Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 24:10
And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father [was] an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;
10 23. Incident of the blasphemer, and laws arising out of that occurrence or suggested by it.
This section closely resembles Num 15:32-36, which relates the punishment of the man found gathering sticks on the sabbath day. The blasphemer was only half Israelite; according to Deu 23:8 children of the Edomites and the Egyptians were admitted into the congregation in the third generation, but after the Return alliances with Egyptians and other ‘strange’ nations were prohibited (Ezra 9, 10; Nehemiah 13) on the ground that from such mixed marriages harmful results to the Jewish faith might be anticipated.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Lev 24:10-16
Blasphemed the name of the Lord.
Blaspheming against Gods holy name
Swearing is a sin that hath more malignancy in it against God, by how much the less is the temptation to it, says Burroughs; and adds, I verily believe that if God had never made the Third Commandment, there could never have been so many oaths in the world; but it springs from a mere malignancy of spirit in man against God because He has forbidden, for no profit can arise from the practice. Yet, while no profit comes to the blasphemer, great ill and grief are thereby caused to others.
I. The historic interest of this incident. This act of blasphemy, and the judgment which it called forth on the sinner–
1. Brought out clearly that the name of the Lord was Israels most solemn trust.
2. Introduced the significant custom of avoiding the very use of the name of the Lord. Certainly this may admonish us against an undue freeness in the use of the august name either in pious speech or effusive prayer.
II. The heinous quality of the crime.
1. The crime defined. Blasphemy is calumny and insult against the holy God, uttered with the intention to defame Him. It not only expresses the hatred of Him in the speakers own heart, but aims at awakening in his hearers mind an equal loathing of Jehovah and all His claims. It is held up in Scripture as an assault upon the dignity and sanctity of Gods name (Psa 74:18; Isa 52:5; Rom 2:24).
2. The root of the sin. This must be traced to the vileness of the human heart, and its natural enmity to God (cf. Mat 15:19)
. It should be noticed also as being the outgrowth of folly and pride (see 2Ki 19:22; Psa 74:18). Of all sins, blasphemy is an indication of a mind mad with impiety.
3. Its great offensiveness to God and man. How hateful to God is evident from the penalties inflicted (see 5:16 and cf. Isa 65:7; Eze 20:27-32; Eze 35:11-12; Mat 12:31-32), how hurtful to man is manifest from Psa 44:15-16; Psa 74:10; Psa 74:18; Psa 74:22. They who revere this glorious and fearful name, The Lord thy God (Deu 28:58) are distressed at its profanation. Louis IX. of France branded swearers lips with a hot iron for this offence, and when some complained that the punishment was too severe, he replied, I could wish that by searing my own lips I could banish all profanity from my realm.
III. Facts explanatory of such blasphemous speech. The sin of profanity points to–
1. An ungoverned tongue.
2. Passionate contention and strife.
3. An unsanctified heart. (W. H. Jellie.)
Slaying the blasphemer
I. The evil resulting from connection with the ungodly, whose father was an Egyptian–said by the Rabbins to be the man whom Moses killed.
II. The danger arising from indulgence in passionate anger: strove; the blasphemy was uttered in a quarrelsome passion.
III. The blasphemy which, in this case, resulted from such indulgence. Cursed the holy name of Jehovah; which, the Israelites claimed, belonged to none but Israelites.
IV. The punishment which all like sin merits. (W. Wayland, B. A.)
Stoning the blasphemer
I. His person. He is said to be the son of an Egyptian by an Israelitish woman. His father was one of that mixed multitude which came out of Egypt with Israel (Exo 12:38), whom this woman married as many other women then married Egyptian men, to decline their rage and fury. For at that time the law prohibiting marriages with the heathen was not given them, and some charitably say he was a seeming proselyte; it is more probable that as his mother taught him to speak his father taught this his son to blaspheme.
II. The occasion. He was of a quarrelsome, boisterous, and passionate temper, which demonstrates the danger of mixed marriages. For children, like the conclusion of a syllogism, follow the worst part.
III. His heinous action. He both blasphemed and cursed. In the heat and height of contention, what will not graceless persons both say and do? If this man was drunk, it was with frenzy, which made him belch forth blasphemies and horrid execrations out of his black mouth, and blacker gipsy heart.
1. He blasphemed (Nakab, Hebrew signifies perforate, to bore through). Thus blasphemers do pierce and strike through the sacred and tremendous name of God. Such diabolical wretches would both bore His name and gore His person if they could.
2. He cursed (Kalal, Hebrew signifies leviter de aliquo loqui,to vilify and scoff at). Thus he set at naught the God of Israel, against whom, it seems, his quarrel was (saith Jerome)more than against that Israelite he quarrelled with. Thus he (like those three unnatural sons, that tried their archery which could shoot nearest their fathers heart) shot his arrows at God and cursed himself. Cursing men are cursed men; such dogs come not into heaven by barking (1Co 6:9, &c.; Rev 22:15).
IV. The circumstances of his suffering. As–
1. He was apprehended as a grand malefactor, even against God Himself; impeaching the Divine honour by blasphemy and cursing out of a deep intestine malignity.
2. This capital offender is carried away to Moses, the chief magistrate, who soon committed him to custody, and probably confined him with chains and fetters; for it is improbable there could properly be any strong prisons in the wilderness, where they lived only in tents. Though Moses might have put him to death by virtue of that law against cursing father, &c. (Exo 21:17), but the crime being very heinous against God Himself, as he used to do in other arduous cases, so in this he consults with God for a condign punishment.
3. God, the judge of all the earth, denounces his doom, He shall be stoned: a punishment answerable to his stony heart. Let those that teach their tongues to lie, swear, curse, and blaspheme by a daily custom, consider this severe sentence of God, and what danger hangeth over their heads every day.
4. The people stone him,
for–
1. It was a common quarrel to vindicate the contempt cast upon their common Benefactor, from whom they had their being and well-being.
2. That by executing this severity, they might be cautioned from committing the like abominable crime. Thus the reason is rendered, That all Israel may fear (Deu 13:11). And–
3. This was a means to pacify God, by putting away that evil (both person and thing) from among them; whereas His anger would have been incensed against them, had they permitted the blasphemer to pass unpunished. And whereas God had not as yet made a particular law against blasphemy; now upon this particular occasion a general law is here superadded for punishing blasphemers in all succeeding ages (Lev 24:15-16).
And God ordained also, that the witnesses who heard him blaspheme should lay their hands upon his head when he was to be stoned.
1. To confirm their testimony and the truth of it, that they did not, by slander, take away his innocency, nor, by murder, his life.
2. That his blood might be upon his own head, and that they were not guilty of his sin. If so–
3. It was a kind of imprecation, that they might suffer the same severity (so Deu 17:7; Deu 17:12; Deu 19:20, &c., shows).
4. This sacrifice of justice expiates wrath from the survivors. (C. Ness.)
The name
It is striking to notice that in the Hebrew text it is only said that he blasphemed The name; what that was being left unwritten. On this omission the later Jews grounded their prohibition of the use of the word Jehovah, under almost any circumstances. Those who utter the name of God according to its sound, says the Talmud, have no position in the world to come. The priests might use it in the Temple services, but even they were not to let it cross their lips elsewhere. In the Hebrew Bible the vowels of the word Adonai, Lord, are placed below it, and in the Greek it is always suppressed, the word Kurios, Lord, being used in its place; a practice followed by the English version. Traces of this aversion to utter the Divine name occur early in the Old Testament, as where it is withheld from Jacob at Peniel, and from Mauoah. This dread of using the special name of the Deity characterised antiquity from the earliest ages, through the belief that it expressed the awful mysteries of the Divine essence, and was too holy to be breathed. Thus the name of God is in the angel, who was to lead Israel through the wilderness (Exo 23:21), and the Temple was to be built for the name (2Sa 7:13), but in neither case is it given. Such reverence, just in itself, early led, however, to many superstitions. The knowledge of the secret name of any god or angel was thought to convey, to him who knew it, the control of their supernatural powers. He who discovered the hidden name of the god Ea, of the Accadians, became invested with attributes higher than those of the gods. The name, in fact, was regarded as a personification of its owner, with which was indissolubly connected the possession of his essential characteristics. Thus the Romans used the word numen for a divinity, by a mere play on the word nomen, a name. Among the Egyptians there was a god whose name it was unlawful to utter; and it was forbidden to name or to speak of the supreme guardian divinity of Rome. Even to mention a gods name in taking an oath was deemed irreverent. In the book of Henock a secret magic power is ascribed to the Divine name, and it upholds all things which are. Men learned it through the craft of the evil angel, Kesbeel, who in heaven, before he was cast out, gained it by craft from Michael, its original guardian. Nor did the ancient world, alone, regard a name as thus potent. The Scandinavians firmly believed that if that of a fighting warrior were spoken out loud, his strength would immediately depart from him, for his name was his very essence. At this day, moreover, the true name of the Emperor of China is kept a profound secret, never to be uttered–perhaps to impress his subjects with his unapproachable elevation above common mortals. (C. Geikie, D. D.)
The sin of profanity
There is not a sin in all the catalogue that is so often peremptorily and suddenly punished in this world as the sin of profanity. There is not a city or a village but can give an illustration of a man struck down at the moment of inprecation. At New Brunswick, U.S., just before I went there as a student, this occurrence took place in front of the college. On the rail-track a man had uttered a horrible oath. He saw not that the rail-train was coming. The locomotive struck him and instantly dashed his life out. The peculiarity of the circumstance was that the physicians examining his body found hardly a bruise, except that his tongue was cut out! There was no mystery about it. He cursed God and died. In Scotland a club assembled every week for purposes of wickedness, and there was a competition as to which could use the most profane oath, and the man who succeeded was to be president of the club. The competition went on. A man uttered an oath which confounded all his comrades, and he was made president of the club. His tongue began to swell, and it protruded from the mouth, and he could not draw it in, and he died, and the physicians said, This is the strangest thing we ever saw: we never saw any account in the books like unto it: we cannot understand it. I understand it. He cursed God and died. At Catskill, N.Y., a group of men stood in a blacksmiths shop during a violent thunderstorm. There came a crash of thunder and some of the men trembled. One man said, Why, I dont see what you are afraid of. I am not afraid to go out in front of the shop and defy the Almighty. I am not afraid of the lightning. And he laid a wager on the subject, and he went out and shook his fist at the heavens, crying, Strike, if you dare! and instantly he fell under a bolt. What destroyed him? Any mystery about it? Oh, no; he cursed God and died. Oh, my brother, God will not allow this sin to go unpunished. There are styles of writing with manifold sheets, so that a man writing on one leaf writes clear through ten, fifteen, or twenty sheets; and so every profanity we utter goes right down through the leaves of the book of Gods remembrance. (T. De Witt Talmage.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 10. The son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, c.] This is a very obscure account, and is encumbered with many difficulties.
1. It seems strange that a person proceeding from such an illegal mixture should have been incorporated with the Israelites.
2. What the cause of the strife between this mongrel person and the Israelitish man was is not even hinted at. The rabbins, it is true, supply in their way this deficiency they say he was the son of the Egyptian whom Moses slew, and that attempting to pitch his tent among those of the tribe of Dan, to which he belonged by his mother’s side, Le 24:11, he was prevented by a person of that tribe as having no right to a station among them who were true Israelites both by father and mother. In consequence of this they say he blasphemed the name of the Lord. But,
3. The sacred text does not tell us what name he blasphemed; it is simply said vaiyihkob eth hashshem, he pierced through, distinguished, explained, or expressed the name. (See below, article 10.) As the Jews hold it impious to pronounce the name Yehovah, they always put either Adonai, Lord, or hashshem, THE NAME, in the place of it; but in this sense hashshem was never used prior to the days of rabbinical superstition, and therefore it cannot be put here for the word Jehovah.
4. Blaspheming the name of the Lord is mentioned in Le 24:16, and there the proper Hebrew term is used shem Yehovah, and not the rabbinical hashshem, as in Le 24:11.
5. Of all the manuscripts collated both by Kennicott and De Rossi, not one, either of the Hebrew or Samaritan, has the word Jehovah in this place.
6. Not one of the ancient VERSIONS, Targum of Onkelos, Hebraeo-Samaritan, Samaritan version, Syriac, Arabic, Septuagint, or Vulgate Latin, has even attempted to supply the sacred name.
7. Houbigant supposes that the Egypto-Israelitish man did not use the name of the true God at all, but had been swearing by one of his country gods; and if this was the case the mention of the name of a strange god in the camp of Israel would constitute a very high crime, and certainly expose to the punishment mentioned in Le 24:14.
8. Probably the word hashshem was the proper name of some Egyptian deity.
9. The fifteenth verse seems to countenance the supposition that the god whose name was produced on this occasion was not the true God, for it is there said, whosoever curseth his god, elohaiv, shall bear his sin – shall have the punishment due to him as an idolater; but he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shem Yehovah, shall surely be put to death – when he blasphemeth the name ( shem) he shall die, Le 24:16.
10. The verb nakab, which we translate blaspheme, signifies to pierce, bore, make hollow; also to EXPRESS or DISTINGUISH by NAME; see Isa 62:2; Nu 1:17; 1Ch 12:31; 1Ch 16:41; 1Ch 28:15; or, as the Persian translator has it, [Persian] sherah kerd, mir an nam, he expounded or interpreted the name. Hence all that we term blasphemy here may only signify the particularizing some false god, i. e., naming him by his name, or imploring his aid as a helper, and when spoken of the true God it may signify using that sacred name as the idolaters did the names of their idols. On blaspheming God, and the nature of blasphemy, See Clarke on Mt 9:3.
In whatever point of view we consider the relation which has been the subject of this long note, one thing is sufficiently plain, that he who speaks irreverently of God, of his works, his perfections, his providence, &c., is destitute of every moral feeling and of every religious principle, and consequently so dangerous to society that it would be criminal to suffer him to be at large, though the longsuffering of God may lead him to repentance, and therefore it may be consistent with mercy to preserve his life.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Whose father was an Egyptian: this circumstance seems noted, partly to show the danger of marriages with persons of wicked principles or practices, wherein the children, as one wittily and truly observes, like the conclusion, do commonly follow the worse part, and are more easily taught by word or example to do ten things agreeable to their corrupt natures, than one thing contrary to it; and partly by this severity against him who was a stranger by the father, and an Israelite by the mother, to show that God would not have this sin to go unpunished amongst his people, whatsoever he was that committed it.
Went out, to wit, out of Egypt, being one of that mixed multitude which came out with the Israelites, Exo 12:38. It is probable this was done when the Israelites were near Sinai.
Strove together: this is added to show that provocation to sin is no justification of sin.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
10. the son of an Israelitish woman,&c.This passage narrates the enactment of a new law, with adetail of the circumstances which gave rise to it. The “mixedmultitude” [Ex 12:38] thataccompanied the Israelites in their exodus from Egypt creates apresumption that marriage connections of the kind described were notinfrequent. And it was most natural, in the relative circumstances ofthe two people, that the father should be an Egyptian and the motheran Israelite.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the son of an Israelitish woman,…. Whose name, and the name of his mother, are afterwards given;
whose father [was] an Egyptian; Jarchi says, this is the Egyptian whom Moses slew, Ex 2:12; and so others in Abendana:
went out among the children of Israel; went out of Egypt with them, according to the Targum of Jonathan, and so was one of the mixed multitude, which came from thence with them, which is not improbable; some say he went out of Moses’s court of judicature; but it is more likely that the meaning is, he went out of his tent, so Aben Ezra, into the midst of the camp, to claim his rank and place among the people of Israel; though the Jewish writers, as Jarchi and Aben Ezra, take this phrase, “among the children of Israel”, to signify that he was a proselyte, and became a Jew, or had embraced the Jewish religion in all respects:
and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; which man of Israel, according to the Targum of Jonathan, was of the tribe of Dan, as was the mother of the man he strove with; what they strove about is not easy to say; Aben Ezra suggests, because this stands connected with the above laws, as if this man had said some things in a reviling way about the shewbread, the oil, and the offerings, and so a dispute arose between them, concerning them; but Jarchi says, it was about the business of the camp, and it is more commonly received that this man claimed a place to fix his tent on in the tribe of Dan, in right of his mother; but the other urged, that the order of fixing tents was according to the genealogies, and with the ensigns of their father’s house, and therefore he had no right to rank with them, his father being an Egyptian, and perhaps from words they came to blows, see Ex 21:22; though the Jewish writers understand it of their contending, at least of its issuing in a judiciary way, before a court of judicature: so it is said, when Israel dwelt in the wilderness, he (the son of the Egyptian) sought to spread his tent in the midst of the tribe of Dan, and they would not suffer it, because the ranks of the children of Israel were, every man according to his rank, with the ensigns according to the genealogy of their fathers; and they began and contended in the camp, wherefore they went into the court of judicature, the son of the woman of the daughter of Israel, and the man, a son of Israel, who was of the tribe of Dan l.
l Targum Jon. in loc.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The account of the Punishment of a Blasphemer is introduced in the midst of the laws, less because “it brings out to view by a clear example the administration of the divine law in Israel, and also introduces and furnishes the reason for several important laws” ( Baumgarten), than because the historical occurrence itself took place at the time when the laws relating to sanctification of life before the Lord were given, whilst the punishment denounced against the blasphemer exhibited in a practical form, as a warning to the whole nation, the sanctification of the Lord in the despisers of His name. The circumstances were the following: – The son of an Israelitish woman named Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan, and of an Egyptian whom the Israelitish woman had married, went out into the midst of the children of Israel, i.e., went out of his tent or place of encampment among the Israelites. As the son of an Egyptian, he belonged to the foreigners who had gone out with Israel (Exo 12:38), and who probably had their tents somewhere apart from those of the Israelites, who were encamped according to their tribes (Num 2:2). Having got into a quarrel with an Israelite, this man scoffed at the name (of Jehovah) and cursed. The cause of the quarrel is not given, and cannot be determined. : to bore, hollow out, then to sting, metaphorically to separate, fix (Gen 30:28), hence to designate (Num 1:17, etc.), and to prick in malam partem , to taunt, i.e., to blaspheme, curse, = Num 23:11, Num 23:25, etc. That the word is used here in a bad sense, is evident from the expression “and cursed,” and from the whole context of Lev 24:15 and Lev 24:16. The Jews, on the other hand, have taken the word in this passage from time immemorial in the sense of (lxx), and founded upon it the well-known law, against even uttering the name Jehovah (see particularly Lev 24:16). “ The name ” . is the name “Jehovah” (cf. Lev 24:16), in which God manifested His nature. It was this passage that gave rise to the custom, so prevalent among the Rabbins, of using the expression “name,” or “the name,” for Dominus , or Deus (see Buxtorf, lex. talmud. pp. 2432ff.). The blasphemer was brought before Moses and then put into confinement, “ to determine for them (such blasphemers) according to the mouth (command) of Jehovah.” : to separate, distinguish, then to determine exactly, which is the sense both here and in Num 15:34, where it occurs in a similar connection.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Blasphemy of Shelomith’s Son; The Punishment of Shelomith’s Son. | B. C. 1490. |
10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; 11 And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:) 12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be showed them. 13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. 15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death. 17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. 18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. 19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; 20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. 21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. 22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God. 23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Evil manners, we say, beget good laws. We have here an account of the evil manners of a certain nameless mongrel Israelite, and the good laws occasioned thereby.
I. The offender was the son of an Egyptian father and an Israelitish mother (v. 10); his mother was of the tribe of Dan, v. 11. Neither he nor his father is named, but his mother only, who was an Israelite. This notice is taken of his parentage either, 1. To intimate what occasioned the quarrel he was engaged in. The Jews say, “He offered to set up his tent among the Danites in the right of his mother, but was justly opposed by some or other of that tribe, and informed that his father being an Egyptian he had no part nor lot in the matter, but must look upon himself as a stranger.” Or, 2. To show the common ill effect of such mixed marriages. When a daughter of Israel would marry an idolatrous malignant Egyptian, what could be the fruit of such a marriage but a blasphemer? For the children will be apt to take after the worse side, whichsoever it is, and will sooner learn of an Egyptian father to blaspheme than of an Israelitish mother to pray and praise.
II. The occasion of the offence was contention: He strove with a man of Israel. The mixed multitude of Egyptians that came up with Israel (Exod. xii. 38) were in many ways hurtful to them, and this was one, they were often the authors of strife. The way to preserve the peace of the church is to preserve the purity of it. In this strife he broke out into ill language. Note, When quarrels begin we know not what mischief they will make before they end, nor how treat a matter a little fire may kindle. When men’s passion is up they are apt to forget both their reason and their religion, which is a good reason why we should not be apt either to give or to resent provocation, but leave off strife before it be meddled with, because the beginning of it is as the letting forth of water.
III. The offence itself was blasphemy and cursing, v. 11. It is supposed that his cause came to be heard before the judges, who determined that he had no right to the privileges of an Israelite, his father being an Egyptian, and that, being enraged at the sentence, 1. He blasphemed the name of the Lord. He blasphemed the name, that is, he blasphemed God, who is known by his name only, not by his nature, or any similitude. Not as if God were a mere name, but his is a name above every name. The translators add of the Lord, which is implied, but not expressed, in the original, for the greater reverence of the divine Majesty: it is a shame that it should be found on record that the very name of Jehovah should be blasphemed; tell it not in Gath. It is a fond conceit of the superstitious Jews that his blasphemy was in pronouncing the name of Jehovah, which they call ineffable: he that made himself known by that name never forbade the calling of him by that name. It is probable that finding himself aggrieved by the divine appointment, which separated between the Israelites and strangers, he impudently reproached both the law and the Law-maker, and set him at defiance. 2. He cursed either God himself (and then his cursing was the same with blaspheming) or the person with whom he strove. Imprecations of mischief are the hellish language of hasty passion, as well as of rooted malice. Or perhaps he cursed the judges that gave sentence against him; he flew in the face of the court, and ridiculed the processes of it; thus he added sin to sin.
IV. The caution with which he was proceeded against for this sin. The witnesses or inferior judges brought him and his case (which was somewhat extraordinary) unto Moses (v. 11), according to the order settled (Exod. xviii. 22), and Moses himself would not give judgment hastily, but committed the offender into custody, till he had consulted the oracle in this case. Note, Judges must deliberate; both those that give the verdict and those that give the sentence must consider diligently what they do, and do nothing rashly, for the judgment is God’s (Deut. i. 17), and before him there will be a rehearing of the cause. They waited to know what was the mind of the Lord, whether he was to be put to death by the hand of the magistrate or to be left to the judgment of God: or, rather, they wanted to know whether he should be stoned, as those were to be that only cursed their parents (ch. xx. 9), or whether, the crime being so much greater, some sorer punishment should be inflicted on him. Note, Those that sit in judgment should sincerely desire, and by prayer and the use of all good means should endeavour to know the mind of the Lord, because they judge for him (2 Chron. xix. 6) and to him they are accountable.
V. Sentence passed upon this offender by the righteous Judge of heaven and earth himself: Let all the congregation stone him, v. 14. God could have cut him off by an immediate stroke from heaven, but he would put this honour upon the institution of magistracy to make use of it for the supporting and vindicating of his own glory in the world. Observe, 1. The place of execution appointed: Bring him forth without the camp. To signify their detestation of the crime, they must thus cast out the criminal as an abominable branch, and separate him from them as an unclean thing and unworthy a place in the camp of Israel. 2. The executioners: Let all the congregation do it, to show their zeal for the honour of God’s name. Every man should have a stone to throw at him that blasphemes God, reckoning himself nearly concerned in the reproaches cast on God, Ps. lxix. 9. Thus also the greater terror would be cast upon the congregation; those that once helped to stone a blasphemer would ever after dread every thing that bordered upon blasphemy, that looked like it or looked towards it. 3. The solemnity of the execution; before the congregation stoned him, the witnesses were to lay their hands upon his head. The Jews say that this was used in the execution of no criminals but blasphemers; and that it was done with words to this purport, “Thy blood be upon thy own head, for thou thyself hast occasioned it. Let no blame be laid on the law, judges, juries, or witnesses; if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it.“
VI. A standing law made upon this occasion for the stoning of blasphemers, Lev 24:15; Lev 24:16. Magistrates are the guardians of both tables, and ought to be as jealous for the honour of God against those that speak contemptuously of his being and government as for the public peace and safety against the disturbers of them. 1. A great stress is laid upon this law, as in no case to be dispensed with: He shall surely be put to death; they shall certainly stone him. Those that lightly esteemed God’s honour might think it hard to make a man an offender for a word (words are but wind); but God would let them know that they must not make light of such words as these, which come from malice against God in the heart of him that speaks, and must occasion either great guilt or great grief to those that hear. 2. It is made to extend to the strangers that sojourned among them, as well as those that were born in the land. God never made any law to compel strangers to be circumcised and embrace the Jewish religion (proselytes made by force would be no honour to the God of Israel), but he made a law to restrain strangers from speaking evil of the God of Israel. 3. He that was put to death for blasphemy is said to bear his sin, in the punishment of it; no sacrifice being appointed, on the head of which the sin might be transferred, he himself was to bear it upon his own head, as a sacrifice to divine justice. So his own tongue fell upon him (Ps. lxiv. 8), and the tongue of a blasphemer will fall heavily.
VII. A repetition of some other laws annexed to this new law. 1. That murder should be punished with death (v. 17, and again v. 21), according to an ancient law in Noah’s time (Gen. ix. 6), and the very law of nature, Gen. iv. 10. 2. That maimers should in like manner be punished by the law of retaliation, Lev 24:19; Lev 24:20. Not that men might in these cases be their own avengers, but they might appeal to the civil magistrate, who should award suffering to the injurious and satisfaction to the injured as should be thought fit in proportion to the hurt done. This law we had before, Exo 22:4; Exo 22:5. And it was more agreeable to that dispensation, in which were revealed the rigour of the law and what sin deserved, than to the dispensation we are under, in which are revealed the grace of the gospel and the remission of sins: and therefore our Saviour has set aside this law (Mat 5:38; Mat 5:39), not to restrain magistrates from executing public justice, but to restrain us all from returning personal injuries and to oblige us to forgive as we are and hope to be forgiven. 3. That hurt done wilfully to a neighbour’s cattle should be punished by making good the damage, Lev 24:18; Lev 24:21. Thus the divine law took not only their lives, but their goods also under its protection. Those beasts which belonged to no particular person, but were, as our law speaks, ferae naturae–of a wild nature, it was lawful for them to kill; but not those which any man had a property in. Does God take care for oxen? Yes; for our sakes he does. 4. That strangers, as well as native Israelites, should be both entitled to the benefit of this law, so as not to suffer wrong, and liable to the penalty of this law in case they did wrong. And, it should seem, this is it that brings in these laws here, to show how equitable it was that strangers as well as Israelites should be punished for blasphemy, because strangers as well as Israelites were punishable for other crimes. And there may be this further reason for the recognition of these laws here, God would hereby show what provision he had made for man’s safety, in punishing those that were injurious to him, which should be an argument with magistrates to be jealous for his honour, and to punish those that blasphemed his name. If God took care for their comfort, they ought to take care for his glory.
VIII. The execution of the blasphemer. Moses did, as it were, sign the warrant or it: He spoke unto the children of Israel to do it, and they did as the Lord commanded Moses, v. 23. This teaches that death is the wages of sin, and that blasphemy in particular is an iniquity to be punished by the judges. But, if those who thus profane the name of God escape punishment from men, yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgments. This blasphemer was the first that died by the law of Moses. Stephen, the first that died for the gospel, died by the abuse of this law; the martyr and the malefactor suffered the same death: but how vast the difference between them!
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 10-16:
This text records the enforcement of the law making blasphemy a capital offense, Ex 20:7.
When Israel left Egypt, a “mixed multitude” went with them, Ex 12:38. In this number were Egyptians who were married to Israelites. One such marriage was of an Egyptian man and a Danite woman. One day their son quarreled with an Israelite man. In the course of the quarrel, this son committed the sin of blasphemy.
“Blaspheme,” naqub, “to pierce,” rendered in the LXX as eponomasas, meaning “named or pronounced.” The implication here is that the man spoke the sacred Name of Jehovah (YHVH) in a light or facetious manner, perhaps in anger and at the same time calling down an imprecation upon the head of his adversary.
The Name of God implies His character, nature, and reputation. It is a sin of the highest rank to treat this Name lightly.
Those who overheard the man’s curse arrested him and brought him to Moses. This was the first instance of such sin, and no precedent had been set for its disposition. The man was placed in custody while Moses sought the will of Jehovah. God instructed that the death penalty was to be enforced. This established a precedent for all future cases, to be applied alike to Israelites as well a foreigners who sojourned in their land.
Irreverent use of God’s Name is just as offensive today as in Moses’ time. God does not demand the death penalty, but it is fatal to one’s character and reputation and honor to use God’s Name (Jesus, Christ, Jehovah, God) in an irreverent manner.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
10. And the son of an Israelitish woman. In what year, and in what station in the desert this occurred, is uncertain. I have, therefore, thought it advisable to couple together two cases, which are not dissimilar. It is probable that between this instance of punishment, and that which will immediately follow, there was an interval of some time: but the connection of two similar occurrences seemed best to preserve the order of the history; one of the persons referred to having been stoned for profaning God’s sacred name by wicked blasphemy, and the other for despising and violating the Sabbath. It is to be observed that the crime of the former of these gave occasion to the promulgation of a law, which we have expounded elsewhere: (81) in accordance with the common proverb, Good laws spring from bad habits: for, after punishment had been inflicted on this blasphemer, Moses ordained that none should insult the name of God with impunity.
It was providentially ordered by God that the earliest manifestation of this severity should affect the son of an Egyptian: for, inasmuch as God thus harshly avenged the insult of His name upon the offspring of a foreigner and a heathen, far less excusable was impiety in Israelites, whom God had, as it were, taken up from their mothers’ womb, and had brought them up in His own bosom. It is true, indeed, that on his mother’s side he had sprung from the chosen people, but, being begotten by an Egyptian father, he could not be properly accounted an Israelite. If, then, there had been any room for the exercise of pardon, a specious reason might have been alleged why forgiveness should be more readily extended to a man of an alien and impure origin. The majesty of God’s name, however, was ratified by his death. Hence it follows that it is by no means to be permitted that God’s name should be exposed with impunity to blasphemies among the sons of the Church.
We may learn from this passage that during their tyrannical oppression many young women married into the Egyptian nation, in order that their affinity might protect their relatives from injuries. It might, however, have been the case that love for his wife attracted the father of this blasphemer into voluntary exile, unless, perhaps, his mother might have been a widow before the departure of the people, so as to be at liberty to take her son with her.
To proceed, he is said to have “gone out,” not outside the camp, but in public, so that he might be convicted by witnesses; for he would not have been brought to trial if his crime had been secretly committed within the walls of his own house. This circumstance is also worthy of remark, that, although the blasphemy had escaped him in a quarrel, punishment was still inflicted upon him; and assuredly it is a frivolous subterfuge to require that blasphemies should be pardoned on the ground that they have been uttered in anger; for nothing is more intolerable than that our wrath should vent itself upon God, when we are angry with one of our fellow-creatures. Still it is usual, when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked.
The verb נקב, nakab, which some render to express, is here rather used for to curse, or to transfix; and the metaphor is an appropriate one, that God’s name should be said to be transfixed, when it is insultingly abused. (82)
(81) See vol. 2, p. 431, on Lev 24:15.
(82) See vol. 2, p. 431, and note. “La similitude de transpercer le nom de Dieu convient tres bien; pource que nous disons deschirer par pieces ou despiter.” — Fr.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
3. HISTORICAL: THE PUNISHMENT OF A BLASPHEMER 24:1023
TEXT 24:1023
10
And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp:
11
and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses. And his mothers name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.
12
And they put him in ward, that it might be declared unto them at the mouth of Jehovah.
13
And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,
14
Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
15
And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
16
And he that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the sojourner, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, shall be put to death.
17
And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death.
18
And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good, life for life.
19
And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him:
20
breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered unto him.
21
And he that killeth a beast shall make it good: and he that killeth a man shall be put to death.
22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the sojourner, as for the home-born: for I am Jehovah your God.
23
And Moses spake to the children of Israel; and they brought forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. And the children of Israel did as Jehovah commanded Moses.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 24:1023
574.
Why mention that the father of this offender was an Egyptian?
575.
About what do you imagine they were fighting, or arguing?
576.
Just what was the sin?
577.
Why not know immediately what to do with him?
578.
How do you suppose this man found a place in the camp of Israel? Cf. Exo. 12:38.
579.
Why the laying on of hands? Who did the stoning? Why?
580.
Does Lev. 24:15 say that cursing is not the same as blasphemy?
581.
What a severe penalty for a verbal sin! Discuss the reason for it.
582.
Why repeat the laws of retribution here?
583.
Are we to understand that mutilation of the body was punishment for sin? Discuss.
584.
These laws seem to be repeated here for the benefit of the sojourners. Is this a fair estimate? Discuss.
PARAPHRASE 24:1023
Out in the camp one day, a young man whose mother was an Israelite and whose father was an Egyptian, got into a fight with one of the men of Israel. During the fight the Egyptian mans son cursed God, and was brought to Moses for judgment. (His mothers name was Shelomith, daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan.) He was put in jail until the Lord would indicate what to do with him. And the Lord said to Moses, Take him outside the camp and tell all who heard him to lay their hands upon his head; then all the people are to execute him by stoning. And tell the people of Israel that anyone who curses his God must pay the penalty: he must die. All the congregation shall stone him; this law applies to the foreigner as well as to the Israelite who blasphemes the name of Jehovah. He must die. Also, all murderers must be executed. Anyone who kills an animal (that isnt his) shall replace it. The penalty for injuring anyone is to be injured in exactly the same way: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Whatever anyone does to another shall be done to him. To repeat, whoever kills an animal must replace it, and whoever kills a man must die. You shall have the same law for the foreigner as for the home-born citizen, for I am Jehovah your God. So they took the youth out of the camp and stoned him until he died, as Jehovah had commanded Moses.
COMMENT 24:1023
Lev. 24:10-11 We could account for the presence of this incident in the midst of the many laws because it occurred while such laws were being given. There are similar records in Deu. 4:41-49 and Num. 15:32-36. It could be that this man whose father was an Egyptian was of that mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with Israel. Cf. Exo. 12:38.
The expression went out among the children of Israel might suggest that he was camped elsewhere. Much traditional information can be read concerning this man. We do not know his name or who he was, other than his immediate family. Such is not important; the principle, not the person, is important here. We do not know of the cause of this argument but we do know of the sin involved. It was a flagrant violation of the third commandment. God had said He would not hold the transgressor guiltless but no penalty was given.
We need to appreciate the enormity of this sin. The strong and repeated emphasis upon the character of God found in this book and throughout the Old Testament should give us some insight. God is very concerned about maintaining a good name among men. To lose respect for the person of God is for Him to lose all influence in life. There is nothing more important than hallowing the name of God. Reverence and respect are the beginning of worship and service.
Kellogg gives us an interesting comment upon the use of the name:
The incident which was the occasion of the promulgation of these laws was as follows. The son of an Israelitish woman by an Egyptian husband fell into a quarrel in the camp. As often happens in such cases, the one sin led on to another and yet graver sin; the half-caste man blasphemed the Name, and cursed; whereupon he was arrested and put into confinement until the will of the Lord might be ascertained in his case. The Name is of course the name of God; the meaning is that he used the holy name profanely in cursing. The passage, together with Lev. 24:16, is of special and curious interest, as upon these two the Jews have based their well-known belief that it is unlawful to utter the Name which we commonly vocalise as Jehovah; whence it has followed that wherever in the Hebrew text the Name occurs it is written with the vowels of Adonay Lord, to indicate to the reader that this word was to be substituted for the proper name,a usage which is represented in the Septuagint by the appearance of the Greek word Kurios, Lord, in all places where the Hebrew has Jehovah (or Yahveh); and which, in both the authorised and revised versions, is still maintained in the retention of Lord in all such cases,a relic of Jewish superstition which one could greatly wish that the Revisers had banished from the English version, especially as in many passages it totally obscures to the English reader the exact sense of the text, wherever it turns upon the choice of this name. It is indeed true that the word rendered blaspheme has the meaning to pronounce, as the Targumists and other Hebrew writers render it; but that it also means simply to revile, and in many places cannot possibly be rendered to pronounce, is perforce admitted even by Jewish scholars. To give it the other meaning here were so plainly foreign to the spirit of the Old Testament, debasing reverence to superstition, that no argument against it will be required with any but a Jew.
And this young man, in the heat of his passion reviled the Name. The words of the Lord are not in the Hebrew; the name Jehovah is thus brought before us expressively as THE NAME, par excellence, of God as revealing Himself in covenant for mans redemption. (Cf. the expression used with reference to Jesus Christ, Php. 2:9 [R.V.] the name which is above every name.) Horrified at the mans wickedness, they brought him unto Moses; and they put him in ward (Lev. 24:12), that it might be declared unto them at the mouth of the Lord what should be done unto him. This was necessary because the case involved two points upon which no revelation had been made: first, as to what should be the punishment of blasphemy; and secondly, whether the law in such cases applied to a foreigner as well as to the native Israelite. The answer of God decided these points. As to the first (Lev. 24:15), Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin, i.e. he shall be held subject to punishment; and (Lev. 24:16), He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. And as to the second point, it is added, as well the stranger, as the home born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.
Lev. 24:12-16 No prison sentence is found in the whole Mosaic legislation. Safe custody was practiced, but only until the judgment could be given and punishment meted out; which always consisted of stripes or death.
It is quite possible that Moses went into the sanctuary to receive the message of God from the mercy seat between the cherubim. Cf. Exo. 25:22. The sentence was not delayed: the offender must be taken outside the camp where all unclean persons were found. Cf. Num. 5:2-3. It was here that certain other malefactors were executed. Cf. Heb. 13:12-13.
Laying hands upon the head of the offender was in essence saying to all who observed that the persons contained by his sin were now transferring it to him. The total consequences of his act were upon him. The solemn circumstance of the act added much to its meaning.
Do Lev. 24:15-16 contemplate one or two sins? i.e. is cursing his God the same as blaspheming the name of God? We believe there is but one sin involved. Lev. 24:16 is an enlargement upon Lev. 24:15. The Scriptures recognize but one God, and he is the Lord Jehovah. Whoever curses him shall bear his sin, that is, shall be guilty in such a way that his sin must be purged either by punishment or by sacrifice, in this case the purging can only come by death. (Meyrick)
Lev. 24:17-23 This is a reiteration of Laws discussed earlier. Cf. Exo. 21:12; Exo. 21:33-34. They are given here again to show their application to the stranger and foreigner as well as the Israelite. O. T. Allis summarizes these verses in a fine way:
With regard to this lex talionis, three things are to be noted. First, it was intended to be a law of exact justice, not of revenge. Secondly, it was not private vengeance, but public justice. Thirdly, by excluding murder from the crimes for which ransom is permissible (Num. 35:31 f.) it makes it probable that compensation for injuries was often or usually allowed to take the form of a fine. The claim that there is in Jewish history no instance of the law of retaliation ever having been carried out literallyeye for an eye, tooth for a tooth may or may not be justified, although such mutilating of the body was contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic law. Yet for centuries in Christian lands, torture and mutilation was the customary punishment for crime, and often, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Mosaic law, it was utterly out of proportion to the offense. This incident serves to remind us of the grievousness of the sin of profanity, which is one of the great evils of today.
FACT QUESTIONS 24:1023
591.
How account for this historical incident in the midst of these laws?
592.
How does Exo. 12:38 relate to this section?
593.
What is the most important part of this account?
594.
Explain the enormity of the sin of blasphemy.
595.
The name was very important to Israel. Discuss this fact.
596.
There were no jails in all the nation. Why?
,
597.
What was said in the act of laying on of hands?
598.
What are the three things to be noted in Lev. 24:17-23?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(10) The son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian.The name of the Israelitish woman, whose son is the subject of the narrative before us, we are afterwards told was Shelomith. She had married an Egyptian whilst she and her people were still in Egypt. Though the fathers nationality is here expressly given, yet from the fact that he does not personally come before us in this incident, it is evident that he remained in Egypt, whilst the son was of the mixed multitude who followed the Israelites in their exodus (Exo. 12:38). This incident, therefore, which is so difficult satisfactorily to connect with the preceding legislation, brings before us a picture of the camp-life of the Israelites in the wilderness. According to tradition, the father of this blasphemer was the taskmaster under whom Shelomiths husband worked in Egypt, that he had injured Shelomith and then smote her husband, that this was the Egyptian whom Moses slew (Exo. 2:11) for the injuries he had thus inflicted both upon the Hebrew and his wife, and that the culprit before us is the issue of the outraged Shelomith by the slain Egyptian. This will explain the rendering here of the ancient Chaldee version, A wicked man, a rebel against the God of heaven, had come out of Egypt, the son of the Egyptian who slew an Israelite in Egypt, and outraged his wife, who conceived, and brought forth this son among the children of Israel.
Went out among the children of Israel.Better, he went out into the midst, &c. This shows that he lived outside the camp and came where he had no right to be.
This son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together.The cause and the manner of their quarrel or contention are not given. But. according to tradition, the man of Israel was a Danite, and, as we are told in the next verse, his mother was of the tribe of Dan, this semi-Egyptian contended with this Danite that he had a right from the side of his mother to encamp among the children of Dan, whilst the Danite disputed this, maintaining that a son could only pitch his tent by the standard of his fathers name (Num. 2:2). This contention, moreover, took place before the rulers who tried the case (Exo. 19:21-22). Hence the ancient Chaldee version translates it, And while the Israelites were dwelling in the wilderness, he sought to pitch his tent in the midst of the tribe of the children of Dan; but they would not let him, because, according to the order of Israel, every man, according to his order, dwelt with his family by the ensign of his fathers house. And they strove together in the camp. Whereupon the son of the Israelitish woman and the man of Israel who was of the tribe of Dan went into the house of judgment.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE BLASPHEMER STONED, Lev 24:10-23.
In the midst of the Sinaitic legislation we find an account of the arrest and punishment of a blasphemer. This unnatural and unexpected mingling of statutes and snatches of history, so different from the studied artifices of the forger, is a striking evidence of the authenticity of the book as a whole. See Numbers, Introduction, (1.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
10. Son of an Israelitish woman The repetition of the statement that the blasphemer was the son of an Egyptian father and a Hebrew mother shows clearly the design of the author to direct attention to the dangers incident to such mixed marriages, and to raise a warning voice against them. This view is confirmed by the fact that the Bible only mentions three intermarriages with Egyptians, all of which result in evil. The second is the intermarriage of Solomon, and his consequent implication in idolatry. 1Ki 3:1-4; 1Ki 11:4. The third is to be found in 1Ch 2:34-35, from which tradition traces the descent of Ishmael, the murderer of Gedaliah. Jer 41:1-2.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Blasphemy Against The Name ( Lev 24:10-14 ).
In the midst of all the ritual instructions in the first part of the book came the practical example as a warning of the sons of Aaron who offered strange fire before Yahweh. It was a warning that the ritual must be carried out meticulously. Now here in the second part of the book, which concentrates more on the practical expression of the covenant and its moral demands as associated closely with the name of Yahweh (we have noted the continual stress on ‘I am Yahweh’ in Leviticus 18-22), comes a practical example of the danger of blaspheming the Name. God’s instructions are not to be taken lightly.
Lev 24:10-11
‘And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp, and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him to Moses. And his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.’
An incident takes place in which a man ‘blasphemes the Name and curses’. His father was an Egyptian and his mother a true-born Israelite whose genealogy can be traced. These were the facts. However the Egyptian had no doubt become a partaker in the covenant (Exodus 24) and identified himself with a tribe, probably the tribe of Dan, as had all the ‘mixed multitude’ which had come out of Egypt. The description is not derogatory but because the man had no antecedents in the tribe. The contempt is revealed in the failure to give the name of either the son or the father. The son has made himself a nonentity and an outcast whose name was not to be mentioned. But the mention of ‘an Egyptian’ would have the underlying significance that this was something that harked back to the influence of Egypt.
The incident was merely a brawl between this man and an Israelite, but the crime lay in the blasphemy against the Name. It would appear that he cursed Yahweh in disobedience against the third commandment (Exo 20:7).
Lev 24:12
‘And they put him in ward, that it might be declared to them at the mouth of Yahweh.’
As it was the first time that this had happened he was kept under guard until they could discover from Yahweh what should be done with him.
Lev 24:13-14
‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, “Bring forth him who has cursed outside the camp; and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.”
Moses approaches Yahweh about what should be done and Yahweh gives His verdict. It is given in such a way that the man’s crime is compared and contrasted with what are seen as the worst sins of men, harm against the person.
In it He commands that the man was to be brought outside the camp, identified with the laying on of hands by those who had heard him, and then stoned by the whole congregation. This latter would mean that the whole congregation was gathered together for the judgment and execution, while some of their representatives actually hurled the stones on their behalf. The point is that all are a part of the execution.
One reason for the method of execution was probably so that the man would not need to be touched once the execution began. The man could be buried under the cairn of stones. But it may be significant that he was not burned with fire. This may have been because he could not be devoted to Yahweh because of his crime.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A Blasphemer Stoned
v. 10. And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, v. 11. and the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed; v. 12. and they put him in ward, v. 13. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, v. 14. Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, v. 15. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, v. 16. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, v. 17. And he that killeth any man, v. 18. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good, beast for beast.
v. 19. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, v. 20. breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again, v. 21. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it; and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
v. 22. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord, your God. v. 23. And Moses spake to the children of Israel that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
The reason why the narrative of the blasphemer’s death (Lev 24:10-23) is introduced in its present connection, is simply that it took place at the point of time which followed the promulgation of the last law. It serves, however, to vindicate by a memorable example the principle which is at the foundation of every Mosaic law. “I am the Lord” is the often-repeated sanction, whether of a moral law or of a ceremonial regulation. But this bastard Israelite, one of the mixed multitude that had followed in the flight from Egypt (Exo 12:38), blasphemed the Name of the Lord. If such blasphemy were to go unpunished, the obligation of law was dissolved. For, as Lange has said, “A community which suffers the reviling of the principle of their community without reaction, is morally fallen to pieces.” He was brought, therefore, to Moses, and so solemn was the occasion, that Moses reserved the case, for which no provision had yet been made, for the special decision of God. The specific judgment on the man is that he shall die by stoning at the hands of the congregation, after the witnesses of his sin had laid their hands upon his head; and a general law is founded on the special case.
Lev 24:10
The son of an Israelitish woman. This is the only place where the adjective Israelitish is found; and the word “Israelite” only occurs in 2Sa 17:25. Whose father was an Egyptian. The man could not, therefore, be a member of the congregation, as, according to the subsequently promulgated law (Deu 23:8), the descendant of an Egyptian could not be admitted till the third generation. He seems to have committed two offenses which led up to his great crime. First, he went out among the children of Israel, that is, he did not confine himself to his own part of the encampment, where the mixed multitude lived, but he intruded into the part set aside for pure Israelites; and next, having thus put himself already in the wrong, this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. According to Jewish tradition, the cause of quarrel was a claim set up by the Egypto-Israelite to encamp in the Danite quarters, on the ground that his mother was a Danitea claim which he insisted on enforcing, although the judges gave a decision against him.
Lev 24:11
In the course of the straggle the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. The word nakav is here rightly translated blasphemeth (cf. Lev 24:14, Lev 24:16, Lev 24:23), but the words of the Lord should be omitted, as they are not found in the original, and are not required. The LXX. have rendered nakav by a word meaning pronounced, and on this misunderstanding, adopted by the Jews, has been founded the Jewish precept forbidding the utterance of the Divine Name. Owing to that prohibition, the true pronunciation of the word written and called “Jehovah” has been lost. Wherever the Name occurred in Scripture, that of Adonai, meaning Lord, was substituted for it in public reading, the consonants only of the original name, Y H V H, being preserved in the written text, and the vowels of Adonai, namely a o a, being written underneath them in lieu of the original vowels. From the consonants Y H V H and the vowels a o a would be formed Yahovah or Jahovah, but the laws of the Hebrew language required the first a to be changed into e, and hence the name Jehovah. It is almost certain that the original vowels were a and e, which would form the name Yahveh, the Samaritans having always so pronounced it, according to the testimony of Theodoret. It is said that the high priest continued to utter the very name Yahveh on the Day of Atonement long after it had ceased to be used in the reading of the Scriptures, and that when he did so, those who heard it prostrated themselves, saying, “Blessed be the Name!” After a time, however, he ceased to pronounce it aloud on that day also, lest it should be learnt and used for magical purposes. In consequence, perhaps, of the substitution of Adonai for Yahveh, the Septuagint version always reads for Yahveh, : and the English version the LORD. In French and other versions the name is represented by the Eternal, and it has been proposed to substitute the latter rendering for the Loud in our own version. But it is more than doubtful whether we should then come nearer to the true sense of the original Yahveh, although at first sight it appears that this would be the case. For the word Yahveh is part of the causative form of the verb havah, or hayah, to be; but this verb is not used to express unchangeable or absolute existence, but rather an occurrence: its causative form, therefore, would signify that which brings about events; and the substantive derived from that causative form would signify, not one that eternally exists, but one that providentially governs. For an induction of instances for the further proof of the above meaning of the word Yahveh, we refer the reader to Sir William Martin’s essay ‘On the Divine Name’ (‘Semitic Languages,’ part 2), from which we transcribe the concluding paragraph. “This view of the Divine Name, to which we are led by the evidence of the Hebrew language itself, is in full conformity with the general religious teaching of the Old Testament, which is practical and moral; setting forth in form readily intelligible, the character of God in his relations to man. It does not concern itself with those problems which philosophy has ever been seeking to solve. It addresses itself to human needs and human duties, and not to abstract inquiries. Not that the highest abstract truths were unknown or untaught. Lawgiver and prophet and psalmist set before the people the greatness and the eternity of God in language most clear and impressive. Yet the Name whereby he was put before them as the object of their daily worship, was not one which would exalt him to the utmost above the frail and changeful and transitory lives of his worshippers, and thereby remove him far away from them into the height of a Being beyond man’s search or comprehension; but rather a Name which should bring him nigh to them, as One ever mindful of them, ever carrying forward his great purpose for their good, working for their deliverance in every time of need; as One ‘whose providence ordereth all things in heaven and on earth.’ If this Name did convey to the mind of a Hebrew hearer the thought above expressed, it follows that the old rendering Adonai, , or Lord, is to be preferred to that which has of late been substituted for it.” And they brought the blasphemer unto Moses. This was in accordance with the counsel of Jethro, accepted by Moses (Exo 18:13-26): “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: and let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: and they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.”
Lev 24:12
And they put him in ward. The same course was followed in the case of the man found gathering sticks upon the sabbath day: “And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him” (Num 15:34). The same penalty was awarded in both cases.
Lev 24:13, Lev 24:14
Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp;lest the camp should become polluted by his deathand let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head. The ceremony of laying on of hands in all cases set apart the person or thing on whom or on which they were laid for some special purpose. Its further signification was determined by the particular circumstances of the case. Here it probably returned back on the head of the blasphemer the guilt which otherwise would have adhered to the witnesses from the fact of their hearing his blasphemy, and appearing to acquiesce in it.
Lev 24:15, Lev 24:16
In accordance with the judicial decision on the man is framed the general law against blasphemy and its penalty. It runs as follows: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. It has been questioned whether two offenses or one are here contemplated, whether cursing his God is one offense, bearing his sin being its punishment, and blaspheming the Name of the Lord another and greater offense, for which the punishment is stoning; or whether the latter offense and punishment are a more specific statement of the offense and punishment which had only generally been described before. Those who take the first view point out that the present offender was an Egyptian, and urge that had he cursed his God, that is, the Egyptian god or gods, he would only have had to bear his sin; but that as he had blasphemed the Name of Israel’s God, Jehovah, he was to be stoned. The second explanation, however, is the truer one. The Scriptures recognize but one God, and he is the Lord Jehovah. Whoever curses him shall bear his sin, that is, shall be guilty in such a way that his sin must be purged either by punishment or by sacrifice, and it is then further declared that this particular sin can be purged only by the death of the offender at the hand of the congregation.
Lev 24:17
In close connection with the command to slay the blasphemer is repeated the prohibition of murder, and the injunction that the murderer shall surely be put to death. Thus a distinction is sharply drawn between the judicial sentence carried out by the congregation, and the unsanctioned smiting the life of a man by another, and a warning is given against any man fanatically taking the law into his own hands, even in the case of a blasphemer.
Lev 24:18-21
A summary of the law respecting minor injuries is added to that respecting murder. He that killeth a man, he shall be put to death, but he that killeth a beast shall make it good; and this lex talionis shall apply to all damage done to another, breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth (see Mat 5:38).
Lev 24:22
As it had been a stranger who had on this occasion been the offender, the law, Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country, with the sanction, I am the Lord your God, is emphatically repeated (see Lev 19:34).
Lev 24:23
The penalty is inflicted on the offender solemnly as an act of the Law, not of mob fury. So it was by a judicial or semi-judicial proceeding that St. Stephen was stoned: “They brought him to the council, and set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the Law” (Act 6:12, Act 6:13). And in spite of the violence exhibited, there was still some form of law, according to Jewish practice, observed in his stoning (Act 7:58). In the case of our Lord, on the other hand. when they regarded him as guilty of blasphemy on his saying, “Before Abraham was, I am” (Joh 8:58), and “I and my Father are one” (Joh 10:30), the Jews “took up stones to cast at him,” not waiting for a judicial condemnation, but, as they supposed, taking the law into their own hands. Had his death been by Jewish hands, it would at the last have been by stoning under this law. But the power of life and death had been taken away from the Jews by the Romans, “that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die” (Joh 18:32).
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Lev 24:10-16
The crime of blasphemy.
cf. 2Ch 26:10-23; Dan 5:1-4, Dan 5:30. The sanctity of the Name of God is distinctly declared in the third commandment. There the Lord declared that he would not hold the blasphemer “guiltless.” But it was not till the incident now before us that God showed his sense of the enormity of the crime. He here puts it into the category of capital crimes, and decrees the death of every blasphemer, whether he be a stranger or one born in the land.
Now, when we inquire, we find that he calls it “this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD“ (Deu 28:58). So glorious is it that inanimate things, when his Name is put upon them, cannot be desecrated with impunity. Thus his tabernacle could not be treated even by a king according to his capricious pleasure, but Uzziah, for presuming to burn incense within it, is doomed to leprosy and exile all his life (2Ch 26:16-23). Belshazzar too paid the penalty of his life for desecrating the vessels belonging to the tabernacle (Dan 5:1-4, Dan 5:30).
The case before us was one of pure blasphemy. This reckless youth, the son of an Egyptian father, had blasphemed “the Name,” and for this he was stoned to death after those who heard the blasphemy had laid their hands on his head.
I. LET US START WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH THAT THE NAME OF GOD IS THE REVELATION OF HIS CHARACTER IN WORD. Hence to take up the Name of God lightly is to treat his character lightly. It is, in fact, to despise the Person, and is nothing less than treason against the Supreme King. The individual who blasphemes “the Name” would take up arms against the Person, and so must be treated as a rebel. When, therefore, we bear in mind that God makes known his Name that men may trust in him (cf. Psa 9:10), the blaspheming of his holy Name is really the rejection of his appeal for trust, the rejection of his merciful manifestation, and deserves the penalty attached to it.
II. MAN‘S ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD‘S NAME DETERMINES HIS CHARACTER. In other words, the Name of God is the touchstone of human character. The person who curseth the holy Name, as this reckless youth did, is thereby judged. He has voluntarily set himself against the Almighty, he has become a rebel not in heart only but openly, and if the Most High is to exercise his authority, the blasphemer should die. It is, moreover, a mistake to imagine, because sentence is not now executed so speedily against blasphemers, that their awful sin has become less heinous in the lapse of ages. The shortsighted individual who defies the Almighty will find eventually how hard are the bosses of his buckler.
III. THE PENALTY ATTACHED TO BLASPHEMY IS TO BE ACQUIESCED IN BY THE PEOPLE OF THE LOUD. The whole congregation in this case is called upon to repudiate the awful crime. Those who heard it are required to lay their hands on the blasphemer’s head, to indicate that the guilt must be his own. They will not share it, and then the whole congregation are to be the executioners of the Divine decree. Now we are bound to entertain a similar and holy abhorrence of such a crime. We are most assuredly sinking in character if, through association with careless men, we come to regard blasphemy when indulged in as a light thing. The truth is, if we are making spiritual progress, we shall be advancing in the fear of his Name. Greater awe, not greater familiarity, will characterize us, until at length we shall see it to be just and right, if treason towards mere potentates on earth is regarded as a capital offense, much more ought treason against “the blessed and only Potentate” to be visited with death.
IV. LET US IN CONSEQUENCE ALL BOW AT THE NAME OF JESUS. To him hath the Father given a Name that is above every name, that at it every knee should bow (Php 2:9, Php 2:10). Submitting reverently to him, we shall find in his Name that marvelous significance which was heralded before his birth (Mat 1:21). As our Saviour from sin, he will show us how reasonable is the exhortation, “Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2Ti 2:19). Baptized in his Name, as well as in the Name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost, we shall look to him for the fulfillment of the covenant promise therein implied. Under the shadow of the Name and in the light of the face of God revealed in Jesus Christ, we shall be enabled to pass on reverently and peacefully towards our everlasting rest.R.M.E.
Lev 24:17-22
Public justice secured by the law of retaliation.
cf. Mat 5:38-48; Rom 12:19-21. There is here presented to us, as a law upon which Israel was to act, the principle of retaliation. And yet we have seen in the moralities of Le 19:17, 18, an express denunciation of revenge. How are we to reconcile this retaliation commanded with the revenge which is forbidden? Evidently the retaliation is to be deliberate, in cool blood, without the fever-heat of vengeance.
Now, when we bear in mind the early age to which this law of retaliation was given, an age when the institution of public justice was rudimentary in character, then we can understand how very important a check it was on the lawlessness to which men are naturally tempted. Of course, when public justice has developed itself into a wide and vigilant system, the necessity for each man taking the law into his own hand ceases. Then it becomes a crime against law to usurp its functions; it only increases lawlessness to attempt for one’s self what the organized state willingly undertakes for you.
But in rude ages it is eminently desirable that savage spirits should contemplate as a dead certainty getting as much as they give. Let us notice one or two points.
I. THE LAW OF RETALIATION; ADMINISTERED IN A JUDICIAL SPIRIT, WAS IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND ORDER. Its principle is a sound one. The criminal is to get exactly what he gave. It is only in this way that the nature of a crime can be driven home to a rude and tyrannical nature. If he has been cruel to a neighbour, let him taste the effect himself of the same amount of cruelty. A man who victimizes his neighbours will cease doing so if he finds that he is to be victimized in exactly the same fashion by public law. In fact, he comes to consider his own case as bound up most intimately with his neighbours’, and, instead of indulging in cruelty, he by his better conduct ensures his personal peace.
And a distinct corollary of this law of retaliation is the penalty of murder (Rom 12:17, Rom 12:21). If a man deliberately puts his brother out of life, it is an injury which admits of no repair, and so death becomes its just penalty.
II. THE LAW OF RETALIATION IS IN ONE RESPECT A PREPARATION FOB THE GOLDEN RULE. For the golden rule runs parallel to it. It is, so to speak, its glorious issue. “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the prophets” (Mat 7:12). Yes, this very law of retaliation suggests to every thoughtful mind whether it would not be better to try the opposite plan, and do to others, not what we should be afraid they would do to us, but what we would like them to do to us. In other words, let us wisely win the good services of others, if we are to receive what we give, by doing all to them and. for them that we would welcome ourselves.
And indeed, the reason why the golden rule does not prevail as widely as it might, is because immediate justice is not now executed as in the case of a law of retaliation it is. The return of kindness is often impeded by ingratitude, and men may do good to others for a long lifetime without receiving much thanks. But such an arrangement gives a field for faith and courage, such as a government of instantaneous justice could not secure. In truth, we should become mere mercenaries if the golden rule involved instantaneous returns. Now, however, we must rely on the wide range of providence, and believe that in the end it will prove wisest and best to have treated our neighbour as we would like to be treated ourselves.
III. IN CULTIVATING THE SPIRIT OF LOVE TOWARDS EVEN OUR ENEMIES, WE ARE BUT FOLLOWING THE FOOTSTEPS OF OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN. For while re-enforcing the courage of his people in rude ages by commanding retaliation, he was himself at the same time making his sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and sending rain upon the just and on the unjust (Mat 5:45). He was not dealing with men after their sins, nor rewarding them according to their iniquities (Psa 103:10). Not only in Nature, with its dignified refusal to be a respecter of persons, but also in his sacrificial worship, was God dealing with his enemies so as to make them his friends. He was pursuing even then the policy of overcoming evil by good (Rom 12:21). Such laws as retaliation, resting on inexorable justice, did something to check sin; but only love and goodness can overcome it. Hence the spirit of the old dispensation, while hostile to sin, as the outcome of a holy God must be, had an undertone of love and mercy. God, in fact, was practicing all the time his own golden rule. He was doing by men what he wanted men to do by him. In some cases this succeeded, for this is the substance of the Divine appeal in the gospel of Christ, as it was the undertone of the preliminary law; in some cases it failed through the waywardness of men. Still, the golden rule is the spirit of the Divine administration, and will be till the present dispensation is finished. Then must the great Governor deal with the impenitent in the way of strictest justice, since they will not yield to his dying love. The rhythm of the ages will be maintained; if the wrath of man is not turned to praise by the exercise of love, it must be restrained by the exercise of the cool and deliberate infliction of deserved wrath.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 24:10-23
Shelomith’s son.
Here a narrative is introduced into the midst of a code of laws; but this is done as a preamble to enactments of whose publication the case was the occasion. We notice
I. THE CRIME OF THIS SON OF SHELOMITH.
1. It was blaspheming the God of Israel.
(1) We are not distinctly informed as to the particular form of this blasphemy. We are, however, told that this man, whose name is not given, was “the son of an Israelitish woman,” that his father was an Egyptian, and that in striving with a man of Israel he blasphemed the sacred Name. It may hence be concluded that he angrily reflected upon the Divine equity in favouring the seed of Jacob. Anger is certainly implied in the words, “blasphemed the Name, and cursed.”
(2) Here was the very spirit of Satan, whose rebellion against God was probably excited by the honour he had put upon man. “Is thine eye evil because I am good?”
(3) Is not that hatred to God which is in the carnal mind of the very essence of this blasphemy? Though the manifestations be restrained, the venom is still there. Let us beware how we entertain hard thoughts of God.
2. Strife was its occasion.
(1) How little do men dream, when they enter into strife, where they may be carried by their passions (see Pro 17:14)! The moral, therefore, is that it should be carefully avoided.
(2) But how is this to be done? We must “give none offense.” We must be willing to suffer wrong. The spirit (or temper) of Christ is gained through the indwelling of his (Divine) Spirit.
3. Race was the origin of the strife.
(1) It appears to have been a contention between a pure Israelite and a mongrel. The father of Shelomith’s son was probably one of the mixed multitude that came up with the Hebrews from Egypt.
(2) Traced back another step, we find the origin in the marriage of Shelomith. Mixed marriages have ever been prolific in mischief. Of these sprang the monsters, viz. not so much in stature as in iniquity, who provoked the Deluge.
(3) Even Dibri, the father of Shelomith, was, remotely, responsible for the blasphemy of her son, by consenting to her marriage with an alien. How careful we should be never to commit a wrong, since no man can tell how prolific it may be in mischief! The day of judgment will declare it.
II. THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE BLASPHEMER.
1. His witnesses arrested him.
(1) They were bound to do so. Had they allowed him to escape they would have been accomplices in his crime. They might have brought down the wrath of God upon the nation. Witness how Achan troubled Israel (Jos 7:1), and how David also brought down a plague upon his people (2Sa 24:15-17).
(2) Happy is the nation whose sons are jealous for the honour of God (see Psa 69:9). Happy is the nation whose sons are guardians of its morality. This is public spirit in perfection.
2. They kept him in ward for the judgment of God.
(1) They brought his case before Moses (Lev 24:11). This was in accordance with Divine direction (see Exo 18:22). They might have wreaked a summary vengeance, but they chose the more excellent way. “Judgment is of God” (Deu 1:17); therefore judgment should be deliberate.
(2) Moses accordingly appealed to God. Every cause must come ultimately before him. This should never be forgotten.
III. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LORD.
1. This had respect to the particular offender.
(1) He was to be carried without the camp, as an outcast from society and a person excommunicated from the Church.
(2) There he was to die for his sin. The witnesses put their hands on his head. This was to clear themselves of all complicity in his guilt. His blood then ostensibly was upon his own head.
(3) Stoning him was to be the mode of his punishment. The witnesses cast the first stone, and the congregation, by their representatives, followed, until he perished. Dins, as Henry says, in allusion to Psa 64:8, The tongue of the blasphemer fell heavily (see Deu 17:7; Joh 8:7).
2. It had also respect to the community.
(1) This judgment was now made a law in Israel, as well for the stranger as for him that is born in the land.
(2) It was also enacted that murder must be visited with death (verses 17, 20). This was the incorporation in the Levitical code of the Noachian precept recorded in Gen 9:6.
(3) The principle of compensation and retaliation was asserted (Gen 9:19, Gen 9:20). In things judicial this principle still holds, though in matters of private wrong the gospel direction is that evil be suffered rather than revenged (see Mat 5:38, Mat 5:39; Mat 7:1, Mat 7:2).J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 24:10-16, Lev 24:23
A suggestive episode.
We have an affecting illustration in these verses of the truth that “The Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for unholy and profane” (1Ti 1:9). The announcement of the Law is broken by the account of this transgression, and the transgression itself gives occasion for the enactment of other statutes (Lev 24:15-22). The story and the statutes suggest
I. WHAT LASTING EVIL MAY ACCRUE FROM AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE. Had the Israelitish woman not married an Egyptian (Lev 24:10), it is morally certain that she would not have been called upon to part with her son under these tragic and terrible circumstances. She consulted her own fancy rather than the known will of Jehovah, and, long years afterwards, she bore her penalty in maternal grief. There is nothing fraught with more grave and enduring evils than an unwise, unholy alliance.
II. HOW LIKELY ONE FOLLY IS TO END IN ANOTHER. This son of the Israelitish woman strove with a man of Israel in the camp, and their strife led to blasphemy and cursing on the part of one of them. Strife led to profanity. Similarly, carelessness often ends in fraud, fraud in falsehood, indelicacy in impurity, occasional excess in habitual intemperance, anger in murder, etc.
III. HOW SERIOUS SIN MAY RESIDE IN A FEW WRONG WORDS. (Lev 24:16.) Probably the words in which Shelomith’s son blasphemed were few in number. Words are but breath, impressions made on the air, we may say. Yet, simple though they be, they may
(1) reveal a most foul and guilty state of soul,
(2) work terrible mischief to other souls,
(3) be heard with deep abhorrence by God and the good.
IV. HOW WISE A COURSE IS THE PATIENT ADMINISTRATION OF LAW. Had the crowd that gathered at the strife between these two men inflicted condign punishment on the transgressor, the event would have been regarded as an ordinary disturbance, and no moral effect would have been produced. Possibly the guilty man would have been pitied as a victim of the violence of a mob. But by the patient course pursued (Lev 24:11-15, Lev 24:23) it was clearly seen by all that the man died because he had committed a grievous sin, and that whosoever followed him in his guilt must expect to suffer the same penalty he endured. Thus that which might have seemed nothing better than fatal exasperation was made to wear the true aspect of righteous vindication of law. It is always best to be patient in the infliction of punishment. Here as everywhere, but here especially, calmness is strength, passion is weakness. By restraining ourselves from hasty action we may restrain many others from the commission of sin.
V. HOW SAD A SERVICE SOME MEN ARE COMPELLED TO RENDER THEIR RACE. Some men serve their fellows involuntarily. They become beacons to warn all who approach from the danger they are running. Shelomith’s son, by this evil deed of his, caused the enactment of Lev 24:16; and this weighty law, together with the impressive circumstance out of which it grew, undoubtedly produced a very deep and permanent impression on Israel. It materially contributed to the very striking result that no nation has been more reverent in its tone and spirit than the Jews. It is a sad reflection that a man should serve his race by suffering death as the penalty of his sin. We may be compelled, by overruling Omniscience, so to serve others. How much rather would the heavenly Father accept our willing service, and make use of our devout endeavour to bless our kind!C.
Lev 24:17-22
The holy Law of God.
These enactments, occasioned by the sin of the son of Shelomith, contain certain principles on which God founded his Law, and which he would have us introduce into our dealings and regulations now. These are
I. THE SACREDNESS OF HUMAN LIFE. “He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death” (Lev 24:17). This is significantly repeated (Lev 24:21) We can hardly be said to have learnt this lesson yet, after eighteen centuries of Christian legislation. Here, however, is a statute which unmistakably and emphatically asserts it.
II. EQUITY. There is to be careful discrimination in awarding penalty (Lev 24:18-20). A man must suffer according to the injury he has done. Nothing is more destructive of the main purpose of law than undistinguishing, and therefore unrighteous, retribution, whether at the national tribunal, or in the school, or in the home; nothing more salutary than the calm, regulated equity which estimates degrees of guilt, and determines the fair penalty therefrom.
III. CONSIDERATENESS. Law is obliged to regard the general good, the welfare of the community at large, the result of action and of permission in the end and upon the whole. It therefore often bears severely on individual men. But it must not be inconsiderate. Where it can right one man that has been wronged it must do so. “He that killeth a beast, he shall restore it” (Lev 24:21).
IV. IMPARTIALITY. (Lev 24:22.)
V. INSTRUCTIVENESS. Law should not only decide individual cases, and bring down appropriate penalty on individual transgressors; it should also, by its embodiment of Divine principles, be a most effective teacher of truth, a constant instructor in righteousness. The law of the land should be daily leading the nation to true conceptions of what is upright, moral, estimable. These few statutes contain that vital principle, the supreme value of human (as compared with animal) nature. If a man killed his fellow-man, he must die; if he killed a beast, he must restore it (Lev 24:17, Lev 24:18, Lev 24:21). There are too many who
(1) treat themselves or
(2) treat others as if there were nothing more in human nature than in the “beasts that perish.”
How much is a man better than a sheep? He is better by the immeasurable height of his intelligent, responsible, spiritual, immortal nature. Let us estimate our own worth, and recognize the preciousness, before God, of the meanest soul that walks by our side along the path of human life. We may add that we see here
VI. ROOM FOR FURTHER REVELATION. Righteous law, applicable to all, vindicated by just administrators, without a trace of personal resentment, says,” an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” But beside this righteous law, consistent with it while high above it, is the spirit of individual, generous forgiveness. Where duty to society does not demand it, let the spirit of retaliation, so natural to unrenewed humanity, give place to the spirit of magnanimity,the spirit of Jesus Christ, the Great Teacher (Mat 5:38-41), the Divine Exemplar (Luk 23:34).C.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 24:10-12
A blasphemer punished.
An incident is here inserted that explains part of the Law by pointing to its origin. It is a practical illustration that throws lurid light upon the possibility and consequences of transgression.
I. THE SIN. It is described as blasphemy.
1. A sin of the tongue. Not the light matter some deem it. The tongue can cut like a sword. We need to take heed to our ways, lest we sin with the tongue. The prayer befits us, “Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth.” A word quickly spoken may have lasting results. What a power for good or evil is placed within our reach!
2. Its criminal character. The Name of God is to be had in reverence. This man sinned against the third commandment. If it be treason to speak ill of the ruler, how much more to utter with contempt the Name of the King of kings! Lost to all sense of propriety must he be who can curse God. Far from this, his Name should not even be jestingly or frivolously mentioned, nor should he be called to witness in our casual remarks.
II. ITS CAUSES.
1. The immediate cause was strife. This rouses angry passions and leads to worse sin. The beginning of strife is as the letting out of water; none can foretell how far it will spread. Little, perhaps, did this man suspect that the quarrel would end in his speedy death. Let the rivulet of contention be checked, ere it develop into a torrent! Men heated by a dispute will give utterance to sentiments of which in calmer moments they would be ashamed.
2. The remote cause was marriage with an unbeliever. This man’s mother had espoused an Egyptian, and the son would appear to have followed the religion of his father, for, wishing to taunt an Israelite, he reviled the Name of Israel’s God. Imprudent alliances are a source of continual grief and disappointment. The mother had the pain of beholding her son put to death with every mark of ignominy. The advice of the Apostle Paul with respect to marrying an ungodly person is based on religious principle, and its worth is confirmed by the dictates of common sense and the facts of experience. It is not desirable that there should be a difference of opinion on matters of religion between the husband and the wife. The loss of the children is great when they are not trained in ways of piety by the hearty cooperation of their parents.
III. THE PUNISHMENT. It is not surprising that the people should have been so astounded at such wickedness that they requested Jehovah to instruct them concerning the penalty adequate to the offense. The punishment made known and inflicted was severe, revealing God’s estimate of the enormity of the sin; swift, lest the conscience of the people now aroused should have time to slumber, and lest hope of a reprieve should in alter-days lead to license of language. It was inflicted by the whole congregation, to rid themselves of any guilt of tacit participation in the crime; the nation must avenge the insult perpetrated upon its covenant Head. The penalty was not averted by extenuating pleas of race or passion. It gave occasion for the enactment of the law of retribution. The lex talionis has a rude justice about it which appeals to the sentiment of uncivilized nations. King Bezek acknowledged its force (Jdg 1:7). This retribution was allowed at first because of the hardness of men’s hearts, but being permitted to run side by side with the law of love to one’s neighbour and the stranger, the way was prepared for the Christian rule by which the waters of the former current are merged in the strength and beauty of the stream of love. Even under this dispensation, however, the law of love has its equitable as well as forgiving aspects.S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Lev 24:10-23
The law of death.
Blasphemy, murder, willful injury, whether by Israelite or stranger, judged and punished on the principle of compensation without mercy (cf. Isa 12:1-6; Rom 11:1-36).
I. Here is the evil of a fallen nature and an apostate people set forth (see Rom 1:1-32, Rom 2:1-29). “All have sinned.” Israel itself is defiled.
II. The contrast suggested between the law of death and the law of life (cf. Sermon on the Mount and Rom 7:1-25, Rom 8:1-39). The true glory to the Name of Jehovah is not the death of the blasphemer, but the life of God’s people. What the Law could not do, i.e; restore the injured, heal the wound, give back the life, is done by the grace of the gospel.
III. Historical illustrations of the insufficiency of the Law in the hands of a fallen race. Jesus accused of blasphemy. Stephen stoned. Paul treated as violator of the Law. Through the Jews and their defection the Name of Jehovah blasphemed in the world. The lex talionis no real protection either of the individual or society.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Lev 24:10-11. The son of an Israelitish woman, &c. Saurin observes, that this person was the son of one of those AEygptians, concerning whom Moses tells us, that a great number of them went out with the Israelites from the land of Egypt. Exo 12:38. This man, who had married a woman of the tribe of Dan, named Shelomith, was, doubtless, a proselyte. He had taught his son the inclination towards a crime, which, if we may give credit to Porphyry, was very common among the Egyptians, who were great blasphemers. They demanded favours of their gods, threatening to punish them if they refused to grant what they asked. That this was the vice of the heathens in general, and chiefly of their heroes, their authors furnish us with numberless examples. Moses does not inform us wherein consisted the blasphemy of this unhappy person. The accounts which the Jews have given us of the controversy between Shelomith’s son, and the man of Israel, are equally superstitious and absurd. Moses, with his usual conciseness, only tells us, that, striving with an Israelite, this person blasphemed the name of JEHOVAH, and cursed: this, therefore, is all that we are allowed to affirm of the matter. At this news, all the people were struck with horror: even Moses himself was at a loss how to behave; he found it necessary to secure the man, while he consulted God in a case which had never occurred, and upon which nothing had been yet decided. The remark respecting the words [of the Lord, or of Jehovah] being omitted in the Hebrew, and the consequences which are drawn, by the Jews especially, from it, are plainly of no importance, as those words are added, in the 16th verse. The word nokeb; which we render blaspheme, signifies to pierce, or wound, in a metaphorical sense, as with the tongue; and so to blaspheme, curse, &c. See Parkhurst. The malignity of this crime does not consist in any real injury which it does to God; for His throne is secure against all insults from the most audacious of his creatures: if all the curses which their hellish rage can invent had their utmost accomplishment, His happiness would remain undisturbed: Thy wickedness may hurt a man; but let thy transgressions be multiplied, what dost thou unto him?But blasphemy is an indication of a mind mad with impiety: it strikes at the root of all religion, which is the basis of society, and which principally distinguishes men from brutes; and therefore crimes of this kind undoubtedly fall within the cognizance of the civil magistrate, who is the guardian of the peace and security of society.
His mother’s name was Shelomith Most interpreters think that Moses relates the name and family of the mother of this criminal, to hint indirectly how dangerous are marriages contracted between infidels or idolaters, and true believers. But could we give no reason for this particular, it is easy to observe, that the specification of the name and family of the mother would be convincing of the truth of the fact.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
THIRD SECTION
Historical.The Punishment of a Blasphemer
The keeping holy of the Theocratic Religion, and of the Name of Jehovah, by means of an explicit example.
Lev 24:10-16.
The keeping holy of punishment, and of the distinction of punishment, whose culmination is stoning. Lev 24:17-23.Lange.
Lev 24:10-23
10And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; 11and the Israelitish womans son blasphemed7 the name of the LORD [omit of the LORD8], and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mothers name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:) 12and they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them.
13And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 14Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. 15And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth1 the name of the LORD [omit of the LORD2] shall be put to death.
17And he that killeth9 any man shall surely be put to death. 18And he that killeth3a beast shall make it good; beast3 for beast.3 19And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he bath done, so shall it be done to him; 20breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. 21And he that killeth3 a beast, he shall restore it: and he that 22killeth3 a man, he shall be put to death. Ye10 shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.
23And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev 24:11; Lev 24:16. according to all the best critical authorities, means to revile, to blaspheme; the LXX. and Targums, however, interpret it as meaning to utter distinctly, thus embodying the Jewish tradition of the unlawfulness of uttering the name of Jehovah. See the Exeg.
Lev 24:11; Lev 24:16. The words in italics are better omitted, allowing the sense to stand exactly as in the Heb. and all the Ancient Versions, where the Name evidently means the Name , the name of Jehovah. In Lev 24:16 the article is omitted in the Heb., but supplied in the Sam.
Lev 24:17-18; Lev 24:21. The Heb. here uses the word very freely, as is in part indicated in the marginal readings of the A. V. Translating soul, Lev 24:17-18 will read literally, And he that smiteth the soul of any man shall die the death, and he that smiteth the soul of a beast shall make it good; soul for soul. Similarly in Lev 24:21. A few MSS. omit the before beast in Lev 24:18; Lev 24:21.
Lev 24:22. The Sam. has the sing. Seven MSS. of that version, however, follow the plural form of the Heb.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The whole of Langes Exegetical is here given. According to Knobel the foregoing section stands disconnectedly in this place. But certainly in this place ought to stand the principle of all consecrations, the name of Jehovah, and it fits in with the high importance of keeping this Name holy that the law, in its genesis, should be introduced with a fearful example. Similarly the history of the Sabbath-breaker is introduced. Num 15:32. [Of course the immediate reason for the introduction of the narrative is that the event actually occurred just at this point in the communication of this legislation to the people, and it thus constitutes one of the strong incidental marks of the time when that legislation was given. Lange shows that its mention was the very reverse of inopportune. It is noticeable that the patronymic Israelite is found elsewhere only in 2Sa 17:25; and the adjective Israelitish occurs only here. It is used in opposition to Egyptian as the two terms are likely to have been used at the time in the camp. So in 2Sa 17:25 it is used of a man of the ten tribes in opposition to the two.F. G.].
