Leviticus · Chapter 24

Verse 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.

V. 2. To cause the lamps to burn-Heb. 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 4:5, by seven lamps of fire before the throne. For there are diversities of gifts, but one spirit.

Verse 2. Pure oil olive] See every thing relative to this ordinance explained on Exodus 27:20, 21.

Verse 2. To cause the lamps to burn — Hebrew, the lamp: yet, verse 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.

Verse 2. Cause the lamps to burn continually. The heathens also had lamps in their temples. In France it is amusing to see a dim light glimmering through the church windows; and truly it is hardly decent to leave such good company as Mary and Peter without a candle.

2. Pure oil — The best oil is made from olive berries gathered in November and December, when they have begun to change colour, but before they have become black. The berry in the more advanced state yields more oil, but of an inferior quality. Beaten — The beating was done in a mortar. The other modes of preparing the olive berries for the press were by grinding in a mill, and by treading. The oil was kept in jars carefully cleansed, and for use was drawn out in horns or other small vessels. Olive oil was largely exported from Palestine. Continually — That is, every night from twilight till sunrise. Some say that “the evening lamp,” the central one of the seven, burned perpetually, the others being extinguished during the day. Bahr says that the lights were “never all extinguished together, and that they were the perpetual symbol of all derived gifts of wisdom and holiness in man, reaching their mystical perfection when they shine in God’s sanctuary to his glory.” But of this there is no proof. Aaron is said to have trimmed the lamps every morning and lighted them every evening. The oil required for each lamp was half a log, about two wine glasses, nearly three pints for the seven.

V. 3. Aaron-Either by himself, or by his sons, Exodus 25:37.

3, 4. Without the vail — The outer sanctuary was one degree less awful in its holiness than the inner. With no opening to admit the light of day, it was illumined only by the golden lamp with its seven lights, one taller than the others, as the Sabbath is more sacred than the other days of the week. The vail typifies the humanity of Christ, at once concealing and manifesting the eternal glory. The candlestick was placed on the south side of the first apartment, opposite the table of show-bread, which it was intended to illumine. The inner apartment, or most holy place, was never illumined save by the outflashing of the shechinah. This beautifully symbolizes the fact, that under the dispensation of the Spirit he certifies his own presence in the believer’s consciousness, needing no other light. 1 John 2:27. A statute forever — So long as that dispensation continued. When the Holy Ghost descended to light up the temple of the Christian heart, the burning lamp was no longer needed in the Jewish temple. He shall order the lamps — This duty consisted in placing the lamps upon the candlestick in the evening and lighting them, and cleaning and filling them in the morning.

V. 4. The pure candlestick-So called, partly because it was made of pure gold, partly because it was to be always kept clean.

Verse 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.

3, 4. Without the vail — The outer sanctuary was one degree less awful in its holiness than the inner. With no opening to admit the light of day, it was illumined only by the golden lamp with its seven lights, one taller than the others, as the Sabbath is more sacred than the other days of the week. The vail typifies the humanity of Christ, at once concealing and manifesting the eternal glory. The candlestick was placed on the south side of the first apartment, opposite the table of show-bread, which it was intended to illumine. The inner apartment, or most holy place, was never illumined save by the outflashing of the shechinah. This beautifully symbolizes the fact, that under the dispensation of the Spirit he certifies his own presence in the believer’s consciousness, needing no other light. 1 John 2:27. A statute forever — So long as that dispensation continued. When the Holy Ghost descended to light up the temple of the Christian heart, the burning lamp was no longer needed in the Jewish temple. He shall order the lamps — This duty consisted in placing the lamps upon the candlestick in the evening and lighting them, and cleaning and filling them in the morning.

V. 5. Thou-By the priests or Levites, whose work it was to prepare them, 1 Chronicles 9:32. Twelve cakes-Representing the twelve tribes.

Verse 5. Bake twelve cakes] See the whole account of the shew-bread in Clarke’s notes on “Exodus 25:30”; and relative to the table on which they stood, the golden candlestick and silver trumpets carried in triumph to Rome, see Clarke’s note on “Exodus 25:31”.

