EXPOSITION
The reason why the narrative of the blasphemer's death (Leviticus 24:10-3) is introduced in its present connection, is simply that it took place at the point of time which followed the promulgation of the last law. It serves, however, to vindicate by a memorable example the principle which is at the foundation of every Mosaic law. "I am the Lord" is the often-repeated sanction, whether of a moral law or of a ceremonial regulation. But this bastard Israelite, one of the mixed multitude that had followed in the flight from Egypt (Exodus 12:38), blasphemed the Name of the Lord. If such blasphemy were to go unpunished, the obligation of law was dissolved. For, as Lange has said, "A community which suffers the reviling of the principle of their community without reaction, is morally fallen to pieces." He was brought, therefore, to Moses, and so solemn was the occasion, that Moses reserved the case, for which no provision had yet been made, for the special decision of God. The specific judgment on the man is that he shall die by stoning at the hands of the congregation, after the witnesses of his sin had laid their hands upon his head; and a general law is founded on the special case.
The son of an Israelitish woman. This is the only place where the adjective Israelitish is found; and the word "Israelite" only occurs in 2 Samuel 17:25. Whose father was an Egyptian. The man could not, therefore, be a member of the congregation, as, according to the subsequently promulgated law (Deuteronomy 23:8), the descendant of an Egyptian could not be admitted till the third generation. He seems to have committed two offenses which led up to his great crime. First, he went out among the children of Israel, that is, he did not confine himself to his own part of the encampment, where the mixed multitude lived, but he intruded into the part set aside for pure Israelites; and next, having thus put himself already in the wrong, this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. According to Jewish tradition, the cause of quarrel was a claim set up by the Egypto-Israelite to encamp in the Danite quarters, on the ground that his mother was a Danite—a claim which he insisted on enforcing, although the judges gave a decision against him.
In the course of the straggle the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. The word nakav is here rightly translated blasphemeth (cf. Leviticus 24:14, Leviticus 24:16, Leviticus 24:23), but the words of the Lord should be omitted, as they are not found in the original, and are not required. The LXX. have rendered nakav by a word meaning pronounced, and on this misunderstanding, adopted by the Jews, has been founded the Jewish precept forbidding the utterance of the Divine Name. Owing to that prohibition, the true pronunciation of the word written and called "Jehovah" has been lost. Wherever the Name occurred in Scripture, that of Adonai, meaning Lord, was substituted for it in public reading, the consonants only of the original name, Y H V H, being preserved in the written text, and the vowels of Adonai, namely a o a, being written underneath them in lieu of the original vowels. From the consonants Y H V H and the vowels a o a would be formed Yahovah or Jahovah, but the laws of the Hebrew language required the first a to be changed into e, and hence the name Jehovah. It is almost certain that the original vowels were a and e, which would form the name Yahveh, the Samaritans having always so pronounced it, according to the testimony of Theodoret. It is said that the high priest continued to utter the very name Yahveh on the Day of Atonement long after it had ceased to be used in the reading of the Scriptures, and that when he did so, those who heard it prostrated themselves, saying, "Blessed be the Name!" After a time, however, he ceased to pronounce it aloud on that day also, lest it should be learnt and used for magical purposes. In consequence, perhaps, of the substitution of Adonai for Yahveh, the Septuagint version always reads for Yahveh, Κύριος: and the English version the LORD. In French and other versions the name is represented by the Eternal, and it has been proposed to substitute the latter rendering for the Loud in our own version. But it is more than doubtful whether we should then come nearer to the true sense of the original Yahveh, although at first sight it appears that this would be the case. For the word Yahveh is part of the causative form of the verb havah, or hayah, to be; but this verb is not used to express unchangeable or absolute existence, but rather an occurrence: its causative form, therefore, would signify that which brings about events; and the substantive derived from that causative form would signify, not one that eternally exists, but one that providentially governs. For an induction of instances for the further proof of the above meaning of the word Yahveh, we refer the reader to Sir William Martin's essay 'On the Divine Name' ('Semitic Languages,' part 2), from which we transcribe the concluding paragraph. "This view of the Divine Name, to which we are led by the evidence of the Hebrew language itself, is in full conformity with the general religious teaching of the Old Testament, which is practical and moral; setting forth in form readily intelligible, the character of God in his relations to man. It does not concern itself with those problems which philosophy has ever been seeking to solve. It addresses itself to human needs and human duties, and not to abstract inquiries. Not that the highest abstract truths were unknown or untaught. Lawgiver and prophet and psalmist set before the people the greatness and the eternity of God in language most clear and impressive. Yet the Name whereby he was put before them as the object of their daily worship, was not one which would exalt him to the utmost above the frail and changeful and transitory lives of his worshippers, and thereby remove him far away from them into the height of a Being beyond man's search or comprehension; but rather a Name which should bring him nigh to them, as One ever mindful of them, ever carrying forward his great purpose for their good, working for their deliverance in every time of need; as One 'whose providence ordereth all things in heaven and on earth.' If this Name did convey to the mind of a Hebrew hearer the thought above expressed, it follows that the old rendering Adonai, Κύριος, or Lord, is to be preferred to that which has of late been substituted for it." And they brought the blasphemer unto Moses. This was in accordance with the counsel of Jethro, accepted by Moses (Exodus 18:13-2): "Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: and let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge:… and they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves."
