Exodus 22:15 · Bible study
Exodus 22:15 Commentary: The Hire Covers the Risk
Hebrew · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Explore Exodus 22:15: what does 'it came for its hire' mean? Commentators agree the hire fee accounts for the risk of loss for a hired animal.
Research Summary
- Meaning: For a hired animal, the owner accepts the risk of loss because the hire fee covers it; no further restitution is required.
- Key words: 'leased/hired thing' (animal); 'came for its hire', the payment includes compensation for possible damage.
- Main debate: Whether 'hired thing' refers to an animal (majority) or a hired labourer who works off the loss (minority, Kautzsch and Socin).
- Theological theme: God’s concern for fairness and clarity in everyday economic transactions between people.
- Best use: Teaching on responsibility in contracts, insurance principles, and the wisdom of Old Testament case law for modern life.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
If the owner was present, no restitution is required. If the animal was rented, the fee covers the loss.
WEB World English Bible 2000
If its owner is with it, he shall not make it good. If it is a leased thing, it came for its lease.
KJV King James Version 1769
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.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
If the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be a hired thing, it came for its hire.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
if its owner is with it, he doth not repay, --if it is a hired thing, it hath come for its hire.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make [it] good; if it be a hired [thing], it came for its hire.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
But if the owner be present, he shall not make restitution, especially if it were hired, and came for the hire of his work.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Si el dueño estaba presente, no la pagará. Si era alquilada, él vendrá por su alquiler.
Se o dono estava presente, não o pagará. Se era alugado, ele virá por seu aluguel.
Si le maître est présent, il n’y aura pas lieu à restitution. Si l’animal a été loué, le prix du louage suffira.
[22:14] Ist sein Herr aber dabei, soll er's nicht bezahlen, so er's um sein Geld gedingt hat.
Indien zijn heer daarbij geweest is, hij zal het niet wedergeven; indien het gehuurd is, zo is het voor zijn huur gekomen.
Se il padrone è presente, non v’è luogo a rifacimento di danni; se la bestia è stata presa a nolo, essa è compresa nel prezzo del nolo.
Jeźliby pan jego był przy nim, nie będzie nagradzał; a jeźliby najęte było, najem tylko zapłaci.
если же хозяин его был при нем, то не должен платить; если он взят был в наймы за деньги, то пусть и пойдет за ту цену.
若 本主 同在一處，他就不必 賠還；若 是 雇的，也不必賠還，本是為雇價 來的。」
If the owner is with it, he will not have to make payment: if he gave money for the use of it, the loss is covered by the payment.
Verse in Context
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that Exodus 22:15 establishes a clear distinction between borrowed and hired animals. When an animal is borrowed and the owner is absent, the borrower must make full restitution if it is injured or dies (v.14). But when the owner is present, the borrower is not liable, the owner shares responsibility. The second half of the verse, 'If it is a leased thing, it came for its lease,' is understood by most commentators to mean that the hire price itself covers the risk of accident or death. Barnes states that 'the sum paid for hiring was regarded as covering the risk of accident.' The Cambridge Bible adds that the owner 'was prepared to take the risk, so that compensation for injury is unnecessary.' Gill agrees: for a hired animal, 'nothing more could come to him than what he agreed for.' Keil and Delitzsch, following Calovius, write that the injury or loss 'he has to bear for the money which he got for letting out the animal.'