Verse 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.

ORDINANCE OF THE SHOWBREAD, 5-9

This had already been offered at the dedication of the tabernacle, and placed by Moses upon the table. Exodus 39:36; 40:23. The quantity of the material and the number of the loaves are here specified, also their arrangement on the table and the period of their renewal.

5. Twelve cakes — The number of the tribes of Israel. Two tenth deals — See Leviticus 23:13. According to the lowest estimate, that of the rabbins, there would be ten and a half gallons required for the twelve loaves.

V. 6. Two rows-Not one above another, but one beside another, as the frankincense put upon each, Leviticus 24:7, shews.

Verses 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.

6. Pure table — It was overlaid with pure gold; the term “pure” may mean more than this, and bear something of the force which it has in Malachi 1:11. For its structure, see Exodus 37:10-16. Before the Lord — Not in the holy of holies, but in the first tabernacle. Exodus 40:24; Hebrews 9:2. This throws much light upon the significance of the showbread, or “bread of the face or faces.” The term “faces” denotes the presence not of the people, who were not admitted into the first tabernacle or court of the priests, but the presence of God. This view Bahr has elaborated with singular force and beauty. It is said in Exodus 23:21, that God’s name is in the angel of his presence, (face or faces.) The presence and the name may therefore be taken as equivalent. Both, in reference to their context, indicate the manifestation of God to his creatures. As the name stands for God himself, so the face, wherein a man’s individual personality is seen, stands for the person of God. To see the face is to see the person. The bread of the face is therefore that bread through which God is seen, that is, with the participation of which the seeing of God is bound up. Whence it follows that we have not to think of bread merely as such, as the means of nourishing bodily life, but as spiritual food, as a means of appropriating and retaining that life which consists in seeing the face of God. The bread of the face on the table in the tabernacle, the symbolic heaven, is an emblem of the heavenly bread. This points to none other than Jesus Christ. “For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” After this synopsis of Bahr’s Symbolik we cannot forbear to add one beautiful and instructive emblem in reference to the position of the showbread, which was opposite the candlestick, (Exodus 40:24,) that its full light might fall upon it, prefiguring the precious truth that the Holy Spirit takes of the things of Christ and shows them to the believer.

V. 7. Pure frankincense-Unmixed and uncorrupted, or of the best sort, to be burnt before the Lord. On the bread-And this was done every time that the bread was changed. For a memorial-For that part which properly belonged to God, whereas the rest belonged to the priests.

Verses 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.

7. Frankincense — See Leviticus 2:1, note. The frankincense used by the Jews in the temple service must not be confounded with the common frankincense of commerce, which is a product of the Abies excelsa. The true frankincense is a product of the Boswellia thurifera. It is the symbol of intercession, (Revelation 8:3,) and it doubtless was to be burnt on the appointed altar. A memorial — See Leviticus 2:2, note. Made by fire — The incense was properly a fire-made offering, but the show-bread was improperly so called, since it was only fire-baked.

V. 8. From the children of Israel-And these cakes are said to be received from or offered by the children of Israel, bought with the money which they contributed. By an everlasting covenant-By virtue of that compact made between me and them, by which they were obliged to keep this amongst other commands, and, they so doing, I am obliged to be their God and to bless them. And this may be here called an everlasting covenant, not only because it was to endure as long as the Jewish polity stood, but also because this was to stand everlastingly, or continually, and therefore the new cakes were first brought before the old were taken away.

Verse 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.

8. Every sabbath — The show-bread never waxed old; it was always fresh. Through eternity Jesus will be a theme ever new, and inspiring fresh interest — “a lamb as it had been slain.”

V. 9. It-The old bread now to be taken away. Made by fire-The incense was offered by fire, and that for or instead of the bread, and therefore the bread was reputed as if it had been so offered.

Verse 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.

ORDINANCE OF THE SHOWBREAD, 5-9

This had already been offered at the dedication of the tabernacle, and placed by Moses upon the table. Exodus 39:36; 40:23. The quantity of the material and the number of the loaves are here specified, also their arrangement on the table and the period of their renewal.

