Leviticus 24 commentary

LEVITICUS 24 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

Olive Oil and Bread Set Before the Lord1 The Lord said to Moses,

BARNES, "The oil for the lamps of the tabernacle and the meal for the showbread were to be offerings from the Congregation, like the meal for the Pentecostal loaves, Lev_23:17. It appears that the responsibility of keeping up the lights rested on the high priest, but the actual service might be performed, on ordinary occasions, by the common priests. Compare margin reference.GILL, "And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... After he had delivered to him the laws concerning the purity of the priests, and the perfection of the sacrifices they were to offer, and concerning the feasts the people were to keep, he spoke to Moses of some other things which concerned both people and priests:

HENRY 1-4, "Care is here taken, and orders are given, for the decent furnishing of the candlestick and table in God's house.

I. The lamps must always be kept burning. The law for this we had before, Exo_27:20, Exo_27:21. It is here repeated, probably because it now began to be put in execution, when other things were settled. 1. The people were to provide oil (Lev_24:2), and this, as every thing else that was to be used in God's service, must be of the best, pure olive-oil, beaten, probably it was double-strained. This was to cause the lamps to burn; all our English copies read it lamps, but in the original it is singular in Lev_24:2 - to cause the lamp to burn; but plural in Lev_24:4 - he shall order the lamps. The seven lamps made all one lamp, in allusion to which the blessed Spirit of grace is represented by seven lamps of fire before the throne (Rev_4:5), for there are diversities of gifts, but one Spirit, 1Co_12:4. Ministers are as burning and shining lights in Christ's church, but it is the duty of people to provide comfortably for them, as Israel for the lamps. Scandalous maintenance makes a scandalous ministry. 2. The priests were to tend the lamps; they must snuff them, clean the candlestick, and supply them with oil, morning and evening, Lev_24:3, Lev_24:4. Thus it is the work of the ministers of the gospel to hold forth that word of life, not to set up new lights, but, by expounding and preaching the word, to make the light of it more clear and extensive. This was the ordinary way of keeping the lamps burning; but, when the church was poor and in distress, we find its lamps fed constantly with oil from the good olives immediately, without the ministry of priest or people (Zec_4:2, Zec_4:3); for, though God has tied us to means, he has not tied himself 1

to them, but will take effectual care that his lamp never go out in the world for want of oil.K&D 1-4, "The directions concerning the oil for the holy candlestick (Lev_24:1-4)

and the preparation of the shew-bread (Lev_24:5-9) lose the appearance of an interpolation, when we consider and rightly understand on the one hand the manner in which the two are introduced in Lev_24:2, and on the other their significance in relation to the worship of God. The introductory formula, “Command the children of Israel that they fetch (bring),” shows that the command relates to an offering on the part of the congregation, a sacrificial gift, with which Israel was to serve the Lord continually. 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 shew-bread it offered the fruits of its labour in the field of the kingdom of God, as a spiritual sacrifice to Jehovah. The offering of oil, therefore, for the preparation of the candlestick, and that of fine flour for making the loaves to be placed before Jehovah, formed part of the service in which Israel sanctified its life and labour to the Lord its God, not only at the appointed festal periods, but every day; and the law is very appropriately appended to the sanctification of the Sabbaths and feast-days, prescribed in ch. 23. The first instructions in Lev_24:2-4 are a verbal repetition of Exo_27:20-21, and have been explained already. Their execution by Aaron is recorded at Num_8:1-4; and the candlestick itself was set in order by Moses at the consecration of the tabernacle (Exo_40:25).

COFFMAN, "In the chapter just discussed, there were seven feasts mentioned. And it is one of the features of Leviticus that there are many recurrences of "seven's." Arthur E. Smith compiled this list of "Sevens in Leviticus":Seven days from sabbath to sabbath.Seven years between sabbatical years.Seven sabbatical years led to the Jubilee.Seven days of life before a lamb could be taken from its mother.Seven times the blood was sprinkled on the great Day of Atonement.Seven places where the blood was sprinkled:(a) the mercy-seat;(b) before the mercy-seat;(c) before the veil;

2

(d) upon the horns of the altar of incense;(e) "round about upon the altar";(f) on the horns of the bronze altar; and(g) at the base of the bronze altar.Seven feasts in Leviticus 23.Seven mentioned forty times in Leviticus.Seven days in the feast of Passover.Seven days in the feast of Pentecost.Seven days in the feast of Tabernacles.Seven examples of forgiveness of sins and appropriate trespass-offerings.Seven is mentioned fourteen times in both chapters on leprosy.Seven days were required for purification.Seven days were required for consecration.[1]Some scholars, failing to understand the author's purpose in this chapter, have considered it "an interpolation," but Keil pointed out that when "rightly understood," Leviticus 24 loses "all appearance of an interpolation."[2] It is the people themselves in this chapter who were to be involved continually in the worship of God. They were to bring the fine oil for the candlestick and the fine flour for the showbread every week. Not merely upon the great national feast just elaborated in Leviticus 23, but at all times, continually, all Israel was to be employed in God's worship. Even in those particulars where the duties of the priests are given, their typical nature applicable to the entire totality of Christian believers in the New Covenant makes even those priestly instructions for the benefit of the whole congregation of God's people; and, therefore it is incorrect to view this chapter as a "misplaced" or "interpolated" addition to the priestly duties already mentioned. We may outline this chapter thus:<MONO> I. Introduction (Leviticus 24:1). II. Certain Duties of the People

3

A. In service of the candlestick (lampstand) (Leviticus 24:2-4) B. In service of the showbread (Leviticus 24:5-9) III. A Case of Blasphemy A. The offense (Leviticus 24:10-12) B. The Judgment of God (Leviticus 24:13-22) C. Blasphemer Executed by the People (Leviticus 24:23)SIZE>MONO> "Leviticus is essentially a narrative work."[3] The reason for the injection at this point of the story of the blasphemer probably came about from the fact that the occasion for this law arose while Moses was giving instructions about the oil and the fine flour. "The laws were given at specific times and places to meet particular situations."[4] It appears likely that Moses was in the process of writing the Pentateuch throughout nearly all of the forty years of his leadership of Israel. If that is the way it was done, then, of course, it would account for the strange arrangement of much of what he wrote. "And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually. Without the veil of the testimony, in the tent of meeting, shall Aaron keep it in order from evening to morning before Jehovah continually: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. He shall keep in order the lamps upon the pure candlestick before Jehovah continually." "Jehovah spake unto Moses ..." The constant repetition of words such as these must be accounted the most important thing in the Pentateuch. It is God Himself who authored the instructions and commandments of the Bible. "Pure olive oil ..." Coleman tells how they made this: "To obtain this oil, they first pounded the olives or pressed them to squeeze out the juice. Then they strained the juice to remove the pulp. Then, when the oil rose to the surface of the juice, they skimmed it off."[5] "A lamp to burn continually ..." Based upon such passages as 1 Samuel 3:3, Allis and other dependable scholars limited this to mean "burn continually every night."[6] Orlinsky supported this view rendering "regularly" instead of "continually," declaring that "continually" is misleading.[7] William Tyndale, however, rendered the word which appears repeatedly in Leviticus 24:2; Leviticus 24:3; and Leviticus 24:4, as "allwaye ... allwayes ... perpetually."[8] Certainly our ASV can hardly mean anything else except perpetually, day and night. Josephus flatly declared that the lights burned all of the time, day and night. "They were also

4

to keep oil already purified for the lamps; three of which were to give light all day long upon the sacred candlestick from God, and the rest were to be lighted at evening."[9] Simeon cited Exodus 30:7; 2 Chronicles 13:11; and 1 Samuel 3:3 as the basis for the doubts of some that the lights burned continually, but we agree with him that, "The word continually is plain and that Josephus could not but know the practice of his day."[10] To us it appears absolutely necessary that the lights should have burned both day and night because: (1) there was no other source of light in the Holy Place; and (2) the thing typified by the candlestick (lampstand), whether Christ, or the Church, or the Word of God, or all three would have absolutely required their burning CONTINUALLY, without any intermission whatever. As to the ultimate reality typified by the candlestick (lampstand) and its perpetual light, Unger identified it as "Israel."[11] Seiss called it, "A beautiful picture of the Church of Jesus."[12] McGee called it, "The most accurate and beautiful picture of Christ in the whole tabernacle."[13] And in my commentary on Hebrews it was presented as the perfect type of the Word of God (See my commentary on Hebrews 9:2). These views are not contradictory, for the candlestick (lampstand) typified all of these. Christ is the true Israel, so is the Church, and the Church is the spiritual body of Christ, and Christ himself is the Word!EBC, "THE ORDERING OF THE LIGHT IN THE HOLY PLACELeviticus 24:1-4"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually. Without the veil of the testimony, in the tent of meeting, shall Aaron order it from evening to morning before the Lord continually: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. He shall order the lamps upon the pure candlestick before the Lord continually."First (Leviticus 24:1-4) is given the direction for the ordering of the daily light, which was to burn from evening until morning in the holy place continually. The people themselves are to furnish the oil for the seven-branched candlestick out of the product of their olive yards. The oil is to be "pure," carefully cleansed from leaves and all impurities; and "beaten," that is, not extracted by heat and pressure, as are inferior grades, but simply by beating and macerating the olives with water, -a process which gives the very best. The point in these specifications is evidently this, that for this, as always, they are to give to God’s service the very best, -an eternal principle which rules in all acceptable service to God. The oil is to come from the people in general, so that the illuminating of the Holy Place, although specially tended by the high priest, is yet constituted a service in which all the children of Israel have some part. The oil was to be used to supply the seven lamps upon the golden candlestick which was placed on the south side of the Holy Place, without the veil of the testimony, in the tent of meeting. This Aaron was to "order from evening to morning before the Lord continually." According to Exodus

5

25:31-40, this candlestick-or, more properly, lampstand-was made of a single shaft, with three branches on either side, each with a cup at the end like an almond blossom; so that, with that on the top of the central shaft, it was a stand of seven lamps, in a conventional imitation of an almond tree.The significance of the symbol is brought clearly before us in Zechariah 4:1-14, where the seven-branched candlestick symbolises Israel as the congregation of God, the giver of the light of life to the world. And yet a lamp can burn only as it is supplied with oil and trimmed and cared for. And so in the symbol of Zechariah the prophet sees the golden candlestick supplied with oil conveyed through two golden pipes into which flowed the golden oil, mysteriously self-distilled from two olive trees on either side the candlestick. And the explanation given is this: "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit," saith the Lord. Thus we learn that the golden seven-branched lampstand denotes Israel, more precious than gold in God’s sight, appointed of Him to be the giver of light to the world. And yet by this requisition of oil for the golden candlestick the nation was reminded that their power to give light was dependent upon the supply of the heavenly grace of God’s Spirit, and the continual ministrations of the priest in the Holy Place, And how this ordering of the light might be a symbolic act of worship, we can at once see, when we recall the word of Jesus: {Matthew 5:14; Matthew 5:16} "Ye are the light of the world. Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."How pertinent for instruction still in "all its deepest teaching is this ordinance of the lamp continually burning in the presence of the Lord, is vividly brought before us in the Apocalypse," {Revelation 1:12-13} where we read that seven candlesticks appeared in vision to the Apostle John; and Christ, in His glory, robed in high priestly vesture, was seen walking up and down, after the manner of Aaron, in the midst of the seven candlesticks, in care and watch of the manner of their burning. And as to the significance of this vision, the Apostle was expressly told (Revelation 1:20) that the seven candlesticks were the seven Churches of Asia, -types of the collective Church in all the centuries. Thus, as in the language of this Levitical symbol, we are taught that in the highest sense it is the office of the Church to give light in darkness; but that she can only do this as the heavenly oil is supplied, and each lamp is cared for, by the high priestly ministrations of her risen Lord.Verses 1-23THE HOLY LIGHT AND THE SHEW BREAD: THE BLASPHEMER’S ENDLeviticus 24:1-23IT is not easy to determine with confidence the association of thought which occasioned the interposition of this chapter, with its somewhat disconnected contents, between chapter 23, on the set times of holy convocation, and chapter 25, on the sabbatic and jubilee years, which latter would seem most naturally to have followed the former immediately, as relating to the same subject of sacred times.

6

Perhaps the best explanation of the connection with the previous chapter is that which finds it in the reference to the olive oil for the lamps and the meal for the shew bread. The feast of tabernacles, directions for which had just been given, celebrated the completed ingathering of the harvest of the year, both of grain and of fruit; and here Israel is told what is to be done with a certain portion of each.BENSON, "Leviticus 24:1. After the foregoing particulars relating to the annual festivals and assemblies, and all things prepared for the tabernacle service, he proceeds to remind the Israelites of executing the orders before given, about providing at the public charge all materials for the daily service; and in particular a sufficient quantity of oil for the lamps of the golden candlestick, which were to burn continually in the holy place without the veil, the priests in waiting being obliged to keep this candlestick clean and pure, and to trim and supply the lamps morning and evening.PULPIT, "A connection between Leviticus 23:1-44, and Le Leviticus 24:1-9 is found by Keil in the fact that the oil for the holy lamps and the shewbread were offerings of the people, a sacrificial gift with which Israel was to serve the Lord continually. "The offering of oil, therefore, for the preparation of the candlestick, and that of fine flour for making the loaves to be placed before Jehovah, formed part of the service in which Israel sanctified its life and labour to the Lord its God, not only at the appointed festal periods, but every day; and the law is very appropriately appended to the sanctification of the sabbaths and feast days prescribed in Leviticus 23:1-44." But it is better to consider the whole chapter parenthetical between Leviticus 23:1-44, and Leviticus 25:1-55, the first part having been suggested by the list of days on which holy convocations were to be held, because it is connected with the temple or tabernacle service; the second part (the blasphemer's death) being inserted because it chronologically happened shortly after the law as to holy convocations and festivals had been pronounced.Leviticus 24:1-4The ordinance on the lamps contained in the first three verses is repeated from Exodus 27:20. The oil to be used for the lamps was to be pure oil olive, that is, oil made of picked berries, without any intermixture of dust or twigs; and it was to be beaten instead of "pressed," because when the berries were crushed in the olive-press, small portions of them became mixed with and discoloured the oil, which was, therefore, less pure than when the fruit was simply beaten and then left to drain. The lamps were to burn continually; that is, from evening to morning every night. Without the vail of the testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation; that is, in the holy place, as distinct from the holy of holies. Aaron, either personally or by his sons (see Exodus 27:21), was to dress the lamps every morning, and light them every evening (Exodus 30:7). The lamps were upon the seven-branched candlestick, which is called the pure candlestick, because made of gold. The light of the seven-branched candlestick symbolized the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit, which should illumine God's Church (Zechariah 4:2-6; Revelation 1:12, Revelation 1:20).

7

2 “Command the Israelites to bring you clear oil of pressed olives for the light so that the lamps may be kept burning continually.

CLARKE, "The directions concerning the oil for the holy candlestick (Lev_24:1-4) and the preparation of the shew-bread (Lev_24:5-9) lose the appearance of an interpolation, when we consider and rightly understand on the one hand the manner in which the two are introduced in Lev_24:2, and on the other their significance in relation to the worship of God. The introductory formula, “Command the children of Israel that they fetch (bring),” shows that the command relates to an offering on the part of the congregation, a sacrificial gift, with which Israel was to serve the Lord continually. 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 shew-bread it offered the fruits of its labour in the field of the kingdom of God, as a spiritual sacrifice to Jehovah. The offering of oil, therefore, for the preparation of the candlestick, and that of fine flour for making the loaves to be placed before Jehovah, formed part of the service in which Israel sanctified its life and labour to the Lord its God, not only at the appointed festal periods, but every day; and the law is very appropriately appended to the sanctification of the Sabbaths and feast-days, prescribed in ch. 23. The first instructions in Lev_24:2-4 are a verbal repetition of Exo_27:20-21, and have been explained already. Their execution by Aaron is recorded at Num_8:1-4; and the candlestick itself was set in order by Moses at the consecration of the tabernacle (Exo_40:25).

GILL, "Command the children of Israel,.... Moses was the chief magistrate under God, and being clothed with authority from him, had power to command the children of Israel to do what the Lord required of them: that they bring unto thee pure oil olive, beaten, for the light; this was to be at the public expense, and it belonged to the community to supply the priests with oil for the light of the candlestick in the temple, Exo_25:6; and this oil was not to be any sort of oil, as train oil, or oil of nuts, almonds, &c. but oil of olives, and not any sort of that, but the purest, which was the first that was taken from them; it seems there were three sorts, the first of which was pure, and this beaten in a mortar, and not ground in a mill; See Gill on Exo_27:20,

8

to cause the lamps to burn continually; the lamps in the golden candlestick, which were seven, Exo_25:37; or "the lamp", in the singular number, as it is in the original text; the western lamp, which is said to be always kept lighted, from which the rest were lighted when out; though the oil was undoubtedly for the supply of the lamps, that they might burn always, night and day; or from night tonight, as Jarchi; and both on sabbath days and working days, as the Targum of Jonathan.JAMISON, "Command the children of Israel — This is the repetition of a law

previously given (Exo_27:20, Exo_27:21).pure oil olive beaten — or cold-drawn, which is always of great purity.

ELLICOTT, "(2) Command the children of Israel.—This is the only other occasion in Leviticus on which God orders Moses to “command,” instead of imparting or communicating His will. (See Leviticus 6:1 in Hebrew, and 6:9 in English.) This command, however, occurs almost literally in Exodus 27:20-21.BENSON, "Leviticus 24:2. To cause the lamps to burn — Hebrew, the lamp: yet, Leviticus 24:4, it is the lamps: the seven lamps made all one lamp. In allusion to which the blessed Spirit is represented (Revelation 4.) by seven lamps of fire before the throne.PETT, "Verses 2-4The Golden Lampstand (Leviticus 24:2-4).Leviticus 24:2-4“Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto you pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually. Without the veil of the testimony, in the tent of meeting, shall Aaron keep it in order from evening to morning before Yahweh continually. It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations. He shall keep in order the lamps on the pure lampstand before Yahweh continually.”In the tabernacle, in the Holy Place outside the veil, was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Exodus 25:31-37). This represented the perfect light of God shining in Israel (see above). While it shone out God was present with His people. This light had to be maintained by Aaron, the High Priest, so that one of its lamps burned ‘continually’, fed with olive oil specifically provided by the people of Israel. Whether God remained with His covenant people or not depended on them. Its sevenfoldness declared the perfection of God’s light. It declared that day after day, on and on throughout their generations, God was present with His people, ready to act if they were responsive to Him. In Zechariah 4 we have an illustration of that action (see above).But the prime emphasis here in line with the emphasis in this part of Leviticus is on the people’s responsibility. This was to provide pure oil for the lamp so that it could

9

burn continually. Aaron is then to ensure that it maintains its function day by day continually (see Exodus 25:37-38; Exodus 30:7-8; Exodus 40:4; Numbers 4:9; Numbers 8:2-3 compare 2 Chronicles 13:11). TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:2 Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn continually.Ver. 2. Beaten for the light.] Ministers must beat their brains, and bend their utmost endeavours to "give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death, and to guide their feet into the way of peace": as that "burning and shining light," the Baptist, did. [Luke 1:79]BI, 2-9, "Pure oil-olive beaten for the light.Directions for furnishing of the sanctuaryCare is here taken, and orders given, for the decent furnishing of the candlestick and table in God’s house.I. The lamps must always be kept burning. The law for this we had before (Exo_27:20-21). It is here repeated, probably because now it began to be put in execution when other things were settled.