A minority view, noted by the Cambridge Bible and associated with Kautzsch and Socin, reads 'hired thing' as a hired labourer. In that reading, the hired servant works off the damage gradually. Keil and Delitzsch argue against this on grammatical and contextual grounds. Most commentators maintain the plain reading: the hire price transfers the risk to the owner.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Hire covers risk: the fee paid for hiring is considered to include compensation for potential damage, so no additional restitution (Barnes, Cambridge Bible, Gill, Keil-Delitzsch)
- Hired labourer: the term 'hired thing' may mean a hired servant who works off the loss (Kautzsch, Socin, Ryssel, noted by Cambridge Bible)
What is clear: The verse establishes that for a hired animal, the owner bears the risk of accident or death, in contrast to a borrowed animal where the borrower is liable if the owner is absent.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'it came for its hire' | The phrase indicates that the hire fee itself covers the risk of loss for the hired animal. | Some (Kautzsch, Socin, Ryssel) understand 'hired thing' as a hired labourer, not an animal, meaning the loss is worked off through service. |
| Role of owner's presence | If the owner is present when the animal is borrowed or hired, the borrower is not liable for damage or death. | Jewish tradition (Mishnah) debated whether the owner must be present only at the time of borrowing, or also at the time of the accident. |
| Liability for hired vs borrowed animals | Different standards apply: borrowing requires restitution if owner absent; hiring transfers risk to the owner via the fee. | The minority view sees the hiring case as involving a hired servant, making the comparison less direct. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Exodus 22:15 belongs to the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21, 23), a collection of case laws given to Israel after the Ten Commandments. These laws govern everyday life, property, personal injury, social justice, and reflect a society built on agriculture and animal husbandry. Livestock (oxen, donkeys, sheep) were essential for plowing, transport, and food. Borrowing and hiring animals between neighbours was common.
Ancient Near Eastern law codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi, also address liability for borrowed and hired animals. Israel’s laws are distinctive in their emphasis on the owner’s presence as a factor. If the owner accompanied the animal, the borrower’s responsibility ended; the owner could see what happened and intervene if needed. This principle discouraged negligence while respecting the owner’s stake.
The phrase 'it came for its hire' reflects a straightforward economic logic: when an animal is hired, the fee is understood to include compensation for ordinary risks. Unlike a borrowed animal, which the borrower uses without payment, a hired animal comes with a transaction that already factors in potential loss. This prevented endless disputes over accidental injury or death. The law thus served both parties: the hirer paid a known price, and the owner accepted the risk in exchange for payment. The surrounding verses (22:10, 13) show similar principles for goods left in trust or animals that are stolen or torn by wild beasts, each case assigns responsibility based on custody and control.
Jewish tradition, as recorded in the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 8:1), developed this further: if the owner was present when the animal was borrowed (even if not during the accident), the borrower was free. The verse’s logic, presence implies shared oversight, became a foundation for rabbinic casuistry. The simplicity of the rule contrasts with the complexity of later interpretation, showing how one verse can carry a world of legal reasoning.
Textual Notes
The supplied commentaries and translations note no significant textual variants for Exodus 22:15. The Masoretic Text is consistent across manuscript traditions. The phrase 'if it be a hired thing, it came for its hire' appears with minor word order differences in the English translations but reflects the same Hebrew. No ancient versions (Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac) show meaningful divergence for this verse.
Reception History
Exodus 22:15 has been cited in Christian moral teaching on contracts and fair dealing. Early church fathers such as Augustine referenced the Book of the Covenant to illustrate God’s concern for practical justice. In medieval canon law, the principle that the hire price covers risk influenced discussions of just price and insurance. Reformation-era commentators like Calvin and Luther saw in these laws the wisdom of God ordering everyday life. Jewish tradition, especially the Mishnah and Talmud, developed extensive casuistry around this verse, debating the precise conditions of the owner’s presence and the definition of 'hired thing.' The verse remains a touchstone for those exploring biblical foundations for ethics in business and daily transactions.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Owner present, no liability. When the owner is with the animal, the borrower is freed from restitution. The owner’s presence implies shared responsibility and oversight. This protects the borrower from unjust blame.
- Hire covers the risk. For a hired animal, the fee paid already accounts for potential damage. The owner bears the loss because he accepted payment in exchange for that risk. This principle teaches fairness in contracts.
- God cares about everyday transactions. This small law reveals that God is concerned with justice in ordinary dealings, borrowing, hiring, paying. Faithful living includes honesty and clarity in our economic relationships.
Five-point outline
- Distinguishing borrowed and hired. The law makes a careful distinction. Borrowed items demand extra care because no payment exchanges hands. Hired items already have a payment that accounts for risk.
