(Leviticus 24:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Command the children of Israel that they bring to you pure beaten olive oil for the light, to make the lamps burn continually."
In the past few chapters, the Lord had been delivering to Moses various laws, most recently concerning the feasts the people were to keep and the sacrifices they were to offer. The Lord continued speaking to Moses giving him laws to give to the people. The people were to supply the priests with oil for the light of the candlestick in the tabernacle (Exodus 25:6). It was to be pure olive oil, hand beaten in a mortar, as opposed to ground in a mill or cooked with heat. The lamps referred to here were the seven lamps in the golden candlestand (Exodus 25:37) in the tabernacle that were to burn continually (Exodus 27:20).
(3) “Outside the veil of the Testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation, Aaron shall order it from the evening until the morning before the LORD continually; it shall be a statute forever in your generations."
The lamps from verse 2 are further described here. These were the lamps of the candlestick that was placed outside the veil which separated the Holiest of Holies, where the Ark of the Testimony was. Moses's brother, Aaron, as high priest, and the priests that succeeded him, were to be in charge of tending the lamps and keeping them burning continually through the night. This was to be a statute forever until the Messiah came, who was the true light of the world. As discussed before, again we see a picture of the coming Christ in this law--a continual light among the people.
(4) "He shall order the lamps on the pure candlestick before the LORD continually."
Aaron was to be in charge of the lamps on the pure gold candlestick to see that they burned before the Lord continually.
(5) “And you shall take fine flour and bake twelve cakes with it; two tenth deals shall be in one cake."
Here the preparing of the showbread (Exodus 25:30) is described. Twelve cakes were to be baked with fine flour with two-tenths of an ephah or two omers of flour in each cake. An omer was said to be as much as a man could eat in one day; therefore one of these cakes was as much as two men could eat of bread in one day.
(6) "And you shall set them in two rows, six in a row, on the pure table before the LORD."
The twelve loaves were to be set upon the gold showbread table in two rows of six. I like the way Matthew Henry described it in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "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."
(7) “And you shall put pure frankincense on each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, an offering made by fire to the LORD."
Pure frankincense was to be placed on each row to be a memorial for the bread. When the bread was removed and given to the priests, this frankincense was burnt on the altar, an offering made by fire to the Lord.
(8) “Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant."
Every sabbath these twelve cakes or loaves were to be set in order with the frankincense. The showbread table was to be set before the Lord continually; the old loaves were removed and new ones put in place, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant made between God and His people.
(9) “And it shall be Aaron's and his sons', and they shall eat it in the holy place, for it is most holy to him from the offerings of the LORD made by fire, by a perpetual statute.”
The twelve cakes of old bread when taken off the showbread table were given to Aaron and his sons to eat. They were to eat the bread in the holy place, some place within the tabernacle, as opposed to in their own houses, because it had been of a most holy offering to the Lord. The bread itself was not an offering made by fire, but it was the frankincense that had been placed on it as a memorial for the bread that was to be burned by perpetual statute.
(10) And the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and this son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel fought each other in the camp.
Here we have an interruption in the delivering of laws to Moses to tell of an incident that occurred. There was a man whose mother was an Israelite, but whose father was Egyptian, who went out among the children of Israel, probably meaning when they left Egypt; he was probably one of the "mixed multitude" who went out of Egypt with the Israelites (Exodus 12:38). This man fought with a man of Israel in the camp.
(11) And the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the name of the LORD and cursed. And they brought him to Moses (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan).
At some point during this conflict or maybe it was even the reason for it, the man who was the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man, blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed. The original text said only that he blasphemed "the name", and the translators added "of the Lord". That is certainly implied as what other name could be so blasphemed, that name which is above every name, that name which a man should tremble to mention, which should only be mentioned with reverence. He also cursed and so they brought him to Moses. Although he was not named, the Israelite names of his mother and her father are given, and the name of the tribe from which they came.
(12) And they put him in custody, that the mind of the LORD might be shown to them.
