Donald F. Murray, «Under Yhwh’s Veto: David as Shedder of Blood in Chronicles», Vol. 82 (2001) 457-476
As grounds for Yhwh’s veto on David’s building the temple, the charge of shedding blood, in Chronicles made against David alone (1 Chr 22,8; 28,3), poses questions both about what is being referred to, and how the charge explains the veto, given that in the Hebrew Bible no other Israelite warrior incurs the charge for killing in warfare. This article explicates the charge, highlights how surprising it is, and then develops a line of argument, drawn principally from Num 31 and 35, that can explain how the Chronicler understood the charge both to be warranted, and to justify Yhwh’s veto.
context. Many instances of the expression concentrate on its moral-legal character as a heinous offence against God and humanity, but a significant number focus on religious aspects of Md Kp#32. Num 35,33-34, where alone the specific expression Md Kp# occurs in Num 35, climaxes a longer section that sets out religio-legal prescriptions for dealing with homicide in the community (35,16-32). According to Num 35,33, when the crime specified as Md Kp# has taken place it pollutes (Pynxy) ‘the land’ (in the religious sense of both terms), and the community must take steps to deal with that pollution. The fundamental operative principle, stated in Num 35,33b, is that it is the shedding of the bloodshedder’s own blood that removes the pollution (wkp# Mdb M)-yk hb-Kp# r#) Mdl rpky-)l Cr)lw [35,33b]).
The general principle enunciated here also governs the series of preceding prescriptions covering homicide in the community. Thus the perpetrator of an intentional homicide that is adequately corroborated by witnesses is to be put to death, with no possibility of ransom and no recourse to a city of refuge (Num 35,15-21.30-31). In accord with the principle of Num 35,33b the shedding of the perpetrator’s blood removes the pollution of the victim’s blood. But nor can there be any ransom to free an unintentional homicide from his city of refuge before the death of the high priest (35,32). Violation of this rule would bring back upon ‘the land’ the pollution of the blood that was shed (35,33a) and thus render the unintentional homicide subject to the principle that his blood must be shed to remove that pollution (35,33b with 35,26-28). Hence the city of refuge serves both to quarantine from the community (‘the land’) the religious contagion that inheres in shed blood, even blood shed unintentionally, and to protect the unintentional homicide from the vengeance of the Mdh l)g automatically set in motion by the fundamental religious principle (35,22-28 with 35,33b). That this is not in the end merely a matter of impersonal and inexorable religious laws, however, is affirmed in the passage’s concluding statement (Num 35,34), where it is made clear that the overriding consideration is that ‘the land’ that would be religiously polluted by