It looks like you actually quoted verses 2, 3, & 4, not 1 - 3. If you look at Exo. 22 verses 1 & 4 really go together and deal with a thief's restitution for stealing. How much he owes depends on whether what he stole is recovered alive or dead. Verses two and three are really a separate, but related, issue: what about the property owner who finds a thief in the middle of his theft? The Scriptures state fairly clearly (to my mind, anyway) that deadly force is authorized to protect property at nighttime, but not in the daytime. Bloodguilt is the debt (for want of a better way to put it) that a person owes when they are responsible for someone's death. Under the Jewish Law, if I were responsible for the death of your son somehow, I could pay off my bloodguilt by giving you my son or some other equitable exchange. But there were some circumstances where I might cause a death, but not incur the bloodguilt. That is what Moses was writing about here is Exo 22:2-3.srothstein wrote:Interestingly enough, when I read the Jewish versions, it is an entirely different concept.
1. If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.
2 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be bloodguiltiness for him--he shall make restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
3 If the theft be found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep, he shall pay double.
The way I understand the above, if the thief is killed, then his family owes nothing (that is what was meant by bloodguiltiness). If the sun rises on him, the thief either makes restitution or becomes a slave. And if he is stealing a live animal, the restitution is double the value of the animal.
I included all three lines to because I think it makes the entire concept more clear. Sorry, I cannot read the Hebrew anymore, so I went with a translation from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... dus22.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . I point this out because it is in the translations that we get the different meanings. I do not know if this translation is any more correct than the King James or NIV versions.
These verses simply do not deal with the use of deadly force to protect yourself or a third party from aggression.