Praise the Lord Jesus Christ, please study this chapter and then answer all 44 questions at the end of this chapter.

Exodus Chapter 22

Exodus 22:1 “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.”

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 Exodus 22:4), he had to make only twofold restitution.

Here we see someone who had not just stolen, but also had done away with the stolen merchandise. The punishment fits the crime. This thief here, would feel the pain of the theft by restoring four and five times as much as he stole.

Exodus 22:2 “If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him.”

Rather, breaking in: i.e., making forcible entry into a dwelling-house. Most codes agree with the Mosaic in allowing the inmates of the house to resist such an attempt if made at night, and to shed the blood of the burglar, if necessary. He may be considered as having dissolved the “social compact,” and converted himself from a fellow-citizen into a public enemy. A murderous intent on his part may be suspected.

If a person was breaking and entering to steal and was killed in the process, the person who did the killing was not to be prosecuted, because he was doing this in self-defense.

Exodus 22:3 “If the sun be risen upon him, [there shall be] blood [shed] for him; [for] he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”

“If the sun be risen upon him”: The culpability of a householder’s actions against an intruder depended on whether the break-in (literally “digging through” the mud walls), was at night or in the daytime. At night, quick evaluation of an intruder’s intentions was not as clear as it might be in daytime. Nor would someone be awake and on hand to help.

This person caught stealing, should completely restore what was taken. If he had nothing that he could restore with, then he would be a slave until it was paid. If we had carried this out in our country, the jails would not be so full today.

Exodus 22:4 “If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.”

If he had not converted it, consumed it, or, if it were an animal, killed it, then, instead of the four-fold or five-fold restitution of Exodus 22:1, a restoration of double was to suffice.

Here again, just giving the stolen goods back was not enough, he had to be punished. Paying back twice as much hurts someone who was greedy enough to steal, very badly.

Exodus 22:5 “If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.”

On theft follows trespass, another injury to property. Two kinds of trespass alone are mentioned; but from these the principles to be followed in punishing trespass generally can be sufficiently made out. Accidental injury, such as that caused by fire extending from one man’s field into another’s, was to be simply compensated up to the amount of damage done. But voluntary injury, such as followed on the turning of beasts into a neighbor’s ground, was to be more than compensated. The amount of produce destroyed was to be exactly calculated, and then the injurer was to make good the full amount of his neighbor’s loss out of the best of his own produce.

In all of the instances of these thefts, the person stealing was caught up in greed and the punishment should fit the crime. The punishment hits at their greed, because they lost some of their personal worth.

Exodus 22:6 “If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed [therewith]; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”

In the East, as elsewhere, e.g., Italy and England; it is customary at certain seasons to burn the weeds and other refuse of a farm, which is collected for the purpose into heaps, and then set on fire. Such fires may spread, especially in the dry east, if care be not taken, and cause extensive damage to the crops, or even the corn-heaps of a neighbor. The loss in such cases was to fall on the man who lit the fire.

There were never more fire bugs around than now. If the punishment allotted was the same as in the Bible, the fires that are set on purpose would stop.

Verses 7-13: Honesty and integrity hold a healthy and productive society together. Neighbors need to be able to trust each other. These laws protected loans of personal property.

Exodus 22:7 “If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.”

Property deposited in the hands of another for safe keeping might be so easily embezzled by the trustee, or lost through his negligence, that some special laws were needed for its protection. Conversely the trustee required to be safe-guarded against incurring loss if the property entrusted to his care suffered damage or disappeared without fault of his. The Mosaic legislation provided for both cases.

On the one hand, it required the trustee to exercise proper care, and made him answerable for the loss if a thing entrusted to him was stolen and the thief not found. Embezzlement it punished by requiring the trustee guilty of it to “pay double.” On the other hand, in doubtful cases it allowed the trustee to clear himself by an oath (Exodus 22:10). And in clear cases to give proof that the loss had happened through unavoidable accident (Exodus 22:12).

Exodus 22:8 “If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, [to see] whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods.”

