The son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp.
Parallel Translations
-
The son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp.
-
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;
-
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.
Cross-references (2)
Passages linked to Leviticus 24:10 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Exodus 12:38 A mixed multitude went up also with them, with flocks, herds, and even very much livestock.
- Numbers 11:4 The mixed multitude that was among them lusted exceedingly; and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, “Who will give us meat to eat?
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (21 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Meaning, out of his tent.
Meaning, out of his tent.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Lev 24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman,…
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.
Read full note →
Strove together.] In the beat of contention, what will not men say or do?
“ … qui non moderabitur irae,
Indictum velit esse, dolor quod suaserit, et mens. ”
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Whose father was an Egyptian: this circumstance seems noted,…
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.
Read full note →
Strove together: this is added to show that provocation to sin is no justification of sin.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain Evil manners, we say, beget good laws. We have…
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 (Lev 24:10); his mother was of the tribe of Dan, Lev 24:11. 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.
Read full note →
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 (Exo 12:38) 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, Lev 24:11. 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 (Lev 24:11), according to the order settled (Exo 18:22), 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 (Deu 1:17), 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 (Jdg 20:9), 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 (Ch2 19:6) 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, Psa 69:9. 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 (Psa 64:8), 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 (Lev 24:17, and again Lev 24:21), according to an ancient law in Noah's time (Gen 9:6), and the very law of nature, Gen 4:10. 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, Lev 24:23. 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!
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And the son of an Israelitish woman,.... Whose name,…
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, Exo 2:12; and so others in Abendana:
Read full note →
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 Exo 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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Whose father was an Egyptian - This circumstance seems…
Whose father was an Egyptian - This circumstance seems noted, partly to shew 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 shew that God would not have this sin go unpunished amongst his people, what-soever he was that committed it. Went out - Out of Egypt, being one of that mixed multitude, which came out with the Israelites, Exod. xii, 32. It is probable, this was done when the Israelites were near Sinai.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 10. The son of an Israelitish woman, whose…
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.
Read full note →
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 ויקב את השם 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 יהוה Yehovah, they always put either אדני Adonai, Lord, or השם 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 שם יהוה shem Yehovah, and not the rabbinical השם 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 השם 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, אלהיו elohaiv, shall bear his sin - shall have the punishment due to him as an idolater; but he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, שם יהוה shem Yehovah, shall surely be put to death - when he blasphemeth the name (שם shem) he shall die, Le 24:16.
10. The verb נקב 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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Lev 24:10. Whose father was an Egyptian — This…
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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Egyptian. Many of these came out along with the…
Egyptian. Many of these came out along with the Hebrews, Exodus xii. 38.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain Historical.—The Punishment of a Blasphemer
THIRD SECTION
Historical.—The Punishment of a Blasphemer
Read full note →
“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 woman’s son blasphemed7 the name of the LORD [omit of the LORD8], and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother’s 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. נָקַב 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 κατ έξοχήν, 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 נֶפֶשׁ very freely, as is in part indicated in the marginal readings of the A. V. Translating נֶפֶשׁ 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 נֶפֶשׁ 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 Lange’s 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, Lange’s 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 אִישׁ 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 man’s 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 קלל 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 אֱלֹהִים 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 blasphemer’s 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 נָקַב (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 κὐριος 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 letters—F. G.], “also indirectly that the name Jehovah is now translated with the Jews: the Eternal.
“The Mediæval 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 man’s 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 one’s 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 God’s 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, God’s 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. מַעֲרֶכֶת, 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. לַלֶּחֶם. 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. נָקַב 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 κατ έξοχήν, 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 נֶפֶשׁ very freely, as is in part indicated in the marginal readings of the A. V. Translating נֶפֶשׁ 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 נֶפֶשׁ 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.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain the son of an Israelitish woman, &c.--This passage narrates…
the son of an Israelitish woman, &c.--This passage narrates the enactment of a new law, with a detail of the circumstances which gave rise to it. The "mixed multitude" [Exo 12:38] that accompanied the Israelites in their exodus from Egypt creates a presumption that marriage connections of the kind described were not infrequent. And it was most natural, in the relative circumstances of the two people, that the father should be an Egyptian and the mother an Israelite.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain THE BLASPHEMER STONED, Lev_24:10-23.
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.)
Read full note →
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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 10–23. Incident of the blasphemer, and laws arising out…
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.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (10) The son of an Israelitish woman, whose father…
(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 father’s 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 Shelomith’s 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.
