Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 22:2
If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him.
2 3a. A thief caught breaking in by night may be killed without any guilt being incurred by his death, but not if the act take place by day. In the dark the householder would probably not be able to recognize the burglar, so as to bring him to justice, nor would he know whether he might not intend murder: a mortal blow, given in defence of his life and property, would therefore be excusable under the circumstances: but no such excuse could be made for it in the light of day. A thief might also be killed in the night with impunity by Athenian law (Dem. Timocr., 113, p. 736; cf. Plato, Legg. ix. 874 b), and by the law of the XII. Tables (viii. 12) ‘si nox furtum factum sit, si im (eum) occisit, iure caesus esto.’ amm. 21 is not really parallel: see Cook, p.213.
2. breaking in ] digging through: cf. Jer 2:34, Job 24:16, Mat 6:19 RVm. Still the usual method of housebreakers in Syria: see Trumbull, The Threshold Covenant (1896), p. 260 f.
for him ] i.e. for the householder, if he kills him in the darkness. For the expression, cf. Num 35:27 RVm. ( ); and for ‘blood’ (marg.), implying ‘bloodguiltiness,’ Psa 51:14. Elsewhere blood is said to be ‘upon’ a person, Deu 19:10.
3a. upon him ] i.e. upon the thief.
for him ] the householder, as v. 2.
3b. If the text is correct, we must understand tacitly after v. 3a, ‘[He ought not therefore to be killed;] he should make restitution, &c.’ This however is a good deal to supply: both v. 2 and v. 3a start distinctly from the supposition that the thief is slain; and the ox, ass or sheep, of v. 4, are hardly likely to have been found in the house that was ‘dug’ into, v. 2. Hence there is great probability in Budde’s view that vv. 2, 3a are out of place; and that vv. 3b, 4 form really the sequel to v. 1, stating what is to be done in the two other alternative cases, (1) if the thief have nothing, (2) if the stolen animal be found in his possession alive. Render then (directly following v. 1): ( v. 3b) ‘he shall surely make restitution [the word rendered ‘pay’ in vv. 1, 4]: if he have nothing, then he shall be sold,’ &c. (to the end of v. 4).
for his theft ] i.e. not ‘as a punishment for his act of stealing,’ but ‘as compensation for the thing stolen.’ ‘According to Jos. Ant. xvi. 1. 1 a thief sold under these circumstances was not sold to a foreigner, and became free in the 7th year (ch. Exo 21:2)’ (Kn.).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
If a thief, in breaking into a dwelling in the night, was slain, the person who slew him did not incur the guilt of blood; but if the same occurred in daylight, the slayer was guilty in accordance with Exo 21:12. The distinction may have been based on the fact that in the light of day there was a fair chance of identifying and apprehending the thief.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. If a thief be found] If a thief was found breaking into a house in the night season, he might be killed; but not if the sun had risen, for then he might be known and taken, and the restitution made which is mentioned in the succeeding verse. So by the law of England it is a burglary to break and enter a house by night; and “anciently the day was accounted to begin only from sunrising, and to end immediately upon sunset: but it is now generally agreed that if there be daylight enough begun or left, either by the light of the sun or twilight, whereby the countenance of a person may reasonably be discerned, it is no burglary; but that this does not extend to moonlight, for then many midnight burglaries would go unpunished. And besides, the malignity of the offence does not so properly arise, as Mr. Justice Blackstone observes, from its being done in the dark, as at the dead of night when all the creation except beasts of prey are at rest; when sleep has disarmed the owner, and rendered his castle defenceless.” – East’s Pleas of the Crown, vol. ii., p. 509.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Breaking up, to wit, an house, which the Chaldee here adds, and by night, as appears from the next verse.
For him, i.e. for the thief, though he be killed by a man in his own defence. Because in that case the thief might be presumed to have a worse design, and the owner of the house could neither expect or have the help of others to secure him from the intended violence, nor guide his blows with that discretion and moderation which in the day-time he might use.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
If a thief be found breaking up,…. An house, in order to steal money, jewels, household goods, c. or breaking through any fence, hedge, or wall of any enclosure, where oxen, or sheep, or any other creatures are, in order to take them away: the Targum of Jonathan is,
“if in the hole of a wall (or window of it) a thief be found”
that is, in the night, as appears from the following verse, “if the sun”, c. to which this is opposed, as Aben Ezra observes some render it, with a digging instrument x; and it is a Jewish canon y, that
“if anyone enter with a digging instrument: he is condemned on account of his end;”
his design, which is apparent by the instrument found upon him; for, as Maimonides z observes,
“it is well known, that if anyone enters with a digging instrument, that he intends, if the master of the house opposes him to deliver his goods out of his power, that he will kill him, and therefore it is lawful to kill him; but it does not signify whether he enters with a digging instrument, either by the way of the court, or roof;”
and be smitten that he die be knocked down with a club, by the master of the house, or any of his servants, or be run through with a sword, or be struck with any other weapon, to hinder him from entrance and carrying off any of the goods of the house, and the blow be mortal: there shall no blood be shed for him: as for a man that is murdered; for to kill a man when breaking into a house, and, by all appearance, with an intention to commit murder, if resisted, in defence of a man’s self, his life and property, was not to be reckoned murder, and so not punishable with death: or, “no blood” shall be “unto him” a; shall be imputed to him, the man that kills the thief shall not be chargeable with his blood, or suffer for shedding it; because his own life was risked, and it being at such a time, could call none to his assistance, nor easily discern the person, nor could know well where and whom he struck.