And they put him in ward. The same course was followed in the case of the man found gathering sticks upon the sabbath day: "And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him" (Numbers 15:34). The same penalty was awarded in both cases.
Leviticus 24:13, Leviticus 24:14
Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp;—lest the camp should become polluted by his death—and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head. The ceremony of laying on of hands in all cases set apart the person or thing on whom or on which they were laid for some special purpose. Its further signification was determined by the particular circumstances of the case. Here it probably returned back on the head of the blasphemer the guilt which otherwise would have adhered to the witnesses from the fact of their hearing his blasphemy, and appearing to acquiesce in it.
Leviticus 24:15, Leviticus 24:16
In accordance with the judicial decision on the man is framed the general law against blasphemy and its penalty. It runs as follows: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. It has been questioned whether two offenses or one are here contemplated, whether cursing his God is one offense, bearing his sin being its punishment, and blaspheming the Name of the Lord another and greater offense, for which the punishment is stoning; or whether the latter offense and punishment are a more specific statement of the offense and punishment which had only generally been described before. Those who take the first view point out that the present offender was an Egyptian, and urge that had he cursed his God, that is, the Egyptian god or gods, he would only have had to bear his sin; but that as he had blasphemed the Name of Israel's God, Jehovah, he was to be stoned. The second explanation, however, is the truer one. The Scriptures recognize but one God, and he is the Lord Jehovah. Whoever curses him shall bear his sin, that is, shall be guilty in such a way that his sin must be purged either by punishment or by sacrifice, and it is then further declared that this particular sin can be purged only by the death of the offender at the hand of the congregation.
In close connection with the command to slay the blasphemer is repeated the prohibition of murder, and the injunction that the murderer shall surely be put to death. Thus a distinction is sharply drawn between the judicial sentence carried out by the congregation, and the unsanctioned smiting the life of a man by another, and a warning is given against any man fanatically taking the law into his own hands, even in the case of a blasphemer.
A summary of the law respecting minor injuries is added to that respecting murder. He that killeth a man, he shall be put to death, but he that killeth a beast shall make it good; and this lex talionis shall apply to all damage done to another, breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth (see Matthew 5:38).
As it had been a stranger who had on this occasion been the offender, the law, Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country, with the sanction, I am the Lord your God, is emphatically repeated (see Leviticus 19:34).
The penalty is inflicted on the offender solemnly as an act of the Law, not of mob fury. So it was by a judicial or semi-judicial proceeding that St. Stephen was stoned: "They brought him to the council, and set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the Law" (Acts 6:12, Acts 6:13). And in spite of the violence exhibited, there was still some form of law, according to Jewish practice, observed in his stoning (Acts 7:58). In the case of our Lord, on the other hand. when they regarded him as guilty of blasphemy on his saying, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58), and "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), the Jews "took up stones to cast at him," not waiting for a judicial condemnation, but, as they supposed, taking the law into their own hands. Had his death been by Jewish hands, it would at the last have been by stoning under this law. But the power of life and death had been taken away from the Jews by the Romans, "that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die" (John 18:32).
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
The crime of blasphemy.
cf. 2 Chronicles 26:10-14; Daniel 5:1-27, Daniel 5:30. The sanctity of the Name of God is distinctly declared in the third commandment. There the Lord declared that he would not hold the blasphemer "guiltless." But it was not till the incident now before us that God showed his sense of the enormity of the crime. He here puts it into the category of capital crimes, and decrees the death of every blasphemer, whether he be a stranger or one born in the land.
