In the case Katko v. Briney, the Supreme Court of Iowa held the view that “The value of human life and limb… so outweighs the interest of a possessor of land in excluding from it those whom he is not willing to admit thereto that a possessor of land has… no privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious harm against another whom the possessor sees about to enter his premises or meddle with his chattel, unless the intrusion threatens death or serious bodily harm to the occupiers or users of the premises.” Succinctly put, the court held that a landowner cannot use deadly or extremely dangerous force to protect his property from trespassers. The issue before us is whether it is a biblical principle that a property owner should be prohibited from using excessive force to defend his property.
We will begin by looking at the specific passages that address the issue. In the Old Testament we find only one key passage that really speaks to the heart of the issue. However we find many passages that lay down principles that apply to the issue. The key passage that addresses the issue is found in Exodus 22:2 which reads, “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.” The Mosaic Law provided that if a thief was found breaking in, at night, and the owner of the property struck and killed him, the owner would not be held guilty. Now the context of this passage was in reference to someone breaking in and stealing animals. We are not even addressing the actual dwelling place being broken into, but instead outlying cattle pens or buildings. The holding of the court said that a landowner cannot protect his or her property with deadly force. However this Scripture indicates that a landowner has the right to protect his or her property with whatever force necessary.
Now there is a principle in life that is very important to remember with regard to this issue. There are things in life that one can do, and other things that one should do. In this case the “legal” principle in the Bible, what one can do, is use deadly force against a thief and not be held liable for it. However there are many other passages that clearly indicate guidelines for what you should do.
In the New Testament Christ laid down certain principles for His disciples and followers to adhere to. Many times Old Testament commands were clarified or expanded by Christ’s teaching. For example, with regard to adultery, the Old Testament command was “thou shalt not commit adultery”. Christ expanded this command by saying, “Whoever looks on a woman to lust for her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” There were also some Old Testament commands that the religious leaders of His day had distorted to fit their personal agendas. The Old Testament commanded “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Jesus clarified this command by saying “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” The issue that we are considering was also addressed by some of Christ’s teaching. In Matthew 5:43-45 Christ said “You have heard that it was said ‘you shall love your neighbor and hate you enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies… that you may be sons of your Father in heaven, for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good.” We should also consider the New Testament principle of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Both of these principles indicate to us the New Testament view of this issue. The principle is to love your enemies and treat them in the way that you would want to be treated. Putting your enemy’s life in danger in your quest to protect your property, is not applying these principles. The only way you can justify using deadly force is in the case where either your life, or your family’s life, is in danger. This force is justified because the duty to protect your family is higher than your duty to your fellow man. Therefore the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling, according to the New Testament, is what you should do.
So how do we reconcile these passages in the Old and New Testament that seem to contradict? Well one way to approach these passages is to come from the view that if commands from the Old Testament and Christ’s teachings contradict, then Christ’s teachings are the higher authority. However, in this instance, I believe that both teachings can coincide without contradicting each other. As I mentioned before, there are things in life that one can do, with regard to “legality”. But then there are other things that one should do, with regard to one’s duty. In this case the Old Testament principle lays out what you can do. You can use deadly force against a trespasser at night and not be held liable. Then Jesus teaching in the New Testament prescribes what you should do. You should treat the trespasser as you would want to be treated not use deadly force against him.
So in conclusion, did the ruling of the Supreme Court of Iowa follow biblical principles? The short answer is no. It is not the duty of government to prohibit the use of deadly force in protection of private property. Jesus commands concerning our treatment of others, concern those who are His followers. We are not to impose religion on others through the medium of law. Morality can be imposed by the government but not religion. When religion is imposed, even though we may adhere to it, that imposition of religion is an encroachment on the freedoms due to man. God has given to humans the ability to decide what they believe, therefore no authority has the right to try to force a certain belief. In this instance each person should be able to legally protect their property with deadly force if they so choose. However Christians should keep in mind that their duty is to care for their fellow man. Therefore they should avoid using deadly force whenever possible while protecting their property.
