John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 24

We now come to the third part of the external service of God, which will bring us to the end of our exposition of the Second Commandment. We must, then, now discuss the sacred oblations. I have thought it best to give the first place among these to the loaves, which had their designated table opposite the candlestick on the north side, as we saw in the construction of the Tabernacle.

For although mention of them will recur elsewhere, yet, since they were offered separately and placed before the Ark of the Covenant, as it were in God’s sight, they must not be discussed apart from the sacrifices.

I have already explained that this was no ordinary symbol of God’s favor, when He descended familiarly to them, as if He were their table companion. They were called “the bread of faces,”²²⁷ because they were placed before the eyes of God; and thus He showed His special favor, as if coming to banquet with them.

Nor can it be doubted that He commanded them to be twelve in number, with reference to the twelve tribes, as if He would admit to His table the food offered by each of them. The “two tenths” make the fifth part of the epah. And it is plain indeed that this rite was thus accurately prescribed by God, to prevent diversity in so serious a matter from gradually leading to many corruptions.

In the word “tenths,” He seems to allude to the tax which He had imposed on the people, so that the holiness of the loaves might be enhanced. But why He required two “tenths” rather than one I do not know, nor do I think there is any use in inquiring more curiously.

I refer to the frankincense the words, that it may be on the bread for a memorial: as if to say that the bread, seasoned by the smell of the incense, would renew the memory of the children of Israel, so that they should be of a sweet fragrance before God. Others translate it “a monument” instead of “for a memorial,” but with the same meaning. But although some think that the bread itself is called a memorial, it is more applicable to the frankincense; for it is afterwards added, that the incense should be at the same time a burnt sacrifice, namely, because in it the bread was, as it were, offered in burnt sacrifice.

And the son of an Israelite woman. In what year, and at what location in the wilderness this occurred, is uncertain. I have, therefore, thought it advisable to couple together two cases, which are not dissimilar. It is probable that between this instance of punishment and the one that will immediately follow, there was an interval of some time. However, connecting two similar occurrences seemed best to preserve the order of the history. One of the persons referred to was stoned for profaning God’s sacred name by wicked blasphemy, and the other for despising and violating the Sabbath.

It is to be observed that the crime of the first of these individuals led to the promulgation of a law, which we have explained elsewhere,⁸¹ in accordance with the common proverb: Good laws spring from bad habits. For after punishment had been inflicted on this blasphemer, Moses ordained that no one should insult the name of God with impunity.

It was providentially ordered by God that the earliest manifestation of this severity should affect the son of an Egyptian. For, since God so harshly avenged the insult to His name upon the offspring of a foreigner and a heathen, impiety in Israelites was far less excusable. God had, as it were, taken them up from their mothers’ womb and brought them up in His own bosom.

It is true, indeed, that on his mother’s side he had come from the chosen people, but, being begotten by an Egyptian father, he could not be properly considered an Israelite. If, then, there had been any room for granting pardon, a specious reason might have been offered why forgiveness should be more readily extended to a man of an alien and impure origin. The majesty of God’s name, however, was ratified by his death. Hence it follows that God’s name must by no means be permitted to be exposed with impunity to blasphemies among the members of the Church.

We may learn from this passage that during their tyrannical oppression many young women married into the Egyptian nation, so that their relationship by marriage might protect their relatives from harm. However, it might also have been the case that love for his wife attracted the father of this blasphemer into voluntary exile. Or perhaps his mother was a widow before the departure of the people, so that she was free to take her son with her.

To proceed, he is said to have “gone out,” not outside the camp, but in public, so that he might be convicted by witnesses. For he would not have been brought to trial if his crime had been secretly committed within the walls of his own house.

This circumstance is also noteworthy: although the blasphemy had escaped him in a quarrel, punishment was still inflicted upon him. Assuredly, it is a frivolous subterfuge to demand that blasphemies should be pardoned on the grounds that they have been uttered in anger. For nothing is more intolerable than that our wrath should vent itself upon God when we are angry with one of our fellow creatures.

Still, it is usual, when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on an outburst of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked.

The verb נקב, nakab, which some render as 'to express,' is here instead used to mean 'to curse' or 'to transfix.' The metaphor is appropriate: God’s name is said to be transfixed when it is insultingly abused.⁸²

And the Lord spoke to Moses. It must be remembered, then, that this punishment was not inflicted upon the blasphemer by human caprice or the headstrong zeal of the people, but that Moses was instructed by Divine revelation what sentence was to be pronounced. It has been elsewhere stated⁸³ why God would have evildoers slain by the hands of the witnesses. Another ceremony is here added, namely, that they should lay their hands upon his head, as if to throw the whole blame upon him.

You shall speak to the children of Israel. From this, it now more clearly appears that the object of the Third Commandment was that God’s holy name should be honored with the respect and veneration it deserves, since the insult by which it is violated is condemned to capital punishment.

By the expression “cursing,” Moses designates all profane and impure words that tend to brand God's name with dishonor. This includes instances where someone might accuse God of injustice or cruelty, assail Him with blasphemies, or deliberately detract from His glory—whether in anger or malicious irreverence—since many, when exasperated, launch horrible blasphemies, while others parade their audacity by scoffing at Him.

The second verb, נקב (nakab),³²⁸ which is repeated twice in the next verse, means in Hebrew “to hollow out” or “perforate,” and metaphorically “to unfold.” Thus, the Latins say that what is thoroughly brought out is “enucleated.” The origin of the metaphor, as applied to contemptuous abuse, is quite similar. The translation “he who shall have expressed,” which some offer, is inadequate. To me, the word “transfix” seems very suitable in this passage, nor are the Latin phrases proscindere or lacerate very different.

Regarding the meaning, there is general agreement: that is, God would not have His holy name disrespectfully defamed. And certainly, it is intolerably impious when the tongue of mortal man, created to celebrate God’s praises, is used to insult Him.

The kind of death is also appointed: He commands the offender to be stoned by the whole people, so that all may learn from the sight that such a monster, contaminating the earth, should be annihilated.

God also intended to test the zeal of His people by calling them all out in defense of His glory and arming them for vengeance. Moreover, He subjected not only the Jews, who professed to be His worshippers, to this punishment, but also strangers dwelling in the land for business. This was so that they might more severely punish the crime in His own servants, who were less excusable.

And he that killeth any man. We now proceed to the confirmation of the Sixth Commandment afforded by the Judicial Law; and first, the punishment of death is awarded to murderers.

To “smite the life”²⁶ is equivalent to wounding mortally, so that death ensues, as Moses more clearly explains himself in Exodus. But although he speaks briefly, like a legislator, there is no doubt that he would have those whom he adjudges to die put to death by the sentence of the judges; the manner of executing the punishment we will see in its proper place.

Now although God did not carry out to absolute perfection the laws which He enacted, yet in their principle He desired that a clear and unreserved approval of His Commandments should appear. And this was the reason why I began with this passage, because it directly corresponds with the Sixth Commandment.²⁷