Donald Trump And A License For Vengeance
[guest post by Dana]
I’ve been saying for a while, that whether a Trump supporter or a Cruz supporter, there is a common denominator the two groups share and that is our collective anger at elected officials repeatedly indulging their own quest for power and reward instead of doing the will of the people. As a result, we’re mobilized and actively supporting the candidates that we believe will work for us instead of against us. But this is where we part ways. As I’ve also said before, I believe one of the biggest differences between angry Trump and Cruz supporters is that only one side is actively seeking revenge. And, as I said last week, if taking that revenge requires thuggish tactics, then so be it. The candidate and his followers seem fine with that. Small price to pay.
If you couple that with the reasonable assumption that any comment Trump makes about Scripture influencing him has almost nothing to do with actual Christianity and everything to do with making a political calculation to please his supporters, it makes perfect sense that the verse he claims to have informed him most is one that he believes gives him a God-approved license for vengeance:
“Is there a favorite Bible verse or Bible story that has informed your thinking or your character through life, sir?” asked host Bob Lonsberry on WHAM 1180 AM.
Trump responded, “Well, I think many. I mean, when we get into the Bible, I think many, so many. And some people, look, an eye for an eye, you can almost say that. That’s not a particularly nice thing. But you know, if you look at what’s happening to our country, I mean, when you see what’s going on with our country, how people are taking advantage of us, and how they scoff at us and laugh at us. And they laugh at our face, and they’re taking our jobs, they’re taking our money, they’re taking the health of our country. And we have to be firm and have to be very strong. And we can learn a lot from the Bible, that I can tell you.”
Yep. A license for vengeance. It fits Trump like a glove. We’ve seen it in the campaign and in his business dealings. If he believes you’ve wronged him – even if the facts prove you didn’t – he’ll push back twice as hard, he’ll drag you (and your spouse) through the mud, and then it’s quite possible, he’ll sue you. In other words, he will make you pay.
Ultimately, Trump killed two birds with one stone yesterday: he reassured his evangelical supporters that he’s one of them (Look! I can quote the Bible!) and he reassured his angry supporters that God’s greatest influence on him just happens to happily coincide with what they are clamoring for him to do: take revenge. He also again conveyed that he alone will be their justice; give him your anger, he’s the willing receptacle.
Oh, and just for kicks: Matthew 5:38 – 48:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
[Note: It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: Given Trump’s comments were political, there didn’t seem to be any reason to go into the Mosaic law and Jesus fulfilling the law in the post. He clearly hasn’t studied scripture and probably doesn’t have a compelling interest in doing so. But please feel free to do so in the comments.]
–Dana
Good thing for Trump that God has a good sense of humor.
(…good thing for me, too!)
Dana (0ee61a) — 4/15/2016 @ 5:35 pmhow often do we hold to this,
http://biblehub.com/romans/12-19.htm
in part because we suspect that justice is scarce, and accountability a figment
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 5:43 pmIt should go without saying but I’ll say it anyway: there was no reason for me to go all Mosaic law and Jesus fulfilling the law here given that Trump’s comments really didn’t have anything to do with either. He clearly hasn’t studied scripture and probably doesn’t have a compelling interest in doing so.
Dana (0ee61a) — 4/15/2016 @ 5:46 pmwhy the above sentiment, might hold,
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/documents-confirm-eric-holders-role-in-fast-and-furious-cover-up.php
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 5:47 pmMan plans. God laughs.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/15/2016 @ 5:51 pmIronic that the biggest foreign policy problem we face is pre-reformational Islam. Trump chooses to revel in pre-Christianity (arguably pre-reformation) Judaism.
Then again, he probably sees himself as Daniel, among the great profits of all time. 🙂
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 4/15/2016 @ 5:53 pm“Eye for an eye” was said in the law in both Leviticus and Exodus.
To add context we should probably include the part where Jesus says he is here to fulfill the law not to overturn the law.
In this chapter of Matthew Jesus is saying to go the extra mile to make peace and that we should also make sure we know that our internal life needs to match up with our external life. Jesus loathed the religious hypocrites of the day.