x “cum perfossorio”, Pagninus; “cum instrumento perfosserio”, Tigurine version. y Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 8. sect. 6. z Comment. in ib. a “non ei sanguines”, Montanus, Vatablus, Drusius.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Verses 2-4:
“Breaking up” from khathar, making forcible entry into a house.
Breaking into a house by night could be forcibly resisted. If the burglar were killed in the process, the “avenger of blood” might not proceed against the slayer. But if the entry were in the daytime, this provision did not apply. The reason: the thief might be apprehended and forced to make restitution. This principle applied in other societies beside Israel: Solon; Roman law; and English law.
If the stolen articles were found with the thief, he must pay double the value.
The text honors the right of personal property. None should steal that which belongs to another, even to supply his basic needs. Reasons for this:
1. God’s ownership. Man owns nothing; he is merely the custodian of what belongs to God, Ps 50:8-12.
2. Man’s stewardship. God reserves the right to distribute to each that share of His own which he can manage. It violates this principle to take for oneself that which God does not give, 1Co 4:2.
3. Compassion. To steal, even in case of need, is to deprive the property-holder of the blessing of giving to supply that need.
A thief, unable to make restitution for what he stole, could be sold into slavery to satisfy this provision.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. If a thief be found breaking up. This clause is to be taken separately, and is inserted by way of parenthesis; for, after having decreed the punishment, God adds in connection, “he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he should be sold for his theft;” and this exception as to the thief in the night is introduced parenthetically. But although the details are not expressed with sufficient distinctness, still the intention of God is by no means ambiguous, viz., that if a thief should be killed in the dark, his slayer should be unpunished; for he can then hardly be distinguished from a robber, especially when he proceeds with violence; because he cannot enter another man’s house by night without either digging through a wall or breaking down a door. The Twelve Tables (135) differ slightly from this; for they permit the killing of a thief by night, and also by day if he should defend himself with a weapon. But, since God had sufficiently repressed by other laws murders and violent assaults, He is silent here respecting robbers who use the sword in their attempts at plunder. He therefore justly condemns to death those who have avenged by murder a theft in open day.
(135) This provision of the Twelve Tables is thus given by A. Gell. 11. ult. , “Si nox furtum faxit, sim ( si eum) quis occisit, jure caesus esto: si luci furtum faxit, sim aliquis endo ( in) ipso furto capsit, verberator, illique, cui furtum factum escit ( erit) addicitor, sed non nisi is, qui interemturus erat, quiritaret,” i.e. , shall have called out for assistance.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) If a thief be found breaking up.Rather, breaking in: i.e., making forcible entry into a dwelling-house. Most codes agree with the Mosaic in allowing the inmates of the house to resist such an attempt if made at night, and to shed the blood of the burglar, if necessary. He may be considered as having dissolved the social compact, and converted himself from a fellow-citizen into a public enemy. A murderous intent on his part may be suspected.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. No blood for him The thief who breaks into a house in the nighttime is commonly none too good to commit the foulest deeds . There would be no telling all his purposes; and, if slain in the act of such a crime the slayer was not to be looked upon as guilty of murder .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Exo 22:2. If a thief be found breaking up That is, if he were found in the very act of breaking into a house, then reason and self-defence justified the destroying such a person, and accordingly the Divine law adjudged such homicide guiltless. The law of Solon, and of the twelve tables, agreed with this; and it was one of Plato’s laws, that if a thief entered a man’s house by night, the man was justified in killing him. We add there shall no blood be shed for him: the Hebrew is only no blood for him; that is, says Houbigant, there shall be no avenging of his blood: damim, is often so used: for him refers to the thief, not to the homicide.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Observe the difference between robbery in the day, and in the night.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him.
Ver. 2. If a thief be found. ] So, if an adulteress be taken, – as she was in Joh 8:4 , – , in the very act.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
found: i, e. caught in the act of.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
breaking: Job 24:14, Job 30:5, Hos 7:1, Joe 2:9, Mat 6:19, Mat 6:20, Mat 24:43, 1Th 5:2
no blood: Num 35:27
Reciprocal: Gen 9:6 – by Deu 17:8 – between blood Job 24:16 – In the dark Eze 18:10 – a robber
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 22:2. If a thief broke into a house in the night, and was killed in the doing it, his blood was upon his own head; but if it were in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him was accountable for it, unless it were in the necessary defence of his own life.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
22:2 If a thief be found {b} breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him.
(b) Breaking a house to enter in, or undermining.