1/11/2024 0 Comments Thief in the night verseWhat might that mean? It might mean that the thief was captured and detained until sunrise. Also, the language speaks to a passage of time wherein the sun rose over the actions of the thief. It is equally unlikely that the homeowner was killed while trying to rob himself in broad daylight. 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 broke in that the homeowner would be expected to pay a fine or make restitution (to whom). (Exodus 22:3)- don't carelessly gloss over the "he's," "his's," and "him's." If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. You have to carefully watch the grammar and the antecedents.ģ but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall pay for his theft (he, who?) Pay for his theft (whose theft, who pays?). There shall be bloodguilt for him (him, who?). But if the sun has risen on him (him, who?). Why do we say this?ģ but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. 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. Don't read things into a verse that are not there. Where in verse 2 does it say this? It doesn’t. 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. Such a dichotomy (and interpretation) doesn’t make sense for several reasons. Here is a cautionary tale about avoiding wooden literalism. 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). However, if a thief breaks into a home during the daylight hours the use of lethal force is not justified. 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. There are some who wrestle with this passage in terms of using lethal force in self-defense. One such passage perplexes many is Exodus 22:2-3:Ģ 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. Upon closer examination, we learn and see that the contradiction was apparent rather than real and that the seeming contradictory Scriptures complement one another. Any contradictions are apparent, even paradoxical. We understand that God does not contradict Himself. In essence, we let Scripture interpret Scripture ("analogia scriptura") and we don’t try and outthink God or speculate about what He may or may not be thinking. Part of the process of interpretation involves deriving or distilling a principle from a verse that is clear and taking a less clear verse or passage and using similar passages on the same or similar topic to understand the less clear passage ("analogia scriptura"). We live in an age where all too often good people seem to be in search of wiggle room where there is none. We live in a curious age where we see but we do not see, where we try and find an exception to a rule where there is no exception.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |