Leviticus 24:10-23

3. HISTORICAL: THE PUNISHMENT OF A BLASPHEMER 24:10-23
TEXT 24:10-23

10

And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp:

11

and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.

12

And they put him in ward, that it might be declared unto them at the mouth of Jehovah.

13

And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,

14

Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

15

And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.

16

And he that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the sojourner, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, shall be put to death.

17

And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death.

18

And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good, life for life.

19

And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him:

20

breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered unto him.

21

And he that killeth a beast shall make it good: and he that killeth a man shall be put to death.

22

Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the sojourner, as for the home-born: for I am Jehovah your God.

23

And Moses spake to the children of Israel; and they brought forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. And the children of Israel did as Jehovah commanded Moses.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 24:10-23

574.

Why mention that the father of this offender was an Egyptian?

575.

About what do you imagine they were fighting, or arguing?

576.

Just what was the sin?

577.

Why not know immediately what to do with him?

578.

How do you suppose this man found a place in the camp of Israel? Cf. Exodus 12:38.

579.

Why the laying on of hands? Who did the stoning? Why?

580.

Does Leviticus 24:15 say that cursing is not the same as blasphemy?

581.

What a severe penalty for a verbal sin! Discuss the reason for it.

582.

Why repeat the laws of retribution here?

583.

Are we to understand that mutilation of the body was punishment for sin? Discuss.

584.

These laws seem to be repeated here for the benefit of the sojourners. Is this a fair estimate? Discuss.

PARAPHRASE 24:10-23

Out in the camp one day, a young man whose mother was an Israelite and whose father was an Egyptian, got into a fight with one of the men of Israel. During the fight the Egyptian man's son cursed God, and was brought to Moses for judgment. (His mother's name was Shelomith, daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan.) He was put in jail until the Lord would indicate what to do with him. And the Lord said to Moses, Take him outside the camp and tell all who heard him to lay their hands upon his head; then all the people are to execute him by stoning. And tell the people of Israel that anyone who curses his God must pay the penalty: he must die. All the congregation shall stone him; this law applies to the foreigner as well as to the Israelite who blasphemes the name of Jehovah. He must die. Also, all murderers must be executed. Anyone who kills an animal (that isn-'t his) shall replace it. The penalty for injuring anyone is to be injured in exactly the same way: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Whatever anyone does to another shall be done to him. To repeat, whoever kills an animal must replace it, and whoever kills a man must die. You shall have the same law for the foreigner as for the home-born citizen, for I am Jehovah your God. So they took the youth out of the camp and stoned him until he died, as Jehovah had commanded Moses.

COMMENT 24:10-23

Leviticus 24:10-11 We could account for the presence of this incident in the midst of the many laws because it occurred while such laws were being given. There are similar records in Deuteronomy 4:41-49 and Numbers 15:32-36. It could be that this man whose father was an Egyptian was of that mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with Israel. Cf. Exodus 12:38.

The expression went out among the children of Israel might suggest that he was camped elsewhere. Much traditional information can be read concerning this man. We do not know his name or who he was, other than his immediate family. Such is not important; the principle, not the person, is important here. We do not know of the cause of this argument but we do know of the sin involved. It was a flagrant violation of the third commandment. God had said He would not hold the transgressor guiltless but no penalty was given.
We need to appreciate the enormity of this sin. The strong and repeated emphasis upon the character of God found in this book and throughout the Old Testament should give us some insight. God is very concerned about maintaining a good name among men. To lose respect for the person of God is for Him to lose all influence in life. There is nothing more important than hallowing the name of God. Reverence and respect are the beginning of worship and service.
Kellogg gives us an interesting comment upon the use of the name:

The incident which was the occasion of the promulgation of these laws was as follows. The son of an Israelitish woman by an Egyptian husband fell into a quarrel in the camp. As often happens in such cases, the one sin led on to another and yet graver sin; the half-caste man blasphemed the Name, and cursed; whereupon he was arrested and put into confinement until the will of the Lord might be ascertained in his case. The Name is of course the name of God; the meaning is that he used the holy name profanely in cursing. The passage, together with 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. (Cf. the expression used with reference to Jesus Christ, Philippians 2:9 [R.V.] the name which is above every name.) Horrified at the man's wickedness, they brought him unto Moses; and they put him in ward (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 home born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.

Leviticus 24:12-16 No prison sentence is found in the whole Mosaic legislation. Safe custody was practiced, but only until the judgment could be given and punishment meted out; which always consisted of stripes or death.

It is quite possible that Moses went into the sanctuary to receive the message of God from the mercy seat between the cherubim. Cf. Exodus 25:22. The sentence was not delayed: the offender must be taken outside the camp where all unclean persons were found. Cf. Numbers 5:2-3. It was here that certain other malefactors were executed. Cf. Hebrews 13:12-13.

Laying hands upon the head of the offender was in essence saying to all who observed that the persons contained by his sin were now transferring it to him. The total consequences of his act were upon him. The solemn circumstance of the act added much to its meaning.

Do Leviticus 24:15-16 contemplate one or two sins? i.e. is cursing his God the same as blaspheming the name of God? We believe there is but one sin involved. Leviticus 24:16 is an enlargement upon Leviticus 24:15. The Scriptures recognize but one God, and he is the Lord Jehovah. Whoever curses him shall bear his sin, that is, shall be guilty in such a way that his sin must be purged either by punishment or by sacrifice, in this case the purging can only come by death. (Meyrick)

Leviticus 24:17-23 This is a reiteration of Laws discussed earlier. Cf. Exodus 21:12; Exodus 21:33-34. They are given here again to show their application to the stranger and foreigner as well as the Israelite. O. T. Allis summarizes these verses in a fine way:

With regard to this lex talionis, three things are to be noted. First, it was intended to be a law of exact justice, not of revenge. Secondly, it was not private vengeance, but public justice. Thirdly, by excluding murder from the crimes for which ransom is permissible (Numbers 35:31 f.) it makes it probable that compensation for injuries was often or usually allowed to take the form of a fine. The claim that there is in Jewish history no instance of the law of retaliation ever having been carried out literallyeye for an eye, tooth for a tooth may or may not be justified, although such mutilating of the body was contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic law. Yet for centuries in Christian lands, torture and mutilation was the customary punishment for crime, and often, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Mosaic law, it was utterly out of proportion to the offense. This incident serves to remind us of the grievousness of the sin of profanity, which is one of the great evils of today.

FACT QUESTIONS 24:10-23

591.

How account for this historical incident in the midst of these laws?

592.

How does Exodus 12:38 relate to this section?

593.

What is the most important part of this account?

594.

Explain the enormity of the sin of blasphemy.

595.

The name was very important to Israel. Discuss this fact.

596.

There were no jails in all the nation. Why?

,

597.

What was said in the act of laying on of hands?

598.

What are the three things to be noted in Leviticus 24:17-23?