Tags
Bible, Exodus, Exodus 22, Exodus 22:2, Exodus 22:2-3, Pacifism, Self Defense, Theology
Several times now, I have read the words of Christians who interpret Exodus 22:2-3 to mean that defending oneself using lethal force when one’s home was invaded was forbidden under Old Testament Law, at least during the daytime. If only one had done it, my inclination would be to blow it off. But since this interpretation is apparently widespread, I feel I need to answer it.
This interpretation relies on a twisting of Scripture in order to promote a preconceived pacifism, and I here attempt to rebut it.
What does Scripture say? In Young’s Literal Translation, the passage reads:
2`If in the breaking through, the thief is found, and he hath been smitten, and hath died, there is no blood for him;
3if the sun hath risen upon him, blood [is] for him, he doth certainly repay; if he have nothing, then he hath been sold for his theft;
This is rather hard to understand. What is ‘the breaking through?’ Perhaps the New King James Version will be somewhat clearer.
2 If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Aha! Now this is comprehensible. I like Young and rely heavily on him myself, but even I had trouble making sense of what he said there. Now, what does this mean? Well, first let us note that there are two contrasting scenarios. In the first, the thief ‘is found breaking in’. In the second, ‘the sun has risen on him’.
Those who take the view I here attempt to debunk interpret ‘the sun has risen on him’ to mean that the break-in took place during the daytime. Thus ‘found breaking in’ must mean the break-in happened at night. This obviously makes no sense. Why should the fact that he was found breaking in lead us to think it was happening at night? Why would the passage be written in such a confusing way? ‘If he breaks in, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed, but if he breaks in during the day, there shall’. This is nonsense.
The more reasonable interpretation would be as follows:
The assumption, first of all, is that the thief probably broke in at night. Thus, if he is caught while breaking in and the owner of the house defends himself, killing the thief, he is not guilty of murder. If, however, the thief escapes, and is found later, presumably after the sun has risen again, and he then is killed, this is murder.
In other words, the Law is saying that lethal self-defense is allowed, but we are not to hunt down thieves and kill them; larceny is not a capital crime. The sun having risen cannot be taken in a rigidly literal sense; it indicates the thief being found at some later time, rather than while he was breaking in as in the first scenario.
I hope this post has been helpful. Whether you agree or disagree, I’d love to hear from you. Comments are open as always, and I remain ever
Your Humble Servant,
Samuel C Starrett
Yes, once again Sam you nailed it!
Well said.
There’s different way to interpret this. Not meaning yours is right.
2`If in the breaking through, the thief is found, and he hath been smitten, and hath died, there is no blood for him;
So this could mean if he is stealing from you in the night you could mistaken that thief is trying to harm you.
if the sun hath risen upon him, blood [is] for him, he doth certainly repay; if he have nothing, then he hath been sold for his theft
This could mean that if the sun is risen on him you can see that he is trying to steal from you not physically harm you. So if you kill him knowing his action then theirs blood on your hands.
I’m not sure I understand. Are you contesting my point that the sun having risen doesn’t have to do with the time at which the break-in occurs?
I think Asia meant if you know your life is not in harm’s way and you kill you are a murderer.
The interpretation of the Exodus 22:2 can be there is thieving in broad day light and there is thieving at night/darkness- when its sunlight you can see whether the thief is going to endanger your life or not so if you kill in broad day light, you may commit murder if you kill when you know the thief is just there to steal.
Then there is your explanation which is, irregardless of motive of the thief, you can kill at night but cannot pursue him/her in broad day light after the thieving has occurred.
I think Asia interpreted the text as the sunlight for metaphor for being able to see the thief’s intention and darkness = motive being unclear (is the thief there only for the jewelry or is he/she going to kill as well?) And I think your expanation doesn’t take into account motives but offers a literal explanation of the text. Which is to say, if thief comes in at night even if you are sure this person will not kill you, you still have the right to kill. However, you don’t have the right to chase after them the morning after when you have not succeeded in killing them.
Pingback: The Captain's Journal » Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense
Pingback: My form of yoga | A Conservative Hippie
None of you dealt with the restitution issue in verse 3. Who pays?
That’s because it was beside the point. But it seems to me it means the thief should be apprehended (not killed) and made to pay for what he stole.