Jesus doesn’t abolish penalty for murder and doesn’t say man cannot judge another for murder or other crimes.
Reading it without context has people thinking that if someone rapes my wife I need to give them my car and my jacket on their way out. Or that we must be meek doormats so we may inherit the earth (and be truly holy)
I think it is funny how Trump gets stumped when Christian stuff comes up, but the Christians I know who would vote for him (if Cruz is eliminated) would do so based off of a belief Trump will protect their freedom
steveg (fed1c9) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:02 pmLex taliones, in the extreme practice, was a Babylonian concept, not a Mosaic one. In Mosaic law, it was a limitation: Only an eye for an eye. And since, in those days without antibiotics, an eye injury could be fatal, in practice it was money for an eye.
It’s the Sabbath now, but maybe Sammy and Milhouse can weigh in on this tomorrow evening. As for Trump, his Christianity is like his combover in my opinion. He’s not fooling me, anyway.
nk (dbc370) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:03 pmit’s a tricky issue, how does remain in the world, but not of it, remain engaged in the public sphere, but not in the ways of the world,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:04 pmthere is a continuity between the old mosaic law, say,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:08 pmhttp://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm, and the world of saul, who have stirred up their quotient of controversy, it is walking away from the former, so that awareness is hidden, that brings us to our current state,
can we spare a moment for mailman’s son, cringe inducing jaunts,
http://www.timesofisrael.com/john-kasich-links-jesus-blood-to-passover-at-matzah-bakery/
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:13 pmVengeance! (1970) original trailer (YouTube)
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:20 pmwe forget this fundamental principle,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6%3A10-20&version=NIV
there is a reason I refer to babylonian dieties, when speaking of planned parenthood,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:23 pmwhen that supreme court decision pushed prayer out of the public sphere, they knew exactly what they were doing,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:26 pmthe fundamental reality is govt cannot reform, it can only punish, which Romans 13, rather clearly points out, the latter requires an extraordinary element that man cannot provide,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:29 pmIt makes me both angry and sad that I am increasingly detecting in what we have come to accept as the conservative-leaning counterbalance to the mainstream media (Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge, and individual contributors in other solidly conservative outlets) a grudging respect for Trump’s ability to pull the wool over the eyes of Jonathan Gruber’s® Stupid American Voters™. For example, yesterday on Hot Air, “Allahpundit” wrote (bold mine):
Allahpundit is wrong, of course: Trump IS pandering to the “Christian base,” as he constantly did in Iowa (“I’m a great Christian!” he declared, before going on that tirade about how Ben Carson is pathological and like a child molester), at Liberty University (“Two Corinthians”), and in Utah (“Lyin’ Ted Cruz should not be allowed to win there — Mormons don’t like LIARS!”). What A.P. is saying, IMHO, is that he’s happy to see someone winning over a large group of Republicans without being serious about faith. Too much has been written about how evangelicals have changed their standards for whom they entrust the leadership of a nation they believe was divinely inspired for Trump, and they want him to say enough to just click the “Yeah, I believe in Jesus” box so they can get the go ahead to install a guy who makes them wanna put their fist in the air as if they’re actually hurting an enemy.
This is the sort of thing I remember from when Bill Clinton would say something ridiculous and patently false to cover his ass, usually with a giggle and that lady-killing smile, and the word would be sent via the mainstream media that he had escaped consequences yet again; All hail Houdini! It would be easy to tell the truth and admit that he’s plopped down a scoop of bovine feces on your plate and served it up as chocolate mousse, but no — instead, they would marvel at how just enough people will consume it and call it the best dessert they ever tasted to prevent the scales from tipping in favor of the rascally Republicans.
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:29 pmanother way of putting it,
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/5-8.htm
allahpander is not a theological authority, I think we’ve stipulated that, much of the country is unchurched it is a sad reality, otherwise, obergefell, lawrence, romer would not have come to pass.
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:33 pmthose are just a few passages, to meditate on, that are relevant to our modern predicament,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:38 pmIt should be pointed out that there are THREE candidates who share their “collective anger at elected officials repeatedly indulging their own quest for power and reward instead of doing the will of the people.”
Trump, Cruz and Sanders. And the inclusion of Sanders in this demonstrates that the above is not nearly enough — what you intend to DO about it is what matters.
And this is what folks have been trying to get Trump and Trump’s supporters to examine; just saying you are going to “build a wall” and “make America GREAT again” isn’t policy. I bet you that Sanders wants to make America GREAT again, but just has a different set of criteria. Heck, Obama thinks he’s done just that — an America his wife can finally be proud of.
Anger isn’t enough. We are ALL EFFING ANGRY!! If Trump REALLY wants to lead, he needs to talk about what he plans. That he does not makes those who think he’s a shill just that much more certain.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:39 pmof course, it’s policy, otherwise vicente fox, wouldn’t be dialing to eleventy, so is the over broad dragnet on muslim immigrants, that various sundry potentates have reacted to, gaffney’s net is tighter, but it also raises hackles,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:44 pmAs Cruz said on the Town Hall last night: The Senators were more angry that I called a liar a liar than the fact that they were lied to.
Our culture/society is so far gone.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:47 pmThe right wing of the GOP has been working for years towards an election where we control Congress and the Democrats have a weak candidate for President to put our guy in. This is that year.
We could:
* Cut the number of cabinet agencies severely. Gone would be Labor, Commerce, Energy, Education and HUD ant the very least, rolling so me necessary functions (e.g the Patent Office) bacdk into other departments.
* Reform the Civil Service and make it easy to get rid of deadwood, and then get rid of the deadwood. Cut the remaining departments by 30%.
* Fire everyone in the DoJ and replace them with people who follow the Constitution.
* Reform the Appellate Courts, expanding or realigning them as needed, while removing Senior Judges from important roles. Impeach a couple of examples.
* Rebuild the military and the officer corps. Cashier the PC generals. Make the VA work even if you have to start shooting people.
* Fix immigration so that the people who come in legally are young workers and everyone else stays the F out. You wanna see grandma, go visit her. Flights are cheap.
* Reform entitlements going forward so that Gen X and the Millennials are not crushed to pay for a system that will explode before they retire. Transition to defined contributions and private accounts. See the Chilean success.
But no. We’re gonna elect Hillary because some rich guy didn’t get enough respect from his daddy and has to act out.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:54 pmand how many senators are you going to get to go along with these goals, cruz’s s wupposed allies are like scared tabbies, not willing to commit, goose, his new best friend, well I’d watch my back, lets deal with reality, shall we,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:58 pmIt was one of the stages of my Trumpunzufriedeheitangst that I was blaming the GOP establishment. But that is not fruitful. Regardless of the cause of the immunity deficiency, the important thing is to eradicate the opportunistic infection.
nk (dbc370) — 4/15/2016 @ 7:08 pmyes, we ignore lindsay, how about sasse, and cotton, they were mute because of sea island, how about now?
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 7:09 pmDid Trump specify he was talking the Matthew version of the quote?
steveg (fed1c9) — 4/15/2016 @ 8:16 pmBecause from what I saw, everyone jumped to the conclusion that he was talking about the Matthew story, because it would fit the narrative.
Trump is from NYC. Maybe he was remembering something he heard a rabbi friend say
and conflated that with the Christian view.
steveg (fed1c9) — 4/15/2016 @ 8:17 pmHe wouldn’t be the first
Jesus needs to repudiate this part of the Psalms specifically too:
“Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”
Because that story was about how what goes around comes around
Anyway, this thread is nuts.
The last one about Lewandowski was the same… now I read one eye witness supposedly said Fields looked like someone trying to fake a slip and fall. Of course that was probably Lewandowski’s mom.
Right now this reminds me of football rivalries like Auburn-Alabama and Florida-Florida State where pregame, everything is about who cheated, whose team is more pristine.
steveg (fed1c9) — 4/15/2016 @ 8:32 pmyes this is why I try to steer it off the rocks, on a more superficial point, colson had a point about the dangers of men and women of faith, allying with any faction exclusively,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 8:35 pm‘but do they listen to zathras’ no, the ‘two minute hate’ is more satisfying,
yes as with sanford, ferguson, austin, anchorage, chicago, ‘there’s more then meets the eye’
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 8:37 pmre all these forms of lawfare,
@ narciso (#11): Thanks for that Kasich link. He went to a different Sunday school than I did, I think.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/15/2016 @ 8:42 pmI guess moses being the predecessor to jesus, as a prophet, is what he was going for, really at least two picard facepalms,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 8:45 pmNot that my Sunday school was harsh — it was pass/fail, “fail” being “can’t have snack this time.” But yeah, that was a pretty bad fail. At least he didn’t involve Santa Claus.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/15/2016 @ 8:48 pmIs he Orthodox? We call Easter Pascha — Passover. But he’s not up to speed on his Exodus or his Communion Liturgy I think.
nk (dbc370) — 4/15/2016 @ 8:53 pmten commandments came out when he was five, we’re not talking rocket surgery here, pesach, passover, to prevent the deaths,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 8:56 pmIt’s hard to see that as pandering to evangelicals. If he was pandering to evangelicals, then he’s doing a piss-poor job of it. I think what is really going on is not that he is fooling evangelicals but that evangelicals voted for the man that they perceived as the man most hated by the Republican establishment and the Leftist media.
Cugel (0da348) — 4/15/2016 @ 9:52 pmWatch out, Nate Silver!
538 issued a revised delegate count projection. They have DT down to 1155-1159. The main reason being Indiana. Silver also notes that if the latest Field poll which shows Cruz winning L.A. County in California correctly measures the momentum statewide, the total will be even lower.
I enjoyed reading Hugh Hewitt’s tweets today suggesting it is possible that some delegates bound to Trump may simply choose to not be in the hall for the first ballot. 🙂
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 4/16/2016 @ 1:50 pmhere is a reason I refer to babylonian dieties, when speaking of planned parenthood,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:23 pm
Funny thing it is, I always associate them with the Canaanite god Moloch!
Yoda (feee21) — 4/16/2016 @ 3:05 pm@ Cugel (#37): Kasich was campaigning among orthodox Jews in New York. I don’t think he was pandering to evangelicals elsewhere. Instead he decided that he needed to “Goysplain” to Yeshiva students about a number of Old Testament figures. I know some people find his graceless goofiness endearing, but I don’t think he won any new Jewish friends this past week in New York.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/16/2016 @ 3:35 pm@ #22
Republicans held congress and the white house for 6 years (2000-2006) and did none of those things. Instead they gave us further federal interference in schools(no child left behind w/Teddy Kennedy) expanded Medicade dramatically, created the DHS, and created more debt in six years than any time in history (at the time).
But I guess hope springs eternal…
LBascom (d52d85) — 4/16/2016 @ 11:28 pmWell, it was Baal that was planned to make an appearance in NYC as well as London,
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/life-among-the-ruins.html?_r=0
but according to Snopes the NYC version has been delayed/postponed indefinitely,
MD back in Philly (f9371b) — 4/17/2016 @ 6:39 amhttp://www.snopes.com/temple-of-baal-in-new-york-city/
(Though from my vantage point, the Snopes piece is an example of why I do not trust them anymore. They conflate a claim that was out of the NYT, attribute it to fringe elements, then declare it mostly false.)
I was trying to make a wider point, about what christian engagment in the world entails,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/17/2016 @ 6:47 amMy point was not to challenge your point,
MD back in Philly!!! (f9371b) — 4/17/2016 @ 7:20 amjust to give a status update on one example.
yes, it’s induced Gellman neuralgia,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/17/2016 @ 7:22 amDonald Trump believes that if you’re a reporter who asks him a tough question, then he gets to ask you a tough question in return. Fair is fair.
I’m just kidding. He thinks if you’re a reporter who asks him a tough question, then he gets to put your eye out.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 4/17/2016 @ 9:03 am42. MD back in Philly (f9371b) — 4/17/2016 @ 6:39 am
Well, it was Baal that was planned to make an appearance in NYC as well as London,
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/life-among-the-ruins.html?_r=0
I read the article. First of all, it’s not the temple of Baal, or even an image of it.
