Bible Commentaries
Exodus 22

Verse 2

Exodus 22.2

If a thief -- burglarized in the night and was killed by the owner of the house, then the defendant was not guilty of murder. But if the burglar was killed during the daytime the houseowner was guilty of homicide. (Apparently the day thief could be seen and help could more easily be obtained.) The Mosaic code sought to protect human life, even that of criminals. The thief was either to compensate for the crime with his own material wealth or to be sold into slavery. - BKC

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. - Pool

22:2 there is not bloodguilt Presumes a crime at night in contrast to v. 3, which specifies that the sun has risen. Since the resident would not know the thief’s intentions, killing the thief constitutes an act of self-defense. The resident is therefore not guilty of taking the man’s life. - FSB

Verse 3

exo 22.3

22:3 If the sun has risen on him. The culpability of a householder’s actions against an intruder depended on whether the break-in (lit. “digging through” the mud walls) was at night or in the daytime. At night quick evaluation of an intruder’s intentions was not as clear as it might be in daytime, nor would someone be awake and on hand to help. - MSB

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.’ Ḥamm. § 21 is not really parallel: see Cook, p.213.

2. breaking in] digging through: cf. Jer. 2:34, Job 24:16, Mt. 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. Nu. 35:27 RVm. (àéï ìå ãí); and for ‘blood’ (marg.), implying ‘bloodguiltiness,’ Ps. 51:14. Elsewhere blood is said to be ‘upon’ a person, Dt. 19:10.

- CBSC

22:1–4 According to the Code of Hammurabi a thief should die if he could not repay what he had stolen or if he stole by breaking in.³⁸³ The Torah modified this law by annulling the death penalty and substituting the penalty of being sold into slavery in the first case. In the second case it annulled the death penalty and protected the life of the victim. Verses 1 and 4 of chapter 22 go together and deal with theft generally. The reason for the fivefold and fourfold penalties appears to be that the thief was taking the means of another person’s livelihood. Verses 2 and 3, which deal with breaking and entering, address a special type of theft. Perhaps the law assumed that the thief’s intent was murder as well as theft if he broke in at night but only theft if he broke in in daylight. If so, we might assume that if his intentions turned out to have been otherwise, the law would deal with him accordingly. The text gives only the typical case. Perhaps the logic was that at night the victim’s life was in greater danger so the law allowed him to use more force in resisting his assailant than in the daytime. - Constable

Verse 19

Exodus 22:19

See Romans 13:4 note on "Capital Punishment"