risen upon him (the thief breaking in), there is blood to him:" i.e., in the latter case the person killing him drew upon himself blood-guiltiness (דּמים lit., drops of blood, blood shed), in the former case he did not. "The reason for this disparity between a thief by night and one in the day is, that the power and intention of a nightly thief are uncertain, and whether he may not have come for the purpose of committing murder; and that by night, if thieves are resisted, they often proceed to murder in their rage; and also that they can neither be recognised, nor resisted and apprehended with safety" (Calovius). In the latter case the slayer contracted blood-guiltiness, because even the life of a thief was to be spared, as he could be punished for his crime, and what was stolen be restored according to the regulations laid down in Exo 22:1 and Exo 22:4. But if he had not sufficient to make retribution, he was to be sold "for his stolen," i.e., for the value of what he had stolen, that he might earn by his labour the compensation to be paid.

Commentary on the Old Testament, by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch [1857-78]

With regard to cattle-stealing, the law makes a distinction between what had been killed or sold, and what was still alive and in the thief's hand (or possession). In the latter case, the thief was to restore piece for piece twofold (Exo 22:4); in the former, he was to restore an ox fivefold and a small animal (a sheep or a goat) fourfold (Exo 22:1). The difference between the compensation for an ox and a small animal is to be accounted for from the comparative worth of the cattle to the possessor, which determined the magnitude of the theft and the amount of the compensation. But the other distinctions of twofold, fourfold, and fivefold restitution cannot be accounted for, either by supposing "that the animal slain or sold was lost to its master, and might have been of peculiar value to him" (Knobel), for such a consideration of personal feelings would have been quite foreign to the law-not to mention the fact that an animal that had been sold might be recovered by purchase; or from the fact that "the thief in this case had carried his crime still further" (Baumgarten), for the main thing was still the theft, not the consumption or sale of the animal stolen. The reason can only have lain in the educational purpose of the law: viz., in the intention to lead the thief to repent of his crime, to acknowledge his guilt, and to restore what he had stolen. Now, as long as he still retained the stolen animal in his own possession, having neither consumed nor parted with it, this was always in his power; but the possibility was gone as soon as it had either been consumed or sold (see by Archologie, 154, Note 3).

(Note: Calvin gives the same explanation: Major in scelere obstinatio se prodit, ubi res furtiva in quaestum conversa est, nec spes est ulla resipiscentiae, atque ita continuo progressu duplicatur malae fidei crimen. Fieri potest ut fur statim post delictum contremiscat: qui vero animal occidere ausus est, aut vendere, prorsus in maleficio obduruit.)

Exo 22:2-4

Into the midst of the laws relating to theft, we have one introduced here, prescribing what was to be done with the thief. "If the thief be found breaking in (i.e., by night according to Exo 22:3), and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood to him (the person smiting him); if the sun has risen upon him (the thief breaking in), there is blood to him:" i.e., in the latter case the person killing him drew upon himself blood-guiltiness (דּמים lit., drops of blood, blood shed), in the former case he did not. "The reason for this disparity between a thief by night and one in the day is, that the power and intention of a nightly thief are uncertain, and whether he may not have come for the purpose of committing murder; and that by night, if thieves are resisted, they often proceed to murder in their rage; and also that they can neither be recognised, nor resisted and apprehended with safety" (Calovius). In the latter case the slayer contracted blood-guiltiness, because even the life of a thief was to be spared, as he could be punished for his crime, and what was stolen be restored according to the regulations laid down in Exo 22:1 and Exo 22:4. But if he had not sufficient to make retribution, he was to be sold "for his stolen," i.e., for the value of what he had stolen, that he might earn by his labour the compensation to be paid.

Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, by John Wesley [1754-65]
Five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep - More for an ox than for a sheep, because the owner, besides all the other profit, lost the daily labour of his ox. If we were not able to make restitution, he must be sold for a slave: the court of judgment was to do it, and it is likely the person robbed received the money. Thus with us in some cases, felons are transported to the Plantations, where only, Englishmen know what slavery is. But let it be observed, the sentence is not slavery, but banishment: nor can any Englishman be sold, unless he first indent himself to the captain that carries him over.

Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, by John Wesley [1754-65]

Five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep - More for an ox than for a sheep, because the owner, besides all the other profit, lost the daily labour of his ox. If we were not able to make restitution, he must be sold for a slave: the court of judgment was to do it, and it is likely the person robbed received the money. Thus with us in some cases, felons are transported to the Plantations, where only, Englishmen know what slavery is. But let it be observed, the sentence is not slavery, but banishment: nor can any Englishman be sold, unless he first indent himself to the captain that carries him over.

Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible - Published 1810-1826
If a man shall steal - This chapter consists chiefly of judicial laws, as the preceding chapter does of political; and in it the same good sense, and well-marked attention to the welfare of the community and the moral improvement of each individual, are equally evident. In our translation of this verse, by rendering different Hebrew words by the same term in English, we have greatly obscured the sense. I shall produce the verse with the original words which I think improperly translated, because one English term is used for two Hebrew words, which in this place certainly do not mean the same thing. If a man shall steal an ox (שור shor) or a sheep, (שה seh), and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen (בקר bakar) for an ox, (שור shor), and four sheep (צאן tson) for a sheep (שה seh). I think it must appear evident that the sacred writer did not intend that these words should be understood as above. A shor certainly is different from a bakar, and a seh from a tson. Where the difference in every case lies, wherever these words occur, it is difficult to say. The shor and the bakar are doubtless creatures of the beeve kind, and are used in different parts of the sacred writings to signify the bull, the ox, the heifer, the steer, and the calf. The seh and the tson are used to signify the ram, the wether, the ewe, the lamb, the he-goat, the she-goat, and the kid. And the latter word צאן tson seems frequently to signify the flock, composed of either of these lesser cattle, or both sorts conjoined. As שור shor is used, Job 21:10, for a bull probably it may mean so here. If a man steal a Bull he shall give five Oxen for him, which we may presume was no more than his real value, as very few bulls could be kept in a country destitute of horses, where oxen were so necessary to till the ground. For though some have imagined that there were no castrated cattle among the Jews, yet this cannot be admitted on the above reason; for as they had no horses, and bulls would have been unmanageable and dangerous, they must have had oxen for the purposes of agriculture. Tson צאן is used for a flock either of sheep or goats, and seh שה for an individual of either species. For every seh, four, taken indifferently from the tson or flock must be given; i.e., a sheep stolen might be recompensed with four out of the flock, whether of sheep or goats: so that a goat might be compensated with four sheep, or a sheep with four goats.

Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible - Published 1810-1826

If a man shall steal - This chapter consists chiefly of judicial laws, as the preceding chapter does of political; and in it the same good sense, and well-marked attention to the welfare of the community and the moral improvement of each individual, are equally evident.

In our translation of this verse, by rendering different Hebrew words by the same term in English, we have greatly obscured the sense. I shall produce the verse with the original words which I think improperly translated, because one English term is used for two Hebrew words, which in this place certainly do not mean the same thing. If a man shall steal an ox (שור shor) or a sheep, (שה seh), and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen (בקר bakar) for an ox, (שור shor), and four sheep (צאן tson) for a sheep (שה seh). I think it must appear evident that the sacred writer did not intend that these words should be understood as above. A shor certainly is different from a bakar, and a seh from a tson. Where the difference in every case lies, wherever these words occur, it is difficult to say. The shor and the bakar are doubtless creatures of the beeve kind, and are used in different parts of the sacred writings to signify the bull, the ox, the heifer, the steer, and the calf. The seh and the tson are used to signify the ram, the wether, the ewe, the lamb, the he-goat, the she-goat, and the kid. And the latter word צאן tson seems frequently to signify the flock, composed of either of these lesser cattle, or both sorts conjoined.

As שור shor is used, Job 21:10, for a bull probably it may mean so here. If a man steal a Bull he shall give five Oxen for him, which we may presume was no more than his real value, as very few bulls could be kept in a country destitute of horses, where oxen were so necessary to till the ground. For though some have imagined that there were no castrated cattle among the Jews, yet this cannot be admitted on the above reason; for as they had no horses, and bulls would have been unmanageable and dangerous, they must have had oxen for the purposes of agriculture. Tson צאן is used for a flock either of sheep or goats, and seh שה for an individual of either species. For every seh, four, taken indifferently from the tson or flock must be given; i.e., a sheep stolen might be recompensed with four out of the flock, whether of sheep or goats: so that a goat might be compensated with four sheep, or a sheep with four goats.

Top