And so, no account can be given of the goods deposited, what is become of them. And it becomes a doubtful case whether they have been stolen or embezzled, and there is suspicion of the latter.

“Then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges”: Here called Elohim, gods, because they were God’s vicegerents, and represented him, and acted under his power and authority. And who at this present were Moses, and those that judged the people under him, and afterwards the seventy elders, and all such who in succeeding times were judges in Israel, and bore the office of civil magistrates. Before these the master of the house, or the person who had any goods committed to his care, and they were lost, was to be brought and put to his oath. And upon it examined, in order to find out what was become of the goods committed to him: To see whether:

“He has put his hand to his neighbor’s goods”: Took them to himself, made use of them, or disposed of them to his own advantage, and which was no other than a kind of theft.

It seems that God did not always believe that something had been stolen just because the person it was entrusted to, said it was stolen. Today, I guess it could be proven by giving a lie detector test, but God always knows who is lying. He doesn’t need a lie detector test. These judges were endued with a discerning spirit from God. They too knew when someone was lying. We can see again here, that the penalty to be paid was twice what was taken.

Exodus 22:9 “For all manner of trespass, [whether it be] for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, [or] for any manner of lost thing, which [another] challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; [and] whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor.”

With respect to what is committed to a man’s trust, and it is lost to the owner of it, there must be somewhere or other a trespass committed. Either by the person into whose hands it was put, or by a thief that has stolen it from him.

“Whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing”: By which it appears that either of these, or any other cattle not named, as well as money and vessels, or household goods, or goods in trade, were sometimes, or might be lodged in the hands of another as a deposit for safety or convenience. And for which, or any other so deposited, and lost.

“Which another challengeth to be his”: Or affirms that he put into the hands of his neighbor, to be kept by him for him. “Or who shall say this is he”, or “he is” the person into whose hands I put it. Or this is “it”; such and such were the thing or things I delivered to him.

“The cause of both parties shall come before the judges”: Who were to hear what each party had to say, and to examine the witnesses each of them brought, and consider the nature of the evidence given, and to judge and determine.

“And whom the judges shall condemn; or “pronounce wicked”, as having done a wicked thing. Either the one as having brought a false accusation against his neighbor, charging him with a deposit he never had, or the other as having converted it to his own use.

“He shall pay double unto his neighbor”: Either the depositor, who pretended to be so and was not, but brought a false charge against his neighbor, or a false witness, as Jarchi. Such a one was to pay double to the person charged wrongfully. Or, on the other hand, the person with whom the deposit was put, if it appeared that he had acted a fraudulent part, and abused his trust, then he was to pay double to the depositor.

This was just explaining that it didn’t make any difference what the article stolen was, the penalty was the same. Twice the stolen article would be restored.

Exodus 22:10 “If a man deliver unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing [it]:”

The animal might “die” naturally, or “be hurt” by a wild beast or a fall down the rocks, or “be driven away” by the marauding tribes of the desert. Both parties might be agreed on the fact of its disappearance. The dispute would be as to the mode of the disappearance. Here the trustee might bring proof, if he could (Exodus 22:13); if not, he might clear himself by an “oath of the Lord” (Exodus 22:11).

Exodus 22:11 “[Then] shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept [thereof], and he shall not make [it] good.”

“An oath of the Lord”: Presumably an oath of innocence which would bind the two parties to a dispute over lost goods and preclude any further legal action being taken.

The friend, who had tried to do a favor for his neighbor, should not have to pay if something beyond his control happened to the animal.

Exodus 22:12 “And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.”

This law appears to relate chiefly to herdsmen employed by the owners of cattle. When an animal was stolen (Exodus 22:12), it was presumed either that the herdsman might have prevented it, or that he could find the thief and bring him to justice (see Exodus 22:4). When an animal was killed by a wild beast, the keeper had to produce the mangled carcass, not only in proof of the fact, but to show that he had, by his vigilance and courage, deprived the wild beast of its prey.

