Murder and Three Weapons of a Man Slayer

[Minister Monardo]

The Levites were appointed forty-eight cities among the children of Israel.
Six of these were to be designated cities of refuge for a man slayer to flee
from retribution until he could obtain a fair trial.

Numbers 35:
6 Now among the cities which you will give to the Levites you shall appoint
six cities of refuge, to which a man slayer may flee.
12 They shall be cities of refuge for you from the avenger, that the man slayer
may not die until he stands before the congregation in judgment.

Cities of refuge were also for strangers and sojourners
15 These six cities shall be for refuge for the children of Israel, for the stranger,
and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills a person accidentally
may flee there.

Three murder weapons and degrees of intent
16 But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer;
the murderer shall surely be put to death.
17 And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, by which one could die, and
he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.
18 Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die,
and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.

The plea of the man slayer on trial for murder is “I didn’t mean to kill him!
It was an accident!
To what degree can that plea be substantiated by the weapon in hand.
You claim to have not had the intent to kill, but you struck him with an
iron implement. Iron is the material from which weapons are made,
so how did you believe that striking someone with iron would not kill them?
Stones are used to execute a man who has committed a capital crime.
How could you believe that striking someone with a stone would not kill them?
Wood can be used to simply make a walking cane. And yet, you used it to strike
a man in the head. How could you believe that striking someone with a cane
would not kill them? Guilty All!

A man slayer becomes a murderer. That was no accident!
19 The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him,
he shall put him to death.
20 If he pushes him out of hatred or, while lying in wait, hurls something at him
so that he dies,
21 or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck 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.

A Murderer is defined by his intent.
22 However, if he pushes him suddenly without enmity, or throws anything at him
without lying in wait,
23 or uses a stone, by which a man could die, throwing it at him without seeing him,
so that he dies, while he was not his enemy or seeking his harm,
24 then the congregation shall judge between the man slayer and the avenger of blood
according to these judgments.

How is this pertinent to the Christian walk?
1 John 3:15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know
that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

If murder is defined by intent, then hatred is murder.
For hatred is always of ill-intent.

 

[honey badger]

we all crucify/murder the truth we are ...

 

[Davy]

The Levites were appointed forty-eight cities among the children of Israel.
Six of these were to be designated cities of refuge for a man slayer to flee
from retribution until he could obtain a fair trial.

Numbers 35:
6 Now among the cities which you will give to the Levites you shall appoint
six cities of refuge, to which a man slayer may flee.
12 They shall be cities of refuge for you from the avenger, that the man slayer
may not die until he stands before the congregation in judgment.

Cities of refuge were also for strangers and sojourners
15 These six cities shall be for refuge for the children of Israel, for the stranger,
and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills a person accidentally
may flee there.

Three murder weapons and degrees of intent
16 But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer;
the murderer shall surely be put to death.
17 And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, by which one could die, and
he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.
18 Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die,
and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.

The plea of the man slayer on trial for murder is “I didn’t mean to kill him!
It was an accident!
To what degree can that plea be substantiated by the weapon in hand.
You claim to have not had the intent to kill, but you struck him with an
iron implement. Iron is the material from which weapons are made,
so how did you believe that striking someone with iron would not kill them?
Stones are used to execute a man who has committed a capital crime.
How could you believe that striking someone with a stone would not kill them?
Wood can be used to simply make a walking cane. And yet, you used it to strike
a man in the head. How could you believe that striking someone with a cane
would not kill them? Guilty All!

A man slayer becomes a murderer. That was no accident!
19 The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him,
he shall put him to death.
20 If he pushes him out of hatred or, while lying in wait, hurls something at him
so that he dies,
21 or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck 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.

A Murderer is defined by his intent.
22 However, if he pushes him suddenly without enmity, or throws anything at him
without lying in wait,
23 or uses a stone, by which a man could die, throwing it at him without seeing him,
so that he dies, while he was not his enemy or seeking his harm,
24 then the congregation shall judge between the man slayer and the avenger of blood
according to these judgments.

How is this pertinent to the Christian walk?
1 John 3:15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know
that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

If murder is defined by intent, then hatred is murder.
For hatred is always of ill-intent.

You skipped verse 11--

Num 35:11
11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.
KJV

That is not about 'murder', it is about 'manslaughter', killing someone by accident. That is even what it is called in Christian court systems today. An example would be if you drove a car while intoxicated and killed someone in an accident. You may not have intended to kill anyone, yet you will be charged with 'manslaughter'.

Actual murder involves homicide, intentionally premeditating to murder someone. If one kills someone using an implement used as a weapon, like the mention of a weapon, stone, wood, etc., and it is done intentionally, then that is murder.

If one kills in self-defense using an implement as a weapon, then the person is not guilty of murder. In Luke 22, Jesus told His disciples that didn't have one, to go buy a sword. It was for self-defense, a God-given right.

 

[Minister Monardo]

You skipped verse 11--

Num 35:11
11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.
KJV

I explained the purpose of the cities.

Six of these were to be designated cities of refuge for a man slayer to flee
from retribution until he could obtain a fair trial.

12 They shall be cities of refuge for you from the avenger, that the man slayer
may not die until he stands before the congregation in judgment.

A man slayer becomes a murderer. That was no accident!
19 The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him,
he shall put him to death.

 

[Minister Monardo]

That is not about 'murder', it is about 'manslaughter', killing someone by accident.

It is about either/or and the fair determination of which. This is explained in sufficient
detail in the OP, and if you needed more detail, it is assumed that a reader will reference
the full chapter, considering there are 12 verses cited. Seems hardly necessary to post
the entire chapter. You totally missed the key points of the post.

If murder is defined by intent, then hatred is murder.
For hatred is always of ill-intent.

How is this pertinent to the Christian walk?
1 John 3:15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know
that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

I don't know how much you read beyond the title of the thread, but the content
of your response suggests very little.

 

[Davy]

It is about either/or and the fair determination of which. This is explained in sufficient
detail in the OP, and if you needed more detail, it is assumed that a reader will reference
the full chapter, considering there are 12 verses cited. Seems hardly necessary to post
the entire chapter. You totally missed the key points of the post.


I don't know how much you read beyond the title of the thread, but the content
of your response suggests very little.

I just don't want folks who read that thinking that God's law says 'killing' always means 'murder'. It does not! And 'manslaughter' is NOT murder.

I once asked someone if they thought killing was murder, and in their ignorance they said yes. I then asked if she ate chicken, and she said yes. I then said to her, "so then we murder chickens?" And she then laughed, because then she understood the difference.

 

[Minister Monardo]

I just don't want folks who read that thinking that God's law says 'killing' always means 'murder'. It does not! And 'manslaughter' is NOT murder.

I once asked someone if they thought killing was murder, and in their ignorance they said yes. I then asked if she ate chicken, and she said yes. I then said to her, "so then we murder chickens?" And she then laughed, because then she understood the difference.

My sincere hope is that this thread dispels mistaken notions.
In particular, why John states that to hate a brother is to be a murderer.
Joshua 20:5 Then if the avenger of blood pursues him, they shall not deliver the slayer
into his hand, because he struck his neighbor unintentionally,
but did not hate him beforehand.

Consider the legal burden of proving pre-meditation in murder 1 trials.
The Lord, who knows the heart, can say "hating him beforehand" is
sufficient pre-meditation.

 

[Davy]

My sincere hope is that this thread dispels mistaken notions.
In particular, why John states that to hate a brother is to be a murderer.
Joshua 20:5 Then if the avenger of blood pursues him, they shall not deliver the slayer
into his hand, because he struck his neighbor unintentionally,
but did not hate him beforehand.

Consider the legal burden of proving pre-meditation in murder 1 trials.
The Lord, who knows the heart, can say "hating him beforehand" is
sufficient pre-meditation.

Sorry, brother Monardo, but you're going off the deep end again. Hating someone because of the evil they may do still is not the sin of 'murder' (homicide).

When The Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill', the actual meaning in Hebrew for the word 'kill' is murder homicide, i.e., premeditated murder.

This is why in Matthew 19:18 Jesus is quoted properly as He used the word for 'murder' instead of kill.

He did NOT say those who hate are guilty of murder!

The Scripture idea you're trying to cover would be better presented with the following one...

1 John 2:9-11
9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
KJV

 

[Minister Monardo]

I just don't want folks who read that thinking that God's law says 'killing' always means 'murder'. It does not! And 'manslaughter' is NOT murder.

If that were the case, the avenger would be a murderer. In a stoning,
the one who cast the first stone would be a murderer.

Also, in regards to the term 'man-slayer' in the narrative, this should not be confused
with the term 'manslaughter'. This is the designation for one suspected or accused of murder.
The cities of refuge insured trial before execution at the hands of the avenger of blood.

 

[Minister Monardo]

Sorry, brother Monardo, but you're going off the deep end again. Hating someone because of the evil they may do still is not the sin of 'murder' (homicide).

Simply making reference to the teaching of John, and showing how Torah supports
his statement. It is his "deep end".
1 John 3:
14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren.
He who does not love his brother abides in death.
15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has
eternal life abiding in him.