5. Twelve cakes — The number of the tribes of Israel. Two tenth deals — See Leviticus 23:13. According to the lowest estimate, that of the rabbins, there would be ten and a half gallons required for the twelve loaves.

V. 10. Whose father was an Egyptian-This circumstance seems noted, partly to shew the danger of marriages with persons of wicked principles, and partly by this severity against him who was a stranger by the father, and an Israelite by the mother, to shew that God would not have this sin go unpunished amongst his people, what-soever he was that committed it. Went out-Out of Egypt, being one of that mixed multitude, which came out with the Israelites, Exodus 12:32. It is probable, this was done when the Israelites were near Sinai.

Verse 10. The son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, &c.] This is a very obscure account, and is encumbered with many difficulties.

1. It seems strange that a person proceeding from such an illegal mixture should have been incorporated with the Israelites.

2. What the cause of the strife between this mongrel person and the Israelitish man was is not even hinted at. The rabbins, it is true, supply in their way this deficiency; they say he was the son of the Egyptian whom Moses slew, and that attempting to pitch his tent among those of the tribe of Dan, to which he belonged by his mother’s side, Leviticus 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 השם ta bqyw vaiyihkob eth hashshem, he pierced through, distinguished, explained, or expressed the name. (See below, article 10.) As the Jews hold it impious to pronounce the name hwhy Yehovah, they always put either ynda Adonai, Lord, or השם hashshem, THE NAME, in the place of it; but in this sense hashshem was never used prior to the days of rabbinical superstition, and therefore it cannot be put here for the word Jehovah.

4. Blaspheming the name of the Lord is mentioned in Leviticus 24:16, and there the proper Hebrew term is used יהוה שם shem Yehovah, and not the rabbinical השם hashshem, as in Leviticus 24:11.

5. Of all the manuscripts collated both by Kennicott and Deuteronomy 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,

Hebræo-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 Leviticus 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, wyhla elohaiv, shall bear his sin-shall have the punishment due to him as an idolater; but he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, hwhy µc shem Yehovah, shall surely be put to death-when he blasphemeth the name (שם shem) he shall die, Leviticus 24:16.

10. The verb bqn nakab, which we translate blaspheme, signifies to pierce, bore, make hollow; also to EXPRESS or DISTINGUISH by NAME; see Isaiah 62:2; Numbers 1:17; 1 Chronicles 12:31; 16:41; 28:15; or, as the Persian translator has it, [Persian] sherah kerd, mir an nam, he expounded or interpreted the name. Hence all that we term blasphemy here may only signify the particularizing some false god, i.e., naming him by his name, or imploring his aid as a helper, and when spoken of the true God it may signify using that sacred name as the idolaters did the names of their idols. On blaspheming God, and the nature of blasphemy, see Clarke’s notes on “Matthew 9:3”. In whatever point of view we consider the relation which has been the subject of this long note, one thing is sufficiently plain, that he who speaks irreverently of God, of his works, his perfections, his providence, &c., is destitute of every moral feeling and of every religious principle, and consequently so dangerous to society that it would be criminal to suffer him to be at large, though the longsuffering of God may lead him to repentance, and therefore it may be consistent with mercy to preserve his life.

Verse 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.

Ver. 10. Whose father was an Egyptian. Exodus 12:38. We read that a mixed multitude emigrated from Egypt with the Israelites, and left the yoke of their oppressors behind. These mixed marriages produced an ill-educated race.

THE BLASPHEMER STONED, 10-23.

In the midst of the Sinaitic legislation we find an account of the arrest and punishment of a blasphemer. This unnatural and unexpected mingling of statutes and snatches of history, so different from the studied artifices of the forger, is a striking evidence of the authenticity of the book as a whole. See Numbers, Introduction, (1.)

