Proverbs 6:31 - Exposition

But if he be taken, he shill restore sevenfold. Men do not despise the thief, but yet they apprehend him and insist on fullest restitution. Be found ; i.e. seized (Delitzsch), or legally convicted (Gejerus). He shall restore ; i.e. he must restore (Zockler). Delitzsch, however, understands the future, y'shalem , as potential, "he may restore." Sevenfold ; Hebrew, siv'athayim ; LXX ; ἐπταπλάσια ; Vulgate, septulum. On this word Geier remarks, " Haec vox nullibi in sacris ponitur pio numero definito ;" i.e. "It is nowhere put in Scripture for a definite number." It is therefore to be understood indefinitely of complete restitution, or, as it is expressed in the second and parallel clauses, "all the substance of his house." The word is used in this sense in Genesis 4:24 ; Le Genesis 26:28 ; Job 5:19 (Lapide). Theft under the Mosaic Law was punishable by a fivefold, fourfold, and twofold restitution ( Exodus 22:1-4 , Exodus 22:9 ), and, in the event of this not forthcoming, the delinquent was to be sold into slavery (Le 25:89). In 2 Samuel 12:6 a fourfold restitution is mentioned, and in the New Testament Zacchaeus promises to restore fourfold if he could be convicted of fraud ( Luke 19:8 ). In the attempts to reconcile the "sevenfold" of our passage with the requirements of the Mosaic Law, Aben Ezra says that the combined penalties for two cases of theft are contemplated, and others that in the time of the writer the penalties had been increased. But proof of this is wanting. Grotius's explanation is more curious than correct, viz. that if the theft be repeated seven times, and he be "taken" seven times, the thief should only be punished by being forced to make restitution with some addition. Both the Greek and Roman law demanded a twofold restitution. Selden maintains that theft would have been subjected to the usual punishment. We may therefore come to the conclusion that "sevenfold" is used in the sense indicated above. As to any objection which may be raised on the seem of inconsistency in talking of a man malting restitution, and giving all his substance when he steals to satisfy his hunger, it may be remarked that he need not necessarily be without substance of some sort or other, and he could acquire subsequently sufficient to satisfy the demand. On the question whether a person is justified by extreme want in stealing, see Grotius, 'De Jure Belli et Pacis,' 2, 100, 2, § 6; Puffendorf, 'De Jure Not. et Gent,' 2, 100, 6, § 5; Blackstone, 'Commentary,' 4.2 § 4.