1. The people were to provide oil (Lev_24:2); and this, as everything else that was to be used in God’s service, must be of the best, pure oil-olive beaten—probably it was double-strained. This was to cause the lamps to burn. All our English copies read it “lamps”; but in the original it is singular (Lev_24:2), “To cause the ‘lamp’ to burn”; but plural (Lev_24:4), “He shall order the ‘lamps.’“ The seven lamps made all one lamp. In allusion to which the blessed Spirit of grace is represented by seven lamps of fire before the throne (Rev_4:5); for there are diversities of gifts, but one Spirit (1Co_12:4). Ministers are as burning and shining lights in Christ’s Church; but it is the duty of people to provide comfortably for them, as Israel for the lamps. Scandalous maintenance makes a scandalous ministry.2. The priests were to tend the lamps; they-must snuff them, clean the candlestick, supply them with oil morning and evening (Lev_24:3-4). Thus it is the work of the ministers of the gospel to hold forth that Word of life—not to set up new lights, but by expounding and preaching the Word to make the light of it more clear and extensive.

II. The table must always be kept spread. This was appointed before (Exo_25:30). And here also:1. The table was furnished with bread; not dainties or varieties to gratify a luxurious palate, but twelve loaves or cakes of bread (Lev_24:5-6). Where there is plenty of bread there is no famine; and where bread is not there is no feast. There was a loaf for every tribe; for in our Father’s house there is bread enough. They were all provided for by the Divine bounty, and were all welcome to the Divine grace.2. A handful of frankincense was put in a golden saucer upon or by each row (Lev_24:7). When the bread was removed and given to the priests this frankincense was burnt upon the golden altar (I suppose) over and above the daily incense. And this was for a memorial instead Of the bread, an offering made by fire, as the handful of

10

the meat-offering which was burnt upon the altar is called the memorial thereof (Lev_2:2). Thus a little was accepted as an humble acknowledgment, and all the loaves were consigned to the priests. All God’s spiritual Israel, typified by the twelve loaves, are made through Christ a sweet savour to Him, and their prayers are said to come up before God for a memorial (Act_10:4). The word is borrowed from the ceremonial law.3. Every Sabbath it was renewed. When the loaves had stood there a week the priests had them, to eat with other holy things that were to be eaten in the Holy Place (Lev_24:9); and new ones were provided at the public charge, and put in the room of them (Lev_24:8). The Jews say, “The hands of those priests that put on were mixed with theirs that took off, that the table might be never empty, but the bread might be before the Lord continually.” God is never unprovided for the entertainment of those that visit Him, as men often are (Luk_11:5). (Matthew Henry, D. D.)

The sanctuary and its furnitureTo conceive of the shape and appearance of the Tabernacle, you must measure out in your imagination a level ground-plot, about one hundred and fifty feet long, and about seventy-five feet broad; that is, an oblong square enclosed with linen canvas fastened on stakes, and cords about ten feet in height. Everything relating to the Tabernacle was inside of this enclosed area, which was called the court of the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle proper was a smaller enclosure at the far end of this court, equally distant from the two sides of it. It was formed of boards, overlaid with gold, fifteen feet high, set up alongside of each other in sockets of silver, and held together above by golden bars passing through golden rings fastened to the boards on the outside. The roof of this inner enclosure was formed of heavy curtains of several thicknesses thrown over these rows of upright boards from side to side. This was the Tabernacle proper, which was divided again into two apartments by heavy curtains dropped from the roof. The inmost of these covered chambers was the Holy of Holies; and the other, which was the ante-chamber to it, was the sanctuary, otherwise called the Holy Place. You thus observe three departments in this sacred structure: first, the enclosed uncovered space outside of the Tabernacle proper; then the sanctuary, or first room of the covered part; and third, that peculiarly sacred room in the deepest interior, called the Holy of Holies. Nor could any one come to the most Holy Place except by passing in through the court and through the sanctuary. In all this I see a symbolic history of redemption, and of the sinner’s progress from his state of condemnation and guilt to forgiveness and peace in Christ, and to his final glory in the presence of his Lord. The first apartment was the outside court. It was here that the Jews came to offer their sacrifices. They accordingly appeared there as sinners. The outside court, therefore, represents man in his native condition. It is our place or moral locale so long as we are only beginning to believe on Christ and to cleanse ourselves from our filthy ways. The third and most interior apartment represents the heavenly, post-resurrection, or glorified estate of man. There was the visible presence of the Lord. It was the hidden and guarded place into which vulgar eyes could not look, or unholy ones at all enter. But between the outside court and this inmost chamber of the Tabernacle was the sanctuary, or that department with which the text is directly concerned, and of which I propose more particularly to treat. Its position shows that it refers to a condition of things this side of the heavenly estate, and yet in advance of those rudimental experiences by which we come to be Christians. It was a picture of the

11

Christian Church estate, that is, of the immunities and relations in which we stand as the accepted followers and servants of Jesus while yet we remain in this world. With this idea, then, let us take our station in the holy sanctuary, and simply look around us upon the objects to which the text directs attention. The chapter before us speaks of lamps. These were the burners upon the famous seven-armed candlestick of gold, which God directed Moses to make for the holy Tabernacle. The central and all-supporting shaft represented Christ, or rather “the right hand” of Christ, on which everything Christian depends. As the seven candlesticks and their lamps were sustained by that massive golden stem, so Christ sustains every member, branch, institution, and minister of His universal Church. It is He alone “that is able to keep us from falling.” You will observe that the number of lamps and branches of this peculiar fabric was seven—the complete number—indicating that the whole Church was thereby represented. All rested upon the one central shaft; indicating that there is no true Church, and no branch of the true Church, which does not repose in Christ as its great and only foundation and dependence. The whole fabric was of one piece. The parts were all solidly joined together as one continuous mass of solid gold. And so the Holy Catholic Church is one. All the branches are compactly joined together in one central support and stay, which is Christ Jesus. And yet in that unity there was multiplicity and diversity. There were seven branches, and these seven were not all exactly alike. Some were shorter and lighter, and some were longer and heavier; some looked towards the east and some towards the west; some seemed to diverge very far from the central shaft, others rose immediately by its sides. There was multiplicity and diversity, and yet perfect, unbroken, graceful unity. Beautiful picture of the Church of Jesus! It is not confined to one nation, one dispensation, one denomination, but takes in all who are really united to Christ, and built upon Him, as their only dependence, no matter how diverse or remote from each other they may be in other respects. The object of these candlesticks and lamps was to furnish light to the sanctuary. The place had no windows, no other modes of illumination. The light which characterises Christendom as such is not from nature—not from human reason and philosophy—but from Christ and that pure Spirit which flowed and shone through Him and His inspired ministers. Without Christ, and the light which comes from the golden candlesticks of His glory, and the pure olive-oil of His Spirit, mankind are in darkness on all sacred things. “But he that doeth truth cometh to the light,” and thus is made a son of light, whose path shall ever shine more and more unto the perfect day. But the chapter before us speaks of bread as well as lamps and light. Twelve loaves, baked of fine flour, arranged in piles on a table of gold, ever stood in the holy sanctuary. These loaves were to be renewed every Sabbath, and were to be eaten by the priests in the Holy Place. This golden table, the same as the supporting shaft of the golden candlesticks, represented Christ, and these unleavened loaves upon it, that pure bread from heaven which He giveth for the sustenance of them that are His. “Man liveth not by bread alone.” There are wants and cravings in our nature which cannot be satisfied with the produce of the fields. There is in us a spiritual man, which must be fed and nourished with spiritual food, or it languishes and dies. We need higher supplies than this world can furnish, and which can be found only in the holy sanctuary. Jesus furnishes those supplies. It has been touchingly remarked that “every sigh of Jesus was a crumb of imperishable bread to us.” The breaking of His body on the Cross has furnished the sublimest feast of time. There “they that hunger and thirst after righteousness” are for ever filled. There wisdom hath furnished her table, saying, “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.” Here love hath poured out all her lavish fulness for the famishing children of men. There were to be twelve loaves 12

ever on the golden table—a loaf for every name upon the jewelled breastplate of the priest. And they were ample loaves. One omer of manna was enough to serve a man for a day; but each of these loaves contained two omers. The bounties provided for our souls in Christ Jesus are superabundant—far more than enough for all that will ever come to partake. Neither did these loaves ever wax old or become stale. Every Sabbath they were carefully renewed, and thus kept always fresh and sweet. The bread which Jesus gives never moulds, never spoils, and never loses its relish on the tongues of His priests. Having thus looked at the beautiful provisions for light and sustenance which characterised tile holy sanctuary, there is yet a thought or two respecting its relation to the Holy of Holies, to which I will direct your attention. I have said that the Holy of Holies was meant to represent heaven, or that invisible and glorious state into which Christ has entered as our Priest and Forerunner, and into which all His saints shall enter in time to come. Now, the way into this most Holy Place was through the sanctuary. There was no other way of entering it. May not this be meant to signify that the way to heaven is through the Church? If there is any way of salvation outside of this holy Catholic Church I cannot find it revealed in the Scriptures, and fearful is the risk of him who ventures to trust in it. But connected with this is another and more sunny thought. If the sanctuary is the way to heaven, those who are in that way are very near heaven. Every true member of the Church has but a veil between him and the glorious presence of God and angels. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)

Symbols and their meaningAmong the very first symbols appointed in this chapter, is the pure beaten oil for the lamps that were “to burn continually without the veil of the testimony in the Tabernacle of the congregation.” Now we find that John in the Apocalypse uses the very imagery that is here to set forth the completeness, the unity, and yet the variety of the Christian Church. The seven candlesticks, or the seven branches of the one candlestick, are seven churches; all the seven knit together in one golden stem; and through that stem rushing into each tube, and supplying each lamp with the most precious and perfumed oil, beaten oil rising from the stem and enabling it thus to burn. Now we have in that image the most complete exhibition of the variety of the Christian Church. It is not one stem, there are seven stems. There is not one visible Church, but many visible congregations, all of them, greater or less, constituting together the one universal or Catholic Church. It was never meant that there should be but one visible economy, but many differing economies; having their unity not in the uniformity of A to B, and B to C, but in the unity of all with the central stem to which they are all knit. So is it now in the Christian Church. The discipline of the Church is temporary, but the doctrines of the Church are eternal. In ecclesiastical polity it has varied, and it will vary; in essential attachment to the Saviour, trust in His sacrifice, love of vital and essential truth, it has been one in every age. The oil that supplied it was oil that rose from the stem, penetrated the branches, and thus fed the flame. I need not remind you how that very image is constantly used to denote the Holy Spirit of God. Then the object of this candlestick was to give light in the Tabernacle. So the object of a Church is to give light; and if it fail to give light it is worthless. The best candlestick would not be that which gave least light, but most; and no exquisite beauty of its chasing, no amount of gold in its composition, would be any compensation for its failing to do that which is its end and its mission, to give light to them that are in the household. The very end and object of a Christian is to be a light; and that is the best Church that casts the light upon the truths of the Bible, the

13

problems of the soul, the hopes of the Christian, the way that leads to glory. After the representation of the candlestick we have the bread for a memorial before the Lord. This bread consisted of twelve loaves upon a table of gold, and had two meanings; probably one was to bring the produce of the fields of the earth under the roof of the sanctuary of God, that it might be seen that the same God who saves the soul and feeds it with living bread also supplies the wants of the body, and makes the corn to grow upon the earth to bring forth abundance for man and for beast. Or, secondly, it may have been designed to show that there was a higher want than the want of the bread that perisheth; that there is in man’s soul a need, a hunger for the bread that endureth unto life eternal; which the viands of nature never could furnish, which God must send as He sent the manna—directly and immediately from heaven. And lastly, it was used to be food for Aaron and the priests; everything being consecrated in that sanctuary, and associated in some way with God and the hopes of heaven and of eternity. (J. Cumming, D. D.)

The priest setting the lamps in order daily represents Christ causing His people daily to receive and give forth light and lifeIn the midst of a dark world believers are set up as lights (see Php_2:15; Mat_5:16). They should be as the Baptist, “burning and shining lights.” They should be representatives of Christ Himself, who “shone as the light in darkness.” And they must shine—

1. Not by natural gifts, but by grace. There must be the beaten oil, pressed out of Israel’s olive-trees; not merely talent or natural fervour and benevolence.2. Clearly. There were golden snuffers for these lamps, and the use of them was committed to the priest who went in to set things in order. Believers must have their gifts and graces stirred up, so that there be no dulness, indecision, languor.3. Constantly. Every day in succession shine as before; never hide the light. If there be a place where it is not duty to speak, yet there is no place where it is not duty to think and feel for God.4. Calmly; for the light of these lamps did not sputter as it burned. The oil was pure. Believers must have the lamb-like spirit of Jesus, putting away all admixture of human temper; not reproving with the heat of human passion, not harshly upbraiding the obstinate sinner, not impatient or hasty or fierce even when enormous wickedness and deceit appear. A calm light generally shines full.5. In the face of the world. Cast your light fair on the world’s sins, that they may see them. Point out their ungodliness, their lawlessness, their unbelief. Bear your testimony where the truth is denied in your presence. Never be afraid of dazzling the world with too much light, but plainly show them that they are wholly sinful, wholly ruined, wholly helpless; and speak of a present, immediate, free, full pardon in the Saviour.6. So as to show the golden table and the golden altar. The lights of the candlestick did so. Was not this pointing the eye to Christ, who died and who is risen? The bread on the table is Christ, who gave His life for us; the golden altar and its incense is Jesus exalted and accepted. Here is full salvation.7. As if you alone were responsible for the enlightening of the dark world. The

14

candlestick was the only light; so is the Church. And let every member feel responsibility. Perhaps if you shine not, some soul shall be left for ever in darkness. If one lighthouse on the sea-shore were obscured, how many ships might be lost in consequence, especially if formerly that lighthouse used to direct to the haven! Oh, then, how many may perish if you backslide and shine not as before! This is our time for shining. When Jesus comes His light will dim ours; we shall shine with Him, but our privilege of bringing others shall be ended. When the sun rises the vessel needs no more the help of the beacon-light. (A. A. Bonar.)

Christ an enlightening presenceHere is the experience of a little blind boy, which shows what a blessed light the presence of Jesus gives. This boy had had an attack of scarlet fever, which left him perfectly blind. One day his minister called to see him. In talking about this affliction, he said, “Well, my dear boy, this is hard for you, isn’t it?” He did not answer for a moment; then he said, “I don’t know that I ought to say ‘ hard’; God knows best”; but his lips quivered, and a little tear stole down his cheek. “ Yes, my child; you have a kind Saviour, who loves you, and feels for you, even more than your mother does.” “I know it, sir,” said the little boy, “ and it comforts me.” “I wish Jesus was here to cure Frank,” said his little sister. “Well,” said I, “He will open the eyes of little Frank’s soul to see what a dear, loving Saviour He is. He will show him that a blind heart is worse than blind eyes; and He will help him to see and enjoy heavenly things in all their beauty, and this will make him a thousand times happier than many children who have the use of their bodily eyes.” “Still, I can’t help wishing he could see,” said Lizzie. “I dare say; but I hope you don’t try to make Frank discontented?” “Frank isn’t discontented,” said Lizzie, earnestly;” he loves God. And love makes its own sunshine, doesn’t it, Frank?” “I don’t feel cross about it now,” said the poor blind boy, meekly. “I pray, and think about the sweet hymns I learned in Sabbath School, and I sing, and sing, and then I think that Jesus is with me, and it feels light, and—and—I forget that I’m blind at all,” and a sweet light played over his pale features as he spoke. That was the light which the presence of Jesus gives. The Tabernacle taught us that His presence with His people was intended to be an enlightening presence. (Richard Newton, D. D.)

Christ a comforting presenceAnother thing that the Tabernacle taught, in reference to Christ’s presence with His people, was that it will be a comforting presence. There was the table of shewbread. This was a table covered over with gold, and on which twelve fresh loaves of bread were placed every Sabbath day. It was intended to teach the Jews what God teaches us in that sweet promise which says, “Bread shall be given him; his waters shall be sure “ (Isa_33:16). This table of shewbread pointed to Jesus. He is “the living bread that came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever” (Joh_6:51). And we know how bread strengthens, or comforts, men’s hearts. And then the golden altar of incense taught the same thing. As the priest burnt the incense on this altar, the perfume rose in clouds of fragrant smoke that filled the Tabernacle. This fragrance was most pleasing and refreshing. And the meaning of it was, that when we love and serve Jesus, the prayers that we offer to God, and the work that we do for Him, are just as pleasant to Him as the fragrance of this incense is to us. How much comfort there is in this thought!

15

And then all the things in the Tabernacle-.the brazen altar of burnt-offering, the laver, the candlestick, the table of shewbread, and the golden altar of incense—were intended to lead the thoughts of those who worshipped there to what was on the other side of the veil that hung down in the Holy Place. There, beyond that veil, was the most Holy Place. In it was the ark, with the glory of God shining brightly upon it. That place represented heaven. And so, when we see the Tabernacle showing us how Jesus was to be with His people, to pardon them, and to purify them, and to enlighten them, and strengthen them, we see it teaching us how all that Jesus does for His people now is to make them ready for heaven. And if this is so, we may well say that the presence of Jesus with His people is a comforting presence. We have just had an illustration of one point of our subject from a little blind boy. We have another illustration here from an old blind woman. She lived in North Wales, and was known all through that part of the country as “Blind Mary.” Wales is a grand old country. Mountains, and rocks, and lakes, and waterfalls in every variety of form are found there. Mary’s cottage was in one of the wildest parts of this country. Great rocks lay scattered around on every side. Ferns and wild flowers peeped out from under them. There was no more charming view in all that country than was to be seen in front of Mary’s cottage. One beautiful summer evening she was sitting there, with her large Bible on her knee. She was spelling out its meaning as her fingers went slowly over the raised letters. Just then a traveller who had been climbing the mountain came near. With the usual quickness of the blind Mary heard his footsteps, and asked him to take a seat. As he did so she pointed out to him the most interesting views in the landscape before them. He looked at her with surprise, and said, “They told me that blind Mary lived up here; but I can hardly believe that you are blind. You seem to see the mountains and lakes as well as I do.” “I used to look at them with so much pleasure when I could see, that I know all about them, although I have been blind for years.” “Doesn’t it make you unhappy, Mary, to think that you can never look at them again?” The blind woman’s eyes filled with tears, as she answered, “Don’t ask me that, sir. At first I felt almost angry with God for afflicting me so; but now I can bless His holy name. I see something better, sir, than rocks and mountains. I see Jesus, my Saviour, and the thought that He loves me makes me happy. Forgive an old woman’s boldness, sir. You tell me you have good eyesight, and that you can see yonder lakes, and the blue mountains beyond; but, oh I sir, did you ever see that wonderful sight, Jesus Christ laying down His life for you?” The traveller looked at blind Mary with great interest, and said, “Mary, I am afraid I have not thought about these things as I ought; but I promise you that I will do so; I shall never forget my evening’s climb up these mountains, and what you have said to me.” “God bless you, sir I But what should I, a poor old blind woman, do without my Saviour? I’m never alone, for He is with me. I’m not afraid to die, either, because He has washed away my sins in His blood; and when I leave these mountains and lakes I shall go, I know, to a better country. ‘Mine eyes shall see the King in His beauty; they shall behold the land that is very far off.’ And I believe I shall meet you there, because I shall ask my Saviour to open your eyes, that you may see yourself first as a sinner, and then see Jesus as your Redeemer.” Certainly the presence of Jesus was a comforting presence to poor blind Mary. (Richard Newton, D. D.)