The son of an Israelitish woman and an Egyptian man went out into the midst of the Israelites, i.e., he betook himself to the camp of the latter. He belonged to the strangers who journeyed with Israel (Exo 12:38). As an Egyptian, he dwelt certainly somewhat removed, since he was not a member of the congregation of Jehovah; for only in the third generation was an Egyptian to be taken in (Deu 23:8). [Although this law had not yet been announced, Langes supposition is altogether probable, and the man doubtless formed one of the mixed multitude who lived on the outskirts of the camp, comp. Num 11:1; Num 11:4.F. G.]. The Israelites encamped according to the houses of their tribes (Num 2:2). In the camp a strife arose; a quarrel sprang up between him and the Israelitish man, that is, between him and the men of Israel (Knobel). Against the very appropriate view that stands collectively, see the grammatical note of Keil, p. 158.
The history certainly tells us how the Egyptian offended in an ascending scale, even up to the blaspheming Jehovah. The text, Lev 24:10, shows that the Egyptian man had come in with a certain degree of impudence into the midst of the camp of Israel, where he did not belong. From this it is also to be concluded that he excited here a religious quarrel, and it could only have been with one, as the issue proves. [In the entire absence of reliable knowledge of the cause of this quarrel the tradition embodied in the Targs. of Jerus. and Jon. may be noted. According to these the Egyptian was the son of an Egyptian who had slain an Israelite in the land of Egypt and then had gone in to his wife. She had borne the child among the Israelites, being herself of the tribe of Dan. In the desert this man claimed the right to pitch his tent with the tribe of Dan, and the right being resisted by a man of that tribe, they took the case before the judge, where it was decided against the Egyptian. On coming out under this adverse judgment, he committed his offense.F. G.]. Thus his insolence rose to blaspheming The Name. This expression: the Name, absolutely, raises the name of Jehovah above all names, and blasphemy against it was not only blasphemy against the God of Israel, but also against the religion of His revelation, against the covenant with Jehovah, and thus against the holy Source of all consecrations. So he was led before Moses. That he was put in ward shows that the measure of punishment for this unheard of transgression had not yet been made clear. And it had not been settled for the reason that he did not belong to the commonwealth of Israel in the stricter sense. Hence the punishment was made known to Moses by an especial revelation from Jehovah. The greatness of the crime is shown by the following particulars:
1. The punishment of stoning was to be solemnly performed by the whole congregation, because the blasphemy rested, like a curse, upon the whole congregation.
2. All who had heard the blasphemy must lay their hands on the head of the criminal before the execution. Until this expiation they are contaminated with a complicity in guilt (see Lev 5:1), which they must discharge from themselves upon the guilty head. [Keil refers to the washing of hands in Deu 21:6 as analogous. Knobel, however, considers that the command is connected with Deu 17:7, requiring the witnesses to throw the first stones. They were in either case thus to make themselves responsible for the truth of the accusation.F. G.].
3. The greatness of the guilt is in the first place to be compared with the lesser guilt of a mans cursing his God, i.e., his Elohim in His peculiar relation to him, wherein he might mean, e.g. that this Elohim had done him wrong. This may have very different degrees, even to speaking evil; therefore he shall bear his sin: in the first place, his evil conscience; then his sentence according to the judgment of the theocratic tribunal. [As this particular offender was an Egyptian, and as the law (Lev 24:16) includes the stranger generally, many commentators have understood the expression his God to mean the Deity whom he is accustomed to worship. In confirmation of this it is urged that penalty for him that curseth his God in Lev 24:15 is only that he shall bear his sin; while in Lev 24:16 he that blasphemeth (or revileth, a feebler expression than curseth) the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death. For the last reason, others have maintained that does not here signify God at all, but human magistrates. The reason, however, is of little weight. In Lev 24:15 is given the general law with the indefinite penalty; in Lev 24:16 it is repeated for the sake of emphasis, with definiteness in regard to every particular, the sin, the punishment, the executioners, and the application of the law to the stranger as well as the native. The reference of Lev 24:15 to the gods of the strangers is peculiarly unfortunate. It cannot be imagined that the law of Jehovah should thus provide for the honor of those false gods whom it aims to bring into contempt.F. G.].
4. This punishment of stoning should apply to the stranger as well as to the Israelite, because in the first place, he entered the congregation of Israel as a blasphemer of its name; and in the second place, proved thereby that he did not do it unconsciously, but had an idea of the signification of this name.
5. If then the object of the ordinances for punishment next following was that the penal law of the Israelites should also apply to the stranger who sojourned in their community; yet the immediately following degrees of punishment form a scale which gives one a clear idea of the greatness of the blasphemers crime against Majesty. The death penalty for the murderer forms a basis. Behind this follow the various degrees, severe according to the law of compensation (Exo 21:23), but yet the blasphemer stands pre-eminent, far above the murderer. The principal reason for this arrangement lies indeed in this: that the capital punishment of the Egyptian might easily excite a fanatical contempt and misusage of the stranger; therefore it is here most fittingly made prominent that the Jews [Israelites] and strangers, stand under the same law, and that the murdering of the stranger must also be punished with death. With the elevation and hallowing of the punishment here appointed above all partisan fanaticism, it became self-evident that the same punishment must fall upon the Jews [Israelites]. How proper is it that the name of Jehovah should be again inserted for the purpose that the stranger might have equal administration of justice with the Jew [Israelite]. Manifold misunderstanding has attached itself to this legislation. The Jewish misinterpretation of (in the sense of toname, instead of to revile, to blaspheme) has had for its consequence the Jewish superstition that man may not pronounce the name of Jehovah, and the after effect no less that in the LXX. the name is in the place of Jehovah, and also the placing of the name Lord in the German Bible [and in the English, but here distinguished by small capital lettersF. G.], also indirectly that the name Jehovah is now translated with the Jews: the Eternal.
The Medival misinterpretation drew over into the New Testament time the penal justice touching it, and the reflection thereof still shows itself in the history of the Church of Geneva. The mention of the mother of the blasphemer, Shelomith (the peaceable), daughter of Dibri (my word), of the tribe of Dan appears to be only a mark of definite remembrance. A community which suffers the reviling of the principle of their community without reaction, is morally fallen to pieces. This holds good also of the religious community. The reaction of the theocracy could not and should not transplant itself into the Church; but since it was outstripped by the middle ages, there has come in more recent time, over against this extreme, a fearful relaxation, which misses the dynamic reaction against the impudent and the blasphemers of the principle of the community.
This chapter is founded upon the fact that among the Hebrews the child followed the condition of the father and not of the mother. It is probably only one of a multitude of instances of children born in Egypt of parentage of different nations, and many of the mixed multitude who followed the Israelites may have had Israelitish mothers. The doubt arising as to the punishment of a blasphemer who was not one of the covenant people, led to Moses asking for Divine direction. In answer, not only this particular case is settled, but the Hebrew law generally is made applicable to the sojourner. In connection with the penalty for killing cattle is announced in express terms (Lev 24:18; Lev 24:21), that which had only been implied before (Exo 21:33-36). The law for the punishment of blasphemy in Lev 24:16 is perfectly clear; it was from a wrong conception of the fact, not of the law, that the Jews stoned St. Stephen, and would gladly have stoned our Lord Himself. The capital punishment of the murderer in Lev 24:17; Lev 24:21, is not to be considered as a part simply of the lex talionis, but rather as a positive Divine command given in accordance with Gen 9:6. The lex talionis on the other hand, of Lev 24:19-20, is permissive and restrictive, like so much else in the Mosaic legislation. The fundamental principle which should govern mans conduct towards his neighbor is given in Lev 19:18; but as the people were so little able to bear this, the ancient indulgence of unlimited revenge is restricted at least to the equivalent of the injury suffered. After the announcement of these general laws, the people carried into execution the sentence pronounced upon the Egyptian blasphemer.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. The fundamental moral laws apply equally to all mankind. No one can be exempted from them on the ground that he is not in covenant relation with their author, or does not acknowledge himself to be bound by them.
II. Blasphemy against God is a crime of the deepest character, and demands the severest punishment.
III. Exact justice demands the restoration to ones neighbor of the precise equivalent of any harm done to him, and in case this is a personal injury, of a corresponding injury to the offender. The law of love comes in to forbid the exaction of this penalty on the part of him who is injured; but the same law should lead the offender to restore in more ample measure.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Lange: Blasphemy against the name of Jehovah as the great mortal offence in Israel. Culmination of the revelation of salvation in Christianity; wherefore here especially the death penalty must fall away. The accusation of Christ, that He blasphemed God. The blasphemy in the New Testament era, above all others, a blasphemy against the grace of God in Christ. The name of Jehovah is the witness of His covenant truth.The fearful decree of death which lies in this blasphemy itself.
The evil of marriages with the ungodly is here apparent; also the influence of an ungodly father upon the life and character of his child. The law requires every accusation to be substantiated by the most solemn act of the accuser; no one has the right to bring a charge against another to the truth of which he cannot positively testify, and which he is not prepared to support in such wise that, if untrue, guilt must recoil on his own head. The equality of all men before the law of God is here, as every. where in the law, made very prominent. In the sufferance of the law of revenge, we see that Gods will is not always to be known by what He may permit to sinful man; He suffers many things for the hardness of their hearts. All these commands, and all commands given to man rest upon the ultimate ground I am the LORD your God.
But little is said in the New Testament of blasphemy, Gods displeasure at this sin having been expressed so plainly in the Old, and His will remaining always unalterably the same.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev 24:3. The Sam. and LXX. here insert and his sons from Exo 27:21.
[2]Lev 24:6-7. The Heb. , referring etymologically to an orderly arrangement, means either a row or pile, and is used in both senses. The size of the loaves, however, containing each about six pounds and a quarter of flour, as compared with the size, of the table, two cubits long by one broad, makes it more probable that pile was intended here. Josephus (Ant. III. 6, 6; 10, 7) expressly says, that this was the arrangement.
[3]Lev 24:7. The LXX. adds and salt, which is probably to be understood in accordance with Lev 2:13, or the salt may have been used in making up the loaves.
[4]Lev 24:7. . The force of the preposition is questioned. Both the senses on and for are true in themselves. The incense was placed upon the piles, according to Josephus (ubi sup.) in golden cups, and it was also burned for the bread as a memorial. The latter sense, however, is sufficiently expressed by the words for a memorial.
[5]Lev 24:9. The pronoun, wanting in the Heb., is supplied in the Sam. and in 8 MSS.
[6]Keil: This service consisted in the fact, that in the oil of the lamps of the seven branched candlestick, which burned before Jehovah, the nation of Israel manifested itself as a congregation which caused its light to shine in the darkness of this world; and that in the shewbread it offered the fruits of its labor in the field of the kingdom of God, as a spiritual sacrifice to Jehovah. [Trans. p. 451].
[7]Lev 24:11; Lev 24:16. according to all the best critical authorities, means to revile, to blaspheme; the LXX. and Targums, however, interpret it as meaning to utter distinctly, thus embodying the Jewish tradition of the unlawfulness of uttering the name of Jehovah. See the Exeg.
[8]Lev 24:11; Lev 24:16. The words in italics are better omitted, allowing the sense to stand exactly as in the Heb. and all the Ancient Versions, where the Name evidently means the Name , the name of Jehovah. In Lev 24:16 the article is omitted in the Heb., but supplied in the Sam.
[9]Lev 24:17-18; Lev 24:21. The Heb. here uses the word very freely, as is in part indicated in the marginal readings of the A. V. Translating soul, Lev 24:17-18 will read literally, And he that smiteth the soul of any man shall die the death, and he that smiteth the soul of a beast shall make it good; soul for soul. Similarly in Lev 24:21. A few MSS. omit the before beast in Lev 24:18; Lev 24:21.
[10]Lev 24:22. The Sam. has the sing. Seven MSS. of that version, however, follow the plural form of the Heb.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
The first thing observable in the case of this man is, the sad effects of unlawful connections: such alliances generally produce unhappy consequences. That is a most important precept of the apostle, 2Co 6:14 . What can a man expect but sad departures from the faith of a true Israelite, who is linked to an Egyptian?
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father [was] an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;
Ver. 10. Whose father was an Egyptian. ] His mother taught him to speak, his father to blaspheme.
Strove together.
“ qui non moderabitur irae,
Indictum velit esse, dolor quod suaserit, et mens. ”
a man of Israel. Hebrew a man (‘ish, App-14.) an Israelite. Jewish tradition says he was a Danite.
strove together. Compare Exo 2:13. The Chaldee version says the semi-Egyptian strove to encamp in the tribe of Dan.
3. Blasphemy and Israels Sin Foreshadowed
CHAPTER 24:10-23
1. The blasphemy (Lev 24:10-22)
2. The penalty executed (Lev 24:23)
The blasphemer who blasphemed the Name and cursed, foreshadows the sin of Israel. They sinned and blasphemed that holy Name: and on account of the rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the curse has come upon them. But it will not be permanent. The remnant of Israel will be saved in the future day, when He comes back and they shall welcome Him: Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord. The Jews have based upon this incident of the blasphemer the traditional belief that it is sinful to pronounce the Name of Jehovah. For this reason they substitute the word Adonai.
The twenty-fourth chapter shows in its first part the twofold testimony maintained in the sanctuary, the light and the shewbread; it ends with an incident which foreshadows the sin of Israel when they blasphemed and rejected the Lord of Glory.
Exo 12:38, Num 11:4
Reciprocal: Job 1:5 – cursed
Lev 24:10. Whose father was an Egyptian This circumstance seems noted, partly to show the danger of marriages with persons of wicked principles, and partly by this severity against him who was a stranger by the father, and an Israelite by the mother, to show that God would not have this sin go unpunished among his people, whatsoever he was that committed it. Went out Out of Egypt, being one of that mixed multitude which came out with the Israelites, Exo 12:32. It is probable this was done when the Israelites were near Sinai.
