Numbers 35:16-34

F. LAWS OF HOMICIDE vv. 16-34
TEXT

Numbers 35:16. And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 17. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 18. Or if he smite him with a hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 19. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. 20. But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, then he die; 21. Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. 22. But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, 23. Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: 24. Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments: 25. And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil. 26. But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; 27. And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood: 28. Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession. 29. So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 30. Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. 31. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death. 32. And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest. 33. So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. 34. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.

PARAPHRASE

Numbers 35:16. But if he struck him down with an iron instrument, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 17. And if he struck him down with a stone in his hand, so that he might have died, and if he did die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 18. Or if he struck him down with a wooden instrument in his hand, so that he might have died, and he did die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 19. The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; he shall be put to death when he meets him. 20. Or if he shoved him in hatred, or threw something at him from ambush so that he died, 21. or if in he struck him down with his hand maliciously so that he died, the one who struck him down shall surely be put to death: he is a murderer; the blood avenger shall put the murderer to death when he meets him. 22. But if he shoved him suddenly and without malice, or threw something at him, not being in ambush, 23. or hit him with a stone object capable of killing him, but without seeing him, and was not hostile toward him, and had not sought to harm him, 24. then the congregation shall judge between the killer and the blood avenger according to these regulations. 25. And the congregation shall deliver the man-killer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of refuge to which he had fled; and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil. 26. But if the man-killer goes at any time outside the border of the city of his refuge to which he has fled; 27. and if the avenger of blood finds him outside the border of the city of his refuge, the blood avenger may kill the man-killer and not be guilty of his blood: 28. because he should have remained inside his city of refuge until the death of the high priest. However, after the death of the high priest the man-killer shall return to the land of his possession. 29. So these things shall be for a regulatory law to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 30. If anyone kills another person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but the testimony of one witness alone shall not cause him to be put to death. 31. Furthermore, you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death; he shall surely be put to death. 32. And you shall not take a ransom for one who has fled to his city of refuge to permit him to return to live in his land before the death of the high priest. 33. In this way you shall not pollute the land where you are: for blood pollutes the land, and no land can be cleansed of the blood which has been shed upon it excepting by the blood of the one who shed it. 34. And you shall not defile the land which you shall inhabit, in which I dwell: for I am the Lord, dwelling among the Children of Israel.

COMMENTARY

As in other areas of the Law, the provisions defining murder and distinguishing it from accidental homicide; the different tests for determining guilt and innocence; the various punishments determined by the seriousness of the offenseall of these are vast improvements over any other ancient statutes. In essence, there are three differences, as shown in ICC; (1) the Law insists that life is to be forfeited only in case of willful murder, in contrast to primitive measures which did not make such a distinction; (2) the Law tacitly insists that the life of the actual murderer only can become forfeit; in primitive cultures the family often might be compelled to share the punishment of the offense of one of its members; and, (3) the Law forbids the acceptance of a money equivalent for a forfeited life, (p. 471). Additionally, clear points are set forth upon which to form a fair judgment in reference to guilt because of motive. The motivation, if any, behind any homicide was subjected to three areas of inquiry: first, the weapon itself: was it lethal in nature, or not? Implements of iron, large stones, or weapons of wood which were large enough to administer a death blow must first be established as the cause of death, if murder were suspected. Then, had there been enmity between the two? Witnesses would be adduced to confirm or deny this possibility. Feelings strong enough to lead to deliberate murder would be difficult to conceal. Those knowing of such feelings would become prime sources of testimony if murder were suspected. The third factor adduced would be the circumstances of the death: had the murderer plotted the assault? Laying in wait need not necessarily mean an ambush, but rather seeking an opportune time or place for the foul deed. Thrusting in hatred suggests an explosion of temper, but it is to be inferred that the circumstances are more than a mere accident; in such a circumstance, the judgment was in the hands of the congregation. Motive, weapon, and occasion, then, were the prime factors to be reviewed in any charge of murder.

The duty of the revenger of blood was clear: to pursue the manslayer and, if he be overtaken before reaching a city of refuge, to slay him; no guilt of blood would then be upon his hands. Additionally, he was to make certain that the slayer did not leave the city of refuge at all before he had been pronounced guilty or innocent of murder. Obviously, if he were guilty of murder, the punishment was stoning to death by the congregation. If he were innocent of murder, he was yet required to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the current high priest. To go outside the city was to invite death at the hands of the revenger of blood. Even under circumstances of accidental homicide, the guilty man, and the entire nation, were to learn that taking a life was no trivial matter. Courtesy, caution, and preventive measure may be learned from the law: man should do all he possibly can to avoid placing himself in a situation where, even by the remotest accident, he might endanger the life of another.
Because a great responsibility lay with the congregation, we should recognize the concept behind the word. Ordinarily, eydah signified the entire nation assembled together. We cannot believe the trial of a murderer would have been the occasion for such an assembly, especially after they were scattered about in the new land; and the law is tailored to that situation. The force of the word may suggest that any individual of the congregation, or of the assembled ones who answered the call to assemble, might bear testimony if he had reason to do so, or that any one might participate in the decision, once having heard the testimony of all witnesses. If the accused were found innocent, he was provided safe escort back to the city of refuge from the scene of the trial. If he were guilty, all participated in his execution by stoning.