This was within the realm of carelessness and responsibility.

Exodus 22:13 “If it be torn in pieces, [then] let him bring it [for] witness, [and] he shall not make good that which was torn.”

If the animal be torn by wild beasts, the man entrusted with it has only to produce its torn flesh as evidence of the fact, and he need make no compensation. No reasonable precautions could guard against this most common misfortune to cattle in the East (Genesis 31:39). And the fact that the remains of the flesh could be produced would show that the shepherd had been watchful, and had even driven off the wild beast before it had completely consumed the dead body (1 Sam. 17:35, Amos 3:12).

Here again, this was beyond his control and not from negligence.

Exodus 22:14 “And if a man borrow [ought] of his neighbor, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof [being] not with it, he shall surely make [it] good.”

If a man (suppose) lent his team to his neighbor, if the owner were with it, or were to receive profit for the loan of it, whatever harm befell the cattle the owner must stand to the loss of it. But if the owner were so kind to the borrower as to lend it him gratis, and put such a confidence in him as to trust it from under his own eye, then, if any harm happened, the borrower must make it good. We may learn hence to be very careful not to abuse anything that is lent to us. It is not only unjust, but base and disingenuous. We should much rather choose to lose ourselves, than that any should sustain loss by their kindness to us.

Here this was speaking of negligence on the part of the borrower.

Exodus 22:15 “[But] if the owner thereof [be] with it, he shall not make [it] good: if it [be] an hired [thing], it came for his hire.”

Letting out for hire is akin to lending; but still quite a different transaction. Damage to a thing hired was not to be made good by the hirer, since the risk of it might be considered to have formed part of the calculation upon which the amount of the hire was fixed.

We see the responsibility for the borrowed item was reversed to the owner, because he was with the borrowed item.

The scene changes from property to human relationship, beginning in the sixteenth verse.

Exodus 22:16 “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.”

“If a man entice … endow her”: The male was held accountable for premarital intercourse and the victim was seen as having been exploited by him, for which he paid a price (Deut. 22:22-29).

This in God’s sight was a very serious offense. The dowry to be paid for a wife ordinarily was fifty shekels of silver. This sum was to be paid to her father. To lie with a woman makes the two of you one in God’s sight. This was completely against the custom of the Hebrews. The two fathers ordinarily made the marriage contract.

Exodus 22:17 “If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”

This shows how ill a thing it is, and by no means to be allowed, that children should marry without their parents’ consent. Even here, where the divine law appointed the marriage, both as a punishment to him that had done wrong, and a recompense to her that had suffered wrong. Yet there was an express reservation for the father’s power; if he denied his consent, it must be no marriage.

We see that even if the father did not allow his daughter to marry this man, the man who committed the offense still had to pay for her. The father probably would not make this decision, unless there was some serious reason why the man would not be suitable for marriage.

Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”

“Witch”: A woman who practices occultism.

Sorcery was considered a dangerous demonic practice; thus the Hebrew people were commanded to stay away from everything associated with the occult (Lev. 20:6; Deut. 18:9-14; 1 Sam. Chapter 28; 2 Chron. 33:6; Isa. 47:12-15). Paul calls sorcery a “work of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-20).

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”: The English phrase to wit (to know), may be related to witch. The Greeks rendered the word witches as pharmakoi (“poisoners”), since sorcerers and sorceresses dealt in drugs and pharmaceutical potions.

It would be a very serious crime to be a witch. Witches have power, but their power comes from the evil one. In the early days of the United States, witches were burned at the stake. The bad thing about this was who was to decide whether she was a witch or not. Joan of Arc was killed, because people classified her as a witch. After she was killed, these very same people who had condemned her, declared her as a saint. It was too late after they had taken her life. We must be very careful who we declare a witch. In our day, some people admit to being witches and warlocks. “Those” you could safely say were witches.

