I was reading, and the following confusing verses about self-defense abruptly stopped me. I’ll give you my take on them, though I’m not absolutely sure I have it right. The verses are 2 and 3 from Exodus 22.

“If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.”

Why is it okay to kill the thief at night? Maybe it’s because of being suddenly surprised in the dark. The victim, sensing approaching movement, can be excused from lashing out due to fear and disorientation. Under such circumstances, it seems appropriate to kill.

(It doesn’t matter if the weapon used to kill the thief is one’s bare hands or a household item. If it’s a gun, that’s okay too. I believe Christians are allowed to have guns for self-defense. That’s a principle I get from Luke 22: 36. In it, Jesus tells His disciples to get a sword. That’s probably because Jesus knew the time was at hand, in which His disciples would be threatened too. To me, that seems like an approval of being armed with a weapon to defend oneself.)

As for the commandment that says “Thou shall not kill,” obviously it doesn’t apply to self-defense, which isn’t an intentional, pre-meditated, malicious killing of another— the very definition of murder.

So why is it not okay to kill the thief during daylight hours? Maybe it’s because the verse is simply speaking about the act of theft itself. During the daylight, though surprised by the thief’s intrusion, one can plainly see whether or not the thief is approaching to attack. If so, killing in self-defense would be justified (not guilty of bloodshed). If not, it seems the Lord would prefer the Christian, if possible, to scare off or hold the perpetrator at bay; this rather than judging that the intruder should die (guilty of bloodshed).