They put the man in custody as Moses did not judge hastily, but sought the will of God. Surely they knew that blasphemy was punishable by death, as lesser offenses were, but a law against blasphemy had not been expressly set forth by God as of yet. Those who sit in judgment should always desire, and by prayer and the study of God's word, to know the mind of the Lord because they judge for Him and to Him they are accountable: "And said to the judges, 'Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment.'" - 2 Chronicles 19:6. If only all our judges now sought the mind of God! What a different and better world it would be!
(13) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (14) "Bring forth he 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."
The man was to be taken outside the camp, probably to show that he had no part in the children of Israel. All the people who heard him blaspheme and curse were to lay their hands on his head. It was in this way that they bore their public testimony that he had indeed cursed and blasphemed the Lord. After that public testimony, he would be convicted and stoned to death by the congregation. I have to admit the idea of me taking a stone and striking a person to kill him, and watching the person be struck by hundreds of stones until he died, makes me very uncomfortable. Aben Ezra, a Jewish biblical commentator and philosopher of the Middle Ages, wrote that "the great men" of Israel were the ones who did the casting of stones, as it was not reasonable to expect that every one of the thousands of Israelites cast stones. (Adam Clarke gave a description of stoning that I included at the end of this blog post.) Whether the regular people did any stoning or not, they were certainly present at the public stoning to show their detestation of the sin and their zeal for the honor of God's name. In addition, being a participant in the stoning would certainly permanently affect those who once helped to stone a blasphemer to be ever cautious about anything that ever bordered on blasphemy. Back to the idea of me personally participating in the stoning of a person, it certainly solidifies the need to know the mind of God. In all things, we should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God. I am thankful that Jesus came and eliminated the threat of stoning as in the case of the woman accused of adultery (John 8:7-11). Jesus trumped legalism! However, it must be understood that Jesus did not eliminate the law:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled...You have heard that it was said by those of old, 'Thou shalt not kill; and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment,' but I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment...You have heard that it was said by those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:17-18, 21-22a, 27-28)
The law still applied, but Jesus taught the spirit of the law. God judges the heart of man:
But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have refused him; for the LORD does not see as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. (Proverbs 21:2)
The law still applied and still does today, but Jesus taught us to love our enemies and let God take care of the lawbreakers:
“You have heard that it has been said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you that you not resist evil; but whoever smites you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also...But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-39, 44)
Dearly beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. - Romans 12:19
Now back to Leviticus, chapter 24, verse 15:
(15) "And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin.'"
God told Moses to tell the children of Israel that any person who cursed his God would be considered guilty and would indeed bear the punishment of it, as described in verse 14.
(16) "'And he who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land; when he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death.'"
The person who blasphemed the name of the Lord was to be put to death by stoning by the congregation, as was the person who cursed God (v. 14). In the case of blasphemy, even the stranger who blasphemed the name of the Lord was to be put to death. The original word translated as "curse" is "qalal", and it means "to make light or trifling"; "blaspheme" was translated from "naqab" and it is weightier and more serious than trifling; it means literally to "puncture, pierce, strike through". Blasphemy is worse than merely cursing, but it is not to be understood that cursing was to be taken lightly. Cursing God's name is to take it in vain, use it carelessly and not give it the honor and respect it deserves. Cursing is one part of blasphemy, but blasphemy, more than just a curse word, encompasses a broader mocking or complete denouncement of God.
(17) "'And he who kills any man shall surely be put to death.'"
In addition to cursing and blaspheming God, any man who killed another man, was also to be put to death.
(18) "'And he who kills an animal shall make it good, animal for animal.'"
Anyone who killed the animal belonging to another was to pay for it, by giving an animal of equal value, or by giving the monetary value of it.
(19) "'And if a man causes a blemish in his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him.'"