10. Son of an Israelitish woman — The repetition of the statement that the blasphemer was the son of an Egyptian father and a Hebrew mother shows clearly the design of the author to direct attention to the dangers incident to such mixed marriages, and to raise a warning voice against them. This view is confirmed by the fact that the Bible only mentions three intermarriages with Egyptians, all of which result in evil. The second is the intermarriage of Solomon, and his consequent implication in idolatry. 1 Kings 3:1-4; 11:4. The third is to be found in 1 Chronicles 2:34, 35, from which tradition traces the descent of Ishmael, the murderer of Gedaliah. Jeremiah 41:1, 2.

V. 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 eminency; 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.

Verse 11. The name of the Lord — The words of the Lord, or of Jehovah, are supplied out of verse 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 verses 15, 16. And they brought him — Either the people who heard him, or the inferior magistrate, to whom he was first brought.

Ver. 11. Blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed. It is supposed, after the affair was decided by the magistrates, and according to the law of God, that the man cursed the Lord. Hence it was the foulest of blasphemy. Others suppose that he merely invoked the curse of God to alight on his opponent.

11. Blasphemed — The Seventy and Rashi erroneously render the original accurately pronounced, this being looked upon before God as a reviling of him. From this passage the rabbins, by an untenable exposition, derived their prohibition even to utter the name of Jehovah, called “the sacred tetragrammaton.” The provocation to this vilification of Jehovah is not given. It is probable that the adversary of the half Israelite had taunted him on account of his Egyptian descent as a disgrace, and adding that he had no part in the God of Israel and in his covenant, and that in the heat of passion the half-breed spoke contemptuously of Jehovah, and possibly contrasted him with the gods of his father. The name — We admit, with the rationalistic critics, that the designation of Jehovah by “the name,” is a practice of a later age. But this practice must have had a beginning, and that beginning may have been in the age of the Pentateuch. This is confirmed by the fact that in ver. 16 we have the full expression, “the name of Jehovah,” as evidently explanatory of the recently invented designation, “the name.” Hence no satisfactory proof that this piece of history is the interpolation of a later age can be derived from this phrase. From this passage we see that the Jews of this early period may have pronounced “the name” by substituting the consonants of Adonai for those of Jehovah, so that this practice cannot be regarded as a superstition originating with Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem. “This dread,” says Oehler, “sprang from the efforts of later Judaism to thrust back divinity to an unapproachable distance, and everywhere to put something between divinity and man.” The translation of Jehovah, by Kuriov, Lord, 250 years before Christ, confirms this statement. It is a strong incidental proof of the supreme godhead of Christ that he is called “the Name.” See R.V., Acts 5:41; 3 John 1:7. Shelomith — A sad misnomer, for it signifies peacefulness. It is quite a common name in the Old Testament. Nothing more is known of this woman, who stands pilloried in history as the mother of a blasphemer.

V. 12. That the mind of the Lord might be shewed-For God had only said in general, that he would not hold such guiltless, that is, he would punish them, but had not declared how he would have them punished by men.

Verse 12. That the mind of the Lord might be showed — For God had only said in general, that he would not hold such guiltless, that is, he would punish them, but had not declared how he would have them punished by men.

12. In ward — In prison, or under guard. The mind of the Lord — Literally, as the R.V., “To declare distinctly unto them according to the mouth of the Lord.” It would seem that this was the first violation of the third commandment.

THE BLASPHEMER STONED, 10-23.

In the midst of the Sinaitic legislation we find an account of the arrest and punishment of a blasphemer. This unnatural and unexpected mingling of statutes and snatches of history, so different from the studied artifices of the forger, is a striking evidence of the authenticity of the book as a whole. See Numbers, Introduction, (1.)

10. Son of an Israelitish woman — The repetition of the statement that the blasphemer was the son of an Egyptian father and a Hebrew mother shows clearly the design of the author to direct attention to the dangers incident to such mixed marriages, and to raise a warning voice against them. This view is confirmed by the fact that the Bible only mentions three intermarriages with Egyptians, all of which result in evil. The second is the intermarriage of Solomon, and his consequent implication in idolatry. 1 Kings 3:1-4; 11:4. The third is to be found in 1 Chronicles 2:34, 35, from which tradition traces the descent of Ishmael, the murderer of Gedaliah. Jeremiah 41:1, 2.