Exodus 22:19 “Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

Bestiality was forbidden (in Lev. 18:23; 20:15-16; and Deut. 27:21). The Canaanites practiced this offensive act. The Hittites forbade its practice with sheep, cows, or pigs, but not with horses or mules. Once again, the sanctity of the human person, marriage, and human sexuality called for separateness from a perverted self-destroying culture. Israel was to be holy, as Yahweh was (Lev. 11:44; 19:2).

Satan worshippers today, are heavily involved with bestiality (or having sex with animals). Chickens, dogs, sheep, cows, monkeys and many more varieties of animals are involved. This sort of thing is an abomination to God. The animal and the person should be destroyed, was what God’s Word said. God doesn’t want any mixtures of half people-like animals.

Exodus 22:20 “He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”

“Utterly destroyed” or literally meaning “put to the ban” or “devoted to sacred use,” which in this case, meant death (Joshua 7:2).

To sacrifice to a false god would in essence deny the one true God. Satan worshippers in the United States have been cutting cows and draining their blood. Many believe there have been human sacrifices made to these false gods. Some reports have come from people who have come out of Satan worship, that sacrifices have been made. Since I have never attended such a meeting, I have no first-hand knowledge of what goes on. We do know that television news was full of accounts of cows being cut in some sort of ritualistic services. Whatever is the case, we are not to worship anything or anyone except God. God Himself will destroy us if we worship other gods.

Verses 21-27: God’s laws protect the underprivileged because He cares for them (“I am gracious)”. Foreigners were to be treated benevolently because the Hebrew people had been “strangers” in Egypt (23:9). Likewise, those without protection, “widows” and “the fatherless” and “the poor”, were not to be exploited (Deut. 24:17-18; Jer. 7:6-7).

Exodus 22:21 “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

A stranger must not be abused, not wronged in judgment by the magistrates, not imposed upon in contracts, or any advantage taken of his ignorance or necessity. No, nor must he be taunted, or upbraided with his being a stranger; for all these were vexatious.

“For ye were strangers in Egypt “: And knew what it was to be vexed and oppressed there. Those that have themselves been in poverty and distress. If Providence enrich and enlarge them. Ought to show a particular tenderness toward those that are now in such circumstances as they were in formerly. Now doing to them as they then wished to be done to.

The word “vex”, had to do with being violent toward a stranger. These Israelites knew better than most anyone, the sorrow of being caught in a strange land and being taken advantage of. Their bondage was hard in Egypt and was still fresh on their minds as this was given unto them.

Exodus 22:22 “Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.”

God reserved His special attention for widows and orphans who often had no one to care for them. He also reserved a special reaction, His wrath, for those abusing and exploiting them. This wrath would work out in military invasions as the sword reduced the abusers’ families to the same status of being without spouse or parents.

Exodus 22:23 “If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;”

Rather, If thou afflict them sore, and they cry earnestly unto me. On the transgression of the laws against oppression by the later Israelites (see Jer. 5:28; 7:6; 22:3; 22:17; Zech. 7:20; Mal. 3:5; Matt. 23:14). The sword of the Babylonians and the sword of the Romans avenged the sufferers, according to the prophecy of (Exodus 22:24).

Exodus 22:24 “And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.”

Against those that afflict them. Being so devoid of humanity, compassion, and tenderness, and so guilty of oppression and injustice, which are aggravated by the circumstances of the persons they badly treat, and therefore the more provoking to God.

“And I will kill you with the sword”: With the sword of death, says the Targum of Jonathan. It designs one of God’s sore judgments, the sword of an enemy. The meaning is, that when such evils should become frequent among them, God would suffer a neighboring nation to break in upon them in a hostile way, and put them to the sword. Hence it follows: “And your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless”.

Be in the same circumstances with those they have injured, and therefore should consider not only the destruction that would come upon themselves. Being cut off by the sword, but the case of their families. And how, could they be sensible of it, they would like to have their wives and children used as they have used the widows and fatherless.

