Exodus 22 Restitution

seekeroftruth

Well-Known Member
Exodus 22:5 “If anyone grazes their livestock in a field or vineyard and lets them stray and they graze in someone else’s field, the offender must make restitution from the best of their own field or vineyard.

6 “If a fire breaks out and spreads into thornbushes so that it burns shocks of grain or standing grain or the whole field, the one who started the fire must make restitution.

7 “If anyone gives a neighbor silver or goods for safekeeping and they are stolen from the neighbor’s house, the thief, if caught, must pay back double. 8 But if the thief is not found, the owner of the house must appear before the judges, and they must(b) determine whether the owner of the house has laid hands on the other person’s property. 9 In all cases of illegal possession of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any other lost property about which somebody says, ‘This is mine,’ both parties are to bring their cases before the judges.[c] The one whom the judges declare[d] guilty must pay back double to the other.​

b. Exodus 22:8 Or before God, and he will
c. Exodus 22:9 Or before God
d. Exodus 22:9 Or whom God declares

This is from GodVine.

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.

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. Whatever goods were thus left in the hands of another person, that person, according to the Mosaic law, became responsible for them; if they were stolen, and the thief was found, he was to pay double; if he could not be found, the oath of the person who had them in keeping, made before the magistrates, that he knew nothing of them, was considered a full acquittance. Among the Romans, if goods were lost which a man had entrusted to his neighbor, the depositary was obliged to pay their full value. But if a man had been driven by necessity, as in case of fire, to lodge his goods with one of his neighbors, and the goods were lost, the depositary was obliged to pay double their value, because of his unfaithfulness in a case of such distress, where his dishonesty, connected with the destruction by the fire, had completed the ruin of the sufferer.

It was necessary that such a matter should come before the judges, because the person in whose possession the goods were found might have had them by a fair and honest purchase; and, by sifting the business, the thief might be found out, and if found, be obliged to pay double to his neighbor.

Back in the late 70's I had a job at the Ranch House Restaurant in Kissimmee, Florida. There was a woman who worked there who was on work release from prison. She said she stole a bunch of money. She said, even though she got caught and had to do two years for the theft, the money was hidden and it would be there when she got out. The amount she stole was more than she could earn in twice that time, so she figured she sort of got away with it. Boy that bugged me!

Now, I like the set amounts for retribution to be paid. If she had been forced to pay back double what she stole, then maybe the theft wouldn't be so tempting to this woman, after all three hots and a cot is sometimes pretty tempting to a homeless person, right?

:coffee:
 
Top