Now, when we inquire, we find that he calls it "this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD" (Deuteronomy 28:58). So glorious is it that inanimate things, when his Name is put upon them, cannot be desecrated with impunity. Thus his tabernacle could not be treated even by a king according to his capricious pleasure, but Uzziah, for presuming to burn incense within it, is doomed to leprosy and exile all his life (2 Chronicles 26:16-14). Belshazzar too paid the penalty of his life for desecrating the vessels belonging to the tabernacle (Daniel 5:1-27, Daniel 5:30).
The case before us was one of pure blasphemy. This reckless youth, the son of an Egyptian father, had blasphemed "the Name," and for this he was stoned to death after those who heard the blasphemy had laid their hands on his head.
I. LET US START WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH THAT THE NAME OF GOD IS THE REVELATION OF HIS CHARACTER IN WORD. Hence to take up the Name of God lightly is to treat his character lightly. It is, in fact, to despise the Person, and is nothing less than treason against the Supreme King. The individual who blasphemes "the Name" would take up arms against the Person, and so must be treated as a rebel. When, therefore, we bear in mind that God makes known his Name that men may trust in him (cf. Psalms 9:10), the blaspheming of his holy Name is really the rejection of his appeal for trust, the rejection of his merciful manifestation, and deserves the penalty attached to it.
II. MAN'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD'S NAME DETERMINES HIS CHARACTER. In other words, the Name of God is the touchstone of human character. The person who curseth the holy Name, as this reckless youth did, is thereby judged. He has voluntarily set himself against the Almighty, he has become a rebel not in heart only but openly, and if the Most High is to exercise his authority, the blasphemer should die. It is, moreover, a mistake to imagine, because sentence is not now executed so speedily against blasphemers, that their awful sin has become less heinous in the lapse of ages. The shortsighted individual who defies the Almighty will find eventually how hard are the bosses of his buckler.
III. THE PENALTY ATTACHED TO BLASPHEMY IS TO BE ACQUIESCED IN BY THE PEOPLE OF THE LOUD. The whole congregation in this case is called upon to repudiate the awful crime. Those who heard it are required to lay their hands on the blasphemer's head, to indicate that the guilt must be his own. They will not share it, and then the whole congregation are to be the executioners of the Divine decree. Now we are bound to entertain a similar and holy abhorrence of such a crime. We are most assuredly sinking in character if, through association with careless men, we come to regard blasphemy when indulged in as a light thing. The truth is, if we are making spiritual progress, we shall be advancing in the fear of his Name. Greater awe, not greater familiarity, will characterize us, until at length we shall see it to be just and right, if treason towards mere potentates on earth is regarded as a capital offense, much more ought treason against "the blessed and only Potentate" to be visited with death.
IV. LET US IN CONSEQUENCE ALL BOW AT THE NAME OF JESUS. To him hath the Father given a Name that is above every name, that at it every knee should bow (Philippians 2:9, Philippians 2:10). Submitting reverently to him, we shall find in his Name that marvelous significance which was heralded before his birth (Matthew 1:21). As our Saviour from sin, he will show us how reasonable is the exhortation, "Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity" (2 Timothy 2:19). Baptized in his Name, as well as in the Name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost, we shall look to him for the fulfillment of the covenant promise therein implied. £ Under the shadow of the Name and in the light of the face of God revealed in Jesus Christ, we shall be enabled to pass on reverently and peacefully towards our everlasting rest.—R.M.E.
Public justice secured by the law of retaliation.
cf. Matthew 5:38-40; Romans 12:19-45. There is here presented to us, as a law upon which Israel was to act, the principle of retaliation. And yet we have seen in the moralities of Leviticus 19:17, Leviticus 19:18, an express denunciation of revenge. How are we to reconcile this retaliation commanded with the revenge which is forbidden? Evidently the retaliation is to be deliberate, in cool blood, without the fever-heat of vengeance.
Now, when we bear in mind the early age to which this law of retaliation was given, an age when the institution of public justice was rudimentary in character, then we can understand how very important a check it was on the lawlessness to which men are naturally tempted. Of course, when public justice has developed itself into a wide and vigilant system, the necessity for each man taking the law into his own hand ceases. Then it becomes a crime against law to usurp its functions; it only increases lawlessness to attempt for one's self what the organized state willingly undertakes for you.
