| Most Recently Posted Ask a Question | |||||||||
| Q: | I hope you might be able to shed some light on an apparent inconsistency in my Bible translation (NIV). Exodus 22:10-12 states: 10 "If a man gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to his neighbor for safekeeping and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no one is looking, 11 the issue between them will be settled by the taking of an oath before the LORD that the neighbor did not lay hands on the other person's property. The owner is to accept this, and no restitution is required. 12 But if the animal was stolen from the neighbor, he must make restitution to the owner." Verses 10 and 11 indicate that if the animnal was stolen from the neighbor, then the neighbor would not have to pay restitution (after swearing an oath if innocence), but verse 12 states that if the animal was stolen from the neighbor, then the neighbor has to make restitution to the owner, which seems to contradict verse 11. How can this be explained? Thank you for your time and help. | ||||||||
| A: | Let's start with verse 12. You are correct that this civil law holds a person responsible if he was negligent in taking care of his neighbor's property. In fact, if you would read Genesis 31:39 you would see that Jacob paid his father-in-law the cost of any animals stolen while Jacob was shepherding. So the law God codified in Exodus 22 seems to have been a common law principle that was in practice during patriarchal times. So the key point to remember in verse 12 is that person should be as zealous in protecting his neighbor's property just as if it were his own property. Anyone who agreed to safeguard his neighbor's animal and then did not take prudent action to stop theives would be held responsible. Verse 10 of this section is a little more difficult. What is clear is that a person who agrees to watch a neighbor's property is not held responsible if the death or loss of the animal occurred through no fault of the person's doing. A animal could get sick despite having food and fodder and shelter. A animal could die despite the best care provided. Similarly, a animal, despite the neighbor's best efforts to provide security and watchfulness, might be led away secretly. The Hebrew verb in verse 10 is a different verb than the word used in verse 12 that is translated as "stolen." In verse 10 the verb is translated "taken away." Elsewhere this verb is used in situations where it indicates that despite prudent planning and precaution, the situation was beyond the control of the person. So perhaps what is being described in verse 10 is a neighbor who agreed to safeguard a person's animal. He took care of it and watched over it just as if it were his own property. He provided the best care and security as he could. Despite his faithful watchfulness and labors, the animal still died or was lost or was taken. Then, upon oath before the Lord that the "guard" did the best he could, he is not held responsible. | ||||||||
This is recent question #12 of 50
| |||||||||