And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Every one when he revileth his God shall bear his sin.
Israel had just stoned a blasphemer outside the camp. God now turns that one case into a standing law for the whole nation, and the wording raises a question: what does it mean for a person to carry his own guilt?
The chapter opens with the lamp burning in the sanctuary and the twelve loaves set out before God. What comes next stands against that scene.
There is the provision for the full light of Christ to shine without interruption in the sanctuary — until the morning without clouds, during the night, and linked to the pledge of blessing for all Israel. In sharp contrast with that stands the public insult to Jehovah, recounted here along with His judgment on it.
One man had cursed. God did not stop at punishing him. He made a law for the offence itself.
But this sin made a new revelation necessary. God knew perfectly well that only one man was convicted of blaspheming that day, yet others would be guilty of it later. So the law given here, in verses 15-22, set the punishment for that sin for anyone who offended in the same way.
The phrase runs right through the law, and it is not vague. One writer gathers the places where it occurs — this verse among them — to settle its force.
Do you want to see the connection between bearing sin in Isaiah 53:12 and the punishment due to it? Then compare Leviticus 5:1, 17; 17:16; 20:19; 24:15; Numbers 5:31 … In all of them you will see it means coming under all the consequences of the sin committed, and being answerable for it before God.
So the man who curses God holds the full account himself.
The verses after this one move from cursing God to killing a man, and on to lesser injuries.
Verse 17 mentions killing a man, and cursing the Lord is as serious a sin as that, for death was the penalty for both. The chapter mentions lesser evils too, and we get the law, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," which appears in Exodus and Deuteronomy as well. The Lord referred to it in Matthew 5:38, to set off the grace He was beginning to reveal, which would mean His disciples showing grace to others.
Rules about a neighbour's life and rights appear elsewhere in the law. One writer explains why they come in right here.
Elsewhere these commands stand as the witness of the perfectly righteous rule the law set up among them (Exodus 21). But here they come in connection with turning away from God. If a man would deny God His place, or try to rob Him of His rights that way, he might not be careful of his neighbour's life or his neighbour's rights unless he was commanded to be. That neighbour, like himself, was made in the image of God.
The offender was the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father. One writer traces the blasphemy back to that marriage.
Sadly, here is the sample in this one man of Israel after the flesh. He was the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian father — an unholy union, whose offspring insults the holy Name. No doubt all flesh is like grass; but Israel was to be holy to Jehovah. Shelomith married an Egyptian, one of that oppressing world out of which Jehovah brought Israel with a high hand.
Commentators read the incident forward. What one man did in the camp, the nation did later on a larger scale.
Here it is defiance, cursing the true God, or blaspheming Jehovah. This became emphatically true later. By then Israel had been weaned from idols, yet they despised and blasphemed the Name in the Messiah, who was Himself also Jehovah their God. So, as a nation, they are given up to something worse than the Babylonian captivity.
Yet the chapter holds both scenes at once, and that is where hope sits.
Many passages prove the same thing. Israel is suffering divine judgment because of sin, yet still "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." The blasphemer is being stoned outside the camp, but the twelve loaves lie undisturbed inside the sanctuary.
- Contrast — The chapter holds two scenes at once: the light and the loaves inside the sanctuary, and the cursing in the camp.
- Case becomes law — God did not stop with one man. He gave a standing rule, because others would sin the same way.
- Bear — To bear your sin is to come under all its consequences. You answer for it before God. Nobody else carries the account.
- Weight — The chapter sets cursing the Lord beside killing a man. Both carried the death penalty, and the verses after grade lesser wrongs down from there.
- Reach — What one man did in the camp, the nation later did to the Messiah. Yet the loaves lie undisturbed: God's gifts and calling are irrevocable.
And he that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah shall certainly be put to death; all the assembly shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger as he that is home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.
The sentence on the blasphemer does not stop with one man; it becomes a standing law that binds foreigner and native alike. Why does God treat contempt for His name as a matter of life and death?
The sin here is not turning to other gods. It is turning on the true God.