But in rude ages it is eminently desirable that savage spirits should contemplate as a dead certainty getting as much as they give. £ Let us notice one or two points.
I. THE LAW OF RETALIATION; ADMINISTERED IN A JUDICIAL SPIRIT, WAS IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND ORDER. Its principle is a sound one. The criminal is to get exactly what he gave. It is only in this way that the nature of a crime can be driven home to a rude and tyrannical nature. If he has been cruel to a neighbour, let him taste the effect himself of the same amount of cruelty. A man who victimizes his neighbours will cease doing so if he finds that he is to be victimized in exactly the same fashion by public law. In fact, he comes to consider his own case as bound up most intimately with his neighbours', and, instead of indulging in cruelty, he by his better conduct ensures his personal peace.
And a distinct corollary of this law of retaliation is the penalty of murder (Romans 12:17, Romans 12:21). If a man deliberately puts his brother out of life, it is an injury which admits of no repair, and so death becomes its just penalty.
II. THE LAW OF RETALIATION IS IN ONE RESPECT A PREPARATION FOB THE GOLDEN RULE. For the golden rule runs parallel to it. It is, so to speak, its glorious issue. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12). Yes, this very law of retaliation suggests to every thoughtful mind whether it would not be better to try the opposite plan, and do to others, not what we should be afraid they would do to us, but what we would like them to do to us. In other words, let us wisely win the good services of others, if we are to receive what we give, by doing all to them and. for them that we would welcome ourselves.
And indeed, the reason why the golden rule does not prevail as widely as it might, is because immediate justice is not now executed as in the case of a law of retaliation it is. The return of kindness is often impeded by ingratitude, and men may do good to others for a long lifetime without receiving much thanks. But such an arrangement gives a field for faith and courage, such as a government of instantaneous justice could not secure. In truth, we should become mere mercenaries if the golden rule involved instantaneous returns. Now, however, we must rely on the wide range of providence, and believe that in the end it will prove wisest and best to have treated our neighbour as we would like to be treated ourselves.
III. IN CULTIVATING THE SPIRIT OF LOVE TOWARDS EVEN OUR ENEMIES, WE ARE BUT FOLLOWING THE FOOTSTEPS OF OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN. For while re-enforcing the courage of his people in rude ages by commanding retaliation, he was himself at the same time making his sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and sending rain upon the just and on the unjust (Matthew 5:45). He was not dealing with men after their sins, nor rewarding them according to their iniquities (Psalms 103:10). Not only in Nature, with its dignified refusal to be a respecter of persons, but also in his sacrificial worship, was God dealing with his enemies so as to make them his friends. He was pursuing even then the policy of overcoming evil by good (Romans 12:21). Such laws as retaliation, resting on inexorable justice, did something to check sin; but only love and goodness can overcome it. Hence the spirit of the old dispensation, while hostile to sin, as the outcome of a holy God must be, had an undertone of love and mercy. God, in fact, was practicing all the time his own golden rule. He was doing by men what he wanted men to do by him. In some cases this succeeded, for this is the substance of the Divine appeal in the gospel of Christ, as it was the undertone of the preliminary law; in some cases it failed through the waywardness of men. Still, the golden rule is the spirit of the Divine administration, and will be till the present dispensation is finished. Then must the great Governor deal with the impenitent in the way of strictest justice, since they will not yield to his dying love. The rhythm of the ages will be maintained; if the wrath of man is not turned to praise by the exercise of love, it must be restrained by the exercise of the cool and deliberate infliction of deserved wrath.—R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Shelomith's son.
Here a narrative is introduced into the midst of a code of laws; but this is done as a preamble to enactments of whose publication the case was the occasion. We notice—
I. THE CRIME OF THIS SON OF SHELOMITH.
1. It was blaspheming the God of Israel.
(1) We are not distinctly informed as to the particular form of this blasphemy. We are, however, told that this man, whose name is not given, was "the son of an Israelitish woman," that his father was an Egyptian, and that in striving with a man of Israel he blasphemed the sacred Name. It may hence be concluded that he angrily reflected upon the Divine equity in favouring the seed of Jacob. Anger is certainly implied in the words, "blasphemed the Name, and cursed."
(2) Here was the very spirit of Satan, whose rebellion against God was probably excited by the honour he had put upon man. "Is thine eye evil because I am good?"
(3) Is not that hatred to God which is in the carnal mind of the very essence of this blasphemy? Though the manifestations be restrained, the venom is still there. Let us beware how we entertain hard thoughts of God.
2. Strife was its occasion.
(1) How little do men dream, when they enter into strife, where they may be carried by their passions (see Proverbs 17:14)! The moral, therefore, is that it should be carefully avoided.
(2) But how is this to be done? We must "give none offense." We must be willing to suffer wrong. The spirit (or temper) of Christ is gained through the indwelling of his (Divine) Spirit.
3. Race was the origin of the strife.
(1) It appears to have been a contention between a pure Israelite and a mongrel. The father of Shelomith's son was probably one of the mixed multitude that came up with the Hebrews from Egypt.
(2) Traced back another step, we find the origin in the marriage of Shelomith. Mixed marriages have ever been prolific in mischief. Of these sprang the monsters, viz. not so much in stature as in iniquity, who provoked the Deluge.
(3) Even Dibri, the father of Shelomith, was, remotely, responsible for the blasphemy of her son, by consenting to her marriage with an alien. How careful we should be never to commit a wrong, since no man can tell how prolific it may be in mischief! The day of judgment will declare it.
II. THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE BLASPHEMER.
1. His witnesses arrested him.
(1) They were bound to do so. Had they allowed him to escape they would have been accomplices in his crime. They might have brought down the wrath of God upon the nation. Witness how Achan troubled Israel (Joshua 7:1), and how David also brought down a plague upon his people (2 Samuel 24:15-10).
(2) Happy is the nation whose sons are jealous for the honour of God (see Psalms 69:9). Happy is the nation whose sons are guardians of its morality. This is public spirit in perfection.
2. They kept him in ward for the judgment of God.
(1) They brought his case before Moses (Leviticus 24:11). This was in accordance with Divine direction (see Exodus 18:22). They might have wreaked a summary vengeance, but they chose the more excellent way. "Judgment is of God" (Deuteronomy 1:17); therefore judgment should be deliberate.
(2) Moses accordingly appealed to God. Every cause must come ultimately before him. This should never be forgotten.
III. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LORD.
1. This had respect to the particular offender.
(1) He was to be carried without the camp, as an outcast from society and a person excommunicated from the Church.
(2) There he was to die for his sin. The witnesses put their hands on his head. This was to clear themselves of all complicity in his guilt. His blood then ostensibly was upon his own head.
(3) Stoning him was to be the mode of his punishment. The witnesses cast the first stone, and the congregation, by their representatives, followed, until he perished. Dins, as Henry says, in allusion to Psalms 64:8, The tongue of the blasphemer fell heavily (see Deuteronomy 17:7; John 8:7).
2. It had also respect to the community.
(1) This judgment was now made a law in Israel, as well for the stranger as for him that is born in the land.
(2) It was also enacted that murder must be visited with death (verses 17, 20). This was the incorporation in the Levitical code of the Noachian precept recorded in Genesis 9:6.
(3) The principle of compensation and retaliation was asserted (Genesis 9:19, Genesis 9:20). In things judicial this principle still holds, though in matters of private wrong the gospel direction is that evil be suffered rather than revenged (see Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39; Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:2).—J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Leviticus 24:10-3, Leviticus 24:23
A suggestive episode.
We have an affecting illustration in these verses of the truth that "The Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient,… for unholy and profane" (1 Timothy 1:9). The announcement of the Law is broken by the account of this transgression, and the transgression itself gives occasion for the enactment of other statutes (Leviticus 24:15-3). The story and the statutes suggest—
I. WHAT LASTING EVIL MAY ACCRUE FROM AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE. Had the Israelitish woman not married an Egyptian (Leviticus 24:10), it is morally certain that she would not have been called upon to part with her son under these tragic and terrible circumstances. She consulted her own fancy rather than the known will of Jehovah, and, long years afterwards, she bore her penalty in maternal grief. There is nothing fraught with more grave and enduring evils than an unwise, unholy alliance.
II. HOW LIKELY ONE FOLLY IS TO END IN ANOTHER. This son of the Israelitish woman strove with a man of Israel in the camp, and their strife led to blasphemy and cursing on the part of one of them. Strife led to profanity. Similarly, carelessness often ends in fraud, fraud in falsehood, indelicacy in impurity, occasional excess in habitual intemperance, anger in murder, etc.
