A homeowner is permitted to kill a (night) house invader - Under Biblical law

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And that's not very Christian of you to lash out and try to get someone harmed because your own personal dissatisfaction.

Yet you tried to get what, about 3 or more posters OUT of this thread because of your own personal dissatisfaction !?!?

 

[Hazelelponi]

If you agree with the definition all is well. I never accused you of not being there.

If you leave that would be your choice.

I notice you have not mentioned anything of the topic of the thread,which was thief/house invaders.

Opened this thread because it seemed a fine thread to read..

I didn't join in the topic of the OP because you were attacking so many people at one point the topic became about YOUR definition of a fundamentalist and who should be allowed to discuss the OP at all...

I wasn't going to try and discuss a topic if all I was going to be was attacked for it - hence, my suggestion of a thread that gave a more clear definition..

 

[Josheb]

So what would a person do if they had someone break into there home and by the time they met the intruder/thief the invader had already entered? By your reasoning....

You don't know anything about my reasoning so please stop acting as if you do. It's rude and disrespectful.

To begin with, and I repeat myelf unnecessarily because you have twice ignored the previously made salient point, the text is talking 1) about thieving, not a danger to self or others and 2) restitution (not vengeance or retribution).

So... anytime you or anyone else tries to force the text to say anything other than that which it states you yourself have added to the text and become guilty of adding to the text after you have dismissed others for doing the same (when they didn't). That is called hypocrisy.

If we stick to the letter of that specific law then there is very little to be said and any modern law that does not specifically, explicitly and solely stick to that very defined pair of parameters is self-evidently in non-cimplianc with God's law.

However, if we apply the principle ensconced in that single law, then we'll have to consult other passages having to do with similar circumstances and similar precepts because trying to form doctrine based solely one a single literal reading of the law without consideration of all else God's law says on the subject is called proof-texting and proof-texting is always bad and invariably leads to bad doctrine.

Third, we must ask ourselves to measure the OT laws by way of the NT covenant in Christ. Jesus did not so much as teach a new law as he did a corrected he legalistic reading of the Jewish leaders and their hypocritical application.

We see the practice of precept over letter throughout the NT. Perhaps one of the most observable examples is the use of the OT law against muzzling the ox while it threshes the grain. This statute is referenced at least three time in the NT and not a single one of those examples has anything to do with oxen or grain threshing.

Lastly, because much of the Mosaic code was a witness to, fulfilled by, and annulled by Jesus we must ask ourselves, "Is the OT law still in place except where it has been exempted in the NT? or shall we exempt ourselves from the OT law except where it is reinforced in the NT? Certainly there isn't much literal need for a law about oxen in post-industrial information societies, but preceptually such a law may have numerous applications.




So then, we are always going to better understand and apply the Exoduss 22 text when we 1) understand it preceptually 2) through the whole of the scriptural canon, 3) in light of Christ crucified and resurrected, and 4) not proof-texting it.

Let me also add that God's jurisprudence for His people has always been restitutional, not retributional. Romans 12:9-21 is a good NT text by which to understand this. We are called to love. Vengeance is God's not our domain. The element of restitution is simply: if I break your donkey then I owe you a donkey plus a small payment to compensate for any additional loss and, similarly, if I broke your ox then I owe you an ox plus a somewhat larger penalty to cover the larger loss. But in the NT Jesus taught that we exceed the law, not merely conform to its letter. In the OT if restitution couldn't be paid then it was worked off and the whole of the law testified about Christ..... including Ex. 22:2-3.





And if you think you can refrain from telling me about me and stick to the op-relevant content actually posted then I'm happy to have this conversation. I can back up every word I have posted with scripture, and without proof-texting it.

 

[lismore]

Then why would it be acceptable at night but not during the day?

Because thieves don't break in during the day, they use darkness as a shield.

Job 24:16 GNB. At night thieves break into houses, but by day they hide and avoid the light.

 

[Believer000]

I would think that a man has a God given right to defend his castle. Especially if said perpetrator has a gun and he is invading your property. Killing them would not be murder if doing so protects your family. Thats called self defence.

 

[Online.Gamer.79]

The scripture:

Exodus 22
2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.


God allows a homeowner who is confronted with an intruder who invades their property at night to kill them. During the day this method is unacceptable.

People say self-defense is a gray area in the Bible but this shows what God intends for house invaders if they force their way into peoples houses at night. It also helps shed some light on the whole modern day house invasion issue.
*Please note not all countries have justifiable homicide laws for house invaders so check with your local police on the legal situation in your area*

Well some teens broke into my grandfathers house he is retired marine he does not wish to kill anyone so keeps a shotgun filled with rock salt in his house. Those boys survived but they were wishing they were dead