The Pulpit Commentary — Leviticus — Section 424

I. THE CRIME OF TBIS SON OF SnELOMITD. 1. It waa 'bTaapMming the God bf Iara•l. (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 Isre.elitish woman," that his father was an Egyptian, and that in striving with a man of Israel he blnsphe11;1«l? the ~re4:1 Name.. It may hence be concluded that he angrily reflected upon the DIVlne equity 1n favounng 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 bad 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? Thoo"h the manifestations be restrained, the venom is still there. Let us beware how we entertain hard thoughts of God, 2. Strife waa its occasion. (1) How little do men dream when they enter into strife, where they may be carried by their passions (see Prov. xvii: 14) 1 The moral, therefore, is that it should be carefully avoided, (2) But how is this to be done? We must "give none offence.'' 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 Sbelomith, 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. lL THE IMPEAOHMENT OF THE BLABPHEMEB. 1. Hi8 witneuea arrested. him. (1) They were bound to do so. Had they allowed him to escape they would have been nccom- plices in his crime (see eh. :xix. 17, margin). They might have brought down the wrath of God upon the nation. Witness how Achan troubled Israel (Josh. vii. 1), and how David also brought down a plague upon his people (2 Sam. xxiv. 15-17). (2) Happy is the nation whose sons are jealous for the honour of God (see Ps. lxix. 9). Happy is the nation whose sons are guardians of its morality. This is public spirit in perfection. 2. They ke:ft him in ward for the jud.gment of God. (1) They brought hie case before Moses (ver. 11). Thie was in accordance with Divine direction (see Exod. xviii. 22). They might have wreaked a summary vengeance, but they chose the more excellent way. "Judgment is of God" (Deut. i. 17); therefore judgment should be deliberate. (2) Moses accordingly appealed to God. Every cause mUBt come ultimntely before him. This should never be forgotten. IIL THE JUDGMENT OF THE LoBD. 1. Thi, had reapect to the particular offender. (1) He was to be carried without the camp, as all outcast from society and a person excommunicated from the Church. (2) There he was to die for bis sin. The witnesses put their hands on bis hoad. This was to clear themselves of all complicity in bis guilt. His blood then ostensibly was upon bis 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. Thus, as Henry says, in allusion to Ps. lxiv. 8, The tongue of the blasphemer fell heavily (see Deut. xviL 7; John viii. 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 tho land. (2) It was also enacted that murder must be visited with death (vers. 17, 20). 'l'bis was the incor- poration in tho Levitical code of the Noachian precept recorded in Gen. ix. 6. (3) The principle of compensation and retaliation was asserted (vers. 19, 20). In tbin~s ju~ici~l this principle still holds, though in matters of private wrong the gospel direction 1s that evil be suffered rather than revenged (see Matt. v. 38, 89; vii. 1, 2).-J. A. M. Vere. 10-16, 28.-A sugge1Jtive episode. We have an affecting Illustration in thes6 verses of the truth that "The Law is not me.de for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, . . . for unholy and profane" (1 'l'im. i. 9). The announcement or the Law is broken by the account of this transgressiou. and the transgres~ion itself gives 300 THE BOOK OF LEVI'fICGS. [CH, XXIV, 10-23,