John Calvin Commentary 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, he shall pay double." — Exodus 22:7 (ASV)

If a man shall deliver to his neighbor money. This passage determines under what circumstances a charge of theft would apply in the case of a deposit.

Specifically, if an inanimate object, such as a garment or furniture, is given for safekeeping, and the person with whom it is deposited claims it was stolen, God commands a certain procedure. If the thief is discovered, he must pay double. However, if the thief is not found, an oath is required from the man who declares that the item was stolen from him.

However, if an animal was given for safekeeping, a somewhat different provision is made. Namely, if it has been violently carried away or torn by wild animals, the one entrusted with it is free from liability. But if it had been stolen, that person must make restitution.

To understand the principle of this law, we must observe that the one entrusted with a deposit is not to be compelled to do more than faithfully preserve the item given to them, just as a prudent and careful head of a household is attentive to the preservation of their own property.

When they have diligently fulfilled this duty, it would be unjust to require more of them. Otherwise, when they undertake the burden of this voluntary responsibility, their generosity would become an injury to themselves.

However, since it is not as easy to steal an animal from the stall or from the shepherd's care, the shepherd's negligence becomes evident in the loss of the beast,¹³⁹ assuming no violence was used.

Justice, then, is done in both cases. That is, the one entrusted shall not have to compensate for a vessel, money, or a garment, because this would be tantamount to treating them as the thief. But if the animal is stolen, they shall pay its price, unless they can clear themselves of carelessness.

If anyone should think that too much leniency is shown to the one entrusted when God allows the dispute to be settled by their oath, the reply is straightforward: we do not entrust anything to another's keeping unless we are persuaded of their honesty.

Therefore, whoever has chosen a guardian for their property has, by that prior judgment, testified to that person's good and trustworthy character. Consequently, it would be absurd for that guardian to be accused of theft shortly afterward without proof.

For this reason, it was reasonable that God would have the owner of the lost goods accept the oath of the one whom they had considered to be their faithful friend.

Furthermore, a person is fully acquitted who clears themselves by calling God to witness their innocence, unless some unfavorable suspicion is raised against them, and provided they offer a plausible defense based on probable evidence.

¹³⁹ “Que la beste se soit esvanouye sans qu’il en ait rien sceu;” in that the beast has vanished without his knowing anything about it. — Fr..