Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 35:20
But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die;
20. thrust him ] i.e. pushed him, in such a way as to cause his death; e.g. over a cliff, or off the roof of a house.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But if he thrust him of hatred,…. Or, “and if” r, since the Scripture is still speaking of such that shall die for murder, though in another instance, without having the privilege of a city of refuge; if he thrusts him with a sword or knife, or rather, since, if anything of that kind is included in the first instance of smiting with an instrument of iron, push him down from an high place, as Aben Ezra; so the men of Nazareth intended to have dispatched Christ in that way, Lu 4:29
or hurl at him by lying in wait, that he die; as a bowing wall, as the same writer instances in, push down that upon him as he passes along, lying in wait for him; or throws anything at him, with an intention to kill him, and does; or casts down anything upon him, a large stone, or anything else, by which he dies.
r “et si”, Pagninus, Montanus.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And so also the man who hit another in hatred, or threw at him by lying in wait, or struck him with the hand in enmity, so that he died. And if a murderer of this kind fled into a free city, the elders of his city were to have him fetched out and delivered up to the avenger of blood (Deu 19:11-12). Then follow, in Num 35:22-28, the proceedings to be taken with an unintentional manslayer, viz., if any one hit another “in the moment,” i.e., suddenly, unawares (Num 6:9), without enmity, or by throwing anything upon him, without lying in wait, or by letting a stone, by which a man might be killed, fall upon him without seeing him, so that he died in consequence, but without being his enemy, or watching to do him harm. In using the expression , the writer had probably still in his mind; but he dropped this word, and wrote in the form of a fresh sentence. The thing intended is explained still more clearly in Deu 19:4-5. Instead of , we find there , without knowing unintentionally. The words, “without being his enemy,” are paraphrased there by, “without hating him from yesterday and the day before yesterday” (i.e., previously), and are explained by an example taken from the life: “ When a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the iron slippeth ( Niphal of ) from the wood (handle), and lighteth upon his neighbour.”
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(20) But if he thrust him . . . Better, And if . . .
That he die.Better, that he died. So in Num. 35:21-23.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Further Examples.
Num 35:20-21
“ And if he thrust him of hatred, or hurled at him, lying in wait, so that he died, or in enmity smote him with his hand, so that he died; he that smote him shall surely be put to death; he is a murderer: the avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death, when he meets him.”
Here not only premeditated intent as indicated by the instrument used, but also knowledge of the persons involved and the circumstances of the death were taken into account. Was it done through hatred, or by something deliberately and cold-bloodedly hurled, or by someone lying in wait, or in enmity? Then clearly it was deliberate. The slayer was guilty, and the Avenger must slay him when he meets him.
Examples Of Innocent Slaying.
Num 35:22-23
“ But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or hurled on him anything without lying in wait, or with any stone, whereby a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it on him, so that he died, and he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm;”
Here we have the opposite cases, those where the thrust was accidental or instinctive and without a pre-history of enmity (compare Deu 19:4) or where the hurling of something was not by someone in hiding or lying in wait; or where the stone was not one of such a size that it would be seen as probably intended to produce a fatality; in all cases being where the slayer was known not to be an enemy of the slain man, or as someone who intended his victim harm. Then in those cases the assumption was to be that no such harm was intended. The example in Deu 19:5 of an insecure head of an axe flying off in an ‘industrial accident’ demonstrates how innocent the manslaying might be. But the death still required to be balanced with a parallel death, demonstrating the sacredness of life. All had to do all in their power to prevent death whether by murder or accident, and were responsible where the death was the result of their actions.
Num 35:24
“ Then the congregation shall judge between the smiter and the avenger of blood according to these ordinances.”
In that case it would be up to the congregation to judge whether the man was guilty or not. They would decide whether the man’s life should be spared, or whether the avenger of blood should be allowed his rights. Deliberate, premeditated murder was seen as an attack on God Himself.