V. 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 peoples 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.

Verse 14. 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.

Verse 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.

Ver. 14. Lay their hands upon his head. This most solemn ceremony was in fact an appeal to God and man, that the evidence was true; and an invocation, if not true, that the guilt and punishment might recoil on their own heads. It was also a transfer of the guilt on the head of the guilty, and the witnesses cleared themselves and the country of blasphemy against the Lord. The paucity of these punishments teaches princes to mitigate the just severity of the laws. But instead of this, we let all blasphemy go unpunished.

14. Lay their hands upon his head — For the significance of this ceremony, in the case of a victim for the altar, see chap. 1:4, note. In this particular case, the witnesses who heard the blasphemy were required to cast off the guilt which they had involuntarily contracted by transferring it to the head of the sinner. By laying their hands upon his head they gave back the infection which they had received. In later ages it was a Jewish practice, when a person heard blasphemy, to lay his hand on the offender’s head to symbolize his sole responsibility for the guilt, and to rise up and tear his robe, which might never again be mended. See Matthew 26:65, note. Let all the congregation stone him — Says Baumgarten: “According to the sentence of Jehovah, the whole congregation was to be regarded as participating in the crime of the individual, because every one was a living member of the whole. For this reason the punishment was committed to the whole congregation, who gave back to the criminal its share of the guilt by leading him out of the camp and putting him to death. Thus they wiped off sin from Israel.” By this requirement of “all the congregation,” we are taught that for the efficient execution of laws against immoralities there must be strong public sentiment in favour of such law behind the officers of justice. The divine method, which puts a stone into every man’s hand to cast at the criminal, also effectually protects the witnesses. When any community has a righteous abhorrence of drunkenness, licentiousness, profanity, and other vices, sufficient to move a large majority of the citizens personally to assist in their suppression, these foul blots will be almost entirely wiped away from that community. The practice of stoning for blasphemy was continued till the martyrdom of Stephen.

V. 15. Whosoever curseth his God-Speaketh of him reproachfully. Shall bear his sin-That is, the punishment of it; shall not go unpunished.

Verse 15. Whosoever curseth his God] wyhla llqy yekallel Elohaiv, he who makes 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.

Verses 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, verse 15, so both the sin and the punishment are particularly expressed, verse 16. All the congregation — To show their zeal for God, and to beget in them the greater dread and abhorrence of blasphemy.

15. Shall bear his sin — See Leviticus 10:17; Numbers 9:13, notes.

V. 16. 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 shew their zeal for God, and to beget in them the greater dread and abhorrence of blasphemy.

Verse 16. Blasphemeth the name of the Lord] יהוה שם bqnw venokeb shem Yehovah, he who pierces, transfixes, or, as some translate it, expounds, the name of Jehovah; see Clarke’s note on “Leviticus 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 Clarke on the word JEHOVAH, “Exodus 6:3”.

Verses 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, verse 15, so both the sin and the punishment are particularly expressed, verse 16. All the congregation — To show their zeal for God, and to beget in them the greater dread and abhorrence of blasphemy.

THE BLASPHEMER STONED, 10-23.

In the midst of the Sinaitic legislation we find an account of the arrest and punishment of a blasphemer. This unnatural and unexpected mingling of statutes and snatches of history, so different from the studied artifices of the forger, is a striking evidence of the authenticity of the book as a whole. See Numbers, Introduction, (1.)

10. Son of an Israelitish woman — The repetition of the statement that the blasphemer was the son of an Egyptian father and a Hebrew mother shows clearly the design of the author to direct attention to the dangers incident to such mixed marriages, and to raise a warning voice against them. This view is confirmed by the fact that the Bible only mentions three intermarriages with Egyptians, all of which result in evil. The second is the intermarriage of Solomon, and his consequent implication in idolatry. 1 Kings 3:1-4; 11:4. The third is to be found in 1 Chronicles 2:34, 35, from which tradition traces the descent of Ishmael, the murderer of Gedaliah. Jeremiah 41:1, 2.