It is not that sin of idolatry for which they were to be swept off the land into Assyria... Here it is defiance, cursing the true God, or blaspheming Jehovah. This became especially true later. By that time they had left idols behind, yet they despised and blasphemed the Name in the Messiah, who was Himself Jehovah their God.
Later teachers misused this very verse. They built from it a rule that God's name must never be spoken at all.
"Hallowed be Your name": compare Leviticus 24:16. By misusing that verse, the Jews came to treat Yahweh (Jehovah) as a name no one may speak. They used it in the temple services only, and in the synagogues they used Adonai (Lord) alone... In everyday life they spoke of "the Name."
This began as one man's sin. It did not end there.
But this sin required a new revelation. God knew full well that though only one man was convicted of blasphemy that day, others would be guilty of it later. So God gives the law here, in verses 15-22. It sets out the punishment for anyone who commits the same sin.
This is not mob justice. The man waits in custody. The witnesses who heard him act first. Only then does the nation carry out the sentence.
They put the offending man in custody, for the case had to be judged with calm thought. Then the Lord told Moses to take him outside the camp. There the witnesses were to lay their hands on his head, testifying to what had been done. Then all the congregation had to stone him to death. This was solemn, humbling work, but the law was absolute. Being under law, there was no alternative. Today, under grace, we carry out no such sentences. But we must not think the evil is any less serious than it was then.
The verse names the foreigner alongside the native-born. Privilege and accountability travel together.
Any stranger who lived among the Israelites was subject to the same law as all others (v. 22). This should remind us of something. Any stranger who comes to share the privileges of fellowship in an assembly comes under the same discipline as everyone else.
The curse did not stop with the man who earned it. Writers see the whole nation falling under it.
Israel as a whole have fallen under this dreadful curse... The people who should have brought blessing to everyone else have themselves passed under this curse. They have been guilty, in the most painful form, of "blaspheming the Name." We know how this happened. We know how they treated Him who is the Word of God and made the Father known, who was and is Jehovah Himself. Israel gave way to the thinking of the world — as it says here, the son of an Israelite woman whose father was an Egyptian. They fell completely into merely human wisdom about the Messiah, and so were guilty of rejecting God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and of blaspheming the Name.
The charge against Jesus was the very crime this verse punishes. His accusers knew what claim they were answering.
When He said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), the Jews took up stones to stone Him. Asked why they would stone Him, they answered, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." They understood very well how high His claims were.
Yet at the trial they hid the law's own penalty from the Roman governor.
The Jews hid from Pilate that the punishment set in Leviticus 24:16 was "stoning." They had already tried it several times.
The chapter places this execution right after the lamp and the twelve loaves in the sanctuary. That order matters.
Many passages prove the same thing. Israel is suffering divine judgment because of sin, and yet "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." The blasphemer is stoned outside the camp, but the twelve loaves stay undisturbed inside the sanctuary.
- The Name. The crime is not idolatry but open contempt for the true God — defiance aimed straight at Him.
- The law. One man's sin became a lasting law. God knew others would follow him.
- The reach. Foreigner and native fall under one law. Share the privileges and you share the discipline.
- The irony. The nation trusted with that Name broke it. They used this very penalty against Christ, then hid it from Pilate.
- The promise. Judgment falls outside the camp. Inside the sanctuary the twelve loaves are untouched — God's calling stands.
And if any one smiteth any man mortally, he shall certainly be put to death.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good, life for life.
Israel has just stoned a man for cursing God's name, and the law that follows sets the price of life. Payment covers a dead animal; nothing but death answers for a dead man.
The Hebrew behind these words is not simply about killing. One writer weighs the exact verb.
The expression here and elsewhere is always "smiting the soul." You find it in Genesis 37:21, Deuteronomy 19:6, 11, Deuteronomy 22:26, and Jeremiah 40:14. The verb is not the true word for killing. Nor would it make sense to speak of killing the life of a person. "Killing" by itself means "taking life," and taking the life of the life would be an unbearable expression.
The penalty here is payment. The animal belonged to someone, and the law measures the loss and makes it good.
If someone killed an animal belonging to another, he had to make it good by giving him an animal of the same value. If someone injured another's body, he had to suffer the same injury himself — "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (vv. 19-20). This is righteous law pure and simple, justice without mercy. A second time the law insists that a killed animal required restitution, but the killing of a human called for the death penalty (v. 21).