Read full note →
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 father’s 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 father’s 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.”
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain The reason why the narrative of the blasphemer"s death…
The reason why the narrative of the blasphemer"s death (verses 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.
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 comp. 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 Danite a claim which he insisted on enforcing, although the judges gave a decision against him.
Read full note →
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR Vers. 10-16The 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, 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.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 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. (see Lev_19:17, margin) 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 (verse 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 (verses 19, 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. J.A.M. (see Mat_5:38, 39 7:1, 2)
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON Vers. 10-16, 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 (verses 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 (verse 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. (Verse 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 (verses 11-15, 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 verse 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.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE Vers. 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. (Jud_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 Vers. 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 Ro 11)
I Here is the evil of a fallen nature and an apostate people set forth. (see Ro 1, 2) "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 Ro 7, 8) 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.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain Blasphemed the name of the Lord.
Lev_24:10-16
Blasphemed the name of the Lord.
Read full note →
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.)
.
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain "And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father…
THE PENALTY OF BLASPHEMY
Lev_24:10-23
Read full note →
"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 aa 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.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 3. Blasphemy and Israel’s Sin Foreshadowed
3. Blasphemy and Israel’s Sin Foreshadowed
CHAPTER 24:10-23
Read full note →
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.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain A Blasphemer Stoned
A Blasphemer Stoned
v. 10. And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, one of the mixed multitude that went up with the children of Israel out of Egypt, Exo 12:38, went out among the children of Israel, he left his tent and that part of the camp appointed for his people and mingled with the true Israelites; and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp, engaged in a quarrel;
Read full note →
v. 11. and the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed; he uttered "the Name" (of God) with irreverence and contempt, the climax being reached in his bold denunciation of Jehovah. Any blasphemy against the name of Jehovah, as against the name above all names, 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, as one commentator has it. And they brought him unto Moses, that is, those that were witnesses of the blasphemy; (and his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan;)
v. 12. and they put him in ward, they secured or imprisoned him, that the mind of the Lord might be showed them, for the measure of punishment and the form of death in such a case had not yet been expressly stated.
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, thereby ridding themselves of all complicity in the guilt which might have rested upon them on account of their being witnesses of the sin, and let all the congregation stone him. Under the form of government which was directly responsible to God capital punishment was imposed for transgressions of this nature.
v. 15. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, with reference to this execution, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin, that is, the guilt and then also the punishment of sin as the Lord laid it upon the people under His direct government.
v. 16. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, utters the name above all names in a spirit of levity and contempt, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him, the emphasis upon the execution being very strong; as well the stranger as he that is born in the land, Israelite or non-Israelite, all that were under the jurisdiction of the government, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. And the Lord now expands this ordinance to include some other cases in which He demanded similar punishment.
v. 17. And he that killeth any man, strikes him down so that his life is taken, shall surely be put to death.
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, any bodily harm or the loss of any organ; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him:
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, for the law of restitution demanded reparation.
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. The same laws that were given to the Israelites were to apply to the non-citizen that chose to live in their country. Cf Exo 21:12 ff.
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, thus putting away the evil out of their midst. A Christian congregation has no jurisdiction over life and death, but notorious and unrepentant sinners, such as blasphemers, should be excluded from their organization; and it is self-evident among Christians that the law of love demands restoration of all goods in which one’s neighbor has been harmed.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 Now it happened
Now it happened
This phrase marks a new section of the book.
Read full note →
blasphemed the name of Yahweh and cursed God
Both of these phrases mean basically the same thing. AT: "blasphemed Yahweh by cursing him" or "said terrible things about Yahweh" (See: Parallelism)
Shelomith
This is the name of a woman. (See: How to Translate Names)
Dibri
This is the name of a man. (See: How to Translate Names)
translationWords
Egypt
blasphemy
name
Yahweh
curse
God
Moses
tribe
Dan
declare
will of God
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 24:10-23 A large body of non-Israelites, including other Semitic…
24:10-23 A large body of non-Israelites, including other Semitic people as well as Egyptians, came out of Egypt with Israel (Exod 12:38). Among them was a man of mixed parentage, whose mother was an Israelite and whose father was an Egyptian. A quarrel broke out between the man and a full-blooded Israelite. In the altercation, the man who was half-Egyptian verbally cursed the Israelite, using the name of God in an irreverent manner.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.