God’s protection of widows is throughout the Bible. It was a widow named Anna, a prophetess eighty-four years old, who was one of the two witnesses recognizing Jesus as the Savior of the world at His dedication when He was forty days old. It was a widow Elijah stayed with during a terrible famine and God miraculously fed them. What this was really saying, was that God Himself protects those who cannot help themselves. If you do wrong to those who cannot protect themselves, you have God to deal with. He fights their battles for them. He will punish according to the sin. He would make your wives widows and your children orphans, because He would kill you.

Exodus 22:25 “If thou lend money to [any of] my people [that is] poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.”

“Usury”: One way in which the people showed their concern for the poor and needy was to take no business advantage of them. Charging interest was allowable (Lev. 25:35-37; Deut. 23:19-20), but not when it was exorbitant or worsened the plight of the borrower. The psalmist identified a righteous man as one who lends money without interest (Psalm 15:5).

“Usury” is interest on a debt. One of the saddest things in our society today, is excessive interest collected on loans. Most of these excessive interest loans are made to the very poor who could not get a loan anywhere else. And therefore, have to pay sometimes two or three times the regular interest rate to acquire the loan. People who have to borrow money and pay these rates, are already in terrible trouble and all this does is get them in debt deeper. A loan of this nature does not help them; it just digs them into a deeper hole to climb out of. This Scripture above is speaking of God’s people (believers), loaning each other. In a case like this it would be proper to not charge any interest to help a brother. Christians should work together and help each other, instead of profiting from each other. The true meaning of usury I believe is excessive interest.

Exodus 22:26 “If thou at all take thy neighbor’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:”

Under the law, a creditor had the right to seize a debtor’s coat. Here however, God said the garment should be returned “by that the sun goeth down” so the impoverished person would not get cold. Compassion was always a part of the Law.

You can see right away, how terrible it would be to take a man’s coat or wrap as security for a loan. It would be terrible anywhere, but in the desert, where this was given; a man’s outer garment was also his cover to be used to keep warm at night, and he could not easily live without his garment.

Exodus 22:27 “For that [is] his covering only, it [is] his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I [am] gracious.”

If thou at all take thy neighbor’s raiment to pledge. From the nature of the case, this is the description of a poor man. No Orientals undress, but, merely throwing off their turbans and some of their heavy outer garments, they sleep in the clothes which they wear during the day. The bed of the poor is usually nothing else than a mat; and, in winter, they cover themselves with a cloak. A practice which forms the ground or reason of the humane and merciful law respecting the pawned coat.

Anything that was necessary to live was not to be pawned. Only things that would not impair their ability to live could be pawned. God would not be pleased with anyone who is not concerned about his neighbor’s welfare.

Exodus 22:28 “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.”

That is, the judges and magistrates. Princes and magistrates are our fathers, whom the fifth commandment obliges us to honor, and forbids us to revile. Paul applies this law to himself, and owns that he ought not to speak evil of the ruler of his people. No, not though he was then his most unrighteous persecutor (Acts 23:5).

See Acts 23:5, where Paul apparently violated this law, not knowing to whom he spoke.

We see that our belief in God should be a positive belief in Him alone. It is better not to be continuously speaking evil of false gods. In some instances, if we talk too much about the false gods, it is as if we do recognize them. It is also a very bad practice to speak evil of dignitaries, because God is the one who put them in that position for a purpose. We see in Jude:

Jude 1:8 “Likewise also these [filthy] dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.” God calls those who despise dominion and speak evil of dignities “filthy dreamers”.

We have all been a little guilty of this, but we need to consider what we are doing. In Exodus Chapter 23:13:

“And in all [things] that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.”

We can easily see that God is displeased, even at the mention of a false god.

Exodus 22:29 “Thou shalt not delay [to offer] the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.”

Beyond the times appointed, lest this delay grow to a total neglect. And delay may here be put for neglect, as that word is used (Deut. 7:10; 23:21 Hab. 2:3); which may seem to be favored by the following clause, which commands the giving or offering of the first-born without any mention of the hastening or delaying of it.

“Thy ripe fruits”: Hebrew thy fullness; and whereas this word is sometimes applied to seed or corn (as Numbers 18:27), and sometimes to the vintage (as Deut. 22:9). The circumstances must determine, as it doth in like cases, how it must be taken. Which here seem to restrain it to dry fruits, as corn, etc., because it is opposed to:

“Liquors”: And so all sorts of fruits are comprehended here. Unless you will make this a usual figure called hendyadis, as judgment and justice (Deut. 16:18), is put for judgment of justice. Or just judgment. So here the fullness and liquors, for the fullness of thy liquors; and so this may be one kind mentioned for all the rest, than which nothing more frequent.

“Shalt thou give unto me”: Not in kind, but by a price of redemption to be paid to me in their stead.

Here “liquors” mean steeped juice. This Scripture was just explaining that whatever we have, the tithe should be paid of it first. We must not try to give God leftovers. He wants the first of the crop and that goes for children as well. God wants our beloved, our first born. God required the firstfruit not only of their children, but of all their animals and of all of their crops. Whatever we treasure the most is what God wants. We must have no other gods before Him. The firstborn son had to be redeemed with a money payment. We will see later on that they had to be taken to the temple and dedicated to God on the fortieth day. We must not give reluctantly but freely, to get a blessing.

Exodus 22:30 “Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, [and] with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.”

That is, with the firstborn, which were to be set apart to the Lord; and so the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it, “the firstborn of thine oxen, and of thy sheep;” for having spoken of the firstborn of men, the Scripture proceeds to speak of the firstborn of cattle, great and small, the separation of which was enjoined in one and the same precept (Exodus 13:2).

“Seven days it shall be with his dam”: Whether it is a calf or a lamb; before it was seven days old it was not to be taken from it, and given to the Lord.

“On the eighth day thou shall give it me”: That is, they might do it then, but not before; yet they were not obliged to bring it exactly on that day, but they might do it any time within the month, and at a month’s end they were obliged to redeem it, that is, give the priest the sum of five shekels for it (Num. 18:16). The Jewish canon runs thus; “how long are Israelites bound for the bringing of the firstborn, i.e. before they offer it to the priest? In small cattle it is thirty days, in large cattle it is fifty days.

The “dam” was the mother. At birth, there was an interval of time called a time of uncleanliness. Possibly that is what is meant here. Boy children were circumcised on the eighth day and dedicated on the fortieth day in the temple. Perhaps this is connected with that time. God has a time table that we do not fully understand. The number “eight” in Scripture seems to indicate new beginnings. All of this would fit right in together. When a child is dedicated to God, it truly is a beginning of a dedicated life to God. What is meant here, by giving the animal to God perhaps, meant sacrificing it to God.

Exodus 22:31 “And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat [any] flesh [that is] torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.”

“Holy men unto me”: All these laws and regulations caused Israel to be set apart in conduct, not just in name. The special calling as Yahweh’s firstborn son (4:22), and as His treasured possession, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (19:5-6), mandated ethical uprightness.

Neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn”: Flesh of an animal killed by another and lying in the field became unclean by coming into contact with unclean carnivores and insects and with putrefaction by not having had the blood drained properly from it. A set-apart lifestyle impacted every area of life, including from where one collected his meat.

God’s chosen people had to be holy. They cannot do things of the world and be classed as belonging to God. God requires them to be a separate people, a peculiar people; a holy nation.

In 2 Corinthians 6 we read:

2 Corinthians 6:17-18 “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,” “And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

1 Peter 2:9 “But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:”

You see these chosen of God (physical Israel), and we believers, (spiritual Israel), are not to be like the rest of the world. We are to be separated to God. Pleasing God every day in everything we do should be our desire. He (God), has chosen us to bless us. Every restriction God puts on His people (like not eating an animal torn of beasts), is to help us. This animal might have been diseased or might have been sitting there too long or might have not been properly bled. In other words, it could make us very ill. This, like other restrictions that God puts on us, is for our protection. Giving it to the dogs is a useful way of disposing of it. Animals were not forbidden to eat unclean things. In fact, that was one of their purposes.

Exodus 22: Questions