Why does an animal's life carry a price at all? One writer traces it to God's own claim on life.
The life of a man killed by a beast — "from every beast I will require it." So we see that God maintains His title to life, even a beast's life. They had to bring the blood and offer it to God. Man had no flesh to eat before God gave it to him.
An animal can be replaced; a man cannot. One writer explains who holds the right over a man's life, and what these rules sit beside in the chapter.
Anyone who took the life of a man was to be put to death. That right belongs only to God, or to those He gives authority to carry out His commands. And anyone who took the life of a beast should make it good, beast for beast… Elsewhere these instructions stand as the witness of the perfectly righteous rule the law set up among them (Exodus 21). But here they come in connection with turning away from God. Suppose a man denies God His place, or tries to rob Him of His rights that way. Unless he is told to be careful, he may think little of his neighbour's life or his neighbour's rights — and that neighbour, like himself, was made in the image of God.
Equal payment for an animal and equal injury for a wound run on one rule: exact measure. Jesus quoted that rule, and one writer shows what He set beside it.
Here we find the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Our blessed Lord especially quotes these provisions to show their contrast with grace. He says, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38-39). Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. But never forget that the foundation of grace itself is laid deep in righteousness.
Grace between people does not end the work of the courts.
A Christian's duty not to take revenge does not clash with God's government through rulers and judges. They get their authority from Him to restrain and punish evil.
- Life is God's. Even an animal's blood belonged to Him, so killing another man's beast was never a small loss.
- Life is repaid. The killed animal is covered by an equal animal — restitution, measured and exact.
- Life is required. No payment replaces a man. He is made in the image of God, and only God — or those He authorises — may take his life.
- Life is ruled. These rules follow the judgment on the man who cursed God's name. Careless about God's rights, a man soon grows careless about his neighbour's.
- Life is released. Law gives the exact equivalent and no more. Grace rests on that same righteousness, and it can cancel the claim altogether. The courts still carry out God's justice.
And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour, as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
This verse sits inside a real court case. A man had cursed God's name, and as God ruled on it He also set out penalties for injuries people do to each other. The rule is simple: the harm a man causes measures what he gets back. Two questions follow. Who could apply it, and what did Christ later do with it?
The verse belongs to a short list of penalties. One writer reads that list as law in its purest form: the punishment fits the crime, and nothing softens it.
If one killed an animal belonging to another, he must make this good by giving him an animal of the same value. If one injured another's body, he was to receive the same treatment himself: "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (vv. 19-20). This is righteous law pure and simple, justice without mercy. Once again the law insists that a killed animal required repayment, but the killing of a human called for the death penalty (v. 21).
The placing of the rule matters too. It follows the sentence on the blasphemer and on a killer, and Leviticus is not the only book that carries it.
The sin of the man who cursed the name of the Lord stands here as a contrast. The Lord made His mind about him known, and he had to die. Verse 17 mentions killing a man, and cursing the Lord is as grave a sin as that, for death was the penalty for both. Here we also have lesser wrongs, and we get the law "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," which Exodus and Deuteronomy mention too.
Nothing here lets a wounded man go and wound back. The instruction speaks to those who try cases.
The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" ... is not a rule for the conscience of a private individual. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, since they name the judges. The direction rests on complete fairness in repaying the deed, and it was meant to warn the people and hold them back (Deut. 19:20).
Take that away and the rule collapses, because a man judging his own case never stops at equal.
Of course a judge must pass the sentence, not the offended party. If a man takes the law into his own hands, in almost every case he will inflict worse treatment than he received.
Read that way, the words are a ceiling rather than a demand.
Under the old economy we find that the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), thereby restraining the wrath of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, in vengeance.
One writer asks what taking a man's eye would actually do for the person who lost his.
Of course, taking out a man's eye because he had blinded someone else's eye would not help the injured person. But that person has a right to fair compensation.
The verse also shows what law is, and what law is not.
We find here the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth ... Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. Grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. But never forget that grace itself rests on a foundation of righteousness.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus takes up this exact wording, and He gives His followers a different rule.