V. 17. He that killeth-This law is repeated here, to prevent the mischievous effects of men’s striving together, which as here it caused blasphemy, so it might in others lead to murder.

Verse 17. 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.

Verse 17. He that killeth — This law is repeated here, to prevent the mischievous effects of men’s striving together, which as here it caused blasphemy, so it might in others lead to murder.

THE LAW OF RETALIATION, 17-23.

17. Killeth any man — Smiteth the life of a man, whether bond or free. It is obvious that murder by any other means, as by poison, is included under the phrase “smiteth the life.” Put to death — The reason for regarding murder as a capital offence is because it is an act of the highest sacrilege, an outrage on the likeness of God in man. Human life is incomparably the most sacred thing on earth. Hence its destruction demands, as its penalty, the life of the murderer. To suffer a murder to go unavenged was regarded by both Jews and Greeks as a pollution of the land. Numbers 35:31; OEdipus Tyrannus, 100. No punishment is mentioned for attempted suicide; no guilt attached to one who killed a burglar at night in the act, (Exodus 22:2, 3,) or a slave who died of rigorous treatment a few days after his punishment. Exodus 21:20, 21. The execution of this sentence is expressly committed to the goel, the avenger of blood, after the verdict of guilt had been rendered by the proper tribunal, with at least two agreeing witnesses. Numbers 35:19-30. In regal times the sovereign assumed the execution of justice on the murderer as well as the right of pardon. 2 Samuel 13:39.

18. Beast for beast — Rather, life for life. This is even-handed justice.

THE LAW OF RETALIATION, 17-23.

17. Killeth any man — Smiteth the life of a man, whether bond or free. It is obvious that murder by any other means, as by poison, is included under the phrase “smiteth the life.” Put to death — The reason for regarding murder as a capital offence is because it is an act of the highest sacrilege, an outrage on the likeness of God in man. Human life is incomparably the most sacred thing on earth. Hence its destruction demands, as its penalty, the life of the murderer. To suffer a murder to go unavenged was regarded by both Jews and Greeks as a pollution of the land. Numbers 35:31; OEdipus Tyrannus, 100. No punishment is mentioned for attempted suicide; no guilt attached to one who killed a burglar at night in the act, (Exodus 22:2, 3,) or a slave who died of rigorous treatment a few days after his punishment. Exodus 21:20, 21. The execution of this sentence is expressly committed to the goel, the avenger of blood, after the verdict of guilt had been rendered by the proper tribunal, with at least two agreeing witnesses. Numbers 35:19-30. In regal times the sovereign assumed the execution of justice on the murderer as well as the right of pardon. 2 Samuel 13:39.

Verse 20. Breach for breach] This is a repetition of the lex talionis, which see explained, Clarke’s note “Exodus 21:24”.

Ver. 20. Breach for breach. This is also a gentile law, called among the Romans, Lex talionis.

20. Breach for breach — Broken limb for broken limb. This punishment is included in that of life for life, as a part is included in the whole. In those primitive times it was a stronger restraint from crime than the modern penalty of a term of imprisonment with good food and healthful labour. The law of retaliation is for the guidance of the judge, and not a provision for the injured person to practice private revenge. It was this perversion of the law which Christ condemns, and not legal punishments enjoined by a magistrate. See Matthew 5:37-39, notes. Society is conserved by law, and law by penalties. There is mercy in this code, inasmuch as it protects the criminal against too severe punishment through the heat of popular indignation or the malice of a hostile party, as that of the priests and scribes against Jesus Christ. There may be injustice done by fixed penalties, but we are convinced that without them there is a liability of doing greater wrong.

THE LAW OF RETALIATION, 17-23.