If a man caused injury or disfigurement in his neighbor, he was to pay damages equal to the harm he caused his neighbor. I don't believe that the perpetrator was maimed in the exact way that he maimed his neighbor, although it is certainly possible that the civil magistrate might order such a punishment. However, there are other scriptures that make it sound as if monetary payment for the crime had to equal the damages suffered by the victim, but that it was not literally an eye paid for an eye:
"And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but is kept in his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted; he shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed." - Exodus 21:18-19
In this case, one man struck another so that he was maimed and had to walk upon a cane, but the one who struck him was to be acquitted and was just to pay damages. However, I suppose it is possible that had the victim remained bedridden, an equal maiming of the perpetrator might have been required by the law. We know that life was required for life: "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." - Exodus 21:12
It must be noted that men were not to be their own avengers requiring eye for eye or life for life, but they were to appeal to the civil magistrate, who would award damages and satisfaction to the injured in proportion to the hurt done.
(20) "'Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him.'"
Once again, I believe this was not necessarily to be taken literally, but the compensation to the injured must be equal in value to the damage he suffered. It is possible that the law required a literal eye for eye in some cases, but this was to be decided by the civil magistrate and not to be left to the victim or his family to avenge themselves.
(21) "'And he who kills an animal shall restore it; and he who kills a man shall be put to death.'"
If a man killed an animal belonging to another, he was required to replace it. Animals that were free roaming and did not belong to anyone were lawful to kill. However, if a man killed another man, then he was to pay with his life.
(22) "‘You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the LORD your God.'"
These laws applied to strangers among them, as well as to the Israelites. Strangers, as well as native Israelites, were both entitled to the benefit of the laws, so as not to suffer wrong, and were liable to the penalty of the law if they did wrong.
(23) And Moses spoke to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him who had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Moses told the children of Israel what he had been commanded by God, that they should take the man who had cursed outside the camp and stone him to death. The people did what the Lord had commanded Moses they do. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, went into great detail commenting on this verse, and with the references he gave, it all seems very reasonable to me:
"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."
If a man caused injury or disfigurement in his neighbor, he was to pay damages equal to the harm he caused his neighbor. I don't believe that the perpetrator was maimed in the exact way that he maimed his neighbor, although it is certainly possible that the civil magistrate might order such a punishment. However, there are other scriptures that make it sound as if monetary payment for the crime had to equal the damages suffered by the victim, but that it was not literally an eye paid for an eye:
"And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but is kept in his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted; he shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed." - Exodus 21:18-19
In this case, one man struck another so that he was maimed and had to walk upon a cane, but the one who struck him was to be acquitted and was just to pay damages. However, I suppose it is possible that had the victim remained bedridden, an equal maiming of the perpetrator might have been required by the law. We know that life was required for life: "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." - Exodus 21:12
It must be noted that men were not to be their own avengers requiring eye for eye or life for life, but they were to appeal to the civil magistrate, who would award damages and satisfaction to the injured in proportion to the hurt done.
(20) "'Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him.'"
Once again, I believe this was not necessarily to be taken literally, but the compensation to the injured must be equal in value to the damage he suffered. It is possible that the law required a literal eye for eye in some cases, but this was to be decided by the civil magistrate and not to be left to the victim or his family to avenge themselves.
(21) "'And he who kills an animal shall restore it; and he who kills a man shall be put to death.'"
If a man killed an animal belonging to another, he was required to replace it. Animals that were free roaming and did not belong to anyone were lawful to kill. However, if a man killed another man, then he was to pay with his life.
(22) "‘You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the LORD your God.'"
These laws applied to strangers among them, as well as to the Israelites. Strangers, as well as native Israelites, were both entitled to the benefit of the laws, so as not to suffer wrong, and were liable to the penalty of the law if they did wrong.
(23) And Moses spoke to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him who had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Moses told the children of Israel what he had been commanded by God, that they should take the man who had cursed outside the camp and stone him to death. The people did what the Lord had commanded Moses they do. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, went into great detail commenting on this verse, and with the references he gave, it all seems very reasonable to me:
"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."
