John Calvin Commentary Exodus 22:1

"If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep." — Exodus 22:1 (ASV)

Up to this point, God has proclaimed Himself the avenger of iniquities and, summoning thieves before His tribunal, has threatened them with eternal death. Now follow the civil laws, whose principle is not as exact and perfect, since in their enactment God relaxed His just severity considering the people’s hardness of heart.

What God previously delivered to His people, pagan legislators afterward borrowed.

Draco, indeed, was more severe, but his extreme rigor became obsolete through the silent consent of the people of Athens. The Decemvirs borrowed from Solon part of their law, which they published in the Ten Tables, although there were some variations in the distinction of the double or quadruple restitution, and over time other alterations were later made.

But if all things are duly considered, it will be found that both Solon and the Decemvirs made a change for the worse wherever they deviated from the law of God.

First of all, no distinction¹³² is made here, such as the Roman laws decree, between manifest thieves and those that are not manifest. For by Roman law, the thief not manifest is condemned to double restitution, and the manifest thief to quadruple. A manifest thief is defined as one who is caught before he has carried what he has stolen to its intended destination.

I suppose that those who assigned the punishment had this in mind: that the wickedness of the person was more egregious if they were so greedily and anxiously set on their prey as not to be afraid of disgrace. Undoubtedly, one who has no fear of shame is more audacious in sin.

But, on the contrary, God condemns to double restitution those on whom the stolen goods were found, and to quadruple restitution those who had killed or sold the stolen item. And rightly so, because greater obstinacy in crime reveals itself where the theft is turned into profit, and there is no hope of repentance. Thus, by this further action, the crime of dishonesty is doubled.

A thief might be alarmed immediately after the offense, but one who has dared to kill the stolen animal or sell it is altogether hardened in his sin.

Besides, the more difficult its investigation, the greater the punishment a misdemeanor deserves.

Meanwhile, it must be remembered that the monetary fine imposed on thieves did not free them from guilt. For, as Marcellus says,¹³³ not even the governor of a province can ensure that infamy does not pursue a man condemned for theft; and there was no need to establish by law something on which all people naturally agree. Thus, when God punished thieves with a fine, He still left them marked by infamy.

I do not know whether they¹³⁴ assign the true reason why one who had stolen an ox is fined a larger amount than one who had stolen a goat, sheep, or other cattle. Some suggest that the owner's loss is taken into account, as the labor of the ox is especially useful in agriculture; for what is said about an ox, I extend to cows and the whole herd. Others, who seem to come nearer to the truth, say the thief's audacity is punished, since in stealing the larger animal, he did not fear being observed by witnesses. Yet, it seems more likely to me that the different sentence depended on the price of the item. For certainly, it is more reasonable that one who has done the most harm should be exposed to the greater punishment.

¹³² The negative added from Fr. See A. Gell. 11:18.. See A. Gell. 11:18.

¹³³ “Il est dit en la loy;” it is said in the law. — Fr..

¹³⁴ This first opinion is “that (says Corn. a Lapide) of S. Thomas, 1:2. q. 105, art. 2. ad 9., after Strabo; God commands that a thief should restore five oxen for one, because the ox has five utilities; first, it is killed in sacrifice; secondly, its flesh is eaten; thirdly, it ploughs; fourthly, it gives milk; fifthly, it supplies leather; — whilst a sheep only has four advantages; for, first, it is slain in sacrifice; secondly, its flesh is eaten; thirdly, it gives milk; fourthly, it gives wool.” The second opinion is attributed to Junius by Willet, “oportet hunc furem audacem, et versutum esse.”; first, it is killed in sacrifice; secondly, its flesh is eaten; thirdly, it ploughs; fourthly, it gives milk; fifthly, it supplies leather; — whilst a sheep only has four advantages; for, first, it is slain in sacrifice; secondly, its flesh is eaten; thirdly, it gives milk; fourthly, it gives wool.” The second opinion is attributed to Junius by Willet, “oportet hunc furem audacem, et versutum esse.”