That the manslayer was forced to dwell in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest presents some interesting points. Several restrictions automatically accompany such a sentence. The man, and his family as well, would be required to uproot themselves from their previous residence and live within the city. The man himself dare not go outside the walls. Perhaps a radical change in his life style might be necessary, since he would not possibly be able to pursue either an agricultural or shepherding career within the walls of the city. Unless other members of his family visited him, he would be unable to see father, mother, brothers or sisters until the time of his release. Yet, he had escaped the sentence of death, and the inconveniences of his new life were much to be preferred over the sentence of death. The reason for specifying that the innocent manslayer was to be set free when the high priest died is not given. The proper understanding may be that presented in PC: The stress. which is laid upon the fact of his (the high priest'S) decease, cf. Numbers 35:28, and the solemn notice of his having been anointed with the holy oil, seem to point unmistakably to something in his official and consecrated character which made it right that the rigor of the law should die with him. What the Jubile was to the debtor who had lost his property, that the death of the high priest was to the homicide who had lost his liberty, (p. 448).

A most significant factor in the general set of laws regarding manslaughter is the stipulation that more than one witness must be heard in testimony against the killer. It is a most reasonable safeguard, requiring none of our defense. If one were a witness of the assault and another of evidence of enmity, the testimonies might condemn the manslayer by their harmony; but no man could be condemned on the word of one other person alone.

The next provisions are equally grave and reasonable. The murderer could offer nothing whatever in place of his life if he were convicted of his crime. Having disregarded the sanctity and the right of another man to his life, the killer could not offer anything other than his own. No amount of money, no servile pledge, no measure of repentancenone were acceptable. The principle had held since the day of Noah: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man, (Genesis 9:6).

Again impressing upon the people the gravity of taking another's life even by accident is the legal provision that the manslayer found innocent of murder may not purchase his freedom by any means. Only the death of the high priest is effectual in procuring his release from the city or refuge. An act with a most serious consequence could only be seen in its true perspective if the consequences were inviolate.
One of the continuing marks of human decadence, especially in the abuse of positions of power, is the callous attitude of indifference to shedding the blood of the innocent. To anyone with a memory of the meaning of Buchenvald, Auschewitz, Dachau, or other symbols of Hitler's blood-purge of the Jews in the time of World War II; or to those familiar with the political purges in Communist Russia or Red China, it is hardly necessary to point out the fact that men have furthered their own political or social philosophies by wholesale murder of the innocent within their lands. Surely the technique was not invented in our twentieth century, but, to our shame, our generation certainly has not eliminated the atrocious practice. The shedding of innocent blood, whether in individual or mass quantities, is a polluting, profaning crime for which an entire people may be defiled. In a most climactic way, the Lord implores Israel not to pollute their land because He Himself wants to live there! The serious child of God knows that the Divine Presence is more than a wish, more than a mythit is a glorious fact.

QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS

646.

In what three areas can you note a significant difference between the laws of homicide among the Israelites as compared with those laws from other cultures?

647.

Why is it necessary to establish motivation behind any charge of murder?

648.

Show the importance of the size and substance of the weapon in such a change.

649.

How do the circumstances under which a homicide occurs help to determine whether or not it might be murder?

650.

To what facts might witnesses be brought to testify?

651.

Exactly what does laying in wait mean?

652.

Who was the revenger of blood, and what was his primary obligation?

653.

What was the action of the avenger of blood if the manslayer were found guilty of murder by the congregation?

654.

What were his duties if the manslayer were found innocent of murder?

655.

Define the obligations of the congregation in the accusation and prosecution, as well as execution of a murderer.

656.

Discuss some of the lessons the Israelites, as well as other people who might become familiar with their laws, should have learned from these regulations regarding homicide.

657.

What is the usual meaning of congregation as it is used of the Israelites?

658.

How can it be demonstrated that these homicidal laws were designed for implementation after Israel settled in Canaan?

659.

How long was the manslayer required to remain in the city of refuge if he were found innocent of murder?

660.

What was accomplished by requiring the innocent man to remain away from his home for this period of time?

661.

Suggest some of the inconveniences he and his family might have to undergo.

662.

What significance do you find in the death of the high priest as it related to the manslayer?

663.

Why should the witness of one man alone not be sufficient to establish the guilt of a man accused of murder?

664.

To what various facts might the witnesses bear record?

665.

What significance to you attach to the fact that the manslayer was unable to purchase his exemption from residence in the city of refuge by recompense of any kind?

666.

What lesson attaches to the firm requirement that the murderer could not escape by any method from the sentence of death for his crime?

667.

Does this provision contribute in any way to the concept of the intrinsic value of human life?

668.

For how long had the principle of life-for-life been known among men? What were the circumstances of its beginning?

669.

Have we a real basis for revoking this law of God?

670.

What does history show has happened when human life was held in low esteem?

671.

Why are the innocent most likely to suffer under these circumstances?

672.

Cite historical instances of the debauches of political and social theorists whose power enabled them to enforce their discriminatory philosophies. Cite both contemporary and ancient examples.

673.

For what supreme reason did God ask Israel to refrain from polluting her land?

674.

Might He express the same thought today?