Exodus 22:2–3

Exodus 22:2 · Darby

If the thief be encountered breaking in, and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him.

Exodus 22 begins a set of laws about property, and this verse takes the hardest case: a break-in that ends with the thief dead. One detail decides it — whether the killing happened in the dark.

The Chapter's Subject

These laws apply one of the ten commandments to daily life. One writer ties the whole chapter to the command against stealing.

In Exodus 21 we get judgments that extend "You shall not kill." In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in many ways… The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.

Modernised from F. B. HoleOriginal wording

The Ruling Itself

The verse draws a line at daybreak.

If someone caught a thief breaking in and killed him, this was not murder if it happened in the dark of night. If it happened in daylight, the one who killed him was guilty of bloodshed (vv. 2-3).

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

The difference between night and day is deliberate.

It is a mark of righteousness under the law that a man breaking in at night might be killed, but not a man breaking in by day.

Modernised from G. V. WigramOriginal wording

Why Bloodshed Is the Issue

The verse speaks of "bloodguilt" because God has put the strongest protection around human life. He gave it long before Moses, and no human law can cancel it.

God alone knows the heart of man, and He has called it "deceitful above all things and incurably wicked." When He gave Noah the government of the earth, He provided for the preservation of man's life in the most solemn terms, which no human laws can set aside: "at the hand of Man, at the hand of each (the blood) of his brother, will I require the life of Man. Whoever sheds Man's blood, by Man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He made Man."

Modernised from An Outline of Sound WordsOriginal wording

Against that background the exception stands out. The man who breaks into a house at night forfeits that protection.

Property Guarded Too

God guards what people own as well as their lives. A thief answers to Him, not only to the neighbour he robbed.

Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution to our notice. It is a very necessary principle, since no one who deals with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can evade responsibility. Here God shows not only His concern for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.

Modernised from An Outline of Sound WordsOriginal wording

One writer sets this beside modern justice.

Human laws only punish. They brutalise offenders and keep them offending, and they make no repayment. A man cheats people out of their life savings; he is jailed, and the victims get nothing back. But by God's law a thief was not only punished, but made to work for wages to pay back the theft to his victims (Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:4). He was not jailed and kept at the taxpayers' expense, nor did his victims suffer and starve.

Modernised from William J. LoweOriginal wording

The Debt We Cannot Repay

The thief of this passage had to restore what he took. That points to a debt none of us can settle.

But the question for our souls is this. If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible… But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away." He was the trespass offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. He has therefore made full and adequate restitution for all our trespasses — we can say so, if we believe. In His wonderful grace and mercy, He has repaired every breach that could be charged against us.

Modernised from Edward DennettOriginal wording

(In the ESV, Psalm 69:4 reads as a question: "What I did not steal must I now restore?")

Summary

- Guarded life. God put His own protection around human life in Noah's day and never took it back. That is why any killing raises the question of bloodguilt.

- Guarded home. The night intruder is the exception. Killing him carries no guilt, and writers call that a mark of the law's righteousness.

- Guarded goods. The same law that shields people shields their property. The thief answers to God, not just to his neighbour.

- Restitution, not just punishment. Human justice punishes and leaves the victim empty. God's law made the thief work to repay the one he robbed.

- The greater theft. Every one of us has robbed God and can restore nothing. Christ, the trespass offering, repaid what He never took.

Exodus 22:3 · Darby

If the sun be risen on him, there shall be blood-guiltiness for him; he should have made full restitution if he had nothing, he would have been sold for his theft.

In this verse the time of day decides the case. A thief killed at night leaves no bloodguilt; after sunrise the same killing counts as bloodshed, and the thief who lives must repay in full or be sold to cover what he stole.

Where the verse sits

Chapter 21 applies the command against murder. Chapter 22 applies the command against stealing, and it puts repayment before punishment.

Exodus 21 gives judgments that extend "You shall not murder." Exodus 22 gives judgments that extend "You shall not steal." People can cheat each other in many ways, and this theme runs to the end of verse 17... The first demand is for restitution. If that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty.

Modernised from F. B. HoleOriginal wording

Daylight and darkness

The same act gets two verdicts, and the hour of the day decides which.

If someone caught a thief breaking in and killed him, this was not murder if it happened in the dark of night. If it happened in daylight, the killer was guilty of bloodshed (vv. 2-3).

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Property under God's protection

Repayment is not only about neighbours settling accounts. The offender answers to God Himself.

Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle, for no one who deals with "the righteous LORD, who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility... Here God shows His concern not only for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.

Modernised from An Outline of Sound WordsOriginal wording

Sold, not jailed

The verse ends by selling the thief. That sounds harsh today, yet one writer holds it up against the modern prison.

Human laws only punish offenders, harden them and keep them offending; they repay nothing. A man cheats people out of their life savings; he goes to jail, and the victims get nothing back. But by God's law a thief was not only punished, but compelled to work for wages to pay back the theft to his victims (Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:4). He did not sit in jail at the taxpayers' expense, and his victims did not suffer and starve.

Modernised from William J. LoweOriginal wording

What the thief entered was real servitude. The law did not leave it to the owner's will.

The words usually translated "servant" mean bondmen or slaves. Some were bought with money and some were taken in war: compare also Exodus 22:3... The law of Moses recognised this form of servitude, though it was a result of sin, and gave rules about it and for the protection of the slaves.

Modernised from Morrish Bible DictionaryOriginal wording

The man with nothing to pay

The words "if he has nothing" describe a thief who owes more than he owns. One writer puts the sinner before God in the same place.

If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible; and if left to ourselves we must for ever have remained under the consequences of our trespasses. But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4)... In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. If there had been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God what He had not taken away, but which we had taken away — we must for ever have been answerable to His claims: for ever answerable, but with nothing to pay.

Modernised from Edward DennettOriginal wording

(The ESV puts Psalm 69:4 as a question: "What I did not steal must I now restore?" The older wording above reads it as a statement.)

Beyond repayment

The law could make a thief hand back what he took. One writer asks what becomes of the thief after that.

The thief is to become a labourer and even a giver, for grace transforms. The law required the thief to make restitution, but grace makes him actively generous.

Modernised from W. W. FeredayOriginal wording

Summary

- Repay, first. The chapter asks first for repayment, not punishment. Damages come only where repayment is impossible.

- Repay, because God is watching. Stealing is more than a quarrel between neighbours. The thief answers to the LORD who loves righteousness.

- Repay, even with your labour. A thief with nothing left worked off his debt to his victim. The penalty repaid the wronged party instead of feeding a prison.

- Repay — but you cannot. The sinner who has robbed God stands where verse 3 leaves the penniless thief: for ever answerable, with nothing to pay.

- Repaid, by Another. One came who restored what He never took away, and grace turns the former thief into a giver.