John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 24:10

"And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp:" — Leviticus 24:10 (ASV)

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

⁸¹ See vol. 2, p. 431, on , on Leviticus 24:15, 16..

⁸² See vol. 2, p. 431, and , and note. “La similitude de transpercer le nom de Dieu convient tres bien; pource que nous disons . “La similitude de transpercer le nom de Dieu convient tres bien; pource que nous disons deschirer par pieces ou ou despiter.” —— Fr.