Lev 24:10-16; Lev 24:23. The punishment for blasphemy connected, as in Lev 10:1-7 and Sabbath breaking, with an actual example. Language and literary manner suggest that the section is later than H, as also the new beginning in Lev 24:15 and the position of Lev 24:23. The guilty man, the offspring of a mixed marriage (forbidden in Deu 7:3, Exo 34:16), is a proselyte or stranger (Lev 24:16). The Name (for the name of Yahweh) does not occur elsewhere in OT, though frequent in later Jewish writings. The man is to be brought outside the camp as being unholy and polluting the community. The sin is more than the careless invocation of the Name in a moment of passion (Exo 20:7). The stranger renounces his allegiance to Yahweh altogether (cf. Job 1:11, where the word is different though the meaning is probably the same). For the laying on of hands, see on Lev 1:4 : the sinner, like the sacrificial victim, purges the whole community by his death. For the stoning, cf. Deu 17:7. The whole ceremony is purgative, not judicial.
24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father [was] an Egyptian, went {e} out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;
(e) Meaning, out of his tent.
E. The punishment of a blasphemer 24:10-23
This is another narrative section of Leviticus (cf. chs. 8-10). Its position in the book must mean that it took place after God had given Moses the instructions about the holy lamps and showbread (Lev 24:1-9). This fact underlines that Leviticus is essentially a narrative work. God gave the legal information at specific times and places to meet particular situations in Israel’s life. [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., pp. 308-9.] This is how case law developed in Israel.
God evidently preserved the record of this significant incident in Scripture not just because it took place at the time God was revealing these standards of sanctification. It illustrates how God regarded those who despised the very standards He was giving. This event was a warning to the people concerning the seriousness of sanctification just as the death of Nadab and Abihu (ch. 10) was a similar warning to the priests.
The "Name" referred to (Lev 24:11; Lev 24:16) was Yahweh, the name by which God manifested His nature to His people. The man’s blasphemy consisted of his cursing Yahweh (Lev 24:11), cursing Yahweh in the name of Yahweh, [Note: Dennis Livingston, "The crime of Leviticus XXIV 11," Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):352-53.] or using Yahweh’s name in a curse. [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 311.] Maybe since his father was an Egyptian (Lev 24:10) he did not have the proper respect for Yahweh and did not sanctify Him in thought and speech as God required.
The Jews interpreted this blasphemy as a flippant use of the name Yahweh. The desire to avoid using the name of Yahweh in vain led them to omit the name "Yahweh" from their vocabulary completely. They substituted "the Name" in its place in conversation and in composition. [Note: See Keil and Delitzsch, 2:453.]
When the witnesses placed their hands on the head of the offender (Lev 24:14) they symbolized the transference of the blasphemer’s curse, which had entered their ears, back onto the blasphemer’s head.
"The emphasis of the narrative is that the ’whole congregation’ was responsible for stoning the blasphemer (Lev 24:14). This may be the reason why there is a reminder of the penalty for murder (lex talionis) just at this point in the narrative. The narrative thus sets up a contrast between the whole congregation’s acting to take the life of a blasphemer and a single individual’s (acting as an individual) taking ’the life of a human being’ (Lev 24:17). Thus the writer has made an important distinction between capital punishment and murder. Capital punishment was an act of the whole community, whereas murder was an individual act." [Note: Sailhamer, pp. 360-61.]
The legal principle of limiting retaliation to retribution in kind (an eye for an eye, Lev 24:19-21, the lex talionis, or law of retaliation, Lat. law of the talon, claw) is another evidence of God’s grace. In contemporary ancient Near Eastern culture, people commonly took excessive revenge (e.g., Gen 4:23). A person who took another person’s eye, for example, usually suffered death. In the Mosaic Law, God limited the amount of retaliation that His people could take.
"The ’eye for an eye’ legal policy . . . is paralleled in the Code of Hammurabi [an eighteenth century B.C. king of Babylon], but there it operated only in the same social class. For a slave to put out a noble’s eye meant death. For a noble to put out a slave’s eye involved [only] a fine. In Israel its basic purpose was to uphold equal justice for all and a punishment that would fit the crime. The so-called law of retaliation was intended to curb excessive revenge due to passion and to serve as a block against terror tactics." [Note: G. Herbert Livingston, pp. 176-77.]
"In the code of Hammurabi, property was often considered more important than person; property offenses such as theft were capital crimes. In Israelite law, sins against the family and religion were most serious." [Note: Schultz, p. 118.]
"Retribution is a principal goal of the penal system in the Bible.
"It seems likely that this phrase eye for eye, etc. was just a formula. In most cases in Israel it was not applied literally. It meant that compensation appropriate to the loss incurred must be paid out." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 312.]
Christians should not live on a tit-for-tat basis. Rather totally selfless love should mark our interpersonal relationships (cf. Mat 5:38-42). However in public life punishment should match the crime (cf. Act 25:11; Rom 13:4; 1Pe 2:14; 1Pe 2:20). This is how God will judge humankind (Luk 12:47-48; 1Co 3:8).
"The Bible doesn’t present capital punishment as ’cure-all’ for crime. It presents it as a form of punishment that shows respect for law, for life, and for humans made in the image of God." [Note: Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Holy, p. 121.]
"God’s people must sanctify the name of the LORD (i.e., ensure that the LORD’s holy and sovereign character is preserved in the world) because the LORD’s righteousness demands that the blasphemer be judged." [Note: Ross, p. 448.]
THE PENALTY OF BLASPHEMY
Lev 24:10-23
“And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed: and they brought him unto Moses. And his mothers name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in ward, that it might be declared unto them at the mouth of the Lord. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as the homehorn, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord. shall be put to death. And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death; and he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered unto him. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good: and he that killeth a man shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the homeborn: for I am the Lord your God. And Moses spake to the children of Israel, and they brought forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. And the children of Israel did all the Lord commanded Moses.”
The connection of this section with the preceding context is now impossible to determine. Very possibly its insertion here may be due to the occurrence here described having taken place at the time of the delivery of the preceding laws concerning the oil for the golden lampstand and the shew bread. However, the purport and intention of the narrative is very plain, namely, to record the law delivered by the Lord for the punishment of blasphemy; and therewith also His command that the penalty of broken law, both in this case and in others specified, should be exacted both from native Israelites and from foreigners alike.
The incident which was the occasion of the promulgation of these laws was as follows. The son of an Israelitish woman by an Egyptian husband fell into a quarrel in the camp. As often happens in such cases, the one sin led on to another and yet graver sin; the half-caste man “blasphemed the Name, and cursed”; whereupon he was arrested and put into confinement until the will of the Lord might be ascertained in his case. “The Name” is of course the name of God; the meaning is that he used the holy name profanely in cursing. The passage, together with Lev 24:16, is of special and curious interest, as upon these two the Jews have based their well-known belief that it is unlawful to utter the Name which we commonly vocalise as Jehovah; whence it has followed that wherever in the Hebrew text the Name occurs it is written with the vowels of Adonay “Lord,” to indicate to the reader that this word was to be substituted for the proper name, -a usage which is represented in the Septuagint by the appearance of the Greek word Kurios, ” Lord,” in all places where the Hebrew has Jehovah (or Yahveh); and which, in both the authorised and revised versions, is still maintained in the retention of “Lord” in all such cases, -a relic of Jewish superstition which one could greatly wish that the Revisers had banished from the English version, especially as in many passages it totally obscures to the English reader the exact sense of the text, wherever it turns upon the choice of this name. It is indeed true that the word rendered “blaspheme” has the meaning “to pronounce,” as the Targumists and other Hebrew writers render it; but that it also means simply to “revile,” and in many places cannot possibly be rendered “to pronounce,” is perforce admitted even by Jewish scholars. To give it the other meaning here were so plainly foreign to the spirit of the Old Testament, debasing reverence to superstition, that no argument against it will be required with any but a Jew.
And this young man, in the heat of his passion, “reviled the Name.” The words “of the Lord” are not in the Hebrew; the name “Jehovah” is thus brought before us expressively as THE NAME, par excellence, of God, as revealing Himself in covenant for mans redemption. Horrified at the mans wickedness, “they brought him unto Moses”; and “they put him inward” (Lev 24:12), “that it might be declared unto them at the mouth of the Lord” what should be done unto him. This was necessary because the case involved two points upon which no revelation had been made: first, as to what should be the punishment of blasphemy; and secondly, whether the law in such cases applied to a foreigner as well as to the native Israelite. The answer of God decided these points. As to the first (Lev 24:15), “Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin,” i.e., he shall be held subject to punishment; and (Lev 24:16), “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him.” And as to the second point, it is added, “as well the stranger, as the homeborn, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.”
Then follows (Lev 24:17-21) a declaration of penalties for murder, for killing a neighbours beast, and for inflicting a bodily injury on ones neighbour. These were to be settled on the principle of the lex talionis, life for life, “breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth”; in the case of the beast killed, its value was to be made good to the owner. All these laws had been previously given; {Exo 21:12; Exo 21:23-36} but are repeated here plainly for the purpose of expressly ordering that these laws, like that now declared for blasphemy, were to be applied alike to the home born and the stranger (Lev 24:22).
Much cavil have these laws occasioned, the more so that Christ Himself is cited as having condemned them in the Sermon on the Mount. {Mat 5:38-42} But how little difficulty really exists here will appear from the following considerations. The Jews from of old have maintained that the law of “an eye for eye,” as here given, was not intended to authorise private and irresponsible retaliation in kind, but only after due trial and by legal process. Moreover, even in such cases, they have justly remarked that the law here given was not meant to be applied always with the most exact literality; but that it was evidently intended to permit the commutation of the penalty by such a fine as the judges might determine.
They justly argue from the explicit prohibition of the acceptance of any such satisfaction in commutation in the case of a murderer {Num 35:31-32} that this implies the permission of it in the instances here mentioned; -a conclusion the more necessary when it is observed that the literal application of the law in all cases would often result in defeating the very ends of exact justice which it was evidently intended to secure. For instance, the loss by a one-eyed man of his only eye, under such an interpretation, would be much more than an equivalent for the loss of an eye which he had inflicted upon a neighbour who had both eyes. Hence, Jewish history contains no record of the literal application of the law in such cases; the principle is applied as often among ourselves, in the exaction from an offender of a pecuniary satisfaction proportioned to the degree of the disability he has inflicted upon his neighbour. Finally, as regards the words of our Saviour, that He did not intend His words to be taken in their utmost stretch of literality in all cases, is plain from His own conduct when smitten by the order of the high priest, {Joh 18:23} and from the statement that the magistrate is endowed with the sword, as a servant of God, to be a terror to evil-doers; {Rom 13:4} from which it is plain that Christ did not mean to prohibit the resort to judicial process under all circumstances, but rather the spirit of retaliation and litigation which sought to justify itself by a perverse appeal to this law of “an eye for eye”;-a law which, in point of fact, was given, as Augustine has truly observed, not “as an incitement to, but for the mitigation of wrath.”
The narrative then ends with the statement (Lev 24:23) that Moses delivered this law to the children of Israel, who then, according to the commandment of the Lord, took the blasphemer out of the camp, when all that heard him blaspheme laid their hands upon his head, in token that they thus devolved on him the responsibility for his own death; and then the congregation stoned the criminal with stones that he died (Lev 24:23).
The chief lesson to be learned from this incident and from the law here given is very plain. It is the high criminality in Gods sight of all irreverent use of His holy name. To a great extent in earlier days this was recognised by Christian governments; and in the Middle Ages the penalty of blasphemy in many states of Christendom, as in the Mosaic code and in many others, although not death, was yet exceedingly severe. The present century, however, has seen a great relaxation of law, and still more of public sentiment, in regard to this crime, -a change which, from a Christian point of view, is a matter for anything but gratulation. Reverence for God lies at the very foundation of even common morality. Our modern atheism and agnosticism may indeed deny this, and yet, from the days of the French Revolution to the present, modern history has been presenting, in one land and another, illustrations of the fact which are pregnant with most solemn warning. And while no one could wish that the crime of blasphemy should be punished with torture and cruelty, as in some instances in the Middle Ages, yet the more deeply one thinks on this subject in the light of the Scripture and of history, the more. if we mistake not, will it appear that it might be far better for us, and might argue a far more hopeful and wholesome condition of the public sentiment than that which now exists, if still, as in Mosaic days and sometimes in the Middle Ages, death were made the punishment for this crime; -a crime which not only argues the extreme of depravity in the criminal, but which, if overlooked by the State, or expiated with any light penalty, cannot but operate most fatally by breaking down in the public conscience that profound reverence toward God which is the most essential condition of the maintenance of all private and public morality.
In this point of view, not to speak of other considerations, it is not surprising that the theocratic law here provides that blasphemy shall be punished with death in the case of the foreigner as well as the native Israelite. This sin, like those of murder and violence with which it is here conjoined, is of such a kind that to every conscience which is not hopelessly hardened, its wickedness must be manifest even from the very light of nature. Nature itself is sufficient to teach anyone that abuse and calumny of the Supreme God, the Maker and Ruler of the world, -a Being who, if He exist at all, must be infinitely good, -must be a sin involving quite peculiar and exceptional guilt. Hence, absolute equity, no less. than governmental wisdom, demanded that the law regarding blasphemy, as that with respect to the other crimes here mentioned, should be impartially enforced upon both the native Israelite and the foreigner.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary