Theocracy Podcast Episode 22: Copyrights Are Unlawful with Stephan Kinsella

https://theocracy.libsyn.com/027-what-moses-says-about-kyle-rittenhouse

11/19/21 by Adam Terrell

[Edit: Less than 8 hours after this article was published, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all wrongdoing related to the charges against him. Under Biblical law, this would force a judge to conclude that the charges against him were false, ideally resulting in the death penalty for the witnesses (the ones who are supposed to be responsible for bringing the charges under Biblical law). This is to ensure there is no wiggle room in bringing charges. When a charge is brought, someone must face the consequences.]

Welcome to another special on the Theocracy podcast. Some of you have probably heard about Kyle Rittenhouse whose trial is ongoing right now. As of this recording, the jury has wrapped their third day of deliberations with no verdict yet.

For those of you who haven’t been following the event, I will catch you up. I will be covering the events surrounding Mr. Kyle Rittenhouse, the law in Exodus 22:2-3 that applies here, definitions of the words the law uses, their applicability in this case, the entire range of possible legal outcomes and punishments according to God’s law, and what has been handled improperly in the court of unbelievers.

So jumping right in:

What did Kyle Rittenhouse do?
Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two men and injured a third with a gun on August 25th, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Two days earlier, a Kenosha police officer shot a man named Jacob Blake. As a result of the shooting, Blake was paralyzed from the waist down. The shooting caused a stir in the city and locals lit multiple fires, destroying over 100 cars and at least three businesses. Over 200 local officers and at least 2,000 National Guardsmen were on hand to keep watch and prevent more fires and damage. Rittenhouse says he was in the city on the night of August 25th to help keep the peace and protect local businesses.

What Biblical laws would apply in this situation?
There are a very limited number of reasons that anyone is allowed to kill without prior law proceedings. One would be in war, but I would not consider this situation a war according to Deuteronomy 20. For a war to be lawful, the goal must be to offer the city terms of surrender via slavery, or to otherwise kill all the men and take the women and toddlers as slaves. Another possibility would be in the case of the avenger of blood in Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19:1-13, and Joshua 20, but it would also not apply here. The most applicable law to this situation is Exodus 22:2-3 which says: “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”

So what should happen to Kyle Rittenhouse?
For Kyle Rittenhouse to have no bloodguilt in regard to the men he killed or injured, there are a few criteria that must be met for each person: 1. The person he struck must be a thief. 2. The thief must be “found breaking in.” 3. The sun has not risen on the thief.

What’s the definition of “thief”?
I am not fluent in Hebrew or Koine Greek, but there’s a simple way we can see how Jesus and the Hebrews defined the word “thief” used here in Exodus. There are Greek translations of the Old Testament that the Hebrews made for the Jews living abroad. This Greek translation is called the Septuagint, and it was completed several hundred years before Christ. The word that the Jews translated for “thief” here in Exodus 22:2 was “kleptés.” Jesus uses this same word for “thief” in John 10:10 where he says: “The thief comes only to steal, kill, and destroy.”

Had the men come to steal, kill, or destroy?
The only people that it really matters to answer this question is the witnesses. There are small details that they might know that could determine this one way or another. It is for them to decide based on this question as to whether or not they wish to bring a charge. This is important for the purpose of penalizing false witnesses which I’ll get into shortly.

What is the definition of “breaking in?”
The word for “breaking in” literally means “to dig.” A form of this word is used in Job 24:16: “In the dark they dig through houses; by day they shut themselves up; they do not know the light.” It’s also used in Ezekiel chapters 8 and 12 referring to digging through a wall. This can be in reference to penetrating any kind of barrier. It’s also used in Jonah 1:13 referring to rowing, essentially digging through the water with an oar. This definition would seem to apply even without violence or weapons.

Were all the men “found breaking in”?
If “breaking in” would apply to rowing or digging into a wall, would it not also apply to trying to dig into someone’s body with a skateboard or a thrown object? Again, whether or not they were “digging in” or “breaking in” is a question for the witnesses to answer. I’ll explain why this is so important shortly.

What does it mean about the sun being risen on him?
Let’s say a thief breaks in, and after the next sunrise, he is found. If he were to be struck then, there would be guilt for his blood. I think it’s clear that the sun had not risen on the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot. This entire event took place at night.

What is bloodguilt?
The phrase used is literally “there shall be no guilt for his blood.” Ordinarily, “whoever sheds mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). This case is a rare exception.

Does it matter if Kyle was allowed to defend property by the business owner?
The passage in Exodus 22:2-3 is silent on this. It doesn’t say that an owner or his representative are the only ones who would not have bloodguilt. It would seem by this silence that anyone who kills the thief who is found breaking in would have no bloodguilt.

So what about the man he injured, Gaige Grosskreutz?
If there is no guilt for the blood of a slain man (all things being equal), how could there be guilt for the blood of a wounded man? How could a lesser attack be punished worse if a deadly one is permissible? I think it’s clear that anything up to and including the death of the thief would not result in any guilt for blood unless the sun has risen on the thief. Of course this all depends if Grosskreutz, Huber, and Rosenbaum were indeed thieves found breaking in. That is the most important question, and two or three eyewitnesses must give account of this.

Then what if the men were thieves found breaking in?
If this is the case, I think it’s clear from this law in Exodus 22:2-3 that Kyle Rittenhouse would be guiltless of any wrongdoing related to these charges.

What if they were not thieves found breaking in?
Mr. Grosskreutz was only injured. So if Mr. Rittenhouse has guilt for his blood only, Mr. Rittenhouse should be injured to the same degree as a penalty. If someone had the desire to, a substitute would be allowed to suffer this instead of Mr. Rittenhouse.

If they were not found to be thieves breaking in, the deaths of Huber and Rosenbaum would warrant the public stoning of Mr. Rittenhouse. This would be initiated by the hands of the two or three witnesses, followed by the people in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Kyle Rittenhouse killed them with little metal stones called bullets, so this would be especially appropriate.

Wasn’t Kyle Rittenhouse under age to be carrying a rifle around?
Scripture is silent on possession of weapons as contraband until a certain age. This is a manmade tradition which is possible to lawfully ignore in a situation where God must be obeyed rather than men. Scripture defines “tradition” as something that can be changed. A law cannot be changed. America has many traditions and relatively few laws by this measure. The question is: was Mr. Rittenhouse breaking a local tradition in service to God? If so, there was no problem with him having one. If not, this would be a moral failure on Mr. Rittenhouse’s part. Jesus commanded that the people obey the Pharisees as long as it did not directly conflict with the law (Matthew 23:3). The Pharisees were upholding traditions most of the time and often nullified the law (Mark 7:9-13).

But who gets to decide, and what should actually be done to Kyle Rittenhouse?
Everything before this I have tried to base on the law in Exodus 22:2-3. These laws are not being considered in the court of unbelievers in Kenosha, and they should be. Unbelievers are not interested in them because most Christians are not either. As goes God’s people, so goes the world (Micah 4:1-3, Zechariah 8:20-23).

So what’s being done incorrectly in the court in Kenosha?

Witnesses must understand that they bear an equal penalty for false witnessing. “If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:16-21). Would the witnesses have charged Mr. Rittenhouse with bloodguilt knowing that if they are wrong in their accusations, they would be put to death? Would that change the testimony or their willingness to give it? We will never know. But since this is not the case, their testimony is not as reliable as it should be according to God.
The witnesses are the ones who bring the charges, not a representative of all the people in a city or a prosecuting attorney. Collectivism in the courts of the land of independence is ironic, but this is God-ordained because of widespread neglect or ignorance of God’s law. The responsibility is not being borne by the appropriate particular individuals, the eyewitnesses, so the consequences spread to all. The consequences must go somewhere.
Scripture makes no allowance for judgment to be decided by a jury of peers. They are not trained in the law and should not be fully trusted to give a wise decision. The judge or judges must hear the case, question witnesses, and decide. These tasks are not assigned to judges, juries, and attorneys separately.
Prison (Mr. Rittenhouse is being considered for life in prison) is not a valid penalty for any reason according to Scripture. The possible outcomes according to Scriptural ideals are: A. Mr. Rittenhouse is justified, and the witnesses bear the penalty that would have otherwise fallen to Mr. Rittenhouse (bodily mutilation or death for all false witnesses). B. Mr. Rittenhouse was not justified in using violence on some or all of the three men (he would be subject to whatever damage he caused unjustifiably). C. The judge (and no one else) appeals to a higher judge for a ruling.

Who are you to give an opinion on this?
No one. I am doing this primarily to show the level to which believers have failed in our duty to God and unbelievers. These ideals must be upheld in our thoughts before they will ever bear fruit in our actions. This is my feeble attempt to bring these ideals back into public thought. We believers have the law, and we have the responsibility to judge ourselves by it in faith and therefore establish it (Romans 3:31). We have neglected to do this for so long that God has removed this responsibility from us and given it to the unbelieving nations to whom we find ourselves subjugated. There’s a lot of service we must engage in to be deemed trustworthy by God and outsiders in this area once again.

What’s your conclusion?
As for this case, my conclusion of Kyle Rittenhouse’s guilt or innocence is ultimately of no consequence. I would not argue with anyone one way or another. Furthermore, I do not think anyone can judge righteously in the ongoing court case due to a lack of Biblical procedure I mentioned.

So what should I do?
To explore this question, e-mail me: theeocrat@gmail.com

This article is a written form of the Theocracy podcast, episode 27.

Episode 29: Calling in to Talk Heathen

Episode 28: There Are No Christian Movies with ND Wilson

Episode 27: What Moses Says About Kyle Rittenhouse

Episode 23: Cultish Talk with Jeremiah Roberts

Episode 22: Copyrights Are Unlawful with Stephan Kinsella