III. HOW SERIOUS SIN MAY RESIDE IN A FEW WRONG WORDS. (Leviticus 24:16.) Probably the words in which Shelomith's son blasphemed were few in number. Words are but breath, impressions made on the air, we may say. Yet, simple though they be, they may
(1) reveal a most foul and guilty state of soul,
(2) work terrible mischief to other souls,
(3) be heard with deep abhorrence by God and the good.
IV. HOW WISE A COURSE IS THE PATIENT ADMINISTRATION OF LAW. Had the crowd that gathered at the strife between these two men inflicted condign punishment on the transgressor, the event would have been regarded as an ordinary disturbance, and no moral effect would have been produced. Possibly the guilty man would have been pitied as a victim of the violence of a mob. But by the patient course pursued (Leviticus 24:11-3, Leviticus 24:23) it was clearly seen by all that the man died because he had committed a grievous sin, and that whosoever followed him in his guilt must expect to suffer the same penalty he endured. Thus that which might have seemed nothing better than fatal exasperation was made to wear the true aspect of righteous vindication of law. It is always best to be patient in the infliction of punishment. Here as everywhere, but here especially, calmness is strength, passion is weakness. By restraining ourselves from hasty action we may restrain many others from the commission of sin.
V. HOW SAD A SERVICE SOME MEN ARE COMPELLED TO RENDER THEIR RACE. Some men serve their fellows involuntarily. They become beacons to warn all who approach from the danger they are running. Shelomith's son, by this evil deed of his, caused the enactment of Leviticus 24:16; and this weighty law, together with the impressive circumstance out of which it grew, undoubtedly produced a very deep and permanent impression on Israel. It materially contributed to the very striking result that no nation has been more reverent in its tone and spirit than the Jews. It is a sad reflection that a man should serve his race by suffering death as the penalty of his sin. We may be compelled, by overruling Omniscience, so to serve others. How much rather would the heavenly Father accept our willing service, and make use of our devout endeavour to bless our kind!—C.
The holy Law of God.
These enactments, occasioned by the sin of the son of Shelomith, contain certain principles on which God founded his Law, and which he would have us introduce into our dealings and regulations now. These are—
I. THE SACREDNESS OF HUMAN LIFE. "He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17). This is significantly repeated (Leviticus 24:21) We can hardly be said to have learnt this lesson yet, after eighteen centuries of Christian legislation. Here, however, is a statute which unmistakably and emphatically asserts it.
II. EQUITY. There is to be careful discrimination in awarding penalty (Leviticus 24:18-3). A man must suffer according to the injury he has done. Nothing is more destructive of the main purpose of law than undistinguishing, and therefore unrighteous, retribution, whether at the national tribunal, or in the school, or in the home; nothing more salutary than the calm, regulated equity which estimates degrees of guilt, and determines the fair penalty therefrom.
III. CONSIDERATENESS. Law is obliged to regard the general good, the welfare of the community at large, the result of action and of permission in the end and upon the whole. It therefore often bears severely on individual men. But it must not be inconsiderate. Where it can right one man that has been wronged it must do so. "He that killeth a beast, he shall restore it" (Leviticus 24:21).
IV. IMPARTIALITY. (Leviticus 24:22.)
V. INSTRUCTIVENESS. Law should not only decide individual cases, and bring down appropriate penalty on individual transgressors; it should also, by its embodiment of Divine principles, be a most effective teacher of truth, a constant instructor in righteousness. The law of the land should be daily leading the nation to true conceptions of what is upright, moral, estimable. These few statutes contain that vital principle, the supreme value of human (as compared with animal) nature. If a man killed his fellow-man, he must die; if he killed a beast, he must restore it (Leviticus 24:17, Leviticus 24:18, Leviticus 24:21). There are too many who
(1) treat themselves or
(2) treat others as if there were nothing more in human nature than in the "beasts that perish."