Take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof.The shewbread as typical of ChristTwelve loaves were always on the golden table, answering to the number of the twelve

16

tribes; and Christ is all-sufficient; His salvation can suffice for every case; Christ for every man—refused, indeed, and rejected by numbers, but sufficient for all. They were fresh, as week by week they were placed there; and Christ is ever the same gracious Saviour, and His salvation ever fresh and ever satisfying. He is able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him. He is “the continual Bread.” At all times His words apply—“I am the Bread of Life,” &c. The shewbread also was eaten by the priests in the sanctuary on the Sabbath. And here we may discern a blessed type of privilege and communion; for we remember that all true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, all who have been born again of the Spirit, and are led and taught by the Spirit, answer to these privileged priests. All true believers are addressed as a holy priesthood, whose office it is to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, as a royal priesthood, a peculiar people, that they should show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His marvellous light. The arrangement of the Tabernacle may remind us that such have come to this communion with God by blood. They have passed, in the Tabernacle court, the brazen altar of burnt-offering, that which told of atonement through the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God. Through this sacrifice they have found pardon and acceptance. They have been cleansed in the laver, having received the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost; and thus they reach the Holy Place, where they may have sweet communion and fellowship with God through His dear Son, may feed upon Christ the living Bread, may rejoice in the light of Christ, and in the prevailing efficacy of His intercession. (J. H. Holford, M. A.)

The table for the bread of faces1. Here remark,

(1) Bread is the staple of life. The manna is called “bread from heaven.” In the present case the bread is made of fine flour, ground between the millstones.(2) It is most likely unleavened, though the book nowhere affirms this expressly. The Passover bread, and most, if not all else offered unto the Lord, was unleavened (Lev_2:5-11; Lev_6:14-17).(3) It remained on the table from one Sabbath until the next; even on their journeys it was not omitted (see Num_4:7). Therefore is it called shewbread-bread of faces—bread continually before faces of the Lord. This renders it the more likely to be unleavened; for in that climate where the manna remaining overnight spoiled, leavened bread a week old would be sour.(4) The frankincense was probably placed in some of the dishes provided, and was removed and burnt in the censers or on the incense altar on the Sabbath.

2. Let us inquire into the typical meaning of the table, its furniture, and its contents. In general it exhibits Messiah as the Bread of God, that comes down from heaven and sustains the life of the Church (Joh_6:35-39). But particularly,(1) The wood and the gold, as throughout, symbolise the human and the Divine natures in the person of Christ.(2) The sufferings of the Saviour may be alluded to in the grinding of the flour and the action of the fire in baking.(3) The twelve cakes or loaves are the twelve tribes of Israel, for each and all of

17

whom bread was provided.(4) The frankincense, when offered, expresses prayers and thanksgivings of the Church.(5) The continual presence of the bread is a guarantee that spiritual food shall never fail, but a store is perpetually on hand.(6) The exchange of the bread and the priests eating it in the Holy Place on the Sabbath sets forth clearly and forcibly that abundant provision of spiritual food and nourishment which the Lord’s day always brings with it to the people of His love.(7) Its exclusive appropriation to the priests intimates the limited privileges of the people, and prepares for the contrast of a later day, when they become elevated as kings and priests unto God.(8) The unleavened bread indicates the absence of any process of decay. Leaven is the first step towards dissolution, and its prohibition assuredly intimates the absence of all tendency to corruption in the Redeemer, who, even in a physical sense, saw no corruption. Does not this teach that in the sacramental supper we ought not to use leavened bread, bread in the first stage toward utter putrefaction? Moreover, the other idea, suggested by the unleavened bread of the Passover as an indication of being hastily driven out on a pilgrimage journey, is still applicable: we are travelling through a strange land toward the heavenly Canaan. (George Junkin, D. D.)

Christ the true Presence BreadChrist Jesus is the True Presence Bread. On Him the eye of Jehovah ever looks with infinite complacency. He is the “Bread of God.” “All that God is, finds sweet refreshment in Him.” We, too, by faith, see Him, and in Him are seen. His place is ours. We are made to sit together with Him in heavenly places. Where He is there, representatively, are we. His perfect obedience, too, is ours. What He is, that are we. Christ, too, is our Staff of Life. He who is the Bread of God is our Bread also. The Bread of our life. By faith we eat His flesh, and drink His blood. He is the true, the proper nourishment of our souls. We live only as we feed upon Him. It was not lawful for any of the priests to eat of the shewbread of the Tabernacle (Mat_12:4). Under the new covenant the priesthood includes every believer. All, who by faith are born unto the Israel of God, may eat of the True Shewbread. God has spread a table in the wilderness of which all His people are called to be partakers. He Himself invites them to feast upon its rich provison. He says, “Eat, O My friends, yea, drink abundantly.” (F. H. White).The table and shewbread typical of Christ and His Church.—I. The mystery or the gospel of the table, upon which this bread was set every Sabbath, and there continued all the week, until a fresh set of loaves were placed in their room. This table was a type of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of communion with Him, in the administration of the Word and ordinances. It was typical of the person of Christ, in both His natures: for there are two natures in Him, human and Divine. The human nature of Christ may be signified by the wood of which this table was made, and His

18

Divine nature by the gold it was overlaid with. And this shewbread table was not only typical of Christ, as to the matter of it; being made of such excellent, incorruptible wood, and that overlaid with pure gold; but also with respect to the decorations of it. It had a crown of gold upon it, which may be expressive of that honour and glory which is due to Christ, and is given unto Him as the King of kings and Lord of lords. The border of gold, with the crown upon it, about this table of shewbread, is also significant of what may be observed in Christ. For as this phrase, when applied to the Church of Christ, where it is said, “We will make thee borders of gold, with studs of silver” (Son_3:11), may denote the graces of the Spirit of God bestowed upon His people, which is as ornamental to them as borders of gold and studs of silver; so this, being applied to Christ, may denote that fulness of grace that there is in Him. He is full of grace and truth. He hath received the Spirit, and the gifts and graces thereof without measure. Thus this table was typical of the person of Christ. It may also be considered as typical of communion with Him. A table among men is an emblem of communion and fellowship. Here men sit, eat, drink, and converse together: and this shewbread table is an emblem of the saints’ communion with Christ, in the present state more especially. There is the table of the Lord, to which His people are now admitted, where He sits down with them, and they with Him, to have fellowship with Him in the ministration of the Word and ordinances, cf which He is the sum and substance. Before I dismiss this head, give me leave to observe unto you that there were rings upon the shewbread table, and staves to be put in there rings, which were for the removing and carrying it from place to place, and which was done by the Levites, when it was necessary; as while they were in the wilderness, and before the Tabernacle had a fixed place for it. For wherever the Tabernacle was carried, the ark and the table were also.II. I proceed in the second place to give you some account of the gospel, and the mystery of the shewbread set upon his table. This may be considered as typical of the Church of God, who are called bread. “We being many, are one bread, and one body” (1Co_10:17). They are all one bread; and they may be fitly signified by the shewbread, by these twelve cakes of unleavened bread, set continually upon the table every Sabbath-day. As they were made of fine flour, and into unleavened cakes, so they may denote those that are upright in heart and conversation. Israelites, indeed, who have the truth of grace in them; who are such as keep the feast, not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. The twelve cakes had reference to the twelve tribes of Israel; so these may signify the whole of the spiritual Israel of God, whether consisting of Jews or Gentiles; even that general assembly and Church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven. In the original text it is “the bread of faces”; because this bread was always before the face or faces of God, before all the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity; before God the Father, Son, and Spirit; before Jehovah, before the Divine Shechinah, which dwelt between the cherubim, over the mercy-seat of the ark, a symbol of the Divine presence. It was continually before the Lord, as our text expresses it; and this may denote the people of God’s constant and continual presentation of themselves before the Lord in acts of public and religious worship. But it may still have a higher sense than this; it may have respect unto these persons, being always under the eye and care of God. Not only are the eyes of His providence upon them which run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong in the behalf of those whose hearts are upright towards Him, to see that no hurt comes to them, that they stand in need of nothing, and to protect, preserve, and defend them; but His eyes of love, grace and mercy are always upon them. He never withdraws His eyes from them. Again, this shewbread, and the twelve loaves thereof, were placed upon the

19

table, where they stood firm and safe. This may denote the standing and security of the saints and people of God upon our Lord Jesus Christ, that sure foundation God has laid in Sion: that foundation of the apostles and prophets. Here they have a sure and safe standing, as on a rock—the Rock of Ages—against which the powers of hell and earth can never prevail. And as about this shewbread table there was a border of gold, to keep everything put upon it from falling off, this may still further point out unto us the safety of the people of God, who are set upon the shewbread table, our Lord Jesus Christ. And then you may further observe, this shewbread was placed upon the table every Sabbath-day; there was a constant succession; the table was never empty. This may denote the constancy of true believers, that have the interest of Christ at heart, in assembling continually before the Lord. Not forsaking the assembling of themselves together, but, like the primitive Christians, continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Or, rather, it may denote the constant succession of the children and people of God in the world. This shewbread, set upon the table, may also be emblematical of Christ Himself; and that as He is the spiritual food of His people. And there being twelve of these loaves upon the table, may denote the fulness and sufficiency of Christ. Here is bread enough and to spare. And as this bread was continual bread, was always upon the table, so it may denote the permanency of Christ. He is always the same—the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. And as this was set upon the table by the priests, and only by them, and none ate of this bread but the priests only, Aaron and his sons (who may be significant of the ministers of the Word, or of Christians in common under the gospel dispensation); if we understand it of the ministers of the Word, it points out that they set before the people the shewbread, even the wholesome and salutary words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and feed the people with knowledge and understanding. But if we understand it (as I rather do) as expressive of the people of God in common, who under the gospel dispensation are all made kings and priests to God, it denotes that these, and these only, eat of this spiritual food. None but they do it; none but they can do it. (John Gill, D. D.)

3 Outside the curtain that shields the ark of the covenant law in the tent of meeting, Aaron is to tend the lamps before the Lord from evening till morning, continually. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.

20

GILL, "Without the vail of the testimony,.... That is, on the outside of the vail which divided between the holy and holy of holies, and which was before the ark in which the testimony or law was: in the tabernacle of the congregation; which the apostle calls the first, namely, the holy place in which the candlestick, with its lamps, stood, Heb_9:2, shall Aaron order it from the evening unto the morning, before the Lord continually, that is, the lamp or lamps, or candlestick, in which they were, or the light of them; his business was, and so every priest's that succeeded him, to supply the lamps with oil, to dress, him, and snuff them, that they might burn clear, and burn always, and that before the Lord, in the presence of the Lord: it shall be a statute for ever in your generations; until the Messiah should come, the true light, which would put out all such typical ones, and by his Gospel spread light in all his churches throughout the world; See Gill on Exo_27:20 and See Gill on Exo_27:21.

JAMISON, "Aaron shall order it from the evening unto the morning — The daily presence of the priests was necessary to superintend the cleaning and trimming.ELLICOTT, " (3) Without the vail of the testimony.—That is, the second vail, which divided the holy from the most holy. (See Exodus 27:21.)In the tabernacle of the congregation.—Better, in the tent of meeting.A statute for ever in your generations.—Better, a statute for ever throughout your generations, as this phrase is rendered in the Authorised Version in Leviticus 23:14; Leviticus 23:31, &c. (See Leviticus 3:17.)TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:3 Without the vail of the testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation, shall Aaron order it from the evening unto the morning before the LORD continually: [it shall be] a statute for ever in your generations.Ver. 3. From the evening unto the morning.] In the morning it went out. [1 Samuel 3:3]

4 The lamps on the pure gold lampstand before the Lord must be tended continually.

21

GILL, "He shall order the lamps on the pure candlestick,.... So called, as Jarchi suggests, for these two reasons, partly because it was made of pure gold, and partly because it was to be kept pure and clean, and free from ashes, by the priest; see Exo_25:31, before the Lord continually; which both respects the situation of the candlestick, and the work about it, which Aaron was to do continually before and in the presence of the Lord. Jarchi thinks this ordering respects the measure of oil for every night, which he says, according to the wise men, was half a log for every lamp, which was about a quarter of a pint of oil.

JAMISON, "upon the pure candlestick — so called because of pure gold. This was symbolical of the light which ministers are to diffuse through the Church.ELLICOTT, "(4) The lamps upon the pure candlestick.—Though it would appear from Exodus 25:31 that the candlestick was called pure because it was made entirely of pure gold, yet, according to the authorities during the second Temple, the order here is that “he shall arrange the lamps after having purified and made clean the candlestick, and removed all the cinders.”BENSON, "Leviticus 24:4. The pure candlestick — So called, either because of its resplendent brightness, or because it was of pure gold; before the Lord — Because it was before the ark and mercy-seat, where God was peculiarly present.TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:4 He shall order the lamps upon the pure candlestick before the LORD continually.Ver. 4. Upon the pure candlestick.] Pure, because daily purified by the priests: so must our consciences be from dead works by daily repentance.

5 “Take the finest flour and bake twelve loaves of bread, using two-tenths of an ephah[a] for each loaf.

22

BARNES, "Lev_24:5Each cake or loaf of unleavened bread Lev_2:11 was to contain about six pounds and a quarter (see Exo_29:40 note) of fine flour. The material was the same, both in quality and in quantity, with that of each one of the wave-loaves of Pentecost Lev_23:17. In the service of the temple the preparation and arrangement of the cakes was committed to the Levites 1Ch_9:32; 1Ch_23:29; 2Ch_13:11.CLARKE, "Bake twelve cakes - See the whole account of the shew-bread in the

notes on Exo_25:30 (note); and relative to the table on which they stood, the golden candlestick and silver trumpets carried in triumph to Rome, see the note on Exo_25:31.GILL, "And thou shalt take fine flour,.... Of wheat, and the finest of it: and bake twelve cakes thereof; answerable to the twelve tribes, as the Targum of Jonathan, which were typical of the spiritual Israel of God: two tenth deals shall be in one cake; that is, two tenth parts of an ephah, which were two omers, one of which was as much as a man could eat in one day of the manna: so that one of these cakes was as much as two men could eat of bread in one day; each cake was ten hands' breadth long, five broad, and seven fingers its horns, or was so high (g).

HENRY 5-9, "The table must always be kept spread. This was appointed before, Exo_25:30. And here also, 1. The table was furnished with bread; not dainties nor varieties to gratify a luxurious palate, but twelve loaves or cakes of bread, Lev_24:5, Lev_24:6. Where there is plenty of bread there is no famine; and where bread is not there is no feast. There was a loaf for every tribe, for in our Father's house there is bread enough. They were all provided for by the divine bounty, and were all welcome to the divine grace. Even after the revolt of the ten tribes this number of loaves was continued (2Ch_13:11), for the sake of those few of each tribe that retained their affection to the temple and continued their attendance on it. 2. A handful of frankincense was put in a golden saucer, upon or by each row, Lev_24:7. When the bread was removed, and given to the priests, this frankincense was burnt upon the golden altar (I suppose) over and above the daily incense: and this was for a memorial instead of the bread, an offering made by fire, as the handful of the meat-offering which was burnt upon the altar is called the memorial thereof, Lev_2:2. Thus a little was accepted as a humble acknowledgment, and all the loaves were consigned to the priests. All God's spiritual Israel, typified by the twelve loaves, are made through Christ a sweet savour to him, and their prayers are said to come up before God for a memorial, Act_10:4. The word is borrowed from the ceremonial law. 3. Every sabbath it was renewed. When the loaves had stood there a week, the priests had them to eat with other holy things that were to be eaten in the holy place (Lev_24:9), and new ones were provided at the public charge, and put in the room of them, Lev_24:8. The Jews say, “The hands of those priests that put on were mixed with theirs that took off, that the table might be never empty, but the bread might be before the Lord continually.” God is never unprovided for the entertainment of those that visit him, as men often are, Luk_11:5. Every one of those cakes contained two tenth-deals, that is, two omers of fine flour; just so much manna every Israelite gathered on the sixth day for the sabbath, Exo_16:22. Hence some infer that this show-bread, which

23

was set on the table on the sabbath, was intended as a memorial of the manna wherewith they were fed in the wilderness. Christ's ministers should provide new bread for his house every sabbath day, the production of their fresh studies in the scripture, that their proficiency may appear to all, 1Ti_4:1, 1Ti_4:5.

JAMISON 5-9, “take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes — for the showbread, as previously appointed (Exo_25:30). Those cakes were baked by the Levites, the flour being furnished by the people (1Ch_9:32; 1Ch_23:29), oil, wine, and salt being the other ingredients (Lev_2:13).

two tenth deals — that is, of an ephah - thirteen and a half pounds weight each; and on each row or pile of cakes some frankincense was strewed, which, being burnt, led to the showbread being called “an offering made by fire.” Every Sabbath a fresh supply was furnished; hot loaves were placed on the altar instead of the stale ones, which, having lain a week, were removed, and eaten only by the priests, except in cases of necessity (1Sa_21:3-6; also Luk_6:3, Luk_6:4).

K&D 5-9, “The preparation of the shew-bread and the use to be made of it are described here for the first time; though it had already been offered by the congregation at the consecration of the tabernacle, and placed by Moses upon the table (Exo_39:36; Exo_40:23). Twelve cakes (challoth, Lev_2:4) were to be made of fine flour, of two-tenths of an ephah each, and placed in two rows, six in each row, upon the golden table before Jehovah (Exo_25:23.). Pure incense was then to be added to each row, which was to be (to serve) as a memorial (Azcarah, see Lev_2:2), as a firing for Jehovah. ַעל ָנַתן to give upon, to add to, does not force us to the conclusion that the incense was to be spread upon the cakes; but is easily reconcilable with the Jewish tradition (Josephus,Ant. iii. 10, 7; Mishnah, Menach. xi. 7, 8), that the incense was placed in golden saucers with each row of bread. The number twelve corresponded to the number of the twelve tribes of Israel. The arrangement of the loaves in rows of six each was in accordance with the shape of the table, just like the division of the names of the twelve tribes upon the two precious stones on Aaron's shoulder-dress (Exo_28:10). By the presentation or preparation of them from the fine flour presented by the congregation, and still more by the addition of incense, which was burned upon the altar every Sabbath on the removal of the loaves as azcarah, i.e., as a practical memento of the congregation before God, the laying out of these loaves assumed the form of a bloodless sacrifice, in which the congregation brought the fruit of its life and labour before the face of the Lord, and presented itself to its God as a nation diligent in sanctification to good works. If the shew-bread was a minchah, or meat-offering, and even a most holy one, which only the priests were allowed to eat in the holy place (Lev_24:9, cf. Lev_2:3 and Lev_6:9-10), it must naturally have been unleavened, as the unanimous testimony of the Jewish tradition affirms it to have been. And if as a rule no meat-offering could be leavened, and of the loaves of first-fruits prepared for the feast of Pentecost, which were actually leavened, none was allowed to be placed upon the altar (Lev_2:11-12; Lev_6:10); still less could leavened bread be brought into the sanctuary before Jehovah. The only ground, therefore, on which Knobel can maintain that those loaves were leavened, is on the supposition that they were intended to represent the daily bread, which could no

24

more fail in the house of Jehovah than in any other well-appointed house (see Bähr,Symbolik i. p. 410). The process of laying these loaves before Jehovah continually was to be “an everlasting covenant” (Lev_24:8), i.e., a pledge or sign of the everlasting covenant, just as circumcision, as the covenant in the flesh, was to be an everlasting covenant (Gen_17:13).

CALVIN, "We now come to the third part of the external service of God, which will bring us to the end of our exposition of the Second Commandment. We have, then, now to treat of the sacred oblations, the first place amongst which I have thought it best to give to the loaves, which had their peculiar table opposite the candlestick on the north side, as we saw in the construction of the Tabernacle; for although the mention of them will recur elsewhere, yet, since they were offered separately, and placed before the Ark of the Covenant, as it were in God’s sight, they must not be treated of apart from the sacrifices. I have already explained that this was no ordinary symbol of God’s favor, when He descended familiarly to them, as if He were their messmate. They were called “the bread of faces,” (227) because they were placed before the eyes of God; and thus He made known His special favor, as if coming to banquet with them. Nor can it be doubted but that He commanded them to be twelve in number, with reference to the twelve tribes, as if He would admit to His table the food offered by each of them. The “two tenths” make the fifth part of the epah. And it is plaia indeed that this rite was thus accurately prescribed by God, lest diversity in so serious a matter might gradually give birth to many corruptions. In the word “tenths,” He seems to allude to the tax which He had imposed on the people, that thus the holiness of the loaves might be enhanced. But why He required two “tenths” rather than one I know not, nor do I think it any use more curiously to inquire. I refer to the frankincense the words, “that it may be on the bread for a memorial:” as if it were said that the bread, seasoned by the smell of the incense, would renew the memory of the children of Israel, so that they should be of sweet savor before God. Others translate it “a monument” instead of “for a memorial,” but with the same meaning. But although some think that the bread itself is called a memorial, it is more applicable to the frankincense; for it is afterwards added, that the incense should be at the same time a burnt sacrifice, viz., because in it the bread was, as it were, offered in burnt sacrifice. COFFMAN, ""And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth parts of an ephah shall be in one cake. And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before Jehovah. And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto Jehovah. Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before Jehovah continually; it is on the behalf of the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant. And it shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of Jehovah made by fire by a perpetual statute."The typical nature of this weekly changing of showbread in which the old loaves

25

were eaten by the priest and new ones provided is pointed squarely at the weekly communion of the saints in Christ at the Lord's Table in his kingdom. Note that it was not to be skipped, but observed continually on a WEEKLY basis. It was vitally a part of the covenant (Leviticus 24:8). Unger noted this as follows:The frankincense was burned at the end of each week (instead of the loaves) in order that Aaron's sons might feast on the loaves, as we do memorially of Christ's death and second coming in the Lord's Supper.[14]This showbread was referred to in the O.T., not only as the "shewbread," but also as "bread of the Presence," from being laid up before Jehovah (Leviticus 24:8), "bread of the pile" (or "bread of the arrangement") because of the placement of it in two rows (Leviticus 24:6), and as the "continual bread," as lying continually before God (Numbers 4:7).[15] This showbread was a constant, daily reminder for Israel and a ceremonial confession upon their behalf that, "all her temporal blessings came from God."[16] This was a flat denial and contradiction of the ancient pagan superstitions that their deities needed to be fed. The invariable teaching of the Law and the Prophets revealed that it was God who fed His people and that the people did not feed their God! Meyrick described how the loaves each sabbath were replaced by the fresh loaves: "Four priests went in ... two to take off ... two to put on ... they faced each other two and two. Those with the new loaves stood on the north side, those who took off the old on the south side. They acted in unison so that always there were loaves on the table."[17]It is difficult indeed to believe that any less caution was observed in the maintenance of the perpetual light as an inextinguishable blaze.The type of the Lord's Day collection also appears in this passage. This Bread of the Presence was given and prepared each week, a procedure involving both the priests and all of God's people. "It was a weekly offering definitely and emphatically prescribed in the O.T. This is exactly what Paul urged on the Corinthians: `Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by in store, as God has prospered him!' (1 Corinthians 16:2)."[18]COKE, "Verse 5Leviticus 24:5. Bake twelve cakes thereof— The order given, Exodus 25:30 respecting the shew-bread, is here repeated more particularly. The cakes were to be twelve in number, representing the twelve tribes, as is generally observed; each consisting of two tenth-deals, i.e. two omers, or two tenth parts of an ephah, which make about six quarts of English measure: so that they must have been of very considerable size. They were to be placed in two rows or heaps, (Leviticus 24:6.) six in each: and upon the top of each row was to be set (Leviticus 24:7.) a golden dish, with a handful of the best frankincense therein; which frankincense was to be burnt

26

upon the altar at the week's end, instead of the bread for a memorial, i.e. in honor of God, and to commemorate his name. See ch. Leviticus 2:2. The bread itself was to be eaten by the priests, Leviticus 24:9 and, as the frankincense and bread made but one offering, therefore, a part being put for the whole, the bread is called most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire. It is most probable, while the Israelites were in the wilderness, that these cakes were made of the manna. See Wall.Note; 1. They who would enjoy the light of the gospel should gladly support a godly ministry. 2. They who serve in God's sanctuary must be careful not to adulterate the oil of divine truth, but make the light shine bright in the fervency of their ministrations, and the exemplariness of their own conduct. 3. They who come to God will find a table spread for them even in the wilderness. 4. They who eat of his bread should remember their obligations to serve him. 5. Every sabbath-day, ministers must provide fresh food for the souls of the people, and not lazily put them off with stale discourses.ELLICOTT, " (5) And bake twelve cakes.—The next order is about the preparation of the shewbread, and the use to be made of it. It was made in the following manner. Twenty-four seahs of wheat, which were brought as a meat offering, were beaten and ground, and after passing through twelve different sieves each finer than the other, twenty-four tenth-deals of the finest flour were obtained. The dough was kneaded outside the court, and after it was put into a golden mould of a definite size and form to impart the prescribed size and shape to each cake, was brought into the court. Here it was taken out of the first golden mould, and put into a second of the same material and form, and baked in it. As soon as it was taken out of the oven the cake was put into a third mould of the like description, and when it was turned out of it the cake was ten handbreadths long, five broad, one finger thick, and square at each end. Each cake, therefore, was made of two omers of wheat, or, as it is here said, of two tenth-parts of anephah, which is the same thing. (See Leviticus 14:10.) As an omer is the quantity which, according to the Divine ordinance (Exodus 16:16-19), supplies the daily wants of a human being, each of these cakes represents the food of a man and his neighbour, whilst the twelve cakes answered to the twelve tribes of Israel. Hence the ancient Ohaldee version has, after the words “twelve cakes,” “according to the twelve tribes.” The baking of these cakes took place every Friday afternoon, or Thursday if a feast which required Sabbatical rest fell on Friday. According to the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses to the baking, these cakes were unleavened.EBC, "THE "BREAD OF THE PRESENCE"Leviticus 24:5-9"And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth parts of an ephah shall be in one cake. And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the Lord. And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto

27

the Lord. Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before the Lord continually; it is on the behalf of the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant. And it shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire by a perpetual statute."Next follows the ordinance for the preparation and presentation of the "shew bread," lit., " bread of the Face," or "Presence," of God. This was to consist of twelve cakes, each to be made of two tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour, which was to be placed in two rows or piles, "upon the pure table" of gold that stood before the Lord, in the Holy Place, opposite to the golden candlestick. On each pile was to be placed (Leviticus 24:7) "pure frankincense,"-doubtless, as tradition says, placed in the golden spoons, or little cups. {Exodus 37:16} Every sabbath (Leviticus 24:8-9) fresh bread was to be so placed, when the old became the food of Aaron and his sons only, as belonging to the order of things "most holy"; the frankincense which had been its "memorial" having been first burned, "an offering made by fire unto the Lord" (Leviticus 24:7). Tradition adds that the bread was always unleavened; a few have called this in question, but this has been only on theoretic grounds, and without evidence; and when we remember how stringent was the prohibition of leaven even in any offerings made by fire upon the altar of the outer court, much less is it likely that it could have been tolerated here in the Holy Place immediately before the veil.This bread of the Presence must be regarded as in its essential nature a perpetual meal offering, -the meal offering of the Holy Place, as the others were of the outer court. The material was the same, cakes of fine flour; to this frankincense must be added as a "memorial," as in the meal offerings of the outer court. Such part of the offering as was not burned, as in the case of the others, was to be eaten by the priests only, as a thing "most holy." It differed from those in that there were always the twelve cakes, one for each tribe; and in that while they were repeatedly offered, this lay before the Lord continually. The altar of burnt offering might sometimes be empty of the meal offering, but the table of shew bread, "the table of the Presence," never.In general, therefore, the meaning of the offering of the shew bread must be the same as. that of the meal offerings; like them it symbolised the consecration unto the Lord of the product of the labour of the hands, and especially of the daily food as prepared for use. But in this, by the twelve cakes for the twelve tribes it was emphasised that God requires, not only such consecration of service and acknowledgment of Him from individuals, as in the law of chapter 2, but from the nation in its collective and organised capacity; and that not merely on such occasions as pious impulse might direct, but continuously.In these days, when the tendency among us is to an extreme individualism, and therewith to an ignoring or denial of any claim of God upon nations and communities as such, it is of great need to insist upon this thought thus symbolised. It was not enough in God’s sight that individual Israelites should now and then offer

28

their meal offerings; the Lord required a meal offering "on behalf of the children of Israel" as a whole, and of each particular tribe of the twelve, each in its corporate capacity. There is no reason to think that in the Divine government the principle which took this symbolic expression is obsolete. It is not enough that individuals among us consecrate the fruit of their labours to the Lord. The Lord requires such consecration of every nation collectively; and of each of the subdivisions in that nation, such as cities, towns, states, provinces, and so on. Yet where in the wide world can we see one such consecrated nation? Can we find one such consecrated province or state, or even such a city or town? Where then, from this biblical and spiritual point of view, is the ground for the religious boasting of the Christian progress of our day which one sometimes hears? Must we not say, "It is excluded"?Typically, the shew bread, like the other meal offerings with their frankincense, must foreshadow the work of the Messiah in holy consecration; and, in particular, as the One in whom the ideal of Israel was perfectly realised, and who thus represented in His person the whole Israel of God. But the bread of the Presence represents His holy obedience in self-consecration, not merely, as in the other meal offerings, presented in the outer court, in the sight of men, as in His earthly life; but here, rather, as continually presented before the "Face of God," in the Holy Place, where Christ appears in the presence of God for us. And in this symbolism, which has been already justified, we may recognise the element of truth that there is in the view held by Bahr, apparently, as by others, that the shew bread typified Christ Himself regarded as the bread of life to His people. Not indeed, precisely, that Christ Himself is brought before us here, but rather His holy obedience, continually offered unto God in the heavenly places, in behalf of the true Israel, and as sealing and confirming the everlasting covenant; -this is what this symbol brings before us. And it is as we by faith appropriate Him, as thus ever presenting His holy life to God for us, that He becomes for us the Bread of Life.BENSON, "Leviticus 24:5. Thou shalt take — By the priests or Levites, whose work it was to prepare them, 1 Chronicles 9:32. Twelve cakes — Representing the twelve tribes. Two tenth-deals shall be in one cake — That is, two omers, or two tenth parts of an ephah, consisting of about six quarts of English measure, Exodus 16:36. So that they must have been of a very large size.PETT, "Verses 5-9The Showbread (Leviticus 24:5-9).The showbread consisted of twelve large cakes placed on the table in the Holy Place. It was the responsibility of the sons of Kohath (1 Chronicles 9:32). The number twelve suggests that the cakes represented in one way or another the twelve tribes of Israel. But the fact that they are eaten by the priests is against literal identification with the twelve tribes (although the argument could be used that once the new replaced the old the symbolism ceased for the old so that they could be disposed of conveniently).

29

To interpret their significance we need to look at the situation carefully. They were twelve, they were placed on the golden table, they were before Yahweh for seven days, part was then offered as a sacrifice made by fire (and thus had not ceased to be symbolic), and the remainder was eaten by the priests.Twelve connects them with the twelve tribes, their being brought in and placed on the golden table suggests that they were a kind of grain offering, that they were before Yahweh for seven days (a divine period) suggests that they were being drawn to His attention, that part was offered as an offering made by fire confirms that they are an offering, and that part is eaten by the priests as most holy confirms His acceptance of that offering. It would appear then that we are to see in these twelve loaves a symbol of the whole of God’s physical provision for His people, and of the people’s gratitude for it, a perpetual grain offering before Yahweh. As ever the eating is not even hinted at as being intended to be by God, it is by the priests.But we need not doubt that they would also be a reminder of the Manna. That was the bread on which God had fed His people continually. Pieces of it lay within the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh (Exodus 16:33). Here in the ante-room, as with the light, was its visible reminder.Leviticus 24:5-6“And you shall take milled grain, and bake twelve cakes with it: two tenth parts of an ephah shall be in one cake. And you shall set them in two rows, six on a row, on the pure table before Yahweh.”Like the lampstand the table is also ‘pure’ (compare 2 Chronicles 13:11). It receives on God’s behalf this continual offering of the twelve baked cakes which symbolise God’s provision for His people in the grain, the people’s activity in the milling and the baking, and their worship in the frankincense. They are a continual grain offering, and are a continual reminder to Him of His people. PULPIT, "Leviticus 24:5-9The shewbread, or bread of the face, that is, of the presence, was to be made of fine flour, that is, of wheat, and to consist of twelve cakes or loaves, to represent the twelve tribes of Israel, each loaf containing upward of six pounds of flour. The loaves were placed upon the pure table before the Lord; that is, on the golden table of shewbread within the sanctuary—which stood not far from the vail which partitioned off the holy of holies—toward the north, as the candlestick was toward the south. The loaves were set, not, probably, in two rows, six on a row, as they could have hardly stood in that position on so small a table as the table of shewbread (which was only three feet by one foot and a half), but in piles, six in a pile. Upon them, or more probably between the two piles, were placed two vials or cups filled with frankincense (Josephus, 'Ant.,' 3.7, 6). The shewbread was renewed

30

every sabbath day, with much ceremony. "Four priests," says the Mishna, "enter, two of them carrying the piles of bread, and two of them the cups of incense. Four priests had gone in before them, two to take off the two old piles of shrewbread, and two to take off the cups of incense. Those who brought in the new stood at the north side facing southwards; those who took away the old, at the south side, facing northwards. One party lifted off and the other put on, the hands of one being over against the hands of the other, as it is written, Thou shalt set upon the table bread of the Passover always before me" ('Men.,' 11.7). The loaves that were removed were delivered to the priests for their consumption within the tabernacle, the whole quantity amounting to seventy-five pounds of bread per week. It was this bread which, in the pressure of necessity, Abimelech gave to David and his men (1 Samuel 21:4-6). At the same time that the old loaves were changed, the frankincense was burned on the golden altar of incense for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Lord. There is nothing in Scripture to prove whether the loaves were leavened or unleavened. As being the meat offering of the tabernacle, we should expect them to be unleavened, like the meat offering of the court, but there was a reason why the meat offering of the court should be unleavened, which did not operate in the case of the shewbread. A part of the ordinary meat offering had to be burnt on the altar of burnt sacrifice; therefore it could not be leavened, because no leaven might be burned on the altar; but the shewbread was not burnt on any altar, and consequently it need not for that reason be unleavened. The two Pentecostal loaves, which were offered to the Lord by waving instead of burning, were leavened. The probabilities derived from Scripture appear to be equally strong on either side. Josephus states that they were unleavened ('Ant.,' Leviticus 3:6, Leviticus 3:6; Leviticus 10:1-20, Leviticus 7:1-38).

6 Arrange them in two stacks, six in each stack, on the table of pure gold before the Lord.

BARNES, "Lev_24:6Two rows, six on a row - Rather, two piles, six in a pile. On the table, see Exo_25:23-30.

GILL, "And thou shalt set them in two rows,.... The twelve cakes: six on a row; not by the side of each other, but six upon one another:

31

upon the pure table; the shewbread table, so called because overlaid with pure gold, and kept clean and bright, Exo_25:24, before the Lord; for this stood in the holy place, in the same place as the candlestick did, which has the same position, Lev_24:4; of the mystical and typical sense of these cakes; see Gill on Exo_25:30.ELLICOTT, "Verse 6(6) In two rows, six on a row.—Better, in two piles, six on a pile. The table on which the cakes are here ordered to be put stood along the northern or most sacred side of the holy place. Like all the sacred furniture, except the Ark of the Covenant, it was ranged lengthways of the sanctuary. It was one cubit and a half, or nine handbreadths high; the surface board or plate was two cubits, or twelve handbreadths long, and one cubit or six handbreadths broad. These twelve cakes were placed one upon another in two piles lengthwise on the breadth of the table. As the cakes were ten handbreadths long, and the table was only six handbreadths wide, the cakes projected two hand breadths at each side of the table.Upon the pure table.—According to the interpretation which obtained during the second Temple, this denotes that the cakes are to be put upon the table itself, and not upon the hollow golden rods which were on the table to allow the air to pass through to prevent the shewbread becoming mouldy during the week. These hollow tubes are to be placed between the cakes, whilst the cakes themselves are to be put on the table itself and not on the tubes, so as to be raised above the table.Before the Lord.—That is, the table which stood before the Lord, for it was placed in the sanctuary. The cakes, therefore, which were thus ranged upon it were constantly before God. Hence, not only is the table called “the table of His Presence” (Numbers 4:7), but the cakes are called “the bread of His Presence” (Exodus 25:30; Exodus 35:13; Exodus 39:36). The rendering of the Authorised Version, “table of shewbread,” and “shewbread,” is taken from Luther, and does not express the import of the names. The names, “the bread set in order,” “the sets of bread,” and the “table set in order,” which were given to the cakes (1 Chronicles 9:32; 1 Chronicles 23:29; 2 Chronicles 13:11; Nehemiah 10:33) and to the table (2 Chronicles 29:18) in later times, and which are unjustifiably obliterated in the Authorised Version, are derived from this verse where the cakes are ordered to be ranged in two “sets.”BENSON, "Verse 6-7Leviticus 24:6-7. In two rows — One piled above another; and on the top of each row was set a golden dish, with a handful of the best frankincense therein. On the bread for a memorial — That is, in order to be burned upon the altar at the week’s end, instead of the bread, in honour of God, or to commemorate his name.

32

7 By each stack put some pure incense as a memorial[b] portion to represent the bread and to be a food offering presented to the Lord.

BARNES, "Lev_24:7The frankincense as a memorial (like the handful of the meat-offering, Lev_2:2), was most likely cast upon the altar-fire as “an offering made by fire unto the Lord,” when the bread was removed from the table on the Sabbath-day Lev_24:8; 1Sa_21:6. The frankincense was put into small gold cups, one of which was placed upon each pile of bread. (See Exo_25:23-30 note.)

GILL, "And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row,.... Two cups of frankincense, in each of which was an handful of it, and which were set by each row of the cakes, as Jarchi observes: that it may be on the bread for a memorial; or "for the bread", instead of it, for a memorial of it; that being to be eaten by the priests, and this to be burned on the altar to the Lord, as follows: even an offering made by fire unto the Lord; not the bread that was after a time taken away, and eaten by the priests, but the frankincense.ELLICOTT, " (7) Shalt put pure frankincense upon each row.—Better, shalt place pure frankincense by each pile. As the two piles of six cakes each measured together ten handbreadths in width, and as the length of the table was twelve handbreadths, there was a vacant space of two handbreadths left on the table for the two bowls with frankincense. The vacant place in question may, therefore, (1) have been divided between the two ends of the table, and a bowl with incense been put at each end on either side of the two piles; or (2) the disposable vacant space may have been left at one end of the table only, and the bowls put together on this end by one side of the two piles; or (3) each of the two piles of the cakes may have been put more or less closely to the other end of the table, thus leaving a vacant space between the two piles, into which the two bowls with the frankincense were placed. The last was the practice during the second Temple.

33

That it may be on the bread for a memorial.—Better, that it may be for the bread as a memorial, that is, that the frankincense may be offered up upon the altar, as God’s portion, instead of the bread which was given to the priests. By this means the prayers of the children of Israel will be brought into grateful remembrance before the Lord. (See Leviticus 2:2.)PETT, "Leviticus 24:7“And you shall put pure frankincense on each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire to Yahweh.”On the bread is placed the frankincense. This is primarily intended to be a pleasing odour to Yahweh, an act of worship and homage (compare Psalms 141:2; Malachi 1:11; Jeremiah 6:20; Jeremiah 18:15), but it may also represent the outside world from which it comes (this is not the product of His people, but of Arabia - Jeremiah 6:20) who are also to be seen as under His overlordship. See notes on Leviticus 2:1-2. It is a memorial to be offered by fire to Yahweh while the bread will be eaten by the priests. TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:7 And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon [each] row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, [even] an offering made by fire unto the LORD.Ver. 7. On the bread.] Or, Instead of the bread.

8 This bread is to be set out before the Lord regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath, on behalf of the Israelites, as a lasting covenant.

BARNES, "Lev_24:8Being taken from the children of Israel - Each cake represented the offering of a tribe.

GILL, "Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord continually,.... That is, the priest or priests then ministering, who should bring new cakes and place them in the above order, having removed the old ones, which was done in this manner;

34

four priests went in, two had in their hands the two rows (of bread), and two had in their hands two cups (of frankincense); four went before these, two to take away the two rows (of the old bread), and two to take away the two cups (of frankincense); and they that carried in stood in the north, and their faces to the south and they that brought out stood in the south, and their faces to the north; these drew away (the old bread) and they put them (the new), and the hand of the one was over against the hand of the other, as it is said, "before me continually", Exo_25:30 (h); that is, at the same time the hands of the one were employed in taking away, the hands of the other were employed in setting on; so that there was always bread upon the table: being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant; God requiring it of them, and they agreeing to give it, as they did, either in meal or in money; for this was at the expense of the community. ELLICOTT, " (8) Every sabbath he shall set it in order.—That is, Aaron is to carry out these instructions in the first instance, as we are told in Leviticus 24:3, and after him, or together with him, the priests are sacredly to attend to this duty every sabbath throughout the year. Of the manner in which the shewbread, or the “bread of His Presence,” was renewed every Sabbath during the second Temple, we have a minute account. “Four priests entered the holy place, two of them carried in their hands the two piles of the cakes, and two carried in their hands the two incense cups, four priests having gone in before them, two to take off the two old piles, and two to take off the two incense cups. Those who brought in the new stood at the north side with their faces to the south, and those who took away the old stood at the south side with their faces to the north. As soon as the one party lifted up the old, the others put down the new, so that their hands were exactly over against each other, because it is written, before my Presence continually” (Exodus 25:30). The authorities during the second Temple took the expression “continually” to denote that the cakes were not to be absent for one moment. Hence the simultaneous action of the two sets of priests, one lifting up the old, and the other at once putting down the new shewbread.Being taken from the children of Israel.—Like the daily sacrifices, the offerings for the congregation, the salt for the sacrifices, the wood for the altar, the incense, the omer (see Leviticus 23:10-11), the two wave-loaves (Leviticus 23:17), the scapegoat (Leviticus 16:5, &c.), the red heifer (Numbers 19:1-22), &c., the shewbread, or the “bread of His Presence,” according to the canon that obtained during the second Temple, were purchased with the people’s half-shekels, which every Israelite had to contribute annually toward the maintenance of the service in the sanctuary. (See Exodus 30:11-16.)BENSON, "Leviticus 24:8. Being taken from the children of Israel — At whose charge they were provided, Nehemiah 10:32; by an everlasting covenant — By a law which they had all agreed to observe, (Exodus 24:3,) and which was to continue as long as that dispensation remained.PETT, "Leviticus 24:8

35

“Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before Yahweh continually; it is on the behalf of the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant.”Again the continuity of time is emphasised. It is to be set before Yahweh every Sabbath day, it is set on behalf of the children of Israel, and it is for an everlasting covenant. It represents the oneness of Yahweh with His people in their lives in continuity and emphasises their covenant responsibility. The aim is a continual act of worship and that it will result in His provision of their needs as promised in the covenant, for ever. TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, [being taken] from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.Ver. 8. Every Sabbath.] So must the bread of life be every Sabbath at least set before the saints.

9 It belongs to Aaron and his sons, who are to eat it in the sanctuary area, because it is a most holy part of their perpetual share of the food offerings presented to the Lord.”

BARNES, "Lev_24:9See Lev_2:3 note. It could have been only by a stretch of the law that Ahimelech gave a portion of the showbread to David and his men, on the ground that they were free from ceremonial defilement. 1Sa_21:4-6; Mat_12:4.The showbread was a true meat-offering (see Exo_25:29). The special form in which it was offered, especially in its being brought into the tabernacle and in its consisting of twelve loaves, distinguish it as an offering made on behalf of the nation.

GILL, "And it shall be Aaron's and his sons',.... The twelve cakes of the old bread, when taken off the shewbread table; these were divided between the courses of the priests that carried in and brought out; and the high priest had half from each course, so that the half was for Aaron or the high priest, and the other half for his sons, or the priests that ministered (i):

36

and they shall eat it in the holy place; in the tabernacle or some court of it, and not in their own houses: it is said the shewbread was not eaten sooner than the ninth day, nor after the eleventh; how? it was baked on the evening of the sabbath, and it was eaten on the sabbath, the ninth day; if a feast day happened to be on the eve of the sabbath, it was eaten on the tenth; if the two feast days of the beginning of the year so fell, it was eaten on the eleventh day (k): the reason why it was only eaten in the holy place is: for it is most holy unto him; it was one of the most holy things, which were only to be eaten by males, and in the sanctuary not as the light holy things, which were eaten in the houses and families of the priests, and by their wives and daughters also: of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, by a perpetual statute; not that the bread was a burnt offering, but the frankincense upon it, or by it, and so having a connection with it, the whole is said to be an offering by fire: the one was given to the priests of the Lord to eat, and the other was consumed on the altar; and both were an offering to the Lord; and the frankincense being offered by fire unto the Lord, instead of the bread it was reckoned as if that was so offered. ELLICOTT, " (9) And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’.—In accordance with this statute, the twelve cakes were divided during the second Temple between the high priest and the officiating priests, the former had six, and the latter had six, among them.They shall eat it in the holy place.—Of the many things connected with the national service which became the perquisites of the priests, there were eight only which had to be consumed within the precincts of the sanctuary, and the shewbread is one of the eight, viz., (1) the remnant of the meat offering (Leviticus 2:3; Leviticus 2:10); (2) the flesh of the sin offering (Leviticus 6:26); (3) of the trespass offering (Leviticus 7:6); (4) the leper’s log of oil (Leviticus 14:10); (5) the remainder of the omer (Leviticus 23:10-11); (6) the peace offering of the congregation; (7) the two loaves (Leviticus 13:19-20); and (8) the shewbread.Of the offerings of the Lord made by fire.—That is, the former part of the offering, as the frankincense, which was the other part, was burnt as an offering to God.BENSON, "Leviticus 24:9. It (the old bread, now to be taken away) shall be Aaron’s — of the offerings made by fire — The frankincense and the bread were but one offering, and the frankincense being burned instead of the bread, hence the bread too is reckoned among the offerings made by fire.PETT, "Leviticus 24:9“And it shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy to him of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire by a perpetual statute.”And in the end, like all grain offerings, once the memorial has been offered by fire

37

to Yahweh, the remainder is for the priests as a most holy thing. It is indeed the most holy of the offerings made by fire to Yahweh. And this too is for a perpetual statute like the non-eating of fat and blood (Leviticus 3:17); the priesthood (Exodus 29:9); and the sprinkling of the water of purification for those who have been in contact with a dead human being (Numbers 19:21).So the stress with regard to the lampstand and the showbread is on their continual nature day by day and Sabbath by Sabbath before Yahweh, representing Yahweh’s presence with His people as their covenant God and His continual dealings with them over time as His covenant people, and His continual provision for them, into the far distant future. But both depend on His people’s response.But we who are more privileged enjoy a greater blessing. We walk in His light (1 John 1:7) because we have the light of life (John 8:12) and have His light continually in our hearts. We are the children of light (John 12:36). And we partake continually of Him as the Bread of Life (John 6:35).TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:9 And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it [is] most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute.Ver. 9. Made by fire.] The frankincense laid upon them, was.

A Blasphemer Put to Death10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite.

CLARKE, "The son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, etc. - This is a very obscure account, and is encumbered with many difficulties.

38

1. It seems strange that a person proceeding from such an illegal mixture should have been incorporated with the Israelites.2. What the cause of the strife between this mongrel person and the Israelitish man was is not even hinted at. The rabbins, it is true, supply in their way this deficiency; they say he was the son of the Egyptian whom Moses slew, and that attempting to pitch his tent among those of the tribe of Dan, to which he belonged by his mother’s side, Lev_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

vaiyihkob eth hashshem, he pierced through, distinguished, explained, or את השםexpressed 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 hashshem, The Name, in the place of it; but in this sense hashshem השם 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 Lev_24:16, and there the proper Hebrew term is used שם יהוה shem Yehovah, and not the rabbinical השם hashshem, as in Lev_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 Lev_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, Lev_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; Num_1:17; 1Ch_12:31; 1Ch_16:41; 1Ch_28:15; or, as the Persian translator has it, 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

39

signify using that sacred name as the idolaters did the names of their idols. On blaspheming God, and the nature of blasphemy, see the notes on Mat_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, etc., 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.

GILL, "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: 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).

HENRY, "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.

40

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.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.JAMISON, "the son of an Israelitish woman, etc. — 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.

K&D 10-12, “The account of the Punishment of a Blasphemer is introduced in the midst of the laws, less because “it brings out to view by a clear example the administration of the divine law in Israel, and also introduces and furnishes the reason for several important laws” (Baumgarten), than because the historical occurrence itself took place at the time when the laws relating to sanctification of life before the Lord were given, whilst the punishment denounced against the blasphemer exhibited in a practical form, as a warning to the whole nation, the sanctification of the Lord in the despisers of His name. The circumstances were the following: - The son of an Israelitish woman named Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan, and of an Egyptian whom the Israelitish woman had married, went out into the midst of the children of Israel, i.e., went out of his tent or place of encampment among the Israelites. As the son of an Egyptian, he belonged to the foreigners who had gone out with Israel (Exo_12:38), and who probably had their tents somewhere apart from those of the Israelites, who were encamped according to their tribes (Num_2:2). Having got into a quarrel with an Israelite, this man scoffed at the name (of Jehovah) and cursed. The cause of the quarrel is not given, and cannot be determined. ָנַקב: to bore, hollow out, then to sting, metaphorically to separate, fix (Gen_30:28), hence to designate (Num_1:17, etc.), and to prick in malam partem, to taunt, i.e., to blaspheme, curse, ָקַבב = Num_23:11, Num_

41

23:25, etc. That the word is used here in a bad sense, is evident from the expression “and cursed,” and from the whole context of Lev_24:15 and Lev_24:16. The Jews, on the other hand, have taken the word ָנַקב in this passage from time immemorial in the sense of ἐπονομάζειν (lxx), and founded upon it the well-known law, against even uttering the name Jehovah (see particularly Lev_24:16). “The name” κατ ̓ ἐξ. is the name “Jehovah” (cf. Lev_24:16), in which God manifested His nature. It was this passage that gave rise to the custom, so prevalent among the Rabbins, of using the expression “name,” or “the name,” for Dominus, or Deus (see Buxtorf, lex. talmud. pp. 2432ff.). The blasphemer was brought before Moses and then put into confinement, “to determine for them (such blasphemers) according to the mouth (command) of Jehovah.” ָּפַרׁש: to separate, distinguish, then to determine exactly, which is the sense both here and in Num_15:34, where it occurs in a similar connection.

CALVIN, "10.And the son of an Israelitish woman. In what year, and in what station in the desert this occurred, is uncertain. I have, therefore, thought it advisable to couple together two cases, which are not dissimilar. It is probable that between this instance of punishment, and that which will immediately follow, there was an interval of some time: but the connection of two similar occurrences seemed best to preserve the order of the history; one of the persons referred to having been stoned for profaning God’s sacred name by wicked blasphemy, and the other for despising and violating the Sabbath. It is to be observed that the crime of the former of these gave occasion to the promulgation of a law, which we have expounded elsewhere: (81) in accordance with the common proverb, Good laws spring from bad habits: for, after punishment had been inflicted on this blasphemer, Moses ordained that none should insult the name of God with impunity.It was providentially ordered by God that the earliest manifestation of this severity should affect the son of an Egyptian: for, inasmuch as God thus harshly avenged the insult of His name upon the offspring of a foreigner and a heathen, far less excusable was impiety in Israelites, whom God had, as it were, taken up from their mothers’ womb, and had brought them up in His own bosom. It is true, indeed, that on his mother’s side he had sprung from the chosen people, but, being begotten by an Egyptian father, he could not be properly accounted an Israelite. If, then, there had been any room for the exercise of pardon, a specious reason might have been alleged why forgiveness should be more readily extended to a man of an alien and impure origin. The majesty of God’s name, however, was ratified by his death. Hence it follows that it is by no means to be permitted that God’s name should be exposed with impunity to blasphemies among the sons of the Church.We may learn from this passage that during their tyrannical oppression many young women married into the Egyptian nation, in order that their affinity might protect their relatives from injuries. It might, however, have been the case that love for his wife attracted the father of this blasphemer into voluntary exile, unless, perhaps, his mother might have been a widow before the departure of the people, so

42

as to be at liberty to take her son with her.To proceed, he is said to have “gone out,” not outside the camp, but in public, so that he might be convicted by witnesses; for he would not have been brought to trial if his crime had been secretly committed within the walls of his own house. This circumstance is also worthy of remark, that, although the blasphemy had escaped him in a quarrel, punishment was still inflicted upon him; and assuredly it is a frivolous subterfuge to require that blasphemies should be pardoned on the ground that they have been uttered in anger; for nothing is more intolerable than that our wrath should vent itself upon God, when we are angry with one of our fellow-creatures. Still it is usual, when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked.The verb נקב, nakab, which some render to express, is here rather used for to curse, or to transfix; and the metaphor is an appropriate one, that God’s name should be said to be transfixed, when it is insultingly abused. (82) COFFMAN, ""And the sons 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 mother's 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 Jehovah.""Went out among the children of Israel ..." This identifies the woman and her son as part of the "mixed multitude" that went up with Moses out of Egypt. It may be surmised that the offender's father had chosen to remain in Egypt. The paganism of the father, however, was continued IN the son, and, alas, this is the tragic pattern that usually appears in the lives of Christian women who marry unbelievers. This must surely be one of the reasons God why commanded that "Believers should not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (whether men or women). "It is wrong for a believer to marry an unbeliever. God says that. I would never have known it was wrong unless God had said it (2 Corinthians 6:14)."[19]"(He) blasphemed the Name ..." The Hebrew word for "blasphemed" has a double meaning, and from this, one of the great tragedies of history developed. It can mean simply, pronounced;[20] and another meaning is "to revile,"[21] this being without any doubt the meaning of the word here. However, the translators of the Septuagint (LXX) made it mean "pronounced,"[22] thus initiating the superstition that it was sinful even to PRONOUNCE the sacred Name. The Jews accepted this superstitious reverence of the Name, refusing to pronounce it at all, and substituting for it the name [~'Adonay] (which means "Lord"). Scholars in these times suppose that "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" must have been the Sacred Name, but the simple truth is that the pronunciation is unknown. The Samaritans who did NOT follow that

43

superstition continued to pronounce the Name; from their usage, Meyrick concluded that the word was almost certainly [~Yahweh].[23]From the most ancient times, the nature of the reviling done by angry and sinful men has taken the form of slander directed against the victim's mother, or against his God. It was the latter pattern followed here.The reason for the appearance of this episode exactly here in the Mosaic narrative was in all probability due to this event's being "historical,"[24] being dealt with by Moses at the time it occurred. The reason the people did not know what to do with the offender derived from his being Egyptian. After the handling of his crime here, no one was ever able afterward to plead freedom from the penalties of Mosaic law on the basis of his being non-Israelite. Until this time, there had been uncertainty, and so they confined him until God Himself should decide the matter.Concerning the vice of profane swearing, which is blasphemy, it has only one source from which it could issue, that being a malignity in man's spirit against God Himself. It gratifies no lust, satisfies no appetite, and affords no profit of any kind whatever to those who indulge in it. It is a violation of the second Commandment of the Decalogue and was designated as a capital offense by God Himself. Men, of course, do not agree with this, but what else is new?COKE, "Verse 10-11Leviticus 24:10-11. The son of an Israelitish woman, &c.— Saurin observes, that this person was the son of one of those AEygptians, concerning whom Moses tells us, that a great number of them went out with the Israelites from the land of Egypt. Exodus 12:38. This man, who had married a woman of the tribe of Dan, named Shelomith, was, doubtless, a proselyte. He had taught his son the inclination towards a crime, which, if we may give credit to Porphyry, was very common among the Egyptians, who were great blasphemers. They demanded favours of their gods, threatening to punish them if they refused to grant what they asked. That this was the vice of the heathens in general, and chiefly of their heroes, their authors furnish us with numberless examples. Moses does not inform us wherein consisted the blasphemy of this unhappy person. The accounts which the Jews have given us of the controversy between Shelomith's son, and the man of Israel, are equally superstitious and absurd. Moses, with his usual conciseness, only tells us, that, striving with an Israelite, this person blasphemed the name of JEHOVAH, and cursed: this, therefore, is all that we are allowed to affirm of the matter. At this news, all the people were struck with horror: even Moses himself was at a loss how to behave; he found it necessary to secure the man, while he consulted God in a case which had never occurred, and upon which nothing had been yet decided. The remark respecting the words [of the Lord, or of Jehovah] being omitted in the Hebrew, and the consequences which are drawn, by the Jews especially, from it, are plainly of no importance, as those words are added, in the 16th verse. The word נקבnokeb; which we render blaspheme, signifies to pierce, or wound, in a metaphorical

44

sense, as with the tongue; and so to blaspheme, curse, &c. See Parkhurst. The malignity of this crime does not consist in any real injury which it does to God; for His throne is secure against all insults from the most audacious of his creatures: if all the curses which their hellish rage can invent had their utmost accomplishment, His happiness would remain undisturbed: Thy wickedness may hurt a man; but let thy transgressions be multiplied, what dost thou unto him?—But blasphemy is an indication of a mind mad with impiety: it strikes at the root of all religion, which is the basis of society, and which principally distinguishes men from brutes; and therefore crimes of this kind undoubtedly fall within the cognizance of the civil magistrate, who is the guardian of the peace and security of society.His mother's name was Shelomith— Most interpreters think that Moses relates the name and family of the mother of this criminal, to hint indirectly how dangerous are marriages contracted between infidels or idolaters, and true believers. But could we give no reason for this particular, it is easy to observe, that the specification of the name and family of the mother would be convincing of the truth of the fact. ELLICOTT, " (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 (Exodus 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 (Exodus 2:11) for the injuries he had thus inflicted both upon the Hebrew and his wife, and that the culprit before us is the issue of the outraged Shelomith by the slain Egyptian. This will explain the rendering here of the ancient Chaldee version, “A wicked man, a rebel against the God of heaven, had come out of Egypt, the son of the Egyptian who slew an Israelite in Egypt, and outraged his wife, who conceived, and brought forth this son among the children of Israel.”Went out among the children of Israel.—Better, he went out into the midst, &c. This shows that he lived outside the camp and came where he had no right to be.This son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together.—The cause and the manner of their quarrel or contention are not given. But. according to tradition, the “man of Israel” was a Danite, and, as we are told in the next verse, his mother was of the tribe of Dan, this semi-Egyptian contended with this Danite that he had a right from the side of his mother to encamp among the children of Dan, whilst the Danite disputed this, maintaining that a son could only pitch his tent by the standard of his father’s name (Numbers 2:2). This contention, moreover, took

45

place before the rulers who tried the case (Exodus 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.”EBC, "THE PENALTY OF BLASPHEMYLeviticus 24:10-23"And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed: and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in ward, that it might be declared unto them at the mouth of the Lord. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as the homehorn, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord. shall be put to death. And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death; and he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered unto him. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good: and he that killeth a man shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the homeborn: for I am the Lord your God. And Moses spake to the children of Israel, and they brought forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. And the children of Israel did all the Lord commanded Moses."The connection of this section with the preceding context is now impossible to determine. Very possibly its insertion here may be due to the occurrence here described having taken place at the time of the delivery of the preceding laws concerning the oil for the golden lampstand and the shew bread. However, the purport and intention of the narrative is very plain, namely, to record the law delivered by the Lord for the punishment of blasphemy; and therewith also His command that the penalty of broken law, both in this case and in others specified, should be exacted both from native Israelites and from foreigners alike.The incident which was the occasion of the promulgation of these laws was as

46

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 Leviticus 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 man’s redemption. Horrified at the man’s wickedness, "they brought him unto Moses"; and "they put him inward" (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 24:15), "Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin," i.e., he shall be held subject to punishment; and (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 24:17-21) a declaration of penalties for murder, for killing a neighbour’s beast, and for inflicting a bodily injury on one’s 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; {Exodus 21:12; Exodus

47

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 (Leviticus 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. {Matthew 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 {Numbers 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, {John 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; {Romans 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 (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 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 God’s sight of all irreverent use of His holy name. To a great extent in earlier days this was recognised by Christian governments; and

48

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.BENSON, "Leviticus 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, Exodus 12:32. It is probable this was done when the Israelites were near Sinai.PETT, "Verses 10-14Blasphemy Against The Name (Leviticus 24:10-14).

