Leviticus 24:13

A large group of non-Israelites, including other Semitic people and Egyptians, left Egypt with the Israelites (Exodus 12:38). Among them was a man with an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father. A fight broke out between this man and a full-blooded Israelite. the man who was half-Egyptian verbally cursed the Israelite, using the name of God in a disrespectful manner.

And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord--A youth of this half-blood, having quarrelled 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.

Evil manners, we say, beget good laws. We have here an account of the evil manners of a certain nameless mongrel Israelite, and the good laws occasioned thereby.
I. The offender was the son of an Egyptian father and an Israelitish mother (Lev 24:10); his mother was of the tribe of Dan, Lev 24:11. Neither he nor his father is named, but his mother only, who was an Israelite. This notice is taken of his parentage either, 1. To intimate what occasioned the quarrel he was engaged in. The Jews say, "He offered to set up his tent among the Danites in the right of his mother, but was justly opposed by some or other of that tribe, and informed that his father being an Egyptian he had no part nor lot in the matter, but must look upon himself as a stranger." Or, 2. To show the common ill effect of such mixed marriages. When a daughter of Israel would marry an idolatrous malignant Egyptian, what could be the fruit of such a marriage but a blasphemer? For the children will be apt to take after the worse side, whichsoever it is, and will sooner learn of an Egyptian father to blaspheme than of an Israelitish mother to pray and praise.
II. The occasion of the offence was contention: He strove with a man of Israel. The mixed multitude of Egyptians that came up with Israel (Exo 12:38) were in many ways hurtful to them, and this was one, they were often the authors of strife. The way to preserve the peace of the church is to preserve the purity of it. In this strife he broke out into ill language. Note, When quarrels begin we know not what mischief they will make before they end, nor how treat a matter a little fire may kindle. When men's passion is up they are apt to forget both their reason and their religion, which is a good reason why we should not be apt either to give or to resent provocation, but leave off strife before it be meddled with, because the beginning of it is as the letting forth of water.
III. The offence itself was blasphemy and cursing, Lev 24:11. It is supposed that his cause came to be heard before the judges, who determined that he had no right to the privileges of an Israelite, his father being an Egyptian, and that, being enraged at the sentence, 1. He blasphemed the name of the Lord. He blasphemed the name, that is, he blasphemed God, who is known by his name only, not by his nature, or any similitude. Not as if God were a mere name, but his is a name above every name. The translators add of the Lord, which is implied, but not expressed, in the original, for the greater reverence of the divine Majesty: it is a shame that it should be found on record that the very name of Jehovah should be blasphemed; tell it not in Gath. It is a fond conceit of the superstitious Jews that his blasphemy was in pronouncing the name of Jehovah, which they call ineffable: he that made himself known by that name never forbade the calling of him by that name. It is probable that finding himself aggrieved by the divine appointment, which separated between the Israelites and strangers, he impudently reproached both the law and the Law-maker, and set him at defiance. 2. He cursed either God himself (and then his cursing was the same with blaspheming) or the person with whom he strove. Imprecations of mischief are the hellish language of hasty passion, as well as of rooted malice. Or perhaps he cursed the judges that gave sentence against him; he flew in the face of the court, and ridiculed the processes of it; thus he added sin to sin.
IV. The caution with which he was proceeded against for this sin. The witnesses or inferior judges brought him and his case (which was somewhat extraordinary) unto Moses (Lev 24:11), according to the order settled (Exo 18:22), and Moses himself would not give judgment hastily, but committed the offender into custody, till he had consulted the oracle in this case. Note, Judges must deliberate; both those that give the verdict and those that give the sentence must consider diligently what they do, and do nothing rashly, for the judgment is God's (Deu 1:17), and before him there will be a rehearing of the cause. They waited to know what was the mind of the Lord, whether he was to be put to death by the hand of the magistrate or to be left to the judgment of God: or, rather, they wanted to know whether he should be stoned, as those were to be that only cursed their parents (Jdg 20:9), or whether, the crime being so much greater, some sorer punishment should be inflicted on him. Note, Those that sit in judgment should sincerely desire, and by prayer and the use of all good means should endeavour to know the mind of the Lord, because they judge for him (Ch2 19:6) and to him they are accountable.
V. Sentence passed upon this offender by the righteous Judge of heaven and earth himself: Let all the congregation stone him, v. 14. God could have cut him off by an immediate stroke from heaven, but he would put this honour upon the institution of magistracy to make use of it for the supporting and vindicating of his own glory in the world. Observe, 1. The place of execution appointed: Bring him forth without the camp. To signify their detestation of the crime, they must thus cast out the criminal as an abominable branch, and separate him from them as an unclean thing and unworthy a place in the camp of Israel. 2. The executioners: Let all the congregation do it, to show their zeal for the honour of God's name. Every man should have a stone to throw at him that blasphemes God, reckoning himself nearly concerned in the reproaches cast on God, Psa 69:9. Thus also the greater terror would be cast upon the congregation; those that once helped to stone a blasphemer would ever after dread every thing that bordered upon blasphemy, that looked like it or looked towards it. 3. The solemnity of the execution; before the congregation stoned him, the witnesses were to lay their hands upon his head. The Jews say that this was used in the execution of no criminals but blasphemers; and that it was done with words to this purport, "Thy blood be upon thy own head, for thou thyself hast occasioned it. Let no blame be laid on the law, judges, juries, or witnesses; if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it."
VI. A standing law made upon this occasion for the stoning of blasphemers, Lev 24:15, Lev 24:16. Magistrates are the guardians of both tables, and ought to be as jealous for the honour of God against those that speak contemptuously of his being and government as for the public peace and safety against the disturbers of them. 1. A great stress is laid upon this law, as in no case to be dispensed with: He shall surely be put to death; they shall certainly stone him. Those that lightly esteemed God's honour might think it hard to make a man an offender for a word (words are but wind); but God would let them know that they must not make light of such words as these, which come from malice against God in the heart of him that speaks, and must occasion either great guilt or great grief to those that hear. 2. It is made to extend to the strangers that sojourned among them, as well as those that were born in the land. God never made any law to compel strangers to be circumcised and embrace the Jewish religion (proselytes made by force would be no honour to the God of Israel), but he made a law to restrain strangers from speaking evil of the God of Israel. 3. He that was put to death for blasphemy is said to bear his sin, in the punishment of it; no sacrifice being appointed, on the head of which the sin might be transferred, he himself was to bear it upon his own head, as a sacrifice to divine justice. So his own tongue fell upon him (Psa 64:8), and the tongue of a blasphemer will fall heavily.
VII. A repetition of some other laws annexed to this new law. 1. That murder should be punished with death (Lev 24:17, and again Lev 24:21), according to an ancient law in Noah's time (Gen 9:6), and the very law of nature, Gen 4:10. 2. That maimers should in like manner be punished by the law of retaliation, Lev 24:19, Lev 24:20. Not that men might in these cases be their own avengers, but they might appeal to the civil magistrate, who should award suffering to the injurious and satisfaction to the injured as should be thought fit in proportion to the hurt done. This law we had before, Exo 22:4, Exo 22:5. And it was more agreeable to that dispensation, in which were revealed the rigour of the law and what sin deserved, than to the dispensation we are under, in which are revealed the grace of the gospel and the remission of sins: and therefore our Saviour has set aside this law (Mat 5:38, Mat 5:39), not to restrain magistrates from executing public justice, but to restrain us all from returning personal injuries and to oblige us to forgive as we are and hope to be forgiven. 3. That hurt done wilfully to a neighbour's cattle should be punished by making good the damage, Lev 24:18, Lev 24:21. Thus the divine law took not only their lives, but their goods also under its protection. Those beasts which belonged to no particular person, but were, as our law speaks, ferae naturae - of a wild nature, it was lawful for them to kill; but not those which any man had a property in. Does God take care for oxen? Yes; for our sakes he does. 4. That strangers, as well as native Israelites, should be both entitled to the benefit of this law, so as not to suffer wrong, and liable to the penalty of this law in case they did wrong. And, it should seem, this is it that brings in these laws here, to show how equitable it was that strangers as well as Israelites should be punished for blasphemy, because strangers as well as Israelites were punishable for other crimes. And there may be this further reason for the recognition of these laws here, God would hereby show what provision he had made for man's safety, in punishing those that were injurious to him, which should be an argument with magistrates to be jealous for his honour, and to punish those that blasphemed his name. If God took care for their comfort, they ought to take care for his glory.
VIII. The execution of the blasphemer. Moses did, as it were, sign the warrant or it: He spoke unto the children of Israel to do it, and they did as the Lord commanded Moses, Lev 24:23. This teaches that death is the wages of sin, and that blasphemy in particular is an iniquity to be punished by the judges. But, if those who thus profane the name of God escape punishment from men, yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgments. This blasphemer was the first that died by the law of Moses. Stephen, the first that died for the gospel, died by the abuse of this law; the martyr and the malefactor suffered the same death: but how vast the difference between them!

Leviticus 24:10-14

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

10. Egressus est autem filius mulieris Israelitidis, qui erat filius viri AEgyptii, in medio filiorum Israel, et jurgati sunt in castris ipsis filius Israelitidis et vir Israelita.

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:)

11. Et transfixit filius mulieris Israelitidis nomen, et maledixit: ad duxeruntque eum ad Mosen: nomen autem matris ejus erat Selomith filia Dibri, de tribu Dan.

12. And they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be showed them.

12. Et posuerunt eum in custodiam, ut exponeret eis juxta sermonem Jehovse.

13. And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying,

13. Loquutus est autem Jehova ad Mosen, dicendo:

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.

14. Educ blasphemum extra castra, et ponant omnes qui audierunt manus suas super caput ejus, et lapidet eum universus coetus.

10. And the son of an Israelitish woman. In what year, and in what station in the desert this occurred, is uncertain. I have, therefore, thought it advisable to couple together two cases, which are not dissimilar. It is probable that between this instance of punishment, and that which will immediately follow, there was an interval of some time: but the connection of two similar occurrences seemed best to preserve the order of the history; one of the persons referred to having been stoned for profaning God's sacred name by wicked blasphemy, and the other for despising and violating the Sabbath. It is to be observed that the crime of the former of these gave occasion to the promulgation of a law, which we have expounded elsewhere: [81] in accordance with the common proverb, Good laws spring from bad habits: for, after punishment had been inflicted on this blasphemer, Moses ordained that none should insult the name of God with impunity.

It was providentially ordered by God that the earliest manifestation of this severity should affect the son of an Egyptian: for, inasmuch as God thus harshly avenged the insult of His name upon the offspring of a foreigner and a heathen, far less excusable was impiety in Israelites, whom God had, as it were, taken up from their mothers' womb, and had brought them up in His own bosom. It is true, indeed, that on his mother's side he had sprung from the chosen people, but, being begotten by an Egyptian father, he could not be properly accounted an Israelite. If, then, there had been any room for the exercise of pardon, a specious reason might have been alleged why forgiveness should be more readily extended to a man of an alien and impure origin. The majesty of God's name, however, was ratified by his death. Hence it follows that it is by no means to be permitted that God's name should be exposed with impunity to blasphemies among the sons of the Church.

We may learn from this passage that during their tyrannical oppression many young women married into the Egyptian nation, in order that their affinity might protect their relatives from injuries. It might, however, have been the case that love for his wife attracted the father of this blasphemer into voluntary exile, unless, perhaps, his mother might have been a widow before the departure of the people, so as to be at liberty to take her son with her.

To proceed, he is said to have "gone out," not outside the camp, but in public, so that he might be convicted by witnesses; for he would not have been brought to trial if his crime had been secretly committed within the walls of his own house. This circumstance is also worthy of remark, that, although the blasphemy had escaped him in a quarrel, punishment was still inflicted upon him; and assuredly it is a frivolous subterfuge to require that blasphemies should be pardoned on the ground that they have been uttered in anger; for nothing is more intolerable than that our wrath should vent itself upon God, when we are angry with one of our fellow-creatures. Still it is usual, when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked.

The verb nqv, 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]

13. And the Lord spoke unto Moses. It must be remembered, then, that this punishment was not inflicted upon the blasphemer by man's caprice, or the headstrong zeal of the people, but that Moses was instructed by Divine revelation what sentence was to be pronounced. It has been elsewhere stated [83] why God would have malefactors slain by the hands of the witnesses. Another ceremony is here added, viz., that they should lay their hands upon his head, as if to throw the whole blame upon him.

Footnotes:

[81] See [13]vol. 2, p. 431, on Leviticus 24:15, 16.

[82] See [14]vol. 2, p. 431, and [15]note. "La similitude de transpercer le nom de Dieu convient tres bien; pource que nous disons deschirer par pieces ou despiter." -- Fr.

[83] [16]Vol. 2, p. 83, on Deuteronomy 13:9.

The son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, etc. - 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, 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 את השם vaiyihkob eth hashshem, he pierced through, distinguished, explained, or expressed the name. (See below, article 10). As the Jews hold it impious to pronounce the name יהוה Yehovah, they always put either אדני Adonai, Lord, or השם hashshem, The Name, in the place of it; but in this sense hashshem was never used prior to the days of rabbinical superstition, and therefore it cannot be put here for the word Jehovah.
4. Blaspheming the name of the Lord is mentioned in 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; Ch1 12:31; Ch1 16:41; Ch1 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 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.

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:

saying; as follows.

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.