Here the Lord goes far beyond all Jewish, and indeed all human, thought. He tells His disciples to show patient grace under every kind of wrong done to them. He forbids them to resist it. He quotes from the law the principle of retaliation, like for like, and quotes it precisely to abandon it. That rule was wide open to abuse. Even when judges applied it with the strictest justice, and it held back human desire for revenge, how far it stood from the mind of heaven that Christ was showing on earth.
Giving up your own claim does not mean courts should give up theirs.
With the Christian it is quite different: having been dealt with in grace, he must act also in grace towards others. The word to him is "Never avenge yourselves ... for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'" (Rom. 12:19). A Christian's duty not to avenge himself does not clash at all with the way God governs through magistrates. Their authority comes from Him, and they use it to hold back and punish evil.
- Measure — the injury a man causes sets the penalty he receives. That is righteous law: no more, no less, and no mercy in it.
- Judge — God gave the rule to Israel's courts, not to the injured man. A man who judges his own case always goes too far.
- Limit — by fixing the penalty at one eye, the law capped a vengeance that would otherwise have claimed two.
- Grace — Christ quoted these very words to His disciples, and He quoted them to set them aside. He asks for patient grace under wrong instead.
- Government — giving up personal revenge does not touch the authority of judges. God still uses them to punish evil.
breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him.
Leviticus 24:20 closes a set of penalties given after a man in the camp cursed God's name, and it sets the scale for repaying injury. These famous words are also badly misused, so who was meant to apply them, and what did the Lord Jesus do with them?
The verse sits in a short list of rulings that price damage — to property, to a body, and to life itself.
If someone killed an animal belonging to another, he had to make it good by giving him an animal of the same value. If someone harmed another physically, he was to receive the same treatment himself — "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (vv. 19-20). This is righteous law pure and simple, justice without mercy. For a second time the law insists that a killed animal required restitution. But the killing of a human called for the death penalty (v. 21).
But did this mean taking a literal eye? Writing on the same words in Exodus, Grant weighs what the injured man gains.
Of course, plucking out the eye of a man who had blinded someone would not help the injured party. But that injured party is entitled to fair compensation.
Israel's law gave several kinds of directions, and this rule sits in one class in particular.
This law contained moral directions for each Israelite's life. It contained ceremonial directions (the laws of the offerings) for serving God. And it contained legal directions for the daily life of the people. The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the last group. It is not a principle for one person's conscience. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, since both name the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed. It was also to warn and deter the people (Deut. 19:20).
Grant weighs what happens when the offended man judges his own case.
"An eye for an eye" is fully righteous recompense, expressing the firm inflexibility of the law. Of course a judge must pass the sentence, not the offended party. If someone takes the law into his own hands, he will almost always inflict worse treatment than he received.
When Jesus repeated these words to His disciples, He set them aside as the rule for His own people.
Here the Lord goes beyond all Jewish, and indeed all human, thought. He asks His disciples for patient grace under every wrong done to them. To resist it is forbidden. He quotes the law's principle of talion, as it is called, or retaliation, and He does so precisely to abandon it. It was especially open to abuse. But even when judges applied it with the strictest justice, and even as a strong check on human revenge, how far it stood from the mind of heaven! Christ was showing that mind on earth, and laying it down as the only conduct proper to the sons of His Father.
The contrast between law and grace here is real. It is not a contrast between a harsh God and a kind one.
Here we find the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth... The law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less. But grace can remit every claim. Never forget, though, that grace itself is founded deep in righteousness. So it reigns through righteousness (Rom. 5:21), on a basis that lasts forever and cannot change.
Refusing to repay an injury is not the same as saying wrongdoing should go unpunished.
The law of Moses laid down, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." With the Christian it is quite different. God has dealt with him in grace, so he must also act in grace towards others. The word to him is "Never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'"... A Christian's duty not to avenge himself does not clash with God's government through magistrates. They get their authority from Him to restrain and punish evil.
- Measure. The penalty had to match the injury exactly — no more and no less. That is law working at its purest, and it is justice without mercy.