49

In the midst of all the ritual instructions in the first part of the book came the practical example as a warning of the sons of Aaron who offered strange fire before Yahweh. It was a warning that the ritual must be carried out meticulously. Now here in the second part of the book, which concentrates more on the practical expression of the covenant and its moral demands as associated closely with the name of Yahweh (we have noted the continual stress on ‘I am Yahweh’ in Leviticus 18-22), comes a practical example of the danger of blaspheming the Name. God’s instructions are not to be taken lightly.Leviticus 24:10-11‘And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp, and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him to Moses. And his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.’An incident takes place in which a man ‘blasphemes the Name and curses’. His father was an Egyptian and his mother a true-born Israelite whose genealogy can be traced. These were the facts. However the Egyptian had no doubt become a partaker in the covenant (Exodus 24) and identified himself with a tribe, probably the tribe of Dan, as had all the ‘mixed multitude’ which had come out of Egypt. The description is not derogatory but because the man had no antecedents in the tribe. The contempt is revealed in the failure to give the name of either the son or the father. The son has made himself a nonentity and an outcast whose name was not to be mentioned. But the mention of ‘an Egyptian’ would have the underlying significance that this was something that harked back to the influence of Egypt.The incident was merely a brawl between this man and an Israelite, but the crime lay in the blasphemy against the Name. It would appear that he cursed Yahweh in disobedience against the third commandment (Exodus 20:7). TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father [was] an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;Ver. 10. Whose father was an Egyptian.] His mother taught him to speak, his father to blaspheme.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. ”PULPIT, "The reason why the narrative of the blasphemer's death (Leviticus

50

24:10-23) is introduced in its present connection, is simply that it took place at the point of time which followed the promulgation of the last law. It serves, however, to vindicate by a memorable example the principle which is at the foundation of every Mosaic law. "I am the Lord" is the often-repeated sanction, whether of a moral law or of a ceremonial regulation. But this bastard Israelite, one of the mixed multitude that had followed in the flight from Egypt (Exodus 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.Leviticus 24:10-16, “Blasphemed the name of the Lord.Blaspheming against God’s 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 Israel’s 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 speaker’s own heart, but aims at awakening in his hearer’s 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 God’s 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

51

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 blasphemerI. 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 blasphemerI. 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 father’s heart) shot his arrows at God and cursed himself. Cursing men are cursed

52

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

53

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 god’s 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 profanityThere 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

54

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 blacksmith’s shop during a violent thunderstorm. There came a crash of thunder and some of the men trembled. One man said, “Why, I don’t 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 God’s remembrance. (T. De Witt Talmage.).

The son of an Israelitish woman. This is the only place where the adjective Israelitish is found; and the word "Israelite" only occurs in 2 Samuel 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 (Deuteronomy 23:8), the descendant of an Egyptian could not be admitted till the third generation. He seems to have committed two offenses which led up to his great crime. First, he went out among the children of Israel, that is, he did not confine himself to his own part of the encampment, where the mixed multitude lived, but he intruded into the part set aside for pure Israelites; and next, having thus put himself already in the wrong, this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. According to Jewish tradition, the cause of quarrel was a claim set up by the Egypto-Israelite to encamp in the Danite quarters, on the ground that his mother was a Danite—a claim which he insisted on enforcing, although the judges gave a decision against him.

11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.)

55

GILL, "And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed,.... As they were striving together, or when the trial was over, he being cast, fell into outrageous blasphemies against God, who made such laws for the civil polity of Israel, and cursed the judges that had given sentence against him; so the Targum of Jonathan; and so the Jews generally understand by the "name" blasphemed, the name Jehovah, which he spake out plainly, and which, they say, is ineffable, and ought not to be pronounced but by the high priest in the sanctuary; but this man expressed it in its proper sound, and made use of it to curse the man that strove with him, or the judge that judged him; so it is said in the Misnah (d),"a blasphemer is not guilty until he expresses the name;''but it undoubtedly means blaspheming God himself, by whatsoever name: and they brought him unto Moses; having heard his blasphemy, to charge him with it before him, or in order to have due punishment inflicted on him: as to the matter of contest between him and the Israelite, that had been decided in a lesser court of judicature, such an one as had been set up by the advice of Jethro; but though there was full proof of his blasphemy and cursing, which, perhaps, were expressed in open court; they might not know what punishment to inflict upon him for so horrid a crime, of which, perhaps, they had never had an instance before, and therefore sent him to Moses, to whom the hearing and decision of weighty matters belonged; see Exo_18:22, and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan; which is observed, as it should seem, to show in what tribe this affair happened, and what the quarrel was first about, even a place and rank in this tribe.

HENRY 11-14, "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 56

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 (2Ch_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.”JAMISON, "And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the

Lord — A youth of this half-blood, having quarreled with an Israelite [Lev_24:10], vented his rage in some horrid form of impiety. It was a common practice among the Egyptians to curse their idols when disappointed in obtaining the object of their petitions. The Egyptian mind of this youth thought the greatest insult to his opponent was to blaspheme the object of his religious reverence. He spoke disrespectfully of One who sustained the double character of the King as well as the God of the Hebrew people; as the offense was a new one, he was put in ward till the mind of the Lord was ascertained as to his disposal.ELLICOTT, " (11) Blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed.—Better, cursed the Name and reviled. In accordance with the above interpretation, this happened after sentence was given against him, and when they had left the court. Being vexed with the Divine enactments which excluded him from encamping in the tribe of his mother, he both cursed God who gave such law, and reviled the judges who pronounced judgment against him. The expression, “the Name,” which in after times was commonly used instead of the Ineffable Jehovah, has been substituted here for the Tetragrammaton by a transcriber who out of reverence would not

57

combine cursing with it. The same shyness on the part of copyists has been the cause of inserting the word Lord (Adonaî) and God (Elohîm) for Jehovah in sundry passages of the Old Testament. During the second Temple, however, this passage was rendered, “he pronounced the Name and cursed.” Hence it was enacted that the simple pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was criminal. In accordance with the ancient interpretation, the Chaldee version translates this part of the verse, “And when they came out of the house of judgment, having been condemned, the son of the Israelitish woman pronounced and reviled the great and glorious name of manifestation which had been heard on Sinai, and he was defiant and annoying.”And they brought him unto Moses.—The contention about his right to pitch his tent among the tribe to which his mother belonged being a minor point, came within the jurisdiction of the rulers, according to the advice of Jethro (Exodus 18:22); whilst blaspheming God was considered too serious an offence, and hence the criminal was brought to Moses.And his mother’s name was Shelomith.—Whether we accept the traditional explanation, that Shelomith was no consenting party to her union with the Egyptian, or whether we regard her as having voluntarily married him, the fact that both her personal and tribal names are here so distinctly specified, indicates that the record of this incident is designed to point out the ungodly issue of so unholy an alliance, and to guard the Hebrew women against intermarriage with heathen.BENSON, "Leviticus 24:11. The name of the Lord — The words of the Lord, or of Jehovah, are supplied out of Leviticus 24:16, where they are expressed; here they are omitted, perhaps for the aggravation of his crime. He blasphemed the name — So called by way of eminence; that name which is above every name; that name which a man should in some sort tremble to mention; which is not to be named without cause, or without reverence. And cursed — Not the Israelite only, but his God also, as appears from Leviticus 24:15-16. And they brought him — Either the people who heard him, or the inferior magistrate, to whom he was first brought.TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:11 And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name [of the LORD], and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother’s name [was] Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:)Ver. 11. Blasphemed the name, &c.] Heb., Bored it through; gored it; pierced it; as did those Syrians, slain by the fall of the wall of Aphek; Rabshakeh that dead dog; [Isaiah 36:4-6] Julian the apostate, Chosroes the Persian, the raging Turk at the siege of Scodra; (a) that foul mouthed Papist that dared say, The God of the Protestants is worse than Pan, god of clowns, which can endure no ceremonies nor good manners at all. (b) To these add Paul Best, who hath lately published blasphemous verses against the Trinity. See the "London Ministers’ Testimonial to the Truth of Jesus Christ." PULPIT, "Leviticus 24:11

58

In the course of the straggle the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. The word nakav is here rightly translated blasphemeth (cf. Leviticus 24:14, Leviticus 24:16, Leviticus 24:23), but the words of the Lord should be omitted, as they are not found in the original, and are not required. The LXX. have rendered nakav by a word meaning pronounced, and on this misunderstanding, adopted by the Jews, has been founded the Jewish precept forbidding the utterance of the Divine Name. Owing to that prohibition, the true pronunciation of the word written and called "Jehovah" has been lost. Wherever the Name occurred in Scripture, that of Adonai, meaning Lord, was substituted for it in public reading, the consonants only of the original name, Y H V H, being preserved in the written text, and the vowels of Adonai, namely a o a, being written underneath them in lieu of the original vowels. From the consonants Y H V H and the vowels a o a would be formed Yahovah or Jahovah, but the laws of the Hebrew language required the first a to be changed into e, and hence the name Jehovah. It is almost certain that the original vowels were a and e, which would form the name Yahveh, the Samaritans having always so pronounced it, according to the testimony of Theodoret. It is said that the high priest continued to utter the very name Yahveh on the Day of Atonement long after it had ceased to be used in the reading of the Scriptures, and that when he did so, those who heard it prostrated themselves, saying, "Blessed be the Name!" After a time, however, he ceased to pronounce it aloud on that day also, lest it should be learnt and used for magical purposes. In consequence, perhaps, of the substitution of Adonai for Yahveh, the Septuagint version always reads for Yahveh, κύριος: and the English version the LORD. In French and other versions the name is represented by the Eternal, and it has been proposed to substitute the latter rendering for the Loud in our own version. But it is more than doubtful whether we should then come nearer to the true sense of the original Yahveh, although at first sight it appears that this would be the case. For the word Yahveh is part of the causative form of the verb havah, or hayah, to be; but this verb is not used to express unchangeable or absolute existence, but rather an occurrence: its causative form, therefore, would signify that which brings about events; and the substantive derived from that causative form would signify, not one that eternally exists, but one that providentially governs. For an induction of instances for the further proof of the above meaning of the word Yahveh, we refer the reader to Sir William Martin's essay 'On the Divine Name' ('Semitic Languages,' part 2), from which we transcribe the concluding paragraph. "This view of the Divine Name, to which we are led by the evidence of the Hebrew language itself, is in full conformity with the general religious teaching of the Old Testament, which is practical and moral; setting forth in form readily intelligible, the character of God in his relations to man. It does not concern itself with those problems which philosophy has ever been seeking to solve. It addresses itself to human needs and human duties, and not to abstract inquiries. Not that the highest abstract truths were unknown or untaught. Lawgiver and prophet and psalmist set before the people the greatness and the eternity of God in language most clear and impressive. Yet the Name whereby he was put before them as the object of their daily worship, was not one which would exalt him to the utmost above the frail and

59

changeful and transitory lives of his worshippers, and thereby remove him far away from them into the height of a Being beyond man's search or comprehension; but rather a Name which should bring him nigh to them, as One ever mindful of them, ever carrying forward his great purpose for their good, working for their deliverance in every time of need; as One 'whose providence ordereth all things in heaven and on earth.' If this Name did convey to the mind of a Hebrew hearer the thought above expressed, it follows that the old rendering Adonai, κύριος, or Lord, is to be preferred to that which has of late been substituted for it." And they brought the blasphemer unto Moses. This was in accordance with the counsel of Jethro, accepted by Moses (Exodus 18:13-26): "Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: and let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge:… and they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves."

12 They put him in custody until the will of the Lord should be made clear to them.

BARNES, "The offender may already have been pronounced guilty by the rulers (see Exo_18:21-22), and the case was referred to Moses in order that the punishment might be awarded by the divine decree. No law had as yet been enacted against blasphemy except by implication. See Exo_21:17; Exo_22:28.

GILL, "And they put him in ward,.... In some prison, a place known in the camp, as Aben Ezra observes: that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them; for, though this was a breach of the third command, in which God declares he would not hold such an one guiltless, Exo_20:7; yet no particular punishment being expressed, it was not a clear case whether the Lord would punish for it himself, by an immediate stroke of his hand, or whether by the civil magistrate; and if by the latter, in what manner; for though it might be concluded, without any hesitation, that he was worthy of death, since cursing father or mother was death, Exo_21:17; and much more blaspheming God, yet what death to put him to they might be at a loss about; or if that was understood of stoning, they might

60

think this deserved a sorer punishment, and therefore consulted God about it.ELLICOTT, " (12) And they put him in ward.—That is, to keep him in safe custody till he had been tried. In the Mosaic legislation confinement in a prison for a certain period as a punishment for an offence is nowhere enacted.That the mind of the Lord might be shewed them.—Better, that he might direct them according to the command of the Lord, as the Authorised Version renders this phrase in Exodus 17:1, Numbers 4:37; Numbers 4:41; Numbers 4:49, &c. Though this was a transgression of the third commandment, and though it was ordained that he who cursed his earthly parent should be put to death (see Leviticus 20:9), yet no law existed as to the exact punishment which was to be inflicted upon him who cursed his heavenly Father (see Exodus 22:28); nor was it known whether such an offender should be left to God Himself to execute the sentence. For this reason the criminal was detained till Moses had appealed to the Lord for instruction, in order that he might direct the people accordingly. Similar instances of Moses appealing direct to the Lord for guidance in matters of law and judgment we have in Numbers 15:34; Numbers 28:1-5.PETT, "Leviticus 24:12‘And they put him in ward, that it might be declared to them at the mouth of Yahweh.’As it was the first time that this had happened he was kept under guard until they could discover from Yahweh what should be done with him. TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.Ver. 12. That the mind.] God had not yet made a particular law against blasphemy. Solon made no law against parricide, Lycurgus none against ingratitude; because they thought no such offence would be committed.PULPIT. "Leviticus 24:12And they put him in ward. The same course was followed in the case of the man found gathering sticks upon the sabbath day: "And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him" (Numbers 15:34). The same penalty was awarded in both cases.

13 Then the Lord said to Moses: 61

GILL, "And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... From off the mercy seat in the holy of holies, where he had promised to meet him and commune with him about anything he should inquire of him, as he did at this time:

K&D 13-16, “Jehovah ordered the blasphemer to be taken out of the camp, and the witnesses to lay their hands upon his head, and the whole congregation to stone him; and published at the same time the general law, that whoever cursed his God should bear (i.e., atone for) his sin (cf. Exo_22:27), and whoever blasphemed the name of Jehovah should be stoned, the native as well as the foreigner. By laying (resting, cf. Lev_1:4) their hands upon the head of the blasphemer, the hearers or witnesses were to throw off from themselves the blasphemy which they had heard, and return it upon the head of the blasphemer, for him to expiate. The washing of hands in Deu_21:6 is analogous; but the reference made by Knobel to Deu_17:7, where the witnesses are commanded to turn their hand against an idolater who had been condemned to death, i.e., to stone him, is out of place.

CALVIN, "10.And the son of an Israelitish woman. In what year, and in what station in the desert this occurred, is uncertain. I have, therefore, thought it advisable to couple together two cases, which are not dissimilar. It is probable that between this instance of punishment, and that which will immediately follow, there was an interval of some time: but the connection of two similar occurrences seemed best to preserve the order of the history; one of the persons referred to having been stoned for profaning God’s sacred name by wicked blasphemy, and the other for despising and violating the Sabbath. It is to be observed that the crime of the former of these gave occasion to the promulgation of a law, which we have expounded elsewhere: (81) in accordance with the common proverb, Good laws spring from bad habits: for, after punishment had been inflicted on this blasphemer, Moses ordained that none should insult the name of God with impunity.It was providentially ordered by God that the earliest manifestation of this severity should affect the son of an Egyptian: for, inasmuch as God thus harshly avenged the insult of His name upon the offspring of a foreigner and a heathen, far less excusable was impiety in Israelites, whom God had, as it were, taken up from their mothers’ womb, and had brought them up in His own bosom. It is true, indeed, that on his mother’s side he had sprung from the chosen people, but, being begotten by an Egyptian father, he could not be properly accounted an Israelite. If, then, there had been any room for the exercise of pardon, a specious reason might have been alleged why forgiveness should be more readily extended to a man of an alien and impure origin. The majesty of God’s name, however, was ratified by his death. Hence it follows that it is by no means to be permitted that God’s name should be exposed with impunity to blasphemies among the sons of the Church.

62

We may learn from this passage that during their tyrannical oppression many young women married into the Egyptian nation, in order that their affinity might protect their relatives from injuries. It might, however, have been the case that love for his wife attracted the father of this blasphemer into voluntary exile, unless, perhaps, his mother might have been a widow before the departure of the people, so as to be at liberty to take her son with her.To proceed, he is said to have “gone out,” not outside the camp, but in public, so that he might be convicted by witnesses; for he would not have been brought to trial if his crime had been secretly committed within the walls of his own house. This circumstance is also worthy of remark, that, although the blasphemy had escaped him in a quarrel, punishment was still inflicted upon him; and assuredly it is a frivolous subterfuge to require that blasphemies should be pardoned on the ground that they have been uttered in anger; for nothing is more intolerable than that our wrath should vent itself upon God, when we are angry with one of our fellow-creatures. Still it is usual, when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked.The verb נקב, nakab, which some render to express, is here rather used for to curse, or to transfix; and the metaphor is an appropriate one, that God’s name should be said to be transfixed, when it is insultingly abused. (82) COFFMAN, ""And Jehovah 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 Jehovah, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the sojourner, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, shall be put to death."God's concern here was to remove a spot of deadly infection from the body of the Chosen People. Harford called it a "purgative" action.[25] If not eradicated, a cancerous condition of the kind associated with profane cursing would indeed have destroyed the whole nation. Men are no longer much concerned about such things, but the growth of the cancer has already corrupted a major portion of our present society."As well the sojourner, as the home-born ..." This event therefore became the occasion of making all who dwelt with Israel to be subject to the laws of Israel regardless of their parentage or national origin. This was also the occasion of the promulgation of the "Lex Talionis", the Law of Retaliation so much criticized by Biblical enemies who fail to see the hand of God in it.ELLICOTT, "(13) And the Lord spake unto Moses.—In none of these instances, however, is it stated how and where Moses made this appeal to God, whether he

63

inquired by means of the Urim and Thummim, or otherwise. As God promised to reveal His will to Moses from the mercy-seat between the cherubim (Exodus 25:22), it is probable that the lawgiver received the Divine directions in the sanctuary.PETT, "Leviticus 24:13-14‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, “Bring forth him who has cursed outside the camp; and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.”Moses approaches Yahweh about what should be done and Yahweh gives His verdict. It is given in such a way that the man’s crime is compared and contrasted with what are seen as the worst sins of men, harm against the person.In it He commands that the man was to be brought outside the camp, identified with the laying on of hands by those who had heard him, and then stoned by the whole congregation. This latter would mean that the whole congregation was gathered together for the judgment and execution, while some of their representatives actually hurled the stones on their behalf. The point is that all are a part of the execution.One reason for the method of execution was probably so that the man would not need to be touched once the execution began. The man could be buried under the cairn of stones. But it may be significant that he was not burned with fire. This may have been because he could not be devoted to Yahweh because of his crime.PULPIT, "Leviticus 24:13, Leviticus 24:14Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp;—lest the camp should become polluted by his death—and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head. The ceremony of laying on of hands in all cases set apart the person or thing on whom or on which they were laid for some special purpose. Its further signification was determined by the particular circumstances of the case. Here it probably returned back on the head of the blasphemer the guilt which otherwise would have adhered to the witnesses from the fact of their hearing his blasphemy, and appearing to acquiesce in it.