17. Killeth any man — Smiteth the life of a man, whether bond or free. It is obvious that murder by any other means, as by poison, is included under the phrase “smiteth the life.” Put to death — The reason for regarding murder as a capital offence is because it is an act of the highest sacrilege, an outrage on the likeness of God in man. Human life is incomparably the most sacred thing on earth. Hence its destruction demands, as its penalty, the life of the murderer. To suffer a murder to go unavenged was regarded by both Jews and Greeks as a pollution of the land. Numbers 35:31; OEdipus Tyrannus, 100. No punishment is mentioned for attempted suicide; no guilt attached to one who killed a burglar at night in the act, (Exodus 22:2, 3,) or a slave who died of rigorous treatment a few days after his punishment. Exodus 21:20, 21. The execution of this sentence is expressly committed to the goel, the avenger of blood, after the verdict of guilt had been rendered by the proper tribunal, with at least two agreeing witnesses. Numbers 35:19-30. In regal times the sovereign assumed the execution of justice on the murderer as well as the right of pardon. 2 Samuel 13:39.

V. 22. One law-That is, in matters of common right, but not as to church privileges.

Verse 22. 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.

Verses 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!

22. One manner of law — The Hebrew is more definite and concise — one mishpat, verdict or judgment. Thus the amenability of foreigners to all the penalties of the Hebrew criminal law is emphasized with the utmost distinctness. The stranger — Since many strangers were slaves, it follows from verse 17 that the wilful murder of a slave entailed the same punishment as in the case of a freeman.

CONCLUDING NOTE. — CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Is the divine requirement of life for life still in force? Jesus Christ did not repeal the law of Moses, or any part of it, as a civil regulation, while he condemned the prevalent perversion of its principles to the purposes of private selfishness, licentiousness, malice, and revenge. He rebuked the bad morality of the Pharisees, which they saw fit to propound in the words of Moses, but contrary to his spirit. It is important to observe that in this law of like for like, containing under a mutable form the changeless principles of even-handed justice, the specification of “life for life,” as it stands in Mosaism, always stands first. See verses 17-20; Exodus 21:23-25; Deuteronomy 19:21. Why, then, if our Lord meant to abrogate the law, did he not begin with its principal and leading title? Because it could hardly be perverted to the purposes of private revenge, hedged in as it was by all the cautious limitations of the Mosaic code. Jesus declares that he who shall say to his brother “Thou fool!” shall be in dagger of the fire of gehenna, that is, of being burnt in the valley of Hinnom — the most awful punishment which a Jew could imagine.

St. Paul did not understand that the law of capital punishment was repealed when he declared that the magistrate held not the sword in vain, but was a terror to evil-doers. What Christ, the legislator greater than Moses, has not repealed, modern sentimentalism will never permanently overthrow; though it is unquestionable that there is a strong tendency at present towards an indiscriminate philanthropy, and a religion divested of those stern features which the representations of the New Testament imply as certainly as do the more express declarations of the Old. The fact that the opposition to the death penalty for murder universally allies itself with the rejection of the eternal punishment of all who obey not Christ, is an argument of no small weight in favour of its present binding force, since errors, like truths, grow in clusters.

V. 23. 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.

Verse 23. 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 Leviticus 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, &c., 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. LEVITICUS

Verses 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!

THE LAW OF RETALIATION, 17-23.

17. Killeth any man — Smiteth the life of a man, whether bond or free. It is obvious that murder by any other means, as by poison, is included under the phrase “smiteth the life.” Put to death — The reason for regarding murder as a capital offence is because it is an act of the highest sacrilege, an outrage on the likeness of God in man. Human life is incomparably the most sacred thing on earth. Hence its destruction demands, as its penalty, the life of the murderer. To suffer a murder to go unavenged was regarded by both Jews and Greeks as a pollution of the land. Numbers 35:31; OEdipus Tyrannus, 100. No punishment is mentioned for attempted suicide; no guilt attached to one who killed a burglar at night in the act, (Exodus 22:2, 3,) or a slave who died of rigorous treatment a few days after his punishment. Exodus 21:20, 21. The execution of this sentence is expressly committed to the goel, the avenger of blood, after the verdict of guilt had been rendered by the proper tribunal, with at least two agreeing witnesses. Numbers 35:19-30. In regal times the sovereign assumed the execution of justice on the murderer as well as the right of pardon. 2 Samuel 13:39.