How much is a man better than a sheep? He is better by the immeasurable height of his intelligent, responsible, spiritual, immortal nature. Let us estimate our own worth, and recognize the preciousness, before God, of the meanest soul that walks by our side along the path of human life. We may add that we see here—
VI. ROOM FOR FURTHER REVELATION. Righteous law, applicable to all, vindicated by just administrators, without a trace of personal resentment, says," an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." But beside this righteous law, consistent with it while high above it, is the spirit of individual, generous forgiveness. Where duty to society does not demand it, let the spirit of retaliation, so natural to unrenewed humanity, give place to the spirit of magnanimity,—the spirit of Jesus Christ, the Great Teacher (Matthew 5:38-40), the Divine Exemplar (Luke 23:34).—C.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
A blasphemer punished.
An incident is here inserted that explains part of the Law by pointing to its origin. It is a practical illustration that throws lurid light upon the possibility and consequences of transgression.
I. THE SIN. It is described as blasphemy.
1. A sin of the tongue. Not the light matter some deem it. The tongue can cut like a sword. We need to take heed to our ways, lest we sin with the tongue. The prayer befits us, "Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth." A word quickly spoken may have lasting results. What a power for good or evil is placed within our reach!
2. Its criminal character. The Name of God is to be had in reverence. This man sinned against the third commandment. If it be treason to speak ill of the ruler, how much more to utter with contempt the Name of the King of kings! Lost to all sense of propriety must he be who can curse God. Far from this, his Name should not even be jestingly or frivolously mentioned, nor should he be called to witness in our casual remarks.
II. ITS CAUSES.
1. The immediate cause was strife. This rouses angry passions and leads to worse sin. The beginning of strife is as the letting out of water; none can foretell how far it will spread. Little, perhaps, did this man suspect that the quarrel would end in his speedy death. Let the rivulet of contention be checked, ere it develop into a torrent! Men heated by a dispute will give utterance to sentiments of which in calmer moments they would be ashamed.
2. The remote cause was marriage with an unbeliever. This man's mother had espoused an Egyptian, and the son would appear to have followed the religion of his father, for, wishing to taunt an Israelite, he reviled the Name of Israel's God. Imprudent alliances are a source of continual grief and disappointment. The mother had the pain of beholding her son put to death with every mark of ignominy. The advice of the Apostle Paul with respect to marrying an ungodly person is based on religious principle, and its worth is confirmed by the dictates of common sense and the facts of experience. It is not desirable that there should be a difference of opinion on matters of religion between the husband and the wife. The loss of the children is great when they are not trained in ways of piety by the hearty cooperation of their parents.
III. THE PUNISHMENT. It is not surprising that the people should have been so astounded at such wickedness that they requested Jehovah to instruct them concerning the penalty adequate to the offense. The punishment made known and inflicted was severe, revealing God's estimate of the enormity of the sin; swift, lest the conscience of the people now aroused should have time to slumber, and lest hope of a reprieve should in alter-days lead to license of language. It was inflicted by the whole congregation, to rid themselves of any guilt of tacit participation in the crime; the nation must avenge the insult perpetrated upon its covenant Head. The penalty was not averted by extenuating pleas of race or passion. It gave occasion for the enactment of the law of retribution. The lex talionis has a rude justice about it which appeals to the sentiment of uncivilized nations. King Bezek acknowledged its force (Judges 1:7). This retribution was allowed at first because of the hardness of men's hearts, but being permitted to run side by side with the law of love to one's neighbour and the stranger, the way was prepared for the Christian rule by which the waters of the former current are merged in the strength and beauty of the stream of love. Even under this dispensation, however, the law of love has its equitable as well as forgiving aspects.—S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
The law of death.
Blasphemy, murder, willful injury, whether by Israelite or stranger, judged and punished on the principle of compensation without mercy (cf. Isaiah 12:1-23; Romans 11:1-45).
I. Here is the evil of a fallen nature and an apostate people set forth (see Romans 1:1-45, Romans 2:1-45). "All have sinned." Israel itself is defiled.
II. The contrast suggested between the law of death and the law of life (cf. Sermon on the Mount and Romans 7:1-45, Romans 8:1-45). The true glory to the Name of Jehovah is not the death of the blasphemer, but the life of God's people. What the Law could not do, i.e; restore the injured, heal the wound, give back the life, is done by the grace of the gospel.
III. Historical illustrations of the insufficiency of the Law in the hands of a fallen race. Jesus accused of blasphemy. Stephen stoned. Paul treated as violator of the Law. Through the Jews and their defection the Name of Jehovah blasphemed in the world. The lex talionis no real protection either of the individual or society.—R.