- The owner’s presence changes everything. If the owner is with the animal, he can see what happens and intervene. The borrower is not responsible for what the owner could have prevented.
- The hire price includes risk. The phrase “it came for its hire” means the payment covers the risk of accident. The owner cannot demand extra compensation for what the hire already covered.
- A principle of shared responsibility. The law does not always put full liability on the borrower. It looks at relationship and circumstances. This reflects God’s desire for fair outcomes, not rigid rules.
- Application for today. Whether renting a car or borrowing a tool, these principles apply. We are called to be clear about terms, fair in expectations, and honest when things go wrong.
Illustration hooks
- A person rents a car for a weekend trip. The rental agreement includes insurance. When a minor accident happens, the rental company covers most of the cost because the fee included that protection. The renter is not expected to pay the full repair bill.
- Someone borrows a neighbour’s lawnmower without asking and breaks it. The borrower feels obligated to repair it. If the neighbour had been present, they might have shown the borrower how to use it properly, and the accident might have been avoided.
- A tradesman hires a tool from a store. The rental fee is higher than a simple loan because it accounts for possible wear or damage. Both parties understand the arrangement.
Questions your congregation is asking
- If I hire someone to do a job and they damage my equipment, who is responsible?
- Does this law mean I should never expect someone to pay for a hire item if it breaks?
- How does this ancient law apply to modern concepts like insurance and liability waivers?
Leading a Discussion
This passage is part of the Book of the Covenant, a set of laws God gave to Israel after the exodus. These laws protected people in everyday situations, borrowing, hiring, and caring for property. The issue here is responsibility when something goes wrong. The law distinguishes between borrowed and hired goods, and it considers whether the owner was present. As you read the verses, think about how this reflects God’s concern for fairness and practical wisdom.
Discussion questions
- What difference does the owner’s presence make in this law? (Read Exodus 22:14, 15 together.)
- Why do you think the Bible makes a distinction between borrowing and hiring in terms of liability?
- What does the phrase “it came for its hire” mean to you after reading the commentaries? How does it affect the relationship between the person who hires and the owner?
- How does this law protect both the borrower/hirer and the owner? Who benefits most in your view?
- What does this passage teach about God’s attitude toward economic fairness and responsibility?
- In what ways do we see similar principles in modern contracts, insurance, or rental agreements? Where do we fall short of the biblical ideal?
- How can this ancient law shape the way you treat borrowed or rented items today? What would faithful use look like in your daily life?
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Zechariah 8:10 | For before those days there was no wages for man nor any wages for an animal, neither was there any peace to him who went out or came in, because of the adversary. For I set all men everyone against his neighbor. |
Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
7 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes notes that in ancient custom the hiring fee itself was understood to include insurance against accidental loss. The payment covered not just the use of the item but also the risk of mishap.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator highlights that liability for a borrowed animal depends on the owner's presence. If the owner is absent, the borrower must compensate for injury; if present, the owner is presumed able to prevent harm, releasing the borrower. A minor alternative view treats the case as involving a hired servant working off damages.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note clarifies that if the owner is present when the hired item is damaged, the borrower is not liable. The reasoning is that the owner's presence ensures oversight, and the hire payment already covers the risk.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill explains that if the owner is present when an animal is borrowed, the borrower is not liable for damage or death, even if the owner later leaves. He notes but admits confusion over the rabbinic rule that the owner must be borrowed or hired alongside the animal itself for this exemption to apply.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch argue that when a hired animal is injured or dies, the loss falls on the owner, who forfeits the hire fee. They reject the idea that the word refers to a hired labourer, insisting grammar and context point to the animal being hired, with the owner bearing the cost.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange argues that these civil laws are not primarily a criminal code but a system designed to train Israel for freedom. He highlights that the section begins with emancipation regulations, signaling that personal liberty is the central concern, and that slavery as an existing institution is transformed within the theocracy's educational purpose.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry observes that these laws require proof of fault before a trustee can be held liable for lost or damaged goods. The owner bears the loss unless the trustee is shown to be dishonest or negligent. This careful balance reflects God's concern for fairness in ordinary business dealings.