- Magistrate. The measure belonged to judges, not to victims. It was a legal direction for Israel's courts, meant as a warning and a deterrent.
- Misuse. A wronged man who applies the measure himself almost always repays worse than he received. That is why the rule belonged to a court.
- Master. Jesus quoted these very words to abandon them as the rule for His disciples. He calls them to patient grace under wrong instead.
- Ministry. Grace frees the Christian from taking revenge. It does not free the state from punishing evil. And grace itself rests on righteousness.
He that smiteth a beast [mortally] shall make it good; and he that smiteth a man [mortally] shall be put to death.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Ye shall have one law as the stranger, so the home-born; for I am Jehovah your God.
Leviticus 24 breaks off into an ugly scene in the camp. A man curses God's name, and he dies for it. The rules that follow cover murder, injury, and killing an animal. They end with one sentence: the same law holds for the foreigner and the Israelite. Why attach a code of justice to a case of blasphemy? And why name the foreigner first?
The verse refuses to grade people by birth. A foreigner in Israel enjoyed the shelter of the nation. He also carried the nation's accountability.
Any stranger who lived among the Israelites was subject to the same law as all others (v. 22). This reminds us that any stranger who shares the privileges of fellowship in an assembly comes under the same discipline as everyone else.
The case behind the ruling was the borderline one: a man with an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father. His mixed parentage bought him nothing.
Jew or stranger, the guilty in their midst must alike suffer.
Laws about eyes, teeth and life for life appear elsewhere in the law. Here they come right after a man cursed God.
Anyone who injured his neighbour — his eye, his tooth, or anything else — had to suffer the same injury he had caused. Elsewhere these instructions stand as the witness of the perfectly righteous rule that the law set up among them (Ex. 21). But here they come in connection with apostasy — turning away from God. Suppose a man denies God His place, or tries to strip Him of His rights by turning away. Unless he is told to be careful, he may not respect his neighbour's life or his neighbour's rights. Yet God made that neighbour in His own image, just as He made him.
The line runs downward: contempt for God's name produces contempt for the man next to you.
The measure here is exact. The law adds nothing to punish and takes nothing away to soften.
If one harmed another physically, he was to receive the same treatment himself — "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (vv. 19-20). This is righteous law pure and simple, justice without mercy. Again the text insists that killing an animal required restitution, while killing a human called for the death penalty (v. 21).
The injured man never got to enforce that measure himself. The rule spoke to the courts.
The law of Moses gave Israel legal directions to regulate daily life. The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to that group. It is not a principle for the conscience of a single individual. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, since both name the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed, and it served as a warning to hold the people back (Deut. 19:20).
William Kelly sees the blasphemer's story as a picture of Israel itself: mixed with Egypt, then cursing the Name.
We know well how Israel gave way to the thoughts of the world — as the passage says here, the son of an Israelite woman whose father was an Egyptian. Israel fell completely under the power of human reasoning about the Messiah. So they were guilty of rejecting God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and of blaspheming the name. As a result they have fallen under the curse. That curse would be final but for the grace of God, who knows how to meet the most desperate case.
The one law that spared no foreigner did not spare Israel either.
Measured repayment is not the last word. Grace changes what God asks of the Christian, yet public justice still stands.
The law of Moses laid down "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Matt. 5:38; Ex. 21:24. With the Christian it is quite different: having been dealt with in grace, he must act also in grace towards others. The word to him is "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." … A Christian does not avenge himself. That duty in no way clashes with God's government through magistrates. They get their authority from Him to hold back and punish evil.
- One law. The foreigner in Israel stood under the same rule as the native-born. Sharing the privileges meant sharing the discipline.
- One root. These justice laws follow a blasphemy case for a reason. A man who denies God His rights will not respect his neighbour, who also bears God's image.
- One measure. Fracture for fracture, eye for eye. This is righteous law pure and simple, justice without mercy. Even a killed animal had to be paid for.
- One court. Repayment was a direction for Israel's judges, not a licence for the injured man to settle his own score.
- One grace. Israel itself blasphemed the Name in rejecting Jesus, and fell under the curse. Only grace can meet a case that desperate. The Christian who has been met by grace now acts in grace toward others.