While we would now probably take mitigating circumstances into account, it was considered very important in those days for there to be ‘life for life, blood for blood’. However, the point also being emphasised is that circumstance and motive must be taken into account. What was to be sought was not vengeance but justice. Thus provision was mad for accidental death.
Num 35:25
“ And the congregation shall deliver the manslayer out of the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, where he was fled: and he shall dwell in it until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil.”
If the congregation found the man not guilty of deliberate manslaying, then it was to deliver the man out of the hand of the avenger of blood and restore him to his city of refuge. He had still shed blood and a compensating death was required, but this death would take place when the High Priest who had been anointed with the holy anointing oil, died. His death would compensate as death for death. And the land would remain clean in the light of the inevitable death one day of the High Priest. (He atoned for sin done aforetime? – compare Rom 3:25).
This delay was thus seen as totally in the hands of Yahweh. It could be long or short, as He determined by His preservation or otherwise of the life of the High Priest.
The High Priest’s death is not actually said to be atoning, and we should not read into this a wider application than to this situation. But it would certainly seem to have reference to the fact that as ‘the anointed Priest’ he represented the whole of Israel. The whole of Israel was therefore seen as bearing the guilt of the accidental death so that the land was not seen as defiled before Yahweh. To this extent it could certainly be seen as atoning, and might therefore indeed have been seen as compensating for all unwitting sin. But if so it was additional to, and did not replace, the day of Atonement and all the other purification for sin offerings required in the cultus. It was a reminder both that all died, and that the need for atonement was never ending and never fully satisfactory. The purification for sin offerings had to be supplemented by the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement had to be supplemented by the death of the High Priest, and each High Priest in succession had to die. The process was never ending, an indication in fact of its insufficiency.
It was only in the death of our Lord Jesus Christ that such an atonement was provided once for all as to make unnecessary any other form of atonement. His death alone was sufficient for the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2), and in Him we have an undying High Priest (Heb 7:24-25). It is the indication that in His death on the cross full atonement has been made.
Num 35:26-28
“ But if the manslayer shall at any time go beyond the border of his city of refuge to which he flees, and the avenger of blood finds him outside the border of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood slay the manslayer; he shall not be guilty of blood, because he should have remained in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the manslayer shall return into the land of his possession.”
However the manslayer must remain in the city of refuge until such a death of the High Priest took place. If he leaves it any consequence will be on his own head. The avenger of blood will then have the right to slay him. And if he does he will not be guilty of blood because he is simply obtaining a life for a life. The manslayer should have remained within the city of refuge where he knew he would be safe. However, once the High Priest had died he could then return to the land that he owned, and which belonged to him as an inheritance from Yahweh, and no one had any further right against him. His life was once again fully sacred.
This approach had much in its favour. Firstly all were made to recognise the sacredness of human life, and that if life was taken then someone had to bear the responsibility even if it was done innocently. It provided a warning against taking death, even accidental death, lightly. Secondly it allowed the slain man’s relatives the right of revenge, with provisos. It prevented running sores in men’s minds which might result in worse consequences. The ‘detaining’ of the man would help to assuage their feelings of frustration and anger. He would not be walking about openly in front of them. Thirdly it did provide a means by which the innocent could find protection, but only when they were open to being tried before their fellow-countrymen. Fourthly it made sure that all suspicious deaths were investigated. In fact family feelings ran so high that it is questionable whether someone who had slain another could ever feel absolutely safe from ‘avengers of blood’ outside a city of refuge (where all would protect him), such was the sense of family honour that often held sway, even if revenge had become illegal. But it was more likely that once time had passed, the feeling of vengeance would have died down, especially as the death had been declared to be accidental. But it would pass from one generation to another. Only the death of the High Priest could settle the matter.
Num 35:29
“ And these things shall be for a statute and ordinance to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.”
It is confirmed that these principles laid down were the statute and ordinance in respect of manslaying which would apply among all the people through every generation.
Attitudes To Be Taken Towards The Crime of Murder.