14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his 64

head, and the entire assembly is to stone him.

BARNES, "Lay their hands upon his head - As a protest against the impiety of the criminal, symbolically laying the guilt upon his head. Compare the washing of hands, Deu_21:6; Mat_27:24.

Let all the congregation stone him - See Lev_20:2 note.

CLARKE, "Lay their hands upon his head - It was by this ceremony that the people who heard him curse bore their public testimony in order to his being fully convicted, for without this his punishment would not have been lawful. By this ceremony also they in effect said to the man, Thy blood be upon thy own head.

GILL, "Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp,.... To show that he had no part nor lot in Israel, and that he was unworthy to be a member of their civil community, or of their church state; and, besides, the place of stoning, or where malefactors suffered any kind of death, was without the camp, as afterwards without the city, see Heb_13:12, let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head; the Targum of Jonathan adds,"and the judges;''so Jarchi remarks, that they that "heard him" are the witnesses, and the word "all" comprehends the judges: Maimonides says (e) the same, and observes that hands were laid on no malefactor but the blasphemer; and this was done to show that the one had bore a faithful testimony, and the other had pronounced a righteous sentence on him; and that he had brought this guilt and punishment upon himself by his sin; wherefore it was usual for them to say, as the same writers observe,"thy blood be upon thine own head, and we not punished for thy death, which thou hast been the cause of to thyself:" and let all the congregation stone him; which Aben Ezra interprets of the great men of Israel; nor can it be thought that every individual of the people could cast a stone at him, but it was to be done by some of them, in the presence of them all, or as many as could conveniently get together to behold it; and this was done to show their detestation of the sin, and to deter from the commission of it: it was the same kind of punishment that was ordered to be inflicted on him that cursed his father or mother, Lev_20:9; God, the God of mercy, requiring no sorer punishment, though it deterred a greater, for such a sin against himself, than against a common parent.

JAMISON, "Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp — All executions took place without the camp; and this arrangement probably originated in the idea that, as the Israelites were to be “a holy people” [Deu_7:6; Deu_14:2, Deu_

65

14:21; Deu_26:19; Deu_28:9], all flagrant offenders should be thrust out of their society.let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, etc. — The imposition of hands formed a public and solemn testimony against the crime, and at the same time made the punishment legal.

COKE, "Leviticus 24:14. Bring forth him that hath cursed, without the camp, &c.— 1st, This was the custom in relation to accursed persons, and such as devoted themselves to destruction. Thus it was that Joshua took Achan—and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had; and they brought them to the valley of Achor. 2nd, Let all that heard him, lay their hands upon his head—This was the practice afterwards of such as gave their evidence against a blasphemer. He was treated as an expiatory victim, which was loaded with the crimes for which it was to be sacrificed; and they said to the unhappy man, let thy blood be upon thy head: it is thou thyself who, by thy blasphemy, hast brought this evil upon thee. Maimonides says, that this ceremony was practised only in the case of those who were guilty of this very crime: but he is mistaken; for history furnishes us with instances to the contrary: witness those perfidious elders who attempted the chastity of Susanna, and accused her of the crime which they themselves would have committed. (See Susan. i. 34.) It is related that they brought her out before the people, and in their presence laid their hands upon the innocent woman, in order to accuse her as a criminal. Finally, Moses commanded the whole congregation to stone the son of Shelomith; and that for ever after every one should cast a stone at blasphemers, to testify that he felt himself wounded with the blow which those impious persons levelled at the Deity. The law which God enacted on this head was not one of those political laws which restrained the Jews only, it had in it the nature of a moral law obligatory on all men. The emperor Justinian condemned blasphemers to death: others bored their tongues through with a hot iron, and others caused them to be drowned. Lewis the VIIIth of France branded them in the forehead; that this mark of infamy might be a warning for every one to avoid correspondence with so scandalous a person. Though this discourse, continues Mr. Saurin, is less calculated to declaim against the manners of our own, than to illustrate the events of past ages, yet we cannot forbear deploring the disorders of Christians upon this head; the heinousness of blasphemy, and the criminal indulgencies of those who are witnesses thereof. We see—men shall I call them, or wild beasts?—who cannot be moved with the least passion but they must shew it externally, vomiting out the most execrable oaths against the Divine Majesty! Some, desirous of shining in the world, and not capable of drawing a sufficient stock for that purpose from their own genius, call in blasphemy to their aid: they fancy an oath, well mouthed, enlivens conversation; and, judging of others by themselves, conceive this kind of elocution irresistible. Vile elocution! which every true Christian must detest. It is not a less crime, says St. Augustin, [perhaps a little too strongly,] to blaspheme the glorified Jesus, than it was to crucify him when on earth. Let every Christian, especially all those whom God has intrusted with the sword of justice, seriously consider how far they are bound by this law, which proceeded

66

from the mouth of God himself—Bring forth him who 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 let every one who curseth his God, bear his sin, Leviticus 24:15.REFLECTIONS.—This is the first capital grime and execution since the giving of the law. The offence was blasphemy. Note; (1.) When an Israelitish woman marries an Egyptian, or a Christian an unbeliever, no wonder the children turn after the worst side. It should seem he wanted to dwell among the Danites, because his mother was of that tribe; and, when opposed by one of the tribe, brought his cause before the judges, and was cast: in indignation and wrath against which decision he blasphemed. Anger and blasphemy are usually allied, and both are heinous sins. If we would avoid the one, we should suppress the other. Hereupon the matter is brought before Moses, that, in a case of such importance, they might be directed how to proceed according to the mind of God. When life or death are at stake, judges need much deliberation, and humbly look up to God for wisdom to judge aright, knowing that, at his bar, they must give account. God commands immediate execution to be done upon him. He is to be dragged out of the camp, as a profanation to it; and all the congregation must stone him, to testify their abhorrence of his sin, when the witnesses had laid their hands on his head, as free from his blood. Note; Blasphemers are now so common, that stones would almost be wanting to cast at them; but though they find impunity for a moment, there is a judgment near when they shall die a more terrible death, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. The execution of this offender produces a standing law for the future punishment of the like crime. It must in no case be dispensed with; and even a stranger living among them is as liable to the same penalty as the Israelite born. God is a jealous God, and will in no wise spare the blasphemer; and when we hear such dreadful language, we should tremble for those who have no fear for themselves.ELLICOTT, " (14) Bring forth him that hath cursed.—The sentence which God now passes upon the blasphemer is that he should be conducted from prison outside the camp, where all unclean persons had to abide (Numbers 5:2-3), and where malefactors were executed (Hebrews 13:12-13).Let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head.—That is, the witnesses who heard him blaspheme, and upon whose evidence he was convicted, and the judges who found him guilty, are to lay their hands upon the criminal’s head. Hence the Chaldee version translates it, “Let the witnesses who heard his blasphemy and the judges lay their hands upon his head.” This imposition of hands upon a criminal was peculiar to the blasphemer who was sentenced to death, and according to the Jewish canonists, the witnesses and the judges thereby declared that the testimony and the sentence were faithful and righteous, and at the same time uttered the solemn words, “Let thy blood be upon thine own head; thou hast brought this upon thyself.”

67

Let all the congregation stone him.—The witnesses, who are the representatives of the people, cast the first stone, and then all the people who stood by covered the convict with stones. (See Leviticus 20:2.)BENSON, "Leviticus 24:14. Lay their hands upon his head — Whereby they gave public testimony that they heard this person speak such words, and did in their own and all the people’s names demand justice to be executed upon him, that by this sacrifice God might be appeased, and his judgments turned away from the people, upon whom they would certainly fall if he were unpunished. Stone him — The same punishment which was before appointed for those who cursed their parents.TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.Ver. 14. And let all that heard him.] The Jews at this day abhor the blasphemies of Christians, so openly and ordinarily darted up with hellish mouths against God. The Turks punish their prisoners sorely, when as, through impatience or desperateness, they break out into them. (a)

15 Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible;

CLARKE, "Whosoever curseth his God - yekallel Elohaiv, he who יקלל אלהיוmakes light of him, who does not treat him and sacred things with due reverence, shall bear his sin - shall have the guilt of this transgression imputed to him, and may expect the punishment.

GILL, "And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel,.... On this occasion, and gave them some laws and rules concerning the above affair, and other things: saying, whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin; which some understand of anyone of another nation, that cursed the God he used to serve in his own country; but it can hardly be thought that a law should be made by the one only living and true God, to preserve the honour and credit of false gods, when he is so jealous of his own glory; and

68

those are spoken of in Scripture with the greatest contempt, as dunghill deities, and are actually cursed, Jer_10:11; but they are rather to be interpreted of judges and all civil magistrates, who, as Aben Ezra observes, are sometimes called Elohim or gods, Psa_82:1; and the rather, as it is probable this man had cursed his judges, and so this is a distinct sin from what follows; and not only the manner of expressing it, but the punishment of it, seem to be different; for the phrase, "to bear his sin", is used where the punishment is not expressly declared, and is by Jarchi and others interpreted of cutting off from his people, but in what way is not certain; whereas the punishment of a blasphemer of God is before and after clearly expressed; see Lev_20:19.HENRY 15-16, "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.CALVIN, "15.And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Hence it now more clearly appears that the object of the Third Commandment was that God’s holy name should be honored with the respect and veneration which it deserves, since the insult whereby it is violated is condemned to capital punishment. By the expression “cursing,” Moses designates all profane and impure words which tend to brand it with dishonor; as if any one should accuse God either of injustice or cruelty; or should assail Him with blasphemies; or designedly detract from His glory either in anger or wantonness, since many, when exasperated, launch forth horrible blasphemies, whilst others make a parade of their audacity by scoffing at Him. The second verb, which is twice repeated in the next verse, נקב, nakab, (328) means in Hebrew to hollow out or perforate, and metaphorically to unfold, thus the Latins say that what is thoroughly brought out is “enucleated.” The source of the metaphor as applied to contumely is not very dissimilar. The translation “he who shall have expressed,” which some give, is lame; to me the word “transfix” seems to be very suitable in the present passage, nor are the Latin phrases proscindere or lacerate very different. As to the meaning there is tolerable agreement, i.e., that God would not have His holy name disrespectfully traduced; and assuredly it is insupportably impious when the tongue of mortal man, which was created to celebrate the praises

69

of God, is employed in insulting Him. The kind of death is also appointed, when He commands the offender to be stoned by the whole people, so that all may learn from the sight that such a monster should be annihilated as contaminating the earth. God also would prove the zeal of His people, by calling them all forth in defense of His glory, and arming them for vengeance. Moreover, He did not subject to this punishment the Jews only, who professed to be His worshippers, but also strangers who were dwelling in the land in the exercise of their business; viz., that they might more severely punish the crime in His own servants who were less excusable. ELLICOTT, "(15) Whosoever curseth his God.—As Moses had to appeal to God for direction, the Lord has not only declared what should be done with this particular offender, but lays down a general law for the punishment of blasphemers. As the criminal who is the immediate occasion of this enactment is an Egyptian, directions are given, in the first place, about the treatment of Gentiles who temporarily sojourn among the Hebrews, and who have not as yet renounced their faith in their own God. If such a Gentile curses his own God in whom he still professes to believe, he shall bear his sin; he must suffer the punishment for his sin from the hands of his co-religionists, whose feelings he has outraged. The Israelites are not to interfere to save him from the consequence of his guilt; for a heathen who reviles the god in whom he believes is not to be trusted in other respects, and sets a bad example to others, who might be led to imitate his conduct.BENSON, "Verse 15-16Leviticus 24:15-16. Whosoever curseth his God — Speaketh of him reproachfully. Shall bear his sin — That is, the punishment of it; shall not go unpunished, He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord — This is a repetition of the same sin in other words, which is common. As this law is laid down in general terms, Leviticus 24:15, so both the sin and the punishment are particularly expressed, Leviticus 24:16. All the congregation — To show their zeal for God, and to beget in them the greater dread and abhorrence of blasphemy.PETT, "Verses 15-23Instructions Arising From The Incident (Leviticus 24:15-23).The incident, and the execution, followed by these instructions, are intended to bring out the sacredness of life and the awfulness of the crime. It was true that life was sacred, but for one who had cursed or blasphemed God, or who took human life, it was forfeit.The instructions cover all forms of assault moving downwards: cursing God (spiritual weapons against a spiritual God), blaspheming the Name (ditto), deliberate murder, killing an animal belonging to another, physically harming a neighbour. Each strikes at a life principle and they move from high to low, and punishment is to be tempered to the level of the crime. By so listing these greatest of

70

crimes in descending order the enormity of what this man has done is brought out.The punishments are also in descending order. Death by stoning (in both cases of crime against God), death, full substitution, like for like.Leviticus 24:15“And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin.”Anyone who curses God will ‘bear his sin’, that is will be judged and punished accordingly as previously declared by God in Leviticus 24:14. TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.Ver. 15. Curseth his God.] This is worse than blaspheming, as implying a deep and desperate malignity. There is a negative cursing of God, concerning which see Job 1:5. {See Trap on "Job 1:5"}PULPIT, "Leviticus 24:15, Leviticus 24:16In accordance with the judicial decision on the man is framed the general law against blasphemy and its penalty. It runs as follows: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. It has been questioned whether two offenses or one are here contemplated, whether cursing his God is one offense, bearing his sin being its punishment, and blaspheming the Name of the Lord another and greater offense, for which the punishment is stoning; or whether the latter offense and punishment are a more specific statement of the offense and punishment which had only generally been described before. Those who take the first view point out that the present offender was an Egyptian, and urge that had he cursed his God, that is, the Egyptian god or gods, he would only have had to bear his sin; but that as he had blasphemed the Name of Israel's God, Jehovah, he was to be stoned. The second explanation, however, is the truer one. The Scriptures recognize but one God, and he is the Lord Jehovah. Whoever curses him shall bear his sin, that is, shall be guilty in such a way that his sin must be purged either by punishment or by sacrifice, and it is then further declared that this particular sin can be purged only by the death of the offender at the hand of the congregation.

16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord 71

is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

CLARKE, "Blasphemeth the name of the Lord - venokeb shem ונקב שם יהוהYehovah, he who pierces, transfixes, or, as some translate it, expounds, the name of Jehovah; see the note on Lev_24:10. This being the name by which especially the Divine Essence was pointed out, it should be held peculiarly sacred. We have already seen that the Jews never pronounce this name, and so long has it been disused among them that the true pronunciation is now totally lost; See on the word Jehovah, Exo_6:3 (note).

GILL, "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord,.... Or, "but he that blasphemeth", &c. from whence the Jews gather, that the name Jehovah must be expressed, or it is no blasphemy; so Jarchi; but it is not bare using or expressing the word Jehovah that is blasphemy, but speaking ill and contemptuously of God, with respect to any of his names, titles, and epithets, or of any of his perfections, ways, and works: he shall surely be put to death; no mercy shall be shown him, no reprieve or pardon granted him: hence it is said (f), there is no atonement for it, by repentance, or chastisements, or the day of atonement: so blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is not forgiven, neither in this world nor in that which is to come, Mat_12:31, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him; shall have no pity on him, nor spare him, but stone him till he dies: as well the stranger as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death; even a proselyte of the gate, a Gentile that sojourned among them, uncircumcised, and did not profess the Jewish religion, as well as a proselyte of righteousness, and an Israelite born; yet, if he blasphemed the God of Israel, was to lose his life without any mercy shown him.

JAMISON, "as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death — Although strangers were not obliged to be circumcised, yet by joining the Israelitish camp, they became amenable to the law, especially that which related to blasphemy.

ELLICOTT, " (16) And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord.—Better, And he 72

that curseth the name of the Lord. The case is, however, different when it is the God of Israel. It is henceforth to be the law that whosoever curses Jehovah is to suffer death by lapidation, which is to be inflicted upon the criminal by the Jewish community.As well the stranger as he that is born in the land.—This law is applicable alike to the proselyte and to the Gentile, who does not even profess to believe in Jehovah.When he blasphemeth the name of the Lord.—Better, when he curseth the Name. Here again the expression “Name” has, out of reverence, been substituted for Jehovah. (See Leviticus 24:11.)PETT, "Leviticus 24:16“And he who blasphemes the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the sojourner, as the home-born, when he blasphemes the Name , shall be put to death.”Anyone who blasphemes the Name of Yahweh will surely be put to death. In this case the crime is so serious that the whole congregation will be gathered and participate in the execution as in the example above. This applies to all, both home-born and resident alien. Anyone who comes under the authority of Israel is bound by this requirement. TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.Ver. 16. And he that blasphemeth.] Swearers and blasphemers toss God’s name to and fro with such impiety and profaneness, as if their speech could have no grace but in his disgrace: as if Augustus Caesar were dealing with some god Neptune; or the three sons trying their archery at their father’s heart, to see who can shoot nearest. (a)Shall surely be put to death.] Though he be never so much provoked by others, as this blasphemer was; that shall no whit excuse him.

17 “‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. 73

CLARKE, "He that killeth any man - Blasphemy against God, i. e., speaking injuriously of his name, his attributes, his government, and his revelation, together with murder, is to be punished with death: he that blasphemes God is a curse in society, and he who takes away, wilfully and by malicious intent, the life of any man, should certainly be put to death. In this respect God has absolutely required that life shall go for life.

GILL, "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. With the sword, as the Targum of Jonathan adds; which restrains it to any man of the children of Israel, but wrongly; for the original law respects any man whatever, Gen_9:6; and so it does here; See Gill on Exo_21:12.

HENRY 17-22, " 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.

74

JAMISON 17-22, “he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death — These verses contain a repetition of some other laws, relating to offenses of a social nature, the penalties for which were to be inflicted, not by the hand of private parties, but through the medium of the judges before whom the cause was brought.

K&D 17-18, “The decision asked for from God concerning the crime of the blasphemer, who was the son of an Egyptian, and therefore not a member of the congregation of Jehovah, furnished the occasion for God to repeat those laws respecting murder or personal injury inflicted upon a man, which had hitherto been given for the Israelites alone (Exo_21:12.), and to proclaim their validity in the case of the foreigner also (Lev_24:17, Lev_24:21, Lev_24:22). To these there are appended the kindred commandments concerning the killing of cattle (Lev_24:18, Lev_24:21, Lev_24:22), which had not been given, it is true, expressis verbis, but were contained implicite in the rights of Israel (Exo_21:33.), and are also extended to foreigners. ָאָדם ֶנֶפׁש to smite ,ִהָּכהthe soul of a man, i.e., to put him to death; - the expression “soul of a beast,” in Lev_24:18, is to be understood in the same sense.