It was de-commissioned a long time ago. It first became a church under the Roman Republic, which we now call the Byzantine Empire – but when conquered by the Moslems it was still called Republica Romana – and later on it became a mosque and functioned apparently into the 1920s, when it was secularized by the French. ISIS blew up a mosque!
Sammy Finkelman (366297) — 4/17/2016 @ 11:25 amI just got to this now. There is only one way to read that entire passage (Leviticus 24:17-21) consistently, understanding the key phrase “X תחת X” the same way each time, without causing the text to contradict itself: by understanding it as “the value of X for X”.
If you try reading it as “the loss of X for X”, then verse 18 says One who kills an animal shall pay for it, a life for a life, i.e. capital punishment for killing animals. OK, so maybe PETA is right after all, eh? How do we know it doesn’t mean that? Because verse 21 says One who kills an animal shall pay for it, but one who kills a person shall be killed. Make up your mind.
The correct rendition of תחת, though, makes the whole passage read consistently. Any damage short of murder shall be compensated with money, to the full value of the damage done, but murder can’t be paid for; there is no blood money, but only blood.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/17/2016 @ 11:59 amIsn’t that what alternates are for?
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/17/2016 @ 12:03 pmnk (dbc370) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:03 pm
Only an eye is one kind of comment, but actually I think the meaning is, both the most valuable irreplaceaqble body part (an eye) or the least valuable irreplaceable body part (a tooth – although now they can replace it with an implant and they actually managed to regenerate a tooth in a mouse with a stem cell so maybe this can happen)
And, yes, that’s it is impossible to do the same thing is something I heard, but ths, I think, reflects ignorance, because it was never implemented. If you read between the lines in the Mosaic code, in Exodus, you can see this. I think, orginally, the sentence imposed was to lose and eye or a tooth, but was always supposed to be redeemed. In the case of a slave, the slave went free whether it was something as valuable as an eye or as marginal as a tooth, which provision, by the way, doesn’t make sense unless it really was negiotiated in every case. A slave has no money, so he can’t be given money in return.)
In practice I suppose this meant a person stayed locked up or civilly disabled or something like that, until he reached agreement with the victim. There has to be a reconciliation. This later deteriorated in the times of the Second Temple and the court began imposing a monetary penalty directly, which spoils the effect.
In the case where a man caused a miscarriage, and you could not, even theoretically, impose an identical penalty, the Torah says it is negotiated, and if they can’t reach agreement, the court decides, or maybe it means the court has to assess it as reasonable. (Exodus 21:22)
In the worst case of negligent homicide (Exodus 21:29) the perpetrator is put to death, except that he can be (or really must be) redeemed (Exodus 21:30) But in cases of real murder, there can be redemption, – the person is to be killed. (Numbers 35:31) This is unlike the case in Babylonian (and modern day Islamic) law, which has been taken advantage of the United States government in Afghanistan and Iraq, where people are allowed to claim it was murder but the U.S. government says it is not blood money, and it was not a crime. They agree to disagree as to what the monetary payment is for. What happens, in Islamic law, when the person entitled to collect the money committed or consented to the murder? Honor killings. Maybe the best Islamic jurists wouldn’t say so, but it still happens.
“An eye for an eye” etc is also repeated in Leviticus 24:20. The phrase life for life is used to refer to making it good when a beast is killed (Leviticus 24:18 and 21) “Life for life” by itself it doesn’t mean do the same thing. The written law just avoids being very explicit, because probably the sentence pronounced was to lose an eye or a tooth, and get the perpetrator good and scared.
Now what is homicide? If a person recovered sufficiently to walk about outside by himself, then if he dies later it is no longer homicide. (Exodus 21:19) There is no such thing as “manslaughter.” There is an intermediate unintentional killing, where a person has a right to run away to a city of refuge and he stays there until the Kohen Gadol (high priest) dies. He can be killed by the family’s avenger if he ventures outside until then, without the avenger incurring guilt.
Sammy Finkelman (366297) — 4/17/2016 @ 12:10 pmUm, no. They correctly debunk a wild claim circulated by some fringe blogs and twitterers, pointing to the NY Times for what was actually planned.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/17/2016 @ 12:11 pmI got the bolding a little bit wrong.
Needless to say, Donald Trump only has the most noddinbg acquaintance with the Bible, most or all f it “outside” (as quoted elsewhere)
Sammy Finkelman (366297) — 4/17/2016 @ 12:12 pmThank you, Milhouse and Sammy.
nk (dbc370) — 4/17/2016 @ 12:13 pmSammy, it always meant money. That’s what the word תַּחַת means, in this context. To this day the law speaks of “making the victim whole”, meaning not putting his eye back in, but giving him enough money to reduce his net loss to zero. Ideally that is the amount the victim would have accepted, had he been approached in advance and offered payment in return for his consent to have his eye put out.
What the passage is actually doing is ruling out the sort of justice system that Roman and Teutonic societies had, where you could get away with murder by paying a wergild. The Bible says no; full compensation will get you off for any damage you do short of killing, but if you killed someone no amount of money will get you off, because the victim is not around to be paid. As Numbers 35:31-33 says, money can’t pay for blood.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/17/2016 @ 12:32 pmThat is manslaughter. Completely accidental homicide is not punishable at all, but killing someone through negligence is manslaughter, and the punishment is exile until the High Priest dies.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/17/2016 @ 12:35 pmWhat if the High Priest “accidentally” dies? Badda-bing. knowhatimean?
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/17/2016 @ 12:50 pmAll the manslaughterers can go home.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/17/2016 @ 12:57 pmThe High Priest’s mother would make sure life in the Sanctuary cities was comfortable enough for the manslaughterers who had to live there that they wouldn’t pray for his early death.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/17/2016 @ 12:59 pmyou have to be careful not to do manslaughters on anybody
this often means taking sensible precautions you might otherwise think are annoying or burdensome
happyfeet (831175) — 4/17/2016 @ 1:00 pmMilhouse (87c499) — 4/17/2016 @ 12:35 pm
Under American law, that’s not what manslaughter is.
Manslaughter (there are different levels of it, but the highest one) is attempting to hurt someone, without necessarily intending to kill them. In Biblical law, this kind of intermediate category between criminal negligence and murder does not exist. It’s one or the other (or a situation where a family member who blames him has the right to kill him if he doesn’t flee – but this must be adjudicated – or possibly nothing.)
Plain criminal negligence is if it indirect, like keeping a animal that has been known to gore people and letting it run loose, and then the animal killed someone; and if it happened unintentionally but directly through his acts, it’s exile to a city of refuge. Running someone over with a car could be like that. A “test” for that is if he hated the victim previously.
Exodus 21:12-14 briefly distinguishes between the different things.
Makey ish v’meis, Mos yumos. If someone hits someone and he dies, he shall die. That’s very often manslaughter under American law. No intent to kill someone is necessary. It’s enough that he beat him up.
He’s innocent if he wasn’t planning to hit him, but it happened because God caused it to happen through his hand. And he’s guilty (of murder) if he contrived a situation so that a person should die – like tripping him, or I suppose, digging a pit a person should fall through. Also, if he used a weapon, it’s murder if what he used could have been the sort of thing one could reasonably have used on purpose with the idea of killing someone.
Sammy Finkelman (366297) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:29 amSome Biblical commentators call what causes the person who goes to the city of refuge manslaughter but that is not the English/American law manslaughter. Exile is either when there is some form of negligence (enough so that without it, the court would not uphold the exile if there wasn’t this element of negligence) or it’s a case where the court sees that the family member’s blood is boiling and he blames him and he might kill him. I think they did that in such cases.
The crime of manslaughter, (which is criminal wrongdoing but without the specific intent to kill)
under English or American law I don’t think exists under Biblical law.
Now, usually, depraved indifference is also murder, so they really should have no need in American law for the crime of voluntary manslaughter, and prosecutors sometimes leave that option off for the jury, but none of that is applied consistently. I suppose manslaughter is meant to include when someone is not thinking, and if they are not thinking, it’s not depraved indifference and this not murder. To have depraved indifference to human life you have to actually be aware of the possibility.
Sammy Finkelman (366297) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:45 am