Various precautions were now described concerning the crime of manslaying. No man must be found guilty on the testimony of only one person. No ransom could be paid which could redeem a deliberate manslayer. The sentence of death was absolute. Nor could a man be released from a city of refuge on the payment of a ransom. Whether deliberately or accidentally a violent death had taken place and it had to be strictly compensated for by another death. Nothing less would do. Human life was so valuable that there was no compensation which could be adequate.
Num 35:30
“ Whoever kills any person, the murderer shall be slain at the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person that he die.”
One way in which innocence or guilt was established was at the hands of witnesses. They were seen as especially important in the case of a murder. But no one should ever be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. This was a safeguard against false accusation.
Num 35:31
“ Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death.”
But once a man was convicted there was no substitute punishment. No compensation payment or bribe should be allowed to prevent full capital punishment. Murder was so sacrilegious that only the death of the murderer was sufficient to counteract it. There must be blood for blood. Other nations allowed compensation, but in Yahweh’s eyes life was so sacred that its premature taking could only have one consequence, a death for a death. Israel could allow compensation in lesser cases (Exo 21:29-30) but not in this.
Num 35:32
“ And you shall take no ransom for him who is fled to his city of refuge, that he may come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.”
The same was even true of accidental death. There was no way by which a man who had sought refuge in a city of refuge could be allowed to ransom himself and be able to go about freely. Were he to walk abroad in the land it would cry out against him because the death had not been compensated for, ‘until the death of the High Priest’.
Num 35:33
“ So you shall not pollute the land in which you are. For blood, it pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, but by the blood of him who shed it.”
The whole idea behind all this was that man’s life was given to him by God and that the shedding of blood by violence polluted the land. The blood returning prematurely to the dust was evidence of the breaking of Yahweh’s commandment, it revealed that one who was in the image of God had been destroyed, thus Yahweh had a twofold reason for reaction against it. It was so serious that the only way by which its shedding could be atoned for was by the death of the perpetrator. By such an emphasis the sacredness of human life was established.
Num 35:34
“ And you shall not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell, for I, Yahweh, dwell in the midst of the children of Israel.”
And this was especially important because Yahweh would be dwelling in the land. Thus the defiling of it with human, violently shed blood was inconceivable. It robbed God of what was His. It must not happen. For, He reminded them, He Yahweh would dwell among them as the Preserver of Life , and He would know.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Num 35:20-21. But if, &c. Here the case of malice prepense is provided for. Houbigant renders it, in like manner, if any one strike a man through hatred. See Deu 19:11. Le Clerc thinks, that the words when he meeteth him, (Num 35:19; Num 35:21.) shew, that Moses here speaks of one who took guilt to himself by flying, and refused to stand his trial; the avenger of blood might be allowed to kill such a one, either in consequence of the sentence of the judges, who, upon hearing the witnesses, might try and condemn the party, though absent, or upon account of his secreting himself from justice, whereby he appeared to be self-condemned.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
of hatred. Deu 19:11, Deu 19:12.
laying of wait = fixing the eyes upon. Hebrew. zediyyah. Occurs only here and Num 35:22.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
if he thrust: Gen 4:5, Gen 4:8, 2Sa 3:27, 2Sa 13:22, 2Sa 13:28, 2Sa 13:29, 2Sa 20:10, 1Ki 2:5, 1Ki 2:6, 1Ki 2:31-33, Pro 26:24, Pro 28:17, Luk 4:29
by laying: Exo 21:14, Deu 19:11, 1Sa 18:10, 1Sa 18:11, 1Sa 18:25, 1Sa 19:9-12, 1Sa 20:1, 1Sa 23:7-9, 1Sa 24:11, Psa 10:7-10, Psa 11:2, Psa 35:7, Psa 35:8, Psa 57:4-6, Pro 1:18, Pro 1:19, Mar 6:19, Mar 6:24-26, Act 20:3, Act 23:21