CALVIN, "17.And he that killeth any man. We now proceed to the confirmation of the Sixth Commandment afforded by the Judicial Law; and first, the punishment of death is awarded to murderers. To “smite the life” (26) is equivalent to wounding mortally, so that death ensues, as Moses more clearly explains himself in Exodus. But although he speaks briefly, like a legislator, there is no doubt but that he would have those whom he adjudges to die put to death by the sentence of the judges; the manner of executing the punishment we shall see in its proper place. Now although God did not carry out to absolute perfection the laws which He enacted, yet in their principle He desired that a clear and unreserved approval of His Commandments should appear. And this was the reason why I commenced with this passage, because it directly corresponds with the Sixth Commandment. (27) COFFMAN, ""LEX TALIONIS""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."The principles enunciated here were basic to Biblical and Near Eastern Law throughout history. This doctrine is given three times in the O.T. - here, Exodus 21:23-25, and in Deuteronomy 19:21. Inherent in this are some factors that appear to be forgotten in a large degree today.(1) Violence against people deserves punishment.

75

(2) The punishment should be proportional to the injuries inflicted upon others.(3) The rehabilitation of the criminal was not in view at all.(4) The death penalty alone was the option for society's dealing with murderers.(5) As a deterrent to further crime, this was the best system ever known.It can hardly be imagined that one who had blinded a neighbor in one eye, and having suffered the loss of one of his own, would have then blinded another neighbor. Criticism of these laws should be evaluated in the context of a careful analysis of the way it is in modern societies, in which crime is RARELY punished at all, and in which the CRIMINAL, not the VICTIM, enjoys all of the protection and most of the concern from society, and even after prison sentences are meted out to criminals, every possible effort is made to insure the criminal's comfort, health, entertainment, and even happiness during his confinement! Those who believe that human beings have improved upon GOD'S LAW should take a closer look!Furthermore, as this law was understood and enforced in ancient Israel, it was done as mercifully as possible. The true meaning of the law was that compensation to the loss incurred was required. Thus, if one killed his neighbor's ox, he was required to provide enough money for the neighbor to buy him another one. If a slave master caused the loss of a slave's eye, or tooth, or finger, etc., the slave was given his freedom (Exodus 21:26). Wenham was of the opinion that, in general, monetary compensation was substituted for personal injuries requiring punishment. "Only in the case of premeditated murder was such compensation forbidden (Numbers 35:16ff). Then, the principle of life for life must be literally enforced, because man is made in the image of God."[26]The false notion that Jesus Christ took away all severe penalties for sin and crime is refuted dogmatically by one of his parables in which Christ himself is represented as saying: "These mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay before me!" (Luke 19:27),The "Lex Talionis" was not a law of personal revenge, but of public justice. It was a severe limitation of all punishment in that it could not exceed the injury which a crime had inflicted. Criticism of what God commanded here is totally blind and unjustified. As a matter of fact, this law was the greatest protection of ordinary citizens ever devised. "It built a fence around their lives to protect them from violence and death."[27]

ELLICOTT, " (17) And he that killeth a man.—The enactment that in case of blaspheming no difference is to be made between a non-Israelite and Israelite, is now followed by other laws respecting murder and personal injury which have been

76

given before (Exodus 21:12, &c.), but which are here repeated in order to show that, like blasphemy, they apply alike to Gentile and Jew. It may also be that the repetition here of the law of murder is designed to draw a distinction between the judicial sentence of death carried out by the community, and the illegal taking away of life by individuals.PETT, "Leviticus 24:17“And he who smites any man mortally shall surely be put to death.”A man who deliberately slays another shall be put to death. Provision is to be made elsewhere for one who does so accidentally. For such the cities of refuge are provided. TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.Ver. 17. And he that killeth any man.] Though in hot blood; Scripture makes no difference between murder and man slaughter. {See Trapp on "Genesis 9:6"}PULPIT, "In close connection with the command to slay the blasphemer is repeated the prohibition of murder, and the injunction that the murderer shall surely be put to death. Thus a distinction is sharply drawn between the judicial sentence carried out by the congregation, and the unsanctioned smiting the life of a man by another, and a warning is given against any man fanatically taking the law into his own hands, even in the case of a blasphemer.

18 Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life.

GILL, "And he that killeth a beast shall make it good,.... Pay for it, give the value of it, or another as good as that instead of it, as follows: beast for beast; or "soul for soul"; life for life, that is, a living one for that the life of which is taken away, and one every way as good as that.CALVIN, "God here prescribes, that whosoever has inflicted a loss upon another shall make satisfaction for it, although he may not have turned it to his own profit; for in respect to a theft, its profit is not to be considered, but the intention to injure, or other cause of guilt; for it might happen that he who has killed another’s ox should not deliberately desire to do him an injury, but in a fit of passion, or from

77

unpremeditated impulse, should nevertheless have inflicted loss upon him. In whatever way, therefore, a man should have committed an offense, whereby another is made poorer, he is commanded to make good the loss. Whence it is clear, that whosoever do not so restrain themselves as to care for a neighbor’s advantage as much as for their own, are accounted guilty of theft before God. The object, however, of the law is, that no one should suffer loss by us, which will be the case if we have regard to the good of our brethren.ELLICOTT, "(18) And he that killeth a beast.—The law about killing a human being is now followed by the enaetments with regard to killing a beast. He who kills an animal has to make it good by giving another animal for it. The case is not the same as that legislated for in Exodus 21:33-34.PETT, "Leviticus 24:18“And he who smites a beast mortally shall make it good, life for life.”Anyone who slays a beast belonging to another will replace it with another its equal. PULPIT, "A summary of the law respecting minor injuries is added to that respecting murder. He that killeth a man, he shall be put to death, but he that killeth a beast shall make it good; and this lex talionis shall apply to all damage done to another, breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth (see Matthew 5:38).

19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner:

GILL, "And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour,.... Does him any hurt or mischief, causes any mutilation or deformity in him by striking him: as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him: not that a like damage or hurt should be done to him, but that he should make satisfaction for it in a pecuniary way; pay for the cure of him, and for loss of time, and in consideration of the pain he has endured, and the shame or disgrace brought on him by the deformity or mutilation, or for whatever loss he may sustain thereby; See Gill on Exo_21:18 and See Gill on Exo_21:19.

K&D 19-22, ““Cause a blemish,” i.e., inflict a bodily injury. This is still further defined in the cases mentioned (breach, eye, tooth), in which punishment was to be inflicted according to the jus talionis (see at Exo_21:23.).

78

CALVIN, "19.And if man cause a blemish in his neighbor, he now also subjects to punishment those who shall have mutilated the body of their neighbor by blows; and this was necessary, because otherwise every very great villain, who might be accomplished in the art of inflicting injury, would have broken his brother’s leg or arm, and then would not only have laughed at the poor man himself, but also at God and His Law. If, therefore, a person had injured a member of another, the law of retaliation is enacted, which has also been in use among other nations. (28) But God thus distinctly prescribes when and how the injury was to be retaliated, that the law might not be open at all to the foolish cavils with which Favorinus attacks the law of the Twelve Tables in Gellius. And certainly the words of the Decemvirs were too obscure, “Si membrum fregeris meum, ex pacto talio est. ” (If you have broken my limb; without agreement made, there must be retaliation.) But God does not command an eye to be plucked out for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth, till He has set forth that this was only to be the case if any one had knowingly and willfully inflicted the injury; thus, He does not bring to justice accidental blows, but only a premeditated crime. It is vain to object that the members of different persons can hardly be broken with exact. equality, for the intention of God was none other than that, being alarmed by the severity of the punishment, men should abstain from injuring others; and therefore these two things were connected together, If one killeth a man, let him die, and if one hath taken away a part of life, let him suffer a similar privation. And the same is the tendency of the distinction, that the loss of an animal may be repaid, but that if a man be killed, there could be no just compensation made by money.The enactment of the Twelve Tables to this effect appears from Festus to have been the following: “Si merebrum rupsit, (ruperit,) ni cum eo pacit, (paciscetur,) talio est;” presenting a singular coincidence with the Mosaic provision. See Aul. Gell., lib. 20 c. 1, where the words are given somewhat differently, as in C. ’s text. The objection of Favorinus is that it was impossible to be kept; for if the like were inflicted for the like, as one wound for another, they must take care that the like wound in every respect should be made, neither longer nor deeper; if it were, then a new retaliation must arise, and so ad infinitum. PETT, "Leviticus 24:19-20“And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he has done, so shall it be done to him, breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered to him.”But if anyone cause a blemish in his neighbour this is not to be the reason for a revenge killing. Rather the punishment shall be limited to the same blemish being given to the guilty party. The purpose of this law was to prevent revenge killings and put a limit on the extent of punishment, while still satisfying the sense of justice

79

of the injured party. In practise satisfactory compensation would no doubt often have been agreed on and accepted. This was merely the maximum that could be demanded. TRAPP, "Leviticus 24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;Ver. 19. As he hath done.] God loves to retaliate; it is his usual manner of proceeding in punishing.

20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.

CLARKE, "Breach for breach - This is a repetition of the lex talionis, which See explained Exo_21:24 (note).

GILL, "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,.... Which is not to be taken strictly or literally, but for the price or value of those, which is to be given in a pecuniary way; See Gill on Exo_21:24, Exo_21:25, as he hath caused a blemish in a man, shall it be done to him; unless he gives satisfaction, and pays a valuable consideration for it.COKE, "Verse 20Leviticus 24:20. Breach for breach, &c.— These words fully prove that we are to take those in Exodus 21:24 in a literal sense. We are not to imagine that individuals were permitted to avenge themselves, they were to refer their injuries to the judges. There is no doubt, however, that reason, in various cases, required a compensation; for the same member is far more valuable to one man than to another; as in that case mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, lib. 12: where the one-eyed man complains of the rigour of this law, as it took place among the heathens: for, if he lost his other eye, he must have suffered more than the man whom he injured, and who still had one eye left; so the right hand of a scribe, or painter, cannot be so well spared as

80

that of a finger. The lex talionis, therefore, of the twelve tables made this exception, si membrum rupit, ni cum eo pacet, talio esto; i.e. unless he agree with the person injured to make him satisfaction, and to redeem the punishment, he was to suffer in the same kind. That, in like manner, the law of Moses allows all these punishments to be redeemed by money, except that of life for life, is gathered from Numbers 35:31 ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer: which seems to intimate, that smaller personal injuries might be redeemed; and so it is explained by Maimonides and others. Be it further observed, that though Moses might think it necessary, for preserving the peace and order of the community, to permit this revenge of injuries, yet it is not to be doubted, but many of the pious Jews were far from making use of this permission. Compare Matthew 5:38; Matthew 5:48.

21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death.

GILL, "And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it,.... The same as in Lev_24:18, which is repeated for the confirmation of it, and that it might be observed, though Jarchi takes it to be a different law; before, he says, it speaks of him that kills a beast, here of him that makes any wound or bruise in it, which he must make good; and it must be allowed that the manner of expression is different; there it is, he that smites the soul of a beast so that it dies, here only he that smites a beast, though it dies not, yet having some damage done it, satisfaction must be made: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death; or he that smites a man, though he does not kill him, as Jarchi observes, only makes a wound or bruise in him, because it is not said, the soul of a man, as before; but such damages did not require death, but satisfaction in another way, as in Lev_24:19.PETT, "Leviticus 24:21“And he who kills a beast shall make it good: and he who kills a man shall be put to death.”This now summarises the two main principles above to make clear the differences in punishment for different deaths. It differentiates quite clearly between capital punishment for a human death and some other form of punishment for a beast’s death. It is to stress that no one must be slain because of the death of a beast, but that human life is sacred so that the murder of a human being must result in death for the perpetrator. Both these were something on which there must be no doubt.

81

Death for death only applies to when a man is slain. (Hotheads ever needed to be reminded of this).

22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God.’”

CLARKE, "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for one of your own country - Equal laws, where each individual receives the same protection and the same privileges, are the boast only of a sound political constitution. He who respects and obeys the laws has a right to protection and support, and his person and property are as sacred in the sight of justice as the person and property of the prince. He who does not obey the laws of his country forfeits all right and title to protection and privilege; his own actions condemn him, and justice takes him up on the evidence of his own transgressions. He who does what is right need not fear the power of the civil magistrate, for he holds the sword only to punish transgressors. Universal obedience to the laws is the duty of every citizen; none can do more, none should do less: therefore each individual in a well regulated state must have equal rights and privileges in every thing that relates to the safety of his person, and the security of his property. Reader, such was the Mosaic code; such Is the British Constitution.

GILL, "Ye shall have one manner of law,.... Respecting the above things, blaspheming of the name of God, taking away the life of man, or of any beast, and of doing damage to either: as well for the stranger as for one of your own country; the above laws were binding upon proselytes as well as Israelites, and proselytes of the gate as well as proselytes of righteousness, though the Jews commonly restrain it to the latter: for I am the Lord your God; whose name is holy and reverend, and ought not to be blasphemed; and who is the Maker and preserver of man and beast, and made these laws respecting them, and expected they should be obeyed, especially by the children of Israel, whose covenant God and Father he was, and they under the greatest obligation to serve and obey him.CALVIN, "22.Ye shall have one manner of law. That the people of Israel, with their usual arrogance, might not suppose the race of Abraham only to be privileged, the Law is extended also to foreigners; and thus God shows that the whole body of the human race are under His care, so that He would not have those that are farthest off

82

exposed to the licentious violence of the ungodly. In other points tie provided special privileges for His elect people; but here, because He created all men without exception after His own image, He takes them under His care and protection, so that none might injure them with impunity. COFFMAN, ""Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the sojourner, as for the home-born: for I am Jehovah your God."This verse reveals the reason for mentioning all of the offenses just enumerated, making all of them applicable to sojourners and home-born alike. It was with a view to averting disaster for all Israel that death was inflicted upon the blasphemer. "Disaster must descend upon the land where the Name is cursed, the lordship of the living God is repudiated, no matter whether the offender is a native Israelite or a resident foreigner."[28]COKE, "Leviticus 24:22. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, &c.— This was a merciful provision that strangers might not be treated unjustly, God declaring that one and the same law should judge the native and the stranger. For "I am the Lord your God," says he; "a just and holy God, and who will have no respect to persons in judgment." BENSON, "Verse 22-23Leviticus 24:22-23. One law — That is, in matters of common right, but not as to church privileges. Stone him with stones — 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 the law. The martyr and the malefactor suffered the same death; but how vast the difference between them!PETT, "Leviticus 24:22“You shall have one manner of law, as well for the sojourner, as for the home-born. For I am Yahweh your God.All laws are to be applied equally to home-born and resident alien. Both are to be treated equally. For Yahweh is their God and He is totally just and fair.

23 Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him. The Israelites did as the Lord commanded 83

Moses.

CLARKE, "And stone him with stones - We are not to suppose that the culprit was exposed to the unbridled fury of the thousands of Israel; this would be brutality, not justice, for the very worst of tempers and passions might be produced and fostered by such a procedure. The Jews themselves tell us that their manner of stoning was this: they brought the condemned person without the camp, because his crime had rendered him unclean, and whatever was unclean must be put without the camp. When they came within four cubits of the place of execution, they stripped the criminal, if a man, leaving him nothing but a cloth about the waist. The place on which he was to be executed was elevated, and the witnesses went up with him to it, and laid their hands upon him, for the purposes mentioned Lev_24:14. Then one of the witnesses struck him with a stone upon the loins; if he was not killed with that blow, then the witnesses took up a great stone, as much as two men could lift, and threw it upon his breast. This was the coup de grace, and finished the tragedy. When a man was stoned by the mob, then brutal rage armed every man, justice was set aside, and the will and fury of the people were law, judge, jury, and executioner. Such disgraceful stonings as these were, no doubt, frequent among the Jews. See Calmet’s Dict., article Stoning, and Ainsworth on this place. What the crime of Shelomith’s son was, we cannot distinctly say; doubtless it was some species of blasphemy: however, we find it was a new and unprecedented case; and as there was no law by which the quantum of guilt could be ascertained, nor consequently the degree of punishment, it was necessary to consult the great Lawgiver on the occasion; the man was therefore secured till the mind of the Lord should be known. Moses, no doubt, had recourse to the tabernacle, and received the directions afterward mentioned from Him who dwelt between the cherubim. In what way the answer of the Lord was communicated we know not, (probably by Urim and Thummim), but it came in such a manner as to preclude all doubt upon the subject: the man was declared to be guilty, and was sentenced to be stoned to death; and on this occasion a law is made relative to blasphemy in general. However sinful the Jews might have been at this time, we have reason to believe they did not take the name of the Lord in vain, and blasphemy was not known among them. But what shall we say of Christians, so called, whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness? Were every blasphemer among us to be stoned to death, how many of the people would fall in every corner of the land! God is longsuffering; may this lead them to repentance! We have excellent laws against all profaneness, but, alas, for our country! they are not enforced; and he who attempts to put the laws in force against profane swearers, Sabbath breakers, etc., is considered a litigious man, and a disturber of the peace of society. Will not God visit for these things? This is not only contempt of God’s holy word and commandments, but rebellion against the laws.

GILL, "And Moses spake unto the children of Israel,.... As the Lord had commanded him:

84

that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones; which were the instructions God had given to Moses upon inquiring his mind and will about this matter: and the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses; they took the blasphemer, and led him out of the camp, put their hands on him, and stoned him with stones till he died.HENRY, "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!

JAMISON, "the children of Israel did as the Lord’s commanded — The chapter closes with the execution of Shelomith’s son [Lev_24:14] - and stoning having afterwards become the established punishment in all cases of blasphemy, it illustrates the fate of Stephen, who suffered under a false imputation of that crime [Act_7:58, Act_7:59].

K&D, "After these laws had been issued, the punishment was inflicted upon the blasphemer.

COFFMAN, ""And Moses spake to the children of Israel; and they brought forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. And the children of Israel did as Jehovah commanded Moses."In current society throughout many lands, the execution of so severe a penalty for such an offense would be considered a grave injustice, and this shows how far humanity has drifted away from the conception of the supreme authority and holiness of Almighty God. And is it a fact that violators of the law in evidence here shall escape all penalty for disobedience? We cannot believe that they shall escape!God has reserved unto Himself the right of execution against sinners and criminals the penalties which men themselves through weakness and rebellion are unwilling to execute. We shall conclude this chapter with a quotation from the New Testament:"A man that hath set at naught Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged

85

worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of grace? For we know him that said, Vengeance is mine, I will recompense. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:28-31).ELLICOTT, "(23) And Moses spake to the children of Israel.—Having recited the laws which were promulgated in consequence of the appeal made to God, Moses now calls upon the people to execute the sentence which the Lord pronounced against the blasphemer.PETT, "Leviticus 24:23‘And Moses spoke to the children of Israel; and they brought forth him who had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. And the children of Israel did as Yahweh commanded Moses.’Then Moses communicated God’s decision about the man and he was taken out of the camp and stoned with stones. It is stressed that all the people did as Yahweh commanded Moses. All were appalled at the blasphemy.The placing of this incident here would seem to be because it follows the examples of Yahweh’s continual daily and weekly presence with and watch over His people. The sons of Aaron had sinned grievously in the responsibility that was theirs as priests, this man had sinned grievously against the very light of Israel. It was a warning of the fact that God’s presence among His people made them a holy people, and that to dishonour His name in any way could only bring supreme judgment. PULPIT, "The penalty is inflicted on the offender solemnly as an act of the Law, not of mob fury. So it was by a judicial or semi-judicial proceeding that St. Stephen was stoned: "They brought him to the council, and set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the Law" (Acts 6:12, Acts 6:13). And in spite of the violence exhibited, there was still some form of law, according to Jewish practice, observed in his stoning (Acts 7:58). In the case of our Lord, on the other hand. when they regarded him as guilty of blasphemy on his saying, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58), and "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), the Jews "took up stones to cast at him," not waiting for a judicial condemnation, but, as they supposed, taking the law into their own hands. Had his death been by Jewish hands, it would at the last have been by stoning under this law. But the power of life and death had been taken away from the Jews by the Romans, "that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die" (John 18:32).

86