Exodus 22 2

Exodus 22:2 kjv

If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

Exodus 22:2 nkjv

If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Exodus 22:2 niv

"If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

Exodus 22:2 esv

If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,

Exodus 22:2 nlt

"If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder.

Exodus 22 verses

Exodus 22 2 Meaning

This verse establishes a legal principle in ancient Israel, permitting a householder to use lethal force against a thief discovered breaking into their home at night without incurring guilt for the thief's death. It acknowledges the inherent danger and the householder's right to defend life and property under such specific, high-risk circumstances.

Exodus 22 2 Context

Exodus 22:2 is part of the "Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 20:22–23:33), which elaborates on the Ten Commandments, providing specific civil and criminal statutes for Israel's governance. This chapter, in particular, focuses on laws concerning property rights, theft, damages, and social justice. The verse directly follows laws about restitution for theft (Exo 22:1). Its immediate context is establishing boundaries for when violence, even leading to death, is permissible in a private capacity. The contrast with the very next verse (Exo 22:3), which deals with a daytime thief and forbids lethal force, is crucial for understanding the nuance of this law. In ancient Israel, without a dedicated police force, individuals were often responsible for their own security. A nighttime break-in was considered a highly dangerous situation, as the intruder's intent beyond theft (such as violence against residents) could not be easily determined in the dark.

Exodus 22 2 Word analysis

• If: This introduces a hypothetical, conditional legal scenario, indicating that the following statute applies under specific circumstances, not generally.
• a thief: (Hebrew: ganav, גַּנָּב) Refers to one who unlawfully takes another's property, often with stealth or secrecy. The term focuses on the act of stealing.
• is found: This implies the thief is discovered in the act of stealing or breaking in, not pursued after the fact. It highlights the element of surprise and direct confrontation for the householder.
• breaking in: (Hebrew: bamach'teret, בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת) This is a critical phrase. Makhteret comes from the verb khathar, meaning "to dig through" or "to break through (a wall or house)." It refers to an illegal entry that typically involved violent breach of a dwelling, often committed stealthily under the cover of darkness. This implies more than just casual entry; it denotes a forceful and intrusive violation of the private dwelling. This particular word often points to the vulnerability and elevated danger of the homeowner at night.
• and is struck: (Hebrew: v'hukkah, וְהֻכָּה) From the verb nakah, meaning "to strike" or "to smite." It implies a forceful blow, here presented in the passive voice, indicating the homeowner's action.
• so that he dies: This clearly states the outcome of the striking; the thief's death is a direct result of the homeowner's defensive action.
• there shall be no bloodguilt for him: (Hebrew: ein lo damim, אֵין לוֹ דָמִים) Literally "there are no bloods to him" or "no blood is on him." This is the legal verdict. It means the person who struck and killed the thief is not held responsible for murder or manslaughter. There is no legal penalty, no requirement for blood vengeance from the thief's family, and no need for compensation. It’s a judicial acquittal for the defensive act.
• Words-group analysis:
  • "If a thief is found breaking in": This phrase sets the specific, high-stakes context. The homeowner is not actively hunting a thief, but rather reacting to an immediate, uninvited, and forceful intrusion into their dwelling, where the thief's presence implies imminent danger beyond mere property loss. The "breaking in" element emphasizes the violent nature of the entry.
  • "and is struck so that he dies": This emphasizes the direct consequence of the defensive action. The law addresses situations where the defense proves fatal. It highlights the intensity of the struggle and the necessity of the act from the homeowner's perspective.
  • "there shall be no bloodguilt for him": This constitutes the core legal pronouncement of the verse. It declares the legitimacy of the lethal defensive act under these specific circumstances, exempting the homeowner from culpability. This clause makes a clear distinction between murder (forbidden by the sixth commandment) and legitimate self-defense within one's own violated dwelling at night.

Exodus 22 2 Bonus section

• Presumption of Danger: The core difference between a daytime and a nighttime thief in Israelite law is the presumption of danger. At night, any intruder "breaking in" was assumed to be prepared to commit further violence, including murder or assault, to achieve their goals or avoid capture. Therefore, a defensive act leading to death was seen as justifiable self-preservation, not murder.
• House as a Sanctified Space: In ancient cultures, the home was not merely property but a secure and sacred space, a sanctuary for the family. A violent intrusion at night was seen as a profound violation of this sanctity and the safety it represented.
• Proportionality Implicit: While seemingly granting a wide latitude, the law implies a necessary, proportional response to a perceived lethal threat. It's not a license for indiscriminate violence but an acknowledgment of a homeowner's right to defend life when confronted with an unpredictable, dangerous situation in their own domain.

Exodus 22 2 Commentary

Exodus 22:2 offers a crucial insight into Israelite law regarding the sanctity of life and property. It establishes the principle of legitimate defense, acknowledging that the act of a thief "breaking in" (especially at night) constitutes an extreme threat. In a context without a formal policing system, a householder's ability to protect their home was paramount. The law assumes that a nighttime intruder, by forcefully entering a private dwelling, not only intends to steal but may also pose a threat of bodily harm or even death to the occupants. The cover of darkness prevents a homeowner from accurately assessing the intruder's full intentions, leading to the legal presumption that lethal force may be necessary for self-preservation. This contrasts sharply with daytime theft, where the reduced threat perception meant lethal force was not permitted (Exo 22:3), underscoring the ancient understanding of the increased vulnerability and danger posed by nighttime invasion. It reflects a compassionate justice system that permits self-preservation in the face of grave, immediate peril, yet remains stringent about the general sanctity of human life.