so what this law is assuming, is that a thief is only going to break in during the night. if the homeowner strikes the thief an they die, there's no guilt if the thief survives to the next morning (the sun has risen on him) then there is a crime, the guilt is on the thief, they pay restitution for breaking in, and are sold into slavery if they can't pay. that's the context. that's why it doesn't specify during the night it assumes during the night but it gives a stipulation if the thief survives. because otherwise there's a legal question left, if you defend yourself from a thief and they survive, what happens? think about modern britain. if you defend yourself from a burglar the burglar can sue, and win. that's the kind of thing this scripture is avoiding. placing guilt on the homeowner defending themselves whether the thief dies (meaning there's no justification for an avenger of blood) or survives (placing blame on the thief and having them pay restitution or be sold into slavery so the homeowner can afford to repair damage done to their home as a result of the breakin)
United States