Next
Is there any evidence that theft is a crime before the law of Moses was given? Why ask this question? It is important to ask because the Torah of Moses, as a whole, was given to the people of Israel. Principles of righteousness beforehand would have had more universal applications and implications, would have applied to every nation, apart from those outrightly stated as belonging only to a certain family and its descendents, e.g. circumcision (see Genesis 17).
Well, there are two pieces of evidence in the history before the Sinai event. One is more logical and the other is a more obvious piece of evidence that theft was wrong.
The first sign that theft is wrong is derived from what occurred in the garden of Eden in Genesis 3. The Creator, in the previous chapter, allows the man to eat of all the trees of the garden except one. Deity forbids him from eating of the tree of the knowledge of "good and evil". On the surface, this prohibition is plain: don't eat any fruit from that tree. But there is a deeper understanding of this command.
You see, everything that the Creator had given or permitted to man was man's to use as he wished, i.e., it was man's property, at least as much as the apartment or house a tenant lives in is his or her property. But the forbidden tree was not given to man. It was not his property. So when, in chapter 3, the man and his wife took and ate from the forbidden tree, not only did they break the obvious command not to eat of it, they encroached on someone else's property and, by definition, stole by taking something not theirs. Thus, mankind sinned on two levels and was punished, as you can see if you read the account.
Now, logically, that makes sense. For those who like to look beyond the surface, this would fulfill the criteria of showing that stealing is wrong. But some with a certain hyper-literalist sort of thinking will complain saying, "Hey! The text of Genesis 2-3 doesn't explicitly or overtly condemn man for stealing, only for eating the forbidden fruit, so your logical conclusion is just your own contrivance, something you and those who agree with it made up." Now note that I call this sort of thinking, "hyper-literalist". This is the type of thinking that takes the principle of understanding the biblical text too far, saying that if something is not explicitly stated by the text, then it has no biblical existence whatsoever and is totally made up, and, therefore, wrong. Such a mindset is inherently contradictory and incoherent. Why? Because such thinking is not overtly stated in the scriptures! So it too must be totally man-made, made up, and wrong. In essence, it condemns itself. In addition, it is that sort of thinking that makes the Torah inflexible, stiff, unable to deal with new situations.
[Aside: It should be noted that Rabbinic or Talmudic Judaism often accuses Karaite Judaism of thinking like this. But this accusation is untrue for two main reasons: 1) Karaite Judaism embraces the plain meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures, not simply the literal meaning, e.g., the plain meaning of poetic parts of scripture is generally going to be figurative, non-literal, whereas the literal understanding of those parts of scripture leads to nonsensical interpretations; and 2) the Karaites use a principle called "heqesh", or analogy in their application of scriptural laws and principles, which means they use the deeper meaning, or derived intent of that law or principle and apply it to new or strange situations. Therefore, this accusation of Talmudic Judaism has no truth to it.]
So although the text of Genesis 2-3 doesn't overtly call the sin of the first man and woman "stealing", the act does fall under the definition of what it is to steal, therefore it is implied by the passage, and the context shows it to be wrong. The fact that it is wrong to take something without the owner's consent is not only true when it comes to taking from Deity, but also when it comes to taking from another person, as will be seen from the next, more overt, piece of scriptural evidence.
The following events took place before Jacob was called Israel and before he became a nation. Therefore it still occurs at a time when its implications can have a universal impact, in the sense of divine morals and ethics.
In Genesis 31, Jacob attempts to leave the household of a man called Laban who, through trickery, had been keeping him there. So while Laban and his sons are away tending their flocks, Jacob seizes the opportunity, takes his family and possessions, and quickly leaves towards Canaan. But while they are packing to leave, Rachel, Jacob's wife and Laban's daughter, takes her father's idols. Days after Jacob has gone, Laban and his sons return, see that Jacob has gone and give chase.
Upon catching up with Jacob, Laban, amongst other things, says these words.
(30) And now you've definitely moved on, because you so yearn for your father's house; why did you steal my gods?' (32) [and Jacob said] With whomsoever you find your gods, he shall not live; in front of our relatives, pick out for yourself what [is] with me, and take it for yourself.'- For Jacob didn't know that Rachel had stolen them. - (Genesis 31:30,32)
What do we see here? Laban outright accuses Jacob of stealing. So we are not dealing so much with logic. Here we see Laban, who is not part of the Abrahamic (circumcision) covenant, objecting to theft, as though it is a widely known principle that it is wrong. And we see as well that Jacob's response confirms the fact that the theft is wrong by judging the guilty party as deserving of death, while entitling Laban to search for Jacob's camp for anything else that is his to take for himself. The punishment of death shows the seriousness of the crime. This text shows the concept that "what is yours is yours, and I have no right to take it without your consent", and the fact that this concept, moral principle, was applicable to everyone, descendant of Abraham or not.
The fact that this worldwide law was then codified, and thus eternalised, in the Torah of Moses, the guiding law of Israel is just further confirmation of a truth that existed from the very beginning. In fact, it was one of the 10 principal statements (known as "the 10 commandments" by some) which was set in stone, and used as a witness for the children of Israel, stored in the ark of the covenant.
So what we have seen is that the unlawful taking of someone else's property is already known to be forbidden before the giving of the law of Israel at Mt. Sinai. But what falls under this concept of unlawful taking? We are still not left in a total vacuum in regards to this. We can put on our detective hats, use deductive and inductive reasoning using the resources we have available, namely, the entirety of scripture and the writings and words of bible scholars well versed in the Hebrew Scriptures.
What we can do is look through the scripture to see what sorts of unlawful taking we can find, words that are synonymous to stealing that would fall under that general category. In fact this has already been done for us by a rabbinic scholar called Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein. What follows is a list of his findings found throughout the law of Moses that are applicable to gentiles as it falls under a general heading of "theft", or unlawful taking.
Remember that Rabbi Lichtenstein was not looking through the law of Moses and picking ones out that he could apply to gentiles. He was simply looking for laws that fell under the category of theft that were reflected in the Mosaic law. There is a difference. One is where you are using the law of Moses as a framework to make a gentile law. The other where you have the framework of gentile law, and you simply look for reflections of it in the Mosaic law to help give more clarity.
Another scholar called Rambam also says something really similar to this:
A Noahide is liable for [breaking the law of] robbery whether he stole from a non-Jew or from a Jew. One who robs [forcibly] or steals money, a kidnaper, an [employer who] withholds the wages of a worker, and the like, even a worker who eats [from his employer's produce] not during working hours – in all these, he is liable and considered a thief. This differs in Jewish law. He is liable even [for stealing something] worth less than a perutah; A Noahide who stole less than the worth of a perutah and another stole it from him – they are both given capital punishment because of it.
As you may see, this simply reflects some of the laws that were pointed out by the previous rabbi.
So to sum all this up, we have seen that theft was prohibited before the giving of the divine law of the nation of Israel. Also, the very fact that such a principle was eternalised in that law of Moses highlights its origin, power, and scope. And with the help of some scholars, we can see that theft involves a lot more than simply stealing something from a shop.
Back
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.