Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:1, 4

1 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.

4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.

In the previous chapter we heard all the laws related to killing. These laws covered both the killing of people and of livestock, and both the intentional and the unintentional variances of each. Today’s verses now shift from killing to stealing, and there are some interesting moral lessons to be gleaned here.

The first that stands out to me is that the penalty for the deliberate theft of an animal is substantially greater than the penalty we already read for the accidental killing of an animal. It is a key moral principle that the penalty is not based only on what the outcome was (the loss of the animal), but what the underlying motivation behind that outcome were. The penalty is according to the man’s guilt more than the deprivation that was suffered.

Also, note how in the second verse it says that a thief found with the animal still alive is required to return the creature, and then one also of his own. We already heard the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and this is consistent with that. Since this man had sought to reduce his neighbor’s livestock by one, now he shall experience what it is to have one of his herd reduced by one instead.

And finally, note how the penalty is even worse if the thief has already sold the creature away, or killed it, before he is caught. Now, instead of returning the creature and being out one of his own, he must now give up four or five of his animals. I assume the significantly more severe punishment is because the thief stole with the intention to destroy. He didn’t just take from the rightful owner, he took it out to where it could not ever be given back to the owner. That is a darker sin than to have taken, but to have left the door open for remorse and restoration.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 44:7-10

7 And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing:

8 Behold, the money, which we found in our sacks’ mouths, we brought again unto thee out of the land of Canaan: how then should we steal out of thy lord’s house silver or gold?

9 With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my lord’s bondmen.

10 And he said, Now also let it be according unto your words: he with whom it is found shall be my servant; and ye shall be blameless.

I find it very interesting that Jacob’s sons are so confident in declaring their innocence. Yes, they know that they have done no wrong, but they also didn’t put the money into their sacks the first time they came to Egypt, yet there it was even so. I would think an abundance of caution, and suspicion of treachery would be warranted, but apparently it doesn’t cross their minds that they might be walking into a trap.

For if it did cross their minds, why on earth would they stake their very lives on the matter? Their own suggestion is that if one of them has committed the crime then that brother should be killed, and all the others will be made into slaves!

The steward cools down their fervor somewhat. They won’t all be punished if only one of them has committed the crime, and the thief won’t be killed, but he will have to become Joseph’s slave. Given that they are willing to the higher punishment, the brothers are agreeable to this lesser one as well. And so, they willingly commit themselves to their own ruin.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 31:17-20

17 Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels; 

18 And he carried away all his cattle, and all his goods which he had gotten, the cattle of his getting, which he had gotten in Padan-aram, for to go to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan. 

19 And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father’s. 

20 And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled.

Things had certainly deteriorated very far between Jacob and Laban, that Jacob would feel it necessary to steal away in secret. Given that he was living three day’s journey away it must not have been very hard to sneak away. But it is important to note that he did not depart secretly because he was a thief. He took only the things that belonged to him, the cattle that he had earned and not the ones that he didn’t.

What’s more, it does not appear that he abandoned his duties to Laban’s cattle either. Verse 19 seems to suggest that he did not leave them to fend for themselves, but waited until Laban took them in from the field for their shearing. 

But while Jacob may have conducted himself honestly and honorably, the same could not be said for Rachel. Before leaving she stole the images, or idols, of her father. There are a few disturbing details here. First, evidently Laban was worshipping false gods, which is another mark against his character. Secondly, why did Rachel take them? Had she inherited her father’s superstitious idolatry? Did she intend to sell them to make up for receiving no dowry? I suppose she might have been trying to remove the temptation from her father, but overall, her behavior seems highly suspect.