2 If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. (Exodus 22:2-3)
(this is the final installment in a series of three posts)
There are some who wrestle with this passage in terms of using lethal force in self-defense. Not to oversimplify, there are some who read verses 2-3 and conclude that if a thief breaks into a home after nightfall the use of lethal force is justified. However, if a thief breaks into a home during the daylight hours the use of lethal force is not justified. Put another way, to some it appears that the verses seem to say that the use of lethal force for a burglary is always justified after dark and never justified during daylight hours (vis-à-vis the use of the “shall be” statements). Here is a cautionary tale about avoiding wooden literalism.
Such a dichotomy (and interpretation) struggles to make sense for several reasons. Let’s think through this together. What is a thief? How is a thief recognized? Do we check ID… credentials? Notice what it does not say, “If a murderer is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies…” Also consider this, from an interpretive perspective: nowhere in the verse does it say that the thief struck and killed in verse 2 is breaking in at night. We assume so because of the language, syntax, and near context of verse 3. Where in verse 2 does it say this? It doesn’t. Avoid reading things into a verse that are not there.
Take a good long look at verse 3. In the words of Inigo Montoya (cf. the movie, “The Princess Bride”), “I do not think it means what you think it means…” Verse 3 seems to speak of a thief captured during the night and killed after sunrise. Why would we say this?
3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. (Exodus 22:3)
Let's read this verse carefully. But if the sun has risen on him (him, who?). There shall be bloodguilt for him (him, who?). He shall surely pay (he, who?). If he has nothing left (he who?). He shall pay for his theft (he, who?) Pay for his theft (whose theft, who pays?). You have to carefully watch the grammar and the antecedents. Perhaps a common sense reading of the text implies that the thief is not killed and help prisoner? Perhaps.
How can the thief pay for his theft if he was killed during the night? Will he “have nothing” if he is dead? Will the homeowner “have nothing?” It is unlikely since the thief is the one who committed the crime, who broke in, that the homeowner would be expected to pay a fine or make restitution (to whom). It is equally unlikely that the homeowner was killed while trying to rob himself in broad daylight. Also, the language speaks to a passage of time wherein the sun rose over the actions of the thief. What might that mean?
It might mean that the thief was captured and detained until sunrise. It might also seems indicate that the thief could not be killed after being captured by the homeowner. Instead, the thief would pay some sort of financial penalty or face being sold into slavery.
Now we have another complication besides grammar and language: historical context. Should we sell such thieves into slavery today? In other words, consider the historical and cultural context (more on that later). What’s our point? When reading and applying a text like this, take the most obvious and simplest understanding of the text and generalize a principle. But don’t build a theology of self-defense from it.
3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. (Exodus 22:3)--don't gloss over the "he's," "his's," and "him's."
Does anyone want to build a theology of self-defense precluding lethality from verse 3? Just for greater clarity of understanding, We checked a dozen commentators as to what verse 3 might mean. No one was quite sure, and their answers were guess work and conjecture (reading into the text). The consensus, as much as there was one, was something to the effect that in broad daylight neighbors and passersby could be enlisted to capture the burglar (robber) and so he need not be killed. Verse 2, because it was night, allowed for defending oneself by any means necessary from the home invasion of the criminal. There was some discussion that people who break-in at night are more of a danger to a homeowner than those who attempt a daytime home invasion.
Let’s look at this passage again and determine just what we can be certain of. Let’s pull them out of this passage without reading anything into it.
2 If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. (Exodus 22:2-3)
What does the Bible say about what could reasonably happen during a break-in (in this passage)? What do the words say, what do they mean, and how then should we live in response to what we read. There are a number of possibilities and principles we can pull out of this text.
Possibility-principle number one. If you break into someone’s home, you put your life at risk, particularly at night. Burglars/thieves risk death when they endanger others by breaking into their homes to steal from them or forcefully deprive them of their property or money, particularly at night.
Possibility-principle number two. Under a certain set of circumstances, no one is going to question the decision to take the life of a thief or burglar in such a break-in. It’s no surprise that homeowners, parents, spouses, siblings, or offspring might find it necessary to defend themselves or others from harm—potential harm or real harm (warning: this video is rather graphic). Under a certain set of circumstances, God allows the taking of life in self-defense. As you can see from the previous link, daytime break-ins are just as life threatening as night time break-ins. Would it be immoral or unbiblical for this woman to defend herself, the three year old on the sofa and the baby upstairs from this attack by using lethal force?
Possibility-principle number three. There might be certain circumstances where others might question taking the life of a thief or burglar. For example, if the thief or burglar is captured in your home and restrained (surrenders or is taken prisoner) there can be no justification for taking his life after daybreak (i.e. “and the sun has risen on him)”. The captured criminal can expect to be held accountable. In the historical context of our passage, there was apparently both criminal and civil liability. He could expect to make restitution or pay a fine. In the Ancient Near East, in biblical times, if the thief or burglar is unable to pay or make restitution, then he or she could be sold as a slave (they didn’t have penitentiaries in those days). And in most cases theft did not result in capital punishment by the authorities.
If you have a home-invasion (or daylight break-in) is deadly force sin in any and all cases? In other words, does verse 3 preclude you or I from taking the life of someone breaking into our homes during the daylight hours? As Christ-followers we do not want to wantonly take life. However, as shepherds and stewards, we are remiss in not protecting our family, our lives, and our home. That’s what shepherds do. Shepherds protect the flock. Thieves, as Jesus points out, come with three primary objectives: “to steal and kill and destroy (John 10:10).” Jesus came that we should have life (we refer to believers). A hireling does not protect the sheep. A shepherd lays down his life against wolves… (human or otherwise).
Should you passively accept or tolerate those coming to steal, kill, and destroy without defending yourself or your family by any means possible, including lethal force? Exodus 22:3 makes no such demand. Jesus told His disciples they would be treated as criminals and they should protect themselves from attack and He did not limit it to night time attacks or preclude self-defense and lethal force in daylight attacks:
And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:36-38)
Think it over. If Jesus allows self-defense with a lethal weapon (sword) in the face of persecution, then would Jesus prohibit protecting the home day or night? Would he restrict self-defense day or night in the face of a criminal coming to steal or kill or destroy? You certainly can’t make such a case from Exodus 22:3. Given what Jesus says in Luke 22:36-38, given the fact that a sword is a lethal weapon, Jesus affirms lethal force in self-defense.
Jesus doesn’t limit the time of day in this New Testament passage (Luke 22:36-38). Certainly, lethal force should be avoided if possible. However, those who break in and steal face the possibility that their actions will cost them their lives as they choose to endanger themselves and others by entering a home violently or by stealth.
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. In the process of stealing the thief may do great bodily harm, kill, or cripple an innocent. Given the choice to let someone harm my family or take their life, I have decided in my mind that I will do whatever is necessary to neutralize the threat—up to and including deadly force. Deadly force in the daylight hours is not sin. It is not prohibited as the whole counsel of Scripture, including the teachings of Christ, never prohibits such an option. Luke’s account of Jesus’ teaching seems to make this clear. The words of Jesus that we are free to defend ourselves from attack, even with a lethal weapon like a sword (or in our context a gun).