(2.) By violent passion in the act—which I take to be the sense of the words in our translation: “If a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor; [in Heb.] if a man boil up with rage against his neighbor to slay him with guile,” etc. (Ex. 21: 14).
(3.) By evidence of premeditation—“lying in wait” (Ex. 21: 13, and Num. 35: 15–23, and Deut. 19: 4–6).
(4.) By the sort of instrument used (Num. 35: 16–18). “An instrument of iron;” “a stone;” “a hand-weapon of wood,” i. e. wood of the hand, large enough to fill the hand and deal a death-blow.
On the other hand it would be in favor of homicide if one had killed his neighbor “ignorantly”—“whom he had not hated in time past;” or thrust upon him suddenly without enmity; without lying in wait; or cast upon him a stone seeing him not, nor seeking his harm, etc. (Num. 35: 22, 23 and Deut. 19: 4–6). A case for example is given—the head of a man’s ax flying off when he is at work and killing his neighbor.
3. A special law provided for cities of refuge. (See Ex. 21: 13 and Num. 35, and Deut. 19 and Josh. 20).——At the era of Moses it was already a time-honored usage that the nearest blood-relative should avenge the blood of his slain friend. The prevalence and strength of this sentiment were due of course, primarily, to the instincts of human nature; but secondarily to the fact that as an institution for the protection of person and life, the family was prior to the state.——The Goel [ashe was called in Hebrew]—the blood-avenger or Redeemer, could not be expected to exercise cool and impartial discrimination over the questions lying between murder in the first degree and homicide. To obviate this evil the Lord introduced an important modification upon the previously current usages of blood-revenge. It was this. Six cities in Palestine—three on each side of the Jordan were selected in such convenient geographical position that from any point of the whole country the man-slayer might make the nearest one within less than one day’s run.——All these were cities of the Levites; hence the leading men of the city would be competent to hold a preliminary investigation. The man-slayer fled for his life to the nearest of these cities. The legal authorities there protected him against the Goel—the blood-avenger. The elders of his own city, if the case seemed to demand it, might send and fetch him; try him, and deliver him up to the blood-avenger; or remand him back to his city of refuge. Thus this city shielded him against sudden and indiscriminate vengeance, and secured for him a trial before the congregation or elders of his own city. If his case was proved to be homicide, he must remain within the city of refuge till the death of the high priest, after which the avenger’s right to take his life (outside the refuge-city) ceased and he could go at large in safety. This provision affixed a limit to his quasi-imprisonment. Perhaps it was also significant of the pardon for sin provided for in the death of our Great High Priest.——If the man-slayer allowed himself to be caught by the blood-avenger outside his city when he should be within it, the avenger might take his life with impunity.
The law was specific on the point that human life must not be taken on the testimony of one witness only—a plurality of witnesses being required (Num. 35: 30, and Deut. 17: 6, and 19: 15).——It was no crime before the law to kill a thief breaking into a house by night (Ex. 22: 2, 3). After sunrise, it became a crime of blood to take his life—it being assumed that he might be caught and compelled to make restitution, and that the peril to your own life and that of your family is materially lessened. The law carefully guarded the defenseless hours of sleep by night. If a thief in defiance of this law played the burglar bynight, he must run his own risk of death in the attempt.
4. A very remarkable statute met the special case of a murder done by unknown hands (Deut. 21: 1–9). The authorities from all contiguous cities took up the case; measured carefully to fix upon the city lying nearest to the bloody spot. Then the elders of that city were to take a heifer never worked in yoke; bring her down into a wild, uncultivated valley—the home of all weird and thrilling associations—and there strike off the heifer’s head—the priests coming near and all the elders of that city washing their hands over the headless heifer, solemnly protesting—“Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people Israel’s charge.” “And the blood shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.”——The entire scene was well adapted to make the impression that murder is no trifle, and that God held the whole people responsible to some extent for the safety of every human life.
5. Inexcusable carelessness, followed by fatal results, was punishable by law. A supposed case for a specimen appears in Ex. 21: 28, 29. The goring ox—wont to push with his horns—reported to his owner but not “kept in” by him—killing man or woman—must be put to death and his owner also, for his culpable negligence.
6. Personal injuries, not fatal, came under special statute. In the case of a mutual quarrel and fight, personal injuries, less than fatal, were punished by requiring their author to pay for the wounded man’s loss of time and for his being “thoroughly healed” [nursing and medical services].——The master who smote his servant unto immediate death, must surely be punished. But if the servant survived a day or two, the presumption would be that the master did not intend to kill. His loss in the services of his servant was considered his punishment.——Other special cases appear Ex. 21: 22 and Deut. 25: 11, 12 which were better read than rehearsed.——The principle of punishment by retaliation—[“lex talionis”]—like for like—was appliedin all appropriate cases (Lev. 24: 18–21). “If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him: Breach for breach; eye for eye,” etc. (Ex. 21: 23–25 and Deut. 19: 21).
IV. Crimes Against Chastity; (Violations of the Seventh Command).