 

[Minister Monardo]

When The Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill', the actual meaning in Hebrew for the word 'kill' is murder homicide, i.e., premeditated murder.

Murder 1-malice aforethought, proven by evidence without doubt.
Torah-"having hated beforehand". Who can always make this proven? Only God.

If by 1 John 3:15 the Lord says that holding hatred in your heart makes you a murderer,
it doesn't mean you murdered him, but that is His judgment against your hatred.

 

[Minister Monardo]

The Scripture idea you're trying to cover would be better presented with the following one...

1 John 2:9-11
9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
KJV

You really don't read my post before responding, do you?

 

[Davy]

If that were the case, the avenger would be a murderer. In a stoning,
the one who cast the first stone would be a murderer.

Also, in regards to the term 'man-slayer' in the narrative, this should not be confused
with the term 'manslaughter'. This is the designation for one suspected or accused of murder.
The cities of refuge insured trial before execution at the hands of the avenger of blood.

I understand the difference the idea of a 'manslayer' (which is homicide per 1 Timothy 1:9) and manslaughter (which is not murder, but killing by accident).

The manslaughter idea give those who killed by accident a place of refuge away from the victim's family.

Deut 19:4-6
4 And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;

5 As 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 head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:

6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.
KJV

That above is about a death by accident, and the one involved is to flee to one of the cities of refuge, and live. He is free, and NOT subject to any further judgment by the law. This is what the cities of refuge were actually for, so the victim's family could not kill him in revenge.

 

[Davy]

Simply making reference to the teaching of John, and showing how Torah supports
his statement. It is his "deep end".
1 John 3:
14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren.
He who does not love his brother abides in death.
15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has
eternal life abiding in him.

And you have failed to understand how John was saying that in the SPIRITUAL SENSE. Instead you strain at a gnat, like the blind Pharisees.

If everyone who went around hating someone was actually guilty of REAL MURDER, then we'd all... be locked in jail! (maybe that's what you want, I don't know, since you like to entertain such literalist ideologies).

 

[Minister Monardo]

That above is about a death by accident, and the one involved is to flee to one of the cities of refuge, and live. He is free, and NOT subject to any further judgment by the law. This is what the cities of refuge were actually for, so the victim's family could not kill him in revenge.

Right. Other than they are required to remain in the city of refuge until the death
of the current High priest.

 

[Minister Monardo]

And you have failed to understand how John was saying that in the SPIRITUAL SENSE. Instead you strain at a gnat, like the blind Pharisees.

If everyone who went around hating someone was actually guilty of REAL MURDER, then we'd all... be locked in jail! (maybe that's what you want, I don't know, since you like to entertain such literalist ideologies).

This is ridiculous. I have not said anything about haters being guilty of real murder.
My explanation is completely based on the spiritual sense. The only straining is attempting
to get you to slow down and actually comprehend the statements.

If by 1 John 3:15 the Lord says that holding hatred in your heart makes you a murderer,
it doesn't mean you murdered him, but that is His judgment against your hatred.

I am standing by it.

 

[Davy]

Right. Other than they are required to remain in the city of refuge until the death
of the current High priest.

Yet, that is NOT how the law is applied in today's western society. If one is guilty of manslaughter (death by accident) they might have to serve a lengthy prison term, depending upon negligence. So I don't really understand what you're trying to do with your literalist interpretation of law under the old covenant, which we are no longer under today.

 

[Davy]

This is ridiculous. I have not said anything about haters being guilty of real murder.
My explanation is completely based on the spiritual sense. The only straining is attempting
to get you to slow down and actually comprehend the statements.

I am standing by it.

I well understand the difference between old covenant laws and the spiritual comparison Christ and His Apostles gave under The New Covenant. So you might consider that while pushing your Judaic Torah lessons.

 

[Minister Monardo]

Yet, that is NOT how the law is applied in today's western society. If one is guilty of manslaughter (death by accident) they might have to serve a lengthy prison term, depending upon negligence. So I don't really understand what you're trying to do with your literalist interpretation of law under the old covenant, which we are no longer under today.

I never attempted to reconcile OT law with modern western society. I only used Numbers 35
to shed light on 1 John 3:15.
You introduced all the talk of modern definitions of murder.

 

[Davy]

I never attempted to reconcile OT law with modern western society. I only used Numbers 35
to shed light on 1 John 3:15.
You introduced all the talk of modern definitions of murder.

No, I actually showed the difference between old covenant thinking (which you like to dwell upon), and New Testament thinking. I mean, you even tried to say that Apostle John confirmed... your Judaism old covenant understanding of murder, when he was speaking in the spiritual sense! That shows how confused you are about The New Covenant.