seekeroftruth
Well-Known Member
Exodus 22:1 [a]“Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.
2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
a. Exodus 22:1 In Hebrew texts 22:1 is numbered 21:37, and 22:2-31 is numbered 22:1-30
This is all about understanding the equity of law, I guess. GodVine has these comments.
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 a thief, in breaking into a dwelling in the night, was slain, the person who slew him did not incur the guilt of blood; but if the same occurred in daylight, the slayer was guilty in accordance with Exodus 21:12. The distinction may have been based on the fact that in the light of day there was a fair chance of identifying and apprehending the thief.
If a thief, in breaking into a dwelling in the night, was slain, the person who slew him did not incur the guilt of blood; but if the same occurred in daylight, the slayer was guilty in accordance with Exodus 21:12. The distinction may have been based on the fact that in the light of day there was a fair chance of identifying and apprehending the thief.
These comments are from the Blueletterbible.org site.
The Mosaic Law did not send a person to jail because of theft. Instead, the thief was simply required to restore what he stole, plus an additional penalty.
If the person was unable to pay back what he stole, the thief was sold as an indentured laborer, with the money from the sale going to the victim.
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: A property owner had the right to protect his property with force - but only with reasonable force. The assumption was that if it was daylight, the property owner had the ability to defend himself short of lethal force.
In this passage, the penalty could be anywhere from 500% (he shall restore five oxen for an ox) to 200% (he shall restore double).
This can be regarded as a positive vision for the punishment of criminals, putting them to productive restitution and compensating the victims of their theft. These principles are often ignored in modern judicial systems.
This can be regarded as a positive vision for the punishment of criminals, putting them to productive restitution and compensating the victims of their theft. These principles are often ignored in modern judicial systems.
If the person was unable to pay back what he stole, the thief was sold as an indentured laborer, with the money from the sale going to the victim.
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: A property owner had the right to protect his property with force - but only with reasonable force. The assumption was that if it was daylight, the property owner had the ability to defend himself short of lethal force.
These laws make sense... why can't we have such simple laws? The answer, we're humans and we complicate everything.
